trureturingGitHub MATHEMATICAL ATLAS

RESEARCH / Focused target

The dimer bounds for k at most 4 on regular biconnected graphs

Literature status: not recheckedRepository record: refuted

RELEASED FOUNDATIONS / PROPOSED CONNECTION

Research connections

0 released anchors
All source anchors (1)

Problem

The question

P. Butera, P. Federbush, M. Pernici, Positivity of the virial coefficients in lattice dimer models and upper bounds on the number of matchings on graphs, Physica A 437 (2015) 278–294, arXiv:1502.06734v2, Section IV B:

For all the graphs examined in this section, Eq. (\ref{Delta0}) is satisfied for $k \le 4$. It would be interesting to know whether these bounds, Eq. (\ref{Delta0}) for $k \le 4$, are always satisfied for regular biconnected graphs.

Eq. (1) is $\Delta^k\ln(i!,N(i))\le0$ for $k=2,\dots,\nu$ and $i=0,\dots,\nu-k$, where $N(i)$ is the number of configurations of $i$ dimers on the graph ($i$-edge matchings), $\Delta$ is the forward difference in $i$, and $\nu$ is the matching number.

Motivation

Our foothold

The paper derives Eq. (1) on finite regular graphs as the counterpart of the positivity of the virial coefficients of the monomer-dimer model on infinite regular lattices, and tests it on lattice graphs and on regular biconnected graphs. For $k=2$ the bound is the Heilmann–Lieb inequality; the reported violations on regular biconnected graphs all have $k\ge5$. The question asks whether $k\le4$ is safe on the whole class. The frozen declaration D5/S3/StatisticalMechanics/DimerVirialFourthDifferenceRefutation.result answers it negatively.

Gap

Missing bridges

Issue #12197 classifies the question as Tier 1 and records the checks before any Lean:

  • arXiv:1502.06734 v2 is the latest version, and the question is printed as quoted;
  • the later work of Butera, Federbush and Pernici and of Federbush (arXiv:2105.10772, 2107.05110, 2012.10927, 2202.00727, 1712.00613, 1409.4549; Pernici, J. Stat. Phys. 168 (2017)) proves asymptotic or random-graph statements; results on matching sequences (Csikvári arXiv:1406.0766 and 1407.5409, Abért–Csikvári–Hubai arXiv:1405.6740, Gurvits arXiv:1106.2844, Friedland–Krop–Markström arXiv:0801.2256, Davies–Jenssen–Perkins–Roberts arXiv:1508.04675, Craven–Csordas 1989, Brändén arXiv:1410.6601) do not decide $k=3$ or $k=4$.

These are seat-reported and orchestrator-reported readings, not-found-in-searched-scope; they do not establish exhaustive worldwide novelty. The graph below is the necklace $(K_7)_{xy}N_4$ of M. Borbényi and P. Csikvári, Trans. Comb. 10(2) (2021) 73–95, arXiv:2006.16815, whose transfer formula $M(H,z)=\operatorname{tr}(T(z)^4)$ also gives its matching polynomial; that paper does not apply it to Eq. (1).

Route

Proposed approach

  1. For an edge $e$ of an edge set $E$, $N(E,i+1)=N(E-e,i+1)+N(E_e,i)$, where $E_e$ is the set of edges of $E$ disjoint from $e$.
  2. For two edge sets without a common vertex, the matching sequence of the union is the Cauchy product of the two sequences.
  3. The graph $H$: vertices $7b+t$ with $b\in{0,1,2,3}$ and $t\in{0,\dots,6}$; each block is $K_7$ minus the edge between positions $0$ and $1$, and position $1$ of block $b$ is joined to position $0$ of block $b+1\bmod4$. It is $6$-regular with $84$ edges.
  4. Rule 1 on the four connecting edges and rule 2 on the four blocks reduce $N(H,\cdot)$ to the matching sequences $(1,20,95,90)$ of $K_7-e$, $(1,15,45,15)$ of $K_6$ and $(1,10,15)$ of $K_5$: $N(10)=845745750$, $N(11)=506745000$, $N(12)=141530625$, $N(13)=9922500$, $N(14)=101250$.
  5. $\nu=14$: $N(14)>0$, and $28$ vertices carry at most $14$ disjoint edges.
  6. The cycle through positions $0,2,3,4,5,6,1$ of blocks $0,1,2,3$ is Hamiltonian; deleting a vertex leaves a Hamiltonian path, so $H$ is biconnected.
  7. With $A_i=i!,N(i)$, $\Delta^4\ln A$ at $i=10$ is $\ln(A_{10}A_{12}^6A_{14})-\ln(A_{11}^4A_{13}^4)>0$, since $A_{11}^4A_{13}^4<A_{10}A_{12}^6A_{14}$ as integers.

Falsifier

What would falsify this route

The kernel-checked result is the negation of the universal statement over finite simple graphs on Fin n: regular (a common degree), biconnected (connected, and connected after deleting any vertex), every $k$ with $2\le k\le4$ and every $i$ with $i+k\le\nu$. $N(i)$ counts the elements of the frozen MatchingFiber.Matching n i all of whose pairs are edges of the graph, and $\Delta^k$ is the $k$-th iterate of fwdDiff 1. A different reading of "regular biconnected", of $N(i)$ or of the index range changes the question.

Evidence

Evidence to collect

An exact-integer Python recomputation (issue #12197) by the vertex recurrence $Z(H)=Z(H-v)+z\sum_{u\sim v}Z(H-u-v)$ gives $N(0..14)=1, 84, 3066, 63944, 843751, 7376220, 43536830, 173694800, 462062375, 796173900, 845745750, 506745000, 141530625, 9922500, 101250$; among $k\le4$ the only violation of Eq. (1) is $k=4$, $i=10$, with $A_{14}A_{12}^6A_{10}/(A_{13}^4A_{11}^4)= 3532327221883443718533774700941/3277304638880937076085488855040$. The controls $C_9$, $C_{12}$, $K_6$, $K_7$, $K_8$, the Petersen graph, the $3$-cube and $K_{3,3}$ show no violation for $k\le4$.

The canonical source is D5/S3/StatisticalMechanics/DimerVirialFourthDifferenceRefutation.lean. Its public declarations include the matching-count and matching-number definitions, Biconnected, claim, result, and the counting interfaces EdgeDisjoint, matchingsIn, cnt and matchingsIn_eq_empty. The canonical state record is Golden/Frozen/state/D5/S3/StatisticalMechanics/DimerVirialFourthDifferenceRefutation.lean.json; declaration identities come from the Lean report. The axiom closure of every public declaration is contained in {propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound}.

The four-slot audit of the public matchingsIn_eq_empty is unfinished in #20094: a faithful source reconstruction, exact bridge, variation, sensitivity and actual observational dependence have not been established. The designated refutation result (basis=refutes) is exempt from four-slot registration.

Triage

Scope assessment

Tier 1 published question; resolution Refuted by D5/S3/StatisticalMechanics/DimerVirialFourthDifferenceRefutation.result. proof_shape: content; admission_basis: open-problem-resolution (issue #12197). Utility kind certified-instance, basis refutes the module's claim.

Public counting interfaces

| Declaration | proof_shape | Consumer | | --- | --- | --- | | EdgeDisjoint | bind-only | matchingsIn; FactorCriticalMatching.MatchingCountBridge.matchingCount_eq_cnt | | matchingsIn | bind-only | cnt; FactorCriticalMatching.MatchingCountBridge.matchingCount_eq_cnt | | cnt | bind-only | FactorCriticalMatching.MatchingCountBridge.matchingCount_eq_cnt | | matchingsIn_eq_empty | bind-only | FactorCriticalMatching.MatchingCountBridge.matchingCount_eq_zero_of_card_lt | | result | content | Settles #12197; escape witness is its counterexample computation. |

What the settlement shows

  • Proved by result: the bounds of Eq. (1) for $k\le4$ fail on a $6$-regular biconnected graph on $28$ vertices, at $k=4$, $i=10=\nu-4$.
  • Proved inside the proof of result: the deletion rule (Route, step 1) and the product rule (step 2) for matching counts of finite edge sets, and the counts $N(10..14)$ of $H$.
  • Mechanism (computed, not stated in Lean): each block has $7$ vertices, so a perfect matching of $H$ covers exactly one end of the connecting edges in every block; only the two alternating pairs of connecting edges do this, each leaving four copies of $K_6$, so $N(14)=2\cdot15^4=101250$, and $A_{13}=7A_{14}$.
  • Computed, not in Lean (issue #12197): in the rings of $B$ copies of $K_r-e$ with $3\le r\le8$, $2\le B\le8$ and at most $40$ vertices, the only violations for $k\le4$ are $B=4,r=7$ (this graph) and $B=5,r=7$ ($k=4$, $i=13$); none of them violates $k=3$.
  • Open here: whether some regular biconnected graph violates Eq. (1) with $k=3$; whether a regular biconnected bipartite graph violates it for some $k\le4$ (the graph $H$ contains triangles); and the conjecture that motivates Eq. (1), positivity of all virial coefficients on infinite regular lattices, which a finite non-lattice graph does not address.

ASSUMED-UNVERIFIED

Unverified assumptions

The literature checks do not establish worldwide priority or absence of an independent answer. The Lean kernel verifies the encoded statement and its axiom closure; its correspondence to the paper, including the reading of the question as a universal statement and of "regular biconnected" as stated in Falsifier, is checked by reading the source and the definitions.

Dossier & anchor history

Loading release observations...