Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

$Q$-operators, $q$-opers, and R-matrices in 5d $\mathcal{N}=1$ gauge theory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 5d gauge theory defects build Q-operators, q-opers, and XXZ eigenstates.

desk verdict A serious and plausible 5d uplift of the Q-operator/q-oper program, but the exactness of the spectral equations rests on an unproven q2→1 factorization. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15450 v1 pith:I65JEOGR submitted 2025-07-21 hep-th math-phmath.MPmath.QAnlin.SI

Saebyeok Jeong , Norton Lee This is my paper
classification hep-thmath-phmath.MPmath.QAnlin.SI
keywords Q-operatorsq-opersBaxterTQequationXXZspinchainscodimension-twodefectsquantumaffinealgebrabispectraldualitycluster
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

The paper aims to show that the well-known 4d N=2 gauge-theoretic machinery for quantizing Higgs-bundle moduli spaces survives the lift to five dimensions, where ordinary differential operators become q-difference operators. It constructs Q-operators from a simple codimension-two defect: in the Coulomb phase the defect defines a Q-observable, in the Higgs phase an H-observable, and their vacuum expectation values obey q-difference equations that are exactly the Baxter TQ equations of XXZ spin chains built from bi-infinite evaluation modules over quantum affine gl(n). The paper further claims that the vacuum expectation values of a monodromy codimension-two defect form a basis that simultaneously diagonalizes these Q-operators and the quantum Hamiltonians of the XXZ chain, and that a Fourier transform exchanges two bispectrally dual spin chains. These structures are finally re-expressed in the quantum cluster algebra of the 5d BPS quiver, with R-matrices written in cluster variables.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the canonical codimension-two defect (a 3d N=2 U(1) theory coupled to the 5d gauge field, whose Coulomb and Higgs phases define the Q- and H-observables) and the monodromy codimension-two defect (an orbifold/ZK singularity whose vevs span a q-difference module). The equations carrying the argument are the fractional TQ equations, which follow from the regularity of qq-characters in the gauge origami configuration; their analytic constraints are literally the RLL relations of quantum affine algebras, so the monodromy matrix built from them is the XXZ transfer matrix. The q2→1 cluster decomposition then converts operator equations into scalar q-oper equations and turns monodromy vevs into eigenstates.

What would settle it

Compute the fractional TQ equation and the factorization identity (4.27) at finite q2 for the smallest nontrivial case (N=M=2, one instanton) using the explicit observable expressions; if the difference between the two sides does not vanish as q2→1, the simultaneous-eigenstate conclusion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the canonical codimension-two defect in 5d N=1 gauge theory on $R^{4}$_{ε1,ε2} × $S^{1}$ supplies all the data of a quantized integrable system: its Q- and H-observables are Q-operators, their q2→1 vevs are q-oper solutions satisfying second-order q-difference equations identical to Baxter TQ equations, and the monodromy defect's vevs are the simultaneous eigenstates of these Q-operators and of the transfer-matrix Hamiltonians. The fractional TQ equations, derived from the regularity of qq-characters on the defect configuration, are rearranged into R-matrices of U_q(gl(2)) and U_q(gl(N)); the gl(2) chain has N sites from N evaluation modules, and the bispectral dual gl(N) chain has two sites, with the Fourier transform interchanging the roles of rank and number of defects. The paper concludes by matching these R-matrices to the quantum cluster algebra of the BPS quiver, whose M↔N symmetry is the bispectral duality.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the physical cluster decomposition in the q2→1 limit: correlation functions of two observables placed far apart factor into products of their individual vacuum expectation values, and the paper invokes this without estimating corrections or proving it from the path integral.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The q-difference equations obeyed by the Q- and H-observable vevs are the Baxter TQ equations of an XXZ spin chain, so the spin-chain spectral problem is realized directly by defect partition functions.
  • The monodromy codimension-two defect provides a concrete basis of simultaneous eigenvectors of Q-operators and quantum Hamiltonians, making the XXZ spectral problem equivalent to evaluating defect vevs.
  • A Fourier transform between the Coulomb and Higgs phases exchanges the roles of rank and number of defects, realizing bispectral duality between a gl(N) chain built from M evaluation modules and a gl(M) chain built from N evaluation modules.
  • The R-matrices of the relevant quantum affine algebras are recovered from the quantum cluster algebra of the 5d BPS quiver, so cluster mutations and the Kasteleyn operator become tools for the same integrable system.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: a direct numerical test would be to compute both sides of the factorization (3.19) at finite q2 for N=M=2 with a few instanton sectors; the paper predicts the difference vanishes as q2→1, while the size of subleading corrections is not fixed.
  • Editorial inference: the same mechanism should extend to A_{M-1} quiver gauge theories, where M inequivalent Q-observables likely form the M independent solutions of an M-th order q-oper, matching q-deformed W-algebras and higher-rank separation of variables.
  • Editorial inference: if the monodromy-defect vevs satisfy the qKZ equation as the discussion suggests, they give a construction of K-theoretic stable envelopes for bi-infinite evaluation modules, a class not covered by existing finite- and highest-weight constructions.
  • Editorial inference: a sharper check of the cluster-algebra identification is to verify that the left-inverse factor of the quantum Kasteleyn operator, applied to explicit cluster variables, obeys the same RLL relations as the Lax matrices from section 4 outside the M=2 case.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper constructs Q-operators, q-opers, and R-matrices in 5d N=1 gauge theory with Omega-background, extending earlier 4d constructions. The canonical codimension-two defect is defined by coupling a 3d N=2 theory, giving Q- and H-observables; their vacuum expectation values are claimed to satisfy scalar q-oper (Baxter TQ) equations. The paper derives exact 'quantum TQ equations' from regularity of qq-characters, then takes a q2->1 limit to obtain the scalar q-oper equations. The fractional TQ equations for parallel defects are rearranged into R-matrices of quantum affine algebras, yielding an operator-valued q-oper and identifying monodromy-defect vevs as simultaneous eigenstates of the Q-operators and the XXZ quantum Hamiltonians. A formal q-Fourier transformation is used to exhibit bispectral duality between gl(2) and gl(N) spin chains, and the R-matrices are re-expressed in terms of the quantum cluster algebra of the 5d BPS quiver, with an explicit dictionary between cluster variables and q1-difference operators.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a substantial contribution: it provides a 5d gauge-theoretic construction of Baxter Q-operators and q-opers, connects them to bi-infinite evaluation modules over quantum affine algebras, and proposes a cluster-algebra realization of the R-matrices. The paper contains many explicit and checkable formulas, including the observable expressions (2.7), (2.12), (2.27), the TQ equation (3.15), the fractional TQ equation (3.29), the operator-valued q-oper (4.25), and the dictionary (5.21). The simultaneous-eigenstate statement is clear and potentially important. However, the q2->1 cluster-decomposition step and the formal q-Fourier transformation are load-bearing and are not proved, so the exactness of the main claims is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2.1, Eq. (3.19); §4.1.3, Eq. (4.27)] The q2->1 cluster-decomposition factorization is asserted rather than derived. It is the only step that converts the exact quantum TQ equation (3.15) into the scalar q-oper equation (3.20), and it is also used in (4.27) to turn the two-defect correlator into the eigenstate equation (4.31). The text justifies the limit by the restoration of topological symmetry on the R^2_epsilon2 plane and by arbitrary separation of observables, but no path-integral or localization argument is given, and no estimate of corrections in q2 is supplied; if any contact term between t(X) and Q(X) survives with nonzero weight, the spectral equations hold only approximately. The statement at the end of §4.1.3 that 'the derivation of the q-difference spectral equations is exact' is therefore not supported. Please either prove the factorization (or cite a proof for the relevant correlators) or reformulate the simultaneous-diagonalization claim as approximate.
  2. [§4.2, Eqs. (4.33)-(4.38)] The q-Fourier transformation used to obtain the gl(N) R-matrices is formal. The kernel eq1(-u_omega v_omega) is not defined in the text, the contour C in (4.33) is specified only as a Barnes contour, and the integral transformation (4.37) is asserted to be invertible without a statement of the relevant function space or convergence conditions. Since the derivation of L1(Z) and L2(Z) in (4.45)-(4.48) depends on passing to the q-Fourier dual and back, this gap is load-bearing for the gl(N) side of the bispectral duality. The authors should either make the transformation precise or verify directly that the explicit matrices L1,L2 satisfy the RLL relations of Uq(gl(N)).
  3. [§4.2, Eqs. (4.45)-(4.48); §5.2.2, Eq. (5.31)] The status of L1(Z) as an R-matrix is inconsistent. In §4.2 the text states that the matrices Li(Z), i=1,2, provide the R-matrices of Uq(gl(N)) (Eqs. (4.45)-(4.48)), and for L1 it says this will be shown in §5.2.2. In §5.2.2, however, the text concludes that L1(Z) itself is not an R-matrix, because the conjugation in (5.31) affects the commutation relations, and that this is 'compatible with what we found in section 4.2'. These statements cannot both be correct; the paper should clarify which object is claimed to be the R-matrix and modify the statements in §4.2 accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2.2] 'In the limit q2 -> 0, the correlation function factorizes' should presumably be q2 -> 1, consistent with (3.19) and the surrounding discussion.
  2. [Appendix A.3, Eq. (A.28)] The second term on the right-hand side of (A.28) should involve the dual Q-observable, namely tilde-Q, not the untilded Q; as written the equation mixes tilted and untilded operators.
  3. [Section 6, paragraph on Q-observable from sequence of mutation] The sentence contains a duplicated phrase: 'was carried out in was carried out in [96]'.
  4. [§5.2.1-§5.2.2] The identification of the quantum Kasteleyn matrices with R-matrices is verified explicitly only for M=2; the general-M case is deferred with 'straightforward computation'. Since this section is presented as a derivation of the R-matrices from the cluster algebra, adding the general argument or clearly stating which steps remain computational would help.
  5. [§5.2.1, Eq. (5.21)] The dictionary (5.21) is presented as an exact match between cluster variables and q1-difference operators; a statement that this is a consistency check rather than an independent derivation would help avoid the impression of circularity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central TQ/R-matrix derivations are self-contained; the q2->1 cluster-decomposition factorization is an unchecked physical limit rather than a circular reduction, and self-citations are contextual.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is as follows. The quantum TQ equation (3.15) is obtained from regularity/compactness of qq-characters in the gauge origami setup, with the contact terms encoded in t(X) defined in (3.17); this is a gauge-theory computation, not a restatement of the target. The scalar q-oper equation (3.20) follows by taking q2->1 and invoking cluster decomposition (3.19). That step is load-bearing but it is an uncontrolled physical assumption, not a circular reduction: the factorization is not equivalent to the spectral equations by construction, and the paper does not fit the coefficients t(a;X) to make the equation hold. The fractional TQ equations (3.29) are likewise derived from regularity; the matrices L_omega(X) in (4.7)-(4.9) are then shown to define representations of U_q(gl(2)) by an explicit homomorphism check, and the identification with R-matrices of the quantum affine algebra is the standard L-operator/evaluation-module dictionary, not an input. The simultaneous-eigenstate claim (4.31) is obtained by combining the operator-valued q-oper equation (4.25) with the factorization (4.27) and the invertibility of the q-Wronskian; it depends on the same cluster-decomposition assumption but does not assume the conclusion. The cluster realization in Section 5 is matched to Section 4 through the explicit dictionary (5.21); this is a consistency check between two independent constructions, not a fit. Self-citations to [7,52] supply the 4d template and technical decoupling-limit details, but the 5d results are derived in the paper and benchmarked against standard Baxter TQ equations and R-matrices of quantum affine algebras, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. There is an internal inconsistency about whether L1 in Section 4.2 is or is not an R-matrix (contrast (4.47) with Section 5.2.2), and the q2->1 factorization is not proven, but these are correctness/rigor concerns, not circularity.

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

No numbers are fitted to data. The gauge theory parameters, including Coulomb moduli a_alpha, masses m±_alpha, gauge couplings q_omega, monodromy parameters u_omega, and Omega-background parameters q1 and q2, are inputs from the physical construction. The identifications between quantum parameters and Omega-background parameters are listed as axioms. No new particles, dimensions, or forces are introduced; the defects and observables are established objects in the 4d literature uplifted to 5d.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Omega-background parameter q1 is identified with the quantum parameter of U_q(gl(2) hat) via q=q1^{1/2} (Section 4.1.1) and with q=q1^{-1/2} for U_q(gl(N) hat) (Section 4.2, eq. (4.52)); footnote 5 calls this a sign difference.
    These identifications are required for the maps rho_omega (4.11) and rho_2 (4.50) to be algebra homomorphisms; they are relations between deformation parameters, not fitted numbers.
  • domain assumption Compactness of the moduli space of spiked instantons guarantees the qq-character expectation is a Laurent polynomial in X, giving the quantum TQ equations.
    Invoked in Section 3.2.1 citing [63]; the regularity of correlators is the starting point for the difference equations.
  • domain assumption Cluster decomposition in the q2->1 limit factorizes correlators of observables separated on the R^2_epsilon2 plane, as in eqs. (3.19) and (4.27).
    This is load-bearing for the scalar q-oper equation and the eigenstate claim; no error estimate is provided.
  • standard math Standard representation theory of quantum affine algebras: RTT relations, coproduct, evaluation homomorphisms, and quantum determinant factorization (Appendix B).
    Used to identify the L-operators as R-matrices and to compute monodromy matrices and quantum determinants.
  • domain assumption The regular monodromy codimension-two defect specialization K=N with coloring c=(id,id,id) is adopted (Section 2.3.1).
    The paper's main results are for this regular defect; more general Levi types are left to future work.
  • domain assumption The q-Fourier transformation in Section 4.2 is formal; convergence and invertibility of the difference-operator matrices are assumed.
    The text says 'we formally perform the q-Fourier transformation' before inverting the matrix relations (4.35).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $Q$-operators, $q$-opers, and R-matrices in 5d $\mathcal{N}=1$ gauge theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I65JEOGR

@misc{pith2026250715450,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $Q$-operators, $q$-opers, and R-matrices in 5d $\mathcalN=1$ gauge theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I65JEOGR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15450}
}
abstract

We study the quantization of the moduli space of multiplicative Higgs bundles through the lens of five-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric gauge theories in $\Omega$-background. We extend the 4d $\mathcal{N}=2$ gauge theoretical construction of key geometric and representation-theoretic structures, established in earlier works, to the five-dimensional uplift. We construct and analyze the $Q$-operators and $q$-opers associated with the canonical codimension-two defect: the $Q$-operators are defined via the insertion of the defect, while the $q$-opers arise as the $q$-difference chiral ring equations in its presence. The $q$-oper difference equations are further identified with the Baxter TQ equations for XXZ spin chains constructed from tensor products of bi-infinite evaluation modules over quantum affine algebras of type ${\mathfrak{gl}}(n)$. We define a $q$-difference module structure on the space of monodromy codimension-two defect partition functions and show that the eigenstates of the $Q$-operators, constructed from monodromy defects, simultaneously diagonalize the quantum Hamiltonians of the XXZ spin chain. A Fourier transformation exchanges the $Q$-operators associated with two XXZ spin chains bispectral dual to each other. Finally, we relate these constructions to the quantum cluster algebra arising from the BPS quiver of the 5d theory, and re-express the R-matrices in terms of the cluster variables.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Dimers for Relativistic Toda Models with Reflective Boundaries

    hep-th 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Dimer graphs are constructed for relativistic Toda chains of listed Lie algebra types, and Seiberg-Witten curves of 5d N=1 pure SYM for group G are identified as spectral curves of the dual Toda chain for G^vee.

  2. Universal Correlators on Exponentially Ramified Spectral Curves

    math-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Generalized topological recursion extends to spectral curves with essential singularities by replacing residues at the essential point with residues at ordinary meromorphic points.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    N=2 dualities,

    D. Gaiotto, “N=2 dualities,”JHEP08(2012) 034,arXiv:0904.2715 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Wall-crossing, Hitchin Systems, and the WKB Approximation,

    D. Gaiotto, G. W. Moore, and A. Neitzke, “Wall-crossing, Hitchin Systems, and the WKB Approximation,”arXiv:0907.3987 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    The Omega Deformation, Branes, Integrability, and Liouville Theory,

    N. Nekrasov and E. Witten, “The Omega Deformation, Branes, Integrability, and Liouville Theory,”JHEP09(2010) 092,arXiv:1002.0888 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Stable bundles and integrable systems,

    N. Hitchin, “Stable bundles and integrable systems,”Duke Math. J.54no. 1, (1987) 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1215/S0012-7094-87-05408-1

    doi:10.1215/s0012-7094-87-05408-1 1987

  5. [5]

    Quantization of Integrable Systems and Four Dimensional Gauge Theories,

    N. A. Nekrasov and S. L. Shatashvili, “Quantization of Integrable Systems and Four Dimensional Gauge Theories,” in16th International Congress on Mathematical Physics, pp. 265–289. 8, 2009.arXiv:0908.4052 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    Opers, surface defects, and Yang-Yang functional,

    S. Jeong and N. Nekrasov, “Opers, surface defects, and Yang-Yang functional,”Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.24no. 7, (2020) 1789–1916,arXiv:1806.08270 [hep-th]. – 54 –

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Parallel surface defects, Hecke operators, and quantum Hitchin system,

    S. Jeong, N. Lee, and N. Nekrasov, “Parallel surface defects, Hecke operators, and quantum Hitchin system,”arXiv:2304.04656 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Seiberg–Witten prepotential from instanton counting,

    N. A. Nekrasov, “Seiberg–Witten prepotential from instanton counting,”Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.7(2004) 831–864,hep-th/0206161

    arXiv 2004

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    Branes and Quantization,

    S. Gukov and E. Witten, “Branes and Quantization,”Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.13no. 5, (2009) 1445–1518,arXiv:0809.0305 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Remarks on A branes, mirror symmetry, and the Fukaya category,

    A. Kapustin and D. Orlov, “Remarks on A branes, mirror symmetry, and the Fukaya category,” J. Geom. Phys.48(2003) 84,arXiv:hep-th/0109098

    2003 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Seiberg-Witten geometry of four dimensional N=2 quiver gauge theories,

    N. Nekrasov and V. Pestun, “Seiberg-Witten geometry of four dimensional N=2 quiver gauge theories,”arXiv:1211.2240 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Quantum geometry and quiver gauge theories,

    N. Nekrasov, V. Pestun, and S. Shatashvili, “Quantum geometry and quiver gauge theories,” Commun. Math. Phys.357no. 2, (2018) 519–567,arXiv:1312.6689 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A Family ofGLr Multiplicative Higgs Bundles on Rational Base,

    R. Frassek and V. Pestun, “A Family ofGLr Multiplicative Higgs Bundles on Rational Base,” SIGMA15(2019) 031,arXiv:1808.00799 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Five dimensional gauge theories and relativistic integrable systems,

    N. Nekrasov, “Five dimensional gauge theories and relativistic integrable systems,”Nucl. Phys. B531(1998) 323–344,arXiv:hep-th/9609219

    1998 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Nahm transform for periodic monopoles andN= 2super Yang-Mills theory,

    S. A. Cherkis and A. Kapustin, “Nahm transform for periodic monopoles andN= 2super Yang-Mills theory,”Commun. Math. Phys.218(2001) 333–371,arXiv:hep-th/0006050

    2001 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Periodic monopoles with singularities and N=2 super QCD,

    S. A. Cherkis and A. Kapustin, “Periodic monopoles with singularities and N=2 super QCD,” Commun. Math. Phys.234(2003) 1–35,arXiv:hep-th/0011081

    2003 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Instanton sums and five-dimensional gauge theories,

    A. E. Lawrence and N. Nekrasov, “Instanton sums and five-dimensional gauge theories,”Nucl. Phys. B513(1998) 239–265,arXiv:hep-th/9706025

    1998 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Quantization of Hitchin’s integrable system and Hecke eigensheaves,

    A. Beilinson and V. Drinfeld, “Quantization of Hitchin’s integrable system and Hecke eigensheaves,”

  11. [19]

    Beilinson and V

    A. Beilinson and V. Drinfeld, “Opers,”arXiv:math/0501398 [math]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Multiplicative Hitchin systems and supersymmetric gauge theory,

    C. Elliott and V. Pestun, “Multiplicative Hitchin systems and supersymmetric gauge theory,” SelectaMath.no. 25, (2019) 1–82,arXiv:1812.05516 [math.AG]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Drinfeld-sokolov reduction for difference operators and deformations of W-algebras i. the case of virasoro algebra,

    M. S. T. Chanski, “Drinfeld-sokolov reduction for difference operators and deformations of W-algebras i. the case of virasoro algebra,”Communications in Mathematical Physics(1998)

    1998

  14. [22]

    Drinfeld–sokolov reduction for difference operators and deformations ofW-algebras ii. the general semisimple case,

    M. A. Semenov-Tian-Shansky and A. V. Sevostyanov, “Drinfeld–sokolov reduction for difference operators and deformations ofW-algebras ii. the general semisimple case,”Communications in Mathematical Physics192no. 3, (April, 1998) 631–647,arXiv:q-alg/9702016 [q-alg]. 19 pp., AMS-...

    1998 arXiv

  15. [23]

    ( SL (N),q)-Opers, theq-Langlands Correspondence, and Quantum/Classical Duality,

    P. Koroteev, D. S. Sage, and A. M. Zeitlin, “( SL (N),q)-Opers, theq-Langlands Correspondence, and Quantum/Classical Duality,”Commun. Math. Phys.381no. 2, (2021) 641–672,arXiv:1811.09937 [math.RT]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Remarks onq-difference opers arising from quantum toroidal algebras,

    B. Feigin, M. Jimbo, and E. Mukhin, “Remarks onq-difference opers arising from quantum toroidal algebras,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical57no. 48, (November,

  17. [25]

    Doubly periodic monopoles andq-difference modules,

    T. Mochizuki, “Doubly periodic monopoles andq-difference modules,”arXiv:1902.03551 [math.DG]

    1902 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Topological Strings from Quantum Mechanics,

    A. Grassi, Y. Hatsuda, and M. Marino, “Topological Strings from Quantum Mechanics,” Annales Henri Poincare17no. 11, (2016) 3177–3235,arXiv:1410.3382 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    An analytic version of the Langlands correspondence for complex curves,

    P. Etingof, E. Frenkel, and D. Kazhdan, “An analytic version of the Langlands correspondence for complex curves,”arXiv:1908.09677 [math.AG]

    1908 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A general framework for the analytic Langlands correspondence,

    P. Etingof, E. Frenkel, and D. Kazhdan, “A general framework for the analytic Langlands correspondence,”arXiv:2311.03743 [math.AG]

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Quantum analytic Langlands correspondence,

    D. Gaiotto and J. Teschner, “Quantum analytic Langlands correspondence,”SciPost Phys.18 no. 4, (2025) 144,arXiv:2402.00494 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gauge Theory and the Analytic Form of the Geometric Langlands Program,

    D. Gaiotto and E. Witten, “Gauge Theory and the Analytic Form of the Geometric Langlands Program,”arXiv:2107.01732 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Vertex algebra constructions for (analytic) geometric Langlands in genus zero,

    D. Gaiotto, “Vertex algebra constructions for (analytic) geometric Langlands in genus zero,” JHEP12(2024) 139,arXiv:2110.02255 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    On 5D SCFTs and their BPS quivers. Part I: B-branes and brane tilings,

    C. Closset and M. Del Zotto, “On 5D SCFTs and their BPS quivers. Part I: B-branes and brane tilings,”Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.26no. 1, (2022) 37–142,arXiv:1912.13502 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    5D BPS Quivers and KK Towers,

    Z. Duan, D. Ghim, and P. Yi, “5D BPS Quivers and KK Towers,”JHEP02(2021) 119, arXiv:2011.04661 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    An introduction to the dimer model,

    R. Kenyon, “An introduction to the dimer model,”arXiv:math/0310326

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Dimer models and toric diagrams,

    A. Hanany and K. D. Kennaway, “Dimer models and toric diagrams,”arXiv:hep-th/0503149

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Brane dimers and quiver gauge theories,

    S. Franco, A. Hanany, K. D. Kennaway, D. Vegh, and B. Wecht, “Brane dimers and quiver gauge theories,”JHEP01(2006) 096,arXiv:hep-th/0504110

    2006 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Gauge theories from toric geometry and brane tilings,

    S. Franco, A. Hanany, D. Martelli, J. Sparks, D. Vegh, and B. Wecht, “Gauge theories from toric geometry and brane tilings,”JHEP01(2006) 128,arXiv:hep-th/0505211

    2006 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Dimers and cluster integrable systems,

    A. B. Goncharov and R. Kenyon, “Dimers and cluster integrable systems,” 2011

    2011

  31. [39]

    D-branes, quivers, and ALE instantons,

    M. R. Douglas and G. W. Moore, “D-branes, quivers, and ALE instantons,” arXiv:hep-th/9603167

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    D-brane gauge theories from toric singularities and toric duality,

    B. Feng, A. Hanany, and Y.-H. He, “D-brane gauge theories from toric singularities and toric duality,”Nucl. Phys. B595(2001) 165–200,arXiv:hep-th/0003085

    2001 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Phase structure of D-brane gauge theories and toric duality,

    B. Feng, A. Hanany, and Y.-H. He, “Phase structure of D-brane gauge theories and toric duality,”JHEP08(2001) 040,arXiv:hep-th/0104259

    2001 arXiv

  34. [42]

    D-branes and mirror symmetry,

    K. Hori, A. Iqbal, and C. Vafa, “D-branes and mirror symmetry,”arXiv:hep-th/0005247

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Mirror symmetry,

    K. Hori and C. Vafa, “Mirror symmetry,”arXiv:hep-th/0002222

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Dimer models from mirror symmetry and quivering amoebae,

    B. Feng, Y.-H. He, K. D. Kennaway, and C. Vafa, “Dimer models from mirror symmetry and quivering amoebae,”Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.12no. 3, (2008) 489–545, arXiv:hep-th/0511287

    2008 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Dimer Models and Integrable Systems,

    R. Eager, S. Franco, and K. Schaeffer, “Dimer Models and Integrable Systems,”JHEP06 (2012) 106,arXiv:1107.1244 [hep-th]. – 56 –

    2012 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Quantum periods and spectra in dimer models and Calabi-Yau geometries,

    M.-x. Huang, Y. Sugimoto, and X. Wang, “Quantum periods and spectra in dimer models and Calabi-Yau geometries,”JHEP09(2020) 168,arXiv:2006.13482 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Birational Transformations on Dimer Integrable Systems,

    M. Kho, N. Lee, and R.-K. Seong, “Birational Transformations on Dimer Integrable Systems,” arXiv:2504.21081 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Riemann-Hilbert correspondence and blown up surface defects,

    S. Jeong and N. Nekrasov, “Riemann-Hilbert correspondence and blown up surface defects,” JHEP12(2020) 006,arXiv:2007.03660 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Quantum spin systems and supersymmetric gauge theories. Part I,

    N. Lee and N. Nekrasov, “Quantum spin systems and supersymmetric gauge theories. Part I,” JHEP03(2021) 093,arXiv:2009.11199 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    BPS/CFT correspondence IV: sigma models and defects in gauge theory,

    N. Nekrasov, “BPS/CFT correspondence IV: sigma models and defects in gauge theory,”Lett. Math. Phys.109(2019) 579–622,arXiv:1711.11011 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    di-Langlands correspondence and extended observables,

    S. Jeong, N. Lee, and N. Nekrasov, “di-Langlands correspondence and extended observables,” JHEP06(2024) 105,arXiv:2402.13888 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bispectral duality and separation of variables from surface defect transition,

    S. Jeong and N. Lee, “Bispectral duality and separation of variables from surface defect transition,”JHEP12(2024) 142,arXiv:2402.13889 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Localization of three-dimensionalN= 2supersymmetric theories onS 1×D 2,

    Y. Yoshida and K. Sugiyama, “Localization of three-dimensionalN= 2supersymmetric theories onS 1×D 2,”PTEP2020no. 11, (2020) 113B02,arXiv:1409.6713 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Dual boundary conditions in 3d SCFT’s,

    T. Dimofte, D. Gaiotto, and N. M. Paquette, “Dual boundary conditions in 3d SCFT’s,”JHEP 05(2018) 060,arXiv:1712.07654 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Boundaries, Vermas, and Factorisation,

    M. Bullimore, S. Crew, and D. Zhang, “Boundaries, Vermas, and Factorisation,”JHEP04 (2021) 263,arXiv:2010.09741 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Interfaces and Quantum Algebras, II: Cigar Partition Function,

    M. Dedushenko and N. Nekrasov, “Interfaces and Quantum Algebras, II: Cigar Partition Function,”arXiv:2306.16434 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    Boundaries & localisation with a topological twist,

    S. Crew, D. Zhang, and B. Zhao, “Boundaries & localisation with a topological twist,”JHEP 10(2023) 093,arXiv:2306.16448 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Blocks and Vortices in the 3d ADHM Quiver Gauge Theory,

    S. Crew, N. Dorey, and D. Zhang, “Blocks and Vortices in the 3d ADHM Quiver Gauge Theory,”JHEP03(2021) 234,arXiv:2010.09732 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Instanton counting with a surface operator and the chain-saw quiver,

    H. Kanno and Y. Tachikawa, “Instanton counting with a surface operator and the chain-saw quiver,”JHEP06(2011) 119,arXiv:1105.0357 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  52. [60]

    New quantum toroidal algebras from 5DN= 1 instantons on orbifolds,

    J.-E. Bourgine and S. Jeong, “New quantum toroidal algebras from 5DN= 1 instantons on orbifolds,”JHEP05(2020) 127,arXiv:1906.01625 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    q-Opers, QQ-Systems, and Bethe Ansatz,

    E. Frenkel, P. Koroteev, D. S. Sage, and A. M. Zeitlin, “q-Opers, QQ-Systems, and Bethe Ansatz,”arXiv:2002.07344 [math.AG]

    2002 arXiv

  54. [62]

    BPS/CFT correspondence: non-perturbative Dyson–Schwinger equations and qq-characters,

    N. Nekrasov, “BPS/CFT correspondence: non-perturbative Dyson–Schwinger equations and qq-characters,”JHEP1603(2016) 181,arXiv:1512.05388 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    BPS/CFT correspondence II: Instantons at crossroads, Moduli and Compactness Theorem,

    N. Nekrasov, “BPS/CFT correspondence II: Instantons at crossroads, Moduli and Compactness Theorem,”Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.21(2017) 503–583,arXiv:1608.07272 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    A note on chiral trace relations from qq-characters,

    S. Jeong and X. Zhang, “A note on chiral trace relations from qq-characters,”JHEP04(2020) 026,arXiv:1910.10864 [hep-th]. – 57 –

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    BPS/CFT Correspondence III: Gauge Origami partition function and qq-characters,

    N. Nekrasov, “BPS/CFT Correspondence III: Gauge Origami partition function and qq-characters,”Commun. Math. Phys.358(2017) 863–894,arXiv:1701.00189 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Splitting of surface defect partition functions and integrable systems,

    S. Jeong, “Splitting of surface defect partition functions and integrable systems,”Nucl. Phys. B938(2019) 775–806,arXiv:1709.04926 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    VEV of Baxter’s Q-operator in N=2 gauge theory and the BPZ differential equation,

    G. Poghosyan and R. Poghossian, “VEV of Baxter’s Q-operator in N=2 gauge theory and the BPZ differential equation,”JHEP11(2016) 058,arXiv:1602.02772 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  60. [68]

    On Three Dimensional Quiver Gauge Theories and Integrability,

    D. Gaiotto and P. Koroteev, “On Three Dimensional Quiver Gauge Theories and Integrability,” JHEP05(2013) 126,arXiv:1304.0779 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Spectral dualities in XXZ spin chains and five dimensional gauge theories,

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, B. Runov, Y. Zenkevich, and A. Zotov, “Spectral dualities in XXZ spin chains and five dimensional gauge theories,”JHEP12(2013) 034,arXiv:1307.1502 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Miura operators as R-matrices from M-brane intersections,

    N. Haouzi and S. Jeong, “Miura operators as R-matrices from M-brane intersections,” arXiv:2407.15990 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    R-matrices and Miura operators in 5d Chern-Simons theory,

    N. Ishtiaque, S. Jeong, and Y. Zhou, “R-matrices and Miura operators in 5d Chern-Simons theory,”SciPost Phys. Core8(2025) 003,arXiv:2408.15712 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Gauge Theory and Integrability, I,

    K. Costello, E. Witten, and M. Yamazaki, “Gauge Theory and Integrability, I,”ICCM Not.06 no. 1, (2018) 46–119,arXiv:1709.09993 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Defects and Quantum Seiberg-Witten Geometry,

    M. Bullimore, H.-C. Kim, and P. Koroteev, “Defects and Quantum Seiberg-Witten Geometry,” JHEP05(2015) 095,arXiv:1412.6081 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Generalized Gelfand Invariants and Characteristic Identities for Quantum Groups,

    M. D. Gould, R.-b. Zhang, and A. J. Bracken, “Generalized Gelfand Invariants and Characteristic Identities for Quantum Groups,”J. Math. Phys.32(1991) 2298–2303

    1991

  67. [75]

    Eigenvalues of quantum Gelfand invariants,

    N. Jing, M. Liu, and A. Molev, “Eigenvalues of quantum Gelfand invariants,”J. Math. Phys. 65no. 6, (2024) 061703

    2024

  68. [76]

    A -analogue of the centralizer construction and skew representations of the quantum affine algebra

    M. J. Hopkins and A. I. Molev, “A -analogue of the centralizer construction and skew representations of the quantum affine algebra.”SIGMA. Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications [electronic only]2(2006) Paper 092, 29 p., electronic only–Paper 092, 29 p....

    2006

  69. [77]

    Quivers, tilings, branes and rhombi,

    A. Hanany and D. Vegh, “Quivers, tilings, branes and rhombi,”JHEP10(2007) 029, arXiv:hep-th/0511063

    2007 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Cluster integrable systems and spin chains,

    A. Marshakov and M. Semenyakin, “Cluster integrable systems and spin chains,”JHEP10 (2019) 100,arXiv:1905.09921 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Cluster ensembles, quantization and the dilogarithm,

    V. V. Fock and A. B. Goncharov, “Cluster ensembles, quantization and the dilogarithm,” arXiv:math/0311245

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Quantum cluster algebras,

    A. Berenstein and A. Zelevinsky, “Quantum cluster algebras,”Advances in Mathematics195 no. 2, (2005) 405–455. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001870804002737

    2005

  73. [81]

    work in progress,

    S. Jeong, “work in progress,”

  74. [82]

    Affine Algebras, Langlands Duality and Bethe Ansatz,

    E. Frenkel, “Affine Algebras, Langlands Duality and Bethe Ansatz,”arXiv:q-alg/9506003 [q-alg]. – 58 –

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    A relation between the knizhnik–zamolodchikov and belavin–polyakov–zamolodchikov systems of partial differential equations,

    A. V. Stoyanovsky, “A relation between the knizhnik–zamolodchikov and belavin–polyakov–zamolodchikov systems of partial differential equations,”arXiv: Mathematical Physics(2000) .https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7051226

    2000

  76. [84]

    H+(3)-WZNW correlators from Liouville theory,

    S. Ribault and J. Teschner, “H+(3)-WZNW correlators from Liouville theory,”JHEP06 (2005) 014,arXiv:hep-th/0502048

    2005 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Surface defects in gauge theory and KZ equation,

    N. Nekrasov and A. Tsymbaliuk, “Surface defects in gauge theory and KZ equation,” arXiv:2103.12611 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  78. [86]

    Intersecting defects in gauge theory, quantum spin chains, and Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equations,

    S. Jeong, N. Lee, and N. Nekrasov, “Intersecting defects in gauge theory, quantum spin chains, and Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equations,”JHEP10(2021) 120,arXiv:2103.17186 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Quantum affine algebras and holonomic difference equations,

    I. B. Frenkel and N. Y. Reshetikhin, “Quantum affine algebras and holonomic difference equations,”Communications in mathematical physics146no. 1, (1992) 1–60

    1992

  80. [88]

    Blowups in BPS/CFT Correspondence, and Painlevé VI,

    N. Nekrasov, “Blowups in BPS/CFT Correspondence, and Painlevé VI,”Annales Henri Poincare25no. 1, (2024) 1123–1213,arXiv:2007.03646 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    BPZ equations for higher degenerate fields and nonperturbative Dyson-Schwinger equations,

    S. Jeong and X. Zhang, “BPZ equations for higher degenerate fields and nonperturbative Dyson-Schwinger equations,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 12, (2024) 125006,arXiv:1710.06970 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Quantum curves andq-deformed Painlevé equations,

    G. Bonelli, A. Grassi, and A. Tanzini, “Quantum curves andq-deformed Painlevé equations,” Lett. Math. Phys.109no. 9, (2019) 1961–2001,arXiv:1710.11603 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Non-perturbative approaches to the quantum Seiberg-Witten curve,

    A. Grassi, J. Gu, and M. Mariño, “Non-perturbative approaches to the quantum Seiberg-Witten curve,”JHEP07(2020) 106,arXiv:1908.07065 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Elliptic stable envelopes,

    M. Aganagic and A. Okounkov, “Elliptic stable envelopes,”J. Am. Math. Soc.34no. 1, (2021) 79–133,arXiv:1604.00423 [math.AG]

    2021 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Quantumq-Langlands Correspondence,

    M. Aganagic, E. Frenkel, and A. Okounkov, “Quantumq-Langlands Correspondence,”Trans. Moscow Math. Soc.79(2018) 1–83,arXiv:1701.03146 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Stable Envelopes, Vortex Moduli Spaces, and Verma Modules,

    S. Tamagni, “Stable Envelopes, Vortex Moduli Spaces, and Verma Modules,” arXiv:2311.03462 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  87. [95]

    A new realization of quantum algebras in gauge theory and Ramification in the Langlands program,

    N. Haouzi, “A new realization of quantum algebras in gauge theory and Ramification in the Langlands program,”arXiv:2311.04367 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  88. [96]

    New dimer integrable systems and defects in five dimensional gauge theory,

    N. Lee, “New dimer integrable systems and defects in five dimensional gauge theory,”JHEP12 (2024) 050,arXiv:2312.13133 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Onb-whittaker functions,

    G. Schrader and A. Shapiro, “Onb-whittaker functions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.00747 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Higher Sugawara Operators for the Quantum Affine Algebras of Type A,

    L. Frappat, N. Jing, A. Molev, and E. Ragoucy, “Higher Sugawara Operators for the Quantum Affine Algebras of Type A,”Commun. Math. Phys.345no. 2, (2016) 631–657, arXiv:1505.03667 [math.QA]

    2016 arXiv

  91. [99]

    On irreducibility of tensor products of evaluation modules for the quantum affine algebra,

    A. I. Molev, V. N. Tolstoy, and R. B. Zhang, “On irreducibility of tensor products of evaluation modules for the quantum affine algebra,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General37 no. 6, (2004) 2385.https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/37/6/028. – 59 –

    2004 doi

  92. [2024]

    485201. 32 pp. – 55 –

Pith tools

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