Calabi-Yau techniques for Namikawa-Weyl groups

Jasper van de Kreeke

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 13 references

Calabi-Yau techniques for Namikawa-Weyl groups

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Every quiver variety with a symplectic resolution has its Namikawa-Weyl group determined by local quiver symmetries.

desk verdict A new method for Namikawa-Weyl groups of quiver varieties, but the proof has a load-bearing gap in the local-to-global functor and the classification itself is not new. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03198 v1 pith:REUIGK3R submitted 2025-01-06 math.RT math.AGmath.SG

Jasper van de Kreeke This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.RTmath.AGmath.SG MSC 16G2014E1516E45

keywords Namikawa-WeylgroupquivervarietiessymplecticsingularitiesCalabi-Yau-2algebrasA-infinitycategoriesmonodromyKleinianpreprojective

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 aims to compute the Namikawa-Weyl group — the finite group that governs how the universal Poisson deformations of a symplectic singularity and of its symplectic resolution are related — for every quiver variety $M(Q,\alpha)$ that admits a symplectic resolution. The proposed strategy is categorical: encode the local model of each codimension-2 leaf by a Kleinian quiver, then use an $A_\infty$-functor $F$ from the local vertex simples to the global simples to identify the entire exceptional fiber bundle over the leaf. Once the bundle is identified, the monodromy around loops in the leaf is exactly the action of the symmetry group of the labeled local quiver on the Kleinian exceptional fiber, and the Weyl group is read off as the invariant part of the classical Weyl group under that action. The main theorem lists the resulting Weyl groups case by case ($A_n$, $C_2$, $B_{n-1}$, $D_n$, $G_2$, $E_6$, $E_7$, $E_8$) and gives a product formula for canonical decompositions, matching the answer previously obtained by direct deformation-theoretic comparison.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the local-to-global $A_\infty$-functor $F$ — a functor between categories with higher composition products that preserves those products — from $\operatorname{Tw}\{\widetilde S_1,\dots,\widetilde S_k\}\to\operatorname{Tw}\{S_1,\dots,S_k\}$, built by matching the vertex simples of the local Kleinian quiver $(Q',\alpha')$ with a chosen collection of global simples of dimensions $\beta_1,\dots,\beta_k$. The $A_\infty$-structure is the Calabi-Yau-2 structure on the module category of the preprojective algebra $\Pi_Q$, with higher products vanishing by formality for $\Sigma$-sequences, so the hom-spaces between simples are determined by the combinatorial dimension formula $\dim\operatorname{Ext}^1(M,N)=\dim\operatorname{Hom}(M,N)+\dim\operatorname{Hom}(N,M)-(\dim M,\dim N)$. The functor preserves honesty of twisted complexes and stability with respect to localized stability parameters. Bundling $F$ over the parameter space $M=\prod_i M_s(Q,\beta_i)\setminus\Delta$ and taking the quotient by the label-symmetry group $\Gamma$ identifies the global exceptional bundle with the local one, reducing monodromy to the action of $\Gamma$ on the Kleinian exceptional fiber $E$.

What would settle it

Compute the fiber $\pi^{-1}(x)$ over a point $x$ of an $A_3$-type codimension-2 leaf and compare its dimension with the exceptional fiber of the local quiver; Proposition 6.1 predicts equality, so any mismatch — or any $\theta$-polystable representation in $\pi^{-1}(x)$ not isomorphic to $F(X)$ for honest $X$ — falsifies the bundle identification. Independently, writing down the cyclic $A_\infty$-structure asserted in Theorem 2.12 and checking compatibility with the formal model would settle whether the hom-space computations used to define $F$ are valid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for any quiver setting $(Q,\alpha)$ with $\alpha\in\Sigma_{0,0}$, indivisible or of type $(2,2)$, the Namikawa-Weyl group of $M(Q,\alpha)$ is determined by the codimension-2 leaves as follows. For a leaf $L$ with isotropic decomposition $\alpha=\sum_i m_i\beta_i$, the reduced local quiver $(Q',\alpha')$ is a Kleinian quiver, and the group $\Gamma=\operatorname{Aut}(Q',\alpha',(\beta_1,\dots,\beta_k))$ of label-preserving quiver automorphisms acts on the exceptional fiber $E$ of the local resolution by Dynkin automorphisms. Proposition 6.1 identifies the global exceptional bundle $\pi^{-1}(L)\to L$ with the quotient bundle $(M\times E)/\Gamma\to M/\Gamma$ via the local-to-global functor $F$, so the monodromy homomorphism $\pi_1(L)\to\operatorname{Aut}(E)$ factors through $\Gamma$. Consequently the Weyl group associated to the leaf is the $\Gamma$-invariant part of the classical Weyl group of the local Kleinian type, and Theorem 6.2 lists the possibilities: $A_n$ (with $C_2$ in the $A_3$ cases where opposite roots coincide), $D_n$ (with $B_{n-1}$ or $G_2$ in the $D_4$ and $D_{\ge5}$ identification cases), and $E_6,E_7,E_8$ when all roots are distinct. Theorem 7.2 extends this to arbitrary $\alpha$ via the canonical decomposition: $W(M(Q,\alpha)) = \prod_i W(M(Q,\alpha_i))$, with symmetric powers contributing no new factor. The monodromy computation agrees with the earlier deformation-theoretic computation, so the paper presents an independent route to the same Weyl groups.

Load-bearing premise

The bundle identification assumes that every module over a codimension-2 leaf is produced by the local-to-global functor $F$ from the local Kleinian model, and the paper also assumes without a written proof that the cyclic $A_\infty$-model it computes with exists and agrees with the formal model; if either premise fails, the monodromy computation could be incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a leaf of type $A_3$ with one pair of opposite roots identified, the Weyl group is $C_2$; if both pairs are identified it remains $C_2$.
For a $D_4$ leaf, one identified pair gives $B_3$, one identified triple gives $G_2$, and two identified pairs give $B_3$; for $D_n$ with $n\ge5$, any identification of one or two outer pairs gives $B_{n-1}$.
The monodromy of the resolution over a codimension-2 leaf depends only on which simples are permuted by the loop, not on the loop's path inside the leaf, because the map $\pi_1(L)\to\Gamma$ forgets the trajectory.
For a quiver variety with canonical decomposition $\alpha=\sum_i n_i\alpha_i$, the Namikawa-Weyl group is the direct product $\prod_i W(M(Q,\alpha_i))$; in particular, replacing a factor by its $n_i$-fold symmetric product does not change the Weyl group.
The same categorical local-to-global strategy applies to moduli spaces of representations of arbitrary Calabi-Yau-2 algebras whose codimension-2 strata have the analogous product form, giving a template for computing Namikawa-Weyl groups beyond quiver varieties.

Reading between the lines

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

Extension: if the functor $F$ is later shown to be full, the same bundle identification would prove the analogous Weyl-group formula for arbitrary Calabi-Yau-2 moduli spaces; the paper sketches the setup but does not complete that proof.
Extension: the classification suggests a converse pattern — non-simply-laced factors $C_2$, $B_{n-1}$, $G_2$ arise exactly when root identifications collapse a simply-laced local Dynkin diagram; testing this against deformation-theoretic computations on more examples would clarify the scope.
Extension: comparing the partial-resolution monodromy of Appendix E with the full-resolution Dynkin automorphism on a leaf outside the two model cases would test whether the 'naive monodromy' shortcut is a general phenomenon or an artifact of those examples.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this paper's advertised classification is not new — it recovers Yaochen Wu's theorem — and the proof as written has one load-bearing gap plus a few unproved structural assumptions. But the method is genuinely different from Wu's and, if repaired, could give a template for other Calabi-Yau-2 moduli spaces. Worth a serious referee, not a desk reject.

What's actually new: the local-to-global A-infinity functor F, the bundle identification (M × E)/Γ → π^{-1}(L), and the symmetry analysis of labeled local quivers. The paper does a lot of honest, explicit work in the appendices: the exceptional fiber computations for A3, D4, D_n, and the proof that the naive symmetry group equals the automorphism group of the labeled local quiver (Proposition 4.1) look correct and are useful. The stability-preservation lemma (Lemma 3.2) is also careful given its assumptions. The writing is clear and the organization is logical.

Soft spots. The big one: the proof of Proposition 6.1(2) asserts that F is a 'strict A-infinity equivalence' on twisted completions, but Section 3 and Proposition 3.1 only establish a faithful embedding. The step 'since any θ-polystable representation in π^{-1}(...) lies in Tw{S1,...,Sk}, the map F is surjective' does not follow. Lying in the target category does not imply being in the essential image of a faithful embedding. Without fiberwise surjectivity of F onto π^{-1}(L), the bundle identification and hence the monodromy computation are not established. This is exactly the stress-test concern, and it lands.

There are also two explicitly admitted assumptions: Theorem 2.12 assumes cyclicity of the A∞-structure on Mod ΠQ ('we shall simply assume it'), and after Theorem 2.13 the paper assumes that Davison's formal model agrees with the cyclic model. These might be fillable, but they are structural assumptions, not minor details. And Appendix C.3 only treats two non-generic stability cases while Proposition 5.1 claims all cases; the paper says 'we skip all the other cases.' That is another gap, though perhaps less load-bearing because the two cases are the 'most singular' ones.

The classification itself matches Wu's theorem, so the final answer is almost certainly correct. The issue is that the proof's central mechanism isn't yet rigorous. That said, the gaps look identifiable and potentially repairable; the strategy is coherent and the paper is honestly written.

Bottom line: send it to a competent referee. The referee should demand a proof of essential surjectivity of F (or a different argument for fiberwise bijectivity) and a resolution of the cyclicity/formality compatibility. If those get fixed, the paper would be a solid contribution as a method paper. For my own work, I would not cite it yet; I would cite Wu for the classification and wait for the revised version.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a categorical strategy for computing Namikawa-Weyl groups of quiver varieties, aiming to recover and systematize Yaochen Wu's results. The strategy is to use a local-to-global A-infinity functor F from twisted complexes over the Kleinian local quiver to twisted complexes over the original quiver, to identify the exceptional fiber bundle over each codimension-2 leaf, and to read off monodromy as the action of the labeled local quiver symmetry group on the Kleinian exceptional fiber. The main results are Theorem 6.2, which lists the Weyl group for each local type (A_n with possible identifications, D_n with possible identifications, E_6, E_7, E_8), and Theorem 7.2, which reduces the general case to the canonical decomposition via products and symmetric products. The paper also states a generalization to moduli spaces of representations of arbitrary Calabi-Yau-2 algebras.

Significance. If the proof gaps are repaired, the paper would provide a genuinely useful computational framework: it gives an explicit, parameter-free recipe that reduces Namikawa-Weyl groups of quiver varieties to a finite list of local symmetry computations, and it connects the categorical Calabi-Yau-2 structure to deformation-theoretic Weyl groups. The paper is honest in flagging several unsupported assumptions and omitted cases, but those admissions currently block the central theorem. The claimed recovery of Wu's theorem is a falsifiable benchmark, and the case-by-case tables in Theorem 6.2 and Appendix C are concrete and testable. The absence of fitted parameters and the presence of explicit representation-theoretic descriptions of exceptional fibers are strengths.

major comments (3)

[Section 6, proof of Proposition 6.1(2)] The proof of fiberwise bijectivity of F is not supported by the established properties of F. The text states that F_{S1,...,Sk}: Tw{tilde S1,...,tilde Sk} -> Tw{S1,...,Sk} is a strict A-infinity equivalence, but Section 3 and Proposition 3.1 establish only a strict faithful unital embedding. Lemma B.3(3) shows only that subrepresentations of F(X) lie in the essential image of F, not that every object in Tw{S1,...,Sk}, or every theta-polystable module in the target fiber, is isomorphic to F(Y) for some Y. The subsequent sentence, "Since any theta-polystable representation in pi^{-1}([S1,...,Sk]) lies in Tw{S1,...,Sk}, the map F:E -> pi^{-1}([S1,...,Sk]) is also surjective," is therefore invalid: lying in the target category does not imply belonging to the essential image of a faithful embedding. This gap is load-bearing because Proposition 6.1(2) is the identification of the fiber bundle, and Proposition 6.1(3) and Theorem 6.2 inherit it. The author needs either to prove essential surjectivity onto pi^{-1}(L), or to construct the inverse bundle map by a separate argument, or to restrict the claims to the essential image.
[Section 5 and Appendix C.3, Proposition 5.1] The proof of Proposition 5.1 is incomplete for non-generic localized stability parameters. Appendix C.3 explicitly says "we decide to treat only two specific cases" and "we therefore skip all the other cases," yet Proposition 5.1 concludes "This exhausts all options." No argument is supplied that the two treated partial resolutions (A3 with theta'=(+1,-1,+1,-1) and D4 with theta'=(-1,-1,-1,-1,+2)) cover all non-generic theta' that can arise from a pseudo-generic global stability parameter and a primitive symmetry in Figure 4.1. Since Proposition 5.1 is used in Proposition 6.1(3) to identify the monodromy action, the omitted cases could change the claimed Weyl groups in Theorem 6.2. The paper needs either a case analysis showing that all other combinations are impossible, or an explicit treatment of each remaining combination, or a precise statement restricting Theorem 6.2 to the cases actually proved.
[Section 2.5, Theorem 2.12] The cyclicity of the A-infinity model of Mod Pi_Q is assumed without proof. The text states "We are not aware of a specific proof of the cyclicity in the literature, but it appears to be well-known among experts and we shall simply assume it." This assumption is used in the construction of F in the proof of Proposition 3.1, where the A-infinity structures on the two categories are identified by matching bases of Hom spaces, and in the formality statement of Theorem 2.13. Because the local-to-global functor is the central technical tool, an unproved structural property of the ambient A-infinity category is load-bearing. The author should either supply a proof or a precise citation for cyclicity of the minimal model of Mod Pi_Q, or state explicitly that the main results depend on this assumption.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction, paragraph 2] The phrase "Goreinstein singularities" should read "Gorenstein singularities."
[Section 2.3, Theorem 2.5] The displayed isomorphism writes the symmetric products as S^{n1} M(Q, alpha_k) x ... x S^{nk} M(Q, alpha_k); this should presumably be S^{n1} M(Q, alpha_1) x ... x S^{nk} M(Q, alpha_k).
[Before Theorem 6.2] The phrase "explicit explicit description" contains a duplicated word.
[Appendix C.1, D4 title] The displayed stability parameter in the D4 case is written both as theta'=(-1,-1,+5,-1,-1) in the text and as theta'=(+1,+1,-5,+1,+1) in Figure C.4; the sign convention should be reconciled.
[Appendix C.3, D4 case] In the final sentence of the D4 discussion, "the two singular points correspond to the outer three nodes" appears to be a typo; the preceding sentence says there are three singular points, so this should likely read "the three singular points correspond to the outer three nodes."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks; the flagged F-equivalence gap is a soundness issue, not a reduction to inputs.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: Namikawa's theorem reduces the Namikawa-Weyl group to monodromy over codimension-2 leaves; the paper computes that monodromy by (i) classifying automorphisms of the labeled local quiver (Proposition 4.1), (ii) identifying the resulting action on the Kleinian exceptional fiber (Proposition 5.1 and Appendix C), and (iii) transporting local exceptional fibers to global fibers via the functor F (Proposition 6.1 and Appendix E). None of these ingredients is a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, none is defined in terms of the target Weyl group, and none depends on a load-bearing self-citation. The only mention of the author's own prior work is historical ('The second approach was pursued by the author in 2018'), not an argumentative input; the cited theorems on Poisson deformations, quiver varieties, and Kleinian exceptional fibers are external results. The proof of Proposition 6.1 does assert that F is 'a strict A-infinity equivalence', which is stronger than the faithful embedding established in Proposition 3.1 and Lemma B.3, so the fiberwise bijectivity of F is not justified as written. That is a genuine proof gap, but it is not a circularity: the proposition does not define the monodromy as the image of F, and the gap is one of missing surjectivity, not of assuming the conclusion in the input. Similarly, Theorem 2.12 assumes a cyclic A-infinity model and the discussion after Theorem 2.13 assumes agreement between cyclic and formal models; these are stated structural assumptions, not disguised conclusions. Appendix C.3 also explicitly skips some non-generic stability cases. These issues affect soundness and completeness, not circularity. Under the stated rubric, the paper's central derivation is not equivalent by construction to its own inputs, so the appropriate score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no empirical free parameters and no new physical entities. The main unproved inputs are structural assumptions about A-infinity models and the surjectivity of the functor F, which are listed above.

assumptions (5)

standard math Namikawa's semi-explicit description computes the Namikawa-Weyl group as the product of invariant Weyl groups over codimension-2 strata.
Used throughout as Theorem 2.2; this is imported background from the cited literature.
standard math Bellamy-Schedler's description of symplectic stratifications and resolutions of quiver varieties is correct.
The paper relies on this for isotropic decompositions, local quivers, and the existence of resolutions; cited as Theorem 2.3 through 2.10.
domain assumption The A-infinity category Mod Pi_Q admits a cyclic model, and that cyclic model can be chosen to agree with the formal model in which higher products vanish.
Theorem 2.12 explicitly says the cyclicity is assumed without a proof, and the paragraph after Theorem 2.13 assumes compatibility of the formal and cyclic models. This is needed for the equality of A-infinity structures used in constructing F.
ad hoc to paper The local-to-global functor F is an A-infinity equivalence on the twisted completions relevant to the exceptional fiber.
The proof of Proposition 6.1 uses F as a strict A-infinity equivalence to obtain fiberwise bijectivity, but Proposition 3.1 only establishes a faithful embedding. This is a load-bearing unproved step.
ad hoc to paper For non-generic localized stability parameters, only the two treated partial resolutions need analysis; all other cases can be skipped.
Appendix C.3 states that two specific cases are treated and all other cases are skipped, while Proposition 5.1 is used as an exhaustive statement. The reduction to these cases is not fully demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Calabi-Yau techniques for Namikawa-Weyl groups." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/REUIGK3R

@misc{pith2026250103198,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Calabi-Yau techniques for Namikawa-Weyl groups},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/REUIGK3R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03198}
}

abstract

The field of symplectic singularities aims to build a 21st century Lie theory. A key development is the Namikawa-Weyl group, which generalizes the classical Weyl group of Lie algebras. Another cornerstone is the integration of categorical Calabi-Yau techniques, capturing the rich algebraic structure of these singularities. In this paper, we develop a systematic strategy to determine Namikawa-Weyl groups for representation spaces of Calabi-Yau-2 algebras, leveraging local-to-global functors, symmetry analysis, and $ A_{\infty} $-methods. Applying this approach to quiver varieties, we carry out the detailed calculations and recover Yaochen Wu's result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03198 by the authors.

**Figure 4.1.** This figure depicts the possible symmetries among roots in the local quiver. Long equality signs in the form of double strokes have been used to indicate equality among roots. For better readability, the arrows of the quiver have been grayed out. For brevity, we have depicted similar situations only once. For instance, in the D4 case it is equally possible that β2 = β3 instead of β1 = β2. 5. Action on the Kleinian e… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** and a stability parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

Symplectic singularities

Arnaud Beauville. “Symplectic singularities”. In: Invent. Math. 139.3 (2000), pp. 541– 549

work page 2000
[2]

Counting resolutions of symplectic quotient singularities

G. Bellamy. “Counting resolutions of symplectic quotient singularities”. In: Compos. Math. 152.1 (2016), pp. 99–114

work page 2016
[3]

Bellamy and T

G. Bellamy and T. Schedler. Symplectic resolutions of Quiver varieties and char- acter varieties. math.AG/1602.00164. 2016

arXiv 2016
[4]

A gentle introduction to homological mirror symmetry

Raf Bocklandt. A gentle introduction to homological mirror symmetry . Vol. 99. London Mathematical Society Student Texts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021, pp. xi+390. isbn: 978-1-108-48350-6; 978-1-108-72875-1. doi: 10.1017/9781108692458. url: https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl/10.1017/9781108692458

doi:10.1017/9781108692458 2021
[5]

Geometry of the moment map for representations of quivers

W. Crawley-Boevey. “Geometry of the moment map for representations of quivers”. In: Compositio Math. 126.3 (2001), pp. 257–293

work page 2001
[6]

On the exceptional fibres of Kleinian singularities

W. Crawley-Boevey. “On the exceptional fibres of Kleinian singularities”. In: Amer. J. Math. 122.5 (2000), pp. 1027–1037

work page 2000
[7]

On deformed preprojective algebras

William Crawley-Boevey and Yuta Kimura. “On deformed preprojective algebras”. In: J. Pure Appl. Algebra 226.12 (2022), Paper No. 107130, 22

work page 2022
[8]

Purity and 2-Calabi-Yau categories

Ben Davison. Purity and 2-Calabi-Y au categories. 2023. arXiv: 2106.07692 [math.AG]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 13 references

[9]

Symplectic singularities from the Poisson point of view

D. Kaledin. “Symplectic singularities from the Poisson point of view”. In: J. Reine Angew. Math. 600 (2006), pp. 135–156

2006
[10]

Instantons on ALE spaces, quiver varieties, and Kac-Moody algebras

Hiraku Nakajima. “Instantons on ALE spaces, quiver varieties, and Kac-Moody algebras”. In: Duke Math. J. 76.2 (1994), pp. 365–416

1994
[11]

Poisson deformations of affine symplectic varieties

Y. Namikawa. “Poisson deformations of affine symplectic varieties”. In: Duke Math. J. 156.1 (2011), pp. 51–85

2011
[12]

Poisson deformations of affine symplectic varieties II

Y. Namikawa. “Poisson deformations of affine symplectic varieties II”. In: Kyoto J. Math. 50.4 (2010), pp. 727–752

2010
[13]

Namikawa-Weyl groups of affinizations of smooth Nakajima quiver vari- eties

Yaochen Wu. “Namikawa-Weyl groups of affinizations of smooth Nakajima quiver vari- eties”. In: Represent. Theory 27 (2023), pp. 734–765. Department of mathematics, University of California, Berkeley, USA jasper.kreeke@berkeley.edu

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Symplectic singularities

Arnaud Beauville. “Symplectic singularities”. In: Invent. Math. 139.3 (2000), pp. 541– 549

work page 2000

[2] [2]

Counting resolutions of symplectic quotient singularities

G. Bellamy. “Counting resolutions of symplectic quotient singularities”. In: Compos. Math. 152.1 (2016), pp. 99–114

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Bellamy and T

G. Bellamy and T. Schedler. Symplectic resolutions of Quiver varieties and char- acter varieties. math.AG/1602.00164. 2016

arXiv 2016

[4] [4]

A gentle introduction to homological mirror symmetry

Raf Bocklandt. A gentle introduction to homological mirror symmetry . Vol. 99. London Mathematical Society Student Texts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021, pp. xi+390. isbn: 978-1-108-48350-6; 978-1-108-72875-1. doi: 10.1017/9781108692458. url: https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl/10.1017/9781108692458

doi:10.1017/9781108692458 2021

[5] [5]

Geometry of the moment map for representations of quivers

W. Crawley-Boevey. “Geometry of the moment map for representations of quivers”. In: Compositio Math. 126.3 (2001), pp. 257–293

work page 2001

[6] [6]

On the exceptional fibres of Kleinian singularities

W. Crawley-Boevey. “On the exceptional fibres of Kleinian singularities”. In: Amer. J. Math. 122.5 (2000), pp. 1027–1037

work page 2000

[7] [7]

On deformed preprojective algebras

William Crawley-Boevey and Yuta Kimura. “On deformed preprojective algebras”. In: J. Pure Appl. Algebra 226.12 (2022), Paper No. 107130, 22

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Purity and 2-Calabi-Yau categories

Ben Davison. Purity and 2-Calabi-Y au categories. 2023. arXiv: 2106.07692 [math.AG]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023