REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 79 references
An unusual BPS equation
T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper proves the conjectured BPS relation between the displacement norm and the one-point stress coefficient for every rotation-invariant superconformal defect, reducing it to a supersymmetric Ward identity.
desk verdict Proves the universal CD/aT relation for all rotation-invariant superconformal defects via a clean Ward-identity argument; the only real caveat is the imported classification needed for full coverage. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The object that carries the proof is the bulk-to-defect two-point function $\langle\langle T^{\mu\nu} D_j\rangle\rangle$, whose conformal kinematics are fixed by three coefficients $b_1,b_2,b_3$. The conjectured relation is equivalent to the single condition $2n b_1 = (p+2) b_3$, which is itself equivalent to the statement that $\langle\langle T_{zz} D_z\rangle\rangle$ has the special derivative-of-a-scalar form (5.2). The proof works by acting on this correlation function with one preserved supercharge $Q$, using the transformation rules for the stress tensor, the R-symmetry current, the scalar in the stress-tensor multiplet, and the relation $Q(\Lambda)=D_z$ for the fermionic displacement multiplet member; the same Ward identities apply to all minimal defect superalgebras in Table 1.
What would settle it
A concrete test is to search the maximal real subalgebra tables for any p-embedding, $1 \le p \le n-2$, that preserves the transverse rotation symmetry $so(n-p)$ and is not contained in an entry of Table 1, then compute the bulk-to-defect correlator for a defect built on it; a failure of $2n b_1 = (p+2) b_3$ (equivalently a mismatch with the right side of (1.1)) would falsify the conjecture.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that supersymmetry fixes the ratio $C_D/a_T$ to the dimension-dependent expression on the right of (1.1) for every $p$-dimensional superconformal defect in $n$ spacetime dimensions with $0 < p < n-1$ that preserves transverse rotations. The proof starts from the observation that this is equivalent to the relation $2n b_1 = (p+2) b_3$ among the coefficients of the bulk-to-defect two-point function $\langle\langle T^{\mu\nu} D_j\rangle\rangle$, and then shows, case by case for the minimal superconformal defect algebras of Table 1, that $\langle\langle T_{zz} D_z\rangle\rangle$ has the special form (5.2) as a consequence of supersymmetric Ward identities. Because every rotation-invariant superconformal defect is argued to contain one of these minimal subalgebras, the relation holds universally. The paper's concluding corollary is that the modified stress tensor which cancels the stress of a static superconformal defect also restores the Null Energy Condition for the radiation emitted by an accelerating defect.
Load-bearing premise
The proof assumes that every transverse-rotation-invariant superconformal defect in dimensions 3 through 6 contains at least one of the minimal superconformal subalgebras listed in Table 1, so if the classification of maximal real subalgebras used in Section 2 misses any embedding, the universality of Eq. (1.1) would be unproved.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- The two natural brane tensions in AdS/CFT—gravitational and inertial—coincide for every superconformal defect, including quantized and strongly back-reacting ones.
- The modified stress tensor of Lewkowycz and Maldacena is completely fixed by the BPS relation: a single parameter choice removes both the static defect stress and the NEC-violating radiation.
- For even-dimensional defects, Eq. (1.1) relates two anomaly-type coefficients, placing it among the anomaly-data constraints of defect conformal field theory.
- The leading short-distance singularity of the retarded $\langle\langle T^{i0} D_j\rangle\rangle$ correlator, which controls NEC-violating radiation, is universal up to the coefficient $b_1$ in all dimensions and in free as well as interacting DCFTs.
Reading between the lines
- The proof leans on the classification of maximal real subalgebras, so an independent verification of that classification, especially the correction for F(4;2) in Appendix A, is the most direct way to test the completeness of the reduction to Table 1.
- The same Ward-identity mechanism that fixes the two-point function $\langle\langle T_{zz} D_z\rangle\rangle$ should also constrain higher correlation functions of the displacement operator, such as $\langle\langle D D D\rangle\rangle$, yielding new universal data for defect dynamics beyond $a_T$ and $C_D$.
- In the free N=2 abelian line-defect example, the paper's logic implies that the difference between the static-stress-removing and NEC-restoring choices of the improvement parameter $\xi$ is proportional to the failure of the BPS relation; turning on a small coupling mismatch between the electric and scalar charges should produce a computable NEC-violating flux whose coefficient is set by $b_1 - (p
- Because the proof uses only the minimal superconformal subalgebra, the argument suggests the BPS relation is stable under exactly marginal deformations that preserve the defect's transverse rotations, so the ratio $C_D/a_T$ should be invariant along such RG fixed-point families.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper proves a conjecture, stated in Eq. (1.1), that for any p-dimensional superconformal defect in an n-dimensional SCFT with 0<p<n-1 and preserved transverse rotations, the displacement-norm coefficient C_D and the stress-tensor one-point coefficient a_T are related by a universal, parameter-free formula. The proof reformulates the relation as 2n b_1=(p+2)b_3 in the bulk-to-defect two-point function <T^{\mu\nu}D^j>, then derives the equivalent special shape (5.2) of <T_{zz}D_z> from superconformal Ward identities for the minimal defect superalgebras listed in Table 1. The paper also uses this BPS relation to show that a modified stress tensor that removes the stress of a static defect simultaneously restores the Null Energy Condition for the radiation emitted by a moving defect, connecting the result to the Schott-term/radiation-reaction problem.
Significance. If the result is correct, it is a strong and elegant universal statement about superconformal defects: it identifies a previously conjectured relation that holds for all transverse-rotation-invariant defects, and it gives a physical interpretation by equating two notions of brane tension in AdS/CFT. The core derivation is genuinely parameter-free: the coefficients b_1,b_2,b_3 are fixed by conformal kinematics, and the proof of the special correlator shape is obtained from supersymmetric Ward identities rather than by inputting the conjectured relation. The explicit free-field example and the detailed transformation laws in Appendix C are concrete and reproducible, and the paper is careful to note where it corrects an earlier classification result. The main weakness is that universal coverage of the conjecture is imported from an external classification of superalgebra embeddings rather than proved in the paper.
major comments (1)
- [Section 2.3 and Table 1] The proof of Eq. (1.1) for 'any' rotation-invariant superconformal defect depends on the reduction in Section 2.3, which asserts that every such defect contains one of the minimal superalgebras in Table 1. This reduction is load-bearing but is not proved in the paper. It is imported from the classification in refs. [38-40], and in particular the sentence 'there exist no non-trivial 2-embeddings in the extended superconformal algebras ... not also embedded in a N=1 subalgebra' is quoted without derivation. The paper itself finds it necessary to correct a bug in table 2 of ref. [40] in Appendix A, so the external classification cannot be treated as beyond doubt. If a transverse-rotation-invariant superconformal defect existed whose preserved superalgebra is not a subalgebra of any Table 1 entry, the Ward-identity proof of Section 5 would not cover it and Eq. (1.1) would remain unproved for that case. Please either prove the no-embedding claims used in the reduction, or state precisely which classification results are being assumed and verify explicitly that they apply to all cases needed for the theorem; the correction in Appendix A shows why such a check is not purely formal.
minor comments (5)
- [Section 2.2] In the sentence following Eq. (2.10), 'worldsheet supesymmetry' should read 'worldsheet supersymmetry'.
- [Section 5] The phrase 'To avoid clattering' should be 'To avoid clutter'.
- [Table 2 caption] The notation 'Re{Q^1_1, ...}' is slightly ambiguous because in four dimensions Q and \bar Q are independent complex supercharges; please clarify that the preserved supercharges are the real combinations such as Q+\bar Q, as is used in the proof in Section 5.
- [Section 4.2] In Eq. (4.14), the term denoted '[non susy]' should be defined explicitly, for example by giving its dependence on b1, b2, b3 and the condition under which it vanishes.
- [References] Ref. [40] is cited only by its arXiv number; since the classification results in Section 2.3 are load-bearing for the theorem, please provide a published journal reference if one exists, or otherwise state explicitly in the text that the classification is drawn from an unpublished preprint that the present paper partially corrects.
Circularity Check
No circularity: the BPS relation is derived from superconformal Ward identities, with self-citations only motivational and the external defect classification a coverage assumption rather than an input.
full rationale
The central claim (1.1) is not fed into the derivation. Section 3 rewrites it as (3.8) using only the conformal Ward identities (3.6)–(3.7), which express b2 and b3 in terms of a_T and C_D; this is an algebraic equivalence, not an assumption of the target. The proof in Section 5 then derives the special form (5.2) from Q⟨Tzz Λ⟩=0 and the supersymmetry transformations listed in Appendix C. Those transformations are fixed by super-Jacobi identities and the requirement {Q,Q}=2P, as stated at the start of Appendix C, so the Ward-identity computation is self-contained for each minimal algebra. The reduction to the minimal algebras in Table 1 is imported from the external classification in refs. [38–40], with the paper's own correction in Appendix A; even if that reduction were incomplete, it would be a coverage risk, not a circular reduction, because the classification does not contain the BPS relation (1.1). Self-citations [3,4] supply the original conjecture and the holographic tension interpretation, and [3] also contains a special-case proof; none of these is used as the justification for (5.2). The free-field example in Section 3.2 is an independent check, not a fitted input: computing b1,b2,b3 in the abelian gauge theory merely verifies 8b1=3b3 in the e=g case and is not used to set the general coefficients. No step reduces (1.1) to an equivalent of itself by construction.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (6)
- domain assumption The classification of maximal real subalgebras of the n=3,...,6 superconformal algebras (refs. [38-40], corrected for F(4;2) in App. A) is complete, so every rotation-invariant superconformal defect contains one of the minimal embeddings of Table 1.
- standard math The stress-tensor and displacement multiplets transform as in App. C, with coefficients fixed by imposing {Q,Q}=2P and super-Jacobi identities.
- domain assumption There exists a fermionic defect operator Λ with Q(Λ)=D_z (App. C), including the (5,2)/(4,1) cases where a ∂Φ term drops out after the choices in Sec. 5.
- standard math The conformal Ward identities (3.2) and (3.6)-(3.7) determine ⟨⟨T Dj⟩⟩ in terms of aT and CD.
- domain assumption The Euclidean-to-Lorentzian analytic continuation of Sec. 4.2 identifies the NEC-violating radiation with the b1 term in (4.7).
- domain assumption Supersymmetric field theories with conserved stress-tensor multiplets exist only for n≤6 (ref. [41]), and unitarity gives C_D>0 and a_T<0.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of An unusual BPS equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LCRMQ2YF
@misc{pith2026250113197,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: An unusual BPS equation},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LCRMQ2YF}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13197}
}
read the original abstract
We prove a conjectured relation between the energy-momentum and the displacement norm of superconformal defects. The proof completes earlier results, and shows that supersymmetry identifies two natural notions of brane tension in Anti-de Sitter gravity. As a byproduct we show that a modification of the energy-momentum tensor that removes the stress of static superconformal defects, ensures also that the radiation these emit obeys the Null Energy Condition. This sheds new light on the radiation-reaction problem for moving charges.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[40]
Classifying Superconformal De fects in Diverse Dimensions Part I: Superconformal Lines,
N. B. Agmon and Y. Wang, “Classifying Superconformal De fects in Diverse Dimensions Part I: Superconformal Lines,” [arXiv:2009.06 650 [hep-th]]
work page 2009
-
[1]
Defe cts in conformal field theory,
M. Bill` o, V. Gon¸ calves, E. Lauria and M. Meineri, “Defe cts in conformal field theory,” JHEP 04, 091 (2016) [arXiv:1601.02883 [hep-th]]
arXiv 2016
-
[2]
Exact results for the ent anglement entropy and the energy radiated by a quark,
A. Lewkowycz and J. Maldacena, “Exact results for the ent anglement entropy and the energy radiated by a quark,” JHEP 05, 025 (2014) [arXiv:1312.5682 [hep-th]]. – 27 –
arXiv 2014
-
[3]
Superconformal surfaces in fou r dimensions,
L. Bianchi and M. Lemos, “Superconformal surfaces in fou r dimensions,” JHEP 06, 056 (2020) [arXiv:1911.05082 [hep-th]]
arXiv 2020
-
[4]
Invariant tensions from holograp hy,
C. Bachas and Z. Chen, “Invariant tensions from holograp hy,” JHEP 08, 028 (2024) [erratum: JHEP 11, 022 (2024)] [arXiv:2404.14998 [hep-th]]
arXiv 2024
-
[5]
General Definition of Gravitational Tension
T. Harmark and N. A. Obers, “General definition of gravita tional tension,” JHEP 05 (2004), 043 [arXiv:hep-th/0403103 [hep-th]]
work page Pith review arXiv 2004
-
[6]
Line Defects and Rad iation in N = 2 Conformal Theories,
L. Bianchi, M. Lemos and M. Meineri, “Line Defects and Rad iation in N = 2 Conformal Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no.14, 141601 (2018) [arXiv:1805.04111 [hep-th]]
arXiv 2018
-
[7]
L. Bianchi, L. Griguolo, M. Preti and D. Seminara, JHEP 10 (2017), 050 [arXiv:1706.06590 [hep-th]]
arXiv 2017
Show all 79 references
-
[8]
Exact Bremsstrahlu ng functions in ABJM theory,
L. Bianchi, M. Preti and E. Vescovi, “Exact Bremsstrahlu ng functions in ABJM theory,” JHEP 07, 060 (2018) [arXiv:1802.07726 [hep-th]]
2018 arXiv
-
[9]
Defect CFT tech niques in the 6d N = (2, 0) theory,
N. Drukker, M. Probst and M. Tr´ epanier, “Defect CFT tech niques in the 6d N = (2, 0) theory,” JHEP 03, 261 (2021) [arXiv:2009.10732 [hep-th]]
2021 arXiv
-
[10]
Nonlinear waves in AdS / CFT corresponde nce,
A. Mikhailov, “Nonlinear waves in AdS / CFT corresponde nce,” [arXiv:hep-th/0305196 [hep-th]]
-
[11]
Synchrotron radiation in strongly coupled conformal field theories,
C. Athanasiou, P. M. Chesler, H. Liu, D. Nickel and K. Raj agopal, “Synchrotron radiation in strongly coupled conformal field theories,” Ph ys. Rev. D 81 (2010), 126001 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011), 069901] [arXiv:1001.3880 [hep-th]]
2010 arXiv
-
[12]
Holographic dual of collimated radiatio n,
V. E. Hubeny, “Holographic dual of collimated radiatio n,” New J. Phys. 13 (2011), 035006 [arXiv:1012.3561 [hep-th]]
2011 arXiv
-
[13]
Radiation by a heavy quark in N=4 SYM at strong coupling,
Y. Hatta, E. Iancu, A. H. Mueller and D. N. Triantafyllop oulos, “Radiation by a heavy quark in N=4 SYM at strong coupling,” Nucl. Phys. B 850 (2011), 31-52 [arXiv:1102.0232 [hep-th]]
2011 arXiv
-
[14]
On radiation by a heavy quark in N = 4 SYM,
R. Baier, “On radiation by a heavy quark in N = 4 SYM,” Adv. High Energy Phys. 2012 (2012), 592854 [arXiv:1107.4250 [hep-th]]
2012 arXiv
-
[15]
An exact f ormula for the radiation of a moving quark in N=4 super Yang Mills,
D. Correa, J. Henn, J. Maldacena and A. Sever, “An exact f ormula for the radiation of a moving quark in N=4 super Yang Mills,” JHEP 06 (2012), 048 [arXiv:1202.4455 [hep-th]]
2012 arXiv
-
[16]
Exact results fo r static and radiative fields of a quark in N=4 super Yang-Mills,
B. Fiol, B. Garolera and A. Lewkowycz, “Exact results fo r static and radiative fields of a quark in N=4 super Yang-Mills,” JHEP 05 (2012), 093 [arXiv:1202.5292 [hep-th]]
2012 arXiv
-
[17]
Radiation and a dynamical UV/IR connection in AdS/CFT,
C. A. Ag´ on, A. Guijosa and J. F. Pedraza, “Radiation and a dynamical UV/IR connection in AdS/CFT,” JHEP 06 (2014), 043 [arXiv:1402.5961 [hep-th]]
2014 arXiv
-
[18]
Exact Brem sstrahlung Function in N = 2 Superconformal Field Theories,
B. Fiol, E. Gerchkovitz and Z. Komargodski, “Exact Brem sstrahlung Function in N = 2 Superconformal Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no.8, 081601 (2016) [arXiv:1510.01332 [hep-th]]. – 28 –
2016 arXiv
-
[19]
On scalar radiation,
B. Fiol and J. Mart ´ ınez-Montoya, “On scalar radiation,” JHEP 03 (2020), 087 [arXiv:1907.08161 [hep-th]]
2020 arXiv
-
[20]
Emitte d Radiation and Geometry,
L. Bianchi, M. Bill` o, F. Galvagno and A. Lerda, “Emitte d Radiation and Geometry,” JHEP 01, 075 (2020) [arXiv:1910.06332 [hep-th]]
2020 arXiv
-
[21]
Energy conditions and their c osmological implications,
M. Visser and C. Barcelo, “Energy conditions and their c osmological implications,” [arXiv:gr-qc/0001099 [gr-qc]]
-
[22]
P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A167, 148 (1938)
1938
-
[23]
Classical charged particles,
F. Rohrlich, “Classical charged particles,” Addison- Wesley, 1990
1990
-
[24]
The classical theory of fields,
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, “The classical theory of fields,” Addison, Reading, Mass., 1962
1962
-
[25]
Splitting of the maxwell tensor - radia tion reaction without advanced fields,
C. Teitelboim, “Splitting of the maxwell tensor - radia tion reaction without advanced fields,” Phys. Rev. D 1 (1970), 1572-1582 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 2 (1970), 1763-1763]
1970
-
[26]
An Introduction to the Lorentz-Dirac equa tion,
E. Poisson, “An Introduction to the Lorentz-Dirac equa tion,” [arXiv:gr-qc/9912045 [gr-qc]]
-
[27]
Radiation reaction reexa mined: Bound momentum and Schott term,
D. V. Gal’tsov and P. Spirin, “Radiation reaction reexa mined: Bound momentum and Schott term,” Grav. Cosmol. 12 (2006), 1-10 [arXiv:0405121 [hep-th]]
2006
-
[28]
Colliders and conformal interfaces,
M. Meineri, J. Penedones and A. Rousset, “Colliders and conformal interfaces,” JHEP 02 (2020), 138 [arXiv:1904.10974 [hep-th]]
2020 arXiv
-
[29]
Energy R eflection and Transmission at 2D Holographic Interfaces,
C. Bachas, S. Chapman, D. Ge and G. Policastro, “Energy R eflection and Transmission at 2D Holographic Interfaces,” Phys. Rev. Let t. 125 (2020) no.23, 231602 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.231602 [arXiv:2006 .11333 [hep-th]]
2020 doi
-
[30]
Steady states o f holographic interfaces,
C. Bachas, Z. Chen and V. Papadopoulos, “Steady states o f holographic interfaces,” JHEP 11 (2021), 095 [arXiv:2107.00965 [hep-th]]
2021 arXiv
-
[31]
Double brane holographic model dual to 2d ICFTs,
S. A. Baig and A. Karch, “Double brane holographic model dual to 2d ICFTs,” JHEP 10 (2022), 022 [arXiv:2206.01752 [hep-th]]
2022 arXiv
-
[32]
Energy Transport for Thick Holographic Branes,
C. Bachas, S. Baiguera, S. Chapman, G. Policastro and T. Schwartzman, “Energy Transport for Thick Holographic Branes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) no.2, 021601 [arXiv:2212.14058 [hep-th]]
2023 arXiv
-
[33]
Conformal anomaly of subman ifold observables in AdS / CFT correspondence,
C. R. Graham and E. Witten, “Conformal anomaly of subman ifold observables in AdS / CFT correspondence,” Nucl. Phys. B 546 (1999), 52-64 [arXiv:hep-th/9901021 [hep-th]]
1999 arXiv
-
[34]
Bianchi, M
L. Bianchi, M. Meineri, R. C. Myers and M. Smolkin, JHEP 07 (2016), 076 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2016)076 [arXiv:1511.06713 [hep-th ]]
2016 arXiv
-
[35]
Fro m the Weyl Anomaly to Entropy of Two-Dimensional Boundaries and Defects,
K. Jensen, A. O’Bannon, B. Robinson and R. Rodgers, “Fro m the Weyl Anomaly to Entropy of Two-Dimensional Boundaries and Defects,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) no.24, 241602 [arXiv:1812.08745 [hep-th]]. – 29 –
2019 arXiv
-
[36]
Cent ral charges of 2d superconformal defects,
A. Chalabi, A. O’Bannon, B. Robinson and J. Sisti, “Cent ral charges of 2d superconformal defects,” JHEP 05 (2020), 095 [arXiv:2003.02857 [hep-th]]
2020 arXiv
-
[37]
Weyl anomalies of four dimensional conformal boundaries and defects,
A. Chalabi, C. P. Herzog, A. O’Bannon, B. Robinson and J. Sisti, “Weyl anomalies of four dimensional conformal boundaries and defects,” JHE P 02 (2022), 166 [arXiv:2111.14713 [hep-th]]
2022 arXiv
-
[38]
Half-BPS supergravity solutions and superalgebras,
E. D’Hoker, J. Estes, M. Gutperle, D. Krym and P. Sorba, “ Half-BPS supergravity solutions and superalgebras,” JHEP 12, 047 (2008) [arXiv:0810.1484 [hep-th]]
2008 arXiv
-
[39]
Janus solutions in six -dimensional gauged supergravity,
M. Gutperle, J. Kaidi and H. Raj, “Janus solutions in six -dimensional gauged supergravity,” JHEP 12, 018 (2017) [arXiv:1709.09204 [hep-th]]
2017 arXiv
-
[41]
Supersymmetries and Their Representations,
W. Nahm, “Supersymmetries and Their Representations, ” Nucl. Phys. B 135, 149 (1978)
1978
-
[42]
Restrictions imposed by superconformal invariance on quantum field theories,
S. Minwalla, “Restrictions imposed by superconformal invariance on quantum field theories,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 783-851 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9712074 [hep-th]]
1998 arXiv
-
[43]
Mult iplets of Superconformal Symmetry in Diverse Dimensions,
C. Cordova, T. T. Dumitrescu and K. Intriligator, “Mult iplets of Superconformal Symmetry in Diverse Dimensions,” JHEP 03, 163 (2019) [arXiv:1612.00809 [hep-th]]
2019 arXiv
-
[44]
String theory. Vol. 2: Superstring the ory and beyond,
J. Polchinski, “String theory. Vol. 2: Superstring the ory and beyond,” Cambridge University Press, 2007
2007
-
[45]
Wilson Loops in 5d N= 1 SCFTs and AdS/CFT,
B. Assel, J. Estes and M. Yamazaki, “Wilson Loops in 5d N= 1 SCFTs and AdS/CFT,” Annales Henri Poincare 15, 589-632 (2014) [arXiv:1212.1202 [hep-th]]
2014 arXiv
-
[46]
AdS 2 solutions and their massive IIA origin,
G. Dibitetto and N. Petri, “AdS 2 solutions and their massive IIA origin,” JHEP 05, 107 (2019) [arXiv:1811.11572 [hep-th]]
2019 arXiv
-
[47]
Holographic line defects in F( 4) gauged supergravity,
K. Chen and M. Gutperle, “Holographic line defects in F( 4) gauged supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D 100, no.12, 126015 (2019) [arXiv:1909.11127 [hep-th]]
2019 arXiv
-
[48]
Wilson loops in 5d long quiver gauge the ories,
C. F. Uhlemann, “Wilson loops in 5d long quiver gauge the ories,” JHEP 09, 145 (2020) [arXiv:2006.01142 [hep-th]]
2020 arXiv
-
[49]
Drukker, D
N. Drukker, D. Trancanelli, L. Bianchi, M. S. Bianchi, D . H. Correa, V. Forini, L. Griguolo, M. Leoni, F. Levkovich-Maslyuk and G. Nagaoka, et al. J. Phys. A 53 (2020) no.17, 173001 doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab5d50 [arXi v:1910.00588 [hep-th]]
2020 arXiv
-
[50]
Surface operators in the Kleba nov-Witten theory,
E. Koh and S. Yamaguchi, “Surface operators in the Kleba nov-Witten theory,” JHEP 06, 070 (2009) [arXiv:0904.1460 [hep-th]]
2009 arXiv
-
[51]
Defect multiplets o f N = 1 supersymmetry in 4d,
N. Drukker, I. Shamir and C. Vergu, “Defect multiplets o f N = 1 supersymmetry in 4d,” JHEP 01, 034 (2018) [arXiv:1711.03455 [hep-th]]
2018 arXiv
-
[52]
Flavored surface defects in 4d N = 1 SCFTs,
S. S. Razamat, “Flavored surface defects in 4d N = 1 SCFTs,” Lett. Math. Phys. 109, no.6, 1377-1395 (2019) [arXiv:1808.09509 [hep-th]]. – 30 –
2019 arXiv
-
[53]
Gauge Theory, Ramification, And The Geometric Langlands Program,
S. Gukov and E. Witten, “Gauge Theory, Ramification, And The Geometric Langlands Program,” [arXiv:hep-th/0612073 [hep-th]]
-
[54]
Bubbling surface operators a nd S-duality,
J. Gomis and S. Matsuura, “Bubbling surface operators a nd S-duality,” JHEP 06, 025 (2007) [arXiv:0704.1657 [hep-th]]
2007 arXiv
-
[55]
Rigid Surface Operators,
S. Gukov and E. Witten, “Rigid Surface Operators,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 14, no.1, 87-178 (2010) [arXiv:0804.1561 [hep-th]]
2010 arXiv
-
[56]
Bootstrappi ng the superconformal index with surface defects,
D. Gaiotto, L. Rastelli and S. S. Razamat, “Bootstrappi ng the superconformal index with surface defects,” JHEP 01, 022 (2013) [arXiv:1207.3577 [hep-th]]
2013 arXiv
-
[57]
M2-brane surface operators an d gauge theory dualities in Toda,
J. Gomis and B. Le Floch, “M2-brane surface operators an d gauge theory dualities in Toda,” JHEP 04, 183 (2016) [arXiv:1407.1852 [hep-th]]
2016 arXiv
-
[58]
AGT correspondence for surface operators ,
B. Le Floch, “AGT correspondence for surface operators ,”PhD thesis, Ecole Normale Superieure (2015)
2015
-
[59]
The Selfdual str ing soliton,
P. S. Howe, N. D. Lambert and P. C. West, “The Selfdual str ing soliton,” Nucl. Phys. B 515, 203-216 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9709014 [hep-th]]
1998 arXiv
-
[60]
Weyl anomaly for Wilso n surfaces,
M. Henningson and K. Skenderis, “Weyl anomaly for Wilso n surfaces,” JHEP 06, 012 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9905163 [hep-th]]
1999 arXiv
-
[61]
M-theory So lutions Invariant under D(2, 1; γ) ⊕ D(2, 1; γ),
C. Bachas, E. D’Hoker, J. Estes and D. Krym, “M-theory So lutions Invariant under D(2, 1; γ) ⊕ D(2, 1; γ),” Fortsch. Phys. 62, 207-254 (2014) [arXiv:1312.5477 [hep-th]]
2014 arXiv
-
[62]
Surface opera tors in the 6d N = (2, 0) theory,
N. Drukker, M. Probst and M. Tr´ epanier, “Surface opera tors in the 6d N = (2, 0) theory,” J. Phys. A 53, no.36, 365401 (2020) [arXiv:2003.12372 [hep-th]]
2020 arXiv
-
[63]
Searching for surface defect CFTs within AdS 3,
F. Faedo, Y. Lozano and N. Petri, “Searching for surface defect CFTs within AdS 3,” JHEP 11, 052 (2020) [arXiv:2007.16167 [hep-th]]
2020 arXiv
-
[64]
Deconstruction and surface defects in 6d CFTs,
A. Conti, G. Dibitetto, Y. Lozano, N. Petri and A. Ram ´ ır ez, “Deconstruction and surface defects in 6d CFTs,” JHEP 11, 131 (2024) [arXiv:2407.21627 [hep-th]]
2024 arXiv
-
[65]
Line and surface defects in 5D N = 2 SCFT from matter-coupled F(4) gauged supergravity,
P. Karndumri, “Line and surface defects in 5D N = 2 SCFT from matter-coupled F(4) gauged supergravity,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.12, 1268 (2024) [arXiv:2406.18946 [hep-th]]
2024 arXiv
-
[66]
Surface defects in holo graphic 5d SCFTs,
M. Gutperle and C. F. Uhlemann, “Surface defects in holo graphic 5d SCFTs,” JHEP 04, 134 (2021) [arXiv:2012.14547 [hep-th]]
2021 arXiv
-
[67]
3d defects in 5d: RG flows and defect F-maximization,
L. Santilli and C. F. Uhlemann, “3d defects in 5d: RG flows and defect F-maximization,” JHEP 06, 136 (2023) [arXiv:2305.01004 [hep-th]]
2023 arXiv
-
[68]
Supergravity descriptio n of field theories on curved manifolds and a no go theorem,
J. M. Maldacena and C. Nunez, “Supergravity descriptio n of field theories on curved manifolds and a no go theorem,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16, 822-855 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0007018 [hep-th]]
2001 arXiv
-
[69]
The Gravity duals of N=2 su perconformal field theories,
D. Gaiotto and J. Maldacena, “The Gravity duals of N=2 su perconformal field theories,” JHEP 10, 189 (2012) [arXiv:0904.4466 [hep-th]]
2012 arXiv
-
[70]
M5-branes wrapped on a spindle,
P. Ferrero, J. P. Gauntlett, D. Martelli and J. Sparks, “ M5-branes wrapped on a spindle,” JHEP 11 (2021), 002 [arXiv:2105.13344 [hep-th]]. – 31 –
2021 arXiv
-
[71]
A note on co-dimension 2 defec ts in N=4,d=7 gauged supergravity,
M. Gutperle and N. Klein, “A note on co-dimension 2 defec ts in N=4,d=7 gauged supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 984 (2022), 115969 [arXiv:2203.13839 [hep-th]]
2022 arXiv
-
[72]
Holographic 6d co -dimension 2 defect solutions in M-theory,
M. Gutperle, N. Klein and D. Rathore, “Holographic 6d co -dimension 2 defect solutions in M-theory,” JHEP 11 (2023), 191 [arXiv:2304.12899 [hep-th]]
2023 arXiv
-
[73]
Supersymmetric Wilson loops,
K. Zarembo, “Supersymmetric Wilson loops,” Nucl. Phys . B 643 (2002), 157-171 [arXiv:hep-th/0205160 [hep-th]]
2002 arXiv
-
[74]
Causality Constraint s in Conformal Field Theory,
T. Hartman, S. Jain and S. Kundu, “Causality Constraint s in Conformal Field Theory,” JHEP 05 (2016), 099 [arXiv:1509.00014 [hep-th]]
2016 arXiv
-
[75]
TASI Lectures on Conformal Field The ory in Lorentzian Signature,
D. Simmons-Duffin, “TASI Lectures on Conformal Field The ory in Lorentzian Signature,” 2019
2019
-
[76]
Supergravity,
D. Z. Freedman, A. Van Proeyen, “Supergravity,” Cambri dge University Press 2012
2012
-
[77]
Majorana spinors,
J. Figueroa-’ OFarrill, “Majorana spinors,” www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~jmf/Teaching/Lectures/Majorana.pdf
-
[78]
Dictionary on Li e superalgebras,
L. Frappat, P. Sorba and A. Sciarrino, “Dictionary on Li e superalgebras,” [arXiv:hep-th/9607161 [hep-th]]
-
[79]
Surface operators in the 6D N = (2, 0) theory,
M. Tr´ epanier, “Surface operators in the 6D N = (2, 0) theory,” KCL thesis (2021). – 32 –
2021
Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.