Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 71 references

Generation structures and Yukawa couplings in magnetized $T^{2g}/\mathbb{Z}_N$ models

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs explicit zero-mode wave functions of every chirality on magnetized six-tori, reducing mixed-chirality modes to the standard theta function through an SO(3) rotation of the flux frame, and derives modular…

desk verdict Useful extension of magnetized-torus wave function methods to non-factorizable T^{2g}, with explicit mixed-chirality states and zero-mode counts, but the completeness of the single-function Ansatz is not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05645 v1 pith:2KC2AXVP submitted 2025-07-08 hep-th hep-ph

Tim Jeric , Tatsuo Kobayashi , Kaito Nasu , Shohei Takada This is my paper
classification hep-thhep-ph
keywords zero-modewavefunctionsmagnetizedtoruscompactificationYukawacouplingsmodularsymmetryorbifoldgenerationstructuremixedchiralityflux
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 constructs the zero-mode wave functions of a charged fermion on a six-torus with a generic magnetic flux background, including the mixed-chirality modes that cannot be obtained as products of three independent two-torus wave functions. Its central claim is that every such mode is the familiar all-positive $\theta$ function $\psi'^J_{+++}$ evaluated in a flux-rotated coordinate frame: $z' = \operatorname{Re} z + i R \operatorname{Im} z$ with $R = N^{-1}M = P U P^{-1}$. The rotation is fixed by the flux itself, so the result converts chirality data into geometry data, and then feeds directly into modular transformation laws, Yukawa overlap integrals, and zero-mode counting. The payoff is a concrete toolbox for low-energy effective field theory from magnetized orbifolds, including explicit three-generation spectra in $T^4/\mathbb{Z}_N$ and $T^6/\mathbb{Z}_{12}$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the flux-adapted frame rotation $R = N^{-1}M = PUP^{-1}$, with $U = \operatorname{diag}(\operatorname{sgn}\lambda_i)$ built from the signs of the flux eigenvalues and $P$ the diagonalizing $SO(3)$ rotation. It sends $z \mapsto z' = \operatorname{Re} z + iR\operatorname{Im} z$, turning any mixed-chirality zero mode into the all-positive $\theta$ function $\psi'_{+++}$; the same $R$ rotates the twist matrices and modular generators when projecting onto $\mathbb{Z}_N$ sectors. The argument relies on the commuting conditions $[N,\Omega] = [R,\Omega] = 0$ and on $R^2 = 1$, which make $\Omega' = \operatorname{Re}\Omega + iR\operatorname{Im}\Omega$ a legitimate complex structure and keep the metric invariant.

What would settle it

Numerically or analytically solve the mixed-chirality Dirac system (Eq. 31) for a generic non-factorizable flux and look for a zero mode in which the ratios $\psi_{1+}:\psi_{2+}:\psi_{3+}$ vary across the torus; any such mode would lie outside the proportionality Ansatz and invalidate the basis (Eq. 44). Equivalently, compare the total zero-mode number predicted here with the Atiyah–Singer index for the same flux, a comparison the paper leaves to future work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the rotation identity $\psi^J_{M,N}(z,\Omega) = \psi'^J_{+++}(z',\Omega')$, where $z' = \operatorname{Re} z + iR\operatorname{Im} z$, $\Omega' = \operatorname{Re}\Omega + iR\operatorname{Im}\Omega$, and $R = N^{-1}M = PUP^{-1}$ is the orthogonal matrix that makes the magnetic flux $F_{i\bar j} = \pi[N^T(\operatorname{Im}\Omega)^{-1}]_{ij}$ positive definite. In the rotated frame the zero mode is the standard $\theta$ function of the all-positive chirality sector, and the same function satisfies the Dirac equation and the torus boundary conditions in the original frame. The paper uses this identification to derive the $Sp(6,\mathbb{Z})$ modular transformation behavior, to express Yukawa couplings of arbitrary chirality as a $\theta$ function with character after Gaussian integration, and to count zero modes in each twisted sector of $T^4/\mathbb{Z}_N$ and $T^6/\mathbb{Z}_{12}$, where explicit three-generation spectra are exhibited.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes that in the mixed-chirality Dirac system every zero mode has its three excited components proportional to one common function $\psi$ through constant coefficients $\alpha_i$; the paper does not prove that no solution of the full system exists outside this Ansatz.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Explicit wave functions for mixed chirality become available on generic non-factorizable $T^6$ and $T^4$, so Yukawa couplings can be computed as closed theta-function expressions rather than left as index-theoretic counts.
  • The modular $S$-transformation of the rotated wave functions yields the unitary matrices $\rho_{JK}(ST\cdots)$ used to project onto $\mathbb{Z}_N$ sectors; once $S$ and $T$ behavior is known, the sector spectrum follows by taking traces.
  • The D-term SUSY condition on the effective scalar spectrum reduces to $|\lambda_I| = |\lambda_J| + |\lambda_K|$ on flux eigenvalues, giving a simple selection rule on allowed flux matrices.
  • Zero-mode counting in $T^4/\mathbb{Z}_N$ for $N = 2,3,4,6$ produces tabulated spectra, and in $T^6/\mathbb{Z}_{12}$ yields explicit three-generation distributions, e.g. $[3,0,2,0,3,0,0,0,3,0,1,0]$ at $\det N = 12$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same rotation trick should apply to nonzero Wilson lines and to $U(N)$ flux matrices, giving explicit multi-family wave functions ready for numerical quark and lepton mass matrices; the paper stops before those numerics.
  • A direct completeness test is to compare the total number of zero modes obtained from Eq. (44) with the Atiyah–Singer index for the same flux; the paper itself flags this index-theoretic check as future work, so a mismatch there would show the proportionality Ansatz misses modes.
  • Since $R$ is built from the flux, modular transformations act on $R$ as well as on $z$ and $\Omega$; tracking this action may reveal that the effective flavor symmetry is realized non-linearly on the flux parameter space.
  • If completeness holds, the structure suggests a general statement: on any magnetized torus, zero modes of arbitrary chirality are holomorphic theta functions in a flux-adapted complex structure, so orbifold projections for higher genus can be computed by the same rotating-frame recipe.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs explicit fermion zero-mode wave functions with arbitrary chirality on non-factorizable magnetized tori T^{2g} (g=2,3). The central construction, in Section 3, starts from the Dirac equation for mixed-chirality components and, under the Ansatz psi_{i+}=alpha_i psi (Eq. 31), reduces the system to a single function psi. The resulting wave functions psi^J_{M,N} are then related, via the rotation R=N^{-1}M= P U P^{-1}, to the known positive-chirality wave functions in a rotated coordinate system z' (Eq. 53). On this basis the paper derives modular transformation rules (Section 4), computes Yukawa couplings for different chirality assignments (Section 5), and counts zero modes in magnetized T^4/Z_N and T^6/Z_{12} orbifolds (Section 6), including explicit three-generation examples. Appendices B and C verify that the constructed functions satisfy the boundary conditions and Dirac equation.

Significance. If the completeness question is resolved, the paper would provide a substantial technical tool: explicit wave functions for all chirality sectors on non-factorizable magnetized tori, with modular transformation rules and Yukawa overlap integrals, plus concrete zero-mode spectra in orbifolds. The manuscript is careful in several respects: the Dirac equation and boundary conditions are verified explicitly in Appendices B and C; the Yukawa integral derivation in Appendix E is detailed; and the authors are transparent about the deferred Atiyah-Singer check in the Conclusion. The three-generation examples in T^6/Z_{12} are concrete and falsifiable. However, the unproven completeness of the Ansatz directly affects the claimed universality of the wave-function basis and hence the zero-mode counts, so the significance is currently conditional on closing that gap.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (31), and Conclusion (Section 7)] The paper states at the end of Section 3.1 that 'we therefore find all spinor wave functions' for the flux background in Eq. (34), but the construction relies on the Ansatz psi_{i+}=alpha_i psi for the three excited components. No proof is given that every zero mode of the full eight-component Dirac system (22) lies in the span of these states. This is not a formal subtlety: the total number of zero modes is fixed by the index theorem (or by line-bundle cohomology on T^6), and the authors explicitly defer this check to future work in the Conclusion. Since the zero-mode counts in Section 6 and the modular transformation rules in Section 4 are derived from this basis, an incomplete Ansatz would make those results partial. Please either prove completeness of the Ansatz for arbitrary signs of the flux eigenvalues, or compute the index and explicitly match it against the constructed basis, including the negative-chirality sector.
  2. [Section 6.8.2, Eqs. (201)-(209)] The three-generation examples in magnetized T^6/Z_{12} are presented by listing integer flux matrices N and matrices M, together with the resulting zero-mode numbers. The text states that these satisfy both the F-term and D-term SUSY conditions, but no explicit verification is shown. The D-term condition in Eq. (71), |lambda_I|=|lambda_J|+|lambda_K|, is load-bearing for the phenomenological claim that these are consistent three-generation models, and the convergence condition N Re(Omega)+i M Im(Omega) in H_3 is also not demonstrated for the listed M with non-integer entries. Please provide the eigenvalue checks (or a reference to where they appear) for each example in Eqs. (201), (203), (206), and (209).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (53)] The matrix R=N^{-1}M=PUP^{-1} is called an 'SO(3) rotation' in several places, but U=diag(sgn(F_{ii}^{diag})) can have determinant -1, making R a reflection rather than an SO(3) rotation; the abstract mentions 'SO(3) (or parity)' but the main text should consistently distinguish the two cases.
  2. [Section 5, Eqs. (95)-(103)] The notation M'_L, M'_R, (M'_H)^* overloads the earlier symbol M used in Eq. (47), and the relation between M' and M is easy to lose; please introduce distinct symbols (for example, A_L, A_R, A_H) or state the relation explicitly in one place.
  3. [Appendix H.5, Eq. (332)] The matrix entries in Eq. (332) are typeset with misplaced superscripts/subscripts (e.g., 'alpha1 s2 0 + alpha2 c2 0'), which makes the formula very hard to read; please typeset sin^2 phi_0 and cos^2 phi_0 properly and verify the (4,1) entry against Eq. (335).
  4. [Section 6.2, Eqs. (113)-(114)] The spinor representation S in Eq. (113) and the subsequent trace calculations use e^{2pi i k_i/N} for the Z_N twist, but the relation between the integers k_1,k_2 and the modular-origin angles in Appendix H (e.g., phi_0) is never made explicit; a short comment would help readers connect the two formulations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mixed-chirality wave-function construction is a verified solution of the Dirac equation, Eq. (53) is a coordinate identity rather than a fitted prediction, and the self-citations supply background machinery only; the deferred Atiyah-Singer check is a completeness gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation of the mixed-chirality wave functions in Sec. 3 is self-contained. The paper explicitly introduces the ansatz 'Following Ref. [10], we make Ansatz for the solution that these components can be written by a single function ψ, i.e., ψi+ = αiψ' (Eq. 31), then constructs explicit solutions ψ^J_{M,N} in Eqs. (44)–(46) and verifies in Appendices B and C that they satisfy both the boundary conditions and the Dirac equation. The central relation Eq. (53), ψ'^J_{+++}(z',Ω') = ψ^J_{M,N}(z,Ω), is not a prediction fitted to data: it is an algebraic identity obtained by substituting z' = Re z + iR Im z, R = N^{-1}M, and Ω' = Re Ω + iR Im Ω, so that N z' = N Re z + iM Im z and N Ω' = N Re Ω + iM Im Ω. The Yukawa couplings in Sec. 5 and the zero-mode counts in Sec. 6 are computed from these explicit wave functions and standard theta-transformation properties; they are not used to define the inputs. The paper does cite prior work by the same authors ([21,34,35,68]) for background material such as the modular transformation of theta functions, the positive-chirality spectrum, and the review of T^6/Z12, but the novel construction and the negative-chirality counts are carried out in this paper. Finally, the paper explicitly defers 'to verify the consistency with the Atiyah-Singer index theorem on orbfiolds' (Conclusion); this flags an unproven completeness assumption about the ansatz family, which is a correctness risk rather than a circular step, since the constructed functions are verified solutions and the open question is whether every zero mode has been captured.

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

The construction rests on standard theta-function and physical flux assumptions, plus a stated but unproven single-function Ansatz for mixed chirality. No new particles or forces are introduced. The model-building inputs (flux matrices in the T^6/Z_12 examples) are chosen by hand, not fitted to data.

free parameters (2)
  • q1, q2 (chirality-mixing coefficients) = defined via tan relations, e.g., q1 = -tan θ1 / cos θ2, q2 = tan θ2 (Eq. 37)
    These parametrize the SO(3) rotation and the allowed fluxes in Eq. (34); they are chosen to satisfy integrable conditions, not fitted to data, but they are input parameters of the construction.
  • Flux matrices N, M in T^6/Z_12 examples = e.g., N=[[-13,5,-3],[5,-13,-3],[-3,-3,-2]], M=[[-5,13,3],[13,-5,3],[3,3,2]] (Eq. 201); other examples in Eqs.
    Chosen by hand to satisfy F- and D-term SUSY conditions and yield three-generation zero-mode spectra; they are model-building inputs, not empirical fits.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Theta function theory: Riemann theta functions with characters are absolutely convergent and satisfy the modular S and T transformations, and the Landsberg-Schaar relation (Eq. 144) holds.
    Used throughout Section 6 to compute traces of modular transformation matrices; cited to Ref. [21] for the Landsberg-Schaar relation.
  • domain assumption Background magnetic flux F is a (1,1)-form satisfying the Hermitian Yang-Mills equation and Dirac quantization, with F-term SUSY condition (NΩ)^T = NΩ.
    Assumed in Section 2.2 as the physical setup; standard in magnetized compactification models.
  • domain assumption The flux matrix N and complex structure Ω are symmetric and commute ([N,Ω]=0); likewise [N_L,N_R]=0 for the Yukawa sectors.
    Stated as a restriction in Section 2.2 and Section 5.1; it limits the class of non-factorizable models and is needed for simultaneous diagonalization and the product formula.
  • ad hoc to paper The mixed-chirality solution is proportional to a single wave function: ψ_{i+} = α_i ψ (Eq. 31).
    This is the key modeling assumption allowing the Dirac system to reduce to one function; completeness is not proven, making it load-bearing for the 'various chiralities' claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generation structures and Yukawa couplings in magnetized $T^{2g}/\mathbb{Z}_N$ models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2KC2AXVP

@misc{pith2026250705645,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generation structures and Yukawa couplings in magnetized $T^2g/\mathbbZ_N$ models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2KC2AXVP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05645}
}
abstract

We study fermion zero-mode wave functions with various chiralities in magnetized $T^{2g}$, $(g=2,3)$ torus. First, we consider the wave functions satisfying the Dirac equation and the boundary conditions on the magnetized torus. Second, we introduce the $SO(3)$ (or parity) transformations and derive the wave functions under the modular transformation. Additionally, we calculate the Yukawa couplings with consideration for the chirality. Lastly, we briefly review how to construct $T^{4}/\mathbb{Z}_N$ ($N=2,3,4,6$) and $T^6/\mathbb{Z}_{12}$ twisted orbifold. Also, we explicitly analyze the number of the wave functions in $\mathbb{Z}_N$ sectors.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Kikuchi, T

    S. Kikuchi, T. Kobayashi, K. Nasu, S. Takada and H. Uchida, JHEP 06, 013 (2023) [arXiv:2211.07813 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    L. J. Dixon, J. A. Harvey, C. Vafa and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 261, 678-686 (1985)

    work page 1985

  3. [2]

    L. J. Dixon, J. A. Harvey, C. Vafa and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 274, 285-314 (1986)

    work page 1986

  4. [3]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B 149, 351-356 (1984)

    work page 1984

  5. [4]

    Bachas, [arXiv:hep-th/9503030 [hep-th]]

    C. Bachas, [arXiv:hep-th/9503030 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  6. [5]

    Berkooz, M

    M. Berkooz, M. R. Douglas and R. G. Leigh, Nucl. Phys. B 480, 265-278 (1996) [arXiv:hep-th/9606139 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 1996

  7. [6]

    Blumenhagen, L

    R. Blumenhagen, L. Goerlich, B. Kors and D. Lust, JHEP 10, 006 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/0007024 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2000

  8. [7]

    Angelantonj, I

    C. Angelantonj, I. Antoniadis, E. Dudas and A. Sagnotti, Phys. Lett. B 489, 223-232 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/0007090 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2000

Show all 71 references
  1. [8]

    Blumenhagen, B

    R. Blumenhagen, B. Kors and D. Lust, JHEP 02, 030 (2001) [arXiv:hep- th/0012156 [hep-th]]

    2001

  2. [9]

    Cremades, L

    D. Cremades, L. E. Ibanez and F. Marchesano, JHEP 05, 079 (2004) [arXiv:hep- th/0404229 [hep-th]]

    2004

  3. [10]

    Antoniadis, A

    I. Antoniadis, A. Kumar and B. Panda, Nucl. Phys. B 823, 116-173 (2009) [arXiv:0904.0910 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  4. [11]

    De Angelis, R

    L. De Angelis, R. Marotta, F. Pezzella and R. Troise, PoS Corfu2012, 108 (2013) doi:10.22323/1.177.0108 [arXiv:1304.0978 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [12]

    H. Abe, K. S. Choi, T. Kobayashi and H. Ohki, JHEP 06, 080 (2009) [arXiv:0903.3800 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Kobayashi and S

    T. Kobayashi and S. Nagamoto, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.9, 096011 [arXiv:1709.09784 [hep-th]]. 85

    2017 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Kikuchi, T

    S. Kikuchi, T. Kobayashi and H. Uchida, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) no.6, 065008 [arXiv:2101.00826 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Kobayashi, S

    T. Kobayashi, S. Nagamoto, S. Takada, S. Tamba and T. H. Tatsuishi, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.11, 116002 [arXiv:1804.06644 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Kikuchi, T

    S. Kikuchi, T. Kobayashi, S. Takada, T. H. Tatsuishi and H. Uchida, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no.10, 105010 [arXiv:2005.12642 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Kobayashi and S

    T. Kobayashi and S. Tamba, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.4, 046001 [arXiv:1811.11384 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [18]

    H. Ohki, S. Uemura and R. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.8, 085008 (2020) [arXiv:2003.04174 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Kikuchi, T

    S. Kikuchi, T. Kobayashi, H. Otsuka, S. Takada and H. Uchida, JHEP11 (2020), 101 [arXiv:2007.06188 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Almumin, M

    Y. Almumin, M. C. Chen, V. Knapp-P´ erez, S. Ramos-S´ anchez, M. Ratz and S. Shukla, JHEP 05, 078 (2021) [arXiv:2102.11286 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Kikuchi, T

    S. Kikuchi, T. Kobayashi, K. Nasu, S. Takada and H. Uchida, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.6, 065011 (2024) [arXiv:2309.16447 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Kobayashi, K

    T. Kobayashi, K. Nasu, R. Nishida, H. Otsuka and S. Takada, JHEP 12, 128 (2024) [arXiv:2409.02458 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    H. Abe, T. Kobayashi and H. Ohki, JHEP 09, 043 (2008) [arXiv:0806.4748 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  17. [24]

    T. H. Abe, Y. Fujimoto, T. Kobayashi, T. Miura, K. Nishiwaki and M. Sakamoto, JHEP 01, 065 (2014) [arXiv:1309.4925 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  18. [25]

    H. Abe, K. S. Choi, T. Kobayashi and H. Ohki, Nucl. Phys. B 814, 265-292 (2009) [arXiv:0812.3534 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [26]

    T. h. Abe, Y. Fujimoto, T. Kobayashi, T. Miura, K. Nishiwaki, M. Sakamoto and Y. Tatsuta, Nucl. Phys. B 894, 374-406 (2015) [arXiv:1501.02787 [hep-ph]]. 86

    2015 arXiv

  20. [27]

    H. Abe, T. Kobayashi, H. Ohki, A. Oikawa and K. Sumita, Nucl. Phys. B 870, 30-54 (2013) [arXiv:1211.4317 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [28]

    H. Abe, T. Kobayashi, K. Sumita and Y. Tatsuta, Phys. Rev. D 90, no.10, 105006 (2014) [arXiv:1405.5012 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Fujimoto, T

    Y. Fujimoto, T. Kobayashi, K. Nishiwaki, M. Sakamoto and Y. Tatsuta, Phys. Rev. D 94, no.3, 035031 (2016) [arXiv:1605.00140 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Buchmuller and J

    W. Buchmuller and J. Schweizer, Phys. Rev. D 95, no.7, 075024 (2017) [arXiv:1701.06935 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Buchmuller and K

    W. Buchmuller and K. M. Patel, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.7, 075019 (2018) [arXiv:1712.06862 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Hoshiya, S

    K. Hoshiya, S. Kikuchi, T. Kobayashi and H. Uchida, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.11, 115003 (2022) [arXiv:2209.07249 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Kikuchi, T

    S. Kikuchi, T. Kobayashi, K. Nasu and H. Uchida, JHEP 08, 256 (2022) [arXiv:2203.01649 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kikuchi, T

    S. Kikuchi, T. Kobayashi, K. Nasu, S. Takada and H. Uchida, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.3, 036005 (2023) [arXiv:2305.16709 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Sakamoto, M

    M. Sakamoto, M. Takeuchi and Y. Tatsuta, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.2, 025009 (2021) [arXiv:2010.14214 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Otsuka, M. Sakamoto, M. Takeuchi, Y. Tatsuta and H. Uchida, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.7, 075032 (2023) [arXiv:2211.04595 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Aoki and M

    S. Aoki and M. Takeuchi, [arXiv:2408.09758 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    D. G. Markushevich, M. A. Olshanetsky and A. M. Perelomov, Commun. Math. Phys. 111, 247 (1987)

    1987

  32. [40]

    L. E. Ibanez, J. Mas, H. P. Nilles and F. Quevedo, Nucl. Phys. B 301, 157-196 (1988). 87

    1988

  33. [41]

    Katsuki, Y

    Y. Katsuki, Y. Kawamura, T. Kobayashi, N. Ohtsubo, Y. Ono and K. Tanioka, Nucl. Phys. B 341, 611-640 (1990)

    1990

  34. [42]

    Kobayashi and N

    T. Kobayashi and N. Ohtsubo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 9, 87-126 (1994)

    1994

  35. [43]

    D. Lust, S. Reffert, W. Schulgin and S. Stieberger, Nucl. Phys. B 766, 68-149 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0506090 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  36. [44]

    D. Lust, S. Reffert, E. Scheidegger, W. Schulgin and S. Stieberger, Nucl. Phys. B 766, 178-231 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.12.017

    2007 doi

  37. [45]

    Symplectic geometry

    C.L. Siegel, “Symplectic geometry”, Americal Journal of Mathematics 65 no. 1, (1943) 1-86

    1943

  38. [46]

    H. Abe, T. Kobayashi, H. Ohki and K. Sumita, Nucl. Phys. B 863, 1-18 (2012) [arXiv:1204.5327 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  39. [47]

    G. J. Ding, F. Feruglio and X. G. Liu, JHEP 01, 037 (2021) [arXiv:2010.07952 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Theta Functions

    J. Igusa, “Theta Functions”, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften 194, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York (1972)

    1972

  41. [49]

    Siegelsche Modulformen

    E. Freitag, “Siegelsche Modulformen”, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wis- senschaften 254, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York (1983)

    1983

  42. [50]

    Singular Modular Forms and Theta Relations

    E. Freitag, “Singular Modular Forms and Theta Relations”, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1487, Springer-Verlag (1991)

    1991

  43. [51]

    Introductory lecture on siegel modular forms

    H. Klingen, “Introductory lecture on siegel modular forms”, Cambridge Stud. Adv. Math. 20 (1990)

    1990

  44. [52]

    The 1-2-3 of Modular Forms

    J. H. Bruinier, G. V. D. Geer, G. Harder, and D. Zagier, “The 1-2-3 of Modular Forms”, Universitext. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2008)

    2008

  45. [53]

    Theta functions on Riemann surfaces

    J. D. Fay, “Theta functions on Riemann surfaces”, Lecture Notes in Mathemat- ics 352, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York (1973)

    1973

  46. [54]

    Tata Lecture on Theta I

    D. Mumford, “Tata Lecture on Theta I”, (Birkh¨ auser, 1984). 88

    1984

  47. [55]

    Feruglio, in From My Vast Repertoire ...: Guido Altarelli’s Legacy, A

    F. Feruglio, in From My Vast Repertoire ...: Guido Altarelli’s Legacy, A. Levy, S. Forte, Stefano, and G. Ridolfi, eds., pp.227–266, 2019, arXiv:1706.08749 [hep- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Kobayashi, K

    T. Kobayashi, K. Tanaka and T. H. Tatsuishi, Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 1, 016004 (2018) [arXiv:1803.10391 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    J. T. Penedo and S. T. Petcov, Nucl. Phys. B 939, 292 (2019) [arXiv:1806.11040 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    J. C. Criado and F. Feruglio, SciPost Phys. 5 (2018) no.5, 042 [arXiv:1807.01125 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Kobayashi, N

    T. Kobayashi, N. Omoto, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto and T. H. Tat- suishi, JHEP 11 (2018), 196 [arXiv:1808.03012 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    P. P. Novichkov, J. T. Penedo, S. T. Petcov and A. V. Titov, JHEP1904 (2019) 005 [arXiv:1811.04933 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    P. P. Novichkov, J. T. Penedo, S. T. Petcov and A. V. Titov, JHEP 1904, 174 (2019) [arXiv:1812.02158 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    F. J. de Anda, S. F. King and E. Perdomo, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.1, 015028 [arXiv:1812.05620 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Okada and M

    H. Okada and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B 791 (2019) 54 [arXiv:1812.09677 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Kobayashi, Y

    T. Kobayashi, Y. Shimizu, K. Takagi, M. Tanimoto, T. H. Tatsuishi and H. Uchida, Phys. Lett. B 794 (2019) 114 [arXiv:1812.11072 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    P. P. Novichkov, S. T. Petcov and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B 793 (2019) 247 [arXiv:1812.11289 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Kobayashi and M

    T. Kobayashi and M. Tanimoto, [arXiv:2307.03384 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    G. J. Ding and S. F. King, [arXiv:2311.09282 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Kikuchi, T

    S. Kikuchi, T. Kobayashi, K. Nasu, S. Takada and H. Uchida, JHEP 04, 045 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2024)045 [arXiv:2310.17978 [hep-ph]]. 89

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Otsuka and H. Uchida, JHEP08, 046 (2019) [arXiv:1904.02867 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Otsuka and H. Uchida, JHEP03, 042 (2020) [arXiv:1911.01930 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Kikuchi, T

    S. Kikuchi, T. Kobayashi, K. Nasu, H. Otsuka, S. Takada and H. Uchida, JHEP 04, 003 (2023) [arXiv:2301.10356 [hep-th]]. 90

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.