Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 37 references

From multiplicative to additive geometry: Deformation theory and 2D TQFT

T0 review · 5 major / 4 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 establishes a deformation theory that turns group-valued (multiplicative) moment-map geometry into Lie-algebra-valued (additive) geometry even for singular spaces, and builds a 2D TQFT from the same gluing rules.

desk verdict The implosion deformation (Theorem 5.3) is plausible and new, but the TQFT (Theorem 7.3) is not proven: Kock's theorem is invoked without verifying the Frobenius relations in QHam, and the freeness needed for closed-surface reductions is unchecked. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.13455 v1 pith:MKKC7YGZ submitted 2026-01-19 math.SG math.DG

Mohamed Moussadek Maiza This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.SGmath.DG MSC 53D2053D1757R56
keywords quasi-HamiltonianmanifoldsPoissondeformationsymplecticimplosionmodulispacesofflatconnections2Dtopologicalquantumfieldtheoryquivergluingfusionproductcotangentbundle
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 paper develops a deformation theory in which Hamiltonian quasi-Poisson manifolds, whose moment maps take values in a compact Lie group, are interpolated smoothly to Hamiltonian Poisson manifolds with Lie-algebra-valued moment maps. The theory is then extended to singular stratified spaces produced by symplectic implosion: the imploded double D(G)_imp deforms to the implosion of the cotangent bundle (T*G)_imp, and the imploded master moduli space of flat G-connections deforms to a product of additive pieces. In parallel, the paper constructs a symmetric monoidal functor N: Cob_2 → QHam that sends the circle to G and every thickened quiver to a quasi-Hamiltonian space built from fusion products of D(G), proving that cobordism gluing corresponds to quasi-Hamiltonian reduction and that the assignment is invariant under quiver homotopy. If correct, this gives a multiplicative analogue of a Hamiltonian 2D TQFT and a way to pass from group-valued to linear moment-map geometry while preserving gluing operations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the deformation space D(G,{1}) = (G × R^*) ⊔ (g × {0}), a single space that contains G at t ≠ 0 with quasi-Poisson structure tP and trivector t²φ, and contains the Lie algebra g at t = 0 with its linear Poisson structure. The key identity is the smoothness of a multiplication map that interpolates between group multiplication at t ≠ 0 and vector addition at t = 0, which lets fusion and reduction be carried through the deformation. For singular spaces, the paper uses a generalized Hamiltonian deformation defined stratum by stratum on an imploded quotient, with a continuous moment map and only continuity required across strata. For the TQFT, the carrying object is N_

What would settle it

Check whether the G^n action on N(Σ_1) ⊛ N(Σ_2) is free for a closed-surface composite, for example the genus-one cobordism obtained by gluing a pair of pants to a cap; if the action has a nontrivial stabilizer, the quasi-Hamiltonian reduction defining composition is undefined and the claimed TQFT does not exist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the multiplicative-to-additive transition is a geometric deformation: for a simply connected compact Lie group G, the imploded double D(G)_imp deforms, in a generalized Hamiltonian sense, to the implosion of the cotangent bundle (T*G)_imp, stratum by stratum. Compatibility with partial fusion and reduction then deforms the imploded master moduli space of flat G-connections to a product of cotangent and imploded-cotangent factors, with fixed conjugacy-class boundary conditions becoming symplectic reductions of the additive side. The paper further claims a unique 2D TQFT N: Cob_2 → QHam sending the circle to G and each thickened quiver Γ to the quasi-Hamiltoni

Load-bearing premise

The TQFT half rests on the assumption that every quasi-Hamiltonian reduction used to compose morphisms, including composites that give closed surfaces, has a free group action, and that a generators-and-relations theorem for 2D TQFTs applies to category-valued functors; the paper does not prove this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 5.3 is right, the singular master moduli space of flat G-connections on any surface with boundary deforms continuously to a product of cotangent-bundle factors, so invariants of the multiplicative moduli space can be recovered by taking limits on the additive side.
  • The gluing formula identifies the geometric gluing of cobordisms with quasi-Hamiltonian reduction, so a standard pair-of-pants decomposition of a surface gives an explicit reconstruction of the associated quasi-Hamiltonian space from copies of D(G).
  • Quiver homotopy invariance means the TQFT value N(Σ) is a topological invariant of the surface, independent of the choice of quiver thickening.
  • Functoriality forces the cup and cap to be the one-point space, so the TQFT is uniquely determined by its value on the circle and on pairs of pants.
  • Because each copy of D(G) deforms to T*G, the entire functor N deforms, in a sense the paper leaves for future work, to the additive Hamiltonian 2D TQFT built from cotangent-bundle moduli spaces.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence not pursued in the paper: the deformation D(G)_imp → (T*G)_imp should descend through the abelianization isomorphisms between symplectic quotients and imploded quotients, giving compatible deformations of symplectic reductions at every weight and connecting to representation-theoretic multiplicity computations.
  • The TQFT's closed-surface values live only in the completed category and are described as singular quasi-Hamiltonian spaces; a concrete test is to compute the closed genus-one value and check whether it reproduces the known quasi-Hamiltonian description of flat connections on a closed torus.
  • Because the deformation is built stratum by stratum and is only continuous across strata, the limiting object may or may not be a stratified symplectic space in the strong sense; checking whether the induced Poisson bracket on functions extends across strata would sharpen Theorem 5.3.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper has two intertwined goals. First, it develops a Poisson deformation theory for Hamiltonian quasi-Poisson G-manifolds, including degenerate cases, and a generalized version for stratified spaces such as symplectic implosions. This is applied to show that the imploded double D(G)_imp deforms to (T*G)_imp and to derive consequences for moduli spaces of flat connections (Theorems 3.1, 5.3, Corollaries 5.4–5.5). Second, it constructs a 2D TQFT N: Cob_2 → QHam, where QHam is a Wehrheim–Woodward completion of a partial category whose morphisms are quasi-Hamiltonian manifolds. The functor is defined by associating to each connected quiver Γ a quasi-Hamiltonian space N_G(Γ) built from copies of the double D(G), with composition of cobordisms corresponding to quasi-Hamiltonian reduction and quiver homotopy giving well-definedness (Theorems 6.4, 6.5, 7.3).

Significance. The conceptual program is attractive: if fully established, it would unify multiplicative and additive Poisson/Hamiltonian geometry, give a deformation picture for singular moduli spaces, and provide a multiplicative analogue of existing Hamiltonian TQFTs. The explicit deformation spaces and the quiver-thickening idea are genuinely appealing, and the potential applications to flat moduli spaces are significant. However, the paper relies heavily on unpublished same-author preprints [25,30], and it leaves several load-bearing checks — freeness of group actions, compatibility with reduction, and the Frobenius relations needed for the TQFT — unverified. The significance is therefore contingent on additional proof.

major comments (5)
  1. [§7.3, Theorem 7.3] The TQFT existence is not established. Kock's Theorem 3.6.19, invoked at the end of §7.3, requires a commutative Frobenius algebra object in a symmetric monoidal category. The paper never identifies the multiplication, comultiplication, unit, or counit as explicit morphisms in QHam, and it never verifies the Frobenius equations. Proposition 7.1 checks only one compatibility (removing a boundary vertex), and the claim that the remaining relations 'follow directly from Theorems 6.4, 6.5' is not demonstrated. Without these checks, the functor N: Cob_2 → QHam has not been shown to exist.
  2. [§7.2, Theorem 6.4, equation (12)] Freeness of the relevant group actions is not proved. Lemma 6.2 proves that G^{Γ_int} acts freely on μ^{-1}(1) for a single connected quiver with non-empty boundary, but Theorem 6.4 requires freeness of the residual G^D action on the fusion product N_G(Γ1) ⊛ N_G(Γ2). This is a different action, and the paper gives no argument that it is free on the appropriate moment-map fiber. Without freeness, the quasi-Hamiltonian reduction in (12) is not defined, and composition in the partial category QHam is not defined either. The problem is acute for closed-surface composites, where no boundary group remains.
  3. [§6.3, Theorem 6.5 proof] The proof of homotopy invariance contains a false claim. It states that after separating the D(G)-factor associated to e0, 'the reduction by G_{v2} acts only on the D(G)-factor associated to e0.' But the action in equation (8) couples G_{v2} to every edge incident to v2, not just e0. If v2 has other incident edges, reducing by G_{v2} affects those factors and cannot simply be removed by identity (11). Thus the proof of Theorem 6.5 collapses, and the invariance of N_G(Γ) under quiver homotopy is not established.
  4. [§5.1, Proposition 5.1 and Theorem 5.3] The deformation of imploded strata to the empty set is not compatible with Definition 4.6. For faces σ whose closure does not contain the origin, the paper sets G_σ = ∪_{t≠0} (H_σ × exp(tσ) × {t}) ∪ (∅ × {0}), so these strata have no limit at t=0. Yet Definition 4.6 requires every quasi-Hamiltonian stratum of the t≠0 fiber to deform to a Hamiltonian stratum of the t=0 fiber. Moreover, Proposition 5.1 only 'adapts the rescaling technique of [25, Theorem 4.1]' and verifies the limit of a two-form; it does not verify the full deformation data — moment-map equivariance, closure of the rescaled forms on each fiber, or compatibility across strata. Theorem 5.3 therefore rests on an incompletely checked and partly inconsistent construction.
  5. [§4.3–4.4, Theorems 4.7 and 4.9] The compatibility of generalized deformations with partial fusion and with reduction is assumed rather than proved. Theorem 4.7 applies '[25, Theorem 3.1]' to each smooth stratum without verifying that the hypotheses of that theorem hold for the stratified, possibly non-free actions that occur in imploded spaces. Likewise, Theorem 4.9 invokes '[25, Theorem 3.3]' for the stratum-wise deformation without checking that the reductions are locally free or that the deformation descends to each orbit-type stratum. These results are load-bearing for Corollaries 5.4–5.5, so the deformation claims for moduli spaces are not fully supported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1.1] The sentence 'For any connected two-dimensional cobordism Σ, there is a unique connected oriented quiver Γ with Σ = Σ_Γ' is too strong; uniqueness holds only up to quiver homotopy, as the paper itself explains later.
  2. [§6.3] In the statement of Theorem 6.5, 'Let Γ_1, Γ_1 be two homotopic...' should read 'Γ_1, Γ_2.'
  3. [§2.1] The notation ℒ '\mathcal G' for the deformation space of G can be confusing because G is also the compact Lie group; using '\mathcal D(G,\{1\})' in all display equations would improve readability.
  4. [§7.1] Equation (12) would benefit from an explicit statement of which group G^n is being reduced and why that reduction is defined; as written, it is an assertion rather than a theorem with hypotheses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central constructions are explicit, and the self-citations are to distinct prior results rather than to the paper's own target claims.

full rationale

The paper contains no step in which a claimed output is identical to its input by construction, and it contains no fitted parameters. Theorem 3.1 is a direct local computation of the t→0 limit of tP_G; Theorem 5.3 defines the deformation space D = μ̂2^{-1}(X)_impl and verifies stratum-wise the two-form limit (Proposition 5.1) and topological properties (Lemma 5.2). The TQFT construction (Theorem 7.3) has real gaps: the Frobenius relations in QHam are asserted rather than fully verified ('The relations involving only quiver-induced cobordisms follow directly from Theorems 6.4, 6.5'), and freeness of the residual G^D-actions needed for Eq. (12) in closed-surface composites is not proved. These are correctness risks, not circularity. The paper leans heavily on same-author preprints [25] and [30] for smooth deformation machinery and quiver-gluing technology; however, those are distinct prior statements (smooth quasi-Hamiltonian deformations and Hamiltonian Lax-Kirchhoff spaces), and the existence/uniqueness theorem is imported from Kock [34], an external source. No load-bearing equation reduces to itself or to a fitted value.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Pure mathematics: no fitted parameters and no new physical entities. The load-bearing assumptions are the standard quasi-Poisson/implosion toolbox plus the same-author deformation and quiver results [25], [30]; the TQFT step additionally assumes a presentation theorem for 2D TQFTs applies beyond its usual Frobenius-algebra setting.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Compact Lie group G with nondegenerate Ad-invariant symmetric bilinear form; simply connected in §5.
    Required throughout for group-valued moment maps, the Cartan 3-vector, and implosion strata.
  • standard math Alekseev–Kosmann-Schwarzbach–Meinrenken quasi-Poisson theory and the equivalence non-degenerate quasi-Poisson ↔ quasi-Hamiltonian ([8, Thm 9.2–9.3]).
    Used in §3 and Definition 2.1 to transfer deformation results to the quasi-Poisson setting.
  • domain assumption Smooth Hamiltonian deformation theory of [25]: existence of the deformation space G = D(G,{1}), smooth multiplication, deformation of D(G) to T*G, compatibility with fusion and reduction.
    Quoted as a black box in Theorems 2.5, 3.1, 5.3 and Remark 6.3; not reproved here.
  • standard math Symplectic and group-valued implosion results of [12] and [26]: strata decomposition, abelianization, and the homeomorphism M_impl//_λ T ≅ M//_λ G.
    Basis for the generalized Hamiltonian space definitions and for the strata in §5.
  • standard math Identity (M ⊛ D(G))//G ≅ M, cited from [7, Example 9.1].
    Used in Theorem 6.5 to remove D(G) factors under the quiver homotopy move.
  • domain assumption Quiver gluing and homotopy invariance for Lax-Kirchhoff moduli spaces from [30, Theorem 3.1, 5.2, §6].
    Self-cited; provides the quiver-to-surface correspondence and the homotopy moves used in §6.4.
  • standard math Kock's presentation theorem [34, Theorem 3.6.19] for 2D TQFTs by generators and relations.
    Invoked in §7.3 to extend generator assignments to a symmetric monoidal functor; the paper does not justify its applicability to QHam-valued functors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From multiplicative to additive geometry: Deformation theory and 2D TQFT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MKKC7YGZ

@misc{pith2026260113455,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From multiplicative to additive geometry: Deformation theory and 2D TQFT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MKKC7YGZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.13455}
}
abstract

In this paper, we present a theory of Poisson deformation of Hamiltonian quasi-Poisson manifolds to Hamiltonian Poisson manifolds that include degenerate cases. More significantly, this theory extends to singular cases arising from symplectic implosion: we introduce a generalized Hamiltonian deformation theory and we show that the imploded cross section of the double $D(G)_\imp$ deforms to the implosion of the cotangent bundle $T^*G_\imp$ with applications to the master moduli space of $G$-flat connections.\\ In parallel, we construct a topological quantum field theory $\N: \text{Cob}_{2}\to \mathbf{QHam}$, where $\mathbf{QHam}$ is the category of quasi-Hamiltonian manifolds. To each cobordism $\Sigma$, we associate a quasi-Hamiltonian space $\N(\Sigma)$ built from the fusion product of copies of the double $D(G).$ We show that these spaces are invariant under the \emph{quiver homotopy} and that the composition of cobordisms corresponds to a quasi-Hamiltonian reduction. This provides a multiplicative version of the 2D Hamiltonian TQFT of Maiza-Mayrand.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.13455 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The gluing operation ⋆ on oriented quivers: ∂Γ + 1 = ∂Γ − 2 becomes an interior vertex in Γ1 ⋆ Γ2. 6.3. Gluing and homotopy invariance. The spaces NG(Γ) satisfy a gluing formula analogous to the one for Lax-Kirchhoff moduli spaces. Given two oriented connected quivers Γ1 and Γ2 with ∂Γ + 1 = ∂Γ − 2 =: D, we form the composite quiver Γ1 ⋆ Γ2 by identifying vertices in D: Theorem 6.4. Let Γ1, Γ2 be two oriented quiver… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The homotopy move on quivers: contracting an edge e0 between two interior vertices v1, v2 ∈ Γint yields a homotopy-equivalent quiver. Let Γ be a connected oriented quiver with boundary and at least two vertices. Consider the elementary modification described in Move 6.3: remove an interior edge e0 with endpoints v1 = s(e0) and v2 = t(e0), and collapse v2 into v1. Denote the resulting quiver by Γ ′ . Explicitly, E ′ … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [25]

    Deformations of quasi-Hamiltonian spaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16689,2025

    Burelle, J.-P., Maiza, M.M., and Mayrand, M. Deformations of quasi-Hamiltonian spaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16689,2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [30]

    and Mayrand, M

    Maiza, M.M. and Mayrand, M. (2025). Lax-Kirchhoff moduli spaces and Hamiltonian 2D TQFT.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.23567

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    (1809).Mémoire sur les intégrales définies

    Poisson, S.D. (1809).Mémoire sur les intégrales définies. Mémoires de l’Académie des Sciences

  4. [2]

    Lichnerowicz, A. (1977). Les variétés de Poisson et leurs algèbres de Lie associées.Journal of Differential Geometry,12(2), 253–300

    1977

  5. [3]

    Weinstein, A. (1983). The local structure of Poisson manifolds.Journal of Differential Geometry,18(3), 523–557

    1983

  6. [4]

    Xu, P. (1995). On Poisson groupoids.International Journal of Mathematics,6(1), 101–124

    1995

  7. [5]

    (2004).Poisson Geometry

    Kosmann-Schwarzbach, Y. (2004).Poisson Geometry. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    2004

  8. [6]

    (2005).General Theory of Lie Groupoids and Lie Algebroids

    Mackenzie, K.C.H. (2005).General Theory of Lie Groupoids and Lie Algebroids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    2005

Show all 37 references
  1. [7]

    Alekseev, A., Malkin, A., and Meinrenken, E. (1998). Lie group valued moment maps.Journal of Differential Geometry, 48(3), 445–495

    1998

  2. [8]

    Alekseev, Y

    A. Alekseev, Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach, and E. Meinrenken,Quasi-Poisson manifolds, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 54(2002), no. 1, 3–29

    2002

  3. [9]

    and Meinrenken, E

    Alekseev, A. and Meinrenken, E. (2000). The non-commutative Weil algebra.Inventiones Mathematicae,139(1), 135–172

    2000

  4. [10]

    and Varchenko, A

    Etingof, P. and Varchenko, A. (1998). Geometry and classification of solutions of the classical dynamical Yang–Baxter equation.Communications in Mathematical Physics,192(1), 77–120

    1998

  5. [11]

    (2006).Differential geometry of quasi-Poisson manifolds

    Mehta, R.A. (2006).Differential geometry of quasi-Poisson manifolds. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley

    2006

  6. [12]

    Guillemin, V., Jeffrey, L., and Sjamaar, R. (2002). Symplectic implosion.Transformation Groups,7(2), 155–184

    2002

  7. [13]

    and Sternberg, S

    Guillemin, V. and Sternberg, S. (1982). Geometric quantization and multiplicities of group representations.Inventiones Mathematicae,67(3), 515–538

    1982

  8. [14]

    Sjamaar, R. (1998). Convexity properties of the moment mapping re-examined.Advances in Mathematics,138(1), 46–91. FROM MULTIPLICATIVE TO ADDITIVE GEOMETRY: DEFORMATION THEORY AND 2D TQFT 19

    1998

  9. [15]

    Witten, E. (1988). Topological quantum field theory.Communications in Mathematical Physics,117(3), 353–386

    1988

  10. [16]

    Atiyah, M. (1988). Topological quantum field theories.Publications Mathématiques de l’IHÉS,68, 175–186

    1988

  11. [17]

    Jones, V.F.R. (1985). A polynomial invariant for knots via von Neumann algebras.Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society,12(1), 103–111

    1985

  12. [18]

    Witten, E. (1989). Quantum field theory and the Jones polynomial.Communications in Mathematical Physics,121(3), 351–399

    1989

  13. [19]

    and Turaev, V

    Reshetikhin, N. and Turaev, V. (1991). Invariants of 3-manifolds via link polynomials and quantum groups.Inventiones Mathematicae,103(1), 547–597

    1991

  14. [20]

    and Rosly, A

    Fock, V. and Rosly, A. (1999). Poisson structure on moduli of flat connections on Riemann surfaces and ther-matrix. American Mathematical Society Translations, Series 2,191, 67–86

    1999

  15. [21]

    Meinrenken, E. (2002). Symplectic surgery and the spinc-Dirac operator.Advances in Mathematics,134(2), 240–277

    2002

  16. [22]

    Pantev, T., Toën, B., Vaquié, M., and Vezzosi, G. (2013). Shifted symplectic structures.Publications Mathématiques de l’IHÉS,117(1), 271–328

    2013

  17. [23]

    Safronov, P. (2017). Quasi-Hamiltonian reduction via classical Chern-Simons theory.Advances in Mathematics,287, 733– 773

    2017

  18. [24]

    and Goncharov, A

    Fock, V. and Goncharov, A. (2006). Moduli spaces of local systems and higher Teichmüller theory.Publications Mathéma- tiques de l’IHÉS,103(1), 1–211

    2006

  19. [26]

    Hurtubise, J., Jeffrey, L., and Sjamaar, R. (2006). Group-valued implosion and parabolic structures.American Journal of Mathematics,128(1), 167–214

    2006

  20. [27]

    (2009).Group-valued implosion and conjugation spaces

    Eshmatov, A. (2009).Group-valued implosion and conjugation spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:0911.1233

    2009 arXiv

  21. [28]

    and Woodward, C.T

    Wehrheim, K. and Woodward, C.T. (2010). Functoriality for Lagrangian correspondences in Floer theory.Quantum Topol- ogy,1(2), 129–170

    2010

  22. [29]

    and Lerman, E

    Sjamaar, R. and Lerman, E. (1991). Stratified symplectic spaces and reduction.Annals of Mathematics,134(2), 375–422

    1991

  23. [31]

    and Tachikawa, Y

    Moore, G.W. and Tachikawa, Y. (2012). On 2d TQFTs whose values are holomorphic symplectic varieties. InString-Math 2011, volume 85 ofProc. Sympos. Pure Math., pages 191–207. Amer. Math. Soc

    2012

  24. [32]

    Weinstein, A. (1971). Symplectic manifolds and their Lagrangian submanifolds.Advances in Mathematics,6(3), 329–346

    1971

  25. [33]

    Weinstein, A. (2010). Symplectic categories.Portugaliae Mathematica,67(2), 261–278

    2010

  26. [34]

    (2004).Frobenius Algebras and 2D Topological Quantum Field Theories

    Kock, J. (2004).Frobenius Algebras and 2D Topological Quantum Field Theories. London Mathematical Society Student Texts, vol. 59. Cambridge University Press

    2004

  27. [35]

    Crooks and M

    P. Crooks and M. Mayrand.The Moore-Tachikawa conjecture via shifted symplectic geometry. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03532, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Cazassus.A two-category of Hamiltonian manifolds, and a (1+ 1+ 1) field theory

    G. Cazassus.A two-category of Hamiltonian manifolds, and a (1+ 1+ 1) field theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.10686, 2019

    1903 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Dancer, F

    A. Dancer, F. Kirwan, and A. Swann,Implosion for hyperkähler manifolds, Compositio Math.149(2013), no. 9, 1592–1630. (MohamedMoussadekMaiza)Département de mathématiques, Université de Sherbrooke, 2500 Bd de l’Université, Sherbrooke, QC, J1K 2R1, Canada Email address:mohamed.mo...

    2013

Pith tools

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