**Define $\mathcal M_n$ as the set of all $n\times n$ matrices of full rank with each entry either 1 or $x$.** 
I am interested in how big the determinant of such a matrix can be. For this, we define in a straightforward way the following:

For polynomials $f(x)=f_nx^n+\cdots+f_0$ and $g(x)=g_mx^m+\cdots+g_0$ with $f_n,g_m>0$, we say that $f$ *dominates* $g$ if either $n>m$ or $(f_n ,\dots,f_0) \succ (g_m, \dots,g_0)$ in lexical order. Equivalently, $f(x)\geqslant g(x)$ for large $x>x_0$.



Then my main question is:

> **What can be said about the matrices in $\mathcal M_n$ whose determinant dominates all the others?**



We will identify matrices that only differ by a combination of row/column permutations and/or transposition, as the determinant doesn't change up to sign. Moreover, we always assume that the leading coefficient $f_n$ is positive (otherwise just switch two lines).

For $x\to1$, the matrices of $\mathcal M_n$ degenerate to the all-1-matrix of rank $1$ instead of $n$. From this it is easy to see that for $M\in\mathcal M_n$, we have  $$\det(M)=(x-1)^{n-1}(ax+b).$$  We'll refer to this linear form $ax+b$ (wlog $a>0$) as the *remainder* of $M$. For given $n$, denote the dominant remainder by $a_nx+b_n$.

The sequence $(a_n)$ is well-known (see below).

> What can be said about $b_n$ (other than  $b_n\le a_n$)?




For each line or column of a matrix $M\in\mathcal M_n$, we define its *weight* as the number of $x$'s occurring in it. The *signature* of $M$ is the set of the two vectors of row weights and column weights, wlog both in non-increasing order. (And wlog we'll reorder the rows and columns accordingly.)

Matrices of different signatures can have the same determinant. Intuitively, I would conjecture though that for the extremal ones, the signature is unique and that the matrices can be arranged in a fairly symmetrical way. Signatures can help to identify certain symmetries of such matrices which have been found experimentally.

Extensive (but for $n\ge7$ not exhaustive) computations seem to show that the extremal matrices always can be written (by performing row/column permutations) as symmetric ones, meaning in particular that rows and columns have the same signature. Intuitively, this is no surprise, but:

>    Can that be proven, maybe by some extremal principle?


Some examples :

$n=3$: best remainder is $2x+1$, e.g. $M=\begin{pmatrix}
1&x&x\\
x&1&x\\
x&x&1\\
\end{pmatrix}$ with signature $(222,222) $

$n=4$: best remainder is $3x+2$, e.g. $M=\begin{pmatrix}
1&x&x&x\\
x&x&1&1\\
x&1&x&1\\
x&1&1&x\\
\end{pmatrix}$ with signature $(3222,3222) $



$n=5$: best is $5x+4$ for $M=\begin{pmatrix}
x&x&1&1&x\\
x&x&1&x&1\\
1&1&x&x&x\\
1&x&x&1&1\\
x&1&x&1&1\\
\end{pmatrix}$ with signature $(33322,33322)$



$n=6$: best is  $9x+9$ with $M=\begin{pmatrix}
\color{blue}x&\color{blue}1&x&x&1&1\\
\color{blue}1&\color{blue}x&x&x&1&1\\
1&1&\color{blue}x&\color{blue}1&x&x\\
1&1&\color{blue}1&\color{blue}x&x&x\\
x&x&1&1&\color{blue}x&\color{blue}1\\
x&x&1&1&\color{blue}1&\color{blue}x\\
\end{pmatrix}$
and signature $(3_6,3_6)$. Note the circulant block structure of the $2\times2$ blocks, which will be referred to below.

$n=7$: very probably best is  $32x+24$ with, e.g.,  
$M=\begin{pmatrix}
x&1&1&\color{blue}x&1&x&x\\
1&x&1&\color{blue}x&x&1&x\\
1&1&x&\color{blue}x&x&x&1\\
\color{blue}x&\color{blue}x&\color{blue}x&\color{blue}x&\color{blue}1&\color{blue}1&\color{blue}1\\
1&x&x&\color{blue}1&1&x&x\\
x&1&x&\color{blue}1&x&1&x\\
x&x&1&\color{blue}1&x&x&1\\
\end{pmatrix}$ or $M=\begin{pmatrix}
x&x&x&1&x&1&1\\
1&x&x&x&1&x&1\\
1&1&x&x&x&1&x\\
x&1&1&x&x&x&1\\
1&x&1&1&x&x&x\\
x&1&x&1&1&x&x\\
x&x&1&x&1&1&x
\end{pmatrix}$,
which both have signature $(4_7,4_7) $. Note the symmetry  of the first one and the $3\times3$ blocks in the 4 corners. The second one is not symmetric, but [circulant][1]. BTW the question whether both matrices are essentially the same (i.e. obtainable from one another by suitable permutations of rows and columns) has motivated [this][2] question.

$n=8$: best  so far is $56x+40$ with $M=\begin{pmatrix}
1&x&x&x&1&x&\color{blue}1&\color{blue}x\\
x&1&x&x&x&1&\color{blue}1&\color{blue}x\\
x&x&1&x&x&x&\color{blue}1&\color{blue}1\\
x&x&x&1&x&x&\color{blue}1&\color{blue}1\\
1&x&x&x&x&1&\color{blue}x&\color{blue}1\\
x&1&x&x&1&x&\color{blue}x&\color{blue}1\\
\color{blue}1&\color{blue}1&\color{blue}1&\color{blue}1&\color{blue}x&\color{blue}x&\color{blue}x&\color{blue}x\\
\color{blue}x&\color{blue}x&\color{blue}1&\color{blue}1&\color{blue}1&\color{blue}1&\color{blue}x&\color{blue}x\\
\end{pmatrix}$
and signature $(5_64_2,5_64_2) $. Look again at the $2\times2$ blocks.

The sequence $2,3,5,9,32,56...$ of the $a_n$'s is the same as [A003432][3], which is the largest determinant of a {0,1}-matrix of order n. This is clear from the following argument: If $M\in\mathcal M_n$ with $\det(M)=f(x)=(x-1)^{n-1}(ax+b)$ and $M^\sim$ is defined by swapping the $1$'s with the $x$'s, we have $f^\sim:=\det(M^\sim)=x^nf(\frac1x)=(x-1)^{n-1}(bx+a)$, so by letting $x\to\infty$ in $M$ we get for the leading coefficient $f_n=f^\sim(0)=a$, while on the other hand putting $x=0$ in $M^\sim$ yields a {0,1}-matrix with determinant $a$. Further, all these steps can be reversed.

Now I am also wondering what is the link with the ["Hadamard maximal determinant problem"][4], which asks when a matrix of a given order with entries -1 and +1 has the largest possible determinant. The relationship between $\pm1$-matrices and 0-1-matrices is vaguely explained on the dedicated site as "a consequence of a mapping between binary and sign matrices" (which is supposedly bijective). But e.g. for $n=6$ the extremal
$\pm1$-matrix
\begin{pmatrix}
-&+&+&+&+&+\\
+&-&+&+&+&+\\
+&+&-&+&+&+\\
-&-&-&-&+&+\\
-&-&-&+&-&+\\
-&-&-&+&+&-\\
\end{pmatrix}
(essentially unique, up to permutations and negations of rows and columns) has obviously symmetries corresponding to  $3\times3$ blocks, while the symmetries of the (also essentially unique) extremal 0-x-matrix above correspond to  $2\times2$ blocks. 
The intriguing thing is further that Hadamard matrices only seem to encapsulate the $a_n$'s of the 1-x-matrices, but not the $b_n$'s. Well, it all may depend on the mapping. 
> Any insights about a reasonable such mapping?


  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulant_matrix
  [2]: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/291330/is-there-an-efficient-algorithm-to-check-whether-two-matrices-are-the-same-up-to
  [3]: http://oeis.org/A003432
  [4]: http://www.indiana.edu/~maxdet/