On the Fields of Moduli of Curves of Genus Six

Tianzhi Yang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 13 references

Every bielliptic genus-six curve descends to its field of moduli; the paper classifies almost all other genus-six strata, leaving only two explicit exceptions and one open singular case.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 13:48 UTC pith:FO36XXVQ

load-bearing objection Genuine progress on genus-6 fields of moduli, with a clean S5 neutral-subgroup classification and strong del Pezzo results; but the bielliptic theorem leans on a companion corollary whose diagonalizability hypothesis is never checked, so referee verification is required. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18992 v1 pith:FO36XXVQ submitted 2026-07-21 math.AG

On the Fields of Moduli of Curves of Genus Six

Tianzhi Yang This is my paper

classification math.AG MSC 14H1014D2314H4514J26

keywords field of modulidescentgenus 6 curvesbielliptic curvesdel Pezzo surfacesgerbesneutral subgroupsmoduli space M6

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper aims to settle, for smooth genus-six curves over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero, the classical question of when a curve has a model over its field of moduli — the fixed field of all automorphisms of the base field that preserve the isomorphism class. Using the stratification of the moduli space M6, it proves that every bielliptic curve descends, that a curve on a smooth quintic del Pezzo surface fails to descend only in two explicit automorphism-group situations, and that every curve on a singular del Pezzo surface of ADE type other than 2A1 descends. Together with earlier results for hyperelliptic curves and plane quintics, this leaves only the 2A1 singular case and the two explicit exceptions open. The reason a reader should care is that field-of-moduli descent is the arithmetic counterpart of the geometry of M6: it tells exactly which isomorphism classes are 'rational' in the Galois sense.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem B. For a smooth genus-six curve C over an algebraically closed field K of characteristic 0: (i) if C is bielliptic, then C descends to its field of moduli; (ii) if C lies on a smooth quintic del Pezzo surface and does not descend, then the automorphism group is either C2, or D10 with sqrt(-1) not in the base field; (iii) if the unique quintic del Pezzo surface is singular of type different from 2A1, then C descends. The proof constructs, for each stratum, a faithful morphism from the residue gerbe of C to the classifying stack of the automorphism group of a distinguished ambient structure — the elliptic quotient for bielliptic curves

What carries the argument

The residue gerbe of C, a stack over the field of moduli classifying twisted forms of C; a faithful morphism from it to a classifying stack BΓ of a distinguished group scheme Γ; and the notion of a neutral subgroup of Γ(K). Neutrality is probed via 'gates' — subgroups Π of Γ that, for every twisted form, admit a factorization through BΠ — and a cohomological criterion (surjectivity of H1(F,Π)→H1(F,Π/G)) for neutrality when G is normal in Π. The bielliptic case uses the splitting of the Hodge bundle into eigenspaces of the unique bielliptic involution, producing a cyclic representation J→GL5 that is shown neutral; the del Pezzo cases use the classification of neutral subgroups of S5 and the f

Load-bearing premise

The descent results for bielliptic and trigonal curves are built on neutrality criteria stated in this paper only by reference to two companion preprints; if those results carry hidden hypotheses, the corresponding theorems here would fail.

What would settle it

Take a bielliptic genus-six curve over the rationals given by an explicit Pardini data pair (L,s) with deg L=5 and reduced branch divisor, and compute whether the cover admits a Q-model. If any such cover fails to descend, the bielliptic theorem is false; likewise, exhibiting a smooth-del-Pezzo genus-six curve with automorphism group not C2 or D10 that fails to descend would refute Theorem B(ii).

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

Every bielliptic genus-six curve is definable over its field of moduli; in particular, no genus-six bielliptic curve can be pseudoreal.
For smooth-del-Pezzo genus-six curves, the only obstructions to descent are automorphism group C2, or D10 with sqrt(-1) outside the field; over the complex numbers this means every such curve descends.
For singular del Pezzo surfaces of ADE types A1, A2, A2+A1, A3, A4, all genus-six curves lying on them descend to their field of moduli.
The only singular del Pezzo case left open is type 2A1, where the analysis of normalizer quotients suggests the neutrality argument can fail.
Combined with hyperelliptic and plane-quintic results, the full descent picture for M6 is reduced to the 2A1 locus and the two explicit exceptional groups.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: the D10 exception with sqrt(-1) outside the field recovers precisely the known pseudoreal genus-six curve with automorphism group D10, so the theorem's boundary case matches the only previously exhibited non-descent example.
Editorial inference: the bielliptic argument — split the Hodge bundle by a unique central involution and test the resulting cyclic representation for neutrality — should carry over to bielliptic curves of any genus, giving a uniform descent statement in that family.
Editorial inference: the 2A1 case is the natural place to expect new counterexamples: the paper's GL2 analogy suggests a non-neutral finite subgroup inside Gm^2⋊C2, which would complete the classification with an additional exception.
Editorial inference: the trigonal proof only uses uniqueness of the g^1_3 pencil and C/I ≅ P^1, so, as the paper notes, it generalizes to p-gonal genus-g curves with a unique pencil, covering all base fields, not just the real numbers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

Genuine progress on genus-6 fields of moduli, with a clean S5 neutral-subgroup classification and strong del Pezzo results; but the bielliptic theorem leans on a companion corollary whose diagonalizability hypothesis is never checked, so referee verification is required.

read the letter

Short version: this is a genuinely useful paper for the genus-6 field-of-moduli problem. It maps the remaining strata, proves descent for bielliptic curves and for most singular del Pezzo cases, and gives a clean classification of neutral subgroups of S5. The proof is well organized and the S5 table and neutral subgroup argument are checkable. That is real progress.

The strongest piece is Section 5. The classification of neutral subgroups of S5—the double-transposition C2 is never neutral, D10 is neutral precisely when sqrt(-1) lies in the base field—is explicit and self-contained modulo the BY26 gate framework. The del Pezzo cases in Section 6.6 also look honest: the split solvable/special-group arguments are spelled out, and the remaining 2A1 obstruction is named.

The soft spot is the bielliptic theorem. Proposition 6.8 invokes [BVY26, Cor. 6.10] for the representation J -> GL(V), and the paper checks only the numerical conditions dim V - dim V^{C_p} not congruent to 0 mod p. The stress-test concern—that J is an étale twisted form of C10 over k, not a split diagonalizable group scheme when k lacks primitive 5th roots—is not answered anywhere in the text. The corollary's title says "finite diagonalizable group schemes," and the paper never proves J is diagonalizable over k or that the Galois action is trivial. If the corollary really requires split diagonalizability, Theorem B(i) has a gap over such fields. This is not a fatal objection to the geometric program; it is a missing hypothesis that can likely be fixed either by proving the needed variant for non-split diagonalizable group schemes or by showing the special form of J is diagonalizable in the cases that occur. But right now the theorem as stated over arbitrary k is not self-contained.

The trigonal proof also leans on [BY26, Thm. 5.2] for a crucial P ≅ P^1_k conclusion; that dependency is at least flagged. Singular del Pezzo cases depend on Virin's table and CP21 split models, which is reasonable.

Overall: the paper is transparent about what it uses, and the reader's conditional verdict is fair. It should be sent to a referee, and the referee should be asked to verify [BVY26, Cor. 6.10] and its applicability. If that checks out, Theorem B(i) holds and this becomes a solid completion of the genus-6 story.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies descent of smooth genus-6 curves over an algebraically closed field K of characteristic 0 to their fields of moduli. It uses the stratification of M_6 into hyperelliptic, trigonal, plane quintic, bielliptic, and del Pezzo loci. The main new results are Theorem B: (i) bielliptic curves descend; (ii) a curve on a smooth quintic del Pezzo surface that does not descend has Aut(C) ≅ C2 or Aut(C) ≅ D10 with sqrt(-1) not in k; (iii) a non-special curve lying on a singular quintic del Pezzo surface of type different from 2A1 descends. The proofs construct faithful morphisms from the residue gerbe G_C to classifying stacks of natural automorphism groups, then use the neutral-subgroup machinery of [BY26]. The paper contains a self-contained classification of neutral subgroups of S5 and a substantial analysis of finite subgroups of automorphism groups of singular del Pezzo surfaces.

Significance. If the companion-preprint results it relies on are correct, the paper would give a nearly complete field-of-moduli/field-of-definition picture for genus 6 in characteristic 0, a case not previously covered uniformly. The gerbe-theoretic method is well suited to the problem, and several parts are genuinely useful in their own right: Theorem 5.4 gives an explicit and complete classification of neutral subgroups of S5; Propositions 6.11 and 6.12 give broad neutrality criteria for finite subgroups of split connected solvable groups and of the specific singular del Pezzo automorphism groups; the faithful morphism constructions in Section 4 are clean and likely reusable. The main caveat is that the bielliptic and trigonal descent arguments depend on two companion preprints by the same group, [BVY26] and [BY26], that are not proved or even stated in this manuscript. That dependence makes the new central claims conditional rather than self-contained.

major comments (3)

[§6.4, Proposition 6.8 and Corollary 6.9] The proof of Theorem B(i) rests on an invocation of [BVY26, Cor. 6.10]. As its title indicates, that corollary concerns neutral representations of finite diagonalizable group schemes. In Proposition 6.8, J is only shown to be an étale form of C2 or C10 (Lemma 6.6); it is never proved to be diagonalizable over the field of moduli k. When k lacks, for example, primitive 10th roots of unity, a non-split étale form of C10 is not a split diagonalizable group scheme, so the hypotheses of the cited corollary may fail. The numerical conditions dim V − dim V^{C_p} ≠ 0 (mod p) are not sufficient unless the diagonalizability hypothesis is verified. Please state the corollary with its precise hypotheses and check them for J, or supply a direct proof of neutrality of j: J → GL(V). This is load-bearing for Theorem B(i).
[§6.3, Proposition 6.4] The trigonal descent proof uses the assertion 'If H is non-cyclic, then P ≅ P^1_k' as a black box, citing [BY26, Theorem 5.2]. This is not proved or restated in the manuscript, yet it is the key step that makes the Lang–Nishimura argument work. The paper advertises this as a simpler proof of the trigonal case and a generalization to arbitrary base fields, so the dependence is central to that claim. Please include the statement of [BY26, Theorem 5.2] with all hypotheses, and either give a proof or a precise reference to a publicly available, refereed version. If the theorem has unstated hypotheses, Proposition 6.4 may be incomplete.
[§6.6.2, Theorem 6.12] The treatment of the A2 and A1 singularity types is substantially compressed. In the A2 case, the reduction 'as in the proof of 6.11 we may assume G ⊂ D(K)' is not justified in detail: Proposition 6.11 relies on conjugacy of Levi subgroups in a split connected solvable group, but in the A2 case Γ is not connected and the argument needs a separate check. In the A1 case, the cohomological surjectivity is asserted after a case analysis, but the steps for the nontrivial character χ and the normalizer Q are only sketched. Since Theorem 6.12 carries Theorem B(iii), these computations should be expanded so that a reader can verify them without redoing the whole case analysis. The argument is likely correct, but as written the proof is too terse for a central new result.

minor comments (4)

[§6.4, Proof of Proposition 6.8] Typographical and logical small points: 'for each prime p dividing |G|' should presumably read 'dividing |J|'; also 'The group J in is cyclic' in Lemma 6.6 has a stray word.
[§6.3] The letter H is used both for the group H = im(G → PGL2(K)) in the exact sequence (6.1) and for the intermediate gerbe H in the factorization G → H → BPGL2. This overloading is confusing; please use different notation, e.g. H_gerbe or G′.
[§5, after (5.2)] There is a typo: 'sequnce' should be 'sequence'.
[§4.2, Proposition 4.5] The faithfulness proof says it is enough to prove χ+ × ρ− is injective, but it would be helpful to explicitly mention that this is the geometric fiber of the homomorphism on inertia; the current phrasing is slightly ambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the genus-6 descent theorems are applications of general neutrality criteria, not reductions to their own conclusions.

full rationale

The derivation chain does not contain a circular reduction. Theorem B(i) reduces bielliptic descent to neutrality of the representation j:J -> GL(V); the decisive input is [BVY26, Cor. 6.10], a general criterion about neutral representations of finite diagonalizable group schemes, and the paper supplies the required numerical checks (dim V = 5, dim V^{C2} = 0, dim V^{C5} = 1). Nothing in this step identifies the genus-6 descent statement as an input: the cited result is a general statement about group schemes and representations, not a theorem about genus-6 bielliptic curves. The same holds for the trigonal case: [BY26, Thm. 5.2] is used to conclude P ~ P^1_k when the trigonal image is non-cyclic, which is a general gerbe/PGL_2 statement, while uniqueness of the trigonal pencil is justified by Castelnuovo-Severi, not by the descent conclusion. The S5 neutrality classification in Section 5 is self-contained and independent: it gives explicit normalizer tables and explicit cohomology obstructions proving C2 is never neutral and D10 is neutral exactly when sqrt(-1) lies in the base field. The singular del Pezzo cases are independent finite-subgroup computations in split solvable groups, with only type 2A1 left open. The paper's reliance on the authors' companion preprints [BY26, BVY26] for two key neutrality criteria is a real self-citation and a self-containedness/correctness concern: in particular, the reviewer's worry that J may fail to be split diagonalizable over fields without 10th roots of unity attacks the hypotheses of [BVY26, Cor. 6.10] and could invalidate Proposition 6.8. But an inapplicable or unverified citation is a proof gap, not a circular equivalence: the conclusion is not assumed among the hypotheses, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Thus the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities. The paper's claims rest on a substantial body of external classification results and on two companion preprints by the same author group that supply the neutrality machinery.

axioms (6)

domain assumption Stratification of M6 into five families (Theorem 3.1)
Taken from [Zha24], [AH81]; the paper relies on this classification without proof.
domain assumption Uniqueness of the quintic del Pezzo surface containing a non-special genus-6 curve (Prop 4.1)
From [AH81, Claim 5.14]; critical for the del Pezzo section.
domain assumption Neutrality criterion for cyclic representations [BVY26, Cor. 6.10]
Used in the proof of bielliptic descent (Prop 6.8); not proved in this paper.
domain assumption Neutrality criterion for PGL2-gerbes [BY26, Thm 5.2]
Used in the trigonal proof (Prop 6.4) to show P ≅ P^1 when H non-cyclic.
domain assumption Split connected solvable groups are special [BP20, Theorem 2]
Used in Proposition 6.11 to conclude that N/G is special.
domain assumption Automorphism groups of singular del Pezzo surfaces as listed in [Vir24, Table 1]
Used in Theorem 6.12; the paper cites [Vir24] for the descriptions of Aut(Sτ).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18692 in / 25549 out tokens · 224047 ms · 2026-08-01T13:48:48.977181+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

The field of moduli of a variety $X$ over an algebraically closed field $K$ is defined as the fixed field of those automorphisms $\sigma$ of $K$ for which $X\cong X^{\sigma}$. A fundamental question is under what conditions a variety admits a model over its field of moduli. We investigate this problem for curves of genus $6$, by considering the stratification of the moduli space $M_6$.

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[1]

Canonical curves and quadrics of rank 4

[AH81] Enrico Arbarello and Joseph Harris. “Canonical curves and quadrics of rank 4”. In:Compositio Mathematica43.2 (1981), pp. 145–179. [AQ12] Michela Artebani and Sa´ ul Quispe. “Fields of moduli and fields of definition of odd signature curves”. In:Archiv der Mathematik99.4 (2012), pp. 333–344.doi: 10.1007/s00013-012-0427-6. [AQR17] Michela Artebani, S...

work page doi:10.1007/s00013-012-0427-6 1981
[4]

[BY26] Giulio Bresciani and Tianzhi Yang.Neutral representations in dimension≤3and fields of moduli

arXiv:2603.21702 [math.AG]. [BY26] Giulio Bresciani and Tianzhi Yang.Neutral representations in dimension≤3and fields of moduli

arXiv
[5]

Reductive Group Schemes

arXiv:2604.08773 [math.AG]. [Con14] Brian Conrad. “Reductive Group Schemes”. In:Autour des sch´ emas en groupes. Vol. I. Vol. 42–43. Panoramas et Synth` eses. Paris: Soci´ et´ e Math´ ematique de France, 2014, pp. 93–444.isbn: 978-2-85629-794-0. [CP21] Ivan Cheltsov and Yuri Prokhorov. “Del Pezzo surfaces with infinite automor- phism groups”. In:Algebraic...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[6]

[Gir71] Jean Giraud.Cohomologie non ab´ elienne

arXiv:2604.06979 [math.AG]. [Gir71] Jean Giraud.Cohomologie non ab´ elienne. Vol

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[9]

Boston, MA: Birkh¨ auser Boston, 1998.isbn: 978-0-8176-4021-7.doi:10.1007/ 978-0-8176-4840-4

Progress in Mathematics. Boston, MA: Birkh¨ auser Boston, 1998.isbn: 978-0-8176-4021-7.doi:10.1007/ 978-0-8176-4840-4. [Sta26] The Stacks project authors.The Stacks project.https://stacks.math.columbia. edu

1998
[13]

Appendix: Subgroups of Symmetric Groups

[Swa04] John Swallow. “Appendix: Subgroups of Symmetric Groups”. In:Exploratory Galois Theory. Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 197–200.isbn: 978-0-521- 54499-3.doi:10.1017/CBO9780511755200.010. [Vir24] Nikita A. Virin. “Automorphisms of Du Val del Pezzo surfaces”. In:Sbornik: Mathematics215.12 (2024), pp. 1582–1606.doi:10.4213/sm10052e. [Wei56] Andr...

work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511755200.010 2004
[106]

New York: Springer, 2009.doi:10.1007/978- 0- 387-09494-6

Grad- uate Texts in Mathematics. New York: Springer, 2009.doi:10.1007/978- 0- 387-09494-6. [Spr98] T. A. Springer.Linear Algebraic Groups. Second. Vol

doi:10.1007/978- 2009
[330]

Field of moduli versus field of definition for cyclic covers of the projective line

[Kon09] Aristides Kontogeorgis. “Field of moduli versus field of definition for cyclic covers of the projective line”. In:Journal de Th´ eorie des Nombres de Bordeaux21.3 (2009), pp. 679–693. [KT15] Bernhard K¨ ock and Joseph Tait. “Faithfulness of Actions on Riemann-Roch Spaces”. In:Canadian Journal of Mathematics67.4 (Aug. 2015), 848–869.issn: 1496-4279...

work page doi:10.4153/cjm-2014-015-2 2009
[1971]

Non-hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces with real field of moduli but not definable over the reals

[Hid09] Rub´ en A. Hidalgo. “Non-hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces with real field of moduli but not definable over the reals”. In:Archiv der Mathematik93.3 (2009), pp. 219– 224.doi:10.1007/s00013-009-0011-7. [Hug05] Bonnie Sakura Huggins. “Fields of Moduli and Fields of Definition of Curves”. arXiv:math/0610247. PhD thesis. University of California, Berkeley,

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009
[1985]

Automorphism Groups of Cyclicp-gonal Pseudo-real Riemann Surfaces

[BC15] Emilio Bujalance and Antonio F. Costa. “Automorphism Groups of Cyclicp-gonal Pseudo-real Riemann Surfaces”. In:Journal of Algebra440 (2015), pp. 531–544. doi:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2015.06.020. arXiv:1503.04139 [math.AG]. [Boi25] Aurore Boitrel. “Del Pezzo surfaces of degree 5 over perfect fields”. In:Inter- national Mathematics Research Notices2025.8 ...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[2005]

Fields of moduli of hyperelliptic curves

[Hug07] Bonnie Huggins. “Fields of moduli of hyperelliptic curves”. In:Mathematical Re- search Letters14.2 (2007), pp. 249–262. 23 [HW81] Fumio Hidaka and Kei-ichi Watanabe. “Normal Gorenstein surfaces with ample anti-canonical divisor”. In:Tokyo Journal of Mathematics4.2 (1981), pp. 319–

2007
[2015]

On the Theory of Automorphic Functions

arXiv: 1512.07963 [math.AG]. [Shi59] Goro Shimura. “On the Theory of Automorphic Functions”. In:Annals of Math- ematics. Second Series 70.1 (1959), pp. 101–144. [Sil09] Joseph H. Silverman.The Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves. 2nd ed. Vol

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1959
[2026]

The Nori fundamental gerbe of a fibered cat- egory

arXiv:2303.01454 [math.AG]. [BV15] Niels Borne and Angelo Vistoli. “The Nori fundamental gerbe of a fibered cat- egory”. In:J. Algebraic Geom.24.2 (2015), pp. 311–353.issn: 1056-3911,1534- 7486.doi:10.1090/S1056-3911-2014-00638-X. [BV19] Niels Borne and Angelo Vistoli. “Fundamental gerbes”. In:Algebra Number The- ory13.3 (2019), pp. 531–576.issn: 1937-065...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

[1] [1]

Canonical curves and quadrics of rank 4

[AH81] Enrico Arbarello and Joseph Harris. “Canonical curves and quadrics of rank 4”. In:Compositio Mathematica43.2 (1981), pp. 145–179. [AQ12] Michela Artebani and Sa´ ul Quispe. “Fields of moduli and fields of definition of odd signature curves”. In:Archiv der Mathematik99.4 (2012), pp. 333–344.doi: 10.1007/s00013-012-0427-6. [AQR17] Michela Artebani, S...

work page doi:10.1007/s00013-012-0427-6 1981

[2] [4]

[BY26] Giulio Bresciani and Tianzhi Yang.Neutral representations in dimension≤3and fields of moduli

arXiv:2603.21702 [math.AG]. [BY26] Giulio Bresciani and Tianzhi Yang.Neutral representations in dimension≤3and fields of moduli

arXiv

[3] [5]

Reductive Group Schemes

arXiv:2604.08773 [math.AG]. [Con14] Brian Conrad. “Reductive Group Schemes”. In:Autour des sch´ emas en groupes. Vol. I. Vol. 42–43. Panoramas et Synth` eses. Paris: Soci´ et´ e Math´ ematique de France, 2014, pp. 93–444.isbn: 978-2-85629-794-0. [CP21] Ivan Cheltsov and Yuri Prokhorov. “Del Pezzo surfaces with infinite automor- phism groups”. In:Algebraic...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

[4] [6]

[Gir71] Jean Giraud.Cohomologie non ab´ elienne

arXiv:2604.06979 [math.AG]. [Gir71] Jean Giraud.Cohomologie non ab´ elienne. Vol

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[5] [9]

Boston, MA: Birkh¨ auser Boston, 1998.isbn: 978-0-8176-4021-7.doi:10.1007/ 978-0-8176-4840-4

Progress in Mathematics. Boston, MA: Birkh¨ auser Boston, 1998.isbn: 978-0-8176-4021-7.doi:10.1007/ 978-0-8176-4840-4. [Sta26] The Stacks project authors.The Stacks project.https://stacks.math.columbia. edu

1998

[6] [13]

Appendix: Subgroups of Symmetric Groups

[Swa04] John Swallow. “Appendix: Subgroups of Symmetric Groups”. In:Exploratory Galois Theory. Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 197–200.isbn: 978-0-521- 54499-3.doi:10.1017/CBO9780511755200.010. [Vir24] Nikita A. Virin. “Automorphisms of Du Val del Pezzo surfaces”. In:Sbornik: Mathematics215.12 (2024), pp. 1582–1606.doi:10.4213/sm10052e. [Wei56] Andr...

work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511755200.010 2004

[7] [106]

New York: Springer, 2009.doi:10.1007/978- 0- 387-09494-6

Grad- uate Texts in Mathematics. New York: Springer, 2009.doi:10.1007/978- 0- 387-09494-6. [Spr98] T. A. Springer.Linear Algebraic Groups. Second. Vol

doi:10.1007/978- 2009

[8] [330]

Field of moduli versus field of definition for cyclic covers of the projective line

[Kon09] Aristides Kontogeorgis. “Field of moduli versus field of definition for cyclic covers of the projective line”. In:Journal de Th´ eorie des Nombres de Bordeaux21.3 (2009), pp. 679–693. [KT15] Bernhard K¨ ock and Joseph Tait. “Faithfulness of Actions on Riemann-Roch Spaces”. In:Canadian Journal of Mathematics67.4 (Aug. 2015), 848–869.issn: 1496-4279...

work page doi:10.4153/cjm-2014-015-2 2009

[9] [1971]

Non-hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces with real field of moduli but not definable over the reals

[Hid09] Rub´ en A. Hidalgo. “Non-hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces with real field of moduli but not definable over the reals”. In:Archiv der Mathematik93.3 (2009), pp. 219– 224.doi:10.1007/s00013-009-0011-7. [Hug05] Bonnie Sakura Huggins. “Fields of Moduli and Fields of Definition of Curves”. arXiv:math/0610247. PhD thesis. University of California, Berkeley,

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

[10] [1985]

Automorphism Groups of Cyclicp-gonal Pseudo-real Riemann Surfaces

[BC15] Emilio Bujalance and Antonio F. Costa. “Automorphism Groups of Cyclicp-gonal Pseudo-real Riemann Surfaces”. In:Journal of Algebra440 (2015), pp. 531–544. doi:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2015.06.020. arXiv:1503.04139 [math.AG]. [Boi25] Aurore Boitrel. “Del Pezzo surfaces of degree 5 over perfect fields”. In:Inter- national Mathematics Research Notices2025.8 ...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

[11] [2005]

Fields of moduli of hyperelliptic curves

[Hug07] Bonnie Huggins. “Fields of moduli of hyperelliptic curves”. In:Mathematical Re- search Letters14.2 (2007), pp. 249–262. 23 [HW81] Fumio Hidaka and Kei-ichi Watanabe. “Normal Gorenstein surfaces with ample anti-canonical divisor”. In:Tokyo Journal of Mathematics4.2 (1981), pp. 319–

2007

[12] [2015]

On the Theory of Automorphic Functions

arXiv: 1512.07963 [math.AG]. [Shi59] Goro Shimura. “On the Theory of Automorphic Functions”. In:Annals of Math- ematics. Second Series 70.1 (1959), pp. 101–144. [Sil09] Joseph H. Silverman.The Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves. 2nd ed. Vol

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1959

[13] [2026]

The Nori fundamental gerbe of a fibered cat- egory

arXiv:2303.01454 [math.AG]. [BV15] Niels Borne and Angelo Vistoli. “The Nori fundamental gerbe of a fibered cat- egory”. In:J. Algebraic Geom.24.2 (2015), pp. 311–353.issn: 1056-3911,1534- 7486.doi:10.1090/S1056-3911-2014-00638-X. [BV19] Niels Borne and Angelo Vistoli. “Fundamental gerbes”. In:Algebra Number The- ory13.3 (2019), pp. 531–576.issn: 1937-065...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015