Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 22 references

Flag positroid pipe dreams

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Flag positroid pipe dreams encode a complete nonnegative flag rank by rank: each Bruhat interval u ≤ v gets exactly one diagram, whose k-row restriction is the k-th constituent positroid.

desk verdict Genuinely new combinatorial model for flag positroids with a clean main construction; two proof gaps—one sketched case analysis, one imported uniqueness lemma—need attention, but nothing here looks broken. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.25405 v2 pith:YV5HS5QR submitted 2026-05-25 math.CO

Williem Rizer , Martha Yip This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CO MSC 05B3514M1505A05
keywords flagpositroidpipedreamspositroidsquotientsBruhatorderRichardsoncellsdecoratedpermutationsnonnegativevarietyL-diagrams
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 is trying to show that a complete flag positroid — the data attached to a point of the nonnegative flag variety — can be captured by a single grid diagram, the flag positroid pipe dream (FPP), in the way a single positroid is captured by an L-diagram. Its linked claims: FPPs biject with intervals in the Bruhat order, with elbow count equal to the dimension of the corresponding positive Richardson cell; the rank-k constituent positroid is recovered by restricting the diagram to its first k rows and standardizing; and the nonnegatively representable elementary quotients of any positroid are exactly the diagrams obtained by adding one row with elbows in a nonempty subset of the unblocked columns. From this the paper derives an explicit description of the cyclic-shift freeze sets in terms of decorated permutations (marked permutations indexing positroids), partially resolving a problem left open in the literature, plus a self-duality theorem for the poset of nonnegatively representable quotients. A reader should care because the paper converts a piece of real algebraic geometry into a purely combinatorial, row-by-row constructible object whose components are directly readable.

What carries the argument

Flag positroid pipe dreams (FPPs): reduced Rothe pipe dreams of u — tiled diagrams of u's coinversions — with exit permutation v, filled by crosses and elbows and Γ-free (no cross with an elbow below it in its column and an elbow to its right whose pipe exits at or below the lower elbow). Key devices: a row-by-row algorithm producing FPP(u,v) exactly when u ≤ v; standardization, swapping adjacent rows and pivots while preserving bases and unblocked columns; the unblocked-column invariant (blocked iff a cross in it has an elbow to its right), governing where new elbows may appear; and the acyclic graph G(D), recovering bases via paths. A transfer map from two-step nonnegative flags to augment

What would settle it

Take a Bruhat interval [u,v] in S_4 or S_5 that is not attached to a Grassmannian permutation (a permutation with at most one descent), build FPP(u,v) with the paper's algorithm, restrict to the first k rows, standardize, and compute the bases of P_k as sink sets of non-intersecting paths; then brute-force enumerate every permutation w in [u,v] and restrict each to its first k values. If the two sets differ for any k — or if the lexicographically maximal basis is not v[k] — Theorem 4.43 is false. A cheaper probe checks the unproved direction of Theorem 4.34: on small partial FPPs with adjacent

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim: every complete flag positroid has a faithful finite diagram, FPP(u,v) — the Rothe diagram of u tiled with crosses and elbows and required to be Γ-free. For u ≤ v in Bruhat order the diagram is unique, and its elbow count equals the dimension of the positive Richardson cell R^>0_{u,v}. The k-th constituent positroid is read from the first k rows via standardization, its bases being the sink sets of non-intersecting paths in an associated directed graph. Appending a row with elbows in any nonempty subset of the unblocked columns yields exactly the nonnegatively representable elementary quotients. Theorem 4.43 identifies this flag positroid with the one attached to any point

Load-bearing premise

The argument leans on two supports not fully proved inside the paper: an imported lemma identifying a complete flag positroid by the lexicographically minimal and maximal bases u[k] and v[k] of its constituents, and the reverse inclusion in the standardization theorem (Theorem 4.34), which is only sketched; if either fails for arbitrary Γ-free pipe dreams, the FPP could encode a different flag positroid than the one attached to the Richardson cell.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every Bruhat interval [u,v] carries a complete flag positroid, and the elbow count of FPP(u,v) is a dimension computation: dim R^>0_{u,v} equals the number of elbows.
  • Any rank-k positroid P has exactly 2^{|U|} − 1 nonnegatively representable elementary quotients, where |U| is the number of unblocked columns of its partial FPP, and all of them are explicitly constructible by appending one row.
  • A single FPP contains all constituent data of a flag: the L-diagram of each P_k is the standardization of the k-row restriction, so flag positroids can be decomposed rank by rank without returning to the geometry.
  • Maximal chains in the poset of nonnegatively representable elementary positroid quotients are in bijection with FPPs and hence with positive Richardson cells; the poset is self-dual under matroid dualization, and its lattice-path-matroid subposet is self-dual as well.
  • In decorated-permutation terms, nonnegatively representable elementary quotients are exactly the right cyclic shifts of π with the explicitly computed freeze set A(C) = [n] ∖ (C ⊔ T(C)), for nonempty C among the unblocked positions of π.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A row-by-row generation scheme for complete flag positroids follows naturally but is not pursued in the paper: start from the empty diagram and at each rank choose any nonempty subset of the currently unblocked columns. A testable extension — my inference, not the paper's claim — is that every point of the nonnegative flag variety admits such a build; the paper proves the quotient-to-row correspon
  • The freeze-set characterization is proved only for nonnegatively representable quotients. Comparing it with the existing characterization that covers all positroid quotients should isolate exactly where nonnegativity fails — plausibly at the greedy construction of T(C), where the monotonicity of unblocked values could break. That diagnosis is an editorial inference.
  • The paper shows FPPs are simultaneously Bruhat intervals and maximal chains of a self-dual poset; reading the two facts together suggests a mirror traversal of those chains — reversing a maximal chain pairs each Bruhat interval with another via inverse decorated permutations — a duality shadow the authors do not draw explicitly.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces flag positroid pipe dreams (FPPs), a class of reduced Rothe pipe dreams associated to pairs of permutations (u,v). Theorem 3.16 proves that FPP(u,v) exists exactly when u≤v in Bruhat order and that the number of elbows is the length of the interval [u,v]. The authors then develop a rank-by-rank theory: partial FPPs encode rank-k positroids; appending a row in unblocked columns characterizes nonnegatively representable elementary positroid quotients (Theorem 4.26); a standardization operation converts any partial FPP into the L-diagram of the same positroid (Theorem 4.34); and Theorem 4.43 claims that FPP(u,v) encodes the complete flag positroid associated to the positive Richardson cell R_{u,v}^{>0}. Section 5 translates these results to decorated permutations, giving an explicit description of the cyclic-shift freeze sets and proving self-duality of the poset (Π_n,⊴_q).

Significance. The FPP model is a natural and potentially very useful extension of Postnikov's L-diagrams to the flag positroid setting. The paper is constructive: it provides an explicit algorithm for FPP(u,v), an explicit bijection between nonnegatively representable elementary quotients and subsets of unblocked columns, and an explicit formula for the cyclic-shift sets in Theorem 5.12. The final bijection between maximal chains of (Π_n,⊴_q) and FPP(n) gives a clean combinatorial encoding of positive Richardson cells. If the central identification with flag positroids is fully justified, this will be a valuable contribution to the combinatorics of total positivity.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.5, proof of Thm 4.43] The proof establishes only that the lexicographically minimal and maximal bases of P_k(D) are u[k] and v[k], and then invokes [9, Lem. 7.7] to identify the full flag positroid. The lemma is not stated, so this logical step cannot be checked. If the lemma gives the basis set as {w[k] : w∈[u,v]}, then extreme bases are not sufficient: in Example 4.44, D=FPP(2413,4231), P_3 has bases {124,234}, while the Gale interval between these endpoints also contains 134. To make Thm 4.43 load-bearing, the authors should either state and verify a uniqueness lemma from [9] that applies to arbitrary complete flag positroids, or prove directly that B(P_k(D)) = {w[k] : w∈[u,v]} for each k.
  2. [§4.4, proof of Thm 4.34] The forward inclusion B(D)⊆B(D') is proved by a detailed path surgery, but the reverse inclusion is dismissed with 'a careful case analysis similar to the one above'. Theorem 4.34 is load-bearing: it underlies Definition 4.35 (standardization), Definition 4.41 (the constituents P_k(D)), and Theorem 5.12 (the decorated-permutation characterization). If the reverse direction fails, these constructions encode the wrong bases. The authors should provide a full proof of the reverse inclusion, or replace the argument by an invariant of the directed graph under the local moves of Lemma 4.32.
  3. [§4.5, Definition 4.41] The sentence 'each nonnegatively representable quotient P_k⊴_q P_{k+1} forms an oriented matroid quotient, so by Proposition 7.10 of Boretsky–Eur–Williams, P•(D) is a complete flag positroid' is terse. The authors should spell out which hypotheses of [9, Prop. 7.10] are being verified and why the row-by-row construction gives exactly those hypotheses. This is a smaller gap, but it is part of the chain leading to Theorem 4.43.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.3, Figure 21] The text says the two non-LPM positroids on [3] correspond to '321 and 321', but as printed the two decorated permutations look identical. Presumably one should have an overline and one an underline; please fix the notation.
  2. [§2.2 and §4.5] There are typos: 'Riestch' should be 'Rietsch', and 'Bruhar order' should be 'Bruhat order'.
  3. [§3.1, Definition 3.4] The phrase 'all cross tiles are justified to the southeast direction' is informal. The precise characterization appears later in Proposition 3.23; consider defining the condition directly at Definition 3.4, or moving the definition of Γ-free earlier.
  4. [§5.2, proof of Thm 5.12] The colouring verification in the final paragraph is compressed. Since the decorated permutation includes the colouring data, and the theorem claims equality of decorated permutations, the fixed-point colouring cases should be written out in full rather than condensed into a single paragraph.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main derivations are combinatorial constructions from definitions plus independent prior theorems.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is not circular. FPPs are defined combinatorially (Definition 3.4) and constructed from Bruhat intervals by an explicit algorithm (Definition 3.9); Theorem 3.16 proves existence, uniqueness of the preferred representative, and the elbow-count/length statement using internal lemmas about keys and reduced words. The quotient characterization in Theorem 4.26 is derived from the internal bijections Φ/ψ (Theorems 4.11 and 4.14), and Theorem 4.34 establishes that standardization preserves bases by a direct graph-theoretic case analysis. Theorem 5.12 then computes the decorated permutations of the resulting quotients by explicit formulae, not by assumption. No fitted parameters or data are renamed as predictions. The only external dependencies are standard prior results: Postnikov's L-diagram bijection, Rietsch's cell decomposition, and Boretsky–Eur–Williams Lem. 7.7 / Prop. 7.10. These are not self-citations (the present authors are Rizer and Yip), and they are used as theorems with stated hypotheses rather than as definitions of the objects under study. The final identification in Theorem 4.43 does import the extreme-basis characterization of flag positroids from [9, Lemma 7.7], but importing an independent theorem is not a circular step. The reverse inclusion in Theorem 4.34 is only sketched ('The reverse construction is similar'), which is a proof-completeness gap and a correctness concern, not circularity.

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

No numeric fitting occurs; the new objects are definitions rather than postulated physical entities. The central claims rest on prior theorems about Bruhat order, positroids, nonnegative flag varieties, and matroid duality, none of which is introduced ad hoc to force the target results.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Rietsch's cell decomposition: Fl≥0_n = ⨆_{u≤v} R^>0_{u,v}, with dim R^>0_{u,v} = ℓ(v)−ℓ(u).
    Used throughout to connect FPPs with Richardson cells and dimensions; invoked in Section 2.2 and Theorem 3.16.
  • domain assumption Postnikov's bijections: positroids ↔ L-diagrams/L-pipe dreams ↔ decorated permutations, with bases computed by nonintersecting paths in the associated graph.
    Used in Proposition 4.21, Definition 4.17, and Section 5.1 to define D_L(P) and read off decorated permutations.
  • domain assumption Boretsky–Eur–Williams Lemma 7.7 and related results: the k-th constituent bases of the flag positroid for R^>0_{u,v} are obtained by restricting permutations in the Bruhat interval [u,v] to their first k values.
    Used in Lemma 4.42 and Theorem 4.43 to identify P•(D) with the Richardson-cell flag positroid.
  • domain assumption Oh's theorem: the dual of a positroid is a positroid whose decorated permutation is the inverse decorated permutation.
    Used in Proposition 5.19 to prove self-duality of (Π_n,⊴_q).
  • domain assumption Boretsky–Eur–Williams Proposition 7.10: a sequence of nonnegatively representable oriented matroid quotients assembles into a flag positroid.
    Used after Definition 4.41 to conclude P•(D) is a flag positroid from the elementary quotient condition.
  • standard math Standard Bruhat-order facts: u≤v iff K(u)≤K(v) entrywise, and reduced-subword characterization.
    Used in Section 3.2, especially Proposition 3.8 and Lemma 3.10.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flag positroid pipe dreams." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YV5HS5QR

@misc{pith2026260525405,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flag positroid pipe dreams},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YV5HS5QR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.25405}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce flag positroid pipe dreams (FPPs), whose role in the study of complete flag positroids is analogous to the role of Le-diagrams in the study of positroids. We develop the combinatorics of these diagrams and highlight some of their properties. FPPs are in bijection with intervals in the Bruhat order of the symmetric group, and the number of elbows in an FPP is the dimension of the corresponding Richardson cell in the decomposition of the nonnegative flag variety. We show how complete flag positroids can be built rank by rank via FPPs, and how the Le-diagrams of the positroid constituents of the flag can be obtained from the FPP via a simple standardization operation. Using partial FPPs, we give an alternative proof of a conjecture of Benedetti, Chavez, and Tamayo on the problem of characterizing elementary positroid quotients via cyclic shifts of decorated permutations, in the nonnegatively representable case. Our proof partially addresses a problem of Chen et al. regarding an explicit characterization of the cyclic shift operators purely in terms of decorated permutations. We show that the poset of nonnegatively representable elementary positroid quotients is self-dual. The maximal chains of this poset are in bijection with FPPs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.25405 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The poset of positroid quotients (Π3, ≤q). A dotted covering rela￾tion indicates a quotient that is not nonnegatively representable. See Exam￾ple 2.3. Also see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Rothe diagram of u = 5316274, where the shaded boxes of Rothe(u) show the correspondence with the coinversion pairs of u. Definition 3.3. Let u = u1 · · · un ∈ Sn. A Rothe pipe dream of u is a tiling of an n × n array of boxes by the six tiles (respectively empty, horizontal pipe, vertical pipe, pivot elbow, cross, and elbow) such that: (i) there are n pipes that begin at the top of the array and end at the righ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. These two reduced Rothe pipe dreams have u = 123 and v = 312. Only the one on the right is a flag positroid pipe dream. In analogy with L-diagrams (Definition 3.19), there is an alternative way to visualize a flag positroid pipe dream FPP(u, v) as a 01-filling of Rothe(u) in which each cross tile corresponds with 0 and each elbow tile corresponds with 1. Pivot elbows are marked by an open circle. (In Proposition 3.2… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two representations of the flag positroid pipe dream FPP(u, v) with u = 5316274 and exit permutation v = 6735142, one as a filling with pipes, the other as a 01-filling. Remark 3.6. Up to a 90◦ rotation, an FPP can be thought of as a generalization of the pipe dream di…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The correspondence between the boxes of the Rothe diagram of u = 5316274 and the set of simple transpositions which encode a reduced expression for u −1w0. Theorem 3.16. Let u, v ∈ Sn. The flag positroid pipe dream FPP(u, v) exists if and only if u ≤ v in Bruhat order.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The forbidden Lpattern in a L-pipe dream. Definition 3.20. A Γ pattern is a set of three tiles (i, j), (i ′ , j), and (i, j′ ) with i < i′ and j < j′ such that (i ′ , j) and (i, j′ ) are elbows (possibly pivot elbows) and (i, j) is a cross, and the pipe that passes hor…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The forbidden Γ pattern in a FPP. 1 2 3 4 4 2 3 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The pipe dream FPP(2413, 4231) is valid; there are no Γ patterns here because pipe 2 exits the diagram in a row above the elbow tile in box (3, 3). Lemma 3.22. Let R be a reduced Rothe pipe dream. Then R is Γ-free if and only if there are no elbow tiles or pivot elbow …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: From left to right: a L-diagram of shape λ = (4, 3), its equivalent L-pipe dream L(t, w) corresponding to the pair of permutations t = 143256 and w = 461235, and the simple transpositions associated to λ. See Exam￾ple 3.26. We now explain how to identify a L-pipe dream…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The flag positroid pipe dream FPP(w0w, w0t) where t = 143256 and w = 461235. Compare to L(t, w) in the center of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The figures on the left and in the center show two representations of a partial flag positroid pipe dream D L (P) ∈ FPP3(9); one as a filling with pipes, the other as a 01-filling. The figure on the right shows the corresponding L-diagram. A consequence of Postnikov’s…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The acyclic directed graph G(D L (P)) of the partial flag positroid pipe dream D L (P) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Two admissible 3-collections of paths on G(D L (P)). See Example 4.23. Given a two-step flag positroid (P, Q) ∈ Fl≥0 (k,k+1);n , each constituent of the flag has a corresponding partial FPP D L (P) and D L (Q). It is then natural to ask, how are these related? An inte…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The rank 3 partial FPP D L (P) from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: An illustration of the standardization operation sti in Definition 4.30. We show that applying sti results in another partial FPP. Proposition 4.31. Let D ∈ FPPk(n) be a partial flag positroid pipe dream with pivot columns ui < ui+1 in increasing order for some 1 ≤ i …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The effect of sti induced on the directed graphs associated to partial flag positroid pipe dreams. Case (ii) of Lemma 4.32 is illustrated here. Note that G′ is not depicted in grid form. Recall from Proposition 4.21 that the bases of a positroid P is B(D L (P)), which…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The top line is an example of the standardization of a partial flag positroid pipe dream. The bottom line shows the induced action of the standardization operators on the corresponding directed graphs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: An illustration of the standardization operation sti on the exit permutation v of a flag positroid pipe dream. The first two rows are the cases j ∗ = ui+1 and j ∗ > ui+1, and the last row is the case when j ∗ does not exist. An immediate consequence of Proposition 4.3…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Following the pipes in D L from the southeast boundary yields the corresponding decorated permutation π = 513927648. 5.2. Elementary positroid quotients via decorated permutations. In this section we translate the characterization of nonnegatively representable elemen…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Two combinatorial characterizations of nonnegatively repre￾sentable elementary positroid quotients, from partial flag positroid pipe dreams to decorated permutations. See Example 5.14. Definition 5.16. Let π be a decorated permutation on [n]. Then π(j) is a left unblo…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The poset of nonnegatively representable elementary positroid quotients (Π3, ⊴q), indexed by their partial flag positroid pipe dreams D L and decorated permutations. This is a subposet of (Π3, ≤q) shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Illustrating that (Πn, ⊴q) is self-dual via taking the inverse of the decorated permutations. See Example 5.23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_22.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [9]

    Polyhedral and tropical geometry of flag positroids

    Jonathan Boretsky, Christopher Eur, and Lauren Williams. “Polyhedral and tropical geometry of flag positroids”. In:Algebra Number Theory18.7 (2024), pp. 1333–1374. issn: 1937-0652

    2024

  2. [1]

    Positively oriented matroids are realizable

    Federico Ardila, Felipe Rinc´ on, and Lauren Williams. “Positively oriented matroids are realizable”. In:J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS)19.3 (2017), pp. 815–833

    2017

  3. [2]

    Positroids and non-crossing partitions

    Federico Ardila, Felipe Rinc´ on, and Lauren Williams. “Positroids and non-crossing partitions”. In:Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.368.1 (2016), pp. 337–363

    2016

  4. [3]

    Quotients of uniform positroids

    Carolina Benedetti, Anastasia Chavez, and Daniel Tamayo Jim´ enez. “Quotients of uniform positroids”. In:Electron. J. Combin.29.1 (2022), Paper No. 1.13, 20

    2022

  5. [4]

    Lattice path matroids and quo- tients

    Carolina Benedetti-Vel´ asquez and Kolja Knauer. “Lattice path matroids and quo- tients”. In:Combinatorica44.3 (2024), pp. 621–650

    2024

  6. [5]

    RC-graphs and Schubert polynomials

    Nantel Bergeron and Sara Billey. “RC-graphs and Schubert polynomials”. In:Experi- ment. Math.2.4 (1993), pp. 257–269

    1993

  7. [6]

    Criteria for smoothness of positroid varieties via pattern avoidance, Johnson graphs, and spirographs

    Sara C. Billey and Jordan E. Weaver. “Criteria for smoothness of positroid varieties via pattern avoidance, Johnson graphs, and spirographs”. In:Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. Ser. B12 (2025). With an appendix by Christian Krattenthaler, pp. 112–164.issn: 2330-0000

    2025

  8. [7]

    Anders Bj¨ orner and Francesco Brenti.Combinatorics of Coxeter groups. Vol. 231. Grad- uate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2005, pp. xiv+363.isbn: 978-3540- 442387; 3-540-44238-3

    2005

Show all 22 references
  1. [8]

    On two notions of total positivity for partial flag varieties

    Anthony M. Bloch and Steven N. Karp. “On two notions of total positivity for partial flag varieties”. In:Adv. Math.414 (2023), Paper No. 108855, 24.issn: 0001-8708,1090- 2082

    2023

  2. [10]

    Charac- terizing positroid quotients of uniform matroids

    Zhixing Chen, Yumou Fei, Jiyang Gao, Yuxuan Sun, and Yuchong Zhang. “Charac- terizing positroid quotients of uniform matroids”. en. In:Algebraic Combinatorics9.2 (2026), pp. 481–498.doi:10.5802/alco.475

    2026 doi

  3. [11]

    Generalized permutahedra and positive flag dressians

    Michael Joswig, Georg Loho, Dante Luber, and Jorge Alberto Olarte. “Generalized permutahedra and positive flag dressians”. In:Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN19 (2023), pp. 16748–16777.issn: 1073-7928,1687-0247

    2023

  4. [12]

    Allen Knutson and Paul Zinn-Justin.Generic pipe dreams, lower-upper varieties, and Schwartz-MacPherson classes. 2024. arXiv:2411.11208 [math.CO].url:https:// arxiv.org/abs/2411.11208

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    The full Kostant-Toda hierarchy on the positive flag variety

    Yuji Kodama and Lauren Williams. “The full Kostant-Toda hierarchy on the positive flag variety”. In:Comm. Math. Phys.335.1 (2015), pp. 247–283.issn: 0010-3616,1432- 0916

    2015

  6. [14]

    Back stable Schubert calculus

    Thomas Lam, Seung Jin Lee, and Mark Shimozono. “Back stable Schubert calculus”. In:Compos. Math.157.5 (2021), pp. 883–962

    2021

  7. [15]

    Laurent Manivel.Symmetric functions, Schubert polynomials and degeneracy loci. Vol. 6. SMF/AMS Texts and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001, pp. viii+167

    2001

  8. [16]

    Suho Oh.Contraction and restriction of positroids in terms of decorated permutations

  9. [17]

    Positroids and Schubert matroids

    Suho Oh. “Positroids and Schubert matroids”. In:J. Combin. Theory Ser. A118.8 (2011), pp. 2426–2435.issn: 0097-3165. REFERENCES 47

    2011

  10. [18]

    The facets of the matroid polytope and the independent set polytope of a positroid

    Suho Oh and David Xiang. “The facets of the matroid polytope and the independent set polytope of a positroid”. In:J. Comb.13.4 (2022), pp. 545–560.issn: 2156-3527

    2022

  11. [19]

    Alexander Postnikov.Total positivity, Grassmannians, and networks. 2006. arXiv:math/ 0609764 [math.CO]

    2006

  12. [20]

    Thesis (Ph.D.)– Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Konstanze Christina Rietsch.Total positivity and real flag varieties. Thesis (Ph.D.)– Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 1998, (no pag- ing)

    1998

  13. [21]

    Quelques propri´ et´ es des matroides orient’es

    Ilda Perez Fernandez da Silva. “Quelques propri´ et´ es des matroides orient’es”. Available athttps : / / webpages . ciencias . ulisboa . pt /~ipsilva / pdf / PhDtese1987 . pdf. PhD thesis. Universit´ e Paris VI, Dec. 1984. (Rizer)Department of Mathematics, University of Kentu...

    1984

  14. [2013]

    arXiv:0804.0882 [math.CO].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0882

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.