A note on higher Green's functions

Charles F. Doran; Matt Kerr

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

A note on higher Green's functions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cycles prove Gross-Zagier: weight-four values are rational logs

desk verdict Clean, honest reduction of weight-4 Gross-Zagier to Beilinson-Hodge/ABB with 18 proven K3 mirror examples; the advertised 23-family claim leans on 5 question-marked cases the authors themselves flag as unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02382 v1 pith:NAYOTJOE submitted 2025-09-02 math.AG math.NT

Charles F. Doran , Matt Kerr This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AGmath.NT MSC 11F6714C3019E15

keywords higherGreen'sfunctionsGross–ZagierconjectureBeilinson–HodgerealregulatorsK3surfacesmodularcurvesalgebraiccyclesmirrorsymmetry

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

The paper proves a weight-four version of the Gross–Zagier conjecture on higher Green's functions—real-analytic eigenfunctions of the hyperbolic Laplacian on modular curves, with prescribed logarithmic poles—by showing that the relevant Green's function is not merely an analytic object, but the real-regulator pairing of an algebraic cycle on a family of K3 surfaces. The main theorem states that for any 'special modular' family of K3 surfaces with rational total space, the geometric Gross–Zagier conjecture holds in weight four; the paper identifies 23 such families arising as mirrors of Fano threefolds. For those families the Green's function takes values in rational multiples of logarithms of algebraic numbers at CM points. The argument also shows that the Beilinson–Hodge conjecture would imply the weight-four statement at any level, and that injectivity of the Deligne cycle class suffices to produce the required cycle. This matters because it converts an analytic conjecture about special values into an algebraic-cycle existence question, yielding a concrete list of curves where the special values are arithmetic.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the real regulator of a higher cycle—an element of $\mathrm{CH}^2(Y \setminus Y_\Sigma, 1)$. Pairing its regulator section $r_W$ with a canonical $(1,1)$-form $\eta_0$ on the K3 fibers gives a real-analytic function with exactly the logarithmic singularities and Laplace eigenvalue of the target higher Green's function; uniqueness forces equality. The family must be 'special modular': the transcendental part of its cohomology is isomorphic, via a correspondence $\Theta$, to the symmetric-square variation of an elliptic modular surface, with base a quotient of the upper half-plane by a group $\hat{\Gamma}$ generated by Fricke-type involutions. Rationality of the total space kills the CM cycle's cohomology class, so loc

What would settle it

Compute the monodromy representation of the five question-mark families in Table 1 (rows 2-6, 2-12, 2-21, 2-32, 3-13) and compare with the listed congruence groups; a mismatch falsifies Corollary 3.6 for that row. Alternatively, evaluate the constructed real-regulator function at a CM point outside the discriminant and check that it equals the higher Green's function times a rational number and lies in $\mathbb{Q}\log\mathbb{Q}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.4: for a special modular family $Y \to C$ of K3 surfaces with rational total space, the geometric Gross–Zagier conjecture holds in weight four and level $\hat{\Gamma}$—meaning the higher Green's function is realized, up to a rational multiple, by the real regulator of a higher cycle. Concretely, at a CM point $c$ (a fiber of Picard rank 20), the anti-invariant Green's function $\hat{G}_c$ equals $\langle r_W, \eta_0 \rangle$, the real-regulator pairing of a cycle $W \in \mathrm{CH}^2(Y \setminus Y_\Sigma, 1)$ with a canonical $(1,1)$-form $\eta_0$. Such a cycle restricts to a CM fiber as divisors paired with algebraic functions, so the value at CM points lands in $\mathbb{Q}\log\mathbb{Q}$. Corollary 3.6 applies this to the 23 mirror families in Table 1, five of wh

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each listed K3 family is 'special modular'—that its transcendental cohomology is exactly the symmetric-square cohomology of an elliptic modular surface over the listed group; for five of the 23 families the paper has only an educated guess for the group, without a full proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the 18 fully verified special modular families, the geometric Gross–Zagier conjecture in weight four is unconditional: the Green's functions take values in Q log Q at CM points.
By Remark 2.2 the same argument works in every weight with E^{2k-2} in place of E^2, so Beilinson–Hodge would imply geometric Gross–Zagier for all weights and levels.
The arithmetic Bloch–Beilinson conjecture implies the geometric statement whenever the Kuga threefold is smooth quasi-projective over Q; for rational X this is unconditional.
The 23 total spaces are rational because they arise by blowing up a toric threefold along rational curves, so rationality is automatic in these examples.
In the CY 4-fold analogue sketched in §4, Beilinson–Hodge would make suitably normalized special values rational logarithms at Hodge points, if such points can be located.

Reading between the lines

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

Verifying the five question-mark group entries in Table 1 by direct monodromy computation would extend the unconditional list to all 23 families; the listed groups make specific, checkable predictions about the monodromy of those Picard–Fuchs systems.
The construction suggests the real regulator, not the Green's function itself, is the fundamental arithmetic object; one could test this by computing the regulator pairing numerically at a CM point and comparing with the predicted Q log Q value.
The r-parameter extension question the paper raises—on which covers of the base the cycles become well-defined—could be approached through the known indecomposable K1 cycles on very general fibers, and might reveal arithmetic structure in higher-rank Fano mirrors.
If Beilinson–Hodge fails in any of these weight-four settings, Theorem 2.1 would produce a counterexample to geometric Gross–Zagier; conversely, a counterexample to geometric Gross–Zagier would falsify Beilinson–Hodge there, making the two conjectures tightly coupled.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a genuinely useful conceptual note: it shows weight-4 Gross-Zagier follows from Beilinson-Hodge, and also from the arithmetic Bloch-Beilinson conjecture, then constructs the relevant higher cycles for a large class of K3 mirror families. The reduction in Theorem 2.1 and the cycle construction in §3.2 are the real content, and they are presented cleanly. The 18 fully proven families, including the 8 Picard-rank >1 cases, go beyond what Brown–Fonseca did, and the extension to Fricke-type involutions is natural. Credit where due: this is a solid piece of work, not just a survey.

The soft spots are real but mostly well flagged. The biggest is special modularity: Corollary 3.6 claims all 23 groups, but five entries in Table 1 carry question marks and the footnote explicitly says they are educated guesses without full proofs. That is not a hidden flaw – the authors admit it – but it does mean the advertised collection is 18 proven plus 5 conjectural. A referee should push for either full proofs or a cleaner split of the theorem. Two other places are compressed: the isomorphism CH2(Y)Q ≅ Hg2(Y)Q is asserted rather than proved, and the Hodge-type clash used to kill IH1(C,H2_tr) is a bit quick. These are probably fixable, but they deserve a careful look.

One caveat about significance: Gross–Zagier in full weight 4 was already proved by Bruinier–Li–Yang in 2022, so the target theorem is not new. The new contribution is the cycle-theoretic mechanism and the geometric statement for these mirror families. That is still worth having, especially for people working on higher regulators and mirror symmetry, but readers should not expect a new proof of an open conjecture.

The citation pattern looks fair: the paper leans on Kerr's published lemmas and on Golyshev–Zagier, and it does not hide that. The writing is honest, appropriately hedged where needed, and the conjectural status of the five families is stated in the footnote rather than buried.

Verdict: this deserves serious peer review. A good referee can verify the modularity claims for the question-marked cases, pressure-test the CH2 isomorphism, and help the authors present the 18 proven cases as the main theorem. I would take it to reading group and would likely cite it if I work on higher Green's functions or K3 mirror cycles.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a cycle-theoretic proof of the Gross–Zagier conjecture in weight 4 for several genus-zero modular curves. Section 2 shows that, for elliptic modular surfaces, the Beilinson–Hodge conjecture implies the 'geometric' Gross–Zagier conjecture in weight 4 at any level, and that an arithmetic Bloch–Beilinson injectivity statement would also suffice. Section 3 introduces the notion of a special modular K3 family and proves (Theorem 3.4) that for such a family with rational total space the geometric Gross–Zagier conjecture holds at the corresponding level Γ̂. The paper then lists 23 Laurent-polynomial families mirror to Fano threefolds (Table 1) and asserts in Corollary 3.6 that the conjecture holds for each of the corresponding 23 groups, although the table's own footnote concedes that five of the entries are 'educated guesses' with no full proofs.

Significance. If the proof is completed, the paper gives a clean conceptual bridge between Beilinson–Hodge / arithmetic Bloch–Beilinson and higher Green's functions, and it identifies a concrete class of K3 mirror families where the weight-4 Gross–Zagier statement can be obtained unconditionally from motivic cycles. The reduction in Theorem 2.1 is elegant and the table of 23 families is a useful resource. However, the unconditional part is weaker than the abstract and corollary suggest: the special modularity of five of the listed families is not established, and the construction of the cycle W in §3.2 relies on a compressed and questionable cohomological injectivity claim. The paper is not machine-checked or code-reproducible, but its derivations are explicit enough to be verifiable.

major comments (3)

[Corollary 3.6 and Table 1, p.10] The corollary states that geometric Gross–Zagier holds for each of the 23 groups in Table 1, but footnote 5 concedes that the five question-marked entries — (3C0)+1, Γ0(10)+10+5, Γ0(14)+14+7, (6B1)+1, and Γ0(15)+15+5 — are 'educated guesses' with no full proofs. Section 3.3 also says that special modularity is only 'partially documented' and that the main difficulty is checking that the cover is of the form Γ̂\H. Since Theorem 3.4 applies only to special modular families, the advertised collection is not established for these five families. Please either supply the missing verifications or reformulate Corollary 3.6 for the 18 proven families.
[§3.2, first paragraph] The statement 'CH2(Y)Q is isomorphic to the space of Q-Hodge classes in H4(Y)' is not a consequence of H3(Y)=0. The cycle class map CH2(Y)_Q → H4(Y,Q) can have a nontrivial kernel consisting of homologically trivial 1-cycles, even on rational threefolds. Thus the conclusion 'Thus ıt0∗Zt0 = 0' does not follow merely from the vanishing of the cohomology class. If the intended replacement is the Hodge-type clash in the next paragraph, the reduction needs to be made explicit; otherwise the construction of W in the rational case is not sound.
[§3.2, second paragraph; proof of Theorem 3.4] The claimed vanishing of IH1(C,H2_tr) is too compressed. It is asserted to be of type (3,0)+(0,3) via injection into IH1(B,V) and of type (1,2)+(2,1) 'by virtue of rationality', which forces zero only if both statements refer to the same Q-Hodge structure with the same weight filtration. The reader needs the precise Hodge-theoretic setup: the rational structure on IH1(C,H2_tr), the filtration, and why rationality imposes the (1,2)+(2,1) components. Without a precise statement or reference, the unconditional portion of Theorem 3.4 is not fully justified.

minor comments (5)

[Corollary 3.6 / footnote] Footnote 5 appears after Corollary 3.6; it should be placed before the statement or directly under Table 1 so that the reader is not misled.
[Example 3.3(c)] The notation ˜Γ0(8) is introduced via a conjugation matrix, but the matrix expression is hard to parse. Please clarify the conjugation and the resulting group.
[Bibliography] In the reference [GrZ], 'derivations of L-series' should presumably be 'derivatives of L-series'.
[Definition 3.1] Calling Γ̂ a 'finite extension' of PΓ is nonstandard since Γ̂ is a subgroup of PSL2(R) containing Γ as a finite-index subgroup; consider rewording to avoid group-extension connotations.
[Table 1] For the entries labeled 'see #3873.2' and 'see #1193 in [CC+2]', the Laurent polynomial is not displayed. Please include the explicit polynomial or a more precise pointer, as the reader cannot otherwise verify the mirror family.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the main results are conditional theorems whose hypotheses (Beilinson–Hodge, special modularity) are not the conclusion, and the one self-identified weakness is an unproved-support gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 2.1 is an explicit implication: assuming Beilinson–Hodge produces a cycle W∈CH2(X\X_Σ,1) whose normal function lifts the CM-cycle singularity class. The proof then shows, via published lemmas from [Ke1], that the real regulator pairing G_W=<r_W,η> is a higher Green's function, computes its singularity coefficients c_σ=m a_m c_b, and invokes uniqueness to conclude G_W=c_b G_{T,b}. This is a genuine reduction, not an identity by definition: G_{T,b} is defined by Hecke translates of the PDE solution G_b, not by G_W. Theorem 3.4 is likewise non-circular: special modularity supplies the modular parametrization and section η0, but the cycle W is constructed separately by showing a CM cycle vanishes in CH2(Y) using rationality and the Hodge-theoretic structure; the conclusion 'geometric Gross–Zagier holds' is not an assumption in Definition 3.1/3.2, and rationality is an additional hypothesis. The paper's reliance on [Ke1] and [GK] is heavy but those are independent published results with stated hypotheses, so under the hard rules they do not raise the circularity score. The only flagged weakness is the table footnote: 'The question marks in the table are educated guesses, and we do not have full proofs in those cases. So this result is conjectural in those 5 cases.' That is a verification gap for five entries of Corollary 3.6, not a circular step—the missing special-modularity proofs do not make the theorem reduce to its own conclusion. Overall, the derivation is self-contained modulo standard published external inputs, and no in-paper circularity is exhibited.

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

The central claims rest on the Beilinson-Hodge and arithmetic Bloch-Beilinson conjectures (for the reduction theorems) and on the special modularity of the listed K3 families (for the table). No free parameters are fitted, and no new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Beilinson-Hodge conjecture (an integer multiple of any admissible normal function of the type in §2.1 arises from a cycle W ∈ CH2(X\X_Σ,1))
Invoked in §2.1 to pass from the class [Z] to a motivic normal function; Theorem 2.1 is conditional on this.
domain assumption Arithmetic Bloch-Beilinson conjecture (injectivity of the Deligne cycle class cD for the Kuga threefold X)
Used in Corollary 2.3 with diagram (2.2) to lift [Z] to W.
domain assumption For a rational 3-fold Y with H3(Y)=0, CH2(Y)Q ≅ Hg2(Y)Q (Hodge classes in H4 are algebraic and no homologically trivial 1-cycles exist)
Stated in §3.2 without proof; used to convert vanishing of the CM cycle class into existence of W.
domain assumption The 23 families in Table 1 are special modular, i.e. there exist Γ̂, Γ0, η0, and a correspondence Θ inducing H2_tr ≅ V
Assumed in Theorem 3.4; for 5 families the paper's footnote admits there is no proof, and for the rest verification is cited to [Go, GoZ, Ga1, Ga2, DHK+].
standard math Existence and uniqueness of higher Green's functions with prescribed singularities, and their identification with regulator pairings [Ke1, Lem. 3.3, 3.5, 3.6(b)]
Stated in §1 and used in §2.2/Theorem 3.4; background from prior literature.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A note on higher Green's functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NAYOTJOE

@misc{pith2026250902382,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A note on higher Green's functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NAYOTJOE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02382}
}

read the original abstract

We give a cycle-theoretic proof of the Gross-Zagier conjecture in weight four for several modular curves of genus zero.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

Bloch, M

S. Bloch, M. Kerr, and P. Vanhove, A Feynman integral via higher normal functions, Compositio Math. 151 (2015), 2329-2375

work page 2015
[2]

Single-valued periods of meromorphic modular forms and a motivic interpretation of the Gross-Zagier conjecture

F. Brown and T. Fonseca, Single-valued periods of meromorphic modular forms and a motivic interpretation of the Gross-Zagier conjecture, preprint, arXiv:2508.04844v2

work page Pith review arXiv
[3]

Bruinier, Y

J. Bruinier, Y. Li, and T. Yang, Deformations of theta integrals and a conjecture of Gross-Zagier, Forum Math. Sigma 13:Paper Np. e54, 59, 2025

work page 2025
[4]

X. Chen, C. Doran, M. Kerr, and J. Lewis. Normal functions, Picard-Fuchs equations, and elliptic fibrations on K3 surfaces, J. Reine Angew. Math., no. 721, 2016, 43-79

work page 2016
[5]

Coates, A

T. Coates, A. Corti, S. Galkin, V. Golyshev and A. Kasprzyk, Mirror symmetry and Fano manifolds, Euro. Congress of Mathematics, 285-300, Euro. Math. Soc., Z\"urich, 2013

work page 2013
[6]

Coates, A

T. Coates, A. Corti, S. Galkin, V. Golyshev and A. Kasprzyk, ``Fano varieties and extremal Laurent polynomials'', research blog and database, http://coates.ma.ic.ac.uk/fanosearch/

work page
[7]

Coates, A

T. Coates, A. Corti, S. Galkin and A Kasprzyk, Quantum periods for 3-dimensional Fano manifolds, Geom. Topol. 20 (2016), no. 1, 103-256

work page 2016
[8]

Corti, Cluster varieties and toric specializations of Fano varieties, preprint, arXiv:2304.04141v2

A. Corti, Cluster varieties and toric specializations of Fano varieties, preprint, arXiv:2304.04141v2

arXiv

Show all 34 references

[9]

Cummins and S

C. Cummins and S. Pauli, ``Congruence subgroups of _2( ) '', database, https://math-sites.uncg.edu/sites/pauli/congruence/congruence.html
[10]

C. Doran, Picard-Fuchs uniformization: Modularity of the mirror map and mirror-moonshine, in ``The Arithmetic and Geometry of Algebraic Cycles (Gordon, Lewis, M\" u ller-Stach, Saito, Yui eds.)'', Centre de Recherches Math\' e matiques, CRM Proceedings and Lecture Notes, Volum...

2000
[11]

Doran, A

C. Doran, A. Harder, L. Katzarkov, M. Ovcharenko and V. Przyjalkowski, Modularity of Landau-Ginzburg models, Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics, 2025, Vol. 328, pp. 157-295

2025
[12]

Doran, A

C. Doran, A. Harder, A. Novoseltsev and A. Thompson, Families of lattice polarized K3 surfaces with monodromy, IMRN (2015), no. 23, 12265-12318

2015
[13]

Doran and M

C. Doran and M. Kerr, Algebraic K -theory of toric hypersurfaces, Commun. Number Theory Phys. 5 (2011), no. 2, 397-600

2011
[14]

Doran and J

C. Doran and J. Kostiuk, Geometric variations of local systems and elliptic surfaces, Isr. J. Math. 258, 1-79 (2023)

2023
[15]

Doran and A

C. Doran and A. Malmendier, Calabi-Yau manifolds realizing symplectically rigid monodromy tuples, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., Vol. 23, No. 5, 1271-1359, 2019

2019
[16]

Galkin, Two instances of fake minimal Fano 3-folds, IPMU 11-0099

S. Galkin, Two instances of fake minimal Fano 3-folds, IPMU 11-0099. Preprint SFB45 (2008)

2008
[17]

Galkin, Fano-Mathieu correspondence, preprint, arXiv:1809.0273

S. Galkin, Fano-Mathieu correspondence, preprint, arXiv:1809.0273
[18]

Golyshev, Classification problems and mirror duality, in ``Surveys in Geometry and Number Theory'', Cambridge Univ

V. Golyshev, Classification problems and mirror duality, in ``Surveys in Geometry and Number Theory'', Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007, 88-121

2007
[19]

Golyshev and M

V. Golyshev and M. Kerr, The arithmetic of Calabi-Yau motives and mobile higher regulators, preprint, arXiv:2409.19549

arXiv
[20]

Golyshev, M

V. Golyshev, M. Kerr, and T. Sasaki, Ap\'ery extensions, J. London Math. Soc. 109 (2024), no. 1, e12825

2024
[21]

Golyshev and D

V. Golyshev and D. Zagier, Proof of the gamma conjecture for Fano 3-folds of Picard rank 1, Izv. Math. 80 (2016), no. 1, 24-49

2016
[22]

Gordon, Algebraic cycles and the Hdge structure of a Kuga fiber variety, Trans

B. Gordon, Algebraic cycles and the Hdge structure of a Kuga fiber variety, Trans. AMS 336 (1993), no. 2, 933-947

1993
[23]

Gross, W

B. Gross, W. Kohnen and D. Zagier, Heegner points and derivatives of L -series II, Math. Ann. 278 (1987), 497-562

1987
[24]

Gross and D

B. Gross and D. Zagier, Heegner points and derivaties of L -series, Invent. Math. 84 (1986), no. 2, 225-320

1986
[25]

N. O. Ilten, J. Lewis, and V. Przyjalkowski, Toric degenerations of Fano threefolds giving weak Landau-Ginzburg models, J. of Algebra 374 (2013), 104-121

2013
[26]

M. Kerr, Indecomposable K_1 of elliptically fibered K3 surfaces: a tale of two cycles, in ``Arithmetic and Geometry of K3 Surfaces and C-Y Threefolds (Laza, Sch\"utt, Yui eds.)'', Fields Inst. Commun. 67, Springer, New York, 2013, 387-409

2013
[27]

Kerr, Motivic irrationality proofs, arXiv:1708.03836v2, to appear in ``Regulators V'' proceedings

M. Kerr, Motivic irrationality proofs, arXiv:1708.03836v2, to appear in ``Regulators V'' proceedings

arXiv
[28]

M. Kerr, J. Lewis, and S. M\"uller-Stach, The Abel-Jacobi map for higher Chow groups, Compos. Math. 142 (2006), 374-396

2006
[29]

Kerr and G

M. Kerr and G. Pearlstein, An exponential history of functions with logarithmic growth, in ``Topology of Stratified Spaces'', MSRI Pub. 58, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2011, 281-374

2011
[30]

Mellit, Higher Green's functions for modular forms, Univerity of Bonn Ph.D

A. Mellit, Higher Green's functions for modular forms, Univerity of Bonn Ph.D. Thesis, arXiv:0804.3184

arXiv
[31]

Sasaki, Limits and singularities of normal functions, European J

T. Sasaki, Limits and singularities of normal functions, European J. Math. 7 (2021), no. 4, 1-37

2021
[32]

Scholl, Motives for modular forms, Invent

A. Scholl, Motives for modular forms, Invent. Math. 100 (1990), no. 2, 419-430

1990
[33]

Sreekantan, Algebraic cycles and values of Green's functions, preprint, arXiv:2208.08325

R. Sreekantan, Algebraic cycles and values of Green's functions, preprint, arXiv:2208.08325

arXiv
[34]

Sreekantan, Algebraic cycles and values of Green's functions I -- products of elliptic curves, preprint, arXiv:2502.04608

R. Sreekantan, Algebraic cycles and values of Green's functions I -- products of elliptic curves, preprint, arXiv:2502.04608

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Bloch, M

S. Bloch, M. Kerr, and P. Vanhove, A Feynman integral via higher normal functions, Compositio Math. 151 (2015), 2329-2375

work page 2015

[2] [2]

Single-valued periods of meromorphic modular forms and a motivic interpretation of the Gross-Zagier conjecture

F. Brown and T. Fonseca, Single-valued periods of meromorphic modular forms and a motivic interpretation of the Gross-Zagier conjecture, preprint, arXiv:2508.04844v2

work page Pith review arXiv

[3] [3]

Bruinier, Y

J. Bruinier, Y. Li, and T. Yang, Deformations of theta integrals and a conjecture of Gross-Zagier, Forum Math. Sigma 13:Paper Np. e54, 59, 2025

work page 2025

[4] [4]

X. Chen, C. Doran, M. Kerr, and J. Lewis. Normal functions, Picard-Fuchs equations, and elliptic fibrations on K3 surfaces, J. Reine Angew. Math., no. 721, 2016, 43-79

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Coates, A

T. Coates, A. Corti, S. Galkin, V. Golyshev and A. Kasprzyk, Mirror symmetry and Fano manifolds, Euro. Congress of Mathematics, 285-300, Euro. Math. Soc., Z\"urich, 2013

work page 2013

[6] [6]

Coates, A

T. Coates, A. Corti, S. Galkin, V. Golyshev and A. Kasprzyk, ``Fano varieties and extremal Laurent polynomials'', research blog and database, http://coates.ma.ic.ac.uk/fanosearch/

work page

[7] [7]

Coates, A

T. Coates, A. Corti, S. Galkin and A Kasprzyk, Quantum periods for 3-dimensional Fano manifolds, Geom. Topol. 20 (2016), no. 1, 103-256

work page 2016

[8] [8]

Corti, Cluster varieties and toric specializations of Fano varieties, preprint, arXiv:2304.04141v2

A. Corti, Cluster varieties and toric specializations of Fano varieties, preprint, arXiv:2304.04141v2

arXiv