Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

The universality class of the first levels in low-dimensional gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The first states above a chaotic spectral edge belong to their own rigid universality class, and two-dimensional gravity realizes it.

desk verdict New edge fidelity statistics are solid RMT work with reproducible numerics; the gravity-realization claim is a leading-order match presented as non-perturbative and should be scoped down before it is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18957 v1 pith:PD64554B submitted 2025-05-25 hep-th cond-mat.dis-nnquant-ph

Alexander Altland , Jeremy van der Heijden , Tobias Micklitz , Moshe Rozali , Joaquim Telles de Miranda This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thcond-mat.dis-nnquant-ph
keywords universalityclassofthefirstlevelsfidelitysusceptibilityspectraledgerandommatrixtheoryJackiw-TeitelboimgravityKodaira-SpencerKontsevichmodelquantumchaos
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

In chaotic quantum systems whose spectral edge is pinned—systems that are “dense,” with roughly as many independent Hamiltonian parameters as Hilbert-space dimensions—the first few states above the edge behave like nothing else in the spectrum. This paper establishes that these “first levels” form a universality class of their own (the UFL): their wavefunctions barely deform under external perturbations, and their fidelity susceptibility $g$ is drawn from the universal distribution $P(g) \propto p(g D^{-1/3}) e^{-D/(12g^3)}$, with $p(x) \sim x^{-5/2}$ for large $x$. The same distribution is reproduced by a Kodaira-Spencer string-theoretic description of two-dimensional Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity, making gravity the only known microscopically defined system that naturally harbors the UFL. If the argument is right, the first states of low-dimensional holography are far better defined than generic chaotic states, and a genuinely non-perturbative probe of the holographic principle becomes available.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Kontsevich matrix model, a supermatrix integral over “flavor” matrices with action $S(A) = c\,\mathrm{str}(X A + \tfrac{1}{3} A^3)$, which is the universal $φ^4$ field theory of the spectral edge. The computation routes the fidelity-susceptibility generating function, a ratio of determinants, through a Hubbard-Stratonovich decoupling into this supermatrix integral, uses the Itzykson-Zuber identity to integrate out angular variables, and then solves the remaining radial integral exactly in terms of Airy functions. On the gravity side, the same objects appear as correlation functions of brane and anti-brane vertex operators $\psi(x) = e^{\Phi(x)}$ in a chiral-boson field theory on the spectral curve obtained from Kodaira-Spencer theory; normal ordering generates the super-Vandermonde determinant $s\Delta(X)$, and free-field expectation values reproduce the cubic Kontsevich action, closing the triangle between random matrix theory, the Kontsevich model, and topological string theory.

What would settle it

Take a random-matrix Hamiltonian of dimension $D$ with a fixed Gaussian perturbation and histogram the fidelity susceptibility of eigenstates within one near-edge spacing of the edge: if the histogram does not converge to Eq. (7) with the $x = g D^{-1/3}$ scaling and the $g^{-5/2}$ tail as $D \to \infty$, the UFL universality claim fails. A sparse Hamiltonian of the same dimension with edge-position fluctuations provides a direct control: if its edge histogram also matches Eq. (7), the density condition is not the controlling ingredient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the first $O(1)$ levels above the spectral edge of a dense chaotic system form a distinct universality class: squeezed between a non-fluctuating edge and the repelling bulk, their wavefunctions are almost pinned. The quantitative signature is a universal distribution of the fidelity susceptibility, $P(g) \propto p(g D^{-1/3}) e^{-D/(12 g^3)}$, where $p(x) \approx x^{-5/2} + 7.12 x^{-7/2} + \cdots$; the same power-law exponent as in the bulk is rescued by the scaling variable $x = g D^{-1/3}$, so even large $x$ values correspond to parametrically smaller susceptibilities than in the bulk. The identical distribution is then derived from a Kodaira-Spencer string theory description of JT gravity, where flavor-brane vertex operators represent the determinant insertions of the random-matrix computation and reproduce the Kontsevich matrix model exactly at the edge. The paper concludes that the UFL is a real prediction of two-dimensional gravity, not a random-matrix artifact, and that it is invisible to every semiclassical or perturbative expansion.

Load-bearing premise

The UFL exists only in “dense” systems, where the number of statistically independent Hamiltonian parameters is comparable to the Hilbert-space dimension $D$, so the spectral edge is pinned at a non-fluctuating position; the gravity realization additionally assumes JT gravity incorporates its own ensemble through hidden open-string degrees of freedom in the Kodaira-Spencer reduction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • UFL states are parametrically more rigid than bulk states: in the scaled variable $x = g D^{-1/3}$ the heavy tail $x^{-5/2}$ still decays with $g$, but typical susceptibilities are suppressed by $D^{-1/3}$ relative to the bulk.
  • The UFL is invisible to semiclassical $1/D$ expansions and to the topological expansion of the JT path integral; only non-perturbative open-string (flavor-brane) probes detect it.
  • JT gravity, through its Kodaira-Spencer completion, is the only microscopically defined system known to realize the UFL “naturally,” because it supplies its own ensemble average via hidden open-string degrees of freedom integrated out in the reduction.
  • Sparse systems such as few-body chaotic Hamiltonians or SYK-like models do not exhibit the UFL: their edges fluctuate from sample to sample, and averaging destroys the fine-grained signatures.
  • The UFL distribution is universal across dense realizations, including random matrix ensembles, quantum graphs, dense Haar-random quantum circuits, and two-dimensional gravity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the $D^{-1/3}$ scaling in Eq. (7) implies that near-edge state susceptibilities diverge only as $D^{1/3}$ with system size instead of as $D$, so control-error sensitivity of ground states in large dense quantum simulators should be suppressed by this factor.
  • Editorial inference: if JT gravity indeed performs its own ensemble through hidden open strings, then state-geometry observables such as fidelity susceptibility or entanglement near the edge may provide a sharper test of holography than spectral correlators.
  • Editorial inference: the UFL prediction for a heavy tail $g^{-5/2}$ in the scaled variable means that rare, anomalously large susceptibilities still occur with probability $\propto g^{-5/2} D^{5/6}$; searching for these rare events in ion-trap or microwave experiments could confirm the universality class.
  • Editorial inference: the same edge-rigidity mechanism might explain numerically observed quasi-non-ergodic low-lying states in other dense random-matrix-like many-body systems, and could be checked in the SYK model if its parameter count is increased toward the dense regime.
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 proposes a universality class of the first levels (UFL) above the spectral edge of dense chaotic systems, characterized by a heavy-tailed fidelity susceptibility distribution with a D^{-1/3} scaling variable, and argues that low-dimensional gravity (specifically JT gravity) provides a microscopic realization of this class. The central RMT result is Eq. (7), P(g) proportional to p(g/D^{1/3}) exp(-D/(12g^3)), with p(x) a power-law series. The derivation uses a Kontsevich-model representation of the supersymmetric generating function, an exact Airy-function evaluation in the edge regime, and is compared with numerical simulations. The gravity connection is made through Kodaira-Spencer (KS) string theory, where the fidelity correlation function is represented as a correlation function of brane/anti-brane vertex operators, claimed to reproduce the matrix integral at the edge.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper identifies a genuinely new universal regime—rigid, parametrically inert states at the spectral edge—with a concrete observable (fidelity susceptibility) and a predicted scaling form that differs sharply from bulk behavior. The RMT edge computation is a useful technical contribution, and the paper provides reproducible numerical code and data (Zenodo), which is a strength. The string-theory identification, however, is the load-bearing step for the paper's headline claim that low-dimensional gravity realizes the UFL, and that step is only established at leading order. The significance of the gravity realization therefore remains conditional on a non-renormalization argument or an explicit all-orders statement, neither of which is present.

major comments (3)
  1. [End matter, Eq. (11) and following] The equivalence between the KS string-theory correlation function and the matrix integral Eq. (6) is established only to leading order in λ_KS: the text explicitly replaces the interacting expectation value with the free-theory value 'to leading order in λKS ∼ exp(−S0)', and then concludes a 'non-perturbative equivalence'. No non-renormalization argument, symmetry protection, or all-orders resummation is supplied to control the cubic interaction of the chiral boson. Since the identification c = exp(S0) and the entire claim that JT gravity realizes the UFL rest on this step, the paper's headline gravity conclusion is not established beyond leading order; the authors themselves flag a 'weak link' in the Discussion, and this is precisely that step. The authors should either provide an argument that the free-field evaluation is exact for this correlation function, or explicitly restate the gravity realization as a leading-order/conjectural equivalence.
  2. [Supplemental Material, Eqs. (15)–(16)] The closed-form Airy evaluation of Z(z) is the technical core from which Eq. (7) is derived, but the passage from Eq. (15) to Eq. (16) is not shown; the polynomials q_i(x) are presented only numerically (with the symbol ≃), and the final Gaussian transform to Eq. (7) is described only as a saddle-point integration. Because the coefficients appearing in p(x) (1, 7.12, 11.61, ...) are claimed to be exact to leading order in 1/D^{1/3}, the derivation should either be provided in the supplementary material or the coefficients should be explicitly labeled as numerically evaluated rather than derived in closed form.
  3. [Fig. 2 and footnote [34]] The numerical verification of Eq. (7) in Fig. 2 relies on a post hoc constant shift g → g + 0.47, and the figure does not show error bars; moreover, the number of independent disorder realizations used for the histograms is not stated. The claim of 'excellent agreement' is therefore not quantitatively supportable as presented. The authors should provide error bars or a statistical measure of the discrepancy, and either justify the shift as a controlled finite-size effect or treat it as a fitted parameter with its uncertainty reported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References, Ref. [21]] The reference title 'Sypersymmetry in Disorder and Chaos' contains a typo and should be 'Supersymmetry in Disorder and Chaos'.
  2. [Throughout] The spelling of 'Itzykson-Zuber' is inconsistent: the main text and Eq. (6) use 'Itzykson-Zuber', while the supplemental material uses 'Izykson-Zuber' (twice). Please unify the spelling.
  3. [Supplemental Material, final sentence] The phrase 'exact to leading order in 1/D^{1/3}' is ambiguous; it should specify what quantity is expanded and in which variable (e.g., corrections of relative order 1/D^{1/3} to the exponent or to the prefactor).
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states the bulk distribution is scaled by D^{1/3}, but the ordinate label reads 'D1/3 Pbulk(g)'; please make the notation consistent and clarify the normalization of the histograms.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RMT edge computation is self-contained and numerically benchmarked; the gravity realization rests on a leading-order KS dictionary and a self-flagged 'weak link,' but it is not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The central RMT derivation of Eq. (7) is self-contained: it follows from the Kontsevich-model representation Eq. (6), obtained via the supersymmetry/Hubbard-Stratonovich procedure in the Supplemental Material, and the final Airy-function integration is checked against independent D=1000 numerics in Fig. 2. The stated g → g + 0.47 shift is a finite-size correction to the comparison, not a fitted parameter that predetermines the predicted scaling form. The gravity-realization part of the paper does import the Kodaira-Spencer dictionary and the free-field one-point function from Refs. [10,11,22], which share authors with the present paper, and the end matter explicitly computes only 'to leading order in λKS ~ exp(-S0)' before calling the equivalence 'non-perturbative.' The paper itself flags this in the Discussion as 'a weak link in the low-dimensional holographic principle which requires further investigation.' That is a genuine rigor/completeness gap in the gravity claim, and a reason not to treat the gravity realization as established, but it is not a circular reduction: no equation in the RMT derivation is defined in terms of the target distribution, and the numerical benchmarks are external to the fitted values. Proportionate score is therefore low, with the weak link noted as a caveat rather than as circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two domain assumptions: the non-fluctuating edge of dense systems (the defining UFL premise) and the claim that JT gravity carries its own ensemble via hidden open string degrees of freedom. The math uses standard supersymmetry and Itzykson-Zuber technology. The only fitted numbers are the finite-size shift and the bulk energy choice in the numerical comparison. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • finite-size shift = 0.47
    Added to g in Eq. (7) when comparing to numerical histograms of finite D=1000 matrices; paper states it is negligible as D tends to infinity.
  • bulk probe energy = epsilon ~ 9.5 Delta_e
    In the numerical comparison for bulk states, the energy is chosen as epsilon approximately 9.5 Delta_e to align with Fig. 2; this is a calibration choice rather than part of the main edge claim.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The spectral edge of a dense random-matrix ensemble is effectively non-fluctuating on the scale of the near-edge level spacing, so that the first levels are squeezed between a rigid boundary and the bulk.
    Introduced in the Introduction; the distinction between dense and sparse systems and Fig. 1. If edge fluctuations were large, UFL signatures would be erased in averages.
  • domain assumption For low-dimensional gravity, JT gravity incorporates its own ensemble average through integration over open string degrees of freedom in the Kodaira-Spencer reduction; hence the RMT edge statistics apply to gravity.
    Stated in Discussion and end matter: 'the presence of a non-fluctuating edge, and second the fact that JT- incorporates its own ensemble.' This is the bridge from RMT to holography.
  • standard math The supersymmetric sigma-model/Kontsevich representation Eq. (14) and the Itzykson-Zuber integration are valid for the fidelity susceptibility generating function at the edge, with the specified integration contours in Fig. 5.
    The derivation depends on textbook supersymmetry methods [21,46] and prior Kontsevich-model edge treatment [11,22]; these are standard in the field, though the specific application to Eq. (5) is new.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The universality class of the first levels in low-dimensional gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PD64554B

@misc{pith2026250518957,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The universality class of the first levels in low-dimensional gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PD64554B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18957}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the physics of a small group of quantum states defined above the sharply defined ground state of a chaotic ensemble. This `universality class of the first levels' (UFL) is realized in the majority of `synthetic' random matrix models but, for all we know, in only one microscopically defined system: low-dimensional gravity. We discuss the physical properties of these states, notably their exceptional rigidity against external perturbations, as quantified by the so-called quantum state fidelity. Examining these structures through the lenses of random matrix and string theory, we highlight their relevance to the physics of low-dimensional holographic principles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18957 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic structure of the near edge spectrum of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Moduli of wavefunction differences ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Cartoon illustrating the generation and recombina [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Convergence requires the integration contours of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rosenhaus, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 52, 323001 (2019), publisher: IOP Publish- ing

    V. Rosenhaus, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 52, 323001 (2019), publisher: IOP Publish- ing

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    A. M. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Phys- ical Review D 94, 126010 (2016), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Berkooz, M

    M. Berkooz, M. Isachenkov, V. Narovlansky, and G. Tor- rents, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019, 79 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Altland, K

    A. Altland, K. W. Kim, T. Micklitz, M. Rezaei, J. Son- ner, and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033286 (2024), arXiv:2403.13516 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Guhr, M.-G

    T. Guhr, M.-G. A, and W. H. A, Phys. Rep. 299, 189 (1998)

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Gnutzmann, , and U

    S. Gnutzmann, , and U. Smilansky, Advances in Physics 55, 527 (2006), publisher: Taylor & Francis eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/00018730600908042

    doi:10.1080/00018730600908042 2006

  7. [7]

    M. P. Fisher, V. Khemani, A. Nahum, and S. Vi- jay, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 14, 335 (2023), tex.eprint: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- conmatphys-031720-030658

    doi:10.1146/annurev- 2023

  8. [8]

    Ashtekar and E

    A. Ashtekar and E. Bianchi, Reports on Progress in Physics 84, 042001 (2021), publisher: IOP Publishing

    work page 2021

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    P. Saad, S. H. Shenker, and D. Stanford, (2019), arXiv:1903.11115 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    B. Post, J. van der Heijden, and E. Verlinde, JHEP 05, 118 (2022), arXiv:2201.08859 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Altland, B

    A. Altland, B. Post, J. Sonner, J. van der Heij- den, and E. Verlinde, SciPost Phys. 15, 064 (2023), arXiv:2204.07583 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    M. V. Berry and P. Shukla, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical 53, 275202 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Pandey, P

    M. Pandey, P. W. Claeys, D. K. Campbell, A. Polkovnikov, and D. Sels, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041017 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    J. P. Provost and G. Vallee, Commun. Math. Phys. 76, 289 (1980)

    1980

  7. [15]

    Campos Venuti and P

    L. Campos Venuti and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 095701 (2007)

    2007

  8. [16]

    Kolodrubetz, D

    M. Kolodrubetz, D. Sels, P. Mehta, and A. Polkovnikov, Physics Reports 697, 1 (2017), geometry and non- adiabatic response in quantum and classical systems

    2017

  9. [17]

    M. V. Berry, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 42, 365303 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    Sels and A

    D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. E 104, 054105 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Sierant, A

    P. Sierant, A. Maksymov, M. Ku´ s, and J. Zakrzewski, Phys. Rev. E 99, 050102 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Kontsevich, Commun

    M. Kontsevich, Commun. Math. Phys. 147, 1 (1992)

    1992

  13. [21]

    K. B. Efetov, Sypersymmetry in Disorder and Chaos (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

    1997

  14. [22]

    Altland and J

    A. Altland and J. Sonner, SciPost Phys. 11, 034 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Vall´ ee and M

    O. Vall´ ee and M. Soares, Airy Func- tions and Applications to Physics , 2nd ed. (IMPERIAL COLLEGE PRESS, 2010) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/p709

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    P. Saad, D. Stanford, Z. Yang, and S. Yao, Journal of High Energy Physics 2024, 33 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Blommaert, J

    A. Blommaert, J. Kruthoff, and S. Yao, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023, 48 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Aganagic, R

    M. Aganagic, R. Dijkgraaf, A. Klemm, M. Marino, and C. Vafa, Commun. Math. Phys. 261, 451 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0312085

    2006 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Penner, F

    A.-G. Penner, F. von Oppen, G. Zarand, and M. R. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 200604 (2021), arXiv:2011.03557 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    von Oppen, Phys

    F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 798 (1994)

    1994

  21. [29]

    See the supplemental material for technical details

  22. [30]

    Guhr, Journal of Physics A 39, 13191 (2006)

    T. Guhr, Journal of Physics A 39, 13191 (2006)

    2006

  23. [31]

    Kieburg, J

    M. Kieburg, J. Gr¨ onqvist, and T. Guhr, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 42 (2009), 10.1088/1751-8113/42/27/275205

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    Alfaro, R

    J. Alfaro, R. Medina, and L. Urrutia, Journal of Math- ematical Physics 36, 3085 (1995)

    1995

  25. [33]

    The super-Vandermonde determinant of a diagonal ma- trix Y = diag(v1, v2|y1, y2, y3, y4) is defined as s∆( Y ) ≡ (v2−v1) Q j<i (yi−yj ) Q4 i=1 Q2 j=1(yi−vj )

  26. [34]

    A constant shift g → g + 0.47 has been added to Eq

    We here consider edge eigenstates with energies in the range ±∆e/10. A constant shift g → g + 0.47 has been added to Eq. (7) to compensate finite size effects, and negligible in the limit D → ∞. For bulk states we fit the energy to ϵ ≈ 9.5 ∆e

  27. [35]

    Altland and J

    A. Altland and J. Sonner, SciPost Phys. 11, 034 (2021), arXiv:2008.02271 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Data and code for “the univer- sality class of the first levels in low-dimension gravity

    A. Altland, J. van der Heijden, T. Micklitz, M. Rozali, and J. Telles de Miranda, “Data and code for “the univer- sality class of the first levels in low-dimension gravity”,” (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 340, 281 (1990)

    1990

  30. [38]

    Witten, Surveys Diff

    E. Witten, Surveys Diff. Geom. 1, 243 (1991)

    1991

  31. [39]

    Bershadsky, S

    M. Bershadsky, S. Cecotti, H. Ooguri, and C. Vafa, Commun. Math. Phys. 165, 311 (1994), arXiv:hep- th/9309140

    1994

  32. [40]

    Dijkgraaf and C

    R. Dijkgraaf and C. Vafa, (2007), arXiv:0711.1932 [hep- th]

    2007 arXiv

  33. [41]

    In this approximation, the JT universes simplify and are in one-to-one correspondence with ribbon graphs associated 6 to the Kontsevich matrix integral

    This choice of spectral curve corresponds to the so-called Airy or Witten-Kontsevich model and gives rise to a world-sheet theory called topological gravity [37, 38]. In this approximation, the JT universes simplify and are in one-to-one correspondence with ribbon graphs assoc...

  34. [42]

    Dijkgraaf and C

    R. Dijkgraaf and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B 644, 21 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0207106

    2002 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Dijkgraaf and C

    R. Dijkgraaf and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B 644, 3 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0206255

    2002 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Aganagic, A

    M. Aganagic, A. Klemm, M. Marino, and C. Vafa, Commun. Math. Phys. 254, 425 (2005), arXiv:hep- th/0305132

    2005

  37. [45]

    Haake, in Quantum Coherence in Mesoscopic Systems (Springer, 1991) pp

    F. Haake, in Quantum Coherence in Mesoscopic Systems (Springer, 1991) pp. 583–595

    1991

  38. [46]

    The universality class of the first levels

    A. Altland and B. Simons, Condensed Matter Field The- ory (Cambridge University Press). Gravity perspective of the UFL We here discuss how the UFL presents itself from the perspective of gravity and how the latter connects to the concepts discussed in the main text. The theory...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.