Relative spectral correspondence for parabolic Higgs bundles and Deligne--Simpson problem

Jia Choon Lee; Sukjoo Lee

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 14 references

Relative spectral correspondence for parabolic Higgs bundles and Deligne--Simpson problem

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A relative spectral correspondence identifies parabolic Higgs bundles with sheaves on a family of blown-up surfaces, and proves that the OK condition suffices for the multiplicative Deligne-Simpson problem when the eigenvalue data is…

desk verdict Solid relative spectral correspondence; abstract overstates DSP theorem, and Proposition A.3 has an unhandled double-point case that makes the main proof conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08527 v1 pith:K5S3HUUM submitted 2025-09-10 math.AG

Jia Choon Lee , Sukjoo Lee This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AG MSC 14H6014D2014H7014F05

keywords parabolicHiggsbundlesspectralcorrespondenceDeligne-SimpsonproblemOKconditionHitchinmapholomorphicsymplecticsurfacesmoduliofsheaveslevelfunctions

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 establishes a relative spectral correspondence: as the eigenvalues of a parabolic Higgs bundle vary over a base, the moduli space of such bundles is realized as the moduli space of pure dimension one sheaves on a family of holomorphic symplectic surfaces obtained by iterated blow-ups. This turns the image of the Hitchin map into a family of linear systems, giving a concrete linear description of the parabolic Hitchin base. Using this geometry, the paper proves that the OK condition, a vanishing of $H^1$ for certain line bundles, guarantees non-emptiness of these Hitchin bases and of the moduli spaces in broad ranges. As the main application, it proves the conjecture that the OK condition is sufficient for the multiplicative Deligne-Simpson problem under multiplicative genericity.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a family of holomorphic symplectic surfaces built by successively blowing up the ruled surface $M = \mathbb{P}(K_C(D) \oplus \mathcal{O}_C)$ along the tautological sections $\xi_{i,j}$, then removing the strict transforms of the fibers over the marked points and the infinity section. A relative curve class $\Sigma(\vec{m}) = r f^* C_0 - \sum_{i,j} m_{i,j} \Xi_{i,j}$ is chosen, and a single-blow-up transformation $\Psi_p$ converts a parabolic sheaf on one surface into a parabolic sheaf of shorter filtration on the blow-up, encoding the parabolic structure in the exceptional divisors. Iterating $\Psi_p$ turns a $\vec{\xi}$-parabolic Higgs bundle into a pure dimension one sheaf; the parabolic Hitchin base $B(\vec{m})_{\vec{\xi}}$ is identified with the linear system $|\Sigma(\vec{m})_{\vec{\xi}}|$, described explicitly by vanishing of partial derivatives indexed by the level domains $G(P)$. The OK condition makes these linear systems have constant dimension, and the local Jordan normal form of the Higgs residue is read off from the intersection numbers of the exceptional divisors with the spectral curve.

What would settle it

Take the smallest case satisfying the theorem's inequalities, for example $n=3$, $r=2$ with partitions $P_i=(1,1)$ or $(2)$, and choose a tuple $\vec{\xi}$ for which the integral spectral curve passes through an intersection $E_j \cap E_{j+1}$ in the blown-up surface; then compute the Jordan normal form of the residue of the pushed-forward Higgs field in the local charts omitted in Proposition A.3. If the Jordan form differs from the conjugate partition, Theorem 5.29 fails for that curve; if it is the same, the simplifying assumption is removable and the theorem holds without it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 5.29: for $n \geq 3$ conjugacy classes $C_1,\ldots,C_n$ in $\mathrm{GL}_r(\mathbb{C})$ with multiplicatively generic eigenvalues, if the product of determinants is $1$ and the level-function sums satisfy $\sum_{i=1}^n \gamma_{P_i}(\mu) < (n-2)\mu + 2$ for $\mu = 2,\ldots,r$, then the multiplicative Deligne-Simpson problem is solvable. The same machinery yields non-emptiness of the moduli spaces of stable $\vec{\xi}$-parabolic Higgs bundles and a higher genus analogue of the Deligne-Simpson problem. The geometric heart is the relative spectral correspondence, which embeds the moduli of $\vec{\xi}$-parabolic Higgs bundles into the moduli of pure dimension one sheaves on a family of surfaces, compatibly with the Hitchin map and the Fitting support map; the embedding is an isomorphism over the locus of integral spectral curves.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that the Higgs residue has the prescribed Jordan normal form assumes the integral spectral curve does not pass through the intersection points of consecutive exceptional divisors, and no argument shows that a general integral member of $B(\vec{m})_{\vec{\xi}}$ avoids those points.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the OK condition holds, then $B(\vec{m})_{\vec{\xi}}$ is non-empty for every eigenvalue tuple $\vec{\xi}$; in particular for $n \geq 3$, $g=0$ with the stated inequalities, and for all $n \geq 1$, $g \geq 2$.
The strengthened OK-type inequalities imply non-emptiness of the moduli space of stable $\vec{\xi}$-parabolic Higgs bundles for every $\vec{\xi}$.
The multiplicative Deligne-Simpson problem is solvable for multiplicatively generic conjugacy classes satisfying the OK condition, confirming the conjecture that the OK condition is sufficient.
The same approach yields existence of irreducible solutions to the higher genus analogue of the Deligne-Simpson problem whenever the OK condition, or its appropriate variant, holds.
The relative spectral correspondence gives a linear description of the image of the parabolic Hitchin map, an image that in general is not defined by linear equations.

Reading between the lines

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

The residue-diagram computation in Appendix A is the only place where the proof depends on the spectral curve avoiding the intersection points of consecutive exceptional divisors; if that assumption is removed or shown automatic for general integral curves, the Deligne-Simpson theorem would extend to all eigenvalue configurations satisfying the OK condition.
The identification of the Hitchin base with a linear system suggests the parabolic Hitchin map is flat when the OK condition holds, so one could define family versions of parabolic Hodge integrals or $P=W$-type invariants over the eigenvalue base.
The defect formulated with conjugate partitions differs from the classical defect; iterating the authors' construction along Kostov-style modifications may yield sufficiency beyond the range covered here.
The single-blow-up transformation $\Psi_p$ may give a purely algebraic handle on the Nahm transform for parabolic sheaves, since it depends only on local filtration data.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, here's my read of Lee–Lee (arXiv:2509.08527).

The headline is that this is a substantial piece of algebraic geometry. The relative spectral correspondence over the full base N(m)—not just generic eigenvalues, and not just the strongly parabolic end—is a real extension of DDP18 and Su–Wang–Wen. The construction via iterated blow-ups of the family and the single-blow-up sheaf transformation Psi_p look sound and are of independent interest. The linear-system description of the parabolic Hitchin base and the non-emptiness results under the OK condition are well motivated and carefully proved. The DSP application is a genuine attempt at a geometric proof of the BDD conjecture.

That said, there are two soft spots worth flagging. First, the abstract says the OK condition is sufficient for the DSP without mentioning the multiplicatively generic eigenvalue assumption. Theorem 5.29 does include that assumption, so the abstract overclaims. Second, Appendix A, Proposition A.3, is the load-bearing local computation for the residue diagrams. The proof assumes the spectral curve does not pass through the intersection points of successive exceptional divisors and gives no argument that a general integral member of B(m)_xi avoids them. The linear systems in question impose multiplicities at the blow-up centers, so avoidance is not automatic; in the dimension-zero case the unique curve could be forced through a double point. Since Proposition 5.26 and Theorem 5.29 depend directly on the Jordan form computed there, the main theorem is conditional as written. I don't think this is fatal—presumably one can handle the extra charts or show that general curves avoid the double points—but the paper doesn't supply that argument.

The self-citation to [LL24] is fine: H(m) is imported from their prior work, but the spectral correspondence and the DSP application rest on new constructions. The citation pattern around DDP18, SWW22, BDD22 is appropriate.

Who should read this: anyone working on parabolic Higgs bundles, Hitchin systems, or the Deligne–Simpson problem. The geometric perspective is fresh and the technical core is mostly solid. I would send it to a serious referee, asking them to check Proposition A.3 and the exact scope of the DSP theorem. With those fixed, this would be a strong paper.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper generalizes the Diaconescu–Donagi–Pantev spectral correspondence to the relative setting over the base N(m) of eigenvalue data for parabolic Higgs bundles. It constructs a family of holomorphic symplectic surfaces by successive blow-ups, defines a relative moduli space of pure dimension one sheaves with support in a fixed curve class, and proves a closed embedding Q from the relative moduli space of xi-parabolic Higgs bundles into this sheaf moduli space, with an isomorphism over the integral locus. The paper also identifies the parabolic Hitchin base B(m)_xi with an affine linear system and with the zero locus of evaluation maps in the polynomial Hitchin base, and connects the OK condition to flatness and non-emptiness of these bases. As applications, it proves non-emptiness statements for moduli of stable xi-parabolic Higgs bundles and, in Theorem 5.29, claims that the OK condition is sufficient for the multiplicative Deligne–Simpson problem under a multiplicative genericity assumption, thereby addressing a conjecture of Balasubramanian–Distler–Donagi.

Significance. If the local analysis is completed, this is a substantial contribution. The relative spectral correspondence and the single-blow-up transformation are useful new tools, and the linear-system description of parabolic Hitchin bases is a genuinely new perspective. The paper also gives a concrete geometric route to the Deligne–Simpson problem and proves a substantial form of the BDD conjecture under multiplicative genericity. The computational control over residues via curve classes and the comparison with Simpson's criterion in Appendix B are valuable. However, the main Deligne–Simpson theorem currently rests on an unproved genericity assertion about spectral curves avoiding exceptional-divisor double points, and the abstract overstates the scope of the conjecture proved. These issues are load-bearing and require repair.

major comments (3)

[Appendix A, Prop. A.3] The proof assumes that the integral spectral curve Sigma_l does not pass through E_j cap E_{j+1}, writing that otherwise more charts are needed. This hypothesis is essential for the normal form F_j = v_j^{e_j} + u_{j-1}f + c with c != 0 in Eq. (40); when c = 0, the linear-independence argument for the set T in Eq. (41) collapses, and the claimed Jordan normal form (the conjugate partition of (m_1,...,m_l)) is not established. No argument is given that a general integral member of B(m)_xi avoids these double points, and the zero-dimensional-fiber case is not addressed. Since Proposition 5.26(2) and Step 2 of Theorem 5.29 rely on this residue-diagram computation, the main Deligne–Simpson theorem is currently conditional on an extra assumption. The authors should either prove the avoidance statement, including all dimension-zero cases, or carry out the additional charts and repeat the Jordan-block computation for c = 0.
[Lemma 5.28] To ensure that Sigma is the strict transform of C_s, the proof needs exact multiplicities at the blow-up centers, as in Remark A.2. In the case dim B(m)_xi = 0, the proof says that the extra equations are avoided for a general xi because they define a closed subset of N(m)^add. This is only valid if that subset is proper, and no dimension estimate is provided; a priori the bad locus could be all of N(m)^add. If exact multiplicity fails, Sigma need not be integral or may not belong to B(m)_xi, so Proposition 5.26 cannot be applied. This is a second load-bearing gap in the proof of Theorem 5.29.
[Abstract and Theorem 1.11] The abstract states that the paper proves that the OK condition is sufficient for solving the Deligne–Simpson problem, with no genericity qualification. However, Theorem 5.29, which is the theorem supporting this claim, assumes that the collection of eigenvalues is multiplicatively generic. The unqualified conjecture of [BDD22] is not proved; Remark 5.33 only indicates how a version without generic eigenvalues might be obtained under stronger inequalities. The abstract and introduction should state the multiplicative genericity assumption explicitly, or the conjecture should be proved in the stated generality.

minor comments (3)

[Definition 2.1] The word 'quadraple' should be 'quadruple'.
[Prop. 3.14] The phrase 'the expected dimension is always lower than the actual dimension' should read 'the actual dimension is always at least the expected dimension'; as written it is slightly confusing.
[Prop. 5.18] The proof asserts without computation that the strengthened inequalities guarantee H^1(C, L(m)_mu tensor O(-p_i)) = 0 for mu = 2,...,r. A short Riemann–Roch verification for the g = 0 and g = 1 cases would make the argument easier to check.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the OK-condition and Deligne–Simpson arguments are built from independent linear-system and spectral-curve constructions; the Appendix A avoidance assumption is a proof gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

No circular step is present. The paper's OK condition is defined independently as the vanishing H^1(C,L(m)_mu)=0 (Definition 1.6), and the proof of Theorem 5.29 proceeds by converting prescribed conjugacy classes into partitions P_i, checking the OK inequality, invoking the non-emptiness result for the Hitchin bases B(m)_xi (Corollary 5.14), choosing an integral spectral curve, and computing the induced residue diagrams through Proposition 5.26 and Proposition A.3. None of these steps assumes the existence of an irreducible solution; the conclusion is not an input rearranged. The only self-citation, [LL24] for the existence of the relative moduli space H(m), supplies a previously constructed input object; it does not by itself prove the spectral correspondence or the DSP sufficiency, so it is not load-bearing in the circular sense. The sentence in the proof of Proposition A.3, 'For simplicity, we assume that Sigma_l does not pass through the intersection E_j cap E_{j+1} (otherwise, we will need to consider more charts)', is an unproved avoidance assertion on which the Jordan normal form computation depends; this is a genuine correctness gap in the proof as written, but it does not make the theorem equivalent to its assumptions by construction. The derivation chain is therefore not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central mathematical objects, the family of surfaces and the curve class, are constructed within the paper and are internally justified by the proofs. The paper's claims rest on standard theorems (NAHC, BNR, moduli theory) and on the authors' prior construction of H(m). No numerical constants are fitted to data; the only free choices are auxiliary parameters used to make stability and genericity arguments work.

free parameters (3)

stability parameters kappa and N = not specified; chosen sufficiently large
In Proposition 4.16 and Remark 4.17, kappa and N are chosen large enough to align stability of parabolic Higgs bundles with twisted Gieseker stability of sheaves. No explicit values are needed, and they are not fitted to data.
parabolic weights alpha and twist beta = not specified; ordered rational weights
The parabolic weights alpha and the classes beta_{i,j} are part of the input data in Definition 2.1 and Section 4.1. They are chosen by hand from intervals with ordering constraints and are not fitted to observations.
perturbation weights beta_{i,j} in the Deligne-Simpson proof = not specified; chosen to make modified eigenvalues distinct
In Theorem 5.29 Step 1, beta_{i,j} are introduced so that the modified residues tau'_{i,j} are distinct for distinct lambda_{i,j}; this is an auxiliary choice made to satisfy a technical condition.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Existence, smoothness, and coarse scheme structure of the relative moduli space H(m) from [LL24]
Theorem 2.6 imports the relative moduli space of xi-parabolic Higgs bundles from the authors' previous paper [LL24]. This is the starting point of the relative spectral correspondence and is not re-derived in this manuscript.
standard math Tame non-abelian Hodge correspondence of Simpson [Sim90]
Used in Section 5.4 to translate stable parabolic Higgs bundles of parabolic degree zero into stable filtered local systems with matching residue diagrams. This foundational theorem is assumed.
standard math Simpson's residue diagram table
The table from [Sim90, page 719] relates weights and eigenvalues of parabolic Higgs bundles to monodromy data of filtered local systems; used in Theorem 5.29 Step 1.
standard math Yokogawa's moduli theory and properness of the parabolic Hitchin map
Used to define moduli spaces of parabolic Higgs bundles and to show properness of Q in Proposition 4.19 via [Yok93, Theorem 4.6, Corollary 5.12].
standard math Classical BNR spectral correspondence [BNR89]
Used in Step 1 of the construction of Q to turn a parabolic Higgs bundle into a pure dimension one sheaf on the total space of the twisted cotangent bundle.

invented entities (2)

family of holomorphic symplectic surfaces S(m) obtained by iterated blow-ups of M over N(m)
purpose: Hosts the relative moduli of sheaves M(m) and provides the surface-side of the relative spectral correspondence.
Constructed in Section 3.1 as a sequence of blow-ups along tautological sections. It is a mathematical construction with no independent falsifiable handle outside the paper.
relative curve class Sigma(m) = r p^* C_0 - sum m_{i,j} Xi_{i,j}
purpose: Defines the support class for the sheaves and the family of parabolic Hitchin bases B(m); encodes the parabolic data of the Higgs bundles.
Defined in Section 3.2 as a divisor class on the constructed surfaces; a mathematical formalism rather than an empirically testable entity.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relative spectral correspondence for parabolic Higgs bundles and Deligne--Simpson problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K5S3HUUM

@misc{pith2026250908527,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relative spectral correspondence for parabolic Higgs bundles and Deligne--Simpson problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K5S3HUUM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08527}
}

abstract

In this paper, we generalize the spectral correspondence for parabolic Higgs bundles established by Diaconescu--Donagi--Pantev to the relative setting. We show that the relative moduli space of $\vec{\xi}$-parabolic Higgs bundles on a curve can be realized as the relative moduli space of pure dimension one sheaves on a family of holomorphic symplectic surfaces. This leads us to formulate the image of the relative moduli space under the Hitchin map in terms of linear systems on the family of surfaces. Then we explore the relationship between the geometry of these linear systems and the so-called $OK$ condition introduced by Balasubramanian--Distler--Donagi in the context of six-dimensional superconformal field theories. As applications, we obtain (a) the non-emptiness of the moduli spaces and (b) the Deligne--Simpson problem and its higher genus analogue. In particular, we prove a conjecture proposed by Balasubramanian--Distler--Donagi that the $OK$ condition is sufficient for solving the Deligne--Simpson problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08527 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Surface Zξ for a generic ξ Examples 3.2. (Strongly parabolic ξ = 0) Consider the case n = 1 with D = p. When ξ = 0, the restriction of p : Z → M to ξ ∈ N (⃗m) is given by the successive blow-up of M along the strict transform of Mp and the previous exceptional divisor. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Surface Zξ for ξ = 0 Lemma 3.3. For each ⃗ξ ∈ N (⃗m), we have Num(Zξ⃗) = Num(M) M M i∈I,j∈Ji Z[Ξi,j,ξ⃗] Lemma 3.4. For each ⃗ξ ∈ N (⃗m), we have Ξi,j,ξ⃗ · Ξi ′ ,j′ ,ξ⃗ =    −1 if (i, j) = (i ′ , j′ ) 0 if otherwise , Ξi,j,ξ⃗ · Fk,ξ⃗ =    1 if i = k 0 if i ̸= k , Ξi,j,ξ⃗ · p ∗ ξ⃗C0 = 0. Proof. For simplicity, we drop out ⃗ξ in the notation. We prove the first assertion. If i ̸= i ′ , then it is clear that Ξi,j … view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[1]

Algebraic Nahm transform for parabolic Higgs bundles onP 1

[AS14] K. Aker and S. Szab´ o. “Algebraic Nahm transform for parabolic Higgs bundles onP 1”. In:Geom. Topol.18.5 (2014), pp. 2487–2545.url:https://doi.org/ 10.2140/gt.2014.18.2487. [BDD22] A. Balasubramanian, J. Distler, and R. Donagi. “Families of Hitchin systems and N= 2 theories”. In:Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.26.6 (2022), pp. 1585–1667.url: https://doi.or...

doi:10.2140/gt.2014.18.2487 2014
[9]

Character varieties with Zariski closures of GL n-conjugacy classes at punctures

arXiv:2402.05380 [math.AG]. [Let15] E. Letellier. “Character varieties with Zariski closures of GL n-conjugacy classes at punctures”. In:Selecta Math. (N.S.)21.1 (2015), pp. 293–344.url:https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00029-014-0163-9. [LM10] M. Logares and J. Martens. “Moduli of parabolic Higgs bundles and Atiyah algebroids”. In:J. Reine Angew. Math.649 (2010)...

arXiv 2015
[11]

Katz’s middle convolution algorithm

arXiv:2407.05177 [math.AG].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.05177. [Sim09] C. Simpson. “Katz’s middle convolution algorithm”. In:Pure Appl. Math. Q.5.2 (2009), pp. 781–852.url:https://doi.org/10.4310/PAMQ.2009.v5.n2.a8. [Sim90] C. T. Simpson. “Harmonic bundles on noncompact curves”. In:J. Amer. Math. Soc.3.3 (1990), pp. 713–770.url:https://doi.org/10.2307/1...

work page arXiv 2009
[12]

Moduli of representations of the fundamental group of a smooth projective variety. II

CMS Conf. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1991, pp. 157–185. [Sim94] C. T. Simpson. “Moduli of representations of the fundamental group of a smooth projective variety. II”. In:Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. Publ. Math.80 (1994), pp. 5– 79.url:http://www.numdam.org/item?id=PMIHES_1994__80__5_0. [SWW22a] X. Su, B. Wang, and X. Wen. “Parabolic Hitchin map...

work page 1994
[13]

The automorphism group of the moduli space of semistable vector bundles

[KP95] A. Kouvidakis and T. Pantev. “The automorphism group of the moduli space of semistable vector bundles”. In:Math. Ann.302.2 (1995), pp. 225–268.url: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01444495. [LL24] J. Lee and S. Lee.Generators for the cohomology of the moduli space of irregular parabolic Higgs bundles

doi:10.1007/bf01444495 1995
[14]

Topological Mirror Symmetry of Parabolic Hitchin Systems

arXiv:2206.02527 [math.AG].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2206.02527. [Sza17] S. Szab´ o. “The birational geometry of unramified irregular Higgs bundles on curves”. In:International Journal of Mathematics28 (2017), p. 1750045.url: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:125343111. [Wen21] X. Wen.Parabolic Higgs bundles on projecitive line, quiver varieties a...

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[15]

The Deligne-Simpson problem—a survey

Lect. Notes Unione Mat. Ital. Springer, Cham, 2014, pp. 197–308.url:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-06514-4_6. [Kos04] V. P. Kostov. “The Deligne-Simpson problem—a survey”. In:J. Algebra281.1 (2004), pp. 83–108.url:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalgebra.2004.07

doi:10.1007/978-3- 2004
[52]

Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1977, pp

Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1977, pp. xvi+496. [Hau+22] T. Hausel, A. Mellit, A. Minets, and O. Schiffmann.P=WviaH

work page 1977

Show all 14 references

[139]

Cohomologicalχ-independence for Higgs bundles and Gopakumar–Vafa invariants

Annals of Mathematics Studies. Prince- ton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1996, pp. viii+223.url:https://doi.org/ 10.1515/9781400882595. [KK24] T. Kinjo and N. Koseki. “Cohomologicalχ-independence for Higgs bundles and Gopakumar–Vafa invariants”. In:Journal of the European M...

1996 doi
[411]

Twisted spectral correspondence and torus knots

London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2014, pp. 132–150. [Chu+20] W.-Y. Chuang, D.-E. Diaconescu, R. Donagi, S. Nawata, and T. Pantev. “Twisted spectral correspondence and torus knots”. In:J. Knot Theory Ramifications29.6 (2020), pp. 2050040, 65...

2020 doi
[2021]

Compactification of moduli of parabolic sheaves and moduli of parabolic Higgs sheaves

arXiv:2101.01913 [math.AG].url:https://arxiv. org/abs/2101.01913. [Yok93] K. Yokogawa. “Compactification of moduli of parabolic sheaves and moduli of parabolic Higgs sheaves”. In:J. Math. Kyoto Univ.33.2 (1993), pp. 451–504. url:https://doi.org/10.1215/kjm/1250519269. [Yos00] ...

1993
[2022]

Arithmetic harmonic analysis on character and quiver varieties II

arXiv: 2209.05429 [math.AG]. 53 [HLR13] T. Hausel, E. Letellier, and F. Rodriguez-Villegas. “Arithmetic harmonic analysis on character and quiver varieties II”. In:Adv. Math.234 (2013), pp. 85–128.url: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2012.10.009. [Kal84] D. Kalman. “The generali...

2013 arXiv
[2023]

54 [MSY24] D

arXiv:2308.13160 [math.AG]. 54 [MSY24] D. Maulik, J. Shen, and Q. Yin.Algebraic cycles and Hitchin systems
[2024]

[Har77] R

arXiv:2411.16912 [math.AG].url:https: //arxiv.org/abs/2411.16912. [Har77] R. Hartshorne.Algebraic geometry. Vol. No

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Algebraic Nahm transform for parabolic Higgs bundles onP 1

[AS14] K. Aker and S. Szab´ o. “Algebraic Nahm transform for parabolic Higgs bundles onP 1”. In:Geom. Topol.18.5 (2014), pp. 2487–2545.url:https://doi.org/ 10.2140/gt.2014.18.2487. [BDD22] A. Balasubramanian, J. Distler, and R. Donagi. “Families of Hitchin systems and N= 2 theories”. In:Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.26.6 (2022), pp. 1585–1667.url: https://doi.or...

doi:10.2140/gt.2014.18.2487 2014

[2] [9]

Character varieties with Zariski closures of GL n-conjugacy classes at punctures

arXiv:2402.05380 [math.AG]. [Let15] E. Letellier. “Character varieties with Zariski closures of GL n-conjugacy classes at punctures”. In:Selecta Math. (N.S.)21.1 (2015), pp. 293–344.url:https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00029-014-0163-9. [LM10] M. Logares and J. Martens. “Moduli of parabolic Higgs bundles and Atiyah algebroids”. In:J. Reine Angew. Math.649 (2010)...

arXiv 2015

[3] [11]

Katz’s middle convolution algorithm

arXiv:2407.05177 [math.AG].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.05177. [Sim09] C. Simpson. “Katz’s middle convolution algorithm”. In:Pure Appl. Math. Q.5.2 (2009), pp. 781–852.url:https://doi.org/10.4310/PAMQ.2009.v5.n2.a8. [Sim90] C. T. Simpson. “Harmonic bundles on noncompact curves”. In:J. Amer. Math. Soc.3.3 (1990), pp. 713–770.url:https://doi.org/10.2307/1...

work page arXiv 2009

[4] [12]

Moduli of representations of the fundamental group of a smooth projective variety. II

CMS Conf. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1991, pp. 157–185. [Sim94] C. T. Simpson. “Moduli of representations of the fundamental group of a smooth projective variety. II”. In:Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. Publ. Math.80 (1994), pp. 5– 79.url:http://www.numdam.org/item?id=PMIHES_1994__80__5_0. [SWW22a] X. Su, B. Wang, and X. Wen. “Parabolic Hitchin map...

work page 1994

[5] [13]

The automorphism group of the moduli space of semistable vector bundles

[KP95] A. Kouvidakis and T. Pantev. “The automorphism group of the moduli space of semistable vector bundles”. In:Math. Ann.302.2 (1995), pp. 225–268.url: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01444495. [LL24] J. Lee and S. Lee.Generators for the cohomology of the moduli space of irregular parabolic Higgs bundles

doi:10.1007/bf01444495 1995

[6] [14]

Topological Mirror Symmetry of Parabolic Hitchin Systems

arXiv:2206.02527 [math.AG].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2206.02527. [Sza17] S. Szab´ o. “The birational geometry of unramified irregular Higgs bundles on curves”. In:International Journal of Mathematics28 (2017), p. 1750045.url: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:125343111. [Wen21] X. Wen.Parabolic Higgs bundles on projecitive line, quiver varieties a...

work page Pith review arXiv 2017

[7] [15]

The Deligne-Simpson problem—a survey

Lect. Notes Unione Mat. Ital. Springer, Cham, 2014, pp. 197–308.url:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-06514-4_6. [Kos04] V. P. Kostov. “The Deligne-Simpson problem—a survey”. In:J. Algebra281.1 (2004), pp. 83–108.url:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalgebra.2004.07

doi:10.1007/978-3- 2004

[8] [52]

Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1977, pp

Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1977, pp. xvi+496. [Hau+22] T. Hausel, A. Mellit, A. Minets, and O. Schiffmann.P=WviaH

work page 1977