De Rham-Betti Groups of Some Abelian Fourfolds

Zekun Ji

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 24 references

De Rham-Betti Groups of Some Abelian Fourfolds

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 The paper establishes that for four classes of abelian varieties over the rational numbers, the de Rham-Betti group coincides with the Mumford-Tate group, so all invariant tensors are Hodge classes.

desk verdict The paper's flagship claim for simple CM fourfolds is unsupported: Lemma 3.16 is false in the degree-8 case, and Lemma 3.15 collapses with it. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23171 v1 pith:P6OER4E7 submitted 2026-07-25 math.AG

Zekun Ji This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AG MSC 14K0514C3011G15

keywords deRham-BettigroupsMumford-TateabelianfourfoldscomplexmultiplicationperiodconjectureHodgeclassesalgebraiccyclespolarizationpositivity

topics The Hodge Conjecture

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

De Rham-Betti (dRB) structures combine Betti and algebraic de Rham cohomology; the period conjecture predicts that every dRB class is the image of an algebraic cycle. The paper proves that for four classes of abelian varieties over the rational numbers — simple complex-multiplication (CM) abelian fourfolds, fourfolds whose endomorphism algebra is a quartic CM field, fourfolds whose imaginary quadratic endomorphism algebra acts with multiplicities (2,2), and simple CM abelian varieties of prime dimension — the dRB group equals the Mumford-Tate group, the algebraic group that fixes all Hodge classes. Hence the invariant tensors of the dRB structure are exactly the Hodge classes. In the quartic-CM and prime-dimension cases, where the Hodge conjecture is known for all powers, it follows that every dRB class in the tensor category generated by H^1_dRB comes from an algebraic cycle on a self-product. This gives unconditional instances of the expected period-conjecture behaviour in dimensions where the standard transcendence lower bounds for Hodge groups are not available.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reduced dRB group G^h_dRB(A), a connected reductive subgroup of Hdg(A) such that the natural map G_m × G^h_dRB(A) → G_dRB(A) is an isogeny; proving G^h_dRB(A) = Hdg(A) is both necessary and sufficient for the main theorem. Around it the paper deploys three tools: (1) a character-group criterion (Corollary 2.5) that discards a candidate subtorus whenever its invariant tensors would violate the known description of dRB endomorphisms or the Picard rank; (2) the explicit comparison matrix for the dRB Weil structure associated to an imaginary quadratic subfield, together with the transcendence of the relevant CM period constant and its algebraic independence from 2π

What would settle it

Exhibit a simple complex-multiplication abelian fourfold over Q whose endomorphism field has Galois closure with Galois group the dihedral group D4; the paper proves no such simple fourfold exists, so its existence would directly falsify the fourfold theorem. Alternatively, exhibit a quartic-CM fourfold over Q whose semisimple dRB Lie algebra is a quaternion-algebra form of sl(2), which the paper excludes via polarization positivity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central theorem states that G_dRB(A) = MT(A) for the four listed families. The proof avoids the classical algorithm for computing Mumford-Tate groups, which relies on the Deligne torus and is not available for dRB groups. Instead it uses a prior construction: G_dRB(A) is isogenous to G_m × G^h_dRB(A), where G^h_dRB(A) is a connected reductive subgroup of the Hodge group Hdg(A). The task becomes showing G^h_dRB(A) = Hdg(A). For simple CM fourfolds, the paper classifies the two-dimensional subtori of the unitary group U_E and rules them out using a Galois-theoretic criterion on character groups, the explicit comparison matrix for the associated Weil dRB structures, and the algebraic indepe

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the earlier reduction that G_dRB(A) is isogenous to G_m × G^h_dRB(A) with G^h_dRB(A) a connected subgroup of the Hodge group, together with the theorem that the endomorphism algebra of the dRB first cohomology equals the endomorphism algebra of A; if either ingredient failed, excluding subtori would not force the equality G_dRB(A) = MT(A).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For all four classes, the dRB classes in the tensor category generated by H^1_dRB(A) coincide with the Hodge classes.
For abelian fourfolds with quartic CM endomorphism field, every such dRB class is the class of a Q-coefficient algebraic cycle on some self-product of A.
The same algebraicity conclusion holds for simple CM abelian varieties of prime dimension.
For simple CM fourfolds and for fourfolds with imaginary quadratic endomorphism algebra acting with multiplicities (2,2), the equality holds unconditionally even though a full Hodge-conjecture statement for all powers is not used.
The anti-Weil type fourfold case remains open: the paper constructs a family where all known dRB invariants agree with Hodge invariants, so the method cannot decide it.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural test of the underlying heuristic is to apply the same torus-exclusion strategy to CM abelian varieties of dimension six or eight; the main new work would be classifying subtori of U_E and verifying the relevant period transcendence for the Weil structures.
The open anti-Weil case suggests that dRB classes in degree two are not enough to pin down the dRB group; a non-Hodge dRB class in higher degree would both refute the period conjecture for that family and explain why the method stalls.
The polarization-positivity argument that rules out the quaternionic sl(2) form could be reused as a general obstruction: any hypothetical dRB Lie algebra whose weights force impossible signs on a polarization form is impossible, independent of period conjectures.
If the equality G_dRB = MT is eventually proved for all type IV abelian fourfolds, the classification of dRB groups would align exactly with the known classification of Mumford-Tate groups, so the whole genus of abelian fourfolds would be settled.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper is not ready as written. The stress-test note is correct. Lemma 3.16 claims that a quartic CM field K inside End^0(A) of a simple abelian fourfold always has multiplicities {2,0,1,1}. In the degree-8 CM case, End^0(A)=E, [E:K]=2, and each K-embedding has two E-embeddings above it. A CM type can take exactly one of those two for every K-embedding; that gives multiplicities {1,1,1,1}. Formula (6) of the same paper then puts every summand of \wedge^2_K V into H^{1,1}, so the proof's claim that the Weil span contains no (1,1)-Hodge class is backwards. This is an internal contradiction with the paper's own formula. Lemma 3.16 is used to prove Lemma 3.15, which rules out the D4 scenario in Proposition 3.19; that proposition gives the lower bound dim G_h^dRB(A)>2. So Theorem 3.18 and Theorem 1.2(1) are unsupported.

Credit where it is due: the rest of the paper is not a throwaway. The quartic-CM-field case in Section 4 uses Lemma 3.16 in the End^0(A)=K situation, where the {1,1,1,1} alternative genuinely contradicts the known dimension of H^{1,1}, so that part may survive. The Weil-type fourfold and prime-dimension CM arguments rely on Gross/Chudnovsky period inputs and positivity analysis rather than the broken lemma; I did not find a comparable problem there. The subtorus classification in Section 3.1 is substantial and largely coherent, though it leans on tables and 'one can check' computations that deserve independent verification. The self-cited reduction [10, Thm 4.2/Def 5.1] is load-bearing and not reproduced; that is a conditional risk even in the parts that survive.

Minor points: the abstract says varieties over \bar Q while the body says Q, and the Chudnovsky/Gross input should be stated with the precision a referee will expect.

I would send this to peer review: the problem is important, the methods are partly new, and a good referee could either repair Lemma 3.16 or confirm the failure. But as submitted, the advertised flagship result is not proved, and the paper needs major revision before I would rely on any of its fourfold claims.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper aims to determine the de Rham–Betti (dRB) groups of several classes of abelian varieties over Q, proving G_dRB(A)=MT(A) for: (1) simple CM abelian fourfolds, (2) abelian fourfolds whose endomorphism algebra is a quartic CM field, (3) Weil-type abelian fourfolds with imaginary quadratic endomorphism field, and (4) simple CM abelian varieties of prime dimension. The method uses a reduction from prior work of the author to the group G_h^dRB(A)⊂Hdg(A), Galois-theoretic analysis of subtori of the torus U_E, period-theoretic results of Gross and Chudnovsky, and positivity of polarizations. Section 2 treats the prime-dimensional CM case; Section 3 is devoted to simple CM fourfolds; Section 4 treats the remaining type IV fourfolds.

Significance. If the main results were correct, the paper would provide new unconditional cases of the equality between de Rham–Betti groups and Mumford–Tate groups, with consequences for the Grothendieck period conjecture. The overall strategy—combining the dRB reduction with Galois-theoretic torus analysis, transcendental period inputs, and polarization positivity—is original and promising. The prime-dimensional CM case (Corollary 2.17) and the quartic-CM-endomorphism-field case (Theorem 4.11) appear to be largely independent of the problematic lemma discussed below, and the positivity argument in §4.3 is elegant. However, the main simple-CM-fourfold result is not established because it rests on a false lemma.

major comments (2)

[Section 3.2, Lemma 3.16] Lemma 3.16 is false for simple CM fourfolds when End^0(A) has degree 8. The proof assumes that the C-span of rational (1,1)-Hodge classes is {v_i∧v_{\bar i}}. This holds only when Hdg(A)=U_E. If an imaginary quadratic k⊂E acts with multiplicities (2,2), Theorem 3.17 gives Hdg(A)=S_{U_E/k} and the invariant subspace is larger. For example, with E=Q(√[4]{2},i) and K=Q(ζ_8), a CM type selecting one of the two embeddings above each K-embedding has K-multiplicities {1,1,1,1}; such a type can be primitive. This contradicts the lemma’s asserted constraint {2,0,1,1}. Moreover, the proof’s claim that the {1,1,1,1} Weil span contains no (1,1)-Hodge class is inconsistent with the paper’s own formula (6), which assigns Hodge type (1,1) to each summand in that case.
[Section 3.3, Proposition 3.19 / Theorem 3.18] The exclusion of the D4 scenario in Lemma 3.15 uses Lemma 3.16 to eliminate the rows of Table 3 with K2-multiplicities {1,1,1,1} or {2,0,0,2}. Since Lemma 3.16 is false in the degree-8 case, those rows are not excluded, Lemma 3.15 fails, and the lower bound dim G_h^dRB(A)>2 in Proposition 3.19 is unproved. Consequently Theorem 3.18 and Theorem 1.2(1) are unsupported. This is a load-bearing error, not a local gap: the entire simple-CM-fourfold proof depends on this multiplicity assertion.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract / Theorem 1.2] The abstract states that the varieties are defined over \bar{Q}, while the theorems and body use Q. These should be aligned.
[Throughout] Tensor notation such as M⊗m in Lemma 2.2 and Corollary 2.5 should be written M^{⊗m} for clarity.
[§3.1] Several exclusions in Lemma 3.6 and the branch cases in Lemma 3.10 are summarized as “one can check” or with tables. For a journal, more detailed verification or a reproducible symbolic computation would be appropriate.
[References] Reference [24] is spelled “W¨ustholtz”; the correct spelling is “Wüstholz.”

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Main equality is imported from the author's prior [10] via G^h_dRB; no fitted-input circularity, but the self-citation is load-bearing.

self citation load bearing [Section 1.1 (Outline); Theorem 2.1; Theorem 3.18]
"In [10, Theorem 4.2], it is shown that G_dRB(A) contains the group of homotheties in GL(H1(A,Q)). Moreover, in [10, Section 5], a connected algebraic group G^h_dRB(A)⊂Hdg(A) is constructed such that the following diagram commutes ... Therefore the problem is reduced to showing that G^h_dRB(A)=Hdg(A)."

The target equality G_dRB(A)=MT(A) is never derived directly from the external inputs (Bost-Charles, Gross, Chudnovsky, Moonen-Zarhin). In each main case the paper proves only G^h_dRB(A)=Hdg(A) and then invokes the author's own prior theorem [10, Theorem 4.2 and Definition 5.1] to pass to G_dRB(A)=MT(A). That reduction is load-bearing: if the self-cited isogeny/diagram were unavailable or false, none of the main equalities would follow from the paper's computations.
self citation load bearing [Lemma 2.2; Corollary 2.5; used throughout Sections 3-4]
"Lemma 2.2 ([10], Corollary 5.5). Let A be an abelian variety defined over Q. Denote M:=H^1_dRB(A,Q) and let m and n be two non-negative integers such that m−n is an even integer. Then (M^{⊗m}⊗M^{*⊗n})^{G^h_dRB(A)}⊗_Q dRB((m−n)/2) = (M^{⊗m}⊗M^{*⊗n}⊗_Q dRB((m−n)/2))^{G_dRB(A)}."

This self-cited lemma is the bridge that converts invariant-theoretic statements about the auxiliary group G^h_dRB(A) into statements about dRB classes fixed by G_dRB(A). It is used in Corollary 2.5 and then repeatedly in the exclusion arguments (Lemmas 3.6, 3.9-3.11, 3.13, 3.15) and in Lemma 4.7. Without [10, Corollary 5.5], those exclusions would only constrain G^h_dRB(A), not G_dRB(A). The central cases thus inherit their import from another unverified self-citation, not from an argument reproduced in this paper.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted-parameter-called-prediction circularity and no step where a conclusion is identical to an input by construction. The computations involving Gross periods, Chudnovsky transcendence, Bost-Charles comparison, and Moonen-Zarhin Hodge groups are external and give substantial independent content. The circularity burden is concentrated in the author's own prior work [10]: Theorem 2.1 defines the auxiliary group G^h_dRB and asserts the isogeny/diagram relating it to G_dRB and MT, while Lemma 2.2 identifies G^h-invariants with G_dRB-invariants up to Tate twists. All later proofs reduce the target equality to showing G^h=Hdg; they never prove the final G_dRB=MT statement without citing [10]. This is load-bearing self-citation rather than full definitional circularity, because the target equality is not assumed as a hypothesis. Separately, the skeptical objection to Lemma 3.16 is a correctness concern rather than a circularity: the degree-8 case appears to contradict formula (6), since for multiplicities {1,1,1,1} the Weil summands have Hodge type (1,1) and are rational, while the proof later says the Weil span contains no (1,1)-Hodge class. That would affect soundness of Theorem 3.18, but it is not an input-output identity and is not scored here as circular. Overall score 4 reflects some load-bearing self-citation with independent central content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

There are no fitted free parameters and no newly postulated entities. The proof is built from external theorems; the only ad-hoc-to-this-paper axiom is the author's own self-cited reduction [10], which carries the main circularity burden.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Bost–Charles theorem: degree-2 dRB classes on abelian varieties are algebraic and End(H^1_dRB(A,Q)) ≅ End^0(A).
Used in Corollary 2.5 and throughout; it is the main external bridge between dRB invariants and Hodge/endomorphism data.
ad hoc to paper Author's prior result [10, Theorem 4.2 and Definition 5.1]: existence of connected reductive G_h_dRB(A)⊂Hdg(A) with isogeny G_m×G_h_dRB(A)→G_dRB(A) mapping onto MT(A).
Self-cited, load-bearing reduction; not reproduced in this preprint and not independently verified here. This is the largest circularity burden.
domain assumption Gross's explicit comparison formula for Weil dRB structures (Lemma 2.14).
Converts fixedness of Weil structures into explicit period relations involving Chowla–Selberg constants and 2π√-1.
domain assumption Chudnovsky's algebraic independence theorem for Chowla–Selberg constants (Theorem 2.15).
Rules out certain period expressions being rational; used in Corollary 2.17, Lemma 4.5, and Lemma 4.7.
domain assumption Moonen–Zarhin classification of Hodge groups of simple CM and type IV fourfolds (Theorem 3.17, Theorem 4.4, Table 1).
Supplies the target groups Hdg(A) and mt(A) with which G_dRB(A) is compared.
domain assumption Shimura/Moonen–Zarhin multiplicity constraint for simple type IV fourfolds (Lemma 3.16).
Used to exclude the D4 scenario in Lemma 3.15 and in the polarization-positivity argument of Proposition 4.18.
domain assumption Ribet's Hodge/Mumford–Tate results for prime-dimensional CM abelian varieties and for quartic-CM powers.
Gives the Hodge conjecture for all powers for two of the families, so that G_dRB=MT can be converted into an algebraic-cycle corollary.
standard math Standard character-lattice correspondence for algebraic tori and the classification of Q-forms of sl(2) by quaternion algebras.
Basis for the subtorus analysis in §§2–3 and for the Lie-algebra classification in Proposition 4.18.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of De Rham-Betti Groups of Some Abelian Fourfolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P6OER4E7

@misc{pith2026260723171,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: De Rham-Betti Groups of Some Abelian Fourfolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P6OER4E7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23171}
}

abstract

We determine the de Rham--Betti (dRB) groups for several classes of abelian varieties over $\bar{\mathbb{Q}}$. We prove that $\mathrm{G}_{\mathrm{dRB}}(A)=\mathrm{MT}(A)$ for simple CM abelian fourfolds and abelian fourfolds with quartic CM endomorphism field. Due to the current limited knowledge of dRB structures, we adopt an approach different from Moonen--Zarhin's method of determining Mumford-Tate groups. Instead, we use two results by Gross and Chudnovsky, Galois-theoretic analysis and positivity constraints arising from polarizations to exclude certain reductive subgroups of Mumford-Tate groups as candidates for dRB groups. This article is based on the second part of the author's PhD thesis (https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/311471255/Thesis.pdf); see also https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.01072.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[4]

On the periods of abelian integrals and a formula of Chowla and Selberg

Benedict H Gross. “On the periods of abelian integrals and a formula of Chowla and Selberg”. In:Inventiones mathematicae45.2 (1978), pp. 193–211.doi:10.1007/BF01390273

work page doi:10.1007/bf01390273 1978
[1]

Une introduction aux motifs

Yves Andr´ e. “Une introduction aux motifs”. In:Panoramas et syntheses17 (2004)

2004
[2]

Some remarks concerning the Grothendieck period conjecture

Jean-Beno ˆ ıt Bost and Fran¸ cois Charles. “Some remarks concerning the Grothendieck period conjecture”. In: Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal)2016.714 (2016), pp. 175–208

2016
[3]

Algebraic independence of the values of elliptic function at algebraic points: Elliptic analogue of the Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem

Gregory Chudnovsky. “Algebraic independence of the values of elliptic function at algebraic points: Elliptic analogue of the Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem”. In:Inventiones mathematicae61.3 (1980), pp. 267–290

1980
[5]

On the de Rham cohomology of algebraic varieties

Alexander Grothendieck. “On the de Rham cohomology of algebraic varieties”. In:Publications Math´ ematiques de l’Institut des Hautes ´Etudes Scientifiques29.1 (1966), pp. 95–103.url:https://www.numdam.org/item/ PMIHES_1966__29__95_0.pdf

1966
[6]

James E Humphreys.Introduction to Lie algebras and representation theory. Vol. 9. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

2012
[7]

Daniel Huybrechts.Lectures on K3 surfaces. Vol. 158. Cambridge University Press, 2016. 33

2016
[8]

Zekun Ji.De Rham-Betti Groups of Type IV Abelian Varieties. 2025. arXiv:2511.01072 [math.AG]

arXiv 2025

Show all 24 references

[9]

De Rham-Betti Groups of Type IV Abelian Varieties

Zekun Ji. “De Rham-Betti Groups of Type IV Abelian Varieties”. PhD thesis. Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2026.url:https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/311471255/Thesis.pdf

2026
[10]

Zekun Ji.Weight of the De Rham-Betti Structures of Abelian Varieties. 2026. arXiv:2605.07009 [math.AG]. url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.07009

2026 arXiv
[11]

The fullness conjectures for products of elliptic curves

Bruno Kahn. “The fullness conjectures for products of elliptic curves”. In:Journal f¨ ur die reine und ange- wandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal)2025.819 (2025), pp. 301–318

2025
[12]

Tobias Kreutz, Mingmin Shen, and Charles Vial.De Rham-Betti classes with coefficients. 2026. arXiv:2206. 08618 [math.AG].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.08618

2026
[13]

James S Milne.Algebraic groups: the theory of group schemes of finite type over a field. Vol. 170. Cambridge University Press, 2017.doi:10.1017/9781316711736

2017 doi
[14]

Complex multiplication

James S Milne. “Complex multiplication”. In:Available at the author’s webpage(2006).url:https://www. jmilne.org/math/CourseNotes/CM.pdf

2006
[15]

Hodge classes and Tate classes on simple abelian fourfolds

Ben Moonen and Yuri Zarhin. “Hodge classes and Tate classes on simple abelian fourfolds”. In:Duke Mathe- matical Journal77.3 (1995), pp. 553–581.doi:10.1215/S0012-7094-95-07717-5

1995 doi
[16]

Hodge classes on abelian varieties of low dimension

Ben Moonen and Yuri Zarhin. “Hodge classes on abelian varieties of low dimension”. In:Mathematische Annalen315 (1999), pp. 711–733.doi:10.1007/s002080050333

1999 doi
[17]

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, 1970.isbn: 9780195605280

David Mumford.Abelian Varieties. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, 1970.isbn: 9780195605280. url:https://wstein.org/edu/Fall2003/252/references/mumford-abvar/Mumford-Abelian_Varieties.pdf

1970
[18]

Division fields of abelian varieties with complex multiplication

Kenneth A Ribet. “Division fields of abelian varieties with complex multiplication”. In:Fonctions ab´ eliennes et nombres transcendants, M´ emoire de la Soci´ et´ e math´ ematique de France, Nouvelle s´ erie2 (1980), pp. 75–94

1980
[19]

Hodge classes on certain types of abelian varieties

Kenneth A Ribet. “Hodge classes on certain types of abelian varieties”. In:American Journal of Mathematics 105.2 (1983), pp. 523–538

1983
[20]

Joseph J Rotman.An introduction to the theory of groups. Vol. 148. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

2012
[21]

Springer, 1979

Jean-Pierre Serre.Galois cohomology. Springer, 1979

1979
[22]

On analytic families of polarized abelian varieties and automorphic functions

Goro Shimura. “On analytic families of polarized abelian varieties and automorphic functions”. In:Annals of Mathematics78 (1963), pp. 149–192.doi:10.2307/1970507

1963 doi
[23]

Abelian varieties and the Hodge ring

Andr´ e Weil. “Abelian varieties and the Hodge ring”. In:Collected Papers. Vol. 3. 1977, pp. 421–429

1977
[24]

Algebraische punkte auf analytischen untergruppen algebraischer gruppen

Gisbert W¨ ustholz. “Algebraische punkte auf analytischen untergruppen algebraischer gruppen”. In:Annals of Mathematics129.3 (1989), pp. 501–517.doi:10.2307/1971515. 34

1989 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [4]

On the periods of abelian integrals and a formula of Chowla and Selberg

Benedict H Gross. “On the periods of abelian integrals and a formula of Chowla and Selberg”. In:Inventiones mathematicae45.2 (1978), pp. 193–211.doi:10.1007/BF01390273

work page doi:10.1007/bf01390273 1978

[2] [1]

Une introduction aux motifs

Yves Andr´ e. “Une introduction aux motifs”. In:Panoramas et syntheses17 (2004)

2004

[3] [2]

Some remarks concerning the Grothendieck period conjecture

Jean-Beno ˆ ıt Bost and Fran¸ cois Charles. “Some remarks concerning the Grothendieck period conjecture”. In: Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal)2016.714 (2016), pp. 175–208

2016

[4] [3]

Algebraic independence of the values of elliptic function at algebraic points: Elliptic analogue of the Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem

Gregory Chudnovsky. “Algebraic independence of the values of elliptic function at algebraic points: Elliptic analogue of the Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem”. In:Inventiones mathematicae61.3 (1980), pp. 267–290

1980

[5] [5]

On the de Rham cohomology of algebraic varieties

Alexander Grothendieck. “On the de Rham cohomology of algebraic varieties”. In:Publications Math´ ematiques de l’Institut des Hautes ´Etudes Scientifiques29.1 (1966), pp. 95–103.url:https://www.numdam.org/item/ PMIHES_1966__29__95_0.pdf

1966

[6] [6]

James E Humphreys.Introduction to Lie algebras and representation theory. Vol. 9. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

2012

[7] [7]

Daniel Huybrechts.Lectures on K3 surfaces. Vol. 158. Cambridge University Press, 2016. 33

2016

[8] [8]

Zekun Ji.De Rham-Betti Groups of Type IV Abelian Varieties. 2025. arXiv:2511.01072 [math.AG]

arXiv 2025