Spin refinement of moduli spaces of residueless meromorphic differentials and the BKP hierarchy

David Klompenhouwer; Stijn Velstra

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Spin refinement of moduli spaces of residueless meromorphic differentials and the BKP hierarchy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · 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 DR hierarchy of spin-refined strata of residueless meromorphic differentials with two zeros coincides with the BKP hierarchy after an explicit rescaling.

desk verdict A genuinely new spin-KP/BKP bridge, but the identification rests on two genus-2 intersection numbers that are not yet independently verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02540 v1 pith:YJYODC5D submitted 2025-06-03 math.AG math-phmath.MPnlin.SI

David Klompenhouwer , Stijn Velstra This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AGmath-phmath.MPnlin.SI MSC 14H1014H1537K10

keywords spinstructuresmeromorphicdifferentialsBKPhierarchydoubleramificationcohomologicalfieldtheorymoduliofcurvesthetacharacteristics

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 proves that a spin-refined version of the moduli problem governing residueless meromorphic differentials is governed by the BKP hierarchy, not merely by KP. Curves carrying such a differential with even zero and pole orders inherit a spin structure, and the paper forms the cohomology class obtained by subtracting the odd-parity locus from the even-parity locus. These classes satisfy the axioms of a partial cohomological field theory of infinite rank. Applying the double ramification (DR) hierarchy construction and restricting to differentials with exactly two zeros produces a system of PDEs that, after an explicit change of variables and the substitution $\varepsilon^2=2$, coincides with the BKP hierarchy. The proof is built on a new reconstruction theorem showing that BKP is uniquely determined by its linear dispersionless term, its first nontrivial potential, and the commutativity and homogeneity properties of its flows.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the spin-parity cohomology classes $[H^{\mathrm{res}}_g(2\alpha_1,\ldots,2\alpha_n)]_{\mathrm{spin}} = [\text{even}] - [\text{odd}]$, which form a homogeneous partial CohFT of infinite rank with unit $e_0$ and metric $\eta_{\alpha\beta} = \delta_{\alpha+\beta,-1}$. The DR hierarchy construction turns this partial CohFT into commuting Hamiltonian flows whose densities are defined by integrals of DR cycles, $\lambda$-classes, and $\psi$-classes against these spin strata. The decisive mechanism is Theorem 5.3, a reconstruction principle: the compatibility of the flows plus homogeneity, tau-symmetry, and translation invariance determine every polynomial $Q^{\mathrm{spin}}_{\alpha\beta}$ once the linear term and the first nontrivial potential $Q^{\mathrm{spin}}_{2,2}$ are known. This reduces the geometric verification to computing intersection numbers in genera 0, 1, and 2.

What would settle it

Recompute the two integrals in Lemma 3.5 by a method that uses neither the conjectural spin DR formula (21) for $g=2$ nor Wong's algorithm; if the values $37/1152$ and $7/5760$ are not reproduced, Theorem 5.1 fails for the stated transformation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is Theorem 5.1: for the spin-refined strata, the reduced DR hierarchy $\partial v_\alpha/\partial t_\beta = \partial_x Q^{\mathrm{spin}}_{\alpha\beta}$ and the BKP hierarchy in normal coordinates $\partial w_{2\alpha-1}/\partial T_{2\beta-1} = \partial_x R^{\mathrm{BKP}}_{\alpha\beta}$ are the same system. The identification is made by $v_\alpha = -w_{2\alpha-1}/(2\alpha-1)$, $t_\beta = (2\beta-1)T_{2\beta-1}$, together with $\varepsilon^2=2$. Under this substitution, the geometric data, including the genus-2 potential $Q^{\mathrm{spin}}_{2,2}$, are sent exactly to the BKP data, including $R^{\mathrm{BKP}}_{2,2} = \tfrac{9}{5}w_5 - w_3^{(2)} - 3w_1w_3 + \tfrac{1}{5}w_1^{(4)} + 3w_1w_1^{(2)} + 3w_1^3$. The argument does not require knowing the full BKP hierarchy: Theorem 5.3 reconstructs every $Q^{\mathrm{spin}}_{\alpha\beta}$ recursively from $Q_{\gamma,2}$ using only commutativity of flows and the listed structural properties, which is a genuinely new reconstruction result for BKP.

Load-bearing premise

The identification with BKP rests on the two genus-2 intersection numbers of Lemma 3.5 being correct: the first proof of them uses a conjectural spin double-ramification formula that the paper marks as unproven, and the second proof imports an algorithm the paper describes as based on assumptions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If Theorem 5.1 is correct, every flow of the BKP hierarchy in normal coordinates is realized geometrically as a DR flow on spin-refined strata of two-zero residueless differentials.
The BKP hierarchy is completely determined by the linear term of its dispersionless limit together with the first nontrivial potential, so other geometric constructions sharing these initial data must produce the same hierarchy.
The result gives a concrete instance of the principle that spin refinements of KP-governed enumerative problems are governed by BKP, matching the known spin Hurwitz number phenomenon.
The intersection numbers of Lemma 3.5 become fixed geometric inputs that constrain all higher coefficients of the hierarchy, so any future computation of spin stratum classes must be consistent with the BKP values.

Reading between the lines

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

One could test the reconstruction's minimality by checking whether replacing $Q^{\mathrm{spin}}_{2,2}$ with any other admissible potential still yields a commuting hierarchy; the proof suggests it would not, implying the genus-2 numbers are uniquely forced.
The $\varepsilon^2=2$ substitution suggests that in any further spin/KP correspondence the spin parameter enters only through this normalization, which might serve as a check for other spin-refined hierarchies.
A fully independent computation of the two genus-2 integrals in Lemma 3.5, once the spin DR conjecture is proved, would either close the remaining gap or, if it disagrees, identify exactly where the BKP identification would break.

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

The new thing here is real: the authors prove that the DR hierarchy attached to their spin-refined partial CohFT of residueless meromorphic differentials with two zeros coincides with the BKP hierarchy after an explicit rescaling, and they also prove a reconstruction result that needs less Cauchy data than the analogous KP statement in BRZ24. The paper is honest and well structured; the partial CohFT setup, the reduction to two zeros, and the Lax-based definition of BKP are all clearly written, and the reconstruction proof is long but mostly self-contained. I walked through the coordinate transformation and the structure of the reconstruction argument and found no circularity: BKP is defined from Lax operators, the geometric initial data are intersection numbers, and the theorem is a genuine identification, not a restatement.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader put it, Lemma 3.5. The two numbers 37/1152 and 7/5760 determine Q^spin_{2,2}, which is the unique nontrivial input to the reconstruction theorem. The first proof of that lemma uses the conjectural spin DR formula (21) for g=2, which the paper itself marks as unproven. The second proof is meant to be unconditional, but it pulls in Propositions 3.7 and 3.8, which are derived from Wong's algorithm, and the paper's introduction says that algorithm is based on a few assumptions. The stress-test note is right that the authors do not isolate which of Wong's assumptions are actually needed for the specific two- and three-entry level graphs they use, and they do not provide an independent verification of the two integrals. If those numbers shift, the claimed equality with BKP is not established. That is a narrow but load-bearing gap, and it is the only substantial concern I have.

Who gets value from this: anyone working on DR hierarchies, spin strata, or the spin-KP/BKP correspondence will want to read it. It is a solid within-subfield advance, not a revolution, and the presentation is workmanlike rather than flashy. I would be comfortable sending it to a serious referee, with the explicit request to check Lemma 3.5, ideally by an independent computation of the two genus-2 intersections or by a careful audit of the Wong-based splitting steps. My own verdict would be conditional: the framework and reconstruction are sound, and the two intersection numbers are likely correct, but they are not yet fully secured.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a partial cohomological field theory from the spin-parity-weighted classes [H^res_g(2α_1,...,2α_n)]_spin of residueless meromorphic differentials with even vanishing orders, applies the double-ramification (DR) hierarchy construction, and reduces to the locus of differentials with two zeros. The main theorem (Theorem 5.1) states that, after a change of variables v_α = -w_{2α-1}/(2α-1), t_β = (2β-1)T_{2β-1}, and ε² = 2, the reduced DR hierarchy coincides with the BKP hierarchy. The proof combines a new reconstruction theorem for BKP from limited initial data (Theorem 5.3) with explicit computations of the first nontrivial differential polynomials in genus 0, 1, and 2. The genus-2 computation (Lemma 3.5) is the key geometric input.

Significance. If the main theorem is established, it gives a sharp spin refinement of the Buryak–Rossi–Zvonkine result relating residueless differential strata to KP, and it fits the emerging pattern that spin versions of KP-governed problems are governed by BKP. The BKP hierarchy is defined independently via the Lax constraint (Section 4.2), not by fitting to moduli geometry, so there is no circularity in the overall strategy. The reconstruction theorem (Theorem 5.3) is a genuine uniqueness result and is stronger in terms of required input than the analogous KP reconstruction in [BRZ24]. The paper is also transparent about where it relies on external conjectural or assumption-based input, and the explicit intersection-theoretic computations, several checked with admcycles, are a useful contribution. However, the genus-2 initial datum that feeds the reconstruction rests on input whose unconditional status is not fully established, and this blocks acceptance in the present form.

major comments (3)

[§3.2.1, Eq. (21) and Lemma 3.5] The first proof of Lemma 3.5 explicitly uses the genus-2 case of the conjectural spin DR formula (21), which the paper itself identifies as unproven (Section 3.2.1, citing CSS21 Assumption 1.3). Since Lemma 3.5 determines the potential Q^spin_{2,2}, and Q^spin_{2,2} is the unique nontrivial initial datum in the reconstruction theorem, this proof cannot serve as an unconditional verification of the two intersection numbers 37/1152 and 7/5760. The first proof should either be explicitly labelled as conditional or removed from the proof of Proposition 2.5 and Theorem 5.1.
[§3.2.2, Propositions 3.7 and 3.8] The second proof of Lemma 3.5 is intended to avoid the conjectural formula (21), but it imports Propositions 3.7 and 3.8 from Wong's algorithm [Won24], and Section 1.2 states that this algorithm is 'based on a few assumptions'. The paper does not isolate which of Wong's assumptions are needed for the specific two- and three-entry level graphs used in Lemma 3.13, Proposition 3.14, and Proposition 3.15, nor does it provide an independent verification of the two intersection numbers. If any of those assumptions fails, the values 37/1152 and 7/5760 change and Theorem 5.1 is not established. The unconditional status of these computations needs to be repaired, for example by proving the needed special cases of Wong's algorithm or supplying an independent genus-2 computation.
[§5.1, Theorem 5.1 and Theorem 5.3] The dependence of the main theorem on Lemma 3.5 is load-bearing: Theorem 5.1 follows from Theorem 5.3 together with properties (59)–(64), and the only nontrivial geometric input among those properties is the value of Q^spin_{2,2} fixed by Lemma 3.5. Because both available proofs of Lemma 3.5 rely on conjectural or assumption-based input, the main theorem is currently conditional on external results that are not proved in the paper. The authors should either make the theorem explicitly conditional, or supply a complete proof of the needed genus-2 spin intersection numbers.

minor comments (4)

[§1.1, Proposition 1.4] The sentence 'The stack B^res_g(α_1,...,α_n) is a moduli stack for for families of equivalence classes...' contains a duplicated 'for'.
[§3.2.2, Lemma 3.13] The final sentence of the proof says 'The last equality is due to Lemma 3.10', but the displayed expression also uses equation (26); please make the reference precise.
[§5.2, after Lemma 5.4] The sentence 'Note that the proof of this determination uses a non-constructive argument only at the end' is vague; it would help the reader to indicate explicitly that the non-constructive step is the contradiction argument with λ in the proof of Theorem 5.3.
[§5.1, Remark 5.2] The notation Tf_u in equation (65) is introduced only inside the remark; defining it before the displayed equation would make the remark easier to follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the BKP identification is a genuine comparison of independently defined hierarchies, with a conditional genus-2 input that is a correctness risk rather than a circular one.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The BKP hierarchy is defined independently in Section 4.2 via the Lax constraint L^dag = -partial_x L partial_x^{-1}, with normal coordinates w_{2alpha-1} = res L^{2alpha-1} and derived properties (52)-(57); it is not defined by the properties used in the comparison. The reduced DR hierarchy is constructed in Section 2.2 from the spin-strata partial CohFT of Proposition 1.7, and its initial datum Q^spin_{2,2} is obtained in Proposition 2.5 by intersection-theoretic computations in Section 3, not by fitting to the BKP hierarchy. Theorem 5.3 is a self-contained uniqueness/reconstruction result proved in Section 5.2; it does not import the target equality, and Theorem 5.1 applies it by checking that the explicit rescalings send properties (59)-(64) to (52)-(57). Thus the claimed equality is a genuine comparison of two independently defined systems. The only flagged weakness is that Lemma 3.5's numerical inputs depend on unproven or assumption-based sources: the first proof uses conjectural spin DR formula (21) for g=2 (explicitly marked unproven), and the second proof uses Propositions 3.7 and 3.8 derived from Wong's algorithm, which the paper itself describes as 'based on a few assumptions' (Section 1.2). This is a rigor/assumption risk that could invalidate the specific coefficients 37/1152 and 7/5760, but it is not circularity: neither the conjectural spin DR formula nor Wong's algorithm assumes the BKP identification or the reconstruction theorem, and the paper does not rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. There are no load-bearing self-citations and no ansatz smuggled in via citation; the dependency is disclosed, and the remaining argument is an ordinary logical deduction from stated assumptions.

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

No numbers are fitted to data and no new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on standard moduli-space theorems and on two partly conjectural external tools (CSS21 spin DR formula and Wong's algorithm), listed as axioms above.

assumptions (7)

standard math Parity of h0(C,L) is deformation invariant for spin structures (Mumford, Atiyah)
Used in Section 1.2 to split H_g(2α) into even and odd components and to define the spin-weighted class.
domain assumption The moduli space of multi-scale residueless differentials B^res_g(α) is a proper DM stack whose fundamental class pushes forward to [H^res_g(α)]
Section 1.1, Proposition 1.4, quoted from CMZ22; the spin refinement needs this compactification.
standard math Hain's formula gives the DR cycle on the compact-type locus
Used in Section 3 for DR1 and DR2 expansions.
standard math Mumford's Picard relation κ1 = 7/5 δ_{1|1} on M_ct_2
Proposition 3.6, imported from Mumford 1983; central to the genus-2 second method.
ad hoc to paper The spin DR formula (21) for g=2 (CSS21 Assumption 1.3)
Used in the first proof of Lemma 3.5; the authors explicitly state it is conjectural for g≥2.
ad hoc to paper Wong's algorithm computes spin-parity classes of strata
Propositions 3.7 and 3.8 are taken from Won24; Section 1.2 notes the algorithm is based on a few assumptions, so this is a load-bearing external input.
standard math Strong DR/DZ equivalence and the BHS22 formula for DR2(a,-a)λ2
Formula (24) used in the first proof of Lemma 3.5; the strong DR/DZ conjecture is cited as proven in BLS24.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin refinement of moduli spaces of residueless meromorphic differentials and the BKP hierarchy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YJYODC5D

@misc{pith2026250602540,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin refinement of moduli spaces of residueless meromorphic differentials and the BKP hierarchy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YJYODC5D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02540}
}

read the original abstract

We consider strata of curves carrying a residueless meromorphic differential inducing a spin structure on the curve. The cohomology classes of the closures of these strata, weighted by the parity of the spin structures, form a partial cohomological field theory (CohFT) of infinite rank. After applying the DR hierarchy construction to this partial CohFT and reducing to differentials with two zeros and arbitrarily many poles, we show that the resulting system of evolutionary PDEs coincides with the BKP hierarchy up to a coordinate transformation. This is a spin refinement of an analogous result from arXiv:2110.01419. Our proof relies on a new result regarding the reconstruction of the BKP hierarchy from a limited amount of information in the Lax formalism.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Arbarello and M

[AC87] E. Arbarello and M. Cornalba. The Picard groups of the moduli spaces of curves. Topology 26 (1987), pp. 153–171. [AS23] A. Alexandrov and S. Shadrin. Elements of spin Hurwitz theory: closed algebraic formulas, blobbed topological recursion, and a proof of the Giacchetto-Kramer-Lewa´ nski conjecture.Selecta Math. (N.S.) 29.2 (2023), Paper No. 26,

work page 1987
[3]

EMS Press, Berlin, 2023, pp

Sections 1–4. EMS Press, Berlin, 2023, pp. 2312–2322. [Ros17] P. Rossi. Integrability, quantization and moduli spaces of curves. SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 13 (2017), Pa- per No. 060,

work page 2017
[6]

[CMSZ20] D. Chen, M. M¨ oller, A. Sauvaget, and D. Zagier. Masur-Veech vol- umes and intersection theory on moduli spaces of Abelian differen- tials. Invent. Math. 222.1 (2020), pp. 283–373. [CMZ22] M. Costantini, M. M¨ oller, and J. Zachhuber. The Chern classes and Euler characteristic of the moduli spaces of Abelian differentials. Forum Math. Pi 10 (202...

work page 2020
[13]

[GP03] T

arXiv: 2104.05697 [math-ph]. [GP03] T. Graber and R. Pandharipande. Constructions of nontautologi- cal classes on moduli spaces of curves. Mich. Math. J. 51.1 (2003), pp. 93–109. [GV05] T. Graber and R. Vakil. Relative virtual localization and vanishing of tautological classes on moduli spaces of curves. Duke Math. J. 130.1 (2005), pp. 1–37. [Hai13] R. Ha...

arXiv 2003
[17]

[Zab21] A. V. Zabrodin. Kadomtsev-Petviashvili hierarchies of types B and C. Teoret. Mat. Fiz. 208.1 (2021), pp. 15–38. 56

work page 2021
[22]

[SZ20] J

arXiv: 2401.17421 [math.AG]. [SZ20] J. Schmitt and J. van Zelm. Intersections of loci of admissible covers with tautological classes. Sel. Math., New Ser. 26.5 (2020). Id/No 79, p

arXiv 2020
[24]

Adv. Lect. Math. Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2013, pp. 527–578. 54 [Hir04] R. Hirota. The direct method in soliton theory. Trans. by A. Nagai, J. Nimmo, and C. Gilson. Vol

work page 2013
[26]

World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge, NJ, 2003, pp

Advanced Series in Mathematical Physics. World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge, NJ, 2003, pp. xii+408. [DJKM82] E. Date, M. Jimbo, M. Kashiwara, and T. Miwa. Transformation groups for soliton equations IV. A new hierarchy of soliton equations of KP-type. Phys. D 4.3 (1982), pp. 343–365. [DKM81] E. Date, M. Kashiwara, and T Miwa. Transformation...

work page 1982

Show all 24 references

[27]

[BRZ24] A

issn: 0377-9017. [BRZ24] A. Buryak, P. Rossi, and D. Zvonkine. Moduli spaces of residueless meromorphic differentials and the KP hierarchy. Geom. Topol. 28.6 (2024), pp. 2793–2824. [BSSZ15] A. Buryak, S. Shadrin, L. Spitz, and D. Zvonkine. Integrals of ψ- classes over double r...

2024
[29]

Sauvaget

[Sau19] A. Sauvaget. Cohomology classes of strata of differentials. Geom. Topol. 23.3 (2019), pp. 1085–1171. [Sch18] Johannes Schmitt. Dimension theory of the moduli space of twisted k-differentials. Doc. Math. 23 (2018), pp. 871–894. [Spe24] P. Spelier. Polynomiality of the d...

2019
[39]

Towards an Enumerative Geometry of the Moduli Space of Curves

55 [Mum71] D. Mumford. Theta characteristics of an algebraic curve. Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. 4 (1971), pp. 181–192. [Mum83] D. Mumford. “Towards an Enumerative Geometry of the Moduli Space of Curves”. Arithmetic and Geometry: Papers Dedicated to I.R. Shafarevich on the Occa...

1971
[44]

[Ati71] M. F. Atiyah. Riemann surfaces and spin structures. Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) 4 (1971), pp. 47–62. [BCGGM18] M. Bainbridge, D. Chen, Q. Gendron, S. Grushevsky, and M. M¨ oller. Compactification of strata of Abelian differentials. Duke Math. J. 167.12 (2018), pp. ...

1971
[55]

Costantini, M

[CMZ24] M. Costantini, M. M¨ oller, and J. Zachhuber. The area is a good enough metric. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 74.3 (2024), pp. 1017–

2024
[69]

[Won24] Y. M. Wong. An algorithm to compute the fundamental classes of spin components of strata of differentials. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 6 (2024), pp. 4893–4962. [WY23] Z. Wang and C. Yang. Connected ( n,m)-point functions of diagonal 2-BKP tau-functions and spin double Hu...

2024
[135]

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp

Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. x+108. [MMN20] A. D. Mironov, A. Morozov, and S. M. Natanzon. Cut-and-join structure and integrability for spin Hurwitz numbers. Eur. Phys. J. C 80.97 (2020). [MMNO21] A. D. Mironov, A. Morozov, ...

2020
[155]

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004, pp

Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004, pp. xii+200. [Hol21] D. Holmes. Extending the double ramification cycle by resolving the Abel-Jacobi map. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 20.1 (2021), pp. 331–359. [HS21] D. Holmes and J. Schmitt. Infinitesim...

2021
[560]

Giacchetto, R

[GKLS25] A. Giacchetto, R. Kramer, D. Lewa´ nski, and A. Sauvaget. The spin Gromov-Witten/Hurwitz correspondence for P1. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (2025). [GLK21] A. Giacchetto, D. Lewa´ nski, and R. Kramer. A new spin on Hurwitz theory and ELSV via theta characteristics. To appear i...

2025
[888]

Faber and R

[FP00] C. Faber and R. Pandharipande. Logarithmic series and Hodge in- tegrals in the tautological ring. Michigan Math. J. 48 (2000). Ap- pendix by Don Zagier, pp. 215–252. [FP18] G. Farkas and R. Pandharipande. The moduli space of twisted canonical divisors. J. Inst. Math. Ju...

2000
[1089]

Kontsevich and Yu

[KM94] M. Kontsevich and Yu. Manin. Gromov-Witten classes, quantum cohomology, and enumerative geometry. Comm. Math. Phys. 164.3 (1994), pp. 525–562. [KZ03] M. Kontsevich and A. Zorich. Connected components of the moduli spaces of Abelian differentials with prescribed singular...

1994
[2001]

[EOP08] A

arXiv: math/0108160 [math.DG]. [EOP08] A. Eskin, A. Okounkov, and R. Pandharipande. The theta charac- teristic of a branched covering. Adv. Math. 217.3 (2008), pp. 873–

2008 arXiv
[2019]

13492 [math.AG]

arXiv: 1910 . 13492 [math.AG]. [BDGR18] A. Buryak, B. Dubrovin, J. Gu´ er´ e, and P. Rossi. Tau-structure for the double ramification hierarchies. Comm. Math. Phys. 363.1 (2018), pp. 191–260. [BGR19] A. Buryak, J. Gu´ er´ e, and P. Rossi. DR/DZ equivalence conjecture and tauto...

2018
[2021]

53 [Dic03] L

arXiv: 2112.04238 [math.AG]. 53 [Dic03] L. A. Dickey. Soliton equations and Hamiltonian systems . Second. Vol

arXiv
[2024]

[Boi15] C

arXiv: 2405.12334 [math.AG]. [Boi15] C. Boissy. Connected components of the strata of the moduli space of meromorphic differentials. Comment. Math. Helv. 90.2 (2015), pp. 255–286. [BR16] A. Buryak and P. Rossi. Recursion relations for double ramification hierarchies. Comm. Mat...

2015 arXiv
[2337]

van Ittersum and A

[IS22] J. van Ittersum and A. Sauvaget. Cylinder counts and spin refine- ment of area Siegel-Veech constants. Comment. Math. Helv. (2022). [JPPZ17] F. Janda, R. Pandharipande, A. Pixton, and D. Zvonkine. Double ramification cycles on the moduli spaces of curves. Publ. Math. In...

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Arbarello and M

[AC87] E. Arbarello and M. Cornalba. The Picard groups of the moduli spaces of curves. Topology 26 (1987), pp. 153–171. [AS23] A. Alexandrov and S. Shadrin. Elements of spin Hurwitz theory: closed algebraic formulas, blobbed topological recursion, and a proof of the Giacchetto-Kramer-Lewa´ nski conjecture.Selecta Math. (N.S.) 29.2 (2023), Paper No. 26,

work page 1987

[2] [3]

EMS Press, Berlin, 2023, pp

Sections 1–4. EMS Press, Berlin, 2023, pp. 2312–2322. [Ros17] P. Rossi. Integrability, quantization and moduli spaces of curves. SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 13 (2017), Pa- per No. 060,

work page 2017

[3] [6]

[CMSZ20] D. Chen, M. M¨ oller, A. Sauvaget, and D. Zagier. Masur-Veech vol- umes and intersection theory on moduli spaces of Abelian differen- tials. Invent. Math. 222.1 (2020), pp. 283–373. [CMZ22] M. Costantini, M. M¨ oller, and J. Zachhuber. The Chern classes and Euler characteristic of the moduli spaces of Abelian differentials. Forum Math. Pi 10 (202...

work page 2020

[4] [13]

[GP03] T

arXiv: 2104.05697 [math-ph]. [GP03] T. Graber and R. Pandharipande. Constructions of nontautologi- cal classes on moduli spaces of curves. Mich. Math. J. 51.1 (2003), pp. 93–109. [GV05] T. Graber and R. Vakil. Relative virtual localization and vanishing of tautological classes on moduli spaces of curves. Duke Math. J. 130.1 (2005), pp. 1–37. [Hai13] R. Ha...

arXiv 2003

[5] [17]

[Zab21] A. V. Zabrodin. Kadomtsev-Petviashvili hierarchies of types B and C. Teoret. Mat. Fiz. 208.1 (2021), pp. 15–38. 56

work page 2021

[6] [22]

[SZ20] J

arXiv: 2401.17421 [math.AG]. [SZ20] J. Schmitt and J. van Zelm. Intersections of loci of admissible covers with tautological classes. Sel. Math., New Ser. 26.5 (2020). Id/No 79, p

arXiv 2020

[7] [24]

Adv. Lect. Math. Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2013, pp. 527–578. 54 [Hir04] R. Hirota. The direct method in soliton theory. Trans. by A. Nagai, J. Nimmo, and C. Gilson. Vol

work page 2013

[8] [26]

World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge, NJ, 2003, pp

Advanced Series in Mathematical Physics. World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge, NJ, 2003, pp. xii+408. [DJKM82] E. Date, M. Jimbo, M. Kashiwara, and T. Miwa. Transformation groups for soliton equations IV. A new hierarchy of soliton equations of KP-type. Phys. D 4.3 (1982), pp. 343–365. [DKM81] E. Date, M. Kashiwara, and T Miwa. Transformation...

work page 1982