Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Spectral networks for polynomial cubic differentials

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The spectral core controls where spectral-network trajectories are born, yielding complete wall-and-chamber and BPS classifications for polynomial cubic differentials of degree ≤3.

desk verdict A serious and useful paper that introduces the spectral core and settles the low-degree cubic differential case, but two proof gaps—the double-trajectory assumption and the partially checked wall-crossing—should be closed before citing as airtight. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07971 v1 pith:MZ2VN5YP submitted 2025-07-10 math.AG hep-thmath-phmath.DGmath.MP

Omar Kidwai , Guillaume Tahar This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AGhep-thmath-phmath.DGmath.MP MSC 14H1530F3032G15
keywords spectralcorecubicdifferentialsnetworksBPSstructureswall-crossingformulasaddleconnectionscriticaltripodsArgyres-Douglastheories
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 claims that a small geometric object, the spectral core, determines where every trajectory of a cubic differential's spectral network begins. If the claim is right, the intricate, potentially infinite process by which network trajectories give birth to new trajectories becomes a finite polygon problem. The paper works out the polynomial case on the Riemann sphere for degree $d \le 3$, obtaining a complete list of the phases at which saddle connections and critical tripods appear, a wall-and-chamber structure in the parameter space, and the resulting BPS spectrum. It verifies that this spectrum changes across walls according to the Kontsevich-Soibelman wall-crossing formula, matching the physics prediction for the $(A_2,A_{d-1})$ generalized Argyres-Douglas theories.

What carries the argument

The spectral core $\mathrm{SCore}(X,\varphi)$ is the complement of the spectral polar domains, which are the images of admissible half-plane immersions whose boundary lines are real trajectories. Its load-bearing property is Theorem 3.10: the starting point of every trajectory in the spectral network lies in the spectral core, so new trajectories can only be born inside a finite polygon region, never inside the immersed half-planes. This reduces network analysis to understanding the core's finitely many Euclidean triangles, and the paper shows the core is determined by the first stage $\mathcal W^{(1)}$ of the network.

What would settle it

Numerically construct $\mathcal W_\vartheta(\varphi)$ for $\varphi=\alpha x(x-1)(x-t)^{-9}dx^{\otimes 3}$ at a parameter $t$ in or near the walls $\Delta_2,\Delta_3$ and look for a double trajectory that is neither a saddle connection nor a critical tripod; finding one at any phase would invalidate the restricted BPS construction. A second check is to compute the BPS automorphism $S_\prec$ on a small sector crossing a wall and compare the two sides; any mismatch in the twisted-torus identity would falsify the claimed variation of BPS structures.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For any flat surface $(X,\varphi)$ coming from a cubic differential, every trajectory of the spectral network $\mathcal W(\varphi)$ starts inside the spectral core $\mathrm{SCore}(X,\varphi)$, a finite union of Euclidean triangles whose boundary corners alternate between zeros and regular points; in particular the whole network is controlled by the initial trajectories $\mathcal W^{(1)}$ and the restriction of $\mathcal W$ to the core. For polynomial cubic differentials of degree $d\le 3$, this yields a complete degeneration analysis: no degenerations for $d=0,1$; for $d=2$, exactly one saddle connection appears at exactly one phase for every $\alpha$; and for $d=3$, the parameter space splits into four chambers separated by walls $\Delta_1^\pm,\Delta_2,\Delta_3,\Delta_4$, with explicit saddle and tripod classes in each chamber. Applying the restricted spectral-network BPS construction, the charge lattice is $H_1(\Sigma^\times,\mathbb Z)$, the central charge is $Z(\gamma)=\int_\gamma \lambda$, and the BPS invariant is $1$ on saddle and tripod classes and $0$ otherwise. The paper proves that this family is a variation of BPS structures over $\mathrm{int}\,\mathcal T$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that for $d\le 3$ every double trajectory that appears in any rotated spectral network is either a saddle connection or a critical tripod with BPS index $1$, a fact the paper imports from the physics literature rather than proving independently.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For degree $d\le 3$, the spectral network of any polynomial cubic differential is explicitly determined by the first-stage trajectories and the phase, so the degeneration pattern is no longer mysterious.
  • In degree $d=2$, every differential $\alpha(x^2-1)\,dx^{\otimes 3}$ has exactly one saddle connection, appearing at exactly one phase, and it has no tripods.
  • In degree $d=3$, the saddle connections homotopic to $[-\infty,0]$ and $[1,\infty]$ are present in every chamber, the saddle connection $[0,1]$ appears exactly in chambers $\mathcal C_A,\mathcal C_B,\mathcal C_C$, and a critical tripod appears exactly in $\mathcal C_A,\mathcal C_B$.
  • The restricted spectral-network construction yields a finite integral BPS structure with BPS index $1$ on active classes, and the family of BPS structures satisfies the Kontsevich-Soibelman wall-crossing formula over $\mathrm{int}\,\mathcal T$.
  • In physics language, this verifies the BPS spectrum of the $(A_2,A_{d-1})$ generalized Argyres-Douglas theory for $d\le3$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The spectral-core control principle is likely to extend to higher-degree polynomial cubic differentials; if so, numerical simulation of the network only needs to cover the core, making a direct computational search for counterexamples feasible.
  • For $d=4,5$, where the associated cluster algebras are of finite type, one may expect the network to remain finite, but new kinds of double trajectories would appear and the assignment of BPS index $1$ would need to be recomputed.
  • The wall-crossing verification hints at a Bridgeland-Smith-type correspondence in which cubic differentials parametrize stability conditions on some 3-Calabi-Yau category; the paper does not construct such a category.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies spectral networks attached to polynomial cubic differentials on the Riemann sphere. The authors introduce the spectral core SCore(X,φ), prove (Theorem 3.10) that every trajectory of the spectral network W(φ) starts in the spectral core, and use this to analyze degenerations of spectral networks as the phase varies. For polynomial cubic differentials of degree d≤3 they give a classification of saddle connections and critical tripods, determine the wall-and-chamber structure for d=3, and construct an associated BPS structure via a restricted Gaiotto-Moore-Neitzke construction (Definition 4.5). They verify that these BPS structures satisfy the Kontsevich-Soibelman wall-crossing formula (Theorem 1.4/7.3), with explicit period formulae in Lemmas 6.8 and 7.1.

Significance. If the main results are correct, the paper provides the first rigorous determination of the BPS spectrum for the (A2,Ad-1) generalized Argyres-Douglas theories with d≤3, and introduces the spectral core as a new tool that is likely to be useful for higher-degree differentials. The paper is largely self-contained, with explicit period formulas and geometric proofs of the bounds in Corollaries 5.3 and 5.5. However, the verification of the wall-crossing formula and the classification's exhaustiveness rely on an unproved structural assumption about double trajectories and on numerical checks; these must be addressed before the central claims can be accepted as proven.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1.1 / Definition 4.5] The assertion that every double trajectory in Wϑ(φ) for d≤3 is either a saddle connection or a critical tripod is stated in Section 3.1.1 ('These two configurations of double trajectories are the only ones which appear in the examples studied in this paper; this is a feature peculiar to our setting with d≤3') and is then used as the premise of Definition 4.5 and of equation (4.8). No proof or reference to a proof is given for this dichotomy. Since Definition 4.5 defines the BPS invariant Ω to be 1 only on saddle and tripod classes, the appearance of any other type of double trajectory at some phase (e.g., a finite web with regular endpoints) would invalidate the BPS invariants and therefore Theorem 1.4. The authors should prove this dichotomy for the full parameter range considered, or explicitly declare it as an additional assumption and state which parts of the main theorems depend on it.
  2. [Section 7.3] The proof of Theorem 7.3 does not verify the wall-crossing formula in full generality. It computes the product of BPS automorphisms on the generators x1 and x2 in a single sector containing the classes γl, γm, γr, and then asserts that 'similar calculations hold for the other classes (which can be obtained by applying the cyclic symmetry of Σ)'. The ordering of the BPS rays in the sector near Δ2 is justified by a numerical check ('checking their central charges slightly above and below the wall confirms that this is a correct triple and ordering of classes to consider') rather than derived from the explicit formulas in Lemma 7.1. Moreover, the verification for the other chambers and for arbitrary acute sectors is not carried out. As written, this does not constitute a complete proof of the wall-crossing property; a rigorous symbolic verification (or a derivation of the ray order from Lemma 7.1) is required.
  3. [Section 6.8] The chamber-by-chamber lists of spectral cores and degenerations (Tables 1-7) are presented as results, but the text only states that they are 'deduced from' Theorem 6.12 and Propositions 6.9-6.10. Those propositions give constraints and upper bounds on the number of special phases, but they do not determine, for example, which chamber corresponds to type II− versus type II+ in the order of phases, nor do they prove that no additional degeneration occurs at phases not listed. The classification of the wall-and-chamber structure is a central claim of the paper (Theorem 1.2), so the assignment of each cell of the stratification should either be proved explicitly or be explicitly labeled as a numerically verified conjecture.
  4. [Section 6.5 / Table 5] The characterization of the two components Δ+1 and Δ−1 of the wall Δ1 is based on the numerical observation in the remark after Definition 6.6 ('We check numerically that Δ−1 corresponds to triangles...'). This numerical check is then used in Table 5 to list different spectral cores and degenerations on the two components. Since the distinction between these walls is part of the wall-and-chamber classification, it should be proved from the explicit formula for the core angles (for instance, from the period formulas in Lemma 6.8) rather than taken from a numerical plot.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Corollary 1.3 / Corollary 7.2] The string '±(1, 0− 1,−1)' appears to be a typo for '±(1,0,−1,−1)'; the missing comma makes the tuple ambiguous.
  2. [Throughout] Several display formulas are corrupted in the manuscript source (e.g., Definition 4.1, 'Ω(γ)≠ 0 /Leftr⫯g⊸tl⫯ne⇒|Z(γ)|> C⋅∥γ∥'; Lemma 3.11, 'f ∶ H/leftr⫯g⊸tl⫯ne→X'; Lemma 5.4, 'd◇⧈◇●'). These should be fixed for readability.
  3. [Section 4.3] The value Ω(γ)=1 is stated to be 'well-known to be equal to 1' and 'computed in [1]'; a precise reference to the relevant computation (equation or section of [1]) would improve verifiability.
  4. [Section 2.6 / Lemma 2.7] The letter β is used both for the total number of boundary saddle connections of polar domains and for an individual boundary edge count; this can be confusing and should be clarified.
  5. [Figure 2] Figure 2 (the chamber structure) is referenced repeatedly but not reproduced in the extracted text; the authors should ensure it is included in the final version and that the labels Δ±1, Δ2, etc. are legible.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor definitional circularity in the restricted GMN construction: the BPS invariants are defined to be 1 on saddle/tripod classes, so the support of the BPS structure is an input; the geometric classification of degenerations remains independent.

  1. self definitional [Definition 4.5, Eq. (4.8); applied in Corollary 7.2 and Section 7.2]
    "Supposing furthermore that all double trajectories appearing in any Wϑ(φ) form either saddle connections or critical tripods, the BPS invariant Ω(γ) is given for any γ ∈ Γ by Ω(γ)= 1, γ a saddle class or tripod class , 0, otherwise. (4.8)"

    The BPS invariant is defined to be 1 exactly on saddle classes and tripod classes, and 0 on all other classes. Corollary 7.2 then reports the active classes as precisely the saddle and tripod classes obtained from the classification in §6.8, with Ω set to 1 on them. Thus the support and value of Ω are not derived from an independent principle; they are the definitional input of the restricted GMN construction, with the numerical value 1 imported from the physics reference [1]. The independent and nontrivial content is the geometric determination of which saddle connections and critical tripods occur in each chamber; the BPS-spectrum claim itself reduces by construction to that classification.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is largely self-contained. The spectral core is defined geometrically, Theorem 3.10 is proved by induction from the iterative Definition 3.1, the structural results on the spectral core follow from Gauss-Bonnet and the local geometry of poles, and the central charges are integrals of λ with no fitted parameters. The wall-crossing verification in §7.3 is a direct computation of BPS automorphisms for the defined BPS structures. Self-citations in the paper (e.g., [38] by Tahar and [18,19,34] by Kidwai) are used for standard flat-surface facts or motivational context and are not load-bearing in a circular way. The one short-circuit is Definition 4.5: setting Ω(γ)=1 on saddle/tripod classes and 0 otherwise makes the active-class support of the resulting BPS structure an input rather than an independent output. The paper is transparent about this, explicitly saying the value is 'well-known to be equal to 1' and taking it 'as our definition of Ω'. The separate assumption that for d≤3 all double trajectories are saddles or critical tripods is asserted rather than proved; this is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction. Overall the circularity is minor and localized, so the score is 2.

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

The central claim uses no fitted numerical parameters; alpha and t parametrize the family of differentials rather than being fit. The main imported content is the physics normalization Omega=1 for saddle and tripod classes and the assumption that only these two types of double trajectories occur in low degree. The spectral core is a new defined mathematical object with proven structure, not an unexplained physical entity.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Trajectory classification in translation surfaces (Proposition 5.5 of [38]): leaves are periodic, dense, hit conical singularities, or go to poles.
    Used in proofs of Propositions 2.3, 5.1, and 5.2 to rule out unexpected trajectory behavior.
  • standard math Local normal forms of zeros and poles of cubic differentials (Section 2.2, based on [37, 38]).
    Underlies the flat metric, angles, spectral cover, and the local geometry used throughout the paper.
  • standard math Gauss-Bonnet angle formula for flat surfaces (Lemma 2.2).
    Used repeatedly in Section 5 to prove simplicity of trajectories and in Section 3 to count triangles in the spectral core.
  • ad hoc to paper Only saddle connections and critical tripods occur as double trajectories for d at most 3 (asserted in Section 3.1.1 and assumed in Definition 4.5).
    The restricted GMN construction and the BPS invariants depend on this. It is asserted as a feature of the setting and supported by the later case analysis, but not proven as a separate theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper Physical BPS index of a saddle or tripod class equals 1 (Definition 4.5, cited from [1]).
    Not derived in this paper; the value is imported from the Gaiotto-Moore-Neitzke prescription.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral networks for polynomial cubic differentials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MZ2VN5YP

@misc{pith2026250707971,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral networks for polynomial cubic differentials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MZ2VN5YP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07971}
}
abstract

We study cubic differentials and their spectral networks on Riemann surfaces, focusing on the polynomial case on the Riemann sphere. We introduce the notion of spectral core as the primary tool for our study, refining the classical notion of core in the theory of flat surfaces, and show that it controls the birthing process of spectral network trajectories. As an application, we completely characterize the polynomial cubic differentials having saddle connections or critical tripods when the degree $d$ is at most $3$; in particular, we obtain the relevant degenerations as the phase is varied and determine explicitly the wall-and-chamber structure. In this case, we obtain the BPS structure according to Gaiotto-Moore-Neitzke's algorithm, and verify that it satisfies the Kontsevich-Soibelman wall-crossing formula. In physics language, this corresponds to computing the BPS spectrum of a certain four-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=2$ quantum field theory, known as the $(A_{2},A_{d-1})$ generalized Argyres-Douglas theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07971 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. One possible spectral core (shaded) of a cubic differential with three simple zeroes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fundamental domain T in the t-plane with walls and chambers listed. degenerations and the networks in between them for the chambers are illustrated in Figures 12, 13, 14 in Section 6.8. Once the degenerations are understood, they can be packaged into the corresponding BPS structure [1, 4, 5]. The lattice is taken to be Γ = H1(Σ × ,Z), and central charge Z(γ) = ∫γ √3 φ, where Σ× is a canonical branched triple coverin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Positive (red) and negative (blue) trajectories around a regular point. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Construction of spectral networks from cubic differentials. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of double trajectories These two configurations of double trajectories are the only ones which appear in the examples studied in this paper; this is a feature peculiar to our setting with d ≤ 3 and is by no means the case in general, even for polynomial cubic …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: , and take a closed path in Σ × which projects to it4 . Acting by orientation reversal and the cyclic automorphism of Σ permuting sheets, we obtain six homology classes ±γ (i) ∈ H1(Σ × ,Z), i = 1, 2, 3 referred to as saddle classes (resp. tripod classes) for the cubic …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Proof of Lemma 5.4 We know from Proposition 5.2 that two segments of the same tripod intersect at most once. This implies that α and β intersect at most twice outside a and b; in particular, α1 and β2 could potentially intersect, and α2 and β1 could potentially interse…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The d = 1 case: φ = xdx3 at ϑ ≈ 0.53 By the normal form theorem, this network (depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Possible networks and spectral cores for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Behaviour of critical trajectories on the interior of a half-plane with two conical singu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The symmetric locus S permuting the two others (a reflection). In the t-parameter space, such a map is either t ↦ 1 t¯ , t ↦ 1 − t¯ or t ↦ 1 − 1 t¯ . The invariant locus is therefore the union the line of equation Re(t) = 1 2 , the circle of radius 1 centred on 0 and …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Spectral networks and spectral cores for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Spectral networks and spectral cores for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Spectral networks and spectral cores for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Crossing the wall ∆3 Thus, we give the calculation only for the case in which we begin in the region CC and move to CB, where the central charges of some (saddle) classes γl and γr align, resulting in a new active (tripod) class γm with argZ(γl) < argZ(γm) < argZ(γr) …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Crossing the wall ∆2 For t in the region CC or on the wall ∆2, we have over the sector ⪦ containing γl , γm, γr, S − ⪦ = SℓlSℓmSℓr (7.4) where each ℓ⋅ corresponds to a single active class γ⋅ . We can compute the action on, say, x1 = xγ1 , noting that S ∗ ℓm acts trivi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Spectral networks,

    D. Gaiotto, G. W. Moore, and A. Neitzke, “Spectral networks,” Ann. Henri Poincar´ e14 (2013) 1643–1731

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Honda, T

    N. Honda, T. Kawai, and Y. Takei, Virtual Turning Points . SpringerBriefs in Mathematical Physics. Springer Japan, Tokyo, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    New Stokes’ line in WKB theory,

    H. L. Berk, W. M. Nevins, and K. V. Roberts, “New Stokes’ line in WKB theory,” J. Math. Phys. 23 (1982) 988–1002

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    Wall-crossing, Hitchin systems, and the WKB approximation,

    D. Gaiotto, G. W. Moore, and A. Neitzke, “Wall-crossing, Hitchin systems, and the WKB approximation,” Adv. Math. 234 (2013) 239 – 403

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Integral iterations for harmonic maps,

    A. Neitzke, “Integral iterations for harmonic maps,” Beijing J. of Pure and Appl. Math. 1 (2024), no. 1, 121–158

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Opers and Non-Abelian Hodge: Numerical Studies,

    D. Dumas and A. Neitzke, “Opers and Non-Abelian Hodge: Numerical Studies,” Exp. Math. 33 (2024), no. 1, 27–68

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Spectral Networks and Fenchel–Nielsen Coordinates,

    L. Hollands and A. Neitzke, “Spectral Networks and Fenchel–Nielsen Coordinates,” Lett. Math. Phys. 106 (2016), no. 6, 811–877, 1312.2979

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Abelianisation of logarithmic sl2-connections,

    N. Nikolaev, “Abelianisation of logarithmic sl2-connections,” Sel. Math. New Ser. 27 (2021), no. 5,

    work page 2021

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Higher length-twist coordinates, generalized Heun’s opers, and twisted superpotentials,

    L. Hollands and O. Kidwai, “Higher length-twist coordinates, generalized Heun’s opers, and twisted superpotentials,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 22 (June, 2019) 1713–1822

    2019

  2. [10]

    Quadratic differentials as stability conditions,

    T. Bridgeland and I. Smith, “Quadratic differentials as stability conditions,” Publ. Math. IH ´ES 121 (2015), no. 1, 155–278

    2015

  3. [11]

    Riemann-Hilbert problems from rank 3 WKB spectral networks,

    D. Wu, “Riemann-Hilbert problems from rank 3 WKB spectral networks,” 2311.03922

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Stability structures, motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants and cluster transformations,

    M. Kontsevich and Y. Soibelman, “Stability structures, motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants and cluster transformations,” 0811.2435

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    On the Borel summability of WKB solutions of Sch¨ odinger equations with polynomial potentials and its application

    T. Koike and R. Sch¨ afke, “On the Borel summability of WKB solutions of Sch¨ odinger equations with polynomial potentials and its application.” in preparation. 42

  6. [14]

    Exact solutions for the singularly perturbed Riccati equation and exact WKB analysis,

    N. Nikolaev, “Exact solutions for the singularly perturbed Riccati equation and exact WKB analysis,” Nagoya Math. J. 250 (2023) 434–469

    2023

  7. [15]

    On the Borel summability of WKB solutions of certain Schr¨ odinger-type differential equations,

    G. Nemes, “On the Borel summability of WKB solutions of certain Schr¨ odinger-type differential equations,” J. Approx. Theory 265 (2021) 105562

    2021

  8. [16]

    Perverse schobers, stability conditions and quadratic differentials,

    M. Christ, F. Haiden, and Y. Qiu, “Perverse schobers, stability conditions and quadratic differentials,” 2303.18249

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    3-d Calabi–Yau categories for Teichm¨ uller theory,

    F. Haiden, “3-d Calabi–Yau categories for Teichm¨ uller theory,”Duke Math. J. 173 (2024), no. 2, 277–346

    2024

  10. [18]

    Topological recursion and uncoupled BPS structures I: BPS spectrum and free energies,

    K. Iwaki and O. Kidwai, “Topological recursion and uncoupled BPS structures I: BPS spectrum and free energies,” Adv. Math. 398 (2022) 108191

    2022

  11. [19]

    Topological recursion and uncoupled BPS structures II: Voros symbols and the τ -function,

    K. Iwaki and O. Kidwai, “Topological recursion and uncoupled BPS structures II: Voros symbols and the τ -function,” Commun. Math. Phys. 399 (2023), no. 1, 519–572

    2023

  12. [20]

    Exact WKB analysis and cluster algebras,

    K. Iwaki and T. Nakanishi, “Exact WKB analysis and cluster algebras,” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47 (2014), no. 47, 474009

    2014

  13. [21]

    Quadratic differentials and asymptotics of Laguerre polynomials with varying complex parameters,

    M. J. Atia, A. Mart ´ ınez-Finkelshtein, P. Mart ´ ınez-Gonz´ alez, and F. Thabet, “Quadratic differentials and asymptotics of Laguerre polynomials with varying complex parameters,” J. Math. Anal. Appl. 416 (2014), no. 1, 52–80

    2014

  14. [22]

    Geometry from Donaldson–Thomas invariants,

    T. Bridgeland, “Geometry from Donaldson–Thomas invariants,” in Integrability, quantization, and geometry II. Quantum theories and algebraic geometry , vol. 103.2 of Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. , pp. 1–66. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Complex hyperk¨ ahler structures defined by Donaldson–Thomas invariants,

    T. Bridgeland and I. A. B. Strachan, “Complex hyperk¨ ahler structures defined by Donaldson–Thomas invariants,” Lett. Math. Phys. 111 (2021), no. 2, Paper No. 54, 24

    2021

  16. [24]

    On the generic existence of WKB spectral networks/Stokes graphs,

    T. Kuwagaki, “On the generic existence of WKB spectral networks/Stokes graphs,” 2408.05399

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    T. Aoki, T. Kawai, and Y. Takei, New Turning Points in the Exact WKB Analysis for Higher-order Ordinary Differential Equations . Kyoto University. Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences [RIMS]. Kyoto University. Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences [RIMS], 1991

    1991

  18. [26]

    Virtual turning points and bifurcation of Stokes curves for higher order ordinary differential equations,

    T. Aoki, T. Kawai, S. Sasaki, A. Shudo, and Y. Takei, “Virtual turning points and bifurcation of Stokes curves for higher order ordinary differential equations,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 38 (Mar, 2005) 3317

    2005

  19. [27]

    WKB analysis and Stokes geometry of differential equations,

    Y. Takei, “WKB analysis and Stokes geometry of differential equations,” RIMS preprint 1848 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Semiclassical expansion for exactly solvable differential operators,

    J. A. Borrego-Morell and B. Shapiro, “Semiclassical expansion for exactly solvable differential operators,” 2402.19087

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Riemann–Hilbert problems from Donaldson–Thomas theory,

    T. Bridgeland, “Riemann–Hilbert problems from Donaldson–Thomas theory,” Invent. Math. 216 (2019) 69–124

    2019

  22. [30]

    Four-dimensional wall-crossing via three-dimensional field theory,

    D. Gaiotto, G. W. Moore, and A. Neitzke, “Four-dimensional wall-crossing via three-dimensional field theory,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 299 (2010), no. 1, 163–224

    2010

  23. [31]

    Grassmannians and cluster algebras,

    J. S. Scott, “Grassmannians and cluster algebras,” Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 92 (2006), no. 2, 345–380

    2006

  24. [32]

    Spectral Networks and Non-abelianization,

    M. Ionita and B. Morrissey, “Spectral Networks and Non-abelianization,” 2303.12285

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    N= 2 dualities,

    D. Gaiotto, “N= 2 dualities,” J. High Energy Phys. 2012 (2012), no. 8, 34. 43

    2012

  26. [34]

    Donaldson-thomas invariants for the bridgeland-smith correspondence,

    O. Kidwai and N. J. Williams, “Donaldson-thomas invariants for the bridgeland-smith correspondence,” 2401.10093

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Moduli spaces of quadratic differentials: Abel-jacobi map and deformation,

    Y. Qiu, “Moduli spaces of quadratic differentials: Abel-jacobi map and deformation,” 2403.10265

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    swn-plotter

    A. Neitzke, “swn-plotter.” https://gauss.math.yale.edu/~an592/mathematica/swn-plotter.nb

  29. [37]

    Strata of k-differentials.,

    M. Bainbridge, D. Chen, Q. Gendron, S. Grushevsky, and M. M¨ oller, “Strata of k-differentials.,” Algebr. Geom. 6 (2019), no. 2, 196–233

    2019

  30. [38]

    Counting saddle connections in flat surfaces with poles of higher order,

    G. Tahar, “Counting saddle connections in flat surfaces with poles of higher order,” Geom. Dedicata 196 (2018), no. 1, 145–186

    2018

  31. [39]

    Flat surfaces and stability structures,

    F. Haiden, L. Katzarkov, and M. Kontsevich, “Flat surfaces and stability structures,” Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. 126 (2017) 247–318

    2017

  32. [40]

    Geometric triangulations and flips,

    G. Tahar, “Geometric triangulations and flips,” C. R. Math. 357 (2019), no. 7, 620–623

    2019

  33. [41]

    Spectral Networks: Bridging higher-rank Teichm¨ uller theory and BPS states,

    C. Kineider, G. Kydonakis, E. Rogozinnikov, V. Tatitscheff, and A. Thomas, “Spectral Networks: Bridging higher-rank Teichm¨ uller theory and BPS states,”2412.03588

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Spectral Networks and Betti Lagrangians,

    R. Casals and Y. J. Nho, “Spectral Networks and Betti Lagrangians,” 2504.08144

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Spectral Networks and Snakes,

    D. Gaiotto, G. W. Moore, and A. Neitzke, “Spectral Networks and Snakes,” Ann. Henri Poincar´ e15 (2014) 61–141

    2014

  36. [44]

    BPS spectrum of Argyres-Douglas theory via spectral network,

    K. Maruyoshi, C. Y. Park, and W. Yan, “BPS spectrum of Argyres-Douglas theory via spectral network,” J. High Energy Phys. 2013 (2013), no. 12, 1–56. 44

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.