Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Geometric-combinatorial approaches to tilting theory for weighted projective lines

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes a bijection between indecomposable coherent sheaves on the weighted projective line of type $(2,2,n)$ and skew-curves on a cylinder with $n$ boundary-marked points, and shows pseudo-triangulations correspond to…

desk verdict A useful equivariant geometric model for coh-X(2,2,n), but the central bijection rests on an unproved compatibility statement imported from an unpublished companion; needs that filled before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06703 v2 pith:FQDUJZNX submitted 2025-01-12 math.RT math.AG

Jianmin Chen , Jinfeng Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.RTmath.AG MSC 14F0618E1005E1016S9957M50
keywords weightedprojectivelinegeometricmodelskew-arcpseudo-triangulationtiltingsheafmutationequivariantizationmarkedcylindricalsurface
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 tries to establish a complete geometric-combinatorial dictionary for the category $\operatorname{coh}\mathbb{X}$ of coherent sheaves on the weighted projective line of type $(2,2,n)$. The dictionary is built on a cylindrical surface with $n$ marked points on each boundary, together with an order-2 self-homeomorphism $\sigma$: indecomposable sheaves are claimed to correspond exactly to skew-curves on this surface, and tilting sheaves to pseudo-triangulations, with skew-arc flips matching tilting mutations. The construction proceeds by equivariantizing the known model for the $(n,n)$ weighted projective line under the automorphism that swaps its two special points. If the correspondence holds, the tilting graph of $\operatorname{coh}\mathbb{X}$ is connected, and tilting theory for this category has a concrete surface picture.

What carries the argument

The central object is the marked cylinder $(S,M,\sigma)$, where $S$ is a cylinder, $M$ has $n$ marked points on each boundary, and $\sigma$ is the order-2 self-homeomorphism induced by reflection $(x,y)\mapsto(-x,1-y)$ on the universal cover. A skew-curve is the equivariant data obtained from a curve in the $(n,n)$ model: a half of a $\sigma$-fixed curve, an unordered pair $\{\gamma,\sigma(\gamma)\}$, or a parameterized loop with a $\pm$ label or paired with its inverse parameter. The key transfer identity is $\varphi(\sigma(\gamma))=\sigma_{1,2}(\varphi(\gamma))$, which makes the surface involution agree with the automorphism exchanging the two weighted points of the $(n,n)$ model; through it, Ext-vanishing is read off from intersection numbers according to the criterion of Proposition 4.9. A skew-arc is a skew-curve compatible with itself, and a pseudo-triangulation is a maximal set of distinct pairwise compatible skew-arcs; these are the combinatorial shadows of tilting sheaves.

What would settle it

For a small $n$ such as $n=4$, enumerate all curves in $C_b\cup C_p$ and all indecomposables in $\operatorname{coh}\mathbb{Y}$ and directly verify $\varphi(\sigma(\gamma))=\sigma_{1,2}(\varphi(\gamma))$; one mismatch would refute Proposition 3.5. Independently, compute $\dim\operatorname{Ext}^1_{\mathbb{X}}(\widehat\varphi(\widehat\gamma_1),\widehat\varphi(\widehat\gamma_2))$ for every pair of skew-curves satisfying conditions (T1)-(T2) in Proposition 4.9, looking for a pair with total intersection $I=0$ and non-zero $\operatorname{Ext}^1$: any such pair refutes the equivariant intersection-to-Ext transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Proposition 3.5: there is a bijection $\widehat\varphi:\widehat C\to\operatorname{ind}(\operatorname{coh}\mathbb{X})$ sending each skew-curve to an indecomposable sheaf. Line bundles are the two halves of $\sigma$-fixed boundary curves, extension bundles are pairs $\{\gamma,\sigma(\gamma)\}$ from non-fixed curves, and the simple sheaves in the $\tau$-period-2 tubes are the distinguished parameterized loops; the correspondence is made explicit in Table 1. Proposition 4.16 upgrades this to a one-to-one correspondence between pseudo-triangulations on $(S,M,\sigma)$ and tilting sheaves, so each tilting sheaf has exactly $n+3$ indecomposable summands. Corollary 4.17 states that flipping a skew-arc in a pseudo-triangulation produces exactly the object one gets by tilting mutation of the corresponding sheaf, and Theorem 5.11 concludes that the tilting graph $G(T_{\mathbb{X}})$ is connected. The whole dictionary rests on the equivariant relationship $\operatorname{coh}\mathbb{X}\cong(\operatorname{coh}\mathbb{Y})^G$, where $\mathbb{Y}$ is the weighted projective line of type $(n,n)$ and $G$ is the order-2 group exchanging its two weighted points.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the unpublished base model [12] for type $(n,n)$ is correct, and in particular that $\varphi(\sigma(\gamma))=\sigma_{1,2}(\varphi(\gamma))$ and that the intersection-to-Ext criterion remains valid after equivariantization; if those fail, the bijection and both tilting theorems collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tilting sheaves in $\operatorname{coh}\mathbb{X}(2,2,n)$ are classified by pseudo-triangulations, recovering the known classification of tilting bundles of type $(2,2,n)$ as the subclass with no loops.
  • Mutation at an indecomposable summand is the geometric flip of its skew-arc; hence every mutation has a unique inverse and the exchange graph of tilting sheaves is the flip graph of pseudo-triangulations.
  • Any two tilting sheaves are connected by a finite sequence of mutations because any two pseudo-triangulations of $(S,M,\sigma)$ are connected by flips, as established in Theorem 5.11.
  • An almost complete tilting sheaf has exactly two complements, matching the fact that a skew-arc in a pseudo-triangulation has exactly one flip.
  • The $\mathbb{Z}(\vec{x}_1-\vec{x}_2)$-stable tilting bundles form a connected subgraph that can be mutated to any other stable tilting bundle through explicit sequences of flips.
  • The correspondence gives a uniform bookkeeping device: whether a collection of sheaves is rigid and tilting can be read directly from the intersection pattern of the corresponding skew-curves.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the compatibility identity $\varphi(\sigma(\gamma))=\sigma_{1,2}(\varphi(\gamma))$ is checked directly for small $n$, the geometric model and the connectivity theorem would no longer depend on the unpublished base preprint [12].
  • Editorial inference: the same equivariantization template suggests analogous surface models for other weighted projective lines obtained as quotients by finite subgroups of the automorphism group, as long as the group action is compatible with the base model's curve bijection.
  • Editorial inference: the correspondence opens a counting route: the number of tilting sheaves on $\mathbb{X}(2,2,n)$ should equal the number of pseudo-triangulations of $(S,M,\sigma)$, a finite quantity that the flip graph could enumerate for each $n$; the paper does not compute these counts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: The central claim is Proposition 3.5: there is a bijection $\widehat\varphi:\widehat C\to\operatorname{ind}(\operatorname{coh}\mathbb{X})$ sending each skew-curve to an indecomposable sheaf. Line bundles are the two halves of $\sigma$-fixed boundary curves, extension bundles are pairs $\{\gamma,\sigma(\gamma)\}$ from non-fixed curves, and the simple sheaves in the $\tau$-period-2 tubes are the dis

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 proposes a geometric-combinatorial model for the category of coherent sheaves on the weighted projective line of type (2,2,n). The model is a cylindrical surface with n marked points on each boundary, equipped with an order 2 self-homeomorphism. The authors construct a bijection between indecomposable sheaves and skew-curves, define compatibility and pseudo-triangulations, prove that pseudo-triangulations correspond to tilting sheaves, show that the flip of a skew-arc corresponds to tilting mutation, and use these tools to prove connectivity of the tilting graph. The main results are Proposition 3.5 (the bijection), Proposition 4.16 (pseudo-triangulations versus tilting sheaves), Corollary 4.17 (flip equals mutation), and Theorem 5.11 (connectivity of the tilting graph).

Significance. If the main claims hold, the paper provides a useful geometric model for a category that has been studied from an algebraic perspective, and it gives a new proof of the connectivity of the tilting graph. The paper is clearly written and contains explicit examples and tables. It also ships a substantial amount of technical machinery, including an appendix on equivariantization and an appendix on flips, and it makes a concrete new prediction: that flips of skew-arcs coincide with tilting mutations. The main weakness is the heavy reliance on the unpublished preprint [12] and on a compatibility statement that is asserted rather than proved; these points are load-bearing for the central bijection and the derived correspondences.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Proposition 3.5] The proof of Proposition 3.5 asserts that the homeomorphism σ is compatible with the automorphism σ_{1,2} in the sense φ(σ(γ)) = σ_{1,2}(φ(γ)) for every curve γ ∈ C_b ∪ C_p, and states that this is 'implicit in the proof of [12, Theorem 1.1]'. This equality is load-bearing: it is exactly what matches the geometric quotient in §3.2 with the algebraic equivariantization in Appendix A, and without it Table 1 is not a bijection. The authors should either give a direct proof of this compatibility from the definition of φ, or state it as an explicit hypothesis with a precise reference to a specific statement in [12].
  2. [Section 4.2, Proposition 4.9] Proposition 4.9 applies [12, Theorem 3.10] as an intersection-to-Ext criterion after equivariantization. It is not shown that this criterion is compatible with the G-action or with the induction and forgetful functors used in the proof. In particular, the step where indecomposable direct summands of F∘Ind_2(φ̂(γ_i)) are said to correspond to curves in C(γ_i), and the inequality obtained from [14, Lemma 3.4], need justification. If the intersection–Ext criterion does not survive equivariantization, the geometric characterization of compatibility collapses for all skew-curves outside C_b,X.
  3. [Definition 4.3 and Proposition 4.16] Compatibility of skew-curves is defined directly as the vanishing of Ext^1 between the corresponding sheaves (Definition 4.3). Under this definition, Proposition 4.16 is to a large extent a reformulation of the definition of a tilting sheaf plus the bijection φ̂, rather than a geometric statement. The genuine geometric content must come from Proposition 4.9, but that proposition does not cover the loop-type skew-curves in C* (i.e. C_pw and C_sp). Thus, for the summands coming from C*, the paper does not provide a purely geometric criterion for compatibility; the 'pseudo-triangulation' description is only geometric for the curve-type skew-curves.
  4. [Proposition 4.15 and Appendix B] The proof of Proposition 4.15 asserts that the constructed set Γ_Λ is a triangulation and uses the formula |Γ_Λ| = 2n + 3|P_Λ|, but several cases (e.g. cases (3) and (4)) are dismissed as 'similar' or left to inspection. Likewise, Appendix B lists three types of flips but does not prove that every skew-arc in a pseudo-triangulation falls into exactly one of these types, nor that the described replacement always yields a new pseudo-triangulation. These steps are needed because the flip relation is used in Corollary 4.17 and Theorem 5.11.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] There is a typo in the abstract and again in the introduction: 'titling' should be 'tilting'.
  2. [References] The paper relies heavily on the unpublished preprint [12]; references [13], [14], and [16] are also recent preprints or papers. It would be helpful to mark these as such and to state explicitly which parts of the argument depend on [12].
  3. [Table 1] In the row for C_σ_p, the index expression ~[D_{i-j-1,i}] is used, while the definition of C_σ_p earlier uses ~[D_{i,j}] with j-i ≥ 2; the relation between these two notations should be clarified.
  4. [Figures] Several figures (e.g. Figures 1, 2 and the flip diagrams in Appendix B) are small and contain labels that are difficult to read; higher-resolution versions would improve the presentation.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The tilting correspondence is partly a relabeling of Ext-vanishing, and the central bijection rests on an unproved compatibility statement imported from the same authors' unpublished preprint.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3.2, proof of Proposition 3.5]
    "Next, note that the diffeomorphism σ can naturally be regarded as an element of the mapping class group of ( S, M) and it is implicit in the proof of [ 12, Theorem 1.1] that σ is compatible with σ1,2 in the following sense: φ(σ(γ)) = σ1,2(φ(γ)), for any curve γ ∈ Cb ∪ Cp."

    Proposition 3.5 is the foundation of the paper: it constructs the bijection φhat between skew-curves and indecomposable sheaves on X(2,2,n). The proof does not derive the compatibility φ(σ(γ)) = σ1,2(φ(γ)); it cites an unpublished preprint by overlapping authors and says the statement is implicit there. That compatibility is exactly what connects the geometric quotient curves to the algebraic equivariantization. Without it, Table 1 does not give a well-defined bijection, and Proposition 4.16, Corollary 4.17, and Theorem 5.11 inherit the gap. This is a load-bearing self-citation rather than an independently verified mathematical input.

  2. self definitional [Definition 4.3 and Proposition 4.16]
    "Two skew-curves ˆγ1 and ˆγ2 in ˆC are called compatible if dimk Ext1 X( ˆφ(ˆγ1), ˆφ(ˆγ2)) = dim k Ext1 X( ˆφ(ˆγ2), ˆφ(ˆγ1)) = 0 . ... Let Λ = {ˆγ1, ˆγ2, · · · , ˆγn+3} be a pseudo-triangulation on ( S, M, σ). Let T = ⊕n+3 i=1 ˆφ(ˆγi). According to the definition of pseudo-triangulation, we have dimkExt1 X( ˆφ(ˆγi), ˆφ(ˆγj)) = 0 ... Combining with Proposition 4.1, we get that T is a tilting sheaf in coh- X."

    The geometric notion compatible is defined directly as vanishing of Ext between the corresponding sheaves, and pseudo-triangulation is defined as a maximal set of pairwise compatible skew-arcs. Therefore the forward direction of Proposition 4.16 is true by definition: the pairwise Ext-vanishing condition is exactly the rigidity part of the tilting condition, with the count |Λ| = n + 3 supplying the rest. The theorem is a relabeling of the algebraic tilting criterion in geometric vocabulary. The genuinely geometric content would have to come from an independent intersection criterion, which is not fully established for the C∗ skew-curves and is imported from [12] for the others.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4.2, proof of Proposition 4.9]
    "By [ 12, Theorem 3.10], the condition I(C(ˆγ1), C(ˆγ2)) = 0 implies that the right-hand side is zero. It follows that Ext 1 X(φ(ˆγ1), φ(ˆγ2)) = 0."

    Proposition 4.9 is the bridge that gives geometric meaning to the algebraically defined compatibility: it asserts that non-intersection of associated curves is equivalent to Ext-vanishing. The proof invokes [12, Theorem 3.10], an intersection-to-Ext criterion proved in the same authors' unpublished preprint, and does not show that the criterion remains valid after the equivariantization and induction steps used here. Thus the central equivalence between intersections and Ext is not derived in this paper; it is transported from a self-cited source whose applicability to the (S, M, σ) equivariant setting is assumed rather than established.

full rationale

The paper contains a genuine attempt to build a geometric model, and much of the combinatorics in Sections 5 and Appendix B is self-contained. However, the two main structural claims are not fully independent of the authors' prior unpublished work. Proposition 3.5 imports the key compatibility φ(σ(γ)) = σ1,2(φ(γ)) from [12] by assertion; Proposition 4.9 imports the intersection-to-Ext criterion [12, Theorem 3.10]. Moreover, Definition 4.3 defines compatibility of skew-curves as Ext-vanishing of the associated sheaves, so Proposition 4.16 is partially a restatement of the tilting definition rather than a derived geometric correspondence. These dependencies are load-bearing: if the compatibility or the equivariantized intersection criterion fails, the bijection between skew-curves and indecomposable sheaves, and hence the tilting, flip, and connectivity theorems, collapse. The paper is not wholly circular—the count |Λ| = n + 3, the flip construction, and the connectivity arguments are new combinatorial work—but the central bijection and the geometric meaning of compatibility rely on self-citations and on a definition that builds the target algebraic property into the geometric object. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: some predictions and correspondences reduce by construction or by a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

No fitted free parameters. The central claim is carried by external structural results, several from the same research group's unpublished preprint [12], plus one definitional choice that makes pseudo-triangulations very close to tilting objects by construction.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Geometric model for coh-X(n,n): bijection phi between curves C and indecomposable sheaves, and intersection criterion for Ext^1 ([12, Theorems 3.4 and 3.10]).
    Unpublished arXiv:2310.04695 by the same first author is used as the foundation; invoked in Proposition 3.5 and Proposition 4.9.
  • domain assumption Equivalences (coh-X)^{Z(x1-x2)} ≅ coh-Y and (coh-Y)^G ≅ coh-X (Proposition A.2, based on [17] and [9]).
    Transfers the known model from type (n,n) to type (2,2,n).
  • domain assumption Orbifold quotient Y/G ≅ X with the orbit weights listed in Remark A.1 ([27]).
    Used to define the explicit bijection in Table 1.
  • domain assumption Every indecomposable bundle on X(2,2,n) is a line bundle or an extension bundle E_L⟨x⟩, with uniqueness properties from [25] and [16, Proposition 2.3(i)].
    Used in Proposition 3.5, Proposition 3.7, and Lemma 4.10.
  • standard math Tilting criterion for hereditary categories: T is tilting iff Ext^1(T,T)=0 and the number of indecomposable summands equals rank K0 (Proposition 4.1 from [29]).
    Standard background theorem used to identify tilting sheaves with rigid objects of maximal size.
  • standard math Almost complete tilting objects have exactly two complements ([24]).
    Used in Corollary 4.17 to identify the flip of a skew-arc with the unique other complement.
  • standard math Any two triangulations of a polygon are connected by flips.
    Used throughout Section 5 to reduce arbitrary pseudo-triangulations to standard forms.
invented entities (2)
  • skew-curves independent evidence
    purpose: Geometric representatives for indecomposable sheaves on X(2,2,n).
    The bijection in Table 1 connects them to the independently existing category coh-X(2,2,n); they are not merely internal.
  • pseudo-triangulations independent evidence
    purpose: Combinatorial shadows of tilting sheaves.
    Proposition 4.16 ties them to actual tilting sheaves; flips correspond to mutations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometric-combinatorial approaches to tilting theory for weighted projective lines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FQDUJZNX

@misc{pith2026250106703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometric-combinatorial approaches to tilting theory for weighted projective lines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FQDUJZNX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06703}
}
read the original abstract

We provide a geometric-combinatorial model for the category of coherent sheaves on the weighted projective line of type (2,2,n) via a cylindrical surface with n marked points on each of its upper and lower boundaries, equipped with an order 2 self-homeomorphism. A bijection is established between indecomposable sheaves on the weighted projective line and skew-curves on the surface. Moreover, by defining a skew-arc as a self-compatible skew-curve and a pseudo-triangulation as a maximal set of distinct pairwise compatible skew-arcs, we show that pseudo-triangulations correspond bijectively to tilting sheaves. Under this bijection, the flip of a skew-arc within a pseudo-triangulation coincides with the tilting mutation. As an application, we prove the connectivity of the tilting graph for the category of coherent sheaves.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06703 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The cylinder (S, M) and its universal cover (S˜, π). The marked points on Se are given by Mf := π −1 (M) = {(i, 0),(j, 1) | i, j ∈ Z}. A marked point (i, 1) on the boundary ∂ := R× {1} is denoted by i∂, and a marked point (j, 0) on ∂ ′ := R×{0} is denoted by j∂′ , where i, j ∈ Z. Note that (Se, Mf) does not satisfy the definition of a marked surface because |Mf| is infinite. Nevertheless, we can still define curves … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The top half γ + and bottom half γ − of γ (ii) For each non-σ-fixed curve γ in Cb ∪ Cp, we pair γ with its image under σ, forming {γ, σ(γ)}. (iii) For each parameterized loop (λ, Lj ) in Ck∗ , where λ 6= ±1, j ∈ Z+, we pair it with (λ −1 , Lj ), forming {(λ, Lj ),(λ −1 , Lj )}. (iv) For each parameterized loop (λ, Lj ) in Ck∗ , where λ = 1 or −1 and j ∈ Z+, we assign new parameters to generate two elements: (λ, Lj )… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    J. Chen, S. Ruan, and H. Zhang. Geometric model for weigh ted projective lines of type ( p, q ). arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04695 , 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Amiot and P.-G

    C. Amiot and P.-G. Plamondon. The cluster category of a su rface with punctures via group actions. Adv. Math. , 389:Paper No. 107884, 63, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    Auslander, M

    M. Auslander, M. I. Platzeck, and I. Reiten. Coxeter func tors without diagrams. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 250:1–46, 1979

    work page 1979

  4. [3]

    Barot, D

    M. Barot, D. Kussin, and H. Lenzing. The cluster category of a canonical algebra. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 362(8):4313–4330, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [4]

    Baur and R

    K. Baur and R. Coelho Sim˜ oes. A geometric model for the mo dule category of a gentle algebra. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN , (15):11357–11392, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Baur and R

    K. Baur and R. J. Marsh. A geometric model of tube categori es. J. Algebra , 362:178–191, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [6]

    I. N. Bernstein, I. M. Gelfand, and V. A. Ponomarev. Coxet er functors, and Gabriel’s theorem. Uspehi Mat. Nauk , 28(2(170)):19–33, 1973

    work page 1973

  8. [7]

    Br¨ ustle and J

    T. Br¨ ustle and J. Zhang. On the cluster category of a mark ed surface without punctures. Algebra Number Theory , 5(4):529–566, 2011

    work page 2011

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    Caldero, F

    P. Caldero, F. Chapoton, and R. Schiffler. Quivers with rel ations arising from clusters ( An case). Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 358(3):1347–1364, 2006

    2006

  2. [9]

    Chen, X.-W

    J. Chen, X.-W. Chen, and S. Ruan. The dual actions, equiva riant autoequivalences and stable tilting objects. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) , 70(6):2677–2736, 2020

    2020

  3. [10]

    Chen, X.-W

    J. Chen, X.-W. Chen, and S. Ruan. The dual actions, equiv ariant autoequivalences and stable tilting objects. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) , 70(6):2677–2736, 2020

    2020

  4. [11]

    J. Chen, Y. Lin, and S. Ruan. Tilting bundles and the miss ing part on a weighted projective line of type (2 , 2, n ). J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 219(7):2538–2558, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    J. Chen, S. Ruan, and J. Zhang. Geometric model for vecto r bundles via infinite marked strips. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07793 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    X.-W. Chen. A note on serre duality and equivariantizat ion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.6864 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    X.-W. Chen. Equivariantization and Serre duality I. Appl. Categ. Structures , 25(4):539–568, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Dong and S

    Q. Dong and S. Ruan. On two open questions for extension b undles. J. Algebra, 662:407–430, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Q. Dong, S. Ruan, and H. Zhang. Equivariant approach to w eighted projective curves. J. Algebra, 608:388–411, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Fomin, M

    S. Fomin, M. Shapiro, and D. Thurston. Cluster algebras and triangulated surfaces. I. Cluster complexes. Acta Math. , 201(1):83–146, 2008

    2008

  11. [19]

    Fu and S

    C. Fu and S. Geng. On cluster-tilting graphs for heredit ary categories. Adv. Math., 383:Paper No. 107670, 26, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Geigle and H

    W. Geigle and H. Lenzing. A class of weighted projective curves arising in representation theory of finite-dimensional algebras. In Singularities, representation of algebras, and vector bundles (Lambrecht, 1985) , volume 1273 of Lecture Notes in Math. , pages 265–297. Springer,...

    1985

  13. [21]

    S. Geng. Mutation of tilting bundles of tubular type. J. Algebra , 550:186–209, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Happel and L

    D. Happel and L. Unger. On the set of tilting objects in he reditary categories. In Represen- tations of algebras and related topics , volume 45 of Fields Inst. Commun. , pages 141–159. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005

    2005

  15. [23]

    P. He, Y. Zhou, and B. Zhu. A geometric model for the modul e category of a skew-gentle algebra. Math. Z. , 304(1):Paper No. 18, 41, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    H¨ ubner

    T. H¨ ubner. Exzeptionelle vektorb¨ undel und reflektio nen an kippgarben ¨ uber projektiven gewichteten kurven, 1996. Dissertation, Universit¨ at Paderborn

    1996

  17. [25]

    Kussin, H

    D. Kussin, H. Lenzing, and H. Meltzer. Triangle singula rities, ADE-chains, and weighted projective lines. Adv. Math. , 237:194–251, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    H. Lenzing. W eighted projective lines and application s. In Representations of algebras and related topics, EMS Ser. Congr. Rep., pages 153–187. Eur. Math. Soc., Z¨ uri ch, 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    H. Lenzing. W eighted projective lines and Riemann surf aces. In Proceedings of the 49th Symposium on Ring Theory and Representation Theory , pages 67–79. Symp. Ring Theory Represent. Theory Organ. Comm., Shimane, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Lenzing and H

    H. Lenzing and H. Meltzer. The automorphism group of the derived category for a weighted projective line. Comm. Algebra , 28(4):1685–1700, 2000

    2000

  21. [29]

    Lenzing and I

    H. Lenzing and I. Reiten. Hereditary Noetherian catego ries of positive Euler characteristic. Math. Z. , 254(1):133–171, 2006. GEOMETRIC-COMBINATORICS IN TILTING THEORY ON WPL (2,2,N) 2 9

    2006

  22. [30]

    Qiu and Y

    Y. Qiu and Y. Zhou. Cluster categories for marked surfac es: punctured case. Compos. Math., 153(9):1779–1819, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    R. Schiffler. A geometric model for cluster categories of type Dn. J. Algebraic Combin. , 27(1):1–21, 2008. School of Mathematical Sciences, Xiamen University, 361005, Xiamen, P.R. China Email address : chenjianmin@xmu.edu.cn School of Mathematical Sciences, Xiamen University, 3...

    2008

Pith tools

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