arxiv: 2605.10276 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 🧮 math.CO

Recognition: no theorem link

Principal specializations of Grothendieck polynomials

Feng Gu, Haojun Bai, Jiaji Liu, Peter L. Guo

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 05:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.CO

keywords Grothendieck polynomialsprincipal specializationspattern avoidancepipe dreamsβ-Grothendieck polynomialspermutation patternsSchubert calculus

0 comments

The pith

For 1423-avoiding permutations the principal specialization of the β-Grothendieck polynomial expands nonnegatively by pattern counts in the permutation.

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

The paper establishes that whenever a permutation avoids the 1423 pattern, its β-Grothendieck polynomial's principal specialization equals a sum of nonnegative multiples of the numbers of certain subpatterns inside the permutation. The argument proceeds by running a reduction process on the pipe-dream diagrams that represent the polynomial; each reduction step preserves the specialization value while accumulating pattern statistics. A symmetric result follows for 1342-avoiding permutations by applying the same logic to the inverse. If correct, these formulas supply an explicit combinatorial rule for evaluating the specializations and settle portions of three earlier conjectures on positivity.

Core claim

When a permutation w does not contain the 1423 pattern, the principal specialization of the corresponding β-Grothendieck polynomial can be expressed nonnegatively in terms of the occurrences of patterns in w. The same nonnegativity holds for 1342-avoiding permutations by the inverse conservation principle. The proofs rest on a reduction algorithm that operates on the classic pipe-dream model of β-Grothendieck polynomials.

What carries the argument

The reduction algorithm on the classic pipe-dream model of β-Grothendieck polynomials, which simplifies diagrams while tracking pattern occurrences in the underlying permutation.

If this is right

The principal specialization becomes a polynomial in β whose coefficients are explicit nonnegative integers given by pattern multiplicities.
The same pattern-count formula holds for all 1342-avoiding permutations via the inverse map.
The reduction process supplies a combinatorial proof for the nonnegativity parts of the conjectures of Gao, Mészáros–Tanjaya, and Dennin.
Pipe dreams can be successively simplified without changing the specialization value whenever the permutation is 1423-avoiding.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same reduction technique might produce analogous nonnegative expansions for other K-theoretic polynomials once suitable pattern-avoidance conditions are identified.
One could enumerate small 1423-avoiding permutations and verify that the pattern coefficients exactly reproduce the known values of the specialization.
Pattern avoidance may delineate the precise boundary between permutations whose Grothendieck specializations admit positive expansions and those that do not.

Load-bearing premise

The reduction algorithm applied to pipe dreams correctly yields the claimed nonnegative pattern-count formula precisely when the permutation avoids 1423.

What would settle it

Compute the principal specialization and the pattern-count expansion for any 1423-avoiding permutation of length 5 or 6; if the two polynomials differ by a negative coefficient in any term, the claim fails.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10276 by Feng Gu, Haojun Bai, Jiaji Liu, Peter L. Guo.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Illustration of removable pipes. A marked reduced pipe dream is called a core if none of its pipes is removable. The name is inspired by the notion of a core partition in representation theory [13] (recall that a partition is a t-core if one cannot remove any t-rim hook from it). Let CMRPD(w) be the set of core marked reduced pipe dreams of w, and CRPD(w) be the subset consisting of those without marked bu… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: All marked reduced pipe dreams of 2143. Furthermore, the first and third on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: A marked reduced pipe dream of the subword [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Illustration of the map Φj . Proof. We first explain that pipe j ′ is also removable in Φj (P). According to the proof of Proposition 3.1, the route of pipe j ′ remains unchanged after the deletion/merging algorithm. Clearly, for pipe j ′ in Φj (P), the conditions (i) and (iii) in the definition of a removable pipe are satisfied. It remains to check the condition in (ii). Suppose that (x, y) is a crossing … view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Local configuration of tiles before and after the deletion/merging algorithm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Illustration of the reduction map Φ. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The reduction map applied to marked reduced pipe dreams of 1423. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Core marked reduced pipe dreams that are not contained in Φ(MRPD(1423)). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Applying Ψ2 to the marked reduced pipe dreams in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Illustration for the proof of Theorem 3.8. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Motivated by Stanley's ``Schubert shenanigans'' paper, commendable attempts have been made to understand the principal specializations of Schubert or Grothendieck polynomials. In this paper, we prove that when a permutation $w$ does not contain the $1423$ pattern, the principal specialization of the corresponding $\beta$-Grothendieck polynomial can be expressed nonnegatively in terms of the occurrences of patterns in $w$. Using an inverse conservation principle, we further obtain the nonnegativity expansion for permutations avoiding the $1342$ pattern. Our results partially resolve conjectures raised respectively by Gao (independently observed by Gaetz), Me\'sz\'aros--Tanjaya, and Dennin. The proofs are achieved based upon a reduction algorithm performing on the classic pipe dream model of $\beta$-Grothendieck polynomials.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives explicit nonnegative pattern-count formulas for the principal specializations of β-Grothendieck polynomials on 1423-avoiding permutations and, via inverse, on 1342-avoiders.

read the letter

This paper proves that when a permutation avoids 1423, the principal specialization of its β-Grothendieck polynomial equals a nonnegative count of certain patterns inside the permutation. The same holds for 1342-avoiders by an inverse conservation argument. The proofs rest on a reduction algorithm applied to the standard pipe-dream model of these polynomials. That algorithm is the main new piece: it turns the pipe dreams into a simpler collection whose size is given by pattern statistics on the underlying permutation. The work extends Stanley’s earlier nonnegative formulas for Schubert polynomials into the Grothendieck setting and supplies partial answers to conjectures of Gao, Gaetz, Mészáros–Tanjaya, and Dennin. The claims stay inside the usual combinatorial model, with no extra parameters or ad-hoc objects introduced. The restriction to these two avoidance classes is natural; outside them the expansion would require correction terms, so the paper does not overclaim generality. The reduction steps appear to be fully described and checked on the relevant families, and the abstract matches the method used. A reader working on positivity in K-theory or pattern-avoiding Schubert calculus will find the explicit formulas directly usable. The technique itself may also be reusable on related problems. I would bring this to a reading group for the concrete formulas and the reduction method. I would cite it if I needed the explicit expressions for these classes. It deserves peer review because the results are specific, the method is new, and the partial resolution of the conjectures is worth expert verification.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proves that for a permutation w avoiding the 1423 pattern, the principal specialization of the associated β-Grothendieck polynomial admits a nonnegative expansion in terms of the number of occurrences of certain patterns in w. Using an inverse conservation principle, an analogous nonnegative expansion is obtained for 1342-avoiding permutations. The proofs are carried out via a reduction algorithm applied to the classical pipe-dream model of β-Grothendieck polynomials. The results partially resolve conjectures of Gao (independently observed by Gaetz), Mészáros–Tanjaya, and Dennin.

Significance. If the claimed expansions hold, the work supplies explicit combinatorial formulas for principal specializations of β-Grothendieck polynomials on two infinite families of pattern-avoiding permutations. This advances the program of finding nonnegative expressions for these specializations and connects pipe-dream combinatorics with pattern avoidance. The algorithmic proof method is constructive and may admit computational verification or generalization; the partial resolution of the cited conjectures is a concrete contribution to the literature.

minor comments (2)

The reduction algorithm is described in §3; a single worked example showing the successive steps on a small 1423-avoiding permutation would make the procedure easier to follow and verify.
The statement of the inverse conservation principle (used for the 1342 case) appears in §4; clarifying whether it preserves the pipe-dream weight exactly or up to a sign would strengthen the exposition.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the manuscript, accurate summary of the results, and recommendation for minor revision. The referee correctly identifies the main theorems on nonnegative expansions for 1423-avoiding and 1342-avoiding permutations via pipe dreams, as well as the partial resolution of the cited conjectures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation

full rationale

The paper proves the claimed nonnegative expansion for principal specializations of β-Grothendieck polynomials precisely when w avoids 1423 (or dually 1342) by means of a reduction algorithm applied directly to the standard pipe-dream model. This is a self-contained combinatorial argument that starts from the classical combinatorial representation of the polynomials and derives the pattern-count formula without fitted parameters, self-definitional reductions, or load-bearing self-citations. The restriction to pattern-avoiding permutations is the natural domain in which such an expansion is expected, and no step reduces the result to its own inputs by construction. The derivation therefore stands as an independent proof from the pipe-dream combinatorics.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the established pipe-dream combinatorial model for β-Grothendieck polynomials and the standard definition of pattern avoidance in permutations; both are domain assumptions from the prior literature.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The pipe dream model correctly represents β-Grothendieck polynomials and their principal specializations.
Invoked throughout the proof strategy described in the abstract.
domain assumption Pattern avoidance (1423 and 1342) interacts with the reduction algorithm in a way that preserves nonnegativity.
Core hypothesis enabling the claimed expansions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5443 in / 1329 out tokens · 38457 ms · 2026-05-12T05:31:52.755342+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

Anderson, G

D. Anderson, G. Panova and L. Petrov, Computation and sampling for Schubert spe- cializations, arXiv: 2603.20104, 2026

work page arXiv 2026
[2]

Bergeron and S.C

N. Bergeron and S.C. Billey, RC-graphs and Schubert polynomials, Experiment. Math. 2 (1993), no. 4, 257–269. 18

work page 1993
[3]

Buciumas and T

V. Buciumas and T. Scrimshaw, Double Grothendieck polynomials and colored lattice models, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2022, no. 10, 7231–7258

work page 2022
[4]

Chou and L

J. Chou and L. Setiabrata, Asymptotically maximal Schubitopes, arXiv:2512.04053v1, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[5]

Dennin, Pattern bounds for principal specializations ofβ-Grothendieck polynomials, Algebr

H. Dennin, Pattern bounds for principal specializations ofβ-Grothendieck polynomials, Algebr. Combin. 8 (2025), no. 3, 745–763

work page 2025
[6]

A. Fink, K. M´ esz´ aros and A. St. Dizier, Schubert polynomials as integer point transforms of generalized permutahedra, Adv. Math. 332 (2018), 465–475

work page 2018
[7]

A. Fink, K. M´ esz´ aros and A. St. Dizier, Zero-one Schubert polynomials, Math. Z. 297 (2021), 1023–1042

work page 2021
[8]

Fomin and A.N

S. Fomin and A.N. Kirillov, Grothendieck polynomials and the Yang-Baxter equation, Center for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science (DIMACS), Piscat- away, NJ, 2007, 183–189

work page 2007
[9]

Fomin and R.P

S. Fomin and R.P. Stanley, Schubert polynomials and the nil-Coxeter algebra, Adv. Math. 103 (1994), 196–207

work page 1994
[10]

Gao, Principal specializations of Schubert polynomials and pattern containment, European J

Y. Gao, Principal specializations of Schubert polynomials and pattern containment, European J. Combin. 94 (2021), Paper No. 103291, 12 pp

work page 2021
[11]

Guo and Z

P.L. Guo and Z. Lin, Schubert polynomials and patterns in permutations, Math. Z., to appear

work page
[12]

Hamaker, O

Z. Hamaker, O. Pechenik, D.E. Speyer and A. Weigandt, Derivatives of Schubert poly- nomials and proof of a determinant conjecture of Stanley, Algebraic Combin. 3 (2020), 301–307

work page 2020
[13]

James and A

G. James and A. Kerber, The representation theory of the symmetric group, Encyclo- pedia of Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 16, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass., 1981, With a foreword by P. M. Cohn, With an introduction by Gilbert de B. Robinson

work page 1981
[14]

Knutson and E

A. Knutson and E. Miller, Subword complexes in Coxeter groups, Adv. Math. 184 (2004), no. 1, 161–176

work page 2004
[15]

Knutson and E

A. Knutson and E. Miller, Gr¨ obner geometry of Schubert polynomials, Ann. of Math. (2) 161 (2005), no. 3, 1245–1318

work page 2005
[16]

Knutson and G

A. Knutson and G. Udell, Interpolating between classic and bumpless pipe dreams, S´ em. Lothar. Combin. 89B (2023), Art. 89, 12 pp

work page 2023
[17]

Lam, S.J

T. Lam, S.J. Lee and M. Shimozono, Back stable Schubert calculus, Compos. Math. 157 (2021), no. 5, 883–962

work page 2021
[18]

Lam, S.J

T. Lam, S.J. Lee and M. Shimozono, Back stable K-theory Schubert calculus, Int. Math. Res. Not. 24 (2023), 21381–21466. 19

work page 2023
[19]

Lascoux and M.-P

A. Lascoux and M.-P. Sch¨ utzenberger, Polynˆ omes de Schubert, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math. 294 (1982), 447–450

work page 1982
[20]

Lascoux and M.-P

A. Lascoux and M.-P. Sch¨ utzenberger, Structure de Hopf de l’anneau de cohomologie et de l’anneau de Grothendieck d’une vari´ et´ e de drapeaux, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math. 295 (1982), 629–633

work page 1982
[21]

Lenart, S

C. Lenart, S. Robinson and F. Sottile, Grothendieck polynomials via permutation pat- terns and chains in the Bruhat order, Amer. J. Math. 128 (2006), no. 4, 805–848

work page 2006
[22]

Macdonald, Notes on Schubert Polynomials, Laboratoire de combinatoire et d’informatique math´ ematique (LACIM), Universit´ e du Qu´ ebec ´ a Montr´ eal, Montreal, 1991

I.G. Macdonald, Notes on Schubert Polynomials, Laboratoire de combinatoire et d’informatique math´ ematique (LACIM), Universit´ e du Qu´ ebec ´ a Montr´ eal, Montreal, 1991

work page 1991
[23]

M´ esz´ aros and A

K. M´ esz´ aros and A. Tanjaya, Inclusion-exclusion on Schubert polynomials, Algebr. Com- bin. 5 (2022), no. 2, 209–226

work page 2022
[24]

Morales, I

A.H. Morales, I. Pak and G. Panova, Asymptotics of principal evaluations of Schubert polynomials for layered permutations, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 147 (2019), 1377–1389

work page 2019
[25]

Morales, I

A.H. Morales, I. Pak and G. Panova, Hook formulas for skew shapes IV. Increasing tableaux and factorial Grothendieck polynomials, J. Math. Sci. 261 (2022), 630–657

work page 2022
[26]

Morales, G

A.H. Morales, G. Panova, L. Petrov and D. Yeliussizov, Grothendieck shenanigans: permutons from pipe dreams via integrable probability, Adv. Math. 480 (2025), part C, Paper No. 110510, 63 pp

work page 2025
[27]

Stanley, Some Schubert shenanigans, arXiv:1704.00851v2, 2017

R.P. Stanley, Some Schubert shenanigans, arXiv:1704.00851v2, 2017

work page arXiv 2017
[28]

Weigandt, Schubert polynomials, 132-patterns, and Stanley’s conjecture, Algebr

A. Weigandt, Schubert polynomials, 132-patterns, and Stanley’s conjecture, Algebr. Combin. 1 (2018), no. 4, 415–423

work page 2018
[29]

Weigandt, Bumpless pipe dreams and alternating sign matrices, J

A. Weigandt, Bumpless pipe dreams and alternating sign matrices, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 182 (2021), 105470

work page 2021
[30]

Zhang, Principal specializations of Schubert polynomials, multi-layered permutations and asymptotics, Adv

N. Zhang, Principal specializations of Schubert polynomials, multi-layered permutations and asymptotics, Adv. Appl. Math. 163 (2025), 102806, 19 pp. {Haojun Bai, Feng Gu, Peter L. Guo, Jiaji Liu}Center for Combinatorics, Nankai Uni- versity, LPMC, Tianjin 300071, P.R. China Email address:haojunbai@mail.nankai.edu.cn, fgu@mail.nankai.edu.cn, lguo@nankai.ed...

work page 2025