Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Geometric models for endomorphism algebras of tilting modules over gentle algebras

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Surface dissections give explicit tilting endomorphism algebras.

desk verdict A new and largely convincing geometric description of tilting endomorphism algebras, held up by a figure-based case analysis that should be tightened before I'd call it airtight. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19945 v1 pith:4NIIGTEL submitted 2026-07-22 math.RT

Difan Deng , Shengfei Geng , Pin Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.RT MSC 16G2016G7016E35
keywords gentlealgebratilingfaithfuldissectiontiltingmoduleendomorphismP-freeanglePR-freederivedequivalence
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 proves that for a gentle algebra presented as a tiling algebra on a marked surface, every faithful dissection of the surface yields a tilting module, and the endomorphism algebra of that tilting module is isomorphic to an explicit auxiliary algebra built from the dissection's geometry. The auxiliary algebra's quiver has one vertex per arc in the dissection, with arrows and relations read off from the PR-free negatively oriented angles between arcs. If correct, this gives a purely geometric way to construct endomorphism algebras of tilting modules and therefore new gentle algebras derived equivalent to the original. The paper also constructs a new tiling realizing this endomorphism algebra and introduces a tilting flip that preserves tilting modules.

What carries the argument

The central object is the PR-free negatively oriented angle: an angle between two arcs of a dissection whose fan contains no interior arcs from the original tiling $P$ or the dissection $R$. These angles index the arrows of $B_R$; the relations come from whether two such angles share a marked point or a loop arc forces zero composition. The machinery also uses the admissible-segment description of $\operatorname{Hom}$-spaces between string modules to identify radical morphisms with P-free negatively oriented angles.

What would settle it

Pick a small tiling with a faithful dissection and compute both sides independently: the quiver with relations of $B_R$ from the geometric angle rules, and the actual endomorphism algebra $\operatorname{End}_{A_P} M(R)$ by direct representation-theoretic calculation. Any mismatch in the number of arrows or in a relation (for instance, a zero composition not predicted by the angle configuration) would disprove the isomorphism. More sharply, search for two permissible arcs with zero intersection that admit a nonzero radical morphism but have no common endpoint; such a pair would contradict the configuration enumer

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.18: for a tiling $(S,M,P)$ and a faithful dissection $R$, the algebra $B_R$ — defined by taking the arcs of $R$ as vertices and the PR-free negatively oriented angles as arrows, with relations determined by local angle configurations — is isomorphic to $\operatorname{End}_{A_P} M(R)$. Since $M(R)$ is a tilting $A_P$-module, $B_R$ is derived equivalent to $A_P$. The proof relies on a geometric basis theorem: radical morphisms between the modules $M(\gamma_1)$ and $M(\gamma_2)$ are in bijection with P-free negatively oriented angles from $\gamma_1$ to $\gamma_2$, and compositions of these morphisms are governed by adjacency of angles. The paper further constructs a new marked surface tiling whose tiling algebra is exactly End_

Load-bearing premise

The proof hinges on the case-by-case geometric claim in Theorem 3.7 that every radical morphism between two non-crossing permissible arcs arises from a P-free negatively oriented angle; if the figures omit a possible configuration, the basis theorem and the isomorphism $B_R \cong \operatorname{End} M(R)$ would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every faithful dissection, End_{A_P} M(R) is a gentle algebra with a fully explicit quiver and relations.
  • B_R is derived equivalent to A_P, and the construction can be iterated to produce an infinite family of derived-equivalent gentle algebras.
  • The tilting flip criterion — M(μ_γ(R)) is tilting if and only if R\{γ} is a faithful partial dissection — gives a combinatorial operation that preserves tilting modules.
  • The newly constructed tiling realizes the endomorphism algebra as a tiling algebra, placing such endomorphism algebras back into the geometric model.
  • The same angle formalism applies to partial dissections, so τ-rigid endomorphism algebras also admit geometric descriptions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The geometric basis theorem likely extends to arbitrary partial dissections, suggesting the angle formalism describes endomorphism algebras of τ-rigid modules, not just tilting modules.
  • Iterating tilting flips and dissection constructions may yield explicit derived autoequivalences, potentially linking to a geometric model of the derived category.
  • A parallel formulation using skew-tiling algebras could test whether PR-free angles give endomorphism algebras of tilting objects over skew-gentle algebras.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops geometric models for endomorphism algebras of tilting modules over gentle algebras. Working with a tiling (S,M,P) and its associated gentle algebra A_P, the authors use Baur–Simões' correspondence between permissible arcs and string modules, together with the τ-tilting/dissection bijection, to show that faithful dissections R correspond to tilting A_P-modules M(R). The central result (Theorem 3.18) states that an explicitly defined quiver-with-relations algebra B_R, whose arrows are indexed by PR-free negatively oriented angles between arcs of R, is isomorphic to End_{A_P}M(R). The paper also constructs a tiling (S_R,M_R,P_R) whose tiling algebra is isomorphic to End_{A_P}M(R), and studies a tilting flip operation that preserves the property of being a tilting module.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, it gives a concrete, explicit presentation of the endomorphism algebra of a tilting module over a gentle algebra purely in terms of the surface geometry. This is valuable: it yields explicit derived equivalent gentle algebras, enables iteration of the construction, and connects tilting theory for gentle algebras with surface combinatorics. The paper also reproves and slightly extends known correspondences between faithful dissections and tilting modules. The main strengths are the explicitness of the proposed algebra B_R and the clear overall strategy. However, the central isomorphism depends on a case analysis in Theorem 3.7 that is presented through figures rather than a formal enumeration, and the identification of the relation ideal in Theorem 3.18 is asserted rather tersely. These points are load-bearing and need to be made fully rigorous.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Theorem 3.7] The proof that radical morphisms are spanned by morphisms induced by P-free negatively oriented angles rests on a four-type classification of the heads and tails of the admissible segments, with the geometric possibilities displayed only in Figures 10–14. The text says that, using Int(γ1,γ2)=0, 'the only geometrically possible cases' are as listed, but no formal enumeration of the possible fan sequences at the two endpoints is given. If a configuration is omitted, some basis element from Proposition 3.2 would not be realized as f_∠α, and the equality B=B′ would fail, undermining Theorem 3.18. This case analysis is the load-bearing step of the paper and should be replaced by a complete and checkable enumeration, or by a more conceptual argument.
  2. [Section 3.6–3.7, Lemmas 3.15–3.16 and Theorem 3.18] The identification of the relation ideal is too compressed. After Lemma 3.16 it is asserted that eI_R equals the ideal generated by the loop squares and the two-arrow products satisfying the conditions of Lemma 3.10, and in Theorem 3.18 the equality eI_R = I_R is stated without a detailed proof. Lemma 3.15 shows that every element of eI_R contains a zero adjacent pair, and Lemma 3.16 excludes nontrivial linear combinations of distinct paths, but the passage from these statements to an equality of ideals needs to be written out: one must verify closure under right and left multiplication, show that the specified generators indeed lie in eI_R, and rule out any other relations in the path algebra. This is directly needed for the main isomorphism.
  3. [Section 4.2, Proposition 4.6] The proof of Proposition 4.6 is a single sentence: 'By Definition 3.17 and the definition of tiling algebras, the result follows directly from the construction.' This claims both that (S_R,M_R,P_R) is a tiling and that its tiling algebra is isomorphic to End_{A_P}(M(R)) ≅ B_R. The preceding surgery (inserting marked points, sliding endpoints, merging boundary segments) is described informally and could introduce tiles of unexpected types. The isomorphism A_{P_R} ≅ B_R is not demonstrated. Since this is the basis for the claim that the endomorphism algebra is itself realized by a tiling, the proof needs to be substantially expanded.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'TIL TING' should be 'TILTING'.
  2. [Section 4.2 heading] 'Tiling for a tilting endmorphism algebra' should read 'endomorphism algebra'.
  3. [Example 3.4] The text refers to 'Figure 20' when displaying the example; the actual figure is numbered Figure 8. Figure numbering should be checked throughout.
  4. [Lemma 3.10 proof] There is a typo 'we hve' for 'we have' in the proof.
  5. [Abstract / Section 1] The name 'Simões' appears as 'Sim˜oes' in several places due to LaTeX escaping; this should be fixed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main isomorphism is derived from external geometric-model inputs plus a case analysis; the only self-citation is redundant.

full rationale

The central result B_R ≅ End_{A_P} M(R) (Theorem 3.18) is not obtained by defining B_R as End. B_R's vertices, arrows, and relations are fixed geometrically from the faithful dissection R (Definition 3.17: arrows are PR-free negatively oriented angles, relations analogous to I_P). The proof constructs an isomorphic presentation K eQ_R/<eI_R> of End from the basis theorem (Theorem 3.7) and then proves eQ_R=Q_R and eI_R=I_R using Lemmas 3.8–3.12 and 3.15–3.16. That is a derivation, not an identity by construction. Theorem 3.7 is proved from Proposition 3.2 ([7, Prop. 3.19]) plus a four-head/tail case enumeration; the enumeration is a correctness risk, not circularity. The only author self-citation is [16] in Lemma 2.15, which is attributed jointly to [20] and is not the load-bearing source; Theorem 2.18 is also from [21] and is reproved in the text. Proposition 4.6 is terse but is a construction whose isomorphism follows from the definition of B_R and tiling algebras; no fitted parameter or assumption of the conclusion appears. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Baur-Simões geometric model (external), the τ-tilting bijection (external, with one co-authored source [16]), and a figure-based case enumeration internal to the paper. No free parameters or empirically fitted quantities are involved; no new physical or algebraic entities are postulated beyond the explicitly constructed auxiliary algebra B_R.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math K is algebraically closed; all algebras are finite-dimensional K-algebras.
    Standard framework for representation theory; assumed implicitly throughout Section 2.
  • domain assumption Gentle algebras are exactly tiling algebras (Baur-Simões, Theorem 2.8 of [7]).
    This external theorem allows the paper to switch between algebraic and surface models; used throughout Sections 2 and 3.
  • domain assumption Hom-spaces between string modules are computed by admissible segments (Baur-Simões, Proposition 3.2 of [7]).
    Foundation of the radical-morphism analysis in Theorem 3.7; the paper cites rather than reproves it.
  • domain assumption Bijection between partial dissections/dissections and τ-rigid/support τ-tilting modules (He-Zhou-Zhu [20] and Fu-Geng-Liu-Zhou [16]).
    Connects surface dissections to module theory; includes a self-cited source [16] but also the independent source [20].
  • ad hoc to paper The case analysis in Theorem 3.7 assumes Figures 10-14 exhaust all minimal-intersection configurations.
    The proof of the basis theorem relies on geometric enumeration rather than a formal argument; this is the most fragile premise.
  • domain assumption End_A(M) is gentle for rigid M over a gentle algebra A (Schröer [25]).
    Motivates that endomorphism algebras of tilting modules admit tiling models; not heavily used in the main proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometric models for endomorphism algebras of tilting modules over gentle algebras." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4NIIGTEL

@misc{pith2026260719945,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometric models for endomorphism algebras of tilting modules over gentle algebras},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4NIIGTEL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19945}
}
read the original abstract

This paper investigates tilting modules over gentle algebras and their endomorphism algebras within the framework of marked surfaces and tilings introduced by Baur and Sim\~{o}es. Faithful dissections of a tiling are shown to correspond to tilting modules. For a faithful dissection, we define an auxiliary algebra and prove that it is isomorphic to the endomorphism algebra of the corresponding tilting module. We also construct a new tiling realizing this endomorphism algebra and introduce a flip preserving tilting modules.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19945 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Basic tiles of type (I)-(III) • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . Type (IV) • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . Type (V) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ): (I) monogons with exactly one unmarked boundary component and no punctures in their interiors; (II) digons with exactly one unmarked boundary component and no punctures in their interiors; (III) three-gons bounded by two boundaries and one arc in P, whose interiors contain no un￾marked boundary component of S; (IV) m-gons whose edges are arcs in P and one boundary segment, with no unmarked boundary components or … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ). In other words, αβ ∈ IP if and only if either pα ̸= pβ or pα = pβ and t(α) = s(β) corresponds to a loop arc. pα = pβ t(β) s(β) β α s(α) t(α) pα = pβ α t(α) s(α) β s(β) t(β) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (21 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Condition (P1) (P2) The endpoints of η are in the interiors of non-boundary edges x, y (which are possibly not distinct) of ∆ such that • η has no self-intersections; • x and y have a common endpoint pη ∈ M; • η cuts out an P-angle from ∆ as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Condition (P2) Every arc is assumed to be in minimal position with respect to P. The arc γ is divided by P into irreducible arc segments. Definition 2.9 ([7, Definition 3.1] and [20, Definition 2.2]). An arc γ on S is called permissible (with respect to P) if each irre…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: γe is anticlockwise admissible. Right: γe is clockwise admissible Remark 3.1. Since our orientation convention for (QP)1 is opposite to that of [7], the two notions above are interchanged accordingly. Together with Proposition 2.1, this gives the following geomet…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: P-free oriented angles 3.3. Radical morphisms and P-free negatively oriented angles. Let (S,M, P) be a tiling and let R be a partial dissection on (S,M, P). Let γ1, γ2 ∈ R share a common endpoint p, and let ∠α be a P-free negatively oriented angle from γ1 to γ2 at p. O…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The location of γ1, γ2 For a P-free negatively oriented angle ∠α from γ1 to γ2 at p, we denote by f∠α the morphism from M(γ1) to M(γ2) induced by ∠α. More precisely, there exists a unique pair of arc segments (γe1, γe2) and orientations of γe1, γe2 such that (γe1, γe2)…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The local configuration of γ1 (left) and γ2 (right), such that γe1 is anticlockwise admissible and γe2 is clockwise admissible In the following, for convenience, we use γfa ∈ γfa (ξ1,ξ2) to denote that γfa is of type γfa (ξ1,ξ2) for each 1 ≤ a ≤ 2, where ξ1 ∈ {−, +}, …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Case for γe2 ∈ γe2 (−−) (2) Suppose γe2 ∈ γe2 (−+). If γe1 ∈ γe1 (+−) or γe1 ∈ γe1 (++), then Int(γ1, γ2) ̸= 0 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Case for γe2 ∈ γe2 (−+) (3) Suppose γe2 ∈ γe2 (+−) . If γe1 ∈ γe1 (−+) or γe1 ∈ γe1 (++), then clearly Int(γ1, γ2) ̸= 0 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: ), contradicting our assumption. If γe1 ∈ γe (−−) 1 or γe1 ∈ γe (+−) 1 , then γ2 shares a common endpoint q2 with γ1. Similarly, at q2, the arc γ2 follows γ1 in the clockwise direction. Hence f = f∠α for some ∠α ∈ ∠ − P−free(γ1, γ2). p1 p2 ai p3 p4 aj γf1 (−+) γf1 (+−…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Case for γe2 ∈ γe2 (++) Therefore, in all possible cases, we have f ∈ B′ . Hence B = B ′ , and the theorem follows. □ 3.4. Morphism relations via P-free negatively oriented angles. Let R be a partial dissec￾tion on (S,M, P) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: ). Set ∠α3 = ∠α1 + ∠α2. Then ∠α3 ∈ ∠ − p,P−free(γa, γc) and f∠α3 = f∠α2 f∠α1 . Proof. It is clear ∠α3 ∈ ∠ − p,P−free(γa, γc). Let γga,1 be the arc segments of γa, let γgb,1 and γgb,2 be • ar • ar+1 • ah • ah+1 an • a1 • • • • γc γb q p γa . . . ∠α1 ∠α2 [PITH_FULL_IMA…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Case when pα ̸= pβ pβ = pα ∠β γa γc γb ∠α ai ∈ P pβ = pα ∠α ∠β γc γb γa ai ∈ P [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Case when pβ = pα Lemma 3.10. Let γa, γb, γc ∈ R with ∠α ∈ ∠ − pα,P−free(γb, γc), ∠β ∈ ∠ − pβ,P−free(γa, γb). Then f∠αf∠β = 0 in each of the following cases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: fpi = f∠αi if pi ∈/ IeR Let I = {i ∈ {1, . . . , l} | pi ∈/ IeR}. Because λ1p1 + · · · + λlpl ∈ IeR, then we have X i∈I λifpi = X l i=1 λif∠αi = 0. By Theorem 3.7, we know that {fpi |i ∈ I} = {f∠αi |i ∈ I} ⊂ B′ . Therefore, we have λi = 0 for each i ∈ I. By assumption…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Case αβ = 0 when pα = pβ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Example for BR It is clear that there exist angles ∠α ∈ ∠ − pα,PR-free(γ1, γ2) and ∠β ∈ ∠ − pβ,PR-free(γ3, γ1), which give rise to two arrows α : 2 → 1 and β : 1 → 3. Additionally, since a2 ∈ P lies between γ2 and γ3, there are no PR-free angles between γ2 and γ3; con…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Example for tilting flip at γ2 Proof. By Theorem 2.18, M(R) is a tilting AP-module. Denote by R = R \ {γ}, so M(R) is an almost tilting AP-module. By [19, Proposition 1.2 ], M(R) has two complements if and only if M(R) is faithful. By Lemma 2.17, M(R) is faithful if a…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Separating 4.2.2. Merging consecutive boundary segments. Consider the marked surface (S,Mnew, Rnew). For each basic tile which has a sequence of consecutive boundary segments b1, b2, . . . , bk along its boundary for some k ≥ 2, merge these segments into a single boun…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Merge consecutive boundary segments 4.2.3. Construction new tiling for EndAP (M(R)). Construction 4.5. Let (S,M, P) be a tiling and R be a faithful dissection on (S,M, P). We associate to the endomorphism algebra EndAP M(R) a marked surface (SR,MR, PR) defined as foll…
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: The example for the tiling (S,M, P) with faithful dissection R. Let R = {γ1, γ2, γ3, γ4, γ5, γ6, γ7} be a faithful dissection (cf. Figure 24B). By Theorem 2.18, M(R) is a tilting module. Consequently, we obtain the triple (S,M, R) (see Figure 25A). Note that (S,M, R) …
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: From (S,M, P, R) to (SR,MR, PR) merging consecutive boundary segments, and adjusting the positions of certain permissible arcs of R, we obtain a new tiling (SR,MR, PR) (cf. Figure 25B). Furthermore, this construction yields a gentle algebra BR = APR = KQPR /⟨IPR ⟩ tha…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Representation Theory

    Brenner, Sheila and Butler, Michael CR , title=. Representation Theory. 1980 , publisher=

    1980

  2. [1]

    Algebra and Number Theory , volume=

    Gentle algebras arising from surface triangulations , author=. Algebra and Number Theory , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  3. [2]

    Compositio Mathematica , volume=

    -tilting theory , author=. Compositio Mathematica , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  4. [3]

    Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , volume=

    Coxeter functors without diagrams , author=. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , volume=

  5. [4]

    Selecta Mathematica

    Amiot, Claire and Plamondon, Pierre-Guy and Schroll, Sibylle , title =. Selecta Mathematica. New Series , volume=

  6. [5]

    Iterated tilted algebras of type

    Assem, Ibrahim and Skowronski, Andrzej , journal=. Iterated tilted algebras of type

  7. [6]

    2006 , publisher=

    Elements of the representation theory of associative algebras: Volume 1: Techniques of representation theory , author=. 2006 , publisher=

    2006

  8. [8]

    Coxeter functors and

    Bernstein, IN and Gel'fand, Israil’M and Ponomarev, Vladimir A , journal=. Coxeter functors and

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Advances in mathematics , volume=

    Tilting theory and cluster combinatorics , author=. Advances in mathematics , volume=. 2006 , publisher=

    2006

  2. [10]

    Auslander-

    Butler, Michael CR and Ringel, Michael Claus , journal=. Auslander-. 1987 , publisher=

    1987

  3. [11]

    International Mathematics Research Notices , volume=

    A geometric model for the module category of a gentle algebra , author=. International Mathematics Research Notices , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  4. [12]

    Algebra Number Theory , volume=

    On the cluster category of a marked surface without punctures , author=. Algebra Number Theory , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  5. [13]

    Journal of Algebra , volume=

    Maps between representations of zero-relation algebras , author=. Journal of Algebra , volume=. 1989 , publisher=

    1989

  6. [14]

    Quivers with relations arising from clusters (

    Caldero, Philippe and Chapoton, Fr. Quivers with relations arising from clusters (. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , volume=

  7. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13971 , year=

    Tilting-completion for gentle algebras , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13971 , year=

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Extensions in

    Canakci, Ilke and Schroll, Sibylle , journal=. Extensions in. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  9. [17]

    Journal of Algebra , volume=

    On support -tilting graphs of gentle algebras , author=. Journal of Algebra , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  10. [18]

    Cluster algebras and triangulated surfaces

    Fomin, Sergey and Shapiro, Michael and Thurston, Dylan , journal=. Cluster algebras and triangulated surfaces. Part

  11. [19]

    Journal of Algebra , volume=

    Maps between representations of clans , author=. Journal of Algebra , volume=. 1999 , publisher=

    1999

  12. [20]

    Auslander-Reiten components for clans , author=. Bolet. 1999 , publisher=

    1999

  13. [21]

    Representations of algebras and related topics , volume=

    Gentle algebras are Gorenstein , author=. Representations of algebras and related topics , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  14. [22]

    Archiv der Mathematik , volume=

    Cartan determinants for gentle algebras , author=. Archiv der Mathematik , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  15. [23]

    On gorenstein algebras , author=. Representation Theory of Finite Groups and Finite-Dimensional Algebras: Proceedings of the Conference at the University of Bielefeld from May 15--17, 1991, and 7 Survey Articles on Topics of Representation Theory , pages=. 1991 , organization=

    1991

  16. [24]

    Publications math

    Flat surfaces and stability structures , author=. Publications math

  17. [25]

    Journal of Algebra , VOLUME =

    Happel, Dieter and Unger, Luise , TITLE =. Journal of Algebra , VOLUME =. 2005 , NUMBER =. doi:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2004.11.007 , URL =

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , volume=

    Tilted algebras , author=. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , volume=

  19. [27]

    Mathematische Zeitschrift , volume=

    A geometric model for the module category of a skew-gentle algebra , author=. Mathematische Zeitschrift , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  20. [28]

    Documenta Mathematica , volume=

    On triangulated orbit categories , author=. Documenta Mathematica , volume=

  21. [29]

    2026 , address =

    Nie, Peng , title =. 2026 , address =

    2026

  22. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.09659 , year=

    A geometric model for the derived category of gentle algebras , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.09659 , year=

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Journal of Combinatorial Algebra , volume=

    Non-kissing and non-crossing complexes for locally gentle algebras , author=. Journal of Combinatorial Algebra , volume=. 2019 , pages=

    2019

  24. [32]

    Compositio Mathematica , volume=

    Cluster categories for marked surfaces: punctured case , author=. Compositio Mathematica , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  25. [33]

    Journal of Algebra , volume=

    Modules without self-extensions over gentle algebras , author=. Journal of Algebra , volume=. 1999 , publisher=

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.