Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Quantum Trigonometric Spin Ruijsenaars-Schneider Models from $K$-theoretic Coulomb Branches

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper builds a quantum integrable version of the trigonometric spin Ruijsenaars–Schneider model out of the K-theoretic Coulomb branch of a necklace quiver gauge theory.

desk verdict A real candidate quantization of the trigonometric spin RS model, with a clean qdet identification, but the central RLL relations are asserted rather than proven, so the paper is conditional until the core algebra is verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28043 v1 pith:6NAXDI7F submitted 2026-07-30 hep-th math-phmath.MP

Gleb Arutyunov , Lukas Hardi , Rob Klabbers This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath-phmath.MP MSC 17B3781R1282B23
keywords trigonometricspinRuijsenaars-SchneidermodelK-theoreticCoulombbranchnecklacequiverL-operatoralgebraquantumloopBethesubalgebradeterminantintegrablechain
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 claims to quantize the trigonometric spin Ruijsenaars–Schneider model—an integrable system of $N$ particles, each with $\ell$ internal spin states—by constructing it from the K-theoretic Coulomb branch of a four-dimensional necklace quiver gauge theory. The key step is an algebra of $L$-operators assembled from abelianized monopole operators; traces of the total monodromy produce a commuting family of Hamiltonians, the hallmark of quantum integrability. The lowest Hamiltonian is shown to coincide with the first mode of the quantum determinant of a quantum loop algebra embedded in the Coulomb branch algebra, connecting the model to a Bethe subalgebra. If the construction is sound, the model is exactly solvable and its classical limit recovers the Krichever–Zabrodin equations of motion, giving a gauge-theoretic explanation of the spin RS model's integrability.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $L$-operator algebra: to every arrow $\alpha\to\alpha+1$ of the necklace quiver the paper assigns two $N\times N$ matrices $L^{\alpha\pm}$ whose coefficients are built from abelianized monopole operators $u^{\alpha\pm}_i$ and $q$-difference operators $P^\alpha_i$. Their commutation relations (3.3)–(3.4) are governed by a dynamical R-matrix $R^{\alpha\beta}(q)$, a constant R-matrix $R^{\alpha\beta}(q)$ solving the Yang–Baxter equation, and a dynamical twist $\overline{R}^{\alpha\beta}(q)$ relating the two. The total $L$-operators $L^{\mathrm{tot}\pm}$ telescope around the necklace, so their trace powers (4.1) produce the commuting Hamiltonians $H_{\pm}[n]$; the same operators realize the Drinfeld–Jimbo and RTT generators of the horizontal quantum loop algebra $U_q(\dot{\mathfrak{gl}}_\ell)$, and the quantum Leibniz formula (5.24) extracts $H_{\pm}[1]$ as the first mode of the quantum determinant.

What would settle it

One concrete check is to compute the commutator $[H_+[2],H_-[2]]$ for $N=2$, $\ell=2$ using the explicit L-operators (3.1)–(3.2) and the trace formula (4.1); if it does not vanish identically, the claimed commuting family fails. A second direct check is to evaluate $\mathrm{qdet}_{\pm}[1] = q^{\mp 1/2}(1 - t^{\mp 1}) H_{\pm}[1]$ on a small representation and compare against the left-hand side computed from (5.24).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors establish that the trigonometric spin Ruijsenaars–Schneider model with $N$ particles and $\ell$ spin states is quantized by the $L$-operator algebra of the necklace quiver's K-theoretic Coulomb branch. The $N\times N$ matrices $L^{\alpha\pm}$ attached to each arrow $\alpha\to\alpha+1$ satisfy the RLL relations (3.3)–(3.4), governed by a dynamical R-matrix $R^{\alpha\beta}(q)$, a constant R-matrix $R^{\alpha\beta}(q)$, and a dynamical twist $\overline{R}^{\alpha\beta}(q)$. The total $L$-operators $L^{\mathrm{tot}\pm}$ obey the same algebra as the spinless model, so the trace formula (4.1) yields commuting Hamiltonians $H_{\pm}[n]$ that generalize Macdonald operators. The central identity is $\mathrm{qdet}_{\pm}[1] = q^{\mp 1/2}(1 - t^{\mp 1}) H_{\pm}[1]$, which places the defining Hamiltonian $H_-[1]$ in the Bethe subalgebra of the horizontal quantum loop algebra $U_q(\dot{\mathfrak{gl}}_\ell)$ realized inside the Coulomb branch algebra. The paper further derives quadratic commutation relations for the physical spin variables and their Heisenberg equations of motion, providing a natural operator ordering of the Krichever–Zabrodin equations.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes that the abelianized monopole operators $u^{\alpha\pm}_i$ with the commutation relations (2.5)–(2.8), taken from the GKLO-type abelianization, give a complete description of the quantized K-theoretic Coulomb branch algebra of the necklace quiver; if that algebra needs additional central corrections or extra relations, the L-operator algebra and the Hamiltonians derived from it may not capture the full quantum spin RS model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The family $H_{\pm}[n]$ provides a set of commuting Hamiltonians whose image naively has $N\ell$ algebraically independent generators on a $2N\ell$-dimensional algebra, enough for Liouville integrability of the quantum spin RS model.
  • The identity $\mathrm{qdet}_{\pm}[1] = q^{\mp 1/2}(1 - t^{\mp 1}) H_{\pm}[1]$ places the defining Hamiltonian inside the Bethe subalgebra of the horizontal quantum loop algebra, linking the model to quantum affine/toroidal representation theory.
  • For $\ell=1$, the generalized Macdonald operators $S_{\pm}[n]$ reduce to the Macdonald difference operators, recovering the spinless trigonometric RS model and its Macdonald-polynomial eigenstates.
  • The Heisenberg equations for $Q^0_i$, $a^\alpha_i$, and $c^\alpha_i$ give a natural operator ordering of the Krichever–Zabrodin equations, making the classical equations the $q\to1$ limit.
  • In gauge theory language, $H_-[1]$ is the 't Hooft line of charge $\square$ under all gauge nodes, so the necklace quiver becomes an integrable spin chain whose sites are the gauge nodes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the authors' conjecture that all $H_{\pm}[n]$ are central in the horizontal quantum loop algebra holds, the spectral problem could be solved by wreath Macdonald polynomials; a direct computation of $[H_+[n],H_-[m]]$ for small $n,m,N,\ell$ would test this before any representation theory is invoked.
  • The same $L$-operator framework, with the dynamical R-matrix replaced by an elliptic counterpart, offers a route to a quantum elliptic spin RS model once elliptic Coulomb branches are better developed; the paper notes this direction is open.
  • The exchange relation $c^a_i c^b_j = R^{ab}(Q^0_j/Q^0_i) c^b_j c^a_i$ points toward a freezing limit that would produce a $q$-deformed Haldane–Shastry spin chain, giving a concrete spin-chain realization of the model's spectrum.
  • One could probe the quantum-determinant identification further by checking whether the higher modes $\mathrm{qdet}_{\pm}[n]$ reproduce combinations of $S_{\pm}[n]$ through (4.3), effectively comparing the full quantum spectral curve with Bethe-ansatz predictions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantization of the trigonometric spin Ruijsenaars-Schneider model with N particles carrying ell spin states, starting from the abelianized quantized K-theoretic Coulomb branch algebra of the 4d N=2 necklace quiver gauge theory. The authors introduce L-operators L^{alpha pm} in equations (3.1)-(3.2), assert the RLL commutation relations (3.3)-(3.4), and use them, together with the twist identity (3.10), to obtain a total L-operator algebra (3.12). They then define a family of commuting Hamiltonians H^{pm}[n] via the trace formula (4.1), rewrite them in terms of generalized Macdonald operators S^{pm}[n] in equation (4.2), and identify H^{pm}[1] with the first mode of the quantum determinant of the horizontal quantum loop algebra, equation (5.25). Finally, they derive quadratic commutation relations for the physical spin variables and quantum equations of motion in Section 6. The Hamiltonian family and the qdet identification are the central claims of the paper.

Significance. If the central identities are correct, the paper gives an explicit quantization of an integrable many-body system and connects it to the K-theoretic Coulomb branch technology: this is a valuable and concrete step. The paper has several strengths: the L-operator construction is explicit, the trace formula (4.1) is concrete, the reduction to the spinless model and to Macdonald operators is clearly formulated, and the spin commutation relations in Section 6 are presented in closed form. The identification of H^{pm}[1] with the quantum determinant (5.25) is of genuine interest because it places the model inside the Bethe-subalgebra framework. However, the paper's main algebraic identities are asserted rather than proved, and the manuscript does not provide the computational support needed to verify them. The central claims are therefore plausible but not yet backed by sufficient evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (3.3)-(3.4) and (3.10)] The RLL relations (3.3)-(3.4) and the twist identity (3.10) are stated without derivation. The sentence 'Assuming the operator ordering prescribed by (3.1)-(3.2), we obtain' is not a verification, and this matters because the L-operator entries are rational functions of Q variables multiplied by q-shift operators, so different normal orderings produce different q-powers. These identities are load-bearing: they are used to derive the total L-operator algebra (3.12), the commuting Hamiltonians (4.1), and the quantum-determinant identification (5.25). I request a proof or an explicit computational appendix, for example a direct check for N=2 and ell=2 or ell=3, or a telescoping argument valid for general N and ell.
  2. [Section 5, Eqs. (5.15)-(5.25)] The RTT relations are said to be checked only 'to first order in u and v', but the extraction of qdet^{pm}[1] in (5.25) uses the quantum Leibniz formula (5.24), which multiplies T factors at shifted arguments. The paper does not specify which orders in the spectral parameters are needed for the coefficient of u^{-1}, nor does it supply the required verification. Since (5.25) is one of the central claims, please provide the order-by-order check or a proof that the first-order verification is sufficient. Without that, the identification of H^{pm}[1] with the quantum determinant mode remains unsupported.
  3. [Section 2, Eqs. (2.5)-(2.8)] The commutation relations (2.5)-(2.8) for the abelianized monopole operators are presented as 'we find' after invoking [7, remark 2.10]. These relations are the foundation for the L-operator algebra and for all later results, yet the paper neither proves them nor states the precise proposition in [7] from which they follow. I ask for either a derivation or an exact reference that justifies both the formulas and the completeness of this abelianized description, including the absence of central corrections. If this input is incomplete, the L-operator algebra (3.1)-(3.4) and the derived Hamiltonian family would not capture the full quantum spin Ruijsenaars-Schneider model.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 7, Conclusion] The statement that all H^{pm}[n] are central in the horizontal quantum loop algebra is explicitly a conjecture verified for the first few n by direct computation. This is fine as an outlook, but the Liouville-integrability counting in Section 5 should be phrased as conditional on that conjecture, not as an established result.
  2. [Equation (4.3)] The determinant formula (4.3) is typeset in a way that is hard to parse; please define the lower-triangular matrix explicitly with its entries, including the factors [n]_{q^{\pm 1}} and S^{\pm}[n], so the reader can reproduce the expansion.
  3. [Equation (5.17) and Section 6] The trigonometric R-matrix in (5.17) is written for gl_ell, while the exchange relation (6.13) refers to the R-matrix for gl_{ell-1}. Please clarify the notation and explain how the restriction to gl_{ell-1} is obtained.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including the missing space in 'fromK-theoretic' in the header and inconsistent spacing in displayed equations. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the L-operator commutators are an explicit quantization input; the trace Hamiltonians and qdet identification follow by computation, and the self-citations are independent published results, not used as self-proving premises.

full rationale

The derivation chain is explicit rather than circular. Section 2 imports the GKLO abelianized u-operators and their commutation relations (2.2)-(2.8) from [7]; Section 3 then defines L-operators (3.1)-(3.2) and states the RLL relations (3.3)-(3.4) as the quantization of the classical Poisson brackets of [3]. These RLL relations are an asserted construction, and the twist identity (3.10) is likewise stated without proof; these are verification gaps that a direct low-rank computation would settle, but they are not circular reductions, because none of these equations is defined in terms of the paper's own outputs H±[n] or qdet±[1]. The commuting Hamiltonians (4.1) are defined by the trace formula of [28] once the total L-operator algebra (3.12) is in place, and the identification qdet±[1] = q^{∓1/2}(1 - t^{∓1}) H±[1] in (5.25) is a downstream computation using the T-modes (5.22)-(5.23) and the quantum Leibniz formula (5.24), not an input. The self-citations [3] and [28] are load-bearing in the sense that the classical L-operators and the spinless trace formula come from those papers, but each is a separate published result with stated assumptions that do not include the spin target; under the rubric they count as independent evidence, not circularity. The conjectural maximality of the Bethe subalgebra and the anticipated identification with the truncated quantum toroidal algebra are explicitly hedged in the text ('should be identified', 'naive counting', 'we conjecture') and are not needed for the central explicit construction of the commuting family. The 'to first order' RTT check in Section 5 and the unproved Serre-relation verification are correctness risks, not instances of a claim reducing by definition to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction imports, without proof, the abelianized commutation relations of the monopole operators and the identification of the Coulomb branch algebra with a truncated quantum toroidal algebra. These are substantial domain assumptions inherited from [7] and the Coulomb branch literature; they are not the paper's own results. No numerical parameters are fitted to data; the coupling t and masses μ_α are physical inputs of the model.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The abelianized monopole operators u_i^{α±} (eqs. 2.2-2.3) satisfy the commutation relations (2.5)-(2.8), following the GKLO-type abelianization of Tsymbaliuk [7, remark 2.10].
    The entire L-operator algebra and Hamiltonian construction rest on these relations; the paper does not prove them, citing [7] and its own prior work [3].
  • domain assumption The K-theoretic Coulomb branch algebra of the necklace quiver is identified with the N-truncated quantum toroidal algebra U^{(N)}_{q,t}(gl-hat_tilde_ℓ) (Section 5, 'should be identified...').
    Used to claim the horizontal quantum loop algebra and its Bethe subalgebra exist inside the Coulomb branch algebra; this identification is suggested by [6], [7], [14] but not proven here.
  • standard math The standard R-matrix and Yang-Baxter constructions of quantum loop algebras, including the isomorphism between Drinfeld-Jimbo and RTT presentations, are valid (cited [12], [29]).
    Background used to define the quantum loop algebra and derive the qdet relations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Trigonometric Spin Ruijsenaars-Schneider Models from $K$-theoretic Coulomb Branches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6NAXDI7F

@misc{pith2026260728043,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Trigonometric Spin Ruijsenaars-Schneider Models from $K$-theoretic Coulomb Branches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6NAXDI7F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28043}
}
abstract

We quantize the trigonometric spin Ruijsenaars-Schneider model of $N$ particles each with $\ell$ spin states using the recently developed description of the classical model in terms of the $K$-theoretic Coulomb branch of the 4d $\mathcal{N}=2$ quiver gauge theory for the necklace quiver with $\ell$ nodes of rank $N$. The main algebraic tool is an algebra of $L$-operators derived from abelianized monopole operators of minuscule charge, which turns the necklace quiver into an integrable spin chain by producing a family of commuting Hamiltonians. We show that the lowest Hamiltonian coincides with the first mode of the quantum determinant of the horizontal quantum loop algebra living inside the $K$-theoretic Coulomb branch algebra, whose Bethe subalgebra generates a maximal family of commuting Hamiltonians. Finally, we derive the commutation relations and quantum equations of motion of the quantized physical spin variables.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Krichever and A

    I. Krichever and A. Zabrodin,Spin generalization of the Ruijsenaars-Schneider model, non-abelian 2D Toda chain and representations of Sklyanin algebra,Russian Mathematical Surveys50(1995) 1101 [hep-th/9505039]

    arXiv 1995

  2. [15]

    Quantized Quiver Varieties and the Quantum Spin Ruijsenaars-Schneider Model

    G. Arutyunov and L. Hardi,Quantized Quiver Varieties and the Quantum Spin Ruijsenaars–Schneider Model,Communications in Mathematical Physics407(2026) 117 [2508.07862]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Spin Ruijsenaars-Schneider models are Coulomb branches

    G. Arutyunov and L. Hardi,Spin Ruijsenaars–Schneider models are Coulomb branches, 2603.03048

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [7]

    Difference operators via GKLO-type homomorphisms: shuffle approach and application to quantum Q-systems

    A. Tsymbaliuk,Difference operators via GKLO-type homomorphisms: shuffle approach and application to quantum Q-systems,Letters in Mathematical Physics113(2023) 22 [2207.02804]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [2]

    Reshetikhin,Degenerately integrable systems,Journal of Mathematical Sciences213 (2016) 769 [50900730]

    N. Reshetikhin,Degenerately integrable systems,Journal of Mathematical Sciences213 (2016) 769 [50900730]

    work page 2016

  6. [4]

    Braverman, M

    A. Braverman, M. Finkelberg and H. Nakajima,Towards a mathematical definition of Coulomb branches of 3-dimensionalN= 4gauge theories, II,Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics22(2018) 1071 [1601.03586]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [5]

    Nakajima,Towards a mathematical definition of Coulomb branches of 3-dimensional N= 4gauge theories, I,Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics20(2016) 595 [1503.03676]

    H. Nakajima,Towards a mathematical definition of Coulomb branches of 3-dimensional N= 4gauge theories, I,Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics20(2016) 595 [1503.03676]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [6]

    Braverman, M

    A. Braverman, M. Finkelberg and H. Nakajima,Coulomb branches of3dN= 4quiver gauge theories and slices in the affine Grassmannian,Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics23(2018) 75 [1604.03625]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    Bullimore, T

    M. Bullimore, T. Dimofte and D. Gaiotto,The Coulomb branch of 3dN= 4theories, Communications in Mathematical Physics354(2017) 671 [1503.04817]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Maruyoshi, T

    K. Maruyoshi, T. Ota and J. Yagi,Wilson-’t Hooft lines as transfer matrices,Journal of High Energy Physics2021(2021) [2009.12391]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Finkelberg and L

    M. Finkelberg and L. Rybnikov,Quantization of Drinfeld Zastava in type A,Journal of the European Mathematical Society (EMS Publishing)16(2014) [1009.0676]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Nakajima and Y

    H. Nakajima and Y. Takayama,Cherkis bow varieties and Coulomb branches of quiver gauge theories of affine type A,Selecta Mathematica23(2017) 2553 [1606.02002]. – 14 –

    2017 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Finkelberg and A

    M. Finkelberg and A. Tsymbaliuk,Shifted quantum affine algebras: integral forms in type A, Arnold Mathematical Journal5(2019) 197 [1811.12137]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Zenkevich,Wall crossing, string networks and quantum toroidal algebras,2512.24988

    Y. Zenkevich,Wall crossing, string networks and quantum toroidal algebras,2512.24988

  7. [14]

    Matsuo, S

    Y. Matsuo, S. Nawata, G. Noshita and R. Zhu,Quantum toroidal algebras and solvable structures in gauge/string theory,Physics Reports1055(2024) 1–144 [2309.07596]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Chalykh and M

    O. Chalykh and M. Fairon,On the Hamiltonian formulation of the trigonometric spin Ruijsenaars–Schneider system,Letters in Mathematical Physics110(2020) 2893–2940 [1811.08727]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Fairon, L

    M. Fairon, L. Feh´ er and I. Marshall,Trigonometric real form of the spin RS model of Krichever and Zabrodin,Annales Henri Poincar´ e22(2021) 615 [2007.08388]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Arutyunov and E

    G. Arutyunov and E. Olivucci,Hyperbolic Spin Ruijsenaars-Schneider Model from Poisson Reduction,Proc. Steklov Inst. Math309(2020) 31 [1906.02619]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Fairon,Integrable systems on multiplicative quiver varieties from cyclic quivers,Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical58(2025) 045202 [2108.02496]

    M. Fairon,Integrable systems on multiplicative quiver varieties from cyclic quivers,Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical58(2025) 045202 [2108.02496]

    2025

  12. [20]

    Bernard, M

    D. Bernard, M. Gaudin, F. Haldane and V. Pasquier,Yang–Baxter equation in long-range interacting systems,Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General26(1993) 5219 [hep-th/9301084]

    1993 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Cherednik,Induced representations of double affine Hecke algebras and applications,Math

    I. Cherednik,Induced representations of double affine Hecke algebras and applications,Math. Res. Lett1(1994) 319

    1994

  14. [22]

    Uglov,The trigonometric counterpart of the Haldane–Shastry model,hep-th/9508145

    D. Uglov,The trigonometric counterpart of the Haldane–Shastry model,hep-th/9508145

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Lamers, V

    J. Lamers, V. Pasquier and D. Serban,Spin-Ruijsenaars,q-Deformed Haldane–Shastry and Macdonald Polynomials,Communications in Mathematical Physics393(2022) 61 [2004.13210]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Klabbers and J

    R. Klabbers and J. Lamers,The deformed Inozemtsev spin chain,SciPost Physics17(2024) [2306.13066]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Inozemtsev,On the connection between the one-dimensional S=1/2 Heisenberg chain and Haldane-Shastry model,Journal of statistical physics59(1990) 1143

    V. Inozemtsev,On the connection between the one-dimensional S=1/2 Heisenberg chain and Haldane-Shastry model,Journal of statistical physics59(1990) 1143

    1990

  18. [26]

    Serban and M

    D. Serban and M. Staudacher,PlanarN= 4gauge theory and the Inozemtsev long range spin chain,Journal of High Energy Physics2004(2004) 001–001 [hep-th/0401057]

    2004 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Serban,Integrability and the AdS/CFT correspondence,Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical44(2011) 124001

    D. Serban,Integrability and the AdS/CFT correspondence,Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical44(2011) 124001

    2011

  20. [28]

    Arutyunov, R

    G. Arutyunov, R. Klabbers and E. Olivucci,Quantum trace formulae for the integrals of the hyperbolic Ruijsenaars-Schneider model,Journal of High Energy Physics2019(2019) [1902.06755]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Molev,Yangians and Classical Lie Algebras, American Mathematical Society (2007)

    A. Molev,Yangians and Classical Lie Algebras, American Mathematical Society (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    Wen,Wreath Macdonald polynomials as eigenstates,Selecta Mathematica31(2025) 62 [1904.05015]

    J. Wen,Wreath Macdonald polynomials as eigenstates,Selecta Mathematica31(2025) 62 [1904.05015]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Webster,Koszul duality between Higgs and Coulomb categoriesO,1611.06541

    B. Webster,Koszul duality between Higgs and Coulomb categoriesO,1611.06541. – 15 –

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Webster,Coherent sheaves and quantum Coulomb branches II: quiver gauge theories and knot homology,2211.02099

    B. Webster,Coherent sheaves and quantum Coulomb branches II: quiver gauge theories and knot homology,2211.02099

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Gaiotto and J

    D. Gaiotto and J. Teschner,Schur Quantization and Complex Chern-Simons theory, 2406.09171

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Finkelberg, M

    M. Finkelberg, M. Matviichuk and A. Polishchuk,Elliptic zastava,Journal of Algebraic Geometry(2020) 183 [2011.11220]. – 16 –

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.