Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 6 references

Bijectivizing the PT-DT Correspondence

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 The paper constructs explicit weight-preserving bijections realizing the PT–DT correspondence for the one-leg and two-leg cases, using vertex operators and toggles.

desk verdict Genuinely new bijections for two special cases of PT-DT; the one-leg proof is solid, and the two-leg proof has a concrete but fixable mistake in Proposition 5.3. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09920 v2 pith:PXP4K55B submitted 2024-11-15 math.CO

Cruz Godar , Benjamin Young This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CO MSC 05A1705A1905E05
keywords planepartitionsreverseskewPT-DTcorrespondencevertexoperatorstoggleshooklengthsn-quotients
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 sets out to show that the PT–DT correspondence, an enumerative-geometry identity whose two sides count plane-partition-like objects, is not merely an equality of generating functions but a reversible combinatorial map, at least for the one-leg and two-leg cases. The main theorems produce, for any Young diagrams, a weight-preserving bijection between a skew plane partition and a pair consisting of a reverse plane partition and an ordinary plane partition, with weights adding. A sympathetic reader would care because the general identity was previously established by an involved recursive double-dimer argument, and a bijective proof explains the counting directly and may extend to the full three-leg setting. The method is to write each generating function as a product of vertex operators and to interpret each operator commutation as a local toggle of a diagonal.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the toggle: a local involution, introduced in the form used here by a cited reference, that rewrites a diagonal of a plane-partition-like array relative to its two neighbouring diagonals and records a popped-off nonnegative integer. Toggling a diagonal is exactly a bijective realization of the commutation relation $\Gamma_-(b)\Gamma_+(a)=\frac{1}{1-ab}\Gamma_+(a)\Gamma_-(b)$ of the vertex operators $\Gamma_\pm$, so an algebraic proof by successive commutations can be converted term-by-term into a bijection. The paper augments this with edge sign and edge power sequences encoding a shape and its hook lengths, with $n$-quotients used in the one-leg case to move hooks between the asymptotic Young diagram and the Young diagram itself, and with a stabilization theorem asserting that for two-leg skew plane partitions all but finitely many toggles pop off zeros and the diagonal partitions eventually become constant.

What would settle it

Take a two-leg skew plane partition $\sigma$ of some shape $(\lambda,\mu,\emptyset)$ and run the toggle order used in the proof of Proposition 5.3, recording the popped-off values and the main-diagonal partition after each round; if for any $\sigma$ infinitely many nonzero values are popped, or if the main-diagonal partition never becomes constant, then Proposition 5.3 is false and the two-leg bijection collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the PT–DT correspondence can be bijectivized for one- and two-leg shapes. For any Young diagrams $\lambda$ and $\mu$, Theorem 5.4 constructs a weight-preserving bijection between skew plane partitions of shape $(\lambda,\mu,\emptyset)$ and pairs $(\rho,\pi)$ where $\rho$ is a reverse plane partition of shape $(\lambda,\mu,\emptyset)$ and $\pi$ is a plane partition, with $|\sigma|=|\rho|+|\pi|$. Theorem 4.9 gives the one-leg case of shape $(\emptyset,\emptyset,\lambda)$. The proof realizes each generating function as a product of vertex operators $\Gamma_\pm$, then interprets every commutation of adjacent operators as a toggle of the corresponding diagonal; in the two-leg case a stabilization result makes the infinite toggle process finite and well-defined.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every two-leg skew plane partition stabilizes under repeated toggling: after finitely many steps all later toggles pop off only zeros and the diagonal partitions become constant, and without this the infinite toggle process would not be well-defined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For one-leg shapes, Theorem 4.9 gives a weight-preserving bijection between skew plane partitions of shape $(\emptyset,\emptyset,\lambda)$ and pairs of a reverse plane partition of the same shape and a plane partition.
  • For two-leg shapes, Theorem 5.4 gives the analogous bijection for shape $(\lambda,\mu,\emptyset)$, making $V_{(\lambda,\mu,\emptyset)}(q)=M(q)W_{(\lambda,\mu,\emptyset)}(q)$ a reversible combinatorial statement.
  • The bijections are algorithmic: toggling diagonals in any order compatible with corners yields the same hook-length-weighted tableau, so the resulting map is independent of the chosen toggle order.
  • The proof of the two-leg theorem depends on the stabilization property of Proposition 5.3, which asserts that every two-leg skew plane partition reaches a state after finitely many toggles from which all future toggles pop off zeros.
  • For the full three-leg case, the paper shows that the same methods face a substantial obstacle: three-leg reverse plane partitions are double-dimer objects with global labeling conditions and no known vertex-operator description, so a naive toggle generalization is not available.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test, not pursued in the paper, would be to compare the output of the two-leg bijection with the double-dimer condensation construction on explicit small shapes; agreement would strengthen the case that the two approaches are computing the same correspondence.
  • If three-leg reverse plane partitions ever acquire a vertex-operator description, the toggling and stabilization apparatus here suggests a route to a fully general bijective PT–DT proof that bypasses the recursive double-dimer argument.
  • The role of $n$-quotients in the one-leg proof suggests a finer statement not stated in the paper: the bijection may be organized by hook-length residues, so that the distribution of hook lengths in the output tableau is governed by the $n$-quotients of the shape $\lambda$; this could be tested on explicit examples.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents bijective proofs of two special cases of the Pandharipande–Thomas/Donaldson–Thomas correspondence, which states that the generating function for skew plane partitions equals MacMahon's function times the generating function for reverse plane partitions. The authors express the relevant generating functions as vacuum expectation values of vertex operators Γ±, and reinterpret the algebraic commutation relations Γ−(b)Γ+(a)=Γ+(a)Γ−(b)/(1−ab) as Pak-style toggles of diagonals. For the one-leg case (shape (∅,∅,λ)) they prove a bijection between SPPs and pairs (RPP, plane partition) using edge sign/power sequences, hook-length formulas, and an n-quotient map φλ. For the two-leg case (shape (λ,μ,∅)) they state a stabilization result (Proposition 5.3) and use it to define an infinite toggle process, yielding the bijection of Theorem 5.4. The paper closes with a discussion of obstacles in the three-leg case.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides the first genuinely combinatorial (bijective) proof of the PT–DT correspondence for the one-leg and two-leg families, complementing the recursive double-dimer proof of [JWY22]. The vertex-operator/toggle framework is elegant and likely to be reusable; the use of n-quotients to convert hook-length tableaux of different shapes is a nice idea. The paper is also commendably explicit about the limitation that the three-leg case requires new vertex-operator machinery. However, the main two-leg theorem depends crucially on Proposition 5.3, whose proof currently contains a reversed inequality and an under-specified induction; the one-leg theorem is also proved by analogy to Theorem 3.7 rather than by a self-contained argument. These points make the paper's central claims plausible but not yet fully rigorous.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Proposition 5.3(1)] The displayed implication 'if σ_n(i,j)≠σ(i,j), then |j−i| must be at least n' is reversed: the diagonals toggled to pass from σ to σ_n are exactly those with |j−i| < n, so a cell that changed must satisfy |j−i| < n. The subsequent conclusion that σ_n(i,j)=max{λ_j,μ_i} for |j−i|≥n is correct once the implication is reversed, but as written the proof contains a false intermediate assertion. Since part 1 supplies the base case for the induction in part 2, this needs to be corrected before Theorem 5.4 is supported.
  2. [Section 5, Proposition 5.3(2)] The induction step uses the formula 'each a_k toggles to min{a_{k−1}, b_{k−1}} + max{a_k, b_k} − a_k' without deriving it from Definitions 3.1/3.2, and the 'diagonal immediately above a' is asserted to be unchanged without proof. The diagram in Figure 5.4 cannot substitute for an index-level derivation. Without a rigorous induction establishing α(n+1,i)=α(n,i) and β(n+1,i)=β(n,i), the stabilization property that makes the infinite toggle process finite-time computable is not established.
  3. [Section 4, Theorem 4.9] The proof of the one-leg bijection is by analogy to Theorem 3.7, relying on 'the same logic' for the hook-length weight preservation and for the well-definedness of the composition of toggles. Theorem 4.4 gives the relevant hook-length identity, but the text does not explicitly verify that the iterative commutation of Γ operators for an arbitrary edge sign sequence eλ produces toggles that terminate with the claimed weight bookkeeping. Given that Theorem 4.9 is one of the paper's two central results, a self-contained proof or a precise reduction to Theorem 3.7 is needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Lemma 3.6] The definition of z2 should explicitly account for the factor (1−q^{p_m+p_{m+1}})^{-1} when the swapped operators have opposite signs; as written, 'equal ... except swapped' is not literally true, and the objects counted by S2 for opposite signs include a nonnegative integer in addition to the partition-like object.
  2. [Section 4, Definition 4.2] The relationship between the integer edge labels and the half-integer powers pλ(n)=±|n+1/2| is not stated clearly; please specify that n indexes edges by integers while the power sequence takes half-integer values, and reconcile this with the labels in Figure 4.1.
  3. [Section 5, Definition 5.2] The domain 'Z×N ∪ N×Z' has overlapping parts, and the weight sum 'over the entire diagram' should be made precise by writing the summation over the appropriate copies of the cells with explicit indicator functions.
  4. [Section 5, Example 5.5] The assertion that 'the value of N guaranteed by Proposition 5.3 is N = 3' is not verified against the conditions of the proposition; a short check of part 1 for this example would increase confidence in the illustration.
  5. [Throughout] There are several small textual errors, including 'a partition ν with with' in Definition 3.2 and 'the value of1' in Example 3.3; these should be corrected in a final revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PT–DT bijections are constructed from independently proven toggle lemmas and vertex-operator commutations; the noted Proposition 5.3 issue is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are self-contained against external benchmarks. The vertex-operator commutation relations used throughout (Propositions 3.4 and 3.5, Lemma 3.6) are proven in Section 3 by explicit toggling bijections, not assumed. The hook-length formula of Theorem 4.4 is proved by induction using the edge-power sequence defined in Definition 4.2. The one-leg bijection (Theorem 4.9) composes the explicitly proven toggle bijection τ with the explicitly defined map φλ; the conversion back to reverse plane partitions uses the independently known Pak–Sulzgruber algorithm, which the paper also re-derives in the plane-partition case. The two-leg identity V(λ,μ,∅)=M(q)W(λ,μ,∅) is obtained by an explicit algebraic commutation argument in Theorem 5.4, with the factor M(q) arising from the standard product formula rather than being assumed as the desired equality. Proposition 5.3 is a technical well-definedness/stabilization result; the reviewer's concern about a possibly reversed inequality in part 1 is a potential correctness gap, not a case of the theorem reducing to its own assumptions. Self-citations ([JWY22], [BCY10], [GY p]) are contextual or concern future work and are not load-bearing for the main theorems. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work.

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

No free parameters or invented entities. The paper's contribution is a new proof method built on standard machinery; the only imported premises are the vertex operator enumerations and n-quotient facts listed above.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Vertex operator expressions (Equations 6, 7, 8) correctly enumerate one-leg SPPs, two-leg SPPs, and two-leg RPPs with the stated weights.
    These formulas are imported from [ORV06] and [PT09] and are the starting point of the bijectivization; the paper does not rederive them.
  • standard math The theory of n-quotients: an n-hook in a partition corresponds to a corner of an n-quotient, and the asymptotic diagram has exactly one more corner than the diagram itself.
    Used in Proposition 4.6 and Definition 4.7; the paper cites [Def+22] and gives a sketch rather than a full proof.
  • standard math MacMahon's product formula M(q) = product over k of (1-q^k)^{-k} is the generating function for plane partitions.
    Used implicitly in Equation 2 and in the factor M(q) throughout.
  • standard math Consecutive diagonals of a plane partition or skew plane partition interlace, so the Gamma operators count valid diagonal sequences.
    This underlies the whole vertex operator formulation; it is classical and used without proof in Section 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bijectivizing the PT-DT Correspondence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PXP4K55B

@misc{pith2026241109920,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bijectivizing the PT-DT Correspondence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PXP4K55B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09920}
}
read the original abstract

Pandharipande-Thomas theory and Donaldson-Thomas theory (PT and DT) are two branches of enumerative geometry in which particular generating functions arise that count plane-partition-like objects. That these generating functions differ only by a factor of MacMahon's function was proven recursively by Jenne, Webb, and Young using the double dimer model. We bijectivize two special cases of the result by formulating these generating functions using vertex operators and applying a particular type of local involution known as a toggle, first introduced in the form we use by Pak.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09920 by the authors.

Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. A 4-hook with pivot (5, 2) in an asymptotic Young diagram N 2 ∖ λ (dark gray), and a 4-hook with pivot (1, 2) in the Young diagram λ (light gray). 5 4 3 3 4 4 2 2 1 2 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.2. A plane partition of weight 31, visualized both as a grid of numbers and a stack [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (39 more)
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.3. Figure 2.3: By placing them as diagonals in a plane partition, we see that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2_3.png]
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1: Toggling (3, 2, 1) relative to (5, 3, 1, 1) and (3, 2) (middle- and far-left), and toggling (5, 3, 1, 1) relative to (3, 2, 1) and (4, 2, 1) (middle- and far-right). for i ≥ 2. We handle ν1 separately: we say that the toggle pops off the the value n = ν1 − max {λ1, µ…
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.2. Figure 3.2: A cell x ∈ N 2 and its hook. The edges of the diagram are labeled with the exponents of the Γ operators they correspond to. The hook of x intersects the boundary at edges corresponding to operators Γ+ (q 5/2 ) and Γ− (q 3/2 ), and the hook length of x is h(x) = 4 = 5…
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png]
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.3. Figure 3.3: A weight-7 plane partition π (far left) being mapped bijectively to a weight-7 tableau τ (π) that is weighted by hook length (far right). The center-left and center-right figures are the first two steps in the bijection. ∣π∣ = ∣π ′ ∣+a ⋅ h(sn), where the weights of π…
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: The edge sign sequence for λ = (4, 2, 1) is eλ = (. . . , −,−,+,−,+,−,+,+,−,+, . . .). and so all future toggles place a zero into the tableau. The result is the final tableau τ (π) on the far right, whose weight (accounting for hook length) is correctly equal to 7. …
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2: Hooks and their boundary edges in λ = (4, 2, 1) and the Young diagram asymp￾totic to it. pλ(k) = k + 1 2 . In every case, pλ(k − 1) + pλ(k) = −1. Therefore, pµ(k − 1) = −pλ(k − 1) = −(−1 − pλ(k)) = pλ(k) + 1, as required. Theorem 4.4. Let λ ⊂ N 2 be a Young diagram w…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.3. Figure 4.3: A hook inside λ = (4, 4, 3, 1) (blue) and a corresponding hook in N 2∖λ intersecting its boundary edges. by identical logic to the base case. Otherwise, suppose without loss of generality that λi ≠ 0. Then the left leg of the hook of (i, j) meets the boundary of λ at…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.4. Figure 4.4: A 4-hook in a skew plane partition of shape (∅,∅, λ) and the corresponding 4-hook in λ (left). The corresponding inner and outer corners in the 4-quotient λ4,3 (right). as required. This shows the result for every box in λ, proving the proposition. In the Young diagr…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.5. Figure 4.5: Pivots of corresponding 3-hooks in the Young diagram asymptotic to λ = (3, 3) and its quotients. In reading order: N 2 ∖ λ, N 2 ∖ λ3,0, N 2 ∖ λ3,1, N 2 ∖ λ3,2, λ, N 2 . to decompose every object involved into a hook-length-weighted tableau and place the resulting ent…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.6. Figure 4.6: A skew plane partition σ of shape (∅,∅, (2, 1)). 3 0 4 2 0 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 ↦ 1 0 4 2 0 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 ↦ ⋯ ↦ 1 0 4 2 0 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 ↦ 1 0 1 2 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ↦ 1 0 1 2 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ↦ ⋯ ↦ 1 0 1 2 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ↦ 1 0 1 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ↦ 1 0 1 2 0 2 3 …
Figure 4.7
Figure 4.7. Figure 4.7: Decomposing a one-leg SPP into a hook-length-weighted tableau. At each step, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4_7.png]
Figure 4.8
Figure 4.8. Figure 4.8: Rearranging the entries of the tableau T(σ) (left) into a tableau T(ρ) (center) of shape λ and a tableau T(π) (right) of shape N 2 . 0 1 2 4 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⋯ ⋮ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4_8.png]
Figure 4.9
Figure 4.9. Figure 4.9: The untoggled RPP ρ = T −1 (T(ρ)) (left) and plane partition π = T −1 (T(π)). 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4_9.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1: A two-leg skew plane partition of shape ((2, 2), (3, 1),∅), visualized both as a grid of numbers and a stack of 10 weight-contributing blocks (dark gray) on top of a non￾removable “tray” of blocks that contributes weight 1, as measured by the vertex operator expressi…
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.2. Figure 5.2: A one-leg RPP of shape (∅,∅, (4, 3, 1)) and weight 19, visualized as 19 boxes removed from an infinite vertical tower. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5_2.png]
Figure 5.3
Figure 5.3. Figure 5.3: A two-leg RPP of shape ((3, 1), (2, 2),∅) and weight 7, visualized as a tray with 6 boxes removed (the minimal configuration has weight 1 as measured by the vertex operators). Definition 5.2. Let λ and µ be partitions. An reverse plane partition with shape (λ, µ,∅) i…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 5.4
Figure 5.4. Figure 5.4: Three steps of the inductive portion of the proof of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]
Figure 5.5
Figure 5.5. Figure 5.5: An SPP of shape ((2, 2), (3, 1),∅) and weight 16. Since the only difference between this vertex operator product and Equation (2) is that it contains ⟨µ∣ and ∣λ⟩ instead of ⟨∅∣ and ∣∅⟩, these commutations produce a factor of M(q). We now “palindromically” commute the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]
Figure 5.6
Figure 5.6. Figure 5.6: Iteratively toggling the diagonals of a two-leg SPP. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5_6.png]
Figure 5.7
Figure 5.7. Figure 5.7: The limiting diagram after toggling the SPP in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5_7.png]
Figure 5.8
Figure 5.8. Figure 5.8: Commuting the operator Γ− (q 1/2 ) past every other Γ− has the effect of toggling every diagonal on the right side of the diagram, with the exception of the topmost and bottommost. 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5_8.png]
Figure 5.9
Figure 5.9. Figure 5.9: The result of palindromically commuting the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5_9.png]
Figure 5.10
Figure 5.10. Figure 5.10: The two-leg RPP ρ (left; after transposing) and the plane partition π (right; after untoggling) corresponding to the SPP σ from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5_10.png]
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.1. Figure 6.1: A three-leg SPP of shape ((2, 1, 1), (3, 2), (4, 2, 1)) and weight 17 2 , visualized as a grid of numbers (left) and a stack of 25 weight-contributing boxes (right; the minimal configuration has weight − 33 2 ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_6_1.png]
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.2. Figure 6.2: A plane partition with walls shown (left), each rhombus painted with a dimer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_6_2.png]
Figure 6.3
Figure 6.3. Figure 6.3: The minimal configuration for an RPP of shape [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_6_3.png]
Figure 6.4
Figure 6.4. Figure 6.4: By drawing dimers on the faces of the objects in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_6_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

6 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Theory and Application of Plane Partitions. Part 2

    [Sta71] Richard P. Stanley. “Theory and Application of Plane Partitions. Part 2”. In:Studies in Applied Mathematics 50 (1971), pp. 259–279. url: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 126649639. [HG76] A. P. Hillman and R. M. Grassl. “Reverse Plane Partitions and Tableau Hook Numbers”. In:J. Comb. Theory A21 (1976), pp. 216–221.url: https://api.semanti...

    work page 1971

  2. [1990]

    Proofs and Confirmations: The Story of the Alternating-Sign Matrix Con- jecture

    [Bre99] David M. Bressoud. “Proofs and Confirmations: The Story of the Alternating-Sign Matrix Con- jecture”. In: 1999.url: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:51454856. [Oko00] Andrei Okounkov. Infinite wedge and random partitions

    work page 1999

  3. [2000]

    Correlation function of Schur process with applica- tion to local geometry of a random 3-dimensional Young diagram

    arXiv:math/9907127 [math.RT]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9907127. [OR01] Andrei Okounkov and Nikolai Reshetikhin. “Correlation function of Schur process with applica- tion to local geometry of a random 3-dimensional Young diagram”. In:Journal of the American Mathematical Society 16 (2001), pp. 581–603. url: https : / / api . semanticscholar . org / C...

    arXiv 2001

  4. [2011]

    From Aztec diamonds to pyramids: steep tilings

    url: https : / / api . semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:198489053. 30 [BCC14] Jérémie Bouttier, Guillaume Chapuy, and Sylvie Corteel. “From Aztec diamonds to pyramids: steep tilings”. In: arXiv: Combinatorics (2014). url: https : / / api . semanticscholar . org / CorpusID:119164929. [Hop14] Samuel Hopkins. RSK via local transformations. https://www.samuelfhop...

    work page 2014

  5. [2014]

    Dimers on Rail Yard Graphs

    [Bou+15] Cédric Boutillier et al. “Dimers on Rail Yard Graphs”. In:arXiv: Mathematical Physics(2015). url: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:54520004. [Sul17] Robin Sulzgruber. “Inserting rim-hooks into reverse plane partitions”. In: Journal of Combina- torics (2017). url: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:119621454. [Jen19] Helen Jenne. “Co...

    work page 2015

  6. [2022]

    Double-dimer condensation and the PT-DT correspondence

    arXiv: 2109.11773 [math.CO] . url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2109. 11773. [Sta23] Richard Stanley. Enumerative Combinatorics. Vol

    work page Pith review arXiv

Pith tools

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