Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Classification of Zamolodchikov periodic cluster algebras

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that Zamolodchikov periodic cluster algebras are in natural bijection with pairs of commuting finite-type Cartan matrices, with period dividing the sum of the Coxeter numbers, and completes the classification of all such pa

desk verdict A likely-correct completion of the GP19 classification to all finite-type Cartan matrices; the central bijection is sound, but the proof of Proposition 3.22 needs more detail before the paper is fully trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.18031 v3 pith:EVFBZMCW submitted 2025-10-20 math.CO math.RT

Ariana Chin This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.COmath.RT MSC 13F6005E9922E46
keywords clusteralgebrasZamolodchikovperiodicityT-systemscommutingCartanmatricesDynkinbiagramsfoldingtransposeW-graphs
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

Zamolodchikov periodicity is the property that an alternating sequence of cluster mutations eventually cycles rather than producing infinitely many new cluster variables. This paper's central claim is that the cluster algebras with this property are exactly those associated to pairs of commuting Cartan matrices of finite type, and that the period divides the sum of the two Coxeter numbers. On top of the previously classified simply-laced cases, the paper adds 29 infinite families and 14 exceptional types, covering all non-simply-laced examples. The backbone of the proof is a five-way equivalence showing that periodicity, admissibility of the associated Dynkin biagram, and existence of strictly subadditive or fixed-point labelings all say the same thing. The upshot is a complete classification: every periodic system arises from the classical ADE cases by folding and transposing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the admissible Dynkin biagram: a pair (Γ,Δ) of Coxeter adjacency matrices of Dynkin diagrams sharing a bipartite vertex set, with no common edges, whose Cartan matrices commute. A biagram is admissible exactly when the number of red-blue paths equals the number of blue-red paths between every pair of vertices. The proof's engine is Theorem 4.1's five-way equivalence, which chains admissibility through strictly subadditive labelings, fixed-point labelings, tropical T-system periodicity for all initial labels, and actual T-system periodicity. Two operations carry the classification: folding along a bicolored automorphism (which commutes with the relevant mutations) and gl

What would settle it

Take one of the newly classified non-simply-laced admissible biagrams, such as the exceptional B4 ⊠ C4, and run its tropical T-system with a generic initial labeling; if it does not repeat with period dividing 16, the period part of Theorem 1.1 is false. Alternatively, enumerate all pairs of commuting finite-type Cartan matrices up to moderate rank and look for one absent from Theorem 3.6.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 1.1 states that the Zamolodchikov periodic B-matrices are in natural bijection with pairs (Γ,Δ) of commuting Cartan matrices of finite type, with period dividing hΓ+hΔ. Theorem 4.1 makes this concrete: for a bipartite recurrent B-matrix, the T-system is periodic if and only if the unsigned parts Γ and Δ form an admissible Dynkin biagram — that is, each is a disjoint union of finite-type Dynkin diagram adjacency matrices, and the two matrices commute. The classification lists all such pairs: 29 infinite families and 14 exceptional types beyond the 6 infinite families and 11 exceptional types already known in the simply-laced case. The non-simply-laced members are not new primitive phe

Load-bearing premise

The proof relies on the earlier result that every admissible ADE bigraph has a periodic tropical T-system for every initial labeling, and on the claim that every non-simply-laced admissible biagram is reachable from an ADE bigraph by folds and transposes; if either assumption fails for a family, the bijection would not cover that family.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Periods are controlled: for every periodic B-matrix, the period divides hΓ+hΔ, reducing period computations to Coxeter-number arithmetic.
  • The classification is complete: any future Zamolodchikov periodic example must appear among the enumerated families or their duals.
  • Non-simply-laced periodic systems are all folds and transposes of ADE ones, so periodicity for the entire class follows from the simply-laced base case.
  • The same admissible Dynkin biagrams classify nonnegative W-cells for I2(p)×I2(q), linking cluster periodicity to Kazhdan–Lusztig theory.
  • The fixed-point and strictly-subadditive-labeling characterizations give a concrete certificate that a given B-matrix is Zamolodchikov periodic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because transposition preserves periodicity without commuting with mutation, the periodic class likely carries a Langlands-dual symmetry; one could test whether periods and exchange graphs are transpose-invariant family by family.
  • The tropical chamber structure hinted at for tensor products with A1 suggests the space of initial labelings may be a fan whose chambers correspond to clusters; proving this would give a new geometric model for the cluster complex.
  • The folding argument suggests a practical way to compute exact periods: fold a periodic ADE T-system along orbit symmetries and track how the period divides, yielding explicit formulas instead of just the divisor bound.
  • The W-graph reformulation points beyond dihedral pairs: the same 29+14 list may classify nonnegative cells for other products of finite Coxeter groups.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proves a complete classification of Zamolodchikov periodic cluster algebras, formulated as bipartite recurrent B-matrices whose associated T-systems are periodic. The main theorem (Theorem 1.1) asserts that such B-matrices are in natural bijection with pairs of commuting finite-type Cartan matrices (Γ,Δ), and that the period divides h_Γ+h_Δ. The proof is structured as a five-way equivalence (Theorem 4.1): admissible Dynkin biagram ⇔ strictly subadditive labeling ⇔ fixed point labeling ⇔ tropical T-system periodic for all initial labels ⇔ T-system periodic. The non-ADE cases are obtained from ADE bigraphs by folding and transpose operations, extending Stembridge's classification of commuting simply-laced Cartan matrices and Galashin–Pylyavskyy's classification of Zamolodchikov periodic quivers. The paper also gives connections to W-graphs and Kazhdan–Lusztig theory, and states two conjectures supported by SageMath computations.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, it resolves a natural and substantial open problem: it gives the first complete classification of Zamolodchikov periodic cluster algebras beyond the simply-laced case, and it provides a full list of pairs of commuting finite-type Cartan matrices, which is of independent interest in Lie theory and Coxeter combinatorics. The strategy of deriving all non-ADE examples from ADE bigraphs via folding and transpose is elegant and conceptually important, especially the observation that transpose preserves Zamolodchikov periodicity despite not commuting with cluster mutation. The connection to admissible W-graphs and the explicit classification into 29 infinite families and 14 exceptional types (beyond Stembridge's 6+11) gives the paper substantial scope. The proofs rely on external deep results (Keller, Galashin–Pylyavskyy, Stembridge, Vinberg, Perron–Frobenius) rather than fitting parameters, and Conjectures 6.1 and 6.3 are concrete and falsifiable. The paper is likely to become a reference for this area if the gaps identified below are resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.5, Proposition 3.22] This proposition is the only bridge from the ADE tropical-periodicity theorem of [GP19] to all non-ADE admissible Dynkin biagrams, and its proof is not complete. The inverse construction in step (2)(ii) simply sets B_{k-1}=(Λ'_1)^n * (Λ'_2)^m componentwise, but does not verify that the resulting biagram is an admissible ADE bigraph, that the intermediate objects remain valid Dynkin biagrams (bipartite, no shared edges, all components ADE), or that the fold/transpose sequence reverses correctly when the original fold identifies vertices across a binding. The example of E_6*E_6 → F_4*_1 E_6 (used for the (F_4 E_6^{m-1}) families) is particularly delicate because the fold identifies vertices in the base binding, and lifting it to a path of parallel copies requires checking compatibility with the parallel edges. Similar issues occur for D_5⊠A_7 → B_4⊠C_4 and for the B_n*C_n families. Since C
  2. [§3.3, Lemma 3.18 (proof)] The contradiction argument has a gap. It assumes a vertex k adjacent in Δ to j, and then compares the number of red-blue paths from i to k with the number of blue-red paths from i to k. The proof states that 'the number of blue-red paths i→k will be the same as the number of red-blue paths k→i, as these paths are all made up of simple edges' and then asserts 'Admissibility gives (Γ∆)_{ik}=(∆Γ)_{ik}=(Γ∆)_{ki}=(∆Γ)_{ki}'. The second equality is not justified for non-symmetric Coxeter adjacency matrices; it depends on symmetry of the simple-edge submatrices, which must be stated explicitly. Also, the existence of the Δ-neighbor k and the possibility that the nonsimple edge is incident to a vertex with no Δ-neighbor are not discussed. Since Lemma 3.18 is used to eliminate several candidate double bindings in the proof of Theorem 3.10, the argument needs to be made rigorous or replaced by a d
  3. [§3.4, Proposition 3.5] Proposition 3.5 is cited from [Ste10], but [Ste10] proves the statement for ADE bigraphs, where the adjacency matrices are symmetric. Here it is applied to arbitrary Dynkin biagrams with non-symmetric Coxeter adjacency matrices, and it is used to conclude that every family listed in Theorem 3.6 is admissible. The generalization is not entirely formal: if a biagram is glued from admissible bindings, one must verify that the block matrices Γ and Δ commute when the component graph is a tree or path. This can likely be proved by the same argument as in [Ste10], but the paper should either provide the proof or explicitly state that the proof carries over verbatim. As written, the admissibility of all listed families depends on an unproved generalization.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.3, Example 2.6] In the paragraph after Table 1, 'for all k∈[6]' should be 'for all k∈[5]', since the matrix is 5×5.
  2. [§2.3, Example 2.6] The table heading says 'for B_3 ▷ ◁1 G2' but the dynamic is of a 5-vertex biagram; it would be helpful to clarify the correspondence between the columns and the vertices, especially since some entries appear only every other row.
  3. [§3.3, Proposition 3.13(v)] The formula for the dominant eigenvector of E_n is hard to parse; as written it appears to list fewer than n entries for E_6. Please rewrite with explicit indexing, since this vector is used in Table 3 and in the double-binding case analysis.
  4. [§4.3, Lemma 4.3] The last line of the proof contains 'deg max(η_j)' which seems to be a typo for 'deg max(i,T_j(η_j))'.
  5. [§4.4, Proposition 4.18 and Proposition 4.17] These proofs are said to be identical to [GP19] with matrix notation. Given their importance in the 5-way equivalence, it would be helpful to include at least a detailed statement of the modifications needed in the non-symmetric, skew-symmetrizable setting, so that the reader does not have to reconstruct the argument from [GP19].
  6. [§6, Conjecture 6.3] The statement 'Let n≥2. Let Λ∈{A_{2n}, B_{2n}, C_{2n}, E_n, F_4, G_2}' is inconsistent: E_n is not defined for arbitrary n≥2. Presumably E_6,E_7,E_8 are intended, and the parameter n should be renamed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation uses external ADE results and proves preservation lemmas; no step reduces the theorem to its own input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 1.1, is established through Theorem 4.1, a five-way equivalence. The forward direction for periodicity proceeds from admissibility to tropical periodicity by reducing every admissible Dynkin biagram to an ADE bigraph via folding and transpose (Proposition 3.22), then importing the ADE tropical periodicity theorem from [GP19] as an external base case and proving that folding and transpose preserve tropical periodicity (Propositions 4.7 and 4.12). The converse uses a self-contained subadditivity argument (Proposition 4.18) and Vinberg's characterization of finite type Cartan matrices. No parameter is fitted and later presented as a prediction; no quantity is defined in terms of the quantity being predicted; there are no load-bearing self-citations (the author does not cite herself). Proposition 3.22's inverse-fold construction is terse and its completeness for all families is a possible verification concern, but that is a correctness risk, not circularity: the proof does not assume the periodicity theorem or the bijection. The classification of commuting Cartan matrices in Section 3 is independent of the periodicity argument, and the period bound h_Gamma + h_Delta is inherited from the external ADE result rather than manufactured from the conclusion.

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

The paper introduces no fitted constants and no new postulated entities; the only new object is the formal definition of a Dynkin biagram, a generalization of Stembridge's ADE bigraph. The load-bearing inputs from outside the paper are standard theorems (Vinberg, Perron-Frobenius, Brouwer) and the prior classifications/results of Stembridge [Ste10] and Galashin–Pylyavskyy [GP19]. The 'period dividing h_Γ+h_Δ' is inherited from GP19 for the ADE base case and preserved by the operations.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Vinberg's theorem: a Cartan matrix is finite type iff there exists a positive vector α with Aα positive.
    Invoked as Theorem 4.15 in Prop 4.16 to conclude components are Dynkin from a strictly subadditive labeling; also used in Theorem 5.5.
  • standard math Perron–Frobenius theorem: irreducible nonnegative matrices have a unique positive dominant eigenvector.
    Used in Lemma 3.14 to produce a common dominant eigenvector for Γ and Δ in an admissible connected biagram, and in Theorem 5.5.
  • standard math Brouwer fixed point theorem.
    Used in Prop 4.17 to show a strictly subadditive labeling yields a fixed point labeling via the map Z on a compact interval.
  • domain assumption GP19 theorem: admissible ADE bigraphs are exactly the Zamolodchikov periodic quivers, and their tropical T-systems are periodic for all λ with period dividing h_Γ+h_Δ.
    Load-bearing base case in Cor 4.13; the paper extends to non-ADE via folding/transpose but does not re-prove the ADE case.
  • domain assumption Stembridge's complete classification of admissible ADE bigraphs (6 infinite families, 11 exceptional types) and component-graph lemmas (e.g., [Ste10, Lemma 2.5]).
    Theorem 3.6 assumes this classification for the all-ADE case and uses the component-graph lemmas in the proof of part (ii); the new classification is an extension of Stembridge's list.
  • domain assumption Cluster mutation theory: the T-system equations coincide with cluster exchange relations and Newton-positivity is preserved under mutation.
    Used in Section 4.3 to connect birational and tropical T-systems (Lemma 4.2, Prop 4.4). Standard background in cluster algebra theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Classification of Zamolodchikov periodic cluster algebras." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EVFBZMCW

@misc{pith2026251018031,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Classification of Zamolodchikov periodic cluster algebras},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EVFBZMCW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.18031}
}
abstract

Zamolodchikov periodicity is a property of certain discrete dynamical systems and was one of the primary motivations for the creation of cluster algebras. It was first observed by Zamolodchikov in his study of thermodynamic Bethe ansatz, initially for simply-laced Dynkin diagrams. It was proved by Keller to hold for tensor products of two Dynkin diagrams, and further shown by Galashin and Pylyavskyy to hold for pairs of commuting simply-laced Cartan matrices of finite type, which Stembridge classified in his study of admissible $W$-cells. We prove that the Zamolodchikov periodic cluster algebras are in bijection with pairs of commuting (not necessarily reduced or simply-laced) Cartan matrices of finite type. We fully classify all such pairs into 29 infinite families and 14 exceptional types in addition to the 6 infinite families and 11 exceptional types in Stembridge's classification, and show that all of these families can be derived from simply-laced types through two operations preserving Zamolodchikov periodicity, folding and taking transpose. Our work holds connections to Kazhdan--Lusztig theory, and our main theorem helps classify all nonnegative $W$-cells for products of two dihedral groups, $W = I_2(p)\times I_2(q)$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.18031 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A nonadmissible ADE bigraph (left) and an admissible ADE bigraph (right). The vertices v1 and v2 form a nonadmissible pair. Coxeter adjacency matrix of G. If B is a skew-symmetric matrix such that the element-wise absolute value |B| is the associated Coxeter adjacency matrix AG, we call B a signed Coxeter adjacency matrix of G. Remark 2.7. One can also visualize admissibility of an ADE bigraph. An ADE bigraph is adm… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The tensor product D4 ⊗ A4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The twist D4 × D4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The binding E6 ∗ E6. v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The binding A7 ∗ D5. Twists. Twists are denoted Λ × Λ, and consist of two red copies of Λ connected to each other with blue edges. The red and blue Coxeter adjacency matrices are of the form Γ =  AΛ 0 0 AΛ  , ∆ =  0 AΛ AΛ 0  , where AΛ is the Coxeter adjacency matr…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A nonadmissible Dynkin biagram (left) and an admissible Dynkin biagram (right). The vertices v1 and v2 form a nonadmissible pair. Given a Dynkin biagram (Γ, ∆) on n vertices with bipartition ϵ : [n] → {◦, •}, there is an associated bipartite B-matrix B = Γ +˜ ∆ defined…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The folding of exceptional type D5 ⊠ A7 to B4 ⊠ C4. The vertices vi and v ′ i form the f-orbit v ′′ i for each i ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4}. This folds D5 to B4 and A7 to C4. In addition, with a valid bicolored automorphism that folds Dynkin diagram Γ to Dynkin diagram Λ, one can …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: All bindings obtained by folding twists are depicted in Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A sequence of folds from D4 × D4 to B3 ⋉ D4 to B3 ▷◁1 G2. The vertices v1, v2 and u1, u2, u3 indicate the nontrivial orbits in each bicolored automorphism [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The double bindings B3 ⋉ D4 and C3 ⋉ D4. B3 ▷◁1 G2 B3 ▷◁2 G2 C3 ▷◁1 G2 C3 ▷◁2 G2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The double bindings B3 ▷◁1,2 G2 and C3 ▷◁1,2 G2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The double bindings G2 ⋉1 D4 and G2 ⋉2 D4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The bindings B3 ∗ D4 and C3 ∗ D4. Now, we are able to describe the classification of admissible non-ADE Dynkin biagrams in terms of the bindings defined above [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The bindings A7 ∗ B4 and A7 ∗ C4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The bindings E6 ∗1 F4 and E6 ∗2 F4. Theorem 3.6. The connected, admissible non-ADE Dynkin biagrams are: (a) tensor products Γ ⊗ ∆ for Γ or ∆ non-ADE, twists Γ × Γ for Γ non-ADE, and the double bindings Bn⋉Dn+1, Cn⋉Dn+1, Bn ▷◁ Cn, G2⋉1,2D4, B3 ▷◁1,2 G2, C3 ▷◁1,2 G2, an…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The only possible pairing of vertices for the case {B9(C9), E7}. The vertices v1, v2 form a nonadmissible pair. Case 2: {B4(C4), A7} Below is the matrix of color sets for both the left and right eigenvectors:  {1, 2.414} {1, 1, 2.414, 2.414} {1, 1.414} {1, 1, 1.414} …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The potential vertex pairings when Γ1 ∼= B4, Γ2 ∼= C4, and ∆1, ∆2 ∼= B4 (left) or ∆1, ∆2 ∼= C4 (right). The vertices v1, v2 and u1, u2 form nonadmissible pairs. see this is true, consider the color sets of Cn and Bn from Proposition 3.13,  {v1, . . . , vk(vk/2)} {v1,…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The potential pairing of vertices for Γ1 ∼= B4, Γ2 ∼= D5, ∆1 ∼= C4, ∆2 ∼= D5. The vertices v1, v2 form a nonadmissible pair. set, this forces the same pairing above, resulting in the admissible Dynkin biagram Bn ▷◁ Cn, depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: A pairing of vertices for Γ1 ∼= Γ2 ∼= B4 and ∆1 ∼= ∆2 ∼= C4. The vertices v1, v2 form a nonadmissible pair. Case 4: {G2, D4} The following are the color sets for both left and right eigenvectors:  {1} {1, 1, 1} {1} {1}  . This cardinality of color sets is unique to …
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: A strictly subadditive labeling for D4 ⊗ A2. 2 √ 2 4 2 √ 2 2 √ 2 4 2 √ 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: A fixed point labeling for A3 × A2. (1) Let Bℓ be the Dynkin biagram Γn 1 ∗ Γ m 2 . Set k = ℓ. (2) Given Bk = Λn 1 ∗ Λ m 2 , (i) if γk is a global flip, let Bk−1 = (Bk) ⊤. (ii) if γk is a folding from Λ′ 1 ∗ Λ ′ 2 to Λ1 ∗ Λ2, then let Bk−1 = (Λ′ 1 ) n ∗ (Λ′ 2 ) m. (3)…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: The plan for the proof of Theorem 4.1. Theorem 4.1. Let B = Γ +˜ ∆˜ be a bipartite recurrent B-matrix. The following are equiva￾lent: (1) (Γ, ∆) is an admissible Dynkin biagram. (2) B has a strictly subadditive labeling. (3) B has a fixed point labeling. (4) The tropi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Half-periodicity of Zamolodchikov periodic cluster algebras

    math.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For every Zamolodchikov periodic cluster algebra, the T-system at half the period is a permutation of order at most two of the initial cluster variables.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Damianou

    Pantelis A. Damianou. A beautiful sine formula. The American Mathematical Monthly , 121:120--135, 2015

    2015

  2. [2]

    Introduction to cluster algebras

    Sergey Fomin, Lauren Williams, and Andrei Zelevinsky. Introduction to cluster algebras. C hapters 4-5. arXiv:1707.07190 , 2017

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Cluster algebras I : F oundations

    Sergey Fomin and Andrei Zelevinsky. Cluster algebras I : F oundations. Journal of the American Mathematical Society , 15(2):497--529, 2002

    2002

  4. [4]

    Cluster algebras II : F inite type classification

    Sergey Fomin and Andrei Zelevinsky. Cluster algebras II : F inite type classification. Invent. math. , 154:63--121, 2003

    2003

  5. [5]

    Y -systems and generalized associahedra

    Sergey Fomin and Andrei Zelevinsky. Y -systems and generalized associahedra. Annals of Mathematics , 158(3):977--1018, 2003

    2003

  6. [6]

    The classification of Z amolodchikov periodic quivers

    Pavel Galashin and Pavlo Pylyavskyy. The classification of Z amolodchikov periodic quivers. American Journal of Mathematics , 141:447--484, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    Quivers with subadditive labelings: classification and integrability

    Pavel Galashin and Pavlo Pylyavskyy. Quivers with subadditive labelings: classification and integrability. Mathematische Zeitschrift , 295:945–992, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Periodicities of T -systems and Y -systems, dilogarithm identities, and cluster algebras I : Type B r

    Rei Inoue, Osamu Iyama, Bernhard Keller, Atsuo Kuniba, and Tomoki Nakanishi. Periodicities of T -systems and Y -systems, dilogarithm identities, and cluster algebras I : Type B r. Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. , 49(1):1–42, 2013

    2013

Show all 18 references
  1. [9]

    Periodicities of T -systems and Y -systems, dilogarithm identities, and cluster algebras II : types C r, F 4, and G 2

    Rei Inoue, Osamu Iyama, Bernhard Keller, Atsuo Kuniba, and Tomoki Nakanishi. Periodicities of T -systems and Y -systems, dilogarithm identities, and cluster algebras II : types C r, F 4, and G 2. Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. , 49(1):43--85, 2013

    2013

  2. [10]

    The periodicity conjecture for pairs of D ynkin diagrams

    Bernhard Keller. The periodicity conjecture for pairs of D ynkin diagrams. Annals of Mathematics , 177(1):111--170, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Representations of C oxeter groups and H ecke algebras

    David Kazhdan and George Lusztig. Representations of C oxeter groups and H ecke algebras. Inventiones Mathematicae , 53:165--184, 1979

    1979

  4. [12]

    Spectra in conformal field theories from the R ogers dilogarithm

    Atsuo Kuniba and Tomoki Nakanishi. Spectra in conformal field theories from the R ogers dilogarithm. Modern Physics Letters A , 7(37):3487–3494, 1992

    1992

  5. [13]

    Functional relations in solvable lattice models

    Atsuo Kuniba, Tomoki Nakanishi, and Junji Suzuki. Functional relations in solvable lattice models. International Journal of Modern Physics A , 9(30):5215–5266, 1994

    1994

  6. [14]

    Ravanini, A

    F. Ravanini, A. Valleriani, and R. Tateo. Dynkin TBA 's. International Journal of Modern Physics A , 8(10):1707–1727, 1993

    1993

  7. [15]

    Stembridge

    John R. Stembridge. Admissible W -graphs. Representation Theory: An Electric Journal of the American Mahematical Society , 12:346--368, 2008

    2008

  8. [16]

    Stembridge

    John R. Stembridge. Admissible W -graphs and commuting C artan matrices. Advances in Applied Mathematics , 44:203--224, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    E. B. Vinberg. Discrete linear groups that are generated by reflections. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. , 35:1072–1112, 1971

    1971

  10. [18]

    Al. B. Zamolodchikov. On the thermodynamic B ethe ansatz equations for reflectionless ADE scattering theories. Physics Letters B , 253(3-4):391–394, 1991

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.