I wanted to update on 3 small new results.
First, Luis Ferroni used LLM (and a lot of persistence and cleverness) to prove something I long suspected: that IDP lattice polytopes do NOT have unimodal vectors. Unimodality is nice because it makes the sequence especially simple: it rises, then falls again… a dromedary, instead of a camel. And that IDP polytopes (that is, polytopes which are generated by atoms on the same level, that is, level one) satisfy it was a (I thought unlikely, but long standing) conjecture of Stanley….
Luis found, quite amazingly, that these are rather nice polytopes: smooth Cayley polytopes of rectangular prisms. This complements our work on IDP polytopes, proving among other things monotonicity of the vector in the second half. Congratulations Luis!

The paper is already transparent and good, so you should read it.
Second small result that this makes more relevant: Mingzhi Zhang and I found a way to prove that hypersimplices, a very nice and simple class of polytopes, are “eventually” unimodal at least; if you fix rank, then increasing the dimension leads you to unimodality. The proof is… really just a little analysis. It will probably appear soon on HAL.
Finally, you might remember some time ago, Sergey Avvakumov, Roman Karasev and I constructed subexponential size triangulations of ? Well, when we submitted it to Crelle, we got the following report

Well, suck it referee. Turns out, our construction was essentially tight! The paper is here, but since it is a little heavily AI generated (down to the title…) let me try to give a human perspective. It is essentially a method of Gromov, which I encourage you to learn (just as I encourage you to look at Martin’s paper on Wachspress geometry. Goose stuff). More on that later.
The question is this: How many vertices does a triangulation of need to have? Equivalently: Assume you have triangulation of with free involution (henceforth just “free” like a bird). How many vertices do you need? (yeah yeah you loose a factor of two… but go where the referee went)
The key theorem is that a finite strongly regular complex with
vertices and
facets satisfies
Here is the least
for which
admits an equivariant map to the antipodal sphere
; in particular,
. A facet is an inclusion-maximal simplex.
is an absolute constant, and logarithms are natural, because we don’t do artificial here (I am aware I might have one glass of wine too many as I write this… lets see where it goes). The reduction of the question to this is inequality (which the authors call “topological Figiel-Lindenstrauss-Milman) is elementary (covered below). The proof of the inequality (also described) owes to a marvellous idea of Gromov to uses traces to bound indices of matrices, and apply it to Morse functions. The authors fully acknowledge that this was LLM generated, but I want to make their proof a little more human-understood and transparent here, so I also cover it. (I also mention that the method, in physics, is also known as Birman-schwinger.)

1. Enlarge the lifted triangulation
Lift an -vertex triangulation of
to an antipodal triangulation
of
, with
vertices. For each vertex
, let
consist of
and its neighbors. Form
by filling each
with a full simplex.
Every simplex of lies in
. No
contains an antipodal vertex pair: two edges from
to the two lifts of the same base vertex would violate uniqueness of edge lifting. Thus
still has a free involution, with
vertices and at most
facets. The theorem gives
need not have the homotopy type of a sphere. The equivariant inclusion
is enough to preserve the required lower bound on its index.
2. Encode vertices and facets by a matrix
For a free simplicial complex with vertex orbits and
facet orbits, place the vertices at
in
. Choose one facet from each orbit. Set
if that facet contains
,
if it contains
, and
otherwise.
On each facet, one coordinate of is
or
. Since
, the realized complex lies in
The norms are and
. It suffices to show
. This matrix bound holds whenever
.
3. Smooth the norms
Assume ; the other cases are immediate. Choose an even integer
, an exponent
, and
. Define
approximates
;
is a smooth approximation to the
-sphere when
is close to
. Radial rescaling sends
into
. We will bound the Hessian at all critical points with
; the gap between the levels permits a later perturbation.
4. Curvature gives a negative definite term
Fix a critical point of
on
. Write
,
, and
. Then
and
. For a tangent vector
, let
be the second derivative of
along
.
At acritical point, , and
Hence, gives
, with
, so
. Differentiate! Then
. Hence,
The first term is positive semidefinite. The second is negative definite. Now, how many non-negative eigenvalues (with multiplicity are there?)
5. The elementary trace estimate
Lemma. If a symmetric quadratic form satisfies
, where
is positive semidefinite and
, then the number
of nonnegative eigenvalues of
is at most
. Indeed, choose orthonormal vectors
in its nonnegative eigenspace. Each satisfies
. Completing them to an orthonormal basis gives
. This also works when
is defined only on a subspace.
Rescale our tangent coordinates by . The negative term becomes
. The positive matrix
has trace
. Applying the lemma and using
gives
The last inequality is the one and only Hölder, using and
. Here
counts nonnegative Hessian eigenvalues, including zero; it is not yet the equivariant index.
6. Moooorse theory
Take and
. Then
and
are bounded by absolute constants. At the relevant critical points
, so
. Thus
For a superlevel set, Morse cell dimensions count positive Hessian directions. A small perturbation on the quotient therefore gives a slightly larger superlevel with a CW model of this bounded dimension. Its double cover gives an equivariant CW model. A free
-dimensional CW complex maps equivariantly to
, proving the desired index bound.
On to more important business now.