Cylindricity of weighted singular del Pezzo surfaces over fields of characteristic zero

Dae-Won Lee; In-Kyun Kim; Masatomo Sawahara

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Cylindricity of weighted singular del Pezzo surfaces over fields of characteristic zero

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper classifies, for every k-form of the singular del Pezzo surface obtained by blowing up n general points on the weighted projective plane P(1,1,m), exactly when the surface is rational and when it contains a cylinder, with the answe

desk verdict Genuine advance on cylindricity/rationality for non-canonical del Pezzo k-forms with explicit constructions and a sensible ℓ_S invariant, but Theorem 1.2's 'complete classification' overreaches: it omits the n=m+4, ℓ_S=m+4, m-even case that Example 3.7 itself realizes. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.20134 v3 pith:Q5W7NB3C submitted 2025-12-23 math.AG

In-Kyun Kim , Dae-Won Lee , Masatomo Sawahara This is my paper

classification math.AG MSC 14J4514E0814M2014R2514E05

keywords k-formrationalitycylindricityweightedprojectiveplanesingulardelPezzosurfacequotientsingularityGaloisactionverticalcylinder

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 asks when a twist (k-form) of a singular del Pezzo surface — obtained by blowing up n general points on the weighted projective plane P(1,1,m) — is rational and when it contains a cylinder (a Zariski open subset isomorphic to A^1 × Z). Over a non-closed field, these properties depend not only on geometry but also on the Galois action and on rational points. The authors prove a complete classification for all m≥2 and 1≤n≤m+5. The answer is governed by n, whether the unique (−m)-curve Q on the minimal resolution has a k-rational point, and a new invariant ℓ_S counting how many disjoint (−1)-curves meeting Q form a Galois-invariant set that can be contracted over k. If correct, the classification yields vertical cylinders in fibrations whose generic fiber is such a k-form.

What carries the argument

The central object is the minimal resolution π:Y→S of a k-form S of S_n^m; on Y_k there is a unique (−m)-curve Q (the exceptional curve over the 1/m(1,1) quotient singularity), and the (−1)-curves meeting Q. The classification uses the invariant ℓ_S (Definition 3.5), the maximum size of a Gal(k/k)-invariant set of disjoint (−1)-curves intersecting Q that can be simultaneously contracted over k. The proofs contract such sets to obtain k-forms of Hirzebruch surfaces, P^1×P^1, or P^2, where known cylinder constructions apply; conversely, k-minimality of the contracted surface (with (−K)^2≤4) rules out cylinders and rationality. A key input is the complete description of (−1)-curves on Y_k (Lemm

What would settle it

On the complex minimal resolution of a k-form of S_{m+4}^m, the proof assumes there are exactly 2m+8 distinct (−1)-curves meeting Q, with intersection pattern E_i·E'_j=δ_{ij}. A concrete check: take the hypersurface from Example 3.7 (w² = x⁴+y⁴+(x²+y²)z² in P(1,1,1,2)) and enumerate all lines on it; if the number meeting the preimage of the singular point exceeds 12, the list is incomplete and the classification fails. Alternatively, exhibit a k-form of S_{m+4}^m with ℓ_S=m+3, which the proof claims is impossible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proves Theorem 1.2: for any k-form S of the singular del Pezzo surface S_n^m (the blow-up of P(1,1,m) at n general points, m≥2), rationality and cylindricity are classified exactly by n, whether the unique (−m)-curve Q on the minimal resolution has a k-rational point, and the invariant ℓ_S (maximum size of a Galois-invariant contractible set of disjoint (−1)-curves meeting Q). For n≤m+1, S is always cylindrical and rational iff Q(k)≠∅; n=m+2 requires Q(k)≠∅ for both; n=m+3 is always rational and cylindrical iff Q(k)≠∅. For n=m+4, ℓ_S≤m gives neither, while ℓ_S=m+1, or m+2 with Q(k)≠∅, or m+4 with m odd, gives both, and ℓ_S=m+3 is impossible. For n=m+5, ℓ_S≤m+1 gives neither, ℓ_S=m+

Load-bearing premise

The classification depends on the complete enumeration of (−1)-curves on the minimal resolution over the algebraic closure (Lemmas 3.4 and 3.9); if any (−1)-curve outside the listed families existed, the Galois-invariant sets and the contractions defining ℓ_S and the cylinders would not be controlled, and the dichotomy could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every k-form with n≤m+1, a cylinder exists over k regardless of rationality; rationality is equivalent to Q(k)≠∅.
For n=m+2 and n=m+3, the existence of a k-rational point on Q is the deciding condition for cylindricity (and for n=m+2, for rationality as well).
For n=m+4 and n=m+5, the invariant ℓ_S completely separates the cylindrical/rational cases from the non-cylindrical/non-rational ones: low ℓ_S gives neither, while the admissible high values give both, sometimes with Q(k)≠∅.
When m is odd, Q always has a k-rational point, so for n=m+4=2u+3 cylindricity ⇔ rationality ⇔ ℓ_S≥m+1, and for m=3,n=8 the same with ℓ_S≥5.
By Lemma 1.1, every cylindrical k-form yields a vertical A^1-cylinder in any dominant fibration whose generic fiber is that k-form, making the classification an inductive tool for constructing cylinders in higher-dimensional fibrations.

Reading between the lines

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

The pattern that non-cylindricity coincides with k-minimality of the minimal resolution with (−K)^2≤4 may hold more broadly for k-forms of singular del Pezzo surfaces with quotient singularities; the same dichotomy between low-degree k-minimal surfaces and Galois-invariant contractible (−1)-curves could be the general mechanism.
Since ℓ_S counts Galois-invariant contractible sets of (−1)-curves, it should be computable from the Galois representation on Pic(Y_k); for the anticanonical models of Theorem 3.1, an explicit-equation computation of ℓ_S would give an arithmetic algorithm for deciding cylindricity.
Cylinders are the geometric input for additive group (G_a) actions on affine cones, so each cylindrical k-form yields a G_a-action on the corresponding affine cone over k; the explicit cylinder constructions in the proofs could be made into explicit actions.
The vertical-cylinder consequence suggests a fibration-wise criterion: if the geometric generic fiber is birational to such a k-form satisfying the classified conditions, the total space of the fibration is cylindrical; this might be checkable by specializing to the generic fiber.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Plain take: the paper does real work. It moves the cylindricity/rationality dictionary for k-forms of del Pezzo surfaces from the Du Val, Picard-rank-one setting into non-canonical klt singularities with arbitrary Picard rank. The invariant ℓ_S — maximal size of a Galois-invariant, disjoint family of (−1)-curves meeting Q that contracts over k — is intrinsic, not fitted to examples, so I don't see a circularity problem. The positive half is explicit: cylinders are built from the standard configurations in Examples 2.11–2.15 with concrete Galois-descent arguments, the k-minimality argument for the negative cases (Lemma 3.10 plus Theorem 2.9) is sound, and the orbifold Riemann-Roch embedding in Theorem 3.1 checks out for the displayed degrees. The vertical-cylinder application via Dubouloz–Kishimoto is a legitimate payoff.

The stress-test note is right, and its point is sharper than the reader's worry about the (−1)-curve lists. Theorem 1.2 is billed as a complete classification, but for n=m+4 it says nothing about ℓ_S=m+4 with m even, nor about ℓ_S=m+2 with Q(k)=∅; for n=m+3 cylindricity is left open when Q(k)=∅; and the same pattern appears at n=m+5 with ℓ_S=m+3 and Q(k)=∅. These are not phantom cases: Example 3.7 notes that the same S_2^6 form over R has ℓ_S=6 with m=2 even — exactly an omitted slot. Even if every listed implication is true, the theorem is not a complete classification as written. The fix is either to settle the missing subcases or to restrict the claim explicitly.

The reader's main worry is legitimate but secondary. Lemmas 3.4 and 3.9 list (−1)-curves up to linear equivalence, and the Galois-invariance of the contracted unions, hence the value of ℓ_S and the thresholds, depends on those lists being complete and on uniqueness assertions like 'the unique (−1)-curve E′' in the proof of Theorem 3.2(3). A referee should push on this; I suspect it is fixable.

Minor: the line count in Example 3.7 is asserted 'by direct computation' without derivation, and the ℓ_S values (0 over Q, 6 over R) are given without the contraction data. There are also small typo-level slips in the Riemann-Roch display, though the arithmetic lands.

The citation pattern is fine; leaning on Sawahara's earlier rank-one results is natural here, and the external inputs (Châtelet, k-minimality criteria, Reid's formula) are independent. Who it is for: people working on rationality over non-closed fields, cylinders, and Ga-actions; it would make a good reading-group piece. I would cite the construction half. Recommendation: send it to a serious referee, expecting a revised theorem statement and a tightened (−1)-curve argument.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies k-forms S of the singular del Pezzo surfaces S_n^m obtained by blowing up n general points on the weighted projective plane P(1,1,m), over a characteristic-zero field k. It introduces an invariant ℓ_S, defined as the maximal size of a Gal(k/k)-invariant, k-contractible set of disjoint (−1)-curves on the minimal resolution that meet the unique (−m)-curve Q, and it claims a complete classification of rationality and cylindricity of such k-forms for 1 ≤ n ≤ m+5 in terms of n, ℓ_S, and the existence of k-rational points on Q. The paper also gives explicit cylinder constructions and applies the results to vertical cylinders in fibrations. Positive constructions are explicit, and the orbifold Riemann-Roch computations in Theorem 3.1 are carried out in detail.

Significance. If the claimed classification were established, it would be a valuable contribution to the arithmetic of non-canonical del Pezzo surfaces: it goes beyond the Du Val case, allows arbitrarily high geometric Picard rank, and gives exact rationality/cylindricity criteria over non-closed fields. The paper's strengths include explicit k-cylinders, a clean invariant ℓ_S, and the use of independent tools such as the Châtelet theorem, orbifold Riemann-Roch, and k-minimality criteria. However, as written the main theorem is not the complete classification it advertises: several cases inside the stated range are left unasserted, and the paper's own Example 3.7 points to an omitted case. This is a central defect that requires either new arguments or an explicit restriction of the claim.

major comments (2)

[Theorem 1.2] The advertised complete classification omits cases within its stated range. For n=m+2, item (1)(ii) only asserts the positive direction when Q(k)≠∅; the case Q(k)=∅ is unaddressed. For n=m+3, item (1)(iii) asserts rationality and cylindricity only when Q(k)≠∅; the case Q(k)=∅ is unaddressed. For n=m+4, item (2) covers ℓ_S=m+4 only when m is odd and ℓ_S=m+2 only when Q(k)≠∅; no statement is made for ℓ_S=m+4 with m even or for ℓ_S=m+2 with Q(k)=∅. Example 3.7 explicitly states that over R the displayed Q-form of S_2^6 has ℓ_S=6=m+4 with m even, exactly an omitted case. Thus the abstract and introduction's phrase 'complete classification' is not supported. The authors must either settle these cases or explicitly state that the theorem is a partial classification.
[Corollary 1.3 and Corollary 3.13] The corollaries are presented as equivalences ('cylindrical if and only if rational if and only if ℓ_S ≥ ...'), but they are derived only under assumptions that exclude some of the same unclassified cases. For example, Corollary 1.3(2) uses Theorem 3.8 for m odd, which is fine, but Corollary 3.13 assumes Q(k)≠∅; the theorem statements feeding them do not justify a complete two-sided classification for all k-forms. The mismatch between the equivalences in the corollaries and the one-sided statements in Theorems 3.2 and 3.12 should be reconciled.

minor comments (5)

[Theorem 3.1] In the displayed computation of h^0(S,-uK_S) for m=2u−1, the term 'u−2/un−1' appears to be a typo for '(u−2)/(2u−1)'.
[Definition 3.5] The definition of ℓ_S is slightly informal: 'can be contracted over k' should mean that the sum of the curves in Σ is defined over k and that there exists a morphism over k contracting exactly these curves. Since the paper relies on this notion heavily, a one-sentence formal rendering would help.
[Lemma 3.9] The bound ⌊m/2+2⌋ is clearer as ⌊(m+4)/2⌋, since it comes from 2d ≤ m+4. The current notation is understandable but can cause a parsing ambiguity.
[Proof of Theorem 3.2(1)] The sentence 'the union ∑ E_i is defined over k by Lemma 3.4' is terse. Since Lemma 3.4 is a statement about linear equivalence classes, the Galois-invariance requires the additional observation that Q and the general fiber class F are defined over k and that the unordered pair of intersection numbers (E·Q, E·F) distinguishes E_i from the other listed curves. Please spell this out.
[Example 3.7] The sentence 'if S is defined over R, then ℓ_S=6 since we have a contraction π:Y→F1 defined over R' is not demonstrated. This assertion is important because it exhibits an omitted case of Theorem 1.2; a short justification or a precise reference for the contraction should be added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the classification is driven by an intrinsic invariant ℓ_S and explicit geometric constructions; the omitted cases noted by the skeptic are a completeness/correctness issue, not a circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central invariant ℓ_S (Definition 3.5) is defined as the maximum size of a Galois-invariant set of disjoint (−1)-curves meeting Q and contractible over k. It is a geometric datum of the k-form, not a constant fitted to the rationality/cylindricity conclusions; the theorems then prove, rather than assume, that certain ranges of ℓ_S imply or preclude cylinders and rationality. The proofs construct contractions and cylinders explicitly (e.g., Proof of Theorem 3.8, Lemmas 3.16, 3.17, 3.19, 3.20), using independent inputs such as the Châtelet theorem, the orbifold Riemann–Roch formula, Lemma 2.8 on k-forms of Hirzebruch surfaces, and the external k-minimality criterion Theorem 2.9 credited also to [6, Theorem 1]. Some supporting results are cited from the authors' own prior work ([17], [18], [19], and [9]/[10] in the introduction), but these are general theorems about cylindricity birational invariance or k-minimal smooth del Pezzo surfaces, not restatements of the target classification for S_n^m; hence they are independent support rather than a self-citation chain forcing the conclusion. The skeptic's point about omitted cases — e.g., Example 3.7 exhibiting a Q-form of S_2^6 with ℓ_S=6 over R, a case absent from Theorem 1.2(2) when m is even — is a genuine gap in the claimed completeness, but an incompleteness or correctness risk, not a circular reduction of the paper's outputs to its inputs. No quoted equation or construction in the paper is equivalent by definition to the invariant being predicted, so the circularity score is 0.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; ℓ_S is an intrinsic geometric invariant (max size of a Galois-invariant disjoint set of (-1)-curves meeting Q). The paper relies on standard theorems: orbifold Riemann-Roch, Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing, Châtelet's theorem, Castelnuovo contraction, and the k-minimality criterion for surfaces of low degree. No new particles, forces, or other invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)

standard math Orbifold Riemann-Roch formula for surfaces with quotient singularities
Invoked as Theorem 2.1 from Reid [16] and used in Theorem 3.1 to compute h^0 of anticanonical multiples.
domain assumption Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing for Q-Cartier divisors on klt surfaces
Used at the start of Theorem 3.1 to ensure higher cohomology vanishes and the anticanonical ring is computed by h^0.
standard math Châtelet theorem: a k-form of P^n with a k-rational point is P^n_k
Theorem 2.3, cited from Poonen [15]; used repeatedly to split forms of projective spaces.
standard math Theorem 2.9: k-minimal geometrically rational surfaces with (-K)^2 ≤ 4 are neither rational nor cylindrical
Cited from [6],[17],[18]; underpins all negative results for small ℓ_S.
domain assumption Castelnuovo contraction criterion: disjoint (-1)-curves forming a Galois-invariant set can be contracted over k
Used throughout Section 3 whenever unions such as E1+...+Eℓ are contracted over k.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cylindricity of weighted singular del Pezzo surfaces over fields of characteristic zero." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q5W7NB3C

@misc{pith2026251220134,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cylindricity of weighted singular del Pezzo surfaces over fields of characteristic zero},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q5W7NB3C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.20134}
}

abstract

In this paper, we study the cylindricity of $\Bbbk$-forms of singular del Pezzo surfaces obtained by blowing up weighted projective planes $\mathbb{P}(1,1,m)$ over an arbitrary field $\Bbbk$ of characteristic zero. As an application, we obtain vertical cylinders on higher-dimensional fibrations whose generic fibers are such $\Bbbk$-forms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.20134 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Blow-ups of weighted projective plane We note that when m ≥ 4, the surfaces S n m are del Pezzo surfaces for all n ≤ m+ 4 as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

Abban, I

H. Abban, I. Cheltsov, T. Kishimoto, and F. Mangolte. K-stability of pointless del Pezzo surfaces and Fano 3-folds. arXiv:2411.00767, 2024

arXiv 2024
[2]

Cheltsov, J

I. Cheltsov, J. Park, Y. Prokhorov, and M. Zaidenberg. Cylinders in Fano varieties.EMS Surv. Math. Sci., 8(1-2):39–105, 2021. doi:10.4171/emss/44

work page doi:10.4171/emss/44 2021
[3]

Cheltsov, J

I. Cheltsov, J. Park, and J. Won. Cylinders in del Pezzo surfaces.Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (4):1179–1230, 2017. doi:10.1093/imrn/rnw063

work page doi:10.1093/imrn/rnw063 2017
[4]

C. H. Clemens and P. A. Griffiths. The intermediate Jacobian of the cubic threefold.Ann. of Math. (2), 95:281–356, 1972. doi:10.2307/1970801

doi:10.2307/1970801 1972
[5]

O. Debarre. On rationality problems.EMS Surv. Math. Sci., 2024. doi:10.4171/EMSS/83

work page doi:10.4171/emss/83 2024
[6]

Dubouloz and T

A. Dubouloz and T. Kishimoto. Cylinders in del Pezzo fibrations.Israel J. Math., 225(2):797–815,
[7]

V. A. Iskovskih. Minimal models of rational surfaces over arbitrary fields.Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat., 43(1):19–43, 237, 1979

1979
[8]

Kambayashi and M

T. Kambayashi and M. Miyanishi. On flat fibrations by the affine line.Illinois J. Math., 22(4):662–671,

Show all 26 references

[9]

Kim and J

I.-K. Kim and J. Won. On K-stability of blow-ups of weighted projective planes.Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Section A Mathematics, page 1–17, 2025. doi:10.1017/prm.2025.10064

2025
[10]

Kim, I.-K

J. Kim, I.-K. Kim, and J. Won. Rigid affine cones over singular del Pezzo surfaces. arXiv:2506.01310, 2025

2025 arXiv
[11]

Kishimoto, Y

T. Kishimoto, Y. Prokhorov, and M. Zaidenberg. Group actions on affine cones. InAffine algebraic geometry, volume 54 ofCRM Proc. Lecture Notes, pages 123–163. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI,
[12]

Kishimoto, Y

T. Kishimoto, Y. Prokhorov, and M. Zaidenberg. Ga-actions on affine cones.Transform. Groups, 18(4):1137–1153, 2013. doi:10.1007/s00031-013-9246-5

2013 doi
[13]

Koll´ ar, K

J. Koll´ ar, K. E. Smith, and A. Corti.Rational and nearly rational varieties, volume 92 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511734991

2004 doi
[14]

J. P. Murre. Reduction of the proof of the non-rationality of a non-singular cubic threefold to a result of Mumford.Compositio Math., 27:63–82, 1973

1973
[15]

Poonen.Rational Points on Varieties, volume 186 ofGrad

B. Poonen.Rational Points on Varieties, volume 186 ofGrad. Stud. Math.Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2017. doi:10.1090/gsm/186

2017 doi
[16]

M. Reid. Young person’s guide to canonical singularities. InAlgebraic geometry, Bowdoin, 1985 (Brunswick, Maine, 1985), volume 46, Part 1 ofProc. Sympos. Pure Math., pages 345–414. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1987. doi:10.1090/pspum/046.1/927963

1985 doi
[17]

Sawahara

M. Sawahara. Cylinders in weak del Pezzo fibrations.Transform. Groups, 28(1):413–437, 2023. doi:10.1007/s00031-022-09730-y

2023 doi
[18]

Sawahara

M. Sawahara. Notes on cylinders in smooth projective surfaces.Geom. Dedicata, 217(1):Paper No. 6, 14, 2023. doi:10.1007/s10711-022-00741-3

2023 doi
[19]

Sawahara

M. Sawahara. Cylinders in canonical del Pezzo fibrations.Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 74(1):1–69,
[20]

Voisin.Chow rings, decomposition of the diagonal, and the topology of families, vol- ume 187 ofAnnals of Mathematics Studies

C. Voisin.Chow rings, decomposition of the diagonal, and the topology of families, vol- ume 187 ofAnnals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2014. doi:10.1515/9781400850532

2014 doi
[21]

Q. Zhang. Rational connectedness of logQ-Fano varieties.J. Reine Angew. Math., 590:131–142,
[1978]

doi:10.1215/ijm/1256048473. 22 I.-K. KIM, D.-W. LEE, AND M. SA W AHARA
[2006]

(In-Kyun Kim)June E Huh Center for Mathematical Challenges, Korea Institute for Advanced Study, 85 Hoegiro Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 02455, Republic of Korea

doi:10.1515/CRELLE.2006.006. (In-Kyun Kim)June E Huh Center for Mathematical Challenges, Korea Institute for Advanced Study, 85 Hoegiro Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 02455, Republic of Korea. Email address:soulcraw@kias.re.kr (Dae-Won Lee)Department of Mathematics, Ewha Womans Universi...

2006 doi
[2011]

doi:10.1090/crmp/054/08

doi
[2018]

doi:10.1007/s11856-018-1679-z

doi
[2024]

doi:10.5802/aif.3573

doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Abban, I

H. Abban, I. Cheltsov, T. Kishimoto, and F. Mangolte. K-stability of pointless del Pezzo surfaces and Fano 3-folds. arXiv:2411.00767, 2024

arXiv 2024

[2] [2]

Cheltsov, J

I. Cheltsov, J. Park, Y. Prokhorov, and M. Zaidenberg. Cylinders in Fano varieties.EMS Surv. Math. Sci., 8(1-2):39–105, 2021. doi:10.4171/emss/44

work page doi:10.4171/emss/44 2021

[3] [3]

Cheltsov, J

I. Cheltsov, J. Park, and J. Won. Cylinders in del Pezzo surfaces.Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (4):1179–1230, 2017. doi:10.1093/imrn/rnw063

work page doi:10.1093/imrn/rnw063 2017

[4] [4]

C. H. Clemens and P. A. Griffiths. The intermediate Jacobian of the cubic threefold.Ann. of Math. (2), 95:281–356, 1972. doi:10.2307/1970801

doi:10.2307/1970801 1972

[5] [5]

O. Debarre. On rationality problems.EMS Surv. Math. Sci., 2024. doi:10.4171/EMSS/83

work page doi:10.4171/emss/83 2024

[6] [6]

Dubouloz and T

A. Dubouloz and T. Kishimoto. Cylinders in del Pezzo fibrations.Israel J. Math., 225(2):797–815,

[7] [7]

V. A. Iskovskih. Minimal models of rational surfaces over arbitrary fields.Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat., 43(1):19–43, 237, 1979

1979

[8] [8]

Kambayashi and M

T. Kambayashi and M. Miyanishi. On flat fibrations by the affine line.Illinois J. Math., 22(4):662–671,