Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 16 references

The Dolbeault geometric Langlands conjecture via limit categories

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs limit categories for cotangent stacks and uses them to give a compactly generated, decomposable formulation of the Dolbeault geometric Langlands conjecture.

desk verdict A serious, inventive paper that deserves a referee, but the proof of the main theorem has a load-bearing gap as written: Assumption 6.6 is verified only for symmetric quivers, not for the Higgs-bundle centers where it is applied. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19624 v2 pith:AQO5ITWY submitted 2025-08-27 math.AG hep-thmath.RT

Tudor Pădurariu , Yukinobu Toda This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AGhep-thmath.RT MSC 14D2414F0814H6014D23
keywords limitcategoriesDolbeaultgeometricLanglandsHiggsbundlessemiorthogonaldecompositionquasi-BPScompactgenerationHeckeoperatorsHarder-Narasimhanstratification
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's central claim is that the right categorical home for the automorphic side of the Dolbeault (classical-limit) geometric Langlands correspondence is not the category of all coherent sheaves on the full Higgs stack, which fails to be compactly generated, but a carefully selected subcategory called the limit category, defined by weight bounds against every map from BG_m. The paper proves that this category is compactly generated and admits a semiorthogonal decomposition into quasi-BPS categories indexed by the Harder-Narasimhan strata of Higgs bundles, with each unstable type contributing once. It then proposes a precise conjecture: an equivalence between derived categories of semistable Langlands-dual Higgs bundles and these limit categories, restricting to nilpotent singular supports and compatible with the semiorthogonal decompositions on both sides. A sympathetic reader should care because this turns the classical-limit idea of the geometric Langlands program into a workable statement, and because the decomposition is exactly the Langlands dual of the decomposition previously found on the semistable side, connecting geometric Langlands to categorical Donaldson-Thomas theory.

What carries the argument

The limit category L(ΩX)_δ: the subcategory of Coh(ΩX) of objects whose pull-back along every map ν: BG_m → ΩX has Gm-weights in the interval fixed by the positive and negative tangent weights, shifted by an R-line bundle δ; for X = Bun_G(χ) this defines IndL(Higgs_G(χ))_w. Carrying the argument are: regularization of maps from BG_m; the Harder-Narasimhan Θ-stratification of Higgs stacks; and comparison, via the Koszul equivalence (dimensional reduction) to matrix factorizations, with the magic categories of smooth quotient stacks. The decisive mechanism is a fully faithful left adjoint j! to the open-complement pullback along each Harder-Narasimhan stratum, the D-module-like feature that yi

What would settle it

In the genus-zero case (G = GL_2) the claimed decomposition's summands are explicit categories Coh((h_{r_i}//W_{r_i})); compute Hom complexes between summands in the order the decomposition forbids and check they vanish. Equivalently, test compact generation of IndL(Higgs_GL2(0))_0 by exhibiting an object of the ind-category that is not a filtered colimit of weight-bounded compact objects, using the explicit criterion of Definition 3.3.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper defines, for a smooth stack X, the limit category L(ΩX)_δ ⊂ Coh(ΩX) by Gm-weight bounds against every map ν: BG_m → ΩX, with the ind-limit category formed over quasi-compact open substacks. Theorem 7.18: IndL(Higgs_G(χ))_w is compactly generated, and its compact category decomposes semiorthogonally into quasi-BPS categories T_M(χ_M)^{w_M}, indexed by standard parabolics with Harder-Narasimhan slope inequalities. The proposed conjecture (7.4) is a B-linear equivalence IndCoh(Higgs_{LG}(w)^{ss})_{−χ} ≃ IndL(Higgs_G(χ))_w restricting to nilpotent singular supports, and Hecke operators are constructed on the limit side. The automorphic decomposition is the Langlands dual of the authors

Load-bearing premise

That for every Harder-Narasimhan stratum of the Higgs stack the open-complement pullback on the limit category has a fully faithful left adjoint j!, a functor built from Assumption 6.6 on the strata centers; this one technical existence result carries compact generation and the entire semiorthogonal decomposition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Compact generation of IndL(Higgs_G(χ))_w removes the main technical obstruction (Proposition 1.6) to a coherent-sheaf version of Langlands duality on the non-quasi-compact Higgs stack, putting the Dolbeault side on the same footing as D-mod(Bun_G).
  • The semiorthogonal decomposition into quasi-BPS categories makes parabolic induction along Harder-Narasimhan strata match the decomposition on the semistable side, yielding the K-theoretic Dolbeault geometric Langlands conjecture for genus-zero curves, rank two, and coprime (r,w) (Corollary 1.4).
  • Hecke operators act on the limit categories and descend to the BPS categories, so the conjectured equivalence can be required to be compatible with Wilson operators, bypassing the classic obstruction that Hecke modifications do not preserve (semi)stability.
  • The conjecture implies an equivalence of the quasi-BPS categories of semistable Higgs bundles, a categorical version of topological mirror symmetry for Higgs bundles for arbitrary reductive groups (Conjecture 1.5).

Reading between the lines

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

  • The success of the weight-window definition on a non-quasi-compact stack suggests a general recipe, take BG_m-weight bounds and then ind-complete over quasi-compact opens, for defining classical limits of D-module categories elsewhere, such as on quiver representation stacks or loop stacks, where the same kind of decomposition can be checked directly.
  • A concrete test that does not wait for the full conjecture: in the explicitly computable genus-zero case (G = GL_r), compare the Hecke action constructed here with the expected Wilson action at the level of topological K-theory; any mismatch would force a reformulation of Conjecture 7.4.
  • If the conjecture holds, the same monoidal category of zero-dimensional sheaf categories acts on both D-mod(Bun_G) and the BPS categories of the local Calabi-Yau 3-fold, predicting hidden symmetries of noncommutative Hitchin moduli spaces that could be probed through the χ-independence phenomenon for BPS cohomology.
  • The hierarchy of nilpotent versus full limit categories suggests a ladder of renormalized classical-limit Langlands conjectures, of which the nilpotent version (1.24) is the genuine classical limit of the usual geometric Langlands equivalence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces limit categories IndL(ΩX)_δ, subcategories of IndCoh(ΩX) cut out by Gm-weight conditions, as an effective replacement for the classical limit of D-module categories on smooth stacks. It develops basic functoriality (smooth pull-back, projective push-forward), constructs an ind-limit category for the moduli stack of all G-Higgs bundles, and states two main structural results: compact generation of IndL(Higgs_G(χ))_w and a semiorthogonal decomposition of its compact objects into quasi-BPS categories (Theorem 7.18). The paper also formulates a precise Dolbeault geometric Langlands conjecture, Conjectures 7.4 and 7.20, and constructs Hecke operators on the limit categories. The proof of Theorem 7.18 is announced via a reduction to semiorthogonal decompositions of magic categories established in Section 6, with the key technical input being Assumption 6.6.

Significance. If correct, the limit category construction is a significant contribution: it gives a compactly generated categorical invariant for non-quasi-compact Higgs moduli stacks, restores functorialities that are absent for ordinary ind-coherent sheaves, and provides a natural automorphic side for the Dolbeault geometric Langlands conjecture. The proposed semiorthogonal decomposition into quasi-BPS categories is a genuinely new structural statement and connects the conjecture to categorical Donaldson–Thomas theory. The paper is also commendable for the breadth of explicit examples, the treatment of the torus case, K-theoretic evidence, and the construction of Hecke operators. However, the main theorem currently rests on an unverified version of Assumption 6.6 for Higgs-bundle centers; the significance is therefore conditional until that point is supplied.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.3–6.4, §8 (Prop. 8.19)] Theorem 6.13, the engine for the local semiorthogonal decompositions, is proved only under Assumption 6.6. Section 6.4 verifies Assumption 6.6 only for symmetric quiver representation stacks, where the center is a product of µ-semistable quiver loci and ℓ is the explicit GIT character of King. In the application to Higgs bundles, the centers Z_V arising in §8.5–8.7 are moduli of semistable L-twisted Higgs bundles for Levi subgroups, not symmetric quiver stacks. The text does not give the character ℓ_{Z_i} nor a Hilbert–Mumford comparison showing that HN-semistability for these Higgs-bundle centers coincides with ℓ-semistability. Without this, Theorem 6.13 cannot be invoked, and Proposition 8.19 — hence Proposition 8.23 and the j!-functor at the heart of Theorem 7.18 — lacks a proved basis. This is the load-bearing gap flagged by the paper's own flowchart.
  2. [§8.9, §1.9, Prop. 8.23] The proof of Theorem 7.18 is not contained in the reviewed portion: it refers to Section 8.9, and the key Proposition 8.23 is stated in the flowchart but not proved. The existence of a fully faithful left adjoint j! for the complement of each HN Θ-stratum is exactly the point where limit categories differ from ordinary coherent sheaves. The step from the magic-category decomposition (8.1) to the limit-category decomposition (8.2) uses the Koszul equivalence (Prop. 3.14) and requires checking that the functor j! lands in L(U)_δ and that the resulting pieces are precisely quasi-BPS categories; these checks are not shown. Since Theorem 1.15 and Corollary 1.16 depend on the same statement, the central compact-generation claim is unverified in the submitted text.
  3. [§7.5, Remark 7.16] The spectral-side semiorthogonal decomposition (Theorem 7.15) is proved only for G ∈ {GL_r, PGL_r, SL_r}; for general G it is work in progress [BPT]. The main conjecture (Conjecture 7.4 and Conjecture 7.20) therefore has a provisional status for general groups. This is not an internal inconsistency, but it should be stated more prominently that the announced compatibility of semiorthogonal decompositions for general G is conditional on [BPT] and on Theorem 7.18.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Definition 3.3] The interval in (3.6) uses real weights since δ is an R-line bundle, while wt is a subset of Z. The intended comparison after applying c1 should be stated explicitly to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [§7.2, before Eq. (7.5)] The symbol µG(w) is used both for the slope map in (7.13) and for the Q-character µG(w) ∈ G∨_Q above (7.5). Please disambiguate these two uses.
  3. [§6.3, Prop. 6.7] The proof of Proposition 6.7 is postponed to §10.1 and described as 'essentially same' as [PTd]. For a self-contained paper, the modifications for the present setting should be spelled out, since the result is used in the induction in Proposition 6.8.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main theorem is derived from limit-category definitions, the Koszul equivalence, and window/magic-category results; the unverified Assumption 6.6 for Higgs strata is a gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 7.18, is a genuine derivation rather than a repackaging of an input. The proof in Section 8 follows the stated flowchart: embed a quasi-compact open substack U of Higgs_G into a smooth stack U_L of L-twisted Higgs bundles, realize U as the zero locus of a section, apply the Koszul equivalence to pass to matrix factorizations, and then use the semiorthogonal decomposition of magic categories from Section 6. The summands in the resulting decomposition are quasi-BPS categories, independently defined in Definition 7.12 as limit categories on semistable Higgs stacks; they are not defined in terms of the conclusion of Theorem 7.18. The spectral-side semiorthogonal decomposition in Theorem 7.15 is cited from the authors' previous work [PTb] and used as an input or counterpart, not as the target being derived, and the automorphic-side decomposition is proved here. The K-theoretic Corollary 1.4 uses computations from [PTe] as external evidence. The main genuinely questionable point is the reviewer-flagged gap: Theorem 6.13 is conditional on Assumption 6.6, and Section 6.4 verifies that assumption only for symmetric quiver representation stacks; the text's Proposition 8.19 says it is proved 'by reduction to a local model and using the result of Section 6,' but the displayed argument does not explicitly verify Assumption 6.6 for the moduli stacks of semistable Higgs bundles for Levi subgroups that arise as centers. This is a missing hypothesis or incomplete proof, not a circular reduction: no equation in the paper defines the hoped-for conclusion in terms of itself, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0; the gap should be assessed as a correctness risk rather than as circularity.

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

The paper fits no data and introduces no ad hoc constants; the 'free parameters' of a geometric construction are the discrete invariants (χ,w). The main novel object, the limit category, is defined rather than postulated, so it is not listed as an invented entity. The listed axioms include the explicit technical assumption (Assumption 6.6) on which the proof of Theorem 6.13 rests; it is a load-bearing hypothesis.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption k is an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0
    Stated at the start; all derived stacks, dg-categories and D-module theory are over this field.
  • domain assumption G is a reductive algebraic group over k and C is a smooth projective curve
    The moduli stacks BunG and HiggsG are built from these; the semiorthogonal decompositions are indexed by parabolics of G.
  • standard math The dg-categorical framework of IndCoh, D-mod, limits and colimits of compactly generated dg-categories (Gaitsgory-Rozenblyum, Drinfeld-Gaitsgory) is taken as background
    Used throughout, e.g. Section 2.8, Propositions 2.2, and the definition of IndCoh in Section 2.3.
  • standard math Koszul equivalence / dimensional reduction (Theorem 2.1 from Isik, Hirano, Toda)
    Used to identify coherent sheaves on derived zero loci with graded matrix factorizations, e.g. Proposition 3.14 and Section 8.
  • standard math Window theorem for Θ-strata (Theorem 6.1 from Ballard-Favero-Katzarkov, Halpern-Leistner, Halpern-Leistner et al.)
    Gives the semiorthogonal decompositions of Coh(Y) along Θ-strata used to analyze magic categories in Section 6.
  • domain assumption Assumption 6.6: for each Θ-stratum center Zi there is a line bundle ℓZi such that Zi is the ℓZi-semistable locus
    Required to prove Theorem 6.13 and hence the magic category decompositions; the paper verifies it only for symmetric quivers in Section 6.4 and does not show the verification for the Higgs bundle case in the reviewed portion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Dolbeault geometric Langlands conjecture via limit categories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AQO5ITWY

@misc{pith2026250819624,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Dolbeault geometric Langlands conjecture via limit categories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AQO5ITWY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19624}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce limit categories for cotangent stacks of smooth stacks as an effective version of classical limits of categories of D-modules on them. We develop their general theory and pursue their relation with categories of D-modules. In particular, we establish the functorial properties of limit categories such as the smooth pull-back and projective push-forward. Using the notion of limit categories, we propose a precise formulation of the Dolbeault geometric Langlands conjecture, proposed by Donagi-Pantev as the classical limit of the de Rham geometric Langlands equivalence. It states an equivalence between the derived categories of moduli stacks of semistable Higgs bundles and limit categories of moduli stacks of all Higgs bundles. We prove the existence of a semiorthogonal decomposition of the limit category into quasi-BPS categories, which are categorical versions of BPS invariants on a non-compact Calabi-Yau 3-fold. This semiorthogonal decomposition is interpreted as a Langlands dual to the semiorthogonal decomposition constructed in our previous work on the category of coherent sheaves on the moduli stack of semistable Higgs bundles. We also construct Hecke operators on limit categories for Higgs bundles. They are expected to be compatible with Wilson operators under our formulation of Dolbeault geometric Langlands conjecture. The conjectured equivalence implies an equivalence between BPS categories for semistable Higgs bundles, which we expect to be a categorical version of the topological mirror symmetry conjecture for Higgs bundles by Hausel-Thaddeus.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19624 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Relation between DT theory and geometric Langlands Donaldson-Thomas theory categorification /Categorical DT theory formulation  Geometric Langlands classical limit /Dolbeault Langlands symmetry OO There are several follow-up questions inspired by this connection, which we do not pursue in this paper. First, one may wonder whether quasi-BPS categories have natural deformation quantizations, or, related, whether the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Notation used in the paper visits. Y. T. is supported by World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI initiative), MEXT, Japan, and Inamori Research Institute for Science, and JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP24H00180. 2. Preliminaries In this section, we discuss the preliminary background necessary for this paper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Flowchart of the proof of Theorem 7.18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p086_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arinkin, D

    [ABC+a] D. Arinkin, D. Beraldo, J. Campbell, L. Chen, J. Faergeman, D. Gaitsgory, K. Lin, S. Raskin, and N. Rozenblyum, Proof of the geometric Langlands conjecture II: Kac- Moody localization and the FLE , arXiv:2405.03648. [ABC+b] D. Arinkin, D. Beraldo, L. Chen, J. Faergeman, D. Gaitsgory, K. Lin, S. Raskin, and N. Rozenblyum, Proof of the geometric Lan...

    arXiv 2016

  2. [3]

    Nonabelian Hodge isomorphisms for stacks and cohomological Hall algebras

    Sections 1–4, EMS Press, Berlin, 2022, pp. 2228–2249. [Hen] L. Hennecart, Nonabelian Hodge isomorphisms for stacks and cohomological Hall alge- bras, arXiv:2307.09920. [HH22] T. Hausel and N. Hitchin, Very stable Higgs bundles, equivariant multiplicity and mir- ror symmetry, Invent. math. 228 (2022), 893–989. [HHRa] B. Hennion, J. Holstein, and M. Robalo,...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  3. [12]

    Mellit, A

    [MMSV] A. Mellit, A. Minets, O. Schiffmann, and E. Vasserot, Coherent sheaves on surfaces, COHAs and deformed W1+∞-algebras, arXiv:2311.13415. [MN] K. McGerty and T. Nevins, Morse decomposition for D-module categories on stacks , arXiv:1402.7365. [MR V19] M. Melo, A. Rapagnetta, and F. Viviani, Fourier-Mukai and autoduality for compact- ified Jacobians. I...

    arXiv 2019

  4. [43]

    Derived categories of Quot schemes of zero-dimensional quotients on curves

    [SYZ01] A. Strominger, S. T. Yau, and E. Zaslow, Mirror symmetry is T -duality, Winter School on Mirror Symmetry, Vector Bundles and Lagrangian Submanifolds (Cambridge, MA, 1999), AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math., vol. 23, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2001, pp. 333–347. [Sze16] B. Szendr˝ oi, Cohomological Donaldson-Thomas theory, String-Math 2014, Proc. Sym-...

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

  5. [47]

    [PT24] , Categorical and K-theoretic Donaldson-Thomas theory of C3 (part I) , Duke Math. J. 173 (2024), 1973–2038. [PTVV13] T. Pantev, B. To¨ en, M. Vaquie, and G. Vezzosi, Shifted symplectic structures , Publ. Math. IHES 117 (2013), 271–328. [PV11] A. Polishchuk and A. Vaintrob, Matrix factorizations and singularity categories for stacks, Ann. Inst. Four...

    work page 2024

  6. [49]

    [MS23] , Cohomological χ-independence for moduli of one-dimensional sheaves and moduli of Higgs bundles , Geom. Topol. 27 (2023), no. 4, 1539–1586. [MT18] D. Maulik and R. P. Thomas, Sheaf counting on local K3 surfaces , Pure Appl. Math. Quart. 2018 (2018), 419–441. [Muk81] S. Mukai, Duality between D(X) and D( ˆX) with its application to Picard sheaves ,...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  7. [55]

    Categorical cyclic homology and filtered $\mathcal{D}$-modules on stacks: Koszul duality

    [Che] H. Chen, Categorical cyclic homology and filtered D-modules on stacks: Koszul duality , arXiv:2301.06949. [CPT] S. Cautis, T. P˘ adurariu, and Y. Toda, The derived category of commuting stack , in preparation. [CW] S. Cautis and H. Williams, Canonical bases for Coulomb branches of 4d gauge theories , arXiv:2306.03023. [DG13] V. Drinfeld and D. Gaits...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  8. [352]

    Kapranov, O

    [KSV17] M. Kapranov, O. Schiffmann, and E. Vasserot, The Hall algebra of a curve , Selecta Math. (N.S.) 23 (2017), 117–177. [KW07] A. N. Kapustin and E. Witten, Electric-Magnetic Duality and the Geometric Langlands Program, Communications in Number Theory and Physics 1 (2007), no. 1, 1–236. [Lau10] G. Laumon, Sur la categorie derivee des D-modules filtres...

    work page 2017

Show all 16 references
  1. [553]

    [Gai15] , Outline of the proof of the Geometric Langlands Conjecture for GL(2) , Ast´ erisque370 (2015), 1–112. [GRa] D. Gaitsgory and S. Raskin, Proof of the geometric Langlands conjecture I: construction of the functor , arXiv:2405.03599. [GRb] , Proof of the geometric Langl...

    2015

  2. [735]

    [DPS22] D. E. Diaconescu, M. Porta, and F. Sala, Cohomological Hall algebras and their rep- resentations via torsion pairs , arXiv:2207.08926,

  3. [871]

    Dey and R

    [DP05] A. Dey and R. Parthasarathi, On Harder-Narasimhan reductions for Higgs principal bundles, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci. 115 (2005), no. 2, 127–146. [DP09] R. Donagi and T. Pantev, Geometric Langlands and non-abelian Hodge theory, Surveys in differential geometry. V...

    2005

  4. [1996]

    Hausel and M

    [HT03] T. Hausel and M. Thaddeus, Mirror symmetry, Langlands duality, and the Hitchin system, Invent. Math. 153 (2003), no. 1, 197–229. [Isi13] M. U. Isik, Equivalence of the derived category of a variety with a singularity category , Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2013), no. 12, ...

    2003 arXiv

  5. [1997]

    Hu and W

    [HL12] J. Hu and W. P. Li, The Donaldson-Thomas invariants under blowups and flops , J. Dif- ferential. Geom. (2012), 391–411. [HL15] D. Halpern-Leistner, The derived category of a GIT quotient , J. Amer. Math. Soc. 28 (2015), no. 3, 871–912. [HL18] , Θ -stratifications, Θ-red...

    2012 arXiv

  6. [2017]

    Grojnowski, Affinising quantum algebras: from D-modules to K-theory , available at https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~ig211/papers.html

    [Gro] I. Grojnowski, Affinising quantum algebras: from D-modules to K-theory , available at https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~ig211/papers.html. [GWZ20] M. Groechenig, D. Wyss, and P. Ziegler, Mirror symmetry for moduli spaces of Higgs bundles via p-adic integration , Invent. Math....

    2020

  7. [2021]

    [Tod23a] , Categorical Donaldson-Thomas theory for local surfaces: Z/2-periodic version, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2023), no. 13, 11172–11216. [Tod23b] , Gopakumar-Vafa invariants and wall-crossing , J. Differential Geom. 123 (2023), no. 1, 141–193. [Tod24] , Categorical Dona...

    2023

  8. [2022]

    [Efi18] A. I. Efimov, Cyclic homology of categories of matrix factorizations , Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2018), no. 12, 3834–3869. [Fan] D. Fang, On Fourier-Mukai transforms of upward flows for Hitchin systems , arXiv:2504.04309. [FGV02] E. Frenkel, D. Gaitsgory, and K. Vilon...

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.