Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 48 references

A proposal for nonabelian (0,2) mirrors

T0 review · 4 major / 3 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 proposes a Weyl-orbifolded Landau-Ginzburg mirror for (0,2) GLSMs with linear diagonal E-terms, and argues, with example checks, that its constraints reproduce quantum sheaf cohomology while its B/2 correlation functions match…

desk verdict First systematic nonabelian (0,2) mirror proposal; ring checks are solid, correlator checks are convincing but leave a free-action assumption to verify. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06036 v3 pith:NWOPVQVK submitted 2019-08-16 hep-th

W. Gu , J. Guo , E. Sharpe This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords (02)mirrorsymmetrygaugedlinearsigmamodelquantumsheafcohomologyLandau-GinzburgWeylorbifoldA/2twistB/2nonabelian
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 proposes a mirror construction for two-dimensional (0,2) supersymmetric gauge theories (GLSMs) that are deformations of ordinary (2,2) theories. The mirror is a Weyl-group orbifold of a Landau-Ginzburg model whose superpotential is built from the weights of the matter representation, the roots of the gauge group, and the linear diagonal E-terms $D_+\Psi_i=E_i(\sigma)\Phi_i$. The paper's central claim is that the mirror's constraint equations reproduce the quantum sheaf cohomology relations of the original theory, the heterotic analogue of quantum cohomology, and that its B/2-twisted correlation functions match the A/2-twisted correlation functions in every example checked. The authors state explicitly that this is a proposal with consistency tests, not a proof. If correct, it gives a direct route from a (0,2) gauge theory to a Landau-Ginzburg model in which worldsheet instanton corrections become ordinary residue computations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Weyl-orbifolded Landau-Ginzburg superpotential (2.2), built from pairs $(Y_i,F_i)$, $(\sigma_a,\Upsilon_a)$, and $(X_{\tilde\mu},\Lambda_{\tilde\mu})$, with the terms $Y_i$ coupled to weights $\rho^a_i$, $X_{\tilde\mu}$ to roots $\alpha^a_{\tilde\mu}$, and $F_i$ enforcing $e^{-Y_i}=E_i(\sigma)$. The orbifold group simultaneously permutes and signs the members of each pair, and the proposal claims it acts freely on the non-excluded critical locus. What makes this machinery work is that integrating out $X_{\tilde\mu}$ and $Y_i$ produces an effective superpotential whose critical-point equations are exactly the quantum sheaf cohomology relations, while the determinant factors $H_X$ and $H_Y$ from the integration feed into the residue formula $\langle f\rangle=\sum f/\det(\partial_i J_j)$, which reproduces the A/2 correlation function formula of the original GLSM.

What would settle it

Compute the B/2 correlation functions of the proposed mirror for a Grassmannian $G(3,4)$ with generic diagonal deformations $b_i$, compare them with the A/2 localization results, and check whether every correlator matches after multiplying the naive Landau-Ginzburg result by exactly $1/(1+3b_4)$; a single mismatch, or a failure of the quantum sheaf cohomology relations at a point where the orbifold symmetry has a fixed point on the non-excluded locus, would falsify the proposal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a (0,2) GLSM with connected gauge group $G$ of dimension $n$ and rank $r$, matter in a representation $R$, and E-terms of the linear diagonal form $D_+\Psi_i=E_i(\sigma)\Phi_i$, the paper proposes that the mirror is the Weyl-group orbifold of a (0,2) Landau-Ginzburg model with superpotential (2.2). The Fermi-field constraints give the operator mirror map $e^{-Y_i}=E_i(\sigma)$ and $X_{\tilde\mu}=\sum_a \alpha^a_{\tilde\mu}\sigma_a$; exponentiating the D-term constraints turns these into $\prod_i E_i(\sigma)^{\rho^a_i}=\tilde q_a$, which are precisely the quantum sheaf cohomology relations of the original theory. The B/2-twisted correlation functions computed from the mirror through the isolated-vacuum residue formula are argued to equal the A/2 correlation functions of the original GLSM, and the match is verified in detail for $P^n\times P^m$, Hirzebruch surfaces, and the first Grassmannian cases $G(1,3)$ and $G(2,3)$. In the nonabelian checks a Jacobian factor must be divided out by hand to get the agreement. The paper calls the construction a proposal, not a theorem, and gives only consistency tests rather than a general proof.

Load-bearing premise

The correlation-function half of the proposal rests on the assumption that the mirror's orbifold symmetry acts freely on the non-excluded vacuum solutions, so that no extra sectors contribute, and on the expectation that the normalization mismatch seen in every example is cured by dividing out a single Jacobian factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the (2,2) locus the ansatz reduces to the standard abelian mirror prescription and to the nonabelian mirror proposal it extends, so every linear diagonal (0,2) deformation inherits a Landau-Ginzburg mirror of the same general form.
  • For abelian theories the proposal simplifies and generalizes the earlier systematic mirror construction, and it reproduces the earlier superpotentials when restricted to the same class of deformations.
  • Quantum sheaf cohomology relations are reproduced for $P^n\times P^m$, Hirzebruch surfaces, Grassmannians $G(k,N)$, and flag manifolds, including the phase shifts generated by integrating out the $X$ fields.
  • In every tested example the B/2 correlation functions agree with the A/2 correlation functions after dividing out the Jacobian factor the paper computes explicitly.
  • For theories with a (0,2) superpotential the mirror depends only on R-charges, not on the detailed superpotential, consistent with the claim that A/2-twisted GLSMs are insensitive to such details.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the proposal survives tests beyond the cases checked here, it would turn heterotic worldsheet instanton sums into residue evaluations in a Landau-Ginzburg model, a concrete program the paper motivates but does not carry out.
  • The diagonal restriction is probably not a hard limit: if off-diagonal linear E-terms are irrelevant for A/2-twisted correlators, a basis change could bring any linear E-term into diagonal form; the paper only states the ansatz for the diagonal case.
  • The hand-divided Jacobian factors suggest an unstated normalization convention in the path-integral derivation; finding a systematic rule for these factors would likely upgrade the proposal from example-by-example matching to a proof.
  • Testing the same Weyl-orbifold machinery on O(k) or exceptional gauge groups, where the paper notes the extension is straightforward but does not carry it out, would probe the free-action assumption more sharply than the Grassmannian cases.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a mirror construction for (0,2) GLSMs that are deformations of (2,2) GLSMs, assuming the gauge group is connected and the E-terms are linear and diagonal. The mirror is a Weyl-orbifolded (0,2) Landau-Ginzburg model with superpotential (2.2). The authors argue that the constraints of the mirror reduce to the quantum sheaf cohomology relations (2.9), and that B/2-twisted correlation functions reproduce A/2 correlation functions of the original GLSM (eqs. (3.8)-(3.9)). They verify the ring relations for P^n x P^m, Hirzebruch surfaces, Grassmannians and flag manifolds, and check correlation functions for P^1 x P^1, G(1,3) and G(2,3). The paper is explicit that this is a proposal rather than a theorem, stating in section 2 that no physical proof is claimed.

Significance. If the proposal is correct, it provides a systematic Hori-Vafa-style mirror for a large class of nonabelian (0,2) GLSMs, generalizing and simplifying the previous abelian construction of [36]. The paper has genuine strengths: the mirror map is parameter-free, the chiral ring relations follow from the mirror's own equations of motion in every worked example, the computations are explicit and reproducible, and the manuscript is unusually candid about the formal character of the arguments. The ring part of the claim is well supported. The correlation-function part is a supported conjecture rather than an established result, because it depends on an unproved free-orbit statement and on hand-inserted Jacobian normalizations.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, eqs. (3.8)-(3.9)] The equality of B/2 and A/2 correlation functions rests on the assertion that the Weyl orbifold acts freely on the non-excluded critical locus, so that twisted sectors do not contribute and the 1/|W| factor in (3.8) is correct. This is cited to [37] but not proved, and in the present (0,2) setting the excluded locus is partly determined by the E_i(σ) = 0 conditions, which are a genuine deformation of the (2,2) case. The fixed-point argument of [37] therefore does not automatically carry over, and a stabilizer on the non-excluded critical locus would change (3.9) even when the chiral ring relations are reproduced. This missing check is load-bearing for the correlator half of the central claim.
  2. [§5.4 and §8, eqs. (5.29), (8.22)] In every explicit correlator check, the lower-energy Landau-Ginzburg correlation functions come out multiplied by a Jacobian factor (1/Δ_0 in §5.4, 1/(1+k b_N) in §8) that must be divided out by hand to match the A/2 answers. The factors are mathematically natural consequences of integrating out constrained fields, but their numerical normalizations are justified only after comparison with the known A/2 results. As presented, the checks therefore calibrate the proposal rather than independently confirming eq. (3.9), leaving the general normalization in (3.9) without first-principles derivation.
  3. [§8, eqs. (8.9), (8.19)] The mirror formulas become singular at 1+k b_i = 0, and the excluded-locus condition changes at such parameter values. The paper correctly notes the relation to the bundle-versus-sheaf condition of [20, theorem 3.3], but it does not state explicitly whether the proposal, and in particular the correlation-function equality (3.9), is intended to hold when 1+k b_i = 0 or in a limiting sense as these values are approached. Since the proposal is stated for general linear diagonal E-terms, the domain of validity of eqs. (2.9) and (3.9) needs to be specified.
  4. [§2 and §3.2] The free-action claim is supported by reference to [37], but [37] is itself a proposal for nonabelian (2,2) mirrors rather than an independent proof. A direct check on a theory beyond the current examples (for instance, an exceptional gauge group, a higher-rank Grassmannian, or an explicit analysis of Weyl stabilizers on the E-deformed excluded locus) would substantially strengthen the correlator claim. Without such a check, the factor 1/|W| and the neglect of twisted sectors in (3.9) remain assumptions whose failure would invalidate the equality even when the chiral ring relations are correctly reproduced.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§8, after eq. (8.5)] The text states 'X_μν = σ_ν − σ_ν' along the critical locus; this appears to be a typo and should read 'X_μν = σ_ν − σ_μ' (or the sign convention made explicit), since the relevant equations of motion come from the terms 1 + (σ_μ − σ_ν)/X_μν in (8.4).
  2. [§5.3.2, eq. (5.36)] The last line contains an unbalanced parenthesis: '− (d_ja_0 − b_0c_j' is missing the closing parenthesis before the factor 1/Δ_0.
  3. [§10] The claim that the mirror does not depend on the details of the original superpotential, only on R-charges, is stated very briefly with a reference to [15]; a short explanation of why the construction leads to this independence would improve readability, since this is one of the paper's conjectural consequences.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Correlator matching rests on a self-cited free-action assertion, while the ring relations are independent consistency checks; no full circularity.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3.2, eqs. (3.8)-(3.9); also Section 2]
    "The factor of 1/|W| reflects the Weyl orbifold, which acts freely on the critical locus, as in [37], so that twisted sectors do not enter this computation, at least for mirrors to theories with connected gauge groups."

    The claimed equality (3.9) between B/2 mirror correlators and A/2 GLSM correlators is the central nonabelian check. For a W-orbifold, the normalization 1/|W| and the dropping of all twisted sectors require the asserted free action of the Weyl group on the non-excluded critical locus. The paper does not prove this assertion; it cites [37], a prior proposal by the same authors, and the same premise is stated in Section 2 as 'the fixed points of the Weyl orbifold do not intersect non-excluded critical loci.' Since [37] is itself a proposal whose arguments the present paper calls 'somewhat formal' (Section 3), the load-bearing justification is internal to the same author group rather than an independent mathematical fact.

full rationale

The paper is an explicit ansatz-based proposal, not a disguised fit. The E_i, charges, and FI parameters are inputs from the original GLSM, and the quantum sheaf cohomology relations (2.9) follow mechanically from the mirror's F-term constraints exp(-Y_i)=E_i(sigma) together with the D-term constraints; this is a genuine consistency check rather than a circular prediction because the ring relations are independently known results. The correlator formula (3.9) is obtained by applying the independent residue formula of [47] to the effective superpotential produced by the mirror, and comparing to [18] is a substantive test, not a parametrization. The one load-bearing self-citation is the Weyl free-action claim, imported from [37] by the same authors and used to fix the 1/|W| normalization and to discard twisted sectors; no proof is given in the present paper, which explicitly states it does not claim a physical proof and that its arguments are 'somewhat formal.' This makes the nonabelian correlator leg partially dependent on the authors' own earlier proposal, but the central derivation does not reduce to its inputs. Score 4 reflects this partial self-citation dependence with substantial independent content remaining.

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

The proposal's inputs are the gauge group, matter representation, FI parameters and E-terms of the original theory; none are fitted to data. The load-bearing postulates are: restriction to linear and diagonal E-terms, the B/2 Landau-Ginzburg correlation function formula of [47], the free action of the Weyl orbifold on the critical locus, the reduction of the X̃-integrals to a phase, and correctness of the base (2,2) mirror proposal [37] on which the construction reduces. The mirror fields themselves are the standard matter content of the Hori-Vafa/[37] construction, not new physical entities.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Only linear E-terms contribute to A/2-twisted GLSM observables; nonlinear D+Ψ terms are irrelevant.
    Invoked in section 2 to justify restricting D+Ψ to be linear. Cited as proven for abelian GLSMs in [16,17] and implied by localization [18], but footnote 3 concedes the statement is not settled for nonlinear sigma models.
  • ad hoc to paper The E-terms are diagonal: D+Ψ_i = E_i(σ)Φ_i with E_i proportional to the partner chiral field on the (2,2) locus.
    Section 2: 'We assume that D+Ψ is also diagonal'. This is a restriction on the domain of the proposal, not a consequence of supersymmetry.
  • domain assumption B/2-twisted (0,2) Landau-Ginzburg correlation functions with isolated vacua are ⟨f⟩ = Σ_vacua f/det(∂_i J_j) (eq. 3.6).
    Taken from [47] and used in section 3.2 and all correlator checks. The paper notes its own arguments here are formal, and each example required separate Jacobian bookkeeping.
  • domain assumption The Weyl orbifold acts freely on the non-excluded critical locus, so twisted sectors do not contribute to correlation functions.
    Section 3.2, argued 'as in [37]', for mirrors to theories with connected gauge groups. This is what reduces the orbifold computation to a 1/|W| factor.
  • domain assumption Integrating out X̃_μ and Λ_μ only shifts the FI parameters by a phase and leaves the chiral ring relations unchanged.
    Section 3.1 computes the phase (k−1)πi explicitly for U(k); for general connected groups the same reduction is asserted by reference to the (2,2) case [37].
  • domain assumption The base (2,2) nonabelian mirror proposal [37] is correct; on the (2,2) locus the (0,2) ansatz reduces to it.
    The proposal of this paper is a deformation of [37]; any error in the (2,2) construction would be inherited. [37] is prior literature with its own tests, so this is an inherited rather than new risk.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A proposal for nonabelian (0,2) mirrors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NWOPVQVK

@misc{pith2026190806036,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A proposal for nonabelian (0,2) mirrors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NWOPVQVK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06036}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper we give a proposal for mirrors to (0,2) supersymmetric gauged linear sigma models (GLSMs), for those (0,2) GLSMs which are deformations of (2,2) GLSMs. Specifically, we propose a construction of (0,2) mirrors for (0,2) GLSMs with E terms that are linear and diagonal, reducing to both the Hori-Vafa prescription as well as a recent (2,2) nonabelian mirrors proposal on the (2,2) locus. For the special case of abelian (0,2) GLSMs, two of the authors have previously proposed a systematic construction, which is both simplified and generalized by the proposal here.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [36]

    A proposal for (0,2) mirrors of toric varieties

    W. Gu, E. Sharpe, “A proposal for (0,2) mirrors of toric variet ies,” JHEP 1711 (2017) 112, arXiv:1707.05274

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  2. [37]

    A proposal for nonabelian mirrors,

    W. Gu, E. Sharpe, “A proposal for nonabelian mirrors,” arXiv:1806.04678

    arXiv

  3. [1]

    Yukawa couplings in superstring compactificatio n,

    A. Strominger, “Yukawa couplings in superstring compactificatio n,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (1985) 2547-2550. 33

    work page 1985

  4. [2]

    A pair of Calabi-Yau manifolds as an exactly soluble superconformal theory,

    P. Candelas, X. C. De La Ossa, P. S. Green and L. Parkes, “A pair of Calabi-Yau manifolds as an exactly soluble superconformal theory,” Nucl. Phys . B 359 (1991) 21-74 [AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math. 9 (1998) 31-95]

    work page 1991

  5. [3]

    World sheet instantons and the Peccei- Quinn symmetry,

    X. G. Wen and E. Witten, “World sheet instantons and the Peccei- Quinn symmetry,” Phys. Lett. 166B (1986) 397-401

    work page 1986

  6. [4]

    Nonperturbative e ffects on the string world sheet,

    M. Dine, N. Seiberg, X. G. Wen and E. Witten, “Nonperturbative e ffects on the string world sheet,” Nucl. Phys. B 278 (1986) 769-789

    work page 1986

  7. [5]

    Nonperturbative e ffects on the string world sheet, 2,

    M. Dine, N. Seiberg, X. G. Wen and E. Witten, “Nonperturbative e ffects on the string world sheet, 2,” Nucl. Phys. B 289 (1987) 319-363

    work page 1987

  8. [6]

    Criteria for Conformal Invariance of (0,2) Models

    E. Silverstein and E. Witten, “Criteria for conformal invariance o f (0,2) models,” Nucl. Phys. B 444 (1995) 161-190, hep-th/9503212

    work page Pith review arXiv 1995

Show all 48 references
  1. [7]

    On the instanton contributions to the masses and couplings of E(6) sin glets,

    P. Berglund, P. Candelas, X. de la Ossa, E. Derrick, J. Distler and T. Hubsch, “On the instanton contributions to the masses and couplings of E(6) sin glets,” Nucl. Phys. B 454 (1995) 127-163, hep-th/9505164

    1995 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Residues and world sheet instantons,

    C. Beasley and E. Witten, “Residues and world sheet instantons,” JHEP 0310 (2003) 065, hep-th/0304115

    2003 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Aspects of (2,0) string compactific ations,

    J. Distler and B. R. Greene, “Aspects of (2,0) string compactific ations,” Nucl. Phys. B 304 (1988) 1-62

    1988

  4. [10]

    Notes on certain (0,2) correlation f unctions,

    S. H. Katz and E. Sharpe, “Notes on certain (0,2) correlation f unctions,” Commun. Math. Phys. 262 (2006) 611-644, hep-th/0406226

    2006 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Topological heterotic rings,

    A. Adams, J. Distler and M. Ernebjerg, “Topological heterotic rings,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 10 (2006) 657-682, hep-th/0506263

    2006 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Notes on certain other (0,2) correlation function s,

    E. Sharpe, “Notes on certain other (0,2) correlation function s,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 13 (2009) 33-70, hep-th/0605005

    2009 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Deformed quantum cohomology and (0,2) mirror symmetry,

    J. Guffin and S. Katz, “Deformed quantum cohomology and (0,2) mirror symmetry,” JHEP 1008 (2010) 109, arXiv:0710.2354

    2010 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Half-twisted correlators from t he Coulomb branch,

    J. McOrist and I. V. Melnikov, “Half-twisted correlators from t he Coulomb branch,” JHEP 0804 (2008) 071, arXiv:0712.3272

    2008 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Summing the instantons in half-tw isted linear sigma models,

    J. McOrist and I. V. Melnikov, “Summing the instantons in half-tw isted linear sigma models,” JHEP 0902 (2009) 026, arXiv:0810.0012

    2009 arXiv

  10. [16]

    A mathematical th eory of quantum sheaf cohomology,

    R. Donagi, J. Guffin, S. Katz and E. Sharpe, “A mathematical th eory of quantum sheaf cohomology,” Asian J. Math. 18 (2014) 387-418, arXiv:1110.3751. 34

    2014 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Physical aspects of quantum sheaf cohomology for deformations of tangent bundles of toric varieties ,

    R. Donagi, J. Guffin, S. Katz and E. Sharpe, “Physical aspects of quantum sheaf cohomology for deformations of tangent bundles of toric varieties ,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 17 (2013) 1255-1301, arXiv:1110.3752

    2013 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Localization of twisted N = (0, 2) gauged linear sigma models in two dimensions,

    C. Closset, W. Gu, B. Jia, E. Sharpe, “Localization of twisted N = (0, 2) gauged linear sigma models in two dimensions,” JHEP 1603 (2016) 070, arXiv:1512.08058

    2016 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Quantum sheaf cohomology on Gras smannians,

    J. Guo, Z. Lu, E. Sharpe, “Quantum sheaf cohomology on Gras smannians,” Com- mun.Math.Phys. 352 (2017) 135-184, arXiv:1512.08586

    2017 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Classical sheaf cohomology rings on Grassmannians,

    J. Guo, Z. Lu and E. Sharpe, “Classical sheaf cohomology rings on Grassmannians,” J. Algebra 486 (2017) 246-287, arXiv:1605.01410

    2017 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Quantum sheaf cohomology and duality of flag manifolds ,

    J. Guo, “Quantum sheaf cohomology and duality of flag manifolds ,” arXiv:1808.00716

    arXiv

  16. [22]

    The revival of (0,2) linear sigma models,

    J. McOrist, “The revival of (0,2) linear sigma models,” Int. J. Mod . Phys. A 26 (2011) 1-41, arXiv:1010.4667

    2011 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Quantum sheaf cohomology, a precis,

    J. Guffin, “Quantum sheaf cohomology, a precis,” Mat. Contemp . 41 (2012) 17-26, arXiv:1101.1305

    2012 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Recent developments in ( 0,2) mirror symmetry,

    I. Melnikov, S. Sethi and E. Sharpe, “Recent developments in ( 0,2) mirror symmetry,” SIGMA 8 (2012) 068, arXiv:1209.1134

    2012 arXiv

  19. [25]

    I. V. Melnikov, An introduction to two-dimensional quantum field theory wit h (0,2) supersymmetry, Lect. Notes Phys. 951, Springer Nature Switzerland, 2019

    2019

  20. [26]

    (0,2) mirror symmetry,

    R. Blumenhagen, R. Schimmrigk and A. Wisskirchen, “(0,2) mirror symmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B 486 (1997) 598-628, hep-th/9609167

    1997 arXiv

  21. [27]

    On orbifolds of (0,2) models,

    R. Blumenhagen and S. Sethi, “On orbifolds of (0,2) models,” Nucl. Phys. B 491 (1997) 263-278, hep-th/9611172

    1997 arXiv

  22. [28]

    A (0,2) mirror map,

    I. V. Melnikov and M. R. Plesser, “A (0,2) mirror map,” JHEP 1102 (2011) 001, arXiv:1003.1303

    2011 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Testing the (0,2) mirror map,

    M. Bertolini, “Testing the (0,2) mirror map,” JHEP 1901 (2019) 018, arXiv:1806.05850

    2019 arXiv

  24. [30]

    A (0,2) mirror duality,

    M. Bertolini and M. R. Plesser, “A (0,2) mirror duality,” arXiv:1812.01867

    arXiv

  25. [31]

    Mirror symmetry,

    K. Hori and C. Vafa, “Mirror symmetry,” hep-th/0002222

    arXiv

  26. [32]

    Towards mirror symmetry as duality for two- dimensional abelian gauge theories,

    D. R. Morrison and M. R. Plesser, “Towards mirror symmetry as duality for two- dimensional abelian gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 46 (1996) 177-186, hep-th/9508107. 35

    1996 arXiv

  27. [33]

    (0,2) duality,

    A. Adams, A. Basu and S. Sethi, “(0,2) duality,” Adv. Theor. Mat h. Phys. 7 (2003) 865-950, hep-th/0309226

    2003 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Toda-like (0,2) mirrors to produ cts of projective spaces,

    Z. Chen, E. Sharpe and R. Wu, “Toda-like (0,2) mirrors to produ cts of projective spaces,” JHEP 1608 (2016) 093, arXiv:1603.09634

    2016 arXiv

  29. [35]

    More Toda-like (0,2) mirr ors,

    Z. Chen, J. Guo, E. Sharpe and R. Wu, “More Toda-like (0,2) mirr ors,” JHEP 1708 (2017) 079, arXiv:1705.08472

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Two-dimensional su persymmetric gauge theories with exceptional gauge groups,

    Z. Chen, W. Gu, H. Parsian and E. Sharpe, “Two-dimensional su persymmetric gauge theories with exceptional gauge groups,” arXiv:1808.04070

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    More nonabelian mirrors and s ome two-dimensional dualities,

    W. Gu, H. Parsian and E. Sharpe, “More nonabelian mirrors and s ome two-dimensional dualities,” arXiv:1907.06647

    1907 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A mirror symmetry construction for qH ∗ T (G/P )q,

    K. Rietsch, “A mirror symmetry construction for qH ∗ T (G/P )q,” Adv. Math. 217 (2008) 2401-2442, math/0511124

    2008 arXiv

  33. [41]

    The role of Coulomb branches in 2d gauge theory,

    C. Teleman, “The role of Coulomb branches in 2d gauge theory,” arXiv:1801.10124

  34. [42]

    (0,2) deformations of linear sigma models,

    M. Kreuzer, J. McOrist, I. V. Melnikov and M. R. Plesser, “(0,2) deformations of linear sigma models,” JHEP 1107 (2011) 044, arXiv:1001.2104

    2011 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Global aspects of (0,2) mod uli space: toric varieties and tangent bundles,

    R. Donagi, Z. Lu and I. V. Melnikov, “Global aspects of (0,2) mod uli space: toric varieties and tangent bundles,” Commun. Math. Phys. 338 (2015) 1197-1232, arXiv:1409.4353

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    (0,2) Landau-Ginzburg theory,

    J. Distler and S. Kachru, “(0,2) Landau-Ginzburg theory,” Nuc l. Phys. B 413 (1994) 213-243, hep-th/9309110

    1994 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Notes on (0,2) superconformal field theories,

    J. Distler, “Notes on (0,2) superconformal field theories,” Trie ste HEP Cosmology 1994:0322-351, hep-th/9502012

    1994 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Exact results in two-dimensional (2,2) su persymmetric gauge theories with boundary,

    K. Hori and M. Romo, “Exact results in two-dimensional (2,2) su persymmetric gauge theories with boundary,” arXiv:1308.2438

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Half-twisted (0,2) Landau-Ginzbur g models,

    I. V. Melnikov and S. Sethi, “Half-twisted (0,2) Landau-Ginzbur g models,” JHEP 0803 (2008) 040, arXiv:0712.1058

    2008 arXiv

  40. [48]

    GLSM’s for partial flag manifolds,

    R. Donagi, E. Sharpe, “GLSM’s for partial flag manifolds,” J. Geo m. Phys. 58 (2008) 1662-1692, arXiv:0704.1761. 36

    2008 arXiv

Pith tools

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