Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Mock modularity of Calabi-Yau threefolds

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 generating functions of D4-D2-D0 BPS indices on one-parameter Calabi-Yau threefolds are fixed, up to finitely many polar coefficients, by explicit indefinite theta series solving their modular anomaly equations.

desk verdict Solid, well-checked results for two and three D4-charges; the arbitrary-charge claim is a conditional construction, and the authors say so. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17699 v3 pith:D7NJX23Z submitted 2024-11-26 hep-th math-phmath.AGmath.MPmath.NT

Sergei Alexandrov , Khalil Bendriss This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath-phmath.AGmath.MPmath.NT MSC 11F3711F5011F2714N3514J32
keywords mockmodularformsindefinitethetaseriesD4-D2-D0BPSindicesrank0Donaldson-ThomasinvariantsCalabi-YauthreefoldsanomalyequationVafa-Wittenhigherdepthmodularity
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 tackles the modular anomaly that governs the generating functions of D4-D2-D0 BPS indices, also known as rank 0 Donaldson-Thomas invariants, on one-parameter Calabi-Yau threefolds. It establishes that these generating functions, already known to be higher-depth mock modular forms, can be split into an anomalous part fixed by the anomaly equation and a modular ambiguity fixed by finitely many polar coefficients. The anomalous part is constructed explicitly from indefinite theta series: the construction is fully explicit for two and three D4-brane charges, and for arbitrary charges it is reduced to computing polar terms, conditional on a stated conjecture about the unrefined limit. A sympathetic reader would care because the result turns an infinite, recursively entangled system of modular anomaly equations into a finite computational problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the anomalous coefficient $g^{(r)}_{\mu,\boldsymbol{\mu}}$, the coefficient in the decomposition of the redefined generating function into modular ambiguities of lower charges; Theorem 3.1 shows these coefficients satisfy their own anomaly equation (3.3), whose depth equals the number of constituent charges. The solution of that equation is an indefinite $\theta$ series (Theorem 5.1) over an extended lattice $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}^{(r)} = \Lambda^{(r)} \oplus \mathbb{Z}^{d_r}$, obtained by refining with an elliptic parameter $z$ and adding lattice directions so that null vectors $w_{ij}$ exist and make the $\theta$ series convergent and holomorphic. A Jacobi-like form $\phi^{(r)}$ chosen to cancel the leading pole at $z=0$ (Theorem 5.2) makes the unrefined limit well-defined and yields the physical anomalous coefficients. In short: refinement regularizes the divergent null-direction sums, lattice extension creates the needed null vectors, and Jacobi-like forms remove the poles.

What would settle it

Test the construction at $n=4$ with all charges $r_i=1$ and $\kappa=1$: evaluate the unrefined limit $z\to 0$ of the symmetrized $\theta$ series in (5.111) to order $z^{n-2}=z^2$, or compare the resulting q-series with the known normalized SU$(4)$ Vafa-Witten generating function; a non-vanishing $z^{n-2}$ coefficient, a logarithmic divergence, or any mismatch at computed orders would falsify Conjecture 5.1 and invalidate the generic-$n$ solution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the modular anomaly equation for the generating functions of D4-D2-D0 BPS indices admits an explicit solution for arbitrary D4-brane charge $r$, built from indefinite $\theta$ series, so that every generating function is determined up to a modular form fixed by its polar terms. The proof introduces anomalous coefficients $g^{(r)}_{\mu,\boldsymbol{\mu}}$ through the polynomial decomposition (3.2), shows in Theorem 3.1 that they satisfy their own anomaly equations, and then solves those equations using a refinement by an elliptic parameter, an extension of the charge lattice by auxiliary directions, and a Jacobi-like form that cancels the poles at zero refinement. For two and three charges the unrefined limit is evaluated explicitly, yielding closed formulas (5.71) and (5.99), and these are checked against the known two-charge mock modular forms of optimal growth and against the normalized generating functions of SU$(n)$ Vafa-Witten invariants on $\mathbb{P}^2$. For a generic number of charges the solution is given by Theorems 5.1 and 5.2, provided Conjecture 5.1 holds.

Load-bearing premise

The construction for more than three charges assumes that the potentially divergent pieces of the refined theta series cancel automatically before the refinement parameter is set to zero; if any lower-order zero-mode contribution survives, the unrefined limit fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Finding the full generating function $h_r$ for any D4-brane charge $r$ reduces to computing a finite number of polar Fourier coefficients, because the anomalous part is now explicit.
  • For two charges the indefinite-theta-series solution is consistent with the mock modular forms of optimal growth, so the two approaches can be used interchangeably.
  • For three charges the solution is consistent with the normalized SU$(3)$ Vafa-Witten generating function at unit charges and intersection number, extending the known Vafa-Witten connection to three constituents.
  • The explicit q-series of anomalous coefficients computed in the paper provide new data that can be used to obtain analytic expressions for the remaining seed functions $G^{(d)}$ appearing in the optimal-growth construction.
  • For any charge, the construction gives a concrete target that polar-term computations from wall-crossing and Donaldson-Thomas data would need to match, providing a sharp test of the predicted higher-depth mock modularity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same refinement-lattice-extension machinery should apply to Calabi-Yau threefolds with several Kähler moduli, and elliptic or K3 fibrations may simplify the zero-mode analysis.
  • Beyond the paper: at $n=4$ with all charges and $\kappa$ equal to 1, the generic construction can be tested against the known normalized SU$(4)$ Vafa-Witten generating function, giving a direct numerical check of Conjecture 5.1 before any analytic proof.
  • Beyond the paper: if polar terms for higher $r$ become computable from Gopakumar-Vafa or wall-crossing data, the result would yield fully explicit all-order predictions for rank-0 Donaldson-Thomas invariants on compact Calabi-Yau threefolds.
  • Beyond the paper: a failure of Conjecture 5.1 for some $n$ would not invalidate the two- and three-charge results, but would require additional Jacobi-like corrections to the generic solution.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the generating functions h_r(τ) of D4-D2-D0 BPS indices, equivalently rank-zero Donaldson-Thomas invariants, for one-modulus Calabi-Yau threefolds. It aims to solve the modular anomaly equation for arbitrary D4-brane charge r, reducing the problem to fixing finitely many polar coefficients. The authors introduce 'anomalous coefficients' g^(r)_(µ,µ) and prove in Theorem 3.1 that they satisfy a recursive anomaly equation. They then give explicit solutions for the two-charge case using mock modular forms of optimal growth, and for the all-unit-charge case using Vafa-Witten invariants on P^2. The main construction expresses the anomalous coefficients through refined, multi-variable indefinite theta series on an extended lattice, with Theorems 5.1 and 5.2 providing the general solution of the refined anomaly equation. The unrefined limit z→0 is evaluated explicitly for two and three charges, but for more than three charges it is left unevaluated and its existence depends on Conjecture 5.1. Consistency with the optimal-growth and Vafa-Witten solutions is checked numerically for low charges in Appendix H.

Significance. If the generic construction were made fully rigorous, the paper would deliver a substantial simplification: the entire D4-D2-D0 generating function would be fixed by polar data. The explicit two- and three-charge formulas are concrete, checkable results, and the identification with Vafa-Witten invariants for unit charges is an appealing structural connection. The paper also demonstrates a nontrivial extension of the indefinite-theta-series technology of [51] to higher-depth anomaly equations, and Appendix H provides useful cross-checks between different solution methods. However, the arbitrary-charge statement is conditional on an unproved conjecture and on numerical verification of pole cancellations, so the full advertised result is not yet established. The explicit q-series in Appendix I can serve as falsifiable predictions for future computations.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.6, Conjecture 5.1 and §5.6.3] The central claim of the paper, that the modular anomaly can be solved for arbitrary D4-charge r, is not established for n>3. The construction of the refined solution in Theorem 5.1 and the existence of the unrefined limit both depend on Conjecture 5.1, and the authors state in Section 6 that 'the existence of the unrefined limit of our solution for generic charges remains conjectural since it relies on Conjecture 5.1.' Moreover, Section 5.6.3 explicitly says that the unrefined limit cannot be evaluated analytically in full generality, and no closed formula for g^(r)_(µ,µ) is given for n>3. The abstract and Introduction should therefore not state the arbitrary-charge solution as a fait accompli; the paper currently presents a complete solution for n=2,3 and a conditional Ansatz for n>3.
  2. [§5.5.2 and §5.6.2, Eqs. (5.91) and (5.124)] Two load-bearing cancellations are verified only numerically. The vanishing identity (5.91), which is used to fix the holomorphic ambiguity for three charges, is said to have been 'extensively checked on a computer' but no proof is supplied, and the proof promised for the general case in §5.6 depends on Conjecture 5.1. Similarly, the coefficients c_r solving the pole-cancellation system (5.123) are given by (5.124) and checked only up to n=8. Since these coefficients are essential for the unrefined limit to exist, the generic solution is not yet a theorem. Please either provide analytic proofs of these identities or explicitly mark them as conjectural and separate them from the proven statements.
  3. [§5.6.1, Theorem 5.1] The proof of Theorem 5.1 is not written out; the text says it is 'completely analogous' to Theorem 1 of [51] and refers to that paper. Given that the present setting involves arbitrary charges, a non-trivial lattice extension, and multi-variable refinement parameters, the analogy is not self-evident. The authors should either present the proof in detail or include a precise dictionary showing how the proof of [51, Theorem 1] adapts to the present equations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4.4)] The prefactor τ^{3/2}_2 is typeset as 'τ 3/2', which is confusing; please correct the typography.
  2. [Eqs. (5.114)-(5.115)] The operator L_{n-2} appearing in the heuristic argument for Conjecture 5.1 is not defined in the text; please define it explicitly.
  3. [Appendix I] The q-series are presented without stating the order to which they have been checked; adding the number of terms used in each numerical verification would help the reader assess the consistency checks.
  4. [Notation throughout] The original lattice Λ^(r) and the extended lattice Λ^(r) are distinguished only by font in the text; a more explicit notation or a remark in the index of notations would improve readability.
  5. [Eq. (I.9)] The exponent 'q−4/2' appears to be a typo for q^{-2}; please correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper constructs explicit solutions to the given modular-anomaly equations and checks them against independent objects; the generic-n claim is conditional on Conjecture 5.1, which is an honest gap rather than a tautology.

full rationale

No circular step reduces the paper's claimed derivation to its inputs by construction. The input is the modular-anomaly equation (2.17)/(3.3), inherited from earlier work on D4-D2-D0 indices, and the paper's main task is to produce functions g^{(r)}_{\mu,\mu} whose completions satisfy that equation. The produced functions are not fitted to the target generating functions h_r: the holomorphic modular ambiguities are fixed by imposing a regular unrefined limit, not by matching Fourier coefficients of h_r, and the final h_r is left to be fixed by polar terms, which are never inserted back. The explicit two- and three-charge results are verified against independent structures: mock modular forms of optimal growth from Dabholkar--Murthy--Zagier and normalized SU(n) Vafa--Witten generating functions on P^2 (Appendix H). This is genuine external confirmation, not self-referential consistency. The generic-n solution is admittedly conditional: Section 6 states that 'the existence of the unrefined limit of our solution for generic charges remains conjectural since it relies on Conjecture 5.1', and Section 5.6.3 does not evaluate the unrefined limit for n>3. This is an incompleteness in the derivation chain, but it is explicitly flagged and does not make the claimed result equivalent to its assumptions. The proof of Theorem 5.1 is delegated to the authors' earlier paper [51] by analogy, and several constructions use the authors' prior results [23,35] for the completion and refinement formulas. These are self-citations and constitute heavy reliance on prior work, but they are citations to published, independent results rather than definitions smuggled in from the present target; the present paper does not rename the target h_r as its own solution, nor does it use a self-cited uniqueness theorem to forbid alternatives. The numerical check of the pole-cancelling coefficients (5.124) only up to n=8 is further evidence of a conditional/numerical component, not a circular reduction. Overall, no specific circular step can be exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on a physics-derived anomaly equation that is not mathematically proven, on the unproven Conjecture 5.1 that guarantees the unrefined limit, and on an unproven formula for c_r. The lattice-extension parameters d_r and t^(r) are free choices that shape the solution but do not determine its existence. The invented entities are purely mathematical auxiliaries, not physical postulates.

free parameters (3)
  • d_r, lattice extension dimension = 4r for kappa=1, kappa r for kappa>1 (choice a) or 4 for kappa=r=1, kappa r for kappa r>1 (choice b)
    Chosen by hand in (5.17) to ensure the existence of null vectors; the concrete form of the solution depends on this choice.
  • t^(r), vectors determining the additional refinement parameters = choice (a): entries 1, -1, -2; choice (b): 1 and 1-d_r
    Chosen in (5.18); not fitted to data, but the final expressions and numerical checks depend on it.
  • c_r coefficients in the pole-cancelling ambiguity = formula (5.124), e.g. c_r = r0/((2 epsilon pi i kappa)^(n-1) r) times products
    Determined by solving the consistency conditions (5.123), checked up to n=8 on a computer but not proven.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Modular anomaly equation (2.8)/(2.17) for h_r and its completion
    The paper explicitly states no mathematical proof of this modular behavior is known; it is derived from string duality. Invoked in Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption Unrefined limit relation (5.3), R^(r) = lim (y-y^-1)^(1-n) R^(r)ref
    Assumed to hold for the refined completions; used in Section 5.2 to connect refined and unrefined anomaly equations.
  • ad hoc to paper Conjecture 5.1 on zero mode contributions
    Central to the generic-n construction and to Theorem 5.2; only heuristic support is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Formula (5.124) for the coefficients c_r
    Claimed as the solution of (5.123); verified numerically up to n=8 but not proven.
  • standard math Vigneras theorem and sharp gradient estimates underlying Theorem C.1
    Used to prove convergence of indefinite theta series, e.g. (5.52), (5.77).
invented entities (2)
  • Anomalous coefficients g^(r) independent evidence
    purpose: Disentangle the mock modular part of h_r from the modular ambiguity; they satisfy their own anomaly equation (3.3).
    Not physical entities but new mathematical functions; their existence is supported by consistency with Vafa-Witten and optimal-growth mock modular forms in Section 4 and Appendix H.
  • Extended lattice Lambda(r) with null vectors w_ij
    purpose: Allow construction of convergent holomorphic indefinite theta series solving the anomaly equation.
    Artificially introduced via (5.14)/(5.20); no direct physical interpretation, and the final result requires reduction back to the original lattice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mock modularity of Calabi-Yau threefolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D7NJX23Z

@misc{pith2026241117699,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mock modularity of Calabi-Yau threefolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D7NJX23Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17699}
}
abstract

Generating functions $h_r(\tau)$ of D4-D2-D0 BPS indices, appearing in Calabi-Yau compactifications of type IIA string theory and identical to rank 0 Donaldson-Thomas invariants, are known to be higher depth mock modular forms satisfying a specific modular anomaly equation, with depth determined by the D4-brane charge $r$. We develop a method to solve the anomaly equation for arbitrary charges, in terms of indefinite theta series. This allows us to find the generating functions up to modular forms that can be fixed by computing just a finite number of Fourier coefficients of $h_r$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17699 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A representation of contributions to the r.h.s. of (3.3) in terms of rooted trees of depth 2. where5 jk = X k−1 l=1 nl , sk = Xnk i=1 rjk+i , rk = (rjk+1, . . . , rjk+1 ), mk = (µjk+1, . . . , µjk+1 ). (3.4) Proof. To prove the theorem, we must show that (3.2) and (3.3) give rise to the same modular completions h b˜ r,µ. On one hand, this completion is obtained by substituting the ansatz (3.2) into the r.h.s. of (2.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Construction of the refined anomalous coefficients through the refinement and lattice extension and their relation to the generating functions of BPS indices. which makes manifest the existence of zero of order n−1 at small z for all contributions except the zero modes of maximal order and, in particular, would automatically provide a proof of Conjecture 5.1. However, since evaluating a limit of a function should ce… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [51]

    Vafa-Witten invariants from modular anomaly,

    S. Alexandrov, “Vafa-Witten invariants from modular anomaly,” Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 15 (2021), no. 1, 149–219, 2005.03680

    arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    The Spectrum of BPS branes on a noncompact Calabi-Yau,

    M. R. Douglas, B. Fiol, and C. Romelsberger, “The Spectrum of BPS branes on a noncompact Calabi-Yau,” JHEP 0509 (2005) 057, hep-th/0003263

    arXiv 2005

  3. [2]

    Two-dimensional crystal melting and D4-D2-D0 on toric Calabi-Yau singularities

    T. Nishinaka, S. Yamaguchi, and Y. Yoshida, “Two-dimensional crystal melting and D4-D2-D0 on toric Calabi-Yau singularities,” JHEP 05 (2014) 139, 1304.6724

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  4. [3]

    Exponential BPS Graphs and D Brane Counting on Toric Calabi-Yau Threefolds: Part I,

    S. Banerjee, P. Longhi, and M. Romo, “Exponential BPS Graphs and D Brane Counting on Toric Calabi-Yau Threefolds: Part I,” Commun. Math. Phys. 388 (2021), no. 2, 893–945, 1910.05296

    arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    Vafa–Witten Invariants from Exceptional Collections,

    G. Beaujard, J. Manschot, and B. Pioline, “Vafa–Witten Invariants from Exceptional Collections,” Commun. Math. Phys. 385 (2021), no. 1, 101–226, 2004.14466

    arXiv 2021

  6. [5]

    Cohomological DT invariants from localization

    P. Descombes, “Motivic DT invariants from localization,” Journal of the London Mathematical Society 106 (2022) 2959–3007, 2106.02518

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  7. [6]

    Quiver Symmetries and Wall-Crossing Invariance,

    F. Del Monte and P. Longhi, “Quiver Symmetries and Wall-Crossing Invariance,” Commun. Math. Phys. 398 (2023), no. 1, 89–132, 2107.14255. – 79 –

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    Gromov-Witten theory and Donaldson-Thomas theory. I,

    D. Maulik, N. Nekrasov, A. Okounkov, and R. Pandharipande, “Gromov-Witten theory and Donaldson-Thomas theory. I,” Compos. Math. 142 (2006), no. 5, 1263–1285

    work page 2006

Show all 71 references
  1. [8]

    Gromov-Witten theory and Donaldson-Thomas theory. II,

    D. Maulik, N. Nekrasov, A. Okounkov, and R. Pandharipande, “Gromov-Witten theory and Donaldson-Thomas theory. II,” Compos. Math. 142 (2006), no. 5, 1286–1304

    2006

  2. [9]

    Holomorphic anomalies in topological field theories,

    M. Bershadsky, S. Cecotti, H. Ooguri, and C. Vafa, “Holomorphic anomalies in topological field theories,” Nucl. Phys. B405 (1993) 279–304, hep-th/9302103

    1993 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Topological string theory on compact Calabi-Yau: Modularity and boundary conditions,

    M.-x. Huang, A. Klemm, and S. Quackenbush, “Topological string theory on compact Calabi-Yau: Modularity and boundary conditions,” Lect. Notes Phys. 757 (2009) 45–102, hep-th/0612125

    2009 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Direct Integration of the Topological String,

    T. W. Grimm, A. Klemm, M. Marino, and M. Weiss, “Direct Integration of the Topological String,” JHEP 08 (2007) 058, hep-th/0702187

    2007 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Black hole entropy in M-theory,

    J. M. Maldacena, A. Strominger, and E. Witten, “Black hole entropy in M-theory,” JHEP 12 (1997) 002, hep-th/9711053

    1997 arXiv

  6. [13]

    D3-instantons, Mock Theta Series and Twistors,

    S. Alexandrov, J. Manschot, and B. Pioline, “D3-instantons, Mock Theta Series and Twistors,” JHEP 1304 (2013) 002, 1207.1109

    2013 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Multiple D3-instantons and mock modular forms I,

    S. Alexandrov, S. Banerjee, J. Manschot, and B. Pioline, “Multiple D3-instantons and mock modular forms I,” Commun. Math. Phys. 353 (2017), no. 1, 379–411, 1605.05945

    2017 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Black holes and higher depth mock modular forms,

    S. Alexandrov and B. Pioline, “Black holes and higher depth mock modular forms,” Commun. Math. Phys. 374 (2019), no. 2, 549–625, 1808.08479

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    The M5-brane elliptic genus: Modularity and BPS states,

    D. Gaiotto, A. Strominger, and X. Yin, “The M5-brane elliptic genus: Modularity and BPS states,” JHEP 08 (2007) 070, hep-th/0607010

    2007 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Examples of M5-Brane Elliptic Genera,

    D. Gaiotto and X. Yin, “Examples of M5-Brane Elliptic Genera,” JHEP 11 (2007) 004, hep-th/0702012

    2007 arXiv

  11. [18]

    The Elliptic genus from split flows and Donaldson-Thomas invariants,

    A. Collinucci and T. Wyder, “The Elliptic genus from split flows and Donaldson-Thomas invariants,” JHEP 05 (2010) 081, 0810.4301

    2010 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Black Hole Meiosis,

    W. Van Herck and T. Wyder, “Black Hole Meiosis,” JHEP 04 (2010) 047, 0909.0508

    2010 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Modular bootstrap for D4-D2-D0 indices on compact Calabi–Yau threefolds,

    S. Alexandrov, N. Gaddam, J. Manschot, and B. Pioline, “Modular bootstrap for D4-D2-D0 indices on compact Calabi–Yau threefolds,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 27 (2023), no. 3, 683–744, 2204.02207

    2023 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Quantum geometry, stability and modularity,

    S. Alexandrov, S. Feyzbakhsh, A. Klemm, B. Pioline, and T. Schimannek, “Quantum geometry, stability and modularity,” Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 18 (2024), no. 1, 49–151, 2301.08066

    2024 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Explicit formulae for rank zero DT invariants and the OSV conjecture,

    S. Feyzbakhsh, “Explicit formulae for rank zero DT invariants and the OSV conjecture,” 2203.10617

    arXiv

  16. [23]

    Modular anomaly of BPS black holes,

    S. Alexandrov and K. Bendriss, “Modular anomaly of BPS black holes,” JHEP 12 (2024) 180, 2408.16819. – 80 –

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Quantum geometry and mock modularity,

    S. Alexandrov, S. Feyzbakhsh, A. Klemm, and B. Pioline, “Quantum geometry and mock modularity,” 2312.12629

    arXiv

  18. [25]

    Quantum Black Holes, Wall Crossing, and Mock Modular Forms,

    A. Dabholkar, S. Murthy, and D. Zagier, “Quantum Black Holes, Wall Crossing, and Mock Modular Forms,” 1208.4074

    arXiv

  19. [26]

    A Strong coupling test of S duality,

    C. Vafa and E. Witten, “A Strong coupling test of S duality,” Nucl.Phys. B431 (1994) 3–77, hep-th/9408074

    1994 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Sheaves on P*2 and generalized Appell functions,

    J. Manschot, “Sheaves on P*2 and generalized Appell functions,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 21 (2017) 655–681, 1407.7785

    2017 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Rank N Vafa–Witten invariants, modularity and blow-up,

    S. Alexandrov, “Rank N Vafa–Witten invariants, modularity and blow-up,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 25 (2021), no. 2, 275–308, 2006.10074

    2021 arXiv

  22. [29]

    The Betti numbers of the moduli space of stable sheaves of rank 2 on P*2,

    K. Yoshioka, “The Betti numbers of the moduli space of stable sheaves of rank 2 on P*2,” J. Reine Angew. Math 453 (1994) 193–220

    1994

  23. [30]

    The Betti numbers of the moduli space of stable sheaves of rank 3 on P*2,

    J. Manschot, “The Betti numbers of the moduli space of stable sheaves of rank 3 on P*2,” Lett.Math.Phys. 98 (2011) 65–78, 1009.1775

    2011 arXiv

  24. [31]

    BPS invariants of semi-stable sheaves on rational surfaces,

    J. Manschot, “BPS invariants of semi-stable sheaves on rational surfaces,” Lett. Math. Phys. 103 (2013) 895–918, 1109.4861

    2013 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Black hole bound states in AdS3*S2,

    J. de Boer, F. Denef, S. El-Showk, I. Messamah, and D. Van den Bleeken, “Black hole bound states in AdS3*S2,” JHEP 0811 (2008) 050, 0802.2257

    2008 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Bridgeland stability conditions on threefolds i: Bogomolov-gieseker type inequalities,

    A. Bayer, E. Macr ` ı, and Y. Toda, “Bridgeland stability conditions on threefolds i: Bogomolov-gieseker type inequalities,” Journal of Algebraic Geometry 23 (2014) 117–163, 1103.5010

    2014 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Wall-crossing of D4-branes using flow trees,

    J. Manschot, “Wall-crossing of D4-branes using flow trees,” Adv.Theor.Math.Phys. 15 (2011) 1–42, 1003.1570

    2011 arXiv

  28. [35]

    S-duality and refined BPS indices,

    S. Alexandrov, J. Manschot, and B. Pioline, “S-duality and refined BPS indices,” Commun. Math. Phys. 380 (2020), no. 2, 755–810, 1910.03098

    2020 arXiv

  29. [36]

    A farey tail for attractor black holes,

    J. de Boer, M. C. N. Cheng, R. Dijkgraaf, J. Manschot, and E. Verlinde, “A farey tail for attractor black holes,” JHEP 11 (2006) 024, hep-th/0608059

    2006 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Split states, entropy enigmas, holes and halos,

    F. Denef and G. W. Moore, “Split states, entropy enigmas, holes and halos,” JHEP 1111 (2011) 129, hep-th/0702146

    2011 arXiv

  31. [38]

    A Modern Fareytail,

    J. Manschot and G. W. Moore, “A Modern Fareytail,” Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 4 (2010) 103–159, 0712.0573

    2010 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Higher depth false modular forms,

    K. Bringmann, J. Kaszian, A. Milas, and C. Nazaroglu, “Higher depth false modular forms,” Commun. Contemp. Math. 25 (2023), no. 07, 2250043, 2109.00394

    2023 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Indefinite theta series and generalized error functions,

    S. Alexandrov, S. Banerjee, J. Manschot, and B. Pioline, “Indefinite theta series and generalized error functions,” Selecta Mathematica 24 (2018) 3927–3972, 1606.05495. – 81 –

    2018 arXiv

  34. [41]

    r-Tuple Error Functions and Indefinite Theta Series of Higher-Depth,

    C. Nazaroglu, “r-Tuple Error Functions and Indefinite Theta Series of Higher-Depth,” Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 12 (2018) 581–608, 1609.01224

    2018 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Overpartitions and class numbers of binary quadratic forms,

    K. Bringmann and J. Lovejoy, “Overpartitions and class numbers of binary quadratic forms,” 0712.0631

    arXiv

  36. [43]

    Nombres de classes et formes modulaires de poids 3/2,

    D. Zagier, “Nombres de classes et formes modulaires de poids 3/2,” C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris 281 (1975) 883–886

    1975

  37. [44]

    Intersection numbers of curves on hilbert modular surfaces and modular forms of nebentypus,

    F. Hirzebruch and D. Zagier, “Intersection numbers of curves on hilbert modular surfaces and modular forms of nebentypus,” Inventiones mathematicae 36 (1976), no. 1, 57–113

    1976

  38. [45]

    Vertical D4-D2-D0 Bound States on K3 Fibrations and Modularity,

    V. Bouchard, T. Creutzig, D.-E. Diaconescu, C. Doran, C. Quigley, and A. Sheshmani, “Vertical D4-D2-D0 Bound States on K3 Fibrations and Modularity,” Commun. Math. Phys. 350 (2017), no. 3, 1069–1121, 1601.04030

    2017 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Hecke Operators on Vector-Valued Modular Forms,

    V. Bouchard, T. Creutzig, and A. Joshi, “Hecke Operators on Vector-Valued Modular Forms,” SIGMA 15 (2019) 041, 1807.07703

    2019 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Duality and Mock Modularity,

    A. Dabholkar, P. Putrov, and E. Witten, “Duality and Mock Modularity,” SciPost Phys. 9 (2020), no. 5, 072, 2004.14387

    2020 arXiv

  41. [48]

    E strings and N=4 topological Yang-Mills theories,

    J. A. Minahan, D. Nemeschansky, C. Vafa, and N. P. Warner, “E strings and N=4 topological Yang-Mills theories,” Nucl. Phys. B527 (1998) 581–623, hep-th/9802168

    1998 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Wall-crossing holomorphic anomaly and mock modularity of multiple M5-branes,

    M. Alim, B. Haghighat, M. Hecht, A. Klemm, M. Rauch, and T. Wotschke, “Wall-crossing holomorphic anomaly and mock modularity of multiple M5-branes,” Commun. Math. Phys. 339 (2015), no. 3, 773–814, 1012.1608

    2015 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Localized Donaldson-Thomas theory of surfaces,

    A. Gholampour, A. Sheshmani, and S.-T. Yau, “Localized Donaldson-Thomas theory of surfaces,” American Journal of Mathematics 142 (2020), no. 2, 405–442, 1701.08902

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Mock theta functions

    S. Zwegers, “Mock theta functions.” PhD dissertation, Utrecht University, 2002

    2002

  45. [53]

    Identities for generalized Appell functions and the blow-up formula,

    K. Bringmann, J. Manschot, and L. Rolen, “Identities for generalized Appell functions and the blow-up formula,” Lett. Math. Phys. 106 (2016) 1379–1395, 1510.00630

    2016 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Multiple D3-instantons and mock modular forms II,

    S. Alexandrov, S. Banerjee, J. Manschot, and B. Pioline, “Multiple D3-instantons and mock modular forms II,” Commun. Math. Phys. 359 (2018), no. 1, 297–346, 1702.05497

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Seiberg-Witten prepotential from instanton counting,

    N. A. Nekrasov, “Seiberg-Witten prepotential from instanton counting,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 7 (2003), no. 5, 831–864, hep-th/0206161

    2003 arXiv

  48. [56]

    The Omega Deformation, Branes, Integrability, and Liouville Theory,

    N. Nekrasov and E. Witten, “The Omega Deformation, Branes, Integrability, and Liouville Theory,” 1002.0888

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    Stability structures, motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants and cluster transformations,

    M. Kontsevich and Y. Soibelman, “Stability structures, motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants and cluster transformations,” 0811.2435. – 82 –

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Wall Crossing from Boltzmann Black Hole Halos,

    J. Manschot, B. Pioline, and A. Sen, “Wall Crossing from Boltzmann Black Hole Halos,” JHEP 1107 (2011) 059, 1011.1258

    2011 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Attractor flow trees, BPS indices and quivers,

    S. Alexandrov and B. Pioline, “Attractor flow trees, BPS indices and quivers,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 23 (2019), no. 3, 627–699, 1804.06928

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Conway and M

    J. Conway and M. Sloane, Sphere packings, lattices and groups . Springer, 1999

    1999

  53. [61]

    On the space of elliptic genera,

    J. Manschot, “On the space of elliptic genera,” Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 2 (2008) 803–833, 0805.4333

    2008 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Eichler and D

    M. Eichler and D. Zagier, The theory of Jacobi forms , vol. 55 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkh¨ auser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1985

    1985

  55. [63]

    Modular forms and differential operators,

    D. Zagier, “Modular forms and differential operators,” Proc. Math. Sci. 104 (1994) 57–75

    1994

  56. [64]

    P. B. Cohen, Y. Manin, and D. Zagier, Automorphic Pseudodifferential Operators, pp. 17–47. Birkh¨ auser Boston, Boston, MA, 1997

    1997

  57. [65]

    Hilbert modular pseudodifferential operators,

    M. H. Lee, “Hilbert modular pseudodifferential operators,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 129 (2001), no. 11, 3151–3160

    2001

  58. [66]

    Mixed jacobi-like forms of several variables,

    M. H. Lee, “Mixed jacobi-like forms of several variables,” International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences 2006 (2006), no. 3, 31542, 14 p.–31542, 14 p

    2006

  59. [67]

    Quasimodular forms, Jacobi-like forms, and pseudodifferential operators,

    Y. Choie and M. Lee, “Quasimodular forms, Jacobi-like forms, and pseudodifferential operators,” arXiv e-prints (July, 2010) arXiv:1007.4823, 1007.4823

    2010 arXiv

  60. [68]

    S´ eries thˆ eta des formes quadratiques ind´ efinies,

    M.-F. Vign´ eras, “S´ eries thˆ eta des formes quadratiques ind´ efinies,”Springer Lecture Notes 627 (1977) 227 – 239

    1977

  61. [69]

    Theta integrals and generalized error functions, ii,

    J. Funke and S. Kudla, “Theta integrals and generalized error functions, ii,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.02969 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Theta integrals and generalized error functions,

    S. Kudla, “Theta integrals and generalized error functions,” Manuscripta Mathematica 155 (2018), no. 3-4, 303–333

    2018

  63. [71]

    Vafa-Witten Theory and Iterated Integrals of Modular Forms,

    J. Manschot, “Vafa-Witten Theory and Iterated Integrals of Modular Forms,” Commun. Math. Phys. 371 (2019), no. 2, 787–831, 1709.10098. – 83 –

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

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