Pattern avoidance in nonnesting permutations
Abstract
Nonnesting permutations are permutations of the multiset that avoid subsequences of the form for any . These permutations have recently been studied in connection to noncrossing (also called quasi-Stirling) permutations, which are those that avoid subsequences of the form , and in turn generalize the well-known Stirling permutations. Inspired by the work by Archer et al. on pattern avoidance in noncrossing permutations, we consider the analogous problem in the nonnesting case. We enumerate nonnesting permutations that avoid each set of two or more patterns of length 3, as well as those that avoid some sets of patterns of length 4. We obtain closed formulas and generating functions, some of which involve unexpected appearances of the Catalan and Fibonacci numbers. Our proofs rely on decompositions, recurrences, and bijections.
Keywords: nonnesting permutation, pattern avoidance, nonnesting matching
1 Introduction
Let , and let be the set of permutations of . Denote by the multiset consisting of two copies of each integer between and .
Given two words and over the positive integers , we say that contains the pattern if there exist indices such that the subsequence is in the same relative order as , that is,
-
•
if and only if , and
-
•
if and only if ,
for all . This subsequence is called an occurrence of . If does not contain , we say that avoids the pattern .
A Stirling permutation is a permutation of that avoids the pattern ; equivalently, there do not exist indices such that . Stirling permutations were introduced by Gessel and Stanley in the 70s [8] in connection to certain generating functions for Stirling numbers of the second kind.
A quasi-Stirling permutation is a permutation of that avoids the patterns and ; equivalently, there do not exist indices such that and . Quasi-Stirling permutations were introduced by Archer et al. [1] as a generalization of Stirling permutations that arises in connection with labeled trees, and were further studied in [5].
One can view permutations of as labeled matchings of , by placing an arc with label between and if . With this interpretation, a permutation of is quasi-Stirling if and only if the corresponding matching is noncrossing, i.e., there are no two arcs and where . For this reason, quasi-Stirling permutations are also called noncrossing permutations in [6].
With this perspective, it is natural to consider permutations of whose corresponding matching is nonnesting, i.e., there are no two arcs and where . They can be defined as permutations of that avoid the patterns and . Following [6], we call these nonnesting permutations, and we denote by the set of nonnesting permutations of . For example, as shown in Figure 1, , but , because the subsequence is in the same relative order as . It is well known [14] that both noncrossing and nonnesting matchings of are counted by the th Catalan number . Since there are ways to assign the labels to the arcs, it follows [6] that both the number noncrossing and the number of nonnesting permutations of are given by
In [1], Archer et al. consider quasi-Stirling permutations that avoid other patterns. Specifically, they enumerate quasi-Stirling (i.e. noncrossing) permutations that avoid any set of at least two elements from . The goal of this paper is to extend the results from [1] to the nonnesting case, by providing the enumeration of nonnesting permutations that avoid any set of at least two elements from , as well as those that avoid some patterns of length 4.
The known bijections between noncrossing and nonnesting matchings (see e.g. [3]), when extended to permutations of , do not generally behave well with respect to pattern avoidance. In particular, with the exception described in Remark 2.10, there is no straightforward way to translate the results from [1] to our setting. This is reflected in the fact that the enumeration formulas that we obtain in the nonnesting case are mostly different from those in [1, Fig. 6].
Additional motivation for the study of pattern-avoiding nonnesting permutations comes from Bernardi’s work on deformations of the braid arrangement [4]. He shows that certain configurations, called annotated -sketches, naturally index the regions of the Catalan arrangement, and that certain subsets of them index the regions of other important hyperplane arrangements. It turns out that annotated -sketches are precisely nonnesting permutations, and that the relevant subsets can be described as nonnesting permutations avoiding vincular patterns, which are patterns where some entries are required to be adjacent in an occurrence. For example, regions of the semiorder arrangement are indexed by permutations with no subsequence such that (in vincular pattern notation, we say that avoids ), regions of the Shi arrangement are indexed by permutations with no subsequence such that (we say that avoids ), and regions of the Linial arrangement are indexed by permutations that avoid both and . The numbers of regions of such hyperplane arrangements are well known, so one immediately deduces formulas for the number of nonnesting permutations avoiding these specific vincular patterns. This suggests the problem of enumerating nonnesting permutations that avoid other patterns. In this paper we will tackle this problem for the case of classical patterns, that is, with no adjacency requirements. In general, the number of permutations avoiding a vincular pattern is bounded from below by the number of permutations avoiding the corresponding classical pattern where the adjacency requirements have been removed.
In Section 2, we study nonnesting permutations that avoid sets of patterns of length , completing the enumeration for all sets consisting of at least patterns, in analogy with the work in [1] for the noncrossing case. In Section 3, we enumerate nonnesting permutations avoiding several sets of patterns of length , which often require more complicated proofs. Our results include some unexpected new interpretations of the Catalan numbers. We conclude with a few conjectures in Section 4.
The proof techniques include bijections, generating functions (both ordinary and exponential), and decompositions of the permutations into smaller pieces obtained by analyzing their structure, which often give rise to recurrences or summation formulas.
Let us finish this section by introducing some notation. Given a set of finite words over , let denote the set of permutations in that avoid all the patterns in , and let its cardinality be . If , we often write instead of .
For any word over , define its reversal by . If is the largest entry of , define its complement to be the word whose th entry is for all . The composition of these two operations gives the reverse-complement . Clearly, avoiding is equivalent to avoiding , to avoiding , and to avoiding . In particular, the set is closed under the operations of reversal and complementation.
Denote by the standardization of , which is obtained by replacing the copies of the smallest entry with , the copies of the second smallest entry with , and so on.
Denote by the set of different entries in , without multiplicities. For example, we have . Given two sets and , we write to mean that for every and . Given two words and , we write to mean . We define other relations , and similarly. Note that implies that . Note also that these relations are not transitive or antisymmetric, since the empty word, which we denote by , trivially satisfies that and for any .
If avoids a pattern , then the permutation obtained by removing the two copies of from also avoids . In this case, we will say that generates .
2 Patterns of length 3
In this section we consider nonnesting permutations avoiding patterns of length 3. Applying reversal and complementation, the enumeration of for all with can be reduced to the sets listed in Table 1, which serves as a summary of the results in this section.
Formula for | OEIS code | Result in the paper | |
---|---|---|---|
A000108 | Theorem 2.1 | ||
A000142 | Theorem 2.2 | ||
, for | N/A | Corollary 2.4 | |
, for | A055999 | Theorem 2.5 | |
A007598 | Theorem 2.6 | ||
, for | A000079 | Theorem 2.7 | |
, for | A003946 | Theorem 2.8 | |
Theorem 2.9 | |||
OGF: | A052528 | Theorem 2.11 | |
, for | A000027 | Theorem 2.12 | |
Theorem 2.13 | |||
, for | A000027 | Theorem 2.14 | |
, for | A008586 | Theorem 2.15 | |
, for | N/A | Theorem 2.16 | |
, for | N/A | Theorem 2.17 | |
Theorem 2.18 | |||
, for | N/A | Theorem 2.19 |
2.1 Avoiding one pattern
By reversal and complementation, the enumeration of nonnesting permutations avoiding a single pattern in reduces to the enumeration of the sets and . After we stated these as open problems in a previous version of this article posted online, a functional equation for the generating function for has been found very recently by Archer and Laudone [2]. We still do not have a formula for . For comparison, the enumeration of quasi-Stirling permutations avoiding a simgle pattern in was also left as an open problem in [1], and recently solved in [2] for the pattern .
It is easier, however, to enumerate nonnesting permutations avoiding a pattern of length 3 with repeated letters. Disregarding the trivial case of the pattern , which is avoided by all nonnesting permutations, reversal and complementation reduces this problem to the enumeration of the sets and , which are treated below.
Theorem 2.1.
For all , we have .
Proof.
For any , the subsequence consisting of entries and in must be either or , since otherwise they would either create a nesting or an occurrence of . It follows that, in the interpretation of nonnesting permutations as nonnesting matchings with labeled arcs, a permutation avoids if and only if the arcs are labeled so that their left endpoints (namely, the first occurrence of each value) appear in decreasing order. Thus, there is exactly one possible labeling of each nonnesting matching. It follows that is simply the number of nonnesting matchings of , which is . ∎
Theorem 2.2.
For all , we have .
Proof.
For any , the subsequence consisting of entries and in must be either or , since otherwise they would either create a nesting or an occurrence of . This forces repeated entries in to occur next to each other. Thus is obtained from a permutation in by simply duplicating each entry. This leaves possibilities. ∎
Note that , and that . The latter set is the intersection of nonnesting permutations and Stirling permutations.
2.2 Avoiding two patterns
We start with the simple case where the two avoided patterns are monotonic.
Theorem 2.3.
For all and , we have .
Proof.
In any element of , the subsequence obtained by deleting one copy of each entry is a permutation in . By Erdős–Szekeres [7], if , every permutation in must contain either an increasing subsequence of length or a decreasing subsequence of length , that is, one of the patterns or . It follows that . ∎
The following result is an immediate consequence of the above theorem. It will save us some work when classifying nonnesting permutations avoiding larger sets of patterns.
Corollary 2.4.
For any such that , we have for all .
Theorem 2.5.
For all , we have
Proof.
Let . We can write uniquely as for some . Since avoids and , the words , and must be weakly decreasing, and we must have and . In particular, and . Note also that, since is nonnesting, cannot have repeated entries, and . It follows that must have length at most , leaving four cases:
-
(1)
,
-
(2)
for some ,
-
(3)
for some ,
-
(4)
for some .
In case (1), both and must consist of decreasing sequences of double entries, and is uniquely determined by , since . Additionally, in order for to avoid , the elements of must be consecutive. Thus, either is empty, or for some . It follows that there are permutations in case (1).
In case (2), must be smaller than all the entries in and larger than all the entries in . Thus, is determined by the choice of , so there are permutations in this case. A similar argument shows that there are permutations in case (3).
In case (4), is determined by the choice of , so there are permutations in this case.
Adding the number of permutations in all four cases, we obtain
We will use to denote the th Fibonacci number, with the convention .
Theorem 2.6.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Let . Writing permutations as for some words , we can separate them into four cases:
-
(1)
,
-
(2)
and ,
-
(3)
and ,
-
(4)
and .
Denote the number of permutations in each case by , , and , respectively, so that .
To obtain recurrence relations for these numbers, we consider the possible ways to generate a permutation in by inserting two entries in a permutation in from each of the above four cases.
In case (1), there are four ways to insert two entries in without creating nestings or occurrences of , namely , , and , yielding a permutation in each of cases (1), (2), (3) and (4), respectively.
In case (2), each permutation generates two permutations and , which belong to cases (1) and (2), respectively.
In case (3), each permutation generates two permutations and , which belong to cases (1) and (3), respectively.
In case (4), each permutation generates one permutation , in case (1). Indeed, inserting an anywhere after the first entry of and before the second would create a , whereas inserting it anywhere after the second would create a .
Keeping track of how many permutations in of each type are generated in each case, we conclude that
from where
with initial conditions . This is the same recurrence satisfied by the squared Fibonacci numbers:
Theorem 2.7.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Let . The formula clearly holds for , since , so let us assume that . To generate an element in from , the only locations to insert without creating an occurrence of or are at the very beginning or at the very end. If we also want to avoid nestings, both entries have to be inserted in the same location. This gives the recurrence , which implies . ∎
Theorem 2.8.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Let , and assume that . Any permutation in must end with or , otherwise the last entry would be part of an occurrence of or . Since complementation respects avoidance of , it gives a bijection between permutations in that end with , and those that end with . It follows that the number of permutations in each of the two cases is .
If ends with , we can write . Avoidance of forces , and the nonnesting condition prevents from having repeated entries. It follows that or . In the first case, can be any element of , so there are such permutations. In the second case, we can write . Removing the two copies of gives a bijection between such permutations and the set of permutations in that end with a , so there are such permutations.
We obtain the recurrence
from where . Using the initial condition , the result follows. ∎
Theorem 2.9.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Let , and let . Write as . To avoid both and , we must have . This condition, together with the fact that cannot have repeated letters to avoid a nesting, leaves four cases:
-
(1)
,
-
(2)
for some ,
-
(3)
for some ,
-
(4)
for some .
Denote the number of permutations in each case by , , and , respectively, so that . To obtain recurrence relations, we look at the possible ways that a permutation in each of these cases could be generated by inserting two entries into a permutation in .
In case (1), the word is an arbitrary permutation in , so
(1) |
In case (2), after removing the entries , the permutation is an arbitrary permutation in starting with a double letter, that is, any permutation from cases (1) and (2). It follows that
(2) |
The same is true in case (3), so .
In case (4), the word obtained after removing the entries is an arbitrary permutation in , so .
Remark 2.10.
A natural bijection between noncrossing and nonnesting permutations of is obtained by applying the bijection between noncrossing and nonnesting matchings described in [3], which preserves the left endpoints of the arcs, and labeling the arcs according to these left endpoints. It can be shown that avoidance of the pair of patterns is preserved by this bijection, and so Theorem 2.9 above is equivalent to [1, Thm. 4.4].
2.3 Avoiding three patterns
For avoidance of sets of three patterns of length 3, the case analysis is often similar to the proofs in the previous subsection.
Theorem 2.11.
The ordinary generating function (OGF) for nonnesting permutations that avoid is
Proof.
Let , and let . Write as . As in the proof of Theorem 2.9, avoidance of and implies that is either empty or consists of one element, which must be in order for to also avoid . We have the same four cases as in the proof of Theorem 2.9, but now we set in all of them.
In case (1), can be any permutation in , and in each of cases (2) and (3), can be any permutation in . Let be the set of permutations in case (4), and let . By the above decomposition,
(4) |
Removing the two copies of from produces a bijection between and the set of permutations in that start with the largest entry, namely those from cases (1) or (4). Since the number of elements in in case (1) are counted by , it follows that
(5) |
The sequence appears in [11] as sequence A052528, although with a very different interpretation. Specifically, as shown by Hoang and Mütze [9], it counts vertex-transitive cover graphs of lattice quotients of essential lattice congruences of the weak order on .
Theorem 2.12.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Let , and let . Write as . To avoid both and , we must have . Additionally, to avoid 312, must be weakly decreasing, and . Combined with the nonnesting condition, this leaves four possibilities:
for some , where we use to indicate that we are skipping these entries. We conclude that
Theorem 2.13.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Let , and write as . To avoid , and must be weakly increasing, and . To avoid , and must be weakly decreasing, and . Additionally, for to avoid , we must have and , where the strictness comes from the nonnesting condition. The requirement that is both weakly increasing and weakly decreasing, along with the nonnesting condition, implies that has length at most one.
If , the above conditions on and imply that
for some , giving different permutations.
If has length one, then the requirements and imply that or . Additionally, the condition implies that in this case. Since is weakly decreasing, this leaves the two possibilities
for a total of permutations. ∎
Theorem 2.14.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Let , and write as . To avoid , and must be weakly decreasing, and . To avoid , and must be weakly decreasing, and . To avoid , we must have , , and , using also the nonnesting condition.
If , the fact that and are weakly decreasing, along with the inequality , implies that
for some , giving different permutations.
If , let be an entry in , and note that the nonnesting condition requires that the other copy of appears in or . This forces , because if some was in this set, then one of the conditions , , , or would be violated. This can only happen if , and must be one of the permutations or in this case. ∎
Theorem 2.15.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Let and let . Write as . As in the proof of Theorem 2.9, avoidance of and implies that is either empty or consists of one element, which must be in order for to also avoid . This leaves the four cases from the proof of Theorem 2.9, where now we set .
In case (1), can be any element of , so there are permutations.
In cases (2) and (3), avoidance of forces to be weakly decreasing, resulting in the two permutations
In case (4), we can write , where is weakly decreasing, since avoids . The nonnesting condition prevents from having repeated letters, so or (the latter assumes that ), resulting in the two permutations
Combining all the cases, we obtain the recurrence
for . Using the initial condition , the result follows. ∎
2.4 Avoiding four or five patterns
There are three cases of sets of size 4 and one case of size 5 that are not covered by Corollary 2.4. In all of them, the number of nonnesting permutations of avoiding is constant for .
Theorem 2.16.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Let . For , any must be of the form , since the avoidance condition requires that in any subsequence of distinct letters, must be the largest. Therefore, for . Since , the result follows. ∎
Theorem 2.17.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Let and let . Avoidance of and , together with the nonnesting condition, implies that any must be of the form or . Additionally, avoidance of and forces and to be weakly decreasing. Thus, for ,
Theorem 2.18.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Let . Any subsequence of of length 3 with distinct entries must be increasing or decreasing. Hence, for , we have . ∎
Theorem 2.19.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Any subsequence of of length 3 with distinct entries must be weakly decreasing. Hence, for , the only possibility is . ∎
3 Some patterns of length 4
In this section we give a few results about nonnesting permutations avoiding sets of patterns of length 4. We do not systematically analyze all sets, but rather we introduce some tools and provide a sample of results for which the enumeration sequences are interesting. We focus on patterns where one letter is repeated, and often appearing in adjacent positions. Tables 2 and 3 list sets of patterns with repeated letters (up to reversal and complementation) for which we have found a formula for . Patterns where the repeated letters are adjacent are colored according to the permutation in , up to reverse-complement, obtained when removing one of the repeated letters: red for , orange for , blue for and , and violet for and .
Formula for | OEIS code | Result in the paper | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A001246 | Theorem 3.3 | |||||
|
, for | N/A | Theorem 3.5 | |||
A003645 | Theorem 3.3 | |||||
Theorem 3.7 | ||||||
N/A | Theorem 3.3 | |||||
A085781 | Theorem 3.30 | |||||
EGF: | A122704 | Theorem 3.33 |
Formula for | OEIS code | Result in the paper | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A098614 | Theorem 3.3 | ||||
Theorem 3.7 | |||||
A001791 | Theorem 3.3 | ||||
Theorem 3.7 | |||||
A001453 | Theorem 3.9 | ||||
Theorem 3.14 | |||||
Theorem 3.21 | |||||
Theorem 3.15 | |||||
Theorem 3.23 | |||||
, for | A060488 | Theorem 3.10 | |||
A027378 | Theorem 3.11 | ||||
Theorem 3.16 | |||||
, for | A028387 | Theorem 3.12 | |||
A000290 | Theorem 3.13 | ||||
Theorem 3.20 | |||||
Theorem 3.29 | |||||
A084849 | Theorem 3.18 | ||||
Theorem 3.26 | |||||
, for | A028552 | Theorem 3.19 | |||
Theorem 3.25 | |||||
, for |
|
Theorem 3.22 | |||
, for |
|
Theorem 3.24 | |||
, for | A183905 | Theorem 3.27 | |||
A006527 | Theorem 3.28 | ||||
, for | A198643 | Theorem 3.31 | |||
OGF: | A007564 | Theorem 3.34 | |||
|
A005442 | Theorem 3.32 |
To prove some of these formulas, it will be convenient to view permutations as labeled nonnesting matchings of , where there is an arc between and with label if . The nonnesting condition guarantees that the order in which the left endpoints of the arcs appear is the same as the order in which their right endpoints appear, so there is a natural ordering of the arcs from left to right. The permutation in obtained when reading the labels of the arcs from left to right will be called the underlying permutation of , and denoted by . Note that is the subsequence of obtained by taking the left copy of each letter, or alternatively by taking the right copy of each letter. For example, if (whose matching appears on the left of Figure 1), then its underlying permutation is .
3.1 Patterns whose repeated letters are in the middle
In some cases, it is possible to describe pattern-avoiding nonnesting permutations by imposing restrictions on the underlying permutation, whereas the (unlabeled) nonnesting matching is arbitrary. When this happens, the resulting formulas have a factor of to account for the possible nonnesting matchings.
The next lemma will be useful when avoiding patterns of length with a repeated letter in the middle, as it translates this restriction to an avoidance condition on the underlying permutation.
Lemma 3.1.
Let , let be its underlying permutation, and let . Then avoids if and only if avoids .
Proof.
If contains , then the subsequence of consisting of the left copy of each letter must contain . Conversely, if contains , the nonnesting condition forces the right copy of (the letter playing the role of111When is an entry in a pattern, we will often refer to “copies of ” in a permutation to mean copies of the letter playing the role of in an occurrence of the pattern.) to appear before the right copy of . It follows that contains . ∎
For a set , we denote by the set of permutations in that avoid all the patterns in , and let . The next lemma reduces the enumeration of nonnesting permutations avoiding patterns of length with a repeated letter in the middle to the enumeration of permutations in avoiding patterns of length , which was done by Simion and Schmidt [10, 12].
Lemma 3.2.
Let , and let . Then, for any , .
Proof.
Let . By Lemma 3.1, avoids if and only if the underlying permutation avoids . Thus, is determined by first choosing a nonnesting matching on , of which there are , and then an underlying permutation , of which there are . ∎
Theorem 3.3.
For all , we have
-
(a)
for every ,
-
(b)
,
-
(c)
,
-
(d)
,
-
(e)
.
Proof.
Lemma 3.1 would not hold if we replaced with . For example, contains but its underlying permutation avoids . To enumerate permutations avoiding patterns where the repeated letter is not in the middle, the next lemma will be useful.
Lemma 3.4.
Let , and let . If avoids either or , then avoids .
Proof.
We prove the contrapositive statement. Suppose that contains . Since is nonnesting, the other copy of must occur before the right copy of . This creates an occurrence of . A symmetric argument shows that also contains . ∎
Theorem 3.5.
Let and . Then, for all , we have .
Proof.
The following lemma is a partial converse of Lemma 3.4.
Lemma 3.6.
Let , let , and let . If avoids some , then avoids .
Proof.
Again, we prove the contrapositive statement. Let , and suppose that contains . The other copy of must be to the right of this , in order to avoid , so contains . Now, the other copy of must be to the left of the first copy of . Therefore, must contain either or . In both cases, contains all the patterns in . ∎
Lemmas 3.4 and 3.6 provide bijections between many sets of pattern-avoiding nonnesting permutations, allowing us to derive from Theorem 3.3 some formulas for patterns where the repeated letter is not in the middle. The next theorem gives a sample of some such results, which is by no means exhaustive.
Theorem 3.7.
For all , we have
-
(a)
,
-
(b)
,
-
(c)
3.2 Other patterns whose repeated letters are adjacent
The restrictions that we consider in this subsection no longer translate into restrictions for the underlying permutations. These enumerative results often have more complicated proofs that require separating the permutations into different cases. We will often decompose permutations as follows.
Lemma 3.8.
Any can be written as , where has no repeated entries, and . Thus, we have a disjoint union , where
(6) |
Additionally, elements of (resp. ) must appear in the same order in as in (resp. ). If is weakly monotone, then it consists of the elements of (each of which is duplicated) followed by the elements of . Similarly, if is weakly monotone, it consists of the elements of followed by the elements of (each of which is duplicated).
Proof.
The positions of the s and the nonnesting condition guarantee that has no repeated entries, and that no entry appears in both and . Entries in that have their other copy in (resp. ) must appear in the same order in both subwords because of the nonnesting condition. In the special case that is weakly monotone, the nonnesting condition prevents duplicated entries (those in ) to appear after entries in , and similarly when is weakly monotone. ∎
We will use the notation from Lemma 3.8 throughout this section. Additionally, we let and be the subsequences of consisting of the elements of and , respectively.
The next five theorems deal with subsets of , the first set in Theorem 3.3(e). Figure 2 shows the containment relationships between these sets as a Hasse diagram.
Theorem 3.9.
For all , we have .
Proof.
We decompose as in Lemma 3.8. Since avoids , it must also avoid by Lemma 3.4. Now, Lemma 3.6, together with avoidance of , implies that avoids as well. Avoidance of both and implies that . And since avoids , must avoid which, as in the proof of Theorem 2.1, is equivalent to its underlying permutation being decreasing. Since has no repeated letters, avoids as well.
If , then is an arbitrary permutation in . Indeed, avoidance of implies avoidance of and , and it is equivalent to avoidance of , which implies avoidance of . By Theorem 2.1, there are permutations in this case.
Now suppose that for some . Avoidance of requires that, in , any entries larger than must be to the left of any entries smaller than . Thus, we can write , where and consist of entries larger and smaller than , respectively.
Consider first the case when all the elements in are smaller than . Then all the entries greater than are in , and is an arbitrary permutation in . Similarly, is an arbitrary permutation in . It follows that is an arbitrary permutation in whose underlying permutation is . Indeed, this condition on and the fact that guarantee that does not contain any of the patterns . Since there are permutations in with a fixed underlying permutation (one for each nonnesting matching), the number of permutations in this case is
Finally, consider the case when some element is greater than . Since the underlying permutation of is decreasing and has no repeated letters, is decreasing, so we can assume that is the first entry in . Since avoids , the first copy of must appear before , so .
Let us show that . First, cannot have repeated letters; otherwise, together with and , they would form an occurrence of . Second, contains the first occurrence of each letter in , and they must appear in decreasing order because otherwise would contain .
We claim that, in fact,
where is an arbitrary permutation in not ending with . Clearly, this permutation avoids (because avoids ) and does not end with (because ). To see that it is arbitrary, note that avoidance of in this permutation guarantees that avoids the three patterns . Permutations in that do end with , by removing and standardizing, are in bijection with permutations in . We deduce that the number of permutations in this case is
Summing up all the cases, we have
Theorem 3.10.
For all , we have
Proof.
We decompose , for , as in Lemma 3.8. In order for to avoid , must be weakly decreasing, and so the elements of must be decreasing in . To avoid both and , we must have , leaving the following three possibilities for .
If , it follows that
for some , giving permutations.
Suppose now that for some . If all the elements of are smaller than , we have
(7) |
for some , giving permutations. Otherwise, in order to avoid , only one element of can be bigger than , so
(8) |
with , giving permutations in this case. Adding these cases, the number of permutations where for some equals
Finally, suppose that for some , which forces the other copy of to appear in . Recall that the other entries in (that is, the elements of ) are decreasing. If all these elements are smaller than , then the are no restrictions on the position of inside , and is obtained from equation (7) by moving the first copy of and inserting it in , in one of the available positions. Thus, the number of permutations in this case is
If some elements of are larger than , consider two subcases. If is the first entry in , then
(9) |
for some , giving permutations. Otherwise, in order to avoid , there can be only one element of that is larger than . In this case, is obtained from equation (8) by moving the first copy of and inserting it in , in any of the positions other than the first one, giving
(10) |
permutations.
By adding all the cases, we have
Theorem 3.11.
For all , we have
Proof.
Let . Since avoids , it also avoids by Lemma 3.4. On the other hand, as in the proof of Theorem 3.9, avoidance of and implies avoidance of . This proves the inclusion to the right in equation (11). Conversely, a permutation in the intersection of the two sets on the right-hand side must avoid the three patterns .
We will adapt the proof of Theorem 3.10 by removing the two cases where the permutation contains . One is when is given by equation (8), accounting for permutations. The other the case counted in equation (10), namely, when , there is an element in larger than , and is not the first entry in .
Adding the remaining cases, we get
Theorem 3.12.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Let . Since avoids , it must also avoid by Lemma 3.4. Now, Lemma 3.6, together with avoidance of , implies that also avoids . It follows that , the set considered in Theorem 3.10.
Let us show how to modify the proof of this theorem to eliminate the cases where contains . The case does not change and contributes permutations. In the case , the permutation in equation (7) avoids only if , giving permutations. The permutation in equation (8) avoids only if , giving permutation, if we use the assumption .
In the case , if the elements of are smaller than , then the other copy of has to be the first entry in in order to avoid , giving permutations of the form
(12) |
for . If some element of is larger than , we get the permutations from equation (9) where is the first entry in . If is not the first entry, then
for some , giving permutations.
Adding up all the cases, we get
Theorem 3.13.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Let . Since avoids , it must also avoid by Lemma 3.4. But avoidance of and implies avoidance of by Lemma 3.6. This shows that . Similarly, since avoids , it must also avoid by Lemma 3.4. But avoidance of and implies avoidance of by Lemma 3.6. This shows that . Conversely, if a permutation is in the intersection on the right-hand side of equation (13), then it clearly avoids the patterns .
To find , we follow the proofs of Theorems 3.11 and 3.12, and take the permutations that appear in both. When , we get the same permutations. When , we get the permutation from equation (7) with . When , we get the permutations from equation (12) and the permutations from equation (9).
Adding up all the cases, we get
In the next six theorems, we consider subsets of , the second set in Theorem 3.3(e). Figure 3 shows the containment relationships between these sets.
In the next proof, we let be the set of Dyck words of length , that is, words consisting of s and s with the property that no prefix contains more s than s. It is well known [14] that .
Theorem 3.14.
For all , we have
Proof.
We decompose as in Lemma 3.8. Avoidance of implies avoidance of by Lemma 3.4, which requires . Avoidance of forces to be weakly increasing, so we can write and for some . Avoidance of forces to avoid , which implies that its underlying permutation is decreasing, so in particular is decreasing, since it consists of second copies of entries. It follows that .
In fact, the above are the only restrictions on , , , and , in the sense that any choice of , any choice of , and any way to interleave the entries of with the entries of determines a (unique) permutation . To count these choices, we will describe a bijection between such permutations and certain Dyck words. Given decomposed as above, construct a Dyck word as follows.
-
1.
Start with the Dyck word obtained from the permutation by simply replacing the first copy of each entry with a and the second copy with a . Viewing as a nonnesting matching, this is the standard bijection between nonnesting matchings and Dyck words.
-
2.
Insert a right after the last of . This is the corresponding to the first copy of , since consists only of second copies of entries. Let be the resulting word in . Note that each of the s after this inserted corresponds to an element of .
-
3.
For each entry of that is interleaved with in , insert a in the corresponding location within the last run of s in . Specifically, elements of that lie between the first and become s inserted right after the from step 2, and elements of that lie between and the second become s inserted right before the last of . This step inserts a total of s, producing a word in .
-
4.
Finally, append s to the end of the word, to obtain a word .
We claim that the map is a bijection between and , from which it will follow that .
First, it is clear by construction that , and that , since has the two consecutive s that were created in step 2. To see that it is a bijection, let us show that, given an arbitrary , we can uniquely recover the permutation that it came from. We start by finding the last two consecutive s in , which must exist because . Then, the word obtained from by removing all the pairs to the right of the first of these two s, determines the permutation by simply reversing step 1. The location of the removed pairs determine the positions of the entries in relative to those of , and the number of removed pairs at the end of determine . This information uniquely determines the permutation . ∎
As an example of the above bijection, let
which has and . In step 1, we have
which gives the Dyck word . In step 2, we obtain
where the five steps after the inserted correspond to . After steps 3 and 4, we get
Theorem 3.15.
For all , we have
Proof.
We decompose as in Lemma 3.8. Since avoids , avoids , and since avoids , avoids . As in the previous proof, avoidance of implies that . Let .
If , then is an arbitrary permutation in , and is an arbitrary permutation in . By Theorem 2.1, these sets are enumerated by the Catalan numbers. Summing over , we get
permutations.
Now suppose . Since , avoidance of implies that , and that , that is, the elements of are to the left of those of . It follows that
where is an arbitrary permutation in not ending with . By Theorem 2.1, these are counted by . Summing over , we get
permutations.
Adding up the permutations in both cases, we have
Theorem 3.16.
For all , we have
Proof.
We have . This is because avoidance of implies avoidance of by Lemma 3.4, which in turn, using that avoids , implies avoidance of by Lemma 3.6.
We decompose as in Lemma 3.8. As in the proof of Theorem 3.14, avoidance of requires to be weakly increasing, and avoidance of implies that . Additionally, avoidance of now requires to be weakly decreasing,
By Lemma 3.8, elements of form decreasing subsequences in both and , whereas elements of form increasing subsequences in both and . Additionally, since and are weakly monotone, it follows from Lemma 3.8 that there exist such that , , , and . Let us consider three cases depending on the cardinality of .
If (that is, ), the property , together with avoidance of , forces (that is, ). Avoidance of also requires that, in , the elements of appear to the left of the elements of . Therefore, any choice of satisfying determines the permutation
(14) |
This leaves permutations in this case.
If (that is, ), is uniquely determined by the values such that , leaving permutations.
If (that is, ), there are no restrictions on the position of this entry in . Thus, is determined by the values such that , and the choice of the position of the entry in , for which we have choices. This leaves
(15) |
permutations.
Adding up the three cases, we obtain
The next lemma will be useful in some of the upcoming proofs. Since avoidance of is equivalent to avoidance of , we have .
Lemma 3.17.
For all , permutations are those of the form
for some . In particular, .
Proof.
Viewing as a nonnesting matching, avoidance of is equivalent to the labels of the arcs being increasing from left to right, similarly to the proof of Theorem 2.1. Additionally, for any three arcs labeled from left to right, if the arcs and cross each other, then the arc must cross both of them; otherwise would contain the subsequence , which is an occurrence of . This forces to have the stated form, and it is clear that such a permutation avoids . ∎
Theorem 3.18.
For all , we have .
Proof.
We decompose as in Lemma 3.8. Avoidance of implies that is weakly decreasing. Avoidance of implies avoidance of by Lemma 3.4, which forces . Since avoids , must avoid , and since has no repeated entries, avoids as well. By Lemma 3.17,
(16) |
for some .
If , avoidance of requires that , and that, in , the elements of appear to the left of those in . Thus, we get the same permutations as in equation (14).
If , we have , with as in equation (16), giving permutations.
If , we must have , and . For any in equation (16), we can insert the other copy of in between the two s, giving permutations. If in equation (16), we have for some , and we can insert the entry in possible positions, giving permutations.
Adding up all the cases, we get
Theorem 3.19.
For all , we have .
Proof.
We claim that , the sets from Theorems 3.16 and 3.18. For the inclusion to the right, note that avoidance of implies avoidance of by Lemma 3.4. By the same lemma, avoidance of implies avoidance of , which then implies avoidance of by Lemma 3.6, using the fact that avoids . Inclusion to the left is trivial.
We will follow the proof of Theorem 3.16 and count only permutations that avoid . In the case , the permutations from equation (14) avoid .
If , avoidance of requires that either , giving permutations (one for each ), or that , giving permutations.
If , avoidance of requires that either , giving permutations (one for each ), or that , giving permutations, assuming that , by changing equation (15) accordingly.
In total, we have
Theorem 3.20.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Let us show that , which are the sets from Theorems 3.18 and 3.15. Indeed, avoidance of implies avoidance of by Lemma 3.4. On the other hand, avoidance of and implies avoidance of and by Lemma 3.4, which imply avoidance of and by Lemma 3.6. Inclusion to the left is straightforward.
Let us follow the proof of Theorem 3.18 and count only permutations that also avoid . In the cases and , the same permutations avoid . In the case , avoidance of requires , and inserting the entry in the rightmost available position (i.e., as the last entry of ), giving permutations (one for each ).
In total, we have
The next two theorems consider subsets of , the third set in Theorem 3.3(e). Neither of these subsets is contained in the other.
Theorem 3.21.
For all , we have
Proof.
By taking the reverse-complement, we have . We will enumerate permutations by decomposing them as in Lemma 3.8. As in the proof of Theorem 3.14, avoidance of implies that , and avoidance of implies that avoids . The only difference is that now the third avoided pattern is instead of , so now has to be weakly decreasing instead of weakly increasing. We can write and for some . These are the only restrictions on , , and , in the sense that they guarantee that avoids the three patterns .
Thus, if we take the complement of , by replacing each entry with , and keep all the other entries unchanged, the decomposition of the resulting permutation satisfies precisely the restrictions given in the proof of Theorem 3.14 characterizing permutations that avoid . Thus, the map is a bijection from to . In particular, by Theorem 3.14, we have
Theorem 3.22.
For all , we have
Proof.
Let and let . We decompose as in Lemma 3.8. Avoidance of and implies that .
Consider the first the case . Avoidance of implies that . Since avoids and ends with , the permutation obtained from by removing the two copies of must avoid . Since also avoids , Lemma 3.17 implies that
for some . If , then there are possible positions for the first copy of , namely immediately before the second copy of for any , giving permutations. For each , there are two possible positions for the first copy of , namely immediately before or after the second , giving permutations.
Suppose now that . If , then , where , after subtracting from each entry, is an arbitrary permutation in . Since there are such permutations [12, Prop. 16 and 16∗], this gives possibilities for . If , avoidance of requires that . Now avoidance of implies that . We consider two cases.
If , then , where is an arbitrary permutation in . Thus, there are permutations of this form.
If , the condition implies that , and so . In this case, if is the permutation obtained by removing the copy of from , then is an arbitrary permutation in . Indeed, must avoid because avoids , and one can check that if avoids and , then avoids the three patterns in . By Lemma 3.17,
for some . If , then the first copy of can be inserted in positions in , namely immediately before of the second copy of for any , or at the end. If , then the first copy of can be inserted two positions, namely immediately before or after the second , giving permutations.
Combining all the cases, we get the recurrence
Using the initial condition , we deduce the stated formula for . ∎
In the next seven theorems, we consider subsets of , the fourth set in Theorem 3.3(e). Figure 4 shows the containment relationships between these sets.
Theorem 3.23.
For all , we have .
Proof.
We decompose as in Lemma 3.8. Avoidance of implies that . Let be such that and . Since avoids , must avoid , and since avoids , must avoid as well. Thus, the underlying permutations of and are decreasing, which implies that and are decreasing, since consists of only right copies of entries, and consists of only left copies. Additionally, avoidance of forces to be to the left of ; otherwise, if appears to the left of within , the subsequence (where the first copy of is in ) would be an occurrence of .
If , then is an arbitrary permutation in , and is an arbitrary permutation in . Thus, by Theorem 2.1, there are
possibilities for in this case.
If , then avoidance of , together with the fact that , forces . In this case, we have
where is an arbitrary permutation in whose underlying permutation is and does not start with . Indeed, has these properties because has a decreasing underlying permutation, and . Additionally, these properties guarantee that avoids the patterns . Since the number of permutations in with a given underlying permutation is and the number of those that start with is , the total number of possibilities for in this case is
Adding up both cases, we obtain
Theorem 3.24.
For all , we have
Proof.
Let , and decompose as in Lemma 3.8. Avoidance of and forces and to be weakly decreasing, respectively. Avoidance of requires .
If , we must have
(17) |
for some , giving permutations.
If , Lemma 3.8, along with the fact that and is weakly decreasing, imply that . In this case, has a form similar to equation (17), with , but where the first is instead inserted in (i.e., between the two copies of ), in one of the available positions. The number of permutations of this form is
(18) |
Finally, consider the case . Avoidance of forces , and avoidance of forces . Therefore,
(19) |
for some , giving permutations.
Adding up the three cases,
Theorem 3.25.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Since avoids , it also avoids by Lemma 3.4. It follows that , the set that we enumerated in Theorem 3.24. In the proof of this theorem, the only case where may contain the pattern is when . In this case, we must have in order to avoid . Therefore, equation (18) becomes
and adding up the three cases, we now get
Theorem 3.26.
For all , we have .
Proof.
We decompose as in Lemma 3.8. Avoidance of forces to be weakly decreasing. By Lemma 3.4, avoidance of implies avoidance of , which requires .
Since avoids , avoids , and so does . Since also avoids , Lemma 3.17 applied to the reversal of implies that
(20) |
for some .
If , then , and any choice of gives a valid , producing permutations.
If , then and . If , then , and we can insert the other in any of the positions in , giving possibilities for . If (that is, ), then the other is the only entry in , so we get possibilities, one for each choice of .
Finally, if , avoidance of implies that and that, in , the elements of are to the left of those of . It follows that
for some , giving permutations.
Adding up all the cases,
Theorem 3.27.
For all , we have
Proof.
We have that , the sets from Theorems 3.24 and 3.26. Indeed, by Lemma 3.4, avoidance of implies avoidance of , and avoidance of implies avoidance of . Inclusion to the left is trivial.
Let us follow the proof of Theorem 3.24 and count only permutations that avoid . If , the permutation in equation (17) avoids only if , giving permutations, or if , giving permutations. If , the copy of in can be inserted in one position if , giving permutations, and in positions if , giving permutations. If , all permutation in equation (19) avoid .
Adding up the three cases,
Theorem 3.28.
For all , we have
Proof.
We have by Lemma 3.4. As in the proof of Theorem 3.23, decomposing as in Lemma 3.8, we have , and the elements of are to the left of those of . Thus, we can write .
Since avoids , avoids , and so the word is a nonnesting permutation that avoids and . By Lemma 3.17 applied to the reversal of , we have
for some . On the other hand, the word , after standardizing (by subtracting from each entry), is also a nonnesting permutation that avoids (since avoids ) and , so again we must have
for some .
Now let us analyze how and can overlap with each other. If , the above conditions imply that
for some . However, to avoid double-counting, we do not count the case when and , since, for any given , such indices would produce the same permutation as when . This gives different permutations.
If , then avoidance of forces . In this case, we get a permutation for each choice of indices , but again, to avoid double-counting, we do not allow . This gives different permutations.
Adding the two cases,
Theorem 3.29.
For all , we have
Proof.
We have that , the sets from Theorems 3.26 and 3.28. This is because, by Lemma 3.4, avoidance of implies avoidance of , and avoidance of implies avoidance of .
Let us follow the proof of Theorem 3.26 and consider only permutations that avoid . In the cases and , all permutations in that proof avoid .
In the case , if , then has to be inserted in the first position of in order for to avoid , giving permutations coming from the choices of in equation (20). If , all permutations contain , so we do not count them here.
Adding up all the cases,
The last result in this subsection concerns a set of nonnesting permutations avoiding two patterns. Despite the simple formula, the proof is a more technical than the above ones. We define a grand Dyck word of length to be a sequence of s and s with no other restrictions. It is well know that the the number of grand Dyck words of length is , and that its generating function is .
Theorem 3.30.
For all , we have
Proof.
We decompose as in Lemma 3.8. Since avoids , avoids , so its underlying permutation is increasing. Similarly, since avoids , avoids , so its underlying permutation is decreasing. It follows that is increasing and is decreasing.
Let us show that , that is the elements in are to the left of the elements of in . Suppose for contradiction that and and that is to the left of within . Then contains the subsequence . If , then is an occurrence of , and if , then is an occurrence of , which is a contradiction in both cases.
If , we have , and is determined by which elements from are in , giving permutations if . The corresponding ordinary generating function is
(21) |
Suppose now that , and let us show that . Indeed, if there were elements and such that , then would an occurrence of . Similarly, if there was a such that , then would an occurrence of . Let us assume that the smallest element in is in ; the case where it is in is symmetric.
Since avoids , for each , all the elements of larger than must come before those smaller than . Similarly, since avoids , for each , all the elements of smaller than must come before those larger than . This means that we have disjoint unions and where the and are nonempty intervals (i.e., sets of consecutive integers) such that
(22) |
all the elements of appear to the left of those of , and all the elements of appear to the left of those of , for all .
Denoting the restriction of to the elements in each by , the word is an arbitrary nonnesting permutation avoiding , so it can be encoded as a Dyck word by replacing the first copy of each entry with a and the second copy with a . Denote this word by . Similarly, forms an arbitrary nonnesting permutation avoiding , which can be encoded as a Dyck word . It follows that the restriction of to can be encoded as a grand Dyck word
(23) |
that is, for each of the sets and in the opposite order from equation (22) and we consider their associated Dyck words, reversing the ones coming from the sets . Viewing words as lattice paths with steps and starting at the origin, the reversed Dyck words correspond to portions of the path below the -axis.
If , we can recover uniquely from the above grand Dyck word, which has length . However, to deal with arbitrary , we have to modify the last portion of the above word, to take into account how the elements of and may be interleaved. Let , which is the rightmost entry of , and write , where (resp. ) are the elements whose first copy appears before (resp. after) the second copy of . Note that , since is decreasing, and that , since otherwise would contain (with playing the role of ). Therefore, for some . Note also that, in , the elements of must appear to the left of the elements of , since otherwise, any to the left of would create a subsequence , which is an occurrence of .
The restriction of to , after standardizing, is a nonnesting permutation avoiding , which can be encoded as a Dyck word . However, this is not an arbitrary Dyck word, but rather one with the property that the rightmost (which corresponds to the first copy of ) is preceded by a (which corresponds to the second copy of ). Given a Dyck word with this property, we not only can recover , by we also know that is precisely the number of s after the last . Dyck words whose rightmost is preceded by a , by turning this pair into , are in bijection with Dyck words ending in . Let be the Dyck word obtained after this transformation. Replacing with on the right of equation (23), we obtain a grand Dyck word ending with . Denote this word by .
The remaining piece of information needed to determine is which elements of belong to , since the rest must belong to .
The map is a bijection from permutations where the smallest element of is in , to pairs consisting of a grand Dyck word of semilength (for some ) ending with , and a subset . For permutations where the smallest element of is in , a symmetric construction produces a pair , where the Dyck word ends with , and .
The generating function for grand Dyck words ending with or , or equivalently, nonempty grand Dyck words not ending with or , is
On the other hand, the generating function for subsets of is .
As an example of the construction in the proof of Theorem 3.30, let
which has , , , , , , and . Then , ,
and . Concatenating these words, we get
3.3 Patterns with non-adjacent repeated letters
In this subsection we consider sets of patterns of length that include patterns with repeated letters in non-adjacent positions. For the sets we consider, the number of nonnesting permutations avoiding them is still given by nice formulas.
Theorem 3.31.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Let , and decompose as in Lemma 3.8. Avoidance of requires to be weakly increasing, avoidance of requires , and avoidance of requires , so in particular . By Lemma 3.8, the entries in form an increasing sequence in both and , and consists of the elements of followed by the elements of , each of which is duplicated. In particular, ends with if and only if . Let , and let denote the number of permutations in that end with an , so that is the number of those that do not.
Let us first focus on permutations that do not end with an , namely those with , and suppose that . If , these are permutations of the form , where is an arbitrary element of . If , then the condition and the nonnesting property implies that , where is an arbitrary element of ending with its largest entry. It follows that
(24) |
Now consider permutations in that end with an , and suppose that . If , these permutations end in fact with , and removing this pair of entries yields an arbitrary permutation in , so these are counted by . Suppose now that , which requires for the permutation to end with . Consider two cases depending on the cardinality of , with subcases depending on whether equals or .
-
•
Case . We must have in this case; otherwise, taking with , the subsequence , where is an entry in and is an entry in , would be an occurrence of . Combined with the above conditions, this forces .
If , we must have , where is an arbitrary element of , giving permutations.
If , we must have , where is also the largest entry in , and so , where is an arbitrary element of ending with its largest entry. Indeed, if this word avoids , and , then so does . This subcase contributes permutations, except when , in which case the resulting permutation has , so it will be counted in the next case instead.
-
•
Case . If , the only possibility is .
If , we must have and . If , avoidance of requires that appears at the end of ; otherwise would contain the subsequence , where is an entry in and is an entry in . This forces , except when , where we get the additional permutation which was not counted in the previous case.
Combining both cases for permutations ending with an , we obtain
(25) |
for .
Theorem 3.32.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Let . Patterns in are precisely those of the form , where . It follows that if and only every arc in its associated matching connects adjacent entries, or entries having only one entry in between.
Let be the number of such matchings of . Such a matching either has an arc , giving rise to a matching of on the remaining vertices, or it has arcs and , giving rise to a matching of . Therefore, , with initial conditions and , implying that .
Each matching can be labeled in ways to form a permutation in , proving the stated formula. ∎
Our last two results are proved using exponential and ordinary generating functions, respectively.
Theorem 3.33.
The exponential generating function (EGF) for nonnesting permutations that avoid is
Proof.
Let . We will find a differential equation satisfied by .
The coefficient of in the derivative counts permutations . As in Lemma 3.8, such permutations can be written as , where has no repeated entries, and . Additionally, is either empty or has length , since two distinct values in would create an occurrence of or .
If , then the standardized words and are arbitrary -avoiding nonnesting permutations.
If for some , and the other copy of appears in , then and are again arbitrary -avoiding nonnesting permutations (with the caveat that is nonempty). If the other copy of appears in , the same is true for and .
It follows that equals one of the following:
-
(1)
, where and for some ,
-
(2)
, where and for some ,
-
(3)
, where and for some .
Summing over , case (1) contributes to the exponential generating function, since and form an arbitrary ordered partition of into two nonempty sets, see e.g. [13, Prop. 5.1.1]. Each of the cases (2) and (3) contributes because one of the blocks is nonempty. This gives the differential equation
with initial condition . Solving this equation, we deduce that ∎
Theorem 3.34.
The ordinary generating function (OGF) for nonnesting permutations that avoid is
Proof.
Let . Decomposing permutations as in the proof of Theorem 3.33, the additional condition of avoiding requires . Thus, and for some , which makes the use of ordinary generating functions suitable in this case.
Letting , the same three cases as in the proof of Theorem 3.33, plus the empty permutation, give the equation
Solving for , we obtain the stated expression for the generating function. ∎
4 Further research
In a preprint version of this article, we proposed the open problem of finding a formula for the number of noncrossing permutations avoiding a single pattern in . This problem has recently been solved for the pattern in [2]. The question remains open for the pattern , as it does in the noncrossing case studied in [1].
Problem 1.
Find an expression for .
The values of for are . This sequence does not appear in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences [11] at the time of writing this paper.
For nonnesting permutations avoiding sets of patterns of length 4, we have presented some results in Section 3, but there are many other sets to be considered. In Table 4 we list some cases that seem to give interesting enumeration sequences. All the conjectures have been checked for up to .
Conjecture for | OEIS code | |
---|---|---|
A007297 | ||
OGF: | A006319 | |
A168583 | ||
OGF: | A099159 |
We also note that for some of the sets of patterns in Table 3 we arrived at the same enumeration formulas, such as , using different proof methods. It would be interesting to find direct bijections explaining these Wilf equivalences. In the same vein, we wonder if there is a simple bijective proof of Theorem 2.6, namely, a bijection between and pairs of Fibonacci objects of the same size.
In [6], it is shown that the polynomial enumerating all nonnesting permutations with respect to the number of descents has an unexpectedly simple factorization, and that its coefficients are palindromic. It may be interesting to consider the enumeration of pattern-avoiding nonnesting permutations with respect to the number of descents.
Finally, Tables 1, 2 and 3 show that that some of the enumeration sequences of pattern-avoiding nonnesting permutations are constant, others are polynomials, others grow exponentially, and others grow factorially. It would be interesting to understand the possible asymptotic behaviors of these sequences, the nature of their generating functions, and how these are determined by the properties of the avoided patterns.
Acknowledgements
SE was partially supported by Simons Collaboration Grant #929653. AL was partially supported by a Presidential Scholarship from Dartmouth College. We thank Kate Kucharczuk for useful observations in the early stages of this work, and Robert Dougherty-Bliss and Ryan Maguire for their help with some computations.
References
- [1] Kassie Archer, Adam Gregory, Bryan Pennington, and Stephanie Slayden. Pattern restricted quasi-Stirling permutations. Australas. J. Combin., 74:389–407, 2019.
- [2] Kassie Archer and Robert P. Laudone. Pattern avoidance in non-crossing and non-nesting permutations, 2025. arXiv:2502.13309.
- [3] Christos A. Athanasiadis. On noncrossing and nonnesting partitions for classical reflection groups. Electron. J. Combin., 5:Research Paper 42, 16, 1998.
- [4] Olivier Bernardi. Deformations of the braid arrangement and trees. Adv. Math., 335:466–518, 2018.
- [5] Sergi Elizalde. Descents on quasi-Stirling permutations. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 180:Paper No. 105429, 35, 2021.
- [6] Sergi Elizalde. Descents on nonnesting multipermutations. European J. Combin., 121:Paper No. 103846, 23, 2024.
- [7] P. Erdős and G. Szekeres. A combinatorial problem in geometry. Compositio Math., 2:463–470, 1935.
- [8] Ira Gessel and Richard P. Stanley. Stirling polynomials. J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. A, 24(1):24–33, 1978.
- [9] Hung P. Hoang and Torsten Mütze. Combinatorial generation via permutation languages. II. Lattice congruences. Israel J. Math., 244(1):359–417, 2021.
- [10] Donald E. Knuth. The art of computer programming. Vol. 1. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, third edition, 1997. Fundamental algorithms.
- [11] OEIS Foundation Inc. The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, 2023. Published electronically at http://oeis.org.
- [12] Rodica Simion and Frank W. Schmidt. Restricted permutations. European J. Combin., 6(4):383–406, 1985.
- [13] Richard P. Stanley. Enumerative combinatorics. Vol. 2, volume 62 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.
- [14] Richard P. Stanley. Catalan numbers. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2015.