Connected components of generalized strata of meromorphic differentials with residue conditions

MyeongJae Lee; Yiu Man Wong

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Connected components of generalized strata of meromorphic differentials with residue conditions

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper classifies the connected components of every generalized stratum of meromorphic differentials on a connected surface, using four topological invariants.

desk verdict Significant new classification with a load-bearing gap in the one-dimensional base case that a referee must resolve. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20165 v1 pith:2GAMMZLS submitted 2025-04-28 math.AG math.DSmath.GT

Myeongjae Lee , Yiu Man Wong This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AGmath.DSmath.GT MSC 14H1032G1530F30

keywords generalizedstratameromorphicdifferentialsresidueconditionsconnectedcomponentshyperellipticspinparityrotationnumbermulti-scalecompactification

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 establishes that the connected components of generalized strata of meromorphic differentials with residue conditions are completely classified by four topological invariants: hyperellipticity with its ramification profile, spin parity, rotation number, and index. These generalized strata are the loci, inside the usual strata of differentials, where prescribed sums of residues vanish; they appear naturally as the boundary strata of the multi-scale compactification of the usual strata. The result matters because knowing the connected components of these generalized strata is the necessary first step toward describing the irreducible components of the boundary of the multi-scale compactification. The proof proceeds by classifying all one-dimensional generalized strata, then showing that every higher-dimensional component is obtained from a one-dimensional one by residue-preserving surgeries (breaking up a zero and bubbling a handle).

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the classification of one-dimensional strata, carried out in Sections 8–10 through the equatorial net: the preimage of the real projective line under the period map of a one-dimensional stratum, which forms a ribbon graph on its compactification. Connected components of a one-dimensional stratum correspond to connected components of this net. The paper proves that two transformations, R (level rotation of an equatorial half-arc) and U (passage to the conjugate half-arc), act transitively on the equatorial half-arcs within a component of the net that has a fixed topological invariant; this transitivity, established by the case analysis of Propositions 8.5–8.23, is what lets the authors connect arbitrary boundary points. These one-dimensional strata serve as base cases for an induction on dimension: using the principal boundary of the multi-scale compactification, every component of a higher-dimensional stratum is obtained from a one-dimensional component by breaking up zeros and bubbling handles (and their residue-condition-compatible variants), and the topological invariants are shown to distinguish the resulting components.

What would settle it

For the one-dimensional stratum P(1,1|−2|−1,−1), enumerate all flat surfaces up to the C*-action: the paper predicts every surface is hyperelliptic, so finding any non-hyperelliptic surface in this stratum would disprove Proposition 3.5 and the main theorem it supports.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that every connected component of a generalized stratum P(µR) of positive dimension is determined by one of four topological invariants. Hyperelliptic components are in one-to-one correspondence with ramification profiles (Theorem 1.4). For non-hyperelliptic components: when the stratum is of even type and has g+k>1, components are distinguished by spin parity, with two components in the generic case and the listed exceptions (Theorem 1.6); when g=1 and there are no paired simple poles, they are classified by the rotation number (Theorem 1.7); when g=0 and there is exactly one pair of simple poles, they are classified by the index modulo δ (Theorem 1.10); and in the other genus-zero cases with no paired simple poles, there is a unique non-hyperelliptic component (Theorem 1.8). This classification is complete for strata with a connected underlying surface.

Load-bearing premise

The entire induction rests on the base-case transitivity of the moves R and U on the equatorial half-arcs of one-dimensional strata; if some prong-matching configuration hides a disconnected piece of the equatorial net, the base-case classifications in Sections 8–10, and therefore all main theorems, would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The number of connected components of any generalized stratum with a connected underlying surface is now determined by the formulas in Theorems 1.4–1.10: one hyperelliptic component per ramification profile, plus non-hyperelliptic components counted by spin parity, rotation number, or index, with the finite exceptions listed.
Because boundary strata of the multi-scale compactification of the usual strata are built from generalized strata, this classification is the required first step toward describing the irreducible components of those boundary strata and, ultimately, the top-weight cohomology of strata.
The one-dimensional base-case classification (Sections 8–10) provides a complete account of the connected components of one-dimensional generalized strata, covering the B-, C-, and D-signature cases in addition to the previously known E-signature cases.
For every connected component, the proof yields explicit deformation paths between any two of its points, realized by sequences of equatorial-net moves (in dimension one) and by breaking-up-zero and bubbling-handle surgeries (in higher dimensions), all preserving the residue conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

If the one-dimensional base cases are correct, the same equatorial-net technique is likely to extend to generalized strata over disconnected surfaces, where cross-component residue conditions create additional coupling; the paper explicitly defers this case to future work.
The index invariant for genus-zero strata with one pair of simple poles appears to be a genus-zero shadow of both the rotation number (genus one) and spin parity (higher genus); a single 'residue-compatible' invariant may unify these three.
The explicit R-GRC plumbing construction (Section 2.5) should make the connectivity results algorithmic: the R and U moves on separatrix diagrams could be implemented to compute connected components of one-dimensional strata by computer, providing an independent check of the classification.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Lee and Wong extend the first author's residueless classification to all residue conditions on generalized strata of meromorphic differentials. That is genuinely new: the B/C/D signature base cases, the index invariant for g=0, k=1, and the ramification-profile correspondence for hyperelliptic components are all real contributions. The main theorems are stated precisely, the exceptional cases are enumerated carefully, and the overall strategy—one-dimensional base cases plus surgery induction—is coherent and consistent with Boissy and with the prior residueless work. The paper deserves serious referee time.

Where it is soft: the proof rests on Sections 8–10, and that base case is not self-contained as printed. Concretely, Proposition 3.4 says "The stratum P(µR) of B-signature satisfies the following:" and then no assertion follows. That is not a marginal typo; this is one of the two propositions whose proofs are promised in Section 8.4, and the symmetric case a1=a2, e1=e2 is exactly where hyperelliptic components and ramification profiles interact with the exceptional strata. Without the missing statement, Theorem 1.4 cannot be checked in the base case. Second, the transitivity of the R and U transformations on equatorial half-arcs—the organizing principle of Sections 8–10—is asserted in Section 7 and then pushed into a very long case analysis, Propositions 8.5–8.23, which itself relies on unproved reduction claims (for example, the covering map rho* introduced after Remark 8.11 and used in Lemma 8.14). If a prong-matching class is missed there, a disconnected piece of a one-dimensional stratum would be invisible to the induction, and the main theorems would overcount components.

The reliance on the first author's prior paper [13] is heavy, but that is not by itself a flaw; the new content is precisely the B/C/D analysis. I found no direct contradiction in the statements, and the authors are careful about exceptional cases. So my verdict is conditional: a referee should independently verify the missing Proposition 3.4 and the R/U transitivity claims before the classification is taken as established. If those check out, this is a strong paper. Send it to review.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies generalized strata P(µR) of meromorphic differentials defined by imposing vanishing sums of residues within prescribed parts of the pole set. Its main goal is to classify all connected components of these strata for connected underlying surfaces, extending the first author's earlier classification of residueless strata. The proposed invariants are hyperellipticity together with a ramification profile, spin parity, rotation number, and a newly defined index. The proof strategy is induction on dimension: one-dimensional strata are classified first and then used as base cases, with higher-dimensional components obtained by breaking up zeros and bubbling handles or pairs of simple poles. The main theorems are Theorem 1.4 for hyperelliptic components and Theorems 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, and 1.10 for non-hyperelliptic components, with a detailed list of exceptional strata.

Significance. If correct, the paper gives a complete classification for a large and natural family of linear subvarieties of strata, and it supplies the first necessary input for understanding irreducible components of boundary strata in the multi-scale compactification. The statement of the main theorems is precise, the exceptional cases are listed explicitly, and the paper makes a serious algorithmic attempt to reduce component classification to combinatorial enumeration via equatorial nets and the transformations R and U. However, the central proof rests on very long case analyses in Sections 8–10 that are not checkable from the text as it stands, and one proposition in the base-case classification is literally missing its statement. Because these base cases carry the induction, the reliability of the main theorems is currently conditional on completing and verifying that enumeration. For these reasons I cannot recommend acceptance in the present form.

major comments (4)

[§3, Proposition 3.4] Proposition 3.4 contains no mathematical assertion: after 'The stratum P(µR) of B-signature satisfies the following:' the text stops. The paragraph immediately after it promises that the proofs of 'the two propositions above' are in Section 8.4, but Section 8.4 proves Proposition 3.3 and the special cases of Propositions 3.5 and 3.6; it does not supply the missing statement or proof of Proposition 3.4. This is load-bearing because the symmetric case a1=a2 and e1=e2 is exactly where ramification profiles interact with the exceptional strata appearing in Propositions 3.5 and 3.6, and Theorem 1.4 together with the B-signature base cases depend on this classification. The author must either state and prove Proposition 3.4 or explicitly renumber and explain how the remaining arguments bypass it.
[§1.1 (Conjecture) and §3, Proposition 3.1] The abstract and Section 1 claim that the paper classifies generalized strata 'in full generality', but genus-zero residueless strata are not classified. Proposition 3.1 lists A-signature one-dimensional strata as the base cases for connectedness of genus-zero residueless strata and then says they will not be considered in the paper, while the final Conjecture after Theorem 1.10 only conjectures that every nonempty genus-zero residueless stratum is connected. Since residueless strata with the finest residue partition are special cases of the objects under study, the 'full generality' claim is not justified. The abstract and introduction should either include a proof of the genus-zero residueless connectedness statement or explicitly state that the classification is conditional on that open case.
[§7 and §8.4–8.5] The organizing principle of the base-case classification is that the transformations R and U act transitively on equatorial half-arcs of a connected component, but this is not established as a general lemma; the proof is delegated to the case analysis of Sections 8–10. Several key steps in that analysis are asserted rather than derived: Propositions 8.1–8.4 are described as 'direct observations'; Lemma 8.14 introduces the covering map ρ∗ after Remark 8.11 and then relies on Lemmas 8.15–8.22; and Lemma 8.14 itself has five exceptional cases whose treatment is not fully written out. The proof of Proposition 3.3 also repeatedly uses formulas such as 'one can check that UR^{2}U·W(...) = W′(...)' without giving the verification. Since Sections 8–10 are the base of the induction, any missed prong-matching class or incorrect exceptional case would make a one-dimensional stratum invisible to the induction and would overcount or misidentify components in Theorems 1.4–1.10. I recommend either substantially expanding these proofs or supplying a machine-checkable enumeration of the relevant configurations.
[§8.5, Proposition 8.23] Proposition 8.23 is the variant of Lemma 8.14(ii) that is used to connect the whole equatorial net, and its proof as written is incomplete: it begins with 'It suffices to just consider the exceptional cases that are covered by the proposition but not covered by Lemma 8.14' and then lists cases (a3) and (1)–(5), but the actual reduction steps and the verification of these cases are not presented. Proposition 8.23 feeds directly into Propositions 3.5 and 3.6, which in turn are used for the one-dimensional B-signature classification. The author should complete this proof, or reorganize the argument so that the reduction to the listed cases is fully checked.

minor comments (3)

[§7, paragraph after Figure 11] The notation 'R' is used both for the rotation operation on equatorial half-arcs and for the residue partition R appearing throughout the paper; this makes some sentences such as 'the action generated by R and U' momentarily ambiguous. A different symbol for the rotation operation, or a note distinguishing it from the residue partition, would improve readability.
[§6.5, proof of Theorem 1.7] In the paragraph treating µ=(n,n,−2n), the phrase 'since n+1 is even' appears to be a typo: the intended statement appears to be that the bubbling parameter n+1 is used in place of 1 modulo n. Please check the parity argument and the displayed formulas in that paragraph.
[Tables 3–6] The separatrix diagrams in Tables 3–6 are central to the base-case proofs, but in the text they are only described verbally and the figures are not discussed in enough detail to be checked independently. In the final version, please ensure that the figures are legible and that each row of the tables is explicitly tied to the corresponding equatorial half-arc notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the one-dimensional B/C/D base cases are proved in-paper, and the repeated citations to [13] are legitimate prior classifications of the residueless special case, not reductions to the paper's own conclusions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is an induction whose base cases are the one-dimensional strata classified in Sections 8-10. Those sections construct equatorial paths using explicit prong-matchings and the R and U moves, and they prove the classifications of B-, C-, and D-signature strata internally; they do not invoke the paper's main theorems. The external black boxes are standard facts and prior classifications of residueless strata, mainly [13] by the first author. Although [13] is cited frequently and is load-bearing--for example Theorem 3.18 for E-signature, Lemma 7.14 in Proposition 8.10, and Proposition 7.17 in Theorem 6.1--those citations concern the already-classified residueless special case that this paper does not reprove, so they constitute legitimate independent support rather than circularity: the present theorems do not appear as assumptions in [13]. No parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction; the index, spin parity, and rotation number are defined as invariants, while existence and uniqueness of components with fixed invariants are proved by explicit plumbing and degeneration paths. The printed text does contain a genuine completeness gap: Proposition 3.4 stops after 'The stratum P(µR) of B-signature satisfies the following:' with no assertion, and Section 8.4 promises a proof. This is an omitted statement that blocks full verification of one base case, but it is a correctness/completeness issue, not a circular reduction. Likewise, the final Conjecture shows that the abstract's 'full generality' excludes genus-zero residueless strata, but that is an overstatement of scope rather than circularity. Overall, the central claim does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters fitted to data and no new physical or geometric entities. It does depend on four external inputs: smoothness of the multi-scale compactification, Tahar's core decomposition, the first author's prior residueless classification, and a genericity statement about parallel saddle connections. These are imported as black boxes; the new work in Sections 8-10 is a combinatorial enumeration rather than a fit.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The multi-scale compactification P(µR) is smooth and its boundary divisor is normal-crossing, following Bainbridge-Chen-Gendron-Grushevsky-Möller [1, 2].
Used in Section 2.4 to identify connected components of the compactification with those of the stratum and to justify degeneration arguments.
domain assumption Tahar's core decomposition: any flat surface decomposes into a finite union of saddle connections plus polar domains (Proposition 2.1).
Imported from [16, Lemma 4.5]; used in Lemma 2.11 and in the construction of principal boundaries.
domain assumption The classification of residueless strata from the first author's previous paper [13] is correct, including Theorem 3.18 and the surgery propositions cited in Sections 4-6.
Used as black boxes for the E-signature base cases and for statements about merging zeroes and bubbling handles.
domain assumption General position: for a dense open subset of a stratum, two saddle connections are parallel if and only if they are R-homologous (Proposition 2.7).
This assertion, stated without full proof, underpins the contraction-flow approach to approaching principal boundaries.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Connected components of generalized strata of meromorphic differentials with residue conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2GAMMZLS

@misc{pith2026250420165,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Connected components of generalized strata of meromorphic differentials with residue conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2GAMMZLS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20165}
}

read the original abstract

Generalized strata of meromorphic differentials are loci within the usual strata of differentials where certain sets of residues sum to zero. They naturally appear in the boundary of the multi-scale compactification of the usual strata. The classification of generalized strata is a key step towards understanding the irreducible components of the boundary strata of the multi-scale compactification. The connected components of generalized strata of residueless differentials were classified in \cite{lee2023connected}. In the present paper, we classify the connected components of generalized strata of meromorphic differentials in full generality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20165 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Example (left) and non-example (right) of multi-curves R-homologous to zero A flat surface (X, ω) ∈ H(µ R) induces an element of Hom (H1(X \ p, z; Z)/K(R), C) via the map α 7→ Z α ω. We fix a basis α = (α1, . . . , α2g+n+m−|R|−1) of the relative homology group H1(X \p, z; Z)/K(R). This basis can be transported to nearby surfaces, and thus defines the period map on a generalized stratum in a neighborhood of (X, ω): P… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Type I and II polar domains and their representation by basic domains The plumbing constructions for cases (i) and (ii) can be described in a fully general manner: Case (i): This corresponds to the standard disk surgery known as breaking up a zero. Given a prongmatching such that the prong v + i (respectively v + i+C−1 , where the angle between α1 and α2 is 2Cπ) is the closest outgoing prong in the clockwise direct… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** breaking up a zero Case (ii): Our construction in this case slightly differs from the plumbing approach in [1], though the underlying philosophy remains the same. Without loss of generality, we assume that α1 and α2 are not purely imaginary. Assume a prong-matching such that v + i (respectively w + j ) is the closest outgoing (incoming) prong in the clockwise (respectively counter-clockwise) direction to α1 (respec… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (12 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Plumbing two nodes same part R ∈ R. We then construct directed paths γ1 and γ2 connecting v + i to one pole of R, and another pole of R to w + j , respectively. We adjust the length of saddle connections intersected with γ1 or γ2 (within the lower basic domains) by +t …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Modification of top level flat surface case (i) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Modification of top level flat surface case (ii) a union of products of lower-dimensional strata of holomorphic differentials, such that the total dimension is one less than that of the original stratum. Although it was called a “boundary,” it was not initially regarde…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Example of a Type I configuration of saddle connections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Example of a Type II configuration of saddle connections • Lower level: Formed by filling cycles of S−1 with polar domains (Type I or II) or half-infinite cylinders, depending on angles. Each lower-level surface has genus 0. • Marked poles: Polar domains replacing vani…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Example of a Type III configuration of saddle connections Assume that H(µ R) is a single-zero stratum with a unique zero z of order a. Let X ∈ H(µ R) be a general flat surface in the sense of Proposition 2.7. Suppose that X has a multiplicity-k saddle connection config…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The graph Γ(F) for a Type III configuration F The principal boundary D(Γ(F)) of H(µ R) is the subspace of multi-scale differentials compatible with the level graph Γ(F). For a multi-scale differential (X, η) ∈ D(Γ(F)), we denote the irreducible component corresponding…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Transformations R and U In order to visualize the multi-scale differentials or flat surfaces on equatorial arcs in a certain onedimensional projectivized stratum, we use diagrams called separatrix diagrams. They are defined as follows: Definition 7.1. A separatrix di…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Level graph and separatrix diagram of Type I boundary of strata of Bsignatures In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: The marking of prongs for Type I boundary of strata of B-signatures Note that e1 + e2 − 1 +X ℓ j=1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Level graph and separatrix diagram of a Type III boundary in the strata of C-signatures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p068_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Prong labeling for strata of C-signatures 9.2. Plumbing construction and equatorial half-arcs. Let X = XC III(h, ℓ, τ, C) be a Type III boundary. By plumbing construction with t ∈ R+ and a prong-matching u ∈ Z/κZ, we obtain a flat surface Xt(u) on an equatorial arc ad…

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

Ends of the strata of differentials
math.GT 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Every connected component of every meromorphic stratum of projectivized differentials of dimension at least two has exactly one end.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[13]

Lee , Connected components of strata of residueless meromorphic differentials , Geometriae Dedicata, 218 (2024)

M. Lee , Connected components of strata of residueless meromorphic differentials , Geometriae Dedicata, 218 (2024)

work page 2024
[1]

Bainbridge, D

M. Bainbridge, D. Chen, Q. Gendron, S. Grushevsky, and M. M ¨oller, Compactification of strata of abelian differ- entials, Duke Mathematical Journal, 167 (2018)

work page 2018
[2]

, The moduli space of multi-scale differentials , arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13492, (2019)

arXiv 2019
[3]

Benirschke , The boundary of linear subvarieties , Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 25 (2022), pp

F. Benirschke , The boundary of linear subvarieties , Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 25 (2022), pp. 4521– 4582

work page 2022
[4]

Benirschke, B

F. Benirschke, B. Dozier, and S. Grushevsky , Equations of linear subvarieties of strata of differentials , Geometry & Topology, 26 (2022), pp. 2773–2830

work page 2022
[5]

Boissy, Connected components of the strata of the moduli space of meromorphic differentials, Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici, 90 (2015), pp

C. Boissy, Connected components of the strata of the moduli space of meromorphic differentials, Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici, 90 (2015), pp. 255–286

work page 2015
[6]

M. Chan, S. Galatius, and S. Payne , Tropical curves, graph complexes, and top weight cohomology of Mg, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 34 (2021), pp. 565–594

work page 2021
[7]

, Topology of moduli spaces of tropical curves with marked points, Facets of algebraic geometry, 1 (2022), pp. 77–131

work page 2022

Show all 16 references

[8]

Chen and Q

D. Chen and Q. Chen , Principal boundary of moduli spaces of abelian and quadratic differentials , in Annales de l’Institut Fourier, vol. 69, 2019, pp. 81–118

2019
[9]

Chen and Q

D. Chen and Q. Gendron , Towards a classification of connected components of the strata of k-differentials , Documenta mathematica Journal der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 27 (2022), pp. 1031–1100

2022
[10]

Costantini, M

M. Costantini, M. M ¨oller, and J. Zachhuber , The chern classes and euler characteristic of the moduli spaces of abelian differentials, in Forum of Mathematics, Pi, vol. 10, Cambridge University Press, 2022, p. e16

2022
[11]

Eskin, H

A. Eskin, H. Masur, and A. Zorich , Moduli spaces of abelian differentials: the principal boundary, counting problems, and the siegel-veech constants, Publications Math´ ematiques de l’IH´ES, 97 (2003), pp. 61–179

2003
[12]

Kontsevich and A

M. Kontsevich and A. Zorich , Connected components of the moduli spaces of abelian differentials with prescribed singularities, Inventiones mathematicae, 153 (2003), pp. 631–678

2003
[14]

Lee and G

M. Lee and G. Tahar , One-dimensional strata of residueless meromorphic differentials, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13128, (2023)

2023 arXiv
[15]

Payne, Boundary complexes and weight filtrations , Michigan Mathematical Journal, 62 (2013), pp

S. Payne, Boundary complexes and weight filtrations , Michigan Mathematical Journal, 62 (2013), pp. 293–322

2013
[16]

Tahar , Counting saddle connections in flat surfaces with poles of higher order , Geometriae Dedicata, 196 (2018), pp

G. Tahar , Counting saddle connections in flat surfaces with poles of higher order , Geometriae Dedicata, 196 (2018), pp. 145–186. 82

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [13]

Lee , Connected components of strata of residueless meromorphic differentials , Geometriae Dedicata, 218 (2024)

M. Lee , Connected components of strata of residueless meromorphic differentials , Geometriae Dedicata, 218 (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Bainbridge, D

M. Bainbridge, D. Chen, Q. Gendron, S. Grushevsky, and M. M ¨oller, Compactification of strata of abelian differ- entials, Duke Mathematical Journal, 167 (2018)

work page 2018

[3] [2]

, The moduli space of multi-scale differentials , arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13492, (2019)

arXiv 2019

[4] [3]

Benirschke , The boundary of linear subvarieties , Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 25 (2022), pp

F. Benirschke , The boundary of linear subvarieties , Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 25 (2022), pp. 4521– 4582

work page 2022

[5] [4]

Benirschke, B

F. Benirschke, B. Dozier, and S. Grushevsky , Equations of linear subvarieties of strata of differentials , Geometry & Topology, 26 (2022), pp. 2773–2830

work page 2022

[6] [5]

Boissy, Connected components of the strata of the moduli space of meromorphic differentials, Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici, 90 (2015), pp

C. Boissy, Connected components of the strata of the moduli space of meromorphic differentials, Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici, 90 (2015), pp. 255–286

work page 2015

[7] [6]

M. Chan, S. Galatius, and S. Payne , Tropical curves, graph complexes, and top weight cohomology of Mg, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 34 (2021), pp. 565–594

work page 2021

[8] [7]

, Topology of moduli spaces of tropical curves with marked points, Facets of algebraic geometry, 1 (2022), pp. 77–131

work page 2022