Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A Bound on 3d Mirror Pairs

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Exceptional affine Dynkin subquivers block Lagrangian 3d mirrors

desk verdict Useful new U/SU mirror pairs for BCD quivers, wrapped around a clearly labeled bound conjecture whose main propagation step is not actually justified under the paper's own definition of Lagrangian. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14531 v1 pith:5MAKWJJY submitted 2024-11-21 hep-th

Zhenghao Zhong This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords 3dmirrorsymmetryquivergaugetheoryN=4supersymmetrybranelockingmagneticquiversdecayandfissionaffineDynkindiagramsnon-Lagrangiantheories
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

This paper maps where Lagrangian, quiver-shaped 3d mirror pairs can exist. It first argues that the known family of finite A, B, C, D Dynkin quivers can be vastly expanded: any gauge node may be replaced by a special unitary node, and a mirror quiver can still be found by locking NS5 branes in webs with orientifold planes. It then conjectures a sharp boundary: any 3d N=4 quiver built from unitary gauge groups that contains an exceptional affine Dynkin subquiver of type G2, F4, E6, E7, or E8 has no Lagrangian quiver-gauge-theory mirror. If correct, a single structural feature of the quiver diagram decides non-Lagrangian status, while the expanded Dynkin families sit on the allowed side of the boundary.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the list of six exceptional affine and twisted affine Dynkin quivers built from unitary gauge groups: the affine E8, E7, E6, F4, and G2 diagrams. The mechanism is the Decay and Fission algorithm, which implements Higgsing on magnetic quivers, paired with the brane-locking construction that converts unitary nodes into special unitary nodes by forcing NS5 branes to move together, with orientifold planes playing the analogous role for BCD-type quivers.

What would settle it

Construct a 3d N=4 unitary quiver that contains the affine E8 unitary subquiver and exhibit a Lagrangian quiver-gauge-theory mirror whose Higgs and Coulomb branch Hilbert series match exactly on both sides.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a bound on the 3d mirror landscape: for a 3d N=4 quiver gauge theory with unitary gauge groups, containing an affine or twisted affine Dynkin diagram of G2, F4, E6, E7, or E8 as a subquiver forces its 3d mirror to be non-Lagrangian, meaning it has no quiver gauge theory description. The argument runs through magnetic quivers and the Decay and Fission algorithm: Higgsing the original theory eventually produces a theory whose mirror is one of the exceptional affine quivers, and the author argues that a Lagrangian theory cannot be Higgsed into a non-Lagrangian theory. The paper also claims a systematic expansion of known Lagrangian mirror pairs: finite ABCD-type Dynkin quivers with any mixture of unitary and special unitary gauge nodes have explicit quiver mirrors obtained by brane locking in webs with ON orientifold planes. Where possible, the proposed pairs are checked by matching Coulomb and Higgs branch Hilbert series.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the premise that a Lagrangian theory cannot be Higgsed into a non-Lagrangian theory, since it concludes the original quiver is non-Lagrangian from the non-Lagrangian status of a Higgsed descendant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any unitary quiver whose diagram contains one of the exceptional affine Dynkin subquivers cannot appear in a pair of Lagrangian 3d mirrors.
  • The expanded DynkinABCD U/SU construction gives a large, systematic family of Lagrangian mirror pairs beyond the previously known all-unitary and orthosymplectic families.
  • Because the obstruction survives Higgsing, any theory that can be Higgsed to an exceptional affine quiver, including many class S and S-fold theories compactified to three dimensions, is predicted to be non-Lagrangian.
  • The corollary extends to unitary-orthosymplectic quivers whenever they contain one of the listed unitary subquivers.
  • The criterion is one-way: a quiver without those subquivers may still lack a Lagrangian mirror, so the conjecture is a necessary obstruction rather than a complete classification.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The subquiver test suggests a practical scanning rule for the mirror landscape: search for exceptional affine subquivers first, and only hunt for Lagrangian mirrors in quivers that pass the test.
  • If the propagation premise holds, non-Lagrangian status behaves like a basin property under Higgs flows, and the converse question, whether every quiver whose Higgs branches all stay Lagrangian must itself be Lagrangian, is left open.
  • The U/SU construction encodes the change of topological symmetry lattice in the mirror's bouquet of U(1) nodes, so the same locking language may yield an orthosymplectic version of the bound once an orthosymplectic Decay and Fission algorithm is developed.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper has two main parts. In the first part, it extends the brane-locking mechanism of [5] to Dynkin diagrams of ABCD type with mixtures of unitary and special-unitary gauge nodes, including the addition of orientifold planes, and proposes new 3d mirror pairs. Several A- and D-type pairs are checked by explicit Hilbert series computations, while B- and C-type pairs are only testable on one side because the Higgs branch of non-simply laced quivers is not computable. In the second part, the paper argues that most non-linear quiver gauge theories do not have Lagrangian mirror duals and conjectures a sharp criterion: any 3d N=4 quiver made of unitary gauge groups that contains an exceptional affine or twisted affine Dynkin subquiver (G2, F4, E6, E7, E8) does not have a Lagrangian (quiver) 3d mirror. The argument uses the Decay and Fission algorithm and a propagation assumption that a Lagrangian theory cannot be Higgsed into a non-Lagrangian theory.

Significance. If correct, the first part significantly enlarges the known landscape of 3d mirror pairs, and the second part provides a simple and widely applicable obstruction to the existence of Lagrangian mirrors, with potential consequences for class S theories, S-folds, and Argyres-Douglas compactifications. The paper is commendably explicit about which statements are conjectural and which are verified, and it provides concrete Hilbert series checks for the A- and D-type families. However, the central bound in Section 4 rests on an unproven propagation assumption, and the paper's own definition of 'Lagrangian' creates an internal tension that affects the meaning of the main conjecture.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, footnote 11 and Section 3] The propagation assumption that 'a Lagrangian theory cannot be Higgsed into a non-Lagrangian theory' is not established, and the footnote's justification is inconsistent with the paper's own definition of Lagrangian. The footnote argues that Higgsed descendants of a Lagrangian quiver are quiver gauge theories with classical flavor symmetries, but Section 3 explicitly classifies quiver gauge theories with IR-enhanced non-Abelian topological symmetries as non-Lagrangian; the affine E8 quiver reached in (4.3) is precisely such a quiver. Therefore, the step from 'after Higgsing, Z reaches a non-Lagrangian theory Z'' to 'Z itself is non-Lagrangian' does not follow from the stated assumption, and the '3d mirror corollary' is not a consequence of the '3d mirror conjecture' unless the propagation assumption is proved. The corollary should be presented as a conjecture, or a proof of the propagation step is required.
  2. [Section 3 vs. Section 2 (e.g., (2.1), Table 1)] The paper's use of 'Lagrangian (quiver gauge theory)' is internally inconsistent. Section 3 defines a theory as Lagrangian only if all symmetries are manifest in the UV Lagrangian, which excludes any balanced quiver with a non-Abelian Coulomb branch enhancement. Yet the DynkinA example (2.1) has Coulomb branch global symmetry SU(4) according to Table 1, and Section 3 states that 'all the examples we've constructed so far' are Lagrangian mirror pairs. This tension directly affects the bound: under the Section 3 definition, many quivers the paper counts as Lagrangian are non-Lagrangian, so the precise meaning of 'Lagrangian (quiver gauge theory) mirror' in the corollary must be fixed, and the classification of the constructed pairs as Lagrangian should be revisited.
  3. [Section 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, around (2.35)-(2.63)] The B- and C-type mirror pairs are not verified on both sides. The paper states that the Higgs branch of non-simply laced quivers cannot be computed, so only the Coulomb branch of the B/C quiver is matched to the Higgs branch of the orthosymplectic 'mirror', while the reverse direction is supported only by an S-duality heuristic. The abstract's claim that 'the proposed 3d mirrors DynkinBCD^U/SU_mirror are checked through Hilbert series computations' overstates this evidence and should be qualified to indicate the one-sided nature of the checks for B- and C-type quivers.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2.1, after (2.20)] Grammar: 'The five NS5s now moves together' should be 'move together'; also 'The Higgs branch global symmetry of of the magnetic quiver' contains a duplicated 'of'.
  2. [Section 2.2.2 and 2.2.3] The notation 'SO(1)' for a half-hyper is unusual and should be defined explicitly the first time it appears, since SO(1) is not a standard simple group.
  3. [Section 4, Figure 2 caption] The caption reads 'takes the form of affine Dynkin diagrams'; it should read 'take the form' to agree with the plural subject 'theories'.
  4. [Section 4, paragraph after (4.4)] The use of the symbol '§' as a name for a specific theory is confusing and should be replaced with a letter or number to avoid collision with section references.
  5. [Section 5, 'Are non-simply laced quivers Lagrangian?'] This discussion is important for the paper's terminology and should be referenced or summarized in Section 3, since footnote 5 already points forward to it.
  6. [References] Reference [41] is listed without year or arXiv number; it should be marked as 'to appear' or given a preprint number if available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mirror-pair proposals are checked by independent Hilbert-series computations, and the Section 4 bound is an explicitly stated conjecture rather than a derivation from its own conclusion.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. In Section 2, the proposed DynkinABCD U/SU mirror pairs are produced by a brane-locking prescription and then checked by explicit Hilbert-series computations on both sides; the quiver data (ranks, U/SU choices, link multiplicities from brane intersection numbers) are inputs, not fitted parameters, and the checks are not tuned to the claimed answer. In Section 3, the discussion of gauging topological symmetries explicitly separates definitional claims about what counts as Lagrangian from conjectured mirror relations. In Section 4, the '3d mirror conjecture' and 'corollary' are presented as conjectures built on the Decay and Fission algorithm [6,7] and on the known external fact that the affine E8 quiver has a non-Lagrangian mirror; neither step identifies its conclusion with its premise. The one genuinely weak point is the propagation premise that 'a Lagrangian theory cannot be Higgsed into a non-Lagrangian theory' (Section 4, footnote 11). Footnote 11 argues that Higgsed descendants are quiver gauge theories with classical flavor symmetries, which does not by itself establish Lagrangianity under the paper's own Section 3 definition (all symmetries manifest in the UV). This is a soundness gap in the argument for the corollary, not a circularity: the premise is not defined in terms of the conclusion, and the conclusion is not an input to the premise. Self-citations [5,6,7] are load-bearing but are backed by independent Hilbert-series checks and published external support, so they do not make the derivation circular. Overall score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper has no fitted parameters: the quiver ranks and U/SU choices are inputs, not outputs tuned to data. The central constructions rely on tools inherited from prior work (brane locking [5], decay and fission [6,7]), and the bound argument adds two explicit premises: that the E8 affine quiver is non-Lagrangian as a mirror, and that Lagrangian theories cannot be Higgsed into non-Lagrangian ones. No new entities are postulated; 'U(1) bouquets' and family names are terminology, not new physical objects.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Good quiver condition: each U(Ni) or SU(Ni) gauge node must be connected to Nf >= 2Ni hypermultiplets for the Coulomb branch to be a hyperKähler cone.
    Stated at the start of Section 2 as a necessary condition for 3d mirror pairs to be well defined; the paper explicitly excludes borderline cases such as Nf = 2Ni - 1.
  • domain assumption The classical Higgs branch is identical in 5d N=1 and 3d N=4 theories (non-renormalization theorem).
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to justify importing the 5d brane web construction of DynkinAU/SU into 3d mirror symmetry; citation [13].
  • ad hoc to paper Converting SU gauge nodes to U gauge nodes corresponds to locking NS5 branes in the brane web, and the magnetic quiver can be read off from the locked system; the same holds with ON orientifold planes, including when branes lock onto the orientifold.
    Core mechanism inherited from [5] and extended to BCD-type quivers in this paper; the resulting mirror pairs are conjectured and then checked by Hilbert series where possible, not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption The Decay and Fission algorithm correctly implements all minimal Higgsings of magnetic quivers.
    Used in Section 4 to track what a theory can decay into. The algorithm is published in [6,7] (self-cited), with independent examples; the bound argument depends on its correctness.
  • ad hoc to paper A Lagrangian (quiver gauge) theory cannot be Higgsed into a non-Lagrangian theory.
    Explicit premise at the end of Section 4: 'This conjecture utilized the very reasonable assumption that a Lagrangian theory cannot be Higgsed into a non-Lagrangian theory.' The propagation of non-Lagrangianness from the E8 affine quiver to all ancestor quivers rests on this.
  • domain assumption The E8 affine Dynkin quiver has no Lagrangian (quiver gauge theory) 3d mirror.
    Base case of the bound argument, treated as established by the small E8 instanton literature [29]; the paper does not reprove it. If this base case admitted a Lagrangian description, the corollary would fail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Bound on 3d Mirror Pairs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5MAKWJJY

@misc{pith2026241114531,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Bound on 3d Mirror Pairs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5MAKWJJY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14531}
}
abstract

A distinctive duality present in 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theories is the 3d mirror symmetry. Under this duality, the Coulomb (Higgs) branch of one theory corresponds to the Higgs (Coulomb) branch of its mirror dual. This paper is divided into two parts. In the first part, we examine quiver gauge theories constructed from unitary gauge groups arranged in the shape of ABCD-type Dynkin diagrams. This is arguably the largest family of quivers in the literature with known 3d mirror pairs. Using brane lockings and magnetic quivers, we show how this family can be vastly expanded by replacing any number of the unitary gauge groups with special unitary gauge groups and finding the mirror pairs. In the second part, we argue that in the landscape of 3d mirror pairs, most Lagrangian (quiver gauge theories) will not have 3d mirror duals that are also Lagrangian (quiver gauge theories). For unitary quiver gauge theories, we conjecture that any quiver with an exceptional affine Dynkin diagram as a subquiver cannot have a Lagrangian (quiver gauge theory) mirror.

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. Bootstrapping mirror pairs: The beginning of the end

    hep-th 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A growth-and-fusion algorithm completes a quartet of quiver operations that bootstrap 3d mirror pairs, demonstrated on a new family of circular 'sunshine' quivers.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [5]

    Higgs Branches of U/SU Quivers via Brane Locking

    A. Bourget, J. F. Grimminger, A. Hanany, R. Kalveks and Z. Zhong, Higgs branches of U/SU quivers via brane locking , JHEP 08 (2022) 061, [ 2111.04745]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    K. A. Intriligator and N. Seiberg, Mirror symmetry in three-dimensional gauge theories , Phys. Lett. B 387 (1996) 513–519, [ hep-th/9607207]. – 52 –

    arXiv 1996

  3. [2]

    Gaiotto and E

    D. Gaiotto and E. Witten, S-Duality of Boundary Conditions In N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 13 (2009) 721–896, [ 0807.3720]

    arXiv 2009

  4. [3]

    Braverman, M

    A. Braverman, M. Finkelberg and H. Nakajima, Coulomb branches of 3d N = 4 quiver gauge theories and slices in the affine Grassmannian , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 23 (2019) 75–166, [1604.03625]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [4]

    Bourget, J

    A. Bourget, J. F. Grimminger, A. Hanany, M. Sperling and Z. Zhong, Branes, Quivers, and the Affine Grassmannian , 2102.06190

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Bourget, M

    A. Bourget, M. Sperling and Z. Zhong, Decay and Fission of Magnetic Quivers , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 221603, [ 2312.05304]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Bourget, M

    A. Bourget, M. Sperling and Z. Zhong, Higgs branch RG flows via decay and fission , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 126013, [ 2401.08757]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Hanany and E

    A. Hanany and E. Witten, Type IIB superstrings, BPS monopoles, and three-dimensional gauge dynamics , Nucl. Phys. B 492 (1997) 152–190, [ hep-th/9611230]

    arXiv 1997

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Hanany and A

    A. Hanany and A. Zaffaroni, Issues on orientifolds: On the brane construction of gauge theories with SO(2n) global symmetry , JHEP 07 (1999) 009, [ hep-th/9903242]

    1999 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Cremonesi, G

    S. Cremonesi, G. Ferlito, A. Hanany and N. Mekareeya, Coulomb Branch and The Moduli Space of Instantons , JHEP 12 (2014) 103, [ 1408.6835]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cremonesi, A

    S. Cremonesi, A. Hanany and A. Zaffaroni, Monopole operators and Hilbert series of Coulomb branches of 3d N = 4 gauge theories, JHEP 01 (2014) 005, [ 1309.2657]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Cabrera, A

    S. Cabrera, A. Hanany and F. Yagi, Tropical Geometry and Five Dimensional Higgs Branches at Infinite Coupling , JHEP 01 (2019) 068, [ 1810.01379]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    P. C. Argyres, M. R. Plesser and N. Seiberg, The Moduli space of vacua of N=2 SUSY QCD and duality in N=1 SUSY QCD , Nucl. Phys. B 471 (1996) 159–194, [ hep-th/9603042]

    1996 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Aharony, A

    O. Aharony, A. Hanany and B. Kol, Webs of (p,q) five-branes, five-dimensional field theories and grid diagrams , JHEP 01 (1998) 002, [ hep-th/9710116]

    1998 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Hanany and J

    A. Hanany and J. Troost, Orientifold planes, affine algebras and magnetic monopoles , JHEP 08 (2001) 021, [ hep-th/0107153]

    2001 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Hayashi, S.-S

    H. Hayashi, S.-S. Kim, K. Lee, M. Taki and F. Yagi, More on 5d descriptions of 6d SCFTs , JHEP 10 (2016) 126, [ 1512.08239]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Kimura and R.-D

    T. Kimura and R.-D. Zhu, Web Construction of ABCDEFG and Affine Quiver Gauge Theories, JHEP 09 (2019) 025, [ 1907.02382]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Kim and X.-Y

    S.-S. Kim and X.-Y. Wei, Refined topological vertex with ON-planes , JHEP 08 (2022) 006, [2201.12264]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    X.-Y. Wei, Y. Sugimoto, F. Yagi and S.-S. Kim, DE-type little strings from glued brane webs , JHEP 05 (2023) 214, [ 2212.07344]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bourget, J

    A. Bourget, J. F. Grimminger, A. Hanany, R. Kalveks, M. Sperling and Z. Zhong, Magnetic Lattices for Orthosymplectic Quivers , JHEP 12 (2020) 092, [ 2007.04667]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Witten, An su(2) anomaly , Physics Letters B 117 (1982) 324–328

    E. Witten, An su(2) anomaly , Physics Letters B 117 (1982) 324–328. – 53 –

    1982

  14. [22]

    Hanany and R

    A. Hanany and R. Kalveks, Quiver Theories for Moduli Spaces of Classical Group Nilpotent Orbits, JHEP 06 (2016) 130, [ 1601.04020]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Closset, S

    C. Closset, S. Giacomelli, S. Schafer-Nameki and Y.-N. Wang, 5d and 4d SCFTs: Canonical Singularities, Trinions and S-Dualities , JHEP 05 (2021) 274, [ 2012.12827]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Closset, S

    C. Closset, S. Schafer-Nameki and Y.-N. Wang, Coulomb and Higgs Branches from Canonical Singularities: Part 0 , JHEP 02 (2021) 003, [ 2007.15600]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Akhond, F

    M. Akhond, F. Carta, S. Dwivedi, H. Hayashi, S.-S. Kim and F. Yagi, Exploring the orthosymplectic zoo, JHEP 05 (2022) 054, [ 2203.01951]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Carta, S

    F. Carta, S. Giacomelli, N. Mekareeya and A. Mininno, Conformal manifolds and 3d mirrors of Argyres-Douglas theories, JHEP 08 (2021) 015, [ 2105.08064]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Dancer, J

    A. Dancer, J. F. Grimminger, J. Martens and Z. Zhong, Complex Symplectic Contractions and 3d Mirrors , 2406.09626

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cabrera, A

    S. Cabrera, A. Hanany and M. Sperling, Magnetic Quivers, Higgs Branches, and 6d N=(1,0) Theories, JHEP 06 (2019) 071, [ 1904.12293]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hanany and N

    A. Hanany and N. Mekareeya, The small E 8 instanton and the Kraft Procesi transition , JHEP 07 (2018) 098, [ 1801.01129]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bourget, S

    A. Bourget, S. Cabrera, J. F. Grimminger, A. Hanany, M. Sperling, A. Zajac et al., The Higgs mechanism — Hasse diagrams for symplectic singularities , JHEP 01 (2020) 157, [1908.04245]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bennett, A

    S. Bennett, A. Hanany, G. Kumaran, C. Li, D. Liu and M. Sperling, Quiver Subtraction on the Higgs Branch , 2409.16356

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bourget, J

    A. Bourget, J. F. Grimminger, A. Hanany, M. Sperling and Z. Zhong, Magnetic Quivers from Brane Webs with O5 Planes , JHEP 07 (2020) 204, [ 2004.04082]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Sperling and Z

    M. Sperling and Z. Zhong, Balanced B and D-type orthosymplectic quivers — magnetic quivers for product theories , JHEP 04 (2022) 145, [ 2111.00026]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Benini, Y

    F. Benini, Y. Tachikawa and D. Xie, Mirrors of 3d Sicilian theories , JHEP 09 (2010) 063, [1007.0992]

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Giacomelli, M

    S. Giacomelli, M. Martone, Y. Tachikawa and G. Zafrir, More on N = 2 S-folds, JHEP 01 (2021) 054, [ 2010.03943]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bourget, S

    A. Bourget, S. Giacomelli, J. F. Grimminger, A. Hanany, M. Sperling and Z. Zhong, S-fold magnetic quivers , JHEP 02 (2021) 054, [ 2010.05889]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Giacomelli, R

    S. Giacomelli, R. Savelli and G. Zoccarato, N = 2 Orbi-S-Folds, 2405.00101

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Nanopoulos and D

    D. Nanopoulos and D. Xie, More Three Dimensional Mirror Pairs , JHEP 05 (2011) 071, [1011.1911]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Giacomelli, N

    S. Giacomelli, N. Mekareeya and M. Sacchi, New aspects of Argyres–Douglas theories and their dimensional reduction , JHEP 03 (2021) 242, [ 2012.12852]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Mekareeya, The moduli space of instantons on an ALE space from 3d N = 4 field theories, JHEP 12 (2015) 174, [ 1508.06813]

    N. Mekareeya, The moduli space of instantons on an ALE space from 3d N = 4 field theories, JHEP 12 (2015) 174, [ 1508.06813]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Lawrie, L

    C. Lawrie, L. Mansi, M. Sperling and Z. Zhong, Orthosymplectic Decay and Fission ,

  34. [42]

    Bao and H

    J. Bao and H. Y. Zhang, Atomic Higgsings of 6D SCFTs , 2409.17224. – 54 –

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Xie, General Argyres-Douglas Theory, JHEP 01 (2013) 100, [ 1204.2270]

    D. Xie, General Argyres-Douglas Theory, JHEP 01 (2013) 100, [ 1204.2270]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Benvenuti and S

    S. Benvenuti and S. Giacomelli, Lagrangians for generalized Argyres-Douglas theories, JHEP 10 (2017) 106, [ 1707.05113]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    C. Beem, M. Martone, M. Sacchi, P. Singh and J. Stedman, Simplifying the Type A Argyres-Douglas Landscape, 2311.12123

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Carta, S

    F. Carta, S. Giacomelli, N. Mekareeya and A. Mininno, Conformal manifolds and 3d mirrors of (D n, D m) theories, JHEP 02 (2022) 014, [ 2110.06940]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Akhond, F

    M. Akhond, F. Carta, S. Dwivedi, H. Hayashi, S.-S. Kim and F. Yagi, Factorised 3d N = 4 orthosymplectic quivers, JHEP 05 (2021) 269, [ 2101.12235]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    B. Li, D. Xie and W. Yan, Superconformal indices of N = 4 Chern-Simons matter theories , JHEP 02 (2024) 178, [ 2305.08784]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    D. Gang, S. Kim, K. Lee, M. Shim and M. Yamazaki, Non-unitary TQFTs from 3D N = 4 rank 0 SCFTs , JHEP 08 (2021) 158, [ 2103.09283]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    S. Choi, D. Gang and H.-C. Kim, Infrared phases of 3D class R theories , JHEP 11 (2022) 151, [2206.11982]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Dedushenko, On the 4d/3d/2d view of the SCFT/VOA correspondence , 2312.17747

    M. Dedushenko, On the 4d/3d/2d view of the SCFT/VOA correspondence , 2312.17747

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    A. E. V. Ferrari, N. Garner and H. Kim, Boundary vertex algebras for 3d N = 4 rank-0 SCFTs, SciPost Phys. 17 (2024) 057, [ 2311.05087]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    D. Gang, D. Kim and S. Lee, A non-unitary bulk-boundary correspondence: Non-unitary Haagerup RCFTs from S-fold SCFTs , SciPost Phys. 17 (2024) 064, [ 2310.14877]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    D. Gang, H. Kim and S. Stubbs, Three-Dimensional Topological Field Theories and Nonunitary Minimal Models , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 131601, [ 2310.09080]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Gang and D

    D. Gang and D. Kim, Generalized non-unitary Haagerup-Izumi modular data from 3D S-fold SCFTs, JHEP 03 (2023) 185, [ 2211.13561]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Gaiotto and H

    D. Gaiotto and H. Kim, 3D TFTs from 4d N = 2 BPS Particles , 2409.20393

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    Arabi Ardehali, M

    A. Arabi Ardehali, M. Dedushenko, D. Gang and M. Litvinov, Bridging 4D QFTs and 2D VOAs via 3D high-temperature EFTs , 2409.18130

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Creutzig, N

    T. Creutzig, N. Garner and H. Kim, Mirror Symmetry and Level-rank Duality for 3d N = 4 Rank 0 SCFTs , 2406.00138

  51. [59]

    D. Gang, H. Kang and S. Kim, Non-hyperbolic 3-manifolds and 3D field theories for 2D Virasoro minimal models, 2405.16377

  52. [60]

    Baek and D

    S. Baek and D. Gang, 3D bulk field theories for 2D non-unitary N=1 supersymmetric minimal models, 2405.05746

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Zhong, An exceptionally simple family of Orthosymplectic 3d N = 4 rank-0 SCFTs, 2411.12802

    Z. Zhong, An exceptionally simple family of Orthosymplectic 3d N = 4 rank-0 SCFTs, 2411.12802

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Dey, Three dimensional mirror symmetry beyond ADE quivers and Argyres-Douglas theories, JHEP 07 (2021) 199, [ 2004.09738]

    A. Dey, Three dimensional mirror symmetry beyond ADE quivers and Argyres-Douglas theories, JHEP 07 (2021) 199, [ 2004.09738]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Dey, Higgs Branches of Argyres-Douglas theories as Quiver Varieties , 2109.07493

    A. Dey, Higgs Branches of Argyres-Douglas theories as Quiver Varieties , 2109.07493

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    Hwang, S

    C. Hwang, S. Pasquetti and M. Sacchi, Rethinking mirror symmetry as a local duality on fields, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 105014, [ 2110.11362]. – 55 –

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Giacomelli, C

    S. Giacomelli, C. Hwang, F. Marino, S. Pasquetti and M. Sacchi, Probing bad theories with the dualization algorithm. Part I , JHEP 04 (2024) 008, [ 2309.05326]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Giacomelli, C

    S. Giacomelli, C. Hwang, F. Marino, S. Pasquetti and M. Sacchi, Probing bad theories with the dualization algorithm. Part II. , JHEP 07 (2024) 165, [ 2401.14456]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Nawata, M

    S. Nawata, M. Sperling, H. E. Wang and Z. Zhong, 3d N = 4 mirror symmetry with 1-form symmetry, SciPost Phys. 15 (2023) 033, [ 2301.02409]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Bhardwaj, M

    L. Bhardwaj, M. Bullimore, A. E. V. Ferrari and S. Schafer-Nameki, Generalized Symmetries and Anomalies of 3d N=4 SCFTs , SciPost Phys. 16 (2024) 080, [ 2301.02249]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    S. S. Razamat, E. Sabag, O. Sela and G. Zafrir, Aspects of 4d supersymmetric dynamics and geometry, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 78 (2024) 1, [ 2203.06880]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Zafrir, An N = 1 Lagrangian for the rank 1 E 6 superconformal theory, JHEP 12 (2020) 098, [1912.09348]

    G. Zafrir, An N = 1 Lagrangian for the rank 1 E 6 superconformal theory, JHEP 12 (2020) 098, [1912.09348]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [71]

    S. S. Razamat and G. Zafrir, N = 1 conformal duals of gauged E n MN models, JHEP 06 (2020) 176, [ 2003.01843]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Bennett, A

    S. Bennett, A. Hanany and G. Kumaran, Orthosymplectic Quotient Quiver Subtraction , 2409.15419

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Hanany, R

    A. Hanany, R. Kalveks and G. Kumaran, Quiver Polymerisation , 2406.11561

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    Hanany, G

    A. Hanany, G. Kumaran, C. Li, D. Liu and M. Sperling, Actions on the quiver: discrete quotients on the Coulomb branch , JHEP 05 (2024) 318, [ 2311.02773]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Hanany, R

    A. Hanany, R. Kalveks and G. Kumaran, Quotient Quiver Subtraction , 2308.05853. – 56 –

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.