Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 42 references

Conjugation Spaces are Cohomologically Pure

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 A C2-space is a conjugation space precisely when it is homologically pure.

desk verdict The stable characterization of conjugation spaces is a good idea and the pure-to-conjugation direction is solid, but as written Theorem 7.1 is false because the converse silently assumes H^odd(X)=0. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03088 v3 pith:OQVNM647 submitted 2019-08-08 math.AT

Wolfgang Pitsch , Nicolas Ricka , Jerome Scherer This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AT MSC 55P9157S1755S1055N9155P42
keywords conjugationspaceshomologicalpuritygeometricfixedpointsequivariantstablehomotopytheoryC2-spacesSteenrodsquaresMackeyfunctorsBorelcohomology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes that the classical notion of a conjugation space—a space with an involution whose fixed-point mod-2 cohomology is the degree-halved cohomology of the whole space, as in complex projective spaces under complex conjugation—is exactly the same as a stable equivariant condition called homological purity. A finite-type C2-space is pure when its mod-2 equivariant cohomology splits into basic pieces indexed by the even-degree cohomology classes, with no extra structure required. This matters because it converts a complicated algebraic structure (an H*-frame, i.e. a degree-halving map plus a section satisfying the conjugation equation) into a geometric property that can be read off the equivariant cohomology. The paper then uses the stable picture to explain conceptually why the conjugation frame is unique, multiplicative, functorial, compatible with Steenrod squares, and why the Borel cohomology of a conjugation space is entirely determined by the cohomology of its fixed points.

What carries the argument

The central object is the equivariant Eilenberg-MacLane spectrum $H\mathbb{F}$ for mod-2 ordinary equivariant cohomology, and the notion of purity borrowed from the equivariant literature: X is homologically pure when $X \wedge H\mathbb{F}$ is equivalent to a wedge of suspensions $\Sigma^{n(1+\alpha)} H\mathbb{F}$, suspensions by multiples of the regular representation $1+\alpha$. The load-bearing computation is Proposition 4.7, the $H$-linear splitting of geometric fixed points $\Phi^{C_2}(H\mathbb{F}) \simeq H[b] \simeq \bigvee_{k\ge 0} S^k \wedge H$, obtained by computing homotopy groups and invoking Robinson's theorem on $H$-modules; this splitting makes $\kappa_0$ a well-defined projection onto the zeroth factor and makes the Nakayama argument in Theorem 6.3 work on fixed-point homology. Alongside it, the computation of the equivariant Steenrod algebra identifies the conjugation equation with the Steinberg map, giving the Borel-cohomology determination.

What would settle it

Compute the homotopy groups $\pi_*(\Phi^{C_2}(H\mathbb{F}))$ directly from the isotropy separation sequence $EC_{2+} \to S^0 \to \widetilde{EC}_2$ smashed with $H\mathbb{F}$, and check that they are one-dimensional in each degree $k \ge 0$ with polynomial generators $b_k$; if any degree has rank different from 1, or if the $H$-module structure forces a non-split extension rather than a wedge, the projection defining $\kappa_0$ would not exist and Theorem 7.1 would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proves Theorem 7.1: for a C2-space X of finite type, X is a conjugation space if and only if it is homologically pure of finite type, meaning that $X \wedge H\mathbb{F}$ is weakly equivalent, as a right $H\mathbb{F}$-module, to a wedge of suspensions $\Sigma^{n_i(1+\alpha)} H\mathbb{F}$ by multiples of the regular representation. The proof shows that the conjugation frame itself is not a choice: the degree-halving isomorphism $\kappa_0$ is induced by geometric fixed points (projection onto the zeroth factor of $\Phi^{C_2}(H\mathbb{F}) \simeq \bigvee_{k\ge 0} S^k \wedge H$), and the section $\sigma$ is induced by the collapse $EC_{2+} \wedge X \to X$. Consequently all known structural properties of conjugation spaces—uniqueness, functoriality, multiplicativity, Steenrod compatibility, and the determination of Borel cohomology by fixed-point cohomology—are recovered from stable equivariant homotopy theory rather than from the original conjugation equation.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on the splitting of geometric fixed points $\Phi^{C_2}(H\mathbb{F})$ as a wedge of ordinary Eilenberg-MacLane spectra $H$ in every degree $k \ge 0$ (Proposition 4.7), together with the coefficient computation of $H\mathbb{F}$ that feeds it; if that splitting were not an equivalence of $H$-modules, the construction of $\kappa_0$ as a projection would break.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Being a conjugation space is a property, not a structure: no choice of H*-frame is needed once homological purity holds.
  • The conjugation frame is unique, functorial, and multiplicative because it is induced by natural maps of spectra: geometric fixed points and the collapse $EC_{2+} \wedge X \to X$.
  • The Steenrod-square compatibility formulas $\kappa_0(Sq^{2\ell}x) = Sq^\ell\kappa_0(x)$ and $\kappa_\ell(x) = Sq^\ell\kappa_0(x)$ follow from naturality of equivariant operations of degree $\ell(1+\alpha)$, without case-by-case computation.
  • For a conjugation space X, the Borel cohomology $H^*(X_{hC_2})$ is functorially isomorphic to $R H^*(X^{C_2})$ and the conjugation equation is exactly the Steinberg map $St(x) = \sum_j b^{n-j} \otimes Sq^j\kappa_0(x)$.
  • Every spherical conjugation space built from conjugation cells is pure, and conversely every finite-type pure space admits the stable splitting, connecting the original examples to the new characterization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the purity criterion is accepted, the search for new conjugation spaces reduces to detecting C2-spaces whose underlying cohomology is even-concentrated and whose geometric fixed points match the pure splitting; this may yield new non-spherical examples more easily than solving conjugation equations.
  • The same style of argument might extend to other finite groups or other coefficient fields wherever a Stong-style coefficient computation and an H-module splitting are available, with the regular representation replaced by the appropriate $RO(G)$-graded shifts.
  • Identifying the conjugation equation with the Steinberg map places conjugation spaces inside the theory of unstable modules over the Steenrod algebra; this may allow purely algebraic classification of which unstable algebras can arise as the cohomology of a conjugation space.
  • Because $\kappa_0$ is now a geometric fixed-point projection, any equivariant cohomology operation preserving the line $m(1+\alpha)$ will automatically commute with the frame, suggesting a wider family of operations compatible with conjugation besides Steenrod squares.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a stable equivariant characterization of conjugation spaces: a finite-type C2-space is a conjugation space if and only if its equivariant homology is pure, i.e. X ∧ HF splits as a wedge of suspensions of HF by multiples of the regular representation. The authors construct the conjugation frame maps κ0 and σ from geometric fixed points and from the collapse map EC2+ ∧ X → X, and use the purity description to recover uniqueness, functoriality, multiplicativity, the Franz–Puppe Steenrod-square formulas, and the Lannes–Zarati description of Borel cohomology.

Significance. If the main theorem were correct as stated, it would be a valuable reformulation: it gives geometric meaning to the otherwise algebraic conjugation frame, explains uniqueness and functoriality conceptually, and recovers known structural results in a unified way. The paper also contains useful computations, such as the geometric fixed points of HF and the equivariant Steenrod algebra actions. However, the theorem as stated is not correct: the definition of conjugation space used in the paper does not imply vanishing of odd-degree cohomology, and there are spaces satisfying that definition that are not homologically pure.

major comments (3)
  1. [Definition 1.1 and Theorem 7.1] The paper never states or proves that a conjugation space has H^{odd}(X)=0, and Theorem 7.1 is false without such a hypothesis. Let C2 act trivially on X = S^1∨S^2∨S^4∨S^8∨⋯ and write x_k for the fundamental class of S^{2^k}. Define κ0(x_k)=x_{k−1} for k≥1 and σ(x_k)=x_k+b^{2^{k−1}}κ0(x_k). Then κ0 is an additive degree-halving isomorphism H^{2*}X≅H^*X^{C2}, σ is an additive section of ρ on even degrees, and rσ(x_k)=κ0(x_k)b^{2^{k−1}}+x_k, so the conjugation equation holds. However X∧HF has an odd-dimensional homology class in degree 1 after forgetting the action, so it cannot split as a wedge of spectra Σ^{n_i(1+α)}HF. Thus Theorem 7.1 is false exactly as stated.
  2. [Proof of Theorem 6.3] The assertion "By construction it is an equivalence after forgetting the action" is not justified. The map f is assembled from lifts of a basis of H^{2*}(X) only; after forgetting the action, its target is a wedge of spectra Σ^{2n_i}H, whose underlying homology is concentrated in even degrees. Unless one knows H^{odd}(X)=0, the map on odd-dimensional homology need not be an isomorphism, and the counterexample in the previous comment is exactly such a case. The argument needs H^{odd}(X)=0, either as part of the definition of conjugation space or as a separate hypothesis.
  3. [Lemma 6.1] In the proof of Lemma 6.1 the authors state that "by hypothesis, X being a conjugation space, the restriction ... is surjective in integral grading." Definition 1.1 only provides a section of ρ on even-degree cohomology; it gives no information about odd degrees. The cited sentence is therefore not a consequence of the definition, and the proof of the lemma should be rewritten to use only the even-degree surjectivity that the frame actually supplies.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 7.3] The vanishing of HF^{n(1+α)+1}(X) is justified by Lemma 5.3(4), but Lemma 5.3 is stated for homologically pure spaces; the proof should explicitly cite Theorem 7.1 when applying it to a conjugation space.
  2. [References] References [39] and [40] appear to be identical entries for tom Dieck's "Orbittypen und äquivariante Homologie. II"; the citations should be checked and the duplicate or mislabeled entry corrected.
  3. [Section 4 and Appendix A] The Lewis diagrams in Section 4 and the displayed formulas in Appendix A are reproduced with typographical artifacts (for example "one the one hand" in the proof of Lemma 5.9 and several broken diagram types); a careful proofreading pass would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Only-if direction of Theorem 7.1 is circular: the proof assumes the odd-cohomology vanishing that purity is supposed to deliver.

  1. other [Theorem 6.3, proof; cf. Lemma 5.3(2)]
    "By construction it is an equivalence after forgetting the action. It is thus enough to show that it is an equivalence on geometric fixed points by Proposition 3.5.(2). ... Lemma 5.3(2): 'the ordinary mod 2 cohomology of the space Xu is concentrated in even degrees 2ni.'"

    Definition 1.1 only supplies κ0 and σ on even-degree cohomology; it states no vanishing of H^odd(Xu). In Theorem 6.3 the map f is assembled from lifts of a basis of H^{2*}X, and its underlying target ∨Σ^{2n_i}H has no odd cohomology. Hence f_u can be 'an equivalence after forgetting the action' only if H^odd(Xu)=0. But that odd vanishing is exactly Lemma 5.3(2), a stated consequence of homological purity — the conclusion being proved. The later vanishing HF^{n(1+α)+1}(X)=0 in Section 7.3 already depends on Theorem 7.1 and Lemma 5.3(4), so it cannot justify this step. The proof therefore derives purity from a part of purity.

full rationale

The other direction (pure ⇒ conjugation, Theorem 5.13) is self-contained: κ0 and σ are induced by geometric fixed points and by EC2+∧X→X, and the conjugation equation is verified from the coefficient computation of HF, with no fitted or circular input. The recovered Franz–Puppe and Lannes–Zarati results are outputs of the framework. Self-citations [30], [31] and the cited computation [32] are contextual or technical, not load-bearing for Theorem 7.1. The circular step identified above affects the central 'only if' direction: the proof silently uses the evenness condition that purity is meant to establish. A trivial-action wedge of spheres satisfies Definition 1.1 without being pure, confirming that the missing evenness hypothesis is real. Score 6 reflects one partially circular step in the main characterization, not fabrication or self-citation.

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

The paper introduces the property 'homologically pure' but no free numerical parameters and no new geometric or algebraic entities; all constructions use existing equivariant spectra and established coefficient computations.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Model structure and monoidal properties of equivariant orthogonal spectra and module categories over HF (Sections 2.1, 5.1).
    The proof uses the symmetric monoidal model structure on C2-spectra, free/forgetful and geometric fixed point adjunctions, and HF-module categories without reproving them; these are standard background (Lewis-May, Mandell-May, Schwede).
  • domain assumption Geometric fixed points satisfy Φ^{C2}(Σ^∞ X) ≃ Σ^∞(X^{C2}), are monoidal, and detect weak equivalences together with underlying spectra (Proposition 3.5).
    Taken from Hill-Hopkins-Ravenel [15, Prop 2.45]; this is the core mechanism connecting purity to fixed-point cohomology.
  • domain assumption Stong's computation of the RO(C2)-graded Mackey functor HF_* (Proposition 4.5) and the square-zero extension structure of HF_* (Proposition 4.3).
    These coefficient computations underlie Lemma 5.3, the definition of κ_i^e, and the proof of Proposition 4.7.
  • standard math Robinson's theorem that H-modules split as products of Eilenberg-MacLane spectra (used in Proposition 4.7).
    Needed to conclude Φ^{C2}(HF) is a wedge of ordinary EM spectra, the hinge for κ and purity detection.
  • domain assumption Hu-Kriz presentation of the equivariant Steenrod algebra A_* and the right unit η_R (Theorem 7.4), plus Ricka's computation of the restriction ψ: A_* → A_* (Proposition A.3).
    Used in Section 7 and Appendix A to prove the Franz-Puppe Steenrod square compatibility and the κ_l = Sq^l κ_0 formulas.
  • domain assumption Lannes-Zarati theory of the Steinberg map and derived destabilization (Section 7.4, Corollaries 7.8-7.9).
    Used to express the conjugation equation as the Steinberg map and conclude Borel cohomology is determined by fixed-point cohomology.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conjugation Spaces are Cohomologically Pure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OQVNM647

@misc{pith2026190803088,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conjugation Spaces are Cohomologically Pure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OQVNM647}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03088}
}
read the original abstract

Conjugation spaces are equipped with an involution such that the fixed points have the same mod 2 cohomology (as a graded vector space, a ring, and even an unstable algebra) but with all degrees divided by 2, generalizing the classical examples of complex projective spaces under complex conjugation. Using tools from stable equivariant homotopy theory we provide a characterization of conjugation spaces in terms of purity. This conceptual viewpoint, compared to the more computational original definition, allows us to recover all known structural properties of conjugation spaces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03088 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Structure of HF ⋆ Observe in particular that at each RO(C2)-degree, the ring HF ⋆ is at most one dimensional over F, therefore this ring admits a unique homogeneous basis h⋆, as an RO(C2)-graded vector space, with |h⋆| = ⋆. In terms of the preferred elements a and u, we have h−n+(n+k)α = a ku n . If X is a space, or a spectrum, with trivial action, then the non-equivariant Z-graded cohomology ring HF ∗ (X) is a subr… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. F. Adams. Stable homotopy and generalised homology . Chicago Lectures in Mathematics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1995. Reprint of the 197 4 original

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Allday and V

    C. Allday and V. Puppe. Cohomological methods in transformation groups , volume 32 of Cam- bridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993

    work page 1993

  3. [3]

    M. F. Atiyah and I. G. Macdonald. Introduction to commutative algebra. Addison-Wesley Series in Mathematics. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, economy edition, 201 6. For the 1969 original see [ MR0242802]

    work page 1969

  4. [4]

    Balmer, I

    P. Balmer, I. Dell’Ambrogio, and B. Sanders. Grothendieck-Neem an duality and the Wirthm¨ uller isomorphism.Compos. Math., 152(8):1740–1776, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Behrens and D

    M. Behrens and D. Wilson. A C2-equivariant analog of Mahowald’s Thom spectrum theorem. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. , 146(11):5003–5012, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    J. M. Boardman. Stable operations in generalized cohomology. In Handbook of algebraic topol- ogy, pages 585–686. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1995. 38 WOLFGANG PITSCH, NICOLAS RICKA, AND J ´ER ˆOME SCHERER

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    K. K. Ferland and L. G. Lewis, Jr. The RO(G)-graded equivariant ordinary homology of G-cell complexes with even-dimensional cells for G = Z/p. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 167(794):viii+129, 2004

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Franz and V

    M. Franz and V. Puppe. Steenrod squares on conjugation spac es. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, 342(3):187–190, 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    J. P. C. Greenlees. Four approaches to cohomology theories wit h reality. In An alpine bou- quet of algebraic topology , volume 708 of Contemp. Math. , pages 139–156. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    J. P. C. Greenlees and J. P. May. Equivariant stable homotopy t heory. In Handbook of algebraic topology, pages 277–323. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1995

    1995

  3. [11]

    J. P. C. Greenlees and J. P. May. Generalized Tate cohomology. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 113(543):viii+178, 1995

    1995

  4. [12]

    Hausmann, T

    J.-C. Hausmann, T. Holm, and V. Puppe. Conjugation spaces. Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 5:923– 964 (electronic), 2005

    2005

  5. [13]

    C. Hazel. The ro(c2)-graded cohomology of c2-surfaces in ̥/2-coefficients. ArXiv e-prints ,

  6. [14]

    M. A. Hill. Freeness and equivariant stable homotopy. ArXiv e-prints , 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.00664

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    M. A. Hill, M. J. Hopkins, and D. C. Ravenel. On the nonexistence o f elements of Kervaire invariant one. Ann. of Math. (2) , 184(1):1–262, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Hu and I

    P. Hu and I. Kriz. Real-oriented homotopy theory and an analog ue of the Adams-Novikov spectral sequence. Topology, 40(2):317–399, 2001

    2001

  9. [17]

    Lannes and S

    J. Lannes and S. Zarati. Sur les foncteurs d´ eriv´ es de la d´ estabilisation. Math. Z. , 194(1):25–59, 1987

    1987

  10. [18]

    L. G. Lewis. The RO(G)-graded equivariant ordinary cohomology of complex projective s paces with linear Z/p actions. In Algebraic topology and transformation groups (G¨ ottingen, 1987) , volume 1361 of Lecture Notes in Math. , pages 53–122. Springer, Berlin, 1988

    1987

  11. [19]

    L. G. Lewis, Jr. and M. A. Mandell. Equivariant universal coefficie nt and K¨ unneth spectral sequences. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) , 92(2):505–544, 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    L. G. Lewis, Jr., J. P. May, M. Steinberger, and J. E. McClure. Equivariant stable homotopy theory, volume 1213 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986. With contributions by J. E. McClure

    1986

  13. [21]

    L.G. Lewis. Change of universe functors in equivariant stable ho motopy theory. 148(2):117– 158

  14. [22]

    Lewis, J.P

    L.G. Lewis, J.P. May, and M. Steinberger. Equivariant Stable Homotopy Theory . Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, 1986

    1986

  15. [23]

    M. A. Mandell and J. P. May. Equivariant orthogonal spectra a nd S-modules. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 159(755):x+108, 2002

    2002

  16. [24]

    M. A. Mandell, J. P. May, S. Schwede, and B. Shipley. Model cate gories of diagram spectra. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) , 82(2):441–512, 2001

    2001

  17. [25]

    Mathew, N

    A. Mathew, N. Naumann, and J. Noel. Derived induction and rest riction theory. ArXiv e- prints, July 2015. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv1507068 67M

    2015

  18. [26]

    C. May. A structure theorem for RO(C2)-graded cohomology. Algebr. Geom. Topol., 2020. (to appear) http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03691

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J. P. May. Equivariant homotopy and cohomology theory , volume 91 of CBMS Regional Confer- ence Series in Mathematics . Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Science s, CONJUGATION SPACES ARE COHOMOLOGICALLY PURE 39 Washington, DC; by the American Mathematical...

    1996

  20. [28]

    J. Milnor. The Steenrod algebra and its dual. Ann. of Math. (2) , 67:150–171, 1958

    1958

  21. [29]

    Olbermann

    M. Olbermann. Conjugations on 6-manifolds. Math. Ann. , 342(2):255–271, 2008

    2008

  22. [30]

    Pitsch and J

    W. Pitsch and J. Scherer. Conjugation spaces and equivariant Chern classes. Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin , 20(1):77–90, 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    Pitsch and J

    W. Pitsch and J. Scherer. Realizing doubles: A conjugation zoo. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A , doi:10.1017/prm.2020.24,:pp. 1–16, 2020

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    N. Ricka. Motivic modular forms from equivariant stable homotop y theory. ArXiv e-prints ,

  25. [33]

    Robinson

    A. Robinson. The extraordinary derived category. Math. Z. , 196(2):231–238, 1987

    1987

  26. [34]

    Schwartz

    L. Schwartz. Unstable modules over the Steenrod algebra and Sullivan’s fi xed point set conjec- ture. Chicago Lectures in Mathematics. University of Chicago Press, Ch icago, IL, 1994

    1994

  27. [35]

    S. Schwede. Global homotopy theory . New Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press, 2017. To appear

    2017

  28. [36]

    G. B. Segal. Equivariant stable homotopy theory. In Actes du Congr` es International des Math´ ematiciens (Nice, 1970), Tome 2, pages 59–63. 1971

    1970

  29. [37]

    R. M. Switzer. Algebraic topology—homotopy and homology . Classics in Mathematics. Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 2002. Reprint of the 1975 original [Springer, New Yor k; MR0385836 (52 #6695)]

    2002

  30. [38]

    Th´ evenaz and P

    J. Th´ evenaz and P. Webb. The structure of Mackey functor s. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 347(6):1865–1961, 1995

    1961

  31. [40]

    tom Dieck

    T. tom Dieck. Orbittypen und ¨ aquivariante Homologie. II. Arch. Math. (Basel), 26(6):650–662, 1975

    1975

  32. [41]

    D. Wilson. C2-equivariant homology operations: results and formulas. ArXiv e-prints , 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.00058. Universitat Aut `onoma de Barcelona, Departament de Matem `atiques, E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain Email address : pitsch@mat.uab.es IRMA, Universit´ e de S...

    2019 arXiv

  33. [2017]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.04547

    arXiv

  34. [2019]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.07280

    1907 arXiv

Pith tools

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