Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Equivariant Schubert Calculus for Inverse Grassmannian Permutations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper gives a Graham-positive formula for equivariant Schubert products of two inverse Grassmannian permutations: every nonzero structure constant is a double Schubert polynomial in two disjoint blocks of variables.

desk verdict Genuinely new equivariant rule for inverse Grassmannian products with a clever positroid bridge; the main theorem is plausible but rests on a finite check the appendix only illustrates. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16797 v1 pith:ZVOPQ2XX submitted 2026-07-18 math.CO math.AGmath.RT

Yiming Chen , Neil J.Y. Fan , Rui Xiong , Ming Yao This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.COmath.AGmath.RT MSC 05E0505E1014M1514N15
keywords equivariantSchubertcalculusinverseGrassmannianpermutationsdoublepolynomialsGrahampositivitypreclanssphericalsubgroupspositroidvarietiesEdelman-Greenecoefficients
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 proves an explicit, positive formula for the equivariant Schubert structure constants when both permutations are inverse Grassmannian, meaning their inverses have at most one descent. The formula says each nonzero coefficient is a double Schubert polynomial in two disjoint sets of equivariant variables, so every coefficient is manifestly Graham-positive: a polynomial in differences of the variables with nonnegative coefficients. The proof encodes the geometry of spherical-subgroup orbits in new combinatorial objects called preclans and identifies localized orbit classes with positroid varieties in a Grassmannian. As an application, the product of a single Schubert polynomial indexed by a 321-avoiding permutation with one indexed by an inverse Grassmannian permutation has structure constants given by Edelman–Greene coefficients. This supplies the first positive equivariant rule for this class of permutations and extends the earlier non-equivariant inverse Grassmannian Littlewood–Richardson rule.

What carries the argument

The central object is a (p,m,q)-preclan: a partial matching on $n=p+m+q$ nodes whose unmatched nodes are colored $+$, $-$, or left uncolored, with the number of $+$ nodes plus matchings equal to $p$ and the number of $-$ nodes plus matchings equal to $q$. Preclans parametrize the finitely many S-orbits on the flag variety for the spherical subgroup $S=P\cap Q$. Three mechanisms carry the argument: (i) the weak-order action $w*\gamma$ defined by nine local moves, which mirrors the action of simple reflections on S-orbits; (ii) the unique Richardson preclan $\gamma_{v,u}$ constructed from the two inverse Grassmannian permutations; and (iii) the identification of the localized class of an S-orbit closure with a positroid variet

What would settle it

For $v=12673485$, $u=15672834$, and $w=15782643$ (Example 1.1), compute $c^w_{v,u}(t)$ by equivariant localization at the $T$-fixed points of the flag variety and compare with the formula's prediction $S_{14523}(-t_4,\ldots,-t_1;-t_6,\ldots,-t_{10})$; a mismatch would refute Theorem 7.10. A more direct check of the load-bearing action is to carry out the quiver-fiber calculation of Appendix A for every adjacent-node pair in a small (p,m,q)-preclan and see whether the nine moves in (3.4)–(3.6) reproduce the geometric $s_k$-action; finding a type (IVa) or (IVb) case would break the combinatorial model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the expansion $S_v(x;t)S_u(x;t)=\sum_w c^w_{v,u}(t)S_w(x;t)$ for p-inverse and q-inverse Grassmannian permutations u and v, the paper establishes that $c^w_{v,u}(t)=0$ unless the preclan $\gamma=w*\gamma_{v,u}$, obtained by applying a reduced word of w to the Richardson preclan $\gamma_{v,u}$, is permutational and satisfies $\ell(\gamma)=\ell(w)+\ell(\gamma_{v,u})$; in that case $c^w_{v,u}(t)=S_{\eta_\gamma}(-t_q,\ldots,-t_1; -t_{p+1},\ldots,-t_n)$, a double Schubert polynomial in two disjoint blocks of variables. Since every monomial in such a polynomial is a nonnegative product of differences of the form $(-t_a)-(-t_b)=t_b-t_a$, the formula is Graham-positive. The central discovery is that the equivariant geometry of these products is governe

Load-bearing premise

The formula rests on Theorem 3.5, which asserts that the nine local moves on preclans completely describe how simple reflections act on S-orbits and that the exceptional types (IVa) and (IVb) never occur; the appendix supports this by a case-by-case check that exhibits only three of the cases, so a single missed case would break the link between the combinatorial action $w*\gamma$ and the geometric action.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every equivariant coefficient for the product of two inverse Grassmannian Schubert classes is either zero or a double Schubert polynomial in two disjoint variable blocks, giving the first Graham-positive rule for this case.
  • Setting all t_i to 0 recovers a non-equivariant Littlewood–Richardson-type rule for inverse Grassmannian permutations, extending the previously known single-polynomial rule.
  • The triple version of the formula expresses the coefficients c^w_{v,u}(t;y) as essentially finite double affine Stanley symmetric polynomials, verifying Graham positivity for triple Schubert calculus in this setting.
  • For single Schubert polynomials, multiplying by a 321-avoiding permutation yields structure constants equal to Edelman–Greene coefficients, so they are nonnegative and counted by reduced word tableaux.
  • The pipe-dream description makes the rule algorithmic: to compute a coefficient, check whether w*γ_{v,u} is permutational and length-additive, then sum pipe dreams of η_γ.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the preclan action is fully correct, the same localization-to-positroid strategy may extend to equivariant K-theory, replacing double Schubert polynomials by double Grothendieck polynomials and affine Stanley functions by affine Grothendieck functions.
  • The paper leaves an equivariant Graham-positive formula for u merely 321-avoiding as future work; a natural testable guess is that such coefficients are double Schubert polynomials twisted by Edelman–Greene data, not just Schur-positive at t=0.
  • The sign-reversing involution used to collapse affine Stanley functions to double Schubert polynomials suggests a general symmetry between the p-block and q-block variable sets, possibly indicating that permutational preclans are the only shapes that can contribute to Graham-positive equivariant coefficients.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops an equivariant Schubert calculus rule for products of double Schubert polynomials in which both factors are inverse Grassmannian permutations. It introduces (p,m,q)-preclans as combinatorial labels for orbits of the spherical subgroup S = P∩Q on the flag variety G/B, describes the Demazure monoid action on these orbits by nine local moves (Theorem 3.5), and computes equivariant classes of S-orbit closures by localization and globalization to positroid varieties. The main theorem (Theorem 7.10, stated in the Introduction as (1.6)) asserts that the structure constant c^w_{v,u}(t) is either zero or a double Schubert polynomial S_{\eta_\gamma}(-t_q,...,-t_1; -t_{p+1},...,-t_n) indexed by a permutation attached to the preclan w*\gamma_{v,u}. A triple version expressing coefficients as double affine Stanley symmetric functions is also proved, and a non-equivariant application gives Edelman--Greene coefficients for products of a 321-avoiding permutation with an inverse Grassmannian permutation. The paper is long, with substantial quiver-representation background and many worked examples.

Significance. If the main theorem is fully correct, it provides a manifestly Graham-positive, explicit formula for a previously open family of equivariant Schubert structure constants. The appearance of a double Schubert polynomial in two disjoint sets of equivariant variables as the answer is surprising and conceptually interesting. The proof strategy is ambitious and integrates independent external results (Brion, Knutson--Lam--Speyer, Gabriel, Matsuki, Pechenik--Weigandt) with a new combinatorial model. The paper also contains a significant application to ordinary Schubert structure constants and Edelman--Greene coefficients. These are strengths worth emphasizing. The main caveat is that a load-bearing orbit-combinatorics statement, Theorem 3.5, is verified only by a sketch and three illustrative cases rather than by a complete, reproducible enumeration; the parametrization bijection in Theorem 3.3 also leaves essential checking to the reader.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 3.5; Appendix A.3] Theorem 3.5 is the central structural input: it asserts that the simple-reflection action on S-orbits is exactly the nine preclan moves (3.4)--(3.6) and that types (IVa)/(IVb) never occur. This is used in Definition 3.6 (well-definedness of w*γ under reduced words) and in Theorem 4.1 (where a type (IVa) case would introduce a factor 2 in the divided-difference recursion and change the polynomial representatives). The proof in Appendix A.3 says the assertion follows from a case-by-case check, but only Examples A.10--A.12 are exhibited. There is no exhaustive list of the finite cases, no table matching each fiber to one of the nine moves, and no explicit demonstration that the omitted cases do not produce type (IVa)/(IVb). Since the main formula (Theorem 7.10 / (1.6)) inherits this premise, the proof is not currently complete. I request a complete case analysis, ideally as a table or an ap
  2. [Theorem 3.3; Appendix A.2] The parametrization of S-orbits by (p,m,q)-preclans is foundational. In Appendix A.2, after using Gabriel's classification to reduce to indecomposables of types (A.1), (A.4)--(A.6), the text says 'We leave to readers to check that this assignment is well-defined and it induces a bijection.' This is not a proof detail but a load-bearing claim: every later orbit-theoretic statement, including the weak-order theorem and the preclan model itself, depends on this bijection. A rigorous argument should show that the direct-sum decomposition into indecomposables is unique, that the preclan encoded by the summands is well defined, and that every preclan occurs exactly once. Please supply the missing argument or a precise reference where it is proved.
  3. [Section 7.2, Theorem 7.10] The passage from the triple formula (Theorem 7.2) to the double formula via Lemma 7.8 is elegant, but the proof of Lemma 7.8 relies on a partially described sign-reversing involution. In particular, the claim that a pipe dream with region (B) consisting only of '+' tiles forces regions (A) and (D) to consist only of '+' tiles is stated with a brief justification but no full verification of the boundary conditions imposed by f_γ and η_γ. Since this lemma is the bridge from affine Stanley polynomials to the final Schubert-polynomial formula, a more detailed proof or additional illustrations of the pipe-dream region decomposition would strengthen reliability. This is not an apparent error, but it is a point where the exposition is too compressed for a journal proof.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Definition 3.6] The independence of w*γ under reduced words is attributed to Theorem 3.5 and 'general theory of spherical subgroup orbits.' For a self-contained combinatorial proof, it would help to state the Demazure monoid relations explicitly and verify them for the local moves (3.4)--(3.6).
  2. [Section 5.1, Lemma 5.2] The proof invokes [8, Lemma 3.2] for commuting closure with transversal intersection for K-orbits, and then says the general case follows from [17, Section 8.3]. A precise statement of the closure-commutation property used for N-orbits would be useful, since the equality of closures inside N·B/B is important for the localization step.
  3. [Notation in (1.6) and Theorem 7.10] The notation S_η(-t_q,...,-t_1; -t_{p+1},...,-t_n) is mildly abusive because η ∈ S_{q+m} and the double Schubert polynomial normally has q+m first arguments. The justification (that S_η depends only on the first q x-variables) is given later, but stating it at the first occurrence would avoid confusion.
  4. [Throughout] Several displayed formulas in the arXiv version have missing or overlapping symbols (e.g., the subgroup matrices in Section 1 and some diagrams in Example 1.1). If this is not a PDF-extraction artifact, the authors should ensure all diagrams and matrices typeset correctly in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: main formula is derived from independent geometric and quiver inputs; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations appear.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. S-orbits are parametrized by preclans via Gabriel's theorem and the type-D quiver classification (external), and the Demazure action is described by local moves that are not defined in terms of the final structure constants. The polynomial representatives Υ_γ are characterized by the divided-difference recurrence from Brion's orbit formula; localization/globalization identifies Υ_γ(t;t) with a positroid localization using Knutson–Lam–Speyer and Lam–Shimozono; Lemma 7.8 converts affine Stanley polynomials to finite Schubert polynomials. The final formula (1.6) outputs S_η(-t_q,...,-t_1; -t_{p+1},...,-t_n) with η explicitly computed from w*γ, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no definition is made in terms of the target coefficients. The main proof gaps are non-circular: Appendix A.2 says 'We leave to readers to check that this assignment is well-defined and it induces a bijection', and Appendix A.3 says Theorem 3.5 'follows from direct computation' while showing only Examples A.10–A.12; these are omitted case checks, not reductions of the theorem to its inputs. Self-citations to the authors' prior work [8, Lemma 3.2 and Section 4.2] are technical/methodological and are immediately extended using external references such as [17, 41]; [14] is cited only to note prior positivity, not to derive the formula. Thus no load-bearing circular step is exhibited.

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

The central claim rests on standard heavy machinery (spherical subgroup orbit geometry, quiver representations, positroid varieties) plus the newly defined preclans. No numerical constants are fitted; the only auxiliary parameter m is shown to be irrelevant. The main fragility is that some load-bearing steps in the appendix are sketched rather than fully enumerated.

free parameters (1)
  • auxiliary block size m = arbitrary large integer (m ≫ 0)
    The Richardson preclan γ_{v,u} is constructed by 'taking m≫0', and the proof embeds in GL_n with n=p+m+q. The final formula is shown independent of m via back-stability (Cor 4.4 and Lemma 7.3), so m is a bookkeeping parameter, not fitted.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Gabriel's theorem classifies indecomposable representations of type D quivers
    Used in Appendix A.2 to prove finiteness of S-orbits and the preclan parametrization.
  • standard math Brion's formula for equivariant classes of spherical orbit closures (divided-difference recursion)
    Used in Theorem 4.1 to derive the recursion for polynomial representatives Υγ(x;t).
  • domain assumption Equivariant localization at the identity fixed point and transversal slice arguments
    Used throughout Section 5 to reduce S-orbit classes to localizations; relies on standard equivariant cohomology localization.
  • domain assumption Positroid varieties are represented by double affine Stanley symmetric functions (Knutson-Lam-Speyer, Lam-Lee-Shimozono)
    Used in Theorem 7.1 to identify localized classes with eF_f; a deep external result.
  • domain assumption Shimozono-Zhang pipe dream model for double affine Stanley symmetric polynomials
    Used in Lemma 7.8 and Theorem 7.10; the cited reference [45] is 'in preparation', so the model is imported from an unavailable source.
  • domain assumption Stability of structure constants and the Cauchy formula for double Schubert polynomials
    Used in Corollary 4.4 and Theorem 7.14 to reduce to finite S_n and to extract Edelman-Greene coefficients from Schur expansions.
invented entities (1)
  • preclans
    purpose: Combinatorial parameterization of S-orbit closures on G/B and of the weak-order action used in the main formula
    New combinatorial structure introduced in Section 3.2; its validity rests on the paper's own quiver-orbit proofs, with no external falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Equivariant Schubert Calculus for Inverse Grassmannian Permutations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZVOPQ2XX

@misc{pith2026260716797,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Equivariant Schubert Calculus for Inverse Grassmannian Permutations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZVOPQ2XX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16797}
}
abstract

We give a Graham-positive expansion for the product of two double Schubert polynomials indexed by two inverse Grassmannian permutations. Surprisingly, the nonzero structure constants are double Schubert polynomials in two disjoint sets of equivariant variables. We also give a positive expansion for the product of two single Schubert polynomials indexed by a $321$-avoiding permutation (e.g., a Grassmannian permutation) and an inverse Grassmannian permutation. Unexpectedly, the nonzero structure constants are Edelman--Greene coefficients.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anderson and W

    D. Anderson and W. Fulton. Equivariant cohomology in algebraic geometry. Cambridge University Press,2023.2.1

    2023

  2. [2]

    Barcucci, A.D

    E. Barcucci, A.D. Lungo, E. Pergola and R. Pinzani, A construction for enumeratingk-coloured Motzkin paths, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol.959, Springer, Berlin,1995,254–263.3.4

    1995

  3. [3]

    Bergeron and S

    N. Bergeron and S. Billey, RC-graphs and Schubert polynomials, Exp. Math.2(1993),257–269.2.1

    1993

  4. [4]

    Billey, W

    S. Billey, W. Jockusch and R. Stanley, Some combinatorial properties of Schubert polynomials, J. Algebraic Combin.2(1993),345–374.7.13,7.3

    1993

  5. [5]

    Bobi ´nski, and G

    G. Bobi ´nski, and G. Zwara, Schubert varieties and representations of Dynkin quivers. Colloq. Math., 94(2)(2002):285–309.1.2

    2002

  6. [6]

    M. Brion. On orbit closures of spherical subgroups in flag varieties. Comment. Math. Helv.76(2)2001, 263–299.1.1,1.3,4

    2001

  7. [7]

    A. Buch. Mutations of puzzles and equivariant cohomology of two-step flag varieties. Annals of mathematics,2015:173-220.1

    2015

  8. [8]

    Chen, N.J.Y.Fan, R

    Y. Chen, N.J.Y.Fan, R. Xiong, and M. Yao, Bumpless pipe dream fragments — equivariant geometry of clans, arXiv:2511.00980.1.1,1.3,4,5.1

    arXiv

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Chen, S.H.F

    W.Y.C. Chen, S.H.F. Yan, and L.L.M. Yang, Identities from weighted Motzkin paths, Adv. Appl. Math., 41(2008),329-334.3.4

    2008

  2. [10]

    Edelman and C

    P . Edelman and C. Greene, Balanced tableaux, Adv. Math.,63(1) (1987),42-99.1.5,7.3 51

    1987

  3. [11]

    N. J.Y. Fan, P . L. Guo, S. C.C. Sun, Bumpless pipedreams, reduced word tableaux and Stanley sym- metric functions, arXiv:1810.11916.7.3

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Fan, P .L

    N.J.Y. Fan, P .L. Guo, Rui Xiong, Bumpless pipe dreams meet puzzles, Advances in Mathematics463 (2025),110113.1.2,7.4

    2025

  5. [13]

    Gabriel, Unzerlegbare Darstellungen I, Manuscripta Math.6(1972), pp.71–103

    P . Gabriel, Unzerlegbare Darstellungen I, Manuscripta Math.6(1972), pp.71–103. A.1

    1972

  6. [14]

    Gao and R

    Y. Gao and R. Xiong, Graham positivity of triple Schubert calculus, arXiv:2506.09421.1.2,1.3,7.4

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    W. Graham. Positivity in equivariant Schubert calculus. Duke Math. J.109(3) (2001),599–614.1.3

    2001

  8. [16]

    X.H. He, H. Ochiai, K. Nishiyama, and Y. Oshima, On Orbits in Double Flag Varieties for Symmetric Pairs, Transf. Groups18(2013),1091–1136.1.2

    2013

  9. [17]

    J. E. Humphreys. Linear algebraic groups, volume No.21of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer- Verlag, New York-Heidelberg,1975.5.1

    1975

  10. [18]

    Kinser and J

    R. Kinser and J. Rajchgot, Type D quiver representation varieties, double Grassmannians, and sym- metric varieties, Adv. Math.,376,2021,107454.1.2

    2021

  11. [19]

    A. N. Kirillov, Skew divided difference operators and Schubert polynomials. SIGMA Symmetry Inte- grability Geom. Methods Appl.,3:Paper072,14,2007.7.4

    2007

  12. [20]

    Knutson, T

    A. Knutson, T. Lam, and D. Speyer. Positroid varieties: Juggling and geometry. Compositio Mathe- matica,149:1710–1752,2013.1.3,2.2,7

    2013

  13. [21]

    Knutson and T

    A. Knutson and T. Tao, Puzzles and (equivariant) cohomology of Grassmannians, Duke Math. J.119 (2003),221–260.1,1.2

    2003

  14. [22]

    Knutson and P

    A. Knutson and P . Zinn-Justin. Schubert puzzles and integrability I: invariant trilinear forms. Comm. Amer. Math. Soc.6(2026),1-67 1

    2026

  15. [23]

    Knutson and P

    A. Knutson and P . Zinn-Justin, Schubert puzzles and integrability III: separated descents,2023, arXiv:2306.13855.1

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    T. Lam. Affine Stanley symmetric functions. Amer. J. Math.,128:1553–1586,2006.2.3

    2006

  17. [25]

    Lam and M

    T. Lam and M. Shimozono. Double Schur functions and equivariant (co)homology of the affine Grass- mannian. Math. Ann.356,1379–1404(2013).2.3

    2013

  18. [26]

    T. Lam, S. J. Lee, and M. Shimozono. Back stable Schubert calculus. Compos. Math.157(2021),883– 962.1.3,2.2,7,7.3

    2021

  19. [27]

    C. Li, V . Ravikumar, F. Sottile and M. Yang, A geometric proof of an equivariant Pieri rule for flag manifolds, Forum Math.31(2019),779–783.1

    2019

  20. [28]

    Littelmann, On spherical double cones

    D.P . Littelmann, On spherical double cones. J. Algebra,166(1)(1994):142–157.1.2

    1994

  21. [29]

    Lusztig, Introduction to quantum groups, Progress in Math.110, Birkh¨auser, Boston,1993

    G. Lusztig, Introduction to quantum groups, Progress in Math.110, Birkh¨auser, Boston,1993. A.1

    1993

  22. [30]

    I. G. MacDonald, Notes on Schubert polynomials, Publications du LACIM, Montreal, (1991).7.4,7.3

    1991

  23. [31]

    Magyar, J

    P . Magyar, J. Weyman, and A. Zelevinsky, Multiple flag varieties of finite type. Adv. Math.141(1999), no.1,97–118.1.2,3.2

    1999

  24. [32]

    J. G. M. Mars and T. A. Springer, Hecke algebra representations related to spherical varieties, Repre- sent. Theory2(1998),33–69.2.2,3.9

    1998

  25. [33]

    T. Matsuki. The orbits of affine symmetric spaces under the action of minimal parabolic subgroups. J. Math. Soc. Japan31(2) (1979),331–357.1.2,3.1

    1979

  26. [34]

    Molev and B.E

    A.I. Molev and B.E. Sagan, A Littlewood–Richardson rule for factorial Schur functions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.351(1999),4429–4443.1,1.2

    1999

  27. [35]

    Pechenik, A

    O. Pechenik, A. Weigandt. An inverse Grassmannian Littlewood–Richardson rule and extensions. Forum Math., Sigma (2024), Vol.12:e114 1–24 1.1,1.3,1.5,1.5,4.6

    2024

  28. [36]

    Pechenik, A.Yong

    O. Pechenik, A.Yong. EquivariantK-Theory of Grassmannians. Forum of Mathematics, Pi.2017;5:e3. doi:10.1017/fmp.2017.4 1

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Pechenik, A.Yong

    O. Pechenik, A.Yong. EquivariantK-Theory of Grassmannians II: The Knutson–Vakil Conjecture. Compositio Mathematica153.4(2017):667–677.1

    2017

  30. [38]

    Postnikov

    A. Postnikov. Total positivity, Grassmannians, and networks. arXiv:math/0609764,2006.1.3

    2006 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Rajchgot

    J. Rajchgot. Types A and D quiver representation varieties. Mini-Workshop: Degeneration Techniques in Representation Theory, October2019.1.2

  32. [40]

    R. W. Richardson. Intersections of double cosets in algebraic groups. Indag. Math.3(1) (1992),69–77. 5.1 52

    1992

  33. [41]

    Richardson and T.A

    R.W. Richardson and T.A. Springer, The Bruhat order on symmetric varieties. Geom. Dedic.35(1990), 389–436.2.2,3.3

    1990

  34. [42]

    Robinson, A Pieri-type formula forH ∗ T(SL n(C)/B), J

    S. Robinson, A Pieri-type formula forH ∗ T(SL n(C)/B), J. Algebra249(2002),38–58.1

    2002

  35. [43]

    Samuel, Molev–Sagan type formula for double Schubert polynomials, J

    M.J. Samuel, Molev–Sagan type formula for double Schubert polynomials, J. Pure Appl. Algebra228 (2024), Paper No.107636,39pp.1.2,1.3,7.4

    2024

  36. [44]

    Smirnov, Resolutions of singularities for Schubert varieties in double Grassmannians

    E. Smirnov, Resolutions of singularities for Schubert varieties in double Grassmannians. Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen.,42(no.2):56–67,96,2008.1.2

    2008

  37. [45]

    Shimozono and S

    M. Shimozono and S. Zhang, Pipe-dreams for affine double Schubert and Grothendieck polynomials, in preparation.1.3,2.3

  38. [46]

    R.P . Stanley. On the number of reduced decompositions of elements of Coxeter groups. European Journal of Combinatorics,5(4):359–372, December1984.1.5,2.3

  39. [47]

    Wheeler and P

    M. Wheeler and P . Zinn-Justin, Littlewood–Richardson coefficients for Grothendieck polynomials from integrability, J. Reine Angew. Math.757(2019),159–195.1

    2019

  40. [48]

    B. Wyser. Schubert calculus of Richardson varieties stable under spherical Levi subgroups. J. Alge- braic Combin.38(4) (2013),829–850.1.1

    2013

  41. [49]

    Wyser and A

    B. Wyser and A. Yong. Polynomials forGL p ×GL q orbit closures in the flag variety. Selecta Math. (N.S.)20(2014),1083–1110.3.3,3.3,4.6 (Yiming Chen, Neil J.Y. Fan, Ming Yao) Department ofMathematics, SichuanUniversity, Chengdu, Sichuan 610065, P .R. China Email address:ym chen...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.