Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Non-vanishing of quantum geometric Whittaker coefficients

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that every cuspidal twisted D-module with nilpotent singular support has at least one nonzero quantum Whittaker coefficient, via a microlocal interpretation of the coefficient functors.

desk verdict Genuinely new nonvanishing theorem for quantum Whittaker coefficients at rational levels, built on a microlocal method that avoids the failed Hecke action; the architecture is sound but the proof has a real gap in the clean-intersection verification and a few presentation issues. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19058 v1 pith:TA6MQFXP submitted 2025-08-26 math.RT math.AG

Ekaterina Bogdanova This is my paper
classification math.RTmath.AG MSC 14D2414F1022E57
keywords quantumgeometricLanglandsmetaplecticsheavesWhittakercoefficientstwistedD-modulesnilpotentsingularsupportmicrostalksKostantsliceZastavaspaces
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

Quantum Whittaker coefficients are the metaplectic analogue of Fourier coefficients of automorphic forms, and the paper proves that no cuspidal (zero-constant-term, cusp-form-like) object is killed by all of them. For any adjoint reductive group and rational level, every cuspidal twisted D-module with nilpotent singular support has a nonzero Whittaker coefficient for some divisor D. The proof is microlocal: each coefficient functor is shown to compute a twisted microstalk at a distinguished point, so nonvanishing follows from a characteristic-cycle multiplicity. The same argument makes the assembled Whittaker coefficient functor conservative on the Whittaker-tempered nilpotent category, and on all tempered D-modules conditional on a conjecture about the metaplectic spectral action.

What carries the argument

The D-Kostant slice Kos_D is the Lagrangian in T*Bun_G formed from the graph of the Whittaker function ψ_D on the twisted unipotent-bundle space Bun_N^{ω(-D)}. Via the twisted version of the imported microstalk theorem, the paper shows that when Kos_D meets the relevant regular-nilpotent component transversely at the single smooth point λ_D, the functor coeff_D is the twisted microstalk at λ_D; then the Euler characteristic of coeff_D(F) equals the coefficient of that component in the characteristic cycle of F. The intersection is identified with a Zastava space, which supplies the transversality and the point-counting needed for the proof.

What would settle it

For G = PGL_2 on P^1 and D a single point, write out all points of Kos_D ∩ Nilp^reg_red using the explicit description in Example 4.1.9; if the intersection is not exactly the reduced point λ_D, or if it is transverse there but the microstalk formula is wrong, Theorem 5.3.6 collapses. A complementary check: compute χ(coeff_D(δ_E)) for a skyscraper sheaf at a generic bundle and compare it with the characteristic-cycle multiplicity c_{Nilp^D,δ_E}.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for an adjoint reductive group G and a rational level κ, every cuspidal object F in the category of twisted sheaves on Bun_G with nilpotent singular support has coeff_D(F) ≠ 0 for some Λˇ^+-valued divisor D. More generally, the coefficient functors assembled together are conservative on the Whittaker-tempered nilpotent category, and—assuming a conjectural factorization of the metaplectic Hecke action—on all Whittaker-tempered D-modules. The argument identifies the Whittaker coefficient functor for divisor D with the twisted microstalk at the point λ_D where the D-Kostant slice meets the regular-nilpotent component, giving χ(coeff_D(F)) = c_{Nilp^D,F}. This is the qu

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the microlocal bridge: for each divisor D, the D-Kostant slice meets the relevant regular-nilpotent component transversely at a single smooth point, so the Whittaker coefficient is a twisted microstalk whose Euler characteristic is a characteristic-cycle multiplicity; if the transversality or the imported twisted microstalk theorem fails, nonvanishing does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every cuspidal twisted sheaf with nilpotent singular support has at least one nonzero quantum Whittaker coefficient.
  • The assembled functor coeff_loc is conservative on the Whittaker-tempered nilpotent category, so objects there are detected by their Whittaker invariants.
  • Assuming the metaplectic spectral action conjecture, conservativity extends to all Whittaker-tempered D-modules, making Whittaker coefficients a substitute for Hecke-eigensheaf decomposition.
  • For most rational levels the Whittaker-temperedness condition is automatic, so the nonvanishing result covers the whole nilpotent-singular-support category.
  • The adjoint assumption is expected to be dropped in a forthcoming companion result for general reductive groups.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is to compute c_{Nilp^D,F} on Zastava spaces for explicit F; that would turn the nonvanishing theorem into an effective recipe for which divisors D work.
  • Because the argument bypasses the Hecke action, it may apply at irrational levels, where the metaplectic dual group is trivial and Hecke-eigensheaf information degenerates, leaving Whittaker coefficients as the only nontrivial invariants.
  • Conservativity of coeff_loc suggests that the Whittaker-anti-tempered part is exactly the joint kernel of all coefficient functors; the conditional theorem would make that kernel description unconditional.
  • For small groups such as PGL_2 on P^1, the explicit description of the D-Kostant slice allows direct coordinate checks of the transversality claim and of the microstalk formula for chosen divisors.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proves that for a reductive group G of adjoint type, any cuspidal twisted D-module on Bun_G with nilpotent singular support has a non-zero quantum/geometric Whittaker coefficient. The main theorem, Theorem 1.2.2, is deduced from a stronger conservativity statement, Theorem 6.1.1, for the Whittaker-tempered subcategory of Shv_{κ,Nilp}(Bun_G); a further conservativity statement for all of D_κ(Bun_G)^{Wh-temp}, Theorem 6.3.1, is made conditional on Conjecture 2. The proof introduces a D-Kostant slice Kos_D inside T^*Bun_G, embeds its intersection with the regular nilpotent locus into a Zastava space, and identifies the Whittaker coefficient functor coeff_D with a twisted microstalk at a single smooth point λ_D. This yields a characteristic-cycle formula χ(coeff_D(F)) = c_{Nilp^D,F}, from which non-vanishing is extracted by choosing a minimal component of the singular support. The paper is written in the style of the contemporary geometric Langlands literature and relies on a substantial amount of imported technology, especially a twisted version of the Nadler–Taylor theorem.

Significance. If the result and its proof are correct, this is a significant step toward the quantum/metaplectic geometric Langlands program: it extends the Faergeman–Raskin non-vanishing theorem from the critical level to rational Kac–Moody levels, produces an unconditional conservative functor out of the Whittaker-tempered nilpotent category, and gives a new microlocal understanding of Whittaker coefficients. The geometric core of the paper is genuinely new and original: the D-Kostant slice, the closed embedding into the Zastava space, and the identification of the single intersection point λ_D are substantial contributions. The proof is also unconditional in the main nilpotent case, and the dependence on Conjecture 2 is clearly flagged. However, the central microlocal bridge is not yet documented at the level of detail demanded by the argument: the twisted Nadler–Taylor theorem is only sketched, and transversality of a key intersection is asserted rather than proved. These points are load-bearing for the main theorem, so the manuscript needs a major revision before its claims can be regarded as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, Theorem 5.1.2] Theorem 5.1.2 is load-bearing: Theorem 5.3.6 identifies coeff_D(F) with a twisted microstalk and derives the characteristic-cycle formula (5.16) from it. The theorem is imported from [NT23] 'up to some modifications,' but the proof given here is only a sketch. In particular, the claimed isomorphism (5.2), (eY)^{>0}_{ey0} ≅ Y^{>0}_{y0}, is justified by asserting that s^*L is a trivial Gm-equivariant line bundle on A^1; this is plausible under the Cartesian hypothesis but not demonstrated. The second statement is then reduced to the trivial-gerbe case of [NT23, Prop. 2.3.1] without showing that the twisting can be trivialized compatibly with the clean-intersection hypothesis. Since this is the central microlocal bridge, the manuscript needs either a complete proof of the twisted theorem or a precise statement of the [NT23] result being imported and a proof that all hypotheses are satisfied
  2. [§5.3, Prop. 5.3.2 / Cor. 5.3.4] Proposition 5.3.2 proves only that the intersection of the shifted conormal (Kos_D) with Λ is the single point λ_D and that λ_D is a smooth point of Λ. The word 'transversely' in the statement is not justified: no tangent-space computation shows T_{λ_D}Kos_D ∩ T_{λ_D}Λ = 0, and an isolated intersection point need not be transverse (e.g. y=x^2 and y=0 in R^2). Corollary 5.3.4 and Theorem 5.3.6 require the clean-intersection version of this assertion. The proof of Prop. 5.3.3, cited for Cor. 5.3.4, ends with equation (5.15), which asserts the needed equality of the conormal to Bun_N with an intersection of tangent spaces without a proof; the displayed exact sequences (5.12)–(5.14) do not imply the desired spanning/dimension count. Without clean transversality, the formula χ(coeff_D(F)) = c_{Nilp^D,F} need not follow.
  3. [§1.2 / §6.1] Theorem 1.2.2 is stated for cuspidal F ∈ Shv_{κ,Nilp}(Bun_G), but the proof supplied in §6.1 (and outlined in §1.3.6) proves non-vanishing only for objects in the Whittaker-tempered subcategory. The paper does not state or prove that a cuspidal object of Shv_{κ,Nilp}(Bun_G) is Whittaker-tempered; Proposition 3.3.5 only shows that objects with irregular nilpotent singular support are Whittaker-anti-tempered. Unless this implication is a known theorem, with a precise reference, Theorems 1.2.2 and 1.2.8 as stated do not follow from Theorem 6.1.1.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.1, Prop. 2.1.4] Typo: 'Prposition' should be 'Proposition'.
  2. [§5.3, proof of Thm. 5.3.6] The expression 'Shv_{La,Λ}(W)' appears to be a typo; it should likely be 'Shv_{G,Λ}(W)' or a defined shorthand.
  3. [§4.3.9] The phrase 'not less than ˇλ' is ambiguous and the definition of Nilp^{reg,<ˇλ}_red is confusingly stated. Please rewrite with explicit inequalities (≤, <, ≥) and verify that the complement in Notation 4.3.11 is the intended one.
  4. [§6] Several typos: 'Whitttaker' in the section heading, 'folliwing' in §6.3, 'manifactures' in §6.4.
  5. [§1.2.8 / §6.3] Theorem 1.2.8 is stated in the Introduction without noting that its proof in §6.3 is conditional on Conjecture 2. Please state the hypothesis in the Introduction as well.
  6. [§3.4] The notation W_κ(ˇρ,−) for the integral Weyl group is used without definition; please define it or cite a reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main theorem is derived unconditionally from external microlocal results and standard sheaf theory, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 1.2.2, is an unconditional existence/non-vanishing statement. Its proof chain is: define Whittaker coefficient functors via an integral over Bun_N; import the truncated Nadler–Taylor theorem [NT23] (an external source by different authors) to identify these coefficients with shifted microstalks; verify, via the D-Kostant slice and Zastava geometry, that the relevant intersection is the single smooth point lambda_D; then apply the characteristic-cycle formula. There is no step where a quantity is defined in terms of the claimed conclusion, no parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then called a prediction, and no assertion is justified solely by a citation to the author's own work. The only self-reference is Remark 1.2.9 pointing to a forthcoming paper [Bog25] for a stronger statement; this is not used in any proof and is not load-bearing. The conditional Theorem 6.3.1 is explicitly stated modulo Conjecture 2, and Conjecture 2 is not used in the proofs of Theorem 1.2.2 or Theorem 6.1.1. The external dependence on [NT23] and [FR22] is genuine mathematical support rather than circularity; the fact that the twisted Nadler–Taylor theorem is proved only by sketch and that Proposition 5.3.2 establishes an isolated intersection point rather than a fully verified clean/transverse intersection is a potential correctness gap, not a circularity. Accordingly no circular step can be exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on substantial external theorems (FR22, NT23, BFGM02, Losev), none machine-checked; the heaviest debts are the geometry of Nilp^reg, the Whittaker-temperedness machinery, and the twisted microstalk theorem. There are no fitted numbers: the constant λ̌ = (2-2g)ρ̌ + deg(D) is derived, not tuned. No invented postulates in the sense of new particles, forces, or unexplained entities; the D-Kostant slice, twisted microstalks, and metaplectic Beilinson spectral projector are constructions within defined mathematical frameworks. Conjecture 2 is a flagged conjecture used only for the conditional part.

assumptions (9)
  • standard math ∞-categories and DG categories (Lurie, Gaitsgory-Rozenblyum)
    Foundations for all categories and functors; stated in Section 1.4.1.
  • standard math Twisted D-modules and twisted Riemann-Hilbert correspondence (GR14, CF21)
    Defines DModκ(BunG) and Shvκ,Nilp and matches singular support under RH (Lemma 2.4.6, Section 2.4.5).
  • standard math Kashiwara-Schapira microlocal theory: microstalks, characteristic cycles, microlocal index formula (KS94)
    Section 2.5; Proposition 2.5.7 gives χ(m_{ξ0}(F)) = c_{β,F}, the basis of Theorem 5.3.6.
  • domain assumption Geometry of Nilp^reg and its coweight stratification (FR22 Proposition 2.5.4.1, BD)
    Load-bearing in Section 2.1 for the stratification of Nilp^reg by Λ̌^rel; the paper notes this is only true when G has trivial center, the stated reason for assuming G adjoint.
  • domain assumption Whittaker-temperedness machinery of FR22 (Proposition 3.2.2, Theorem 3.2.4.1, Section 4.5-type arguments)
    Supports Proposition 3.3.5 (objects with irregular nilpotent singular support are Whittaker-anti-tempered), used via contrapositive in Theorem 6.1.1.
  • domain assumption Twisted Nadler-Taylor theorem (Theorem 1.3.3; Theorem 5.1.2)
    The microstalk bridge: coeff_D on Shv_{κ,Λ} calculates the twisted microstalk when Kos_D intersects Λ transversely. Cited from [NT23] 'up to some modifications'; the twisted version is sketched, not fully proved.
  • domain assumption Conservativity of Gelfand-Graev averaging on category O blocks is equivalent to triviality of the integral Weyl group Wν (Los24)
    Used in Proposition 3.4.1 to show Whittaker-temperedness is vacuous for most rational levels; cited to lecture notes rather than a refereed source.
  • domain assumption Conjecture 2: the metaplectic spectral action of Rep(H) on Dκ(BunG) factors through QCoh(LS^GZ_H) (GL18)
    Assumed only in Section 6.3 for Theorem 6.3.1; explicitly conjectural and not used for the central Theorem 1.2.2 or Theorem 6.1.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Cuspidal objects of Shvκ,Nilp(BunG) are Whittaker-tempered
    Invoked by Remark 1.2.4 to derive Theorem 1.2.2 from the Whittaker-tempered statement, but neither proved nor cited; cuspidality is never defined for sheaves in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-vanishing of quantum geometric Whittaker coefficients." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TA6MQFXP

@misc{pith2026250819058,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-vanishing of quantum geometric Whittaker coefficients},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TA6MQFXP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19058}
}
abstract

We prove that for any reductive group $G$ of adjoint type cuspidal automorphic twisted D-modules have non-vanishing quantum Whittaker coefficients. The argument provides a microlocal interpretation of quantum Whittaker coefficients for any $\check{\Lambda}^+$-valued divisor under some hypothesis on singular support.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arinkin, D

    D. Arinkin, D. Beraldo, J. Campbell, L. Chen, J. Faergeman, D. Gaitsgory, K. Lin, S. Raskin, and N. Rozenblyum. Proof of the geometric langlands conjecture ii: Kac-moody localization and the fle. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.03648, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Arinkin, D

    D. Arinkin, D. Beraldo, L. Chen, J. Faergeman, D. Gaitsgory, K. Lin, S. Raskin, and N. Rozenblyum. Proof of the geometric langlands conjecture iv: ambidexterity. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.08670, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Arinkin, D

    D. Arinkin, D. Gaitsgory, D. Kazhdan, S. Raskin, N. Rozenblyum, and Y. Varshavsky. The stack of local systems with restricted variation and geometric L anglands theory with nilpotent singular support, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Quantization of hitchin`s integrable system and hecke eigensheaves

    Alexander Beilinson and Vladimir Drinfeld. Quantization of hitchin`s integrable system and hecke eigensheaves. https://math.uchicago.edu/ drinfeld/langlands/QuantizationHitchin.pdf

    work page

  5. [5]

    Braverman, M

    A. Braverman, M. Finkelberg, D. Gaitsgory, and I. Mirkovi\'c. Intersection cohomology of D rinfeld's compactifications. Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 8(3):381--418, 2002

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Braverman and D

    A. Braverman and D. Gaitsgory. Geometric E isenstein series. Invent. Math. , 150(2):287--384, 2002

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    To appear, 2025

    Ekaterina Bogdanova. To appear, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Proof of the geometric langlands conjecture iii: compatibility with parabolic induction

    Justin Campbell, Lin Chen, Joakim Faergeman, Dennis Gaitsgory, Kevin Lin, Sam Raskin, and Nick Rozenblyum. Proof of the geometric langlands conjecture iii: compatibility with parabolic induction. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.07051, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    An extension of the kazhdan-lusztig equivalence

    Lin Chen and Yuchen Fu. An extension of the kazhdan-lusztig equivalence. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.14606, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Geometric constant term functor(s)

    Vladimir Drinfeld and Dennis Gaitsgory. Geometric constant term functor(s). Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 22(4):1881--1951, 2016

    1951

  3. [11]

    Frenkel, D

    E. Frenkel, D. Gaitsgory, and K. Vilonen. Whittaker patterns in the geometry of moduli spaces of bundles on curves. Ann. of Math. (2) , 153(3):699--748, 2001

    2001

  4. [12]

    Drinfeld–gaitsgory–vinberg interpolation grassmannian and geometric satake equivalence

    Michael Finkelberg, Vasily Krylov, and Ivan Mirković. Drinfeld–gaitsgory–vinberg interpolation grassmannian and geometric satake equivalence. Journal of Topology , 13(2):683–729, March 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Non-vanishing of geometric whittaker coefficients for reductive groups

    Joakim Faergeman and Sam Raskin. Non-vanishing of geometric whittaker coefficients for reductive groups. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.02955, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Uniqueness and existence of W hittaker models for the metaplectic group

    Stephen Gelbart, Roger Howe, and Ilya Piatetski-Shapiro. Uniqueness and existence of W hittaker models for the metaplectic group. Israel J. Math. , 34(1-2):21--37, 1979

    1979

  7. [15]

    Gaitsgory, D

    D. Gaitsgory, D. Kazhdan, N. Rozenblyum, and Y. Varshavsky. A toy model for the drinfeld-lafforgue shtuka construction. https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.05420, 2022

    1908 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Gaitsgory and S

    D. Gaitsgory and S. Lysenko. Parameters and duality for the metaplectic geometric L anglands theory. Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 24(1):227--301, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Crystals and D -modules

    Dennis Gaitsgory and Nick Rozenblyum. Crystals and D -modules. Pure Appl. Math. Q. , 10(1):57--154, 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    A study in derived algebraic geometry

    Dennis Gaitsgory and Nick Rozenblyum. A study in derived algebraic geometry. V ol. I . C orrespondences and duality , volume 221 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Proof of the geometric langlands conjecture i: construction of the functor

    Dennis Gaitsgory and Sam Raskin. Proof of the geometric langlands conjecture i: construction of the functor. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.03599, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Proof of the geometric langlands conjecture v: the multiplicity one theorem

    Dennis Gaitsgory and Sam Raskin. Proof of the geometric langlands conjecture v: the multiplicity one theorem. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.09856, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Howe and I

    R. Howe and I. I. Piatetski-Shapiro. A counterexample to the ``generalized R amanujan conjecture''\ for (quasi-) split groups. In Automorphic forms, representations and L -functions ( P roc. S ympos. P ure M ath., O regon S tate U niv., C orvallis, O re., 1977), P art 1 , volu...

    1977

  14. [22]

    D -modules, perverse sheaves, and representation theory , volume 236 of Progress in Mathematics

    Ryoshi Hotta, Kiyoshi Takeuchi, and Toshiyuki Tanisaki. D -modules, perverse sheaves, and representation theory , volume 236 of Progress in Mathematics . Birkh\"auser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, japanese edition, 2008

    2008

  15. [23]

    Sheaves on manifolds , volume 292 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]

    Masaki Kashiwara and Pierre Schapira. Sheaves on manifolds , volume 292 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences] . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994. With a chapter in French by Christian Houzel, Corrected reprint of the 19...

    1994

  16. [24]

    I. Losev. Category O notes. https://gauss.math.yale.edu/ il282/AQO5.pdf, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Higher topos theory , volume 170 of Annals of Mathematics Studies

    Jacob Lurie. Higher topos theory , volume 170 of Annals of Mathematics Studies . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009

    2009

  18. [26]

    J. Lurie. Higher algebra. https://people.math.harvard.edu/ lurie/papers/HA.pdf, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    The whittaker functional is a shifted microstalk

    David Nadler and Jeremy Taylor. The whittaker functional is a shifted microstalk. https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.09216, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Chiral principal series categories I : F inite dimensional calculations

    Sam Raskin. Chiral principal series categories I : F inite dimensional calculations. Adv. Math. , 388:Paper No. 107856, 96, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    W -algebras and W hittaker categories

    Sam Raskin. W -algebras and W hittaker categories. Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 27(3):Paper No. 46, 114, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Quantum parameters of the geometric langlands theory, 2017

    Yifei Zhao. Quantum parameters of the geometric langlands theory, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Drinfeld Gaitsgory Geometric constant term functors

  24. [32]

    Frenkel Gaitsgory Vilonen

  25. [33]

    D-Modules, Perverse Sheaves, and Representation Theory

  26. [34]

    INTERSECTION COHOMOLOGY OF DRINFELD’S COMPACTIFICATIONS

  27. [35]

    W-ALGEBRAS AND WHITTAKER CATEGORIES

  28. [36]

    A conjectural extension

  29. [37]

    losev category O notes

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.