Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Toward Lower Bounds for Chromatic Symmetric Functions in the Elementary Basis

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Strong and powerful P-tableaux are proposed as lower and upper bounds for e-coefficients of chromatic symmetric functions, and exact formulas are proved in several families.

desk verdict Solid new combinatorial framework toward e-coefficient interpretations; the load-bearing reliance on Hikita's unverified preprint is the main thing to watch. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02841 v3 pith:XTUBC5D7 submitted 2025-09-02 math.CO

Isaiah Siegl This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CO MSC 05E0505E1005C3106A07
keywords chromaticsymmetricfunctione-positivityP-tableauxStanley–StembridgeconjectureHikitatableauxShareshian–Wachsinversionstatisticunitintervalordersgreedypartition
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 attacks a major open problem in algebraic combinatorics: giving a combinatorial interpretation to the coefficients c^P_λ in the elementary symmetric function expansion of X_inc(P)(x), the chromatic symmetric function of the incomparability graph of a (3+1)-free poset. It introduces two nested subfamilies of Gasharov's P-tableaux—strong P-tableaux and powerful P-tableaux—and conjectures that for every (3+1)-free poset the number of strong tableaux of shape λ is a lower bound and the number of powerful tableaux is an upper bound for c^P_λ. For natural unit interval orders the same conjecture is refined by q: the generating functions of the two families, weighted by the Shareshian–Wachs inversion statistic, bracket the polynomial coefficient c^P_λ(q). The paper proves the bounds for two-column and hook shapes, shows positive coefficients force strong tableaux via Hikita's positivity witnesses, and obtains exact combinatorial formulas for the path graph, for shapes near the greedy partition, and for λ=(n-2,2). If the conjectures hold, the e-coefficients of Stanley–Stembridge graphs would have a simple, purely combinatorial description, with the q-refinement supplying an inversion-counting interpretation.

What carries the argument

Strong P-tableaux are bijective P-tableaux with no right-unbalanced ladders between adjacent columns; powerful P-tableaux are images under the tableau map of powerful arrays, whose rows are powersum words (no P-descents, no nontrivial right-to-left P-minima). The ladder condition lets Hikita's positivity witnesses be recognized as strong tableaux; the powersum condition powers the exact two-column, hook, and path-graph formulas. The algebraic carrier is the noncommutative P-symmetric function ring, where c^P_λ and c^P_λ(q) are evaluations of m^P_λ(u), so positive word expansions of m^P_λ yield combinatorial interpretations.

What would settle it

Compute c^P_λ and the sizes of strongST_P(λ) and powST_P(λ) for all (3+1)-free posets on 11 elements and all λ; a single case with #strongST_P(λ)>c^P_λ or c^P_λ>#powST_P(λ) refutes Conjecture 1.3. A more targeted check is to find a natural unit interval order P and partition λ with c^P_λ>0 but HikSYT(m,λ) empty, which would break Theorem 1.7.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Conjecture 1.3 is the center: for a (3+1)-free poset P and λ⊢n, #strongST_P(λ) ≤ c^P_λ ≤ #powST_P(λ); q-refinements weight these families by the Shareshian–Wachs inversion statistic, and Conjecture 1.6 says c^P_λ=0 when no strong tableau exists. The paper proves every Hikita tableau is strong (Thm 1.7), ties Hikita's formula to inversion-weighted sums with bounded correction factors (Thm 1.8), and gives exact formulas for greedy-partition shapes (Thm 1.9), λ=(n-2,2) (Thm 1.10), and the path graph (Thm 1.11).

Load-bearing premise

The key external premise is Hikita's characterization, quoted from an unverified preprint, that c^P_λ>0 exactly when his Hikita tableaux are nonempty; if that characterization fails, the proof that positive coefficients force strong tableaux (Theorem 1.7) and the reformulated Conjecture 4.4 lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Conjecture 1.3 holds, the e-coefficient c^P_λ of any (3+1)-free poset is sandwiched between two purely combinatorial counts, giving a concrete finite certificate for e-positivity.
  • Theorem 1.7 plus Conjecture 1.6 would make c^P_λ vanish exactly when strongST_P(λ) is empty, turning a coefficient-vanishing question into a tableau-existence question.
  • Theorem 1.8 rewrites Hikita's probabilistic identity as q^{inv_P(T)}h_T(q) summed over Hikita tableaux; any sharper control of h_T would feed directly into the q-refined positivity conjecture.
  • The path-graph theorem (1.11) and the λ=(n-2,2) theorem (1.10) give exact tableau formulas for those e-coefficients, and Theorem 1.9 does the same for shapes within one box of the greedy partition.
  • All conjectures are verified for natural unit interval orders with up to 10 elements, so for larger posets the first place to look for a counterexample is the strict gap between powerful and strong tableaux.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is to check Conjecture 1.3 for (3+1)-free posets that are not natural unit interval orders; the paper states the conjecture in full generality but the computational evidence covers only the unit-interval case.
  • If the bounds hold, the difference between the powerful and strong generating functions might itself be positive in the noncommutative ring, suggesting a tableau-based proof of e-positivity that bypasses Hikita's probabilistic method.
  • The intermediate family K_P(λ) for λ=(n−2,2) hints that every partition shape may admit a spectrum of tableau sets interpolating between strong and powerful, each giving exact formulas for different classes of posets.
  • Theorem 1.8's correction factors h_T(q) are bounded but not pinned down; testing Conjecture 4.5—whether h_T(α) ≥ 1/∏[λ_i]_{q=α}!—for n=11 would be a cheap way to pressure-test the q-refined lower bound.
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 introduces two new families of tableaux for (3+1)-free posets P, called strong and powerful P-tableaux, and conjectures that their cardinalities and q-weighted counts bracket the elementary-basis coefficients c^P_λ and c^P_λ(q) of the chromatic (quasi)symmetric function X_{inc(P)}(x,q). Conjectures 1.3–1.6 are supported by several special-case theorems: a partial converse of Conjecture 1.6 for natural unit interval orders via Hikita's support characterization (Theorem 1.7), a q-refined identity relating Hikita tableaux to inversion statistics (Theorem 1.8), exact strong-tableau interpretations for coefficients near the greedy partition (Theorem 1.9), a key-tableau model for λ=(n−2,2) (Theorem 1.10), and a full powerful-tableau interpretation for path graphs (Theorem 1.11). The paper also recasts earlier two-column and hook results in the new language.

Significance. If the conjectures are correct, they would provide the long-sought combinatorial interpretation of the e-coefficients of X_{inc(P)}(x,q), with the strong/powerful tableaux serving as canonical witnesses between zero and positive support. The paper's special cases are nontrivial and genuinely advance the project: Theorem 1.11 gives a new tableau model for all path graphs, and Theorems 1.9–1.10 give exact interpretations in previously inaccessible families. The paper is careful to label its main claims as conjectures and clearly separates proven results. Its main limitations are external and presentational: the most advertised connection to Hikita's work rests on an unpublished, not independently verified characterization, and the claimed verification up to ten elements is not backed by code or machine-readable data.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.5, Cor. 2.32; §4, Thm 1.7 and Conj. 4.4] The implication c^P_λ>0 ⇒ strongST_P(λ)≠∅ is load-bearing for the claimed partial converse of Conjecture 1.6 and for the equivalence in Conjecture 4.4. It uses Corollary 2.32, quoted from Hikita's arXiv:2410.12758, as a black box. The inclusion HikSYT(m,λ)⊆strongST_{P_m}(λ) in Theorem 1.7 is proved internally, but the 'Hence' statement and Conjecture 4.4 collapse if Hikita's support theorem has a gap. Please either include a self-contained proof of Corollary 2.32, cite a peer-reviewed version, or explicitly mark all statements depending on it as conditional. The special-case results in Sections 5–7 would survive either way, and the paper should say so.
  2. [§1 and Appendix A, verification claim] The text says Conjectures 1.4–1.6 'have been verified for all natural unit interval orders with at most 10 elements', but no code, scripts, or machine-readable tables are provided. Appendix A only lists selected exceptions for n≤7. This is a reproducibility gap for the numerical evidence supporting the central conjectures. Please supply a computational appendix or repository with the verification data, or qualify the claim to what the data in the paper actually support.
  3. [§6, Def. 6.11 and proof of Thm 1.10] The proof of Theorem 1.10 cites Definition 6.11, Theorem 6.10, and Theorem 2.18, which establishes the equality c^P_λ(q)=∑_{T∈K_P(λ)} q^{inv_P(T)}. The theorem statement also claims strongST_P(λ)⊆K_P(λ)⊆powST_P(λ). The right inclusion is immediate from M_P⊆powT_P, but the left inclusion strongST_P(λ)⊆M_P(λ) is not proved or otherwise evident from the displayed lemmas. Since the lower-bound half of Conjecture 1.3 for this family depends on that inclusion, please supply the missing argument or state the weaker equality without the inclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and abstract] The arXiv title of the manuscript is 'Toward Lower Bounds for Chromatic Symmetric Functions in the Elementary Basis', but the full text title is 'Toward Upper and Lower Bounds...'. Please harmonize these titles.
  2. [§1, p.3] The text says the paper proves 'a converse of Conjecture 1.6'. Theorem 1.7, combined with Corollary 2.32, proves the contrapositive of Conjecture 1.6 (if c>0 then strongST nonempty), which is equivalent to, not the converse of, Conjecture 1.6. Please adjust the wording.
  3. [§6, Def./Thm 6.2, Case 3] In the sentence 'wr−1 not <P wj for some j > i + 1', the index i appears to be a typo for r. Please correct it.
  4. [§4, Thm 1.8] The functions h_T(q) are rational q-functions, not polynomials. The statement 'there exists a function h_T(q)' is correct but should make explicit that h_T is rational and non-polynomial, since the intended application is evaluation at α≥0 rather than a monomial interpretation.
  5. [§7, Thm 1.11] Theorem 1.11 is a reformulation of the Shareshian–Wachs path formula (Theorem 2.35) in the powerful-tableau language. It would aid the reader to state explicitly that the content is the bijective assignment of powerful tableaux to the q-integer factors of the known formula, since the e-positivity itself is already known in this case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the conjectures are independent statements and the proved special cases are anchored in external known formulas.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are Conjectures 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6, which assert inequalities and positivity between the e-coefficients c^P_λ (or c^P_λ(q)) and the newly defined strong/powerful P-tableaux. These are not derived from the tableaux; they are stated as conjectures and tested computationally against the actual coefficients. The paper reports that Conjectures 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 have been verified for all natural unit interval orders with at most 10 elements. That is legitimate empirical support, not a case of a fitted input being renamed a prediction. The proved special cases are derived from external benchmarks: the noncommutative P-symmetric function framework and key-tableau results of Hwang and of Blasiak–Eriksson–Pylyavskyy–Siegl (Theorems 2.16, 2.18, 2.19, 2.23, 2.26), the greedy-partition theorem of Matherne–Morales–Selover (Theorem 2.33), Shareshian–Wachs' path formula (Theorem 2.35), and Hikita's characterization of coefficient support (Corollary 2.32). Even though [4] is a self-citation, it is used as a tool for computing special cases, not as the source of the conjectured bounds; the main conjectures do not reduce to a result of [4]. The dependence on Hikita's unverified preprint is a correctness risk: if Corollary 2.32 had a gap, Theorem 1.7 and the reformulation in Conjecture 4.4 would lose their foundation. But that is an external-support risk, not circularity, because HikSYT is defined independently of c^P_λ and of strong P-tableaux, and the cited characterization is not the same as the paper's target statement. No step was found in which a conclusion equals an input by construction, nor any fitted parameter that is later called a prediction. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The paper's theorems rest on a stack of recent and older external results, most notably Hikita's proof and the Shareshian-Wachs theory. The new tableaux themselves are not used as assumptions; they are the objects being studied.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Hikita's theorem and its corollary: X_inc(P)(x) is e-positive, and c^P_λ > 0 iff HikSYT(m,λ) is nonempty (Theorem 2.30, Corollary 2.32).
    The paper's Theorem 1.7 and Corollary 4.3 rely directly on this recent external preprint (arXiv:2410.12758), which is assumed true.
  • domain assumption Shareshian-Wachs theory: inversion statistic, symmetric function result for natural unit interval orders (Theorem 2.9), and path graph formula (Theorem 2.35).
    Used in Sections 2.7 and 7, especially for Theorem 1.11.
  • domain assumption Noncommutative P-symmetric function framework: e^P_λ, m^P_λ, P-Cauchy product, evaluation maps, positivity expansions for two-column and hook shapes (Theorems 2.16, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.23, 2.26).
    The main tool of the paper; some parts are self-cited from [4], which includes the author.
  • domain assumption Greedy partition theorem of Matherne-Morales-Selover (Theorem 2.33).
    Used to bound shapes of injective P-arrays in Theorem 5.1 and Corollary 2.34, underpinning Theorem 1.9.
  • standard math Gasharov's P-tableaux theorem (Theorem 2.8).
    Defines the background theory of P-tableaux used throughout.
  • standard math Structure of (3+1)-free posets and ladder components between columns (paths and 4-cycles).
    Used in the ladder swap arguments of Section 2 and Lemma 2.11.
invented entities (3)
  • strong P-tableaux (strongST_P(λ)) independent evidence
    purpose: Proposed lower bound for e-coefficients c^P_λ and for the q-polynomials.
    The bound is explicitly checked against computed coefficients for all natural unit interval orders up to 10 elements, and Theorem 1.9 proves exact interpretations in some cases.
  • powerful P-tableaux (powST_P(λ)) independent evidence
    purpose: Proposed upper bound for c^P_λ.
    Same verification up to n=10; exact for path graphs by Theorem 1.11.
  • powerful arrays (powArray_P(α)) independent evidence
    purpose: Pre-image used to define powerful P-tableaux via the tableau map.
    The bijection in Lemma 3.5 gives a combinatorial definition that can be checked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward Lower Bounds for Chromatic Symmetric Functions in the Elementary Basis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XTUBC5D7

@misc{pith2026250902841,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward Lower Bounds for Chromatic Symmetric Functions in the Elementary Basis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XTUBC5D7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02841}
}
abstract

Tatsuyuki Hikita recently proved the Stanley--Stembridge conjecture using probabilistic methods, showing that the chromatic symmetric functions of unit interval graphs are $e$-positive. Finding a combinatorial interpretation for these $e$-coefficients remains a major open problem. One approach is to look for combinatorial interpretations which are subsets of Gasharov's $P$-tableaux. Towards this goal, we introduce sets of strong and powerful $P$-tableaux, and use them to find combinatorial interpretations for various $e$-coefficients of the chromatic symmetric function $X_{inc(P)}(\mathbf{x}, q)$. We conjecture that the set of strong $P$-tableaux gives a lower bound for the $e$-coefficients of $X_{inc(P)}(\mathbf{x}, q)$. Additionally, we show that strong $P$-tableaux and the Shareshian--Wachs inversion statistic appear naturally in the proof of Hikita's result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02841 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ladder Swap . . . . . . . . . . . . c1 d1 d1 c1 c2 d2 d2 c2 . . . . . . ↔ . . . . . . ck dk dk ck ck+1 . . . . . . ck+1 . . . . . . It is useful to think of e P λ (u) as a generating function for the set of P-arrays EP (λ ′ ). Specifically, we have (2.9) e P λ (u) = X A∈EP (λ′) ucolword(A) , where colword(A) is the word obtained by reading the entries of A bottom-to-top left-to-right and uw = uw1 uw2 · · · uwk for a… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Powerful Pm-tableaux of shape (3, 2, 2) with powersum words highlighted 2 1 3 5 4 7 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 3 2 4 5 6 7 Lemma 3.5. For a partition λ ⊢ n, the restriction of the tableau map (3.1) tab : a α ⊨ n sort(α)=λ powArrayP (α) → powTP (λ) is a bijection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. In the language of reverse Hessenberg functions, we have [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_9.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Powerful P-tableaux. Each P-tableau T is labeled with ’Yes’ if T is a strong P-tableau and ’No’ if T is not a strong P-tableau. Additionally, each P-tableau T is labeled with q invP (T) . 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 5 4 1 3 2 4 5 1 2 5 4 3 Yes, q 0 No, q 1 No, q 1 No, q 2 1 3 2 5…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Marked graphs and the chromatic symmetric function

    Jos´ e Aliste-Prieto, Anna de Mier, Rosa Orellana, and Jos´ e Zamora. Marked graphs and the chromatic symmetric function. SIAM J. Discrete Math. , 37(3):1881–1919, 2023

    work page 1919

  2. [2]

    Martin, Jennifer D

    Jos´ e Aliste-Prieto, Jeremy L. Martin, Jennifer D. Wagner, and Jos´ e Zamora. Chromatic symmetric functions and polynomial invariants of trees. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. , 56(11):3452–3476, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Athanasiadis

    Christos A. Athanasiadis. Power sum expansion of chromatic quasisymmetric functions. Electron. J. Combin., 22(2):Paper 2.7, 9, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Noncommutative Schur functions for posets

    Jonah Blasiak, Holden Eriksson, Pavlo Pylyavskyy, and Isaiah Siegl. Noncommutative Schur functions for posets. Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 31(21):56, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Noncommutative Schur functions, switchboards, and Schur positivity

    Jonah Blasiak and Sergey Fomin. Noncommutative Schur functions, switchboards, and Schur positivity. Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 23(1):727–766, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Patrick Brosnan and Timothy Y. Chow. Unit interval orders and the dot action on the cohomology of regular semisimple Hessenberg varieties. Adv. Math., 329:955–1001, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    A graph polynomial from chromatic symmetric functions

    William Chan and Logan Crew. A graph polynomial from chromatic symmetric functions. J. Graph Theory, 105(4):633–651, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Positivity of chromatic symmetric functions associated with Hessenberg functions of bounce number 3

    Soojin Cho and Jaehyun Hong. Positivity of chromatic symmetric functions associated with Hessenberg functions of bounce number 3. Electron. J. Combin. , 29(2):Paper No. 2.19, 37, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    On e-positivity and e-unimodality of chromatic quasi-symmetric functions

    Soojin Cho and JiSun Huh. On e-positivity and e-unimodality of chromatic quasi-symmetric functions. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics , 33(4):2286–2315, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Evaluations of Hecke algebra traces at Kazhdan-Lusztig basis elements

    Samuel Clearman, Matthew Hyatt, Brittany Shelton, and Mark Skandera. Evaluations of Hecke algebra traces at Kazhdan-Lusztig basis elements. Electron. J. Combin. , 23(2):Paper 2.7, 56, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    A new formula for Stanley’s chromatic symmetric function for unit interval graphs and e-positivity for triangular ladder graphs

    Samantha Dahlberg. A new formula for Stanley’s chromatic symmetric function for unit interval graphs and e-positivity for triangular ladder graphs. S´ em. Lothar. Combin., 82B:Art. 59, 12, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Lollipop and lariat symmetric functions

    Samantha Dahlberg and Stephanie van Willigenburg. Lollipop and lariat symmetric functions. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics , 32(2):1029–1039, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Noncommutative Schur functions and their applications

    Sergey Fomin and Curtis Greene. Noncommutative Schur functions and their applications. Discrete Math., 193(1-3):179–200, 1998. Selected papers in honor of Adriano Garsia (Taormina, 1994)

    1998

  6. [14]

    Incomparability graphs of (3 + 1)-free posets ares-positive

    Vesselin Gasharov. Incomparability graphs of (3 + 1)-free posets ares-positive. Discrete Math., 157:193– 197, 1996

    1996

  7. [15]

    Gebhard and Bruce E

    David D. Gebhard and Bruce E. Sagan. A chromatic symmetric function in noncommuting variables. Journal of Algebraic Combinatorics , 13(3):227–255, 2001

    2001

  8. [16]

    Griffin, Anton Mellit, Marino Romero, Kevin Weigl, and Joshua Jeishing Wen

    Sean T. Griffin, Anton Mellit, Marino Romero, Kevin Weigl, and Joshua Jeishing Wen. On Macdonald expansions of q-chromatic symmetric functions and the Stanley–Stembridge conjecture. arXiv:2504.06936, April 2025

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A modular relation for the chromatic symmetric functions of (3+1)-free posets

    Mathieu Guay-Paquet. A modular relation for the chromatic symmetric functions of (3+1)-free posets. arxiv:1306.2400, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A second proof of the Shareshian–Wachs conjecture, by way of a new Hopf algebra

    Mathieu Guay-Paquet. A second proof of the Shareshian–Wachs conjecture, by way of a new Hopf algebra. arxiv:1601.05498, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Hecke algebra characters and immanant conjectures

    Mark Haiman. Hecke algebra characters and immanant conjectures. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 6(3):569–595, 1993

    1993

  12. [20]

    Megumi Harada and Martha E. Precup. The cohomology of abelian Hessenberg varieties and the Stanley–Stembridge conjecture. Algebraic Combinatorics, 2(6):1059–1108, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    A proof of the Stanley–Stembridge conjecture

    Tatsuyuki Hikita. A proof of the Stanley–Stembridge conjecture. arXiv:2410.12758, October 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Refinement of Hikita’s e-positivity theorem via Abreu–Nigro’s g-functions and restricted modular law

    JiSun Huh, Byung-Hak Hwang, Donghyun Kim, Jang Soo Kim, and Jaeseong Oh. Refinement of Hikita’s e-positivity theorem via Abreu–Nigro’s g-functions and restricted modular law. arXiv:2504.09123, April 2025

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Chromatic quasisymmetric functions and noncommutative P -symmetric functions

    Byung-Hak Hwang. Chromatic quasisymmetric functions and noncommutative P -symmetric functions. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. , 377(4):2855–2896, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    A geometric realization of the chromatic symmetric function of a unit interval graph

    Syu Kato. A geometric realization of the chromatic symmetric function of a unit interval graph. arXiv:2410.12231, 2024. 38 ISAIAH SIEGL

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A geometric realization of Catalan functions

    Syu Kato. A geometric realization of Catalan functions. arXiv:2301.00862, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Robinson-Schensted correspondence for unit interval orders

    Dongkwan Kim and Pavlo Pylyavskyy. Robinson-Schensted correspondence for unit interval orders. Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 27(5):Paper No. 97, 66, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Isomorphism of weighted trees and Stanley’s isomorphism conjecture for caterpillars

    Martin Loebl and Jean-S´ ebastien Sereni. Isomorphism of weighted trees and Stanley’s isomorphism conjecture for caterpillars. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e D, Comb. Phys. Interact., 6(3):357–384, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Matherne, Alejandro H

    Jacob P. Matherne, Alejandro H. Morales, and Jesse Selover. The Newton polytope and Lorentzian property of chromatic symmetric functions. Sel. Math., New Ser. , 30(3):35, 2024. Id/No 42

    2024

  21. [29]

    John Shareshian and Michelle L. Wachs. Chromatic quasisymmetric functions. Adv. Math., 295:497–551, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Cylindric P -tableaux for (3+1)-free posets

    Isaiah Siegl. Cylindric P -tableaux for (3+1)-free posets. arXiv:2211.03953, November, 2022. To ap- pear in Combinatorial Theory, 2025

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Richard P. Stanley. A symmetric function generalization of the chromatic polynomial of a graph. Adv. Math., 111(1):166–194, 1995

    1995

  24. [32]

    Richard P. Stanley. Enumerative combinatorics. Vol. 1. , volume 49 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997

    1997

  25. [33]

    Richard P. Stanley. Graph colorings and related symmetric functions: Ideas and applications: A descrip- tion of results, interesting applications, and notable open problems. Discrete Math., 193(1-3):267–286, 1998

    1998

  26. [34]

    Richard P. Stanley. Enumerative combinatorics. Vol. 2. , volume 62 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999

    1999

  27. [35]

    Stanley and John R

    Richard P. Stanley and John R. Stembridge. On immanants of Jacobi-Trudi matrices and permutations with restricted position. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A , 62(2):261–279, 1993

    1993

  28. [36]

    A signed e-expansion of the chromatic quasisymmetric function

    Foster Tom. A signed e-expansion of the chromatic quasisymmetric function. arXiv:2311.08020, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    A class of trees determined by their chromatic symmetric functions

    Yuzhenni Wang, Xingxing Yu, and Xiao-Dong Zhang. A class of trees determined by their chromatic symmetric functions. Discrete Math., 347(9):11, 2024. Id/No 114096. Dept. of Mathematics, University of W ashington, Seattle, W A Email address : isaiahsiegl@gmail.com

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.