Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Index and localization for type B superconformal mechanics on singular spaces

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that the superconformal index of type B sigma models on singular conical targets can be computed by smoothing the singularity and applying equivariant localization, and that the answer is unambiguous exactly when the…

desk verdict A solid method paper with a genuinely new 2D ambiguity result, but the load-bearing D>2 essential self-adjointness claim is unproved. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04390 v3 pith:AME4VLQP submitted 2024-12-05 hep-th

Joris Raeymaekers , Paolo Rossi , Canberk Sanli This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords typeBsuperconformalmechanicsindexequivariantlocalizationsingulartargetspacesself-adjointextensionsconicalsingularitiesDiracoperatorHilbertseries
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

Type B superconformal quantum mechanics on singular conical target spaces arises in the description of D-brane bound states forming an AdS$_2$ throat, and its superconformal index counts BPS states. The paper proposes to compute that index by replacing the singular cone with a smooth resolution that preserves the needed supersymmetry and $u(1)$ charge, then evaluating the regularized index with equivariant localization. Its central result is that this regularized index equals the actual index whenever the supercharge is essentially self-adjoint; when the supercharge admits several self-adjoint extensions, the index itself becomes ambiguous and the regularized computation selects one particular extension. The ambiguity is exhibited concretely in two-dimensional targets with a conical surplus, while in higher dimensions with torsion the paper argues—without a general proof—that the supercharge stays essentially self-adjoint for all cone parameters. For Kähler targets the type B index is shown to be a limit of the type A index, and on Calabi-Yau cones it coincides with the Hilbert series of the singular space.

What carries the argument

The central object is the refined superconformal index $\Omega_\pm[q]=\mathrm{tr}(-1)^F e^{-\beta H_\pm}q^J$, which the paper identifies with the character-valued Dirac index of the twisted Dirac operator $/D^{\mathrm{tors}}_{A_\pm}$ acting on spinors of the cone. The argument is carried by three devices: the similarity transformation $G_{\pm 1/2}=e^{\mp K}Q e^{\pm K}$, which converts conformal supercharges into ordinary supercharges with a shifted gauge field; a smoothing $f_\epsilon(R)$ of the conical metric that keeps the N=2B subalgebra and the $u(1)_J$ symmetry while making the space complete; and the equivariant Atiyah-Bott fixed-point formula, which evaluates the regularized index from the fixed-point exponents and moment maps of the $u(1)$ action without reference to the smoothing details. The decisive mathematical criterion is Chou's condition for essential self-adjointness of a Dirac operator on a cone: it holds if and only if the eigenvalues of the Dirac operator on the base satisfy $|\lambda_i|\ge 1/2$; the paper shows that its failure—as in a 2D conical surplus—is precisely what makes the index extension-dependent.

What would settle it

In a four-dimensional torsionful cone of the form (5.1) with $\alpha>2$ and no background gauge field, solve the zero-mode equations for the twisted Dirac operator and check whether any square-integrable spinor built on a mixed spin state such as $|\downarrow\uparrow\rangle$ diverges at the tip; if such a state exists and is not the $L^2$ limit of BPS states of a smoothed model, the paper's D>2 essential self-adjointness assertion fails and higher-dimensional index ambiguities would follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is a robust localization recipe for a quantity that standard index theorems cannot touch directly: the refined superconformal index $\Omega_\pm[q]$ of a conformal $\sigma$ model whose target is a noncompact singular cone. The recipe is to smooth the cone to a complete metric that agrees with the original asymptotic cone, preserve the N=2B subalgebra and the $u(1)_J$ symmetry, and then evaluate the index as a character-valued Dirac index by Atiyah-Bott localization; the result is independent of the smoothing. The paper proves that this recipe gives the true physical index whenever the relevant supercharge—a Dirac operator twisted by a gauge field and Bismut torsion—is essentially self-adjoint. When it is not essentially self-adjoint, the index is genuinely ambiguous: different choices of self-adjoint boundary conditions at the singularity produce different BPS spectra, and the regularized index captures one distinguished extension (the one selected by the resolved geometry). The paper works this out completely in two dimensions, where conical surplus $\alpha>1$ produces the ambiguity, and it formulates an explicit index for higher-dimensional torsionful cones in which the ambiguity is argued to be absent. In the Kähler special case, the type B index is the $y\to 0$ limit of the type A index and, for Calabi-Yau cones, equals the Hilbert series of the unresolved cone.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that for target spaces of dimension greater than two the relevant supercharge has a unique self-adjoint extension for every opening-angle parameter $\alpha>0$; this is asserted in Section 5 but not proved, so a higher-dimensional conical surplus with several extensions would break the method's general applicability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For essentially self-adjoint models, the superconformal index can be computed by localization on any resolution, and the result is resolution-independent.
  • In two-dimensional conical-surplus targets, specifying a self-adjoint extension is part of the physical definition of the model; different extensions give different BPS spectra and different indices.
  • On Kähler target spaces, the type B index is obtained as a limit of the type A index, so existing type A computations transfer to type B models.
  • For Calabi-Yau cones, the type B index is the Hilbert series of the singular space, making it an intrinsic invariant that requires no resolution at all.
  • If the asserted higher-dimensional essential self-adjointness holds, the explicit index (5.19) applies to all torsionful D>2 type B cones with no extension ambiguity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the unproved D>2 essential self-adjointness claim fails for some torsionful cone, one would expect higher-dimensional analogues of the two-dimensional surplus ambiguity; a direct check of whether the twisted Dirac operator on D=4 cones with $\alpha>2$ has extra square-integrable zero modes would settle this.
  • Different self-adjoint extensions at the singular tip could plausibly correspond to different short-distance or D-brane boundary conditions, so the resolution's preferred extension is a physical choice, not merely a mathematical one.
  • The Hilbert-series identification for Calabi-Yau cones suggests that, for toric singularities, the type B index can be computed combinatorially from the toric data, generalizing the orbifold and conifold examples.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a localization-based method for computing the superconformal index of type B superconformal quantum mechanics on singular target spaces. The idea is to replace the singular conical target by a smooth resolution that preserves the N=2B subalgebra and the commuting u(1) symmetries, compute the regularized index by equivariant localization, and then take the singular limit. The central claim is that the regularized index equals the actual superconformal index whenever the relevant supercharge is essentially self-adjoint, while for non-essentially-self-adjoint supercharges the index is ambiguous and the regularized index selects one particular self-adjoint extension. This is verified in detail for two-dimensional target spaces: for conical deficits α≤1 the index is unambiguous and reproduced by localization, while for conical surpluses α>1 the index depends on the self-adjoint extension, with examples given in eqs. (4.15) and (4.16). For higher-dimensional target spaces with torsion, the paper argues that the supercharge remains essentially self-adjoint for all α>0 and computes the refined index (5.19). It also treats Kähler targets, deriving a relation between the type B index and a limit of the type A index, and identifies the type B index on Calabi-Yau cones with the Hilbert series of the singular space.

Significance. If the main claims hold, the paper supplies a practical and physically motivated method for computing superconformal indices in type B models, including the N=4B models relevant to D-brane bound states and AdS2/CFT1. The paper’s strengths are substantial: the two-dimensional analysis is carried out explicitly, with brute-force BPS wavefunctions, a complete von Neumann treatment of self-adjoint extensions in Appendix A, and localization results that match the direct computation. The Kähler type A/B relation is tested against earlier published results [13], and the conifold and Eguchi-Hanson examples provide nontrivial checks of the localization formulas. The paper is also transparent about its main limitation: the essential self-adjointness claim for D>2 is explicitly not proved. Because that claim is load-bearing for the paper’s advertised scope, the result is best regarded at present as a well-supported conjecture for higher-dimensional models rather than an established theorem.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, eq. (5.16)] The claim that for D>2 the Dirac operator /D^tors_{A±} is essentially self-adjoint for all α>0, so that the index is unambiguous, is not established by the norm estimate (5.16). That estimate checks only the normalizability of the specific BPS states (5.14) and (5.15). Essential self-adjointness requires the deficiency subspaces ker((G±2)^* ∓ i) to vanish, and these are complex-eigenvalue solutions of the adjoint Dirac operator, not additional BPS states. In the two-dimensional conical-surplus case, Appendix A shows explicitly that the ambiguity is driven by exactly such deficiency solutions, eqs. (A.23) and (A.24). The remark in Section 5 that in D=4 Chou’s negative states carry mixed spinors addresses zero modes of the local BPS equation, not complex-eigenvalue solutions, and it is restricted to D=4 and to the local compact-cone analysis. Since Section 3.4 states that the regularized index equals the actual index whenever the supercharge is essentially self-adjoint, the D>2 generalization requires a proof of essential self-adjointness (or of a sufficient condition for it), not merely the absence of extra BPS states in the chiral/anti-chiral sectors.
  2. [Section 3.4 and Section 7] The paper’s physical-scope statement—that in models of physical interest the supercharge appears to be essentially self-adjoint—is informal and is not backed by a criterion applicable to torsionful Dirac operators on noncompact cones. The paper itself notes in Section 7 that a general modification of Chou’s criterion (3.23) to the present setting is unknown. This is not only a future-direction issue: the claim is load-bearing because the method’s advertised applications (quiver quantum mechanics, D-brane bound states) are higher-dimensional. Without either a proof or a computable sufficient condition, the paper should either supply the missing analysis or explicitly restrict its main theorem to the cases where essential self-adjointness is proved, such as the two-dimensional models and the Kähler examples where the criterion (3.23) applies.
  3. [Section 5, discussion around eq. (5.17)] The argument that the failure of Chou’s bound (5.17) does not produce normalization problems is based on convergence of one particular class of states, but it does not address the possibility of extension-dependent indices caused by deficiency solutions that are not BPS states. This is precisely the mechanism that produces the conical-surplus ambiguity in 2D: the parametrization of self-adjoint extensions in Appendix A involves states that are not chiral/anti-chiral primaries. Therefore, the conclusion that “for D>2 the regularized model always correctly captures the BPS spectrum and the index, independent of the value of α” is stronger than what the presented evidence supports. A rigorous treatment would require computing deficiency indices for the operator /D^tors_{A±} on the cone, a computation that is not performed in the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B.1] The heading “Atyah-Singer index theorem” contains a typo; it should be “Atiyah-Singer”.
  2. [Section 4.2] The spelling “normalizeable” is used repeatedly; the standard spelling is “normalizable”.
  3. [Eq. (3.21)] The notation dCY in the product limit is not defined at first use; it should be stated that dC = D/2, the complex dimension of the target.
  4. [Section 4.1, after eq. (4.12)] The notation [ . . . ]+ and [ . . . ]− for the two Laurent expansions is used before it is explained; a sentence defining the positive/negative power series would improve readability.
  5. [Section 6.2, eq. (6.34)] The derivation of the type A/B relation is compressed; it would help to state explicitly that the restriction to p=0 forms selects the type B Hilbert space and to explain the powers of q and y in the limit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the regularized-index results are checked against independent brute-force BPS computations and against prior published indices, and the self-cited u(1) charge from [16] is a prior derivation rather than a fit to the present index.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The refined index in (3.5) is defined with the central u(1) charge J of [16], but the index values are not extracted from that definition alone: in 2D they are computed independently by enumerating the normalizable chiral/anti-chiral states (4.8)-(4.9) in the conformal model and the states (4.28) in the resolved model, and the two agree (4.12) vs (4.32). The localization formula (3.21) is applied to the resolved model, and the result (4.34) is matched to the brute-force computation (4.32) after fixing the Laurent expansion by unitary-representation bounds. In the D>2 examples of Section 5, the index (5.19) follows from the explicit normalizable states (5.14)-(5.15), again checked against the localization fixed-point data. The type A/B relation (6.34) is derived and then tested against the published results of [13], e.g. (6.25) and (C.22), so it is not a renaming. The self-citations [15,16] supply structural ingredients (the central charge and gauged-mechanics geometry), but these are previous derivations with stated assumptions and are not fitted to the index results presented here; the index claims are verified against independent brute-force spectra. The one clearly unproved element, essential self-adjointness for D>2 in Section 5, is explicitly disclaimed by the authors ('we will not attempt to prove this property in general') and is therefore a correctness risk rather than a circular step: the norm estimate (5.16) is not used as if it established the needed deficiency-index statement. The score of 2 reflects the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations, not a reduction of the index results to those citations by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivations rely on standard index theorems and self-adjoint extension theory, plus modeling assumptions about the type B sigma models and their resolutions. The unproved essential self-adjointness for D>2 is the most fragile input.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Type B sigma model geometry: the target is a cone with Bismut connection, complex structure, and u(1) symmetries satisfying conditions (2.5)-(2.16).
    The paper restricts to N=2B sigma models satisfying these geometric conditions; this is the class of interest.
  • standard math Equivariant localization index theorem (Atiyah-Bott and Berline-Vergne).
    Used to evaluate regularized indices via fixed point formulas (3.21) and (3.22).
  • standard math Von Neumann theory of self-adjoint extensions.
    Used in Appendix A to classify domains and deficiency subspaces of the supercharge.
  • ad hoc to paper A smooth resolution preserving the N=2B subalgebra exists, with base topology a sphere or product of spheres.
    Footnote 6 and Section 3.3; for generic type B targets a differential-geometric resolution may not exist with the required properties.
  • ad hoc to paper Essential self-adjointness of the twisted Dirac operator for D>2 and all alpha>0.
    Section 5 states this as a suggestion and explicitly does not prove it; it is load-bearing for the claim that the index is unambiguous in higher dimensions.
  • ad hoc to paper In models of physical interest the supercharge is essentially self-adjoint.
    Section 3.4 says 'as far as we are aware, the Dirac operator appears to be essentially-selfadjoint' in physically relevant models; this is informal.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Index and localization for type B superconformal mechanics on singular spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AME4VLQP

@misc{pith2026241204390,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Index and localization for type B superconformal mechanics on singular spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AME4VLQP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04390}
}
abstract

Type B superconformal quantum mechanical sigma models are of physical interest as they arise in the description of D-brane bound states forming an AdS$_2$ throat. In this work we discuss the applicability of localization methods to compute the superconformal index in these theories, despite the fact that their target spaces are generically singular. Similar in spirit to recent works on type A models, we propose to work on a suitably resolved target space to compute a regularized index. While this regularized index correctly captures the actual index unambiguously in models of physical interest, we do uncover a subtlety in more pathological examples. This occurs in situations where the supercharge is not essentially-selfadjoint, in which case the index becomes ambiguous and depends on the chosen selfadjoint extension. We also discuss the special class of models with K\"ahler target spaces, which can accommodate both type A and type B models, and show that the type B index is a particular limit of the type A index. For Calabi-Yau cones, the type B index coincides with the Hilbert series of the unresolved space.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. On conformal symmetry in large-$N$ quiver mechanics

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    At large rank N, the fixed-point formula for the quiver superconformal index equals the Ω_uneq contribution to the microscopic scaling BPS index of Beaujard–Mondal–Pioline, a piece previously invisible on the Coulomb branch.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [16]

    Superconformal indices and localization in $N=2B$ quantum mechanics

    J. Raeymaekers, C. Sanli, and D. Van den Bleeken, “Superconformal indices and localization in N = 2B quantum mechanics,” JHEP 05 (2024) 275, arXiv:2403.07665 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [13]

    Superconformal Quantum Mechanics on K\"ahler Cones

    N. Dorey and D. Zhang, “Superconformal quantum mechanics on K¨ ahler cones,” JHEP 05 (2020) 115, arXiv:1911.06787 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  3. [1]

    Conformal Invariance in Quantum Mechanics,

    V. de Alfaro, S. Fubini, and G. Furlan, “Conformal Invariance in Quantum Mechanics,” Nuovo Cim. A34 (1976) 569

    work page 1976

  4. [2]

    Lectures on Superconformal Quantum Mechanics and Multi-Black Hole Moduli Spaces

    R. Britto-Pacumio, J. Michelson, A. Strominger, and A. Volovich, “Lectures on Superconformal Quantum Mechanics and Multi-Black Hole Moduli Spaces,” NATO Sci. Ser. C 556 (2000) 255–284, arXiv:hep-th/9911066

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  5. [3]

    Superconformal Mechanics,

    S. Fedoruk, E. Ivanov, and O. Lechtenfeld, “Superconformal Mechanics,” J. Phys. A 45 (2012) 173001, arXiv:1112.1947 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2012

  6. [4]

    Black holes and Calogero models,

    G. W. Gibbons and P. K. Townsend, “Black holes and Calogero models,” Phys. Lett. B 454 (1999) 187–192, arXiv:hep-th/9812034

    arXiv 1999

  7. [5]

    Black holes and superconformal mechanics,

    P. Claus, M. Derix, R. Kallosh, J. Kumar, P. K. Townsend, and A. Van Proeyen, “Black holes and superconformal mechanics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 4553–4556, arXiv:hep-th/9804177

    arXiv 1998

  8. [6]

    Superconformal Multi-Black Hole Quantum Mechanics

    J. Michelson and A. Strominger, “Superconformal multiblack hole quantum mechanics,” JHEP 09 (1999) 005, arXiv:hep-th/9908044

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

Show all 42 references
  1. [7]

    Superconformal black hole quantum mechanics,

    D. Gaiotto, A. Strominger, and X. Yin, “Superconformal black hole quantum mechanics,” JHEP 11 (2005) 017, arXiv:hep-th/0412322

    2005 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Conformal quivers and melting molecules,

    D. Anninos, T. Anous, P. de Lange, and G. Konstantinidis, “Conformal quivers and melting molecules,” JHEP 03 (2015) 066, arXiv:1310.7929 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Superconformal mechanics of AdS2 D-brane boundstates,

    D. Mirfendereski, J. Raeymaekers, and D. Van Den Bleeken, “Superconformal mechanics of AdS2 D-brane boundstates,” arXiv:2009.07107 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Black hole entropy from quantum mechanics,

    N. Dorey, R. Mouland, and B. Zhao, “Black hole entropy from quantum mechanics,” JHEP 06 (2023) 166, arXiv:2207.12477 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [11]

    A Superconformal Index for HyperK¨ ahler Cones,

    A. E. Barns-Graham and N. Dorey, “A Superconformal Index for HyperK¨ ahler Cones,” arXiv:1812.04565 [hep-th]. 24According to (6.34) and to (4.17) in [13], q−3/2Ωreg[q, x1, x2]|m=0 matches with the Hilbert series for the conifold. Indeed, one can perform the substitution ( q, x...

    arXiv

  6. [12]

    An Index for Superconformal Quantum Mechanics,

    N. Dorey and A. Singleton, “An Index for Superconformal Quantum Mechanics,” arXiv:1812.11816 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  7. [14]

    Sasaki-Einstein manifolds and volume minimisation,

    D. Martelli, J. Sparks, and S.-T. Yau, “Sasaki-Einstein manifolds and volume minimisation,” Commun. Math. Phys. 280 (2008) 611–673, arXiv:hep-th/0603021

    2008 arXiv

  8. [15]

    The geometry of gauged (super)conformal mechanics,

    D. Mirfendereski, J. Raeymaekers, C. S ¸anlı, and D. Van den Bleeken, “The geometry of gauged (super)conformal mechanics,” JHEP 08 (2022) 081, arXiv:2203.10167 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Reed and B

    M. Reed and B. Simon, Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics. II: Fourier Analysis, Self-Adjointness. 1975

    1975

  10. [18]

    The Master Space of N=1 Gauge Theories,

    D. Forcella, A. Hanany, Y.-H. He, and A. Zaffaroni, “The Master Space of N=1 Gauge Theories,” JHEP 08 (2008) 012, arXiv:0801.1585 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A. V. Smilga, Differential Geometry through Supersymmetric Glasses . WSP, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    The Geometry of (super)conformal quantum mechanics,

    J. Michelson and A. Strominger, “The Geometry of (super)conformal quantum mechanics,” Commun. Math. Phys. 213 (2000) 1–17, arXiv:hep-th/9907191

    2000 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Cones, triSasakian structures and superconformal invariance,

    G. W. Gibbons and P. Rychenkova, “Cones, triSasakian structures and superconformal invariance,” Phys. Lett. B 443 (1998) 138–142, arXiv:hep-th/9809158

    1998 arXiv

  14. [22]

    C. P. Boyer and K. Galicki, Sasakian Geometry. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008

    2008

  15. [23]

    Tools for supersymmetry,

    A. Van Proeyen, “Tools for supersymmetry,” Ann. U. Craiova Phys. 9 no. I, (1999) 1–48, arXiv:hep-th/9910030

    1999 arXiv

  16. [24]

    FERMION QUANTUM NUMBERS IN KALUZA-KLEIN THEORY,

    E. Witten, “FERMION QUANTUM NUMBERS IN KALUZA-KLEIN THEORY,” Conf. Proc. C 8306011 (1983) 227

    1983

  17. [25]

    Dirac Operator on Complex Manifolds and Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics,

    E. A. Ivanov and A. V. Smilga, “Dirac Operator on Complex Manifolds and Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 27 (2012) 1230024, arXiv:1012.2069 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    The dirac operator on spaces with conical singularities and positive scalar curvatures,

    A. W. Chou, “The dirac operator on spaces with conical singularities and positive scalar curvatures,” Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 289 no. 1, (1985) 1–40

    1985

  19. [27]

    Selfdual Solutions to Euclidean Gravity,

    T. Eguchi and A. J. Hanson, “Selfdual Solutions to Euclidean Gravity,” Annals Phys. 120 (1979) 82

    1979

  20. [28]

    Lectures on complex manifolds,

    P. Candelas, “Lectures on complex manifolds,” in Superstrings and grand unification . 1988

    1988

  21. [29]

    Quantum quivers and Hall / hole halos,

    F. Denef, “Quantum quivers and Hall / hole halos,” JHEP 10 (2002) 023, arXiv:hep-th/0206072 [hep-th]

    2002 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Raeymaekers, P

    J. Raeymaekers, P. Rossi, and C. Sanli. Work in progress

  23. [31]

    Self-adjoint extensions and susy breaking in supersymmetric quantum mechanics,

    H. Falomir and P. A. G. Pisani, “Self-adjoint extensions and susy breaking in supersymmetric quantum mechanics,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 38 no. 21, (May, 2005) 4665–4683

    2005

  24. [32]

    Boundary conditions for quantum mechanics on cones and fields around cosmic strings,

    B. Kay and U. Studer, “Boundary conditions for quantum mechanics on cones and fields around cosmic strings,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 139 no. 1, (July, 1991) 103–139. – 45 –

    1991

  25. [33]

    A physicist’s guide to the solution of kummer’s equation and confluent hypergeometric functions,

    W. N. Mathews, M. A. Esrick, Z. Y. Teoh, and J. K. Freericks, “A physicist’s guide to the solution of kummer’s equation and confluent hypergeometric functions,” Condensed Matter Physics 25 no. 3, (2022) 33203

    2022

  26. [34]

    NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions

    “ NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions .” https://dlmf.nist.gov/, release 1.2.2 of 2024-09-15. https://dlmf.nist.gov/. F. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis, D. W. Lozier, B. I. Schneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller, B. V. Saunders, H. S. Cohl, and M. A....

    2024

  27. [35]

    The index of elliptic operators: Iii,

    M. F. Atiyah and I. M. Singer, “The index of elliptic operators: Iii,” Annals of Mathematics 87 no. 3, (1968) 546–604

    1968

  28. [36]

    Gravitation, Gauge Theories and Differential Geometry,

    T. Eguchi, P. B. Gilkey, and A. J. Hanson, “Gravitation, Gauge Theories and Differential Geometry,” Phys. Rept. 66 (1980) 213

    1980

  29. [37]

    L. W. Tu and A. Arabia, Introductory Lectures on Equivariant Cohomology: (AMS-204) . Princeton University Press, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvrdf1gz

    2020

  30. [38]

    Classes caract´ eristiques ´ equivariantes. formule de localisation en cohomologie ´ equivariante,

    N. Berline and M. Vergne, “Classes caract´ eristiques ´ equivariantes. formule de localisation en cohomologie ´ equivariante,”CR Acad. Sci. Paris 295 no. 2, (1982) 539–541

    1982

  31. [39]

    The Moment map and equivariant cohomology,

    M. F. Atiyah and R. Bott, “The Moment map and equivariant cohomology,” Topology 23 (1984) 1–28

    1984

  32. [40]

    Comments on Conifolds,

    P. Candelas and X. C. de la Ossa, “Comments on Conifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B 342 (1990) 246–268

    1990

  33. [41]

    3-branes on resolved conifold,

    L. A. Pando Zayas and A. A. Tseytlin, “3-branes on resolved conifold,” JHEP 11 (2000) 028, arXiv:hep-th/0010088

    2000 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Criteria for self-adjointness of the dirac operator on pseudomanifolds,

    A. W. Chou, “Criteria for self-adjointness of the dirac operator on pseudomanifolds,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 106 no. 4, (1989) 1107–1116. – 46 –

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.