Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

$c=1$, $R=1$ and $N\gg 1$: ZZ instantons in 2D String Theory and Matrix Integrals

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At the self-dual radius, the one-instanton normalization from the worldsheet, $N = i\zeta\mu$ with $\zeta=1/2$, equals the leading non-perturbative term in the matrix-model free energy.

desk verdict A serious, honestly hedged extension of Sen's SFT regularization to the self-dual radius; the advertised one-instanton match is real but rests on an unproven S^3 zero-mode measure, so it is a conditional confirmation rather than a closed proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14023 v2 pith:6CBG7PG7 submitted 2025-01-23 hep-th

Rishabh Kaushik This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords c=1stringtheoryZZinstantonsself-dualradiusmatrixmodelsfieldnon-perturbativeeffectscompactifiedbosonannulusone-pointfunction
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 tries to establish that the non-perturbative sector of the $c=1$ string at the self-dual radius ($R=1$) is exactly the one predicted by its matrix-model duals, not just at the level of perturbative correlators. Concretely, the one-instanton normalization of the ZZ instantons — the worldsheet's exponential-suppressed saddles, labelled by Liouville boundary conditions — computed with string-field-theory regularization and with the SU(2)-valued boundary conditions of the compact boson taken into account, is $N = i\zeta\mu$ with $\zeta = 1/2$, matching the leading $e^{-2\pi\mu}$ term in the matrix-model free energy up to an overall sign. The paper also derives the disk two-point ratio $f=0$ and annulus one-point ratio $g=-1$ from the worldsheet and shows they agree with the matrix model. A second structural claim is that annuli with mixed boson boundary conditions contribute trivially, so multi-instanton normalizations factorize and certain $R\neq 1$ terms are absent. If the calculation is right, the non-perturbative duality between the worldsheet, the two-matrix model, the Imbimbo-Mukhi model, and the free-fermion description is confirmed at leading instanton order.

What carries the argument

The central object is the exponentiated annulus, the $g_s^0$ factor that multiplies each ZZ-instanton amplitude. The argument is carried by the string-field-theory replacement rule $\exp\left(\int_0^\infty \frac{dt}{2t}(e^{-2\pi h_1 t}-e^{-2\pi h_2 t})\right) = (h_2/h_1)^{1/2}$, which turns the divergent annulus integral into Gaussian integrals over zero modes. At $R=1$ the free-boson boundary condition is a point $g\in SU(2)$, so the D-instanton has three bosonic zero modes, $c\partial X$ and $ce^{\pm 2iX}$; their integration over $S^3$ with the radius inherited from the compact boson gives the volume factor $1/(4g_o^3\pi^{5/2})$. The same replacement rule treats the one tachyonic mode by analytic continuation and the ghost pair by a $U(1)$-gauged Gaussian integral, and the assembled pieces produce the normalization (3.12).

What would settle it

Evaluate the three-boson zero-mode path integral (3.8)–(3.9) directly from the $SU(2)$ boundary states, without borrowing the $R\neq 1$ measure, and check that the volume is exactly $1/(4g_o^3\pi^{5/2})$. Alternatively, compute the $e^{-2\pi\mu}$ coefficient in the KM matrix model directly at $N=-i\mu$; if it is not $-i(\mu/2+1/(4\pi))$ up to the paper's sign convention, the central match fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the exponentiated annulus for a single $(1,1)$ ZZ instanton at $R=1$, regularized with string field theory, evaluates to $N = i\zeta\mu$ with $\zeta = 1/2$, and this equals the coefficient of $e^{-2\pi\mu}$ in the matrix-model partition function (eq. (3.12) versus (2.24)). The mechanism is that at the self-dual radius the free-boson boundary states are labelled by $g\in SU(2)$ instead of a point on a circle, so the instanton collective coordinate is a point on $S^3$; the three resulting bosonic zero modes produce the volume factor $1/(4g_o^3\pi^{5/2})$ in (3.9). After the analytic continuation of the tachyonic mode and the ghost zero-mode factor, the pieces combine into (3.12), and the half steepest-descent contour argument fixes $\zeta=1/2$. The same zero-mode structure yields the worldsheet ratios $f=0$ and $g=-1$, matching the matrix-model predictions (2.27)–(2.28), and the triviality of the mixed-boundary cross-annulus makes multi-instanton amplitudes factorize, explaining the absence of $e^{-2\pi\mu(1+R)}$ terms.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is the zero-mode measure on the instanton moduli space: the three translation zero modes are taken to live on an $S^3$ of radius $1$ with the same normalization as the circle-mode measure in the $R\neq 1$ calculation; if the true volume differs, the normalization (3.12) shifts and the matrix-model match fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the leading one-instanton match is correct, the non-perturbative duality between the $c=1$ string at $R=1$ and the KM/IM matrix integrals holds at the first instanton order, not only in the perturbative series.
  • Because mixed-boundary annuli are trivial, a D-instanton (Dirichlet) and a D0-brane (Neumann) do not connect: their combined contribution is just the product of the two individual normalizations.
  • The worldsheet predictions $f=0$ and $g=-1$ are sharp numbers that any future direct matrix-model or free-fermion computation of the annulus one-point and disk two-point functions must reproduce.
  • At generic radius, the $(1,n)$ ZZ instanton normalizations are proportional to $1/\sin(n\pi/R)$ and $1/\sin(n\pi R)$, matching the functional form of the $n$-th terms in the MQM trans-series up to an overall constant that the paper leaves undetermined.
  • At $R=1$, the $(1,n)$ normalizations scale as $n\mu$ up to the same undetermined constant, so the worldsheet captures the $\mu$-dependence of every term in the matrix-model free-energy trans-series.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: a direct computation of the Stokes discontinuity in the KM two-matrix integral at $N=-i\mu$ (rather than through the Barnes-gamma free energy) would isolate whether the overall sign between (3.12) and (2.24) is a convention or a genuine discrepancy.
  • Editorial inference: the same $SU(2)$ zero-mode structure should control non-perturbative corrections in the $SL(2,\mathbb{R})_1/U(1)$ topological coset, whose equivalence to $c=1$ at $R=1$ the paper cites as background; an instanton calculation there would be a sharp independent check.
  • Editorial inference: the paper notes that for three $(1,n_i)$ instantons the principal-value integral is no longer simply $1$; if those $R$- and $n_i$-dependent terms are not cancelled by other contributions, multi-instanton factorization fails beyond the two-instanton order.
  • Editorial inference: computing the next worldsheet correction (the sphere with three holes or the torus with one hole) at the same order would test whether the matching persists beyond the exponentiated annulus normalization, or whether the instanton normalization alone is insufficient.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies non-perturbative instanton effects in the c=1 string with Euclidean time compactified at the self-dual radius R=1, comparing worldsheet computations regularized with string field theory against exact results from the free-fermion/MQM description and from two matrix integrals (the KM two-matrix model and the Imbimbo-Mukhi model). The main results are the one-instanton normalization N=iζµ with ζ=1/2 (Eq. (3.12)), the disk two-point and annulus one-point ratios f=0 and g=-1 (Eqs. (5.5) and (5.19)), a two-instanton cross-annulus integral whose value depends on a prescription choice (Sec. 3.2.3), and a series of observations on (1,n) ZZ instanton normalizations at generic and self-dual radius (Sec. 4). The matching of f=0 and g=-1 is a genuine parameter-free check, and the free-energy identities in Sec. 2 are honest derivations against the MQM benchmark.

Significance. If correct, the one-instanton match confirms the non-perturbative duality between the c=1 string at the self-dual radius and the 't Hooft-limit matrix integrals, extending Sen's SFT-regularization program to a compact boson with enhanced SU(2) boundary symmetry. Strengths of the paper include explicit, step-by-step computations with the SFT vertices, clear accounting of regularization ambiguities, and the parameter-free predictions f=0 and g=-1, which are nontrivial and could be tested by independent matrix-model or worldsheet methods. The paper also correctly identifies the issue of extra zero modes at R=1 and the resulting S^3 collective-coordinate structure, which is a new ingredient compared to earlier work at generic radius.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.9)] The S^3 collective-coordinate measure is assumed, not derived. The paper takes dbi = dxi/(2πg_o)^{1/2} with the radius of S^3 equal to 1, importing the normalization from the circle case of Refs. [3,8]; however, the two modes ce^{±2iX} are not translations on the compact circle, and their normalization on SU(2) is not determined by the earlier calculation. This is load-bearing because the g_o^{-3} factor in (3.9) is what converts the remaining g_o^1 factors in (3.12) into N ∝ µ, matching the matrix-model coefficient (2.24). If a different normalization for the extra modes were chosen, the µ-dependence would change and the match would fail. The paper should either derive this measure from the boundary-state overlap or from the path-integral zero-mode normalization, or state it explicitly as an input that still needs independent verification.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.12) vs Sec. 2.5, Eq. (2.24)] The claimed one-instanton match is only up to an overall sign: (3.12) gives N = +iµ/2 (for ζ=1/2), whereas the matrix-model prediction (2.24) is -iµ/2 e^{-2πµ}. The text notes this in the last line of Sec. 3.1 but does not resolve it. Since the sign of the exponentiated-annulus normalization is part of the trans-series data, the statement that the normalization 'exactly matches' is not accurate; the paper should either explain the discrepancy (for example, through a contour orientation or measure phase) or present the result as a magnitude match only.
  3. [Sec. 3.2.3, Eqs. (3.27)-(3.33)] The unitary (principal-value) prescription for the cross-annulus integral is selected because it produces the real term that matches the MQM prediction (2.32), while the Lorentzian prescription of Ref. [16] yields an extra imaginary piece (3.33) with the functional form of a (1,2) ZZ instanton normalization. The paper does not provide an independent derivation of the unitary prescription in this compactified, self-dual setup. Because the two prescriptions lead to different assignments of trans-series terms, the two-instanton matching is not yet a prediction; it is a consistency condition that holds for one choice of a currently undetermined convention. A physical argument (e.g., from unitarity or from the SFT contour) is needed to fix this ambiguity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.1.1, Eq. (4.3)] For (1,n) ZZ instantons at generic radius, the constant ζ is left undetermined, and the match with (2.2) is only functional; the text itself notes that exact matching would require ζ=(2n)^{-1}, which is not derived. Please state explicitly that the quantitative normalization for n>1 is not established, to avoid giving the impression of a completed match.
  2. [Sec. 3.2.3, Eq. (3.8)] The notation in Eq. (3.8) is confusing: the second sum is written as '2∑_{i=1}^2 2e^{-2π h_i^f t}', which mixes a prefactor with the summation over two modes. Please rewrite this term in a clearer form, e.g., by absorbing the factor of 2 into the definition of the sum or using separate indices for the two fermionic modes.
  3. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 3.2.3] The summary states that the two-instanton cross-annulus is 'trivial' or '1'; this is correct for the R=1 integrand (3.14) but is only true at generic R after using the unitary prescription (3.29). Please qualify the wording in the overview and the bullet list to make the prescription dependence explicit.
  4. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (3.34)] The range of the sums over p and l in Eq. (3.34) may have off-by-one issues for m=1 or n=1; the paper does not spell out the implied conventions for empty sums. A short clarification would help the reader reproduce Eq. (3.35) and (3.36).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the worldsheet instanton normalization and the f=0, g=-1 matches are independent computations whose only questionable input is an explicit, testable zero-mode measure assumption, not a fitted parameter or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. The matrix-model free energies in Section 2 are obtained by evaluating the KM and IM matrix integrals and comparing with the independent MQM/free-fermion expression, not by assuming the worldsheet answer. The one-instanton normalization (3.12) is computed from a worldsheet CFT annulus with string-field-theory replacement rules; the S^3 zero-mode measure in (3.9) is an explicit assumption inherited from the circle normalization of [3,8] and extended by SU(2) symmetry, not a parameter fitted to the matrix-model coefficient (2.24). The final factor zeta=1/2 is likewise imported from the independent non-compact calculation [3]. The predictions f=0 and g=-1 are obtained by two separate routes: the matrix model prediction from the trans-series (2.27)-(2.28) and the worldsheet calculation in Section 5, where the contributions g_ws, g_psi, g_ghost and g_jac are computed with no free parameters and cancel to give -1. There is no load-bearing self-citation: reference [11] is used only for the perturbative tachyon mapping, alongside the independent citation [12], and reference [35] is explicitly future work. The S^3 radius and the choice of unitary prescription are stated assumptions rather than hidden redefinitions of the target result; conditional on them, the matching is a genuine test of the duality.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on normalization inputs from earlier SFT work (ζ, the zero-mode measure), on a prescription choice for the cross-annulus, and on standard MQM/boundary CFT results. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • ζ for (1,1) instanton = 1/2
    Steepest descent contour fraction taken from [3] based on the cubic tachyon potential; not re-derived for the self-dual radius, but needed for the exact match with (2.24).
  • ζ and ˜ζ for (1,n) instantons = undetermined
    Normalization of (1,n) ZZ instantons is left undetermined; the paper states the match with (2.2) would be exact only if ζ=(2n)^{-1}, but does not derive this value.
  • S^3 collective coordinate radius = 1
    Set equal to the compact boson radius R=1; determines the zero-mode volume in (3.9). No independent derivation is given for this identification.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SFT replacement rule (3.5): exp(∫dt/2t(e^{-2πh1t}-e^{-2πh2t})) = (h2/h1)^{1/2}, analytically continued for negative h.
    Path integral identity from string field theory [3], used repeatedly to convert divergent annulus integrals into Gaussian integrals.
  • domain assumption Collective coordinate measure db = dx/√(2π g_o) on the zero-mode circle, extended to S^3.
    Taken from [3,8]; if the measure or the S^3 volume is different, the one-instanton normalization (3.12) changes.
  • ad hoc to paper Unitary (principal value) prescription for the cross-annulus integral.
    The principal value choice gives the real term in (2.32); the Lorentzian prescription [16] gives an imaginary term that is also present in the matrix model trans-series, so the choice is steered by the target result.
  • domain assumption KM model parameter mapping N=-iµ, g_s=i.
    Analytic continuation from [10,11] needed to obtain the MQM free energy from the KM matrix integral.
  • domain assumption Action of a (m,n) ZZ instanton is mn/g_s = 2πmnµ.
    Standard result from [16,32] used to associate e^{-2πnµ} trans-series terms with (1,n) ZZ branes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $c=1$, $R=1$ and $N\gg 1$: ZZ instantons in 2D String Theory and Matrix Integrals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6CBG7PG7

@misc{pith2026250114023,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $c=1$, $R=1$ and $N\gg 1$: ZZ instantons in 2D String Theory and Matrix Integrals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6CBG7PG7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14023}
}
abstract

We explore the non-perturbative aspects of $c=1$ string with compactified Euclidean time, its $0+0$ dimensional matrix model duals (at self-dual radius), and $0+1$ dimensional Matrix Quantum Mechanics (free fermion) description. We calculate the instanton normalizations, disk two-point function, and annulus one-point function in worldsheet formalism using string field theory insights. We further match them with the corresponding predictions from the matrix model descriptions. We also have some results and remarks regarding the multi ZZ instanton normalizations and the general $(1,n)$ ZZ instanton normalization for $c=1$ string at both self-dual and generic radius.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Alexandrov, R

    S. Alexandrov, R. Mahajan, and A. Sen,Instantons in sine-Liouville theory, JHEP 01 (2024) 141, [arXiv:2311.04969]. – 46 –

    arXiv 2024

  2. [16]

    Balthazar, V

    B. Balthazar, V. A. Rodriguez, and X. Yin,Multi-instanton calculus in c = 1 string theory, JHEP 05 (2023) 050, [arXiv:1912.07170]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [1]

    Sen,D-instantons, string field theory and two dimensional string theory, JHEP 11 (2021) 061, [arXiv:2012.11624]

    A. Sen,D-instantons, string field theory and two dimensional string theory, JHEP 11 (2021) 061, [arXiv:2012.11624]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [2]

    D. S. Eniceicu, R. Mahajan, P. Maity, C. Murdia, and A. Sen,The ZZ annulus one-point function in non-critical string theory: A string field theory analysis, JHEP 12 (2022) 151, [arXiv:2210.11473]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [3]

    Sen,Normalization of D-instanton amplitudes, JHEP 11 (2021) 077, [arXiv:2101.08566]

    A. Sen,Normalization of D-instanton amplitudes, JHEP 11 (2021) 077, [arXiv:2101.08566]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [4]

    Sen,Fixing an Ambiguity in Two Dimensional String Theory Using String Field Theory, JHEP 03 (2020) 005, [arXiv:1908.02782]

    A. Sen,Fixing an Ambiguity in Two Dimensional String Theory Using String Field Theory, JHEP 03 (2020) 005, [arXiv:1908.02782]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [5]

    Balthazar, V

    B. Balthazar, V. A. Rodriguez, and X. Yin,ZZ instantons and the non-perturbative dual of c = 1 string theory, JHEP 05 (2023) 048, [arXiv:1907.07688]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [6]

    D. S. Eniceicu, R. Mahajan, C. Murdia, and A. Sen,Multi-instantons in minimal string theory and in matrix integrals, JHEP 10 (2022) 065, [arXiv:2206.13531]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 39 references
  1. [7]

    Chakrabhavi, D

    V. Chakrabhavi, D. S. Eniceicu, R. Mahajan, and C. Murdia,Normalization of ZZ instanton amplitudes in type 0B minimal superstring theory, JHEP 09 (2024) 114, [arXiv:2406.16867]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Chakravarty and A

    J. Chakravarty and A. Sen,Normalization of D instanton amplitudes in two dimensional type 0B string theory, JHEP 02 (2023) 170, [arXiv:2207.07138]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Gopakumar and E

    R. Gopakumar and E. A. Mazenc,Deriving the Simplest Gauge-String Duality – I: Open-Closed-Open Triality, arXiv:2212.05999

    arXiv

  4. [11]

    Gopakumar, R

    R. Gopakumar, R. Kaushik, S. Komatsu, E. A. Mazenc, and D. Sarkar,Strings from Feynman Diagrams, arXiv:2412.13397

    arXiv

  5. [12]

    Bonora and C

    L. Bonora and C. Xiong,Two-matrix model and c = 1 string theory, Physics Letters B347 (Mar., 1995) 41–48, [hep-th/9405004v2]

    1995 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Dijkgraaf, G

    R. Dijkgraaf, G. Moore, and R. Plesser,The partition function of two-dimensional string theory, Nuclear Physics B394 (Apr., 1993) 356–382, [hep-th/9208031]

    1993 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Imbimbo and S

    C. Imbimbo and S. Mukhi,The topological matrix model of the c = 1 string, Nuclear Physics B 449 (Sept., 1995) 553–568, [hep-th/9505127v2]

    1995 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Sen,Cutkosky rules and unitarity (violation) in D-instanton amplitudes, JHEP 07 (2021) 205, [arXiv:2012.00041]

    A. Sen,Cutkosky rules and unitarity (violation) in D-instanton amplitudes, JHEP 07 (2021) 205, [arXiv:2012.00041]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    S. Y. Alexandrov, V. A. Kazakov, and D. Kutasov,Non-perturbative effects in matrix models and d-branes, Journal of High Energy Physics2003 (Sept., 2003) 057–057, [hep-th/0306177]

    2003 arXiv

  10. [18]

    I. R. Klebanov,String theory in two-dimensions, inSpring School on String Theory and Quantum Gravity (to be followed by Workshop), 7, 1991. hep-th/9108019

    1991 arXiv

  11. [20]

    S. Y. Alexandrov and I. K. Kostov,Time-dependent backgrounds of 2-D string theory: Non-perturbative effects, JHEP 02 (2005) 023, [hep-th/0412223]

    2005 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Lando and A

    S. Lando and A. Zvonkin,Graphs on Surfaces and Their Applications. Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003

    2003

  13. [22]

    T. W. Brown,Complex matrix model duality, Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 085002, [arXiv:1009.0674]

    2011 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Pasquetti and R

    S. Pasquetti and R. Schiappa,Borel and Stokes Nonperturbative Phenomena in Topological String Theory and c=1 Matrix Models, Annales Henri Poincare11 (2010) 351–431, [arXiv:0907.4082]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Marino,Chern-Simons Theory, Matrix Models, and Topological Strings

    M. Marino,Chern-Simons Theory, Matrix Models, and Topological Strings. International series of monographs on physics. Clarendon Press, 2005

    2005

  16. [25]

    Matsuo,Nonperturbative effect in non critical string theory and penner model, Nuclear Physics B 740 (Apr., 2006) 222–242, [hep-th/0512176v2]

    Y. Matsuo,Nonperturbative effect in non critical string theory and penner model, Nuclear Physics B 740 (Apr., 2006) 222–242, [hep-th/0512176v2]

    2006 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Recknagel and V

    A. Recknagel and V. Schomerus,Boundary Conformal Field Theory and the Worldsheet Approach to D-Branes. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2013

    2013

  18. [27]

    Recknagel and V

    A. Recknagel and V. Schomerus,Boundary deformation theory and moduli spaces of d-branes, Nuclear Physics B545 (Apr., 1999) 233–282, [hep-th/9811237v2]. – 47 –

    1999 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Gaberdiel, A

    M. Gaberdiel, A. Recknagel, and G. Watts,The conformal boundary states for su(2) at level 1, Nuclear Physics B626 (Apr., 2002) 344–362, [hep-th/0108102]

    2002 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Balthazar, V

    B. Balthazar, V. A. Rodriguez, and X. Yin,The c = 1 string theory S-matrix revisited, JHEP 04 (2019) 145, [arXiv:1705.07151]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Zamolodchikov and A

    A. Zamolodchikov and A. Zamolodchikov,Liouville field theory on a pseudosphere, arXiv e-prints (Jan., 2001) hep–th/0101152, [hep-th/0101152]

    2001

  22. [31]

    Sen,D Instanton Amplitudes in String Theory, Spring School on Superstring Theory and Related Topics, ICTP(2023)

    A. Sen,D Instanton Amplitudes in String Theory, Spring School on Superstring Theory and Related Topics, ICTP(2023)

    2023

  23. [32]

    McGreevy and H

    J. McGreevy and H. L. Verlinde,Strings from tachyons: The c=1 matrix reloaded, JHEP 12 (2003) 054, [hep-th/0304224]

    2003 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Alexandrov,(m,n) ZZ branes and the c = 1 matrix model, Phys

    S. Alexandrov,(m,n) ZZ branes and the c = 1 matrix model, Phys. Lett. B604 (2004) 115–122, [hep-th/0310135]

    2004 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Alexandrov,Complex curves and non-perturbative effects in c = 1 string theory, Fortsch

    S. Alexandrov,Complex curves and non-perturbative effects in c = 1 string theory, Fortsch. Phys. 53 (2005) 839–845, [hep-th/0412257]

    2005 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Alexandrov and R

    S. Alexandrov and R. Kaushik,Multi-instantons in 2d string theory, arXiv:2509.03293

  27. [36]

    Polchinski,String theory

    J. Polchinski,String theory. Vol. 1: An introduction to the bosonic string. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 12, 2007

    2007

  28. [37]

    Takayanagi and N

    T. Takayanagi and N. Toumbas,A Matrix model dual of type 0B string theory in two-dimensions, JHEP 07 (2003) 064, [hep-th/0307083]

    2003 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Mukhi and C

    S. Mukhi and C. Vafa,Two-dimensional black hole as a topological coset model of c = 1 string theory, Nucl. Phys. B407 (1993) 667–705, [hep-th/9301083]

    1993 arXiv

  30. [39]

    S. K. Ashok, S. Murthy, and J. Troost,Topological cigar and the c=1 string : Open and closed, JHEP 02 (2006) 013, [hep-th/0511239]

    2006 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Hattab and E

    J. Hattab and E. Palti,Non-perturbative topological string theory on compact Calabi-Yau manifolds from M-theory, arXiv:2408.09255. – 48 –

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.