Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Quantum Mirror Map for Del Pezzo Geometries

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 For the D5 del Pezzo curve, the quantum mirror map is a sum of D5 characters with positive-integer coefficients matching the BPS indices, except that the degree-1 representation is absent.

desk verdict A solid D5 extension of the quantum mirror map with a clean matrix-model check, but the BPS-matching claim is partly imposed by the sign convention chosen to make it true. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11396 v5 pith:H47RVP5V submitted 2019-08-29 hep-th

Tomohiro Furukawa , Sanefumi Moriyama , Yuji Sugimoto This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords quantummirrormapD5delPezzogeometryWeylgroupcharactersmulti-coveringstructureBPSindicessuperconformalChern-Simonstheoryeffectivechemicalpotential
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 the quantum mirror map of the D5 del Pezzo curve—the function redefining chemical potentials from the A-period of the quantized curve—is organized by the D5 Weyl group and is expressible as a sum of D5 characters. When a signed multi-covering structure is imposed, every coefficient becomes a positive integer, and the set of representations at each degree matches the BPS indices of the same geometry, except that the trivial degree-1 representation is absent. The same character expansion reproduces the effective chemical potential of two superconformal Chern-Simons matrix models, the (2,2) and (1,1,1,1) models. If true, this gives the mirror map the same group-theoretical and multi-covering architecture previously found for the B-period, and identifies the integer coefficients as counting data for BPS states.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the D5 quantum curve—a quantized algebraic curve with ten parameters constrained by $h_1^2 h_2^2 = \prod_i e_i$ and carrying a D5 Weyl-group action—and the quantum A-period, defined as a residue at $X=0$ of $(1/X)\log P[X]$ over the large-$z$ expansion of the wave-function ratio. The argument's load-bearing moves are: (i) the identification (3.7) of the redundant parameter $\alpha$ with a combination of the other curve parameters, which allows A-period coefficients to be recognized as D5 characters; (ii) the basis change to standard orthonormal fundamental weights, turning power monomials into characters such as $\chi_{10}$ and $\chi_{16}$; and (iii) the signed multi-covering structure (3.15), which organizes lower-degree contributions into each degree with signs $(-1)^{n+1}$ and eliminates the spurious degree-4 54 representation. This structure is what converts the raw A-period expansion into positive-integer multiplicities matching the BPS indices.

What would settle it

Compute the degree-9 multi-covering component $\epsilon_9$ directly from the quantum A-period expansion under the same signed structure; a fractional or negative coefficient, or a representation not present in the BPS indices of degree 9, would refute the claim that the structure holds at all degrees. A second, independent check is to derive the sign rule (3.15) from the quantum curve without imposing it; any derivation producing different signs would also falsify the proposed mirror-map structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from the D5 quantum curve, the paper computes the quantum A-period order by order in the large-z expansion and observes that, after identifying the redundant parameter α with a specific combination of the other curve parameters, the period is assembled from D5 Weyl-group characters. The coefficients of these characters are captured by a multi-covering structure; the paper shows that with the sign convention E_ℓ = Σ_{n|ℓ} (-1)^{n+1} ε_{ℓ/n}(q^n,q^n)/n, the unwanted degree-4 representation 54 disappears and all coefficients are positive integers. The resulting representation content matches the BPS indices of the same del Pezzo geometry at every degree, the sole exception being the trivial degree-1 representation, which the mirror map does not contain. Substituting the appropriate U(1) charges reproduces the known effective-chemical-potential redefinitions for the (2,2) and (1,1,1,1) super Chern-Simons matrix models.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the signed multi-covering structure (3.15) is the correct way to organize the A-period expansion; this sign convention is chosen to delete the degree-4 54 representation and is not independently derived, so if the physical sign rule differs, the integer coefficients and the match to BPS representations would not survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The effective chemical potentials of the (2,2) and (1,1,1,1) superconformal Chern-Simons matrix models are obtained directly from the D5 quantum mirror map, so no separate fit of the redefinition is needed.
  • The mirror map's representation content at each degree coincides with the BPS-index representations (with the degree-1 trivial representation absent), strengthening the idea that admissible representations are encoded in the curve itself rather than in the choice of integration cycle.
  • All coefficients are positive integers in the signed structure, which supports interpreting the mirror map coefficients as counting BPS states—in the classical limit, as states in the presence of D-brane domain walls.
  • The method transfers the multi-covering logic from the B-period to the A-period, completing the picture in which both sets of periods of the del Pezzo curve share the same group-theoretical data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the representation set is truly fixed by the curve, the same signed multi-covering construction should extend to larger del Pezzo geometries, where the sign convention could be fixed by demanding positive-integer coefficients for every degree.
  • The sign factor $(-1)^{n+1}$ resembles an inclusion-exclusion or Möbius inversion over divisors; testing whether the inverse mirror map factors through such an identity would give the sign rule a derivation rather than a fit.
  • The physical meaning of the $\alpha$ identification (3.7) is left open by the paper; one concrete test is whether this identification corresponds to an affine shift of the D5 Weyl group, which would justify the character expansion from the affine structure.
  • Because the (1,1,1,1) model is built from two copies of the ABJM quiver, the mirror map's success there suggests the same character data should appear in orbifold generalizations; checking a third quiver of the same family would separate the curve's role from the model's details.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the quantum mirror map of the quantized D5 del Pezzo curve. The A-period Π_A(z) of the curve (2.1) is computed in a large-z expansion, and after a change of variables and the identification of the redundant parameter α with the monomial (3.7), the low-order coefficients are expressed as D5 characters: A2 = χ10 and A3 = (q^{1/2}+q^{−1/2})χ16 (Eq. (3.11)). The inverse mirror-map coefficients Eℓ are then decomposed, first through the tentative multi-covering structure (3.14) and then, after the authors introduce the alternating sign rule (3.15), through a signed multi-covering structure whose components ǫd (Table 2) have all positive integer coefficients and whose representation content matches the BPS indices of the same geometry at each degree, except that the degree-1 component vanishes. The paper closes by applying the decomposition to reproduce the effective chemical-potential coefficients eℓ^{(2,2)} and eℓ^{(1,1,1,1)} of the (2,2) and (1,1,1,1) superconformal Chern-Simons matrix models to order five (Eqs. (4.2) and (4.3)).

Significance. The paper contains genuine, checkable computations: the derivation of (3.11) from the A-period is a concrete step beyond the A1 (ABJM) analysis of [9], and the reproduction of the matrix-model coefficients (4.2) and (4.3) from the computed Eℓ is a substantive consistency test that the authors present transparently. The character decompositions in Tables 1 and 2 through degree 8 are a useful resource, and the paper is commendably candid that the two structural inputs — the identification (3.7) and the sign rule (3.15) — are not yet physically understood. The significance of the headline claim (matching representation content with the BPS indices and positive integer coefficients) is, however, reduced by the fact that the claim is contingent on an unexplained sign convention rather than derived from the geometry or from the A-period computation itself. If the sign structure is either derived or explicitly presented as a conjecture, the paper would be a solid contribution to the program of understanding A-periods and chemical-potential redefinitions in M2-brane matrix models.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (3.14)–(3.15), Tables 1–2] The signed multi-covering structure (3.15) is introduced specifically to remove the χ54 representation at degree 4 ('In order to avoid the 54 representation in degree 4, let us propose another multi-covering structure by introducing signs'), and Section 5 states that the physical meaning of the signs is still unclear. This choice is load-bearing, not cosmetic: comparing the two decompositions at ℓ = 4 (with ǫ2 = χ10) gives ǫ4 = ǫ′4 + χ10(q^2), and via the character identity χ10(q^2) = χ54 − χ45 + χ1 the problematic entry −χ54 + χ45 + 3χ1 of Table 1 becomes the 4χ1 of Table 2. The disappearance of χ54, and hence the claimed agreement with the BPS representation content, is therefore a consequence of where the χ10(q^2) contribution is booked in the decomposition, not an independent property of the A-period. Since the abstract's central claim (identical representation content with the BPS indices and integer coefficients) rests on this choice, the authors should either derive the sign rule from a principle or reformulate the claim as a conjecture with (3.15) listed explicitly as an input.
  2. [§4, Eqs. (4.2)–(4.5)] The matrix-model application does not provide independent confirmation of the signed structure (3.15). The coefficients eℓ^{(2,2)} and eℓ^{(1,1,1,1)} in (4.2)–(4.3) are reproduced through the relation (4.5), which involves only the inverse mirror-map coefficients Eℓ; these Eℓ are fixed directly by the A-period computation via (3.5), (3.12) and (3.13) and are identical whether one uses (3.14) or (3.15). Thus the agreement with (4.2)–(4.3) is a genuine check of the computed Eℓ, but it cannot distinguish the two multi-covering structures, and the positivity and BPS-matching claims about the ǫd must stand on the persistence of the pattern in Table 2 through degree 8 alone. The text should state this limitation explicitly.
  3. [§3.1, Eq. (3.7)] The identification of the redundant parameter α with the fractional-power monomial (3.7) is a second structural input: without it the A-period coefficients are not characters. The paper states only that a combination of (h̃1, h̃2, e1, e3, e5) transforming as ᾱ under (2.4) 'can be constructed explicitly,' and it acknowledges in Section 5 that the physical meaning of the identification is unclear. The emergence of χ10 and χ16 at degrees 2 and 3 is a genuine consistency check of (3.7), but the identification itself is not derived; the authors should state whether the transformation property determines (3.7) uniquely and whether the monomial is forced by the Weyl-group action.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (3.6)] The symbol h̃3 appears in several terms of the expression for A3, although the paper defines only h1 and h2 and introduces no h3; this is presumably a typo for h̃2 (or a related combination) and should be corrected.
  2. [§3.2] The statement that integer coefficients 'imply that we have tentatively identified the multi-covering structure correctly' overstates the case: the tentative structure (3.14) (Table 1) also yields integer coefficients, so integrality does not select among the many triangular decompositions that reproduce the same Eℓ.
  3. [§4] The sentence 'We find that the expressions (4.2) and (4.3) are reproduced correctly from the substitutions' is asserted rather than shown; one worked example (for instance the ℓ = 4 coefficient of the (2,2) model) would let the reader verify the substitution of (4.8)–(4.9) into Table 2 and (3.15).
  4. [Tables 1–2] The captions should state explicitly that Table 1 is the tentative decomposition (3.14) and Table 2 is the signed decomposition (3.15); currently the reader must infer this from the body text.
  5. [Abstract and §1] The observation that the mirror-map representations agree with the BPS indices 'except for the trivial case of degree 1' holds only for the signed decomposition (3.15) and only up to the computed degree 8; both the abstract and the introduction should carry these qualifications so that the claim is not read as a theorem.
  6. [§3.1, Eq. (3.7)] The branch choices of the square and fourth roots in (3.7) are not specified; if the identification is meant to hold globally on the parameter space, these branches should be fixed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The BPS-matching representation content of the quantum mirror map is imposed by the sign choice in (3.15), making that central claim circular; the matrix-model applications remain an independent check.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.15); Section 5, second paragraph]
    "After modifying signs of the multi-covering structure in (3.15) we obtain an expression in table 2 where the representation 54 disappears and the multi-covering component of each degree contains the same set of representations with positive integer coefficients as in the case of the BPS indices. Due to this reason, we believe that we have correctly identified the multi-covering structure for the quantum mirror map, though the physical meaning of the signs is still unclear to us."

    The claimed observation is that the representations in the quantum mirror map agree with the BPS-index representations and have positive integer coefficients. That observation is the criterion used to select the sign factor (-1)^{n+1} in (3.15): the tentative structure (3.14) produced a negative χ54 term, and the signs were introduced 'in order to avoid the 54 representation in degree 4' and to make the content agree with the BPS indices. The A-period computation fixes only the combined coefficients Eℓ, not the decomposition into ǫ_d; a different triangular decomposition or sign convention would give different ǫ_d. Hence the BPS-matching and positivity statements are built into the choice of (3.15) rather than derived from the curve.

full rationale

The derivation of the quantum A-period coefficients Eℓ from the D5 curve is self-contained, and the application to the (2,2) and (1,1,1,1) matrix models in Section 4 is a genuine independent check of those coefficients. However, the paper's headline structural claim—that the mirror-map characters match the BPS-index representations (except degree 1) with positive integer coefficients—rests on the signed multi-covering decomposition (3.15). The sign choice is introduced precisely to eliminate the unwanted χ54 and to enforce agreement with the BPS table, so this part of the claim reduces to a convention selected after seeing the target data. The identification (3.7) of the redundant parameter α is a further underived gauge choice needed to write the A-period in character language, but it is not itself circular since the paper presents it as an identification whose physical meaning is unclear. Self-citations such as [25] provide the BPS table, but that table is externally computed data rather than a theorem invoked to forbid alternatives. Overall, the paper contains partial circularity: the structural matching claim is imposed by the sign ansatz, while the matrix-model reproduction and the underlying Eℓ computation retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on the D5 quantum curve and its Weyl group from prior work, the standard quantum mirror map framework, and an ad hoc identification of α plus a signed multi-covering ansatz. No new physical entities are postulated; the only invented elements are the parameter identification and the sign convention, both chosen to make the character interpretation work.

free parameters (1)
  • Identification of alpha (equation 3.7) = alpha/sqrt(q) = (h2)^{1/2} e1^{1/4} e3^{-1/2} e5^{-1/4}
    Chosen by hand so that the A-period coefficients match D5 characters; the authors state its physical meaning is unclear.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The D5 quantum curve (2.1) and its Weyl group action (2.4) are taken from [26,27].
    The paper builds directly on the parametrization and symmetry group established in prior work by the same group; these results are invoked without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption The quantum A-period and mirror map are defined as in [6,9] using the residue (2.12) and log z_eff = log z + Π_A(z).
    This is the standard framework for quantum mirror maps in this literature.
  • ad hoc to paper The redundant parameter α is identified with (h2)^{1/2} e1^{1/4} e3^{-1/2} e5^{-1/4} in (3.7).
    This identification is needed to express the A-period in D5 characters; the physical meaning is admitted to be unclear in section 5.
  • ad hoc to paper The signed multi-covering structure (3.15) with (-1)^{n+1} is adopted.
    It is introduced specifically to eliminate the 54 representation at degree 4 and to make the representations match the BPS indices; no independent derivation is provided.
  • domain assumption The BPS indices of [25] provide the correct comparison data for the representations.
    The claim of matching representations relies on the tables in the authors' earlier paper [25].
  • domain assumption The grand partition functions of the super Chern-Simons matrix models are given by Fredholm determinants of the spectral operators (1.2) and (1.3).
    This is the standard localization/Fermi gas result from [12,30,31,32].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Mirror Map for Del Pezzo Geometries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H47RVP5V

@misc{pith2026190811396,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Mirror Map for Del Pezzo Geometries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H47RVP5V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11396}
}
abstract

Mirror maps play an important role in studying supersymmetric gauge theories. In these theories the dynamics is often encoded in an algebraic curve where two sets of periods enjoy the symplectic structure. The A-periods contribute to redefinitions of chemical potentials known as mirror maps. Using the quantization of the $D_5$ del Pezzo geometry, which enjoys the symmetry of the $D_5$ Weyl group, we are able to identify clearly the group-theoretical structure and the multi-covering structure for the mirror map. With the structures, we can apply the mirror map to superconformal Chern-Simons theories describing the worldvolume of multiple M2-branes on various backgrounds, where we find that the redefinition of the chemical potential is obtained directly from the mirror map. Besides, we have interesting observations for the mirror map: The representations appearing in the quantum mirror map are the same as those appearing in the BPS indices except for the trivial case of degree 1 and the coefficients are all integers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11396 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dynkin diagram of the D5 algebra. where the parameters h1, h2, e1, · · · , e8 are subject to the constraint h 2 1h 2 2 = Y 8 i=1 ei . (2.2) By choosing the parameters suitably, we are able to express the Hamiltonians appearing in the Fredholm determinant (1.2) for the grand partition functions of the (2, 2) model, the (1, 1, 1, 1) model and their rank deformations [24, 27] connecting the two models. Quantum￾mechanic… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    Non-pert urbative effects and the refined topological string,

    Y. Hatsuda, M. Marino, S. Moriyama and K. Okuyama, “Non-pert urbative effects and the refined topological string,” JHEP 1409, 168 (2014) [arXiv:1306.1734 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2014

  2. [1]

    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, 21 (1991) [AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math. 9, 31 (1998)]. 19

    work page 1991

  3. [2]

    Special Geometry,

    A. Strominger, “Special Geometry,” Commun. Math. Phys. 133, 163 (1990)

    work page 1990

  4. [3]

    Electric - magnetic duality, monopole co ndensation, and confinement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Electric - magnetic duality, monopole co ndensation, and confinement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 426, 19 (1994) Erratum: [Nucl. Phys. B 430, 485 (1994)] [hep-th/9407087]

    arXiv 1994

  5. [4]

    Top ological strings and integrable hierarchies,

    M. Aganagic, R. Dijkgraaf, A. Klemm, M. Marino and C. Vafa, “Top ological strings and integrable hierarchies,” Commun. Math. Phys. 261, 451 (2006) [hep-th/0312085]

    arXiv 2006

  6. [5]

    Quantization of Integrab le Systems and Four Dimensional Gauge Theories,

    N. A. Nekrasov and S. L. Shatashvili, “Quantization of Integrab le Systems and Four Dimensional Gauge Theories,” arXiv:0908.4052 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  7. [6]

    Quantum Geometry of Refined Topological Strings,

    M. Aganagic, M. C. N. Cheng, R. Dijkgraaf, D. Krefl and C. Vafa, “Quantum Geometry of Refined Topological Strings,” JHEP 1211, 019 (2012) [arXiv:1105.0630 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [7]

    Topological Gravity as Large N Topological Gauge Theory

    R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, “Topological gravity as large N topolo gical gauge theory,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 413 (1998) [hep-th/9802016]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1998

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    M theory and topological strings. 2 .,

    R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, “M theory and topological strings. 2 .,” hep-th/9812127

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Disk instantons, mirror sym metry and the duality web,

    M. Aganagic, A. Klemm and C. Vafa, “Disk instantons, mirror sym metry and the duality web,” Z. Naturforsch. A 57, 1 (2002) [hep-th/0105045]

    2002 arXiv

  3. [11]

    N=6 superconformal Chern- Simons-matter theories, M2-branes and their gravity duals,

    O. Aharony, O. Bergman, D. L. Jafferis and J. Maldacena, “N=6 superconformal Chern- Simons-matter theories, M2-branes and their gravity duals,” JHEP 0810, 091 (2008) [arXiv:0806.1218 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  4. [12]

    ABJM theory as a Fermi gas,

    M. Marino and P. Putrov, “ABJM theory as a Fermi gas,” J. Stat . Mech. 1203, P03001 (2012) [arXiv:1110.4066 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Matrix model as a mirror of Chern- Simons theory,

    M. Aganagic, A. Klemm, M. Marino and C. Vafa, “Matrix model as a mirror of Chern- Simons theory,” JHEP 0402, 010 (2004) [hep-th/0211098]

    2004 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Exact Results in ABJM Theory from To pological Strings,

    M. Marino and P. Putrov, “Exact Results in ABJM Theory from To pological Strings,” JHEP 1006, 011 (2010) [arXiv:0912.3074 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  7. [15]

    From weak to strong co upling in ABJM theory,

    N. Drukker, M. Marino and P. Putrov, “From weak to strong co upling in ABJM theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. 306, 511 (2011) [arXiv:1007.3837 [hep-th]]. 20

    2011 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Mult i-Matrix Models and Tri-Sasaki Einstein Spaces,

    C. P. Herzog, I. R. Klebanov, S. S. Pufu and T. Tesileanu, “Mult i-Matrix Models and Tri-Sasaki Einstein Spaces,” Phys. Rev. D 83, 046001 (2011) [arXiv:1011.5487 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Summing Up All Genus Free En ergy of ABJM Matrix Model,

    H. Fuji, S. Hirano and S. Moriyama, “Summing Up All Genus Free En ergy of ABJM Matrix Model,” JHEP 1108, 001 (2011) [arXiv:1106.4631 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Entropy of near extremal b lack p-branes,

    I. R. Klebanov and A. A. Tseytlin, “Entropy of near extremal b lack p-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B 475, 164 (1996) [hep-th/9604089]

    1996 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Nonperturbative aspe cts of ABJM theory,

    N. Drukker, M. Marino and P. Putrov, “Nonperturbative aspe cts of ABJM theory,” JHEP 1111, 141 (2011) [arXiv:1103.4844 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Instanton Effects in ABJM Theory from Fermi Gas Approach,

    Y. Hatsuda, S. Moriyama and K. Okuyama, “Instanton Effects in ABJM Theory from Fermi Gas Approach,” JHEP 1301, 158 (2013) [arXiv:1211.1251 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Membrane instantons from a semiclassic al TBA,

    F. Calvo and M. Marino, “Membrane instantons from a semiclassic al TBA,” JHEP 1305, 006 (2013) [arXiv:1212.5118 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Instanton Bound S tates in ABJM Theory,

    Y. Hatsuda, S. Moriyama and K. Okuyama, “Instanton Bound S tates in ABJM Theory,” JHEP 1305, 054 (2013) [arXiv:1301.5184 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Refined stable pair in variants for E-, M- and [ p, q]-strings,

    M. X. Huang, A. Klemm and M. Poretschkin, “Refined stable pair in variants for E-, M- and [ p, q]-strings,” JHEP 1311, 112 (2013) [arXiv:1308.0619 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Instanton Effects in Rank Deformed Su- perconformal Chern-Simons Theories from Topological Strings,

    S. Moriyama, S. Nakayama and T. Nosaka, “Instanton Effects in Rank Deformed Su- perconformal Chern-Simons Theories from Topological Strings,” J HEP 1708, 003 (2017) [arXiv:1704.04358 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Superconformal Chern -Simons Theories from del Pezzo Geometries,

    S. Moriyama, T. Nosaka and K. Yano, “Superconformal Chern -Simons Theories from del Pezzo Geometries,” JHEP 1711, 089 (2017) [arXiv:1707.02420 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Symmetry Breaking in Qua ntum Curves and Super Chern-Simons Matrix Models,

    N. Kubo, S. Moriyama and T. Nosaka, “Symmetry Breaking in Qua ntum Curves and Super Chern-Simons Matrix Models,” JHEP 1901, 210 (2019) [arXiv:1811.06048 [hep- th]]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hanany-Witten Transition in Quantum Curves,

    N. Kubo and S. Moriyama, “Hanany-Witten Transition in Quantum Curves,” arXiv:1907.04971 [hep-th]

    1907 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Nekrasov Functions and Exact Bo hr-Zommerfeld Inte- grals,

    A. Mironov and A. Morozov, “Nekrasov Functions and Exact Bo hr-Zommerfeld Inte- grals,” JHEP 1004, 040 (2010) [arXiv:0910.5670 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Type IIB superstrings, BPS monopo les, and three- dimensional gauge dynamics,

    A. Hanany and E. Witten, “Type IIB superstrings, BPS monopo les, and three- dimensional gauge dynamics,” Nucl. Phys. B 492, 152 (1997) [hep-th/9611230]. 21

    1997 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Partition Functions of Superconf ormal Chern-Simons The- ories from Fermi Gas Approach,

    S. Moriyama and T. Nosaka, “Partition Functions of Superconf ormal Chern-Simons The- ories from Fermi Gas Approach,” JHEP 1411, 164 (2014) [arXiv:1407.4268 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Exact Instanton Expansion of Su perconformal Chern- Simons Theories from Topological Strings,

    S. Moriyama and T. Nosaka, “Exact Instanton Expansion of Su perconformal Chern- Simons Theories from Topological Strings,” JHEP 1505, 022 (2015) [arXiv:1412.6243 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Instanton Effects in Orbifold ABJM T heory,

    M. Honda and S. Moriyama, “Instanton Effects in Orbifold ABJM T heory,” JHEP 1408, 091 (2014) [arXiv:1404.0676 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Degenerations of Ruijsenaars-van Diejen ope rator and q-Painlev´ e equa- tions,

    K. Takemura, “Degenerations of Ruijsenaars-van Diejen ope rator and q-Painlev´ e equa- tions,” Journal of Integrable Systems 2, no. 1, xyx008 (2017) [arXiv:1608.07265 [math- ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    The elliptic Painlev´ e La x equation vs. van Diejen’s 8-coupling elliptic Hamiltonian,

    M. Noumi, S. Ruijsenaars and Y. Yamada, “The elliptic Painlev´ e La x equation vs. van Diejen’s 8-coupling elliptic Hamiltonian,” arXiv:1903.09738 [math-ph]

    1903 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Finite-Dimensional Lie Algebras and Their Represe ntations for Unified Model Building,

    N. Yamatsu, “Finite-Dimensional Lie Algebras and Their Represe ntations for Unified Model Building,” arXiv:1511.08771 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Orthosymplectic Chern-Simons Ma trix Model and Chi- rality Projection,

    S. Moriyama and T. Suyama, “Orthosymplectic Chern-Simons Ma trix Model and Chi- rality Projection,” JHEP 1604, 132 (2016) [arXiv:1601.03846 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Quantum curves and q-deformed Painlev´ e equa- tions,

    G. Bonelli, A. Grassi and A. Tanzini, “Quantum curves and q-deformed Painlev´ e equa- tions,” arXiv:1710.11603 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Giambelli Identity in Super Chern- Simons Matrix Model,

    S. Matsuno and S. Moriyama, “Giambelli Identity in Super Chern- Simons Matrix Model,” J. Math. Phys. 58, no. 3, 032301 (2017) [arXiv:1603.04124 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Jacobi-Trudi Identity in Super Chern-Simons Matrix Model,

    T. Furukawa and S. Moriyama, “Jacobi-Trudi Identity in Super Chern-Simons Matrix Model,” SIGMA 14, 049 (2018) [arXiv:1711.04893 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    ABJM Matrix Model and 2D Toda L attice Hierarchy,

    T. Furukawa and S. Moriyama, “ABJM Matrix Model and 2D Toda L attice Hierarchy,” JHEP 1903, 197 (2019) [arXiv:1901.00541 [hep-th]]. 22

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

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