A single point as a Calabi-Yau zerofold

Johanna Knapp; Joseph McGovern

A single point as a Calabi-Yau zerofold

T0 review · 0 major / 5 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 A non-abelian gauge theory with a one-point vacuum phase makes a single point into a Calabi-Yau zerofold.

desk verdict A small, honest toy-model note: the one-point phase claim checks out, the R-symmetry check is one line the authors should have written, and the unresolved non-regular phase issues are real but openly flagged. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16726 v1 pith:BX2YCF3E submitted 2025-06-20 hep-th math.AG

Johanna Knapp , Joseph McGovern This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thmath.AG MSC 14J3214J3381T60

keywords Calabi-Yauzerofoldnon-abelianGLSMnon-regularphasemirrorsymmetryhemispherepartitionfunctionsphereHosono-TakagiPicard-Fuchsequation

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 argues that a single point can be understood as a Calabi-Yau zerofold, in the sense that the axial R-symmetry of its associated GLSM is non-anomalous. The authors construct a one-parameter non-abelian GLSM whose $\zeta>0$ phase is exactly one point, the zero-dimensional analogue of the Hosono-Takagi construction behind Hori's non-abelian duality. The $\zeta<0$ phase is non-regular: the gauge and matter sectors do not separate, and a Coulomb branch at $\zeta\to-\infty$ coexists with a Higgs branch cutting out two points in $\mathbb{P}^1$. The paper computes hemisphere and sphere partition functions, finds divergences tied to the non-regular phase, and constructs a mirror whose discriminant matches the Coulomb branch locus. For a reader, the interest is that this is the simplest possible example of a non-regular GLSM, a class ubiquitous in string theory but still poorly understood.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-parameter non-abelian GLSM itself: gauge group $G=(U(1)\times O(2))/\{\pm1,\pm1\}\cong(U(1)\times U(1))\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_2$, chiral fields $p_1,p_2,x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2$ with the charge table (1), and a symmetric superpotential $W=\sum_{i,j,k}S^k_{ij}p_kx_iy_j$. The $\mathbb{Z}_2$ factor exchanges $x_i\leftrightarrow y_i$ and swaps the two U(1) factors, so only one FI parameter $\zeta$ survives. In the $\zeta>0$ phase the F-terms cut out two points in $\mathbb{P}^1\times\mathbb{P}^1$ which the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ identifies; in the $\zeta<0$ phase the effective superpotential $W_{\mathrm{eff}}$ reveals a Coulomb branch at $\sigma_1+\sigma_2=0$ (i.e. $\zeta\to-\infty$), the source of non-regularity. The mirror is obtained by the toric procedure of [24], producing the family (36) and its $\mathbb{Z}_2$ quotient; the period $\varpi_0(\varphi)=1/\sqrt{1-4\varphi}$ solves the Picard-Fuchs operator $L=(1-4\varphi)\theta-2\varphi$.

What would settle it

Compute the mixed gauge/axial anomalies for the charge assignments (1) with R-charges $2q$ on $x_i,y_i$ and $2-4q$ on $p_i$; if no $q$ makes both U(1) anomaly sums vanish, the single-point phase is not a Calabi-Yau zerofold in the paper's sense even though the vacuum geometry is one point. A second check would compute the Witten index in the $\zeta<0$ phase: if a correct calculation does not reproduce the $\zeta>0$ value (after accounting for the Coulomb branch), the phase interpretation would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the $\zeta>0$ phase of the non-abelian GLSM with gauge group $G=(U(1)\times O(2))/\{\pm1,\pm1\}\cong(U(1)\times U(1))\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_2$, matter content (1), and superpotential $W=\sum_{i,j,k}S^k_{ij}p_kx_iy_j$ is a single point. The two points solving the two bilinear equations in $\mathbb{P}^1\times\mathbb{P}^1$ are identified by the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ exchange $(x_1,x_2)\leftrightarrow(y_1,y_2)$, leaving one point, which the authors count as a Calabi-Yau zerofold. The model is non-regular in the $\zeta<0$ phase: a Coulomb branch at $\zeta\to-\infty$ coexists with a Higgs branch given by the rank-one symmetric determinantal quadric $Y=\{p\in\mathbb{P}^1\mid \mathrm{rk}\,S(p)=1\}$. The mirror of the point is a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ quotient of the two-point mirror family $U+V=1$, $\varphi_1/U+\varphi_2/V=1$, whose fundamental period $\varpi_0(\varphi)=1/\sqrt{1-4\varphi}$ reproduces the GLSM period.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the $\zeta>0$ phase is a Calabi-Yau zerofold rests on the unverified assumption that some R-charge parameter $q$ makes the axial U(1) R-symmetry non-anomalous for both U(1) factors in the charge table (1); the anomaly trace condition is never solved in the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The $\zeta>0$ phase of the GLSM is a single point, so a Calabi-Yau zerofold can be engineered as the large-volume phase of a non-abelian GLSM.
The period of the one-point mirror is identical to that of $P^1[2]$ (two points): $\varpi_0(\varphi)=1/\sqrt{1-4\varphi}$; the distinction between one and two points enters only through the normalisation of the hemisphere partition function, here a factor of the Weyl group order.
The $\zeta<0$ phase is non-regular, so standard Born-Oppenheimer reasoning and the usual contour prescriptions for hemisphere and sphere partition functions break down; the resulting divergent series cannot be regulated by the alternating-sign convergence factor used in the Rødland model.
A naive Witten index count gives 1 in the $\zeta>0$ phase versus 3 in the $\zeta<0$ phase (two Higgs-branch points plus one Coulomb point), so a matching index computation requires either a sign or a modified counting.
The model provides the simplest known entry point for studying non-regular GLSMs, which are expected to be generic phases in string compactifications.

Reading between the lines

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

If the axial R-symmetry anomaly is checked and found to vanish for some $q$, the construction would establish the first GLSM realisation of a one-point Calabi-Yau; a direct anomaly computation is the natural next test.
The divergence-rescaling manipulation (30)-(33), which recovers the large-volume period from the strongly coupled phase, suggests that non-regular phases might still be governed by the same analytic continuation as regular phases; testing this on the Rødland Pfaffian phase or other non-regular models would show whether the pattern is general.
The paper lists but does not analyse two other one-point GLSMs ($U(1)\times\mathbb{Z}_2$ on $P^1[2]$ and $U(1)^2\times\mathbb{Z}_2$ with two FI parameters); comparing their phase structures would test whether the single-point phenomenon is generic for $\mathbb{Z}_2$-quotient constructions.

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

Colleague,

Quick read for you. The paper does exactly what it says: exhibits a non-abelian GLSM whose ζ>0 phase is a single point, and argues the point counts as a Calabi-Yau zerofold because the axial R-symmetry is non-anomalous. I checked the charge table (1) and the reader's worry here is misplaced. For each U(1) factor the sum of gauge charges is zero row-by-row: -1-1+1+1+0+0 and -1-1+0+0+1+1. So the anomaly cancels independent of the free R-charge parameter q. The paper should have printed that one line; the Introduction defines the whole notion via this non-anomaly and then never shows it. That is a clarity gap, not a correctness gap.

The actual new content is modest but real: the explicit identification of the two points in P^1 × P^1 under the Z2, the Coulomb branch analysis showing non-regularity, the hemisphere/sphere partition function computations, and the mirror discriminant computation that ties the Coulomb branch locus to the fixed-point locus of the quotient action. The fundamental period 1/sqrt(1-4φ) is the known P1[2] period, and the authors are upfront that the model is implicit in Hori. They also honestly separate the engineered regulator in §2.4 from the direct expansion in φ, so there is no disguised fitting.

Soft spots, in proportion. The Witten index mismatch (1 vs. 3) between phases is unresolved, and the ζ<0 partition function sums diverge. The authors say they do not know how to resolve these and suggest further work. That is honest, but it means the paper's 'toy model for non-regular GLSMs' claim is only half-delivered: the non-regular phase is where the interesting physics is, and the paper mostly documents that it doesn't understand it. The regulator rescaling φ = δ^{-2} φ~ is ad hoc and self-acknowledged; it lands on the known period, which is reassuring but not an explanation. Those caveats do not touch the ζ>0 phase, which is clean.

For a proceedings note this is a solid, useful contribution. The reader who will get value is someone learning about non-abelian GLSMs or wanting a minimal example of a non-regular phase. It deserves a serious referee, mostly to make the author add the anomaly check and tighten the phrasing about what is and isn't understood in the ζ<0 phase. I'd bring it to a reading group and would cite it if I wrote about non-regular GLSMs.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a two-dimensional N=(2,2) GLSM with gauge group (U(1)xO(2))/{±1} ≅ (U(1)xU(1))⋊Z2 and charges as in Table (1), with superpotential W=S_{ij}(p)x_i y_j. For ζ>0 the D- and F-term equations cut out two points in P1xP1 which are identified by the Z2 factor, leaving a single point; the authors propose this as a Calabi-Yau zerofold in the sense that the axial R-symmetry of the GLSM is non-anomalous. The ζ<0 phase is analysed and found to be non-regular: there is a determinantal quadric giving two Higgs-branch points together with a Coulomb branch at ζ→−∞. The hemisphere partition function for the structure sheaf evaluates to 2C times the period ϖ0=(1−4ϕ)^(−1/2), the sphere partition function gives a q-dependent expression in the ζ>0 phase and a divergent series in the ζ<0 phase, and a double-scaling regulator is used to extract ϖ0(ϕ̃^−1). A toric mirror construction yields the same period and a discriminant 4Δ=1−4ϕ at ϕ1=ϕ2=ϕ. The paper closes with a list of open questions, including the Witten-index mismatch and the interpretation of the regularisation.

Significance. The central ζ>0 phase computation is clean and correct, and the identification of a one-point vacuum geometry is a nice zero-dimensional toy analogue of the Hosono-Takagi/Hori construction. The paper is strengthened by the fact that the GLSM period and the toric mirror period are computed independently and agree, so no fitted parameter is disguised as a prediction. The authors are also explicit about the limitations of the model: the unresolved Witten-index mismatch in §3 and the ad hoc regulator in §2.4 are stated as open problems rather than hidden. The advertised non-anomaly of the axial R-symmetry is not demonstrated in the text, but it is readily verified from the charge table and does not undermine the phase-geometry result. As a proceedings contribution, the paper is a useful and honest entry point to non-regular GLSMs.

minor comments (5)

[§1, Table (1)] The defining property of the Calabi-Yau zerofold, namely the non-anomaly of the axial R-symmetry, is asserted but never verified. Please add the one-line check: for the standard axial R-symmetry the two row sums in (1) vanish, or, if the R-charge assignment of §2.4 is used, impose the anomaly-free condition, which fixes q=1/3. Without this sentence the reader cannot see that the title's claim is actually verified.
[§2.4, Eq. (27)] The sphere partition function in the ζ>0 phase depends on the free parameter q through the factor (ϕϕ̄)^{2q}. If the R-symmetry used in the localisation is meant to be the non-anomalous one, q must be fixed before the expression is compared with the period. Please state the anomaly condition and the resulting value of q; otherwise the prefactor is an unconstrained R-symmetry mixing artifact.
[§2.3, Eq. (20)] The normalisation C=1/2 is proposed rather than derived. Since the claim that the hemisphere computation distinguishes one point from two points rests on this normalisation, please clarify whether it follows from the non-abelian localisation measure (1/|W|) or is a convention. Also, 'rank of the Weyl group' should be 'order of the Weyl group'.
[§2.4, Eq. (28)] The label 'Zζ≫0 S2' in the ζ<0 subsection should read 'Zζ≪0 S2'.
[§2.4, Eqs. (29)-(33)] The double-scaling regularisation leading to ϖ0(ϕ̃^−1) is admittedly ad hoc. Please mark this subsection explicitly as a proposal or move it to a discussion section, since it is not on the same footing as the ζ>0 computations and should not be read as a derivation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: core vacuum geometry, anomaly cancellation, and period computations are independent; minor self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The central claim—that the ζ>0 phase is a single point and that this point qualifies as a Calabi-Yau zerofold via non-anomalous axial R-symmetry—is derived from the GLSM data, not assumed. The vacuum manifold follows from solving the D-term and F-term equations (3)–(6), with the Z2 identification explicitly reducing two points to one; nothing is fitted into that conclusion. The non-anomaly condition is a check on the charge matrix (1): each U(1) row sums to zero (−1−1+1+1=0 in both rows), and the R-charge q introduced in §2.4 is irrelevant to this check and to the vacuum geometry. The period statements are multiply confirmed: the hemisphere calculation (20)–(21), the toric mirror period (39)–(41), and the known P1[2] period are independent computations that agree, so the agreement is not a constructed identity. The C=1/2 normalization is explicitly a convention for identifying a single structure sheaf, not a prediction extracted from data. The δ-rescaling in §2.4 is clearly labeled as tentative ('we do not have a full interpretation of this manipulation') and is not used to prove the central claim. The paper cites its own prior work [10] and an 'in progress' item [31] only as motivational context or as part of a list of known categorical equivalences; neither is load-bearing. Hence no step reduces by construction to its own input; score 2 reflects only the presence of minor non-load-bearing self-citations, not circularity.

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

The central construction uses standard GLSM ingredients and is largely self-contained. The main free parameters are the R-charge q, the normalization C, and the regulator double-scaling, all of which are either left unfixed or chosen by hand. The axioms are standard domain assumptions about localization, toric mirror symmetry, and the Hori-Tong non-regularity criterion. No new particles, forces, or geometric entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

R-charge parameter q = not fixed; anomaly cancellation would determine it
Assigned in Section 2.4 as R(x) = R(y) = 2q and R(p) = 2 - 4q. The anomaly-free U(1)_A condition is never solved, and q appears in the sphere partition function prefactor (phi bar phi)^{2q}.
Hemisphere partition function normalization C = 1/2 (proposed)
Proposed in Section 2.3 to count one point rather than two; the factor 1/2 is attributed to the Weyl group rank, but no independent derivation is provided.
Regulator double-scaling (delta, phi = delta^-2 tilde phi) = delta to 0+ with exponent -2
Introduced in Section 2.4 to make the divergent zeta<0 sphere sum converge to the period; the scaling is chosen by hand and the authors state they lack a full interpretation.
Expansion variable coefficient phi = -1/(16 phi^2) = -1/16 and exponent -2
Chosen in Section 2.4 so the resulting series has integral coefficients; the number is not derived from the theory.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Validity of the localization formulas for Z_{D2} and Z_{S2}
Used in Eqs. (16) and (26) following references [13-15,18-20]; the non-regular phase may lie outside the contour prescriptions, as the authors note.
domain assumption Toric mirror construction applies to zero-dimensional complete intersections
Used in Section 2.5 to obtain eM in Eq. (36) and its period; this is a standard but assumed extension to the zero-dimensional case.
domain assumption Non-regularity criterion of Hori and Tong applies to N = k = 2 models
Applied in Section 2.2 to infer a Coulomb branch at zeta to -infinity; the authors say the discussion carries over almost word by word.
domain assumption Mirror of a Z2 quotient is the quotient of the mirror
Used in Section 2.5 to pass from eM to M; standard orbifold mirror symmetry but not proved here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A single point as a Calabi-Yau zerofold." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BX2YCF3E

@misc{pith2026250616726,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A single point as a Calabi-Yau zerofold},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BX2YCF3E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16726}
}

read the original abstract

We give a brief account of a non-abelian GLSM that describes a Calabi-Yau zerofold, in this case a single point, in the "large volume" phase. The other phase is non-regular, i.e. there is no clear separation between the gauge and the matter sectors. Prepared for the proceedings of the MATRIX program "The geometry of moduli spaces in string theory" held in September 2024.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[2]

Duality In Two-Dimensional (2,2) Supersymmetric Non-Abelian Gauge Theories,

K. Hori, “Duality In Two-Dimensional (2,2) Supersymmetric Non-Abelian Gauge Theories,” JHEP 10 (2013) 121, arXiv:1104.2853 [hep-th]

arXiv 2013
[1]

Calabi-Yau manifolds over finite fields. 1.,

P. Candelas, X. de la Ossa, and F. Rodriguez-Villegas, “Calabi-Yau manifolds over finite fields. 1.,” arXiv:hep-th/0012233

arXiv
[3]

Phases of N=2 theories in two-dimensions,

E. Witten, “Phases of N=2 theories in two-dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B 403 (1993) 159–222, arXiv:hep-th/9301042

arXiv 1993
[4]

Mirror symmetry and projective geometry of Reye congruences I

S. Hosono and H. Takagi, “Mirror symmetry and projective geometry of Reye congruences I,” J. Alg. Geom. 23 no. 2, (2014) 279–312, arXiv:1101.2746 [math.AG]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[5]

Determinantal Quintics and Mirror Symmetry of Reye Congruences

S. Hosono and H. Takagi, “Determinantal Quintics and Mirror Symmetry of Reye Congruences,” Commun. Math. Phys. 329 (2014) 1171–1218, arXiv:1208.1813 [math.AG]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[6]

Double quintic symmetroids, Reye congruences, and their derived equivalence,

S. Hosono and H. Takagi, “Double quintic symmetroids, Reye congruences, and their derived equivalence,” Journal of Differential Geometry 104 no. 3, (2016) 443 – 497

work page 2016
[7]

Aspects of Non-Abelian Gauge Dynamics in Two-Dimensional N=(2,2) Theories,

K. Hori and D. Tong, “Aspects of Non-Abelian Gauge Dynamics in Two-Dimensional N=(2,2) Theories,” JHEP 05 (2007) 079, arXiv:hep-th/0609032

arXiv 2007
[8]

Decompactifications and Massless D-Branes in Hybrid Models

P. S. Aspinwall and M. R. Plesser, “Decompactifications and Massless D-Branes in Hybrid Models,” JHEP 07 (2010) 078, arXiv:0909.0252 [hep-th]

work page Pith review arXiv 2010

Show all 38 references

[9]

B-brane transport in nonabelian GLSMs for KGr(2,N),

J. Guo, M. Romo, and L. Smith, “B-brane transport in nonabelian GLSMs for KGr(2,N),” arXiv:2503.06293 [hep-th]
[10]

Noncommutative resolutions and CICY quotients from a non-abelian GLSM,

J. Knapp and J. McGovern, “Noncommutative resolutions and CICY quotients from a non-abelian GLSM,” arXiv:2504.06147 [hep-th]
[11]

Modular curves, the Tate-Shafarevich group and Gopakumar-Vafa invariants with discrete charges,

T. Schimannek, “Modular curves, the Tate-Shafarevich group and Gopakumar-Vafa invariants with discrete charges,” JHEP 02 (2022) 007, arXiv:2108.09311 [hep-th] . A single point as a Calabi-Yau zerofold 15

2022 arXiv
[12]

Topological Strings on Non-commutative Resolutions,

S. Katz, A. Klemm, T. Schimannek, and E. Sharpe, “Topological Strings on Non-commutative Resolutions,” Commun. Math. Phys. 405 no. 3, (2024) 62, arXiv:2212.08655 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[13]

Exact Results in Supersymmetric Field Theories on Manifolds with Boundaries,

S. Sugishita and S. Terashima, “Exact Results in Supersymmetric Field Theories on Manifolds with Boundaries,” JHEP 11 (2013) 021, arXiv:1308.1973 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[14]

Exact results for boundaries and domain walls in 2d supersymmetric theories,

D. Honda and T. Okuda, “Exact results for boundaries and domain walls in 2d supersymmetric theories,” JHEP 09 (2015) 140, arXiv:1308.2217 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[15]

Exact Results In Two-Dimensional (2,2) Supersymmetric Gauge Theories With Boundary,

K. Hori and M. Romo, “Exact Results In Two-Dimensional (2,2) Supersymmetric Gauge Theories With Boundary,” arXiv:1308.2438 [hep-th]

arXiv
[16]

Phases Of N=2 Theories In 1+1 Dimensions With Boundary,

M. Herbst, K. Hori, and D. Page, “Phases Of N=2 Theories In 1+1 Dimensions With Boundary,” arXiv:0803.2045 [hep-th]

arXiv
[17]

The Pfaffian Calabi–Yau, its mirror, and their link to the Grassmannian G (2, 7),

E. A. Rødland, “The Pfaffian Calabi–Yau, its mirror, and their link to the Grassmannian G (2, 7),” Compositio Mathematica 122 no. 2, (2000) 135–149

2000
[18]

Two-Sphere Partition Functions and Gromov-Witten Invariants,

H. Jockers, V . Kumar, J. M. Lapan, D. R. Morrison, and M. Romo, “Two-Sphere Partition Functions and Gromov-Witten Invariants,”Commun. Math. Phys. 325 (2014) 1139–1170, arXiv:1208.6244 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[19]

Partition Functions of N = (2,2) Gauge Theories on S2 and V ortices,

F. Benini and S. Cremonesi, “Partition Functions of N = (2,2) Gauge Theories on S2 and V ortices,”Commun. Math. Phys. 334 no. 3, (2015) 1483–1527, arXiv:1206.2356 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[20]

Exact Results in D=2 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories,

N. Doroud, J. Gomis, B. Le Floch, and S. Lee, “Exact Results in D=2 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories,” JHEP 05 (2013) 093, arXiv:1206.2606 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[21]

NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions

“ NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions .” https://dlmf.nist.gov/, release 1.2.4 of 2025-03-15. F. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis, D. W. Lozier, B. I. Schneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller, B. V . Saunders, H. S. Cohl, and M. A. McClain, eds

2025
[22]

Complete Intersection Calabi-Yau Manifolds,

P. Candelas, A. M. Dale, C. A. Lutken, and R. Schimmrigk, “Complete Intersection Calabi-Yau Manifolds,”Nucl. Phys. B 298 (1988) 493

1988
[23]

Calabi-yau Manifolds as Complete Intersections in Products of Complex Projective Spaces,

P. Green and T. Hubsch, “Calabi-yau Manifolds as Complete Intersections in Products of Complex Projective Spaces,” Commun. Math. Phys. 109 (1987) 99

1987
[24]

Mirror symmetry, mirror map and applications to complete intersection Calabi-Yau spaces,

S. Hosono, A. Klemm, S. Theisen, and S.-T. Yau, “Mirror symmetry, mirror map and applications to complete intersection Calabi-Yau spaces,”Nucl. Phys. B 433 (1995) 501–554, arXiv:hep-th/9406055

1995 arXiv
[25]

On modularity of rigid and nonrigid Calabi-Yau varieties associated to the root lattice A4,

K. Hulek and H. Verrill, “On modularity of rigid and nonrigid Calabi-Yau varieties associated to the root lattice A4,” Nagoya Mathematical Journal 179 (2005) 103–146

2005
[26]

Classification and Properties of Hyperconifold Singularities and Transitions,

R. Davies, “Classification and Properties of Hyperconifold Singularities and Transitions,” arXiv:1309.6778 [math.AG]

arXiv
[27]

Elliptic genera of two-dimensional N=2 gauge theories with rank-one gauge groups,

F. Benini, R. Eager, K. Hori, and Y . Tachikawa, “Elliptic genera of two-dimensional N=2 gauge theories with rank-one gauge groups,” Lett. Math. Phys. 104 (2014) 465–493, arXiv:1305.0533 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[28]

Elliptic Genera of 2dN = 2 Gauge Theories,

F. Benini, R. Eager, K. Hori, and Y . Tachikawa, “Elliptic Genera of 2dN = 2 Gauge Theories,” Commun. Math. Phys. 333 no. 3, (2015) 1241–1286, arXiv:1308.4896 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[29]

Window shifts, flop equivalences and Grassmannian twists,

W. Donovan and E. Segal, “Window shifts, flop equivalences and Grassmannian twists,” Compos. Math. 150 no. 6, (2014) 942–978, arXiv:1206.0219 [math.AG]

2014 arXiv
[30]

Beijing lectures on the grade restriction rule,

R. Eager, K. Hori, J. Knapp, and M. Romo, “Beijing lectures on the grade restriction rule,” Chinese Ann. Math. Ser . B 38 no. 4, (2017) 901–912

2017
[31]

in progress

R. Eager, K. Hori, J. Knapp, and M. Romo, “in progress.”
[32]

Derived categories of Artin-Mumford double solids,

S. Hosono and H. Takagi, “Derived categories of Artin-Mumford double solids,” Kyoto J. Math. 60 no. 1, (2020) 107–177, arXiv:1506.02644 [math.AG]

2020 arXiv
[33]

Geometry of symmetric determinantal loci,

S. Hosono and H. Takagi, “Geometry of symmetric determinantal loci,” arXiv:1508.01995 [math.AG]

arXiv
[34]

The homological projective dual of sym2P(v).,

J. V . Rennemo, “The homological projective dual of sym2P(v).,” Compositio Mathematica 156 no. 3, (2020) 476, arXiv:1509.04107 [math.AG]

2020 arXiv
[35]

Homological projective duality for Grassmannians of lines,

A. Kuznetsov, “Homological projective duality for Grassmannians of lines,” arXiv:math/0610957 [math.AG] . 16 Johanna Knapp and Joseph McGovern

arXiv
[36]

Mirror symmetry,

K. Hori and C. Vafa, “Mirror symmetry,” arXiv:hep-th/0002222

arXiv
[37]

A proposal for nonabelian mirrors,

W. Gu and E. Sharpe, “A proposal for nonabelian mirrors,” arXiv:1806.04678 [hep-th]

arXiv
[38]

Conifold transitions and mirror symmetry for Calabi-Yau complete intersections in Grassmannians,

V . V . Batyrev, I. Ciocan-Fontanine, B. Kim, and D. van Straten, “Conifold transitions and mirror symmetry for Calabi-Yau complete intersections in Grassmannians,”Nucl. Phys. B 514 (1998) 640–666, arXiv:alg-geom/9710022

1998 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [2]

Duality In Two-Dimensional (2,2) Supersymmetric Non-Abelian Gauge Theories,

K. Hori, “Duality In Two-Dimensional (2,2) Supersymmetric Non-Abelian Gauge Theories,” JHEP 10 (2013) 121, arXiv:1104.2853 [hep-th]

arXiv 2013

[2] [1]

Calabi-Yau manifolds over finite fields. 1.,

P. Candelas, X. de la Ossa, and F. Rodriguez-Villegas, “Calabi-Yau manifolds over finite fields. 1.,” arXiv:hep-th/0012233

arXiv

[3] [3]

Phases of N=2 theories in two-dimensions,

E. Witten, “Phases of N=2 theories in two-dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B 403 (1993) 159–222, arXiv:hep-th/9301042

arXiv 1993

[4] [4]

Mirror symmetry and projective geometry of Reye congruences I

S. Hosono and H. Takagi, “Mirror symmetry and projective geometry of Reye congruences I,” J. Alg. Geom. 23 no. 2, (2014) 279–312, arXiv:1101.2746 [math.AG]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014

[5] [5]

Determinantal Quintics and Mirror Symmetry of Reye Congruences

S. Hosono and H. Takagi, “Determinantal Quintics and Mirror Symmetry of Reye Congruences,” Commun. Math. Phys. 329 (2014) 1171–1218, arXiv:1208.1813 [math.AG]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014

[6] [6]

Double quintic symmetroids, Reye congruences, and their derived equivalence,

S. Hosono and H. Takagi, “Double quintic symmetroids, Reye congruences, and their derived equivalence,” Journal of Differential Geometry 104 no. 3, (2016) 443 – 497

work page 2016

[7] [7]

Aspects of Non-Abelian Gauge Dynamics in Two-Dimensional N=(2,2) Theories,

K. Hori and D. Tong, “Aspects of Non-Abelian Gauge Dynamics in Two-Dimensional N=(2,2) Theories,” JHEP 05 (2007) 079, arXiv:hep-th/0609032

arXiv 2007

[8] [8]

Decompactifications and Massless D-Branes in Hybrid Models

P. S. Aspinwall and M. R. Plesser, “Decompactifications and Massless D-Branes in Hybrid Models,” JHEP 07 (2010) 078, arXiv:0909.0252 [hep-th]

work page Pith review arXiv 2010