Multiplicative Chow-Künneth decomposition and homology splitting of configuration spaces
Open accessAbstract
We construct a splitting of the cohomology of configuration spaces of points on a smooth proper variety with a multiplicative Chow--Künneth decomposition. Applied to hyperelliptic curves, this shows that the hyperelliptic Torelli group acts trivially on the rational cohomology of ordered configuration spaces of points. Moreover, if $H_{g,n}$ denotes the moduli space of $n$-pointed hyperelliptic curves, the Leray spectral sequence for the forgetful map $H_{g,n} \to H_g$ degenerates immediately, in sharp contrast to the forgetful map from $M_{g,n}$ to $M_g$. This allows for new detailed calculations of the cohomology of $M_{2,n}$ for $n \leq 5$, and the stable cohomology of $H_{g,n}$ for $n \leq 5$. We also give a detailed study of the cohomology of symplectic local systems on $M_2$.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Petersen and Tommasi [58] was withdrawn because of a gap in the core arguments of Theorem 1.8 and Theorem 1.13 which invalidates the bulk of the paper.
“Petersen and Tommasi [58] studies the configuration spaces of points in algebraic varieties with a multiplicative decomposition, and discusses some applications such as the cohomology of moduli stacks of hyperelliptic curves. It was withdrawn because of a gap that lies in the core arguments of Theorem 1.8 and Theorem 1.13 which invalidates the bulk of the paper.”
From When AI Co-Scientists Fail: SPOT-a Benchmark for Automated Verification of Scientific Research (2025) · cites this paper as [58]
[58] was withdrawn because of a gap in the core arguments of Theorem 1.8 and Theorem 1.13.
“It was withdrawn because of a gap that lies in the core arguments of Theorem 1.8 and Theorem 1.13.”
From When AI Co-Scientists Fail: SPOT-a Benchmark for Automated Verification of Scientific Research (2025) · cites this paper as [58]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
When AI Co-Scientists Fail: SPOT-a Benchmark for Automated Verification of Scientific Research
Son, G., Hong, J., Fan, H., Nam, H., Ko, H., Lim, S., Song, J., Choi, J., Paulo, G., Yu, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.11855 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“We selected [58] and [73], both in the area of algebraic geometry in pure mathematics.”
Influential
- Authors
- Petersen, D., & Tommasi, O.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2401.06455
- OpenAlex
- W4390897610
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Algebraic Geometry and Number Theory
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Mathematical Physics › Homotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic Topology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Geometric and Algebraic Topology
- Keywords
- configuration space, hyperelliptic curves, forgetful map, stable cohomology, moduli space of curves, smooth proper varieties
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review