Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 58 references

A Hypergraph Tutte Polynomial

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new hypergraph Tutte polynomial supports deletion–contraction, specializes to uniform polymatroids, and proves the characteristic polynomial is not a specialization of the older polymatroid Tutte polynomial.

desk verdict Honest, solid core theory with a genuinely new deletion–contraction Tutte polynomial for hypergraphs; the headline comparison with Bernardi–Kálmán–Postnikov is real but rests on external computational and preprint dependencies that need pinning down. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16334 v1 pith:XYTA2ATI submitted 2026-07-16 math.CO

Khallil Berrekkal , Joanna A. Ellis-Monaghan , Merijn Moody This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CO MSC 05C3105B3505C6582B20
keywords hypergraphTuttepolynomialdeletion–contractionk-polymatroidsuniversalityPottsmodelrandomclusterdistinguishingpowercharacteristic
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 introduces a Tutte polynomial for hypergraphs, $T_{HG}$, whose subset-sum definition records the degree of every hyperedge. Its central achievement is a deletion–contraction recurrence that stays inside the class of hypergraphs, achieved through a degree-preserving contraction operation; earlier hypergraph Tutte extensions did not have this. The paper pairs $T_{HG}$ with a Tutte polynomial $T_k$ for $k$-polymatroids and proves that, on $(k+1)$-uniform hypergraphs, $T_{HG}$ is exactly $T_k$ on the associated polymatroid. From that bridge it derives multiplicativity, duality, a universality/recipe theorem, and a convolution formula, and shows $T_{HG}$ is equivalent to a degree-dependent hypergraph random-cluster partition function. The closing comparison shows $T_{HG}$ and a previously defined polymatroid Tutte polynomial are incomparable in distinguishing power, which answers negatively a question about whether the characteristic polynomial is a specialization of that earlier polynomial. A careful reader would care because this supplies the missing deletion–contraction backbone for hypergraph analogues of graph and matroid Tutte theory, with statistical-mechanics consequences.

What carries the argument

The engine is the degree data built into hyperedges. Deletion removes a hyperedge; contraction merges the vertices of a hyperedge into one vertex while keeping all other edge degrees unchanged, so the quantities $m(e)=d(e)-v(e)$ (loose multiplicity) and $\Delta(e)=\kappa(H\setminus e)-\kappa(H)$ (component drop) enter as the recursion weights $(x-1)^\Delta$ and $(y-1)^m$. On the polymatroid side the same structure is carried by the rank function $r(A)=v(H)-\kappa_H(A)$ and the $k$-dual $r^*(A)=k|A|+r(E\setminus A)-r(E)$; $T_k(P)=\sum_A (x-1)^{r(E)-r(A)}(y-1)^{k|A|-r(A)}$ is the object that supports universality and the convolution product.

What would settle it

Recompute $T_{HG}$ and the earlier polymatroid Tutte polynomial on the two pairs of 4-uniform hypergraphs described in Section 6 (seven- and eight-vertex examples with four and five edges) using an independent implementation of the subset-sum definitions; finding $T_P(H_1)=T_P(H_2)$ or $T_{HG}(H_3)=T_{HG}(H_4)$ would overturn the incomparability conclusion and the negative answer about the characteristic polynomial.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that $T_{HG}(H;x,y)=\sum_{A \subseteq E} (x-1)^{\kappa(A)-\kappa(H)} (y-1)^{d(A)-|A|-v(H)+\kappa(A)}$ is a genuine hypergraph analogue of the Tutte polynomial: for every hypergraph and every hyperedge $e$ it satisfies $T_{HG}(H) = (x-1)^{\Delta(e)} T_{HG}(H\setminus e) + (y-1)^{m(e)} T_{HG}(H/e)$, where $\Delta(e) = \kappa(H\setminus e) - \kappa(H)$ and $m(e) = d(e) - v(e)$. The key choice is contracting a hyperedge by identifying all of its vertices while preserving the degrees of the remaining edges; this makes the recursion close within hypergraphs. On $(k+1)$-uniform hypergraphs the degree term becomes $k|A|$ and $T_{HG}$ agrees with $T_k$ on the associated polymatroid, transferring the polymatroid universality theorem and convolution formula back to hypergraphs. The paper furthe

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the recursion used to compute the earlier polymatroid Tutte polynomial agrees with its original defining activities, and that the two pairs of 4-uniform hypergraphs in Section 6 have exactly the polynomial equalities and inequalities asserted; these identities are checked computationally and not fully derived in the text.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hypergraph Tutte polynomials can now be computed by deletion–contraction, and any multiplicative deletion–contraction invariant on (k+1)-uniform hypergraphs is a specialization of THG via the universality/recipe theorem.
  • THG supplies an organizing polynomial for the degree-dependent hypergraph random-cluster model, so evaluations and specializations of the Tutte polynomial—including its duality for planar hypergraphs—transfer to this partition function.
  • Because THG agrees with T_k on uniform hypergraphs, the k-polymatroid convolution formula gives hypergraph convolution identities that reduce to the classical graph Tutte convolution in the graph case.
  • The characteristic polynomial (and, up to a known factor, the chromatic polynomial) of a hypergraph is not in general a specialization of the earlier polymatroid Tutte polynomial; the open question is closed in the negative.
  • In the uniform setting, the three hypergraph partition functions (degree-dependent random cluster, degree-dependent Potts, and many-body Potts) become equivalent, so the non-uniform behavior is where the models genuinely differ.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same degree-recording device could define Tutte invariants for other multiset-based structures, such as simplicial complexes with repeated faces, where rank functions forget multiplicity.
  • Because THG distinguishes hypergraphs that the rank-based polymatroid polynomial does not, a natural next target is a 'degree-enriched' polymatroid Tutte polynomial that extends the earlier one without losing hyperedge degree data.
  • The equivalence between THG and Z_RC, together with the multivariate rank-generating-function viewpoint mentioned in the paper, suggests a testable interpolation: a multivariate THG with one edge variable per hyperedge should reduce to THG, Z_P, and the many-body Potts partition function by different substitutions, unifying the three models outside the uniform case.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a hypergraph Tutte polynomial T_HG via a subset sum with edge-degree exponents, and proves it satisfies deletion-contraction (Theorem 2.1), multiplicativity, and planar duality. It also defines a k-polymatroid Tutte polynomial T_k as a constant-weight specialization of a polymatroid polynomial of Chávez-Lomelí et al., and proves deletion-contraction, duality, characteristic-polynomial specializations, a universality/recipe theorem, and convolution formulas. For (k+1)-uniform hypergraphs, T_HG specializes to T_k on the associated polymatroid, giving hypergraph-level universality and convolution theorems. The paper then shows T_HG is equivalent to a degree-dependent random cluster partition function and incomparable with two other hypergraph Potts-type partition functions. Finally, using the recursive definition of the Bernardi–Kálmán–Postnikov polynomial T_P from [26], it presents explicit 4-uniform hypergraphs showing T_HG and T_P are incomparable, and derives that the characteristic polynomial is not a specialization of T_P, answering negatively a question in [7].

Significance. The central construction is natural and the self-contained proof of Theorem 2.1 is clean. If the Section 6 computations and the identification of the recursive T_P with [7] are correct, the paper makes a solid contribution to hypergraph Tutte theory, with useful recipe theorems and statistical-mechanics interpretations. The negative answer to the BKP question is a notable result. The paper also explicitly displays the full T_HG polynomials for one of the two example pairs, which is a strength; however, the decisive T_P computations are not included in the text and are deferred to an unpinned GitHub repository.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 6, Proposition 6.1 and Corollary 6.2] The incomparability and the negative answer to the BKP question rest on four computational claims: T_HG(H1)=T_HG(H2), T_P(H1)≠T_P(H2), T_P(H3)=T_P(H4), and T_HG(H3)≠T_HG(H4). Only the last is fully documented (displayed polynomials and Table 2). The equality T_HG(H1)=T_HG(H2) is asserted without supporting polynomials, Table 1 lists only a few differing coefficients for T_P(H1),T_P(H2), and the equality T_P(H3)=T_P(H4) is asserted with no T_P polynomial shown. The text defers to a GitHub repository with no commit hash. Since Corollary 6.2 depends exactly on these equalities, please include the complete computed polynomials (or verifiable certificates) and a versioned, archived reference to the code.
  2. [Section 6.1, Definition 6.1 and Remark 6.1] The working definition of T_P is the recursive characterization from [26], and Remark 6.1 states without proof that it agrees with the Bernardi–Kálmán–Postnikov definition in [7]. The negative answer to the BKP question is only as strong as this identification. If the recursion in [26] does not agree with [7] on these polymatroids, Corollary 6.2 would not answer the BKP question. Please provide a proof of the agreement, or at least state the precise theorem from [26] and verify its hypotheses on the examples. Relying on an unreviewed arXiv preprint for a headline result without such a check is a load-bearing gap.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, Definition 2.3] The notation V\e is ambiguous when e is a multiset. Please clarify that V\e means removing the support of e, not removing d(e) many elements.
  2. [Section 3.1, Proposition 3.1] Since Proposition 3.1 underpins Theorem 3.1 and the later hypergraph universality theorem, please include the short verification that T_k is exactly N(P,ω) with constant weights ω(e)=k, so that [14, Prop. 7.1] applies directly.
  3. [Section 3.4, Proposition 3.8] The associativity proof contains a confusing reindexing step, especially the transition from sums over B and C to the final expression. Please rewrite this part for clarity.
  4. [Section 5, Corollary 5.3] The formula divides by (w^k−1)^{1/k}; for w^k=1 the expression is singular. Please state that the identity is understood by continuity, or restrict to the region where the root is nonzero.
  5. [Section 5, Remark 5.1] Reference [40] is a self-cited unpublished manuscript. Please mark it clearly as unpublished and, where a specific result is used, state the proposition being invoked.
  6. [Section 6, Tables 1 and 2] For both tables, please state explicitly that all coefficients not listed agree between the two polynomials. For T_P(H3) and T_P(H4), at least the full polynomials or a certificate of equality should be provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation identified: THG and T_k are explicit subset-sum definitions with direct proofs; the BKP comparison rests on external [26] recursion and computational checks. Minor self-citations exist but are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The core derivations are not circular. THG is defined by a subset expansion (Def. 2.2), and its deletion–contraction recurrence (Thm. 2.1), multiplicativity (Prop. 2.1), and the uniform-hypergraph identification THG(H)=T_k(PH) are proved by direct substitution from the definitions. T_k is explicitly introduced as a specialization of the external polynomial N from [14] with constant weights (Def. 3.2 and the discussion following it), so its deletion–contraction is inherited from an independent published source; the universality and convolution results are proved from the subset expansion and standard convolution algebra, not assumed. The characteristic-polynomial specialization (Prop. 3.4) is also a direct algebraic verification. The headline comparison with TP in Section 6 uses TP via the recursive characterization of [26], whose agreement with [7] is cited externally in Remark 6.1, and the decisive equalities/inequalities are computational, deferred to a GitHub repository without a commit hash. That is a reproducibility and verification gap, not a circular reduction. The paper's self-citations are [18], a published paper co-authored by one present author, used for the planar duality statement in Prop. 2.2, and [40], an unpublished self-cited manuscript used only in the interpretive Remark 5.1. Neither makes a central claim reduce to its own input: [18] is an external published theorem, and [40] is not used in the proof of the BKP negative answer. No step in the derivation chain is equivalent by construction to its own assumptions; the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, with minor self-citations only.

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

No physical entities are invented. THG and T_k are new mathematical objects, but they are definitions rather than postulated entities in the sense of new forces or particles. The load-bearing axioms are standard polymatroid facts, the coincidence with the coarse hypermap polynomial, the external recursive characterization of TP, and the correctness of the accompanying code.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The function r(A)=v(H)-κ_H(A) defines a polymatroid on E(H)
    Used throughout §4; cited to [52] but not proved.
  • domain assumption THG coincides with the coarse hypermap Tutte polynomial on planar hypergraphs
    Prop 2.2, taken from [18], used for planar duality.
  • domain assumption The recursive characterization of TP in Definition 6.1 agrees with the BKP Tutte polynomial
    Used for Corollary 6.2; cited to [26].
  • ad hoc to paper The GitHub code computes the polynomial comparisons in Proposition 6.1 correctly
    No commit hash; the full computations are not in the text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Hypergraph Tutte Polynomial." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XYTA2ATI

@misc{pith2026260716334,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Hypergraph Tutte Polynomial},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XYTA2ATI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16334}
}
abstract

We introduce a Tutte polynomial for hypergraphs, $T_{\mathrm{HG}}$, together with $T_k$, a related Tutte polynomial for $k$-polymatroids. Both invariants admit deletion--contraction recursions that remain within their respective classes, and they are linked by the fact that $T_{\mathrm{HG}}$ specializes to $T_k$ on the associated polymatroid of any $(k+1)$-uniform hypergraph. We show that $T_{\mathrm{HG}}$ satisfies several desirable Tutte type properties, including multiplicativity and duality, while $T_k$ further admits a universality theorem, as well as a convolution product formula. In the uniform hypergraph setting, these latter results specialize back to $T_{\mathrm{HG}}$. We also relate $T_{\mathrm{HG}}$ to hypergraph extensions of the Potts and random cluster models. In particular, we study degree dependent random cluster and Potts partition functions, as well as Grimmett's many body Potts model, and compare their relationship with $T_{\mathrm{HG}}$ in both the general and uniform settings. Finally, we compare $T_{\mathrm{HG}}$ with the polymatroid Tutte polynomial $\mathcal{T}_P$ of Bernardi, K'alm'an, and Postnikov, showing that the two are incomparable in distinguishing power. As a consequence, we answer negatively a question raised by these authors by proving that the characteristic polynomial is not, in general, a specialization of $\mathcal{T}_P$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16334 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Associated bipartite graphs of H1 and H2. H3 vertices edges a b c d e f g h 1 2 3 4 5 H4 vertices edges a b c d e f g h 1 2 3 4 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Associated bipartite graphs of H3 and H4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [18]

    Ellis-Monaghan, Iain Moffatt, and Steven Noble

    Joanna A. Ellis-Monaghan, Iain Moffatt, and Steven Noble. A coarse Tutte polynomial for hypermaps. InModel theory, computer science, and graph polynomials—Festschrift in honor of Johann A. Makowsky, Trends Math., pages 239–264. Birkh¨auser/Springer, Cham, 2025

    2025

  2. [26]

    A recursive definition for the polymatroid Tutte polynomial.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.11046, 2025

    Xiaxia Guan, Xian’an Jin, and Weiling Yang. A recursive definition for the polymatroid Tutte polynomial.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.11046, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [7]

    Universal Tutte polynomial.Adv

    Olivier Bernardi, Tam ´as K ´alm´an, and Alexander Postnikov. Universal Tutte polynomial.Adv. Math., 402:Paper No. 108355, 74, 2022

    2022

  4. [1]

    Makowsky

    Ilia Averbouch, Benny Godlin, and Johann A. Makowsky. A most general edge elimination polynomial. InGraph- theoretic concepts in computer science, volume 5344 ofLecture Notes in Comput. Sci., pages 31–42. Springer, Berlin, 2008. 36 Berrekkal, Ellis-Monaghan and Moody

    2008

  5. [2]

    The physics of higher-order interactions in complex systems.Nature Physics, 17(10):1093–1098, 2021

    Federico Battiston, Enrico Amico, Alain Barrat, Ginestra Bianconi, Guilherme Ferraz de Arruda, Benedetta Franceschiello, Iacopo Iacopini, Sonia K´efi, Vito Latora, Yamir Moreno, et al. The physics of higher-order interactions in complex systems.Nature Physics, 17(10):1093–1098, 2021

    2021

  6. [3]

    R. J. Baxter.Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics. Academic Press, New York, 1982

    1982

  7. [4]

    Beaudin, J

    L. Beaudin, J. Ellis-Monaghan, G. Pangborn, and R. Shrock. A little statistical mechanics for the graph theorist.Discrete Mathematics, 310(13-14):2037–2053, 2010

  8. [5]

    The stochastic complexity of spin models: Are pairwise models really simple?Entropy, 20(10), 2018

    Alberto Beretta, Claudia Battistin, Cl ´elia de Mulatier, Iacopo Mastromatteo, and Matteo Marsili. The stochastic complexity of spin models: Are pairwise models really simple?Entropy, 20(10), 2018

    2018

Show all 58 references
  1. [6]

    North- Holland, 1989

    Claude Berge.Hypergraphs: Combinatorics of Finite Sets, volume 45 ofNorth-Holland Mathematical Library. North- Holland, 1989

    1989

  2. [8]

    N. L. Biggs.Algebraic Graph Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 1993

    1993

  3. [9]

    Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998

    B ´ela Bollob´as.Modern graph theory, volume 184 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998

    1998

  4. [10]

    A polynomial invariant of graphs on orientable surfaces.Proc

    B ´ela Bollob´as and Oliver Riordan. A polynomial invariant of graphs on orientable surfaces.Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 83(3):513–531, 2001

    2001

  5. [11]

    A polynomial of graphs on surfaces.Math

    B ´ela Bollob´as and Oliver Riordan. A polynomial of graphs on surfaces.Math. Ann., 323(1):81–96, 2002

    2002

  6. [12]

    Bonin, Carolyn Chun, and Tara Fife

    Joseph E. Bonin, Carolyn Chun, and Tara Fife. The natural matroid of an integer polymatroid.SIAM J. Discrete Math., 37(3):1751–1770, 2023

    2023

  7. [13]

    A quasi-tree expansion of the Krushkal polynomial.Advances in Applied Mathematics, 94:3–22, 2018

    Clark Butler. A quasi-tree expansion of the Krushkal polynomial.Advances in Applied Mathematics, 94:3–22, 2018

    2018

  8. [14]

    A new polynomial for polymatroids.Australas

    Laura Ch ´avez-Lomel´ı, Criel Merino, Guadalupe Rodr ´ıguez S´anchez, and Geoffrey Whittle. A new polynomial for polymatroids.Australas. J. Combin., 80:342–360, 2021

    2021

  9. [15]

    Modeling discrete data with high-order vector Potts models

    Aaron de Clercq, Merijn Moody, and Cl ´elia de Mulatier. Modeling discrete data with high-order vector Potts models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.03429, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Bayesian inference of minimally complex models with interactions of arbitrary order.Physical Review E, 111(5):054307, 2025

    Cl ´elia de Mulatier and Matteo Marsili. Bayesian inference of minimally complex models with interactions of arbitrary order.Physical Review E, 111(5):054307, 2025

    2025

  11. [17]

    Graph polynomials and their applications I: The Tutte polynomial

    Joanna A Ellis-Monaghan and Criel Merino. Graph polynomials and their applications I: The Tutte polynomial. In Structural analysis of complex networks, pages 219–255. Springer, 2010

    2010

  12. [19]

    C. M. Fortuin and P. W. Kasteleyn. On the random cluster model.Physica (Amsterdam), 57:536–564, 1972

    1972

  13. [20]

    Elsevier, 2005

    Satoru Fujishige.Submodular Functions and Optimization, volume 58. Elsevier, 2005

    2005

  14. [21]

    L. A. Goldberg and M. Jerrum. Inapproximability of the Tutte polynomial. InACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), 2007

    2007

  15. [22]

    A Tutte polynomial for maps.Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 27(6):913–945, 2018

    Andrew Goodall, Thomas Krajewski, Guus Regts, and Llu ´ıs Vena. A Tutte polynomial for maps.Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 27(6):913–945, 2018

    2018

  16. [23]

    Potts models and random-cluster processes with many-body interactions.J

    Geoffrey Grimmett. Potts models and random-cluster processes with many-body interactions.J. Statist. Phys., 75(1- 2):67–121, 1994

    1994

  17. [24]

    The random-cluster model

    Geoffrey Grimmett. The random-cluster model. InProbability on discrete structures, pages 73–123. Springer, 2004

    2004

  18. [25]

    A deletion-contraction formula and monotonicity properties for the polymatroid Tutte polynomial.Int

    Xiaxia Guan, Xian’an Jin, and Tam ´as K ´alm´an. A deletion-contraction formula and monotonicity properties for the polymatroid Tutte polynomial.Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, 2025(19):Paper No. rnaf302, 16, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Aspects of the theory of hypermatroids

    Thorkell Helgason. Aspects of the theory of hypermatroids. In Claude Berge and Dijen Ray-Chaudhuri, editors, Hypergraph Seminar, volume 411 ofLecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 191–213. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1974

    1974

  20. [28]

    Types of embedded graphs and their Tutte polynomials.Math

    Stephen Huggett and Iain Moffatt. Types of embedded graphs and their Tutte polynomials.Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 169(2):255–297, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    E. T. Jaynes. Information theory and statistical mechanics.Phys. Rev., 106:620–630, May 1957

    1957

  22. [30]

    A version of Tutte’s polynomial for hypergraphs.Adv

    Tam ´as K´alm´an. A version of Tutte’s polynomial for hypergraphs.Adv. Math., 244:823–873, 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    Knapp.The Complexity of Greedoid Tutte Polynomials

    Christopher N. Knapp.The Complexity of Greedoid Tutte Polynomials. PhD thesis, Brunel University London, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    W. Kook, V . Reiner, and D. Stanton. A convolution formula for the Tutte polynomial.J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 76(2):297–300, 1999

    1999

  25. [33]

    Hopf algebras and Tutte polynomials.Advances in Applied Mathematics, 95:271–330, 2018

    Thomas Krajewski, Iain Moffatt, and Adrian Tanasa. Hopf algebras and Tutte polynomials.Advances in Applied Mathematics, 95:271–330, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Graphs, links, and duality on surfaces.Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 20(2):267– 287, 2011

    Vyacheslav Krushkal. Graphs, links, and duality on surfaces.Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 20(2):267– 287, 2011

    2011

  27. [35]

    Sur les activit ´es des orientations d’une g ´eom´etrie combinatoire.Codes et hypergraphes (Actes Coll

    Michel Las Vergnas. Sur les activit ´es des orientations d’une g ´eom´etrie combinatoire.Codes et hypergraphes (Actes Coll. Math. Discrete Bruxelles, Cahiers Centre Et. Rech. Op´er.), 20:293–300, 1978. A Hypergraph Tutte Polynomial37

    1978

  28. [36]

    On the Tutte polynomial of a morphism of matroids

    Michel Las Vergnas. On the Tutte polynomial of a morphism of matroids. InAnnals of Discrete Mathematics, volume 8, pages 7–20. Elsevier, 1980

    1980

  29. [37]

    Loebl.Discrete mathematics in statistical physics: introductory lectures

    M. Loebl.Discrete mathematics in statistical physics: introductory lectures. Advanced Lectures in Mathematics. Vieweg + Teubner, Wiesbaden, 2010

    2010

  30. [38]

    Distinctive power and comparability of Harary polynomial.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.22556, 2025

    Johann A Makowsky. Distinctive power and comparability of Harary polynomial.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.22556, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Beyond inverse Ising model: structure of the analytical solution for a class of inverse problems

    Iacopo Mastromatteo. Beyond inverse Ising model: structure of the analytical solution for a class of inverse problems. Journal of Statistical Physics, 150(4):658–670, 2013

    2013

  32. [40]

    Ellis-Monaghan, and Cl ´elia de Mulatier

    Merijn Moody, Khallil Berrekkal, Joanna A. Ellis-Monaghan, and Cl ´elia de Mulatier. A formal framework for higher- order Potts models, 2026. Manuscript in preparation

    2026

  33. [41]

    A characterization of Tutte invariants of 2-polymatroids.J

    James Oxley and Geoff Whittle. A characterization of Tutte invariants of 2-polymatroids.J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 59(2):210–244, 1993

    1993

  34. [42]

    The Tutte polynomial and percolation.Graph Theory and Related Topics, pages 329–339, 1979

    James G Oxley, Dominic JA Welsh, et al. The Tutte polynomial and percolation.Graph Theory and Related Topics, pages 329–339, 1979

    1979

  35. [43]

    Higher-order Ising model on hypergraphs.Phys

    Thomas Robiglio, Leonardo Di Gaetano, Ada Altieri, Giovanni Petri, and Federico Battiston. Higher-order Ising model on hypergraphs.Phys. Rev. E, 112(2):Paper No. L022301, 5, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    G. Royle. Recent results on chromatic and flow roots of graphs and matroids. InSurveys in Combinatorics, 2009, volume 365 ofLondon Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, pages 289–327. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009

    2009

  37. [45]

    Savitsky

    Thomas J. Savitsky. Enumeration of 2-polymatroids on up to seven elements.SIAM J. Discret. Math., 28(4):1641–1650, 2014

    2014

  38. [46]

    Springer, 2003

    Alexander Schrijver et al.Combinatorial Optimization: Polyhedra and Efficiency, volume 24. Springer, 2003

    2003

  39. [47]

    A. D. Sokal. The multivariate Tutte polynomial (alias Potts model) for graphs and matroids. In Bridget S. Webb, editor, Surveys in Combinatorics, pages 173–226. Cambridge University Press, 2005

    2005

  40. [48]

    Phase transitions in the simplicial Ising model on hypergraphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19080, 2024

    Gangmin Son, Deok-Sun Lee, and Kwang-Il Goh. Phase transitions in the simplicial Ising model on hypergraphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19080, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Coloring hypergraphs with excluded minors.European J

    Raphael Steiner. Coloring hypergraphs with excluded minors.European J. Combin., 120:Paper No. 103971, 15, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    A quasi-tree expansion for the surface Tutte polynomial.Advances in Applied Mathematics, 175:103045, 2026

    Maya Thompson. A quasi-tree expansion for the surface Tutte polynomial.Advances in Applied Mathematics, 175:103045, 2026

    2026

  43. [51]

    W. T. Tutte.Graph Theory, volume 21 ofEncyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Addison-Wesley, New York, 1984

    1984

  44. [52]

    Recognizing polymatroids associated with hypergraphs.Combin

    Dirk Vertigan and Geoff Whittle. Recognizing polymatroids associated with hypergraphs.Combin. Probab. Comput., 2(4):519–530, 1993

    1993

  45. [53]

    F. J. Wegner. Duality in generalized Ising models and phase transitions without local order parameters.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 12(10):2259–2272, 1971

    1971

  46. [54]

    D. J. A. Welsh.Complexity: Knots, colourings and counting. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1993

    1993

  47. [55]

    D. J. A. Welsh and C. Merino. The Potts model and the Tutte polynomial.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 41(3):1127– 1152, 2000. Probabilistic techniques in equilibrium and nonequilibrium statistical physics

    2000

  48. [56]

    G. P. Whittle. The critical problem for polymatroids.Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. (2), 45(177):117–125, 1994

    1994

  49. [57]

    Duality in polymatroids and set functions.Combin

    Geoff Whittle. Duality in polymatroids and set functions.Combin. Probab. Comput., 1(3):275–280, 1992

    1992

  50. [58]

    A geometric theory of hypergraph colouring.aequationes mathematicae, 43(1):45–58, 1992

    Geoff Whittle. A geometric theory of hypergraph colouring.aequationes mathematicae, 43(1):45–58, 1992

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.