Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Combinatorics of Bousquet-M\'elou-Schaeffer numbers in the light of topological recursion

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that Bousquet-Mélou–Schaeffer numbers, after dividing out explicit Pochhammer and linear factors, are polynomials in the partition parts for every stable genus and part count.

desk verdict A new, genuinely combinatorial quasi-polynomiality theorem for BMS numbers, with a mostly solid proof that leaves a few parameter checks to the reader. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04147 v1 pith:4PY53UZN submitted 2019-08-12 math.CO math-phmath.MP

Boris Bychkov , Petr Dunin-Barkowski , Sergey Shadrin This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.COmath-phmath.MP MSC 05A1505E1014N10
keywords Bousquet-Mélou–Schaeffernumbersquasi-polynomialitytopologicalrecursionsemi-infinitewedgeA-operatorsHurwitzspectralcurveenumerativecombinatorics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proves a structural quasi-polynomiality statement for the Bousquet-Mélou–Schaeffer (BMS) numbers, which count factorizations of a permutation of given cyclic type into m permutations with a fixed total number of cycles, or equivalently ramified coverings of the sphere. Theorem 6.1 states that for every stable pair (g, n) the connected BMS number $b^\circ_{g,\mu}$ equals the product of an explicit Pochhammer factor $\prod_i (m\mu_i - m)!/(\mu_i!(m\mu_i-\mu_i-1)!)$, a finite product of linear factors $\prod_{m\le j\le 4g-4+2n-1,\ m\nmid j}((\mu_i - j)/m)$, and a polynomial $\mathrm{Poly}_{g,n}(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_n)$. This is exactly the shape that topological recursion, specialized to the spectral curve $x=(1+z)^m/z$, would force; the paper gives a purely combinatorial proof that does not rely on the still-missing cohomological-field-theory extension at higher-order critical points. The proof works in the semi-infinite wedge formalism, where BMS numbers appear as vacuum expectations of A-operators, and the main step is to show that all residues at negative integers cancel. As a corollary, the n-point generating functions of BMS numbers lie in finite-dimensional spaces spanned by the $\xi$-functions and their derivatives on the spectral curve.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the family of A-operators acting on the charge-zero sector of the semi-infinite wedge space. With $\check{A}(k,\hbar) = \hbar^{-k} e^{\alpha_1}D(\hbar)^m \frac{\alpha_{-k}}{k} D(\hbar)^{-m}e^{-\alpha_1}$ and its rescaling $A(k,\hbar) = \bigl(\frac{(mk-m)!}{k!(mk-k-1)!}\bigr)^{-1}\check{A}(k,\hbar)$, equation (133) turns BMS numbers into coefficient extractions of connected correlators $\langle\prod_i A(\mu_i,\hbar)\rangle^\circ$. The key structural input is the quasi-rationality of these operators' coefficients: the off-diagonal part $[\hbar^{q+p}][E_{l-q,l}]A(k,\hbar)$ has denominator $(k+1)\cdots(k+q)\prod_{m\le j\le 2p-1,\ m\nmid j}((k-j)/m)$ with a polynomial numerator of degree at most $6p+q$, and the identity part has a similar rational form whose numerator is divisible by $k^2(mk-k+1)$. These forms come from writing the finite-difference operator $\Delta^t(P_k^m)$ in the basis of falling factorials $(k)_{s_1}\cdots(k)_{s_m}$, with the auxiliary polynomials $R_p(k,l,i_1,\dots,i_m)$ carrying the polynomiality and divisibility needed for cancellations. Proposition 5.20 then identifies the residue of $A(k,\hbar)$ at $k=-r$ with the adjoint operator $\check{A}^\dagger(r,\hbar)$, and the Heisenberg relation $[\alpha_k,\alpha_l]=k\delta_{k+l,0}$ forces these residues to cancel in stable connected correlators. In a second register, the $\xi$-functions $\xi_i = z^i/((1+z)^{m-1}(-1+(m-1)z))$ on the spectral curve $x=(1+z)^m/z$ generate finite-dimensional spaces $\Xi_d$ whose $X$-expansions realize the polynomial prefactors via Proposition 3.1, converting the theorem into the generating-function statement of Corollary 6.2.

What would settle it

For a small stable case such as $m=2$, $g=1$, $n=2$, compute the connected correlator $[\hbar^{2g-2+n}]\langle A(\mu_1,\hbar)A(\mu_2,\hbar)\rangle^\circ$ directly from the A-operator expansion of Section 5, and check the residues at $\mu_1=-r$ for positive integers $r$: the theorem predicts zero, while any nonzero residue produces a pole at a negative integer and contradicts formula (134). Equivalently, evaluate the ratio in (12) for many integer pairs $(\mu_1,\mu_2)$ and verify that it is a polynomial of degree at most $6(2g-2+n)=12$; a persistent non-polynomial remainder would falsify the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is Theorem 6.1. For $(g,n)\notin\{(0,1),(0,2)\}$, the connected BMS number equals $$b^\circ_{g,\mu} = \prod_{i=1}^n \frac{(m\mu_i-m)!}{\mu_i!(m\mu_i-\mu_i-1)!}\cdot \mathrm{Poly}_{g,n}(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_n)\cdot \prod_{i=1}^n \prod_{\substack{m\le j_i\le 4g-4+2n-1\\ m\nmid j_i}} \frac{\mu_i-j_i}{m},$$ with $\mathrm{Poly}_{g,n}$ a polynomial. The first factor is the Bessel-type weight already visible in the genus-zero formula of Bousquet-Mélou and Schaeffer; the second product encodes the finite collection of 'forbidden' parts where the denominator would vanish, and its range depends only on $g$ and $n$. The theorem is proved by writing $b^\circ_{g,\mu}$ as a coefficient extraction $[\hbar^{2g-2+n}]$ of the connected vacuum expectation of $n$ rescaled A-operators in the semi-infinite wedge space. The proof establishes explicit rational forms for the A-operator coefficients, with polynomial numerators of bounded degree and denominators of the type $(k+1)\cdots(k+q)\prod((k-j)/m)$, and then shows that residues at all negative integers $k=-r$ vanish in stable connected correlators via the adjoint $\check{A}^\dagger$-operators and the free-fermion commutation relations. Only the allowed poles at $j/m$ remain, and symmetry in the $\mu_i$ promotes the rational function to a polynomial. The paper also derives (Proposition 2.1) the Bouchard–Eynard topological recursion for BMS numbers on the spectral curve $x=(1+z)^m/z$, completing the Alexandrov–Chapuy–Eynard–Harnad theorem at the discriminant by an analytic-continuation argument.

Load-bearing premise

The argument leans on the unproven-in-detail claim (Propositions 5.11 and 5.13, with several parameter regimes deferred as 'almost completely analogous, only easier') that the coefficients of the A-operators have exactly these rational forms, with no extra poles or larger numerators in any omitted case; if any such exception existed, the cancellation that removes the negative-integer poles would fail and $\mathrm{Poly}_{g,n}$ might not be a polynomial.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every stable pair $(g,n)$, the connected BMS numbers are quasi-polynomial in the parts: after the explicit factors, only the finite product of linear terms $(\mu_i-j)/m$ with $m\le j\le 4g-4+2n-1$ and $m\nmid j$ remains, and everything else is a genuine polynomial $\mathrm{Poly}_{g,n}$ of degree at most $6(2g-2+n)$ in each variable.
  • The $n$-point generating functions of BMS numbers become finite linear combinations of products of $\xi$-functions and their $x$-derivatives on the spectral curve $x=(1+z)^m/z$, so the spectral curve emerges directly from the combinatorics (Corollary 6.2).
  • The BMS numbers satisfy Bouchard–Eynard topological recursion for the spectral curve with a higher-order critical point at the discriminant, completing the Alexandrov–Chapuy–Eynard–Harnad result by analytic continuation (Proposition 2.1).
  • If the conjectural generalization of the topological-recursion/Givental correspondence to higher-order critical points is supplied, Theorem 6.1 becomes the combinatorial verification of the ELSV-type formula for BMS numbers described in Remarks 2.2–2.4.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The A-operator expansion is explicit enough to compute the low-genus polynomials $\mathrm{Poly}_{g,n}$ symbolically; comparing such a computation for $m=2$ against the topological-recursion expansion would directly test the conjectured equivalence of the two descriptions.
  • The same quasi-rationality plus residue-cancellation scheme should apply to any hypergeometric $\tau$-function in the Orlov–Scherbin family, predicting analogous quasi-polynomiality formulas for the associated weighted Hurwitz numbers, with the forbidden set determined by the degree of the spectral curve.
  • The sharp cutoff $4g-4+2n-1$ in the linear factors is a numerical footprint of the conjectural cohomological field theory: if an ELSV-type formula is eventually found, the upper limit should coincide with the top degree of the relevant tautological intersection ring.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proves a structural quasi-polynomiality theorem for Bousquet-MélouâSchaeffer numbers. After setting up the OrlovâScherbin tau-function description and the semi-infinite wedge formalism, the authors introduce A-operators and establish quasi-rationality statements for their matrix elements. The main Theorem 6.1 asserts that in the stable range the connected BMS number b^o_{g,mu} equals an explicit factorial prefactor times a polynomial Poly_{g,n}(mu_1,...,mu_n) times a product of factors (mu_i-j_i)/m over a finite range of j_i not divisible by m. The proof combines these quasi-rationality statements with a residue argument that eliminates poles at negative integers. Section 2 additionally derives the BouchardâEynard topological recursion for BMS numbers from the AlexandrovâChapuyâEynardâHarnad theorem.

Significance. If Theorem 6.1 is fully established, it settles the conjectured quasi-polynomiality predicted by topological recursion and provides an ELSV-type structure for BMS numbers. The proof is combinatorial, uses explicit fermionic Fock-space operators, and is independent of the still-incomplete CohFT/topological-recursion correspondence. This is a substantial contribution in the line of combinatorial proofs of quasi-polynomiality for Hurwitz-type numbers. The derivation of topological recursion for BMS numbers from the ACHE theorem is a useful addendum, although it is not needed for the main theorem.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.1.2â5.1.3, Propositions 5.9â5.11] The divisibility assertion used to cancel the 1/k factor in the sigma=0 term is false for p=0: for p=0 we have R_0(k,l,i_1,...,i_m)=1 and hence Q^0_{0,...,0}(k,l)=1, which is not divisible by k. This matters because p=0, q>0 contributions occur in stable correlators, for instance in the (g,n)=(0,3) case with shifts q_1=1, q_2=-1, q_3=0. As written, the proof of Proposition 5.11 does not establish the required denominator form for these sigma=0, p=0 terms. A direct cancellation using the factor (mk)_m in the numerator may repair the argument, but the repair is not present in the manuscript and must be supplied.
  2. [Section 5.1.3, after eq. (80); Section 5.1.3, after eq. (84); Section 5.2.3, after eq. (131)] Several load-bearing parameter regimes are deferred rather than proved. Proposition 5.11 is proved only for q >= sigma and sigma >= m; the three other combinations of q, sigma, and m are dismissed as 'almost completely analogous, only easier.' Proposition 5.13 defers the case sigma < m, and Proposition 5.20 defers 'all other possible variants' of q, sigma, and m. These omissions are not merely cosmetic: for q < sigma, the factorial (q+k-sigma)! and the falling factorial (mk-sigma)_{k+q-sigma} in eq. (74) have a different shape, and the displayed cancellation of factors (k-r) in eq. (80) does not automatically apply. If any omitted case produced an extra pole at a positive integer, at a point j/m, or at a point j/(m-1), the residue cancellation in eq. (147) and the conclusion that Poly_{g,n} is a polynomial would fail. The authors should provide complete derivations for all these regimes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, Proposition 2.1] The passage from the ACHE theorem outside the discriminant to the discriminant point epsilon=(1,...,1) is justified by an asserted analyticity of both sides in epsilon. Since the contour and the differentials are defined through residues that may collide at the discriminant, a more detailed analytic-continuation argument should be given, or the statement should be clearly marked as conditional. This does not affect the main combinatorial theorem, which is independent of Section 2.
  2. [Section 5.1.3, eqs. (74) and (81)] The displayed formulas for the coefficients of the A-operators omit some parentheses around the rational prefactor, making the order of operations hard to parse. Adding explicit parentheses would improve readability.
  3. [Section 5.1.2, Proposition 5.9] The statement that R_p(k,l,0,...,0) is divisible by k should be amended to exclude p=0 or replaced by the weaker statement used in the actual argument. As written, Proposition 5.9 is false for p=0, and this is not merely a typo because the proof of Proposition 5.11 invokes exactly this divisibility.
  4. [Section 6, proof of Theorem 6.1] In the passage following eq. (152), the degree bound is explained only for the variable mu_1, and symmetry is then used to conclude polynomiality in all variables. Since the connected correlator is symmetric and the bound is independent of the other variables, the argument is sound, but a sentence spelling out that the rational function has no other poles as a function of mu_1 would make the reasoning more transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: Theorem 6.1 is proven from the combinatorial definition of BMS numbers via fermionic operators and A-operator residue analysis; cited external results and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim, Theorem 6.1, is not obtained by assuming the quasi-polynomiality it proves. The BMS numbers are introduced combinatorially in Definition 1.1, converted to a fermionic vacuum expectation via the standard Orlov--Scherbin/Harnad--Orlov tau-function identity (equations (6)--(7), (56)--(58)), and then analyzed through the A-operators of Section 5. The quasi-polynomial form (134) arises as the output of Propositions 5.11, 5.13, 5.20 and the residue-cancellation argument in Section 6; the prefactor and the product over (mu_i - j)/m are derived, not fitted or imposed. The topological recursion statement in Proposition 2.1 is imported from the external theorem of Alexandrov--Chapuy--Eynard--Harnad [1] and is used only as motivation; Remark 2.4 and the text after it explicitly say that the paper proves the polynomiality independently and combinatorially. The various self-citations ([8], [10], [11], [12], [29], [30]) appear in remarks about related prior techniques and are not used to justify the main theorem. The only concerns raised by the text are technical proof gaps, not circularity: Section 5.1.3 defers three parameter regimes after equation (80) and the σ < m case after equation (84) as 'almost completely analogous, only easier', and Proposition 5.20 likewise defers 'all other possible variants' of the q, σ, m ordering. If any omitted regime introduced an extra pole or a numerator of higher degree, the residue cancellation in equation (147) and the conclusion that Poly_{g,n} is a polynomial could fail; also, the divisibility claim for Q^p_{0,...,0}(k,l) in Proposition 5.10 needs a separate check for p = 0 since Q^0_{0,...,0} = 1 is not divisible by k. These are correctness issues in the written proof, not cases where a prediction reduces by construction to its own input, so they do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Orlov-Scherbin tau-function identification and on the paper's own technical propositions about A-operators. The ACHE theorem and the analyticity assertion are used for the topological recursion statement, which is motivational rather than load-bearing for Theorem 6.1. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The BMS numbers are given by the vacuum expectation values of the operators e^{alpha_1} D(hbar)^m alpha_{-mu_i} (equations (56)-(58)), based on the Orlov-Scherbin hypergeometric tau-function (equation (6)).
    This identification is imported from the literature on hypergeometric tau-functions (Harnad-Orlov, Guay-Paquet-Harnad); it is not proved in the paper. It is load-bearing because all subsequent A-operator manipulations and the final correlator formula (60) depend on it.
  • domain assumption The main theorem of Alexandrov-Chapuy-Eynard-Harnad, together with the asserted analytic continuation to the discriminant, yields topological recursion for BMS numbers (Proposition 2.1).
    Proposition 2.1 is derived from [1, Theorem 1.1] plus an analyticity assertion at ǫ=(1,...,1). The paper does not provide a full proof of the analytic continuation through the discriminant.
  • standard math Classical Faulhaber's formula and Ehrhart-Macdonald reciprocity (Appendix A, Propositions A.1-A.3).
    Used to establish polynomiality and divisibility properties of the R-polynomials, which underpin Propositions 5.9-5.13.
  • standard math Semi-infinite wedge (free-fermion) formalism facts, including commutation relations and difference operator identities (Section 4, Lemmas 4.6, 5.3, 5.4).
    Standard tools in Hurwitz theory; the paper recalls the needed statements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Combinatorics of Bousquet-M\'elou-Schaeffer numbers in the light of topological recursion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4PY53UZN

@misc{pith2026190804147,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Combinatorics of Bousquet-M\'elou-Schaeffer numbers in the light of topological recursion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4PY53UZN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04147}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper we prove, in a purely combinatorial way, a structural quasi-polynomiality property for the Bousquet-M\'elou-Schaeffer numbers. Conjecturally, this property should follow from the Chekhov-Eynard-Orantin topological recursion for these numbers (or, to be more precise, the Bouchard-Eynard version of the topological recursion for higher order critical points), which we derive in this paper from the recent result of Alexandrov-Chapuy-Eynard-Harnad. To this end, the missing ingredient is a generalization to the case of higher order critical points on the underlying spectral curve of the existing correspondence between the topological recursion and Givental's theory for cohomological field theories.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Weighted Hurwitz numbers and topological recursion

    A. Alexandrov, G. Chapuy, B. Eynard, and J. Harnad. Weighted Hurwitz numbers and topological recursion. arXiv:1806.09738

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [2]

    Alexandrov, D

    A. Alexandrov, D. Lewanski, and S. Shadrin. Ramifications of Hur witz theory, KP integrability and quantum curves. J. High Energy Phys. 2016, no. 5, 124, front ma tter+30 pp

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Borot, V

    G. Borot, V. Bouchard, N. K. Chidambaram, T. Creutzig, and D. Noshchenko. Higher Airy struc- tures, W algebras and topological recursion. arXiv:1812.08738

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Bouchard and B

    V. Bouchard and B. Eynard. Think globally, compute locally. J. High Energy Phys. 2013, no. 2, 143, front matter + 34 pp

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Bouchard and B

    V. Bouchard and B. Eynard. Reconstructing WKB from topologic al recursion. J. ´Ec. polytech. Math. 4 (2017), 845–908

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Bouchard, A

    V. Bouchard, A. Klemm, M. Mari˜ no, and S. Pasquetti. Remodelin g the B-model. Comm. Math. Phys. 287 (2009), no. 1, 117–178

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Bousquet-M´ elou and G

    M. Bousquet-M´ elou and G. Schaeffer. Enumeration of planar co nstellations. Adv. in Appl. Math. 24 (2000), no. 4, 337–368

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    Dunin-Barkowski, M

    P. Dunin-Barkowski, M. Kazarian, N. Orantin, S. Shadrin, and L. Spitz. Polynomiality of Hurwitz numbers, Bouchard-Mari˜ no conjecture, and a new proof of th e ELSV formula. Adv. Math. 279 (2015), 67–103

    work page 2015

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Dunin-Barkowski, D

    P. Dunin-Barkowski, D. Lewanski, A. Popolitov, and S. Shadrin. P olynomiality of orbifold Hurwitz numbers, spectral curve, and a new proof of the Johnson-Pand haripande-Tseng formula. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 92 (2015), no. 3, 547–565

    2015

  2. [10]

    Dunin-Barkowski, P

    P. Dunin-Barkowski, P. Norbury, N. Orantin, A. Popolitov, and S. Shadrin. Dubrovin’s superpoten- tial as a global spectral curve. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 18 (2019) , no. 3, 449–497

    2019

  3. [11]

    Dunin-Barkowski, N

    P. Dunin-Barkowski, N. Orantin, S. Shadrin, and L. Spitz. Iden tification of the Givental formula with the spectral curve topological recursion procedure. Comm. Mat h. Phys. 328 (2014), no. 2, 669–700

    2014

  4. [12]

    Dunin-Barkowski, A

    P. Dunin-Barkowski, A. Popolitov, S. Shadrin, and A. Sleptsov. Combinatorial structure of colored HOMFLY-PT polynomials for torus knots. arXiv:1712.08614, 40 pp

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Ekedahl, S

    T. Ekedahl, S. Lando, M. Shapiro, and A. Vainshtein. Hurwitz nu mbers and intersections on moduli spaces of curves. Invent. Math. 146 (2001), no. 2, 297–327

    2001

  6. [14]

    B. Eynard. An overview of the topological recursion. Proceed ings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Seoul 2014. Vol. III, 1063–1085, Kyung Moon Sa , Seoul, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    B. Eynard. Counting surfaces. CRM Aisenstadt chair lectures . Progress in Mathematical Physics,

  8. [16]

    B. Eynard. Invariants of spectral curves and intersection t heory of moduli spaces of complex curves. Commun. Number Theory Phys. 8 (2014), no. 3, 541–588

    2014

  9. [17]

    Eynard and N

    B. Eynard and N. Orantin. Topological recursion in enumerative geometry and random matrices. J. Phys. A 42 (2009), no. 29, 293001, 117 pp

    2009

  10. [18]

    I. P. Goulden and D. M. Jackson. The KP hierarchy, branched c overs, and triangulations. Adv. Math. 219 (2008), no. 3, 932–951

    2008

  11. [19]

    I. P. Goulden, D. M. Jackson, and A. Vainshtein. The number of ramified coverings of the sphere by the torus and surfaces of higher genera. Ann. Comb. 4 (2000), n o. 1, 27–46. 1We would like to thank Yu. Burman for this comment. COMBINATORICS OF BOUSQUET-M ´ELOU–SCHAEFFER NUMBERS 33

    2000

  12. [20]

    I. P. Goulden, D. M. Jackson, and R. Vakil. The Gromov-Witten p otential of a point, Hurwitz numbers, and Hodge integrals. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 83 (2 001), no. 3, 563–581

  13. [21]

    Guay-Paquet and J

    M. Guay-Paquet and J. Harnad, 2D Toda τ-functions as combinatorial generating functions. Lett. Math. Phys. 105 (2015), no. 6, 827–852

    2015

  14. [22]

    J. Harnad. Weighted Hurwitz numbers and hypergeometric τ-functions: an overview. String-Math 2014, 289–333, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 93, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2016

    2014

  15. [23]

    Harnad and A

    J. Harnad and A. Orlov. Hypergeometric τ-functions, Hurwitz numbers and enumeration of paths. Comm. Math. Phys. 338 (2015), no. 1, 267–284

    2015

  16. [24]

    Hurwitz, Ueber die Anzahl der Riemann’schen Fl¨ achen mit geg ebenen Verzweigungspunkten

    A. Hurwitz, Ueber die Anzahl der Riemann’schen Fl¨ achen mit geg ebenen Verzweigungspunkten. Math. Ann. 55 (1901), no. 1, 53–66

    1901

  17. [25]

    F. Janda. Frobenius manifolds near the discriminant and relation s in the tautological ring. Lett. Math. Phys. 108 (2018), no. 7, 1649–1675

    2018

  18. [26]

    Johnson, Double Hurwitz numbers via the infinite wedge

    P. Johnson, Double Hurwitz numbers via the infinite wedge. Tran s. Amer. Math. Soc. 367 (2015), no. 9, 6415–6440

    2015

  19. [27]

    M. ´E. Kazarian and S. K. Lando. Combinatorial solutions to integrable h ierarchies. (Russian) Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 70 (2015), no. 3(423), 77–106; translation in Russian M ath. Surveys 70 (2015), no. 3, 453–482

    2015

  20. [28]

    Kazarian and P

    M. Kazarian and P. Zograf. Virasoro constraints and topologic al recursion for Grothendiecks dessin counting. Lett. Math. Phys. 105 (2015), no. 8, 1057–1084

    2015

  21. [29]

    Kramer, D

    R. Kramer, D. Lewa´ nski, A. Popolitov, and S. Shadrin, Toward s an orbifold generalization of Zvonk- ine’s r-ELSV formula. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 372 (2019), no. 6, 4447 –4469

    2019

  22. [30]

    Kramer, D

    R. Kramer, D. Lewa´ nski, and S. Shadrin, Quasi-polynomiality of monotone orbifold Hurwitz numbers and Grothendieck’s dessins d’enfants. Doc. Math. 24 (2019), 857 –898

    2019

  23. [31]

    S. K. Lando, A. K. Zvonkin, Graphs on surfaces and their applic ations. With an appendix by Don B. Zagier. Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, 141. Low-Dime nsional Topology, II. Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 2004

    2004

  24. [32]

    Lewanski

    D. Lewanski. On ELSV-type formulae, Hurwitz numbers and top ological recursion. Topological re- cursion and its influence in analysis, geometry, and topology, 517–5 32, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 100, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Lewanski, A

    D. Lewanski, A. Popolitov, S. Shadrin, and D. Zvonkine. Chiodo f ormulas for the r-th roots and topological recursion. Lett. Math. Phys. 107 (2017), no. 5, 901 –919

    2017

  26. [34]

    C.-C. M. Liu and M. Mulase. Preface [topological recursion]. Topo logical recursion and its influence in analysis, geometry, and topology, vii–xxii, Proc. Sympos. Pure Ma th., 100, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    B. Louf. Simple formulas for constellations and bipartite maps wit h prescribed degrees. arXiv:1904.05371

    1904 arXiv

  28. [36]

    I. G. Macdonald. Polynomials associated with finite cell-complexes . Polynomials associated with finite cell-complexes. J. London Math. Soc. (2) 4 (1971), 181–192

    1971

  29. [37]

    Milanov and D

    T. Milanov and D. Lewanski. W-algebra constraints and topological recursion for AN -singularity (with an appendix by Danilo Lewanski). Internat. J. Math. 27 (2016 ), no. 13, 1650110, 21 pp

    2016

  30. [38]

    A. Yu. Orlov and D. M. Scherbin. Multivariate hypergeometric fu nctions as τ-functions of Toda lattice and Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation. Advances in nonlinear mathematics and science. Phys. D 152/153 (2001), 51–65. B. B.: F aculty of Mathematics, National Research Universit...

    2001

  31. [70]

    Birkh¨ auser/Springer, Cham, 2016

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.