Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Restriction theorems: from orbits and Chevalley to periods and Galois

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Building restriction theorems on Galois theory, this paper recovers Chevalley-type results from orbit geometry and derives explicit period formulas for Calabi-Yau families from invariant functions.

desk verdict Promising period-lifting idea, but the Galois-restriction framework is broken by a residue-field error that the paper's own example reveals. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.13409 v2 pith:WVWJXHDB submitted 2026-02-13 math.AG

Bong Lian , Kamryn Spinelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AG MSC 14L2413A5014J32
keywords restrictiontheoreminvarianttheoryGaloisextensionparameterschemeChevalleypropertyCalabi-Yauperiodshypergeometricfunctionspositiveclosure
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 tries to establish that the classical restriction theorems of invariant theory — where invariant polynomials on a representation restrict to a smaller subvariety under a finite group — are governed by Galois theory. Concretely, for representations whose invariant field is the fraction field of the invariant ring, the paper builds a scheme M whose closed points parametrize extension subvarieties, and it embeds their coordinate rings canonically into the invariant field K = C(V)^G. With this embedding, the paper shows that a subvariety with the Galois restriction property enjoys the stronger Chevalley restriction property exactly when the canonical map Y → V//G is surjective. It then uses this machinery to lift known hypergeometric period formulas from low-dimensional subfamilies to entire moduli spaces, producing explicit formulas for periods of Calabi-Yau double covers of projective space and of elliptic curves in P^2, expressed in invariant functions. If correct, the theory gives a uniform definition of the Weyl group as a Galois group and a new bridge from invariant theory to mirror symmetry.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the extension parameter scheme M = Spec(C[V] ⊗_{C[V]^G} K), where K = C(V)^G; its closed points p correspond to subvarieties Y_p of V (extension subvarieties), and the key structural fact is a canonical embedding of C[Y_p] into K containing C[V]^G. The argument then compares subrings inside K: the Galois restriction property ensures C(Y_p)/C(V)^G is Galois with group W, and the Chevalley restriction property holds precisely when C[Y_p] ∩ C(V)^G = C[V]^G. The positive closure PC(R) — elements s of Frac R with R[s]∩Frac R = R — converts this intersection condition into a geometric statement: for factorial R, membership in PC(R) is equivalent to the induced map of spectra

What would settle it

Compute the residue field of the closed point p of M = Spec K[z_{ij}]/(z_{11}z_{22}-z_{12}z_{21}-Δ) cut out by z_{12}=z_{21}=0, z_{11}=z_{22}^2: the relations force z_{22}^3=Δ, so (C[V]⊗K)/m ≅ K[z_{22}]/(z_{22}^3-Δ) ≅ K(Δ^{1/3}), not K; if Proposition 2's claimed canonical isomorphism C[Y_p] → K held, this quotient would be K, and checking whether the intersection C[Y_p]∩C(Δ) inside K (or in the extension) equals C[Δ] would settle the validity of the characterization for nontrivial Galois extensions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Chevalley restriction property — the existence of a subvariety Y ⊂ V and a finite group W acting on Y such that restriction is an isomorphism C[V]^G → C[Y]^W — is equivalent, once (Y,W) has the Galois restriction property (C(V)^G ≅ C(Y)^W), to the surjectivity of the canonical morphism Y → V//G. This equivalence is proved by constructing the extension parameter scheme M = Spec(C[V] ⊗_{C[V]^G} K) with K = C(V)^G, whose closed points parametrize exactly those subvarieties whose coordinate rings are algebraic over C[V]^G; the proof identifies the obstruction to the Chevalley property as a drop in the image of Y in the quotient, formalized by the positive closure PC

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every closed point of the K-scheme M is K-rational — that is, every maximal ideal m has residue field C[V]⊗_{C[V]^G}K / m ≅ K — an assumption that fails for the paper's own example Y_2 = {z_{12}=z_{21}=0, z_{11}=z_{22}^2} in M_{2×2}, whose residue field is C(Δ^{1/3}), a nontrivial extension of K = C(Δ).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any subvariety with the Galois restriction property that meets every fiber of V → V//G automatically has the Chevalley restriction property, recovering and generalizing the earlier orbit-theoretic theorems without needing stabilizer computations.
  • The Weyl group of a polar representation (or of any Chevalley-type restriction) is intrinsically defined as the Galois group of C(Y)/C(V)^G, independent of the ambient group G.
  • The period of the family of CY double covers of P^{n-1} branched along 2n hyperplanes is explicitly computed as P(Z) Σ_ℓ A(ℓ) f_{ij}(Z)^ℓ in terms of minors and cross-ratios of the n×2n parameter matrix.
  • The period of the cubic family of elliptic curves in P^2 is explicitly computed in terms of the two basic invariants S,T (and the j-invariant) as a power series involving radicals.
  • The Galois restriction property supplies a general mechanism to lift hypergeometric period formulas from gauge-fixed subfamilies to the full moduli space, provided the subfamily meets every G-orbit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: The same lifting recipe should apply to any CY family whose tautological system has a known solution on a Galois-restricting subvariety, e.g. K3 surfaces from six lines in P^2 or higher-dimensional complete intersections; the paper indicates this direction for future work.
  • Beyond the paper: If the residue-field assumption is relaxed, the parametrization by closed points of M must be replaced by a parametrization by finite extensions — e.g., by considering Galois orbits of points or a stack-theoretic enhancement of M. This would bring the paper's own example Y_2 (z_{11}=z_{22}^2) back into the theory.
  • Beyond the paper: The positive closure PC(R) is not generally a ring, which suggests that the Chevalley restriction property is a rigid, non-deformable condition; the Galois restriction property, by contrast, varies nicely in families, so families of extension subvarieties will typically have the Chevalley property only on a thin locus.
  • Beyond the paper: The analytic lifting lemma suggests a testable numerical recipe: for a fixed CY family, compare the power series obtained by this lifting with known Picard-Fuchs solutions order by order in the flat coordinates; agreement would be strong computational evidence for the claim.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Galois-theoretic framework for restriction theorems in invariant theory. It defines two properties — the Chevalley restriction property and the Galois restriction property — and constructs an 'extension parameter scheme' M = Spec(C[V] ⊗_{C[V]^G} K), K = C(V)^G, whose closed points are claimed to parametrize all subvarieties Y ⊂ V with injective restriction from C[V]^G. Proposition 2 asserts that every such Y has coordinate ring canonically embedded into K; this embedding is then used to characterize the Chevalley restriction property via an intersection condition in K and via surjectivity of Y → V//G (Theorem 3). The second half of the paper applies these ideas to period integrals: using the Galois restriction property and analytic lifting lemmas (Lemmas 4–6), it derives explicit period formulas for Calabi–Yau double covers of P^{n-1} and for elliptic curves in P^2 (Theorems 4 and 5).

Significance. If correct, the framework would give a uniform Galois-theoretic explanation of the Chevalley, Dadok–Kac, and Luna–Richardson restriction theorems, identify the Weyl group as a Galois group without reference to the ambient group, and produce new invariant-theoretic period formulas. The paper’s period computations are ambitious and use substantial external results (Matsumoto–Sasaki–Yoshida hypergeometric solutions, Lian–Yau tautological systems). However, the central structural claim — the canonical embedding of C[Y] into K — is false in the very examples the paper itself discusses, including the classical Chevalley setting. Since the subsequent algebraic characterizations and the claimed parametrization of extension subvarieties all rely on this embedding, the core of the paper is not established. The period formulas may have independent value, but the proof as written does not supply the advertised Galois-theoretic foundation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Proposition 2] Proposition 2 asserts that for every closed point p of M, the quotient (C[V] ⊗_{C[V]^G} K)/m is canonically isomorphic to K. This is false: closed points of a finite-type K-scheme need not be K-rational. The paper’s own Section 2 example Y_2 = {z_12 = z_21 = 0, z_11 = z_22^2} in M_{2×2}(C) has C[Y_2] ≅ C[z_22] with z_22^3 = Δ, so the corresponding maximal ideal has residue field C(Δ^{1/3}), a degree-3 extension of K = C(Δ), not K itself. Consequently the claimed canonical embedding C[Y_2] ⊂ K does not exist. This is not a minor gap: the proof explicitly relies on the 'unique isomorphism over K' from the residue field to K, which fails whenever the residue field is a nontrivial finite extension.
  2. [§3, Corollary 1; §4, Proposition 4 and Theorem 3] Corollary 1, Proposition 4, and Theorem 3 all depend on intersecting C[Y] with C(V)^G inside K. But for Y_2, and already for a Cartan subalgebra h in the classical Chevalley theorem, C(Y) is a nontrivial finite extension of K and therefore cannot be embedded into K. In the adjoint case, C(h) has degree |W| over K, so C[h] is not a subring of K. Thus Theorem 3’s condition (2), C[Y] ⊂ PC(C[V]^G), is not even well-defined for these basic examples, even though conditions (1) and (4) hold. The classical Chevalley theorem is therefore a direct counterexample to the asserted equivalence as stated.
  3. [§3, Remark 2 and Theorem 1] The intended interpretation of the Weyl group as Gal(C(Y)/C(V)^G) is internally inconsistent with Proposition 2. If C(Y) were canonically a subfield of K = C(V)^G, then C(Y)/K would be the trivial extension, so all Galois groups would be trivial. That contradicts Remark 2, which claims the Weyl group of a Cartan subspace is recovered as this Galois group. The parametrization of extension subvarieties by closed points of M also breaks: the points corresponding to Y_2 and to Cartan subalgebras are not K-points, so replacing 'closed points' by 'K-points' would exclude exactly the motivating examples.
  4. [§6.2, Theorem 5] The proof of the elliptic-curve period formula is incomplete as written. The authors construct a function Π(Z) = P(Z) φ(ρ(Z)) and invoke Lemma 6 to identify it with the period. However, the concluding paragraph of Section 6.2 acknowledges an apparent contradiction: different points of Y in the same G-orbit should produce different transformation behavior, and the resolution is only sketched by saying that the period should be considered as a 'sheafy multivalued object.' That is not a proof of equality with the period. In addition, the displayed prefactor in Theorem 5 is garbled in the typeset text; as printed it does not have the stated homogeneity of degree −3 under the diagonal C^×. This formula therefore needs to be restated and verified carefully.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] Many displayed formulas are corrupted by typesetting artifacts (e.g., '⌟roo⟪⟪⟩r⟪' in Example 1, the entire prefactor in Theorem 5, and parts of Section 6.2). This makes parts of the paper unreadable and needs to be fixed.
  2. [§4, Definition 5] The definition of PC(R) for an arbitrary integral domain R is confusing when Frac R is not algebraically closed: the statement 'If R is a field, then PC(R) is its algebraic closure' is only true if 'algebraic closure' is interpreted inside Frac R, which is usually not algebraically closed. The intended meaning should be clarified.
  3. [§2, Example Y_2] The example Y_2 is asserted to have the Chevalley restriction property with W_2 = Z/3Z. This is correct, but it directly contradicts the later Proposition 2, as explained in the major comments. The authors should flag this tension.
  4. [§5, Examples 3–5] The construction of the family B and the scheme-theoretic image is sketched informally. In particular, the claims that the fibers are as described and that the constructible set B is a closed subvariety are not proved, despite being used in the examples.
  5. [§6.1, Theorem 4] The prefactor P(Z) is introduced with a specific formula, but the proof only says homogeneity is checked 'by counting the number of times each column index appears.' This should be shown explicitly, since the prefactor is load-bearing for the homogeneity of the resulting period.
  6. [General presentation] There are numerous typographical errors ('cosntruction', 'whch', '´etale', inconsistent use of ̂V vs V) and the flow of notation between C[V]^G, C(V)^G, and K is sometimes hard to follow. A careful editorial pass is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Corollary 1's parametrization of Galois-restriction subvarieties assumes the K-embedding it needs to prove; period formulas are independent lifts of known hypergeometric solutions.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, Proposition 2 / Proposition 3 converse / Corollary 1]
    "By hypothesis, the coordinate ring C[Y] embeds (possibly non-uniquely) into K so that res V→Y : C[V] G→C[Y]⊂K is the identity on C[V] G. ... 'The claim then follows from Proposition 3.'"

    Corollary 1 concludes that every subvariety with the Galois restriction property is an extension subvariety of M by invoking Proposition 3's converse. But that converse is proved only under the hypothesis that C[Y] embeds into K, which is exactly the missing point. The Galois restriction property gives C(Y)^W = C(V)^G = K, yet for the paper's own Y_2 = {z12=z21=0, z11=z22^2} we have Δ = z11 z22 = z22^3, so C(Y_2) = C(z22) ≅ C(Δ^{1/3}), a degree-3 extension of K with no embedding into K. Thus the asserted parametrization of all Galois-restriction subvarieties by closed points of M relies on the condition that the construction already builds in (residue field K), making the classification circular rather than derived.

full rationale

The heart of the paper has two independent-looking strands: the abstract restriction/propaganda machinery of Sections 3–4, and the period computations of Section 6. The period formulas are not circular: Theorem 4 starts from the explicit solution of the reduced Aomoto–Gelfand system supplied externally by Matsumoto–Sasaki–Yoshida, composes it with the invariant cross-ratios f_ij, and then uses a uniqueness lemma to identify the result with the period; no period datum is fitted. Theorem 5 likewise lifts the known Legendre/Gauss hypergeometric solution via the Galois restriction property and a computed prefactor. The self-citations to Lian–Yau tautological systems ([21], [16], [19]) are load-bearing for the period framework, but they are published, parameter-free constructions and are used as external tools, not as unverified assertions of the present paper's conclusions. The genuine circularity is in the structural claim of Section 3: Proposition 2 asserts that every closed point of M has residue field K ('the right-hand isomorphism is the unique such isomorphism over K'), and Proposition 3's converse requires C[Y] to embed into K. Corollary 1 then uses Proposition 3 to conclude that every Galois-restriction subvariety is of this form, silently importing the embedding condition that fails for nontrivial Galois extensions (including the paper's own Y_2). The parametrization by M therefore reduces, by construction, to the class of subvarieties whose function fields already embed in K; the advertised capture of nontrivial Galois extensions is assumed rather than proved. This is a significant circular step in one central claim, but the period results do not depend on that flawed classification, so the overall circularity is partial.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The paper's mathematical content rests on two unexamined assumptions that fail for its own examples: the K-rationality of closed points of M (Proposition 2) and the membership of symbols like √∆ and T^{m/n} in K (Section 5). It also relies on prior hypergeometric and tautological-system results, plus a false radical formula in Lemma 9. No free parameters are fit to data; the prefactor P(Z) is an ad hoc construction.

free parameters (1)
  • Prefactor P(Z) in Theorems 4 and 5
    Chosen by hand to enforce SL_n-invariance, per-column homogeneity −1/2 (Theorem 4) or diagonal homogeneity (Theorem 5), and constancy on Y. Not fitted to data, but ad hoc: in Theorem 5 the stated radical formula for P fails to satisfy the defining cubic.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption C(V)^G = Frac(C[V]^G) (rational invariants are quotients of polynomial invariants)
    Imposed at the start of Sections 3–4; automatic for connected semisimple G. Excludes e.g. the C^* scaling action handled separately in Remark 1.
  • ad hoc to paper Every closed point p of the K-scheme M satisfies (C[V]⊗C[V]^G K)/m ≅ K
    Used in the proof of Proposition 2 to define the canonical embedding C[Y_p]⊂K. False for closed points with residue fields that are proper finite extensions of K, e.g. the point corresponding to Y_2 in Section 2, whose residue field is C(∆^{1/3}).
  • domain assumption The tautological system governs period integrals in the examples (period sheaf coincides with solution sheaf)
    Invoked via [2,16,19] before Theorems 4–5; needed for Lemma 6 to identify a constructed function with the actual period.
  • domain assumption Matsumoto–Sasaki–Yoshida reduction: restriction of a solution of E(k,n) to Y gives a solution of E'(k,n), with a unique power-series solution up to scalar
    Taken from [24]; used in Theorem 4 to assert the period restricts to φ on Y and that uniqueness holds.
  • ad hoc to paper The sextic minimal polynomial of λ over C(J) is solvable in radicals by the explicit expression in Lemma 9
    Asserted without a valid derivation; arithmetically false as written (fails for λ=3 and J=-1/4).
  • standard math Constructibility of the deformation-base as in [35, Tag 05F6] and the interpretation of fibers as full-dimensional fibers
    Used in Section 5's construction of the family B; standard, but the examples do not satisfy the standing assumption A⊂K.
invented entities (3)
  • Extension parameter scheme M
    purpose: Parametrizes extension subvarieties and canonically embeds their coordinate rings into K
    New construction of Section 3. It does not provide a falsifiable external handle, and the canonical-embedding property fails for non-K-points, as shown by Y_2.
  • Positive closure PC(R)
    purpose: Characterizes the Chevalley restriction property algebraically via intersections of subrings of K
    New definition of Section 4; its geometric characterization (Theorem 2) is plausible, but its application to the Chevalley restriction property depends on the invalid embedding framework.
  • Galois restriction property
    purpose: Function-field version of restriction theorems and the basis for the period-lifting lemmas
    New definition. In the paper's parametrization it degenerates to trivial extensions only, because C(Y_p) is forced to equal K; nontrivial Galois extensions such as the paper's own Y_2 are excluded.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Restriction theorems: from orbits and Chevalley to periods and Galois." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WVWJXHDB

@misc{pith2026260213409,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Restriction theorems: from orbits and Chevalley to periods and Galois},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WVWJXHDB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.13409}
}
abstract

Using a new approach based on Galois theory, we study subvarieties of complex representations of reductive groups which satisfy restriction properties on their invariant rings and function fields, along the lines of the Chevalley restriction theorem. For a certain well-behaved class of representations, we explicitly parametrize candidates for these restriction properties and explain a technique to understand their deformations in complex families. We also give algebraic and geometric characterizations of the Chevalley restriction property which clarify how this perspective connects back to previous orbit-theoretic approaches. Finally, we utilize these restriction properties to prove explicit formulas for period integrals of some Calabi-Yau families. The key insight is that the restriction property on function fields can be leveraged to locally interpolate between the algebraic and analytic settings. Using this technique, we lift hypergeometric period formulas from subfamilies to obtain novel explicit formulas for periods of Calabi-Yau double covers of projective spaces and elliptic curves in $\mathbb{P}^2$, expressed in terms of invariant functions on their parameter spaces.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Variations of the mixed Hodge structure of affine hypersurfaces in algebraic tori

    Victor V. Batyrev. “Variations of the mixed Hodge structure of affine hypersurfaces in algebraic tori”. In:Duke Mathematical Journal69.2 (1993), pp. 349–409.doi:10.1215/S0012- 7094- 93- 06917- 7. url:https://doi.org/10.1215/S0012-7094-93-06917-7

    doi:10.1215/s0012- 1993

  2. [2]

    On the holonomic rank problem

    Spencer Bloch et al. “On the holonomic rank problem”. In:Journal of Differential Geometry97.1 (2014), pp. 11–35.doi:10.4310/jdg/1404912101.url:https://doi.org/10.4310/jdg/1404912101. 24

    arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    A pair of Calabi-Yau manifolds as an exactly soluble superconformal the- ory

    Philip Candelas et al. “A pair of Calabi-Yau manifolds as an exactly soluble superconformal the- ory”. In:Nuclear Physics B359.1 (1991), pp. 21–74.issn: 0550-3213.doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/0550- 3213(91)90292- 6.url:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 0550321391902926

    1991

  4. [4]

    New York: Springer, 2009

    Gary Cornell and Joseph Silverman.The Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves. New York: Springer, 2009

    2009

  5. [5]

    Providence: American Math- ematical Society, 1999

    David Cox and Sheldon Katz.Mirror Symmetry and Algebraic Geometry. Providence: American Math- ematical Society, 1999

    1999

  6. [6]

    Polar coordinates induced by actions of compact Lie groups

    Jiri Dadok. “Polar coordinates induced by actions of compact Lie groups”. In:Transactions of the American Mathematical Society288.1 (1985), pp. 125–137.issn: 1088-6850.doi:10.1090/s0002- 9947-1985-0773051-1.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9947-1985-0773051-1

    doi:10.1090/s0002- 1985

  7. [7]

    Polar representations

    Jiri Dadok and Victor Kac. “Polar representations”. In:Journal of Algebra92.2 (1985), pp. 504– 524.issn: 0021-8693.doi:https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / 0021 - 8693(85 ) 90136 - X.url:https : //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002186938590136X

    arXiv 1985

  8. [10]

    Doran.Picard-Fuchs Uniformization: Modularity of the Mirror Map and Mirror-Moonshine

    Charles F. Doran.Picard-Fuchs Uniformization: Modularity of the Mirror Map and Mirror-Moonshine

Show all 38 references
  1. [11]

    Spinors of 13-dimensional space

    V Gatti and E Viniberghi. “Spinors of 13-dimensional space”. In:Advances in Mathematics30.2 (1978), pp. 137–155.issn: 0001-8708.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8708(78)90034-8.url: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001870878900348

    1978

  2. [12]

    Hypergeometric functions and toral man- ifolds

    I. M. Gel’fand, A. V. Zelevinskii, and M. M. Kapranov. “Hypergeometric functions and toral man- ifolds”. In:Functional Analysis and Its Applications23.2 (1989), pp. 94–106.issn: 1573-8485.doi: 10.1007/bf01078777.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01078777

    1989 doi

  3. [13]

    GKZ-Generalized hypergeometric systems in mirror symmetry of Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces

    S. Hosono, B. H. Lian, and S. -T. Yau. “GKZ-Generalized hypergeometric systems in mirror symmetry of Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces”. In:Communications in Mathematical Physics182.3 (Dec. 1996), pp. 535– 577.issn: 1432-0916.doi:10.1007/bf02506417.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02506417

    1996 doi

  4. [14]

    Shinobu Hosono, Bong Lian, and Shing-Tung Yau.K3 surfaces from configurations of six lines inP 2 and mirror symmetry II —λ K3-functions —. 2019. arXiv:1903.09373 [math.AG]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [15]

    F. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis, D. W. Lozier, B. I. Schneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller, B. V. Saunders, H. S. Cohl, and M. A. McClain, eds.url:https://dlmf.nist.gov/

  6. [16]

    Shinobu Hosono et al.K3 surfaces from configurations of six lines inP 2 and mirror symmetry I. 2019. arXiv:1810.00606 [math.AG]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [17]

    Period integrals and the Riemann–Hilbert correspon- dence

    An Huang, Bong H. Lian, and Xinwen Zhu. “Period integrals and the Riemann–Hilbert correspon- dence”. In:Journal of Differential Geometry104.2 (2016), pp. 325–369.doi:10.4310/jdg/1476367060. url:https://doi.org/10.4310/jdg/1476367060

    2016

  8. [18]

    New York: Springer- Verlag, 1972

    James Humphreys.Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representation Theory. New York: Springer- Verlag, 1972

    1972

  9. [19]

    Boston: Birkh¨ auser, 2007

    Joachim Kock and Israel Vainsencher.An Invitation to Quantum Cohomology. Boston: Birkh¨ auser, 2007

    2007

  10. [20]

    On Calabi–Yau fractional complete intersections

    Tsung-Ju Lee, Bong H. Lian, and Shing-Tung Yau. “On Calabi–Yau fractional complete intersections”. In:Pure Appl. Math. Q.18.1 (2022), pp. 317–342.issn: 1558-8599.url:https://mathscinet-ams- org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/mathscinet-getitem?mr=4381855

    2022

  11. [21]

    Arithmetic properties of mirror map and quantum coupling

    Bong H. Lian and Shing-Tung Yau. “Arithmetic properties of mirror map and quantum coupling”. In:Communications in Mathematical Physics176.1 (Feb. 1996), pp. 163–191.issn: 1432-0916.doi: 10.1007/bf02099367.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02099367

    1996 doi

  12. [22]

    Period integrals of CY and general type complete intersections

    Bong H. Lian and Shing-Tung Yau. “Period integrals of CY and general type complete intersections”. In:Inventiones mathematicae191.1 (Mar. 2012), pp. 35–89.issn: 1432-1297.doi:10.1007/s00222- 012-0391-6.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00222-012-0391-6

    2012 doi

  13. [23]

    A generalization of the Chevalley restriction theorem

    D. Luna and R. W. Richardson. “A generalization of the Chevalley restriction theorem”. In:Duke Mathematical Journal46.3 (1979), pp. 487–496.doi:10 . 1215 / S0012 - 7094 - 79 - 04623 - 4.url: https://doi.org/10.1215/S0012-7094-79-04623-4. 25

    1979 doi

  14. [24]

    Fonctions diff´ erentiables invariantes sous l’op´ eration d’un groupe r´ eductif

    Domingo Luna. “Fonctions diff´ erentiables invariantes sous l’op´ eration d’un groupe r´ eductif”. fr. In: Annales de l’Institut Fourier26.1 (1976), pp. 33–49.doi:10.5802/aif.599.url:https://aif. centre-mersenne.org/articles/10.5802/aif.599/

    1976 doi

  15. [25]

    The Monodromy of the Period Map of a 4-parameter Family of K3 Surfaces and the Hypergeometric Function of Type (3,6)

    Keiji Matsumoto, Takeshi Sasaki, and Masaaki Yoshida. “The Monodromy of the Period Map of a 4-parameter Family of K3 Surfaces and the Hypergeometric Function of Type (3,6)”. In:International Journal of Mathematics03.01 (1992), pp. 1–164.doi:10.1142/S0129167X92000023. eprint:ht...

    1992 doi

  16. [26]

    The period map of a 4-parameter family ofK3 surfaces and the Aomoto-Gel’fand hypergeometric function of type(3,6)

    Keiji Matsumoto, Takeshi Sasaki, and Masaaki Yoshida. “The period map of a 4-parameter family ofK3 surfaces and the Aomoto-Gel’fand hypergeometric function of type(3,6)”. In:Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series A, Mathematical Sciences64.8 (1988), pp. 307–310.doi:10.3792/p...

    1988 doi

  17. [27]

    Stability of Projective Varieties

    David Mumford. “Stability of Projective Varieties”. In:L’Enseignement Math´ ematique. IIe S´ erie23 (Jan. 1977).doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-4265-7_7

    1977 doi

  18. [28]

    SLICES AND EQUIV ARIANT IMBEDDINGS

    R. S. Palais et al. “SLICES AND EQUIV ARIANT IMBEDDINGS”. In:Seminar on Transformation Groups. (AM-46). Princeton University Press, 1960, pp. 101–116.isbn: 9780691090948.url:http: //www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1bd6jxd.11(visited on 09/05/2025)

    1960

  19. [29]

    The local Torelli theorem: I. complete intersections

    C. Peters. “The local Torelli theorem: I. complete intersections”. In:Mathematische Annalen217.1 (Feb. 1975), pp. 1–16.issn: 1432-1807.doi:10.1007/bf01363236.url:http://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/BF01363236

    1975 doi

  20. [30]

    The local Torelli-theorem. II : cyclic branched coverings

    C. A. M. Peters. “The local Torelli-theorem. II : cyclic branched coverings”. en. In:Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa - Classe di ScienzeSer. 4, 3.2 (1976), pp. 321–339.url:http: //www.numdam.org/item/ASNSP_1976_4_3_2_321_0/

    1976

  21. [31]

    American Mathematical Society, Dec

    Bjorn Poonen.Rational Points on Varieties. American Mathematical Society, Dec. 2017.isbn: 9781470443153. doi:10.1090/gsm/186.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/gsm/186

    2017 doi

  22. [32]

    Orbits and invariants of visible group actions

    Lex E. Renner. “Orbits and invariants of visible group actions”. In:Transformation Groups17.4 (Aug. 2012), pp. 1191–1208.issn: 1531-586X.doi:10 . 1007 / s00031 - 012 - 9198 - 1.url:http : //dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00031-012-9198-1

    2012 doi

  23. [33]

    Some Basic Theorems on Algebraic Groups

    Maxwell Rosenlicht. “Some Basic Theorems on Algebraic Groups”. In:American Journal of Mathemat- ics78.2 (1956), pp. 401–443.issn: 00029327, 10806377.url:http://www.jstor.org/stable/2372523 (visited on 08/29/2025)

    1956

  24. [34]

    Lifting smooth homotopies of orbit spaces

    Gerald W. Schwarz. “Lifting smooth homotopies of orbit spaces”. en. In:Publications Math´ ematiques de l’IH ´ES51 (1980), pp. 37–135.url:https://www.numdam.org/item/PMIHES_1980__51__37_0/

    1980

  25. [35]

    On the Graded Ring of Invariants of Binary Octavics

    Tetsuji Shioda. “On the Graded Ring of Invariants of Binary Octavics”. In:American Journal of Mathematics89.4 (1967), pp. 1022–1046.issn: 00029327, 10806377.url:http://www.jstor.org/ stable/2373415(visited on 09/04/2025)

    1967

  26. [36]

    The Stacks project authors.The Stacks project.https://stacks.math.columbia.edu. 2025

    2025

  27. [37]

    New York: Springer-Verlag, 2008

    Bernd Sturmfels.Algorithms in Invariant Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2008

    2008

  28. [38]

    Weil.Adeles and Algebraic Groups

    A. Weil.Adeles and Algebraic Groups. Birkh¨ auser Boston, 1982.isbn: 9781468491562.doi:10.1007/ 978-1-4684-9156-2.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-9156-2

    1982 doi

  29. [39]

    Modularity of Calabi–Yau Varieties: 2011 and Beyond

    Noriko Yui. “Modularity of Calabi–Yau Varieties: 2011 and Beyond”. In:Arithmetic and Geometry of K3 Surfaces and Calabi–Yau Threefolds. Ed. by Radu Laza, Matthias Sch¨ utt, and Noriko Yui. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2013, pp. 101–139.isbn: 978-1-4614-6403-7.doi:10.1007/9...

    2011 doi

  30. [1998]

    arXiv:math/9812162 [math.AG].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9812162

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.