Stringy Chow rings and weighted blow ups

Qiangru Kuang; Rachel Webb; Weihong Xu; Yeqin Liu

Stringy Chow rings and weighted blow ups

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The stringy Chow ring of a quotient stack [X/G] and of weighted blowups is computed explicitly, with product formulas controlled by a character-sum condition.

desk verdict Solid computational paper: arbitrary-field stringy Chow rings and explicit weighted blowup formulas, with minor presentation gaps; deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00259 v1 pith:KWFQPAJX submitted 2025-02-01 math.AG

Qiangru Kuang , Yeqin Liu , Rachel Webb , Weihong Xu This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AG MSC 14C1514A2014E0514M25

keywords stringyChowringcyclotomicinertiastackobstructionsheafweightedblowupdiagonalizablegroupschemeDeligne-Mumfordfinitegeneration

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

The paper computes the stringy Chow ring $A^*_{\mathrm{st}}(\mathcal X)$ — the Chow-group analogue of orbifold cohomology — for any smooth tame Deligne-Mumford stack of the form $\mathcal X=[\tilde X/G]$ with $G$ diagonalizable, over a field that need not be algebraically closed. It gives a complete description of the cyclotomic inertia stack, the obstruction sheaf that governs multiplication, and the resulting ring structure. It then specializes to weighted blowups $\mathrm{Bl}_Y X$ of a smooth variety along a smooth center, writing $A^*_{\mathrm{st}}$ very explicitly in terms of the Chow ring of the center and certain Chern classes $e_a$. The payoff is a finite-generation criterion: under a stronger regularity assumption, $A^*_{\mathrm{st}}$ is generated over $A^*(X)$ by the fundamental classes of the twisted sectors exactly when the restriction map $A^*(X)\to A^*(Y)$ is surjective, with explicit relations (29).

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the cyclotomic inertia stack $I^\mu(\mathcal X)=\coprod_{\zeta:\mu_r\to G}[\tilde X^\zeta/G]$, whose sectors are smooth closed substacks even when the ordinary inertia stack is only a twisted form; together with the obstruction sheaf $R^1\pi_*f^*T_{\mathcal X}$ on the double cyclotomic inertia, whose top Chern class is computed by Proposition 2.4.1. The proof of that computation rests on an explicit model of the universal twisted stable map: the moduli stack $K(\mathcal X)$ is $\mathrm{II}_\mu(\mathcal X)$, and on a sector the universal curve is $[\tilde X^H/G]\times [C_{\zeta,\eta}/H]$, where $C_{\zeta,\eta}$ is the unique $k$-curve obtained by rooting $\mathbb P^1$ at three points with prescribed monodromy at two of them (Corollary 2.3.8). For weighted blowups, these ingredients are combined with the known presentations $A^*(\mathcal Y)=A^*(Y)[t]/(\prod_a e_a)$ and $A^*(\mathcal X)=A^*(Y)[t]\cdot t\oplus A^*(X)/\langle(P(t)-P(0))\alpha,-i^*\alpha\rangle$, where $e_a$ is the $\mathbb G_m$-equivariant top Chern class of the weight-$a$ summand of the weighted normal bundle.

What would settle it

Take the root-stack example of Section 3.4, $X=\operatorname{Spec} k[x]$ with $J_\bullet=((x),b)$, where formula (32) says $e_{\zeta^{n_1}}\star e_{\zeta^{n_2}}=(-t)e_{\zeta^{n_1+n_2}}$ when $n_1,n_2>0$ and $n_1+n_2\le b$, and $e_{\zeta^{n_1+n_2}}$ otherwise; compute the same product on $[\mathbb A^1/\mu_b]$ directly from the definition (8) of the stringy product and compare the two answers. If they differ, the character-sum rule in (25) is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On each sector $\mathrm{II}_\mu(\zeta,\eta)=[\tilde X^H/G]$ of the double cyclotomic inertia stack, the obstruction sheaf $R^1\pi_*f^*T_{\mathcal X}$ that defines the stringy product is identified as a vector bundle whose top Chern class is the product over characters $\theta$ of the subgroup $H$ generated by $\zeta$ and $\eta$ of the equivariant top Chern class $c^G_{\mathrm{top}}((N_{\tilde X^H/\tilde X})_\theta)$, taken for those $\theta$ with $\arg\theta(\zeta)+\arg\theta(\eta)>1$ (Proposition 2.4.1). Here $\arg$ of a homomorphism $\mu_r\to \mathbb G_m$ is the rational number $b/r$ from its Cartier dual. From this formula the paper derives the multiplication rule (25) for $A^*_{\mathrm{st}}$ of a weighted blowup: sectors multiply with twist factors $C_{\zeta\eta}(t)=\prod e_a$ over integer weights $a$ with $\arg\zeta^a+\arg\eta^a\ge 1$ and $\zeta^a$ or $\eta^a\ne 1$. Under Assumption 3.1.4 and in characteristic zero, Theorem 3.3.5 gives the full presentation $A^*_{\mathrm{st}}(\mathrm{Bl}_Y X)=A^*(X)[t,e_\zeta]/\mathcal J$ when $A^*(X)\to A^*(Y)$ is surjective, and Proposition 3.3.2 shows the ambient subring $A^*_{\mathrm{st}}(\mathrm{Bl}_Y X)^{\mathrm{amb}}$ is always a finitely generated $A^*(X)$-algebra with the same style of relations.

Load-bearing premise

For the weighted-blowup results, the paper assumes the Rees algebra defining the blowup is locally generated by a regular sequence in the declared degrees and has smooth center $V(I_1)$; if this regularity fails, the explicit sector decomposition and product formulas for $A^*_{\mathrm{st}}(\mathrm{Bl}_Y X)$ are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a weighted blowup satisfying Assumption 3.1.4 with $A^*(X)\to A^*(Y)$ surjective, $A^*_{\mathrm{st}}(\mathrm{Bl}_Y X)$ is completely described by the explicit generators and relations (29), so stringy products can be computed by polynomial arithmetic in $A^*(Y)[t]$.
Over any field extension $K/k$, there is a canonical ring map $A^*(X_K)\otimes_{A^*(X)}A^*_{\mathrm{st}}(X)\to A^*_{\mathrm{st}}(X_K)$, an isomorphism whenever the corresponding maps on sectors are; in particular for toric Deligne-Mumford stacks the stringy Chow ring is invariant under field extension (Corollary 2.4.4).
The obstruction formula (12) implies the product of two twisted-sector classes $e_\zeta$, $e_\eta$ lands in the sector of the product homomorphism $\zeta\eta$, with twist factors $e_a$ accumulating only when the two arguments sum to at least 1.
The equivalence in Lemma 3.3.3 shows that surjectivity (or finite generation) of $A^*(X)\to A^*(Y)$ is detected on the exceptional divisor of the weighted blowup, a statement that holds for ordinary blowups as well.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the obstruction formula is expressed purely in characters and equivariant Chern classes, the same presentation should extend to iterated weighted blowups and to root stacks along normal crossing divisors, where the Rees algebra condition is often automatic.
The clean separation of the base field from the combinatorics suggests that stringy Chow rings of toric and quasi-toric stacks could be used to compute arithmetic intersection numbers over number fields: the sectors are constant, and only the field of definition of cycles changes.
The ambient subring construction points to a natural filtration of $A^*_{\mathrm{st}}(\mathrm{Bl}_Y X)$ by the number of exceptional classes needed; one could test whether module-finiteness over $A^*(X)$ holds under assumptions weaker than surjectivity of $i^*$.
The '$\arg\theta(\zeta)+\arg\theta(\eta)>1$' cutoff is a discrete analogue of the age condition in orbifold cohomology; the same inequality may be the right correction term when comparing stringy Chow rings to orbifold cohomology after cycle class maps.

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

Here is my take on arXiv:2502.00259. It is a solid computational paper in intersection theory, and the main results look right to me. The genuinely new content is the stringy Chow ring for [X/G] with diagonalizable G over arbitrary fields, built on a new uniqueness statement for G-covers of P1 with prescribed gerbe monodromy at two points (Corollary 2.3.8), the explicit obstruction sheaf formula in Proposition 2.4.1, and the weighted blowup product formulas plus the finite generation criterion in Section 3. The weighted blowup part is the practical payoff: the stringy product becomes multiplication of explicit polynomials in t with an explicit class C_{ζη}(t), which is exactly what someone computing examples needs.

The paper is honest about its debts: the framework follows BCS05 and the Chow ring presentations come from AOA23 and QR22. The arbitrary-field generalization is real and nontrivial—it is not a cosmetic base change, since the cyclotomic inertia stack has a different structure over non-closed fields. The proof of Proposition 2.4.1 via Lemma 2.4.2 is clean: the H1 computation on the root stack reduces to a line bundle degree check, and the condition arg ζ + arg η > 1 falls out naturally. I also checked the ζη = 1 case, including the e−1 = −t factor, and the stress-test analysis is correct.

The soft spots are real but minor. The Artin approximation reduction in Proposition 2.3.3 is terse; a referee should ask for more detail there. There is an evident typo in Lemma 2.4.2 ('a2/r1' should be 'a2/r2'), which does not affect the conclusion but should be fixed. Section 3 works only in characteristic zero; this is stated in Assumption 3.1.1 but not in the abstract, which could mislead readers. The regularity assumptions 3.1.1 and 3.1.4 are explicit and structural—they are exactly what is needed for smoothness of the weighted blowup and for importing the [AOA23] and [QR22] presentations—so this is a scope restriction, not a hidden hypothesis. The one thing I could not fully verify by reading alone is the stack-theoretic identification of K(X) with IIμ(X) over non-algebraically closed fields; the argument is lengthy and delicate, but I found no concrete gap.

Who is this for? Anyone computing stringy Chow rings of quotient stacks or weighted blowups, and people working on orbifold Chow rings over non-closed fields. It deserves a serious referee; with small corrections, I would be happy to see it published.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper computes the stringy Chow ring A*_st(X) of smooth tame Deligne-Mumford stacks X=[X~/G] with X~ smooth and G diagonalizable, over a base field k that is not assumed to be algebraically closed. The central technical result is Proposition 2.4.1, which identifies the obstruction sheaf on the sector II_mu(zeta,eta) as a product of equivariant top Chern classes of character summands of the normal bundle. The authors then specialize to weighted blowups Bl_I•(X) of a smooth variety along a smooth center, imposing explicit regularity Assumptions 3.1.1 and 3.1.4, and obtain an explicit presentation of A*_st(Bl_I•(X)) (Propositions 3.2.4 and 3.3.2) together with a finite-generation criterion over A*(X) (Theorem 3.3.5).

Significance. If correct, the paper gives a substantial generalization of the complex-number computations of BCS05, GHK07, and JT10 to arbitrary base fields, and it provides an explicit, computable description in the weighted-blowup case. The obstruction-formula proof is carried out from first principles, and the regularity assumptions delimiting the weighted-blowup results are stated explicitly rather than hidden. The finite-generation theorem with explicit relations (29) is a concrete structural statement that should be useful for further examples. The paper would be a valuable reference for work on stringy Chow rings and weighted blowups.

minor comments (6)

[Lemma 2.4.2] In the proof of Lemma 2.4.2, the second denominator in the displayed formula for b is printed as r1 twice ('-a2/r1' and 'a1/r1 + a2/r1 > 1'); it should be r2. The conclusion is unaffected once this typo is fixed, but the current text is confusing.
[Section 1.1 and Corollary 2.4.3] Theorem 1.1.1 in the introduction states the base-change criterion using all subgroups H of G, while Corollary 2.4.3 states the criterion using all sectors I_mu(zeta); these are formally different conditions and the two statements should be reconciled.
[Proposition 2.3.3] The reduction to complete local rings with separably closed residue field is only sketched: the fully-faithfulness assertion is attributed to finiteness of Isom schemes and essential surjectivity to Artin approximation. Since this isomorphism is the foundation for Theorem 2.3.1 and hence for the obstruction computation, a few more sentences explaining the descent and the Artin approximation step would make the proof substantially easier to verify.
[Proposition 3.2.4, eq. (25)] The product in (25) is taken over all a in Z, whereas the classes e_a were introduced only for a > 0; the convention that e_a = 1 for all a <= 0 except e_{-1} = -t makes this harmless, but an explicit sentence recording this convention would prevent confusion.
[Theorem 3.3.5, proof] The phrase 'generated by ker i* and prod_{zeta in mu_{bk}} e_k' appears to contain a notation error; the intended relation should describe the kernel of the composition A*(X) -> A*(Y) -> A*(I_mu(zeta)) in terms of the weights or indices defining the closed immersion I_mu(zeta) -> Y, and it should be restated.
[Lemma 3.3.3] The same symbol Y is used for the center in X and for the exceptional divisor in X, which makes statements such as 'N' is a subbundle of N_{Y/X}' and the diagram in the proof hard to parse on first reading. Please use different letters, for example Z for the center.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity found: the obstruction formula is derived from first principles, and the only self-citation is a minor technical sub-step.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the central claim (Prop. 2.4.1) is self-contained: the universal family is identified in Thm. 2.3.1 from the root-stack computation in Lem. 2.3.4 and the injectivity proof in Lem. 2.3.7, and Lemma 2.4.2 computes R1π∗f∗Eθ directly from character weights and the line-bundle computation on P1, so the age condition argθ(ζ)+argθ(η)>1 is a computed output, not a built-in input. The paper explicitly frames Prop. 2.4.1 as generalizing [BCS05, Prop. 6.3], but it does not import that result; it re-proves it over arbitrary fields via Cor. 2.3.8. Section 3's formulas use the ordinary Chow rings of weighted blowups from [AOA23] and [QR22], which are external to the authors and are invoked as stated presentations, not as redefinitions of the stringy product; the stringy product rule (25) follows from Prop. 2.4.1 plus the pushforward computation in Lem. 3.2.5. Assumptions 3.1.1 and 3.1.4 are explicit regularity hypotheses delimiting the scope, and Thm. 3.3.5's finite-generation criterion is an equivalence proved from those presentations. The only self-citation is [OW24] (one author in common) used in the final line of Lem. 2.3.7 to identify two relative coarse moduli spaces; this is one technical sub-step, not a source of the obstruction formula or of the product rule, and it does not import the paper's own conclusions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no known result is repackaged under new names. Score 2 reflects the presence of this single minor self-citation, not any circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters or invented entities appear. The proofs import standard intersection-theoretic and stack-theoretic background from [AGV02, AOA23, QR22] and impose stated hypotheses (tameness, diagonalizable G, Assumptions 3.1.1 and 3.1.4, characteristic zero) on which the results depend.

assumptions (4)

standard math The stringy Chow ring and its product via twisted stable maps is a well-defined ring for smooth tame DM stacks over k, as in [AGV02] and equation (8).
The paper works entirely inside this framework; the product is defined via ev_3,* of ev_1^* ev_2^* c_top(R^1 pi_* f^* TX).
domain assumption The quotient X = [~X/G] is a tame DM stack with G diagonalizable and char k prime to the orders of the stabilizer groups.
This guarantees that mu_r actions are tame, fixed loci are smooth via [CGP15, A.8.10], and age and stringy definitions apply.
ad hoc to paper For weighted blowups, the Rees algebra satisfies Assumption 3.1.1, later Assumption 3.1.4, and the base field has characteristic zero.
These hypotheses are imposed so that the weighted blowup is smooth and the Chow ring presentations of [AOA23] apply; they are not derived from the general Section 2 theorems.
standard math The Chow ring presentations for twisted weighted projective bundles and weighted blowups from [AOA23, Thm 3.12 and Thm 6.4] and [QR22] are correct.
The paper imports these formulas wholesale in Section 3, and they are load-bearing for the explicit descriptions of A*(Y), A*(X) and the sectors.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stringy Chow rings and weighted blow ups." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KWFQPAJX

@misc{pith2026250200259,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stringy Chow rings and weighted blow ups},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KWFQPAJX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00259}
}

read the original abstract

We compute the stringy chow ring of a general Deligne-Mumford stack of the form [X/G] for a smooth variety X and diagonalizable group scheme G, working over a base field that is not necessarily algebraically closed. We then specialize to the stringy chow ring of the weighted blow up of a smooth variety along a smooth center. We explore finite generation properties of this ring.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

10 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[3]

Orbifold co homology of torus quotients

Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mat hemat- ics [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas. 3rd Series. A Series of Mod- ern Surveys in Mathematics]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998, pp. xiv +470. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-1700-8 . [GHK07] Rebecca Goldin, Tara S. Holm, and Allen Knutson. “Orbifold co homology of torus quotients”. In: Duke Math. J. 139.1 (2...

doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1700-8 2007
[8]

Algebraic o rbifold quan- tum products

Special issue in honor of Steven L. K leiman. 2003, pp. 3547–3618. doi: 10.1081/AGB-120022434. [AGV02] Dan Abramovich, Tom Graber, and Angelo Vistoli. “Algebraic o rbifold quan- tum products”. In: Orbifolds in mathematics and physics (Madison, WI,

doi:10.1081/agb-120022434 2003
[26]

Orbifold cohom ology for global quo- tients

New Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015, pp. xxiv+665. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316092439. [FG03] Barbara Fantechi and Lothar G¨ ottsche. “Orbifold cohom ology for global quo- tients”. In: Duke Math. J. 117.2 (2003), pp. 197–227. doi: 10.1215/S0012-7094-03-11721-4 . [Ful98] William Fulton. Intersection theory. Second. Vol

doi:10.1017/cbo9781316092439 2003
[62]

American Mathematical Society, Pro vidence, RI, 2016, pp

American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications. American Mathematical Society, Pro vidence, RI, 2016, pp. xi+298. doi: 10.1090/coll/062. [OW24] Martin Olsson and Rachel Webb. Curves with colliding points: logarithmic and stacky

doi:10.1090/coll/062 2016
[215]

[Cad06] Charles Cadman

doi: 10.1090/S0894-0347-04-00471-0 . [Cad06] Charles Cadman. Using stacks to impose tangency conditions on curves

doi:10.1090/s0894-0347-04-00471-0
[310]

Good moduli spaces for Artin stacks

Contemp. Math. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2002 , pp. 1–24. doi: 10.1090/conm/310/05397. [Alp13] Jarod Alper. “Good moduli spaces for Artin stacks”. In: Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 63.6 (2013), pp. 2349–2402. [AOA23] Veronica Arena, Stephen Obinna, and Dan Abramovich. The integral Chow ring of weighted blow-ups

doi:10.1090/conm/310/05397 2013
[2006]

Using stacks to impose tangency conditions on curves

arXiv: math/0312349 [math.AG] . [Che+22] Qile Chen et al. “Towards logarithmic GLSM: the r-spin case”. In: Geom. Topol. 26.7 (2022), pp. 2855–2939. doi: 10.2140/gt.2022.26.2855. [Con07] Brian Conrad. “Arithmetic moduli of generalized elliptic curve s”. In: J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 6.2 (2007), pp. 209–278. doi: 10.1017/S1474748006000089. [CGP15] Brian Conrad...

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[2022]

Stacks Project

[Stacks] The Stacks Project Authors. Stacks Project. https://stacks.math.columbia.edu. 2018

work page 2018

Show all 10 references

[2023]

The orb ifold Chow ring of toric Deligne-Mumford stacks

arXiv: 2307.01459 [math.AG] . [BCS05] Lev A. Borisov, Linda Chen, and Gregory G. Smith. “The orb ifold Chow ring of toric Deligne-Mumford stacks”. In: J. Amer. Math. Soc. 18.1 (2005), pp. 193–

2005 arXiv
[2024]

(Log) twisted curves

arXiv: 2412.03408 [math.AG] . 30 REFERENCES [Ols07] Martin C. Olsson. “(Log) twisted curves”. In: Compos. Math. 143.2 (2007), pp. 476–494. doi: 10.1112/S0010437X06002442. [QR22] Ming Hao Quek and David Rydh. Weighted Blow-ups

2007 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

Orbifold co homology of torus quotients

Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mat hemat- ics [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas. 3rd Series. A Series of Mod- ern Surveys in Mathematics]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998, pp. xiv +470. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-1700-8 . [GHK07] Rebecca Goldin, Tara S. Holm, and Allen Knutson. “Orbifold co homology of torus quotients”. In: Duke Math. J. 139.1 (2...

doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1700-8 2007

[2] [8]

Algebraic o rbifold quan- tum products

Special issue in honor of Steven L. K leiman. 2003, pp. 3547–3618. doi: 10.1081/AGB-120022434. [AGV02] Dan Abramovich, Tom Graber, and Angelo Vistoli. “Algebraic o rbifold quan- tum products”. In: Orbifolds in mathematics and physics (Madison, WI,

doi:10.1081/agb-120022434 2003

[3] [26]

Orbifold cohom ology for global quo- tients

New Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015, pp. xxiv+665. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316092439. [FG03] Barbara Fantechi and Lothar G¨ ottsche. “Orbifold cohom ology for global quo- tients”. In: Duke Math. J. 117.2 (2003), pp. 197–227. doi: 10.1215/S0012-7094-03-11721-4 . [Ful98] William Fulton. Intersection theory. Second. Vol

doi:10.1017/cbo9781316092439 2003

[4] [62]

American Mathematical Society, Pro vidence, RI, 2016, pp

American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications. American Mathematical Society, Pro vidence, RI, 2016, pp. xi+298. doi: 10.1090/coll/062. [OW24] Martin Olsson and Rachel Webb. Curves with colliding points: logarithmic and stacky

doi:10.1090/coll/062 2016

[5] [215]

[Cad06] Charles Cadman

doi: 10.1090/S0894-0347-04-00471-0 . [Cad06] Charles Cadman. Using stacks to impose tangency conditions on curves

doi:10.1090/s0894-0347-04-00471-0

[6] [310]

Good moduli spaces for Artin stacks

Contemp. Math. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2002 , pp. 1–24. doi: 10.1090/conm/310/05397. [Alp13] Jarod Alper. “Good moduli spaces for Artin stacks”. In: Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 63.6 (2013), pp. 2349–2402. [AOA23] Veronica Arena, Stephen Obinna, and Dan Abramovich. The integral Chow ring of weighted blow-ups

doi:10.1090/conm/310/05397 2013

[7] [2006]

Using stacks to impose tangency conditions on curves

arXiv: math/0312349 [math.AG] . [Che+22] Qile Chen et al. “Towards logarithmic GLSM: the r-spin case”. In: Geom. Topol. 26.7 (2022), pp. 2855–2939. doi: 10.2140/gt.2022.26.2855. [Con07] Brian Conrad. “Arithmetic moduli of generalized elliptic curve s”. In: J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 6.2 (2007), pp. 209–278. doi: 10.1017/S1474748006000089. [CGP15] Brian Conrad...

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[8] [2022]

Stacks Project

[Stacks] The Stacks Project Authors. Stacks Project. https://stacks.math.columbia.edu. 2018

work page 2018