Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 56 references

Simple homotopy theory for Fukaya categories

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a Weinstein manifold with $c_1(X)=0$, any isomorphism in the Fukaya category between two closed exact Maslov zero Lagrangians is automatically simple, carrying trivial Whitehead torsion.

desk verdict A novel categorical refinement of Fukaya-categorical isomorphism that would extend Abouzaid–Kragh to Weinstein manifolds, but the main theorem currently rests on an unproved compactly-supported deformation claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05856 v3 pith:C7YD5XWD submitted 2025-09-06 math.SG

Yonghwan Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.SG MSC 53D3753D1257Q1019B28
keywords simplehomotopytheoryFukayacategoryWhiteheadtorsionReidemeisterWeinsteinmanifoldexactLagrangianLefschetzfibrationMaslovzero
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 develops a categorical refinement of simple homotopy theory inside Fukaya categories, using the fundamental group of the ambient symplectic manifold. Its central theorem states that in a Weinstein manifold with vanishing first Chern class, any two closed exact Maslov zero Lagrangians that define isomorphic objects in the compact Fukaya category are automatically simply isomorphic: the isomorphism between them carries trivial Whitehead torsion. Because Whitehead torsion detects whether a homotopy equivalence can be upgraded to a simple one, this means categorical isomorphism forces equality of refined invariants such as Reidemeister torsion. The main applications include a proof that the cotangent bundles of lens spaces are symplectomorphic only when the lens spaces are diffeomorphic, a purely symplectic obstruction for symplectomorphisms of certain Weinstein connect sums, and a determination of the diffeomorphism type of certain Lagrangian submanifolds.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $A_\infty$-bimodule $CF^*(K,L)$ with coefficients in the group ring $\mathbb{Z}[\pi_1(X)]$, built from lifts of intersection points and pseudoholomorphic strips to the universal cover of $X$. Its underlying based cochain complex has a well-defined simple homotopy type, so one can speak of simply acyclic objects, simple isomorphisms, and simple generation. The automatic simplicity lemma (Proposition 4.19) shows that if a Fukaya category has simple generators that are simply connected, every isomorphism is automatically simple. The paper proves that the Lefschetz thimbles of a Lefschetz fibration form such simple generators (Proposition 4.27), and uses the Giroux-Pardon deformation to present any Weinstein manifold as such a fibration, transferring the conclusion back to the original Fukaya category.

What would settle it

Construct a Weinstein manifold $X$ with $c_1(X)=0$ and two closed exact Maslov zero Lagrangians $K,L$ that are isomorphic in the compact Fukaya category $F(X)$ but whose Reidemeister torsions, computed for some representation of $\pi_1(X)$ to $\mathbb{C}$, differ; this would contradict Theorem 4.28 via Proposition 4.21.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 4.28: if $X$ is a Weinstein manifold with $c_1(X)=0$ and $K,L$ are closed exact Maslov zero Lagrangians with brane structures whose objects in the compact Fukaya category $F(X)$ are isomorphic, then the isomorphism is a simple isomorphism, i.e., its Whitehead torsion vanishes. Consequently, whenever the fundamental groups of $K$ and $L$ inject into $\pi_1(X)$, the associated homotopy equivalence between $K$ and $L$ is a simple homotopy equivalence, and the Reidemeister torsions of their cellular cochain complexes agree for any representation of $\pi_1(X)$. In particular, if one Lagrangian is homotopy equivalent to the ambient Weinstein manifold and the other has isomorphic fundamental group, the other Lagrangian is also homotopy equivalent to $X$, and the composed map $K \to X \to L$ is a simple homotopy equivalence.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the Giroux-Pardon Weinstein deformation of $X$ to a Lefschetz fibration can be chosen compactly supported, so that the exact symplectomorphism is the identity outside a compact set and the Lagrangians' isomorphism class and $\mathbb{Z}[\pi_1(X)]$-bimodule structure transfer unchanged.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Isomorphic objects in the compact Fukaya category of a $c_1=0$ Weinstein manifold are simply isomorphic, so their Whitehead torsion vanishes.
  • When the Lagrangians' fundamental groups inject into $\pi_1(X)$, their Reidemeister torsions agree for every representation of $\pi_1(X)$.
  • The cotangent bundles $T^*L(p,q)$ and $T^*L(p,q')$ are symplectomorphic if and only if the lens spaces $L(p,q)$ and $L(p,q')$ are diffeomorphic.
  • The Weinstein connect sum $T^*L(7,1)\natural T^*L(7,2)$ admits no exact symplectomorphism that swaps the two middle-dimensional homology summands, a purely symplectic obstruction.
  • In a simply-connected 6-dimensional Weinstein manifold with $c_1=0$, any closed exact Maslov zero Spin Lagrangian in $T^*L(p,q)\natural X$ whose fundamental group maps isomorphically to $\pi_1(M)$ is diffeomorphic to $L(p,q)$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same automatic-simplicity pattern should hold in any setting where a Fukaya category is generated by simply connected objects with a geometric reason for simple generation, for example plumbings of cotangent bundles; this would let Reidemeister torsion obstruct Lagrangian embeddings more generally.
  • The paper implicitly separates the information carried by wrapped Fukaya categories (which cannot distinguish $L(7,1)$ from $L(7,2)$) from the compact Fukaya category, suggesting that compact Fukaya categories are finer simple-homotopy invariants than wrapped ones.
  • A direct testable extension would be to look for Fukaya-isomorphic Lagrangians modeled on pairs of spaces that are simple homotopy equivalent but not homeomorphic, in higher dimensions where fake lens spaces exist; the theory predicts no such pair can occur with $c_1=0$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 develops a categorical framework for simple homotopy theory in Fukaya categories. It introduces the A∞-bimodule CF*(K,L) with Zπ1(X)-coefficients, defines 'simply acyclic' objects and 'simple isomorphisms' in the category Tw^Ch F, and proves an automatic simplicity lemma (Prop 4.19) under the existence of simply connected simple generators. The main theorem (Thm 4.28) asserts that for a Weinstein manifold X with c1(X)=0, any isomorphism in the compact Fukaya category F(X) between two closed exact Maslov-zero Lagrangian branes is automatically simple. The proof transfers the problem to the Fukaya category F(π) of a Lefschetz fibration obtained from a Giroux–Pardon deformation, using Prop 4.27 (simple generation by Lefschetz thimbles). The paper then derives applications to cotangent bundles of lens spaces, Weinstein 1-handle connect sums, and simple homotopy equivalence of isomorphic closed Lagrangians.

Significance. If the main theorem holds, the framework is a valuable contribution: it gives a categorical refinement of Whitehead torsion and extends the Abouzaid–Kragh simple-homotopy result from cotangent bundles to general Weinstein manifolds with vanishing c1. The algebraic core is well structured; the torsion lemmas 2.17–2.19 are clean and the automatic simplicity lemma 4.19 is elegant. The applications, especially the lens-space obstruction in Theorem 5.2, are concrete and falsifiable. However, the central geometric transfer (compactly-supported Giroux–Pardon deformation) is not established in the manuscript, and Prop 4.27 relies on an unpublished manuscript; these are load-bearing gaps. The paper is not yet at the standard of a definitive proof, but the framework and algebraic results are likely to be useful.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, proof of Theorem 4.28] The proof asserts that the Giroux–Pardon deformation can be chosen compactly supported: specifically, the sentence 'In our case, where the Weinstein structure is standard at infinity, the Stein deformation can also be chosen to be compactly supported' is given without proof. The citations [CE, Proposition 11.8] and [GP17, Theorem 1.5] do not, as stated, establish this; the former covers Liouville homotopies of Weinstein structures and the latter constructs a Lefschetz fibration on a Weinstein domain. This is load-bearing because automatic simplicity (Propositions 4.19 and 4.27) is proved in the admissible category F(π), not in F(X); if the exact symplectomorphism φ: X → X' is not identity outside a compact set, an isomorphism in F(X) need not become an isomorphism in F(π), and the simple-isomorphism conclusion for K,L in F(X) does not follow. The same transfer is used in Theorems 5.1, 5.7 and 5.12, so the gap affects all main applications. The author should either prove the compactly supported deformation claim or supply a precise reference, and should explain how K,L are regarded as objects of F(π) (including admissibility and properness).
  2. [Section 4.3, Proposition 4.27] The proof of simple generation of F(π) by Lefschetz thimbles adapts the unpublished manuscript [BS]. Several steps are asserted rather than proved, in particular the claim that all pseudoholomorphic curves contributing to CF*(T_S1...T_Sm N,N') are entirely supported within the first branch, used to identify this complex with CF*(T_B1...T_Bm L,L'). Since this proposition is the key generation input for automatic simplicity (Proposition 4.19), the proof as written is not self-contained. If [BS] remains unpublished, the author should either include the full argument or extract the specific statements being used and prove them here.
  3. [Sections 4.2–4.3, transfer to F(π)] The proof of Theorem 4.28 also assumes without argument that the Fukaya category F(π) of the Lefschetz fibration is chain-level proper, so that Whitehead torsion is defined, and that closed exact Lagrangians in X' define admissible objects of F(π). These points are necessary for the isomorphism in F(X) to be transported to a simple isomorphism in F(π) and for the torsion computations to make sense; they should be stated and justified explicitly, even if the compactly supported deformation claim is repaired.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2, proof of Theorem 5.2] The text reads 'By Proposition 4.28, this isomorphism will be simple', but there is no Proposition 4.28; the reference should be to Theorem 4.28.
  2. [Section 2.3 and Theorem 5.1] The notation in equations (2.44)–(2.45) and in the proof of Theorem 5.1 is inconsistent: the condition should be q' ≡ ±q±1 (mod p) as stated in Theorem 2.24(2), but the proof uses r' = ±r±1 without defining the relation between r and q clearly; please align the notation.
  3. [References and typos] There are several typographical and citation errors: in the reference [CE] the publisher appears as 'Amre. Math. Soc.'; the author name 'Karabas–Lee' is written with inconsistent hyphenation; and the numbering 'Proposition 4.28' is used where 'Theorem 4.28' is meant. These should be corrected uniformly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: automatic simplicity is derived from geometric inputs (Dehn twist triangle, monotonicity, branched covers); the only caveat is an unproved compactly-supported deformation claim, which is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation of Theorem 4.28 is not circular. The automatic simplicity lemma (Proposition 4.19) requires the existence of simply connected simple generators; this hypothesis is verified geometrically in Section 4.3 for Lefschetz fibrations via the branched-cover argument and the simplicity of the Dehn twist triangle (Theorem 4.25), which rests on action filtrations and monotonicity estimates rather than on the theorem's conclusion. The Lefschetz-thimble generation statement and the lens-space torsion computations are external inputs, and the cited results [GP17], [CE], [Sei18], and [Sei03] are background tools rather than the target result. No parameter is fitted and no 'prediction' is a renamed input. The adaptation from the unpublished manuscript [BS] is presented with full proof details, so its unpublished status is not a circular reliance. The only flagged weakness is the compactly supported assertion in the proof of Theorem 4.28: 'In our case, where the Weinstein structure is standard at infinity, the Stein deformation can also be chosen to be compactly supported.' This is an unproved geometric claim; if false, the transfer from F(X) to F(π) would fail. That is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction, so it does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the proper Fukaya category setup, the Giroux-Pardon deformation to Lefschetz fibrations (which the paper assumes can be made compactly supported), and the unpublished manuscripts [BS] and [PS]. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new geometric entities are postulated.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The relevant Fukaya category is chain-level proper, so Whitehead torsion is well-defined for the bimodule CF^*(K,L).
    Section 4 introduction restricts to the compact Fukaya category F(X) and the Lefschetz fibration Fukaya category F(pi) over Z-coefficients, which the paper states are proper.
  • domain assumption Every Weinstein manifold admits a Weinstein deformation to a Lefschetz fibration (Giroux-Pardon [GP17]).
    Theorem 4.28 proof relies on [GP17, Theorem 1.10] to deform X to X' with a Lefschetz fibration.
  • ad hoc to paper The Giroux-Pardon deformation can be chosen compactly supported for Weinstein structures standard at infinity.
    Theorem 4.28 proof states the Stein deformation can be chosen compactly supported based on [CE, Proposition 11.8] and the proof of [GP17, Theorem 1.5]; this is asserted without a full derivation.
  • domain assumption The Lefschetz thimbles simply generate F(pi) (Proposition 4.27).
    The proof adapts the unpublished manuscript [BS] by Bai and Seidel; this is load-bearing for the automatic simplicity lemma.
  • domain assumption There is a cohomologically fully faithful embedding of F into a strictly unital A-infinity category over Z, as shown in [PS].
    Used in Proposition 3.7 to prove that TwChF is cohomologically unital; [PS] is an unpublished manuscript.
  • standard math Standard Whitehead and Reidemeister torsion machinery from Milnor, Cohen, and Turaev, including multiplicativity and invariance properties.
    Section 2 reviews these; the paper relies on Propositions 2.5, 2.6, 2.12, 2.13, 2.22, and the classification of lens spaces by Reidemeister torsion.
  • domain assumption Monotonicity lemmas for pseudoholomorphic curves with switching Lagrangian boundary conditions hold (Lemma A.4, [CEL10]).
    Used in the proof of Theorem 4.25 to show low-energy contributions to the Dehn twist triangle have g(u)=1, hence trivial Whitehead torsion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simple homotopy theory for Fukaya categories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C7YD5XWD

@misc{pith2026250905856,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simple homotopy theory for Fukaya categories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C7YD5XWD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05856}
}
read the original abstract

We develop a categorical framework for simple homotopy theory in Fukaya categories, based on the fundamental group of the ambient symplectic manifold. When the first Chern class vanishes, we show that any isomorphism in the Fukaya category of a Weinstein manifold has trivial Whitehead torsion. As an application, we prove that any pair of closed connected Lagrangians that are isomorphic in the Fukaya category of such Weinstein manifolds are simple homotopy equivalent, provided one of the Lagrangians is homotopy equivalent to the ambient symplectic manifold and their fundamental groups are isomorphic.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05856 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The domain and image of a map u in the moduli space M(y; x). The red line denotes the homotopy class rel endpoints of the curve γt(s) = u(s, t) in X, which is independent of t. marked points, and its universal curve Sk,1. Now let L0, · · · , Lk be mutually transverse exact Lagrangians. For each subset I of {0, 1, · · · , k} of size l, we pick positive and negative strip-like ends ϵ − I (3.40) : (−∞, 0] × [0, 1] × Rl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The domain of a stable map u in the moduli space Mk,1(y; x0, · · · , xk−1). The right picture is a biholomorphic image, where the two ends of the strips are compactified at the marked points. The point of the right figure is to show that the homotopy class rel endpoints of the image of the red line in X is again independent of t, when we puncture the right image at the points corresponding to y and x1 and consider i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The left picture indicates the upper half-plane model for the base of the Lefschetz fibration, where the dotted line below is the boundary of H. The points marked with a × are critical values of the projection π. The right picture shows an example of an admissible Lagrangian L together with its limit value λL, and a Lefschetz thimble B. The gray arrow denotes the direction of the wrapping when we compute the Floer c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The lift of the image of the pseudoholomorphic curve u to the universal cover. The red curve is the image of γ(s) = u(s, 1/2). γ lifts to a curve ˜γ such that lims→∞ γ˜(s) = ˜x, unique up to homotopy rel endpoints. The element g(u) ∈ π1(X) associated to u is defined as…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A configuration of holomorphic strips that appear in the analysis of ∂ 2 = 0 in CF∗ (K, L; {x˜}). The holomorphic strip u breaks into u1#u2, and the red lines represent the elements g(u) and g(u1), g(u2) associated to the lifts of the images of u and u1, u2 in X˜. To c…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The moduli space of holomorphic disks that contributes to the right A∞-module structure equations of CF∗ ( , K). The middle picture draws the case when there are k inputs, and the red line depicts the homotopy class that will determine the Zπ1(X) term g(u), after lifti…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A holomorphic curve with Lagrangian boundary conditions that contributes to the differential of the twisted complex CF∗ (K,L). Here, x ∈ Ki0 ∩ Lj0 , and y ∈ Kik ∩ Ljl . The Lagrangian boundary conditions for the holomorphic curve are Ki0 ∪ Ki1 ∪ · · · ∪ Kik and vice ve…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The pseudoholomorphic section counted for the definition of the cocycle c. Also, there is a degree -1 map k : CF∗ (V, L) → CF∗ (V, τV L) that satisfies for any x ∈ CF∗ (V, L), (4.101) µ 1 (k(x)) + k(µ 1 (x)) + µ 2 (c, x) = 0. This is constructed by counting a 1-paramet…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The 1-parameter family of pseudoholomorphic sections counted to define k. Since homT wCh (CF∗ (V, L) ⊗ V, τV L) ∼= homZ(CF∗ (V, L), Z) ⊗ CF∗ (4.102) (V, τV L) ∼= homZ(CF∗ (V, L), CF∗ (4.103) (V, τV L)), we may regard k as a degree -1 morphism in homT wCh (CF∗ (V, L) ⊗ …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The Weinstein neighborhood of the vanishing cycle V , together with the Lagrangians K, L, and τV (K). The Dehn twist τV is supported in the region between the two gray lines. The shaded area represents the image of the holomorphic disc that contributes to the product …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Now observe that the compositions of the Dehn twists along the Lagrangian spheres Si maps N to N¯: a double cover of L which is now supported in the second and third branch. Since N¯ and N′ are supported in different branches, it follows that N¯ ∩ N′ = ∅, and therefor…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The 4 : 1 branched cover of the Lefschetz fibration. Note that the Lagrangian spheres S1 and S2 only intersect in one of the four quadrants. is simply acyclic as well. Our goal is now to show that the homotopy equivalence (4.129) CF∗ (τS1 · · · τSmN, N′ ) ≃ CF∗ (TS1 ·…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The 1-parameter family of holomorphic maps that are counted in the proof of Proposition 5.9. The 1-parameter family of pseudoholomorphic curves counted in the second picture breaks into the first and third picture, and the 1-parameter family in the fourth picture brea…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbondandolo, & M

    A. Abbondandolo, & M. Schwarz. Floer homology of cotangent bundles and the loop product. Geom. Topol. , 14(3):1569--1722, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Abouzaid

    M. Abouzaid. A cotangent fibre generates the Fukaya category. Adv. Math. , 228(2):894--939, 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Abouzaid

    M. Abouzaid. On the wrapped Fukaya category and based loops. J. Symplectic Geom. , 10:27--79, 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Abouzaid

    M. Abouzaid. Nearby Lagrangians with vanishing Maslov class are homotopy equivalent. Invent. Math. , 189(2):251--313, 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Abouzaid, & T

    M. Abouzaid, & T. Kragh. Simple homotopy equivalence of nearby Lagrangians. Acta. Math. , 220(2):207--237, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Abouzaid, & P

    M. Abouzaid, & P. Seidel. An open string analogue of Viterbo functoriality. Geom. Topol. , 14(2):627--718, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Abouzaid, & P

    M. Abouzaid, & P. Seidel. Altering symplectic manifolds by homogeneous recombination. Preprint Arxiv:1007.3281

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Abouzaid, & I

    M. Abouzaid, & I. Smith. Exact Lagrangians in plumbings. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 22(4):785--831, 2012

    work page 2012

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Álvarez-Gavela, & K

    D. Álvarez-Gavela, & K. Igusa. A Legendrian Turaev torsion via generating families. J. Éc. polytech. Math. , 8:57--119, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Bai, & P

    S. Bai, & P. Seidel. Injectivity of twisted open-closed string maps. Unpublished manuscript

  3. [11]

    Berglund

    A. Berglund. Homological perturbation theory for algebras over operads. Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 14(5):2511--2548, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    Biran, & O

    P. Biran, & O. Cornea. A Lagrangian quantum homology. In New perspectives and challenges in symplectic field theory , pages 1--44. Amer. Math. Soc., 2009

    2009

  5. [13]

    T. A. Chapman. Topological invariance of Whitehead torsion. Amer. J. Math. , 96(3):488--497, 1974

    1974

  6. [14]

    Charette

    F. Charette. Quantum Reidemeister torsion, open Gromov-Witten invariants and a spectral sequence of Oh. Int. Math. Res. Not. , 2019(8):2483--2518, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Cieliebak, Y

    K. Cieliebak, Y. Eliashberg. From Stein to Weinstein and Back. AMS Colloquium Publications , Vol. 59. Amre. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2012

    2012

  8. [16]

    Cieliebak, T

    K. Cieliebak, T. Ekholm, & J. Latschev. Compactness for holomorphic curves with switching Lagrangian boundary conditions. J. Symplectic Geom. , 8(3):267--298, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    M. Cohen. A course in simple homotopy theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics , Vol. 10. Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1973

    1973

  10. [18]

    Courte, & N

    S. Courte, & N. Porcelli. On the parametrized Whitehead torsion of families of nearby Lagrangian submanifolds. Preprint Arxiv:2506.06110

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    A. Floer. Morse theory for Lagrangian intersections. J. Differential Geom. , 28(3):513--547, 1988

    1988

  12. [20]

    A. Floer. Witten's complex and infinite-dimensional Morse theory. J. Differential Geom. , 30(1):207--221, 1989

    1989

  13. [21]

    K. Fukaya. Floer homology and mirror symmetry II. In Minimal surfaces, geometric analysis and symplectic geometry , pages 31--127. Math. Soc. Japan, 2002

    2002

  14. [22]

    Fukaya, P

    K. Fukaya, P. Seidel, & I. Smith. Exact Lagrangians in simply-connected cotangent bundles. Invent. Math. , 172:1--27, 2008

    2008

  15. [23]

    Fukaya, P

    K. Fukaya, P. Seidel, & I. Smith. The symplectic geometry of cotangent bundles from a categorical viewpoint. In Homological Mirror Symmetry , pages 1--26. Springer-Verlag Berlin, 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    Giroux, & J

    E. Giroux, & J. Pardon. Existence of Lefschetz fibrations on Stein and Weinstein domains. Geom. Topol. , 21(2):963--997, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Ganatra, J

    S. Ganatra, J. Pardon, & V. Shende. Sectorial descent for wrapped Fukaya categories. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 37:499--635, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    A. Hatcher. Algebraic Topology . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002

    2002

  19. [27]

    Husin, & T

    A. Husin, & T. Kragh. Local systems and vanishing Maslov class. Preprint Arxiv:2410.01586

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hutchings, & Y

    M. Hutchings, & Y. Lee. Circle-valued Morse theory and Reidemeister torsion. Geom. Topol. , 3:369--396, 1999

    1999

  21. [29]

    Karabas, & S

    D. Karabas, & S. Lee. Homotopy colimits of DG categories and Fukaya categories. Preprint Arxiv:2109.03411

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kenigsberg, & N

    L. Kenigsberg, & N. Porcelli. Obstructions to homotopy invariance of loop coproduct via parametrised fixed-point theory. Preprint Arxiv:2407.13662

  23. [31]

    Kontsevich & Y

    M. Kontsevich & Y. Soibelman. Homological mirror symmetry and torus fibrations. In Symplectic geometry and mirror symmetry , pages 203--263. World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 2001

    2001

  24. [32]

    T. Kragh. Parametrized ring spectra and the nearby Lagrangian conjecture. Geom. Topol. , 17(2):639--731, 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    T. Kragh. Homotopy equivalence of nearby Lagrangians and the Serre spectral sequence. Math. Ann. , 368:945--970, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Lazarev, & Z

    O. Lazarev, & Z. Sylvan. Prime-localized Weinstein subdomains. Geom. Topol. , 27(2):699--737, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    W. Leavitt. The module type of a ring. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. , 103(1):113--130, 1962

    1962

  28. [36]

    Mak, & W

    C. Mak, & W. Wu. Dehn twists and Lagrangian spherical submanifolds. Selecta Math. , 25(5):25--68, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    M. McLean. Lefschetz fibrations and symplectic homology. Geom. Topol. , 13(4):1877--1944, 2009

    1944

  30. [38]

    J. Milnor. Two complexes which are homeomorphic but combinatorially distinct. Ann. of Math. , 74(2):575--590, 1961

    1961

  31. [39]

    J. Milnor. A Duality Theorem for Reidemeister Torsion. Ann. of Math. , 76(1):137--147, 1962

    1962

  32. [40]

    J. Milnor. Whitehead torsion. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. , 72:358--428, 1966

    1966

  33. [41]

    D. Nadler. Microlocal branes are constructible sheaves. Selecta Math. , 15(4):563--619, 2009

    2009

  34. [42]

    Petersen

    D. Petersen. A closer look at Kadeishvili's theorem. High. Struct. , 4(2):211--221, 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    Pomerleano, & P

    D. Pomerleano, & P. Seidel. The quantum connection and its mod p reduction. Unpublished manuscript

  36. [44]

    Reidemeister

    K. Reidemeister. Homotopieringe und Linsenräume. Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg , 11(1):102--109, 1935

    1935

  37. [45]

    P. Seidel. Graded Lagrangian submanifolds. Bull. Soc. Math. France , 128(1):103--149, 2000

    2000

  38. [46]

    P. Seidel. A long exact sequence for symplectic Floer homology. Topology , 42(5):1003--1063, 2003

    2003

  39. [47]

    P. Seidel. A_ -subalgebras and natural transformations. Homology Homotopy Appl. , 10(2):83--114, 2008

    2008

  40. [48]

    P. Seidel. Fukaya categories and Picard-Lefschetz theory . European Math. Soc., 2008

    2008

  41. [49]

    P. Seidel. Fukaya A_ -structures associated to Lefschetz fibrations. IV . In Breadth in contemporary topology , pages 195--276. Amer. Math. Soc., 2019

    2019

  42. [50]

    P. Seidel. Fukaya A_ -structures associated to Lefschetz fibrations. IV 1/2. J. Symplectic Geom. , 18:291--332, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    Sheridan

    N. Sheridan. Homological mirror symmetry for Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces in projective space. Invent. Math. , 199(1):1--186, 2015

    2015

  44. [52]

    J. Sikorav. Some properties of holomorphic curves in almost complex manifolds. In Holomorphic curves in symplectic geometry , volume 117 of Progress in Math. , pages 165--189. Birkh \"a user, 1994

    1994

  45. [53]

    L. Suarez. Exact Lagrangian cobordism and pseudo-isotopy. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 12:810--872, 2002

    2002

  46. [54]

    Sullivan

    M. Sullivan. K-theoretic invariants for Floer homology. Internat. J. Math. , 28(8), 2017

    2017

  47. [55]

    V. Turaev. Introduction to combinatorial torsions. Birkh \"a user, Basel, 2001

    2001

  48. [56]

    J. H. C. Whitehead. Combinatorial homotopy. I. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. , 55:213--245, 1949

    1949

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.