Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 38 references

A twisted anomaly map from differential twisted K-theory to the differential Anderson dual of twisted Spin^c-bordism is constructed, with its functional part given by reduced eta invariants of Dirac operators.

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

2026-08-04 06:59 UTC pith:NADSCKB6

load-bearing objection Genuinely new twisted differential models and a twisted anomaly map, but the map's analytic foundation is cited rather than proved — deserves a serious referee with revision in mind. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2510.27286 v2 pith:NADSCKB6 submitted 2025-10-31 math.AT hep-thmath-phmath.DGmath.MP

Differential Models for the Anderson Dual to Twisted Spin^c-Bordism and a Twisted Anomaly Map

Fei Han , Yuanchu Li This is my paper
classification math.AT hep-thmath-phmath.DGmath.MP MSC 55N2219L5053C0858J28
keywords differential cohomologytwisted Spin^c-bordismAnderson dualbundle gerbesgerbe modulesreduced eta invarianttwisted K-theoryanomaly map
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.

This paper constructs smooth differential models for twisted Spin^c-bordism and for its Anderson dual, extending the Yamashita–Yonekura framework to degree-3 twists. It then builds a twisted anomaly map that sends a differential twisted K-theory class with inverse twist to a pair (ω, h) in the differential Anderson dual, where ω is a twisted characteristic form and h is an R/Z-valued functional defined by reduced eta invariants of Dirac operators. The construction is geometric: twists are bundle gerbes, K-theory classes are super U_tr gerbe modules, and well-definedness is proved using the Atiyah–Patodi–Singer index theorem. If correct, this gives the twisted version of the anomaly map conjecturally relating 1|1-dimensional supersymmetric field theories to invertible field theories.

Core claim

The paper establishes that the system (1.6) is a differential extension of twisted Spin^c-bordism (Theorem 3.6) and that the system (1.7) is a differential extension of its Anderson dual (Theorem 3.14), in the axiomatic sense of Definitions 2.3 and 2.2. It then constructs the twisted anomaly map bΦ_{bτ}: bK^0(X, bG^{-1}) → (\hat{IΩ}^{Spin^c}_{dR})^{2k}(X, bG) (Proposition 4.10), sending a class represented by (E, ∇E, ρ) to (ω, h) with ω = (ch_{bG^{-1}}(∇E) − (d+H)ρ) ⊗ A-roof e^ζ and with h(M, f, ∇^{S^c}, Ψ, φ) = η̄_{∇E}(...) − ⟨cw(...), ρ⊗A-roof e^ζ⟩ − ⟨φ, ω⟩ mod Z. Well-definedness is proved using the APS index theorem, with the reduced eta invariant providing the R/Z-valued functional.

What carries the argument

The central objects are twisted de Rham complexes with coefficients in the Spin^c-bordism ring: the chain complex (Ω^*(X; V^{Spin^c}_•), ∂_H = ∂ + H∧(u×−)) and its dual cochain complex (Ω^*(X; N^•_{Spin^c}), D_H = d + H∧∂_ζ), where H is the curvature 3-form of the twist and u, ζ are degree-2 generators. The Anderson dual model consists of pairs (ω, h) with D_H-closed ω and an R/Z-valued functional h on differential twisted Spin^c-bordism cycles satisfying h∘a = ⟨−, ω⟩ mod Z. The anomaly map is carried by the reduced eta invariant η̄(D_E) of the Dirac operator on the Clifford module E = S^c ⊗ f^*(E−E'), together with the twisted Chern-character form A-roof e^κ.

Load-bearing premise

The reduced eta invariant of the Dirac operator on the Clifford module S^c ⊗ f^*(E−E') must be well-defined modulo Z and satisfy the Atiyah–Patodi–Singer index formulas used in Lemma 4.12 and Proposition 4.10, including in the nontorsion twisted setting where E and E' are infinite-rank U_tr bundles.

What would settle it

Compute the anomaly map for a concrete nontorsion twist, e.g., X = S^3 with the gerbe of Dixmier–Douady class the generator of H^3(S^3;Z), and a simple U_tr module; if the R/Z-valued functional h fails to be independent of the choice of connection path (i.e., the APS transgression identity (4.14) fails modulo Z), the map is not well-defined. More generally, find a geometric chain W for which the APS formula used in (4.12) gives a discrepancy not cancelled by the Chern–Simons term.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Twisted differential K-theory classes with inverse twist carry a canonical anomaly, valued in the differential Anderson dual of twisted Spin^c-bordism.
  • The constructions extend Yamashita–Yonekura's differential models for Anderson duals from untwisted to degree-3 twisted bordism for G = Spin^c.
  • The gerbe-theoretic and classifying-space models for differential twisted Spin^c-bordism agree, so the eta-invariant formula is compatible with the homotopy-theoretic framework.
  • Twisted differential multiplication and pushforward, including S^1-integration, exist for the differential Anderson dual, giving it the structure needed for field-theoretic applications.
  • A nontrivial additional term A-roof(Z)∧e^{κ_Z}∧θ appears in the APS computation, which the paper identifies as an interesting object for further study.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the anomaly map is compatible with the Stolz–Teichner conjecture, the reduced eta invariant should be expressible as the partition function of a 1|1-dimensional supersymmetric theory on the bordism cycle; this gives a testable target for index-theoretic computations.
  • The analytic input—well-definedness of the reduced eta invariant for possibly infinite-rank U_tr modules under nontorsion twists—is imported from the literature; a direct proof for this setting would close the gap that currently separates Proposition 4.10 from a fully self-contained theorem.
  • The map might factor through twisted differential K-homology or be compatible with pushforwards, yielding a twisted version of the Freed–Lott index theorem; this could be checked by comparing curvatures and holonomy functionals.
  • The construction suggests that the anomaly of a twisted 1|1-dimensional supersymmetric theory is entirely encoded by the eta invariant of its associated Clifford module, so one could numerically test the map in examples such as lens spaces or mapping tori where eta invariants are computable.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs differential models for degree-3 twisted Spin^c-bordism and for its Anderson dual, following the Yamashita–Yonekura framework. The first main result, Theorem 3.6, presents a geometric cycle model \hat Ω^{Spin^c}_n(X,bτ) with a twisted de Rham chain complex M^{Spin^c}_* and verifies the axioms of a differential extension in the sense of Definition 2.3. The second main result, Theorem 3.14, gives a model for the differential Anderson dual to twisted Spin^c-bordism via pairs (ω,h), and verifies Definition 2.2, with the topological identification delegated to a Picard groupoid argument. The paper then develops gerbe-theoretic equivalents of these models and uses them to define a twisted anomaly map \Phi_{bτ}: \hat K^0(X,bG^{-1}) → (\hat IΩ^{Spin^c}_{dR})^{2k}(X,bG), whose functional component h is defined using reduced eta invariants of Dirac operators coupled to U^{tr}-gerbe modules. The construction is motivated by conjectures of Stolz–Teichner and Freed–Hopkins on anomalies of supersymmetric field theories.

Significance. If the main results hold, the paper provides the first explicit differential refinement of twisted Spin^c-bordism and of its Anderson dual, and it gives a concrete geometric construction of a twisted anomaly map linking differential twisted K-theory to Anderson-dual bordism data. The explicit twisted de Rham complexes (Ω^*(X;N^*_{Spin^c}), D_H) and the gerbe-module formulation are useful tools and directly connect the homotopy-theoretic framework of Yamashita–Yonekura with geometric Dirac-operator constructions. The paper is careful to verify the models against the external axioms of differential extensions (Definitions 2.2 and 2.3) rather than against the desired conclusion; no circularity is apparent. However, the central anomaly map relies on analytic input that is imported rather than proved, and the topological identification in the Anderson dual construction is partly delegated to prior work.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.4.2, Eq. (4.11) and Lemma 4.12] The functional h is defined using the reduced eta invariant \barη(D_E) of the Dirac operator on E = S^c ⊗ f^*(E−E'), where E,E' are U^{tr}-modules over a possibly non-torsion gerbe bG^{-1}. The manuscript does not state the analytic hypotheses under which D_E has a well-defined eta invariant modulo Z, nor does it prove the APS index identity (4.14) in the infinite-rank U^{tr} setting. The finite-rank discussion in §4.1.2 explicitly works under a temporary torsion assumption, and the subsequent U^{tr} discussion supplies twisted Chern character formulas but no spectral or eta-invariant statements. Since Proposition 4.10 depends entirely on Lemma 4.12, this is a load-bearing gap. The introduction's remark that an 'additional term' in the APS computation requires further analytic investigation (§1.2) is consistent with this incompleteness. Please either prove the needed eta/APS statements f
  2. [§3.4.2, Lemma 3.21] The proof of Lemma 3.21 is not self-contained. After defining the map \tilde F, the key functor \pi_{\le1}L(P_τ(MTSpin^c)/X)^{1−n} → (im(ch') → Ω^{Spin^c}_{n−1}(X,τ)) is introduced with the phrase 'following the arguments in [Yam23b]', and no explicit construction is given. The subsequent identification with (IΩ^{Spin^c})^n(X,τ) via (3.31) is then asserted. This step is the bridge from the differential model to the topological Anderson dual and is needed for Theorem 3.14. Please provide a complete construction, or state and prove a precise twisted analogue of the corresponding theorem in [Yam23b], including compatibility with the K(Z,2)-action on MTSpin^c used in the parametrized spectrum P_τ(MTSpin^c).
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.4.2, Theorem 3.19] The statement says the model is a differential extension 'in the sense of Definition 3.18', but Definition 3.18 merely defines the group (\hat IΩ^{Spin^c}_{dR})^n(X,bτ). It should refer to Definition 2.2.
  2. [§4.1.2] The text says 'temporarily assume its underlying topological bundle gerbe ... is torsion', but it is not clearly stated when this assumption is lifted. The subsequent U^{tr} discussion should explicitly say that from that point on, the torsion assumption is dropped and which constructions carry over.
  3. [§3.5.1] The quasi-isomorphism between Ω^{-r}(X;V^•) and Ω^{-r}_{-∞}(X;V^•) is asserted in one sentence via the homological perturbation lemma. Since this underpins the differential twisted cobordism group and the multiplication/pushforward operations, please provide details or a precise reference for the deformed differentials δ_H and D_H.
  4. [§3.3.1] The notation V^{Spin^c}_• = V^{-•}_{Spin^c} is confusing: the same symbol is used for a graded ring and its dual-style indexing. Please clarify the grading convention and use a consistent notation for the coefficient rings.
  5. [§4.4.2] Typo: 'For clarify in this context' should be 'For clarity in this context'.
  6. [§3.5.2, Eq. (3.40)] The mixed product ∧_⋆ is defined on pure tensors, but the Koszul sign convention for the interaction between the form degree of ω and the current degree of T is not spelled out. Please state the sign convention explicitly, since it is used in Lemma 3.26.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the claimed differential extensions and twisted anomaly map are verified against external axioms and independent analytic/spectral inputs.

full rationale

The load-bearing results are Theorem 3.6, Theorem 3.14, and Proposition 4.10. None reduces to its own inputs. The differential-extension axioms in Definitions 2.2 and 2.3 are taken from Bunke–Schick, Bunke–Nikolaus, and Yamashita, and the paper's models are explicitly constructed objects: twisted de Rham complexes, geometric chain groups, and pairs (ω,h). The theorems verify the axioms, and the key isomorphism ch'⊗R is proved via spectral-sequence and current-duality arguments in Proposition 3.11 and Lemma 3.22, not assumed. The exactness in Theorem 3.13 follows from the geometric bordism relation and the essential surjectivity of the forgetful map, both stated and proved from stated constructions. The gerbe-theoretic equivalence in Theorem 4.8 is an explicit balanced-tensor construction rather than an identity by definition. The twisted anomaly map in Proposition 4.10 has curvature component fixed by the twisted Chern character and functional component fixed by the reduced eta invariant, with compatibility h∘a = modZ∘⟨−,ω⟩ holding directly from formula (4.11); the substantive well-definedness checks are the Atiyah–Patodi–Singer identities cited to Berline–Getzler–Vergne and Murray–Singer. Any concern about the analytic hypotheses for infinite-rank U_tr-modules is an external correctness/verification issue, not a circular reduction: the paper does not fit a parameter to its conclusion, rename a known empirical pattern, or depend on self-citations by the present authors. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No numerical constants are fitted; this is a pure mathematics paper. The only 'parameters' are the twist bτ and the group Spin^c, which are inputs, not fitted values. No new physical entities are postulated; the new mathematical structures (differential twisted Spin^c-structures, gerbe-theoretic models) are definitions, not independent entities with falsifiable handles.

axioms (7)
  • standard math Atiyah–Patodi–Singer index theorem, applied to Dirac operators on Clifford modules (including U_tr-type infinite rank modules) and reduced eta invariants.
    Invoked in Lemma 4.12 and Proposition 4.10 to prove well-definedness of the functional h; the text cites [BGV03] and [MS04b].
  • standard math Picard groupoid description of Anderson duals and the five-lemma argument (HS05, (3.28)).
    Used in Lemma 3.21 to identify the differential model modulo image of a with the topological Anderson dual; the construction of the functor is delegated to [Yam23b].
  • standard math Twisted Atiyah–Hirzebruch spectral sequence with rational E_2 term H^p(X;R)⊗Ω^{Spin^c}_q(pt)⊗R and first differential d_3 = H∧(u×−).
    Used in Proposition 3.11 to prove the Chern-Weil map is an isomorphism after tensoring with R; relies on [MS04a, Prop. 22.1.5].
  • standard math Equivalence Grb_conn(X) ≃ B^2_conn U(1)(X) and classification of differential stable isomorphisms by Deligne cohomology.
    Basis of the gerbe-theoretic reformulation in Section 4; cited to [MS00].
  • standard math Yamashita–Yonekura's differential model for the Anderson dual to G-bordism [YY23] and its S^1-integration.
    Used as the template and backbone for the twisted constructions in Sections 3.4 and 3.5; the paper explicitly extends this framework.
  • standard math Wang's geometric cycle model for twisted Spin^c-bordism [Wan07] and its Pontryagin–Thom identification with MTSpin^c.
    Starting point for the differential refinement in Section 3; Theorem 3.4 is imported.
  • standard math Existence of (super) U_tr-module connections with trace-class difference and of the twisted Chern character form (MS03, MS04b).
    Needed to define differential twisted K-theory and the Chern character in the nontorsion case (Section 4.4.1).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 38466 in / 18646 out tokens · 139988 ms · 2026-08-04T06:59:12.053447+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Differential Models for the Anderson Dual to Twisted $\mathrm{Spin}^c$-Bordism and a Twisted Anomaly Map." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NADSCKB6

@misc{pith2026251027286,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Differential Models for the Anderson Dual to Twisted $\mathrmSpin^c$-Bordism and a Twisted Anomaly Map},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NADSCKB6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.27286}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We construct differential models for degree-3 twisted $\mathrm{Spin}^c$-bordism and for its Anderson dual. The model for the differential Anderson dual is based on the framework of Yamashita--Yonekura. Using these differential models, we define a twisted anomaly map from differential twisted $K$-theory with inverse twist to the differential Anderson dual of twisted $\mathrm{Spin}^c$-bordism. The construction is described geometrically in terms of bundle gerbes, gerbe modules, and reduced eta-invariants of Dirac operators associated to the twisted data. Conceptually, this map is expected to be related to the anomalies of twisted $1|1$-dimensional supersymmetric field theories, in line with the perspectives of Stolz--Teichner and Freed--Hopkins.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Twists of k-theory and tmf

    Matthew Ando, Andrew J Blumberg, and David Gepner. Twists of k-theory and tmf. Superstrings, geometry, topology, and C-algebras , 81:27--63, 2010

    2010

  2. [2]

    Units of ring spectra, orientations, and thom spectra via rigid infinite loop space theory

    Matthew Ando, Andrew J Blumberg, David Gepner, Michael J Hopkins, and Charles Rezk. Units of ring spectra, orientations, and thom spectra via rigid infinite loop space theory. Journal of Topology , 7(4):1077--1117, 2014

    2014

  3. [3]

    Twisted k -theory

    Michael Atiyah and Graeme Segal. Twisted k -theory. arXiv preprint math/0407054 , 2004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  4. [4]

    Twisted k-theory and k-theory of bundle gerbes

    Peter Bouwknegt, Alan L Carey, Varghese Mathai, Michael K Murray, and Danny Stevenson. Twisted k-theory and k-theory of bundle gerbes. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 228:17--49, 2002

    2002

  5. [5]

    Heat kernels and Dirac operators

    Nicole Berline, Ezra Getzler, and Michele Vergne. Heat kernels and Dirac operators . Springer Science & Business Media, 2003

    2003

  6. [6]

    Twisted differential cohomology

    Ulrich Bunke and Thomas Nikolaus. Twisted differential cohomology. Algebraic & Geometric Topology , 19(4):1631--1710, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    Differential cohomology theories as sheaves of spectra

    Ulrich Bunke, Thomas Nikolaus, and Michael V \"o lkl. Differential cohomology theories as sheaves of spectra. Journal of Homotopy and Related Structures , 11(1):1--66, 2016

    2016

  8. [8]

    Smooth k-theory

    Ulrich Bunke and Thomas Schick. Smooth k-theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:0707.0046 , 2007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  9. [9]

    Uniqueness of smooth extensions of generalized cohomology theories

    Ulrich Bunke and Thomas Schick. Uniqueness of smooth extensions of generalized cohomology theories. Journal of Topology , 3(1):110--156, 2010

    2010

  10. [10]

    Landweber exact formal group laws and smooth cohomology theories

    Ulrich Bunke, Thomas Schick, Ingo Schr \"o der, and Moritz Wiethaup. Landweber exact formal group laws and smooth cohomology theories. Algebraic & Geometric Topology , 9(3):1751--1790, 2009

    2009

  11. [11]

    Graded brauer groups and k-theory with local coefficients

    Peter Donovan and Max Karoubi. Graded brauer groups and k-theory with local coefficients. Publications Math \'e matiques de l'Institut des Hautes \'E tudes Scientifiques , 38(1):5--25, 1970

    1970

  12. [12]

    Differentiable manifolds: forms, currents, harmonic forms , volume 266

    Georges De Rham. Differentiable manifolds: forms, currents, harmonic forms , volume 266. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  13. [13]

    Chern--weil forms and abstract homotopy theory

    Daniel Freed and Michael Hopkins. Chern--weil forms and abstract homotopy theory. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society , 50(3):431--468, 2013

    2013

  14. [14]

    Reflection positivity and invertible topological phases

    Daniel S Freed and Michael J Hopkins. Reflection positivity and invertible topological phases. Geometry & Topology , 25(3):1165--1330, 2021

    2021

  15. [15]

    Loop groups and twisted k-theory i

    Daniel S Freed, Michael J Hopkins, and Constantin Teleman. Loop groups and twisted k-theory i. Journal of Topology , 4(4):737--798, 2011

    2011

  16. [16]

    An index theorem in differential k--theory

    Daniel S Freed and John Lott. An index theorem in differential k--theory. Geometry & topology , 14(2):903--966, 2010

    2010

  17. [17]

    The uncertainty of fluxes

    Daniel S Freed, Gregory W Moore, and Graeme Segal. The uncertainty of fluxes. Communications in mathematical physics , 271(1):247--274, 2007

    2007

  18. [18]

    Lectures on special lagrangian submanifolds

    Nigel Hitchin. Lectures on special lagrangian submanifolds. arXiv preprint math/9907034 , 1999

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  19. [19]

    Algebraic topology and modular forms

    Michael J Hopkins. Algebraic topology and modular forms. Proceedings of the ICM 1 (2002) , 2002

    2002

  20. [20]

    Quadratic functions in geometry, topology, and m-theory

    Michael J Hopkins and Isadore M Singer. Quadratic functions in geometry, topology, and m-theory. Journal of Differential Geometry , 70(3):329--452, 2005

    2005

  21. [21]

    From minimal geodesics to supersymmetric field theories

    Henning Hohnhold, Stephan Stolz, and Peter Teichner. From minimal geodesics to supersymmetric field theories. A celebration of the mathematical legacy of Raoul Bott , 50:207--274, 2010

    2010

  22. [22]

    A survey of elliptic cohomology

    Jacob Lurie. A survey of elliptic cohomology. In Algebraic Topology: The Abel Symposium 2007 , pages 219--277. Springer, 2009

    2007

  23. [23]

    Bundle gerbes: stable isomorphism and local theory

    Michael K Murray and Daniel Stevenson. Bundle gerbes: stable isomorphism and local theory. Journal of the London Mathematical Society , 62(3):925--937, 2000

    2000

  24. [24]

    Chern character in twisted k-theory: equivariant and holomorphic cases

    Varghese Mathai and Danny Stevenson. Chern character in twisted k-theory: equivariant and holomorphic cases. Communications in mathematical physics , 236(1):161--186, 2003

    2003

  25. [25]

    J. P. May and J. Sigurdsson. Parametrized homotopy theory, 2004

    2004

  26. [26]

    Gerbes, clifford modules and the index theorem

    Michael K Murray and Michael A Singer. Gerbes, clifford modules and the index theorem. Annals of Global Analysis and Geometry , 26:355--367, 2004

    2004

  27. [27]

    Bundle gerbes

    Michael K Murray. Bundle gerbes. Journal of the London Mathematical Society , 54(2):403--416, 1996

    1996

  28. [28]

    Four equivalent versions of nonabelian gerbes

    Thomas Nikolaus and Konrad Waldorf. Four equivalent versions of nonabelian gerbes. Pacific Journal of Mathematics , 264(2):355--420, 2013

    2013

  29. [29]

    Geometric models of twisted differential k-theory i

    Byungdo Park. Geometric models of twisted differential k-theory i. Journal of Homotopy and Related Structures , 13(1):143--167, 2018

    2018

  30. [30]

    Continuous-trace algebras from the bundle theoretic point of view

    Jonathan Rosenberg. Continuous-trace algebras from the bundle theoretic point of view. Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society , 47(3):368--381, 1989

    1989

  31. [31]

    Structured vector bundles define differential k-theory

    James Simons and Dennis Sullivan. Structured vector bundles define differential k-theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:0810.4935 , 2008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  32. [32]

    What is an elliptic object? London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series , 308:247, 2004

    Stephan Stolz and Peter Teichner. What is an elliptic object? London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series , 308:247, 2004

    2004

  33. [33]

    Supersymmetric field theories and generalized cohomology

    Stephan Stolz and Peter Teichner. Supersymmetric field theories and generalized cohomology. Mathematical foundations of quantum field theory and perturbative string theory , 83(279-340):1108--0189, 2011

    2011

  34. [34]

    Relations among characteristic numbers—ii

    RE Stong. Relations among characteristic numbers—ii. Topology , 5(2):133--148, 1966

    1966

  35. [35]

    Geometric cycles, index theory and twisted k-homology

    Bai-Ling Wang. Geometric cycles, index theory and twisted k-homology. Journal of Noncommutative Geometry , 2:497--552, 2007

    2007

  36. [36]

    Differential models for the Anderson dual to bordism theories and invertible QFT 's

    Mayuko Yamashita. Differential models for the Anderson dual to bordism theories and invertible QFT 's. II . J. G \"o kova Geom. Topol. GGT , 16:65--97, 2023

    2023

  37. [37]

    Invertible qfts and differential anderson duals, 2023

    Mayuko Yamashita. Invertible qfts and differential anderson duals, 2023

    2023

  38. [38]

    Differential models for the Anderson dual to bordism theories and invertible QFT 's

    Mayuko Yamashita and Kazuya Yonekura. Differential models for the Anderson dual to bordism theories and invertible QFT 's. I . J. G \"o kova Geom. Topol. GGT , 16:1--64, 2023

    2023