Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Hilbert schemes of points and Fulton-MacPherson compactifications

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves a wall-crossing formula that expresses tautological integrals on Hilbert schemes of points on varieties of dimension at most three in terms of I-functions on affine spaces and integrals on Fulton-MacPherson…

desk verdict A novel and significant wall-crossing result whose proof rests on an unpublished preprint; deserves careful refereeing, but the central claim is conditional until those foundations are verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08269 v1 pith:A2KI3PIZ submitted 2025-01-14 math.AG

Denis Nesterov This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AG MSC 14C0514N35
keywords HilbertschemesofpointsFulton-MacPhersoncompactificationswall-crossingtautologicalintegralsI-functionsvirtuallocalizationpsi-classesEulercharacteristics
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

This paper builds a one-parameter family of moduli spaces $\mathrm{FM}^{\epsilon}_{n,[m]}(X)$ that interpolate between the Hilbert scheme of $n$ points on a smooth variety $X$ and the Fulton-MacPherson compactification of its configuration space. The family is governed by a stability parameter $\epsilon$ that limits the length of a zero-dimensional subscheme at any point and forces certain bubbled end components of the ambient degeneration to appear. Over a smooth projective variety of dimension at most three, the paper proves a wall-crossing formula (Theorem 5.1) comparing tautological integrals just before and just after a wall, and derives Corollary 5.2: every tautological integral on $\operatorname{Hilb}^n(X)$ equals a sum of products of I-functions, evaluated at negative psi-classes, integrated over Fulton-MacPherson spaces. Because the I-functions are, by Proposition 4.1, equivariant tautological integrals on $\operatorname{Hilb}^n(\mathbb{C}^d)$, this expresses Hilbert-scheme enumerative geometry as affine-space data plus universal Fulton-MacPherson corrections. A sympathetic reader would care because it reduces a notoriously singular and complicated object, the Hilbert scheme in higher dimensions, to the smooth universal geometry of Fulton-MacPherson spaces.

What carries the argument

The engine of the paper is the master space $\mathbb{M}\mathrm{FM}^{\epsilon_0}_{n,[m]}(X)$, a proper Deligne-Mumford stack with a perfect obstruction theory when $d \le 3$, built from semi-weighted triples with calibrated end components; its $\mathbb{C}^*_z$-fixed loci are the two adjacent moduli spaces $F_-$ and $F_+$, together with wall-crossing components $F_k$ that are products of the relative Hilbert scheme of $n_0$ points on the total space of the tangent bundle with a root-stack version of the Fulton-MacPherson space. Virtual localization on this master space yields the residue relation (23), and the wall-crossing components contribute exactly the I-functions $I_{n_0}(z, \cdot)$ with $z$ replaced by negative psi-classes. The I-function itself is the localized equivariant class obtained from $\operatorname{Hilb}^n(TX/X)$, which Proposition 4.1 identifies with equivariant tautological integrals on $\operatorname{Hilb}^n(\mathbb{C}^d)$ after substituting Chern roots $a_i$ by $z + a_i(X)$. The psi-classes on Fulton-MacPherson spaces are defined by $\psi_i = c_1(L_i)/d$ and satisfy dilaton and string equations (Lemmas 9.3 and 9.4) that make the resulting integrals computable.

What would settle it

Compute the empty tautological integral on $\operatorname{Hilb}^3(\mathbb{P}^3)$ by a direct torus-localization count of fixed subschemes, and compare it with the $q^3$ coefficient of $M(-q)^{c_3(T_{\mathbb{P}^3} \otimes K_{\mathbb{P}^3})}$ predicted by the paper's Section 7.4 formula; a mismatch would disprove the master-space fixed-locus analysis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for $d \le 3$ the spaces $\mathrm{FM}^{\epsilon}_{n,[m]}(X)$ of $\epsilon$-weighted zero-dimensional subschemes on Fulton-MacPherson degenerations satisfy a wall-crossing identity at every wall $\epsilon_0 = 1/n_0$: the difference of tautological integrals on the two sides of the wall equals a sum, over ordered partitions of the insertions, of I-functions $I_{n_0}(-\psi_{m+\ell}, \cdot)$ inserted into the larger moduli space. Iterating over all walls gives Corollary 5.2, which expresses any tautological integral on $\operatorname{Hilb}^n(X)$ as a sum of products of I-functions integrated over $\mathrm{FM}_{[k]}(X)$, and Corollary 5.3, that these integrals depend universally only on the descendents $k_i$, Chern classes of the fixed locus, and the inserted classes $\gamma_i$. The paper also shows the formula reproduces the known Euler characteristic formulae for curves, surfaces, and threefolds, and gives a recursive computation for equivariant integrals on $\operatorname{Hilb}^n(\mathbb{C}^2)$ in Corollary 8.1.

Load-bearing premise

The formula rests on the technical claim that the auxiliary master space is compact and carries a well-defined virtual fundamental class whose fixed loci are exactly as described; that claim is deferred to an unpublished preprint by the same author.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any smooth projective threefold, all tautological integrals on $\operatorname{Hilb}^n(X)$ are determined by finitely many equivariant integrals on $\operatorname{Hilb}^k(\mathbb{C}^3)$ and integrals on Fulton-MacPherson spaces.
  • The wall-crossing formula recursively computes equivariant descendents on the affine plane: integrals $\langle \mathrm{ch}_k \rangle^{\operatorname{Hilb}}_n$ for $k < 2n-2$ are expressed through finitely many smaller integrals and explicit integrals on the pointed-tree spaces $T_n$ (Corollary 8.1).
  • The known topological Euler characteristic formulas for curves, surfaces, and threefolds are recovered from the wall-crossing formula.
  • In dimension three the virtual dimension of $\mathrm{FM}^{\epsilon}_n(X)$ is zero, so the same wall-crossing gives a formula for the virtual Euler characteristic and relates it to the symmetric-product wall-crossing via the substitution $q' \mapsto \log M(-q)$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A likely extension is to K-theoretic tautological integrals on $\operatorname{Hilb}^n(X)$ for $d \le 3$, since the splitting property and I-function formalism have K-theoretic analogues; if so, the affine-plane recursion would become a K-theoretic recursion.
  • The rooted-tree combinatorics in Section 8.4 suggests that equivariant integrals on $\mathrm{FM}_{[n]}(\mathbb{C}^2)$ for the full two-dimensional torus, which the paper postpones, can be organised by the same tree graphs and computed by the string equation without a full fixed-point analysis.
  • If the master-space construction can be equipped with a meaningful obstruction theory in dimensions $d > 3$, the same residue relation would give wall-crossing formulas for Hilbert schemes of higher-dimensional varieties, where no universal formula is currently known.
  • The structural analogy with the Gromov-Witten/Hurwitz correspondence noted in the introduction suggests that the I-functions appearing here might admit closed combinatorial forms, which would turn Corollary 5.2 into an effective computational tool for threefold Hilbert schemes.
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 introduces a one-parameter family of moduli spaces FM^ε_{n,[m]}(X) of zero-dimensional subschemes Z on Fulton–MacPherson degenerations of a smooth quasi-projective d-fold X, subject to a weight bound ℓ_x(Z) ≤ 1/ε and a length condition on end components. For ε ≤ 1/n these spaces specialize to Hilb^n(X), for ε = 1 to Fulton–MacPherson compactifications (with the appropriate marking conventions), and for ε > 1 they are empty. The central result, Theorem 5.1 (for d ≤ 3), is a wall-crossing formula for tautological integrals at each wall ε_0 = 1/n_0: the difference between integrals on FM^{ε−}_{n,[m]}(X) and FM^{ε+}_{n,[m]}(X) equals a sum over ordered partitions into terms built from I-functions I_{n_0}(−ψ,·), which by Proposition 4.1 are essentially equivariant tautological integrals on Hilb^{n_0}(C^d), and from integrals on FM-type spaces. Corollary 5.2 expresses all tautological integrals on Hilb^n(X) in terms of I-functions and ψ-integrals on FM spaces, and Corollary 5.3 draws a universality conclusion. The paper proves an analogous wall-crossing for n-fold products (§6), recovers Macdonald's, Göttsche's, and Li–Levine–Pandharipande's Euler-characteristic formulas (§7), and computes explicit formulas for equivariant integrals ⟨ch_k⟩ on Hilb^n(C^2) (§8). The proof of Theorem 5.1 (Section 10) applies virtual localization (eq. (23)) to a 'master space' M FM^{ε_0}_{n,[m]}(X) built with Zhou's entangled tails.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, the paper establishes a strong structural claim: all tautological integrals on Hilb^n(X) in dimension at most three are determined by affine-space integrals (through I-functions) and Fulton–MacPherson ψ-integrals. The result is anchored to an independent benchmark via Proposition 4.1, and the paper contains meaningful consistency checks: formulas (7), (5), and (8)–(10) recover Macdonald's formula for curves, Göttsche's formula for surfaces, and the Li–Levine–Pandharipande threefold formula, respectively. Section 8 produces explicit new formulas for ⟨ch_k⟩-integrals on Hilb^n(C^2), verified for small n on a computer; these are concrete, falsifiable predictions. The principal weakness is that the proof's engine — the properness and perfect obstruction theory of the master space (Theorem 10.10) and the fixed-locus and normal-complex descriptions (Propositions 10.11 and 10.12) — is deferred to the author's unpublished preprint [Nes24] and to [Zho22]; the main theorem is therefore not independently verifiable from the manuscript as it stands.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 10, Theorem 10.10] The residue relation (23) — the identity Res_z(·) = 0 that drives the proof of Theorem 5.1 — requires the master space M FM^{ε0}_{n,[m]}(X) to be a proper Deligne–Mumford stack with a perfect obstruction theory. The proof of Theorem 10.10 is given in two sentences: properness is said to be 'exactly the same as in the case of maps in [Nes24, Section 6.4]', and the perfect obstruction theory is said to 'follow from standard arguments applied to sheaves on moving varieties of dimension not greater than three'. Since [Nes24] is an unpublished preprint by the same author, the properness of the master space cannot be checked from this paper or from the published literature. Moreover, the perfection claim is not formal: the universal family over the master space has normal-crossing fibers (FM degenerations), and the text does not verify the hypotheses under which the standard ideal-sheaf obstruction theory is known to be perfect. Because every wall-crossing term in Theorem 5.1 passes through this master space, the main theorem is conditional on these unverified foundations. Please include a complete proof of Theorem 10.10, or make the dependence on [Nes24] explicit and verifiable.
  2. [Section 10.4–10.5, Propositions 10.11 and 10.12] Proposition 10.11 (the isomorphism gl^*_k F_k ≅ Y ×_{X^k} ∏ V_{n_0}) and Proposition 10.12 (the virtual normal complex of the wall-crossing component F_k) are the exact steps where the I-function factors I_{n_0}(z/k + ψ(D_ℓ)) and the denominator (−z/k − ψ(D_1) − ψ(E_{m+1}) − Σ_{i=k}^∞ Y_i) in equation (25) are produced; an error in these formulas would propagate directly into the correction terms of Theorem 5.1. Both statements are deferred to '[Nes24, Proposition 6.19] and [Zho22, Lemma 6.5.6]', with the comment that 'the difference is that the obstruction theory of maps is replaced by the obstruction theory of sheaves'. That transfer is precisely the non-formal part of the argument, since the fixed loci and normal complexes in [Nes24] and [Zho22] are computed for stable maps or quasimaps, not for ideal sheaves of zero-dimensional subschemes, and the text does not demonstrate the transfer (no computation of the virtual normal complex, no verification of (21)). Please supply these computations, or a complete reference containing them.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and running header] The running title contains several typos: 'HILBER T SCHEMES AND FUL TON–MACPHERSON COMP ACTIFICA TIONS' should read 'Hilbert schemes of points and Fulton–MacPherson compactifications'.
  2. [Section 10.5, displayed formula in Proposition 10.12] The displayed formula has unbalanced parentheses: the numerator (∏_{ℓ=1}^k (Σ_j c_j(X)(z/k + ψ(D_ℓ))^j)) contains an extra closing parenthesis. Please re-typeset the formula so that it can be parsed unambiguously.
  3. [Section 10.6] The final simplification of the residue algebra is compressed: the sentence 'By noticing that the terms with b_ℓ < 0 cancel out due to the sign' is not an argument. Please expand this step, or state explicitly which identity from [Zho22] it follows from and how the sign cancellation runs.
  4. [Section 8.3] The new formulas for ⟨ch_k⟩ are said to be 'verified for small values of n on a computer', but no verification data or algorithm is given. Please specify what was checked and for which range of n.
  5. [Section 2.8] The computation of the virtual dimension 'm' for d = 3 is asserted without the promised Serre-duality calculation; since this dimension is used to justify the threefold Euler-characteristic application (6), please include the computation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central wall-crossing formula is not definitionally circular, but its proof rests on load-bearing technical facts cited to the same author's unpublished preprint, leaving the derivation conditional on those foundations.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 10.2, proof of Theorem 10.10; Section 10.5, Proposition 10.12]
    "The proof of the properness is exactly the same as in [Nes24, Section 6.4], which is a generalisation [Zho22, Section 5] to higher dimensions. ... See [Nes24, Proposition 6.19] and [Zho22, Lemma 6.5.6]. The difference is that the obstruction theory of maps is replaced by the obstruction theory of sheaves."

    The wall-crossing formula, Theorem 5.1, is obtained by virtual localization on the master space; the vanishing of the residue sum (23), which is exactly the wall-crossing identity, requires the master space to be proper and requires the explicit virtual normal complex of the wall-crossing components F_k. The paper does not prove these facts: properness is delegated to [Nes24, Section 6.4] and the normal complex formula to [Nes24, Proposition 6.19] and [Zho22, Lemma 6.5.6]. [Nes24] is an unpublished preprint by the same author, so the central mathematical content is not independently established within the present paper.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is not circular in the sense of assuming what it derives. The I-function is anchored to equivariant tautological integrals on Hilb^n(C^d) via Proposition 4.1, which is an independent deformation/flag-variety argument, and the wall-crossing formula (Theorem 5.1) is a substantive comparison between two different moduli spaces. The recovered Euler characteristic formulas for curves, surfaces, and threefolds (Macdonald, Göttsche, Li–Levine–Pandharipande) match external known results, supporting the view that the framework has independent content. The affine-plane recursion in Section 8 is an honest reduction to lower n with an explicit statement that small n give a tautology. The main circularity-adjacent issue is that the proof of the wall-crossing formula relies on load-bearing technical results—properness of the master space and the explicit virtual normal complex of F_k—whose proofs are cited to [Nes24], an unpublished same-author preprint, rather than carried out. This makes the derivation conditional, but not definitionally equivalent to its inputs. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no external uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' previous work. The score is therefore 4: some load-bearing self-citation, but the central claim retains substantial independent geometric and computational content.

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

The central formula is derived from a residue computation on a master space. It does not fit any numerical constants, so there are no free parameters. The paper does introduce new moduli spaces, but these are constructed rigorously rather than postulated; no unobservable entities are assumed. The main unproved inputs are the properness/obstruction theory of the master space and the fixed-loci description, imported from [Nes24] and [Zho22].

assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The master space M FM^{epsilon_0}_{n,[m]}(X) is a proper Deligne-Mumford stack with a perfect obstruction theory when d ≤ 3 (Theorem 10.10).
    The proof is stated to be 'exactly the same as in [Nes24, Section 6.4]', which is an unpublished preprint by the author; properness is essential for the virtual localization residue formula that yields Theorem 5.1.
  • ad hoc to paper The C*_z-fixed loci F_k of the master space are isomorphic to Y ×_{X^k} ∏ V_{n0}, and their virtual normal complex is given by the formula in Proposition 10.12.
    The proofs are delegated to [Nes24, Proposition 6.19] and [Zho22, Lemma 6.5.6]; any change in these formulas directly alters the wall-crossing terms.
  • domain assumption The I-function is computed by Hilb^n(C^d) after the substitution a_i ↦ z + a_i(X) (Proposition 4.1).
    Proved in the text via flag varieties and deformation equivalence; assumes the fixed locus is proper to avoid poles at weight differences.
  • domain assumption The absolute obstruction theory exists and is perfect only for d ≤ 3 (Propositions 2.5 and 2.6).
    The wall-crossing formula is only claimed for d ≤ 3; the proof relies on standard results for ideal sheaves (Thomas, Huybrechts-Thomas) sketched in the text.
  • domain assumption Zhou's entanglement construction, including the calibration bundle and the decomposition of fixed loci, applies to the Hilbert-scheme master space (Section 10.1).
    The paper imports [Zho22, Section 2] wholesale, asserting the machinery works for sheaves on moving varieties without giving the full adaptation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hilbert schemes of points and Fulton-MacPherson compactifications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A2KI3PIZ

@misc{pith2026250108269,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hilbert schemes of points and Fulton-MacPherson compactifications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A2KI3PIZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08269}
}
read the original abstract

We relate Hilbert schemes of points and Fulton-MacPherson compactifications by an interpolating stability condition. We then derive wall-crossings formulas and some applications for the enumerative geometry of Hilbert schemes.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Torelli loci, product cycles, and the homomorphism conjecture for $\mathcal{A}_g$

    math.AG 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For 2≤g≤8, taut([J_g]·[A_2×A_{g-2}]) = taut([J_g])·taut([A_2×A_{g-2}]), and similarly for ([J_6],[A_3×A_3]); the paper also constructs new Gorenstein-kernel classes in compact-type moduli spaces.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M. F. Atiyah, Ni. J. Hitchin, V. G. Drinfeld, and Y. I. Manin, Construction of instantons, Phys. Lett., A 65 (1978), no. 3, 185--187

    work page 1978

  2. [2]

    Noah Arbesfeld, \(K\) -theoretic Donaldson - Thomas theory and the Hilbert scheme of points on a surface , Algebr. Geom. 8 (2021), no. 5, 587--625

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Arbesfeld, \(K\) -theoretic descendent series for Hilbert schemes of points on surfaces , SIGMA, Symmetry Integrability Geom

    N. Arbesfeld, \(K\) -theoretic descendent series for Hilbert schemes of points on surfaces , SIGMA, Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 18 (2022), paper 078, 16

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Behrend and B

    K. Behrend and B. Fantechi, The intrinsic normal cone, Invent. Math. 128 (1997), no. 1, 45--88

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Ciocan-Fontanine and B

    I. Ciocan-Fontanine and B. Kim, Wall-crossing in genus zero quasimap theory and mirror maps, Algebr. Geom. 1 (2014), no. 4, 400--448

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    L. Chen, A. Gibney, and D. Krashen, Pointed trees of projective spaces, J. Algebr. Geom. 18 (2009), no. 3, 477--509

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Ciocan-Fontanine and B

    I. Ciocan-Fontanine and B. Kim , Quasimap wall-crossings and mirror symmetry , Publ. Math., Inst. Hautes \'Etud. Sci. 131 (2020), 201--260

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Ciocan-Fontanine , B

    I. Ciocan-Fontanine , B. Kim , and D. Maulik , Stable quasimaps to GIT quotients , J. Geom. Phys. 75 (2014), 17--47

    work page 2014

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Edidin and W

    D. Edidin and W. Graham, Equivariant intersection theory, Invent. Math. 131 (1998), no. 3, 595--634

    1998

  2. [10]

    , Localization in equivariant intersection theory and the B ott residue formula , Amer. J. Math. 120 (1998), no. 3, 619--636

    1998

  3. [11]

    Ellingsrud, L

    G. Ellingsrud, L. G \"o ttsche, and M. Lehn, On the cobordism class of the Hilbert scheme of a surface , J. Algebr. Geom. 10 (2001), no. 1, 81--100

    2001

  4. [12]

    William Fulton and Robert MacPherson, A compactification of configuration spaces, Ann. Math. (2) 139 (1994), no. 1, 183--225

    1994

  5. [13]

    Fogarty, Algebraic families on an algebraic surface, Am

    J. Fogarty, Algebraic families on an algebraic surface, Am. J. Math. 90 (1968), 511--521

    1968

  6. [14]

    Friedman, Global smoothings of varieties with normal crossings, Ann

    R. Friedman, Global smoothings of varieties with normal crossings, Ann. Math. (2) 118 (1983), 75--114

    1983

  7. [15]

    Getzler, Operads and moduli spaces of genus 0 Riemann surfaces , The moduli space of curves

    E. Getzler, Operads and moduli spaces of genus 0 Riemann surfaces , The moduli space of curves. Proceedings of the conference held on Texel Island, Netherlands during the last week of April 1994, Basel: Birkh \"a user, 1995, pp. 199--230

    1994

  8. [16]

    G \"o ttsche, The Betti numbers of the Hilbert scheme of points on a smooth projective surface , Math

    L. G \"o ttsche, The Betti numbers of the Hilbert scheme of points on a smooth projective surface , Math. Ann. 286 (1990), no. 1-3, 193--207

    1990

  9. [17]

    Graber and R

    T. Graber and R. Pandharipande, Localization of virtual classes, Invent. Math. 135 (1999), no. 2, 487--518

    1999

  10. [18]

    Grothendieck, Techniques de construction et th \'e oremes d'existence en g \'e om \'e trie alg \'e brique

    A. Grothendieck, Techniques de construction et th \'e oremes d'existence en g \'e om \'e trie alg \'e brique. IV : Les schemas de Hilbert , Sem. Bourbaki 13(1960/61), No . 221, 28 p. (1961)., 1961

    1961

  11. [19]

    Grojnowski, Instantons and affine algebras

    I. Grojnowski, Instantons and affine algebras. I : The Hilbert scheme and vertex operators , Math. Res. Lett. 3 (1996), no. 2, 275--291

    1996

  12. [20]

    Haiman, Hilbert schemes, polygraphs and the Macdonald positivity conjecture , J

    M. Haiman, Hilbert schemes, polygraphs and the Macdonald positivity conjecture , J. Am. Math. Soc. 14 (2001), no. 4, 941--1006

    2001

  13. [21]

    Hassett, Moduli spaces of weighted pointed stable curves., Adv

    B. Hassett, Moduli spaces of weighted pointed stable curves., Adv. Math. 173 (2003), no. 2, 316--352

    2003

  14. [22]

    Huybrechts and R

    D. Huybrechts and R. P. Thomas, Deformation-obstruction theory for complexes via Atiyah and Kodaira - Spencer classes , Math. Ann. 346 (2010), no. 3, 545--569

    2010

  15. [23]

    Jelisiejew, Pathologies on the Hilbert scheme of points , Invent

    J. Jelisiejew, Pathologies on the Hilbert scheme of points , Invent. Math. 220 (2020), no. 2, 581--610

    2020

  16. [24]

    B. Kim, A. Kresch, and Y.-G. Oh, A compactification of the space of maps from curves, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 366 (2014), no. 1, 51--74

    2014

  17. [25]

    Li, Zero dimensional Donaldson -- Thomas invariants of threefolds , Geom

    J. Li, Zero dimensional Donaldson -- Thomas invariants of threefolds , Geom. Topol. 10 (2006), 2117--2171

    2006

  18. [26]

    Levine and R

    M. Levine and R. Pandharipande, Algebraic cobordism revisited, Invent. Math. 176 (2009), no. 1, 63--130

    2009

  19. [27]

    Lurie, Derived Algebraic Geometry XIV: Representability Theorems , https://www.math.ias.edu/ lurie/papers/DAG-XIV.pdf

    J. Lurie, Derived Algebraic Geometry XIV: Representability Theorems , https://www.math.ias.edu/ lurie/papers/DAG-XIV.pdf

  20. [28]

    I. G. Macdonald, Symmetric products of an algebraic curve, Topology 1 (1962), 319--343

    1962

  21. [29]

    Maulik, N

    D. Maulik, N. Nekrasov, A. Okounkov, and R. Pandharipande, Gromov- W itten theory and D onaldson- T homas theory. II , Compos. Math. 142 (2006), no. 5, 1286--1304. 2264665

    2006

  22. [30]

    Nakajima, Heisenberg algebra and Hilbert schemes of points on projective surfaces , Ann

    H. Nakajima, Heisenberg algebra and Hilbert schemes of points on projective surfaces , Ann. Math. (2) 145 (1997), no. 2, 379--388

    1997

  23. [31]

    , Lectures on Hilbert schemes of points on surfaces , Univ. Lect. Ser., vol. 18, 1999

    1999

  24. [32]

    Nesterov, U nramified Gromov--Witten and Gopakumar--Vafa invariants , Preprint, arXiv :2405.18398, 2024

    D. Nesterov, U nramified Gromov--Witten and Gopakumar--Vafa invariants , Preprint, arXiv :2405.18398, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Nesterov and M

    D. Nesterov and M. Schimpf, in preparation (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Okounkov, Hilbert schemes and multiple \(q\) -zeta values , Funct

    A. Okounkov, Hilbert schemes and multiple \(q\) -zeta values , Funct. Anal. Appl. 48 (2014), no. 2, 138--144

    2014

  27. [35]

    Okounkov and R

    A. Okounkov and R. Pandharipande, Gromov- Witten theory, Hurwitz theory, and completed cycles , Ann. Math. (2) 163 (2006), no. 2, 517--560

    2006

  28. [36]

    Routis, Weighted compactifications of configuration spaces and relative stable degenerations, Preprint, arXiv :1411.2955 [math

    E. Routis, Weighted compactifications of configuration spaces and relative stable degenerations, Preprint, arXiv :1411.2955 [math. AG ] (2014), 2014

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    The Stacks project authors , The stacks project, https://stacks.math.columbia.edu, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    R. P. Thomas, A holomorphic Casson invariant for Calabi - Yau 3-folds, and bundles on \(K3\) fibrations. , J. Differ. Geom. 54 (2000), no. 2, 367--438

    2000

  31. [39]

    To \"e n and G

    B. To \"e n and G. Vezzosi, Homotopical algebraic geometry. II : Geometric stacks and applications , Mem. Am. Math. Soc., vol. 902, Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS), 2008

    2008

  32. [40]

    Wang and J

    Z. Wang and J. Zhou, Tautological sheaves on Hilbert schemes of points , J. Algebr. Geom. 23 (2014), no. 4, 669--692

    2014

  33. [41]

    Zhou , Quasimap wall-crossing for GIT quotients , Invent

    Y. Zhou , Quasimap wall-crossing for GIT quotients , Invent. Math. 227 (2022), no. 2, 581--660

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.