Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Cohomological lifting of multi-toric graphs

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For circle bundles over symplectic $SU(3)$-manifolds, compact edges of the base multi-moment graph lift to $G_2$ multi-moment graph edges, with endpoint differences given by intersection products $[\omega]\cap[E]$ and $[F]\cap[E]$; in the…

desk verdict Core lifting formulas and loop-closure criterion are correct; fix the sign typo in Example 5.1. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15769 v1 pith:NP3TX2JN submitted 2024-12-20 math.DG

Kael Dixon , Thomas Bruun Madsen , Andrew Swann This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DG MSC 53C2514M2553C2653C2953D20
keywords G2-manifoldsmulti-momentmapsmulti-toricgraphscirclebundlesCalabi-Yauthree-foldstoricgeometryspecialholonomycohomology
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 shows that the multi-moment graph of a seven-dimensional $G_2$-manifold obtained as a circle bundle over a six-dimensional symplectic $SU(3)$-manifold can be computed from cohomology classes on the base, without solving for the lifted geometry. In a multi-Hamiltonian setup—where invariant maps whose differentials are contractions of the invariant forms with torus vector fields play the role of moment maps—each compact edge of the base graph lifts to a straight edge of the $G_2$ graph, and the difference in the lifted coordinates between the edge's endpoints is given by intersection products: $[\omega]\cap[E]$ for the symplectic side and $[F]\cap[E]$ for the curvature side, with the third coordinate determined by these together. In the toric Calabi-Yau case, the paper proves the lifted polygon closes exactly when $[\omega]\cup[F]=0$, the same cohomological condition appearing in existing constructions of complete non-compact $G_2$-manifolds. This matters because it reduces a hard lifting problem to intersection-theoretic bookkeeping and shows that a known existence condition is intrinsic to the graph geometry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the multi-moment graph: for a closed $G_2$-structure with a $T^3$-action, the image under the multi-moment map $\nu: M \to \Lambda^2 \mathrm{Lie}(T^3)^* \cong \mathbb{R}^3$ of the points with non-trivial stabiliser, an embedded trivalent graph whose edges are straight lines with rational tangents and whose vertices satisfy a zero-tension condition. On the six-dimensional base, the analogous graph is defined from the symplectic moment map $\mu$ of the $T^2$-action on the symplectic $SU(3)$-structure. The lifting mechanism is the relation between the $G_2$ three-form and the $SU(3)$ data of the base, together with the Hamiltonian condition $d\lambda_i = -F(X_i,\cdot)$ on the circle bundle's curvature; combining these, formulas (3.7)–(3.10) express endpoint differences as the intersection products $[\omega]\cap[E]$ and $[F]\cap[E]$, with $E$ the surface generated by the edge and the complementary circle action.

What would settle it

Using the star-triangulated hexagon example with integer coefficients for which $[\omega]\cup[F] \neq 0$, compute $\nu_3(q_7) - \nu_3(q_1)$ from (4.5) and (4.6); Theorem 4.3 predicts a non-zero value, so a result of zero—or any edge whose endpoint difference contradicts (3.7)–(3.10)—would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the compact part of the $G_2$ multi-moment graph of a circle bundle $M \to B$ is determined, edge by edge, by cohomological data of the base. If $B$ carries a symplectic $SU(3)$-structure with an effective multi-Hamiltonian $T^2$-action, and the curvature $F$ of the circle bundle satisfies the Hamiltonian condition (3.2), then each compact edge $e$ of the base graph, whose stabiliser is generated by $X = r_1 X_1 + r_2 X_2$, lifts to a corresponding edge of the $G_2$ graph. Writing $E$ for the surface swept out by the edge under the complementary circle action, the endpoint differences are given by $\mu(c) - \mu(b) = [\omega]\cap[E](-r_2,r_1)$, $\lambda(c) - \lambda(b) = -[F]\cap[E](-r_2,r_1)$, and $\nu_3(c) - \nu_3(b) = t(r_1\lambda_1 + r_2\lambda_2)$ with $t = [\omega]\cap[E]$. In the toric Calabi-Yau case, Theorem 4.3 states that the lifted polygon closes if and only if $[\omega]\cup[F]=0$.

Load-bearing premise

The lifting only works if the circle bundle's curvature $F$ is Hamiltonian for the torus action: functions $\lambda_1, \lambda_2$ must exist with $d\lambda_i = -F(X_i,\cdot)$, and if they do not exist there is no lifted three-torus action and no $G_2$ multi-moment graph to compute.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any compact edge of the base multi-moment graph, the lifted $G_2$ edge's direction and length are computed directly from $[\omega]\cap[E]$ and $[F]\cap[E]$, with no differential equations to solve.
  • A loop in the base graph lifts to a closed loop in the $G_2$ graph exactly when $[\omega]\cup[F]=0$ on the corresponding cycle; in the toric Calabi-Yau setting the paper proves this equivalence as Theorem 4.3.
  • The cohomological condition $[\omega]\cup[F]=0$ used in known circle-bundle constructions of complete non-compact $G_2$-manifolds is not an artefact of the adiabatic-limit method, but is forced by the graph geometry itself.
  • The additive constants in $\lambda$ and $\nu$ correspond to affine changes of the graph, so lifted graphs can be computed relative to an arbitrary basepoint, as the paper's examples do.
  • In the examples (the $M_{m,n}$ spaces, the star-triangulated hexagon, and the second resolution of the conifold quotient), the formulas produce the full compact part of the $G_2$ graph, including non-planar configurations when $[\omega]\cup[F]\neq 0$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same formulas should apply to any multi-Hamiltonian $T^2$-action on a symplectic $SU(3)$-manifold with a curvature satisfying (3.2), so the lifting procedure is not restricted to toric or Calabi-Yau bases.
  • Graph closure could serve as a necessary cohomological test for the existence of torsion-free $G_2$-structures in this circle-bundle class: a base whose lifted graph fails to close cannot admit the corresponding $G_2$ metric.
  • The non-planar examples suggest that varying $[F]$ moves vertices of the lifted graph in the third coordinate, giving a way to engineer $G_2$ multi-moment graphs with prescribed three-dimensional shapes.
  • The expectation expressed in Remark 5.3, that versal deformations of toric singularities produce graphs whose components lie in distinct parallel affine planes, is a testable consequence of the same lifting picture.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies seven-dimensional manifolds with closed G2-structures obtained as circle bundles over six-dimensional symplectic SU(3)-manifolds carrying a two-torus symmetry. Under a multi-Hamiltonian hypothesis, the authors derive cohomological formulas for how the compact part of the base multi-moment graph lifts to the G2 multi-moment graph: along an edge with stabilizer generated by X = r1X1+r2X2, the moment-map differences are given by equations (3.7)-(3.10), involving the classes [omega], [F], and the homology class of the corresponding surface [E]. In the toric Calabi-Yau case, the paper specializes to a fan computation and proves in Theorem 4.3 that the lifted polygon closes exactly when [omega] union [F] = 0, matching a condition appearing in the Foscolo-Haskins-Nordström construction. The paper closes with three explicit examples illustrating the lifting procedure.

Significance. The main formulas provide a practical, cohomological method for computing the compact part of G2 multi-moment graphs without solving for the metric or the connection. This is a useful tool for the growing literature on circle-bundle constructions of G2-manifolds from Calabi-Yau three-folds, and the identification of the Fenchel-type closing condition with the cohomological condition [omega] union [F] = 0 is a clean and convincing result. The derivation of Section 3 is explicit and checkable, and the fan computation in Section 4 is concrete and parameter-free in the sense that the lift is determined directly by the classes [omega] and [F]. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs or code, but the hand derivations are sufficiently detailed to be verified independently. The main caveat is that one of the illustrative examples contains sign inconsistencies that need to be corrected; these do not appear to affect the central theorems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2, Theorem 4.3] The example as printed is algebraically inconsistent. With [F] = m[omega+] - n[omega-] and the stated [omega] = k(m[omega+] + n[omega-]), one computes [omega] union [F] = +/-2kmn [omega+ union omega-], which is nonzero for kmn != 0; hence the stated implication '[omega] union [F] = 0 implies [omega] = k(m[omega+] + n[omega-])' is false. The correct consequence would be [omega] = k(m[omega+] - n[omega-]), or else the sign of the n-term in [F] must be changed. Moreover, the subsequent values lambda(B) = n(0,1) and nu3(D) = -kmn are consistent with equations (3.8) and (3.10) only if s_AB = -n and the orientation of E_AB is chosen accordingly; the printed value s_AB = n gives lambda(B) = -n(0,1) and then nu3(D) = +kmn. This is an illustrative example rather than a step in the proof of Theorem 4.3, but it should be repaired so that it actually demonstrates the formulas.
  2. [Section 4.2, Theorem 4.3] The proof computes nu3(q_{m+1}) - nu3(q_1) for the loop around a single interior ray E and shows that it equals ([omega] union [F]).E. To justify the global 'if and only if [omega] union [F] = 0', the paper should state explicitly that the classes E = A_j cap E, as E runs over interior rays and A_j over adjacent boundary rays, generate H_2(B;Z) in the present toric setting; otherwise the conclusion is only established for the particular loop under consideration. This generation statement is standard for smooth toric varieties obtained by triangulating a polygon, but it is not written down and is needed for the theorem as stated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Example 5.1] The fixed point D is printed as (q+,p+); it should be (q+,q-) to match the later use of E_BD as {p+} x CP(1)-? Actually E_BD is described as CP(1)+ x {q-}, so its endpoints are B = (p+,q-) and D = (q+,q-).
  2. [Section 5, Example 5.2] The printed value lambda(q6) = (-f1+f2, -f1-f2) is inconsistent with equation (4.6) applied to the edge from q5 to q6; using t6 = w1 and u6-uE = (-1,0) gives lambda(q6) = (-f1+f2, f1-f2). The second component does not affect the printed value of nu3(q6), but it should be corrected.
  3. [Section 3] The standing hypothesis that the functions lambda_i solving (3.2) exist globally should be stated explicitly before equations (3.7)-(3.10) are used, even though it is introduced as a necessary and sufficient condition just above. In the toric Calabi-Yau setting this is guaranteed by b1(B) = 0, but the main formulas of Section 3 apply only under this Hamiltonian assumption on F.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: the abstract reads 'may obtained' instead of 'may be obtained', equation (2.1) has 'permuations' instead of 'permutations', and the introduction contains 'sympletic' instead of 'symplectic'. These should be corrected in a final pass.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lifting formulas (3.7)–(3.10) and Theorem 4.3 are derived from defining equations and standard geometric identities, not from the statements they purport to prove.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. Equations (3.7)–(3.10) are obtained by applying the defining identities dμ_i = ω(X_i, ·) and dλ_i = −F(X_i, ·), the integration identities (3.3)–(3.6), and the expanded expression for dν_3; no target statement is used as an input. In particular, the factor t is identified as [ω] ∩ [E] by comparing the first two components of the edge vector, and then (3.10) determines the ν_3 change. Theorem 4.3 is proved by computing the total ν_3 change around a loop as Σ t_j(f_j − f_E) and then showing, using toric intersection identities (4.2)–(4.3), that this equals ([ω] ∪ [F]) · E; the Foscolo–Haskins–Nordström condition is a conclusion, not an assumption. Prior work by the authors [22–25] and [27] is invoked for published facts (existence and local structure of multi-moment graphs, invariant connection condition), and these facts do not contain the lifting formulas or the closure criterion. The existence premise (3.2) is an input hypothesis; if it fails, the theorem simply does not apply, and in the toric Calabi–Yau case its solvability is argued independently from b1(B) = 0 and integral periods. The arithmetic typo in Example 5.1 is localized and does not infect the derivation. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence of a lifted T^3-action (connection functions λ_i), the multi-Hamiltonian graph theory from the authors' prior work, and standard toric intersection theory. No parameters are fitted and no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The T^2-action on B lifts to an effective T^3-action on the circle bundle M with a T^2-invariant connection of curvature F, equivalent to the existence of functions λ_i with dλ_i = -F(X_i,·).
    Entered in Section 3 via equations (3.2) and the citation to Lashof-May-Segal [19] and Swann [27]. This is the load-bearing bridge connecting the base data to the total space graph.
  • domain assumption For a multi-Hamiltonian closed G2-structure with T^3 action, each non-trivial stabilizer is a connected subtorus of dimension at most two, and the image of the fixed-point set is a trivalent graph with zero-tension vertices.
    Proposition 3.1 invokes [24, Lemmas 2.5 and 2.6] and the proof uses an equivariant Darboux model near vertices. This is prior published work by the same authors, not a new assumption.
  • domain assumption The base SU(3)-structure is symplectic with dω=0 and admits a global multi-moment map μ; in the toric section, B is a smooth toric Calabi-Yau manifold with b1(B)=0 and a good fan.
    Stated in Sections 2 and 4. Without global moment maps the graph formulas are only local, and without the fan data the divisor computations in Theorem 4.3 do not go through.
  • standard math Standard toric geometry facts: the Picard group of a smooth toric variety is generated by toric divisors subject to the linear relations (4.1), and triple intersection numbers satisfy the quadrilateral relations (4.3).
    Used throughout Section 4, with citations to Cox-Little-Schenck [13]. These are established textbook results rather than new postulates.
  • domain assumption The Foscolo-Haskins-Nordström existence theorem and Cavalleri's T^2-invariance result provide the actual G2 metrics used in the examples.
    Mentioned in Section 2 as motivation and used to interpret examples. The main derivation starts from a closed G2-structure on M, so this existence result is not needed for the proof of the lifting formulas.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cohomological lifting of multi-toric graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NP3TX2JN

@misc{pith2026241215769,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cohomological lifting of multi-toric graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NP3TX2JN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15769}
}
abstract

We study $G_{2}$-manifolds obtained from circle bundles over symplectic $SU(3)$-manifolds with $T^{2}$-symmetry. When the geometry is multi-Hamiltonian, we show how the compact part of the resulting multi-moment graph for the $G_{2}$-structure may obtained cohomologically from the base. The lifting procedure is illustrated in the context of toric geometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15769 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Write Aj for the divisor corresponding to uj , for j = 1, . . . , m. See Example 5.2, below, for an explicit example. The edges in the corresponding image of the moment map are orthogonal to differences uj − uE, uj − uk. As all ui have third coordinate 1, we may regard these differences as vectors in Z 2 ⊂ R 2 . We may thus write the directions of the first set of edges as J2(ui − uE), where J2 = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. A polygon p1 . . . p6 in toric picture from a fan u1 . . . u6uE at level 1. Proposition 4.1. p1, . . . , pm are the vertices of a closed polygon with pm+1 = p1. For the quadrilateral uj−1, uj+1, uj , uE, equation (4.2) gives uj−1 + uj+1 + ajuj + bjuE = 0, aj + bj = −2. (4.4) Writing [ω] = Pr i=1 wDiDi and wj = wAj , we have tj = Xr i=1 wDiDiAjE = wj−1 + wj+1 + ajwj + bjwE, by (4.3). Now Proposition 4.1 will follow d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The G2-trivalent graph for Mm,n, with the red region giving the compact part of underlying planar SU(3)- graph. Each of these sets maps to an edge under µ, and there are no other points with non-trivial stabiliser. As µ, λ, ν are only defined up to additive constants, we choose them so that µ(A) = (0, 0), λ(A) = (0, 0), ν(A) = (0, 0, 0). Let us now compute µ(B) and λ(B). The points A and B are joined by EAB with sta… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fan diagram for the star triangulation of the hexagon, and the corresponding toric diagram. We choose our additive constants so that p1 = µ(q1) = (0, 0), λ(q1) = (0, 0), ν(q1) = (0, 0, 0). Using the values of tj , we get the remaining five vertices, pi = µ(qi), of the …
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The fan diagrams of Z/3Z-quotient of the coni￾fold (left) and its two resolutions. p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Compact part of the moment graph, before lift￾ing, corresponding to the second resolution of the Z/Z3- quotient of the conifold. p3, p4 are higher than this plan, and the half lines out of p3 and p4 rise out of a parallel plane through p3p4. Other values of wi give mor…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. S. Acharya, L. Foscolo, M. Najjar, and E. E. Svanes, New G2-conifolds in M -theory and their field theory interpretation , J. High Energy Phys. (2021), no. 5, 32 pp

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Aharony, A

    O. Aharony, A. Hanany, and B. Kol, Webs of (p, q) 5 -branes, five dimensional field theories and grid diagrams , J. High Energy Phys. 1998 (1998), no. 1, 51 pp

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Altmann, The versal deformation of an isolated toric Gorenstein sing ularity, In- vent

    K. Altmann, The versal deformation of an isolated toric Gorenstein sing ularity, In- vent. Math. 128 (1997), no. 3, 443–479

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Apostolov and S

    V. Apostolov and S. Salamon, K¨ ahler reduction of metrics with holonomy G2, Comm. Math. Phys. 246 (2004), no. 1, 43–61

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Bouchard, Lectures on complex geometry, Calabi-Yau manifolds and tor ic geome- try, preprint arXiv: hep-th/0702063, 2007

    V. Bouchard, Lectures on complex geometry, Calabi-Yau manifolds and tor ic geome- try, preprint arXiv: hep-th/0702063, 2007

    arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    R. L. Bryant, Metrics with exceptional holonomy , Ann. of Math. 126 (1987), 525–576

    work page 1987

  7. [7]

    R. L. Bryant and S. M. Salamon, On the construction of some complete metrics with exceptional holonomy , Duke Math. J. 58 (1989), 829–850

    work page 1989

  8. [8]

    Cavalleri, Complete non-compact Spin(7)-manifolds from T 2-bundles over AC Calabi-Yau manifolds , preprint arXiv: 2407.19486 [math.DG] , 2024

    N. Cavalleri, Complete non-compact Spin(7)-manifolds from T 2-bundles over AC Calabi-Yau manifolds , preprint arXiv: 2407.19486 [math.DG] , 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    K. Cho, A. Futaki, and H. Ono, Uniqueness and examples of compact toric Sasaki- Einstein metrics , Comm. Math. Phys. 277 (2008), no. 2, 439–458

    2008

  2. [10]

    Cleyton and A

    R. Cleyton and A. F. Swann, Cohomogeneity-one G2-structures, J. Geom. Phys. 44 (2002), no. 2–3, 202–220

    2002

  3. [11]

    R. J. Conlon and H.-J. Hein, Classification of asymptotically conical Calabi-Yau man- ifolds, Duke Math. J. 173 (2024), no. 5, 947–1015

    2024

  4. [12]

    Conti and A

    D. Conti and A. Tomassini, Special symplectic six-manifolds , Q. J. Math. 58 (2007), no. 3, 297–311

    2007

  5. [13]

    D. A. Cox, J. B. Little, and H. K. Schenck, Toric varieties , Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 124, American Mathematical Society, Pro vidence, RI, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    K. Dixon, Toric ALC G2 manifolds, online talk Simons Collabo- ration on Special Holonomy in Geometry, Analysis, and Physi cs, https://sites.duke.edu/scshgap/kael-dixon-lectures/ , 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Foscolo, M

    L. Foscolo, M. Haskins, and J. Nordstr¨ om, Complete non-compact G2–manifolds from asymptotically conical Calabi–Yau 3-folds, Duke Math. J. 170 (2021), no. 15, 3323– 3416

    2021

  8. [16]

    , Infinitely many new families of complete cohomogeneity one G2-manifolds: G2 analogues of the Taub-NUT and Eguchi-Hanson spaces , J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 23 (2021), no. 7, 2153–2220

    2021

  9. [17]

    Futaki, H

    A. Futaki, H. Ono, and G. Wang, Transverse K¨ ahler geometry of Sasaki manifolds and toric Sasaki-Einstein manifolds , J. Differential Geom. 83 (2009), no. 3, 585–635

    2009

  10. [18]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Gravitational multi-instantons , Phys. Lett. B78 (1978), 430–432. 18 KAEL DIXON, THOMAS BRUUN MADSEN, AND ANDREW SW ANN

    1978

  11. [19]

    R. K. Lashof, J. P. May, and G. B. Segal, Equivariant bundles with Abelian structural group, Proceedings of the Northwestern Homotopy Theory Conferen ce (Evanston, Ill., 1982), Contemp. Math., vol. 19, Amer. Math. Soc., 1983, pp. 1 67–176

    1982

  12. [20]

    Li, C.-C

    J. Li, C.-C. M. Liu, K. Liu, and J. Zhou, A mathematical theory of the topological vertex, Geom. Topol. 13 (2009), no. 1, 527–621

    2009

  13. [21]

    Li, SYZ geometry for Calabi-Yau 3-folds: Taub-NUT and Ooguri-Vafa type met- rics, Mem

    Y. Li, SYZ geometry for Calabi-Yau 3-folds: Taub-NUT and Ooguri-Vafa type met- rics, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 292 (2023), no. 1453, 126 pp

    2023

  14. [22]

    T. B. Madsen and A. F. Swann, Multi-moment maps , Adv. Math. 229 (2012), 2287– 2309. [23] , Closed forms and multi-moment maps , Geom. Dedicata 165 (2013), no. 1, 25–52

    2012

  15. [24]

    , Toric geometry of G2-manifolds, Geom. Topol. 23 (2019), no. 7, 3459–3500

    2019

  16. [25]

    , Multi-toric geometries with larger compact symmetry , preprint arXiv: 2407.03693 [math.DG] , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Martelli and J

    D. Martelli and J. Sparks, Toric geometry, Sasaki-Einstein manifolds and a new infinite class of AdS/CFT duals , Comm. Math. Phys. 262 (2006), no. 1, 51–89

    2006

  18. [27]

    A. F. Swann, Twisting Hermitian and hypercomplex geometries , Duke Math. J. 155 (2010), no. 2, 403–431

    2010

  19. [28]

    van Coevering, Ricci-flat K¨ ahler metrics on crepant resolutions of K¨ ahler cones , Math

    C. van Coevering, Ricci-flat K¨ ahler metrics on crepant resolutions of K¨ ahler cones , Math. Ann. 347 (2010), no. 3, 581–611

    2010

  20. [29]

    , Examples of asymptotically conical Ricci-flat K¨ ahler manifolds, Math. Z. 267 (2011), no. 1-2, 465–496

    2011

  21. [30]

    Xie and S.-T

    D. Xie and S.-T. Yau, Three dimensional canonical singularity and five dimension al N = 1 SCFT, J. High Energy Phys. (2017), no. 6, 33 pp

    2017

  22. [31]

    Yeats, A combinatorial perspective on quantum field theory , Springer Briefs in Mathematical Physics, vol

    K. Yeats, A combinatorial perspective on quantum field theory , Springer Briefs in Mathematical Physics, vol. 15, Springer, Cham, 2017. Email address : kael.dix@gmail.com School of Computing and Engineering, University of West Lon don, St. Mary’s Road, Ealing, London W5 5RF, Un...

    2017

Pith tools

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