Irreducible components of two-column $\Delta$-Springer fibers

Joshua P. Connor; Kavish A. Purohit; Sean T. Griffin

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 17 references

Irreducible components of two-column $\Delta$-Springer fibers

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 irreducible components of the two-column Delta-Springer fiber are all smooth, and every intersection of components is an iterated Grassmannian bundle.

desk verdict Solid paper on two-column Delta-Springer fibers; main theorems hold up, but Proposition 3.2's intersection dimension is off by one and needs correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17222 v1 pith:PE2HVN62 submitted 2024-11-26 math.CO math.AG

Joshua P. Connor , Sean T. Griffin , Kavish A. Purohit This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.COmath.AG MSC 14M1505E0514N15

keywords Delta-SpringerfibersSpringerirreduciblecomponentsGrassmannianbundlessingularcohomologyDyckpathsHessenbergvarietiesflag

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 studies the $\Delta$-Springer fibers $Y_{n,n-1}=Y_{n,(1^{n-1}),n-1}$, which generalize Springer fibers and give a geometric realization of the $\Delta$ Conjecture at $t=0$. The authors prove that every irreducible component of these fibers is smooth, and that every nonempty intersection of components is also smooth and has the structure of an iterated Grassmannian bundle. They also give an explicit presentation of the integral cohomology ring of each component and a Dyck-path formula for the Poincare polynomials of arbitrary unions of intersections of components. This matters because it converts a generally singular, combinatorially complex object into one whose local geometry and topology are completely visible.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the equality $K_i=Z_i$, obtained by matching the dimension supplied by the affine paving of $Y_{n,(1^{n-1}),s}$ with a direct construction of $Z_i$ as a tower of Grassmannian bundles. A flag in $Z_i$ is built in four steps: choose $V_{i-1}$ inside $im(x)$ as a point of $Gr(i-1,n-1)$; choose a complete flag inside $V_{i-1}$; choose $V_n$ as a projective point of $\mathbb{P}(x^{-1}V_{i-1}/im(x))$; and fill in the remaining flag steps inside $V_n/V_{i-1}$. Because each step is a Grassmannian bundle over the previous one, the resulting component is smooth and its cohomology can be read off inductively, and the same four-step description makes intersections of components behave like two-endpoint intersections.

What would settle it

For a small case such as $n=4$, compute both sides of $K_i=Z_i$ as subsets of the partial flag variety, for example by checking the permutation flags each contains, and compare their dimensions; alternatively, compare the Hilbert series of the presented quotient ring $\mathbb{Z}[x_1,\dots,x_n]/I_n^i$ with the Poincar\'e polynomial of $K_i$ obtained from the bundle description, since any disagreement would disprove Theorem 5.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proves that for $2\le i\le n$ (or $1\le i\le n$ when $s>n-1$), the $i$-th irreducible component $K_i$ of $Y_{n,(1^{n-1}),s}$ equals the closed subvariety $Z_i=\{V_\bullet\in Fl(1^n,s-1)\mid V_{i-1}\subseteq im(x)\subseteq V_n\subseteq x^{-1}V_{i-1}\}$. It then shows that $Z_i$ is an iterated Grassmannian bundle of type $Gr(i-1,n-1)$, $Fl(1^{i-1})$, $\mathbb{P}^{s+i-n-1}$, and $Fl(1^{n-i+1})$; hence it is smooth and irreducible of dimension $\binom{n-1}{2}+(s-1)$. A nonempty intersection of components $K_{b_1},\ldots,K_{b_m}$ collapses to $K_{b_1,b_m}$ with the same bundle structure. For $s=n-1$, the integral cohomology of $K_i$ is presented as $\mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ modulo the ideal generated by $e_2(x_1,\ldots,x_n),\ldots,e_n(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$, by $h_j(x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1})$ for $j\ge n+1-i$, and by $h_j(x_i,\ldots,x_n)$ for $j\ge i-1$.

Load-bearing premise

The paper relies as a black box on the affine paving of $Y_{n,(1^{n-1}),s}$ from prior work and the claim that the closures of its cells are exactly the irreducible components with the stated dimension; if that cell decomposition were wrong, the matching-dimension proof of $K_i=Z_i$ would have no foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every irreducible component of $Y_{n,n-1}$, and every nonempty intersection of components, is smooth.
An intersection $K_{b_1}\cap\cdots\cap K_{b_m}$ equals $K_{b_1,b_m}$, so the topology of any finite union of components is governed by pairs of indices.
The cohomology ring $H^*(K_i)$ has an explicit quotient presentation, with total rank $(i-1)(n-i+1)(n-1)!$.
The Poincare polynomial of any union of component intersections is $[n-1]_q!$ times a sum of $q^{a(c)+\ell(c)}$ over cells above a Dyck path, so it is determined by arm and leg statistics.
For $s>n-1$, the same component description holds with $n$ components, and the poset of intersections is the type $A_n$ root lattice.

Reading between the lines

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

In our reading, the containment description $V_{i-1}\subseteq im(x)\subseteq V_n\subseteq x^{-1}V_{i-1}$ may extend to other two-column shapes, where the smooth components are plausibly exactly those that admit a similar iterated bundle.
The presentation of $H^*(K_i)$ matches ordered-set-partition algebras that appear in the Delta Conjecture, so tracing the isomorphism may connect component topology to that conjecture's $t=0$ combinatorics.
A natural next step is to compute the equivariant cohomology with respect to the circle action, which the paper lists as an open problem; a closed-form answer would refine the Dyck-path statistics.

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

The paper gives a clean description of the irreducible components of the two-column Delta-Springer fiber Y_{n,n-1} and their intersections. The main results are new and mostly well-proven: each component K_i is shown to be an iterated Grassmannian bundle (Theorem 3.1), the bundle type is explicit (Theorem 3.2), the Poincaré polynomial of any union of intersections has a Dyck-path formula (Theorem 4.1), and the cohomology ring of each component has a concrete presentation (Theorem 5.1). The identification K_i = Z_i is carefully argued via matrix coordinates and dimension counts, and the use of the affine paving from [9] as a black box is reasonable; it is a published result, and the paper does not need to re-derive it.

The main problem is Proposition 3.2. The stated dimension of an arbitrary intersection is wrong by exactly one. The paper claims dim K_{b_1,...,b_m} = binom(n-1,2) + s - (b_m - b_1), but the displayed sum of fiber dimensions simplifies to binom(n-1,2) + s + b_1 - b_m - 1. For a concrete example, take n=4, s=3, b_1=2, b_m=4: the bundle type is Gr(3,3) × Fl(1^3) × P^0 × Fl(1^1), so the dimension is 3, not 4. This is not a cosmetic slip; the proposition describes all intersections of irreducible components, and a reader using the closed form will be misled. That said, the iterated Grassmannian bundle description itself is correct, and the later cohomology and Poincaré polynomial results do not rely on this erroneous simplification, so the main contributions survive.

There are a few minor blemishes: the abstract has an obvious typo (“the of the Delta Conjecture”), and the matrix verification in Proposition 3.1 is terse enough that I had to fill in steps myself. Neither affects the mathematics.

For anyone working on Springer fibers, Hessenberg varieties, or the geometry behind the Delta Conjecture, this is a useful and citable paper. It deserves a serious referee, and should be accepted after the dimension formula in Proposition 3.2 is corrected. I would bring it to a reading group only if the group has specific interest in this area; otherwise it is a solid but specialized contribution.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Delta-Springer fibers Y_{n,n-1}=Y_{n,(1^{n-1}),n-1} and the family Y_{n,(1^{n-1}),s} for s>=n-1. It proves that every irreducible component K_i is equal to an explicit closed subvariety Z_i described by two containments involving im(x) and x^{-1}V_{i-1}, and that Z_i is an iterated Grassmannian bundle. It further shows that every nonempty intersection of irreducible components is again an iterated Grassmannian bundle and hence smooth. The paper then gives a presentation of the integral singular cohomology ring of each component as Z[x_1,...,x_n]/I_n^i, and a combinatorial formula for the Poincaré polynomial of any union of component intersections in terms of arm and leg statistics on Dyck paths. The main structural arguments are the inclusion K_i subset of Z_i, checked by explicit matrix coordinates, a dimension count closing the inclusion, and a cohomological rank argument using Rhoades' independent basis theorem.

Significance. If the results stand, the paper provides a complete geometric description of all irreducible components and their intersections in this two-column Delta-Springer family: smoothness, concrete Grassmannian-bundle structure, cohomology presentation, and Poincaré polynomials. A particular strength is that the identification K_i=Z_i is verified by elementary matrix coordinates rather than by abstract intersection theory, making the proof transparent. The cohomology presentation is elegant and ties the geometry to Rhoades' ordered set partition basis. The Dyck path formula for unions of intersections is a distinctive and falsifiable combinatorial output. The main theorems are likely to be useful for further work on Delta-Springer varieties. However, as detailed below, the dimension formula in Proposition 3.2 is incorrect, and a proof equation in Lemma 5.1 needs correction; both are local and fixable.

major comments (2)

[Section 3.3, Proposition 3.2] The stated dimension of K_{b1,...,bm}=K_{b1,bm} is incorrect. The displayed sum of fiber dimensions is (bm-1)(n-bm) + C(bm-1,2) + (s+b1-n-1) + C(n-bm+1,2), which simplifies to C(n-1,2) + s - (bm-b1) - 1, not C(n-1,2) + s - (bm-b1). For a concrete instance, take n=4, s=3, b1=2, bm=4: the bundle type Gr(3,3) x Fl(1^3) x P^0 x Fl(1^1) has dimension 3, while the stated formula gives 3+3-(4-2)=4. This is inconsistent with Proposition 4.1, whose Poincaré polynomial for K_{2,4} has maximal q-degree 3. The bundle description and all subsequent results appear unaffected, but Proposition 3.2 as stated is false and must be corrected.
[Section 5, Lemma 5.1] The proof of the surjectivity lemma contains an incorrect identity. The equation 'h_j(x_1,...,x_i) = s_j(E_{i-1})' is wrong in two respects: the Chern roots of E_{i-1} are x_1,...,x_{i-1}, not x_1,...,x_i, and the Segre class is s_j(E_{i-1}) = (-1)^j h_j(x_1,...,x_{i-1}). The intended argument should read h_j(x_1,...,x_{i-1}) = (-1)^j c_j(ker(x)/E_{i-1}) = 0 for j > n-i, which gives exactly the generators h_j(x_1,...,x_{i-1}) for j >= n+1-i stated in Theorem 5.1. As written, the proof does not establish the vanishing of the ideal generators appearing in the theorem. This is a local fix, but it is necessary for the proof of Theorem 5.1 to be rigorous.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] The phrase 'geometric interpretation of the of the Delta Conjecture' contains a duplicated 'the' and should be corrected.
[Remark 3.3] The definition of the positive roots is misstated: the type A_{n-1} positive roots are alpha_{i,j} = e_i - e_j with i<j, not alpha_{i,j}=e_i-e_{i+1}. As written, the displayed formula does not depend on j.
[Section 2.7] In the bulleted list of Chern class properties, the statement 'If E ~= C^d, the trivial bundle of rank r' uses both d and r for the same rank; this should be unified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the component identification is proved from an external affine-paving theorem and explicit incidence conditions; the self-citation to [9] is parameter-free evidence, not a circular input.

full rationale

The central theorem (Thm 3.1) proves K_i = Z_i by (i) showing K_i ⊆ Z_i using explicit matrix representatives of the Schubert cell C_T (Prop 3.1), and (ii) matching dimensions: dim Z_i from the iterated Grassmannian bundle computation (Lemma 3.1) and dim K_i from the affine paving theorem [9, Thm 2.1]. Neither side of the equality is defined in terms of the other; Z_i is an incidence variety and K_i is a cell closure supplied by [9]. The [9] input is a parameter-free construction of cells C_T = X_w^o ∩ Y_{n,(1^{n-1}),s} with an explicit dimension formula; it does not assume the target statement K_i = Z_i, so citing it, even with overlapping authorship, is independent evidence rather than circular self-citation. The cohomology presentation (Thm 5.1) is also non-circular: Lemma 5.1 builds a surjection Z[x_1,...,x_n]/I_n^i → H*(K_i) from Chern class identities, and Lemma 5.2 matches ranks using the external basis theorem of Rhoades [14] and the independently computed Poincaré polynomial from the bundle structure. The Poincaré polynomial and union formulas (Thm 4.1) follow from the iterated-bundle description plus standard vector-bundle and Leray-Hirsch facts. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported to force the authors' choice. Separately, the closed-form dimension in Prop. 3.2 appears off by one: the displayed sum simplifies to C(n-1,2)+s+b1-bm-1, not C(n-1,2)+s-(bm-b1). This is a correctness issue, not a circularity, and later arguments use the bundle type rather than that erroneous simplification.

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

The central claim rests on the cell decomposition of Delta-Springer fibers from [9], on Rhoades' basis theorem, and on standard algebraic geometry. These are external results, not derived in the paper. There are no free parameters and no invented entities; the only self-citation ([9]) is to a published construction that does not contain the paper's conclusions.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption C_T = X^o_w intersect Y_{n,(1^{n-1}),s} form an affine paving of Y_{n,(1^{n-1}),s}, and K_T = closure(C_T) are exactly its irreducible components (Theorem 2.1 of [9]).
Load-bearing: Theorem 3.1 identifies K_i with Z_i using the dimension of Y_{n,(1^{n-1}),s} and the fact that components are these cell closures, both taken from [9]. This theorem is external to the paper and is authored partly by the second author, but it is a published, checkable construction.
standard math Standard Chern-Segre class calculus, Borel-Moore homology, and Poincare polynomial multiplicativity for iterated Grassmannian bundles.
Used throughout Sections 2.6, 2.7, and 4 to compute P(K_i) and to convert vector bundle statements into the quotient ring presentation; classical results from Fulton [3,4].
domain assumption Rhoades [14, Lemma 5.3]: the quotient ring Z[x_1,...,x_n]/I_n^i is free with basis indexed by OP_{(i-1,n+1-i),n-1}.
This is the external rank count used in Lemma 5.2 to prove the cohomology presentation is an isomorphism. The paper only counts the basis elements; it does not rederive the basis.
domain assumption The definition of the nilpotent operator x and the family Y_{n,(1^{n-1}),s} from [9].
All computations of im(x), ker(x), and the flag type come from this definition; the paper's results are about this specific family.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Irreducible components of two-column $\Delta$-Springer fibers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PE2HVN62

@misc{pith2026241117222,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Irreducible components of two-column $\Delta$-Springer fibers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PE2HVN62}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17222}
}

abstract

The $\Delta$-Springer fibers $Y_{n,\lambda,s}$, introduced by Levinson, Woo, and the second author, generalize Springer fibers for $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{C})$ and give a geometric interpretation of the of the Delta Conjecture from algebraic combinatorics (at $t=0$). We prove that all irreducible components of the $\Delta$-Springer fiber $Y_{n,n-1}=Y_{n,(1^{n-1}),n-1}$ are smooth. In fact, we prove that any intersection of irreducible components of $Y_{n,n-1}$ is a smooth Hessenberg variety which has the structure of an iterated Grassmannian fiber bundle. We then give a presentation of the singular cohomology ring of each irreducible component of $Y_{n,n-1}$ and a combinatorial formula for the Poincar\'e polynomial of an arbitrary union of intersections of irreducible components in terms of arm and leg statistics on Dyck paths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17222 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** An illustration of the nilpotent x which sends the vector ei to the vector in the cell to its left if it exists, or otherwise to 0. three irreducible components correspond, respectively, to the partial permutations 3216, 3261, and 3621. Note that our tableau are vertically flipped from the ones in [9], since we have flipped the diagram describing the nilpotent matrix x in order for the irreducible components to be d… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The partial row-increasing fillings corresponding to the permutation flags in the irreducible component K3 of Y4,3 = Y4,(13),3. 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The partial row-increasing fillings corresponding to permutation flags in the irreducible component K2 of Y3,(12),3. Proposition 3.2. Let b1 < b2 < · · · < bm ≤ n. Then Kb1 ∩ · · · ∩ Kbm = Kb1,bm, which is an iterated Grassmannian bundle of type Gr(bm−1, n−1), Fl(1bm−1 ), P s+b1−n−1 , Fl(1n−bm+1), which is of dimension n−1 2 + s − (bm − b1). Proof. The first claim follows from 9. The description as an iterated Gra… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: On the left, the Dyck path corresponding to K23 ∪ K44. On the right, the corresponding q power contributions of the cells above the path to the Poincar´e polynomial. Remark 4.1. The reasoning for this unconventional labeling with i+ 1 instead of i is to match the index…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[9]

Springer fibers and the Delta Conjecture at t = 0

Sean T. Griffin, Jake Levinson, and Alexander Woo. “Springer fibers and the Delta Conjecture at t = 0”. English. In: Adv. Math. 439 (2024). Id/No 109491, p. 53. doi: 10.1016/j.aim. 2024.109491

arXiv 2024
[1]

Singular components of Springer fibers in the two-column case

Lucas Fresse. “Singular components of Springer fibers in the two-column case”. English. In: Ann. Inst. Fourier 59.6 (2009), pp. 2429–2444. doi: 10.5802/aif.2495

work page doi:10.5802/aif.2495 2009
[2]

On the singularity of the irreducible components of a Springer fiber in sln

Lucas Fresse and Anna Melnikov. “On the singularity of the irreducible components of a Springer fiber in sln”. In: Selecta Math. (N.S.) 16.3 (2010), pp. 393–418. doi: 10 . 1007 / s00029-010-0025-z

work page 2010
[3]

Intersection theory

William Fulton. Intersection theory. English. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Ergeb. Math. Grenzgeb., 3. Folge. Berlin: Springer, 1998

work page 1998
[4]

Young tableaux

William Fulton. Young tableaux. With applications to representation theory and geometry . English. Vol. 35. Lond. Math. Soc. Stud. Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997

1997
[5]

On the topology of components of some Springer fibers and their relation to Kazhdan-Lusztig theory

Francis Y. C. Fung. “On the topology of components of some Springer fibers and their relation to Kazhdan-Lusztig theory.” English. In:Adv. Math. 178.2 (2003), pp. 244–276. doi: 10.1016/ S0001-8708(02)00072-5 . REFERENCES 19

work page 2003
[6]

Maria Gillespie, Eugene Gorsky, and Sean T. Griffin. A geometric interpretation for the Delta Conjecture. Forthcoming. 2024

work page 2024
[7]

Cocharge and skewing formulas for ∆-Springer modules and the Delta conjecture

Maria Gillespie and Sean T. Griffin. “Cocharge and skewing formulas for ∆-Springer modules and the Delta conjecture”. English. In: Int. Math. Res. Not. 2024.14 (2024), pp. 10895–10917. doi: 10.1093/imrn/rnae090

work page doi:10.1093/imrn/rnae090 2024

Show all 17 references

[8]

∆-Springer varieties and Hall-Littlewood polynomials

Sean T. Griffin. “∆-Springer varieties and Hall-Littlewood polynomials”. English. In: Forum Math. Sigma 12 (2024). Id/No e19, p. 23. doi: 10.1017/fms.2024.1

2024 doi
[10]

The Delta Conjecture

James Haglund, Jeff Remmel, and Andy Wilson. “The Delta Conjecture”. In: Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 370.6 (2018), pp. 4029–4057

2018
[11]

Ordered set partitions, generalized coinvariant algebras, and the Delta Conjecture

James Haglund, Brendon Rhoades, and Mark Shimozono. “Ordered set partitions, generalized coinvariant algebras, and the Delta Conjecture”. In: Adv. Math. 329 (2018), pp. 851–915. doi: 10.1016/j.aim.2018.01.028

2018 doi
[12]

An exotic Springer correspondence for symplectic groups

Syu Kato. An exotic Springer correspondence for symplectic groups. Preprint, arXiv:math/0607478 [math.RT] (2006). 2006. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0607478

2006 arXiv
[13]

Two-row Delta Springer varieties

Abel Lacabanne, Pedro Vaz, and Arik Wilbert. Two-row Delta Springer varieties. 2024. arXiv: 2407.10792 [math.RT]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.10792

2024 arXiv
[14]

Spanning subspace configurations

Brendon Rhoades. “Spanning subspace configurations”. English. In: Sel. Math., New Ser. 27.1 (2021). Id/No 8, p. 37. doi: 10.1007/s00029-021-00617-6

2021 doi
[15]

The fixed point set of a unipotent transformation on the flag manifold

N. Spaltenstein. “The fixed point set of a unipotent transformation on the flag manifold”. In: Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. Ser. A, 79 Indag. Math. 38.5 (1976), pp. 452–456

1976
[16]

A construction of representations of Weyl groups

T. A. Springer. “A construction of representations of Weyl groups”. In: Invent. Math. 44.3 (1978), pp. 279–293. doi: 10.1007/BF01403165

1978 doi
[17]

Trigonometric sums, Green functions of finite groups and representations of Weyl groups

T. A. Springer. “Trigonometric sums, Green functions of finite groups and representations of Weyl groups”. In: Invent. Math. (1976), pp. 173–207. doi: 10.1007/BF01390009. UC Davis Library, University of California Davis, 100 NW Quad, Davis CA 95616, USA Email address: jconnor@...

1976 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [9]

Springer fibers and the Delta Conjecture at t = 0

Sean T. Griffin, Jake Levinson, and Alexander Woo. “Springer fibers and the Delta Conjecture at t = 0”. English. In: Adv. Math. 439 (2024). Id/No 109491, p. 53. doi: 10.1016/j.aim. 2024.109491

arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

Singular components of Springer fibers in the two-column case

Lucas Fresse. “Singular components of Springer fibers in the two-column case”. English. In: Ann. Inst. Fourier 59.6 (2009), pp. 2429–2444. doi: 10.5802/aif.2495

work page doi:10.5802/aif.2495 2009

[3] [2]

On the singularity of the irreducible components of a Springer fiber in sln

Lucas Fresse and Anna Melnikov. “On the singularity of the irreducible components of a Springer fiber in sln”. In: Selecta Math. (N.S.) 16.3 (2010), pp. 393–418. doi: 10 . 1007 / s00029-010-0025-z

work page 2010

[4] [3]

Intersection theory

William Fulton. Intersection theory. English. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Ergeb. Math. Grenzgeb., 3. Folge. Berlin: Springer, 1998

work page 1998

[5] [4]

Young tableaux

William Fulton. Young tableaux. With applications to representation theory and geometry . English. Vol. 35. Lond. Math. Soc. Stud. Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997

1997

[6] [5]

On the topology of components of some Springer fibers and their relation to Kazhdan-Lusztig theory

Francis Y. C. Fung. “On the topology of components of some Springer fibers and their relation to Kazhdan-Lusztig theory.” English. In:Adv. Math. 178.2 (2003), pp. 244–276. doi: 10.1016/ S0001-8708(02)00072-5 . REFERENCES 19

work page 2003

[7] [6]

Maria Gillespie, Eugene Gorsky, and Sean T. Griffin. A geometric interpretation for the Delta Conjecture. Forthcoming. 2024

work page 2024

[8] [7]

Cocharge and skewing formulas for ∆-Springer modules and the Delta conjecture

Maria Gillespie and Sean T. Griffin. “Cocharge and skewing formulas for ∆-Springer modules and the Delta conjecture”. English. In: Int. Math. Res. Not. 2024.14 (2024), pp. 10895–10917. doi: 10.1093/imrn/rnae090

work page doi:10.1093/imrn/rnae090 2024