Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

The 2-loop correction to the M2 brane free energy in AdS7 × S4 vanishes in both dimensional and ζ-function regularizations, implying the defect anomaly coefficient is b = 12N − 9 rather than 12N − 9 − 3/N.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 06:42 UTC pith:NLZKB4KQ

load-bearing objection First 2-loop M2 free-energy computation is careful and new, but f2=0 holds only in analytic regulators; the U(N) conclusion is a plausible conjecture, not an established result. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.22306 v4 pith:NLZKB4KQ submitted 2025-11-27 hep-th

2-loop free energy of M2 brane in AdS₇ times S⁴ and surface defect anomaly in (2,0) theory

Matteo Beccaria , Stefan A. Kurlyand , Arkady A. Tseytlin This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords M2 braneAdS7 x S4surface defect(2,0) theoryconformal anomalyfree energytwo-loopregularization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper asks whether the 1/N correction to the free energy of an M2 brane wrapped on AdS3 inside AdS7 × S4 reproduces the predicted −3/N term in the surface-defect conformal anomaly of the 6d (2,0) theory. Computing the two-loop contribution from the quartic terms of the standard M2 brane action, the authors find that the correction vanishes identically in both dimensional and ζ-function regularizations. As a result, the probe-brane calculation yields b = 12N − 9, which is the value expected for a U(N) boundary theory rather than the SU(N) value that includes −3/N. This supports the conjecture that the quantum M2 brane ending on the boundary represents a surface defect in the U(N) rather than SU(N) theory.

Core claim

The central claim is that the two-loop (order N^{-1}) coefficient f2 in the free-energy expansion F = (T2 f0 + f1 + T2^{-1} f2) vol(AdS3) vanishes: (f2)_dred = (f2)_ζ-reg = 0. This happens because every bosonic, mixed, and fermionic two-loop contribution is proportional to (d−2) or to the coincident-limit 'δ(0)' constants Ĝx and Ĝθ, which vanish in these regularizations, so all terms disappear at d = 2. The vanishing is independent of the explicit values of the coincident Green's functions Gx = −1/(2π) and Gθ = 1/(2π). The authors interpret the result as evidence that the M2 brane probe describes a defect in the U(N) (2,0) theory, where the anomaly coefficient is b = 12N − 9, and not in the

What carries the argument

The computation expands the standard M2 brane action near the AdS3 minimal surface in static gauge together with a κ-symmetry gauge in which cubic couplings are absent, reducing the two-loop free energy to bubble diagrams built from coincident-point propagators of 4 massive bosons (m²=3), 4 massless bosons, and 8 Majorana fermions (m=3/2) on AdS3. The load-bearing identity is that in dimensional or ζ-function regularization the coincident-limit combinations Ĝx = 0 and Ĝθ = 0 (and δ(0)=0 in the ζ case), so every two-loop term carries a factor d−2 and vanishes at d=2.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on adopting an analytic regularization (dimensional or ζ-function) in which the coincident-limit 'δ(0)' terms vanish; if the correct M2 partition function requires a heat-kernel cutoff with an ultralocal measure, the 2-loop free energy may be nonzero and the U(N) inference would not follow.

What would settle it

Compute the 2-loop free energy with a manifestly supersymmetric regularization that keeps the heat-kernel cutoffs and a specified ultralocal measure; if the finite part 3241/(1536π³) survives consistent renormalization, the vanishing is a regularization artifact. Alternatively, evaluate the quartic terms in the action that involve ε^{αβγ} contractions (omitted because their contractions are ∝ δ^{ij}); if any produce a nonvanishing d→2 limit, the result changes.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the vanishing is correct, the M2 brane free energy has no 1/N correction, so the defect b-anomaly from the probe is b = 12N − 9.
  • This matches the U(N) boundary-theory expectation and contradicts the SU(N) value b = 12N − 9 − 3N^{-1} previously argued from representation theory.
  • The cancellation occurs in the bosonic and fermionic sectors separately and persists in two distinct analytic regularizations, making the result robust within that class.
  • The same mechanism—no cubic couplings and vanishing δ(0) constants—should apply to other M2 brane probes such as those wrapped on S3/Zk in AdS4 × S7/Zk, implying vanishing 2-loop free energy there as well.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the U(N) reading is right, probe branes ending on the boundary generally capture U(N) rather than SU(N) observables, and reproducing the SU(N) anomaly would require additional brane configurations or sectors not present in the single-probe computation.
  • A direct test is to compute the analogous 2-loop free energy for the M2 wrapped on S3/Zk in AdS4 × S7/Zk; a vanishing result would generalize the finding and connect to an ensemble interpretation of M-theory partition functions.
  • The vanishing may reflect a hidden symmetry: the absence of cubic couplings in the κ-gauge, together with world-volume supersymmetry, could protect the free energy at this order beyond the explicit diagrams.
  • The fate of the result hinges on whether analytic regularizations are the physically correct ones for the M2 path integral; a heat-kernel cutoff leaves a nonzero finite part 3241/(1536π³) that would need an ultralocal measure to remove.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper computes the 2-loop (order T_2^{-1}) correction f_2 to the free energy of a probe M2 brane wrapped on AdS_3 in AdS_7 × S^4, using the BST action expanded to quartic order in fluctuations around the static-gauge minimal surface. The fluctuation spectrum is 4 massive bosons (m^2=3), 4 massless bosons and 16 fermions (m_f=3/2); in the chosen κ-symmetry gauge there are no cubic couplings, so the 2-loop free energy is the expectation value of the quartic Lagrangian, i.e. products of coincident-point propagators. The central result, (4.4)–(4.7), is that the total coefficient vanishes in both dimensional-reduction and ζ-function regularizations, (f_2)_dred = (f_2)_ζ-reg = 0, because each term is proportional to d−2 or to coincident-limit constants Ĝ that vanish in those schemes. Via b = 6π f this gives b_2 = 0, in disagreement with the SU(N) defect-anomaly value b = 12N − 9 − 3N^{−1} of (1.3) and in agreement with the U(N) value b = 12N − 9 of (1.17). The paper candidly discusses the possible resolutions: unconstrained higher-derivative counterterms (motivated by the flat-space 2-loop non-renormalizability of [19]), regulator dependence (the heat-kernel finite part (A.40) is nonzero), breakdown of the probe description, or a U(N) boundary theory.

Significance. If the vanishing of f_2 were scheme-independent and free of counterterm ambiguity, this would be a sharp, falsifiable result: it would discriminate between SU(N) and U(N) (2,0) defect theories at order N^{−1} and show that the probe M2 brane does not reproduce (1.3) at 2-loop order. Strengths: the calculation is parameter-free (no fitting); the action expansion (B.35)–(B.38), the Green's-function identities (A.9)–(A.17) and the fermionic correlator identities (C.15)–(C.16) are explicit enough for independent verification; and the paper reports the conflicting heat-kernel result (A.40) and lists competing resolutions in §5 rather than suppressing them. The negative result sharpens a long-standing puzzle about brane-probe descriptions of conformal defects and is likely to drive follow-up work (M2 on AdS_2×S^1, S^3/Z_k, S^1×S^2; the companion AdS_2 string computation [11]). Its impact, however, depends on resolving the scheme and counterterm questions raised below.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, App. A.3, Eqs. (4.4)–(4.7), (A.40)] The vanishing is a property of the regulator class that sets 'δ(0)' terms to zero: in (4.5)–(4.6), Ĝx=Ĝy=0, Ĝθ=O(ε), following from ζ(0)=0 or discarding power divergences. The heat-kernel cutoff, also standard on curved spaces, gives different coincident limits (A.39); the same expectation values (2.18),(3.16),(3.17) then give (A.40), with nonzero finite part 3241/(1536π^3) in addition to power divergences. The abstract's 'modulo power divergences' clause does not remove this finite part. No principle is shown to select the analytic class (the supersymmetry argument in §1 is asserted), and the measure cancellation after (A.40) is not exhibited. Thus f_2=0 is established only within the dim-red/ζ-function class; the §5 sentence 'our result implies the vanishing of the 1/N correction' overstates the computation. Concrete test: run the companion AdS_2-string computation [11] in the heat-ker
  2. [§5 and footnote 13; [19]] The BST action is non-renormalizable (flat-space 2-loop S-matrix, [19]), so order-T_2^{-1} local counterterms are unconstrained. A counterterm such as ∫√g R^2 on AdS_3 is a constant times vol(AdS_3) and shifts f_2; no principle fixes its coefficient, as §5 concedes. Footnote 13 treats only 1-loop finite counterterms for 2-point functions and finds d−2 factors; it does not address the order-T_2^{-1} higher-derivative counterterms. The alternative that physical b_2 = −3 is produced by counterterms is therefore as consistent with the calculation as the U(N) reading. The abstract and the first line of §5 should carry this conditionality: 'Our result implies the vanishing of the 1/N correction' does not follow from the BST-action computation alone. One would need to show residual 3d supersymmetry forbids such counterterms, or to fix them in a UV completion.
  3. [Abstract; Eq. (1.17); §5] The advertised conclusion — support for the U(N) boundary theory — requires, beyond the calculation itself, (i) the analytic regularization being the physical one, (ii) absence of the unconstrained counterterms, and (iii) the formal application of (1.2) to U(N) with (ρ,λ)=((N−1)/2,1), flagged as a conjecture in footnote 7. The same computation is equally compatible with the probe-breakdown and counterterm resolutions listed in §5; the U(N) reading is favored partly because it matches the computed zero. I ask that the abstract's final sentence be made explicitly conditional ('consistent with, and lending some support to, the U(N) interpretation'), with the competing resolutions stated, unless (i)–(iii) are independently established. The title advertises the (2,0) anomaly as the payoff, so this framing is load-bearing for the paper's claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (1.16)] The conversion factor is off by 2. From (1.10), T_2=2N/π and b=6π f give b_2 = 6π × (π/2) f_2 = 3π^2 f_2, not (3π^2/2) f_2. Harmless since f_2=0, but should be corrected.
  2. [Abstract] 'UV finite (modulo power divergences...)' is self-contradictory; suggest 'free of logarithmic divergences; the finite part is scheme-dependent, and the coefficient vanishes in dim-red and ζ-function regularizations'.
  3. [§3.1 after (3.9); §2.2 after (2.10)] The omitted terms are said to vanish by δ^{ij} symmetries; for the record I verified that the WZ quartic term and the (B.37) 'dot' terms do not contribute (their expectation values contain ⟨x^i ∂_β x^j⟩=0 or ε^{αβγ}∂_β∂_γ G=0 at coincident points). The statements are correct but terse; one sentence making the two mechanisms explicit would help readers.
  4. [App. A.3, Eqs. (A.29), (A.34)] δ(σ,σ')=ζ(0)=0 is the decisive regulator prescription that sets Ĝ=0; please label it explicitly as such and contrast with (A.39), since it is the main assumption on which (4.7) rests.
  5. [References] Reference [11] still shows a placeholder arXiv number; update before publication.
  6. [Eq. (3.14)] The phrase 'where factors of gauge-fixing projector (3.4) are implicit' is unclear; a brief statement that the correlators include P and that traces give tr_P I = N_θ = 16 would clarify the normalization of (3.16),(3.17).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: f2=0 is an honest semiclassical computation from the BST action, compared with external benchmarks; the U(N) interpretation is clearly conjectural and not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense: it starts from the BST M2-brane action (1.6)–(1.7), expands to quartic order in world-volume fluctuations, evaluates the products of coincident-point Green functions, and assembles the result in (4.4) from the explicitly derived partial contributions (2.18), (3.16) and (3.17). No parameter is fitted to any target value. The vanishing f2=0 at d=2 follows algebraically from the d−2 prefactors and the finiteness of Gx and Gθ in the chosen regularizations; it is not obtained by imposing b2=−3 or any other external value. The comparison value b=12N−9−3N^{−1} comes from independent references [4,5,6,9] and is not used to define the action, the propagators, or the regularization constants. The U(N) interpretation is explicitly presented in §5 as one possible resolution ('the simplest possibility'), alongside counterterm ambiguities and possible breakdown of the probe description, so it is model selection rather than a circular derivation. The self-citations in the paper are contextual rather than load-bearing: [1] provides the 1-loop setup whose term b1=−9 agrees with the independent formula (1.3); [19] documents flat-space non-renormalizability but is not needed for the 2-loop evaluation; [24] elaborates a matrix-model result that refers back to the independent localization computation [7]. The heat-kernel discrepancy displayed in (A.40) is a scheme-dependence caveat that the authors themselves flag, not a step in which the claimed result is re-imported as an input. Overall, the derivation chain is not circular, although its regulator dependence and counterterm sensitivity are genuine physical concerns outside the circularity category.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The computation carries no fitted constants and introduces no new entities; its burden is concentrated in the regulator convention (ζ(0) = 0 / dimensional reduction), in trusting the BST action at 2 loops, and in assuming the free-energy-to-anomaly map — all explicitly flagged by the authors in Section 5 and Appendix A.3.

axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The BST M2 brane action (1.6)-(1.7), with the κ-symmetry gauge (3.4) that removes cubic couplings, correctly defines the quantum M2 partition function.
    Enters in Section 1 and Appendix B; Section 5 acknowledges the action's non-renormalizability, making its use at 2 loops an assumption.
  • domain assumption The M2 free-energy coefficient maps to the boundary defect anomaly via F = −(1/3)b log Λ̄, i.e. b = 6πf (eqs (1.9)-(1.10)).
    This AdS/CFT bridge from [1] is what makes f2 interpretable; Section 5 itself floats its breakdown at higher orders.
  • domain assumption The SU(N) b-coefficient expression (1.2),(1.3) from [4,5,6,9] is the correct external benchmark.
    Used as the contrast prediction (b2 = −3); footnote 2 admits it 'could still be viewed as conjecture'.
  • standard math Spectral ζ-function regularization sets ζ(0) = 0 for the relevant operators (Appendix A.3, eqs (A.29),(A.34)), killing δ(0) terms.
    Standard analytic-regulation identity; load-bearing for eqs (4.6)-(4.7).
  • domain assumption Dimensional reduction keeps the Dirac algebra at 3 dimensions (Γ^αΓ_α = 3) while continuing bosonic derivatives to d+1; this is the 'natural' supersymmetry-preserving regulator.
    Section 3.1 and Appendix A.2; the regulator choice determines the vanishing through (3.15).
  • domain assumption The Wick-contraction symmetry statements that make the omitted terms in (B.37) vanish (xx^ix^j ~ δ^{ij}, xy^ay^b ~ δ^{ab}, xx^iy^a = 0).
    Invoked in Section 3.1 after eq (3.11); if wrong, extra 2-loop contributions appear.
  • standard math The 11d Fierz identity used to close the WZ 4-form H4 (footnote 21, Appendix B.1).
    Standard superalgebra/Fierz input to the BST action construction.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24385 in / 16268 out tokens · 142459 ms · 2026-08-04T06:42:09.808467+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A $\frac{1}{2}$-BPS surface operator viewed as a conformal defect in rank $N$ 6d (2,0) theory is expected to have a holographic description in terms of a probe M2 brane wrapped on AdS$_3$ in the AdS$_7\times S^4$ M-theory background. The M2 brane has an effective tension T$_2= \frac{2}{ \pi} N$ so that the large tension expansion corresponds to the $1/N$ expansion. The value of the defect conformal anomaly coefficient in $SU(N)$ (2,0) theory was previously argued to be b$=12N- 9 - 3N^{-1}$. At the same time, one may expect that the probe M2 brane ending on a stack of $N$ M5 branes should represent a Wilson surface operator in the $U(N)$ rather than $SU(N)$ boundary 6d CFT. In this case one should get b$=12N- 9 $, i.e. the $N^{-1}$ term (that in the $SU(N)$ expression ensures that b vanishes for $N=1$) should be absent. By semiclassically quantizing M2 brane, it was found in arXiv:2004.04562 that the first two terms in b are indeed reproduced by the classical and 1-loop corrections to the M2 free energy. Here we address the question of the value of the next 2-loop term in the M2 brane free energy, i.e. the coefficient of the $N^{-1}$ term in b. Remarkably, despite the general non-renormalizability of the standard BST M2 brane action we find that the 2-loop correction to the free energy of the AdS$_3$ M2 brane in AdS$_7\times S^4$ is UV finite (modulo power divergences that can be removed by an analytic regularization). Moreover, the 2-loop correction vanishes in both dimensional and $\zeta$-function regularizations. This supports the expectation that the M2-brane probe computation captures the surface-defect anomaly of the $U(N)$ rather than the $SU(N)$ boundary 6d theory.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Wilson loop in AdS$_3 \times S^3 \times T^4$ from quantum M2 brane

    hep-th 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The 1-loop M2-brane partition function for the Wilson loop in AdS3 x S3 x T4 equals kappa over sqrt(2 pi) with no higher-genus string corrections.

  2. Wilson loop in AdS$_3 \times S^3 \times T^4$ from quantum M2 brane

    hep-th 2026-03 accept novelty 6.0

    The 1-loop M2-brane correction to the AdS2 imes S1 Wilson-loop partition function in AdS3 imes S3 imes T5 is exactly κ/√(2π) with no subleading 1/κ series.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 29 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Drukker, S

    N. Drukker, S. Giombi, A. A. Tseytlin and X. Zhou,Defect CFT in the 6d (2,0) theory from M2 brane dynamics in AdS7ˆS4,JHEP07(2020) 101 [2004.04562]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    C. R. Graham and E. Witten,Conformal Anomaly of Submanifold Observables in AdS / CFT Correspondence,Nucl. Phys. B546(1999) 52 [hep-th/9901021]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    Schwimmer and S

    A. Schwimmer and S. Theisen,Entanglement Entropy, Trace Anomalies and Holography,Nucl. Phys. B801(2008) 1 [0802.1017]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    Estes, D

    J. Estes, D. Krym, A. O’Bannon, B. Robinson and R. Rodgers,Wilson Surface Central Charge from Holographic Entanglement Entropy,JHEP05(2019) 032 [1812.00923]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Jensen, A

    K. Jensen, A. O’Bannon, B. Robinson and R. Rodgers,From the Weyl Anomaly to Entropy of Two-Dimensional Boundaries and Defects,Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) 241602 [1812.08745]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Chalabi, A

    A. Chalabi, A. O’Bannon, B. Robinson and J. Sisti,Central Charges of 2D Superconformal Defects, JHEP05(2020) 095 [2003.02857]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Mori and S

    H. Mori and S. Yamaguchi,M5-branes and Wilson surfaces in AdS7/CFT6 correspondence,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 026005 [1404.0930]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Rodgers,Holographic Entanglement Entropy from Probe M-theory Branes,JHEP03(2019) 092 [1811.12375]

    R. Rodgers,Holographic Entanglement Entropy from Probe M-theory Branes,JHEP03(2019) 092 [1811.12375]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Wang,Surface defect, anomalies and b-extremization,JHEP11(2021) 122 [2012.06574]

    Y. Wang,Surface defect, anomalies and b-extremization,JHEP11(2021) 122 [2012.06574]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Giombi and A

    S. Giombi and A. A. Tseytlin,Strong coupling expansion of circular Wilson loops and string theories in AdS5ˆS 5 and AdS4ˆCP 3,JHEP10(2020) 130 [2007.08512]

    arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Beccaria, S

    M. Beccaria, S. Kurlyand and A. A. Tseytlin,Strong coupling expansion of1 2 BPS Wilson loop in SYM from 2-loop Green-Schwarz string in AdS5ˆS 5,2511.xxxx

  12. [12]

    Bergshoeff, E

    E. Bergshoeff, E. Sezgin and P. K. Townsend,Supermembranes and eleven-dimensional supergravity, Phys. Lett.B189(1987) 75. E. Bergshoeff, E. Sezgin and P. K. Townsend,Properties of the Eleven-Dimensional Super Membrane Theory,Annals Phys.185(1988) 330

    1987

  13. [13]

    de Wit, K

    B. de Wit, K. Peeters, J. Plefka and A. Sevrin,The M theory two-brane in AdS4ˆS 7 and AdS7ˆS 4, Phys. Lett.B443(1998) 153 [hep-th/9808052]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  14. [14]

    Claus,Super M-brane actions in AdS(4)ˆS7 and AdS(7)ˆS4,Phys

    P. Claus,Super M-brane actions in AdS(4)ˆS7 and AdS(7)ˆS4,Phys. Rev. D59(1999) 066003 [hep-th/9809045]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  15. [15]

    D. E. Berenstein, R. Corrado, W. Fischler and J. M. Maldacena,The Operator product expansion for Wilson loops and surfaces in the large N limit,Phys. Rev.D59(1999) 105023 [hep-th/9809188]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  16. [16]

    D. E. Diaz and H. Dorn,Partition functions and double-trace deformations in AdS/CFT,JHEP0705 (2007) 046 [hep-th/0702163]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  17. [17]

    Giombi and A

    S. Giombi and A. A. Tseytlin,Wilson Loops at Large N and the Quantum M2-Brane,Phys. Rev. Lett. 130(2023) 201601 [2303.15207]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    F. K. Seibold and A. A. Tseytlin,Scattering on the Supermembrane,JHEP08(2024) 102 [2404.09658]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Beccaria, R

    M. Beccaria, R. Roiban and A. A. Tseytlin,2-loop scattering on superstring and supermembrane in flat space,JHEP09(2025) 191 [2507.09528]

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Kallosh,World volume supersymmetry,Phys

    R. Kallosh,World volume supersymmetry,Phys. Rev. D57(1998) 3214 [hep-th/9709069]. R. Kallosh,Quantization of p-branes, D-p-branes and M-branes,Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.68(1998) 197 [hep-th/9709202]. 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  21. [21]

    F. F. Gautason and J. van Muiden,Localization of the M2-Brane,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 101601 [2503.16597]. F. F. Gautason and J. van Muiden,Ensembles in M-theory and holography,JHEP11(2025) 078 [2505.21633]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    van Muiden,private communication,

    J. van Muiden,private communication,

  23. [23]

    Aharony, S

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri and Y. Oz,Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,Phys.Rept.323(2000) 183 [hep-th/9905111]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  24. [24]

    Beccaria, L

    M. Beccaria, L. Casarin and A. A. Tseytlin,Semiclassical quantization of M5 brane probes wrapped on AdS3×S 3 and defect anomalies,JHEP01(2025) 088 [2411.11626]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Giombi, R

    S. Giombi, R. Roiban and A. A. Tseytlin,Half-BPS Wilson loop and AdS2/CFT1,Nucl. Phys.B922 (2017) 499 [1706.00756]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Sakaguchi and K

    M. Sakaguchi and K. Yoshida,Dirichlet branes of the covariant open supermembrane in AdS(4) x S7 and AdS(7) x S4,Nucl. Phys. B681(2004) 137 [hep-th/0310035]. M. Sakaguchi and K. Yoshida,Open M-Branes on AdS(4/7)ˆS7/4 Revisited,Nucl. Phys. B714 (2005) 51 [hep-th/0405109]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  27. [27]

    Forste,Membrany corrections to the string anti-string potential in M5-brane theory,JHEP05 (1999) 002 [hep-th/9902068]

    S. Forste,Membrany corrections to the string anti-string potential in M5-brane theory,JHEP05 (1999) 002 [hep-th/9902068]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  28. [28]

    Bergman and S

    O. Bergman and S. Hirano,Anomalous Radius Shift in AdS4/CFT(3),JHEP07(2009) 016 [0902.1743]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  29. [29]

    K. C. Rigatos,Chiral algebra correlators of the6d,N“p2,0qtheory with a defect,2506.09132. J. Chen, A. Gimenez-Grau, H. Paul and X. Zhou,Unitarity method for holographic defects,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) L041703 [2406.13287]. J. Chen, A. Gimenez-Grau and X. Zhou,Defect two-point functions in 6D (2,0) theories,Phys. Rev. D 109(2024) L061903 [2310.19230]. C. Men...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Beccaria, S

    M. Beccaria, S. Giombi and A. A. Tseytlin,Instanton contributions to the ABJM free energy from quantum M2 branes,JHEP10(2023) 029 [2307.14112]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Beccaria, S

    M. Beccaria, S. Giombi and A. A. Tseytlin,(2,0) theory onS5ˆS 1 and quantum M2 branes,Nucl. Phys. B998(2024) 116400 [2309.10786]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    D’Hoker and D

    E. D’Hoker and D. Z. Freedman,Supersymmetric gauge theories and the AdS/CFT correspondence, in Strings, Branes and Extra Dimensions: TASI 2001: Proceedings, pp. 3–158, 2002,hep-th/0201253

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  33. [33]

    Kawano and K

    T. Kawano and K. Okuyama,Spinor exchange in AdS(d+1),Nucl. Phys.B565(2000) 427 [hep-th/9905130]. A. Basu and L. I. Uruchurtu,Gravitino propagator in anti de Sitter space,Class. Quant. Grav.23 (2006) 6059 [hep-th/0603089]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  34. [34]

    Camporesi,The Spinor heat kernel in maximally symmetric spaces,Commun

    R. Camporesi,The Spinor heat kernel in maximally symmetric spaces,Commun. Math. Phys.148 (1992) 283

    1992

  35. [35]

    Alonso-Alberca, E

    N. Alonso-Alberca, E. Lozano-Tellechea and T. Ortin,Geometric construction of Killing spinors and supersymmetry algebras in homogeneous space-times,Class. Quant. Grav.19(2002) 6009 [hep-th/0208158]. 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002