Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Euler Discriminant of Complements of Hyperplanes

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that for families of complements of hyperplanes, the Euler discriminant—the locus where the signed Euler characteristic drops—is a hypersurface, and that under a positivity assumption it is exactly the zero locus of the…

desk verdict Solid combinatorial results with an overbroad abstract: the Euler discriminant is a hypersurface only under the paper's own positivity hypothesis. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19696 v2 pith:2KDQ6IUR submitted 2024-11-29 math.AG hep-th

Claudia Fevola , Saiei-Jaeyeong Matsubara-Heo This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AGhep-th MSC 32S2214M2514F10
keywords EulerdiscriminanthyperplanearrangementsveryaffinevarietiesprincipalA-determinantintegralsedgepolytopesbipartitegraphsD-modules
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

Variation of the signed Euler characteristic of hyperplane complements controls the singularity structure of Euler integrals, which appear in Feynman and cosmological correlation computations. This paper shows that the locus where that Euler characteristic drops—the Euler discriminant—is a hypersurface in the space of coefficients and identifies its defining equation. In the sparse-coefficient case the equation is a product of determinants of square submatrices, with multiplicities given by combinatorial subdiagram volumes of an associated bipartite graph. In the general case of coefficients constrained to a smooth subvariety, the same zero-locus description holds provided the signed Euler characteristic is positive somewhere. A consequence is that the Euler discriminant is computable directly from matroid data and coincides with the singular locus of the associated Gauss–Manin connection in the hyperplane case.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the reduced discriminant, the product of all square subdeterminants $\det(z_{I,J})$ of the coefficient matrix that are not identically zero on the chosen coefficient space. In the sparse case the same object arises from the edge polytope of a bipartite graph G: the factors are $\det(z_{I,J})$ for equal-size subsets I of the left vertices and J of the right vertices whose induced subgraph is connected and satisfies condition (∗), a Hall-type condition that makes the determinant irreducible; the exponents are subdiagram volumes computed from a contracted graph $G/H$ via non-homogeneous toric ideals. The proof that the zero locus of this product is exactly the drop locus runs through the Orlik–Solomon algebra: the matroid of the arrangement is constant on the complement of the zero locus, and a vanishing minor produces a nonzero class in the top cohomology of the generic matroid that maps to zero in the specialized matroid, so the dimension—the signed Euler characteristic—must drop.

What would settle it

The paper's own central-arrangement example ($k=2$, $n=1$, coefficient matrix $z=[0,z_{11},0]^T$) has $\chi_z=0$ for every $z$ while the reduced discriminant is a non-zero polynomial, so $\nabla_\chi(Z)$ is not its zero locus; reproducing that computation confirms the positivity hypothesis is necessary. Conversely, any family with $\chi_z>0$ somewhere where the two sets differ would refute Theorem 4.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the Euler discriminant of a family of hyperplane complements is governed by square determinants of the coefficient matrix. Theorem 4.1 states that if the signed Euler characteristic is positive for at least one point of a smooth coefficient subvariety Z, then the Euler discriminant equals the zero locus in Z of the reduced discriminant—the product of all square subdeterminants that do not vanish identically on Z. The proof shows that away from this zero locus the matroid of the arrangement is constant, so the signed Euler characteristic attains its maximal value, while on the zero locus a vanishing minor produces a nonzero cohomology class in the generic Orlik–Solomon algebra that dies in the specialized one, forcing the Euler characteristic to drop. In the sparse coordinate-subspace case, Theorem 3.9 sharpens the product to run only over square submatrices whose induced bipartite subgraph is connected and satisfies a Hall-type condition, with multiplicities equal to subdiagram volumes. The paper additionally proves that for hyperplane complements the Euler discriminant coincides exactly with the singular locus of the D-module underlying the Euler integral.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the signed Euler characteristic is positive for at least one choice of coefficients in the family; the paper itself notes that for central arrangements the signed Euler characteristic is zero everywhere and the determinantal description no longer holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Where the positivity hypothesis holds, the Euler discriminant of a family of hyperplane complements is a hypersurface cut out by the reduced discriminant, so it can be computed by linear algebra on the coefficient matrix without evaluating any Euler characteristic.
  • The Euler discriminant is the locus where the matroid of the hyperplane arrangement changes, making the drop in Euler characteristic a matroid invariant.
  • For sparse arrangements, the principal A-determinant has an explicit product formula indexed by balanced connected bipartite subgraphs satisfying condition (∗), giving both its Newton polytope and the multiplicities of its components.
  • The singular locus of the D-module annihilating an Euler integral coincides with the Euler discriminant in codimension one, and exactly in the hyperplane-complement case, so the singularity structure of such integrals is readable from the determinants.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since the Euler discriminant is the locus where the matroid changes, the matroid stratification of the coefficient space refines the Euler stratification; testing whether the two agree on small examples would show how much information the Euler discriminant retains.
  • In the cosmological integrals of the appendix, some factors of the Euler discriminant (like $Y_{12}=0$ in the two-site chain) are discarded as artifacts of normalization; a monodromy analysis of the twisted cycle could convert this heuristic into a principled rule for selecting physical singularities.
  • The positivity failure in central arrangements suggests that a limiting form of the determinantal formula might describe the Euler discriminant with adjusted multiplicities, but the paper's example indicates that no immediate product-of-minors formula survives without modification.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Euler discriminant of families of very affine varieties obtained as complements of hyperplanes, defined as the locus where the signed Euler characteristic drops from its maximal value. The two main theorems are a product-of-determinants formula for the principal A-determinant of a sparse hyperplane arrangement in terms of the face structure of an associated edge polytope (Theorem 3.9), and a determinantal characterization of the Euler discriminant when the coefficient parameters are constrained to an arbitrary smooth subvariety (Theorem 4.1). The paper also compares the Euler discriminant with the singular locus of the Gauss-Manin D-module attached to the Euler integral (Theorems 5.1–5.4), with the final equality restricted to the arrangement case. An appendix develops a connection to cosmological correlators and computes explicit Euler discriminants for two-site and three-site chain graphs.

Significance. If the results stand, they give the first general explicit formulas for Euler discriminants of hyperplane complements in a broad range of coefficient families, with direct applications to Euler integrals, Feynman integrals, and cosmological correlators. Theorem 3.9 is a genuinely combinatorial closed formula for the principal A-determinant in the sparse case, with a companion implementation, and Theorem 4.1 reduces the computation to products of square subdeterminants. The worked examples, including the n=6,k=2 graph and the cosmological chains, are concrete and reproducible, and the degree checks against the general degree formula provide useful confirmation. The main caveat, properly acknowledged in the body, is that Theorem 4.1 requires the positivity hypothesis χ_z>0, without which the Euler discriminant need not be a hypersurface.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and p.2, Theorem 4.1 (Eq. 4.2)] The unqualified statement that the Euler discriminant is a hypersurface is not correct in the full generality claimed by the abstract and the introduction. Theorem 4.1 is proved only under the hypothesis that χ_z > 0 for some z ∈ Z, and the note after the theorem explicitly records a family with χ_z = 0 for all z for which E_red^χ is not identically zero; in that case ∇χ(Z) is empty, so (4.2) fails. The abstract and the sentence 'A clear consequence of Theorems 3.9 and 4.1 is that the Euler discriminant corresponds to locus where the matroid changes' must therefore be qualified to families with positive signed Euler characteristic, and the zero case should be described in the introduction rather than only in an afterthought.
  2. [Theorem 5.4, Section 5.3] The statement 'For generic (s, ν), one has Sing(M) = ∇χ(Z)' omits the hypothesis χ_z > 0. The proof invokes 'Since ∇χ(Z) is purely one codimensional', which is a consequence of Theorem 4.1 only under that hypothesis; in the central-arrangement case ∇χ(Z) can be empty while Sing(M) is generally nonempty. The theorem statement should either include the positivity hypothesis or explicitly discuss the zero case and state what remains true in that case.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Note after Theorem 4.1, p.19] The counterexample 'k=2, n=1, and z = [0 z11 0]^T' is not readable as written: it uses dimensions inconsistent with the earlier convention n−k (which would be negative) and an entry z_{11} that does not match the indexing z_{ij} with j ≥ k+1. Please replace it with a correctly specified central arrangement, e.g., a pencil of lines through a point in P^2, and verify the claimed χ_z=0 and non-vanishing of E_red^χ.
  2. [Example 3.10, p.13] The sentence 'Using Theorem 4.1 we compute the factors of the principal A-determinant E_{A_G}(z_G)' should refer to Theorem 3.9, which is the theorem giving the product formula in the sparse case.
  3. [Proof of Theorem 4.1, p.18] The assertion that the complement of the right-hand side has non-empty intersection with the locus where the Euler characteristic attains its maximum is not justified in the text. Please add a justification, for example by upper semicontinuity of z ↦ χ_z or by a reference establishing that the generic (maximally uniform) matroid stratum attains the maximal beta invariant.
  4. [Section 3.3, condition (*)] Condition (*) is defined only for graphs with |V1|=|V2|, but Theorem 3.9 applies it to subgraphs G_{I∪J} after imposing |I|=|J|. Please state explicitly that (*) is applied to the subgraph with left vertex set I and right vertex set J.
  5. [Various] There are several typos and minor presentation issues: 'sigend' (p.7), 'showes' (p.3), 'deteailed' (p.27), 'M¨ unch' (p.31), and the 'factors in cerulean' in Example A.7 (p.30) are not visible in a monochrome rendering and should be labeled explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main formulas are derived from matroid, Orlik–Solomon, and edge-polytope arguments rather than fitted or assumed.

full rationale

Theorems 3.9 and 4.1 are derived, not assumed. Theorem 3.9 starts from the standard product definition of the principal A-determinant (2.12) and the facet decomposition of edge polytopes (Lemma 3.3), then proves directly, using Hall's theorem and the cofactor/irreducibility analysis of det(z_{I,J}) in Proposition 3.7, that the contributing faces are exactly the balanced connected condition-(*) subgraphs; the multiplicities u(S(A_G)/Q_{I,J}) are computed from graph homology and subdiagram volumes, not fitted. Theorem 4.1 defines E_red as the product of all non-identically-vanishing square minors, and then proves both inclusions: outside the zero locus the matroid, hence the signed Euler characteristic, is constant, and on each minor-zero stratum a nonzero kernel element of the Orlik–Solomon cohomology comparison map is produced using the zero set V of the one-form (4.5). The proof invokes external results (Esnault–Schechtman–Viehweg, Huh's |V| = chi* theorem, Kashiwara's index theorem) and explicitly states and uses the positivity hypothesis chi_z > 0; the central-arrangement counterexample is acknowledged in the text rather than hidden. The self-citations to [15,16] and PLD.jl are used for motivation, notation, and numerical multiplicity checks, not as hypotheses of the main theorems. The abstract's unqualified statement that the Euler discriminant is a hypersurface is broader than Theorem 4.1 without the positivity hypothesis, but this is a scope/correctness caveat, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a graph-combinatorial computation of the principal A-determinant and the Euler discriminant. It imports, rather than proves, several background pillars: closure and semicontinuity of the Euler discriminant, the Orlik-Solomon cohomology interpretation of the Euler characteristic, the characteristic-cycle description of GKZ systems, the Ohsugi-Hibi facet classification, and Deligne-style relative compactification. None of these are ad hoc to this paper, and no new entities or fitted parameters are introduced. The positivity hypothesis chi_z > 0 is an explicit domain restriction rather than a hidden assumption.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Euler discriminant is a closed subvariety and the signed Euler characteristic is upper semicontinuous in z (Theorem 3.1 of [16]).
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to make the Euler discriminant a well-defined closed locus. This is a cited prior result, not reproved in the paper.
  • domain assumption The signed Euler characteristic of a hyperplane complement equals the dimension of the top Orlik-Solomon cohomology H^k(M*) (results of Esnault-Schechtman-Viehweg and Schechtman-Terao-Varchenko).
    Used in the proof of Theorem 4.1 to identify chi_* and chi_z and to prove that the natural surjection (4.4) has nontrivial kernel.
  • standard math The characteristic cycle of the GKZ system has conormal contributions T*_{nabla_{A cap Q}} with multiplicities m_Q, and Kashiwara's local index theorem translates this into Euler characteristic drops.
    Used in Theorem 2.5 to interpret the multiplicity m_Q as chi_* - chi_{z_Q}. The paper cites Loeser, Gelfand-Kapranov-Zelevinsky, and Kashiwara.
  • standard math Ohsugi-Hibi classification of facets of edge polytopes of bipartite graphs: each facet is either associated to an ordinary vertex or to an acceptable subset T.
    Basis for Lemma 3.3 and for the face decomposition Q = P_{G_{I1 cup J1}} x ... used in the proof of Theorem 3.9.
  • domain assumption For generic exponents (s,nu), the local monodromy exponents satisfy l_{ij}(s,nu) not in Z, and the vanishing theorem L^j iota_z^* M = 0 holds.
    Needed in Lemma 5.2 and Theorem 5.4 to identify chi_z(M) with the fiber Euler characteristic and to control higher direct images. The paper cites Deligne's semistable reduction construction and [23, Section 2.3].
  • domain assumption The signed Euler characteristic at a generic point of Z is positive: chi_z > 0.
    Stated as a hypothesis in Theorem 4.1. It excludes central arrangements where chi_z = 0 for every z, and the paper explicitly notes that the hypothesis is fundamental.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Euler Discriminant of Complements of Hyperplanes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2KDQ6IUR

@misc{pith2026241119696,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Euler Discriminant of Complements of Hyperplanes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2KDQ6IUR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19696}
}
read the original abstract

The Euler discriminant of a family of very affine varieties is defined as the locus where the Euler characteristic drops. In this work, we study the Euler discriminant of families of complements of hyperplanes. We prove that the Euler discriminant is a hypersurface in the space of coefficients, and provide its defining equation in two cases: (1) when the coefficients are generic, and (2) when they are constrained to a proper subspace. In the generic case, we show that the multiplicities of the components can be recovered combinatorially. This analysis also recovers the singularities of an Euler integral. In the appendix, we discuss a relation to cosmological correlators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19696 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The bipartite graph G and the matrix whose columns give the set AG from (3.5). The edge polytope PG ⊂ R 6 is the 5-dimensional polytope obtained as the convex hull of the columns of the matrix AG in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The matrix zG with G as in Example 3.5 and the induced hyperplane arrangement. 1 2 5 6 1 2 4 5 0 3 1 2 0 4 6 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Subgraphs Q12,56, Q012,345, Q012,346. a non-connected graph and therefore to a reducible determinant of the associated Edmonds matrix, e.g., zI,J = z04(z15z26 − z16z25). The choice I = {0, 1} and J = {5, 6} corresponds to a non-connected diagram which induces an identically vanishing determinant. Finally, the subgraph GI∪J with I = {0, 1} and J = {5, 6} is an example of a connected graph which does not verify (∗), l… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The degeneration of the generic hyperplane arrangement in Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quotients graphs G/H for H = G03, G15, G1256, G012345, G012346. A in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Two-site chain, three-site chain, four-site star, and one-loop bubble. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The matrix z2, the bipartite graph BG, and the matrix A for the two-site chain. The colors for the edges of BG matches the non-zero coefficients in the corresponding hyperplanes L1, L2, L3 in the integral from Example A.4. The polytope PG ⊂ R 6 is 4-dimensional, it has…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The coefficients matrix and the bipartite graph for the three-site chain. The colors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agostini, C

    D. Agostini, C. Fevola, A.-L. Sattelberger, and S. Telen. Vector spaces of generalized Euler integrals. Communications in Number Theory and Physics , 18(2):327–370, 2024. 1, 22

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Am´ endola, N

    C. Am´ endola, N. Bliss, I. Burke, C. R. Gibbons, M. Helmer, S. Ho¸ sten, E. D. Nash, J. I. Rodriguez, and D. Smolkin. The maximum likelihood degree of toric varieties. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 92:222–242, 2019. 7

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    K. Aomoto. Theory of hypergeometric functions . Springer, 2011. 1

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Aomoto, M

    K. Aomoto, M. Kita, P. Orlik, and H. Terao. Twisted de Rham cohomology groups of loga- rithmic forms. Advances in mathematics , 128(1):119–152, 1997. 1, 2, 24

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Arkani-Hamed, Y

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Y. Bai, and T. Lam. Positive geometries and canonical forms. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2017(11):1–124, 2017. 26

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Arkani-Hamed, D

    N. Arkani-Hamed, D. Baumann, A. Hillman, A. Joyce, H. Lee, and G. L. Pimentel. Differential equations for cosmological correlators. arXiv:2312.05303, 2023. 3, 24, 26, 27, 29

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Arkani-Hamed, P

    N. Arkani-Hamed, P. Benincasa, and A. Postnikov. Cosmological polytopes and the wavefunc- tion of the universe. arXiv:1709.02813, 2017. 24, 25, 26

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Baumann, H

    D. Baumann, H. Goodhew, and H. Lee. Kinematic flow for cosmological loop integrands. arXiv:2410.17994, 2024. 3, 27

    arXiv 2024

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Clarke, S

    O. Clarke, S. Ho¸ sten, N. Kushnerchuk, and J. Oldekop. Matroid stratification of ML degrees of independence models. arXiv:2312.10010, 2023. 2, 31

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    P. Deligne. ´Equations diff´ erentielles ` a points singuliers r´ eguliers, volume 163. Springer, 2006. 22

    2006

  3. [11]

    A. Dimca. Sheaves in topology. Springer Science & Business Media, 2004. 7 31

    2004

  4. [12]

    Eisenbud

    D. Eisenbud. Commutative algebra: with a view toward algebraic geometry , volume 150. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. 17

    2013

  5. [13]

    Esnault, V

    H. Esnault, V. Schechtman, and E. Viehweg. Cohomology of local systems on the complement of hyperplanes. Inventiones mathematicae, 109(1):557–561, 1992. 18

    1992

  6. [14]

    A. Esterov. The discriminant of a system of equations. Advances in Mathematics, 245:534–572,

  7. [15]

    Fevola, S

    C. Fevola, S. Mizera, and S. Telen. Landau singularities revisited: Computational algebraic geometry for feynman integrals. Physical Review Letters, 132(10):101601, 2024. 2

    2024

  8. [16]

    Fevola, S

    C. Fevola, S. Mizera, and S. Telen. Principal Landau determinants. Computer Physics Com- munications, page 109278, 2024. 2, 4, 20

    2024

  9. [17]

    Galashin, G

    P. Galashin, G. Nenashev, and A. Postnikov. Trianguloids and triangulations of root polytopes. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A , 201:105802, 2024. 2, 13, 31

    2024

  10. [18]

    I. M. Gelfand, M. M. Kapranov, and A. V. Zelevinsky. Generalized Euler integrals and A- hypergeometric functions. Advances in Mathematics , 84(2):255–271, 1990. 7

    1990

  11. [19]

    I. M. Gel’fand, M. M. Kapranov, and A. V. Zelevinsky. Discriminants, resultants, and mul- tidimensional determinants . Mathematics: Theory & Applications. Birkh¨ auser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1994. 2, 5, 6, 8, 16

    1994

  12. [20]

    D. R. Grayson and M. E. Stillman. Macaulay2, a software system for research in algebraic geometry. The Macaulay2 Team, 2024. https://math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/. 17

    2024

  13. [21]

    Hang and C

    Y. Hang and C. Shen. A note on kinematic flow and differential equations for two-site one-loop graph in frw spacetime. arXiv:2410.17192, 2024. 27

    2024

  14. [22]

    Hotta and T

    R. Hotta and T. Tanisaki. D-modules, perverse sheaves, and representation theory , volume

  15. [23]

    J. Huh. The maximum likelihood degree of a very affine variety. Compositio Mathematica, 149(8):1245–1266, 2013. 19, 22

    2013

  16. [24]

    Juhnke-Kubitzke, L

    M. Juhnke-Kubitzke, L. Solus, and L. Venturello. Triangulations of cosmological polytopes. arXiv:2303.05876, 2023. 24, 26

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kashiwara

    M. Kashiwara. Index theorem for a maximally overdetermined system of linear differential equations. Proceedings of the Japan Academy, 49(10):803–804, 1973. 6, 7

    1973

  18. [26]

    Kashiwara

    M. Kashiwara. D-modules and microlocal calculus, volume 217. American Mathematical Soc.,

  19. [27]

    Kohn and K

    K. Kohn and K. Ranestad. Projective geometry of Wachspress coordinates. Foundations of Computational Mathematics , 20(5):1135–1173, 2020. 26

    2020

  20. [28]

    K¨ uhne and L

    L. K¨ uhne and L. Monin. Faces of cosmological polytopes. arXiv:2209.08069, 2022. 24, 26

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    T. Lam. An invitation to positive geometries. arXiv:2208.05407, 2022. 26

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    F. Loeser. Polytopes secondaires et discriminants. S´ eminaire Bourbaki, 1990:91, 1991. 7

    1990

  23. [31]

    Matsubara-Heo, S

    S.-J. Matsubara-Heo, S. Mizera, and S. Telen. Four lectures on Euler integrals. SciPost Physics Lecture Notes, page 075, 2023. 1, 22

    2023

  24. [32]

    Murthy and J

    U. Murthy and J. Bondy. Graph theory with applications. NorthThailand, New York , 1976. 10

    1976

  25. [33]

    Ohsugi and T

    H. Ohsugi and T. Hibi. Normal polytopes arising from finite graphs. Journal of Algebra , 207(2):409–426, 1998. 9

    1998

  26. [34]

    Orlik and H

    P. Orlik and H. Terao. The number of critical points of a product of powers of linear functions. 32 Inventiones mathematicae, 120:1–14, 1995. 2

    1995

  27. [35]

    Orlik and H

    P. Orlik and H. Terao. Arrangements and Hypergeometric Integrals. Mathematical Society of Japan, Tokyo, 2001. 8, 23

    2001

  28. [36]

    OSCAR – Open Source Computer Algebra Research system, Version 0.10.0-DEV, 2023. 10

    2023

  29. [37]

    Schechtman, H

    V. Schechtman, H. Terao, and A. Varchenko. Local systems over complements of hyperplanes and the Kac-Kazhdan conditions for singular vectors. hep-th/9411083, 1994. 18

    1994 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A. B. Tucker. Computer science handbook. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2004. 8

    2004

  31. [39]

    Varchenko

    A. Varchenko. Critical points of the product of powers of linear functions and families of bases of singular vectors. Compositio mathematica, 97(3):385–401, 1995. 2

    1995

  32. [40]

    Varchenko

    A. Varchenko. Multidimensional hypergeometric functions the representation theory of Lie Algebras and quantum groups , volume 21. World Scientific, 1995. 23

    1995

  33. [41]

    Wiesmann and S

    M. Wiesmann and S. Telen. Euler stratifications of hypersurface families. arXiv:2407.18176,

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    G. M. Ziegler. Lectures on polytopes, volume 152. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. 8 Authors’ addresses: Claudia Fevola, Universit´ e Paris-Saclay, Inria claudia.fevola@inria.fr Saiei-Jaeyeong Matsubara-Heo, Kumamoto University saiei@educ.kumamoto-u.ac.jp 33

    2012

  35. [236]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2007. 20, 22

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.