Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

M5-branes and D4-branes wrapped on disk $\times$ disk and spindle $\ltimes$ disk

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper constructs new AdS3 × disk × disk and AdS2 × disk × disk supergravity solutions describing M5- and D4-branes wrapped on orbifolds, and derives the dual central charge and black hole entropy.

desk verdict Useful classification addendum: the AdS3 disk×disk results are sound, but the new AdS2 ansatz is missing the one check that would make me trust it—the equations of motion. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09737 v1 pith:A4QST47W submitted 2024-11-14 hep-th

Minwoo Suh This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords gaugedsupergravitydisk×spindle⋉M5-branesD4-branesfluxquantizationholographiccentralchargeBekenstein-Hawkingentropy
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 aims to construct supersymmetric AdS solutions that describe M5-branes and D4-branes wrapped on two orbifolds at once: a disk times a disk, and the related spindle semi-direct disk. Using a previously built consistent truncation of seven-dimensional gauged supergravity on a disk, it produces an AdS3 × disk × disk solution, uplifts it to eleven-dimensional supergravity, and computes its holographic central charge. By analogy, it then writes down an AdS2 × disk × disk solution of six-dimensional U(1)^2-gauged supergravity, uplifts it to massive type IIA, and computes the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the presumed black hole. The central results are the scalings $c \sim N^3$ and $S_{\mathrm{BH}} \sim N^{5/2}$, matching the expectations for compactifications of 6d (2,0) theories and 5d Seiberg theories respectively.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the consistent truncation of seven-dimensional maximal gauged supergravity on the maximal AdS5 × disk solution, which turns a disk factor in five dimensions into a second disk in seven dimensions, together with the six-dimensional U(1)^2-gauged-supergravity action (4.4) and the uplift formulas to eleven-dimensional and massive type IIA supergravity. The disk geometry is encoded by functions $f(x)$ and $h(y)$ whose zeroes define orbifold singularities with period conditions $E(q_1)=1/(C\ell)$ and $E(s_1)=1/(Dk)$, imposing the Euler characteristic $\chi=1/\ell$ for each disk. Flux quantization of the four-form through the four-cycles converts the continuous parameters $q_1, s_1$ into the integers $N, K, M, k, \ell$, and the resulting expressions (2.34) and (4.46) factor as products of contributions from the two disks.

What would settle it

Substitute the local ansatz (4.7)/(4.10) into the six-dimensional equations of motion (A.4)-(A.6) with $2g=3m$ and check whether the Ricci, scalar, and gauge equations vanish identically; any nonzero component would falsify the existence claim. The same check applies to the seven-dimensional ansatz (2.4)/(2.7) against (A.1)-(A.3), although there the consistent truncation of [17] already guarantees it if the truncation is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the local ansatze in (2.4)/(2.7) and (4.7)/(4.10) are genuine solutions of U(1)^2-gauged supergravity in seven and six dimensions, respectively. The seven-dimensional AdS3 × disk × disk solution is obtained by uplifting the known AdS3 × disk solution using the consistent truncation of [17]; the six-dimensional AdS2 × disk × disk solution is presented directly, found by trial and error with two distinct non-trivial U(1) gauge fields. In each case the internal space is an S1 fibration over a rectangle whose corner structure gives a monopole source, and the y-z surface is a disk with Euler characteristic $1/\ell$. The paper claims that flux quantization fixes the parameters in terms of integers $N, K, M, \ell, k$, yielding holographic central charge (2.34) and Bekenstein-Hawking entropy (4.46), which scale as $N^3$ and $N^{5/2}$ when the charges are comparable. The same local solutions are completed as spindle ⋉ disk solutions, with the spindle central charge (3.8) also computed.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the unverified assertion that the six-dimensional ansatz (4.7)/(4.10) actually solves the equations of motion (A.4)-(A.6); the paper says it was found by trial and error and presents no check, and if the ansatz fails, the massive-IIA uplift and entropy (4.46) are not valid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the solutions are genuine, the AdS3 × disk × disk background is the holographic dual of a 2d SCFT obtained from compactifying a 4d Argyres-Douglas theory on a disk, with central charge $c = \frac{N^2 K^2 \ell}{12(N+K\ell)}\frac{8M^2 k}{N(N+Mk)}$.
  • The AdS2 × disk × disk background describes a presumed black hole in massive IIA whose entropy $S_{\mathrm{BH}} = \frac{2\sqrt{6}\pi}{5}\sqrt{8-N_f}\sqrt{\frac{N^3 K^3 \ell}{N+K\ell}}\sqrt{\frac{M^3 k}{g^2 N^2(2gN+3Mk)}}$ scales as $N^{5/2}$ for comparable charges, matching 5d Seiberg-theory compactifications.
  • The spindle ⋉ disk solutions provide the same local physics with a spindle replacing one disk, and the central charge (3.8) again factorizes into a disk contribution times a spindle contribution.
  • The fact that both disk factors carry Euler characteristic $1/\ell$ and the flux quantizations reduce to quantizations of the seven- and six-dimensional field strengths means that the observables are determined purely by the integers $N, K, M$ and orbifold data, with no remaining continuous parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the six-dimensional ansatz is verified against (A.4)-(A.6), the same trial-and-error strategy could produce AdS2,3 × disk × disk solutions embedded in the minimal, rather than maximal, AdS4,5 × disk backgrounds, which the paper leaves open.
  • The explicit entropy formula suggests that the black hole with AdS2 × disk × disk horizon should admit a microscopic counting via the topologically twisted index of the dual 5d gauge theory, in direct analogy to the Riemann-surface cases; this is a testable prediction if the index computation can be performed.
  • The piecewise-constant monopole function $L(y,\xi)$ with a jump at the corner of the base rectangle is the same structure seen in other disk and spindle uplifts, so a closer look at that corner could reveal whether the smeared D4-D8 sources are the only singularities or whether a localized source is required for consistency.
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 new holographic solutions in seven- and six-dimensional gauged supergravity: AdS3 × disk × disk and AdS3 × spindle ⋉ disk from a consistent truncation of 7D maximal supergravity, and AdS2 × disk × disk and AdS2 × spindle ⋉ disk in 6D F(4) gauged supergravity. The 7D solutions are uplifted to eleven-dimensional supergravity, with flux quantization and a central charge (2.34); the 6D solutions are uplifted to massive type IIA supergravity, with flux quantization and a Bekenstein-Hawking entropy (4.46). The paper also computes Euler characteristics of the disk factors, obtaining 1/ℓ and 1/k, and checks that the 6D four-form flux reduces to the known AdS4 × disk result when X=1 and s1=0. The main new claim is the AdS2 × disk × disk solution (4.7)/(4.10), stated to have been found 'by trial and error' and not verified against the equations of motion.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides explicit new examples of wrapped-brane geometries: AdS3 × disk × disk with N^3 central charge and AdS2 × disk × disk with N^{5/2} entropy, the latter being a candidate dual to a class of 5d SCFTs compactified on disk × disk. The explicit uplifted metrics, the flux quantizations, and the disk Euler-characteristic checks are useful, and the reduction of the 6D flux to the known AdS4 × disk solution is a good consistency check. The main limitation is that the new 6D solution is not supported by a verification of the field equations, and the 7D flux-quantization section contains an algebraic inconsistency that affects the central-charge formula.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2 and Appendix A.2] The central new result of the paper, the AdS2 × disk × disk solution (4.7)–(4.10), is presented with no check that it satisfies the equations of motion (A.4)–(A.6). The text states that it was obtained 'by trial and error' and that 'we only present the obtained solution.' Since the massive-IIA uplift (4.20)–(4.23), the flux quantization (4.35)–(4.43), and the entropy (4.46) are all derived from this ansatz, a direct substitution into (A.4)–(A.6) with the residual shown is load-bearing and should be included, or the solution should be derived from a consistent truncation as was done for the 7D case. Without this verification, the central claim is not supported.
  2. [§2.5, Eqs. (2.30)–(2.31)] The flux integral and its inversion are algebraically inconsistent. With t ≡ sqrt(1+4s1), the ratio in (2.30) simplifies to (t−1)/(2t), so the quantization condition M = (N/k)(t−1)/t gives t = N/(N−M k), not t = N/(N+M k) as stated in (2.31). The same sign affects the expression D = (N+M k)/(N k) and consequently the central charge (2.34) and the spindle generalization (3.8). Please correct the sign in (2.30), in the definition of M, or in (2.31), and recompute the affected formulas.
  3. [Footnote 2 and §2.3] The corrections to the uplift ansatz of [17] — ds^2_5 → 4 ds^2_5 and the rescalings of A34, A45, A53 — are stated without derivation. These normalizations enter the 11D metric and gauge fields and therefore affect the flux integrals (2.27)–(2.30) and the central charge (2.34). The authors should either derive these factors from the conventions of [17] and the present paper or provide an independent check, such as verifying that the uplifted metric and fluxes solve the 11D equations of motion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5, first sentence] The text says the AdS2 × spindle ⋉ disk solution is obtained from '(5.1)', but equation (5.1) is first introduced there; the reference should be to (4.7) or (4.10).
  2. [§4.2] The x-disk data are not introduced in this section; x1, E(s1), D, and k are taken from Appendix C only later in §4.5. Please state the global range 0 < x < x1 and the definitions when the ansatz is first presented.
  3. [§4.5, after Eq. (4.39)] The phrase 'It is amazing that the dependence on X disappears all along' is informal; a sentence explaining that the X dependence cancels because h(y1)=0 would be helpful.
  4. [Introduction, footnote 1 and Table 1] The footnote changes the gauge-field notation relative to the main text, making Table 1 hard to compare with §2 and §4; a small table with both notations would improve readability.
  5. [Table 2] The entry 'AdS2 × disk × Riemann' has no reference and is not discussed in the text; please either add a reference or remove the entry.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the holographic observables are computed from the proposed solutions by standard formulas with parameters fixed by flux quantization, not fitted to the outputs.

full rationale

The central charge (2.34) and entropy (4.46) are obtained by inserting the respective uplifted metrics into the standard holographic formulas (2.33) and (4.45), with all free parameters (q1, s1, C, D) fixed by flux quantization conditions (2.27)-(2.31) and (4.33)-(4.43). No parameter is adjusted to reproduce c or S_BH; the target quantities are outputs, not inputs. The Euler characteristic computations (2.15) and (4.18) are consistency checks: they use the same orbifold period condition (2.14)/(4.17) that defines the disk, so chi = 1/ell follows from the definition of the period, and the paper presents it as a natural disk result rather than as an independent prediction. The AdS3 x disk x disk construction inherits its validity from the consistent truncation of [17], which is not a self-citation; footnote 2 corrects numerical factors in that reference but does not smuggle in the target result. The AdS2 x disk x disk solution is admittedly found 'by trial and error' with no equation-of-motion check presented; this is a verification gap, correctly flagged by the skeptic, but it is not circular because the ansatz is not fitted to the entropy and no self-citation is used to assert its validity. Self-citations such as [8], [10], [11], and [25] supply background solutions and conventions; the load-bearing steps do not reduce to those citations. Overall, no prediction in the paper is equivalent by construction to its inputs.

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

The central claim rests on the correctness of the adopted truncation and uplift ansatze from prior work, on the unverified assertion that the presented ansatze solve the equations of motion, and on standard holographic dictionary formulas. The free parameters q1, s1, s2 are integration constants of the ansatze, fixed by flux quantization and orbifold regularity rather than by fitting the computed observables.

free parameters (5)
  • q1 (7D disk parameter) = q1 = 4 (1 - (N/(N+Kℓ))^2)
    Integration constant of the y-space disk in the 7D solution; fixed by demanding the y-z surface is an R2/Zℓ orbifold and by flux quantization on the yzθφ2 cycle. Not used to fit the central charge.
  • s1 (7D disk parameter) = sqrt(1+4s1) = N/(N+Mk), equivalently s1 = (N^2/(N+Mk)^2 - 1)/4
    Integration constant of the x-space disk in the 7D solution; fixed by orbifold regularity and flux quantization on the xψξφ1 cycle. The sign follows if the flux integral in (2.30) carries an implicit minus sign, as in the 6D analogue (4.40).
  • q1 (6D disk parameter) = q1 = (1/3)√3 m^3 √(Kℓ(2Kℓ+3N)) / (Kℓ+N)^{3/2}
    Integration constant of the y-space disk in the 6D theory; fixed by flux quantization and the Zℓ orbifold condition (eq. 4.39).
  • s1 (6D disk parameter) = s1 = 4√(Mk(gN+Mk)) / (2gN+3Mk)^{3/2}
    Integration constant of the x-space disk in the 6D theory; fixed by flux quantization and the Zk orbifold condition (eq. 4.43).
  • s2 (spindle parameter) = determined by spindle orbifold data n± and q via (B.3) from [24]
    Appears in the spindle⋉disk solutions of sections 3 and 5; fixed by the spindle global structure, not fitted to the central charge.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The consistent truncation of [17] of seven-dimensional maximal gauged supergravity on a disk, with the corrected numerical factors in footnote 2, is valid.
    Used to uplift AdS3×disk to AdS3×disk×disk in section 2.2; if the truncation or the corrections are wrong, the 7D solution and its 11D uplift are invalid.
  • domain assumption The uplift formulas of [33] and [28] correctly embed the 7D U(1)^2-gauged supergravity into 11D supergravity, and those of [11,29] embed the 6D F(4) theory into massive IIA.
    Used for the explicit 11D and 10D metrics and fluxes (sections 2.3 and 4.3); standard results in the literature.
  • ad hoc to paper The local ansatze (2.4) and (4.7) solve the equations of motion of the respective gauged supergravities.
    The author asserts the solutions but supplies no derivation; for (4.7) the text says it was found 'by trial and error'. This is the load-bearing premise of the paper.
  • domain assumption The standard holographic prescriptions (2.33) for the central charge and (4.45) for the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, with the stated Newton/string normalizations, are applicable to these backgrounds.
    Used to convert the on-shell supergravity data into CFT observables; standard AdS/CFT dictionary.
  • standard math The regularity and orbifold conditions (2.14), (2.15), (4.17), (4.18) correctly capture the disk topology and yield Euler characteristic 1/ℓ.
    Gauss-Bonnet on the disk; the period choices define the orbifold.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of M5-branes and D4-branes wrapped on disk $\times$ disk and spindle $\ltimes$ disk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A4QST47W

@misc{pith2026241109737,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: M5-branes and D4-branes wrapped on disk $\times$ disk and spindle $\ltimes$ disk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A4QST47W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09737}
}
abstract

We construct and study the $AdS_3\times\text{disk}\times\text{disk}$ and $AdS_2\times\text{disk}\times\text{disk}$ solutions of $U(1)^2$-gauged supergravity in seven and six dimensions, respectively. For the construction of $AdS_3\times\text{disk}\times\text{disk}$ solutions, we employ the previously constructed consistent truncation of seven-dimensional gauged supergravity on a disk. We uplift the solutions to eleven-dimensional and massive type IIA supergravity, respectively, and study the disk geometry of the solutions. We perform flux quantizations and calculate the holographic central charge and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, respectively. In a similar manner, we present the $AdS_3\times\text{spindle}\ltimes\text{disk}$ and $AdS_2\times\text{spindle}\ltimes\text{disk}$ solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09737 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The two-dimensional base space, B2, spanned by y and ξ. Region II: Monopole In order to observe the property of the 2d base, (4.29), we fix the gauge of the six-dimensional gauge field to be A1 = − m2 y 6X4 F + y 4X4 dz − 1 3 . (4.24) We break Dϕ2 1 = (dϕ1 − A1) 2 and complete the square of dz to obtain the metric of ds2 10 = λ 2 cos−1/3 ξ cos−1/3 θ∆˜ 1/2 y 1/2 X2 ×  f 1/2  1 4 ds2 AdS2 + 1 p dx2 + p 4f dψ2  + X2… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Supersymmetric $\mathbb{WCP}^n$, AdS near horizons and orbifolds

    hep-th 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Weighted projective spaces WCP² and WCP³ can be made supersymmetric for tuned integer weights, yielding new AdS₅×WCP²×S¹, AdS₄×WCP³, and AdS₃×WT(1,1) supergravity solutions.

  2. Localisation of $\mathcal{N} = (2,2)$ theories on spindles of both twists

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Exact partition functions for N=(2,2) theories on spindles are computed via localisation for both twist and anti-twist, yielding a unified formula.

  3. Non-conformal branes wrapped on a disk

    hep-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Disk solutions from non-conformal Dp/NS5-brane spindles are classified by charge sectors; compact disks mostly show monopoles and smeared branes, while non-compact disks mostly do not.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [17]

    Bomans, C

    P. Bomans, C. Couzens, Y. Lee and S. Ning, Symmetry breaking and consistent truncations from M5-branes wrapping a disc , JHEP 01 (2024) 088, [ 2308.08616]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Ferrero, J

    P. Ferrero, J. P. Gauntlett, J. M. P´ erez Ipi˜ na, D. Martelli and J. Sparks,D3-Branes Wrapped on a Spindle , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 111601, [ 2011.10579]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [2]

    Ferrero, J

    P. Ferrero, J. P. Gauntlett, J. M. P´ erez Ipi˜ na, D. Martelli and J. Sparks,Accelerating black holes and spinning spindles , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 046007, [ 2012.08530]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [3]

    I. Bah, F. Bonetti, R. Minasian and E. Nardoni, Holographic Duals of Argyres-Douglas Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 211601, [ 2105.11567]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    I. Bah, F. Bonetti, R. Minasian and E. Nardoni, M5-brane sources, holography, and Argyres-Douglas theories, JHEP 11 (2021) 140, [ 2106.01322]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [5]

    Suh, M2-branes wrapped on a topological disk , JHEP 09 (2022) 048, [ 2109.13278]

    M. Suh, M2-branes wrapped on a topological disk , JHEP 09 (2022) 048, [ 2109.13278]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [6]

    Couzens, K

    C. Couzens, K. Stemerdink and D. van de Heisteeg, M2-branes on discs and multi-charged spindles, JHEP 04 (2022) 107, [ 2110.00571]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [7]

    Couzens, N

    C. Couzens, N. T. Macpherson and A. Passias, N = (2, 2) AdS 3 from D3-branes wrapped on Riemann surfaces , JHEP 02 (2022) 189, [ 2107.13562]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    Suh, D3-branes and M5-branes wrapped on a topological disc , JHEP 03 (2022) 043, [2108.01105]

    M. Suh, D3-branes and M5-branes wrapped on a topological disc , JHEP 03 (2022) 043, [2108.01105]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Boisvert and P

    M. Boisvert and P. Ferrero, A story of non-conformal branes: spindles, disks, circles and black holes , JHEP 06 (2024) 013, [ 2403.03989]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Suh, D4-branes wrapped on a topological disk , JHEP 06 (2023) 008, [ 2108.08326]

    M. Suh, D4-branes wrapped on a topological disk , JHEP 06 (2023) 008, [ 2108.08326]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Couzens, H

    C. Couzens, H. Kim, N. Kim, Y. Lee and M. Suh, D4-branes wrapped on four-dimensional orbifolds through consistent truncation , JHEP 02 (2023) 025, [ 2210.15695]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    J. M. Maldacena, The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231–252, [ hep-th/9711200]

    1998 arXiv

  6. [13]

    P. C. Argyres and M. R. Douglas, New phenomena in SU(3) supersymmetric gauge theory , Nucl. Phys. B 448 (1995) 93–126, [ hep-th/9505062]

    1995 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Karndumri and P

    P. Karndumri and P. Nuchino, Five-branes wrapped on topological disks from 7D N=2 gauged supergravity, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 066010, [ 2201.05037]. 33

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Couzens, H

    C. Couzens, H. Kim, N. Kim and Y. Lee, Holographic duals of M5-branes on an irregularly punctured sphere, JHEP 07 (2022) 102, [ 2204.13537]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [16]

    I. Bah, F. Bonetti, E. Nardoni and T. Waddleton, Aspects of irregular punctures via holography, JHEP 11 (2022) 131, [ 2207.10094]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Couzens, M

    C. Couzens, M. J. Kang, C. Lawrie and Y. Lee, Holographic duals of Higgsed Db p(BCD ), 2312.12503

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. P. Gauntlett and N. Kim, M five-branes wrapped on supersymmetric cycles. 2. , Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 086003, [ hep-th/0109039]

    2002 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Suh, Supersymmetric AdS6 black holes from F(4) gauged supergravity , JHEP 01 (2019) 035, [1809.03517]

    M. Suh, Supersymmetric AdS6 black holes from F(4) gauged supergravity , JHEP 01 (2019) 035, [1809.03517]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    S. M. Hosseini, K. Hristov, A. Passias and A. Zaffaroni, 6D attractors and black hole microstates, JHEP 12 (2018) 001, [ 1809.10685]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Suh, Supersymmetric AdS6 black holes from matter coupled F (4) gauged supergravity, JHEP 02 (2019) 108, [ 1810.00675]

    M. Suh, Supersymmetric AdS6 black holes from matter coupled F (4) gauged supergravity, JHEP 02 (2019) 108, [ 1810.00675]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Kim and M

    N. Kim and M. Shim, Wrapped Brane Solutions in Romans F (4) Gauged Supergravity, Nucl. Phys. B 951 (2020) 114882, [ 1909.01534]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Boido, J

    A. Boido, J. M. P. Ipi˜ na and J. Sparks, Twisted D3-brane and M5-brane compactifications from multi-charge spindles , JHEP 07 (2021) 222, [ 2104.13287]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Suh, M5-branes and D4-branes wrapped on a direct product of spindle and Riemann surface, JHEP 02 (2024) 205, [ 2207.00034]

    M. Suh, M5-branes and D4-branes wrapped on a direct product of spindle and Riemann surface, JHEP 02 (2024) 205, [ 2207.00034]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Giri, Black holes with spindles at the horizon , JHEP 06 (2022) 145, [ 2112.04431]

    S. Giri, Black holes with spindles at the horizon , JHEP 06 (2022) 145, [ 2112.04431]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Faedo and D

    F. Faedo and D. Martelli, D4-branes wrapped on a spindle , JHEP 02 (2022) 101, [2111.13660]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    K. C. M. Cheung, J. H. T. Fry, J. P. Gauntlett and J. Sparks, M5-branes wrapped on four-dimensional orbifolds , JHEP 08 (2022) 082, [ 2204.02990]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Faedo, A

    F. Faedo, A. Fontanarossa and D. Martelli, Branes wrapped on orbifolds and their gravitational blocks, Lett. Math. Phys. 113 (2023) 51, [ 2210.16128]. 34

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Faedo, A

    F. Faedo, A. Fontanarossa and D. Martelli, Branes wrapped on quadrilaterals, 2402.08724

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. T. Liu and R. Minasian, Black holes and membranes in AdS(7) , Phys. Lett. B 457 (1999) 39–46, [ hep-th/9903269]

    1999 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Pernici, K

    M. Pernici, K. Pilch and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Gauged Maximally Extended Supergravity in Seven-dimensions , Phys. Lett. B 143 (1984) 103–107

    1984

  25. [33]

    Cvetic, H

    M. Cvetic, H. Lu, C. N. Pope, A. Sadrzadeh and T. A. Tran, S**3 and S**4 reductions of type IIA supergravity, Nucl. Phys. B 590 (2000) 233–251, [ hep-th/0005137]

    2000 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Cremmer, B

    E. Cremmer, B. Julia and J. Scherk, Supergravity Theory in 11 Dimensions , Phys. Lett. B 76 (1978) 409–412

    1978

  27. [35]

    Ferrero, J

    P. Ferrero, J. P. Gauntlett and J. Sparks, Supersymmetric spindles , JHEP 01 (2022) 102, [2112.01543]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    L. J. Romans, The F(4) Gauged Supergravity in Six-dimensions , Nucl. Phys. B 269 (1986) 691

    1986

  29. [37]

    Andrianopoli, R

    L. Andrianopoli, R. D’Auria and S. Vaula, Matter coupled F(4) gauged supergravity Lagrangian, JHEP 05 (2001) 065, [ hep-th/0104155]

    2001 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Karndumri, Twisted compactification of N = 2 5D SCFTs to three and two dimensions from F(4) gauged supergravity, JHEP 09 (2015) 034, [ 1507.01515]

    P. Karndumri, Twisted compactification of N = 2 5D SCFTs to three and two dimensions from F(4) gauged supergravity, JHEP 09 (2015) 034, [ 1507.01515]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    L. J. Romans, Massive N=2a Supergravity in Ten-Dimensions , Phys. Lett. B 169 (1986) 374

    1986

  32. [40]

    I. Bah, A. Passias and A. Tomasiello, AdS5 compactifications with punctures in massive IIA supergravity, JHEP 11 (2017) 050, [ 1704.07389]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Couzens, A tale of (M)2 twists , JHEP 03 (2022) 078, [ 2112.04462]

    C. Couzens, A tale of (M)2 twists , JHEP 03 (2022) 078, [ 2112.04462]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    S. M. Hosseini, I. Yaakov and A. Zaffaroni, Topologically twisted indices in five dimensions and holography, JHEP 11 (2018) 119, [ 1808.06626]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    P. M. Crichigno, D. Jain and B. Willett, 5d Partition Functions with A Twist , JHEP 11 (2018) 058, [ 1808.06744]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Brandhuber and Y

    A. Brandhuber and Y. Oz, The D-4 - D-8 brane system and five-dimensional fixed points , Phys. Lett. B 460 (1999) 307–312, [ hep-th/9905148]. 35

    1999 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Seiberg, Five-dimensional SUSY field theories, nontrivial fixed points and string dynamics, Phys

    N. Seiberg, Five-dimensional SUSY field theories, nontrivial fixed points and string dynamics, Phys. Lett. B 388 (1996) 753–760, [ hep-th/9608111]. 36

    1996 arXiv

Pith tools

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