Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Vector-relation configurations and plabic graphs

T0 review · 3 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 For a reduced plabic graph, boundary vectors determine the whole vector-relation configuration up to gauge, and the map from configurations to boundary points inverts the boundary measurement map.

desk verdict Solid plabic reconstruction theorem and a useful unifying framework, but the Q-net cluster-algebra claim is underproved as written. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06959 v2 pith:WPODZRXM submitted 2019-08-19 math.CO math.DS

Niklas Affolter , Max Glick , Pavlo Pylyavskyy , Sanjay Ramassamy This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.COmath.DS MSC 05E1413F6037K1051A05
keywords vector-relationconfigurationsplabicgraphsboundarymeasurementmappentagramQ-netsdiscreteDarbouxmapsclusteralgebraspositroidvarieties
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 proposes a single geometric state for any planar bipartite graph: put a nonzero vector at each white vertex and let each black vertex carry a nontrivial linear relation among the vectors of its neighbors. The paper shows that the standard local moves of the dimer model act naturally on these states, so every such system comes with face weights and cluster dynamics. On plabic graphs, the main result is that boundary vectors determine the whole interior configuration uniquely up to gauge whenever all relation coefficients are nonzero; this is a geometric inverse of the boundary measurement map. The same formalism contains the pentagram map, Q-nets, and discrete Darboux maps as special cases, and it gives Q-nets a cluster algebra structure that was previously missing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the vector-relation configuration $(v,R)$: a nonzero vector in $\mathbb C^k$ at each white vertex and a nontrivial linear relation among the neighboring vectors at each black vertex, modulo gauge transformations. The load-bearing construction is the reconstruction map $\Psi$: starting from a boundary point $A$, it builds hyperplanes $H_j$ from the basis subsets $I_j\setminus\{j\}$ and defines candidate lines $L_w$ by intersecting the $H_j$ for strands $j$ lying to the left of $w$. What makes the construction valid is the cited description of $T_G$: on $T_G$, all relevant maximal minors of the twisted boundary data are nonzero, so the hyperplanes around each face are in general position and each $L_w$ is a genuine line. A sign comparison identifies $\Phi$ with the boundary measurement map, transferring uniqueness to and from the classical map.

What would settle it

Take a small reduced plabic graph, such as the example in the paper with two boundary dimension equal to four, and compute the boundary restriction map $\Phi$ on a one-parameter family of configurations in $\mathcal C_G^\circ$. If two distinct parameter values give the same boundary point $A$, Theorem 4.3(2) is false; conversely, random boundary points $A\in T_G$ fed through the reconstruction should always produce a full-rank coefficient matrix $K$ with all edge coefficients nonzero, and the first failure would falsify the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that on a reduced plabic graph all the information in a vector-relation configuration is carried by its boundary. For a configuration with every relation coefficient $K_{bw}$ nonzero, the boundary vectors $v_1,\dots,v_n$ (a point $A=[v_1\cdots v_n]$ in the space of $k$-dimensional subspaces of $\mathbb C^n$) determine the configuration uniquely up to gauge at internal vertices. Theorem 4.3 states this sharply: the boundary restriction map $\Phi$ sends all configurations into the positroid variety $\Pi_{\mathcal M}$, its restriction to $\mathcal C_G^\circ$ is an isomorphism onto $T_G$, the image of the boundary measurement map, and $\mathcal C_G^\circ=\Phi^{-1}(T_G)$. The proof constructs the inverse explicitly: for $A\in T_G$, take the hyperplanes $H_j$ spanned by the boundary vectors indexed by $I_j\setminus\{j\}$, where $(I_1,\dots,I_n)$ is the necklace of basis subsets coming from the matroid, and for each white vertex $w$ form the line $L_w=\bigcap_{j\in S_w} H_j$; the vectors on these lines satisfy exactly one linear relation at each black vertex, with all coefficients nonzero.

Load-bearing premise

The uniqueness proof rests entirely on a cited theorem that describes exactly which boundary points can occur; if that description were wrong or incomplete, the inverse map would have no foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any reduced plabic graph, every boundary point in the image $T_G$ of the boundary measurement map extends to exactly one gauge class of configurations in $\mathcal C_G^\circ$; internal vectors are determined up to scale.
  • The reconstruction is explicit: hyperplane intersections built from the basis subsets and strand data recover all internal vectors and relations, giving a geometric algorithm for the inverse boundary measurement map.
  • Positive edge weights of a totally nonnegative boundary point acquire a geometric reading: after gauging, each internal vector is a convex combination of vectors two steps upstream, so edge weights are barycentric coordinates in a recursive construction.
  • The local-move dynamics on vector-relation configurations specialize to the pentagram map, Q-nets, and discrete Darboux maps, and the face weights evolve by cluster $Y$-dynamics; in particular Q-nets carry a cluster structure.
  • Configurations obtained from resistor networks form a special class of conjugate nets, while those obtained from the corresponding spin model satisfy an extra conic condition; the model locates both subvarieties inside the same state space.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An algorithmic reading the paper leaves implicit is that the reconstruction map gives a practical way to solve geometric extension problems: given boundary data in $T_G$, each internal vector is computable by intersecting hyperplanes indexed by strands, with no need to sum matchings.
  • Because non-uniqueness can only occur outside $T_G$, probing the fibers of $\Phi$ on the boundary of the positroid variety—as in the four-boundary, dimension-two example—should describe exactly how the smooth space $\mathcal C_G$ resolves singularities of $\Pi_{\mathcal M}$.
  • The same vector-relation formalism is a natural search tool for cluster structures in other lattice geometries: any bipartite graph whose local moves are urban renewal carries $Y$-variables, so analogous discrete nets are candidates for integrable cluster dynamics.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces vector-relation configurations on planar bipartite graphs: a vector at each white vertex and a linear relation at each black vertex, modulo gauge equivalence. It shows that local graph transformations induce dynamics on these configurations that match classical urban renewal and degree-two vertex addition on edge weights (Proposition 2.1), and it defines gauge-invariant face weights that evolve by Y-variable dynamics. It then fits several known projective geometric systems into this framework: Laplace-Darboux dynamics, the pentagram map, Y-meshes, Q-nets, and discrete Darboux maps. The main computational claim for Q-nets is Proposition 3.10, which asserts that the Y-seed of Proposition 3.9 evolves by the cluster Y-dynamics of the quiver in Figure 12, thereby resolving an open question about cluster structures for Q-nets. For plabic graphs, the paper proves Theorem 4.3: the boundary restriction map Phi sends the configuration space C_G to the positroid variety Pi_M, and its restriction to the open subset C^o_G of configurations with all coefficients nonzero is an isomorphism onto T_G, the Muller-Speyer image of the boundary measurement map. This yields unique extension of generic boundary data to the interior. The paper also proves smoothness of C_G (Theorem 5.2) and identifies specializations from resistor and Ising networks.

Significance. If all claims hold, this is a valuable unification: one geometric formalism encompasses the pentagram map, Q-nets, and Darboux maps, and it provides a concrete inverse to Postnikov's boundary measurement map. The plabic graph portion is a genuine and largely self-contained theorem: the reconstruction map Psi defined by the hyperplane intersections L_w in (4.8), the Kasteleyn-sign comparison in Proposition 4.9, the uniqueness proof via acyclic orientations in Section 4.5, and the smoothness atlas in Section 5 are all presented with enough detail to be checked, building explicitly on published Muller-Speyer and Postnikov results. The Q-net cluster statement, if fully proved, would resolve a recognized open question, and Section 6 gives interesting new geometric consequences, including Koenigs nets from resistor networks and CKP maps from Ising networks. The main strength is the concrete, checkable plabic reconstruction machinery and the breadth of examples; the main weakness is the very abbreviated proof of the cluster-dynamics claim for Q-nets and related statements for Darboux maps.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Proposition 3.10 and Figure 12] The proof of Proposition 3.10 is a single sentence: 'One simply follows Y-variable dynamics of the associated cluster algebra, whose quiver is shown in Figure 12.' It does not specify the mutation sequence corresponding to the gentrification moves of Figure 11, does not check that the quiver transforms consistently under that sequence, and does not verify either displayed evolution formula. Because the abstract's claim that Q-nets admit a cluster structure rests on this proposition, this is a load-bearing gap, and the formulas involve enough indices and cyclic shifts that a small error would invalidate the advertised resolution. Please provide the explicit mutation sequence, the induced transformation of the quiver, and a derivation of at least one family of displayed Y-variable formulas, or clearly mark the cluster claim as conditional on a proof given elsewhere.
  2. [Section 3.3, Proposition 3.15 and the paragraph after Figure 15] The discrete Darboux case repeats the same pattern: Proposition 3.15 states that the square moves realize the time evolution, but its proof only says 'We verify the sequence of square moves using Proposition 2.4 on each step,' and the Y-dynamics are asserted by saying 'The Y-s evolve according to the Y-dynamics formulas of the associated cluster algebra. The formulas are too long to be written here.' Since the introduction advertises a cluster algebra operating in 'all cases,' this case must receive the same level of verification as the Q-net case, or be explicitly stated as a conjecture with the missing computation deferred to an appendix or a citable companion.
  3. [Remark 3.12] Remark 3.12 cites the authors' own in-progress work [2] ('In progress') as giving independent cluster descriptions of Q-nets and Darboux maps. If this reference is used to support the claim that the open question is resolved, it should be replaced by a citable preprint or the dependence should be removed; the present manuscript should not rely on an unpublished companion for a central claim. This is not the main obstacle to acceptance, but it is a missing-support issue that should be corrected.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 11] The labels a, a', b, b', c, c', e, f, g, h, and G, H are defined only in the proof of Proposition 3.7; adding a caption that explains the labeling would make the figure much easier to read.
  2. [Proposition 3.10] The two displayed evolution formulas in Proposition 3.10 are not numbered, making it awkward to refer to them in the text or in a future erratum; please number them.
  3. [Section 3.2, Figure 12] The Q-net quiver in Figure 12 is central to the claimed cluster structure, but the text gives no description of its vertex set or the correspondence between vertices and the Y-variables of Proposition 3.9; this should be stated explicitly even if a full mutation computation is deferred.
  4. [Abstract and title page] There are typographical spacing artifacts in the title and abstract (e.g., 'VECTOR-RELA TION' and several words split by line breaks); please proofread the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No substantive circularity; the plabic reconstruction theorem rests on external Muller-Speyer and Postnikov results, and the only concerns are a non-load-bearing in-progress self-citation and a one-sentence Q-net cluster algebra proof.

full rationale

The central Theorem 4.3 is not circular: the reconstruction map Ψ is defined from the right twist of Muller-Speyer [23], and the proof of uniqueness uses their characterization of the image T_G, together with independent Kasteleyn sign calculations (Proposition 4.9), matching theory, and acyclicity of the orientation (Propositions 4.19 and 4.23). No parameter is fitted to force the extension, and the boundary measurement map identification is a proved equivalence, not a definitional renaming. The only self-citation is the in-progress reference [2] in Section 1.3 and Remark 3.12, which is explicitly described as an independent parallel description and is not used to prove Theorem 4.3 or Proposition 3.10, so it does not carry the derivation. One auxiliary claim does have an omitted proof: Proposition 3.10's proof reads 'One simply follows Y-variable dynamics of the associated cluster algebra, whose quiver is shown in Figure 12,' without displaying the mutation sequence of the gentrification move or checking the stated formulas; this is a verification gap in the advertised cluster structure for Q-nets, not a circular reduction. Overall the paper's main derivation chain is self-contained against published external results, with only the minor self-citation and the Proposition 3.10 gap raising the score marginally above zero.

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

The paper introduces a new mathematical object, vector-relation configurations, but no free parameters or new physical entities. It relies on established theorems from positroid theory, the dimer model, and cluster algebras.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Knutson-Lam-Speyer: positroid variety is defined by vanishing of Plücker coordinates for J not in M (Theorem 4.1).
    Used to define Π_M and to prove Φ(v) lies in Π_M.
  • standard math Muller-Speyer right twist characterization: the image of the boundary measurement map is the set of A in Π°_M such that Δ_SF(A') is nonzero for all faces F (Theorem 4.2).
    Provides the identification of T_G and the hyperplane properties used in Lemma 4.14 and Proposition 4.16.
  • domain assumption Existence of Kasteleyn signs on plabic graphs and the sign matching in the boundary measurement map (Propositions 4.8 and 4.9).
    Bridges vector-relation configurations to edge-weight boundary measurement.
  • ad hoc to paper Standard cluster algebra Y-dynamics and the fact that the quiver in Figure 12 gives the same evolution as the geometric Y-variables (used in Proposition 3.10).
    The Q-net Y-evolution is asserted to follow from the cluster dynamics of the stated quiver; the matching is not fully derived in the text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vector-relation configurations and plabic graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WPODZRXM

@misc{pith2026190806959,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vector-relation configurations and plabic graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WPODZRXM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06959}
}
abstract

We study a simple geometric model for local transformations of bipartite graphs. The state consists of a choice of a vector at each white vertex made in such a way that the vectors neighboring each black vertex satisfy a linear relation. Evolution for different choices of the graph coincides with many notable dynamical systems including the pentagram map, $Q$-nets, and discrete Darboux maps. On the other hand, for plabic graphs we prove unique extendability of a configuration from the boundary to the interior, an elegant illustration of the fact that Postnikov's boundary measurement map is invertible. In all cases there is a cluster algebra operating in the background, resolving the open question for $Q$-nets of whether such a structure exists.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06959 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Local transformations applied to a graph. 1.1. Local transformations. Let G be a planar bipartite graph with nonzero edge weights. A gauge trans￾formation at a given vertex multiplies the weights of all edges incident to that vertex by a common scalar. A local transformation modifies a small portion of G in the manner indicated in one of the pictures in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The vector-relation version of urban renewal. R1 Rk S1 Sl u R1 Rk S1 Sl v T w u1 uk v1 vl R u1 uk v1 vl S w T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The vector-relation version of degree two vertex addition. can import much of the theory of the dimer model to our setting. For instance we get face weights, which are simple to define geometrically and which satisfy nice evolution equations. 1.2. Configurations on plabic graphs. Plabic graphs are a family of finite planar graphs widely used in the study of positroids and the totally non-negative Grassmannian. Restr… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A plabic graph corresponding to the open cell in Gr(3, 6) between the black and white vertices. We should also note that both [21, Section 14] and [25] are attempts to put on more mathematical footing the on-shell diagrams of physics. In the case of the dimer model on …
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: On the left is a quadrilateral face which should hav [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The evolution equation for face weights We focus on the case of the monodromy around a single face F of G. Suppose F is a 2m-gon and that the vertices on its boundary in clockwise order are w1, b1, . . . , wm, bm. The face weight of a vector-relation configuration corr…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The local transformations which, when followed by degree 2 vertex removals, realize Laplace-Darboux dynamics. To evolve the system, perform urban renewal at each face whose upper left corner is black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A portion of the bipartite graph whose vector-relation dynamics coincide with the pentagram map. 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 5 6 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: One step of a system that produces a pentagram spiral (left) along with the asso￾ciated bipartite graph (right). one copy of each edge and each black vertex, while the repeats among white vertices help to visualize how the picture repeats when lifted to Z 2 . Place poi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The bipartite graph corresponding to the rabbit map. The figure continues infin￾itely up and down, while the left and right sides are identified as per the labeling. for all i ∈ Z. The map takes (A, B, C) to (B, C, D) where Di = hAi−1, Bi+1i ∩ hBi−1, Ci+1i for all i. E…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Three generations of a Q-net and the associated bipartite graph A B′ C A′ B C′ A B′ C A′ B C′ A B′ C A′ B C′ A B′ C A′ B C′ A B′ C A′ B C′ E G H E F G a b c R3 e f g e g e g R 3 c ′ a ′ b ′ A C B A′ C′ e a c b B′ b ′ b b ′ a ′ c ′ g h h f D D′ D′ D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The gentrification sequence of moves. For convenience, each black vertex is labeled by the affine hull of the points at neighboring white vertices. Proof. We verify the sequence of square moves using Proposition 2.4 on each step. For example, points G and H are formed…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Q-net quiver. Proof. One simply follows Y -variable dynamics of the associated cluster algebra, whose quiver is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The bipartite graph of a discrete Darboux map Proposition 3.15. The sequence of square moves shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Superurban renewal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Discrete Darboux map quiver. 4. Configurations on plabic graphs 4.1. Background on positroid varieties. We now return to the plabic graph case. The proof of Theorem 1.5 utilizes a significant amount of the theory of positroid varieties. We begin by reviewing the relev…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The alternating strand diagram for a plabic graph (left) and the associated label￾ing by sets of the faces and vertices of the graph (right) 4.4. The reconstruction map. In this subsection, we begin to prove the second part of Theorem 4.3. Specif￾ically, we define a m…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: A plabic graph with an acyclic perfect orientation (left) and a configuration that results from the associated sequence of convex combinations (right) in the vej except for j = 2. Let u be the vector at the interior white vertex. Let v1, ev2, v3 be any basis of R 3 . …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: One chart on CG with G a plabic graph corresponding to Gr2,4. In fact, a more efficient chart is obtained by taking just a, b, c, d as coordinates. The other variables can be reconstructed as x2 = bc 1 − bd x4 = − c 1 − bd y2 = − a 1 − bd y4 = ad 1 − bd and as before …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: An example of a coordinate chart on CG coming from a system in G. Combining with results from the previous section, we have that Φ : CG → ΠM maps a smooth variety to the positroid variety and restricts to an isomorphism from C ◦ G to TG. Although Φ is not surjective, …
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Constructing a bipartite graph from a resistor network. The unlabeled internal edges on the right have weight 1. c1 c1 c2 c2 c3 c3 u u1 u2 u3 w2 w1 w3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: A small part of a vector-relation configuration coming from a resistor network. Proof. The graph in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: A bipartite graph coming from the Ising model. for each dual edge pair vv′ ∈ E, ww′ ∈ E∗ (a convention needs to be fixed for the direction of the crossing of the edges). If G is the hexagonal grid, so G∗ is the dual triangular grid, the above precisely means that f an…

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

  1. Edge vectors on plabic networks in the disk and amalgamation of totally non-negative Grassmannians

    math.CO 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Geometric signatures, fixed by orientation and a gauge ray direction, completely characterize totally non-negative edge-signature systems on plabic networks in the disk.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    In progress

    Niklas Affolter, Lie Fu, Max Glick, and Sanjay Ramassamy. In progress

    work page

  2. [1]

    Miquel Dynamics, Clifford Lattices and the Dimer Model

    Niklas Affolter. Miquel dynamics, Clifford lattices and t he dimer model. arXiv:1808.04227

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [3]

    Bobenko and Yuri B

    Alexander I. Bobenko and Yuri B. Suris. Discrete differential geometry , volume 98 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2008. Inte grable structure

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Geometric discretisation of the Toda syste m

    Adam Doliwa. Geometric discretisation of the Toda syste m. Phys. Lett. A , 234(3):187–192, 1997

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Multidimensional q uadrilateral lattices are integrable

    Adam Doliwa and Paolo Maria Santini. Multidimensional q uadrilateral lattices are integrable. Phys. Lett. A , 233(4-6):365–372, 1997

    work page 1997

  6. [6]

    Exact bosonization of the Ising model

    Julien Dub´ edat. Exact bosonization of the Ising model. arXiv:1112.4399

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Inverse spectral problem for GK integrab le system

    Vladimir Fock. Inverse spectral problem for GK integrab le system. arXiv:1503.00289

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Ising model and the positive orthogonal Grassmannian

    Pavel Galashin and Pavlo Pylyavskyy. Ising model and the positive orthogonal Grassmannian. arXiv:1807.03282

    work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Higher pentagram maps, weighted direc ted networks, and cluster dynamics

    Michael Gekhtman, Michael Shapiro, Serge Tabachnikov, and Alek Vainshtein. Higher pentagram maps, weighted direc ted networks, and cluster dynamics. Electron. Res. Announc. Math. Sci. , 19:1–17, 2012

    2012

  2. [10]

    Integrable cluster dynamics of direc ted networks and pentagram maps

    Michael Gekhtman, Michael Shapiro, Serge Tabachnikov , and Alek Vainshtein. Integrable cluster dynamics of direc ted networks and pentagram maps. Adv. Math. , 300:390–450, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    The pentagram map and Y -patterns

    Max Glick. The pentagram map and Y -patterns. Adv. Math. , 227(2):1019–1045, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    Y -meshes and generalized pentagram maps

    Max Glick and Pavlo Pylyavskyy. Y -meshes and generalized pentagram maps. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) , 112(4):753–797, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Goncharov and Richard Kenyon

    Alexander B. Goncharov and Richard Kenyon. Dimers and c luster integrable systems. Ann. Sci. ´Ec. Norm. Sup´ er. (4) , 46(5):747–813, 2013

    2013

  6. [14]

    Lectures on dimers

    Richard Kenyon. Lectures on dimers. arXiv:0910.3129

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Dimers and circle patterns

    Richard Kenyon, W ai Yeung Lam, Sanjay Ramassamy, and Ma rianna Russkikh. Dimers and circle patterns. arXiv:1810.0 5616

  8. [16]

    Planar dimers and H arnack curves

    Richard Kenyon and Andrei Okounkov. Planar dimers and H arnack curves. Duke Math. J. , 131(3):499–524, 2006

    2006

  9. [17]

    Double-dimers, the Ising model and the hexahedron recurrence

    Richard Kenyon and Robin Pemantle. Double-dimers, the Ising model and the hexahedron recurrence. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A , 137:27–63, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Kenyon and Scott Sheffield

    Richard W. Kenyon and Scott Sheffield. Dimers, tilings an d trees. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B , 92(2):295–317, 2004

    2004

  11. [19]

    Allen Knutson, Thomas Lam, and David E. Speyer. Positro id varieties: juggling and geometry. Compos. Math., 149(10):1710– 1752, 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    B. G. Konopelchenko and W. K. Schief. Menelaus’ theorem , Clifford configurations and inversive geometry of the Schwa rzian KP hierarchy. J. Phys. A , 35(29):6125–6144, 2002

    2002

  13. [21]

    Totally nonnegative Grassmannian and Gras smann polytopes

    Thomas Lam. Totally nonnegative Grassmannian and Gras smann polytopes. In Current developments in mathematics 2014 , pages 51–152. Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2016

    2014

  14. [22]

    On the vector representations of ind uced matroids

    Bernt Lindstr¨ om. On the vector representations of ind uced matroids. Bull. London Math. Soc. , 5:85–90, 1973

    1973

  15. [23]

    Greg Muller and David E. Speyer. The twist for positroid varieties. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) , 115(5):1014–1071, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    The pentagram map: a discrete integrable system

    Valentin Ovsienko, Richard Schwartz, and Serge Tabach nikov. The pentagram map: a discrete integrable system. Comm. Math. Phys. , 299(2):409–446, 2010

    2010

  17. [25]

    Positive grassmannian and polyh edral subdivisions

    Alexander Postnikov. Positive grassmannian and polyh edral subdivisions. arXiv:1806.05307

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Total positivity, Grassmannian s, and networks

    Alexander Postnikov. Total positivity, Grassmannian s, and networks. arXiv:0609764

  19. [27]

    Lattice geometry of the discrete Darboux, KP, BKP and CKP equations

    W olfgang Karl Schief. Lattice geometry of the discrete Darboux, KP, BKP and CKP equations. Menelaus’ and Carnot’s theorems. J. Nonlinear Math. Phys. , 10(suppl. 2):194–208, 2003

    2003

  20. [28]

    The pentagram map

    Richard Schwartz. The pentagram map. Experiment. Math. , 1(1):71–81, 1992

    1992

  21. [29]

    Variations on a theme of Kasteleyn, with a pplication to the totally nonnegative Grassmannian

    David Speyer. Variations on a theme of Kasteleyn, with a pplication to the totally nonnegative Grassmannian. arXiv:1510.03501

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Combinatorial formulas for Γ-coordina tes in a totally nonnegative Grassmannian

    Kelli Talaska. Combinatorial formulas for Γ-coordina tes in a totally nonnegative Grassmannian. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A , 118(1):58–66, 2011. Technische Universit ¨at Berlin, Institute of Mathematics, Strasse des 17. Juni 136, 10623 Berlin, Germany Department of Mathematics, ...

    2011

Pith tools

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