Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Double complexes for configuration spaces and hypergraphs on manifolds

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Every hypergraph on a manifold carries a canonical ladder of four double complexes, and the middle two are homologically identical under vertex deletion.

desk verdict The main theorems overstate their scope: Lemma 3.2's surjectivity of restriction is false for the open submanifolds the paper explicitly allows, so the surjective ladder in Theorems 1.2/1.3 is not proved as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16545 v3 pith:WSNB4RHJ submitted 2024-11-25 math.AT

Shiquan Ren This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AT MSC 57N6557N7555U0555U15
keywords configurationspacesdoublecomplexeshypergraphssimplicialmanifoldsdifferentialformsquasi-isomorphismvertexdeletion
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 claims that any hypergraph on a manifold—whose vertices are distinct points moving smoothly, and whose hyperedges form submanifolds of the configuration space—carries a canonical four-term ladder of double complexes built from differential forms. The ladder runs from the forms on the smallest $\Delta$-manifold enclosing the hypergraph, through the supremum and infimum double complexes, to the forms on the largest $\Delta$-manifold contained in it. The middle two complexes are quasi-isomorphic with respect to the vertex-deletion boundary, so the homology that counts hyperedges is unchanged when the hypergraph is replaced by either of its two canonical closures. If established, this gives a smooth-geometry toolkit for hypergraphs, with applications to motion planning, manifold learning of network data, and obstructions to regular embeddings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the double complex $(\Omega^\bullet(A_\bullet), d, \partial)$ attached to a $\Delta$-manifold $A_\bullet$, where $d$ is the exterior derivative and $\partial$ is the alternating sum of pullbacks along the face maps that delete vertices. For a graded submanifold $B$ with embedding $\varepsilon$, the infimum complex $\operatorname{Inf} = \operatorname{Ker}\varepsilon \cap \partial^{-1}(\operatorname{Ker}\varepsilon)$ and the supremum complex $\operatorname{Sup} = \operatorname{Ker}\varepsilon + \partial(\operatorname{Ker}\varepsilon)$ are subcomplexes of the ambient forms; quotienting by them yields the double complexes of forms on $B$. The associated $\Delta$-manifolds $\Delta B$ and $\delta B$ are built pointwise from $\Delta$-closures, making the whole sequence depend only on $B$, not on the ambient configuration space. The middle quasi-isomorphism is the established inclusion $\operatorname{Inf} \subset \operatorname{Sup}$ inducing an isomorphism of $\partial$-homology, transferred to the quotients.

What would settle it

Test the surjectivity lemma on the hypergraph $H$ on $M = \mathbb{R}$ with $H_1(M) = (0,1)$, an open submanifold of $\operatorname{Conf}_1(\mathbb{R})$. The smooth $1$-form $\omega = (1/x)\,dx$ on $(0,1)$ does not extend to any smooth form on $\mathbb{R}$, since it is unbounded near $0$; therefore the restriction map is not surjective, and the quotient identification underlying the main theorem collapses for this allowed example.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a hyperdigraph $\vec{H}(M)$ whose $n$-uniform parts are differentiable submanifolds of the ordered configuration spaces $\operatorname{Conf}_n(M)$, the paper constructs the double complex $(\Omega^\bullet(\operatorname{Conf}_\bullet(M)), d, \partial)$ and then shows that the infimum and supremum double complexes $\operatorname{Inf}^\bullet(\vec{H})$ and $\operatorname{Sup}^\bullet(\vec{H})$ fit into a sequence of surjective double-complex homomorphisms $$\$\Omega$(\$\Delta$\vec{H}) \to \operatorname{Sup}^\bullet(\vec{H}) \to \operatorname{Inf}^\bullet(\vec{H}) \to \$\Omega$(\delta\vec{H}).$$ The middle map is a quasi-isomorphism with respect to $\partial$, and $\vec{H}$ is a $\Delta$-submanifold exactly when all three maps are the identity. The unordered analogue holds whenever $M$ admits a continuous total order. Consequently every hypergraph on a manifold has a vertex-deletion homology that is invariant under passing to the smallest enclosing or largest contained $\Delta$-manifold.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction depends on the claim that every differential form on a submanifold of the configuration space extends smoothly to the whole configuration space, which is only guaranteed for closed submanifolds and not for the open ones the paper's hypotheses allow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the main theorem is correct, the vertex-deletion homology of a hypergraph on a manifold is unchanged when the hypergraph is replaced by its infimum or supremum closure.
  • A hypergraph on a manifold is a $\Delta$-submanifold exactly when the smallest enclosing and largest contained $\Delta$-manifolds coincide with it, making all four double complexes identical.
  • For a discrete vertex set, the construction reduces to the known infimum and supremum chain complexes of hypergraphs, with trivial exterior derivative.
  • For manifolds of dimension at most one admitting a continuous total order, the double complexes contain only $0$-forms and $1$-forms, giving a concrete computable model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A likely repair for the surjectivity gap is to require hypergraphs to be closed submanifolds; whether the quasi-isomorphism survives for open ones under a weaker extension condition is a question the paper leaves open.
  • The hard-disk filtrations already present in Section 9 suggest a persistence version of the ladder, producing double-complex persistence modules that would connect to persistent homology of hypergraphs on manifolds.
  • The maps assigning $\Delta B$ and $\delta B$ to a graded submanifold behave like adjoint closure and interior operations; formalizing that adjunction could explain the ambient-independence the paper proves.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies hypergraphs whose hyperedges are smooth submanifolds of ordered or unordered configuration spaces of a Riemannian manifold M. It constructs double complexes of differential forms on the ambient configuration-space ∆-manifolds and, for a hypergraph B, defines infimum and supremum double complexes as quotients of the forms on the ambient manifold. The main results (Theorems 1.2 and 1.3, proved via Lemmas 3.8, 10.2, and 10.5) assert a ladder of surjective double-complex homomorphisms from forms on the associated ∆-manifold ∆B to the supremum and infimum complexes and then to forms on the lower-associated ∆-manifold δB, with the middle map q a quasi-isomorphism with respect to ∂, and with all three maps identities exactly when the hypergraph is a ∆-submanifold. The paper also develops automorphism groups of hypergraphs on manifolds, estimates orders of associated vector bundles, and gives obstructions to k-regular embeddings.

Significance. If the main ladder were valid, it would attach to every sufficiently regular manifold-valued hypergraph a canonical double complex whose vertex-deletion homology is invariant under replacing the hypergraph by its infimum or supremum closure, thereby connecting the construction to the embedded homology of [13]. The paper deserves credit for giving a self-contained proof of the quotient quasi-isomorphism in Lemma 2.1 and for spelling out several explicit examples. However, the surjectivity assertions in the main theorems rest on Lemma 3.2, which is false for the open submanifolds that the paper explicitly allows, and the existence of the lower-associated ∆-manifold δB in Definition 4 is asserted without proof. The central claim is therefore not established at the stated level of generality; the failure is load-bearing rather than cosmetic, because the paper prominently features open hard-disk configuration spaces as motivating examples.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Lemma 3.2] The claim that the pullback ι#: Ω(A•) → Ω(A'•) is surjective is false for embedded submanifolds that are not closed. The paper explicitly allows such submanifolds: Section 1.4 assumes only that each H_n(M) is a differentiable manifold, and Example 4.4 states that Conf_n(M,r) for r>0 is an open manifold when M is boundaryless. For instance, take A_1 = R and A'_1 = (0,1); the 1-form dx/x on (0,1) is smooth but has no smooth extension to R. This surjectivity is used to identify Ω(A'•) with the quotient in (3.2), to obtain (3.7), and in Corollary 3.5, Lemma 3.8, Corollaries 9.3 and 9.6, and therefore in Theorems 10.2, 10.5, 1.2, and 1.3. Since the hypotheses do not require closedness, the asserted surjective homomorphisms are not proved and the main theorem fails as stated.
  2. [§3.3, Definition 4] Definition 4 asserts the existence of the smallest ∆-submanifold ∆B containing B and the largest ∆-submanifold δB contained in B, but no proof is given that the displayed unions over p ∈ B are smooth ∆-manifolds. Lemma 3.7 only proves independence from the ambient ∆-manifold A•, not existence or smoothness. Since δB is the target of the final map in Lemma 3.8 and in Theorems 1.2 and 1.3, the main theorems are unsupported for arbitrary graded submanifolds. In addition, the map Ω•(B•) → Ω•(δB•) in the proof of Lemma 3.8 again relies on the false surjectivity assertion from Lemma 3.2.
  3. [§1.4 and Theorems 1.2/1.3] There is a quantifier mismatch in the statements of the main theorems. Theorem 1.2 says 'for any hyperdigraph H(M) on M', while Section 1.4 assumes each H_n(M) is a differentiable manifold and Section 4 defines a hyperdigraph as any subspace of the configuration space. For an arbitrary subspace, the space of differential forms on the hypergraph is not defined; for arbitrary submanifolds, Lemma 3.2 fails. The main theorems therefore require an explicit restricted class of hypergraphs, and that class must be closed under the constructions ∆ and δ. This is not a purely presentational point, since the surjectivity of the ladder and the existence of δB are both used in the statements.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2, around (2.4)] The quotient map q is called 'induced by (2.3)', but (2.3) is the inclusion Inf•(D) → Sup•(D); the map C/Sup•(D) → C/Inf•(D) is more naturally induced by the identity of C. Please clarify the direction and the inducing map.
  2. [§9, Theorem 9.5] The sentence 'Then (9.4) a sub-double complex ...' is missing the verb 'is'.
  3. [§5, Example 5.4(3)] In the case M = S^m, the text refers to Stab(Conf_n(S^1,r)/Σ_n); this should presumably be Conf_n(S^m,r)/Σ_n.
  4. [§10, Theorems 10.1 and 10.4] There are unmatched parentheses in the displayed statements of the sub-double complexes in (10.1) and (10.4); please correct the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the core quasi-isomorphism is reproved in Lemma 2.1 and the main theorems are formal consequences of the explicit constructions.

full rationale

The paper's central ladder in Theorems 1.2/1.3 is assembled from Definitions 2-4 and Lemma 3.8. The infimum/supremum chain complex framework is taken from the author's earlier paper [13], and Section 2 cites [13, Proposition 2.4] for the quasi-isomorphism between Inf and Sup. However, the present paper gives its own direct proof of the quotient version of this comparison in Lemma 2.1, with an explicit homology calculation, so the self-citation is not load-bearing: the key algebraic step is independently grounded inside the paper. The double-complex maps in (3.7) and (3.13) are quotient maps or pull-backs whose surjectivity is asserted via Lemma 3.2; no parameter is fitted and no closely related quantity is first fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The statement that H is a Delta-submanifold if and only if all three maps are the identity is essentially a reformulation of the definitions of Delta H and delta H, but it is presented as a characterization rather than used to derive a prediction from an input. The most serious mathematical defect is not circularity: Lemma 3.2 asserts that restriction of differential forms to any embedded submanifold is surjective, which is false for open submanifolds such as Conf_n(M,r) when r>0 (e.g., dx/x on (0,1) has no smooth extension to R). This threatens the surjectivity statements in Corollaries 9.3/9.6 and in the main theorems, but a false lemma is a correctness issue, not a circular reduction of the conclusion into the hypotheses.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction has no fitted parameters and introduces no new physical entities. The main assumptions are analytic and geometric (surjectivity of restriction, existence of ∆-closures) and the restrictive one-dimensional hypothesis for unordered configuration spaces.

assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Pullback of differential forms under inclusion of a submanifold is surjective
    Asserted in Lemma 3.2 without proof. False for open submanifolds; e.g., the smooth form (1/x)dx on (0,1) does not extend to R. The paper allows open hypergraphs, so the central quotient-complex interpretation is unsupported.
  • ad hoc to paper The associated ∆-manifold ∆B and lower-associated ∆-manifold δB exist as smooth manifolds
    Definition 4 postulates the smallest and largest ∆-submanifold containing or contained in B. The proposed union of ∆-orbits of points in B need not be a manifold, and the largest such submanifold may not exist; no proof is given.
  • domain assumption Conf_•(M)/Σ_• is a ∆-manifold when M has a continuous total order
    Lemma 9.4 requires M embeddable in R, so dim M ≤ 1; this excludes the circle and higher-dimensional manifolds, limiting the unordered results to one-dimensional ambient spaces.
  • standard math The infimum-to-supremum quasi-isomorphism of [13] holds
    Quoted from the author's earlier paper [13] and reproved as Lemma 2.1; the proof in the paper is short and rests on standard homological algebra.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Double complexes for configuration spaces and hypergraphs on manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WSNB4RHJ

@misc{pith2026241116545,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Double complexes for configuration spaces and hypergraphs on manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WSNB4RHJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16545}
}
abstract

In this paper, we consider hypergraphs whose vertices are distinct points moving smoothly on a Riemannian manifold M. We take these hypergraphs as graded submanifolds of configuration spaces. We construct double complexes of differential forms on configuration spaces. Then we construct double complexes of differential forms on hypergraphs which are sub-double complexes of the double complex for the ambient configuration space. Among these double complexes for hypergraphs, the infimum double complex and the supremum double complex are quasi-isomorphic concerning the boundary maps induced from vertex deletion of the hyperedges. In particular, all the double complexes are identical if the hypergraph is a $\Delta$-submanifold of the ambient configuration space.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Bressan, J

    S. Bressan, J. Li, S. Ren and J. Wu, The embedded homology of hypergraphs and applications. Asian J. Math. 23(3) (2019), 479-500

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Alpert, M

    H. Alpert, M. Kahle and R. MacPherson, Configuration spaces of disks in an infinite strip. J. Appl. Comput. Topol. 5 (2021), 357-390

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    Alpert and Fedor Manin, Configuration spaces of disks in a strip, twisted algebras, persistence, and other stories

    H. Alpert and Fedor Manin, Configuration spaces of disks in a strip, twisted algebras, persistence, and other stories . Geom. Topol. 28 (2024), 641-699. 34

    work page 2024

  4. [3]

    Baryshnikov, P

    Y. Baryshnikov, P. Bubenik and M. Kahle, Min-type Morse theory for configuration spaces of hard spheres. Int. Math. Res. Notices 9 (2014), 2577-2592

    work page 2014

  5. [4]

    Berge, Graphs and hypergraphs

    C. Berge, Graphs and hypergraphs. North-Holland Mathematical Library, Amsterdam, 1973

    work page 1973

  6. [5]

    Belkin and P

    M. Belkin and P. Niyogi, Laplacian eigenmaps for dimensionality reduction and data representation. Neural Comput. 15 (2003), 1373-1396

    work page 2003

  7. [6]

    Belkin and P

    M. Belkin and P. Niyogi, Towards a theoretical foundation for laplacian-based mani fold methods. International Conference on Computational Learning Theor y (2005), 486- 500

    work page 2005

  8. [7]

    C. Bick, E. Gross, H. A. Harrington and M. T. Schaub, What are higher-order net- works? SIAM Rev. 65(3) (2023), 686-731

    work page 2023

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    Blagojevi ˇc, W

    P. Blagojevi ˇc, W. Lück and G. Ziegler, On highly regular embeddings . Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 368(4) (2016), 2891-2912

    2016

  2. [9]

    Blagojevi ˇc, F

    P. Blagojevi ˇc, F. Cohen, W. Lück and G. Ziegler, On complex highly regular embeddings and the extended Vassiliev conjecture. Int. Math. Res. Not. 2016(20) (2016), 6151-6199

    2016

  3. [10]

    Bödigheimer, F

    C.-F. Bödigheimer, F. Cohen and L. Taylor, On the homology of configuration spaces. Topology 28 (1989), 111-123

    1989

  4. [11]

    Bödigheimer and F

    C.-F. Bödigheimer and F. R. Cohen, Rational cohomology of configuration spaces of surfaces. Algebraic topology and transformation groups (Göttingen 1 987), Lecture Notes in Math. 1361, Springer, Berlin 1988, 7-13

    1988

  5. [12]

    Borsuk, On the k-independent subsets of the Euclidean space and of the Hilbe rt space

    K. Borsuk, On the k-independent subsets of the Euclidean space and of the Hilbe rt space. Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. Cl. III. 5 (1957), 351-356

    1957

  6. [14]

    Carlsson, J

    G. Carlsson, J. Gorham, M. Kahle and J. Mason, Computational topology for config- uration spaces of hard disks. Phys. Review E 85 (2012), 011303

    2012

  7. [15]

    D. Chen, J. Liu, J. Wu and G.-W. Wei, Persistent hyperdigraph homology and persis- tent hyperdigraph Laplacians. Found. Data Sci. 5 (2023), 558-588

    2023

  8. [16]

    F. R. K. Chung and R. L. Graham, Cohomological aspects of hypergraphs.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 334 (1992), 365-388

    1992

  9. [17]

    Church, Homological stability for configuration spaces of manifold s

    T. Church, Homological stability for configuration spaces of manifold s. Invent. Math. 188 (2012), 465-504

    2012

  10. [18]

    Church, J

    T. Church, J. S. Ellenberg and B. Farb, FI-modules and stability for representations of symmetric groups . Duke Math. J. 164 (2015), 1833-1910

    2015

  11. [19]

    Cohen, R.L

    F.R. Cohen, R.L. Cohen, N.J. Kuhn and J.L. Neisendorfer , Bundles over configuration spaces. Pacific J. Math. 104 (1983), 47-54

    1983

  12. [20]

    Cohen, R.L

    F.R. Cohen, R.L. Cohen, B. Mann and R.J. Milgram, Divisors and configurations on a surface. Contemp. Math. 96 (1989), 103-108. 35

    1989

  13. [21]

    Cohen and D

    F. Cohen and D. Handel, k-regular embeddings of the plane . Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 72 (1978), 201-204

    1978

  14. [22]

    Cohen, M.E

    F.R. Cohen, M.E. Mahowald and R.J. Milgram, The stable decomposition for the double loop space of a sphere. Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. 32 (1978), 225-228

    1978

  15. [23]

    Dyballa and S

    L. Dyballa and S. W. Zucker, IAN: Iterated Adaptive Neighborhoods for manifold learn- ing and dimensionality estimation. Neural Comput. 35 (2023), 453-524

    2023

  16. [24]

    Farber, Invitation to Topological Robotics

    M. Farber, Invitation to Topological Robotics. Zurich Lectures in Advanced Mathe- matics, Zurich, European Mathematical Society, 2008

    2008

  17. [25]

    Farber, Configuration spaces and robot motion planning algorithms

    M. Farber, Configuration spaces and robot motion planning algorithms. Combinato- rial and Toric Homotopy, Lecture Notes Series, Institute fo r Mathematical Sciences, National University of Singapore (2017), 263-303

    2017

  18. [26]

    Felisatti and F

    M. Felisatti and F. Neumann, Secondary theories for simplicial manifolds and classi- fying spaces. Geom. Topol. Monographs 11 (2007), 33-58

    2007

  19. [27]

    Fulton and R

    W. Fulton and R. MacPherson, A compactification of configuration spaces. Ann. Math. 139 (1994), 183-225

    1994

  20. [28]

    Grbić, J

    J. Grbić, J. Wu, K. L. Xia and G.-W. Wei, Aspects of topological approaches for data science. Found. Data Sci. 4 (2022), 165-216

    2022

  21. [29]

    Grigor’yan, Y

    A. Grigor’yan, Y. Lin, Y. Muranov and S.-T. Yau, Homologies of path complexes and digraphs. arXiv (2013), 1207.2834

    2013 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Grigor’yan, Y

    A. Grigor’yan, Y. Lin, Y. Muranov and S.-T. Yau, Path complexes and their homolo- gies. J. Math. Sci. 248 (2020), 564-599

    2020

  23. [31]

    Handel, Obstructions to 3-regular embeddings

    D. Handel, Obstructions to 3-regular embeddings. Hoston J. Math. 5 (1979), 339-343

    1979

  24. [32]

    Handel, Some existence and nonexistence theorems for k-regular maps

    D. Handel, Some existence and nonexistence theorems for k-regular maps. Fund. Math. 109 (1980), 229-233

    1980

  25. [33]

    Handel and J

    D. Handel and J. Segal, On k-regular embeddings of spaces in Euclidean space . Fund. Math. 106 (1980), 231-237

    1980

  26. [34]

    Handel, Approximation theory in the space of sections of a vector bund le

    D. Handel, Approximation theory in the space of sections of a vector bund le. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 256 (1979), 383-394

    1979

  27. [35]

    Meila and H

    M. Meila and H. Zhang, Manifold learning: what, how, and why . Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 11 (2024), 393-417

    2024

  28. [36]

    McDuff, Configuration spaces of positive and negative particles

    D. McDuff, Configuration spaces of positive and negative particles. Topology 14 (1975), 91-107

    1975

  29. [37]

    A. D. Parks and S. L. Lipscomb, Homology and hypergraph acyclicity: a combinatorial in- variant for hypergraphs. Naval Surface Warfare Center, 1991

    1991

  30. [38]

    Ren, Order of the canonical vector bundle over configuration spac es of projective spaces

    S. Ren, Order of the canonical vector bundle over configuration spac es of projective spaces. Osaka J. Math. 54 (2017), 623-634

    2017

  31. [39]

    Ren, Order of the canonical vector bundle over configuration spac es of spheres

    S. Ren, Order of the canonical vector bundle over configuration spac es of spheres. Forum Math. 30 (2018), 1265-1277. 36

    2018

  32. [40]

    S. Ren, C. Wu and J. Wu, Maps on random hypergraphs and random simplicial com- plexes. J. Knot Theory Ramif. 31 (2022), 2250015

    2022

  33. [41]

    S. Ren, C. Wu and J. Wu, Random hypergraphs, random simplicial complexes and their Künneth-type formulae. J. Knot Theory Ramif. 32 (2023), 2350075

    2023

  34. [42]

    Salvatore, Configuration spaces on the sphere and higher loop spaces

    P. Salvatore, Configuration spaces on the sphere and higher loop spaces. Math. Z. 248 (2004), 527-540

    2004

  35. [43]

    Singer, Best approximation in normed linear spaces by elements of lin ear subspaces, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1970

    I. Singer, Best approximation in normed linear spaces by elements of lin ear subspaces, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1970

    1970

  36. [44]

    J. B. Tenenbaum, V. D. Silva and J. C. Langford, A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. Science 290 (2000), 2319-2323

    2000

  37. [45]

    Yang, Order of the canonical vector bundle on Cn(k)/Σ k

    S.W. Yang, Order of the canonical vector bundle on Cn(k)/Σ k. Illinois J. Math. 25 (1981), 136-146

    1981

  38. [46]

    Bianchi, J

    A. Bianchi, J. Miller and J. C. H. Wilson, Mapping class group actions on configuration spaces and the Johnson filtration. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 375 (2022), 5461-5489

    2022

  39. [47]

    Zomorodian and G

    A. Zomorodian and G. Carlsson, Computing persistent homology . Discrete Comput. Geom. 33(2) (2005), 249–274. Shiquan Ren Address: School of Mathematics and Statistics, Henan Unive rsity, Kaifeng 475004, China. e-mail: renshiquan@henu.edu.cn 37

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.