Combinatorics of the geometry of Wilson loop diagrams I: equivalence classes via matroids and polytopes

Karen Yeats; Si\^an Fryer; Susama Agarwala

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 24 references

Combinatorics of the geometry of Wilson loop diagrams I: equivalence classes via matroids and polytopes

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 Two weakly admissible Wilson loop diagrams define the same positroid if and only if they differ by exact subdiagrams, and inequivalent diagrams are counted by non-parallel faces of an associahedron.

desk verdict The right theorem, with a real proof gap in the if direction of Theorem 3.25; worth refereeing, but the proof needs a rewrite. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10919 v2 pith:6SYBG55A submitted 2019-08-28 math-ph math.COmath.MP

Susama Agarwala , Siân Fryer , Karen Yeats This is my paper · ORCID

classification math-phmath.COmath.MP MSC 05B3552B1114M1505A15

keywords WilsonloopdiagramspositroidsmatroidspolygondissectionsassociahedrauniformpositiveGrassmannianN=4superYang-Millsscatteringamplitudes

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

Wilson loop diagrams are combinatorial pictures attached to scattering amplitudes in $\mathcal{N}=4$ super Yang-Mills theory, and previous work encoded each weakly admissible diagram as a positroid, a matroid realized by points in the positive Grassmannian. This paper proves exactly when two diagrams encode the same positroid: they must differ only by exact subdiagrams, meaning subdiagrams whose vertex support has exactly three more vertices than propagators (Theorem 3.25). Along the way it shows that exact subdiagrams are precisely the subdiagrams whose matroid is uniform of rank equal to the number of propagators (Theorem 3.23), and that every diagram decomposes uniquely into maximal exact subdiagrams. These results make the many-to-one map from diagrams to positroids explicit: the size of each fiber is a product of Catalan numbers, and the number of inequivalent diagrams on $n$ vertices is the number of non-parallel faces of the associahedron $A_n$. The payoff is a dictionary between scattering-amplitude combinatorics and two classical subjects, matroids and polytopes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the polygon dissection $\tau(W)$ associated to a weakly admissible diagram $W$: the vertices of $\tau(W)$ are the edges of $W$, and each propagator $(i,j)$ becomes the diagonal connecting vertices $i$ and $j$. By Lemma 3.2 and Remark 3.3, $\tau$ is a bijection between weakly admissible Wilson loop diagrams and polygon dissections, with noncrossing following from admissibility. Inside $\tau(W)$, exact subdiagrams correspond precisely to triangulated pieces, and the unique decomposition of $\tau(W)$ into maximal triangulated pieces (Lemma 3.8) yields the unique decomposition of $W$ into maximal exact subdiagrams (Corollary 3.14). On the matroid side, the independent sets of $M(W)$ are read directly from the condition that every vertex subset $U$ supports at least as many propagators as vertices (Theorem 2.14, from previous work); against that backdrop the paper proves that exact subdiagrams are uniform matroids and can be realized as contractions of $M(W)$ by the complementary propagator flat (Theorem 3.21). The associahedron enters through the secondary-polytope realization: each dissection with $k$ diagonals is a face of the $n-1$ associahedron, and parallel faces correspond exactly to equivalent diagrams (Propositions 4.3 and 4.5).

What would settle it

For a small case such as $n=6$ or $n=8$, enumerate all weakly admissible Wilson loop diagrams, compute their positroids from the matrices $C(W)$, and search for two diagrams with the same set of nonzero maximal minors but with non-isomorphic maximal exact subdiagram decompositions; Theorem 3.25 predicts that no such pair exists, so one explicit pair would refute the equivalence characterization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central statement is a characterization of the failure of injectivity in the Wilson-loop-to-positroid map. For two weakly admissible Wilson loop diagrams $W$ and $W'$ on the same $n$ vertices, $M(W)=M(W')$ if and only if $W\sim W'$, where the equivalence relation is generated by replacing an exact subdiagram $(P,V(P))$ with another exact subdiagram $(P',V(P'))$ having the same number of propagators and the same vertex support, leaving the rest of the diagram unchanged (Theorem 3.25). Equivalently, the map from diagrams to positroid cells is injective exactly on diagrams with no nontrivial exact subdiagram. The proof passes through polygon dissections: exact subdiagrams appear exactly as triangulated pieces, the maximal triangulated pieces give a unique decomposition of the dissection, and equivalence of diagrams becomes retriangulation of those pieces (Corollaries 3.14 and 3.15). A second structural result is that a subdiagram is exact if and only if its matroid is the uniform matroid of rank $|P|$ (Theorem 3.23); in that case the matroid is the top-dimensional positroid cell of its Grassmannian (Corollary 3.24). Finally, the number of inequivalent weakly admissible diagrams on $n$ vertices equals the number of non-parallel faces of the associahedron $A_n$ (Theorem 4.6).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the bijection between weakly admissible Wilson loop diagrams and polygon dissections (Lemma 3.2 and Remark 3.3), which depends on the admissibility rules forbidding propagators on adjacent edges and duplicate propagator pairs; if that correspondence or the dual-graph decomposition into a tree without degree-two vertices failed, the equivalence classification and the associahedron count would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If Theorem 3.25 is correct, the Wilson-loop-to-positroid map becomes injective precisely when restricted to diagrams with no nontrivial exact subdiagrams, so the entire non-injectivity is explained by retriangulations of triangulated pieces.
Theorem 3.23 gives a combinatorial certificate of exactness: a subdiagram is exact if and only if its matroid is uniform, which can be checked directly from the propagator-support matrix $C(W)$.
Corollary 3.26 gives the exact fiber size for every positroid arising from a diagram: the product of Catalan numbers indexed by the maximal triangulated pieces, so enumerating diagrams with a given positroid reduces to enumerating triangulations of polygons.
Theorem 4.6 turns the surjectivity question into a polytopal counting problem: counting inequivalent diagrams on $n$ vertices is counting non-parallel faces of the associahedron $A_n$, so the full apparatus of polytope theory applies to the image of the positroid map.
Because equivalent diagrams give the same positroid cell and hence the same volume form on that cell, retriangulations of exact subdiagrams are natural redundancies of the amplitudes rather than distinct contributions.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not enumerate the image of the positroid map; a natural extension is to use the normal fan of the associahedron to seek a closed formula for the number of positroid cells realized by Wilson loop diagrams on $n$ vertices.
The uniform-matroid characterization suggests a local converse: any uniform rank-$r$ matroid on $r+3$ elements that arises from a Wilson loop diagram should be realized by some exact subdiagram, making exact subdiagrams precisely the pieces that the matroid cannot distinguish.
One could test whether the integrand of a Wilson loop diagram is literally invariant under retriangulation, not merely the matroid; if true, amplitudes would be functions on the associahedron that are constant on parallel faces.
The bijection with polygon dissections offers a grading of Wilson loop diagrams by distance to triangulation, suggesting a possibly cohomological or deformation-theoretic reading of the equivalence classes.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Things to know up front: this is a real contribution to the Wilson loop diagram / positroid program, and the main theorem is the right theorem. But the stress-test concern lands: the proof of the if direction of Theorem 3.25 is not just compressed, it has a gap that shows up in the paper's own Example 2.9.

What's new: the converse of the Agarwala–Marin-Amat equivalence, the uniform matroid characterization of exact subdiagrams, the enumeration of equivalence classes, and the associahedron-face correspondence. The polygon dissection bijection τ, the maximal triangulated-piece decomposition, and the contraction result (Theorem 3.21) are carefully developed. Theorem 3.23 (exact iff uniform) is clean and useful. The associahedron argument is ambitious, and I did not find a problem in its structure. The reliance on [5] is fine; the new results are genuinely new.

The soft spot is Theorem 3.25's if direction. The proof asserts that every basis of M(W) has the form B⊔U with B⊆F(P), U⊆V(R), |B|=|P|, |U|=|R|, because rkF(P)+rkV(R)=|P|+|R|. That rank-additivity claim is false. In Example 2.9, take R={(1,4),(2,4)} and P={(5,8)}; then F(P)={6,7,8}. The set {1,2,3} is independent (every subset supports enough propagators) and has size 3, so it is a basis, yet it contains no element of F(P). Also, the statement that any subset of V(R) is independent only holds in the exact subdiagram's uniform matroid for subsets of size at most |R|; larger subsets can become independent in M(W) because of the other propagators. The theorem may still be true—contraction Theorem 3.21 plus a careful argument about how the P-propagators attach to V(R) should recover it—but the proof as written does not establish equality of the full basis families. The converse direction of Theorem 3.25 is not where the problem is.

Minor: Corollary 3.26 is fine if n_i is the vertex-support size of the maximal exact subdiagram, but the statement should say so explicitly. Read as the number of propagators, the formula would be wrong. And the proof's 'any subset of V(R)' sentence should be corrected regardless.

This paper shows serious thinking, and for people working on positroids and scattering-amplitude combinatorics it is worth engaging with. I would send it to a serious referee, with a clear request to rewrite the proof of Theorem 3.25 and to state Corollary 3.26 precisely. Conditional acceptance is the right call, not rejection.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper studies the map from weakly admissible Wilson loop diagrams to positroids introduced in [5]. It claims (Theorem 3.25) that two such diagrams define the same positroid if and only if they are equivalent under replacing exact subdiagrams; it proves that exact subdiagrams give uniform matroids (Theorem 3.23); it counts the size of each equivalence class (Corollary 3.26); and it identifies inequivalence classes with non-parallel faces of the associahedron (Theorem 4.6). The main technical bridge is a bijection between diagrams and polygon dissections, under which exact subdiagrams become triangulated pieces and equivalence becomes retriangulation.

Significance. The conceptual reduction of Wilson-loop-diagram equivalence to polygon retriangulation is attractive, and the connection to associahedra is potentially useful. The paper is largely self-contained and builds on published work rather than introducing fitted parameters; the only-if direction of Theorem 3.25 is a genuine new derivation from the stated definitions. However, the alternative proof of the if-direction contains a false basis classification, and the enumeration formula in Corollary 3.26 appears to count the wrong polygon in general. These issues need correction before the claims can be accepted as stated.

major comments (2)

[§3.3, Theorem 3.25 (if-direction)] The proof's classification of bases is not valid. In the notation of the theorem, take W from Example 2.9 with R={(1,4),(2,4)} and P={(5,8)}; then V(R)={1,2,3,4,5}, F(P)=V(R)^c={6,7,8}, |R|=2, and |P|=1. The set {1,2,3} has size 3 and satisfies the condition of Theorem 2.14 (every subset U has |Prop(U)|≥|U|), so it is a basis of M(W), yet it contains no element of F(P). Therefore the assertion that every basis has the form B⊔U with B an independent set of size |P| in F(P) and U an independent set of size |R| in V(R) is false. The displayed identity rkF(P)+rkV(R)=|P|+|R|=n is also wrong: |P|+|R| equals the rank k, not n. The statement that any subset of V(R) is independent is likewise false for a uniform matroid of rank |R|. Because the forward direction is already proved in [5, Theorem 1.18], the theorem may still be true, but this alternative proof should be removed or replaced by a correct argument, for instance using the contraction theorem (Theorem 3.21).
[§3.3, Corollary 3.26] The counting formula appears to use n_i as |V(P_i)|, the size of the vertex support of a maximal exact subdiagram, but the number of retriangulations is governed by the number m_i of vertices of the corresponding maximal triangulated piece t_i in τ(W). Lemma 3.12 shows |V(P_i)|=m_i+j_i, where j_i is the number of connected components of the intersection of t_i with the outer polygon, and j_i is not always 1. Example 3.11 illustrates this: the exact subdiagram has V(P)={1,2,3,4,5,8,9}, so |V(P)|=7, while t has vertex set {1,2,3,4,8}, so m=5 and j=2. The equivalence class of that piece has 5 triangulations of a pentagon, not 42 triangulations of a heptagon. The corollary should use m_i, or should state clearly that n_i denotes the number of vertices of the triangulated piece, and the proof should justify that the maximal decomposition provides these m_i. The term 'nontrivial maximal exact subdiagram' should also be defined, since a single-propagator maximal exact subdiagram has m=2 and contributes factor 1.

minor comments (3)

[§3, terminology] The word 'support' is used both for V(P) (Definition 2.4) and, in Corollary 3.26, potentially for the vertex set of a triangulated piece in τ(W); please disambiguate these two uses.
[§3.1, Example 3.11] It would help to state explicitly whether the exact subdiagram in Example 3.11 is maximal; the correspondence in Lemma 3.12 holds for all exact subdiagrams, but maximality is what matters for the decomposition and for Corollary 3.26.
[§4.2, Proposition 4.5] The proof cites 'page 8 of [11]' for the normal-vector formula; a precise proposition or lemma number would aid verification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the main equivalence theorem is a new derivation from independently published foundations; the skeptical rank-additivity objection is a proof gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The foundational map from weakly admissible Wilson loop diagrams to positroids is imported from [5], but that is an independently published theorem (Agarwala & Marin-Amat, Comm. Math. Phys. 350 (2017)) and is cited as a stated external result, not as an unverified assumption. The paper also reproves the forward direction of Theorem 3.25 rather than merely citing it. The main new claims—the equivalence characterization (Theorem 3.25), the uniform matroid theorem for exact subdiagrams (Theorem 3.23), and the associahedron face-counting theorem (Theorem 4.6)—are derived from the stated definitions and the [5] foundation, not assumed. No parameter is fitted and no 'prediction' is a renamed input. The skeptical objection to the proof of Theorem 3.25, namely the assertion that rkF(P)+rkV(R)=|P|+|R|=n and that every basis has the form B⊔U, identifies a genuine potential correctness gap: Example 2.9 appears to give a basis {1,2,3} disjoint from F(P), contradicting that basis classification. This is a mathematical error or missing argument in the proof as written, not a circular reduction, because the theorem's conclusion is not identical to any of its inputs and the proof does not assume what it sets out to prove. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited and the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. It relies on standard matroid theory, the established Wilson-loop-to-positroid correspondence from [5], and classical polygon dissection and associahedron facts. The main background assumptions are the earlier results of Agarwala and Marin-Amat, which are published and not re-derived here.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Weakly admissible Wilson loop diagrams define positroids via the matrix C(W), and equivalent diagrams give the same matroid.
This is the main input from prior work [5, Theorems 1.18, 3.38, 3.41], cited in Section 2.2 and used throughout.
standard math The dual graph of a polygon dissection with a distinguished outer face is a tree.
Used in Lemma 3.8 to prove the unique decomposition into maximal triangulated pieces.
standard math Maximal outerplanar graphs are exactly polygon triangulations.
Invoked in Lemma 3.12 to count edges in triangulated pieces; attributed to [19] and [17].
standard math The secondary polytope construction realizes the associahedron, and normal vectors to faces can be computed from distances to diagonals.
Used in Section 4 for the correspondence between diagram equivalence classes and non-parallel faces of the associahedron, following [24] and [11].
standard math The number of triangulations of a convex n-gon is the (n-2)-th Catalan number.
Used in Corollary 3.26 to count equivalent diagrams; standard enumeration result from [23].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Combinatorics of the geometry of Wilson loop diagrams I: equivalence classes via matroids and polytopes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6SYBG55A

@misc{pith2026190810919,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Combinatorics of the geometry of Wilson loop diagrams I: equivalence classes via matroids and polytopes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6SYBG55A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10919}
}

abstract

Wilson loop diagrams are an important tool in studying scattering amplitudes of SYM $N=4$ theory and are known by previous work to be associated to positroids. We characterize the conditions under which two Wilson loop diagrams give the same positroid, prove that an important subclass of subdiagrams (exact subdiagrams) correspond to uniform matroids, and enumerate the number of different Wilson loop diagrams that correspond to each positroid cell. We also give a correspondence between those positroids which can arise from Wilson loop diagrams and directions in associahedra.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10919 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The polygon dissection τ (W3) overlaid with its dual graph T(W3) (left diagram), and the forest obtained by splitting at the only vertex of degree > 3 (right diagram). To see uniqueness, consider a different maximal decomposition of τ (W). This induces a splitting on T(W), where each connected component of the new decomposition corresponds to a subtree. Call this forest f 0 . Since f 0 6= f, there are two trees t an… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Two associahedra, labelled by all and some (respectively) of their polygon dissections. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The shaded regions are triangulated regions which are the same in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Up to reflection and to rotation of xi , xj , xk, xl , the possible configurations of the quadrilateral from one dissection and diagonal from the other dissection (thick edge) illustrated together on the same vertex set. Lemma 4.4. Let D1 and D2 be two dissections of a…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The three possible configurations in the final part of the proof of Lemma 4.4. The thin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[5]

Wilson Loop diagrams and Positroids

S. Agarwala and E. Marin-Amat. Wilson loop diagrams and positroids. Comm. Math. Phys. , 350(2):569–601, 2017. arXiv:1509.06150

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[1]

Adamo, M

T. Adamo, M. Bullimore, L. Mason, and D. Skinner. Scattering amplitudes and Wilson loops in twistor space. J. Phys. A , 44(45):454008, 48, 2011. arXiv:1104.2890

arXiv 2011
[2]

A study in $\mathbb{G}_{\mathbb{R}, \geq 0}$: from the geometric case book of Wilson loop diagrams and SYM $N=4$

S. Agarwala and S. Fryer. A study in Gr≥0(2, 6): from the geometric case book of Wilson loop diagrams and SYM N = 4. arXiv:1803.00958

work page Pith review arXiv
[3]

Combinatorics of the geometry of Wilson loop diagrams II: Grassmann necklaces, dimensions, and denominators

S. Agarwala, S. Fryer, and K. Yeats. Combinatorics of the geometry of Wilson loop diagrams II: Grassmann necklaces, dimensions, and denominators. arXiv:1910.12158

work page Pith review arXiv 1910
[4]

Wilson loops in SYM $N=4$ do not parametrize an orientable space

S. Agarwala and C. Marcott. Wilson loops in SYM N = 4 do not parametrize an orientable space. arXiv:1807.05397

work page Pith review arXiv
[6]

Arkani-Hamed, J

N. Arkani-Hamed, J. L. Bourjaily, F. Cachazo, A. B. Goncharov, A. Postnikov, and J. Trnka. Scattering amplitudes and the positive Grassmannian. arXiv:1212.5605

arXiv
[7]

Arkani-Hamed and J

N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Trnka. Into the Amplituhedron. J. High Energy Phys. , 12:182, 2014. arXiv:1312.7878

arXiv 2014
[8]

Arkani-Hamed and J

N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Trnka. The Amplituhedron. J. High Energy Phys. , 10:030, 2014. arXiv:1312.2007

arXiv 2014

Show all 24 references

[9]

Britto, F

R. Britto, F. Cachazo, B. Feng, and E. Witten. Direct proof of the tree-level scattering amplitude recursion relation in Yang-Mills theory. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 94(18):181602, 4, 2005. arXiv:hep-th/0501052

2005 arXiv
[10]

Cachazo, P

F. Cachazo, P. Svrcek, and E. Witten. MHV vertices and tree amplitudes in gauge theory. J. High Energy Phys. , (9):006, 21, 2004. arXiv:hep-th/0403047. 31

2004 arXiv
[11]

Ceballos, F

C. Ceballos, F. Santos, and G. M. Ziegler. Many non-equivalent realizations of the associahe- dron. Combinatorica, 35(5):513–551, 2015. arXiv:1109.5544

2015 arXiv
[12]

Chavez and F

A. Chavez and F. Gotti. Dyck paths and positroids from unit interval orders. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A , 154:507–532, 2018. arXiv:1611.09279

2018 arXiv
[13]

B. Eden, P. Heslop, and L. Mason. The correlahedron. J. High Energy Phys. , (9):156, front matter+40, 2017. arXiv:1701.00453

2017 arXiv
[14]

Galashin and T

P. Galashin and T. Lam. Parity duality for the amplituhedron. arXiv:1805.00600

arXiv
[15]

Heslop and A

P. Heslop and A. Stewart. The twistor Wilson loop and the amplituhedron. J. High Energy Phys., (10):142, front matter+18, 2018. arXiv:1807.05921

2018 arXiv
[16]

S. N. Karp, L. Williams, and Y. X. Zhang. Decompostions of amplituhedra. arXiv:1708. 09525
[17]

Laskar, H

R. Laskar, H. M. Mulder, and B. Novick. Maximal outerplanar graphs as chordal graphs, path- neighborhood graphs, and triangle graphs. Australasian Journal of Combinatorics, 52:185–195, 2012

2012
[18]

C. Marcott. Basis shape loci and the positive grassmannian. arXiv:1904.13361

1904 arXiv
[19]

Mitchell

S. Mitchell. Algorithms on trees and maximal outerplanar graphs: design,complexity analysis and data structures study . PhD thesis, University of Virginia, 1977

1977
[20]

J. Oxley. Matroid theory, volume 21 of Oxford Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford, second edition, 2011

2011
[21]

Postnikov

A. Postnikov. Total positivity, Grassmannians, and networks. arXiv:math/0609764

arXiv
[22]

J. H. Przytycki and A. S. Sikora. Polygon dissections and Euler, Fuss, Kirkman, and Cayley numbers. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A , 92(1):68–76, 2000. arXiv:math/9811086

2000 arXiv
[23]

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

1999
[24]

G. M. Ziegler. Lectures on polytopes, volume 152 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer- Verlag, New York, 1995. 32

1995

Pith tools

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

[1] [5]

Wilson Loop diagrams and Positroids

S. Agarwala and E. Marin-Amat. Wilson loop diagrams and positroids. Comm. Math. Phys. , 350(2):569–601, 2017. arXiv:1509.06150

work page Pith review arXiv 2017

[2] [1]

Adamo, M

T. Adamo, M. Bullimore, L. Mason, and D. Skinner. Scattering amplitudes and Wilson loops in twistor space. J. Phys. A , 44(45):454008, 48, 2011. arXiv:1104.2890

arXiv 2011

[3] [2]

A study in $\mathbb{G}_{\mathbb{R}, \geq 0}$: from the geometric case book of Wilson loop diagrams and SYM $N=4$

S. Agarwala and S. Fryer. A study in Gr≥0(2, 6): from the geometric case book of Wilson loop diagrams and SYM N = 4. arXiv:1803.00958

work page Pith review arXiv

[4] [3]

Combinatorics of the geometry of Wilson loop diagrams II: Grassmann necklaces, dimensions, and denominators

S. Agarwala, S. Fryer, and K. Yeats. Combinatorics of the geometry of Wilson loop diagrams II: Grassmann necklaces, dimensions, and denominators. arXiv:1910.12158

work page Pith review arXiv 1910

[5] [4]

Wilson loops in SYM $N=4$ do not parametrize an orientable space

S. Agarwala and C. Marcott. Wilson loops in SYM N = 4 do not parametrize an orientable space. arXiv:1807.05397

work page Pith review arXiv

[6] [6]

Arkani-Hamed, J

N. Arkani-Hamed, J. L. Bourjaily, F. Cachazo, A. B. Goncharov, A. Postnikov, and J. Trnka. Scattering amplitudes and the positive Grassmannian. arXiv:1212.5605

arXiv

[7] [7]

Arkani-Hamed and J

N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Trnka. Into the Amplituhedron. J. High Energy Phys. , 12:182, 2014. arXiv:1312.7878

arXiv 2014

[8] [8]

Arkani-Hamed and J

N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Trnka. The Amplituhedron. J. High Energy Phys. , 10:030, 2014. arXiv:1312.2007

arXiv 2014