Order polytopes of graded posets are gamma-effective

Akihiro Higashitani; Alessio D'Al\`i

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 17 references

Order polytopes of graded posets are gamma-effective

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For every graded poset and every subgroup of its automorphism group, the order polytope's equivariant h*-polynomial is gamma-effective: it expands in the gamma basis with coefficients that are genuine group characters.

desk verdict A new equivariant gamma-effectiveness theorem for order polytopes; the proof is sound and the main soft spot is just an unnecessary citation to an unpublished preprint for a standard triangulation fact. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07623 v1 pith:GXTCWSMT submitted 2025-05-12 math.CO math.RT

Alessio D'Alì , Akihiro Higashitani This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.COmath.RT MSC 05E1852B2006A0752B15

keywords equivariantEhrhartseriesorderpolytopegradedposetsign-gradedgamma-effectivenesslatticegroupaction

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

A classical 2004 result [4] shows that the numerator of the Ehrhart series of the order polytope of a graded poset is gamma-nonnegative: it expands in the basis $t^i(1+t)^{s-2i}$ with nonnegative real numbers. This paper proves the equivariant analogue: when a finite group $G$ acts on the poset by automorphisms, the equivariant $h^*$-series — the character-valued count of lattice points fixed by each group element in every dilation — expands in the same gamma basis with coefficients that are genuine $G$-characters, not just virtual ones. The statement is proved for every graded poset and every subgroup of its automorphism group, so it is a uniform, large class of examples where the effectiveness conjecture [16] holds along with the stronger gamma structure. The proof is constructive: it gives an explicit formula for the gamma-characters in terms of the group action on the saturations of the poset, each saturation being a stack of antichains whose gamma-data is the known equivariant gamma-expansion of a cube.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the equivariant Ehrhart series of the order polytope $O(P) = \{f: P\to[0,1] : p\le q \Rightarrow f(p)\ge f(q)\}$, whose numerator $h^{*G}_P(t)$ records, for each group element $g$, the Ehrhart series of the fixed-point polytope. Two tools carry the argument. First, the sign-graded posets introduced in [4]: an edge labeling $\varepsilon$ makes $P$ $\varepsilon$-consistent when every principal order ideal has a well-defined rank function, and a saturation of $(P,\varepsilon)$ is a maximal extension of the order that preserves this rank and makes elements at rank distance one comparable; for parity-graded posets all saturations are ordinal sums of antichains. Second, Theorem 3.6 (proved by evaluating at each $g$ and using orbit-stabilizer and induction) expresses the equivariant $h^*$-series of $O(P,\varepsilon)$ as a sum of induced-and-restricted equivariant $h^*$-series of the saturations, and Lemma 3.5 shifts between the grading $\varepsilon$ and the canonical parity grading $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{par}}$ by a monomial. The gamma-effectiveness then reduces to the antichain/cube case, where the equivariant gamma expansion is known explicitly through standard Young tableaux with no double or final descent (formula (10) in the paper).

What would settle it

One can test the theorem by computing the equivariant gamma-polynomial of a graded poset with a nontrivial automorphism group using the paper's saturation formula — the dihedral-group example in Section 5 is the worked template — and checking that every coefficient decomposes into irreducibles with nonnegative multiplicities; a single negative multiplicity would disprove the claim. A sharper target is the triangulation lemma itself: exhibiting a graded poset $P$ and a subgroup $G\le \mathrm{Aut}(P)$ for which $O(P)$ has no $G$-invariant lattice triangulation would destroy the proof's foundation, even though the theorem might still be true by another route.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Let $P$ be a finite poset with all maximal chains of the same length and let $G$ be any subgroup of its automorphism group. The paper proves that the equivariant $h^*$-polynomial $h^{*G}_P(t)$ is palindromic and gamma-effective: in the expansion $h^{*G}_P(t) = \sum_{i=0}^{\lfloor s/2\rfloor} \gamma_i t^i(1+t)^{s-2i}$, each $\gamma_i$ is an effective character of $G$. Equivalently, the equivariant gamma-polynomial is a polynomial in $t$ whose coefficients are sums of irreducible representations with nonnegative multiplicities, so it records the symmetries without introducing negative multiplicities. The key formula is $\gamma^G_P(t) = \sum_i \mathrm{Ind}^{G}_{\mathrm{stab}_G(Q_i,\varepsilon_{\mathrm{par}})} \mathrm{Res}^{\mathrm{Aut}(Q_i)}_{\mathrm{stab}_G(Q_i,\varepsilon_{\mathrm{par}})} \left( t^{(r_{Q_i}(1)-r_P(1))/2} \cdot \gamma^{\mathrm{Aut}(Q_i)}_{Q_i}(t)\right)$, where the sum ranges over representatives of the $G$-orbits of saturations of the parity-graded structure; each $Q_i$ is an ordinal sum of antichains, and the cube case supplies effective characters by the explicit standard-Young-tableaux formula [11].

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing step is the cited result that the order polytope of every graded poset admits a $G$-invariant lattice triangulation for every finite subgroup $G$ of its automorphism group; if that triangulation were missing for some pair $(P,G)$, the equivariant $h^*$-series could stop being a polynomial, and gamma-effectiveness would not even be defined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every graded poset $P$ and every $G\le \mathrm{Aut}(P)$, the equivariant $h^*$-polynomial is palindromic, effective, and gamma-effective; in particular the effectiveness conjecture [16] holds for the whole class of order polytopes of graded posets.
The explicit formula (13) expresses the equivariant gamma-characters as induced/restricted products of the symmetric-group characters of cubes, so the gamma-vector of any graded poset action can be computed from the $G$-orbits of its saturations.
Evaluating the equivariant gamma-polynomial at the identity recovers the classical gamma-nonnegativity of the ordinary $h^*$-polynomial, so the result is a genuine extension of the prior theorem [4].
Because induction and restriction send effective characters to effective characters, and products of effective characters are effective, the conclusion survives passing to any subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}(P)$; no condition on the group action beyond preservation of the order is needed.

Reading between the lines

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

The saturation-plus-induction structure suggests a general recipe for proving equivariant gamma-effectiveness of any polytope whose gamma-vector factors into cube contributions via $G$-invariant lattice triangulations; the formula may transfer to other families such as alcoved polytopes or $G$-parking-function polytopes.
The explicit character formula for cubes (via standard Young tableaux with no double or final descent) hints that the gamma-characters of a graded poset could be modeled as sums of irreducible symmetric-group modules indexed by tableaux on each antichain block, yielding a purely combinatorial interpretation of the equivariant gamma-vector.
A natural next test concerns the gamma-positivity conjecture for flag spheres: the quotient polytopes $P/\langle g\rangle$ are themselves order polytopes of graded posets (by Lemma 2.5), so the machinery gives effective gamma-vectors for the fixed-point polytopes along every cyclic subgroup; comparing these with known flag-sphere constructions might reveal whether gamma-effectiveness is inherited

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

Read this one. It proves that order polytopes of graded posets are gamma-effective under any automorphism group: the equivariant h*-polynomial is palindromic and its gamma-coefficients are honest characters. That is a natural equivariant strengthening of Br\"and\'en's theorem, and it is genuinely new. The main technical work is a saturation formula (Theorem 3.6) expressing the equivariant h*-series as a sum of induced characters from stabilizers of saturations, then reducing gamma-effectiveness to the already-known gamma-effectiveness of cubes. The proof is detailed, and I checked the key steps: the character evaluation argument in Theorem 3.6 is coherent, and the decomposition into ordinal sums of antichains works.

The result is as advertised. In the trivial group case it recovers Br\"and\'en, which is the correct baseline. The authors also do something useful beyond that: they develop order polytopes of sign-graded posets, including the non-closed objects O(P,epsilon), and show how automorphisms interact with saturations. The example in Section 5 is worked out carefully and helps.

Soft spots are minor. The one real issue flagged by stress-test is Lemma 4.1, which relies on [6, Lemma 6.4] for existence of a G-invariant lattice triangulation of order polytopes, from an unpublished preprint. But that fact is standard and easily proved: the linear-extension triangulation of O(P) is permuted by Aut(P), so it is G-invariant. The citation to [6] is unnecessary for that point. So this is a rigor gap in presentation, not in the mathematics. The treatment of h* for the non-closed O(P,epsilon) is also a bit informal, but the generating function is defined by the same Ehrhart-series mechanism, and the evaluation-at-elements argument justifies the formulas. A few verifications are left to the reader (notably unimodularity in Lemma 3.2), but they are routine.

No circularity: the proof uses Br\"and\'en's saturation theorem and Stapledon's equivariant framework, and the reliance on [17] is for a known theorem about invariant triangulations, not the target result. The citation pattern looks fine; self-citation of [6] is load-bearing only via that triangulation fact, which is independent.

Bottom line: this is a solid, publishable paper in equivariant Ehrhart theory. A serious referee could reasonably ask for a one-line proof of the G-invariant triangulation and for a slightly more careful treatment of the non-closed polytopes, but I would not put any obstacle in front of publication. I'd recommend accepting it for peer review, with minor revisions at most.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves an equivariant version of Brändén's theorem on gamma-nonnegativity for order polytopes of graded posets. For a graded poset P and a finite subgroup G of Aut(P), the authors define the equivariant h*-polynomial h*_P^G(t) and its gamma-polynomial, and prove that the coefficients of the equivariant gamma-polynomial are effective G-characters (Theorem 4.5, Theorem B). The proof introduces an equivariant theory of order polytopes of sign-graded posets, including a non-closed convex set O(P,ε), and proves a structural formula expressing the equivariant h*-series of O(P,ε) as a sum of induced representations indexed by saturations (Theorem 3.6, Theorem A). The paper then specializes to the parity-grading of a graded poset, uses known gamma-effectiveness for cubes, and obtains the main result. A detailed example with the dihedral group D4 is worked out in Section 5.

Significance. If the main theorem is fully justified, it is a substantial contribution: it extends Brändén's gamma-nonnegativity from the ordinary h*-polynomial to the equivariant setting, giving effective characters rather than nonnegative integers, and it provides a large new class of polytopes for which Stapledon's effectiveness conjecture holds. Theorem 3.6 is a new structural decomposition that appears independently useful, and the explicit computation in Section 5 is a valuable illustration of the machinery. The writing is careful and the main line of argument is coherent. However, the central statement rests on an unpublished result about G-invariant lattice triangulations, and the treatment of the non-closed polytope O(P,ε) is somewhat informal; these points affect the well-definedness of the main objects and should be addressed before the result can be considered fully established.

major comments (2)

[§4, Lemma 4.1] The proof of Lemma 4.1 depends on [6, Lemma 6.4] for the existence of a G-invariant lattice triangulation of O(P) for every finite subgroup G of Aut(P), and on [17, Theorem 1.4] to conclude that the equivariant h*-series is a polynomial with effective coefficients. Both [6] and [17] are preprints, and no proof or verification of the triangulation claim is given in the present paper. This is load-bearing: without a G-invariant lattice triangulation, h*_P^G(t) may not be a polynomial, so the gamma-polynomial in Definition 4.2 and the statement of Theorem 4.5 are not even well-defined. Please either include a proof of the triangulation statement (the standard linear-extension triangulation of an order polytope is a natural candidate and should be checked for G-invariance and unimodularity directly) or state the missing result as a lemma with a proof.
[§3, Definition 3.1 and Lemma 3.3] The paper applies the standard equivariant Ehrhart determinant identity to the non-closed convex set O(P,ε). Lemma 3.3 asserts an identity involving h*(O(P,ε)^g;t) and a factor det(Id - η_G(g)t)|_{M_g^⊥}, and Theorem 3.6 freely uses evaluations of h*G_{P,ε}(t) at group elements. Since O(P,ε) is not closed, the interpretation of the formal Ehrhart series and of the fixed-point set O(P,ε)^g needs a precise justification; in particular, the identity Ehr(O(P,ε),η_G;t)(g)=Ehr(O(P,ε)^g;t) and the subsequent determinant factorization should be proved for these non-closed sets rather than invoked as if they were closed lattice polytopes. This gap affects Theorem 3.6 and therefore the proof of the main theorem, so it should be closed by an explicit formal argument.

minor comments (5)

[§3.1, Lemma 3.2] The proof of Lemma 3.2 leaves the unimodularity check to the reader; please spell out the lattice basis change between ⊕_{O∈P/G} Z·e^*_O and ⊕_{O∈P/G} Z·(∑_{p∈O} e^*_p), since this is needed for the Ehrhart-theoretic identifications in the rest of the paper.
[§4.1] The set \SYT_d introduced before equation (10) is not defined explicitly; it is only described as 'all standard Young tableaux with d boxes having neither a double descent nor a final descent'. Please clarify the notation and define 'higher row' precisely in the descent definition.
[§5] In the example, the computations for Q_3 and Q_4 use specific choices of stabilizer subgroups ('{e,τσ}' and '{e,τ}'); it would help the reader if the text stated explicitly why the resulting induced characters are independent of the choice of representative in each G-orbit.
[References] Reference [9] is missing the year of publication; please add it to match the journal style.
[§1.2, Theorem B wording] The phrase 'h*G_P(t) is γ-effective' in Theorem B is slightly imprecise: γ-effectiveness is a property of the poset P together with the G-action, not of a polynomial. Consider restating the theorem as 'the equivariant gamma-polynomial of O(P) has effective coefficients' or define the phrase explicitly in Definition 4.2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the proof is a genuine equivariant extension of Brändén's saturation method; the only self-citation is an independent triangulation lemma that does not assume the target.

full rationale

The claimed result is not obtained by fitting, renaming, or equating input with output. The central decomposition, Theorem 3.6, expresses the equivariant h*-series of an ε-consistent poset as a sum of induced restrictions over saturations; its proof is self-contained apart from Brändén's non-equivariant saturation theorem and Stapledon's equivariant framework, neither of which assumes gamma-effectiveness. Lemma 4.1 uses the cited G-invariant triangulation of O(P) from [6] only to guarantee polynomiality and effectiveness of h*^G_P(t); the triangulation statement is independent of, and strictly stronger than, the target property, so citing it (even though [6] shares an author) is not circular. The final step in Theorem 4.5 is a linear gamma-polynomial identity: because each shifted h*^Aut(Qi)_Qi,1(t) is palindromic with the same center, the gamma-polynomial of the sum is the sum of the gamma-polynomials, and each antichain factor is gamma-effective by the external results of Shareshian–Wachs and Horiguchi et al. Every equation used to derive gamma-effectiveness is justified by an independent theorem or an elementary manipulation; no input is equated to the output by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on external results from Brändén, Stapledon, Shareshian-Wachs, Horiguchi et al., and D'Alì-Delucchi. No free parameters are fitted to data. The structure of saturations in Theorem 4.5 is imported from [4, Proposition 3.4], and the effectiveness of h* in Lemma 4.1 is imported from the unpublished [6].

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Saturation decomposition for h* of signed order polytopes: for an epsilon-consistent poset P, h^*(O(P,epsilon);t) equals the sum over saturations (Q,delta) of h^*(O(Q,delta);t).
Invoked as [4, Theorem 3.2] inside the proof of Theorem 3.6 to decompose h^*(O(P/<g>,epsilon);t).
domain assumption Every saturation of a parity-graded poset is an alternating ordinal sum of antichains, and its automorphism group is the product of symmetric groups of the antichains.
Used in Remark 2.9 and in Theorem 4.5 to reduce each saturation to a product of cubes; cited from [4, Proposition 3.4].
domain assumption For an epsilon-graded poset Q, h^*(O(Q,epsilon);t) = t^{(r(epsilon_par)-r(epsilon))/2} h^*(O(Q,epsilon_par);t).
Used in Lemma 3.5 and in Theorem 4.5 as [4, Corollary 2.4] to shift between the 1-graded and parity-graded equivariant h*.
domain assumption The order polytope of a graded poset admits a G-invariant lattice triangulation for every finite G subset of Aut(P).
Used in Lemma 4.1 as [6, Lemma 6.4] to obtain polynomiality and effectiveness of h^*_P(t); [6] is an unpublished preprint by the first author.
domain assumption A G-invariant lattice triangulation implies that the equivariant h*-series is a polynomial with effective coefficients ([17, Theorem 1.4]).
Used in Lemma 4.1 together with [6, Lemma 6.4].
domain assumption For the d-dimensional cube, the equivariant gamma-polynomial has effective coefficients described by standard Young tableaux without double or final descents.
Used in Section 4.1 and at the end of Theorem 4.5; this is [11, Theorem 1.1], building on [13, Corollary 3.2].
domain assumption The h*-polynomial of the order polytope of a graded poset is palindromic (Hibi [10]), and palindromicity lifts to the equivariant h*-polynomial ([16, Corollary 6.9]).
Used in Lemma 4.1 to ensure the gamma-polynomial is well-defined.
standard math Standard character theory: characters, induction, restriction, Frobenius reciprocity, and the orbit-stabilizer identity.
Used throughout Section 3.2 and in the proof of Theorem 3.6 to rewrite orbit sums as induced characters.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Order polytopes of graded posets are gamma-effective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GXTCWSMT

@misc{pith2026250507623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Order polytopes of graded posets are gamma-effective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GXTCWSMT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07623}
}

abstract

Order polytopes of posets have been a very rich topic at the crossroads between combinatorics and discrete geometry since their definition by Stanley in 1986. Among other notable results, order polytopes of graded posets are known to be $\gamma$-nonnegative by work of Br\"and\'en, who introduced the concept of sign-graded poset in the process. In the present paper we are interested in proving an equivariant version of Br\"and\'en's result, using the tools of equivariant Ehrhart theory (introduced by Stapledon in 2011). Namely, we prove that order polytopes of graded posets are always $\gamma$-effective, i.e., that the $\gamma$-polynomial associated with the equivariant $h^*$-polynomial of the order polytope of any graded poset has coefficients consisting of actual characters. To reach this goal, we develop a theory of order polytopes of sign-graded posets, and find a formula to express the numerator of the equivariant Ehrhart series of such an object in terms of the saturations (\`a la Br\"and\'en) of the given sign-graded poset.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[6]

Equivariant Hilbert and Ehrhart series under translative group actions, 2024

Alessio D’Al `ı and Emanuele Delucchi. Equivariant Hilbert and Ehrhart series under translative group actions, 2024. Preprint, arXiv:2312.14088

work page arXiv 2024
[17]

Equivariant Ehrhart theory, commutative algebra and invariant triangulations of poly- topes, 2024

Alan Stapledon. Equivariant Ehrhart theory, commutative algebra and invariant triangulations of poly- topes, 2024. Preprint, arXiv:2311.17273. DIPARTIMENTO DI MATEMATICA , P OLITECNICO DI MILANO , ITALY Email address: alessio.dali@polimi.it AKIHIRO HIGASHITANI , DEPARTMENT OF PURE AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS , GRADUATE SCHOOL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNO...

arXiv 2024
[1]

Vindas-Mel´endez

Federico Ardila, Mariel Supina, and Andr ´es R. Vindas-Mel´endez. The equivariant Ehrhart theory of the permutahedron. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 148(12):5091–5107, 2020

work page 2020
[2]

Athanasiadis

Christos A. Athanasiadis. Gamma-positivity in combinatorics and geometry. S´em. Lothar. Combin., 77:Art. B77i, 64, [2016–2018]

work page 2016
[3]

Computing the continuous discretely

Matthias Beck and Sinai Robins. Computing the continuous discretely. Undergraduate Texts in Math- ematics. Springer, New York, second edition, 2015. Integer-point enumeration in polyhedra, With illustrations by David Austin

work page 2015
[4]

Sign-graded posets, unimodality ofW-polynomials and the Charney-Davis conjecture

Petter Br ¨and´en. Sign-graded posets, unimodality ofW-polynomials and the Charney-Davis conjecture. Electron. J. Combin., 11(2):Research Paper 9, 15, 2004/06

work page 2004
[5]

The equivariant Ehrhart theory of polytopes with order-two symmetries

Oliver Clarke, Akihiro Higashitani, and Max K ¨olbl. The equivariant Ehrhart theory of polytopes with order-two symmetries. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 151(9):4027–4041, 2023

work page 2023
[7]

Techniques in equivariant Ehrhart theory

Sophia Elia, Donghyun Kim, and Mariel Supina. Techniques in equivariant Ehrhart theory. Ann. Comb., 28(3):819–870, 2024

work page 2024

Show all 17 references

[8]

Examples and counterexamples in Ehrhart theory

Luis Ferroni and Akihiro Higashitani. Examples and counterexamples in Ehrhart theory. To appear on EMS Surveys in Mathematical Sciences. arXiv version: arXiv:2307.10852

arXiv
[9]

Sch ¨utzenberger

Dominique Foata and Marcel-P. Sch ¨utzenberger. Th´eorie g´eom´etrique des polyn ˆomes eul´eriens, vol- ume V ol. 138 ofLecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1970

1970
[10]

Distributive lattices, affine semigroup rings and algebras with straightening laws

Takayuki Hibi. Distributive lattices, affine semigroup rings and algebras with straightening laws. In Commutative algebra and combinatorics (Kyoto, 1985) , volume 11 of Adv. Stud. Pure Math., pages 93–109. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987. 27

1985
[11]

The repre- sentation of Sn on the cohomology of the permutohedral variety and gamma vectors of partitioned permutohedra, 2024

Tatsuya Horiguchi, Mikiya Masuda, Takashi Sato, John Shareshian, and Jongbaek Song. The repre- sentation of Sn on the cohomology of the permutohedral variety and gamma vectors of partitioned permutohedra, 2024. Preprint, arXiv:2405.09242

2024 arXiv
[12]

Linear representations of finite groups

Jean-Pierre Serre. Linear representations of finite groups. Translated from the French by Leonard L. Scott, volume 42 of Grad. Texts Math.Springer, Cham, 1977

1977
[13]

John Shareshian and Michelle L. Wachs. Gamma-positivity of variations of Eulerian polynomials. J. Comb., 11(1):1–33, 2020

2020
[14]

Richard P. Stanley. Two poset polytopes. Discrete Comput. Geom., 1(1):9–23, 1986

1986
[15]

Richard P. Stanley. Enumerative combinatorics. Volume 1, volume 49 of Cambridge Studies in Ad- vanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 2012

2012
[16]

Equivariant Ehrhart theory

Alan Stapledon. Equivariant Ehrhart theory. Adv. Math., 226(4):3622–3654, 2011

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [6]

Equivariant Hilbert and Ehrhart series under translative group actions, 2024

Alessio D’Al `ı and Emanuele Delucchi. Equivariant Hilbert and Ehrhart series under translative group actions, 2024. Preprint, arXiv:2312.14088

work page arXiv 2024

[2] [17]

Equivariant Ehrhart theory, commutative algebra and invariant triangulations of poly- topes, 2024

Alan Stapledon. Equivariant Ehrhart theory, commutative algebra and invariant triangulations of poly- topes, 2024. Preprint, arXiv:2311.17273. DIPARTIMENTO DI MATEMATICA , P OLITECNICO DI MILANO , ITALY Email address: alessio.dali@polimi.it AKIHIRO HIGASHITANI , DEPARTMENT OF PURE AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS , GRADUATE SCHOOL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNO...

arXiv 2024

[3] [1]

Vindas-Mel´endez

Federico Ardila, Mariel Supina, and Andr ´es R. Vindas-Mel´endez. The equivariant Ehrhart theory of the permutahedron. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 148(12):5091–5107, 2020

work page 2020

[4] [2]

Athanasiadis

Christos A. Athanasiadis. Gamma-positivity in combinatorics and geometry. S´em. Lothar. Combin., 77:Art. B77i, 64, [2016–2018]

work page 2016

[5] [3]

Computing the continuous discretely

Matthias Beck and Sinai Robins. Computing the continuous discretely. Undergraduate Texts in Math- ematics. Springer, New York, second edition, 2015. Integer-point enumeration in polyhedra, With illustrations by David Austin

work page 2015

[6] [4]

Sign-graded posets, unimodality ofW-polynomials and the Charney-Davis conjecture

Petter Br ¨and´en. Sign-graded posets, unimodality ofW-polynomials and the Charney-Davis conjecture. Electron. J. Combin., 11(2):Research Paper 9, 15, 2004/06

work page 2004

[7] [5]

The equivariant Ehrhart theory of polytopes with order-two symmetries

Oliver Clarke, Akihiro Higashitani, and Max K ¨olbl. The equivariant Ehrhart theory of polytopes with order-two symmetries. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 151(9):4027–4041, 2023

work page 2023

[8] [7]

Techniques in equivariant Ehrhart theory

Sophia Elia, Donghyun Kim, and Mariel Supina. Techniques in equivariant Ehrhart theory. Ann. Comb., 28(3):819–870, 2024

work page 2024