Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Quantum spectrum and Gamma structure for standard flips

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a standard flip, the Gamma-twisted pieces of cohomology are strong asymptotic classes for the extremal quantum spectrum, matching the semi-orthogonal decomposition.

desk verdict First verification of quantum-spectrum/SOD compatibility for standard flips; plausible and new, but the r-s=1 case and the local-model transfer need more detail. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08762 v2 pith:ZXETWLHD submitted 2025-02-12 math.AG math.SG

Yefeng Shen , Mark Shoemaker This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AGmath.SG MSC 14N3514F0814E30
keywords standardflipsquantumspectrumGammaclassesasymptoticsemi-orthogonaldecompositionextremalcohomologyMeijerG-functionsmirrorsymmetry
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

The paper proves a concrete instance of a conjectural dictionary between quantum cohomology and derived categories. For a standard flip $X \dashrightarrow X'$ — a birational map that replaces an exceptional locus $F \cong \mathbb{P}(V)$ over $Z$ by $F' \cong \mathbb{P}(V')$, with $r=\operatorname{rank} V > s=\operatorname{rank} V'$ — it specializes the quantum product to the curve classes contracted by the flip and shows that quantum multiplication by $c_1(X)$ has one zero eigenvalue of multiplicity $\dim H^*(X')$ and $r-s$ nonzero eigenvalues $\lambda_k(q) = (r-s)e^{-\pi\sqrt{-1}(2k+s)/(r-s)} q$, each of multiplicity $\dim H^*(Z)$. The main theorem then says that the Gamma-twisted pieces of $H^*(X)$ coming from the semi-orthogonal decomposition in (4) are strong asymptotic classes attached to those eigenvalues and rays: flat sections of the quantum connection have the predicted exponential factors along the predicted rays. Consequently that derived-category decomposition is compatible with the extremal quantum spectrum, as conjectured in the mirror-symmetry program, and the statement covers projective bundles and blow-ups as the limiting cases $s=0$ and $s=1$.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through the extremal quantum product $\star_q$, which keeps only curve classes $k[L]$ in the contracted extremal ray; the local model $T = \operatorname{tot}(\pi^* V' \otimes \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}(V)}(-1))$, a torus-equivariant total space whose extremal quantum cohomology has the explicit presentation $H^*(Z)[H][[q]]/\langle\prod_{i=1}^r(\rho_i+H)=q^{r-s}\prod_{j=1}^s(\sigma_j-H)\rangle$; the Gamma class $\widehat\Gamma_X=\prod\Gamma(1+\delta_i)$ over Chern roots, used as an asymmetric square root of the Todd class; and the asymptotic expansions of Meijer G-functions applied to the modified J-functions of the local model. The local-model computation fixes both the eigenvalues and the exponential asymptotics $e^{-\lambda_m(q)/z}$; flag-bundle and deformation-to-the-normal-cone arguments then transfer the statement from the local model to an arbitrary standard flip.

What would settle it

Compute the extremal quantum product and the flat pairings for a concrete small flip, for instance the local model with $Z$ a point, $r=2$, $s=1$. Diagonalize $c_1(X) \star_q -$ using the presentation of the extremal quantum cohomology and check numerically that $\langle \widetilde{J}^X(q,-z), \widehat\Gamma_X \Psi^X_m(1)\rangle$ grows like $\exp(-\lambda_m(q)/z)$ times a power series in $z/q$ as $z \to 0$ along $\arg(z/q)=-(2m-s)/(r-s)\pi$, and stays polynomially bounded along $\arg(z/q)=(1-s)/(r-s)\pi$ for the Fourier–Mukai piece. A single mismatch of the exponential exponent or of the ray order would falsify the claimed compatibility.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, Theorem 1.4, is that for a standard flip the decomposition (11) of $H^*(X)$ is a decomposition of strong asymptotic classes with respect to the quantum spectrum of $c_1(X) \star_q -$. After the extremal specialization ($Q^d=1$ only for $d=k[L]$, $t=\ln(q)c_1(X)$), the classes $\widehat\Gamma_X \Psi^X_m(H^*(Z))$ are strong asymptotic classes for the eigenvalue $\lambda_m(q)$ along the ray $\arg(z/q)=-(2m-s)/(r-s)\pi$, while $\widehat\Gamma_X U_X(H^*(X'))$ are strong tame asymptotic classes along $\arg(z/q)=(1-s)/(r-s)\pi$. Since the linear maps $\Psi^X_m$ and $U_X$ are the cohomological shadows of the functors $\Phi^X_m$ and $FM$ that make up the semi-orthogonal decomposition (4), the theorem says that each piece of that derived decomposition is visible in the asymptotics of flat sections of the quantum connection, with the order of pieces matching the clockwise order of the rays. The spectrum itself (Theorem 1.2) has a zero eigenvalue of multiplicity $\operatorname{rank} H^*(X')$ and $r-s$ nonzero eigenvalues $\lambda_k(q)$, each of multiplicity $\operatorname{rank} H^*(Z)$.

Load-bearing premise

The proof's load-bearing premise is that after restricting to the contracted curve direction, the quantum invariants of the actual flip agree with those of a simplified local model built from the exceptional normal bundle; if the two sets of invariants diverge after the non-equivariant limit, the spectral decomposition would not transfer back to the original variety.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The semi-orthogonal decomposition (4) of $D^b(X)$ is compatible with the extremal quantum spectrum: the subcategory $FM(D^b(X'))$ is Gamma-asymptotic along the tame ray $\arg(z/q)=(1-s)/(r-s)\pi$, and each $\Phi^X_m(D^b(Z))$ is Gamma-asymptotic along the ray of $\lambda_m(q)$, with the pieces ordered clockwise as listed in Remark 1.6.
  • The quantum spectrum is determined by the flip data: zero appears with multiplicity $\dim H^*(X')$, so the flip-out side contributes only tame classes, while the $r-s$ nonzero eigenvalues of multiplicity $\dim H^*(Z)$ are indexed by the twist $m$ of the line bundles $\mathcal{O}_F(m)$ used to build the subcategories.
  • Projective bundles ($s=0$) and blow-ups ($s=1$) are limiting cases of the same theorem, so the standard decompositions for those spaces are also compatible with the extremal quantum spectrum.
  • For the local model, the central charge of the Fourier–Mukai image satisfies $Z(FM(E'))(q,t) \sim Z_I^{T'}(E')(q^{-1},t)$ along the tame ray, so the flip wall-crossing in the small quantum limit is governed by the same asymptotic identity that defines the tame classes.
  • The flat-section growth rate distinguishes the subcategories: sections paired with $\widehat\Gamma_X \Psi^X_m(\alpha)$ grow like $e^{-\lambda_m(q)/z}$ times a power series in $z/q$, giving an analytic invariant that can be read off from the quantum connection alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An immediate extension suggested by the proof is to test whether the same ray ordering persists for the full, non-extremal quantum connection; the paper's own remark on toric bundles indicates the extremal restriction is a technical convenience, and a numerical check on a simple flip would show whether non-extremal corrections only deform the rays without reordering them.
  • The tame sector attached to $X'$ suggests a Stokes-phenomenon reading of the flip: crossing the wall in the minimal model program corresponds to a jump in the asymptotic expansion of flat sections, with the FM image of $X'$ contributing the non-exponential part. This could be tested by numerically continuing the flat sections of the local model across the rays.
  • The role of the Gamma class as an asymmetric square root of the Todd class predicts that the same decomposition works for twisted K-theoretic central charges, not just cohomology; computing the subleading coefficients $c_{n,m}$ in the asymptotic expansion would give refined numerical invariants of the flip.
  • If the compatibility holds for iterated flips, the quantum spectrum would provide a directed graph on birational models, with each flip corresponding to a Stokes ray crossing; checking the composition of two flips against the corresponding composition of ray orders would test the conjecture beyond single flips.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the extremal quantum cohomology of standard flips, i.e. the specialization of the quantum product to the extremal ray generated by the contracted curve class [L]. The authors prove that the quantum multiplication by c1(X) has one zero eigenvalue of multiplicity rank H*(X') and r-s nonzero eigenvalues λ_k(q) = (r-s)e^{-π i (2k+s)/(r-s)} q of multiplicity rank H*(Z) (Theorem 1.2), and they compute the corresponding asymptotic classes. Their main result, Theorem 1.4, asserts that the Gamma-twisted pieces bΓ_X Ψ^X_m(H*(Z)) and bΓ_X U_X(H*(X')) are strong asymptotic classes (respectively tame) for these eigenvalues, and that this matches the semi-orthogonal decomposition of Belmans-Fu-Raedschelders. The proof proceeds by reductions to a local model T = tot(π^*V' ⊗ O(-1)), explicit J-function formulas, and asymptotic expansions of Meijer G-functions, followed by a deformation-to-the-normal-cone argument to transfer the result back to X.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, it gives the first concrete verification of a Dubrovin-type compatibility between a semi-orthogonal decomposition and the quantum spectrum for flips, going beyond the previously treated projective bundles and blow-ups. The paper contains several genuinely useful ingredients: explicit presentations of the extremal quantum cohomology of projective bundles and local models (Eqs. (36), (37)), closed J-function formulas (Theorem 4.4), a careful reduction from nonsplit to split bundles using flag bundles and deformations (Section 9.2), and explicit Meijer G-function asymptotics (Appendix A). The result is plausible and the strategy is well chosen. However, the transfer from the local model back to X is only sketched at the two load-bearing points: the virtual-class comparison in Theorem 3.3 and the companion S-operator comparison in Theorem 9.9. In addition, the theorem is stated for all standard flips while the nonzero-eigenvalue asymptotics are proved only under r-s > 1. These gaps are substantial enough that the manuscript needs revision before the central claim is fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§7.2, Proposition 7.5; Theorem 1.4] The asymptotic statement for the nonzero eigenvalues is proved only in the case r-s > 1: Proposition 7.5 begins 'For r-s > 1, we apply Barnes' asymptotic formula', and Section 7.2 is explicitly restricted to r-s > 1. Yet Theorem 1.4 and Corollary 1.5 are stated for all standard flips, without the assumption r-s > 1, and they explicitly claim the results also hold for s=0,1. In particular, r-s=1 cases such as a (2,1)-flip are not covered by the proof. The statement of Theorem 1.4 must either be restricted to r-s > 1 or the proof must be extended to r-s=1. This is load-bearing because the eigenvalue formula and the rays in Theorem 1.4 depend on r-s.
  2. [§3.2, Theorem 3.3; §9.3, Theorem 9.9 and Eq. (86)] The global-to-local bridge is the most fragile point of the paper. In Theorem 3.3 the proof uses the chain of equalities in which the identity k_* j^* j_* = k_* (e(V'(-1)) ∪ -) is inserted, together with the assertion that [M_{0,3}(T,d)]^{vir} is identified with [M_{0,3}(X,d)]^{vir}. This is only sketched. Later, Theorem 9.9 and Eq. (86) need the analogous identification for the full S-operator integrand, which contains z^{-μ} z^ρ, a descendant insertion 1/(-z-ψ_1), and the Gamma/Todd factors. The proof says only that for d>0 the equality 'follows from the same argument as in Theorem 3.3'. This is not sufficient: one must compare the virtual classes of M_{0,n+2}(X,k[L]) and M_{0,n+2}(T,k[L]) with the psi-class at the descendant marking, and one must prove that the equivariant localization sums of Section 8 have a finite nonequivariant limit after cancellation of denominators such as sin(π(ρ_i+σ_l)). The degree-zero terms match, but the d>0 terms are exactly the content of the theorem. Please provide a detailed proof or a precise reference for this comparison.
  3. [§8.2, Proposition 8.2 and Proposition 8.3] The nonequivariant limit in the tame asymptotic statement is asserted rather than demonstrated. The proof of Proposition 8.2 invokes the condition (71) that the constants b_i - b_k, a_l - b_i, and a_l - a_j avoid integers and Z_+, and says this holds 'viewing the equivariant parameters as general small complex numbers'. But the final theorem requires the equivariant limit λ→0, where the parameters ρ_i, σ_j tend to zero (or to a common value), so denominators such as sin(π(b_i-b_k)) and sin(π(1-a_j)) do not remain bounded. The asymptotic formula in Proposition 8.3 then uses cancellations that are not shown to be uniform in the equivariant parameters. Since the passage from local-model asymptotics to strong tame asymptotic classes for X depends on this limit, this is a load-bearing point that needs a rigorous justification.
  4. [§5, Corollary 5.3] The proof of Theorem 1.2 relies on Corollary 5.3, but the final step 'By a dimension argument, we conclude that the eigenvalue of zero occurs with multiplicity dim H^*(X')' is too terse. From Proposition 5.2 one obtains the spectrum on a subspace of im(i^*) of dimension (r-s) rank H^*(Z), and nilpotence on ker(i^*); to conclude the zero multiplicity is dim H^*(X') one must use a dimension identity such as dim H^*(X) = dim H^*(X') + (r-s) dim H^*(Z) and an injectivity/surjectivity statement for i^* on the remaining classes. This may be true, but it is not shown. Please spell out the dimension count.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1.4, Remark 1.6] The condition 1/4(r-s-6) < k < 3/4(r-s+2) for the existence of a common sector is introduced without derivation and is not reconciled with the r-s > 1 hypothesis used later; please clarify its role.
  2. [§4.2, Theorem 4.4] The proof of the J-function formula (35) cites Bertram's argument and Lee's generalization rather than giving the calculation. Since formula (35) is central to the paper, a more detailed derivation, or at least a statement of the precise theorem in [32] being applied, would help the reader.
  3. [§5, Proposition 5.1] The displayed matrix M_{c1(T)} is difficult to read: the position of the s+1st row and the powers of q are not clear from the typeset matrix. Please rewrite it with explicit row and column indices.
  4. [§8.1, Eq. (67)] The sign in the definition of C_{ij} is not derived explicitly; the equality with the ratio of sine functions hides several powers of -1 that are later used in the asymptotic expansion. A short sign check would prevent errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quantum spectrum and asymptotic classes are computed from independent J-function and Meijer G-function asymptotics, not from the conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (Theorem 1.4) is derived by an independent chain: the extremal quantum product is defined by a fixed curve-class specialization (Definition 2.8); the eigenvalues of c1(X) ⋆_q are computed from the local-model J-functions (Theorem 4.4, Proposition 5.1, Corollary 5.3), which rely on external results of Brown, Coates–Givental, Bertram, and Lee; and the asymptotic classes are obtained by Barnes-type asymptotic expansions of Meijer G-functions (Sections 6–8, Appendix A). The Gamma decomposition (11) is a fixed cohomological splitting from Orlov and Belmans–Fu–Raedschelders, not fitted to the eigenvalues. Theorem 9.9 transfers the asymptotic pairings from X to the local model by the same virtual-class argument as Theorem 3.3; this is a technical identification, and while it is the most fragile premise, it is not a definitional or fitted reduction. The only self-citations are [42] in Remark 2.5, used only as a remark about cases where the spectrum is not fully known, and [40] in Proposition 8.1, used for a localization computation of the Fourier–Mukai transform; neither is load-bearing in the sense that a claimed prediction reduces to the cited input. No circular steps were found.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters fitted to data; q and the Chern roots are formal variables. The main assumptions are standard geometric facts (GW theory, localization, Meijer G asymptotics) plus the paper's own specialized extremal quantum product, which is a domain assumption. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Gromov-Witten theory of smooth projective varieties: existence, virtual fundamental classes, WDVV equations
    Foundational input for the quantum product and S-operators used throughout the paper.
  • domain assumption The extremal ray specialization Q^d = 1 iff d = k[L] yields a well-defined associative product (Propositions 2.7 and 2.9)
    Proven in the paper but relies on Kleiman's criterion and the geometry of the flip; it is the key restriction of the quantum product.
  • domain assumption Local model reduction: i^* is a ring homomorphism from QH^*_ext(X) to QH^*_ext(T) (Theorem 3.3)
    Load-bearing bridge to compute the spectrum; proven via the description of moduli spaces of extremal curves.
  • standard math J-function formulas for projective bundles and the local model (Theorem 4.4, from Brown, Bertram, Lee, Coates-Givental)
    Used to compute the extremal quantum cohomology presentations.
  • standard math Meijer G-function asymptotic expansions (Theorems A.1, A.2) under generic parameter conditions
    Gives the exponential asymptotics defining weak asymptotic classes; the paper verifies the non-resonance condition for small generic parameters.
  • domain assumption Deformation to the normal cone identifies the Fourier-Mukai transforms and cohomological maps (Lemmas 9.4, 9.11, 9.12)
    Used to reduce the global variety to the split local model; relies on well-behaved families of Gromov-Witten invariants.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum spectrum and Gamma structure for standard flips." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZXETWLHD

@misc{pith2026250208762,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum spectrum and Gamma structure for standard flips},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZXETWLHD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08762}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the quantum spectrum and Gamma structure for projective bundles, blow-ups, and standard flips. After restricting the quantum multiplication to the exceptional curve direction, we obtain a decomposition of the quantum cohomology of standard flips into asymptotic Gamma classes. We then show that this decomposition is compatible with the semi-orthogonal decompositions for these spaces constructed in work of Orlov and Belmans-Fu-Raedschelders. The proof involves a sequence of reductions to a local model and the asymptotic behavior of Meijer G-functions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Acosta and M

    P. Acosta and M. Shoemaker, Gromov-Witten theory of toric birational transformations, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2020, no. 20, 7037–7072

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Cambridge Stud

    David Anderson, William Fulton, Equivariant cohomology in algebraic geometry. Cambridge Stud. Adv. Math., 210 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2024. xv+446 pp

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    G¨okova Geom

    Denis Auroux, Mirror symmetry and T-duality in the complement of an anticanonical divisor.J. G¨okova Geom. Topol. GGT 1 (2007), 51–91

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    E. W. Barnes, The Asymptotic Expansion of Integral Functions Defined by Generalised Hypergeometric Series. Proc. London Math. Soc. (2) 5 (1907), 59–116

    work page 1907

  5. [5]

    Bayer, Semisimple quantum cohomology and blowups, Int

    A. Bayer, Semisimple quantum cohomology and blowups, Int. Math. Res. Not. 2004, no. 40, 2069–2083; MR2064316

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    Behrend, B

    K. Behrend, B. Fantechi, The intrinsic normal cone. Invent. Math.128(1997), no.1, 45–88

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    6, 1452–1482

    Pieter Belmans, Lie Fu, Theo Raedschelders, Derived categories of flips and cubic hypersurfaces, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, (3) 125 (2022), no. 6, 1452–1482

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Math.142 (2000), no.3, 487–512

    Aaron Bertram, Another way to enumerate rational curves with torus actions.Invent. Math.142 (2000), no.3, 487–512

    work page 2000

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv:2408.06616 [math.AG]

    Indranil Biswas, Nilkantha Das, Jeongseok Oh, Anantadulal Paul, Gromov-Witten invariants in family and quantum cohomology. arXiv:2408.06616 [math.AG]

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bondal, D

    A. Bondal, D. Orlov, Semiorthogonal decomposition for algebraic varieties. arXiv:alg-geom/9506012

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    International Mathematics Research Notices, V olume 2014, Issue 19, 2014, Pages 5437–5482

    Jeff Brown, Gromov–Witten Invariants of Toric Fibrations. International Mathematics Research Notices, V olume 2014, Issue 19, 2014, Pages 5437–5482

    2014

  4. [12]

    Tom Coates, Alexander Givental, Quantum Riemann-Roch, Lefschetz and Serre. Ann. of Math. (2) 165 (2007), no. 1, 15–53

    2007

  5. [13]

    Dubrovin , Davide Guzzetti, Helix Structures in Quantum Cohomology of Fano Varieties

    Giordano Cotti , Boris A. Dubrovin , Davide Guzzetti, Helix Structures in Quantum Cohomology of Fano Varieties. Lecture Notes in Mathematics (LNM, volume 2356), 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Cox, Sheldon Katz, Mirror symmetry and algebraic geometry.Math

    David A. Cox, Sheldon Katz, Mirror symmetry and algebraic geometry.Math. Surveys Monogr., 68 American Math- ematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999. xxii+469 pp

    1999

  7. [15]

    Integrable systems and quantum groups (Montecatini Terme, 1993), 120–348

    Boris Dubrovin, Geometry of 2D topological field theories. Integrable systems and quantum groups (Montecatini Terme, 1993), 120–348. Lecture Notes in Math. 1620, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996

    1993

  8. [16]

    Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, V ol

    Boris Dubrovin, Geometry and analytic theory of Frobenius manifolds. Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, V ol. II (Berlin, 1998) Doc. Math. 1998, Extra V ol. II, 315–326

    1998

  9. [17]

    Artur Elezi, A mirror conjecture for projective bundles.Int. Math. Res. Not. 2005, no. 55, 3445–3458

    2005

  10. [18]

    Michigan Math

    Honglu Fan, Yuan-Pin Lee, On Gromov-Witten theory of projective bundles. Michigan Math. J. 69 (2020), no. 1, 153–178. 40 YEFENG SHEN, MARK SHOEMAKER

    2020

  11. [19]

    Duke Math

    Sergey Galkin, Vasily Golyshev, Hiroshi Iritani,Gamma classes and quantum cohomology of Fano manifolds: gamma conjectures. Duke Math. J. 165 (2016), no. 11, 2005–2077

    2016

  12. [20]

    Givental, Equivariant Gromov-Witten invariants.Internat

    Alexander B. Givental, Equivariant Gromov-Witten invariants.Internat. Math. Res. Notices 1996, no. 13, 613–663

    1996

  13. [21]

    Woodward, Quantum cohomology and toric minimal model programs

    Eduardo Gonz ´alez, Chris T. Woodward, Quantum cohomology and toric minimal model programs. Adv. Math. 353 (2019), 591—646

    2019

  14. [22]

    Graber, R

    T. Graber, R. Pandharipande, Localization of virtual classes. Invent. Math. 135 (1999), no. 2, 487–518

    1999

  15. [23]

    arXiv:2301.13168 [math.AG]

    Daniel Halpern-Leistner, The noncommutative minimal model program. arXiv:2301.13168 [math.AG]

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Mirror symmetry

    Shinobu Hosono, Central charges, symplectic forms, and hypergeometric series in local mirror symmetry. Mirror symmetry. V , 405–439. AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math., 38 American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2006

    2006

  17. [25]

    Hiroshi Iritani, An integral structure in quantum cohomology and mirror symmetry for toric orbifolds,Adv. Math. 222 (2009), no. 3, 1016–1079

    2009

  18. [26]

    Methods Appl

    Hiroshi Iritani, Global mirrors and discrepant transformations for toric Deligne-Mumford stacks.SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 16 (2020), Paper No. 032, 111 pp

    2020

  19. [27]

    arXiv:2307.13555 [math.AG]

    Hiroshi Iritani, Quantum cohomology of blowups. arXiv:2307.13555 [math.AG]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hiroshi Iritani, Yuki Koto, Quantum cohomology of projective bundles, arXiv:2307.03696 [math.AG]

  21. [29]

    Katzarkov, M

    L. Katzarkov, M. Kontsevich, T. Pantev, Hodge theoretic aspects of mirror symmetry.arXiv:0806.0107 [math.AG]

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathe- maticians, V ol

    Maxim Kontsevich, Homological algebra of mirror symmetry. Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathe- maticians, V ol. 1, 2 (Z¨urich, 1994), 120–139. Birkh¨auser Verlag, Basel, 1995

    1994

  23. [31]

    miami.edu/_assets/pdf/2021-spring/hms/kontsevich-blow-up-slides.pdf

    Maxim Kontsevich, Blow-up formula for quantum cohomology, lecture notes available on https://www.imsa. miami.edu/_assets/pdf/2021-spring/hms/kontsevich-blow-up-slides.pdf

    2021

  24. [32]

    Lee,Quantum Lefschetz hyperplane theorem

    Y .-P. Lee,Quantum Lefschetz hyperplane theorem. Invent. Math.145(2001), no.1, 121–149

    2001

  25. [33]

    Lee, H.-W

    Y .-P. Lee, H.-W. Lin, C.-L. Wang,Quantum cohomology under birational maps and transitions. Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 96 American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2017, 149–168

    2017

  26. [34]

    Lee, H.-W

    Y .-P. Lee, H.-W. Lin, C.-L. Wang, Quantum flips I: Local model, in Integrability, quantization, and geometry II. Quantum theories and algebraic geometry , 303–352, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 103.2, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Y Luke, The special functions and their approximations, Vol. I. Mathematics in Science and Engineering, V ol. 53 Academic Press, New York-London 1969 xx+349 pp

    1969

  28. [36]

    T. E. Milanov, X. Xia, Reflection vectors and quantum cohomology of blowups, SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 20 (2024), Paper No. 029, 60 pp

    2024

  29. [37]

    I-IV , Nederl

    C S Meijer, On the G-function. I-IV , Nederl. Akad. Wetensch., Proc. 49 (1946), 227–237, 344–356, 457–469, 632– 641

    1946

  30. [38]

    D. O. Orlov, Projective bundles, monoidal transformations, and derived categories of coherent sheaves, Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat. 56 (1992), 852–862; English transl., Russian Acad. Sci. Izv. Math. 41 (1993), 133–141

    1992

  31. [39]

    Givental)

    Rahul Pandharipande, Rational curves on hypersurfaces (after A. Givental). S´eminaire Bourbaki. V ol. 1997/98 Ast´erisque No. 252(1998), Exp. No. 848, 5, 307–340

    1998

  32. [40]

    arXiv:2404.12303 [math.AG]

    Nathan Priddis, Mark Shoemaker, Yaoxiong Wen, Wall crossing and the Fourier-Mukai transform for Grassmann flops. arXiv:2404.12303 [math.AG]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Fumihiko Sanda, Yota Shamoto, An analogue of Dubrovin’s conjecture. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 70 (2020), no. 2, 621–682

    2020

  34. [42]

    Yefeng Shen, Ming Zhang, Quantum spectrum and Gamma structures for quasi-homogeneous polynomials of general type. arXiv:2309.07446 [math.AG] Department of Mathematics, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA E-mail: yfshen@uoregon.edu Department of Mathematics, Colorado St...

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.