Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Hamiltonian connectivity of some base-cobase graphs

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves Hamiltonian connectivity of base-cobase graphs for lattice path extensions, wheels, and whirls, and shows the regular matroid R10 refutes the general question.

desk verdict The R10 counterexample is real and gives the first negative answer to Farber–Richter–Shank, but the paper's main polytopal theorem rests on a false lemma and needs major rework. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15049 v2 pith:NXEFG3AJ submitted 2025-06-18 math.CO cs.DM

Leonardo Martínez-Sandoval , Kolja Knauer This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.COcs.DM MSC 05B3505C45
keywords base-cobasegraphHamiltonianconnectivitymatroidslatticepathregularwheelsandwhirlspolytopeR10matroid
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

Matroids have base graphs whose vertices are bases and that are known to be hypercubes or Hamiltonian connected; the paper asks whether the induced graph on base-cobases—sets that are bases of a matroid and of its dual—keeps that property. It answers yes for three families: series-parallel extensions of lattice path matroids, wheels, and whirls all have Hamiltonian-connected base-cobase graphs. It also shows when the polytopal proof method can work at all: a block matroid's base-cobase graph is the 1-skeleton of its base-cobase polytope exactly when the graph is itself a base graph, which among regular matroids happens only for direct sums of the two-element uniform matroid. The negative result is that the regular matroid $R_{10}$ has a 72-vertex base-cobase graph that is bipartite and therefore not Hamiltonian connected, giving the first counterexample to a property in the 1985 problem list reproduced as Problem 1.1. The paper thus delimits where Hamiltonian connectivity of base graphs extends to base-cobase graphs.

What carries the argument

The base-cobase polytope $P_{M,M^*}=P_M\cap P_{M^*}$ is the first workhorse: it lets the authors treat the exchange graph as the 1-skeleton of a $(0,1)$-polytope, where the dichotomy for such skeletons—hypercube or Hamiltonian connected—applies whenever the graph is the full skeleton. Mat is the property that this skeleton is again the base graph of some matroid, equivalently that the base-cobase set is the base set of an identically self-dual matroid related to $M$ by a special weak map; this is what transfers from a minor-closed class to its series-parallel extensions. For wheels and whirls, the load-bearing structure is the explicit decomposition of $G(M,M^*)$ into two copies of the hypercube $Q_n$, namely $Q_n^+$ and $Q_n^-$, with $0$ and $1$ removed for wheels and identified for whirls, glued along 'lean' vertices whose supports are cyclic intervals; Hamiltonian paths are assembled from hypercube path coverings of faulty hypercubes. For $R_{10}$, the machinery is the model of its elements as the 10 triples of $[5]$, with circuits exactly the 4-sets and their 6-set complements; this yields the 72 base-cobases organized as $(S_5/D_5)\cup(S_5/S_2)$, with the five neighbours of each vertex read off from the triple sets, and a two-colouring by the sign of a permutation that proves bipartiteness.

What would settle it

Take the connected block matroid on four elements given by a triangle with one doubled edge. Its base-cobase polytope has dimension 2, strictly less than $|E|-1=3$, yet the only non-trivial flacet $F=\{e,f\}$ yields $M^*/F=U_{0,2}$, which is not a block matroid; this is exactly the configuration Lemma 2.4 says cannot occur, and it would knock out Lemma 3.2 and the series-parallel reduction built on it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that Hamiltonian connectivity of base-cobase graphs is a real phenomenon but not a universal one. The paper proves the property Mat: when a block matroid's base-cobase graph is exactly the base graph of some matroid, then the graph is the 1-skeleton of the base-cobase polytope and Hamiltonian connectivity follows from the known dichotomy for 1-skeleta of $(0,1)$-polytopes. Mat is shown to be inherited by series-parallel extensions of minor-closed classes, and lattice path matroids are shown to have base-cobase sets that are again the bases of a lattice path matroid, so every series-parallel extension of a lattice path matroid satisfies Ham. For wheels and whirls, the paper gives an explicit decomposition of the base-cobase graph into two hypercubes, with the extreme vertices removed for wheels and identified for whirls, stitched along 'lean' vertices, and uses hypercube path-covering results to prove Hamiltonian connectivity in both families. Finally, working inside regular matroids, the paper describes the base-cobase graph of $R_{10}$ as 72 vertices indexed by cosets of the dihedral and two-element subgroups of $S_5$, proves the full edge structure, and observes a bipartition by permutation sign; because any bipartite graph with more than two vertices fails Hamiltonian connectivity, $R_{10}$ refutes the Hamiltonian part of Problem 1.1.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Lemma 2.4, which says that a dimension deficit in the base-cobase polytope of a connected block matroid forces a non-trivial flat whose restriction and contraction are again block matroids, and this splitting step is what carries the series-parallel extension proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every block matroid in the class of series-parallel extensions of lattice path matroids has a Hamiltonian-connected base-cobase graph, so it satisfies the connectedness, circuit, strong circuit, diameter, polynomial diameter, and Hamiltonian properties from Problem 1.1.
  • The base-cobase graphs of wheels and whirls are Hamiltonian connected even though they are not base graphs of any matroid.
  • The base-cobase graph of $R_{10}$ is bipartite, so no Hamiltonian path can connect vertices in opposite colour classes; this refutes the Hamiltonian-connectivity question for regular matroids.
  • Among regular matroids, the polytopal transfer method works only for direct sums of $U_{1,2}$, so the proof of Hamiltonian connectivity for any broader regular class would need a different mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The bipartiteness of the $R_{10}$ base-cobase graph makes the paper's open question about equicardinal bipartition classes a natural next test: unequal colour classes would immediately yield a non-Hamiltonian base-cobase graph.
  • The hypercube-stitching description used for wheels and whirls may extend to other multipath matroids or to necklaces, offering a route toward Hamiltonian paths in base-cobase graphs of larger positroid classes.
  • Because Mat holds only in very special classes, the polytopal-skeleton route cannot be expected to prove Hamiltonian connectivity for all regular matroids; any positive result there would likely need direct exchange-path constructions rather than a base-graph reduction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies base-cobase graphs G(M,M*) of block matroids and their Hamiltonian connectivity. It proposes: (1) a polytopal criterion "Mat" and uses it to prove that series-parallel extensions of lattice path matroids satisfy Mat, hence Ham and all properties from Problem 1.1; (2) complete structural descriptions of wheel and whirl base-cobase graphs, used to prove Hamiltonian connectivity for those classes; and (3) an explicit description of the base-cobase graph of R10, showing it is bipartite and therefore not Hamiltonian connected, which would be the first refutation of any property in Problem 1.1. The wheel/whirl and R10 parts are largely independent, but the proof of the spex(LPM) result relies on a polytopal lemma whose key implication is false.

Significance. The R10 result, if correct, would be a significant contribution: it would answer a question of Farber, Richter, and Shank in the negative within the class of regular matroids. The explicit descriptions of the wheel and whirl base-cobase graphs, and the concrete description of G(R10,R10*), are valuable and may serve future work. The paper is clearly written and the arguments are mostly self-contained, and there is no data fitting or circularity in the proofs. However, the central lemma used for the spex(LPM) theorem is false, so the first main theorem and its corollaries are unsupported in the present version. The R10 and wheel/whirl sections are not affected by this defect, but the paper as a whole cannot be accepted without replacing the false lemma and re-proving the results that depend on it.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2, Lemma 2.4] Lemma 2.4 is false as stated. Consider the rank-2 graphic matroid M on E={e,f,g,h} obtained from a triangle by duplicating one edge into parallel edges e and f; its circuits are {e,f}, {e,g,h}, and {f,g,h}. M is connected and block, and its base-cobases are {e,g}, {e,h}, {f,g}, and {f,h}. The incidence vectors of all base-cobases satisfy x_e+x_f=1 and x_g+x_h=1, so dim(P_{M,M*})=2<3=|E|-1, giving condition (ii). The only nontrivial tight set is F={e,f}, but F is not a flacet: E\F={g,h} is not a flat of M, and {e,f} is not a flat of M*. Hence there is no nontrivial flacet for which M_F and M*/F are both block matroids, so (ii) does not imply (iii). In fact (i) also does not imply (iii) in this example. The proof of (ii)⇒(iii) is unjustified at the step where a support hyperplane containing P_{M,M*} is asserted to be a facet of P_M; in the example the hyperplane x_e+x_f=1 cuts a 2-dimensional face of the 3-dimensional base polytope but is not facet-defining.
  2. [Section 3, Lemmas 3.2 and 3.4, Theorem 3.6] Lemma 3.2 is also false, and its proof invokes the false Lemma 2.4. For the same matroid M with circuit C={e,f}, M\C is U_{2,2} on {g,h}; it is not a block matroid and has rank 2, not r-1=1. Moreover M'=U_{1,2}\oplus(M\C) has no base-cobases, whereas M has four. Thus the reduction used in Lemma 3.4 fails, and Theorem 3.6, which applies Lemma 3.4 to spex(LPM), is unsupported. Since Theorem 5.1 uses Theorem 3.6 for the direction (ii)⇒(i), that direction is likewise unsupported. The authors would need a correct replacement for Lemma 2.4 or a different proof strategy for the spex(LPM) result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 5.4 and Corollary 5.5] The list of neighbors of [abcde]S2 in Theorem 5.4 contains [abcde]S2 twice; the proof indicates that one of the entries should be [acbde]S2. The statement of the bipartition in Corollary 5.5 also appears to misstate Y: it should be the D5-vertices of even sign and the S2-vertices of odd sign.
  2. [Theorems 4.8 and 4.9] The base cases handled "computationally" for n≤6 in Theorem 4.8 and for n=3 in Theorem 4.9 are not documented; please provide the code, a table of verifications, or an explicit finite check so the reader can reproduce them.
  3. [Section 4.3] Several steps in the proofs of Theorems 4.8 and 4.9 are described as "suitable stitching" or "analogous" without full details. Given the complexity of the case analysis, the authors should make these concatenations explicit or provide sufficiently detailed figures.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including "Hamiltoninan" and "Haimiltonian" for "Hamiltonian", and Proposition 4.4 appears to have a rendering issue with the floor function in the distance formula. These should be corrected in a final revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the derivation chain is self-contained and rests on external theorems and internal constructions, with self-citations used only as background.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. The polytopal analysis (Section 2) uses external results of Feichtner-Sturmfels, Edmonds, and Cordovil-Moreira, and the equivalence in Lemma 2.5 is proved directly rather than assumed. The spex(LPM) result is built from Proposition 3.5, which constructs an explicit lattice path matroid N whose bases are exactly the base-cobases of M, together with an induction via Lemma 3.4; no output quantity is fed back into its own definition. The wheels and whirls results use explicit graph descriptions and Hamiltonian-path lemmas imported from Castañeda-Gotchev, which are external. The R10 negative answer is a direct combinatorial enumeration with an explicit bipartition. The few self-citations (e.g., [3,4,5,39,40]) occur in background literature lists and in the introduction, not as load-bearing justifications. There is no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in by self-citation. A possible mathematical concern about Lemma 2.4(ii)->(iii) would be a correctness issue, not a circularity issue, because the lemma is not used to define its own conclusion and the surrounding arguments do not reduce to the claim being proven. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities appear. The axioms are the background theorems listed; the most fragile is the unverified computational base case in Section 4 and the content of Lemma 2.4, which the paper treats as a proof but which is actually a load-bearing assumption.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Naddef-Pulleyblank theorem: the 1-skeleton of any (0,1)-polytope is either a hypercube or Hamiltonian connected (cited [51])
    Used in Section 1 to reduce Ham for Mat classes to the polytopal statement; also used implicitly for base graphs of matroids.
  • standard math Feichtner-Sturmfels facet description of matroid base polytopes via flacets (cited [27])
    Used in the proof of Lemma 2.4 to identify the hyperplane H with a flacet.
  • standard math Edmonds' matroid intersection theorem: the convex hull of common bases of M and M* is PM intersect PM* (cited [24])
    Used in Proposition 2.3.
  • standard math Castaneda-Gotchev path-covering theorems for hypercubes with deleted vertices and edges (cited [16])
    Used as the main toolkit in Theorems 4.8 and 4.9.
  • ad hoc to paper The base cases n<=6 in Theorems 4.8 and 4.9 are computationally verified
    Asserted without providing the computations, so the Hamiltonian connectivity for small wheels and whirls is taken on faith in this version.
  • standard math Structure theorems for identically self-dual matroids (Lucas [43]) and binary identically self-dual matroids (Lindstrom [42])
    Used in Theorem 5.1 to classify regular matroids satisfying Mat.
  • standard math Duality formula for lattice path matroids: M[U,L]* = M[L,U] (cited [14])
    Used in Proposition 3.5 to characterize base-cobases of block lattice path matroids.
  • standard math Hall's marriage theorem in the appendix proof of Proposition 6.1
    Used to show whirls are transversal matroids.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hamiltonian connectivity of some base-cobase graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NXEFG3AJ

@misc{pith2026250615049,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hamiltonian connectivity of some base-cobase graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NXEFG3AJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15049}
}
abstract

There has been wide interest in understanding which properties of base graphs of matroids extend to base-cobase graphs of matroids. A significant result of Naddef and Pulleyblank (1984) shows that the $1$-skeleton of any $(0,1)$-polytope is either a hypercube, or Hamiltonian-connected, i.e. there is a Hamiltonian path connecting any two vertices. In particular, this is true for base graphs of matroids. A natural question raised by Farber, Richter, and Shank (1985) is whether this extends to base-cobase graphs. First, we use the polytopal approach to show Hamiltonian connectivity of base-cobase graphs of series-parallel extensions of lattice path matroids. On the other hand, we show that this method extends to only very special classes related to identically self-dual matroids. Second, we show that base-cobase graphs of wheels and whirls are Hamiltonian connected. Last, we show that the regular matroid $R_{10}$ yields a negative answer to the question of Farber, Richter, and Shank.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15049 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The base-cobase graph of the whirl W3 . If in a matroid M = (E, B) there exists B ∈ B such that also B := E\B ∈ B, then we call M a block matroid and any such B a base-cobase. For a block matroid M, the base-cobase graph G(M, M∗ ) is the subgraph of G(M) induced by the base-cobases of M. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The implications among the properties from Problem 1.1 (the higher, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The first row depicts wheels and whirls. The second row depicts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A positive base-cobase of the wheel with its neighboring negative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cases in the proof Lemma 4.6, g, r are filled, g ∗ , r∗ are crosses, unfilled vertices are auxiliary, the thick purple edge is lean. Case b): Pick any r ′ ∈ Q \ {r} with a lean edge e towards a g ′ ∈ Q∗ \ {g}. By Theorem 4.5 (d) we take a Hamilton path P1 in Q \ {g ∗} …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cases in the proof of Theorem 4.8. Left: Odd wheels. Right: Even [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cases in the proof of Theorem 4.9. Left: Odd whirls. Right: Even [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. An, J. Jung, and S. Kim , Facial structures of lattice path matroid polytopes , Discrete Math., 343 (2020), p. 11. Id/No 111628

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    S. D. Andres, W. Hochst¨attler, and M. Merkel, On a base exchange game on bispanning graphs, Discrete Appl. Math., 165 (2014), pp. 25–36

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Shellability of the quotient order on lattice path matroids

    C. Benedetti, A. Dochtermann, K. Knauer, and Y. Li , Shellability of the quotient order on lattice path matroids , arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07306, (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Benedetti, K

    C. Benedetti, K. Knauer, and J. Valencia-Porras , On lattice path ma- troid polytopes: alcoved triangulations and snake decompositions , arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10458, (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Benedetti-Vel´asquez and K

    C. Benedetti-Vel´asquez and K. Knauer, Lattice path matroids and quotients, Combinatorica, 44 (2024), pp. 621–650

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    B´erczi, B

    K. B´erczi, B. M´atrav¨olgyi, and T. Schwarcz, Reconfiguration of basis pairs in regular matroids, in STOC 2024: Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Sym- posium on Theory of Computing, Association for Computing Machinery, 2024, pp. 1653–1664

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    B´erczi, B

    K. B´erczi, B. M ´atrav¨olgyi, and T. Schwarcz , Weighted exchange distance of basis pairs, Discrete Appl. Math., 349 (2024), pp. 130–143

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    B´erczi and T

    K. B´erczi and T. Schwarcz, Exchange distance of basis pairs in split matroids , SIAM J. Discrete Math., 38 (2024), pp. 132–147

    work page 2024

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Blum , Base-sortable matroids and Koszulness of semigroup rings , Eur

    S. Blum , Base-sortable matroids and Koszulness of semigroup rings , Eur. J. Comb., 22 (2001), pp. 937–951

    2001

  2. [10]

    J. A. Bondy , Transversal matroids, base-orderable matroids, and graphs , Q. J. Math., Oxf. II. Ser., 23 (1972), pp. 81–89

    1972

  3. [11]

    Bonin, A

    J. Bonin, A. de Mier, and M. Noy, Lattice path matroids: enumerative aspects and Tutte polynomials , J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 104 (2003), pp. 63–94

    2003

  4. [12]

    J. E. Bonin, Lattice path matroids: the excluded minors , J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 100 (2010), pp. 585–599

    2010

  5. [13]

    J. E. Bonin , Basis-exchange properties of sparse paving matroids , Adv. Appl. Math., 50 (2013), pp. 6–15

    2013

  6. [14]

    J. E. Bonin, A. de Mier, and M. Noy , Lattice path matroids: enumerative aspects and Tutte polynomials, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 104 (2003), pp. 63–94

    2003

  7. [15]

    J. E. Bonin and O. Gim ´enez, Multi-path matroids, Combin. Probab. Comput., 16 (2007), pp. 193–217

    2007

  8. [16]

    Casta˜neda and I

    N. Casta˜neda and I. S. Gotchev, Path coverings with prescribed ends in faulty hypercubes, Graphs Combin., 31 (2015), pp. 833–869

    2015

  9. [17]

    Chalopin, V

    J. Chalopin, V. Chepoi, and D. Osajda , On two conjectures of Maurer con- cerning basis graphs of matroids , J. Comb. Theory Ser. B, 114 (2015), pp. 1–32

    2015

  10. [18]

    Chaourar and J

    B. Chaourar and J. Oxley, On series-parallel extensions of uniform matroids , Eur. J. Comb., 24 (2003), p. 877

    2003

  11. [19]

    Chepoi, Distance-preserving subgraphs of Johnson graphs, Combinatorica, 37 (2017), pp

    V. Chepoi, Distance-preserving subgraphs of Johnson graphs, Combinatorica, 37 (2017), pp. 1039–1055. 26

    2017

  12. [20]

    Chidiac and W

    L. Chidiac and W. Hochst¨attler, Positroids are 3-colorable, Stud. Sci. Math. Hung., 61 (2024), pp. 147–160

    2024

  13. [21]

    Cordovil and M

    R. Cordovil and M. Moreira, Bases-cobases graphs and polytopes of matroids, Combinatorica, 13 (1993), pp. 157–165

    1993

  14. [22]

    I. P. da Silva, ed., Quelques propri´ et´ es des matroides orient´ es, Ph.D. Disserta- tion, Universit´ e Paris VI, 1987

    1987

  15. [23]

    De Mier , A natural family of flag matroids , SIAM J

    A. De Mier , A natural family of flag matroids , SIAM J. Discrete Math., 21 (2007), pp. 130–140

    2007

  16. [24]

    Edmonds, Submodular functions, matroids, and certain polyhedra

    J. Edmonds, Submodular functions, matroids, and certain polyhedra . Combinat. Struct. Appl., Proc. Calgary internat. Conf. combinat. Struct. Appl., Calgary 1969, 69-87 (1970)., 1970

    1970

  17. [25]

    Farber, Basis pair graphs of transversal matroids are connected , Discrete Math., 73 (1989), pp

    M. Farber, Basis pair graphs of transversal matroids are connected , Discrete Math., 73 (1989), pp. 245–248

    1989

  18. [26]

    Farber, B

    M. Farber, B. Richter, and H. Shank , Edge-disjoint spanning trees: A con- nectedness theorem, J. Graph Theory, 9 (1985), pp. 319–324

    1985

  19. [27]

    E. M. Feichtner and B. Sturmfels , Matroid polytopes, nested sets and Bergman fans, Port. Math. (N.S.), 62 (2005), pp. 437–468

    2005

  20. [28]

    Gabow, Decomposing symmetric exchanges in matroid bases, Math

    H. Gabow, Decomposing symmetric exchanges in matroid bases, Math. Program., 10 (1976), pp. 271–276

    1976

  21. [29]

    Geiger, S

    A. Geiger, S. Hashimoto, B. Sturmfels, and R. Vlad , Self-dual matroids from canonical curves, Exp. Math., 33 (2024), pp. 701–722

    2024

  22. [30]

    Geiger, K

    A. Geiger, K. Kuehn, and R. Vlad , Graph curve matroids , arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08332, (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    I. M. Gel’fand, R. M. Goresky, R. D. MacPherson, and V. V. Serganova, Combinatorial geometries, convex polyhedra, and Schubert cells , Adv. Math., 63 (1987), pp. 301–316

    1987

  24. [32]

    Gregor, A

    P. Gregor, A. Merino, and T. M ¨utze, Star transposition Gray codes for multiset permutations, J. Graph Theory, 103 (2023), pp. 212–270

    2023

  25. [33]

    Gregor, O

    P. Gregor, O. Miˇcka, and T. M¨utze, On the central levels problem, J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B, 160 (2023), pp. 163–205

    2023

  26. [34]

    Hall, On representatives of subsets, J

    P. Hall, On representatives of subsets, J. Lond. Math. Soc., 10 (1935), pp. 26–30

    1935

  27. [35]

    Havel, On Hamiltonian circuits and spanning trees of hypercubes , ˇCasopis pro pˇ estov´ an´ ı matematiky, 109 (1984), pp

    I. Havel, On Hamiltonian circuits and spanning trees of hypercubes , ˇCasopis pro pˇ estov´ an´ ı matematiky, 109 (1984), pp. 135–152

    1984

  28. [36]

    C. A. Holzmann, P. G. Norton, and M. D. Tobey, A graphical representation of matroids, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 25 (1973), pp. 618–627

    1973

  29. [37]

    Huh, Tropical geometry of matroids, in Current developments in mathematics

    J. Huh, Tropical geometry of matroids, in Current developments in mathematics

  30. [38]

    Kajitani, S

    Y. Kajitani, S. Ueno, and H. Miyano , Ordering of the elements of a matroid such that its consecutive w elements are independent , Discrete Math., 72 (1988), pp. 187–194

    1988

  31. [39]

    Knauer, L

    K. Knauer, L. Mart´ınez-Sandoval, and J. L. Ram´ırez Alfons´ın, On lattice path matroid polytopes: integer points and Ehrhart polynomial , Discrete Comput. Geom., 60 (2018), pp. 698–719

    2018

  32. [40]

    Knauer, L

    K. Knauer, L. Mart´ınez-Sandoval, and J. L. Ram´ırez Alfons´ın, A Tutte polynomial inequality for lattice path matroids , Adv. Appl. Math., 94 (2018), pp. 23–38. 27

    2018

  33. [41]

    Lam and A

    T. Lam and A. Postnikov , Alcoved polytopes. I., Discrete Comput. Geom., 38 (2007), pp. 453–478

    2007

  34. [42]

    Lindstr¨om, On binary identically self-dual matroids , Eur

    B. Lindstr¨om, On binary identically self-dual matroids , Eur. J. Comb., 5 (1984), pp. 55–58

    1984

  35. [43]

    Lucas, Weak maps of combinatorial geometries , Trans

    D. Lucas, Weak maps of combinatorial geometries , Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 206 (1975), pp. 247–279

    1975

  36. [44]

    L. R. Matthews , Bicircular matroids, Q. J. Math., Oxf. II. Ser., 28 (1977), pp. 213–227

    1977

  37. [45]

    S. B. Maurer , Matroid basis graphs. I , J. Comb. Theory Ser. B, 14 (1973), pp. 216–240

    1973

  38. [46]

    McGuinness, Frame matroids, toric ideals, and a conjecture of White , Adv

    S. McGuinness, Frame matroids, toric ideals, and a conjecture of White , Adv. Appl. Math., 118 (2020), p. 46. Id/No 102042

    2020

  39. [47]

    Morton and J

    J. Morton and J. Turner , Computing the Tutte polynomial of lattice path matroids using determinantal circuits , Theor. Comput. Sci., 598 (2015), pp. 150– 156

    2015

  40. [48]

    M¨utze, Proof of the middle levels conjecture , Proc

    T. M¨utze, Proof of the middle levels conjecture , Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3), 112 (2016), pp. 677–713

    2016

  41. [49]

    M¨utze, Combinatorial Gray codes – an updated survey , Electron

    T. M¨utze, Combinatorial Gray codes – an updated survey , Electron. J. Comb., DS26 (2023), p. 93

    2023

  42. [50]

    M¨utze, A book proof of the middle levels theorem , Combinatorica, 44 (2024), pp

    T. M¨utze, A book proof of the middle levels theorem , Combinatorica, 44 (2024), pp. 205–208

    2024

  43. [51]

    D. J. Naddef and W. R. Pulleyblank , Hamiltonicity in (0-1)-polyhedra , J. Comb. Theory Ser. B, 37 (1984), pp. 41–52

    1984

  44. [52]

    Oxley, Matroid Theory, Oxford graduate texts in mathematics, Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2006

    J. Oxley, Matroid Theory, Oxford graduate texts in mathematics, Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2006

    2006

  45. [53]

    Perrott , Identically self-dual matroids , master’s thesis, Open Access Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington, 2017

    A. Perrott , Identically self-dual matroids , master’s thesis, Open Access Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington, 2017

    2017

  46. [54]

    Postnikov, Total positivity, Grassmannians, and networks , arXiv:0609764, (2006)

    A. Postnikov, Total positivity, Grassmannians, and networks , arXiv:0609764, (2006)

    2006

  47. [55]

    Schrijver, Combinatorial optimization

    A. Schrijver, Combinatorial optimization. Polyhedra and efficiency , vol. 24 of Algorithms Comb., Berlin: Springer, 2003

    2003

  48. [56]

    Schweig, Toric ideals of lattice path matroids and polymatroids, J

    J. Schweig, Toric ideals of lattice path matroids and polymatroids, J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 215 (2011), pp. 2660–2665

    2011

  49. [57]

    P. D. Seymour, Decomposition of regular matroids, J. Comb. Theory Ser. B, 28 (1980), pp. 305–359

    1980

  50. [58]

    G. M. Ziegler , Lectures on polytopes , vol. 152 of Grad. Texts Math., Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1995. 28

    1995

  51. [2016]

    Papers based on selected lectures given at the conference, Harvard Univer- sity, Cambridge, MA, USA, November 2016, Somerville, MA: International Press, 2018, pp. 1–46

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.