Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 34 references

The meromorphic Hitchin fibration over stable pointed curves: moduli spaces

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 The paper constructs a flat, proper extension of the meromorphic Hitchin fibration over the moduli stack of stable pointed curves, for all ranks and Euler characteristics, and the same for fixed nilpotent residue classes.

desk verdict A serious, well-structured construction of the universal meromorphic Hitchin system over stable pointed curves; the central theorem is plausible but its proof leans on unpublished [HLH], so the paper deserves review but should not be accepted without those inputs being made available. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16912 v1 pith:7UBPJG5F submitted 2024-11-25 math.AG

Ron Donagi , Andres Fernandez Herrero This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AG MSC 14H1014H6014D2014D2314H70
keywords meromorphicHiggsbundlesGiesekervectorHitchinfibrationstablepointedcurvesmodulistackscompactifiedJacobiansnilpotentresiduesTheta-stratifications
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 that the relative moduli space of semistable meromorphic Higgs bundles over smooth pointed curves admits a flat extension over the compactified moduli stack of stable pointed curves, for every rank and Euler characteristic. The extended objects are meromorphic Gieseker Higgs bundles, and the usual Hitchin morphism extends to a flat and proper map, both for the full moduli space and for the closed symplectic leaves obtained by fixing nilpotent conjugacy classes of the residues. Over the open locus where the spectral cover is nodal and etale over the nodes, the fibers are described by compactified Jacobians, giving a boundary analogue of the BNR correspondence. The paper therefore extends the meromorphic Hitchin integrable system to degenerations of the underlying curve.

What carries the argument

The central object is the stack $GHiggs^N_{g,n}$ of meromorphic Gieseker Higgs bundles: a semistable $n$-pointed curve together with a vector bundle satisfying Gieseker's three conditions (surjective counit, $\varphi$-ample determinant, torsion-free pushforward to the stabilization) and a Higgs field $\psi: E \to E \otimes \omega^{\mathrm{log}}$. The proof machinery is the numerical invariant $\mu = (-\mathrm{wt}(L_{\mathrm{Gies},m}) - \epsilon\,\mathrm{wt}(L_{\mathrm{Cor},m}))/\sqrt{b}$ built from the Gieseker and Cornalba line bundles, for which the paper proves strict $\Theta$- and $S$-monotonicity and Harder-Narasimhan boundedness; this yields the good moduli spaces and the flat proper Hitchin morphisms. The spectral cover $S \to C$ carries the fiber description over the allowable locus $U$, where the fibers become compactified Jacobians.

What would settle it

A concrete check is the fiber-dimension formula: flatness of $H: GHiggs^{\mathcal{O}_\bullet,\chi}_{g,n} \to A_{\mathcal{O}_\bullet}$ forces every fiber to have dimension $N^2(g-1)+\frac{1}{2}\sum_i \dim(O_i)$. Computing this dimension at a boundary point where the spectral cover is not nodal would settle the claim; a fiber of larger dimension, or a failure of the relative moduli space to be flat over $\overline{M}_{g,n}$, would refute Theorem A.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated as Theorem A (Theorems 4.37 and 4.38), is that for every rank $N$ and Euler characteristic $\chi$ there is a moduli-theoretic flat family $GHiggs^{N,\chi}_{g,n} \to \overline{M}_{g,n}$ that restricts over the smooth locus to the usual relative Dolbeault moduli space of semistable meromorphic Higgs bundles, together with an extension of the Hitchin morphism $H: GHiggs^{N,\chi}_{g,n} \to A$ that is flat and proper. The same statement holds when one fixes an $n$-tuple $\mathcal{O}_\bullet$ of nilpotent conjugacy classes for the residues, with the Hitchin base replaced by the vector-bundle degeneration $A_{\mathcal{O}_\bullet}$ of the naive base. Over the open locus $U$ of data whose spectral cover is nodal and etale over the nodes, the fiber of $H$ is shown to be a compactified Jacobian of the spectral cover, so the ordinary BNR description of fibers persists at the boundary.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the unpublished companion manuscript [HLH] correctly proves smoothness, schematic properness, and eventual ampleness for the stack of Gieseker vector bundles; if that premise gives way, the existence of the good moduli spaces and of the flat proper Hitchin morphisms in Theorem A does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The relative moduli space of semistable meromorphic Higgs bundles, previously defined only over smooth pointed curves, now has a flat extension over the whole moduli stack of stable pointed curves.
  • The Hitchin morphism extends to a flat and proper map from this extension to the universal Hitchin base, so the meromorphic Hitchin fibration degenerates in a controlled way.
  • For each fixed nilpotent conjugacy class of residues, the corresponding closed symplectic leaf also extends to a flat and proper family over the moduli stack, with the twisted Hitchin base as target.
  • Over the allowable nodal spectral locus, the fibers of the Hitchin morphism are compactified Jacobians of the spectral cover, giving a boundary analogue of the BNR correspondence.
  • The Harder-Narasimhan Theta-stratification of the stack of meromorphic Gieseker Higgs bundles shows that the semistable loci are of finite type and admit separated good moduli spaces over the moduli stack.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's own claims, the stack-level flatness proofs in Section 3 do not use nilpotency, so the same construction should extend to non-nilpotent conjugacy classes once the Hitchin base is twisted appropriately; the authors note this as an open problem.
  • Beyond the paper's own claims, the eventual log-Poisson and log-symplectic forms promised in the sequel would turn the flat family of compactified Jacobians over the allowable locus into a degeneration of the classical integrable system itself, not merely of its moduli space.
  • Beyond the paper's own claims, a testable extension is to compute the monodromy of the compactified-Jacobian fibration around the non-allowable boundary of the Hitchin base; the BNR description should fail precisely where the spectral cover acquires non-etale nodes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the stack GHiggs^N_{g,n} of rank N meromorphic Gieseker Higgs bundles over prestable n-pointed curves and studies its geometry over the moduli stack Mbar_{g,n} of stable pointed curves. It defines a Hitchin morphism H to the log-canonical Hitchin base A, proves a BNR-type description of the fibers over the open locus U of allowable nodal spectral covers, and develops a residue theory leading to modified Hitchin bases A_{O•} for fixed nilpotent conjugacy classes, following [BDD22]. The main theorems, Theorems 4.37 and 4.38, assert that open semistable loci admit relative good moduli spaces GHiggs^{N,χ}_{g,n} and GHiggs^{O•,χ}_{g,n} over Mbar_{g,n}, and that the induced Hitchin morphisms to A and A_{O•} are flat and proper. The existence proof follows the Θ-stratification framework of Alper–Halpern-Leistner–Heinloth, using a numerical invariant μ built from Gieseker line bundles and Cornalba line bundles, with strict monotonicity, Harder–Narasimhan boundedness, and the valuative criterion for properness as the key ingredients.

Significance. If the main results are correct, this is a substantial contribution: it provides a universal flat and proper extension of the relative meromorphic Hitchin fibration over Mbar_{g,n}, including the nilpotent-residue symplectic leaves that are relevant to class S theories, and it gives a spectral-correspondence description over an explicit open locus. The paper contains many useful concrete computations: the relative Fuchs relations, dimensions of the residue-constrained stacks, Cohen–Macaulayness statements, and a detailed description of the Gieseker modifications in the spectral-cover picture. The main caveat is that the stack-theoretic foundations—smoothness and properness of the Gieseker bundle stack, and eventual ampleness of the Cornalba line bundles—are quoted from the unpublished companion manuscript [HLH] by one of the authors. Those inputs are load-bearing for the good moduli space construction. There is no indication of fitted parameters or circular reasoning in the numerical invariant itself, but the paper is not self-contained on its key foundational statements.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Propositions 2.9 and 2.10] The central stack-theoretic inputs are quoted in full from the unpublished manuscript [HLH] by one of the authors. Proposition 2.9 is used in Lemma 2.17 to prove that the stabilization pushforward ϖ : GHiggs^N_{g,n} → Higgs^N_{g,n} is schematic and proper, and Proposition 2.10 is used in Lemma 4.28 to prove eventual ampleness of the Cornalba line bundle L^{Cor,m} on the relevant fiber products. Both statements feed directly into the strict monotonicity result (Proposition 4.30) and hence into the application of Theorem 4.16 that produces the good moduli spaces and the flat proper Hitchin morphisms in Theorem A. Because [HLH] is not available to the reader and is not proved or even summarized in this manuscript, the hypotheses of Theorem 4.16 are not verifiable from the paper alone. This is a load-bearing external dependency and should be addressed explicitly, for example by including the needed statements as proved appendices or by making [HLH] publicly available before publication.
  2. [Section 4.3, Proposition 4.30] The proof of strict Θ- and S-monotonicity is only a sketch and does not verify the key inequality. The argument after the construction of the closure Σ reduces the desired monotonicity to the positivity of the formal line bundle LGies,m + ε LCor,m on Σ, and then states that any two Gm-equivariant points p1, p2 of Σ_o yield graded points g1, g2 with the same norm b(g1) = b(g2). The justification given is that the underlying torsion-free Higgs sheaves are generically isomorphic on eC_o. However, the quadratic norm b is computed from the ranks of the graded pieces of the associated graded sheaf, and generic isomorphy of the ungraded underlying sheaves does not by itself determine those graded ranks. Since strict monotonicity is exactly the inequality between the values of μ at 0 and at ∞ for such graded points, this missing justification affects the application of Theorem 4.16 and therefore the existence of the good moduli spaces and the flat/proper Hitchin morphisms in Theorems 4.37 and 4.38.
  3. [Section 2.5, Proposition 2.25] The BNR-type statement for the open locus U is advertised as a main structural result, but its proof is abbreviated at a load-bearing point. After establishing properness, quasifiniteness is proven by identifying the fiber of c over a point of U with certain line bundles on 'allowed' semistable modifications and invoking [EP16, Thm. 6.1]. The reduction from Gieseker Higgs bundles to line bundles on such modifications is described informally and relies on a local étale computation over U; as written, the compatibility between the Gieseker vector bundle condition on the pushforward and the quasistable-modification description is asserted rather than fully proved. This does not affect the main flatness/properness theorems, but it is a significant secondary claim that would benefit from a complete proof or a precise reference.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Definition 3.7] The displayed condition after 'with N1 ≥ N2 ≥' is incomplete; it should read N1 ≥ N2 ≥ ... ≥ Nl.
  2. [Notation 4.7] The example 'm − εm^2 > 0' appears inconsistent with the stated total order on R[m,ε]: for any fixed small h > 0, the polynomial m − h m^2 is eventually negative in m. Please correct the example or clarify the intended ordering.
  3. [Proof of Proposition 2.25] The notation GHiggs_{g,n} is used without the superscript N in several places in the proof, which is confusing because the rank N is fixed throughout; please make the notation uniform.
  4. [Lemma 3.14] The equality of sections A_{O•}(T) ≅ A_{O•}^{nv}(T) is proved for flat T → Mbar_{g,n} by reducing to pushforwards over the universal curve; it would be helpful to state explicitly that the universal curve C → Mbar_{g,n} is flat, so the lemma applies to the universal family and to the base changes used in Section 3.3.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Theorem A's proof chain bottoms out in the unpublished, co-authored [HLH]: Propositions 2.9/2.10 feed Lemma 2.17 and Lemma 4.28, hence strict monotonicity and the existence/flatness of the Hitchin morphism; this is load-bearing self-citation, not full circularity.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2.2, Propositions 2.9 and 2.10; used in Lemma 2.17, Lemma 4.28, Proposition 4.30, and Theorem 4.37]
    "Proposition 2.10 ([HLH]). Let T be a quasicompact scheme equipped with a morphism T → CohN g,n. Then for all sufficiently large m ≫ 0 the pullback of the line bundle LCor,m is T -ample on the proper scheme GBunN g,n ×CohN g,n T . … Lemma 4.28 … Proof. It follows from Proposition 2.10 that the pullback of LCor,m is T -ample on the scheme GBunN g,n ×CohN g,n T for all sufficiently large m ≫ 0. The lemma follows, because GH iggsN g,n ×H iggsN g,n T is a closed subscheme of GBunN g,n ×CohN g,n T by the proof of Lemma 2.17."

    The paper does not prove Proposition 2.10; it states it as a result of [HLH], an unpublished manuscript by coauthor Fernandez Herrero (joint with Halpern-Leistner). Lemma 4.28, whose proof is just an appeal to Proposition 2.10, is the source of the eventual Gri-ampleness of LCor,m on the Higgs stack. Proposition 4.30 uses that ampleness to establish the epsilon-term in strict monotonicity, and Theorem 4.37 invokes Proposition 4.30 to apply Theorem 4.16 and obtain the good moduli space and flat proper Hitchin morphism. Thus the central existence theorem depends at a load-bearing point on an unverified self-citation. This is a dependency chain, not a definitional equivalence: Theorem A is not identical to Proposition 2.10, but the proof of Theorem A is not self-contained at this step.

full rationale

The paper does not fit parameters, rename a known result, or define its objects in terms of the theorem it proves. Its central construction—the flat proper Hitchin morphism on the moduli of meromorphic Gieseker Higgs bundles—has substantial independent content: the spectral-curve description (Proposition 2.25), the stack-level syntomicity (Propositions 3.19 and 3.20), and the application of the general moduli criterion (Theorem 4.16) do not presuppose Theorem A. The main circularity-adjacent issue is the reliance on [HLH], an unpublished manuscript by a coauthor, for Proposition 2.9 (smoothness and schematic properness of GBunN) and Proposition 2.10 (eventual ampleness of LCor,m). These results are used directly in Lemma 2.17 and Lemma 4.28, and through Proposition 4.30 they are needed for the existence of the good moduli space and the flatness/properness of the Hitchin morphism in Theorems 4.37 and 4.38. This is load-bearing self-citation, but it is not a reduction-by-construction: the target theorem is not the same statement as the cited propositions, and the rest of the derivation is independent. The use of [BDD22] for the modified Hitchin base is also self-citational (Donagi is a coauthor), but that input is published and concerns the base rather than the target conclusion. Overall, partial circularity score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical constants are fitted to data, and no new physical entities are postulated. The mathematical construction rests on published and unpublished background results, chiefly [HLH] and [BDD22]; the paper's own definitions are supported internally by the theorems proved here.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GBun^N_{g,n} is a smooth algebraic stack, with schematic proper morphism to Coh^N_{g,n}, and the Cornalba line bundle L^{Cor,m} is eventually ample (Propositions 2.4, 2.9, 2.10 of this paper, taken from [HLH]).
    Quoted from the unpublished manuscript [HLH]; used as the foundation for Lemma 2.17 and Lemma 4.28, which are needed for the moduli space construction and for properness of the Hitchin morphism.
  • domain assumption A_{O_bullet} is the total space of a vector bundle on Mbar_{g,n} of rank N^2(g-1)+1+(1/2) sum_i dim(O_i) (Theorem 3.13, from [BDD22]).
    Used in Proposition 3.19 to compute dimensions and in Lemma 3.14 to identify sections; [BDD22] is published prior work by one of the authors.
  • ad hoc to paper Numerical invariant mu of Definition 4.29 is strictly Theta-monotone and strictly S-monotone (Proposition 4.30).
    The proof is a reduction to the methods of [HLH23] and [HLHJ24]; this monotonicity is asserted for the specific two-term invariant involving L^{Gies,m} and L^{Cor,m} and is not established elsewhere.
  • domain assumption The dimension bound for nilpotent quasi-parabolic Higgs bundles [BKV19, Thm 10(i)] holds in the Gieseker setting.
    Used in Proposition 3.19 to bound irreducible components of H iggs(C, sigma_bullet)^{nilp,O_bullet} and to compute equidimensionality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The meromorphic Hitchin fibration over stable pointed curves: moduli spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7UBPJG5F

@misc{pith2026241116912,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The meromorphic Hitchin fibration over stable pointed curves: moduli spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7UBPJG5F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16912}
}
read the original abstract

We construct a universal partial compactification of the relative moduli space of semistable meromorphic Higgs bundles over the stack of stable pointed curves. It parametrizes meromorphic Gieseker Higgs bundles, and is equipped with a flat and proper extension of the usual Hitchin morphism. Over an open subset of the Hitchin base parametrizing allowable nodal spectral covers, we describe the relation of the fibers to compactified Jacobians, thus establishing an analogue of the BNR correspondence. We also construct a version of the moduli space where we require the residues of the meromorphic Higgs bundle to lie in a given set of nilpotent conjugacy classes. In this latter case, we show that there is a flat and proper Hitchin morphism to the flat degeneration of the corresponding family of Hitchin bases constructed in previous physics work.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Existence of moduli spaces for algebraic stacks

    Jarod Alper, Daniel Halpern-Leistner, and Jochen Heinloth. Existence of moduli spaces for algebraic stacks. Invent. Math. , 234(3):949--1038, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Good moduli spaces for A rtin stacks

    Jarod Alper. Good moduli spaces for A rtin stacks. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) , 63(6):2349--2402, 2013

    2013

  3. [3]

    Moduli stacks of Higgs bundles on stable curves

    Oren Ben-Bassat, Sourav Das, and Tony Pantev. Moduli stacks of higgs bundles on stable curves. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.07778, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Vikraman Balaji, Pabitra Barik, and Donihakkalu S. Nagaraj. A degeneration of moduli of H itchin pairs. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN , (21):6581--6625, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Families of H itchin systems and N =2 theories

    Aswin Balasubramanian, Jacques Distler, and Ron Donagi. Families of H itchin systems and N =2 theories. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. , 26(6):1585--1667, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    On the image of the parabolic H itchin map

    David Baraglia and Masoud Kamgarpour. On the image of the parabolic H itchin map. Q. J. Math. , 69(2):681--708, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Complete integrability of the parahoric H itchin system

    David Baraglia, Masoud Kamgarpour, and Rohith Varma. Complete integrability of the parahoric H itchin system. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN , (21):6499--6528, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Arnaud Beauville, M. S. Narasimhan, and S. Ramanan. Spectral curves and the generalised theta divisor. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 398:169--179, 1989

    1989

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Symplectic geometry on moduli spaces of stable pairs

    Francesco Bottacin. Symplectic geometry on moduli spaces of stable pairs. Ann. Sci. \' E cole Norm. Sup. (4) , 28(4):391--433, 1995

    1995

  2. [10]

    Biswas and S

    I. Biswas and S. Ramanan. An infinitesimal study of the moduli of H itchin pairs. J. London Math. Soc. (2) , 49(2):219--231, 1994

    1994

  3. [11]

    A compactification of the universal P icard variety over the moduli space of stable curves

    Lucia Caporaso. A compactification of the universal P icard variety over the moduli space of stable curves. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 7(3):589--660, 1994

    1994

  4. [12]

    More examples

    Brian Conrad. More examples. https://math.stanford.edu/ conrad/papers/moreexample.pdf. Unpublished note

  5. [13]

    Relative log-symplectic structure on a semi-stable degeneration of moduli of H iggs bundles

    Sourav Das. Relative log-symplectic structure on a semi-stable degeneration of moduli of H iggs bundles. Adv. Math. , 410:Paper No. 108756, 61, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    The meromorphic H itchin fibration over stable pointed curves: Poisson geometry

    Ron Donagi and Andres Fernandez Herrero. The meromorphic H itchin fibration over stable pointed curves: Poisson geometry. In preparation

  7. [15]

    Semistable modifications of families of curves and compactified J acobians

    Eduardo Esteves and Marco Pacini. Semistable modifications of families of curves and compactified J acobians. Ark. Mat. , 54(1):55--83, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    N=2 dualities

    Davide Gaiotto. N=2 dualities. J. High Energy Phys. , (8):034, front matter + 57, 2012

    2012

  9. [17]

    Gómez, Andres Fernández Herrero, and Alfonso Zamora

    Tomás L. Gómez, Andres Fernández Herrero, and Alfonso Zamora. A guide to moduli theory beyond GIT . https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.01871, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gieseker

    D. Gieseker. A degeneration of the moduli space of stable bundles. J. Differential Geom. , 19(1):173--206, 1984

    1984

  11. [19]

    Hilbert- M umford stability on algebraic stacks and applications to G -bundles on curves

    Jochen Heinloth. Hilbert- M umford stability on algebraic stacks and applications to G -bundles on curves. \' E pijournal Geom. Alg\' e brique , 1:Art. 11, 37, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    N. J. Hitchin. The self-duality equations on a R iemann surface. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) , 55(1):59--126, 1987

    1987

  13. [21]

    On the structure of instability in moduli theory

    Daniel Halpern-Leistner. On the structure of instability in moduli theory. https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.0627v5, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Gauged maps into projective GL_n -schemes

    Daniel Halpern-Leistner and Andres Fernandez Herrero. Gauged maps into projective GL_n -schemes. In preparation

  15. [23]

    On the structure of the moduli of gauged maps from a smooth curve

    Daniel Halpern-Leistner and Andres Fernandez Herrero. On the structure of the moduli of gauged maps from a smooth curve. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.09632, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Moduli spaces of sheaves via affine G rassmannians

    Daniel Halpern-Leistner, Andres Fernandez Herrero, and Trevor Jones. Moduli spaces of sheaves via affine G rassmannians. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 809:159--215, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Meromorphic H odge moduli spaces for reductive groups in arbitrary characteristic

    Andres Fernandez Herrero and Siqing Zhang. Meromorphic H odge moduli spaces for reductive groups in arbitrary characteristic. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16755, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Closures of conjugacy classes of matrices are normal

    Hanspeter Kraft and Claudio Procesi. Closures of conjugacy classes of matrices are normal. Invent. Math. , 53(3):227--247, 1979

    1979

  19. [27]

    Semistable sheaves in positive characteristic

    Adrian Langer. Semistable sheaves in positive characteristic. Ann. of Math. (2) , 159(1):251--276, 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    Spectral curves and integrable systems

    Eyal Markman. Spectral curves and integrable systems. Compositio Math. , 93(3):255--290, 1994

    1994

  21. [29]

    D. S. Nagaraj and C. S. Seshadri. Degenerations of the moduli spaces of vector bundles on curves. I . Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci. , 107(2):101--137, 1997

    1997

  22. [30]

    D. S. Nagaraj and C. S. Seshadri. Degenerations of the moduli spaces of vector bundles on curves. II . G eneralized G ieseker moduli spaces. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci. , 109(2):165--201, 1999

    1999

  23. [31]

    The H ilbert compactification of the universal moduli space of semistable vector bundles over smooth curves

    Alexander Schmitt. The H ilbert compactification of the universal moduli space of semistable vector bundles over smooth curves. J. Differential Geom. , 66(2):169--209, 2004

    2004

  24. [32]

    Carlos T. Simpson. Moduli of representations of the fundamental group of a smooth projective variety. I . Inst. Hautes \' E tudes Sci. Publ. Math. , (79):47--129, 1994

    1994

  25. [33]

    Carlos T. Simpson. Moduli of representations of the fundamental group of a smooth projective variety. II . Inst. Hautes \' E tudes Sci. Publ. Math. , (80):5--79 (1995), 1994

    1995

  26. [34]

    Stacks Project

    The Stacks Project Authors . Stacks Project. https://stacks.math.columbia.edu, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

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