Monotonicity conjecture for the multifurcating-tree growth constants

For each integer k2k\geqslant 2, let γk\gamma_k be the constant in the asymptotic growth

Bn(k!)1k1γk(kn)B_n\sim (k!)^{\frac{1}{k-1}}\gamma_k^{(k^n)}

of the maximal ranks of at-most-kk-furcating rooted trees with nn leaves. Monotonicity conjecture. For k2k\geqslant 2, the constants decrease strictly with kk:

γk+1<γk.\gamma_{k+1}<\gamma_k.

The conjecture is motivated by numerical values for small kk; the paper establishes the analogous decrease of the strictly kk-furcating growth constants βk\beta_k, but does not establish the corresponding monotonicity for γk\gamma_k.

Sources & referencesView supporting material

Primary source

Michael R. Doboli, Alessandra R. P. Maranca and Noah A. Rosenberg, “Extremal ranks of unlabeled multifurcating rooted trees in a bijective encoding by the positive integers”, arXiv:2606.28539 (2026).

Progress summary

Refreshed
Open

The conjecture remains unresolved: the 2026 paper proves related inequalities but not the proposed decrease of the at-most-branching constants.

For each integer k2k\ge 2, the conjecture asserts that the growth constants for at-most-kk-furcating rooted trees satisfy γk+1<γk\gamma_{k+1}<\gamma_k. It is posed in the 2026 preprint studying these rank-growth constants.

Known results

  • The strictly kk-furcating constants βk\beta_k decrease strictly as kk increases.
  • For k3k\ge 3, the paper proves γk>βk\gamma_k>\beta_k.
  • The paper gives the asymptotic form involving γk\gamma_k, but neither proves γk+1<γk\gamma_{k+1}<\gamma_k nor supplies a counterexample.

June 2026 preprint

The preprint, published on June 26, 2026, explicitly records the monotonicity of γk\gamma_k as unresolved. No retrieved source reports a proof, counterexample, verification, or AI-assisted solution.

Current status (as of August 2026): The conjecture is open; monotonicity of βk\beta_k and the comparison γk>βk\gamma_k>\beta_k are settled, but γk+1<γk\gamma_{k+1}<\gamma_k remains unproved.

Sources

Solutions 1

Proof

We prove that γk+1<γk\gamma_{k+1}<\gamma_k for every integer k2k\ge2, as asserted in Doboli, Maranca and Rosenberg, Conjecture 4.8.

For fixed kk, let BnB_n be the maximal rank of an at-most-kk-furcating rooted tree with nn leaves, in the encoding used in that paper. Its equation (10) and Theorem 4.7 give

B1=1,Bn=2Bn1+(Bn1+k1k)(n2),\begin{aligned} B_1&=1,\\ B_n&=2-B_{n-1}\\ &\quad+\binom{B_{n-1}+k-1}{k}\quad(n\ge2), \end{aligned}

and

Bn(k!)1/(k1)γkkn.B_n\sim(k!)^{1/(k-1)}\gamma_k^{\,k^n}.

The idea is to bound logγk\log\gamma_k using just the fourth term of this recurrence. The remaining infinite tail is small enough that a coarse comparison of consecutive central binomial coefficients suffices.

1. A uniform bound for the logarithmic tail

Write Dn=Bn1D_n=B_n-1. Then

Dn+1=Fk(Dn),Fk(x)=(x+kk)x,D2=1,D3=k,D4=uk:=(2kk)k.\begin{aligned} D_{n+1}&=F_k(D_n),\\ F_k(x)&=\binom{x+k}{k}-x,\\ D_2&=1,\qquad D_3=k,\\ D_4&=u_k:=\binom{2k}{k}-k. \end{aligned}

For x>0x>0, expansion of the product gives

k!Fk(x)=j=1k(x+j)k!x=xk+Qk(x),k!F_k(x)=\prod_{j=1}^k(x+j)-k!x=x^k+Q_k(x),

where QkQ_k has positive coefficients. Indeed, subtraction changes only the linear coefficient, which becomes

k!(j=1k1j1)>0.k!\left(\sum_{j=1}^k\frac1j-1\right)>0.

Consequently, with all logarithms natural, we may write

logFk(x)=klogxlog(k!)+εk(x),\log F_k(x)=k\log x-\log(k!)+\varepsilon_k(x),

where

0<εk(x)=logk!Fk(x)xkj=1klog(1+jx)k(k+1)2x.\begin{aligned} 0<\varepsilon_k(x) &=\log\frac{k!F_k(x)}{x^k}\\ &\le\sum_{j=1}^k\log\left(1+\frac jx\right)\\ &\le\frac{k(k+1)}{2x}. \end{aligned}

For every positive integer xx and every k2k\ge2,

Fk(x)F2(x)=x2+x+22>x.F_k(x)\ge F_2(x)=\frac{x^2+x+2}{2}>x.

Here the first inequality follows because (x+kk)\binom{x+k}{k} increases with kk. Thus DnukD_n\ge u_k for n4n\ge4.

Put

ck=log(k!)k1,ak=logukck,ek=k(k+1)2(k1)uk.\begin{aligned} c_k&=\frac{\log(k!)}{k-1},\\ a_k&=\log u_k-c_k,\\ e_k&=\frac{k(k+1)}{2(k-1)u_k}. \end{aligned}

Iterating the logarithmic recurrence from D4=ukD_4=u_k and dividing by knk^n yields

logγk=akk4+j=4εk(Dj)kj+1.\log\gamma_k =\frac{a_k}{k^4} +\sum_{j=4}^{\infty}\frac{\varepsilon_k(D_j)}{k^{j+1}}.

The limit on the left is exactly the one in the source normalization: logDn/knlogγk\log D_n/k^n\to\log\gamma_k. The series converges by the bound on εk\varepsilon_k and DjukD_j\ge u_k. Summing the geometric upper bound proves

akk4<logγkak+ekk4.\boxed{\frac{a_k}{k^4}<\log\gamma_k \le\frac{a_k+e_k}{k^4}.}

2. Comparing consecutive parameters for k4k\ge4

Let Ck=(2kk)C_k=\binom{2k}{k}, so uk=Ckku_k=C_k-k. The exact ratio is

Ck+1Ck=42k+1.\frac{C_{k+1}}{C_k}=4-\frac2{k+1}.

For k2k\ge2 this ratio exceeds 33, and hence

uk+1>3Ck(k+1)=3uk+2k1>3uk.u_{k+1}>3C_k-(k+1)=3u_k+2k-1>3u_k.

Since u4=66424u_4=66\ge4\cdot2^4, induction gives

ukk2k(k4).u_k\ge k2^k\qquad(k\ge4).

Indeed, 3k2(k+1)3k\ge2(k+1) for k2k\ge2, so the induction step follows from uk+1>3uku_{k+1}>3u_k.

Also k!kk1k!\le k^{k-1}, so cklogkc_k\le\log k and

akklog2(k4).a_k\ge k\log2\qquad(k\ge4).

The sequence ckc_k is strictly increasing, because

ck+1ck=log(k+1)ckk>0.c_{k+1}-c_k=\frac{\log(k+1)-c_k}{k}>0.

Using the upper bound Ck+1<4CkC_{k+1}<4C_k, we obtain, for k4k\ge4,

uk+1<4(uk+k)4uk(1+2k)<8uk.\begin{aligned} u_{k+1}&<4(u_k+k)\\ &\le4u_k(1+2^{-k})<8u_k. \end{aligned}

It follows that

ak+1ak<log8=3log2.a_{k+1}-a_k<\log8=3\log2.

For every j4j\ge4, the lower bound on uju_j gives

ejj+12(j1)2j2j.e_j\le\frac{j+1}{2(j-1)2^j}\le2^{-j}.

In particular ek+1<log2e_{k+1}<\log2; for example, log2=12dx/x>1/2\log2=\int_1^2 dx/x>1/2. Combining the preceding inequalities,

ak+1+ek+1<ak+4log2ak(1+4k)<ak(1+1k)4.\begin{aligned} a_{k+1}+e_{k+1} &<a_k+4\log2\\ &\le a_k\left(1+\frac4k\right)\\ &<a_k\left(1+\frac1k\right)^4. \end{aligned}

The last inequality uses ak>0a_k>0 and the binomial expansion. Dividing by (k+1)4(k+1)^4 and applying the boxed tail bound proves

logγk+1<logγk(k4).\log\gamma_{k+1}<\log\gamma_k\qquad(k\ge4).

3. The two remaining comparisons

The relevant exact values are

u2=4,c2=log2,u3=17,c3=12log6,e3=317,u4=66,c4=13log24,e4=599.\begin{aligned} u_2&=4,&c_2&=\log2,\\ u_3&=17,&c_3&=\tfrac12\log6,&e_3&=\tfrac3{17},\\ u_4&=66,&c_4&=\tfrac13\log24,&e_4&=\tfrac5{99}. \end{aligned}

Since log2>1/2\log2>1/2, we have

e3<14<c3,e4<16<c4.e_3<\frac14<c_3,\qquad e_4<\frac16<c_4.

Thus the upper tail bounds simplify to logγ3<log17/81\log\gamma_3<\log17/81 and logγ4<log66/256\log\gamma_4<\log66/256.

For k=2k=2, use 17<2517<2^5 and 80<8180<81:

logγ3<log1781<5log281<log216<logγ2.\begin{aligned} \log\gamma_3 &<\frac{\log17}{81} <\frac{5\log2}{81}\\ &<\frac{\log2}{16} <\log\gamma_2. \end{aligned}

For k=3k=3, the inequality 17/6>517/\sqrt6>5 gives a3>log5a_3>\log5. Since 66<5366<5^3 and 243<256243<256,

logγ4<log66256<3log5256<log581<logγ3.\begin{aligned} \log\gamma_4 &<\frac{\log66}{256} <\frac{3\log5}{256}\\ &<\frac{\log5}{81} <\log\gamma_3. \end{aligned}

All cases are now covered. Exponentiation yields γk+1<γk\gamma_{k+1}<\gamma_k for every integer k2k\ge2, proving Conjecture 4.8.

0 endorsements
Shivam Patel ·