RESEARCH / Focused target
The Pan–Skandera–Wang Map Is Bruhat-Increasing for Every n
RELEASED FOUNDATIONS / PROPOSED CONNECTION
Research connections
All source anchors (1)
- D5/S3/Combinatorics/PanSkanderaWangBruhat.resultAbsent from this graph
Problem
The question
Sihong Pan, Mark Skandera and Jiayuan Wang, Permanental Inequalities and Unit Interval Orders, EPTCS 445 (2026), arXiv:2606.13162v1, Section 7:
Conjecture 7.8. For all n and all w ∈ A_n we have w ≤ f_n(w) in the Bruhat order. A proof of Conjecture 7.8 would extend Theorem 5.1 to all totally nonnegative matrices.
Here A_n is the set of permutations whose first ⌊n/2⌋ entries permute {1, …, ⌊n/2⌋}, and
f_n is defined by Algorithm 7.5 from f_4 through the insertion maps ins_p, inss_q and the
reverse-complement conjugation. Theorem 7.7 of the paper states the case n ≤ 13, with proof omitted.
Motivation
Our foothold
The frozen theorem D5/S3/Combinatorics/PanSkanderaWangBruhat.result proves the conjecture for every
n ≥ 4, the range on which Algorithm 7.5 defines f_n. By Theorem 7.1 of the paper (Drake, Gerrish,
Skandera), each comparison w ≤ f_n(w) makes the corresponding difference of monomials totally
nonnegative, so the bijection gives the permanental inequality at h = ⌊n/2⌋ for all totally
nonnegative matrices.
Gap
Missing bridges
Issue 9706 records the screen made before the work. The arXiv record has only v1; the mathdb entry
lists the conjecture as open without solution; google-deepmind/formal-conjectures and conjectures.io
have no entry; searches by title, arXiv number and conjecture number found no later proof. Nothing
under Problems/, D5/ or Library/, and no entry of the three screening records, concerns this
paper. Mathlib has no Bruhat order on permutations, so the formal statement uses the tableau
criterion of Björner and Brenti, Theorem 2.1.5.
Route
Proposed approach
Write R_x(p, q) = #{j ≤ p : x_j ≥ q} and, for 0 ≤ d ≤ min(p, n − p),
S(p, d) = [p − d] ∪ {p − d + 2, p − d + 4, …, p + d}, a set of p positions. The invariant (F)
for a pair (x, y) says R_x(p, q) ≤ #{j ∈ S(p, d) : y_j ≥ q} for all p, d, q; its case d = 0
is Bruhat domination. For w ∈ A_n let r be the position of n; in both parity branches of
Algorithm 7.5 the insertion position of the output is s = 2r − n.
- The base map
f_4satisfies (F) on its four inputs. - Reverse-complement conjugation preserves (F): the complement of the reflected selection
S(p, d)isS(n − p, d), andR_{x^{RU}}(p, q) = p − q + 1 + R_x(n − p, n + 2 − q). - If
(a, b)satisfies (F) ands = 2r − n, then(ins_r(a), inss_s(b))satisfies (F). The proof compares the selected positions of the new word with those of the old one in six cases, by the position ofsrelative top − dandp + dand by parity; only the last case usess = 2r − n. - Deleting the maximum of
w ∈ A_ngives an element ofA_{n−1}for oddnand ofÃ_{n−1}for evenn; reverse-complementation mapsÃ_{n−1}intoA_{n−1}.
Induction on n gives (F) for every pair (w, f_n(w)), hence w ≤ f_n(w).
Falsifier
What would falsify this route
The statement would fail if some w ∈ A_n had R_w(p, q) > R_{f_n(w)}(p, q) for some p, q. It
would fail to be the paper's statement if the insertion positions 2(p − k) − 1 and 2(q − k − 1)
were read with a different k, or if the Bruhat order were replaced by a weaker order; the formal
module transcribes Algorithm 7.5 literally, and its map was checked against an independent
implementation on all of A_n for n ≤ 9.
Evidence
Evidence to collect
Exhaustive checks of (F), its reverse-complement pairs, and every row of the insertion case table
through n = 13 (4,251,652 source words), with an independent implementation agreeing through
n = 9. The six-row insertion table was also checked by hand.
Triage
Scope assessment
theorem; Tier 1 named open conjecture from a 2026 paper, preregistered in issue 9706 before the
work. The computational use is none: the delivered statement is universally quantified over every
n ≥ 4, and no declaration is a bounded enumeration, a checker, a numeric reduction or a certified
instance.
ASSUMED-UNVERIFIED
Unverified assumptions
The literature screen is bounded to the sources named above; citation indices were not exhaustively
reachable, so no worldwide priority claim is made. The equivalence between the tableau criterion
and the strong Bruhat order is taken from the literature and is not formalized here. The result
settles Conjecture 7.8 at h = ⌊n/2⌋; the paper's further conjecture for all h is not addressed.