Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Unfolding of equivariant F-bundles and application to the mirror symmetry of flag varieties

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that the big equivariant quantum D-module of a flag variety $G/P$ is canonically isomorphic to the big Gauss-Manin system of its mirror Landau-Ginzburg model, uniquely extending the small mirror map.

desk verdict A genuinely new equivariant unfolding theorem with a promising application to flag-variety mirror symmetry, but the big B-model freeness proof rests on a false lemma and needs repair before the main theorem is supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09950 v1 pith:4PEKDURG submitted 2025-05-15 math.AG math.SG

Thorgal Hinault , Changzheng Li , Tony Yue YU , Chi Zhang , Shaowu Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AGmath.SG MSC 14D1514M1514N3534M56
keywords equivariantF-bundlesFrobeniusmanifoldsunfoldingtheorembigquantumcohomologymirrorsymmetryflagvarietiesGauss-ManinsystemD-modules
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 establishes an unfolding theorem for equivariant F-bundles, a torus-equivariant refinement of Frobenius manifolds, and uses it to prove that big quantum cohomology of flag varieties is mirror-symmetric. Concretely, the big equivariant quantum D-module of $G/P$ is shown to be isomorphic to the big Gauss-Manin system of the mirror Landau-Ginzburg model, with the isomorphism uniquely extending the known small mirror map. The central move is to work equivariantly with respect to the maximal torus: although the small quantum cohomology of many flag varieties is neither generated by divisor classes nor semisimple, its equivariant version becomes divisor-generated after localizing in equivariant parameters, restoring the generation condition needed for unfolding. A sympathetic reader should care because this yields a general small-to-big reconstruction of quantum cohomology for flag varieties of all Lie types, without the restrictive hypotheses that earlier reconstruction theorems required.

What carries the argument

The paper's central object is the equivariant F-bundle, defined as a $k$-linear F-bundle $(H,\nabla)$ over a formal base in infinitely many variables, together with an $R$-linear lift $(H_R,\nabla_R)$ of its underlying (T)-structure of finite rank over $R = k[\lambda]$ (the equivariant parameter ring), compatible via a fixed isomorphism $\alpha$. A (T)-structure is a flat connection in the base directions only, without the $u$-direction. The argument is carried by three pieces of machinery. First, a formal version of the classical unfolding theorem for meromorphic connections (Theorem 3.28) produces maximal unfoldings of finite-rank F-bundles over integral domains under conditions (IC), (GC), and freeness of $\operatorname{coker}\mu_v$, with uniqueness from (GC'); second, a characterization (Lemma 3.1) saying an F-bundle is uniquely determined by its underlying (T)-structure and the value of the $u$-direction connection at one point, whenever a framing exists; third, the construction of a maximal unfolding on the B-side by adding deformation terms $y_j f_j$ to the superpotential. The torus action is what makes condition (GC') hold: after localizing in $\lambda$, the equivariant small quantum cohomology ring is generated by degree-two classes (Lemma 4.6), even though the ordinary small quantum cohomology may be neither divisor-generated nor semisimple.

What would settle it

Compute, for a concrete flag variety such as $\mathrm{SG}(2,2n)$ with $n=3$, whether the $R[[y,u]]$-module $H_{B,big,R}$ defined by the unfolded superpotential is free: specifically, check if multiplication by any $y_j$ is injective on the module. A single nonzero element annihilated by $y_j$ would violate the freeness assumption in Proposition 4.29 and would invalidate the B-side construction used in the main theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is Theorem 4.35: there exists a unique isomorphism of equivariant F-bundles $(\mathrm{mir}^{big}_k, \Phi^{big}_{mir,k}), (\mathrm{mir}^{big}, \Phi^{big}_{mir})$ from the big B-model F-bundle $F_{B,big}$ to the big A-model F-bundle $F_{A,big}$, extending the small equivariant mirror isomorphism of Proposition 4.26. Here $F_{A,big}$ is the equivariant F-bundle built from the equivariant big quantum cohomology of $G/P$, and $F_{B,big}$ is built from the Gauss-Manin system of the unfolded mirror superpotential $W + \sum_{j=r+1}^N y_j f_j$. The theorem therefore says that the big equivariant quantum D-module of a flag variety and the big Gauss-Manin system of its mirror are the same object, canonically. Taking $\lambda=0$ gives the non-equivariant big mirror symmetry of Theorem 4.38.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the big B-model module $H_{B,big,R}$ is a finite free module over $R[[y,u]]$; the proof of this rests on the terse assertion that multiplication by $y_j$ has no torsion in the Gauss-Manin module, so if that freeness fails, the B-side cannot be presented as a finite-rank equivariant F-bundle and the unfolding comparison cannot begin.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Big quantum D-module mirror symmetry holds for all flag varieties $G/P$ of simply-connected simple groups, in both equivariant and non-equivariant forms (Theorems 4.35 and 4.38).
  • All genus-zero Gromov-Witten invariants of $G/P$, not just the small ones, are encoded in the unfolded mirror superpotential; the small mirror map determines them uniquely.
  • The equivariant unfolding theorem applies where both divisor-generation and semisimplicity fail, for instance the isotropic Grassmannian $\mathrm{SG}(2,2n)$ in type C.
  • The formal unfolding theorem is now available over integral domains containing $\mathbb{Q}$, with existence requiring $\operatorname{coker}\mu_v$ free and uniqueness following from (GC') alone, which strengthens the original complex-analytic statement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same equivariant-unfolding strategy might generalize to other Fano varieties with a torus action whose localized equivariant cohomology is generated by degree-two classes, potentially yielding big mirror symmetry for broader classes of homogeneous spaces and possibly for some toric or spherical varieties.
  • If the freeness assumption in Proposition 4.29 could be proved by a general argument about Gauss-Manin systems, the theorem would become unconditional for all $G/P$ without case-checking; conversely, a counterexample for a specific parabolic $P$ would show where the B-side construction breaks over $R$.
  • The paper leaves two natural upgrades implicit: analytic convergence of the big mirror map around $\tau=0$, and compatibility with the intersection pairings on both sides; establishing these would promote the formal isomorphism to an isomorphism of genuine Frobenius manifolds.
  • A direct computational check for a small example such as $\mathrm{Gr}(3,5)$, comparing the leading quantum-correction terms of the big mirror map with the known small map, would test the uniqueness statement in practice.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the notion of an equivariant F-bundle, combining a k-linear F-bundle with a finite-rank R-linear lift of its underlying (T)-structure, and proves an unfolding theorem in the spirit of Hertling-Manin. The main abstract result (Theorem 3.36) asserts existence of maximal unfoldings under (IC), (GC) and freeness of coker μ_v, and uniqueness under (GC'). The authors then apply this to flag varieties G/P: they reformulate the small equivariant quantum D-module mirror symmetry of [13] as an isomorphism of small equivariant F-bundles, construct a big B-model equivariant F-bundle from Rietsch's Landau-Ginzburg mirror via an unfolded superpotential, verify maximality on both sides, and conclude a big equivariant quantum D-module mirror theorem (Theorem 4.35), with a non-equivariant limit in Theorem 4.38. The intended contribution is a mechanism for passing from small to big quantum cohomology mirror symmetry in cases where the small quantum cohomology is neither H2-generated nor semisimple.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, this is a valuable contribution: it gives a general formal unfolding theorem for equivariant F-bundles and applies it to flag varieties beyond the H2-generated and semisimple cases, such as isotropic Grassmannians of type C. The A-side maximality check (Proposition 4.10) is clean and explicit, the reduction of (GC') to the known generation of localized equivariant quantum cohomology (Lemma 4.6) is economical, and the paper is careful about infinite-rank issues by separating the k-linear F-bundle from its finite-rank R-linear lift. The unfolding proofs are carried out by detailed inductive constructions rather than by black-box analytic arguments. The central application is, however, conditional on a correct proof that the big B-model R-linear lift is a finite-rank free module over R[[y,u]]; the current proof of this fact is not valid.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4.3.1, Proposition 4.29 and Lemma 4.30] The exposition of the B-model also asserts 'Since y_jω∈im(∂) iff ω∈im(∂)' without proof. This is true only with the convention that d~W is the vertical part of the differential, i.e. that d does not differentiate the y variables; the authors should state this convention explicitly, since the flatness of the u-direction and the freeness argument both depend on it.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.2, first paragraph] The text reads 'we review the B-side of mirror symmetry for for G/P'; the word 'for' is duplicated.
  2. [§1.2.1] There is a typo: 'The fist step in our proof' should be 'The first step in our proof'.
  3. [§3.2, proof of Lemma 3.16, equation (3.25)] The displayed equation '∂tiTj = ∂tjTj' should almost certainly read '∂tiTj = ∂tjTi'; as printed it is an identity in only one index and does not express flatness.
  4. [§4.3.2, Theorem 4.38] In the statement of the non-equivariant limit, the source of the isomorphism is written as (HA,big,λ0,∇B,big,λ0); the connection in the first factor should be ∇A,big,λ0, not ∇B,big,λ0.
  5. [§4.3.1, Lemma 4.30] The conclusion of Lemma 4.30 says '{Ω1,...,ΩN}⊂M is an R0[[z]]-basis of M[[z]]'; since the Ωi are elements of M, the intended conclusion is that they form a basis of M as an R0[[z]]-module. The notation should be corrected.
  6. [§2.4, Definition 2.10] In part (2), 'a R[[tI,u]]-module' should be 'an R[[tI,u]]-module'; also, the dependence of the paper on the companion preprint [24] and on the small mirror theorem [13] should be stated more prominently, since several technical results are quoted from these preprints.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the big mirror isomorphism is deduced from the small mirror input via a newly proved equivariant unfolding theorem, and the B-model is not defined to equal the A-model.

full rationale

The derivation chain is non-circular. The paper takes the small equivariant mirror isomorphism of [13] as an external input, reformulates it as an isomorphism FA ≅ FB of small equivariant F-bundles (Prop. 4.26), constructs the B-side big F-bundle from the unfolded superpotential W + Σ y_j f_j (Construction 4.28), and proves separately that both FA,big and FB,big are maximal unfoldings of the same small F-bundle (Props. 4.10 and 4.34). The equivariant unfolding theorem (Thm. 3.36), proved in the paper, then supplies the unique isomorphism extending the small map (Thm. 4.35). The only place where the B-side construction consults the small mirror map is in choosing the functions f_j so that the new residues are σ_{v_j}; this is a construction of a candidate B-model with the required infinitesimal data, not an assumption of the big isomorphism. The big isomorphism is obtained by the universal property, not read off from the input. The load-bearing framing facts cited from the authors' preprint [24] are general parameter-free lemmas about (T)-structures whose assumptions do not include the flag-variety mirror statement, so by the independence rule they are real supporting evidence rather than circular self-citation. The skeptical concern about Prop. 4.29 and Lemma 4.30 is a potential correctness gap in establishing the hypotheses (finite freeness of HB,big_R) for the unfolding theorem; it is not a reduction of the theorem's conclusion to its own input, so it does not constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central results are pure mathematics with no numerical parameters fitted. The proof borrows several theorems from prior work, including the authors' own [24], and the main external input is the small mirror symmetry theorem of [13]. The single invented entity is the equivariant F-bundle formalism, which is a definition rather than a speculative physical object.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Small quantum D-module mirror symmetry for all flag varieties G/P, imported as [13, Theorem 1.2] and restated as Proposition 4.12.
    This external theorem is the starting point for the A-side/B-side comparison; any gap in [13] would propagate into Theorems 4.35 and 4.38.
  • domain assumption Framing extension and decomposition results for F-bundles over Noetherian bases from the authors' prior paper [24], used in Propositions 3.4, Lemmas 3.5, 3.10, 3.34 and Theorem 3.28.
    These cited theorems are not proved in this paper and underpin the unfolding argument.
  • domain assumption Rietsch's equivariant Landau-Ginzburg model (X_P^vee, W, p) exists and its Brieskorn lattice G0(X_P^vee, W, p) is finite free as stated in [13] and [45].
    The B-side F-bundles are defined from this model, and the finite freeness of the small B-model is cited from [13, p.52].
  • domain assumption Generation of localized equivariant quantum cohomology by divisor classes (Lemma 4.6, derived from [7, Lemma 5.11] and [46, Lemma 2.1]).
    This generation statement is used to verify condition (GC') for the small A-model equivariant F-bundle in Theorem 4.35.
  • standard math Formal power series solutions to compatible linear systems of ODEs exist and are unique, used in Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.16.
    Standard background in formal differential equations; the paper constructs solutions order by order in the formal parameters.
invented entities (1)
  • Equivariant F-bundle
    purpose: A formalism encoding a k-linear F-bundle together with an R-linear lift relative to a torus action, needed to apply unfolding in the equivariant setting.
    This is a new mathematical definition, not an empirical entity, and it carries no falsifiable handle outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unfolding of equivariant F-bundles and application to the mirror symmetry of flag varieties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4PEKDURG

@misc{pith2026250509950,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unfolding of equivariant F-bundles and application to the mirror symmetry of flag varieties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4PEKDURG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09950}
}
read the original abstract

We establish an unfolding theorem for equivariant F-bundles (a variant of Frobenius manifolds), generalizing Hertling-Manin's universal unfolding of meromorphic connections. As an application, we obtain the mirror symmetry theorem for the big quantum cohomology of flag varieties, from the recent works on the small quantum cohomology mirror symmetry, via the equivariant unfolding theorem.

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. Quantum cohomology of variations of GIT quotients and flips

    math.AG 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    For any simple wall-crossing of GIT quotients X_- to X_+, the quantum D-module of X_- is a direct sum of that of X_+ and copies of that of the wall S.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [13]

    TheDℏ-module mirror conjecture for flag varieties

    Chi Hong Chow. TheDℏ-module mirror conjecture for flag varieties. Preprint, arXiv:math.AG/2311.15523, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [24]

    Decomposition and framing ofF-bundles and applications to quantum cohomology

    Thorgal Hinault, Tony Yue Yu, Chi Zhang, and Shaowu Zhang. Decomposition and framing ofF-bundles and applications to quantum cohomology. Preprint, arXiv:math.AG/2411.02266, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    On the finiteness of quantum K-theory of a homogeneous space.Int

    David Anderson, Linda Chen, and Hsian-Hua Tseng. On the finiteness of quantum K-theory of a homogeneous space.Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, 2022(2):1313–1349, 2020

    work page 2022

  4. [2]

    Barannikov

    S. Barannikov. Semi-infinite Hodge structures and mirror symmetry for projective spaces. Preprint, arXiv:math.AG/0010157, 2000

    work page arXiv 2000

  5. [3]

    Quantum periods

    Serguei Barannikov. Quantum periods. I. Semi-infinite variations of Hodge structures.Internat. Math. Res. Notices, (23):1243–1264, 2001

    work page 2001

  6. [4]

    Batyrev, Ionut Ciocan-Fontanine, Bumsig Kim, and Duco van Straten

    Victor V. Batyrev, Ionut Ciocan-Fontanine, Bumsig Kim, and Duco van Straten. Mirror symmetry and toric degenerations of partial flag manifolds.Acta Math., 184(1):1–39, 2000

    work page 2000

  7. [5]

    Arend Bayer and Yuri I. Manin. (Semi)simple exercises in quantum cohomology. InThe Fano Conference, pages 143–173. Univ. Torino, Turin, 2004

    work page 2004

  8. [6]

    Behrend and B

    K. Behrend and B. Fantechi. The intrinsic normal cone.Invent. Math., 128(1):45–88, 1997

    work page 1997

Show all 49 references
  1. [7]

    Buch, Pierre-Emmanuel Chaput, Leonardo C

    Anders S. Buch, Pierre-Emmanuel Chaput, Leonardo C. Mihalcea, and Nicolas Perrin. A Chevalley formula for the equivariant quantumK-theory of cominuscule varieties.Algebr. Geom., 5(5):568–595, 2018. 34 THORGAL HINAULT, CHANGZHENG LI, TONY YUE YU, CHI ZHANG, AND SHAOWU ZHANG

    2018

  2. [8]

    de la Ossa, Paul S

    Philip Candelas, Xenia C. de la Ossa, Paul S. Green, and Linda Parkes. A pair of Calabi-Yau manifolds as an exactly soluble superconformal theory.Nuclear Phys. B, 359(1):21–74, 1991

    1991

  3. [9]

    P. E. Chaput and N. Perrin. On the quantum cohomology of adjoint varieties.Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3), 103(2):294–330, 2011

    2011

  4. [10]

    Quantum cohomology rings of Lagrangian and orthogonal Grassmannians and total positivity

    Daewoong Cheong. Quantum cohomology rings of Lagrangian and orthogonal Grassmannians and total positivity. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 361(10):5505–5537, 2009

    2009

  5. [11]

    Chi Hong Chow. On D. Peterson’s presentation of quantum cohomology of G/P. Preprint, arXiv:math.AG/2210.17382, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Gamma conjecture I for flag varieties.arXiv: math.AG/2501.13221, 2025

    Chi Hong Chow. Gamma conjecture I for flag varieties.arXiv: math.AG/2501.13221, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  7. [14]

    The Abelian/Nonabelian correspondence and Frobenius manifolds.Inventiones mathematicae, 171(2):301–343, October 2007

    Ionut Ciocan-Fontanine, Bumsig Kim, and Claude Sabbah. The Abelian/Nonabelian correspondence and Frobenius manifolds.Inventiones mathematicae, 171(2):301–343, October 2007

    2007

  8. [15]

    Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry for toric stacks.J

    Tom Coates, Alessio Corti, Hiroshi Iritani, and Hsian-Hua Tseng. Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry for toric stacks.J. Differential Geom., 114(1):41–115, 2020

    2020

  9. [16]

    Analytic geometry of semisimple coalescent Frobenius structures.Random Matrices Theory Appl., 6(4):1740004, 36, 2017

    Giordano Cotti and Davide Guzzetti. Analytic geometry of semisimple coalescent Frobenius structures.Random Matrices Theory Appl., 6(4):1740004, 36, 2017

    2017

  10. [17]

    Geometry of2D topological field theories

    Boris Dubrovin. Geometry of2D topological field theories. InIntegrable systems and quantum groups (Montecatini Terme, 1993), volume 1620 ofLecture Notes in Math., pages 120–348. Springer, Berlin, 1996

    1993

  11. [18]

    Monographs in Mathematics

    Kazuhiro Fujiwara and Fumiharu Kato.Foundations of Rigid Geometry I. Monographs in Mathematics. EMS, 2018

    2018

  12. [19]

    A mirror theorem for toric complete intersections

    Alexander Givental. A mirror theorem for toric complete intersections. InTopological field theory, primitive forms and related topics, pages 141–175. Springer, 1998

    1998

  13. [20]

    Givental

    Alexander B. Givental. Equivariant Gromov-Witten invariants.Internat. Math. Res. Notices, (13):613–663, 1996

    1996

  14. [21]

    M. Gromov. Pseudoholomorphic curves in symplectic manifolds.Invent. Math., 82(2):307–347, 1985

    1985

  15. [22]

    Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington, DC; by the American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2011

    Mark Gross.Tropical geometry and mirror symmetry, volume 114 ofCBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics. Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington, DC; by the American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2011

    2011

  16. [23]

    Unfoldings of meromorphic connections and a construction of Frobenius manifolds

    Claus Hertling and Yuri Manin. Unfoldings of meromorphic connections and a construction of Frobenius manifolds. InFrobenius manifolds, Aspects Math., E36, pages 113–144. Friedr. Vieweg, Wiesbaden, 2004

    2004

  17. [25]

    Mirror symmetry for quadric hypersurfaces

    Xiaowen Hu. Mirror symmetry for quadric hypersurfaces. Preprint, arXiv:math.AG/2204.07858, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A mirror construction for the big equivariant quantum cohomology of toric manifolds.Math

    Hiroshi Iritani. A mirror construction for the big equivariant quantum cohomology of toric manifolds.Math. Ann., 368(1-2):279–316, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Shift operators and toric mirror theorem.Geom

    Hiroshi Iritani. Shift operators and toric mirror theorem.Geom. Topol., 21(1):315–343, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Birational invariants from nc-Hodge theory

    Ludmil Katzarkov, Maxim Kontsevich, Tony Pantev, and Tony Yue Yu. Birational invariants from nc-Hodge theory. In preparation, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Allen Knutson, Thomas Lam, and David E. Speyer. Projections of Richardson varieties.J. Reine Angew. Math., 687:133–157, 2014

    2014

  22. [30]

    Kontsevich and Yu

    M. Kontsevich and Yu. Manin. Gromov-Witten classes, quantum cohomology, and enumerative geometry.Comm. Math. Phys., 164(3):525–562, 1994

    1994

  23. [31]

    Quantum cohomology ofG/P and homology of affine Grassmannian.Acta Math., 204(1):49–90, 2010

    Thomas Lam and Mark Shimozono. Quantum cohomology ofG/P and homology of affine Grassmannian.Acta Math., 204(1):49–90, 2010

    2010

  24. [32]

    The mirror conjecture for minuscule flag varieties.Duke Math

    Thomas Lam and Nicolas Templier. The mirror conjecture for minuscule flag varieties.Duke Math. J., 173(1):75– 175, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    APlücker coordinate mirror for partial flag varieties and quantum schubert calculus

    Changzheng Li, Konstanze Rietsch, Mingzhi Yang, and Chi Zhang. APlücker coordinate mirror for partial flag varieties and quantum schubert calculus. Preprint, arXiv:math.AG/2401.15640, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Lian, Kefeng Liu, and Shing-Tung Yau

    Bong H. Lian, Kefeng Liu, and Shing-Tung Yau. Mirror principle. I.Asian J. Math., 1(4):729–763, 1997

    1997

  27. [35]

    Lian, Kefeng Liu, and Shing-Tung Yau

    Bong H. Lian, Kefeng Liu, and Shing-Tung Yau. Mirror principle. II. volume 3, pages 109–146. 1999. Sir Michael Atiyah: a great mathematician of the twentieth century

    1999

  28. [36]

    R. J. Marsh and K. Rietsch. TheB-model connection and mirror symmetry for Grassmannians.Adv. Math., 366:107027, 131pp, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Milanovand Hsian-HuaTseng.The spacesof Laurentpolynomials, Gromov-Wittentheory of P1-orbifolds, and integrable hierarchies.J

    TodorE. Milanovand Hsian-HuaTseng.The spacesof Laurentpolynomials, Gromov-Wittentheory of P1-orbifolds, and integrable hierarchies.J. Reine Angew. Math., 622:189–235, 2008. UNFOLDING OF EQUIV ARIANT F-BUNDLES AND APPLICATIONS 35

    2008

  30. [38]

    C. Pech, K. Rietsch, and L. Williams. On Landau-Ginzburg models for quadrics and flat sections of Dubrovin connections.Adv. Math., 300:275–319, 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    A comparison of Landau-Ginzburg models for odd dimensional quadrics

    Clelia Pech and Konstanze Rietsch. A comparison of Landau-Ginzburg models for odd dimensional quadrics. Bull. Inst. Math. Acad. Sin. (N.S.), 13(3):249–291, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Quantum cohomology ofG/P, lecture course

    Dale Peterson. Quantum cohomology ofG/P, lecture course. spring term, M.I.T., 1997

    1997

  33. [41]

    A construction of Frobenius manifolds with logarithmic poles and applications.Comm

    Thomas Reichelt. A construction of Frobenius manifolds with logarithmic poles and applications.Comm. Math. Phys., 287(3):1145–1187, 2009

    2009

  34. [42]

    LogarithmicFrobenius manifolds, hypergeometric systems and quantum D-modules

    Thomas Reichelt and Christian Sevenheck. LogarithmicFrobenius manifolds, hypergeometric systems and quantum D-modules. Preprint, arXiv:math.AG:1010.2118, 2010

    2010 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Non-affine Landau-Ginzburg models and intersection cohomology

    Thomas Reichelt and Christian Sevenheck. Non-affine Landau-Ginzburg models and intersection cohomology. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4), 50(3):665–753, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    Totally positive Toeplitz matrices and quantum cohomology of partial flag varieties.J

    Konstanze Rietsch. Totally positive Toeplitz matrices and quantum cohomology of partial flag varieties.J. Amer. Math. Soc., 16(2):363–392, 2003

    2003

  37. [45]

    A mirror symmetric construction ofqH∗ T (G/P) (q).Adv

    Konstanze Rietsch. A mirror symmetric construction ofqH∗ T (G/P) (q).Adv. Math., 217(6):2401–2442, 2008

    2008

  38. [46]

    On quantum cohomology rings of Fano manifolds and a formula of Vafa and Intriligator.Asian J

    Bernd Siebert and Gang Tian. On quantum cohomology rings of Fano manifolds and a formula of Vafa and Intriligator.Asian J. Math., 1(4):679–695, 1997

    1997

  39. [47]

    The structure of 2D semi-simple field theories.Invent

    Constantin Teleman. The structure of 2D semi-simple field theories.Invent. Math., 188(3):525–588, 2011

    2011

  40. [48]

    Two-dimensional gravity and intersection theory on moduli space

    Edward Witten. Two-dimensional gravity and intersection theory on moduli space. InSurveys in differential geometry (Cambridge, MA, 1990), pages 243–310. Lehigh Univ., Bethlehem, PA, 1991

    1990

  41. [49]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    Oscar Zariski and Pierre Samuel.Commutative algebra: Volume II, volume 29. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. Thorgal Hinault, Department of Mathematics, M/C 253-37, Caltech, 1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91125, USA Email address:thinault@caltech.edu School of M...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.