Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 39 references

The Kodaira dimension and singularities of moduli of stable sheaves on some elliptic surfaces

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read For elliptic surfaces with a few multiple fibers, the moduli scheme M(c2) has only canonical singularities, and its Kodaira dimension is (dim M+1)/2.

desk verdict A real new result on an open case, but the proof has two load-bearing gaps: Proposition 5.11 explicitly strands two cases, and Theorem 7.1(i) asserts an unproved equality. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05027 v3 pith:EGRKMBMQ submitted 2019-08-14 math.AG

classification math.AG MSC 14J6014D2032G1314B0514Exx
keywords moduliofstablesheavesellipticsurfacescanonicalsingularitiesKodairadimensionobstructedmultiplefibersrank-twovectorbundles
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 the moduli scheme M(c2) of rank-two stable sheaves with c1=0 on a minimal elliptic surface X of Kodaira dimension one, and asks when its singularities are canonical and what this implies for the birational classification. Its central result is that for obstructed sheaves whose generic-fiber restriction is stable (Case I), every nonzero linear combination of the defining equations has quadratic part of rank at least 2b+1 whenever X has few multiple fibers, which by a purely ring-theoretic criterion makes the point a canonical singularity. For surfaces with just two multiple fibers, multiplicities 2 and m at least 3, and chi(O_X)=1, the paper concludes every singular point is canonical, and when M(c2) is compact with c2 at least 3 its Kodaira dimension is exactly (dim M +1)/2, with the Iitaka fibration described by Friedman's moduli-theoretic map. It also shows that for Case II obstructions the quadratic part alone cannot decide canonicity, since rank-one quadratic parts occur.

What carries the argument

The central object is the map $H^{1}$(ad(f)): $Ext^{1}$(E,E) -> $Ext^{1}$(E,E(K_X)), defined by $\alpha$ maps to f∘$\alpha$ - $\alpha$∘f for a nonzero traceless homomorphism f: E -> E(K_X). The quadratic part of the i-th defining equation F_i is the bilinear form F_fi($\alpha$⊗$\beta$) = tr(f_i∘$\alpha$∘$\beta$ + f_i∘$\beta$∘$\alpha$), so bounding the rank of every nonzero linear combination of these forms is equivalent to bounding the rank of $H^{1}$(ad(f)). The paper estimates this rank by factoring det(f) through a double cover Y0 -> X, introducing the divisor B recording where f factors through $E^{{∨∨}}$(K_X-B), and expressing the kernel and image of ad(f) as extensions of line bundles twisted by zero-dimensional subschemes. The decisive estimate, Proposition 5.11, bounds $h^{1}$(R(K_X)/G) - $h^{1}$(R(K_X)/G ⊗ L^∨) by 2Λ(B) using the local structure of sheaves on multiple fibers and the torsion order of O(F)|F, and this feeds into the rank bound that triggers the ring-theoretic canonical-singularity criterion.

What would settle it

Compute the rank of $H^{1}$(ad(f)) for an explicit obstructed Case-I sheaf produced by Proposition 8.1 on a surface satisfying d+2 at least (7/4)Lambda(X); if some nonzero f gives rank below 2 $ext^{2}$(E,E)^0+1, then Theorem 6.1 is false. Concretely, for d=1 with two multiple fibers of multiplicities 2 and 3, take the sheaf E from Claim 8.6, write its single defining equation F=$t1^{2}$+...+$tR^{2}$+O(3), and check whether R is at least 3; R=2 would give a non-canonical hypersurface singularity and refute the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The load-bearing discovery is a rank bound on the quadratic part of the equations defining M(c2) at an obstructed Case-I sheaf E. Writing the completion as C[[t1,...,t_{D+b}]]/(F1,...,F_b), the paper proves that any nonzero linear combination G of the F_i has quadratic part of rank R at least 2b+1, provided 7(d+2)/4 is at least Lambda(X) or 2 is at least Lambda(X). This rank bound is exactly the hypothesis of the purely ring-theoretic Theorem 4.1, so E is a canonical singularity of M(c2). Applied to surfaces with two multiple fibers of multiplicities 2 and m at least 3 and with d=1, the paper proves that every singular point of M(c2) is of Case I and is canonical; for compact M(c2) with c2 at least 3, the Kodaira dimension equals (dim M(c2)+1)/2.

Load-bearing premise

The proof rests on fine-grained local estimates at multiple fibers (Claims 5.12 to 5.15, Fact 5.14 on the torsion order of O(F)|F) and on the asserted equality 2D+K_X-B=0 in Theorem 7.1(i); if any of these local computations fails, the rank bound and hence the canonical-singularity and Kodaira-dimension conclusions collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For an elliptic surface with two multiple fibers of multiplicities 2 and m at least 3 and with chi(O_X)=1, every singular point of a compact moduli scheme M(c2) is canonical; hence the Kodaira dimension of M(c2) is (dim M(c2)+1)/2 for c2 at least 3.
  • The Iitaka fibration of M(c2) is the Stein factorization of Friedman's morphism psi, and its general fibers are Jacobians of hyperelliptic curves, so the birational structure of the moduli scheme is described purely in moduli-theoretic terms.
  • For Case-I obstructed sheaves on elliptic surfaces with few multiple fibers, the moduli scheme is locally of complete intersection, normal at the obstructed point, and the singularity is canonical, so K-dimension and Kodaira dimension coincide.
  • Obstructed Case-I sheaves actually exist for c2 sufficiently large whenever the invariants satisfy 2d at least max(Lambda-2, 4-Lambda, 5-2Lambda), so the canonical-singularity conclusion is not vacuous.
  • For Case-II sheaves, the rank R of the quadratic part of the defining equation is at least 1, and examples with R=1 occur, so the degree-two part of the defining equations is insufficient to decide canonicity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One consequence not drawn in the paper is that the method suggests canonicity of moduli depends mainly on the count of multiple fibers rather than on the detailed Weierstrass coefficients, so families of elliptic surfaces with fixed d and Lambda should have uniform Kodaira dimension of M(c2).
  • The Case-II examples with R=1 indicate that the analytic type of M at an obstructed sheaf is not determined by the infinitesimal cup product alone; higher-degree terms of the defining equations matter, so one could test this by comparing the singularity type with the prediction from the quadratic part.
  • The theorem that all singular points are Case I when the two multiplicities are 2 and m at least 3 suggests a deformation-theoretic obstruction: Case II sheaves require the multiplicities to satisfy stronger inequalities, and one could look for a direct cohomological reason for this exclusion.
  • If the rank bound extends beyond rank two, similar canonical-singularity statements might hold for moduli of higher-rank stable sheaves on elliptic surfaces whenever the generic-fiber restriction is stable, though the paper only treats rank two.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the formal moduli of rank-two stable sheaves with c1 = 0 on minimal elliptic surfaces X of Kodaira dimension one, with only I1 and mI0 singular fibers. It introduces a deformation-theoretic criterion (Theorem 4.7) for a singular point E of the moduli scheme to be at worst canonical, based on the rank of H^1(ad(f)) for nonzero traceless f, and then estimates this rank for sheaves in Case I by passing to a double cover Y0 -> X. The main theorems claim: in Case I, every singular point is canonical when the number of multiple fibers is small relative to d (Theorems 1.3 and 6.1); in the special case d = 1 with two multiple fibers of multiplicities 2 and m >= 3, all singular points are in Case I and hence canonical, and the Kodaira dimension is (dim M(c2) + 1)/2 (Theorem 7.1); and in Case II, for d = 1 and two multiple fibers, every locally free obstructed sheaf is a hypersurface singularity with R >= 1, with existence results for R = 1 (Theorem 1.4). The strategy combines Laudal's presentation of the completion ring, Friedman's morphism for K-dimension, and detailed local analysis of multiple fibers.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuinely difficult problem: the birational type of moduli of stable sheaves on elliptic surfaces with c1(E) = 0, where the restriction to the generic fiber is only strictly semistable. The proposed route, via canonical singularities and Friedman's map, is coherent and promising. If the missing arguments are completed, the results would be a substantial advance: they would give the Kodaira dimension of these moduli spaces for a nonempty class of elliptic surfaces and describe the Iitaka fibration in moduli-theoretic terms. The paper also contains a useful ring-theoretic criterion (Theorem 4.1) and a careful reduction of the singular-point question to the estimate of H^1(ad(f)). However, two written proof gaps, explicitly acknowledged in the text, sit at load-bearing points: Proposition 5.11 leaves two necessary cases to the reader, and Theorem 7.1(i) asserts a key divisor equality by analogy to Lemma 5.8 without proof. These gaps prevent the canonical-singularity and Kodaira-dimension conclusions from being considered established as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, Proposition 5.11] The proof of Proposition 5.11 is incomplete. After the treatment of the branches where the first maps in (5.19) and (5.22) are nonzero, the text states: 'It is left to the reader to certify this proposition in remaining cases; the case where the second map at (5.19) is not zero, and the case where the second map at (5.22) is not zero.' The proposition is not a harmless technicality: its inequality (5.16) is used in (5.15) and Proposition 5.16, which in turn produces the final bound (6.13) in Theorem 6.1. Every nonzero f must satisfy the inequality, and the two omitted branches are exactly the remaining alternatives for the L∨-twisted cohomology. If either omitted branch can contribute more than 2, the margin in (6.13) disappears and the rank bound of Theorem 6.1, and consequently the canonical-singularity conclusion, is not justified. The remaining cases must be proved explicitly, or Proposition 5.11 must be stated as an assumption.
  2. [Section 7, proof of Theorem 7.1(i), after eq. (7.2)] The proof asserts 'Then one can show that 2D + K_X - B = 0 in a similar way to Lemma 5.8' without giving the derivation. This equality is load-bearing: it is used to obtain (7.3) and (7.4), to analyze the multiplicities via Fact 5.14, and to derive the contradiction. Lemma 5.8 is nontrivial; it relies on the diagram (5.8), the Z/2-equivariant isomorphism of Lemma 5.6, and descent theory. The analogous statement in Theorem 7.1, where E is not assumed to be Case I, cannot be taken as automatic. A separate proof or a complete reduction to Lemma 5.8 is required. In addition, the final assertion after (7.7) that 'this never occur' is too terse; since it supplies the contradiction that forces E into Case I, it must be written out. Theorem 7.1(i) is essential for Theorem 7.1(ii), because the Kodaira-dimension formula uses the fact that all singular points are canonical.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5, eq. (5.18)] The reduction to h^1(R(K_X)/G) - h^1(R(K_X)/G ⊗ L∨) = h^0(gr^{HN}_0) - h^0(gr^{HN}_0 ⊗ L∨) is justified by 'standard arguments'; this should be expanded, since the Harder-Narasimhan and Jordan-Hölder filtrations on the non-reduced scheme B_0 are delicate.
  2. [Section 6, eq. (6.13)] The quantities Λ(B), Λ_2(B), Λ_3(B), Λ_4(B) are introduced in the proof of Theorem 6.1 but are defined in different places; it would help the reader to collect all four definitions before (6.13).
  3. [Section 7, proof of Theorem 7.1(ii)] The statement 'If M(c2) is compact (for example, c2 is odd)' would benefit from a precise reference or argument; compactness of the moduli scheme is a nontrivial condition, and the example given is only a parenthetical.
  4. [Section 9, Lemma 9.4] The heading '9.4 (16/11/3, 12/3)' appears to contain a date or note that is not appropriate for a published lemma; please remove it or move it to an acknowledgments note.
  5. [Section 8, proof of Proposition 8.1] In the line defining α', the expression 'sd-4+Λ' appears to be a typo for '2d-4+Λ'; please correct and re-read the displayed formula for α'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the singularity and Kodaira-dimension arguments derive their input bounds from independent deformation theory and local algebra.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from Theorem 1.3/6.1 back through Theorem 4.7, Proposition 5.16, Proposition 5.11, and the local claims in Sections 5–6. The rank bound rk H^1(ad(f)) >= 2 ext^2(E,E)^0 + 1 is obtained by estimating cohomology of sheaves on the double cover Y0, using standard facts about elliptic fibrations, Harder–Narasimhan filtrations, and local structure of multiple fibers; it is not obtained by assuming the conclusion. Theorem 1.3(2) then follows from the purely ring-theoretic Theorem 4.1, whose proof is an induction on the number of defining equations using the canonical singularity criterion and Elkik's deformation result. The conversion of the canonical-singularity statement into the Kodaira-dimension formula, Theorem 1.6(ii)/7.1(ii), uses Friedman's moduli map and Corollary 3.5; the canonical singularities are established independently before that conversion. The author's self-citations ([36] in Lemma 3.2, [37] in the introduction) are not used as black-box equivalents of the main theorems, and no quantity is fitted from the data it subsequently 'predicts.' The only weaknesses I found are genuine proof gaps, not circularity: Proposition 5.11 ends with 'It is left to the reader to certify this proposition in remaining cases; the case where the second map at (5.19) is not zero, and the case where the second map at (5.22) is not zero,' and the proof of Theorem 7.1(i) asserts the key equality '2D+K_X-B=0 in a similar way to Lemma 5.8' without a full derivation. These omissions affect completeness and correctness risk, but they do not exhibit a reduction of any prediction to its own input, so the circularity score remains 0.

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

The paper introduces no fitted constants and no new entities. Its results rest on standard deformation theory, a restricted class of elliptic surfaces, and Friedman's comparison map; the main burden is the rank estimate, not an extra postulate.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Fact 2.2: the completed local ring of the moduli space at a stable sheaf E is C[[t_1,...,t_{D+b}]]/(F_1,...,F_b), where the F_i start in degree two and are controlled by the maps H^1(ad(f_i)).
    Invoked in Section 2.1 and throughout; foundational deformation theory of sheaves due to Laudal, cited as [27].
  • standard math Kodaira canonical bundle formula and the torsion order of O(F)|F (Fact 5.14): O(F)|F has order m for a multiple fiber mF.
    Used in the estimates in Section 6 and in Claims 5.15, 6.3, and 6.4; standard facts from [4] and [11].
  • domain assumption Setting 1.2: X is a minimal elliptic surface with kappa(X)=1, q(X)=0, and all singular fibers are I_1 or mI_0.
    This is the class of surfaces studied; the entire fiber-wise case analysis in Sections 5 and 6 depends on this restricted fiber structure.
  • domain assumption Setting 3.1: X is generic outside a countable union of proper subvarieties, H is chosen in a fixed polyhedral cone S, and c2 is sufficiently large relative to X and S.
    Needed in Lemma 3.2, Proposition 3.3, and Corollary 3.5 for expected dimension, normality, irreducibility, and the identification of the K-dimension with Friedman's morphism.
  • standard math Base-point-freeness of O(n0 lambda(-2k_X)) and the equality K_Mbar = lambda(u1((2,0,c2))) on the good locus, from [21, p.224] and Lemma 3.2.
    Used in Section 3 to identify the pluricanonical map with the map induced by lambda(-2k_X) and to invoke the Iitaka fibration; this is how the Kodaira dimension result is obtained.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Kodaira dimension and singularities of moduli of stable sheaves on some elliptic surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EGRKMBMQ

@misc{pith2026190805027,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Kodaira dimension and singularities of moduli of stable sheaves on some elliptic surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EGRKMBMQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05027}
}
abstract

Let $X$ be an elliptic surface over ${\bf P}^1$ with $\kappa(X)=1$, and $M=M(c_2)$ be the moduli scheme of rank-two stable sheaves $E$ on $X$ with $(c_1(E),c_2(E))=(0,c_2)$ in $\operatorname{Pic}(X)\times\mathbb{Z}$. We look into defining equations of $M$ at its singularity $E$, partly because if $M$ admits only canonical singularities, then the Kodaira dimension $\kappa(M)$ can be calculated. We show the following. (A) $E$ is at worst canonical singularity of $M$ if the restriction of $E_{\eta}$ to the generic fiber of $X$ has no rank-one subsheaf, and if the number of multiple fibers of $X$ is a few. (B) We obtain that $\kappa(M)=\{1+\dim(M)\}/2$ and the Iitaka program of $M$ can be described in purely moduli-theoretic way for $c_2\gg 0$, when $\chi({\mathcal O}_X)=1$, $X$ has just two multiple fibers, and one of its multiplicities equals $2$. (C) On the other hand, when $E_{\eta}$ has a rank-one subsheaf, it may be insufficient to look at only the degree-two part of defining equations to judge whether $E$ is at worst canonical singularity or not.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arbarello and G

    E. Arbarello and G. Sacc` a, Singularities of moduli spaces of sheaves on K3 surfaces and Nakajima quiver varieties, Adv. Math. 329 (2018), 649–703

  2. [2]

    M. F. Atiyah, Vector bundles over an elliptic curve , Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 7 (1957), 414–452

  3. [3]

    B˘ anic˘ a, M

    C. B˘ anic˘ a, M. Putinar, and G. Schumacher,Variation der globalen Ext in Deformationen kompakter kom- plexer R¨ aume, Math. Ann. 250 (1980), no. 2, 135–155

  4. [4]

    Barth, K

    P. Barth, K. Hulek, C. Peters, and A. Van de Ven, Compact complex surfaces , Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge., vol. 4, Springer-Verlag, 2004

  5. [5]

    Bridgeland, Fourier-Mukai transforms for elliptic surfaces , J

    T. Bridgeland, Fourier-Mukai transforms for elliptic surfaces , J. Reine Angew. Math. 498 (1998), 115–133

  6. [6]

    N Budur and Z Zhang, Formality conjecture for k3 surfaces , (2018), arXiv:1803.03974

  7. [7]

    Cartan and S

    H. Cartan and S. Eilenberg, Homological algebra, Princeton University Press, 1999

  8. [8]

    Elkik, Singularit´ es rationnelles et d´ eformations, Invent

    R. Elkik, Singularit´ es rationnelles et d´ eformations, Invent. Math. 47 (1978), no. 2, 139–147

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Friedman, Rank two vector bundles over regular elliptic surfaces , Invent

    R. Friedman, Rank two vector bundles over regular elliptic surfaces , Invent. Math. 96 (1989), no. 2, 283–332

  2. [10]

    , Vector bundles and so(3)-invariants for elliptic surfaces , J. Amer. Math. Soc. 8 (1995), no. 1, 29–139

  3. [11]

    , Algebraic surfaces and holomorphic vector bundles , Universitext, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998

  4. [12]

    Friedman and J

    R. Friedman and J. W. Morgan, Smooth four-manifolds and complex surfaces , Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994

  5. [13]

    Gieseker, On the moduli of vector bundles on an algebraic surface , Ann

    D. Gieseker, On the moduli of vector bundles on an algebraic surface , Ann. of Math. (2) 106 (1977), no. 1, 45–60

  6. [14]

    Gieseker and J

    D. Gieseker and J. Li, Irreducibility of moduli of rank- 2 vector bundles on algebraic surfaces , J. Differential Geom. 40 (1994), no. 1, 23–104

  7. [15]

    Goto and K

    S. Goto and K. Watanabe, On graded rings. I , J. Math. Soc. Japan 30 (1978), no. 2, 179–213

  8. [16]

    Grothendieck and J

    A. Grothendieck and J. Dieudonn´ e, ´El´ ements de g´ eom´ etrie alg´ ebrique. III., Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. (1961), no. 11

  9. [17]

    IV., Inst

    , ´El´ ements de g´ eom´ etrie alg´ ebrique. IV., Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. (1967), no. 32

  10. [18]

    Hartshorne, Residues and duality , Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol

    R. Hartshorne, Residues and duality , Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 20, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1 966

  11. [19]

    , Algebraic geometry, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 197 7

  12. [20]

    257, Springer, New York, 20 10

    , Deformation theory , Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 257, Springer, New York, 20 10

  13. [21]

    Huybrechts and M

    D. Huybrechts and M. Lehn, The geometry of moduli spaces of sheaves , second ed., Cambridge Mathematical Library, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010

  14. [22]

    Iitaka, Algebraic geometry, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, 1982

    S. Iitaka, Algebraic geometry, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, 1982

  15. [23]

    Ishii, Introduction to singularities , Springer, Tokyo, 2014

    S. Ishii, Introduction to singularities , Springer, Tokyo, 2014

  16. [24]

    Kaledin, M

    D. Kaledin, M. Lehn, and Ch. Sorger, Singular symplectic moduli spaces , Invent. Math. 164 (2006), no. 3, 591–614

  17. [25]

    Kas, Weierstrass normal forms and invariants of elliptic surfac es, Trans

    A. Kas, Weierstrass normal forms and invariants of elliptic surfac es, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 225 (1977), 259–266

  18. [26]

    Koll´ ar and S

    J. Koll´ ar and S. Mori, Birational geometry of algebraic varieties , vol. 134, Cambridge University Press, 1998

  19. [27]

    Laudal, Matric massey products and formal moduli i

    A. Laudal, Matric massey products and formal moduli i. , Algebra, Algebraic Topology and their interactions, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1183, Springer Verlag, 1986, p p. 218–240

  20. [28]

    Li, Kodaira dimension of moduli space of vector bundles on surfa ces, Invent

    J. Li, Kodaira dimension of moduli space of vector bundles on surfa ces, Invent. Math. 115 (1994), no. 1, 1–40

  21. [29]

    Matsuki, Introduction to the Mori program , Universitext, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002

    K. Matsuki, Introduction to the Mori program , Universitext, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002

  22. [30]

    Matsumura, Commutative ring theory , Cambridge Univ

    M. Matsumura, Commutative ring theory , Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986

  23. [31]

    Miranda, The moduli of Weierstrass fibrations over P1, Math

    R. Miranda, The moduli of Weierstrass fibrations over P1, Math. Ann. 255 (1981), no. 3, 379–394. KODAIRA DIMENSION AND SINGULARITIES OF MODULI 45

  24. [32]

    Mukai, Symplectic structure of the moduli space of sheaves on an abe lian or K3 surface, Invent

    S. Mukai, Symplectic structure of the moduli space of sheaves on an abe lian or K3 surface, Invent. Math. 77 (1984), no. 1, 101–116

  25. [33]

    O’Grady, A new six-dimensional irreducible symplectic variety , J

    K. O’Grady, A new six-dimensional irreducible symplectic variety , J. Algebraic Geom. 12 (2003), no. 3, 435–505

  26. [34]

    Qin, Birational properties of moduli spaces of stable locally fr ee rank- 2 sheaves on algebraic surfaces , Manuscripta Math

    Z. Qin, Birational properties of moduli spaces of stable locally fr ee rank- 2 sheaves on algebraic surfaces , Manuscripta Math. 72 (1991), no. 2, 163–180

  27. [35]

    A. N. Tyurin, Symplectic structures on the moduli spaces of vector bundle s on algebraic surfaces with pg > 0, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 52 (1988), no. 4, 813–852, 896

  28. [36]

    Yamada, Flips and variation of moduli scheme of sheaves on a surface , J

    K. Yamada, Flips and variation of moduli scheme of sheaves on a surface , J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 49 (2009), no. 2, 419–425, arXiv:0811.3522

  29. [37]

    , Singularities and Kodaira dimension of moduli scheme of sta ble sheaves on Enriques surfaces , Kyoto J. Math. 53 (2013), no. 1, 145–153, arXiv:1123896

  30. [38]

    Yoshioka, Some notes on the moduli of stable sheaves on elliptic surfac es, Nagoya Math

    K. Yoshioka, Some notes on the moduli of stable sheaves on elliptic surfac es, Nagoya Math. J. 154 (1999), 73–102

  31. [39]

    , Fourier-Mukai duality for K3 surfaces via Bridgeland stabi lity condition , J. Geom. Phys. 122 (2017), 103–118. Email address : yamada@xmath.ous.ac.jp Department of applied mathematics, F aculty of Science, Oka yama University of Science, Japan

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.