Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Topological A-Model for $AdS_5\times S^5$ Superstring and the Maldacena Conjecture

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A topological A-model on CP^{3|4} is proposed as the worldsheet dual of N=4 super-Yang-Mills, reproducing free amplitudes at zero radius and the 't Hooft expansion at finite radius.

desk verdict Genuine zero-radius calculation plus a clearly labeled finite-radius conjecture: the Maldacena derivation is not yet in hand, but this is a serious proposal worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10907 v2 pith:B6SPRQDF submitted 2025-06-12 hep-th

Nathan Berkovits (ICTP-SAIFR/IFT-UNESP , Sao Paulo) This is my paper
classification hep-th PACS 11.25.Tq
keywords topologicalA-modelMaldacenaconjectureAdS5xsuperstringN=4super-Yang-MillspurespinorformalismCP^{3|4}supertwistorspacegaugedlinearsigmamodel'tHooftexpansion
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 proposes a topological A-model built from $CP^{{3|4}}$ supertwistor variables as a worldsheet description of the AdS_5 × $S^{5}$ superstring. At zero AdS radius, the paper argues, the topological amplitudes of the corresponding gauged linear $\sigma$ model reproduce free N=4 d=4 super-Yang-Mills amplitudes: a closed string vertex dual to a trace of k SYM fields is a boundary state with k edges, and the propagator between two such states is exactly the harmonic-superspace propagator $\mathrm{sdet}^{-1}(X^{(1)} - X^{(2)})$. Turning on a Fayet-Iliopoulos term of coefficient $R^4 = g_{YM}^2 N$ is then claimed to modify the free amplitudes into the standard 't Hooft expansion of perturbative super-Yang-Mills, with the genus expansion produced by summing over gluing patterns of these boundary states. If correct, this gives a worldsheet derivation of the Maldacena conjecture at small radius from a topological string, and places that topological string and the usual pure spinor AdS_5 × $S^{5}$ superstring as two different gauge-fixings of a single G/G principal chiral $\sigma$ model.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a gauged linear $\sigma$ model for the supertwistor space $CP^{{3|4}}$, with a U(1) N=(2,2) gauge field V and chiral/antichiral superfields $\Phi^\Sigma$, $\bar\Phi_\Sigma$; after A-twisting, the path integral reduces to integrals over $(\Lambda, \bar\Lambda)$ zero modes. Closed string vertex operators for traces of k SYM fields are represented as k-sided boundary states glued together along infinitesimally thin edges, with vertex operators $V_{(r,a)} = \exp[\pm \bar\Lambda^{(r,a)}_I (X^{(r,a)})^I_I \Lambda^{I(r,a)}]$ that impose the D-brane boundary condition $\Lambda_I = i X_I^I \bar\Lambda_I$. The key identities are the propagator $\mathrm{sdet}^{-1}(X^{(1)} - X^{(2)})$ and the FI deformation: $-R^2 \int D$ shifts the action by $2\pi R^2 E$ where E is the instanton number, and the deformation is captured by boundary states $U_2$ and $U_3$ whose PSU(2,2|4) invariance forces coincidences among $\Lambda, \bar\Lambda$ that reproduce the cubic super-Yang-Mills vertices with bonus U(1) charge $\pm 1$. The assumption $c = 2\pi$ then converts the exponential factors into the standard genus and vertex weights of the 't Hooft expansion.

What would settle it

Explicitly evaluate the four-point amplitude at one loop from (3.8)-(3.9) and compare with the known one-loop N=4 super-Yang-Mills result: any mismatch in the coefficient of the box integral, or any nonzero contribution from a boundary state $U_k$ with $k \geq 4$ at a kinematic configuration where not all $p_r \cdot p_s$ vanish, would falsify the reduction to the 't Hooft expansion. A more direct test is to compute the constant $c$ in the $U_2$ gluing from first principles and check that it equals $2\pi$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the $CP^{{3|4}}$ gauged linear $\sigma$ model with action $S = \int d^2z\, d^2\kappa_+ d^2\kappa_-\, (\Phi^\Sigma e^V \Phi_\Sigma - R^2 V)$ is a topological A-model for the AdS_5 × $S^{5}$ superstring, and that its amplitudes compute N=4 super-Yang-Mills perturbation theory. At R=0, after regularizing the four zero-mode integrals, the amplitude is $A_0 = \sum_G N^{2-2G} \sum_{S_G} \prod_k \mathrm{sdet}^{-1}(X^{I(k_1)}_I - X^{I(k_2)}_I)$, which matches free SYM scattering because the harmonic-superspace propagator of two superfields $W(X^{(1)}), W(X^{(2)})$ is $\mathrm{sdet}^{-1}(X^{(1)} - X^{(2)})$. The paper then claims that switching on $R^2$, with $R^4 = g_{YM}^2 N$, is equivalent to inserting a PSU(2,2|4)-invariant boundary state $U = U_0 + U_1 + \ldots$ into the worldsheet, that PSU(2,2|4) invariance forces only the two-edge and three-edge states $U_2$ and $U_3$ to contribute, and that with the normalization $c = 2\pi$ the resulting amplitude (3.9) is exactly $\sum_G (g_{YM}^2)^{2G-2} (g_{YM}^2 N)^V$ times integrated superpropagators — the 't Hooft expansion of perturbative super-Yang-Mills. The paper further argues that the topological model and the pure spinor AdS_5 × $S^{5}$ worldsheet action are related by different gauge-fixings of a G/G principal chiral $\sigma$ model with $G = \mathrm{PSU}(2,2|4)$.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's most fragile assumption is that turning on the radius $R^2$ acts on the worldsheet only through two special boundary states $U_2$ and $U_3$, and that these glue together with exactly the strength $c = 2\pi$; if additional boundary states contribute at generic momenta or the constant differs, the finite-radius amplitude does not reduce to the 't Hooft expansion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If (3.9) holds, perturbative N=4 super-Yang-Mills amplitudes are obtained from a topological string whose worldsheet is a glued surface of boundary states, with genus G weighted by $N^{2-2G}$ and each interaction vertex weighted by $g_{YM}^2 N$.
  • The identification of closed-string vertex operators with boundary states gives a concrete F-type closed/open duality for the AdS_5 × S^5 string, in the sense of the cited triality work, mapping faces of Feynman diagrams to worldsheet faces.
  • The G/G principal chiral sigma model becomes a common parent of the topological A-model, the pure spinor AdS_5 × S^5 action, and possibly of other superstring backgrounds obtained by small-radius deformations.
  • The bonus U(1) charge of N=4 super-Yang-Mills is realized geometrically: the two possible three-edge boundary states correspond to the $\pm 1$-charge cubic vertices of self-dual and anti-self-dual gluons.
  • The model replaces the integral over worldsheet moduli in the genus expansion by a discrete sum $S_G$ over gluing patterns, offering a new computational scheme for SYM perturbation theory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the derivation is completed, the G/G principal chiral sigma model could be more fundamental than any fixed superstring background action, with different backgrounds arising from different gauge fixings; the paper hints at this but does not prove it.
  • The same boundary-state machinery may yield topological-string prescriptions for Wilson loops or for amplitudes with insertions of higher-dimensional operators, since the $U_k$ states beyond $k=3$ are argued to be measure-zero at generic momenta, a claim that could be tested in explicit kinematic configurations.
  • The result suggests that the small-radius Maldacena duality is essentially a symmetry statement: the FI coefficient $R^4 = g_{YM}^2 N$ is what converts free SYM into interacting SYM on the worldsheet, and any alternative sigma model with the same PSU(2,2|4)-invariant $U_2$ and $U_3$ boundary states would reproduce the same expansion.
  • A direct check would be to compute the one-loop four-gluon amplitude from (3.8) and compare with the known N=4 SYM box integral; the paper does not perform this explicit comparison.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a topological A-model based on a CP^{3|4} gauged linear sigma model as a worldsheet description of the AdS_5×S^5 superstring. At zero 't Hooft coupling the model is claimed to reproduce free N=4 d=4 super-Yang-Mills amplitudes: for a surface built by gluing k_r-sided boundary states, the amplitude (3.1)-(3.3) becomes a product of harmonic-superspace propagators sdet^{-1}(X^{(1)}-X^{(2)}). At finite radius, turning on a Fayet-Iliopoulos term with R^4=g_YM^2 N is argued to insert PSU(2,2|4)-invariant boundary states U_2 and U_3; after setting c=2π and rescaling external operators by R^{2k-4}, Eq. (3.9) is claimed to reproduce the 't Hooft expansion of perturbative super-Yang-Mills. Section 4 relates the model to the pure spinor AdS_5×S^5 string through different gauge fixings of a G/G principal chiral sigma model.

Significance. If fully established, the zero-coupling calculation would provide a clean twistor-string-like realization of free N=4 SYM correlation functions, and the finite-coupling claim would be a major step toward a worldsheet derivation of the Maldacena conjecture. The paper is clearly written, the free-field computation (3.1)-(3.3) is concrete, and the G/G gauge-fixing relation in Section 4 connects the proposal to earlier work in an interesting way. However, the central finite-radius claim rests on several unproved inputs: the U_2/U_3 truncation, the measure-zero argument for k>3, and the tuned constant c=2π. No finite-coupling SYM amplitude is actually computed, so the advertised reproduction of the 't Hooft expansion is not yet demonstrated.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, after Eq. (3.3)] The finite-coupling result is not derived. The sentence "it will now be claimed that PSU(2,2|4) invariance implies that only boundary states with 2 or 3 edges will contribute" is an assertion, not a proof, and the subsequent consistency remark about local super-Yang-Mills couplings is heuristic. No BRST or PSU(2,2|4) cohomology computation is given that rules out U_k for k>3, and the relative normalization of U_2 and U_3 is not fixed. Since the R-power counting in (3.9) assumes every interaction is a 3-edge boundary state, this truncation is load-bearing and must be justified.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (3.7)] The claim that boundary states with more than three edges "contribute measure zero to the scattering amplitude" is not supported. The condition p_r·p_s=0 for all pairs is stated without derivation from the gluing conditions, and no argument is given that the integral over the X variables has support only on such a set. Because the exclusion of all higher vertices is necessary for the identification with a cubic 't Hooft expansion, this requires a precise proof or a counterexample.
  3. [Section 3, Eqs. (3.4), (3.8), (3.9)] The constant c in the U_2 contribution is introduced as "some undetermined constant" and later set to c=2π by assumption. This cancellation is essential: any other value of c inserts the factor e^{(c-2π)R^2 E} into (3.9), which is non-polynomial in λ=R^4 and changes the amplitude at every order. The paper should compute c from the U_2 gluing integral rather than fix it by the desired answer.
  4. [Section 3, Eqs. (3.8)-(3.9); Section 4] Even if the U_2/U_3 truncation and c=2π are granted, no finite-coupling amplitude is actually evaluated. There is no explicit example, such as a four-point tree-level or one-loop correlator, showing that the U_3 gluing reproduces the super-Yang-Mills cubic vertex with the correct coefficient and no extra momentum-dependent factor. The relation of the CP^{3|4} A-model to the pure spinor AdS_5×S^5 string in Section 4 is also only a gauge-fixing sketch relying on [15,16]; no quantum equivalence of amplitudes is shown. These identifications are proposals rather than derivations.
  5. [Section 2, footnote 2] The assumption that at R^2=0 only the Coulomb branch of the gauged linear sigma model is present is an input that is crucial for the free-field result (3.3). Since the same GLSM is known to have a Higgs branch [11,4], this restriction should be justified or its physical meaning explained; otherwise the match with harmonic-superspace amplitudes may be selecting the desired branch by hand.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3] "Fayet-Iliopoulis" should be "Fayet-Iliopoulos".
  2. [Section 4] "Fadeev-Popov" should be "Faddeev-Popov".
  3. [Section 4] The coset notation PSU(2,2|4)/SO(4,1)×SO(5) should be parenthesized as PSU(2,2|4)/(SO(4,1)×SO(5)) for clarity.
  4. [Section 3, Eq. (3.8)] The symbol F′ is introduced as the number of U_3 insertions, while F is defined later as the total number of faces; the distinction should be clarified at first use.
  5. [Section 3, Eq. (3.9)] The phrase "using that each face in F′ has 3 edges" is ambiguous because F′ is a number, not a set of faces; rephrase as "using that each U_3 boundary state has three edges".

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The finite-radius reduction to the 't Hooft expansion is enforced by assuming c=2π and by rescaling external operators; the AdS5×S5 identification also leans on prior self-citations. The zero-radius propagator computation is independent and non-circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Eqs. (3.8)-(3.9)]
    "To compare (3.8) with the usual super-Yang-Mills perturbative amplitude, multiply each of the external vertex operators with k edges by a factor of R2k−4. After rescaling the external operators in this manner, using that each face in F ′ has 3 edges, and assuming that c = 2π, the amplitude of (3.8) can be expressed as [3.9]"

    The constant c was left undetermined just above the quoted passage: 'gluing in the boundary state R2∫d2zU2 simply multiplies each edge on the original surface by a factor of cR2 where c is some undetermined constant.' Equation (3.8) contains e^{−2πR^2E} e^{cR^2E}(R^2)^{F′}; setting c=2π cancels the exponential by hand. The surviving (R^4)^{E−F} is then rewritten as (g_YM^2)^{2G−2}(g_YM^2 N)^V using R^4=g_YM^2 N, which was already imposed in the action (2.1). Thus the advertised 't Hooft powers are not derived from the model; they are manufactured by choosing c and by rescaling external operators. The finite-radius amplitude is a fitted restatement of the desired expansion, not an independent prediction.

  2. other [Section 3, after Eq. (3.3), around Eqs. (3.6)-(3.7)]
    "However, it will now be claimed that PSU(2,2|4) invariance implies that only boundary states with 2 or 3 edges will contribute. Since each edge corresponds to a super-Yang-Mills field, this is consistent with the fact that there are no local PSU(2,2|4)-invariant couplings of super-Yang-Mills fields with more than 3 fields."

    The restriction to U2 and U3, the identification of the algebraic conditions in (3.6) with 'the cubic super-Yang-Mills vertex', and the assertion that Uk>3 contribute 'measure zero' are justified by consistency with the known super-Yang-Mills interaction structure rather than derived from an explicit computation in the topological A-model. The finite-radius vertex content is therefore put in by hand: the model is designed so that the U3 gluing reproduces cubic SYM vertices, and then this identification is used to claim agreement with the SYM 't Hooft expansion.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4, after Eq. (4.2)]
    "In [15], it was shown that this topological A-model can be obtained by gauge-fixing a G/G principal chiral sigma model where G = PSU(2,2|4). ... Moreover, it was shown in [16] that the original AdS5 × S5 worldsheet action of [17] using the pure spinor formalism can also be obtained by gauge-fixing the G/G principal chiral sigma model action of (4.2)."

    The paper's central identification of the proposed CP^{3|4} topological A-model with the AdS5×S5 superstring is not derived in this paper; it rests on [15], [16], and [17], all of which involve the present author. The G/G gauge-fixing relation between the CP^{3|4} model and the pure spinor AdS action is load-bearing for the title claim, and it is carried entirely by prior self-citations rather than by an independent derivation or external check presented here.

full rationale

The zero-radius amplitude is a genuine, self-contained calculation: the model's boundary-state construction leads to Eq. (3.3), whose harmonic-superspace propagator sdet^{-1}(X^{(1)}-X^{(2)}) is matched to a known result from Howe-West. That part is not circular. The circularity enters in the finite-radius 'derivation' of the 't Hooft expansion. The parameter c in the U2 insertion is explicitly undetermined, and the exponential e^{-2πR^2E} is cancelled only by 'assuming c=2π'. Since R^4=g_YM^2 N was already put into the action, the final powers of g_YM and N are an input rather than an output. The restriction to two- and three-edge boundary states and their identification with SYM vertices are likewise justified by the known SYM interaction structure. Finally, the advertised relation to the usual superstring is inherited from earlier Berkovits papers, making the central identification self-citation-dependent. Weighing all this, the central finite-radius prediction partially reduces to construction and tuning, but the zero-radius content and the purely topological formulation retain independent substance, so the score is 6 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The invented objects are boundary states and gluing rules, which are model-building devices rather than physical entities, so they are tracked as assumptions and free parameters instead.

free parameters (2)
  • Fayet-Iliopoulos coefficient R^4 = R^4 = g_YM^2 N
    Set equal to the 't Hooft coupling by fiat in Eq. (2.1) so that the finite-radius amplitudes scale as SYM perturbation theory; it is not derived from the string action.
  • Boundary-state constant c = c = 2 pi
    Undetermined constant from the U2 boundary state contribution; set to 2π in Eq. (3.9) to reproduce the standard powers of g_YM^2 and N.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper At R^2=0 only the Coulomb branch of the gauged linear sigma model is present.
    Assumed in footnote 2; needed to discard the Higgs branch and justify the boundary-state analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper The R^2 deformation can be represented as insertion of a PSU(2,2|4)-invariant boundary state U, and only U2 and U3 contribute.
    Stated as a claim in Section 3 after Eq. (3.3); central to obtaining cubic vertices and the 't Hooft expansion.
  • domain assumption Ribbon-graph edges are infinitesimally thin and fields on adjacent faces are related by U(1) gauge transformations satisfying (2.4)-(2.5).
    Defines the gluing prescription; without it the boundary-state topology and vortex charge assignments are not fixed.
  • ad hoc to paper For k>3 edge boundary states contribute measure zero because they force p_r·p_s=0 for all pairs.
    Asserted without derivation in Section 3, used to eliminate higher-order interactions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Topological A-Model for $AdS_5\times S^5$ Superstring and the Maldacena Conjecture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B6SPRQDF

@misc{pith2026250610907,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Topological A-Model for $AdS_5\times S^5$ Superstring and the Maldacena Conjecture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B6SPRQDF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10907}
}
abstract

A topological A-model constructed from $CP^{3|4}$ supertwistor variables is proposed for the $AdS_5\times S^5$ superstring. At zero $AdS$ radius, free N=4 d=4 super-Yang-Mills amplitudes are reproduced by topological amplitudes of the corresponding gauged linear sigma model where the closed superstring vertex operator for a trace of $k$ super-Yang-Mills fields is described by a boundary state with $k$ edges. After turning on a Fayet-Iliopoulis term in the sigma model with coefficient $R^2 =\sqrt{g_{YM}^2 N}$, the topological amplitudes are claimed to reproduce the 't Hooft expansion of perturbative super-Yang-Mills amplitudes. Finally, this topological A-model is related to the usual $AdS_5\times S^5$ superstring in the pure spinor formalism.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A New Limit of the AdS_5 x S^5 Sigma Model

    N. Berkovits, “A New Limit of the AdS(5) x S**5 Sigma Model ,” JHEP 08, 011 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0703282 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  2. [2]

    Towards a Worldsheet Derivation of the Maldacena Conjecture

    N. Berkovits and C. Vafa, “Towards a Worldsheet Derivati on of the Maldacena Con- jecture,” JHEP 03, 031 (2008) [arXiv:0711.1799 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  3. [3]

    String Dual to Free N=4 Supersymmetric Yang- Mills Theory,

    M. R. Gaberdiel and R. Gopakumar, “String Dual to Free N=4 Supersymmetric Yang- Mills Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, no.13, 131601 (2021) [arXiv:2104.08263 [hep-th]]; M. R. Gaberdiel and R. Gopakumar, “The worldsheet dual of fre e super Yang-Mills in 4D,” JHEP 11, 129 (2021) [arXiv:2105.10496 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    World sheet derivation of a large N duality,

    H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “World sheet derivation of a large N duality,” Nucl. Phys. B 641, 3-34 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0205297 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2002

  5. [5]

    A Paradigm of open / closed du ality: Liouville D-branes and the Kontsevich model,

    D. Gaiotto and L. Rastelli, “A Paradigm of open / closed du ality: Liouville D-branes and the Kontsevich model,” JHEP 07, 053 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0312196 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    Perturbative gauge theory as a string theory in twistor space,

    E. Witten, “Perturbative gauge theory as a string theory in twistor space,” Commun. Math. Phys. 252, 189-258 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0312171 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    N=2 strings and the twistorial Ca labi-Yau,

    A. Neitzke and C. Vafa, “N=2 strings and the twistorial Ca labi-Yau,” [arXiv:hep- th/0402128 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv

  8. [8]

    An Alternative string theory in twistor s pace for N=4 superYang- Mills,

    N. Berkovits, “An Alternative string theory in twistor s pace for N=4 superYang- Mills,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 011601 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0402045 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2004

Show all 19 references
  1. [9]

    Sketching a Proof of the Maldacena Conjec ture at Small Radius,

    N. Berkovits, “Sketching a Proof of the Maldacena Conjec ture at Small Radius,” JHEP 06 (2019), 111 [arXiv:1903.08264 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Deriving the Simplest Ga uge-String Duality – I: Open-Closed-Open Triality,

    R. Gopakumar and E. A. Mazenc, “Deriving the Simplest Ga uge-String Duality – I: Open-Closed-Open Triality,” [arXiv:2212.05999 [hep-th] ]

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    On the gauge theory / geometry correspondence,

    R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, “On the gauge theory / geometry correspondence,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 3, 1415-1443 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9811131 [hep-th]]

    1999 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Closed strings as imaginary D-branes,

    D. Gaiotto, N. Itzhaki and L. Rastelli, “Closed strings as imaginary D-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B 688, 70-100 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0304192 [hep-th]]

    2004 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Phases of N=2 theories in two-dimensions,

    E. Witten, “Phases of N=2 theories in two-dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B 403, 159-222 (1993) [arXiv:hep-th/9301042 [hep-th]]

    1993 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Nonperturbative Green’s func tions in theories with extended superconformal symmetry,

    P. S. Howe and P. C. West, “Nonperturbative Green’s func tions in theories with extended superconformal symmetry,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14 (1999), 2659-2674 [arXiv:hep-th/9509140 [hep-th]]

    1999 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Perturbative Super-Yang-Mills from th e Topological AdS(5) x S**5 Sigma Model,

    N. Berkovits, “Perturbative Super-Yang-Mills from th e Topological AdS(5) x S**5 Sigma Model,” JHEP 09, 088 (2008) [arXiv:0806.1960 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Simplifying and Extending the AdS(5) x S **5 Pure Spinor Formalism,

    N. Berkovits, “Simplifying and Extending the AdS(5) x S **5 Pure Spinor Formalism,” JHEP 09, 051 (2009) [arXiv:0812.5074 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Superstring vertex opera tors in an AdS(5) x S**5 background,

    N. Berkovits and O. Chandia, “Superstring vertex opera tors in an AdS(5) x S**5 background,” Nucl. Phys. B 596, 185-196 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0009168 [hep-th]]. 11

    2001 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Operator mapping between RNS a nd extended pure spinor formalisms for superstring,

    Y. Aisaka and Y. Kazama, “Operator mapping between RNS a nd extended pure spinor formalisms for superstring,” JHEP 08 (2003), 047 [arXiv:hep-th/0305221 [hep-th]]

    2003 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Topological Sigma Models,

    E. Witten, “Topological Sigma Models,” Commun. Math. P hys. 118, 411 (1988). 12

    1988

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.