Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

On syzygy categories over Iwanaga-Gorenstein algebras: Reduction, minimality and finiteness

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The syzygy category of a quotient of a 2-Calabi-Yau tilted algebra embeds as an ext-perpendicular subquotient, and coincides with the original exactly when the idempotent ideal is projective.

desk verdict Strong new reduction theorem for syzygy categories, but Corollary 3.12's proof has a gap in the (a)⇒(b) direction that a referee should address. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.07405 v2 pith:TKBH7FYH submitted 2025-10-08 math.RT math.RA

Ralf Schiffler , Khrystyna Serhiyenko This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.RTmath.RA MSC 16E6516G70
keywords syzygycategoriesCohen-Macaulaymodules2-Calabi-YautiltedalgebrasIwanaga-GorensteinCM-finitetypedimertreeskewgroupvertexreduction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The authors establish a reduction mechanism for syzygy (Cohen-Macaulay) categories of 2-Calabi-Yau tilted algebras. Removing a vertex i from the quiver, passing from A to B = A/Ae_iA, is mirrored inside A: the syzygy category of B is equivalent to the category of Cohen-Macaulay A-modules with no extension with J = Ae_iA, modulo morphisms factoring through J. This yields five equivalent characterizations of when the syzygy category is unchanged by the reduction, the most directly checkable being a radical-generation condition on the projective covers. The authors then apply this to dimer tree algebras and their skew group algebras, obtaining combinatorial criteria for CM-type preservation and for CM-minimality. If correct, the results give a computable tool for classifying algebras of finite Cohen-Macaulay type.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the functor F: J^⊥ → CMP_B that sends an object X to the cokernel of its add-J-approximation f_X: J_X → X, i.e., F(X) = X/im f_X. Here J^⊥ is the subcategory of Cohen-Macaulay A-modules with no extension with J in either direction, and (J) is the ideal of morphisms factoring through J. The proof that F lands in CMP_B uses the 3-Calabi-Yau property of CMP_A (Ext^2_A(X,J) ≅ D Ext^1_A(J,X)) to show Ext^1_A(F(X),B)=0. Fullness and density are shown by a dimension-decreasing argument: if Ext^1(X_1,J) ≠ 0, a non-split extension 0→J→X_2→X_1→0 strictly decreases that Ext-space, so iteration reaches J^⊥. The equivalence then forces the minimality characterizations.

What would settle it

Take a 2-Calabi-Yau tilted algebra A and a vertex i such that rad P(i) is generated by ⊕_{j≠i} rad P(j) but J = A e_i A is not projective; computing Ext^1_A(J, rad P(i)) and finding it zero would contradict the cited lemma and invalidate Corollary 3.12(e)⇒(a). Alternatively, verify Theorem 3.11 on a concrete example by computing J^⊥, the ideal (J), and CMP_B and checking the categories are equivalent; any mismatch would falsify the main reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.11: for a 2-Calabi-Yau tilted algebra A, with J = A e_i A and B = A/J, the functor F(X) = X/im f_X, where f_X is an add-J-approximation of X, induces an equivalence J^⊥/(J) ≅ CMP_B and a stable equivalence J^⊥/(J) ≅ CMP_B. Combined with Theorem 2.2, which states that the stable Cohen-Macaulay category of any Iwanaga-Gorenstein algebra of Gorenstein dimension 1 is generated under extensions by rad A, this yields Corollary 3.12: CMP_A ≅ CMP_B if and only if J is projective in mod A, if and only if J ≅ ⊕_{j} P_A(i)^{m_{ji}}, if and only if rad P(i) is generated by the other radicals rad P(j) (j ≠ i), with two further equivalent formulations. In short, the syzygy c

Load-bearing premise

The implication (e)⇒(a) in Corollary 3.12 relies on a lemma from the authors' earlier work (not reproved here) asserting that every non-projective syzygy over a 2-CY tilted algebra has a non-trivial extension with the radical of its projective cover; if that lemma fails, the chain from radical-generation to projectivity of J, and hence the equivalence of (e) and (a), collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any Iwanaga-Gorenstein algebra of Gorenstein dimension 1, the stable Cohen-Macaulay category is generated under extensions by the single object rad A.
  • For A 2-CY tilted and B=A/Ae_iA, CMP_A ≅ CMP_B if and only if J is projective, which is in turn equivalent to rad P(i) being generated by the other radicals; this gives a checkable criterion at the level of the quiver and relations.
  • For dimer tree algebras, reduction at a vertex preserves the CM-type exactly when the vertex lies in a 3-cycle with two boundary arrows of weight 1 and one interior arrow; a purely combinatorial condition.
  • A dimer tree algebra is CM-minimal if and only if its skew group algebra is CM-minimal.
  • The equivalence gives an explicit description of CMP_B as a subquotient of CMP_A, so syzygy categories of quotients can be computed from those of A without re-deriving the whole category.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The radical-generation theorem suggests that for any Iwanaga-Gorenstein algebra of Gorenstein dimension 1, the whole syzygy category is controlled by the single module rad A; if a similar statement holds for higher Gorenstein dimension, it would give a broadly applicable generation bound.
  • The functor F may be iterable: deleting several vertices in sequence could build a filtration of syzygy categories, each stage a perpendicular subquotient of the previous one, yielding a structural decomposition of CMP_A for algebras with many idempotents.
  • The combinatorial characterization of CM-type preservation for dimer tree algebras could be turned into an algorithm that, given a quiver with potential, decides finite CM-type and outputs a minimal representative by successive reductions; the examples suggest the check is local and linear in the number of vertices.
  • One could test the sharpness of the radical-generation criterion by checking whether Ext^1_A(J, rad P(i)) = 0 alone (without the authors' earlier lemma) forces J projective; if not, the fifth characterization would need an extra hypothesis.
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. The paper studies syzygy categories (equivalently stable categories of Cohen–Macaulay modules) over Iwanaga–Gorenstein algebras of Gorenstein dimension 1. Theorem 2.2 shows that the stable Cohen–Macaulay category is generated under extensions by the radical of the algebra. For a 2-Calabi–Yau tilted algebra A and a two-sided ideal J=Ae_iA generated by a primitive idempotent, Theorem 3.11 constructs an explicit functor from the perpendicular category J^⊥ modulo the ideal of morphisms factoring through J to the Cohen–Macaulay category of B=A/J, and claims both an equivalence and a stable equivalence. Corollary 3.12 then gives six equivalent conditions for CMP_A ≅ CMP_B, including projectivity of J. Section 4 applies these results to dimer tree algebras and their skew group algebras, proving Theorems 4.1 and 4.5.

Significance. If the central results hold, Theorem 2.2 is a clean generation statement and Theorem 3.11 provides a computable reduction functor for syzygy categories, which is valuable for the finite-CM-type classification program. The applications to dimer tree algebras and skew group algebras are concrete and testable, and the paper includes several worked examples. However, the proof of Corollary 3.12, which is the main tool for the applications, contains gaps in the implication (a)⇔(b), and the stable-equivalence part of Theorem 3.11 has an unjustified step. These issues are load-bearing and need to be repaired before the results can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Corollary 3.12, first paragraph] The inference 'CMP_A ≅ CMP_B iff J^⊥/(J) ≅ CMP_A' is fine as an abstract isomorphism via Theorem 3.11, but the next claim 'This occurs if and only if J=0 in CMP_A' is not justified. In the quotient J^⊥/(J), the object J is zero by construction, but an abstract equivalence CMP_A → J^⊥/(J) does not have to send the particular object J of CMP_A to the zero object; equivalences only reflect the zero object of the domain when the functor is specified and compatible with the inclusion. No such compatibility is established. Therefore (a)⇒(b) is unsupported, and since (b)⇒(a) is used later, the equivalence (a)⇔(b) collapses.
  2. [Corollary 3.12, proof of (a)⇒(e)] The proof asserts that the equivalence from Theorem 3.11 identifies the radicals of B with those of A: 'under the above equivalence means that the radicals radP_A(i), with i≠j, generate CMP_A.' The equivalence in Theorem 3.11 is between J^⊥/(J) and CMP_B; it does not by itself identify the module rad P_B(j) with rad P_A(j) under the inclusion J^⊥ ↪ CMP_A. This identification needs proof, as it is used to transfer the generation property from B to A. Without it, (a)⇒(e) is not established.
  3. [Corollary 3.12, proof of (e)⇒(a)] The step from Ext^1_A(J, radP(i))=0 to 'J must be projective' rests entirely on [SS2, Lemma 5.2], which is cited but neither stated nor proved. This lemma is load-bearing: it is a statement about all non-projective syzygies over a 2-CY tilted algebra, and is not a consequence of the results proved in this paper. The authors should at least state the lemma and provide a proof or a precise reference with the result visible, since the corollary's central equivalence depends on it.
  4. [Theorem 3.11, proof of faithfulness of the stable equivalence] In the second paragraph of the proof, after showing that F(f)=0 in the stable category CMP_B implies F(f) factors through a projective B-module, the authors conclude that f factors through a projective A-module, and then 'in particular, f is zero in J^⊥/(J).' This last implication is not valid: P_A(j) for j≠i is not in add J, so a morphism factoring through P_A(j) need not factor through an object of add J. To prove faithfulness of the induced functor to CMP_B, one must show that f factors through an object in add J (or through an object that is zero in J^⊥/(J)). This is not shown and is not a consequence of fullness alone. The stable equivalence part of Theorem 3.11 is therefore incomplete.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General typography] The spelling 'Iwanaga-Gorenstein' appears in the section 2 title and elsewhere; unify with 'Iwanaga-Gorenstein' used elsewhere.
  2. [Corollary 1.3(e) and Corollary 3.12(e)] 'The radial radP(i)' should be 'The radical radP(i)'.
  3. [Notation] The distinction between CMP (stable) and CMP (non-stable) is easy to miss because the underline is not visible in plain text; a notation such as CMP^st and CMP would improve clarity.
  4. [Lemma 3.1(b)] 'pathsw∈A' should be 'paths w in a basis of A'; otherwise the direct sum is not well-defined.
  5. [Example 3.14] The reference to 'red' and 'underlined' modules depends on the figure; make the figure self-contained or list the modules explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No constructional circularity: the central equivalence and radical-generation theorems are proved in-paper, and the self-citations used are parameter-free external results rather than restatements of the target claim.

full rationale

The main derivations are not circular. Theorem 2.2 is proved from Lemma 2.1 using only standard syzygy and projective-cover arguments. Theorem 3.11 is established by constructing F, showing F(X) lies in CMP_B, proving density via the dimension-descent argument in Lemma 3.9, and proving fullness and faithfulness from the defining properties of add-J approximations; the inputs are standard results from [Bu], [KR] (the 3-Calabi-Yau property of CMP_A), and [IY] (mutation quotients), none of which assumes the target equivalence. The uses of [SS2, Lemma 5.2] in Corollary 3.12(e)⇒(a) and [SS2, Prop 4.10] in Theorem 4.1(b)⇒(a) are self-citations, but they are parameter-free statements about syzygies and dimer-tree algebras from prior peer-reviewed work, with stated assumptions that do not include CMP_A ≅ CMP_B, so they count as independent support rather than circular input. Two non-circular proof concerns should be noted for the correctness pass rather than the circularity score: the first paragraph of Corollary 3.12 moves from the abstract equivalence CMP_A ≅ J^⊥/(J) to J = 0 in CMP_A without constructing a comparison functor sending the object J to [J], and the direction (a)⇒(e) tacitly assumes that the radicals of B correspond to the radicals rad_A P_A(j) under the equivalence. These are gaps in justification, not reductions of the conclusion to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything beyond elementary homological algebra is imported: Buchweitz and Keller–Reiten define the framework; Iyama–Yoshino supplies the 2-CY reduction; the authors' prior papers [SS1]–[SS3] supply the geometric model and one lemma ([SS2, Lemma 5.2]) that carries the (e)⇒(a) step. No free parameters exist in a proof-based paper with no data fitting; the m_{ji} = dim e_j A e_i are intrinsic invariants, not chosen constants. No invented entities (particles, forces, dimensions) appear; the functor F and J^⊥ are constructions, not postulates. The central added value is Theorem 2.2, Theorem 3.11 (with F), and the assembly of Corollary 3.12.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Buchweitz [Bu]: CMP_A is a Frobenius category whose projective-injective objects are the projective A-modules, and its stable category is triangulated with shift Ω^{-1}, equivalent to the singularity category of A.
    Invoked throughout §§2–3 (definition of CMP_A and CMP_A, stable-category arguments, Frobenius structure). Standard background in the field.
  • domain assumption Keller–Reiten [KR]: a 2-CY tilted algebra A is Iwanaga-Gorenstein of Gorenstein dimension at most 1, and CMP_A is a 3-Calabi-Yau triangulated category.
    Load-bearing: Proposition 3.6 uses the 3-CY property (Ext^2_A(X,J) ≅ D Ext^1_A(J,X)) to prove F(X) ∈ CMP_B; the introduction attributes the facts to [KR], which is titled for cluster-tilted algebras — see citation_context_check.
  • domain assumption Iyama–Yoshino [IY, Thm 4.7 and Thm 2.9]: mutation in 2-CY categories; the perpendicular quotient T^⊥_i/(T_i) is again 2-CY, and cluster-tilting objects descend.
    Used in Proposition 3.2 to show B = A/J is still 2-CY tilted.
  • domain assumption [SS2, Lemma 5.2] (authors' prior IMRN paper): every non-projective syzygy over a 2-CY tilted algebra has a non-trivial extension with the radical of its projective cover.
    Load-bearing in Corollary 3.12, implication (e)⇒(a); not restated or proved in this paper. Identified as the weakest assumption.
  • domain assumption Dimer tree algebras are Schurian; the closure of the Jacobian ideal equals the Jacobian ideal; the checkerboard-polygon model with radical lines, weights and coweights [SS1, Sec. 3.3.1; SS2; SS3].
    Used in the proofs of Theorems 4.1 and 4.5 (Schurianness rules out cyclic paths; white-region arguments prove Theorem 4.5(b)⇒(a)). [SS1] is cited as a preprint.
  • domain assumption Skew group algebra construction and its CM-type computations [SS3, Section 2.6, Props 4.9/4.10, Prop 4.11].
    Used in Theorem 4.5 to relate CM-minimality of A and of A^G.
  • domain assumption Amiot's thesis [Am1]: finite CM-type 2-CY tilted algebras have stable CM category contained in a 2-cluster category of Dynkin type A, D or E.
    Frames the CM-type notion in §1.1 and underlies the type computations used in Section 4.
  • standard math Standard homological facts over a Gorenstein-dim-≤1 algebra: an A-module is a syzygy iff Ext^1_A(M,A)=0; every CM module embeds in a projective module; snake-lemma and diagram-chase facts.
    Used in Lemma 2.1, Lemma 3.1(a), Lemma 3.9, and the proof of Corollary 3.12.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On syzygy categories over Iwanaga-Gorenstein algebras: Reduction, minimality and finiteness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TKBH7FYH

@misc{pith2026251007405,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On syzygy categories over Iwanaga-Gorenstein algebras: Reduction, minimality and finiteness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TKBH7FYH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.07405}
}
abstract

We study 2-Calabi-Yau tilted algebras which are non-commutative Iwanaga-Gorenstein algebras of Gorenstein dimension 1. In particular, we are interested in their syzygy categories or equivalently the stable categories of Cohen-Macauley modules $\underline{\text{CMP}}$. First we show that if an algebra $A$ is Iwanaga-Gorenstein of Gorenstein dimension 1 then its stable category is generated under extensions by its radical $\text{rad}\,A$. Next, for a 2-Calabi-Yau tilted algebra $A$ we provide an explicit relationship between the $\underline{\text{CMP}}$ category of $A$ and its quotient $A/Ae_iA$ by an ideal generated by an idempotent $e_i$. Consequently, we obtain various equivalent characterizations of when the $\underline{\text{CMP}}$ category remains the same after passing to the quotient. We also obtain applications to two classes of algebras that are CM finite, the dimer tree algebras and their skew group algebras.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.07405 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Each is the Jacobian algebra of the shown quiver with respect to the potential given by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. A dimer algebra A given by the quiver and its four reductions at the idempotents e1, e2, e6, e1 + e2 respectively. All of these algebras are of CM type A2, and the algebras in the right column are CM minimal. The other algebras are obtained by reductions of A. Corollary 1.3 implies that all these algebras have isomorphic CMP categories. In fact, they are all of type A2. In our earlier work [SS1, SS2, SS3] we introdu… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Amiot, Thesis

    C. Amiot, Thesis. available at https://www.imj-prg.fr/theses/pdf/claire\_amiot.pdf

  2. [2]

    Amiot, Cluster categories for algebras of global dimension 2 and quivers with potential, Ann

    C. Amiot, Cluster categories for algebras of global dimension 2 and quivers with potential, Ann. Inst. Fourier 59 no 6, (2009), 2525--2590

    2009

  3. [3]

    Amiot, O

    C. Amiot, O. Iyama, and I. Reiten Stable categories of Cohen-Macaulay modules and cluster categories. Amer. J. Math.\/ 137 (2015), no. 3, 813--857

    2015

  4. [4]

    Amiot and P.-G

    C. Amiot and P.-G. Plamondon, The cluster category of a surface with punctures via group actions. Adv. Math.\/ 389 (2021), Paper No. 107884, 63 pp

    2021

  5. [5]

    Artin and J.-L

    M. Artin and J.-L. Verdier, Reflexive modules over rational double points. Math. Ann.\/ 270 (1985), no. 1, 79--82

    1985

  6. [6]

    Assem, A course on cluster tilted algebras

    I. Assem, A course on cluster tilted algebras. Homological methods, representation theory, and cluster algebras, 127--176. CRM Short Courses Springer, Cham, 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    Assem, D

    I. Assem, D. Simson and A. Skowro\`nski, Elements of the Representation Theory of Associative Algebras, 1: Techniques of Representation Theory, London Mathematical Society Student Texts 65, Cambridge University Press, 2006

    2006

  8. [8]

    Auslander, Rational singularities and almost split sequences

    M. Auslander, Rational singularities and almost split sequences. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.\/ 293 (1986), no. 2, 511--531

    1986

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Auslander and I

    M. Auslander and I. Reiten, Cohen Macaulay and Gorenstein Artin algebras, Representation Theory of Finite Groups and Finite-Dimensional Algebras, Progr. Math., vol. 95, Bielefeld, 1991, Birkhauser, Basel (1991), pp. 221--245

    1991

  2. [10]

    Bastian, T

    J. Bastian, T. Holm and S. Ladkani, Derived equivalence classification of cluster-tilted algebras of Dynkin type E , Algebr. Represent. Theory\/ 16 (2013) 527 -- 551

    2013

  3. [11]

    Bastian, T

    J. Bastian, T. Holm and S. Ladkani,

  4. [12]

    K. Baur, A. King and B. Marsh, Dimer models and cluster categories of Grassmannians

  5. [13]

    Baur and B

    K. Baur and B. Marsh, A geometric description of m-cluster categories, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc\/ 360 (2008), no. 11, 5789--5803

    2008

  6. [14]

    Baur and B

    K. Baur and B. Marsh, A geometric description of the m-cluster categories of type D_n , Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN \/ (2007), no. 4, Art. ID rnm011, 19 pp

    2007

  7. [15]

    Baur, A Pasquali and D

    K. Baur, A Pasquali and D. Velasco, Orbifold diagrams, arXiv:2010.13812

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bocklandt, A dimer ABC

    R. Bocklandt, A dimer ABC. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.\/ 48 (2016), no. 3, 387--451

    2016

  9. [17]

    A. Buan, B. Marsh, M. Reineke, I. Reiten and G. Todorov, Tilting theory and cluster combinatorics,

  10. [18]

    A. Buan, B. Marsh and I. Reiten, Cluster-tilted algebras,

  11. [19]

    A. B. Buan, I. Reiten, and H. Thomas, From m -clusters to m -noncrossing partitions via exceptional sequences. Math. Z.\/ 271 (2012), no. 3-4, 1117--1139

    2012

  12. [20]

    Buchweitz , Maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules and Tate-cohomology over Gorenstein rings, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 262

    R.-O. Buchweitz , Maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules and Tate-cohomology over Gorenstein rings, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 262. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Buchweitz, G.-M

    R.-O. Buchweitz, G.-M. Greuel and F.-O. Schreyer, Cohen-Macaulay modules on hypersurface singularities. II. Invent. Math.\/ 88 (1987), no. 1, 165--182

    1987

  14. [22]

    Caldero, F

    P. Caldero, F. Chapoton and

  15. [23]

    Chen, Singular equivalences induced by homological epimorphisms, Proc

    X.-W. Chen, Singular equivalences induced by homological epimorphisms, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.\/ 142 , 8 (2014) 2633 -- 2640

    2014

  16. [24]

    Chen, The singularity category of an algebra with radical square zero

    X. Chen, The singularity category of an algebra with radical square zero. Doc. Math.\/ 16 (2011), 921--936

    2011

  17. [25]

    Chen and M

    X. Chen and M. Lu, Singularity categories of skewed-gentle algebras. Colloq. Math.\/ 141 (2015), no. 2, 183--198

    2015

  18. [26]

    X. Chen, D. Shen and G. Zhou,

  19. [27]

    X. Chen, S. Geng and M. Lu, The singularity categories of the cluster-tilted algebras of Dynkin type. Algebr. Represent. Theory\/ 18 (2015), no. 2, 531--554

    2015

  20. [28]

    Eisenbud, The geometry of syzygies

    D. Eisenbud, The geometry of syzygies. A second course in commutative algebra and algebraic geometry. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 229. Springer-Verlag, New York , 2005

    2005

  21. [29]

    Esnault, Reflexive modules on quotient surface singularities

    H. Esnault, Reflexive modules on quotient surface singularities. J. Reine Angew. Math.\/ 362 (1985), 63--71

    1985

  22. [30]

    Fomin, M

    S. Fomin, M. Shapiro and D. Thurston, Cluster algebras and triangulated surfaces. I. Cluster complexes. Acta Math.\/ 201 (2008), no. 1, 83--146

    2008

  23. [31]

    Garcia Elsener and R

    A. Garcia Elsener and R. Schiffler, On syzygies over 2-Calabi-Yau tilted algebras. J. Algebra\/ 470 (2017), 91--121

    2017

  24. [32]

    Hanany and K

    A. Hanany and K. D. Kennaway, Dimer models and toric diagrams, (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0503149

    2005 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Hilbert, \"Uber die Theorie der algebraischen Formen, Math

    D. Hilbert, \"Uber die Theorie der algebraischen Formen, Math. Annalen\/ 36 (1890), 473--530

  26. [34]

    Iyama, and Y

    O. Iyama, and Y. Yoshino, Mutation in triangulated categories and rigid Cohen-Macaulay modules. Invent. Math.\/ 172 (2008), no. 1, 117--168

    2008

  27. [35]

    B. T. Jensen, A. D. King, and X. Su, A categorification of Grassmannian cluster algebras. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 113 (2016), no. 2, 185--212

    2016

  28. [36]

    Kalck, Singularity categories of gentle algebras, Bull

    M. Kalck, Singularity categories of gentle algebras, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.\/ 47 , (2015), no. 1, 65--74

    2015

  29. [37]

    Keller , On triangulated orbit categories,

    B. Keller , On triangulated orbit categories,

  30. [38]

    Keller and I

    B. Keller and I. Reiten, Cluster-tilted algebras are Gorenstein and stably Calabi-Yau , Adv. Math.\/ 211 (2007), no. 1, 123--151

    2007

  31. [39]

    Kn\"orrer, Cohen-Macaulay modules on hypersurface singularities

    H. Kn\"orrer, Cohen-Macaulay modules on hypersurface singularities. I. Invent. Math.\/ 88 (1987), no. 1, 153--164

    1987

  32. [40]

    Ladkani, 2CY tilted algebras that are not Jacobian

    S. Ladkani, 2CY tilted algebras that are not Jacobian. preprint arxiv:1403.6814

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Leuschke and R

    G. Leuschke and R. Wiegand, Cohen-Macaulay representations. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 181. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012. xviii+367 pp

    2012

  34. [42]

    Lu, Singularity Categories of some 2-CY-tilted Algebras, Algebr

    M. Lu, Singularity Categories of some 2-CY-tilted Algebras, Algebr. Represent. Theory\/ 19 (2016), no. 6, 1257--1295

    2016

  35. [43]

    Li, Representations of modular skew group algebras

    L. Li, Representations of modular skew group algebras. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 367 (2015), no. 9, 6293--6314

    2015

  36. [44]

    Lu and B

    M. Lu and B. Zhu, Singularity categories of Gorenstein monomial algebras. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 225 (2021), no. 8, 106651, 39 pp

    2021

  37. [45]

    Orlov, Derived categories of coherent sheaves and triangulated categories of singularities

    D. Orlov, Derived categories of coherent sheaves and triangulated categories of singularities. Algebra, arithmetic, and geometry: in honor of Yu. I. Manin. Vol. II, 503--531,

  38. [46]

    Polishchuk and A

    A. Polishchuk and A. Vaintrob, Matrix factorizations and singularity categories for stacks. Ann. Inst. Fourier\/ (Grenoble) 61 (2011), no. 7, 2609--2642

    2011

  39. [47]

    Postnikov, Total positivity, Grassmannians, and networks, arXiv:math/0609764

    A. Postnikov, Total positivity, Grassmannians, and networks, arXiv:math/0609764

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Pressland, Calabi-Yau properties of Postnikov diagrams, arXiv:1912.12475

    M. Pressland, Calabi-Yau properties of Postnikov diagrams, arXiv:1912.12475

    1912 arXiv

  41. [49]

    São Paulo J

    Reiten, Idun 2-Calabi-Yau tilted algebras. São Paulo J. Math. Sci. 4 (2010), no. 3, 529--545

    2010

  42. [50]

    Reiten and C

    I. Reiten and C. Riedtmann, Skew group algebras in the representation theory of Artin algebras

  43. [51]

    Schiffler, A geometric model for cluster categories of type D_n , J

    R. Schiffler, A geometric model for cluster categories of type D_n , J. Alg. Comb.\/ 27 , no. 1, (2008) 1--21

    2008

  44. [52]

    Schiffler, Quiver Representations\/, CMS Books in Mathematics, Springer International Publishing, 2014

    R. Schiffler, Quiver Representations\/, CMS Books in Mathematics, Springer International Publishing, 2014

    2014

  45. [53]

    Shen, The singularity category of a Nakayama algebra

    D. Shen, The singularity category of a Nakayama algebra. J. Algebra\/ 429 (2015), 1--18

    2015

  46. [54]

    Schiffler and K

    R. Schiffler and K. Serhiyenko, A geometric model for syzygies over 2-Calabi-Yau tilted algebras , preprint, arXiv:2106.06496

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Schiffler and K

    R. Schiffler and K. Serhiyenko, A geometric model for syzygies over 2-Calabi-Yau tilted algebras II , IMRN, rnad078, (2023), 32 pages

    2023

  48. [56]

    Schiffler and K

    R. Schiffler and K. Serhiyenko, On Gorenstein algebras of finite Cohen-Macaulay type: dimer tree algebras and their skew group algebras, J. Algebra\/ 660 , (2024) 91--133

    2024

  49. [57]

    Thomas, Defining an m-cluster category

    H. Thomas, Defining an m-cluster category

  50. [58]

    H. A. Torkildsen, A geometric realization of the m -cluster category of affine type A . Comm. Algebra\/ 43 (2015), no. 6, 2541--2567

    2015

  51. [59]

    Yoshino, Cohen--Macaulay Modules over Cohen--Macaulay Rings, London Math

    Y. Yoshino, Cohen--Macaulay Modules over Cohen--Macaulay Rings, London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes Ser., 1990, 146

    1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.