Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Lifting Deligne-Lusztig Reduction and Geometric Coxeter Type Elements

T0 review · 3 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 For Weyl-group elements of geometric Coxeter type, every nonempty affine Deligne-Lusztig variety is a single orbit of components, each a product of a classical Deligne-Lusztig variety with affine and pointed-affine spaces.

desk verdict Worth serious refereeing: the geometric Coxeter type class and the lifting criterion are real contributions, but the main proof has a repairable gap around algebraicity of the trivializing maps. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18453 v2 pith:GLQHFJY4 submitted 2025-07-24 math.AG math.RT

Sian Nie , Felix Schremmer , Qingchao Yu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AGmath.RT MSC 20G2514G3514M1514L30
keywords affineDeligne-LusztigvarietiesreductiongeometricCoxetertypeliftingloopgroupsNewtonstratificationShimuraflag
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 gives a uniform way to dissect affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties—schemes that encode relative positions in loop groups and appear in the reduction of Shimura varieties—into a product of a classical Deligne-Lusztig variety with copies of the affine line $\mathbb{A}^1$ and of the multiplicative group $\mathbb{G}_m$, the affine line with the origin removed. It introduces a class of elements, called geometric Coxeter type, and shows that for these elements every nonempty $X_w(b)$ has a single $J_b(F)$-orbit of irreducible components, each component being such a product. This covers and extends previously studied cases, including elements of positive Coxeter type and elements of the form $t^\mu c$. The method works by lifting the variety into the loop group and showing that the $\mathbb{G}_m$- and $\mathbb{A}^1$-fibrations produced by the Deligne-Lusztig reduction are actually trivial.

What carries the argument

The technical engine is the lift: a morphism $\psi$ from a subvariety $Y$ of the affine flag variety $G(L)/I$ to the loop group $G(L)$ whose composition with the projection is the identity on $Y$. Propositions 3.4–3.6 show that lifts propagate across the steps of the Deligne-Lusztig reduction, and that when the smaller variety is liftable, the $\mathbb{G}_m$- and $\mathbb{A}^1$-bundles appearing in the reduction are trivial. The second ingredient is the reduction tree of an affine Weyl group element, whose edges record the two ways length can drop: a type I edge cuts length by one and contributes a $\mathbb{G}_m$-factor, while a type II edge cuts length by two and contributes an $\mathbb{A}^1$-factor. Geometric Coxeter type is the class of elements for which every end vertex of the tree is a cyclic shift of a product $ux$ with $x$ $\sigma$-straight and $u$ a twisted Coxeter element of the corresponding finite Weyl group; this form is what makes the endpoints liftable.

What would settle it

In the type $C_2$ example $w = s_1\tau_2$ from Example 5.4(4), write the maps $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ of Propositions 3.5 and 3.6 in explicit coordinates on the affine Schubert cell and check whether $\varphi(\tilde h)$ is given by regular functions over $\mathbb{F}_q$; if it is not a morphism of schemes, the asserted trivial-bundle decomposition fails in that case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 5.7: if $w$ has geometric Coxeter type and $X_w(b)$ is nonempty, then all irreducible components of $X_w(b)$ lie in a single $J_b(F)$-orbit, and each component is universally homeomorphic to $X' \times \mathbb{G}_m^{\ell_I(p)} \times \mathbb{A}^{1,\ell_{II}(p)}$, where $X'$ is a classical Deligne-Lusztig variety of Coxeter type and $\ell_I(p)$, $\ell_{II}(p)$ count the two types of reduction steps along the unique reduction path attached to $[b]$. The engine is Theorem 4.1: whenever a reduction tree of $w$ has exactly one path ending in the $\sigma$-conjugacy class of $b$ and the end variety $X_{\mathrm{end}(p)}(b)$ admits a lift, $X_w(b)$ is a trivial fiber bundle over $X_{\mathrm{end}(p)}(b)$ with $\mathbb{G}_m$- and $\mathbb{A}^1$-fibres. Geometric Coxeter type is designed so that both hypotheses hold: strong multiplicity one, meaning each $[b]$ is reached by a unique path, gives the uniqueness, and endpoints of minimal Coxeter type are liftable because their irreducible components sit inside affine Schubert cells. For these $w$ the paper also proves that the Newton stratification inside the double coset $I\dot{w}I$ is saturated, gives explicit formulas for $\ell_I$ and $\ell_{II}$ in terms of $w$ and $b$, and derives a closed dimension formula.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the unproved claim that the parameter $\varphi(\tilde h)$, defined pointwise by a coset equation in the loop group, is an algebraic (regular) function on the relevant scheme; the paper says this is "straightforward to check," but if $\varphi$ were only a map on $\mathbb{F}_q$-points and not algebraic, the trivial-bundle conclusion of Propositions 3.5 and 3.6, and hence of Theorem 4.1, would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every geometric Coxeter type element, the full component-level geometry of $X_w(b)$ is now known: one orbit of irreducible components and an explicit product decomposition, going beyond the earlier dimension formulas and orbit counts.
  • For the previously studied elements of the form $t^\mu c$, the component-level statement is new: each irreducible component is a product of a classical Deligne-Lusztig variety with affine and pointed-affine spaces, even though the class itself was already understood coarsely.
  • Since every Shimura datum contributes at least one Ekedahl-Oort stratum of the form $t^\mu c$, the theorem gives an explicit geometric description of that stratum in the special fibre of the associated Rapoport-Zink space.
  • For these $w$, the Newton stratification of $I\dot{w}I$ is saturated, the closure of each Newton stratum is a union of lower strata, and the dimension of $X_w(b)$ has the closed formula $\frac12(\ell(w)+\ell_{R,\sigma}(\mathrm{cl}\,w)-\langle\nu(b),2\rho\rangle-\mathrm{def}(b))$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The hypotheses actually used in Theorem 4.1 are only strong multiplicity one and liftability of the end variety, so the same trivial-bundle conclusion should hold for any class of elements satisfying those two conditions, even when the endpoints are not of Coxeter type.
  • Because universal homeomorphisms do not change étale cohomology, the theorem reduces the cohomology of $X_w(b)$ for geometric Coxeter type elements to that of classical Deligne-Lusztig varieties, whose cohomology is already controlled by the representation theory of finite groups of Lie type.
  • The explicit formulas for $\ell_I(p)$ and $\ell_{II}(p)$ make a point-counting check available: in small-rank examples, counting $\mathbb{F}_{q^r}$-points on the product decomposition should reproduce the point count of $X_w(b)$ and could be verified computationally.
  • The lifting technique is also a natural tool for semi-infinite Deligne-Lusztig varieties, whose deep-level truncations are already known to be such products in special cases; extending Theorem 5.7 through inverse limits is a plausible next step.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties X_w(b) in affine flag varieties and aims to decompose them geometrically as products of classical Deligne-Lusztig varieties with multiplicative groups and affine spaces. To this end, the authors introduce a class of Iwahori-Weyl group elements called "geometric Coxeter type," which strictly contains the previously studied positive Coxeter type and finite Coxeter type elements. The main result, Theorem 4.1, asserts that if a reduction tree of w has a unique path ending in [b] and the corresponding endpoint affine Deligne-Lusztig variety has a lift, then X_w(b) is universally homeomorphic to the trivial fiber bundle X_end(p)(b) × (G_m)^{ℓ_I(p)} × (A^1)^{ℓ_II(p)}. Theorem 5.7 then shows that for w of geometric Coxeter type, all irreducible components of X_w(b) lie in one J_b(F)-orbit and each component is universally homeomorphic to such a product with a classical Deligne-Lusztig variety X'. Section 6 establishes purity and saturation of Newton stratifications, dimension formulas, and explicit counts of type I and type II reduction steps for geometric Coxeter type elements.

Significance. If the missing algebraicity verifications are supplied, the paper gives a significant uniform framework that unifies and extends earlier work on positive Coxeter type and elements of the form t^μ c. The main theorems are powerful: Theorem 5.7(2) is new even for elements of the form t^μ c, and the class of geometric Coxeter type elements is demonstrably broader than previously considered classes. The paper also provides concrete dimension formulas and path-length counts, giving the statements concrete, checkable content. The systematic use of liftings in the Deligne-Lusztig reduction is an elegant and promising method. However, several load-bearing arguments are only sketched at the level of pointwise bijections and do not establish the required scheme-theoretic algebraicity; these gaps affect the central product decomposition and must be fixed before the main claims are fully proven.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Propositions 3.5 and 3.6] The trivializations in Propositions 3.5 and 3.6 are only verified at the level of F_q-points. The element φ(\tilde h) in the displayed equation before Proposition 3.5 is defined by a uniqueness condition on the value in A^1; uniqueness for each F_q-point does not imply that φ, or the coordinates y and x used in the maps γ and γ′, are morphisms of F_q-schemes. The text states that it is 'straightforward to check' that γ and γ′ are well-defined and inverse, but this does not address algebraicity. Since Theorem 4.1 is proved by concatenating Propositions 3.4–3.6, the product decomposition in Theorem 4.1 and hence in Theorem 5.7 depends on this missing verification.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Lemma 3.3] The same scheme-theoretic gap appears earlier in Proposition 3.4 and in Lemma 3.3. In Lemma 3.3, the map p_a sending g to g_1 in the decomposition I \dot w I/I ≅ U_a × (I \dot v I/I) is asserted to be algebraic without proof. In Proposition 3.4, the element z in the root subgroup U_a, used to define the lift Ψ, is defined by a uniqueness condition; its algebraicity as a function on X_w(b) is not established. These are not merely presentation issues, because a lift must be a morphism of (perfect) schemes to be used in Theorem 4.1.
  3. [Section 5.2] The construction of the lift ψ for minimal Coxeter type elements relies on the bijection in (5.1), cited from the proof of [11, Theorem 4.8], but the text only states it as a bijection on F_q-points. The subsequent definition of ψ by choosing representatives for the cosets J_b(F)/J_b(F)∩K produces a set-theoretic lift; it is not shown that the resulting map is a morphism of perfect schemes, as required by Definition 3.1 and condition (2) of Theorem 4.1. This is another load-bearing algebraicity gap.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4] After Theorem 4.1, the sentence 'the number ℓ_I(p) and ℓ_I(p) in Theorem 4.1 is independent' should read 'ℓ_I(p) and ℓ_II(p)'.
  2. [References] Reference [27] lists the author as 'Takamstsu'; the correct spelling is 'Takamatsu'.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'varities' should be 'varieties'.
  4. [Definition 5.5] The parenthetical 'some (or any)' asserts independence of the reduction tree for both conditions without proof; please either prove the independence or explicitly state which direction the definition uses.
  5. [Section 6.1] The notation is inconsistent: 'ν_b' and 'b_max' appear where 'ν(b)' and 'b_{w,max}' are used elsewhere; the notation should be unified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main theorem is conditional, and the new 'geometric Coxeter type' class is defined so that the lifting criterion applies; the self-citations used to exhibit examples are not load-bearing for the central derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the sense of a fitted input being renamed as a prediction. Theorem 4.1 is an explicit conditional statement: if a reduction tree has a unique admissible path and the endpoint variety has a lift, then the affine Deligne-Lusztig variety is a trivial bundle. The proof of Theorem 4.1 is by induction on Propositions 3.4–3.6, which are independent geometric arguments about constructing lifts and trivializing I/II reductions; no parameter is fitted to the target conclusion. Definition 5.5 indeed packages the hypotheses of Theorem 4.1 into the phrase 'geometric Coxeter type': strong multiplicity one is exactly the unique-path condition, and the endpoint condition is what supplies the lift via Section 5.2. This is definitional organization rather than circularity, because the paper's real content is to show that this class is nonempty (it contains positive Coxeter type and tμc elements), that its endpoints are minimal Coxeter type, and that it satisfies the Newton-stratification and dimension formulas of Section 6. The only self-citations of note are [15] and [24], invoked as: 'By [15, Theorem 2.6], such elements tµc are of geometric Coxeter type. By [24, Theorem 5.7], such elements are of geometric Coxeter type.' These papers have overlapping authorship with the present paper, but they are used only to exhibit previously studied classes inside the newly defined class. Theorem 5.7 does not depend on these citations for its truth: it is a conditional statement about any element already known to be of geometric Coxeter type. Thus the self-citations are provenance for examples, not load-bearing for the central claim. One genuine rigor gap should be flagged separately, though it is not circularity: in Section 3.3, φ(ψ(h)) is introduced as 'the unique element in A1' satisfying a coset condition, and the text says it is 'straightforward to check' that γ and γ′ are well-defined and inverse, but no proof is given that φ is a morphism of F_q-schemes rather than merely a pointwise unique object. Since Propositions 3.5 and 3.6 use this coordinate to trivialize the Gm- and A1-bundles, and Theorem 4.1 concatenates those propositions, this is a missing verification in a load-bearing step. It is repairable and is a correctness issue, not a circular inference. Accordingly, no circular reduction by construction occurs; the paper earns a low score, with 2 reflecting the minor, non-load-bearing self-citations used for class inclusion.

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

No free parameters or invented entities. The paper depends on standard structural results in the theory of affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties (reduction method, minimal length elements, Kottwitz set), all drawn from prior literature; these are domain assumptions, not new postulates.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Every element of the Iwahori-Weyl group admits a reduction path to a minimal length element via σ-conjugations (He-Nie, Theorem A).
    Used to construct reduction trees in Section 2.4 and to enumerate paths in Theorem 4.1.
  • domain assumption The Deligne-Lusztig reduction method (Görtz-He, Corollary 2.5.3) gives universal homeomorphisms and fibrations for affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties under the stated length relations.
    The entire reduction-tree decomposition in Proposition 2.4 rests on this prior theorem.
  • standard math The classical Deligne-Lusztig variety of Coxeter type is contained in a single Bruhat cell (Lusztig, Theorem 2.6).
    Used in Section 5.2 to show that X_w(b) has a lift for minimal Coxeter type elements.
  • standard math The axiom of choice is used to pick representatives j for each J_b(F)-orbit in the disjoint union decomposition in Section 5.2.
    Explicitly mentioned in Section 5.2; the lift depends on these noncanonical choices, which is acceptable in the standard set-theoretic framework.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lifting Deligne-Lusztig Reduction and Geometric Coxeter Type Elements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GLQHFJY4

@misc{pith2026250718453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lifting Deligne-Lusztig Reduction and Geometric Coxeter Type Elements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GLQHFJY4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18453}
}
read the original abstract

Cases of Shimura varieties where the special fibre of a Rapoport-Zink space is simply the union of classical Deligne-Lusztig varieties are known as fully Hodge-Newton decomposable ones, and have been studied with great interest in the past. In recent times, the focus has shifted to identify tractable cases beyond the fully Hodge-Newton decomposable ones, and several instances have been identified where only products of classical Deligne-Lusztig varities with simpler spaces occur. In our paper, we provide a uniform framework to capture these phenomena. By studying liftings from the affine flag variety to the loop group and combining them with the Deligne-Lusztig reduction method, our main result is a powerful criterion to show that an affine Deligne-Lusztig variety is the product of a classical Deligne-Lusztig variety with affine spaces and pointed affine spaces. We introduce the class of elements that we call having geometric Coxeter type, strictly including previously studied notions such as positive Coxeter type or finite Coxeter type. These elements of geometric Coxeter type satisfy the conditions for our main result and also a condition on the Newton stratification introduced by Mili\'cevi\'c-Viehmann.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    X. He, S. Nie, and Q. Yu. Affine Deligne–Lusztig varieties with finite Coxeter parts. 2022. arXiv: 2208.14058 [math.RT]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [24]

    Schremmer, R

    F. Schremmer, R. Shimada, and Q. Yu. On affine Weyl group elements of positive Coxeter type. 2024. arXiv: 2312.02630 [math.AG]

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Projectivity of the Witt vector affine Grassman- nian

    B. Bhatt and P. Scholze. “Projectivity of the Witt vector affine Grassman- nian”. In: Invent. Math. 209.2 (2017), pp. 329–423. 22 REFERENCES

    work page 2017

  4. [2]

    Newton polygons as lattice points

    C.-L. Chai. “Newton polygons as lattice points”. In: Amer. J. Math. 122.5 (2000), pp. 967–990

    work page 2000

  5. [3]

    Affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties at infinite level

    C. Chan and A. Ivanov. “Affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties at infinite level”. In: Math. Ann. 380.3-4 (2021), pp. 1801–1890

    work page 2021

  6. [4]

    Representations of Reductive Groups Over Finite Fields

    P. Deligne and G. Lusztig. “Representations of Reductive Groups Over Finite Fields”. In: Annals of Mathematics 103.1 (Jan. 1976), pp. 103–161

    work page 1976

  7. [5]

    Affine Deligne- Lusztig varieties in affine flag varieties

    U. G¨ ortz, T. J. Haines, R. E. Kottwitz, and D. C. Reuman. “Affine Deligne- Lusztig varieties in affine flag varieties”. In: Compos. Math. 146.5 (2010), pp. 1339–1382

    work page 2010

  8. [6]

    Dimension of affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties in affine flag varieties

    U. G¨ ortz and X. He. “Dimension of affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties in affine flag varieties”. In: Documenta Mathematica 15 (June 2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 32 references
  1. [7]

    Dimensions of affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties in affine flag varieties

    U. G¨ ortz and X. He. “Dimensions of affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties in affine flag varieties”. In: Doc. Math. 15 (2010), pp. 1009–1028

    2010

  2. [8]

    P-alcoves and nonemptiness of affine Deligne- Lusztig varieties

    U. G¨ ortz, X. He, and S. Nie. “ P-alcoves and nonemptiness of affine Deligne- Lusztig varieties”. In: Ann. Sci. ´Ec. Norm. Sup´ er. (4)48.3 (2015), pp. 647– 665

    2015

  3. [9]

    The geometry of Newton strata in the reduction modulo p of Shimura varieties of PEL type

    P. Hamacher. “The geometry of Newton strata in the reduction modulo p of Shimura varieties of PEL type”. In: Duke Math. J. 164.15 (2015), pp. 2809– 2895

    2015

  4. [10]

    Stratifications in the reduction of Shimura vari- eties

    X. He and M. Rapoport. “Stratifications in the reduction of Shimura vari- eties”. In: Manuscripta Mathematica 152.3 (Mar. 2017), pp. 317–343

    2017

  5. [11]

    Geometric and homological properties of affine Deligne-Lusztig vari- eties

    X. He. “Geometric and homological properties of affine Deligne-Lusztig vari- eties”. In: Ann. of Math. (2) 179.1 (2014), pp. 367–404

    2014

  6. [12]

    Hecke algebras and p-adic groups

    X. He. “Hecke algebras and p-adic groups”. In: Current developments in math- ematics 2015. Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2016, pp. 73–135

    2015

  7. [13]

    Projected Richardson varieties and affine Schubert vari- eties

    X. He and T. Lam. “Projected Richardson varieties and affine Schubert vari- eties”. In: Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 65.6 (2015), pp. 2385–2412

    2015

  8. [14]

    Minimal length elements of extended affine Weyl groups

    X. He and S. Nie. “Minimal length elements of extended affine Weyl groups”. In: Compos. Math. 150.11 (2014), pp. 1903–1927

    2014

  9. [16]

    Zero-dimensional affine Deligne–Lusztig varieties

    X. He, S. Nie, and Q. Yu. “Zero-dimensional affine Deligne–Lusztig varieties”. In: arXiv (Feb. 2024). eprint: 2402.15310

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Isocrystals with additional structure

    R. E. Kottwitz. “Isocrystals with additional structure”. In: Compositio Math. 56.2 (1985), pp. 201–220

    1985

  11. [18]

    Coxeter orbits and eigenspaces of Frobenius

    G. Lusztig. “Coxeter orbits and eigenspaces of Frobenius”. In: Inventiones mathematicae 38.2 (Jan. 1976), pp. 101–159

    1976

  12. [19]

    Generic Newton points and the Newton poset in Iwahori-double cosets

    E. Mili´ cevi´ c and E. Viehmann. “Generic Newton points and the Newton poset in Iwahori-double cosets”. In: Forum Math. Sigma 8 (2020), Paper No. e50, 18

    2020

  13. [20]

    Steinberg’s cross-section of Newton strata

    S. Nie. “Steinberg’s cross-section of Newton strata”. In: Math. Ann. 390.4 (2024), pp. 5053–5073. REFERENCES 23

    2024

  14. [21]

    A guide to the reduction modulo p of Shimura varieties

    M. Rapoport. “A guide to the reduction modulo p of Shimura varieties”. In:

  15. [22]

    Schremmer

    F. Schremmer. Generic Newton points and cordial elements . 2022. arXiv: 2205.02039 [math.RT]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Newton strata in Levi subgroups

    F. Schremmer. “Newton strata in Levi subgroups”. In: Manuscripta Math. 175 (Sept. 2024), pp. 513–519

    2024

  17. [25]

    Basic Loci of Positive Coxeter Type for GLn

    R. Shimada. “Basic Loci of Positive Coxeter Type for GLn”. In: arXiv (Feb. 2024). eprint: 2402.13216

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    On the supersingular locus of the Siegel modular variety of genus 3 or 4

    R. Shimada and T. Takamatsu. “On the supersingular locus of the Siegel modular variety of genus 3 or 4”. In: arXiv (Mar. 2024). eprint: 2403.19505

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Takamstsu

    T. Takamstsu. On the semi-infinite Deligne-Lusztig varieties for GSp. 2023. arXiv: 2306.17382 [math.AG]

    2023

  20. [28]

    Truncations of level 1 of elements in the loop group of a reductive group

    E. Viehmann. “Truncations of level 1 of elements in the loop group of a reductive group”. In: Ann. of Math. (2) 179.3 (2014), pp. 1009–1040

    2014

  21. [29]

    On the geometry of the Newton stratification

    E. Viehmann. “On the geometry of the Newton stratification”. In: Shimura varieties. Vol. 457. London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2020, pp. 192–208

    2020

  22. [30]

    Minimal Newton strata in Iwahori double cosets

    E. Viehmann. “Minimal Newton strata in Iwahori double cosets”. In: Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 7 (2021), pp. 5349–5365

    2021

  23. [31]

    Affine Grassmannians and the geometric Satake in mixed charac- teristic

    X. Zhu. “Affine Grassmannians and the geometric Satake in mixed charac- teristic”. In: Ann. of Math. (2) 185.2 (2017), pp. 403–492. Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Chi...

    2017

  24. [298]

    Automorphic forms. I. 2005, pp. 271–318

    2005

Pith tools

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