Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 9 minor 69 references

Comparison of K\"{a}hler quotients of torus actions

T0 review · 1 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Wall-crossing gives bimeromorphic maps between Kähler quotients

desk verdict Genuine extension of VGIT wall-crossing to the Kähler analytic category; the load-bearing dimension claim in Proposition 4.3 holds up but deserves a careful referee check. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06345 v1 pith:DJ6UMR2B submitted 2026-07-07 math.AG math.DGmath.SG

Xiangsheng Wang , Xiangdong Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AGmath.DGmath.SG
keywords hleralphamomentquotientquotientsmathbbsingulartheory
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 studies what happens to Kähler quotients of torus actions when the moment map value crosses a wall in the moment polytope. The central result (Theorem 4.7) shows that when two subpolytopes are separated by a wall, there exist natural proper modifications between the corresponding Kähler quotients and the singular quotient on the wall, sharing the same center, with fibers that are quotients of weighted projective spaces by finite groups, and whose dimensions satisfy a codimension formula. This structural theorem enables a comparison of Kähler classes across walls (Theorem 6.4), showing the Kähler class traces a broken line segment in Čech cohomology. As applications, the authors prove that singular nondegenerate Kähler quotients admit partial rational desingularizations obtained by shifting the moment map value, that all nondegenerate quotients share the same algebraic dimension and Riemann–Roch numbers, and that the quantization commutes with reduction principle extends to singular quotients in the integral case.

What carries the argument

The Hilbert–Mumford numerical function M_Φ, the plus/minus decomposition of Carrell–Sommese for C*-actions, Atiyah's convexity theorem for moment map images of orbit closures, the Stein factorization and Zariski's Main Theorem for proper modifications, and the Leray spectral sequence for cohomological comparison

What would settle it

If one could exhibit a compact Kähler Hamiltonian torus-manifold where the regular value set of the moment map is non-empty but some wall point has a complex stabilizer of dimension greater than one, the fiber description in Theorem 4.7 would fail and the codimension formula would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The key discovery is that wall-crossing for Kähler quotients of torus actions is governed by a pair of proper modifications with a common center, whose fibers are explicitly describable as finite quotients of weighted projective spaces. The critical intermediate result (Proposition 4.3) shows that for a point on the wall, the complex stabilizer has dimension one, which forces the fiber structure and enables the codimension formula. This explicit fiber description, combined with the Duistermaat–Heckman theorem extended to the wall, yields the broken-line behavior of Kähler classes and the invariance of Riemann–Roch numbers under shift desingularization.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes throughout that the generic infinitesimal isotropic subgroup of the torus action is trivial, meaning the regular value set of the moment map is non-empty. If the moment map had no regular values, the subpolytope decomposition and all subsequent structural results would break down. Additionally, the proof of Proposition 4.3—that the complex stabilizer of a wall point has dimension exactly one—relies on the specific structure of torus actions and Atiyah's Conv

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The broken-line formula for Kähler classes provides a concrete computational tool for tracking how the cohomology class of the reduced symplectic form changes when passing through singular quotients, extending the Duistermaat–Heckman theorem to the Kähler analytic setting.
  • The partial rational desingularization via moment map shifting offers a canonical procedure for resolving non-orbifold singularities of Kähler quotients, which is directly relevant to extending geometric quantization results to singular reduced spaces.
  • The invariance of Riemann–Roch numbers across all nondegenerate quotients means that quantization commutes with reduction can be verified on any convenient representative quotient, including smooth ones obtained by shifting.
  • The explicit factorization into blow-ups and blow-downs for quasi-free actions with finite center provides a concrete class of bimeromorphic maps between compact Kähler manifolds satisfying the Strong Factorization Conjecture.
  • The constancy of algebraic dimension across nondegenerate quotients suggests that bimeromorphic geometry of the quotient is essentially determined by the moment body interior, independent of the specific level chosen.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 9 minor

Summary. This paper studies how Kähler quotients of Hamiltonian torus actions on compact Kähler manifolds vary as the moment map value crosses walls in the moment polytope. The main structural result (Theorem 4.7) describes the fibers of natural proper modifications between regular and singular quotients as quotients of weighted projective spaces by finite groups, with a codimension formula relating the dimensions of the two fibers. This feeds into a Kähler class comparison theorem (Theorem 6.4, a broken-line-segment result extending Duistermaat–Heckman to critical values) and applications to desingularization, algebraic dimension invariance, and Riemann–Roch numbers. The proofs proceed through standard tools: the Hilbert–Mumford numerical function, Atiyah's convexity theorem, the Holomorphic Slice Theorem, Carrell–Sommese decompositions, and Leray spectral sequences.

Significance. The paper provides a detailed analytic treatment of wall-crossing for Kähler quotients that complements the algebro-geometric VGIT framework of Dolgachev–Hu and Thaddeus. A notable strength is that the authors fix the Kähler form and vary only the moment map value, which yields a more transparent parameter space and removes the need for the 'truly faithful cell' condition in the torus case (Proposition 4.3, Remark 4.4). The Kähler class comparison (Theorem 6.4) and the Riemann–Roch invariance (Corollary 7.6, Theorem 7.7) are concrete, falsifiable results. The proof of Lemma 6.3 contains a detailed local computation relating Kähler potentials across the wall via gradient flow, which is a useful technical contribution. Theorem 5.1 provides an explicit example of the Strong Factorization Conjecture for bimeromorphic maps of compact Kähler manifolds under quasi-free assumptions.

major comments (1)
  1. Proposition 4.3 (p. 18–19): The proof's logical step from 'int F ⊂ Φ(G·b)' to 'dim Φ(G·b) = d−1' is not fully spelled out. The inclusion int F ⊂ Φ(G·b) only gives dim Φ(G·b) ≥ d−1. To conclude equality, one needs the additional observation that the hypothesis dim T_b > 0 implies dim(T·b) ≤ d−1, and then by Atiyah [5, Theorem 2(c)] (dim Φ(G·b) = dim(T·b)) one gets dim Φ(G·b) ≤ d−1. Combining the two inequalities yields dim Φ(G·b) = d−1. This is a small but load-bearing gap in the presentation, since Proposition 4.3 underpins the fiber description in Theorem 4.7. The authors should add one sentence making this argument explicit.
minor comments (9)
  1. Section 2, p. 6: The assumption that the generic infinitesimal isotropic subgroup is trivial (regular values of Φ are non-empty) is stated but its necessity for the main results is not discussed. A brief remark on where this assumption enters would help the reader.
  2. Lemma 3.8, Case 1 (p. 13–14): The argument that P ∩ Φ(G·x) ≠ ∅ leading to P ⊂ Φ(G·x) uses the uniqueness of the local minimum of Φ_v. The logic is correct but dense; a sentence clarifying that the contradiction arises because P ⊂ H⁻ while Φ_v ≥ ⟨η, v⟩ forces all of X into H⁺ ∪ Π_F would improve readability.
  3. Theorem 4.2, Eq. (4.1) (p. 17): The codimension formula uses codim_C(B_i, X^{ss}_ϵ // C*). It would help to note that B_i here is a connected component of X^{C*} ∩ Φ⁻¹(ϵ) viewed inside the quotient, consistent with the notation in Theorem 4.7.
  4. p. 21, line after Eq. (4.5): The notation 'f_{ξ,ϵ} (resp. f_{ξ,ϵ})' in the sentence beginning 'We consider the fibers of f_{ξ,ϵ} (resp. f_{ξ,ϵ})' appears to be a typo; the second should be f_{ζ,ϵ}.
  5. Lemma 6.2 (p. 27–28): The proof uses the vanishing ČH¹(ℙ(a), R) = 0 via Dolgachev [13, Corollary 2.3.6]. It would be helpful to note that this is the standard vanishing H¹(ℙ(a), R) = 0 for weighted projective spaces, which follows from their topology (they are simply connected for the relevant cases).
  6. Theorem 6.4 (p. 32–33): The statement says the curve γ(a) is 'a broken line segment at the point γ(ϵ)'. It would be clearer to state explicitly that γ is continuous and piecewise affine with a potential change of slope at a = ϵ.
  7. Section 7.3, p. 38–43: The proof of Theorem 7.7 is lengthy. Lemma 7.8 in particular could benefit from a more streamlined presentation; the key ideas (extension via Riemann theorem, G-invariance by averaging) could be highlighted more prominently.
  8. References: The paper cites [67] (Yang, 'Cohomologically symplectic structures on stratified spaces') with a DOI link but no volume/page numbers. The bibliographic details should be completed if available.
  9. Several minor typographical issues throughout: e.g., 'truly faithful cell defined in [14]' (p. 5) should perhaps be 'the truly faithful cell condition'; 'tours' (p. 37) should be 'torus'; 'desigularization' (p. 38) should be 'desingularization'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and for identifying a small but important gap in the proof of Proposition 4.3. The referee's observation is correct: the inclusion int F ⊂ Φ(G·b) alone yields only dim Φ(G·b) ≥ d−1, and the reverse inequality requires the additional step through dim(T·b) ≤ d−1 and Atiyah's theorem. We will revise the proof accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Proposition 4.3 (p. 18–19): The proof's logical step from 'int F ⊂ Φ(G·b)' to 'dim Φ(G·b) = d−1' is not fully spelled out. The inclusion int F ⊂ Φ(G·b) only gives dim Φ(G·b) ≥ d−1. To conclude equality, one needs the additional observation that the hypothesis dim T_b > 0 implies dim(T·b) ≤ d−1, and then by Atiyah [5, Theorem 2(c)] (dim Φ(G·b) = dim(T·b)) one gets dim Φ(G·b) ≤ d−1. Combining the two inequalities yields dim Φ(G·b) = d−1. This is a small but load-bearing gap in the presentation, since Proposition 4.3 underpins the fiber description in Theorem 4.7. The authors should add one sentence making this argument explicit.

    Authors: The referee is entirely correct. The current proof of Proposition 4.3 establishes that int F ⊂ Φ(G·b), which gives dim Φ(G·b) ≥ d−1, but does not explicitly justify the reverse inequality. As the referee notes, the missing step is: since dim T_b > 0 by hypothesis, the orbit T·b has dimension at most d−1 (because T has dimension d and the stabilizer T_b is positive-dimensional). By Atiyah's theorem [5, Theorem 2(c)], dim Φ(G·b) = dim(T·b), so dim Φ(G·b) ≤ d−1. Combining the two inequalities yields dim Φ(G·b) = d−1, and then dim T_b = 1 follows from dim Φ(G·b) = dim(T·b) = d−1. We will add a sentence to the proof making this chain of inequalities explicit. We are grateful for this careful observation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; the derivation chain rests on standard external tools (Atiyah convexity, Duistermaat-Heckman, Hilbert-Mumford) with only minor self-citations used as convenient references rather than load-bearing logical support.

full rationale

The paper's central results (Theorems 1.2, 1.3/4.7, 5.1, 6.4, 7.4, 7.7) are derived from standard, externally grounded tools: Atiyah's convexity theorem [5], the Duistermaat-Heckman theorem [16], the Hilbert-Mumford criterion [19], the Holomorphic Slice Theorem [33, 58], and results of Carrell-Sommese [11], Heinzner-Stratmann [35], and Sjamaar [58]. The key load-bearing step, Proposition 4.3 (dim_C G_b = 1), derives dim T_b = 1 from Atiyah [5, Theorem 2(c)] (dim Phi(G.b) = dim(T.b)) combined with Lemma 3.9 (int F subset Phi(G.b)), which itself follows from Lemma 3.8 and Atiyah's orbit closure convexity theorem. This is a genuine derivation from external results, not a circular reduction. The self-citations [65] and [67] appear as follows: [65, Proposition 5.1] is cited for the Hilbert-Mumford numerical function characterization (also available from [19, Corollary 12.7]), and [65, Lemma 5.2] is used in Proposition 4.5 for a stability claim under a subgroup action. [67, Proposition 4.2] and [67, Theorem 1.1] are cited for the existence of the Kähler class on quotients and the cohomologically symplectic structure (Definition 6.1), but these rest on [35, Corollary 4] (Heinzner-Stratmann). None of these self-citations are load-bearing in the sense of being the sole justification for a central claim that is then 'predicted' or 'derived' — they serve as convenient references for results that have independent grounding in the work of other authors. The Duistermaat-Heckman formula extension (Lemma 6.3) is proved from scratch via a detailed gradient-flow argument (Steps 1-3), not merely cited from prior work. The fiber description in Theorem 4.7 follows from Propositions 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, which use Carrell-Sommese decompositions and direct computation. No step reduces to its inputs by construction.

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

The paper introduces no new mathematical objects or postulated entities. All objects (moment maps, Kähler quotients, weighted projective spaces, Čech cohomology groups) are standard. The 'truly faithful cell' concept is borrowed from Dolgachev–Hu [14] and shown to be automatically satisfied, not postulated. No free parameters are fitted; the moment map value α is a parameter of the theory, not a fitted constant.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The generic infinitesimal isotropic subgroup of the K-action is trivial, i.e., the regular value set of Φ is non-empty.
    Stated in Section 2: 'Throughout the paper, we assume that the generic infinitesimal isotropic subgroup of the K-action is trivial.' This ensures quotients have expected dimension and the subpolytope decomposition exists.
  • standard math Holomorphic Slice Theorem for Kähler Hamiltonian K-manifolds.
    Invoked in Section 1.2 to reduce the holomorphic G-action to a locally algebraic one, citing [58, Theorem 1.12] and [33, (2.7) Theorem].
  • standard math Atiyah's convexity theorem and Guillemin–Sternberg convexity for abelian moment maps.
    Used in Proposition 3.3 for the subpolytope decomposition of the moment body, and in Proposition 4.3 to conclude dim T_b = 1 from dim Φ(G·b) = d−1.
  • standard math Duistermaat–Heckman theorem on linear variation of cohomology class.
    Used as the base formula (6.10)–(6.11) that Lemma 6.3 extends to the wall.
  • standard math Carrell–Sommese plus/minus decomposition for C*-actions.
    Invoked in Proposition 3.7 and Theorem 4.2 to decompose X into invariant pieces with vector space fibers.
  • standard math Kähler quotients are of rational type (Boutot's theorem).
    Used in Theorem 7.4 to establish R^i g_* O = 0 for resolutions, citing [6, Corollaire] and [58].
  • domain assumption Existence of a cohomologically symplectic structure on Kähler quotients.
    Definition 6.1 cites [67, Theorem 1.1] (one of the authors). This is used as input for the wall-crossing comparison of Kähler classes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparison of K\"{a}hler quotients of torus actions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DJ6UMR2B

@misc{pith2026260706345,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparison of K\"ahler quotients of torus actions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DJ6UMR2B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06345}
}
abstract

Let $T$ be a torus with the complexification $T^{\mathbb{C}}$ and $(X, ds^{2})$ a compact K\"{a}hler Hamiltonian $T$-manifold with the moment map $\Phi$ such that $T^{\mathbb{C}}$ acts on $X$ holomorphically. For each $\alpha$ in the moment body $\Phi(X)$, the K\"{a}hler quotient $X_{\alpha}=\Phi^{-1}(\alpha)/T$ is a reduced normal complex analytic space admitting a unique K\"{a}hler structure $\kappa_{\alpha}$ induced from $ds^{2}$. Inspired by the theory of variation of Geometric Invariant Theory, when $\alpha$ moves from a subpolytope (a connected component of the set of regular values of $\Phi$) to another one in the interior of $\Phi(X)$, we show that the quotient $X_{\alpha}$ undergoes a bimeromorphic transformation, and this enables us to compare the K\"{a}hler classes of the different quotients. In particular, as applications, we prove that each nondegenerate singular K\"{a}hler quotient has a partial and rational desingularisation which is obtained by shifting the moment map; moreover, we obtain a formula on the Riemann--Roch numbers of singular K\"{a}hler quotients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06345 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The following lemma is useful in the study of variation of the quotients. Lemma 3.9. Let (X, ds2 , T C, Φ) be a compact K¨ahler Hamiltonian T-manifold. (i) If α lies in the boundary of the moment body ∆ = Φ(X), then Xs (Φα) = ∅. (ii) If α and β lie in the relative interior of a wall F, then Xss(Φα) = Xss(Φβ). Proof. At first, for any x ∈ X, we claim f HM x (α) = MΦα (x) > 0 if α ∈ t ∗ \ ∆. If the assertion does not … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. To describe fξ,ϵ and fζ,ϵ more precisely, we consider their fibers over B as reduced closed complex subspaces of Xs ξ //G and Xs ζ //G. Note that Xs ξ //G, Xs ζ //G and Xss ϵ //G are compact, connected, reduced normal complex spaces. Combining the Stein factorization of fξ,ϵ (resp. fζ,ϵ) with Zariski’s Main Theorem derives the following result, see [62, Corollary 1.12]. Property 4.1. All fibers of fξ,ϵ (resp. fζ,ϵ) … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. f ♮ ξ,ϵ : RXϵ −→ (fξ,ϵ)∗RXξ . (6.1) Since the map fξ,ϵ is surjective and closed1 , Xϵ has the quotient topology determined by fξ,ϵ. Observe that the fibers of fξ,ϵ is connected, see Property 4.1. It follows that the morphism (6.1) is an isomorphism (cf. [66, Example 3.44]). Likewise, the modification fζ,ϵ : Xζ → Xϵ also yields an isomorphism of sheaves f ♮ ζ,ϵ : RXϵ ≃−→ (fζ,ϵ)∗RXζ . (6.2) As a result, we have the fo… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [67]

    Wedhorn,Manifolds, sheaves, and cohomology, Springer Studium Mathematik—Master

    T. Wedhorn,Manifolds, sheaves, and cohomology, Springer Studium Mathematik—Master. Springer Spektrum, Wiesbaden, 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [35]

    Heinzner, L

    P. Heinzner, L. Migliorini,Projectivity of moment map quotients, Osaka J. Math.38(2001), no. 1, 167–184

    work page 2001

  3. [1]

    Abramovich, K

    D. Abramovich, K. Karu, K. Matsuki, J. W lodarczyk,Torification and factorization of birational maps, J. Amer. Math. Soc.15(2002), 531–572

    work page 2002

  4. [2]

    Al Amrani,Cohomological study of weighted projective spaces, Algebraic geometry (Ankara, 1995), 1–52, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl

    A. Al Amrani,Cohomological study of weighted projective spaces, Algebraic geometry (Ankara, 1995), 1–52, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math.,193, Dekker, New York, 1997

    work page 1995

  5. [3]

    J. Arms, R. Cushman, and M. Gotay,A universal reduction procedure for Hamiltonian group actions, The geometry of Hamiltonian systems (Berkeley, CA, 1989), 33–51, Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., 22, Springer, New York, 1991

    work page 1989

  6. [4]

    J. Arms, M. Gotay, and G. Jennings,Geometric and algebraic reduction for singular momentum maps, Adv. Math.79(1990) 43–103

    work page 1990

  7. [5]

    Atiyah,Convexity and commuting Hamiltonians, Bull Lond Math Soc,14, (1982) 1–15

    M. Atiyah,Convexity and commuting Hamiltonians, Bull Lond Math Soc,14, (1982) 1–15

    work page 1982

  8. [6]

    Boutot,Singularit´ es rationnelles et quotients par les groupes r´ eductifs, Invent

    J.-F. Boutot,Singularit´ es rationnelles et quotients par les groupes r´ eductifs, Invent. Math.88(1), (1987) 5–68

    work page 1987

Show all 69 references
  1. [7]

    Braun, D

    L. Braun, D. Greb, K. Langlois, and J. Moraga,Reductive quotients of klt singularities, Invent. Math.237(2024), no. 3, 1643–1682

    2024

  2. [8]

    Braverman,Cohomology of the Mumford quotient, Quantization of Singular Symplectic Quo- tients, 47–59, Progress in Mathematics,198

    M. Braverman,Cohomology of the Mumford quotient, Quantization of Singular Symplectic Quo- tients, 47–59, Progress in Mathematics,198. Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 2001

    2001

  3. [9]

    Braverman, Y

    M. Braverman, Y. Loizides, and Y. Song,Geometric quantization ofb-symplectic manifolds, J. Sympl. Geom.19(2021), no. 1, 1–36

    2021

  4. [10]

    Brion and C

    M. Brion and C. Procesi,Action d’un tore dans une vari´ et´ e projective, Progr. Math., 92, 509–539, Birkh¨ auser Boston, Boston, MA, 1990

    1990

  5. [11]

    Carrell and A

    J. Carrell and A. Sommese,C ∗-actions, Math. Scand.43(1978/79), no. 1, 49–59

    1978

  6. [12]

    Demailly,Complex analytic and differential geometry,https://www-fourier

    J.-P. Demailly,Complex analytic and differential geometry,https://www-fourier. ujf-grenoble.fr/~demailly/manuscripts/agbook.pdf

  7. [13]

    I. V. Dolgachev,Weighted projective varieties, Group actions and vector fields (Vancouver, B.C., 1981), 34–71, Lecture Notes in Math., 956, Springer, Berlin, 1982

    1981

  8. [14]

    I. V. Dolgachev and Y. Hu,Variation of geometric invariant theory quotients, With an appendix by Nicolas Ressayre. Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. No.87(1998), 5–56

    1998

  9. [15]

    Drezet and M

    J.-M. Drezet and M. S. Narasimhan,Groupe de Picard des vari´ et´ es de modules de fibr´ es semi- stables sur les courbes alg´ ebriques, Invent. Math.97(1989), no. 1, 53–94

    1989

  10. [16]

    J. J. Duistermaat and G. J. Heckman,On the variation in the cohomology of the symplectic form of the reduced phase space, Invent. Math.69(1982), no. 2, 259–268

    1982

  11. [17]

    Fischer,Complex analytic geometry, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol

    G. Fischer,Complex analytic geometry, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 538. Springer–Verlag, Berlin–New York, 1976

    1976

  12. [18]

    Fujiki,K¨ ahler quotient and equivariant cohomology, Moduli of vector bundles (Sanda, 1994; Kyoto, 1994), 39–53, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl

    A. Fujiki,K¨ ahler quotient and equivariant cohomology, Moduli of vector bundles (Sanda, 1994; Kyoto, 1994), 39–53, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 179, Dekker, New York, 1996

    1994

  13. [19]

    Georgoulas, J

    V. Georgoulas, J. W. Robbin, and D. A. Salamon,The moment-weight inequality and the Hilbert– Mumford criterion–GIT from the differential geometric viewpoint, Lecture Notes in Mathematics,

  14. [20]

    Springer, Cham, 2021

    2021

  15. [21]

    Godinho,Blowing up symplectic orbifolds, Ann

    L. Godinho,Blowing up symplectic orbifolds, Ann. Global Anal. Geom.20(2001), no. 2, 117–162

    2001

  16. [22]

    Goresky and R

    M. Goresky and R. MacPherson,On the topology of algebraic torus actions, Algebraic groups Utrecht 1986, 73–90, Lecture Notes in Math., 1271, Springer, Berlin, 1987

    1986

  17. [23]

    Grauert, T

    H. Grauert, T. Peternell, and R. Remmert (Eds.),Several Complex Variables VII. In: Sheaf- Theoretical Methods in Complex Analysis, Encyclopaedia Math. Sci.,74, Springer, Berlin, 1994

    1994

  18. [24]

    Grauert and R

    H. Grauert and R. Remmert,Coherent analytic sheaves, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wis- senschaften, 265. Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1984

    1984

  19. [25]

    Griffiths and J

    P. Griffiths and J. Harris,Principles of algebraic geometry, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1994)

    1994

  20. [26]

    Grothendieck,Sur quelques points d’alg` ebre homologique (French), Tohoku Math

    A. Grothendieck,Sur quelques points d’alg` ebre homologique (French), Tohoku Math. J. (2)9 (1957), 119–221. COMPARISON OF K ¨AHLER QUOTIENTS OF TORUS ACTIONS 47

    1957

  21. [27]

    Gruber,Convex and discrete geometry, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 336

    P. Gruber,Convex and discrete geometry, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 336. Springer, Berlin, 2007

    2007

  22. [28]

    Guillemin, E

    V. Guillemin, E. Miranda, and J. Weitsman,On geometric quantization ofb-symplectic manifolds, Adv. Math.331(2018), 941–951

    2018

  23. [29]

    Guillemin, E

    V. Guillemin, E. Miranda, and J. Weitsman,On geometric quantization ofb m-symplectic mani- folds, Math. Z.298(2021), no. 1-2, 281–288

    2021

  24. [30]

    Guillemin and S

    V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg,Convexity properties of the moment mapping, Invent. Math.67 (1982), no. 3, 491–513

    1982

  25. [31]

    Guillemin and S

    V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg,Geometric quantization and multiplicities of group representations, Invent. Math.67(1982), no. 3, 515–538

    1982

  26. [32]

    Guillemin and S

    V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg,Birational equivalence in the symplectic category, Invent. Math. 97(1989) 485–522

    1989

  27. [33]

    Heinzner, A

    H. Heinzner, A. T. Huckleberry, and F. Loose,K¨ ahlerian extensions of the symplectic reduction, J. Reine Angew. Math.455(1994) 123–140

    1994

  28. [34]

    Heinzner and F

    P. Heinzner and F. Loose,Reduction of complex HamiltonianG-spaces, Geom. Funct. Anal.4 (1994) 288–297

    1994

  29. [36]

    Heinzner and B

    P. Heinzner and B. Stratmann,Invariant K¨ ahler potentials and symplectic reduction, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5)24(2023) 2351–2402

    2023

  30. [37]

    Hironaka and H

    H. Hironaka and H. Rossi,On the equivalence of imbeddings of exceptional complex spaces, Math. Ann.156(1964), 313–333

    1964

  31. [38]

    Hochs and V

    P. Hochs and V. Mathai,Quantising proper actions onSpin c-manifolds, Asian J. Math.21(2017), no. 4, 631–685

    2017

  32. [39]

    Hu,The geometry and topology of quotient varieties of torus actions, Duke Math

    Y. Hu,The geometry and topology of quotient varieties of torus actions, Duke Math. J.68(1992), 151–184

    1992

  33. [40]

    Jeffrey and F

    L. Jeffrey and F. Kirwan,Localization and the quantization conjecture, Topology36(1997), no. 3, 647–693

    1997

  34. [41]

    Kawasaki,The Riemann–Roch theorem for complex V-manifolds, Osaka Math

    T. Kawasaki,The Riemann–Roch theorem for complex V-manifolds, Osaka Math. J.16(1979), no. 1, 151–159

    1979

  35. [42]

    Kirwan,Partial desingularisations of quotients of nonsingular varieties and their Betti num- bers, Ann

    F. Kirwan,Partial desingularisations of quotients of nonsingular varieties and their Betti num- bers, Ann. of Math. (2)122(1985), no. 1, 41–85

    1985

  36. [43]

    Koll´ ar and S

    J. Koll´ ar and S. Mori,Birational geometry of algebraic varieties, Cambridge Tracts in Mathe- matics, 134. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998

    1998

  37. [44]

    Y. Lin, Y. Loizides, R. Sjamaar, and Y. Song,Log symplectic manifolds and[Q, R] = 0, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2022, no.18, 14034–14066

    2022

  38. [45]

    Y. Lin, Y. Loizides, R. Sjamaar, and Y. Song,Riemannian foliations and geometric quantization, J. Geom. Phys.198(2024), Paper No. 105133, 35 pp

    2024

  39. [46]

    Ma and G

    X. Ma and G. Marinescu,Holomorphic Morse inequalities and Bergman kernels, Progress in Mathematics,254. Birkh¨ auser Verlag, Basel, 2007

    2007

  40. [47]

    Ma and W

    X. Ma and W. Zhang,Geometric quantization for proper moment maps: the Vergne conjecture, Acta Math.212(2014), no. 1, 11–57

    2014

  41. [48]

    Marsden and A

    J. Marsden and A. Weinstein,Reduction of symplectic manifolds with symmetry, Rep. Mathe- matical Phys.5(1974) 121–130

    1974

  42. [49]

    Meinrenken,Symplectic surgery and theSpin c-Dirac operator, Adv

    E. Meinrenken,Symplectic surgery and theSpin c-Dirac operator, Adv. Math. 134 (1998), no. 2, 240–277

    1998

  43. [50]

    Meinrenken,Twisted K-homology and group-valued moment maps, Int

    E. Meinrenken,Twisted K-homology and group-valued moment maps, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2012, no.20, 4563–4618

    2012

  44. [51]

    Meinrenken and R

    E. Meinrenken and R. Sjamaar,Singular reduction and quantization, Topology 38 (1999), no. 4, 699–762

    1999

  45. [52]

    Mol,Constructibility of momentum maps and linear variation for singular symplectic reduced spaces,https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.21284

    M. Mol,Constructibility of momentum maps and linear variation for singular symplectic reduced spaces,https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.21284

    doi arXiv

  46. [53]

    Paradan,Quantization commutes with reduction in the non-compact setting: the case of holomorphic discrete series, J

    P.- ´E. Paradan,Quantization commutes with reduction in the non-compact setting: the case of holomorphic discrete series, J. Eur. Math. Soc.17(2015), no. 4, 955–990. 48 XIANGSHENG WANG AND XIANGDONG YANG

    2015

  47. [54]

    Paradan,Formal geometric quantization III: functoriality in thespin c setting, Algebr

    P.- ´E. Paradan,Formal geometric quantization III: functoriality in thespin c setting, Algebr. Rep- resent. Theory21(2018), no. 5, 1151–1164

    2018

  48. [55]

    Pflaum,Analytic and geometric study of stratified spaces, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol

    M. Pflaum,Analytic and geometric study of stratified spaces, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1768, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg (2001)

    2001

  49. [56]

    Remmert,Meromorphe Funktionen in kompakten komplexen R¨ aumen, Math

    R. Remmert,Meromorphe Funktionen in kompakten komplexen R¨ aumen, Math. Ann.132(1956), 277–288

    1956

  50. [57]

    Roberts,A note on coherentG-sheaves, Math

    M. Roberts,A note on coherentG-sheaves, Math. Ann.275(1986), no. 4, 573–582

    1986

  51. [58]

    Sjamaar and E

    R. Sjamaar and E. Lerman,Stratified symplectic spaces and reduction, Ann. of Math. (2)134 (1991) 375–422

    1991

  52. [59]

    Sjamaar,Holomorphic slices, symplectic reduction and multiplicities of representations, Ann

    R. Sjamaar,Holomorphic slices, symplectic reduction and multiplicities of representations, Ann. of Math. (2)141(1995) 87–129

    1995

  53. [60]

    Teleman,The quantization conjecture revisited, Ann

    C. Teleman,The quantization conjecture revisited, Ann. of Math. (2)152(2000), no. 1, 1–43

    2000

  54. [61]

    Thaddeus,Geometric invariant theory and flips, J

    M. Thaddeus,Geometric invariant theory and flips, J. Amer. Math. Soc.9(1996), no. 3, 691–723

    1996

  55. [62]

    Tian and W

    Y. Tian and W. Zhang,An analytic proof of the geometric quantization conjecture of Guillemin– Sternberg, Invent. Math.132(1998), 229–259

    1998

  56. [63]

    Ueno,Classification theory of algebraic varieties and compact complex spaces, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol

    K. Ueno,Classification theory of algebraic varieties and compact complex spaces, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 439. Springer–Verlag, Berlin–New York, 1975

    1975

  57. [64]

    Varouchas,K¨ ahler spaces and proper open morphisms, Math

    J. Varouchas,K¨ ahler spaces and proper open morphisms, Math. Ann.283(1989) 13–52

    1989

  58. [65]

    Vergne,Quantification g´ eom´ etrique et r´ eduction symplectique, S´ eminaire Bourbaki, Vol

    M. Vergne,Quantification g´ eom´ etrique et r´ eduction symplectique, S´ eminaire Bourbaki, Vol. 2000/2001. Ast´ erisque No.282(2002), Exp. No. 888, viii, 249–278

    2000

  59. [66]

    Wang,On the complex structure of symplectic quotients, Sci

    X. Wang,On the complex structure of symplectic quotients, Sci. China Math.64(2021), no. 12, 2719–2742

    2021

  60. [68]

    Yang,Cohomologically symplectic structures on stratified spaces, J

    X. Yang,Cohomologically symplectic structures on stratified spaces, J. Geom. Phys., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomphys.2026.105795

    2026 doi

  61. [69]

    Zhang,Holomorphic quantization formula in singular reduction, Commun

    W. Zhang,Holomorphic quantization formula in singular reduction, Commun. Contemp. Math. 1(1999), no. 3, 281–293. School of Mathematics, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China Email address:xiangsheng@sdu.edu.cn Department of Mathematics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, C...

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.