Siegel modular forms arising from higher Chow cycles

Shouhei Ma

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 32 references

Siegel modular forms arising from higher Chow cycles

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Higher Chow cycles of type (2,3−g) on abelian varieties of dimension at most 3 yield meromorphic Siegel modular forms, and the K-theory elevator matches the Siegel operator at the boundary.

desk verdict A new and mostly checkable bridge from higher Chow cycles to meromorphic Siegel modular forms in genus at most 3, with two honest but real conditions: admissibility for n>0 is folklore, and the degeneration theorem is stated under explicit structural assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04465 v2 pith:B64UG7MP submitted 2025-05-07 math.AG math.NT

Shouhei Ma This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AGmath.NT MSC 11F4614C2514C3014K10

keywords higherChowcyclesSiegelmodularformsinfinitesimalinvariantnormalfunctionsK-theoryelevatoroperatorabelianvarietiesKoszulcohomology

topics The Hodge Conjecture

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 builds a bridge between algebraic cycles and automorphic forms: for abelian varieties of dimension $g \le 3$, families of higher Chow cycles—higher-dimensional analogues of cycles living in a cube rather than in the variety itself—produce meromorphic vector-valued Siegel modular forms. The primitive infinitesimal invariant of such a cycle family is shown to occupy the automorphic bundle $\mathrm{Sym}^4 E \otimes L^{-1}$; after pulling back along an étale cover and taking elementary symmetric polynomials over its fibers, one obtains a modular form $f_Z^{(i)}$ of weight $\mathrm{Sym}^{4i} \otimes \det^{-i}$ that is holomorphic over the open part and has at most a pole of order $i$ along the boundary. The paper's main functoriality result is that this construction commutes with degeneration: the K-theory elevator, which shifts a cycle to the next cube dimension on a lower-dimensional abelian variety, corresponds exactly to the Siegel operator on the modular form, up to constant. If the construction is correct, nontrivial cycles of this type cannot be extended across boundary divisors when $g \ge 2$, because no holomorphic forms of that weight exist; only countably many modular forms arise this way, making the cycle-produced forms a rigid and select class.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the primitive Koszul complex $K_g = K^{2,g-2}_{\mathrm{prim}}$ of the universal family of abelian varieties, together with Lemma 4.1, which identifies its middle cohomology with $\mathrm{Sym}^4 E \otimes L^{-1}$. The normal function of the cycle family—its family of Abel–Jacobi images—is differentiated with the Gauss–Manin connection to give the infinitesimal invariant $\delta\nu_Z$, which therefore takes values in this automorphic bundle. Elementary symmetric polynomials along the étale-cover fibers, followed by projection to $\mathrm{Sym}^{4i}$, convert it into a modular form; the pole bound comes from the logarithmic extension of the Koszul complex and the admissibility of the normal function. For Theorem 6.2, the partial toroidal compactification puts the Siegel operator and the K-theory elevator—the degeneration operation that raises the cube dimension by one—on a common boundary, and the limit formula for normal functions identifies the two.

What would settle it

Compute a concrete family of higher Chow cycles, for example the explicit genus-2 families constructed from the K-theory elevator in [8], and check whether their normal function is admissible at a maximal cusp; non-logarithmic growth or non-unipotent monodromy would make $f_Z^{(i)}$ non-meromorphic and contradict Theorem 4.2. Alternatively, for a family where both sides are computable, verify the identity $\Phi_I f_Z^{(i)} = c \cdot f_{Z_I}^{(i)}$ with a nonzero constant $c$; if the two sides differ or the constant vanishes while both forms are nonzero, Theorem 6.2 is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the primitive part of the infinitesimal invariant of a family of higher Chow cycles of type $(2,3-g)$ on the universal abelian variety over a Siegel modular variety of genus $g \le 3$ is a section of $\mathrm{Sym}^4 E \otimes L^{-1}$. Symmetrizing this section along the fibers of an étale cover and projecting to $\mathrm{Sym}^{4i}$ produces a meromorphic Siegel modular form $f_Z^{(i)}$ of weight $\mathrm{Sym}^{4i} \otimes \det^{-i}$, holomorphic over the open part and with at most a pole of order $i$ along the complement; when $g=1$ the form is holomorphic at the cusps. The second central claim is the boundary compatibility: for a maximal cusp $A_I$, the Siegel operator $\Phi_I$ applied to $f_Z^{(i)}$ equals, up to constant, the form $f_{Z_I}^{(i)}$ attached to the K-theory elevator $Z_I$ of $Z$ on the $(g-1)$-dimensional abelian variety. Thus the correspondence between cycles and modular forms is compatible with rank-one degeneration.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes the Abel–Jacobi invariant of the higher cycle family grows at most logarithmically near the boundary; the paper relies on a folklore admissibility result for higher cycles, citing a brief argument, and if that fails the meromorphic extension of the modular form would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For $g \ge 2$, a nonzero primitive infinitesimal invariant forces $f_Z$ to have a pole, so the underlying cycle family cannot extend across any divisor of $A_\Gamma$; this is a direct obstruction from the modular-form side.
The top symmetric power $f_Z^{(d)}$ does not vanish whenever $\delta\nu_Z^+$ is nonzero on an étale cover of degree $d$, so the construction detects nontrivial cycles without cancellation.
Boundary values of $f_Z$ under the Siegel operator are governed by the K-theory elevator: the form attached to the lifted cycle on the $(g-1)$-dimensional base equals $\Phi_I f_Z$, giving a cycle-theoretic interpretation of the 0-th Fourier–Jacobi coefficient.
Only countably many Siegel modular forms are obtainable from cycle families in this way, so the map from cycles to forms is far from surjective and carries strong rigidity information.
When $g=1$, the construction yields classical holomorphic elliptic modular forms of weight 3 from $(2,2)$-cycles on elliptic curves.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the same mechanism should apply to higher Fourier–Jacobi coefficients of $f_Z$, producing Jacobi forms whose cycle-theoretic counterpart would be a derivative of the degenerating cycle family; the paper explicitly raises this as an open direction.
Editorial inference: iterating the K-theory elevator along a chain of cusps should commute with iterated Siegel operators, so a full tower of cycles would correspond to a full Fourier–Jacobi expansion; this is not proved in the paper.
Editorial inference: the proportionality constant in Theorem 6.2 is left unspecified; computing it for a concrete genus-2 family from [8] would yield a numerical invariant that may encode self-intersection data of the degenerate fiber.
Editorial inference: the pole-order bound suggests that residues of $f_Z$ along boundary divisors could define vector-valued forms on lower-dimensional modular loci with a cycle-theoretic meaning, offering a testable way to detect boundary cycles.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Ma has a real result here, though it is somewhat thinner than the abstract implies. What is genuinely new: the identification H^1 K_g ≅ Sym^4 E ⊗ L^{-1} for g ≤ 3 (Lemma 4.1) and the construction of meromorphic Siegel modular forms by taking elementary symmetric polynomials of the infinitesimal invariant over an étale cover. The degeneration theorem — Siegel operator matches the K-theory elevator — is also new, and the comparison in Section 7 is explicit and checkable. The paper is honest about its own limitations, which counts for something. The soft spots are real and in proportion. First, the pole-order bound in Theorem 4.2 depends on admissibility of the normal function for n = 3−g > 0, i.e. the g = 1 and g = 2 cases. Section 3.2 flatly says this is folklore, citing a brief argument in [5]. The proof then uses it as a black box: admissibility tells us δν_Z extends holomorphically over the log complex. Without a proof or a precise reference, the bounded-singularity statement is conditional. For g = 3, n = 0, admissibility is proved, so that case is solid. I do not think this is fatal — admissibility of geometric higher normal functions is widely believed and quite possibly follows from Saito's theory — but a referee should push for a written argument. Second, Theorem 6.2 is explicitly conditional on structural assumptions (1)–(5) about the partial toroidal compactification and on the limit formula of [11], and it only treats irreducible degeneration. That is a legitimate way to state a theorem, and the paper says so, but it is not full functoriality in the generality the abstract suggests. The 'up to constant' in Theorem 6.2 is also not ideal: the constant is not identified. The citation pattern is clean. The self-citations [23] and [24] are auxiliary tools, not the target result, so there is no circularity. The remarks on Nori's vanishing, rigidity, and countability of the modular forms are appropriate framing. Who is this for: people working at the interface of algebraic cycles and modular forms. It connects two literatures with an explicit and mostly elementary bridge. I agree with the reader's conditional verdict. The paper deserves a serious referee, with a clear request to fill or precisely delegate the admissibility gap and to state the scope of Theorem 6.2 more carefully in the abstract.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs, for g≤3 and an étale cover S→U of a Zariski open set U in a Siegel modular variety A_Γ, a meromorphic Siegel modular form f_Z^(i) of weight Sym^{4i}⊗det^{-i} from the primitive infinitesimal invariant of a family of higher Chow cycles of type (2,3−g). Theorem 4.2 asserts that this form is holomorphic on U and has at most a pole of order i along the complement of U; Theorem 6.2 asserts compatibility with the Siegel operator under rank-one degeneration via the K-theory elevator. Sections 2 and 3 set up automorphic vector bundles, higher Chow cycles, and normal functions; Section 4 gives the construction and proof of Theorem 4.2; Sections 5–8 develop the meromorphic Siegel operator, the degeneration setup, and the comparison proving Theorem 6.2.

Significance. If correct, the paper establishes a concrete bridge from higher Chow cycles to vector-valued Siegel modular forms in low genus, producing meromorphic forms with controlled poles from cycle-theoretic data and proving a functoriality statement under degeneration. The construction is direct and explicit, with checkable representation-theoretic computations (Lemma 4.1), a self-contained treatment of the meromorphic Siegel operator (§5.3), and no fitting of constants or circular dependence on the target modular forms. The main theorems, however, rest on two inputs that are not fully proved in the manuscript: the admissibility of normal functions for n>0, explicitly labeled folklore in §3.2, and a list of structural assumptions on the partial toroidal compactification in §6.1. These gaps are load-bearing, so the central results are not yet established in full generality.

major comments (2)

[§3.2 and proof of Theorem 4.2 (passage after (4.6))] The pole bound in Theorem 4.2 depends on the assertion that admissibility of ν_Z implies δν_Z extends holomorphically over S^+ as a section of H^1K_{S^+}(log D_S). For the cycle types used here, n=3−g is 2 for g=1 and 1 for g=2. The paper itself states in §3.2 that admissibility for n>0 is only folklore, citing [5] p.658 with a brief argument, and no proof or verification of the hypotheses of that argument is supplied. Since this is the only step yielding the meromorphic extension and pole order i, and also the cusp holomorphicity in the g=1 case, Theorem 4.2 is incomplete for g=1,2 as written. A complete proof of admissibility for higher Chow cycles of type (2,n) with n>0, or a fully stated reference with all hypotheses checked, is required.
[§6.1, assumptions (1)–(5), and §6.3] Theorem 6.2 is conditional on structural assumptions (1)–(5) on the partial toroidal compactification: projective smoothness properties, irreducibility of singular fibers, the description of the product locus eA_I, and dominance with finite fibers of ϕ_0:eA_I→A_I. The text states that these are assumed and are satisfied for the examples in [19], but they are not proved for the modular groups and cusps in the general setting of Theorem 4.2. Moreover, the proof of Theorem 6.2 assumes that no divisor component of A_Γ−U contains the cusp A_I in its closure (needed for regularity at I in the sense of Definition 5.4). These hypotheses are not verified for the cycle families considered. Thus the functoriality statement is a theorem under explicit additional hypotheses, not the unconditional claim suggested by the abstract and Theorem 1.2.

minor comments (4)

[§4.4, Lemma 4.11] The proof of Lemma 4.11 shows that the set of possible values of ν_Z^+|_V at each very general point is countable, but a holomorphic section of a nonconstant family of complex tori is not determined by its value at a single point. As written, the conclusion that there are only countably many sections does not follow; this affects Proposition 4.10, although it is not needed for the main theorems.
[§2.1] The phrase 'We assume −1<Γ throughout' appears to be a typo for '−1∉Γ' or '−1 is not contained in Γ', since the intended hypothesis is that the arithmetic group does not contain −1.
[§6.1] The line bundle L appearing in the description of the singular fiber A=P(O_B⊕L) conflicts with the Hodge line bundle L used throughout the paper; a different notation, such as N or M, would avoid confusion.
[§8.3] In the reduction to a neighborhood of a general point p of eA_I, the argument implicitly assumes that the étale cover is trivial over the chosen neighborhood; this should be stated explicitly, e.g., by shrinking to a simply connected analytic neighborhood.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the modular-form construction is a direct derivation from cycle-theoretic data, with the admissibility folklore gap being a correctness risk rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central construction is definitional rather than circular: f_Z^(i) is obtained by taking elementary symmetric polynomials of the primitive infinitesimal invariant δν_Z^+ along an etale cover and projecting to Sym^{4i}, and Theorem 4.2 then derives the meromorphic extension and pole bound from the admissibility of the normal function and the identification H^1K_g ≅ Sym^4E⊗L^{-1} (Lemma 4.1). No parameter is fitted to data, and no 'prediction' is used to fix constants. The proof of Theorem 6.2 compares the Siegel operator with the K-theory elevator using the external limit formula of [11]; the auxiliary self-citations [23] and [24] are used as tools (e.g., the toroidal formulation of the Siegel operator) and are not the target result, so they are not load-bearing circularity. The section 3.2 admission that admissibility for n>0 is 'more like a folklore' is an honest flag of an unproved hypothesis on which the pole bound of Theorem 4.2 depends; however, this is a completeness or correctness risk, not a circular reduction, since the paper does not define admissibility in terms of the modular form it is supposed to produce. The derivation chain is self-contained apart from this externally cited folklore input, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The central construction has no fitted parameters: all inputs are Hodge bundles, normal functions, and cited theorems. It leans on four substantive external inputs: admissibility of higher normal functions, the structural assumptions on the toroidal compactification, the [11] limit formula, and the proper-intersection condition for the KLM current. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Admissibility of normal functions for higher Chow cycles with n>0, in particular logarithmic growth along boundary divisors.
Invoked in section 4.2 and section 8.1 to extend the infinitesimal invariant across the partial compactification. Section 3.2 calls the n>0 case 'more like a folklore' and cites [5] p.658.
ad hoc to paper The partial toroidal compactification satisfies structural properties (1)-(5) in section 6.1, including irreducible singular fibers and dominance of the product locus eA_I.
Theorem 6.2 is stated under these assumptions; the paper says they hold for examples in [19] but does not prove them in general.
domain assumption The specialization limit formula of [11] for the K-theory elevator holds for the cycles considered.
Used in sections 8.2-8.4 to identify the boundary limit of the normal function with the elevator cycle; Remark 6.3 notes it is available only for irreducible degeneration.
domain assumption The cycles satisfy the proper intersection condition with real faces of the algebraic cube required by the integral formula of [22].
Mentioned in section 3.1 as a tacit assumption whenever the KLM or limit formula is used in section 6 and later.
standard math Baily-Borel compactification, GAGA, Levi extension theorem, and ampleness of the Hodge line bundle on the compactified modular variety.
Used in Lemma 2.2 to write a meromorphic modular form as a quotient of holomorphic modular forms.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Siegel modular forms arising from higher Chow cycles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B64UG7MP

@misc{pith2026250504465,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Siegel modular forms arising from higher Chow cycles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B64UG7MP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04465}
}

read the original abstract

We prove that the infinitesimal invariant of a higher Chow cycle of type (2,3-g) on a generic abelian variety of dimension g<4 gives rise to a meromorphic Siegel modular form of (virtual) weight Sym^{4}det^{-1} with bounded singularity, and that this construction is functorial with respect to rank 1 degeneration, namely the K-theory elevator for the cycle corresponds to the Siegel operator for the modular form.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[5]

Brosnan, P.; Pearlstein, G.; Schnell, C.The locus of Hodge classes in an admissible variation of mixed Hodge structure.C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris348(2010), no.11- 12, 657–660

work page 2010
[11]

del ´Angel R. P. L.; Doran, C.; Kerr, M.; Lewis, J.; Iyer, J.; M¨uller-Stach, S.; Patel, D. Specialization of cycles and the K-theory elevator.Comm. Number Theory Phys.13 (2019), no.2, 299–349

work page 2019
[23]

Ma, S.Vector-valued orthogonal modular forms.to appear in Mem. Eur. Math. Soc., arXiv: 2209.10135

arXiv
[24]

Ma, S.Siegel operator for holomorphic differential forms.arXiv: 2409.04315

work page Pith review arXiv
[19]

H.The principal degenerations of abelian surfaces and their polarisations.Math

Hulek, K.; Weintraub, S. H.The principal degenerations of abelian surfaces and their polarisations.Math. Ann.286(1990), no.1-3, 281–307

work page 1990
[1]

Cambridge

Ash, A.; Mumford, D.; Rapoport, M.; Tai, Y .Smooth compactifications of locally symmetric varieties.2nd ed. Cambridge. Univ. Press, 2010

work page 2010
[2]

A.Higher regulators and values of L-functions.J

Beilinson, A. A.Higher regulators and values of L-functions.J. Soviet Math.30 (1985) 2036–2070

work page 1985
[3]

in Math.61(1986), no.3, 267– 304

Bloch, S.Algebraic cycles and higher K-theory.Adv. in Math.61(1986), no.3, 267– 304

work page 1986

Show all 32 references

[4]

Bloch, S.Algebraic cycles and the Beilinson conjectures.The Lefschetz centennial conference, Part I (Mexico City, 1984), 65–79. Contemp. Math.58, AMS, 1986

1984
[6]

Ann.369(2017), no.3-4, 1649–1669

Cl ´ery, F.; Faber, C.; van der Geer, G.Covariants of binary sextics and vector-valued Siegel modular forms of genus two.Math. Ann.369(2017), no.3-4, 1649–1669

2017
[7]

55, 39 pp

Cl ´ery, F.; Faber, C.; van der Geer, G.Concomitants of ternary quartics and vector- valued Siegel and Teichm¨ uller modular forms of genus three.Selecta Math.26(2020), no.4, Paper No. 55, 39 pp

2020
[8]

Algebraic Geom.6(1997), no.3, 393–415

Collino, A.Griffiths’ infinitesimal invariant and higher K-theory on hyperelliptic Ja- cobians.J. Algebraic Geom.6(1997), no.3, 393–415

1997
[9]

P.The Griffiths infinitesimal invariant for a curve in its Jaco- bian.Duke Math

Collino, A.; Pirola, G. P.The Griffiths infinitesimal invariant for a curve in its Jaco- bian.Duke Math. J.78(1995), no.1, 59–88

1995
[10]

Algebraic Geom.11(2002), no.4, 761–790

Colombo, E.The mixed Hodge structure on the fundamental group of hyperelliptic curves and higher cycles.J. Algebraic Geom.11(2002), no.4, 761–790

2002
[12]

Fulton, W.; Harris, J.Representation theory.GTM129, Springer, 1991

1991
[13]

van der Geer, G.Siegel modular forms and their applications.The 1-2-3 of modular forms, 181–245, Springer, 2008

2008
[14]

Green, M.; Griffiths, P.Algebraic cycles and singularities of normal functions.Al- gebraic cycles and motives. V ol. 1, 206–263. LMS Lect. Note Ser.,343, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007 33

2007
[15]

Kerr, M.N´ eron models and limits of Abel-Jacobi mappings

Green, M.; Griffiths, P. ; Kerr, M.N´ eron models and limits of Abel-Jacobi mappings. Compos. Math.146(2010), no.2, 288–366

2010
[16]

M.The geometry of the mixed Hodge structure on the fundamental group

Hain, R. M.The geometry of the mixed Hodge structure on the fundamental group. Algebraic geometry, Bowdoin, 1985, 247–282. Proc. Symp. Pure Math.,46, Part 2, AMS, 1987

1985
[17]

M.The de Rham homotopy theory of complex algebraic varieties

Hain, R. M.The de Rham homotopy theory of complex algebraic varieties. II.K- Theory1(1987), no.5, 481–497

1987
[18]

M.The rank of the normal functions of the Ceresa and Gross–Schoen cycles

Hain, R. M.The rank of the normal functions of the Ceresa and Gross–Schoen cycles. arXiv:2408.07809

arXiv
[20]

H.Moduli spaces of abelian surfaces: compacti- fication, degenerations, and theta functions.De Gruyter, 1993

Hulek, K.; Kahn, C.; Weintraub, S. H.Moduli spaces of abelian surfaces: compacti- fication, degenerations, and theta functions.De Gruyter, 1993

1993
[21]

Ichikawa, T.Teichm¨ uller modular forms of degree 3.Amer. J. Math.117(1995), no.4, 1057–1061

1995
[22]

Kerr, M.; Lewis, J.; M ¨uller-Stach, S.The Abel-Jacobi map for higher Chow groups. Compos. Math.142(2006), no.2, 374–396

2006
[25]

J.Constructing indecomposable motivic cohomology classes on al- gebraic surfaces.J

M ¨uller-Stach, S. J.Constructing indecomposable motivic cohomology classes on al- gebraic surfaces.J. Algebraic Geom.6(1997), no.3, 513–543

1997
[26]

Mumford, D.An analytic construction of degenerating abelian varieties over com- plete rings.Compositio Math.24(1972), 239–272

1972
[27]

Namikawa, Y .A new compactification of the Siegel space and degeneration of Abelian varieties. II.Math. Ann.221(1976), no.3, 201–241

1976
[28]

Math.111 (1993), 349–373

Nori, M.Algebraic cycles and Hodge-theoretic connectivity.Invent. Math.111 (1993), 349–373

1993
[29]

J.The fundamental group of a Riemann surface: mixed Hodge structures and algebraic cycles.Duke Math

Pulte, M. J.The fundamental group of a Riemann surface: mixed Hodge structures and algebraic cycles.Duke Math. J.57(1988), no.3, 721–760

1988
[30]

Algebraic Geom.5(1996), no.2, 235–276

Saito, M.Admissible normal functions.J. Algebraic Geom.5(1996), no.2, 235–276

1996
[31]

Steenbrink, J. H. M.; Zucker, S.Variation of mixed Hodge structure. I.Invent. Math. 80(1985), 489–542

1985
[32]

Reine Angew

Weissauer, R.Vektorwertige Siegelsche Modulformen kleinen Gewichtes.J. Reine Angew. Math.343(1983), 184–202. Department ofMathematics, ScienceInstitute ofTokyo, Tokyo152-8551, Japan Email address:ma@math.titech.ac.jp

1983

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

Brosnan, P.; Pearlstein, G.; Schnell, C.The locus of Hodge classes in an admissible variation of mixed Hodge structure.C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris348(2010), no.11- 12, 657–660

work page 2010

[2] [11]

del ´Angel R. P. L.; Doran, C.; Kerr, M.; Lewis, J.; Iyer, J.; M¨uller-Stach, S.; Patel, D. Specialization of cycles and the K-theory elevator.Comm. Number Theory Phys.13 (2019), no.2, 299–349

work page 2019

[3] [23]

Ma, S.Vector-valued orthogonal modular forms.to appear in Mem. Eur. Math. Soc., arXiv: 2209.10135

arXiv

[4] [24]

Ma, S.Siegel operator for holomorphic differential forms.arXiv: 2409.04315

work page Pith review arXiv

[5] [19]

H.The principal degenerations of abelian surfaces and their polarisations.Math

Hulek, K.; Weintraub, S. H.The principal degenerations of abelian surfaces and their polarisations.Math. Ann.286(1990), no.1-3, 281–307

work page 1990

[6] [1]

Cambridge

Ash, A.; Mumford, D.; Rapoport, M.; Tai, Y .Smooth compactifications of locally symmetric varieties.2nd ed. Cambridge. Univ. Press, 2010

work page 2010

[7] [2]

A.Higher regulators and values of L-functions.J

Beilinson, A. A.Higher regulators and values of L-functions.J. Soviet Math.30 (1985) 2036–2070

work page 1985

[8] [3]

in Math.61(1986), no.3, 267– 304

Bloch, S.Algebraic cycles and higher K-theory.Adv. in Math.61(1986), no.3, 267– 304

work page 1986