Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Hyper-K\"ahler manifolds from Riemann-Hilbert problems I: Ooguri-Vafa-like model geometries

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that the Gaiotto–Moore–Neitzke integral relation produces genuine hyper-Kähler metrics for a family of local model geometries that include and generalize the multi-Ooguri-Vafa model.

desk verdict A careful, promising first step in making GMN rigorous, but the final twistor-theorem bridge is under-verified and at least one dimension statement looks wrong. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01675 v1 pith:KHCL3CR4 submitted 2025-01-03 math.DG

Laura Fredrickson , Max Zimet This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DG MSC 53C2630E2553D20
keywords hyper-KählermanifoldsOoguri-VafamodelGaiotto-Moore-NeitzkeformalismtwistortheoremRiemann-Hilbertproblemssemi-flatlimitsGibbons-HawkingansatzK3degenerations
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 establishes that, for a class of local model geometries, the Gaiotto–Moore–Neitzke integral relation produces a genuine hyper-Kähler metric rather than only a formal family of closed 2-forms. The models include and generalize the multi-Ooguri-Vafa geometry that describes neighborhoods of singular fibers in degenerations of K3 surfaces. The main theorem (Theorem 5.73) proves that the $\mathbb{P}^1$-family $\varpi^{\mathrm{model}}(\zeta)$ extends smoothly over the singular locus and is nondegenerate, so the twistor theorem applies. This matters because it is the first step in a program to make the GMN formalism rigorous near semi-flat limits, with quantitative control of the neighborhood size through assumption (A6).

What carries the argument

The machinery is the GMN integral relation: for each sectorial decomposition of the $\zeta$-plane, one defines $X^{\mathrm{model}}_\gamma(\zeta)$ from the semi-flat character $X^{\mathrm{sf}}_\gamma(\zeta)$ by exponentiating an integral with kernel $(\zeta'+\zeta)/(\zeta'-\zeta)\,d\zeta'/\zeta'$ against $\log(1-X^{\mathrm{sf}}_{\gamma'})$; the closed 2-form $\varpi^{\mathrm{model}}(\zeta)=\frac{1}{8\pi}\langle d\log X^{\mathrm{model}}\wedge d\log X^{\mathrm{model}}\rangle$ is then shown to be holomorphic symplectic. Two auxiliary mechanisms carry the argument: the twistor theorem (Theorem 1.3, quoted from the companion paper [FZ]) that converts a $\mathbb{C}^\times$-family of holomorphic symplectic forms into a pseudo-hyper-Kähler structure, and a positive-definite matrix $V$ built from the harmonic function $T$ (a Poisson-resummed series of modified Bessel functions), which controls both the signature and the smooth extension to the singular fiber. A hyper-Kähler quotient construction fills in the singular fiber by Taub–NUT-like pieces.

What would settle it

Compute the determinant $\varpi^{\mathrm{model}}(\zeta)^r\wedge \overline{\varpi^{\mathrm{model}}(\zeta)}^r$ in the smooth coordinates of Lemma 4.61 at a point where $|q_\gamma|\to 0$ for some $\gamma\in S$; in the proof this limit is controlled by $\det(V)\prod |q_\gamma|^2/4$. If the limiting Jacobian vanishes or changes sign, Theorem 5.73 fails; checking this at the zeros of $Z_\gamma$ and $\theta_\gamma$ directly would settle the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 5.73: under assumptions (A1)–(A6) on a lattice sequence $0\to \Gamma_f \to \widehat{\Gamma}\to \Gamma\to 0$ over a complex base near a singular divisor, the family of closed 2-forms $\varpi^{\mathrm{model}}(\zeta)$ defined on the smooth extension $M_U$ is hyper-Kähler. The proof works by writing $\varpi^{\mathrm{model}}(\zeta)$ in holomorphic Darboux coordinates, showing the coordinate Jacobians are nonvanishing on the smooth locus, checking that the limit over the singular fiber is nondegenerate, and then invoking the authors' concrete twistor theorem (Theorem 1.3) to turn the family into a pseudo-hyper-Kähler metric whose signature is positive because the matrix $V$ is positive definite. The models cover the Ooguri–Vafa and multi-Ooguri–Vafa geometries, including non-unimodular charge lattices and collisions of singular fibers, and reduce to known Gibbons–Hawking/Taub–NUT forms near the singular locus.

Load-bearing premise

The construction rests on the twistor theorem quoted from the authors' companion paper: if that theorem's hypotheses are not met in a given example, the nondegenerate family of 2-forms does not automatically yield a hyper-Kähler metric.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The GMN formalism, for these model geometries, is proven to produce actual hyper-Kähler metrics, so the nondegeneracy question that earlier treatments left open is resolved in this setting.
  • Multi-Ooguri–Vafa models with several colliding $I_N$ fibers are handled uniformly, giving quantitative control of the neighborhood of a singular fiber that supports the model metric at fixed fiber scale $R=1/\pi$.
  • The smooth extension over the singular locus is constructed explicitly via hyper-Kähler quotients, so the model metrics are genuinely defined on the completed manifold $M_U$, not just on the regular part.
  • These model geometries can serve as the starting point for the iteration scheme in follow-up papers aimed at producing global hyper-Kähler metrics near semi-flat limits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper leaves implicit is that the same nondegeneracy and positivity checks, if carried out under the modified GMN integral relation used in the announced iteration, should globalize the construction; that is the authors' program, but the present paper does not prove it.
  • The explicit estimates around assumption (A6) suggest a route to quantitative Gromov–Hausdorff collapse statements, not pursued here.
  • The quotient interpretation for non-unimodular lattices connects these models to polarized moduli spaces such as $PU(2)$ Higgs bundles; the paper notes the connection but does not develop it into metric statements.
  • One could test numerically whether the matrix $V$ stays positive definite at intermediate radii where the annulus $U'$ shrinks; this would pinpoint where the model metric ceases to exist for fixed $R$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper constructs local hyper-Kähler model geometries, including and generalizing the multi-Ooguri-Vafa models, from Gaiotto–Moore–Neitzke data via a Riemann–Hilbert-type integral relation. The main result, stated as Theorem 5.73, asserts that under assumptions (A1)–(A6) the family of closed 2-forms ϖmodel(ζ), defined sector-wise from the GMN integral relation and extended smoothly over the singular locus, defines a hyper-Kähler structure on the smooth manifold MU. The proof combines holomorphic Darboux coordinates and explicit Jacobian computations for nondegeneracy, a smooth extension argument via a generalized Gibbons–Hawking presentation and a hyper-Kähler quotient, positive-definiteness of a potential matrix V, and an invocation of a companion twistor theorem [FZ, Theorem 3.16b] quoted as Theorem 1.3. The paper also develops the semi-flat geometry in detail, handles non-unimodular lattices via Frobenius bases, and verifies the assumptions in the multi-Ooguri-Vafa example.

Significance. If the main theorem is fully established, this is a meaningful step toward a rigorous version of the Gaiotto–Moore–Neitzke formalism: it constructs explicit local hyper-Kähler model geometries from enumerative data, with quantitative control over the size of the neighborhood (assumption (A6)), and it extends the model smoothly across the singular locus. The paper's strengths include the detailed semi-flat construction, the transparent Darboux-coordinate nondegeneracy computations, the explicit use of Frobenius bases for non-unimodular lattices, and the hyper-Kähler quotient description of the smooth extension. The construction is genuinely from the GMN integral relation rather than fitted to a target metric, and the hypotheses (A1)–(A6) are stated precisely and verified in the multi-Ooguri-Vafa example. However, two load-bearing steps are not fully supported: the gluing statement Corollary 5.38, which is needed to define a single global family ϖmodel(ζ), and the verification that the family satisfies the full hypotheses of the quoted twistor theorem.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, Corollary 5.38 and Remark 5.39] The assertion that ϖmodel,a = ϖmodel,b on overlaps and that the analytic continuations agree is not proved; Remark 5.39 only states that the functions X^a and X^b are related by a symplectomorphism, which does not by itself imply equality of the induced 2-forms. This Corollary is the only statement making the sector-wise definition of Definition 5.4 into a single well-defined family on all of MU, and it is used implicitly in Proposition 5.40 and Theorem 5.73. A direct proof, for example using the explicit Bessel-function expression (5.34) or analytic continuation of the integrals as outlined in Remark 5.8, is required.
  2. [§1, Theorem 1.3; §5, proof of Theorem 5.73] The proof of Theorem 5.73 invokes [FZ, Theorem 3.16b] verbatim as Theorem 1.3, but the manuscript does not verify that ϖmodel(ζ) satisfies all hypotheses of that theorem as a twistor family over P1. The text proves nondegeneracy for each fixed ζ ∈ C× and for ω+, but the final step from a nondegenerate family of closed 2-forms to a pseudo-hyper-Kähler metric is carried entirely by the external theorem. If the quoted Theorem 1.3 is the complete statement of [FZ, Theorem 3.16b], its statement omits the usual conditions on the ζ-dependence of the family; if the full theorem contains additional hypotheses, those must be stated and verified here.
  3. [§5, proof of Proposition 5.40] The smooth extension of ϖmodel(ζ) to the singular locus is argued by showing that the difference ϖmodel − ϖTN is continuous and then asserting that smoothness in the coordinates on (Im H)^r implies smoothness in the coordinates on M. The behavior of higher derivatives in the coordinates w_{γ,1}, w_{γ,2} of Lemma 4.61 is only sketched, and this point is load-bearing because Theorem 5.73 requires ϖmodel(ζ) to be smooth on all of MU. A more detailed verification of the derivative estimates is needed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, proof of Proposition 4.43] In the paragraph after equation (4.52), the statement that the rank of the matrix Ω(γσ)p_i^{-1}⟨γmi, γσ⟩ is r is false in general; the rank is at most s ≤ ℓ ≤ r. The subsequent freeness argument only requires full row rank s, using the primitivity of the sublattice generated by S, so the conclusion is valid but the sentence should be corrected.
  2. [§5, Lemma 5.58] The displayed formula for the Jacobian determinant in equation (5.61) is left blank; it should state the computed value (2π)^{-2r}(2i)^r det V, matching equation (5.72) up to the chosen orientation convention.
  3. [Throughout] Several cross-references are broken: the proof of Theorem 5.73 refers to 'Proposition ??' and 'Lemma ??', and Proposition 5.15 refers to 'Definition ??'. These should be fixed before publication.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] There are minor typos, including 'Gaitto' for 'Gaiotto' in the abstract and 'ubiquitious' for 'ubiquitous' in the introduction; a careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the constructed family ϖmodel(ζ) is an output computed from lattice/BPS data via the GMN integral relation, not an input fitted to a target hyper-Kähler metric.

full rationale

The central derivation is conditional and self-contained in the sense that the model geometry is produced from the data (D1)-(D6) and assumptions (A1)-(A6). Nondegeneracy is proved by Jacobian computations (Lemma 5.19) that identify the determinant with the positive-definite matrix V of Lemma 4.20(e), and V's positivity is an explicit hypothesis (A6), not a restatement of the target metric. Smooth extension over the singular locus is proved by comparing with the Taub-NUT quotient model (Proposition 4.76) via difference estimates, again not by assuming the conclusion. The main external input is the authors' companion twistor theorem [FZ, Theorem 3.16b], quoted as Theorem 1.3; it is a general parameter-free theorem whose assumptions do not include the target hyper-Kähler structure, so under the stated rules this is real evidence rather than circularity. Two caveats are correctness risks rather than circular reductions: (i) Corollary 5.38 and Remark 5.39 assert that the sectorially defined ϖmodel,a glue and are independent of analytic continuation only via a heuristic symplectomorphism argument, with no detailed proof; (ii) the hypotheses of [FZ, Theorem 3.16b]—global twistor-line structure and reality—are not checked in full detail here. Neither caveat identifies an equation with an input; the construction is not an equivalence between prediction and fitted parameter.

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

The construction takes the lattice data (D1)-(D6) and assumptions (A1)-(A6) as inputs; no parameter is fitted to the output metric. The choice R = 1/π is a unit choice, and the numerical root in Figure 5 is used only to verify (A6) for the example. The main external dependency is the companion twistor theorem [FZ], and the six domain assumptions are explicit hypotheses of the main theorem.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Assumption (A1): near u in B'', bΓ admits a short exact decomposition with trivial bΓlight, bΓlocal, Γheavy, Γnonlocal.
    Defines the light/local charge decomposition used throughout the model construction; the entire paper operates under this setup (Section 3, A1).
  • domain assumption Assumption (A2): the BPS count Ω restricted to bΓlight is constant, integral, non-negative, and eΓlight is finite.
    Ensures the ray sum in the model geometry is finite and well defined; used to define X model as a finite product (Section 3, A2).
  • domain assumption Assumption (A3): central charges on bΓlocal extend holomorphically, dZ is surjective on bΓlocal, and B'' ∩ U is the union of zero loci Zγ = 0 for γ in eΓlight.
    Provides good coordinates near the singular locus and is needed for the sectorial decomposition and for extending the manifold over B'' (Section 3, A3).
  • domain assumption Assumption (A4): central charges have the prescribed logarithmic form Zγ = eZγ + (1/4πi) Σ ⟨γ,γ'⟩ Ω(γ') Zγ' (log(Zγ'/π) - 1) with eZγ holomorphic on U.
    This logarithmic structure reproduces the monodromy needed for Ooguri-Vafa-like models and is later used to cancel log singularities in the extension over B'' (Section 3, A4).
  • domain assumption Assumption (A5): for each θ, the active charges γ with Zγ(u') = θγ = 0 project to a primitive basis, and Ω(γ) = 1 for all γ in eΓlight.
    Needed so the hyper-Kähler quotient in Proposition 4.43 yields a smooth manifold rather than an orbifold; the paper notes that dropping (A5)(ii) gives an orbifold version instead (Section 3, A5 and Remark 3.14).
  • domain assumption Assumption (A6): there exists an open subset U' of U ∩ B' on which ωU' is a Kähler form, with certain discs D whose boundaries lie in U'.
    This novel quantitative assumption is used to prove positive-definiteness of the matrix V and to obtain explicit neighborhood size estimates; it is verified only for the multi-Ooguri-Vafa example, not in general (Section 3, A6).
  • domain assumption [FZ, Theorem 3.16b]: a P1 family ϖ(ζ) of closed 2-forms with ω- = ωbar+ and ω+ holomorphic symplectic yields a pseudo-hyper-Kähler structure.
    Imported verbatim from the authors' companion paper [FZ] and not proved here; this theorem is the bridge from nondegeneracy of ϖ(ζ) and ω+ to the existence of a pseudo-hyper-Kähler metric (Section 1, Theorem 1.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hyper-K\"ahler manifolds from Riemann-Hilbert problems I: Ooguri-Vafa-like model geometries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KHCL3CR4

@misc{pith2026250101675,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hyper-K\"ahler manifolds from Riemann-Hilbert problems I: Ooguri-Vafa-like model geometries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KHCL3CR4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01675}
}
abstract

We construct model hyper-K\"ahler geometries that include and generalize the multi-Ooguri-Vafa model using the formalism of Gaitto, Moore, and Neitzke. This is the first paper in a series of papers making rigorous Gaiotto--Moore--Neitzke's formalism for constructing hyper-K\"ahler metrics near semi-flat limits. In that context, this paper describes the assumptions we will make on a sequence of lattices $0 \to \Gamma_{f} \to \widehat{\Gamma} \to \Gamma \to 0$ over a complex manifold $\mathcal{B}'=\mathcal{B} - \mathcal{B}''$ near the singular locus, $\mathcal{B}''$, in order to define a smooth manifold $\mathcal{M} \to \mathcal{B}$ and hyper-K\"ahler model geometries on neighborhoods of points of the singular locus. In follow-up papers, we will use a modified version of Gaiotto-Moore-Neitzke's iteration scheme starting at these model geometries to produce true global hyper-K\"ahler metrics on $\mathcal{M}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01675 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. For Ooguri-Vafa, here is an image showing the difference of: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The map X sf(ζ) is naturally a section of π ∗T ′ ζ . Lemmata 2.61, 2.63, 2.64 relate the holomorphic symplectic form ϖsf(ζ) on M′ to the holomorphic symplectic forms ϖ0 on T ′ u and ϖζ on T ′ ζ (all shown in green) via various restrictions and trivializations (shown in gray) and pullbacks. We then see that X sf(ζ) is a local section of π ∗T ′ ζ . If we consider such a section over a set of the form π −1 (U), where U… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The open sets in Assumption (A6) are as follows. The set U is the interior of the indicated gray region. The subset U ′ is the indicated gold shell within the regular locus B ′ . This assumption is particular novel. We can unpack this assumption more explicitly as we did in Lemma 2.1(iv): Lemma 3.16. ωU′ is a K¨ahler form on U ′ if, and only if, Im τij − 1 4 √ π X γ∈Γelight Ω(γ)p −1 i p −1 j cγ,icγ,j p |Zγ|(e 2|Zγ| … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A multi-Ooguri-Vafa space that is a perturbation of an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The proof of (A6) in part (b) refers to the function f(r) = − 1 2π log r π + 1 2 √ π √ 1 |z|(exp(2|z|)−1) which we here graph on r ∈ (0, π). There is a root r0 of f near .42. We observe that the plot of f(r) = − 1 2π log r π + 1 2 √ π √ 1 |z|(exp(2|z|)−1) is given in …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The map p : Mf′ → Y described in Lemma 4.20(d)-(g)is shown for Ooguri-Vafa. More precisely, note that picture is of this is the Z r universal cover of Θ, with implicit Z r action. (c) When y > 0 we have [DLMF, §§10.37,10.40] 0 ≤ K0(y) ≤ r π 2y e −y . (4.29) So, when |w…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Left) Sectorial decomposition V = {VA} 2K A=1 of C × ζ with rays rA labelled (Right) VA contains rA−1 but not rA Notation: Let rA be the ray separating VA from VA+1, oriented from 0 to ∞; we take VA to contain rA−1 but not rA (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Zγ(u) = Z ∥ γ (u) + Z ⊥ γ (u) We analytically continue these functions clockwise and counterclockwise. Note that here we are using that the angle between ℓγ ′(u) and ra,A(γ ′)±1 is strictly acute since it is bounded above by 2ϕ and we took K ≥ 5. Definition 5.11 (X mod…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anderson, P

    M. Anderson, P. Kronheimer, and C. LeBrun, `` Complete Ricci-flat K\"ahler Manifolds of Infinite Topological type ,'' Comm. Math. Phys. 125 (1989) 637--642

    work page 1989

  2. [2]

    Aharony, N

    O. Aharony, N. Seiberg, and Y. Tachikawa, `` Reading between the lines of four-dimensional gauge theories ,'' JHEP 8 (2013) 115, http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0318 arXiv:1305.0318

    arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Bielawski, ``Complete hyper- K \"ahler 4n -manifolds with a local tri- H amiltonian R^n -action,'' http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002080050305 Math

    R. Bielawski, ``Complete hyper- K \"ahler 4n -manifolds with a local tri- H amiltonian R^n -action,'' http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002080050305 Math. Ann. 314 no. 3, (1999) 505--528 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s002080050305

    work page doi:10.1007/s002080050305 1999

  4. [4]

    G. Chen, J. Viaclovsky, and R. Zhang, `` Collapsing Ricci-flat metrics on elliptic K3 surfaces ,'' Communications in Analysis and Geometry 23 (2020) , http://arxiv.org/abs/1910.11321 arXiv:1910.11321

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Dancer, ``Hypertoric manifolds of infinite topological type,'' http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomphys.2019.04.013 J

    A. Dancer, ``Hypertoric manifolds of infinite topological type,'' http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomphys.2019.04.013 J. Geom. Phys. 142 (2019) 168--178 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomphys.2019.04.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.geomphys.2019.04.013 2019

  6. [6]

    https://dlmf.nist.gov/

    `` NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions .'' https://dlmf.nist.gov/, release 1.2.0 of 2024-03-15. https://dlmf.nist.gov/. F. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis , D. W. Lozier, B. I. Schneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller, B. V. Saunders, H. S. Cohl, and M. A. McClain, eds

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    D. S. Freed, ``Special K \"a hler manifolds,'' http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002200050604 Comm. Math. Phys. 203 no. 1, (1999) 31--52 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s002200050604

    doi:10.1007/s002200050604 1999

  8. [8]

    A Concrete Variant of the Twistor Theorem

    L. Fredrickson and M. Zimet, ``A concrete variant of the twistor theorem,'' http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00505 2501.00505

    work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Garza, `` A construction of hyperk\"ahler metrics through Riemann-Hilbert problems I ,'' http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.08188 arXiv:1701.08188

    C. Garza, `` A construction of hyperk\"ahler metrics through Riemann-Hilbert problems I ,'' http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.08188 arXiv:1701.08188

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, `` Gravitational multi-instantons ,'' Phys. Lett. B 78 (1978) 430--432

    1978

  3. [11]

    Griffiths and J

    P. Griffiths and J. Harris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118032527 Principles of Algebraic Geometry . Wiley Interscience, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118032527

    1994 doi

  4. [12]

    Gaiotto, G

    D. Gaiotto, G. W. Moore, and A. Neitzke, `` Wall-crossing, Hitchin Systems, and the WKB Approximation ,'' http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3987 arXiv:0907.3987

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gaiotto, G

    D. Gaiotto, G. W. Moore, and A. Neitzke, `` Four-dimensional wall-crossing via three-dimensional field theory ,'' Comm. Math. Phys. 299 (2010) 163--224, http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.4723 arXiv:0807.4723

    2010 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gaiotto, G

    D. Gaiotto, G. W. Moore, and A. Neitzke, `` Framed BPS States ,'' Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 17 (2013) 241--397, http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0146 arXiv:1006.0146

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Goto, `` On Hyper-K\"ahler Manifolds of type A_ ,'' Geom

    R. Goto, `` On Hyper-K\"ahler Manifolds of type A_ ,'' Geom. Funct. Anal. 4 no. 4, (1994) 424--454

    1994

  8. [16]

    G. W. Gibbons, P. Rychenkova, and R. Goto, `` HyperK\"ahler Quotient Construction of BPS Monopole Moduli Spaces ,'' Comm. Math. Phys. 186 (1997) 585--599, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9608085 arXiv:hep-th/9608085

    1997 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gross and P

    M. Gross and P. Wilson, `` Large Complex Structure Limits of K3 Surfaces ,'' J. Differential Geom. 55 (2000) 475--546, http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0008018 arXiv:math/0008018

    2000 arXiv

  10. [18]

    om, and M. Ro c ek, `` Hyperk\

    N. J. Hitchin, A. Karlhede, U. Lindstr\"om, and M. Ro c ek, `` Hyperk\"ahler Metrics and Supersymmetry ,'' Comm. Math. Phys. 108 (1987) 535--589

    1987

  11. [19]

    Kapustin and M

    A. Kapustin and M. Strassler, `` On Mirror Symmetry in Three Dimensional Abelian Gauge Theories ,'' JHEP 4 (1999) 21, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9902033 arXiv:hep-th/9902033

    1999 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kachru, A

    S. Kachru, A. Tripathy, and M. Zimet, `` K3 metrics ,'' http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.02435 arXiv:2006.02435

    2006 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Lang, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/9781461257400 Introduction to Algebraic and Abelian Functions, 2nd Edition

    S. Lang, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/9781461257400 Introduction to Algebraic and Abelian Functions, 2nd Edition . Springer-Verlag, 1982. https://doi.org/10.1007/9781461257400

    1982 doi

  14. [22]

    Lindstr\"om and M

    U. Lindstr\"om and M. Ro c ek, `` Scalar Tensor Duality and N=1,2 Non-Linear -Models ,'' Nucl. Phys. B222 (1983) 285--308

    1983

  15. [23]

    Neitzke, `` Notes on a new construction of hyperk\"ahler metrics ,'' in Homological Mirror Symmetry and Tropical Geometry , R

    A. Neitzke, `` Notes on a new construction of hyperk\"ahler metrics ,'' in Homological Mirror Symmetry and Tropical Geometry , R. Castano-Bernard, F. Catanese, M. Kontsevich, T. Pantev, Y. Soibelman, and I. Zharkov, eds., vol. 15 of Lecture Notes of the Unione Matematica Itali...

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ooguri and C

    H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, `` Summing up D-instantons ,'' Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 3296--3298, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9608079 arXiv:hep-th/9608079

    1996 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Pederson and Y

    H. Pederson and Y. Poon, `` Hyper-K\"ahler Metrics and a Generalization of the Bogomolny Equations ,'' Comm. Math. Phys. 117 (1988) 569--580

    1988

  18. [26]

    Seiberg and S

    N. Seiberg and S. H. Shenker, `` Hypermultiplet moduli space and string compactification to three dimensions ,'' Phys. Lett. B388 (1996) 521--523, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9608086 arXiv:hep-th/9608086

    1996 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Strominger, S.-T

    A. Strominger, S.-T. Yau, and E. Zaslow, `` Mirror Symmetry is T-Duality ,'' Nucl. Phys. B479 (1996) 243--259, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9606040 arXiv:hep-th/9606040

    1996 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Tripathy and M

    A. Tripathy and M. Zimet, `` A plethora of K3 metrics ,'' http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.12581 arXiv:2010.12581

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.