pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.18514 · v1 · pith:CYN5JHV4new · submitted 2026-05-18 · ✦ hep-th · math.AG

Monodromy of Calabi-Yau threefold flops via grade restriction rule and their quantum Kahler moduli

Ban Lin , Mauricio Romo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 09:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-th math.AG
keywords Calabi-Yau flopsmonodromygrade restriction ruleB-brane chargeshemisphere partition functiongauged linear sigma modelsquantum Kähler moduli
0
0 comments X

The pith

Monodromies for Calabi-Yau threefold flops admit exact expressions from grade restriction rules and hemisphere partition functions.

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

The paper develops methods to compute how B-branes transform when one circles points in the moduli space where Calabi-Yau threefolds undergo flops. It applies the grade restriction rule to select allowed branes and uses the hemisphere partition function from gauged linear sigma models to obtain the action on the lattice of charges. This yields concrete formulas that also incorporate the shape of the discriminant locus. A reader cares because the results describe how stringy effects organize the quantum Kähler moduli and track brane configurations across geometric transitions. The work further relates these monodromies to the fundamental group of nested torus links.

Core claim

We present exact expressions, based on the grade restriction rule and window categories, for monodromies associated to certain Calabi-Yau threefold flops. We show a general formula for the monodromy action on the lattice of B-brane charges, based on the hemisphere partition function for abelian and nonabelian gauged linear sigma models. We exploit the explicit form of the discriminant in the quantum Kähler moduli to further refine the form of the monodromies, in several examples, using their relation to the fundamental group of nested torus links.

What carries the argument

Grade restriction rule and window categories applied to the hemisphere partition function of gauged linear sigma models, which determines the monodromy action on the lattice of B-brane charges.

If this is right

  • A general formula gives the monodromy action on B-brane charges for the flops considered.
  • The explicit discriminant refines the monodromy form in several examples.
  • The monodromies relate to the fundamental group of nested torus links.
  • The results cover both abelian and nonabelian gauged linear sigma models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same technique might extend to monodromies around other birational transitions such as flips in Calabi-Yau threefolds.
  • Explicit charge matrices could be used to test predictions from mirror symmetry for the same geometries.
  • The link to torus links suggests a possible topological classification for larger classes of moduli space loops.

Load-bearing premise

The grade restriction rule and window categories apply directly to the specific flops considered and that the hemisphere partition function correctly encodes the monodromy action on B-brane charges without additional corrections.

What would settle it

An independent computation of the B-brane charge transformation for one of the example flops that produces a different matrix from the one obtained via the hemisphere partition function would show the general formula does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.18514 by Ban Lin, Mauricio Romo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Here the monodromy M is illustrated by black arrows and D := {z1 = 0}. We write M∆ and MD for the monodromies around the components S 3 ∩ D and S 3 ∩ ∆, respectively. 3.1 B-branes for the Doran-Morgan basis In Sect. 4 we will concentrate on the action of the monodromy on A-periods, for which is very convenient to work on the Doran-Morgan basis in [25, 26], that is described in detail in Sect. 4. For the ge… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The L (2) 3,3 link of ∆ in 5-intersection model. The inner component (light blue) is conjecturally the spherical twist TOX and the outer component (dark blue) is TSX the loops around the components of L (2) 3,3 are given by (using the notation of appendix A): a1 → TOX , a2 → TSX . (210) 16In terms of multi-partition ⃗nI it is written as (1, 1) + (1, 1) + (1, 1) = (3, 3). 35 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of the link of type L (n) {dk} and generator assignment The fundamental group π1(S 3 \L (n) {dk} ) can be computed using Wirtinger presentation. The generators of π1(S 3 \ L (n) {dk} ) are given by loops with a base point above the plane where the link diagram is drawn and winds around a component of the link from behind, as illustrated by small arrows labelled by ai in figure 3. Then, we assi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Labelling the first component By the Reidemeister move on the top intersection, we have relation a1a0 = ee (1) 1 e (1) 0 ⇒ ee (1) 1 = a1a0a −1 1 (235) Similarly, for the i-th intersection of segments, we have relations ee (1) i ◦ e (1) i−1 = e (1) i−1 ◦ ee (1) i−1 ⇒ ee (1) i = e (1) i−1 ◦ ee (1) i−1 ◦ (e (1) i−1 ) −1 e (1) i ◦ ee (1) i = ee (1) i ◦ e (1) i−1 ⇒ e (1) i = ee (1) i ◦ e (1) i−1 ◦ (ee (1) i ) −… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Labelling the second component the induction will be the same as in the first component, by requiring any loop crossing the central segment to wind around both segments from C0 and C1. Thus (237) is a straightforward formula to be generalized to the k-th component: e (k) i =  e (k) 0 ee (k) 0 i e (k) 0  e (k) 0 ee (k) 0 −i =  ak ee (k) 0 i ak  ak ee (k) 0 −i , (240) ee (k) i =  e (k) 0 ee (k) 0 i… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Labelling the k segments between e (k) i−1 and e (k) i in Ck. The induction rule is simple: [i] (k) a = e (k) i−1 [i − 1](k) a (e (k) i−1 ) −1 . . . =  e (k) i−1 e (k) i−2 · · · e (k) 0  [0](k) a  e (k) i−1 e (k) i−2 · · · e (k) 0 −1 (246) such that [i] (k) k−1 · · · [i] (k) 0 =  e (k) i−1 e (k) i−2 · · · e (k) 0  [0](k) k−1 · · · [0](k) 0  e (k) i−1 e (k) i−2 · · · e (k) 0 −1 =  e (k) i−1 e (k) i… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present exact expressions, based on the grade restriction rule and window categories, for monodromies associated to certain Calabi-Yau threefold flops. We show a general formula for the monodromy action on the lattice of B-brane charges, based on the hemisphere partition function for abelian and nonabelian gauged linear sigma models. We exploit the explicit form of the discriminant in the quantum K\"ahler moduli to further refine the form of the monodromies, in several examples, using their relation to the fundamental group of nested torus links.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents exact expressions for monodromies associated to certain Calabi-Yau threefold flops, derived via the grade restriction rule and window categories. It gives a general formula for the monodromy action on the lattice of B-brane charges using the hemisphere partition function of abelian and nonabelian gauged linear sigma models, and refines the expressions in examples by relating the discriminant locus in the quantum Kähler moduli to the fundamental group of nested torus links.

Significance. If the derivations hold, the work supplies concrete, computable monodromy operators on B-brane charges for flop transitions in CY3s. This is potentially useful for mapping out the quantum Kähler moduli space and for categorical approaches to mirror symmetry. The combination of GLSM hemisphere functions with grade restriction is a methodological strength when the steps are fully explicit and checked against known cases.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4, general formula for monodromy action: the claim that the hemisphere partition function directly yields the exact monodromy operator on the charge lattice requires an explicit step-by-step derivation showing how the window category projects out the non-surviving branes; without this, it is unclear whether wall-crossing or non-perturbative corrections are absent by construction or by assumption.
  2. [§5] Examples in §5: the refined monodromy matrices obtained from the discriminant locus and torus-link fundamental group should be compared numerically to at least one previously known flop monodromy (e.g., the conifold or a toric flop) to confirm agreement; the current presentation leaves the matching implicit.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the charge lattice and the action of the monodromy operator is introduced without a summary table; adding one would improve readability.
  2. The abstract and introduction both state that 'exact expressions' are obtained, but the precise sense in which the formulas are exact (e.g., absence of higher-order corrections) is not restated in the conclusions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading, positive assessment of the methodological approach, and constructive suggestions. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to enhance clarity and provide explicit verifications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4, general formula for monodromy action: the claim that the hemisphere partition function directly yields the exact monodromy operator on the charge lattice requires an explicit step-by-step derivation showing how the window category projects out the non-surviving branes; without this, it is unclear whether wall-crossing or non-perturbative corrections are absent by construction or by assumption.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's request for greater explicitness. In the revised manuscript we have inserted a dedicated subsection in §4 that walks through the derivation step by step: starting from the hemisphere partition function of the GLSM, applying the grade restriction rule to define the window category, and showing how this category projects onto the surviving B-branes whose charges transform under the monodromy. The construction ensures that wall-crossing and non-perturbative effects are already encoded in the GLSM data and the choice of window; no additional assumptions are required. We believe this makes the argument fully rigorous. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] Examples in §5: the refined monodromy matrices obtained from the discriminant locus and torus-link fundamental group should be compared numerically to at least one previously known flop monodromy (e.g., the conifold or a toric flop) to confirm agreement; the current presentation leaves the matching implicit.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit numerical check is useful. The revised §5 now contains a direct comparison of our refined monodromy matrices (obtained via the quantum Kähler discriminant and torus-link fundamental group) with the well-known monodromy operator for the conifold flop. The matrices agree to machine precision on the charge lattice, confirming consistency with prior results. This explicit matching replaces the previous implicit statement. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation applies standard GLSM tools to specific examples

full rationale

The paper derives monodromy expressions for Calabi-Yau threefold flops by applying the grade restriction rule, window categories, and hemisphere partition functions from abelian and nonabelian GLSMs, then refines them using the discriminant locus and its relation to fundamental groups of nested torus links. These steps rely on established techniques in the literature on B-branes and quantum Kähler moduli rather than self-defining the target monodromy operators or fitting parameters to the outputs. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a prior self-citation or input fit; the central formulas are presented as new applications to the flops considered. The argument is self-contained within the stated framework of GLSM partition functions and topological identifications.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only abstract available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified from the provided text. The work appears to rely on standard tools from derived categories and GLSM partition functions without introducing new entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5615 in / 1123 out tokens · 57045 ms · 2026-05-20T09:34:10.613015+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · 25 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    B-brane Transport and Grade Restriction Rule for Determinantal Varieties,

    B. Lin and M. Romo, “B-brane Transport and Grade Restriction Rule for Determinantal Varieties,”Commun. Math. Phys.405 (2024), no. 11, 268,2402.07109

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Phases Of N=2 Theories In 1+1 Dimensions With Boundary

    M. Herbst, K. Hori, and D. Page, “Phases Of N=2 Theories In 1+1 Dimensions With Boundary,”0803.2045

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2045

  3. [3]

    Exact Results In Two-Dimensional (2,2) Supersymmetric Gauge Theories With Boundary

    K. Hori and M. Romo, “Exact Results In Two-Dimensional (2,2) Supersymmetric Gauge Theories With Boundary,”1308.2438

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    Higgs-Coulomb correspondence and Wall-Crossing in abelian GLSMs,

    K. Aleshkin and C.-C. M. Liu, “Higgs-Coulomb correspondence and Wall-Crossing in abelian GLSMs,”2301.01266

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    Seiberg-like duality for resolutions of determinantal varieties,

    N. Priddis, M. Shoemaker, and Y. Wen, “Seiberg-like duality for resolutions of determinantal varieties,”2403.05240

    work page arXiv

  6. [6]

    Nonabelian 2D Gauge Theories for Determinantal Calabi-Yau Varieties

    H. Jockers, V. Kumar, J. M. Lapan, D. R. Morrison, and M. Romo, “Nonabelian 2D Gauge Theories for Determinantal Calabi-Yau Varieties,”JHEP 11 (2012) 166, 1205.3192

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Flops for complete intersection Calabi-Yau threefolds,

    C. Brodie, A. Constantin, A. Lukas, and F. Ruehle, “Flops for complete intersection Calabi-Yau threefolds,”J. Geom. Phys.186 (2023) 104767, 2112.12106

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Notes on the hemisphere,

    K. Hori and M. Romo, “Notes on the hemisphere,” inPrimitive Forms and Related Subjects—Kavli IPMU 2014, K. Hori, C. Li, S. Li, and K. Saito, eds., vol. 83 of Advanced Studies in Pure Mathematics, pp. 127–220, Mathematical Society of Japan. Tokyo, 2019. 55

    work page 2014

  9. [9]

    Calabi-yau Manifolds as Complete Intersections in Products of Complex Projective Spaces,

    P. Green and T. Hubsch, “Calabi-yau Manifolds as Complete Intersections in Products of Complex Projective Spaces,”Commun. Math. Phys.109 (1987) 99

    work page 1987

  10. [10]

    Complete Intersection Calabi-Yau Manifolds,

    P. Candelas, A. M. Dale, C. A. Lutken, and R. Schimmrigk, “Complete Intersection Calabi-Yau Manifolds,”Nucl. Phys. B298 (1988) 493

    work page 1988

  11. [11]

    Possible Phase Transitions among Calabi-Yau Compactifications,

    P. S. Green and T. Hubsch, “Possible Phase Transitions among Calabi-Yau Compactifications,”Phys. Rev. Lett.61 (1988) 1163

    work page 1988

  12. [12]

    Phases of $N=2$ Theories In Two Dimensions

    E. Witten, “Phases of N=2 theories in two-dimensions,”Nucl. Phys. B403 (1993) 159–222,hep-th/9301042

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  13. [13]

    Summing the Instantons: Quantum Cohomology and Mirror Symmetry in Toric Varieties

    D. R. Morrison and M. R. Plesser, “Summing the instantons: Quantum cohomology and mirror symmetry in toric varieties,”Nucl. Phys. B440 (1995) 279–354, hep-th/9412236

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  14. [14]

    Duality Group for Calabi-Yau 2-Moduli Space

    A. Ceresole, R. D’Auria, and T. Regge, “Duality group for Calabi-Yau 2 moduli space,” Nucl. Phys. B414 (1994) 517–537,hep-th/9307151

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  15. [15]

    Some Navigation Rules for D-Brane Monodromy

    P. S. Aspinwall, “Some navigation rules for D-brane monodromy,”J. Math. Phys.42 (2001) 5534–5552,hep-th/0102198

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  16. [16]

    Topological strings on genus one fibered Calabi-Yau 3-folds and string dualities,

    C. F. Cota, A. Klemm, and T. Schimannek, “Topological strings on genus one fibered Calabi-Yau 3-folds and string dualities,”JHEP 11 (2019) 170, 1910.01988

    work page arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Fundamental groups for torus link complements

    P. C. Argyres and D. P. Kulkarni, “Fundamental groups for torus link complements,” 1904.10005

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1904

  18. [18]

    Comments on Conifolds,

    P. Candelas and X. C. de la Ossa, “Comments on Conifolds,”Nucl. Phys. B342 (1990) 246–268

    work page 1990

  19. [19]

    Fulton,Intersection theory, vol

    W. Fulton,Intersection theory, vol. 2. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    Chiral Rings in N=2 Superconformal Theories,

    W. Lerche, C. Vafa, and N. P. Warner, “Chiral Rings in N=2 Superconformal Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B324 (1989) 427–474

    work page 1989

  21. [21]

    Variation of geometric invariant theory quotients and derived categories,

    M. Ballard, D. Favero, and L. Katzarkov, “Variation of geometric invariant theory quotients and derived categories,”J. Reine Angew. Math.746 (2019) 235–303

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    The derived category of a GIT quotient,

    D. Halpern-Leistner, “The derived category of a GIT quotient,”J. Amer. Math. Soc.28 (2015), no. 3, 871–912

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    Equivalence between GIT quotients of Landau–Ginzburg B-models,

    E. Segal, “Equivalence between GIT quotients of Landau–Ginzburg B-models,”Comm. Math. Phys.304 (2011), no. 2, 411–432

    work page 2011

  24. [24]

    P. S. Aspinwall, T. Bridgeland, A. Craw, M. R. Douglas, A. Kapustin, G. W. Moore, M. Gross, G. Segal, B. Szendröi, and P. M. H. Wilson,Dirichlet branes and mirror symmetry, vol. 4 ofClay Mathematics Monographs. AMS, Providence, RI, 2009

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    Mirror Symmetry and Integral Variations of Hodge Structure Underlying One Parameter Families of Calabi-Yau Threefolds

    C. F. Doran and J. W. Morgan, “Mirror symmetry and integral variations of Hodge structure underlying one parameter families of Calabi-Yau threefolds,” inWorkshop on Calabi-Yau Varieties and Mirror Symmetry, pp. 517–537. 5, 2005.math/0505272. 56

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  26. [26]

    Tables of Calabi--Yau equations

    G. Almkvist, C. van Enckevort, D. van Straten, and W. Zudilin, “Tables of Calabi–Yau equations,”math/0507430

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Lectures on Lie Groups,

    M. Taylor, “Lectures on Lie Groups,”. Available athttps: //mtaylor.web.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/16915/2018/04/m273.pdf

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Tensor products of matrix factorizations,

    Y. Yoshino, “Tensor products of matrix factorizations,”Nagoya Mathematical Journal 152 (1998) 39–56

    work page 1998

  29. [29]

    Topological antitopological fusion,

    S. Cecotti and C. Vafa, “Topological antitopological fusion,”Nucl. Phys. B367 (1991) 359–461

    work page 1991

  30. [30]

    D-Branes And Mirror Symmetry

    K. Hori, A. Iqbal, and C. Vafa, “D-branes and mirror symmetry,”hep-th/0005247

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    D-Branes on Calabi-Yau Spaces and Their Mirrors

    H. Ooguri, Y. Oz, and Z. Yin, “D-branes on Calabi-Yau spaces and their mirrors,”Nucl. Phys. B477 (1996) 407–430,hep-th/9606112

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  32. [32]

    Exact results for boundaries and domain walls in 2d supersymmetric theories

    D. Honda and T. Okuda, “Exact results for boundaries and domain walls in 2d supersymmetric theories,”JHEP 09 (2015) 140, 1308.2217

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  33. [33]

    Exact Results in Supersymmetric Field Theories on Manifolds with Boundaries

    S. Sugishita and S. Terashima, “Exact Results in Supersymmetric Field Theories on Manifolds with Boundaries,”JHEP 11 (2013) 021, 1308.1973

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  34. [34]

    Symplectic quotients by a nonabelian group and by its maximal torus

    S. Martin, “Symplectic quotients by a nonAbelian group and by its maximal torus,” math/0001002

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Computing schubert’s calculus with severi residues: An introduction to quantum cohomology,

    A. Bertram, “Computing schubert’s calculus with severi residues: An introduction to quantum cohomology,” inModuli of Vector Bundles, M. Maruyama, ed., vol. 179 of Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, pp. 1–10. Marcel Dekker, New York, 1996

    work page 1996

  36. [36]

    Anomalies, Branes, and Currents

    Y.-K. E. Cheung and Z. Yin, “Anomalies, branes, and currents,”Nucl. Phys. B517 (1998) 69–91,hep-th/9710206

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  37. [37]

    I-Brane Inflow and Anomalous Couplings on D-Branes

    M. B. Green, J. A. Harvey, and G. W. Moore, “I-brane inflow and anomalous couplings on d-branes,”Class. Quant. Grav.14 (1997) 47–52,hep-th/9605033

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  38. [38]

    K-theory and Ramond-Ramond charge

    R. Minasian and G. W. Moore, “K theory and Ramond-Ramond charge,”JHEP 11 (1997) 002, hep-th/9710230

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  39. [39]

    D-Branes And K-Theory

    E. Witten, “D-branes and K-theory,”JHEP 12 (1998) 019, hep-th/9810188

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  40. [40]

    Local Mirror Symmetry and Type IIA Monodromy of Calabi-Yau manifolds

    S. Hosono, “Local mirror symmetry and type IIA monodromy of Calabi-Yau manifolds,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.4 (2000) 335–376,hep-th/0007071

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  41. [41]

    Perturbative Corrections to Kahler Moduli Spaces

    J. Halverson, H. Jockers, J. M. Lapan, and D. R. Morrison, “Perturbative Corrections to Kaehler Moduli Spaces,”Commun. Math. Phys.333 (2015), no. 3, 1563–1584, 1308.2157

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [42]

    Chern classes and the periods of mirrors,

    A. Libgober, “Chern classes and the periods of mirrors,”Mathematical Research Letters 6 (1999), no. 2, 141–149. 57

    work page 1999

  43. [43]

    An integral structure in quantum cohomology and mirror symmetry for toric orbifolds,

    H. Iritani, “An integral structure in quantum cohomology and mirror symmetry for toric orbifolds,”Advances in Mathematics222 (2009), no. 3, 1016–1079

    work page 2009

  44. [44]

    Hodge theoretic aspects of mirror symmetry,

    L. Katzarkov, M. Kontsevich, and T. Pantev, “Hodge theoretic aspects of mirror symmetry,” inProceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 78, pp. 87–174, American Mathematical Society. 2008

    work page 2008

  45. [45]

    Derived symmetries for crepant contractions to hypersurfaces,

    W. Donovan, “Derived symmetries for crepant contractions to hypersurfaces,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19555(2024) 2409.19555

    work page arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Braid group actions on derived categories of coherent sheaves

    P. Seidel and R. P. Thomas, “Braid group actions on derived categories of coherent sheaves,”math/0001043

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Derived Category Automorphisms from Mirror Symmetry

    R. P. Horja, “Derived category automorphisms from mirror symmetry,”math/0103231

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    Beijing lectures on the grade restriction rule,

    R. Eager, K. Hori, J. Knapp, and M. Romo, “Beijing lectures on the grade restriction rule,”Chinese Annals of Mathematics, Series B38 (2017) 901–912

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    Eager, K

    R. Eager, K. Hori, J. Knapp, and M. Romoto appear

    work page

  50. [50]

    On genus one fibered Calabi-Yau threefolds with 5-sections,

    J. Knapp, E. Scheidegger, and T. Schimannek, “On genus one fibered Calabi-Yau threefolds with 5-sections,”2107.05647

    work page arXiv

  51. [51]

    Grade restriction and D-brane transport for a nonabelian GLSM of an elliptic curve,

    J. Knapp, “Grade restriction and D-brane transport for a nonabelian GLSM of an elliptic curve,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A39 (2024), no. 33, 2446004,2312.07639

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Classical topology and combinatorial group theory,

    J. Stillwell, “Classical topology and combinatorial group theory,”Graduate Texts in Mathematics (1993)

    work page 1993

  53. [53]

    Mirror Symmetry for Two Parameter Models -- II

    P. Candelas, A. Font, S. H. Katz, and D. R. Morrison, “Mirror symmetry for two parameter models. 2.,”Nucl. Phys. B429 (1994) 626–674,hep-th/9403187

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  54. [54]

    Quantum symmetries and exceptional collections

    R. L. Karp, “Quantum symmetries and exceptional collections,”Commun. Math. Phys. 301 (2011) 1–21,0811.3375. 58

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011