Compatibility axioms for left-regular bands to construct Hopf algebras

Lingxiao Hao; Shenglin Zhu

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 22 references

Compatibility axioms for left-regular bands to construct Hopf algebras

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 Two compatibility axioms lift the LRB diagram to Hopf algebras.

desk verdict Solid axiomatic answer to an open question in Aguiar-Mahajan's LRB Hopf algebra framework, but the key bijection lemma has a repairable yet load-bearing gap in its surjectivity proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12204 v1 pith:UV7NNMUP submitted 2024-11-19 math.CO

Lingxiao Hao , Shenglin Zhu This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.CO MSC 16T0520M10

keywords left-regularbandHopfalgebraCoxetergroupcompatibilityaxiomsbialgebrasetcompositionsconnectedgraded

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 answers an open question from a standard monograph on Coxeter groups and Hopf algebras: can compatibility axioms be added so that, whenever a family of left-regular bands satisfies the monograph's coalgebra and algebra axioms, the resulting diagram of spaces is a diagram of Hopf algebras? The authors propose two axioms, (B1) and (B2), and prove that together with the earlier axioms they force the six central spaces P, M, Q, N, S, R to be connected graded bialgebras; since connected graded bialgebras automatically have antipodes, all ten spaces in Diagram 2 become Hopf algebras and every map between them commutes with antipodes. The axioms are then verified for the leading example, set compositions, so the construction specializes to a diagram containing the Hopf algebra of permutations and the classical symmetric-function Hopf algebras.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the set $T^n$ of degree-one face isomorphisms of $\Sigma^n$: the maps $b_K$ coming from rank-one faces $K$, together with the two boundary maps $b_n$ and $B_n$. Axiom (B1) supplies a bijection $g_{n,m}:T^n\times T^m\to T^{n+m}$; for $f,f'$ with images split as $n_1+n_2$ and $m_1+m_2$, the unique $f''=g_{n,m}(f,f')$ must have image $\Sigma^{n_1+m_1}\times\Sigma^{n_2+m_2}$ and vertex $G K_{f''}=j_G(K_f\times K_{f'})$. Axiom (B2) forces $f''$ to intertwine the algebra maps $j_G$ with the twisted product of $\hat f$ and $\hat f'$: $\hat f''\circ j_G = (j_{G_1}\times j_{G_2})\circ(\mathrm{id}\times\tau\times\mathrm{id})\circ(\hat f\times\hat f')$. Together these axioms make Lemma 4.4's bijection hold, and that bijection equates the two sides of the bialgebra compatibility identity $\Delta(a*b)=\Delta(a)*\Delta(b)$ for every one of the six spaces.

What would settle it

Take any family of left-regular bands satisfying (C1)–(CP) and (A1)–(AP), and enumerate all pairs $(f,f')$ with $f\in T^n_F$, $f'\in T^m_{F'}$ for fixed $F,F'$. If two distinct pairs produce the same $f''$ under the candidate map, or if no $f''$ satisfies both the image condition and $G K_{f''}=j_G(K_f\times K_{f'})$, then the claimed bijection in Axiom (B1) fails; computing $\Delta(M_F*M_{F'})$ and $\Delta(M_F)*\Delta(M_{F'})$ in such a case would expose a mismatch that refutes Theorem 4.1 and hence Theorem 4.6.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 4.6: if a family of left-regular bands (semigroups with $x^2=x$ and $xyx=xy$) satisfies the coalgebra axioms (C1)–(CP), the algebra axioms (A1)–(AP), and the new compatibility axioms (B1)–(B2), then Diagram 2 is a diagram of Hopf algebras. The proof reduces the task to showing that each of the six algebras and coalgebras $P,M,Q,N,S,R$ is a bialgebra: a standard theorem on connected graded bialgebras then supplies antipodes, and bialgebra maps between Hopf algebras automatically respect them. The hard part is the compatibility of product and coproduct in each of the six cases, and all six verifications pass through Lemma 4.4, a bijection between pairs $(f,f',\tilde F_1,\tilde F_2)$ of compatible face-map data and pairs $(\tilde F,f'')$ of summed face data. Lemma 4.4 is where the two new axioms do their work.

Load-bearing premise

The construction depends on Axiom (B1) guaranteeing a unique combined face map $f''$ for every pair of degree-one maps; if some family satisfying the earlier axioms has no such unique $f''$, Lemma 4.4 fails and Theorems 4.1–4.5 collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any family of left-regular bands satisfying the C, A, and B axioms automatically gives ten Hopf algebras, with no separate construction of antipodes needed.
The leading example, set compositions, satisfies both new axioms, so the general theorem recovers a diagram whose vertices include the Hopf algebra on permutations and the classical symmetric-function Hopf algebras.
The axioms answer the open question in the affirmative: the known coalgebra and algebra axioms are sufficient once the two compatibility axioms are added.
Because the verification is uniform, each new example of a family satisfying the axioms yields six new Hopf algebras plus four derived quotient and subalgebra Hopf algebras in one stroke.

Reading between the lines

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

[Editorial inference] Beyond the paper, the two axioms look like they could be necessary as well as sufficient: one can try to derive (B1) and (B2) from the requirement that $P$ and $M$ be bialgebras, which would turn the open question into a characterization of all compatible LRB families.
[Editorial inference] The bijection $g_{n,m}$ has the flavor of a shuffle product of face maps; in other Coxeter types it may correspond to parabolic subgroup decompositions, giving testable candidates for new families satisfying the axioms.
[Editorial inference] Since the proof only uses connectedness and grading, any concrete family satisfying the axioms comes with an explicit recursive formula for its antipode; extracting that formula for set compositions could connect to known descent-algebra antipodes.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper adds two compatibility axioms (B1) and (B2) to the Aguiar-Mahajan coalgebra and algebra axioms for left-regular bands, and proves that if a family satisfies all of them, then Diagram 2 becomes a diagram of Hopf algebras. That answers an open question in [1, Section 6.1]. It also shows the set-composition example satisfies the new axioms, so the axioms are not vacuous. That's a genuine contribution, even though the Hopf algebras themselves are known; the novelty is the axiomatic bridge, not the destination.

The main proof is a structured reduction: Lemma 4.2 says it suffices to make P, M, Q, N, S, R bialgebras, and Theorems 4.1-4.5 each reduce to Lemma 4.4. The strategy is sound and most calculations are explicit.

Now the soft spots. The most important one is in the surjectivity half of Lemma 4.4. The paper takes (F~, f'') in R, sets f''(F~) = F~1 × F~2, and lets (f,f') = g^{-1}_{n,m}(f''). It then writes f(F) = F1 × F2 and f'(F') = F'_1 × F'_2. That presupposes Kf ≤ F and Kf' ≤ F', which is exactly what needs proving; otherwise f(F) and f'(F') are not defined. The paper never shows these inequalities. The omission is repairable — one can use axiom (B1) and the order-reflecting property of jG to derive Kf ≤ F and Kf' ≤ F' — but as written the proof of Lemma 4.4 is incomplete, and since Theorems 4.1-4.5 all depend on that lemma, the gap is load-bearing. The fix is not long, but it needs to be written down.

There are also smaller issues. In Lemma 4.2, the claim that ker(supp) is a biideal of M is asserted without proof; it is probably true, but it should be verified. Several typos: the last line of Theorem 4.7 says (B1) when it should say (B2); Theorem 4.1 accidentally writes M_{F_2,F_2} instead of M_{F'_2}; similar slips in Theorems 4.2 and 4.4. These are fixable.

The citation pattern is fine; the paper cites Aguiar-Mahajan and the relevant literature and does not overclaim novelty. The example is a useful sanity check. If I were refereeing, I would ask for the missing verification in Lemma 4.4, a cleaned-up proof of Lemma 4.2, and typo fixes. The central result is plausible and the approach is a reasonable answer to an open question; it deserves a serious referee.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces two compatibility axioms, (B1) and (B2), for a family {Σ_n}_{n≥0} of left-regular bands that already satisfies Aguiar and Mahajan's coalgebra axioms (C1)–(CP) and algebra axioms (A1)–(AP). The main result, Theorem 4.6, asserts that under these axioms Diagram 2 becomes a diagram of connected graded Hopf algebras. The proof strategy is to show that each of the six Hopf-algebra-building blocks P, M, Q, N, S, R is a bialgebra (Theorems 4.1–4.5), and then to invoke Lemma 4.2 to pass from bialgebras to Hopf algebras. The bialgebra proofs all reduce to a technical bijection, Lemma 4.4, between sets of decompositions; the lemma itself is proved by a long calculation using the new axioms together with (CP) and (AP). Section 4.5 verifies the compatibility axioms for the family of set compositions B_n, establishing that the axioms are consistent and that the classical diagram of symmetric functions, quasi-symmetric functions, and noncommutative symmetric functions is recovered.

Significance. If correct, the paper answers an open question explicitly posed by Aguiar and Mahajan in [1, Section 6.1] by giving sufficient compatibility axioms that upgrade their commutative diagram of algebras and coalgebras to a diagram of Hopf algebras. The argument is purely axiomatic and contains no fitted parameters or data; the proof is a derivation from the stated axioms, and the set-composition example shows the axioms are not vacuous. The paper is clearly organized and the reduction of the bialgebra verification to a single combinatorial bijection (Lemma 4.4) is a strength, as is the explicit construction of g_{n,m} in the example. The main theorem is plausible and, apart from the gaps detailed below, the derivation appears sound.

major comments (2)

[§4.4, Lemma 4.4, surjectivity half] In the surjectivity proof, after defining (f,f')=g_{n,m}^{-1}(f''), the argument writes f(F)=F1×F2 and f'(F')=F'_1×F'_2. This presupposes that f∈T^n_F and f'∈T^m_{F'}, i.e. that K_f≤F and K_{f'}≤F'. The paper never verifies these inequalities. Without them, the quantities F1,F2,F'_1,F'_2 are not defined and the displayed chain cannot be started. This is a load-bearing gap because Lemma 4.4 is the hinge for all of Theorems 4.1–4.5 and hence for Theorem 4.6. The gap is repairable: since (F~,f'')∈R, we have G F~=j_G(F×F'); by Axiom (B1), G K_{f''}=j_G(K_f×K_{f'}); and from f''∈T^{n+m}_{F~}, K_{f''}≤F~. In an LRB, left multiplication preserves the order x≤y (because z x z y = z x y = z y), so G K_{f''}≤G F~, hence j_G(K_f×K_{f'})≤j_G(F×F'). Since Axiom (A1) makes j_G a poset isomorphism, it is order-reflecting on its image, giving K_f×K_{f'}≤F×F', i.e. K_f≤F and K_{f'}≤F'. The authors should insert this argument explicitly before using f(F) and f'(F').
[§4.4, Theorem 4.5] The proof of Theorem 4.5 states that the coalgebra and algebra structures of S and R are combinations of those of P and M, and then proves the bialgebra property only for (S,△,∗). No verification is given for (R,△,∗). Since R is one of the six bialgebras whose compatibility is needed for Theorem 4.6, the absence of a proof for R is a gap. The argument for R is not literally identical to that for S because the roles of the two coordinates are swapped: the coproduct of R sums over f∈T^n_D with second-coordinate data, while the product uses the first coordinate to index the sum. The authors should either supply the proof for R or explicitly state a precise symmetry reduction (e.g. coordinate swap combined with the S proof) that covers it.

minor comments (6)

[§4.4, Theorem 4.2 proof] There are several typos in the displayed sums: 'HP2, HP, 2' should be 'HP2 ⊗ HP′2', and 'Pi:Gi~Pi=,i =1,2' is an incomplete condition; it should read 'P~i: GiP~i = jGi(Pi×P′i), i=1,2' or an equivalent expression.
[§4.4, Theorem 4.4 proof] In the line after the definition of the coproduct summand, 'ˆf′(P′) = P′1 × P′2' is written twice; the second occurrence should be 'ˆf′(C′) = C′1 × C′2'.
[§4.4, Theorem 4.5 proof] The final equality in the S proof contains a typo: '△(F(C,D)) ∗ △(M(F′,D′))' should read '△(F(C,D)) ∗ △(F(C′,D′))'.
[§4.4, Theorem 4.4 claim] The proof of the claim 'P Kf ≤ C, P′Kf′ ≤ C′ ⇔ jG(P×P′)Kf′′ ≤ jG(C×C′)' only proves the equality jG(P×P′)Kf′′ = jG((P Kf)×(P′Kf′)). The equivalence then follows from jG being a poset isomorphism, but this final step is not stated; it should be made explicit.
[§2, Lemma 4.2] The assertion that M,N,R,S,Q,P are connected graded bialgebras from Axioms (C1), (A1) and the definitions is made without justification. Since the user is invoking the standard theorem that a connected graded bialgebra is a Hopf algebra, a brief explanation of the grading (degree of a basis element is the index n of the component Σ_n) and connectedness (degree-zero part is spanned by ∅_0) would improve the exposition.
[Introduction and bibliography] The bibliography entry [1] spells the author name as 'Aguilar' instead of 'Aguiar'. In addition, the displayed diagram in the introduction contains garbled symbols such as 'n/greaterorequalslant0'; these should be typeset as n≥0.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper proves a sufficiency theorem from newly stated axioms.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (Theorem 4.6) is that any family of left-regular bands satisfying the coalgebra axioms (C1)-(CP), algebra axioms (A1)-(AP), and the new compatibility axioms (B1)-(B2) makes Diagram 2 a diagram of Hopf algebras. The compatibility axioms are introduced as hypotheses, not as a restatement of the conclusion. The proof establishes bialgebra compatibility for P, M, Q, N, R, and S using Lemma 4.4, and Lemma 4.4 is proved from the axioms rather than assumed. There are no fitted parameters, no data, and no quantity is renamed as a prediction. The paper relies on Aguiar and Mahajan [1] for the coalgebra and algebra axioms and for Theorem 3.1, but that is an external source and the authors do not cite themselves. The skeptical concern about Lemma 4.4's surjectivity proof is a potential correctness gap about verifying Kf <= F and Kf' <= F'; even if that verification were missing, the claim would not be circular, because the target result is not identical to an input by construction. The axioms are deliberately chosen to make the desired property hold, but proving sufficiency of chosen hypotheses is the normal structure of an axiomatic theorem, not circular reasoning.

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

All foundational axioms are inherited from [1]; the only new input is the pair of compatibility axioms (B1)-(B2), which are stated explicitly and used as hypotheses rather than as hidden assumptions.

assumptions (6)

standard math Hopf algebra and graded bialgebra standard facts, including existence of antipode for connected graded bialgebras (Takeuchi)
Used in Lemma 4.2 to conclude every connected graded bialgebra in the diagram is a Hopf algebra; this is standard background from [19,20].
domain assumption The family {Σ_n} consists of left-regular bands that are finite graded posets of rank max(n-1,0) with a unique minimum element
This is the setup in Section 3.1 borrowed from [1]; the poset and product structure on Σ_n is used throughout.
domain assumption The family satisfies Aguiar-Mahajan coalgebra axioms (C1)-(CP) and algebra axioms (A1)-(AP)
Needed for Theorem 3.1, which gives the diagram of algebras and coalgebras that the paper upgrades to Hopf algebras.
ad hoc to paper Axiom (B1): for all n,m there is a bijection g_{n,m}: T^n × T^m to T^{n+m} with the stated image and vertex properties
This is a new compatibility axiom introduced in Section 4.3; the proof of Lemma 4.4 and of the bialgebra theorems depends on it.
ad hoc to paper Axiom (B2): the map f'' = g_{n,m}(f,f') satisfies the naturality identity with the gluing maps j_G
This is the second new compatibility axiom, used in Lemma 4.4 and in Theorems 4.2-4.5 to match the coproduct of a product with the product of coproducts.
domain assumption The ground field k has characteristic 0
The paper states K is a field of characteristic 0 in Section 3.2; this is the setting where Aguiar-Mahajan's results and the classical Hopf algebras are formulated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Compatibility axioms for left-regular bands to construct Hopf algebras." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UV7NNMUP

@misc{pith2026241112204,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Compatibility axioms for left-regular bands to construct Hopf algebras},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UV7NNMUP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12204}
}

read the original abstract

Aguiar and Mahajan provided several coalgebra axioms and algebra axioms for a family of left-regular bands to construct a commutative diagram of algebras and coalgebras. In this paper, we will add compatibility axioms to make it a diagram of Hopf algebras.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

Aguilar, M., Mahajan, S.: Coxeter groups and Hopf algebras , Fields Institute Monographs, vol. 23. AMS, Providence, RI ( 2006). https://doi.org/10.1090/ﬁm/023

work page 2006
[2]

Bergeron, C

N. Bergeron, C. Hohlweg, M. Rosas, and M. Zabrocki. Grothendieck bialgebras, partition lattices, and symmetric functions in n oncommu- tative variables . Electron. J. Combin., 13(1):R75 (electronic), 2006. https://doi.org/10.37236/1101 20

work page doi:10.37236/1101 2006
[3]

Bergeron and M

N. Bergeron and M. Zabrocki, The Hopf algebras of symmetric functions and quasi-symmetric functions in non-commutativ e vari- ables are free and cofree , J. Algebra Appl., 8 (2009), pp. 581-600. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219498809003485

work page doi:10.1142/s0219498809003485 2009
[4]

Frédéric Chapoton, Alg˙ ebres de Hopf des permutah˙ edres, asso- ciah˙ edres et hypercubes , Adv. Math. 150 (2000), no. 2, 264-275. https://doi.org/10.1006/aima.1999.1868

arXiv 2000
[5]

Richard Ehrenborg, On posets and Hopf algebras , Adv. Math. 119 (1996), no. 1, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1006/aima.1996.0026

arXiv 1996
[6]

Gebhard and Bruce E

David D. Gebhard and Bruce E. Sagan, A chromatic symmetric function in noncommuting variables , J. Algebraic Combin. 13 (2001), no. 3, 227-255. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011258714032

doi:10.1023/a:1011258714032 2001
[7]

Louis-Pasteur Strasbourg, Stras bourg, 1976), Springer, Berlin, 1977, pp

Ladnor Geissinger, Hopf algebras of symmetric functions and class func- tions, Combinatoireet représentation du groupe symétrique (Act es Ta- ble Ronde C.N.R.S., Univ. Louis-Pasteur Strasbourg, Stras bourg, 1976), Springer, Berlin, 1977, pp. 168-181. Lecture Notes in Math. , Vol. 579. https://doi.org/10.1007/bfb0090017

work page doi:10.1007/bfb0090017 1976
[8]

Gelfand, Daniel Krob, Alain Lascoux, Bernard L eclerc, Vladimir S

Israel M. Gelfand, Daniel Krob, Alain Lascoux, Bernard L eclerc, Vladimir S. Retakh, and Jean-Yves Thibon, Noncommutative symmetric functions , Adv. Math. 112 (1995), no. 2, 218-348. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/9407124

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9407124 1995

Show all 22 references

[9]

Gessel, Multipartite P -partitions and inner products of skew Schur functions , Combinatorics and algebra (Boulder, Colo., 1983), Amer

Ira M. Gessel, Multipartite P -partitions and inner products of skew Schur functions , Combinatorics and algebra (Boulder, Colo., 1983), Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1984, pp. 289-317. https://doi.org/10.1090/conm/034/777705

1983 doi
[10]

thesis, Université de Marne-la-Vallée, 1999

Florent Hivert, Combinatoire des fonctions quasi-symétriques , Ph.D. thesis, Université de Marne-la-Vallée, 1999

1999
[11]

Fritz Klein-Barmen, Über eine weitere Verallgemeinerung des Verbandsbe- griﬀes , Math. Z. 46 (1940), 472-480. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf 01181452

1940 doi
[12]

Algebra 177 (1995), no

Claudia Malvenuto and Christophe Reutenauer, Duality between quasi- symmetric functions and the Solomon descent algebra , J. Algebra 177 (1995), no. 3, 967-982. https://doi.org/10.1006/jabr.19 95.1336

1995 doi
[13]

82, Publis hed for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington , DC, 1993

Susan Montgomery, Hopf algebras and their actions on rings , CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, vol. 82, Publis hed for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington , DC, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1090/cbms/082

1993 doi
[14]

Novelli and J.-Y

J.-C. Novelli and J.-Y. Thibon, Construction of dendriform tri- algebras, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 342 (2006), no. 6, 365-446. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.math/0510218

2006 doi arXiv
[15]

Palacios, M

P. Palacios, M. Ronco, Weak Bruhat order on the set of faces of the per- mutohedron and the associahedron , J. Algebra 299 (2) (2006) 648-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalgebra.2005.09.042 21

2006 doi
[16]

Frédéric Patras and Christophe Reutenauer, On descent algebras and twisted bialgebras , Mosc. Math. J. 4 (2004), no. 1, 199-216, 311. https://doi.org/10.17323/1609-4514-2004-4-1-199-216

2004 doi
[17]

Frédéric Patras and Manfred Schocker, Twisted descent algebras and the Solomon-Tits algebra , Adv. Math. 199 (2006), no. 1, 155-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2005.01.010

2006 doi
[18]

Maurice-Paul Schützenberger, Sur certains treillis gauches , C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 224 (1947), 776-778

1947
[19]

Sweedler, Hopf algebras, Mathematics Lecture Note Series, W

Moss E. Sweedler, Hopf algebras, Mathematics Lecture Note Series, W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York, 1969

1969
[20]

Mitsuhiro Takeuchi, Free Hopf algebras generated by coalgebras , J. Math. Soc. Japan 23 (1971), 561-582. https://doi.org/10.2969/j msj/02340561

1971
[21]

Rosas and Bruce E

Mercedes H. Rosas and Bruce E. Sagan, Symmetric functions in noncom- muting variables, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 358 (2006), no. 1, 215-232 (elec- tronic). https://doi.org/10.1090/s0002-9947-04-03623 -2

2006 doi
[22]

Wolf, Symmetric functions of non-commutative elements , Duke Math

Margarete C. Wolf, Symmetric functions of non-commutative elements , Duke Math. J. (1936), 626-637. https://doi.org/10.1215/s 0012-7094-36- 00253-3 22

1936 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Aguilar, M., Mahajan, S.: Coxeter groups and Hopf algebras , Fields Institute Monographs, vol. 23. AMS, Providence, RI ( 2006). https://doi.org/10.1090/ﬁm/023

work page 2006

[2] [2]

Bergeron, C

N. Bergeron, C. Hohlweg, M. Rosas, and M. Zabrocki. Grothendieck bialgebras, partition lattices, and symmetric functions in n oncommu- tative variables . Electron. J. Combin., 13(1):R75 (electronic), 2006. https://doi.org/10.37236/1101 20

work page doi:10.37236/1101 2006

[3] [3]

Bergeron and M

N. Bergeron and M. Zabrocki, The Hopf algebras of symmetric functions and quasi-symmetric functions in non-commutativ e vari- ables are free and cofree , J. Algebra Appl., 8 (2009), pp. 581-600. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219498809003485

work page doi:10.1142/s0219498809003485 2009

[4] [4]

Frédéric Chapoton, Alg˙ ebres de Hopf des permutah˙ edres, asso- ciah˙ edres et hypercubes , Adv. Math. 150 (2000), no. 2, 264-275. https://doi.org/10.1006/aima.1999.1868

arXiv 2000

[5] [5]

Richard Ehrenborg, On posets and Hopf algebras , Adv. Math. 119 (1996), no. 1, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1006/aima.1996.0026

arXiv 1996

[6] [6]

Gebhard and Bruce E

David D. Gebhard and Bruce E. Sagan, A chromatic symmetric function in noncommuting variables , J. Algebraic Combin. 13 (2001), no. 3, 227-255. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011258714032

doi:10.1023/a:1011258714032 2001

[7] [7]

Louis-Pasteur Strasbourg, Stras bourg, 1976), Springer, Berlin, 1977, pp

Ladnor Geissinger, Hopf algebras of symmetric functions and class func- tions, Combinatoireet représentation du groupe symétrique (Act es Ta- ble Ronde C.N.R.S., Univ. Louis-Pasteur Strasbourg, Stras bourg, 1976), Springer, Berlin, 1977, pp. 168-181. Lecture Notes in Math. , Vol. 579. https://doi.org/10.1007/bfb0090017

work page doi:10.1007/bfb0090017 1976

[8] [8]

Gelfand, Daniel Krob, Alain Lascoux, Bernard L eclerc, Vladimir S

Israel M. Gelfand, Daniel Krob, Alain Lascoux, Bernard L eclerc, Vladimir S. Retakh, and Jean-Yves Thibon, Noncommutative symmetric functions , Adv. Math. 112 (1995), no. 2, 218-348. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/9407124

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9407124 1995