Hodge integrals and $\lambda_{g}$ conjecture with target varieties

Xin Wang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Hodge integrals and $\lambda_{g}$ conjecture with target varieties

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 This paper generalizes the λ_g conjecture from the moduli space of curves to Gromov-Witten invariants of arbitrary smooth projective varieties, proves it in all genera for semisimple quantum cohomology targets and curves, and establishes…

desk verdict A genuine target-space λ_g conjecture with a sound Virasoro reduction, but the genus-one application rests on an unproved imported lemma that a referee must verify. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05287 v1 pith:7B6VFXEL submitted 2024-11-21 math.AG

Xin Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AG MSC 53D4514N35

keywords Gromov-WitteninvariantsHodgeintegralsλ_gconjectureVirasorosemisimplequantumcohomologydoubleramificationcyclesmoduliofstablemapsdescendant

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 proposes a generalization of the λ_g conjecture from the moduli space of stable curves to Gromov-Witten invariants of arbitrary smooth projective varieties. The generalized conjecture asserts that a specific explicit combination Θ_{g,n,m,β} of descendant Hodge integrals involving the λ_g class and elementary symmetric functions vanishes identically. If true, it would provide universal constraints on Hodge integrals over moduli of stable maps, parallel to the Virasoro conjecture for ordinary descendant invariants. The paper proves the conjecture in all genera for targets with semisimple quantum cohomology and for smooth algebraic curves, and unconditionally in genus zero and genus one for every smooth projective variety. It also derives a new family of universal constraints for pure descendant Gromov-Witten invariants by combining the generalized conjecture with Pixton's boundary formula for λ_g.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identities are the virtual class formula [M_{g,n}(Y,(B,0))]^{vir} = ([M_{g,n}(X,B)]^{vir} × [P1]) ∩ e(E^* ⊠ TP1) and the resulting expansion of the fiber-degree-zero total descendant potential of Y as an exponential of Hodge integrals of X (Proposition 3.5). The second essential ingredient is Pixton's formula λ_g = (-1)^g $2^{{-g}}$ P^g_g(0,...,0), expressing the top Chern class of the Hodge bundle as a boundary-supported double ramification cycle, together with the operator T from [JW24] that converts ancestor correlators into descendant ones. The tree-level graph sum in Theorem 4.1 for λ_g times a semisimple CohFT, with vertex contributions given by λ_{g(v)} integrals over moduli of curves, is the third.

What would settle it

Check Lemma 5.2 for the first nontrivial case it is used: for the point target or X = P1, compute the genus-one ancestor-descendant identity ⟨⟨\barτ_1(φ);λ_1⟩⟩_1 = ⟨⟨T(φ);λ_1⟩⟩_1 explicitly from the definitions; a mismatch would invalidate Theorems 1.5 and 1.6. Independently, test the conjecture itself by computing Θ_{2,0,0,1} for a smooth projective variety with non-semisimple quantum cohomology, where the paper proves no vanishing, and compare with zero.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the Virasoro constraints for Gromov-Witten invariants of the product Y = X × P1, restricted to fiber degree zero, are exactly equivalent to the generalized λ_g conjecture for X together with a companion family Ψ_{g,n} = 0. The virtual fundamental class of fiber-degree-zero stable maps to Y equals ([M_{g,n}(X,B)]^{vir} × [P1]) ∩ e(E^* ⊠ TP1), which introduces the factor (-1)^g λ_g (and (-1)^{g-1} 2λ_{g-1}) into integrals over X; therefore the Virasoro operators for Y act on the fiber-degree-zero potential as combinations of Hodge integrals with λ_g. This proves Theorem 1.2 whenever Virasoro holds for X, gives Theorem 1.3 because genus-zero Virasoro is known for all targets, and, after translating λ_g into Pixton's boundary class P^g_g(0,...,0), yields the universal constraints Θ^P = 0 for pure descendant invariants and the genus-one proof of Theorem 1.6.

Load-bearing premise

Theorems 1.5 and 1.6 rest on Lemma 5.2, imported without proof from the author's earlier work [JW24], which says that descendant λ_g correlators can be rewritten as ancestor correlators using powers of the operator T; if that lemma fails, the boundary-formula translation and the genus-one result collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every smooth projective variety with semisimple quantum cohomology, and for every smooth algebraic curve, the generalized λ_g conjecture Θ_{g,n,m,β}=0 holds in all genera.
For every smooth projective variety, the generalized λ_g conjecture holds in genus zero; it also holds in genus one, proved from the new Θ^P constraints.
The pure descendant Gromov-Witten invariants of semisimple targets and of curves satisfy the new universal family of equations Θ^P_{g,n,m,β}=0.
At a semisimple point, the total ancestor potential of λ_g invariants is reconstructed by an explicit tree-graph sum whose vertex terms are λ_{g(v)} integrals over moduli of stable curves.
Because Virasoro for X implies Virasoro for X×P1 via [CGT24], any future proof of Virasoro for a target automatically supplies the all-genus λ_g conjecture for that target.

Reading between the lines

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

The unconditional genus-zero and genus-one results suggest the λ_g conjecture itself may hold for all smooth projective varieties without Virasoro input; the genus-one proof already shows that Pixton's boundary formula plus genus-zero quantum cohomology relations can replace Virasoro at low genus.
The graph-sum formula implies that λ_g-twisted invariants of semisimple targets are determined by the R-matrix and by λ_{g(v)} integrals over moduli of curves, so the essential complexity of Hodge integrals with the full λ_g class is concentrated in the point target.
One could test the proposed conjecture beyond the proven cases by computing Θ_{2,n,m,β} for a non-semisimple target such as a Calabi-Yau threefold; the paper neither predicts nor disproves vanishing there, and a nonzero value would delimit the conjecture's scope.
The replacement of λ_g by the double ramification boundary class suggests the same Θ^P machinery could generate universal constraints for other Hodge classes, such as λ_g λ_{g-1} products, wherever a boundary formula exists.

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

Two things you should know. First, this paper proposes a real generalization: a λ_g conjecture for arbitrary smooth projective targets, proved when Virasoro holds for X, and unconditionally in genus zero and genus one. Second, the all-genus results are coherent in outline, but the genus-one application leans on a lemma imported from the author's own earlier paper, stated without proof here, and that lemma is the load-bearing step converting Pixton's boundary-supported expression for λ_g into descendant invariants.

What's new: Conjecture 1.1 is a natural target-space analog of the point λ_g conjecture, and the route through fiber-degree-zero Virasoro constraints on X×P^1 is genuinely different from earlier λ_g work. Theorem 3.7 is a detailed computation expressing the Virasoro action in terms of the Θ and Ψ tensors, and the deductions of Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 from known Virasoro results (Teleman, Okounkov–Pandharipande, Liu–Tian, and the toric-bundle result CGT24) are internally consistent. The genus-zero theorem for all smooth projective varieties is new and clean.

Soft spots, in proportion. Theorem 4.1 has a one-sentence proof; the Hodge bundle gluing properties are standard, but the statement is a non-CohFT twist on Givental–Teleman and needs the R-matrix hypotheses spelled out. Lemma 5.2 is the real concern. It is cited from [JW24] without proof, and the sentence extending it from λ_g to P_g^g(0,...,0) is asserted rather than derived. Since equation (33) uses that extension, Theorem 1.6 is conditional on a lemma the reader cannot verify from this paper. That is a verifiability gap, not a demonstrated contradiction. The stress-test note is accurate on this point. Also missing is an explicit check that the new constraints reduce to the known λ_g conjecture when X is a point; that sanity check is absent. Minor typos and heavy notation don't change the mathematics.

Who is this for: people working on Hodge integrals, Virasoro constraints, and universal equations in Gromov–Witten theory. The paper deserves a serious referee: the main reduction is important and largely checkable, and the gaps are addressable rather than fatal. My recommendation: send it to review, and ask the referee to verify Lemma 5.2 and its P_g extension before accepting the genus-one theorem.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a generalized lambda_g conjecture for Hodge integrals with arbitrary smooth projective target X (Conjecture 1.1), expressed through explicit constraints Theta_{g,n,m,beta}=0. The main mechanism is a computation, in Section 3, of the fiber-degree-zero Virasoro action for Y=X x P^1, which expresses the constrained potential in terms of lambda_g and lambda_{g-1} Hodge integrals of X. From this the author derives the all-genus lambda_g conjecture for varieties with semisimple quantum cohomology and for smooth algebraic curves (Theorem 1.2), and the genus-zero case for all X (Theorem 1.3). Section 4 states a Givental-type reconstruction formula for the lambda_g-twisted ancestor potential at semisimple points (Theorem 4.1, Corollary 4.2). Section 5 combines Pixton's double-ramification formula for lambda_g with a descendant-ancestor correspondence imported from [JW24] to produce universal constraints for pure descendant invariants (Theorem 1.5) and, as an application, the genus-one lambda_g conjecture for all smooth projective varieties (Theorem 1.6).

Significance. If the proof chain is completed, this is a substantial and natural generalization of the classical lambda_g theorem: it links lambda_g constraints to the Virasoro conjecture and gives concrete vanishing statements for Hodge integrals over moduli spaces of stable maps. The explicit algebra in Section 3 is detailed, and the main all-genus result for semisimple varieties and curves is a strong theorem. The strategy of combining Virasoro constraints with Pixton's formula for lambda_g is attractive and likely to be influential. The significance is partly conditional, however, because the genus-one application and Section 4's reconstruction theorem rest on assertions that are stated without complete proof in this manuscript.

major comments (3)

[Section 5.2, Lemma 5.2 and the sentence after (27)] Lemma 5.2 is quoted from [JW24] without proof, and the sentence asserting that the same descendant-ancestor identity holds after replacing lambda_g by P_g^g(0,...,0) is not derived. This lemma is the bridge that converts Pixton's boundary-supported formula into ordinary descendant correlators in Proposition 5.3, and it is used in the essential reduction leading to equation (33) and Theorem 1.6. Since Theorem 1.6 is a headline result, the author should either include a proof of the lemma, or give a complete and precise statement with hypotheses, and should justify the P_g replacement explicitly.
[Section 4, Theorem 4.1 and equation (16)] The proof of Theorem 4.1 is a single sentence and does not justify why Teleman's reconstruction formula (15) can be applied to lambda_g * Omega^t, which is not itself a CohFT. The argument needs to show explicitly that loop graphs do not contribute, that the stable tree contribution carries the factor prod_v lambda_{g(v)}, and that the R-matrix, the T-insertions, and the edge data are unchanged from (15). Corollary 4.2 inherits this gap, so the reconstruction theorem is currently unverified.
[Section 3.4, proof of Theorem 1.2] The crucial implication 'Virasoro for X implies Virasoro for Y=X x P^1' is attributed to [CGT24] without stating the exact theorem or checking its hypotheses for the two cases claimed in Theorem 1.2. Since this implication is load-bearing for the all-genus result, the author should identify the precise statement in [CGT24] and confirm that it applies to varieties with semisimple quantum cohomology and to smooth algebraic curves.

minor comments (4)

[Section 2.4 and Conjecture 1.1] The paper recalls the classical lambda_g theorem for a point but does not verify that the new constraints Theta_{g,n,m,beta}=0 specialize to it when X is a point; this sanity check would justify calling Conjecture 1.1 a generalization.
[Section 1.3 and Theorem 1.3] The genus-zero statement is essentially the known genus-zero Virasoro statement, since lambda_0=1 and lambda_g=0 for g>0 on M_{0,n}; the text should frame Theorem 1.3 accordingly rather than presenting it as a new genus-zero result.
[Section 5.3] The operator P |-> <<W_1...W_k;P>>_Gamma is defined only for monomials in psi-classes; the extension by linearity and the summation convention over repeated indices sigma in equation (33) should be stated explicitly.
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'quanum cohomology' and 'invaraints' in Section 3.4, 'desendant' in Section 5, and 'Thereom' in Section 3.3; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Main derivation from Virasoro constraints is independent; the same-author lemma in Section 5 is a verifiability gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense. Section 3 defines the lambda_g expressions Theta_{g,n,m,beta} (Conjecture 1.1) and Theorem 3.7 computes ~D^{-1} L_n ~D as a linear combination of Psi_{g,n} and u^beta_m Theta_{g,n,m,beta}. The paper then invokes Virasoro constraints for X and for Y = X x P^1, established externally in [Tel12], [OP06], [CGT24], [LT98], to conclude Theta = 0 and Psi = 0. None of these steps assumes Conjecture 1.1; the lambda_g identities are outputs of the Virasoro input, not inputs. Section 5 converts Theta into the Pixton-form Theta^P via Pixton's double ramification formula (23) and the descendant-ancestor lemma quoted from [JW24]. The latter is a same-author citation, is not proved in this paper, and the sentence extending the lemma to P_g^g(0,...,0) is an assertion rather than a derivation. However, this is a reliance on prior published work and a potential verification gap, not a reduction of the target statement to itself. There are no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in by citation. Therefore there is no significant circularity.

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

The central claim rests on standard Gromov-Witten technology and imported theorems. No numerical parameters are fitted. The main external assumptions are the Virasoro conjecture in the relevant cases, the [CGT24] transfer to X×P^1, Teleman reconstruction, Pixton's DR formula, and Lemma 5.2 from the author's own prior work. The latter is the most fragile imported input.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Virasoro conjecture for Gromov-Witten invariants of X holds (for semisimple quantum cohomology or smooth algebraic curves)
Theorem 1.2 is conditional on this; in the named classes it is cited as theorems [Tel12] and [OP06].
domain assumption Virasoro constraints for X×P^1 follow from Virasoro constraints for X via [CGT24]
Invoked in Section 3.4 to transfer Virasoro to the product; no proof is included.
domain assumption Genus-zero Virasoro constraints hold for any smooth projective X [LT98]
Used to prove Theorem 1.3 and the genus-zero case of Conjecture 1.1.
standard math Teleman reconstruction for semisimple CohFTs [Tel12]
Underlies Theorem 4.1 and Corollary 4.2.
standard math Pixton's double ramification cycle formula λ_g = (-1)^g 2^{-g} P_g^g(0,...,0) [JPPZ17]
Used in Section 5 to express λ_g via double ramification cycles and to prove Theorems 1.5 and 1.6.
domain assumption Lemma 5.2, ancestor-descendant correspondence with λ_g, from [JW24]
Imported without proof from the author's earlier paper; Theorem 1.5 and Theorem 1.6 depend on it.
standard math Hodge bundle factorization under gluing maps (13)-(14)
Needed for the graph sum in Theorem 4.1 and for expressing λ_g on boundary strata.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hodge integrals and $\lambda_{g}$ conjecture with target varieties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7B6VFXEL

@misc{pith2026241205287,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hodge integrals and $\lambda_g$ conjecture with target varieties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7B6VFXEL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05287}
}

abstract

In this paper, we propose $\lambda_{g}$ conjecture for Hodge integrals with target varieties. Then we establish relations between Virasoro conjecture and $\lambda_{g}$ conjecture, in particular, we prove $\lambda_{g}$ conjecture in all genus for smooth projective varieties with semisimple quantum cohomology or smooth algebraic curves. Meanwhile, we also prove $\lambda_{g}$ conjecture in genus zero for any smooth projective varieties. In the end, together with DR formula for $\lambda_g$ class, we obtain a new type of universal constraints for descendant Gromov-Witten invariants. As an application, we prove $\lambda_{g}$ conjecture in genus one for any smooth projective varieties.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

Semisimple flat f-manifolds in higher genus

Alessandro Arsie, Alexandr Buryak, Paolo Lorenzoni, and Paolo Rossi. Semisimple flat f-manifolds in higher genus. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 397(1):141--197, 2023

work page 2023
[2]

The product formula for gromov-witten invariants

Kai Behrend. The product formula for gromov-witten invariants. arXiv preprint alg-geom/9710014 , 1997

arXiv 1997
[3]

Quantum riemann-roch, lefschetz and serre

Tom Coates and Alexander Givental. Quantum riemann-roch, lefschetz and serre. Annals of mathematics , pages 15--53, 2007

work page 2007
[4]

Virasoro constraints for toric bundles

Tom Coates, Alexander Givental, and Hsian-Hua Tseng. Virasoro constraints for toric bundles. Forum Math. Pi , 12:Paper No. e4, 28, 2024

work page 2024
[5]

Mirror symmetry and algebraic geometry , volume 68

David A Cox and Sheldon Katz. Mirror symmetry and algebraic geometry , volume 68. American Mathematical Society Providence, RI, 1999

work page 1999
[6]

Frobenius manifolds and virasoro constraints

Boris Dubrovin and Youjin Zhang. Frobenius manifolds and virasoro constraints. Selecta Mathematica , 5:423--466, 1999

work page 1999
[7]

Quantum cohomology and virasoro algebra

Tohru Eguchi, Kentaro Hori, and Chuan-Sheng Xiong. Quantum cohomology and virasoro algebra. Physics Letters B , 402(1-2):71--80, 1997

work page 1997
[8]

Quantum cohomology and free-field representation

Tohru Eguchi, Masao Jinzenji, and Chuan-Sheng Xiong. Quantum cohomology and free-field representation. Nuclear Physics B , 510(3):608--622, 1998

work page 1998

Show all 28 references

[9]

Hodge integrals and gromov-witten theory

Carel Faber and Rahul Pandharipande. Hodge integrals and gromov-witten theory. Inventiones mathematicae , 139(1):173--199, 2000

2000
[10]

Hodge integrals, partition matrices, and the g conjecture

Carel Faber and Rahul Pandharipande. Hodge integrals, partition matrices, and the g conjecture. Annals of mathematics , pages 97--124, 2003

2003
[11]

The virasoro conjecture for gromov-witten invariants

Ezra Getzler. The virasoro conjecture for gromov-witten invariants. Contemporary Mathematics , 241:147--176, 1999

1999
[12]

Semisimple frobenius structures at higher genus

Alexander B Givental. Semisimple frobenius structures at higher genus. International mathematics research notices , 2001(23):1265--1286, 2001

2001
[13]

Symplectic geometry of frobenius structures

Alexander B Givental. Symplectic geometry of frobenius structures. In Frobenius manifolds , pages 91--112. Springer, 2004

2004
[14]

A short proof of the g-conjecture without gromov-witten theory: Hurwitz theory and the moduli of curves

Ian P Goulden, David Martin Jackson, and Ravi Vakil. A short proof of the g-conjecture without gromov-witten theory: Hurwitz theory and the moduli of curves. 2009

2009
[15]

Virasoro constraints and the chern classes of the hodge bundle

Ezra Getzler and Rahul Pandharipande. Virasoro constraints and the chern classes of the hodge bundle. Nuclear Physics B , 530(3):701--714, 1998

1998
[16]

Double ramification cycles on the moduli spaces of curves

Felix Janda, Rahul Pandharipande, Aaron Pixton, and Dimitri Zvonkine. Double ramification cycles on the moduli spaces of curves. Publications math \'e matiques de l'IH \'E S , 125(1):221--266, 2017

2017
[17]

Virasoro constraints and descendant hurwitz--hodge integrals

Yunfeng Jiang and Hsian-Hua Tseng. Virasoro constraints and descendant hurwitz--hodge integrals. International Mathematics Research Notices , 2010(8):1456--1474, 2010

2010
[18]

Universal equations for higher genus gromov--witten invariants from hodge integrals

Felix Janda and Xin Wang. Universal equations for higher genus gromov--witten invariants from hodge integrals. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 405(2):1--25, 2024

2024
[19]

Gromov-witten classes, quantum cohomology, and enumerative geometry

Maxim Kontsevich and Yu Manin. Gromov-witten classes, quantum cohomology, and enumerative geometry. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 164:525--562, 1994

1994
[20]

Intersection theory on the moduli space of curves and the matrix airy function

Maxim Kontsevich. Intersection theory on the moduli space of curves and the matrix airy function. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 147:1--23, 1992

1992
[21]

Elliptic gromov-witten invariantsand virasoro conjecture

Xiaobo Liu. Elliptic gromov-witten invariantsand virasoro conjecture. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 216(3):705--728, 2001

2001
[22]

Quantum product on the big phase space and the virasoro conjecture

Xiaobo Liu. Quantum product on the big phase space and the virasoro conjecture. Advances in Mathematics , 169(2):313--375, 2002

2002
[23]

Virasoro constraints for quantum cohomology

Xiaobo Liu and Gang Tian. Virasoro constraints for quantum cohomology. Journal of Differential Geometry , 50(3):537--590, 1998

1998
[24]

Towards an enumerative geometry of the moduli space of curves

David Mumford. Towards an enumerative geometry of the moduli space of curves. Arithmetic and Geometry: Papers Dedicated to IR Shafarevich on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Volume II: Geometry , pages 271--328, 1983

1983
[25]

Virasoro constraints for target curves

Andrei Okounkov and Rahul Pandharipande. Virasoro constraints for target curves. Inventiones mathematicae , 163(1):47--108, 2006

2006
[26]

Relations on M _ g,n via 3-spin structures

Rahul Pandharipande, Aaron Pixton, and Dimitri Zvonkine. Relations on M _ g,n via 3-spin structures. Journal of the American Mathematical Society , 28(1):279--309, 2015

2015
[27]

The structure of 2d semi-simple field theories

Constantin Teleman. The structure of 2d semi-simple field theories. Inventiones mathematicae , 188(3):525--588, 2012

2012
[28]

Two-dimensional gravity and intersection theory on moduli space

Edward Witten. Two-dimensional gravity and intersection theory on moduli space. Surveys in differential geometry , 1(1):243--310, 1990

1990

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Semisimple flat f-manifolds in higher genus

Alessandro Arsie, Alexandr Buryak, Paolo Lorenzoni, and Paolo Rossi. Semisimple flat f-manifolds in higher genus. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 397(1):141--197, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [2]

The product formula for gromov-witten invariants

Kai Behrend. The product formula for gromov-witten invariants. arXiv preprint alg-geom/9710014 , 1997

arXiv 1997

[3] [3]

Quantum riemann-roch, lefschetz and serre

Tom Coates and Alexander Givental. Quantum riemann-roch, lefschetz and serre. Annals of mathematics , pages 15--53, 2007

work page 2007

[4] [4]

Virasoro constraints for toric bundles

Tom Coates, Alexander Givental, and Hsian-Hua Tseng. Virasoro constraints for toric bundles. Forum Math. Pi , 12:Paper No. e4, 28, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Mirror symmetry and algebraic geometry , volume 68

David A Cox and Sheldon Katz. Mirror symmetry and algebraic geometry , volume 68. American Mathematical Society Providence, RI, 1999

work page 1999

[6] [6]

Frobenius manifolds and virasoro constraints

Boris Dubrovin and Youjin Zhang. Frobenius manifolds and virasoro constraints. Selecta Mathematica , 5:423--466, 1999

work page 1999

[7] [7]

Quantum cohomology and virasoro algebra

Tohru Eguchi, Kentaro Hori, and Chuan-Sheng Xiong. Quantum cohomology and virasoro algebra. Physics Letters B , 402(1-2):71--80, 1997

work page 1997

[8] [8]

Quantum cohomology and free-field representation

Tohru Eguchi, Masao Jinzenji, and Chuan-Sheng Xiong. Quantum cohomology and free-field representation. Nuclear Physics B , 510(3):608--622, 1998

work page 1998