Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Quantum integrable model for the quantum cohomology/K-theory of flag varieties and the double $\beta$-Grothendieck polynomials

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A GL(n) five-vertex model with parameter β encodes the equivariant quantum cohomology and quantum K-theory rings of flag varieties, and its Bethe ansatz states expand into double β-Grothendieck polynomials.

desk verdict Section 4's Bethe-state realization of double β-Grothendieck polynomials is a genuine new result, but the advertised derivation of quantum K-theory ring relations in Section 3 rests on an unforced and circular variable identification; the cohomology case and the polynomial theorems stand on their own. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03768 v3 pith:QU6YLJ4G submitted 2025-02-06 math-ph hep-thmath.AGmath.COmath.MPnlin.SI

Jirui Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phhep-thmath.AGmath.COmath.MPnlin.SI MSC 81R1214N3505E0582B23
keywords quantumintegrablesystemsBetheansatzflagvarietiescohomologyK-theoryGrothendieckpolynomialsfive-vertexmodelWhitneyrelations
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 claims that one family of quantum integrable models, a GL(n) generalization of the asymmetric five-vertex spin chain, encodes both the equivariant quantum cohomology ring and the equivariant quantum K-theory ring of flag varieties. The parameter β interpolates between the two: the Bethe ansatz equations of the model reduce to the quantum Whitney relations for cohomology at β = 0 and for K-theory at β = -1. The paper further claims that the Bethe ansatz states themselves generate the double β-Grothendieck polynomials, so that the expansion coefficients of a state built from the operators B_i are exactly these polynomials. If true, this gives a single integrable mechanism behind quantum Schubert calculus and explains the previously proposed quantum K-theory ring relations from Bethe equations.

What carries the argument

The engine is the R-matrix $R^{(n)}(x,y)$ whose entries are governed by the deformed subtraction $x\ominus y = (x-y)/(1+\beta y)$; the monodromy matrix built from it satisfies the RTT relation, so the transfer matrices commute and the system is integrable. Nested algebraic Bethe ansatz turns the eigenstate condition into the Bethe equations, whose residue conditions produce the quantum Whitney relations. On the polynomial side, the same B-operators obey commutation relations solved by the β-divided difference operators $\partial_i^{\beta}$, and the generalized Cauchy identity for double β-Grothendieck polynomials turns matrix elements of the B-operators into those polynomials.

What would settle it

Take the complete flag N = 4 and compute the state $B_3(\sigma_1)B_2(\sigma_2)B_1(\sigma_3)|0000\rangle$ by the explicit action formula (4.2); expanding in the natural basis and comparing each coefficient with the corresponding double β-Grothendieck polynomial $G_w^{(\beta)}(\sigma;\ominus t)$ for every $w\in S_4$ would settle Theorem 4.7. For the K-theory ring claim, compute the equivariant quantum K-theory product on a partial flag such as $Fl(1,3;4)$ by an independent method and compare with relation (3.27); any disagreement would show the K-theory identification leading to (3.27) is not forced.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an exact dictionary between an algebraic Bethe ansatz calculation and Schubert calculus. For the complete flag variety, Theorem 4.7 states that $$B_{N-1}(\sigma_1)B_{N-2}(\sigma_2)\cdots B_1(\sigma_{N-1})|\$\Omega$(0)\rangle = \sum_{w\in S_N} $G_w^{{(\beta)}}$(\$\sigma$; \ominus t)|\omega_N $w^{{-1}}$\rangle,$$ so the expansion coefficients in the natural basis are the double β-Grothendieck polynomials. The same expansion, with the elementary symmetric functions of the Bethe variables identified with Chern classes at β = 0 or K-theory classes at β = -1, holds for the full Bethe ansatz state (Theorem 4.12): the variables x_i are c_1(S_i/S_{i-1}) at β = 0, and 1 - x_i is the K-theory class of S_i/S_{i-1} at β = -1. On the ring-relation side, the Bethe equations become the quantum Whitney relations (3.22) and (3.27), which for β = 0 are the known quantum cohomology relations and for β = -1 are the quantum K-theory relations proposed in [8] and proved only for Grassmannians and incidence varieties.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the symmetric polynomials in the variables appearing in the Bethe equations stand for the Chern and K-theory classes of the tautological bundles; in particular the K-theory step inserts a factor $1/(1-q_m)\det(S_{n-m+1}/S_{n-m})$ without a geometric derivation, and if that identification is not forced, the claimed derivation of the quantum K-theory ring relations collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At β = 0 the Bethe equations give the quantum Whitney relations (3.22), equivalent to the known presentation of the equivariant quantum cohomology of partial flag varieties.
  • At β = -1 the Bethe equations give the quantum K-theory Whitney relations (3.27), so the integrable model supplies a derivation of relations that were previously proposed from field theory and only checked in special cases.
  • Bethe ansatz states of the complete-flag model expand into double β-Grothendieck polynomials, interpolating between double Schubert polynomials at β = 0 and double Grothendieck polynomials at β = -1.
  • Because the R-matrix satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation, the transfer matrices commute and the model is integrable, giving a Bethe/Gauge correspondence between the model and the vacua of gauged linear sigma models for flag varieties.
  • For partial flag varieties with repeated indices in the Bethe state, the paper expects symmetric double β-Grothendieck polynomials in the Chern roots of each successive quotient bundle.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the variable identification used at β = -1 is forced by geometry, then the same Bethe equations would prove the quantum K-theory Whitney relations for all partial flag varieties, closing the gap noted in Remark 1.
  • Beyond the paper: the formal parameter β suggests an interpolation through connective K-theory, with 1 + βx_i representing S_i/S_{i-1}; this could be tested by comparing the β-deformed relations against known connective K-theory Schubert calculus at intermediate specializations.
  • Beyond the paper: the lattice-model interpretation of the B-operators gives a direct combinatorial recipe to compute double β-Grothendieck polynomials as partition functions, so the theorem could be verified by a finite symbolic calculation for N = 4 or N = 5 before any further geometry is invoked.
  • Beyond the paper: the same Yang-Baxter R-matrix may encode other cohomology theories associated to flag varieties by specializing β to other values, but the paper only asserts β = 0, β = -1, and a connective-K-theory hint.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a GL(n) integrable model with a nested Bethe ansatz, derives the Bethe ansatz equations, and claims that these equations encode the equivariant quantum cohomology (β=0) and equivariant quantum K-theory (β=-1) Whitney ring relations of partial flag varieties. It further proves, for complete flags, that the Bethe ansatz states expand in the natural basis with coefficients equal to the double β-Grothendieck polynomials (Theorems 4.7 and 4.12). The paper also proves the Yang-Baxter equation for its R-matrix and provides explicit small-N examples.

Significance. If Theorem 4.7 is correct, the identification of Bethe ansatz states with double β-Grothendieck polynomials is a valuable new bridge between integrable models and Schubert calculus, extending the Grassmannian results of [1]. The Section 4 proofs are largely self-contained, with explicit checks, and the β=0 cohomology discussion matches known results. The quantum K-theory part, however, rests on an unproved dictionary and on conjectures from [8]; it is not of the same standing as the rest of the paper.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3.26)-(3.27)] The identification e_{k_{m-1}-k_m}(Y^{(m)}) = (1/(1-q_m)) det(S_{n-m+1}/S_{n-m}) is chosen to match the conjectural quantum Whitney relations (3.27); it is not derived from the geometry or from the Bethe equations. As a consequence, the derivation of the quantum K-theory ring relations from the Bethe ansatz is circular: the dictionary incorporates the quantum deformation factor 1/(1-q_m) that it claims to derive. The β=0 cohomology case, where no such factor appears, is not affected.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3.25)] With the same dictionary, for l<k_{m-1}-k_m, e_l(Y^{(m)}) is identified with ∧^l(S_{n-m+1}/S_{n-m}), but for the top value l=k_{m-1}-k_m the extra factor 1/(1-q_m) is inserted. Applying this to Eq. (3.25) gives ∧^{k_{m-1}}S_{n-m+1} = (1/(1-q_m)) ∧^{k_m}S_{n-m} ⊗ det(S_{n-m+1}/S_{n-m}), which contradicts the standard exact-sequence identity in ordinary K-theory (where the factor is 1). The paper does not explain why the quantum product changes the top exterior power relation; this is precisely the relation at issue.
  3. [Sec. 4, Theorem 4.7 proof] The induction step applies Lemma 4.6 to the state ⟨\tilde{π}ρ_k|, which requires l(s_i\tilde{π}ρ_k) > l(\tilde{π}ρ_k). The proof only establishes l(s_i\tilde{π}) > l(\tilde{π}) from the reduced expression. This is not automatic after right multiplication by ρ_k = s_1...s_k; the needed length comparison must be proved (or a reduced expression of π with this property must be chosen). The current argument is incomplete.
  4. [Remark 1] Remark 1 concedes that the general partial-flag quantum K-theory Whitney relations are only proposed in [8] and proved for Grassmannians and incidence varieties. The abstract and introduction should therefore describe the β=-1 result as reproducing a conjecture, not as an established derivation; otherwise the central claim overstates the support.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2.4)] The word 'colomn' should be 'column'.
  2. [Eq. (2.23)-(2.25)] The word 'ralations' should be 'relations'.
  3. [Theorem 2.1 proof] Identities (2.14)-(2.16) are stated without proof; please provide the induction details or a reference, since the Yang-Baxter proof relies on them.
  4. [Appendix, Eq. (A.4)] The definition of G_w^{(β)}(x;y) via the product over i+j≤N appears to involve only N-1 variables in each set; please clarify the indexing convention for the variables x_N and y_N.
  5. [Example 2] The displayed computation for G_{312}^{(β)} is correct but the intermediate expression contains both σ and x variables before the final identification; the text would benefit from stating explicitly which identification is applied at each step.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The quantum K-theory identification after Eq. (3.26) is fitted to reproduce the conjectural relation of [8], making the claimed K-theory derivation circular; the cohomology and Grothendieck-polynomial results are independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, after Eq. (3.26); Remark 1]
    "The idea is to identify ei(X(m)) with ∧iSn−m and make the following identification el(Y(m)) = { ∧l(Sn−m+1/Sn−m), l < km−1 − km, 1/(1−qm) det(Sn−m+1/Sn−m), l = km−1 − km. Then Eq.(3.26) for β = −1 can be written in terms of the λy classes as ... which are the quantum Whitney relations of the equivariant quantum K-theory ring QKT(Fl(kn−1,...,k1;N)) proposed in [8]."

    Eq. (3.27) is not an output of Eq. (3.26) alone: it is obtained by assigning the top elementary symmetric polynomial el(Y(m)), l = km−1−km, the q-dependent value (1/(1−qm)) det(Sn−m+1/Sn−m). This factor is not derived from K-theory; the exact sequence 0→Si→Si+1→Si+1/Si→0 gives the top exterior power of the quotient as det(Si+1/Si) with coefficient 1 in ordinary K-theory. The 1/(1−q) coefficient is therefore legitimate only if the products in (3.24)–(3.26) are already the conjectured quantum product, which is exactly what (3.27) is supposed to establish. The dictionary is chosen to reproduce the target relation, and Remark 1 admits the general partial-flag relations have not been rigorously established and were proposed in [8].

full rationale

The paper's main computational result, Theorem 4.7, is self-contained: the expansion of BN−1(σ1)...B1(σN−1)|Ω(0)⟩ is computed from the explicit R-matrix, the commutation relations (4.27)-(4.28), and the recurrence (A.3)-(A.5) defining the double β-Grothendieck polynomials. No fitted parameter or self-citation is needed there. The β=0 quantum cohomology ring relations (3.22) are derived from the Bethe equations via Vieta's formula under the Chern-root identification and are checked against externally proved results [6,7]; even though [16] (a self-citation) is mentioned alongside [8], it is not load-bearing. The circular step is confined to the β=−1 quantum K-theory part: the identification after Eq. (3.26), especially the 1/(1−qm) factor on the top exterior class of the quotient, is chosen so that Eq. (3.26) becomes the quantum Whitney relation (3.27) proposed in [8]. Since the paper itself states in Remark 1 that these relations have not been rigorously established for general partial flag varieties, the advertised derivation of the quantum K-theory ring from the Bethe ansatz equations reduces, at that point, to importing the conjecture as the dictionary. This is partial circularity: one of the two advertised claims (quantum K-theory) is fitted to its target, while the core Grothendieck-polynomial identity remains independent. Score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central computation is a mathematical derivation from the R-matrix and Bethe ansatz, so the main free choices are model parameters (q_s) and the variable dictionary connecting Bethe roots to geometric classes. The K-theory dictionary includes one explicitly ad hoc identification. The paper relies on standard results in integrability and on prior quantum cohomology/K-theory ring relations, with the K-theory relations only proposed in [8] for the general case.

free parameters (2)
  • q_s = b_{s-1}/b_s = arbitrary (twist parameters)
    Ratios of the diagonal twist parameters in the transfer matrix. They enter the Bethe ansatz equations and are later identified with the quantum parameters in the ring relations. They are freely chosen model parameters, not fitted to data.
  • K-theory top-class identification factor = 1/(1-q_m)
    In Section 3, after Eq. (3.26), e_{k_{m-1}-k_m}(Y^{(m)}) is set to (1/(1-q_m)) det(S_{n-m+1}/S_{n-m}) by hand, so that Eq. (3.26) converts into the proposed ring relation (3.27). This factor is not derived geometrically in this paper.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Algebraic Bethe ansatz method for nested systems, following Kulish-Reshetikhin
    The derivation of the Bethe ansatz equations in Section 3 assumes the standard nested algebraic Bethe ansatz framework and the standard treatment of unwanted terms.
  • domain assumption The equivariant quantum cohomology ring of flag varieties and its quantum Whitney relations as in [6,7]
    The paper uses these as the known target relations; it does not prove them independently, instead citing [6,7] and checking that the Bethe equations match.
  • domain assumption The equivariant quantum K-theory ring relations for partial flag varieties as proposed in [8]
    The paper treats the relations (3.27) as the defining target, but Remark 1 states they have not been rigorously established for general partial flag varieties, only for Grassmannians and incidence varieties.
  • ad hoc to paper Ad hoc identification e_{k_{m-1}-k_m}(Y^{(m)}) = (1/(1-q_m)) det(S_{n-m+1}/S_{n-m})
    This choice, made after Eq. (3.26), is required to turn the Bethe-equation identity into the proposed quantum K-theory Whitney relation (3.27).
  • standard math Properties of double β-Grothendieck polynomials: Cauchy identity and basis property
    The proofs in Section 4 rely on the generalized Cauchy identity (Theorem A.1 from [14]) and the fact that G_w^{(β)} form a basis (from [22]).
invented entities (2)
  • GL(n) asymmetric five vertex R-matrix via Eq. (2.3) independent evidence
    purpose: Defines the quantum integrable system whose Bethe ansatz equations and states are the subject of the paper.
    The R-matrix is a new mathematical construction (though related to the q to 0 limit in [14]); it satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation, proved directly in Theorem 2.1.
  • Bethe ansatz states of Eq. (3.4) independent evidence
    purpose: Constructs the eigenstates whose expansion coefficients are shown to be double β-Grothendieck polynomials.
    Theorem 3.1 proves that under the Bethe ansatz equations these states are common eigenstates of the transfer matrices, giving an independent mathematical handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum integrable model for the quantum cohomology/K-theory of flag varieties and the double $\beta$-Grothendieck polynomials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QU6YLJ4G

@misc{pith2026250203768,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum integrable model for the quantum cohomology/K-theory of flag varieties and the double $\beta$-Grothendieck polynomials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QU6YLJ4G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03768}
}
abstract

A GL$(n)$ quantum integrable system generalizing the asymmetric five vertex spin chain is shown to encode the ring relations of the equivariant quantum cohomology and equivariant quantum K-theory ring of flag varieties. We also show that the Bethe ansatz states of this system generate the double $\beta$-Grothendieck polynomials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03768 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The left action of Bk(u) on |n1, n2, · · · , nN ⟩ for N = 12 and a specific choice of (m1, · · · , mN−1) in the expansion (4.2). From Eq.(2.4), (2.17) and the fact that Bk(u) = [T (n) a (u)]0,k (Eq.(2.22)), it is easy to compute Bk(u)|n1, n2, · · · , nN ⟩ = = N X−1 m1=0 · · · N X−1 mN−1=0 RaN (u, tN ) 0,mN−1 · · · Ra2(u, t2)m2,m1 Ra1(u, t1)m1,k |n1, n2, · · · , nN ⟩ = N X−1 m1=0 · · · N X−1 mN−1=0 O N i=1 [PITH_FUL… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The right action of Bk(u) on ⟨n1, n2, · · · , nN | for N = 12 and a specific choice of (m2, · · · , mN ) in the expansion (4.4). Similarly, the right action of Bk(u) on the dual state ⟨n1, n2, · · · , nN | is ⟨n1, n2, · · · , nN | Bk(u) = N X−1 m2=0 · · · N X−1 mN =0 ⟨n1, n2, · · · , nN | RaN (u, tN ) 0,mN · · · Ra2(u, t2)m3,m2 Ra1(u, t1)m2,k = N X−1 m2=0 · · · N X−1 mN =0 O N i=1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Quantum K theory rings of partial flag manifolds,

    W. Gu, L. Mihalcea, E. Sharpe, W. Xu, H. Zhang and H. Zou, “Quantum K theory rings of partial flag manifolds,” J. Geom. Phys. 198, 105127 (2024), [arXiv:2306.11094 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Quantum integrability and generalised quantum Schubert calculus,

    V. Gorbounov and C. Korff, “Quantum integrability and generalised quantum Schubert calculus,” Advances in Mathematics 313, 282-356 (2014), [arXiv:1408.4718 [math.RT]]

    arXiv 2014

  3. [2]

    3d N = 2 Chern-Simons-matter theory, Bethe ansatz, and quantum K- theory of Grassmannians,

    K. Ueda and Y. Yoshida, “3d N = 2 Chern-Simons-matter theory, Bethe ansatz, and quantum K- theory of Grassmannians,” JHEP 08 (2020) 157, [arXiv:1912.03792 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [3]

    Quantum cohomology of flag manifolds and Toda lattices

    A. Givental and B. Kim, “Quantum cohomology of flag manifolds and Toda lattices,” Commun. Math. Phys. 168, 609-642 (1995), [arXiv:hep-th/9312096]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1995

  5. [4]

    Quantum K-theory on flag manifolds, finite-difference Toda lattices and quantum groups

    A. Givental and Y. P. Lee, “Quantum K-theory on flag manifolds, finite difference Toda lattices and quantum groups,” Invent. Math. 151, 193-219 (2003), [arXiv:math/0108105]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  6. [5]

    Quantum K-theory of quiver varieties and many-body systems,

    P. Koroteev, P. P. Pushkar, A. V. Smirnov and A. M. Zeitlin, “Quantum K-theory of quiver varieties and many-body systems,” Selecta Math. New Ser. 27 (2021) 87, [arXiv:1705.10419 [math.AG]]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    Quantum cohomology of partial flag manifolds Fn1···nk ,

    A. Astashkevich and V. Sadov, “Quantum cohomology of partial flag manifolds Fn1···nk ,” Commun. Math. Phys. 170, 503–528 (1995), [arXiv:hep-th/9401103]. 29

    arXiv 1995

  8. [7]

    Quantum Cohomology of Partial Flag Manifolds and a Residue Formula for Their Intersection Parings

    B. Kim, “Quantum cohomology of partial flag manifolds and a residue formula for their intersection pairings,” Internat. Math. Res. Notices 1995, 1–15, [arXiv:hep-th/9405056]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1995

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum K theory of Grassmannians, Wilson line operators, and Schur bundles,

    W. Gu, L. Mihalcea, E. Sharpe and H. Zou, “Quantum K theory of Grassmannians, Wilson line operators, and Schur bundles,” [arXiv:2208.01091 [math.AG]]

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Quantum K Whitney relations for partial flag varieties,

    W. Gu, L. Mihalcea, E. Sharpe, W. Xu, H. Zhang and H. Zou, “Quantum K Whitney relations for partial flag varieties,” [arXiv:2310.03826 [math.AG]]

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Yang-Baxter equation, symmetric functions and Grothendieck polyno- mials,

    S. Fomin and A. N. Kirillov, “Yang-Baxter equation, symmetric functions and Grothendieck polyno- mials,” [arXiv:hep-th/9306005]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Colored five-vertex models and Lascoux polynomials and atoms,

    V. Buciumas, T. Scrimshaw and K. Weber, “Colored five-vertex models and Lascoux polynomials and atoms,” Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 102 (2019), [arXiv:1908.07364 [math.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Double Grothendieck Polynomials and Colored Lattice Models,

    V. Buciumas and T. Scrimshaw, “Double Grothendieck Polynomials and Colored Lattice Models,” International Mathematics Research Notices (2020), [arXiv:2007.04533 [math.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Frozen pipes: lattice models for Grothendieck polynomials,

    B. Brubaker, C. Frechette, A. Hardt, E. Tibor, K. Weber, “Frozen pipes: lattice models for Grothendieck polynomials,” Algebraic Combinatorics, 6 (2023) no. 3, pp. 789-833, [arXiv:2007.04310 [math.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Diagonalisation of GL(N ) invariant transfer matrices and quantum N -wave system (Lee model),

    P. P. Kulish and N. Y. Reshetikhin, “Diagonalisation of GL(N ) invariant transfer matrices and quantum N -wave system (Lee model),” J. Phys. A 16 (1983) L591-L596

    1983

  8. [16]

    Quantum Sheaf Cohomology and Duality of Flag Manifolds,

    J. Guo, “Quantum Sheaf Cohomology and Duality of Flag Manifolds,” Commun. Math. Phys. 374, no.2, 661-688 (2019), [arXiv:1808.00716 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    GLSM’s for partial flag manifolds,

    R. Donagi and E. Sharpe, “GLSM’s for partial flag manifolds,” J. Geom. Phys. 58 (2008) 1662-1692, [arXiv:0704.1761 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Supersymmetric Vacua and Bethe Ansatz,

    N. Nekrasov and S. Shatashvili, “Supersymmetric Vacua and Bethe Ansatz,” Nuclear Physics B Pro- ceedings Supplements 192 (2009), 91-112, [arXiv:0901.4744 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Quantum Integrability and Supersymmetric Vacua,

    N. Nekrasov and S. Shatashvili, “Quantum Integrability and Supersymmetric Vacua,” Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 177 (2009), 105-119, [arXiv:0901.4748 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Quantum double Schubert polynomials, quantum Schubert polynomials and Vafa-Intriligator formula,

    A. N. Kirillov and T. Maeno, “Quantum double Schubert polynomials, quantum Schubert polynomials and Vafa-Intriligator formula,” Discret. Math. 217 (1996), 191-223, [arXiv:q-alg/9610022]

    1996 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Symmetry and flag manifolds,

    A. Lascoux and M. P. Sch¨ utzenberger, “Symmetry and flag manifolds,” in Invariant Theory (Monte- catini, 1982), vol. 996 of Lecture Notes in Math., Springer, Berlin, 1983, pp. 118-144

    1982

  14. [22]

    Quantum Grothendieck Polynomials,

    C. Lenart and M. Toshiaki, “Quantum Grothendieck Polynomials,” [arXiv:math/0608232]

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    A Thom-Porteous formula for connective K -theory using algebraic cobordism,

    T. Hudson, “A Thom-Porteous formula for connective K -theory using algebraic cobordism,” Journal of K-theory 14 (2013), 343-369, [arXiv:1310.0895 [math.AG]]. 30

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Quantum Cohomology of Partial Flag Manifolds,

    A. S. Buch, “Quantum Cohomology of Partial Flag Manifolds,” [arXiv:math/0303245 [math.AG]]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Quantum K-theory I: foundations,

    Y. P. Lee, “Quantum K-theory I: foundations,” Duke Math. J. 121, 389-424 (2004) [arXiv:math/0105014 [math.AG]]

    2004 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A presentation of the torus-equivariant quantum K-theory ring of flag manifolds of type A, Part I: the defining ideal,

    T. Maeno, S. Naito and D. Sagaki, “A presentation of the torus-equivariant quantum K-theory ring of flag manifolds of type A, Part I: the defining ideal,” [arXiv:2302.09485 [math.QA]]

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    A presentation of the torus-equivariant quantum K-theory ring of flag manifolds of type A, Part II: quantum double Grothendieck polynomials,

    T. Maeno, S. Naito and D. Sagaki, “A presentation of the torus-equivariant quantum K-theory ring of flag manifolds of type A, Part II: quantum double Grothendieck polynomials,” [arXiv:2305.17685 [math.QA]]. 31

    arXiv

Pith tools

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