Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

All toric Kahler surfaces with twistor 2-forms

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that every smooth toric Kähler surface with a torus-invariant twistor 2-form is locally one of six explicit families, completing the classification.

desk verdict A systematic local classification of toric Kähler surfaces with twistor 2-forms, carefully worked; the six-family list is credible but completeness depends on ODE branch analysis that deserves a referee's check. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.21114 v2 pith:F4LMP6VZ submitted 2024-12-30 hep-th gr-qcmath.DG

Sergei G. Ovchinnikov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qcmath.DG MSC 53C2853C5553D20
keywords twistor2-formsconformalKilling-YanoformstoricKählersurfaceshamiltonianambitoricgeometrylocallyconformallymomentmapsorthotoric
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

Kähler geometries with twistor 2-forms sit at the intersection of integrability and explicit construction: the twistor equation is a conformal Killing-Yano equation whose solutions control hidden symmetries and separability. This paper aims to finish their classification on smooth toric Kähler surfaces, the setting with a two-torus of symmetries and moment maps. The main theorem asserts that any such geometry is locally one of six explicit families—product-toric, Calabi-toric, orthotoric, elliptic, conformally orthotoric (parabolic), and hyperbolic—each parameterised by two arbitrary functions of one variable. The three known hamiltonian-2-form families reappear, three new families join them, and the list is proved exhaustive for smooth toric surfaces. The paper also records that the square norm of the twistor form is quadratic in moment maps for every family, and puts forward a conjecture that this remains true when less symmetry is present.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the twistor 2-form written as $\phi^{tw}=e^\mu I$, where $I$ is a unit self-dual 2-form; Lemma 3 identifies it with a locally conformally Kähler structure, so $e^{-2\mu}I$ is Kähler on the conformally rescaled metric. In the toric chart, the moment maps $x,y$ are rational functions of two coordinates $\xi,\eta$, and the equations reduce to a single compatibility equation for two one-variable functions, whose solution branches produce the six families. Proposition 4, that $e^{2\mu}$ is at most quadratic in moment maps, is the algebraic invariant used to prove the families are distinct.

What would settle it

The decisive check is to produce a smooth toric Kähler surface with a torus-invariant self-dual twistor 2-form that lies in the positive eigenspace of the angle inversion, since Proposition 2 says the axis expansion rules this out; any explicit smooth example with that symmetry would overturn Theorem 1. A complementary test is to find a smooth toric example where the norm squared $e^{2\mu}$ is not quadratic in moment maps, which would also falsify Proposition 4 and Conjecture 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: on a smooth toric Kähler surface $(M,g,J)$ with a non-empty axis, a self-dual twistor 2-form $\phi^{tw}$ invariant under the torus forces a local chart of the form $$$ds^{2}$=\frac{e^\mu}{F}d\$xi^{2}$+\frac{e^\mu}{G}d\$eta^{2}$+\frac{F}{e^\mu}(x_\xi d\Psi+y_\xi d\Phi)^2+\frac{G}{e^\mu}(x_\eta d\Psi+y_\eta d\Phi)^2,$$ with $F=F(\xi)$, $G=G(\eta)$, and $x,y$ the moment maps for the axial Killing fields $\partial_\Psi$, $\partial_\Phi$. The geometric data $(\mu,x,y)$ must belong to one of six families: product-toric, Calabi-toric, orthotoric, elliptic, conformally orthotoric (parabolic), and hyperbolic. The first three are exactly the toric Kähler geometries with hamiltonian 2-forms; the last three are new, mutually non-isomorphic, and not isomorphic to the orthotoric family. The proof also excludes twistor forms in the positive eigenspace of the angle inversion via the axis expansion, and claims that a torus-invariant twistor form whose associated locally conformally Kähler structure does not share the torus action cannot be smooth. A further structural finding, Proposition 4, is that in every family the square norm $e^{2\mu}$ of the twistor form is at most quadratic in the moment maps.

Load-bearing premise

The list is exhaustive only if a torus-invariant twistor 2-form cannot come from a conformally Kähler structure that fails to share the surface's torus action, and only if the near-axis expansion used to exclude the remaining symmetry class is valid; the paper states the first point without proof and relies on the expansion for the second.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The six explicit charts are normal forms: any smooth toric Kähler surface with a torus-invariant self-dual twistor 2-form can be written locally as one of them, so existence questions reduce to choosing the two free functions $F$ and $G$.
  • The three hamiltonian-2-form families in the list are exactly the known product-toric, Calabi-toric and orthotoric geometries, confirming that the new classification extends rather than replaces the previous one.
  • The three new families have explicit Ricci and scalar curvature formulas, and their conformal duals stay inside the list (with parabolic paired to orthotoric), giving a closed set of geometries for curvature computations.
  • The quadratic-in-moment-maps property of $e^{2\mu}$ is stated as Conjecture 1 for Kähler geometries with less symmetry, providing a concrete structural target for generalisation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Conjecture 1 holds, the norm condition $e^{2\mu}=$ quadratic in moment maps could be used as a selection rule for non-toric searches, reducing a PDE classification to checking a polynomial identity; this is an editorial extrapolation, not a claim of the paper.
  • The new families give a concrete testing ground for supersymmetric background equations in five-dimensional gauged supergravity, since the paper supplies their curvature but does not perform that check.
  • The fact that Proposition 4 is verified case-by-case rather than derived suggests that a conceptual proof through conformal geometry would be the natural next step; the paper points in this direction but does not carry it out.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims a complete local classification of smooth toric Kähler surfaces admitting a torus-invariant self-dual twistor 2-form. Theorem 1 asserts that every such geometry is locally one of six families: product-toric, Calabi-toric, orthotoric, elliptic, conformally orthotoric (parabolic), and hyperbolic, with explicit metrics (54), (58), (64), (78), (67), (80). The proof proceeds by reducing the twistor equation to a metric ansatz (43) via Lemma 4, deriving the compatibility system (47), and then solving this system in a series of cases in Sections 3.2–3.3, with ODE details in Appendix B. The paper also computes curvature data for all families and observes that the squared norm of the twistor 2-form is at most quadratic in moment maps, leading to Conjecture 1.

Significance. If correct, the classification would be a significant completion of a known circle of ideas: it would show that the ambitoric catalogue of [34,35] exhausts toric Kähler surfaces with twistor 2-forms, and it would make the six families available in an explicit form suitable for further use in supergravity and geometric analysis. The paper has real strengths: the local reduction in Lemma 4 is systematic, the classification is attempted from first principles rather than by fitting parameters, and the explicit curvature formulas in Appendix A are useful. The novelty claim that the parabolic pair consists of genuinely distinct geometries, and the quadratic-norm observation behind Conjecture 1, are interesting and deserve attention.

major comments (5)
  1. [§1 and §2] The Introduction states that if the conformally Kähler structure associated with a twistor 2-form does not have a common torus action, then the geometry cannot be smooth. This assertion is load-bearing for the completeness of Theorem 1, because the six-family list is derived only for twistor forms in the negative eigenspace of the angle inversion i_φ. The body of the paper proves Proposition 2 only for the positive eigenspace of i_φ; I could not find a proof that the conformally Kähler pair from Lemma 3 must share the torus action. This gap should be closed by an explicit argument or by a clearly stated additional assumption.
  2. [§3.3.1 and Appendix B.1] The completeness of the general-case solution rests on the ODE (72), f'' f^3 + (f - ξ f')^3 = 0. The reduction in Appendix B.1 substitutes f = z e^{2t}, ξ = ± e^t, and p(z) = z' to obtain the first-order equation (121), whose solution is written as (122). This reduction assumes that every solution orbit can be represented as a graph p over z, and it does not analyze the singular sets z = 0, z' = 0, or the envelope of the family (122), other than noting the linear case. Since (72) is singular at f = 0, exceptional solutions in these sets would correspond to local toric Kähler surfaces with twistor 2-forms not appearing in the six families. A rigorous proof of exhaustiveness of (122) is needed.
  3. [§3.3.2] The irregular-branch analysis relies on an asymptotic trichotomy (84)–(87) for the divergent part of c4 at a zero of c3. The text asserts that the listed rates ω(η^{-1}), Θ(η^{-1}), o(η^{-1})∩ω(η^{1/2}), o(η^{1/2}), and Θ(η^{1/2}) cover all possibilities, but no argument is given that the leading-order balance at each rate is the only one, or that no transitional asymptotic regime survives after substitution into (69). In particular, after solving the leading ODE (87), the claim that solutions (88) and (89) reduce to (90) is stated without showing the substitution into (69) that eliminates the extra parameters. Since this step is what removes putative additional families, it must be made explicit and checked.
  4. [§3.3.1, Eqs. (79) and (81)] The transformations (79) and (81) are used to identify the two branches of the solution (77) with the elliptic form (78) and the hyperbolic form (80). These transformations are stated without derivation. If a branch were misidentified or the transformations failed to be locally invertible on the relevant open sets, the list of independent families could change. The paper should either prove (79) and (81) explicitly or explain how they are obtained from the branch formulas.
  5. [§3.4, Proposition 4] The non-isomorphism of the six families is concluded from the table of squared norms e^{2μ} in Proposition 4 and the sentence that no affine transformation of moment maps can bring one form into another. This is plausible, but the table alone does not provide the required invariant argument: the norm is a function on the manifold, and the claimed absence of affine transformations should be demonstrated for each pair, e.g., by comparing the algebraic types of the quadratics x^2 + y^2 - 1, x^2, x^2 - 4y, and 4xy + 1. Since the statement 'six independent families' is the main result, this verification should be supplied in more detail.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1] The proof that any smooth closed torus-invariant 2-form satisfies ι_{m1}ι_{m2}Ω = 0 uses the axis to show the constant vanishes; this is correct, but the sentence beginning 'one can further show' would benefit from a pointer to the exact place where the axis is used.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (26)] After writing ω_Ψ ∧ ω_Φ = 0, the text says the 1-forms can be written as ω_Ψ = k_Ψ dξ and ω_Φ = k_Φ dξ. This is valid when at least one of the ω's is nonzero and dξ is a common generator, but the degenerate case where one form vanishes identically should be mentioned or excluded explicitly.
  3. [§3.2.3] The notation 'c4 diverges as 1/c3 at a zero of c3' is intuitive but not precise: it would help to state the exact leading-order form, for example ĉ = Θ(η^{-1}) with an explicitly bounded remainder, before the decomposition into divergent and regular parts is used.
  4. [Appendix B] In Appendix B.1, the branch ϵ = 0 leads to (125), and in B.2 the case ĉ02 = 1 gives (133); in both places the special solutions are identified with previously found cases, but the identification is stated rather than shown. A few lines of algebra would make these reductions checkable.
  5. [Throughout] The manuscript contains several typographical artifacts (e.g., 'K¨ ahler', 'ϕtw', 'deta' in the abstract of the reader's version), which should be corrected in the published version. These do not affect the mathematical content.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the six-family classification is derived from local first-order twistor equations, with external citations used only for standard equivalences and known hamiltonian 2-form classifications.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained: the twistor 2-form equation is reduced, via the locally conformally Kähler equivalence (Lemma 3) and the frame construction of Section 3.1, to the compatibility system (47), which is then solved explicitly into the six families. No fitted parameters or data enter, and no target result is assumed in the derivation. The known hamiltonian 2-form classification from [25,31] is used only to identify the first three families and their mutual non-isomorphism, not to produce the new elliptic, parabolic and hyperbolic branches. The self-citation to [9] for Lemma 2 (axis asymptotics) concerns standard toric Kähler surface behavior and is used locally in Proposition 2 to exclude the positive i_phi eigenspace; it does not encode the classification being proven and is externally checkable. Proposition 4 is explicitly an observation from the already-constructed families and is used only as an invariant to distinguish families, so it is not a fitted input called a prediction. The completeness gates identified by the skeptic—the asserted exclusion of conformally Kähler structures without a common torus action, the adequacy of the axis expansion (22), and the exhaustiveness of the ODE/asymptotic analysis in Sections 3.3 and Appendix B—are potential mathematical gaps or correctness risks, but none of them is a circular reduction of the conclusion to an input; a failure there would mean an incomplete proof or a missed family, not a derivation that is equivalent to its own assumptions by construction.

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

The derivation introduces no new physical entities. The free functions F(xi) and G(eta) are not fitted parameters; they are the degrees of freedom of the classification. The main non-derived input is the Introduction's common-torus smoothness assertion, which is flagged separately. The other inputs are standard geometric equivalences and the smooth toric chart and axis behavior.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A SD 2-form phi_tw = e^mu I is twistor if and only if the conformal pair (e^{-2mu} g, e^{-2mu} I) is Kähler (Lemma 3, cited from [36]).
    Used in Section 3.1 step 5 to convert the twistor equation into closure of e^{-2mu} I. This is a standard equivalence, not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption Every smooth toric Kähler surface has a non-empty axis and can be described locally by Abreu symplectic coordinates with the axis behavior (12) from Lemma 2 (cited from [9]).
    Used in Section 2 to establish the negative-eigenspace structure and in Proposition 2 to derive the contradictory leading behavior (23).
  • ad hoc to paper Local charts can be chosen so that d xi is nonzero and the metric can be diagonalized in the frame (27).
    This is the starting ansatz of Lemma 4; the paper asserts it is always possible for torus-invariant twistor forms but does not discuss degenerate cases beyond the observation omega_Psi wedge omega_Phi = 0.
  • standard math The families are considered up to diffeomorphisms and redefinitions of F and G; non-isomorphism of the three hamiltonian families is taken from [25].
    Used in Section 3.4 to assert that the six families are independent; the proof for the new families uses the table of e^{2mu} under affine transformations of moment maps.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of All toric Kahler surfaces with twistor 2-forms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F4LMP6VZ

@misc{pith2026241221114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: All toric Kahler surfaces with twistor 2-forms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F4LMP6VZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.21114}
}
read the original abstract

We complete the classification of all smooth 4-dimensional Kahler geometries admitting a twistor (conformal Killing-Yano) 2-form invariant under a 2-torus action. We establish that there are six geometrically distinct families, and we provide them in a simple form amenable to calculations and compute their curvature. We also find that for toric geometries the square norm of the twistor 2-form is quadratic in moment maps, and we are led to conjecture that this holds when less symmetry is present.

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. Ricci-flat metrics from gauged linear $\sigma$-models without RG flow

    hep-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Explicit Ricci-flat Kähler metrics on cones over products of projective spaces are built from gauged linear sigma models whose 'shadow' fields carry negative-signature kinetic terms.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Gauntlett, Jan B

    Jerome P. Gauntlett, Jan B. Gutowski, Christopher M. Hull, Stathis Pakis, and Har- vey S. Reall. All supersymmetric solutions of minimal supergravity in five dimensions. Class. Quantum Grav. , 20(21):4587–4634, November 2003. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep- th/0209114

    work page arXiv 2003

  2. [2]

    Gauntlett and Jan B

    Jerome P. Gauntlett and Jan B. Gutowski. All supersymmetric solutions of minimal gauged supergravity in five dimensions. Phys. Rev. D , 70(8):089901, October 2004. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0304064

    arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Comments on supersymmetric solutions of minimal gauged supergravity in five dimensions

    Davide Cassani, Jakob Lorenzen, and Dario Martelli. Comments on supersymmetric solutions of minimal gauged supergravity in five dimensions. Class. Quantum Grav. , 33(11):115013, June 2016. http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.01380

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Gauntlett and Stathis Pakis

    Jerome P. Gauntlett and Stathis Pakis. The Geometry of D = 11 Killing Spinors. J. High Energy Phys., 2003(04):039–039, April 2003. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0212008

    arXiv 2003

  5. [5]

    Gauntlett and Nakwoo Kim

    Jerome P. Gauntlett and Nakwoo Kim. Geometries with Killing Spinors and Super- symmetric AdS Solutions. Commun. Math. Phys. , 284(3):897–918, December 2008. http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.2590

    arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Gauntlett, Dario Martelli, James Sparks, and Daniel Waldram

    Jerome P. Gauntlett, Dario Martelli, James Sparks, and Daniel Waldram. Super- symmetric AdS(5) solutions of M theory. Class. Quant. Grav. , 21:4335–4366, 2004. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0402153

    arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    New black holes in D = 5 minimal gauged supergravity: Deformed boundaries and frozen horizons

    Jose Luis Bl´ azquez-Salcedo, Jutta Kunz, Francisco Navarro-L´ erida, and Eugen Radu. New black holes in D = 5 minimal gauged supergravity: Deformed boundaries and frozen horizons. Phys. Rev. D , 97(8):081502, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Uniqueness of supersymmetric AdS$_5$ black holes with $SU(2)$ symmetry

    James Lucietti and Sergei G. Ovchinnikov. Uniqueness of supersymmetric AdS 5 black holes with SU (2) symmetry. Class. Quantum Grav. , 38(19):195019, October 2021. http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.08542

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Ovchinnikov

    James Lucietti, Praxitelis Ntokos, and Sergei G. Ovchinnikov. On the uniqueness of su- persymmetric AdS5 black holes with toric symmetry.Class. Quant. Grav., 39(24):245006, November 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2208.00896

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Ovchinnikov

    James Lucietti, Praxitelis Ntokos, and Sergei G. Ovchinnikov. All separable supersym- metric AdS5 black holes. JHEP, 05(5):062, May 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.06124

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Gauntlett, Dario Martelli, James F

    Jerome P. Gauntlett, Dario Martelli, James F. Sparks, and Daniel Waldram. A New infinite class of Sasaki-Einstein manifolds. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. , 8(6):987–1000, December 2004. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0403038

    2004 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Toric geometry, Sasaki-Einstein manifolds and a new infinite class of AdS/CFT duals

    Dario Martelli and James Sparks. Toric geometry, Sasaki-Einstein manifolds and a new infinite class of AdS/CFT duals. Commun. Math. Phys. , 262:51–89, 2006. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0411238

    2006 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gauntlett, Dario Martelli, and James Sparks

    Jerome P. Gauntlett, Dario Martelli, and James Sparks. Fibred GK ge- ometry and supersymmetric AdS solutions. JHEP, 11:176, November 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.08078. 24

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gauntlett, and James Sparks

    Pietro Ferrero, Jerome P. Gauntlett, and James Sparks. Supersymmetric spindles. J. High Energ. Phys. , 2022(1):102, January 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01543

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Branes wrapped on quadri- laterals

    Federico Faedo, Alessio Fontanarossa, and Dario Martelli. Branes wrapped on quadri- laterals. arXiv:2402.08724 [hep-th] , February 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08724

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Transverse Kahler geometry of Sasaki manifolds and toric Sasaki-Einstein manifolds

    Akito Futaki, Hajime Ono, and Guofang Wang. Transverse Kahler geometry of Sasaki manifolds and toric Sasaki-Einstein manifolds. J. Diff. Geom., 83(3):585–636, November

  9. [17]

    K¨ ahler–Einstein metrics and vol- ume minimization

    Chi Li and Yuchen Liu. K¨ ahler–Einstein metrics and vol- ume minimization. Adv. Math. , 341:440–492, January 2019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001870818304328

    2019

  10. [18]

    Volume minimization and conformally K¨ ahler, Einstein–Maxwell geometry

    Akito Futaki and Hajime Ono. Volume minimization and conformally K¨ ahler, Einstein–Maxwell geometry. J. Math. Soc. Jap. , 70(4):1493–1521, October 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.07953

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Martelli, J

    D. Martelli, J. Sparks, and Shing-Tung Yau. The Geometric dual of a-maximisation for Toric Sasaki-Einstein manifolds. Commun. Math. Phys. , 268:39–65, 2006. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503183

    2006 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Gauntlett, Dario Martelli, and James Sparks

    Christopher Couzens, Jerome P. Gauntlett, Dario Martelli, and James Sparks. A ge- ometric dual of c-extremization. J. High Energ. Phys. , 2019(1):212, January 2019. http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.11026

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Gauntlett, Dario Martelli, and James Sparks

    Jerome P. Gauntlett, Dario Martelli, and James Sparks. Toric geometry and the dual of \cal I-extremization. JHEP, 06:140, June 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.04282

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Gauntlett, Dario Martelli, and James Sparks

    Andrea Boido, Jerome P. Gauntlett, Dario Martelli, and James Sparks. Gravitational Blocks, Spindles and GK Geometry. November 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Equivariant localization and holography

    Dario Martelli and Alberto Zaffaroni. Equivariant localization and holography. http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03891, June 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gauntlett, and James Sparks

    Pietro Benetti Genolini, Jerome P. Gauntlett, and James Sparks. Equivariant localization in supergravity. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 131(12):121602, September 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03868

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Vestislav Apostolov, David M. J. Calderbank, and Paul Gauduchon. The ge- ometry of weakly selfdual K¨ ahler surfaces. Compos. Math. , (135):279, 2003. http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0104233

    2003 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Toric Sasaki–Einstein met- rics on S2 × S3

    Dario Martelli and James Sparks. Toric Sasaki–Einstein met- rics on S2 × S3. Phys. Lett. B , 621(1):208–212, 2005. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269305008609

    2005

  19. [27]

    Toric geometry of convex quadrilaterals

    Eveline Legendre. Toric geometry of convex quadrilaterals. Journal of Symplectic Geometry, 9(3):343–385, September 2011. https://projecteuclid.org/journals/journal- of-symplectic-geometry/volume-9/issue-3/Toric-geometry-of-convex- quadrilaterals/jsg/1310388900.full. 25

    2011

  20. [28]

    Ricci-flat metrics on the cone over CP2#CP 2

    Dmitri Bykov. Ricci-flat metrics on the cone over CP2#CP 2 . arXiv:1712.07227 [hep-th], December 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07227

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hamiltonian 2-forms and new ex- plicit Calabi–Yau metrics and gradient steady K¨ ahler–Ricci solitons on Cn

    Vestislav Apostolov and Charles Cifarelli. Hamiltonian 2-forms and new ex- plicit Calabi–Yau metrics and gradient steady K¨ ahler–Ricci solitons on Cn. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.15626, December 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Vestislav Apostolov, David M. J. Calderbank, and Paul Gauduchon. Hamiltonian 2-forms in Kahler geometry, I General Theory. http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0202280, January 2004

    2004 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Vestislav Apostolov, David M. J. Calderbank, Paul Gauduchon, and Christina W. Tonneson-Friedman. Hamiltonian 2-forms in Kahler geometry, II Global Classification. http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0401320, January 2004

    2004 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Calderbank, Paul Gauduchon, and Christina W

    Vestislav Apostolov, David M.J. Calderbank, Paul Gauduchon, and Christina W. Tønnesen-Friedman. Hamiltonian 2-forms in K¨ ahler geometry, III ex- tremal metrics and stability. Invent. math. , 173(3):547–601, September 2008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00222-008-0126-x

    2008 doi

  25. [33]

    Conformally related K¨ ahler metrics and the holonomy of lcK manifolds

    Farid Madani, Andrei Moroianu, and Mihaela Pilca. Conformally related K¨ ahler metrics and the holonomy of lcK manifolds. Journal of the European Mathematical Society , 22(1):119–149, September 2019. https://ems.press/journals/jems/articles/16474

    2019

  26. [34]

    Vestislav Apostolov, David M. J. Calderbank, and Paul Gauduchon. Ambitoric geometry I: Einstein metrics and extremal ambik¨ ahler struc- tures. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 2016(721):109–147, August 2014. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/crelle-2014-0060/html

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    Vestislav Apostolov, David M. J. Calderbank, and Paul Gauduchon. Ambitoric geom- etry II: Extremal toric surfaces and Einstein 4-orbifolds. arXiv:1302.6979 [math.DG] , (48):1075, 2015. arxiv.org/abs/1302.6979

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    On twistor spaces of anti-self-dual Hermitian surfaces

    Massimiliano Pontecorvo. On twistor spaces of anti-self-dual Hermitian surfaces. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 331(2):653–661, 1992. https://www.ams.org/tran/1992-331- 02/S0002-9947-1992-1050087-0/

    1992

  29. [37]

    K¨ ahler geometry of toric manifolds in symplectic coordi- nates

    Miguel Abreu. K¨ ahler geometry of toric manifolds in symplectic coordi- nates. Symplectic and contact topology: interactions and perspectives , 3, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0004122

    2001 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Stationary and Axisymmetric Solutions of Higher-Dimensional General Relativity

    Troels Harmark. Stationary and Axisymmetric Solutions of Higher-Dimensional General Relativity. Phys. Rev. D , 70(12):124002, 2004. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0408141

    2004 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Rod Gover

    Maciej Dunajski and A. Rod Gover. Conformally K¨ ahler structures. arXiv:2409.17347 [math.DG], September 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.17347

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Extremal K¨ ahler metrics

    Eugenio Calabi. Extremal K¨ ahler metrics. In EXTREMAL K ¨AHLER METRICS, pages 259–290. Princeton University Press, March 2016. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400881918-016/html?lang=en. 26

    2016 doi

  33. [2009]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0607586

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.