Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Calabi-Yau pairs of complexity two

T0 review · 3 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 Calabi-Yau pairs of complexity two, cluster type is decided by three fiber conditions: a node, irreducible restrictions, and volume at least 5.

desk verdict A clean criterion for cluster type in complexity two, with a classification payoff for Gorenstein del Pezzo surfaces, but its reduction to surface fibrations rests on an unproved preprint theorem by the first author. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18830 v2 pith:MXMGPHXT submitted 2024-12-25 math.AG

Joaquín Moraga , José Ignacio Yáñez This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AG MSC 14E3014D1014M2514J17
keywords Calabi-YaupairscomplexityclustertypetoricgeometryGorensteindelPezzosurfacescoregularityconicfibrations
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 turn the question 'is this Calabi-Yau pair of complexity two of cluster type?' into a finite geometric check. The authors show that, after birational modifications that preserve the Calabi-Yau structure, the question reduces to a surface fibration over a toric base, and that the answer is read off from a general fiber: the boundary curve must have a node, the boundary components must restrict to irreducible curves without splitting, and the fiber volume must be at least 5 in the relative Picard rank one case. This yields a complete answer for Gorenstein del Pezzo surfaces of Picard rank one: exactly fourteen isomorphism classes are cluster type, and among A-type surfaces only $X(4A_2)$ and $X(2A_1+2A_3)$ fail. The payoff is that a global birational search becomes a check of curve data on a single fiber.

What carries the argument

The machinery is built from the complexity invariant $c(X,B)=\dim X+\dim_{\mathbb{Q}}\mathrm{Cl}_{\mathbb{Q}}(X)-|B|$, which measures how far a log Calabi-Yau pair is from being toric: complexity zero pairs are toric and complexity one pairs are already cluster type. Theorem 1.4 decomposes a Fano type pair of index one and complexity two into either a finite cover of degree at most two that is cluster type or a crepant tower of strict conic fibrations (conic fibrations whose two boundary components are horizontal and disjoint) ending in a surface fibration over a toric Calabi-Yau pair. Theorem 1.6 normalizes that fibration into a standard model, and Theorems 1.7 and 1.8 translate cluster type into fiber data. The coregularity invariance of Theorem 1.9 supplies the missing obstruction: over a toric base the coregularity of general fibers equals that of the total space, so the absence of a node on the general fiber is a genuine obstruction rather than an artifact of a bad model. The volume threshold 5 enters because blowing up a node subtracts 4 from the self-intersection of the fiber boundary, so the strict transform is positive exactly when $\operatorname{vol}(F)\geq 5$.

What would settle it

Take a standard model of relative Picard rank one over a toric base whose general fiber has a nodal boundary, irreducible component restrictions, and $\operatorname{vol}(F)=4$; Theorem 1.8 predicts it is not cluster type, so exhibiting a crepant birational map from $(\mathbb{P}^3,\Sigma_3)$ would disprove the theorem. Concretely, one can search for an anti-canonical boundary on $X(4A_2)$ or $X(2A_1+2A_3)$ whose complement is covered by algebraic tori; the paper says no such boundary exists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.8: if $f:(X,B)\to(T,B_T)$ is a standard model of relative dimension two and relative Picard rank one over a toric Calabi-Yau pair, then $(X,B)$ is of cluster type if and only if the general fiber boundary $B_F$ has a nodal point, each irreducible component of $B$ restricts to an irreducible component of $B_F$, and $\operatorname{vol}(F)\geq 5$. A companion theorem, Theorem 1.7, handles relative Picard rank two with the volume bound replaced by positivity of self-intersection of some boundary component. Applied to surfaces, Theorem 1.3 states that a Gorenstein del Pezzo surface of Picard rank one is cluster type exactly when it has only A-type singularities and either $\operatorname{vol}(X)>1$ or $|X^{\mathrm{sing}}|\leq 3$; the only A-type surfaces with volume one and four singular points, $X(4A_2)$ and $X(2A_1+2A_3)$, are not cluster type. Here 'cluster type' means the open variety $X\setminus B$ is covered by algebraic tori up to codimension two, so the theorem says precisely which singular surfaces admit such a torus-rich logarithmic structure.

Load-bearing premise

The proof leans on an external structural claim, not proved here, that every such pair can be birationally decomposed without changing its Calabi-Yau structure into conic fibrations ending in a surface fibration over a toric variety; if that claim is false or incomplete, the whole reduction collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Theorem 1.3 identifies the fourteen cluster-type Gorenstein del Pezzo surfaces of Picard rank one; the only A-type non-cluster cases are $X(4A_2)$ and $X(2A_1+2A_3)$.
  • For higher-dimensional complexity-two pairs, cluster type is decided at the level of surface fibrations over toric bases, so the three fiber tests can be applied fibration by fibration.
  • Strict conic fibrations preserve cluster type in both directions (Theorem 1.5), so inserting or contracting such fibrations does not change the answer.
  • Complexity-two pairs can fail to be rational while having index one, coregularity zero, and complexity two (Example 7.1), so the criterion does not secretly measure rationality.
  • Coregularity is constant on general fibers of crepant fibrations to toric Calabi-Yau pairs (Theorem 1.9), giving a ready-made invariant for families.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The three conditions are decidable in practice: once a standard model is exhibited, checking a node, component irreducibility, and volume is finite computation; the paper supplies the reduction but does not advertise it as an algorithm.
  • The threshold $\operatorname{vol}(F)\geq 5$ coincides with the classical boundary where del Pezzo fibrations over $\mathbb{P}^1$ tend to be rational, suggesting cluster type may be the logarithmic version of that rationality threshold; this connection is not made in the paper.
  • The two exceptional surfaces sit at the simultaneous extreme of volume one and four singular points; a natural test is whether every anti-canonical boundary on them fails the node condition, or whether some non-general boundary choice could still be cluster type.
  • For relative Picard rank one, the node condition and volume condition appear independent; one could try replacing volume $\geq 5$ by self-intersection $\geq 1$ in higher relative dimension, a reformulation left implicit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops criteria for deciding when a Calabi-Yau pair of index one and complexity two is of cluster type. The main structural theorem (Theorem 1.4) asserts that, up to a crepant birational map extracting only log canonical places, such a pair is either finitely crepant-covered of degree at most two by a cluster-type pair, or admits a surface fibration over a toric Calabi-Yau pair after a composition of strict conic fibrations. The paper then restricts to standard models over toric bases and proves two precise criteria (Theorems 1.7 and 1.8) for cluster type in terms of the general fiber: existence of a node, component-wise restriction, and either a positive-self-intersection component (relative Picard rank two) or volume at least five (relative Picard rank one). These criteria are applied to Gorenstein del Pezzo surfaces of Picard rank one, yielding Theorem 1.3: cluster type holds if and only if the surface has only A-type singularities and either vol(X)>1 or |X^sing|≤3, with X(4A2) and X(2A1+2A3) as the only non-cluster A-type exceptions. The paper closes with worked examples and two open questions.

Significance. If the claimed results are correct, this is a substantial advance: it gives an actionable, numerical characterization of cluster type for a natural class of log Calabi-Yau pairs and settles the rank-one Gorenstein del Pezzo case. The proof strategy is transparent and largely verifiable: the reduction to standard models, the coregularity invariance theorem, and the del Pezzo analysis are written out in detail, with no fitted parameters. The main caveat is that the proof of Theorem 1.4 imports the central tower-of-Mori-fiber-spaces statement [20, Theorem 5.6] from an unpublished preprint, and the converse direction of Theorem 1.7 imports [5, Theorem 3.4]; these dependencies must be resolved before the characterization can be regarded as self-contained.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, proof of Theorem 1.4] The dichotomy (i)/(ii) is the foundation of the paper, but its proof is not self-contained: it invokes [20, Theorem 5.6] (an unpublished 2024 preprint by the first author) which supplies the tower of Mori fiber spaces with at least n-2 strict conic fibrations. No statement, proof, or verification of the hypotheses of that theorem is given. Since Theorems 1.7 and 1.8 apply only to standard models obtained after this reduction, any unstated hypothesis in [20, Theorem 5.6] would invalidate the claim that the criteria govern all Fano-type index-one complexity-two pairs. Please either include a proof of the tower theorem in an appendix or state it explicitly and confirm that it applies to the pairs considered here.
  2. [§5, proof of Theorem 1.7 (converse)] The only-if direction of condition (2) (the 'monodromy reasons' argument) is delegated to [5, Theorem 3.4], another preprint. This is load-bearing for the equivalence: if that statement is not available, Theorem 1.7 gives only a sufficient condition. The paper should state the imported theorem and either prove it or give a peer-reviewed reference.
  3. [§6, proof of Theorem 1.3] The proof passes from the Miyanishi-Zhang classification [18] to the table of eleven singularity types with the sentence 'we are left with checking the following classes,' but the completeness of this reduction is not demonstrated. Since Theorem 1.3's 'if and only if' and the count of fourteen cluster-type classes depend on this completeness, the table should be accompanied by the precise correspondence to [18] (for instance, the relevant rows of Figures 1 and 1' or the enumeration of the 31 families).
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3, proof of Theorem 1.4, Case 2] In the final step, 'By Lemma 2.13, we conclude that (Y0,BY0) is of cluster type' should cite Lemma 3.2; Lemma 2.13 only gives coregularity, index, and complexity inequalities.
  2. [§2.4, Definition 2.9] There is a typo: 'the infimum among of c(X,B;Σ)' should read 'the infimum of c(X,B;Σ)'.
  3. [Abstract and §6, Theorem 6.1] There are small typos: 'F urthermore' in the abstract and 'Asume' in Theorem 6.1 should be corrected.
  4. [§5, Figures 1-8] The proofs of Theorems 1.7 and 1.8 depend on Figures 1-8; the figures should be checked for legibility and label consistency, and color-coded components should be annotated so that the arguments are reproducible in grayscale.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Theorem 1.4's reduction to surface fibrations over toric bases is imported from the first author's [20, Thm 5.6] rather than proved; the title-level dichotomy rests on a same-author preprint, though the fiber criteria themselves are not definitionally circular.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3, proof of Theorem 1.4]
    "By [20, Theorem 5.6], there exists a crepant birational map (X_0,B_0) ⇢ (X,B), only extracting log canonical places of (X,B), and a tower of Mori fiber spaces (X_0,B_0) → (X_1,B_1) → ... → (X_k,B_k) → Spec(K), of which at least n−2 of the f_i's are strict conic fibrations. ... Indeed, by [20, Theorem 1.5], the pair (X_{j+1},B_{j+1}) is a toric Calabi–Yau pair."

    Theorem 1.4 is the paper's advertised reduction to surface fibrations over toric bases, but its dichotomy (i)/(ii) is not derived in the paper: the entire tower of Mori fiber spaces with n−2 strict conic fibrations, and the toricity of the remaining base, are taken verbatim from [20, Thm 5.6] and [20, Thm 1.5], a preprint by the first author that is not proved, sketched, or machine-checked here. If [20] is not accepted, the universal quantifier in Theorems 1.7–1.8 over 'complexity two' is unsupported; the derivation reduces to a same-author citation chain rather than to a self-contained proof. This is load-bearing self-citation, not a fitted parameter or a definitional equivalence, so it does not make the criteria themselves circular.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameters and no condition that is defined in terms of the conclusion; the criteria in Theorems 1.7 and 1.8 are proved via complexity computations, Proposition 5.1, Theorem 1.9, and the MMP, and the del Pezzo classification in Theorem 1.3 is checked against Miyanishi–Zhang's list with explicit boundary constructions. So the central classification has independent content. The circularity burden comes from the structural layer: the proof of Theorem 1.4 delegates its main dichotomy to [20, Thm 5.6] and [20, Thm 1.5] (first author), while the complexity-one base case is imported from [8] (second author and collaborators) and the 'cluster type over the base' converse step from [5] (first author and collaborators). Those are real theorems in their own preprints, but none is machine-checked or code-reproduced here, and [20] in particular is the step that makes the reduction to surface fibrations over toric varieties cover arbitrary complexity-two pairs. This raises the score to 4; it is not a 6+ because the fiber-wise criteria and the surface classification are not forced by construction.

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

The paper introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. Its central claim rests on standard MMP and toric geometry results plus a chain of recent theorems from the same research group, especially [20] and [8], which are not independently machine-checked or code-reproduced.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The base field is an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero.
    Declared in Section 2 and used throughout the paper.
  • standard math Fano type varieties are relative Mori dream spaces.
    Invoked in Lemma 3.1 to run MMPs over the base; cited to [16] and standard MMP literature.
  • standard math The dual complex of a Calabi-Yau pair is equidimensional.
    Used in Proposition 4.1 and Theorem 1.9 to compare coregularities; cited to [11, Theorem 1.6].
  • domain assumption Every Fano type Calabi-Yau pair of complexity two admits a crepant birational tower of Mori fiber spaces with at least n-2 strict conic fibrations.
    Load-bearing for Theorem 1.4; imported from [20, Theorem 5.6], a preprint by the first author.
  • domain assumption Calabi-Yau pairs of index one and complexity one are cluster type.
    Used as the base case in several inductions; imported from [8, Theorem 1.1], a 2025 preprint.
  • standard math The 31 families of Gorenstein del Pezzo surfaces of Picard rank one are classified by their singularities.
    Used in Section 6 to enumerate surfaces; cited to [18].
  • standard math Finite covers of P1 ramified only over {0} and {infinity} are isomorphic to P1 with the same boundary.
    Used in Proposition 4.1 to identify the base of certain crepant fibrations; cited to [19, Proposition 3.32].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Calabi-Yau pairs of complexity two." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MXMGPHXT

@misc{pith2026241218830,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Calabi-Yau pairs of complexity two},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MXMGPHXT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18830}
}
abstract

A Calabi-Yau pair of index one and complexity zero is toric. Furthermore, a Calabi-Yau pair of index one and complexity one is of cluster type. In this article, we study Calabi-Yau pairs of index one and complexity two. We develop machinery to decide whether a Calabi-Yau of complexity two is of cluster type. This approach reduces the problem to studying del Pezzo fibrations over toric varieties. We apply this to the setting of Gorenstein del Pezzo surfaces of Picard rank one. We prove that such a surface $X$ is cluster type if and only if $X$ has only $A$-type singularities and either $\mathrm{vol}(X)>1$ or $|X^{\rm sing}|\leq 3$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18830 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of Diagram 5.2. D1 D2 f b b 0 ∞ P 1 (F0, BF0 ) (YF , BYF ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Case 1. C˜ 2 the strict transform of C1 and C2. Then we can contract all components of BYF which are not D1, D2, C˜ 1 and C˜ 2. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Contraction of Case 1. In blue, the components corresponding to the strict transform of C1 and C2 D1 D2 f b b 0 ∞ P 1 (F0, BF0 ) (YF , BYF ) C0 C∞ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Case 2. As argued above, C˜ 1 must lie in f −1 (0), while C˜ 2 could lie anywhere in BYF . We contract all components of BYF that are not in {C˜ 1, C˜ 2, C0, C∞}. Let f −1 (0) = E, which is contained in the strict transform of BF . Then we have E2 = 0, and there is a n…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The three possible subcases in Case 2. so Bhor has two components. Property (2) implies that Bhor → BF induces a bijection of the components. Then BF consists of two components, C1 and C2. By (3), we can assume that C1 and C2 intersect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: General fiber assuming (1) and (2) and (3). Now, write Bhor = B1 + B2, with Bi |F = Ci . We run a (KX + B − ǫB2)–MMP over T , which induces a (KF + BF − ǫC2)–MMP on the general fiber. After finitely many small modifications, which induce the identity on F, we have a di…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: General fiber assuming (1) and (2), but not (3). By Proposition 5.1, we can find a toric blow-up F˜ → F, a non-trivial effective divisor m1C˜ 1 + m2C˜ 2, supported on the strict transforms of C1 and C2, with (m1C˜ 1+m2C˜ 2) 2 = 0, and a node outside m1C˜ 1+m2C˜ 2. Firs…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Diagram of toric blow-ups when m1 > 0 and m2 > 0. so C˜2 1 = C 2 1 − α β ≤ −α β . Similarly, C˜2 2 ≤ −β α . Now we compute (m1C˜ 1 + m2C˜ 2) 2 = m2 1C˜2 1 + 2m1m2 + m2 2C˜2 2 ≤ − α β m2 1 + 2m1m2 − β α m2 2 = − 1 αβ (αm1 − βm2) 2 ≤ 0. which is a contradiction. Finally …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Contraction from Y (A7) to Y (A1 + A5) E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E1 E2 E3 Y (A8) F1 F2 F3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E1 E2 E3 Y (A2 + A5) F2 F3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Contraction from Y (A8) to Y (A2 + A5) We show that X(A1 + A7) is a cluster type surface. Let Y (A1 + A7) be the minimal resolution of X(A1 + A7). The surface Y (A +1 +A7) admits a contraction of a (−1)-curve to Y (A1 + 2A3), the minimal resolution of X(A1 + 2A3), as …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Contraction from Y (A1 + A7) to Y (A1 + 2A3) E5 E1 E2 E3 E4 E6 E7 E8 Y (2A4) F1 F2 F3 E1 E2 E3 E4 Y (A4) F1 F2 E5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Contraction from Y (2A4) to Y (A4) X(A4). Then, BX(A4) is a nodal curve contained in the smooth locus of X(A4) and so (X(A4), BX(A4)) is of cluster type by Theorem 6.1.(2). Finally, we prove that X(A1 + A2 + A5) is a cluster type surface. Let B be a nodal sextic in P(…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Minimal resolution Y (A1 + A2 + A5) of X(A1 + A2 + A5) Consider the boundary divisor BY (A1+A2+A5) := E7 + E8 + F3. Let X2 be the surface obtained by contracting F3 and then the image of E8. Then, the surface X2 is a Gorenstein del Pezzo surface of rank one with two s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Bott-Chern complexity of K\"ahler pairs

    math.AG 2025-05 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    The Bott-Chern complexity of a non-projective Calabi-Yau Kähler pair is at least 3, and this bound is attained by singular non-projective K3 surfaces with Picard rank zero.

  2. Complexity one varieties are cluster type

    math.AG 2025-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A log Calabi-Yau pair of index one and complexity at most one is a cluster type variety, and varieties of absolute complexity one admit a finite cluster type cover of degree at most two.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [18]

    Miyanishi and D.-Q

    M. Miyanishi and D.-Q. Zhang. Gorenstein log del Pezzo s urfaces of rank one. J. Algebra , 118(1):63–84, 1988. doi:10.1016/0021-8693(88)90048-8

    doi:10.1016/0021-8693(88)90048-8 1988

  2. [1]

    Avilov, K

    A. Avilov, K. Loginov, and V. Przyjalkowski. Coregulari ty of smooth Fano threefolds. Commun. Number Theory Phys. , 18(3):509–577, 2024. doi:10.4310/cntp.240904010922

    work page doi:10.4310/cntp.240904010922 2024

  3. [2]

    Braun, S

    L. Braun, S. Filipazzi, J. Moraga, and R. Svaldi. The Jord an property for local fundamental groups. Geom. Topol. , 26(1):283–319, 2022. doi:10.2140/gt.2022.26.283

    work page doi:10.2140/gt.2022.26.283 2022

  4. [3]

    M. V. Brown, J. McKernan, R. Svaldi, and H. R. Zong. A geome tric characterization of toric varieties. Duke Math. J. , 167(5):923–968, 2018. doi:10.1215/00127094-2017-0047

    doi:10.1215/00127094-2017-0047 2018

  5. [4]

    D. A. Cox, J. B. Little, and H. K. Schenck. Toric varieties , volume 124 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2011. doi:10.1090/gsm/124

    doi:10.1090/gsm/124 2011

  6. [5]

    E. A. da Silva, F. Figueroa, and J. Moraga. Algebraic tori in the complement of quartic surfaces, 2024, arXiv:2411.03506

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [6]

    Log Calabi--Yau pairs of complexity zero and arbitrary index

    J. Enwright and F. Figueroa. Log Calabi-Yau pairs of comp lexity zero and arbitrary index, 2024, arXiv:2411.05343

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    Log Calabi-Yau pairs of birational complexity zero

    J. Enwright, F. Figueroa, and J. Moraga. Log Calabi-Yau p airs of birational complexity zero, 2024, arXiv:2404.05878

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 25 references
  1. [8]

    Enwright, J

    J. Enwright, J. Li, and J. I. Y´ a˜ nez. Complexity one vari eties are cluster type, 2025, arXiv:2504.17369

    2025 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Esser, L

    L. Esser, L. Ji, and J. Moraga. Symmetries of fano varieti es. Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal), 2024. doi:doi:10.1515/crelle-2024-0077

    2024 doi

  3. [10]

    Filipazzi, M

    S. Filipazzi, M. Mauri, and J. Moraga. Index of coregula rity zero log Calabi-Yau pairs. Algebra Number Theory, 19(2):383– 413, 2025. doi:10.2140/ant.2025.19.383

    2025 doi

  4. [11]

    Filipazzi and R

    S. Filipazzi and R. Svaldi. On the connectedness princi ple and dual complexes for generalized pairs. Forum Math. Sigma , 11:Paper No. e33, 2023. doi:10.1017/fms.2023.25

    2023 doi

  5. [12]

    Gachet, Z

    C. Gachet, Z. Liu, and J. Moraga. Fundamental groups of l og Calabi-Yau surfaces, 2023, arXiv:2312.03981

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    M. Gross. Toric degenerations and Batyrev-Borisov dua lity. Math. Ann. , 333(3):645–688, 2005. doi:10.1007/s00208-005-0686-7

    2005 doi

  7. [14]

    Gross, P

    M. Gross, P. Hacking, and S. Keel. Mirror symmetry for lo g Calabi-Yau surfaces I. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. , 122:65–168, 2015. doi:10.1007/s10240-015-0073-1

    2015 doi

  8. [15]

    Ji and J

    L. Ji and J. Moraga. Toricity in families of Fano varieti es, 2024, arXiv:2409.03564

    2024

  9. [16]

    C.-J. Lai. Varieties fibered by good minimal models. Math. Ann. , 350(3):533–547, 2011. doi:10.1007/s00208-010-0574-7

    2011 doi

  10. [17]

    Mauri and J

    M. Mauri and J. Moraga. Birational complexity and dual c omplexes. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) , 131(2):Paper No. e70073,

  11. [19]

    J. Moraga. Kawamata log terminal singularities of full rank, 2021, arXiv:2007.10322

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J. Moraga. Birational complexity and conic fibrations, 2024, arXiv:2403.17251

    2024

  13. [21]

    J. Moraga. Birational complexity of log Calabi-Yau 3-f olds, 2024, arXiv:2405.18516

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J. Moraga. Termination of pseudo-effective 4-fold flips . Math. Z. , 310(4):Paper No. 73, 32, 2025. doi:10.1007/s00209-025-03766-y

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    Moraga and R

    J. Moraga and R. Svaldi. A geometric characterization o f toric singularities. Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, page 103620, 2024. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpur.2024.103620

    2024

  16. [24]

    Y. G. Prokhorov. The rationality problem for conic bund les. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk , 73(3(441)):3–88, 2018. doi:10.4213/rm9811. UCLA Mathematics Department, Box 951555, Los Angeles, CA 9009 5-1555, USA Email address : jmoraga@math.ucla.edu UCLA Mathematics Department, Box 951555, ...

    2018 doi

  17. [2025]

    doi:10.1112/plms.70073

    doi

Pith tools

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