Generalised flip order on the faces of nestohedra

B\'er\'enice Delcroix-Oger; Jovana Obradovi\'c; Pierre-Louis Curien

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 14 references

Generalised flip order on the faces of nestohedra

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The shuffle product on faces of nestohedra coincides with a sum over an interval in the generalised flip order, a partial order generated by splitting and fusing nodes of the tree-like constructs that encode faces.

desk verdict Genuinely useful unification of face orders on nestohedra, but the main theorem has omitted proof cases—especially Lemma 2.45's root-fusion case—that must be supplied before the results are fully trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20132 v1 pith:T53FADGZ submitted 2026-07-22 math.CO

Pierre-Louis Curien , Bérénice Delcroix-Oger , Jovana Obradović This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.CO MSC 52B1106A07

keywords nestohedrahypergraphpolytopesgeneralisedflipordershuffleproductsconstructsinversionsassociahedrapermutohedra

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 is trying to establish a uniform description of the shuffle product on the faces of nestohedra—polytopes built from hypergraphs—as a sum over an interval in a single partial order. That order, called the generalised flip order, is generated by elementary split and fusion moves on the tree-like objects ('constructs') that encode faces, and it extends the classical flip order from vertices to all faces. The paper further claims that, for right-filled hypergraphs, the order can be read off from sets of generalised inversions, giving a simple inclusion criterion for comparing faces. The payoff is that the interval description was previously known only for associahedra and permutohedra; here it is obtained in a broad framework ('ordered strict associative clans') that includes teleassociahedra and quasi-associahedra, and the limits of the framework are also exhibited.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalised flip order (GFO): the reflexive-transitive closure of covering relations in which either an edge of a construct is fused (parent U, child V, with U > V in the ambient vertex order) or a node is split into U(V) under a connectivity condition. Constructs are the rooted, non-planar trees whose nodes are labelled by hyperedges and which encode the faces of a nestohedron; restriction cuts a construct down to a connected sub-hypergraph and is used to state the interval description. Squashing, a controlled sequence of splits allowed in hereditarily ordered hypergraphs, is the technical device that makes the inversion characterisation work.

What would settle it

Compute the shuffle product ∗(δ) and the interval sum ∗≤(δ) for a small delegation in a strict clan—for instance, two constructs in a quasi-associahedron with B={1,2}—and check equality (25); a single construct appearing on one side but not the other would disprove Theorem 4.5. Alternatively, verify the omitted root-fusion subcase of Lemma 2.45: find a hypergraph H, a connected K⊆H, and a covering S⋖T that is a root fusion with S⌈K ≤ T⌈K failing; that single counterexample would break direction (A) in the proof.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 4.5: for any delegation δ in an ordered strict associative clan of hypergraphs, the shuffle product ∗(δ) equals ∗≤(δ), the sum over all constructs U lying between two canonically defined endpoints ⧸(δ) and ⧹(δ) in the generalised flip order; the same holds for the B-restricted product ∗B(δ) between ⧸B(δ) and ⧹B(δ). The endpoints are built recursively from the leftmost and rightmost participating constructs, and the equality is proved by showing that the restriction-based and interval-based descriptions of the product generate the same set of constructs. A second pillar is Theorem 2.43: in right-filled hypergraphs, S ≤ T holds exactly when Inv_H(S) ⊆ Inv_H(T) and

Load-bearing premise

The whole interval description depends on the framework of ordered strict associative clans of hereditarily ordered hypergraphs, and on a commutation lemma whose hardest case is left to the reader; if that unproved case fails, the main theorem loses its support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

All shuffle products in ordered strict associative clans of nestohedra—including teleassociahedra and quasi-associahedra—can be computed by summing over explicit intervals, so the algebraic product is reduced to poset data.
The generalised flip order supplies a single partial order on all faces of any nestohedron, extending the known vertex-level flip order from vertices and unifying the face orders previously known for associahedra and permutohedra.
For right-filled hypergraphs, comparing two faces is decidable by checking two set inclusions of generalised inversions, no longer requiring chain search in the Hasse diagram.
The interval description is tight: it fails for hypercubes, where the relevant preteams are not strict clans, so the theorem marks the exact boundary of this phenomenon.
The new order is distinct from the facial weak order on hypercubes and from a previously proposed generalised order on associahedra with non-standard vertex orderings, so the new order is not redundant.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: if the interval description is as robust as claimed, the q-tridendriform algebras on nestohedron faces could be read off directly from interval combinatorics, yielding new bases or monomial descriptions.
Editorial extension: the right-filled inversion criterion suggests an efficient face-comparison algorithm, but the paper's own non-right-filled example shows a good pair can be destroyed by a split, so any algorithm would need extra correction data outside that class.
Editorial extension: since the new order differs from the facial weak order and from a previously proposed generalised order on small polytopes, the three face orders are inequivalent; which one aligns with which algebraic structure is left open.
Editorial extension: a natural test is whether the interval description survives outside strict clans (e.g., for simplices or hypercubes) under a modified order; the hypercube counterexample suggests the order, not the product, would need adjustment.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take on Curien–Delcroix-Oger–Obradović. This is a genuine attempt to unify face-order phenomena on nestohedra, and the parts that are actually written out are solid. The generalised flip order is a natural extension of Barnard–McConville's order from vertices to all faces, and Proposition 2.12 (it's a poset) is proved with a clean induction. The comparisons in Section 5—especially the concrete counterexamples separating it from Ronco's generalised Tamari order and from the facial weak order—are honest and useful.

The genuinely new results are Theorem 2.43 (inversion characterization in the right-filled case) and Theorem 4.5 (interval description of the shuffle product). Together they promise a nice bridge between polytopal order theory and the algebraic shuffle-product framework. The proposed quasi-associahedra family is a nice addition.

My reservation is not about plausibility but about proof completeness. Three lemmas in the chain leading to Theorem 4.5 are only partially proved. Lemma 2.45, the commutation of GFO with restriction, leaves the root-fusion case to the reader; that case is exactly what direction (A) of Theorem 4.5 uses. If it fails, the interval sum would contain extra terms. Lemma 4.6(b) has a similar gap. And Lemma 2.41, a key step in the inversion characterization, ends with 'the verification is omitted' after a long construction. These are not cosmetic omissions. The stress-test note is right to flag them.

In proportion, the rest of the paper is careful: the examples check out, the Hasse diagrams are consistent, and the discussion of the limits (Example 4.9) is frank. The self-citation is understandable—the authors are completing a program from their earlier work—and the new theorems are not forced by the definitions.

I suspect the missing cases are indeed routine, as the authors claim, but in a paper this intricate 'left to the reader' is not enough for load-bearing lemmas. My recommendation: send it to a serious referee, but with an expectation that these cases will be written out before publication. Once that is done, it would be a reliable reference for both the order theory and the algebra.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper defines a generalized flip order (GFO) on the faces of nestohedra, extending the Barnard–McConville flip order from vertices to all faces. It proves that the GFO is a partial order, shows that on vertices it agrees with the flip order under a hereditarity condition, gives an inversion-characterization of the GFO for right-filled hypergraphs, and proves that the shuffle product on faces of nestohedra, in the ordered strict associative clan setting, can be expressed as a sum over intervals in the GFO. The final sections compare the GFO with the facial weak order and Ronco's generalized Tamari order.

Significance. If the main claims are correct, this is a substantial and valuable contribution: it provides a uniform interval description for shuffle products on a broad class of nestohedra and a general inversion criterion for the GFO, unifying and extending results of Palacios–Ronco, Barnard–McConville, and others. The paper contains genuinely useful structural results, including a detailed proof of acyclicity of the GFO (Proposition 2.12), a comparison with the Barnard–McConville flip order (Proposition 2.29), and an algorithmic characterization for right-filled hypergraphs (Theorem 2.43). The writing is generally clear and the numerous examples and Hasse diagrams are helpful. However, several load-bearing proofs are incomplete: key lemmas are either left to the reader or only partially proved, and the main interval theorem depends directly on those gaps. These issues are fixable within the paper's framework, but they must be addressed before the central claims can be considered established.

major comments (4)

[2.4, Lemma 2.45] The root-fusion case of Lemma 2.45 is explicitly 'left to the reader'. This case is load-bearing: Theorem 4.5, direction (A), uses Lemma 2.45 together with antisymmetry to conclude that every U in the interval [\⧸(δ), \⧹(δ)] satisfies U⌈H_i = C_i. If the omitted case fails, there could be interval terms whose restrictions do not match the delegation, and Equation (25) would be false. A full proof of the root-fusion case must be supplied.
[2.3, Lemma 2.41] The proof of Lemma 2.41 ends with 'The verification of the required properties of U uses similar (lengthy) arguments ... and are omitted.' This lemma is essential for the converse direction of Theorem 2.43: it is the only step that produces a construct U with Inv_H(S) ⊆ Inv_H(U) ⊊ Inv_H(T) and fInv_H(S) ⊆ fInv_H(U) ∪ Inv_H(U). Without a complete proof, the inversion characterization of the GFO is not established. The omitted verification is not a routine detail; it is the technical core of the induction.
[4, Lemma 4.6(b)] In the proof of Lemma 4.6(b), the equality ⧸(δ)⌈H_i = C_i is 'similar and left to the reader', and the equalities for ⧸_B(δ) and ⧹_B(δ) are deduced from the previous equalities using Lemma 2.45 and Proposition 2.12. This creates a second gap in the same chain that supports Theorem 4.5: the omitted proof of ⧸(δ)⌈H_i = C_i, combined with the omitted root-fusion case of Lemma 2.45, means the restriction properties of both interval endpoints are not fully verified. Please provide complete arguments.
[4, Theorem 4.5] The statement of Theorem 4.5, Equation (26), contains what appears to be a typographical error: the right-hand side is written as ∗⋖_B(δ), but the definition in Equation (24) and the proof use ∗≤_B(δ). This should be corrected, since the notation suggests a covering-sum rather than the interval sum that the theorem intends.

minor comments (5)

[2.2, heading] The heading 'Generalised flip order isthe generalised flip order' has a missing space; also Section 2.4's heading contains 'heretirraly ordered', which should be 'hereditarily ordered'.
[3.1, Remark 3.7] The phrase 'satisfy a connectness condition' contains a typo ('connectedness').
[4, Proposition 4.3] The proof of associativity of ⧹ and ⧸ is omitted and the result is stated as not used in the sequel. Consider moving it to an appendix or explicitly marking it as auxiliary, so the reader is not left expecting a proof of a stated proposition in the main text.
[4, Example 4.9] The example is described as showing failure outside the strict setting, but it would be helpful to state explicitly that the preteam ({C_{1}},{C_{2,3}}, C_{1,2,3}) is not a strict team and therefore does not contradict Theorem 4.5, which is restricted to ordered strict associative clans.
[2.3, Lemma 2.40] The proof of Lemma 2.40 is very dense and refers to properties (♡), (♣), (♠) that are only proved informally. Some steps, especially the base case m=1 in the proof of (♣)/(♠), would benefit from explicit details or a reference to a more extended version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: the interval and inversion theorems are not forced by the definitions; flagged gaps are omitted proof cases, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are the interval description of the shuffle product (Theorem 4.5) and the inversion characterisation of the generalised flip order (Theorem 2.43). Neither reduces to its own inputs by construction. The interval endpoints ⧸(δ) and ⧹(δ) are defined recursively in Definition 4.1 independently of the shuffle expansion, and the equality ∗(δ)=∗^≤(δ) is proved by restriction arguments, induction, and Lemma 2.45. Example 4.9 shows the interval formula is not a tautology: it fails outside the strict-team setting, which is exactly what one would not expect if the formula were true by definition. Similarly, Theorem 2.43 is a substantive characterization under the right-filled hypothesis, with a proof that constructs intermediate constructs U via squashing; it does not merely rename a known inversion condition. The paper does rely on prior work by the same authors: the generalised flip relation comes from [5] and the shuffle product/restriction formalism from [3]. These are normal continuation-style self-citations, and they are not load-bearing in a circular way: the present paper proves the partial order property, the comparison with Barnard-McConville, and the new interval/inversion theorems. The manuscript itself flags genuine proof gaps — Lemma 2.45's root-fusion case is 'left to the reader', Lemma 4.6(b)'s ⧸-part is 'similar and left to the reader', and Lemma 2.41's verification is 'omitted'. These are important completeness issues and should be fixed, but they are not circularity: no step assumes the theorem it is proving. Overall, no circular reduction is exhibited, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper pulls its working definitions (constructs, shuffle product, flip relation) from the authors' own prior works [3], [5], [6]; these are axioms in the sense that the new results are built on them. The stated domain restrictions (hereditarily ordered, right-filled, strict clans) are explicit and load-bearing. No numbers are fitted to data; the scalar q in the product is a formal parameter, not a fitted value.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Faces of nestohedra correspond to 'constructs' (recursive node-labelled trees), with subface relation given by edge contractions (Section 1.2).
Inherited from [6]/[8]; the entire order and product are defined on constructs.
ad hoc to paper The shuffle product ∗ as defined in [3] (Definition 3.9 here) is associative and satisfies the restriction formula of Proposition 3.10.
Proven in the authors' earlier paper [3]; the present interval formula builds on it.
ad hoc to paper The GFO covering relation from [5] (Definition 2.1) is the right object; acyclicity is proven here.
Relation introduced in [5] by the first author and Laplante-Anfossi; the paper shows it is a partial order.
domain assumption Hypergraphs are ordered, atomic, finite; 'hereditarily ordered' condition (Definition 2.21) holds for strict clans.
Required for restriction/GFO commutation (Lemma 2.45) and squashing (Lemma 2.23).
domain assumption Right-filledness (Definition 2.31) for the inversion characterization.
Theorem 2.43 is stated only for right-filled hypergraphs; the paper shows it fails for non-right-filled (Remark 2.20, Example 2.36).

invented entities (1)

Quasi-associahedra (family Q_X of hypergraphs) independent evidence
purpose: Example of ordered strict associative clan; table of face counts
Constructively defined in Section 1.3; counts in Table 1 claimed absent from OEIS — externally checkable.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalised flip order on the faces of nestohedra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T53FADGZ

@misc{pith2026260720132,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalised flip order on the faces of nestohedra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T53FADGZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20132}
}

read the original abstract

Classical shuffle products on permutations and binary planar rooted trees (i.e., on the vertices of permutohedra and associahedra) admit descriptions in terms of intervals in the weak Bruhat order and the Tamari order, respectively. Palacios and Ronco extended these products as well as their interval description to surjections and planar rooted trees (i.e. on all faces of permutohedra and associahedra). In this article, we present a broad generalisation of this phenomenon. We show that the shuffle product on faces of certain families of nestohedra admits an interval description with respect to the generalised flip order, a partial order defined on the faces of nestohedra through elementary splitting and fusion operations on the tree-like combinatorial objects encoding them. The generalised flip order extends the flip order of Barnard and McConville from vertices to all faces of nesthedra. We further compare it with the facial weak order of Dermenjian-Hohlweg-Pilaud and the generalised Tamari order of Ronco, and we provide its characterisation in terms of (generalised) inversions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20132 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Quasi-associahedra on J1, 4K (on the left) and J1, 5K (in the middle) and the associated polytope in dimension 3 (on the right) The number of constructs of these polytopes for X = J1, kK is counted on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Hasse diagrams of the GFO for the simplex and the hy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Hasse diagrams of the GFO for the pentagons and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Case 3.(b). 4. If C1 ⋖ C2 is the (U1, U2)-splitting of Y , then there are three subcases. (a) If U1 = Y1 and U2 = Y2, then C1[Y1⟨Y2⟩/Y ] = C2 and the conclusion is immediate. (b) If U1 = Y1 ∪ Z and Y2 = Z ∪ U2, with Y1 < Z < U2, then since U2 ⊆ Y2 and max(U2) = max(Y2)…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: On the left, the generalised flip order and on the right the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: On the left, the generalised flip order, and on the right, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The Hasse diagram of the GFO for the hypergraph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The Hasse diagram of the GFO for the right-filled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The Hasse diagram of the GFO for H† = {{1}, {2}, {3}, {4}, {2, 3}, {3, 1}, {1, 4}} of Example 2.7, which is not hereditarily ordered 52 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

Lattices from graph associahe- dra and subalgebras of the Malvenuto-Reutenauer algebra

Emily Barnard and Thomas McConville. “Lattices from graph associahe- dra and subalgebras of the Malvenuto-Reutenauer algebra”. In:Algebra Univers.82.1 (2021). Id/No 2, p. 52.issn: 0002-5240.doi:10 . 1007 / s00012-020-00689-z

2021
[2]

Coxeter complexes and graph- associahedra

Michael Carr and Satyan L. Devadoss. “Coxeter complexes and graph- associahedra”. In:Topology Appl.153.12 (2006), pp. 2155–2168.issn: 0166-8641.doi:10.1016/j.topol.2005.08.010

work page doi:10.1016/j.topol.2005.08.010 2006
[3]

Tri- dendriform algebras on hypergraph polytopes

Pierre-Louis Curien, B´ er´ enice Delcroix-Oger, and Jovana Obradovi´ c. “Tri- dendriform algebras on hypergraph polytopes”. In:Algebraic Combina- torics8.1 (2025), pp. 201–234.doi:10 . 5802 / alco . 401.url:https : //alco.centre-mersenne.org/articles/10.5802/alco.401/

work page doi:10.5802/alco.401/ 2025
[4]

Pierre-Louis Curien, B´ er´ enice Delcroix-Oger, and Jovana Obradovi´ c.Tri- dendriform algebras on hypergraph polytopes, the other way around. 2026. arXiv:2606.17755 [math.CO].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2606. 17755

arXiv 2026
[5]

Term rewriting on nestohedra

Pierre-Louis Curien and Guillaume Laplante-Anfossi. “Term rewriting on nestohedra”. In:Fundamental Structures in Computational and Pure Mathematics Series(2024). Ed. by Springer. Category Theory at Work in Computational Mathematics and Theoretical Informatics - Bergen 2023. url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.15987

arXiv 2024
[6]

Syntactic aspects of hypergraph polytopes

Pierre-Louis Curien, Jovana Obradovi´ c, and Jelena Ivanovi´ c. “Syntactic aspects of hypergraph polytopes”. In:J. Homotopy Relat. Struct.14.1 (2019), pp. 235–279.issn: 2193-8407.doi:10.1007/s40062-018-0211- 9

work page doi:10.1007/s40062-018-0211- 2019
[7]

The facial weak order and its lattice quotients

Aram Dermenjian, Christophe Hohlweg, and Vincent Pilaud. “The facial weak order and its lattice quotients”. In:Trans. Am. Math. Soc.370.2 (2018), pp. 1469–1507.issn: 0002-9947.doi:10.1090/tran/7307

doi:10.1090/tran/7307 2018
[8]

Hypergraph polytopes

Kosta Doˇ sen and Zoran Petri´ c. “Hypergraph polytopes”. In:Topology Appl.158.12 (2011), pp. 1405–1444.issn: 0166-8641.doi:10.1016/j. topol.2011.05.015. 49 4 3 1 2 4 {2,3} 1 4 2 1 3 4 {1,2} 3 1 {2,4} 3 1 2 4 3 1 2 {3,4} 1 2 3 4 {3,4} 1 2 {1,3,4} 2 {1,3} 2 4 4 {1,3} 2 1 {3,4} 2 1 3 2 4 1 {2,3} 4 4 {1,2,3} {2,3,4} 1 3 1 42 {2,3} 1 4 {1,2,3} 4 {1,2} 3 4 2 1...

doi:10.1016/j 2011

Show all 14 references

[9]

Pseudo-Permutations I: First Combinatorial and Lattice Properties

Daniel Krob, Matthieu Latapy, Jean-Christophe Novelli, Ha-Duong Phan, and Sylviane Schwer. “Pseudo-Permutations I: First Combinatorial and Lattice Properties”. In:Proc. Conference FPSAC’01(2001)

2001
[10]

Generalized bialgebras and triples of operads

Jean-Louis Loday. “Generalized bialgebras and triples of operads”. In: Ast´ erisque320 (2008)

2008
[11]

Weak Bruhat order on the set of faces of the permutohedron and the associahedron

Patricia Palacios and Mar ´ ıa O. Ronco. “Weak Bruhat order on the set of faces of the permutohedron and the associahedron.” In:J. Algebra299.2 (2006), pp. 648–678.issn: 0021-8693.doi:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2005. 09.042.url:hdl.handle.net/20.500.12110/paper_00218693_v299_ n2_p648_Palacios

2006 doi
[12]

Discussion at the conference ”Associahedra, Permutohe- dra and beyond” in December 2025 at CIRM, Marseille

Vincent Pilaud. Discussion at the conference ”Associahedra, Permutohe- dra and beyond” in December 2025 at CIRM, Marseille. 2025

2025
[13]

Permutohedra, associahedra, and beyond

Alexander Postnikov. “Permutohedra, associahedra, and beyond”. In:Int. Math. Res. Not.2009.6 (2009), pp. 1026–1106.issn: 1073-7928.doi:10. 1093/imrn/rnn153

2009
[14]

Generalized Tamari order

Mar ´ ıa Ronco. “Generalized Tamari order”. In:Associahedra, Tamari lat- tices and related structures. Tamari memorial Festschrift. 2012, pp. 339– 350.doi:10.1007/978-3-0348-0405-9_17. 53

2012 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Lattices from graph associahe- dra and subalgebras of the Malvenuto-Reutenauer algebra

Emily Barnard and Thomas McConville. “Lattices from graph associahe- dra and subalgebras of the Malvenuto-Reutenauer algebra”. In:Algebra Univers.82.1 (2021). Id/No 2, p. 52.issn: 0002-5240.doi:10 . 1007 / s00012-020-00689-z

2021

[2] [2]

Coxeter complexes and graph- associahedra

Michael Carr and Satyan L. Devadoss. “Coxeter complexes and graph- associahedra”. In:Topology Appl.153.12 (2006), pp. 2155–2168.issn: 0166-8641.doi:10.1016/j.topol.2005.08.010

work page doi:10.1016/j.topol.2005.08.010 2006

[3] [3]

Tri- dendriform algebras on hypergraph polytopes

Pierre-Louis Curien, B´ er´ enice Delcroix-Oger, and Jovana Obradovi´ c. “Tri- dendriform algebras on hypergraph polytopes”. In:Algebraic Combina- torics8.1 (2025), pp. 201–234.doi:10 . 5802 / alco . 401.url:https : //alco.centre-mersenne.org/articles/10.5802/alco.401/

work page doi:10.5802/alco.401/ 2025

[4] [4]

Pierre-Louis Curien, B´ er´ enice Delcroix-Oger, and Jovana Obradovi´ c.Tri- dendriform algebras on hypergraph polytopes, the other way around. 2026. arXiv:2606.17755 [math.CO].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2606. 17755

arXiv 2026

[5] [5]

Term rewriting on nestohedra

Pierre-Louis Curien and Guillaume Laplante-Anfossi. “Term rewriting on nestohedra”. In:Fundamental Structures in Computational and Pure Mathematics Series(2024). Ed. by Springer. Category Theory at Work in Computational Mathematics and Theoretical Informatics - Bergen 2023. url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.15987

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

Syntactic aspects of hypergraph polytopes

Pierre-Louis Curien, Jovana Obradovi´ c, and Jelena Ivanovi´ c. “Syntactic aspects of hypergraph polytopes”. In:J. Homotopy Relat. Struct.14.1 (2019), pp. 235–279.issn: 2193-8407.doi:10.1007/s40062-018-0211- 9

work page doi:10.1007/s40062-018-0211- 2019

[7] [7]

The facial weak order and its lattice quotients

Aram Dermenjian, Christophe Hohlweg, and Vincent Pilaud. “The facial weak order and its lattice quotients”. In:Trans. Am. Math. Soc.370.2 (2018), pp. 1469–1507.issn: 0002-9947.doi:10.1090/tran/7307

doi:10.1090/tran/7307 2018

[8] [8]

Hypergraph polytopes

Kosta Doˇ sen and Zoran Petri´ c. “Hypergraph polytopes”. In:Topology Appl.158.12 (2011), pp. 1405–1444.issn: 0166-8641.doi:10.1016/j. topol.2011.05.015. 49 4 3 1 2 4 {2,3} 1 4 2 1 3 4 {1,2} 3 1 {2,4} 3 1 2 4 3 1 2 {3,4} 1 2 3 4 {3,4} 1 2 {1,3,4} 2 {1,3} 2 4 4 {1,3} 2 1 {3,4} 2 1 3 2 4 1 {2,3} 4 4 {1,2,3} {2,3,4} 1 3 1 42 {2,3} 1 4 {1,2,3} 4 {1,2} 3 4 2 1...

doi:10.1016/j 2011