Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Infinitesimal Torelli problems for special Gushel-Mukai and related Fano threefolds: Hodge theoretical and categorical perspectives

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a special Gushel-Mukai threefold, the infinitesimal period map has kernel dimension 3, consisting exactly of the deformations that move the double cover to an ordinary Gushel-Mukai threefold.

desk verdict The main theorem on special Gushel-Mukai threefolds is new and plausible; the Hodge proof has one unproved, load-bearing commutativity lemma, but the independent categorical argument makes this a serious paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06995 v1 pith:6ZVAZEFZ submitted 2025-07-09 math.AG

Xun Lin , Shizhuo Zhang , Zheng Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AG MSC 14F0814J4514J1014C34
keywords BridgelandstabilityGushel-MukaithreefoldHochschildhomologyKuznetsovcomponentTorelliprobleminfinitesimalperiodmapK3surfacenormalcohomology
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 a special Gushel-Mukai threefold—a double cover of the rigid Fano threefold $Y=\mathrm{Gr}(2,5)\cap\mathbb{P}^{6}$ branched along a K3 surface $S$—behaves like a hyperelliptic curve for the infinitesimal Torelli problem: the only deformations invisible to the period map are the three that deform the double cover into an ordinary Gushel-Mukai threefold. Equivalently, the invariant part of the infinitesimal period map, which records how the branch K3 moves inside $Y$, is injective. The proof reduces this to a twisted infinitesimal Torelli statement for $S$, and a parallel categorical proof, working with the Kuznetsov component of the derived category, gives the same kernel computation. The same methods compute the kernel of the period map for prime Fano threefolds of genus 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12, and for special Verra threefolds, and identify the kernel geometrically with the tangent space of a Bridgeland moduli space of stable objects.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a reduction of the invariant period map to a twisted cup product on the branch K3 surface. The invariant deformation space $H^{1}(Y,T_Y(-\log S))$ injects into $H^{1}(S,T_S)$ as the image $H^{1}(S,T_S)_{0}$ of the Kodaira–Spencer map $H^{0}(S,N_{S|Y})\to H^{1}(S,T_S)$, and residue sequences for logarithmic forms set up a commutative diagram up to sign that identifies the invariant pairing with $H^{1}(S,T_S)_{0}\otimes H^{1}(S,\Omega^{1}_S(-1))\to H^{2}(S,\mathcal{O}_S(-1))$. The load-bearing identity is the injectivity of the connection map $I$ in Lemma 2.18, which rests on Lemma 2.19: the restriction map $H^{1}(Y,\Omega^{1}_Y)\to H^{1}(S,\Omega^{1}_Y|_S)$ is an isomorphism, so $\dim H^{1}(S,\Omega^{1}_Y|_S)=1$, forcing certain classes to be multiples of the polarization and producing the contradiction that proves injectivity. On the categorical side the argument runs through the Kuznetsov component $\mathrm{Ku}(X)$ (the nontrivial factor of the derived category after removing exceptional line bundles), the Hochschild-cohomology action map $\gamma_X: HH^{2}(\mathrm{Ku}(X))\to \mathrm{Hom}(HH^{-1}(\mathrm{Ku}(X)), HH^{1}(\mathrm{Ku}(X)))$, normal Hochschild (co)homology, and the Bridgeland moduli space $M_{\sigma}(\mathrm{Ku}(X),[I_C])$, whose tangent space at the distinguished point is $\mathrm{Hom}(U_X,Q^{\vee}_X)$.

What would settle it

Compute $\dim H^{1}(S,\Omega^{1}_Y|_S)$ for a smooth anticanonical K3 surface $S=Y\cap Q$ with $Y=\mathrm{Gr}(2,5)\cap\mathbb{P}^{6}$: Lemma 2.19 predicts it is 1, and any other value would invalidate the proof of injectivity of $I$ and hence of the invariant period map. Equivalently, evaluate the pairing $H^{1}(S,T_S)_{0}\otimes H^{1}(S,\Omega^{1}_S(-1))\to H^{2}(S,\mathcal{O}_S(-1))$ on an explicit special Gushel-Mukai threefold and look for a non-zero first-factor element that pairs to zero with every class in $H^{1}(S,\Omega^{1}_S(-1))$; its image in $\mathrm{Ker}\,dP$ would disprove Theorem 2.9.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Let $X$ be a special Gushel-Mukai threefold, the double cover of $Y=\mathrm{Gr}(2,5)\cap\mathbb{P}^{6}$ branched along a degree-10 K3 surface $S\in|-K_Y|$. The main theorem (Theorem 2.9) asserts that the kernel of the infinitesimal period map $dP: H^{1}(X,T_X)\to \mathrm{Hom}(H^{1}(X,\Omega^{2}_X), H^{2}(X,\Omega^{1}_X))$ is exactly the anti-invariant summand $H^{1}(Y,T_Y(-1))$, of dimension 3. By the decomposition of $dP$ into invariant and anti-invariant parts under the covering involution (Proposition 2.2), this is equivalent to the injectivity of the invariant map $H^{1}(Y,T_Y(-\log S))\to \mathrm{Hom}(H^{1}(Y,\Omega^{2}_Y(\log S)(-1)), H^{2}(Y,\Omega^{1}_Y(\log S)(-1)))$. The Hodge-theoretic proof reduces this to a twisted Torelli statement for the branch K3: the pairing $H^{1}(S,T_S)_{0}\otimes H^{1}(S,\Omega^{1}_S(-1))\to H^{2}(S,\mathcal{O}_S(-1))$ is non-degenerate on the codimension-one subspace $H^{1}(S,T_S)_{0}$ that records deformations of $S$ inside $Y$. The categorical proof shows that the kernel of the categorical period map $\eta: H^{1}(X,T_X)\to HH^{2}(\mathrm{Ku}(X))$ equals the classical kernel, and for prime Fano threefolds of genus $g\ge 6$ it is $\mathrm{Hom}(U_X,Q^{\vee}_X)$ for $g=6,8$, a quotient for $g=7,9,10$, and $H^{1}(X,T_X)$ for $g=12$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument for the Hodge-theoretic proof rests on Lemma 2.19, which claims that the restriction map $H^{1}(Y,\Omega^{1}_Y)\to H^{1}(S,\Omega^{1}_Y|_S)$ is an isomorphism and hence that $\dim H^{1}(S,\Omega^{1}_Y|_S)=1$; if that cohomology computation fails, the non-degeneracy of the twisted pairing in Proposition 2.16 would be unsupported and the invariant part of the period map could have additional kernel.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a special Gushel-Mukai threefold, the kernel of $dP$ is the 3-dimensional anti-invariant space $H^{1}(Y,T_Y(-1))$: the two directions already invisible for ordinary Gushel-Mukai threefolds together with the one direction that turns the double cover into an ordinary one.
  • The invariant part of the period map is injective: no first-order deformation that keeps the threefold special, i.e. a deformation of the branch K3 inside $Y$, is invisible to period data.
  • For prime Fano threefolds the kernel dimensions are: genus 7, zero (infinitesimal Torelli holds); genus 8, 5; genus 9, 6; genus 10, 7; genus 12, 6 (Corollary 3.3).
  • Special Verra threefolds have 1-dimensional period-map kernel, while ordinary Verra threefolds satisfy the infinitesimal Torelli theorem (Propositions 1.3 and A.2).
  • For genus 6 and 8 threefolds, $\mathbb{P}\mathrm{Ker}\,dP\cong \mathbb{P}\mathrm{Hom}(U_X,Q^{\vee}_X)$ is realized geometrically as the exceptional locus (or divisor) of the birational morphism from the Hilbert scheme of conics, or the moduli space of semistable sheaves, to the Bridgeland moduli space (Theorem 1.5).

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the main theorem holds, the 3-dimensional kernel should be readable as the tangent space of the period-partner locus inside the ordinary Gushel-Mukai moduli space; the connection the authors ask about in Question 1.7 would then be a direct geometric isomorphism $H^{1}(Y,T_Y(-1))\cong \mathrm{Hom}(U_X,Q^{\vee}_X)$, rather than the chain of equalities used here.
  • The Hodge-theoretic strategy should generalize to any double cover of a rigid Fano threefold branched along an anticanonical K3: the kernel dimension should equal $h^{1}(Y,T_Y\otimes L^{-1})$, computable from the same twisted-K3 pairing, making special Verra threefolds one instance of a uniform pattern.
  • Because the categorical argument makes the kernel depend only on the Kuznetsov component, the ordinary-versus-special difference in kernel dimension (2 versus 3 for Gushel-Mukai threefolds) should be visible as a change in the distinguished object of the component, not in the component itself; testing this on the categorical duality would be a concrete check.
  • A direct numerical computation of the twisted pairing on one explicit special Gushel-Mukai K3 would test the non-degeneracy claim independently of the vanishing theorems; if a null vector within $H^{1}(S,T_S)_{0}$ appeared, the Hodge-theoretic proof would need a revision in Lemma 2.18.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies infinitesimal Torelli problems for special Gushel-Mukai threefolds and related Fano threefolds. The main theorem (Theorem 2.9/2.10) asserts that for a special Gushel-Mukai threefold X, the invariant part of the infinitesimal period map is injective, so that the kernel of the full infinitesimal period map is exactly the anti-invariant summand H^1(Y,T_Y(-1)) and has dimension 3. The proof is attempted from two perspectives: a Hodge-theoretic reduction to a twisted Torelli statement for the branch K3 surface S (Proposition 2.16), and a categorical argument via the Kuznetsov component and normal Hochschild cohomology. The paper also computes kernels for prime Fano threefolds of genus 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12, and gives a geometric interpretation of the kernel via Bridgeland moduli spaces.

Significance. If correct, the main result establishes the expected 'hyperelliptic-like' failure of the infinitesimal Torelli theorem for special Gushel-Mukai threefolds and provides a clean description of the kernel of the period map. The reduction to a K3-surface statement is a natural and potentially reusable technique, and the independent categorical proof, if complete, would be a valuable bridge between Hodge theory and derived categories. The paper is careful in many cohomological computations and makes good use of existing results on Gushel-Mukai threefolds and Kuznetsov components. However, the Hodge-theoretic proof currently has a load-bearing unproved lemma, and the categorical proof has an insufficiently justified spectral sequence degeneration, so the paper is not yet in final form.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.4, Lemma 2.17] Lemma 2.17 is stated without proof. The text only says that it follows from the exact sequences (19), (20) and [Fle86, Lemma 2.10], but no actual verification is provided. This lemma is the only bridge between the pairing on H^1(S,T_S)_0 × H^1(S,Ω^1_S(-1)) and the pair of statements (injectivity of I and non-degeneracy of the bottom row) that are used to prove Proposition 2.16. Since the vertical maps are composites of contraction, residue, and boundary maps, a sign or twist error would invalidate the reduction. Please supply a complete proof of the commutativity up to sign, including an explicit description of the maps and the sign convention, or give a precise reference that implies this exact diagram.
  2. [§3.2, Theorem 3.2] In the proof of Theorem 3.2(1), after computing the E_1-term of the normal Hochschild spectral sequence, the text asserts: 'It is also easy to see this normal Hochschild spectral sequence degenerates at the E_2-page.' This degeneration is load-bearing for the identification NHH^2(⟨O_X,U^∨_X⟩,X) ≅ Hom(U_X,Q^∨_X). Please provide the differential analysis (or a precise reference) showing that all relevant higher differentials vanish, since without this the categorical computation of Ker η is incomplete.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2, Lemma 2.8] The sign computation in the proof that the anti-invariant subspace lies in the kernel is incorrect: for β anti-invariant and α anti-invariant, one has ι(β·α) = β·α, not -β·α. The conclusion is nevertheless correct and follows from the block decomposition in Proposition 2.2 together with H^1(Y,Ω^2_Y) = H^2(Y,Ω^1_Y) = 0; please rewrite this part accordingly.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'infnitesimal' appears in the abstract and in Section 1, 'Grassmiann' appears in Lemma 2.14, 'Kunnenth' appears in Appendix A, 'Propostion A.2' appears in the Introduction, and 'replies' appears in Section 1.1 (should be 'relies'). These should be corrected.
  3. [§2.2, proof of Lemma 2.8] The cross-reference '(see Remark 2.6)' in the proof of Lemma 2.8 is likely intended to point to Remark 2.3, since Remark 2.6 concerns H^1(Y,T_Y(-log S)) rather than the invariant/anti-invariant decomposition.
  4. [§3, Theorem 3.5] The notation for the moduli space of semistable sheaves is inconsistent: the statement of Theorem 3.5(2) uses M_X(2,0,4), while the proof and surrounding text use M^ss_X(2,0,4). Please make the notation uniform.
  5. [§2.3, Proposition 2.11] In the commutative diagram of Proposition 2.11, one vertical arrow is labeled only with a question mark. Please label it explicitly (as the inclusion H^1(Y,T_Y(-log S)) → H^1(S,T_S)) for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Hodge proof is self-contained against external vanishing, pairing, and infinitesimal-Torelli benchmarks, and the categorical proof reduces the special Gushel-Mukai case to published categorical-duality and injectivity results rather than assuming the target theorem.

full rationale

I walked the main derivation chain and found no step where a stated output equals an input by construction, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument that reduces to an unverified self-citation. The Hodge-theoretic proof of Theorems 2.9 and 2.10 is self-contained: Theorem 2.10 is reduced via Lemma 2.15 and the commutative-up-to-sign diagram of Proposition 2.11 to Proposition 2.16, a non-degeneracy statement for the twisted pairing on H^1(S,T_S)_0. Proposition 2.16 is proved from the diagram in Lemma 2.17 (obtained from Flenner's Lemma 2.10), the injectivity of I in Lemma 2.18 (using Lemma 2.19, Serre duality, and Kodaira-Akizuki-Nakano vanishing), and the surjectivity of the multiplication map in Lemma 2.21 (via Noether's theorem for a non-hyperelliptic genus-6 curve). None of these ingredients contains Theorem 2.10 or the dimension-3 kernel as an assumption; the kernel statement is a genuine consequence of dim H^1(Y,T_Y(-1)) = 3 together with injectivity of the invariant part. The categorical proof is a reduction rather than a circle: for a special Gushel-Mukai threefold it invokes the Kuznetsov-Perry categorical duality Ku(X') ≃ Ku(X) and prior published theorems JLLZ23/JLLZ24 transferring injectivity of gamma from ordinary to special Gushel-Mukai threefolds. These prior results are external to the present paper and do not assert the special-GM target, so the substantial self-citation is not circular. The unproved status of Lemma 2.17 in the manuscript is a completeness and correctness gap, but it is not an instance of circularity, and I have not scored it as one.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted: the input data are fixed geometric varieties. The axioms are standard theorems and domain definitions. No new particles, forces, or entities are postulated; the Bridgeland moduli spaces and Kuznetsov components are established objects.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Y = Gr(2,5) ∩ P6 is a rigid Fano threefold with H1(Y,Ω2Y)=0 and ωY = OY(−2).
    This is the geometric setup for special Gushel-Mukai threefolds (Section 2.3). It is standard but is an input, not proved here.
  • domain assumption The branch divisor S ∈ |−KY| is a smooth K3 surface that is also a 2-dimensional Gushel-Mukai variety, with NS|Y ≅ OS(2).
    Used to apply Flenner's techniques and to compute cohomology vanishings and the multiplication map in Proposition 2.16.
  • standard math Cohomology vanishing for twisted holomorphic forms on Gr(2,5) from Snow [Sno86].
    Invoked in Lemma 2.14 to prove H2(Y,TGr(2,5)(−3)|Y)=0.
  • standard math Flenner's infinitesimal Torelli machinery ([Fle86, Theorem 2.1, Lemma 2.10]) for zero loci of vector bundle sections.
    The backbone of the Hodge-theoretic reduction in Section 2.4, especially Lemmas 2.17 and 2.21.
  • standard math Published categorical and semiorthogonal decomposition results: [KP23, Theorem 1.6] (categorical duality for GM threefolds), [Kuz04, Theorem 3.17] (genus 8 duality), [Kuz15] (normal Hochschild cohomology), [JLLZ23, JLLZ24] (infinitesimal categorical Torelli).
    These are cited published theorems used as black boxes in Section 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Infinitesimal Torelli problems for special Gushel-Mukai and related Fano threefolds: Hodge theoretical and categorical perspectives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ZVAZEFZ

@misc{pith2026250706995,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Infinitesimal Torelli problems for special Gushel-Mukai and related Fano threefolds: Hodge theoretical and categorical perspectives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ZVAZEFZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06995}
}
abstract

We investigate infinitesimal Torelli problems for some of the Fano threefolds of the following two types: (a) those which can be described as zero loci of sections of vector bundles on Grassmannians (for instance, ordinary Gushel-Mukai threefolds), and (b) double covers of rigid Fano threefolds branched along a $K3$ surface (such as, special Gushel-Mukai threefolds). The differential of the period map for ordinary Gushel-Mukai threefolds has been studied by Debarre, Iliev and Manivel; in particular, it has a $2$-dimensional kernel. The main result of this paper is that the invariant part of the infinitesimal period map for a special Gushel-Mukai threefold is injective. We prove this result using a Hodge theoretical argument as well as a categorical method. Through similar approaches, we also study infinitesimal Torelli problems for prime Fano threefolds with genus $7$, $8$, $9$, $10$, $12$ (type (a)) and for special Verra threefolds (type (b)). Furthermore, a geometric description of the kernel of the differential of the period maps for Gushel-Mukai threefolds (and for prime Fano threefolds of genus $8$) is given via a Bridgeland moduli space in the Kuznetsov components.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Infinitesimal invariants of mixed Hodge structures

    Rodolfo Aguilar, Mark Green, and Phillip Griffiths. Infinitesimal invariants of mixed Hodge structures , 2024. arXiv:2406.17118

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    The desingularization of the theta divisor of a cubic threefold as a moduli space

    Arend Bayer, Sjoerd Viktor Beentjes, Soheyla Feyzbakhsh, Georg Hein, Diletta Martinelli, Fatemeh Rezaee, and Benjamin Schmidt. The desingularization of the theta divisor of a cubic threefold as a moduli space. Geom. Topol. , 28(1):127--160, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Moduli spaces of rank-2 ACM bundles on prime F ano threefolds

    Maria Chiara Brambilla and Daniele Faenzi. Moduli spaces of rank-2 ACM bundles on prime F ano threefolds. Michigan Math. J. , 60(1):113--148, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Polyvector fields for F ano 3-folds

    Pieter Belmans, Enrico Fatighenti, and Fabio Tanturri. Polyvector fields for F ano 3-folds. Math. Z. , 304(1):Paper No. 12, 30, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Kuznetsov's F ano threefold conjecture via K 3 categories and enhanced group actions

    Arend Bayer and Alexander Perry. Kuznetsov's F ano threefold conjecture via K 3 categories and enhanced group actions. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 800:107--153, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Fabrizio M. E. Catanese. Infinitesimal T orelli theorems and counterexamples to T orelli problems. In Topics in transcendental algebraic geometry ( P rinceton, N . J ., 1981/1982) , volume 106 of Ann. of Math. Stud. , pages 143--156. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1984

    work page 1981

  7. [7]

    Gushel-Mukai varieties , 2020

    Olivier Debarre. Gushel-Mukai varieties , 2020. arXiv:2001.03485

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    On the period map for prime F ano threefolds of degree 10

    Olivier Debarre, Atanas Iliev, and Laurent Manivel. On the period map for prime F ano threefolds of degree 10. J. Algebraic Geom. , 21(1):21--59, 2012

    work page 2012

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Gushel- M ukai varieties: classification and birationalities

    Olivier Debarre and Alexander Kuznetsov. Gushel- M ukai varieties: classification and birationalities. Algebr. Geom. , 5(1):15--76, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    The infinitesimal T orelli problem for zero sets of sections of vector bundles

    Hubert Flenner. The infinitesimal T orelli problem for zero sets of sections of vector bundles. Math. Z. , 193(2):307--322, 1986

    1986

  3. [11]

    Gallego and Bangere P

    Francisco J. Gallego and Bangere P. Purnaprajna. Vanishing theorems and syzygies for K3 surfaces and F ano varieties. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 146(3):251--265, 2000

    2000

  4. [12]

    Hochschild cohomology versus the J acobian ring and the T orelli theorem for cubic fourfolds

    Daniel Huybrechts and J rgen Vold Rennemo. Hochschild cohomology versus the J acobian ring and the T orelli theorem for cubic fourfolds. Algebr. Geom. , 6(1):76--99, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    The F ano surface of the G ushel' threefold

    Atanas Iliev. The F ano surface of the G ushel' threefold. Compositio Math. , 94(1):81--107, 1994

    1994

  6. [14]

    The theta divisor of bidegree (2,2) threefold in P^2 P^2

    Atanas Iliev. The theta divisor of bidegree (2,2) threefold in P^2 P^2 . Pacific J. Math. , 180(1):57--88, 1997

    1997

  7. [15]

    Infinitesimal categorical T orelli theorems for F ano threefolds

    Augustinas Jacovskis, Xun Lin, Zhiyu Liu, and Shizhuo Zhang. Infinitesimal categorical T orelli theorems for F ano threefolds. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 227(12):Paper No. 107418, 26, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Categorical T orelli theorems for G ushel- M ukai threefolds

    Augustinas Jacovskis, Xun Lin, Zhiyu Liu, and Shizhuo Zhang. Categorical T orelli theorems for G ushel- M ukai threefolds. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) , 109(3):Paper No. e12878, 52, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Brill--Noether theory for Kuznetsov components and refined categorical Torelli theorems for index one Fano threefolds , 2022

    Augustinas Jacovskis, Zhiyu Liu, and Shizhuo Zhang. Brill--Noether theory for Kuznetsov components and refined categorical Torelli theorems for index one Fano threefolds , 2022. arXiv:2207.01021

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    On deformations and the local T orelli problem of cyclic branched coverings

    Kazuhiro Konno. On deformations and the local T orelli problem of cyclic branched coverings. Math. Ann. , 271(4):601--617, 1985

    1985

  11. [19]

    Derived categories of G ushel- M ukai varieties

    Alexander Kuznetsov and Alexander Perry. Derived categories of G ushel- M ukai varieties. Compos. Math. , 154(7):1362--1406, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Categorical cones and quadratic homological projective duality

    Alexander Kuznetsov and Alexander Perry. Categorical cones and quadratic homological projective duality. Ann. Sci. \'Ec. Norm. Sup\'er. (4) , 56(1):1--57, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Kuznetsov

    Alexander G. Kuznetsov. Derived category of a cubic threefold and the variety V_ 14 . Tr. Mat. Inst. Steklova , 246:183--207, 2004

    2004

  14. [22]

    Hyperplane sections and derived categories

    Alexander G Kuznetsov. Hyperplane sections and derived categories. Izvestiya: Mathematics , 70(3):447, 2006

    2006

  15. [23]

    Hochschild homology and semiorthogonal decompositions, 2009

    Alexander Kuznetsov. Hochschild homology and semiorthogonal decompositions, 2009. arXiv:0904.4330

    2009 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Kuznetsov

    Alexander G. Kuznetsov. Derived categories of F ano threefolds. Tr. Mat. Inst. Steklova , 264:116--128, 2009

    2009

  17. [25]

    Height of exceptional collections and H ochschild cohomology of quasiphantom categories

    Alexander Kuznetsov. Height of exceptional collections and H ochschild cohomology of quasiphantom categories. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 708:213--243, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Stability conditions on F ano threefolds of P icard number 1

    Chunyi Li. Stability conditions on F ano threefolds of P icard number 1. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 21(3):709--726, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Fano threefolds of genus 6

    Dmitry Logachev. Fano threefolds of genus 6. Asian J. Math. , 16(3):515--559, 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    Derived categories of hearts on K uznetsov components

    Chunyi Li, Laura Pertusi, and Xiaolei Zhao. Derived categories of hearts on K uznetsov components. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) , 108(6):2146--2174, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    A note on B ridgeland moduli spaces and moduli spaces of sheaves on X_ 14 and Y_3

    Zhiyu Liu and Shizhuo Zhang. A note on B ridgeland moduli spaces and moduli spaces of sheaves on X_ 14 and Y_3 . Math. Z. , 302(2):803--837, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Dennis M. Snow. Cohomology of twisted holomorphic forms on G rassmann manifolds and quadric hypersurfaces. Math. Ann. , 276(1):159--176, 1986

    1986

  23. [31]

    Effect of automorphisms on variation of H odge structures

    Sampei Usui. Effect of automorphisms on variation of H odge structures. J. Math. Kyoto Univ. , 21(4):645--672, 1981

    1981

  24. [32]

    The P rym map has degree two on plane sextics

    Alessandro Verra. The P rym map has degree two on plane sextics. In The F ano C onference , pages 735--759. Univ. Torino, Turin, 2004

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.