Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Colored five-vertex models and Lascoux polynomials and atoms

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A colored five-vertex lattice model realizes Lascoux polynomials and atoms as weighted sums over set-valued tableaux, proving two conjectured formulas.

desk verdict A genuinely new colored vertex model that proves the first combinatorial interpretations of Lascoux polynomials and atoms; the main gap is a lightly sketched base case, not a fatal flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07364 v2 pith:AF6CAFQE submitted 2019-08-20 math.CO math-phmath.KTmath.MP

Valentin Buciumas , Travis Scrimshaw , Katherine Weber This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.COmath-phmath.KTmath.MP MSC 05E0582B2314M1505A19
keywords Lascouxpolynomialatomcoloredfive-vertexmodelYang-Baxterequationset-valuedtableauxKeytableauskylineGrothendieck
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Lascoux polynomials are K-theoretic refinements of Schur functions indexed by permutations, and Lascoux atoms are their smaller summands; until now neither had a combinatorial interpretation. This paper constructs an integrable colored five-vertex lattice model whose partition function is the Lascoux atom, then modifies the model in two ways so the partition function is the full Lascoux polynomial. These state-sum descriptions prove two conjectured formulas from the literature: one expressing the atom and polynomial as generating functions of set-valued tableaux with a prescribed Key tableau, and one expressing the atom as a generating function of set-valued skyline tableaux. This gives the first proven combinatorial interpretations of these objects, turning divided-difference definitions into weighted sums over explicit tableaux.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a colored five-vertex lattice model: a rectangular grid whose edges carry labels $0$ or colors $c_1>\cdots>c_n$, with local Boltzmann weights chosen so that the state sum is the desired polynomial. The model is integrable through a colored R-matrix satisfying the Yang–Baxter equation, verified for up to three colors by finite computation and then used for arbitrary $n$; the train argument converts this identity into the recurrence $Z(\mathcal S_{\lambda,s_iw};z;\beta)=\frac{(1+\beta z_i)z_{i+1}}{z_i-z_{i+1}}(Z(\mathcal S_{\lambda,w};z;\beta)-Z(\mathcal S_{\lambda,w};s_i z;\beta))$, which matches the action of the Demazure–Lascoux operator. Induction from the base state $Z(\mathcal S_{\lambda,1};z;\beta)=z^\lambda$ gives the main equality. A second layer of machinery, bijections from states to marked Gelfand–Tsetlin patterns and then to set-valued tableaux with the Lusztig involution used to make weights match, yields the tableau formulas.

What would settle it

Enumerate all admissible states of the colored model for $n=4$, a small partition such as $\lambda=(2,1,1,0)$, and every permutation $w$, compute the partition function, and compare coefficient by coefficient with the Lascoux atom obtained from the divided-difference definition; a single mismatch in any coefficient of $z^{\alpha}\beta^k$ would refute the central identity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central identity is $L_w^\lambda(z;\beta)=Z(\mathcal S_{\lambda,w};z;\beta)$: the Lascoux atom, defined through the Demazure–Lascoux atom operators $\overline{\pi}_w$ applied to $z^\lambda$, equals the partition function of the paper's colored five-vertex model. Two modifications of the lattice model, written $\overline{\mathcal S}_{\lambda,w}$ and $\mathcal S'_{\lambda,w}$, have partition functions equal to the full Lascoux polynomial $L_w^\lambda(z;\beta)$. From these equalities the paper proves that the atom is the $\beta$-weighted generating function of set-valued tableaux whose Key tableau is exactly $K_{w\lambda}$, that the polynomial is the corresponding generating function with the Key tableau bounded above by $K_{w\lambda}$, and that the atom is also the generating function of set-valued skyline tableaux of shape $w\lambda$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the colored R-matrix satisfies the Yang–Baxter relation in full generality, which the paper establishes only by finite computer checks over at most three colors before applying it to arbitrarily many colors; a secondary fragile point is the asserted base case $Z(\mathcal S_{\lambda,1};z;\beta)=z^\lambda$, stated to be straightforward rather than proved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Lascoux atom $L_w^\lambda(z;\beta)$ is a state sum: it is the generating function of set-valued tableaux $T$ with $K(T)=K_{w\lambda}$, weighted by $z^{\mathrm{wt}(T)}\beta^{\mathrm{ex}(T)}$.
  • The Lascoux polynomial $L_w^\lambda(z;\beta)$ is the same generating function with the relaxed condition $K(T)\le K_{w\lambda}$, confirming one of the conjectured formulas from the literature.
  • The Lascoux atom also equals the generating function over set-valued skyline tableaux of shape $w\lambda$, confirming the skyline-tableau conjecture.
  • The two modified lattice models are in weight-preserving bijection, giving a combinatorial proof that a Lascoux polynomial decomposes as the sum of the Lascoux atoms for permutations below it in Bruhat order.
  • Algebraic identities for Lascoux polynomials now correspond to identities of partition functions, so Yang–Baxter arguments can be applied directly to them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step beyond the paper is to identify the colored R-matrix with the R-matrix of a known quantum group; the paper states it could not do so, and success would give the same formulas a representation-theoretic reading.
  • Since the Yang–Baxter verification only needs three colors, a symbolic argument that every larger color configuration reduces to three-color cases would promote the finite computer check into a general theorem.
  • The same train-argument mechanism should yield Cauchy-type identities or branching rules for Lascoux atoms, parallel to the Grothendieck-polynomial identities that motivated the uncolored model; those identities are not derived in this paper.
  • If the skyline-tableau formula can be refined to commute with crystal operators, it might produce a Lascoux analog of Demazure crystals; the paper does not attempt that refinement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs an integrable colored five-vertex model whose partition function is a Lascoux atom, and two variants whose partition functions are Lascoux polynomials. The main identity is Theorem 3.4, proved by a Yang-Baxter/train argument using a colored R-matrix whose RLL relation is checked by SageMath in Appendix A. The paper then refines the model by markings and, using the Lusztig involution on set-valued tableaux, proves the Pechenik-Scrimshaw conjecture (Theorem 4.1); a second refinement plus Mason's and Monical's bijections proves Monical's skyline-tableau conjecture (Theorem 4.4).

Significance. If the proofs are correct, the paper supplies the first proven combinatorial interpretations of Lascoux polynomials and Lascoux atoms, resolving two published conjectures and opening a lattice-model approach to these objects. The strengths include the explicit construction of the colored model, the machine-checked Yang-Baxter computation in Appendix A, and the two independent model modifications that are shown to be in bijection. The main results are significant for combinatorial K-theory and for the integrable-systems approach to nonsymmetric special functions.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3, proof of Theorem 3.4 (base case)] The induction in Theorem 3.4 is anchored at the assertion 'It is straightforward to see that Z(S_{1,λ}; z; β) = z^λ = L_λ(z;β).' This equality is load-bearing: Lemma 3.3 propagates it to every w, and Theorems 3.6, 4.1, and 4.4 all ultimately depend on it. Because the left boundary for w=1 is the w0-reversed color sequence w0c, the uniqueness of the ground state and the absence of β-factors are not immediate from the figures alone. Please supply a proof for arbitrary λ and n (for instance, by showing that every color strand is forced and that no a2 vertex with weight 1+βz_i can occur), rather than leaving it as 'straightforward to see.'
  2. [§3, Lemma 3.3] The proof of Lemma 3.3 states: 'Since s_i w > w, we note that d_{i+1} < d_i.' With the definitions in Section 3 (d = ww0c, c = (c_1 > ... > c_n), and the left boundary read from top to bottom), this appears to fail already for w=1 and i=1, where d_1 = c_n and d_2 = c_{n-1}, so d_{i+1} > d_i. The subsequent identification of the two admissible configurations of the R-matrix with S_{λ,w} and S_{λ,s_iw} depends on the relative order of these two colors. Please either correct the inequality or spell out the intended indexing convention; if the inequality is genuinely reversed, the train-argument computation should be rechecked.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3, proof of Theorem 3.4] The notation 'S_{1,λ}' appears in the base-case sentence; it should be 'S_{λ,1}' for consistency with the definition of S_{λ,w}.
  2. [Appendix A] The printed SageMath code appears not to be directly executable as written: in the substitution for Rp, lines such as 'x11 == ( b * r10 * z1 + r10)/( b * z2 + 1)' use '==' where Python keyword arguments require '='. Also the instruction to change 'Line 12' is unclear, since line 12 already reads 'if u <= r :'. Please provide corrected code so that the machine check is reproducible.
  3. [§4, proof of Theorem 4.1] The proof of Theorem 4.1 is quite compressed. In particular, the sentence 'Since the key tableau and the Lascoux atom is computed based on the unmarked state (Theorem 3.4), the first claim follows from Equation (4.1)' should be expanded to make explicit how the marked-state bijection, the Lusztig involution, and min(T*) combine to yield exactly the condition K(T)=K_{wλ}.
  4. [§2.2 and §4] In Conjecture 2.5 and Theorem 4.4 the notation 'L_{wλ}' omits the arguments '(z;β)'; adding them would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the colored-model partition function is derived from an independently defined model and the conjectures are outputs, not inputs.

full rationale

The central identity Theorem 3.4, L_{wλ}(z;β) = Z(S_{λ,w};z;β), is not assumed: Z(S_{λ,w}) is defined by Boltzmann weights and boundary conditions independently of the Lascoux operators, and the proof matches the recurrence of Lemma 3.3 with the Demazure–Lascoux recurrence. The only asserted base case, Z(S_{1,λ};z;β)=z^λ, is stated as 'straightforward to see' rather than fully proved; this is a verification gap and a correctness risk, but it is not a circular reduction, since the partition function is not defined to equal L_{wλ}. The conjectures of Pechenik–Scrimshaw (Conjecture 2.4) and Monical (Conjecture 2.5) are proved from the model and from prior bijections, not used as hypotheses. Self-citations occur, especially [PS19], [MPS18], and [BBBG19b], but they supply definitions, crystal structures, and model constructions rather than the target equalities; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors to force the choice of model. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks in the sense that the main derivations reduce to the Yang–Baxter computation, the train argument, and the known bijections, all of which are independent of the conjectures being proved.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on known but unproved-in-paper structures: the finite-checked Yang-Baxter relation, the GT-pattern bijection for the Motegi-Sakai model, the MPS18 crystal and Lusztig machinery for set-valued tableaux, and Mason's and Monical's skyline bijections. No free parameters are fitted, and no new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The colored L- and R-matrices satisfy the RLL/Yang-Baxter equation for all admissible boundary conditions, verified by a finite SageMath computation over at most three colors.
    The train arguments in Lemma 3.3 and Theorems 3.4, 3.6, and 3.9 move an R-matrix through the lattice; the recurrences for partition functions depend on this identity. The paper provides code instead of a written proof.
  • domain assumption The bijection between admissible states of the Motegi-Sakai model and GT patterns, including the weight-twisting relation in Equation (2.4), extends to marked states of the colored model.
    Section 4 uses this extension to identify marked states with set-valued tableaux via the map phi; the extension is asserted as natural but not proved in detail.
  • domain assumption The crystal structure on set-valued tableaux of MPS18, including the Lusztig involution with wt(T*)=w0 wt(T) and the Key-tableau formula K(T)=k(min(T*)*), is correct.
    Theorem 4.1 relies on these facts to convert unmarked state data into Key-tableau conditions; they are cited from prior work and not reproven.
  • domain assumption Mason's bijection realizes Demazure atoms as semistandard skyline tableaux, and Monical's Theorem 2.4 extends it to set-valued skyline tableaux.
    Theorem 4.4 uses these bijections as a black box to transfer the marked-state model to set-valued skyline tableaux.
  • standard math The Demazure-Lascoux operators pi_i and bar-pi_i satisfy the relations in (2.2), with L_w_lambda=pi_w z^lambda and bar-L_s_i_w_lambda=bar-pi_i bar-L_w_lambda when s_i w > w.
    This is the algebraic definition of Lascoux polynomials and atoms from the cited literature, used as the benchmark for the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Colored five-vertex models and Lascoux polynomials and atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AF6CAFQE

@misc{pith2026190807364,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Colored five-vertex models and Lascoux polynomials and atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AF6CAFQE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07364}
}
read the original abstract

We construct an integrable colored five-vertex model whose partition function is a Lascoux atom based on the five-vertex model of Motegi and Sakai [arXiv:1305.3030] and the colored five-vertex model of Brubaker, the first author, Bump, and Gustafsson [arXiv:1902.01795]. We then modify this model in two different ways to construct a Lascoux polynomial, yielding the first known combinatorial interpretation of a Lascoux polynomial and atom. Using this, we prove a conjectured combinatorial interpretation in terms of set-valued tableaux of a Lascoux polynomial and atom due to Pechenik and the second author [arXiv:1904.09674]. We also prove the combinatorial interpretation of the Lascoux atom using set-valued skyline tableaux of Monical [arXiv:1611.08777].

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07364 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Boltzmann weights of the uncolored model. Next, we consider a rectangular grid with n horizontal lines and m vertical lines and to each (half) edge (we consider a crossing of the lines to be vertices), we assign either a 0 or a 1. For the (lattice) model we will be considering, we fix the left (half) edges to all have label by 1, the right and bottom (half) edges all being labeled by 0, and the top (half) edges give… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The R-matrix for the uncolored model. where we sum over all possible markings of P(S). Note that we have freedom for a2 vertices in a state to be or not be marked. In particular, a state is unmarked if and only if it corresponds to a semistandard Young tableau. Similarly for GT patterns. Example 2.8. The following is an admissible state S ∈ S221 with n = 3 and m = 5: z3 z2 z1 z3 z2 z1 z3 z2 z1 z3 z2 z1 z3 z2 z1 0 1 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The colored Boltzmann weights with ci > cj and d being any color. Proposition 2.9 ([MS13]). The partition function of the following two models are equal for any boundary conditions a, b, c, d, e, f ∈ {0, 1}: (2.5) a b c d e f zi zj zi , zj a b c d e f zj zi zi , zj We note that Proposition 2.9 is an identity of 23 × 2 3 matrices, and so it is a finite computation to verify this still holds under the gauge transforma… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The colored R-matrix with ci > cj and d being any color. Note that the weights are not symmetric with respect to color. corresponding to a simple transposition), and b1 as two strands both passing near the vertex but not crossing. Remark 3.1. In contrast to [BBBG19b] w…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: The model Sλ,w with an R-matrix attached on the right. Right: The model after using the Yang–Baxter equation in the same model. boundary entries being 0. Note that there is a bijection between states of M and Sλ,w as there is precisely one admissible configuratio…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The unique “ground” state for the colored system Sλ,1 with m = 5, n = 3, and λ = (2, 2, 1). We use colors c1 > c2 > c3. The Boltzmann weight of this state is z 2 1 z 2 2 z3. z3 z2 z1 z3 z2 z1 z3 z2 z1 z3 z2 z1 z3 z2 z1 z3 z2 z1 z3 z2 z1 z3 z2 z1 0 c1 0 c2 0 0 c3 0 0 0 …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A state for the colored system Sλ,s1s2 , with m = 8, n = 3, and λ = (4, 2, 1). We use colors c1 > c2 > c3. The Boltzmann weight of this state is (1 + βz1)z 3 1 z 2 2 z 2 3 . using those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quantum integrable model for the quantum cohomology/K-theory of flag varieties and the double $\beta$-Grothendieck polynomials

    math-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Bethe ansatz states of a new GL(n) five vertex model expand into double β-Grothendieck polynomials, and the model's Bethe equations reproduce the quantum Whitney relations of flag varieties.

  2. Integrability approach to Feher-Nemethi-Rimanyi-Guo-Sun type identities for factorial Grothendieck polynomials

    math.CO 2019-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using five-vertex model wavefunctions, the author reproves the Guo-Sun identity and proves a new identity and duality for rectangular factorial Grothendieck polynomials.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    H. H. Andersen. Schubert varieties and D emazure's character formula. Invent. Math. , 79(3):611--618, 1985

    1985

  2. [2]

    Combinatorics of C oxeter groups , volume 231 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics

    Anders Bj\"orner and Francesco Brenti. Combinatorics of C oxeter groups , volume 231 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer, New York, 2005

    2005

  3. [3]

    Ben Brubaker, Valentin Buciumas, Daniel Bump, and Henrik P. A. Gustafsson. Colored vertex models and I wahori W hittaker functions. Preprint, arXiv:1906.04140, 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1906

  4. [4]

    Ben Brubaker, Valentin Buciumas, Daniel Bump, and Henrik P. A. Gustafsson. Coloured five-vertex models and D emazure atoms. Preprint, arXiv:1902.01795, 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1902

  5. [5]

    On a family of symmetric rational functions

    Alexei Borodin. On a family of symmetric rational functions. Adv. Math. , 306:973--1018, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Higher spin six vertex model and symmetric rational functions

    Alexei Borodin and Leonid Petrov. Higher spin six vertex model and symmetric rational functions. Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 24(2):751--874, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Crystal bases

    Daniel Bump and Anne Schilling. Crystal bases . World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2017. Representations and combinatorics

    2017

  8. [8]

    A L ittlewood- R ichardson rule for the K -theory of G rassmannians

    Anders Skovsted Buch. A L ittlewood- R ichardson rule for the K -theory of G rassmannians. Acta Math. , 189(1):37--78, 2002

    work page 2002

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Coloured stochastic vertex models and their spectral theory

    Alexei Borodin and Michael Wheeler. Coloured stochastic vertex models and their spectral theory. Preprint, arXiv:1808.01866, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Nonsymmetric M acdonald polynomials via integrable vertex models

    Alexei Borodin and Michael Wheeler. Nonsymmetric M acdonald polynomials via integrable vertex models. Preprint, arXiv:1904.06804, 2019

    1904 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Stochastic higher spin vertex models on the line

    Ivan Corwin and Leonid Petrov. Stochastic higher spin vertex models on the line. Comm. Math. Phys. , 343(2):651--700, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Representation theory , volume 129 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics

    William Fulton and Joe Harris. Representation theory , volume 129 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991. A first course, Readings in Mathematics

    1991

  5. [13]

    Kirillov

    Sergey Fomin and Anatol N. Kirillov. Grothendieck polynomials and the Y ang- B axter equation. In Formal power series and algebraic combinatorics/ S \'eries formelles et combinatoire alg\'ebrique , pages 183--189. DIMACS, Piscataway, NJ, 1994

    1994

  6. [14]

    Humphreys

    James E. Humphreys. Reflection groups and C oxeter groups , volume 29 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990

    1990

  7. [15]

    K -theoretic analogues of factorial S chur P - and Q -functions

    Takeshi Ikeda and Hiroshi Naruse. K -theoretic analogues of factorial S chur P - and Q -functions. Adv. Math. , 243:22--66, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    A proof of K -theoretic L ittlewood- R ichardson rules by B ender- K nuth-type involutions

    Takeshi Ikeda and Tatsushi Shimazaki. A proof of K -theoretic L ittlewood- R ichardson rules by B ender- K nuth-type involutions. Math. Res. Lett. , 21(2):333--339, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    Grothendieck polynomials and the boson-fermion correspondence

    Shinsuke Iwao. Grothendieck polynomials and the boson-fermion correspondence. Preprint, arXiv:1905.07692, 2019

    1905 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Crystalizing the q -analogue of universal enveloping algebras

    Masaki Kashiwara. Crystalizing the q -analogue of universal enveloping algebras. Comm. Math. Phys. , 133(2):249--260, 1990

    1990

  11. [19]

    On crystal bases of the q -analogue of universal enveloping algebras

    Masaki Kashiwara. On crystal bases of the q -analogue of universal enveloping algebras. Duke Math. J. , 63(2):465--516, 1991

    1991

  12. [20]

    The crystal base and L ittelmann's refined D emazure character formula

    Masaki Kashiwara. The crystal base and L ittelmann's refined D emazure character formula. Duke Math. J. , 71(3):839--858, 1993

    1993

  13. [21]

    Kirillov

    Anatol N. Kirillov. Notes on S chubert, G rothendieck and key polynomials. SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. , 12:Paper No. 034, 1--56, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    Multispecies TASEP and combinatorial R

    Atsuo Kuniba, Shouya Maruyama, and Masato Okado. Multispecies TASEP and combinatorial R . J. Phys. A , 48(34):34FT02, 19, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    Inhomogeneous generalization of a multispecies totally asymmetric zero range process

    Atsuo Kuniba, Shouya Maruyama, and Masato Okado. Inhomogeneous generalization of a multispecies totally asymmetric zero range process. J. Stat. Phys. , 164(4):952--968, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Multispecies TASEP and the tetrahedron equation

    Atsuo Kuniba, Shouya Maruyama, and Masato Okado. Multispecies TASEP and the tetrahedron equation. J. Phys. A , 49(11):114001, 22, 2016

    2016

  17. [25]

    Another proof of the alternating-sign matrix conjecture

    Greg Kuperberg. Another proof of the alternating-sign matrix conjecture. Internat. Math. Res. Notices , (3):139--150, 1996

    1996

  18. [26]

    Transition on G rothendieck polynomials

    Alain Lascoux. Transition on G rothendieck polynomials. In Physics and combinatorics, 2000 ( N agoya) , pages 164--179. World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 2001

    2000

  19. [27]

    Combinatorial aspects of the K -theory of G rassmannians

    Cristian Lenart. Combinatorial aspects of the K -theory of G rassmannians. Ann. Comb. , 4(1):67--82, 2000

    2000

  20. [28]

    On the combinatorics of crystal graphs

    Cristian Lenart. On the combinatorics of crystal graphs. I . L usztig's involution. Adv. Math. , 211(1):204--243, 2007

    2007

  21. [29]

    Crystal graphs and Y oung tableaux

    Peter Littelmann. Crystal graphs and Y oung tableaux. J. Algebra , 175(1):65--87, 1995

    1995

  22. [30]

    Lakshmibai, C

    V. Lakshmibai, C. Musili, and C. S. Seshadri. Geometry of G/P . IV . S tandard monomial theory for classical types. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Sect. A Math. Sci. , 88(4):279--362, 1979

    1979

  23. [31]

    Structure de H opf de l'anneau de cohomologie et de l'anneau de G rothendieck d'une vari\'et\'e de drapeaux

    Alain Lascoux and Marcel-Paul Sch \"u tzenberger. Structure de H opf de l'anneau de cohomologie et de l'anneau de G rothendieck d'une vari\'et\'e de drapeaux. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S\'er. I Math. , 295(11):629--633, 1982

    1982

  24. [32]

    Symmetry and flag manifolds

    Alain Lascoux and Marcel-Paul Sch \"u tzenberger. Symmetry and flag manifolds. In Invariant theory ( M ontecatini, 1982) , volume 996 of Lecture Notes in Math. , pages 118--144. Springer, Berlin, 1983

    1982

  25. [33]

    Keys & standard bases

    Alain Lascoux and Marcel-Paul Sch \"u tzenberger. Keys & standard bases. In Invariant theory and tableaux ( M inneapolis, MN , 1988) , volume 19 of IMA Vol. Math. Appl. , pages 125--144. Springer, New York, 1990

    1988

  26. [34]

    A decomposition of S chur functions and an analogue of the R obinson- S chensted- K nuth algorithm

    Sarah Mason. A decomposition of S chur functions and an analogue of the R obinson- S chensted- K nuth algorithm. S\' e m. Lothar. Combin. , 57:Art. B57e, 24, 2006/08

    2006

  27. [35]

    An explicit construction of type A D emazure atoms

    Sarah Mason. An explicit construction of type A D emazure atoms. J. Algebraic Combin. , 29(3):295--313, 2009

    2009

  28. [36]

    Set-valued skyline fillings

    Cara Monical. Set-valued skyline fillings. Preprint, arXiv:1611.08777, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Crystal structures for symmetric G rothendieck polynomials

    Cara Monical, Oliver Pechenik, and Travis Scrimshaw. Crystal structures for symmetric G rothendieck polynomials. Preprint, arXiv:1807.03294, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Polynomials from combinatorial K -theory

    Cara Monical, Oliver Pechenik, and Dominic Searles. Polynomials from combinatorial K -theory. Canad. J. Math. , 2019. To appear

    2019

  31. [39]

    Vertex models, TASEP and G rothendieck polynomials

    Kohei Motegi and Kazumitsu Sakai. Vertex models, TASEP and G rothendieck polynomials. J. Phys. A , 46(35):355201, 26, 2013

    2013

  32. [40]

    K -theoretic boson-fermion correspondence and melting crystals

    Kohei Motegi and Kazumitsu Sakai. K -theoretic boson-fermion correspondence and melting crystals. J. Phys. A , 47(44):445202, 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    K-theoretic crystals for set-valued tableaux of rectangular shapes

    Oliver Pechenik and Travis Scrimshaw. K-theoretic crystals for set-valued tableaux of rectangular shapes. Preprint, arXiv:1904.09674, 2019

    1904 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Combinatorial rules for three bases of polynomials

    Colleen Ross and Alexander Yong. Combinatorial rules for three bases of polynomials. S\'em. Lothar. Combin. , 74:Art. B74a, 11, 2015

    2015

  35. [43]

    Bruce E. Sagan. The symmetric group , volume 203 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 2001. Representations, combinatorial algorithms, and symmetric functions

    2001

  36. [44]

    S age M athematics S oftware ( V ersion 8.7) , 2019

    The Sage Developers. S age M athematics S oftware ( V ersion 8.7) , 2019. http://www.sagemath.org

    2019

  37. [45]

    Matthew J. Willis. A direct way to find the right key of a semistandard Y oung tableau. Ann. Comb. , 17(2):393--400, 2013

    2013

  38. [46]

    Littlewood- R ichardson coefficients for G rothendieck polynomials from integrability

    Michael Wheeler and Paul Zinn-Justin. Littlewood- R ichardson coefficients for G rothendieck polynomials from integrability. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 2017. To appear

    2017

Pith tools

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