Tropical representations and valuated matroids

Jaiung Jun; Jeffrey Tolliver; Kalina Mincheva

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Tropical representations and valuated matroids

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that for a finite group $G$, isomorphism classes of tropical subrepresentations whose underlying tropical linear space is isomorphic to $V_M$ correspond one-to-one with weak isomorphism classes of weak $G$-actions on the…

desk verdict Valuated matroidal representations are a real advance, but Theorem E(2) on quasi-free modules overreaches and needs a simplicity hypothesis; fixable and worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19889 v1 pith:DECDBZ4D submitted 2024-11-29 math.RT math.AGmath.COmath.RA

Jaiung Jun , Kalina Mincheva , Jeffrey Tolliver This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.RTmath.AGmath.COmath.RA MSC 12K1014T1005B3505E10

keywords matroidvaluatedrepresentationtropicalgeometrylinearspaceweaklyfreemodulequasi-free

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

This paper tries to establish that representation theory over the tropical semifield $\mathbb{T}$ is a combinatorial subject. Its central result is a one-to-one correspondence: for a finite group $G$ and a valuated matroid $M$, isomorphism classes of tropical subrepresentations whose underlying tropical linear space is isomorphic to $V_M$ are exactly the weak isomorphism classes of weak $G$-actions on $M$. This matters because a problem about groups acting on infinite geometric spaces becomes a problem about symmetries of a finite matroid. Along the way the authors introduce weakly free and quasi-free modules over semirings, show that the coordinate module $Q_M$ of a tropical linear space is quasi-free and recovers $V_M$ by dualizing, and identify the automorphism group of $V_M$ as a semidirect product of diagonal scalars and the weak automorphism group of $M$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quotient module $Q_M=\mathbb{T}^n/{\sim}$, the coordinate module of the tropical linear space $V_M$, obtained by imposing bend relations for every subset of size $d+1$. The module $Q_M$ is quasi-free: it has a quasi-basis, a minimal generating set in which any relation $x_i=\sum_j c_jx_j$ forces $c_j=\delta_{ij}$, and for the semirings here quasi-free implies weakly free, so automorphisms act by permuting and rescaling the quasi-basis. Dualizing gives $Q_M^*\cong V_M$, which lets automorphism questions for $V_M$ be translated into automorphism questions for $Q_M$. The second workhorse is Theorem 5.9: for a weakly free $\mathbb{T}$-module or a finitely presented $\mathbb{T}$-linear space, $\operatorname{Aut}(M)$ is a semidirect product $H \rtimes V$, where $H\subseteq S_n$ is the image of the projection and $V$ is a partition subspace (vectors whose coordinates are constant on each block of an equivalence relation). Because $H^i(G,V)=0$ for finite $G$ acting on such rational subspaces, finite group actions are classified by homomorphisms $G\to H$.

What would settle it

Compute the rank-1 uniform valuated matroid on three elements: every permutation lies in $\operatorname{Aut}_w(M)=S_3$, yet the bend relations identify all three generators, so $Q_M\cong\mathbb{T}$ and the image of $\operatorname{Aut}(Q_M)$ in $S_3$ is trivial; this demonstrates exactly where the simple-matroid hypothesis is needed, and a simple matroid whose $Q_M$ fails to be quasi-free would refute Lemma 6.12.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a valuated matroid $M$ on $[n]$ with rank $d$, let $V_M$ be the tropical linear space in $\mathbb{T}^n$ cut out by the bend relations of the circuits. The paper proves that the image of $\operatorname{Aut}(V_M)$ under the natural projection $\operatorname{GL}_n(\mathbb{T})\to S_n$ is exactly the weak automorphism group $\operatorname{Aut}_w(M)$: those permutations $\sigma$ for which there is a map $\tau:[n]\to\mathbb{T}$ with $w(\sigma(B))=(\prod_{i\in B}\tau(i))w(B)$ for every basis $B$ (Theorem 6.7). It then proves that for finite $G$, isomorphism classes of tropical subrepresentations with underlying space isomorphic to $V_M$ correspond one-to-one with weak isomorphism classes of weak $G$-actions on $M$ (Corollary 6.10). The proof works through the quotient module $Q_M=\mathbb{T}^n/{\sim}$ obtained from the bend relations: $Q_M$ is quasi-free, its dual is $V_M$, and $\operatorname{Aut}(Q_M)$ projects onto $\operatorname{Aut}_w(M)$. This generalizes the earlier matroidal-representation construction over the Boolean semifield and makes the correspondence independent of the chosen embedding of $V_M$.

Load-bearing premise

The correspondence in Corollary 6.10 is proved under the standing assumption that all matroids in Section 6 are simple and that $G$ is finite; dropping simplicity makes $Q_M$ collapse (the rank-1 uniform matroid gives $Q_M\cong\mathbb{T}$), and dropping finiteness creates scalar actions with no matroid counterpart.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Finite group actions on tropical linear spaces can be studied through finite combinatorial data: weak automorphisms of the underlying valuated matroid.
The automorphism group of a tropical linear space splits as a semidirect product of diagonal rescalings and the weak automorphism group, so symmetries decompose into permutations and coordinate-wise scaling.
Because $Q_M$ is defined intrinsically from the matroid and its dual recovers $V_M$, the correspondence does not depend on how the tropical linear space is embedded in $\mathbb{T}^n$.
For finite $G$, every linear action on $V_M$ is equivalent to one that permutes a quasi-basis of $Q_M$ up to scalars, and non-isomorphic actions are detected by homomorphisms $G\to\operatorname{Aut}_w(M)$.

Reading between the lines

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

The authors leave implicit that $Q_M$ could serve as an intrinsic starting point for tropical representation theory, letting one define $G$-actions on the coordinate module rather than on an embedded tropical linear space.
The finite-group hypothesis is likely not merely technical: for infinite groups such as $\mathbb{T}^{\times}$, scalar actions already produce tropical subrepresentations with no matroid counterpart, so a full infinite theory would need to track the cohomology of the diagonal part.
A testable extension would repair the simple-matroid assumption by modifying the quotient $Q_M$ to keep loops and parallel elements as distinguished generators, potentially restoring the correspondence for all valuated matroids.
The partition-subspace decomposition suggests that equivariant tropical geometry reduces to representation theory of the weak automorphism group, so questions about $G$-invariant tropical linear spaces could be attacked by first classifying subgroups of $\operatorname{Aut}_w(M)$.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core of this paper is the valuated-matroid version of Giansiracusa–Manaker: for finite G, tropical subrepresentations whose underlying tropical linear space is V_M correspond to weak G-actions on the valuated matroid M. Corollary 6.10 is new, and the proof through Theorem 6.7 is careful and, as far as I can tell, correct. The classification of linear subgroups of the torus (Proposition 4.10) is also a tidy new piece, and the weakly free / quasi-free module framework gives a genuinely useful language for automorphism groups of tropical linear spaces.

The soft spots are real but local. Theorem E(2) / Proposition 6.13, as stated in the abstract and introduction, claims that the image of Aut(Q_M) in S_n equals Aut_w(M) for every valuated matroid. It is proved only under the standing simplicity assumption in Section 6, and the paper's own Example 6.14 shows it fails without it: for U_{1,3}, Q_M collapses to T, the image is trivial, while Aut_w is S_3. That is an internal inconsistency between the advertised claim and the counterexample the authors themselves provide, not a missing reference. It should be fixed by stating the simplicity hypothesis in Theorem E and the abstract, or by proving a version that handles non-simple matroids.

The reader's report flagged simplicity as load-bearing for Corollary 6.10(1) as well. I disagree with that part. The proof of Corollary 6.10 uses Theorem 6.7 and Theorem 5.9(c), neither of which requires the full simplicity hypothesis for loopless matroids; the failure is specifically in the quasi-free module Q_M. So the stress-test note is right on that point.

A second, smaller issue: Theorem 5.9(b), for weakly free modules over R_{\ge0}, is stated without an embeddability hypothesis, but the proof invokes Lemma 4.6, which requires embeddability into a free module. Either the hypothesis should be added or a separate argument supplied. This looks fixable.

Overall, the paper is a solid contribution to tropical representation theory. The main equivalence is substantial, the proofs are mostly detailed and honest, and the flaws are overstatements in the presentation rather than deep conceptual errors. The authors even include the counterexample that exposes the overclaim in Theorem E(2), so they are aware of the edge case. With added hypotheses, the paper would be in good shape.

I would send this to peer review. It deserves a serious referee who can push on the missing hypotheses and check whether the Q_M story can be repaired for non-simple matroids. For researchers in tropical geometry and matroid theory, the valuated matroidal representation correspondence will be worth citing regardless.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies modules over semirings, focusing on weakly free and quasi-free modules, and applies them to tropical representations and valuated matroidal representations. The main advertised result (Theorem E / Corollary 6.10) states that for a finite group G and a valuated matroid M, isomorphism classes of tropical subrepresentations whose underlying tropical linear space is isomorphic to the tropical linear space V_M correspond bijectively to weak isomorphism classes of weak G-actions on M, and that the image of Aut(Q_M) under the natural map to S_n is the weak automorphism group Aut_w(M). The paper also proves structure theorems for automorphism groups of weakly free modules and polyhedral cones, and classifies linear subgroups of (T^×)^n and (R_{≥0}^×)^n.

Significance. If the main correspondence is taken with the appropriate hypotheses, the paper provides a valuable generalization of Giansiracusa–Manaker's matroidal representations to the valuated setting, and it introduces a genuinely useful tool: the quasi-free module Q_M gives an embedding-independent way to study the intrinsic module-theoretic structure of a tropical representation. The proof of the correspondence for V_M (Theorem 6.7) is detailed and appears coherent, and the paper contains several useful structural results on automorphism groups, including the semidirect-product decomposition in Theorem 5.9 and the cone version in Corollary 5.11. The paper is also careful to give explicit examples, including Example 6.16 showing that weak automorphism groups can be proper subgroups of ordinary automorphism groups. However, the abstract and introduction state Theorem E(2) without the simplicity hypothesis that is used in the proof and is in fact necessary, as the paper's own Example 6.14 shows; this is a load-bearing overclaim that must be fixed before publication.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and §1.1, Theorem E; §6, Proposition 6.13; Example 6.14] Theorem E(2) is stated for arbitrary valuated matroids, but the proof of Proposition 6.13 uses the standing simplicity assumption stated at the beginning of Section 6, and the statement is false without it. In the converse direction of Proposition 6.13, the map f(e_i)=τ_i^{-1}e_{σ(i)} is well-defined and invertible only when τ_i≠0_T, which the proof justifies by simplicity. Example 6.14 then explicitly shows that for the rank-1 uniform valuated matroid U_{1,3}, Q_M collapses to T, so the image of Aut(Q_M) in S_3 is trivial while Aut_w(U_{1,3})=S_3. Thus Theorem E(2) as printed in the abstract and introduction is false. The statement should be restricted to simple valuated matroids, or the definition of weak automorphism and the proof must be adapted to handle loops and parallel elements. I note that this failure does not appear to affect Theorem E(1)/Corollary 6.10(1), whose proof relies on Theorem 6.7 rather than on Proposition 6.13; the paper should make this distinction explicit.
[§5, Theorem 5.9(b), and proof of Theorem 5.9(1) using Lemma 4.6] Case (b) of Theorem 5.9 is stated for an arbitrary weakly free module of rank n over R_{≥0}, but the proof invokes Lemma 4.6, which requires the hypothesis that M can be embedded into a free module. That embeddability hypothesis is present in case (a) but not in case (b). Lemma 4.6 also assumes finite presentation when a finite defining system is needed, and this finiteness condition is likewise absent from case (b). Since Theorem 5.9 is a central structural result and is used in Corollary 5.11, the statement should either add the missing hypotheses or give a proof that every weakly free R_{≥0}-module satisfies them.
[§6, Corollary 6.10 and its proof] The statement and proof of Corollary 6.10 use the phrases 'isomorphism classes of tropical subrepresentations whose underlying tropical linear space is isomorphic to V_M' and 'isomorphism classes of homomorphisms G→Aut(V_M)' without defining the relevant notion of isomorphism for embedded tropical linear spaces or for subrepresentations. Earlier in the paper, Definition 5.8 defines equivalence of G-actions only up to conjugation by diagonal elements of Aut(V). Please state explicitly whether an isomorphism between tropical linear spaces is required to be induced by an element of GL_n(T), and prove that the reduction in the first sentence of the proof of Corollary 6.10 is valid under that definition.

minor comments (5)

[§3, Definition 3.1] In the definition of weakly free module, the second minimal generating set is written '{y_n,\ldots,y_n}'; it should be '{y_1,\ldots,y_n}'.
[§1.1, Theorem E cross-reference] The introduction labels Theorem E as '(Corollary 6.10)', but Corollary 6.10 contains only the V_M-based correspondence; part (2) of Theorem E is Proposition 6.13. The cross-reference should be corrected.
[§6, Example 6.14] The sentence 'the image of Aut(Q_M) in any finite group is trivial' is awkward and imprecise; it should say that the image of Aut(Q_M) under π: GL_n(T)→S_n is trivial.
[§6, Lemma 6.12] The proof of Lemma 6.12 says it suffices to show that the set of nonzero coefficients contains a circuit, but this is only enough because the standing simplicity assumption guarantees that every circuit has size at least three. The proof should state this explicitly, especially since Example 6.14 shows the failure without simplicity.
[§6, opening paragraph] The blanket assumption 'We will assume that all matroids are simple unless otherwise stated' should be recalled in the abstract and in Theorem E, since the abstract and theorem are currently unqualified and therefore overstate the scope of the quasi-free-module result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; central correspondence is derived from external lemmas and definitions, with only minor auxiliary self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's advertised correspondence (Corollary 6.10) is not obtained by fitting or by assuming its conclusion. It is proved from Theorem 5.9 (a structure theorem for Aut(M) built from Lemma 4.3, Propositions 4.10/4.11, and cohomology vanishing Proposition 5.6) and Theorem 6.7, which computes the image of Aut(V_M) in S_n as Aut_w(M) by a direct argument using the bend relations of the tropical linear space and Proposition 6.2 from [Fre13]. The weak-automorphism notion is defined independently via Dress-Wenzel projective equivalence, and the equality with the permutation image is derived, not imposed. I found no step in which a parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction, nor a definition that presupposes the theorem. The self-citations [JMT23, Prop 3.18] (split exact sequence for GL_n), [JMT24, Prop 3.15] (classification of free-module actions by G-sets), and [JMT24, Lemma 4.7] (duality of the quotient map) are auxiliary supports: the first is an elementary structural fact, the second is used only in Proposition 4.2 and is not needed for the main theorem, and the third only bridges Q_M to V_M after the external duality Hom(Q_M,T)=V_M from [GG18]. None of them assumes Corollary 6.10. I also note a genuine internal gap flagged by the authors themselves: Proposition 6.13 and the abstract's unqualified Theorem E(2) are proven under Section 6's standing simplicity assumption, and Example 6.14 shows the statement fails for the rank-1 uniform matroid. This is a correctness limitation, not a circularity; the derivation under the stated hypothesis remains self-contained.

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

No free parameters are fitted, and no physical entities are invented. The central theorem rests on imported structural results: the GL_n splitting (Prop 2.6), Wagneur's weak-freeness theorem, Frenk's generating set description of tropical linear spaces, standard group cohomology vanishing, and the simplicity assumption for matroids. These are background inputs, not circular uses of the target result.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption GL_n(R) splits as S_n ⋉ (R×)^n for connected zero-sum-free semirings (Prop 2.6, from [JMT23, Prop 3.18]).
Used to decompose Aut(M) and to define the map to S_n in Lemma 4.3 and Theorem 5.9.
domain assumption Finitely generated submodules of T^n are weakly free (Prop 3.10, from [Wag91, Theorem 5]).
Applied to tropical linear spaces V_M in Lemma 6.4; a proof sketch is included but the result is imported.
domain assumption Tropical linear spaces are generated by vectors v_I from corank-1 independent sets, with the spanning criterion of Prop 6.2 (from [Fre13]).
Basis for Lemmas 6.4 and 6.5 connecting Aut(V_M) to matroid automorphisms.
standard math Group cohomology facts: extensions of C by A are classified by H^2(C,A), and H^k(G,V)=0 for finite G and real vector spaces V (Prop 5.1 and Prop 5.6).
Used to prove the semidirect product structure and the homomorphism classification in Theorem 5.9.
domain assumption All matroids in Section 6 are simple (stated at the start of Section 6).
Needed so dependent sets contain circuits of size at least 3, making Q_M quasi-free in Lemma 6.12; Example 6.14 shows the conclusion fails without it.
domain assumption Polyhedral cones without lines are generated by extreme rays and are quasi-free R≥0-modules (Lemma 3.20 and Cor 3.21, from [BJ24]).
Supports Corollary 5.11 on automorphism groups of cones.
domain assumption [JMT24, Prop 3.15]: free-module linear G-actions are classified by the G-set of basis lines.
Used only in Lemma 4.1 for purely torsion subgroups; not used in the main valuated matroid theorem.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tropical representations and valuated matroids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DECDBZ4D

@misc{pith2026241119889,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tropical representations and valuated matroids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DECDBZ4D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19889}
}

abstract

We explore several facets of tropical subrepresentations of a linear representation of a group over the tropical semifield $\mathbb{T}$. A key role in the study of tropical subrepresentations is played by two types of modules over a semiring: weakly free and quasi-free modules. We also investigate subgroups of $\text{GL}_n(K)$ for $K=\mathbb{T}$, $ \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$, and automorphisms of weakly free modules and tropical prevarieties defined by tropical linear equations. As an application of our results, we provide an intrinsic description of tropical subrepresentation via certain quasi-free modules, and prove that a tropical subrepresentation is equivalent to a valuated matroidal representation.

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

Representation theory over semifields
math.RT 2024-11 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

For a finite or torsion group G over an idempotent semifield, representations are in one-to-one correspondence with G-sets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Facets of module theory over semirings

James Borger and Jaiung Jun. Facets of module theory over semirings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18645 , 2024

arXiv 2024
[2]

Cohomology of groups , volume 87

Kenneth S Brown. Cohomology of groups , volume 87. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

2012
[3]

Valuated matroids

Andreas WM Dress and Walter Wenzel. Valuated matroids. Advances in Mathematics , 93(2):214--250, 1992

work page 1992
[4]

Tropical cycles and C how polytopes

Alex Fink. Tropical cycles and C how polytopes. Beitr \"a ge zur Algebra und Geometrie/Contributions to Algebra and Geometry , 54:13--40, 2013

work page 2013
[5]

Tropical varieties, maps and gossip

Bart Frenk. Tropical varieties, maps and gossip. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven , 2013

2013
[6]

Equations of tropical varieties

Jeffrey Giansiracusa and Noah Giansiracusa. Equations of tropical varieties. Duke Mathematical Journal , 165(18):3379--3433, 2016

2016
[7]

A G rassmann algebra for matroids

Jeffrey Giansiracusa and Noah Giansiracusa. A G rassmann algebra for matroids. manuscripta mathematica , 156(1-2):187--213, 2018

2018
[8]

Matroidal representations of groups

Noah Giansiracusa and Jacob Manaker. Matroidal representations of groups. Advances in Mathematics , 366:107089, 2020

2020

Show all 20 references

[9]

Methods and applications of (max,+) linear algebra

St \'e phane Gaubert and Max Plus. Methods and applications of (max,+) linear algebra. In STACS 97: 14th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science L \"u beck, Germany February 27--March 1, 1997 Proceedings 14 , pages 261--282. Springer, 1997

1997
[10]

On the automorphism group of a cone

JG Horne. On the automorphism group of a cone. Linear Algebra and its Applications , 21(2):111--121, 1978

1978
[11]

Tropical quiver G rassmannians

Giulia Iezzi and Victoria Schleis. Tropical quiver G rassmannians. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.18648 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[12]

Quiver matroids-- M atroid morphisms, quiver G rassmannians, their E uler characteristics and F _1 -points

Manoel Jarra, Oliver Lorscheid, and Eduardo Vital. Quiver matroids-- M atroid morphisms, quiver G rassmannians, their E uler characteristics and F _1 -points. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09255 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[13]

Vector bundles on tropical schemes

Jaiung Jun, Kalina Mincheva, and Jeffrey Tolliver. Vector bundles on tropical schemes. Journal of Algebra , 637:1--46, 2023

2023
[14]

Representation theory over semifields and matroidal representations

Jaiung Jun, Kalina Mincheva, and Jeffrey Tolliver. Representation theory over semifields and matroidal representations. preprint , 2024

2024
[15]

Th \'e orie alg \'e brique des syst \`e mes \`a \'e v \'e nements discrets

Pierre Moller. Th \'e orie alg \'e brique des syst \`e mes \`a \'e v \'e nements discrets . PhD thesis, \'E cole Nationale Sup \'e rieure des Mines de Paris, 1988

1988
[16]

Tropical subrepresentations of the B oolean regular representation in low dimension

Steffen Marcus and Cameron Phillips. Tropical subrepresentations of the B oolean regular representation in low dimension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08349 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[17]

Introduction to tropical geometry , volume 161

Diane Maclagan and Bernd Sturmfels. Introduction to tropical geometry , volume 161. American Mathematical Society, 2021

2021
[18]

Zeta functions of graphs: a stroll through the garden , volume 128

Audrey Terras. Zeta functions of graphs: a stroll through the garden , volume 128. Cambridge University Press, 2010

2010
[19]

Modul\"oids and pseudomodules 1

Edouard Wagneur. Modul\"oids and pseudomodules 1. dimension theory. Discrete Mathematics , 98(1):57--73, 1991

1991
[20]

An introduction to homological algebra

Charles A Weibel. An introduction to homological algebra . Number 38. Cambridge university press, 1994

1994

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Facets of module theory over semirings

James Borger and Jaiung Jun. Facets of module theory over semirings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18645 , 2024

arXiv 2024

[2] [2]

Cohomology of groups , volume 87

Kenneth S Brown. Cohomology of groups , volume 87. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

2012

[3] [3]

Valuated matroids

Andreas WM Dress and Walter Wenzel. Valuated matroids. Advances in Mathematics , 93(2):214--250, 1992

work page 1992

[4] [4]

Tropical cycles and C how polytopes

Alex Fink. Tropical cycles and C how polytopes. Beitr \"a ge zur Algebra und Geometrie/Contributions to Algebra and Geometry , 54:13--40, 2013

work page 2013

[5] [5]

Tropical varieties, maps and gossip

Bart Frenk. Tropical varieties, maps and gossip. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven , 2013

2013

[6] [6]

Equations of tropical varieties

Jeffrey Giansiracusa and Noah Giansiracusa. Equations of tropical varieties. Duke Mathematical Journal , 165(18):3379--3433, 2016

2016

[7] [7]

A G rassmann algebra for matroids

Jeffrey Giansiracusa and Noah Giansiracusa. A G rassmann algebra for matroids. manuscripta mathematica , 156(1-2):187--213, 2018

2018

[8] [8]

Matroidal representations of groups

Noah Giansiracusa and Jacob Manaker. Matroidal representations of groups. Advances in Mathematics , 366:107089, 2020

2020