Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Trickle groups

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Trickle groups unify right-angled Artin and Coxeter groups, cactus groups and group F, and give every member a terminating, confluent rewriting system that solves the word problem.

desk verdict A genuinely new unifying framework with substantial theorems, but the confluence proof has a fillable yet load-bearing gap in Lemma 4.7 that should be fixed before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04932 v1 pith:LJRBCREV submitted 2024-12-06 math.GR

Paolo Bellingeri (LMNO) , Eddy Godelle (LMNO) , Luis Paris (IMB) This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GR MSC 20F1020F0520F3620F5520F65
keywords tricklegroupsright-angledArtinCoxetercactusvirtualThompsongroupFwordproblempreGarside
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 introduces trickle groups, a family of groups defined by presentations whose relations are all of the form $xy=zx$ and $x^\mu=1$, encoded in a simplicial graph equipped with a partial order on its vertices, a vertex labeling, and automorphisms of the stars of its vertices. The family is broad: it contains right-angled Artin groups, right-angled Coxeter groups, graph products of cyclic groups, cactus groups, the group $F$ of piecewise-linear homeomorphisms, and ordered quandle groups. The central technical result, Theorem 2.4, asserts that for every trickle graph the rewriting system on the set of strata is terminating and confluent, so every element has a unique normal form and, when the vertex set is finite, the word problem is algorithmically solvable. From this the paper derives a Tits-style alternative algorithm, a theory of standard parabolic subgroups whose intersections are again standard parabolic subgroups, and a Garside-theoretic layer: with all labels infinite the associated monoid is preGarside, torsion-free in the finite case, and Garside exactly when the graph is finite and complete.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the set of strata: finite subsets of syllables $x^a$ with $a\in\mathbb{Z}_{\mu(x)}\setminus\{0\}$ and pairwise adjacent supports. Words over this alphabet are pilings, and the rewriting system $R$ consists of $T$-transformations that move a syllable from one stratum to the previous one while applying the star automorphisms $\varphi_x$, together with a rule deleting empty strata. Confluence is driven by condition (g) in the definition of a trickle graph, the commutation identity $(\varphi_x^a\circ\varphi_y^b)(z)=(\varphi_{\varphi_x^a(y)}^b\circ\varphi_x^a)(z)$ for $z\le y\le x$, which Lemma 4.7 extends to all integer powers $a,b$. The same strata also give the monoid presentation used for the preGarside results.

What would settle it

Find a trickle graph and vertices $z<y<x$ together with integers $a,b$ of mixed sign for which $(\varphi_x^a\circ\varphi_y^b)(z)\neq(\varphi_{\varphi_x^a(y)}^b\circ\varphi_x^a)(z)$. The paper's Lemma 4.6 lists the four sign cases for exponents $\pm1$; checking those identities in a cactus group built from a finite Coxeter system would settle whether confluence holds in general.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that trickle groups — groups presented with relations of the form $xy=zx$ and $x^\mu=1$ governed by a trickle graph — form a single class that inherits the algorithmic and structural good behaviour of the families it generalizes. Concretely, Theorem 2.4 says that the rewriting system $R$ on the set of strata of any trickle graph is a rewriting system for the group, is terminating, and is confluent; Corollary 2.5 then yields a set of normal forms and, for finite vertex sets, a solution to the word problem. The same machinery shows that standard parabolic subgroups are exactly the trickle groups of parabolic subgraphs, that the intersection of two standard parabolic subgroups is again a standard parabolic subgroup, and that the preGarside version (all labels infinite) is a preGarside monoid and group, with the Garside property precisely when the graph is finite and complete.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is a commutation rule among the automorphisms attached to vertices: applying them in different orders must give the same vertex whenever one vertex lies below another, and this must hold for all integer powers, not just positive ones; the paper proves the positive case directly and leaves the three negative sign cases to a similar argument, so a hidden failure there would undo the normal forms and the word problem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every trickle group with a finite vertex set has a solvable word problem, by computing the unique $R$-irreducible normal form of any word.
  • A trickle group is finite exactly when its vertex set is finite, its graph is complete, and all vertex labels are finite.
  • Standard parabolic subgroups are themselves trickle groups associated with parabolic subgraphs, and the intersection of two standard parabolic subgroups is again a standard parabolic subgroup.
  • The preGarside trickle monoid embeds into its enveloping group; when the vertex set is finite the enveloping group is torsion-free, and it is a Garside group precisely when the graph is finite and complete.
  • For virtual cactus groups, the kernel subgroup is a trickle group, which gives a word problem for the virtual cactus group and reproves that the cactus group embeds into it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit direction the paper raises but does not settle is whether the normal forms form a regular language and whether trickle groups are automatic or bi-automatic; the terminating and confluent rewriting system makes these questions concrete.
  • If condition (g) is checked in mixed-sign cases for concrete examples such as dual cactus groups, the word problem algorithm extends to those groups; if one sign case fails, the normal-form theory would need a modified confluence condition.
  • The Garside characterisation suggests that finite complete preGarside trickle graphs are a source of new Garside groups with explicit Coxeter-style quotients, a direction the paper notes but does not develop.
  • The same construction that makes virtual cactus groups a trickle group semidirect product of a symmetric group could be applied to other diagram monoids with virtual crossings, though the paper does not explore those.
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 introduces trickle groups, a class of groups presented by generators with relations of the form xy = zx and x^mu = 1, encoded in a simplicial graph equipped with a partial order, a vertex labeling, and star automorphisms. It claims a terminating and confluent rewriting system on a set of strata, yielding normal forms, a word problem algorithm, a Tits-style algorithm, standard parabolic subgroups with an intersection property, and preGarside/Garside structure in the torsion-free case. Examples include generalized cactus groups, a finite-index subgroup of virtual cactus groups, Thompson group F, and ordered quandle groups.

Significance. If the proof gap identified below is repaired, this is a valuable unifying framework: the rewriting system proof is substantial, and the paper supplies explicit normal forms, a solvable word problem, parabolic subgroup results, and a characterization of when the preGarside monoid is Garside. The new examples, especially Thompson group F and the virtual cactus subgroup, are interesting. The main theorems are proved with considerable detail and the overall architecture is sound, but the current manuscript is not fully verified because the missing sign cases of Lemma 4.7 underpin the confluence proof and all downstream results.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4, Lemma 4.7] The proof of Lemma 4.7 treats only the case a > 0, b > 0 and dismisses the three remaining sign cases with the phrase "can be treated in the same way." These cases are not decorative: Lemma 4.9 Case 2, Lemma 4.11 Case 2, Lemma 4.12 Case 2, and Lemma 7.5 invoke Lemma 4.7 with negative exponents. Since those lemmas are used to resolve the critical pairs in Proposition 4.5, the confluence of the rewriting system R, and hence Theorem 2.4, Corollary 2.5, Theorem 2.8, and the parabolic subgroup results, rest on this omitted verification. The authors should supply the full four-case proof, or a uniform argument covering all signs, before the main claims can be considered established.
  2. [Section 7, Lemma 7.5] The proof of the claim in Lemma 7.5 applies Lemma 4.7 repeatedly with negative exponents, for example when a syllable of positive exponent c is added and the maps phi_y^{-c} appear. Consequently Theorem 2.15 (the Garside classification) inherits the incompleteness of Lemma 4.7. The authors should either complete Lemma 4.7 for all signs or restructure the argument to avoid reliance on the unproved sign cases.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1, Lemma 3.1] The proof is said to be identical to that of Lemma 2.1 and is left to the reader, but Lemma 2.1 treats a special case; a full proof, or at least a detailed sketch, is needed to justify the generalized cactus group examples.
  2. [Section 3.3, Lemma 3.10] The three properties of the homeomorphisms h_x are left to the reader; since the identification of Thompson group F as a trickle group is a headline result, this verification should be included or summarized.
  3. [Section 2.4, Lemma 2.11] The proof is left to the reader; it is a short verification, but it should be stated for completeness given that it supports the cactus group parabolic subgroup example.
  4. [Section 2, Example 2] There is a typo: "Le Υ be a Coxeter graph" should read "Let Υ be a Coxeter graph."
  5. [Section 2.2, Corollary 2.7] The proof asserts that for non-adjacent x, y the words u^n with u = ({x}, {y}) are R-irreducible; this deserves a one-line justification, for example that no R-transformation applies to ({x}, {y}) because {x, y} is not an edge.
  6. [General] The notation eΓ and eTr may be confused with the empty word or with duality; consider a clearer notation. Also, "preGarisde" appears in place of "preGarside" at several points in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's results are derived from the stated trickle-graph axioms via standard external theorems.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Trickle groups are defined by explicit presentations governed by Conditions (a)-(g), and the main theorems (rewriting system, confluence, normal forms, word problem, parabolic subgroup injectivity, preGarside structure) are proved from those axioms in Sections 4-7 using standard tools such as Newman's lemma, the theta-cube criterion from [DDG+15], Bass-Serre theory, and classical Coxeter/Garside facts. The cited works [DDG+15, GP13, New42, Ser77, Bou68] are general external theorems whose hypotheses the paper verifies; they do not assume the claims being proved. Although some cited works share authors with the present paper, the specific propositions invoked are independent general results with published proofs, not self-referential assertions of trickle-group facts. The known weakness is a proof gap, not circularity: Lemma 4.7 proves only the case a > 0, b > 0 and dismisses the other sign cases as similar, while those cases are used in later critical-pair and Garside arguments. This is a rigor concern about an omitted verification, not an instance of a conclusion being fed back as an input. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem from the authors is used to forbid alternatives, and no result is equivalent by construction to its own assumptions. The new examples (virtual cactus kernels, Thompson group F, ordered quandle groups) are verified as trickle graphs by direct arguments, and their group-theoretic consequences (e.g. injectivity of Jn into VJn) follow from the general theorems rather than from an assumed form of the desired statement. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No empirical free parameters appear. The paper introduces a new definition (trickle graph) and derives results from it using standard background results from rewriting theory, Garside theory, Coxeter group theory, and Bass-Serre theory.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The seven conditions (a)-(g) in the definition of a trickle graph are consistent and define the intended class.
    All main theorems are proved from these axioms; if the axioms were inconsistent or too broad, the results would not apply to the claimed examples.
  • standard math Newman's lemma: a terminating rewriting system with all critical pairs resolved is confluent.
    Used in Section 4 to prove Theorem 2.4.
  • standard math Serre's theorem on amalgamated products: finite-order elements in an amalgam are conjugate into a vertex group.
    Used in Theorem 2.16 to establish torsion-freeness of amalgamated trickle groups.
  • standard math Dehornoy-Digne-Godelle-Krammer-Michel Proposition II.4.16: a short complemented presentation satisfying the sharp theta-cube condition yields a preGarside monoid.
    Used in Section 7 to prove Theorem 2.14.
  • standard math Known presentation and generation properties of Thompson group F, specifically that F is generated by h_0 and h_infinity.
    Used in Section 3.3 to establish the trickle presentation of F.
  • standard math Bourbaki's properties of longest elements in finite Coxeter systems: w_X has order 2 and w_X X w_X = X.
    Used in Section 2.1 to construct the cactus trickle graph.
invented entities (1)
  • Trickle graph (Gamma, <=, mu, (phi_x)) and the associated trickle group Tr(Gamma) independent evidence
    purpose: Defines the new class of groups via presentations with relations xy=zx and x^mu=1.
    The axioms are new to this paper; the class is justified by the theorems (rewriting system, parabolic subgroups, Garside results) and by the examples (cactus groups, Thompson F, ordered quandle groups).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trickle groups." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LJRBCREV

@misc{pith2026241204932,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trickle groups},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LJRBCREV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04932}
}
abstract

A new family of groups, called trickle groups, is presented. These groups generalize right-angled Artin and Coxeter groups, as well as cactus groups. A trickle group is defined by a presentation with relations of the form $xy = zx$ and $x^\mu = 1$, that are governed by a simplicial graph, called a trickle graph, endowed with a partial ordering on the vertices, a vertex labeling, and an automorphism of the star of each vertex. We show several examples of trickle groups, including extended cactus groups, certain finite-index subgroups of virtual cactus groups, Thompson group F, and ordered quandle groups. A terminating and confluent rewriting system is established for trickle groups, enabling the definition of normal forms and a solution to the word problem. An alternative solution to the word problem is also presented, offering a simpler formulation akin to Tits' approach for Coxeter groups and Green's for graph products of cyclic groups. A natural notion of a parabolic subgraph of a trickle graph is introduced. The subgroup generated by the vertices of such a subgraph is called a standard parabolic subgroup and it is shown to be the trickle group associated with the subgraph itself. The intersection of two standard parabolic subgroups is also proven to be a standard parabolic subgroup. If only relations of the form $xy = zx$ are retained in the definition of a trickle group, then the resulting group is called a preGarside trickle group. Such a group is proved to be a preGarside group, a torsion-free group, and a Garside group if and only if its associated trickle graph is finite and complete.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04932 by the authors.

Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1. Generator of Jn = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2. Relation (j3) in the presentation of Jn The extension of this definition to Coxeter groups is straightforward. Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system associated with a Coxeter graph Υ. For X ⊆ S, the subgroup of W generated by X is called a standard parabolic subgroup and is denoted by WX , and the full Coxeter subgraph of Υ spanned by X is denoted by ΥX . We say that X ⊆ S is irreducible if ΥX is connected, and we say that… view at source ↗
Figure 1.3
Figure 1.3. Crossings in a virtual link diagram the set of virtual link diagrams generated by the isotopy and the virtual Reidemeister moves as defined by Kauffman [Kau99, Kau00]. An equivalence class of virtual link diagrams is a virtual link. Since the publication of Kauffman’s seminal paper [Kau99], the theory of virtual knots and links has grown significantly, and this notion has been extended to other combinatorial and/or … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1: Generators of VJn p q q+1 ≃ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3_1.png]
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.2. Figure 3.2: Relation (m2) in the presentation of VJn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3_2.png]
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.3. Figure 3.3: Definition of Vp+1 If x ∈ Vp and k ∈ N, then we set sp+1(up+1,k(x)) = up+1,k+1(x). So, in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_3_3.png]
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.4. Figure 3.4: Definition of hx The proof of the following is left to the reader. Lemma 3.10 Let x ∈ Z[ 1 2 ]. Let (vk)k∈Z be as defined above. (1) hx sends linearly the interval [v1, x] onto [v0, x]. (2) hx sends the interval [x, +∞) onto [x, +∞) via the identity. (3) Let N be the…
Figure 3.5
Figure 3.5. Figure 3.5: Definition of α Now we prove that Γ = (Γ, ≤, µ, (φx)x∈V(Γ)) is a trickle graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Stallings foldings for rational subsets of automatic groups

    math.GR 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A folding procedure constructs automata that recognize the L-representatives of any L-proximate rational subset of an automatic group, and yields decidable-membership submonoids of surface groups.

  2. Combinatorics of affine cactus groups

    math.CO 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Affine cactus groups embed into a semidirect product of an affine Gauss diagram group and the symmetric group, yielding linearity, trivial centre, and torsion bounds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    [BE22] I Ba, M Elhamdadi, Circular orderability and quandles, Preprint, arXiv:2204.09458,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [5]

    [Gob24] T Gobet, Toric reflection groups,J. Aust. Math. Soc. 116 (2024), no. 2, 171–199. [God07] E Godelle, Parabolic subgroups of Garside groups,J. Algebra 317 (2007), no. 1, 1–16. [God10] E Godelle, Parabolic subgroups of Garside groups II: ribbons,J. Pure Appl. Algebra 214 (2010), no. 11, 2044–2062. [GP12a] E Godelle, L Paris,K(π,

    work page 2024

  3. [6]

    and word problems for infinite type Artin-Tits groups, and applications to virtual braid groups, Math. Z. 272 (2012), no. 3–4, 1339–1364. [GP12b] E Godelle, L Paris, Basic questions on Artin-Tits groups, Configuration spaces, 299–311. CRM Series, 14, Edizioni della Normale, Pisa,

    work page 2012

  4. [12]

    conjecture for affine Artin groups, Invent. Math. 224 (2021), no. 2, 487–572. [Par02] L Paris, Artin monoids inject in their groups, Comment. Math. Helv. 77 (2002), no. 3, 609–637. [PS23] L Paris, M Soergel, Word problem and parabolic subgroups in Dyer groups, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 55 (2023), no. 6, 2928–2947. [RW24] R Rouquier, N White, Cactus groups an...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  5. [160]

    equivalence

    [Mos19] J Mostovoy, The pure cactus group is residually nilpotent,Arch. Math. (Basel) 113 (2019), no. 3, 229–235. [New42] M H A Newman,On theories with a combinatorial definition of “equivalence”,Ann. of Math. (2) 43 (1942), 223–243. [PS21] G Paolini, M Salvetti, Proof of the K (π,

    work page 2019

  6. [1968]

    [BW08] T Brady, C Watt, Non-crossing partition lattices in finite real reflection groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 360 (2008), no. 4, 1983–2005. [BS72] E Brieskorn, K Saito, Artin-Gruppen und Coxeter-Gruppen, Invent. Math. 17 (1972), 245–271. [Bur24] J. Burillo, Introduction to Thompson’s group F, Book currently being written, available at https://web.mat....

    work page 2008

  7. [1977]

    [Tit69] J Tits, Le probl`eme des mots dans les groupes de Coxeter,1969 Symposia Mathematica (INDAM, Rome, 1967/68), V ol. 1, pp. 175–185, Academic Press, London. [Wyk94] L Van Wyk,Graph groups are biautomatic, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 94 (1994), no. 3, 341–352. [Yu23] R Yu, Linearity of generalized cactus groups, J. Algebra 635 (2023), 256–270. Paolo Belling...

    work page 1994

  8. [1990]

    [HK06] A Henriques, J Kamnitzer, Crystals and coboundary categories, Duke Math. J. 132 (2006), no. 2, 191–216. [HM95] S Hermiller, J Meier, Algorithms and geometry for graph products of groups, J. Algebra 171 (1995), no. 1, 230–257. [IKL + 23] A Ilin, J Kamnitzer, Y Li, P Przytycki, L Rybnikov, The moduli space of cactus flower curves and the virtual cact...

    arXiv 2006

Show all 13 references
  1. [2000]

    [KW19] A Khoroshkin, T Willwacher, Real moduli space of stable rational curves revisted, preprint, arXiv:1905.04499, 2019, to appear in J. Eur. Math. Soc.. Trickle groups 53 [KTW04] A Knutson, T Tao, C Woodward, A positive proof of the Littlewood-Richardson rule using the octa...

    2004 arXiv

  2. [2012]

    [GP13] E Godelle, L Paris, PreGarside monoids and groups, parabolicity, amalgamation, and FC prop- erty, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 23 (2013), no. 6, 1431–1467. [Gre90] E R Green, Graph products of groups, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Leeds,

    2013

  3. [2015]

    London Math

    [DP99] P Dehornoy, L Paris, Gaussian groups and Garside groups, two generalisations of Artin groups, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 79 (1999), no. 3, 569–604. [Dev99] S L Devadoss, Tessellations of moduli spaces and the mosaic operad, Contemp. Math., 239, American Mathematical So...

    1999 arXiv

  4. [2022]

    [BPS22] V G Bardakov, I B S Passi, M Singh, Zero-divisors and idempotents in quandle rings, Osaka J. Math. 59 (2022), no. 3, 611–637. [BCP16] P Bellingeri, B A Cisneros de la Cruz, L Paris,A simple solution to the word problem for virtual braid groups, Pacific J. Math. 283 (20...

    2022

  5. [2023]

    Pure Appl

    [Joy99] D Joyce, A classifying invariant of knots, the knot quandle, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 23 (1982), no. 1, 37–65. [Kau99] L H Kauffman, Virtual knot theory,European J. Combin. 20 (1999), no. 7, 663–690. [Kau00] L H Kauffman,A survey of virtual knot theory,Knots in Hellas ’98...

    1982

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.