Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

GLSM monodromy on quantum period lattice of Calabi-Yau fourfold flops

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives the window-shift monodromy for Calabi-Yau fourfold flops as an EZ twist after tensoring with the canonical bundle, and verifies the factorization on splitting families of $\mathbb{P}^5[6]$ and $G(2,5)[4,1]$.

desk verdict New CY4 monodromy results with a solid S00 derivation, but the central theorem leans on an unproved CY3 import and the examples stand or fall on it. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06280 v1 pith:FNMEX2ZR submitted 2026-08-06 hep-th

Ban Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 14J3214F0881T30
keywords Calabi-YaufourfoldflopsgaugedlinearsigmamodelgraderestrictionrulewindowcategoryB-branemonodromyEZtwistsphericaltwistsA-periods
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper derives the monodromy that a flop transition induces on the B-brane charges of a Calabi-Yau fourfold, the data one needs to transport D-brane charges and flux between birational phases. The setting is a splitting configuration realized by an abelian PAX gauged linear $\sigma$ model, with two geometric phases related by a flop over a curve of conifold singularities. Using the grade restriction rule and window categories, the paper fixes an integral basis of A-periods (central charges of the eight-, six-, four-, two-, and zero-cycle branes) and establishes that the window-shift monodromy factorizes as $\mathbb{M}=\mathbb{T}\cdot L_{K_Y}$: a canonical-bundle twist followed by an EZ twist of the collapsing exceptional surface. On the two example families the monodromy decomposes into spherical twists, giving braid-type relations $\mathbb{M}=(T_{\mathcal{O}_X}L)^6L^{-6}$ for $\mathbb{P}^5[6]$ and $\mathbb{M}=(T_{\mathcal{S}_X}T_{\mathcal{O}_X}L)^4L^{-4}$ for $G(2,5)[4,1]$. If the factorization is right, the full integral B-brane charge lattice is carried across the flop by an explicit integer monodromy matrix linked to the topology of the stringy Kaehler moduli space.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the GLSM window category: B-branes are represented by equivariant matrix factorizations, and a loop around the phase boundary between $X_{\zeta_+}$ and $X_{\zeta_-}$ is implemented by grade-restricted windows $\mathcal{W}(0)$ and $\mathcal{W}(-1)$, with the monodromy functor $\mathbb{M}=F_{E_+}\circ F_{E_-}$ obtained by taking cones with the empty objects $E_\pm$. The grade restriction rule restricts the $U(1)$ weights of a brane's matrix factorization to the band $-m/2<q_0+\theta_0/2\pi<m/2$, which selects which objects can cross the phase boundary. On an integral basis of A-periods for the $D_8,D_6,D_4,D_2,D_0$ cycles, the calculation is carried by brane factors $f_B(\sigma)$ and is summarized by the factorization $\mathbb{M}=\mathbb{T}\cdot L_{K_Y}$. The twist $\mathbb{T}$ is an EZ twist, a twist functor associated with the contraction of an exceptional surface to a curve: $Z_{\mathbb{T}(B)}=Z_B-\chi(\mathcal{O}_S+(1-g)\mathcal{O}_F,B)Z_{\mathcal{O}_F}+\chi(\mathcal{O}_F,B)Z_{\mathcal{O}_S}$, with $1-g=-N_4/2$, $Z_{\mathcal{O}_S}=N_5Z_{\tilde{\mathcal{O}}_{S_{00}}}+\sum_\alpha N_4^{(\alpha)}Z_{\tilde{\mathcal{O}}_{S_{0\alpha}}}$, and $Z_{\mathcal{O}_F}=Z_{\tilde{f}_{C_0}}$.

What would settle it

On the $\mathbb{P}^5[6]$ splitting family, compute $\mathbb{M}(\mathcal{O}_{S_{00}})$ directly from the fourfold grade-restriction complex rather than recycling the threefold result, and compare the coefficient of $Z_{\tilde{f}_{C_0}}$ with the paper's $Z_{C'}=N_5Z_{\tilde{f}_{C_0}}$; any mismatch would falsify Theorem 4.2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as Theorem 4.2, is that for a splitting Calabi-Yau fourfold $X\subset \mathbb{P}^{m-1}\times Y$ realized as the $\zeta_+$ phase of an abelian PAX GLSM, the window-shift monodromy $\mathbb{M}$ acting on an integral basis $\vec{\Pi}$ of B-brane central charges is $\mathbb{M}=\mathbb{T}\cdot L_{K_Y}$. Here $L_{K_Y}(B)=B\otimes K_Y$ is the large-volume monodromy of the residual hypersurface $Y$, and $\mathbb{T}$ is an EZ twist of the exceptional surface class $[S]=N_5[\tilde{S}_{00}]+\sum_\alpha N_4^{(\alpha)}[\tilde{S}_{0\alpha}]$ collapsing to a curve of genus $1-g=-N_4/2$ with generic $\mathbb{P}^1$ fibre. The genuinely new fourfold computation is on the surface class $\mathcal{O}_{S_{00}}$, done at the brane-factor level and yielding $Z_{C'}=N_5Z_{\tilde{f}_{C_0}}$, while the action on $\mathcal{O}_{S_{0\alpha}}$ is induced from that on $\mathcal{O}_{D_0}$ by the defining exact sequence. On the example families, the paper verifies the matrix identities $\mathbb{M}\equiv (T_{\mathcal{O}_X}L)^6L^{-6}$ for $\mathbb{P}^5[6]$, $\mathbb{M}\equiv (T_{\mathcal{S}_X}T_{\mathcal{O}_X}L)^4L^{-4}$ for $G(2,5)[4,1]$, and $T^4\equiv (T_{\mathcal{S}_X}T_{\mathcal{O}_X}L)^4$ for the degree-one splitting. If these identities are correct, the full B-brane charge lattice of the splitting fourfold transforms integrally under this autoequivalence.

Load-bearing premise

The computation takes the monodromy on the simplest brane objects from a three-dimensional setting and assumes it is the same in four dimensions, and it assumes the threefold contraction formula still works for a fourfold's exceptional surface; if either assumption fails, the main factorization collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The B-brane charge lattice of a splitting Calabi-Yau fourfold carries an explicit integer monodromy matrix $\mathbb{M}$, so brane charges can be transported across the flop loop without ambiguity.
  • The monodromy factorizes as $\mathbb{T}\cdot L_{K_Y}$, which gives a derived-category interpretation: the loop acts by tensoring with the canonical bundle of the smoothed hypersurface, then by an EZ twist localised on the exceptional surface.
  • On the examples, $\mathbb{M}=(T_{\mathcal{O}_X}L)^6L^{-6}$ for $\mathbb{P}^5[6]$ and $\mathbb{M}=(T_{\mathcal{S}_X}T_{\mathcal{O}_X}L)^4L^{-4}$ for $G(2,5)[4,1]$, so the loop is a braid-group word in spherical twists.
  • The dual surface classes $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}_{S_{\mu\nu}}$ supply an integral basis of the relevant four-cycle data, with pairing $\chi(\mathcal{O}_{S_{\alpha\beta}},\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{S}_{\rho\sigma}})=\delta_{\alpha\rho}\delta_{\beta\sigma}$, which is what makes the monodromy matrix integral.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit: the brane-factor computation should be repeatable for Calabi-Yau flops of dimension five or higher, isolating at which dimension the threefold input behind Theorem 4.1 breaks.
  • If the EZ-twist interpretation is right, the same local twist should appear in any flop with the same exceptional-surface model, independent of the global complete intersection; one can test this by computing the monodromy in a different PAX family with the same $N_4,N_5$ data.
  • The advertised braid-type relations suggest a numerical check on the additional splitting families listed in the paper: compute $(T_{\mathcal{O}_X}L)^kL^{-k}$ for each and compare with the predicted $\mathbb{T}\cdot L_{K_Y}$, turning the conjectured torus-link decomposition into a concrete calculation.
  • An integral charge basis with known monodromy could be used directly in flux-quantization computations for compactifications on these fourfolds, once the B-field frame is fixed.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies window-shift monodromy for Calabi--Yau fourfold flops in splitting configurations realized by abelian PAX GLSMs. It proposes an integral charge basis for B-brane central charges, introduces dual surface classes (\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{S}_{\mu\nu}}), computes their classical A-periods from intersection numbers, and states Theorem 4.2 that the monodromy factorizes as M = T \cdot L_{K_Y}, with T an EZ twist associated with a collapsing exceptional surface. The genuinely new computation is the grade-restriction/window-shift action on the surface class O_{S_{00}} at the brane-factor level (eqs. (165)--(183)), while the actions on O_X, O_{D_\alpha}, O_{\tilde{C}_\alpha}, O_P and on the complex C are imported from the author's companion CY3 paper [12]. Two example families (splitting configurations of P^5[6] and G(2,5)[4,1]) are then checked by direct matrix multiplication against spherical-twist decompositions.

Significance. If the imported chain-level inputs are valid, the paper gives explicit integral monodromy matrices for CY4 flops and identifies them as EZ twists, a nontrivial four-dimensional extension of earlier CY3 results. The strengths are concrete: no constants are fitted, the coefficients N_4 and N_5 are derived from intersection numbers and splitting formulae, the S_{00} computation is carried out at the brane-factor level, and the example identities are presented as checkable matrix computations. The significance is, however, conditional on the unproved dimension-independence of Theorem 4.1 and on the asserted applicability of the CY3 degeneration formula to surface degenerations; these are load-bearing premises rather than presentation issues.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Theorem 4.1 and eqs. (136)--(155)] The factorization M = T \cdot L_{K_Y} rests on the statement that the CY3 results in [12] "are universal on the chain complex level and thus can be directly recycled for CY4 cases." This is load-bearing but unsupported in the present manuscript. In particular, the complex C in eq. (136) and its central charge Z_C in eq. (155) produce precisely the coefficients N_5 and N_4^{(\alpha)} that define T in eq. (141); the actions on O_X, O_{D_\alpha}, O_{\tilde{C}_\alpha} and O_P are taken verbatim from Theorem 4.1, whose footnote says only that the actions on the latter two objects are derived at the central-charge level. None of these actions is re-derived in dimension four. If the window-shift cone for O_X or O_{D_0} acquires dimension-dependent terms because the exceptional locus is a surface fibration over a curve, then eqs. (139) and (155) would change and the example identities (196), (203), (206) would fail even though the new S_{00} computation stands. Please either supply a self-contained derivation of these actions for CY4 or give a precise proof/statement of the claimed dimension-independence.
  2. [Section 4, note after eq. (142)] The paper explicitly flags as "crucial" that the original CY3 formula for divisor degeneration is applicable to the surface degeneration in CY4, with generic fiber \mathbb{P}^1 over a curve, but this is only asserted and supported by citations [9,10,43]. This premise is needed for the interpretation of T as an EZ twist: it fixes the identification of the surface class [S] = N_5[\tilde{S}_{00}] + \sum_\alpha N_4^{(\alpha)}[\tilde{S}_{0\alpha}] and the genus relation 1-g = -N_4/2 used in eqs. (142)--(143). The matrix T itself could in principle be computed without this interpretation, but the paper's central physical claim that the monodromy is an EZ twist of an exceptional surface collapsing to a genus 1-g curve requires a proof or a citation that explicitly covers surface contractions in Calabi--Yau fourfolds, not merely divisor degenerations in CY3.
  3. [Section 3.1, eq. (94)] The pairing matrix entry \chi(O_{S_{\alpha\beta}}, O_{S_\rho}) has no right-hand side; the displayed text reads "\chi(O_{S_{\alpha\beta}}, O_{S_\rho}) =(94)". This is a missing mathematical statement in the core definition of the integral basis and in the pairing data used to translate T into the EZ-twist form in eq. (142). If the intended value is zero, that should be stated; if it is nonvanishing, the formula must be supplied. Either way, the omission should be fixed before the basis and the EZ-twist identification can be considered complete.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3, eq. (133)] The symbol n(\alpha) in Z_{\tilde{S}_{0\alpha}} = \kappa_0 \kappa_\alpha - \frac{1}{24} n(\alpha) is not defined in the text. It is not obviously related to the dimensions m_\mu, m_\nu and the c_2(R) integral appearing in the general formula (104), so the reader cannot verify the reduction without additional explanation.
  2. [Section 5, eqs. (186), (187), (202), (205)] The matrices are displayed as lower-triangular arrays with zero entries omitted, which makes the claimed direct matrix multiplications hard to verify by eye. A full row/column display of each matrix, or an explicit statement of the omitted zeros, would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Section 3.2, around eq. (109)] The phrase "the pairing between fS00 or gS0\alpha to any other cycle is zero" contains a typo: "fS00" should presumably read "\tilde{S}_{00}" or "O_{\tilde{S}_{00}}". Please correct the notation.
  4. [Theorem 4.1 and reference [12]] Since Theorem 4.1 is the main import and [12] is a companion paper by the same author, the manuscript should state the publication status of [12] and, if it is not yet published, include the full statement (or an appendix proof) of the needed theorem so that the present paper is self-contained.
  5. [Section 3, eq. (50)] The paper repeatedly speaks of the "quantum period lattice," but only the classical part Z_E^0 of the A-periods is computed; instanton corrections are written but never evaluated. A short remark explaining why the charge-lattice monodromy statements are insensitive to these corrections would avoid any impression that the quantum periods themselves are being computed exactly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Theorem 4.2 inherits the OX/OD0/OP block of M from the author's CY3 theorem without a CY4 derivation, making the central monodromy partly self-citation load-bearing; the S00 computation and example checks are independent, so it is not more circular.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4, Theorem 4.1 and surrounding text (before eq. (136))]
    "In particular, the results there are universal on the chain complex level and thus can be directly recycled for CY4 cases: Theorem 4.1.(Section 3.2 of [12]) Given a GLSM that realizes a splitting CY n-fold Xn ⊂ Pm−1 × Y n+1, the abelian window shift action M is isomorphic to the action LKY when it acts on the B-branes corresponding to OX, ODα, OfCα, OP. The action on OD0 is numerically equivalent to LKY (OD0 ⊕ C[1]) where C := ..."

    The CY4 monodromy M in Theorem 4.2 is not computed from scratch: the action on OX, ODα, OfCα, OP and on OD0 via the complex C is taken verbatim from the author's CY3 companion paper [12], with the only justification being the assertion of universality. These recycled entries are load-bearing: they fix the LKY block and the ZD0 entry that, via eq. (155), supplies the N5 and N4 coefficients defining T in eq. (141). The new S00 computation (eqs. 165-183) tests only the surface class S00 and cannot verify the recycled block. Thus the central matrix M = T·LKY is partly an imported same-author result rather than a CY4 derivation.

full rationale

No fitted constants are renamed as predictions: intersection numbers, Chern characters, the N4/N5 coefficients, and the monodromy matrices are computed from GLSM data and splitting formulae, and the example identities (196) and (203) are direct matrix verifications against independently constructed T, L, TOX and TSX. The central circularity burden is the import of Theorem 4.1 from the author's own CY3 paper [12] as a 'universal' statement valid for CY4 without re-derivation. The paper itself flags a related unresolved premise after eq. (142): 'It is crucial for S being an exceptional surface with F ∼= P1 fiber ... that the original CY3 formula for divisor degeneration is applicable for surface degeneration in CY4 [10,43].' That is a correctness risk rather than a circular reduction, because [10,43] are external references and the formula is not used to define the target result. Overall, the paper has substantial independent content — the S00 computation and the numerical decomposition checks are genuine — but the central theorem rests in part on a same-author import, so the circularity score is 4, not higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper's core computation is parameter-free: intersection numbers, Chern characters and monodromy matrices are derived from GLSM data and splitting formulae. The ledger entries capture what is pulled in from prior work or assumed: the dimension-universality of the author's own CY3 monodromy theorem, the transfer of the EZ-twist formula from divisors (CY3) to surfaces (CY4), and the identification of the hemisphere partition function with geometric A-periods. The only genuinely new postulated objects are the dual surface classes OgS_munu, defined explicitly and paired against O_Smunu, though one pairing row is left blank in eq. (94).

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Theorem 4.1 of the companion CY3 paper [12] is 'universal on the chain complex level and thus can be directly recycled for CY4 cases': the window-shift monodromy acts as L_KY on O_X, O_Dalpha, O_fCalpha, O_P and as L_KY(O_D0 + C[1]) with C of eq. (136).
    Transfers the monodromy action on most classes of the CY4 period basis from the author's own prior threefold work, asserted without proof in this text.
  • domain assumption The CY3 divisor-degeneration (EZ twist) formula applies to surface degeneration in CY4 because S is an exceptional surface with P^1 fiber and EZ-spherical invertible sheaves: 'It is crucial... that the original CY3 formula for divisor degeneration is applicable for surface degeneration in CY4'.
    Underpins the interpretation of T in Theorem 4.2 as an EZ twist and the braid-group decompositions of section 5.
  • domain assumption The hemisphere partition function coincides with the geometric A-period, Z_B|zeta+ = Z_geom (eq. 49), with flat coordinates identified as J = kappa_alpha J_alpha in eq. (50).
    The paper states 'we expect' this identification; all period expressions depend on it.
  • domain assumption Vector R-charges of the zeta+- phases are set to the boundary values (0,0,2,2) and (0,2,0,2), outside the interval (0,2), asserted to give well-defined hemisphere partition functions.
    Fixes the integrand in eq. (43); the text itself notes the charges are 'not strictly inside the interval (0,2)'.
  • standard math Standard integration identities, in particular Proposition 3.1 (Bertram's residue formula, ref. [35]) and Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch computations of the pairing matrix, are used without proof.
    Background results on which the period and pairing computations rest.
invented entities (2)
  • Dual surface classes OgS_munu (OgS_munu = O_P1xP1(-1,-1) for mu != nu, O_P2(-2) for mu = nu) with A-periods in eqs. (104)-(105) independent evidence
    purpose: Give an integral dual basis to the O_Smunu surface classes so the EZ-twist action of T on Z_D0 can be written as N5 Z_gS00 + N4^(alpha) Z_gS0alpha (eqs. 141-143).
    The pairing chi(O_Salphabeta, O_gSrhosigma) = delta_alpharho delta_betasigma is computed explicitly in eqs. (107)-(108); caveat: the row chi(O_Salphabeta, O_Srho) is left blank in eq. (94).
  • Monodromy class C (eq. 136) and its CY4 avatar C' (eqs. 179-181) independent evidence
    purpose: Bookkeeping complex whose central charge (155) produces the EZ-twist coefficients N5, N4^(alpha), N4/2 multiplying the gS and fC0 periods.
    Its Chern character and central charge are derived from GLSM brane factors (eqs. 150-155, 181-183) and the resulting T is verified against braid-group products in section 5; the checkable handle is internal to the paper rather than an empirical prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GLSM monodromy on quantum period lattice of Calabi-Yau fourfold flops." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNMEX2ZR

@misc{pith2026260806280,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GLSM monodromy on quantum period lattice of Calabi-Yau fourfold flops},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNMEX2ZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06280}
}
read the original abstract

We establish an integral basis for the B-brane central charges of certain Calabi-Yau fourfold flops and derive exact expressions for their monodromies using the grade restriction rule and window categories of the associated gauged linear sigma models. The monodromy is interpreted as an EZ twist associated with the contraction of an exceptional surface onto a curve of conifold singularities. We further illustrate a decomposition of the EZ twist into spherical twists for families of splitting configurations of the sixtic Calabi-Yau fourfold and a complete intersection in grassmannian.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06280 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Here the monodromy M is illustrated by black arrows and D := {z1 = 0}. We write M∆ and MD for the monodromies around the components S 3 ∩ D and S 3 ∩ ∆, respectively. point near ζ+. To be more precise, we take a loop that keeps zα = exp(−tα) = εα = const., α = 1, . . . , r fixed at |εi | ≪ 1 for all i and we only vary z0 on a loop surrounding the points ∆ ∩ \r i=1 {zi = εi} ⊂ MK (38) once. This loop is sketched, for… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Monodromy of Calabi-Yau threefold flops via grade restriction rule and their quantum Kahler moduli

    B. Lin and M. Romo, “Monodromy of Calabi-Yau threefold flops via grade restriction rule and their quantum Kahler moduli,”2605.18514

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [6]

    Phases Of N=2 Theories In 1+1 Dimensions With Boundary,

    M. Herbst, K. Hori, and D. Page, “Phases Of N=2 Theories In 1+1 Dimensions With Boundary,”0803.2045

    arXiv

  3. [1]

    Possible Phase Transitions among Calabi-Yau Compactifications,

    P. S. Green and T. Hubsch, “Possible Phase Transitions among Calabi-Yau Compactifications,”Phys. Rev. Lett.61(1988) 1163

    work page 1988

  4. [2]

    I-brane inflow and anomalous couplings on d-branes,

    M. B. Green, J. A. Harvey, and G. W. Moore, “I-brane inflow and anomalous couplings on d-branes,”Class. Quant. Grav.14(1997) 47–52,hep-th/9605033

    arXiv 1997

  5. [3]

    Conifold Transitions in M-theory on Calabi-Yau Fourfolds with Background Fluxes,

    K. Intriligator, H. Jockers, P. Mayr, D. R. Morrison, and M. R. Plesser, “Conifold Transitions in M-theory on Calabi-Yau Fourfolds with Background Fluxes,”Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.17(2013), no. 3, 601–699,1203.6662

    arXiv 2013

  6. [4]

    Unification of M- and F- Theory Calabi-Yau Fourfold Vacua

    I. Brunner, M. Lynker, and R. Schimmrigk, “Unification of M theory and F theory Calabi-Yau fourfold vacua,”Nucl. Phys. B498(1997) 156–174,hep-th/9610195

    work page Pith review arXiv 1997

  7. [5]

    Nonabelian 2D Gauge Theories for Determinantal Calabi-Yau Varieties,

    H. Jockers, V. Kumar, J. M. Lapan, D. R. Morrison, and M. Romo, “Nonabelian 2D Gauge Theories for Determinantal Calabi-Yau Varieties,”JHEP11(2012) 166, 1205.3192

    arXiv 2012

  8. [7]

    Exact Results In Two-Dimensional (2,2) Supersymmetric Gauge Theories With Boundary,

    K. Hori and M. Romo, “Exact Results In Two-Dimensional (2,2) Supersymmetric Gauge Theories With Boundary,”1308.2438

    arXiv

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    Quantum periods of Calabi–Yau fourfolds,

    A. Gerhardus and H. Jockers, “Quantum periods of Calabi–Yau fourfolds,”Nucl. Phys. B913(2016) 425–474,1604.05325

    2016 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Some navigation rules for D-brane monodromy,

    P. S. Aspinwall, “Some navigation rules for D-brane monodromy,”J. Math. Phys.42 (2001) 5534–5552,hep-th/0102198

    2001 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Derived category automorphisms from mirror symmetry,

    R. P. Horja, “Derived category automorphisms from mirror symmetry,”math/0103231. 33

    arXiv

  4. [11]

    B-brane Transport and Grade Restriction Rule for Determinantal Varieties,

    B. Lin and M. Romo, “B-brane Transport and Grade Restriction Rule for Determinantal Varieties,”2402.07109

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Braid group actions on derived categories of coherent sheaves,

    P. Seidel and R. P. Thomas, “Braid group actions on derived categories of coherent sheaves,”math/0001043

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Notes on the hemisphere,

    K. Hori and M. Romo, “Notes on the hemisphere,” inNotes on the hemisphere. 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Chiral Rings in N=2 Superconformal Theories,

    W. Lerche, C. Vafa, and N. P. Warner, “Chiral Rings in N=2 Superconformal Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B324(1989) 427–474

    1989

  8. [16]

    Calabi-yau Manifolds as Complete Intersections in Products of Complex Projective Spaces,

    P. Green and T. Hubsch, “Calabi-yau Manifolds as Complete Intersections in Products of Complex Projective Spaces,”Commun. Math. Phys.109(1987) 99

    1987

  9. [17]

    Complete Intersection Calabi-Yau Manifolds,

    P. Candelas, A. M. Dale, C. A. Lutken, and R. Schimmrigk, “Complete Intersection Calabi-Yau Manifolds,”Nucl. Phys. B298(1988) 493

    1988

  10. [18]

    Flops for complete intersection Calabi-Yau threefolds,

    C. Brodie, A. Constantin, A. Lukas, and F. Ruehle, “Flops for complete intersection Calabi-Yau threefolds,”J. Geom. Phys.186(2023) 104767,2112.12106

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Phases of N=2 theories in two-dimensions,

    E. Witten, “Phases of N=2 theories in two-dimensions,”Nucl. Phys. B403(1993) 159–222,hep-th/9301042

    1993 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Summing the instantons: Quantum cohomology and mirror symmetry in toric varieties,

    D. R. Morrison and M. R. Plesser, “Summing the instantons: Quantum cohomology and mirror symmetry in toric varieties,”Nucl. Phys. B440(1995) 279–354, hep-th/9412236

    1995 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Aspects of Non-Abelian Gauge Dynamics in Two-Dimensional N=(2,2) Theories,

    K. Hori and D. Tong, “Aspects of Non-Abelian Gauge Dynamics in Two-Dimensional N=(2,2) Theories,”JHEP05(2007) 079,hep-th/0609032

    2007 arXiv

  14. [22]

    On genus one fibered Calabi-Yau threefolds with 5-sections,

    J. Knapp, E. Scheidegger, and T. Schimannek, “On genus one fibered Calabi-Yau threefolds with 5-sections,”2107.05647

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Autoequivalences of derived categories via geometric invariant theory,

    D. Halpern-Leistner and I. Shipman, “Autoequivalences of derived categories via geometric invariant theory,”Advances in Mathematics303(2016) 1264–1299

    2016

  16. [24]

    Topological strings on genus one fibered Calabi-Yau 3-folds and string dualities,

    C. F. Cota, A. Klemm, and T. Schimannek, “Topological strings on genus one fibered Calabi-Yau 3-folds and string dualities,”JHEP11(2019) 170,1910.01988

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Variation of geometric invariant theory quotients and derived categories,

    M. Ballard, D. Favero, and L. Katzarkov, “Variation of geometric invariant theory quotients and derived categories,”J. Reine Angew. Math.746(2019) 235–303

    2019

  18. [26]

    The derived category of a GIT quotient,

    D. Halpern-Leistner, “The derived category of a GIT quotient,”J. Amer. Math. Soc.28 (2015), no. 3, 871–912

    2015

  19. [27]

    Equivalence between GIT quotients of Landau–Ginzburg B-models,

    E. Segal, “Equivalence between GIT quotients of Landau–Ginzburg B-models,”Comm. Math. Phys.304(2011), no. 2, 411–432

    2011

  20. [28]

    P. S. Aspinwall, T. Bridgeland, A. Craw, M. R. Douglas, A. Kapustin, G. W. Moore, M. Gross, G. Segal, B. Szendröi, and P. M. H. Wilson,Dirichlet branes and mirror symmetry, vol. 4 ofClay Mathematics Monographs. AMS, Providence, RI, 2009. 34

    2009

  21. [29]

    Topological antitopological fusion,

    S. Cecotti and C. Vafa, “Topological antitopological fusion,”Nucl. Phys. B367(1991) 359–461

    1991

  22. [30]

    D-branes and mirror symmetry,

    K. Hori, A. Iqbal, and C. Vafa, “D-branes and mirror symmetry,”hep-th/0005247

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    D-branes on Calabi-Yau spaces and their mirrors,

    H. Ooguri, Y. Oz, and Z. Yin, “D-branes on Calabi-Yau spaces and their mirrors,”Nucl. Phys. B477(1996) 407–430,hep-th/9606112

    1996 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Exact results for boundaries and domain walls in 2d supersymmetric theories,

    D. Honda and T. Okuda, “Exact results for boundaries and domain walls in 2d supersymmetric theories,”JHEP09(2015) 140,1308.2217

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Exact Results in Supersymmetric Field Theories on Manifolds with Boundaries,

    S. Sugishita and S. Terashima, “Exact Results in Supersymmetric Field Theories on Manifolds with Boundaries,”JHEP11(2013) 021,1308.1973

    2013 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Symplectic quotients by a nonAbelian group and by its maximal torus,

    S. Martin, “Symplectic quotients by a nonAbelian group and by its maximal torus,” math/0001002

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Computing schubert’s calculus with severi residues: An introduction to quantum cohomology,

    A. Bertram, “Computing schubert’s calculus with severi residues: An introduction to quantum cohomology,” inModuli of Vector Bundles, M. Maruyama, ed., vol. 179 of Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, pp. 1–10. Marcel Dekker, New York, 1996

  28. [36]

    Anomalies, branes, and currents,

    Y.-K. E. Cheung and Z. Yin, “Anomalies, branes, and currents,”Nucl. Phys. B517 (1998) 69–91,hep-th/9710206

    1998 arXiv

  29. [37]

    K theory and Ramond-Ramond charge,

    R. Minasian and G. W. Moore, “K theory and Ramond-Ramond charge,”JHEP11 (1997) 002,hep-th/9710230

    1997 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Perturbative Corrections to Kaehler Moduli Spaces,

    J. Halverson, H. Jockers, J. M. Lapan, and D. R. Morrison, “Perturbative Corrections to Kaehler Moduli Spaces,”Commun. Math. Phys.333(2015), no. 3, 1563–1584, 1308.2157

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Chern classes and the periods of mirrors,

    A. Libgober, “Chern classes and the periods of mirrors,”Mathematical Research Letters 6(1999), no. 2, 141–149

    1999

  32. [40]

    Local mirror symmetry and type IIA monodromy of Calabi-Yau manifolds,

    S. Hosono, “Local mirror symmetry and type IIA monodromy of Calabi-Yau manifolds,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.4(2000) 335–376,hep-th/0007071

    2000 arXiv

  33. [41]

    An integral structure in quantum cohomology and mirror symmetry for toric orbifolds,

    H. Iritani, “An integral structure in quantum cohomology and mirror symmetry for toric orbifolds,”Advances in Mathematics222(2009), no. 3, 1016–1079

    2009

  34. [42]

    Hodge theoretic aspects of mirror symmetry,

    L. Katzarkov, M. Kontsevich, and T. Pantev, “Hodge theoretic aspects of mirror symmetry,” inProceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 78, pp. 87–174, American Mathematical Society. 2008

    2008

  35. [43]

    Derived symmetries for crepant contractions to hypersurfaces,

    W. Donovan, “Derived symmetries for crepant contractions to hypersurfaces,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19555(2024)2409.19555. 35

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.