Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Interaction between skew-representability, tensor products, extension properties, and rank inequalities

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · 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 a connected matroid is skew-representable if and only if it is $k$-tensor-compatible with the uniform matroid $U_{2,3}$ for every positive integer $k$, and derives from this a new rank inequality that the…

desk verdict A substantial tensor-product characterization of skew-representability with a mostly sound rank-inequality application; the 'first known beyond common information' claim needs a more careful literature check. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10709 v1 pith:3SB5FX5K submitted 2025-07-14 math.CO cs.DM

Kristóf Bérczi , Boglárka Gehér , András Imolay , László Lovász , Carles Padró , Tamás Schwarcz This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.COcs.DM MSC 05B3551A05
keywords matroidsskew-representabilitytensorproductsmodularextensionslinearrankinequalitiescommoninformationpropertynon-Desarguesmatroidco-recursivelyenumerable
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

The paper establishes a characterization of skew-representability in purely combinatorial tensor-product terms. A connected matroid is skew-representable, meaning representable by vectors over some division ring, if and only if it admits a $k$-fold tensor product with the three-element uniform matroid $U_{2,3}$ for every positive integer $k$. The same method characterizes representability over skew fields of a fixed prime characteristic, with $U_{2,3}$ replaced by a suitable test matroid, and implies that non-skew-representability has finite certificates: deciding it is co-recursively enumerable. On the rank-inequality side, the paper derives a linear rank inequality for folded skew-representable matroids that it argues is the first not following from the common information property; the non-Desargues matroid violates the inequality. A construction shows every rank-3 matroid has a freest tensor product with every uniform matroid, so the obstruction to skew-representability of rank-3 matroids is invisible at the first tensor level.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the matroid tensor product: given matroids $M_1=(S_1,r_1)$ and $M_2=(S_2,r_2)$, a tensor product is a matroid on $S_1\times S_2$ with $r(X_1\times X_2)=r_1(X_1)r_2(X_2)$ for all $X_i\subseteq S_i$, and $k$-tensor compatibility means such a product can be iterated $k$ times. The paper couples tensor products with modular extensions, in which a pair of flats is forced to satisfy the modular rank equality. One tensor product with $U_{2,3}$ buys one modular extension step for any pair of flats, and iterating for all $k$ yields full modular extendability. Full modular extendability is then converted into skew-representability through projective spaces: modular matroids give generalized projective spaces, and the Veblen-Young theorem says projective spaces of dimension at least three are skew-representable. In the rank-inequality part, the same tensor product is analyzed by submodularity bounds on specially chosen cylinder sets, producing algebraic inequalities such as inequality (26).

What would settle it

The central characterization would collapse if a connected matroid $M$ failed to be skew-representable while $T_k(M,U_{2,3})$ was non-empty for every positive integer $k$; searching for such an $M$ among rank-3 matroids, where the first possible failure is $k=2$ by Theorem 6.1, is the direct falsification test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's principal discovery is that skew-representability, a property normally defined by the existence of a linear representation over a division ring, can be characterized purely by the existence of iterated tensor products with the three-point uniform matroid $U_{2,3}$. For a connected matroid $M$, $M$ is skew-representable if and only if, for every positive integer $k$, there is a matroid on $M \times U_{2,3}^k$ whose rank on rectangles $X \times Y$ is $r_M(X)\cdot r_{U_{2,3}}(Y)$. With a suitable test matroid $N$ built from a prescribed characteristic set $C$, the same statement characterizes direct sums of matroids representable over skew fields of characteristic in $C$. The proof shows that a connected matroid that is $k$-tensor-compatible with $U_{2,3}$ for every $k$ is fully modular extendable, and then uses the Veblen-Young theorem to conclude such a matroid is skew-representable; this yields co-recursively enumerable certificates of non-skew-representability. On the rank-inequality side, the framework proves a new linear rank inequality that all folded skew-representable polymatroids satisfy and the non-Desargues matroid violates, which the paper argues is the first such inequality not following from the common information property.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that inequality (26) is the first rank inequality beyond the common information property rests on two unproved literature assumptions: every rank-3 matroid, in particular the non-Desargues matroid, satisfies the common information property, and every previously known characteristic-independent linear rank inequality follows from it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Non-skew-representability of a connected matroid can be certified, in principle, by exhibiting some $k$ for which no $k$-fold tensor product with $U_{2,3}$ exists, making the decision problem co-recursively enumerable.
  • Since skew-representability of rank-3 matroids is undecidable while non-skew-representability is co-recursively enumerable, the problem of deciding skew-representability is not recursively enumerable either.
  • The non-Desargues matroid is not 2-tensor-compatible with $U_{2,3}$, so the infinite family of tensor tests is not overkill; the first level $k=1$ is never a blocker for rank-3 matroids.
  • Every rank-3 matroid admits a freest tensor product with every uniform matroid, so obstructions to skew-representability of rank-3 matroids can only appear from $k=2$ onward.
  • Folded skew-representable polymatroid functions satisfy inequality (26), which the paper claims is the first known characteristic-independent linear rank inequality not following from the common information property.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The matroid-level tensor characterization cannot directly extend to folded skew-representability: following the paper's Remark 5.11, a folded but not skew-representable matroid has a rank function that is $k$-tensor-compatible with $U_{2,3}$ for every $k$, so foldedness would have to be captured by polymatroid tensor compatibility rather than matroid tensor compatibility.
  • Inequality (26) is a candidate constraint for information-theoretic linear programs, since it holds for all folded skew-representable polymatroids but fails on the non-Desargues matroid; the paper does not run such computations, but this inequality could certify non-embeddability where extension-property constraints are inert.
  • The freest tensor product construction suggests a finite combinatorial invariant for rank-3 matroids: the smallest $k$ at which tensor compatibility with $U_{2,3}$ fails. Computing this value for other non-skew-representable sparse paving matroids would test how sharp the $k=2$ obstruction is.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a tensor-product framework for skew-representability. Theorem 5.8 and Corollary 5.9 characterize connected skew-representable matroids, and matroids representable over skew fields of fixed prime characteristic, in terms of k-tensor-compatibility with a suitable test matroid for all positive integers k; Corollaries 5.12 and 5.15 turn this into co-recursively enumerable certification of non-representability. Section 6 constructs a freest tensor product of any rank-3 matroid with any uniform matroid. Section 7 uses tensor products to give a new proof of Ingleton's inequality, to derive characteristic-dependent inequalities from the Fano and non-Fano matroids, and to prove inequality (26), which is valid for folded skew-representable polymatroids and is violated by the non-Desargues matroid. The paper claims this is the first known characteristic-independent linear rank inequality not following from the common information property.

Significance. If the mathematical results stand, the tensor-product characterization is a notable structural contribution: it links representability to an iterated extension property and yields uniform certificates of non-representability. The freest tensor product theorem for rank-3 matroids is a strong constructive result with independent interest. The paper is largely self-contained, gives detailed proofs rather than fitted or numerically generated claims, and the new inequality (26) comes with an explicit violation witness. The 'first known' novelty assertion, however, is not established within the manuscript; the inequality itself and its derivation are still a substantial contribution once the historical claim is either verified or suitably weakened.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 1.1; Section 7.3; Abstract] The headline claim that inequality (26) is 'the first known linear rank inequality for folded skew-representable matroids that does not follow from the common information property' rests on the unproved survey assertion in Section 1.1 that all currently known non-characteristic-specific linear rank inequalities can be derived from the common information property [1,13]. No precise theorem statement or derivation is given for this assertion, and it is exactly what is needed to justify the word 'first'. The validity of Theorem 7.9 and Corollary 7.13 does not depend on this historical assertion, but the advertised novelty of the paper does. Please either prove or carefully locate this assertion in the literature, or weaken the wording in the abstract, Section 1.2, and Section 7.3 to say that (26) is an inequality not following from the common information property rather than the first known such inequality.
  2. [Section 7.3, paragraph after Theorem 7.9] The statement that the non-Desargues matroid satisfies the common information property is asserted without proof or citation at the point where it is used. The conclusion that (26) goes beyond the common information property depends on this fact, since the violation witness must be a matroid that does satisfy that property. The needed chain can be supplied from the paper's own Theorem 3.4 together with [1, Proposition 3.18]: rank-3 matroids are fully modular extendable, and full modular extendability implies the fractional version, the common information property. This chain should be stated explicitly in Section 7.3.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1.3] The phrase 'The rest of of the paper' contains a duplicated word and should be corrected.
  2. [Corollary 7.6(b)] Corollary 7.6(b) states that φ1 satisfies inequality (6), but the proof refers to Theorem 7.5(b), which establishes inequality (7); the displayed inequality reference appears to be a typo.
  3. [Proof of Claim 7.12] In the proof of Claim 7.12, the justification 'φ1({e1, e5, e5}) = φ1(S2)' is not a valid matroid statement; it should presumably refer to a triangle such as {e1, e4, e5} with rank equal to the full ground set rank.
  4. [Proof of Claim 6.2(c)] In the proof of Claim 6.2(c), the text says 'Using the submodularity of rN' but the set in question lies in the tensor product ground set S × [n]; the rank function being used should be rP.
  5. [Proof of Claim 6.6] In the second case of the basis-exchange proof, the sentence 'For i ∈ I, we have e ∈ A′_i' is not literally true when e is an added point of M• outside the original ground set S; the intended inequality should be justified by a spanning argument rather than by membership of e in A′_i.
  6. [Remark 4.16] Remark 4.16 asserts, without proof, that the non-Pappus matroid admits a tensor product with itself but that none of the resulting matroids is representable over the quaternions, and the text says the proof is omitted. Please either include the proof or mark the assertion as a conjecture, since it is currently an unsupported claim in the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tensor-product characterization and rank-inequality applications are derived from projective geometry, modular extensions, and submodularity, not from their own conclusions.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Theorem 5.8 and Corollary 5.9 obtain skew-representability from k-tensor-compatibility via the route: k-tensor-compatibility with U2,3 implies k-modular extendability (Theorem 5.5, using Theorem 5.1 and Lemma 4.1), hence full modular extendability (Corollary 5.6); full modular extendability yields a modular finitary extension (Lemma 3.2), whose flats form a generalized projective space (Lemma 3.1 with Proposition 2.6), and Veblen-Young then gives a skew-field representation (Proposition 2.7). The converse direction is supplied by explicit Kronecker-product tensor products (Lemmas 4.11-4.14). No equation in the conclusions is used as an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The rank-inequality results (Theorems 7.1, 7.5, and 7.9) are obtained by applying submodularity and Lemma 4.6 to explicitly constructed auxiliary sets in a tensor product; the non-Desargues violation is a direct rank computation from the matroid's listed lines. The self-citations that occur are either re-proved in the paper (Theorem 7.1 from [4]), acknowledged as an independent parallel proof (footnote 2 and [53] for Theorem 5.1), or published external support for the rank-3 modular-extension fact ([1, Proposition 3.18]) whose stated assumptions do not include the target characterization. The 'first known beyond common information' novelty claim depends on a historical survey assertion about the prior literature, but that is an attribution claim rather than a derivation step; even if that attribution were incorrect, inequality (26) would still be validly derived for folded skew-representable matroids. Thus no circular reduction can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities. The paper's claims rest on standard theorems (Veblen-Young, Helgason, Konig) and on two literature assumptions about the common information property that are not proved in the text.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Veblen-Young theorem: any projective space of dimension at least 3 is isomorphic to a projective space over a skew field
    Used in Theorem 3.4 (ii) implies (iii) to conclude that restrictions of projective spaces of dimension at least 3 are skew-representable.
  • domain assumption All rank-3 matroids satisfy the common information property
    Stated in Section 1.1 and used in Section 7.3 to argue the new inequality is the first not following from the common information property; not proved in this paper.
  • domain assumption All currently known non-characteristic-specific linear rank inequalities can be derived from the common information property
    Claimed from [1,13] and used to justify the first known status of inequality (26); not proved here.
  • domain assumption Rank-3 matroids are fully modular extendable, per [1, Proposition 3.18]
    Used in Theorem 3.4 (iii) implies (i); cited from prior work.
  • standard math Rado, Vamos, Kahn, and Reid characterization of characteristic sets (Proposition 2.4)
    Used for Corollaries 5.14 and 5.15 to construct N for arbitrary characteristic sets.
  • standard math Helgason's theorem: every integer-valued polymatroid function is a quotient of a matroid rank function (Proposition 2.1)
    Used in Lemma 4.7 and Theorem 5.16 to transfer matroid results to polymatroids.
  • standard math Konig's lemma for locally finite trees
    Used in Lemma 3.2 to obtain an infinite modular extension sequence from arbitrarily long finite ones.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interaction between skew-representability, tensor products, extension properties, and rank inequalities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3SB5FX5K

@misc{pith2026250710709,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interaction between skew-representability, tensor products, extension properties, and rank inequalities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3SB5FX5K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10709}
}
read the original abstract

Skew-representable matroids form a fundamental class in matroid theory, bridging combinatorics and linear algebra. They play an important role in areas such as coding theory, optimization, and combinatorial geometry, where linear structure is crucial for both theoretical insights and algorithmic applications. Since deciding skew-representability is computationally intractable, much effort has been focused on identifying necessary or sufficient conditions for a matroid to be skew-representable. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach to studying skew-representability and structural properties of matroids and polymatroid functions via tensor products. We provide a characterization of skew-representable matroids, as well as of those representable over skew fields of a given prime characteristic, in terms of tensor products. As an algorithmic consequence, we show that deciding skew-representability, or representability over a skew field of fixed prime characteristic, is co-recursively enumerable: that is, certificates of non-skew-representability -- in general or over a fixed prime characteristic -- can be verified. We also prove that every rank-3 matroid admits a tensor product with any uniform matroid and give a construction yielding the unique freest tensor product in this setting. Finally, as an application of the tensor product framework, we give a new proof of Ingleton's inequality and, more importantly, derive the first known linear rank inequality for folded skew-representable matroids that does not follow from the common information property.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10709 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the proof of Theorem 7.1. Note that, in general, the sets A, B, C and D are not necessarily disjoint. and Y := uA ∪ (S1 × B) ∪ vC ∪ wD; see Figures 1a and 1b for illustrations of these sets. We aim to bound the values of φ on X, Y , X ∩ Y , and X ∪Y so that, together with the submodular inequality φ(X) +φ(Y ) ≥ φ(X ∩Y ) +φ(X ∪Y ), these bounds yield Ingleton’s inequality. We begin with an upper bound… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the proof of Theorem 7.5. Note that, in general, the sets Ai are not necessarily disjoint, and neither are the sets Bi . see also Figure 2b for an illustration. We will give a lower bound on φ(X) by providing an upper bound on φ(S1 ×S2) using φ(X). Let X1 := X ∪(A1 ×B6)∪(A2 ×B5)∪(A3 ×B4). Applying Lemma 4.6 three times, we obtain φ(X1) ≤ φ(X) + φ1(A1) · (φ2(B126) − φ2(B12)) + φ1(A2) · (φ2(B135) − φ2(… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of Remark 7.8. The set X corresponding to the black cells has size 15 and it would span S × T in a tensor product F7 ⊗ F − 7 . One might check this by first showing that yi would be spanned by X ∪ {y1, . . . , yi−1} for i ∈ [13]. Proof. To prove (a), assume that k ·φ2 is representable over a skew field of characteristic 2 for some positive integer k. Let φ1 be the rank function of the Fano matroid F7. I… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustrations of the non-Desargues matroid and of the graphic matroid of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Rigidity of Graphs and Frameworks: A Matroid Theoretic Approach

    math.HO 2025-07 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

    A survey of combinatorial rigidity theory from a matroid-theoretic viewpoint, covering known results, techniques, applications, and open conjectures.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Bamiloshin, A

    M. Bamiloshin, A. Ben-Efraim, O. Farr` as, and C. Padr´ o. Common information, matroid representation, and secret sharing for matroid ports. Designs, Codes and Cryptography , 89(1):143–166, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Bamiloshin, O

    M. Bamiloshin, O. Farr` as, and C. Padr´ o. A note on extension properties and representations of matroids. Discrete Applied Mathematics , 376:270–280, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Beimel, N

    A. Beimel, N. Livne, and C. Padr´ o. Matroids can be far from ideal secret sharing. In Theory of cryptography, volume 4948 of Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. , pages 194–212. Springer, Berlin, 2008

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    B´ erczi, B

    K. B´ erczi, B. Geh´ er, A. Imolay, L. Lov´ asz, B. Maga, and T. Schwarcz. Matroid products via submodular coupling. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’25, pages 2074–2085. ACM, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Beutelspacher and U

    A. Beutelspacher and U. Rosenbaum. Projective Geometry: From Foundations to Applications . Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Blasiak, R

    A. Blasiak, R. Kleinberg, and E. Lubetzky. Lexicographic products and the power of non-linear network coding. In 2011 IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , pages 609–618. IEEE, 2011. 39

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    G. Bollen. Frobenius flocks and algebraicity of matroids. Phd thesis 1 (research tu/e / graduation tu/e), Mathematics and Computer Science, Dec. 2018. Proefschrift

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Brakensiek, M

    J. Brakensiek, M. Dhar, J. Gao, S. Gopi, and M. Larson. Rigidity matroids and linear algebraic matroids with applications to matrix completion and tensor codes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00778 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    T. H. Brylawski and D. Kelly. Matroids and combinatorial geometries . University of North Carolina, Department of Mathematics, Chapel Hill, NC, 1980

    1980

  2. [10]

    Cartwright and D

    D. Cartwright and D. Varghese. Characteristic sets of matroids. European Journal of Combinatorics , 118:103939, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    P. M. Cohn. Skew Fields: Theory of General Division Rings . Cambridge University Press, 1995

    1995

  4. [12]

    P. M. Cohn. Free Ideal Rings and Localization in General Rings . Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2006

    2006

  5. [13]

    Dougherty, C

    R. Dougherty, C. Freiling, and K. Zeger. Linear rank inequalities on five or more variables. arXiv preprint arXiv:0910.0284, 2009

    2009 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Dougherty, C

    R. Dougherty, C. Freiling, and K. Zeger. Achievable rate regions for network coding. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 61(5):2488–2509, 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    Dougherty, E

    R. Dougherty, E. Freiling, and K. Zeger. Characteristic-dependent linear rank inequalities and network coding applications. In 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory , pages 101–105. IEEE, 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    Dougherty, E

    R. Dougherty, E. Freiling, and K. Zeger. Characteristic-dependent linear rank inequalities with appli- cations to network coding. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 61(5):2510–2530, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    Dress and L

    A. Dress and L. Lov´ asz. On some combinatorial properties of algebraic matroids. Combinatorica, 7(1):39–48, 1987

    1987

  10. [18]

    D. M. Evans and E. Hrushovski. Projective planes in algebraically closed fields. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 3(1):1–24, 1991

    1991

  11. [19]

    Farr` as, T

    O. Farr` as, T. Kaced, S. Mart ´ ın, and C. Padr´ o. Improving the linear programming technique in the search for lower bounds in secret sharing. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory , 66(11):7088–7100, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Ferroni and L

    L. Ferroni and L. Vecchi. Matroid relaxations and Kazhdan–Lusztig non-degeneracy. Algebraic Combi- natorics, 5(4):745–769, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Fujishige

    S. Fujishige. Entropy functions and polymatroids – combinatorial structures in information theory. Electron. Comm. Japan, 61(4):14–18, 1978

    1978

  14. [22]

    Fujishige

    S. Fujishige. Polymatroidal dependence structure of a set of random variables. Information and Control, 39(1):55–72, 1978

    1978

  15. [23]

    A. Graham. Kronecker Products and Matrix Calculus with Applications . Ellis Horwood Limited, Chich- ester, 1981

    1981

  16. [24]

    J. E. Graver. Rigidity matroids. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics , 4(3):355–368, 1991

    1991

  17. [25]

    G¨ urpinar

    E. G¨ urpinar. Bounds on guessing numbers and secret sharing combining information theory methods. Kybernetika, 60(5):553–575, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    G¨ urpinar and A

    E. G¨ urpinar and A. E. Romashchenko. How to use undiscovered information inequalities: Direct ap- plications of the copy lemma. In IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, ISIT 2019, Paris, France, July 7-12, 2019 , pages 1377–1381. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Helgason

    T. Helgason. Aspects of the theory of hypermatroids. In C. Berge and D. Ray-Chaudhuri, editors, Hypergraph Seminar: Ohio State University 1972 , pages 191–213. Springer, Berlin, 1974

    1972

  20. [28]

    Hochst¨ attler and W

    W. Hochst¨ attler and W. Kern. Matroid matching in pseudomodular lattices. Combinatorica, 9(2):145– 152, 1989

    1989

  21. [29]

    A. W. Ingleton. Representation of matroids. In D. J. A. Welsh, editor, Combinatorial mathematics and its applications (Proceedings of a conference held at the Mathematical Institute, Oxford, from 7-10 July, 1969), volume 23, pages 149–167. Academic Press, London, 1971. 40

    1969

  22. [30]

    A. W. Ingleton and R. A. Main. Non-algebraic matroids exist. The Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, 7:144–146, 1975

    1975

  23. [31]

    Jackson and S.-i

    B. Jackson and S.-i. Tanigawa. Symmetric tensor matroids, dual rigidity matroids, and the maximality conjecture. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14780 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    P. M. Jensen and B. Korte. Complexity of matroid property algorithms. SIAM Journal on Computing , 11(1):184–190, 1982

    1982

  25. [33]

    T. Kaced. Equivalence of two proof techniques for non-shannon-type inequalities. In 2013 IEEE Inter- national Symposium on Information Theory , pages 236–240, 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    J. Kahn. Characteristic sets of matroids. Journal of the London Mathematical Society, s2-26(2):207–217, 1982

    1982

  27. [35]

    R. Kinser. New inequalities for subspace arrangements. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A , 118(1):152–161, 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    K¨ onig.¨Uber eine Schlussweise aus dem Endlichen ins Unendliche.Acta Scientiarum Mathematicarum (Szeged), 3(2-3):121–130, 1927

    D. K¨ onig.¨Uber eine Schlussweise aus dem Endlichen ins Unendliche.Acta Scientiarum Mathematicarum (Szeged), 3(2-3):121–130, 1927

    1927

  29. [37]

    K¨ uhne, R

    L. K¨ uhne, R. Pendavingh, and G. Yashfe. Von staudt constructions for skew-linear and multilinear matroids. Combinatorial Theory, 3(1), 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Las Vergnas

    M. Las Vergnas. On products of matroids. Discrete Mathematics, 36(1):49–55, 1981

    1981

  31. [39]

    Lindstr¨ om

    B. Lindstr¨ om. A desarguesian theorem for algebraic combinatorial geometries.Combinatorica, 5(3):237– 239, 1985

    1985

  32. [40]

    Lov´ asz

    L. Lov´ asz. Flats in matroids and geometric graphs. In Combinatorial Surveys (Proceedings of the 6th British Combinatorial Conference) , pages 45–86, 1977

    1977

  33. [41]

    Lov´ asz

    L. Lov´ asz. Matroid matching and some applications. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B , 28(2):208–236, 1980

    1980

  34. [42]

    Lov´ asz

    L. Lov´ asz. Selecting independent lines from a family of lines in a space. Acta Scientiarum Mathemati- carum (Szeged), 42(1-2):121–131, 1980

    1980

  35. [43]

    Lov´ asz

    L. Lov´ asz. The matroid matching problem. In Algebraic methods in graph theory, Vol. I, II (Szeged, 1978), volume 25 of Colloquia Mathematics Societatis Janos Bolyai , pages 495–517. North-Holland, 1981

    1978

  36. [44]

    V. P. Macias. A theorem about linear rank inequalities that depend on the characteristic of the finite field. Selecciones Matem´ aticas, 9(1):150–160, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    J. Mason. Glueing matroids together: a study of Dilworth truncations and matroid analogues of exterior and symmetric powers. Algebraic Methods in Graph Theory , 1:519–561, 1981

    1981

  38. [46]

    J. H. Mason. Matroids as the study of geometrical configurations. In M. Aigner, editor, Higher Combi- natorics: Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute held in Berlin (West Germany), September 1–10, 1976 , pages 133–176. Springer, Dordrecht, 1977

    1976

  39. [47]

    F. Mat´ us. Infinitely many information inequalities. In IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, ISIT 2007, Nice, France, June 24-29, 2007 , pages 41–44. IEEE, 2007

    2007

  40. [48]

    Mat´ uˇ s

    F. Mat´ uˇ s. Matroid representations by partitions.Discrete Mathematics, 203(1-3):169–194, 1999

    1999

  41. [49]

    Mat´ uˇ s

    F. Mat´ uˇ s. Algebraic matroids are almost entropic.Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society , 152(1):1–6, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Mayhew, M

    D. Mayhew, M. Newman, and G. Whittle. On excluded minors for real-representability. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B , 99(4):685–689, 2009

    2009

  43. [51]

    J. R. Metcalf-Burton. Improved upper bounds for the information rates of the secret sharing schemes induced by the V´ amos matroid.Discrete Math., 311(8-9):651–662, 2011

    2011

  44. [52]

    J. Oxley. Matroid Theory, volume 21 of Oxford Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Oxford University Press, Oxford, second edition, 2011

    2011

  45. [53]

    C. Padr´ o. Tensor product of polymatroids and common information. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06714 , 2025. 41

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Padr´ o, L

    C. Padr´ o, L. V´ azquez, and A. Yang. Finding lower bounds on the complexity of secret sharing schemes by linear programming. Discrete Appl. Math. , 161(7-8):1072–1084, 2013

    2013

  47. [55]

    C. H. Papadimitriou. Computational Complexity . Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1994

    1994

  48. [56]

    Pe˜ na and H

    V. Pe˜ na and H. Sarria. How to find new characteristic-dependent linear rank inequalities using binary matrices as a guide. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.00003 , 2019

    1905 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Pe˜ na-Macias

    V. Pe˜ na-Macias. Access structures for finding characteristic-dependent linear rank inequalities. Kyber- netika, 59(2):198–208, 2023

    2023

  50. [58]

    Pe˜ na-Macias and H

    V. Pe˜ na-Macias and H. Sarria. Characteristic-dependent linear rank inequalities via complementary vector spaces. Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences , 42(2):345–369, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    Pe˜ na-Macias and H

    V. Pe˜ na-Macias and H. Sarria-Zapata. Characteristic-dependent linear rank inequalities in 21 variables. Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, F ´ ısicas y Naturales, 43(169):764–770, 2019

    2019

  52. [60]

    R. A. Pendavingh and S. H. M. van Zwam. Skew partial fields, multilinear representations of matroids, and a matrix tree theorem. Advances in Applied Mathematics , 50(1):201–227, 2013

    2013

  53. [61]

    R. Rado. Note on independence functions. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society. Third Series, 7:300–320, 1957

    1957

  54. [62]

    P. D. Seymour. Decomposition of regular matroids. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B , 28(3):305–359, 1980

    1980

  55. [63]

    Simonis and A

    J. Simonis and A. Ashikhmin. Almost affine codes. Designs, Codes and Cryptography , 14(2):179–197, 1998

    1998

  56. [64]

    Truemper

    K. Truemper. On the efficiency of representability tests for matroids. European Journal of Combina- torics, 3(3):275–291, 1982

    1982

  57. [65]

    P. V´ amos. A necessary and sufficient condition for a matroid to be linear. In M¨ obius Algebras (Proc. Conf. Univ. Waterloo, 1971) , pages 162–169. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, 1975

    1971

  58. [66]

    Veblen and J

    O. Veblen and J. W. Young. Projective geometry, volume 2. Ginn, 1918

    1918

  59. [67]

    D. J. Welsh. Combinatorial problems in matroid theory.Combinatorial mathematics and its applications, 1971

    1971

  60. [68]

    Zhang and R

    Z. Zhang and R. W. Yeung. A non-Shannon-type conditional inequality of information quantities. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 43(6):1982–1986, 1997

    1982

  61. [69]

    Zhang and R

    Z. Zhang and R. W. Yeung. On characterization of entropy function via information inequalities. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 44(4):1440–1452, 1998. 42

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.