Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Pluriharmonic Morphisms

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Eric Loubeau

dg-ga · Submitted 10 Aug 1996

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim Then we characterise pluriharmonic morphisms between Hermitian manifolds.

how it is stated · asserted 0.99 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv IDdg-ga/9608004 (version 1)
Pith IDCPL6UGZT, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationEric Loubeau. "Pluriharmonic Morphisms." arXiv:dg-ga/9608004 (1996). https://pith.science/paper/CPL6UGZT
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,566 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.18 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.01 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.02 · compares with prior results 0.12 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

Pluriharmonic maps form an important class of harmonic maps which includes holomorphic maps. We study their morphisms, in particular the inter-relationships between $(1,1)$-geodesic, pluriharmonic and $\pm$holomorphic maps. Then we characterise pluriharmonic morphisms between Hermitian manifolds. We make a special study of the situation where the target is K{\"a}hler, pluriharmonic morphisms being particularly well understood for this case.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 Pluriharmonic maps form an important class of harmonic maps which includes holomorphic maps. background 1.00 0.06 0.04 asserted 1.00
s1 We study their morphisms, in particular the inter-relationships between $(1,1)$-geodesic, pluriharmonic and $\pm$holomorphic maps. contribution 1.00 0.85 0.07 asserted 0.79
s2 Then we characterise pluriharmonic morphisms between Hermitian manifolds. contribution 0.82 0.92 0.42 asserted 0.99
s3 We make a special study of the situation where the target is K{\"a}hler, pluriharmonic morphisms being particularly well understood for this case. contribution 0.87 0.64 0.11 asserted 0.99

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

Pluriharmonic maps form an important class of harmonic maps which includes holomorphic maps. We study their morphisms, in particular the inter-relationships between $(1,1)$-geodesic, pluriharmonic and $\pm$holomorphic maps. Then we characterise pluriharmonic morphisms between Hermitian manifolds. We make a special study of the situation where the target is K{\"a}hler, pluriharmonic morphisms being particularly well understood for this case.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.