Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Relative $p$-class groups and $p$-Selmer groups

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that for CM elliptic curves with j-invariant 0 or 1728, the p-Selmer dimension of every twist is forced to be $r_p$ or $r_p+1$ by a relative p-class group, and parity then selects the exact value.

desk verdict Solid Rubin-refinement paper whose 'determines' claim rests on an unproved parity input; fix that and it's publishable. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13022 v1 pith:Q6HIVT75 submitted 2024-12-17 math.NT

classification math.NT MSC 11R2911G0511G1511R23
keywords relativep-classgroupp-SelmerCMellipticcurvesrootnumberdivisionfieldscongruentproblemcubesumunboundednessofp-rankclassgroups
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 tries to establish that for elliptic curves with complex multiplication and j-invariant 0 or 1728, the dimension of the p-Selmer group of any admissible twist is determined by two pieces of arithmetic: the root number of the twist and the p-rank of one character-isotypic component of the relative p-class group of its p-division field. Concretely, the authors prove the two-point bound $r_p(E_t) \leq s_p(E_t) \leq 1+r_p(E_t)$, where $r_p(E_t)$ is that class-group dimension and $s_p(E_t)$ is the Selmer dimension; they then invoke the parity relation $s_p(E_t) \equiv \omega(E_t) \pmod 2$ to force exactly one of the two integers. A reader should care because this turns Selmer-rank questions for these CM twist families into class-group computations in explicit number fields, giving concrete reformulations of rank-zero and rank-one converses, of the congruent-number problem, and of the cube-sum problem. It also lets large-rank elliptic curve families be converted into number fields whose class groups have large prescribed p-rank.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the relative p-class group $\mathrm{Cl}(L_{C,p}/F_{C,p})[p]$ and its $\chi_C$-isotypic component, the p-torsion classes of $L_{C,p}$ that transform by the same character as the p-torsion representation of $C$ and are not inherited from $F_{C,p}$. The paper splits the p-part of the class group as $\mathrm{Cl}(L_{C,p})[p] \cong \mathrm{Cl}(L_{C,p}/F_{C,p})[p] \times \mathrm{Cl}(F_{C,p})[p]$, so a descent-theoretic dimension $\dim_{\mathfrak{k}_p}\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Cl}(L_{C,p}), C[p])^G$ becomes a dimension of that relative component. Division polynomials for $y^2=x^3-Dx$ and $y^2=x^3+A$ supply explicit polynomials $f_{C,p}$ such that $F_{C,p}$ is presented as $K[X]/f_{C,p}(X)$ and $L_{C,p}$ is generated by a root of $f_{C,p}(X^k)$, with the same $F_{C,p}$ for all twists; these identities carry the argument that the class-group input is a single invariant attached to the fixed field.

What would settle it

Compute $s_p(E_t)$ and $r_p(E_t)$ for a twist with $r_p(E_t)=1$ and root number $\omega(E_t)=+1$: the paper's central claim predicts $s_p(E_t)=1$, so a computation returning $s_p(E_t)=2$ would refute the claimed uniqueness. Equivalently, any single good prime and twist with $s_p(E_t) \not\equiv \omega(E_t) \pmod 2$ would falsify the parity step on which the exact determination rests.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For each twist $C$ of the base curve, let $K$ be $\mathbb{Q}(i)$ (when $j=1728$) or $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_3)$ (when $j=0$), and let $L_{C,p}=K(C[p])$ be the field generated by the $p$-torsion points of $C$. The Galois group of $L_{C,p}/K$ is cyclic, and its natural character $\chi_C$ describes the action on $C[p]$. The paper shows that for a cyclic subextension $F_{C,p}$ of degree $2$, $3$, $4$, or $6$ (according to the twist type), the dimension $r_p(C)=\dim_{\mathfrak{k}_p}\mathrm{Cl}(L_{C,p}/F_{C,p})[p](\chi_C)$ satisfies $r_p(C) \leq s_p(C) \leq 1+r_p(C)$, and that the fields $F_{C,p}$ themselves are independent of the twist up to isomorphism. Combined with the parity relation $s_p(C) \equiv \omega(C) \pmod 2$, which the paper invokes, this pins $s_p(C)$ exactly. The proof passes from the full class group of the division field to the relative class group of a fixed extension, using explicit division-polynomial generators for the intermediate fields.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the unproved p-parity conjecture for these CM twists, used to decide between the two consecutive integers allowed by the bound; if that parity fails, the same theorems only give $r_p \le s_p \le 1+r_p$, not an exact value.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a twist $E_t$ with $r_p(E_t)=0$, the bound forces $s_p(E_t)$ to be $0$ or $1$, and the paper's parity step then decides whether the curve has rank zero or rank one.
  • Rank-zero and rank-one p-converse theorems for these CM curves become equivalent to statements about the $\chi$-component of a relative p-class group: trivial for rank zero, cyclic for rank one, checked at a single good prime.
  • For squarefree $n \equiv 1,2,3 \pmod 8$, the congruent-number status of $n$ is controlled by the relative quadratic class group: if $n$ is congruent, every prime $p\nmid 2n$ divides the relative class number $|\mathrm{Cl}(L_{n^2,p}/K_{1,p})|$, while one prime with trivial component proves $n$ is not congruent.
  • For the cube-sum problem, a cube-free $n$ with root number $+1$ that is a rational cube sum forces every prime $p\nmid 6n$ to divide the relative cubic class number $|\mathrm{Cl}(L_{-432n^2,p}/K_{-432,p})|$.
  • Large-rank elliptic curve families yield infinitely many number fields of degree 4 (for $j=1728$) or degree 6 (for $j=0$) over the fixed field $F_{1,p}$ with p-class rank at least $12+\mathrm{rk}\,\mathrm{Cl}(F_{1,p})[p]$ or the corresponding $6+\mathrm{rk}$ bound, giving concrete progress on the unboundedness conjecture for class group p-ranks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Implicit in the paper, the bottleneck is the p-parity conjecture: if that parity is proved for these CM twists, the main theorems become unconditional, while one parity failure would collapse the exact determination back to the two-point bound.
  • Because $F_{C,p}$ is twist-independent, the method suggests a practical test: computing the $\chi$-component dimension in one fixed field should predict Selmer ranks across an entire twist family, so numerical discrepancies between class-group predictions and Selmer computations would pinpoint where the parity assumption fails.
  • The same relative-decomposition strategy may extend to other CM elliptic curves or to higher-degree twist types, provided division-polynomial identities of the same shape can be produced; the paper does not claim such extensions.
  • If the Selmer rank is unbounded in either CM twist family, Proposition 4.8 transfers that unboundedness to p-ranks of class groups in degree 4 and 6 extensions, linking two longstanding open problems; this conditional consequence is the paper's own observation, not a proof.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies elliptic curves with j-invariant 0 or 1728 and their quadratic, cubic, quartic, and sextic twists. For each twist E_t and each good odd prime p, the authors define a relative p-class group attached to a subfield of the p-division field and denote by r_p(E_t) the dimension of the character component corresponding to the Galois action on E_t[p]. Using Rubin's descent theorem they prove inequalities r_p(E_t) ≤ s_p(E_t) ≤ 1+r_p(E_t), where s_p(E_t) is the F_p-dimension of the p-Selmer group. They then assert that the root number ω(E_t) and r_p(E_t) uniquely determine s_p(E_t), relying on the congruence s_p(E_t) ≡ ω(E_t) mod 2, which is invoked as the 'p-parity conjecture' without proof or citation. This determination is used to reformulate rank 0 and rank 1 p-converse theorems in terms of relative class groups, to derive criteria for congruent-number and cube-sum problems, to construct number fields with large p-rank class groups, and to produce numerical tables of ranks.

Significance. If the parity step were justified, the paper would provide an attractive and concrete bridge between Selmer ranks and relative class groups for CM elliptic curves, with explicit division-polynomial descriptions of the relevant fields and a clean numerical method. The construction of infinite families of degree 4 and 6 extensions with lower bounds on p-class group rank is also a potentially interesting contribution. The paper uses standard machinery (Rubin's descent, division polynomials, root-number formulas) and no free parameters are fitted; the claimed Selmer-to-class-group inequality is a genuine theorem of Rubin. However, the central 'complete determination' conclusion is conditional: the parity congruence is the only step that turns the two-element interval [r_p, r_p+1] into a unique value, and for the inert primes considered (p ≡ 3 mod 4 for j=1728 and p ≡ 5 mod 6 for j=0) the reduction is supersingular, where p-parity is not a standard unconditional consequence of Iwasawa main conjectures. The paper therefore currently overstates what is proved.

major comments (4)
  1. [Theorems 2.3, 2.4, 3.2, 3.3] The sentence 'From p-parity conjecture, we know that s_p(E) ≡ ω(E) (mod 2)' appears in the proofs of all four theorems with no proof and no citation. This congruence is the only step that allows the authors to conclude that ω(E_t) and r_p(E_t) 'uniquely determine' s_p(E_t). Without it, the Selmer dimension is only known to lie in {r_p, r_p+1}, so the advertised conclusion is not established. The problem is particularly acute for inert primes, where the reduction is supersingular and p-parity is not an automatic consequence of the usual main conjectures. The authors should either provide a proof or a precise reference establishing the parity congruence in this supersingular CM setting, or replace the unconditional claims by explicitly conditional statements.
  2. [Corollaries 2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.5 and Corollary 2.8] The equivalences in these corollaries use the same parity step to pass from r_p=0 to s_p=0 and from r_p≤1 to s_p=1. For example, in the proof of Corollary 2.5, the statement 'if r_p(E_D)=0, then by Theorem 2.3 or Theorem 2.4, we have s_p(E_D)=0' is only valid if the parity congruence is available. Likewise, in Corollary 2.8 the assertion that a congruent number forces s_p(E_n^1) ≥ 2 needs the parity input in addition to positivity of rank. These applications should be labeled as conditional on the same parity assumption, or the missing parity result should be supplied.
  3. [Theorems 4.2 and 4.6] The proof of Theorem 4.2 uses the step 'since for n∈S_p, we have ω(E_n)=-1 and hence s_p(E_n) is odd, and moreover as rk_Q E_n ≥ 6, we see that s_p(E_n) ≥ 7'. This uses the unproved parity congruence to exclude s_p(E_n)=6. If parity is not known for these supersingular primes, one only obtains s_p(E_n)≥6, hence r_p(E_n)≥5 instead of the stated r_p≥6, and the displayed lower bounds 12+rkCl(F) and 6+rkCl(F) in Theorem 4.2 must be reduced accordingly. The same issue affects Theorem 4.6. Thus the class-group construction is quantitatively dependent on the same load-bearing assumption.
  4. [Proofs of Theorems 2.4 and 3.3] The field-identification arguments in the split/inert cases contain several asserted irreducibility and factorization statements that are not fully justified as written. For example, in the proof of Theorem 2.4 the sentence 'Consequently, f_{D,p}(X^4) has at-least one irreducible factor of degree (p-1) over K' and the subsequent case analysis require the reader to fill in nontrivial steps; similarly, in Theorem 3.3 the phrase 'proceeding as in the proof of Theorem 2.4, we conclude...' skips the analogous argument. Since the field identifications F_{D,p} ≅ F_{1,p} and L_{D,p} ≅ Q[X]/(f_{D,p}(X^4)) are used in the numerical applications and in the independence-of-D statements, these arguments should be expanded to a verifiable level of detail.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Corollary 2.8, proof] The phrase 'which in-turn implies that s_p ≥ 2' is not immediate and should mention that the root number is +1 and that the parity congruence is being used.
  2. [Section 2, notation] The notation for primes p and p over p in the split case (Theorems 2.4 and 3.3) is sometimes ambiguous; for instance, statements such as 'p is unramified in L_{D,p}/K' and 'p is totally ramified in L_{D,p}/K' should be indexed by the chosen conjugate prime to avoid confusion.
  3. [Section 5, tables] The tables do not indicate which entries depend on the p-parity congruence in addition to GRH; given the central role of parity, the table headers or footnotes should make this dependence explicit.
  4. [Throughout] There are several minor typographical and grammatical issues, e.g. 'p division field' should be 'p-division field' and 'deg ree six' should be 'degree six'; these do not affect the mathematics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Selmer-to-class-group bounds are imported from Rubin's theorem and the field identifications are independently derived; the main caveat is an unproved p-parity assumption, not a circular step.

full rationale

No circular step is exhibited. The central inequality r_p(E) <= s_p(E) <= 1 + r_p(E) in Theorems 2.3, 2.4, 3.2 and 3.3 is imported from [Rub87a, Theorem 1], and the relative-class-group reformulation is obtained by the character decomposition Cl(L_D,p)[p] = Cl(L_D,p/F_D,p)[p] x Cl(F_D,p)[p] under p not dividing [L_D,p : K], together with the definition of the chi-component. Neither step defines the class-group rank in terms of the Selmer rank, nor fits any parameter to data. The field isomorphisms such as F_D,p = F_1,p are derived from explicit division polynomials, homogeneity, and degree/ramification arguments rather than assumed. The statement 'From p-parity conjecture, we know that s_p(E_D) = omega(E_D) (mod 2)' is load-bearing for the advertised conclusion that omega(E_D) and r_p(E_D) uniquely determine s_p(E_D), and the paper gives no proof or citation for this congruence; however, this is an unproved external conjecture, not a self-referential reduction, so it is a correctness/conditionality concern rather than circularity. The self-citations [JMS22, JMS23] appear only in peripheral cube-sum corollaries and do not support the main derivation. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks for its main inequalities, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper's central claims rest on several cited theorems (Rubin's descent, Coates-Wiles, p-converse results) and on the p-parity conjecture, which is a load-bearing assumption not proved or sourced in the paper. No free parameters are fitted and no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Rubin's descent theorem (Rub87a): for E with j=0 or 1728 and prime p of good reduction, dim Hom(Cl(L), E[p])^G ≤ dim Sel_p(E/Q) ≤ dim Hom(Cl(L), E[p])^G + 1.
    Cited as [Rub87a, Theorem 1]; used in the proofs of Theorems 2.3, 2.4, 3.2, 3.3 to bound s_p between r_p and r_p+1.
  • domain assumption p-parity conjecture: dim Sel_p(E/Q) ≡ ω(E) (mod 2) for the twisted CM curves.
    Invoked in the proofs of Theorems 2.3, 2.4, 3.2, 3.3 with no citation or proof; it is load-bearing for the 'uniquely determines' conclusion.
  • domain assumption Coates-Wiles and Rubin results on L-values and finiteness of Tate-Shafarevich for rank 0 and 1 CM curves.
    Used in Corollaries 2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.5 to convert Selmer triviality or one-dimensionality into statements about L(E,1).
  • domain assumption Burungale-Tian p-converse theorem (BT20).
    Used in Corollaries 2.6 and 3.5 to go from s_p = 1 to analytic rank 1.
  • domain assumption Kihara's rank-6 family and Mestre's rank-7 family over Q(r,s,t) and Q(v).
    Used in Propositions 4.1 and 4.5 to produce many curves with rank at least 6 or 7.
  • standard math Silverman's specialization theorem and Faltings' finiteness theorem for families of elliptic curves.
    Used in Propositions 4.1 and 4.5 to conclude that infinitely many non-isomorphic curves with the desired properties exist.
  • standard math Greaves' power-free values theorem for binary forms.
    Used in Proposition 4.1 to get infinitely many square-free values f(m,n), giving infinitely many D with root number -1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relative $p$-class groups and $p$-Selmer groups." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q6HIVT75

@misc{pith2026241213022,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relative $p$-class groups and $p$-Selmer groups},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q6HIVT75}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13022}
}
abstract

Let $E$ be an elliptic curve with $j$-invariant $0$ or $1728$ and let $\widetilde{E}$ be a $k^{th}$ twist of $E$. We show that for any prime $p$ of good reduction of $\widetilde{E}$, a degree $k$ relative $p$-class group and the root number of $\widetilde{E}$ determines the dimension of the $p$-Selmer group of $\widetilde{E}$. As a consequence, we construct families of large rank $p$-class group. We also relate congruent number and cube sum problem with relative $p$-class group.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bilu and J

    Y. Bilu and J. Gillibert, Chevalley-weil theorem and subgroups of class groups, Israel Journal of Mathematics 226 (2018), no. 2, 927--956

  2. [2]

    Number Theory 42 (1992), no

    Nigel Boston, Some cases of the F ontaine- M azur conjecture , J. Number Theory 42 (1992), no. 3, 285--291

  3. [3]

    A. A. Burungale and Y. Tian, p -converse to a theorem of G ross- Z agier, K olyvagin and R ubin , Invent. Math. 220 (2020), no. 1, 211--253

  4. [4]

    J. W. S. Cassels, Lectures on elliptic curves, London Mathematical Society Student Texts, vol. 24, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991

  5. [5]

    Coates and A

    J. Coates and A. Wiles, On the conjecture of B irch and S winnerton- D yer , Invent. Math. 39 (1977), no. 3, 223--251

  6. [6]

    Faltings, Endlichkeitssätze für abelsche varietäten über zahlkörpern, Inventiones Mathematicae 73 (1983), no

    G. Faltings, Endlichkeitssätze für abelsche varietäten über zahlkörpern, Inventiones Mathematicae 73 (1983), no. 3, 349--366

  7. [7]

    Greaves, Power-free values of binary forms, Quarterly Journal of Mathematics, Oxford Series (2) 43 (1992), no

    G. Greaves, Power-free values of binary forms, Quarterly Journal of Mathematics, Oxford Series (2) 43 (1992), no. 169, 45--65

  8. [8]

    E. S. Golod and I. R. S afarevi c , On the class field tower, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 28 (1964), 261--272

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    B. H. Gross and D. B. Zagier, Heegner points and derivatives of L -series , Invent. Math. 84 (1986), no. 2, 225--320

  2. [10]

    Algebra 188 (1997), no

    Farshid Hajir, On the growth of p -class groups in p -class field towers , J. Algebra 188 (1997), no. 1, 256--271

  3. [11]

    Somnath Jha, Dipramit Majumdar, and Pratiksha Shingavekar, 3 - S elmer group, ideal class groups and cube sum problem , 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12487

  4. [12]

    Sury, Binary cubic forms and rational cube sum problem, 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.06970

    Somnath Jha, Dipramit Majumdar, and B. Sury, Binary cubic forms and rational cube sum problem, 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.06970

  5. [13]

    Kihara, On the rank of the elliptic curve \(y^2 = x^3 + kx\)

    S. Kihara, On the rank of the elliptic curve \(y^2 = x^3 + kx\). ii, Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. 80 (2004), no. 4, 24--25

  6. [14]

    V. A. Kolyvagin, Euler systems, The G rothendieck F estschrift, V ol.\ II , Progr. Math., vol. 87, Birkh\"auser Boston, Boston, MA, 1990, pp. 435--483

  7. [15]

    Chao Li, 2- S elmer groups, 2-class groups and rational points on elliptic curves , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 371 (2019), no. 7, 4631--4653

  8. [16]

    Liverance, A formula for the root number of a family of elliptic curves, Journal of Number Theory 51 (1995), no

    E. Liverance, A formula for the root number of a family of elliptic curves, Journal of Number Theory 51 (1995), no. 2, 288--305

  9. [17]

    Mestre, Rang de courbes elliptiques d’invariant donné, C

    J.-F. Mestre, Rang de courbes elliptiques d’invariant donné, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S \'e r. I Math. 314 (1992), no. 12, 919--922

  10. [18]

    2, 353--373

    Bjorn Poonen, Squarefree values of multivariable polynomials, Duke Mathematical Journal 118 (2003), no. 2, 353--373

  11. [19]

    Dipendra Prasad and Sudhanshu Shekhar, Relating the T ate- S hafarevich group of an elliptic curve with the class group , Pacific J. Math. 312 (2021), no. 1, 203--218

  12. [20]

    Rubin, Descents on elliptic curves with complex multiplication, S\' e minaire de T h\' e orie des N ombres, P aris 1985--86, Progr

    K. Rubin, Descents on elliptic curves with complex multiplication, S\' e minaire de T h\' e orie des N ombres, P aris 1985--86, Progr. Math., vol. 71, Birkh\" a user Boston, Boston, MA, 1987, pp. 165--173

  13. [21]

    , Tate- S hafarevich groups and L -functions of elliptic curves with complex multiplication , Invent. Math. 89 (1987), no. 3, 527--559

  14. [22]

    , The ``main conjectures'' of I wasawa theory for imaginary quadratic fields , Invent. Math. 103 (1991), no. 1, 25--68

  15. [23]

    W. A. Stein et al., S age M athematics S oftware ( V ersion 9.3) , The Sage Group, 2024, http://www.sagemath.org

  16. [24]

    Schaefer, Class groups and S elmer groups , J

    Edward F. Schaefer, Class groups and S elmer groups , J. Number Theory 56 (1996), no. 1, 79--114

  17. [25]

    C esnavi c ius, Selmer groups and class groups, Compos

    K. C esnavi c ius, Selmer groups and class groups, Compos. Math. 151 (2015), no. 3, 416--434

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.