Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

On spin structures and orientations for gauge-theoretic moduli spaces

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that spin structures on moduli spaces of connections are naturally equivalent to orientations on the corresponding moduli space over X×S1, and uses this to construct canonical spin structures on spin 6-manifolds for U(m)…

desk verdict Genuinely new structural result with a serious proof, but the advertised U(m) application on 6-manifolds is conditional on two sketched repairs that need to be written out. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03524 v3 pith:ZOM52K5K submitted 2019-08-09 math.DG math.AGmath.AT

Dominic Joyce , Markus Upmeier This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DGmath.AGmath.AT MSC 58D2753C2758J2014J32
keywords spinstructuresmodulispacesofconnectionsdeterminantlinebundlesorientationsDiracoperatorsflagCalabi-Yau3-foldsDonaldson-Thomastheory
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 introduces a complex analogue of orientations for gauge-theoretic moduli spaces: a spin structure on the moduli space B_P of connections modulo gauge, defined as a square root of the complex determinant line bundle of a complex elliptic operator twisted by the adjoint bundle. The central claim is that, for operators of the right self-adjointness type, spin structures on X correspond exactly to orientations on X×S1: if Q is a bundle over X×S1 restricting to P over X×{1}, then spin structures on (B_P,F) stand in natural one-to-one correspondence with compatible trivializations of orientation bundles on (B_Q,E). The payoff is a construction of canonical spin structures on B_P for every U(m)- or SU(m)-bundle P over a compact oriented spin Riemannian 6-manifold, using the positive Dirac operator. If correct, this supplies the differential-geometric input for a canonical choice of orientation data on every Calabi-Yau 3-fold, a long-standing missing input in Donaldson-Thomas theory.

What carries the argument

The central object is the complex determinant line bundle K^F_P over the moduli space B_P, with a spin structure defined as a square root of this line bundle. The central identity is the natural isomorphism γ^F_{Q,P}: ˇO^E_Q ⊗ N*_{Q,P}(ˇO^E_{P×S1}) → Γ*_{Q,P}(M^F_P) of Theorem 5.4, where M^F_P is the Z2-bundle over the free loop space of B_P whose fibre is the set of square roots of the pullback of K^F_P. The proof works by cutting X×S1 along several circles, choosing levels that avoid the spectrum of the twisted operator, solving the resulting elliptic boundary value problems on each piece, and using determinant-line comparisons to show the answer is independent of the cut. A canonical flag structure on X×S1, built in Proposition 5.11 from the existence and torsor classification of flag structures on 7-manifolds, supplies the canonical n-orientations needed for Theorem 5.12, while Theorem 5.1 gives a stabilization mechanism that extends a spin structure from one large trivial bundle to all U(m)- and SU(m)-bundles.

What would settle it

On a compact spin 6-manifold X, take two U(1)-bundles Q1,Q2 over X×S1 with nonzero first Chern classes and check whether the canonical orientations from the flag structure satisfy the direct-sum diagram in Theorem 5.6(c)(ii); a failure there, or a disagreement between the two repairs in the proof of Theorem 5.12, would refute the U(m) case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's main theorem (Theorem 5.6) turns a spin-structure problem in dimension n into an orientation problem in dimension n+1. Precisely: for a complex elliptic operator F on X that is antilinear self-adjoint (its adjoint is its complex conjugate), and the associated real self-adjoint operator E on X×S1 built from F by adding ∂/∂θ, there are natural bijections between four kinds of data: a spin structure for the trivial U(N)-bundle on X (N large), compatible families of spin structures on B_P for all U(m)-bundles P, compatible trivializations of the orientation bundles on B_Q for all U(m)-bundles Q over X×S1 with Q|_{X×{1}}≅P, and the same trivializations for trivial P. The proof constructs an explicit isomorphism between the orientation bundle over B_Q and the bundle of square roots of K^F_P pulled back to the free loop space of B_P, by cutting X×S1 into cylinders, solving elliptic boundary value problems on each piece, and patching. Combined with the previous canonical orientations for Dirac operators on spin 7-manifolds with flag structures, this yields Theorem 5.12: canonical spin structures on B_P for the positive Dirac operator on any compact oriented spin 6-manifold, for all U(m)- and SU(m)-bundles, compatible with direct sums. A delicate point is that the 7-dimensional n-orientations used are direct-sum compatible for SU(m)-bundles but not for all U(m)-bundles; the paper offers two repairs (an SU(m)-analogue of the main correspondence, and an excision argument) to obtain the U(m) statement.

Load-bearing premise

The construction rests on the prior theorem (restated as Theorem 5.10) that a flag structure on a compact spin 7-manifold gives canonical orientations for the Dirac operator on all U(m)- and SU(m)-bundles, plus the paper's two repairs making those orientations direct-sum compatible for U(m)-bundles; if that theorem or the repairs fail, the canonical spin structures on 6-manifolds do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any compact oriented spin Riemannian 6-manifold X, every principal U(m)- or SU(m)-bundle P over X admits a canonical spin structure on B_P for the positive Dirac operator, compatible with direct sums of U(m)-bundles and with the passage from SU(m) to U(m).
  • These spin structures pull back to spin structures in the usual sense on smooth complex gauge-theory moduli spaces such as unobstructed Hermitian-Einstein moduli spaces, because the canonical bundle of such a moduli space is the restriction of K^F_P.
  • The equivalence reduces spin-structure existence in dimension n to orientation existence in dimension n+1, so known orientation theorems for Dirac moduli spaces on spin 7-manifolds directly imply spin-structure theorems on spin 6-manifolds.
  • In the sequel promised by the paper, the canonical spin structures produced here yield canonical orientation data for every Calabi-Yau 3-fold over the complex numbers, resolving a long-standing existence problem in Donaldson-Thomas theory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper's isomorphism runs through the free loop space of B_P, the same cut-and-paste method should transfer any canonical orientation construction on X×S1 to a canonical spin-structure construction on X; the 6-dimensional case is the one worked out, but the mechanism appears dimension-independent.
  • The SU(m)-versus-U(m) direct-sum discrepancy is a genuine feature of unitary gauge groups, not an artefact of the proof: first Chern class data must be handled separately, and any higher-dimensional analogue will likely need a similar c1-aware repair.
  • If the promised sequel carries these spin structures to the derived moduli stack of coherent sheaves, the canonical orientation data will be unique up to the torsor Hom(K1(X), Z2), so the remaining choice is global and topological rather than local.
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 spin structures on the infinite-dimensional moduli spaces B_P of connections modulo gauge, defined as square roots of the complex determinant line bundle of a family of twisted complex elliptic operators F_•. It develops formal properties parallel to the authors' earlier theory of orientations for real elliptic operators: abelian groups admit natural spin structures, products and subgroups of structure groups give pullback maps, and stabilization theorems for U(m)-bundles allow construction of spin structures from a single input. The central structural result, Theorem 5.6, establishes a natural 1-1 correspondence between (a) a spin structure on the trivial U(N)-bundle, (b) compatible spin structures on all U(m)- and SU(m)-bundles, and (c) compatible trivializations of certain n-orientation bundles on X × S^1. The proof of Theorem 5.6 is given in detail in Sections 7 and 8 with analytic input from Appendix A. The paper then combines this with the authors' prior theorem [25] on canonical n-orientations for Dirac operators on 7-manifolds with flag structures, via Proposition 5.11, to claim in Theorem 5.12 canonical spin structures for all U(m)- and SU(m)-bundles on compact oriented spin 6-manifolds for the positive Dirac operator. The proof of Theorem 5.12 is only sketched at two points, and this is the basis of the major concerns below.

Significance. If fully established, Theorem 5.6 is a substantial structural contribution: it gives a complete classification of spin structures on gauge-theoretic moduli spaces in terms of orientation data on the product with S^1, and it provides a differential-geometric route to Kontsevich--Soibelman orientation data for Calabi--Yau 3-folds, as announced in the abstract and in the sequel [26]. The detailed proof of Theorem 5.6, including the careful treatment of elliptic boundary conditions and the patching of square roots in Section 7, is a strength of the paper and appears to be executed with care. The advertised application, Theorem 5.12, however, depends on two arguments that are only sketched and on an external theorem, [25, Th. 1.2], that explicitly fails one of the needed compatibilities in general. The paper's headline claim of canonical U(m)-spin structures on 6-manifolds is therefore conditional as written, even though the core classification theorem is likely sound.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.4, proof of Theorem 5.12, first repair] The proof of Theorem 5.12 invokes an unstated SU(m)-analogue of Theorem 5.6, referring to Remark 5.5(b) and saying that the proofs are 'essentially identical.' This analogue is load-bearing: it produces a canonical spin structure on B_{X×U(4)} via Example 4.6, from which Theorem 5.1 extends to all U(m)-bundles. Since Theorem 5.6 is the central classification theorem and its proof in Sections 7--8 is long and technical, the assertion of identical proofs is not sufficient. A full statement of the SU(m)-version, including the precise direct-sum compatibility conditions and the analogue of Theorem 5.6(d), together with a proof or a precise pointer to where the proof differs from the U(m) case, is required.
  2. [Section 5.4, proof of Theorem 5.12, second repair] The second repair claims that the n-orientations \check{\omega}^{E_\bullet}_Q supplied by Theorem 5.10 are compatible with direct sums under Example 2.9 provided Q_1,Q_2 are trivial outside disjoint intervals in X × S^1, and that this follows from the Excision Theorem of [42, Th. 2.13] and [24, Th. 3.1]. This is only sketched in two sentences. Since Theorem 5.10 explicitly records a failure of direct-sum compatibility for general U(m)-bundles, the claimed vanishing of the obstruction in this special case is a substantive sign check, not a formal consequence. A detailed proof is needed before Theorem 5.6(d) can be applied; without it, the construction of canonical spin structures for all U(m)-bundles on 6-manifolds is not established.
  3. [Theorem 5.12 and abstract] The abstract and introduction state as a result that 'combined with [25]' the paper obtains canonical spin structures for positive Diracians on spin 6-manifolds for G = U(m), SU(m). However, the proof of Theorem 5.12 explicitly concedes that Theorem 5.6(c) is not satisfied by the imported n-orientations and relies on the two sketched repairs discussed above. Consequently the paper's headline application is conditional on work not contained in the manuscript. The authors should either provide the missing arguments in full or explicitly mark the U(m)-part of Theorem 5.12 as conditional pending the completion of those arguments.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 7, Definition 7.2] The displayed line 'Let \theta_0,\ldots,\theta_{k+1} \in \mathbb{R} with \theta_0 < \theta_2 < \cdots < \theta_{k+1}' appears to be missing \theta_1 in the chain of inequalities; it should presumably read \theta_0 < \theta_1 < \cdots < \theta_{k+1}.
  2. [Theorem 5.10] Theorem 5.10 refers to 'the analogue of Example 2.9' for SU(m)-bundles without stating the morphisms or the compatibility signs. Since this analogue is used in the proof of Theorem 5.12, it should be stated explicitly or given a precise reference.
  3. [Section 5.4, Proposition 5.11 proof] In the proof of Proposition 5.11, the assertion that a smooth family t_a of nonvanishing normal vector fields interpolating between t and t' exists uses the connectedness of the space of nonvanishing sections of N\Sigma, a rank-4 bundle over a 2-manifold; this topological fact is not stated and should be mentioned.
  4. [Section 5.4, proof of Theorem 5.12] The statement that 'when F_\bullet is the positive Dirac operator /D_+ on X, the real elliptic operator E_\bullet on X × S^1 in Definition 5.3 is naturally isomorphic to the Dirac operator /D on X × S^1' is used without proof. A brief justification of the identification of the spin structures and Clifford actions would help the reader verify that the hypothesis of Theorem 5.10 is satisfied.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 5.6 is proved internally, and the flagship 6-manifold application rests on an external prior theorem; the explicitly flagged U(m) compatibility gap is a proof-completeness issue, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Spin structures are defined independently as square roots of complex determinant line bundles (Def. 3.2), and the main correspondence Theorem 5.6 is proved in Section 8 by constructing bijections among data (a)-(d) using spectral cuts, elliptic boundary value problems, and the isomorphisms (5.4), (5.6), (7.9), (7.17). No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction, and no equation is defined in terms of its own conclusion. The canonical spin structures of Theorem 5.12 combine Theorem 5.6 with Proposition 5.11, proved in the paper, and with Theorem 5.10, restated from the authors' prior paper [25]. That cited theorem has stated assumptions (compact oriented spin Riemannian 7-manifold plus a flag structure), does not assume the present paper's conclusion, and is external published work with its own proof; under the review rules it is independent support rather than circular self-citation. The proof of Theorem 5.12 explicitly flags a genuine limitation: the n-orientations from Theorem 5.10 are not compatible with direct sums for general U(m)-bundles, and the paper offers two sketched repairs, one via an unstated SU(m)-analogue and one via excision. This is a proof gap or completeness concern for the flagship application, not circularity, because the missing steps are not obtained by assuming what is to be proved. The paper's self-citations are heavy but load-bearing only in the sense of importing a proved external theorem; they do not reduce the central result to its inputs by construction.

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

The paper introduces a new mathematical definition, spin structures on moduli spaces, but no new physical entities such as particles, forces, or dimensions. The free-parameter list is empty because there are no data-fit constants; the only choices are the torsor choices of spin structures, which are part of the theorem's data rather than fitted values. The axioms listed are the main external mathematical inputs, with the heaviest reliance on the authors' previous orientation construction for 7-manifolds.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard theory of determinant line bundles for continuous families of real and complex elliptic operators over a base space or stack, including orientations and n-orientations.
    Used throughout Sections 2.2 to 2.6 and 3.1, e.g. Definition 2.4 and equations (2.8), (3.2). The existence of determinant line bundles is treated as background from Atiyah-Singer, Knudsen-Mumford, and Quillen.
  • standard math Bar-Ballmann theory of elliptic boundary value problems for first-order boundary-symmetric operators, including Fredholm property and determinant bundle functoriality.
    Appendix A states and uses Theorem A.2 and Propositions A.6-A.7; this is the analytic machinery behind the proof of Theorem 5.4 in Section 7.
  • domain assumption Flag structures exist on every oriented 7-manifold, and the set of flag structures is a torsor over Hom(H_3(Y,Z), Z_2) (Proposition 5.9).
    Proposition 5.9 is quoted from the first author's earlier paper [20] and used directly to define the canonical flag structure on X times S^1 in Proposition 5.11.
  • domain assumption Theorem 5.10 from the authors' previous paper [25]: on a compact oriented spin 7-manifold with a flag structure, the Dirac operator yields canonical n-orientations on B_Q for all SU(m)- and U(m)-bundles, with direct-sum compatibility for SU(m)-bundles but not generally for U(m)-bundles.
    This is the key external input for Theorem 5.12. The paper does not reprove it; it uses it to obtain canonical n-orientations on X times S^1 and then must repair the missing U(m) direct-sum compatibility.
  • standard math Excision theorem for n-orientations of elliptic symbol families (Upmeier [42, Th. 2.13], Joyce-Tanaka-Upmeier [24, Th. 3.1]).
    Invoked in the second solution in the proof of Theorem 5.12 to show compatibility of n-orientations for trivial U(m)-bundles on X times S^1 supported in disjoint open sets.
  • standard math Atiyah-Singer index theorem and the standard homotopy theory of topological stacks, including classification of line bundles by H^1 and P^2 or by H^2 in the range used in Proposition 4.8.
    Used for index computations, stabilization claims in Section 4.6, and the classification of square roots in Propositions 4.8 and 4.9.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On spin structures and orientations for gauge-theoretic moduli spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZOM52K5K

@misc{pith2026190803524,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On spin structures and orientations for gauge-theoretic moduli spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZOM52K5K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03524}
}
abstract

Let $X$ be a compact manifold, $G$ a Lie group, $P \to X$ a principal $G$-bundle, and $\mathcal{B}_P$ the infinite-dimensional moduli space of connections on $P$ modulo gauge. For a real elliptic operator $E_\bullet$ we previously studied orientations on the real determinant line bundle over $\mathcal{B}_P$. These are used to construct orientations in the usual sense on smooth gauge theory moduli spaces, and have been extensively studied since the work of Donaldson. Here we consider complex elliptic operators $F_\bullet$ and introduce the idea of spin structures, square roots of the complex determinant line bundle of $F_\bullet$. These may be used to construct spin structures in the usual sense on smooth complex gauge theory moduli spaces. We study the existence and classification of such spin structures. Our main result identifies spin structures on $X$ with orientations on $X \times S^1$. Thus, if $P \to X$ and $Q \to X \times S^1$ are principal $G$-bundles with $Q|_{X\times\{1\}} \cong P$, we relate spin structures on $(\mathcal{B}_P,F_\bullet)$ to orientations on $(\mathcal{B}_Q,E_\bullet)$ for a certain class of operators $F_\bullet$ on $X$ and $E_\bullet$ on $X\times S^1$. Combined with arXiv:1811.02405, we obtain canonical spin structures for positive Diracians on spin 6-manifolds and gauge groups $G=U(m), SU(m)$. In a sequel arXiv:2001.00113 we apply this to define canonical orientation data for all Calabi-Yau 3-folds $X$ over the complex numbers, as in Kontsevich-Soibelman arXiv:0811.2435, solving a long-standing problem in Donaldson-Thomas theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03524 by the authors.

Figure 7.1
Figure 7.1. Graph of spectrum e iθ 7→ Spec D ∇Ad(Q)|X×{eiθ}  (curved lines), and a choice of cut (θ1, . . . , θk, λ1, . . . , λk) for [∇Q] (dotted lines). Lemma 7.3. Any [∇Q] ∈ BQ admits a cut (θ1, . . . , θk, λ1, . . . , λk). Any two cuts for [∇Q] may be linked by a finite chain of insertions and deletions of cuts. Example 7.4. Let ∇P be a connection on P → X. Take Q = P × S1 = π ∗ X(P), where πX : X × S1 → X is the projectio… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    Canonical orientations for moduli spaces of $G_2$-instantons with gauge group SU(m) or U(m)

    D. Joyce and M. Upmeier, Canonical orientations for moduli spaces of G2- instantons with gauge group SU(m) or U(m), arXiv:1811.02405, 2018

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  2. [26]

    Orientation data for moduli spaces of coherent sheaves over Calabi-Yau 3-folds

    D. Joyce and M. Upmeier, Orientation data for moduli spaces of coherent sheaves over Calabi–Yau 3-folds, to appear in Advances in Mathematics. arXiv:2001.00113, 2020

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

  3. [1]

    Atiyah, N.J

    M.F. Atiyah, N.J. Hitchin, and I.M. Singer, Self-duality in four-dimensional Riemannian geometry, Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 362 (1978), 425–461

    work page 1978

  4. [2]

    Atiyah and I.M

    M.F. Atiyah and I.M. Singer, The Index of Elliptic Operators: I , Ann. of Math. 87 (1968), 484–530

    work page 1968

  5. [3]

    Atiyah and G.B

    M.F. Atiyah and G.B. Segal, The Index of Elliptic Operators: II , Ann. of Math. 87 (1968), 531–545

    work page 1968

  6. [4]

    Atiyah and I.M

    M.F. Atiyah and I.M. Singer, The Index of Elliptic Operators: III , Ann. of Math. 87 (1968), 546–604

    work page 1968

  7. [5]

    Atiyah and I.M

    M.F. Atiyah and I.M. Singer, The Index of Elliptic Operators: IV , Ann. of Math. 92 (1970), 119–138

    work page 1970

  8. [6]

    Atiyah and I.M

    M.F. Atiyah and I.M. Singer, The Index of Elliptic Operators: V , Ann. of Math. 93 (1971), 139–149

    work page 1971

Show all 43 references
  1. [7]

    B¨ ar and W

    C. B¨ ar and W. Ballmann, Boundary value problems for elliptic differential operators of first order , Surv. Diff. Geom. 17 (2012), 1–78. arXiv:1101.1196

    2012 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Borisov and D

    D. Borisov and D. Joyce, Virtual fundamental classes for moduli spaces of sheaves on Calabi–Yau four-folds , Geometry and Topology 21 (2017), 3231–3311. arXiv:1504.00690

    2017 arXiv

  3. [9]

    C. Brav, V. Bussi, D. Dupont, D. Joyce, and B. Szendr˝ oi, Symmetries and stabilization for sheaves of vanishing cycles , Journal of Singularities 11 (2015), 85–151. arXiv:1211.3259

    2015 arXiv

  4. [10]

    C. Brav, V. Bussi, and D. Joyce, A Darboux theorem for derived schemes with shifted symplectic structure , J. A.M.S. 32 (2019), 399–443. arXiv:1305.6302

    2019 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Bussi, D

    V. Bussi, D. Joyce and S. Meinhardt, On motivic vanishing cycles of critical loci, Journal of Algebraic Geometry 28 (2019), 405–438. arXiv:1305.6 428

    2019

  6. [12]

    Y. Cao, J. Gross and D. Joyce, Orientability of moduli spaces of Spin(7)- instantons and coherent sheaves on Calabi–Yau 4-folds, Adv. Math. 368 (2020), doi https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2020.107134. arXiv:181 1.09658

    2020

  7. [13]

    Davis and P

    J.F. Davis and P. Kirk, Lecture notes in algebraic topology , Graduate Stud- ies in Mathematics 35, A.M.S., Providence, RI, 2001

    2001

  8. [14]

    Dold, Lectures on algebraic topology , Grundlehren der math

    A. Dold, Lectures on algebraic topology , Grundlehren der math. Wiss. 200, Springer-Verlag, Berlin–New York, 1980

    1980

  9. [15]

    Donaldson, An application of gauge theory to four-dimensional topol- ogy, J

    S.K. Donaldson, An application of gauge theory to four-dimensional topol- ogy, J. Diff. Geom. 18 (1983), 279–315. 51

    1983

  10. [16]

    Donaldson, The orientation of Yang–Mills moduli spaces and 4- manifold topology, J

    S.K. Donaldson, The orientation of Yang–Mills moduli spaces and 4- manifold topology, J. Diff. Geom. 26 (1987), 397–428

    1987

  11. [17]

    Donaldson and P.B

    S.K. Donaldson and P.B. Kronheimer, The Geometry of Four-Manifolds , OUP, 1990

    1990

  12. [18]

    Joyce, An introduction to d-manifolds and derived differential geo metry, pages 230–281 in L

    D. Joyce, An introduction to d-manifolds and derived differential geo metry, pages 230–281 in L. Brambila-Paz et al., editors, Moduli spaces , L.M.S. Lecture Notes 411, Cambridge University Press, 2014. arXiv:1206 .4207

    2014

  13. [19]

    Joyce, A classical model for derived critical loci , J

    D. Joyce, A classical model for derived critical loci , J. Diff. Geom. 101 (2015), 289–367. arXiv:1304.4508

    2015 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Joyce, Conjectures on counting associative 3-folds in G2-manifolds, pages 97–160 in V

    D. Joyce, Conjectures on counting associative 3-folds in G2-manifolds, pages 97–160 in V. Mu˜ noz et al., editors, Modern Geometry: A Celebration of the Work of Simon Donaldson , Proc. Symp. Pure Math. 99, A.M.S., Providence, RI, 2018. arXiv:1610.09836

    2018 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Joyce, Kuranishi spaces as a 2-category, pages 253–298 in J

    D. Joyce, Kuranishi spaces as a 2-category, pages 253–298 in J. Morgan, editor, Virtual Fundamental Cycles in Symplectic Topology , Mathematical Surveys and Monographs 237, A.M.S., 2019. arXiv:1510.07444

    2019 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Joyce, D-manifolds and d-orbifolds: a theory of derived differenti al ge- ometry, to be published by OUP, 2019

    D. Joyce, D-manifolds and d-orbifolds: a theory of derived differenti al ge- ometry, to be published by OUP, 2019. Preliminary version (2012) available at http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/~joyce/dmanifolds.html

    2012

  17. [23]

    Joyce, Kuranishi spaces and Symplectic Geometry, multiple volume book in progress, 2017-2027

    D. Joyce, Kuranishi spaces and Symplectic Geometry, multiple volume book in progress, 2017-2027. Preliminary versions of volumes I, II availa ble at http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/~joyce/Kuranishi.html

    2017

  18. [24]

    Joyce, Y

    D. Joyce, Y. Tanaka, and M. Upmeier, On orientations for gauge-theoretic moduli spaces, Adv. Math. 362 (2020), doi https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2019.106957. arXiv:1811.01096

    2020

  19. [27]

    det” and “Div

    F.F. Knudsen and D. Mumford, The projectivity of the moduli space of stable curves. I. Preliminaries on “det” and “Div” , Math. Scand. 39 (1976), 19–55

    1976

  20. [28]

    Kontsevich and Y

    M. Kontsevich and Y. Soibelman, Stability structures, motivic Donaldson– Thomas invariants and cluster transformations , arXiv:0811.2435, 2008

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Kontsevich and Y

    M. Kontsevich and Y. Soibelman, Cohomological Hall algebra, exponen- tial Hodge structures and motivic Donaldson–Thomas invari ants, Commun. Number Theory Phys. 5 (2011), 231–352. arXiv:1006.2706. 52

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Lawson and M.-L

    H.B. Lawson and M.-L. Michelsohn, Spin geometry, Princeton Math. Series 38, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1989

    1989

  23. [31]

    Metzler, Topological and smooth stacks , math.DG/0306176, 2003

    D.S. Metzler, Topological and smooth stacks , math.DG/0306176, 2003

    2003

  24. [32]

    Nekrasov and A

    N. Nekrasov and A. Okounkov, Membranes and sheaves , Algebr. Geom. 3 (2016), 320–369. arXiv:1404.2323

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Noohi, Foundations of topological stacks, I , math.AG/0503247, 2005

    B. Noohi, Foundations of topological stacks, I , math.AG/0503247, 2005

    2005

  26. [34]

    Noohi, Homotopy types of topological stacks , arXiv:0808.3799, 2008

    B. Noohi, Homotopy types of topological stacks , arXiv:0808.3799, 2008

    2008 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Pantev, B

    T. Pantev, B. To¨ en, M. Vaqui´ e, and G. Vezzosi, Shifted symplectic struc- tures, Publ. Math. I.H.E.S. 117 (2013), 271–328. arXiv:1111.3209

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Quillen, Determinants of Cauchy–Riemann operators on Riemann sur- faces, Functional Anal

    D. Quillen, Determinants of Cauchy–Riemann operators on Riemann sur- faces, Functional Anal. Appl. 19 (1985), 31–34

    1985

  29. [37]

    Sasahira, Spin structures on Seiberg–Witten moduli spaces , J

    H. Sasahira, Spin structures on Seiberg–Witten moduli spaces , J. Math. Sci. Univ. Tokyo 13 (2006), 347–363. math.DG/0404275

    2006

  30. [38]

    Taubes, Casson’s invariant and gauge theory, J

    C.H. Taubes, Casson’s invariant and gauge theory, J. Diff. Geom. 31 (1990), 547–599

    1990

  31. [39]

    To¨ en and M

    B. To¨ en and M. Vaqui´ e,Moduli of objects in dg-categories , Ann. Sci. ´Ec. Norm. Sup. 40 (2007), 387–444. math.AG/0503269

    2007

  32. [40]

    To¨ en and G

    B. To¨ en and G. Vezzosi, From HAG to DAG: derived moduli stacks , pages 173–216 in Axiomatic, enriched and motivic homotopy theory , NATO Sci. Ser. II Math. Phys. Chem., 131, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 200 4. math.AG/0210407

  33. [41]

    To¨ en and G

    B. To¨ en and G. Vezzosi, Homotopical Algebraic Geometry II: Geometric Stacks and Applications , Mem. A.M.S. 193 (2008), no. 902. math.AG/0404373

    2008

  34. [42]

    Upmeier, A categorified excision principle for elliptic symbol fami- lies, Quart

    M. Upmeier, A categorified excision principle for elliptic symbol fami- lies, Quart. J. Math. (2021), doi https://doi.org/10.1093/qmath/h aaa063. arXiv:1901.10818

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Walpuski, Gauge theory on G2-manifolds, PhD Thesis, Imperial College London, 2013

    T. Walpuski, Gauge theory on G2-manifolds, PhD Thesis, Imperial College London, 2013. The Mathematical Institute, Radcliffe Observatory Quarte r, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, U.K. E-mails: joyce@maths.ox.ac.uk, upmeier@maths.ox.ac.uk. 53

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.