REVIEW 2 cited by
On supertwistor geometry and integrability in super gauge theory
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
In this thesis, we report on different aspects of integrability in supersymmetric gauge theories. The main tool of investigation is twistor geometry. In trying to be self-contained, we first present a brief review about the basics of twistor geometry. We then focus on the twistor description of various gauge theories in four and three space-time dimensions. These include self-dual supersymmetric Yang-Mills (SYM) theories and relatives, non-self-dual SYM theories and supersymmetric Bogomolny models. Furthermore, we present a detailed investigation of integrability of self-dual SYM theories. In particular, the twistor construction of infinite-dimensional algebras of hidden symmetries is given and exemplified by deriving affine extensions of internal and space-time symmetries. In addition, we derive self-dual SYM hierarchies within the twistor framework. These hierarchies describe an infinite number of flows on the respective solution space, where the lowest level flows are space-time translations. We also derive infinitely many nonlocal conservation laws.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Comments on Minitwistors and the Celestial Supersphere
Tree-level MHV celestial gluon and graviton amplitudes are written as minitwistor integrals and reproduced by the semiclassical action of a sigma model on the celestial supersphere.
-
An $AdS_{3}$ Dual for Supersymmetric MHV Celestial Amplitudes
A proposed supersymmetric AdS3 WZNW-like action generates the known tree-level MHV celestial amplitudes for gravitons in N=8 supergravity and gluons in N=4 SYM, but the proof has significant gaps.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.