Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 47 references

Super $T\bar{T}$ deformation and the RNS non-critical superstring

T0 review · 2 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The super T̄T deformation of any N=(1,1) SCFT is a non-critical RNS superstring in light-cone gauge, with the deformation parameter fixed by anomaly cancellation.

desk verdict A credible supersymmetric extension of the T\bar T/string correspondence, but the mass-shell derivation skips a step that is likely to fail as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.30747 v2 pith:KM6GXOLP submitted 2026-06-29 hep-th

Marcelo R. Barbosa This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords superT̄TdeformationN=(11)superspaceRNSsuperstringnon-criticalstringtheorylight-conegaugeVirasoroconstraint2Dsupergravitysuperprojectiveconnection
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 aims to show that the supersymmetric T̄T deformation of a two-dimensional N=(1,1) conformal field theory is not merely an abstract solvable deformation: it is the light-cone description of a non-critical RNS (spinning) superstring. Starting from a seed SCFT coupled to two free superfields X⁰ and X¹, the author identifies the deformed stress-energy tensor with a modified super-stress tensor whose extra piece is a quasi superprojective connection, and shows that the resulting constrained system yields exactly the known super T̄T spectrum. The central charge of the seed theory fixes the deformation parameter κ through anomaly cancellation. A sympathetic reader would care because this makes the super T̄T deformation a string-theoretic construction for any (1,1) SCFT, not only for the special case of eight superscalars, and it suggests a 2D supergravity interpretation through a dilaton-like coupling.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modified super stress-energy tensor: T̃ = −½(DU ∂V + DV ∂U) − κ D∂ ln(DΨ_U) with Ψ_U = DU/√(∂U), and its antiholomorphic counterpart. This is a quasi superprojective connection, the supersymmetric version of the Schwarzian-type modification used in the bosonic construction; it guarantees the deformed tensor has the correct superconformal transformation property and shifts the central charge by 3 − 12κ. Imposing total central-charge cancellation fixes κ = (c_CFT/12) − 1. A fermion-number grading argument is then used to argue that the extra fermionic terms in the modified tensor drop out on physical states, so the bosonic mass-shell computation goes through unch

What would settle it

Compute the OPE between the modified super stress tensor and the lowest-lying NS vertex operators and check whether the extra fermionic terms in equation (60) have zero action on physical states; if any physical state is not annihilated, equation (61) must be corrected and the spectrum (63) does not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, after fixing a light-cone-like gauge DU = θp and D̄V = θ̄k, the action of the seed SCFT plus two free superfields becomes, on shell, the action of the super T̄T-deformed theory, and the Virasoro constraints of the RNS superstring reproduce the deformed spectrum. For a general seed SCFT with central charge c_CFT, conformal invariance forces a modified super stress-energy tensor with a quasi superprojective connection term, κ = c_CFT/12 − 1, and the mass-shell condition then yields E = R(−1 + sqrt(1 + 2E/R + J²/R⁴)), the familiar super T̄T spectrum. The paper also argues that the modified action can be rewritten as a supergravity action with a super-dilaton c

Load-bearing premise

The spectrum derivation relies on the unproven assumption that the new fermionic corrections to the stress tensor vanish by themselves when acting on physical states; if that fails, the mass-shell condition changes and the spectrum is no longer the super T̄T spectrum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every N=(1,1) SCFT, regardless of central charge, can be given an RNS non-critical string description whose light-cone spectrum equals its super T̄T spectrum.
  • For a seed CFT of central charge 12, the construction reduces to the critical 10D RNS superstring, recovering earlier results for eight superscalars.
  • The modification coefficient κ is fixed by anomaly cancellation to κ = c_CFT/12 − 1, so the string construction is parameter-free once the seed theory is chosen.
  • The modified action takes the form of supergravity coupled to a super-dilaton, suggesting that super T̄T deformations can be interpreted as couplings to 2D supergravity.
  • The construction offers a route toward covariant quantization of the deformed theory, either in the RNS formalism or through a possible pure-spinor formulation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the construction is correct, the super T̄T deformation is probably not an isolated solvable deformation but a universal feature of (1,1) SCFTs coupled to two-dimensional supergravity; one could look for a direct supergravity action whose classical solution reproduces the spectrum without any light-cone gauge choice.
  • A natural test is to build explicit vertex operators for the lowest NS states and check that the extra fermionic terms vanish on them, converting the paper's key computational step from an assertion into a proven fact.
  • The same mechanism should extend to other supersymmetric deformations, such as (2,2) supersymmetric T̄T flows, by replacing the superprojective connection with the appropriate superconformal analogue, although the paper does not address those cases.
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

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the super T\bar T deformation of an N=(1,1) SCFT can be recast as a non-critical RNS (spinning) string theory in a two-dimensional spacetime. The construction generalizes the bosonic Callebaut–Kruthoff–Verlinde mechanism to superspace: a pair of superscalars is added to a seed SCFT, the super-Virasoro constraints are gauge-fixed in a light-cone manner, and the stress tensor is modified by a quasi-superprojective connection term with coefficient κ. The central charge of the modified stress tensor is computed, κ is fixed by anomaly cancellation, and the resulting spectrum is claimed to reproduce the super T\bar T spectrum. The paper also sketches a supergravity-like action interpretation in Section 6.

Significance. If correct, the result would be a significant unification: every N=(1,1) SCFT would admit an RNS non-critical string description whose light-cone spectrum is exactly the super T\bar T spectrum, with no fitted parameters beyond the anomaly-fixed κ. The paper contains explicit, checkable computations: the modified super stress tensor (38), the OPE (48), the central-charge condition (49), and the component decomposition (60). The use of superaffine/superprojective connections is a nice structural contribution. However, the central spectrum derivation rests on an unproved operator statement in Section 5; until that gap is closed, the main claim is conditional rather than established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, after Eq. (60)] The mass-shell condition (61) and the spectrum (63) depend entirely on the assertion that the fermion-number-2 terms in \tilde T(z) 'vanish separately' on physical states. This is not proved. Fermion-number conservation alone does not imply that a charge-2 operator annihilates physical states: a neutral vertex operator containing both ψ_u and ψ_v can have nonvanishing OPEs with composite operators such as (∂ψ_u)ψ_u through contractions of the ψ_u factors. A proof requires either a mode-level computation of L0 on the physical-state space, a null-operator/gauge argument (e.g., DU=θp at operator level), or a BRST/vertex-operator analysis. Section 7 explicitly declines the covariant-quantization route. Without this step, the constraint (58) may contain additional fermionic contributions, and Eqs. (61)–(63) are not established.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (35)] The on-shell substitution of (33)–(34) into the action is stated to yield the deformed action, with ellipsis terms 'proportional to the equations of motion, which vanish on-shell.' This is not a proof: dropping terms after substituting equations of motion back into the action is legitimate only if no boundary/contact terms remain. Since this action-level equivalence is part of the claim that the RNS construction reproduces the super T\bar T deformation, the ellipsis terms should be exhibited or a cleaner derivation provided.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Introduction] Typos: 'theoy' should be 'theory' and 'now how' should be 'know how'.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The T\bar T spectrum formula uses E(R,λ) on the left but the right-hand side has λ/R; the conventions for the radius and the seed energy should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Eqs. (13)–(15) and (61)–(63)] The same symbol E is used for the seed energy, the spacetime energy, and the deformed energy. Please introduce E_0 or E_seed to make the derivation unambiguous.
  4. [Section 4.2.1, Eq. (47)] There is an apparent factor-of-1/2 discrepancy between Eq. (47) and the definition in Eq. (38). Please check and align the notation.
  5. [Section 6, Eq. (64)] The coefficient κ' is introduced without definition and is not related to κ in Eq. (49). If Eq. (64) is meant to be the action whose stress tensor is (38), the coefficient should be fixed accordingly.
  6. [Eq. (60)] The parentheses in the displayed expression for \tilde T(z) are unbalanced, making the component formula hard to read.
  7. [Section 5] The physical-state condition T_tot(z)φ∼0 should be stated explicitly, including the definition of physical states in the light-cone prescription used here.
  8. [References] Reference [3] is a recent review rather than the original Nambu–Goto string citation; please cite the original sources where appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: κ is fixed by anomaly cancellation, not by matching the TTbar spectrum, and the spectrum is derived from the super-Virasoro constraint rather than inserted as an input.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The modified super stress tensor (38) is fixed by requiring a valid superconformal transformation law and by imposing total central-charge cancellation, Eq. (49): κ = c_CFT/12 − 1. This condition is independent of the TTbar spectrum; it is not fitted to (63). The mass-shell equation (61) is obtained from the L0 constraint, and the subsequent algebra yields (63). The claim that the grading-2 fermionic terms vanish on physical states (Section 5) is an unproved step, and Section 7 explicitly acknowledges the absence of covariant quantization, but this is a completeness/correctness gap rather than a circular reduction: the paper does not define physical states by demanding (61), nor does it use (63) to fix the form of \tilde T or κ. The bosonic construction [8] and the superspace lift [9] are cited as external prior work, with no author overlap, and are used as scaffolding rather than as an unverified uniqueness theorem. Therefore no load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the superspace prepotential formalism and the superprojective connection theory (standard background), plus two paper-specific assumptions: the on-shell reduction of the gauge-fixed action and the fermion-grading rule that discards extra fermionic terms. κ is the only tunable coefficient and is fixed by anomaly cancellation.

free parameters (1)
  • κ (modification coefficient) = κ = c_CFT/12 − 1
    Introduced in Eq. (38) as the coefficient of the quasi superprojective connection modification. Its value is fixed by the requirement that the total central charge vanish (Eq. 49), not fitted to data, but it is an input coupling that the central claim depends on.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The N=(1,1) superspace prepotential formulation and the superconformal/projective connection formalism on super-Riemann surfaces are valid (Eqs. 17-19, Appendix B).
    Background from references [18-29]; the paper uses these to construct the modified stress tensor and action.
  • domain assumption The super T̄T operator is O_sTT = T̄T (superfield product), and T T̄ = ∫d²θ O_sTT (Eqs. 25-26).
    Taken from [9]; this identification is the foundation for calling (35) the super T̄T deformation.
  • ad hoc to paper The on-shell substitution of the gauge-fixed Virasoro constraints into the action yields the deformed action, with ellipsis terms vanishing on-shell (Eq. 35).
    Stated in Section 4.1; the ellipsis terms are said to vanish by holomorphicity and Grassmann properties, but this is not shown in detail.
  • ad hoc to paper Extra fermionic contributions with fermion-number grading 2 vanish on physical states (Section 5).
    This is the key unproved assumption needed to reduce the mass-shell condition to (61) and recover the T̄T spectrum (63).
  • domain assumption The NS-sector normal-ordering constant in the mass-shell condition is L_total_0 + L̄_total_0 − 1 = 0 (Eq. 61).
    Standard RNS string theory; the paper relies on this to get the correct spectrum.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Super $T\bar{T}$ deformation and the RNS non-critical superstring." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KM6GXOLP

@misc{pith2026260630747,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Super $T\barT$ deformation and the RNS non-critical superstring},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KM6GXOLP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.30747}
}
abstract

In this paper we review the super $T\bar{T}$ deformation of $\mathcal{N}=(1,1)$ theories in the superspace formulation, alongside its interpretation in the context of noncritical string theory. By combining the superspace approach with concepts from the study of super-Riemann surfaces, we demonstrate that super $T\bar{T}$ deformations in superspace can be naturally interpreted as a noncritical RNS superstring theory. We also propose a possible interpretation of the super $T\bar{T}$ deformations as 2D supergravity in the superspace through some field redefinitions.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Sz´ ecs´ enyi, and Roberto Tateo.T¯T-deformed 2D Quantum Field Theories.JHEP, 10:112, 2016

    Andrea Cavagli` a, Stefano Negro, Istv´ an M. Sz´ ecs´ enyi, and Roberto Tateo.T¯T-deformed 2D Quantum Field Theories.JHEP, 10:112, 2016

    2016

  2. [2]

    F. A. Smirnov and A. B. Zamolodchikov. On space of integrable quantum field theories. Nucl. Phys. B, 915:363–383, 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    Song He, Yi Li, Hao Ouyang, and Yuan Sun.T ¯TDeformation: Introduction and Some Recent Advances, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    GeometrizingT T.arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.04664, 2020

    Pawel Caputa, Shouvik Datta, Yunfeng Jiang, and Per Kraus. GeometrizingT T.arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.04664, 2020. CERN-TH-2020-188

    arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    Sergei Dubovsky, Victor Gorbenko, and Guzman Hernandez-Chifflet.T ¯TPartition Func- tion from Topological Gravity.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018(9):158, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Shinji Hirano and Vinayak Raj.T ¯T-deformed correlators from a 2D gravity description, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Tolley.T ¯TDeformations, Massive Gravity and Non-Critical Strings.JHEP, 2019

    Andrew J. Tolley.T ¯TDeformations, Massive Gravity and Non-Critical Strings.JHEP, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    Nele Callebaut, Jorrit Kruthoff, and Herman Verlinde.T Tdeformed CFT as a non-critical string.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2020(4), April 2020

    2020

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    OnT ¯Tdeformations and supersymmetry.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2019(6), June 2018

    Marco Baggio, Alessandro Sfondrini, Gabriele Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, and Harriet Walsh. OnT ¯Tdeformations and supersymmetry.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2019(6), June 2018. 15

    2019

  2. [10]

    Strings on NS-NS Backgrounds as Integrable Deformations

    Marco Baggio and Alessandro Sfondrini. Strings on NS-NS Backgrounds as Integrable Deformations. 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Tensionless AdS 3/CFT2 and single traceT T.JHEP, 11:145, 2024

    Andrea Dei, Bob Knighton, Kiarash Naderi, and Savdeep Sethi. Tensionless AdS 3/CFT2 and single traceT T.JHEP, 11:145, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Supersymmetry andT Tdeforma- tions.JHEP, 04:131, 2019

    Chih-Kai Chang, Christian Ferko, and Savdeep Sethi. Supersymmetry andT Tdeforma- tions.JHEP, 04:131, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Chih-Kai Chang, Christian Ferko, Savdeep Sethi, Alessandro Sfondrini, and Gabriele Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli.T ¯Tflows and (2,2) supersymmetry.Phys. Rev. D, 101(2):026008, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    T ¯TDeformations through BRST Sym- metry.arXiv preprint hep-th/2601.06247, 2026

    Elia Sabbata, Pietro Grassi, and Massimo Porrati. T ¯TDeformations through BRST Sym- metry.arXiv preprint hep-th/2601.06247, 2026

    2026

  7. [15]

    A quantum S-matrix for two-dimensional black hole formation and evaporation.Nuclear Physics B, 406(1–2):43–58, September 1993

    Erik Verlinde and Herman Verlinde. A quantum S-matrix for two-dimensional black hole formation and evaporation.Nuclear Physics B, 406(1–2):43–58, September 1993

    1993

  8. [16]

    Dynamical moving mirrors and black holes

    Tze-Dan Chung and Herman Verlinde. Dynamical moving mirrors and black holes. 1993

    1993

  9. [17]

    Cangemi, R

    D. Cangemi, R. Jackiw, and B. Zwiebach. Physical States in Matter-Coupled Dilaton Gravity. 1995

    1995

  10. [18]

    Eric D’Hoker and D. H. Phong. The Geometry of String Perturbation Theory.Rev. Mod. Phys., 60:917, 1988

    1988

  11. [19]

    Freed, Lisa C

    Pierre Deligne, Pavel Etingof, Daniel S. Freed, Lisa C. Jeffrey, David Kazhdan, John W. Morgan, David R. Morrison, and Edward Witten, editors.Quantum Fields and Strings: A Course for Mathematicians: Volume 2. American Mathematical Society, 1999

    1999

  12. [20]

    M. T. Grisaru and M. E. Wehlau. Quantum (2,2) supergravity, 9 1995

    1995

  13. [21]

    Grisaru and Marcia E

    Marcus T. Grisaru and Marcia E. Wehlau. Prepotentials for (2,2) Supergravity.Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 10:753–766, 1995

    1995

  14. [22]

    Marcus T. Grisaru. Quantum Superfield Supergravity.Physica D, 15:278–285, 1985

    1985

  15. [23]

    S. J. Gates Jr, M. T. Grisaru, M. Roˇ cek, and W. Siegel. Superspace, or One thousand and one lessons in supersymmetry.Front. Phys., 58:1–548, 1983

    1983

  16. [24]

    James Gates, Jr

    S. James Gates, Jr. and H. Nishino.D= 2 Superfield Supergravity, Local (Supersymme- try)**2 and NonlinearσModels.Class. Quant. Grav., 3:391, 1986

    1986

  17. [25]

    Buchbinder and Sergei M

    Ioseph L. Buchbinder and Sergei M. Kuzenko.Ideas and Methods of Supersymmetry and Supergravity: Or a Walk Through Superspace. Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol and Philadelphia, revised edition, 1998

    1998

  18. [26]

    Kachkachi

    J-P Ader and H. Kachkachi. Induced Polyakov supergravity on Riemann surfaces of higher genus.Class.Quant.Grav.11:767-784,1994, 11(4):767–784, April 1993

    1994

  19. [27]

    Relating Weyl and diffeomorphism anomalies on super Riemann surfaces.Class.Quant.Grav.10:1-18,1993, 10(1):1–18, January 1992

    Jean-Pierre Ader, Francois Gieres, and Yves Noirot. Relating Weyl and diffeomorphism anomalies on super Riemann surfaces.Class.Quant.Grav.10:1-18,1993, 10(1):1–18, January 1992. 16

    1993

  20. [28]

    The Polyakov action on the supertorus.arXiv preprint hep-th/9212098, 1992

    Jean-Pierre Ader and Hamid Kachkachi. The Polyakov action on the supertorus.arXiv preprint hep-th/9212098, 1992

    1992 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Conformally covariant operators on riemann surfaces (with applications to conformal and integrable models).International Journal of Modern Physics A, 08(01):1–58, January 1993

    Fran¸ cois Gieres. Conformally covariant operators on riemann surfaces (with applications to conformal and integrable models).International Journal of Modern Physics A, 08(01):1–58, January 1993

    1993

  22. [30]

    Superspace path integral measure of the N = 1 spinning string.Annals of Physics, 172(2):348–370, December 1986

    M Roˇ cek, P van Nieuwenhuizen, and S.C Zhang. Superspace path integral measure of the N = 1 spinning string.Annals of Physics, 172(2):348–370, December 1986

    1986

  23. [31]

    Chamseddine

    A.H. Chamseddine. Superstrings in arbitrary dimensions.Physics Letters B, 258(1–2):97– 103, April 1991

    1991

  24. [32]

    Towards the Holographic Dual of N = 2 SYK.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018(3), March 2017

    Stefan Forste, Joshua Kames-King, and Max Wiesner. Towards the Holographic Dual of N = 2 SYK.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018(3), March 2017

    2018

  25. [33]

    Supersymmetric SYK models.Phys

    Wenbo Fu, Davide Gaiotto, Juan Maldacena, and Subir Sachdev. Supersymmetric SYK models.Phys. Rev. D 95, 026009 (2017), 95(6):069904, March 2016

    2017

  26. [34]

    Super-Virasoro Anomaly, Super- Weyl Anomaly and the Super-Liouville Action for 2D Supergravity.Annals Phys

    Takanori Fujiwara, Hiroshi Igarashi, and Tadao Suzuki. Super-Virasoro Anomaly, Super- Weyl Anomaly and the Super-Liouville Action for 2D Supergravity.Annals Phys. 254 (1997) 233-272, 254(1):233–272, February 1996

    1997

  27. [35]

    Nearly AdS2 Sugra and the Super-Schwarzian.Physics Letters B, 771:157–161, August 2017

    Stefan Forste and Iris Golla. Nearly AdS2 Sugra and the Super-Schwarzian.Physics Letters B, 771:157–161, August 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Grundberg and R

    J. Grundberg and R. Nakayama. Superconformal Ward identities and the supertorus.Nu- clear Physics B, 306(3):497–515, August 1988

    1988

  29. [37]

    Grunberg and R

    J. Grunberg and R. Nakayama. On 2D (super) gravity in the light-cone gauge.Modern Physics Letters A, 04(01):55–60, January 1989

    1989

  30. [38]

    Gieres and J

    F. Gieres and J. McCabe. 2d SUGRA: Supersymmetric form of the effective action leading to the conformal anomaly.Physics Letters B, 202(3):339–342, March 1988

    1988

  31. [39]

    Cadoni, P

    M. Cadoni, P. Carta, and S. Mignemi. Quantum dilaton gravity as a linear dilaton conformal field theory. 2002

    2002

  32. [40]

    Benedict, R

    E. Benedict, R. Jackiw, and H. J. Lee. Functional Schroedinger and BRST Quantization of (1+1)–Dimensional Gravity. 1996

    1996

  33. [41]

    Dirac constraint quantization of a parametrized field theory by anomaly-free operator representations of spacetime diffeomorphisms.Physical Review D, 39(8):2263– 2280, April 1989

    Karel Kuchaˇ r. Dirac constraint quantization of a parametrized field theory by anomaly-free operator representations of spacetime diffeomorphisms.Physical Review D, 39(8):2263– 2280, April 1989

    1989

  34. [42]

    (super)schwarzian mechanics

    Nikolay Kozyrev and Sergey Krivonos. (super)schwarzian mechanics. 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Kazama, Y

    Y. Kazama, Y. Satoh, and A. Tsuchiya. A unified approach to solvable models of dilaton gravity in two-dimensions based on symmetry. 1994

    1994

  36. [44]

    J. Cruz, J. Navarro-Salas, M. Navarro, and C.F. Talavera. Conformal and non-conformal symmetries in 2D dilaton gravity.Physics Letters B, 402(3–4):270–275, June 1997

    1997

  37. [45]

    Anomalies and effective actions in two-dimensional superspace.International Journal of Modern Physics A, 07(08):1685–1704, March 1992

    Fran¸ cois Delduc and Fran¸ cois Gieres. Anomalies and effective actions in two-dimensional superspace.International Journal of Modern Physics A, 07(08):1685–1704, March 1992. 17

    1992

  38. [46]

    Knecht, S

    M. Knecht, S. Lazzarini, and F. Thuillier. Shifting the Weyl anomaly to the chirally split diffeomorphism anomaly in two dimensions.Physics Letters B, 251(2):279–283, November 1990

    1990

  39. [47]

    Coleman, Jeremias Aguilera-Damia, Daniel Z

    Evan A. Coleman, Jeremias Aguilera-Damia, Daniel Z. Freedman, and Ronak M. Soni. T ¯T-Deformed Actions and (1,1) Supersymmetry. 2019. 18

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.