Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

On the Feyzbakhsh-Thomas programme for Fano $3$-folds

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that on any Fano 3-fold with even canonical class satisfying the generalized Bogomolov-Gieseker inequality, every DT invariant with descendant insertions counting positive-rank semistable sheaves is a universal combination

desk verdict Genuine Fano analogue of Feyzbakhsh-Thomas rank reduction, with a real vertex-algebra lemma, but the critical wall-crossing coefficient is imported from the authors' own preprint [33] and an asserted identification with [14] rather than proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13982 v1 pith:ETYKCG6B submitted 2026-07-15 math.AG

Ivan Karpov , Miguel Moreira This is my paper
classification math.AG MSC 14N3514J45
keywords DTinvariantsFano3-foldsGiesekersemistabilityK-theoreticwall-crossingvertexalgebrasdescendantrankreductionBogomolov-Giesekerinequality
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 rank-reduction theorem for DT invariants of Fano 3-folds, transferring a programme previously developed for Calabi-Yau threefolds to the Fano setting. For any Fano 3-fold with even canonical class satisfying the generalized Bogomolov-Gieseker inequality—for example projective 3-space—it shows that every descendant integral against the virtual class of the moduli stack of Gieseker semistable sheaves of positive rank can be written as a universal polynomial in descendant integrals over moduli spaces of rank-zero, pure-dimension-two sheaves. The proof crosses from Gieseker stability through tilt stability to the special wall where shifted line-bundle summands appear, using K-theoretic wall-crossing formulas, and then converts K-theoretic statements back to cohomology via Riemann-Roch and Adams operations. A vertex-algebra injectivity statement is the technical load-bearer that makes the wall-crossing loop close: it shows every descendant insertion can be produced by the wall-crossing formula. If correct, the computation of all positive-rank DT invariants on such Fano threefolds is formally reduced to rank-zero invariants.

What carries the argument

The central object is the lattice vertex algebra V(K(X)) associated to the K-theory of X with the symmetrized Euler pairing, together with its vertex operators. Within this algebra, the wall-crossing step at the special wall is encoded as a Lie bracket with the class of O(-n)[1]. The paper's appendix proves an injectivity statement for these vertex operators: if a certain class vanishes after bracketing with this point class, then it was already zero. This injectivity is what guarantees that every descendant insertion can be produced universally from the wall-crossing formula, letting the recursive rank reduction close. Two further supporting mechanisms are the epsilon-classes in K-theory—re

What would settle it

Take X=P^3 and a rank-2 class; compute one descendant integral directly from the virtual structure sheaf of the Gieseker moduli space, and independently via the universal rank-zero expression produced by the algorithm. A discrepancy for any single insertion would disprove Theorem A. A sharper check: verify that the universal wall-crossing coefficient at the special wall is ±1 by a direct localization computation on the relevant stratum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes Theorem A: for any K-theory class α with rank(α)>0, any descendant integral against the virtual class of the moduli stack of Gieseker semistable sheaves can be expressed as a universal expression in the descendant integrals over moduli spaces M(β) of rank-zero, pure-dimension-two semistable sheaves. This is the Fano analogue of the Calabi-Yau rank-reduction theorem, obtained not by motivic Hall algebra methods but by K-theoretic wall-crossing. The proof first proves the K-theoretic version (Theorem B), showing that epsilon-class descendant integrals for positive rank are universal combinations of rank-zero ones, then converts those to cohomological descendant integrals

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the imported K-theoretic wall-crossing formalism—existence of epsilon-classes, the Lie-bracket wall-crossing identity, and its universal coefficients—is valid for the Fano moduli stacks considered here; if that formalism, or its identification with the motivic wall-crossing coefficients, fails, the theorem's reduction collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Positive-rank DT invariants on projective 3-space are formally determined by rank-zero, pure-dimension-two invariants, so progress on the latter directly computes the former.
  • The rank reduction is algorithmic: the proof gives a finite wall-crossing recursion that outputs the universal expression for any given descendant integral.
  • K-theoretic and cohomological descendant invariants are interchangeable via universal transformations, so computations can be done in whichever theory is more convenient.
  • The invariants carry a vertex-algebra structure, giving formal algebraic relations among descendants of different moduli spaces.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The vertex-operator injectivity likely holds without the paper's largeness hypothesis, which would simplify the recursion and may extend the reduction to all ranks uniformly.
  • The same wall-crossing architecture may apply to other threefolds or to higher-dimensional Fano varieties once an appropriate slope inequality supplies the necessary positivity.
  • The vertex-algebra control of descendants suggests that Virasoro-type constraints, familiar in Calabi-Yau curve counting, should also hold for Fano moduli of sheaves.
  • The K-theoretic formulation yields refined integral-valued refinements of cohomological invariants, potentially carrying information invisible to ordinary integration.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Fano 3-fold analogue of the Feyzbakhsh–Thomas rank-reduction programme. For a Fano 3-fold X with even canonical class, polarized so that K_X is an integer multiple of H, and satisfying the generalized Bogomolov–Gieseker inequality, the main theorem (Theorem A) states that every descendant Donaldson–Thomas integral of the form (3), for a positive-rank K-theory class α, can be written as a universal expression in descendant integrals over moduli spaces M(β) of Gieseker-semistable sheaves of rank 0 and pure dimension 2. The strategy is to apply the K-theoretic wall-crossing formalism of the companion paper [33] to the Feyzbakhsh–Thomas set-up: pass from Gieseker stability to tilt-stability and then to the Joyce–Song wall, where rank r information is exchanged for rank r−1 data plus products of lower-rank moduli spaces (Section 6). Theorem C provides the required quasi-smoothness for positive classes, and Theorem D, proved in Section 7, converts K-theoretic descendant integrals into cohomological ones. The appendix, joint with Moreira, proves an injectivity statement for vertex operators that is used to invert the descendant correspondence.

Significance. If the central reduction is sound, this is a substantial advance: it extends the Feyzbakhsh–Thomas reduction from Calabi–Yau threefolds to a broad class of Fano threefolds, showing that all positive-rank descendant DT invariants are formally determined by rank-zero, pure-dimension-two invariants. The paper also contains useful technical results of independent interest, notably Theorem C on Ext-vanishing/quasi-smoothness for ν-stable objects and the vertex-algebra injectivity results in Appendix A. The exposition is honest about its main external dependencies, especially the companion preprint [33]. However, the current manuscript leaves several load-bearing points at the level of delegation to [14] and [33], most importantly the identification of the universal wall-crossing coefficient at the Joyce–Song wall. The reduction is therefore best regarded as a conditional result pending a complete verification of those identifications.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.5, Eq. (30), item (2)α] The inversion of Eq. (30) requires the universal coefficient of the Joyce–Song stratum to be exactly ±1, independent of the descendant τ′. The paper asserts this by saying that, according to [33], the K-theoretic wall-crossing coefficients coincide with the motivic ones, and that [14, Eqns. (71)–(72)] computes ±1. This is not proved here. The formalisms are different: [33] uses K-theoretic ε-classes and the Lie bracket of Proposition 3.3, while [14] uses the motivic Hall algebra. Moreover, the stratum center is M_+(v) × BG_m, and the BG_m factor is not visible in [14]'s Calabi-Yau computation. Since Theorem B collapses if the coefficient is not exactly ±1, this identification is load-bearing. Please either prove it directly or give a precise reference with all hypotheses verified.
  2. [Section 6.5.2] The lower-rank wall-crossing induction is dispatched as 'completely analogous' to [14, Eqn. (77)], and the low-volume chamber statement is asserted with no proof. This is not a mere routine analogue: the K-theoretic setting involves descendants, rigidified stacks, and ε-classes, and the induction must work for arbitrary descendants in order to prove Theorem B in the stated generality. In particular, one must show that every HN stratum encountered in the factorwise wall-crossing is of one of the types (3.i)–(3.iii), that the low-volume contributions vanish in K-theory, and that the process terminates for every descendant ψ. These points are not supplied in the text.
  3. [Section 7, Theorem D] Theorem D is only sketched, though it is essential for deducing Theorem A from Theorem B. Step 1 invokes Proposition 3.1(b), which requires Joyce's virtual classes and framing functors; Step 2 uses Grothendieck–Riemann–Roch and Adams operations, but Lemma 7.4 is proved only by indicating that [17, Proposition 5.2] applies, and the treatment of Schur functors and Ext factors is compressed. The final identification of the cohomological map τ → τ′ with the dual of bracketing with the point class is asserted in Appendix A.4 rather than proved in detail. Since Theorem D is the bridge between the K-theoretic reduction and the cohomological statement of Theorem A, the proof needs to be spelled out at the level of all descendants, including products of moduli spaces as in Corollary 7.6.
  4. [Section 5, Step 3] The proof of Theorem C, on which the quasi-smoothness assumptions of the entire wall-crossing machinery rest, has a compressed final step. The claim that 'by induction' σ^-_{b,w}(F(lH)) = σ^-_{b-l,w}(F) > σ^+_{b,w}(F) for every positive integer l is not demonstrated: one needs to justify that twisting by O(lH) shifts the Harder–Narasimhan slopes in the asserted way and that the relevant semistable factors remain in the same category. Please expand this argument or provide a precise reference for the induction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3] Typo: 'self-cobtainedd' should be 'self-contained'.
  2. [Section 6.5, item (2)α] The phrase 'Modulo this sign' is ambiguous. Please state explicitly whether the coefficient is +1 or −1 and how the sign is absorbed in Eq. (30).
  3. [Section 5, Lemma 5.1(b)] The strictness argument refers to positivity of E, but positivity is defined in Section 4.2.2 for K-theory classes. The link between positivity of the class and positivity of the object used in Theorem C should be made explicit.
  4. [Section 7, Claim] The notation 'mod H^{>d}(M)' in the proof of part b) is not defined for K-theoretic descendants. Please clarify what is meant at the level of K(M) and why the truncation is compatible with the subsequent Riemann–Roch manipulations.
  5. [References] The companion paper [33] is cited as a preprint by the same authors; it would be helpful to mark it explicitly as 'companion paper' in the text, since large parts of Section 3 are literally imported from it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: Theorem A is a genuine universal-coefficient reexpression, though it leans heavily on the same-authors' preprint [33] for its wall-crossing machinery.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a reduction theorem, not a self-referential construction. Theorem A expresses rank>0 descendant integrals in terms of rank-0, pure-dimension-2 descendant integrals; no defining equation (Definition 2.1, formula (6), Theorem B) defines a rank-0 invariant in terms of the rank-r invariant being proved. The main wall-crossing formula (30) is an equality of invariants on different moduli stacks, and the critical coefficient assertion in Section 6.5(2)α—that the Joyce-Song term has coefficient ±1—is imported from [33] and [14] as a universal coefficient identification, not fitted to or defined by the target invariants. Even if that identification is wrong, the failure mode is an unsupported assumption or potential non-invertibility, not an in-paper circular reduction. Appendix A proves the needed injectivity of vertex operators from the independent basis statement of Proposition A.1, and Theorem D's Adams-operation argument is self-contained given the cited K-theoretic Riemann-Roch. The paper does rely heavily on [33], a preprint by the same authors, for the existence of ϵ-classes, the Lie-bracket formula, and descendant preservation; that dependence is load-bearing. However, under the stated rules, a parameter-free cited result with assumptions that do not include the target theorem counts as independent support unless it is shown to assume the target result. No evidence in the text shows that [33] assumes the Fano rank-reduction theorem. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited; the heavy same-author dependence is a correctness/verification risk rather than a circularity.

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

No free parameters or invented entities are introduced; the paper's choices such as 'n large enough' are proof-construction parameters, not fitted data. The main hidden weight is the imported [33] formalism.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption X is a smooth projective Fano 3-fold with K_X divisible by 2 and K_X = mH; X satisfies the generalized Bogomolov-Gieseker inequality
    Section 1.3; e.g., P^3 satisfies this by [40]. This is an explicit hypothesis, not derived.
  • domain assumption X is of class D: K^{s-t}(X) ≅ K^{top}(X)
    Section 2.3 and Remark 7.5; the paper says this always holds for Fano varieties by Voineagu [51].
  • domain assumption Joyce's virtual classes and framing functors exist for the moduli stacks considered
    Section 7.1, Theorem D: the transition to cohomology assumes this explicitly.
  • domain assumption The K-theoretic wall-crossing machinery of [33] (ϵ-classes, Lie bracket (11), descendant preservation) is valid in the Fano setting
    Section 3.1, Propositions 3.1-3.7; this is the main external engine of the proof.
  • domain assumption The Feyzbakhsh-Thomas analysis of semistable/destabilizing objects (safe areas, sheaf vs complex, Joyce-Song wall) carries over from [14]
    Section 4.2, Propositions 4.2-4.3; used throughout Section 6.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Feyzbakhsh-Thomas programme for Fano $3$-folds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ETYKCG6B

@misc{pith2026260713982,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Feyzbakhsh-Thomas programme for Fano $3$-folds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ETYKCG6B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13982}
}
abstract

Let $X$ be a Fano $3$-fold with even canonical class which satisfies the generalized Bogomolov-Gieseker inequality, such as $\mathbb P^3$. We express Donaldson-Thomas invariants counting Gieseker semistable sheaves of rank $r$, where $r > 0$, on $X$ in terms of those counting sheaves of rank $0$ and pure dimension $2$. This implements an analogue of the programme initiated by S. Feyzbakhsh and R. Thomas in the case of Calabi-Yau varieties. The methods include $K$-theoretic Donaldson-Thomas theory and, quite unexpectedly, the use of certain combinatorial properties of vertex algebras.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 15 linked inside Pith

  1. [33]

    Karpov and M

    I. Karpov and M. Moreira,Generalized K-theoretic invariants and wall-crossing via non-abelian localiza- tion, preprint, arXiv:2512.22360

    arXiv

  2. [14]

    Feyzbakhsh and R

    S. Feyzbakhsh and R. P. Thomas,Rank r DT theory from rank 0, Duke Math. J. 173, No. 11, 2063-2116 (2024)

  3. [1]

    Alper,Good moduli spaces for Artin stacks, Annales de l’Institut Fourier, Tome 63 (2013) no

    J. Alper,Good moduli spaces for Artin stacks, Annales de l’Institut Fourier, Tome 63 (2013) no. 6, pp. 2349-2402

    2013

  4. [2]

    Alper, D

    J. Alper, D. Halpern-Leistner and J. Heinloth,Existence of moduli spaces for algebraic stacks, e-Print: 1812.01128

    arXiv

  5. [3]

    Arcara, A

    D. Arcara, A. Bertram, M. Lieblich,Bridgeland-stable moduli spaces for K-trivial surfaces, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 15, No. 1, 1-38 (2013)

    2013

  6. [4]

    Behrend., F

    K. Behrend., F. Fantechi,The intrinsic normal cone., Invent. Math. 128, No. 1, 45-88 (1997)

    1997

  7. [5]

    Bayer, M

    A. Bayer, M. Lahoz, E. Macr` ı, H. Nuer, A. Perry, P. Stellari,Stability conditions in families, Publ. Math. IHES 133, 157-325 (2021)

    2021

  8. [6]

    Bayer, E

    A. Bayer, E. Macr` ı, Y. Toda,Bridgeland stability conditions on threefolds I: Bogomolov-Gieseker type inequalities, J. Algebraic Geom. 23 (2014), 117-163

    2014

Show all 51 references
  1. [7]

    Blanc,Topological K-theory of complex noncommutative spaces

    A. Blanc,Topological K-theory of complex noncommutative spaces

  2. [8]

    Bojko, W

    A. Bojko, W. Lim, M. Moreira,Virasoro constraints for moduli of sheaves and vertex algebras, Invent. Math. 236, No. 1, 387-476 (2024)

    2024

  3. [9]

    R. E. Borcherds, Vertex algebras, Kac-Moody algebras, and the Monster, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 83 (1986), no. 10, 3068–3071

    1986

  4. [10]

    Bridgeland,Stability conditions on K3 surfaces, Duke Math

    T. Bridgeland,Stability conditions on K3 surfaces, Duke Math. J. 141 (2008), no. 2, 241–291, arXiv:math/0307164

    2008 arXiv

  5. [11]

    W. Cai, N. Jing,On vertex operator realizations of Jack functions, J. Algebr. Comb. 32, No. 4, 579-595 (2010). ON THE FEYZBAKHSH-THOMAS PROGRAMME FOR FANO 3-FOLDS 41

    2010

  6. [12]

    Fantechi and L

    B. Fantechi and L. Gottsche,Riemann-Roch theorems and elliptic genusfor virtually smooth schemes, Geom. and Top. 14 (2010), 83–115

    2010

  7. [13]

    Feyzbakhsh and R

    S. Feyzbakhsh and R. P. Thomas,Curve counting and S-duality, ´Epijournal de G´ eom´ etrie Alg´ ebrique, 12 mai 2023, Volume 7

    2023

  8. [15]

    Feyzbakhsh and R

    S. Feyzbakhsh and R. P. Thomas,Rank r DT theory from rank 1, JAMS 36, 795-826, 2023

    2023

  9. [16]

    T. L. G´ omez, A. F. Herrero and A. Zamora,The moduli stack of principalρ-sheaves and Gieseker-Harder- Narasimhan filtrations, Math. Z. 307, No. 3, Paper No. 51, 67 p. (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    Gross,The homology of moduli stacks of complexes, preprint, arXiv:1907.03269

    J. Gross,The homology of moduli stacks of complexes, preprint, arXiv:1907.03269

    1907 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Halpern-Leistner,On the structure of instability in moduli theory,preprint, arXiv:1411.0627

    D. Halpern-Leistner,On the structure of instability in moduli theory,preprint, arXiv:1411.0627

    arXiv

  12. [19]

    Halpern-Leistner,Remarks onΘ-stratifications and derived categories,preprint, arXiv:1502.03083

    D. Halpern-Leistner,Remarks onΘ-stratifications and derived categories,preprint, arXiv:1502.03083

    arXiv

  13. [20]

    Halpern-Leistner,DerivedΘ-stratifications and theD-equivalence conjecture, preprint, arXiv:2010.01127

    D. Halpern-Leistner,DerivedΘ-stratifications and theD-equivalence conjecture, preprint, arXiv:2010.01127

    2010 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Halpern-Leistner,TheD-equivalence conjecture for moduli spaces of sheaves, preprint, available from the author’s websire

    D. Halpern-Leistner,TheD-equivalence conjecture for moduli spaces of sheaves, preprint, available from the author’s websire

  15. [22]

    Halpern-Leistner, A

    D. Halpern-Leistner, A. Fernandez Herrero,The structure of the moduli of gauged maps from a smooth curve, preprint, arXiv:2305.09632

    arXiv

  16. [23]

    Halpern Leistner,The equivariant Verlinde formula on the moduli of Higgs bundles, preprint, arXiv:1608.01754

    D. Halpern Leistner,The equivariant Verlinde formula on the moduli of Higgs bundles, preprint, arXiv:1608.01754

    arXiv

  17. [24]

    Halpern-Leistner,A categorical perspective on non-abelian localization, preprint, arXiv: 2509.24009

    D. Halpern-Leistner,A categorical perspective on non-abelian localization, preprint, arXiv: 2509.24009

  18. [25]

    N. H. Jing, Vertex operators and Hall-Littlewood symmetric functions, Adv. Math. 87 (1991), no. 2, 226–248

    1991

  19. [26]

    Joyce,Configurations in abelian categories

    D. Joyce,Configurations in abelian categories. II. Ringel-Hall algebras, Adv. Math. 210 (2007), 635–706

    2007

  20. [27]

    Joyce,Configurations in abelian categories

    D. Joyce,Configurations in abelian categories. III. Stability conditions and identities, Adv. Math. 215 (2007), 153–219

    2007

  21. [28]

    Joyce and Y

    D. Joyce and Y. Song,A theory of generalized Donaldson-Thomas invariants, Memoirs of the AMS 217, no. 1020 (2012)

    2012

  22. [29]

    Joyce,Ringel–Hall style vertex algebra and Lie algebra structures on the homology of moduli spaces, preprint

    D. Joyce,Ringel–Hall style vertex algebra and Lie algebra structures on the homology of moduli spaces, preprint

  23. [30]

    Joyce,Enumerative invariants: what we did, and where to go next, https://sites.duke.edu/scshgap/files/2016/08/Simons.3.23.pdf

    D. Joyce,Enumerative invariants: what we did, and where to go next, https://sites.duke.edu/scshgap/files/2016/08/Simons.3.23.pdf

    2016

  24. [31]

    Joyce,Enumerative invariants and wall-crossing formulae in abelian categories, preprint, arXiv:2111.04694

    D. Joyce,Enumerative invariants and wall-crossing formulae in abelian categories, preprint, arXiv:2111.04694

    arXiv

  25. [32]

    Kac, Vertex algebras for beginners, second ed., University Lecture Series, vol

    V. Kac, Vertex algebras for beginners, second ed., University Lecture Series, vol. 10, American Mathemat- ical Society, Providence, RI, 1998

    1998

  26. [34]

    Khan,K-theory and G-theory of derived algebraic stacks, Jpn

    A. Khan,K-theory and G-theory of derived algebraic stacks, Jpn. J. Math. (3) 17, No. 1, 1-61 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Kononov, W

    Y. Kononov, W. Lim, M. Moreira, and W. Pi,Cohomology rings of the moduli of one- dimensional sheaves on the projective plane, 2024, preprint, arXiv:2403.06277

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    D. Kern, E. Mann, C. Manolache, R. Picchiotto,Derived moduli of sections and push-forwards,preprint, arXiv:2210.11386

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Kurano and P

    K. Kurano and P. Roberts,Adams operations, localized Chern characters, and the positivity of Dutta multiplicity in characteristic 0, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 352 (2000), no. 7, 3103–3116. 42 I. KARPOV

    2000

  30. [38]

    Lazarsfeld,Positivity in Algebraic Geometry I,Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Vol

    R. Lazarsfeld,Positivity in Algebraic Geometry I,Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Vol. 48

  31. [39]

    Liu,Equivariant K-theoretic enumerative invariants and wall-crossing formulae in abelian categories

    H. Liu,Equivariant K-theoretic enumerative invariants and wall-crossing formulae in abelian categories. Preprint, arXiv:2207.13546 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Macri,A generalized Bogomolov-Gieseker inequality for the three-dimensional projective space,Algebra Number Theory 8, No

    E. Macri,A generalized Bogomolov-Gieseker inequality for the three-dimensional projective space,Algebra Number Theory 8, No. 1, 173-190 (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    Mozgovoy,Wall-crossing structures on surfaces, e-Print: 2201.08797

    S. Mozgovoy,Wall-crossing structures on surfaces, e-Print: 2201.08797

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Maulik, J

    D. Maulik, J. Shen, Q. Yin.Perverse filtrations and Fourier transforms, Acta Mathematica

  35. [43]

    Nitsure,Schematic Harder–Narasimhan stratification,Int

    N. Nitsure,Schematic Harder–Narasimhan stratification,Int. J. Math. 22 (2011), 1365–1373. arXiv:0909.0891

    2011 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Piyaratne, Y

    D. Piyaratne, Y. Toda,Moduli of Bridgeland semistable objects on 3-folds and Donaldson-Thomas invari- ant, J. Reine Angew. Math. 747, 175-219 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Rekuski,Wall-crossing for tilt-stability, Michigan State University, PhD thesis, 2022

    N. Rekuski,Wall-crossing for tilt-stability, Michigan State University, PhD thesis, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Thaddeus,Conformal field theory and the cohomology of the moduli space of stable bundles, J

    M. Thaddeus,Conformal field theory and the cohomology of the moduli space of stable bundles, J. Differ- ential Geom. 35 (1992), no. 1, 131–149

    1992

  39. [47]

    Thomas,Equivariant K-theory and refined Vafa-Witten invariants, Commun

    R. Thomas,Equivariant K-theory and refined Vafa-Witten invariants, Commun. Math. Phys. 378, No. 2, 1451-1500 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Toda,Moduli stacks and invariants of semistable objects on K3 surfaces, Adv

    Y. Toda,Moduli stacks and invariants of semistable objects on K3 surfaces, Adv. Math. 217, No. 6, 2736- 2781 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    Toda,Stable pair invariants on Calabi-Yau threefolds containingP 2

    Y. Toda,Stable pair invariants on Calabi-Yau threefolds containingP 2. Geom. Topol. 20 (2016) 555-611

    2016

  42. [50]

    To¨ en and M

    B. To¨ en and M. Vaqui´ e,Moduli of objects in dg-categories, Ann. Sci. ´Ec. Norm. Sup´ er. (4) 40, No. 3, 387-444 (2007)

    2007

  43. [51]

    Voineagu,Semi-topological K-theory for certain projective varieties

    M. Voineagu,Semi-topological K-theory for certain projective varieties. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 212, No. 8, 1960-1983 (2008). Ivan Karpov Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Mathematics Email address:karpov57@mit.edu Miguel Moreira Massachusetts Institute of Tec...

    1960

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.