Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Generalization of a conjecture of Mumford

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · 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 Mumford's cohomology-ring conjecture for rank-2 semistable sheaves with fixed odd determinant on an irreducible nodal curve, and computes the Hodge–Poincaré polynomial of this singular moduli space.

desk verdict Genuine nodal-curve generalization of Mumford's conjecture, but the proof's keystone is a black box in the authors' companion paper. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02279 v3 pith:Y4ONISI6 submitted 2019-08-04 math.AG

Ananyo Dan , Inder Kaur This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AG MSC 32G2032S3514D0714D2214D2014H6055R40
keywords MumfordconjecturecohomologyringmoduliofsheavesnodalcurveslimitmixedHodgestructuresHodge-Poincarépolynomialrank2bundlesGiesekerspace
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 proves a generalization of Mumford's conjecture on the cohomology ring of moduli spaces of rank-2 sheaves, moving from smooth curves to an irreducible nodal curve with one node. For an odd-degree line bundle $L_0$, it identifies the rational cohomology ring of the Simpson moduli space $U_{X_0}(2,L_0)$ with a direct sum of monodromy-invariant primitive pieces tensored with polynomial rings in three even-degree classes modulo recursively defined Mumford ideals. The relations are exactly the classical smooth-curve relations, obtained by degeneration; the novelty is that the monodromy action selects which pieces survive to the singular central fiber. As a byproduct the paper computes the Hodge-Poincar\'e polynomial of this singular moduli space, a quantity previously unknown.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the limit Mumford-Newstead isomorphism $\tilde{\Phi}_0: H^1(\widetilde{X}_\infty,\mathbb{Q}) \xrightarrow{\sim} H^3(G(2,L)_\infty,\mathbb{Q})$ of Theorem 3.2, an isomorphism of mixed Hodge structures that shifts both Hodge and weight filtrations. It transports the symplectic basis $e_i$ of the limit curve's first cohomology to the degree-3 generators $\psi^\infty_i$, so the classical Newstead/Mumford structure on a nearby smooth fiber survives in the limit. Around this, the Steenbrink limit-weight spectral sequence for the simple-normal-crossings central fiber $G_{X_0}(2,L_0)$ computes the kernel of the specialization map, and a Gysin-morphism computation (Theorem 4.2) identifies that kernel with the cohomology of the moduli space of the normalized curve. The proper morphism $\theta: G_{X_0}(2,L_0)\to U_{X_0}(2,L_0)$ then transfers the resulting description from the Gieseker model to the Simpson moduli space.

What would settle it

For the smallest case $g=2$, expand the claimed Hodge-Poincar\'e polynomial and compare every coefficient with an independent computation of the Betti numbers of $U_{X_0}(2,L_0)$ from a normalization model or a point count over finite fields; a single mismatch in any $(p,q)$-degree would refute the theorem. A more direct check is that the specialization argument requires $\mathrm{Gr}^W_4 H^3(G(2,L)_\infty,\mathbb{Q})$ to be one-dimensional, generated by $\psi^\infty_{2g}$; an explicit calculation of the monodromy invariant cycles in $H^3$ of the smooth fiber that produced a different dimension would also falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 7.2: for an irreducible nodal curve $X_0$ of genus $g\geq 2$ with one node and an odd-degree invertible sheaf $L_0$, there is an isomorphism of graded rings $$H^*(U_{X_0}(2,L_0),\mathbb{Q}) \cong \bigoplus_{i=0}^{g} \frac{P^\infty_i \otimes \mathbb{Q}[\alpha_\infty,\beta_\infty,\psi_\infty]}{I^\infty_{g-i}},$$ where $P^\infty_i$ are the monodromy-invariant primitive subspaces of $\bigwedge^i H^3(G(2,L)_\infty,\mathbb{Q})$ with respect to the pairing $\psi_\infty$, and $I^\infty_k$ are the recursive Mumford ideals generated by $\zeta_k,\zeta_{k+1},\zeta_{k+2}$ defined by $\zeta_0=1$ and $\zeta_{k+1}=\alpha_\infty\zeta_k+k^2\beta_\infty\zeta_{k-1}+2k(k-1)\psi_\infty\zeta_{k-2}$. Under this identification the ring is generated by $\alpha_\infty,\beta_\infty,\psi^\infty_1,\ldots,\psi^\infty_{2g-1}$, together with $\psi^\infty_g\psi^\infty_{2g}$. The theorem also gives the Hodge-Poincar\'e polynomial of $U_{X_0}(2,L_0)$, computed through the weight filtration: $$\frac{(1+$xy^{2}$)^{g-1}(1+$x^{2}$y)^{g-1}(1+xy+$x^{3}$$y^{3}$)-x^g y^g(1+x)^{g-1}(1+y)^{g-1}(2+xy)}{(1-xy)(1-$x^{2}$$y^{2}$)}.$$

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Chern-class map identifying the first cohomology of the limit curve with the third cohomology of the limit Gieseker moduli space is an isomorphism of mixed Hodge structures, preserving both the Hodge and weight filtrations; if this identification failed, the generator classes, the primitive subspaces, and the weight filtration used in the proof would collapse, and the generalized Mumford decomposition would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The cohomology ring of $U_{X_0}(2,L_0)$ is generated by $\alpha_\infty$, $\beta_\infty$, $\psi^\infty_i$ for $1\le i\le 2g-1$, and the single product $\psi^\infty_g\psi^\infty_{2g}$; all relations are of Mumford type, generated recursively by $\zeta_k$.
  • The Hodge-Poincar\'e polynomial of the singular moduli space is the explicit rational function in Theorem 7.2, and its weight-graded pieces are expressed through the Hodge numbers of a nearby smooth fiber and of the moduli space of the normalized curve.
  • The kernel and cokernel of the specialization map between the Gieseker central fiber and the limit cohomology are completely described: the kernel is a polynomial ring over $H^*(M_{\widetilde{X}_0}(2,\widetilde{L}_0),\mathbb{Q})$ in two degree-2 classes $X,Y$ subject to $X^2=Y^2=X-Y=0$.
  • As mixed Hodge structures, $H^i(U_{X_0}(2,L_0),\mathbb{Q})$ is identified with the weight-$i$ piece $W_iH^i(G(2,L)_\infty,\mathbb{Q})$, so the odd cohomology of the nodal moduli space has at most three nonzero weight-graded pieces.
  • The generalized conjecture reduces the singular case to the monodromy-invariant part of a smooth degeneration, so computing the monodromy action on the cohomology of nearby smooth fibers determines the cohomology of the nodal moduli space.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Iterating the same degeneration argument over a smoothing with several nodes should express the cohomology ring of a multi-nodal curve's moduli space as the monodromy-invariant part of the smooth fiber, with each node contributing an extra pair of even-degree generators subject to square-zero relations; the Hodge-Poincar\'e polynomial would then acquire one factor per node.
  • The mixed-Hodge-structure isomorphism at the center of the proof suggests a motivic refinement: the motive of $U_{X_0}(2,L_0)$ should be a direct summand of the limit mixed motive of the Gieseker family, with the complementary summand accounted for by the normalization moduli space.
  • A testable extension is to rank $n\ge 3$: the same degeneration should go through if one adds the extra relations known to be needed for smooth curves, so the monodromy-invariant part would yield the cohomology ring for rank-$n$ sheaves on a nodal curve.
  • The explicit description of the kernel of the Gysin morphism in Theorem 4.2 could be used to compute intersection-cohomology invariants of the singular moduli space, such as its intersection Betti numbers.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a generalization of Mumford's conjecture for the moduli space U_{X_0}(2,L_0) of rank-2 semistable torsion-free sheaves with fixed odd determinant on an irreducible nodal curve X_0 of genus g≥2. The strategy is to embed X_0 in a one-parameter degeneration, compare the Simpson moduli space with the Gieseker moduli space whose central fiber is a simple normal crossings divisor, and use limit mixed Hodge structures. The central result, Theorem 7.2, gives an isomorphism H^*(U_{X_0}(2,L_0),Q) ≅ ⊕_i P^∞_i ⊗ Q[α∞,β∞,ψ∞]/I^∞_{g-i} and an explicit Hodge–Poincaré polynomial. The proof proceeds through a Gieseker-space version (Theorem 5.1), a Hodge–Poincaré formula for the Gieseker space (Theorem 6.2), and a comparison of Gieseker and Simpson moduli spaces (Proposition 7.1). The main structural steps are the limit Mumford–Newstead isomorphism, the computation of kernels of Gysin morphisms, and the identification of the cohomology of the central Simpson fiber with the monodromy-invariant part of the limit mixed Hodge structure.

Significance. If the proof is completed, this is a substantial and natural extension of the Mumford–Kirwan–Zagier theory to singular curves: it provides the first description of the full cohomology ring of the moduli space of rank-2 sheaves with fixed determinant on an irreducible nodal curve, together with a closed Hodge–Poincaré polynomial. The paper also demonstrates a useful method: passing through the Gieseker compactification and using limit mixed Hodge structures to isolate monodromy-invariant classes. The authors are explicit about the input from their companion paper [3] and from the literature, and the final computations are presented in a checkable algebraic form. The main weakness is that a load-bearing ingredient, Theorem 3.2, is delegated to [3] by a one-sentence citation, and the exact content of that theorem is not reproduced.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Theorem 3.2] The proof of Theorem 3.2 is a one-sentence citation to [3, Proposition 4.1], yet this statement is load-bearing for the whole paper. The generators ψ∞_i in §5.1 are defined via ~Φ0; the identification Gr^W_3 H^3(G(2,L)∞,Q) ≅ H^3(M_{~X0}(2,~L0),Q) in §5.3 uses the weight shift W_i ↔ W_{i+2}; the monomial basis behind equation (5.2) uses the same compatibility; and equation (7.5) identifies H^i(U_{X0}(2,L0),Q) with W_iH^i(G(2,L)∞,Q). The manuscript must either reproduce the proof of [3, Proposition 4.1] or state its exact content in enough detail to verify that it includes the full weight-filtration shift W_iH^1(~X∞,Q) ↔ W_{i+2}H^3(G(2,L)∞,Q) for all i, and not merely an isomorphism of vector spaces or a Hodge-filtered statement without the weight shift.
  2. [§5.4, Eq. (5.2)] The proof of (5.2) asserts exactness of the upper row in the displayed commutative diagram and concludes ⊕_i W_iH^i(G(2,L)∞,Q) ≅ ⊕_i P^∞_i⊗Q[α∞,β∞,ψ∞]/I^∞_{g-i}. This is the limit-version of the Mumford–Newstead–Kirwan presentation, but the surjectivity of ν∞ and the identification of its kernel with ⊕_k P^∞_k⊗I^∞_{g-k} are not derived in the text. The cited [23, Theorem 3.2] and [23, Remark 5.3] give the presentation for each smooth fiber G(2,L)_s; the passage to the limit relies again on the weight compatibility of Theorem 3.2 and on the particular definition of P^∞_i. Since (5.2) is the direct algebraic input to Theorem 7.2, the justification should be made explicit.
  3. [§7.2 and §7.4, Proposition 7.1] There is a determinant inconsistency between two identifications of U_0(L_0). In §7.2 the authors state U_0(L_0) ≅ M_{~X0}(2,~L0(−D)), while in the proof of Proposition 7.1 the cohomology of U_0(L_0) is replaced by H^i(M_{~X0}(2,~L0),Q) and the cokernel is written as ⊕_j H^{i−2j}(M_{~X0}(2,~L0),Q)(ξ'')^j. If the intended isomorphism M_{~X0}(2,~L0(−D)) ≅ M_{~X0}(2,~L0) is obtained by tensoring with a degree-(−1) line bundle, that isomorphism needs to be stated and justified; as written, the cohomological comparison feeds directly into the Hodge–Poincaré computation of Theorem 7.2 without proof.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.2] In the definitions of P_i and P^∞_i, the symbol ⋃ appears where a direct sum or a cup-product action is intended; as written, the displayed domains and targets are not meaningful sets.
  2. [Remark 7.3] The generator list includes ψ∞_g twice: once in the range 1≤i≤2g−1 and once in the product ψ∞_g ψ∞_{2g}. If the intended list is α∞,β∞,ψ∞_1,…,ψ∞_{2g−1},ψ∞_gψ∞_{2g}, this is harmless but should be clarified.
  3. [§6] The notation H^{p,q}Gr^W_{p+q}H^{p+q}(G(2,L)∞,C) is used throughout §6 without an explicit definition; a one-line definition would improve readability.
  4. [§3.1] The structure of G_{X0}(2,L0) as a union of two components, with G_1 and G_0∩G_1 being a P^3-bundle and a P^1×P^1-bundle over M_{~X0}(2,~L0), is cited to [38] and then used repeatedly in §§4–7. A precise statement of which facts are being imported from [38] would make the verification easier.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity; the main circularity-adjacent step is the load-bearing self-citation of the limit Mumford–Newstead isomorphism (Theorem 3.2), whose proof is delegated to the authors' companion paper [3].

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3.3, Theorem 3.2; used in equations (5.2) and (7.5)]
    "Moreover, ~Φ0(WiH 1(~X∞, Q)) = Wi+2H 3(G(2,L)∞, Q) for all i≥ 0. Proof. See [3, Proposition 4 .1] for a proof of the statement."

    This theorem is the only bridge transferring the weight filtration from the curve-side limit mixed Hodge structure to the moduli-side limit mixed Hodge structure. It fixes the Hodge types of the generators ψ∞i := Φ0(ei), identifies Gr^W_3 H^3(G(2,L)∞,Q) with H^3(M_{\tilde X0}(2,\tilde L0),Q) in §5.3, underlies the monomial basis used in (5.2), and yields the identification H^i(U_X0(2,L0),Q) ≅ W_i H^i(G(2,L)∞,Q) in (7.5). Its proof is not contained in this paper but is cited to [3, Prop. 4.1], whose authors overlap with the present authors. The derivation chain therefore passes through a load-bearing self-citation at a crucial point; however, the final ring decomposition is not assumed as input, so the circularity is limited rather than definitional.

full rationale

The central derivation is not an equivalence of input and output. Kirwan's theorem for smooth curves and the King–Newstead presentation of the cohomology ring are external benchmarks, while the nodal-ring presentation and the Hodge–Poincaré polynomials are new outputs. No parameter is fitted and then renamed a prediction, and no displayed equation reduces to another by construction. The only circularity-adjacent step is Theorem 3.2, a structural isomorphism imported from the authors' prior article [3]; because that is a published, parameter-free Hodge-theoretic statement rather than the target Mumford decomposition, the dependence is primarily a verification and robustness concern, not a definitional collapse. Score 2 reflects this single load-bearing self-citation while acknowledging the substantial independent content of the rest of the proof.

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

No fitted parameters appear: the genus g and determinant L0 are inputs, and α, β, ψ are generators of a cohomology ring, not adjusted constants. The proof rests on standard Hodge theory and on several structural theorems about Gieseker and Simpson moduli spaces cited from the literature; the most notable dependency is the authors' own [3] for the limit Mumford-Newstead isomorphism.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The relative Gieseker moduli space G(2,L) is regular and flat over the disc; its generic fibers are M_{X_s}(2,L_s), and its central fiber is a reduced simple normal crossings divisor with components G0 and G1, where G1 is a P3-bundle and G0∩G1 a P1×P1-bundle over M_{tilde X0}(2,tilde L0).
    Cited to Sun [37, Theorem 2] and Thaddeus [38, §6]; this is the geometric setup on which the weight spectral sequence and Gysin computations rest.
  • domain assumption The limit Mumford-Newstead isomorphism Φ0: H^1(tilde X∞,Q) to H^3(G(2,L)∞,Q) is an isomorphism of mixed Hodge structures preserving Hodge and weight filtrations.
    The proof is cited to the authors' companion paper [3, Proposition 4.1] (Theorem 3.2). It is load-bearing for the identification of the cohomology generators ψ∞_i and the weight filtration in (5.2).
  • domain assumption The cohomology ring of the smooth fiber G(2,L)s is generated by α_s, β_s, ψ_{i,s} with the recursive Mumford relations and has the explicit monomial basis of [23, Remark 5.3].
    Uses Kirwan's theorem [24] and King-Newstead [23]; this provides the external benchmark for the generic fiber.
  • standard math Schmid's limit mixed Hodge structure and Steenbrink's weight spectral sequence apply, including the exact sequence (2.4) relating central fiber, limit, and Gr^W via specialization and Gysin maps.
    Standard Hodge theory; invoked in Section 2 and used throughout.
  • domain assumption M_{tilde X0}(2,tilde L0) is smooth and simply connected, so the local systems in Proposition 4.1 are trivial.
    Needed for the Leray-Hirsch decomposition (4.3)-(4.5). Standard for fixed-determinant moduli on a smooth curve of genus at least one, but not proved here.
  • domain assumption The known Hodge-Poincare formulas P_g(x,y) for the smooth moduli space and Q(x,y)=P_{g-1}(x,y) for the normalization moduli space hold, from del Baño [10, Cor 2.9].
    Used in the final polynomial computations in Theorems 6.2 and 7.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalization of a conjecture of Mumford." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y4ONISI6

@misc{pith2026190802279,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalization of a conjecture of Mumford},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y4ONISI6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02279}
}
read the original abstract

A conjecture of Mumford predicts a complete set of relations between the generators of the cohomology ring of the moduli space of rank 2 semi-stable sheaves with fixed odd degree determinant on a smooth, projective curve of genus at least 2. The conjecture was proven by Kirwan. In this article, we generalize the conjecture to the case when the underlying curve is irreducible, nodal. In fact, we show that these relations (in the nodal curve case) arise naturally as degeneration of the Mumford relations shown by Kirwan in the smooth curve case. As a byproduct, we compute the Hodge-Poincare polynomial of the moduli space of rank 2, semi-stable, torsion-free sheaves with fixed determinant on an irreducible, nodal curve.

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. Generators of the cohomology ring, after Newstead

    math.AG 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For an irreducible nodal curve with one node, the cohomology ring of the Simpson moduli space of rank 2 semistable sheaves with fixed odd determinant has a minimal set of generators obtained by degenerating Newstead's...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [3]

    S. Basu, A. Dan, and I. Kaur. Degeneration of intermediat e Jacobians and the Torelli theorem. Documenta Mathematica, 24:1739–1767, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    M. Baker. Specialization of linear systems from curves t o graphs. Algebra & Number Theory , 2(6):613–653, 2008

    2008

  3. [2]

    Baranovsky

    V. Baranovsky. Cohomology ring of the moduli space of sta ble vector bundles with odd determinant. Izv. Russ. Acad. Nauk , 58(4):204–210, 1994

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    S. Basu, A. Dan, and I. Kaur. Generators of the cohomology ring, after Newstead. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.01330, 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1908

  5. [5]

    U. N. Bhosle. Generalised parabolic bundles and applica tions to torsionfree sheaves on nodal curves. Arkiv f¨ or Matematik, 30(1):187–215, 1992

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    U. N. Bhosle. Seminormal varieties, torsionfree sheave s, and Picard groups. Communications in Algebra , 36(3):821–841, 2008

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Bifet, F

    E. Bifet, F. Ghione, and M. Letizia. On the Abel-Jacobi ma p for divisors of higher rank on a curve. Mathe- matische Annalen , 299(1):641–672, 1994

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. M¨ uller-Stach, and C. Peters. Period mappings and period domains , volume 168. Cambridge University Press, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    A Dan and I. Kaur. N´ eron models of intermediate jacobian s associated to moduli spaces. Revista Matem´ atica Complutense, DOI-10.1007/s13163-019-00333-y:1–26, 2019

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    del Ba˜ no

    S. del Ba˜ no. On the motive of moduli spaces of rank two vector bundles over a curve. Compositio Mathematica, 131(1):1–30, 2002

    2002

  3. [11]

    P. Deligne. Th´ eoreme de Lefschetz et criteres de d´ eg´ en´ erescence de suites spectrales. Publications Math´ ematiques de l’Institut des Hautes ´Etudes Scientifiques , 35(1):107–126, 1968

    1968

  4. [12]

    P. Deligne. ´Equations diff´ erentielles ` a points singuliers r´ eguliers, volume 163. Springer, 2006

    2006

  5. [13]

    U. V. Desale and S. Ramanan. Poincar´ e polynomials of th e variety of stable bundles. Mathematische Annalen, 216(3):233–244, 1975

    1975

  6. [14]

    Earl and F

    R. Earl and F. Kirwan. The Hodge numbers of the moduli spa ces of vector bundles over a Riemann surface. The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics , 51(4):465–483, 2000

    2000

  7. [15]

    Earl and F

    R. Earl and F. Kirwan. Complete sets of relations in the c ohomology rings of moduli spaces of holomorphic bundles and parabolic bundles over a riemann surface. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society , 89(3):570–622, 2004

    2004

  8. [16]

    Gieseker

    D. Gieseker. A degeneration of the moduli space of stabl e bundles. Journal of Differential Geometry , 19(1):173–206, 1984

    1984

  9. [17]

    Harder and M

    G. Harder and M. S. Narasimhan. On the cohomology groups of moduli spaces of vector bundles on curves. Math. Ann , 212:215–248, 1975

    1975

  10. [18]

    Herrera and S Salamon

    R. Herrera and S Salamon. Intersection numbers on modul i spaces and symmetries of a Verlinde formula. Communications in mathematical physics , 188(3):521–534, 1997

    1997

  11. [19]

    Huybrechts and M

    D. Huybrechts and M. Lehn. The geometry of moduli spaces of sheaves . Springer, 2010. 20 A. DAN AND I. KAUR

    2010

  12. [20]

    I. Kaur. The C1 conjecture for the moduli space of stable vector bundles wit h fixed determinant on a smooth projective curve. Ph.D. thesis, Freie University Berlin, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    I. Kaur. Smoothness of moduli space of stable torsionfr ee sheaves with fixed determinant in mixed charac- teristic. Analytic and Algebraic Geometry , pages 173–186, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    I. Kaur. Existence of semistable vector bundles with fix ed determinants. Journal of Geometry and Physics , 138:90–102, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    A. D. King and P. E. Newstead. On the cohomology ring of th e moduli space of rank 2 vector bundles on a curve. Topology, 37(2):407–418, 1998

    1998

  16. [24]

    F. Kirwan. The cohomology rings of moduli spaces of bund les over Riemann surfaces. Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 5(4):853–906, 1992

    1992

  17. [25]

    V. S. Kulikov. Mixed Hodge structures and singularities , volume 132. Cambridge University Press, 1998

    1998

  18. [26]

    Mumford and P

    D. Mumford and P. Newstead. Periods of a moduli space of b undles on curves. American Journal of Mathe- matics, 90(4):1200–1208, 1968

    1968

  19. [27]

    P. E. Newstead. Topological properties of some spaces o f stable bundles. Topology, 6(2):241–262, 1967

    1967

  20. [28]

    P. E. Newstead. Characteristic classes of stable bundl es of rank 2 over an algebraic curve. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 169:337–345, 1972

    1972

  21. [29]

    Pandharipande

    R. Pandharipande. A compactification over Mg of the Universal Moduli Space of Slope-Semistable vector bundles. Journal of the American Mathematical Society , 9(2):425–471, 1996

    1996

  22. [30]

    Peters and J

    C. Peters and J. H. M. Steenbrink. Mixed Hodge structures , volume 52. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

    2008

  23. [31]

    G. Pezzini. Lectures on spherical and wonderful variet ies. Les cours du CIRM , 1(1):33–53, 2010

    2010

  24. [32]

    W. Schmid. Variation of Hodge structure: the singulari ties of the period mapping. Inventiones mathematicae, 22(3-4):211–319, 1973

    1973

  25. [33]

    C. S. Seshadri. Fibr´ es vectoriels sur les courbes alg´ ebriques: conf´ erences ` a l’ENS, Juin 1980 . Number 95-96. Soci´ et´ e Math´ ematique de France, 1982

    1980

  26. [34]

    C. S. Seshadri. Degenerations of the moduli spaces of ve ctor bundles on curves. ICTP Lecture Notes, 1, 2000

    2000

  27. [35]

    Siebert and G

    B. Siebert and G. Tian. Recursive relations for the coho mology ring of moduli spaces of stable bundles. Turkish J. Math , 19(2):131–144, 1995

    1995

  28. [36]

    Steenbrink

    J. Steenbrink. Limits of Hodge structures. Inventiones mathematicae , 31:229–257, 1976

    1976

  29. [37]

    X. Sun. Moduli spaces of SL(r)-bundles on singular irre ducible curves. Asia Journal of Mathematics , 7(4):609– 625, 2003

    2003

  30. [38]

    Thaddeus

    M. Thaddeus. Algebraic geometry and the Verlinde formula . PhD thesis, University of Oxford, 1992

    1992

  31. [39]

    C. Voisin. Hodge Theory and Complex Algebraic Geometry-I . Cambridge studies in advanced mathematics-76. Cambridge University press, 2002

    2002

  32. [40]

    D. Zagier. On the cohomology of moduli spaces of rank two vector bundles over curves. In The moduli space of curves , pages 533–563. Springer, 1995. School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sheffi eld, Hicks building, Hounsfield Road, S3 7RH, UK Email address : a.da...

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.