Orthogonality of spin $q$-Whittaker polynomials

Matteo Mucciconi

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Orthogonality of spin $q$-Whittaker polynomials

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The inhomogeneous spin q-Whittaker polynomials are proven to be mutually orthogonal under a Sklyanin-type torus measure, forming an orthogonal basis of the symmetric polynomials in n variables.

desk verdict Likely correct and genuinely new result, but the two load-bearing eigenrelations are only sketched, so a referee should push for full proofs. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00478 v1 pith:IKKTXQRG submitted 2025-02-01 math.CO math-phmath.MPmath.RT

Matteo Mucciconi This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.COmath-phmath.MPmath.RT MSC 05E0505E1033D52

keywords spinq-WhittakerpolynomialsorthogonalitySklyaninmeasureq-differenceoperatorssymmetricfunctionspolynomialbasisGrothendieckWhittaker

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 that the inhomogeneous spin $q$-Whittaker polynomials $f_\lambda$ are self-orthogonal with respect to an explicit measure on the $n$-dimensional torus whose density $\Delta(\mathbf z_n;a_{n-1},b_{n-1})$ is a multi-parameter $q$-deformation of the Sklyanin measure. For partitions $\lambda,\mu$ of length at most $n$, the scalar product with the second factor evaluated at swapped parameters equals $\delta_{\lambda,\mu}$ times a product of $q$-Pochhammer ratios. Because the family specialises to Schur polynomials, $q$-Whittaker polynomials, and symmetric Grothendieck polynomials, the result unifies several classical and conjectural orthogonality statements. As direct corollaries, both $\{f_\lambda\}$ and the related $\{F_\lambda\}$ form linear bases of the space of symmetric polynomials in $n$ variables.

What carries the argument

The engine of the proof is the pair of $q$-difference operators $D_{b_{n-1}}$ and $D_{a_{n-1}}$, which act on the inhomogeneous spin $q$-Whittaker polynomials with eigenvalues $q^{\lambda_n}$ and $q^{-\lambda_1}$ respectively (Theorems 3.1 and 3.2). These two operators are adjoint with respect to the Sklyanin-type scalar product, so they force orthogonality whenever two partitions differ in their first or last part. The shift property (Proposition 2.2), which removes a common $1$ from all parts of $\lambda$ at the cost of multiplying by $x_1\cdots x_n$, together with the reverse symmetry swapping the $a$ and $b$ parameters, supplies the remaining separation. A triangular monomial expansion of the $F_\lambda$, whose matrix is invertible near the origin, then allows an analytic continuation to show that all off-diagonal scalar products vanish.

What would settle it

For $n=2$, set $q=1/2$, $a_1=b_1=1/4$, compute $f_{(1,0)}$ and $f_{(0,0)}$ from the branching rule, and evaluate the torus integral in Theorem 1.1 by residues; the off-diagonal scalar product must be exactly $0$ and the diagonal value must match $c_2((1,0);1/4,1/4)$. A single violated equality in this small case would falsify the theorem, as would a direct check of the sketched eigenrelations (3.5) and (3.21).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, Theorem 1.1, is the exact identity $$ \langle f_\$\lambda$(\mathbf z_n;a_{n-1},b_{n-1}), f_\mu(\mathbf z_n;b_{n-1},a_{n-1})\rangle_n = \mathbf{1}_{\$\lambda$=\mu} \prod_{k=1}^{n-1} \frac{(a_k b_k;q)_\infty}{(q;q)_\infty}\frac{(q;q)_{\lambda_k-\lambda_{k+1}}}{(a_k b_k;q)_{\lambda_k-\lambda_{k+1}}}, $$ where $f_\lambda$ is obtained by setting the last inhomogeneity parameter $a_n$ to zero in the spin $q$-Whittaker polynomials $F_\lambda$, and the scalar product is integration against $\Delta(\mathbf z_n;a_{n-1},b_{n-1})$ over the torus $\mathbb T^n$. The proof uses two $q$-difference operators that act diagonally with eigenvalues $q^{\lambda_n}$ and $q^{-\lambda_1}$, shows they are adjoints with respect to this scalar product, and then closes the remaining cases with a triangular monomial expansion and an analytic continuation argument in the inhomogeneity parameters. The same argument establishes that the $f_\lambda$ form an orthogonal basis of $\mathrm{Sym}_n$ and that the $F_\lambda$ also form a basis.

Load-bearing premise

The entire proof rests on the two eigenrelations in Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 (Section 3), which the paper only sketches and defers to adaptations of earlier work; if those identities fail, the orthogonality proof collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The polynomials $f_\lambda$ and $F_\lambda$ are linear bases of the space of symmetric polynomials in $n$ variables (Theorems 1.2 and 1.3).
At $q=0$ and $a_i=0$, Theorem 1.1 specialises to a new torus orthogonality for inhomogeneous symmetric Grothendieck polynomials (Theorem 5.1).
When $a_i=b_i=\sqrt{q}$, the norm constant $c_n(\lambda)$ equals $1$, so the polynomials become an orthonormal family with respect to a symmetric density (Remark 4.1).
The shift property extends $f_\lambda$ to symmetric Laurent polynomials indexed by signatures, which are orthogonal with respect to the same scalar product (Remark 2.4).
The orthogonality makes rigorous the contour-integral representation for the tagged-particle distribution of the $q$-Hahn TASEP that was conjectured in earlier work (Section 6).

Reading between the lines

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

If the eigenrelations of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 can be upgraded to a complete set of commuting $q$-difference operators, the method would yield a full integrability proof of orthogonality without the triangularity step; the paper's argument only uses eigenvalues involving $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_n$.
The formal scaling limit in Section 5.3 suggests a Plancherel-type orthogonality for inhomogeneous spin Whittaker functions on $(i\mathbb R)^n$, whose constant would be a continuous analogue of the row-by-row product in Theorem 1.1.
The new Grothendieck orthogonality (Theorem 5.1) may have a representation-theoretic interpretation in the $K$-theory of flag varieties, where Grothendieck polynomials play the role of Schubert classes; checking known dualities would test whether such an interpretation exists.
For small $n$ one can test whether the scalar product in Theorem 1.1 is positive definite for all $0<q<1$ and $|a_i|,|b_i|<1$, which would strengthen the orthogonality statement from a bare identity to a genuine inner product.

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

The main theorem is likely true and this is a real new result: orthogonality for the inhomogeneous spin q-Whittaker polynomials, resolving the MP22 conjecture in the special case, giving a basis of Sym_n, and a new Grothendieck orthogonality. The proof structure is sensible—matrix argument via analyticity in the parameters, then shift property for length-n partitions—and the norm constant is explicit. I especially like the shift property argument, which is the right tool for the full-length case.

The soft spot is exactly where you said it is. Lemma 4.4 is the only place the unequal-last-parts case is killed, and it relies entirely on Theorems 3.1 and 3.2. Those are sketches. The author says the arguments adapt from MP22 and BMP21, but this is the inhomogeneous f-family with the a_n=0 specialization, and the key identities (3.15), (3.26) plus the integral representations (3.17), (3.28) are not verified in the text. If those eigenrelations fail, the orthogonality proof for λ_n≠μ_n collapses. This is a genuine gap in the written proof, not a style nit. It does not shake my belief in the theorem—the whole framework is coherent and the matrix part covers a lot—but a referee must be able to verify the eigenrelations.

Other remarks: the sections on Grothendieck and interpolation polynomials are clean and useful, and the spin Whittaker part is honestly labelled formal. Citation pattern is fine; the self-citations are to the papers whose techniques are being extended, not to the target theorem. Minor issue: the arXiv text has some garbled OCR artifacts, which should be cleaned up if the paper is revised.

Recommendation: send to peer review. Ask a referee to spell out the proofs of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2, or at least give precise references to the exact statements being adapted. Once that is fixed, this is a solid paper worth publishing.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proves an orthogonality statement, Theorem 1.1, for the inhomogeneous spin q-Whittaker polynomials f_λ(z_n; a_{n-1}, b_{n-1}) with respect to a Sklyanin-type density on the n-torus, with an explicit normalization constant c_n(λ; a_{n-1}, b_{n-1}). From this it derives basis theorems for the families f and F, and it specializes the result to inhomogeneous symmetric Grothendieck polynomials, interpolation q-Whittaker polynomials, and a formal limit to spin Whittaker functions. The proof combines a finite-dimensional matrix argument, the shift property, adjointness of two q-difference operators, and two inhomogeneous eigenrelations that are stated in Section 3.

Significance. If the proof is completed, the result is a meaningful advance: it gives the first orthogonality statement for the inhomogeneous spin q-Whittaker family, implies that these polynomials form a basis of symmetric polynomials, and yields a new-looking torus orthogonality for symmetric Grothendieck polynomials. The paper is transparent about what is borrowed: the spin Hall-Littlewood orthogonality from [BP18] and the eigenrelation technology from [MP22, BMP21] are explicitly cited, and the new orthogonality is genuinely derived rather than assumed. The main theorem is concrete and falsifiable, with explicit constants and several natural specializations. The main weakness is that the two central eigenrelations are only sketched, and the finite-dimensional matrix step contains a notational mismatch that must be corrected.

major comments (2)

[Section 3, Theorems 3.1 and 3.2] These two theorems are load-bearing for the proof of Theorem 1.1: Lemma 4.4 uses them to prove vanishing whenever λ_1≠μ_1 or λ_n≠μ_n, and the full-length case of the orthogonality proof depends on this. The paper explicitly says that the proofs of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 will 'only be sketched, since the arguments can be adapted from those in [MP22]'. The key identities (3.15) and (3.26), and the integral representations (3.17) and (3.28), are asserted without full verification. In particular, the specialization a_n=0 that defines the family f is exactly the point where the adapted argument needs checking, because the passage from the spin Hall-Littlewood side to the f-family may produce boundary terms in the contour integrals. Please supply complete proofs of the eigenrelations used, including contour conditions and the verification of the inhomogeneous identities, so that Lemma 4.4 has a solid foundation.
[Section 4, proof of Theorem 1.1, Eqs. (4.26)-(4.30)] The finite-dimensional matrix argument contains an index mismatch. Lemma 4.5 is stated for 0<m<n and produces an expansion over Box(L,m); relation (4.28) is written with sums over Box(L,m). However, the matrices in (4.29) are defined over Box(L,n), and the α matrix is evaluated at (a_{n-1},b_{n-1}) rather than at (a_m,b_m). As written, the matrix relation (4.30) does not follow. Please replace Box(L,n) with Box(L,m) and correct the parameter arguments, or explain why the n-indexed matrices are intended. This is likely a typographical slip, but it needs to be fixed for the proof to be rigorous.

minor comments (6)

[Eq. (1.5)] The condition on the inhomogeneity parameters is garbled in the displayed text; it should state |a_i|<1 and |b_i|<1 for all i≥1.
[Theorem 3.1, Eq. (3.5)] The eigenvalue is written as q^{λ_N} but should be q^{λ_n}.
[Lemma 4.4, Eq. (4.19)] The notation Fλ and Fμ in the displayed computation should be fλ and fμ, since the statement concerns the polynomials f, not the family F.
[Proof of Theorem 3.2] The text says 'Matching the left and right hand side of (4.14)' but the intended reference is to the integral identity (3.28), not to an equation in Section 4.
[Section 5.1, Theorem 5.1] The two dual Grothendieck families, denoted G and a second symbol in Eq. (5.8), are hard to distinguish in the typesetting; please ensure the two families are visually distinct.
[Section 6] There is a typo: 'trasform' should be 'transform'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: Theorem 1.1 is not assumed; the proof derives it from independent spin Hall-Littlewood orthogonality and Cauchy identities, though key eigenrelations are only sketched via self-citations.

full rationale

The target orthogonality (1.17) is never used as an input. The proof combines independent external results: the spin Hall-Littlewood orthogonality (2.35) from [BP18], the Cauchy identities and Pieri rules from [BK24, Kor24], and the q-Whittaker orthogonality (4.2) from Macdonald. The matrix argument in Section 4 proves the scalar-product matrix is the identity by comparing expansions in two bases and using analytic invertibility of the transition matrix; the shift property (2.10) is proved directly from the branching definition. The only load-bearing dependence on the author's prior work is in Theorems 3.1 and 3.2, which are sketched and deferred to [MP22] and [BMP21]. Those prior results concern eigenrelations for homogeneous families and do not contain the orthogonality theorem, which was only conjectured in [MP22]; the present proof adds the matrix argument, the shift reduction, and the full inhomogeneous statement. The passage in the sketch of Theorem 3.1 that refers literally to 'the eigenrelation (3.5)' would be self-referential if read in isolation, but the surrounding proof uses the dual eigenrelation (3.9) of Proposition 3.1, so this is best read as a misnumbered cross-reference rather than a load-bearing circular step. The deferral of the eigenrelation proofs is a rigor or completeness gap, not a circularity, and the central claim retains independent content.

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

The paper introduces no fitted parameters or new physical entities. It relies on standard q-series analysis plus several established external results, which are cited. The main internal ingredient is the shift property and the eigenrelations, the latter being only sketched.

assumptions (5)

standard math Analyticity and invertibility of the matrix alpha(a,b) in a neighborhood of the origin, used to conclude beta=I.
Used in the proof of Theorem 1.1 after equation (4.30). Requires continuity of determinant and analytic continuation.
domain assumption Orthogonality of q-Whittaker polynomials under the torus scalar product, as in [Mac95, VI.9].
Assumed from Macdonald's theory, used to expand functions in the q-Whittaker basis.
domain assumption Orthogonality of spin Hall-Littlewood rational functions, Proposition 2.5, cited from [BP18], Corollary 7.5.
Used to prove eigenrelations and Lemma 4.2.
domain assumption Dual Cauchy identities for spin q-Whittaker polynomials, Proposition 2.4, cited from [Kor24].
Used to derive Corollary 2.1 and in Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2.
domain assumption Domain conditions |q|<1, |a_i|<1, |b_i|<1 for all i, stated in equation (1.5).
Ensure convergence of q-Pochhammer products and analyticity.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Orthogonality of spin $q$-Whittaker polynomials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IKKTXQRG

@misc{pith2026250200478,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Orthogonality of spin $q$-Whittaker polynomials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IKKTXQRG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00478}
}

abstract

The inhomogeneous spin $q$-Whittaker polynomials are a family of symmetric polynomials which generalize the Macdonald polynomials at $t=0$. In this paper we prove that they are orthogonal with respect to a variant of the Sklyanin measure on the $n$ dimensional torus and as a result they form a basis of the space of symmetric polynomials in $n$ variables. Instrumental to the proof are inhomogeneous eigenrelations, which partially generalize those of Macdonald polynomials. We also consider several special cases of the inhomogeneous spin $q$-Whittaker polynomials, which include variants of symmetric Grothendieck polynomials or spin Whittaker functions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[1]

Borodin and I

A. Borodin and I. Corwin. Macdonald processes. Probability Theory and Related Fields , 158:225--400, 2014

work page 2014
[2]

Borodin, I

A. Borodin, I. Corwin, L. Petrov, and T. Sasamoto. Spectral theory for interacting particle systems solvable by coordinate Bethe ansatz . Communications in Mathematical Physics , 339(3):1167--1245, 2015

work page 2015
[3]

Borodin, I

A. Borodin, I. Corwin, and D. Remenik. Log-Gamma polymer free energy fluctuations via a Fredholm determinant identity . Communications in Mathematical Physics , 324(1):215--232, 2013

work page 2013
[4]

Borodin and S

A. Borodin and S. Korotkikh. Inhomogeneous spin q -Whittaker polynomials. Annales de la Facult\'e des sciences de Toulouse : Math\'ematiques , Ser. 6, 33(1):1--68, 2024

work page 2024
[5]

Bufetov, M

A. Bufetov, M. Mucciconi, and L. Petrov. Yang-Baxter random fields and stochastic vertex models . Advances in Mathematics , 388:107865, 2021

work page 2021
[6]

A. Borodin. On a family of symmetric rational functions. Advances in Mathematics , 306:973--1018, 2017. arXiv:1410.0976 [math.CO]

arXiv 2017
[7]

Borodin and L

A. Borodin and L. Petrov. Higher spin six vertex model and symmetric rational functions . Selecta Mathematica , 24(2):751--874, 2018

work page 2018
[8]

A.S. Buch. A Littlewood–Richardson rule for the K-theory of Grassmannians . Acta Math. , 189(1):37–78, 2002

work page 2002

Show all 41 references

[9]

D. Bump. Lie Groups . Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer New York, NY, 2013

2013
[10]

Borodin and M

A. Borodin and M. Wheeler. Spin q –Whittaker polynomials . Advances in Mathematics , 376:107449, 2021

2021
[11]

Biorthogonal measures, polymer partition functions, and random matrices

Mattia Cafasso and Tom Claeys. Biorthogonal measures, polymer partition functions, and random matrices. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar \'e -- Probabilit \'e s et Statistiques , 2025. to appear

2025
[12]

I. Corwin. The q -Hahn Boson process and q -Hahn TASEP . International Mathematics Research Notices , 2015:5577–5603, 2014

2015
[13]

Chan and N

M. Chan and N. Pflueger. Combinatorial relations on skew Schur and skew stable Grothendieck polynomials. Algebraic Combinatorics , 4(1):175--188, 2021

2021
[14]

P. Etingof. Whittaker functions on quantum groups and q-deformed Toda operators . Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2 , 194:9--25, 1999. arXiv:math/9901053 [math.QA]

1999 arXiv
[15]

Kirillov

Sergei Fomin and Anatol N. Kirillov. Grothendieck polynomials and the Yang-Baxter equation . Proc. formal power series and alg. comb , page 183–190, 1994

1994
[16]

Garbali, J

A. Garbali, J. de Gier, and M. Wheeler. A new generalisation of Macdonald polynomials . Communications in Mathematical Physics , 352(2):773--804, 2017. arXiv:1605.07200 [math-ph]

2017 arXiv
[17]

Givental

A. Givental. Stationary phase integrals, quantum Toda lattices, flag manifolds and the mirror conjecture . In Topics in singularity theory , American Mathematical Society Translations Ser 2. AMS, 1997. arXiv:alg-geom/9612001

1997 arXiv
[18]

Gerasimov, D

A. Gerasimov, D. Lebedev, and S. Oblezin. On q -deformed gl _ +1 Whittaker functions I, II, III . Communications in Mathematical Physics , 294:97--119, 121--143, 2010

2010
[19]

Gerasimov, D

A. Gerasimov, D. Lebedev, and S. Oblezin. On a classical limit of q -deformed Whittaker functions . Letters in Mathematical Physics , 100(3):279--290, 2012. arXiv:1101.4567 [math.AG]

2012 arXiv
[20]

Gavrilova and L

S. Gavrilova and L. Petrov. Tilted biorthogonal ensembles, Grothendieck random partitions, and determinantal tests . Selecta Mathematica , 30, 2024

2024
[21]

Hwang, J

B.-H. Hwang, J. Jang, J. S. Kim, M. Song, and U-K. Song. Refined canonical stable Grothendieck polynomials and their duals, Part 2 . arXiv preprint , 2024. arXiv:2404.02483 [math.CO]

2024 arXiv
[22]

Imamura, M

T. Imamura, M. Mucciconi, and T. Sasamoto. Stationary Higher Spin Six Vertex Model and q -Whittaker measure . Probability Theory and Related Fields , 03 2020

2020
[23]

Imamura, M

T. Imamura, M. Mucciconi, and T. Sasamoto. Identity between restricted Cauchy sums for the q -Whittaker and skew Schur polynomials . SIGMA , 20(064), 2024

2024
[24]

Imamura, M

T. Imamura, M. Mucciconi, and T. Sasamoto. Solvable models in the KPZ class: approach through periodic and free boundary Schur measure . Annals of Probability , 2025. To appear

2025
[25]

Imamura and T

T. Imamura and T. Sasamoto. Fluctuations for stationary q-TASEP . Probability Theory and Related Fields , 174:647--730, 2019

2019
[26]

H. Jacquet. Fonctions de Whittaker associ\'ees aux groupes de Chevalley . Bulletin de la Soci\'et\'e Math\'ematique de France , 95:243--309, 1967

1967
[27]

Kharchev and D

S. Kharchev and D. Lebedev. Integral representations for the eigenfunctions of quantum open and periodic toda chains from the QISM formalism. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General , 34(11):2247--2258, 03 2001

2001
[28]

Korotkikh

S. Korotkikh. Hidden diagonal integrability of q -Hahn vertex model and Beta polymer model . Probability Theory and Related Fields , 184:493--570, 2022

2022
[29]

Korotkikh

S. Korotkikh. Representation theoretic interpretation and interpolation properties of inhomogeneous spin q-Whittaker polynomials . Selecta Mathematica , 30(3):40, 2024

2024
[30]

B. Kostant. On Whittaker vectors and representation theory . Inventiones mathematicae , 48(2):101--184, 1978

1978
[31]

Lascoux and M.-P

A. Lascoux and M.-P. Sch \"u tzenberger. Structure de Hopf de l’anneau de cohomologie et de l’anneau de Grothendieck d’une vari \'e t \'e de drapeaux . C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S \'e r. I Math. , 295(11):629–633, 1982

1982
[32]

Macdonald

I.G. Macdonald. Symmetric functions and H all polynomials . Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1995

1995
[33]

Mucciconi and L

M. Mucciconi and L. Petrov. Spin q -Whitaker polynomials and deformed quantum Toda . Communications in Mathematical Physics , 389:1331--1416, Feb 2022

2022
[34]

Motegi and K

K. Motegi and K. Sakai. Vertex models, TASEP and Grothendieck polynomials . Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 46(35):355201, aug 2013

2013
[35]

Povolotsky

A. Povolotsky. On integrability of zero-range chipping models with factorized steady state . J. Phys. A , 46, 2013. arXiv:1308.3250 [math-ph]

2013 arXiv
[36]

S. N. M. Ruijsenaars. Relativistic Toda systems . Communications in Mathematical Physics , 133:217--247, 1990

1990
[37]

Sklyanin

E.K. Sklyanin. The quantum Toda chain . Lecture Notes in Physics , 226:196--233, 1985

1985
[38]

Semenov-Tian-Shansky

M. Semenov-Tian-Shansky. Quantization of open Toda lattices . In V. Arnold and S. Novikov, editors, Dynamical Systems VII: Integrable Systems, Nonholonomic Dynamical Systems , volume 16 of Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences , pages 226--259. Springer, 1994

1994
[39]

Semenov-Tian-Shansky

M. Semenov-Tian-Shansky. Quantum Toda lattice: a challenge for representation theory . Journal of Physics: Conference Series , 2667(1):012057, dec 2023

2023
[40]

Thiery and P

T. Thiery and P. Le Doussal. On integrable directed polymer models on the square lattice. Jour. Phys. A , 48(46):465001, 2015. arXiv:1506.05006 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

2015 arXiv
[41]

Yeliussizov

D. Yeliussizov. Duality and deformations of stable Grothendieck polynomials . Jour. Alg. Comb. , 45(1):295--344, 2017. arXiv:1601.01581 [math.CO]

2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Borodin and I

A. Borodin and I. Corwin. Macdonald processes. Probability Theory and Related Fields , 158:225--400, 2014

work page 2014

[2] [2]

Borodin, I

A. Borodin, I. Corwin, L. Petrov, and T. Sasamoto. Spectral theory for interacting particle systems solvable by coordinate Bethe ansatz . Communications in Mathematical Physics , 339(3):1167--1245, 2015

work page 2015

[3] [3]

Borodin, I

A. Borodin, I. Corwin, and D. Remenik. Log-Gamma polymer free energy fluctuations via a Fredholm determinant identity . Communications in Mathematical Physics , 324(1):215--232, 2013

work page 2013

[4] [4]

Borodin and S

A. Borodin and S. Korotkikh. Inhomogeneous spin q -Whittaker polynomials. Annales de la Facult\'e des sciences de Toulouse : Math\'ematiques , Ser. 6, 33(1):1--68, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Bufetov, M

A. Bufetov, M. Mucciconi, and L. Petrov. Yang-Baxter random fields and stochastic vertex models . Advances in Mathematics , 388:107865, 2021

work page 2021

[6] [6]

A. Borodin. On a family of symmetric rational functions. Advances in Mathematics , 306:973--1018, 2017. arXiv:1410.0976 [math.CO]

arXiv 2017

[7] [7]

Borodin and L

A. Borodin and L. Petrov. Higher spin six vertex model and symmetric rational functions . Selecta Mathematica , 24(2):751--874, 2018

work page 2018

[8] [8]

A.S. Buch. A Littlewood–Richardson rule for the K-theory of Grassmannians . Acta Math. , 189(1):37–78, 2002

work page 2002