Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Absorption of closed strings by giant gravitons

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the free-theory selection rules signalling integrability in determinant-giant three-point functions survive only for maximal and near-maximal giant gravitons, and for restricted Schur polynomials with a column of N…

desk verdict A genuine extension of JKV with strong exact checks, but the main non-integrability claim for sub-maximal giants rests on an unshown numerical check and an unproven diagnostic premise. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03553 v2 pith:PEAV5I5G submitted 2019-08-09 hep-th

Gaoli Chen , Robert de Mello Koch , Minkyoo Kim , Hendrik J.R. Van Zyl This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords giantgravitonsdualSchurpolynomialsrestrictedintegrabilityselectionrulesN=4superYang-Millsholographydeterminantoperators
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

A recent method computes correlation functions of two determinant operators and one non-protected single-trace operator, the holographic description of a closed string being absorbed by a maximal giant graviton, and finds free-theory selection rules that signal integrability. This paper tries to establish how far that integrability picture extends. Using the projection-operator representation of Schur polynomials, it generalizes the effective description to sub-maximal giants, dual giants, bound states, and restricted Schur polynomials built from several matrices. It argues that the selection rules are obeyed only for maximal and near-maximal giant gravitons, and for maximal restricted Schur polynomials labeled by a column with $N$ boxes, suggesting that integrability is a special property of the largest brane states. If correct, this singles out the maximal-giant sector as the one admitting exact all-order-in-$\lambda$ descriptions through integrability, and it supplies an effective field theory for computing the absorption process in more general settings.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the projection-operator representation of Schur polynomials: each Schur polynomial is the trace of a projector onto the irreducible component of $V^{\otimes k}$ labelled by a Young diagram, written for giants as a Grassmann integral and for dual giants as a complex-vector integral. Inserting these projectors into the path integral, integrating out the free fields, and applying a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation reduces the correlator to an integral over an auxiliary matrix $\rho$, with the single-trace operator evaluated on an emergent classical background. The resulting matrix-product-state overlap, $\langle \Phi | O \rangle$, is what carries the selection rules. Restricted Schur polynomials, labelled by a Young diagram $R$ together with a pair $(r,s)$ and multiplicity labels, extend the same construction to giants and dual giants built from more than one matrix.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop correction to the three-point function of two sub-maximal giant gravitons and an SU(2) single-trace operator in a configuration where the free-theory correlator violates the parity-selection rules; if the violating terms cancel in the full one-loop answer or in a suitable large-$N$ limit, the paper's conclusion that sub-maximal giants are not integrable would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the parity selection rules found in determinant-operator three-point functions—both the spin-chain length and magnon number must be even, and magnon rapidities must come in opposite pairs—hold only for maximal and close-to-maximal giant gravitons. For a giant described by a Schur polynomial whose Young diagram is a column with $k$ boxes, terms that violate the selection rules are weighted by powers of $(N-k)/N$; they vanish at large $N$ only when $k$ is $N$ or close to $N$. For sub-maximal giants the violating terms contribute at order one and the rules fail, and for dual giants (single-row Young diagrams) the term that would respect the rules never dominates. For restricted Schur polynomials built from more than one matrix, the case of a column with $N$ boxes—a maximal giant graviton carrying several angular momenta—again satisfies the selection rules, which the paper reads as evidence that this sector is integrable. The asymmetry between giants and dual giants is traced to the existence of a maximum size for giant gravitons.

Load-bearing premise

The paper treats the free-theory parity selection rules as a necessary condition for integrability, so a sector that fails them at zero 't Hooft coupling is judged non-integrable even though the exact finite-coupling theory could in principle restore them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The integrable description of closed-string absorption applies only to maximal and close-to-maximal giant gravitons; sub-maximal giants and dual giants are outside its reach.
  • The effective $\rho$-theory reproduces exact free-theory two-point and extremal correlators, so it provides a systematic large-$N$ expansion tool for giant-graviton observables.
  • Maximal restricted Schur polynomials are the multi-matrix analogue of the determinant: their three-point functions with one SU(2) single-trace operator obey the same selection rules, suggesting an integrable sector with more than one angular momentum.
  • The giant-versus-dual-giant difference in selection rules follows from the existence of a maximal size $N$ for giants; no such bound exists for dual giants, so their selection rules are never restored.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is a one-loop computation of a sub-maximal giant correlator: if the free-theory violating terms cancel against $\lambda$-corrections in some large-$N$ double-scaling limit, the selection-rule criterion would be necessary but not sufficient.
  • The $\rho$-theory graph duality suggests a concrete way to compute non-planar corrections to the selection rules order by order in $1/N$, which could quantify how quickly integrability is lost as $N-k$ grows.
  • If maximal restricted Schur operators are integrable, the TBA/g-function formalism could be extended to giants with two angular momenta; a finite-coupling prediction for this correlator would be a sharp test.
  • The auxiliary matrix $\rho$ is a constant, algebraic matrix rather than a propagating field, so interpreting it as an open-string field theory remains incomplete; clarifying that relation could connect the construction to spin-matrix or tiny-graviton descriptions.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper extends the Jiang-Komatsu-Vescovi computation of correlators of two determinant operators with one non-protected single-trace operator to sub-maximal giant gravitons, dual giant gravitons, their bound states, and restricted Schur polynomials built from several matrices. The main technical device is a representation-theoretic rewriting of Schur polynomials as traces of projection operators, leading to a zero-dimensional Grassmann integral and, after integrating out the SYM fields and a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation, a Q×Q matrix 'ρ' effective theory. The authors validate this effective theory against exact results for two-point functions, extremal Q-point functions, single-trace examples, and a two-column bound-state two-point function. They then test, at large N and in the free theory, whether the parity/evenness selection rules of [28] hold. They conclude that the rules are obeyed for maximal and near-maximal giants and for a restricted-Schur maximal-giant sector, but not for sub-maximal giants or dual giants, which they interpret as absence of integrability in those sectors.

Significance. The framework itself is useful and the paper ships several non-trivial consistency checks: the effective theory reproduces the exact two-point function (2.61), the extremal Q-point function (2.76), the single-trace correlators (2.86) and (2.92), the dual-giant two-point function (3.41), and the bound-state two-point function in Appendix A, all with no fitted parameters. This gives confidence that the ρ-theory is a correct large-N reorganization of the free-field correlators. If the integrability claims hold, the paper would establish a sharp boundary: only maximal and near-maximal giant-graviton sectors inherit the worldsheet integrability seen in [28]. However, the negative results for sub-maximal giants and dual giants are supported by an unshown numerical check and by the unproven premise that free-theory selection rules are necessary for integrability; the positive restricted-Schur claim is also only matched to [28] at the free level. These gaps make the main physics conclusions conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, after Eq. (4.15)] The central negative claim for sub-maximal giants is asserted as 'We have verified numerically that in this case the selection rules are not obeyed', but no numerical data, code, or explicit example is provided. This is load-bearing because the abstract and Sections 4, 5, and 8 all state that sub-maximal giant and dual-giant correlators do not enjoy integrability. Please supply at least one explicit SU(2)-sector operator for which the free-theory overlap contains a parity-violating contribution that vanishes for the maximal giant (K=N) but is nonvanishing for some K<N, together with the ranges of L, M, and N checked. Alternatively, provide a general combinatorial argument. The same absence of detail affects the dual-giant statement in Section 5.
  2. [Sections 4 and 5] The paper treats violation of the free-theory parity/evenness selection rules as sufficient to conclude the absence of integrability, but this necessity premise is not established. The selection rules in [28] are derived for a specific integrable boundary-state overlap; the present paper does not prove that an integrable giant-graviton system must obey these rules already at zero λ. It is logically possible that parity-violating free-theory contributions cancel or reorganize at finite λ, or that the rule is sufficient but not necessary. A concrete test would be to compute the one-loop correction to one of the violating overlaps and show that the violation persists, or to derive the selection rule from the symmetry algebra of the giant-graviton system. As written, the conclusions in Sections 4 and 5 should be weakened to 'no free-theory evidence for integrability' unless this premise is supplied.
  3. [Section 7.2, Eqs. (7.21)–(7.25)] The positive claim that restricted-Schur maximal giants are integrable is supported only by the sentence 'Up to an overall scaling... these are the expressions of [28]'. The selection rules are not actually demonstrated from the displayed MZ, MY, and M^{-1}. Since the matrices have a different off-diagonal structure and involve κ and ρ factors, the reader cannot verify the claimed equivalence without additional work. Please show explicitly, for at least one operator O=Tr(Z^{n1}Y^{n2}...), that the free-theory overlap respects the parity/evenness selection rules, or spell out the precise dictionary to [28] including how the overall scaling drops out.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2.27)] The notation ⃗Y·⃗φ is not defined, although the components YI are used extensively later. Please spell out the six-vector explicitly.
  2. [Section 3.2, after Eq. (3.21)] The dual-giant integral is divergent; the paper explains the coefficient-wise prescription, but it would help to state explicitly that all manipulations of the generating function are formal power series in the tK and that convergence is only used after extracting a monomial.
  3. [Appendix A, around Eq. (A.2)] The displayed equation after Eq. (A.2) contains 'T(' where 'Tr(' is intended; similar notation errors appear in Eqs. (A.3) and (A.5), where 'OI(SI)' should be 'O(SI)'.
  4. [Section 8] In the paragraph discussing the ρ field, 'traverse' should be 'transverse'.
  5. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.42)] The statement 'We have numerically verified (A.42)' does not specify the ranges tested; please state the values of N, J1, and J2 checked.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the effective-theory computation reproduces independent exact correlators, and the integrability diagnostic is borrowed from external prior work rather than fitted or self-cited into existence.

full rationale

The paper's central computations are self-contained. The effective theory in Sections 2 and 3 is not calibrated to any target result: it reproduces the exact giant two-point function (2.61), the extremal Q-point function (2.76), and the correlators with Tr(Z^J) and :Tr(ZZ†): (2.86), (2.92) from independent Schur-polynomial results, with no fitted constants. The selection-rule analysis in Sections 4, 5, and 7 uses the derived MZ, MY matrices evaluated at the saddle point (4.10); no parameter is adjusted to force the selection rules, and no prediction is an input disguised as an output. The integrability criterion (even L and M, parity-symmetric rapidities) is imported from [28], which is external work by Jiang, Komatsu, and Vescovi rather than the present authors' own prior results; therefore the paper's integrability conclusion rests on an unproven external premise about the necessity of these free-theory selection rules, but that is a correctness or evidence concern, not a circular reduction. The one explicitly flagged evidentiary gap is the sentence after Eq. (4.15), 'We have verified numerically that in this case the selection rules are not obeyed,' which is stated without code, data, or an explicit counterexample; this weakens the negative claim about sub-maximal giants but does not make the derivation circular. Self-citations such as [14], [23], [24], and [41] supply standard background, lemmas, or supportive prior conclusions, and none of them substitutes for the paper's own exact checks in a load-bearing way.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the AdS/CFT dictionary, Schur-Weyl duality, standard large-N vector-model reduction, and the [28] selection-rule criterion. No free parameters are fitted and no new physical entities are introduced; the auxiliary rho field is a mathematical device.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT correspondence and the operator dictionary mapping Schur and restricted Schur polynomials to giant and dual giant gravitons.
    The entire computation is set in N=4 SYM and is claimed to describe closed-string absorption by giants; no derivation of the duality itself is attempted. Invoked in Section 1.
  • standard math Schur-Weyl duality and the projector realization of Schur and restricted Schur polynomials.
    Used throughout to write chi_R(Z) = Tr(P_R Z^{tensor k}), for example in equation (2.12), and for restricted Schur polynomials in equation (7.1).
  • domain assumption At large N, correlators of the auxiliary vector model are dominated by color-index pairing, reducing the expectation value of a single trace operator to a trace of products of M^{-1}.
    Used repeatedly, for example in Section 2.2 after equation (2.41), to evaluate fermion Wick contractions at leading order in N.
  • domain assumption The parity-symmetric rapidity selection rules of [28] are a valid necessary condition for integrability of the giant-graviton boundary state.
    The paper's central conclusion, no integrability for sub-maximal giants and dual giants, follows only if failure of the free-theory selection rules excludes integrability; this implication is not proved here. Introduced in Sections 4 and 5.
  • standard math The divergent formal integrals for dual giants are evaluated by expanding in fugacities t_k before integrating, as is standard for formal matrix integrals.
    See Section 3.2, where the paper says the integral does not converge and that one should expand in a power series in the t_k's; justified by reference [39].
  • standard math Jacobi-Trudi and Ledermann determinant formulas express general Schur polynomials as determinants of matrices of column or row Schur polynomials.
    Used in Section 6 for bound states of giants and dual giants, cited to reference [42].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Absorption of closed strings by giant gravitons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PEAV5I5G

@misc{pith2026190803553,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Absorption of closed strings by giant gravitons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PEAV5I5G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03553}
}
abstract

A new approach to the computation of correlation functions involving two determinant operators as well as one non-protected single trace operator has recently been developed by Jiang, Komatsu and Vescovi. This correlation function provides the holographic description of the absorption of a closed string by a giant graviton. The analysis has a natural interpretation in the framework of group representation theory, which admits a generalization to general Schur polynomials and restricted Schur polynomials. This generalizes the holographic description to any giant or dual giant gravitons which carry more than one angular momentum on the sphere. For a restricted Schur polynomial labeled by a column with $N$ boxes (dual to a maximal giant graviton) we find evidence in favor of integrability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03553 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The original ribbon graph is in black. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The original ribbon graph is in black. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The original ribbon graph is in black. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ribbon graphs (in black) and ρ graphs (in red) for n = 3 fields. 4 Correlation functions of two giant gravitons and a single trace operator In this section we will reconsider the computation of correlation functions of two giant gravitons and a single unprotected singl…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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

  1. A universal scaling function for giant graviton OPE coefficients

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In planar N=4 SYM, the large-spin OPE coefficient for two maximal giant gravitons and a twist-two operator scales as S^{d(g)}, with d(g) computed at arbitrary coupling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [28]

    Structure Constants inN = 4 SYM at Finite Coupling as Worldsheet g-Function,

    Y. Jiang, S. Komatsu and E. Vescovi, “Structure Constants inN = 4 SYM at Finite Coupling as Worldsheet g-Function,” arXiv:1906.07733 [hep-th], Y. Jiang, S. Komatsu and E. Vescovi, “Exact Three-Point Functions of Determinant Operators in Planar N=4 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory,” arXiv:1907.11242 [hep- th]

    arXiv 1906

  2. [1]

    The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergrav- ity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergrav- ity,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38, 1113 (1999) [Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998)] doi:10.1023/A:1026654312961, 10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a1 [hep-th/9711200]

    arXiv 1999

  3. [2]

    Gauge theory correlators from non- critical string theory,

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from non- critical string theory,” Phys. Lett. B428, 105 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00377- 3 [hep-th/9802109]

    arXiv 1998

  4. [3]

    Anti-de Sitter space and holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253 (1998) doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a2 [hep-th/9802150]

    arXiv 1998

  5. [4]

    Giant gravitons in conformal field theory,

    V. Balasubramanian, M. Berkooz, A. Naqvi and M. J. Strassler, “Giant gravitons in conformal field theory,” JHEP 0204, 034 (2002) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/04/034 [hep-th/0107119]

    arXiv 2002

  6. [5]

    Shape and holography: studies of dual operators to giant gravitons

    D. Berenstein, “Shape and holography: Studies of dual operators to giant gravitons,” Nucl. Phys. B 675, 179 (2003) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2003.10.004 [hep-th/0306090]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  7. [6]

    Exact correlators of giant gravi- tons from dual N=4 SYM theory,

    S. Corley, A. Jevicki and S. Ramgoolam, “Exact correlators of giant gravi- tons from dual N=4 SYM theory,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 5, 809 (2002) doi:10.4310/ATMP.2001.v5.n4.a6 [hep-th/0111222]

    arXiv 2002

  8. [7]

    ’Holey sheets’: Pfaffians and subdeterminants as D-brane operators in large N gauge theories,

    O. Aharony, Y. E. Antebi, M. Berkooz and R. Fishman, “’Holey sheets’: Pfaffians and subdeterminants as D-brane operators in large N gauge theories,” JHEP 0212, 069 (2002) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/12/069 [hep-th/0211152]

    arXiv 2002

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Correlators, Probabilities and Topologies in N=4 SYM,

    T. W. Brown, R. de Mello Koch, S. Ramgoolam and N. Toumbas, “Correlators, Probabilities and Topologies in N=4 SYM,” JHEP 0703, 072 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2007/03/072 [hep-th/0611290]

    2007 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Giant graviton interactions and M2-branes ending on multiple M5-branes,

    S. Hirano and Y. Sato, “Giant graviton interactions and M2-branes ending on multiple M5-branes,” JHEP 1805, 065 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2018)065 [arXiv:1803.04172 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Invasion of the giant gravitons from Anti-de Sitter space,

    J. McGreevy, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, “Invasion of the giant gravitons from Anti-de Sitter space,” JHEP 0006, 008 (2000) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/06/008 [hep-th/0003075]

    2000 arXiv

  4. [11]

    SUSY and goliath,

    M. T. Grisaru, R. C. Myers and O. Tafjord, “SUSY and goliath,” JHEP 0008, 040 (2000) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/08/040 [hep-th/0008015]

    2000 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Large branes in AdS and their field theory dual,

    A. Hashimoto, S. Hirano and N. Itzhaki, “Large branes in AdS and their field theory dual,” JHEP 0008, 051 (2000) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/08/051 [hep-th/0008016]

    2000 arXiv

  6. [13]

    D-branes in Yang-Mills theory and emergent gauge symmetry,

    V. Balasubramanian, D. Berenstein, B. Feng and M. x. Huang, “D-branes in Yang-Mills theory and emergent gauge symmetry,” JHEP 0503, 006 (2005) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/03/006 [hep-th/0411205]

    2005 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Giant Gravitons - with Strings Attached (I),

    R. de Mello Koch, J. Smolic and M. Smolic, “Giant Gravitons - with Strings Attached (I),” JHEP 0706, 074 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/06/074 [hep-th/0701066]. 47

    2007 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Giant Gravitons - with Strings Attached (II),

    R. de Mello Koch, J. Smolic and M. Smolic, “Giant Gravitons - with Strings Attached (II),” JHEP 0709, 049 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/049 [hep-th/0701067]

    2007 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Giant Gravitons - with Strings Attached. III.,

    D. Bekker, R. de Mello Koch and M. Stephanou, “Giant Gravitons - with Strings Attached. III.,” JHEP 0802, 029 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/02/029 [arXiv:0710.5372 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Open strings from N=4 superYang-Mills,

    V. Balasubramanian, M. x. Huang, T. S. Levi and A. Naqvi, “Open strings from N=4 superYang-Mills,” JHEP 0208, 037 (2002) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/08/037 [hep-th/0204196]

    2002 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Quantizing open spin chains with variable length: An Example from giant gravitons,

    D. Berenstein, D. H. Correa and S. E. Vazquez, “Quantizing open spin chains with variable length: An Example from giant gravitons,” Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 191601 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.191601 [hep-th/0502172]

    2005 arXiv

  12. [19]

    A Study of open strings ending on gi- ant gravitons, spin chains and integrability,

    D. Berenstein, D. H. Correa and S. E. Vazquez, “A Study of open strings ending on gi- ant gravitons, spin chains and integrability,” JHEP0609, 065 (2006) doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2006/09/065 [hep-th/0604123]

    2006 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Finite factorization equations and sum rules for BPS correlators in N=4 SYM theory,

    S. Corley and S. Ramgoolam, “Finite factorization equations and sum rules for BPS correlators in N=4 SYM theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 641, 131 (2002) doi:10.1016/S0550- 3213(02)00573-4 [hep-th/0205221]

    2002 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Branes, anti-branes and brauer algebras in gauge-gravity duality,

    Y. Kimura and S. Ramgoolam, “Branes, anti-branes and brauer algebras in gauge-gravity duality,” JHEP 0711, 078 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/078 [arXiv:0709.2158 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Diagonal multi-matrix correla- tors and BPS operators in N=4 SYM,

    T. W. Brown, P. J. Heslop and S. Ramgoolam, “Diagonal multi-matrix correla- tors and BPS operators in N=4 SYM,” JHEP 0802, 030 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2008/02/030 [arXiv:0711.0176 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Exact Multi-Matrix Correla- tors,

    R. Bhattacharyya, S. Collins and R. de Mello Koch, “Exact Multi-Matrix Correla- tors,” JHEP 0803, 044 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/044 [arXiv:0801.2061 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Exact Multi- Restricted Schur Polynomial Correlators,

    R. Bhattacharyya, R. de Mello Koch and M. Stephanou, “Exact Multi- Restricted Schur Polynomial Correlators,” JHEP 0806, 101 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2008/06/101 [arXiv:0805.3025 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Diagonal free field matrix correlators, global symmetries and giant gravitons,

    T. W. Brown, P. J. Heslop and S. Ramgoolam, “Diagonal free field matrix correlators, global symmetries and giant gravitons,” JHEP 0904, 089 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2009/04/089 [arXiv:0806.1911 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [26]

    A non-renormalization theorem for chi- ral primary 3-point functions,

    M. Baggio, J. de Boer and K. Papadodimas, “A non-renormalization theorem for chi- ral primary 3-point functions,” JHEP 1207, 137 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012)137 [arXiv:1203.1036 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Non-Perturbative String Theory from AdS/CFT,

    R. de Mello Koch, E. Gandote and J. H. Huang, “Non-Perturbative String Theory from AdS/CFT,” JHEP 1902, 169 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2019)169 [arXiv:1901.02591 [hep-th]]. 48

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Holographic Correlation Functions for Open Strings and Branes,

    D. Bak, B. Chen and J. B. Wu, “Holographic Correlation Functions for Open Strings and Branes,” JHEP 1106, 014 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2011)014 [arXiv:1103.2024 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Holographic three-point func- tions of giant gravitons,

    A. Bissi, C. Kristjansen, D. Young and K. Zoubos, “Holographic three-point func- tions of giant gravitons,” JHEP 1106, 085 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2011)085 [arXiv:1103.4079 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Extremal versus Non-Extremal Corre- lators with Giant Gravitons,

    P. Caputa, R. de Mello Koch and K. Zoubos, “Extremal versus Non-Extremal Corre- lators with Giant Gravitons,” JHEP 1208, 143 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2012)143 [arXiv:1204.4172 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Giant gravitons and correlators,

    H. Lin, “Giant gravitons and correlators,” JHEP 1212, 011 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2012)011 [arXiv:1209.6624 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  25. [33]

    One-point Functions in De- fect CFT and Integrability,

    M. de Leeuw, C. Kristjansen and K. Zarembo, “One-point Functions in De- fect CFT and Integrability,” JHEP 1508, 098 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2015)098 [arXiv:1506.06958 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz in Relativistic Models. Scal- ing Three State Potts and Lee-yang Models,

    A. B. Zamolodchikov, “Thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz in Relativistic Models. Scal- ing Three State Potts and Lee-yang Models,” Nucl. Phys. B 342, 695 (1990). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90333-9

    1990 doi

  27. [35]

    Vertices from replica in a random matrix theory,

    E. Brezin and S. Hikami, “Vertices from replica in a random matrix theory,” J. Phys. A 40, 3545 (2007) doi:10.1088/1751-8113/40/45/005 [arXiv:0704.2044 [math-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Brezin and S

    E. Brezin and S. Hikami, Commun. Math. Phys.283, 507 (2008) doi:10.1007/s00220- 008-0519-0 [arXiv:0708.2210 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Gopakumar

    R. Gopakumar. Open-closed-open string duality - 2010. talk at Second Joburg Work- shop on String Theory. http://neo.phys.wits.ac.za/workshop 2/pdfs/rajesh.pdf

    2010

  30. [38]

    Giant graviton correlators from dual SU(N) super Yang-Mills theory,

    R. de Mello Koch and R. Gwyn, “Giant graviton correlators from dual SU(N) super Yang-Mills theory,” JHEP0411, 081 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/081 [hep- th/0410236]

    2004

  31. [39]

    Formal matrix integrals and combinatorics of maps,

    B. Eynard, “Formal matrix integrals and combinatorics of maps,” math-ph/0611087

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Integrable open spin chains from giant gravitons,

    D. Berenstein and S. E. Vazquez, “Integrable open spin chains from giant gravitons,” JHEP 0506, 059 (2005) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/06/059 [hep-th/0501078]. D. M. Hofman and J. M. Maldacena, “Reflecting magnons,” JHEP 0711, 063 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/063 [arXiv:...

    2005 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Anomalous Di- mensions of Heavy Operators from Magnon Energies,

    R. de Mello Koch, N. H. Tahiridimbisoa and C. Mathwin, “Anomalous Di- mensions of Heavy Operators from Magnon Energies,” JHEP 1603, 156 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2016)156 [arXiv:1506.05224 [hep-th]]. 49

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Introduction to Group Characters,

    W. Lederman, “Introduction to Group Characters,” Cambridge University Press, 1977

    1977

  35. [43]

    The Quantum Collective Field Method and Its Application to the Planar Limit,

    A. Jevicki and B. Sakita, “The Quantum Collective Field Method and Its Application to the Planar Limit,” Nucl. Phys. B 165, 511 (1980). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(80)90046- 2

    1980 doi

  36. [44]

    Collective Field Approach to the Large N Limit: Euclidean Field Theories,

    A. Jevicki and B. Sakita, “Collective Field Approach to the Large N Limit: Euclidean Field Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 185, 89 (1981). doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(81)90365-5

    1981 doi

  37. [45]

    String Field Theory and Physical Interpretation of D = 1 Strings,

    S. R. Das and A. Jevicki, “String Field Theory and Physical Interpretation of D = 1 Strings,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 5, 1639 (1990). doi:10.1142/S0217732390001888

    1990 doi

  38. [46]

    Large N collective fields and holography,

    S. R. Das and A. Jevicki, “Large N collective fields and holography,” Phys. Rev. D 68, 044011 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.044011 [hep-th/0304093]

    2003 arXiv

  39. [47]

    AdS4/CFT 3 Construction from Collective Fields,

    R. de Mello Koch, A. Jevicki, K. Jin and J. P. Rodrigues, “ AdS4/CFT 3 Construction from Collective Fields,” Phys. Rev. D 83, 025006 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.025006 [arXiv:1008.0633 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Tiny graviton matrix theory: DLCQ of IIB plane-wave string theory, a conjecture,

    M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, “Tiny graviton matrix theory: DLCQ of IIB plane-wave string theory, a conjecture,” JHEP 0409, 017 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/09/017 [hep-th/0406214]

    2004 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Spin Matrix Theory: A quantum me- chanical model of the AdS/CFT correspondence,

    T. Harmark and M. Orselli, “Spin Matrix Theory: A quantum me- chanical model of the AdS/CFT correspondence,” JHEP 1411, 134 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2014)134 [arXiv:1409.4417 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Interacting Giant Gravitons from Spin Matrix Theory,

    T. Harmark, “Interacting Giant Gravitons from Spin Matrix Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 6, 066001 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.066001 [arXiv:1606.06296 [hep-th]]. 50

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.