Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Monodromy of plane curve singularities and quiver mutation

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The quiver mutation class of a malleable divide determines the integral monodromy module of the associated plane curve singularity.

desk verdict The result is significant and the machinery is real, but the bridge from malleable divides to plabic fences (Lemma 6.4) is asserted, not proved; the paper needs revision before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12484 v1 pith:I7DNG6FS submitted 2026-08-12 math.AG math.COmath.GTmath.RT

Roger Casals This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AGmath.COmath.GTmath.RT MSC 14H2014B0516G2016E4513F6032S5557K10
keywords planecurvesingularitiesquivermutationintegralmonodromymoduleAlexanderplabicfencesGinzburgdgalgebradilationclassesMorsifications
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 proves that the quiver mutation class of a malleable real Morsification of an isolated plane curve singularity determines the integral monodromy module of that singularity, and hence its complex topological type when the singularity is irreducible. That is the algebraic-to-topological half of the Main Conjecture of [28], established here in the malleable irreducible case. The proof works by attaching to each quiver a differential bigraded Ginzburg algebra and extracting from it a Laurent-polynomial matrix whose cokernel is invariant under quiver mutation and is isomorphic to the torsion Alexander module of the associated link. A sympathetic reader should care because it turns a purely combinatorial object, the mutation class, into a complete topological invariant for a large class of singularities.

What carries the argument

The engine is the differential bigraded Ginzburg algebra $\Gamma(Q,W,d)$ of a graded quiver with potential: a 3-Calabi-Yau dg algebra whose generators carry an internal Adams grading compatible with a degree-one potential. Its derived category of continuous finite-dimensional dg modules carries an equivariant Euler pairing; in the basis of vertex simples this pairing is the matrix $E(t)$ above, which depends only on the arrow grading. The paper proves that this matrix's cokernel is invariant under the three dilation equivalences and under graded QP mutation, then proves that plabic fences have a unique dilation class and a unique non-degenerate potential, so the cokernel is a well-defined invariant of the quiver mutation class. Finally, a Seifert-matrix comparison identifies that cokernel with the torsion Alexander module of the link associated to the fence, bridging algebra and knot topology.

What would settle it

Find two plabic fences $G$ and $G'$ such that $[Q(G)] = [Q(G')]$ but the torsion Alexander modules of $L(G)$ and $L(G')$ are not isomorphic. By Corollary 4.2 and Theorem 5.4 that would force the cokernel of the graded Euler matrix to be ill-defined on the mutation class, directly contradicting the main invariant chain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is stated as the Main Theorem: if $(C,0)$ is an isolated plane curve singularity, $D$ is a divide coming from a real Morsification, $Q(D)$ its quiver, and $D$ is malleable, then the quiver mutation class $[Q(D)]$ uniquely determines the $\mathbb{Z}[t,t^{-1}]$-module $H_1(M_f;\mathbb{Z})$ with the algebraic monodromy action, the integral monodromy module. Since the Alexander polynomial of an irreducible plane curve singularity determines its topological type, it follows that $[Q(D)]$ determines the complex topological type of an irreducible singularity with malleable divide. The paper obtains the invariant as the cokernel of the graded Euler matrix $E(t)$ with entries $(1-t)\delta_{ij} - \sum_{a:j\to i} t^{d(a)} + \sum_{a:i\to j} t^{1-d(a)}$, where $d$ is the unique dilation grading of the associated plabic fence. A key intermediate theorem states that this cokernel is isomorphic to the torsion part of the Alexander module of the smooth link of the plabic fence, for any plabic fence, algebraic or not.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the technical fixed-point lemma (Lemma 4.14) asserting that every nonempty family of unitriangular coordinate changes that is stable under the scaling action has a scaling-invariant member; the proof needs this to straighten potentials by a graded equivalence, and without it the unique dilation class of a plabic fence and the invariant $\operatorname{coker} E(t)$ would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any irreducible plane curve singularity admitting a malleable divide, two real Morsifications with mutation-equivalent quivers must have the same complex topological type.
  • The Alexander polynomial of the singularity can be read off from any quiver in the mutation class as the determinant of the matrix in equation (1.1), once the canonical dilation grading is applied.
  • All 74 isolated plane curve singularities with Milnor number at most 16 are distinguished by the invariants coming from the mutation class, so the implication holds in that range.
  • If all algebraic divides are malleable, as conjectured in [28], the Main Theorem upgrades to a complete algebraic-to-topological classification of irreducible plane curve singularities by quiver mutation classes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the key isomorphism holds for every plabic fence, the invariant $\operatorname{coker} E(t)$ is a knot-theoretic invariant of all positive-braid links from plabic fences, not only algebraic links; this suggests the machinery could detect finer link invariants in non-algebraic settings.
  • The author notes that no combinatorial proof of the invariance of equation (1.1) is known; a purely graph-theoretic proof would likely expose how far the invariant reaches beyond the Ginzburg-algebra construction.
  • The counterexample to [28, Conjecture 6.17] shows that quiver-mutation equivalence is strictly coarser than move-and-switch equivalence for plabic graphs; the new monodromy invariant therefore measures something that survives mutation but not the stricter plabic-graph moves.
  • One could test the sharpness of the main theorem by searching for reducible singularities whose integral monodromy modules coincide but whose topological types differ; the theorem says mutation classes cannot see the difference, so any such pair would delimit the invariant's resolving power.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a new invariant of quiver mutation classes and applies it to plane curve singularities. For a graded quiver with potential, the author defines a graded Euler matrix E(t) in the simple basis of the derived category of a bigraded Ginzburg algebra, proves that its cokernel is invariant under graded quiver mutation, and shows that for plabic fences the relevant arrow-grading is unique up to gauge. Theorem 5.4 identifies this cokernel with the torsion part of the Alexander module of the link associated to the plabic fence. The final section bridges malleable divides to plabic fences via Lemma 6.4, yielding the Main Theorem: the quiver mutation class of a malleable divide determines the integral monodromy module of the singularity, and in particular the complex topological type in the irreducible case. This establishes the algebraic-to-topological direction of the Fomin–Pylyavskyy–Shustin–Thurston conjecture for malleable irreducible divides.

Significance. If the results are correct, this is a substantial advance: it provides the first proof of one direction of the Main Conjecture in a broad class of singularities, introduces a genuinely new representation-theoretic invariant of quiver mutation classes, and gives an explicit formula for the Alexander polynomial from any quiver in the mutation class. The paper is carefully written, with many worked examples, a detailed table for Milnor number at most 16, and a counterexample to a related conjecture. The central invariant is not fitted to the desired output: the equality between the cokernel of the Euler form and the Alexander module is a theorem proven through Seifert matrices, and the uniqueness of the dilation for plabic fences is a nontrivial result. The framework of dilation classes and bigraded Ginzburg algebras is likely to be useful beyond this specific application.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 6.2, Lemma 6.4] The reduction from a double plabic fence to an ordinary plabic fence is the unique bridge from the geometric hypothesis of a malleable divide to the plabic-fence machinery of Sections 4 and 5, but the proof is a sketch. It asserts that sliding moves, reflection moves, and square moves can transform any double plabic fence into one whose vertical edges all have white on top and black on bottom, without giving an algorithm, a termination argument, or a precise citation of a theorem that guarantees such a reduction. The restrictions are real: reflection moves are only allowed for the leftmost or rightmost edge of a level, and sliding moves require a vertically opposite neighbor. It is not demonstrated that an arbitrary interior vertical edge can be moved to a boundary position, reflected, and moved back, nor that the intermediate square moves preserve the smooth link type of the associated divide. Since Lemma 6.4 is load-bearing for the Main Theorem, this needs to be either proved in detail or replaced by a precise cited reduction theorem.
  2. [Sections 4.3–4.4, Lemma 4.14 and Proposition 4.13] The uniqueness of the dilation for plabic fences, Theorem 4.1, depends on the fixed-point lemma for Gm-actions on unitriangular torsors. The proof of Lemma 4.14 is only an order-by-order sketch: it asserts that lifts modulo m^{N+1} exist because the torsor is compatible and that H^1(Gm,M)=0 provides fixed lifts, but the compatibility hypothesis is not verified in the text for the specific torsor T appearing in Proposition 4.13. A failure of this lemma would make the cokernel invariant ill-defined on the mutation class and would invalidate Corollary 4.2. The authors should expand this induction, spell out the compatibility condition, and explain why the torsor T satisfies it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 10 caption] The phrase 'the wordend in Figure 10 (left)' appears to contain a typo; it should likely read 'the word end' or 'the end word', and the diagram would benefit from a clearer indication of which edge is the boundary edge.
  2. [Section 4.5, Lemma 4.15] The proof of Lemma 4.15 would be easier to follow if the two local cycles in Figure 7 were described in terms of the face ordering from (4.2), so that the claim 'each cycle contains exactly one downward arrow' is visibly tied to the definition of d_G.
  3. [Section 7.4, Table 4] The table is useful, but for reproducibility it would be good to indicate which Alexander polynomial was computed by each of the methods (a), (b), (c) listed just before the table, or at least to add a remark that the entries were checked by two independent methods.
  4. [Section 8.2, equations (8.6) and (8.11)] The two Euler matrices are asserted to have the same determinant, and this is correct, but the reader would benefit from an explicit statement that they are related by the congruence of Proposition 3.12, since determinant equality alone does not exhibit the cokernel isomorphism.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the mutation-class invariant is proved, not fitted, and self-citations supply background theorems rather than the main conclusion.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The invariant coker E(t) is defined from graded quivers with potential via an equivariant Euler pairing (Definition 3.4 and formula (3.5)), with no parameter fitted to Alexander polynomials; its invariance under dilation equivalence (Corollary 3.10) and under graded QP-mutation (Proposition 3.12) is proved by categorical computations. The identification coker E_G(t) ≅ Tors_Λ A_{L(G)} is a theorem (Theorem 5.4) obtained by proving the matrix equality E_G(t)=V_G^T-tV_G for the brick-diagram Seifert matrix (Proposition 5.5), not by defining the grading so that the equality holds tautologically. The uniqueness of the non-degenerate potential and the unique dilation for plabic fences (Theorem 4.1) is argued internally through Lemmas 4.7, 4.9, Propositions 4.12, 4.13 and Lemma 4.14; the citations to [15] and [46] supply parameter-free background facts on non-degenerate potentials and class-P quivers, not the target monodromy statement. The Main Theorem then combines the representation-theoretic invariance with the classical isomorphism between the Alexander module and the monodromy module (equation (6.3)). The paper does rely heavily on the author's prior work [15,16,17,18], but this reliance does not reduce the central claim to its inputs: those works provide established move sets and non-degeneracy results, while the invariant itself is computed, not fitted, and its equality to the Alexander module is proved against an external Seifert-matrix computation. The proof of Lemma 6.4 is admittedly a sketch — it asserts a reduction from double plabic fences to plabic fences via sliding, reflection and square moves without a full termination algorithm — but this is a completeness or rigor concern, not a circularity of the claimed derivation. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing result is imported solely from the author's own citation chain.

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

The central claim rests on standard quiver-with-potential machinery (split theorems, mutation), on external results about uniqueness of non-degenerate potentials for plabic fence quivers and class-P quivers, and on the malleability bridge converting divides to plabic fences. None of these assumptions include the target result, and no parameters are fitted to the Alexander polynomial or monodromy module.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Splitting theorem for quivers with potential: every QP decomposes into a reduced part and a trivial quadratic part, uniquely up to right-equivalence [21, Theorem 4.6].
    Used throughout Sections 2 to 4 to define stable classes and mutation of QPs, and in the proof of Theorem 4.1.
  • standard math Graded Splitting Theorem for Z-graded QPs and the existence of graded QP mutation [5, Theorem 6.6, Definition 6.8].
    Used to define graded QP mutation and dilation classes in Section 2.5 and Theorem 2.16.
  • domain assumption Uniqueness of the non-degenerate potential for quivers in class P: every quiver in class P has a unique non-degenerate potential up to right-equivalence [46, Theorem 4.6]; plabic fence quivers lie in class P [15, Lemma 3.8, Proposition 3.11].
    Used in Lemma 4.7 to identify the QP of a plabic fence; central to defining the canonical dilation. This is an external result from the author's own prior work [15] and Ladkani's preprint [46].
  • domain assumption Malleability bridge: triangle moves preserve quiver mutation class and link type; scannable divides yield double plabic fences; sliding, reflection and square moves on double plabic fences preserve the relevant invariants [28, Definition 14.9; 16, Sections 5.2-5.3].
    Used in Lemma 6.4 to pass from a malleable divide to a plabic fence with mutation-equivalent quiver, which is the step connecting the main theorem to the plabic-fence results.
  • standard math Derived equivalences from QP mutation preserve the graded Euler pairing [44, Theorem 3.2(b)], and the Alexander module is presented by V^T - tV for a Seifert matrix [50, Theorem 6.5].
    Used in Proposition 3.12 and Theorem 5.4 to identify the mutation invariant with a topological invariant.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Monodromy of plane curve singularities and quiver mutation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I7DNG6FS

@misc{pith2026260812484,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Monodromy of plane curve singularities and quiver mutation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I7DNG6FS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12484}
}
read the original abstract

The main result of this article shows that the quiver mutation class of a malleable real Morsification uniquely determines the integral monodromy module of a plane curve singularity. In particular, we show that the quiver mutation class of a malleable divide determines the complex topological type of an irreducible plane curve singularity. This establishes the algebraic-to-topological implication of a conjecture of S.~Fomin, P.~Pylyavskyy, E.~Shustin and D.~Thurston in the malleable irreducible case. The result is proven by developing representation-theoretic techniques based on an equivariant Euler pairing in the derived category of continuous finite-dimensional dg modules over a differential bigraded Ginzburg algebra. A key step uses these techniques to show that the quiver mutation class of a plabic fence uniquely recovers the torsion part of the Alexander module of the associated smooth link.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12484 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An irreducible malleable divide D for the singularity (C, 0) = {x 4 = y 5}, in black, together with its associated quiver Q(D), with blue vertices and red arrows. The quiver Q(D) is the quiver associated to the Grassmannian Gr(4, 9), cf. [28, Remark 16.2]. The link of this irreducible singularity is the (4, 5)-torus knot. monodromy of the singularity (C, 0)? In order to prove the Main Theorem, we develop the study o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The E8 tree with a choice of orientation. The associated det EQ(t) gives the Alexander polynomial of the (3, 5)-torus knot, associated to the plane curve singularity x 3 + y 5 = 0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A tree quiver T(2,2,3), with a central trivalent vertex and three arms of length (2, 2, 3). In this case det ET(2,2,3) (t) is not the Alexander polynomial of any algebraic knot, by the semi-group gap obstruction, cf. [10, Section 3.1] or [13]. It is the Alexander polynomial of the slalom knot K(2,2,3), cf. [3], which is a fibered hyperbolic knot. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A tree quiver T(4,4,1), with a central trivalent vertex and three arms of length (4, 4, 1). In this case det ET(4,4,1) (t) is also not the Alexander polynomial of any algebraic knot, by the same semi-group obstruction. It is the Alexander polynomial of the slalom knot …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two instances of plabic fences: the fence on the left encodes the 6-stranded braid word β = σ5σ3σ5σ 3 1σ2σ3σ5σ 2 4σ 2 2σ 3 5σ4(σ2σ1) 2σ3σ 2 4σ3σ5, whereas the plabic fence on the right encodes the 3-stranded braid word β = (σ1σ2) 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Left) A black pente-row. (Right) A white pente-row. Fe is unique or it does not exist.) By definition, a black pente-row (resp. white pente-row) is a consecutive collection of black (resp. white) vertices in the same horizontal line of G such that: - There must be two…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Left) A black pente-row with its associated cycle in the quiver Q(G) around it. (Right) A white pente-row with its corresponding cycle around it [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Left) The two local patterns for arrows in the quiver Q(G) that are not horizontal. (Right) An example of a quiver Q(G) associated to a plabic fence G. exist, the arrow set of Q(G≤e), where G≤e = G<e ∪ {e}, is defined to be A<e. If Fe exists, the arrow set of Q(G≤e) i…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Instances of sliding vertical edges: under these moves, the quivers of the corresponding double plabic fences remain identical. 6.2. A preliminary lemma on malleable divides. As before, we refer to [2, 4, 28] for results in the study of real Morsifications of plane cur…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (Left) An instance of a reflection move. Under a reflection move, the quivers of the corresponding double plabic fences remain identical. (Right) A square move, the quivers of the corresponding double plabic fences undergo a quiver mutation at the vertex associated to…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (b)]. The corresponding quivers Q(G0) and Q(G1) are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p057_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Two plabic graphs, G0 on the left, and G1 on the right. Q(G0) = FT FR FL FB & Q(G1) = F1 F2 F0 F3 Note that Q(G1) is an orientation of the D4-Dynkin diagram. By mutating Q(G0) first at FT and then at FR and FL, say, it follows that Q(G0) is mutation equivalent to Q(G1…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Casals and D

    R. Casals and D. Weng. Microlocal theory of legendrian links and cluster algebras.Geometry & Topology, 28:901–1000, 2024. 62 ROGER CASALS

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    N. A’Campo. La fonction zêta d’une monodromie.Comment. Math. Helv., 50:233–248, 1975. The resolution formula for the monodromy zeta function is developed in this paper

    work page 1975

  3. [2]

    N. A’Campo. Generic immersions of curves, knots, monodromy and gordian number.Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Ètudes Sci., 88:151–169, 1998

    work page 1998

  4. [3]

    N. A’Campo. Planar trees, slalom curves and hyperbolic knots.Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Ètudes Sci., 88:171–180, 1998

    work page 1998

  5. [4]

    N. A’Campo. Real deformations and complex topology of plane curve singularities.Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. (6), 8(1):5–23, 1999. erratum, ibid. no. 2, 343

    work page 1999

  6. [5]

    Amiot and S

    C. Amiot and S. Oppermann. Cluster equivalence and graded derived equivalence.Doc. Math., 19:1155–1206, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [6]

    V. I. Arnold. Local normal forms of functions.Invent. Math., 35:87–109, 1976. See §1, especially pp. 92–97, for the normal-form tables and Milnor-number formulas; see §2, pp. 101–103, especially statements 2–49 and statements 47–49, for the exhaustive two-variable determinator and theN16 endpoint

    work page 1976

  8. [7]

    Baader and P

    S. Baader and P. Dehornoy. Trefoil plumbing.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 144(1):387–397, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 66 references
  1. [8]

    K. Baur, A. King, and B. Marsh. Dimer models and cluster categories of grassmannians. arXiv, 2013

    2013

  2. [9]

    Berenstein, S

    A. Berenstein, S. Fomin, and A. Zelevinsky. Cluster algebras iii: Upper bounds and double bruhat cells.Duke Mathematical Journal, 126, 2005

    2005

  3. [10]

    Borodzik and J

    M. Borodzik and J. Hom. Involutive heegaard floer homology and rational cuspidal curves.Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., 118:1337–1381, 2019

    2019

  4. [11]

    Brieskorn and H

    E. Brieskorn and H. Knörrer.Plane Algebraic Curves. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1986

    1986

  5. [12]

    W. Burau. Kennzeichnung der schlauchknoten.Abhandlungen aus dem Mathematischen Seminar der Universität Hamburg, 9:125–133, 1932

    1932

  6. [13]

    Campillo, F

    A. Campillo, F. Delgado, and S. M. Gusein-Zade. The alexander polynomial of a plane curve singularity via the ring of functions on it.Duke Math. J., 117(1):125–156, 2003

    2003

  7. [14]

    Campillo, F

    A. Campillo, F. Delgado, and S. M. Gusein-Zade. On the topological type of a set of plane valuations with symmetries. Math. Nachr., 290(13):1925–1938, 2017

    1925

  8. [15]

    Casals and H

    R. Casals and H. Gao. A lagrangian filling for every cluster seed.Invent. Math., 237:809–868, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Lagrangian skeleta and plane curve singularities

    Roger Casals. Lagrangian skeleta and plane curve singularities. InSymplectic geometry—a Festschrift in honour of Claude Viterbo’s 60th birthday, pages 181–223. Birkhäuser/Springer, Cham, [2022]©2022. Reprint of [4405603]

    2022

  10. [18]

    Positroid links and braid varieties.J

    Roger Casals, Eugene Gorsky, Mikhail Gorsky, and José Simental. Positroid links and braid varieties.J. Reine Angew. Math., (837):1–54, 2026

    2026

  11. [19]

    Casas-Alvero.Singularities of Plane Curves, volume 276 ofLondon Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series

    E. Casas-Alvero.Singularities of Plane Curves, volume 276 ofLondon Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000

    2000

  12. [20]

    J. H. Conway. An enumeration of knots and links, and some of their algebraic properties. In J. Leech, editor,Computational Problems in Abstract Algebra (Proc. Conf., Oxford, 1967), pages 329–358. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1970

    1967

  13. [21]

    Derksen, J

    H. Derksen, J. Weyman, and A. Zelevinsky. Quivers with potentials and their representations i: Mutations.Selecta Math. (N.S.), 14:59–119, 2008

    2008

  14. [22]

    Sur la forme de Seifert entière des germes de courbe plane à deux branches.Comptes Rendus Mathématique, 336(9):757–762, 2003

    Philippe Du Bois. Sur la forme de Seifert entière des germes de courbe plane à deux branches.Comptes Rendus Mathématique, 336(9):757–762, 2003

    2003

  15. [23]

    The characteristic polynomial of the monodromy.Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 59:21–26, 1975

    Alan Durfee. The characteristic polynomial of the monodromy.Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 59:21–26, 1975

    1975

  16. [24]

    Neumann.Three-Dimensional Link Theory and Invariants of Plane Curve Singularities, volume 110 ofAnnals of Mathematics Studies

    David Eisenbud and Walter D. Neumann.Three-Dimensional Link Theory and Invariants of Plane Curve Singularities, volume 110 ofAnnals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1985

    1985

  17. [25]

    Dg enhanced orbit categories and applications.arXiv, 2024

    Li Fan, Bernhard Keller, and Yu Qiu. Dg enhanced orbit categories and applications.arXiv, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Ferretti

    L. Ferretti. On positive braids, monodromy groups and framings.Algebr. Geom. Topol., 25(1):161–205, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Fomin and S

    S. Fomin and S. Neville. Cyclically ordered quivers.Adv. Math., 500:Article 111059, 2026. arXiv:2406.03604v3

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Fomin, P

    S. Fomin, P. Pylyavskyy, E. Shustin, and D. Thurston. Morsifications and mutations.J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2), 105(4):2478– 2554, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Fomin and A

    S. Fomin and A. Zelevinsky. Cluster algebras i: Foundations.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 15:497–529, 2001

    2001

  22. [30]

    Fomin and A

    S. Fomin and A. Zelevinsky. Cluster algebras ii: Finite type classification.Inventiones mathematicae, 154:63–121, 2003

    2003

  23. [31]

    Introduction to cluster algebras

    Sergey Fomin, Lauren Williams, and Andrei Zelevinsky. Introduction to cluster algebras. chapters 1-3, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Freyd, D

    P. Freyd, D. Yetter, J. Hoste, W. B. R. Lickorish, K. C. Millett, and A. Ocneanu. A new polynomial invariant of knots and links.Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.), 12(2):239–246, 1985

    1985

  25. [33]

    Deformed cartan matrices and generalized preprojective algebras i: Finite type

    Ryo Fujita and Kota Murakami. Deformed cartan matrices and generalized preprojective algebras i: Finite type. International Mathematics Research Notices, 2023:6924–6975, 2022

    2023

  26. [34]

    Galashin and T

    P. Galashin and T. Lam. Plabic links, quivers, and skein relations.Algebraic Combinatorics, 7(2):431–474, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Ghys.A Singular Mathematical Promenade

    É. Ghys.A Singular Mathematical Promenade. ENS Éditions, Lyon, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Ginzburg

    V. Ginzburg. Calabi–yau algebras. arXiv:math/0612139

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    La monodromie rationnelle ne détermine pas la topologie d’une hypersurface complexe

    Marie-Claire Grima. La monodromie rationnelle ne détermine pas la topologie d’une hypersurface complexe. In François Norguet, editor,Fonctions de plusieurs variables complexes II, volume 538 ofLecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 58–79. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1976

    1976

  30. [38]

    Selfinjective quivers with potential and 2-representation-finite algebras.Compositio Math

    Martin Herschend and Osamu Iyama. Selfinjective quivers with potential and 2-representation-finite algebras.Compositio Math. 147 (2011) 1885-1920, 2010

    2011

  31. [39]

    Hertling and M

    C. Hertling and M. Mase. The combinatorics of weight systems and characteristic polynomials of isolated quasihomogeneous singularities.J. Algebraic Combin., 56:929–954, 2022. See Theorem 6.4(a) for a precise modern statement of the Milnor– Orlik characteristic-polynomial formula

    2022

  32. [40]

    J. Hoste. A polynomial invariant of knots and links.Pacific J. Math., 124(2):295–320, 1986

    1986

  33. [41]

    T. Kálmán. Braid-positive Legendrian links.International Mathematics Research Notices, 2006:Art. ID 14874, 24, 2006

    2006

  34. [42]

    B. Keller. Cartan matrices and Calabi-Yau completions. Notes from a talk at the Sherbrooke Meeting on Representation Theory of Algebras, September 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    B. Keller. Non degenerate homogeneous potentials. preprint, 2026

    2026

  36. [44]

    Keller and D

    B. Keller and D. Yang. Derived equivalences from mutations of quivers with potential.Adv. Math., 226(3):2118–2168, 2011

    2011

  37. [45]

    Kontsevich and Y

    M. Kontsevich and Y. Soibelman. Stability structures, motivic donaldson-thomas invariants and cluster transformations. arXiv preprint arXiv:0811.2435, 2008

    2008 arXiv

  38. [46]

    S. Ladkani. On cluster algebras from once punctured closed surfaces. arXiv:1310.4454

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    D. T. Lê. Sur les noeuds algébriques.Compositio Mathematica, 25:281–321, 1972. MONODROMY OF PLANE CUR VE SINGULARITIES AND QUIVER MUTATION 63

    1972

  40. [48]

    Morsifications of real plane curve singularities.J

    Peter Leviant and Eugenii Shustin. Morsifications of real plane curve singularities.J. Singularities 18 (2018), 307–328, 2017

    2018

  41. [49]

    W. B. R. Lickorish and K. C. Millett. A polynomial invariant of oriented links.Topology, 26(1):107–141, 1987

    1987

  42. [50]

    W. B. Raymond Lickorish.An Introduction to Knot Theory, volume 175 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997

    1997

  43. [51]

    Michel and C

    F. Michel and C. Weber. Sur le rôle de la monodromie entière dans la topologie des singularités.Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 36(1):183–218, 1986. See §1.3(3), p. 185; Proposition 3.14, p. 196; and §3.16, p. 197 for theD12/Z12 integral-monodromy collision

    1986

  44. [52]

    Milnor.Singular Points of Complex Hypersurfaces, volume 61 ofAnnals of Mathematics Studies

    J. Milnor.Singular Points of Complex Hypersurfaces, volume 61 ofAnnals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1968

    1968

  45. [53]

    Milnor and P

    J. Milnor and P. Orlik. Isolated singularities defined by weighted homogeneous polynomials.Topology, 9:385–393, 1970. The paper gives explicit formulas for the Milnor number and characteristic polynomial of the monodromy from the weights

    1970

  46. [54]

    H. R. Morton. Mutant knots. In L. H. Kauffman and V. O. Manturov, editors,New Ideas in Low Dimensional Topology, volume 56 ofSeries on Knots and Everything, pages 379–412. World Scientific, Hackensack, NJ, 2015

    2015

  47. [55]

    S. Neville. Mutation-acyclic quivers are totally proper.https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.17832

  48. [56]

    Pressland

    M. Pressland. Calabi-yau properties of postnikov diagrams.Forum of Mathematics, Sigma, 10:e56, 2022

    2022

  49. [57]

    Rolfsen.Knots and Links, volume 7 ofMathematics Lecture Series

    D. Rolfsen.Knots and Links, volume 7 ofMathematics Lecture Series. Publish or Perish, Berkeley, CA, 1976

    1976

  50. [58]

    Thurston-Bennequin number, Kauffman polynomial, and ruling invariants of a Legendrian link: the Fuchs conjecture and beyond.Int

    Dan Rutherford. Thurston-Bennequin number, Kauffman polynomial, and ruling invariants of a Legendrian link: the Fuchs conjecture and beyond.Int. Math. Res. Not., pages Art. ID 78591, 15, 2006

    2006

  51. [59]

    Schwartz

    A. Schwartz. The homfly polynomial of a forest quiver.International Mathematics Research Notices, 2026(8):rnag069, 2026

    2026

  52. [60]

    On Milnor’s fibration theorem and its offspring after 50 years.Bull

    José Seade. On Milnor’s fibration theorem and its offspring after 50 years.Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.), 56(2):281–348, 2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    A. N. Varchenko. Zeta-function of monodromy and newton’s diagram.Invent. Math., 37:253–262, 1976. The main theorem computes the monodromy zeta function of a Newton-nondegenerate germ from its Newton diagram; its two-variable specialization is used in (7.7)

    1976

  54. [62]

    C. T. C. Wall.Singular Points of Plane Curves, volume 63 ofLondon Mathematical Society Student Texts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004

    2004

  55. [63]

    Y. Wu. Graded Higgs categories. Notes from a talk at the Paris algebra seminar, June 2026

    2026

  56. [64]

    Yamamoto

    M. Yamamoto. Classification of isolated algebraic singularities by their alexander polynomials.Topology, 23(3):277–287, 1984

    1984

  57. [65]

    Topological types of quasihomogeneous singularities in C2.Topology, 18(2):113–116, 1979

    Etsuo Yoshinaga and Masahiko Suzuki. Topological types of quasihomogeneous singularities in C2.Topology, 18(2):113–116, 1979

    1979

  58. [66]

    Zariski.The Moduli Problem for Plane Branches, volume 39 ofUniversity Lecture Series

    O. Zariski.The Moduli Problem for Plane Branches, volume 39 ofUniversity Lecture Series. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2006

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.