Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 1 cited by

A proof of the Fields Conjectures

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Fields Conjectures are true: the superspace coinvariant ring is, up to sign, the permutation action on ordered set partitions, and its full bigrading is computed.

desk verdict A substantial proof of the Fields Conjectures 2 and 3 plus Reiner's conjecture, with the main lemmas sketched but sound on inspection; deserves a careful referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24027 v2 pith:AM5P3DS2 submitted 2025-05-29 math.CO math.RT

Satoshi Murai , Brendon Rhoades , Andy Wilson This is my paper
classification math.COmath.RT MSC 05E1005E0520C3013A50
keywords superspacecoinvariantringorderedsetpartitionsFrobeniuscharacteristicsymmetricgrouprepresentationsbigradedHilbertseriesdeltaconjectureinversesystemparabolicantisymmetrization
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 proves the Fields Conjectures for the superspace coinvariant ring $SR_n$, the quotient of the algebra of differential forms on affine $n$-space by the ideal generated by symmetric invariants with vanishing constant term. The main result is that, as an ungraded module for the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_n$, $SR_n$ is isomorphic to the sign-twisted permutation representation on ordered set partitions of $\{1,\dots,n\}$; this is Theorem 5.1. Theorem 5.2 refines this to the full bigraded $\mathfrak{S}_n$-isomorphism type, giving the bigraded Frobenius characteristic as a sum over ordered set partitions with $k$ blocks of the symmetric functions $C_{n,k}(x;q)$. The paper also proves a related restriction conjecture describing what happens when the element $n$ is erased from the ordered set partition. Since the module structure of $SR_n$ was previously unknown, these results settle the Fields Conjectures and give the superspace analogue of the known module-theoretic results for the classical coinvariant ring and the diagonal coinvariant ring.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by parabolic antisymmetrization and an inverse-system computation. For a partition $\mu$ of $n$, the element $\varepsilon_\mu \in \mathbb{F}[\mathfrak{S}_n]$ antisymmetrizes over the parabolic subgroup $\mathfrak{S}_\mu$, and the paper computes the dimension of $\varepsilon_\mu \cdot SR_n$ for every $\mu$; by Lemma 2.2 this is equivalent to applying $e_\mu^\perp$ to the Frobenius characteristic, so pinning down these dimensions determines the entire module. The upper bound comes from the known monomial basis $A_n$ of $SR_n$ (built from Solomon–Terao algebra methods), reduced modulo evident antisymmetry relations to the sets $A_n(\mu,\gamma)$ indexed by signed partitions $(\mu,\gamma)$. The lower bound passes to the inverse system $SH_n = SI_n^\perp$ and constructs elements $D^T_\mu(\delta_n) \in \varepsilon_\mu \cdot SH_n$ using superspace differential operators defined implicitly through a lower unitriangular matrix $C(\mu)$ (Observation 4.8) that converts a power matrix into a factor matrix by column operations with $\mathfrak{S}_\mu$-invariant entries. Lemma 4.19 shows that $\varepsilon_\mu \cdot SH_n$ has exactly $\sum_{0\le\gamma\le\mu} \#A_n(\mu,\gamma)$ dimensions, and the counting in Lemma 4.4 identifies this sum with $\dim \varepsilon_\mu \cdot (\mathbb{F}[OP_n]\otimes \mathrm{sign})$, yielding the module isomorphism and its bigraded refinement.

What would settle it

Compute $\dim \varepsilon_\mu \cdot SR_n$ for a small partition not covered by the examples, such as $\mu=(4,2)$ or $\mu=(2,2,2)$ for $n=6$, using the claimed basis count $\#OP_n(\mu)$, and compare with an independent Gr\"obner-basis computation of $\varepsilon_\mu \cdot SR_n$; any mismatch would refute Theorem 5.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, its discovery is that the module structure of the superspace coinvariant ring is governed by ordered set partitions. Theorem 5.1 states that $SR_n \cong \mathbb{F}[OP_n] \otimes \mathrm{sign}$ as ungraded $\mathfrak{S}_n$-modules, where $OP_n$ is the set of ordered set partitions of $\{1,\dots,n\}$ and $\mathrm{sign}$ is the one-dimensional sign representation. Theorem 5.2 states that the bigraded Frobenius characteristic is $\mathrm{grFrob}(SR_n;q,z) = \sum_{k=1}^n C_{n,k}(x;q)\, z^{n-k}$, where $q$ tracks bosonic (polynomial) degree and $z$ tracks fermionic (exterior) degree. In particular, the piece of fermionic degree $n-k$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{F}[OP_{n,k}] \otimes \mathrm{sign}$, the sign-twisted permutation module on ordered set partitions with $k$ blocks, and the restriction of this piece to $\mathfrak{S}_{n-1}$ satisfies the same recursion as the numbers $k\cdot(\#OP_{n-1,k-1}+\#OP_{n-1,k})$.

Load-bearing premise

The proof hinges on being able to rewrite the factor matrix as the power matrix times a lower triangular matrix whose entries are invariant under the parabolic subgroup, with the justification given as an algorithmic column-operation sketch; if such a matrix could not always be chosen, the dimension lower bound for $\varepsilon_\mu \cdot SH_n$ would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For each $k$, the fermionic degree $n-k$ piece of $SR_n$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{F}[OP_{n,k}]\otimes \mathrm{sign}$, so the representation content is enumerated by ordered set partitions with $k$ blocks.
  • The restriction of $(SR_n)_{*,n-k}$ to $\mathfrak{S}_{n-1}$ satisfies $[k]_q$ times the sum of the corresponding pieces in rank $n-1$, matching the natural recursion obtained by erasing the element $n$.
  • The bigraded Frobenius characteristic identity implies the previously proven Hilbert-series formula as a corollary, giving a new route to the bigraded Hilbert series of $SR_n$.
  • Through the Springer resolution, $SR_n$ is identified with the cohomology of the space $\widetilde{G}$ modulo the ideal generated by the image of $H^+(G)$, and its pieces match top cohomology of Springer fibers for $SU(n)$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same parabolic-dimension strategy may apply to other reflection groups: the paper's Conjecture 7.1 predicts a surjection onto the Coxeter complex permutation module in all types, and the type $F_4$ data indicates the map is generally not an isomorphism, so module structure there would be a quotient rather than a full description.
  • The implicit definition of $D^T_\mu$ via the lower-triangular factorization in Observation 4.8 might be adapted to diagonal coinvariant rings or other invariant-theoretic quotients, where explicit Gr\"obner bases are hard, because it reduces the construction to a linear-algebra factorization.
  • A geometric proof of the Springer-fiber interpretation could extend the result to other Weyl groups; the close match and small discrepancy in type $F_4$ suggests that the ordered-set-partition model should be replaced by Coxeter-complex data in general Lie type.
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

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proves the Fields Conjectures for the superspace coinvariant ring SR_n: Theorem 5.1 establishes SR_n ≅ F[OP_n] ⊗ sign as ungraded S_n-modules, and Theorem 5.2 determines the bigraded Frobenius characteristic as Σ_{k=1}^n z^{n-k} C_{n,k}(x;q). The proof computes dim ε_μ·SR_n for every partition μ by sandwiching an upper bound from the Angarone–Commins–Karn–Murai–Rhoades monomial basis with a lower bound obtained from new parabolic D-operators on the superharmonic space SH_n. Consequences include Reiner's conjecture (Corollary 5.4) and a Springer-theoretic interpretation of SR_n (Section 6).

Significance. If correct, this resolves a prominent conjecture in algebraic combinatorics and gives the full bigraded S_n-isomorphism type of SR_n, not just its Hilbert series. The method is a significant technical contribution: reducing the character problem to dimension computations of ε_μ·SR_n and constructing implicit D-operators via linear algebra over S_μ-invariant polynomials is elegant and likely to find further use. The paper also gives a new proof of the Rhoades–Wilson Operator Theorem and connects SR_n to Springer fibers. The reliance on published basis and character results is explicit and noncircular, and the main claims are backed by reproducible algebraic constructions.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (4.12)] The displayed formula for the factor matrix F_r(y,μ)_{i,j} appears inconsistent with the worked example in the same subsection: for block 1 the entries are shown with exponents 3, 2, 1, whereas the formula as printed would give a different exponent. The intended exponent is presumably μ_1+...+μ_k−j+1 for j in block k; please correct the formula.
  2. [Lemma 4.15(1)] The sentence "None of the exponents arising in the monomial expansion of e_λ(x_1,...,x_m) are ≤ λ'_1" states the opposite of the intended bound. It should say that no exponent exceeds λ'_1, or equivalently that all exponents are ≤ λ'_1.
  3. [Eq. (4.16)] The matrix H is said to be defined over F[x_n]^{S_n}, but C(μ)^{-1} has entries in F[x_n]^{S_μ} by Observation 4.8 and E has entries in F; the text should say F[x_n]^{S_μ} unless a stronger invariance statement is being made and proved.
  4. [Lemma 4.17] The first sentence says "Let m,k,t ≥ 0 be such that k ≤ n," which should read k ≤ m; as written the variable n is undefined in that context.
  5. [Observation 4.8 and Lemma 4.9] Both results are load-bearing for the definition of the D-operators and the lower bound in Lemma 4.19, yet their proofs are given as sketches. I was able to verify the claims by following the explicit column-operation recipe, but for the journal version I recommend adding a short formal proof of Observation 4.8 (for instance an explicit formula for the entries of C(μ) in each block) and a more detailed determinant factorization in Lemma 4.9.
  6. [Lemma 4.12 proof] There is a typo in the phrase "with coeffieint g × f_{J(μ,γ)} ⊙ δ_n"; it should read "coefficient".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Fields Conjectures are reduced to previously established basis, operator, and character results that do not assume the target statements.

full rationale

The derivation chain is independent of its conclusion. Theorem 5.1 reduces the ungraded S_n-isomorphism to dimension comparisons of antisymmetrized pieces via Lemma 2.2, and the relevant dimensions are supplied by the new parabolic basis Lemma 4.19 and the purely combinatorial count Lemma 4.4. Lemma 4.19 is built from external inputs: the Artin-type monomial basis of SR_n from Angarone et al. [3, Cor. 8.2], the colon-ideal bases [3, Thm. 8.1], the easy direction of the Operator Theorem (already due to Swanson and Wallach [44]), and Steinberg's Theorem. No quoted equation assumes the Fields Conjectures or Reiner's conjecture. Theorem 5.2 uses the independently defined modules W_{n,k} = Ω_n/ann(δ_{n,k}); its Frobenius characteristic was computed in [34] and its monomial basis in [35], neither of which presupposes Fields Conjecture 3. The argument then identifies the fermionic-degree pieces of SR_n with those of W_{n,k} using the same epsilon-dimension test, so the cited W_{n,k} results are load-bearing but external. Several key inputs are by the present authors, but self-citation is not circular here: those papers prove independent theorems about the same objects without assuming the target module structure. The terse algorithmic sketch in Observation 4.8 is a potential correctness risk, not a circularity, since it does not encode the conclusion. Overall the paper's central claims have independent content, with only minor self-citation, score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; q and z are grading variables, not fitted constants. No new physical or algebraic entities are postulated. The proof loads several external theorems, including basis theorems, the Operator Theorem, W_{n,k} character formulas, and Reeder's theorem, as axioms; none of these external results is equivalent to the Fields Conjectures, so the central derivation is not circular.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math F is a field of characteristic 0.
    Averaging over the symmetric group, inverse-system duality, and the Springer-theory arguments in Proposition 6.2 all require characteristic 0.
  • standard math Finite-dimensional S_n-representation theory: irreducibles indexed by partitions, Frobenius characteristic, and the e-perp-mu dimension formula (Lemma 2.2).
    Theorems 5.1 and 5.2 identify SR_n from dimensions of epsilon_mu times SR_n; Lemma 2.2 is proved in the paper using Littlewood-Richardson and Dual Pieri rules.
  • domain assumption Basis theorems of Angarone, Commins, Karn, Murai, and Rhoades: A_n is a basis of SR_n and A_n(J) is a basis of F[x_n]/(I_n : f_J).
    These published results from [3] provide the upper bound and the staircase control used in Lemmas 4.3, 4.11, 4.15, and 4.19; they are not reproved in this paper.
  • domain assumption Operator Theorem / Swanson-Wallach closure of SH_n: delta_n lies in SH_n, and SH_n is closed under higher Euler operators and partial derivatives.
    Lemma 4.5 needs only the easy direction of the Operator Theorem [33, Theorem 5.1], already proved by Swanson and Wallach [44], to place D_T^mu(delta_n) in epsilon_mu times SH_n.
  • domain assumption Published character and basis results for the superspace Vandermonde modules W_{n,k}: [35, Thm 4.11] gives the top-degree basis and [34] gives coefficient of z^r in grFrob(W_{n,k};q,z) equal to C_{n,k}(x;q).
    Theorem 5.2 identifies each fermionic layer of SR_n with the corresponding layer of W_{n,k}; these are prior results of Rhoades and Wilson, independent of the Fields Conjectures.
  • domain assumption Reeder's theorem: p-star is injective with image H-star(tilde G)^W.
    Proposition 6.2 and Corollary 6.3 depend on Reeder [29, Prop. 6.1] for the Springer-theoretic interpretation; this is independent of the Fields Conjectures.
  • standard math Schubert classes for permutations with two increasing runs form part of a basis of the cohomology ring R_m.
    Lemma 4.15(2) uses this standard fact from Fulton [12] to obtain linear independence of the relevant Schur polynomials in R_m.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A proof of the Fields Conjectures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AM5P3DS2

@misc{pith2026250524027,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A proof of the Fields Conjectures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AM5P3DS2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24027}
}
abstract

The {\em superspace ring} of rank $n$ is the algebra $\Omega_n$ of differential forms on affine $n$-space. The algebra $\Omega_n$ is bigraded with respect to polynomial and exterior degree and carries a natural action of the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_n$. Modding out by $\mathfrak{S}_n$-invariants with vanishing constant term yields the {\em superspace coinvariant ring} $SR_n$. We prove that, as an ungraded $\mathfrak{S}_n$-module, the space $SR_n$ is isomorphic to the sign-twisted permutation action of $\mathfrak{S}_n$ on ordered set partitions of $\{1,\dots,n\}$. We refine this result by calculating the bigraded $\mathfrak{S}_n$-isomorphism type of $SR_n$. This proves the Fields Conjectures of N. Bergeron, L. Colmenarejo, S.-X. Li, J. Machacek, R. Sulzgruber, and M. Zabrocki as well as a related conjecture of V. Reiner.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24027 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Constructing an ordered set partition for µ = (5, 3, 3, 3, 2) ⊢ 16 and γ = (2, 1, 3, 0, 1). from which the result follows. □ The recursive proof of Lemma 4.4 is best understood by example. Suppose µ = (5, 3, 3, 3, 2) ⊢ 16 and γ = (2, 1, 3, 0, 1). The construction of one possible ordered set partition in OP16 is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Solomon-Terao polynomials and Castelnouvo-Mumford regularity of hyperplane arrangements

    math.AG 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For tame hyperplane arrangements, the Solomon-Terao polynomial is monic of degree equal to the number of hyperplanes, settling Conjecture 1.6.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    T. Abe, T. Horiguchi, M. Masuda, S. Murai, and T. Sato. Hessenberg varieties and hyperplane arrangements. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 764 (2020), 241–286

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    T. Abe, T. Maeno, S. Murai, and Y. Numata. Solomon–Terao algebra of hyperplane arrangements. J. Math. Soc. Jpn., 71 (4)(2019), 1027–1047

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Angarone, P

    R. Angarone, P. Commins, T. Karn, S. Murai, and B. Rhoades. Superspace coinvariants and hyperplane ar- rangements. Adv. Math., 467 (2025), 110185

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    E. Artin. Galois Theory, Second edition. Notre Dame Math Lectures, no. 2. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1944

    work page 1944

  5. [5]

    Bergeron

    F. Bergeron. The bosonic-fermionic diagonal coinvariant modules conjecture. Preprint, 2020. arXiv:2005.00924

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Bhattacharya

    S. Bhattacharya. The superspace coinvariant ring of type B. In preparation, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Blasiak, M

    J. Blasiak, M. Haiman, J. Morse, A. Pun, and G. Seelinger. A proof of the Extended Delta Conjecture. Forum Math. Pi , Vol. 11:e6, (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    A. Borel. Sur la cohomologie des espaces fibr´ es principaux et des espaces homog` enes de groupes de Lie compacts. Ann. of Math. , 57 (1953), 115–207

    work page 1953

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Carlsson and A

    E. Carlsson and A. Oblomkov. Affine Schubert calculus and double coinvariants. Preprint, 2018. (Version of Feb. 16, 2025.) arXiv:1801.09033

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Chevalley

    C. Chevalley. Invariants of finite groups generated by reflections. Amer. J. Math. , 77 (4)(1955), 778–782

    1955

  3. [11]

    D’Adderio and A

    M. D’Adderio and A. Mellit. A proof of the compositional Delta conjecture. Adv. Math., 402 (2022), 108342

    2022

  4. [12]

    W. Fulton. Young tableaux: with applications to representation theory and geometry . London Mathematical Society Student Texts. No. 35. Cambridge University Press, 1997

    1997

  5. [13]

    Garsia, J

    A. Garsia, J. Haglund, J. Remmel, and M. Yoo. A proof of the Delta Conjecture when q = 0. Ann. Comb. , 23 (2019), 317–333

    2019

  6. [14]

    Griffin, M

    S. Griffin, M. Gillespie, and E. Gorsky. A geometric interpretation of the Delta Conjecture. Preprint, 2024. arXiv:2501.00197

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Griffin, J

    S. Griffin, J. Levinson, and A. Woo. Springer fibers and the Delta Conjecture at t = 0. Adv. Math., 439 (2024), 109491

    2024

  8. [16]

    I. Gordon. On the quotient ring by diagonal invariants. Invent. Math. , 153 (3)(2003), 503–518

    2003

  9. [17]

    J. Haglund. The q, t-Catalan numbers and the space of diagonal harmonics: with an appendix on the combinatorics of Macdonald polynomials. Vol. 41. American Mathematical Society, 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    Haglund, J

    J. Haglund, J. Remmel, and A. Wilson. The delta conjecture. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 370 (6)(2018), 4029– 4057

    2018

  11. [19]

    Haglund, B

    J. Haglund, B. Rhoades, and M. Shimozono. Ordered set partitions, generalized coinvariant algebras, and the Delta Conjecture. Adv. Math., 329 (2018), 851–915

    2018

  12. [20]

    Haglund, B

    J. Haglund, B. Rhoades, and M. Shimozono. Hall-Littlewood expansions of Schur delta operators at t = 0. S´ em. Lothar. Comb., B79c (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    M. Haiman. Conjectures on the quotient ring by diagonal invariants. J. Algebraic Combin., 3 (3)(1994), 17–76

    1994

  14. [22]

    M. Haiman. Vanishing theorems and character formulas for the Hilbert scheme of points in the plane. Invent. Math., 149 (2002), 371–407

    2002

  15. [23]

    R. Kane. Reflection Groups and Invariant Theory. CMS Books in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York. 2001

    2001

  16. [24]

    Kim and B

    J. Kim and B. Rhoades. Lefschetz theory for exterior algebras and fermionic diagonal coinvariants. Int. Math. Res. Notices IMRN , Volume 2022, Issue 4 (2022), 2906–2933

    2022

  17. [25]

    J. Lentfer. A conjectural basis for the (1 , 2)-bosonic-fermionic coinvariant ring. Preprint, 2024. arXiv:2406.19715

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. Lentfer. The sign character of the triagonal fermionic coinvariant ring. Preprint, 2025. arXiv:2501.09920

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. C. Milne. A q-analog of restricted growth functions, Dobinski’s equality, and Charlier polynomials. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 245 (1978), 89–118

    1978

  20. [28]

    Pawlowski and B

    B. Pawlowski and B. Rhoades. A flag variety for the Delta Conjecture. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 372 (11) (2019), 8195–8248

    2019

  21. [29]

    M. Reeder. On the cohomology of compact Lie groups. Enseign. Math. , 41 (1995), 181–200

    1995

  22. [30]

    V. Reiner. Personal communication, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    B. Rhoades. Ordered set partition statistics and the Delta Conjecture. J. Comb. Theory Ser. A , 154 (2018), 172–217

    2018

  24. [32]

    Rhoades, V

    B. Rhoades, V. Tewari, and A. Wilson. Tutte polynomials in superspace. Preprint, 2024. arXiv:2404.01450

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Rhoades and A

    B. Rhoades and A. Wilson. The Hilbert series of the superspace coinvariant ring. Forum Math. Pi , Vol. 12:e16, (2024), 1–35

    2024

  26. [34]

    Rhoades and A

    B. Rhoades and A. Wilson. Vandermondes in superspace. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 373 (6)(2020), 4483–4516. 28 SATOSHI MURAI, BRENDON RHOADES, AND ANDY WILSON

    2020

  27. [35]

    Rhoades and A

    B. Rhoades and A. Wilson. Set superpartitions and superspace duality modules. Forum Math. Sigma , Vol. 10:e105. doi:10.1017/fms.2022.90

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    Sagan and J

    B. Sagan and J. Swanson. q-Stirling numbers in type B. European J. Combin., 118 (2024), 103899

    2024

  29. [37]

    L. Solomon. Invariants of finite reflection groups. Nagoya Math. J. , 22 (1963), 57–64

    1963

  30. [38]

    Springer

    T. Springer. A construction of representations of Weyl groups. Invent. Math. , 44 (3)(1978), 279–293

    1978

  31. [39]

    R. P. Stanley. Invariants of finite groups and their applications to combinatorics. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. , 1 (1979), 475–411

    1979

  32. [40]

    Steinberg

    R. Steinberg. Invariants of finite reflection groups. Canadian J. Math. , 12 (1960), 616–618

    1960

  33. [41]

    Steingr ´ ımsson

    E. Steingr ´ ımsson. Statistics on ordered partitions of sets.J. Comb. , 11 (3)(2020), 557–574

    2020

  34. [42]

    J. Swanson. Tanisaki witness relations for harmonic differential forms. Algebraic Combin., 7 (1)(2024), 159–185

    2024

  35. [43]

    Swanson and N

    J. Swanson and N. Wallach. Harmonic differential forms for pseudo-reflection groups I. Semi-invariants. J. Com- bin. Theory Ser. A , 3 (3)(2023), Paper No. 17

    2023

  36. [44]

    Swanson and N

    J. Swanson and N. Wallach. Harmonic differential forms for pseudo-reflection groups II. Bi-degree bounds. Comb. Theory, 182 (2021), 105474

    2021

  37. [45]

    Wachs and D

    M. Wachs and D. White. p, q-Stirling numbers and set partition statistics. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A , 56 (1) (1991), 27–46

    1991

  38. [46]

    A. Wilson. An Extension of MacMahon’s Equidistribution Theorem to Ordered Multiset Partitions. Electron. J. Combin., 23 (1)(2016), P1.5

    2016

  39. [47]

    Zabrocki

    M. Zabrocki. A module for the Delta conjecture. Preprint, 2019. arXiv:1902.08966. W aseda University Email address : s-murai@waseda.jp University of California, San Diego Email address : bprhoades@ucsd.edu Kennesaw State University Email address : awils342@kennesaw.edu

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.