Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 32 references

Convex Geometries via Hopf Monoids: Combinatorial Invariants, Reciprocity, and Supersolvability

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 One shared chamber marks supersolvable convex geometries

desk verdict The Hopf-monoid packaging of the known reciprocity theorems is clean, but the genuinely new supersolvability characterization in Theorem 5.4 rests on a gap in the converse that must be fixed before the descent and peak formulas can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00380 v2 pith:BWTEYK54 submitted 2025-05-31 math.CO

Yichen Ma This is my paper
classification math.CO MSC 05A1906A1505E05
keywords convexgeometryHopfmonoidorderpolynomialenrichedextremalfunctionsupersolvabilityab-indexcd-indexquasisymmetricinvariant
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 builds a Hopf-monoid framework for convex geometries and shows that four canonical characters produce the known counting polynomials for extremal, strictly extremal, and enriched extremal functions, together with reciprocity theorems that unify the Edelman-Jamison and Billera-Hsiao-Provan results. The central new characterization is that a convex geometry is supersolvable exactly when the maximal convex cones of its order complex—the cones coming from partial orders contained in the geometry—share at least one chamber. For supersolvable geometries this makes the coefficients of the ab-index counts of chambers with a fixed descent set, and the coefficients of the cd-index counts of chambers with a fixed peak set, up to powers of two. A sympathetic reader would care because a purely geometric cone-intersection condition translates into concrete enumeration formulas for invariants that previously were computed algebraically.

What carries the argument

The Hopf monoid $\mathbf{cG}$ of loopless convex geometries, with direct sum as product and restriction/contraction as coproduct, carries four characters $\eta$, $\zeta$, $\eta * \zeta = \varphi$, and $\zeta * \eta = \varphi'$; the associated polynomial invariants are computed by summing over ordered set partitions whose partial unions are convex. The order complex $V_g$ of the lattice of convex sets sits inside the braid arrangement, where faces, chambers, and cones correspond to set compositions, linear orders, and partial orders. Theorem 5.4 identifies supersolvability with the condition that the maximal convex cones $V_{p_1}, \ldots, V_{p_k}$ share a chamber, which is shown via Lemma 5.3 asserting that a distributive sublattice together with rank-modular elements generates a distributive sublattice.

What would settle it

Find a convex geometry $g$ whose maximal convex cones $V_{p_1}, \ldots, V_{p_k}$ have nonempty chamber intersection but whose lattice $L_g$ is not supersolvable, or exhibit a meet-distributive lattice, a set $M$ of rank-modular elements, and a distributive sublattice $D$ whose generated sublattice is not distributive. A brute-force search over all loopless convex geometries on a five-element ground set would settle both, since Theorem 5.4 predicts the two conditions agree in every case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the Hopf monoid of convex geometries, the polynomial invariants of the canonical characters $\eta$, $\zeta$, and $\varphi'$ count extremal, strictly extremal, and enriched extremal functions $f : I \to [n]$ (or $f : I \to \mathbb{J}_n\mathbb{K}$), generalizing the order, strict order, and enriched order polynomials; also, $\eta$ and $\zeta$ satisfy $(-1)^{|I|}\chi^\eta_I(g)(-n) = \chi^\zeta_I(g)(n)$, and the odd characters $\varphi$, $\varphi'$ satisfy self-reciprocity. The quasisymmetric invariants enumerate faces of the order complex $V_g$, its interior, and links in the Billera–Hsiao–Provan simplicial sphere. The main structural theorem states that a convex geometry is supersolvable if and only if the intersection of the maximal convex cones $V_{p_i}$ in its order complex contains a chamber, and from this the ab-index of $\eta$ and $\zeta$ and the cd-index of $\varphi$ and $\varphi'$ are expressed as descent and peak counts over chambers of $V_g$.

Load-bearing premise

The converse direction of Theorem 5.4 rests on Lemma 5.3, whose proof is a sketch claiming that joins of more than two generators can be replaced by unions using modularity and distributivity, and on the standing assumption that the maximal convex cones of $V_g$ are exactly the cones $V_p$ of partial orders with $L_p$ a maximal distributive sublattice of $L_g$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Edelman-Jamison reciprocity for extremal functions and the Billera-Hsiao-Provan reciprocity for enriched extremal functions are consequences of one general antipode reciprocity, so they hold for every convex geometry, not just those arising from partial orders.
  • For a supersolvable convex geometry, the ab-index coefficient $[m(a,b)_S]\Psi^\eta_g$ equals the number of chambers $\ell$ in $V_g$ whose two-line permutation with a fixed $\ell'_0$ has descent set $S$, and the analogous statement holds for $\zeta$ with $\ell_0$.
  • For a supersolvable convex geometry, the cd-index coefficients satisfy $[m(c,d)_S]\Phi^{\varphi'}_g = 2^{|S|+1}$ times the number of chambers with peak set $S$, with an analogous formula for $\varphi$.
  • A convex geometry coming from a partial order is automatically supersolvable, so the new descent and peak formulas specialize to the previously known ab- and cd-index results for order polytopes.
  • The quasisymmetric invariant for $\varphi'$ has a geometric meaning as counting faces in links of the signed-copy vertices of the Billera–Hsiao–Provan sphere.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The chamber-intersection condition of Theorem 5.4 could serve as a finite computational test for supersolvability once the maximal partial-order cones $V_{p_i}$ are listed, which is a purely combinatorial enumeration problem on the closure operator's convex sets.
  • If Lemma 5.3 holds in full generality, the same cone argument may extend from convex geometries to supersolvable closure operators, giving the descent description conjectured at the end of Section 6.
  • The open Question 4.27 suggests that the $\varphi$ quasisymmetric invariant for general convex geometries may also admit a sphere or Eulerian-poset model; the paper's construction for posets indicates the model would be a signed-copy modification of the Billera–Hsiao–Provan sphere.
  • One could test the sharpness of Theorem 5.4 by checking whether any non-supersolvable convex geometry on five or fewer elements has maximal cones whose intersection contains a chamber; the paper's examples show the condition fails in the smallest non-supersolvable case.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Hopf-monoid framework for convex geometries. The authors define four canonical characters η, ζ, φ, φ′ on the Hopf monoid of convex geometries (which contains the Hopf monoid of partial orders as a submonoid) and study the associated polynomial invariants and quasisymmetric invariants. They prove that χη counts extremal functions, χζ counts strictly extremal functions, and χφ′ counts enriched extremal functions (Theorems 4.7 and 4.13), yielding reciprocity theorems that specialize to Edelman–Jamison and Billera–Hsiao–Provan reciprocity. They also interpret the flag f-vectors geometrically in terms of faces of the order complex Vg and the Billera–Hsiao–Provan sphere. In Section 5, they prove a geometric characterization of supersolvable convex geometries (Theorem 5.4) and use it to express the ab-index and cd-index coefficients for η, ζ, φ, φ′ in terms of descents and peaks of chambers in Vg (Theorems 5.7, 5.9, 5.11). The final section extends some of these ideas to supersolvable closure operators.

Significance. The paper’s central contributions are the unified derivation of reciprocity theorems from a Hopf-monoid antipode formula and the proposed geometric description of supersolvability. The Section 4 counting results are plausible and consistent with existing literature: the extremal-function counting theorems specialize to the order and enriched order polynomial results, and the worked examples (4.16, 5.8, 5.10) are arithmetically correct. The manuscript provides a rare bridge between Hopf monoids and concrete geometric combinatorics of convex geometries. However, the Section 5 results are only as strong as Theorem 5.4, whose converse direction is not fully justified; this is the main obstacle to accepting the paper as is.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2, Proposition 4.2] Proposition 4.2 states ζ_I(g)=1 when g is discrete and 0 otherwise, but the proof immediately computes the convolution summand as (-1)^{|T|}. With the stated character, (η∗ζ)_I(g) for discrete g equals Σ_{S⊆I}1 = 2^{|I|}, which is not ε(g), so ζ is not the inverse of η. If instead ζ_I(g)=(-1)^{|I|} for discrete g, then χζ_I(g)(1)=(-1)^{|I|}, which contradicts the interpretation of χζ_I(g)(n) as the number of strictly extremal functions (equal to 1 at n=1 for all g). The statement and proof must be reconciled with Theorem 4.7(2) and Corollary 4.9.
  2. [§5.2, proof of Theorem 5.4 (⇐)] The converse direction of Theorem 5.4 is not established. Lemma 5.3 proves only that the sublattice L′ generated by a chief chain c and a distributive sublattice Lp is distributive. The proof then asserts that Lp⊊L′ implies every maximal partial order contains elements of c; however, distributivity of L′ does not imply L′ = L_q for some partial order q on I. A distributive sublattice of a Boolean lattice need not be an order-ideal lattice: for instance, {∅,{a,b},{c},I} inside 2^{{a,b,c}} is distributive but is not the lattice of order ideals of any poset on three elements. Consequently the argument does not show that the intersection of the maximal cones ∩_i V_{p_i} contains a chamber, and the geometric descriptions in Theorems 5.7, 5.9, and 5.11 rest on this unproved implication. The author should either prove that L′ is (or extends to) an order-ideal lattice L_q, or provide a different argument for the converse.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§2.2] In the display defining the polynomial invariant, the character ζ appears in the tensor product but the text says the invariant is associated with ψ; this should be ψ_{S_1}⊗⋯⊗ψ_{S_n}.
  2. [Theorem 5.11] The symbol Γ(S) is used but not defined; it is likely meant to be the peak-set map Λ or the analogous transformation from descent sets. Also, the set V_p in the formula should presumably be V_g.
  3. [§5.1, proof of Theorem 5.1] The line 'By the convexity of Vp again we can deduce that star(F) ∈ Vp' should read 'star(F) ⊆ Vp', and the phrase 'ℓ0 ∈ Vp, ℓ0 ∈ Vp' appears to contain a typo (likely the second ℓ0 should be the reverse order ℓ̅0).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the Hopf-monoid invariants are derived from independent definitions and external results, and no prediction reduces to a fitted input or to the result it claims to prove.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. The polynomial invariants are computed from the Hopf-monoid coproduct and the defined characters η, ζ, φ, and φ′; the counting descriptions (extremal, strictly extremal, and enriched extremal functions) are established by explicit bijections (Proposition 4.5 and Theorem 4.13) rather than by defining the counted objects to match the formula. The reciprocity identities follow from the general character identity ζ = η^{-1} and Proposition 2.1, and they are checked against the independent results of Edelman-Jamison [19] and Billera-Hsiao-Provan [14]. The quasisymmetric and flag-vector statements are direct unpackings of the universal map, with no fitted parameters. Theorem 5.4 is also not circular: supersolvability and the chamber-intersection condition are distinct notions, and the proof attempts to connect them through Lemma 5.3. The converse proof of Theorem 5.4 does contain a genuine rigor gap—distributivity of the generated sublattice L′ does not by itself imply L′ = Lq for a partial order q, and the induction in Lemma 5.3 is only sketched—but this is a completeness or correctness concern, not an equivalence by construction. All cited external theorems come from independent literature, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

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

The central claim rests on the Hopf monoid structure of convex geometries (from [5]), the character computation for zeta (Proposition 4.2), the braid arrangement dictionary (from [6]), and two ad hoc ingredients for Section 5: Lemma 5.3 and the maximal-cone/maximal-distributive-sublattice correspondence. There are no free parameters and no invented entities. The most fragile entries are the two ad hoc assumptions, whose proofs are sketched. Additionally, the statement of Proposition 4.2 conflicts with its own proof over a sign, which affects whether zeta is the convolution inverse of eta as claimed.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The species cG of loopless convex geometries, with product the direct sum of closure operators and coproduct given by restriction and contraction over closed sets, carries a Hopf monoid structure, and PO embeds as a Hopf submonoid (cited to [5, Section 13.9.5]).
    All polynomial invariant computations in Section 4 rely on this structure and in particular on the fact that a contraction g/S of a convex geometry by a convex set is again a loopless convex geometry, so iterated coproduct components are convex geometries.
  • standard math Every nonempty loopless convex geometry has at least one extreme point, so Ex(I) is empty if and only if I is empty (from [19, Theorem 2.1]).
    Used in the proof of Proposition 4.2 to conclude that the convolution (eta * zeta) evaluates to the Kronecker delta; without this fact the character zeta is not invertible in the claimed way.
  • domain assumption The standard dictionary between the braid arrangement on I and combinatorial objects: faces are set compositions, chambers are linear orders, flats are set partitions, cones are preorders, top-cones are partial orders, and Vg, the order complex of the convex-set lattice Lg, is a subcomplex of the…
    Bridges Section 3 to Sections 4.3 and 5: the flag f-vector interpretations and the maximal convex cones Vpi in Theorem 5.4 all use this correspondence, which is stated in the paper but not proved.
  • ad hoc to paper Lemma 5.3: the sublattice of Lg generated by a set of rank-modular elements M and a distributive sublattice D is distributive.
    This is the engine of the converse direction of Theorem 5.4. Its proof in the paper is a sketch: for expressions with more than two generators it asserts that joins can be replaced by unions without exhibiting the induction. The lemma is not referenced from the literature and is load-bearing.
  • ad hoc to paper The maximal convex cones of Vg are exactly the cones Vp for partial orders p whose lattice of order ideals Lp is a maximal distributive sublattice of Lg, and this list is finite (implicit in the statement of Theorem 5.4).
    Theorem 5.4 is stated over 'p1,...,pk partial orders such that Vp1,...,Vpk are the maximal convex cones in Vg'; the correspondence between maximal convex cones and maximal distributive sublattices is presupposed without proof. The proof also assumes every convex set in Lg lies inside at least one maximal distributive sublattice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Convex Geometries via Hopf Monoids: Combinatorial Invariants, Reciprocity, and Supersolvability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BWTEYK54

@misc{pith2026250600380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Convex Geometries via Hopf Monoids: Combinatorial Invariants, Reciprocity, and Supersolvability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BWTEYK54}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00380}
}
abstract

We study the Hopf monoid of convex geometries, which contains partial orders as a Hopf submonoid, and investigate the combinatorial invariants arising from canonical characters. Each invariant consists of a pair: a polynomial and a more general quasisymmetric function. We give combinatorial descriptions of the polynomial invariants and prove combinatorial reciprocity theorems for the Edelman-Jamison and Billera-Hsiao-Provan polynomials, which generalize the order and enriched order polynomials, respectively, within a unified framework. For the quasisymmetric invariants, we show that their coefficients enumerate faces of certain simplicial complexes, including subcomplexes of the Coxeter complex and a simplicial sphere structure introduced by Billera, Hsiao, and Provan. We also examine the associated $ab$- and $cd$-indices. We establish an equivalent condition for convex geometries to be supersolvable and use this result to give a geometric interpretation of the $ab$- and $cd$-index coefficients for this class of convex geometries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00380 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. the braid arrangement on I = {x, y, z, w} The green chamber labeled z|w|y|x corresponds to the linear order z < w < y < x. The top cone (cone containing at least one chamber) in orange corresponds to the partial order on {x, y, z, w} defined by relations x < y, x < z, x < w, y < w, z < w. The hyperplane in red (x = w) is also a flat corresponding to the set partition {xw, y, z} with maximal faces permutations of xw|… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Convex geometry induced from Euclidean closure The notion of convex geometries generalizes partial orders in sense of order ideals, because given a partial order p on ground set I, we can define a convex geometry gp such that for A ⊆ I (5) gp(A) = {x ∈ I | x ≤ a in p for some a ∈ A}. Also, the species cG with cG[I] the vector space spanned by all loopless convex geometries, together with µ, ∆ described the same as t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. g, Lg, Vg of the convex geometry on three colinear points Let int(Vg) denote the interior of Vg. Proposition 4.19. Let g be a convex geometry and F be a composition on I. Then the following statements are equivalent. (1) F ∈ int(Vg). (2) F = (F1, F2, ..., Fk) satisfies Ai := F1 ∪ ... ∪ Fi is convex for each 0 ≤ i ≤ k and gAi:Ai+1 is discrete for all 0 ≤ i ≤ k − 1 with convention A0 = ∅. Proof. Assume (1). That is, s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: g, Q(g), Σ(g), ∆(Q(g)) of the convex geometry on three colinear points It is clear from definition that f φ ′ I (g) enumerates chains in Q(g). Since Q(g) ∪ {ˆ1} is Eulerian, f φ ′ I (g) enumerates chains of intervals of a Eulerian posets. Hence f φ ′ I (g) is the sum o…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An example of supersolvable convex geometries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A non-example of supersolvable convex geometries 5.3. ab-index associated with supersolvable convex geometries. Let g be a supersolvable convex geometry, and let p0 be the partial order with Vp0 ⊆ Vp for all maximal partial orders p in g according to (1) of Theorem 5.4…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hopf monoids and generalized permutahedra

    Marcelo Aguiar and Federico Ardila. “Hopf monoids and generalized permutahedra”. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 289.1437 (2023), pp. vi+119

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Hopf monoids and polynomial invariants of combinato- rial structures

    Marcelo Aguiar and Jose Bastidas. “Hopf monoids and polynomial invariants of combinato- rial structures”. Algebraic and Geometric Combinatorics - Cambridge University Press (To appear)

    work page

  3. [3]

    The peak algebra and the descent algebras of types B and D

    Marcelo Aguiar, Nantel Bergeron, and Kathryn Nyman. “The peak algebra and the descent algebras of types B and D”. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 356.7 (2004), pp. 2781–2824

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Combinatorial Hopf algebras and gen- eralized Dehn-Sommerville relations

    Marcelo Aguiar, Nantel Bergeron, and Frank Sottile. “Combinatorial Hopf algebras and gen- eralized Dehn-Sommerville relations”. Compos. Math. 142.1 (2006), pp. 1–30

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Monoidal functors, species and Hopf algebras

    Marcelo Aguiar and Swapneel Mahajan. Monoidal functors, species and Hopf algebras. Vol. 29. CRM Monograph Series. With forewords by Kenneth Brown and Stephen Chase and Andr´ e Joyal. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2010, pp. lii+784

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Topics in hyperplane arrangements

    Marcelo Aguiar and Swapneel Mahajan. Topics in hyperplane arrangements. Vol. 226. Math- ematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2017, pp. xxiv+611

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Valuations and the Hopf Monoid of Generalized Per- mutahedra

    Federico Ardila and Mario Sanchez. “Valuations and the Hopf Monoid of Generalized Per- mutahedra”. International Mathematics Research Notices 2022.5 (2022), pp. 4149–4224. doi: 10.1093/imrn/rnab355. url: https://doi.org/10.1093/imrn/rnab355

    doi:10.1093/imrn/rnab355 2022

  8. [8]

    The sorting order on a Coxeter group

    Drew Armstrong. “The sorting order on a Coxeter group”. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. A 116 (2007), pp. 1285–1305

    work page 2007

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Convex Geometry of Building Sets

    Spencer Backman and Rick Danner. Convex Geometry of Building Sets . 2024. arXiv: 2403. 05514 [math.CO]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05514

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    The cd-index: a survey

    Margaret M. Bayer. “The cd-index: a survey”. Polytopes and discrete geometry . Vol. 764. Contemp. Math. Amer. Math. Soc., [Providence], RI, [2021] ©2021, pp. 1–19

    2021

  3. [11]

    Generalized Dehn-Sommerville relations for poly- topes, spheres, and Eulerian partially ordered sets

    Margaret M. Bayer and Louis J. Billera. “Generalized Dehn-Sommerville relations for poly- topes, spheres, and Eulerian partially ordered sets”. Inventiones mathematicae 79 (1985), pp. 143–158. doi: 10.1007/BF01388660. url: http://eudml.org/doc/143189

    1985 doi

  4. [12]

    A new index for polytopes

    Margaret M. Bayer and Andrew Klapper. “A new index for polytopes”. Discrete & Compu- tational Geometry 6 (1991), pp. 33–47

    1991

  5. [13]

    Bergeron, G

    F. Bergeron, G. Labelle, and P. Leroux. Combinatorial species and tree-like structures. Vol. 67. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Translated from the 1994 French original by Margaret Readdy, With a foreword by Gian-Carlo Rota. Cambridge University Press, Cambr...

    1994

  6. [14]

    Enumeration in convex geometries and associated polytopal subdivisions of spheres

    Louis J. Billera, Samuel K. Hsiao, and J. Scott Provan. “Enumeration in convex geometries and associated polytopal subdivisions of spheres”. Discrete Comput. Geom. 39.1-3 (2008), pp. 123–137

    2008

  7. [15]

    Peak quasisymmetric functions and Eulerian enumeration

    Louis J. Billera, Samuel K. Hsiao, and Stephanie van Willigenburg. “Peak quasisymmetric functions and Eulerian enumeration”. Adv. Math. 176.2 (2003), pp. 248–276

    2003

  8. [16]

    On lexicographically shellable posets

    Anders Bj¨ orner and Michelle L. Wachs. “On lexicographically shellable posets”.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 277 (1983), pp. 323–341. 33

    1983

  9. [17]

    Hopf Monoids of Ordered Sim- plicial Complexes

    Federico Castillo, Jeremy L. Martin, and Jos´ e A. Samper. “Hopf Monoids of Ordered Sim- plicial Complexes”. International Mathematics Research Notices 2024.20 (2024), pp. 13312– 13367. doi: 10.1093/imrn/rnad272. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.14955

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Meet-distributive lattices and the anti-exchange closure

    Paul H. Edelman. “Meet-distributive lattices and the anti-exchange closure”. Algebra Univer- salis 10.3 (1980), pp. 290–299

    1980

  11. [19]

    The theory of convex geometries

    Paul H. Edelman and Robert E. Jamison. “The theory of convex geometries”. Geom. Dedicata 19.3 (1985), pp. 247–270

    1985

  12. [20]

    Convexity in ordered matroids and the generalized external order

    Bryan R. Gillespie. “Convexity in ordered matroids and the generalized external order”. Electron. J. Combin. 27.3 (2020), Paper No. 3.41, 21

    2020

  13. [21]

    Hopf Algebras in Combinatorics

    Darij Grinberg and Victor Reiner. Hopf Algebras in Combinatorics . 2020. arXiv: 1409.8356 [math.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    The lattice of closure relations on a poset

    Michael Hawrylycz and Victor Reiner. “The lattice of closure relations on a poset”. Algebra Universalis 30.3 (1993), pp. 301–310

    1993

  15. [23]

    A signed analog of the Birkhoff transform

    Samuel K. Hsiao. “A signed analog of the Birkhoff transform”. J. Comb. Theory A 113 (2006), pp. 251–272

    2006

  16. [24]

    Structure of the peak algebra of quasisymmetric functions

    Samuel K. Hsiao. “Structure of the peak algebra of quasisymmetric functions”. 2000. url: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi%20%5C%5C= e78ae5d8567fa988a27c760dd58296fb02610975

    2000

  17. [25]

    Coalgebras and Bialgebras in Combinatorics

    S.A. Joni and G.C. Rota. “Coalgebras and Bialgebras in Combinatorics”. Stud. Appl. Math. 61.2 (1979), pp. 93–139

    1979

  18. [26]

    Une th´ eorie combinatoire des s´ eries formelles

    Andr´ e Joyal. “Une th´ eorie combinatoire des s´ eries formelles”.Adv. in Math. 42.1 (1981), pp. 1–82

    1981

  19. [27]

    Lecture Notes on Algebraic Combinatorics

    Jeremy L. Martin. “Lecture Notes on Algebraic Combinatorics”. 2012. url: https : / / jlmartin.ku.edu/CombinatoricsNotes.pdf

    2012

  20. [28]

    EL-labelings, supersolvability and 0-Hecke algebra actions on posets

    Peter R. W. McNamara. “EL-labelings, supersolvability and 0-Hecke algebra actions on posets”. J. Comb. Theory A 101 (2001), pp. 69–89

    2001

  21. [29]

    A chromatic-like polynomial for ordered sets

    Richard P. Stanley. “A chromatic-like polynomial for ordered sets”. Proc. Second Chapel Hill Conf. on Combinatorial Mathematics and its Applications (Univ. North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C., 1970) . University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 1970, pp. 421–427

    1970

  22. [30]

    Supersolvable lattices

    Richard P. Stanley. “Supersolvable lattices”. Algebra Universalis 2 (1972), pp. 197–217

    1972

  23. [31]

    Enriched P -partitions

    John R. Stembridge. “Enriched P -partitions”. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 349.2 (1997), pp. 763– 788

    1997

  24. [32]

    Michelle L. Wachs. Poset Topology: Tools and Applications . 2006. arXiv: math / 0602226 [math.CO]. Department of Mathematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA Email address: ym476@cornell.edu 34

    2006

Pith tools

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