Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

The zero-tension limit of the M5-brane action is proven consistent and its bosonic sector is shown to be conformally invariant in 11D, reducing to a deformed 6D conformal symmetry in static gauge.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 02:34 UTC pith:CE5JEQ3X

load-bearing objection Tensionless M5-brane action is a real new result; the conformal-symmetry proof has an exposition gap, but the missing step checks out. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.29653 v1 pith:CE5JEQ3X submitted 2026-07-31 hep-th math-phmath.MP

Tensionless limit of M5-brane and conformal symmetry of its bosonic body

Igor Bandos , Kurt Lechner , Dmitri P. Sorokin This is my paper
classification hep-th math-phmath.MP
keywords M5-branetensionless limitconformal symmetrychiral 2-formPST actionself-dualitysuper-Weyl invarianceBialynicki-Birula electrodynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper shows that sending the M5-brane tension to zero yields a well-defined action, provided the worldvolume 2-form field strength is non-degenerate and the induced worldvolume metric remains non-degenerate, unlike conventional tensionless null branes. The resulting tensionless M5-brane action is invariant under 11D super-Weyl transformations, and its purely bosonic sector possesses full 11D conformal symmetry. Imposing a static gauge turns this into a 6D worldvolume conformal symmetry whose coordinate transformations acquire field-dependent terms. When transverse fluctuations are switched off, the model reduces to the conformal non-linear chiral 2-form electrodynamics studied by Gibbons–West and Townsend. These results matter because they connect a fundamental brane of M-theory to conformal field theories and offer a new conformal phase of the M5-brane that could inform understanding of 6D conformal systems.

Core claim

The authors derive the action for the tensionless M5-brane as the T→0 limit of the original PST-type M5-brane action, and prove that it is consistent only if the worldvolume 2-form field strength is non-degenerate, i.e., its two possible 'eigenvalues' are non-zero, which is equivalent to s^m s_m ≠ 0. They then show that this tensionless action is invariant under a super-Weyl symmetry of the 11D supergeometry and, in the bosonic case, under the full 11D conformal group. Upon fixing static gauge, the 11D conformal transformations become deformed 6D conformal transformations—with field-dependent boosts acting on the worldvolume coordinates—acting on the transverse scalars and the chiral 2-form.

What carries the argument

The central object is the tensionless limit of the Pasti–Sorokin–Tonin (PST) action for the M5-brane, characterized by the dual field-strength tensor H̃_mn and the auxiliary vector v^m, from which one constructs s^m = (√-g/8) ε^{mnklpq} H̃_nk H̃_lp v_q. The non-degeneracy condition s^m s_m ≠ 0 ensures that H̃ has two non-vanishing eigenvalues. The proof of conformal invariance rests on showing that the action is invariant under constant target-space scaling and inversion; the inversion property reduces the special conformal transformations to a local field-dependent Weyl rescaling of the induced metric, δg_mn = -4 g_mn (b·X), for which invariance is asserted.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of special-conformal invariance assumes that the bosonic action is invariant under a local, field-dependent rescaling of the induced metric, δg_mn = -4 g_mn (b·X); only invariance under constant scaling is explicitly demonstrated, and the local rescaling step is asserted rather than proven.

What would settle it

Directly compute the variation of the tensionless M5-brane action (3.1) under the infinitesimal special conformal transformation δX^a = b^a X^2 - 2X^a b·X for a non-constant boost parameter b^a, inserting the transformation of the induced metric δg_mn = -4 g_mn (b·X). If the action's variation does not vanish identically for non-constant b·X, the claimed 11D conformal invariance and the derived 6D worldvolume conformal symmetry are false.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the tensionless M5-brane provides a Lagrangian description of a 6D conformal field theory coupled to transverse scalars, with non-linearly realized, field-dependent conformal transformations.
  • The theory reduces to the known conformal non-linear chiral 2-form electrodynamics when transverse fluctuations vanish, thereby embedding that model in a brane setup.
  • The preservation of κ-symmetry in the tensionless limit, with the 2-form becoming a singlet, signals a novel balance of degrees of freedom that may affect how BPS states are counted.
  • The 11D conformal Noether currents split, in static gauge, into the 6D energy-momentum tensor and additional internal currents, providing a concrete map between target-space and worldvolume symmetries.
  • The non-degeneracy of the induced worldvolume metric, in contrast to null branes, implies that the tensionless M5-brane propagates with a non-null, causally well-behaved worldvolume geometry.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the asserted local Weyl invariance fails, the claimed 11D conformal symmetry—and the static-gauge 6D conformal symmetry—would not hold; the paper leaves this as an assumption rather than a proven step, so the actual symmetry algebra of the full bosonic theory remains to be verified.
  • The field-dependent conformal transformations suggest a non-linear realization of the 6D conformal algebra, which may have implications for defining conformal field theories with self-interacting chiral 2-forms beyond the free-field level.
  • One could test the consistency of the tensionless limit by analyzing small fluctuations around the self-dual configurations; if the non-degeneracy condition is not preserved by all physical solutions, the theory may require additional constraints.
  • The exploration of a possible superconformal invariance in AdS7×S4 backgrounds, mentioned in the conclusion, offers a concrete avenue to extend the bosonic conformal symmetry to a full supersymmetric setting.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a tensionless (T → 0) limit of the supersymmetric M5-brane action. Starting from the PST action (2.1), it keeps the leading determinant term in (2.11), drops the Wess–Zumino term and the √T terms, and obtains action (3.1). It then studies the symmetries of this action: κ-symmetry with projector (3.3), the PST gauge symmetries (3.5)–(3.7), the equations of motion, and the nonlinear self-duality condition (3.12). The main new claims are: (i) 11D super-Weyl invariance in a generic supergravity background, (ii) invariance of the bosonic sector under the 11D target-space conformal transformations (4.23), (iii) a static-gauge version that is a deformed 6D worldvolume conformal symmetry (4.28), and (iv) reduction to the Gibbons–West/Townsend conformal chiral 2-form electrodynamics when transverse fluctuations vanish. The paper also constructs Noether currents (5.3)–(5.6) and discusses an improved energy-momentum tensor in the static gauge.

Significance. If the symmetry claims are fully established, the paper provides a covariant action for a tensionless M5-brane whose induced metric remains non-degenerate, and it gives a derivation of the known conformal chiral 2-form theory from the M5 action without fitting parameters. The derivation is transparent: it starts from the published PST action, contains no fitted parameters, and the reduction to [1,2] is a cross-check rather than an input. The honest discussion of the unresolved superconformal issue in Section 6 is also a strength. However, the central conformal-symmetry result depends on a local Weyl-invariance step that is asserted, not proved; because this step is the bridge from scale invariance to special conformal invariance, it must be supplied before the main claim can be considered fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Eq. (4.22)] The proof that special conformal boosts (4.20) are symmetries is reduced to the statement that the action is invariant under the local field-dependent rescaling δg_mn = −4 g_mn (b_b X^b). Only the constant rescaling (4.4)–(4.15) is demonstrated. A local Ω(ξ) rescaling is not a formal consequence of the constant case, because v^m and \tilde H^{mn} depend on g_mn and on derivatives of a(ξ), so derivatives of Ω(ξ) must be tracked. The statement is likely correct — a direct scaling check of (2.3), (2.9), and (3.1) suggests each term is Weyl invariant — but the manuscript should display this computation. This is load-bearing: without it, the 11D conformal symmetry (4.23), the static-gauge transformation (4.28), and the 6D conformal claim do not follow.
  2. [§3, Eq. (3.4)] The action and the κ-symmetry projector (3.3) require s_l s^l ≠ 0, i.e. both non-vanishing eigenvalues h_± of \tilde H_{mn}. The paper says that the projector denominator 'suggests' this condition, but it does not show that the equations of motion (3.8)–(3.11) preserve the inequality. This matters because the limit is taken termwise in (2.11), and the expansion itself is singular when s^2 = 0. The authors should either prove that the condition is dynamically preserved or explicitly restrict the configuration space to this open domain and state that all conclusions are confined to it.
  3. [§4, Eq. (4.28)] The static-gauge conformal transformations are introduced after the statement that 'one can directly check' that their commutators obey the 6D conformal algebra, but the compensating worldvolume diffeomorphisms that define δξ^m are not derived. Given the field-dependent, non-standard form of the boost, the reader cannot verify the claim without repeating a substantial calculation. A short derivation of (4.28) from the 11D transformation (4.23) in the gauge X^m = ξ^m would make the argument self-contained and is directly relevant to the paper's central claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §3] There are several typos ('worldovolume', 'T7→0', inconsistent spacing around F_3) and a few symbols used before definition, e.g. H_3 and v in (3.1) are defined in Section 2 but the reader would benefit from a one-line reminder at the start of Section 3.
  2. [§4, Eq. (4.17)–(4.18)] The inversion transformation X^a → X^a/(X^b X_b) requires X^b X_b ≠ 0 on the worldvolume. This domain condition is not discussed; a remark on where the conformal transformations are defined would be useful.
  3. [§4, Eq. (4.26)–(4.27)] The improved energy-momentum tensor is given in general dimension d. Since the application is d = 6, it would be helpful to state the specific form of Δ^{mn} in six dimensions and to note explicitly that the improvement term is identically conserved and does not affect the total momentum.
  4. [§4, last paragraph] The reduction to the conformal chiral 2-form theory of [1,2] when X^i = 0 is asserted rather than demonstrated. Adding the explicit static-gauge form of (3.1) in this sector would make the cross-check transparent and strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the tensionless action (3.1) is a direct T→0 limit of (2.1), the 11D scaling invariance is proven explicitly, and the reduction to [1,2] is an external cross-check, not an input. The only load-bearing weak point is the asserted (but independently verifiable) local-Weyl invariance step in the conformal-symmetry proof — a rigor gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: (3.1) is obtained from the published PST M5 action (2.1) by a direct T→0 limit using expansion (2.11), which also fixes the non-degeneracy condition s_l s^l≠0; there is no fitted parameter and no data used as input. The 11D scaling invariance is proven explicitly in Eqs. (4.4)–(4.15), and the energy-momentum analysis (4.25)–(4.27) is a direct computation. Inversion and special-conformal invariance are reduced to local Weyl invariance of (3.1): Section 4 states 'Then the proof of the invariance of the bosonic action under special conformal transformations is reduced to the proof of its invariance under the re-scaling of the induced metric' (after Eq. (4.22)), and similarly calls the super-Weyl proof 'straightforward' (after Eq. (4.2)). Flagged per the review rule: this is a load-bearing omitted proof, but it is NOT a circular reduction — an explicit check confirms it, since under g_mn→Ω²(ξ)g_mn one has v^m→Ω^{-1}v^m, \tilde H^{mn}→Ω^{-5}\tilde H^{mn}, s_m→Ω^{-5}s_m, so √(-g)√(-s·s)→Ω^6·Ω^{-6}=1 and √(-g)\tilde H^{mn}H_{mnp}v^p→Ω^6·Ω^{-5}·Ω^{-1}=1; the action is invariant under arbitrary local Weyl rescalings. The reduction to the conformal chiral 2-form theory of Gibbons–West and Townsend [1,2] at X^i=0 is an output cross-check against external references, not an input; nothing in Section 4 is validated by appealing to [1,2]. Self-citations appear ([9,10] for the starting M5 action; [5,41] for context and conventions) but the load-bearing claims do not reduce to them. Two further asserted (not demonstrated) items are flagged: closure of the deformed 6D algebra ('One can directly check that the commutators of the variations (4.28)-(4.31) obey the 6d conformal algebra', Sec. 4) and dynamic preservation of s_l s^l≠0; footnote 3's 'we are not aware of any consistent alternative tensionless limit procedures' remark is non-load-bearing. These are correctness/rigor concerns, not circularity: the central claim has independent mathematical content and is benchmarked against external work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central construction relies on the PST formulation of the M5-brane action from prior work, on a termwise expansion of the tensionless limit, on non-degeneracy of H-tilde, and on the standard stress-tensor improvement theorem. There are no fitted numerical parameters and no new postulated entities.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The PST M5-brane action (2.1) with determinant identity (2.11) is a valid starting action.
    The entire limit starts from this cited action, partly by the same authors; the identity is used to isolate the T->0 leading term.
  • ad hoc to paper The zero-tension limit can be taken termwise; WZ and sqrt(T) terms vanish and the leading determinant term is sqrt(-g) sqrt(-s^2).
    No uniform convergence or boundary analysis is given; higher-order terms are discarded without detailed justification.
  • domain assumption The field strength H-tilde is non-degenerate (s_m s^m != 0) on the relevant configuration space.
    Needed for the square-root action and the kappa-symmetry projector (3.3); not proven to be preserved by the equations of motion.
  • domain assumption A conserved improved traceless symmetric stress tensor implies the full conformal symmetry of the action.
    Used in Section 4 to conclude 6D conformal invariance from the improved tensor (4.27); the non-linear field-dependent realization makes this non-standard, and only a lecture-note reference [33] is given.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 13561 in / 31787 out tokens · 316862 ms · 2026-08-03T02:34:49.852960+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We obtain a tensionless limit of the M-theory 5-brane action and discuss its properties. The consistency of this limit requires that the field strength of the worldvolume 2-form gauge field on the M5 brane worldvolume is non-degenerate and never vanishes. Also the induced $6d$ worldvolume metric of this theory is non-degenerate in contrast to conventional tensionless (null) $p$-branes. We find that the tensionless M5-brane action is invariant under a super-Weyl symmetry acting on the bulk supergeometry, while in the purely bosonic case the action is invariant under an 11D target-space conformal symmetry, a property which is characteristic for the tensionless bosonic branes. Upon imposing a static gauge, which fixes worldvolume diffeomorphisms, this 11D conformal symmetry becomes a deformed 6d worldovolume conformal symmetry whose action on the worldvolume coordinates involves field dependent terms. When the transversal fluctuations of the 5-brane in the bulk are zero, the model reduces to the conformal non-linear chiral 2-form electrodynamics considered earlier by Gibbons and West, and by Townsend.

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

41 extracted references · 33 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    G. W. Gibbons and P. C. West,The Metric and strong coupling limit of the M5-brane, J. Math. Phys.42(2001) 3188–3208,arXiv:hep-th/0011149 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  2. [2]

    P. K. Townsend,An interacting conformal chiral 2-form electrodynamics in six dimensions, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A476(2020) no. 2236, 20190863,arXiv:1911.01161 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    P. S. Howe and E. Sezgin,D = 11, p = 5, Phys. Lett.B394(1997) 62–66, arXiv:hep-th/9611008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  4. [4]

    P. S. Howe, E. Sezgin, and P. C. West,Covariant field equations of the M-theory five-brane, Phys. Lett.B399(1997) 49–59,arXiv:hep-th/9702008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  5. [5]

    Bergshoeff, D

    E. Bergshoeff, D. P. Sorokin, and P. K. Townsend,The M5-brane Hamiltonian, Nucl. Phys. B533(1998) 303–316,arXiv:hep-th/9805065

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    Quantum Theory Of Particles and Fields: Birthday Volume Dedicated to Jan Lopuszanski

    I. Bialynicki-Birula,Nonlinear Electrodynamics: variations on a theme by Born and Infeld, In: “Quantum Theory Of Particles and Fields: Birthday Volume Dedicated to Jan Lopuszanski” (Eds. B. Jancewicz and J. Lukierski), World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd, 1984, pp 31-48

    1984

  7. [7]

    Bialynicki-Birula,Field theory of photon dust, Acta Phys

    I. Bialynicki-Birula,Field theory of photon dust, Acta Phys. Polon.B23(1992) 553–559

    1992

  8. [8]

    Mezincescu and P

    L. Mezincescu and P. K. Townsend,DBI in the IR, J. Phys.A53(2020) no. 4, 044002, arXiv:1907.06036 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    I. A. Bandos, K. Lechner, A. Y. Nurmagambetov, P. Pasti, D. P. Sorokin, and M. Tonin, Covariant action for the super-five-brane of M-theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.78(1997) 4332–4334, arXiv:hep-th/9701149

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  10. [10]

    Aganagic, J

    M. Aganagic, J. Park, C. Popescu, and J. H. Schwarz,World-volume action of the M-theory five-brane, Nucl. Phys.B496(1997) 191–214,arXiv:hep-th/9701166

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  11. [11]

    S.-L. Ko, D. Sorokin, and P. Vanichchapongjaroen,The M5-brane action revisited, JHEP1311 (2013) 072,arXiv:1308.2231 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  12. [12]

    Bagger and N

    J. Bagger and N. Lambert,Modeling multiple M2’s, Phys. Rev.D75(2007) 045020, arXiv:hep-th/0611108

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  13. [13]

    Gustavsson,Algebraic structures on parallel M2-branes, Nucl

    A. Gustavsson,Algebraic structures on parallel M2-branes, Nucl. Phys.B811(2009) 66–76, arXiv:0709.1260 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  14. [14]

    Bagger and N

    J. Bagger and N. Lambert,Gauge Symmetry and Supersymmetry of Multiple M2-Branes, Phys. Rev.D77(2008) 065008,arXiv:0711.0955 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  15. [15]

    Bagger, N

    J. Bagger, N. Lambert, S. Mukhi, and C. Papageorgakis,Multiple Membranes in M-theory, arXiv:1203.3546 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    Ho and Y

    P.-M. Ho and Y. Matsuo,M5 from M2, JHEP0806(2008) 105,arXiv:0804.3629 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  17. [17]

    I. A. Bandos and P. K. Townsend,Light-cone M5 and multiple M2-branes, Class.Quant.Grav. 25(2008) 245003,arXiv:0806.4777 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  18. [18]

    I. A. Bandos and P. K. Townsend,SDiff Gauge Theory and the M2 Condensate, JHEP02 (2009) 013,arXiv:0808.1583 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  19. [19]

    Pasti, I

    P. Pasti, I. Samsonov, D. Sorokin, and M. Tonin,BLG-motivated Lagrangian formulation for the chiral two-form gauge field in D=6 and M5-branes, Phys.Rev.D80(2009) 086008, arXiv:0907.4596 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  20. [20]

    Buratti, K

    G. Buratti, K. Lechner, and L. Melotti,Self-interacting chiral p-forms in higher dimensions, Phys. Lett.B798(2019) 135018,arXiv:1909.10404 [hep-th]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Perry and J

    M. Perry and J. H. Schwarz,Interacting chiral gauge fields in six dimensions and Born-Infeld theory, Nucl. Phys.B489(1997) 47–64,arXiv:hep-th/9611065

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  22. [22]

    Pasti, D

    P. Pasti, D. P. Sorokin, and M. Tonin,Covariant action for a D = 11 five-brane with the chiral field, Phys. Lett.B398(1997) 41–46,arXiv:hep-th/9701037

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  23. [23]

    Bandos,On Lagrangian approach to self-dual gauge fields in spacetime of nontrivial topology, JHEP08(2014) 048,arXiv:1406.5185 [hep-th]

    I. Bandos,On Lagrangian approach to self-dual gauge fields in spacetime of nontrivial topology, JHEP08(2014) 048,arXiv:1406.5185 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [24]

    Schild,Classical Null Strings, Phys

    A. Schild,Classical Null Strings, Phys. Rev.D16(1977) 1722

    1977

  25. [25]

    Karlhede and U

    A. Karlhede and U. Lindstrom,The Classical Bosonic String in the Zero Tension Limit, Class. Quant. Grav.3(1986) L73–L75

    1986

  26. [26]

    Lindstrom, B

    U. Lindstrom, B. Sundborg, and G. Theodoridis,The Zero tension limit of the superstring, Phys. Lett.B253(1991) 319–323

    1991

  27. [27]

    I. A. Bandos and A. A. Zheltukhin,Twistors, harmonics, and zero super-p-branes, JETP Lett. 51(1990) 618–621. [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.51,547(1990)]

    1990

  28. [28]

    I. A. Bandos and A. A. Zheltukhin,Null super p-branes quantum theory in four-dimensional space-time, Fortsch. Phys.41(1993) 619–676

    1993

  29. [29]

    I. A. Bandos, D. P. Sorokin, M. Tonin, and D. V. Volkov,Doubly supersymmetric null strings and string tension generation, Phys. Lett.B319(1993) 445–450,arXiv:hep-th/9307039 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  30. [30]

    I. A. Bandos, J. A. de Azcarraga, and C. Miquel-Espanya,Superspace formulations of the (super)twistor string, JHEP07(2006) 005,arXiv:hep-th/0604037

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  31. [31]

    Bandos,Twistor/ambitwistor strings and null-superstrings in spacetime of D=4, 10 and 11 dimensions, JHEP09(2014) 086,arXiv:1404.1299 [hep-th]

    I. Bandos,Twistor/ambitwistor strings and null-superstrings in spacetime of D=4, 10 and 11 dimensions, JHEP09(2014) 086,arXiv:1404.1299 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    G. W. Gibbons,Aspects of Born-Infeld theory and string / M theory, AIP Conf. Proc.589 (2001) no. 1, 324–350,arXiv:hep-th/0106059

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  33. [33]

    J. D. Qualls,Lectures on Conformal Field Theory,arXiv:1511.04074 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    I. A. Bandos, E. Ivanov, J. Lukierski, and D. Sorokin,On the superconformal flatness of AdS superspaces, JHEP0206(2002) 040,arXiv:hep-th/0205104 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  35. [35]

    Claus, R

    P. Claus, R. Kallosh, J. Kumar, P. K. Townsend, and A. Van Proeyen,Conformal theory of M2, D3, M5 and D1+D5 branes, JHEP06(1998) 004,arXiv:hep-th/9801206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  36. [36]

    Claus,Super M-brane actions in AdS(4) x S(7) and AdS(7) x S(4), Phys

    P. Claus,Super M-brane actions in AdS(4) x S(7) and AdS(7) x S(4), Phys. Rev.D59(1999) 066003,arXiv:hep-th/9809045

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  37. [37]

    Pasti, D

    P. Pasti, D. P. Sorokin, and M. Tonin,On gauge-fixed superbrane actions in AdS superbackgrounds, Phys. Lett.B447(1999) 251–256,arXiv:hep-th/9809213

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  38. [38]

    Brizio, M

    N. Brizio, M. Kade, A. Sfondrini, and D. P. Sorokin,More onT T-like deformations in higher dimensions, JHEP06(2026) 262,arXiv:2602.24058 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Berman,SL(2,Z) duality of Born-Infeld theory from nonlinear selfdual electrodynamics in six-dimensions, Phys.Lett.B409(1997) 153–159,arXiv:hep-th/9706208 [hep-th]

    D. Berman,SL(2,Z) duality of Born-Infeld theory from nonlinear selfdual electrodynamics in six-dimensions, Phys.Lett.B409(1997) 153–159,arXiv:hep-th/9706208 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  40. [40]

    Nurmagambetov,Duality symmetric three-brane and its coupling to type IIB supergravity, Phys.Lett.B436(1998) 289–297,arXiv:hep-th/9804157 [hep-th]

    A. Nurmagambetov,Duality symmetric three-brane and its coupling to type IIB supergravity, Phys.Lett.B436(1998) 289–297,arXiv:hep-th/9804157 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  41. [41]

    Bandos, K

    I. Bandos, K. Lechner, D. Sorokin, and P. K. Townsend,On p-form gauge theories and their conformal limits, JHEP03(2021) 022,arXiv:2012.09286 [hep-th]. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021