Irreducibility of Local Models

Qingchao Yu; Xuhua He

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Irreducibility of Local Models

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Every fiber of a level-changing map between local models is a single Schubert variety, and the irreducible local models are classified by a relative Weyl group double quotient.

desk verdict Genuinely new results on local models; the fiber theorem holds up, but the exceptional-type classification needs a documented computation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16575 v1 pith:ZYUY6OOE submitted 2024-12-21 math.AG

Xuhua He , Qingchao Yu This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AG MSC 11G2520G25

keywords localmodelsSchubertvarietiesadmissiblesetsparahoriclevelstructuresShimuraquantumBruhatgraphorder

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

Local models are flat projective schemes that capture the singularity structure of Shimura varieties and moduli of $G$-shtukas at a chosen prime, and their geometric special fibers are unions of affine Schubert varieties. This paper answers two questions about those fibers. First, it classifies exactly when the geometric special fiber of a local model is irreducible, in terms of a double quotient of the relative Weyl group, and gives an explicit list of the exceptional non-special cases. Second, it proves that every fiber of the level-changing map between local models with different parahoric level structures is isomorphic to a single Schubert variety in a partial flag variety, hence is itself irreducible. The geometric rigidity is reduced to a combinatorial claim about the $\mu$-admissible set: every left coset $wW_K$ intersects the admissible set in a unique Bruhat-maximal element.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $\mu$-admissible set $\mathrm{Adm}(\mu) = \{w \in \widetilde{W} \mid w \leq t_{x(\mu)} \text{ for some } x \in W_0\}$, a finite set in the Iwahori–Weyl group whose Bruhat order controls the closure relations among the Schubert cells making up $A_K(G,\mu)$. The load-bearing mechanism for the fiber theorem is the acute cone $C(a,z)$, defined as the set of alcoves reachable from the base alcove by a gallery that crosses each wall on the side of the deep alcoves in the chamber $z(C^+)$; the acute-cone criterion says that any $w$ whose alcove $w(a)$ lies in $C(a,z)$ satisfies $w \leq t_z(\mu)$. This lets the authors contain an entire left coset $wW_K$ in a single acute cone, so that $wW_K \cap \mathrm{Adm}(\mu)$ becomes the Bruhat interval $\{w' \in wW_K \mid w' \leq t_z(\mu)\}$, which has a unique maximal element by a classical splitting criterion. For the classification of irreducible components, the machinery is the description of the double quotient $W_{\mathrm{pr}(K)}\backslash W_0/W_{I(\mu)}$, together with chamber geometry of the cones $C_K$ and $C^+_K$ used to list all non-special $K$ for which the relative supports stay proper. In the hyperspecial case the paper adds the quantum Bruhat graph and the Demazure product to compute the unique maximal element explicitly.

What would settle it

Searching the finite set $wW_K \cap \mathrm{Adm}(\mu)$ for a pair of incomparable maximal elements in a small non-simply-laced root system such as $C_2$ or $G_2$, where the admissible set can be listed explicitly via the quantum Bruhat graph formula, would settle Proposition 2.2; if such a pair exists, the unique-maximal-element claim, and with it the fiber irreducibility theorem, is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proves two theorems about the varieties $A_K(G,\mu)$ that model the geometric special fibers of local models. Theorem 1.4 establishes a natural bijection between the irreducible components of $A_K(G,\mu)$ and the double quotient $W_{\mathrm{pr}(K)}\backslash W_0/W_{I(\mu)}$, where $\mu$ is the dominant cocharacter, $W_0$ the relative Weyl group, $W_{\mathrm{pr}(K)}$ the image of the parabolic subgroup generated by $K$, and $I(\mu)$ the stabilizer of $\mu$. It further shows, when $G$ is quasi-simple and $\mu$ is non-central, that $A_K(G,\mu)$ is irreducible exactly when either $K$ is maximal special or $W_0 = W_{\mathrm{pr}(K)}W_{\mathrm{short}}$ with $W_{\mathrm{short}}$ stabilizing $\mu$; Proposition 1.5 lists the exceptional cases (certain $K$ in types $B_n$, $C_n$, $F_4$, $G_2$). Theorem 2.1 then shows that for any spherical subsets $K_1 \subseteq K_2$, every fiber of the level-changing map $\pi_{K_1,K_2}: A_{K_1}(G,\mu) \to A_{K_2}(G,\mu)$ is isomorphic to a single Schubert variety in the partial flag variety $\breve{K}_2/\breve{K}_1$, and is therefore irreducible. The fiber statement is reduced to Proposition 2.2, a combinatorial assertion that for every $w \in \mathrm{Adm}(\mu)$ and every spherical $K$, the intersection $wW_K \cap \mathrm{Adm}(\mu)$ has a unique maximal element in Bruhat order. The proof encloses the whole left coset $wW_K$ in one acute cone, applies the acute-cone criterion to bound the intersection by a Bruhat interval, and concludes by a splitting criterion for Bruhat order that such an interval has a unique maximum.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of Proposition 2.2 rests on the acute-cone criterion quoted from [8], namely that any alcove lying in an acute cone $C(a,z)$ corresponds to an element bounded above by $t_z(\mu)$, and this criterion is cited rather than proved in the present paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every level-changing map between parahoric local models has irreducible fibers, so all fibers are connected and equidimensional, and their singularities are exactly the singularities of a single Schubert variety.
The irreducible components of any $A_K(G,\mu)$ are in bijection with $W_{\mathrm{pr}(K)}\backslash W_0/W_{I(\mu)}$, so irreducibility is a purely group-theoretic condition; the classification shows irreducible non-special levels occur only in non-simply-laced types.
In the split regular case, every Schubert variety in the flag variety $\breve{K}_0/\breve{I}$ occurs as a fiber of the map from Iwahori level to hyperspecial level, so fiber geometry can be as singular as arbitrary Schubert varieties.
When $K$ is maximal special, the unique maximal element of $wW_K \cap \mathrm{Adm}(\mu)$ is computable by an efficient algorithm using greedy root decompositions and Demazure products, without evaluating quantum Bruhat weights.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves implicit that the level-changing maps are flat families with known fiber type; one could read off local invariants of each fiber, such as nearby cycles or intersection cohomology, directly from Schubert calculus.
The unique-maximal-element property of $wW_K \cap \mathrm{Adm}(\mu)$ in Proposition 2.2 suggests a hidden convexity of the admissible set; testing whether analogous intersections with other $K$-double cosets satisfy the same property would delimit how far the phenomenon extends.
The classification's reliance on $W_{\mathrm{short}}$ suggests that non-simply-laced root systems are essential for non-special irreducible level structures; a natural next step is to ask whether the analogous list controls smoothness of local models in mixed characteristic.

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

Short version: this is a substantial, honest paper. The two headline theorems are real advances and the proofs hold up under scrutiny. The only genuine problem is a small reproducibility gap in the classification of exceptional cases.

The classification in Theorem 1.4—irreducible components of A_K(G, μ) parameterized by W_pr(K)\W0/W_I(μ)—is clean and useful. The "moreover" criterion for irreducibility, with the explicit table in Proposition 1.5, is exactly what people in this area will use. Theorem 2.1 is the real prize: fibers of level-changing maps are single Schubert varieties, so even when source and target are reducible, the fibers stay irreducible. I checked the reduction to Proposition 2.2; the double-coset argument is valid and the use of [7, Cor 5.6] plus [8, Cor 4.4] is legitimate. The stress-test note is right: no missing hypothesis there. The argument that wW_K ∩ Adm(μ) has a unique maximal element is sound.

The algorithm in Section 3 is a nice extra. It computes max(wW_K ∩ Adm(μ)) in the hyperspecial case using the quantum Bruhat graph and Demazure products, with a proof written down (Theorem 3.7). That part is new as a written proof.

The real caveat is §1.7. The classification for exceptional types F4 and G2 is settled by "brutal force" on an unstated computer program. No code, no data, no description of the algorithm. That means the classification part is not independently verifiable as written. It is a genuine but minor issue: the fiber theorem and Proposition 2.2 don't depend on that computation, and the classical types are done by hand. Still, for a theorem whose conclusion is a complete case table, I'd want the authors to either give a verifiable certificate or a documented script before publication.

The cited acute cone criterion is a published result, so leaning on it is not a flaw. It might be worth asking the authors to reassure readers that the non-transitive action case is covered, but the stress-test confirms it is.

Who is this for? Anyone working on local models, affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties, or admissible sets. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send it out, and ask for an appendix documenting the brute-force check.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the geometric special fibers of local models of Shimura varieties and G-shtuka moduli, encoded as the closed subvarieties A_K(G,\mu) of partial affine flag varieties. The first main result, Theorem 1.4, gives a natural bijection between the irreducible components of A_K(G,\mu) and the double quotient W_{pr(K)}\setminus W_0 / W_{I(\mu)}, together with an explicit irreducibility criterion for quasi-simple G in terms of W_{pr(K)}, W_0, and the short-root subgroup W_short. The second main result, Theorem 2.1, asserts that for any spherical subsets K_1\subseteq K_2, every fiber of the level-changing map \pi: A_{K_1}(G,\mu)\to A_{K_2}(G,\mu) is isomorphic to a single Schubert variety in the partial flag variety \breve{K}_2/\breve{K}_1, hence irreducible. The proof is reduced to Proposition 2.2, a combinatorial statement about unique maximal elements in wW_K\cap \operatorname{Adm}(\mu), which is proved using the acute-cone criterion of Haines--He and a geometric description of the admissible set. Section 3 gives an explicit algorithm, based on the quantum Bruhat graph and Demazure products, for computing the maximal element in the hyperspecial case, with several applications and corollaries.

Significance. Theorem 2.1 is a striking and surprising result: although A_K(G,\mu) is usually reducible, the fibers of the level-changing map are always irreducible Schubert varieties. The parametrization of irreducible components in Theorem 1.4 is clean and potentially useful for applications to local models and affine Deligne--Lusztig varieties. The paper is largely self-contained after standard external inputs, and the proof of Theorem 2.1 is coherent and carefully structured. Section 3 provides a concrete algorithmic tool that is likely to be of independent interest. The main weakness is that the classification of exceptional types F_4 and G_2 in §1.7 is not documented: it relies on an unstated 'computer program' with no code, input, or output, which affects the full strength of the irreducibility classification in Theorem 1.4 and Proposition 1.5.

major comments (2)

[§1.7] The classification table for exceptional types is not reproducible: the sentence 'For exceptional types, we use the computer program to compute the set supp(pr(K)W0) by brutal force' gives no description of the computation, no pseudocode, no input data, and no output. Since the 'moreover' part of Theorem 1.4 and Proposition 1.5 explicitly rely on this classification for types F_4 and G_2, this is a load-bearing step. The authors should supply either a human-checkable case-by-case proof, or a complete reproducible computation (code and output) covering all spherical subsets K of the affine Dynkin diagrams of types F_4 and G_2.
[§2.2, Theorem 2.1] The proof of Theorem 2.1 establishes, by the displayed cell decompositions in (2.1) and (2.2), that the underlying set of the fiber \pi^{-1}(m) is a union of Schubert cells corresponding to the set {x\in W_{K_2}: wx\in \operatorname{Adm}(\mu)}. Proposition 2.2 then shows that this indexing set has a unique maximal element, so the fiber is set-theoretically a single Schubert variety. However, the theorem states that the fiber is 'isomorphic' to a Schubert variety, which is a scheme-theoretic assertion. The argument does not address whether the scheme-theoretic fiber has nilpotents or embedded components; the displayed equalities are set-theoretic except for the final identification, which is written as an isomorphism. The authors should clarify whether the isomorphism is meant at the level of reduced varieties, and if so, justify that the scheme-theoretic fiber coincides with the reduced Schubert variety, or add the missing reducedness argument.

minor comments (4)

[§1.7] There is a typo: 'brutal force' should be 'brute force'.
[§3, Corollary 3.4] In the proof of Corollary 3.4, the phrase 'left-right symmetry (3.2)' is inaccurate: the left-right symmetry is displayed in (3.1), while (3.2) is the triangle inequality for the weight function.
[§3.3, Theorem 3.7] The algorithm defining z_\gamma does not handle the case \gamma=0. Since the set {x\in W_0: \operatorname{wt}(x,1)\leq 0} is {1}, the definition should be initialized with z_0=1, and the induction should treat \gamma=0 as the base case or exclude it explicitly.
[§0.1 and §1.1] The introduction states k=\mathbb{F}_q, while §1.1 sets k to be an algebraically closed field. The relationship between the finite field of the original local model and the algebraically closed base field used for geometric fibers should be stated consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims reduce to external published theorems, not to their own definitions.

full rationale

The paper's main new results are not defined into existence. Theorem 2.1 asserts that every fiber of the level-changing map is a single Schubert variety. The proof reduces via equation (2.2) to Proposition 2.2, the statement that wW_K ∩ Adm(μ) contains a unique maximal element. Proposition 2.2 is proved in §2.4 from two external inputs: [7, Cor. 5.6] (every alcove lies in some acute cone) and [8, Cor. 4.4] (if w(a) ∈ C(a,z), then w ≤ t_z(μ)), together with Deodhar's [2, Thm. 2.2] on Bruhat ideals in Coxeter groups. These are published results with hypotheses matching the present setup; they are not restatements of Proposition 2.2 or Theorem 2.1. In particular, [8, Cor. 4.4] is a criterion relating acute cones to the Bruhat order, not a uniqueness or maximality assertion, so the unique-maximal-element conclusion is genuinely derived rather than assumed. Theorem 1.4 similarly uses Theorem 1.1 and Proposition 1.2 from [11] and [13]; those prior results describe the admissible set and its maximal elements and are used to transfer double-coset data to irreducible components, not to define the classification. Self-citations do occur ([8], [11], [13], [14]), but they are load-bearing only as external theorems; they are parameter-free and do not include the target statements, so under the stated rules they do not constitute circularity. Remark 2.3 additionally gives independent corroboration of Proposition 2.2 via [22, Theorem 4.2] and [21, Lemma 2.13]. The only potentially weak passage, the brute-force computation for F4 and G2 in §1.7, is a reproducibility issue, not a circularity issue, and it is not needed for Theorem 2.1. Overall, no step in the derivation chain is equivalent by construction to its own input.

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

Pure mathematics proof with no fitted parameters or invented entities. The central arguments rely on prior results in the theory of reductive groups and local models, several from the authors' own work. The most load-bearing cited input is the acute cone criterion [8, Corollary 4.4] and the description of the admissible set from [14] and [22].

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Geometric special fibers of local models of Shimura varieties and G-Shtukas are isomorphic to A_K(G, μ).
Used throughout as the bridge from local models to the combinatorial varieties A_K(G, μ) (Introduction §0.1; from [4], [17], [24]).
standard math Over L = k((t)) with k algebraically closed, G is quasi-split and T is a maximal torus after taking the centralizer of a maximal split torus.
Invoked in §1.1 to set up the relative Weyl group and Iwahori-Weyl group via Steinberg's theorem.
domain assumption Acute cone criterion: if w(a) ∈ C(a,z) then w ≤ t_z(μ).
Key input for Proposition 2.2 in §2.4, from Haines-He [8, Corollary 4.4], not proved in this paper.
domain assumption Every alcove lies in some acute cone.
Used in §2.4 to produce a z such that the maximal element of wW_K lies in C(a,z); from [7, Corollary 5.6].
standard math Deodhar's theorem: the set {w' ∈ wW_K | w' ≤ t_z(μ)} contains a unique maximal element.
Used at the end of §2.4 to conclude Proposition 2.2; from [2, Theorem 2.2].
domain assumption Description of Adm(μ) ∩ W_0 t_λ W_0 via the quantum Bruhat graph.
Used in §3.1 to reduce the computation of max{x ∈ W_0 | xw ∈ Adm(μ)} to a weight-function inequality; from [14, Proposition 3.3] and [22, Proposition 4.12].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Irreducibility of Local Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZYUY6OOE

@misc{pith2026241216575,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Irreducibility of Local Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZYUY6OOE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16575}
}

abstract

In this paper, we consider the geometric special fibers of local models of Shimura varieties and of moduli of $\bG$-Shtukas with parahoric level structure. We investigate two problems with respect to the irreducibility of local models. First, we classify the cases where the local models are irreducible. Next, we show that the fibers of the level-changing map between the geometric special fiber of local models with different parahoric levels are always isomorphic to single (i.e., irreducible) Schubert varieties in the partial flag variety.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

Curve neighborhoods of Schuber t varieties

A. S. Buch and L. C. Mihalcea. “Curve neighborhoods of Schuber t varieties”. In: J. Diﬀerential Geom. 99.2 (2015), pp. 255–283

work page 2015
[2]

A splitting criterion for the Bruhat orderings on Coxeter groups

V. V. Deodhar. “A splitting criterion for the Bruhat orderings on Coxeter groups”. In: Comm. Algebra 15.9 (1987), pp. 1889–1894

work page 1987
[3]

Hecke algebras and shellings of Bruhat intervals

M. J. Dyer. “Hecke algebras and shellings of Bruhat intervals”. I n: Compositio Math. 89.1 (1993), pp. 91–115

work page 1993
[4]

Singularities of local models

N. Fakhruddin, T. Haines, J. Louren¸ co, and T. Richarz. Singularities of local models. 2022. arXiv: 2208.12072 [math.RT]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[5]

Aﬃn e Deligne- Lusztig varieties in aﬃne ﬂag varieties

U. G¨ ortz, T. J. Haines, R. E. Kottwitz, and D. C. Reuman. “Aﬃn e Deligne- Lusztig varieties in aﬃne ﬂag varieties”. In: Compos. Math. 146.5 (2010), pp. 1339–1382

work page 2010
[6]

Appendix: On parahoric subgroups

T. Haines and M. Rapoport. “Appendix: On parahoric subgroups ”. In: Ad- vances in Mathematics 219.1 (2008), pp. 188–198

work page 2008
[7]

Alcoves associated to special ﬁbe rs of local models

T. J. Haines and N. B. Chˆ au. “Alcoves associated to special ﬁbe rs of local models”. In: Amer. J. Math. 124.6 (2002), pp. 1125–1152

work page 2002
[8]

Vertexwise criteria for admissibility of alco ves

T. J. Haines and X. He. “Vertexwise criteria for admissibility of alco ves”. In: Amer. J. Math. 139.3 (2017), pp. 769–784

work page 2017

Show all 24 references

[9]

A subalgebra of 0-Hecke algebra

X. He. “A subalgebra of 0-Hecke algebra”. In: J. Algebra 322.11 (2009), pp. 4030–4039

2009
[10]

Geometric and homological properties of aﬃne Deligne-L usztig vari- eties

X. He. “Geometric and homological properties of aﬃne Deligne-L usztig vari- eties”. In: Ann. of Math. (2) 179.1 (2014), pp. 367–404

2014
[11]

Kottwitz-Rapoport conjecture on unions of aﬃne Delig ne-Lusztig varieties

X. He. “Kottwitz-Rapoport conjecture on unions of aﬃne Delig ne-Lusztig varieties”. In: Ann. Sci. ´Ec. Norm. Sup´ er. (4) 49.5 (2016), pp. 1125–1141

2016
[12]

Projected Richardson varieties and aﬃne Sc hubert vari- eties

X. He and T. Lam. “Projected Richardson varieties and aﬃne Sc hubert vari- eties”. In: Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 65.6 (2015), pp. 2385–2412

2015
[13]

On the µ-ordinary locus of a Shimura variety

X. He and S. Nie. “On the µ-ordinary locus of a Shimura variety”. In: Adv. Math. 321 (2017), pp. 513–528

2017
[14]

Dimension formula for the aﬃne Deligne-Lusztig variety X(µ, b)

X. He and Q. Yu. “Dimension formula for the aﬃne Deligne-Lusztig variety X(µ, b)”. In: Math. Ann. 379.3-4 (2021), pp. 1747–1765. REFERENCES 19

2021
[15]

A uniform model for Kirillov-Reshetikhin crysta ls I: Lifting the parabolic quantum Bruhat graph

C. Lenart et al. “A uniform model for Kirillov-Reshetikhin crysta ls I: Lifting the parabolic quantum Bruhat graph”. In: Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 7 (2015), pp. 1848–1901

2015
[16]

Generic Newton points and the Newton poset in Iwahori-double cosets

E. Mili´ cevi´ c and E. Viehmann. “Generic Newton points and the Newton poset in Iwahori-double cosets”. In: Forum Math. Sigma 8 (2020), Paper No. e50, 18

2020
[17]

Local models of Shimura varieties and a c onjecture of Kottwitz

G. Pappas and X. Zhu. “Local models of Shimura varieties and a c onjecture of Kottwitz”. In: Invent. Math. 194.1 (2013), pp. 147–254

2013
[18]

Quantum Bruhat graph and Schubert polynomia ls

A. Postnikov. “Quantum Bruhat graph and Schubert polynomia ls”. In: Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 133.3 (2005), pp. 699–709

2005
[19]

Period spaces for p-divisible groups

M. Rapoport and T. Zink. “Period spaces for p-divisible groups” . In: Annals of Mathematics Studies 141 (1996)

1996
[20]

Aﬃne Deligne-Lusztig varieties and quantum Br uhat graph

A. Sadhukhan. “Aﬃne Deligne-Lusztig varieties and quantum Br uhat graph”. In: Math. Z. 303.1 (2023), Paper No. 21, 34

2023
[21]

Schremmer

F. Schremmer. Generic Newton points and cordial elements . 2022. arXiv: 2205.02039 [math.RT]

2022 arXiv
[22]

Aﬃne Bruhat order and Demazure products

F. Schremmer. “Aﬃne Bruhat order and Demazure products” . In: Forum Math. Sigma 12 (2024), Paper No. e53, 56

2024
[23]

Reductive groups over local ﬁelds

J. Tits. “Reductive groups over local ﬁelds”. In: Automorphic forms, repre- sentations and L-functions (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Ore., 1977), Part 1 . Vol. XXXIII. Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1979, pp. 29–69

1977
[24]

Aﬃne Grassmannians and the geometric Satake in mixed charac- teristic

X. Zhu. “Aﬃne Grassmannians and the geometric Satake in mixed charac- teristic”. In: Ann. of Math. (2) 185.2 (2017), pp. 403–492. Department of Mathematics and New Cornerstone Science Labor atory, The Univer- sity of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China Email a...

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Curve neighborhoods of Schuber t varieties

A. S. Buch and L. C. Mihalcea. “Curve neighborhoods of Schuber t varieties”. In: J. Diﬀerential Geom. 99.2 (2015), pp. 255–283

work page 2015

[2] [2]

A splitting criterion for the Bruhat orderings on Coxeter groups

V. V. Deodhar. “A splitting criterion for the Bruhat orderings on Coxeter groups”. In: Comm. Algebra 15.9 (1987), pp. 1889–1894

work page 1987

[3] [3]

Hecke algebras and shellings of Bruhat intervals

M. J. Dyer. “Hecke algebras and shellings of Bruhat intervals”. I n: Compositio Math. 89.1 (1993), pp. 91–115

work page 1993

[4] [4]

Singularities of local models

N. Fakhruddin, T. Haines, J. Louren¸ co, and T. Richarz. Singularities of local models. 2022. arXiv: 2208.12072 [math.RT]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[5] [5]

Aﬃn e Deligne- Lusztig varieties in aﬃne ﬂag varieties

U. G¨ ortz, T. J. Haines, R. E. Kottwitz, and D. C. Reuman. “Aﬃn e Deligne- Lusztig varieties in aﬃne ﬂag varieties”. In: Compos. Math. 146.5 (2010), pp. 1339–1382

work page 2010

[6] [6]

Appendix: On parahoric subgroups

T. Haines and M. Rapoport. “Appendix: On parahoric subgroups ”. In: Ad- vances in Mathematics 219.1 (2008), pp. 188–198

work page 2008

[7] [7]

Alcoves associated to special ﬁbe rs of local models

T. J. Haines and N. B. Chˆ au. “Alcoves associated to special ﬁbe rs of local models”. In: Amer. J. Math. 124.6 (2002), pp. 1125–1152

work page 2002

[8] [8]

Vertexwise criteria for admissibility of alco ves

T. J. Haines and X. He. “Vertexwise criteria for admissibility of alco ves”. In: Amer. J. Math. 139.3 (2017), pp. 769–784

work page 2017