Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Mirror symmetry in 3d in 3d mirror symmetry

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that for a compact Calabi-Yau threefold the B-side universal intermediate Jacobian can be constructed from the A-side one as the moduli space of 3d A-branes, with the relevant B-brane realized as a 3d SYZ transform.

desk verdict A speculative but honest research program: the new 3d SYZ mirror picture for universal intermediate Jacobians rests on an unproven deformation assumption, so it should be reviewed as a conjecture, not a theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15074 v1 pith:7SSV54NH submitted 2026-07-16 hep-th math-phmath.MPmath.SG

Naichung Conan Leung , Mengqi Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath-phmath.MPmath.SG MSC 14J3253D3714F08
keywords 3dmirrorsymmetryuniversalintermediateJacobianSYZconstructionCalabi-YauthreefoldderivedcategoriesstabilityconditionshyperkählermanifoldsDonaldson-Thomasinvariants
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

Given a compact Calabi-Yau threefold, the paper studies two hyperkähler manifolds built from its moduli spaces: X, from the Kähler moduli space, and X^!, from the complex-structure moduli space. It argues that X^! can be obtained from X by a three-dimensional version of the SYZ mirror construction: the complex-structure moduli space should be the moduli space of 3d A-branes in X whose fibers are derived categories of coherent sheaves with varying stability conditions. It then identifies the 3d B-brane on X^! constructed from the same categories with fixed stability condition as the SYZ transform of a cotangent fiber A-brane in X, and shows the relevant Hom categories on the two sides agree. Under ordinary mirror symmetry between the Calabi-Yau and its mirror, the roles of the two hyperkähler manifolds interchange. The paper also proposes new 3d branes from discrete symmetries and from categorical counting invariants, and is explicit that most of the mathematical statements are conjectural.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the physical 3d brane: a complex Lagrangian support in the hyperkähler manifold together with a family of triangulated dg-categories and a family of stability conditions on them. Here the family is D^b(Y,Ω), the derived category of coherent sheaves on the Calabi-Yau threefold, and the stability conditions are complexified Kähler classes or holomorphic volume forms. Varying the stability condition ϖ while fixing Ω produces the 3d A-brane; varying Ω while fixing ϖ produces the 3d B-brane. The argument is carried by the identity Hom_X(A^Ω_C, A^ϖ_D) ≅ D^b(Y,Ω) with stability ϖ ≅ Hom_{X^!}(B^!_{C,Ω}, B^!_{D,ϖ}), which translates the SYZ idea—the mirror is the moduli space o

What would settle it

Compute the deformation space of the 3d A-brane A^Ω_C on X = T^*M_sympl(Y) — for example, the first-order deformations of the family of derived categories D^b(Y,Ω) with stability conditions over M_sympl(Y) — and compare its dimension with dim M_cpx(Y). For the quintic Calabi-Yau, dim M_cpx(Y)=102 and dim M_sympl(Y)=2, so a deformation calculation giving any number other than 102 independent directions, or exhibiting a deformation not induced by varying Ω, would refute the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that X^! = T^*M_cpx(Y), the B-side universal intermediate Jacobian of a compact Calabi-Yau threefold, is a three-dimensional SYZ dual of X = T^*M_sympl(Y). Fixing a complex structure Ω, the family A^Ω_C over M_sympl(Y) whose fiber over a stability condition ϖ is the derived category D^b(Y,Ω) is a 3d A-brane in X. If every deformation of A^Ω_C is of the same form, depending only on Ω, then M_cpx(Y) is the moduli space of such A-branes and X^! is its cotangent bundle. The 3d B-brane B^!_{D,ϖ} on X^!, with fiber D^b(Y,Ω) and fixed stability ϖ, is then the 3d SYZ transform of the cotangent fiber A-brane A^ϖ_D. The supporting match is that the A-side Hom category between A^Ω_

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the unproved assumption that every deformation of the 3d A-brane A^Ω_C is again of the same form, depending only on the complex structure Ω; if deformations can depend on other data, then M_cpx(Y) is not the moduli space of these branes and the claimed SYZ construction of X^! collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the rigidity assumption holds, X^! is constructed from X as a cotangent bundle over a moduli space of 3d A-branes, giving a three-dimensional analogue of the SYZ construction of mirror manifolds.
  • The Hom-category matching embeds the derived category D^b(Y,Ω) into the intersection theory of 3d branes, so ordinary homological mirror symmetry statements appear as 3d brane intersection statements.
  • Under mirror symmetry between the Calabi-Yau and its mirror, the construction interchanges the roles of X and X^!, so the 3d phenomena are compatible with the standard mirror map.
  • The Chern-Simons-based construction of DT-branes interprets Donaldson-Thomas invariants as intersection numbers of 3d branes, giving these invariants a categorical home.
  • Discrete-symmetry chains produce nested families of new 3d A- and B-branes on both universal Jacobians, including branes whose supports are neither fibers nor zero sections.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test is to compute the deformation space of the 3d A-brane A^Ω_C: if the rigidity condition is correct, its dimension should equal dim M_cpx(Y), which for the quintic Calabi-Yau means 102 independent deformations over a 2-dimensional base.
  • If the rigidity condition holds, the same 3d SYZ recipe should apply to any Calabi-Yau with a global Kähler moduli space, and the paper notes most of the construction works for CY_n, not only CY3.
  • The paper leaves wall-crossing unresolved for the proposed DT A-brane: Donaldson-Thomas invariants jump across walls in M_sympl(Y), so a well-defined construction may require using the wall-crossing formula to glue categories across walls.
  • The cited conjecture relating holomorphic Floer theory to stable-sheaf counting suggests that the Hom category between the zero section and a fiber of the universal intermediate Jacobian could package all special-Lagrangian counting invariants, making the paper's DT-brane constructions a special case of a single geometric picture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies two hyperkahler manifolds associated to a compact CY3 Y: the A-side universal intermediate Jacobian X = T^*M_sympl(Y) and the B-side X^! = T^*M_cpx(Y), viewed as targets of 3d Rozansky-Witten theories. The authors define 'physical 3d branes' as families of dg-categories with stability conditions over complex Lagrangians and construct a 3d A-brane A_C^Ω in X from D^b(Y,Ω) with varying stability condition ϖ. Assuming all deformations of A_C^Ω are governed by Ω, they claim X^! is the moduli space of such branes (a '3d SYZ construction'), and they identify the 3d Hom of A_C^Ω with a cotangent fiber to the analogous B-side Hom. Additional branes are proposed via quintic quotient symmetries and Donaldson-Thomas theory. The paper is explicitly conjectural and relies on mirror symmetry conjectures.

Significance. If the deformation-theoretic premise were established, the proposed 3d SYZ construction would give a new geometric interpretation of 3d mirror symmetry and connect it to the classical SYZ picture. The paper is original in combining Rozansky-Witten theory, stability conditions, and universal intermediate Jacobians, and it formulates an interesting connection to Bousseau's conjecture. However, it proves no theorems: the central construction is conditional on an unproved and undefined assumption, the Hom-category equalities are immediate from the definitions, and the DT-brane constructions are acknowledged to be incomplete. The authors are honest about the speculative nature, but the paper does not currently provide a falsifiable or verifiable core result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, central assumption] The construction of X^! as a moduli space of 3d A-branes rests on the sentence 'Suppose that all deformations of A_C^Ω as 3d A-branes are of the same form'. No deformation theory for 3d A-branes is provided; the paper states only that such structures 'should' form a 2-category. Thus the identification M_cpx(Y) with the moduli space is an unproved assumption, not a derived result. If it is intended as a conjecture, it should be stated precisely as such; as written, the abstract presents it as an accomplished construction.
  2. [Section 4, Hom-category matchings] The Hom-category equalities AHom_X(A_C^Ω,A_D^ϖ)≃D^b(Y,Ω) and BHom_{X^!}(B^!_{C,Ω},B^!_{D,ϖ})≃D^b(Y,Ω) are immediate consequences of the definitions: the supports intersect transversely in one point and the declared fiber categories are D^b(Y,Ω) and Vect. They are not independent computations. Since the 3d Hom category itself is only conjectural, these equalities cannot serve as evidence of 3d mirror symmetry.
  3. [Section 3, Definition 3] Definition 3 of a 'physical 3d brane' is not rigorous: 'flat family of triangulated dg-categories' and 'Π-stability conditions' are not defined, and the text says such issues 'will be neglected'. All subsequent constructions rely on this notion, so this gap is load-bearing. The definition should be made precise at least for the smooth locus, with the singular extension stated as an assumption.
  4. [Section 6, DT-branes] The DT-brane constructions are sketches. For B^DT, the paper lists 'many nontrivial issues' and says it is 'not clear how to put a Π-stability condition'; for the SLag analog, it is 'modulo difficult analytic issues'. No examples or computations are given. These constructions therefore cannot be regarded as established results; they should be framed as open problems.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2] The Hodge decomposition line writes H^3(Y;C)=H^{3,0}⊕H^{2,1}⊕H^{3,0}⊕H^{2,1}; this should include the conjugate summands (or overlines) to be correct.
  2. [Section 6] 'Beasseau' should be 'Bousseau' (reference [2]).
  3. [Throughout] 'π-stability' vs 'Π-stability' inconsistency; equations are unnumbered, making references difficult; the tables in §4 need formatting improvements.
  4. [Section 5] The inclusion M_cpx(Y∨) ⊂ M_cpx(Y) for the quintic would benefit from a reference or explanation.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Section 4's 3d SYZ construction is the 'Suppose all deformations depend only on Ω' premise restated, and the Hom equalities are written in by definition.

  1. self definitional [Section 4, immediately after the definition of A_C^Ω (pages 11-12)]
    "Suppose that all deformations of ACΩ as 3d A-branes are of the same form, i.e. they depend only on Ω∈Mcpx (Y ), then Mcpx (Y ) is the moduli space of such 3d A-branes in X. Equivalently, X ! is the cotangent bundle of a moduli space of 3d A-branes in X. Namely this is a 3d SYZ type construction of X ! from X."

    The family A_C^Ω was just defined as a 3d A-brane for each Ω∈M_cpx(Y), with no deformation theory of 3d A-branes supplied. The conclusion that M_cpx(Y) is the moduli space is exactly the premise 'all deformations ... depend only on Ω' restated: if the only deformation parameter is Ω, then the parameter space is M_cpx(Y) by definition. No argument rules out deformations of the support, of the perverse schober, or of the stability-family that are not induced by Ω. Thus X^! = T^*M_cpx(Y) is the input, not a SYZ construction derived from X.

  2. self definitional [Section 4, Hom computations and '3d mirror phenomena' (pages 12-13)]
    "Thus AHomX (ACΩ;ADϖ) ≃ Db (Y; Ω) equipped with Π-stability condition $. ... Similarly, the support of 3d B-branes BC!Ω and BD!ϖ in X ! are T ∗ΩMcpx (Y ) and Mcpx (Y ) respectively, which intersect transversely at a single point Ω∈X !. Thus BHomX ! (BC!Ω;BD!ϖ) ≃ Db (Y; Ω) equipped with Π-stability condition $ as well."

    These identities are built into the definitions. On the A-side, A_C^Ω has fiber D^b(Y,Ω) and A_D^ϖ has fiber Vect at their transverse intersection point, so AHom is D^b(Y,Ω) by the intersection recipe. On the B-side, B^!_{D,ϖ} was defined to have fiber D^b(Y,Ω) over Ω with stability ϖ, while B^!_{C,Ω} is the cotangent fiber with Vect; hence BHom is D^b(Y,Ω) by construction. Calling B^!_{D,ϖ} the '3d SYZ transformation' of A_D^ϖ is therefore the same definition, not an independent mirror-symmetry result.

full rationale

The central claimed derivation in §4 is conditional on a premise that is equivalent to its conclusion: 'Suppose that all deformations of ACΩ as 3d A-branes are of the same form ... then Mcpx(Y) is the moduli space of such 3d A-branes in X.' Because no moduli problem for 3d A-branes is rigorously defined and no deformation-theoretic check is given, the identification of X^! with the cotangent bundle of this moduli space is the input assumption, not a derived SYZ construction. The subsequent Hom-category equalities also follow immediately from the chosen fibers: both AHom_X(A_C^Ω,A_D^ϖ) and BHom_{X^!}(B^!_{C,Ω},B^!_{D,ϖ}) are computed at transverse intersections whose categories were set to be D^b(Y,Ω) and Vect. The paper candidly labels most of the discussion as conjectural, and it does not claim full 3d mirror symmetry between X and X^!; nevertheless, the '3d mirror phenomena' (i)-(ii) reduce by construction to the inputs. No machine-checked or externally verified support is supplied for the load-bearing deformation premise, so the circularity is definitional rather than merely rhetorical.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper's central construction depends on a stack of standard mirror-symmetry conjectures (closed string, HMS, existence of categorical DT invariants) plus one new ad hoc axiom: that deformations of the A-brane A_C^Ω are controlled only by Ω. No free numerical parameters are introduced. Two conjectural DT-brane objects are posited with no independent verification.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Closed string mirror symmetry: M_sympl(Y) ≃ M_cpx(Y∨) and M_cpx(Y) ≃ M_sympl(Y∨) for mirror CY3s.
    Invoked throughout to interchange X and X^! under mirror; first stated in Section 1 and used in Section 4 to say roles get interchanged.
  • domain assumption Open string mirror symmetry (HMS): Fuk(Y, ϖ) ≃ D^b(Y∨, Ω∨) and D^b(Y, Ω) ≃ Fuk(Y∨, ϖ∨).
    Used in Section 4 to construct B-branes from Fukaya categories and to swap A- and B-side roles under mirror symmetry.
  • domain assumption M_sympl(Y) is a closed complex submanifold of Stab(D^b(Y, Ω)).
    Stated in Section 1: 'It is expected that M_sympl(Y) is a closed complex submanifold of Stab(D^b(Y,Ω))'; this is needed for the definition of A_C^Ω with stability condition ϖ.
  • ad hoc to paper All deformations of the 3d A-brane A_C^Ω are of the same form, depending only on Ω ∈ M_cpx(Y).
    Section 4: 'Suppose that all deformations of A_C^Ω as 3d A-branes are of the same form...' This is the load-bearing premise for the 3d SYZ construction of X^! and is not justified.
  • domain assumption Existence of categorical DT-invariants (CDT, HDT) and their equivalence under mirror symmetry.
    Needed for the DT-brane constructions in Section 6; the paper explicitly lists this among the conjectures it assumes.
  • domain assumption Y is a strict CY (holonomy SU(n)), so H^{k,0}(Y)=0 for 0<k<n.
    Assumed at the start of Section 1 to simplify the Hodge-theoretic description of moduli spaces.
invented entities (2)
  • 3d DT B-brane B^!_{DT,ϖ}(γ)
    purpose: Conjectured 3d B-brane on X^! whose categorical intersections with cotangent fibers reproduce DT categories and invariants.
    Section 6; construction is only sketched and depends on unresolved issues such as clean intersections and stability conditions.
  • 3d DT B-brane B^{DT,SLag}_{Ω}(γ)
    purpose: Conjectured B-brane on X for counting special Lagrangian cycles via an A-side Chern-Simons functional.
    Section 6; the paper states 'Modulo difficult analytic issues' and does not provide a rigorous construction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mirror symmetry in 3d in 3d mirror symmetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7SSV54NH

@misc{pith2026260715074,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mirror symmetry in 3d in 3d mirror symmetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7SSV54NH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15074}
}
abstract

Given a compact CY3 $Y$, its A-side (resp. B-side) universal intermediate Jacobian $X$ (resp. $X^{!}$) admits a natural hyperkahler structure. Both $X$ and $X^{!}$ determines 3d Rozansky-Witten theories, in both A-model and B-model. We describe some surprising 3d mirror symmetry phenomena between $X$ and $X^{!}$. This includes (i) a 3d SYZ construction of $X^{!}$ from $X$ via moduli of certain 3d A-branes in $X$ constructed from $D^{b}\left( Y,\Omega \right) $ with varying stability conditions given by $\varpi $; (ii) The 3d B-brane on $X^{!}$, constructed from varying $D^{b}\left( Y,\Omega \right) $ with fixed $\varpi $, is realized as the 3d SYZ transformation of a cotangent fiber 3d A-brane in $X$. Under mirror symmetry between $Y$ and $Y^{\vee }$, the roles for $X$ and $% X^{!}$ got interchanged. We also construct 3d A- and B-branes in $X$ and $X^{!}$ via DT theory and discrete symmetries on $Y$ and $Y^{\vee }$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [9]

    K. F. Chan and N. C. Leung, in preparation

  2. [1]

    Abouzaid

    M. Abouzaid. The family Floer functor is faithful . J. Eur. Math. Sco. 19 (2017), no. 7, 2139-2217

    2017

  3. [2]

    Bousseau

    P. Bousseau. Holomorphic Floer theory and Donaldson-Thomas invariants, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 107 AMS, Providence, RI, 2024, 45–78

    2024

  4. [3]

    Braden, A

    T. Braden, A. Licata, N. Proudfoot, and B. Webster. Quantizations of con- ical symplectic resolutions II: category O and symplectic duality . Asterisque 384 (2016). with an appendix by I. Losev, pp. 75–179

    2016

  5. [4]

    Braverman, M

    A. Braverman, M. Finkelberg, and H. Nakajima. Towards a mathematical definition of Coulomb branches of 3-dimensional N = 4 gauge theories, II . Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 22.5 (2018), pp. 1071–1147

    2018

  6. [5]

    Bridgeland

    T. Bridgeland. Stability conditions on triangulated categories . Annals of Math. (2007) 166 (2), 317-345

    2007

  7. [6]

    Candelas, X

    P. Candelas, X. de la Ossa, P. Green and L. Parkes. A pair of Calabi–Yau manifolds as an exactly soluble superconformal field theory . Nuclear Physics B. (1991) 359 (1): 21–74

    1991

  8. [7]

    K. F. Chan and N. C. Leung. SYZ mirrors in non-Abelian 3d mirror sym- metry. (2024) arXiv: 2408.09479

    arXiv 2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    K. F. Chan and N. C. Leung. 3d mirror symmetry is mirror symmetry . (2024). arXiv: 2410.03611. 19

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Chan, S.-C

    K.W. Chan, S.-C. Lau and N.-C. Leung. SYZ mirror symmetry for toric Calabi-Yau manifolds . Journal of Differential Geometry 90 (2012), no. 2, 177–250

    2012

  3. [11]

    C.H. Cho, H. Hong and S.C. Lau. Gluing localized mirror functors , J. Diff. Geom. 126 (2024), no. 3, 1001-1095

    2024

  4. [12]

    Donaldson, R.P

    S.K. Donaldson, R.P. Thomas. Gauge theory in higher dimensions. The geometric universe (Oxford, 1996), Oxford University Press, pp. 31–47

    1996

  5. [13]

    Donovan and M Wemyss

    W. Donovan and M Wemyss. Stringy Kähler moduli, mutation and mon- odromy. Journal of Differential Geometry (2025) 129 (1), 115-164

    2025

  6. [14]

    Douglas, B

    M. Douglas, B. Fiol, C. Römelsberger. Stability and BPS branes , hep- th/0002037

  7. [15]

    D. Freed. Special Kahler manifolds , CMP. 203 (1999), no. 1, 31-52

    1999

  8. [16]

    Fukaya, Y.-G

    K. Fukaya, Y.-G. Oh, H. Ohta, K. Ono. Lagrangian intersection Floer the- ory: anomaly and obstruction . Part I.and II AMS/IP Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 46.1 and 46.2. AMS

  9. [17]

    Gaiotto, G

    D. Gaiotto, G. Moore and E. Witten. An introduction to the web-based formalism, Confluentes Math. 9 (2017), no. 2, 5–48

    2017

  10. [18]

    Gammage and J Hilburn

    B. Gammage and J Hilburn. Hypertoric 2-Categories and Symplectic Du- ality, Communications in Mathematical Physics (2026) 407 (3), 55

    2026

  11. [19]

    Givental, Alexander

    A. Givental, Alexander. A Mirror Theorem for Toric Complete Inter- sections. Topological Field Theory, Primitive Forms and Related Topics. (1998) pp. 141–175

    1998

  12. [20]

    Greene and R

    B. Greene and R. Plesser. Duality in Calabi–Yau moduli space . Nuclear Physics B. (1990) 338 (1): 15–37

    1990

  13. [21]

    Intriligator and N

    K. Intriligator and N. Seiberg. Mirror symmetry in three-dimensional gauge theories. Physics Letters B. (1996) 387 (3): 513–519

    1996

  14. [22]

    D. Joyce. Conjectures on Bridgeland stability for Fukaya categories of Calabi-Yau manifolds, special Lagrangians, and Lagrangian mean curva- ture flow, EMS Surv. Math. Sci. 2 (2015), no. 1, 1–62

    2015

  15. [23]

    Kapranov, M

    M. Kapranov, M. Kontsevich and Y. Soibelman. Algebra of the infrared and secondary polytopes. Adv. Math. 300 (2016), 616–671

    2016

  16. [24]

    Kapranov and V

    M. Kapranov and V. Schechtman. Perverse schobers , arXiv:1411.2772

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kapustin, L

    A. Kapustin, L. Rozansky, and N. Saulina. Three-dimensional topological field theory and symplectic algebraic geometry. I. Nuclear Phys. B 816.3 (2009), pp. 295–355. 20

    2009

  18. [26]

    Kapustin and K

    A. Kapustin and K. Vyas. A-models in three and four dimensions , preprint, hep-th/1002.4241

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Kontsevich

    M. Kontsevich. Homological algebra of mirror symmetry. Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. 1, 2 (Zurich, 1994), 120–139, Birkhauser, Basel, 1995

    1994

  20. [28]

    Kontsevich and Y

    M. Kontsevich and Y. Soibelman. Wall-crossing structures in Donaldson- Thomas invariants, integrable systems and mirror symmetry, Lect. Notes Unione Mat. Ital., 15Springer, Cham, 2014, 197–308

    2014

  21. [29]

    Leung, S.-T

    N.C. Leung, S.-T. Yau and E. Zaslow. From special Lagrangian to Hermitian-Yang-Mills via Fourier-Mukai transform , ATMP 4 (2000), no. 6, 1319-1341

    2000

  22. [30]

    Lian, K.F

    B. Lian, K.F. Liu and S.-T. Yau. Mirror principle, I . Asian Journal of Mathematics. (1997) 1 (4): 729–763

    1997

  23. [31]

    Pantev, B

    T. Pantev, B. Toen, M. Vaquie and G. Vezzosi. Shifted symplectic struc- tures, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Etudes Sci. 117 (2013), 271-328

    2013

  24. [32]

    Pasceleff and N

    J. Pasceleff and N. Sibilla. Speculations on higher Fukaya categories , preprint, arXiv:2503.20906

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Rozansky and E

    L. Rozansky and E. Witten. Hyperkahler geometry and invariants of three manifolds, Selecta Math. 3 (1997), no.3, 401-458

    1997

  26. [34]

    Seiberg and E

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten. Gauge dynamics and compactification to three dimensions, The mathematical beauty of physics (Saclay, 1996), Adv. Ser. Math. Phys., vol. 24, World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1997, pp. 333–366

    1996

  27. [35]

    Sheridan

    N. Sheridan. Homological Mirror Symmetry for Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces in projective space, Inventiones Mathematicae, 199 (2015), no. 1, 1–186

    2015

  28. [36]

    A class of perverse schobers in Geometric Invariant Theory : Selecta Mathematica 32 (2), 19

    Š Špenko, M Van den Bergh. A class of perverse schobers in Geometric Invariant Theory : Selecta Mathematica 32 (2), 19

  29. [37]

    Strominger, S.-T

    A. Strominger, S.-T. Yau and E. Zaslow. Mirror symmetry is T-duality . Nuclear Phys. B 479 (1996), no. 1-2, 243–259

    1996

  30. [38]

    Thomas and S.-T

    R. Thomas and S.-T. Yau. Special Lagrangians, stable bundles and mean curvature flow . Communications in Analysis and Geometry. (2002) 10 (5): 1075–1113

    2002

  31. [39]

    G . Tian. Smoothness of the universal deformation space of compact Calabi- Yau manifolds and its Petersson-Weil metric , Mathematical aspects of string theory, 1987, Adv. Ser. Math. Phys., vol. 1, pp. 629–646

    1987

  32. [40]

    The Weil-Petersson geometry of the moduli space of SU(n >=3) Calabi Yau manifolds

    A Todorov. The Weil-Petersson geometry of the moduli space of SU(n >=3) Calabi Yau manifolds. I , Comm. Math. Phys., 1989, vol. 126, pp. 325–346 21

    1989

Pith tools

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