Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 27 references

Defects and Phases of Higher Rank Abelian GLSMs

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 For higher-rank abelian GLSMs, the defects that lift a Landau-Ginzburg phase into the full model are obtained by imposing charge cutoffs on the GLSM identity defect, with each choice of cutoffs corresponding to a homotopy class of paths…

desk verdict Generalizes the rank-one GLSM defect construction to higher rank with detailed examples and matching known results, but the central existence claim for the lift defects is asserted, not proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05172 v1 pith:EYJSLTEX submitted 2024-12-06 hep-th math-phmath.AGmath.MPmath.QA

Ilka Brunner , Daniel Roggenkamp , Christian P. M. Schneider This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath-phmath.AGmath.MPmath.QA
keywords gaugedlinearsigmamodelsB-typedefectsLandau-GinzburgorbifoldsD-branetransportbandrestrictionrulematrixfactorizationsminimalmodelflowshomotopyclassesofpaths
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 is about gauged linear $\sigma$ models (GLSMs) with abelian gauge group $U(1)^n$—two-dimensional quantum field theories that can describe several different low-energy phases, such as Landau-Ginzburg orbifolds and $\sigma$ models on resolved spaces. The authors try to establish that the B-type defect embedding a Landau-Ginzburg phase into the full GLSM is simply the GLSM identity defect, truncated by upper bounds on the gauge charges preserved along each phase boundary crossed. The choice of these cutoff parameters is in one-to-one correspondence with homotopy classes of paths in the Fayet-Iliopoulos parameter space that avoid the singular loci, so the defect carries information about which route between phases was taken. If correct, this gives a manifestly functorial, non-perturbative description of D-brane transport between phases, reproducing the band restriction rule in Calabi-Yau examples and the large-window/small-window behaviour in anomalous models. The construction is carried out entirely in the B-type protected sector, decoupling the gauge dynamics, and is illustrated on the $A_N$ singularity, a two-parameter model with a $C^5/\mathbb{Z}_8$ orbifold phase, and a GLSM whose phases are the $N=2$ minimal models.

What carries the argument

The central object is the GLSM identity defect, represented as a $U(1)^n \times U(1)^n$-equivariant matrix factorization of the difference of the two superpotentials, i.e. a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-graded module with an odd endomorphism squaring to that difference. For each gauge factor a pair of defect fields $\alpha_a,\alpha_a^{-1}$ implements the regular representation of the gauge group, and Koszul-type relations $\alpha^{-Q^i}X_i = X'_i$ glue the chiral fields on the two sides of the defect. Pushing one side to an orbifold phase by setting massive fields to their vacuum expectation values yields the non-finitely generated module $T_\infty$; the key move is to truncate to the submodule generated by elements with $Q^L_{I_s} \le N_{I_s}$ for each phase boundary crossed. The relations inside $T_\infty$ then automatically produce lower bounds, so the surviving generators form a finite charge band whose width is fixed by the charge matrix. The core identity is $R_\infty \otimes T_{N_{I_1},\dots,N_{I_m}} = \mathrm{id}_{\mathrm{LG}}$, together with the one-to-one match between cutoff integers and connected components of the allowed crossing intervals $\theta_I \in \mathbb{R}\setminus(2\pi\mathbb{Z}+\pi S_I)$ on each phase boundary.

What would settle it

Take a higher-rank abelian GLSM not among the paper's examples, choose a path crossing two phase boundaries, and solve for a $p_0$ completing the truncated module $T_{N_{I_1},N_{I_2}}$ to an equivariant matrix factorization: if such a $p_0$ fails to exist for some admissible cutoff pair, or if the resulting charge band differs from the window $(-\theta_I/2\pi-S_I/2,\,-\theta_I/2\pi+S_I/2)$ of the corresponding homotopy class, the central claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the defects which embed a Landau-Ginzburg orbifold phase into a higher-rank abelian GLSM are obtained by a purely algebraic truncation of the GLSM identity defect. Starting from the identity defect, one pushes the theory on one side into the orbifold phase by setting massive fields to their vacuum expectation values; this produces a module $T_\infty$ that is not finitely generated. Imposing, for every phase boundary crossed by a chosen path, an upper bound $Q^L_{I_s} \le N_{I_s}$ on the charge under the $U(1)$ preserved on that boundary selects a submodule $T_{N_{I_1},\dots,N_{I_m}}$, and the paper claims these truncated modules are exactly the lift defects. The integer cutoffs are in one-to-one correspondence with homotopy classes of paths in the FI-$\theta$ parameter space, the relation $R_\infty \otimes T_{N_{I_1},\dots,N_{I_m}} = \mathrm{id}_{\mathrm{LG}}$ holds, and fusion of these defects with D-branes produces the charge bands of the band restriction rule. The paper verifies this in the $A_{N-1}$ resolution GLSM, a two-parameter model with a $C^5/\mathbb{Z}_8$ orbifold phase, and in a GLSM describing the full parameter space of $N=2$ minimal models, where the construction reproduces the flow defects of [7].

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every charge-truncated submodule can be completed to a genuine equivariant matrix factorization—the needed $p_0$ map exists—and that its fusion with the reverse defect yields the identity defect of the phase; the paper asserts this in Section 3.4 and checks it on examples rather than proving it generally.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every B-type D-brane in a Landau-Ginzburg orbifold phase is lifted to a GLSM brane whose charges lie in a finite band, and that band is exactly the one allowed by the band restriction rule for the chosen homotopy class of paths.
  • The truncation parameters $N_{I_1},\dots,N_{I_m}$ give a concrete label for the path dependence of D-brane transport: different cutoff choices produce different lift functors, so monodromy and transport around the singular loci are packaged into the defect.
  • Because the construction lives in the B-type protected sector and does not use the Calabi-Yau condition, the same defects describe relevant flows, not only marginal ones; in the minimal-model GLSM they reproduce the flow defects that connect the $N=2$ minimal models at different levels.
  • Fusion of the lift defects with boundary conditions yields functors between D-brane categories, so the construction gives a manifestly functorial implementation of the band restriction rule, with the projector $P = T \otimes R$ singling out the subcategory of GLSM branes that come from the phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that composing defects along concatenated paths should correspond to composing truncations; proving this composition law in general would turn the per-example checks into a fully functorial transport statement.
  • Because the truncated modules are windows in the charge lattice, the construction can be read as a physical realization of window-category equivalences between the phases and the GLSM category; making that explicit for geometric phases would require the hybrid matrix-factorization/coherent-sheaf translation that the paper only sketches.
  • In the anomalous minimal-model example, the small window emerges automatically when the defect is pushed to the IR phase; the same mechanism could be used to predict which D-branes decouple along arbitrary multi-step flows between minimal models, beyond the two-step case worked out here.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs B-type defects describing transitions between phases of abelian GLSMs and embeddings of Landau-Ginzburg orbifold phases into the GLSM. Starting from the GLSM identity defect, the authors push one side to an orbifold phase and impose charge cutoffs on the preserved U(1)s, obtaining truncated submodules T_{N_{I_1},...,N_{I_m}} of the infinite module T∞. They claim that these submodules are the lift defects, that the cutoff choices correspond to homotopy classes of paths in parameter space, and that fusion with these defects reproduces the band restriction rule of [17] and the flow defects of [7]. The construction is illustrated with the A2 and A_{N-1} models, a two-parameter model with a C5/Z8 orbifold phase, and GLSMs containing the N=2 minimal model flows.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper provides a manifestly functorial, B-twist-level implementation of D-brane transport between phases of higher-rank abelian GLSMs, including anomalous models. The explicit computations in Sections 4 and 5 are detailed and match known results: the charge bands are not fitted but follow from the module relations, and the agreement with [17] and [7] is demonstrated in several nontrivial examples. The paper also gives a useful unified treatment of non-anomalous and anomalous cases. However, the central identification of truncated submodules with lift defects is asserted rather than proven, and a load-bearing existence question about the matrix factorization p0 is left open, so the significance is conditional on that gap being filled.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4, Eqs. (41)-(43)] The central object T_{N_{I_1},...,N_{I_m}} is introduced as a submodule of T∞, but a B-type defect in the nonzero-superpotential cases must be an equivariant matrix factorization of W − W_LG, which requires a p0 completing the p1 defined by the module relations. The paper only states that the truncated submodule is the lift defect and that p0 exists: in §5.2, around Eq. (147), it says "one can find a suitable d×d-matrix p0", and in §5.3, Eq. (178), only p1 is displayed and called "one of the matrices". In the W=0 examples of Section 4 the issue is masked because p0=0 makes any complex a matrix factorization. A general construction of p0, or a proof that coker p1 is maximal Cohen-Macaulay and hence admits a two-periodic resolution, is needed before T_{N...} can be regarded as a well-defined defect. This is load-bearing for the fusion and transport claims that follow.
  2. [§3.4, Eq. (37)] The fusion identity R∞ ⊗ T_{N_{I_1},...,N_{I_m}} = id_LG is asserted after the sentence beginning "Indeed, the lift defects satisfy...", but no derivation is given. This identity is essential: it is what makes T a lift and P = T ⊗ R the associated projector, and it underlies the functorial interpretation of band restriction. Since the T appearing in the fusion is only a module and not yet a proven matrix factorization, the assertion is doubly unsupported. The authors should either provide an explicit fusion computation for the general construction or state and prove this identity as a theorem for the classes of paths considered.
  3. [§3.4, text after Eq. (42)] The claim that the cutoff parameters N_{I_s} are in one-to-one correspondence with homotopy classes of paths is presented as an observation, not a theorem. To make the correspondence precise, the paper should define the map from cutoff choices to connected components of R\{2πZ + πS_I}, and explain why different cutoff choices cannot give the same defect (or, conversely, which shifts in the cutoffs correspond to natural isomorphisms of defects). The examples show agreement for specific choices, but the general statement is stronger than what is verified.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.3.1, after Eq. (97)] The text says the bulk fields are "X1, . . . , X_{N−1}" and "X′_1, . . . , X′_{N−1}", but the A_{N−1} model has N+1 chiral fields X1,...,X_{N+1}; this should read X1,...,X_{N+1} and X′_1,...,X′_{N+1}.
  2. [§5.3, Eq. (162)] The superpotential relation in ~S is written as "X^d_0 X^{d-1}_1 · . . . · X^2_2 − (X′_0)^d"; the last factor should be X^2_{d−2}, not X^2_2.
  3. [§5.2, around Eq. (149)] The sentence "Under the flow to the IR phase, which is implemented by setting X0 = 1 = X1 d − 2 of the elementary D-branes..." is grammatically incomplete; it should state that two of the elementary D-branes are mapped to trivial D-branes.
  4. [§3.3, near Eq. (33)] There is a rendering typo: "V^{U(1)n}_ref" should be "V^{U(1)n}_{reg}", consistent with Eqs. (30) and (34).
  5. [§3.4, Eq. (43)] The quantity M_{I_s} in the lower bound N_{I_s} − M_{I_s} < Q^L_{I_s} is not defined before it is used; it should either be defined in Eq. (43) or the sentence following it should be expanded to explain how M_{I_s} is determined by the module relations.
  6. [§5.2, Eq. (153)] In the charge solutions (153), ranges such as "d−n over 2" and "2d−n over 2" can be non-integer; the notation should clarify that ceilings are taken, as done later in Eq. (155).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: cutoff parameters are free labels; charge bands and brane lifts are computed from module relations and checked against [17] and [7].

full rationale

The central construction starts from the GLSM identity defect, pushes one side to the Landau-Ginzburg phase to obtain T∞, and then truncates by hand-chosen charge cutoffs, Eq. (42). The paper explicitly acknowledges that this 'does not offer an apriori assignment of defects to homotopy classes of paths' and only observes a bijection between the integer cutoff parameters and the integer-labelled homotopy classes. The predictive content—the finite charge bands (43), the explicit generator sets (60)-(65), and the brane lifts (73)-(78)—is then computed from the module relations rather than imported from the benchmark results. These outputs are checked against the band restriction rule of [17] and the flow defects of [7], which are prior independent constructions. The main weakness, noted in Sections 5.2 and 5.3, is that the completing matrix p0 is asserted ('one can find a suitable d×d-matrix p0') but not generally constructed; this is an unproved existence claim and a correctness gap, not a circular step, because the comparisons with [7] and [17] do not rely on an explicit p0. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the cutoff integers are free parameters labelling both the family of defects and the homotopy classes, while the widths of the resulting charge bands are fixed by the charge-lattice relations in T∞. Therefore no step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input.

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

The central construction depends on standard matrix factorization technology, the specific form of the GLSM identity defect, the phase boundary and singularity description, and the key new proposal that charge truncation yields lift defects. The cutoff parameters are free integer choices. No new physical entities are introduced; the auxiliary defect fields α_i are standard.

free parameters (1)
  • cutoff parameters N_I (e.g., N, M, K, N(01), N(12)) = integers chosen per phase boundary; e.g., (N,M)=(2,1) for the A2 path, N(01), N(12) for minimal model flows
    The lift defect depends on an integer upper bound for each phase boundary crossed; these are free choices labeling homotopy classes of paths, not fitted to data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption B-type defects and boundaries in GLSMs and Landau-Ginzburg models are described by equivariant matrix factorizations, and the identity defect has the Koszul form given in eq. (33).
    Section 3.2-3.3; standard in the literature [6,7,4], used as the starting point.
  • domain assumption Phase boundaries and unbroken U(1) subgroups are determined by cones, and singular loci are given by θ_I ∈ 2πZ + πS_I (eq. 14).
    Section 3.1; standard semi-classical and quantum analysis of GLSMs.
  • ad hoc to paper The truncated submodule generated by charge-bounded generators represents a well-defined lift defect (the central claim).
    Section 3.4, equations (42)-(43): 'We claim that the associated defects ... are the respective lift defects.' This is the paper's main proposal, not derived from prior results.
  • domain assumption The band restriction rule of [17] and the flow defects of [7] are correct and used as benchmarks.
    Used for comparison; not proven in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Defects and Phases of Higher Rank Abelian GLSMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EYJSLTEX

@misc{pith2026241205172,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Defects and Phases of Higher Rank Abelian GLSMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EYJSLTEX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05172}
}
abstract

We construct defects describing the transition between different phases of gauged linear sigma models with higher rank abelian gauge groups, as well as defects embedding these phases into the GLSMs. Our construction refers entirely to the sector protected by B-type supersymmetry, decoupling the gauge sector. It relies on an abstract characterization of such transition defects and does not involve an actual perturbative analysis. It turns out that the choices that are required to characterize consistent transition defects match with the homotopy classes of paths between different phases. Our method applies to non-anomalous as well as anomalous GLSMs, and we illustrate both cases with examples. This includes the GLSM associated to the resolution of the $A_N$ singularity and one describing the entire parameter space of $N = 2$ minimal models, in particular, the relevant flows between them. Via fusion with boundary conditions, the defects we construct yield functors describing the transport of D-branes on parameter space. We find that our results match with known results on D-brane transport.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05172 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Phase diagram of GLSMA2 . Phases are denoted by (i1i2) where ij = 0 if the jth exceptional 2-sphere is blown up, and ij = 1 if it is not blown up. The phase boundaries denoted by Xi are located at Cone{i}. The D-term equation forces X2 to acquire a vev on this phase boundary, and the isotropy group of the latter is given by {(g, g2 )|g ∈ U(1)} ∼= U(1). (47) This is the U(1) unbroken on the entire phase boundary. Ana… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Phase diagram of GLSMZ8−orb. Here, I is the large volume phase, III is the orbifold phases and IV and II are mixed phases. The locations of the phase boundaries and the respective unbroken gauge groups are given by phase boundary location unbroken gauge groups (III) ↔ (IV) Cone{0} Z4 × U(1)2 (IV) ↔ (I) Cone{1} U(1)1 (III) ↔ (II) Cone{6} {(g 2 , g)| g ∈ U(1)} (II) ↔ (I) Cone{3} U(1)2 4.2.1 GLSMZ8−orb Identity Defect … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Phase diagram of GLSMA3 . Here, phases are depicted by vertices, and phase boundaries by edges between them. The orbifold phase is labeled by (111) and the large volume phase where the singularity is fully resolved is labeled by (000). The phase boundaries (ij) are located at Cone{i,j}. the lift defects associated to paths from the orbifold phase (111) to the geometric phase (000) along two different classes of path… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Phase diagram of the GLSM describing the two-step minimal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    Phase transitions in GLSMs and defects

    Ilka Brunner, Fabian Klos, and Daniel Roggenkamp. “Phase tran sitions in GLSMs and defects”. In: JHEP 05 (2021), p. 006. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2021)006. arXiv: 2101.12315 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  2. [7]

    Defects and bulk pertur bations of boundary Landau- Ginzburg orbifolds

    Ilka Brunner and Daniel Roggenkamp. “Defects and bulk pertur bations of boundary Landau- Ginzburg orbifolds”. In: JHEP 04 (2008), p. 001. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/001. arXiv: 0712.0188 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2008

  3. [17]

    Phases Of N=2 Theories In 1+1 Dimensions With Boundary

    Manfred Herbst, Kentaro Hori, and David Page. Phases Of N=2 Theories In 1+1 Dimensions With Boundary . 2008. arXiv: 0803.2045 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2008

  4. [1]

    D-Brane Stability and Monodromy

    Paul S. Aspinwall and Michael R. Douglas. “D-brane stability and m onodromy”. In: JHEP 05 (2002), p. 031. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/05/031. arXiv: hep-th/0110071

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  5. [2]

    Calabi's diastasis as interface entropy

    Constantin P. Bachas et al. “Calabi’s diastasis as interface entro py”. In: Phys. Rev. D 90.4 (2014), p. 045004. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.045004. arXiv: 1311.2202 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  6. [3]

    Defects and D-Brane Monodromies

    Ilka Brunner, Hans Jockers, and Daniel Roggenkamp. “Defect s and D-Brane Monodromies”. In: Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 13.4 (2009), pp. 1077–1135. doi: 10.4310/ATMP.2009.v13.n4.a4. arXiv: 0806.4734 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  7. [5]

    Defects and phase transitions to geometric phases of abelian GLSMs

    Ilka Brunner, Lukas Krumpeck, and Daniel Roggenkamp. Defects and phase transitions to geo- metric phases of abelian GLSMs . 2021. arXiv: 2109.04124 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  8. [6]

    B-type defects in Landa u-Ginzburg models

    Ilka Brunner and Daniel Roggenkamp. “B-type defects in Landa u-Ginzburg models”. In: JHEP 08 (2007), p. 093. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/08/093. arXiv: 0707.0922 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2007

Show all 27 references
  1. [8]

    Reflection and tran smission of conformal pertur- bation defects

    Ilka Brunner and Cornelius Schmidt-Colinet. “Reflection and tran smission of conformal pertur- bation defects”. In: J. Phys. A 49.19 (2016), p. 195401. doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/49/19/195401. arXiv: 1508.04350 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Landau-Ginzburg realization of open string T FT

    Ilka Brunner et al. “Landau-Ginzburg realization of open string T FT”. In: JHEP 11 (2006), p. 043. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2006/11/043. arXiv: hep-th/0305133

    2006 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Obstructions and lines of marginal stability f rom the world-sheet

    Ilka Brunner et al. “Obstructions and lines of marginal stability f rom the world-sheet”. In: JHEP 05 (2009), p. 007. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/05/007. arXiv: 0902.3177 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  4. [11]

    B-brane t ransport in anomalous (2,2) models and localization

    Joel Clingempeel, Bruno Le Floch, and Mauricio Romo. “B-brane t ransport in anomalous (2,2) models and localization”. In: (Nov. 2018). arXiv: 1811.12385 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Grassmannian twists, derived equivalences and b rane transport

    Will Donovan. “Grassmannian twists, derived equivalences and b rane transport”. In: Proc. Symp. Pure Math. 90 (2015). Ed. by Ron Donagi et al., pp. 251–264. arXiv: 1304.2913 [math.AG]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Spaces of Quantum Field Theories

    Michael R. Douglas. “Spaces of Quantum Field Theories”. In: J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 462.1 (2013). Ed. by Sumit R. Das and Alfred D. Shapere, p. 012011. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/462/1/012011. arXiv: 1005.2779 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Homological algebra on a complete intersection , with an application to group representations

    David Eisenbud. “Homological algebra on a complete intersection , with an application to group representations”. In: Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 260 (1980), pp. 35–64. url: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:27495286

    1980

  8. [15]

    Algebr a of the Infrared: String Field Theoretic Structures in Massive N = (2, 2) Field Theory In Two Dimensions

    Davide Gaiotto, Gregory W. Moore, and Edward Witten. “Algebr a of the Infrared: String Field Theoretic Structures in Massive N = (2, 2) Field Theory In Two Dimensions”. In: (June 2015). arXiv: 1506.04087 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [16]

    On supersymmetric interface defects, bra ne parallel transport, order-disorder transition and homological mirror symmetry

    Dmitry Galakhov. “On supersymmetric interface defects, bra ne parallel transport, order-disorder transition and homological mirror symmetry”. In: JHEP 22 (2020), p. 076. doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2022)076. arXiv: 2105.07602 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    D-branes and mir ror symmetry

    Kentaro Hori, Amer Iqbal, and Cumrun Vafa. “D-branes and mir ror symmetry”. In: (May 2000). arXiv: hep-th/0005247. 36

    2000 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Exact Results In Two-Dimens ional (2,2) Supersymmetric Gauge Theories With Boundary

    Kentaro Hori and Mauricio Romo. “Exact Results In Two-Dimens ional (2,2) Supersymmetric Gauge Theories With Boundary”. In: (Aug. 2013). arXiv: 1308.2438 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [20]

    D branes in Landau-Ginzburg models a nd algebraic geometry

    Anton Kapustin and Yi Li. “D branes in Landau-Ginzburg models a nd algebraic geometry”. In: JHEP 12 (2003), p. 005. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2003/12/005. arXiv: hep-th/0210296

    2003 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Complementary projectio n defects and decomposition

    Fabian Klos and Daniel Roggenkamp. “Complementary projectio n defects and decomposition”. In: JHEP 03 (2021), p. 195. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2021)195. arXiv: 2006.08961 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Grade restriction and D-brane transport f or a non-abelian GLSM of an elliptic curve

    Johanna Knapp. “Grade restriction and D-brane transport f or a non-abelian GLSM of an elliptic curve”. In: Gauged Linear Sigma Models @30 . Dec. 2023. arXiv: 2312.07639 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    B-type D-branes in hybrid models

    Johanna Knapp and Robert Pryor. “B-type D-branes in hybrid models”. In: (Apr. 2024). arXiv: 2404.14613 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    B-brane Transport and Grade Rest riction Rule for Determinantal Varieties

    Ban Lin and Mauricio Romo. “B-brane Transport and Grade Rest riction Rule for Determinantal Varieties”. In: (Feb. 2024). arXiv: 2402.07109 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Geometrical interpretation of D-branes in gauged WZW models

    Juan Martin Maldacena, Gregory W. Moore, and Nathan Seiberg . “Geometrical interpretation of D-branes in gauged WZW models”. In: JHEP 07 (2001), p. 046. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2001/07/046. arXiv: hep-th/0105038

    2001 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Equivalences between GIT quotients of Landau-Ginz burg B-models

    Ed Segal. “Equivalences between GIT quotients of Landau-Ginz burg B-models”. In: Commun. Math. Phys. 304 (2011), pp. 411–432. doi: 10.1007/s00220-011-1232-y . arXiv: 0910.5534 [math.AG]

    2011 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Phases of N=2 theories in two-dimensions

    Edward Witten. “Phases of N=2 theories in two-dimensions”. In : Nucl. Phys. B 403 (1993). Ed. by B. Greene and Shing-Tung Yau, pp. 159–222. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(93)90033-L. arXiv: hep-th/9301042. 37

    1993 arXiv

Pith tools

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