Towards Monoidal Categorifications of Twisted Products of Flag Varieties

Yingjin Bi

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Towards Monoidal Categorifications of Twisted Products of Flag Varieties

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Twisted flag varieties admit a monoidal categorification: their cluster algebra embeds in the Grothendieck ring of a quantum affine category, with cluster monomials matching simple objects. Localizing at frozen variables recovers the coordi

desk verdict Plausible and well-motivated construction, but the central inclusion theorem has a load-bearing gap: the mutation-invariance of the Lusztig-parameter condition is asserted, not proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.11559 v5 pith:BPSOLKVX submitted 2026-02-12 math.RT math.AGmath.QA

Yingjin Bi This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.RTmath.AGmath.QA MSC 17B3713F6014M15

keywords monoidalcategorificationclusteralgebrasquantumaffinetwistedproductsofflagvarietiesbraiddoubleBruhatcellsbosonicextensionalgebraLusztigparameters

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 constructs, for each word β and each v below its Demazure product, a monoidal subcategory C_{v,β} of representations of the quantum affine algebra U_q(ĝ). Its Grothendieck ring K0(C_{v,β}) contains the cluster algebra A0(s(v,β)) whose seed is the coordinate-ring seed of the twisted product of flag varieties. Cluster monomials correspond to isomorphism classes of simple objects, and after localizing at frozen variables the cluster algebra is canonically isomorphic to the coordinate ring of that variety. Because braid varieties and reduced double Bruhat cells are special cases of twisted products of flag varieties, a single construction covers them all. The paper also conjectures that the inclusion is an equality and that the bosonic extension algebra gives a quantization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bosonic extension algebra ̂A with its global basis indexed by Lusztig parameters, and its subalgebra ̂A_{v,b}=̂A(b)∩T_v(̂A≥0). Proposition 5.2 identifies ̂A_{v,b} with elements whose first ℓ(v) Lusztig parameters relative to the infinite word built from the leftmost subexpression β_v all vanish. Theorem 5.15 is the key technical step: after the mutation/freezing algorithm of Definition 2.9, every cluster variable of the seed s(v,β) has those parameters equal to zero, and the paper argues this vanishing is preserved under mutation because no arrows connect mutable vertices to the deleted ones. This transfers cluster variables into global basis elements, which un

What would settle it

Compute the seed after every mutation sequence in Example 2.1's type A3 word (3,2,1,2,3,1,3,2) with v=s3s2s3s1s2 and check whether every cluster variable has zero values in the first five positions of its ˙β_v-Lusztig parameter vector; a single nonzero entry after a sequence of mutations would refute Theorem 5.15(3) and with it the inclusion in Theorem 1.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Fix a simple, simply laced algebraic group, a braid group element b, a word β for b, and v≤δ(b). The paper builds a monoidal subcategory C_{v,β} of the quantum affine representation category, cut out from C(β) by requiring modules to lie in C_v, the subcategory generated by affine cuspidal modules starting after the first ℓ(v) positions of a certain infinite periodic word. Theorem 1.1 asserts that K0(C_{v,β}) contains the cluster algebra A0(s(v,β)), that cluster monomials correspond to isomorphism classes of simple objects in C_{v,β}, and that localizing A0(s(v,β)) at the frozen variables gives the coordinate ring C[˚Z_{v,β}]. The proof uses a subalgebra ̂A_{v,b} of the bosonic extension alg

Load-bearing premise

The proof rests on the assertion that once the first ℓ(v) parameters of a cluster variable are made zero by the quiver algorithm, no later mutation can make them nonzero again because the removed vertices are unreachable from the mutable ones; this preservation is stated rather than shown in detail. If a later mutation could restore such nonzero parameters, only part of the cluster algebra would lie inside the Grothendieck ring, and the central inclusion would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Cluster monomials in A0(s(v,β)) are represented by actual simple objects in C_{v,β}, so they are positive and carry representation-theoretic meaning rather than being formal algebraic symbols.
After localization at frozen variables, A0(s(v,β)) is canonically isomorphic to the coordinate ring of the twisted product of flag varieties; this gives a uniform monoidal categorification for braid varieties and reduced double Bruhat cells.
The identity A(s(v,β))=U(s(v,β)) from Theorem 3.11 passes to the coordinate ring, so the cluster structure is well-defined and independent of the chosen word.
The subalgebra ̂A_{v,b} of the bosonic extension algebra gives a candidate quantization of C[˚Z_{v,β}], with the quantum Grothendieck ring expected to realize it.
If the conjecture A0(s(v,β))=K0(C_{v,β}) holds, then the categorification is genuine rather than only after localization, giving a complete representation-theoretic model of the cluster algebra.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper's claims: if the vanishing condition from Theorem 5.15 could be shown to propagate along arbitrary mutation sequences rather than only the constructed ones, the inclusion A0(s(v,β))⊂K0(C_{v,β}) would likely upgrade to equality, making the categorification genuine without localization.
The same mutation/freezing algorithm might apply to other locally acyclic cluster seeds, suggesting a uniform categorification of open Richardson-type varieties built from bosonic PBW data.
The periodicity of the infinite word ˙w0 suggests that the categories C_v are stable under the shift functors of the duality datum, so cluster variables should exhibit periodic behaviour in their Lusztig parameters — a feature that can be tested by explicit q-character computations.
A concrete test: in type A3, run the algorithm on the paper's Example 2.1 word and verify that every mutated cluster variable has zero values in the first five positions of its ˙β_v-Lusztig parameter vector; any violation would localize the failure of Theorem 1.1.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I read the paper with genuine interest. The new object — the subcategory C_{v,beta} = C(beta) ∩ C_v — is a natural idea, and the claim that its Grothendieck ring contains the cluster algebra for twisted products of flag varieties is genuinely new, not in the prior literature. The paper correctly identifies the right machinery to use: the Bao–Ye seed, the KKOP monoidal categorification of double Bott–Samelson cells, and Ménard's algorithm. The computations in Proposition 5.5 and Theorem 5.15 that control Lusztig parameters for the initial seed are substantial and the tables are helpful. The author is also honest about what is not done: only the first difficulty — identifying cluster variables inside the category — is claimed, not the reverse inclusion or a basis statement.

That said, the main theorem is not proved as written. The stress-test note is on target: the proof of Theorem 6.5 asserts that the vanishing of the first ℓ(v) ˙βv-Lusztig parameters is preserved under mutation because of "absence of arrows between mutable variables and the deleted variables." That is not a derivation. A cluster mutation in the quantum torus involves exchange monomials, and even if the old variable and the monomial terms have zero parameters, the new variable's global-basis parameter is not obtained by subtraction. The quiver observation does not control frozen vertices adjacent to deleted variables, which can appear in exchange monomials. Additionally, the last step of Theorem 6.5 assumes that a global basis element in ̂A_{v,b} corresponds to a simple object of C_v; Proposition 5.2 identifies the algebra, but the correspondence between K_0(C_v) and T_v ̂A_{≥0} is not established. These are load-bearing steps, and they are exactly where the proof is thin.

I also want to flag that Theorem 3.11 is dismissed with "the proof follows the argument of [6]" and a short sketch. That may be acceptable, but the local acyclicity and the equality of cluster and upper cluster algebras are used, so the referee should dig in.

The self-citations are not a problem in themselves, but several are unpublished preprints, and the current paper depends heavily on them. That makes verification harder.

Who gets value from this? Researchers working on monoidal categorification or cluster structures on braid varieties. They will see the idea as a useful template, even if the proof needs work. I would send it to a serious referee rather than desk-reject: the construction is coherent, no counterexample appears, and the gaps are likely fillable. But I would not cite the main theorem as established until the mutation-preservation claim and the C_v/global-basis correspondence are properly proved.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a monoidal categorification of cluster structures on twisted products of flag varieties. For a braid group element b, a word β for b, and v ≤ δ(b), the author defines a subcategory C_{v,β} = C(β) ∩ C_v of the Hernandez–Leclerc category and a subalgebra Â_{v,b} of the bosonic extension algebra Â(b). The main theorem (Theorem 1.1 = Theorem 6.5 + Theorem 3.11) claims that the Grothendieck ring K0(C_{v,β}) contains the cluster algebra A0(s(v,β)), that cluster monomials correspond to simple objects of C_{v,β}, and that after localizing at frozen variables one obtains the coordinate ring C[˚Z_{v,β}] of the twisted product of flag varieties. The proof strategy is to identify cluster variables with global basis elements of Â_{v,b} via Lusztig-parameter vanishing (Proposition 5.2, Theorem 5.15) and then to invoke known monoidal categorification results for C(β) (Theorem 6.4).

Significance. If correct, the result would unify and extend monoidal categorifications for braid varieties and reduced double Bruhat cells, and would provide a categorical explanation of cluster monomials in a large class of cluster varieties. The paper builds on substantial established machinery—bosonic extension algebras, global bases, and Kashiwara–Kim–Oh–Park categorification—and contains no fitted parameters or ad hoc assumptions. However, the central inclusion theorem depends on a mutation-invariance claim that is asserted rather than proved, and on an identification of simple objects of C_v that is not established. The significance is therefore conditional on filling a load-bearing technical gap.

major comments (4)

[§6.2, Theorem 6.5] The inclusion A0(s(v,β)) ⊂ K0(C_{v,β}) is not proved. The proof asserts that after mutation the vanishing of the first ℓ(v) ˙βv-Lusztig parameters is preserved because of 'absence of arrows between mutable variables and the deleted variables.' This is not a derivation: in the quantum torus a mutated variable is x_k' = (M_+ + M_-) x_k^{-1}, and the global-basis parameter of x_k' is not obtained by subtracting parameters; one must show the exchange triangle is realized by simple modules in C_v and that C_v is closed under the relevant head/socle operations. Moreover, the quiver statement is insufficient: in s(v,β) frozen vertices are adjacent to the deleted vertices (Example 2.10), so exchange monomials can involve variables removed from Q_l, and the proof does not control their first ℓ(v) parameters. Without this, only part of A0(s(v,β)) is shown to lie in K0(C_{v,β}).
[§6.2, after Theorem 6.5] The step 'any global basis element in Â_{v,b} corresponds to a simple module in C_v' is asserted without proof. Proposition 5.2 only characterizes Â_{v,b} as a subalgebra of Â(b) by vanishing of a^{˙βv}_k; it does not establish an isomorphism K0(C_v) ≅ T_v Â_{≥0}, nor that the simple module corresponding to G(a^β(x)) lies in C_v ∩ C(β). Theorem 6.4 gives a bijection for C(β), not for C_v. This identification is exactly what is needed for cluster variables to give simple objects of C_{v,β}.
[§5.2, Theorem 5.15] The induction proving (5.25) and the full embedding Φ_l is summarized with 'straightforward', 'entirely analogous', and table-driven checks (Tables 5–6), and part (3) is deduced from ℓ(v)(j)⊕ = +∞ without displaying the final seed. Since Theorem 6.5 rests on Theorem 5.15(3), the proof needs to be written out at a checkable level, especially the recursion (5.29)–(5.30) and the claim Q_{ℓ(v)} = ∅. Currently this is a load-bearing black box.
[§3, Theorem 3.11] The proof consists of invoking [6, Theorem 10.1] with 'the only difference' being replacement of w by β, but the identifications X(β^{rev} v^{w0}) ≅ X(w0 v^{-1} β) and the claims about wave seeds are nontrivial. This theorem is used to obtain U(s(v,β)) = A(s(v,β)) and local acyclicity, hence for the second half of Theorem 1.1. Please provide a complete argument or precise references for each equality.

minor comments (4)

[§1, §4.1] Typos: 'quantazition' should be 'quantization'; 'subalgbra' should be 'subalgebra'.
[§2, Lemma 2.8 proof] In the proof of Lemma 2.8, the phrase 'contradicts the minimality of the chosen subexpression' should read 'maximality', since the leftmost subexpression is chosen with maximal lexicographic order.
[§5.1, proof of Proposition 5.13] The text refers to 'Theorem 5.5' where the intended reference appears to be Proposition 5.5; please correct the cross-reference.
[General] The manuscript contains numerous typesetting artifacts (e.g. '/leftr⫯g⊸tl⫯ne→') that make it hard to read. These should be cleaned before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the categorification is built from independent cluster/categorification inputs; the main gap in Theorem 6.5 is an unproved mutation-preservation claim, which is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 1.1 = Theorem 6.5 + Theorem 3.11, does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The seed s(v,beta) is taken from the cluster structure on twisted products of flag varieties ([2], [6], with Theorem 3.11 following the argument of [6, Theorem 10.1]), and the category C_{v,beta} is defined as C(beta) intersect C_v using KKOP's affine cuspidal modules, not as 'modules with vanishing Lusztig parameters.' Thus cluster variables are not fitted parameters, and Proposition 5.2 is a genuine characterization of ̂A_{v,b}, not a restatement of the definition of C_v. The main categorification input is external: Theorem 6.3/6.4 are cited from [18,19], and Theorem 4.15 is attributed to [19, Theorem 9.7] as well as the author's [4], so the self-citation is not the sole load-bearing source. The real weakness is in the proof of Theorem 6.5: after Theorem 5.15(3) verifies vanishing for the initial seed, preservation under mutation is asserted by 'the absence of arrows between mutable variables and the deleted variables,' and the final step uses Proposition 5.2 together with an implicit identification of K0(C_v) with T_v ̂A_{\ge0}. Those are missing derivations and are correctness risks, but an unproved assertion is not an equation that is identical to its input. Hence the circularity score is low.

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

The paper introduces a new subcategory C_{v,β} and a subalgebra A_{v,b}, but these are constructed objects derived from prior structures, not unexplained postulates. All load-bearing mathematical facts are imported from prior papers, several by the same author; no free parameters are fitted.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Existence of a complete duality datum D=(L_i)_{i∈I} in the Hernandez–Leclerc category C0.
Section 6.1 fixes a complete duality datum and the main theorem is stated for any such D. If no complete duality datum exists for a given simply-laced g, the construction is empty.
domain assumption Theorem 6.3 (cited to [18,19]): K0(C(β)) carries a cluster algebra structure with initial seed s(β), and cluster monomials correspond to simple modules.
This is the backbone of the categorification; the new proof builds on this theorem rather than reproving it.
domain assumption Theorem 4.15 (cited to [19,4]): for reduced β, A_q(s(β)) ≅ A(b), the bosonic extension algebra.
Used to identify cluster variables with global basis elements and to define A_{v,b}. The proof of the paper assumes this isomorphism.
domain assumption Theorem 3.8 (cited to [2]): U(s(v,β)) ⊗_Q C ≅ C[Z°_{v,β}].
The coordinate-ring half of the main theorem rests on this prior upper-cluster-algebra identification for twisted products.
standard math For every positive braid b there exists u∈Br_+ and m>0 such that b·u=Δ^m.
Section 5.1 uses this Garside-type fact to embed A(b) into A[0,m] and to define the infinite word ˙βv.
domain assumption T_{b<k-1} preserves the global basis (cited to [17, Theorem 3.7]).
Used in the proof of Theorem 4.12 to handle 3-moves; the present paper does not prove this preservation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Monoidal Categorifications of Twisted Products of Flag Varieties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BPSOLKVX

@misc{pith2026260211559,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Monoidal Categorifications of Twisted Products of Flag Varieties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BPSOLKVX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.11559}
}

abstract

Let $G$ be a simple, simply connected, simply laced algebraic group. We construct a monoidal category of representations of the quantum affine algebra $U_q(\widehat{\mathfrak{g}})$ whose Grothendieck ring contains a cluster algebra with initial seed given by that of the coordinate ring of twisted products of flag varieties. This class of varieties includes, in particular, braid varieties and reduced double Bruhat cells.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.11559 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Qβ We define s(β) ∶= ({Xi}i∈K, Lβ, Bβ) to be the associated (quantum) ⋀-seed. Definition 2.7. For a word β, we denote by A(s(β)), U(s(β)), and Aq(s(β)) the cluster algebra, upper cluster algebra, and quantum cluster algebra associated with the seed s(β), respectively. It is known that A(s(β)) = U(s(β)) for all β; see [22, 23]. Let v ≤ δ(b) with length m = ℓ(v), and let βv = (ip1⋯ipm) be its leftmost reduced expressi… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Q(a,b) Definition 5.8. We define a sequence of quivers {Ql}l≥0 inductively. The quiver Q0 is obtained from Q by removing all vertices k such that a β˙m i (D β k ) = 0 for all i ∈ [ℓ(v)] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** µj (t−1)−⋯µj At each step of this mutation sequence, the mutation is performed at a vertex j +s , where the arrows incident to j +s are all horizontal. More precisely, the local configuration at j +s is of the form j +(s+1) ←Ð j +s Ð→ j +(s−1) . (5.17) Consequently, the mutations µj +s only reverse horizontal arrows and do not introduce new arrows involving vertices of type k u. We now consider the mutation µj t−1 .… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: µj t−1⋯µj Next, we perform the mutation µj t−⋯µj (t−1)+. The resulting quiver is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: µj t−⋯µj The final quiver obtained after the full mutation sequence µj (t+1)−⋯µj is depicted in Figure 6. j t+1 k t+1 j (t+1)− j t j t− k t j (t−1)− [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: µj (t+1)−⋯µj If p1 = j t−1 , the the mutation µ̃1 starts with j t−1 , then we get the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: µj (t+1)−⋯µj t−1 j t+1 k t+1 j t k t j t−1 j (t−1)− [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: without arrow j t+1 → k t+1 . Remark 5.10. For a detailed description of the effect of the mutation µ̃1 on the quiver Q(j,k) , we refer to [20, Tables 5 and 6, Proposition A.3]. Definition 5.11. Let Q and Q′ be two quiver, we define a map f ∶ Q0 → Q′ 0 between the vert…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: µjmax −⋯µj t−1 f(Q) is a full-subquiver of Q′ . That is: for any arrow f(i) β → f(j), there exist an arrow i γ → j such that f(γ) = β. Except the arrow j max− → k t+1 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

[6]

R. a. G. Casals Eugene and Gorsky,Cluster structures on braid varieties, Journal of the American Mathematical Society38(2025), no. 2, 369–479

2025
[1]

Bao and X

H. Bao and X. He,Total positivity in twisted product of flag varieties, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11168 (2022)

arXiv 2022
[2]

Bao and J

H. Bao and J. Y. Ye,Upper cluster structure on Kac–Moody Richardson varieties, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10382 (2025)

arXiv 2025
[3]

Bi,Monoidal categorification on open Richardson varieties, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04715 (2024)

Y. Bi,Monoidal categorification on open Richardson varieties, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04715 (2024)

arXiv 2024
[4]

,On cluster structures of bosonic extensions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00882 (2025)

arXiv 2025
[5]

Berenstein and A

A. Berenstein and A. Zelevinsky,Quantum cluster algebras, Advances in Mathematics195(2005), no. 2, 405–455. 52 YINGJIN BI

2005
[7]

Fujita, D

R. Fujita, D. Hernandez, S.-j. Oh, and H. Oya,Isomorphisms among quantum Grothendieck rings and cluster algebras, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02562 (2023)

arXiv 2023
[8]

Fomin and A

S. Fomin and A. Zelevinsky,Cluster algebras I: foundations, Journal of the American Mathematical Society15(2002), no. 2, 497–529

2002

Show all 24 references

[9]

Galashin, T

P. Galashin, T. Lam, and M. Sherman-Bennett,Braid variety cluster structures, II: general type, Inventiones mathematicae (2025), 1–49

2025
[10]

Hernandez and B

D. Hernandez and B. Leclerc,Cluster algebras and quantum affine algebras, Duke Mathematical Journal154(2010), no. 2, 265–341

2010
[11]

5, 1113–1159

,A cluster algebra approach toq-characters of Kirillov–Reshetikhin modules, Journal of the European Mathematical Society18(2016), no. 5, 1113–1159

2016
[12]

C. a. L. Geiß Bernard and Schr¨ oer,Cluster structures on quantum coordinate rings, Selecta Mathe- matica19(2013), no. 2, 337–397

2013
[13]

Kamnitzer,Mirkovi´ c-Vilonen cycles and polytopes, Annals of Mathematics (2010), 245–294

J. Kamnitzer,Mirkovi´ c-Vilonen cycles and polytopes, Annals of Mathematics (2010), 245–294

2010
[14]

S.-J. Kang, M. Kashiwara, M. Kim, and S.-j. Oh,Monoidal categorification of cluster algebras, Journal of the American Mathematical Society31(2018), no. 2, 349–426

2018
[15]

Kashiwara, M

M. Kashiwara, M. Kim, S.-j. Oh, and E. Park,Braid group action on the module category of quantum affine algebras, Proceedings of the Japan Academy. Series. A, Mathematical sciences97(2021), no. 3, 13–18

2021
[16]

,Monoidal categorification and quantum affine algebras II, Inventiones Mathematicae (2024), 1–88

2024
[17]

,Braid symmetries on bosonic extensions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07312 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[18]

2, e70076

,Global bases for bosonic extensions of quantum unipotent coordinate rings, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society131(2025), no. 2, e70076

2025
[19]

,Monoidal categorification and quantum affine algebras III, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14552 (2025)

2025
[20]

M´ enard,Cluster algebras associated with open Richardson varieties: an algorithm to compute initial seeds, arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.10292 (2022)

E. M´ enard,Cluster algebras associated with open Richardson varieties: an algorithm to compute initial seeds, arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.10292 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[21]

Oh and E

S.-j. Oh and E. Park,PBW theory for Bosonic extensions of quantum groups, International Mathe- matics Research Notices2025(2025), no. 6, rnaf049

2025
[22]

Qin,Analogs of the dual canonical bases for cluster algebras from Lie theory, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02480 (2024)

F. Qin,Analogs of the dual canonical bases for cluster algebras from Lie theory, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02480 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[23]

Shen and D

L. Shen and D. Weng,Cluster structures on double Bott–Samelson cells, Forum of mathematics, sigma, 2021, pp. e66

2021
[24]

Webster and M

B. Webster and M. Yakimov,A Deodhar-type stratification on the double flag variety, Transformation Groups12(2007), no. 4, 769–785. Department of Mathematics, Harbin Engineering University Email address:yingjinbi@mail.bnu.edu.cn

2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [6]

R. a. G. Casals Eugene and Gorsky,Cluster structures on braid varieties, Journal of the American Mathematical Society38(2025), no. 2, 369–479

2025

[2] [1]

Bao and X

H. Bao and X. He,Total positivity in twisted product of flag varieties, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11168 (2022)

arXiv 2022

[3] [2]

Bao and J

H. Bao and J. Y. Ye,Upper cluster structure on Kac–Moody Richardson varieties, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10382 (2025)

arXiv 2025

[4] [3]

Bi,Monoidal categorification on open Richardson varieties, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04715 (2024)

Y. Bi,Monoidal categorification on open Richardson varieties, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04715 (2024)

arXiv 2024

[5] [4]

,On cluster structures of bosonic extensions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00882 (2025)

arXiv 2025

[6] [5]

Berenstein and A

A. Berenstein and A. Zelevinsky,Quantum cluster algebras, Advances in Mathematics195(2005), no. 2, 405–455. 52 YINGJIN BI

2005

[7] [7]

Fujita, D

R. Fujita, D. Hernandez, S.-j. Oh, and H. Oya,Isomorphisms among quantum Grothendieck rings and cluster algebras, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02562 (2023)

arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

Fomin and A

S. Fomin and A. Zelevinsky,Cluster algebras I: foundations, Journal of the American Mathematical Society15(2002), no. 2, 497–529

2002