Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

This paper builds a recursive algorithm that generates every twisted non-symmetric Macdonald eigenfunction from a single ground state, proving three structural conjectures about their rational coefficients.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 21:09 UTC pith:PWCGQISE

load-bearing objection A concrete recursive construction of twisted Macdonald polynomials that proves three of the authors' own conjectures, but the load-bearing eigenvalue rescaling (26) is asserted without proof. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2602.21120 v2 pith:PWCGQISE submitted 2026-02-24 hep-th math-phmath.MPmath.QA

Generating twisted Cherednik eigenfunctions

A. Mironov , A. Morozov , A. Popolitov This is my paper
classification hep-th math-phmath.MPmath.QA MSC 33D5281R12
keywords twisted Cherednik HamiltoniansDing-Iohara-Miki algebranon-symmetric Macdonald polynomialsKnop-Sahi recursionDemazure-Lusztig operatorsrational coefficientsBaker-Akhiezer functionsintegrable systems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper develops a recursive construction for the eigenfunctions of twisted Cherednik Hamiltonians, known as twisted non-symmetric Macdonald polynomials. Starting from the symmetric ground state, the authors generate every eigenfunction through two operations: a creation move that adds a box and a permutation move that reorders entries. The construction proves that the rational expansion coefficients are independent of the twist parameter, the number of rational factors equals the minimal permutation length, and the symmetrization formula gives symmetric twisted Macdonald polynomials. If correct, this reduces the study of the entire eigenfunction family to understanding the single ground state and gives an explicit, algorithmic way to compute all eigenfunctions.

Core claim

Every eigenfunction E^{(a)}_α of the twisted Cherednik Hamiltonians C^{(a)}_i admits a unique decomposition E^{(a)}_α = Σ_{β≤α} F_{α,β}(x) Ξ^{(a)}_β, where Ξ^{(a)}_β are obtained from the ground state Ω^{(a)} by scaling the variables, and the coefficients F_{α,β} are rational functions independent of the twist a. The paper proves constructively that (i) these coefficients are rational and a-independent, (ii) the number of fractions in F_{α,β} equals the minimal length of the permutation that brings α to its anti-dominant form α^-, and (iii) the symmetrization formula (38) applied to the E^{(a)}_α yields the symmetric twisted Macdonald polynomials. The proof proceeds by a two-step induction:

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a pair of operators acting on the space of polynomials in the variables. The creation operator B^{(a)} generalizes the Knop–Sahi recursion, raising the degree and cyclically shifting the entries of the weak composition; the Demazure–Lusztig operators T_i permute the i-th and (i+1)-th entries. The key structural identity is the decomposition into Ξ^{(a)}_β — the ground state Ω^{(a)} with each variable scaled by q^{β_i} and multiplied by a monomial — with rational coefficients F_{α,β}. The recurrence (40) computes these coefficients from the T_i action, and because the T_i coefficients depend only on ratios of Cherednik eigenvalues, the a-rescaling cancels and the coef

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction relies on the eigenvalue rescaling formula Λ^{(i,a)}_α = q^{(a-1)/2} t^{2(1-a)} Λ^{(i)}_α, stated without proof; if this rescaling is incorrect, the recursively generated functions will not satisfy the twisted eigenvalue equation.

What would settle it

For a concrete case (for example n=2, a=2, t=q^{-m}), compute the twisted Cherednik operator C^{(a)}_i acting on the first few eigenfunctions generated by the algorithm and check whether each equals the predicted eigenvalue from (26). A single mismatch would invalidate the construction. Alternatively, for a case like n=3, α=[2,0,1], compare the expansion coefficients F_{α,β} computed at a=1 and a=2 with identical q and t; any a-dependence would falsify the central a-independence claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • All twisted non-symmetric Macdonald polynomials can be generated from the ground state by an explicit, unambiguous recursive algorithm, for any particle number and any weak composition.
  • The a-independence of the coefficients lets one transfer computations from the untwisted a=1 case directly to the twisted case, so the entire twisted structure is carried by the ground state.
  • The symmetric twisted Macdonald polynomials — eigenfunctions of the DIM Hamiltonian subalgebras — are obtained by the same symmetrization formula, giving a constructive route to those functions as well.
  • The fraction-count statement provides a combinatorial index of complexity: the number of rational factors in the expansion is fixed by the permutation length, allowing a priori prediction of the shape of the answer.
  • The construction is implemented in a computer algebra script, making the polynomials explicitly computable for small parameter values.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the algorithm closely resembles the creation-operator formalism for symmetric Macdonald polynomials; if the twisted creation operators can be characterized directly, the construction may extend to a full set of commuting integrals beyond the Hamiltonians themselves.
  • Editorial inference: the whole construction rests on the availability of the ground state at the special point t=q^{-m}; a closed power-series formula for Ω^{(a)} at generic t (analogous to the known series for symmetric Macdonald polynomials) would extend the generation algorithm to the full parameter domain.
  • Editorial inference: the observed 'factorization conspiracy' — long sums of rational terms frequently collapsing into short products — suggests an underlying algebraic structure (e.g., a Yang–Baxter or cluster algebra) that the current recurrence does not expose; testing factorization at higher levels would reveal whether it persists.
  • Editorial inference: because the coefficients are a-independent, the twisted polynomials at generic a can be studied by taking a=1 limits, which may simplify numerical evaluation and comparisons in applications to DIM-algebra state counting.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the twisted Cherednik operators C_i^{(a)} introduced in Sec. 2.2 and their polynomial eigenfunctions E_α^{(a)}. The authors propose a recursive algorithm (Sec. 6) that constructs these eigenfunctions from the twisted ground state Ω^{(a)} by alternating a creation operation B^{(a)} (the Knop–Sahi-type recurrence (35)) and permutation operators T_i (formulas (36)–(40)). They claim that this algorithm proves the three conjectures of [22]: (i) the coefficients F_{α,β}(x) in the Ξ expansion (28) are rational and independent of the twist parameter a; (ii) the number of fractions in F_{α,β} equals the minimal permutation length from α to α^-; and (iii) symmetric twisted Macdonald polynomials are given by (38). The paper contains many explicit examples and a MAPLE implementation.

Significance. If correct, the construction would provide an explicit, uniform way to generate all twisted non-symmetric Macdonald polynomials from a single ground state, connecting the DIM/elliptic Hall commutative rays to twisted DAHA. The a-independence and fraction-count conjectures are structurally important and would be proved by the same recursion. The attached MAPLE code is a concrete strength and gives reproducible evidence. However, the proof is not yet complete: the eigenvalue rescaling (26) is unproved, the a-independence of coefficients is assumed from [22] before being 'proved,' and the uniqueness of the recursive path is admitted to be open. These gaps are load-bearing for the central claim, so the paper requires major revision rather than acceptance.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (26)] The twisted eigenvalue formula Λ^{(i,a)}_α = q^{(a-1)/2} t^{2(1-a)} Λ^{(i)}_α is stated without proof or citation. This is not a harmless side remark: the derivation of the B-action coefficient in Sec. 5.1 and the T_i formulas in Sec. 5.2 use it, and the recursive algorithm in Sec. 6 relies on those formulas. If (26) is wrong, the functions generated by the algorithm will not satisfy the eigenvalue equation (25). Please derive (26) from the definition (12) or give a precise reference, and check that no additional a-dependence enters through the x_i^{(1-a)/a} factors.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (28)] The a-independence of F_{α,β} is introduced as a known property with citation to [22] — the same paper whose conjectures the present paper claims to prove. It is then used in Sec. 4.3 to fix normalization and in Sec. 5.3 as the basis for the symmetric-sum proof. This is circular unless the recursive construction provides an independent proof. The construction does not currently supply one: the effect of the B-operation (35) on the Ξ expansion is only illustrated in examples, not proven in general. Please either restructure the argument so that (28) is derived from the recursion, or clearly separate a provisional normalization assumption from the proof.
  3. [Sec. 6 / Sec. 7.1] The algorithmic procedure is not shown to be confluent. The text explicitly states that there are many ways to reach a given α and that the system of relations that ensures unambiguity is 'not yet studied in detail.' Without a proof that different paths through B^(a) and T_i produce the same E_α^{(a)}, the algorithm as stated does not define a function of α. This is a load-bearing gap for the central claim 'generate arbitrary twisted eigenfunctions.' Please prove confluence (or uniqueness), e.g. by showing the recursion is compatible with the triangular decomposition (28) and the eigenvalue equation (25).
  4. [Sec. 6.1, fraction-count claim] The sentence 'each permutation increases the number of fractions ... by one, which proves...' is not a valid proof of equality. Formula (40) gives at most an increase by one in the number of q-symbol factors, but cancellations can reduce it; indeed Sec. 6.2 describes a 'conspiracy' where three contributions combine into one term (the coefficient F_{[2,0,0],[0,1,1]}). Thus the local counting argument does not establish the conjecture. Need either a rigorous invariant that is monotone under the moves and attains N_{α^-}+ℓ(α), or a direct proof using the triangular expansion.
  5. [Sec. 5.3, Eq. (38)] The proof of the symmetric twisted Macdonald formula is compressed into 'These formulas follow from (36), and the coefficients are independent of a, as in (36), which proves the corresponding conjecture.' This is not a complete derivation. In particular, one must verify that the sum (38) is an eigenfunction of the DIM Hamiltonian H_k^{(a)} = Σ_i (C_i^{(a)})^k with the expected eigenvalue, not merely that it is annihilated by the difference of T_i relations. Please spell out the argument.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (12)] The fractional powers x_i^{(1-a)/a} and x_i^{-1/a} are not defined for complex x_i; please specify the branch and domain on which the operators act.
  2. [Notation] The coefficients are denoted F_{α,β}(x) in most of the paper but F^{(m)}_{α,β} in Sec. 7. Please unify the notation.
  3. [Abstract / Sec. 7] The abstract and concluding remarks use 'non-polynomial eigenfunctions' while earlier sections define polynomials in x^{1/a}; align the terminology.
  4. [Appendix] The attached MAPLE file is a useful resource; please add version/platform information and a short test list verifying the outputs against the displayed formulas.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Presentation-level circularity: the a-independence of F in Eq. (28) is cited from the authors' own [22] as if established, while Sec. 7.2 says it was a conjecture in [22] and is proved only here; the Sec. 6 algorithm is independent.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (28); Sec. 4.3; Sec. 7.2]
    "then any polynomial solution to (25) can be presented in the form of a linear combination of such Ξ^{(a)}_α with coefficients that are rational functions independent of the twist a [22–24]: E^{(a)}_α(⃗ x) = Σ_{β≤α} F_{α,β}(⃗ x)·Ξ^{(a)}_β (28) where F_{α,β} does not depend on a at all [22]. ... we proved the three conjectures that we proposed in [22]: The coefficients F_{α,β}(⃗ x) in front of Ξ^{(a)}_β in formula (28) are rational functions that do not depend on a."

    Eq. (28) asserts the central structural property—the a-independent rational coefficients—as a known fact and justifies it by citing [22], which is the authors' own prior paper. Sec. 7.2 states that this same assertion was only one of the 'conjectures that we proposed in [22]' and is proved in the present paper. Sec. 4.3 then uses the unproved a-independence ('Since F_{α,β}(x)'s do not depend on a') to fix the normalization before the proof. Thus the written derivation imports its own conclusion from a self-citation. The Sec. 6 algorithmic proof is genuinely independent (it constructs E^{(a)} from the ground state and the a-independent T_i coefficients), so the circularity is in the presentation/justification order, not in the mathematical core.

full rationale

The central algorithmic construction in Sec. 6 is largely self-contained: it generates twisted non-symmetric Macdonald polynomials from the ground state Ω^{(a)} by the B-operation (35) and T_i permutations (36)-(40). The T_i coefficients in (37) are ratios of eigenvalues and therefore, if the rescaling (26) holds, are manifestly independent of a; the recursion then gives an inductive proof of the three [22] conjectures that does not depend on the earlier citation. The main circularity defect is in Sec. 4.2-4.3, where Eq. (28) cites [22] for the a-independence of F_{α,β}—even though Sec. 7.2 says that was a conjecture in [22]—and Sec. 4.3 uses that claimed a-independence to normalize. This is a genuine but non-fatal presentation-level self-citation: the later algorithm provides the missing independent content. Separately, Eq. (26) is an unproved, load-bearing premise for the whole recursion (it sets the B-action and T_i coefficients); it is an omitted-proof/correctness risk, not a reduction to inputs, so I do not count it toward the circularity score. Overall: one real self-citation circularity, independent algorithmic core → score 4.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim depends on the unproven operator relations (14)-(16), the unproven eigenvalue rescaling (26), and the prior existence/triangularity of the eigenfunctions from the same authors' earlier papers. The parameters q, t, a and N are structural inputs, not fitted to data; no free parameters are introduced. No new physical entities are postulated; the twisted operators are constructed from known DAHA data.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Generators e_{p,r} of the elliptic Hall algebra on the same integer ray commute: [e_{γ}, e_{kγ}] = 0.
    Invoked in the Introduction to define commutative subalgebras associated to rays; taken from Burban-Schiffmann [7].
  • ad hoc to paper Twisted Cherednik operators C_i^{(a)} defined by (12) satisfy (14)-(16): t T_i C_{i+1}^{(a)} T_i = C_i^{(a)}, [T_i, C_j^{(a)}]=0 for j not i,i±1, B^{(a)} C_{i+1}^{(a)} = C_i^{(a)} B^{(a)}, and [C_i^{(a)}, C_j^{(a)}]=0.
    Stated in Sec 2.2 without proof; they are the basis for the permutation and creation recurrences.
  • ad hoc to paper Eigenvalues of C_i^{(a)} are Λ^{(i,a)}_α = q^{(a-1)/2} t^{2(1-a)} Λ^{(i)}_α (Eq. 26).
    Stated without derivation in Sec 4.2; determines the normalization of the B-action and the T_i coefficients.
  • domain assumption Common eigenfunctions E_α^{(a)} of C_i^{(a)} exist and admit the triangular expansion (28) in the basis Ξ_β^{(a)} with rational coefficients.
    Assumed from the authors' prior works [22-24]; the paper proves the a-independence conjecture conditional on this structure.
  • domain assumption The ground state Ω_m^{(a)} is a common eigenfunction and a polynomial at t=q^{-m}.
    Taken from the twisted Baker-Akhiezer construction [15,16,22] in Sec 4.1; it seeds the recursion.
  • standard math Standard DAHA relations: Hecke algebra (5)-(6), C_i B = B C_{i+1} (9), B action (21), Knop-Sahi recurrence (22).
    Used without proof in Secs. 3 and 5 to derive the twisted counterparts; established in [25-29].

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16804 in / 27554 out tokens · 243660 ms · 2026-08-02T21:09:17.952113+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Hamiltonians ${\cal H}^{a}_k$ of new integrable systems associated with the integer rays $(1,a)$ (commutative subalgebras) of Ding-Iohara-Miki (DIM) algebra in the $N$-body representation are closely related to commuting twisted Cherednik Hamiltonians $\mathfrak{C}_i^{(a)}$, ${\cal H}^{a}_k = \sum_{i=1}^N (\mathfrak{C}_i^{(a)})^k$. Moreover, symmetric combinations of eigenfunctions in the twisted Cherednik system were recently shown to produce the DIM Hamiltonian eigenstates. We explicitly construct these twisted Cherednik eigenfunctions recurrently by action of some (creation and permutation) operations. It resembles of a far-going generalization of Kirillov-Noumi operators, but exact relation remains to be specified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.21120 by A. Mironov, A. Morozov, A. Popolitov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: 2d integer lattice of generators of the elliptic Hall/DIM algebra. Each ray (p,r) gives rise to a commutative subalgebra, and each pair of rays (p,r) and (-p,-r) form a Heisenberg subalgebra. However, action of the second automorphism Oh is far less trivial, and the commutative Hamiltonians associated with rays (−1, a), which can be obtained by action of this automorphism are not that simple. One of the wa… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Cherednik integrable system: eigenfunctions at generic eigenvalues

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Generic Cherednik eigenfunctions are N!-branched power series obtained by analytic continuation of factorized skew non-symmetric Macdonald coefficients.

  2. Cherednik integrable system: eigenfunctions at generic eigenvalues

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Factorized skew non-symmetric Macdonald coefficients and N!-branch power series are proposed as generic-eigenvalue eigenfunctions of the Cherednik system.

  3. Integrable systems inspired by DAHA and DIM algebra: type $C^\vee C$ versus type $A$

    hep-th 2026-07 accept novelty 4.5

    Type C∨C DAHA and Koornwinder systems mirror type-A Macdonald structures for Hamiltonians, recursions, evaluations and dualities, but lack a usable Noumi-Shiraishi-style universal series and SL(2,Z)-type twisting auto...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 24 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Calogero, J.Math.Phys.12(1971) 419

    F. Calogero, J.Math.Phys.12(1971) 419

    1971

  2. [2]

    Sutherland, Phys.Rev.A5(1972) 1372 J

    B. Sutherland, Phys.Rev.A5(1972) 1372 J. Moser, Adv.Math.16(1975) 197-220 M. Olshanetsky, A. Perelomov, Phys.Peps.71(1981) 313; Phys.Rep.94(1983) 6

    1972

  3. [3]

    Ruijsenaars, H

    S.N.M. Ruijsenaars, H. Schneider, Ann.Phys. (NY),170(1986) 370 S.N.M. Ruijsenaars, Comm.Math.Phys.110(1987) 191-213

    1986

  4. [4]

    J. Ding, K. Iohara, Lett. Math. Phys.41(1997) 181-193, q-alg/9608002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  5. [5]

    K. Miki, J. Math. Phys.48(2007) 123520 13

    2007

  6. [6]

    Kapranov, Algebraic geometry7, J.Math

    M. Kapranov, Algebraic geometry7, J.Math. Sci.84(1997) 1311-1360, alg-geom/9604018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  7. [7]

    Burban, O

    I. Burban, O. Schiffmann, Duke Math. J.161(2012) 1171, arXiv:math/0505148

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Schiffmann, J

    O. Schiffmann, J. Algebraic Combin.35(2012) 237-26, arXiv:1004.2575

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  9. [9]

    Feigin, M

    B. Feigin, M. Jimbo, T. Miwa, E. Mukhin, Commun. Math. Phys.356(2017) 285, arXiv:1603.02765

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Sekiguchi, Publ

    J. Sekiguchi, Publ. RIMS, Kyoto Univ.12(1977) 455-459 A. Debiard, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris (sir. I)296(1983) 529-532 S.N.M. Ruijsenaars, Comm.Math.Phys.110(1987) 191-213 I.G. Macdonald, Springer Lecture Notes1271(1987) 189-200

    1977

  11. [11]

    Macdonald,Symmetric functions and Hall polynomials, Oxford University Press, 1995

    I.G. Macdonald,Symmetric functions and Hall polynomials, Oxford University Press, 1995

    1995

  12. [12]

    Miki, Lett

    K. Miki, Lett. Math. Phys.47(1999) 365-378

    1999

  13. [13]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, A. Popolitov, JHEP09(2024) 200, arXiv:2406.16688

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, A. Popolitov, Nucl. Phys.B1012(2025) 116809, arXiv:2411.14194

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Chalykh, M

    O. Chalykh, M. Fairon, J.Geom.Phys.121(2017) 413-437, arXiv:1704.05814

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, A. Popolitov, Phys. Lett.B863(2025) 139380, arXiv:2410.10685

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Di Francesco, R

    P. Di Francesco, R. Kedem, Comm. Math. Phys.369(3)(2019) 867-928, arXiv:1704.00154

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Chalykh, Adv.Math.166(2)(2002) 193-259, math/0212313

    O. Chalykh, Adv.Math.166(2)(2002) 193-259, math/0212313

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  19. [19]

    Opdam, Acta Mathematica,175(1)(1995) 75–121

    E.M. Opdam, Acta Mathematica,175(1)(1995) 75–121

    1995

  20. [20]

    Macdonald, Asterisque-Societe Mathematique de France,237(1996) 189-208

    I.G. Macdonald, Asterisque-Societe Mathematique de France,237(1996) 189-208

    1996

  21. [21]

    Cherednik, IMRN,1995(10)(1995) 483, q-alg/9505029

    I. Cherednik, IMRN,1995(10)(1995) 483, q-alg/9505029

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  22. [22]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, A. Popolitov, arXiv:2512.24811

    arXiv

  23. [23]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, A. Popolitov, arXiv:2601.10500

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, A. Popolitov, arXiv:2601.19878

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Cherednik,Double affine Hecke algebras, Vol.319, Cambridge University Press, 2005

    I. Cherednik,Double affine Hecke algebras, Vol.319, Cambridge University Press, 2005

    2005

  26. [26]

    Nazarov, E

    M. Nazarov, E. Sklyanin, IMRN, vol.2019, iss.8 (2019) pp.2266–2294; arXiv:1703.02794

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Baker, P.J

    T.H. Baker, P.J. Forrester, q-alg/9701039

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Haglund, M

    J. Haglund, M. Haiman, N. Loehr, Am.J.Math.130(2)(2008) 359-383, math/0601693

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  29. [29]

    F. Knop, S. Sahi, Invent. Math.128(1997) 9-22, q-alg/9610016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  30. [30]

    Chalykh, P

    O. Chalykh, P. Etingof, Advances in Mathematics,238(2013) 246-289, arXiv:1111.0515

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  31. [31]

    Mimachi, M

    K. Mimachi, M. Noumi, Duke Math. J.95(1)(1998) 621-634, q-alg/9610014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  32. [32]

    Noumi, J

    M. Noumi, J. Shiraishi, arXiv:1206.5364

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, A. Popolitov, Phys. Lett.B869(2025) 139840, arXiv:2411.16517

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Kirillov, M

    An.N. Kirillov, M. Noumi, Duke Math. J.93(1)(1998) 1-39, q-alg/9605004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  35. [35]

    md-calc.mpl

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, arXiv:2508.07255 [36]https://garsia.math.yorku.ca/MPWP/maplefuncs.html 14 Appendix We attach to this submission a MAPLE file that allows one to generate the twisted and non-twisted Macdonald polynomials, both non-symmetric and symmetric. In fact, the non-twisted Macdonald polynomials are certainly available with much more effective...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv