The centers of gravity of the associahedron and of the permutahedron are the same

Abstract: In this article, we show that Loday's realization of the associahedron has the the same center of gravity than the permutahedron. This proves an observation made by F. Chapoton. We also prove that this result holds for the associahedron and the cyclohedron as realized by the first author and C. Lange.

\section{Introduction.}\label{se:Intro}

In 1963, J.~Stasheff discovered the associahedron~\cite{stasheff,stasheff2}, a polytope of great importance  in algebraic topology.
 The associahedron in $\mathbb R^n$ is a simple
$n-1$-dimensional convex polytope. The classical realization of the associahedron given by
 S.~Shnider and S.~Sternberg in \cite{shnider_sternberg} was
 completed by J.~L.~Loday in 2004~\cite{loday}. Loday gave a
 combinatorial algorithm to compute the integer coordinates of the
 vertices of the associahedron, and showed that it can be obtained
 naturally from the classical permutahedron of dimension $n-1$.
 F.~Chapoton observed that the centers of gravity of the
 associahedron and of the permutahedron are the same \cite[Section 2.11]{loday}.
   As far as we know, this property of Loday's realization has never been proved.

\smallskip

In 2007, the first author and C.~Lange gave a family of realizations
of the associahedron that contains the classical realization of the
associahedron. Each of these realizations is also obtained naturally
from the classical permutahedron \cite{realisation1}. They
conjectured that for any of these realizations, the center of
gravity coincide with the center of gravity of the permutahedron. In
this article, we prove this conjecture to be true.

\smallskip

The associahedron fits in a larger family of polytopes, {\em
generalized associahedra}, introduced by S.~Fomin and A.~Zelevinsky
in \cite{fomin_zelevinsky} within the framework of cluster algebras
(see \cite{chapoton_fomin_zelevinsky,realisation2} for their
realizations).

In 1994, R.~Bott and C.~Taubes discovered the
cyclohedron~\cite{bott_taubes} in connection with knot theory. It
was rediscovered independently by R. Simion \cite{simion}. In
\cite{realisation1}, the first author and C.~Lange also gave a
family of realizations for the cyclohedron, starting with the
permutahedron of type $B$.

We also show that the centers of gravity of the cyclohedron and of
the permutahedron of type $B$ are the same.

The article is organized as follows. In \S\ref{se:1}, we first
recall the realization of the permutahedron and how to compute its
center of gravity. Then we compute the center of gravity of Loday's
realization of the associahedron. In order to do this, we partition
its vertices into isometry classes of triangulations, which
parameterize  the vertices, and we show that the center of gravity
for each of  those classes is the center of gravity of the
 permutahedron.

 In \S\ref{se:2}, we show that the computation of the center of
 gravity of any of the realizations given by the first author and
 C.~Lange is reduced to the computation of the center of gravity of the classical
 realization of the associahedron. We do the same for the cyclohedron in \S\ref{se:3}.

We are grateful to Carsten Lange for allowing us to use some of the pictures he made in~\cite{realisation1}.

\section{Center of gravity of the classical permutahedron and
associahedron}\label{se:1}

\subsection{The permutahedron}
Let $S_n$ be the symmetric group acting on the set
$[n]=\{1,2,\dots,n\}$. The {\em permutahedron} $\Perm(S_n)$ is the
classical $n-1$-dimensional simple convex polytope defined as the
convex hull of the points
$$
M(\sigma)=(\sigma(1),\sigma(2),\dots, \sigma (n))\in\mathbb R^n,\qquad \forall \sigma\in S_n.
$$
The {\em center of gravity} (or {\em isobarycenter}) is the unique point $G$ of $\mathbb R^n$  such that
$$
\sum_{\sigma\in S_n} \vect{GM(\sigma)}=\vect 0.
$$
Since the permutation $w_0:i\mapsto n+1-i$ preserves $\Perm(S_n)$,
we see, by sending $M(\sigma)$ to
$$
M(w_0\sigma)=(n+1-\sigma(1),n+1-\sigma(2),\dots, n+1-\sigma (n)),
$$
that the center of gravity is  $
G=(\frac{n+1}{2},\frac{n+1}{2},\dots,\frac{n+1}{2}). $

\subsection{Loday's realization}
We present here the realization of the associahedron given by
J.~L.~Loday \cite{loday}. However, instead of using planar binary
trees, we use triangulations of a regular polygon to parameterize
the vertices of the associahedron (see \cite[Remark
1.2]{realisation1}).

\subsubsection{Triangulations of a regular polygon} Let $P$ be a
regular $(n+2)$-gon in the Euclidean plane with vertices
$A_0,A_1,\dots,A_{n+1}$ in counterclockwise direction. A {\em
triangulation of $P$} is a set of $n$ noncrossing diagonals of $P$.

Let us be more explicit. A {\em triangle
of $P$} is a triangle whose vertices are vertices of $P$. Therefore
a side of a triangle of $P$ is either an edge or a diagonal of $P$.
A  triangulation of $P$ is then a collection of $n$ distinct
triangles of $P$ with noncrossing sides. Any of the triangles in $T$ can be described as  $A_i A_j A_k$ with $0\leq i<j<k\leq n+1$. Each $1\leq j\leq n$ corresponds to a unique triangle $\Delta_j(T)$ in $T$ because the sides of  triangles in $T$ are noncrossing.

Therefore we write $T=\{\Delta_1(T),\dots, \Delta_n(T)\}$ for a
triangulation $T$, where $\Delta_j(T)$ is the unique triangle in $T$
with vertex $A_j$ and the two other vertices  $A_i$ and $A_k$
satisfying the inequation $0\leq i<j<k\leq n+1$.

Denote by $\SOT_{n+2}$ the set of triangulations of $P$.

\subsubsection{Loday's realization of the associahedron}

Let $T$ be a triangulation of $P$. The {\em weight} $\delta_j(T)$ of
the triangle $\Delta_j(T)=A_i A_jA_k$, where $i<j<k$, is the positive
number
$$
\delta_j(T)=(j-i)(k-j).
$$
The weight $\delta_j(T)$ of $\Delta_j(T)$ represents the product of the number of
boundary edges of $P$ between $A_i$ and $A_j$ passing through vertices
indexed by smaller numbers than $j$ with the number of boundary
edges of $P$ between $A_j$ and $A_k$ passing through vertices indexed
by larger numbers than $j$.

The {\em classical associahedron} $\Ass(S_n)$ is obtained as the
convex hull of the points
$$
M(T)=(\delta_1(T),\delta_2(T),\dots, \delta_n(T))\in \mathbb
R^n,\quad\forall T\in\SOT_{n+2}.
$$
We are now able to state our first result.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:Main} The center of gravity of $\Ass(S_n)$ is $G=(\frac{n+1}{2},\frac{n+1}{2},\dots,\frac{n+1}{2})$.
 \end{thm}

In order to prove this theorem, we need to study closely a certain partition of the vertices of $P$.

\subsection{Isometry classes of triangulations}\label{se:centergravity}
As $P$ is a regular $(n+2)$-gon, its isometry group is the dihedral
group ${\mathcal D}_{n+2}$ of order $2(n+2)$. So ${\mathcal D}_{n+2}$ acts on the set
$\SOT_{n+2}$ of all triangulations of $P$: for $f\in{\mathcal D}_{n+2}$ and
$T\in\SOT_{n+2}$, we have $f\cdot T\in\SOT_{n+2}$. We denote by
$\mathcal O (T)$ the orbit of $T\in\SOT_{n+2}$ under the action of
${\mathcal D}_{n+2}$.

We know that $G$ is the center of gravity of $\Ass(S_n)$ if and only if
$$
\sum_{T\in\SOT_{n+2}} \vect{GM(T)} =\vect 0.
$$
As the orbits of the action of ${\mathcal D}_{n+2}$ on $\SOT_{n+2}$ form a partition of the set $\SOT_{n+2}$, it is sufficient to compute
$$
\sum_{T\in\mathcal O} \vect{GM(T)}
$$
for any orbit $\mathcal O$. The following key observation implies
directly Theorem~\ref{thm:Main}.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:key} Let $\mathcal O$ be an orbit of the action of ${\mathcal D}_{n+2}$ on $\SOT_{n+2}$, then $G$ is the center of gravity of $\{M(T)\,|\, T\in\mathcal O\}$. In particular, $
\sum_{T\in\mathcal O} \vect{GM(T)}=\vect 0.
$
\end{thm}

Before proving this theorem, we need to prove the following result.

\begin{prop}\label{prop:canonique} Let $T\in\SOT_{n+2}$ and $j\in [n]$, then
$\displaystyle{\sum_{f\in {\mathcal D}_{n+2}} \delta_j(f\cdot T) =
(n+1)(n+2)}$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
 We prove this proposition by induction on $j\in [n]$. For any triangulation $T'$, we denote by
 $a_j(T')<j<b_j(T')$ the indices of the vertices of $\Delta_j(T')$. Let $H$ be the group of  rotations
 in ${\mathcal D}_{n+2}$. It is well-known that for any reflection $s\in {\mathcal D}_{n+2}$, the classes $H$ and
$sH$ form a partition of ${\mathcal D}_{n+2}$ and that $|H|=n+2$.  We consider
also the unique reflection $s_k\in{\mathcal D}_{n+2}$  which maps $A_x$ to
$A_{n+3+k-x}$, where the values of the indices are taken in modulo
$n+2$. In particular, $s_k(A_0)=A_{n+3+k}=A_{k+1}$, $s_k(A_1)=A_k$,
$s_k(A_{k+1})=A_{n+2}=A_0$,  and so on.

\smallskip

\noindent {\bf Basic step $j=1$:}  We know  that $a_1(T')=0$ for any
triangulation $T'$, hence the weight of $\Delta_1(T')$ is
$\delta_1(T')=(1-0)(b_1(T')-1)=b_1(T')-1$.

The reflection $s_0\in {\mathcal D}_{n+2}$ maps $A_x$
to $A_{n+3-x}$ (where $A_{n+2}=A_0$ and $A_{n+3}=A_1$). In other
words, $s_0(A_0)=A_1$ and $s_0(\Delta_1(T'))$ is a triangle in
$s_0\cdot T'$. Since
$$
s_0(\Delta_1( T'))= s_0(A_0A_1A_{b_1(T')})= A_0A_1A_{n+3-b_1(T')}
$$
and $0<1<n+3-b_1(T')$, $s_0(\Delta_1(T'))$ has to be
$\Delta_1(s_0\cdot T')$. In consequence, we obtain that
$$
\delta_1(T')+\delta_1(s_0\cdot T')= (b_1(T')-1)+(n+3-b_1(T')-1)=n+1,
$$
for any triangulation $T'$. Therefore
$$
\sum_{f\in {\mathcal D}_{n+2}} \delta_1(f\cdot T) = \sum_{g\in H}\big(
(\delta_1(g\cdot T)+\delta_1(s_0\cdot (g\cdot T))\big)= |H|
(n+1)=(n+1)(n+2),
$$
proving the initial case of the induction.

\smallskip

\noindent {\bf Inductive step:} Assume that, for a given $1\leq j<n$, we
have
$$
\sum_{f\in {\mathcal D}_{n+2}}\delta_j(f\cdot T) = (n+1)(n+2).
$$
We will show that
$$
\sum_{f\in {\mathcal D}_{n+2}}\delta_{j+1}(f\cdot T) = \sum_{f\in
{\mathcal D}_{n+2}}\delta_j(f\cdot T).
$$
Let $r\in H\subseteq {\mathcal D}_{n+2}$ be the unique rotation mapping
$A_{j+1}$ to $A_{j}$. In particular, $r(A_0)=A_{n+1}$. Let $T'$ be a
triangulation of $P$. We have two cases:

\smallskip

\noindent {\bf Case 1.} If $a_{j+1}(T')>0$ then
$a_{j+1}(T')-1<j<b_{j+1}(T')-1$ are the indices of the vertices of
the triangle $r(\Delta_{j+1}(T'))$ in $r\cdot T'$. Therefore, by
unicity, $r(\Delta_{j+1}(T'))$ must be $\Delta_j(r\cdot T')$. Thus
 \begin{eqnarray*}
   \delta_{j+1}(T')&=&(b_{j+1}(T')-(j+1))(j+1-a_{j+1}(T'))\\
   &=&\big((b_{j+1}(T')-1)-j\big)(j-(a_{i+1}(T')-1))\\
   &=&\delta_j(r\cdot T').
\end{eqnarray*}
In other words:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{equ:1}
\sum_{{f\in {\mathcal D}_{n+2},\atop a_{j+1}(f\cdot T)\not =
0}}\delta_{j+1}(f\cdot T) & =& \sum_{{f\in {\mathcal D}_{n+2},\atop
a_{j+1}(f\cdot T)\not = 0}}\delta_j(r\cdot(f\cdot T))\\\nonumber &
=& \sum_{{g\in {\mathcal D}_{n+2},\atop b_{j}(g\cdot T)\not =
n+1}}\delta_j(g\cdot T).
\end{eqnarray}

\smallskip

\noindent {\bf Case 2.} If $a_{j+1}(T')=0$, then
$j<b_{j+1}(T')-1<n+1$ are the indices of the vertices of
$r(\Delta_{j+1}(T'))$, which is therefore not $\Delta_j(r\cdot T')$:
it is $\Delta_{b_{j+1}(T')-1}(r\cdot T')$. To handle this, we need
to use the reflections $s_j$ and $s_{j-2}$.

On one hand,  observe that $j+1<n+3+j-b_{j+1}(T')$ because
$b_{j+1}(T')<n+1$.
 Therefore
$$
s_j(\Delta_{j+1}(T'))=A_{j+1}A_0
A_{n+3+j-b_{j+1}(T')}=\Delta_{j+1}(s_j\cdot T').
$$
Hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
\delta_{j+1}(T')+\delta_{j+1}(s_j\cdot
T')&=&(j+1)(b_{j+1}(T')-(j+1))\\
&&+(j+1)(n+3+j-b_{j+1}(T')-(j+1))\\
&=&(j+1)(n+1-j).
\end{eqnarray*}

On the other hand, consider the triangle $\Delta_j(r\cdot T')$ in
$r\cdot T'$. Since
$$
r(\Delta_{j+1}(T'))=A_{j}A_{b_{j+1}(T')-1}A_{n+1}=\Delta_{b_{j+1}(T')-1}(r\cdot T')
$$
is in $r\cdot T'$, $[j,n+1]$ is a diagonal in $r\cdot T'$. Hence
$b_j(r\cdot T')=n+1$. Thus $\Delta_j(r\cdot T')=A_{a_j(r\cdot
T')}A_j A_{n+1}$ and  $\delta_j(r\cdot T')=(j-a_j(r\cdot
T'))(n+1-j)$. We have $s_{j-2}(A_j)=A_{n+1}$, $s_{j-2}(A_{n+2})=A_j$
and $s_{j-2}(A_{a_j(r\cdot T')})=A_{n+1+j-a_j(r\cdot
T')}=A_{j-a_j(r\cdot T')-1}$ since $a_j(r\cdot T')<j$. Therefore
$s_{j-2}(\Delta_j(r\cdot T'))=A_{j-a_j(r\cdot
T')-1}A_jA_{n+1}=\Delta_j(s_{j-2}r\cdot T')$ and
$\delta_j(s_{j-2}r\cdot T')=(a_j(r\cdot T')+1)(n+1-j)$.  Finally we
obtain that
 \begin{eqnarray*}
 \delta_{j}(r\cdot T')+\delta_{j}(s_{j-2}r\cdot
T')&=&(j-a_j(r\cdot T'))(n+1-j)+(a_j(r\cdot
T')+1)(n+1-j)\\
&=&(j+1)(n+1-j).
 \end{eqnarray*}

Since  $\{H,s_k H\}$ forms a partition of ${\mathcal D}_{n+2}$ for any $k$,
we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{equ:2}
 \sum_{{f\in {\mathcal D}_{n+2},\atop a_{j+1}(f\cdot T)=0}}\delta_{j+1}(f\cdot T) & =& \sum_{{f\in H,\atop a_{j+1}(f\cdot T)=0}}\big(\delta_{j+1}(f\cdot T) +\delta_{j+1}(s_j f\cdot T)\big)\\ \nonumber
 &=& \sum_{{f\in H,\atop  a_{j+1}(f\cdot T)=0}} (j+1)(n+1-j)\\ \nonumber
 &=& \sum_{{rf\in H,\atop  b_{j}(rf\cdot T)=n+1}}\big(\delta_{j}(rf\cdot T) +\delta_{j}(s_{j-2} rf\cdot T)\big),\ \textrm{since }r\in H\\ \nonumber
 &=& \sum_{{g\in H,\atop  b_{j}(g\cdot T)=n+1}}\delta_{j}(g\cdot T).
\end{eqnarray}

\smallskip

\noindent We conclude the induction by adding
Equations~(\ref{equ:1}) and (\ref{equ:2}).
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:key}] We have to prove that
$$
\vect u=\sum_{T'\in\mathcal O(T)} \vect{GM(T')}=\vect 0.
$$
Denote by ${\textnormal{Stab}}(T')=\{f\in{\mathcal D}_{n+2}\,|\, f\cdot T'=T'\}$ the stabilizer of $T'$, then
$$
\sum_{f\in {\mathcal D}_{n+2}} M(f\cdot T) = \sum_{T'\in \mathcal O(T)} |{\textnormal{Stab}}(T')| M(T').
$$
Since $T'\in\mathcal O(T)$, $|{\textnormal{Stab}}(T')|=|{\textnormal{Stab}}(T)|=\frac{2(n+2)}{|\mathcal O(T)|}$, we have
$$
\sum_{f\in {\mathcal D}_{n+2}} M(f\cdot T) = \frac{2(n+2)}{|\mathcal O(T)|} \sum_{T'\in \mathcal O(T)} M(T') .
$$
Therefore by Proposition~\ref{prop:canonique} we have for any $i\in [n]$
\begin{equation}\label{equ:3}
\sum_{T'\in \mathcal O(T)} \delta_i(T')= \frac{|\mathcal
O(T)|}{2(n+2)}(n+1)(n+2)=\frac{|\mathcal O(T)|(n+1)}{2}.
\end{equation}

Denote by $O$ the point of origin of $\mathbb R^n$. Then
$\vect{OM}=M$ for any point $M$ of $\mathbb R^n$. By Chasles'
relation we have finally
 $$
\vect u=\sum_{T'\in\mathcal O(T)} \vect{GM(T')}= \sum_{T'\in\mathcal O(T)} (M(T')-G) =\sum_{T'\in\mathcal O(T)} M(T') - |\mathcal O(T)| G.
$$
So the $i^{th}$ coordinate of $\vect u$ is $ \sum_{T'\in \mathcal
O(T)} \delta_i(T')- \frac{|\mathcal O(T)|(n+1)}{2}=0 $, hence $\vect
u =\vect 0$ by (\ref{equ:3}).
\end{proof}

\section{Center of gravity of generalized associahedra of type $A$ and $B$}\label{se:2}

\subsection{Realizations of associahedra} As a Coxeter group (of type $A$), $S_n$ is generated by the simple
transpositions $\tau_i=(i,\, i+1)$, $i\in [n-1]$. The Coxeter graph
$\Gamma_{n-1}$ is then
\begin{figure}[h]
      \psfrag{t1}{$\tau_{1}$}
      \psfrag{t2}{$\tau_{2}$}
      \psfrag{t3}{$\tau_{3}$}
      \psfrag{tn}{$\tau_{n-1}$}
      \psfrag{dots}{$\ldots$}
      \begin{center}
            \includegraphics[width=8cm]{ACG.eps}
      \end{center}
\end{figure}

Let $\ADG$ be an orientation of $\Gamma_{n-1}$. We distinguish
between {\em up} and {\em down} elements of $[n]$~: an element $i\in
[n]$ is {\em up} if the edge $\{\tau_{i-1}, \tau_i\}$ is directed
from $\tau_i$ to $\tau_{i-1}$ and {\em down} otherwise (we set $1$
and $n$ to be down). Let $\Do_\ADG$ be the set of down elements and
let $\Up_\ADG$ be the set of up elements (possibly empty).

The notion of up and down induces a labeling of the $(n+2)$-gon $P$
as follows. Label $A_0$ by $0$. Then the vertices of $P$ are, in
counterclockwise direction,  labeled by the down elements in
increasing order, then by $n+1$, and finally by the up elements in
decreasing order. An example is given in
Figure~\ref{fig:example_labelling}.
\begin{figure}[h]
      \psfrag{0}{$0$}
      \psfrag{1}{$1$}
      \psfrag{2}{$2$}
      \psfrag{3}{$3$}
      \psfrag{4}{$4$}
      \psfrag{5}{$5$}
      \psfrag{6}{$6$}
      \psfrag{s1}{$\tau_{1}$}
      \psfrag{s2}{$\tau_{2}$}
      \psfrag{s3}{$\tau_{3}$}
      \psfrag{s4}{$\tau_{4}$}
      \begin{center}
      \begin{minipage}{0.95\linewidth}
         \begin{center}
            \includegraphics[height=6cm]{example_labelling.eps}
         \end{center}
         \caption[]{A labeling of a heptagon that corresponds to
                    the orientation $\ADG$ of $\Gamma_{4}$ shown inside
                    the heptagon. We have $\Do_{\ADG} = \{1, 3, 5 \}$ and
                     $\Up_{\ADG} = \{ 2,4\}$.}
         \label{fig:example_labelling}
      \end{minipage}
      \end{center}
\end{figure}

We recall here a construction due to Hohlweg and
Lange~\cite{realisation1}. Consider  $P$ labeled according to a
fixed orientation~$\ADG$ of $\Gamma_{n-1}$. For each $l\in [n]$ and
any triangulation $T$ of $P$, there is a unique triangle
$\Delta^\ADG_l(T)$ whose vertices are labeled by $k<l<m$.  Now,
count the number of edges of $P$ between $i$ and $k$, whose vertices
are labeled by smaller numbers than $l$. Then multiply it by the
number of edges of $P$ between $l$ and $m$, whose vertices are
labeled by greater numbers than $l$. The result $\omega_l^\ADG(T)$
is called the {\em weight} of $\Delta_l^\ADG(T)$. The injective map
\begin{align*}
   M_{\ADG}: \SOT_{n+2} &\longrightarrow  \R^n \\
                   T          &\longmapsto      (x^\ADG_1(T),x^\ADG_2(T),\dots,x^\ADG_n(T))
\end{align*}
that assigns explicit coordinates to a triangulation is defined as follows:
\[
  x^\ADG_j(T) := \begin{cases}
            \omega_j^\ADG  (T)   & \textrm{if } j\in\Do_\ADG\\
            n+1-\omega_j^\ADG(T) & \textrm{if } j\in\Up_\ADG.
         \end{cases}
\]

Hohlweg and Lange showed that the convex hull $\Ass_\ADG(S_n)$
of~$\{M_{\ADG}(T)\,|\,T\in \SOT_{n+2}\}$ is a realization of the
associahedron with integer coordinates \cite[Theorem
1.1]{realisation1}. Observe that if the orientation $\ADG$ is {\em
canonic}, that is, if $\Up_\ADG=\emptyset$, then
$\Ass_\ADG(S_n)=\Ass(S_n)$.

The key is now to observe that the weight of $\Delta_{j}^\ADG(T)$ in
$T$ is precisely the weight of $\Delta_j (T')$ where $T'$ is a
triangulation in the orbit of $T$ under the action of ${\mathcal D}_{n+2}$, as
stated in the next proposition.

\begin{prop}\label{prop:weight} Let $\ADG$ be an orientation of $\Gamma_{n-1}$. Let $j\in [n]$
and let $A_l$ be the vertex of $P$ labeled by $j$. There is an
isometry $r_j^\ADG\in \mathcal D_{n+2}$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $r_j^\ADG(A_l)=A_j$;

\item[(ii)] the label of the vertex $A_k$ is smaller than $j$ if and
only if the index $i$ of the vertex $A_i=r_j^\ADG(A_k)$ is smaller
than $j$.

\end{enumerate}
Moreover, for any triangulation $T$ of $P$ we have
$\omega_j^\ADG(T)=\delta_j(r_j^\ADG\cdot T).$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} If $\ADG$ is the canonical orientation, then $r_j^\ADG$ is
the identity, and the proposition is straightforward. In the
following proof, we suppose therefore that $\Up_\ADG\not=\emptyset$.

\smallskip

\noindent Case 1: Assume that $j\in\Do_\ADG$. Let $\alpha$ be the
greatest up element smaller than $j$ and let $A_{\alpha+1}$ be the
vertex of $P$ labeled by $\alpha$. Then by construction of the
labeling, $A_{\alpha}$ is labeled by a larger number than $j$, and
$[A_{\alpha},A_{\alpha+1}]$ is the
 unique edge  of $P$ such that $A_{\alpha+1}$ is labeled by a
smaller number than $j$. Denote by $\Lambda_\ADG$ the path from
$A_l$ to $A_{\alpha+1}$ passing through vertices of $P$ labeled by
smaller numbers than $j$. This is the path going from $A_l$ to
$A_{\alpha+1}$ in clockwise direction on the boundary of $P$.

By construction, $A_k\in \Lambda_\ADG$ if and only if the label of
$A_k$ is smaller than $j$. In other words, the path $\Lambda_\ADG$
consists of {\em all} vertices of $P$ labeled by smaller numbers
than $j$. Therefore the cardinality of $\Lambda_\ADG$ is $j+1$.

Consider $r_j^\ADG$ to be the rotation mapping $A_l$ to $A_j$.
Recall that a rotation is an isometry preserving the orientation of
the plane. Then the path $\Lambda_\ADG$, which is obtained by
walking on the boundary of $P$ from $A_l$ to $A_{\alpha+1}$ in
clockwise direction, is sent to the path $\Lambda$ obtained by
walking on the boundary of $P$ in clockwise direction from $A_j$ and
going through $j+1=|\Lambda_\ADG|$ vertices of $P$. Therefore
$\Lambda=\{A_0,A_1,\dots, A_j\}$, thus proving the first claim of
our proposition in this case.

\smallskip

\noindent Case 2: assume that $j\in \Up_\ADG$. The proof is almost
the same as in the case of a down element. Let $\alpha$ be the
greatest down element smaller than $j$ and let $A_{\alpha}$ be the
vertex of $P$ labeled by $\alpha$. Then by construction of the
labeling, $A_{\alpha+1}$ is labeled by a larger number than $j$, and
$[A_{\alpha},A_{\alpha+1}]$ is the unique edge  of $P$ such that
$A_{\alpha}$ is labeled by a smaller number than $j$. Denote by
$\Lambda_\ADG$ the path from $A_l$ to $A_{\alpha}$ passing through
vertices of $P$ labeled by smaller numbers than $j$. This is the
path going from  $A_{\alpha}$ to $A_l$
 in clockwise direction on the boundary of $P$.

As above, $A_k\in \Lambda_\ADG$ if and only if the label of $A_k$ is
smaller than $j$. In other words, the path $\Lambda_\ADG$ consists
of all the vertices of $P$ labeled by smaller numbers than $j$.
 Therefore, again,  the cardinality of $\Lambda_\ADG$ is $j+1$.

Let $r_j^\ADG$ be the reflection mapping $A_\alpha$ to $A_0$ and
$A_{\alpha+1}$ to $A_{n+1}$. Recall that a reflection is an isometry
reversing the orientation of the plane. Then the path
$\Lambda_\ADG$, which is obtained by walking on the boundary of $P$
from $A_\alpha$ to $A_{l}$ in clockwise direction, is sent to the
path $\Lambda$ obtained by walking on the boundary of $P$ in
clockwise direction from $A_\alpha$ and going through
$j+1=|\Lambda_\ADG|$ vertices of $P$. Therefore
$\Lambda=\{A_0,A_1,\dots, A_j\}$. Hence $r_j^\ADG(A_l)$ is sent on
the final vertex of the path $\Lambda$ which is $A_j$,  proving the
first claim of our proposition.

\smallskip

Thus it remains to show that for a triangulation $T$ of $P$ we have
$\omega_j^\ADG(T)=\delta_j(r_j^\ADG\cdot T).$ We know that
$\Delta_j^\ADG(T)=A_k A_l A_m$ such that the label of $A_k$ is
smaller than $j$, which is smaller than the label of $A_m$. Write
 $A_a=r_j^\ADG(A_k)$ and $A_b=r_j^\ADG(A_m)$. Because of Proposition~\ref{prop:weight}, $a<j<b$ and therefore
$$
r_j^\ADG(\Delta_j^\ADG(T))= A_a A_jA_b=\Delta_j(r_j^\ADG\cdot T).
$$
So $(j-a)$ is the number of edges of $P$ between $A_l$ and $A_k$,
whose vertices are labeled by smaller numbers than $j$. Similarly,
$(b-j)$ is the number of edges between $A_l$ and $A_m$, whose
vertices  are labeled by smaller numbers than $j$, and $(b-j)$ is
the number of edges of $P$ between $A_l$ and $A_m$ and whose
vertices are labeled by larger numbers than $j$. So
$\omega_l^\ADG(T)=(j-a)(b-j)=\delta_j(r_j^\ADG\cdot T)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}\label{cor:Canon} For any orientation $\ADG$ of the Coxeter graph of $S_n$ and for any
$j\in [n]$, we have
$$
\sum_{f\in {\mathcal D}_{n+2}} x^\ADG_j(f\cdot T) = (n+1)(n+2).
$$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof} Let $r_j^\ADG\in \mathcal D_{n+2}$ be as in Proposition~\ref{prop:weight}.

Suppose first that $j\in \Up_\ADG$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{f\in {\mathcal D}_{n+2}} x^\ADG_i(f\cdot T) &=&2(n+2)(n+1)-\sum_{f\in {\mathcal D}_{n+2}} \omega_i^\ADG(f\cdot T)\\
&=&2(n+2)(n+1)-\sum_{f\in {\mathcal D}_{n+2}} \delta_j(fr_j^\ADG\cdot T),\ \textrm{by Proposition~\ref{prop:weight}} \\
&=&2(n+2)(n+1)-\sum_{g\in {\mathcal D}_{n+2}} \delta_j(g^\ADG\cdot T),\ \textrm{since $r_j^\ADG\in\mathcal D_{n+2}$} \\
&=& (n+1)(n+2),\ \textrm{by Proposition~\ref{prop:canonique}}
\end{eqnarray*}
 If $i\in \Do_\ADG$,  the result follows from a similar calculation.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Center of gravity of associahedra}

\begin{thm}\label{thm:Main2} The center of gravity of $\Ass_\ADG(S_n)$ is $G=(\frac{n+1}{2},\frac{n+1}{2},\dots,\frac{n+1}{2})$ for any orientation $\ADG$.
 \end{thm}

By following precisely the same arguments as in
\S\ref{se:centergravity}, we just have to show the following
generalization of Theorem~\ref{thm:key}.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:keyGenAss} Let $\mathcal O$ be an orbit of the action of ${\mathcal D}_{n+2}$ on $\SOT_{n+2}$, then $G$ is the center of gravity of $\{M_\ADG(T)\,|\, T\in\mathcal O\}$. In particular, $\sum_{T\in\mathcal O} \vect{GM_\ADG(T)}=\vect 0. $
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} The proof is entirely similar to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:key}, using Corollary~\ref{cor:Canon} instead of Proposition~\ref{prop:canonique}.
\end{proof}

\section{Center of gravity of the cyclohedron}\label{se:3}

\subsection{The type $B$-permutahedron}
The hyperoctahedral  group  $W_n$ is defined by $W_n=\{\sigma\in S_{2n}\,|\, \sigma(i)+\sigma(2n+1-i)=2n+1,\ \forall i\in[n]\}$. The {\em type $B$-permutahedron} $\Perm(W_n)$ is the simple $n$-dimensional convex polytope defined as the convex hull of the points
$$
M(\sigma)=(\sigma(1),\sigma(2),\dots, \sigma (n))\in\mathbb R^{2n},\qquad \forall \sigma\in W_n.
$$
As $w_0=(2n,2n-1,\dots,3,2,1)\in W_n$, we deduce from the same
argument as in the case of $\Perm(S_n)$ that the center of gravity
of $\Perm(W_n)$ is
$$G=(\frac{2n+1}{2},\frac{2n+1}{2},\dots,\frac{2n+1}{2}).$$

\subsection{Realizations of the associahedron}
An orientation~$\ADG$ of~$\Gamma_{2n-1}$ is {\em symmetric} if the
edges $\{\tau_i,\tau_{i+1}\}$ and $\{\tau_{2n-i-1},\tau_{2n-i}\}$
are oriented in \emph{opposite directions} for all~$i\in [2n-2]$.
There is a bijection between symmetric orientations
of~$\Gamma_{2n-1}$ and orientations of the Coxeter graph of
$W_n$ (see \cite[\S1.2]{realisation1}). A triangulation $T\in \SOT_{2n+2}$ is {\em centrally
symmetric} if~$T$, viewed as a triangulation  of $P$, is centrally
symmetric. Let $\SOT_{2n+2}^B$ be the set of the centrally symmetric
triangulations of $P$. In \cite[Theorem
1.5]{realisation1} the authors show that for any symmetric
orientation $\ADG$ of $\Gamma_{2n-1}$. The convex hull
$\Ass_\ADG(W_{n})$ of $\{M_{\ADG}(T)\,|\,T\in \SOT^B_{2n+2}\}$ is a
realization of the cyclohedron with integer coordinates.

   Since the full orbit of symmetric triangulations under the action of ${\mathcal D}_{2n+2}$ on triangulations provides vertices of $\Ass_\ADG(W_{n})$, and vice-versa, Theorem~\ref{thm:keyGenAss} implies the following corollary.

 \begin{cor}\label{cor:Main} Let $\ADG$ be a symmetric orientation of $\Gamma_{2n-1}$, then the center of gravity of $\Ass_\ADG(W_n)$ is $G=(\frac{2n+1}{2},\frac{2n+1}{2},\dots,\frac{2n+1}{2})$.
 \end{cor}


Longest increasing subsequences and log concavity

Abstract: Let $\pi$ be a permutation of $[n]=\{1,\dots,n\}$ and denote by $\ell(\pi)$ the length of a longest increasing subsequence of $\pi$. Let $\ell_{n,k}$ be the number of permutations $\pi$ of $[n]$ with $\ell(\pi)=k$. Chen conjectured that the sequence $\ell_{n,1},\ell_{n,2},\dots,\ell_{n,n}$ is log concave for every fixed positive integer $n$. We conjecture that the same is true if one is restricted to considering involutions and we show that these two conjectures are closely related. We also prove various analogues of these conjectures concerning permutations whose output tableaux under the Robinson-Schensted algorithm have certain shapes. In addition, we present a proof of Deift that part of the limiting distribution is log concave. Various other conjectures are discussed.

\section{Introduction}

Let ${\mathfrak S}_n$ be the symmetric group of all permutations of $[n]=\{1,2,\dots,n\}$.  We will view $\pi=\pi_1 \pi_2 \dots \pi_n\in{\mathfrak S}_n$ as a sequence (one-line notation).  Let $\ell(\pi)$ denote the length of a longest increasing subsequence of $\pi$.  For example, if $\pi=4172536$ then $\ell(\pi)=4$ because  the subsequence $1256$ is increasing and there is no longer such sequence.  Define
$$
L_{n,k}=\{\pi\in{\mathfrak S}_n\ :\ \ell(\pi)=k\} \qmq{and}  \ell_{n,k}=\#L_{n,k}
$$
where the hash symbol denotes cardinality.

The statistic $\ell(\pi)$ plays an important role in a number of combinatorial contexts, for example in famous theorems of Erd\H{o}s and Szekeres~\cite{es:cpg} and of Schensted~\cite{sch:lid}.
The problem of determining the distribution of $\ell(\pi)$ in a random permutation $\pi$ of length $n$ was solved in a tour de force by Baik, Deift, and Johansson~\cite{bdj:dli}.
The history of this problem is described by Aldous and Diaconis~\cite{aldous}; see also the recently published book by Romik \cite{romik} on the subject.

The statistic $\ell(\pi)$ is not only interesting from a combinatorial or algorithmic point of view:  It is also connected with biology via the Ulam distance which is used to model evolutionary distance in DNA research~\cite{ula:ipb}.  The {\em Ulam distance} between $\pi,\sigma\in{\mathfrak S}_n$, denote $U(\pi,\sigma)$, is the minimum number of steps needed to obtain $\sigma$ from $\pi$ where a step consists of taking an element of a sequence and placing it somewhere else in the sequence.  If $\id$ is the identity permutation then it is easy to see that $U(\id,\pi)=n-\ell(\pi)$.  Indeed, one can fix a longest increasing subsequence of $\pi$ and then move all the elements of $\id$ which are not in that subsequence to the appropriate places to form $\pi$.

A sequence of real numbers $l_1,l_2,\dots,l_n$ is said to be {\em log concave} if $l_{k-1} l_{k+1}\le l_k^2$ for all $k\in [n]$.  Here we use the convention that $l_0=l_{n+1}=0$.  Log concave sequences appear often in algebra, combinatorics, and geometry; see the survey articles of Stanley~\cite{sta:lus} and Brenti~\cite{bre:lus}.  It is interesting to note that there are many other ways to define distance in molecular biology, and these sequences are typically either known to
be log concave, or conjectured to be log concave. See the book \cite{genome} for a collection of examples.

Our main object of study is the following conjecture which appeared in an unpublished manuscript of William Chen from 2008.
\begin{conj}[\cite{che:lqc}]
\label{ell_nk}
For any fixed $n$, the sequence
$$
\ell_{n,1}, \ell_{n,2},\dots,\ell_{n,n}
$$
is log concave.
\end{conj}
We have verified this conjecture for $n\le 50$ by computer and will give other evidence for its truth below.

Let $\mathfrak I_n$ denote the set of involutions in ${\mathfrak S}_n$, i.e., those permutations whose square is the identity.  Also define
$$
I_{n,k}=\{\pi\in\mathfrak I_n\ :\ \ell(\pi)=k\} \qmq{and}  i_{n,k}=\#I_{n,k}.
$$
We conjecture the following.
\begin{conj}
\label{i_nk}
For any fixed $n$, the sequence
$$
i_{n,1}, i_{n,2},\dots,i_{n,n}
$$
is log concave.
\end{conj}
Again, this conjecture has been verified for $n\le 50$.  We will show that these two conjectures are closely related.

The rest of this paper is structured as follows.  In the next section we will see that there is a close connection between Conjectures~\ref{ell_nk} and~\ref{i_nk}.  We will also derive another relation between sequences counting certain permutations and those counting certain involutions.  Section~\ref{htr} restricts attention to permutations whose output tableaux under the Robinson-Schensted map have certain shapes.    Fixed-point free involutions are considered in Section~\ref{fpf}.  Baik, Deift, and Johansson~\cite{bdj:dli} proved that, with suitable scaling, the sequence in Conjecture~\ref{ell_nk} converges to the Tracy-Widom distribution as $n\rightarrow\infty$.  In Section~\ref{twd}, we present a proof of Deift that this distribution is log concave for nonnegative $x$ where $x$ is the independent variable.  We end with more conjectures related to~\ref{ell_nk} and~\ref{i_nk}.

\section{Involutions}
\label{inv}

To connect Conjectures~\ref{ell_nk} and~\ref{i_nk}, we will need some properties of the Robinson-Schensted correspondence.  For more information about this important map, see the the texts of Sagan~\cite{sag:sym} or Stanley~\cite{sta:ec2}.

Let $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\dots,\lambda_k)$ be a partition of $n$, written $\lambda\vdash n$.
We denote by $\SYT \lambda$ the set of all standard Young tableaux of shape $\lambda$, and if $P\in\SYT\lambda$, then we will also write $\sh P=\lambda$.
The Robinson-Schensted map is a bijection
$$
\RS:{\mathfrak S}_n \rightarrow \bigcup_{\lambda\vdash n} (\SYT\lambda)^2,
$$
i.e., a permutation of length $n$ is identified with a pair of standard Young tableaux of size $n$ and of the same shape.
We will use the notation $\RS(\pi)=(P,Q)$.  Since $\sh P =\sh Q$ we can define the {\em shape of $\pi$} to be the common shape of its output tableaux.  It will also be convenient to define for  pairs of permutations $\sh(\pi,\sigma)=(\sh\pi,\sh\sigma)$.

We need two important results about $\RS$, the first due to Schensted~\cite{sch:lid} and the second to Sch\"utzenberger~\cite{sch:rcs}.
\begin{thm}
\label{RS}
The map $\RS$ has the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] If $\sh\pi=(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_k)$ then $\ell(\pi)=\lambda_1$.  Also, the length of a longest decreasing subsequence of $\pi$ is the number of cells in the first column of $\lambda$.
\item[(2)] A permutation $\pi$ is an involution if and only if $\RS(\pi)=(P,P)$ for some standard Young tableau $P$.\hfill \qed
\end{enumerate}
\eth

By (2), there is a canonical bijection between involutions and standard Young tableaux.  Because of this, we will go freely back and forth between involutions and tableaux without further mention.

One way to prove Conjecture~\ref{ell_nk} would be to find injections $F:L_{n,k-1}\times L_{n,k+1}\rightarrow L_{n,k}^2$ for all $n,k$.  Call any map with this domain and range {\em shape preserving} if
$$
\sh(\pi,\pi')=\sh(\sigma,\sigma') \implies \sh F(\pi,\pi') = \sh F(\sigma,\sigma')
$$
for all $(\pi,\pi'), (\sigma,\sigma')\in L_{n,k-1}\times L_{n,k+1}$.  We will also apply this terminology to functions
$f:I_{n,k-1}\times I_{n,k+1}\rightarrow I_{n,k}^2$.  Our first result shows that if one can prove Conjecture~\ref{i_nk} using a shape-preserving injection, then one gets Conjecture~\ref{ell_nk} for free.
\begin{thm}
\label{sp}
Suppose that there is a shape-preserving injection $f:I_{n,k-1}\times I_{n,k+1}\rightarrow I_{n,k}^2$ for some $n,k$.  Then there is a shape-preserving injection $F:L_{n,k-1}\times L_{n,k+1}\rightarrow L_{n,k}^2$.
\eth
\begin{proof}
Given $f$, one can construct $F$ as the composition of the following maps.
\begin{align*}
(\pi,\pi')&\stackrel{RS^2}{\longmapsto} \left( (P,Q),\ (P',Q')\right)\\[5pt]
&\longmapsto \left( (P,P'),\ (Q,Q')\right)\\
&\stackrel{f^2}{\longmapsto} \left(( S,S'),\ (T,T')\right)\\[5pt]
&\longmapsto \left( (S,T),\ (S',T')\right)\\
& \hspace{-0.2cm} \stackrel{(RS^{-1})^2}{\longmapsto} \left(\sigma,\sigma'\right)
\end{align*}
Note that in applying $f^2$ we are treating each of the tableaux $P,\dots,T'$ as involutions in the manner discussed earlier.  Also, the fact that $f$ is shape preserving guarantees that $\sh S =\sh T$ and $\sh S' = \sh T'$ so that one can apply the inverse Robinson-Schensted map at the last stage.
\end{proof}\medskip

There is another way to relate the log concavity of sequences such as those in Conjectures~\ref{ell_nk} and~\ref{i_nk}.  Let $\Lambda$ be a set of partitions of $n$.  Define
$$
L_{n,k}^\Lambda = \{\pi\in L_{n,k}\ |\ \sh\pi\in\Lambda\} \qmq{and} \ell_{n,k}^\Lambda=\# L_{n,k}^\Lambda.
$$
Similarly define $I_{n,k}^\Lambda$ and $i_{n,k}^\Lambda$.  Clearly our original sequences are obtained by choosing $\Lambda$ to be all partitions of $n$.  At the other extreme, there is also a nice relationship between the log concavity of these two sequences.
\begin{lem}
\label{La}
Let $\Lambda$ contain at most one partition with first row of length $k$ for all $1\le k\le n$.  Then $\ell_{n,1}^\Lambda,\dots,\ell_{n,n}^\Lambda$ is log concave if and only if $i_{n.k}^\Lambda,\dots,i_{n,k}^\Lambda$ is log concave.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The hypothesis on $\Lambda$ and Theorem~\ref{RS} imply that $\ell_{n,k}^\Lambda=(i_{n,k}^\Lambda)^2$.  The result now follows since the square function is increasing on nonnegative values.
\end{proof}\medskip

\section{Hooks and two-rowed tableaux}
\label{htr}

If one considers permutations whose output tableaux under $\RS$ have a certain shape, it becomes easier to prove log-concavity results analogous to Conjectures~\ref{ell_nk} and~\ref{i_nk}.  Using the notation developed at the end of the previous section, let $\Lambda=\hook$ be the set of all partitions of $n$ that have the shape of a hook. That is, these are Ferrers shape of a partition of $n$
in which the first part is $k$, and there are $n-k$ additional parts, each equal to 1,  where $1\le k\le n$.
These shapes will be denoted by $(k, 1^{n-k})$.

\begin{thm}
\label{hook}
For any fixed $n$, the sequences
$$
\ell_{n,1}^{\hook}, \ell_{n,2}^{\hook},\dots,\ell_{n,n}^{\hook}
\qmq{and}
i_{n,1}^{\hook}, i_{n,2}^{\hook},\dots, i_{n,n}^{\hook}
$$
are log concave.
\eth

\begin{figure} \begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[gray] (0,0) grid (5,5);
\draw[ultra thick,dashed] (1,1)--(3,1)--(3,2)--(4,2)--(4,3);
\node at (.55,.7) {$(a,b)$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{ The path $p=EENEN$   \label{p}}
\end{center} \end{figure}

\begin{proof}
Since the set ``$\hook$" satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma~\ref{La}, it suffices to prove the involution result.  For an algebraic proof note that, by the hook formula or direct counting,
$$
i_{n,k}^{\hook}=\mbox{number of partitions of shape $(k,1^{n-k})$}= \binom{n-1}{k-1}.
$$
It is well known and easy to prove by cancellation of factorials that this sequence of binomial coefficients is log concave.

There is also a standard combinatorial proof of the log concavity of this sequence using the technique of Lindstr\"om~\cite{lin:vri}, later used to great effect  by Gessel and Viennot~\cite{gv:bdp}.  We review it here for use in the proof of the next theorem. A {\em NE-lattice path}, $p$, starts at a point $(a,b)\in{\mathbb Z}^2$ and takes unit steps north and east, denoted $N$ and $E$ respectively.  See Figure~\ref{p} for an illustration.  There is a bijection between the set of partitions $P$ with
$\sh P=(k,1^{n-k})$ and NE-lattice paths from $(a,b)$ to $(a+k-1,b+n-k)$ where the $i$-th step of $p$ is $E$ if and only if $i+1$ is in the first row of $P$.  Our example path corresponds to the tableau
$$
P=\begin{ytableau}
1&2&3&5\\
4\\
6
\end{ytableau}\ .
$$
To construct an injection $f:I_{n,k-1}^{\hook}\times I_{n,k+1}^{\hook}\rightarrow (I_{n,k}^{\hook})^2$ we interpret a pair of involutions in the domain as a pair of lattice paths $(p,p')$ where $p$ goes from $(1,0)$ to $(k-1,n-k+1)$ and $p'$ goes from $(0,1)$ to $(k,n-k)$.  The paths $p$ and $p'$ must intersect, since $p$ starts on the southwest side of $p'$ and ends on the northeast side of it.  Let $z$ be the last (most northeast) point in which $p$ and $p'$ intersect.  We then map this pair to $(q,q')$ where $q$ follows $p$ up to $z$ and then follows $p'$, and vice-versa for $q'$.  It is now a simple matter to show that this gives a well-defined injection $f$.
\end{proof}\medskip

We next turn our attention to shapes with at most two rows.  Let $\Lambda=\2row$ be the set of  shapes of the form $(k,n-k)$ as $k$ varies.  Note that
$ \ell_{n,k}^{\2row}=0$ for $k<n/2$, but we will still start our sequences at $k=1$ for simplicity.
\begin{thm}
For any fixed $n$, the sequences
$$
\ell_{n,1}^{\2row}, \ell_{n,2}^{\2row},\dots,\ell_{n,n}^{\2row}
\qmq{and}
i_{n,1}^{\2row}, i_{n,2}^{\2row},\dots, i_{n,n}^{\2row}
$$
are log concave.
\label{thm:2row}
\eth
\begin{proof}
The  arguments used to prove Theorem~\ref{hook} can be used here as well.  One only needs to be careful about the lattice path proof.  First of all, one maps a tableau to a lattice path using all the elements of the first row (including $1$) for the $E$ steps, and those of the second row for the $N$ steps.  Returning to our example path in Figure~\ref{p}, the corresponding tableau is now
$$
P=\begin{ytableau}
1&2&4\\
3&5
\end{ytableau}\ .
$$
The lattice paths which correspond to $2$-rowed tableaux are the Dyck paths, those which never go above the line of slope $1$ passing through the initial point $(a,b)$.
See Figure~\ref{fig:2row_paths} for an illustration.
One must now check that if $(p,p')$ maps to $(q,q')$ that $q$ and $q'$ are still Dyck.  This is clear for $q'$ since the portion of $p$ which it uses lies below the line $y=x-1$ and so certainly lies  below $y=x+1$.  For $q$ one must use the fact that $z$ is the last point of intersection.  Indeed, it is easy to see that if $q'$ is not Dyck then there would have to be an intersection point of $p$ and $p'$ later than $z$ which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}\medskip

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \hspace{0.02\textwidth}
    \begin{minipage}{.45\textwidth}
        \centering
        \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]

\draw[dashed] (1,-1)--( 2,-1)--(3,-1)--( 3,0.05)--(4,0.05)--(4,1);
\foreach \x/\y in {1/-1, 2/-1, 3/-1, 3/0, 4/0,4/1}
\node[draw=black,fill=white,rectangle, inner sep=1.5mm] at (\x,\y) {};

\foreach \x/\y in {0/0, 1/0, 2/0, 3/0, 4/0, 5/0}
\node[fill=black,circle, inner sep=0.8mm] at (\x,\y) {};

\draw (0,0)--(1,0)--(2,0)--(3,0) -- (4,0)--(5,0);

\node[anchor=north] at (1.5,-1) {$p$};
\node[anchor=north] at (0.5,0) {$p'$};
;

\node[anchor=north west] at (4,0) {$z$};

\draw[dotted] (0,0)--(2,2);
\draw[loosely dotted] (1.2,-0.8)--(4,2);
\end{tikzpicture}
    \end{minipage}%
    \hfill
    \begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
        \centering
     \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]

\draw[dashed] (1,-1)--( 2,-1)--(3,-1)--( 3,0.05)--(4,0.05)--(4,0)--(5,0);
\foreach \x/\y in {1/-1, 2/-1, 3/-1, 3/0, 4/0,5/0}
\node[draw=black,fill=white,rectangle, inner sep=1.5mm] at (\x,\y) {};

\foreach \x/\y in {0/0, 1/0, 2/0, 3/0, 4/0, 4/1}
\node[fill=black,circle, inner sep=0.8mm] at (\x,\y) {};

\draw (0,0)--(1,0)--(2,0)--(3,0) -- (4,0)--(4,1);

\node[anchor=north] at (1.5,-1) {$q$};
\node[anchor=north] at (0.5,0) {$q'$};
;

\node[anchor=north west] at (4,0) {$z$};

\draw[dotted] (0,0)--(2,2);
\draw[loosely dotted] (1.2,-0.8)--(4,2);
\end{tikzpicture}
    \end{minipage}%
    \hfill
    \begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
        \centering
     \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.8]
\end{tikzpicture}
    \end{minipage}
    \hspace{0.05\textwidth}
\caption{The main step in the lattice path proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:2row} }
\label{fig:2row_paths}
\end{figure}

We remark that the previous result is related to pattern avoidance.
If $\pi\in{\mathfrak S}_k$ is a permutation called the {\em pattern} then a permutation $\sigma$ {\em avoids} $\pi$ if there is no subsequence $\sigma'$ of $\sigma$ of length $k$ which standardizes to $\pi$ when one replaces the smallest element of $\sigma'$ by $1$, the next smallest by $2$, and so forth.
So, by Theorem~\ref{RS} (1), the  permutations whose output tableaux under RS consist of at most two rows are exactly those that avoid the pattern $321$.
Thus Theorem~\ref{thm:2row} can be expressed in terms of $321$-avoidance.

Let us now turn to a class of permutations closely related to those of hook shape.  A permutation is {\em skew merged} if it is a shuffle of an increasing permutation and a decreasing permutation.   These permutations have been characterized by Stankova~\cite{sta:fs}  and  the generating fuction for this class was found by Albert and Vatter~\cite{av:ge3}. Again using part (1) of Theorem~\ref{RS}, we see that if $\pi$ is skew merged then $\sh\pi$ has first row of length at least $k$ and first column of length at least $n-k$ for some $k$.  It follows that $\sh\pi$ is either a hook or the union of a hook and the box in the second row and column.  On the other hand, if $\sh\pi$ is a hook then similar reasoning shows that $\pi$ must be skew merged.  However,  not all permutations whose shape is of the second type are skew merged.  For example, both $2413$ and $2143$ have shape $(2,2)$ but the first one is skew merged while the second is not.  We will use a superscript $\skm$ in our notation to restrict to the set of skew merged permutations.
\begin{conj}
The sequence
$$
\ell_{n,1}^{\skm}, \ell_{n,2}^{\skm},\dots,\ell_{n,n}^{\skm}
$$
is log concave.
\end{conj}
This conjecture has been verified for $n\le 9$.  The reason for the difference in the size of this bound and the previous ones is that for the earlier conjectures we were able to use the hook formula to speed up computations considerably.

It is natural to ask about the analogue of the previous conjecture for involutions.  But it turns out that we have already answered this question in Theorem~\ref{hook}.  To see why, we need the following result of Stankova.
\begin{thm}[\cite{sta:fs}]
\label{sta}
A permutation is skew merged if and only if it avoids the patterns $2143$ and $3412$.\hfill \qed
\eth

\begin{figure} \begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0)--(4,0)--(4,4)--(0,4)--(0,0) (2,0)--(2,4) (0,2)--(4,2);
\filldraw (2,4) circle(.1);
\filldraw (4,2) circle(.1);
\draw (2,4.4) node{$(j,n)$};
\draw (4.7,2) node {$(n,j)$};
\draw (1,1) node {$A$};
\draw (3,1) node {$B$};
\draw (1,3) node {$C$};
\draw (3,3) node {$D$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The diagram of $\iota$ \label{io}}
\end{center} \end{figure}

\begin{cor}
Let $\iota$ be an involution.  Then $\iota$ is skew merged if and only if $\iota$ is of hook shape.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We have already observed that the backwards direction holds for all permutations.  For the forward implication, we induct on $n$ where $\iota\in{\mathfrak S}_n$. There are two cases depending on whether $n$ is a fixed point or is in a two cycle of $\iota$.  In the first case, we have the concatenation $\iota=\iota' n$.  Thus $\sh\iota$ is just $\sh\iota'$ with a box for $n$ appended at the end of the first row, and we are done.

In the second case, suppose $n$ is in a cycle with $j<n$.  We represent $\iota=\iota_1\dots \iota_n$ as the set of points $(i,\iota_i)$, $i\in[n]$, in the first quadrant of the plane.  The vertical line through $(j,n)$ and the horizontal line through $(n,j)$ divide the box containing $\iota$ into four open areas as displayed in Figure~\ref{io}.
Since $\iota$ avoids $2143$ by Theorem~\ref{sta}, the points in area $A$ must be increasing.  Since $\iota$ is an involution, if there is a point in area $B$ then there must be a corresponding point in area $C$ and vice-versa.  However,  this would contradict the fact that $\iota$ also avoids $3412$.  So areas $B$ and $C$ are empty.  This implies that area $A$ contains exactly the fixed points $1,2,\dots,j-1$.  By induction, the involution in area $D$ has shape $(a,1^b)$ for some $a,b$.   It is now easy to see that $\sh\iota=(a+j-1,1^{b+2})$ finishing the proof.
\end{proof}\medskip

\section{Fixed-point free involutions}
\label{fpf}

Chen's manuscript also included some conjectures about perfect matchings.  These correspond in ${\mathfrak S}_n$ to involutions without fixed points.  Their output shapes are characterized by the following result of Sch\"utzenberger.

\begin{thm}[\cite{sch:cr}]
If $\iota$  is an involution then the number of fixed points of $\iota$ equals the number of columns of odd length of $\sh\iota$.\hfill \qed
\eth

Let $\Lambda=\ecol$ be the set of partitions of $n$ all of whose column lengths are even.  Chen's perfect matching conjecture can now be stated as follows.  The parity of the columns forces the number of elements permuted to be even.
\begin{conj}[\cite{che:lqc}]
For any fixed $n$, the sequence
$$
i_{2n,1}^{\ecol}, i_{2n,2}^{\ecol},\dots,i_{2n,2n}^{\ecol}
$$
is log concave.
\end{conj}
This conjecture has been verified for $2n\le 80$.  Given the development so far, it is natural to also make the following conjecture.
\begin{conj}
For any fixed $n$, the sequence
$$
\ell_{2n,1}^{\ecol}, \ell_{2n,2}^{\ecol},\dots,\ell_{2n,2n}^{\ecol}
$$
is log concave.
\end{conj}
A computer has tested this conjecture for $2n\le 80$.

For certain subsets of $\ecol$ it is possible to prove log concavity results.  We define the {\em double} of a partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\dots,\lambda_l)$ to be $\lambda^2=(\lambda_1,\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_2,\dots,\lambda_l,\lambda_l)$.  First consider the set $\Lambda=\dhook$ of double hooks, namely the partitions of shape $(k^2,1^{2n-2k})$ where $1\le k\le n$.
\begin{thm}
\label{dhook}
For any fixed $n$, the sequences
$$
\ell_{2n,1}^{\dhook}, \ell_{2n,2}^{\dhook},\dots,\ell_{2n,n}^{\dhook}
\qmq{and}
i_{2n,1}^{\dhook}, i_{2n,2}^{\dhook},\dots, i_{2n,n}^{\dhook}
$$
are log concave.
\eth
\begin{proof}
Appealing to Lemma~\ref{La} again, we only need to prove the statement about involutions.  Applying the hook formula gives the following expression in terms of a multinomial coefficient
$$
i_{2n,k}^{\dhook}=\frac{1}{(2n-k)(2n-k+1)}\binom{2n}{1,k-1,k,2n-2k}.
$$
Substituting this into the defining inequality for log concavity and cancelling shows that it suffices to prove
\begin{align*}
& (k-1)(2n-2k)(2n-2k-1)(2n-k+1)(2n-k)\\
& \qquad \le(k+1)(2n-2k+2)(2n-2k+1)(2n-k+2)(2n-k-1).
\end{align*}
Substituting $d=2n-2k$ one can write both sides of this inequality as a polynomial in $k$ and $d$.  Moving all terms to the right-hand side we see that one must show
\begin{align*}
2 d^4 + 8 d^3 k + 10 d^2 k^2 + 4 d k^3 + 4 d^3 + 10 d^2 k + 10 d k^2 + 2 k^3 + 2 d^2 + 2dk + 4 k^2 - 4d - 2k -4 \ge0.
\end{align*}
Since $d\ge0$ and $k\ge1$ it is easy to see that the last inequality is valid.
\end{proof}\medskip

We next turn to two-rowed partitions which have been doubled.  Let $\Lambda=\d2row$ be partitions of shape $(k^2,(n-k)^2)$ as $k$ varies.
\begin{thm}
For any fixed $n$, the sequences
$$
\ell_{2n,1}^{\d2row}, \ell_{2n,2}^{\d2row},\dots,\ell_{2n,n}^{\d2row}
\qmq{and}
i_{2n,1}^{\d2row}, i_{2n,2}^{\d2row},\dots, i_{2n,n}^{\d2row}
$$
are log concave.
\eth
\begin{proof}
As usual, it suffices to consider the case concerning  involutions.  The hook formula gives, for $n/2\le k\le n$,
$$
i_{2n,k}^{\d2row}=\frac{(2k-n+1) (2k-n+2)^2 (2k-n+3)}{ (k+1)^2 (k+2)^2 (k+3) (n-k+1)}\binom{2n}{k,k,n-k,n-k}.
$$
One now follows the proof of the previous result, except that one uses the substitutions $d=2k-n$ and $c=k-n$.  The result is a polynomial in $c,d$ which has only positive coefficients and so we are done.
\end{proof}\medskip

\section{The Tracy-Widom distribution}
\label{twd}

We now investigate the limiting distribution of the sequence in Conjecture~\ref{ell_nk}.  The {\em Tracy-Widom distribution}, first studied by Tracy and Widom \cite{tracy1994level}, has cumulative distribution function
\begin{equation}
\label{F(x)}
F(x)=\exp\left(-\int_x^\infty (t-x) u^2(t) dt\right)
\end{equation}
where $u(x)$ is a solution to the Painlev\'e II equation
\begin{equation}
\label{PII}
u''(x)= x u(x) + 2 u^3(x).
\end{equation}
satisfying
\begin{equation}
\label{bc}
u(x), u'(x) \rightarrow 0 \qmq{as} x\rightarrow\infty.
\end{equation}
Call any twice-differentiable function  $f:{\mathbb R}\rightarrow{\mathbb R}$ {\em concave at $x$} if $f''(x)\le 0$.  Similarly, if $D\subseteq {\mathbb R}$ then we say $f$ is {\em concave on $D$} if it is concave at any point of $D$.  If $f$ only takes on positive values then we will say the function is {\em log concave} at $x$ if the function $\log f$ is concave at $x$.  If $f$ is log concave on an interval of radius one about $x$ then one can prove that $f(x-1) f(x+1)\le f(x)^2$.

Percy Deift (personal communication) has shown that  the density function of the  Tracy-Widom distribution is log concave for  nonnegative $x$.  We thank him for his kind permission to reproduce his proof here.
\begin{thm}[Deift]
\label{TW}
The density function of the Tracy-Widom distribution is log concave for $x\ge0$.
\eth
\begin{proof}
To get the  density function for the Tracy-Widom distribution, one must take the derivative $F'(x)$ where $F(x)$ is as given in equation~\eqref{F(x)}.  Then to determine log concavity, we need to compute $(\log F'(x))''$.  Sraightforward calculations give
$$
(\log F'(x))'' = - \frac{u^2(x) h^2(x) + 2 u(x) u'(x) h(x) + u^4(x)}{h^2(x)}
$$
where
\begin{equation}
\label{h(x)}
h(x) = \int_x^\infty u^2(t) dt.
\end{equation}
So it suffices to show that
\begin{equation}
\label{uh}
u^2(x) h^2(x) + 2 u(x) u'(x) h(x) + u^4(x)\ge 0.
\end{equation}
Multiplying the Painlev\'e II equation~\ree{PII} by $u'(x)$ and integrating from $x$ to infinity one obtains, with the help of the boundary conditions~\ree{bc},
\begin{equation}
\label{u'2}
(u'(x))^2 = x u^2(x) + h(x) + u^4(x).
\end{equation}

We now make the following claims.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)]  We have $u'(x) u(x) < 0$ for $x\ge0$.
\item[(ii)]  We have $h(x)\le u^2(x)$ for $x\ge 1/4$.
\end{enumerate}

To prove the first claim we first assume, towards a contradiction, that  $u'(x)=0$ for some $x\ge0$.  But then equation~\eqref{u'2} forces $u(x)=0$ as well.  It follows that $u(x)$ must be the zero function since it is a solution to a second order equation which is our desired contradiction.

Now, since $u'(x)$ is continuous, we must have $u'(x)>0$ for all $x\ge0$ or $u'(x)<0$ for all $x\ge0$.  Without loss of generality, we can assume the latter since the substitution of $-u(x)$ for $u(x)$ takes a solution of~\ree{PII} into another solution.  We now break the proof of (i) into two cases, the first being when $u(x)\neq 0$ for the given value of $x$.  Assume, towards a contradiction, that $u'(x) u(x) > 0$.  This forces $u(x)<0$.  But then $u(t)<u(x)<0$ for $t>x$ because we have $u'(t)<0$.  This contradicts the boundary condition in~\ree{bc} that $u(t)\rightarrow 0$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$.  So this case can not occur.
The other case is when $u(x)=0$.  But since $u'(x)<0$ there is a $y>x$ where $u(y)<0$ and now we continue as in the previous case.  This finishes the proof of (i).  Note that in the process we have shown that $u(x)>0$ for $x\ge0$.

To prove (ii), it suffices to show that the function $f(x)=u^2(x)-h(x) $ is nonnegative.  Using the definition of $h(x)$, we have
$$
f'(x) = 2 u(x) u'(x) + u^2(x) = u(x) (2 u'(x) + u(x)).
$$
Using equation~\ree{u'2} we see that $(u'(x))^2 > x u^2(x) \ge u^2(x)/4$ for $x\ge1/4$.  Recalling that $u'(x)<0$, this translates to $2u'(x)+u(x)<0$.  Combining this with $u(x)>0$, we see that $f'(x)<0$.  Also the boundary conditions and definition of $h(x)$ show that $f(x)\rightarrow 0$ as $x\rightarrow \infty$.   Thus $f(x)\ge 0$ as desired.

We are now ready to prove the theorem itself.  Dividing equation~\eqref{uh} by $u^2(x)$, it suffices to prove that
$$
g(x) \stackrel{\rm def}{=} h^2(x) - 2 v(x) h(x) + u^2(x) > 0
$$
where
$$
v(x)\stackrel{\rm def}{=} - u'(x)/u(x) >0
$$
by Claim (i).
We now compute, omitting the independent variable and using the definitions of $h(x)$ and $v(x)$,
\begin{align*}
g'&= -2hu^2 - 2v'h +2v u^2 + 2uu'\\
&=-2hu^2 +2 h \frac{u''u-(u')^2}{u^2} -2u'u+2u u'\\
&=-2h\frac{u^4-u''u+(u')^2}{u^2}.
\end{align*}
Using first the Painlev\'e II equation~\ree{PII} and then equation~\eqref{u'2} on the numerator gives
$$
u^4-u''u+(u')^2 = u^4 - x u^2 - 2 u^4 + (u')^2= h.
$$
Thus $g'(x) = -2h^2(x) / u^2(x) <0$.

We claim that $g(x)\rightarrow 0$ as $x\rightarrow \infty$ which will finish the proof since, together with $g'(x)<0$ for $x\ge0$, this forces $g(x)> 0$.  We first need to analyze what happens to $v(x)$.  By equation~\eqref{u'2} we have $v^2 = x + u^2 + h/u^2$.  As $x\rightarrow\infty$ we know that $u^2(x)\rightarrow 0$ and,  by Claim (ii), $h(x)/u^2(x)\le 1$.  Thus $v(x)\sim \sqrt{x}$ and $-2v(x) h(x) \rightarrow 0$ since it is known that $h(x)$ decreases as $\exp(-x^{3/2})$.
We already know that the other two summands in $g(x)$ approach zero, so we are done with the claim and with the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}\medskip

\section{Other conjectures}
\label{oc}

\subsection{More on the Tracy-Widom distribution}

Approximate values for the mean and variance of the  Tracy-Widom distribution are  $\mu\approx -1.77$ and $\sigma^2\approx 0.81$.  So Theorem~\ref{TW}
only addresses what is going on in the tail.  It would be very interesting to see what can be said  for negative $x$.  Note that the point in the proof where the bound $x\ge0$ was imposed is in the proof of Claim (i). (Claim (ii) is only needed to analyze what goes on as $x\rightarrow\infty$ and so that bound is not the controlling one.)  In particular, we need $x$ to be nonnegative when using equation~\ree{u'2} to conclude that $u'(x)\neq 0$.

If log concavity of the whole distribution could be proved, then one might be able to prove Conjecture~\ref{ell_nk} as follows.  First one would try to find a bound $N$ such that for  $n\ge N$ the log concavity of the Tracy-Widom distribution implies the log concavity of the $\ell_{n,k}$ sequence.  Then, if $N$ were not too large, one could check log concavity for $n<N$ by computer.

\subsection{Real zeros}

Let $a_0,a_1,\dots,a_n$ be a sequence of real numbers.  Consider the corresponding generating function $a(q)=a_0+a_1 q+\dots + a_n q^n$.  It is well known that if the $a_k$ are positive then $a(q)$ having only real roots implies that the original sequence is log concave.  So one might ask about the polynomials $\ell_n(q)$ and $i_n(q)$ for the sequences  in Conjectures~\ref{ell_nk} and~\ref{i_nk}, respectively.  (The fact that they both begin with a zero just contributes a factor of $q$.) Unfortunately, neither seem to be real rooted in general.  In particular, this is true of $\ell_{12}(q)$ and $i_4(q)$.

\subsection{$q$-log convexity}

The $\ell_n(q)$ discussed in the previous subsection do seem to enjoy another interesting property.  We partially order polynomials with real coefficients by letting $f(q)\le g(q)$ if  $g(q)-f(q)$ has nonnegative coefficients.  Equivalently, for any power $q^i$ its coefficient in $f(q)$ is less than or equal to its coefficient in $g(q)$.  Define a sequence $f_1(q), f_2(q), \dots$ to be {\em $q$-log convex} if $f_{n-1}(q) f_{n+1}(q) \ge f_n^2(q)$ for all $n\ge2$.  Another conjecture from the paper of Chen is as follows.
\begin{conj}[\cite{che:lqc}]
The sequence $\ell_1(q),\ell_2(q),\dots$ is $q$-log convex.
\end{conj}
We have verified this conjecture up to $n=50$.  Interestingly  the corresponding conjecture for the involution sequence is false as
$i_3(q) i_5(q) \not\ge i_4^2(q)$.

\subsection{Infinite log concavity}

There is another way in which one can generalize log concavity.  The {\em ${\cal L}$-operator} applied to a sequence ${\bf a}=(a_0,a_1, \dots, a_n)$ returns a sequence ${\bf b}=(b_0,b_1,\dots,b_n)$ where $b_k=a_k^2-a_{k-1} a_{k+1}$ for $1\le k \le n$ (with the convention that $a_{-1}=a_{n+1}=0$).  Clearly ${\bf a}$ being log concave is equivalent to ${\bf b}={\cal L}({\bf a})$ being nonnegative.  But now one can apply the operator multiple times.  Call ${\bf a}$ {\em infinitely log concave} if ${\cal L}^i({\bf a})$ is a nonnegative sequence for all $i\ge1$.  This concept was introduced by Boros and Moll~\cite{bm:ii}  and has since been studied by a number of authors including Br\"and\'en~\cite{bra:isg}, McNamara and Sagan~\cite{ms:ilc}, and Uminsky and Yeats~\cite{uy:uri}.   Here is yet another conjecture of Chen.
\begin{conj}[\cite{che:lqc}]
For any fixed $n$, the sequence
$$
\ell_{n,1}, \ell_{n,2},\dots,\ell_{n,n}
$$
is infinitely log concave.
\end{conj}

Note that proving that a given sequence is infinitely log concave can not necessarily be done by computer since one needs to apply the ${\cal L}$-operator an infinite number of times.  However, we are able to prove the previous conjecture for small $n$ by using a technique developed by McNamara and Sagan~\cite{ms:ilc}.  Given a real number $r$ we say that the sequence ${\bf a}$ is {\em $r$-factor log concave} if $a_k^2\ge r a_{k-1} a_{k+1}$ for all $k$.  So the sequence will be log concave as long as $r\ge1$.  Let $r_0=(3+\sqrt{5})/2$.
\begin{lem}[\cite{ms:ilc}]
Let ${\bf a}$ be a sequence of nonnegative real numbers.  If ${\bf a}$ is $r_0$-factor log concave, then so is ${\cal L}({\bf a})$.   If follows that if ${\bf a}$ is $r_0$-factor log concave then it is also infinitely log concave. \hfill \qed
\end{lem}

Using this lemma, we can try to prove that ${\bf a}$ is infinitely log concave as follows.  Apply the ${\cal L}$-operator a finite number of times, checking that at each stage the sequence is nonnegative.  If the sequence becomes $r_0$-factor log concave after the finite number of applications, then the lemma allows us to stop and conclude infinite log concavity.   Using this technique and a computer we have proved the following.
\begin{prop}
 The sequence
$$
\ell_{n,1}, \ell_{n,2},\dots,\ell_{n,n}
$$
is infinitely log concave for $n\le50$.
\end{prop}

Finally, one could wonder about infinite log concavity of the involution sequence.  But again, it behaves differently and is not infinitely log concave starting at $n=4$.

\newcommand{\etalchar}[1]{$^{#1}$}


On the X-rays of permutations

Abstract: The X-ray of a permutation is defined as the sequence of antidiagonal sums in the associated permutation matrix. X-rays of permutation are interesting in the context of Discrete Tomography since many types of integral matrices can be written as linear combinations of permutation matrices. This paper is an invitation to the study of X-rays of permutations from a combinatorial point of view. We present connections between these objects and nondecreasing differences of permutations, zero-sum arrays, decomposable permutations, score sequences of tournaments, queens' problems and rooks' problems.

\section{Introduction}

Let $\mathcal{S}_{n}$ be the set of all permutations of $[n]=\{1,2,\ldots,n%
\} $ and let $P_{\pi}$ be the permutation matrix corresponding to $\pi \in%
\mathcal{S}_{n}$. For $k=2,\ldots,2n$, the $(k-1)$-th \emph{antidiagonal sum}
of $P_{\pi}$ is $x_{k-1}(\pi)={\textstyle\sum_{i+j=k}}[P_{\pi}]_{i,j}$. The
sequence of nonnegative integers $x(\pi)=x_{1}(\pi )x_{2}(\pi)\ldots
x_{2n-1}(\pi)$ is called the (\emph{antidiagonal}) \emph{X-ray} of $\pi$.
The \emph{diagonal X-ray} of $\pi$, denoted by $x_{d}(\pi)$, is similarly
defined. Note that $x(\pi)=x(\pi^{-1})$, for every $\pi\in\mathcal{S}_{n}$.
The sequence $x(\pi)$ may be also seen as a word over the alphabet $[n]$. As
an example, the following table contains the X-rays of all permutations in $%
\mathcal{S}_{3}$:\vspace{10pt}

{\small
\begin{tabular}{||c|c||c|c||c|c||c|c||c|c||}
\hline
$\pi$ & $x(\pi)$ & $\pi$ & $x(\pi)$ & $\pi$ & $x(\pi)$ & $\pi$ & $x(\pi)$ & $%
\pi$ & $x(\pi)$ \\ \hline
$123$ & $10101$ & $231,312$ & $01110$ & $132$ & $10020$ & $213$ & $02001$ & $%
321$ & $00300$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
}\vspace{10pt}

Although X-rays of permutations are interesting object on their own, among
the reasons why they are of general interest in Discrete Tomography \cite{k}
is that many types of integral matrices can be written as linear
combinations of permutation matrices (for example, binary matrices with
equal row-sums and column-sums, like the adjacency matrices of Cayley
graphs). Deciding whether for a given word $w=w_{1}\ldots w_{2n-1}$ there
exists $\pi\in\mathcal{S}_{n}$ such that $w=x(\pi)$ is an NP-complete
problem \cite{b} (see also \cite{g}). The complexity is polynomial if the
permutation matrix is promised to be wrapped around a cylinder \cite{d}. It
is necessary to keep into account that permutations are not generally
specified by their X-rays: just consider the permutation $\pi=73142865$ and $%
\sigma=72413865$; we have $x(\pi )=x(\sigma)=000110200002100$, $%
x_{d}(\pi)=x_{d}(\sigma)=00021111100010$ and $\pi\neq\sigma^{-1}$. This
hints that an issue concerning X-rays is to quantify how much information
about $\pi$ is contained in $x(\pi)$. In this paper we present some
connections between X-rays of permutations and a variety of combinatorial
objects. From a practical perspective, this may be useful in isolating and
approaching special cases of the above problem.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we consider
the problem of counting X-rays. We prove a bijection between X-rays and
nondecreasing differences of permutations. We define the \emph{degeneracy}
of an X-ray $x(\pi)$ as the number of permutations $\sigma$ such that $%
x(\pi)=x(\sigma)$, and we characterize the X-rays with the maximum
degeneracy. We prove a bijection between X-ray of length $4k+1$ having
maximum degeneracy and zero-sum arrays. In Section 3 we consider the notion
of simple permutations. This notion seems to provide a good framework to
study the degeneracy of X-rays, but the relation between simple permutations
and X-rays with small degeneracy remains unclear. Section 4 is devoted to
binary X-rays, that is X-rays whose entries are only zeros and ones. We
characterize the X-rays of circulant permutation matrices of odd order.
Moreover, we present a relation between binary X-rays, the $n$-queens
problem (see, \emph{e.g.}, \cite{v}), the score sequences of tournaments on $%
n$ vertices (see \cite[Sequence A000571]{s}), and extremal Skolem sequences,
see~\cite[Conjecture 2.2]{N}.

A number of conjectures and open problems will be explicitly formulated or
will simply stand out from the context. We use the standard notation for
integers sequences from the OEIS \cite{s}.

\section{Counting X-rays}

We begin by addressing the following natural question:\ what is the number
of different X-rays of permutations in $\mathcal{S}_{n}$? Although we are
unable to find a generating function for the sequence, we show a bijection
between X-rays and nondecreasing differences of permutations. The \emph{%
difference} of permutations $\pi,\sigma\in\mathcal{S}_{n}$ is the integers
sequence $\pi-\sigma=(w_{1},w_{2},\ldots,w_{n})$, where $w_{1}=\pi_{1}-%
\sigma_{1},w_{2}=\pi_{2}-\sigma_{2},\ldots,w_{n}=\pi_{n}-\sigma_{n}$. For
example, if $\pi=1234$ and $\sigma=2413$, we have $e-2413=(-1,-2,2,1)$. Let $%
x_{n}$ be the numbers of different X-rays of permutations in $\mathcal{S}%
_{n} $. Let $d_{n}$ be the number of nondecreasing differences of
permutations in $\mathcal{S}_{n}$. The number $d_{n}$ equals the number of
different differences $e-\sigma$ with entries rearranged in the
nondecreasing order. In other words, $d_{n}$ equals the number of different
multisets of the form $M(\sigma
)=\{1-\sigma_{1},2-\sigma_{2},\ldots,n-\sigma_{n}\}$, with entries
rearranged in the nondecreasing order. The entries of $x(\pi)$ are then the
entries of the vector $e_{1-\sigma_{1}}+e_{2-\sigma_{2}}+\ldots+e_{n-%
\sigma_{n}}$, where $e_{i}$ is the $i$-th coordinate vector of length $2n-1$%
. For example, for $\pi=3124$ we have $x(3124)=0101200$ and $%
e_{1-3}+e_{2-1}+e_{3-2}+e_{4-4}=(0,1,0,0,0,0,0)+(0,0,0,0,1,0,0)+(0,0,0,0,1,0,0)+(0,0,0,1,0,0,0)=(0,1,0,1,2,0,0)
$. On the basis of this reasoning we can state the following result.

\begin{proposition}
The number $x_{n}$ of different X-rays of permutations in $\mathcal{S}_{n}$
is equal to the number $d_{n}$ \textrm{(}see \textrm{\cite[Sequence A019589]%
{s})} of nondecreasing differences of permutations in $\mathcal{S}_{n}$.
\end{proposition}

Let us define and denote the \emph{degeneracy} of an X-ray $x(\pi)$ by
\[
\delta(x(\pi))=|\{\sigma:x(\sigma)=x(\pi)\}|.
\]
If $x(\pi)$ is such that $\delta(x(\pi))\geq\delta(x(\sigma))$ for all $%
\sigma\in S_{n}$, we write $x_{\max}^{n}=x(\pi)$ and we say that $x(\pi)$
has \emph{maximum degeneracy}. The following table contains $x_{n}$, $%
x_{\max}^{n}$ and $\delta(x_{\max}^{n})$ for $n=1,\ldots,8$.\vspace{10pt}

\begin{tabular}{||llll||llll||}
\hline
$n$ & $x_{n}$ & $x_{\max}^{n}$ & $\delta(x_{\max}^{n})$ & $n$ & $x_{n}$ & $%
x_{\max}^{n}$ & $\delta(x_{\max}^{n})$ \\ \hline
$1$ & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$1$} & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$1$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|l||}{$1$} & $5$ & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$59$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|l}{$001111100$} & \multicolumn{1}{|l||}{$6$} \\ \hline
$2$ & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$2$} & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$020,101$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|l||}{$1$} & $6$ & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$246$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|l}{$00011211000$} & \multicolumn{1}{|l||}{$12$} \\ \hline
$3$ & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$5$} & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$01110$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|l||}{$2$} & $7$ & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$1105$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|l}{$0001111111000$} & \multicolumn{1}{|l||}{$28$} \\ \hline
$4$ & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$16$} & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$0012100$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|l||}{$3$} & $8$ & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$5270$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|l}{$000011121110000$} & \multicolumn{1}{|l||}{$76$} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
\vspace{15pt}

It is not difficult to characterize the X-rays with maximum degeneracy. One
can verify by induction that for $n$ even,%
\[
x_{\max}^{n}=00\ldots011\ldots121\ldots110\ldots00,
\]
with $n/2$ left-zeros and right-zeros, and $n/2-1$ ones; for $n$ odd,
\[
x_{\max}^{n}=00..011\ldots110..00,
\]
with $(n-1)/2$ left-zeros and right-zeros, and $n$ ones. Notice that if $%
x(\pi)=x_{\max}^{n}$ (for $n$ odd) then $P_{\pi}$ can be seen as an
hexagonal lattice with all sides of length $\left( n+1\right) /2$. In each
cell of the lattice there is $0$ or $1$, and $1$ is in exactly $n$ cells;
the column-sums are $1$ and the diagonal and anti-diagonal sums are $0$.
This observation describes a bijection between permutations of odd order
whose X-ray is $x_{\max}^{n}$ and zero-sum arrays. An $(m,2n+1)$-\emph{%
zero-sum} array is an $m\times(2n+1)$ matrix whose $m$ rows are permutations
of the $2n+1$ integers $-n,-n+1,\ldots,n$ and in which the sum of each
column is zero \cite{bp}. The matrix
\[
\left[
\begin{array}{rrr}
-1 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & -1 \\
1 & -1 & 0%
\end{array}
\right]
\]
is an example of $(3,3)$-zero-sum array. Thus we have the next result.

\begin{proposition}
The number $\delta(x_{\max}^{n})$ for $n$ odd is equal to the number of $%
(3,2n+1)$-zero-sum arrays \textrm{(}see \textrm{\cite[Sequence A002047]{s})}.
\end{proposition}

Before concluding the section, it may be interesting to notice that if we
sum entry-wise the X-rays of all permutations in $\mathcal{S}_{n}$ we obtain
the following sequence of $2n-1$ terms:
\[
(n-1)!,2(n-1)!,\ldots,(n-1)(n-1)!,n!,(n-1)(n-1)!,\ldots,2(n-1)!,(n-1)!.
\]
The meaning of the terms of this sequence is clear.

\section{Simple permutations and X-rays}

In the previous section we have considered the X-rays with maximum
degeneracy. What can we say about X-rays with degeneracy $1$? If $%
\delta(x(\pi))=1$ then $\pi$ is an involution (in such a case $%
P_{\pi}=P_{\pi}^{-1}$) but the converse if not necessarily true. In fact
consider the involution $\pi=1267534$. One can verify that $%
x(\pi)=x(\sigma)=x(\rho)=1010000212000$, for $\rho=1275634$ and $%
\sigma=1267453$. In a first approach to the problem, it seems useful to
study what kind of operations can be done \textquotedblleft
inside\textquotedblright\ a permutation matrix $P_{\pi}$ in order to obtain
another permutation, say $P_{\sigma}$, such that $x(\pi)=x(\sigma)$ and $%
P_{\pi}\neq P_{\sigma}^{-1}$. A intuitively good framework for this task is
provided by the notion of \emph{block permutation}. A \emph{segment} and a
\emph{range} of a permutation are a set of consecutive positions and a set
of consecutive values. For example, in the permutation $34512$, the segment
formed by the positions $2,3,4$ is occupied by the values $4,5,1$; the
elements $1,2,3$ form a range. A \emph{block} is a segment whose values form
a range. Every permutation has singleton blocks together with the block $%
12\ldots n$. A permutation is called \emph{simple} if these are the only
blocks \cite{a}. A permutation is said to be a \emph{block permutation} if
it is not simple. Note that if $\pi$ is simple then it is $\pi^{-1}$. Let $%
S=(\pi_{1}\in\mathcal{S}_{n_{1}},\ldots ,\pi_{k}\in\mathcal{S}_{n_{k}})$ be
an ordered set and let $\pi\in\mathcal{S}_{k}$. We assume that in $S$ there
exists $1\leq i\leq k$ such that $n_{i}>1$. We denote by $P(\pi,S)$ the $%
(n_{1}+\cdots +n_{k})$-dimensional permutation matrix which is partitioned
in $k^{2}$ blocks, $B_{1,1},\ldots ,B_{k,k}$, such that $B_{i,j}=P_{\pi_{i}}$
if $\pi(i)=j$ and $B_{i,j}=0$, otherwise. We denote by $\pi\lbrack\pi_{1},%
\ldots ,\pi_{k}]$ (or equivalently by $(\pi)[S]$) the permutation
corresponding to $P(\pi,S)$. For example, let $S=(231,21,312)$ and $\pi=231$%
. Then
\[
P(231,S)=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & P_{231} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & P_{21} \\
P_{312} & 0 & 0%
\end{array}
\right]
\]
and $231[S]=231[231,21,312]=56487312$. The matrix $P(231,S)$ can be modified
leaving the X-ray of $(\pi)[S]$ invariant:%
\[
P(231,(312,21,312))=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & P_{312}=P_{231}^{T} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & P_{21} \\
P_{312} & 0 & 0%
\end{array}
\right].
\]
It is clear that $56487312$ is a block permutation. Let $\pi$ be a simple
permutation then possibly $\delta(x(\pi))>1$. In fact, the permutation $%
\pi=531642$ is simple, but $\delta(x(\pi))=6$, since $x(\pi
)=00111011100=x(526134)=x(461253)$, plus the respective inverses. The
permutations $526134$ and $461253$ are decomposable. This means that there
possibly exists a decomposable permutation $\sigma$ such that $x(\sigma
)=x(\pi)$, even if $\pi$ is simple. There relation between simple
permutations and X-rays of small degeneracy is not clear. Intuitively, a
simple permutation allows less \textquotedblleft freedom of
movement\textquotedblright\ than a block permutation. It is also intuitive
that we have low degeneracy when the nonzero entries of the X-ray are
\textquotedblleft distributed widely\textquotedblright\ among the $2n-1$
coordinates. The following result is easily proved.

\begin{proposition}
Let $\sigma=\pi\lbrack S]=\pi\lbrack\pi_{1},\ldots,\pi_{k}]$ be a block
permutation. Then $\delta(x(\pi))>1$ if one of the following two conditions
is satisfied:

(1) If $\pi\neq12\ldots n$ then there is at least one $\pi_{i}\in S$ which
is not an involution;

(2) If $\pi=12\ldots n$ then there are at least two $\pi_{i},\pi_{i}\in S$
which are not involution.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
(1) Let $\pi\neq12\ldots n$ be any permutation. Take $\pi_{i}^{-1}$ for some
$\pi_{i}\in S$. Let $\rho=\pi\lbrack\pi_{1},\ldots,\pi_{i}^{-1},\ldots,%
\pi_{k}]$. Since $\sigma$ is a block permutation, $x(\sigma)=x(\rho)$.
However, if $\pi_{i}\neq\pi_{i}^{-1}$ then $\sigma\neq\rho$ and $%
\sigma^{-1}\neq\sigma$. It follows that $x(\sigma)$ does not specify $\sigma$%
. (2) Let $\pi=12\ldots n$. Let all elements of $S$ be involutions except $%
\pi_{i}$. Take $\pi_{i}^{-1}$. Let $\rho=\pi\lbrack\pi
_{1},\ldots,\pi_{i}^{-1},\ldots,\pi_{k}]$. Again, $x(\sigma)=x(\rho)$, but
this time $\rho=\sigma^{-1}$. Then $x(\sigma)$ possibly specifies $\sigma$.
If, for distinct $i,j$, there are $\pi_{i},\pi_{j}\in S$ such that $%
\pi_{i}\neq\pi _{i}^{-1}$ and $\pi_{j}\neq\pi_{j}^{-1}$ then
\[
x(\sigma^{\prime})=x(\pi
\lbrack\pi_{1},\ldots,\pi_{i}^{-1},\ldots,\pi_{j}^{-1},\ldots,\pi_{k}])=x(%
\sigma),
\]
but $x(\sigma)$ does not specify $\sigma$, given that $\rho\neq\sigma^{-1}$.
\end{proof}

This is however not a sufficient condition for having $\delta(x(\pi))>1$.
Permutations with equal X-rays are said to be in the same \emph{degeneracy
class}. The table below contain the number of permutations in $\mathcal{S}%
_{n}$ which are in each degeneracy class, and the number of different
degeneracy classes with the same cardinality, for $n=2,\ldots ,8$. These
numbers provide a partition on $n!$. We denote by $C(n)$ the total number of
degeneracy classes. We write $a(b)$, where $a$ is the number of permutations
in the degeneracy class and $b$ the number of degeneracy classes of the same
cardinality:\vspace{10pt}

\begin{tabular}{||l||}
\hline
$C(2)=1$: 1(2) \\ \hline
$C(3)=2$: 1(4),2(1) \\ \hline
$C(4)=3$: 1(9),2(6),3(1) \\ \hline
$C(5)=5$:\ 1(20),2(26),3(6),4(6),6(1) \\ \hline
$C(6)=10$: 1(49),2(100),3(19),4(43),5(1),6(19),7(2),8(11),9(1),2(1) \\ \hline
$C(7)=20$: 1(114),2(345),3(60),4(229),5(18),6(118),7(11),8(98),10(29) \\
\hline
11(2),12(33),14(13),16(14),18(6),20(4),21(1),22(2),26(1),28(1). \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
\ .\vspace{10pt}

We conjecture that if $\delta(x(\pi))=1$ then $x(\pi)$ does not have more
than $2$ adjacent nonzero coordinates. However the converse is not true if $%
\pi \in\mathcal{S}_{n}$ for $n\geq8$: for $\pi=17543628$ and $%
\sigma=16547328 $, we have $x(\pi)=x(\sigma)=100000320010001$, but there are
no more than $2$ adjacent coordinates.

\section{Binary X-rays}

In general, it does not seem to be an easy task to characterize X-rays. A
special case is given by X-rays associated with circulant permutation
matrices, for which is available an exact characterization. An X-ray $x(\pi)$
is said to be \emph{binary} if $x_{i}(\pi)\in\{0,1\}$ for every $1\leq
i\leq2n-1$. The set all permutations in $\mathcal{S}_{n}$ with binary X-ray
is denoted by $\mathcal{B}_{n}$. Counting binary X-rays means solving a
modified version of the $n$-queens problem (see, \emph{e.g.}, \cite{v}) in
which two queens do not attack each other if they are in the same
NorthWest-SouthEst diagonal. The permutations with binary X-rays associated
to circulant matrices are characterized in a straightforward way. Let $C_{n}$
be the permutation matrix associated with the permutation $c_{n}=23\ldots n1$%
, that is the \emph{basic circulant permutation matrix}. The matrices in the
set $\mathcal{C}_{n}=\{C_{n}^{0},C_{n},C_{n}^{2},\ldots,C_{n}^{n-1}\}$ ($%
C_{n}^{0}$ is the identity matrix) are called the \emph{circulant
permutation matrices}. The matrix $C_{n}^{k}$ is associated to $c_{n}^{k}$.
Observe that $x(\pi)$ can be seen as a binary number, since $%
x_{i}(\pi)\in\{0,1\}$ for every $i$. Let
\[
d_{j}(\pi)=2^{2n-1-j}\cdot x_{j}(\pi),\quad j=1,2,\ldots,2n-1,
\]
and $d(\pi)=\sum_{i=1}^{2n-1}d_{i}(\pi)$, that is the decimal expansion of $%
x(\pi)$. The table below lists the X-rays of $\mathcal{C}_{3},\mathcal{C}%
_{5} $ and $\mathcal{C}_{7}$, and their decimal expansions:\vspace{10pt}
\[
\begin{tabular}{||l|l|l||l|l|l||}
\hline
$\pi$ & $x(\pi)$ & $d(\pi)$ & $\pi$ & $x(\pi)$ & $d(\pi)$ \\ \hline
$123$ & $10101$ & $21$ & $12345$ & $101010101$ & $341$ \\ \hline
$231$ & $01110$ & $14$ & $23451$ & $010111010$ & $186$ \\ \hline
&  &  & $34512$ & $001111100$ & $124$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
\ .
\]

For $\pi=c_{n}^{k}$, one can verify that
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
d(\pi) & =\frac{1}{6}2^{\frac{3}{2}n+\frac{1}{2}+k}-\frac{1}{6}2^{\frac {1}{2%
}n+\frac{1}{2}+k}+\frac{1}{3}2^{\frac{3}{2}n+\frac{1}{2}-k}-\frac{1}{3}2^{%
\frac{1}{2}n+\frac{1}{2}-k} \\
& =a(k)\left( 2^{n}-1\right) \left( 2^{n}-1\right) 2^{\frac{1}{2}n-k+\frac{1%
}{2}},%
\end{array}%
\]
where $a(k)=(2^{2k-1}+1)/3$ (A007583).

In the attempt to count binary X-rays, we are able to establish a bijection
between these objects and score sequences of tournaments. A \emph{tournament}
is a loopless digraph such that for every two distinct vertices $i$ and $j$
either $\left( i,j\right) $ or $\left(j,i\right)$ is an arc \cite{bk}. The
\emph{score sequence} of an tournament on $n$ vertices is the vector of
length $n$ whose entries are the out-degrees of the vertices of the
tournament rearranged in nondecreasing order.

\begin{proposition}
Let $b_{n}$ be the number of binary X-rays of permutations in $S_n$ and let $%
s_{n}$ be the number of different score sequences of tournaments on $n$
vertices \textrm{(}see \textrm{\cite[Sequence A000571]{s})}. Then $b_n\leq
s_n$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
The number $s_{n}$ equals the number of integers lattice points $%
(p_{0},\dots,p_{n})$ in the polytope $P_{n}$ given by the inequalities $%
p_{0}=p_{n}=0$, $2p_{i}-p_{i+1}-p_{i-1}\leq1$ and $p_{i}\geq0$, for $%
i=1,\dots,n-1$, see \cite{bk}. Let $x_{1},\dots,x_{n}$ be the coordinates
related to $p_{1},\dots,p_{n}$ by $p_{i}=x_{1}+\dots+x_{i}-i^{2}$, for $%
i=1,\dots,n$. We can rewrite the inequalities defining the polytope $P_{n}$
in these coordinates as follows: $x_{1}+\dots+x_{i}\geq i^{2}$, $x_{i+1}\geq
x_{i}+1$ and $x_{1}+\dots+x_{n}=n^{2}$. For a permutation $w\in\mathcal{S}%
_{n}$ with a binary X-ray, let $l_{i}=l_{i}(w)$ be the position of the $i$%
-th `$1$' in its X-ray. In other words, the sequence $(l_{1},\dots,l_{n})$
is the increasing rearrangement of the sequence $(w_{1},w_{2}+1,w_{3}+2,%
\dots,w_{n}+n-1)$. Then the numbers $l_{1},\dots ,l_{n}$ satisfy the
inequalities defining the polytope $P_{n}$ (in the $x$-coordinates). Indeed,
$l_{1}+\dots+l_{n}=w_{1}+(w_{2}+1)+\cdots +(w_{n}+n-1)=n^{2}$; $l_{i+1}\geq
l_{i}+1$; and the minimal possible value of $l_{1}+\cdots+l_{i}$ is $%
(1+0)+(2+1)+\cdots+(i+(i-1))=i^{2}$. This finishes the proof. In order, to
prove that $b_{n}=s_{n}$ it is enough to show that, for any integer point $%
(x_{1},\dots,x_{n})$ satisfying the above inequalities, we can find a
permutation $w\in\mathcal{S}_{n}$ with $x_{i}=l_{i}(w)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{conjecture}
\label{conjbin} All binary X-rays of permutations in $\mathcal{S}_{n}$ are
in a bijective correspondence with integer lattice points $%
(x_{1},\dots,x_{n})$ of the polytope given by the inequalities
\[
\begin{array}{l}
x_{1}+\cdots+x_{i}\geq i^{2},\qquad i=1,\dots,n; \\
x_{1}+\cdots+x_{n}=n^{2}, \\
x_{i+1}-x_{i}\geq1,\qquad i=1,\dots,n-1.%
\end{array}
\]
For a permutation $w\in S_{n}$, the corresponding sequence $(x_{1},\dots
,x_{n})$ is defined as the increasing rearrangement of the sequence $%
(w_{1},w_{2}+1,w_{3}+2,\dots,w_{n}+n-1)$.
\end{conjecture}

Again, it is clear that X-rays injectively map into the integer points of
the above polytope. One needs to show that there will be no gaps in the
image. Also, it can be shown that the above conjecture is equivalent to
Conjecture 2.2 from \cite{N} concerning extremal Skolem sequences. The
conjecture turns out to be false, when not restricted to binary X-rays.

We conjecture also that the number of different X-rays of permutations in
\emph{$\mathcal{S}_{n}$} whose possible entries are $0$ and $2$ is equal to
the number of score sequences in tournament with $n$ players, when 3 points
are awarded in each game (see \cite[Sequence A047729]{s}).

\section{Palindromic X-rays}

What can we say about X-rays with special symmetries? The \emph{reverse} of $%
x(\pi)$, denoted by $\overline{x}(\pi)$, is the mirror image of $x(\pi)$. If
$x(\pi)=\overline{x}(\pi)$ then $\pi$ is said to be \emph{palindromic}. The
\emph{reverse} of $\pi$, denoted by $\overline{\pi}$, is mirror image of $%
\pi $. For example, if $\pi=25143$ then $\overline{\pi}=34152$. The
permutation matrix $P_{\overline{\pi}}$ is obtained by writing the rows of $%
P_{\pi}$ in reverse order. In general $\overline{x}(\pi)\neq x(\overline{\pi}%
)$. In fact, for $\pi=25143$, we have $x(\pi)=0011001200$, $\overline{x}%
(\pi)=0021001100$ and $x(\overline{\pi})=0020011010$. We denote by $|M$ and $%
\underline{M}$ the matrices obtained by writing the columns and the rows of
a matrix $M$ in reverse order, respectively.

\begin{proposition}
Let $l_{n}$ be the number of permutations in $\mathcal{S}_{n}$ with
palindromic X-rays and let $i_{n}$ be the number of involutions in $\mathcal{%
S}_{n}$ \textrm{(}see \textrm{\cite[Sequence A000085]{s})}. Then, in
general, $l_{n}>i_{n}$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Recall that a permutation $\pi$ is an \emph{involution} if $\pi=\pi^{-1}$.
Since $P_{\pi}=P_{\pi}^{T}$, it is clear that the diagonal X-ray of an
involution $\pi$ is palindromic. The X-ray of $\sigma$ such that $P_{\sigma
}=|P_{\pi}$ is then also palindromic. This shows that $l_{n}\geq i_{n}$.
Now, consider a permutation matrix of the form%
\[
P_{\sigma}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
P_{\rho} & 0 \\
0 & P_{\rho}^{T}%
\end{array}
\right],
\]
for some permutation $\rho$ which is not an involution. Then $P_{\rho}\neq
P_{\rho}^{T}$, $P_{\sigma}\neq P_{\sigma}^{T}$ and $\sigma$ is not an
involution, but the diagonal X-ray of $\sigma$ is palindromic. The X-ray of $%
\pi$ such that $P_{\pi}=|P_{\sigma}$ is then also palindromic. This proves
the proposition.
\end{proof}

The next contains the values of $l_{n}$ for small $n$:
\[
\begin{tabular}{||l|l||l|l||l|l||l|l||}
\hline
$n$ & $l_{n}$ & $n$ & $l_{n}$ & $n$ & $l_{n}$ & $n$ & $l_{n}$ \\ \hline
$2$ & $2$ & $4$ & $12$ & $6$ & $128$ & $8$ & $2110$ \\ \hline
$3$ & $4$ & $5$ & $32$ & $7$ & $436$ & $9$ & $8814$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ .
\]

\begin{proposition}
Let $l_{n,A=D}$ be the number of permutations in $\mathcal{S}_{n}$ with:

(1) equal diagonal and antidiagonal X-rays;

(2) palindromic X-rays.\newline
Let $r_{n}$ be the number of permutations in $\mathcal{S}_{n}$ invariant
under the operation of first reversing and then taking the inverse \textrm{(}%
see \textrm{\cite[Sequnce A097296]{s})}. Then, in general, $l_{n,A=D}>r_{n}$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
We first construct the permutations which are invariant under the operation
of first reversing and then taking the inverse. Let $\pi\in\mathcal{S}_{n}$
where $n=2k$. We look at $P_{\pi}$ as partitioned in $4$ blocks:
\[
P_{\pi}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
A & B \\
C & D%
\end{array}
\right] .
\]
If
\[
P_{\pi}=(\underline{P_{\pi}})^{T}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
A & B \\
C & D%
\end{array}
\right] ^{T}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\underline{B} & \underline{A} \\
\underline{D} & \underline{C}%
\end{array}
\right] ^{T}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
(\underline{B})^{T} & (\underline{D})^{T} \\
(\underline{A})^{T} & (\underline{C})^{T}%
\end{array}
\right]
\]
then $A=(\underline{B})^{T},B=(\underline{D})^{T},C=(\underline{A})^{T}$ and
$D=(\underline{C})^{T}$. This implies the X-ray of $P_{\pi}$ being
palindromic and, moreover, the diagonal and antidiagonal X-rays being equal.
Note that we can construct $P_{\pi}$ only if $n\equiv0(\func{mod}4)$, and in
this case $r_{n}\neq0$. However, fixed $n\equiv0(\func{mod}4)$, we have $%
r_{n}=r_{n+1}$, since the permutation matrix%
\[
P_{\sigma}=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
A &  & \mathbf{0} \\
& 1 &  \\
\mathbf{0} &  & D%
\end{array}
\right] +\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbf{0} &  & B \\
& 1 &  \\
C &  & \mathbf{0}%
\end{array}
\right]
\]
can be always constructed from $P_{\pi}$. (Permutation matrices like $P_{\pi}
$ and $P_{\sigma}$ provide the solutions of the \textquotedblleft
rotationally invariant\textquotedblright\ $n$-rooks problem. This points out
that A097296 and A037224 are indeed the same sequence.) Now, the proposition
is easily proved by observing that, for $\rho=369274185$, $P_{\rho}$ is not
of the form of $P_{\sigma}$. A direct calculation shows that $r_{9}=12$ and $%
l_{9,A=D}=20$.
\end{proof}

Combinatorics (math.CO); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

On the X-rays of permutations