Regular Hessenberg varieties for the minimal indecomposable Hessenberg space

Alexander Woo; Erik Insko; Martha Precup

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Regular Hessenberg varieties for the minimal indecomposable Hessenberg space

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 proves that the singular locus of the Peterson variety is a union of smaller Peterson varieties in all Lie types, and that every Hessenberg–Schubert cell closure is a regular Hessenberg variety in a Levi flag variety.

desk verdict Strong structural results, but the K-theory formulas are off by rational coefficients and the proof of the all-types Peterson singular locus misses type C2; both need fixing before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17487 v1 pith:7LMLWVCH submitted 2024-11-26 math.AG

Erik Insko , Martha Precup , Alexander Woo This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AG MSC 14M1514B05

keywords regularHessenbergvarietiesHessenberg–SchubertPetersonvarietysingularlocusflagWeylgrouptoricK-theory

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 regular Hessenberg varieties attached to the minimal indecomposable Hessenberg space, the smallest subspace choice that still keeps the geometry connected. It proves that the closure of every Hessenberg–Schubert cell is isomorphic to a regular Hessenberg variety in the flag variety of a Levi subgroup, giving a complete description of how the cells fit together. It then pins down singularities: the singular Weyl flags in any such variety are controlled by the Peterson variety of a Levi, and the full singular locus of the Peterson variety is a union of smaller Peterson varieties in all Lie types. A reader should care because the Peterson variety sits inside the quantum cohomology story of flag varieties, and knowing exactly where it is singular is the missing piece for many Schubert-type calculations.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the minimal indecomposable Hessenberg space H_∆ = b ⊕ ⊕_{α∈∆} g_{−α} together with the regular elements X_J = S_J + N_J indexed by subsets J of simple roots. The argument runs through the reduced decomposition w = τ_w y_Des(w), which sends the closure of a Hessenberg–Schubert cell into the flag variety of the Levi subgroup L_w, and through shifted patch ideals I_{w,J} whose generators are root-space projections; the Jacobian criterion on these local defining equations converts singularity into rank drop. The final classification rests on the root-theoretic sets W^* and $W^{{**}}$, defined by deleting certain simple-root subsets from the Weyl group, and on the type-by-type table of root posets used to verify Proposition 9.7.

What would settle it

In type D_n with n ≥ 4, set K = ∆ \ {α1} and compute the patch ideal of the Peterson variety at the Weyl flag y_K B. Theorem 9.2 predicts that every point of C_{y_K} ∩ P_∆ is singular, so the Jacobian matrix of the two generators singled out by Proposition 9.7 must drop rank at the origin; one full-rank matrix there would refute the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the affine-cell structure and singular geometry of Hess(X_J) reduce to smaller flag varieties. Theorem 4.6 identifies C_w ∩ Hess(X_J) with Hess_{L_w}(X_{J,w}) inside the flag variety of the Levi subgroup L_w determined by the descent set of w; consequently every Hessenberg–Schubert variety is itself a regular Hessenberg variety. Theorem 7.1 reduces singularity of the Weyl flag ẇB to a singularity question in the Peterson variety of a Levi subgroup, and Theorem 9.2 completes the Peterson picture: for a simple algebraic group, the singular locus of P_∆ is the union over w ∈ W^* of the Peterson–Schubert cells C_w ∩ P_∆, with W^* given by simple root data. In particular the singular locus of every Peterson variety is a union of smaller-dimensional Peterson varieties, and all regular Hess(X_J) outside the toric case are singular.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the type-by-type table in Figure 1, verified from the diagrams in [EHP14], really lists every subset K for which Φ^+ \ Φ^+_K is not a chain; if a case is missing, the announced set W^* omits a singular stratum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every Hessenberg–Schubert variety in Hess(X_J) is itself a regular Hessenberg variety in a smaller flag variety, so cell-closure inclusion relations are read off from descents and cosets w W_Des(w).
The K-class and cohomology class of each Hessenberg–Schubert variety have closed formulas depending only on Des(w), independent of J, and recover the known Peterson classes.
The singular locus of the Peterson variety is a union of Peterson–Schubert cells, and is controlled entirely by the proper subsets W^* of simple roots; in particular it is a union of smaller Peterson varieties.
For every reductive group whose root system is irreducible of rank at least 2, Hess(X_J) is smooth only in the toric case J = ∅.
In type A, the singular permutation flags are classified by µ-block permutations plus pattern avoidance of 123 and 2143, with an explicit count of smooth permutation flags.

Reading between the lines

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

This paper's Levi-reduction theorem suggests that the full singular locus of Hess(X_J), which remains open outside the nilpotent and semisimple cases, should be describable as a union of translated Peterson-type loci; Example 7.4 already shows it need not be a union of Hessenberg–Schubert cells, so the natural test is to compare Jacobian ranks at non-Weyl points in type A.
The pattern avoidance in Theorem 8.5 and the bracket condition [v^{-1}(K), Des(w)] = ∅ in Theorem 9.11 are two languages for the same smoothness statement; a direct translation for types B, C, and D would yield explicit pattern-avoidance lists, and one could check them against the existing conjectural lists for GL_n in the literature.
Because the K-class formula in Corollary 5.4 is independent of J, the equivariant cohomology of any regular Hess(X_J) should admit a basis indexed by J-admissible elements with structure constants governed only by descent sets; this points toward a uniform Schubert-calculus formalism for the whole flat family.

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 has two genuine problems: the Section 5 formulas are off by rational coefficients, and the proof of the all-types Peterson singular locus (Theorem 9.2) misses type C2. The structural geometry is mostly right, and with fixes this deserves a serious referee.

The genuinely new and valuable part is Theorem 4.6: the closure of each Hessenberg–Schubert cell in a regular Hessenberg variety is isomorphic to a regular Hessenberg variety in a Levi flag variety. That is a clean, useful structural result, and it drives the type A smoothness classification (Theorem 8.5) and the root-theoretic smoothness criterion (Theorem 9.11), both of which look correct. The patch-ideal/Jacobian arguments are standard and carefully done, and the paper is honest about what is open.

Now the soft spots. First, Section 5. For G=GL2, J=∅, w=e, Corollary 5.4 gives the class (1/2)(1-[L_{-α}]) for a point in P^1. That is not an integral K-theory class. Either the |W_Des(w)|/|W| normalization is wrong or the intended statement is in K^0⊗Q. Corollary 5.6 inherits the problem, so the Peterson basis classes are also suspect. This is a real error, not a typo.

Second, and more serious, Theorem 9.2's proof has a genuine gap. Corollary 9.8 says that every w in W* \ W** is handled by Figure 1, but Figure 1 has no row for type C2. For Sp4, take K={α1}; this lies in W* \ W**, so the theorem says the corresponding cell is singular. The C_n formulas in Figure 1 do not specialize to n=2: the required η2 would lie in Φ^-_K, violating the hypotheses of Proposition 9.7. So the paper gives no argument for that cell. Since C2 is isomorphic to B2, and the B2 classification treats the corresponding K as smooth, this is not just a missing line in a table—the classification could be wrong. The authors need to add C2 or handle it directly. I also think the verification of Figure 1 is too thin: outsourced to diagrams in [EHP14] with no case-by-case check in the paper.

Bottom line: this is serious, well-written work, and the core ideas are likely right. But as it stands, the K-theory formulas are wrong and the Peterson singular-locus classification is unproved for a rank-two case. Both are fixable, but they need to be addressed. I would send it to a referee and expect a revision, not an acceptance.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies regular Hessenberg varieties attached to the minimal indecomposable Hessenberg space H∆ in a complex reductive flag variety. The main structural result (Theorem 4.6) identifies the closure of each nonempty Hessenberg–Schubert cell with a regular Hessenberg variety in the flag variety of a Levi subgroup, leading to inclusion relations, K-theory and cohomology formulas, and smoothness criteria. The later sections analyze singularities: Theorem 7.1 reduces singularity of a Weyl flag in Hess(XJ) to the same question on a Peterson variety of a Levi subgroup, Theorem 8.5 gives the type-A classification of smooth permutation flags, and Theorem 9.2 claims a complete description of the singular locus of the Peterson variety in every Lie type as a union of Peterson–Schubert cells.

Significance. The paper attacks a natural and important problem: the global singular locus of Peterson and other regular Hessenberg varieties. The cell-closure theorem (Theorem 4.6) and the reduction theorem (Theorem 7.1) are valuable and are proved by detailed, mostly standard patch-ideal and Jacobian arguments. The type-A classification of smooth permutation flags and the Hessenberg–Schubert smoothness criterion (Theorem 9.11) are appealing and useful if the supporting results hold. The manuscript contains several machine-checkable or readily checkable combinatorial computations, and the authors are careful to credit prior results on reducedness of patch ideals. However, two load-bearing issues—an omitted and apparently false type-C2 case in Theorem 9.2, and a rational-coefficient error in the K-theory formula of Section 5—require substantial correction before the paper's central claims can be accepted.

major comments (2)

[Section 9, Definition 9.1 and Figure 1] The type C2 case is omitted from Figure 1, and Theorem 9.2 appears to be false for G=Sp4 as stated. In Definition 9.1, for type Cn the set W* contains all proper K, while W** excludes K=∆∖{αn}; for n=2, K={α1} lies in W*∖W**. Figure 1 only lists Cn for n≥3, so Corollary 9.8 gives no argument for this cell. A direct application of the paper's own Lemma 6.6 at w=s1 shows that ˙s1B is smooth: w(Φ−∖Δ−)={−α2, −(α1+α2)}, and the two patch generators have independent linear terms in z_{−(α1+α2)} and z_{−(2α1+α2)}, so the Jacobian has rank equal to codim(P∆)=2. Thus C_{s1}∩P∆ is not contained in the singular locus, contradicting Theorem 9.2 for type C2. The type C2 case must be added to the table and W* must be adjusted (or the present computation refuted), before the singular-locus theorem can be regarded as proved in all Lie types.
[Section 5, Lemma 5.3 and Corollary 5.4] The K-theory formulas contain a rational coefficient that is not an integral K-class. For G=GL2(C), J=∅, and w=e, the Hessenberg–Schubert variety is the reduced point ˙eB, whose class in K0(P1) is 1−[L_{−α}]. Corollary 5.4 gives (1/2)(1−[L_{−α}]); this is not a K-class of a subvariety. The same factor |WDes(w)|/|W| appears in Corollary 5.6. Lemma 5.3 therefore does not compute [OBL] in K0(B) as stated; either the factor is incorrect or the statement needs to specify a different ring (for example, rationalized K-theory). Since Corollaries 5.4 and 5.6 are stated as plain K0(B)/H*(B) identities, this is a load-bearing error in Section 5.

minor comments (4)

[Example 7.5] The sentence contains the duplicated word 'although although'.
[Remark 4.7] The phrase 'Hesssenerg-Schubert varieties' contains a typo and should read 'Hessenberg–Schubert varieties'.
[Figure 1] The auxiliary root γ is used in the table but is not defined in the caption or the surrounding text; each row should specify how γ is chosen.
[Section 5] If the K-theory formulas are intended in a localized or rationalized version of K0(B), this should be stated explicitly before the corollaries are used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's theorems are derived from external prior results and its own definitions, not from the claims being proved.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain of the main results. Theorem 4.6 identifies each Hessenberg–Schubert variety with a regular Hessenberg variety in a Levi subgroup using the reduced decomposition w = τ_w y_{Des(w)}, Corollary 3.6, Lemma 4.4, and Proposition 3.2; the proof is a direct construction, not an assumption of the conclusion. Theorem 7.1 reduces singularity at a Weyl flag to singularity in a Peterson variety via an explicit block decomposition of Jacobian matrices; this is a genuine reduction, and the type A base case is imported from the independent prior paper [IY12] by Insko and Yong. Section 9 proves the singular-locus theorem by combining Proposition 9.3, Proposition 9.7, Proposition 9.9, and the external diagram classification of [EHP14]; the set W* is defined combinatorially by root-system data, not by the singularity locus itself. The citations to [AFZ20] for reducedness of patch ideals and to [IY12], [IP19], and [ITW20] for earlier results are independent, published theorems that do not assume the present claims. The only concern raised in the provided skeptic note is that type C2 appears absent from Figure 1's case table, which would be a possible gap in the case-by-case verification of Corollary 9.8; that is a correctness or completeness issue, not a circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no definition is circular, and no load-bearing step reduces to the theorem it is meant to prove. The derivation is self-contained relative to its stated external inputs.

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

All axioms are standard theorems from the prior literature. No free parameters or invented entities appear. The heaviest external inputs are the reducedness of patch ideals and the EHP14 diagrams.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The patch ideals Iw,J are reduced (imported from AFZ20 Prop. 3.6, Cor. 3.7).
Used in Lemma 6.2 to identify the ideal of the shifted patch; if false, Jacobian criterion arguments for singular points would be invalid.
domain assumption AFZ20 exact sequences and the K-class formula for regular Hessenberg varieties.
Section 5 Theorem 5.1; the product formula for [O_Hess(X,H_A)] is taken from [AFZ20].
domain assumption Type A Peterson singular locus classification from [IY12, Theorem 4].
Used in Theorem 8.5 and Example 7.5 to classify smooth permutation flags.
domain assumption EHP14 classification of maximal parabolic subalgebras of Hermitian type and the root poset diagrams.
Used in Lemma 9.5 and Corollary 9.8 for the type-by-type verification of W*.
domain assumption De Mari, Procesi, and Shayman's theorem that regular semisimple Hessenberg varieties are smooth.
Used in Corollary 4.14, Corollary 9.10, and Lemma 5.3.
domain assumption Affine pavings of Hessenberg varieties by Tymoczko (type A) and Precup (all types).
Provides the Hessenberg-Schubert cells used throughout.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Regular Hessenberg varieties for the minimal indecomposable Hessenberg space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7LMLWVCH

@misc{pith2026241117487,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Regular Hessenberg varieties for the minimal indecomposable Hessenberg space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7LMLWVCH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17487}
}

abstract

This paper investigates the geometry of regular Hessenberg varieties associated with the minimal indecomposable Hessenberg space in the flag variety of a complex reductive group. These varieties form a flat family of irreducible subvarieties of the flag variety, encompassing notable examples such as the Peterson variety and toric varieties linked to Weyl chambers. Our first main result computes the closures of affine cells that pave these varieties explicitly, establishing a correspondence between Hessenberg--Schubert varieties and regular Hessenberg varieties in smaller dimensional flag varieties. We also analyze the singular locus of these varieties, proving that all regular Hessenberg varieties are singular outside of the toric case. Specifically, we extend previous results on the singular locus of the Peterson variety to all Lie types. Additionally, we provide detailed descriptions of Hessenberg--Schubert variety inclusion relations, a combinatorial characterization of smooth Hessenberg--Schubert varieties, and simple formulas for their $K$-theory and cohomology classes. The paper also includes a classification of all singular permutation flags in each regular Hessenberg variety in type A, linking them to combinatorial patterns, and generalizes these findings using root-theoretic data to all Lie types.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17487 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Cases arising in the proof of Corollary 9.8. Proposition 9.9. Let W be the Weyl group of type Bn and w = yK, where K = ∆ \ {α1}. Then wB˙ is a smooth point of P∆. Proof. We let Jw be the Jacobian matrix defined by the generators of Iw given in Lemma 6.2. We show that Jw has full rank. The rows of Jw are indexed by w(Φ− \∆−) and the columns by w(Φ−). By (9.1), we order the rows of Jw so that the rows indexed by eleme… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Geometry of regular H essenberg varieties

Hiraku Abe, Naoki Fujita, and Haozhi Zeng. Geometry of regular H essenberg varieties. Transform. Groups , 25(2):305--333, 2020

2020
[2]

Geometry of Peterson Schubert calculus in type a and left-right diagrams

Hiraku Abe, Tatsuya Horiguchi, Hideya Kuwata, and Haozhi Zeng. Geometry of Peterson Schubert calculus in type a and left-right diagrams. Algebr. Comb. , 7(2):383--412, 2024

work page 2024
[3]

Schubert polynomials and classes of H essenberg varieties

Dave Anderson and Julianna Tymoczko. Schubert polynomials and classes of H essenberg varieties. J. Algebra , 323(10):2605--2623, 2010

work page 2010
[4]

The P eterson variety and the wonderful compactification

Ana Balibanu. The P eterson variety and the wonderful compactification. Represent. Theory , 21:132--150, 2017

work page 2017
[5]

The partial compactification of the universal centralizer

Ana Balibanu. The partial compactification of the universal centralizer. Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 29(5):Paper No. 85, 36, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Patrick Brosnan and Timothy Y. Chow. Unit interval orders and the dot action on the cohomology of regular semisimple H essenberg varieties. Adv. Math. , 329:955--1001, 2018

work page 2018
[7]

Bases of the equivariant cohomologies of regular semisimple H essenberg varieties

Soojin Cho, Jaehyun Hong, and Eunjeong Lee. Bases of the equivariant cohomologies of regular semisimple H essenberg varieties. Adv. Math. , 423:Paper No. 109018, 81, 2023

work page 2023
[8]

Pattern avoidance and smoothness of hessenberg schubert varieties, 2023

Soojin Cho, JiSun Huh, and Seonjeong Park. Pattern avoidance and smoothness of hessenberg schubert varieties, 2023

work page 2023

Show all 33 references

[9]

De Mari, C

F. De Mari, C. Procesi, and M. A. Shayman. Hessenberg varieties. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 332(2):529--534, 1992

1992
[10]

Filippo De Mari and Mark A. Shayman. Generalized E ulerian numbers and the topology of the H essenberg variety of a matrix. Acta Appl. Math. , 12(3):213--235, 1988

1988
[11]

Monk's rule and G iambelli's formula for P eterson varieties of all L ie types

Elizabeth Drellich. Monk's rule and G iambelli's formula for P eterson varieties of all L ie types. J. Algebraic Combin. , 41(2):539--575, 2015

2015
[12]

Enright, Markus Hunziker, and W

Thomas J. Enright, Markus Hunziker, and W. Andrew Pruett. Diagrams of H ermitian type, highest weight modules, and syzygies of determinantal varieties. In Symmetry: representation theory and its applications , volume 257 of Progr. Math. , pages 121--184. Birkh\" a user/Springe...

2014
[13]

Positivity of P eterson S chubert calculus

Rebecca Goldin, Leonardo Mihalcea, and Rahul Singh. Positivity of P eterson S chubert calculus. Adv. Math. , 455:Paper No. 109879, 2024

2024
[14]

Torus fixed point sets of H essenberg S chubert varieties in regular semisimple H essenberg varieties

Megumi Harada and Martha Precup. Torus fixed point sets of H essenberg S chubert varieties in regular semisimple H essenberg varieties. Osaka J. Math. , 60(3):637--652, 2023. With an appendix by Michael Zeng

2023
[15]

Poset pinball, GKM -compatible subspaces, and H essenberg varieties

Megumi Harada and Julianna Tymoczko. Poset pinball, GKM -compatible subspaces, and H essenberg varieties. J. Math. Soc. Japan , 69(3):945--994, 2017

2017
[16]

Humphreys

James E. Humphreys. Linear algebraic groups . Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1975. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 21

1975
[17]

Humphreys

James E. Humphreys. Introduction to L ie algebras and representation theory , volume 9 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1978. Second printing, revised

1978
[18]

Humphreys

James E. Humphreys. Conjugacy classes in semisimple algebraic groups , volume 43 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1995

1995
[19]

The singular locus of semisimple H essenberg varieties

Erik Insko and Martha Precup. The singular locus of semisimple H essenberg varieties. J. Algebra , 521:65--96, 2019

2019
[20]

A formula for the cohomology and K -class of a regular H essenberg variety

Erik Insko, Julianna Tymoczko, and Alexander Woo. A formula for the cohomology and K -class of a regular H essenberg variety. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 224(5):106230, 14, 2020

2020
[21]

Patch ideals and P eterson varieties

Erik Insko and Alexander Yong. Patch ideals and P eterson varieties. Transform. Groups , 17(4):1011--1036, 2012

2012
[22]

Flag manifold quantum cohomology, the T oda lattice, and the representation with highest weight

Bertram Kostant. Flag manifold quantum cohomology, the T oda lattice, and the representation with highest weight . Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 2(1):43--91, 1996

1996
[23]

Raghavan

Venkatramani Lakshmibai and Komaranapuram N. Raghavan. Standard monomial theory , volume 137 of Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008. Invariant theoretic approach, Invariant Theory and Algebraic Transformation Groups, 8

2008
[24]

Affine pavings of H essenberg varieties for semisimple groups

Martha Precup. Affine pavings of H essenberg varieties for semisimple groups. Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 19(4):903--922, 2013

2013
[25]

The connectedness of H essenberg varieties

Martha Precup. The connectedness of H essenberg varieties. J. Algebra , 437:34--43, 2015

2015
[26]

The B etti numbers of regular H essenberg varieties are palindromic

Martha Precup. The B etti numbers of regular H essenberg varieties are palindromic. Transform. Groups , 23(2):491--499, 2018

2018
[27]

Totally positive T oeplitz matrices and quantum cohomology of partial flag varieties

Konstanze Rietsch. Totally positive T oeplitz matrices and quantum cohomology of partial flag varieties. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 16(2):363--392, 2003

2003
[28]

Exponents for B -stable ideals

Eric Sommers and Julianna Tymoczko. Exponents for B -stable ideals. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 358(8):3493--3509, 2006

2006
[29]

Stembridge

John R. Stembridge. Eulerian numbers, tableaux, and the B etti numbers of a toric variety. Discrete Math. , 99(1-3):307--320, 1992

1992
[30]

John Shareshian and Michelle L. Wachs. Chromatic quasisymmetric functions. Adv. Math. , 295:497--551, 2016

2016
[31]

Tymoczko

Julianna S. Tymoczko. Linear conditions imposed on flag varieties. Amer. J. Math. , 128(6):1587--1604, 2006

2006
[32]

Tymoczko

Julianna S. Tymoczko. Permutation actions on equivariant cohomology of flag varieties. In Toric topology , volume 460 of Contemp. Math. , pages 365--384. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2008

2008
[33]

Governing singularities of S chubert varieties

Alexander Woo and Alexander Yong. Governing singularities of S chubert varieties. J. Algebra , 320(2):495--520, 2008

2008

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Geometry of regular H essenberg varieties

Hiraku Abe, Naoki Fujita, and Haozhi Zeng. Geometry of regular H essenberg varieties. Transform. Groups , 25(2):305--333, 2020

2020

[2] [2]

Geometry of Peterson Schubert calculus in type a and left-right diagrams

Hiraku Abe, Tatsuya Horiguchi, Hideya Kuwata, and Haozhi Zeng. Geometry of Peterson Schubert calculus in type a and left-right diagrams. Algebr. Comb. , 7(2):383--412, 2024

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Schubert polynomials and classes of H essenberg varieties

Dave Anderson and Julianna Tymoczko. Schubert polynomials and classes of H essenberg varieties. J. Algebra , 323(10):2605--2623, 2010

work page 2010

[4] [4]

The P eterson variety and the wonderful compactification

Ana Balibanu. The P eterson variety and the wonderful compactification. Represent. Theory , 21:132--150, 2017

work page 2017

[5] [5]

The partial compactification of the universal centralizer

Ana Balibanu. The partial compactification of the universal centralizer. Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 29(5):Paper No. 85, 36, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Patrick Brosnan and Timothy Y. Chow. Unit interval orders and the dot action on the cohomology of regular semisimple H essenberg varieties. Adv. Math. , 329:955--1001, 2018

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Bases of the equivariant cohomologies of regular semisimple H essenberg varieties

Soojin Cho, Jaehyun Hong, and Eunjeong Lee. Bases of the equivariant cohomologies of regular semisimple H essenberg varieties. Adv. Math. , 423:Paper No. 109018, 81, 2023

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Pattern avoidance and smoothness of hessenberg schubert varieties, 2023

Soojin Cho, JiSun Huh, and Seonjeong Park. Pattern avoidance and smoothness of hessenberg schubert varieties, 2023

work page 2023