Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

3d $\mathcal N=4$ rank-zero mirror symmetry, TQFT interfaces, and Zagier duality of Nahm sums

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper builds two U(1)^8 Chern–Simons theories from inverse E8 matrices, argues they form a rank-zero mirror pair, and shows their duality interface reproduces the exact level-one E8 character.

desk verdict A genuinely new 3d mirror construction for Zagier duality with a solid exact core and one honestly disclosed finite-order bridge. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08780 v1 pith:3GKLY6SJ submitted 2026-08-09 hep-th math.QAmath.RT

Yutaka Yoshida This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath.QAmath.RT PACS 11.15.-q11.25.Hf11.30.Pb
keywords rank-zeromirrorsymmetry3dN=4SCFTChern–SimonsmattertheoryNahmsumsZagierdualityE8latticesuperconformalindexBethe–SeifertTQFT
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 constructs two three-dimensional $\mathcal N=2$ Chern–Simons matter theories, $T$ and $T^\vee$, with gauge group $U(1)^8$ and level matrices $C_{E_8}$ and $C_{E_8}^{-1}$. It argues that the two theories flow to a mirror pair of $\mathcal N=4$ rank-zero superconformal fixed points, where the Coulomb and Higgs branches are zero-dimensional, and that particle–vortex duality supplies the mirror map. On a distinguished five-sector part of the half-index spectrum, that map acts componentwise as the Zagier transformation of Nahm sums, so the $(E_8,T_1)$ and $(T_1,E_8)$ Nahm systems are dual sector by sector. The folded duality interface then produces the exact torus amplitude $E_4(\tau)/\eta(\tau)^8=\chi_{(E_8)_1}(\tau)$. If correct, the paper places a number-theoretic duality of $q$-series inside concrete three-dimensional gauge-theory mirror symmetry.

What carries the argument

The central object is the folded particle–vortex duality wall between the two $U(1)^8$ Chern–Simons matter theories. In the bulk, gauging eight copies of the elementary one-node particle–vortex wall gives an intermediate Chern–Simons/BF master action whose Schur complement turns $C_{E_8}$ into $C_{E_8}^{-1}$; on Wilson lines the same wall transmits charges by $Q^\vee=C_{E_8}^{-1}Q$. On the torus state space of the $A/B$-twisted theories the wall acts as the identity in the Bethe-idempotent basis, with the vacua paired by the complement map $y=1-x$ (equivalently $y=x^{C_{E_8}}$), and as the permutation $P_\sigma$ in the Wilson-loop/character basis. These ingredients implement the Zagier transformation $(A,B,C)\mapsto(A^{-1},A^{-1}B,(1/2)B^T A^{-1}B-r/24-C)$ componentwise: the wall supplies the inverse quadratic form and the transformed linear term, while the scalar part and the framing phase $e^{-2\pi i/3}$ come from the fibering operator and the $E_8$ lattice vacuum term. The resulting five-sector pairing then determines the torus amplitude without inputting the $E_8$ character.

What would settle it

Compute the four non-vacuum Wilson-loop half-indices $II_A[W_{Q_h}](q)$ and $II^\vee_B[W^\vee_{Q^\vee_h}](q)$ to order $q^7$ (the first unchecked order beyond the displayed $O(q^7)$ expansions) and compare coefficient by coefficient with the T10 Meff(11,2) and Meff(2,11) characters; the first mismatch would falsify the all-order identification and with it the exact componentwise Zagier duality and the derived interface amplitude.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from the $(E_8,T_1)$ Nahm sum for the vacuum character of T10 Meff(11,2), the paper reads off a $U(1)^8$ Chern–Simons matter theory $T$: level matrix $C_{E_8}$, eight charge-one chirals, and a unique seven-term monopole superpotential. Gauged particle–vortex duality on the eight chirals produces a second theory $T^\vee$ whose level matrix is the inverse $C_{E_8}^{-1}$, and the exact superconformal-index identity $I^\vee(q,\eta)=I(q,\eta^{-1})$, together with the exchange of $A$- and $B$-twisted limits, supports the claim that the two theories flow to a rank-zero $\mathcal N=4$ mirror pair. The five Wilson loop sectors of $T$ are matched, to the orders checked, with the five-component character system of T10 Meff(11,2), while the particle–vortex image sectors match Meff(2,11); the inverse-Cartan line map $Q^\vee=C_{E_8}^{-1}Q$ is exactly the quadratic and linear part of the Zagier transformation, with the scalar part fixed by the rank-eight contact term. In the $A/B$-twisted TQFTs the Bethe-vacuum complement map $y=1-x$ identifies the five sectors, the handle-gluing operators, and the Wilson algebras, while the fibering operators are inverse up to the framing phase $e^{-2\pi i/3}$. Consequently the torus interface amplitude is exactly $Z_{\mathcal I}(\tau)=E_4(\tau)/\eta(\tau)^8=\chi_{(E_8)_1}(\tau)$, packaged as five transmitted sector pairs.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the four non-vacuum Wilson-loop half-indices, matched to the T10 Meff(11,2) and Meff(2,11) characters only through order $q^6$, continue to match to all orders, because the sector pairing, the componentwise Zagier duality, and the exact $E_8$ interface amplitude all assume those identifications.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The exact index identity $I^\vee(q,\eta)=I(q,\eta^{-1})$ means the two ultraviolet Lagrangians describe the same infrared fixed point, with the $A$- and $B$-twisted limits exchanged, so the rank-zero mirror pair is realized by explicit local 3d gauge theories rather than only by matching characters.
  • The five Wilson-loop sectors pair as $0\leftrightarrow0$, $5/11\leftrightarrow6/11$, $8/11\leftrightarrow3/11$, $10/11\leftrightarrow1/11$, and $12/11\leftrightarrow10/11$, realizing the componentwise Zagier duality of the two complete Nahm systems.
  • Seifert-manifold partition functions obey $Z_{T^\vee}^{B}(M_{g,p})=e^{-2\pi i p/3}Z_{T}^{A}(M_{g,-p})$ (and the $A/B$ swap), so orientation reversal plus the invertible $E_8$ framing phase organizes the TQFT data.
  • The torus interface amplitude is exactly $Z_{\mathcal I}(\tau)=E_4(\tau)/\eta(\tau)^8=\chi_{(E_8)_1}(\tau)$, and its first excited coefficient 248 decomposes as $121+8+35+84$ across the vacuum pair and the three grade-one transmitted pairs.
  • The non-invertible line sector admits the natural standard ribbon completion by the $m=5,6$ Galois-conjugate $SO(3)_9$ Reshetikhin–Turaev TQFTs, which are related by orientation reversal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the same construction is likely to generalize: any modular Nahm system whose quadratic form $A$ and inverse $A^{-1}$ are both integral and unimodular may be realizable as a particle–vortex mirror pair of abelian Chern–Simons matter theories, making Zagier-type duality a testable diagnostic of 3d mirror symmetry.
  • If the finite-order half-index matches are eventually promoted to all orders—which the paper explicitly declines to do—the componentwise Zagier duality and the interface amplitude would follow as all-order localization identities rather than modular-selected character identities.
  • Because the interface torus amplitude equals the $E_8$ level-one vacuum character, a natural strengthening, left open by the paper, is that the microscopic local interface vertex operator algebra is the affine $E_8$ algebra at level one; constructing interface local operators and their OPEs would settle that directly.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs two 3d N=2 U(1)^8 Chern--Simons matter theories, T and T∨, with integral gauging matrices C_{E8} and C_{E8}^{-1}, starting from the (E8,T1) Nahm sum for the vacuum character of T10 Meff(11,2) and applying particle--vortex duality and gauging. It claims that these theories flow to a 3d N=4 rank-zero mirror pair, supported by exact superconformal-index matching, F-maximization, and A/B-twisted Bethe--Seifert data. For the (D,Dc) boundary condition, the mirror map between Wilson-loop half-indices is claimed to reproduce componentwise the Zagier transformation relating the complete (E8,T1) and (T1,E8) Nahm systems, and the folded duality interface is claimed to yield the exact torus amplitude Z_I = E4/η^8 = χ_{(E8)_1}. The paper also identifies the Bethe algebra exactly with Q(ζ11)+ and reconstructs the modular S-matrix exactly from Bethe data.

Significance. If the central claims held, the paper would establish a concrete 3d realization of Zagier duality and a top-down derivation of the E8 level-one character from a duality interface, connecting rank-zero mirror symmetry, Nahm sums, and TQFT data. The manuscript contains several exact results of independent value: the all-order bulk index identity I∨(q,η)=I(q,η^{-1}) follows from the tetrahedron index reflection (Section 3.3); the Bethe algebra is identified exactly with Q(ζ11)+ (Section 4.1); and the modular S-matrix is reconstructed exactly from Bethe data (Eq. (4.30)). The paper is also commendably explicit about the scope of its claims and about which points are only numerically or finite-order checked.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.5, §3.4, §5.5; Eqs. (2.73), (3.88), (3.106), (5.64)] The four non-vacuum Wilson-loop half-indices are matched to the characters of T10 Meff(11,2) and Meff(2,11) only through relative order q^6, and Section 5.5 states that these identifications are not promoted to all-order half-index identities. Nevertheless, the componentwise Zagier duality (3.106), the sector pairing P_σ (5.36), and the exact torus interface amplitude Z_I = E4/η^8 (5.64) all use the full five-component character vectors as the solid-torus wavefunctions of the distinguished Wilson sectors. Since the modular transformation law of the half-indices is never derived, a single coefficient differing at q^7 or later would change the sector labels in (5.24) and the bilinear (5.51), and the claimed '3d-derived' Zagier duality and E8 torus amplitude would reduce to statements about the character systems alone. The exact Bethe/Seifert data in Section 4 establish a five-dimensional representation isomorphic to the character system, but they do not prove that the half-index q-series themselves transform with S_A and T_A. This is the load-bearing step on which the paper's exact arithmetic claims rest, and it needs to be either proved or explicitly labeled as a conjecture in the statements of the main results.
  2. [§2.3, §3.2; Eqs. (2.43)–(2.49), (3.43)–(3.45)] The infrared R-symmetry mixing is determined numerically: λ_num = 0.9999999586... is adopted as the exact value λ0 = 1, with the paper noting that this is not an analytic proof that F′(1)=0. The exact A-twist specialization μ0−a=0 in (2.49)—and hence the exact reproduction of the vacuum (E8,T1) Nahm sum—depends on λ0=1 exactly. If the true maximum lies at λ=1+ε with |ε| of order 10^{-8}, the half-index would acquire a small linear topological grading whose effect would appear only at very high order in q, so the numerical evidence is suggestive but does not constitute an exact derivation. The same caveat applies to λ∨0=−1 on the dual side. The paper should state clearly which of the subsequent 'exact' identities rely on these numerically adopted values.
  3. [§2.5, §3.4, §5.2] The four non-vacuum Wilson charge vectors Q_h are presented as 'a convenient set of Wilson-charge representatives' and are chosen so that the resulting half-indices match the target characters to order q^6. This reverse-engineering, acknowledged in the introduction, means that the five-sector pairing (5.24) and the interface amplitude (5.51) are not independent predictions of the construction; they are the images under particle–vortex duality of a finite-order fit. A derivation of Q_h from a principle (e.g., from the Bethe-vacuum sectors alone) would remove this circularity. Without it, the componentwise Zagier duality between the complete Nahm systems remains a conjecture supported by finite-order data, albeit one with substantial evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.4] The ordering of the dual effective weights (0, 6/11, 3/11, 1/11, 10/11) is introduced twice; it should be defined once at first use to avoid confusion with the set notation in (3.82).
  2. [Eq. (5.50)] The contraction χA(τ)^T Pσ χ∨,std_B(τ) should specify explicitly that χA and χ∨ are column vectors of q-series and that the pairing is the formal bilinear TQFT gluing, not a Hermitian inner product; the latter is stated but should be displayed more prominently.
  3. [Abstract and §2.1] The phrase 'level matrices C_{E8}' in the abstract and introduction should be accompanied by the warning that the ultraviolet contact-term matrix is C_{E8} − (1/2)I_8, as in Eq. (2.12); the distinction is made in the body but is easy to miss.
  4. [Throughout] The text contains numerous spacing and OCR-type artifacts (e.g., 'ThustheB-twistedchoiceis', 'Wenowintroducethearith metictransformation'); a careful proofreading pass is needed before publication.
  5. [§4.3.1] The sentence 'Since q6 = q−1 5' uses subscript notation that is not typeset; clarify the expression for the Galois specializations.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Componentwise Zagier duality and the exact interface amplitude inherit a finite-order fit of Wilson-loop charges and sector pairings; the mirror construction itself is independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.5, Eqs. (2.70)–(2.73)]
    "For each h∈H, define δ_h := min_{m∈Z^8_{\ge0}}(1/2 m^T C_{E8} m − Q_h·m) ... At this stage it is convenient to record the q-shift required for the character comparison as γ_h := h − 10/33 − δ_h ... With the provisional shifts q^{γ_h}, these series reproduce the four non-vacuum characters of T10 M_eff(11,2). Together with the vacuum sector, the comparison may be summarized as χ_h(q)=q^{γ_h} II_A[W_{Q_h}](q)."

    The non-vacuum Wilson charges Q_h and the shifts γ_h are chosen so that the half-indices match the target characters; γ_h is literally defined as the shift putting the half-index leading power at the character leading power h−10/33, and the equality is then checked only to displayed orders. The same fitted triples (C_{E8}, −Q_h, γ_h) are later inserted as the input Nahm data in (3.91) and (3.106) to claim componentwise Zagier duality. Thus the componentwise duality is, to the extent it relies on the non-vacuum sectors, the packaging of a fit rather than an independent prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.4, Eqs. (3.78)–(3.80) and (3.106)]
    "Comparing the remaining four series with the other four characters of the same five-component system identifies the particle–vortex-transformed Wilson charges, through relative order q^6, with the effective weights 0, 6/11, 3/11, 1/11, 10/11, respectively. Thus the Wilson line map induced by particle–vortex duality determines the sector pairing 0↦0, 5/11↦6/11, 8/11↦3/11, 10/11↦1/11, 12/11↦10/11."

    The sector pairing P_σ, which later defines the wall operator in (5.36) and the torus pairing in (5.51), is read off from a finite-order (q^6) match of dual Wilson-loop half-indices to the Meff(2,11) characters. The componentwise Zagier duality (3.106) then uses this same fitted pairing and the fitted charges/shifts as its sector-by-sector correspondence. The pairing is not derived independently of the character systems it is claimed to explain; it is inferred from those systems to the checked order.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section 5.5, just before Eq. (5.50) and at Eq. (5.64)]
    "The vacuum half-index identities are exact, whereas the four non-vacuum Wilson loop half-index/character identifications in Sections 2.5 and 3.4 were verified through the displayed orders in q and will not be promoted here to all-order half-index identities. Independently, the two complete five-component character systems are exact modular objects, and the exact wall operator Pσ selects their unique multiplicity-one sector pairing."

    The paper explicitly declines to promote the four non-vacuum half-index/character identifications to all orders, yet presents Z_I(τ)=E_4(τ)/η(τ)^8=χ_{(E8)_1}(τ) as the exact torus interface amplitude of the physical theories. The modular argument proves this value for the exact character bilinear with the q^6-derived pairing P_σ, but the physical identification of that bilinear with the Wilson-loop half-index interface amplitude is supported only through q^6. Thus the exact headline amplitude is not derived from the microscopic theory; it is the finite-order fitted sector identification elevated to an exact statement.

full rationale

The paper has genuine independent content. The mirror pair T and T^∨ is constructed by particle–vortex duality and gauging, giving C_{E8}→C_{E8}^{-1}; the bulk index identity I^∨(q,η)=I(q,η^{-1}) is an exact all-order consequence of the tetrahedron-index reflection; the Bethe complement map y=1−x, the handle-gluing equality, the fibering multiplier e^{-2πi/3}, and the SO(3)_9 fusion data are derived exactly from the Bethe equations and are not fitted to the character systems. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: the monopole-uniqueness argument is carried out in the text, and the cited prior work is external or standard. The circularity is confined to the componentwise arithmetic packaging: the five Wilson charges Q_h, the q-shifts γ_h, and the sector pairing h↦h^∨ are selected by matching half-indices to the T10 M_eff(11,2) and M_eff(2,11) characters through order q^6, and these same fitted data are then used to state the componentwise Zagier duality (3.106) and the wall pairing P_σ (5.36). The exact interface amplitude E_4/η^8 is a theorem about the exact character bilinear, but its physical identification with the Wilson-loop half-index amplitude rests on the explicitly non-all-order matches. For this reason the score is 5: partial circularity in the load-bearing sector identification, while the mirror-symmetry construction itself remains independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction rests on two fitted inputs: the trial R-symmetry mixings fixed by numerical F-maximization and the Wilson charge vectors chosen to match the five known characters. The remaining premises are standard domain assumptions of 3d supersymmetric localization and the unproven all-order character identification. No new fundamental entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • R-symmetry mixing λ (theory T) = 1 (numeric extremum 0.9999999586)
    One-parameter family R_λ = R_* + λ T allowed by the monopole superpotential; F-maximization in Section 2.3 locates the maximum numerically at λ ≈ 1, and the paper adopts the exact candidate λ0=1 without analytic proof.
  • R-symmetry mixing λ∨ (theory T∨) = -1
    Dual mixing R∨_λ = R∨_* + λ T∨; numerical F-maximization in Section 3.2 gives λ∨ ≈ -1, adopted as the exact candidate.
  • Wilson charge vectors Q_h (non-vacuum sectors) = Five vectors listed in the Section 2.5 table, e.g., Q_{5/11}=(2,-2,2,-2,2,-1,1,-2)
    Chosen so that the four non-vacuum A-twisted Wilson loop half-indices reproduce the T10 M_eff(11,2) characters to order q^6; the choice is a fit to the target character system, later shown to be consistent with the particle-vortex transmission law.
  • Monopole superpotential coefficients λ_ij = unspecified nonzero
    Seven coefficients in W (2.32) and W∨ (3.32) are free; protected quantities are claimed to be independent of their values, but they are part of the UV data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The UV N=2 theories flow to interacting rank-zero 3d N=4 SCFTs with the R-symmetry determined by F-maximization (supersymmetry enhancement from N=2 to N=4).
    Assumed throughout; supported by the charged supercurrent pair in the index and rank-zero specializations, but not proven. Invoked in Sections 2.3-2.4 and 3.2-3.3.
  • domain assumption The Bethe-vacuum and Seifert-manifold formalism computes the A/B-twisted TQFT data of the IR fixed points from the UV Lagrangian.
    Standard dictionary in the field (Table 1, refs [21,22,23]); the paper relies on it for the modular S/T extraction in Section 4.
  • domain assumption Particle-vortex duality and the DGP duality wall extend to the monopole-deformed theories via the BPS operator map, even though off-shell 2d couplings are not constructed.
    The paper states this limitation in Section 5.6 and uses the wall for Wilson transmission and the interface pairing.
  • ad hoc to paper The identification of the non-vacuum Wilson loop half-indices with the four non-vacuum characters is valid to all orders, although only finite-order checks are provided.
    This is the load-bearing premise for the five-sector pairing and interface amplitude; the paper acknowledges it in Section 5.5.
  • standard math Standard mathematical facts: irreducibility of the Bethe polynomials, cyclotomic parametrization, finite-sine orthogonality, uniqueness of weight-4 modular forms.
    Proved in Appendices A and B; standard.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3d $\mathcal N=4$ rank-zero mirror symmetry, TQFT interfaces, and Zagier duality of Nahm sums." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3GKLY6SJ

@misc{pith2026260808780,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3d $\mathcal N=4$ rank-zero mirror symmetry, TQFT interfaces, and Zagier duality of Nahm sums},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3GKLY6SJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08780}
}
abstract

Starting from the $(E_8,T_1)$ Nahm sum for the vacuum character of $T_{10}M_{\rm eff}(11,2)$, we construct a three-dimensional (3d) $\mathcal N=2$ $U(1)^8$ Chern--Simons matter theory $\mathcal T$ with level matrix $C_{E_8}$. Its $A$-twisted vacuum half-index reproduces the character exactly, while four distinguished Wilson loop half-indices agree with the remaining characters to the orders checked. Applying particle--vortex duality and gauging yields a second 3d $\mathcal N=2$ Chern--Simons matter theory $\mathcal T^\vee$ with level matrix $C_{E_8}^{-1}$. Exact superconformal-index matching supports the claim that the two theories flow to 3d $\mathcal N=4$ rank-zero mirror SCFTs. For the $(\mathcal D,D_c)$ boundary condition, the mirror map between the $A$-twisted Wilson loop half-indices of $\mathcal T$ and the $B$-twisted Wilson loop half-indices of $\mathcal T^\vee$ coincides componentwise with the Zagier transformation, realizing a Zagier duality between the complete $(E_8,T_1)$ and $(T_1,E_8)$ Nahm systems. Using the Bethe-equation formalism, we show that the corresponding $A/B$-twisted TQFT data agree up to orientation reversal and the $E_8$ framing phase $e^{-2\pi \mathrm{i}/3}$. The duality interface gives the torus bilinear $Z_{\mathcal I}(\tau)=\sum_i\chi_i(\tau)\chi_i^\vee(\tau)=\chi_{(E_8)_1}(\tau)$, where $\{\chi_i\}$ and $\{\chi_i^\vee\}$ are the corresponding five-component character bases. Thus Zagier duality is realized as part of a concrete 3d mirror and interface structure.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. 3d $\mathcal{N}=$ 4 rank-0 SCFT from punctured lens space

    hep-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The Gang-Kim-Stubbs rank-0 SCFT is derived from the Dimofte-Gaiotto-Gukov construction on a punctured lens space, and a new family of theories plus a self-mirror conjecture are proposed from other lens spaces.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Mirror symmetry in three-dimensional gauge theories

    K. A. Intriligator and N. Seiberg. “Mirror symmetry in three-dimensional gauge theories.” Phys. Lett. B 387 (1996), pp. 513–519. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)01088-X. arXiv: hep-th/9607207

    arXiv 1996

  2. [2]

    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. B 492 (1997), pp. 152–190. doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00157-0. arXiv: hep-th/9611230

    arXiv 1997

  3. [3]

    Mirror symmetry in three-dimensional gauge theories, quivers and D-branes

    J. de Boer, K. Hori, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz. “Mirror symmetry in three-dimensional gauge theories, quivers and D-branes.” Nucl. Phys. B 493 (1997), pp. 101–147. doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(97) 00125-9. arXiv:hep-th/9611063

    arXiv 1997

  4. [4]

    Three-dimensional gauge theories with supersymmetry enhancement

    D. Gang and M. Yamazaki. “Three-dimensional gauge theories with supersymmetry enhancement.” Phys. Rev. D 98.12 (2018), p. 121701. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.121701. arXiv: 1806.07714 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Three-Dimensional Topological Field Theories and Nonunitary Minimal Models

    D. Gang, H. Kim, and S. Stubbs. “Three-Dimensional Topological Field Theories and Nonunitary Minimal Models.” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132.13 (2024), p. 131601. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132. 131601. arXiv:2310.09080[hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Non-unitary TQFTs from 3DN = 4 rank 0 SCFTs

    D. Gang, S. Kim, K. Lee, M. Shim, and M. Yamazaki. “Non-unitary TQFTs from 3DN = 4 rank 0 SCFTs.” JHEP 08 (2021), p. 158. doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2021)158. arXiv: 2103.09283 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    R-Twisting and 4d/2d Correspondences

    S. Cecotti, A. Neitzke, and C. Vafa. “R-Twisting and 4d/2d Correspondences.” arXiv:1006.3435 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    3D TFTs from 4dN = 2 BPS particles

    D. Gaiotto and H. Kim. “3D TFTs from 4dN = 2 BPS particles.” JHEP 03 (2025), p. 173. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2025)173. arXiv:2409.20393[hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Bridging 4D QFTs and 2D VOAs via 3D high-temperature EFTs

    A. Arabi Ardehali, M. Dedushenko, D. Gang, and M. Litvinov. “Bridging 4D QFTs and 2D VOAs via 3D high-temperature EFTs.” JHEP 02 (2026), p. 038. doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2026)038. arXiv: 2409.18130[hep-th]

    2026 arXiv

  2. [10]

    3d SUSY enhancement and non- semisimple TQFTs from four dimensions

    A. Arabi Ardehali, D. Gang, N. J. Rajappa, and M. Sacchi. “3d SUSY enhancement and non- semisimple TQFTs from four dimensions.” JHEP 09 (2025), p. 179. doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2025)

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    3d Chern–Simons matter theories from generalized Argyres–Douglas theories

    T. Nishinaka and Y. Yoshida. “3d Chern–Simons matter theories from generalized Argyres–Douglas theories.” Nucl. Phys. B 1029 (2026), p. 117564. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2026.117564. arXiv: 2512.15201[hep-th]

    2026

  4. [12]

    From BPS spectra of Argyres-Douglas theories to families of 3d TFTs

    B. Go, Q. Jia, H. Kim, and S. Kim. “From BPS spectra of Argyres-Douglas theories to families of 3d TFTs.” JHEP 08 (2025), p. 012. doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2025)012. arXiv: 2502.15133 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    3D TFTs and boundary VOAs from BPS spectra of (G, G′) Argyres-Douglas theories

    M. Kim and S. Kim. “3D TFTs and boundary VOAs from BPS spectra of (G, G′) Argyres-Douglas theories.” JHEP 05 (2026), p. 203. doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2026)203. arXiv: 2511.23194 [hep-th]

    2026

  6. [14]

    3d SUSY enhancement with non-trivial Coulomb branch via 4dN= 2SCFT

    R. Hamachika, T. Nishinaka, S. Tanigawa, and Y. Yoshida. “3d SUSY enhancement with non-trivial Coulomb branch via 4dN= 2SCFT.” arXiv:2607.19021[hep-th]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Infinite Chiral Symmetry in Four Dimensions

    C. Beem, M. Lemos, P. Liendo, W. Peelaers, L. Rastelli, and B. C. van Rees. “Infinite Chiral Symmetry in Four Dimensions.” Commun. Math. Phys. 336 (2015), pp. 1359–1433. doi:10.1007/ s00220-014-2272-x. arXiv:1312.5344[hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Vertex Operator Algebras and 3dN = 4 gauge theories

    K. Costello and D. Gaiotto. “Vertex Operator Algebras and 3dN = 4 gauge theories.” JHEP 05 (2019), p. 018. doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2019)018. arXiv:1804.06460[hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Higgs and Coulomb branches from vertex operator algebras

    K. Costello, T. Creutzig, and D. Gaiotto. “Higgs and Coulomb branches from vertex operator algebras.” JHEP 03 (2019), p. 066. doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2019)066. arXiv: 1811.03958 [hep-th]. 68

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    On the 4d/3d/2d view of the SCFT/VOA correspondence

    M. Dedushenko. “On the 4d/3d/2d view of the SCFT/VOA correspondence.” arXiv:2312.17747 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Three dimensional topological field theories and Nahm sum formulas

    D. Gang, H. Kim, B. Park, and S. Stubbs. “Three dimensional topological field theories and Nahm sum formulas.” SciPost Phys. 19.5 (2025), p. 128. doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.19.5.128. arXiv: 2411.06081[hep-th]

    2025

  12. [20]

    A Family of Vertex Algebras from Argyres-Douglas Theory

    H. Kim and J. Song. “A Family of Vertex Algebras from Argyres-Douglas Theory.” SciPost Phys. 19 (2025), p. 144. doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.19.6.144. arXiv:2412.20015[hep-th]

    2025

  13. [21]

    Comments on twisted indices in 3d supersymmetric gauge theories

    C. Closset and H. Kim. “Comments on twisted indices in 3d supersymmetric gauge theories.” JHEP 08 (2016), p. 059. doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)059. arXiv:1605.06531[hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Supersymmetric partition functions and the three-dimensional A-twist

    C. Closset, H. Kim, and B. Willett. “Supersymmetric partition functions and the three-dimensional A-twist.” JHEP 03 (2017), p. 074. doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2017)074. arXiv:1701.03171[hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Seifert fibering operators in 3dN = 2theories

    C. Closset, H. Kim, and B. Willett. “Seifert fibering operators in 3dN = 2theories.” JHEP 11 (2018), p. 004. doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2018)004. arXiv:1807.02328[hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Mirror symmetry and level-rank duality for 3dN = 4rank 0 SCFTs

    T. Creutzig, N. Garner, and H. Kim. “Mirror symmetry and level-rank duality for 3dN = 4rank 0 SCFTs.” Lett. Math. Phys. 115.6 (2025), p. 123. doi:10.1007/s11005-025-02015-x. arXiv: 2406.00138[hep-th]

    2025

  17. [25]

    Dual Boundary Conditions in 3d SCFT’s

    T. Dimofte, D. Gaiotto, and N. M. Paquette. “Dual Boundary Conditions in 3d SCFT’s.” JHEP 05 (2018), p. 060. doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2018)060. arXiv:1712.07654[hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Conformal field theory and torsion elements of the Bloch group

    W. Nahm. “Conformal field theory and torsion elements of the Bloch group.” Frontiers in Number Theory, Physics, and Geometry II. 2007, pp. 67–132. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30308-4_2. arXiv: hep-th/0404120

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    The Dilogarithm Function

    D. Zagier. “The Dilogarithm Function.” Frontiers in Number Theory, Physics, and Geometry II. 2007, pp. 3–65. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30308-4_1

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    Nahm’s conjecture: asymptotic computations and counterexamples

    M. Vlasenko and S. Zwegers. “Nahm’s conjecture: asymptotic computations and counterexamples.” Commun. Number Theory Phys. 5.3 (2011), pp. 617–642. doi:10.4310/CNTP.2011.v5.n3.a2. arXiv:1104.4008[math.NT]

    2011 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Dynkin diagrams, generalized Nahm sums and 2d CFTs

    K. Sun and H. Wang. “Dynkin diagrams, generalized Nahm sums and 2d CFTs.” arXiv:2604.00847 [math-ph]

  22. [30]

    Hecke relations, cosets and the classification of 2d RCFTs

    Z. Duan, K. Lee, and K. Sun. “Hecke relations, cosets and the classification of 2d RCFTs.” JHEP 09 (2022), p. 202. doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)202. arXiv:2206.07478[hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    The Exact Superconformal R-Symmetry Extremizes Z

    D. L. Jafferis. “The Exact Superconformal R-Symmetry Extremizes Z.” JHEP 05 (2012), p. 159. doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2012)159. arXiv:1012.3210[hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    The Complete superconformal index for N=6 Chern-Simons theory

    S. Kim. “The Complete superconformal index for N=6 Chern-Simons theory.” Nucl. Phys. B 821 (2009), pp. 241–284. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 864, 884 (2012)]. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009. 06.025. arXiv:0903.4172[hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Index for three dimensional superconformal field theories with general R-charge assignments

    Y. Imamura and S. Yokoyama. “Index for three dimensional superconformal field theories with general R-charge assignments.” JHEP 04 (2011), p. 007. doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2011)007. arXiv: 1101.0557[hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Down the rabbit hole with theories of classS

    S. S. Razamat and B. Willett. “Down the rabbit hole with theories of classS.” JHEP 10 (2014), p

    2014

  27. [35]

    Gauge Theories Labelled by Three-Manifolds

    T. Dimofte, D. Gaiotto, and S. Gukov. “Gauge Theories Labelled by Three-Manifolds.” Commun. Math. Phys. 325 (2014), pp. 367–419. doi: 10.1007/s00220-013-1863-2. arXiv: 1108.4389 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Counterexamples to Zagier’s Duality Conjecture on Nahm Sums

    L. Wang. “Counterexamples to Zagier’s Duality Conjecture on Nahm Sums.” arXiv:2411.09701 [math.NT]. 69

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Localization of three-dimensionalN = 2supersymmetric theories on S1×D 2

    Y. Yoshida and K. Sugiyama. “Localization of three-dimensionalN = 2supersymmetric theories on S1×D 2.” PTEP 2020.11 (2020), 113B02. doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa136. arXiv: 1409.6713 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Basic Representations of Affine Lie Algebras and Dual Resonance Models

    I. B. Frenkel and V. G. Kac. “Basic Representations of Affine Lie Algebras and Dual Resonance Models.” Invent. Math. 62 (1980), pp. 23–66. doi:10.1007/BF01391662

    1980 doi

  31. [39]

    2d Conformal Field Theories on Magic Triangle

    K. Lee and K. Sun. “2d Conformal Field Theories on Magic Triangle.” arXiv:2601.04162 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Bethe/Gauge correspondence on curved spaces

    N. A. Nekrasov and S. L. Shatashvili. “Bethe/Gauge correspondence on curved spaces.” JHEP 01 (2015), p. 100. doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2015)100. arXiv:1405.6046[hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A topologically twisted index for three-dimensional supersymmetric theories

    F. Benini and A. Zaffaroni. “A topologically twisted index for three-dimensional supersymmetric theories.” JHEP 07 (2015), p. 127. doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2015)127. arXiv: 1504.03698 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  34. [42]

    G/G gauged WZW model and Bethe Ansatz for the phase model

    S. Okuda and Y. Yoshida. “G/G gauged WZW model and Bethe Ansatz for the phase model.” JHEP 11 (2012), p. 146. doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2012)146. arXiv:1209.3800[hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  35. [43]

    G/G gauged WZW-matter model, Bethe Ansatz for q-boson model and Commutative Frobenius algebra

    S. Okuda and Y. Yoshida. “G/G gauged WZW-matter model, Bethe Ansatz for q-boson model and Commutative Frobenius algebra.” JHEP 03 (2014), p. 003. doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2014)003. arXiv:1308.4608[hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Invariants of 3-manifolds via link polynomials and quantum groups

    N. Reshetikhin and V. G. Turaev. “Invariants of 3-manifolds via link polynomials and quantum groups.” Invent. Math. 103 (1991), pp. 547–597. doi:10.1007/BF01239527

    1991 doi

  37. [45]

    Galois Symmetry Induced by Hecke Relations in Rational Conformal Field Theory and Associated Modular Tensor Categories

    J. A. Harvey, Y. Hu, and Y. Wu. “Galois Symmetry Induced by Hecke Relations in Rational Conformal Field Theory and Associated Modular Tensor Categories.” J. Phys. A 53.33 (2020), p. 334003. doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab8e03. arXiv:1912.11955[hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Clebsch-Gordan and 6j-coefficients for rank two quantum groups

    E. Ardonne and J. K. Slingerland. “Clebsch-Gordan and 6j-coefficients for rank two quantum groups.” J. Phys. A 43 (2010), p. 395205. doi:10.1088/1751-8113/43/39/395205. arXiv: 1004. 5456[math.QA]

    2010 doi

  39. [47]

    Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial

    E. Witten. “Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial.” Commun. Math. Phys. 121 (1989), pp. 351–399. doi:10.1007/BF01217730

    1989 doi

  40. [48]

    Remarks on the Canonical Quantization of the Chern–Simons–Witten Theory

    S. Elitzur, G. W. Moore, A. Schwimmer, and N. Seiberg. “Remarks on the Canonical Quantization of the Chern–Simons–Witten Theory.” Nucl. Phys. B 326 (1989), pp. 108–134. doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(89)90436-7

    1989

  41. [49]

    Exceptional Chern–Simons-Matter Dualities

    C. Cordova, P.-S. Hsin, and K. Ohmori. “Exceptional Chern–Simons-Matter Dualities.” SciPost Phys. 7.4 (2019), p. 056. doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.7.4.056. arXiv:1812.11705[hep-th]. 70

    2019 arXiv

  42. [99]

    arXiv:1403.6107[hep-th]

    doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2014)099. arXiv:1403.6107[hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  43. [179]

    arXiv:2411.00766[hep-th]

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.