Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Toward quantum Pieri rule for $F\ell_n$ via Seidel representation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the quantum cohomology of the complete flag variety Fℓ_n, multiplying by the Schubert class of the n-cycle acts as a cyclic shift on Schubert classes, with a monomial quantum weight, so the quantum Pieri rule reduces to the classical…

desk verdict An elegant Seidel-operator reproof of known quantum Pieri rules, but a gap in Lemma 3.1 leaves the main proof incomplete. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12351 v1 pith:JEYMDICG submitted 2025-07-16 math.AG

Changzheng Li , Jiayu Song This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AG MSC 14N3514M15
keywords quantumcohomologycompleteflagvarietySeideloperatorPieriruleGromov-WitteninvariantsK-theorySchubertclassesquantum-to-classicalreduction
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's central claim is that in the quantum cohomology ring of the complete flag variety Fℓ_n (the space of nested linear subspaces of C^n), multiplication by the Schubert class σ_{s_1s_2...s_{n-1}} is a controlled cyclic shift: it sends the Schubert class of a permutation u to the class of (1 2 ... n)u, and when u does not fix n it also attaches a single monomial $q^{{λ(u)}}$ in the quantum variables. This matters because the shift turns a quantum enumerative problem into a classical one: combining the shift with the classical Pieri rule gives a closed formula for the quantum product with the special Schubert class σ_{s_{n-m}...s_{n-1}}, so the quantum Pieri rule is reproved as 'classical Pieri rule plus Seidel operator.' The paper also proposes the same shift formula for the quantum K-theory of Fℓ_n, which would reduce quantum K-theoretic Pieri rules to the classical K-theory Pieri rule.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Seidel operator T, defined as quantum multiplication by the Schubert class σ_{s_1s_2...s_{n-1}}; the paper proves it acts as the cyclic shift u↦s_1s_2...s_{n-1}u with the quantum weight $q^{{λ(u)}}$. The proof is carried by the quantum-to-classical reduction formula (Proposition 2.4): an invariant $N^{{w,λ}}$_{u,v} vanishes unless sgn_α(w)+⟨α,λ⟩ ≤ sgn_α(u)+sgn_α(v) for every simple root α, and when equality 2 occurs the invariant reduces to a lower-degree one. Lemma 3.1 uses this to force any nonzero product with σ_{s_{n-m}...s_{n-1}} to have degree λ of the form α_k^∨+...+α_{n-1}^∨, after which Theorem 3.1 isolates the single surviving coefficient. The classical Pieri rule for flag manifolds then completes the quantum Pieri formula.

What would settle it

In QH^*(Fℓ_4), compute the product σ_{s_1s_2s_3} ⋆ σ_u for the permutation u=s_2s_3s_2, which has u(4)=2: Theorem 3.1 predicts exactly one nonzero term, $q^{{λ(u)}}$σ_{s_1s_2s_3u}, and any additional nonzero coefficient or a different quantum monomial would falsify the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is Theorem 3.1: for every permutation u in S_n, T(σ_u)=σ_{s_1s_2...s_{n-1}} ⋆ σ_u equals σ_{s_1s_2...s_{n-1}u} when u(n)=n, and $q^{{λ(u)}}$σ_{s_1s_2...s_{n-1}u} when u(n)≠n. Here λ(u) is a tail α_l^∨+...+α_{n-1}^∨, i.e. the monomial q_l...q_{n-1}, determined by a canonical reduced expression of u. Theorem 3.2 then derives the quantum Pieri rule for σ_{s_{n-m}...s_{n-1}} ⋆ σ_u by writing the multiplier as a power of T and applying the classical Pieri rule to the shifted term. Finally, Conjecture 3.1 postulates the identical statement in quantum K-theory, with Schubert classes σ replaced by structure sheaf classes O, and the paper verifies consistency in flag and Grassmannian examples.

Load-bearing premise

The proof leans on a previously proven reduction formula that turns certain rational curve counts into ordinary intersection numbers; if that formula fails for the particular tail degrees used in Lemma 3.1, the main theorem would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Iterating the shift gives the explicit formula T^k(σ_u)=q^{λ(u,k)}σ_{u↑k}, and setting all quantum parameters to 1 makes T generate a cyclic group of order n on H^*(Fℓ_n).
  • The quantum product with the special Schubert class σ_{s_{n-m}...s_{n-1}} is fully determined by the classical Pieri rule plus the Seidel shift, so the quantum Pieri rule no longer requires independent curve counts.
  • The action of T^n is the explicit scalar q_1 q_2^2 ... q_{n-1}^{n-1}, so the monodromy-type factor of the cyclic action is identified.
  • If Conjecture 3.1 is correct, the same reduction holds in quantum K-theory, and the functoriality of quantum K-theory under projections would give quantum Pieri rules for partial flag varieties from the classical K-theory Pieri rule.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit consequence of the shift picture is that any Schubert class built from powers of T will admit a quantum Pieri rule of the same 'shift then apply classical Pieri' form; the paper leaves open exactly which classes σ_{s_i...s_j} satisfy the needed vanishing condition.
  • The conjecture is tested only in Fℓ_4 and Fℓ_6, so a direct computation of QK(Fℓ_5) would be a small, decisive check of the q-monomial shift in quantum K-theory.
  • If the reduction formula underlying Theorem 3.1 could be reproved inside quantum K-theory, the paper's cohomological argument would transfer almost verbatim to the K-theoretic setting, which is what Conjecture 3.1 anticipates.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the quantum cohomology QH*(Fℓ_n) of the complete flag variety and gives a new proof, based on a 'quantum-to-classical' reduction formula of Leung–Li, that the Seidel operator T(σ_u)=σ_{s_1s_2…s_{n-1}} ⋆ σ_u acts as a cyclic shift with a quantum weight: T(σ_u)=σ_{s_1…s_{n-1}u} when u(n)=n and T(σ_u)=q^{λ(u)}σ_{s_1…s_{n-1}u} when u(n)≠n (Theorem 3.1, equation (1)). Combining this with the classical Pieri rule, the authors reprove a quantum Pieri rule for the special Schubert class σ_{s_{n-m}…s_{n-1}} (Theorem 3.2). They also formulate Conjecture 3.1, which asserts analogous formulas in the quantum K-theory QK(Fℓ_n), and give a consistency check for Gr(3,6) using a projection from QK(Fℓ_6).

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, the paper provides a clean and conceptually appealing derivation of the Seidel action and the quantum Pieri rule for the complete flag variety, reducing them to the quantum-to-classical reduction principle plus classical Schubert calculus. The conjectural extension to quantum K-theory is concrete and testable, and the worked example matching the Buch–Mihalcea quantum Pieri rule is a useful piece of evidence. The paper is honest about relying on the external reduction formula Proposition 2.4 from [29], and it identifies open problems (Problems 3.1 and 3.2). However, the central proof of Theorem 3.1 depends on Lemma 3.1, whose proof has a significant gap, so the paper needs revision before the result can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, proof of Lemma 3.1] The reduction step in the case a_{n-1}=2, a_{j_{min}-1}=1 is not licensed by Proposition 2.4 as stated. The text obtains the equality sgn_{α_{j_min}}(w)+⟨α_{j_min},λ⟩ = sgn_{α_{j_min}}(s_{n-m}…s_{n-1}) + sgn_{α_{j_min}}(u), and then writes N^{w,λ}_{a,u}=N^{ws_{j_min},λ-α^∨_{j_min}}_{a,us_{j_min}}. However, in the situation described the common value is 1 (since sgn(w)=0 and sgn(u)=1), whereas Proposition 2.4(b) gives a reduction formula only when the common value equals 2. No justification or alternate citation is provided for a value-1 reduction. Because Lemma 3.1 is used in Theorem 3.1 to rule out all non-tail quantum contributions, this gap is load-bearing and the proof of Theorem 3.1 is incomplete as written.
  2. [Section 3.2, proof of Lemma 3.1, subcase j_{min}=n-1] The claims '⟨α_{j_min},λ⟩=1' and 'sgn_{α_{j_min}}(s_{n-m}…s_{n-1})=0' are numerically false when j_{min}=n-1. For λ with a_{n-2}=1 and a_{n-1}=2, the Cartan pairing gives ⟨α_{n-1},λ⟩=2·2−1=3, and the permutation s_{n-m}…s_{n-1} ends with s_{n-1}, so sgn_{α_{n-1}}(s_{n-m}…s_{n-1})=1. The subsequent reduction argument therefore does not apply to this subcase. The desired conclusion may still follow from a direct use of Proposition 2.4(a), but the written proof does not supply that argument.
  3. [Section 3.2, proof of Lemma 3.1, structure of λ] The proof asserts that when a_{j_{min}-1}=0, the degree has the form λ = ∑_{j=1}^{j_{min}-2} a_j α^∨_j + 2α^∨_{j_min}+2α^∨_{j_min+1}+⋯+2α^∨_{n-1}. The stated conditions (i)–(ii) from the quantum Chevalley formula do not imply that all coefficients from j_{min} to n−1 equal 2; they only force nonzero coefficients to form a suffix. If some of these coefficients equal 1, the subsequent sign computations and inequality arguments are not valid. This needs either a corrected combinatorial statement or a different proof strategy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical and grammatical errors (e.g., 'vaireities', 'Gothendieck', 'homomorphism', 'canonical', 'Schubert' misspellings) that should be corrected before publication.
  2. [Section 3.2, proof of Lemma 3.1] The expression 'λ−α^∨_{j_min}−⋯−α^∨_{n−2}' appears suspect: if the purpose is to reduce the coefficient of α_{n-1}, the subtracted term should include α^∨_{n-1}, or the subsequent pairing ⟨α_{n-1},·⟩=3 should be recomputed with the displayed expression.
  3. [Example 3.4] The displayed computation has an unmatched parenthesis and the Young-tableau notation is not fully explained; please provide the explicit permutations for the partitions used so the projection π_* can be checked.
  4. [Section 1 and footnote] The paper notes in a footnote that it is an English translation of a Chinese publication; this translation status should be stated explicitly in the header rather than only in the footnote.
  5. [Sections 3.1 and 3.3] The definitions of λ(u,k) and the notation T^k are used before being motivated; a short reminder of these definitions in the statements of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Seidel-action theorem is derived from external quantum-to-classical GW reduction and quantum Chevalley data, not from its own conclusion.

full rationale

Walking the claimed derivation chain: Theorem 3.1 (the Seidel action) is the target. Its proof uses Lemma 3.1 to restrict the possible quantum degrees and then applies Proposition 2.4 to reduce the remaining GW invariants. Lemma 3.1 is itself proved from Proposition 2.3 (quantum Chevalley formula) and Proposition 2.4. Proposition 2.4 is stated as Theorem 1.1 of [29], a separately published theorem of Leung-Li with its own proof; its hypotheses concern general GW invariants and do not include the Seidel shift formula or the quantum Pieri rule proved here. Therefore the reduction from a GW invariant to a lower-degree or classical invariant is an external input, not a restatement of the target. Similarly, Theorem 3.2 is an algebraic consequence of Theorem 3.1, the classical Pieri rule, and Lemma 3.1, with no fitted quantity being renamed as a prediction. Conjecture 3.1 is explicitly conjectural and is tested against the independent Buch-Mihalcea quantum Pieri rule in Example 3.4. The proof gap alleged in review, namely that Lemma 3.1 appears to invoke Proposition 2.4(b) when the common value of sgn plus pairing is 1 and computes the alpha_{n-1} pairing as 3 in a subcase, is a correctness risk in the application of the cited theorem; it is not circularity, because Theorem 3.1 is not assumed in order to prove itself. Hence no circular step is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on published theorems in quantum Schubert calculus, most notably the authors' own quantum-to-classical reduction formula from [29] and the filtered algebra theorem from [28]. No free parameters are fit; λ(u) and λ(u,k) are combinatorially defined, not tuned to data. No new entities are postulated. The K-theory part is a conjecture, so the reduction to classical K-theory Pieri rules is assumed rather than proven.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Peterson-Woodward comparison formula and the filtered algebra structure on QH*(G/B) from [28].
    Invoked in Section 2.3 to define the maps Ψ_ver, Ψ_hor and the quantum-to-classical reduction; these are prior theorems by Leung and Li, not proved in this paper.
  • domain assumption Quantum-to-classical reduction formula (Proposition 2.4, Theorem 1.1 of [29]).
    Used repeatedly in the proofs of Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 3.1 to force vanishing and to lower quantum degrees; this is the main external input from the authors' own earlier work.
  • standard math Quantum Chevalley formula (Proposition 2.3).
    Used in the proof of Lemma 3.1 to constrain the possible quantum degrees arising from multiplication by σ_{s_{n-1}}; standard in quantum Schubert calculus.
  • standard math Non-negativity of quantum Schubert structure constants for G/B.
    Used to deduce that if N^{w,λ}_{u,v} is nonzero then q^λ σ_w appears in the iterated quantum product; known for flag varieties via dimension and poset arguments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward quantum Pieri rule for $F\ell_n$ via Seidel representation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JEYMDICG

@misc{pith2026250712351,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward quantum Pieri rule for $F\ell_n$ via Seidel representation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JEYMDICG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12351}
}
abstract

By using a ``quantum-to-classical" reduction formula on the Gromov-Witten invariants of flag vaireities $F\ell_n$, we provide a new proof of the Seidel operator on the quantum cohomology ring $QH^*(F\ell_n)$. Further, we reprove a quantum Pieri rule with respect to certain special Schubert class for $QH^*(F\ell_n)$. Finally, we propose a concrete conjecture on the corresponding quantum Pieri rule for the quantum $K$-theory of $F\ell_n$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Classical aspects of quantum cohomology of generalized flag varieties , Int Math Res Not, 2012, 16: 3706-3722

    Leung N C, Li C. Classical aspects of quantum cohomology of generalized flag varieties , Int Math Res Not, 2012, 16: 3706-3722

    work page 2012

  2. [1]

    On the finiteness of quantum K-theory of a homogeneous space , Int Math Res Not, 2022, 1313-1349

    Anderson D, Chen L, Tseng H H. On the finiteness of quantum K-theory of a homogeneous space , Int Math Res Not, 2022, 1313-1349

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    Transformation formulas in quantum cohomology , Compos Math, 2004, 140: 778-792

    Belkale P. Transformation formulas in quantum cohomology , Compos Math, 2004, 140: 778-792

    work page 2004

  4. [3]

    Quantum Schubert calculus , Adv Math, 1997, 128: 289-305

    Bertram A. Quantum Schubert calculus , Adv Math, 1997, 128: 289-305

    work page 1997

  5. [4]

    Schubert cells and cohomology of the spaces G/P, Russian Mathematical Surveys, 1973, 28: 1-26

    Bernstein I N, Gel’fand I M, Gel’fand S I. Schubert cells and cohomology of the spaces G/P, Russian Mathematical Surveys, 1973, 28: 1-26

    work page 1973

  6. [5]

    The crepant resolution conjecture, In: Algebraic Geometry-Seattle 2005

    Bryan J, Graber T. The crepant resolution conjecture, In: Algebraic Geometry-Seattle 2005. Part 1, Proc Sympos Pure Math, vol. 80. Providence: Amer Math Soc, 2009, 23-42

    work page 2005

  7. [6]

    Seidel and Pieri products in cominuscule quantum K-theory

    Buch A S, Chaput P E, Perrin N. Seidel and Pieri products in cominuscule quantum K-theory , preprint at arXiv: math.AG/2308.05307

    work page Pith review arXiv

  8. [7]

    Euler characteristics in the quantum K-theory of flag varieties , Selecta Math, 2020, 26: Article No

    Buch A S, Chung S, Li C, Mihalcea L. Euler characteristics in the quantum K-theory of flag varieties , Selecta Math, 2020, 26: Article No. 29, 11 pp

    work page 2020

Show all 39 references
  1. [8]

    Gromov-Witten invariants on Grassmannians , J Amer Math Soc, 2003, 16: 901-915

    Buch A S, Kresch A, Tamvakis, H. Gromov-Witten invariants on Grassmannians , J Amer Math Soc, 2003, 16: 901-915

    2003

  2. [9]

    Quantum Pieri rules for isotropic Grassmannians , Invent Math, 2009, 178: 345-405

    Buch A S, Kresch A, Tamvakis H. Quantum Pieri rules for isotropic Grassmannians , Invent Math, 2009, 178: 345-405

    2009

  3. [10]

    Quantum K-theory of Grassmannians , Duke Math J, 2011, 156: 501-538

    Buch A, Mihalcea L. Quantum K-theory of Grassmannians , Duke Math J, 2011, 156: 501-538

    2011

  4. [11]

    Quantum cohomology of minuscule homogeneous spaces

    Chaput P E, Manivel L, Perrin N. Quantum cohomology of minuscule homogeneous spaces. II. Hidden symme- tries, Int Math Res Not, 2007, Art. ID rnm107, 29 pp

    2007

  5. [12]

    Ruan ’s conjecture on singular symplectic flops of mixed type , Sci China Math, 2014, 57: 1121-1148

    Chen B, Li A M, Li X, Zhao G. Ruan ’s conjecture on singular symplectic flops of mixed type , Sci China Math, 2014, 57: 1121-1148

    2014

  6. [13]

    On quantum cohomology rings of partial flag varieties , Duke Math J, 1999, 98: 485-524

    Ciocan-Fontanine I. On quantum cohomology rings of partial flag varieties , Duke Math J, 1999, 98: 485-524

    1999

  7. [14]

    The crepant transformation conjecture for toric complete intersections, Adv Math, 2018, 329: 1002-1087

    Coates T, Iritani H, Jiang Y. The crepant transformation conjecture for toric complete intersections, Adv Math, 2018, 329: 1002-1087

    2018

  8. [15]

    Wall-crossings in toric Gromov-Witten theory I: Crepant examples , Geom Topol, 2009, 13: 2675-2744

    Coates T, Iritani H, Tseng H H. Wall-crossings in toric Gromov-Witten theory I: Crepant examples , Geom Topol, 2009, 13: 2675-2744

    2009

  9. [16]

    Quantum cohomology and crepant resolutions: a conjecture , Ann Inst Fourier (Grenoble), 2013, 63: 431-478

    Coates T, Ruan Y. Quantum cohomology and crepant resolutions: a conjecture , Ann Inst Fourier (Grenoble), 2013, 63: 431-478

    2013

  10. [17]

    Notes on stable maps and quantum cohomology , In: Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, 62, Part 2

    Fulton W, Pandharipande R. Notes on stable maps and quantum cohomology , In: Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, 62, Part 2. Providence: Amer Math Soc, 1997, 45-96

    1997

  11. [18]

    On the quantum product of Schubert classes , J Algebraic Geom, 2004, 13: 641-661

    Fulton W, Woodward C. On the quantum product of Schubert classes , J Algebraic Geom, 2004, 13: 641-661

    2004

  12. [19]

    A wall-crossing formula for Gromov-Witten invariants under variation of git quotient, Math Ann, 2024, 388: 4135-4199

    Gonz´ alez E, Woodward C T. A wall-crossing formula for Gromov-Witten invariants under variation of git quotient, Math Ann, 2024, 388: 4135-4199

    2024

  13. [20]

    On equivariant quantum Schubert calculus for G/P , J Algebra, 2015, 441: 21-56

    Huang Y, Li C. On equivariant quantum Schubert calculus for G/P , J Algebra, 2015, 441: 21-56

    2015

  14. [21]

    Linear algebraic groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 21, Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1975

    Humphreys J E. Linear algebraic groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 21, Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1975

    1975

  15. [22]

    An integral structure in quantum cohomology and mirror symmetry for toric orbifolds , Adv Math, 2009, 222: 1016-1079

    Iritani H. An integral structure in quantum cohomology and mirror symmetry for toric orbifolds , Adv Math, 2009, 222: 1016-1079

    2009

  16. [23]

    On quantum K-group of partial flag manifolds , preprint at arXiv: math.AG/1906.09343

    Kato S. On quantum K-group of partial flag manifolds , preprint at arXiv: math.AG/1906.09343

    1906 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Quantum cohomology of the Lagrangian Grassmannian , J Algebraic Geom, 2003, 12: 777-810

    Kresch A, Tamvakis H. Quantum cohomology of the Lagrangian Grassmannian , J Algebraic Geom, 2003, 12: 777-810

    2003

  18. [25]

    Quantum cohomology of orthogonal Grassmannians , Compos Math, 2004, 140: 482-500

    Kresch A, Tamvakis H. Quantum cohomology of orthogonal Grassmannians , Compos Math, 2004, 140: 482-500

    2004

  19. [26]

    Flops, motives, and invariance of quantum rings , Ann of Math (2), 2010, 172: 243-290

    Lee Y P, Lin H W, Wang C L. Flops, motives, and invariance of quantum rings , Ann of Math (2), 2010, 172: 243-290

    2010

  20. [27]

    A Pieri-type formula for the K-theory of a flag manifold , Trans Amer Math Soc, 2007, 359: 2317-2342

    Lenart C, Sottile F. A Pieri-type formula for the K-theory of a flag manifold , Trans Amer Math Soc, 2007, 359: 2317-2342

    2007

  21. [28]

    Functorial relationships between QH ∗(G/B) and QH ∗(G/P ), J Differential Geom, 2010, 86: 303-354

    Leung N C, Li C. Functorial relationships between QH ∗(G/B) and QH ∗(G/P ), J Differential Geom, 2010, 86: 303-354

    2010

  22. [30]

    Quantum Pieri rules for tautological subbundles , Adv

    Leung N C, Li C. Quantum Pieri rules for tautological subbundles , Adv. Math. 248 (2013), 279-307

    2013

  23. [31]

    Functorial relationships between QH ∗(G/B) and QH ∗(G/P ) (II), Asian J Math, 2015, 19: 203-234 14 CHANGZHENG LI AND JIAYU SONG

    Li C. Functorial relationships between QH ∗(G/B) and QH ∗(G/P ) (II), Asian J Math, 2015, 19: 203-234 14 CHANGZHENG LI AND JIAYU SONG

    2015

  24. [32]

    On Seidel representation in quantum K-theory of Grassmannians , preprint at arXiv: math.AG/2211.16902

    Li C, Liu Z, Song J, Yang M. On Seidel representation in quantum K-theory of Grassmannians , preprint at arXiv: math.AG/2211.16902

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Pieri-type multiplication formula for quantum Grothendieck polynomials , preprint at arXiv: math.QA/2211.01578

    Naito S, Sagaki D. Pieri-type multiplication formula for quantum Grothendieck polynomials , preprint at arXiv: math.QA/2211.01578

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Quantum cohomology of G/P , Lecture notes at MIT, 1997 (notes by J

    Peterson D. Quantum cohomology of G/P , Lecture notes at MIT, 1997 (notes by J. Lu and K. Rietsch)

    1997

  27. [35]

    Affine approach to quantum Schubert calculus , Duke Math J, 2005, 128: 473-509

    Postnikov A. Affine approach to quantum Schubert calculus , Duke Math J, 2005, 128: 473-509

    2005

  28. [36]

    The cohomology ring of crepant resolutions of orbifolds , In: Gromov-Witten Theory of Spin Curves and Orbifolds

    Ruan Y. The cohomology ring of crepant resolutions of orbifolds , In: Gromov-Witten Theory of Spin Curves and Orbifolds. Contemp Math, vol. 403. Providence: Amer Math Soc, 2006, 117-126

    2006

  29. [37]

    π1 of symplectic automorphism groups and invertibles in quantum homology rings , Geom Funct Anal, 1997, 7: 1046-1095

    Seidel P. π1 of symplectic automorphism groups and invertibles in quantum homology rings , Geom Funct Anal, 1997, 7: 1046-1095

    1997

  30. [38]

    Pieri’s formula for flag manifolds and Schubert polynomials , Ann Inst Fourier (Grenoble), 1996, 46: 89-110

    Sottile F. Pieri’s formula for flag manifolds and Schubert polynomials , Ann Inst Fourier (Grenoble), 1996, 46: 89-110

    1996

  31. [39]

    Woodward T. On D. Peterson ’s comparison formula for Gromov-Witten invariants of G/P , Proc Amer Math Soc, 2005, 133: 1601-1609 School of Mathematics, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, P.R. China Email address : lichangzh@mail.sysu.edu.cn School of Mathematics, Sun Yat...

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.