Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Cluster structures on Cox rings

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Cox rings inherit graded cluster structures from open subsets.

desk verdict A serious, mostly well-executed translation of the author's minimal monomial lifting machinery to Cox rings, with a genuinely new construction and a clean equality theorem in the diagonal partial compactification; the main caveats are heavy reliance on the unpublished [Fra23] and an abstract that overstates the general result. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04173 v1 pith:3K7265TE submitted 2024-12-05 math.AG math.ACmath.RT

Luca Francone This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AGmath.ACmath.RT MSC 13F6014C2014M1714M25
keywords clusteralgebraupperCoxringminimalmonomialliftingflagvarietytoricpartialcompactificationsheaf
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 Cox ring of a smooth complex variety carries a graded cluster structure whenever an open subset of the variety carries one. Given an open subset $Y$ with trivial Picard group and only constant invertible functions, a maximal-rank cluster structure on $\mathcal{O}_Y(Y)$ is lifted to a $\mathrm{Pic}(Z)$-graded upper cluster algebra inside $\mathrm{Cox}(Z)$, and the lift is the unique candidate for a compatible cluster structure on the whole Cox ring. The author proves equality in two main cases: the complete flag variety, where the construction recovers a known cluster algebra, and the diagonal partial compactification of a finite cluster variety, where it produces a new cluster structure on the Cox ring. A reader should care because Cox rings are central in birational geometry but are usually hard to describe, while upper cluster algebras have explicit combinatorial structure.

What carries the argument

The engine is minimal monomial lifting, imported from the author's earlier work. Starting from a seed $t$ for $\mathcal{O}_Y(Y)$, one records the orders of poles of cluster variables along the boundary divisors of $Y$ in $Z$ in a matrix $\nu$, then enlarges the seed with new frozen variables indexed by those divisors; the degree of each new variable is the corresponding basis class of $\mathrm{Pic}(Z)$. The resulting lifted seed has the same mutable vertices as $t$, and its upper cluster algebra is $\mathcal{A}^{\uparrow}$. The geometric input is the standard homogeneously suitable for lifting structure: the characteristic space $\mathrm{Spec}(\mathcal{R}_L)$ of the Cox sheaf, with its torus action and the boundary sections as frozen variables. The key identity is the localization formula $\mathcal{A}^{\uparrow}_{\prod \sigma_d} = \mathrm{Cox}(Z)_{\prod \sigma_d}$, which reduces equality questions to cluster valuations along boundary divisors.

What would settle it

Take the diagonal partial compactification $Z$ of the $A_2$ cluster variety from Example 5.13. Compute the Cox ring directly as the ring of global sections of $\mathcal{O}(E_{1'})$ and check whether it is generated by the four listed elements $\sigma_{1'}$, $\sigma_{1'}x_1$, $x_2$, $x_1^{(1)}$ subject to $x_1 x_1^{(1)} = 1 + x_2$; any additional homogeneous section in positive degree would contradict Theorem 5.8.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.6: if $Z$ is smooth, $Y$ is open with $\mathrm{Pic}(Y)=\{0\}$ and $\mathcal{O}_Y(Y)^{\times}=\mathbb{C}^{\times}$, and $\mathcal{O}_Y(Y)$ is an upper cluster algebra from a maximal-rank seed satisfying the coprimality conditions, then the minimal monomial lifting of that seed with respect to the standard homogeneously suitable lifting structure of the Cox sheaf yields a $\mathrm{Pic}(Z)$-graded upper cluster algebra $\mathcal{A}^{\uparrow}$ contained in $\mathrm{Cox}(Z)$, and localization at the product $M$ of the boundary-divisor sections gives $\mathcal{A}^{\uparrow}_M = \mathrm{Cox}(Z)_M$. Theorem 2.18 adds uniqueness: $\mathcal{A}^{\uparrow}$ is the only graded upper cluster algebra compatible with the base structure that could equal $\mathrm{Cox}(Z)$. The equality cases are Theorem 4.4, where for a complete flag variety the lifted algebra is all of $\mathrm{Cox}(Z^{-})$, and Theorem 5.8, where for the diagonal partial compactification of a finite cluster variety the lifted algebra is all of $\mathrm{Cox}(Z)$.

Load-bearing premise

The construction rests on the minimal monomial lifting theorems of the author's earlier work, which are cited rather than proved here; if the inclusion and uniqueness results from that work were to fail, the Cox-ring cluster structures described in this paper would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any smooth variety with an open subset carrying a maximal-rank cluster structure acquires a canonical graded upper cluster algebra inside its Cox ring.
  • The uniqueness statement means that two graded cluster structures on the Cox ring extending the same structure on the open subset must coincide.
  • For complete flag varieties, the lifted algebra fills the whole Cox ring, so the full multi-homogeneous coordinate ring carries the cluster structure.
  • For diagonal partial compactifications of finite cluster varieties, the Cox ring is explicitly a graded upper cluster algebra; in the $A_2$ example this yields a finite presentation with one relation.
  • The same lifting machinery applies to rings of global sections of sheaves of divisorial algebras, not only to Cox rings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The two equality theorems suggest a general heuristic: $\mathcal{A}^{\uparrow}$ should equal $\mathrm{Cox}(Z)$ whenever the complement of $Y$ in the characteristic space has codimension at least two; the paper proves this pattern in the flag and diagonal-compactification cases but does not state it as a general criterion.
  • When the lifted upper cluster algebra is finitely generated and equal to the Cox ring, the Cox ring is finitely generated even if $Z$ is non-projective; the paper's non-separated $A_2$ example is an instance, but the implication for finite generation is left implicit.
  • The lifting matrix $\nu$, recording pole orders of cluster variables along boundary divisors, may link cluster combinatorics to Mori-theoretic invariants such as movable and nef cones of $Z$; the paper does not explore this connection.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a method to construct graded cluster structures on Cox rings. For a smooth complex variety Z and an open subset Y with Pic(Y) = 0 and O(Y)^× = C^×, given a maximal-rank cluster seed t with O(Y) = A(t), the author applies 'minimal monomial lifting' (developed in the unpublished preprint [Fra23]) to obtain a Pic(Z)-graded upper cluster algebra A_up(↿tD) inside Cox(Z), with the localization of A_up at the product of boundary sections equal to the localization of Cox(Z) at that same element. If a compatible full cluster structure exists, it must equal A_up(↿tD). The paper gives examples (projective space, toric varieties, a Fano surface), shows that for complete flag varieties the construction recovers the Geiss-Leclerc-Schröer cluster structure, and introduces a new class of 'diagonal partial compactifications' of finite cluster varieties, for which equality of A_up and Cox(Z) is proved.

Significance. If the imported results of [Fra23] are correct, this paper provides a general and flexible framework for showing that Cox rings are upper cluster algebras. The flag-variety application recovers the known GLS construction by geometric methods, and the diagonal partial compactification (Section 5) yields a new infinite family of (possibly non-separated) varieties whose Cox rings are provably upper cluster algebras. The examples are worked in detail and the writing is clear. The main caveat is the heavy dependence on the author's own unpublished preprint [Fra23] for the lifting theorems that power every construction in the paper.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Theorems 2.17 and 2.18] These theorems are quoted from the unpublished preprint [Fra23] and carry the entire weight of the construction: Theorem 3.6, Theorem 1.1, and Theorem 1.2 are all derived from them. Because [Fra23] is not published, the referee cannot verify the core inclusion A_up(↿tD) ⊆ Cox(Z) or the uniqueness statement. The author should either reproduce the proofs (at least of Theorem 2.17) or provide a detailed statement with hypotheses that can be checked. As it stands, this is a load-bearing gap for the paper's central claims.
  2. [Section 4, Theorems 4.4 and 4.6] The two flag-variety applications are not self-contained. Theorem 4.4 is a direct reformulation of [Fra23, Theorem 8.3.2], and Theorem 4.6 relies on [Fra23, Proposition 3.0.9] to identify the extended exchange matrix. Without access to [Fra23], these results cannot be verified from the present text.
  3. [Section 5.1, proof of Theorem 5.8, Step 1] The proof assumes that any f ∈ Cox(Z) with negative cluster valuation can be written as P/↿x_{k'} with P a polynomial in the cluster variables of the initial seed. Since elements of the upper cluster algebra A(↿tD) are generally Laurent polynomials rather than ordinary polynomials in a given cluster, the reduction to polynomial form is not automatic. The author should justify this reduction, in particular how denominators in unfrozen variables are eliminated while preserving the negativity of the cluster valuation.
  4. [Section 5, Definition 5.2 and Remark 2.21] The diagonal partial compactification Z is allowed to be non-separated (Example 5.3), and the paper uses the Cox sheaf and its characteristic space for such schemes without giving a reference or proof. Since the relative spectrum of a sheaf of algebras on a non-separated scheme is not entirely standard, the author should explain why the construction of Section 2.4 remains valid in this setting.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'di scuss' should be 'discuss'.
  2. [Section 1, page 5] The sentence 'In would be interesting to understand...' should read 'It would be interesting to understand...'.
  3. [Section 3.3.2] The computation of V_{E_d}(χ^{v_k^*}) = ⟨v_k^*, v_d⟩ would benefit from an explicit line for readers not familiar with toric geometry.
  4. [Section 5, Example 5.12] The quiver would be easier to follow if displayed as a figure; the current text description is dense.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Core existence and uniqueness theorems are imported from the author's own unpublished [Fra23]; the new diagonal compactification proof is independent but rests on that self-citation chain.

  1. uniqueness imported from authors [Section 2.2, Theorem 2.18; Introduction, Theorem 1.2]
    "The following theorem strongly motivates the interest in the seeds obtained by minimal monomial lifting ([Fra23, Theorem 4.1.9]). Theorem 2.18. Let ¯t be a seed of the fraction field of OX(X) that D-extends t, and assume that the following hold. 1. A(¯t) = OX(X). 2. For any i ∈ I, the cluster variable ¯xi is a X(T )-homogeneous element of OX(X) and ι∗(¯xi) = xi. 3. For any k ∈ Iuf, the cluster variable µk(¯x)k is a X(T )-homogeneous element of OX(X) and ι∗(µk(¯x)k) = µk(x)k. Then ¯t = ↿tD."

    Theorem 1.2 converts this imported statement into the paper's central uniqueness claim: 'There exists at most one Pic(Z)-graded upper cluster algebra A† ... If A† exists, then we have that A† = ↿A.' No proof of the uniqueness is given here; the reader is sent to the same author's unpublished arXiv:2310.11808. The paper then declares ↿A 'the only possible way' to identify Cox(Z) with a compatible upper cluster algebra. Insofar as the uniqueness is what forces the construction, the claim is an imported self-citation, not a derivation performed in this paper.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 2.2, Theorem 2.17; Section 3.2, Theorem 3.6; Section 5.1, Theorem 5.8]
    "The following statement is part of [Fra23, Theorem 4.0.3, Lemma 4.1.7]. Theorem 2.17. Assume that the following conditions hols. ... Then, we have an inclusion A(↿tD) ⊆ OX(X) and an equality A(↿t) = OX(T ×Y) of X(T )-graded algebras. ... Therefore, using Eq. (11), Theorem 2.17 allows to conclude."

    The inclusion A(↿tD) ⊆ Cox(Z), which is the first conclusion of Theorem 3.6 and the starting point for Theorem 5.8, is not proved in this paper. Theorem 3.6's proof says 'Theorem 2.17 allows to conclude', and Theorem 2.17 is quoted from [Fra23] without reproducing its proof. Since [Fra23] is the author's own unpublished preprint and is not independently verified in the text, the central existence result rests on a load-bearing self-citation chain.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4, Theorem 4.4]
    "By a well known result of [VP72], we have that X− = U−\G is an open subset of its affinization whose complement is of codimension strictly greater than one. Therefore, the statement is just a reformulation of [Fra23, Theorem 8.3.2]."

    The complete flag variety equality, one of the two main advertised applications, is explicitly not proved here: it is called 'just a reformulation' of a theorem in the same author's preprint. Combined with Theorem 4.6's reliance on [Fra23, Proposition 3.0.9], the flag-variety section is largely a re-export of [Fra23] rather than a self-contained derivation.

full rationale

The paper is not circular in the narrow definitional sense: the seed ↿tD is explicitly constructed from t, the minimal lifting matrix ν, and the geometric data of the boundary divisors, and Theorem 5.8 contains a genuine contradiction argument proving A(↿tD) = Cox(Z) for the diagonal partial compactification. No quantity is fitted and then renamed a prediction, and Theorem 4.6 is an honest comparison with GLS08 rather than a renaming of it. However, the load-bearing input that ↿tD actually lands in Cox(Z), and the uniqueness theorem declaring ↿tD the only compatible candidate, are imported from the author's own unpublished arXiv preprint [Fra23] and are not proved or independently verified here. The main flag-variety equality is even called a reformulation of [Fra23, Theorem 8.3.2]. That is a legitimate but heavy self-citation chain: if a flaw or missing hypothesis in [Fra23] existed, the conclusions of Theorems 1.1, 3.6, 4.4, and 5.8 would not be established. I therefore score 4: some self-citation, load-bearing, but with independent new content in the diagonal compactification construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted constants. The central claim depends on the minimal monomial lifting theorems imported from [Fra23] and on standard cluster algebra results (upper bound theorem, irreducible cluster variables, factoriality criteria). The only new construction, the diagonal partial compactification, is explicitly defined and shown to have a Cox ring equal to the lifted cluster algebra.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Minimal monomial lifting inclusion and equality results ([Fra23, Theorem 4.0.3, Lemma 4.1.7], quoted as Theorem 2.17 here): if seed t is maximal rank and cluster variables are coprime on Y, then A(uparrow t_D) is contained in O_X(X) and A(uparrow t) = O_X(T x Y).
    This is the load-bearing theorem that transfers cluster structure from OY(Y) to Cox(Z). The present paper cites [Fra23] rather than proving it.
  • domain assumption Uniqueness of D-extending seed ([Fra23, Theorem 4.1.9], quoted as Theorem 2.18): any graded upper cluster algebra structure on O_X(X) compatible with t and having homogeneous cluster variables lifting x_i must equal uparrow t_D.
    Used to claim Cox(Z) has at most one compatible graded upper cluster structure.
  • domain assumption Criterion for equality ([Fra23, Proposition 4.1.4], quoted as Proposition 2.19): A(uparrow t_D) = O_X(X) iff cluster valuations CV_d are non-negative on O_X(X).
    Used in proof of Theorem 5.8 to establish Cox(Z) = A_up.
  • standard math Upper cluster algebra equals intersection of upper bounds for maximal rank seeds ([GSV18, Theorem 3.11], [BFZ05, Corollary 1.7]).
    Used in Lemma 5.4 to identify OY(Y) with the upper cluster algebra A(t).
  • standard math Invertible elements and irreducibility in upper cluster algebras ([GLS13, Theorem 1.3]).
    Used in Lemma 5.7 to show OY(Y)^\times = C^\times and that M^+(i)+M^-(i) is irreducible.
  • standard math Factoriality of certain upper cluster algebras ([CKQ24, Theorem 4.9]).
    Used in Lemma 5.7 to show OY(Y) is factorial, and in Lemma 3.7 to satisfy coprimality conditions.
invented entities (1)
  • Diagonal partial compactification Z of the finite cluster variety Y (Definition 5.2). independent evidence
    purpose: Provides a new scheme whose Cox ring is proven to be a graded upper cluster algebra (Theorem 5.8); it is the main new construction of the paper.
    The scheme is explicitly constructed by gluing cluster tori in Definition 5.2, and Theorem 5.8 gives a falsifiable mathematical statement about its Cox ring; it is not an unverifiable postulate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cluster structures on Cox rings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3K7265TE

@misc{pith2026241204173,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cluster structures on Cox rings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3K7265TE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04173}
}
abstract

We construct a graded cluster algebra structure on the Cox ring of a smooth complex variety $Z$, depending on a base cluster structure on the ring of regular functions of an open subset $Y$ of $Z$. After considering some elementary examples of our construction, including toric varieties, we discuss the two main applications. First: if $Z$ is a flag variety and $Y$ is the open Schubert cell, we prove that our results recover, by geometric methods, a well known construction of Geiss, Leclerc and Schr\"oer. Second: we define the diagonal partial compactification of a (finite type) cluster variety, and prove that its Cox ring is a graded upper cluster algebra. Along the way, we explain how similar constructions can be done if we replace the Cox ring with a ring of global sections of a sheaf of divisorial algebras on $Z$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cox rings , volume 144 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics

    Ivan Arzhantsev, Ulrich Derenthal, J\"urgen Hausen, and Antonio Laface. Cox rings , volume 144 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015

    2015

  2. [2]

    I. V. Arzhantsev. On the factoriality of C ox rings. Mat. Zametki , 85(5):643--651, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Hacon, and James McKernan

    Caucher Birkar, Paolo Cascini, Christopher D. Hacon, and James McKernan. Existence of minimal models for varieties of log general type. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 23(2):405--468, 2010

    2010

  4. [4]

    Newton- O kounkov bodies and minimal models for cluster varieties

    Lara Bossinger, Man-Wai Cheung, Timothy Magee, and Alfredo N\'ajera Ch\'avez. Newton- O kounkov bodies and minimal models for cluster varieties. Adv. Math. , 447:Paper No. 109680, 72, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Cluster algebras

    Arkady Berenstein, Sergey Fomin, and Andrei Zelevinsky. Cluster algebras. III . U pper bounds and double B ruhat cells. Duke Math. J. , 126(1):1--52, 2005

    2005

  6. [6]

    Upper cluster algebras and choice of ground ring

    Eric Bucher, John Machacek, and Michael Shapiro. Upper cluster algebras and choice of ground ring. Sci. China Math. , 62(7):1257--1266, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    The valuation pairing on an upper cluster algebra

    Peigen Cao, Bernhard Keller, and Fan Qin. The valuation pairing on an upper cluster algebra. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 806:71--114, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    David A. Cox. The homogeneous coordinate ring of a toric variety. J. Algebraic Geom. , 4(1):17--50, 1995

    1995

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    G. Dupont. Generic variables in acyclic cluster algebras. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 215(4):628--641, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    Quivers with potentials and their representations

    Harm Derksen, Jerzy Weyman, and Andrei Zelevinsky. Quivers with potentials and their representations. I . M utations. Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 14(1):59--119, 2008

    2008

  3. [11]

    Quivers with potentials and their representations II : applications to cluster algebras

    Harm Derksen, Jerzy Weyman, and Andrei Zelevinsky. Quivers with potentials and their representations II : applications to cluster algebras. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 23(3):749--790, 2010

    2010

  4. [12]

    Cluster algebras and semi-invariant rings I

    Jiarui Fei. Cluster algebras and semi-invariant rings I . T riple flags. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) , 115(1):1--32, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Cluster algebras and semi-invariant rings II : projections

    Jiarui Fei. Cluster algebras and semi-invariant rings II : projections. Math. Z. , 285(3-4):939--966, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Tensor product multiplicities via upper cluster algebras

    Jiarui Fei. Tensor product multiplicities via upper cluster algebras. Ann. Sci. \'Ec. Norm. Sup\'er. (4) , 54(6):1415--1464, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Fock and Alexander B

    Vladimir V. Fock and Alexander B. Goncharov. Cluster ensembles, quantization and the dilogarithm. Ann. Sci. \'Ec. Norm. Sup\'er. (4) , 42(6):865--930, 2009

    2009

  8. [16]

    The minimal monomial lfting of cluster algebras I : branching problems

    Luca Francone. The minimal monomial lfting of cluster algebras I : branching problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11808 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Introduction to toric varieties , volume 131 of Annals of Mathematics Studies

    William Fulton. Introduction to toric varieties , volume 131 of Annals of Mathematics Studies . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993. The William H. Roever Lectures in Geometry

    1993

  10. [18]

    Introduction to C luster A lgebras

    Sergey Fomin, Lauren Williams, and Andrei Zelevinsky. Introduction to C luster A lgebras. C hapter 6. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.09189 , 2021

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Double B ruhat cells and total positivity

    Sergey Fomin and Andrei Zelevinsky. Double B ruhat cells and total positivity. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 12(2):335--380, 1999

    1999

  12. [20]

    Cluster algebras

    Sergey Fomin and Andrei Zelevinsky. Cluster algebras. I . F oundations. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 15(2):497--529, 2002

    2002

  13. [21]

    Cluster algebras

    Sergey Fomin and Andrei Zelevinsky. Cluster algebras. II . F inite type classification. Invent. Math. , 154(1):63--121, 2003

    2003

  14. [22]

    Birational geometry of cluster algebras

    Mark Gross, Paul Hacking, and Sean Keel. Birational geometry of cluster algebras. Algebr. Geom. , 2(2):137--175, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    Canonical bases for cluster algebras

    Mark Gross, Paul Hacking, Sean Keel, and Maxim Kontsevich. Canonical bases for cluster algebras. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 31(2):497--608, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Partial flag varieties and preprojective algebras

    Christof Geiss, Bernard Leclerc, and Jan Schr\"oer. Partial flag varieties and preprojective algebras. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) , 58(3):825--876, 2008

    2008

  17. [25]

    Kac- M oody groups and cluster algebras

    Christof Geiss, Bernard Leclerc, and Jan Schr\"oer. Kac- M oody groups and cluster algebras. Adv. Math. , 228(1):329--433, 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    Factorial cluster algebras

    Christof Geiss, Bernard Leclerc, and Jan Schr\"oer. Factorial cluster algebras. Doc. Math. , 18:249--274, 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    Braid variety cluster structures, II : general type

    Pavel Galashin, Thomas Lam, and Melissa Sherman-Bennett. Braid variety cluster structures, II : general type. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.07268 , 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Grabowski

    Jan E. Grabowski. Graded cluster algebras. J. Algebraic Combin. , 42(4):1111--1134, 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    Grothendieck

    A. Grothendieck. \'el\'ements de g\'eom\'etrie alg\'ebrique. I . L e langage des sch\'emas. Inst. Hautes \'Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. , (4):228, 1960

    1960

  22. [30]

    Drinfeld double of GL_n and generalized cluster structures

    Misha Gekhtman, Michael Shapiro, and Alek Vainshtein. Drinfeld double of GL_n and generalized cluster structures. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) , 116(3):429--484, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    K. R. Goodearl and M. T. Yakimov. Integral quantum cluster structures. Duke Math. J. , 170(6):1137--1200, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Algebraic geometry , volume No

    Robin Hartshorne. Algebraic geometry , volume No. 52 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1977

    1977

  25. [33]

    Equivariant embeddings into smooth toric varieties

    J\"urgen Hausen. Equivariant embeddings into smooth toric varieties. Canad. J. Math. , 54(3):554--570, 2002

    2002

  26. [34]

    Mori dream spaces and GIT

    Yi Hu and Sean Keel. Mori dream spaces and GIT . volume 48, pages 331--348. 2000. Dedicated to William Fulton on the occasion of his 60th birthday

    2000

  27. [35]

    A cluster structure on the coordinate ring of partial flag varieties

    Fayadh Kadhem. A cluster structure on the coordinate ring of partial flag varieties. J. Algebra , 628:328--349, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Cluster algebras and derived categories

    Bernhard Keller. Cluster algebras and derived categories. In Derived categories in algebraic geometry , EMS Ser. Congr. Rep., pages 123--183. Eur. Math. Soc., Z\"urich, 2012

    2012

  29. [37]

    Littlewood- R ichardson coefficients via mirror symmetry for cluster varieties

    Timothy Magee. Littlewood- R ichardson coefficients via mirror symmetry for cluster varieties. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) , 121(3):463--512, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Cluster algebras are C ox rings

    Travis Mandel. Cluster algebras are C ox rings. Manuscripta Math. , 160(1-2):153--171, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Locally acyclic cluster algebras

    Greg Muller. Locally acyclic cluster algebras. Adv. Math. , 233:207--247, 2013

    2013

  32. [40]

    Triangular bases in quantum cluster algebras and monoidal categorification conjectures

    Fan Qin. Triangular bases in quantum cluster algebras and monoidal categorification conjectures. Duke Math. J. , 166(12):2337--2442, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Bases for upper cluster algebras and tropical points

    Fan Qin. Bases for upper cluster algebras and tropical points. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 26(4):1255--1312, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Joshua S. Scott. Grassmannians and cluster algebras. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) , 92(2):345--380, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    An infinitely generated upper cluster algebra

    David E Speyer. An infinitely generated upper cluster algebra. arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.6867 , 2013

    2013 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Vinberg and V

    \`E.\ B. Vinberg and V. L. Popov. A certain class of quasihomogeneous affine varieties. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. , 36:749--764, 1972

    1972

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.