Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Canonical Models of Adjoint Foliated Structures on Surfaces

T0 review · 3 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 For foliated surfaces, the negative part of the Zariski decomposition of $K_{\mathcal{F}}+D$ is a disjoint union of maximal $(D,\mathcal{F})$-chains, and this makes the canonical model's adjoint divisor admit explicit very ample multiples.

desk verdict New explicit Zariski decomposition for adjoint foliated divisors with ε<1/4, but the proof of the key step relies on an unverified application of the separatrix theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00470 v7 pith:XMK6GZIM submitted 2024-12-31 math.AG

Jun Lu , Xiaohang Wu , Shi Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AG MSC 14C2132S6537F75
keywords foliationadjointdivisorcanonicalmodelZariskidecompositionF-chainboundednesseffectiveveryamplenessfoliatedsurface
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 a structural description of adjoint foliated divisors $K_{\mathcal{F}}+D$ on algebraic surfaces when $D$ is either $\epsilon K_X$ with $0<\epsilon<1/4$ or a boundary divisor whose components are not $\mathcal{F}$-invariant. The Zariski negative part of such a divisor is always a disjoint union of maximal $(D,\mathcal{F})$-chains, and on the canonical model the ambient surface has only cyclic, dihedral, or cusp quotient singularities, with cusps excluded in the $\epsilon K_X$ case. When $K_{\mathcal{F}}+D$ is big, $K_{\mathcal{G}}+D_Y$ on the canonical model is ample, and an explicit multiple of it is very ample, with the multiple depending only on $\epsilon$, the index of the positive part, and the volume. This gives an effective bound for a boundedness problem for foliated surfaces of general type.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $(D,\mathcal{F})$-chain: a chain of $\mathcal{F}$-invariant rational curves whose first curve has Gomez-Mont--Seade--Verjovsky index $1$ and whose later curves have index $0$, together with a $\mathbb{Q}$-divisor $M(D,\Theta)$ supported on the chain and defined by $M(D,\Theta)\cdot\Gamma_i=-(K_{\mathcal{F}}+D)\cdot\Gamma_i$. The chains are exactly what the negative part of the Zariski decomposition is made of, and $M(D,\Theta)$ is the contribution of each chain. The proof also relies on the separatrix theorem, which guarantees an extra separatrix through every negative-definite tree of reduced invariant curves with normal crossings; this is the mechanism that forces the negative part to split into disjoint maximal chains and rules out curves outside them. Finally, a surface positivity estimate (nefness of $3A+K_X$ with $A=i(D,\mathcal{F})P(D)$) converts the chain classification into explicit very ampleness through a criterion for multiple linear systems.

What would settle it

Look for a log minimal foliated surface satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem 4.2 with $\epsilon\in(0,1/4)$ for which the Zariski negative part $N(\epsilon)$ has an irreducible component not contained in any maximal $(\epsilon K_X,\mathcal{F})$-chain, or for which some connected component of $\mathrm{Exc}(\sigma)$ has a dual graph not among the listed types. Because the authors prove the bound $\epsilon<1/4$ is sharp, a second test is to build a global example at $\epsilon=1/4$ where the canonical model's foliation is not log canonical, mirroring their local Example 5.6.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 4.2: for $D=\Delta+\epsilon K_X$ with $\epsilon\in[0,1/4]$ and no exceptional $(-1)$-curves of the listed types, if $K_{\mathcal{F}}+D$ is pseudo-effective then its Zariski decomposition has negative part $N(D)=\sum_i M(D,\Theta_i)$, summed over all maximal $(D,\mathcal{F})$-chains, and $\lfloor N(D)\rfloor=0$. The same chain language controls the canonical model: Theorem 5.1 lists the possible dual graphs for a connected component of the contracted locus, and Corollary 5.4 gives that $\mathcal{G}$ has at most log canonical singularities and $Y$ only rational quotient singularities when $\epsilon>0$. Consequently, when $K_{\mathcal{F}}+\epsilon K_X$ is big, $K_{\mathcal{G}}+\epsilon K_Y$ is ample and $i(\epsilon K_X,\mathcal{F})\cdot(\alpha(\epsilon K_X,\mathcal{F})+3)\cdot(K_{\mathcal{G}}+\epsilon K_Y)$ is very ample; under the additional hypothesis that $K_{\mathcal{F}}$ is pseudo-effective, a multiple depending only on $\epsilon$, $i(\mathcal{F})$, and $\operatorname{Vol}(K_{\mathcal{F}}+\epsilon K_X)$ is very ample.

Load-bearing premise

The classification hinges on the separatrix theorem's assumptions—reduced singularities, normal crossings, and a negative-definite tree of invariant curves—which are not automatic for log canonical foliations when epsilon>0; without them the claimed description of the negative part and of the quotient singularities does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $D=\epsilon K_X$ with $0<\epsilon<1/4$, the negative part of $K_{\mathcal{F}}+\epsilon K_X$ is a disjoint union of maximal $(\epsilon K_X,\mathcal{F})$-chains with $\lfloor N(\epsilon)\rfloor=0$, so the Zariski decomposition is explicitly computable from the foliation's invariant curves.
  • On the canonical model, $K_{\mathcal{G}}+\epsilon K_Y$ is ample whenever $K_{\mathcal{F}}+\epsilon K_X$ is big, and the divisor $i(\epsilon K_X,\mathcal{F})(\alpha(\epsilon K_X,\mathcal{F})+3)(K_{\mathcal{G}}+\epsilon K_Y)$ is very ample.
  • If $K_{\mathcal{F}}$ is pseudo-effective, there is a uniform integer $n$ depending only on $\epsilon$, $i(\mathcal{F})$, and $\operatorname{Vol}(K_{\mathcal{F}}+\epsilon K_X)$ such that $n(K_{\mathcal{G}}+\epsilon K_Y)$ is very ample.
  • For foliated triples with $D=\Delta$ of coefficients in $[0,1)$, the birational map given by $|m(K_{\mathcal{G}}+\Delta_Y)|$ is an isomorphism away from cusp singularities once $m\ge i(\Delta,\mathcal{F})(\alpha(\Delta,\mathcal{F})+3)$; when $\Delta$ meets every elliptic Gorenstein leaf, $K_{\mathcal{G}}+\Delta_Y$ is ample.
  • For $m\ge i(\Delta,\mathcal{F})(\alpha(\Delta,\mathcal{F})+1)$ divisible by $i(\Delta,\mathcal{F})$, both $H^1$ and $H^2$ of $mP(\Delta)$ vanish and $\dim H^0(m(K_{\mathcal{F}}+\Delta))$ equals the explicit volume formula in Proposition 1.6.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same chain argument should constrain higher-dimensional adjoint foliated pairs only after replacing the string combinatorics by a more general skeleton of invariant subvarieties; the sharp threshold $\epsilon<1/4$ suggests the coefficient $1/4$ will reappear as a log canonical threshold in that setting.
  • Editorial extension: the dual graphs in Theorem 5.1 determine the local analytic types of the quotient singularities, so one could extract explicit local equations and monodromy data from the graphs even though the paper does not write them down.
  • Editorial extension: a testable computational check is whether, for small values of the volume, the multiplier $n$ in Corollary 1.2 is actually optimal; this would require computing the invariant $\alpha$ for explicit foliated surfaces and comparing the vanishing threshold with the base-point-free threshold.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies adjoint foliated structures K_F+D on algebraic surfaces, where D is either εK_X with ε∈[0,1/4] or an effective non-invariant boundary Δ. The central claim is that, under the absence of certain (−1)-curves and pseudo-effectivity of K_F+D, the negative part N(D) of the Zariski decomposition is exactly the sum of M(D,Θ_i) over all maximal (D,F)-chains (Theorem 4.2), with ⌊N(D)⌋=0. From this, the authors derive a classification of the exceptional curves contracted to the canonical model (Theorem 5.1), describe the resulting singularities as cyclic or dihedral quotient singularities (Corollaries 5.3–5.4), and obtain effective very ampleness statements for multiples of K_G+εK_Y (Theorem 6.7, Corollary 1.2). They also state variants for canonical foliations and for a non-invariant curve with zero tangency (Theorems 4.4, 4.9, 5.8) and use the results to give an effective answer to a boundedness problem of Hacon and Langer. The proof of the main theorem relies on Camacho–Sad, the Hodge index theorem, and the separatrix theorem, and the effective bounds are expressed explicitly in terms of i(F), ε, and the volume.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, the paper is a substantial contribution: it gives a complete description of the negative part of the Zariski decomposition for adjoint divisors K_F+εK_X on foliated surfaces, a classification of canonical-model singularities in the log canonical range, and fully explicit effective constants for very ampleness, improving and complementing work of McQuillan, Chen, Spicer–Svaldi, Tan, and Hacon–Langer. The use of the nonnegative index h_p(F,C) and the reduction of the problem to maximal (D,F)-chains are natural and promising. The effective bound in Corollary 6.8 depending only on ε, i(F), and the volume is a genuine, falsifiable statement. However, the proof of the central Zariski decomposition contains a gap concerning the hypotheses of the separatrix theorem, and this gap propagates into the canonical-model classification and the effective results. The paper is not formalized or machine-checked, and several variant theorems are delegated with 'Proof similar to...'.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, proof of Theorem 4.2, around equations (4.5)–(4.6)] The invocation of the separatrix theorem is not justified. The proof asserts 'By the separatrix theorem (cf. Theorem 2.10), we have h ≥ 1' for an F-invariant curve C with W·C<0. Theorem 2.10 requires all singularities of F on the contracted curve to be reduced. In the range ε>0, the foliation is only log canonical (Remark 4.3(1) states this explicitly), and the paper does not prove that the singularities on C∪(∪Θ_i) are reduced; log canonical foliation singularities include non-reduced saddle-nodes. Moreover, even granting reducedness, the conclusion of the separatrix theorem does not by itself produce a singularity on C outside the intersection points p_i: at a transverse intersection p_i, the two invariant branches C and Θ_i already provide separatrices, so the theorem's conclusion can be satisfied with h=0. The estimate h(F,C)≥1 is then used to derive (4.6), to exclude the case k=1 in Case 1, and to rule out the configurations (n1,n2)=(2,2) and (2,3). Without this estimate, the inequality 0>W·C is not contradicted in the stated setting, so the equality N(D)=Σ_iM(D,Θ_i) is not established as written.
  2. [Lemma 5.13 and Theorem 5.1] The classification of F-invariant curves in Null(P(D)) and the resulting description of canonical-model singularities inherit the same gap. In the proof of Lemma 5.13, the line h(F,C)=KF·C+2−2g(C)−k ≥ 1 is again used without verifying the reducedness hypotheses needed for the separatrix theorem. Cases (E)–(G) and the inequalities leading to them depend on this estimate. Consequently, Theorem 5.1, Corollaries 5.3–5.4, and Theorem 1.1(2) are not supported for ε>0. A necessary repair is either to prove that every F-invariant curve C with W·C<0 and C∪Supp(N(D)) negative definite has only reduced singularities on the relevant tree, or to supply a log canonical analogue of Theorem 2.10; without one of these, the range ε∈(0,1/4) is not justified.
  3. [Theorem 4.9 and Corollary 4.10] The effective boundedness and very ampleness results depend on the same unproved claim. In the proof of Theorem 4.9, the claim that 3i(Δ,F)P(Δ)+K_X is nef uses Lemma 5.13 for curves with P(Δ)·C=0, and Corollary 4.10 and Corollary 6.8 rely on the consequences of that claim. Thus the affirmative answer to the Hacon–Langer boundedness question in the form stated is not fully proven. If the missing reducedness argument is supplied for Theorem 4.2, the authors should also verify that it propagates through Lemma 5.13 and Theorem 4.9 without further hypotheses.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and inconsistencies in notation: 'maxiaml' in Theorem 4.2 and its proof, 'Therem 2.10' in §4.1, 'Esc(σ)' for 'Exc(σ)' in §5, 'F oliations' in §2.1, and an erroneous repeated index in the direct sum in the proof of Proposition 6.4 after equation (6.8). These should be corrected.
  2. [Theorem 4.4 and Theorem 5.8] Both theorems are stated with 'Proof similar to...' and no indication of the modifications needed for their different coefficient ranges (ε≤1/2 and ε≤1 in Theorem 4.4, and the additional case (5) in Theorem 5.8). Since these are nontrivial generalizations, a proof sketch or a precise reduction to the proved cases should be included.
  3. [Definition 4.1 and Remark 4.3(1)] The singularity assumption on F is not stated in Definition 4.1 or Theorem 4.2, but Remark 4.3(1) says the theorem applies to canonical singularities for ε=0 and log canonical singularities for ε∈(0,1/4]. This assumption should be made explicit in the theorem statement, especially because the proof of Theorem 4.2 invokes Theorem 2.10 where the singularity type is essential.
  4. [Example 5.6] The quantities l(q_i) and a(q_i) used in the computation of K_{X'} are not defined before use, and the verification that the resulting model is not log canonical is sketched rather than shown. The example would be easier to check if the blow-up sequence and the relevant discrepancies were written out.
  5. [Lemma 2.4(2)] The sentence 'In particular, in this case, if m_p(C)≥2, then p is a dicritical singularity with a local generator v=x∂/∂x+λy∂/∂y for λ∈Q+' seems to conflate saddle-nodes with non-degenerate nodes; a saddle-node with a strong separatrix should not be given by a linear vector field with two nonzero eigenvalues. Please clarify the intended statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Zariski-decomposition theorem is proved from external foliation-index theorems, and self-citations are comparative, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 4.2's identification of N(D) with the sum of M(D,Theta_i) over maximal (D,F)-chains, is not circular: the negative part is defined by the Zariski decomposition, while M(D,Theta_i) is constructed from the intersection matrix of each chain and the values (K_F+D)cdot Gamma_i, and the proof works by showing the residual divisor W=K_F+D-V is nef. The key estimates use external results (Camacho-Sad formula, Hodge index theorem, Cerveau-Lins Neto index formula, Brunella's separatrix theorem), not the theorem being proved. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the effective constants in Corollary 1.2 and Theorem 6.7 depend only on P(D), i(D,F), and Vol, which are invariants of the input, not tuned outputs. Self-citations to [LW24] and [LLTX23] appear only in comparisons or as pointers to related special cases (Remark 4.3(2), Theorem 4.4) and are not load-bearing premises. A genuine mathematical concern, but not a circularity, is the proof of Theorem 4.2's use of the separatrix theorem on an F-invariant curve C with 'By the separatrix theorem (cf. Theorem 2.10), we have h\geq 1' without explicitly verifying reducedness of the foliation singularities in the log canonical regime epsilon>0; that is a correctness/applicability gap, not a derivation that reduces to its input. Accordingly the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or dimensions; (D,F)-chains are defined objects built from the input data. All assumptions are explicit geometric hypotheses such as canonical or log canonical singularities, non-invariant curve conditions, and bounds on epsilon.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Hodge index theorem for divisors on a smooth projective surface
    Invoked as Lemma 2.11 and used in Proposition 6.6 and Lemma 4.11.
  • standard math Camacho-Sad formula for F-invariant curves
    Used in Lemma 2.8 and in the computation of CS-indices along F-chains in Lemma 3.18.
  • standard math Separatrix theorem for foliations on projective surfaces
    Quoted as Theorem 2.10 and used in the proof of Theorem 4.2 to show maximal (D,F)-chains are disjoint and to rule out exceptional curve configurations.
  • standard math McQuillan canonical model construction for pseudo-effective foliations
    Invoked in the introduction and in Corollary 1.7 and Proposition 1.9 as the starting point for models of K_F.
  • standard math Zariski decomposition exists for pseudo-effective R-divisors on smooth projective surfaces
    Used throughout, for example in the definition of P(D)+N(D) in the main theorems.
  • standard math Tan's effective generation theorem for multiple linear systems on surfaces
    Theorem 6.1 is the external engine for all effective bounds in Section 6.
  • domain assumption Foliated surface over C with at most canonical or log canonical singularities
    The setting in Theorems 1.1, 1.4, and 4.2; the paper does not treat positive characteristic or non-algebraic compact surfaces.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Canonical Models of Adjoint Foliated Structures on Surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XMK6GZIM

@misc{pith2026250100470,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Canonical Models of Adjoint Foliated Structures on Surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XMK6GZIM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00470}
}
abstract

In this paper, we study adjoint foliated structures of the form $K_{\mathcal{F}}+D$ on algebraic surfaces and their minimal and canonical models. We investigate the effective behavior of the linear systems $|m(K_{\mathcal{F}}+D)|$ for sufficiently divisible $m>0$. As an application, we obtain an effective answer to a boundedness problem for foliated surfaces of general type posed by Hacon and Langer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00470 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. F-chain (2) Z = Γ1 + · · · + Γr is a chain of smooth F-invariant rational curves, where Z(F, Γi) = 2 and DΓi = 0 for any i. (See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. DΓi = 0 and Γ2 i ≤ −2 for all i. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. DΓi = 0 for all i, and Γ2 j ≤ −2 for j ≥ 3. (4) Z is an elliptic Gorenstein leaf with intersection number zero with D, con￾sisting of consisting of one of the following cases: (4-1) Z is single rational nodal F-invariant curves with D ·Z = 0, such that Sing(F) ∩ Z coincides with the singular locus of Z. (4-2) Z = Γ1 + · · · + Γr is a cycle of smooth F-invariant rational curves, where Γ 2 i ≤ −2, DΓi = 0 for all i, s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An elliptic Gorenstein leaf Z such that DΓ = 0 for every irreducible component Γ of Z. In particular, if we denote by p the contraction point of Z, then p is a rational quotient singularity (resp. elliptic Gorenstein singularity) if Z belongs to (1)-(3) (resp. (4)). Re…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Here we denote by qi (resp. Ei) the blow-up points (resp. exceptional curves) and l(q1) = l(q2) = 1 and l(q3) = a(q3) = 2. So Ei ’s are F ′ -invariant curves and KF′ = σ ∗ (KF ) − E3, KX′ = σ ∗ (KX) + E¯ 1 + 2E¯ 2 + 4E3. Thus, KF′ + 1 4 KX′ = σ ∗ (KF + 1 4 KX) + 1 4 E¯…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Proof. Similar to the proof of Theorem 5.1, this result follows from Corollary 5.12 and Lemma 5.13. □ Remark 5.9. Note that if p denotes the point obtained by contracting Z, then cases (1)—(4) correspond to canonical singularities of the foliation G, whereas case (5) c…

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. Numerical Reduction and Sharp Thresholds for Adjoint Singularities of Foliated Surfaces

    math.AG 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Every ε-adjoint log canonical singularity of a foliated surface is foliated log canonical for 0<ε<1/5, and every ε-adjoint canonical singularity is foliated lc and surface klt for 0<ε<1/4; explicit examples show 1/5 a...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Artin, numerical criteria for contractability of curves on algebraic surfaces, Amer.J.Math

    M. Artin, numerical criteria for contractability of curves on algebraic surfaces, Amer.J.Math. 84 (1962), 485-496

    work page 1962

  2. [2]

    Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Boston (1969)

    Atiyah, M.F., Macdonald, I.G., to Commutative Algebra. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Boston (1969)

    work page 1969

  3. [3]

    Barth, K

    W.P. Barth, K. Hulek, C.A.M. Peters and A. Van de Ven, Compact complex surfaces, Springer, Berlin Germany (2004)

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Brunella, Some remarks on indices of holomorphic vector fields, Publicacions matematiques, 41 (2) (1997), 527-544

    M. Brunella, Some remarks on indices of holomorphic vector fields, Publicacions matematiques, 41 (2) (1997), 527-544

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Brunella, Birational geometry of foliations, IMPA Monographs, 1

    M. Brunella, Birational geometry of foliations, IMPA Monographs, 1. Springer, Cham, 2015. xiv+130 pp. ISBN: 978-3-319-14309-5; 978-3-319-14310-1. MR3328860

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Carnicer, The Poincar\' e problem in the nondicritical case , Annals of mathematics, 140 (2) (1994), 289-294

    Manuel M. Carnicer, The Poincar\' e problem in the nondicritical case , Annals of mathematics, 140 (2) (1994), 289-294

    work page 1994

  7. [7]

    Gomez-Mont, J

    X. Gomez-Mont, J. Seade, A. Verjovsky, The index of a holomorphic flow with an isolated singularity, Math. Ann., 291 (1991), 737-751

    work page 1991

  8. [8]

    Chen, Boundedness of minimal partial du Val resolutions of canonical surface foliations, Math

    Y.-A. Chen, Boundedness of minimal partial du Val resolutions of canonical surface foliations, Math. Ann. 381 (2021), no. 1-2, 557-573

    work page 2021

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Chen, Log canonical foliation singularities on surfaces, Math

    Y.-A. Chen, Log canonical foliation singularities on surfaces, Math. Nachr. 296 (2023), 3222-3256. https://doi.org/10.1002/mana.202100215

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Cascini, E

    P. Cascini, E. Floris, On invariance of plurigenera for foliations on surfaces, Journal f\" u r die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal), 744 (2018), 201-236

    2018

  3. [11]

    Cerveau, A

    D. Cerveau, A. Lins Neto, foliations in (2) having an invariant algebraic curve, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 41 (1991), no. 4, 883--903

    1991

  4. [12]

    Camacho, P

    C. Camacho, P. Sad, varieties through singularities of holomorphic vector fields, Ann.of Math., 115 (3) (1982), 579-595

    1982

  5. [13]

    C. D. Hacon and A. Langer. birational boundedness of foliated surfaces. J. Reine Angew. Math. 770 , 205-229 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1515/crelle-2020-0009

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001

    B a descu, Lucian; Surfaces Universitext. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001

    2001

  7. [15]

    Lu , X.-H

    J. Lu , X.-H. Wu, On the 1-adjoint canonical divisor of a foliation, Manuscr. Math. 175 (2024), 739-752

    2024

  8. [16]

    J. Lu, X. Lu, S.-L. Tan, S. Xu, foliations whose slope is less than 2, preprint

  9. [17]

    Jihao Liu, invariance of plurigenera for foliated surface pairs, arXiv:1707.07092v2, 2019

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Koll\' a r and S

    J. Koll\' a r and S. Mori, geometry of algebraic varieties, Cambridge Tracts in Math. 134, Cambridge Univ. Press. 1998

    1998

  11. [19]

    McQuillan, An introduction to non-commutative Mori theory, European Congress of Mathematics, Vol

    M. McQuillan, An introduction to non-commutative Mori theory, European Congress of Mathematics, Vol. II (Barcelona, 2000), Progr. Math., vol. 202 , Birkh\" a user, Basel, 2001, pp. 47–53. MR1905350

    2000

  12. [20]

    McQuillan, Canonical models of foliations, Pure and Applied Mathematics Quarterly, (Special Issue: In honor of Fedor Bogomolov, Part 2 of 2) 4 (2008), no

    M. McQuillan, Canonical models of foliations, Pure and Applied Mathematics Quarterly, (Special Issue: In honor of Fedor Bogomolov, Part 2 of 2) 4 (2008), no. 3 , 877-1012

    2008

  13. [21]

    Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol

    Miyaoka, Y., Deformation of a morphism along a foliation and applications, in Algebraic Geometry, Bowdoin 1985. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 46 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1987), pp. 245-268

    1985

  14. [22]

    Alessandro Passantino, Numerical conditions for the boundedness of foliated surfaces, arXiv:2412.05986v1, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    In: Kollár, J

    Reid, M., Chapters on Algebraic Surfaces. In: Kollár, J. (ed) Complex Algebraic Geometry, Vol. 3 , pp. 3-159. IAS/Park City Mathematical Series. (1997)

    1997

  16. [24]

    Sakai, divisors on normal surfaces, Duke Math

    F. Sakai, divisors on normal surfaces, Duke Math. J. 51 (1984), no. 4, 877-887

    1984

  17. [25]

    J. V. Pereira and R. Svaldi, Effective algebraic integration in bounded genus, Algebr. Geom. 6 (2019), no. 4, 454-485

    2019

  18. [26]

    Serrano, F., Fibred surfaces ad moduli, Duke Math. J. 67 (1992), no. 3, 407-421

    1992

  19. [27]

    Serrano, F., The sheaf of relative differentials of a fibred surface, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 114 (1993), 461-470

    1993

  20. [28]

    Reine Angew

    Spicer, C., Svaldi, R., Effective generation for foliated surfaces: results and applica-tions, J. Reine Angew. Math. 795 , 45-84 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Tan, S.-L., behavior of multiple linear systems, Asian J. Math. 8 (2004), no. 2, 287-304

    2004

  22. [30]

    Tan, S.-L., Foliated algebraic surfaces with low slope, preprint

Pith tools

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