Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Semiclassical quantization of M5 brane probes wrapped on $\textrm{AdS}_3\times S^3$ and defect anomalies

T0 review · 2 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 The one-loop M5 brane partition functions for the three AdS3×S3 probes vanish, so the order-N^0 defect anomaly coefficients vanish too, while order-N terms remain unexplained.

desk verdict First one-loop M5 probe computation with H3 flux; probe II is robust, but the Ia/Ib vanishing rests on an undefended regularization choice that the paper itself flags. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11626 v3 pith:SVAPDKCH submitted 2024-11-18 hep-th

Matteo Beccaria , Lorenzo Casarin , Arkady A. Tseytlin This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords M5branedefectanomalyAdS/CFTone-looppartitionfunction(20)theoryself-dual2-formsemiclassicalquantizationS3x
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 computes one-loop quantum corrections to three supersymmetric M5 brane probes whose world-volumes are AdS3×S3, embedded in AdS7×S4 in two cases and in AdS4×S7 in one case. Its central contention is that these one-loop partition functions vanish, so the order-$N^{0}$ terms in the large-N expansion of the surface-defect anomaly coefficient b in the dual (2,0) theory are zero. That matches the exact anomaly formulas obtained earlier, which contain no $N^{0}$ term. The order-N terms in those formulas, however, are not reproduced by the M5 probe expansion and remain an open puzzle. The paper cares because the semiclassical brane-probe method would then be consistent with exact defect anomaly data at one loop.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three pieces of machinery. First, a non-zero world-volume 3-form H3 mixes the 2-form fluctuations with a scalar coordinate, and the quadratic action is diagonalized on an effective AdS3×S3 metric with a fixed radius ratio; in case Ia the effective radii are equal. Second, expanding all 6d fields in S3 modes labelled by level ℓ produces towers of massive fields on AdS3 that organize into short supermultiplets of the relevant supergroup, and the supermultiplet sum rules cancel the quartic and cubic terms in ℓ, leaving only a quadratic level sum in cases Ia and Ib and an exact per-level cancellation in case II. Third, the self-dual 2-form contribution is evaluated through the square-root prescription for the partition function, and a sharp cutoff in ℓ with all power divergences dropped sets the leftover sum Σ_{ℓ≥1} ℓ to zero.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop free energy in probes Ia and Ib using zeta-function regularization of C1 = Σ_{ℓ≥1} ℓ; this gives C1 = -1/12, hence F^(1) = (1/8π) vol(AdS3) and an order-$N^{0}$ contribution b^(1) = 3/4 to the b-anomaly coefficient, contradicting the paper's zero result. Any regularization yielding a nonzero C1 falsifies the claimed vanishing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that after expanding the M5 brane action to quadratic order and reducing on S3, the fluctuation modes of each probe rearrange into massive short supermultiplets on AdS3, and the one-loop free energy collapses to a simple level sum: F^(1)_Ia = F^(1)_Ib = -(3/2π) vol(AdS3) Σ_{ℓ≥1} ℓ and F^(1)_II = 0. With the sharp-cutoff regularization that drops power-divergent terms, the divergent sum is set to zero, so F^(1)_Ia = F^(1)_Ib = 0 and the order-$N^{0}$ parts of the b-anomaly coefficients in (1.7) and (1.8) vanish, consistent with exact formulas from earlier literature. The order-N terms in those coefficients are not reproduced and are left as an open problem.

Load-bearing premise

The whole zero result in probes Ia and Ib rests on the choice to regularize the divergent level sum with a sharp cutoff and discard power-divergent terms, so the sum Σ_{ℓ≥1} ℓ is declared zero; if the physical regulator instead gives -1/12 as zeta-function regularization does, the order-$N^{0}$ anomaly contribution becomes nonzero and the claimed match fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, the order-N^0 contributions to the b-anomaly coefficients in (1.7) and (1.8) vanish, in agreement with the exact defect anomaly formulas.
  • The one-loop M5 brane free energy in probe II vanishes exactly at each S3 level, so that result needs no regularization choice.
  • In probes Ia and Ib there are no logarithmic UV divergences at one loop; only the quadratic level sum requires the sharp-cutoff prescription.
  • The exact b and d2 coefficients contain order-N terms that cannot arise from the semiclassical M5 brane expansion at fixed κ, so reproducing them requires M2-like contributions or a different framework.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the entire vanishing in probes Ia and Ib rests on one regulator choice, the same computation with zeta-function regularization would give b^(1) = 3/4; deciding which regulator is forced by the quantum M5 theory is a necessary next step.
  • The level-by-level vanishing in probe II suggests the order-N^0 piece of any defect anomaly dual to that probe is protected by the supermultiplet structure rather than by a regularization accident, and that protection may extend to higher loops.
  • One testable extension is to repeat the computation in the twisted thermal AdS7,β × S̃4 background with S1β×S1 boundary; the paper anticipates a vanishing one-loop correction to d2, which would check the regularization prescription in a different observable.
  • The supermultiplet organization in Table 3 may apply to other M-brane probes with AdS3×S3 world-volumes, giving a universal rule that order-N^0 defect anomaly coefficients vanish.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper quantizes semiclassically three supersymmetric M5-brane probes with AdS3 x S3 worldvolume: two in AdS7 x S4 (probes Ia and Ib, corresponding to symmetric and antisymmetric surface defects in the (2,0) theory) and one in AdS4 x S7 (probe II). The classical actions reproduce the leading N^2 terms of the b-anomaly coefficients in (1.7)-(1.8). The one-loop free energy is computed by expanding the M5-brane action around the probes, diagonalizing the bosonic and fermionic fluctuations, organizing the KK towers into short AdS3 supermultiplets, and summing the resulting determinants. The results are F^(1)_II = 0 level by level, and F^(1)_Ia = F^(1)_Ib = 0 after setting to zero a quadratically divergent sum C1 in Eq. (4.12) by a sharp-cutoff prescription that drops power divergences. The paper concludes that the order-N^0 parts of the b-anomaly coefficients vanish, matching earlier exact formulas, while the order-N terms remain unexplained.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper is a valuable technical advance: it is the first one-loop computation for M5-brane probes with non-zero H3 background, and it develops a substantial formalism including the PST action, the self-dual 2-form partition function on AdS3 x S3, KK reduction, and supermultiplet sum rules. The paper ships several machine-checkable internal checks (Eq. (4.2), vanishing Seeley coefficients in Appendix E, level-wise cancellation for probe II, and the analytic continuation between Ib and II in Appendix D), which increase confidence in the computation. The probe II result is a genuine prediction of exact cancellation. However, for probes Ia and Ib the vanishing is conditional on a specific regularization choice that is not derived; the exact anomaly agreement is therefore a consistency check for that regulator rather than an independent output.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (4.12) and Section 5] The vanishing of the one-loop free energy for probes Ia and Ib is obtained by setting C1 = sum_{ℓ'=1}^∞ ℓ' = 0, a sharp-cutoff prescription that drops power divergences. This choice is not derived from the M5-brane path integral; Section 5 explicitly states that the symmetry that would select this subtraction 'remains to be understood.' A zeta-function regulator gives C1 = -1/12, producing a nonzero order-N^0 contribution to the b-anomaly coefficients and contradicting the claimed agreement with (1.7)-(1.8). The central vanishing claim for these two probes is therefore not established independently of the regularization.
  2. [Introduction, Eq. (1.15), and Section 4, Eq. (4.12)] The agreement with the exact anomaly formulas is used as the criterion for adopting the sharp-cutoff prescription. Since (1.7)-(1.8) are the consistency target, this makes the vanishing of the N^0 term an input rather than an independent prediction. The paper should either provide a first-principles derivation of the regulator (for example, from a symmetry of the quantum M5 theory on AdS3 x S3), or explicitly reframe the conclusion as a consistency check conditional on that regulator.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1.2, Eq. (1.14) and Section 4, Eq. (4.12)] The sum in (1.14) starts at ℓ=1 with a summand ℓ, while Eq. (4.12) defines C1 as sum_{ℓ'=1}∞ ℓ'; the relation between the level ℓ and the shifted index ℓ' is clear only after reading Section 4. A sentence stating the shift would help.
  2. [Section 3.1, after Eq. (3.11)] The text refers to 'the PST action (1.9)'; the correct equation number is (2.1).
  3. [Appendix E, Eqs. (E.20)-(E.21)] The non-zero bosonic contributions to the quartic divergence coefficient b2 in cases Ib and II are said to cancel against fermionic contributions, but the fermionic b2 is not shown; including it would make the cancellation explicit.
  4. [Appendix G, Eq. (G.17)] The Casimir energies obtained from the thermal partition function do not match the sum over ℓ of Eq. (G.2); the paper attributes this to a possible lack of manifest supersymmetry in the (G.13) procedure, but a brief explanation of why (G.2) is to be preferred would be useful.
  5. [References] Reference [4] lists two papers (Chalabi et al. and Capuozzo et al.) under a single number; they should be split or renumbered.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The one-loop determinant computation is largely independent, but the vanishing of the Ia/Ib free energy is imposed by the C1=0 regularization in Eq. (4.12), so the agreement with the exact b-anomaly is partly an input.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 1.2 (Eqs. (1.14)-(1.15)); Sec. 4 (Eqs. (4.11)-(4.12)); Sec. 5]
    "Adopting it here we conclude that the coefficient in ( 1.14) should be set to zero, so that F p1q Ia “F p1q Ib “ 0. This conclusion is then consistent with the fact that the exact expressions for the “central charge” coefficients ( 1.7) and ( 1.8) corresponding to the cases Ia and Ib do not contain order N 0 term."

    For probes Ia and Ib the entire one-loop free energy reduces to F_Ia^(1) = F_Ib^(1) = -(3/(2π)) C1 vol(AdS3) with C1 = ∑_{ℓ'=1}^∞ ℓ'. The paper sets C1=0 by adopting a sharp cutoff and dropping all power-divergent terms, a prescription it does not derive from the quantum M5-brane path integral. Section 5 explicitly says that the symmetry selecting this subtraction 'remains to be understood'. A zeta-type regulator would give C1 = ζ(-1) = -1/12 and hence a nonzero order-N^0 contribution to the b-anomaly, contradicting the exact formulas (1.7)-(1.8). Thus the claimed vanishing, and the resulting agreement, is not an independent output: it is obtained by choosing the regularization that makes the divergent sum zero. Probe II is untouched because it vanishes level-by-level before summation.

full rationale

Most of the paper is a self-contained one-loop computation: fluctuation Lagrangians are derived from the PST M5 action, KK towers are organized into short supermultiplets using representation theory, determinants are evaluated mode-by-mode, and the probe II result F_II=0 is genuinely obtained before any divergent sum. The Ia/Ib result, however, is F ∝ C1, with C1 an infinite sum. The value C1=0 is fixed by a regularization convention—sharp cutoff plus dropping power divergences—that is not derived from the M5-brane theory. The paper candidly flags this in Section 5: 'Which are additional symmetries that select a specific choice of the subtraction procedure that leads to C1 = 0 remains to be understood.' Because the exact b-anomaly expressions (1.7)-(1.8) already contain no N^0 term, using this regulator and then reporting agreement is a consistency check made true by construction, not a first-principles prediction. The self-citation to [35] plays only a supporting role, since external references appear alongside it and the paper is transparent about the open question, so it does not by itself raise the score. Overall: partial, not total, circularity; score 4.

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

The central derivation imports the exact b-anomaly formula and the AdS/CFT dictionary from the literature, and it depends on a regularization convention (C1=0) that is not fixed by the M5 brane theory itself. No new entities are introduced; the M5 brane probes and their H3 flux are standard ingredients of M-theory.

free parameters (1)
  • C1 regularization value for divergent level sum = 0
    In (4.11)-(4.12), F^(1)_Ia and F^(1)_Ib are proportional to C1 = sum_{ℓ>=1} ℓ. The paper sets C1=0 by adopting a sharp cutoff and dropping power divergences. This value is essential to the claimed vanishing and is chosen by hand rather than derived from the quantum M5 brane theory.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Exact defect anomaly coefficients b = 24(rho,lambda) + 3(lambda,lambda) and d2 = 24(rho,lambda) + 6(lambda,lambda) for SU(N) representations (eqs. (1.2) and (H.25))
    The paper uses the absence of order N^0 terms in (1.7) and (1.8) as the external prediction that the one-loop M5 result is compared against. This formula is imported from earlier literature and not proven here.
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT relation between M5 probe free energy and defect anomaly: F = -1/3 b log r for S2 boundary (eq. (1.9))
    Used throughout to translate free energy values into b-anomaly coefficients. This is the standard holographic dictionary assumed by the paper.
  • domain assumption PST M5 brane action and the square-root prescription for the self-dual 3-form partition function (eq. (B.13))
    The one-loop bosonic determinants in (3.15), (3.48), and (3.70) depend on this prescription from prior literature. The paper reviews the argument but does not fully re-derive it.
  • domain assumption Fermionic mass matrix is independent of the flux parameter κ, allowing evaluation at κ=0 or κ=1/2 (Appendix A)
    Used to obtain mF=0 for Ia and mF=3/2 for Ib and II. The paper argues from effective geometry and rescaling, with references to analogous cases, but does not provide a complete proof.
  • ad hoc to paper Regularization by sharp cutoff with power divergences dropped, setting C1=0
    Adopted in (4.11)-(4.12) to define the one-loop result for Ia and Ib. The physical justification is left as an open question in Section 5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semiclassical quantization of M5 brane probes wrapped on $\textrm{AdS}_3\times S^3$ and defect anomalies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SVAPDKCH

@misc{pith2026241111626,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semiclassical quantization of M5 brane probes wrapped on $\textrmAdS_3\times S^3$ and defect anomalies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SVAPDKCH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11626}
}
abstract

We consider two supersymmetric M5 brane probe solutions in $\textrm{AdS}_7 \times S^4$ and one in $\textrm{AdS}_4 \times S^7$ that all have the $\textrm{AdS}_3 \times S^3$ world-volume geometry. The values of the classical action of the first two M5 probes (with $S^3$ in $\textrm{AdS}_7$ or in $S^4$) are related to the leading $N^2$ parts in the anomaly b-coefficient in the (2,0) theory corresponding to a spherical surface defect in symmetric or antisymmetric $SU(N)$ representations. We present a detailed computation of the corresponding one-loop M5 brane partition functions finding that they vanish (in a particular regularization). This implies the vanishing of the order $N^0$ part in the b-anomaly coefficients, in agreement with earlier predictions for their exact values. It remains, however, a puzzle of how to reproduce the non-vanishing order $N$ terms in these coefficients within the semiclassical M5-brane probe setup.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. 2-loop free energy of M2 brane in AdS$_7 \times$ S$^4$ and surface defect anomaly in (2,0) theory

    hep-th 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The 2-loop (1/N) correction to the M2-brane free energy in AdS7×S4 vanishes in dimensional and ζ-function regularizations, so the boundary defect anomaly is b = 12N − 9, supporting the U(N) (2,0) interpretation.

  2. Chiral algebra correlators of the $6$d, $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ theory with a defect

    hep-th 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A chiral-algebra bootstrap reproduces the defect two-point correlators of the 6d (2,0) theory using only bulk-channel data and predicts new defect-channel OPE coefficients.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Estes, D

    J. Estes, D. Krym, A. O’Bannon, B. Robinson and R. Rodgers , Wilson Surface Central Charge from Holographic Entanglement Entropy , JHEP 05 (2019) 032 [1812.00923]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Jensen, A

    K. Jensen, A. O’Bannon, B. Robinson and R. Rodgers, From the Weyl Anomaly to Entropy of Two-Dimensional Boundaries and Defects , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 241602 [1812.08745]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Chalabi, A

    A. Chalabi, A. O’Bannon, B. Robinson and J. Sisti, Central Charges of 2D Superconformal Defects , JHEP 05 (2020) 095 [2003.02857]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Chalabi, C

    A. Chalabi, C. P. Herzog, A. O’Bannon, B. Robinson and J. S isti, Weyl Anomalies of Four Dimensional Conformal Boundaries and Defects , JHEP 02 (2022) 166 [2111.14713]. P. Capuozzo, J. Estes, B. Robinson and B. Suzzoni, Holographic Weyl Anomalies for 4D Defects in 6D SCFTs, JHEP 04 (2024) 120 [2310.17447]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    1/2-BPS states in M theory and defects in the dual CFTs

    O. Lunin, 1/2-Bps States in M Theory and Defects in the Dual CFTs , JHEP 10 (2007) 014 [0704.3442]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    D’Hoker, J

    E. D’Hoker, J. Estes, M. Gutperle, D. Krym and P. Sorba, Half-Bps Supergravity Solutions and Superalgebras, JHEP 12 (2008) 047 [0810.1484]

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Drukker, S

    N. Drukker, S. Giombi, A. A. Tseytlin and X. Zhou, Defect CFT in the 6d (2,0) theory from M2 brane dynamics in AdS 7ˆS4, JHEP 07 (2020) 101 [2004.04562]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Drukker, O

    N. Drukker, O. Shahpo and M. Trépanier, Quantum holographic surface anomalies , J. Phys. A 57 (2024) 085402 [2311.14797]. N. Drukker and O. Shahpo, Vortex Loop Operators and Quantum M2-Branes , SciPost Phys. 17 (2024) 016 [2312.17091]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Jiang and A

    H. Jiang and A. A. Tseytlin, On co-dimension 2 defect anomalies in N = 4 SYM and (2,0) theory via brane probes in AdS/CFT , JHEP 07 (2024) 280 [2402.07881]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Giombi and A

    S. Giombi and A. A. Tseytlin, Wilson Loops at Large N and the Quantum M2-Brane , Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 201601 [2303.15207]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Beccaria, S

    M. Beccaria, S. Giombi and A. A. Tseytlin, Instanton contributions to the ABJM free energy from quantum M2 branes , JHEP 10 (2023) 029 [2307.14112]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Beccaria, S

    M. Beccaria, S. Giombi and A. A. Tseytlin, (2,0) theory on S5 ˆS1 and quantum M2 branes , Nucl. Phys. B 998 (2024) 116400 [2309.10786]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Beccaria and A

    M. Beccaria and A. A. Tseytlin, Large N expansion of superconformal index of k “ 1 ABJM theory and semiclassical M5 brane partition function , Nucl. Phys. B 1001 (2024) 116507 [2312.01917]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    C. R. Graham and E. Witten, Conformal Anomaly of Submanifold Observables in AdS / CFT Correspondence, Nucl. Phys. B 546 (1999) 52 [hep-th/9901021]. M. Henningson and K. Skenderis, Weyl Anomaly for Wilson Surfaces , JHEP 06 (1999) 012 [hep-th/9905163]. V. Asnin, Analyticity Pro...

    1999 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Jensen and A

    K. Jensen and A. O’Bannon, Holography, Entanglement Entropy, and Conformal Field Theo ries with Boundaries Or Defects , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 106006 [1309.4523]. J. Estes, K. Jensen, A. O’Bannon, E. Tsatis and T. Wrase, On Holographic Defect Entropy , JHEP 05 (2014) 084 [1403...

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kobayashi, T

    N. Kobayashi, T. Nishioka, Y. Sato and K. Watanabe, Towards a C-theorem in defect CFT , JHEP 01 (2019) 039 [1810.06995]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    D’Hoker, J

    E. D’Hoker, J. Estes, M. Gutperle and D. Krym, Exact Half-BPS Flux Solutions in M-theory. I: Local Solutions, JHEP 08 (2008) 028 [0806.0605]

    2008 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Mori and S

    H. Mori and S. Yamaguchi, M5-branes and Wilson surfaces in AdS 7/CFT6 correspondence, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 026005 [1404.0930]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Rodgers, Holographic Entanglement Entropy from Probe M-theory Brane s, JHEP 03 (2019) 092 [1811.12375]

    R. Rodgers, Holographic Entanglement Entropy from Probe M-theory Brane s, JHEP 03 (2019) 092 [1811.12375]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Wang, Surface defect, anomalies and b-extremization , JHEP 11 (2021) 122 [2012.06574]

    Y. Wang, Surface defect, anomalies and b-extremization , JHEP 11 (2021) 122 [2012.06574]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    B. Chen, W. He, J.-B. Wu and L. Zhang, M5-Branes and Wilson Surfaces , JHEP 08 (2007) 067 [0707.3978]

    2007 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Arean, A

    D. Arean, A. V. Ramallo and D. Rodriguez-Gómez, Holographic Flavor on the Higgs Branch , JHEP 05 (2007) 044 [hep-th/0703094]

    2007 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Fiol, Defect CFTs and Holographic Multiverse , JCAP 07 (2010) 005 [1004.0618]

    B. Fiol, Defect CFTs and Holographic Multiverse , JCAP 07 (2010) 005 [1004.0618]

    2010 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Fiol, Flavor from M5-Branes , JHEP 07 (2010) 046 [1005.2133]

    B. Fiol, Flavor from M5-Branes , JHEP 07 (2010) 046 [1005.2133]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Pasti, D

    P. Pasti, D. P. Sorokin and M. Tonin, Covariant Action for a D = 11 Five-Brane with the Chiral Field, Phys. Lett. B 398 (1997) 41 [hep-th/9701037]

    1997 arXiv

  18. [26]

    I. A. Bandos, K. Lechner, A. Nurmagambetov, P. Pasti, D. P. Sorokin and M. Tonin, Covariant Action for the Superfive-Brane of M Theory , Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 4332 [hep-th/9701149]

    1997 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Aganagic, J

    M. Aganagic, J. Park, C. Popescu and J. H. Schwarz, World Volume Action of the M Theory Five-Brane, Nucl. Phys. B 496 (1997) 191 [hep-th/9701166]

    1997 arXiv

  20. [28]

    P. S. Howe, E. Sezgin and P. C. West, Covariant Field Equations of the M Theory Five-Brane , Phys. Lett. B 399 (1997) 49 [hep-th/9702008]

    1997 arXiv

  21. [29]

    I. A. Bandos, K. Lechner, A. Nurmagambetov, P. Pasti, D. P. Sorokin and M. Tonin, On the equivalence of different formulations of the M theory five-bran e, Phys. Lett. B 408 (1997) 135 [hep-th/9703127]

    1997 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kallosh and D

    R. Kallosh and D. Sorokin, Dirac Action on M5 and M2 Branes with Bulk Fluxes , JHEP 05 (2005) 005 [hep-th/0501081]

    2005 arXiv

  23. [31]

    S.-L. Ko, D. Sorokin and P. Vanichchapongjaroen, The M5-Brane Action Revisited , JHEP 11 (2013) 072 [1308.2231]

    2013 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Mkrtchyan, On Covariant Actions for Chiral p´Forms, JHEP 12 (2019) 076 [1908.01789]

    K. Mkrtchyan, On Covariant Actions for Chiral p´Forms, JHEP 12 (2019) 076 [1908.01789]. Z. A vetisyan, O. Evnin and K. Mkrtchyan, Nonlinear (chiral) p-form electrodynamics , JHEP 08 (2022) 112 [2205.02522]. S. Bansal, Manifestly covariant polynomial M5-brane lagrangians , JHEP...

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    P. G. O. Freund and M. A. Rubin, Dynamics of Dimensional Reduction , Phys. Lett. B 97 (1980) 233

    1980

  26. [34]

    J. A. Minahan, A. Nedelin and M. Zabzine, 5D super Yang-Mills theory and the correspondence to AdS7/CFT6, J. Phys. A 46 (2013) 355401 [1304.1016]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mansfield, D

    P. Mansfield, D. Nolland and T. Ueno, The Boundary Weyl anomaly in the N “ 4 SYM / type IIB supergravity correspondence, JHEP 0401 (2004) 013 [hep-th/0311021]. A. Arabi Ardehali, J. T. Liu and P. Szepietowski, The shortened KK spectrum of IIB supergravity on Y p,q, JHEP 02 (201...

    2004 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bobev, M

    N. Bobev, M. David, J. Hong, V. Reys and X. Zhang, A Compendium of Logarithmic Corrections in AdS/CFT, JHEP 04 (2024) 020 [2312.08909]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    J. M. Camino, A. Paredes and A. V. Ramallo, Stable Wrapped Branes, JHEP 05 (2001) 011 [hep-th/0104082]

    2001 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Chen, M5-Branes and Wilson Surfaces , Int

    B. Chen, M5-Branes and Wilson Surfaces , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23 (2008) 2195

    2008

  31. [39]

    Faraggi and L

    A. Faraggi and L. A. Pando Zayas, The Spectrum of Excitations of Holographic Wilson Loops , JHEP 05 (2011) 018 [1101.5145]

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    E. I. Buchbinder and A. A. Tseytlin, 1/N correction in the D3-brane description of a circular Wilso n loop at strong coupling , Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 126008 [1404.4952]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    D. S. Berman and P. Sundell, AdS3 Om Theory and the Selfdual String Or Membranes Ending on the Five -Brane, Phys. Lett. B 529 (2002) 171 [hep-th/0105288]

    2002 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Henneaux and C

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, Dynamics of Chiral (Selfdual) P Forms, Phys. Lett. B 206 (1988) 650

    1988

  35. [43]

    J. H. Schwarz and A. Sen, Duality Symmetric Actions , Nucl. Phys. B 411 (1994) 35 [hep-th/9304154]. J. H. Schwarz, Coupling a Selfdual Tensor to Gravity in Six-Dimensions , Phys. Lett. B 395 (1997) 191 [hep-th/9701008]

    1994 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Y. N. Obukhov, The geometric approach to antisymmetric tensor field theory , Phys. Lett. B 109 (1982) 195 . E. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, Quantum Properties of Higher Dimensional and Dimensionally Reduced Supersymmetric Theories, Nucl.Phys. B227 (1983) 252

    1982

  37. [45]

    Bastianelli, S

    F. Bastianelli, S. Frolov and A. A. Tseytlin, Conformal anomaly of (2,0) tensor multiplet in six-dimensions and AdS / CFT correspondence , JHEP 0002 (2000) 013 [hep-th/0001041]

    2000 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Álvarez-Gaumé and E

    L. Álvarez-Gaumé and E. Witten, Gravitational Anomalies, Nucl. Phys. B 234 (1984) 269

    1984

  39. [47]

    Freed, J

    D. Freed, J. A. Harvey, R. Minasian and G. W. Moore, Gravitational anomaly cancellation for M theory five-branes , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 601 [ hep-th/9803205]

    1998 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Floreanini and R

    R. Floreanini and R. Jackiw, Selfdual Fields as Charge Density Solitons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 1873

    1987

  41. [49]

    A. A. Tseytlin, Duality Symmetric Formulation of String World Sheet Dynamics , Phys. Lett. B 242 (1990) 163

    1990

  42. [50]

    Camporesi and A

    R. Camporesi and A. Higuchi, On the Eigen functions of the Dirac operator on spheres and re al hyperbolic spaces, J.Geom.Phys. 20 (1996) 1 [gr-qc/9505009]

    1996 arXiv

  43. [51]

    R. R. Metsaev, Massive totally symmetric fields in AdS d, Phys.Lett. B590 (2004) 95 [hep-th/0312297]

    2004 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Camporesi and A

    R. Camporesi and A. Higuchi, Spectral functions and zeta functions in hyperbolic spaces , J.Math.Phys. 35 (1994) 4217 . S. Giombi, I. R. Klebanov and Z. M. Tan, The ABC of Higher-Spin AdS/CFT , 1608.07611

    1994 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Deger, A

    S. Deger, A. Kaya, E. Sezgin and P. Sundell, Spectrum of D “ 6, N “ 4b supergravity on AdS in three-dimensions x S3 , Nucl.Phys. B536 (1998) 110 [hep-th/9804166]

    1998 arXiv

  46. [54]

    de Boer, Six-Dimensional Supergravity on S3 ˆ AdS3 and 2-D Conformal Field Theory , Nucl

    J. de Boer, Six-Dimensional Supergravity on S3 ˆ AdS3 and 2-D Conformal Field Theory , Nucl. Phys. B 548 (1999) 139 [hep-th/9806104]

    1999 arXiv

  47. [55]

    J.-B. Bae, E. Joung and S. Lal, One-loop free energy of tensionless type IIB string in AdS 5ˆS5, JHEP 06 (2017) 155 [1701.01507]. J. T. Liu and B. McPeak, One-Loop Holographic Weyl Anomaly in Six Dimensions , JHEP 01 (2018) 149 [1709.02819]. 46

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Gupta, Holographic M5 branes in AdS7 ˆS4, JHEP 12 (2021) 032 [2109.08551]

    V. Gupta, Holographic M5 branes in AdS7 ˆS4, JHEP 12 (2021) 032 [2109.08551]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Nicolai and H

    H. Nicolai and H. Samtleben, Kaluza-Klein supergravity on AdS(3) x S3 , JHEP 0309 (2003) 036 [hep-th/0306202]

    2003 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Gunaydin and R

    M. Gunaydin and R. J. Scalise, Unitary Lowest Weight Representations of the Noncompact Sup ergroup Osp(2M*/2N), J. Math. Phys. 32 (1991) 599

    1991

  51. [59]

    Gunaydin and S

    M. Gunaydin and S. J. Hyun, Unitary Lowest Weight Representations of the Noncompact Sup ergroup Osp(2-n/2-m,r), J. Math. Phys. 29 (1988) 2367

    1988

  52. [60]

    H. A. Schmitt, P. Halse, B. R. Barrett and A. B. Balanteki n, Positive Discrete Series Representations of the Noncompact Superalgebra Osp(4/2,R) , J. Math. Phys. 30 (1989) 2714

    1989

  53. [61]

    de Boer, A

    J. de Boer, A. Pasquinucci and K. Skenderis, AdS / CFT Dualities Involving Large 2-D N “ 4 Superconformal Symmetry, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 3 (1999) 577 [hep-th/9904073]

    1999 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Eberhardt, M

    L. Eberhardt, M. R. Gaberdiel, R. Gopakumar and W. Li, BPS spectrum on AdS 3ˆS3ˆS3ˆS1, JHEP 03 (2017) 124 [1701.03552]

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Sezgin, 11D supergravity on AdS4 ˆS7 versus AdS7 ˆS4, J

    E. Sezgin, 11D supergravity on AdS4 ˆS7 versus AdS7 ˆS4, J. Phys. A 53 (2020) 364003 [2003.01135]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Casarin and A

    L. Casarin and A. A. Tseytlin, One-loopβ-functions in 4-derivative gauge theory in 6 dimensions , JHEP 08 (2019) 159 [1907.02501]. L. Casarin, Conformal Anomalies in 6D Four-Derivative Theories: a Heat-Kern el Analysis , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 025014 [2306.05944]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    V. P. Gusynin, Seeley-gilkey Coefficients for the Fourth Order Operators on a R iemannian Manifold , Nucl. Phys. B 333 (1990) 296

    1990

  58. [66]

    E. J. Copeland and D. J. Toms, Quantized Antisymmetric Tensor Fields and Selfconsistent Dimensional Reduction in Higher Dimensional Space-Times , Nucl. Phys. B 255 (1985) 201

    1985

  59. [67]

    Casarin, C

    L. Casarin, C. Kennedy and G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli , Conformal anomalies for (maximal) 6d conformal supergravity, JHEP 10 (2024) 227 [2403.07509]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Beccaria, G

    M. Beccaria, G. Macorini and A. A. Tseytlin, Supergravity one-loop corrections on AdS 7 and AdS 3, higher spins and AdS/CFT , Nucl.Phys. B892 (2015) 211 [1412.0489]

    2015 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Beccaria, N = 4 SYM line defect Schur index and semiclassical string , JHEP 10 (2024) 046 [2407.06900]

    M. Beccaria, N = 4 SYM line defect Schur index and semiclassical string , JHEP 10 (2024) 046 [2407.06900]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Pestun et al., Localization techniques in quantum field theories , J

    V. Pestun et al., Localization techniques in quantum field theories , J. Phys. A50 (2017) 440301 [1608.02952]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Kim and S

    H.-C. Kim and S. Kim, M5-Branes from Gauge Theories on the 5-Sphere , JHEP 05 (2013) 144 [1206.6339]

    2013 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Kapustin, B

    A. Kapustin, B. Willett and I. Yaakov, Exact Results for Wilson Loops in Superconformal Chern-Simons Theories with Matter , JHEP 03 (2010) 089 [0909.4559]

    2010 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Mariño, Chern-Simons Theory and Topological Strings , Rev

    M. Mariño, Chern-Simons Theory and Topological Strings , Rev. Mod. Phys. 77 (2005) 675 [hep-th/0406005]

    2005 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Chen-Lin, Symmetric Wilson Loops Beyond Leading Order , SciPost Phys

    X. Chen-Lin, Symmetric Wilson Loops Beyond Leading Order , SciPost Phys. 1 (2016) 013 [1610.02914]. 47

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

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