Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

$\mathcal{N}=2$ Super Yang-Mills in AdS$_4$ and $F_{\text{AdS}}$-maximization

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes that maximizing Re F_AdS = -log|Z_AdS| selects the boundary conditions of N=2 super Yang-Mills in AdS4, switching from an SU(2)-preserving Dirichlet condition at weak coupling to a U(1)-Higgsed phase for ΛL ≈ 0.88.

desk verdict A known hemisphere partition function, repurposed through a new maximization principle that predicts a boundary Higgs transition at ΛL ~ 0.88; solid work with an acknowledged rigor gap in the non-compact localization step. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05162 v2 pith:GI2SVN7N submitted 2025-06-05 hep-th

Davide Bason , Christian Copetti , Lorenzo Di Pietro , Ziming Ji This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords N=2superYang-MillsAdS4F-maximizationboundaryconditionssupersymmetriclocalizationNekrasovpartitionfunctionCoulombbranchprepotential
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 proposes that in four-dimensional N=2 super Yang-Mills theory on an AdS4 background, the boundary conditions that preserve the full AdS super-isometries are exactly the ones that maximize the real part of the AdS free energy F_AdS = -log Z_AdS. For the central example, pure SU(2) SYM, this F_AdS-maximization selects the SU(2)-preserving Dirichlet boundary condition at weak coupling and then, for ΛL ≈ 0.88, switches to a new boundary condition in which the gauge group is Higgsed to U(1). That switch matches the flat-space expectation that the quantum Coulomb branch has no point with full SU(2) gauge symmetry. A sympathetic reader cares because, if the conjecture holds, F_AdS-maximization supplies exact nonperturbative control over boundary-condition selection in AdS, in direct analogy with F-maximization on $S^{3}$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the AdS free energy F_AdS(a) = -log Z_AdS(a), evaluated through supersymmetric localization on AdS4 with a fixed one-loop determinant for Dirichlet boundary conditions and a Nekrasov instanton sum. The maximization variable is the imaginary part δ of the complexified boundary parameter a = m - iδ, which encodes the mixing of the U(1)_R symmetry with a U(1) subgroup of SU(2). The partition function is built from Barnes G-functions, the one-loop factor 2a/sinh(2πa), and the Nekrasov partition function with Ω-deformation parameters ε_1 = ε_2 = 1/L; the mechanism selects δ by requiring ∂_δ Re F_AdS = 0 with negative second derivative.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop determinant of the N=2 vector multiplet on AdS4 with an independent non-compact regulator, such as a heat-kernel or zeta-function evaluation, and compare it with the product in equations (D.33) and (3.3); a mismatch would shift or erase the maximum at δ* ≈ 1.27 and the transition at ΛL ≈ 0.88.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that F_AdS-maximization determines which 1/2-BPS boundary conditions preserve the full N=2 supersymmetry in AdS4: one complexifies the boundary parameter a = m - iδ, computes Z_AdS with the modified Dirichlet boundary condition, and selects the δ that maximizes Re F_AdS = -log|Z_AdS|. Localization gives Z_AdS for pure SU(2) SYM as $Λ^{{4a^2}}$ times a one-loop determinant built from Barnes G-functions times the Nekrasov instanton partition function with Ω-background ε_1 = ε_2 = 1/L, and the result matches the hemisphere $HS^{4}$ partition function. Numerically, the maximization has a single maximum at δ = 0 for small ΛL, and a larger maximum at δ* ≈ 1.27 appears for ΛL ≳ 0.88, signaling a boundary condition with the gauge group Higgsed to U(1). The paper also argues that F_AdS coincides, up to a factor, with the curved-space prepotential and satisfies an AdS version of the Matone relation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the one-loop determinant on non-compact AdS4 can be obtained by applying the Atiyah-Bott fixed-point formula, even though that formula is only proved on compact spaces; if this application is invalid, the exact Z_AdS and the predicted boundary transition have no foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At weak coupling ΛL ≪ 1, the only maximum of Re F_AdS is at δ = 0, so the SU(2)-preserving Dirichlet boundary condition is the super-isometry-preserving choice.
  • At ΛL ≈ 0.88 a new local maximum at δ ≠ 0 becomes the largest, which the paper reads as a first-order transition to a boundary condition with the gauge group Higgsed to U(1), matching the flat-space Coulomb phase.
  • As ΛL grows, additional maxima appear and their free-energy differences shrink; the paper conjectures that they accumulate into the flat direction of the flat-space Coulomb branch as ΛL → ∞.
  • F_AdS obeys an AdS analogue of the Matone relation, so derivatives of F_AdS with respect to the UV coupling produce Coulomb-branch VEVs; this supports the identification F_AdS = -4πi F_AdS with the curved-space prepotential.
  • For general N=2 theories in AdS, the same maximization criterion should determine the superconformal U(1)_R mixing and hence the allowed boundary conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that if the AdS/hemisphere match survives for theories with hypermultiplets, F_AdS-maximization becomes a practical tool to compute superconformal R-charges in massive AdS4 QFTs, not just at conformal fixed points.
  • We infer that the exponential decay of the free-energy difference between the new and old maxima (fit 1772 e^{-8.56 ΛL}) could be used as a quantitative diagnostic: a boundary RG flow or a bulk instability calculation should reproduce that same scale if the transition is physical.
  • We infer that a rigorous one-loop computation on non-compact AdS4 is the sharpest test of the whole construction, because the Atiyah-Bott fixed-point theorem is cited as applying rigorously only on compact spaces.
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 4d N=2 SU(2) super Yang-Mills theory on Euclidean AdS4. It proposes that boundary conditions preserving the full AdS super-isometries are selected by maximizing Re F_AdS = -log|Z_AdS|, where the complexified boundary parameter a = m - iδ encodes both a real mass and R-charge mixing. Using supersymmetric localization, the authors compute Z_AdS for Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions, obtaining closed expressions involving Barnes G-functions and the Nekrasov instanton partition function (eqs. (3.3), (3.4)). They numerically maximize Re F_AdS(-iδ, Λ) and find a single maximum at δ = 0 for small ΛL, followed by the appearance of a larger maximum at δ ≠ 0 near ΛL ≈ 0.88, which they interpret as a transition to a U(1)-Higgsed boundary condition matching the flat-space Coulomb branch. They also derive an AdS version of the Matone relation and propose the identification F_AdS = -4πi F_AdS with a curved-space prepotential.

Significance. If the central claims hold, F_AdS-maximization would extend the F-maximization paradigm from S^3 to massive QFT in AdS and provide exact nonperturbative control of boundary-condition selection, including a concrete falsifiable prediction of a transition near ΛL ≈ 0.88. The paper has clear strengths: a detailed localization setup, careful treatment of boundary terms and supersymmetry preservation, closed-form one-loop determinants in terms of Barnes G-functions, consistency with the independent hemisphere HS^4 result, and an unusually honest discussion of where the arguments are conjectural or rely on numerical truncation. The main caveat is the use of the Atiyah-Bott fixed-point formula on the non-compact space AdS4, which the paper acknowledges is not rigorously justified, together with the conjectural status of F_AdS-maximization itself.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section D.2 / Eq. (3.3)] The one-loop determinant entering Z_AdS in eq. (3.3) is obtained by applying the Atiyah-Bott fixed-point formula (D.15) to the non-compact space AdS4. The paper explicitly states in Section D.2 that this formula applies rigorously only on compact spaces, and then selects one of four inequivalent regularizations, variants [a] through [d] in eqs. (D.25)-(D.29), based on a→-a symmetry, non-vanishing at a=0, and agreement with the hemisphere result. Since this determinant is a load-bearing factor in the maximization scan of Section 4, a different valid regularization on non-compact AdS could shift or remove the predicted transition near ΛL ≈ 0.88. The match with the hemisphere partition function is supporting evidence, but it is a consistency check on the final answer, not a derivation on AdS itself. This point needs to be either proved with a non-compact heat-kernel or zeta-function regularization, or explicitly isolated as an assumption whose failure would change the main quantitative prediction.
  2. [Section 2.3] F_AdS-maximization is introduced as a conjecture, and the evidence given (the S^3 F-maximization analogy, the SCFT/hemisphere correspondence, and the holographic decoupling limit) does not cover the case of an asymptotically-free, massive QFT in AdS. The interpretation of the δ ≠ 0 maximum as the physically selected boundary condition, and hence the central transition claim, depends on this unproven principle. The paper should either provide a derivation from the supersymmetry algebra or variational principle, or clearly state in the abstract and conclusions that the transition is a prediction conditional on this conjecture rather than a theorem.
  3. [Section 4 / Appendix E] The claim that further local maxima appear and accumulate to reproduce the flat-space Coulomb branch is based on numerical extrapolation beyond the stated reliable region (kmax = 16, δ < 2.466, Λ < 1.5; Appendix E). The power-law and exponential fits (δ* ≈ 1.25 Λ^{-0.16} and ΔF ≈ 1772 e^{-8.56 Λ}) contain free parameters and are not derived from the instanton expansion. The main transition at Λ ≈ 0.88 is within the reliable region, but the extrapolation to Λ → ∞ should be presented only as a conjecture, separate from the robust numerical evidence for the first transition.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section D.4] The four index expansions in eq. (D.25) are presented as the only possible regularizations. It would clarify the text to explain why no other ordering or contour prescription is possible and whether a heat-kernel regularization on the non-compact space would select one of them directly.
  2. [Section 5.1] In the AdS Matone derivation, the normalization of λ_2 in eq. (5.17) determines the sign and factor in eq. (5.18). The conventions are stated, but a one-line reminder connecting (5.16), (5.17), and (5.18) would make the sign check easier for the reader.
  3. [Section 4 / Eq. (4.4)] The expressions for the first four Nekrasov coefficients I_k are useful, but the denominators in I_3 and I_4 have somewhat asymmetric-looking powers. Please double-check these formulas and state explicitly which algorithm or reference was used to generate them to the required order.
  4. [Footnote 4 / Section 2.3] The footnote about the normalization by |Z_S4|^{1/2} says that Weyl anomalies and local counterterms cannot depend on the boundary parameters δ_a. A short explanation of why boundary-condition-dependent counterterms are excluded would strengthen this point.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Z_AdS is computed by localization and F_AdS-maximization is applied to that independent output; the flagged non-compact Atiyah-Bott issue is a correctness/regularization concern, not a circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The central quantity Z_AdS is obtained from a localization computation (Section 3) whose inputs are the classical locus (3.10), the one-loop determinants of Appendix D, and the Nekrasov instanton sum, none of which encode the predicted boundary-condition transition. The maximization of Re[F_AdS] is then carried out on this explicit function: at weak coupling the unique maximum at delta=0 is a computed property of (4.2), and the new maximum near Lambda*L approximately 0.88 emerges from the numerical evaluation of the same expression, not from tuning an input to a pre-chosen answer. The match with the independent hemisphere HS4 partition function [16,17] provides external support, and the overlapping-author citation [15] is used only for a one-loop/one-point technique that is cross-checked against [16,17]. The paper itself flags the main validity risk in Section D.2, stating that the Atiyah-Bott fixed-point formula 'applies rigorously only on compact spaces,' and in (D.25)-(D.29) it exhibits four inequivalent regularizations; the selection among them in D.5-D.6 is based on a-to-minus-a symmetry, nonvanishing at a=0, and agreement with the hemisphere result. That selection is a regularization/validity judgment and could in principle shift the transition, but it does not reduce the predicted maximization to its own inputs. Similarly, the proposed identification F_AdS = -4*pi*i*F_AdS in Section 5 is supported by the independently derived Matone-type relation (5.16)-(5.18) and the flat-space limit (5.21)-(5.23), rather than being assumed. No load-bearing step is equivalent by construction to its input, and no uniqueness theorem or self-citation chain forces the answer.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a conjectural maximization principle, a non-rigorous application of the fixed point formula on non-compact AdS, and an assumed Nekrasov instanton contribution. These are stated openly in the text. The AdS prepotential is a proposed new object, not a particle or force, and it has independent evidence from the flat-space limit and the Matone relation.

free parameters (2)
  • R-mixing parameter δ (via a = -iδ) = δ* ≈ 1.27 for the second maximum at Λ ≈ 0.88; power-law fit δ* ≈ 1.25 Λ^{-0.16}
    The imaginary part of the complexified boundary VEV a is the parameter over which Re F_AdS is maximized. Its maximizing value is an output of the computation, not a fit, but the power-law form is a numerical fit used to extrapolate toward the flat-space limit.
  • Exponential decay rate of free-energy difference ΔF = ΔF ≈ 1772 e^{-8.56Λ}
    Fitted to the numerically computed maxima in Appendix E to support the conjecture that new maxima persist to Λ→∞. This fit is not used to establish the central transition claim but appears in the extrapolation argument.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Atiyah-Bott fixed point formula generalizes to non-compact hyperbolic AdS4 for the 1-loop determinant
    Invoked in Sections 3 and D.2; the paper notes the formula is rigorous only on compact spaces and relies on consistency with [24,34].
  • ad hoc to paper F_AdS-maximization: boundary conditions preserving full AdS super-isometries are maxima of Re F_AdS
    Proposed as a conjecture in Section 2.3, motivated by analogy with F-maximization on S^3 and boundary F-maximization on HS^4. It is not proven.
  • domain assumption Localized instantons at the center of AdS contribute as the Nekrasov partition function with ε1=ε2=1/L
    Assumed in Section 3.2 by analogy with the S^4 case; this fixes the Omega-background parameters and enables the instanton sum.
  • ad hoc to paper Selection of one-loop determinant regularization [d] (Dirichlet) over [a],[b],[c] based on consistency expectations
    Section D.5; the choice is determined by invariance under a→-a and non-vanishing at the origin, rather than by a strict derivation.
  • standard math Renormalization trades the UV coupling for the scale Λ via the one-loop beta coefficient b1=4
    Used to write e^{πiτ} = (ΛL)^{b1/2}, a standard relation in asymptotically free N=2 SYM.
invented entities (1)
  • AdS prepotential F_AdS (curved-space prepotential identified with -4πi F_AdS) independent evidence
    purpose: Encodes Coulomb branch data in AdS and satisfies the Matone relation; appears in the identification F_AdS = -4πi F_AdS (eq. (1.9)).
    Supported by the flat-space limit (5.23) and the AdS Matone relation (5.18). It is a proposed new object with falsifiable consequences through the partition function.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $\mathcal{N}=2$ Super Yang-Mills in AdS$_4$ and $F_{\text{AdS}}$-maximization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GI2SVN7N

@misc{pith2026250605162,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\mathcalN=2$ Super Yang-Mills in AdS$_4$ and $F_\textAdS$-maximization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GI2SVN7N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05162}
}
abstract

We investigate the dynamics of four-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=2$ $SU(2)$ super Yang--Mills theory on an AdS background. We propose that the boundary conditions that preserve the AdS super-isometries are determined by maximizing the real part of the AdS partition function $F_{\text{AdS}}=-\log Z_{\text{AdS}}$. At weak coupling $\Lambda L \ll 1$ the maximization singles out the Dirichlet boundary condition with an $SU(2)$ boundary global symmetry, corresponding to the classical vacuum at the origin of the Coulomb branch with fully un-higgsed gauge group. We find that for $\Lambda L \sim \mathcal{O}(1)$ new boundary conditions are favored, with gauge-group higgsed down to $U(1)$, matching the expectation from the flat space limit. We use supersymmetric localization to compute $Z_{\text{AdS}}$ nonperturbatively. We further provide evidence for a relation between $F_{\text{AdS}}$ and the $\mathcal{N}=2$ prepotential in AdS background.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05162 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Free energy FAdSp´iδ,Λq for different values of Λ. (a) Weak coupling regime with single maximum at the origin δ “ 0. Note that the points where the function shows steep growth are actual physical singularities where RerFAdSs Ñ `8 and as such they do not give rise to any additional smooth local maximum outside of the origin. (b) At intermediate values of the coupling, a new smooth local maximum emerges at nonzero δ, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. New maxima in the free energy Fp´iδ,Λq emerge from merging singularities as Λ increases. (a, b) A new leading maximum emerges at finite Λ from the merging of two singularities. (c, d) A third maximum emerges from merging singularities. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Numerical properties of the second (leading) maximum as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Neumann scalars in AdS: partition functions and phases

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Neumann scalars in AdS admit one-loop partition functions obtained by contour deformation from the Dirichlet result; the stricter unitarity bound then yields qualitatively different phase diagrams that are corroborate...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    C. G. Callan, Jr. and F. Wilczek,INFRARED BEHAVIOR AT NEGATIVE CURVATURE, Nucl. Phys. B340 (1990) 366–386. 3, 19

    work page 1990

  2. [2]

    Aharony, M

    O. Aharony, M. Berkooz, D. Tong, and S. Yankielowicz,Confinement in Anti-de Sitter Space, JHEP 02 (2013) 076, [arXiv:1210.5195]. 3, 12, 19, 28

    arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    M. F. Paulos, J. Penedones, J. Toledo, B. C. van Rees, and P. Vieira,The S-matrix bootstrap. Part I: QFT in AdS, JHEP 11 (2017) 133, [arXiv:1607.06109]. 3

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Komatsu, M

    S. Komatsu, M. F. Paulos, B. C. Van Rees, and X. Zhao,Landau diagrams in AdS and S-matrices from conformal correlators, JHEP 11 (2020) 046, [arXiv:2007.13745]. 3

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    B. C. van Rees and X. Zhao,Quantum Field Theory in AdS Space instead of Lehmann-Symanzik-Zimmerman Axioms, Phys. Rev. Lett.130 (2023), no. 19 191601, [arXiv:2210.15683]. 3

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Copetti, L

    C. Copetti, L. Di Pietro, Z. Ji, and S. Komatsu,Taming Mass Gaps with Anti–de Sitter Space, Phys. Rev. Lett.133 (2024), no. 8 081601, [arXiv:2312.09277]. 3

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Ciccone, F

    R. Ciccone, F. De Cesare, L. Di Pietro, and M. Serone,Exploring Confinement in Anti-de Sitter Space, arXiv:2407.06268. 3, 12

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    D. B. Kaplan, J.-W. Lee, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov,Conformality Lost, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 125005, [arXiv:0905.4752]. 3

    arXiv 2009

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Gorbenko, S

    V. Gorbenko, S. Rychkov, and B. Zan,Walking, Weak first-order transitions, and Complex CFTs, JHEP 10 (2018) 108, [arXiv:1807.11512]. 3

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Lauria, M

    E. Lauria, M. N. Milam, and B. C. van Rees,Perturbative RG flows in AdS. An étude, JHEP 03 (2024) 005, [arXiv:2309.10031]. 3

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Seiberg and E

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten,Electric - magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and confinement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory, Nucl. Phys. B426 (1994) 19–52, [hep-th/9407087]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 430, 485–486 (1994)]. 4

    1994 arXiv

  4. [12]

    D. L. Jafferis,The Exact Superconformal R-Symmetry Extremizes Z, JHEP 05 (2012) 159, [arXiv:1012.3210]. 6, 13, 14, 29

    2012 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Closset, T

    C. Closset, T. T. Dumitrescu, G. Festuccia, Z. Komargodski, and N. Seiberg,Contact Terms, Unitarity, and F-Maximization in Three-Dimensional Superconformal Theories, JHEP 10 (2012) 053, [arXiv:1205.4142]. 6, 13

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gaiotto,Boundary F-maximization, arXiv:1403.8052

    D. Gaiotto,Boundary F-maximization, arXiv:1403.8052. 6, 14, 15, 29 48

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Bason, L

    D. Bason, L. Di Pietro, R. Valandro, and J. van Muiden,BCFT One-point Functions of Coulomb Branch Operators, JHEP 08 (2024) 210, [arXiv:2311.17888]. 6, 25, 27, 29, 32, 45

    2024

  8. [16]

    E. Gava, K. S. Narain, M. N. Muteeb, and V. I. Giraldo-Rivera,N “ 2 gauge theories on the hemisphereHS 4, Nucl. Phys. B920 (2017) 256–297, [arXiv:1611.04804]. 6, 14, 18, 46

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Dedushenko,Gluing II: boundary localization and gluing formulas, Lett

    M. Dedushenko,Gluing II: boundary localization and gluing formulas, Lett. Math. Phys.111 (2021), no. 1 18, [arXiv:1807.04278]. 6, 14, 18, 46

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    N. A. Nekrasov,Seiberg-Witten prepotential from instanton counting, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 7 (2003), no. 5 831–864, [hep-th/0206161]. 6, 16, 19, 20, 28

    2003 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Matone,Instantons and recursion relations in N=2 SUSY gauge theory, Phys

    M. Matone,Instantons and recursion relations in N=2 SUSY gauge theory, Phys. Lett. B 357 (1995) 342–348, [hep-th/9506102]. 7, 24

    1995 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hama and K

    N. Hama and K. Hosomichi,Seiberg-Witten Theories on Ellipsoids, JHEP 09 (2012) 033, [arXiv:1206.6359]. [Addendum: JHEP 10, 051 (2012)]. 7, 36

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Festuccia and N

    G. Festuccia and N. Seiberg,Rigid Supersymmetric Theories in Curved Superspace, JHEP 06 (2011) 114, [arXiv:1105.0689]. 8

    2011 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Lauria and A

    E. Lauria and A. Van Proeyen,Supergravity in D= 4, 5, 6 Dimensions, vol. 966. Springer,

  15. [23]

    D. Z. Freedman and A. Van Proeyen,Supergravity. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 5, 2012. 9

    2012

  16. [24]

    Assel, D

    B. Assel, D. Martelli, S. Murthy, and D. Yokoyama,Localization of supersymmetric field theories on non-compact hyperbolic three-manifolds, JHEP 03 (2017) 095, [arXiv:1609.08071]. 9, 15, 16, 18, 39, 41, 43

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Closset, T

    C. Closset, T. T. Dumitrescu, G. Festuccia, and Z. Komargodski,Supersymmetric Field Theories on Three-Manifolds, JHEP 05 (2013) 017, [arXiv:1212.3388]. 13, 32, 35, 38

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Casini, I

    H. Casini, I. Salazar Landea, and G. Torroba,Irreversibility in quantum field theories with boundaries, JHEP 04 (2019) 166, [arXiv:1812.08183]. 14, 29

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    D. Z. Freedman and S. S. Pufu,The holography ofF-maximization, JHEP 03 (2014) 135, [arXiv:1302.7310]. 15, 37

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    B. Zan, D. Z. Freedman, and S. S. Pufu,The N = 2 prepotential and the sphere free energy, JHEP 06 (2022) 045, [arXiv:2112.06931]. 15, 24

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    D. J. Binder, D. Z. Freedman, S. S. Pufu, and B. Zan,The holographic contributions to the sphere free energy, JHEP 01 (2022) 171, [arXiv:2107.12382]. 15 49

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dabholkar, N

    A. Dabholkar, N. Drukker, and J. Gomes,Localization in supergravity and quantum AdS4{CFT 3 holography, JHEP 10 (2014) 090, [arXiv:1406.0505]. 15

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. R. David, E. Gava, R. K. Gupta, and K. Narain,Localization on AdS2ˆ S1, JHEP 03 (2017) 050, [arXiv:1609.07443]. 15

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    J. R. David, E. Gava, R. K. Gupta, and K. Narain,Boundary conditions and localization on AdS. Part II. General analysis, JHEP 02 (2020) 139, [arXiv:1906.02722]. 15

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. R. David, E. Gava, R. K. Gupta, and K. Narain,Boundary conditions and localization on AdS. Part I, JHEP 09 (2018) 063, [arXiv:1802.00427]. 15

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    González Lezcano, I

    A. González Lezcano, I. Jeon, and A. Ray,Supersymmetric localization: N = (2) theories on S2 and AdS2, JHEP 07 (2023) 056, [arXiv:2302.10370]. [Erratum: JHEP 09, 003 (2023)]. 15, 16, 39, 43

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Iannotti and A

    D. Iannotti and A. Pittelli,Twisted Index on Hyperbolic Four-Manifolds, Lett. Math. Phys. 114 (2024), no. 2 39, [arXiv:2307.11634]. 15

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Benetti Genolini, J

    P. Benetti Genolini, J. P. Gauntlett, and J. Sparks,Equivariant localization for AdS/CFT, JHEP 02 (2024) 015, [arXiv:2308.11701]. 15

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Benetti Genolini, J

    P. Benetti Genolini, J. P. Gauntlett, Y. Jiao, A. Lüscher, and J. Sparks,Equivariant localization forD“ 4 gauged supergravity, arXiv:2412.07828. 15

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Benetti Genolini, J

    P. Benetti Genolini, J. P. Gauntlett, Y. Jiao, A. Lüscher, and J. Sparks,Localization of the Free Energy in Supergravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.133 (2024), no. 14 141601, [arXiv:2407.02554]. 15

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Pestun,Localization of gauge theory on a four-sphere and supersymmetric Wilson loops, Commun

    V. Pestun,Localization of gauge theory on a four-sphere and supersymmetric Wilson loops, Commun. Math. Phys.313 (2012) 71–129, [arXiv:0712.2824]. 15, 18, 19, 39, 40, 41, 45, 46

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman,Stability in Gauged Extended Supergravity, Annals Phys. 144 (1982) 249. 17

    1982

  33. [41]

    L. F. Alday, D. Gaiotto, and Y. Tachikawa,Liouville Correlation Functions from Four-dimensional Gauge Theories, Lett. Math. Phys.91 (2010) 167–197, [arXiv:0906.3219]. 20

    2010 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Arnaudo, G

    P. Arnaudo, G. Bonelli, and A. Tanzini,On the Convergence of Nekrasov Functions, Annales Henri Poincare25 (2024), no. 4 2389–2425, [arXiv:2212.06741]. 20

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Klemm, W

    A. Klemm, W. Lerche, and S. Theisen,Nonperturbative effective actions of N=2 supersymmetric gauge theories, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A11 (1996) 1929–1974, [hep-th/9505150]. 24 50

    1996 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gerchkovitz, J

    E. Gerchkovitz, J. Gomis, N. Ishtiaque, A. Karasik, Z. Komargodski, and S. S. Pufu, Correlation Functions of Coulomb Branch Operators, JHEP 01 (2017) 103, [arXiv:1602.05971]. 25, 27, 28

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J. G. Russo,N = 2 gauge theories and quantum phases, JHEP 12 (2014) 169, [arXiv:1411.2602]. 27

    2014 arXiv

  38. [46]

    T. J. Hollowood and S. P. Kumar,Partition function ofN “ 2˚ SYM on a large four-sphere, JHEP 12 (2015) 016, [arXiv:1509.00716]. 27

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Seiberg and E

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten,Monopoles, duality and chiral symmetry breaking in N=2 supersymmetric QCD, Nucl. Phys. B431 (1994) 484–550, [hep-th/9408099]. 28

    1994 arXiv

  40. [48]

    C. P. Herzog, K.-W. Huang, I. Shamir, and J. Virrueta,Superconformal Models for Graphene and Boundary Central Charges, JHEP 09 (2018) 161, [arXiv:1807.01700]. 29

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kumar Gupta, C

    R. Kumar Gupta, C. P. Herzog, and I. Jeon,Duality and Transport for Supersymmetric Graphene from the Hemisphere Partition Function, JHEP 05 (2020) 023, [arXiv:1912.09225]. 29

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    R. K. Gupta, A. Ray, and K. Sil,Supersymmetric graphene on squashed hemisphere, JHEP 07 (2021) 074, [arXiv:2012.01990]. 29

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    K. A. Intriligator and B. Wecht,The Exact superconformal R symmetry maximizes a, Nucl. Phys. B667 (2003) 183–200, [hep-th/0304128]. 29

    2003 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Komargodski and A

    Z. Komargodski and A. Schwimmer,On Renormalization Group Flows in Four Dimensions, JHEP 12 (2011) 099, [arXiv:1107.3987]. 29

    2011 arXiv

  45. [53]

    D. L. Jafferis, I. R. Klebanov, S. S. Pufu, and B. R. Safdi,Towards the F-Theorem: N=2 Field Theories on the Three-Sphere, JHEP 06 (2011) 102, [arXiv:1103.1181]. 29

    2011 arXiv

  46. [54]

    I. R. Klebanov, S. S. Pufu, and B. R. Safdi,F-Theorem without Supersymmetry, JHEP 10 (2011) 038, [arXiv:1105.4598]. 29

    2011 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Casini and M

    H. Casini and M. Huerta,On the RG running of the entanglement entropy of a circle, Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 125016, [arXiv:1202.5650]. 29

    2012 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Giombi and H

    S. Giombi and H. Khanchandani,CFT in AdS and boundary RG flows, JHEP 11 (2020) 118, [arXiv:2007.04955]. 29

    2020

  49. [57]

    Affleck and A

    I. Affleck and A. W. W. Ludwig,Universal noninteger ’ground state degeneracy’ in critical quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.67 (1991) 161–164. 29

    1991

  50. [58]

    Cuomo, Z

    G. Cuomo, Z. Komargodski, and A. Raviv-Moshe,Renormalization Group Flows on Line Defects, Phys. Rev. Lett.128 (2022), no. 2 021603, [arXiv:2108.01117]. 29 51

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Casini, I

    H. Casini, I. Salazar Landea, and G. Torroba,Entropic g Theorem in General Spacetime Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.130 (2023), no. 11 111603, [arXiv:2212.10575]. 29

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Casini, I

    H. Casini, I. Salazar Landea, and G. Torroba,Irreversibility, QNEC, and defects, JHEP 07 (2023) 004, [arXiv:2303.16935]. 29

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Jensen and A

    K. Jensen and A. O’Bannon,Constraint on Defect and Boundary Renormalization Group Flows, Phys. Rev. Lett.116 (2016), no. 9 091601, [arXiv:1509.02160]. 29

    2016 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Wang,Surface defect, anomalies and b-extremization, JHEP 11 (2021) 122, [arXiv:2012.06574]

    Y. Wang,Surface defect, anomalies and b-extremization, JHEP 11 (2021) 122, [arXiv:2012.06574]. 29

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Wang,Defect a-theorem and a-maximization, JHEP 02 (2022) 061, [arXiv:2101.12648]

    Y. Wang,Defect a-theorem and a-maximization, JHEP 02 (2022) 061, [arXiv:2101.12648]. 29

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Giombi, E

    S. Giombi, E. Helfenberger, and H. Khanchandani,Fermions in AdS and Gross-Neveu BCFT, JHEP 07 (2022) 018, [arXiv:2110.04268]. 29

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Wess and J

    J. Wess and J. Bagger,Supersymmetry and supergravity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 1992. 31

    1992

  58. [66]

    M. F. Atiyah and R. Bott,A Lefschetz Fixed Point Formula for Elliptic Complexes: I., Annals of Mathematics86(2) (1967) 374–407. 39, 42 52

    1967

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.