Intersection of two quadrics: modular interpretation and Hitchin morphism

Andreas H\"oring; Jie Liu; Vladimiro Benedetti

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Intersection of two quadrics: modular interpretation and Hitchin morphism

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Lagrangian fibration on a two-quadric intersection is a Hitchin morphism.

desk verdict The paper proves the long-awaited modular interpretation for all dimensions, showing the intrinsic fibration on an intersection of two quadrics is the Hitchin morphism for twisted Spin bundles; it deserves review, provided Lemma 5.9 is proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04707 v1 pith:SKFKKRU3 submitted 2025-06-05 math.AG

Vladimiro Benedetti , Andreas Höring , Jie Liu This is my paper

classification math.AG MSC 14H6014D2014J4514M10

keywords intersectionoftwoquadricsLagrangianfibrationHitchinmorphismtwistedSpinbundleshyperellipticcurvecotangentbundlemodulispaceverystable

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 that the Lagrangian fibration on the cotangent bundle of a smooth intersection of two quadrics, defined intrinsically from the symmetric tensors of the variety, is actually the Hitchin morphism of a moduli space of twisted Spin bundles on an associated hyperelliptic curve. The identification holds in every dimension: in the odd-dimensional case the whole intersection is the moduli space, and in the even-dimensional case it is the fixed locus of the natural involution. If this is right, a construction that looked special to these varieties is a standard integrable system in disguise, so the machinery of Higgs bundles applies to the classical geometry of two-quadric intersections.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the cotangent identification $T^*_{M,[F]} \cong H^0(C, \wedge^2F \otimes K_C)^+$, obtained from a non-degenerate bilinear pairing between $H^0(C,N)$ — canonically the tangent space of $X$ at $[V]$ — and the space of skew-symmetric Higgs fields. The Hitchin morphism for $M$ sends a field $\theta$ to $(\mathrm{tr}\,\wedge^2\theta, \ldots, \mathrm{tr}\,\wedge^{2g-2}\theta, \mathrm{Pf}(\theta))$, and a central structural fact is that each such $\theta$ has rank at most two at every point, which forces all invariants of degree at least three to vanish and collapses the image to $H^0(C,K_C^2)^+$. The comparison with $\Phi_X$ rests on a lemma identifying the quadratic form induced by the orthogonal bundle on the trivial factor of $N$ with the restriction of the original pencil of quadrics to the tangent space; equality of zero divisors then follows, so the two morphisms agree on a dense open set and hence everywhere.

What would settle it

Choose explicit distinct complex numbers $\lambda_0,\ldots,\lambda_{2g+1}$ and a general point $[V] \in X$ not lying on any coordinate hyperplane; compute the divisor of zeros of $h_M(\theta)$ for a generic $\theta \in H^0(C, \wedge^2F \otimes K_C)^+$ and compare it with the degeneracy divisor of the restricted pencil $\{q_t|_H\}$ on a general codimension-one subspace $H \subset T_{X,x}$. Agreement on one such example supports the theorem; a mismatch would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a smooth complete intersection $X \subset \mathbb{P}^{2g+1}$ of two quadrics with $g \geq 2$, the main theorem asserts that the morphism $h_M$ defined on the cotangent bundle of the corresponding moduli space $M$ of twisted Spin$_{2g}$ bundles on the hyperelliptic curve $C$ has image exactly $H^0(C,K_C^2)^+ \cong \mathbb{C}^{2g-1}$, and that $h_M$ coincides with the intrinsic Lagrangian fibration $\Phi_X$ under the moduli-space isomorphism $X \cong M$ supplied by [Ram81]. The even-dimensional statement for a smooth $Y \subset \mathbb{P}^{2g}$ is the same coincidence with the fixed locus $M^i$, with base $H^0(C,K_C^2 \otimes O_C(-p_{2g+1}))^+ \cong \mathbb{C}^{2g-2}$. In genus two the construction recovers the classical identification of the threefold with the moduli space of rank-two bundles of fixed odd-degree determinant.

Load-bearing premise

The whole identification hinges on a lemma that is asserted without proof: the quadratic form on the trivial factor of the bundle $N$, built from the orthogonal bundle associated to a point of $X$, is claimed to coincide with the restriction of the original pencil of quadrics to the tangent space at that point; if that equality failed, the matching of zero divisors, and with it the main theorems, would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The intrinsic Lagrangian fibration of any smooth intersection of two quadrics is the Hitchin morphism of a moduli space of twisted Spin bundles, so the two constructions describe the same object.
In odd dimension the base of the fibration is $H^0(C,K_C^2)^+ \cong \mathbb{C}^{2g-1}$, and in even dimension it is $H^0(C,K_C^2 \otimes O_C(-p_{2g+1}))^+ \cong \mathbb{C}^{2g-2}$, matching the dimension of the symmetric-tensor base of $\Phi_X$.
The hypersurface where the fibre over zero meets the cotangent space is reinterpreted as the wobbly locus, the complement of the very stable bundles in the moduli space.
For genus two the theorem recovers the classical presentation of the threefold as the moduli space of rank-two bundles with fixed odd-degree determinant, together with its ordinary Hitchin fibration.

Reading between the lines

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

Because every Higgs field here has rank at most two, the generic fibres of $h_M$ are likely abelian varieties of dimension $2g-1$, possibly Prym varieties attached to the double cover $C \to \mathbb{P}^1$; describing them explicitly could yield new integrable systems.
The choice of the square root $\alpha$ in the isomorphism $X \cong M$ is non-canonical; testing whether the equality $\Phi_X = h_M$ survives changing $\alpha$ would clarify whether the modular interpretation is intrinsic or tied to a preferred line bundle.
The same comparison strategy might work for other Fano varieties that admit a principal-bundle moduli interpretation; the bottleneck would be finding an analogue of the lemma that identifies the fibration's base with the restriction of the defining forms.

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

I read the paper by Benedetti–Höring–Liu on intersections of two quadrics and the Hitchin morphism. Short version: it does what it claims, and the main comparison theorem is a real advance. The paper shows that the intrinsic Lagrangian fibration on T*X, coming from symmetric tensors, can be identified with the Hitchin morphism of a moduli space of twisted Spin bundles, in all dimensions. The genus-two case recovers the classical Newstead/Hitchin threefold picture. The technical core — the cotangent identification (Prop 5.4), the rank-two bound (Lemma 5.7), the image statement (Thm 5.8), and the projectivized comparison — fits together. I checked the dimension counts and the divisor argument; they are consistent.

The main soft spot is Lemma 5.9. It is the bridge that says the quadratic form induced on the trivial subbundle through the whole construction is exactly the original pencil form. The proof is 'Going through the construction one obtains' — that's not enough for a lemma that carries the comparison. This is not a sign of fakery; it's a check that should be written out. A t-dependent scalar in that identification would break the literal equality of morphisms, though it might still give the same divisor. The paper needs to pin down the trivializations. This is the one thing I would insist on before accepting.

Also: the density/extension argument in Theorem 1.4 is compressed; the non-canonical isomorphism X ≅ M depends on a square root α whose impact is not discussed; and [Hit25] is cited without public access. These are minor in comparison, but they should be cleaned up.

Overall the circularity burden is low: the equality is established by comparison, not by definition, and the external inputs (Ramanan, Hitchin, [BEH+24]) are genuine. I would send this to a serious referee. It deserves referee time, and with a proof of Lemma 5.9 and some expansion of the extension argument, it should be accepted. I'd bring it to a reading group.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a smooth complete intersection X of two quadrics in P^{2g+1} (odd dimension) and in P^{2g} (even dimension). For odd dimension, using Ramanan's isomorphism between X and a moduli space M of semistable twisted Spin_{2g}-bundles over the associated hyperelliptic curve C, the authors define a Hitchin morphism h_M and prove that its image is H^0(C,K_C^2)^+ and that, under the isomorphism, h_M coincides with the Lagrangian fibration Φ_X constructed from symmetric tensors in [BEH+24]. For even dimension, they restrict to the fixed locus of the natural involution and obtain the analogous statement. The proof relies on a non-degenerate pairing between H^0(C,N) and H^0(C,∧^2F⊗K_C)^+, a rank bound for the Higgs field, and a comparison of restricted quadratic forms.

Significance. If the central comparison is fully established, the paper provides a modular interpretation, in every dimension, of the intrinsic Lagrangian fibration on the cotangent bundle of an intersection of two quadrics, thereby generalizing the classical genus-2 result. The identification of the fibration given by symmetric tensors with the Hitchin morphism of a moduli space of twisted Spin-bundles is a conceptually strong and nontrivial statement. The paper contains several clean technical contributions, including the construction of the non-degenerate pairing (Proposition 5.2) and the rank bound (Lemma 5.7). However, the main theorem depends on an unproved identification of quadratic forms (Lemma 5.9) that is the bridge between the moduli-theoretic Hitchin data and the geometry of X; until a proof is supplied, the central claim is not fully established.

major comments (2)

[Section 5.4, Lemma 5.9] Lemma 5.9 is the load-bearing bridge of the paper, but it is asserted with only the phrase "Going through the construction one obtains" and no proof. The lemma identifies the restriction of the quadratic form q_E∘ι to the trivial factor T_y with the original pencil form q_t|_{T_{X,x}⊗V}. This identification is used in Proposition 5.11 to conclude that the zero divisor of h_M(θ) equals the degeneracy divisor s_H, and hence to deduce the equality of morphisms in Theorem 1.4(2). The non-canonical nature of the target (O_C(2p_{2g+1}))_y ≅ C is a concrete difficulty: the trivialization must be chosen compatibly with the isomorphisms in (21) and with the spin-structure data (ϵ_j) of Section 4.3. If a t-dependent scalar appears in the identification, Proposition 5.10 would still identify zero divisors, but the literal equality of h_M and Φ_X as morphisms to the vector-space base would not follow. Please provide a complete proof of Lemma 5.9 with explicit trivializations, or explain how any scalar ambiguity is absorbed.
[Section 5.4, Proposition 5.11 and proof of Theorem 1.4] The proof of Proposition 5.11 states "Since H is general we have t_i ∉ Δ for all i = 0,...,2g−1", but the number of degenerate members in a general pencil of quadrics restricted to a codimension-one subspace is 2g−2, not 2g−1; the indexing appears off by one. More importantly, the proof of Theorem 1.4 asserts that the diagram (26) commutes over "some non-empty open subsets and hence it commutates". The authors should specify the open subsets (e.g., the complement of the coordinate hyperplanes and the locus where the relevant evaluation maps are isomorphisms) and justify that they are dense in the total space of PT_X, so that equality on a dense open indeed implies equality everywhere. This is a gap in rigor, though likely fixable.

minor comments (4)

[Section 5.2, proof of Proposition 5.2, Step 1] The statement "there exists an isomorphism K_C ∼= h^{-(g-1)}" is incorrect as written: K_C has degree 2g−2 while h^{−(g−1)} has negative degree. The intended isomorphism is K_C ≅ h^{g-1}. This typo appears in a sign-sensitive argument and should be corrected, with a careful statement of how the i-actions are transformed under this isomorphism.
[Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical issues: "commutates" should be "commutes", "analogue" is misspelled as "analogoue" in one place, "Weiertraß" should be "Weierstrass", and the phrase "the first row is induced by the natural splitting" in Fact 6.2 should read "the first column" if referring to the vertical map. These should be corrected in a final revision.
[Section 4.3, equation (17) and surrounding text] The isomorphism in (17) is written with multiple arrows and no explicit group of the isomorphism; the meaning of the composition (ev_pj)_j ∘ (ϵ_j)_j is clear from context but could be stated more cleanly. Similarly, the notation H^0(C,E)^− is used before the eigenspace convention is fully explained; Notation 4.2 helps but appears only in Section 4.
[Section 6, Fact 6.2] The sentence "The subspace H^0(Y,S^2T_Y)^* ⊂ H^0(X,S^2T_X)^* is the annihilator of s_{2g+1}" is correct but the phrase "the kernel is generated by s_{2g+1}" could be misread; it should specify that the kernel of the quotient map q_Y is spanned by s_{2g+1} as an element of H^0(X,S^2T_X).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the equality h_M = Φ_X is a genuine geometric comparison whose main inputs are external; Lemma 5.9 is an unproved but non-circular computational bridge.

full rationale

The claimed identification h_M = Φ_X is not built into the definitions. h_M is defined in (23) from invariant polynomials of skew endomorphisms θ ∈ H^0(C, ∧^2F⊗K_C)^+ on an orthogonal bundle F associated to [F]∈M, while Φ_X is defined in [BEH+24] from the algebra of symmetric tensors H^0(X,S^2T_X)^*. The proof compares the two maps by showing, in Propositions 5.10–5.11, that both have the same zero divisor on the projectivized cotangent bundle: for a codimension-one subspace H⊂T_{X,x}, φ_X([H]) is the degeneracy divisor of the restricted pencil (Equation (25), cited from [BEH+24, Prop. 3.2]), and h_M(θ) vanishes at y exactly when the same restricted pencil degenerates on H_y. The bridge Lemma 5.9, which identifies the quadratic form q_E∘ι on the trivial factor T_y with q_t|_{T_{X,x}⊗V}, is asserted with 'Going through the construction one obtains' and is not proved; this is a potential correctness gap, not a circularity, because q_E is not defined as q_t, it is induced from the orthogonal structure on F, and the identification is a statement about the construction in Proposition 4.13. The external inputs—Ramanan's isomorphism (Theorem 4.5), Hitchin's theory, and [BEH+24]—are parameter-free published results; the overlap of two current authors with [BEH+24] is disclosed, and that theorem provides independent content (the definition and properties of Φ_X) rather than a self-referential uniqueness assertion. No step in the derivation reduces to its own conclusion by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two large external inputs: Ramanan's isomorphism X ≅ M (not reproved) and the [BEH+24] theorems defining Φ_X and its projective description (external, with two of the three present authors among the [BEH+24] co-authors). Inside the paper the only premise asserted ad hoc is Lemma 5.9. The isomorphism X ≅ M is non-canonical; the choice of the square root α is a hand-made normalization the statements are anchored to. No new entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are invented; the moduli space M is Ramanan's construction.

free parameters (2)

Square root α = h^{g-1} ⊗ O_C(p_{2g+1}) fixing the isomorphism X ≅ M = α = h^{g-1} ⊗ O_C(p_{2g+1}) (Setup 4.1, equation (11))
Ramanan's isomorphism X ≅ M is non-canonical and depends on an i-invariant square root of h^{2g-1} (Theorem 4.5). The theorems are proven for this specific α, which also marks the Weierstrass point p_{2g+1}; independence of the choice is not discussed.
Auxiliary eigenvalue λ_{2g+1} for the even-dimensional embedding Y ⊂ X = A general complex number distinct from λ_0, ..., λ_{2g} (Section 6)
The even-dimensional variety Y is embedded into an odd-dimensional X by adjoining a new eigenvalue λ_{2g+1}; the associated hyperelliptic curve, the moduli space, and the identification depend on this choice. The theorem is stated for this construction, and independence of the value of λ_{2g+1} is asserted only through 'general' choice.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Ramanan's theorem: X ≅ M, where M is the moduli space of semistable twisted Spin_{2g}-bundles with i-invariant orthogonal bundles of type τ = (1^{2g+1}, 2g-1); plus the descriptions of the quotients U ≅ P^{2g-1} and V ≅ Z (Thm 4.5, 4.7)
Invoked as [Ram81, Theorems 1 and 3] and explicitly not reproved ('We will not reprove Ramanan's theorem', Section 4). The entire modular interpretation rests on it.
domain assumption [BEH+24, Theorem 1.1] and [BEH+24, Proposition 3.2]: Φ_X: T*X → C^{2g-1} is a Lagrangian fibration, and its projectivisation sends a codimension-one subspace H ⊂ T_{X,x} to the degeneracy divisor of the restricted pencil {q_t|_H}
The map Φ_X that the paper identifies with h_M is defined by this external theorem, and equation (25) uses the projective description. [BEH+24] is co-authored by two of the three present authors but is an independent published parameter-free theorem.
domain assumption [BEH+24, Propositions 7.2, 7.4, 7.6]: the quadratic vector fields s_j generate H^0(X, S^2T_X), and the quotient map q_Y to H^0(Y, S^2T_Y) is surjective with kernel generated by s_{2g+1}
Used in Section 6.1 (Facts 6.1, 6.2) for the even-dimensional comparison; not reproved.
domain assumption [Ram81, Proposition 4.11, Proposition 5.6] and [DR76, Lemma 2.1, Proposition 2.2]: the evaluation map (17) is injective with isotropic image, the constructed orthogonal bundles are semistable, and the dimension statements for H^0(C, E)^- and H^0(C, ∧²F ⊗ K_C)^+
Used in Sections 4.2, 4.3, and Lemma 4.15; the paper reproduces the constructions but quotes the stability and evaluation facts from Ramanan and Desale-Ramanan.
ad hoc to paper Lemma 5.9: q_E ∘ ι restricted to T_y equals q_t|_{T_{X,x}⊗V}
Asserted without proof ('Going through the construction one obtains'). Load-bearing for the comparison; effectively an unproved premise.
standard math Chevalley's theorem on invariants and the basis a_1, ..., a_{n-1}, Pf for the invariant polynomials of so_{2g} (Example 2.7, Lemma 5.6)
Standard invariant theory used to define the Hitchin morphism h_M; also that the trace invariants and the Pfaffian form a basis for the Spin case.
standard math Hitchin's theorem [Hit87]: the Hitchin morphism on moduli of principal bundles is a Lagrangian fibration
Background establishing the fibration structure of h_M; standard result.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intersection of two quadrics: modular interpretation and Hitchin morphism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SKFKKRU3

@misc{pith2026250604707,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intersection of two quadrics: modular interpretation and Hitchin morphism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SKFKKRU3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04707}
}

abstract

The cotangent bundle $T^*X$ of a smooth intersection $X$ of two quadrics admits a Lagrangian fibration determined by the intrinsic geometry of $X$. We show that this fibration is actually the Hitchin morphism if we endow $X$ with a structure of moduli space of twisted Spin-bundles. This generalises the classical result for threefolds, in which case it recovers the Hitchin fibration for the moduli space of rank two bundles with fixed determinant of odd degree on a curve of genus two.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Remarks on the intersection of two quadrics
math.AG 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A point of the intersection of two quadrics is very stable exactly when the polynomial p(z) built from its coordinates has distinct roots.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Symmetric tensors on the intersection of two quadrics and L agrangian fibration

Arnaud Beauville, Antoine Etesse, Andreas H \"o ring, Jie Liu, and Claire Voisin. Symmetric tensors on the intersection of two quadrics and L agrangian fibration. Moduli , 1:e4, 2024

work page 2024
[2]

Holla, and Chanchal Kumar

Indranil Biswas, Yogish I. Holla, and Chanchal Kumar. On moduli spaces of parabolic vector bundles of rank 2 over P ^1 . Michigan Math. J. , 59(2):467--475, 2010

work page 2010
[3]

Usha N. Bhosle. Moduli of orthogonal and spin bundles over hyperelliptic curves. Compositio Math. , 51(1):15--40, 1984

work page 1984
[4]

Rank 2 quasiparabolic vector bundles on P ^1 and the variety of linear subspaces contained in two odd-dimensional quadrics

Cinzia Casagrande. Rank 2 quasiparabolic vector bundles on P ^1 and the variety of linear subspaces contained in two odd-dimensional quadrics. Math. Z. , 280(3-4):981--988, 2015

work page 2015
[5]

Twistor hecke eigensheaves in genus 2

Ron Donagi, Tony Pantev, and Carlos Simpson. Twistor hecke eigensheaves in genus 2. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17045 , 2024

arXiv 2024
[6]

Desale and Sundararaman Ramanan

Usha V. Desale and Sundararaman Ramanan. Classification of vector bundles of rank 2 on hyperelliptic curves. Invent. Math. , 38(2):161--185, 1976

work page 1976
[7]

Stable G -bundles and projective connections

Gerd Faltings. Stable G -bundles and projective connections. J. Algebraic Geom. , 2(3):507--568, 1993

work page 1993
[8]

Representation theory , volume 129 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics

William Fulton and Joe Harris. Representation theory , volume 129 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991. A first course, Readings in Mathematics

work page 1991

Show all 23 references

[9]

Algebraic geometry

Robin Hartshorne. Algebraic geometry . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 52

1977
[10]

Stable bundles and integrable systems

Nigel Hitchin. Stable bundles and integrable systems. Duke Math. J. , 54:91--114, 1987

1987
[11]

Spinor-valued H iggs fields

Nigel Hitchin. Spinor-valued H iggs fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12981 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[12]

Remarks on the intersection of two quadrics

Nigel Hitchin. Remarks on the intersection of two quadrics. preprint, communicated to the authors by N. Hitchin , 2025

2025
[13]

Lagrangian fibration structure on the cotangent bundle of a del P ezzo surface of degree 4

Hosung Kim and Yongnam Lee. Lagrangian fibration structure on the cotangent bundle of a del P ezzo surface of degree 4. arXiv preprint , 2022

2022
[14]

Linear subspaces of the intersection of two quadrics via K uznetsov component

Yanjie Li and Shizhuo Zhang. Linear subspaces of the intersection of two quadrics via K uznetsov component. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00677 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[15]

Clifford algebras and Lie theory , volume 58 of Ergeb

Eckhard Meinrenken. Clifford algebras and Lie theory , volume 58 of Ergeb. Math. Grenzgeb., 3. Folge . Berlin: Springer, 2013

2013
[16]

Newstead

Peter E. Newstead. Stable bundles of rank 2 and odd degree over a curve of genus 2 . Topology , 7:205--215, 1968

1968
[17]

Prym varieties and the moduli of spin bundles

William Oxbury. Prym varieties and the moduli of spin bundles. In Algebraic geometry ( C atania, 1993/ B arcelona, 1994) , volume 200 of Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math. , pages 351--376. Dekker, New York, 1998

1993
[18]

Spin V erlinde spaces and P rym theta functions

William Oxbury. Spin V erlinde spaces and P rym theta functions. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) , 78(1):52--76, 1999

1999
[19]

Orthogonal and spin bundles over hyperelliptic curves

Sundararaman Ramanan. Orthogonal and spin bundles over hyperelliptic curves. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci. , 90(2):151--166, 1981

1981
[20]

Moduli for principal bundles over algebraic curves

Annamalai Ramanathan. Moduli for principal bundles over algebraic curves. I . Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci. , 106(3):301--328, 1996

1996
[21]

Moduli for principal bundles over algebraic curves

Annamalai Ramanathan. Moduli for principal bundles over algebraic curves. II . Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci. , 106(4):421--449, 1996

1996
[22]

Orthogonal and symplectic bundles on curves and quiver representations

Olivier Serman. Orthogonal and symplectic bundles on curves and quiver representations. In Geometric methods in representation theory. II , volume 24-II of S\'emin. Congr. , pages 393--418. Soc. Math. France, Paris, 2012

2012
[23]

Hitchin systems for invariant and anti-invariant vector bundles

Hacen Zelaci. Hitchin systems for invariant and anti-invariant vector bundles. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 375(5):3665--3711, 2022

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Symmetric tensors on the intersection of two quadrics and L agrangian fibration

Arnaud Beauville, Antoine Etesse, Andreas H \"o ring, Jie Liu, and Claire Voisin. Symmetric tensors on the intersection of two quadrics and L agrangian fibration. Moduli , 1:e4, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Holla, and Chanchal Kumar

Indranil Biswas, Yogish I. Holla, and Chanchal Kumar. On moduli spaces of parabolic vector bundles of rank 2 over P ^1 . Michigan Math. J. , 59(2):467--475, 2010

work page 2010

[3] [3]

Usha N. Bhosle. Moduli of orthogonal and spin bundles over hyperelliptic curves. Compositio Math. , 51(1):15--40, 1984

work page 1984

[4] [4]

Rank 2 quasiparabolic vector bundles on P ^1 and the variety of linear subspaces contained in two odd-dimensional quadrics

Cinzia Casagrande. Rank 2 quasiparabolic vector bundles on P ^1 and the variety of linear subspaces contained in two odd-dimensional quadrics. Math. Z. , 280(3-4):981--988, 2015

work page 2015

[5] [5]

Twistor hecke eigensheaves in genus 2

Ron Donagi, Tony Pantev, and Carlos Simpson. Twistor hecke eigensheaves in genus 2. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17045 , 2024

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

Desale and Sundararaman Ramanan

Usha V. Desale and Sundararaman Ramanan. Classification of vector bundles of rank 2 on hyperelliptic curves. Invent. Math. , 38(2):161--185, 1976

work page 1976

[7] [7]

Stable G -bundles and projective connections

Gerd Faltings. Stable G -bundles and projective connections. J. Algebraic Geom. , 2(3):507--568, 1993

work page 1993

[8] [8]

Representation theory , volume 129 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics

William Fulton and Joe Harris. Representation theory , volume 129 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991. A first course, Readings in Mathematics

work page 1991