Characteristic polynomials of semimatroids and their connections to matroids, hyperplane arrangements and graph colorings

Houshan Fu

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Characteristic polynomials of semimatroids and their connections to matroids, hyperplane arrangements and graph colorings

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 paper proves that the coefficients of a semimatroid's characteristic polynomial count broken-circuit-free central sets, and that they form a unimodal, log-concave sequence.

desk verdict The main new theorem is likely true but its proof skips a step that needs the pointed matroid representation; the rest is a mix of clean new convolution identities and restatements of known results. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07071 v1 pith:3HKBH2DM submitted 2025-06-08 math.CO

Houshan Fu This is my paper

classification math.CO MSC 05B3505C3152C35

keywords semimatroidcharacteristicpolynomialbrokencircuittheoremTuttelog-concavityassigningmatroidhyperplanearrangementgraphcoloring

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 sets out to show that semimatroids, the structures that generalize matroids by admitting only some subsets of the ground set as central, carry characteristic polynomials with the same strong enumerative backbone as matroids. Its central theorem states that every unsigned coefficient $w_i(C)$ of the characteristic polynomial $\chi(C;t)$ is the number of central subsets of size $i$ that contain no broken circuit, a direct analogue of the classical broken-circuit theorem. From this counting interpretation together with the pointed-matroid identity $\chi(\tilde{N};t)=(t-1)\chi(C;t)$, the paper derives that the coefficient sequence is unimodal and log-concave, carrying the known log-concavity result for matroids over to semimatroids. It also proves convolution identities for characteristic and Tutte polynomials via Möbius conjugation, and introduces assigning matroids as a bridge to hyperplane arrangements, parallel translations, and graph colorings. A sympathetic reader would care because it says the same polynomial invariants can be computed by pure combinatorics in a broader class of geometric objects.

What carries the argument

The central object is the semimatroid itself, a simplicial complex $C$ of central subsets of a ground set $E$ together with a rank function $r_C$ satisfying submodularity and exchange-type axioms. The argument is carried by three mechanisms: the deletion-contraction recurrence for $\chi(C;t)$, which converts broken-circuit counts into an induction; the pointed-matroid representation, which makes $\chi(C;t)$ a reduced characteristic polynomial and imports log-concavity of matroid coefficients; and the assigning matroid $(M_C,\alpha_C)$, whose compatible sets are exactly the central sets of $C$, so that semimatroid invariants can be read as compatible invariants of an ordinary matroid. For the convolution identities, the operative tool is Möbius conjugation, a ring homomorphism on incidence algebras that packages interval sums over flats into product formulas.

What would settle it

Enumerate the two sides for a small semimatroid in which a contraction creates a new circuit that is not a contraction of an original circuit (the $U_{2,4}$ assigning example is a candidate): fix a linear order, and compare the number of broken-circuit-free central subsets of each size $i$ with the deletion-contraction sum $w_i(C\setminus e_m)+w_{i-1}(C/e_m)$; a single unequal value would falsify Theorem 2.4.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 2.4 is the load-bearing claim: for a semimatroid $(E,C,r_C)$ with a linear order on $E$, each unsigned coefficient $w_i(C)$ of $\chi(C;t)$ equals the number of central subsets in $C$ of size $i$ that contain no broken circuit, where a broken circuit is a circuit with its minimal element removed. The proof proceeds by induction on $|E|$ through deletion and contraction, matching the recurrence $w_i(C)=w_i(C\setminus e_m)+w_{i-1}(C/e_m)$ to the two counting contributions. As immediate consequences, the coefficients of $\chi(C;t)$ alternate in sign and are bounded below by the corresponding Whitney numbers of the induced matroid $M_C$. Corollary 2.10 then states that the unsigned coefficients form a unimodal and log-concave sequence, since $\chi(C;t)$ is the reduced characteristic polynomial of the pointed matroid associated with $C$. The paper further shows that every semimatroid is exactly the compatible system of an assigning matroid $(M_C,\alpha_C)$, so its characteristic and Tutte polynomials coincide with the compatible polynomials of that assigning matroid; this dictionary is then applied to classify parallel translations of linear arrangements by flats of the discriminantal arrangement and to express compatible chromatic polynomials of assigning graphs as characteristic polynomials of cycle matroids.

Load-bearing premise

The induction proving the broken-circuit theorem assumes without proof that for a maximal element $e_m$, a central set containing $e_m$ avoids broken circuits of $C$ exactly when its removal avoids broken circuits of the contraction $C/e_m$, and this is not automatic because circuits of a contraction need not be contractions of circuits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every semimatroid, $\chi(C;t)$ can be evaluated by listing central sets and checking them for broken circuits; no Möbius-function computation is required.
The unsigned coefficients of $\chi(C;t)$ form a log-concave and hence unimodal sequence, so the classical log-concavity conjecture for characteristic polynomials holds for semimatroids as well.
Every parallel translation of a fixed linear arrangement is represented by a distinct assigning matroid, and the collection of distinct semimatroids arising this way is in bijection with the flats of the discriminantal arrangement.
For an assigning graph, the compatible chromatic polynomial equals $t^{c(G)}$ times the compatible characteristic polynomial of its cycle matroid, giving a matroid-theoretic count of $(A,f)$-colorings.
The convolution identities for multiplicative characteristic and Tutte polynomials specialize to the known matroid and arrangement formulas and extend them to all semimatroids.

Reading between the lines

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

If Theorem 2.4's induction can be made fully rigorous, the broken-circuit-free central subsets of a semimatroid would form a natural analogue of Brylawski's broken-circuit complex, whose face numbers are exactly the Whitney numbers of the first kind; this is an implicit but not stated consequence.
The assigning-matroid order on parallel translations suggests a lattice of semimatroids above a fixed underlying matroid; Corollary 4.5's coefficient monotonicity is evidence that the characteristic polynomial varies monotonically along that lattice, a structure not developed in the paper.
For assigning graphs, Proposition 5.2 implies that zero-free $(F,a)$-colorings can be studied by evaluating the compatible chromatic polynomial at finite-field sizes, which may give a route to existence theorems for non-constant assignments beyond ordinary group colorings.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper is worth a referee, but the proof of the broken-circuit theorem has a real gap. I think the theorem is true — you can close the gap using Ardila's pointed matroid representation — but the manuscript as written does not prove it.

The new material is Theorem 2.4 (broken-circuit theorem for semimatroids) and Theorems 3.4–3.5 (convolution identities via Möbius conjugation). The convolution proofs are clean and correct. Theorem 2.12, the assigning-matroid bridge, is a useful reformulation: a semimatroid is exactly the compatible sets of an assigning matroid on its associated matroid. That is a natural observation, but it is formalized clearly and then used sensibly in the hyperplane arrangement sections.

The soft spot is in the induction of Theorem 2.4. The proof splits into facts (a) and (b); (a) is fine, but (b) is asserted without argument. For a matroid, the equivalence is immediate because every circuit of the contraction either avoids the contracted element or is C minus that element for a circuit C of the original. For a semimatroid this circuit description is not automatic. It is, however, provable: pass to the pointed matroid (N,p) that represents C. Then C/e_m is the semimatroid induced by (N/e_m,p), and circuits of N/e_m have exactly that matroid description. So (b) is true, but the author needs to write this down. As it stands, the central theorem is not established by the text.

Corollary 2.10 is considerably oversold in the abstract. It is a direct consequence of Huh's log-concavity theorem plus Ardila's Proposition 2.8; calling it an extension of Rota–Heron–Welsh to semimatroids is technically true but not a new result. Sections 4 and 5 re-expose results from [9], [44], [50] and [51]; the author should clearly mark which parts are new versus review. Minor typo: w_i(C, α) in the proof of Theorem 2.4 should be w_i(C).

Bottom line: this is a useful paper for matroid theorists and arrangement people. The main gap is fixable, and the convolution identities are solid. I would send it to a serious referee and expect conditional acceptance after the proof of (b) is supplied and the presentation of new versus old results is sharpened.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies characteristic polynomials of semimatroids. Its main new result is a broken-circuit interpretation of the unsigned coefficients of the characteristic polynomial (Theorem 2.4), generalizing the Whitney–Brylawski–Rota theorem for matroids. The paper also derives a Huh-type log-concavity statement for semimatroids via Ardila's pointed-matroid relation (Corollary 2.10), proves convolution identities for multiplicative characteristic and Tutte polynomials of semimatroids (Theorems 3.4 and 3.5), and introduces assigning matroids as a bridge to hyperplane arrangements and graph colorings (Sections 4 and 5).

Significance. If fully established, Theorem 2.4 is a valuable and natural extension of a classical matroid theorem, and the assigning-matroid framework gives a clean unified viewpoint for affine arrangements and graph colorings. The paper is honest in benchmarking its results against known matroid theorems, and several parts are already solid: the convolution formulas follow from Wang's Möbius conjugation and the log-concavity corollary transfers Huh–Katz–Adiprasito through a known identification rather than claiming new Hodge theory. However, the proof of the central broken-circuit theorem contains an unproved assertion, and a second proof gap occurs in Theorem 2.12. These gaps are likely repairable, but they need to be filled before the paper's headline claim is fully supported.

major comments (2)

[§2.1, proof of Theorem 2.4] The induction step for Theorem 2.4 rests on fact (b): for the maximum element e_m, a central subset X containing e_m has no broken circuit of C if and only if X−e_m has no broken circuit of C/e_m. This is asserted as a 'simple fact' but no proof is given. It is not automatic that circuits of the contraction C/e_m lift to circuits of C of the form D∪{e_m}, and it is also not automatic that a broken circuit of C not involving e_m persists as a broken circuit in C/e_m. Since Theorem 2.4 is used to derive Corollaries 2.5–2.7 and underlies the coefficient comparisons in Corollary 2.6 and Section 4, this is a load-bearing gap. A complete argument is needed, for instance via the pointed-matroid model of Proposition 2.8, where the relevant lifting property can be made explicit.
[§2.2, proof of Theorem 2.12] The proof that C = C(M_C, α_C) contains the assertion that 'every circuit of C is precisely a compatible circuit of the assigning matroid (M_C, α_C), and vice versa', and this assertion is used to derive the contradiction. The equality C(C) = C(M_C, α_C) is not proved. The missing step is to show that if a compatible set X is not central, then X contains a minimal non-central subset Y, and that Y is a circuit of M_C not belonging to C, contradicting compatibility. This is probably fixable, but the current text leaves a nontrivial point unstated in a theorem that supports Corollary 2.14 and the applications in Sections 4 and 5.

minor comments (4)

[Introduction] The phrase 'the coefficientst isj' should read 'the coefficients t_ij' or similar; it appears to be a typographical error.
[§2.1, Theorem 2.4] The statement of Theorem 2.4 does not explicitly assume that C is loopless, although the proof uses the recurrence χ(C;t)=0 for loops and the counting statement is clearer for loopless semimatroids. A sentence spelling out the loopless hypothesis, or explaining how the loop case is subsumed, would be helpful.
[§3, proof of Theorem 3.5] The functions f and g are defined on ^C, but their values at the artificial maximum element are not defined explicitly; the conventions r_C(^E)=∞ and t^{−∞}=0 should be stated at the point where f and g are introduced.
[§5.2, Proposition 5.2(b)] The displayed formula uses 'µ(X)' without indicating the interval; it should be the Möbius function from the minimum element of L(G, α) to X, e.g. µ(^0, X).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No constructional circularity: the broken-circuit theorem is derived by induction from the deletion-contraction recurrence, and the Section 4 self-citation of [9] is not load-bearing; an unproved contraction step in Theorem 2.4 is flagged as a proof gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular by construction. Theorem 2.4 does not define w_i(C) as the number of broken-circuit-free central sets; that equality is the content of the theorem, intended to be proved by induction from the deletion-contraction recurrence (2.5), with the induction step reduced to facts (a) and (b). Fact (b), located in the proof of Theorem 2.4, is the unproved assertion that, for the maximum element e_m, a central subset X containing e_m has no broken circuit of C if and only if X minus e_m has no broken circuit of C/e_m; this is an omitted-support gap, not a circular reduction, because it is not assumed as the conclusion. The related claim C(C) subset of C(M_C) in the proofs of Corollary 2.6 and Theorem 2.12 is also asserted without proof, and it is likewise a support gap rather than a reduction of the target statement to an input. Log-concavity (Corollary 2.10) is imported from external results [1, 2] via the pointed-matroid relation, and the convolution formulas (Theorems 3.4 and 3.5) are derived from Wang's Möbius conjugation [44] and standard interval isomorphisms. Section 4.2 restates the author's prior classification [9] (Chen, Fu, Wang) in assigning-matroid language, but Theorem 4.4 re-derives the flat-stratum equivalence rather than relying on [9] as an unexamined premise, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. Theorem 2.12 and Corollary 2.14 identify the semimatroid characteristic polynomial with the compatible characteristic polynomial of the induced assigning matroid by matching identical sums; this is a definitional bridge, explicitly presented as a coincidence, and it is not used to generate the paper's independent predictions. The score of 2 records only the minor non-load-bearing self-citation; no circular step is exhibited.

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

The paper introduces no fitted numerical parameters. The axioms are a standard set of domain assumptions drawn from matroid theory, semimatroid theory, geometric semilattices, and Wang's Möbius conjugation framework. The only genuinely ad hoc object is the assigning-matroid formalism, which is a definition rather than an unproved assumption. The central claims rest on known external theorems (Huh et al., Ardila, Wang) plus the author's own earlier work [9] for the arrangement applications.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Semimatroid axioms (SR1)-(SR5) define the object of study, as in Ardila [2].
The entire paper works inside this definition; the axioms are taken from the cited literature and are standard in the field.
domain assumption The poset of flats L(C) of a semimatroid is a geometric semilattice [2, Theorem 6.4].
Used in Lemma 2.1 and Theorem 2.2 for the Möbius-function expression of the characteristic polynomial.
domain assumption Every pointed matroid determines a semimatroid, and conversely (Ardila, [2, Theorem 5.4]) with the relation χ(@tilde N;t)=(t−1)χ(C;t) [2, Proposition 8.7].
This is the bridge used in Corollary 2.10 to transfer log-concavity from matroids to semimatroids.
domain assumption The unsigned coefficients of the characteristic polynomial and reduced characteristic polynomial of a matroid form log-concave sequences (Huh et al. [1, Theorem 9.9]).
Invoked in Corollary 2.10 as a black box; it is an accepted external theorem from the Annals of Mathematics.
domain assumption Wang's Möbius conjugation μ* is a ring homomorphism from R^P to the incidence algebra [44, Theorem 1.1].
The tool used throughout Section 3 to derive the convolution identities.
ad hoc to paper The definition of an assigning matroid (M,α) and the compatible polynomials introduced in Definition 2.11.
This is a new formal object introduced by the paper. It is defined cleanly and connects to Kochol's assigning polynomials and Zaslavsky's balanced chromatic polynomials, but it is not an established object in the prior literature.

invented entities (1)

Assigning matroid (M,α) and its compatible characteristic and Tutte polynomials independent evidence
purpose: To bridge semimatroids with hyperplane arrangements and graph colorings, and to unify counting of nowhere-zero chains and (A,f)-colorings.
The paper shows that for the cycle matroid of a graph with an admissible assigning, the compatible characteristic polynomial agrees with the balanced chromatic polynomial of the corresponding gain graph (Proposition 5.2 and the discussion after it), so the new entity reproduces known invariants in special cases. This gives independent evidence that the definition is meaningful.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characteristic polynomials of semimatroids and their connections to matroids, hyperplane arrangements and graph colorings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3HKBH2DM

@misc{pith2026250607071,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characteristic polynomials of semimatroids and their connections to matroids, hyperplane arrangements and graph colorings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3HKBH2DM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07071}
}

read the original abstract

We primarily investigate the properties of characteristic polynomials of semimatroids. In particular, we provide a combinatorial interpretation of their coefficients, generalizing the Whitney's Broken Circuit Theorem. We also prove that the unsigned coefficients of the characteristic polynomial form a unimodal and log-concave sequence, extending the Rota-Heron-Welsh Conjecture to semimatroids. Furthermore, we present convolution identities for the multiplicative characteristic and Tutte polynomials of semimatroids using the M\"obius conjugation. Finally, motivated by Kochol's work, we introduce assigning matroids to establish connections among semimatroids, hyperplane arrangements, and graph colorings, with a particular focus on their characteristic polynomials.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

[9]

B. Chen, H. Fu, S. Wang. Parallel translates of represented matroids. Adv. in Appl. Math. 127 (2021), Paper No. 102176

work page 2021
[44]

S. Wang. M ¨obius conjugation and convolution formulae. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 115 (2015), 117–131

work page 2015
[50]

Zaslavsky

T. Zaslavsky. Biased graphs, III. Chromatic and dichromatic invariants. J. Combin. The- ory Ser. B 64 (1995), 17–88

work page 1995
[51]

Zaslavsky

T. Zaslavsky. Biased graphs, IV. Geometrical realizations. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 89 (2003), 231–297. 25

work page 2003
[1]

Adiprasito, J

K. Adiprasito, J. Huh, E. Katz. Hodge theory for combinatorial geometries. Ann. of Math. (2) 188 (2018), 381–452

work page 2018
[2]

F. Ardila. Semimatroids and their Tutte polynomials. Rev. Colombiana Mat. 41 (2007), 39–66

work page 2007
[3]

C. A. Athanasiadis. Characteristic polynomials of subspace arrangements and finite fields. Adv. Math. 122 (1996), 193–233

work page 1996
[4]

Bayer, K

M. Bayer, K. A. Brandt. Discriminantal arrangements, fiber polytopes and formality. J. Algebraic Combin. 6 (1997), 229–246

work page 1997

Show all 51 references

[5]

Backman, M

S. Backman, M. Lenz. A convolution formula for Tutte polynomials of arithmetic ma- troids and other combinatorial structures. S´ em. Lothar. Combin. 78B (2017), Art. 4, 12pp

2017
[6]

G. D. Birkhoff. A determinant formula for the number of ways of coloring a map. Ann. of Math. 14 (1912), 42–46

1912
[7]

J. A. Bondy, U. S. R. Murty. Graph Theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 244, Springer, 2008

2008
[8]

Brylawski

T. Brylawski. The broken-circuit complex. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 234 (1977), 417–433

1977
[10]

H. H. Crapo. The Tutte polynomial. Aequationes Math. 3 (1969), 211–229

1969
[11]

Dupont, A

C. Dupont, A. Fink, L. Moci. Universal Tutte characters via combinatorial coalgebras. Algebr. Comb. 1 (2018), 603–651

2018
[12]

Etienne, M

G. Etienne, M. Las Vergnas. External and inrenal elements of a matroid basis. Discrete Math. 179 (1998), 111–119

1998
[13]

M. Falk. A note on discriminantal arrangements. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 122 (1994), 1221–1227

1994
[14]

Forge, T

D. Forge, T. Zaslavsky. Lattice point counts for the Shi arrangement and other affno- graphic hyperplane arrangements. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B 114 (2007), 97–109

2007
[15]

Forge, T

D. Forge, T. Zaslavsky. Lattice points in orthotopes and a huge polynomial Tutte invari- ant of weighted gain graphs. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B 118 (2016), 186–227

2016
[16]

H. Fu, X. Ren, S. Wang. Counting flows of b-compatible graphs. Adv. in Appl. Math. 168 (2025), Paper No. 102901

2025
[17]

H. Fu, S. Wang. Modifications of hyperplane arrangements. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 200 (2023), Paper No. 105797

2023
[18]

A. P. Heron. Matroid polynomials. In: Combinatorics, Institute of Math. and its Appli- cations, Southend-on-Sea, 1972, pp. 164–202. 23

1972
[19]

S. G. Hoggar. Chromatic polynomials and logarithmic concavity. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 16 (1974), 248–254

1974
[20]

J. Huh. Milnor numbers of projective hypersurfaces and the chromatic polynomial of graphs. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 25 (2012), 907–927

2012
[21]

J. Huh, E. Katz. Log-concavity of characteristic polynomials and the Bergman fan of matroids. Math. Ann. 354 (2012), 1103–1116

2012
[22]

Jaeger, N

F. Jaeger, N. Linial, C. Payan, M. Tarsi. Group connectivity of graphs–a nonhomon- genous analogue of nowhere-zero flow properties. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 56 (1992), 165–182

1992
[23]

Kawahara

Y. Kawahara. On matroids and Orlik-Solomon algebras. Ann. Comb. 8 (2004), 63–88

2004
[24]

M. Kochol. Polynomials counting nowhere-zero chains in graphs. Electron. J. Combin. 29 (2022), P1.19

2022
[25]

M. Kochol. Polynomials counting nowhere-zero chains associated with homomorphisms. Mathematics 12 (2024), 3218

2024
[26]

W. Kook, V. Reiner, D. Stanton. A convolution formula for the Tutte polynomial. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 76 (1999), 297–300

1999
[27]

J. P. S. Kung. A multiplication identity for characteristic polynomials of matroids. Adv. in Appl. Math. 32 (2004), 319–326

2004
[28]

J. P. S. Kung. Convolution-multiplication identities for Tutte polynomials of graphs and ma-troids. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 100 (2010), 617–624

2010
[29]

H.-J. Lai, X. Li, Y. Shao, M. Zhan. Group connectivity and group colorings of graphs-a survey. Acta Math. Sin. (Engl. Ser.) 27 (2011), 405–434

2011
[30]

H.-J. Lai, X. Yao. Group connectivity of graphs with diameter at most 2. European J. Combin. 27 (2006), 436–447

2006
[31]

Y. I. Manin, V. V. Schechtman. Arrangements of hyperplanes, higher braid groups and higher bruhat orders. Algebraic Number Theory, Adv. Stud. Pure Math. vol. 17, Aca- demic Press, Boston, Mass, 1989, pp. 289–308

1989
[32]

Orlik, H

P. Orlik, H. Terao. Arrangements of Hyperplanes. Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1992

1992
[33]

J. Oxley. Matroid Theory. Second edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 2011

2011
[34]

Oxley, S

J. Oxley, S. Wang. Dependencies among dependencies in matroids. Electron. J. Combin. 26 (2019), No. 3. 46, 12pp

2019
[35]

R. C. Read. An introduction to chromatic polynomials. J. Combin. Theory 4 (1968), 52–71

1968
[36]

V. Reiner. An interpretation for the Tutte polynomial. European J. Combin. 20 (1999), 149–161

1999
[37]

G.-C. Rota. On the foundations of combinatorial theory. I. Theory of M ¨obius functions. Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verw. Gebiete, 2 (1964), 340–368

1964
[38]

G.-C. Rota. Combinatorial theory, old and new. In: Actes du Congr` es International des Math´ ematiciens. Tome 3 (Nice, 1970), Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1971, pp. 229–233. 24

1970
[39]

R. P. Stanley. An introduction to hyperplane arrangements. In: E. Miller, V. Reiner, B. Sturmfels (Eds.), Geometric Combinatorics, IAS/Park City Math. Ser. vol. 13, Amer. Math. Soc. Providence, RI, 2007, pp. 389–496

2007
[40]

R. P. Stanley. Enumerative Combinatorics, Volumn I. Second Edition, Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2012

2012
[41]

W. T. Tutte. A contribution to the theory of chromatic polynomials. Canad. J. Math. 6 (1954), 89–91

1954
[42]

W. T. Tutte. On dichromatic polynomials. J. Combin. Theory 2 (1967), 301–320

1967
[43]

M. L. Wachs, J. W. Walker. On geometric semilattices. Order 2 (1986), 367–385

1986
[45]

D. J. A. Welsh. Matroid Theory. Academic Press, London (1976). Reprinted (2010), Dover, Mineola

1976
[46]

H. Whitney. A logical expansion in mathematics. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 38 (1932), 572–579

1932
[47]

H. Whitney. The coloring of graphs. Ann. Math. 33 (1932), 688–718

1932
[48]

H. Whitney. On the abstract properties of linear dependence. Amer. J. Math. 57 (1935), 509–533

1935
[49]

Zaslavsky

T. Zaslavsky. Biased graphs, I. Bias, balance, and gains. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 47 (1989), 32–52

1989

Pith tools

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

[1] [9]

B. Chen, H. Fu, S. Wang. Parallel translates of represented matroids. Adv. in Appl. Math. 127 (2021), Paper No. 102176

work page 2021

[2] [44]

S. Wang. M ¨obius conjugation and convolution formulae. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 115 (2015), 117–131

work page 2015

[3] [50]

Zaslavsky

T. Zaslavsky. Biased graphs, III. Chromatic and dichromatic invariants. J. Combin. The- ory Ser. B 64 (1995), 17–88

work page 1995

[4] [51]

Zaslavsky

T. Zaslavsky. Biased graphs, IV. Geometrical realizations. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 89 (2003), 231–297. 25

work page 2003

[5] [1]

Adiprasito, J

K. Adiprasito, J. Huh, E. Katz. Hodge theory for combinatorial geometries. Ann. of Math. (2) 188 (2018), 381–452

work page 2018

[6] [2]

F. Ardila. Semimatroids and their Tutte polynomials. Rev. Colombiana Mat. 41 (2007), 39–66

work page 2007

[7] [3]

C. A. Athanasiadis. Characteristic polynomials of subspace arrangements and finite fields. Adv. Math. 122 (1996), 193–233

work page 1996

[8] [4]

Bayer, K

M. Bayer, K. A. Brandt. Discriminantal arrangements, fiber polytopes and formality. J. Algebraic Combin. 6 (1997), 229–246

work page 1997