Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 6 cited by

String theory and the SymTFT of 3d orthosymplectic Chern-Simons theory

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 4d symmetry TFT of 3d orthosymplectic Chern–Simons theory is derived from Type IIA supergravity on CP^3/Z2, matching the field-theoretic symmetry theory exactly and explaining D8/Q8 global symmetries from brane dynamics.

desk verdict A solid, honest extension of the SymTFT-from-holography program: the Q8 case is genuinely new, the field-theory and gravity derivations agree, and the soft spots are caveats rather than flaws. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00184 v2 pith:4RX3MXYQ submitted 2024-11-29 hep-th

Oren Bergman , Francesco Mignosa This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords symmetrytopologicalfieldtheorygeneralizedsymmetriesChern-Simons-matterorthosymplecticgaugegroupAdS4/CFT3branedynamicsD8Q8
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 derives the 4d symmetry topological field theory (SymTFT) for the 3d N=5 orthosymplectic Chern–Simons–matter theory by reducing Type IIA supergravity on the internal space $CP^{3}$/Z2, and shows that the resulting action exactly matches the field-theoretic SymTFT. For the global form (SO(2n)_{2k} × USp(2n)_{−k})/Z2, the paper claims the discrete 0-form global symmetry is D8 when either n or k is even, and Q8 when both are odd. The non-abelian structure is shown to arise from brane dynamics: non-commuting surface operators and Witten-style annihilation of brane pairs that leave behind fundamental strings. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives a concrete top-down derivation of a symmetry TFT, connects generalized symmetries to branes in AdS/CFT, and uncovers a Q8 case that does not occur in the purely orthogonal gauge theory.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the dimensional reduction of the 11d democratic supergravity action on the internal space $CP^{3}$/Z2, using the twisted homology groups of this non-orientable quotient (Table 2). Torsion cycles, represented by pairs of non-harmonic forms (α, ω) satisfying dω = kα, support the zero-modes that become the 4d topological gauge fields; the BF couplings and the cubic term in the reduced action (4.23) are exactly the SymTFT. On the brane side, the machinery is the reduction of brane worldvolume actions on the same torsion cycles, which produces the genuine and non-genuine (or non-invertible) symmetry operators, together with the Witten-style annihilation effect that converts pairs of branes into strings and thereby reproduces the fusion rules and the D8/Q8 group structure.

What would settle it

Compute the homology of $CP^{3}$/Z2 with local coefficients by an explicit CW decomposition and check whether Tor H2($CP^{3}$/Z2, Z~) = Z2 together with the other groups in Table 2 hold; alternatively, compute the superconformal index or a lattice realization of the (SO(2n)_{2k} × USp(2n)_{−k})/Z2 theory and test whether the global symmetry is Q8 for odd n,k and D8 otherwise, as predicted by the brane annihilation rules (5.47).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the 4d SymTFT action obtained by reducing 10d Type IIA supergravity on $CP^{3}$/Z2 (eq. 4.23) coincides exactly with the symmetry theory of the 3d orthosymplectic quiver theory (eq. 3.6). The bulk gauge fields are mapped to SymTFT cochains, and the topological operators are realized by branes wrapping torsion cycles: D0-branes, D6-branes on Σ5, D2-branes on Σ1, D4-branes on the twisted 4-cycle, fundamental strings, and NS5-branes on Σ5. The non-abelian global symmetry D8 or Q8 is reproduced by brane dynamics: exchanging the D6 and D2 surface operators produces a fundamental string (eq. 5.46), and annihilating two D6-branes (resp. D2-branes) leaves n (resp. k) mod 2 fundamental strings (eq. 5.47), matching the fusion rules of the symmetry operators. The Q8 case appears precisely when both n and k are odd, so all three order-4 elements of the quaternion group arise from the fractionalization.

Load-bearing premise

The twisted homology groups of $CP^{3}$/Z2 in Table 2—derived from Poincaré duality and the universal coefficient theorem rather than an explicit cell decomposition—determine which brane wrappings become symmetry operators; if those groups are wrong, the derived SymTFT action and the operator dictionary would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The derived SymTFT (4.23) reproduces the full field-theoretic SymTFT (3.6) under the identifications in (4.24), so the holographic bulk topological sector carries the complete global symmetry and anomaly data of the boundary theory.
  • Choosing Neumann or Dirichlet boundary conditions on the bulk gauge fields reproduces the entire symmetry web of global forms, including 2-group and non-invertible (2Rep) symmetries, consistent with earlier field-theoretic results for the orthogonal case.
  • For the (SO(2n)_{2k} × USp(2n)_{−k})/Z2 theory, the global symmetry is D8 if either n or k is even and Q8 if both are odd; the Q8 case is new and does not exist in the purely orthogonal SO(2n) theory.
  • Brane dynamics explain both the non-commutativity of the symmetry surface operators (a fundamental string appears in the exchange) and fractionalization (annihilating pairs of D6 or D2 branes leave behind n or k mod 2 strings), and the NS5 worldvolume reduction gives the unique 2d representation of D8/Q8.
  • The correspondence between boundary conditions and global structures provides a template for extracting SymTFTs of other 3d supersymmetric Chern–Simons theories from their holographic duals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper, the same brane machinery could determine the global symmetry of more general orthosymplectic quivers with unequal ranks and levels once the extra fluxes (θ_NS, θ_RR) are turned on; the paper lists this as future work, but the mechanism of torsion-wrapped branes suggests the symmetry type will again be read off from brane fusion.
  • The Q8 case indicates that holography can predict finite non-abelian symmetries for 3d N=5 SCFTs that lack a Lagrangian formulation, such as M2-branes on C^4/E_k with k=6,7,8; there the SymTFT would have to be built from M-theory rather than Type IIA.
  • One could test the annihilation rules at finite n and k by computing the superconformal index of the orthosymplectic theory and examining how symmetry operators act on BPS operators: the multiplicities of order-4 elements in the symmetry action should match the D8/Q8 distinction.
  • The non-invertible line operator Û_B^(1) (the NS5-brane) is identified with the 2d representation; this suggests that in other holographic settings, non-invertible brane operators may systematically encode the higher-dimensional representations of non-abelian global symmetries.
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. The paper revisits the 3d N=5 orthosymplectic Chern-Simons-matter theory with gauge algebra so(2n)2k × usp(2n)-k and its Type IIA holographic dual, from the perspective of generalized symmetries. It constructs a 4d SymTFT for the Z2 1-form and Z2 × Z2 0-form symmetries, discusses the allowed boundary conditions and the resulting symmetry webs, and shows that one global form has a non-abelian D8 or Q8 0-form symmetry depending on the parities of n and k. The main holographic result is that reducing Type IIA supergravity on AdS4 × CP^3/Z2 gives the same 4d SymTFT as the field-theoretic construction, with the symmetry operators realized by branes wrapping torsion cycles. The paper further argues that brane dynamics reproduce the non-abelian fusion rules and the D8/Q8 structure.

Significance. If the central claim stands, this is a valuable top-down example of a SymTFT for a 3d SCFT with a discrete non-abelian global symmetry, including the quaternion group Q8 case that is new in this setting. The holographic matching is not a parameter fit: n and k enter through flux quantization in eq. (4.3), and the identification in eq. (4.24) is a field dictionary, so the agreement between eq. (4.23) and eq. (3.6) is a real check. The brane interpretation of the symmetry operators, the fractionalization rules in eq. (5.47), and the explicit symmetry webs are concrete and falsifiable predictions. The paper is clearly written and the algebraic reductions are reproducible, although some steps remain schematic.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, eq. (4.18)] The dimensional reduction is not fully determinate as written. The sentence 'all terms not involving k or n are defined up to a sign' applies to the BF-type terms 2F_2^(2)(F_8^(3)+dC_7^(2)), 2H_3^(3)(dB_6^(1)+H_7^(2)), and 2F_6^(2)(F_4^(3)-dC_3^(2)), which after integrating out auxiliary fields become the BF terms in eq. (4.23). The signs of these terms determine the link pairings in eqs. (2.21)-(2.25) and hence the assignment of symmetry operators and charged operators. Since the paper's central claim is that the gravity reduction reproduces the field-theory SymTFT, the authors should fix a sign convention in Appendix B and show that eq. (4.23) follows unambiguously, or state explicitly that the signs are fixed by comparison with eq. (3.6).
  2. [§5.4, eqs. (5.43)-(5.49)] The brane derivation of the 2d representation is incomplete. Equation (5.49) reproduces the fusion of the non-genuine operator ˜U_B^(1), but the field-theoretic identification with the 2d representation uses the non-invertible operator ˆU_B^(1) and its fusion rule in eq. (2.47). The paper does not derive eq. (2.47) from the NS5-brane worldvolume theory; it only states that the action in eq. (5.43) 'is in agreement' with ˆU_B^(1). Please either derive the non-invertible fusion rule from the brane path integral or explicitly delimit the brane-dynamics claim to the surface-operator algebra that produces D8/Q8.
  3. [Appendix B, Table 4] The twisted homology and cohomology groups are inferred using Poincaré duality in eq. (B.6), the universal coefficient theorem in eqs. (B.7)-(B.9), and the consistency check in eq. (B.11), rather than computed from an explicit cell decomposition of CP^3/Z2. These groups determine the zero-mode expansion in eq. (4.17) and the brane-wrapping dictionary in Section 5, so a direct computation or a precise reference would remove the main residual uncertainty in the holographic derivation. The independent matching with eq. (3.6) suggests that the table is correct, so I regard this as a rigor/clarity request rather than an identified error.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Footnote 20] The word 'bounsdary' should be 'boundary'.
  2. [Appendix B, second paragraph] The phrase 'tosrion-valued cycles' should be 'torsion-valued cycles'.
  3. [§3.2, eq. (3.6)] The coefficient n/2 in eq. (3.6) should be explained as shorthand for n times the Bockstein of A_M^1, so that the D8/Q8 condition is α = n mod 2 and β = k mod 2; as written, a reader may incorrectly conclude that n = 2 gives α = 1.
  4. [Table 2 / Table 4] The same table of homology and cohomology groups appears as Table 2 in Section 4 and as Table 4 in Appendix B; consider presenting it once and referring back to it.
  5. [§5.1.6, eq. (5.44)] The normalization of the sum over η0 and η0' should be specified; equation (2.14) has an explicit 1/4 prefactor, and the brane expression in eq. (5.44) should match it exactly.
  6. [§5.1.2, eq. (5.10)] The origin of the k/2 dB_2^(2) term in the expansion of F4 should be stated, since the analogous term is not displayed in the bulk expansion of eq. (4.17).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SymTFT reduction from Type IIA is self-contained and the D8/Q8 result is checked against, not fitted to, the field-theory input.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. Section 2 constructs a general SymTFT from extension data (alpha, beta, gamma), section 3 obtains the same data from an explicit 3d gauge theory with alpha=n, beta=k, gamma=1, and section 4 reduces Type IIA supergravity on CP^3/Z2. The n and k dependence of the reduced action (4.23) enters through the flux quantization condition (4.3), not through a fit to the field-theory SymTFT (3.6). The twisted-homology input in Table 2/4 is derived from Poincare duality, the universal coefficient theorem, and the double-cover exact sequence (B.6)-(B.11), and it is not chosen to match the target action. The identification (4.24) is a dictionary used to compare the reduced action with the field-theory result, not a parameter adjustment. The brane-operator analysis in Section 5 independently reduces the D-brane and NS5-brane worldvolume actions and reproduces the SymTFT operators; the annihilation rules (5.47) depend on the quantized fluxes n and k and reproduce the fusion rules of Section 2 as a consistency check. Although (5.46) is called the brane realization of (2.36), this is an interpretive mapping that uses link pairings already derived from the bulk-reduced action, and it does not inject the target result into the derivation. The gravity dual from reference [19] is an established external result, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the present authors' prior work to force the conclusion. The acknowledged imperfection in the brane realization of the 2d representation in Section 5.4 is a caveat about how cleanly the non-invertible operator is reproduced, not a circular step. I therefore find no circular step in the paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted: n and k are the rank and Chern-Simons level, integers fixed by the boundary theory and by flux quantization (eq. 4.3); the additional flux parameters (ℓ, Δk, θ_NS, θ_RR) are set to zero. The axioms are standard mathematical tools, the holographic duality conjecture, and modeling assumptions about topological dominance and the operator dictionary. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; D8 and Q8 are mathematical groups, and the branes used are standard objects in the Type IIA background.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Torsion cohomology classes are represented by pairs (α_r, ω_{r-1}) with dω_{r-1} = (-1)^{r-1} k α_r, following Camara-Ibanez-Marchesano [36].
    Used in section 4.1 (eq. 4.15) to reduce the 10d/11d action on torsion cycles; if this prescription misses contributions, the reduced action (4.18) changes.
  • domain assumption The 3d N=5 orthosymplectic quiver theory is dual to M-theory on AdS4 x S7/Dhat_k and Type IIA on AdS4 x CP^3/Z2, from Aharony-Bergman-Jafferis [19].
    The entire derivation of the SymTFT from gravity assumes this duality; it is a conjecture, not proven in this paper.
  • domain assumption Near the conformal boundary of AdS4, the topological sector of the supergravity and wrapped brane worldvolume actions dominates the dimensional reduction.
    Invoked in section 4.1 (the topological sector dominates near the conformal boundary) and section 5. If false, non-topological terms could alter the boundary theory.
  • standard math Poincaré duality H_r(M, Z~) ~ H^{n-r}(M, Z) for non-orientable closed manifolds and the universal coefficient theorem Tor H_{r-1}(M,Z) ~ Tor H^r(M,Z), from Hatcher [41].
    Used in Appendix B (eqs. B.6-B.8) to infer the twisted homology groups of CP^3/Z2, which are load-bearing for the reduction.
  • domain assumption A finite 1-form symmetry can be gauged if and only if its spin is half-integer, following Cordova-Hsin-Seiberg [30].
    Determines in section 3.1 why the pure so(2n) theory cannot produce Q8; the orthosymplectic quiver removes the self-anomaly, enabling Q8 when n and k are odd.
  • domain assumption The worldvolume cochains η of wrapped branes are identified with the SymTFT cochains ϕ by η = π ϕ, so that the path integral over η reproduces the non-invertible operators (eq. 5.14).
    Used throughout section 5.1; this holographic dictionary is assumed and determines the operator identifications.
  • domain assumption The democratic formulation of Type IIA supergravity as an 11d topological action (eq. 4.9), from Belov-Moore [33], with boundary kinetic terms treated as subdominant.
    The reduction in section 4.1 starts from this action, so the choice of formulation and the neglect of boundary terms are assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of String theory and the SymTFT of 3d orthosymplectic Chern-Simons theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4RX3MXYQ

@misc{pith2026241200184,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: String theory and the SymTFT of 3d orthosymplectic Chern-Simons theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4RX3MXYQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00184}
}
abstract

We revisit the 3d ${\cal N}=5$ Chern-Simons-Matter theory with orthosymplectic gauge group and its gravity dual from the perspective of generalized symmetries. We derive the corresponding 4d symmetry topological field theory from the gravity dual and relate the allowed boundary conditions to the different variants of the 3d theory. Concentrating on a specific variant that has a discrete non-abelian global symmetry, we explain how the structure of this symmetry arises from brane dynamics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. On Lagrangians of Non-abelian Dijkgraaf-Witten Theories

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    BF Lagrangians for non-abelian DW theories (e.g. dihedral groups) are obtained by gauging H^(0) symmetries of abelian DW theories, with twisted cohomologies and condensation-defect operators verified by character-tabl...

  2. Non-Abelian Symmetry Operators from Hanging Branes in $AdS_5 \times S^5$

    hep-th 2025-10 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In AdS5×S5, non-Abelian SO(6) symmetry operators are realized by hanging D5-brane–KK-monopole bound states, matching the Gauss-law operators from the low-energy supergravity action.

  3. Continuous symmetries and charge measurement of boundary operators in holography

    hep-th 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Continuous symmetry operators in holography are U-shaped hanging brane bound states (D5-KK in Type IIB, M5-KK in M-theory) whose worldvolume couplings reproduce the Gauss-law symmetry operators and measure charges of ...

  4. SymTFT actions, Condensable algebras and Categorical anomaly resolutions

    hep-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For Q8 and Rep(Q8), the paper computes condensable algebras, identifies intrinsically gapless SPT phases, and derives fusion-category short exact sequences that resolve categorical anomalies.

  5. R-symmetries, anomalies and non-invertible defects from non-BPS branes

    hep-th 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The U(1)_R symmetry operator of the Klebanov-Witten theory is realized by a non-BPS KK monopole, whose worldvolume action matches the SymTh operator and anomaly coefficients.

  6. Holography and discrete theta angles for disconnected gauge groups

    hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper derives missing torsion terms in the holographic symmetry TFT for so(2n) N=4 SYM and matches its gapped boundary conditions to the global forms and discrete theta angles of disconnected orthogonal gauge theories.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D. S. Freed and C. Teleman, Relative quantum field theory , Commun. Math. Phys. 326 (2014) 459–476, [ arXiv:1212.1692]

    arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    Apruzzi, F

    F. Apruzzi, F. Bonetti, I. n. Garc ´ ıa Etxebarria, S. S. Hosseini, and S. Schafer-Nameki, Symmetry TFTs from String Theory , Commun. Math. Phys. 402 (2023), no. 1 895–949, [arXiv:2112.02092]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Witten, AdS / CFT correspondence and topological field theory , JHEP 12 (1998) 012, [hep-th/9812012]

    E. Witten, AdS / CFT correspondence and topological field theory , JHEP 12 (1998) 012, [hep-th/9812012]

    arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Aharony, N

    O. Aharony, N. Seiberg, and Y. Tachikawa, Reading between the lines of four-dimensional gauge theories , JHEP 08 (2013) 115, [ arXiv:1305.0318]

    arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Bergman and S

    O. Bergman and S. Hirano, The holography of duality in N = 4 Super-Yang-Mills theory, JHEP 11 (2022) 069, [ arXiv:2208.09396]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Bergman, Y

    O. Bergman, Y. Tachikawa, and G. Zafrir, Generalized symmetries and holography in ABJM-type theories, JHEP 07 (2020) 077, [ arXiv:2004.05350]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Apruzzi, I

    F. Apruzzi, I. Bah, F. Bonetti, and S. Schafer-Nameki, Noninvertible Symmetries from Holography and Branes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023), no. 12 121601, [arXiv:2208.07373]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    J. J. Heckman, M. Hubner, E. Torres, X. Yu, and H. Y. Zhang, Top down approach to topological duality defects, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), no. 4 046015, [ arXiv:2212.09743]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Argurio, F

    R. Argurio, F. Benini, M. Bertolini, G. Galati, and P. Niro, On the Symmetry TFT of Yang-Mills-Chern-Simons theory, arXiv:2404.06601

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    J. M. Maldacena, Wilson loops in large N field theories , Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 4859–4862, [hep-th/9803002]

    1998 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Higher symmetries, boundary conditions, and the di-baryon in the ABJM model

    O. Bergman, “ Higher symmetries, boundary conditions, and the di-baryon in the ABJM model .” talk given at Holography, Generalized Geometry and Duality, Mainz Institute for Theoretical Physics (May 2019), and at Challenges and Advances in Theoretical Physics, KIAS (May 2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    I. n. Garc ´ ıa Etxebarria,Branes and Non-Invertible Symmetries , Fortsch. Phys. 70 (2022), no. 11 2200154, [ arXiv:2208.07508]. – 39 –

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    J. J. Heckman, M. H¨ ubner, E. Torres, and H. Y. Zhang, The Branes Behind Generalized Symmetry Operators, Fortsch. Phys. 71 (2023), no. 1 2200180, [arXiv:2209.03343]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Apruzzi, F

    F. Apruzzi, F. Bonetti, D. S. W. Gould, and S. Schafer-Nameki, Aspects of Categorical Symmetries from Branes: SymTFTs and Generalized Charges , arXiv:2306.16405

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    I. Bah, E. Leung, and T. Waddleton, Non-invertible symmetries, brane dynamics, and tachyon condensation, JHEP 01 (2024) 117, [ arXiv:2306.15783]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Cvetiˇ c, J

    M. Cvetiˇ c, J. J. Heckman, M. H¨ ubner, and E. Torres,Fluxbranes, generalized symmetries, and Verlinde’s metastable monopole , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 4 046007, [arXiv:2305.09665]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Bergman, E

    O. Bergman, E. Garcia-Valdecasas, F. Mignosa, and D. Rodriguez-Gomez, Non-BPS branes and continuous symmetries , arXiv:2407.00773

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hosomichi, K.-M

    K. Hosomichi, K.-M. Lee, S. Lee, S. Lee, and J. Park, N=5,6 Superconformal Chern-Simons Theories and M2-branes on Orbifolds , JHEP 09 (2008) 002, [arXiv:0806.4977]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Aharony, O

    O. Aharony, O. Bergman, and D. L. Jafferis, Fractional M2-branes, JHEP 11 (2008) 043, [arXiv:0807.4924]

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Beratto, N

    E. Beratto, N. Mekareeya, and M. Sacchi, Zero-form and one-form symmetries of the ABJ and related theories , JHEP 04 (2022) 126, [ arXiv:2112.09531]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Mekareeya and M

    N. Mekareeya and M. Sacchi, Mixed anomalies, two-groups, non-invertible symmetries, and 3d superconformal indices , JHEP 01 (2023) 115, [ arXiv:2210.02466]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, Z. Komargodski, and N. Seiberg, Theta, Time Reversal, and Temperature, JHEP 05 (2017) 091, [ arXiv:1703.00501]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Bhardwaj, L

    L. Bhardwaj, L. E. Bottini, S. Schafer-Nameki, and A. Tiwari, Non-invertible higher-categorical symmetries, SciPost Phys. 14 (2023), no. 1 007, [arXiv:2204.06564]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bhardwaj, L

    L. Bhardwaj, L. E. Bottini, S. Schafer-Nameki, and A. Tiwari, Non-invertible symmetry webs , SciPost Phys. 15 (2023), no. 4 160, [ arXiv:2212.06842]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bartsch, M

    T. Bartsch, M. Bullimore, A. E. V. Ferrari, and J. Pearson, Non-invertible symmetries and higher representation theory II , SciPost Phys. 17 (2024), no. 2 067, [arXiv:2212.07393]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Tachikawa, On gauging finite subgroups , SciPost Phys

    Y. Tachikawa, On gauging finite subgroups , SciPost Phys. 8 (2020), no. 1 015, [arXiv:1712.09542]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Kaidi, E

    J. Kaidi, E. Nardoni, G. Zafrir, and Y. Zheng, Symmetry TFTs and anomalies of non-invertible symmetries , JHEP 10 (2023) 053, [ arXiv:2301.07112]. – 40 –

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kaidi, K

    J. Kaidi, K. Ohmori, and Y. Zheng, Kramers-Wannier-like Duality Defects in (3+1)D Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022), no. 11 111601, [ arXiv:2111.01141]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Roumpedakis, S

    K. Roumpedakis, S. Seifnashri, and S.-H. Shao, Higher Gauging and Non-invertible Condensation Defects, Commun. Math. Phys. 401 (2023), no. 3 3043–3107, [arXiv:2204.02407]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Cordova, P.-S

    C. Cordova, P.-S. Hsin, and N. Seiberg, Global Symmetries, Counterterms, and Duality in Chern-Simons Matter Theories with Orthogonal Gauge Groups , SciPost Phys. 4 (2018), no. 4 021, [ arXiv:1711.10008]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Benini, P.-S

    F. Benini, P.-S. Hsin, and N. Seiberg, Comments on global symmetries, anomalies, and duality in (2 + 1)d , JHEP 04 (2017) 135, [ arXiv:1702.07035]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bergman and G

    O. Bergman and G. Lifschytz, Branes and massive IIA duals of 3d CFT’s , JHEP 04 (2010) 114, [ arXiv:1001.0394]

    2010 arXiv

  25. [33]

    D. M. Belov and G. W. Moore, Type II Actions from 11-Dimensional Chern-Simons Theories, hep-th/0611020

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. M. Maldacena, G. W. Moore, and N. Seiberg, D-brane charges in five-brane backgrounds, JHEP 10 (2001) 005, [ hep-th/0108152]

    2001 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Evnin, E

    O. Evnin, E. Joung, and K. Mkrtchyan, Democratic Lagrangians from topological bulk, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 6 066003, [ arXiv:2309.04625]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    P. G. Camara, L. E. Ibanez, and F. Marchesano, RR photons , JHEP 09 (2011) 110, [arXiv:1106.0060]

    2011 arXiv

  29. [37]

    I. n. Garc ´ ıa Etxebarria and S. S. Hosseini,Some aspects of symmetry descent , arXiv:2404.16028

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    I. A. Bandos, A. Nurmagambetov, and D. P. Sorokin, The Type IIA NS5-brane , Nucl. Phys. B 586 (2000) 315–330, [ hep-th/0003169]

    2000 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Witten, Baryons and branes in anti-de Sitter space , JHEP 07 (1998) 006, [hep-th/9805112]

    E. Witten, Baryons and branes in anti-de Sitter space , JHEP 07 (1998) 006, [hep-th/9805112]

    1998 arXiv

  32. [40]

    D. R. Morrison and M. R. Plesser, Nonspherical horizons. 1. , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 3 (1999) 1–81, [ hep-th/9810201]

    1999 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Hatcher, Algebraic topology

    A. Hatcher, Algebraic topology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002

    2002

  34. [42]

    Hsieh, Y

    C.-T. Hsieh, Y. Tachikawa, and K. Yonekura, Anomaly Inflow and p-Form Gauge Theories, Commun. Math. Phys. 391 (2022), no. 2 495–608, [ arXiv:2003.11550]

    2022

  35. [43]

    ˇCadek, The cohomology of BO(n) with twisted integer coefficients , Journal of Mathematics of Kyoto University 39 (1999), no

    M. ˇCadek, The cohomology of BO(n) with twisted integer coefficients , Journal of Mathematics of Kyoto University 39 (1999), no. 2 277 – 286. – 41 –

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.