Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 25 references

An SOS counterexample to an inequality of symmetric functions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read The paper refutes the 2011 converse conjecture for homogeneous symmetric functions by giving a sum-of-squares certificate that $H_{44}-H_{521}$ is nonnegative despite incomparable dominance.

desk verdict A real SOS certificate and a clever method, but the advertised disproof covers only n=3 and the universal CGS conjecture remains open. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00081 v3 pith:QB4U3UK6 submitted 2019-08-30 math.CO math.AGmath.OC

classification math.COmath.AGmath.OC MSC 05E0590C22
keywords homogeneoussymmetricfunctionsdominanceordersumsofsquaressemidefiniteprogrammingnonnegativeorthantrationalSOScertificatecounterexample
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to refute a 2011 conjecture: for term-normalized homogeneous symmetric functions, a difference $H_\mu - H_\lambda$ should be nonnegative on the nonnegative orthant only when $\mu$ dominates $\lambda$, matching the pattern known for monomial, elementary, power-sum, and Schur functions. The authors exhibit a specific pair of incomparable partitions, $\lambda = 44$ and $\mu = 521$, and prove that $H_{44} - H_{521}$ is nonnegative by writing $(H_{44} - H_{521})(x_1^2, x_2^2, x_3^2)$ as an explicit sum of 41 rational squares. Since a sum of squares cannot take negative values, this is a direct algebraic certificate that the homogeneous basis breaks the dominance-order rule. The proof establishes the three-variable version of the inequality; the paper remarks that the large-$n$ behavior remains open.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Gram-matrix characterization of sums of squares: a homogeneous polynomial $h$ of degree $2d$ is a sum of squares iff $h = m^T A m$ for some positive semidefinite matrix $A$ indexed by monomials of degree $d$. The paper turns this into a semidefinite program whose solution must exactly reproduce $h = (H_{44}-H_{521})(x_1^2,x_2^2,x_3^2)$, then uses three structural reductions: symmetrization with respect to the variable-permutation group, linear constraints forced by real zeros of $h$, and rational rounding to convert floating-point output into an exact rational matrix. Factoring this $45\times 45$ matrix yields the 41 squares.

What would settle it

Expand the 41 listed square summands symbolically and compare with the displayed polynomial: exact equality verifies the three-variable certificate. To test the universal claim, run the same semidefinite search for $(H_{44}-H_{521})(x_1^2,\ldots,x_n^2)$ with $n=4$; a negative value or an infeasible SOS program at any point would show the three-variable proof does not extend to the definition's 'any number of variables'.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, Theorem 2, is that $H_{44}-H_{521} \geq 0$ provides a degree-minimal counterexample to the proposed converse: the partitions $44$ and $521$ are incomparable in dominance order, yet the normalized homogeneous symmetric function difference is nonnegative after the substitution $x_i \mapsto x_i^2$, which certifies nonnegativity on the nonnegative orthant. The nonnegativity is not asserted abstractly: the paper gives a rational sum-of-squares decomposition into 41 squares, produced by solving a semidefinite program, imposing $S_3$-symmetry and real-zero constraints, rounding the numerical Gram matrix to exact rational entries, and factoring it. Because the certificate is explicit and checkable by squaring and summing, the counterexample is a proof rather than a numerical heuristic. The paper also reports many further numerical counterexamples in degrees 8, 9, and 10 and organizes them in a poset showing how dominance order would need to be modified.

Load-bearing premise

The proof certifies nonnegativity only in three variables, while the statement being refuted requires the inequality to hold for every number of variables $n$, and no argument in the paper bridges that gap.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 2011 converse conjecture is false as stated for the homogeneous basis, so dominance order cannot fully classify normalized homogeneous symmetric function inequalities.
  • The explicit certificate upgrades the counterexample from a numerical find to a checkable algebraic proof, and it shows the existence of rational SOS certificates at degree 16 despite known obstructions at degree 4.
  • The paper's poset of numerically certified differences suggests that many more incomparable pairs satisfy the inequality; converting those to exact certificates would map the true nonnegativity order for fixed small $n$.
  • For the paper's stated definition, which demands the inequality for any number of variables, the proof covers only $n=3$; whether the counterexample survives as $n$ grows is explicitly left open.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the same symmetry-plus-real-zeros rounding pipeline were run in four or more variables, it would either extend the counterexample or show that the three-variable certificate is an artifact of low dimension, directly addressing the paper's open large-$n$ question.
  • The appearance of a rational SOS certificate at degree 16 with large denominators suggests that exact rational certificates may be common in the interior of the SOS cone, so symmetry reduction may be more important than raw degree for finding them.
  • The modified poset in Section 3 could be tested against candidate partial orders generated by weighted cumulative sums; the blue arrows would provide immediate falsification data for any proposed order.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the Cuttler-Greene-Skandera conjecture on term-normalized homogeneous symmetric functions. It claims that H44−H521 is nonnegative on the nonnegative orthant even though the partitions (4,4) and (5,2,1) are incomparable in dominance order, and that this gives a degree-minimal counterexample to the conjecture. The proof is computational: an SDP is run in three variables, symmetrized, constrained using real zeros, and then rounded to exact rational data, yielding a claimed representation of (H44−H521)(x1^2,x2^2,x3^2) as a sum of 41 rational squares. The full certificate is not printed; the paper refers to an external GitHub repository and a Max Planck mathrepo page. Section 3 reports additional numerical SOS certificates for incomparable pairs in degrees 8, 9, and 10.

Significance. If the three-variable certificate is correct, it is a nontrivial computational result: it is a clean example of exact rational SOS certification for a degree-16 polynomial, and it demonstrates the practical value of symmetry reduction and real-zero constraints in semidefinite programming. However, the advertised significance as a disproof of the CGS conjecture depends on a quantifier that the proof does not deliver. As written, the paper establishes a fixed-n=3 SOS statement, not the universal inequality required by the paper's own definition in Section 1. The computational certificate, if fully supplied with a permanent location, could still be a useful benchmark contribution, but the main claim needs substantial revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 1 and Section 4] The paper defines Gλ ≥ Gμ as the inequality holding for any number of variables n, and the abstract and Theorem 2 claim to disprove the CGS conjecture. The proof in Section 4 only certifies nonnegativity on R^3_{\ge 0}, via the SOS decomposition of (H44−H521)(x1^2,x2^2,x3^2). No argument is given that this three-variable certificate extends to n>3; setting extra variables to zero does not reduce the n-variable inequality to the certified one because the normalization denominators hλ(1^n) and hμ(1^n) depend on n. Remark 6 explicitly leaves open whether counterexamples persist for large n. Thus the stated universal counterexample is not established; the proven statement is a fixed-n=3 SOS result.
  2. [Section 4 and reference [14]] The claimed explicit SOS certificate is not self-contained. The proof prints the first row of the Gram matrix and the first square, and states that the remaining squares are in a .txt file on a GitHub repository and a mathrepo page. Since Theorem 2 rests entirely on this certificate, the full list of 41 squares, or the verifying code, should be included as supplementary/ancillary material with a permanent identifier. As submitted, the reader cannot verify Theorem 2 from the text alone.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract says the paper provides a sums-of-squares decomposition of H44−H521, but the certificate is for (H44−H521)(x1^2,x2^2,x3^2); this wording should be corrected.
  2. [Section 4] The phrase "nonnegative octant" should be "nonnegative orthant".
  3. [Theorem 2] The notation in Theorem 2, "Hµ−Hλ≥ 0 ... provided by H44−H521," should specify explicitly which of the two partitions is λ and which is μ.
  4. [Section 3] The text states that a poset of SOS certifications is provided below, but the figure or diagram is not present in this version; it should be included.
  5. [Section 1] The definition of term-normalized symmetric functions should state the condition on the number of variables n needed so that g(1) is nonzero, since for l(λ)>n the normalized polynomial is not defined.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the SOS certificate is independently checkable and does not reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

The central result is an explicit rational sum-of-squares decomposition of (H_44 - H_521)(x1^2, x2^2, x3^2), and the paper supplies the first squared polynomial in the text, refers to a file with the remaining squares, and provides open-source code that squares and sums them. This is a self-contained, externally verifiable certificate: nonnegativity on R^3_{>=0} follows by Lemma 1 from a literal SOS identity, not from any fitted parameter renamed as a prediction or from any equation that defines the target in terms of the certificate. The SDP search is only heuristic for finding the certificate; the proof is the exact rational identity. The cited symmetry and rational-rounding tools (Gatermann-Parrilo, RealCertify) are used as computational aids, not as load-bearing self-citations, and the authors' own website is data/code rather than an imported uniqueness theorem. The remaining gap between the 3-variable certificate and the all-n definition of G_lambda >= G_mu is a correctness/scope issue, not a circularity: Remark 6 openly questions the large-n behavior, and no equation in the paper makes the all-n claim equal to the 3-variable SOS by construction. Hence no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the explicit SOS certificate, which is verifiable by direct expansion, and on the interpretation of the conjecture. The only non-standard assumption is that the n=3 certificate suffices for the all-n version of the inequality; this is not justified in the text.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The relation Gλ ≥ Gμ is defined as holding for any number of variables n on the nonnegative orthant.
    This is the definition in Section 1. The proof of Theorem 2 only establishes the inequality for n=3, so the truth of the universal statement is assumed rather than derived.
  • standard math The known equivalence results for monomial, elementary, power-sum, and Schur bases in Theorem 1 (from [10]) are correct.
    The paper relies on these results to frame the conjecture and to establish that H_44 - H_521 is a degree-minimal counterexample (since degrees 1-7 were already verified).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An SOS counterexample to an inequality of symmetric functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QB4U3UK6

@misc{pith2026190900081,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An SOS counterexample to an inequality of symmetric functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QB4U3UK6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00081}
}
abstract

It is known that differences of symmetric functions corresponding to various bases are nonnegative on the nonnegative orthant exactly when the partitions defining them are comparable in dominance order. The only exception is the case of homogeneous symmetric functions where it is only known that dominance of the partitions implies nonnegativity of the corresponding difference of symmetric functions. It was conjectured by Cuttler, Greene, and Skandera in 2011 that the converse also holds, as in the cases of the monomial, elementary, power-sum, and Schur bases. In this paper we provide a counterexample, showing that homogeneous symmetric functions break the pattern. We use semidefinite programming to find an explicit sums of squares decomposition of the polynomial $H_{44} - H_{521}$ as a sum of 41 squares. This rational certificate of nonnegativity disproves the conjecture, since a polynomial which is a sum of squares cannot be negative, and since the partitions 44 and 521 are incomparable in dominance order.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    There are significantly more nonnegative polynomials than sums of squares

    Grigoriy Blekherman. There are significantly more nonnegative polynomials than sums of squares. Israel J. Math., 153:355–380, 2006

  2. [2]

    Nonnegative polynomials and sums of squares

    Grigoriy Blekherman. Nonnegative polynomials and sums of squares. In Semidefinite optimization and convex algebraic geometry, volume 13 of MOS-SIAM Ser. Optim. , pages 159–202. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2013

  3. [3]

    Algebraic boundaries of Hilbert’s SOS cones

    Grigoriy Blekherman, Jonathan Hauenstein, John Christian Ottem, Kristian Ranestad, and Bernd Sturmfels. Algebraic boundaries of Hilbert’s SOS cones. Compos. Math., 148(6):1717–1735, 2012. 8

  4. [4]

    Dimensional differences between faces of the cones of nonnegative polynomials and sums of squares

    Grigoriy Blekherman, Sadik Iliman, and Martina Juhnke-Kubitzke. Dimensional differences between faces of the cones of nonnegative polynomials and sums of squares. InCombinatorial methods in topology and algebra, volume 12 of Springer INdAM Ser. , pages 69–77. Springer, Cham, 2015

  5. [5]

    Parrilo, and Rekha R

    Grigoriy Blekherman, Pablo A. Parrilo, and Rekha R. Thomas, editors. Semidefinite optimization and convex algebraic geometry, volume 13 of MOS-SIAM Series on Optimization . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA; Mathematical Optimization Society, Philadelphia, PA, 2013

  6. [6]

    Symmetric non-negative forms and sums of squares

    Grigoriy Blekherman and Cordian Riener. Symmetric non-negative forms and sums of squares. Discrete and Computational Geometry , 2012

  7. [7]

    M. D. Choi, T. Y. Lam, and Bruce Reznick. Even symmetric sextics. Math. Z., 195(4):559–580, 1987

  8. [8]

    An old question of Hilbert

    Man Duen Choi and Tsit Yuen Lam. An old question of Hilbert. In Conference on Quadratic Forms— 1976 (Proc. Conf., Queen’s Univ., Kingston, Ont., 1976) , pages 385–405. Queen’s Papers in Pure and Appl. Math., No. 46, 1977

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Sum of squares decomposition for symmetric polynomial inequalities

    Logan Coe. Sum of squares decomposition for symmetric polynomial inequalities. San Francisco State University Master’s Thesis, 2017

  2. [10]

    Inequalities for symmetric means

    Allison Cuttler, Curtis Greene, and Mark Skandera. Inequalities for symmetric means. European J. Combin., 32(6):745–761, 2011

  3. [11]

    Karin Gatermann and Pablo A. Parrilo. Symmetry groups, semidefinite programs, and sums of squares. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 192(1-3):95–128, 2004

  4. [12]

    The analogue of Hilbert’s 1888 theorem for even symmetric forms

    Charu Goel, Salma Kuhlmann, and Bruce Reznick. The analogue of Hilbert’s 1888 theorem for even symmetric forms. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 221(6):1438–1448, 2017

  5. [13]

    A general formula for the algebraic degree in semidefinite programming

    Hans-Christian Graf von Bothmer and Kristian Ranestad. A general formula for the algebraic degree in semidefinite programming. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. , 41(2):193–197, 2009

  6. [14]

    Sos counterexample

    Alexander Heaton and Isabelle Shankar. Sos counterexample. https://github.com/alexheaton2/ SOS-counterexample. Accessed: 2019-09-18

  7. [15]

    Exact algorithms for linear matrix inequalities

    Didier Henrion, Simone Naldi, and Mohab Safey El Din. Exact algorithms for linear matrix inequalities. SIAM J. Optim. , 26(4):2512–2539, 2016

  8. [16]

    ¨Uber den Vergleich des arithmetischen und des geometrischen Mittels

    Adolf Hurwitz. ¨Uber den Vergleich des arithmetischen und des geometrischen Mittels. Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik , 108:266–268, 1891

  9. [17]

    On exact Polya and Putinar’s representations

    Victor Magron and Mohab Safey El Din. On exact Polya and Putinar’s representations. In ISSAC’18— Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation , pages 279–286. ACM, New York, 2018

  10. [18]

    Realcertify: A maple package for certifying non-negativity

    Victor Magron and Mohab Safey El Din. Realcertify: A maple package for certifying non-negativity. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.02201 , 2018

  11. [19]

    Gromov-Witten theory and Noether-Lefschetz theory

    Davesh Maulik and Rahul Pandharipande. Gromov-Witten theory and Noether-Lefschetz theory. In A celebration of algebraic geometry , volume 18 of Clay Math. Proc., pages 469–507. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2013

  12. [20]

    R. F. Muirhead. Some methods applicable to identities and inequalities of symmetric algebraic functions of n letters. Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society, 21:144–162, 1902

  13. [21]

    The algebraic degree of semidefinite program- ming

    Jiawang Nie, Kristian Ranestad, and Bernd Sturmfels. The algebraic degree of semidefinite program- ming. Math. Program., 122(2, Ser. A):379–405, 2010

  14. [22]

    A quantitative version of hurwitz’ theorem on the arithmetic-geometric inequality

    Bruce Reznick. A quantitative version of hurwitz’ theorem on the arithmetic-geometric inequality. Journal fur die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik , 1987(377):108–112, January 1987. 9

  15. [23]

    Sums of squares of polynomials with rational coefficients

    Claus Scheiderer. Sums of squares of polynomials with rational coefficients. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 18(7):1495–1513, 2016

  16. [24]

    On inequalities for normalized Schur functions

    Suvrit Sra. On inequalities for normalized Schur functions. European J. Combin., 51:492–494, 2016

  17. [25]

    Richard P. Stanley. Enumerative combinatorics. Vol. 2 , volume 62 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999. With a foreword by Gian-Carlo Rota and appendix 1 by Sergey Fomin. 10

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.