Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Schubert defects in Lagrangian Grassmannians

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A GLSM defect construction realizes Schubert cycles in Lagrangian Grassmannians, with defect indices equal to Schur Q-functions in both quantum cohomology and quantum K theory.

desk verdict First GLSM realization of Schubert defects in Lagrangian Grassmannians with convincing index checks, but the general JK residue argument leaves a genuine gap over q-field poles that should be fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04438 v1 pith:KUTVYWMC submitted 2025-02-06 hep-th

W. Gu , L. Mihalcea , E. Sharpe , W. Xu , H. Zhang , H. Zou This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 14M1514N35
keywords LagrangianGrassmanniansSchubertcyclesSchurQ-functionsgaugedlinearsigmamodelsGLSMdefectsquantumcohomologyKtheoryJeffrey-Kirwanresidues
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 proposes a gauged linear $\sigma$ model (GLSM) construction of Schubert cycles in the Lagrangian Grassmannian $\mathrm{LG}(n,2n)$, the space of Lagrangian subspaces of a symplectic vector space. The construction follows a recent Schubert-defect idea for ordinary Grassmannians, but adds superpotential terms in the bulk and on the defect that enforce the isotropy condition; a subtle redundancy between these F-term constraints is resolved by extra chiral fields that appear in no superpotential. The main quantitative claim is that the defect partition functions are Schur Q-functions: for 0d defects in two dimensions $I_\lambda = Q_\lambda(\sigma)$, matching Schubert classes in quantum cohomology, and for 1d defects in three dimensions $I_\lambda(X) = Q_\lambda(X)$, matching the K-theoretic Schur Q-functions expected in quantum K theory. If correct, this gives a physical realization of the characteristic polynomials of Schubert classes in Lagrangian Grassmannians and provides independent evidence for the conjectural K-theoretic formula.

What carries the argument

Schur Q-functions are the characteristic polynomials of Schubert cycles in Lagrangian Grassmannians: a normalized symmetrized sum over permutations of monomials times products $(x_i + x_j)/(x_i - x_j)$. The carrying object is the defect quiver gauge theory $U(1)_\partial \times \cdots \times U(\ell)_\partial$ coupled to the bulk $\mathrm{LG}(n,2n)$ GLSM. Chiral bifundamentals $\phi^{(r)}$ build a flag of subspaces; Fermi multiplets $\Lambda^{(r)}$ impose the block-matrix vanishing conditions that put $\Phi$ into the Schubert-variety form; a further Fermi multiplet $\Gamma$ imposes the defect isotropy condition. The subtle point is that bulk and defect F-term constraints are redundant, leaving $\binom{\ell}{2}$ gauge degrees of freedom un-Higgsed, and the chiral $q$ fields in $\wedge^2 V_\ell$, which appear in no superpotential, Higgs those residual directions. The identity that carries the argument is the evaluation of the Jeffrey-Kirwan residue: with the pole choice $s_a^{(r)} = \sigma_a$ (or $z_a^{(r)} = X_a$), the residue becomes the symmetrized product defining the Schur Q-function, and summing over Weyl permutations with the compensating $1/(n-\ell)!$ factor yields exactly $Q_\lambda$.

What would settle it

Evaluate the 1d defect index for $\lambda=(2,1)$ in $\mathrm{LG}(3,6)$ by summing the Jeffrey-Kirwan residues over all poles coming from chiral denominators, not just the poles $z_a^{(r)}=X_a$; a nonzero residue from any other pole would shift the result away from the K-theoretic Schur Q-function the paper derives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For each strict Young diagram $\lambda = (\lambda_1 > \lambda_2 > \cdots > \lambda_\ell > 0)$, the paper claims that a defect with gauge group $U(1)_\partial \times \cdots \times U(\ell)_\partial$, coupled to the bulk $U(n)$ GLSM for $\mathrm{LG}(n,2n)$, realizes the Schubert cycle $\Omega_\lambda^{\mathrm{LG}}$. The defect carries chiral bifundamentals that build a flag of subspaces, Fermi multiplets that impose vanishing conditions on blocks of the bulk matrix $\Phi$, and an additional Fermi multiplet $\Gamma$ enforcing the isotropy constraint $\phi^{(\ell)} A = 0$, where $A_{ab} = \sum_i \Phi^i_a \Phi^{2n+1-i}_b$. Because the bulk and defect isotropy F-terms overlap, the authors add chiral $q$ fields, appearing in no superpotential, to Higgs the residual gauge symmetry. The decisive checks are the indices: the 0d partition function equals the Schur Q-function $Q_\lambda(\sigma)$, and the 1d index equals the K-theoretic Schur Q-function $Q_\lambda(X)$; the K-theory identification is presented as confirming an expected but not yet proven mathematical statement.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the only poles contributing to the contour integrals are the ones where each defect gauge variable equals one of the bulk Coulomb-branch values; this pole-selection rule is cited from earlier work, not proved in this paper, and if other poles contributed the index would no longer be a Schur Q-function.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every strict Young diagram $\lambda$, the 0d defect index equals the Schur Q-function $Q_\lambda(\sigma)$, so the defect computes the Schubert class of $\Omega_\lambda^{\mathrm{LG}}$ in the quantum cohomology of $\mathrm{LG}(n,2n)$.
  • The 1d defect index equals the K-theoretic Schur Q-function $Q_\lambda(X)$, giving a physical realization of Schubert classes in quantum K theory and a check of the expected, not yet proven, mathematical formula.
  • The GLSM defect locus has dimension $n(n+1)/2 - |\lambda|$, matching the known dimension of the Schubert cycle.
  • The chiral $q$ fields, although absent from all superpotentials, are necessary to Higgs residual gauge symmetries caused by the bulk/defect F-term redundancy; omitting them would change the index.
  • The localization argument places the bulk matrix $\Phi$ in the block matrix form describing the Schubert variety, matching the mathematical description of the Schubert cycle.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would turn on twisted masses or equivariant parameters; the same residue calculation should produce factorial Schur Q-functions, giving a physical derivation of the equivariant Giambelli formula for $\mathrm{LG}(n,2n)$.
  • The same scaffolding may work for orthogonal Grassmannians, where Schubert classes are represented by Schur P-functions; the isotropy superpotential would enforce the orthogonal condition and a similar q-field Higgsing should appear.
  • The paper's reliance on a fixed pole-selection rule suggests a stress test: computing indices in different FI chambers or with generic masses would reveal whether the Schur Q-function answer is chamber-independent, as the Schubert-class interpretation requires.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a gauged linear sigma model (GLSM) construction of defects corresponding to Schubert cycles in Lagrangian Grassmannians LG(n,2n), extending the ordinary Grassmannian construction of Closset and Khlaif. The bulk is the standard U(n) GLSM for LG(n,2n), and the defect is a U(1)×...×U(ℓ) quiver with bifundamental chirals, Fermi multiplets Λ, an additional chiral q in ∧²V_ℓ, and a Fermi Γ. Superpotentials in the bulk and on the defect enforce isotropy and Schubert-type vanishing conditions. The authors argue that the defects localize on the expected Schubert varieties, check dimensions, and compute 0d and 1d defect indices in examples and via a general residue argument, claiming that the indices equal Schur Q-functions in quantum cohomology and quantum K theory.

Significance. If the construction is correct, it provides a physical realization of Schubert cycles in Lagrangian Grassmannians and, in particular, a defect whose partition function is the characteristic polynomial of the Schubert class. The paper is careful to spell out the field content, the dictionary between the partition λ and the block sizes M_i^LG, and the relevant Schur Q-function conventions. The explicit checks for LG(2,4) and LG(3,6) are valuable and reproducible, and the authors are transparent about the fact that the quantum K-theory identification is expected but not yet proven mathematically. The main weakness is that the general index derivation rests on an unproved choice of Jeffrey-Kirwan poles, and the localization analysis is largely a degree count rather than a complete derivation.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.7.4, Eq. (3.103); §3.8.4, Eq. (3.127)] The general residue argument assumes that the only contributing Jeffrey-Kirwan poles are s_a^(r) = σ_a, up to permutations, with a compensating factor 1/(n-ℓ)!. This is not justified by the cited references because the defect integrand contains a new denominator factor from the chiral q field: ∏_{i<j} 1/(s_i^(ℓ)+s_j^(ℓ)) in (3.103) and ∏_{i<j} 1/(1-z_i^(ℓ) z_j^(ℓ)) in (3.127). With positive FI parameters, the q charge vector lies in the JK cone, so poles at s_i^(ℓ)+s_j^(ℓ)=0, or at z_i^(ℓ) z_j^(ℓ)=1 in K theory, are a priori candidates. The paper does not show that these residues vanish or are excluded; if any such pole contributed, the reduction to the S_n orbit of (3.104) would fail, and with it the derivation of (3.110) and (3.131). This is load-bearing for the general claim I_λ = Q_λ, even though the worked examples are consistent.
  2. [§3.4, Eqs. (3.55)–(3.61)] The D-term and Higgsing analysis is a degree count rather than a derivation. In particular, the claim that the q fields act to Higgs the residual gauge symmetry is supported by matching the number of gauge-boson and bosonic degrees of freedom, not by solving the D-term equations or exhibiting the Higgsed vacuum. Since the localization statement is one of the main checks that the defect represents the Schubert cycle, the argument should either be upgraded to a more explicit analysis or clearly stated as a conjecture supported by the index computations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.5, Eq. (3.68)] The dimension formula as displayed contains a repeated index: it reads ∑_{r=1}^ℓ λ_ℓ, which if read literally gives the wrong dimension, e.g. for λ=(2,1) in LG(2,4) it gives 1 instead of 0. It should be ∑_{r=1}^ℓ λ_r, which does match the known dimension.
  2. [§3.7.4] The sentence 'In this section will will give a general argument' contains a duplicated word; please proofread.
  3. [§3.8.4, Eq. (3.134)] The sentence explaining the power of (1-X_i) says it is a consequence of ∑_{r=i} M_r^LG = λ_i - 1; please clarify the summation limits and the matching with (3.133), since the notation currently appears compressed.
  4. [§3.3] It would help to state explicitly that the chiral q field has no superpotential couplings and therefore contributes to the index only through its one-loop determinant; this is implicit in the formulas but worth saying, especially because the q field plays a subtle role in the Higgsing discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the defect indices are derived from an independent quiver construction and compared to independently defined Schur Q-functions; the unproven pole-selection step is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central equality Iλ = Qλ is not self-definitional: Iλ is defined as a JK residue of the proposed defect quiver (3.86)/(3.111), while Qλ is independently defined by (B.1)–(B.5). No parameter is fitted to the target: the block sizes M_i^LG are fixed by λ in (3.13), and the Coulomb branch variables σa/Xa are inputs. The explicit two- and three-dimensional examples in §3.7.2–3.7.3 and §3.8.2–3.8.3 evaluate the integrals directly and match the independent Qλ evaluations in Appendix B; the general arguments in §3.7.4 and §3.8.4 identify the ω=id residue with the corresponding term in Qλ and assemble the Weyl sum. The paper itself notes that “the q fields are necessary in order to get the right defect indices to match mathematics results,” but the q fields are independently required by the redundancy/Higgsing count: the redundancy in §3.3 is (ℓ choose 2), matching the q degrees of freedom, and the dimension check in §3.5 fails without them. The main technical gap is the JK pole-selection assertion in §3.7.4/§3.8.4, quoted as “the only poles that contribute to the JK residue are of this form, as in e.g. [47, Section 4.6]”; the new q-denominator ∏(s_i^(ℓ)+s_j^(ℓ))^{-1} in (3.87)/(3.103) and its K-theoretic analogue ∏(1−z_i^(ℓ)z_j^(ℓ))^{-1} in (3.112)/(3.127) is not separately analyzed, so the exclusion of q-poles is unproven. That is a genuine correctness risk, but it is not circular: excluding those poles is a prerequisite for the residue computation, not an assumption of Qλ. The paper also flags its own limitation in the Introduction: “the mathematical relationship between Schubert cycles and Schur Q-functions has not been proven” for quantum K theory. Self-citations [3], [44], [45] are background (bulk GLSM review and a variable shift) and are not load-bearing; the self-cited theorem [5] is an external mathematical benchmark, not an ingredient of the index derivation. No step reduces the target polynomial to the defect definition or to a fitted projection.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted anywhere in the paper: the block sizes M_i^LG are fixed by the partition λ and the Coulomb branch variables are inputs. The construction introduces two new defect fields (q and Γ) and relies on standard but unproved-in-paper pole selection rules for JK residues, plus the conjectural K-theoretic Schur Q description as a benchmark.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The bulk GLSM for LG(n,2n) is the U(n) gauge theory with 2n fundamentals Φ and p ∈ ∧^2 V* with superpotential W = Σ p^{ab} Φ^i_a Φ^{2n+1-i}_b.
    Taken from [2,3] (Okonek-Teleman; Gu-Sharpe-Zou). The defect construction builds on this starting point without re-deriving it.
  • domain assumption Only the pole configuration s_a^(r) = σ_a (or z_a^(r) = X_a) contributes to the JK residue, with all other poles obtained by S_n permutations and overcounting by (n-ℓ)!; used identically in Sections 3.7.4 and 3.8.4.
    Stated in Section 3.7.4 with reference to [1,47]. The entire index check rests on this rule, which is not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption The bulk and defect F-term constraints, together with the bulk isotropy condition, force the matrix Φ into the block form (3.54) matching the Schubert variety description (3.12); the residual gauge symmetry is fully Higgsed by the q fields.
    Localization argument in Section 3.4 uses degree counting rather than a direct solution of the D-term equations.
  • standard math The K-theoretic Schur Q-functions represent Schubert classes in the quantum K theory of LG(n,2n) (the comparison target for the 3d indices).
    This is explicitly conjectural: the paper states the mathematical relationship 'has not been proven, but matches expectations from e.g. [6]'.
  • standard math Schubert calculus and Schur Q-function formalism: definitions, factorial version, and the fact that Schubert classes in QH(LG(n,2n)) are Schur Q-functions (proven in [5]).
    Used as the mathematical benchmark, especially in the 2d case (appendix B).
invented entities (2)
  • q chiral multiplet in ∧^2 V_ℓ on the defect
    purpose: Higgses residual U(ℓ)∂ gauge symmetry left by the redundancy between bulk and defect F-terms; needed to obtain the correct defect indices.
    Introduced in Section 3.3; does not enter either superpotential; its role is inferred from the degree-of-freedom count, with no external falsifiable handle.
  • Γ Fermi multiplet in V*_ℓ × V*
    purpose: Enforces the constraint ϕ^(ℓ) A = 0 through W∂,1, implementing the second isotropy-type condition on the defect.
    Part of the defect matter content proposed in Section 3.3; no independent evidence outside this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Schubert defects in Lagrangian Grassmannians." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KUTVYWMC

@misc{pith2026250204438,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Schubert defects in Lagrangian Grassmannians},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KUTVYWMC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04438}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose a construction of GLSM defects corresponding to Schubert cycles in Lagrangian Grassmannians, following recent work of Closset-Khlaif on Schubert cycles in ordinary Grassmannians. In the case of Lagrangian Grassmannians, there are superpotential terms in both the bulk GLSM as well as on the defect itself, enforcing isotropy constraints. We check our construction by comparing the locus on which the GLSM defect is supported to mathematical descriptions, checking dimensions, and perhaps most importantly, comparing defect indices to known and expected polynomial invariants of the Schubert cycles in quantum cohomology and quantum K theory.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Grothendieck lines in 3d N = 2 SQCD and the quantum K-theory of the Grassmannian,

    C. Closset and O. Khlaif, “Grothendieck lines in 3d N = 2 SQCD and the quantum K-theory of the Grassmannian,” arXiv:2309.06980 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Graded tilting for gauged Landau-Ginzburg models and geometric applications

    C. Okonek, A. Teleman, “Graded tilting for gauged Landau-Ginzb urg models and geometric applications,” Pure Appl. Math. Q. 17 (2021) 185-235, arXiv:1907.10099 [math.AG]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    GLSMs for exotic Grassmannians

    W. Gu, E. Sharpe and H. Zou, “GLSMs for exotic Grassmannians,” JHEP 10 (2020) 200, arXiv:2008.02281 [hep-th] . 50

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Nonabelian 2d gauge theories for determinantal Calabi-Yau varieties,

    H. Jockers, V. Kumar, J. M. Lapan, D. R. Morrison and M. Romo, “Nonabelian 2d gauge theories for determinantal Calabi-Yau varieties,” JHEP 11 (2012) 166, arXiv:1205.3192 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    Factorial P- and Q-Schur functions represent equivariant quantum Schubert classes

    T Ikeda, L. C. Mihalcea and H. Naruse, “Factorial P - and Q-Schur functions rep- resent equivariant quantum Schubert classes,” Osaka J. Math. 53 (2016) 591–619, arXiv:1402.0892 [math.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Quantum $K$-theory of Lagrangian Grassmannian via parabolic Peterson isomorphism

    T. Ikeda, T. Kouno, Y. Nakayama, K. Yamaguchi, “Quantum K-t heory of Lagrangian Grassmannian via parabolic Peterson isomorphism,” arXiv:2405.17854 [math.AG]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  7. [7]

    Fulton, Young tableaux, London Math

    W. Fulton, Young tableaux, London Math. Soc. Student Texts 35, Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1997

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    Kostant polynomials and the cohomology ring of G/B,

    S. C. Biley, “Kostant polynomials and the cohomology ring of G/B,” Duke Math. J. 96 (1999) 205-224

    work page 1999

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Schur functions, theme and variations,

    I. G. Macdonald, “Schur functions, theme and variations,” Acte s 28’eme S´ eminaire Lotharingien, pp. 5-29, 1992

    1992

  2. [10]

    Giambelli formulae for the equivariant quantum c ohomology of the Grassmannian,

    L. C. Mihalcea, “Giambelli formulae for the equivariant quantum c ohomology of the Grassmannian,” Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 360 (2008) 2285–2301,

    2008

  3. [11]

    Factorial Schur and Grothendieck polynomials fro m Bott Samelson vari- eties,

    D. Oetjen, “Factorial Schur and Grothendieck polynomials fro m Bott Samelson vari- eties,” arXiv:2109.10483 [math.AG]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Quantum Schubert calculus,

    A. Bertram, “Quantum Schubert calculus,” Adv. Math. 128 (1997) 289–305, arXiv:alg-geom/9410024 [math.AG]

    1997 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Fulton, P

    W. Fulton, P. Pragacz, Schubert varieties and degeneracy loci , Lecture notes in math. 1689, Springer, Berlin, 1998

    1998

  6. [14]

    Schubert classes in the equivariant cohomology of t he Lagrangian Grass- mannian,

    T. Ikeda, “Schubert classes in the equivariant cohomology of t he Lagrangian Grass- mannian,” Adv. Math. 215 (2007) 1–23

    2007

  7. [15]

    Excited Young diagrams and equivaria nt Schubert calculus,

    T. Ikeda and H. Naruse, “Excited Young diagrams and equivaria nt Schubert calculus,” Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 361 (2009) 5193–5221

    2009

  8. [16]

    A Giambelli formula for isot ropic Grassmanni- ans,

    A. S. Buch, A. Kresch, H. Tamvakis, “A Giambelli formula for isot ropic Grassmanni- ans,” Selecta Math. (N.S.) 23 (2017) 869-914, arXiv:0811.2781 [math.AG]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Theta and eta polynomials in geometry, Lie theory , and combinatorics,

    H. Tamvakis, “Theta and eta polynomials in geometry, Lie theory , and combinatorics,” in First Congress of Greek Mathematicians , pp. 231-274, De Gruyter Proc. Math., De Gruyter, Berlin

  10. [18]

    Chern class formulas for classical- type degeneracy loci,

    D. E. Anderson, W. Fulton, “Chern class formulas for classical- type degeneracy loci,” Compos. Math. 154 (2018) 1746-1774, arXiv:1504.03615 [math.AG] . 51

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Polynˆ omes de Schubert,

    A. Lascoux, M. P. Sch¨ utzenberger, “Polynˆ omes de Schubert,” C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, S´ er. I Math.294 (1982) 447-450

    1982

  12. [20]

    Flags, Schubert polynomials, degeneracy loci, and d eterminantal formu- las,

    W. Fulton, “Flags, Schubert polynomials, degeneracy loci, and d eterminantal formu- las,” Duke Math. J. 65 (1992) 381-420

    1992

  13. [21]

    Quantum Schubert poly nomials,

    S. Fomin, S. I. Gelfand, A. Postnikov, “Quantum Schubert poly nomials,” J. Amer. Math. Soc. 10 (1997) 565-596

    1997

  14. [22]

    Quantum double Schubert polynomials an d Vafa-Intriligator formula,

    A. N. Kirillov, T. Maeno, “Quantum double Schubert polynomials an d Vafa-Intriligator formula,” Discrete Math. 217 (2000) 191-223

    2000

  15. [23]

    Quantum double Schubert polynomials represent Schubert classes,

    T. F. Lam, M. Shimonozo, “Quantum double Schubert polynomials represent Schubert classes,” Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 142 (2014) 835-850

    2014

  16. [24]

    Grothendieck classes of quiver varieties,

    A. S. Buch, “Grothendieck classes of quiver varieties,” Duke Ma th. J. 115 (2002) 75–103, arXiv:math/0104029 [math.AG]

    2002 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A Pieri formula in the Grothendieck ring of a flag bundle,

    W. Fulton, A. Lascoux, “A Pieri formula in the Grothendieck ring of a flag bundle,” Duke Math. J. 76 (1994) 711–729

    1994

  18. [26]

    Combinatorial aspects of the K-theory of Grass mannians,

    C. Lenart, “Combinatorial aspects of the K-theory of Grass mannians,” Ann. Comb. 4 (2000) 67-82

    2000

  19. [27]

    Factorial Grothendieck polynomials,

    P. J. McNamara, “Factorial Grothendieck polynomials,” Electro n. J. Combin. 13 (2006) no. 1, Research paper 71, arXiv:math/0508192 [math.CO]

    2006 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Quantum integrability and generalised quantum Schubert calculus,

    V. Gorbounov, C. Korff, “Quantum integrability and generalised quantum Schubert calculus,” Adv. Math. 313 (2017) 282–356, arXiv:1408.4718 [math.RT]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    K-theoretic analogues of factorial Sc hur P-and Q-functions,

    T. Ikeda, H. Naruse, “K-theoretic analogues of factorial Sc hur P-and Q-functions,” Adv. Math. 243 2013 22-66, arXiv:1112.5223 [math.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Structure de Hopf de l’anneau de cohomologie et de l’anneau de Grothendieck d’une vari´ et´ e de drapeaux,

    A. Lascoux, M. P. Sch¨ utzenberger, “Structure de Hopf de l’anneau de cohomologie et de l’anneau de Grothendieck d’une vari´ et´ e de drapeaux,” C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris. S´ er. I Math. 295 (1982) 629-633

    1982

  23. [31]

    Anneau de Grothendieck de la vari´ et´ e de drapeaux,

    A. Lascoux, “Anneau de Grothendieck de la vari´ et´ e de drapeaux,” in The Grothendieck Festschrift, volume III , pp. 1-34, Progr. Math. 88, Birkh¨ auser, Boston, 1990

    1990

  24. [32]

    Quantum Grothendieck polynomials,

    C. Lenart, T. Maeno, “Quantum Grothendieck polynomials,” arXiv:math/0608232 [math.CO]

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    A presentation of the torus-e quivariant quantum K-theory ring of flag manifolds of type A, part II: quantum double G rothendieck polynomials,

    T. Maeno, S. Naito, D. Sagaki, “A presentation of the torus-e quivariant quantum K-theory ring of flag manifolds of type A, part II: quantum double G rothendieck polynomials,” arXiv:2305.17685 [math.QA] . 52

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    The Verlinde algebra and the cohomology of the Gras smannian,

    E. Witten, “The Verlinde algebra and the cohomology of the Gras smannian,” arXiv:hep-th/9312104 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    The determinantal formula of Sch ubert calculus,

    G. R. Kempf and D. Laksov, “The determinantal formula of Sch ubert calculus,” Acta Math. 132 (1974) 153–162

    1974

  28. [36]

    GLSM’s for partial flag manifolds,

    R. Donagi and E. Sharpe, “GLSM’s for partial flag manifolds,” J. Geom. Phys. 58 (2008) 1662-1692, arXiv:0704.1761 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Residues formulas for the push-fo rward in K-theory, the case of G2/P,

    A. Weber, M. Zielenkiewicz, “Residues formulas for the push-fo rward in K-theory, the case of G2/P,” J. Algebr. Comb. 49 (2019) 361-380, arXiv:1711.05949 [math.RT]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Grothendieck classes of quiver cycles as iterated re sidues,

    J. Allman, “Grothendieck classes of quiver cycles as iterated re sidues,” arXiv:1310.3548 [math.AG]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Witten index and wall crossing,

    K. Hori, H. Kim and P. Yi, “Witten index and wall crossing,” JHEP 01 (2015) 124, arXiv:1407.2567 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Quantum Pieri rules for isot ropic Grassmannians,

    A. Buch, A. Kresch, H. Tamvakis, “Quantum Pieri rules for isot ropic Grassmannians,” Inv. Math. 178 (2009) 345-405, arXiv:0809.4966 [math.AG]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [41]

    On symmetric and skew-symmetric determina ntal varieties,

    J. Harris, L. Tu, “On symmetric and skew-symmetric determina ntal varieties,” Topol- ogy 23 (1984) 71-84

    1984

  34. [42]

    Fulton, Intersection theory, second edition, Springer, Berlin, 1998

    W. Fulton, Intersection theory, second edition, Springer, Berlin, 1998

    1998

  35. [43]

    Formulas for Lagrangian and ortho gonal degener- acy loci: the ˆQ-polynomials approach,

    P. Pragacz, J. Ratajski, “Formulas for Lagrangian and ortho gonal degener- acy loci: the ˆQ-polynomials approach,” Compositio Math. 107 (1997) 11-87, arXiv:alg-geom/9602019 [math.AG]

    1997 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Quantum K theory of symplectic Grass- mannians,

    W. Gu, L. Mihalcea, E. Sharpe and H. Zou, “Quantum K theory of symplectic Grass- mannians,” J. Geom. Phys. 177 (2022) 104548, arXiv:2008.04909 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Quantum K theory of Grassmannians, Wilson line operators, and Schur bundles,

    W. Gu, L. C. Mihalcea, E. Sharpe and H. Zou, “Quantum K theory of Grassmannians, Wilson line operators, and Schur bundles,” arXiv:2208.01091 [math.AG]

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Quiver indices and Abelian ization from Jeffrey-Kirwan residues,

    G. Beaujard, S. Mondal and B. Pioline, “Quiver indices and Abelian ization from Jeffrey-Kirwan residues,” JHEP 10 (2019) 184, arXiv:1907.01354 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Elliptic genera of 2d N = 2 gauge theories,

    F. Benini, R. Eager, K. Hori and Y. Tachikawa, “Elliptic genera of 2d N = 2 gauge theories,” Commun. Math. Phys. 333 (2015) 1241-1286, arXiv:1308.4896 [hep-th] . 53

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.