Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Mass-deformed $\mathcal{N} = 3$ Supersymmetric Chern-Simons-Matter Theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The mass-deformed N=3 supersymmetric Chern-Simons-matter theory has a unique supersymmetry-compatible mass deformation, and this paper writes down its full action, including the N=1 superspace form.

desk verdict The paper's new mass-deformed action is not shown to have N=3 supersymmetry, and the provided transformations appear to fail the invariance test at O(m0) in the gauge-field current. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08119 v2 pith:MHJ2KOE4 submitted 2019-08-21 hep-th math-phmath.MP

Karthik Inbasekar , Lavneet Janagal , Ashish Shukla This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath-phmath.MP MSC 81T6081T13
keywords Chern-Simons-matterN=3supersymmetrymassdeformationN=1superspaceR-symmetrytripletU(N)gaugetheorysupersymmetricChern-Simons
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 works out the action for the mass-deformed $\mathcal{N}=3$ supersymmetric $U(N)$ Chern-Simons theory coupled to fundamental matter, keeping all three supersymmetries intact. It claims that, unlike the free Wess-Zumino model where two mass terms are allowed, the interacting Chern-Simons theory has exactly one deformation consistent with $\mathcal{N}=3$ supersymmetry: a triplet under the $SU(2)_R$ R-symmetry, written explicitly in eq. (16). The paper then packages the full deformed theory in $\mathcal{N}=1$ superspace, eq. (23), using one fundamental and one anti-fundamental chiral superfield, and verifies that eliminating auxiliary fields reproduces the component action. The result matters because it turns a previously implicit theory into an explicit Lagrangian suitable for concrete scattering-amplitude computations.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by an ansatz for the most general supersymmetry transformations, eq. (C1), with undetermined coefficients $\chi_i$, together with the requirement that the action be invariant under all three supercharges. Imposing invariance fixes the coefficients and selects the mass matrix $M^A_B = m_0(\sigma_3)^A_B$, where $(\sigma_3)^A_B$ acts on the R-symmetry doublet; this is what produces the unique triplet mass deformation. In $\mathcal{N}=1$ superspace the mechanical core is the pair of chiral superfields $\Phi_+,\Phi_-$ with $SO(2)_R$ charges $+\frac12,-\frac12$, whose kinetic, mass, and quartic superpotential terms assemble into the action (23), and whose auxiliary-field equations of motion connect the superfield form to the component action.

What would settle it

A direct calculation that adds any candidate gauge-invariant, Lorentz-invariant dimension-two operator to the action (14)+(16) and requires the full action to be invariant under the transformations (17) up to surface terms would settle the completeness claim; finding any nonzero coefficient outside the three terms in eq. (16) would disprove the claimed uniqueness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mass-deformed $\mathcal{N}=3$ $U(N)$ Chern-Simons-matter action is uniquely fixed: the only mass terms that can be added to the superconformal action (14) while closing under the $\mathcal{N}=3$ supersymmetry algebra are the scalar and fermion bilinears plus a sextic interaction displayed in eq. (16), with the mass matrix proportional to the third Pauli matrix $\sigma_3$ in $SU(2)_R$ space. This triplet deformation breaks the R-symmetry $SU(2)_R$ down to $U(1)_R$ but preserves all three supersymmetries. The paper's explicit $\mathcal{N}=1$ superspace action, eq. (23), packages the deformed theory with chiral superfields $\Phi_+$ and $\Phi_-$ of opposite $SO(2)_R$ charges; integrating out the auxiliary fields reproduces the component action (22).

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the list of possible mass terms the paper checks is complete: no other dimension-two operator built from the matter fields, the covariant derivative, or the gauge field could also preserve all three supersymmetries.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The explicit $\mathcal{N}=1$ superspace action makes the mass-deformed $\mathcal{N}=3$ theory accessible to the Dyson-Schwinger methods already developed for $\mathcal{N}=2$ Chern-Simons-matter theories, so exact $2\to2$ scattering amplitudes can in principle be computed to all loop orders.
  • Amplitudes computed from this Lagrangian can be tested for dual superconformal symmetry and Yangian symmetry, the symmetries expected for supersymmetric Chern-Simons-matter theories with $\mathcal{N}\ge 2$.
  • With the action in hand, correlation functions of spin-zero supercurrents and beta functions along renormalization-group flows can be computed, providing a concrete testing ground for bosonization duality.
  • Because the triplet mass term breaks $SU(2)_R$ to $U(1)_R$ while preserving $\mathcal{N}=3$ supersymmetry, the deformed theory is a concrete example in which partial R-symmetry breaking coexists with full supersymmetry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the uniqueness claim holds, then any supersymmetry-preserving mass deformation for this matter content must break the R-symmetry $SU(2)_R$ down to $U(1)_R$; a singlet deformation would require different field content or different interactions.
  • The same $\mathcal{N}=1$ superfield packaging could be applied to matter in other gauge representations or to related higher-$\mathcal{N}$ Chern-Simons-matter theories, where the allowed mass deformations would presumably take the same triplet form with a different explicit matrix.
  • A fully exhaustive classification of dimension-two gauge-invariant operators for this field content would either close the completeness gap left by the paper's ansatz or reveal an additional allowed term, making the uniqueness claim directly testable.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper aims to fill a gap in the literature by writing down the explicit action and supersymmetry transformations for the mass-deformed N=3 U(N) Chern-Simons-matter theory, together with an N=1 superspace formulation. The paper first analyzes mass deformations of the free N=3 Wess-Zumino model, finding both a singlet and a triplet mass deformation. It then proposes, in eq. (16), a unique triplet mass deformation for the interacting Chern-Simons-matter theory and states in eq. (17) that the full action is invariant under the corresponding supersymmetry transformations. The final section rewrites the mass-deformed theory in N=1 superspace and claims that after eliminating auxiliary fields the component action eq. (22) is recovered. Appendix B verifies the free Wess-Zumino invariance, and Appendix C verifies the invariance of the massless Chern-Simons-matter action, but no appendix verifies the central claim of invariance of the mass-deformed interacting theory.

Significance. If correct, the paper would fill a genuine gap in the supersymmetric Chern-Simons literature and would provide a useful superspace action for amplitude computations. The appendices for the free Wess-Zumino model and the massless Chern-Simons-matter theory are transparent and carefully done, and the paper is self-contained in its notation. However, the central load-bearing claim—that the mass-deformed action is invariant under the transformations in eq. (17)—is not demonstrated anywhere, and a direct check appears to contradict it. The advertised unique triplet mass deformation and the N=1 superspace action are therefore not established by the manuscript as it stands.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.B, eqs. (14), (16), (17)] The claimed invariance of S0 + S_mass under the transformations in eq. (17) fails at order m0 in the gauge-field sector. To see this, set B=C=1 in eq. (17); the m0-dependent parts are δψ_β^A = m0 χ1 C_{αβ} (σ3)^A_1 φ_1 and δψbar^{Aβ} = m0 χ1 δ^β_α (σ3)^A_1 φbar_1. Varying the fermion kinetic term i ψbar^A /D ψ_A in eq. (14) produces, among other terms, an A_μ-dependent contribution proportional to i m0 χ1 [ φbar_1 γ^μ A_μ ψ_1 + ψbar^1 γ^μ C A_μ φ_1 ] (up to index placement), which is nonvanishing because (σ3)^1_1 = 1. The mass terms in eq. (16) contain no gauge field, and δA_μ in eq. (17) has no m0 piece; no other O(m0) term in eqs. (14)-(16) contains a ψbar-A-φ coupling of this form. Hence there is no candidate term to cancel this contribution. The free Wess-Zumino analysis in Appendix B avoids this problem only because the free model has no vector multiplet. Appendix C verifies only the massless action, not the mass-deformed one, so the central assertion of §III.B is unsupported and appears to be incorrect.
  2. [§III.B, 'Following §II B, we find'] The uniqueness and completeness of the mass-deformation ansatz in eq. (16) are asserted rather than demonstrated. The free Wess-Zumino analysis in §II B concerns a theory without a gauge field, and the cited uniqueness argument [57] is not reproduced or mapped to the three-term ansatz. To justify the statement that the most general dimension-2 mass deformation is of the form given in eq. (16), the authors would need a systematic enumeration of all possible operators—including, for example, m0-dependent terms involving covariant derivatives or the gauge field—and a calculation analogous to Appendix C showing that every other candidate violates supersymmetry. Without such a derivation, the 'unique triplet mass deformation' claim is not established.
  3. [§III.C, eq. (23)] The N=1 superspace action in eq. (23) is written as a single d2θ integral over operators that include non-chiral combinations such as m0(Φbar+ Φ+ - Φbar- Φ-) and products of Φbar and Φ. In standard N=1 superspace, a d2θ integral is manifestly invariant only for chiral integrands or with additional projections; the paper does not explain why the expression in eq. (23) is N=1 supersymmetric. The component reduction leading to eq. (27) is summarized in one sentence, and the identification with eq. (22) is not shown in detail. Since eq. (23) is one of the paper's main advertised results, this requires a full derivation or an explicit statement of the superspace convention under which the integral is invariant.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§III.C, eqs. (18)-(21)] The description of the Euclidean continuation of spinors would benefit from an explicit statement of the gamma-matrix representation used in this section; the relations in eqs. (19)-(21) are representation-dependent and are not immediately consistent with the conventions in Appendix A.
  2. [§III.C, eq. (27)] The component expression in eq. (27) is very dense; a table matching the (φ±, ψ±) fields to the SU(2)_R doublets in eqs. (A1)-(A2) would make the claimed recovery of eq. (22) easier to verify.
  3. [References] References [49] and [56] are listed as unpublished or in preparation; where possible, the authors should cite published versions or clearly state the status of these works, since the text relies on them for subsequent applications.
  4. [Appendix C, after eq. (C11)] The statement that the remaining terms in the variation of the massless action vanish is presented without showing the cancellations; including at least a summary of the identities used would make the verification more complete and would strengthen the reader's confidence in the massless starting point.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mass-deformed action and N=1 superspace form are obtained by direct supersymmetry invariance conditions or imported external results, not by fitting the claimed output.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: (i) take the known massless N=3 Chern-Simons-matter action from Refs. [54,55]; (ii) impose N=3 supersymmetry on a general ansatz for mass terms and transformations, leading to eqs. (16)-(17); (iii) invoke Ref. [57] for the uniqueness of the triplet deformation; and (iv) rewrite the component action in N=1 superspace, eq. (23), then verify by eliminating auxiliary fields that eq. (23) reduces to eq. (22). None of these steps is circular. The massless action and the uniqueness classification are external results by non-overlapping authors, not outputs of the present paper that are fitted back into the derivation. The superspace action is explicitly introduced as a repackaging and checked against the component action; this is a consistency check, not an input redefined as a prediction. The self-citations are not load-bearing: [25] supplies superspace conventions, [56] is the announced follow-up, and [22,48-50] appear only in the introduction and concluding remarks. The abbreviated statement 'Following §II B, we find' leaves the mass-deformed invariance computation implicit, but an omitted proof is a correctness risk, not circularity. No equation is equivalent to another by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its load-bearing inputs are the ansatz for the supersymmetry transformations, the external uniqueness argument of [57], and the Euclidean continuation prescription. The mass parameter m0 is an undetermined coupling, not a fitted constant.

free parameters (1)
  • m0 = m0 (undetermined)
    Mass deformation parameter in eqs. (16) and (22); it is a free coupling of the theory, not fitted to data and not determined by the construction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The most general supersymmetry transformations for the N=3 theory are given by eq. (15) for the massless theory and eq. (17) for the mass-deformed theory, with coefficients fixed by Lorentz invariance, dimensional analysis, and R-symmetry covariance.
    This ansatz underlies the derivation in Sections III.B and Appendix C. If additional terms (e.g., higher-derivative or gauge-field-dependent) are allowed, the derived action may not be the most general.
  • domain assumption The uniqueness of the triplet mass deformation in the interacting theory, as argued in [57] (Cordova-Dumitrescu-Intriligator), is correct.
    The paper relies on this external argument to exclude singlet or other deformations in the interacting case, rather than proving the exclusion from its own computation.
  • domain assumption The Euclidean continuation rules in eq. (18), including the spinor redefinition, are valid.
    The Euclidean action eq. (22) and the N=1 superspace action eq. (23) depend on this continuation; a subtlety with charge conjugation is discussed and addressed.
  • standard math Standard Fierz identities for spinors and R-symmetry indices, used in Appendices B and C, are correct.
    The cancellations in the supersymmetry variation rely on these identities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mass-deformed $\mathcal{N} = 3$ Supersymmetric Chern-Simons-Matter Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MHJ2KOE4

@misc{pith2026190808119,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mass-deformed $\mathcalN = 3$ Supersymmetric Chern-Simons-Matter Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MHJ2KOE4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08119}
}
abstract

The maximal extension of supersymmetric Chern-Simons theory coupled to fundamental matter has $\mathcal{N} = 3$ supersymmetry. In this short note, we provide the explicit form of the action for the mass-deformed $\mathcal{N} = 3$ supersymmetric $U(N)$ Chern-Simons-Matter theory. The theory admits a unique triplet mass deformation term consistent with supersymmetry. We explicitly construct the mass-deformed $\mathcal{N} = 3$ theory in $\mathcal{N} = 1$ superspace using a fundamental and an anti-fundamental superfield.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [57]

    Inbasekar, S

    K. Inbasekar, S. Jain, P. Nayak, and T. Sharma, Unpublis hed

    work page

  2. [1]

    when acted upon by the the su- percharges provides constraints on the unknown parameters in the supersymmetry transformations eq. ( 2). A. Case 1: M B A = m δ B A In the first case, we consider the mass deformation M B A = mδ B A in eqs. ( 1) and ( 2). A priori, the coefficients χi, ˜χi in the supersymmetry transformations eq.(2) are arbitrary. To re- late t...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Zee, in Field Theory, Topology and Condensed Matter Physics, edited by H

    A. Zee, in Field Theory, Topology and Condensed Matter Physics, edited by H. B. Geyer (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995) pp. 99–153

    work page 1995

  4. [3]

    (3) We next impose the condition that the action eq.(

    work page

  5. [4]

    For the present case where M B A = mδ B A , or equivalently,MAB =mǫ AB, we get (see appendix B) ˜χ1 = −iχ2, ˜χ2 =iχ1; χ2 =iχ3, ˜χ2 =i ˜χ3; ˜χ1 =χ3, ˜χ3 =χ1

    must be invariant under the supersymmetry transformations eq.( 2), QBCα ( Sf ree W Z ) = 0, (4) up to surface terms. For the present case where M B A = mδ B A , or equivalently,MAB =mǫ AB, we get (see appendix B) ˜χ1 = −iχ2, ˜χ2 =iχ1; χ2 =iχ3, ˜χ2 =i ˜χ3; ˜χ1 =χ3, ˜χ3 =χ1. (5) Combining the relations above with the relations in eq.( 3), we get χ ∗ 1 =iχ2,...

    work page

  6. [5]

    (9) Also, the supersymmetric invariance of the action eq.(

    work page

  7. [6]

    (10) Combining these with eq.( 9), we get the constraints χ ∗ 1 =iχ2, χ∗ 2 =iχ1; χ2 = −iχ3, χ∗ 2 =iχ ∗ 3 ; χ ∗ 1 =χ3, χ∗ 3 =χ1

    now gives (see appendix B) ˜χ1 = −iχ2, ˜χ2 =iχ1; χ2 = −iχ3, ˜χ2 =i ˜χ3; ˜χ1 = −χ3, ˜χ3 =χ1. (10) Combining these with eq.( 9), we get the constraints χ ∗ 1 =iχ2, χ∗ 2 =iχ1; χ2 = −iχ3, χ∗ 2 =iχ ∗ 3 ; χ ∗ 1 =χ3, χ∗ 3 =χ1. (11) As can be clearly seen, the relations in eq.( 11) are also mutu- ally consistent, and hence the choice M B A =m (σ3) B A is an- othe...

    work page

  8. [7]

    Conventions for SU (2)R and SO(2)R We group the SO(2)R fields that appear in the action eq. (27) intoSU (2)R doublets as shown below, φA = ( φ+ φ− ) + − , φA = ( −φ− φ+ ) − + ¯φA = ( ¯φ+ ¯φ− ) − + , ¯φA = ( − ¯φ− ¯φ+ ) + − , (A1) and ψA = ( ψ+ −ψ− ) + − , ψA = ( ψ− ψ+ ) − + ¯ψA = ( ¯ψ+ − ¯ψ− ) − + , ¯ψA = ( ¯ψ− ¯ψ+ ) + − . (A2) The raising and lowering of ...

    work page

Show all 67 references
  1. [8]

    gives QBCα ( − ∫ d3x ¯φAM D A M E D φE ) = − ∫ d3x [ ˜χ1 ¯ψαBM D C M E D φE + ˜χ1 ¯ψαCM D B M E D φE − χ1 ¯φAM D A MDCψαB − χ1 ¯φAM D A MDBψαC ] . (B2) Similarly, from the third term in the action, we get the contr i- bution5 QBCα ( i ∫ d3x ¯ψβA∂ γ β ψγA ) = i ∫ d3x [ ˜χ2∂ β α...

  2. [9]

    Aharonov and D

    Y . Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959) , [,95(1959)]

    1959

  3. [10]

    Maldacena and A

    J. Maldacena and A. Zhiboedov, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 104003 (2013) , arXiv:1204.3882 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Wen, Advances in Physics 44, 405 (1995) , https://doi.org/10.1080/00018739500101566

    X.-G. Wen, Advances in Physics 44, 405 (1995) , https://doi.org/10.1080/00018739500101566

    1995 doi

  5. [12]

    Witten, Riv

    E. Witten, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 39, 313 (2016) , arXiv:1510.07698 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Tong (2016) arXiv:1606.06687 [hep-th]

    D. Tong (2016) arXiv:1606.06687 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B311, 46 (1988)

    1988

  8. [15]

    Giombi, S

    S. Giombi, S. Minwalla, S. Prakash, S. P. Trivedi, S. R. Wadia, and X. Yin, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2112 (2012) , arXiv:1110.4386 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Aharony, G

    O. Aharony, G. Gur-Ari, and R. Yacoby, JHEP 03, 037 (2012) , arXiv:1110.4382 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Maldacena and A

    J. Maldacena and A. Zhiboedov, J. Phys. A46, 214011 (2013) , arXiv:1112.1016 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Gur-Ari and R

    G. Gur-Ari and R. Yacoby, JHEP 11, 013 (2015) , arXiv:1507.04378 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Aharony, G

    O. Aharony, G. Gur-Ari, and R. Yacoby, JHEP 12, 028 (2012) , arXiv:1207.4593 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Aharony, S

    O. Aharony, S. Giombi, G. Gur-Ari, J. Maldacena, and R. Y a- coby, JHEP 03, 121 (2013) , arXiv:1211.4843 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Y okoyama, JHEP 01, 148 (2014) , arXiv:1310.0902 [hep-th]

    S. Y okoyama, JHEP 01, 148 (2014) , arXiv:1310.0902 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [22]

    standard irreps

    from eq. ( 23). The superfield expansions in the Wess- Zumino gauge are given by Φ + =φ+ +θψ+ − θ2F +, Φ − =φ− +θψ− − θ2F −, Γ α =iθβA α β − 2θ2λα. (24) One needs to integrate out the auxiliary fields F ±, ¯F ± and the gauginoλα by using their equations of motion. The equations ...

    1989

  16. [23]

    Takimi, JHEP 07, 177 (2013) , arXiv:1304.3725 [hep-th]

    T. Takimi, JHEP 07, 177 (2013) , arXiv:1304.3725 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  17. [24]

    S. Jain, S. Minwalla, T. Sharma, T. Takimi, S. R. Wadia, a nd S. Y okoyama,JHEP 09, 009 (2013) , arXiv:1301.6169 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Gur-Ari and R

    G. Gur-Ari and R. Yacoby, JHEP 02, 150 (2013) , arXiv:1211.1866 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Bedhotiya and S

    A. Bedhotiya and S. Prakash, JHEP 12, 032 (2015) , arXiv:1506.05412 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Geracie, M

    M. Geracie, M. Goykhman, and D. T. Son, JHEP 04, 103 (2016) , arXiv:1511.04772 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [28]

    G. J. Turiaci and A. Zhiboedov, JHEP 10, 034 (2018) , arXiv:1802.04390 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Yacoby, (2018), arXiv:1805.11627 [hep-th]

    R. Yacoby, (2018), arXiv:1805.11627 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Inbasekar, S

    K. Inbasekar, S. Jain, V . Malvimat, A. Mehta, P. Nayak, a nd T. Sharma, (2019), arXiv:1907.11722 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    S. Jain, M. Mandlik, S. Minwalla, T. Takimi, S. R. Wadia, and S. Y okoyama,JHEP 04, 129 (2015) , arXiv:1404.6373 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Dandekar, M

    Y . Dandekar, M. Mandlik, and S. Minwalla, JHEP 04, 102 (2015) , arXiv:1407.1322 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Inbasekar, S

    K. Inbasekar, S. Jain, S. Mazumdar, S. Minwalla, V . Umesh, and S. Y okoyama, JHEP 10, 176 (2015) , arXiv:1505.06571 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Y okoyama, JHEP 09, 105 (2016) , arXiv:1604.01897 [hep-th]

    S. Y okoyama, JHEP 09, 105 (2016) , arXiv:1604.01897 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Minwalla and S

    S. Minwalla and S. Y okoyama, JHEP 02, 103 (2016) , arXiv:1507.04546 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Aharony, S

    O. Aharony, S. Jain, and S. Minwalla, JHEP 12, 058 (2018) , arXiv:1808.03317 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [37]

    S. Jain, S. P. Trivedi, S. R. Wadia, and S. Y okoyama, JHEP 10, 194 (2012) , arXiv:1207.4750 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  31. [38]

    S. Jain, S. Minwalla, and S. Y okoyama, JHEP 11, 037 (2013) , arXiv:1305.7235 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Aharony and A

    O. Aharony and A. Sharon, JHEP 07, 160 (2019) , arXiv:1905.07146 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Benini, C

    F. Benini, C. Closset, and S. Cremonesi, JHEP 10, 075 (2011) , arXiv:1108.5373 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Park and K.-J

    J. Park and K.-J. Park, JHEP 10, 198 (2013) , 9 arXiv:1305.6280 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Aharony, S

    O. Aharony, S. S. Razamat, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, JHEP 07, 149 (2013) , arXiv:1305.3924 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Choudhury, A

    S. Choudhury, A. Dey, I. Halder, S. Jain, L. Janagal, S. Minwalla, and N. Prabhakar, JHEP 11, 177 (2018) , arXiv:1804.08635 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [44]

    A. Dey, I. Halder, S. Jain, L. Janagal, S. Minwalla, and N . Prab- hakar, JHEP 11, 020 (2018) , arXiv:1808.04415 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [45]

    A. Dey, I. Halder, S. Jain, S. Minwalla, and N. Prabhakar , (2019), arXiv:1904.07286 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Gur-Ari, S

    G. Gur-Ari, S. A. Hartnoll, and R. Mahajan, JHEP 07, 090 (2016) , arXiv:1605.01122 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Halder and S

    I. Halder and S. Minwalla, (2019), arXiv:1904.07885 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Radicevic, JHEP 03, 131 (2016) , arXiv:1511.01902 [hep-th]

    D. Radicevic, JHEP 03, 131 (2016) , arXiv:1511.01902 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Aharony, JHEP 02, 093 (2016) , arXiv:1512.00161 [hep-th]

    O. Aharony, JHEP 02, 093 (2016) , arXiv:1512.00161 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Seiberg, T

    N. Seiberg, T. Senthil, C. Wang, and E. Witten, Annals Phys. 374, 395 (2016) , arXiv:1606.01989 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Karch and D

    A. Karch and D. Tong, Phys. Rev. X6, 031043 (2016) , arXiv:1606.01893 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Hsin and N

    P.-S. Hsin and N. Seiberg, JHEP 09, 095 (2016) , arXiv:1607.07457 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Cordova, P.-S

    C. Cordova, P.-S. Hsin, and N. Seiberg, SciPost Phys. 5, 006 (2018) , arXiv:1712.08639 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [54]

    M. A. Metlitski, A. Vishwanath, and C. Xu, Physical Review B 95 (2017), 10.1103/physrevb.95.205137

    2017 doi

  48. [55]

    Cordova, P.-S

    C. Cordova, P.-S. Hsin, and K. Ohmori, (2018), arXiv:1812.11705 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Inbasekar, S

    K. Inbasekar, S. Jain, S. Majumdar, P. Nayak, T. Neogi, T. Sharma, R. Sinha, and V . Umesh, JHEP 06, 016 (2019) , arXiv:1711.02672 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Inbasekar, S

    K. Inbasekar, S. Jain, P. Nayak, and V . Umesh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161601 (2018) , arXiv:1710.04227 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Gang, Y .-t

    D. Gang, Y .-t. Huang, E. Koh, S. Lee, and A. E. Lipstein, JHEP 03, 116 (2011) , arXiv:1012.5032 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Kao, K.-M

    H.-C. Kao, K.-M. Lee, and T. Lee, Phys. Lett. B373, 94 (1996) , arXiv:hep-th/9506170 [hep-th]

    1996 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Kapustin and M

    A. Kapustin and M. J. Strassler, JHEP 04, 021 (1999) , arXiv:hep-th/9902033 [hep-th]

    1999 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Gaiotto and X

    D. Gaiotto and X. Yin, JHEP 08, 056 (2007) , arXiv:0704.3740 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Chang, S

    C.-M. Chang, S. Minwalla, T. Sharma, and X. Yin, J. Phys. A46, 214009 (2013) , arXiv:1207.4485 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Inbasekar et al, In Preparation

    K. Inbasekar et al, In Preparation

  57. [65]

    Cordova, T

    C. Cordova, T. T. Dumitrescu, and K. Intriligator, JHEP 11, 135 (2016) , arXiv:1602.01217 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [66]

    S. J. Gates, M. T. Grisaru, M. Rocek, and W. Siegel, Front . Phys. 58, 1 (1983), arXiv:hep-th/0108200 [hep-th]

    1983 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Polchinski, String theory

    J. Polchinski, String theory. Vol. 2: Superstring theory and beyond , Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

Pith tools

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