pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09428 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · ✦ hep-th

Recognition: unknown

D2-brane probes of non-toric cDV threefolds via monopole superpotentials

Andr\'es Collinucci , Marina Moleti , Roberto Valandro
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-th
keywords D2-brane probescompound Du Val singularitiesmonopole superpotentials3d mirror symmetryaffine Dynkin quiversHiggs field deformationsADE fibrations
0
0 comments X

The pith

D2-branes probing non-toric cDV threefolds see their geometry encoded in a Higgs field that deforms affine Dynkin quivers with monopole superpotentials.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The authors construct gauge theories living on D2-branes that probe compound Du Val singularities in Calabi-Yau threefolds, including cases that are not toric. They represent each singularity as a family of ADE surfaces varying over a complex plane, which they capture with a single Higgs field depending on the plane coordinate. This field induces deformations on the brane's natural 3d quiver theory, adding both ordinary polynomial terms and special monopole operators to the superpotential. Using three-dimensional mirror symmetry on this deformed theory produces an effective description whose structure matches the way the quiver is known to collapse in the mathematical treatment of these singularities. If successful, this gives a physical way to study a wider set of singularities that arise in string theory compactifications and geometric engineering.

Core claim

By viewing these singularities as ADE surface fibrations over the complex w-plane, their geometry is encoded in a Higgs field Φ(w). A D2-brane probe perceives Φ(w) as an N=2 deformation of its 3d N=4 affine Dynkin quiver gauge theory via polynomial and monopole superpotential terms. By exploiting 3d mirror symmetry, an effective theory is obtained that correctly reproduces the quiver-collapsing mechanism known in the mathematical literature. Several examples are presented, including non-toric and non-resolvable cases.

What carries the argument

The Higgs field Φ(w) that encodes the ADE surface fibration over the w-plane and induces the polynomial and monopole superpotential deformations on the 3d N=4 affine Dynkin quiver.

If this is right

  • The deformed quiver theory after mirror symmetry reproduces the expected collapsed form for the probe theory at these singularities.
  • This framework applies to non-toric cDV threefolds that were previously inaccessible by standard methods.
  • The approach provides a brane realization of the mathematical quiver-collapsing mechanism for cDV singularities.
  • Effective theories obtained this way correctly capture the geometry for both resolvable and non-resolvable cases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This construction might extend to other families of Calabi-Yau singularities by encoding their geometry in similar Higgs fields.
  • The role of monopole operators could connect to broader questions about infrared dynamics in 3d theories engineered from string theory.
  • One could test whether the resulting moduli spaces of vacua align with geometric expectations from the original threefold singularity.

Load-bearing premise

The geometry of the cDV singularity can be faithfully captured by a single Higgs field Φ(w) whose polynomial and monopole deformations of the affine Dynkin quiver exactly reproduce the mathematical quiver-collapsing behavior when 3d mirror symmetry is applied.

What would settle it

An explicit computation for a specific non-toric cDV threefold where the effective theory obtained after 3d mirror symmetry fails to match the collapsed quiver predicted by algebraic geometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09428 by Andr\'es Collinucci, Marina Moleti, Roberto Valandro.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Theory B. For each node i, i = 1, ..., N, there is a N = 2 U(1) vector multiplet Vi. Square nodes denote flavor symmetries. Oriented lines between adjacent nodes represent bifundamental chiral multiplets. given by µ in the adjoint of SU(N + 1), with µii = si , and the off-diagonal components are the monopole operators with charges in one-to-one correspondence with the roots of the AN Lie algebra associated… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Ar theory. For each node i, i = 1, ..., r + 1, there is a N = 4 U(1) vector multiplet Vi containing a N = 2 vector multiplet and an adjoint chiral φi. Pairs of oriented lines between adjacent nodes represent bifundamental hypermultiplets (qi , q˜i). The quiver has the shape of the affine Dynkin diagram of the corresponding ADE Lie algebra [44]. The nodes of the quiver correspond to fractional D2-branes; th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Graphic representation of partial simultaneous resolutions. Colored nodes cor￾respond to obstructed 2-cycles. Colored subdiagrams are identified with the subalgebras that compose the Levi subalgebra associated with Φ. Here we show examples of simple flops of length 1, 2, and a non-resolvable D4 singularity. (a) The colouring of the A˜ 3 diagram corresponds to the choice of Levi LΦ = A (1) 1 ⊕ A (3) 1 ⊕ ⟨α … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A1 theory. The N = 4 superpotential is given by 5.1 with r = 1. Then, we consider the following Higgs field: Φ = 0 1 w 0 ! = eα + w e−α (5.28) 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A1 theory. Ungauging of the affine node. For the isolated (balanced) node, the theory is a 3d N = 4 supersymmetric U(1) gauge theory with two flavors, and deformed superpotential W(1) = φ1(q1q˜1 − q2q˜2) + w−α + φ1wα , (5.30) i.e. we obtain the Building Block I in Section 3.2. The effective theory has no U(1) and a superpotential W (1) eff = X1(Y1Z1 + φ1 − T1T2) + φ1(T1 − T2) . (5.31) We now gauge the U(1)… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: C 3 theory. In the next sections we study interesting monodromic cases. 5.4 Summary of the algorithm to get the effective 3d N = 2 theory Given a cDV threefold described by a Higgs field Φ(w), our prescription is: 1. Start from the N = 4 quiver gauge theory on a D2-brane probing the correspond￾ing undeformed ADE surface singularity. 2. Determine the Levi decomposition encoded by Φ(w), or equivalently the c… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A2k−1 partial simultaneous resolution We now return to Reid’s Pagoda, studied earlier in Section 5.2 as a non-monodromic A1 fibration. Here we re-analyze the same geometry from a different perspective: as a monodromic A2k−1 fibration where most nodes are colored. This provides a highly non-trivial check of our method. The defining equation of the Reid’s Pagoda is uv = z 2k − w 2 . (6.1) This is the same eq… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example with k=3. Ungauging of the two Levi blocks. with the two blocks given by Φ± =   0 1 0 · · · 0 0 0 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 · · · 0 0 1 ±w 0 · · · 0 0   , (6.4) i.e. Φ(w) = X k−1 m=1 eαm + w e−α1−...−αk−1 + 2 X k−1 m=k+1 eαm − w e−αk+1− ... −α2k−1 . (6.5) We notice that Φ has no component along α ∗ k . Following the algorithm outlined in Section 5, the superpotenti… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Quiver for the effective theory of the P agodak. that can be solved as Tk−j = k−j−1 k−1 Tk + j k−1 T2k j = 1, ..., k − 1 Tk+j+1 = k−j−1 k−1 Tk + j k−1 T2k j = 0, ..., k − 2 XL = XR = Tk − T2k (6.9) Integrating out the 4k massive fields XL, XR, T1, ..., Tk−1, Tk+1, ..., T2k−1, φ1, ..., φ2k, we obtain Weff = (Tk − T2k) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Length 2 flop from the family of deformed D4 singularities. In this construction length 2 flops are three-dimensional cuts in the family of deformed D4 surfaces with small irreducible resolution. L = A (α1) 1 ⊕ A (α2) 1 ⊕ A (α3) 1 ⊕ ⟨α ∗ 4 ⟩ (7.1) 14More precisely, if f : Y → X is the contraction and C ⊂ Y is the exceptional curve, then the length ℓ is the length of the scheme-theoretic fiber f −1 (p) at … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: D4 quiver gauge theory. Let us begin from the superpotential of the D4 quiver: W = X 3 i=0 tr h Ψh (i)h˜(i) i − X 3 i=0 φih˜(i)h (i) , (7.6) where (h (i) , h˜(i) ) are bifundamental hypers coupled to the vector multiplets associated to the nodes in 11. Ψ and the φi ’s are the adjoint chirals of the vector multiplets. Following the algorithm outlined in Section 5, the superpotential deformation gen￾erated … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Quiver of the effective N = 2 theory that emerges in the IR, when monopole deformations of 7.8 are turned on. In the specific example (7.4), this superpotential becomes 36 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Non-resolvable singularity. The coloring of the diagram signals the obstruction to the resolution of all the linearly independent 2-cycles. This choice of M ensures that at w = 0, the singularity is isolated but non-resolvable. The Higgs field in (8.2) can be written as Φ = eα1 + ϱ1e−α1 + eα2 + ϱ2e−α2 + eα3 + ϱ3e−α3 + eα0 + ϱ0e−α0 , (8.3) where ϱi are the invariant coordinates of the Levi subalgebra and α… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Effective D4 quiver describing the fields coupling to the residual gauge symmetry. Analogously to the flop of length two case, we can integrate out φi and Xi , by using (7.13), with now i = 0, 1, 2, 3. We obtain17 Weff = tr " Ψ X 3 i=0 Mi # + X 3 i=0 h 1 ci trMi detMi i = tr " Ψ˜ X 3 i=0 M˜ i # + 2φ4 X 3 i=0 ti + X 3 i=0 ti ci  t 2 i − 1 2 trM˜ 2 i  , (8.11) where in the second line we have used (7.15).… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We develop a framework to construct worldvolume gauge theories on D2-branes probing compound Du Val (cDV) Calabi-Yau threefold singularities. By viewing these singularities as ADE surface fibrations over the complex $w$-plane, we encode their geometry in a Higgs field $\Phi(w)$. A D2-brane probe perceives $\Phi(w)$ as an $\mathcal{N}=2$ deformation of its 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ affine Dynkin quiver gauge theory via polynomial and monopole superpotential terms. By exploiting 3d mirror symmetry, we obtain an effective theory that correctly reproduces the quiver-collapsing mechanism known in the mathematical literature. We present several examples, including non-toric and non-resolvable cases.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper develops a framework for worldvolume gauge theories on D2-branes probing compound Du Val (cDV) Calabi-Yau threefold singularities. It views these singularities as ADE surface fibrations over the complex w-plane, encoded in a Higgs field Φ(w). The D2-brane probe perceives Φ(w) as an N=2 deformation of its 3d N=4 affine Dynkin quiver gauge theory via polynomial and monopole superpotential terms. Exploiting 3d mirror symmetry yields an effective theory claimed to reproduce the quiver-collapsing mechanism known in the mathematical literature, with examples including non-toric and non-resolvable cases.

Significance. If the geometric data in Φ(w) rigorously determines the precise polynomial and monopole deformations such that 3d mirror symmetry produces moduli spaces matching the independently known mathematical quiver collapse for non-toric cDV threefolds, the work would provide a valuable physical realization of these singularities and extend D-brane probe techniques beyond toric settings. It leverages established 3d mirror symmetry in a deformed context and could offer new tools for studying Calabi-Yau geometry via gauge theory, with potential for falsifiable predictions in non-resolvable cases.

major comments (2)
  1. The central construction requires that the w-dependence of the single Higgs field Φ(w) fixes both the polynomial superpotential and the specific coefficients of the monopole terms so that mirror symmetry reproduces the exact quiver-collapsing behavior. The manuscript does not supply an explicit general derivation or step-by-step calculation showing how the threefold equation determines these monopole coefficients for a non-toric example; without this, it is unclear whether the terms follow from the geometry or are selected to match the known collapse.
  2. In the examples section (including the non-toric and non-resolvable cases), the paper asserts that the effective theory after mirror symmetry matches the mathematical quiver-collapsing mechanism, but provides no explicit computation of the resulting moduli space or direct comparison to the known mathematical results. This verification is load-bearing for the reproduction claim and must be supplied to confirm absence of post-hoc adjustments.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract and introduction should clarify the precise scope of 'several examples' and whether they include explicit checks against mathematical data for at least one non-toric case.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating the changes made to strengthen the presentation of the framework and its verification.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central construction requires that the w-dependence of the single Higgs field Φ(w) fixes both the polynomial superpotential and the specific coefficients of the monopole terms so that mirror symmetry reproduces the exact quiver-collapsing behavior. The manuscript does not supply an explicit general derivation or step-by-step calculation showing how the threefold equation determines these monopole coefficients for a non-toric example; without this, it is unclear whether the terms follow from the geometry or are selected to match the known collapse.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript would benefit from a more explicit derivation. In the revised version we have added a new subsection (Section 2.3) that provides the general step-by-step procedure: starting from the threefold equation, one extracts the Higgs field Φ(w) as an ADE-valued polynomial in w; the N=2 deformation rules then fix the polynomial superpotential terms directly from the coefficients of Φ(w), while the monopole coefficients are determined by the requirement that the deformed quiver remains consistent with the 3d N=4 mirror map. For a concrete non-toric example we now walk through the calculation of each monopole coefficient from the geometry, showing that they are fixed by the fibration data rather than chosen to reproduce collapse. revision: yes

  2. Referee: In the examples section (including the non-toric and non-resolvable cases), the paper asserts that the effective theory after mirror symmetry matches the mathematical quiver-collapsing mechanism, but provides no explicit computation of the resulting moduli space or direct comparison to the known mathematical results. This verification is load-bearing for the reproduction claim and must be supplied to confirm absence of post-hoc adjustments.

    Authors: We have expanded the examples section and added a new appendix containing the explicit moduli-space computations. For each non-toric and non-resolvable case we now derive the effective superpotential after 3d mirror symmetry, compute the resulting Higgs and Coulomb branches (via the standard monopole and polynomial terms), and tabulate the generators and relations of the moduli space. These are compared term-by-term with the independently known mathematical descriptions of the collapsed quivers, confirming exact agreement. The superpotential coefficients remain those fixed by the geometric input, with no subsequent tuning. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation grounded in external 3d mirror symmetry and known mathematical results.

full rationale

The paper encodes cDV singularities via a Higgs field Φ(w) as an N=2 deformation of affine Dynkin quivers, then applies established 3d mirror symmetry to reproduce the independently known quiver-collapsing mechanism from the mathematical literature. No steps reduce by construction to fitted inputs or self-citations; the central claim is tested against external benchmarks rather than being self-definitional. The derivation chain remains self-contained with independent content from prior results on mirror symmetry and singularity resolutions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the assumption that the singularity geometry is captured by a Higgs field whose deformations match the mathematical collapsing mechanism; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • Higgs field Φ(w)
    The explicit polynomial form of Φ(w) is chosen to match each given cDV singularity; its coefficients are not derived from first principles but selected to reproduce the desired geometry.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption 3d mirror symmetry maps the deformed quiver theory to an effective description whose moduli space reproduces the mathematical quiver-collapsing behavior
    Invoked to obtain the effective theory that matches known results; the paper treats this duality as established.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5426 in / 1489 out tokens · 57662 ms · 2026-05-10T17:26:50.036836+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Franco, A

    S. Franco, A. Hanany, D. Martelli, J. Sparks, D. Vegh, and B. Wecht,Gauge theories from toric geometry and brane tilings,JHEP01(2006) 128, [hep-th/0505211]

    work page arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    Franco, A

    S. Franco, A. Hanany, K. D. Kennaway, D. Vegh, and B. Wecht,Brane dimers and quiver gauge theories,JHEP01(2006) 096, [hep-th/0504110]

    work page arXiv 2006

  3. [3]

    Hanany and K

    A. Hanany and K. D. Kennaway,Dimer models and toric diagrams,unpublished (2005) [hep-th/0503149]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    B. Feng, A. Hanany, and Y.-H. He,D-brane gauge theories from toric singularities and toric duality,Nucl. Phys. B595(2001) 165–200, [hep-th/0003085]

    work page arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

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

    work page arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    C. E. Beasley, B. R. Greene, C. I. Lazaroiu, and M. R. Plesser,D3-branes on partial resolutions of abelian quotient singularities of Calabi-Yau threefolds,Nucl. Phys. B566(2000) 599–640, [hep-th/9907186]

    work page arXiv 2000

  7. [7]

    Berenstein and R

    D. Berenstein and R. G. Leigh,Resolution of stringy singularities by non-commutative algebras,JHEP06(2001) 030, [hep-th/0105229]

    work page arXiv 2001

  8. [8]

    Wijnholt,Large volume perspective on branes at singularities,Adv

    M. Wijnholt,Large volume perspective on branes at singularities,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.7(2003), no. 6 1117–1153, [hep-th/0212021]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2003

  9. [9]

    P. S. Aspinwall and S. Katz,Computation of superpotentials for D-branes, Commun. Math. Phys.264(2006) 227–253, [hep-th/0412209]

    work page arXiv 2006

  10. [10]

    P. S. Aspinwall and D. R. Morrison,Quivers from Matrix Factorizations, Commun. Math. Phys.313(2012) 607–633, [arXiv:1005.1042]

    work page arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    Coulomb and Higgs Branches from Canonical Singularities: Part 0,

    C. Closset, S. Schafer-Nameki, and Y.-N. Wang,Coulomb and Higgs Branches from Canonical Singularities: Part 0,JHEP02(2021) 003, [arXiv:2007.15600]

    work page arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Collinucci, M

    A. Collinucci, M. Fazzi, and R. Valandro,Geometric engineering on flops of length two,JHEP04(2018) 090, [arXiv:1802.00813]

    work page arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Collinucci, M

    A. Collinucci, M. Fazzi, D. R. Morrison, and R. Valandro,High electric charges in M-theory from quiver varieties,JHEP11(2019) 111, [arXiv:1906.02202]. 46

    work page arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Reid,Minimal models of canonical 3-folds,North-Holland, Amsterdam(1983)

    M. Reid,Minimal models of canonical 3-folds,North-Holland, Amsterdam(1983)

    1983

  15. [15]

    H. C. Pinkham,Factorization of birational maps in dimension 3,Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI40(1983) 343–371

    1983

  16. [16]

    Karmazyn,The length classification of threefold flops via noncommutative algebras,Advances in Mathematics343(2019) 393–447

    J. Karmazyn,The length classification of threefold flops via noncommutative algebras,Advances in Mathematics343(2019) 393–447

    2019

  17. [17]

    Donovan and M

    W. Donovan and M. Wemyss,Noncommutative deformations and flops,Duke Mathematical Journal165(June, 2016)

    2016

  18. [18]

    Collinucci, A

    A. Collinucci, A. Sangiovanni, and R. Valandro,Genus zero Gopakumar-Vafa invariants from open strings,JHEP09(2021) 059, [arXiv:2104.14493]

    work page arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Higgs branches of 5d rank-zero theories from geometry,

    A. Collinucci, M. De Marco, A. Sangiovanni, and R. Valandro,Higgs branches of 5d rank-zero theories from geometry,JHEP10(2021), no. 18 018, [arXiv:2105.12177]

    work page arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    De Marco and A

    M. De Marco and A. Sangiovanni,Higgs Branches of rank-0 5d theories from M-theory on (Aj, Al) and (Ak, Dn) singularities,JHEP03(2022) 099, [arXiv:2111.05875]

    work page arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Collinucci, M

    A. Collinucci, M. De Marco, A. Sangiovanni, and R. Valandro,Flops of any length, Gopakumar-Vafa invariants, and 5d Higgs Branches,arXiv:2204.10366

    work page arXiv

  22. [22]

    De Marco, A

    M. De Marco, A. Sangiovanni, and R. Valandro,5d Higgs branches from M-theory on quasi-homogeneous cDV threefold singularities,JHEP10(2022) 124, [arXiv:2205.01125]

    work page arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Sangiovanni and R

    A. Sangiovanni and R. Valandro,M-theory geometric engineering for rank-0 3d N= 2 theories,JHEP03(2025) 160, [arXiv:2410.13943]

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Van den Bergh,Three-dimensional flops and noncommutative rings,Duke Math

    M. Van den Bergh,Three-dimensional flops and noncommutative rings,Duke Math. J.122(2004), no. 3 423–455

    2004

  25. [25]

    Collinucci, S

    A. Collinucci, S. Giacomelli, R. Savelli, and R. Valandro,T-branes through 3d mirror symmetry,JHEP07(2016) 093, [arXiv:1603.00062]

    work page arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    Benini, S

    F. Benini, S. Benvenuti, and S. Pasquetti,SUSY monopole potentials in 2+1 dimensions,JHEP08(2017) 086, [arXiv:1703.08460]. 47

    work page arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    Collinucci, S

    A. Collinucci, S. Giacomelli, and R. Valandro,T-branes, monopoles and S-duality,JHEP10(2017) 113, [arXiv:1703.09238]

    work page arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Type IIB superstrings, BPS monopoles, and three-dimensional gauge dynamics,

    A. Hanany and E. Witten,Type IIB superstrings, BPS monopoles, and three-dimensional gauge dynamics,Nucl. Phys. B492(1997) 152–190, [hep-th/9611230]

    work page arXiv 1997

  29. [29]

    K. A. Intriligator and N. Seiberg,Mirror symmetry in three-dimensional gauge theories,Phys. Lett. B387(1996) 513–519, [hep-th/9607207]

    work page arXiv 1996

  30. [30]

    de Boer, K

    J. de Boer, K. Hori, H. Ooguri, Y. Oz, and Z. Yin,Mirror symmetry in three-dimensional theories, SL(2,Z) and D-brane moduli spaces,Nucl. Phys. B 493(1997) 148–176, [hep-th/9612131]

    work page arXiv 1997

  31. [31]

    Kapustin and M

    A. Kapustin and M. J. Strassler,On mirror symmetry in three-dimensional Abelian gauge theories,JHEP04(1999) 021, [hep-th/9902033]

    work page arXiv 1999

  32. [32]

    Yamazaki,Brane Tilings and Their Applications,Fortsch

    M. Yamazaki,Brane Tilings and Their Applications,Fortsch. Phys.56(2008) 555–686, [arXiv:0803.4474]

    work page arXiv 2008

  33. [33]

    Supersymmetric Boundary Conditions in N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory,

    D. Gaiotto and E. Witten,Supersymmetric Boundary Conditions in N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory,J. Statist. Phys.135(2009) 789–855, [arXiv:0804.2902]

    work page arXiv 2009

  34. [34]

    Bashkirov and A

    D. Bashkirov and A. Kapustin,Supersymmetry enhancement by monopole operators,JHEP05(2011) 015, [arXiv:1007.4861]

    work page arXiv 2011

  35. [35]

    Monopole operators and Hilbert series of Coulomb branches of 3dN= 4gauge theories,

    S. Cremonesi, A. Hanany, and A. Zaffaroni,Monopole operators and Hilbert series of Coulomb branches of3dN= 4gauge theories,JHEP01(2014) 005, [arXiv:1309.2657]

    work page arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

    Benvenuti, R

    S. Benvenuti, R. Comi, S. Pasquetti, G. Pedde Ungureanu, S. Rota, and A. Shri, Planar Abelian mirror duals of N=2 SQCD3,Phys. Rev. D112(2025), no. 10 L101703, [arXiv:2411.05620]

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Benvenuti, R

    S. Benvenuti, R. Comi, S. Pasquetti, G. Pedde Ungureanu, S. Rota, and A. Shri, A chiral-planar dualization algorithm for 3dN= 2 Chern-Simons-matter theories,JHEP10(2025) 211, [arXiv:2505.02913]

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    S-Duality of Boundary Conditions In N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory,

    D. Gaiotto and E. Witten,S-Duality of Boundary Conditions In N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.13(2009), no. 3 721–896, [arXiv:0807.3720]. 48

    work page arXiv 2009

  39. [39]

    Katz and D

    S. Katz and D. R. Morrison,Gorenstein threefold singularities with small resolutions via invariant theory for weyl groups, 1992

    1992

  40. [40]

    Moleti and R

    M. Moleti and R. Valandro,Universal flops of length 1 and 2 from D2-branes at surface singularities,JHEP01(2025) 013, [arXiv:2410.16767]

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Cachazo, K

    F. Cachazo, K. Intriligator, and C. Vafa,A large n duality via a geometric transition,Nucl.Phys.B603(2001) 3–41, [hep-th/0103067]

    work page arXiv 2001

  42. [42]

    Cachazo, S

    F. Cachazo, S. Katz, and C. Vafa,Geometric transitions and N=1 quiver theories,hep-th/0108120

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  43. [43]

    Collinucci and R

    A. Collinucci and R. Savelli,T-branes as branes within branes,JHEP09(2015) 161, [arXiv:1410.4178]

    work page arXiv 2015

  44. [44]

    M. R. Douglas and G. W. Moore,D-branes, quivers, and ALE instantons, hep-th/9603167

    work page arXiv

  45. [45]

    Witten,Branes and the dynamics of QCD,Nucl

    E. Witten,Branes and the dynamics of QCD,Nucl. Phys. B507(1997) 658–690, [hep-th/9706109]

    work page arXiv 1997

  46. [46]

    Kachru, S

    S. Kachru, S. H. Katz, A. E. Lawrence, and J. McGreevy,Open string instantons and superpotentials,Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 026001, [hep-th/9912151]

    work page arXiv 2000

  47. [47]

    Aganagic and C

    M. Aganagic and C. Vafa,Mirror symmetry, D-branes and counting holomorphic discs,hep-th/0012041

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  48. [48]

    I. R. Klebanov and E. Witten,Superconformal field theory on three-branes at a Calabi-Yau singularity,Nucl. Phys. B536(1998) 199–218, [hep-th/9807080]

    work page arXiv 1998

  49. [49]

    Kollár,Flips, flops, minimal models, etc.,Surveys in Differential Geometry1 (1991) 113–199

    J. Kollár,Flips, flops, minimal models, etc.,Surveys in Differential Geometry1 (1991) 113–199

    1991

  50. [50]

    van Garderen,Donaldson-thomas invariants of length 2 flops, arXiv:2008.02591

    O. van Garderen,Donaldson-thomas invariants of length 2 flops, arXiv:2008.02591. 49

    work page arXiv 2008