Geometric construction of Kashiwara crystals on multiparameter persistence

Kohei Yahiro; Yasuaki Hiraoka

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Geometric construction of Kashiwara crystals on multiparameter persistence

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The set of irreducible components of the varieties of d-parameter persistence modules carries a Kashiwara crystal structure.

desk verdict A genuinely new geometric crystal construction on multiparameter persistence varieties, but the explicit 2x2 operator formulas are false as stated and need correction before the paper can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14844 v2 pith:AEHWEB7X submitted 2025-04-21 math.RT math.AGmath.RA

Yasuaki Hiraoka , Kohei Yahiro This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.RTmath.AGmath.RA MSC 16G2055N31

keywords MultiparameterpersistencemodulesKashiwaracrystalIrreduciblecomponentQuiverrepresentationsCommutativegridoperatorsPersistenthomology

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 that the set $B_C=\bigsqcup_\nu B_C(\nu)$ of all irreducible components of the varieties of $d$-parameter persistence modules carries a Kashiwara crystal structure, with the crystal operators defined geometrically through the variety of extensions of persistence modules. A sympathetic reader should care because multiparameter persistence categories are almost always of infinite representation type, so indecomposable decompositions are infeasible; the crystal graph gives a finite combinatorial skeleton that records how simple pieces can be added or removed one vertex at a time. The construction departs from the earlier geometric route by using the commutative grid quiver itself, with commutative relations, rather than a doubled quiver with preprojective relations, and this forces a careful restriction to open subsets where certain dimensions are minimal. Explicit formulas are worked out for the one-parameter and $2\times2$ cases, showing the crystal is connected and yet not embeddable into the standard quantum-group crystal.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the extension variety $E'_C(\nu+\alpha_i,-\alpha_i)$ with its two projections $\varpi_1:E'_C\to E_C(\nu+\alpha_i)$ and $\varpi_2:E'_C\to E_C(\nu)$. The Kashiwara operator $\tilde f_i$ sends a component $\bar\Lambda$ to the closure $\overline{\varpi_2\varpi_1^{-1}(\bar\Lambda_1)}$, and $\tilde e_i$ sends $\Lambda$ to $\overline{\varpi_1\varpi_2^{-1}(\Lambda_2)}$, where $\bar\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_2$ are the open subsets on which $\dim\operatorname{gExt}_i$ and $\varepsilon_i$ take their minimum values. The object $\operatorname{gExt}_i(f)=\ker F_i(f)$, assembled from signed sums of maps leaving vertex $i$ in the commutative grid, plays the role of the extension group in earlier constructions, and the proof that these restricted projections are smooth surjections with connected fibers is what makes the image closures irreducible, and hence well-defined components.

What would settle it

A direct computation for the $2\times2$ grid at a boundary dimension vector with $\nu_1+\nu_4=\nu_2+\nu_3$, comparing the closure $\overline{\varpi_2\varpi_1^{-1}(\bar\Lambda_1)}$ with the component predicted by Theorem 5.5; if the closure turns out reducible, or if for any vertex $i$ the equality $\tilde e_i\tilde f_i\Lambda=\Lambda$ fails, the crystal structure would collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the set $B_C$ of irreducible components of the representation varieties $E_C(\nu)$ of $d$-parameter persistence modules---representations of the equioriented commutative $d$-grid quiver $\overrightarrow G_m$---is a Kashiwara crystal with respect to the root system of that quiver. The weight of a component is the negative dimension vector, the maps $\varepsilon_i$ and $\varphi_i$ are computed from cokernel dimensions and the Cartan pairing, and the Kashiwara operators $\tilde e_i,\tilde f_i$ are defined as closures of the two projections of an extension variety $E'_C(\nu+\alpha_i,-\alpha_i)$; Proposition 3.8 proves these restrictions are smooth surjections with connected fibers, so the closures are irreducible components. This adapts the geometric construction of crystals from quiver representation varieties to commutative relations instead of preprojective relations, and it requires an open-subset adjustment because the component varieties are not equi-dimensional. In the one-parameter case the operators become simple inequalities between adjacent dimension entries, and in the $2\times2$ case all components are parameterized by rank pairs $(r_1,r_2)$ with explicit operator formulas; the resulting crystal is connected, but it is not upper seminormal and admits no embedding into $B(\infty)$.

Load-bearing premise

The construction rests on the claim that, on the open regions where the relevant dimensions are minimal, the two projection maps between the extension variety and the representation varieties are surjective with connected, well-behaved fibers; if those maps degenerated anywhere, the closures used to define the crystal operators could fail to be irreducible and the crystal laws could not be checked.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every $d$-parameter persistence module with a fixed dimension vector has a finite set of irreducible components that can be viewed as vertices of a crystal graph, with edges labeled by adding or removing a simple module at one grid vertex.
In the one-parameter case, the crystal operators reduce to explicit inequalities: $\tilde e_i$ can act only when $\nu_{i-1}<\nu_i$, and $\tilde f_i$ only when $\nu_{i-1}\le\nu_i$.
In the $2\times2$ case, the irreducible components are exactly parameterized by rank pairs $(r_1,r_2)$ with $r_1+r_2=\nu_2+\nu_3$ when $\nu_1+\nu_4\ge\nu_2+\nu_3$, and the crystal graph is connected.
The crystal $B_C$ does not embed into the crystal $B(\infty)$ of the negative half of the quantum group and is not upper seminormal, so this is a new family of crystals rather than a known quantum-group crystal.
A companion $*$-crystal structure is obtained by dualizing representations and reversing the grid, with corresponding explicit formulas in the one-parameter and $2\times2$ cases.

Reading between the lines

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

Implicit in the proof is a general recipe: whenever an extension variety for a bound quiver with commutative relations admits two smooth surjective projections with connected fibers on open subsets, the same closure construction should yield a crystal; testing this on other finite posets or grid shapes would show how far the method extends.
Because the $2\times2$ crystal is connected and explicitly computable, one could compare it with rank decompositions or signed barcode invariants of multiparameter persistence and ask whether the crystal graph recovers or refines those invariants in a positive, multiplicity-free way.
The failure of upper seminormality suggests that multiparameter persistence crystals may require a relaxed notion of seminormality; a natural next step is to check whether grids with more than two parameters are connected and whether their components satisfy an analogue of the $\varepsilon_i=\varepsilon'_i$ equality away from finitely many dimension vectors.
One could compute the crystal graph for the smallest three-parameter grid and compare the number of components with the $2\times2$ formulas; a matching pattern would strengthen the conjecture that these component crystals form a systematic family indexed by the shape of the commutative grid.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. The core idea is new and worth taking seriously: they build Kashiwara crystals on irreducible components of multiparameter persistence module varieties using commutative relations instead of Kashiwara–Saito's preprojective relations, and the general construction in Section 3 is careful. But the explicit 2x2 description, Theorem 5.5, is false as stated. Take the 2x2 grid with ν=(0,1,1,0). The unique component is (ν;0,0). Since vertex 1 has no incoming arrows, ε1=0 on the component, so ~e1 is 0 by Definition 3.11. The theorem instead outputs (ν+α1; −1,0), a "component" with negative dimension, which does not exist. This is a concrete counterexample, not a gap in an edge case argument. The theorem needs extra clauses: outputs must be discarded whenever a rank or a dimension becomes negative. As written, the advertised explicit formulas are wrong, and Corollary 5.10 (no embedding into B(∞), non-seminormality, connectivity) relies on those formulas, so those consequences are not established.

What is good. The departure from preprojective relations is a real difference, not a cosmetic one: the components of EC(ν) are not equidimensional (Remark 5.2), and the simple pullback/pushforward argument from [16] genuinely fails, so the correspondence in Proposition 3.8 has to do real work. The proof of Proposition 3.8 is detailed, with local trivializations built from gExt_i and the fixed-complement trick; I did not find a hole there. The main theorem 3.13 then follows by a standard crystal-axiom verification, assuming those geometric facts. The parametrization of components in the 2x2 case is not new (Hesselink; Musili–Seshadri), and the authors say so; the crystal operator formulas are the new part, and they are exactly what is broken. The appendix with explicit generic representations via Crawley-Boevey–Schröer is a nice addition.

Minor issues: two clear typos (Theorem 4.1(2) has ν_i≥ν_i, should be ν_i≥ν_{i+1}; Corollary 5.10(2) gives ε1=ε1'=1 but the values from Proposition 5.8 are 1 and 0). The base field is never stated to be algebraically closed, which is standard but should be said. The star-crystal results are stated with proofs omitted.

Who this is for: people in TDA and quiver representations who care about geometric invariants of multiparameter persistence. The main existence theorem looks plausible, but the paper cannot be accepted in this form. It deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject, because the core construction is novel and the flaw is a fixable boundary condition, not a collapse of the central idea. I would ask the authors to correct Theorem 5.5, re-verify Corollary 5.10, and add the missing hypotheses.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a Kashiwara crystal structure on BC, the set of all irreducible components of the representation varieties of d-parameter persistence modules on the equioriented commutative grid quiver. The main theorem (Theorem 3.13) is proved by direct verification of the crystal axioms, following the geometric strategy of Kashiwara and Saito but with commutative relations instead of preprojective relations. The paper then gives explicit descriptions of the Kashiwara and star operators in the one-parameter and 2x2 cases, parametrizes the irreducible components for the 2x2 grid, and derives structural consequences including non-embeddability into B(∞), failure of upper seminormality, and connectedness. An appendix describes the general module in each irreducible component of the 2x2 case.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, the paper gives a new geometric/combinatorial invariant for multiparameter persistence modules and a genuine extension of the Kashiwara-Saito construction to a commutative-relation setting. The proof of Proposition 3.8 is detailed and the smoothness and connected-fiber arguments are plausible; I did not find an error in the central geometric construction. The explicit formulas of Theorems 5.5 and 5.6 are a major advertised contribution, and those formulas are currently incorrect at boundary weights. Because the nontriviality corollaries are deduced from those formulas, the paper is not ready for publication in its present form.

major comments (3)

[Section 5, Theorem 5.5(1) and Theorem 5.6(1)] The explicit formula for ~e1 is false at boundary weights. Take ν=(0,1,1,0) and Λ=(ν;0,0), the unique irreducible component of EC(ν) by Corollary 5.4(2). Here ν1+ν4=0≤ν2+ν3=2, so the first clause of Theorem 5.5(1) returns (ν+α1;−1,0). This is not an element of BC: ε1(Λ)=ν1=0, so Definition 3.11(2) and Proposition 3.8(3) force ~e1Λ=0; moreover the output has a negative rank parameter r1−1, and if ν+α1 is read as a weight it is not in −Q+. The same boundary defect appears in Theorem 5.6(1) for ~e*_4: for the same Λ, the first clause returns (ν+α4;0,−1), whereas ε*_4(Λ)=ν4=0 forces ~e*_4Λ=0. The stated formulas therefore need explicit zero clauses whenever the resulting dimension vector has a negative entry or the new rank parameters fall outside their admissible ranges, and the proofs of the affected clauses must be reworked.
[Section 5, proof of Corollary 5.10(2)] The numerical values in the proof contradict Proposition 5.8(2). For ν=−α1−α2−α3−2α4, i.e. dimension vector (1,1,1,2), and Λ=(ν;1,1), Proposition 5.8(2) gives ε1(Λ)=1 and, since ν4=2>r2=1, ε′1(Λ)=ν1−r1=0. The proof states that ε1(Λ)=1 and ε′1(Λ)=1, which is inconsistent with the proposition just proved. The conclusion that BC is not upper seminormal may still be salvageable using the corrected value 0, but the printed argument is not valid as it stands.
[Section 5, Corollary 5.10(1) and (3)] Both proofs invoke Theorem 5.5 without checking that the operators are applied only inside their valid domains. In particular, the connectedness proof displays a composition of ~e operators that can pass through components with zero dimension at an active vertex, exactly the boundary situation where the current formulas fail. Since Theorem 5.5 is false as stated, the equality used in the non-embedding argument and the connectivity claim are not established. These corollaries must be re-derived after the operator formulas are corrected.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3, Proposition 3.8(3)] Proposition 3.8(3) states that the image of ϖ2 is the 'closed subset' of EC(ν) consisting of points f with εi(f)>0. The condition εi(f)>0 is open in the Zariski topology, so this should presumably read 'open subset' or simply 'subset'. The surrounding arguments do not seem to use closedness, but the statement as written is false in general.
[Section 4, Theorem 4.1(2)] In the displayed formula for ~f*_i, the condition 'if νi≥νi' is tautological and is presumably a typo for 'if νi≥νi+1', matching the condition in the preceding line for ~e*_i.
[Section 5, Proposition 5.9(1)] The formulas for ε*_2 and ε*_3 have overlapping, inconsistent cases: each first case is 'ν2>r2' or 'ν3>r2', while the second case is '0 if ν2≥r2' or '0 if ν3≥r2'. These second cases should presumably be 'ν2≤r2' and 'ν3≤r2'.
[Sections 4 and 5] The notation ν±αi shifts between the weight ν∈−Q+ and the dimension vector (νi)i∈I. This ambiguity contributed directly to the boundary errors in the explicit formulas; the authors should fix a convention and state clearly how a weight ν+αi is translated back to a dimension vector.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the crystal construction is verified in-paper from definitions, with external benchmarks used only for non-embedding and component parametrization.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The Kashiwara operators in Definition 3.11 are built from the explicitly proved Proposition 3.8, whose smoothness and connected-fiber statements are demonstrated inside the paper using linear algebra (Lemma 3.6) and the local trivialization Lemma 3.7. The crystal axioms in Theorem 3.13 are verified directly from these definitions; phi_i = epsilon_i + <h_i, wt> is imposed by Definition 3.2, matching the standard crystal convention rather than being fitted to data. The 2x2 parametrization of components is imported from external sources (Hesselink, Musili-Seshadri) and explicitly acknowledged in Remark 5.2; the operators are then computed, not imposed, from the extension-variety correspondence. The non-embedding result Corollary 5.10 uses the polyhedral realization of Nakashima and Zelevinsky as an external benchmark. No parameter is fitted to an output and no load-bearing premise is justified solely by a self-citation; the only Hiraoka-authored reference, [9], is a historical citation in the introduction. The skeptic's boundary counterexample to Theorem 5.5 concerns correctness of a stated formula, not circularity, so it does not change the circularity score.

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

The central claim rests on standard definitions and cited theorems; no fitted parameters, no ad hoc constants, and no new postulated entities.

assumptions (5)

standard math Kac-Moody root systems and crystal axioms as in Definitions 2.1-2.3 (Kac; Kashiwara).
Background definitions used throughout; cited to [14] and [15].
domain assumption The base field k is algebraically closed (implicitly assumed; not stated).
The orbit-closure and dimension computations, e.g., Smith normal form in Proposition 5.1, require algebraic closure.
standard math Crawley-Boevey-Schroer Theorems on irreducible components of module varieties (Theorems A.1, A.2).
Used in the appendix to describe general representations; cited to [6].
standard math Nakashima-Zelevinsky polyhedral realization of B(∞) (cited in Corollary 5.10(1)).
Used to compare words in B(∞); cited to [21].
standard math Algebraic geometry facts: smoothness criterion (Hartshorne Prop 10.1), vector bundle constructions (Le Potier).
Used in the proof of Proposition 3.8; standard and cited.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometric construction of Kashiwara crystals on multiparameter persistence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AEHWEB7X

@misc{pith2026250414844,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometric construction of Kashiwara crystals on multiparameter persistence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AEHWEB7X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14844}
}

read the original abstract

We establish a geometric construction of Kashiwara crystals on the irreducible components of the varieties of multiparameter persistence modules. Our approach differs from the seminal work of Kashiwara and Saito, as well as subsequent related works, by emphasizing commutative relations rather than preprojective relations for a given quiver. Furthermore, we provide explicit descriptions of the Kashiwara operators in the fundamental cases of 1- and 2-parameter persistence modules, offering concrete insights into the crystal structure in these settings.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[16]

Geometric construction of crystal bases

Masaki Kashiwara and Yoshihisa Saito. “Geometric construction of crystal bases”. In: Duke Math. J 89 (1997), pp. 9–36. doi: 10.1215/S0012-7094-97-08902-X

work page doi:10.1215/s0012-7094-97-08902-x 1997
[1]

On approximation of 2D persistence modules by interval- decomposables

Hideto Asashiba et al. “On approximation of 2D persistence modules by interval- decomposables”. In: Journal of Computational Algebra 6-7 (2023), p. 100007. issn: 2772-8277. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaca.2023.100007. 22 REFERENCES

arXiv 2023
[2]

An Introduction to Multiparameter Persistence

Magnus Bakke Botnan and Michael Lesnick. “An Introduction to Multiparameter Persistence”. In: arXiv:2203.14289v2 (). url: https : / / arxiv . org / abs / 2203 . 14289

arXiv
[3]

Signed Barcodes for Multi-Parameter Persistence via Rank Decompositions

Magnus Bakke Botnan, Steffen Oppermann, and Steve Oudot. “Signed Barcodes for Multi-Parameter Persistence via Rank Decompositions”. In: SoCG 2022. Vol. 224. 2022, 19:1–19:18. isbn: 978-3-95977-227-3. doi: 10.4230/LIPIcs.SoCG.2022.19

doi:10.4230/lipics.socg.2022.19 2022
[4]

Zigzag persistence

Gunnar Carlsson and Vin de Silva. “Zigzag persistence”. In: Found. Comput. Math. 33.10 (2010), pp. 367–405

work page 2010
[5]

Topological Data Analysis with Applications

Gunnar Carlsson and Mikael Vejdemo-Johansson. Topological Data Analysis with Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

Irreducible components of varieties of modules

William Crawley-Boevey and Jan Schr¨ oer. “Irreducible components of varieties of modules”. In: J. Reine Angew. Math. 553 (2002), pp. 201–220. issn: 0075-4102. doi: 10.1515/crll.2002.100

work page doi:10.1515/crll.2002.100 2002
[7]

On the variety of complexes

Corrado De Concini and Elisabetta Strickland. “On the variety of complexes”. In: Adv. in Math. 41.1 (1981), pp. 57–77. issn: 0001-8708. doi: 10 . 1016 / S0001 - 8708(81)80004- 7. url: https://doi- org.kyoto- u.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/ S0001-8708(81)80004-7

work page 1981

Show all 25 references

[8]

Topological persis- tence and simplification

Herbert Edelsbrunner, David Letscher, and Afra Zomorodian. “Topological persis- tence and simplification”. In: Discrete Comput. Geom. 28.4 (2002), pp. 511–533. issn: 0179-5376

2002
[9]

Persistence Modules on Commutative Ladders of Finite Type

Emerson G. Escolar and Yasuaki Hiraoka. “Persistence Modules on Commutative Ladders of Finite Type”. In: Discrete Comput. Geom. 55.2 (2016), pp. 100–157

2016
[10]

Schemes of modules over gentle algebras and laminations of surfaces

Christof Geiß, Daniel Labardini-Fragoso, and Jan Schr¨ oer. “Schemes of modules over gentle algebras and laminations of surfaces”. In: Selecta Mathematica 28.8 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00029-021-00710-w

2022 doi
[11]

Quivers with relations for sym- metrizable Cartan matrices IV: crystal graphs and semicanonical functions

Christof Geiss, Bernard Leclerc, and Jan Schr¨ oer. “Quivers with relations for sym- metrizable Cartan matrices IV: crystal graphs and semicanonical functions”. In: Sel. Math. New Ser. 24 (2018), pp. 3284–3348. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00029-018-0412-4

2018
[12]

Algebraic Geometry

Robin Hartshorne. Algebraic Geometry. Springer, 1977. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-1-4757-3849-0

1977 doi
[13]

Desingularizations of varieties of nullforms

Wim H. Hesselink. “Desingularizations of varieties of nullforms”. In: Invent. Math. 55.2 (1979), pp. 141–163. issn: 0020-9910. doi: 10.1007/BF01390087

1979 doi
[14]

Victor G. Kac. Infinite-dimensional Lie algebras. Third. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990, pp. xxii+400.isbn: 0-521-37215-1. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511626234

1990 doi
[15]

On crystal bases of the Q-analogue of universal enveloping al- gebras

Masaki Kashiwara. “On crystal bases of the Q-analogue of universal enveloping al- gebras”. In: Duke Mathematical Journal 63 (1991), pp. 465–516

1991
[17]

Generalized persistence diagrams for persis- tence modules over posets

Woojin Kim and Facundo M´ emoli. “Generalized persistence diagrams for persis- tence modules over posets”. In: Journal of Applied and Computational Topology 5.4 (2021), pp. 533–581. issn: 2367-1726,2367-1734. doi: 10.1007/s41468-021-00075- 1

2021 doi
[18]

Lectures on vector bundles

Joseph Le Potier. Lectures on vector bundles. Cambridge University Press, 1997

1997
[19]

Canonical bases arising from quantized enveloping algebras

George Lusztig. “Canonical bases arising from quantized enveloping algebras”. In: Journal of the American Mathematical Society 3 (1990), pp. 447–498. REFERENCES 23

1990
[20]

Schubert varieties and the variety of complexes

C. Musili and C. S. Seshadri. “Schubert varieties and the variety of complexes”. In: Arithmetic and geometry, Vol. II. Vol. 36. Progr. Math. Birkh¨ auser Boston, Boston, MA, 1983, pp. 329–359

1983
[21]

Polyhedral realizations of crystal bases for quantized Kac-Moody algebras

Toshiki Nakashima and Andrei Zelevinsky. “Polyhedral realizations of crystal bases for quantized Kac-Moody algebras”. In: Adv. Math. 131.1 (1997), pp. 253–278. issn: 0001-8708. doi: 10.1006/aima.1997.1670

1997
[22]

Quiver varieties and crystals in symmetriz- able type via modulated graphs

Vinoth Nandakumar and Peter Tingley. “Quiver varieties and crystals in symmetriz- able type via modulated graphs”. In: Math. Res. Lett. 25 (2018), pp. 159–180. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.4310/MRL.2018.v25.n1.a7

2018 doi
[23]

Steve Y. Oudot. Persistence Theory: From Quiver Representations to Data Analysis. Americal Mathematical Society, 2015

2015
[24]

Topological Persistence in Geometry and Analysis

Leonid Polterovich et al. Topological Persistence in Geometry and Analysis. Amer- ican Mathematical Society, 2020

2020
[25]

Computing persistent homology

Afra Zomorodian and Gunnar Carlsson. “Computing persistent homology”. In: Discrete Comput. Geom. 33 (2005), pp. 249–274. issn: 0179-5376. Appendix A. Appendix The bound quiver− →G(2,2) has eleven isomorphism classes of indecomposable representa- tions. Let us denote by M(ν1,ν ...

2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [16]

Geometric construction of crystal bases

Masaki Kashiwara and Yoshihisa Saito. “Geometric construction of crystal bases”. In: Duke Math. J 89 (1997), pp. 9–36. doi: 10.1215/S0012-7094-97-08902-X

work page doi:10.1215/s0012-7094-97-08902-x 1997

[2] [1]

On approximation of 2D persistence modules by interval- decomposables

Hideto Asashiba et al. “On approximation of 2D persistence modules by interval- decomposables”. In: Journal of Computational Algebra 6-7 (2023), p. 100007. issn: 2772-8277. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaca.2023.100007. 22 REFERENCES

arXiv 2023

[3] [2]

An Introduction to Multiparameter Persistence

Magnus Bakke Botnan and Michael Lesnick. “An Introduction to Multiparameter Persistence”. In: arXiv:2203.14289v2 (). url: https : / / arxiv . org / abs / 2203 . 14289

arXiv

[4] [3]

Signed Barcodes for Multi-Parameter Persistence via Rank Decompositions

Magnus Bakke Botnan, Steffen Oppermann, and Steve Oudot. “Signed Barcodes for Multi-Parameter Persistence via Rank Decompositions”. In: SoCG 2022. Vol. 224. 2022, 19:1–19:18. isbn: 978-3-95977-227-3. doi: 10.4230/LIPIcs.SoCG.2022.19

doi:10.4230/lipics.socg.2022.19 2022

[5] [4]

Zigzag persistence

Gunnar Carlsson and Vin de Silva. “Zigzag persistence”. In: Found. Comput. Math. 33.10 (2010), pp. 367–405

work page 2010

[6] [5]

Topological Data Analysis with Applications

Gunnar Carlsson and Mikael Vejdemo-Johansson. Topological Data Analysis with Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2022

work page 2022

[7] [6]

Irreducible components of varieties of modules

William Crawley-Boevey and Jan Schr¨ oer. “Irreducible components of varieties of modules”. In: J. Reine Angew. Math. 553 (2002), pp. 201–220. issn: 0075-4102. doi: 10.1515/crll.2002.100

work page doi:10.1515/crll.2002.100 2002

[8] [7]

On the variety of complexes

Corrado De Concini and Elisabetta Strickland. “On the variety of complexes”. In: Adv. in Math. 41.1 (1981), pp. 57–77. issn: 0001-8708. doi: 10 . 1016 / S0001 - 8708(81)80004- 7. url: https://doi- org.kyoto- u.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/ S0001-8708(81)80004-7

work page 1981