Expected meeting time conjecture for random walks on regular graphs

At least 11 years old · documented by

Let GG) be a connected dd-regular graph with adjacency matrix AA and nn vertices. Let ξ1,ξ2,…,ξn\xi_1,\xi_2,\ldots,\xi_n be orthogonal eigenvectors of AA, with the conditions stated below. Expected meeting time conjecture. The supplied candidate asserts that AA has eigenvectors satisfying

ξn=(1,1,…,1)T,\xi_n=(1,1,\ldots,1)^T, ξi(n)=1for all i,\xi_i(n)=1\quad\text{for all }i, ∑j=1nξi(j)=0for all i,\sum_{j=1}^n\xi_i(j)=0\quad\text{for all }i, ∑i=1nξi(j)=0for all j,\sum_{i=1}^n\xi_i(j)=0\quad\text{for all }j, ⟨ξi,ξj⟩=nδij.\langle\xi_i,\xi_j\rangle=n\delta_{ij}.

The surrounding text presents this as an additional conjecture intended to help prove the expected meeting-time formula for two independent simple random walks on a connected regular graph. Its mathematical formulation appears inconsistent with the preceding meeting-time conjecture and may contain transcription or indexing errors; its resolution is not established in the supplied material.

References

Primary source

Yizhen Zhang, Zihan Tan and Bhaskar Krishnamachari, “On the Meeting Time for Two Random Walks on a Regular Graph”, arXiv:1408.2005 (2014).

Progress summary

Refreshed
Claimed solved

An unverified posted calculation claims explicit counterexamples to both the meeting-time formula and the auxiliary eigenvector assertion.

Zhang, Tan, and Krishnamurali (2014) conjectured a spectral formula for the expected meeting time of two independent random walks on every connected regular graph, supported by numerical tests. They also proposed an auxiliary eigenbasis condition that would imply the formula, but its statement appears internally inconsistent.

Known results

  • The formula is proved for the one-dimensional circle and two-dimensional torus, with growth rates Θ(N2)\Theta(N^2) and Θ(N2log⁡N)\Theta(N^2\log N), respectively (Zhang, Tan, and Krishnamurali, 2014).
  • The paper notes proofs for graphs with enough symmetry to make the relevant matrices circulant or block-circulant.
  • No retrieved later paper proves or refutes the general regular-graph claim.

Posted attempt (date not stated)

A posted calculation claims an explicit eight-vertex cubic counterexample and an infinite family in every degree d≥3d\ge3, disproving both the spectral meeting-time formula and the prescribed eigenbasis condition. The claimed computations have not been independently verified, so this is not an established resolution.

Current status (as of August 2026): The conjecture has no verified resolution; an unverified calculation claims counterexamples to both the main formula and its auxiliary eigenbasis assertion.

Sources

Solutions 1

CounterexampleThis solution needs a summarySee full solutionHide full solution

Counterexample to the intended eigenbasis claim and the meeting-time formula

The printed zero-sum conditions have indexing inconsistencies. The following counterexamples do not rely on those inconsistencies: they contradict the substantive normalization and orthogonality requirements themselves, and also disprove the paper's separate expected-meeting-time conjecture.

Suppose a connected regular graph on nn vertices has an orthogonal adjacency eigenbasis satisfying

ξi(v)=1,⟨ξi,ξj⟩=nδij.\xi_i(v)=1,\qquad \langle\xi_i,\xi_j\rangle=n\delta_{ij}.

For every adjacency eigenvalue θ\theta, its spectral projector EθE_\theta must then satisfy

(Eθ)vv=∑i: Aξi=θξiξi(v)2n=rank⁡Eθn.(E_\theta)_{vv} =\sum_{i:\,A\xi_i=\theta\xi_i}\frac{\xi_i(v)^2}{n} =\frac{\operatorname{rank}E_\theta}{n}.

Consequently

(Aℓ)vv=tr⁡(Aℓ)n(ℓ≥0).(1)(A^\ell)_{vv}=\frac{\operatorname{tr}(A^\ell)}n \qquad(\ell\ge0). \tag{1}

Already on eight vertices, take the connected cubic graph with edges

02,03,04,12,13,15,23,46,47,56,57,67.02,03,04,12,13,15,23,46,47,56,57,67.

Direct counting gives

diag⁡(A3)=(2,2,4,4,2,2,4,4),tr⁡(A3)8=3.\operatorname{diag}(A^3)=(2,2,4,4,2,2,4,4), \qquad \frac{\operatorname{tr}(A^3)}8=3.

Thus (1) fails at every possible distinguished vertex, disproving the intended eigenbasis conjecture.

Moreover, for the exact prescribed transition matrix P=(I+A)/4P=(I+A)/4, let two walkers start independently and uniformly. Their hitting times satisfy

Tuu=0,Tuv=1+∑a≠bPuaPvbTab(u≠v).T_{uu}=0,\qquad T_{uv}=1+\sum_{a\ne b}P_{ua}P_{vb}T_{ab}\quad(u\ne v).

Solving these finite rational equations gives

Eτ=164∑u≠vTuv=5873631.\mathbb E\tau=\frac1{64}\sum_{u\ne v}T_{uv} =\frac{5873}{631}.

On the other hand,

det⁡(zI−A)=(z−3)(z−1)(z+1)4(z2−5),\det(zI-A)=(z-3)(z-1)(z+1)^4(z^2-5),

and hence the conjectured spectral answer is

∑λ∈Spec⁡(I−P2), λ≠01λ=283.\sum_{\lambda\in\operatorname{Spec}(I-P^2),\,\lambda\ne0} \frac1\lambda =\frac{28}{3}.

The exact discrepancy is therefore

Eτ−∑λ≠01λ=−491893≠0.\mathbb E\tau- \sum_{\lambda\ne0}\frac1\lambda =-\frac{49}{1893}\ne0.

In fact both failures occur in every degree d≥3d\ge3. Put s=d+1s=d+1, take two copies of KsK_s, remove one edge in each copy, and connect their exposed endpoints by a matching. This gives a connected (s−1)(s-1)-regular graph on 2s2s vertices. Its closed three-walk counts are

(A3)vv={(s−2)(s−3),v is an exposed endpoint,s(s−3),v is an interior vertex,tr⁡(A3)2s=(s−3)(s2−4)s.(A^3)_{vv}= \begin{cases} (s-2)(s-3),&v\text{ is an exposed endpoint},\\ s(s-3),&v\text{ is an interior vertex}, \end{cases} \qquad \frac{\operatorname{tr}(A^3)}{2s} =\frac{(s-3)(s^2-4)}s.

Neither local value equals the average for s≥4s\ge4, so the required eigenbasis exists at no vertex.

For completeness, the seven nonmeeting ordered-pair classes have multiplicities

w=(4,8(s−2),2(s−2)(s−3),4,4,8(s−2),2(s−2)2)w=(4,8(s-2),2(s-2)(s-3),4,4,8(s-2),2(s-2)^2)

and transition-count matrix

Cs=(22(s−2)(s−2)(s−3)022(s−2)013(s−2)(s−2)(s−3)11s−2024(s−2)(s−2)(s−3)000002(s−2)0202(s−2)(s−2)222(s−2)0022(s−2)(s−2)21s−20113(s−2)(s−2)2000224(s−2)(s−2)2).C_s= \begin{pmatrix} 2&2(s-2)&(s-2)(s-3)&0&2&2(s-2)&0\\ 1&3(s-2)&(s-2)(s-3)&1&1&s-2&0\\ 2&4(s-2)&(s-2)(s-3)&0&0&0&0\\ 0&2(s-2)&0&2&0&2(s-2)&(s-2)^2\\ 2&2(s-2)&0&0&2&2(s-2)&(s-2)^2\\ 1&s-2&0&1&1&3(s-2)&(s-2)^2\\ 0&0&0&2&2&4(s-2)&(s-2)^2 \end{pmatrix}.

Thus Eτs=wT(I−Cs/s2)−11/(4s2)\mathbb E\tau_s=w^{\mathsf T}(I-C_s/s^2)^{-1}\mathbf1/(4s^2). The adjacency characteristic polynomial is

(z−(s−1))(z−1)(z+1)2s−4(z2−(s−4)z−(3s−7)).(z-(s-1))(z-1)(z+1)^{2s-4} \bigl(z^2-(s-4)z-(3s-7)\bigr).

With

Ds=s6+2s5−4s4−4s3+10s2+12s−24>0,D_s=s^6+2s^5-4s^4-4s^3+10s^2+12s-24>0,

direct rational elimination gives

  Eτs−∑λ∈Spec⁡(I−Ps2), λ≠0λ−1=−(s−3)2(s2+2s−4)(s3−4s+8)24(s−2)(s+2)(s2−2s+2)Ds<0  \boxed{\; \mathbb E\tau_s- \sum_{\lambda\in\operatorname{Spec}(I-P_s^2),\,\lambda\ne0} \lambda^{-1} = -\frac{(s-3)^2(s^2+2s-4)(s^3-4s+8)^2} {4(s-2)(s+2)(s^2-2s+2)D_s} <0 \;}

for every s≥4s\ge4, where Ps=(I+As)/sP_s=(I+A_s)/s. Hence both source conjectures fail for an infinite family covering every regular degree at least three.