Ephemeral Modules and Scott Sheaves on a Continuous Poset

Eero Hyry; Manu Harsu

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Ephemeral Modules and Scott Sheaves on a Continuous Poset

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Over any continuous poset, quotienting persistence modules by the ephemeral modules yields exactly the sheaves on the Scott topology, and the quotient functor preserves interleaving distances.

desk verdict Solid generalization of ephemeral modules to continuous posets, but Theorem 3.32 is false as stated; the main quotient and isometry theorems look sound. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16235 v1 pith:CSAMAGDY submitted 2024-11-25 math.AT math.ACmath.RT

Manu Harsu , Eero Hyry This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.ATmath.ACmath.RT MSC 55N3106B3518F2018E35

keywords ephemeralmodulespersistenceScottsheavescontinuousposetsinterleavingdistancesemi-continuousway-belowrelationquotientcategories

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 extends the notion of an ephemeral persistence module, whose internal maps vanish along the way-below relation, from the real line to any continuous poset. Its central result is that, after quotienting out the ephemeral modules, the remaining category is exactly the category of sheaves on the Scott topology of the poset. This identifies the observable part of a persistence module with sheaf-theoretic data, and the paper further shows that the interleaving distance is preserved by this quotient. The upshot is a single framework in which persistence modules, Scott sheaves, and upper or lower semi-continuous modules are equivalent descriptions of the same objects.

What carries the argument

The adjoint triple $(j^*, j_*, j_!)$ linking Alexandrov sheaves (which are the same as persistence modules) to Scott sheaves, via the identity map $j\colon P^a\to P^\sigma$. On a continuous poset, the interpolation property of the way-below relation makes $j_*j^*=\mathrm{id}$ and $j_*j_!=\mathrm{id}$, so $j_*$ becomes an exact localization whose kernel is the ephemeral modules. The endofunctors $M\mapsto \overline{M}$ (limits over elements way above $p$) and $M\mapsto \underline{M}$ (colimits over elements way below $p$) form the unit and counit of this adjunction and connect the sheaf picture to upper and lower semi-continuity.

What would settle it

Find a continuous poset $P$ and a superlinear family of translations satisfying TR1–TR3 with two persistence modules $M,N$ such that $d_a(M,N)\ne d_\sigma(j_*M,j_*N)$; that would disprove the isometry Theorem 5.13. Concretely, the easiest place to look is a module with nonzero interleaving distance to zero that is not ephemeral, since Corollary 5.14 asserts the two conditions coincide.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a continuous poset $P$, the category of persistence modules over $P$ has a Serre subcategory $\mathrm{Eph}$ of ephemeral modules, defined by $M(p\le q)=0$ whenever $p$ is way below $q$. The main theorem (Theorem 4.17) states that the quotient category $\mathrm{Fun}(P,\mathrm{Mod})/\mathrm{Eph}$ is equivalent to the category of sheaves on the Scott topology, and also equivalent to the full subcategories of upper and lower semi-continuous modules. Theorem 5.13 sharpens this to a metric statement: the quotient functor $j_*$ is an isometry, so $d_a(M,N)=d_\sigma(j_*M,j_*N)$, and Corollary 5.14 characterizes ephemerality as having zero interleaving distance to the zero module.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the poset $P$ being continuous, meaning every element is the directed supremum of elements way below it, which yields the interpolation property used in nearly every proof; if $P$ is not continuous, the key identities $j_*j^*=\mathrm{id}$ and $j_*j_!=\mathrm{id}$ may fail and the main equivalence is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Ephemeral modules form a bilocalizing Serre subcategory, so the quotient category has both a section and a cosection, and the Scott-socle and Scott-top are the torsion and torsion-free parts.
Scott sheaves, upper semi-continuous modules, and lower semi-continuous modules are three equivalent concrete models for the observable quotient of persistence modules.
Because the quotient functor is an isometry, the interleaving distance between persistence modules equals the interleaving distance between their Scott sheaves, so no metric information is lost when passing to the quotient.
A module is ephemeral exactly when its interleaving distance to the zero module vanishes (under conditions TR1–TR3), so the quotient removes precisely the modules that are indistinguishable from zero by interleavings.
Over $\mathbb{R}^n$, the Scott-socle and Scott-top of boundary-type indicator modules recover standard topological boundaries, giving sheaf-theoretic formulas for socle and top.

Reading between the lines

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

The continuity assumption is likely necessary in a strong sense: without the interpolation property, the identities $j_*j^*=\mathrm{id}$ and $j_*j_!=\mathrm{id}$ may fail, so the quotient-sheaf equivalence would have to take a different form for non-continuous posets.
The isometry theorem suggests a transfer principle for stability: any stability bound proved for sheaf interleavings automatically applies to persistence modules, and conversely, because the two distances coincide.
The equivalence with semi-continuous modules may connect to symplectic topology, where semi-continuous persistence modules are already used, giving a concrete sheaf-theoretic handle on those modules.
A natural testable extension is to replace the Scott topology by other topologies generated by a different approximating relation; the meager-set characterization of ephemerality suggests that any topology with a basis of the same form would yield an analogous quotient.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Main takeaway: the paper's principal results are worth engaging with, but there is a concrete error in an auxiliary theorem that needs fixing before publication.

The genuinely new content is the extension of Chazal et al. and Berkouk-Petit from R and R^n to arbitrary continuous posets: the quotient category Fun(P)/Eph is shown equivalent to Scott sheaves, and the quotient functor is an isometry for superlinear translations satisfying TR1-TR2. The adjoint triple (j^*, j_*, j_!) around the identity map from Alexandrov to Scott topology is cleanly developed, and the proofs are detailed and mostly self-contained. I checked the key adjunction identities and the ephemeral characterization (Theorem 4.6); they hold. The homological side, with Scott-socle and Scott-top and their derived functors, is original even if it now appears to contain a mistake.

The stress-test is right: Theorem 3.32(i) fails. Over P=R, take the skyscraper module k_0 at 0. It is ephemeral, so j_*M=0 and hence the upper closure \overline{M}=j_!j^*M=0. The exact sequence of Proposition 3.27 then forces R^1soc_σ(M)=0. But rad_σ(M)=0 and top_σ(M)=M≠0. So R^1soc_σ(M)≠top_σ(M). The dual formula (ii) likely breaks too. The good news is that Theorem 3.32 is not used in the main quotient equivalence (Theorem 4.17) or the isometry theorem (Theorem 5.13); those arguments rely only on the adjoint triple, Theorem 4.6, and the interleaving lemmas. So the main results are likely salvageable, but the paper as submitted cannot be accepted verbatim.

Other soft spots are minor: the definition of ephemeral via ≪ differs from the strict-order version when the poset has a bottom element, but that is acknowledged. The dependence on continuity of P is standard and well-motivated.

For whom: anyone working in multiparameter persistence or sheaf-theoretic TDA will want to know these results once the error is corrected. The paper deserves a serious referee: the central argument is substantial and mostly correct. My recommendation: send it to review, but require the authors to fix Theorem 3.32 and check the surrounding homological statements carefully.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper generalizes the theory of ephemeral persistence modules from real-parameter and cone-ordered settings to arbitrary continuous posets. It defines ephemerality via the way-below relation, proves that ephemeral modules are exactly the kernel of the direct image functor to the Scott topology, and derives an equivalence between the quotient category Fun(P,Mod)/Eph and the category of Scott sheaves, with further equivalences to upper and lower semi-continuous modules. A second main thread defines interleavings for Scott sheaves and proves that the quotient functor is an isometry (Theorem 5.13). The paper is largely self-contained and uses domain-theoretic interpolation systematically.

Significance. If the main results stand, they provide a clean domain-theoretic framework for observable persistence modules: the quotient by ephemeral modules is modeled by sheaves on the Scott topology, and the interleaving distance is preserved exactly. The adjoint triple construction and the isometry theorem are nontrivial and potentially useful for multi-parameter persistence. I verified that the central chain Theorem 4.6 -> Theorem 4.16 -> Theorem 4.17, and the interleaving arguments in Propositions 5.10 and 5.12 -> Theorem 5.13, is coherent and does not rely on the flawed auxiliary homological statements discussed below. However, the paper currently contains demonstrable false statements in Section 3.5, so it cannot be accepted without revision.

major comments (2)

[3.5] Theorem 3.32(i), asserting R^1soc_sigma(M) = top_sigma(M), is false as stated. Let P=R and let M be the skyscraper module at 0. Since M(p<=q)=0 whenever p<q, M is ephemeral by Definition 4.1. By Theorem 4.6, j_*M=0; by Lemma 3.8(i), the upper closure \overline{M} equals j_!j_*M=0. The exact sequence of Proposition 3.27 then forces R^1soc_sigma(M)=0. On the other hand, rad_sigma(M)_0 is the union of images of M(x<=0) for x<0, all of which are zero, so top_sigma(M)_0=M_0=k; hence top_sigma(M)=M. This contradicts the claimed equality. The difficulty is already present in Proposition 3.28(i): for M=k[(-infinity,0)] on R and p=0, we have M_0=0, the lower closure \underline{M}_0 = colim_{x<0} M_x = k, and top_sigma(M)_0=0, so the asserted exact sequence 0 -> L_1top_sigma(M) -> M -> \underline{M} -> top_sigma(M) -> 0 becomes 0 -> A -> 0 -> k -> 0 -> 0, which is impossible. The likely correction is that the middle term should be colim_{x<=p} M_x rather than the stalk M_p; this should be worked out carefully and the derived statements adjusted.
[3.5] The false statement of Proposition 3.28(i) also undermines the presentation of Proposition 3.31(ii) and Theorem 3.32(ii), even if the main quotient and isometry theorems are unaffected. Because the exact sequence is used to define/describe L_1top_sigma, the paper should either correct the exact sequence and re-derive Theorem 3.32, or remove Theorem 3.32 and Proposition 3.31(ii) and clearly state what remains true for the Scott-socle and Scott-top. As written, a reader using these results would obtain incorrect conclusions; for example, the skyscraper module above would simultaneously be a counterexample to Theorem 3.32(i). I stress that Theorem 4.17 and Theorem 5.13 do not invoke these results, so the central claims appear salvageable.

minor comments (2)

[Throughout] The notation for j_* and j^* is nearly indistinguishable in the text (e.g., in Proposition 3.4, Lemma 3.8, and Theorem 4.6). Please use unambiguous superscript and subscript stars in the final version, since the adjunction identities depend on which is which.
[3.5] The proof says 'As in the proof of Proposition 3.27' but the dual argument is not literally the same: the tensor-product description of top_sigma involves colimits over down-sets, not limits over up-sets. Once the exact sequence is corrected, the proof should spell out the colimit computation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quotient-to-Scott-sheaf equivalence and the interleaving isometry are derived from internal adjunction arguments and explicit hypotheses, not from their own conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are self-contained derivations. Ephemerality is defined directly via the way-below relation in Definition 4.1, and Theorem 4.6 proves the equivalence with j_*M = 0 using interpolation rather than assuming it. Theorem 4.17 applies the general quotient-category criterion of Burban–Drozd–Gavran (Theorem 4.16) to the exact functor j_*, with the identities j_*j_! = id and j_*j^* = id established inside the paper in Proposition 3.4. Theorem 5.13 derives the isometry from interleaving preservation (Proposition 5.10), TR1/TR2, and the triangle inequality; no parameter is fitted to a target distance and no conclusion is used as an input. Corollary 5.14 uses TR3 to factor internal morphisms through translations, again without presupposing ephemerality. The external citations (domain theory, Höppner, Jensen, and the quotient-category theorem) are standard mathematical support, not self-citations by the authors. The skeptic's objection to Theorem 3.32 is a correctness concern about an auxiliary result, not circularity: the proof of that theorem does not reduce to the theorem itself. No circular step is exhibited in the paper, so the appropriate finding is a score of 0.

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

The central claim rests on the assumption that P is a continuous poset, which is a standard domain-theoretic condition that guarantees the interpolation property. The paper introduces no fitted parameters and no new entities; everything is derived from definitions and cited theorems.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption P is a continuous poset
Continuity (every p is directed sup of elements way below it) yields the interpolation property used throughout; without it the Scott-topology basis and adjunction identities may fail.
domain assumption k is a commutative ring with unity
Persistence modules are functors to k-modules; all homological results assume k-modules.
standard math Standard domain theory facts about Scott topology and way-below relation
Facts like Lemma 2.2 (basis of Scott topology, interiors of up-sets) are cited from Gierz et al. and used in Proposition 3.4 and elsewhere.
standard math Sheaf-theoretic adjunction j^* ⊣ j_* for a continuous map
Invoked in Proposition 3.4 i) and throughout, from standard sheaf theory.
standard math Theorem 4.16 (Burban-Drozd-Gavran) on quotient categories by kernels of exact functors with adjoints
Used to prove the main equivalence in Theorem 4.17.
standard math Höppner's classification of indecomposable injective persistence modules over R^n
Used in Proposition 4.20; cited from [16].
domain assumption For metric results, existence of a superlinear family of translations satisfying TR1, TR2, TR3
Theorem 5.13 and Corollary 5.14 require TR1 (order-isomorphism), TR2 (strong translation), TR3 (approximation of way-below pairs). These hold for the standard superlinear family on R^n.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ephemeral Modules and Scott Sheaves on a Continuous Poset." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CSAMAGDY

@misc{pith2026241116235,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ephemeral Modules and Scott Sheaves on a Continuous Poset},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CSAMAGDY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16235}
}

read the original abstract

By utilizing domain theory, we generalize the notion of an ephemeral module to the so-called continuous posets. We investigate the quotient category of persistence modules by the Serre subcategory of ephemeral modules and show that it is equivalent to the category of sheaves on the Scott topology. Furthermore, we study the metric properties of persistence modules via this equivalence.

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

ModuSeg: Decoupling Object Discovery and Semantic Retrieval for Training-Free Weakly Supervised Segmentation
cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

Training-free WSSS via decoupled mask proposals and offline semantic feature retrieval with boundary purification yields competitive benchmark performance without fine-tuning.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

3, 1994, pp

Samson Abramsky and Achim Jung, Domain theory , Handbook of logic in computer science, Vol. 3, 1994, pp. 1–1 68

work page 1994
[2]

67 –96, DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-43408-3 3

Ulrich Bauer and Michael Lesnick, Persistence diagrams as diagrams: a categoriﬁcation of the stability theorem, Topological data analysis—the Abel Symposium 2018, [2020] ©2020, pp. 67 –96, DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-43408-3 3

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-43408-3 2018
[3]

Nicolas Berkouk and Fran¸ cois Petit, Ephemeral persistence modules and distance comparison , Algebr. Geom. Topol. 21 (2021), no. 1, 247–277, DOI 10.2140/agt.2021.21.247

doi:10.2140/agt.2021.21.247 2021
[4]

Morten Brun, Winfried Bruns, and Tim R¨ omer, Cohomology of partially ordered sets and local cohomology o f section rings , Adv. Math. 208 (2007), no. 1, 210–235, DOI 10.1016/j.aim.2006.02.005

doi:10.1016/j.aim.2006.02.005 2007
[5]

Peter Bubenik, Vin de Silva, and Jonathan Scott, Metrics for generalized persistence modules , Found. Comput. Math. 15 (2015), no. 6, 1501–1531, DOI 10.1007/s10208-014-9229-5

doi:10.1007/s10208-014-9229-5 2015
[6]

Peter Bubenik and Nikola Mili´ cevi´ c,Homological algebra for persistence modules , Found. Comput. Math. 21 (2021), no. 5, 1233–1278, DOI 10.1007/s10208-020-09482-9

doi:10.1007/s10208-020-09482-9 2021
[7]

Igor Burban, Yuriy Drozd, and Volodymyr Gavran, Minors and resolutions of non-commutative schemes , Eur. J. Math. 3 (2017), no. 2, 311–341, DOI 10.1007/s40879-017-0128-6

work page doi:10.1007/s40879-017-0128-6 2017
[8]

Fr´ ed´ eric Chazal, Vin de Silva, Marc Glisse, and Steve O udot, The structure and stability of persistence modules , SpringerBriefs in Mathematics, Springer, [Cham], 2016

work page 2016

Show all 36 references

[9]

18 (2016), no

Fr´ ed´ eric Chazal, William Crawley-Boevey, and Vin de S ilva, The observable structure of persistence modules , Homology Homotopy Appl. 18 (2016), no. 2, 247–265, DOI 10.4310/HHA.2016.v18.n2.a14. 26

2016 doi
[10]

Thesis (Ph.D.)–Univers ity of Pennsylvania

Justin Michael Curry, Sheaves, cosheaves and applications, ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 2014. Thesis (Ph.D.)–Univers ity of Pennsylvania

2014
[11]

Vin de Silva, Elizabeth Munch, and Anastasios Stefanou , Theory of interleavings on categories with a ﬂow , Theory Appl. Categ. 33 (2018), Paper No. 21, 583–607

2018
[12]

150, Springer-Verlag , New York, 1995

David Eisenbud, Commutative algebra , Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 150, Springer-Verlag , New York, 1995. With a view toward algebraic geometry

1995
[13]

Gierz, K

G. Gierz, K. H. Hofmann, K. Keimel, J. D. Lawson, M. Mislo ve, and D. S. Scott, Continuous lattices and domains , Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 93, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003

2003
[14]

22, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013

Jean Goubault-Larrecq, Non-Hausdorﬀ topology and domain theory , New Mathematical Monographs, vol. 22, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013. [On the cover: Selected topics in point-set topology]

2013
[15]

Graduate Texts in Mathem atics, No

Robin Hartshorne, Algebraic geometry, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977. Graduate Texts in Mathem atics, No. 52

1977
[16]

, Manuscripta mathematica 44 (1983), 45-50

Michael H¨ oppner, A Note on the Structure of Injective Diagrams. , Manuscripta mathematica 44 (1983), 45-50

1983
[17]

1, 7-12, DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-40 49(81)90045-1

Michael H¨ oppner and Helmut Lenzing, Projective diagrams over partially ordered sets are free , Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 20 (1981), no. 1, 7-12, DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-40 49(81)90045-1

1981 doi
[18]

C. U. Jensen, On the vanishing of lim ←− (i), J. Algebra 15 (1970), 151–166, DOI 10.1016/0021-8693(70)90071-2

1970 doi
[19]

2 92, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994

Masaki Kashiwara and Pierre Schapira, Sheaves on manifolds , Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], vol. 2 92, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994. With a chapter in French by Christian Houzel, Corrected reprint of the 1990 original

1994
[20]

Masaki Kashiwara and Pierre Schapira, Persistent homology and microlocal sheaf theory , J. Appl. Comput. Topol. 2 (2018), no. 1-2, 83–113, DOI 10.1007/s41468-018-0019-z

2018 doi
[21]

Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Domain Theory (ISDT 2009)

Klaus Keimel, Bicontinuous Domains and Some Old Problems in Domain Theory , Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 257 (2009), 35-54, DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.200 9.11.025. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Domain Theory (ISDT 2009)

2009 doi
[22]

Pure Appl

Henning Krause, The spectrum of a locally coherent category , J. Pure Appl. Algebra 114 (1997), no. 3, 259–271, DOI 10.1016/S0022-4049(95)00172-7. [23] , Homological theory of representations , Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 195, Camb ridge University Press, C...

1997 doi
[24]

Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol

Saunders MacLane, Categories for the Working Mathematician , Springer-Verlag, New York, 1971. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 5

1971
[25]

Ezra Miller, Planar graphs as minimal resolutions of trivariate monomia l ideals , Doc. Math. 7 (2002), 43–90

2002
[26]

, Data structures for real multiparameter persistence modul es, arXiv, 2017

2017
[27]

, Essential graded algebra over polynomial rings with real ex ponents, arXiv, 2020

2020
[28]

, Stratiﬁcations of real vector spaces from constructible sh eaves with conical microsupport , J. Appl. Comput. Topol. 7 (2023), no. 3, 473–489, DOI 10.1007/s41468-023-00112-1

2023 doi
[29]

(N.S.) 22 (2016), no

Leonid Polterovich and Egor Shelukhin, Autonomous Hamiltonian ﬂows, Hofer’s geometry and persist ence modules, Selecta Math. (N.S.) 22 (2016), no. 1, 227–296, DOI 10.1007/s00029-015-0201-2

2016 doi
[30]

Paul Poncet, Transporting continuity properties from a poset to its subp osets, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 912 (2022), 109–132, DOI 10.1016/j.tcs.2022.02.021

2022 doi
[31]

Popescu, Abelian categories with applications to rings and modules , London Mathematical Society Monographs, vol

N. Popescu, Abelian categories with applications to rings and modules , London Mathematical Society Monographs, vol. No. 3, Academic Press, London-New York, 1973

1973
[32]

Chrysostomos Psaroudakis and Jorge Vit´ oria, Recollements of module categories , Appl. Categ. Structures 22 (2014), no. 4, 579–593, DOI 10.1007/s10485-013-9323-x

2014 doi
[33]

188, Camb ridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020

Birgit Richter, From categories to homotopy theory , Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 188, Camb ridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020

2020
[34]

Tyrrell Rockafellar, Convex analysis , Princeton Mathematical Series, Princeton University Pre ss, Princeton, N

R. Tyrrell Rockafellar, Convex analysis , Princeton Mathematical Series, Princeton University Pre ss, Princeton, N. J., 1970

1970
[35]

24 (2022), no

Maximilian Schmahl, Structure of semi-continuous q-tame persistence modules , Homology Homotopy Appl. 24 (2022), no. 1, 117–128, DOI 10.4310/hha.2022.v24.n1.a6

2022 doi
[36]

Scoccola, Locally Persistent Categories and Metric Properties of Int erleaving Distances , ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 2020

Luis N. Scoccola, Locally Persistent Categories and Metric Properties of Int erleaving Distances , ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 2020. Thesis (Ph.D.)–The University of W estern O ntario (Canada)

2020
[37]

153 (2006), no

Luoshan Xu, Continuity of posets via Scott topology and sobriﬁcation , Topology Appl. 153 (2006), no. 11, 1886–1894, DOI 10.1016/j.topol.2004.02.024. 27

2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

3, 1994, pp

Samson Abramsky and Achim Jung, Domain theory , Handbook of logic in computer science, Vol. 3, 1994, pp. 1–1 68

work page 1994

[2] [2]

67 –96, DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-43408-3 3

Ulrich Bauer and Michael Lesnick, Persistence diagrams as diagrams: a categoriﬁcation of the stability theorem, Topological data analysis—the Abel Symposium 2018, [2020] ©2020, pp. 67 –96, DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-43408-3 3

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-43408-3 2018

[3] [3]

Nicolas Berkouk and Fran¸ cois Petit, Ephemeral persistence modules and distance comparison , Algebr. Geom. Topol. 21 (2021), no. 1, 247–277, DOI 10.2140/agt.2021.21.247

doi:10.2140/agt.2021.21.247 2021

[4] [4]

Morten Brun, Winfried Bruns, and Tim R¨ omer, Cohomology of partially ordered sets and local cohomology o f section rings , Adv. Math. 208 (2007), no. 1, 210–235, DOI 10.1016/j.aim.2006.02.005

doi:10.1016/j.aim.2006.02.005 2007

[5] [5]

Peter Bubenik, Vin de Silva, and Jonathan Scott, Metrics for generalized persistence modules , Found. Comput. Math. 15 (2015), no. 6, 1501–1531, DOI 10.1007/s10208-014-9229-5

doi:10.1007/s10208-014-9229-5 2015

[6] [6]

Peter Bubenik and Nikola Mili´ cevi´ c,Homological algebra for persistence modules , Found. Comput. Math. 21 (2021), no. 5, 1233–1278, DOI 10.1007/s10208-020-09482-9

doi:10.1007/s10208-020-09482-9 2021

[7] [7]

Igor Burban, Yuriy Drozd, and Volodymyr Gavran, Minors and resolutions of non-commutative schemes , Eur. J. Math. 3 (2017), no. 2, 311–341, DOI 10.1007/s40879-017-0128-6

work page doi:10.1007/s40879-017-0128-6 2017

[8] [8]

Fr´ ed´ eric Chazal, Vin de Silva, Marc Glisse, and Steve O udot, The structure and stability of persistence modules , SpringerBriefs in Mathematics, Springer, [Cham], 2016

work page 2016