Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Anomaly mediation forces Seiberg-Witten vacua to rearrange when the soft scale crosses the strong-coupling scale, without a phase transition.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 05:54 UTC pith:N77CBA5C

load-bearing objection Exact SW calculation that cleanly shows AMSB and the N=1 mass deformation differ by instantons and force a vacuum rearrangement across Λ under decoupling, without a phase transition. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08903 v1 pith:N77CBA5C submitted 2026-07-09 hep-th

Anomaly mediation in Seiberg-Witten theories

Cyrus Tearlach Robertson Orkish , Daniel Stolarski This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords anomaly mediationSeiberg-Witten theorymonopole condensationsoft supersymmetry breakingN=2 supersymmetryinstanton correctionsconfinement
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.

The paper couples anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking to exactly solvable N=2 Seiberg-Witten theories with gauge group SU(2). Perturbatively the soft terms look identical to the classic N=1-preserving mass deformation of the adjoint multiplet, yet instantons already split the masses and break all supersymmetry. In the infrared the theory still shows monopole condensation and confinement, but the effective Lagrangian fully breaks supersymmetry and the condensates take different numerical values. Under physically reasonable decoupling assumptions those infrared vacua must evolve into the ultraviolet ones precisely when the soft scale crosses the strong-coupling scale; the change cannot be described inside either weakly coupled effective theory and is not a phase transition. The result shows that anomaly mediation can rearrange vacuum field configurations and global symmetries through nonperturbative effects that remain invisible in both the ultraviolet and infrared descriptions.

Core claim

When anomaly mediation is applied to N=2 SU(2) Seiberg-Witten theories, the ultraviolet soft terms are perturbatively equivalent to an N=1-preserving adjoint mass, yet nonperturbative instantons already break supersymmetry completely. In the infrared the Coulomb branch is lifted, monopoles and dyons condense, and electric charge is confined, but the effective Lagrangian breaks all supersymmetry and the condensate values differ from those of the N=1 deformation. Physically reasonable assumptions then require the vacua to change into the N=1 values as the soft scale crosses the strong-coupling scale; the rearrangement is caused by effects invisible to both weakly coupled descriptions and does

What carries the argument

The exact Seiberg-Witten Kähler potential on the Coulomb branch, inserted into the tree-level anomaly-mediation potential, which drives the moduli to the monopole/dyon singularities and fixes the condensates to values set by the derivative of that Kähler potential rather than by the Seiberg-Witten coordinate u.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that at very large soft-breaking scale the anomaly-mediated theory becomes observationally identical to the ordinary N=1 mass-deformed theory, forcing the infrared condensates to evolve into the ultraviolet ones.

What would settle it

A controlled calculation or numerical study of the condensates in the intermediate window where the soft scale is comparable to the strong-coupling scale that shows whether they remain fixed at their small-soft-scale values or interpolate to the large-soft-scale Seiberg-Witten values.

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

If this is right

  • Exact small-soft-scale vacua obtained with anomaly mediation can rearrange when the soft scale reaches the strong-coupling scale.
  • Instanton corrections to anomaly-mediation soft masses, though exponentially small in the ultraviolet, can alter global symmetries at any finite soft scale.
  • The theory remains in the same universality class at every finite soft scale, so far-infrared observables do not jump.
  • Extrapolating anomaly-mediation results from supersymmetric to non-supersymmetric confining theories requires control of nonperturbative effects invisible in both ultraviolet and infrared effective theories.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same nonperturbative rearrangement mechanism may appear in other soft-breaking schemes once conformal violations from instantons are retained.
  • The spurion-charge mismatch between ultraviolet and infrared descriptions supplies a diagnostic that could be tested in any dual or lattice formulation that can access both regimes.
  • The result supplies a concrete caution for any programme that treats small soft-breaking calculations as reliable guides to the large soft-breaking limit of confining gauge theories.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper couples anomaly-mediated SUSY breaking to asymptotically free N=2 SU(2) Seiberg–Witten theories (N_F=0–3). Perturbatively, AMSB reproduces an N=1-preserving adjoint mass (the SW deformation) up to an SU(2)_R rotation that exchanges the adjoint fermions; nonperturbative instanton corrections to the β-function split the soft masses and break residual N=1 completely already in the UV. On the Coulomb branch the tree-level AMSB potential is shown (via Picard–Fuchs structure and convexity of the Kähler potential) to drive the theory to the monopole/dyon singularities; the near-singularity dual SQED analysis yields exact vacua with monopole condensation and confinement, but with condensate values (Table VIII) and a fully non-supersymmetric effective Lagrangian that differ from the SW deformation. Under the assumption that the large-m_{3/2} and large-µ decoupling limits become observationally indistinguishable, the small-m_{3/2} vacua must rearrange into the SW values as m_{3/2} crosses Λ; the rearrangement is invisible inside either weakly-coupled description and is not a phase transition. Parallel results are obtained for the Higgs branches of N_F=2,3.

Significance. The work supplies a controlled, essentially exact laboratory in which the AMSB programme for non-supersymmetric gauge theories can be stress-tested. The UV soft-term calculation (including the leading instanton splitting), the algebraic positivity proof for the near-singularity potential, the global-minimum argument that pins a_D=0, the explicit factor-of-two condensate mismatch, and the demonstration that AMSB vanishes on the pure Higgs branch are all parameter-free and machine-checkable against the known Seiberg–Witten periods. These results cleanly separate what is rigorously established from the continuity assumption needed to extrapolate across m_{3/2}∼Λ, and they illustrate how nonperturbative conformal violations can rearrange vacua and global symmetries without producing a conventional phase transition. The paper therefore both advances the technical understanding of soft N=2 breaking and supplies a concrete cautionary example for the broader AMSB-to-QCD programme.

major comments (2)
  1. Sections IV and VI rest the claim that the AMSB vacua must rearrange on the assumption that the strict decoupling limits m_{3/2},µ→∞ produce identical sets of correlators (up to a possible overall rescaling of Λ_SYM). The assumption is stated clearly and is not used to derive the exact IR condensates or the positivity of V_AMSB, yet the abstract and conclusion present the rearrangement as a central result. A short, self-contained paragraph that cleanly separates the rigorously established mismatch (instanton-split UV masses, Table VIII, U(1)_J spurion clash) from the continuity conjecture would prevent over-reading.
  2. Appendix B proves that V_AMSB has no local minima on the smooth Coulomb branch if and only if the Kähler potential is free of saddle points (real convexity). The paper supplies numerical evidence (Figs. 2–5) and cites Ref. [39] for SU(N), but does not prove convexity. Because the global-minimum claim for the Coulomb branch is load-bearing for the subsequent singularity analysis, either a reference to a complete proof or an explicit caveat that the result is conditional on convexity should appear in the main text of §III.C.
minor comments (5)
  1. Eq. (2.44) and the accompanying footnote note a minor discrepancy with Ref. [17] (−2 versus −1 in the denominator). A one-sentence clarification of which expression is used for the subsequent condensate calculations would remove ambiguity.
  2. Table VIII caption and the surrounding text in §VI should state explicitly that the “actual” condensates are the complex conjugates of the direct evaluation of Eq. (3.40) after the SU(2)_R swap; the present wording is easy to misread.
  3. The nondimensionalization of the potentials in Figs. 2–5 is explained in the text, but the figure captions themselves do not record that m_{3/2}=Λ_NF=1 has been set. Adding this to the captions would make the plots self-contained.
  4. Appendix A’s discussion of the IR cutoff that appears after canonical normalization is valuable; a forward reference from the main-text claim that loop corrections do not alter the vacuum (end of §III.D) would help the reader locate it.
  5. A few typographical inconsistencies appear (e.g., “theries” in the Introduction, “desribing” in §II.C.7, occasional missing spaces around m_{3/2}). A careful copy-edit pass is warranted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: soft terms, IR vacua and condensate mismatch are derived from standard AMSB formulae plus known Seiberg-Witten periods; the continuity assumption is flagged as an assumption, not smuggled as a theorem.

full rationale

The paper's analytic results stand independently of any self-referential loop. UV soft masses (Eqs. 3.1, 3.14) follow from the standard AMSB formulae (2.7–2.9) applied to the one-loop-exact N=2 beta function (including the known instanton corrections of Seiberg 1988). The Coulomb-branch potential (3.17) and its positivity/global-minimum proof (Appendix B, using Picard-Fuchs) are self-contained. Near-singularity vacua (3.40) and the factor-of-two condensate discrepancy (Table VIII) are obtained by direct minimization of the AMSB potential (3.23) against the known dual prepotentials of [17]. The Higgs-branch vanishing of AMSB (Appendix C) follows from the classical Kähler quotient and the N=2 non-renormalization theorem. The only non-derived ingredient is the continuity/decoupling assumption of §§IV,VI (that large-m3/2 AMSB and large-µ SW become observationally indistinguishable). The paper states this explicitly as an assumption (“Under physically reasonable assumptions…”, abstract and §IV) and never claims to have proven the intermediate-regime rearrangement; the mismatch itself is presented as evidence that such a rearrangement is required if decoupling holds. No fitted parameters, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors’ prior work, and no renaming of a known empirical pattern appear. Score 1 reflects only the ordinary self-citation of the authors’ earlier AMSB papers for background, none of which is load-bearing for the central calculations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the standard AMSB conformal-compensator formalism, the exact Seiberg-Witten solution for SU(2), and the known non-renormalization theorems of N=2 theories. No free parameters are fitted; the only additional physical assumptions are the continuity of the decoupling limits and the convexity of the Kähler potential (supported by numerical plots and a partial analytic argument).

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption AMSB soft terms are completely determined by the conformal compensator χ=1+θ^{2} m_{3/2} together with the β-functions and anomalous dimensions of the underlying SUSY theory.
    Standard AMSB formalism (Section II.B, Appendix E); used throughout to generate both UV and IR soft potentials.
  • domain assumption The Seiberg-Witten periods a(u), a_D(u) and the dual prepotential give the exact low-energy effective action on the Coulomb branch of SU(2) N=2 theories.
    Classic result of [4,5]; used to construct the AMSB potential (3.17) and the near-singularity EFTs.
  • ad hoc to paper The Kähler potential on the Coulomb branch is real-convex (or at least has no saddle points that would produce local minima of V_AMSB away from the singularities).
    Invoked in Appendix B and supported by numerical plots (Figs. 2–5) and a partial analytic argument; if false, additional vacua could appear.
  • ad hoc to paper In the strict decoupling limits m_{3/2},µ o∞ the sets of correlators of the AMSB and SW-deformed theories both reduce to those of pure N=1 SYM (up to a possible overall rescaling of Λ_SYM).
    Stated as a physically reasonable assumption in Sections IV and VI; required to force the IR condensates to evolve into the SW values.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 59750 in / 2726 out tokens · 29311 ms · 2026-07-13T05:54:13.309181+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the coupling of anomaly mediated supersymmetry breaking (AMSB) to $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric theories with $SU(2)$ gauge group. Perturbatively, $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry (SUSY) is preserved in the UV description with the AMSB terms being equivalent to a supersymmetric mass term for the adjoint chiral multiplet, as considered in the original Seiberg-Witten papers. We show, however, that nonperturbative instanton contributions break supersymmetry completely. In the IR description, the theory with AMSB is qualitatively similar to its $\mathcal{N}=1$ analog, exhibiting monopole condensation and confinement. However, the effective Lagrangian breaks supersymmetry completely, and the values of the condensates are different from their $\mathcal{N}=1$ analogs. Under physically reasonable assumptions, it can be shown that the vacua must change to those of the perturbatively identical $\mathcal{N}=1$-preserving deformation as the SUSY-breaking scale crosses the strong coupling scale. This change must be caused by effects that cannot in principle be described within the effective weakly coupled IR theory. It is not a phase transition, and the vacua appear to lie in the same universality class at any finite SUSY-breaking scale. Nonetheless, this work highlights the subtle manner in which AMSB coupling to nonperturbative effects can change the vacuum field configuration and the global symmetries of a theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08903 by Cyrus Tearlach Robertson Orkish, Daniel Stolarski.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A sketch of the Coulomb branch. The black dots are the singularities where monopoles or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Representative slices of the nondimensionalized K¨ahler potential on the Coulomb branch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. This plot shows representative slices of the nondimensionalized AMSB potential on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. These plots show representative slices of the normalized K¨ahler potentials for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. These plots show normalized AMSB potentials for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    expected

    We believe the former expression is correct, as the latter would make this singularity the only one for which the ratio of condensate magnitudes isnot 1 2. 45 NF Massless (nm, ne) Expected⟨mem⟩(subbingµ→b NF 0 m3/2) Actual condensate (afterSU(2) R swap) 0 (0, 1) −m3/2 iΛ0 2 √ 2π2 m3/2 iΛ0 4π2√ 2 0 (1, 1) −m3/2 Λ0 2 √ 2π2 m3/2 Λ0 4π2√ 2 1 (1, -1) exp(5iπ/3...

  2. [2]

    T ree level At tree level, we multiply the K¨ ahler and superpotentials by whatever powers of the conformal compensatorχ= 1 +θ 2Fχ and its conjugate are needed to spuriously restore super-Weyl invariance. This gives us Z d4θK→ Z d4θχ†χK, Z d2θW→ Z d2θχ3W.(E1) For a generic K¨ ahler potential as a function of some chiral superfieldsQ i, Q† i, we can work o...

  3. [3]

    Scalar masses Consider a canonical K¨ ahler potential K= Z d4θZ(µ)Q †Q.(E10) To spuriously preserve super-Weyl invariance, we promoteZto a superfieldZ(µ)→ Z µ/ p χ†χ

    Loop level a. Scalar masses Consider a canonical K¨ ahler potential K= Z d4θZ(µ)Q †Q.(E10) To spuriously preserve super-Weyl invariance, we promoteZto a superfieldZ(µ)→ Z µ/ p χ†χ . Then our K¨ ahler potential picks up additionalD-terms, which we may find by Taylor expandingZinχ. Z d4θZ µp χ†χ ! Q†Q = Z d4θ(Z| χ=1 + ∂Z ∂χ |χ=1θ2Fχ +c.c.+ ∂2Z ∂χ†∂χ |χ=χ†=1...

  4. [4]

    −i log aD Λ0 + 3/2−Λ 2 0 X l=2 cD l i Λ0 l al−2 D l(l−1) !# g2 ef f ∝

    + 1 µ V 2 (G1) whereXis a Lagrange multiplier. ForN F = 3, it is given by W=− 1 µ2Λ3 Pf(V) + 1 µ V 2 (G2) Solving the equations of motion and taking the largeµlimit recovers known results inN= 1 SQCD. 67 Appendix H: Corrections to the dual prepotential From [31], the dual prepotential has the general form FD(aD) = a2 D 4πi log aD Λ0 − Λ2 0 2πi X l=0 cD l ...

  5. [5]

    Conservation of Isotopic Spin and Isotopic Gauge Invariance,

    C.-N. Yang and R. L. Mills, “Conservation of Isotopic Spin and Isotopic Gauge Invariance,” Phys. Rev.96, 191 (1954)

    1954

  6. [6]

    50 years of quantum chromodynamics: Introduction and review,

    F. Gross, E. Klempt, S. J. Brodsky, A. J. Buras, V. D. Burkert, G. Heinrich, K. Jakobs, C. A. Meyer, K. Orginos, M. Strickland, et al., “50 years of quantum chromodynamics: Introduction and review,” The European Physical Journal C83(2023), ISSN 1434-6052, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11949-2

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11949-2 2023

  7. [7]

    Dynamical Supersymmetry Breaking in Four-Dimensions and Its Phenomenological Implications,

    I. Affleck, M. Dine, and N. Seiberg, “Dynamical Supersymmetry Breaking in Four-Dimensions and Its Phenomenological Implications,” Nucl. Phys. B256, 557 (1985)

    1985

  8. [8]

    Electric-magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and confine- ment in n=2 supersymmetric yang-mills theory,

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Electric-magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and confine- ment in n=2 supersymmetric yang-mills theory,” Nuclear Physics B426, 19–52 (1994), ISSN 0550-3213, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(94)90124-4. 68

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)90124-4 1994

  9. [9]

    Monopoles, duality and chiral symmetry breaking in n = 2 supersymmetric qcd,

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Monopoles, duality and chiral symmetry breaking in n = 2 supersymmetric qcd,” Nuclear Physics B431, 484–550 (1994), ISSN 0550-3213, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(94)90214-3

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)90214-3 1994

  10. [10]

    Seiberg, inParticles, Strings, and Cosmology (PASCOS 94)(1994), pp

    N. Seiberg, inParticles, Strings, and Cosmology (PASCOS 94)(1994), pp. 0357–369, hep- th/9408013

    arXiv 1994

  11. [11]

    Calculating gluino condensates in n=1 sym from seiberg–witten curves,

    K. Konishi and A. Ricco, “Calculating gluino condensates in n=1 sym from seiberg–witten curves,” Physics Letters B570, 118–122 (2003), ISSN 0370-2693, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.physletb.2003.07.040

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.07.040 2003

  12. [12]

    Gaugino mass without singlets,

    G. F. Giudice, R. Rattazzi, M. A. Luty, and H. Murayama, “Gaugino mass without singlets,” Journal of High Energy Physics1998, 027–027 (1998), ISSN 1029-8479, URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/1998/12/027

    doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1998/12/027 1998

  13. [13]

    Out of this world supersymmetry breaking,

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “Out of this world supersymmetry breaking,” Nuclear Physics B 557, 79–118 (1999), ISSN 0550-3213, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(99) 00359-4

    doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(99 1999

  14. [14]

    Sparticle masses from the superconformal anomaly,

    A. Pomarol and R. Rattazzi, “Sparticle masses from the superconformal anomaly,” Journal of High Energy Physics1999, 013–013 (1999), ISSN 1029-8479, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1126-6708/1999/05/013

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1999/05/013 1999

  15. [15]

    Anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking demystified,

    D.-W. Jung and J. Y. Lee, “Anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking demystified,” Journal of High Energy Physics2009, 123–123 (2009), ISSN 1029-8479, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/03/123

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/03/123 2009

  16. [16]

    Some exact results in qcd-like theories,

    H. Murayama, “Some exact results in qcd-like theories,” Physical Review Letters126(2021), ISSN 1079-7114, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.251601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.251601 2021

  17. [17]

    Some exact results in chiral gauge theories,

    C. Cs´ aki, H. Murayama, and O. Telem, “Some exact results in chiral gauge theories,” Physical Review D104(2021), ISSN 2470-0029, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104. 065018

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104 2021

  18. [18]

    Phases of confining su(5) chiral gauge theory with three generations,

    Y. Bai and D. Stolarski, “Phases of confining su(5) chiral gauge theory with three generations,” Journal of High Energy Physics2022(2022), ISSN 1029-8479, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/JHEP03(2022)113

    2022

  19. [19]

    On s-confining susy-qcd with anomaly mediation,

    C. H. de Lima and D. Stolarski, “On s-confining susy-qcd with anomaly mediation,” (2024), 2307.13154, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2307.13154

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Near-SUSY to non-SUSY crossover,

    D. Kondo, H. Murayama, and B. Noether, “Near-SUSY to non-SUSY crossover,” Phys. Rev. D112, 114021 (2025), 2505.18138

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Phase transitions at unusual values of θ,

    C. Cs´ aki, T. Kawano, H. Murayama, and O. Telem, “Phase transitions at unusual values of θ,” (2025), 2506.14879, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.14879

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Challenges to obtaining results for real qcd from susy qcd,

    M. Dine and Y. Yu, “Challenges to obtaining results for real qcd from susy qcd,” (2022), 2205.00115, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2205.00115

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Supersymmetry and Nonperturbative beta Functions,

    N. Seiberg, “Supersymmetry and Nonperturbative beta Functions,” Phys. Lett. B206, 75 (1988)

    1988

  24. [24]

    Softly broken n = 2 qcd,

    L. ´ALVAREZ-GAUM´E, C. KOUNNAS, J. DISTLER, and M. MARI ˜NO, “Softly broken n = 2 qcd,” International Journal of Modern Physics A11, 4745–4777 (1996), ISSN 1793-656X, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X96002170

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x96002170 1996

  25. [25]

    More on softly broken n = 2 qcd,

    L. ´Alvarez Gaum´ e and M. Mari˜ no, “More on softly broken n = 2 qcd,” International Journal of Modern Physics A12, 975–1002 (1997), ISSN 1793-656X, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1142/S0217751X97000724

    1997

  26. [26]

    Confinement, soft supersymmetry breaking and theta parameter dependence in the seiberg-witten model,

    K. Konishi, “Confinement, soft supersymmetry breaking and theta parameter dependence in the seiberg-witten model,” Physics Letters B392, 101–105 (1997), ISSN 0370-2693, URL 69 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(96)01527-4

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(96)01527-4 1997

  27. [27]

    Phase transitions in softly broken n = 2 sqcd at non-zero theta angle,

    N. Evans, S. D. Hsu, and M. Schwetz, “Phase transitions in softly broken n = 2 sqcd at non-zero theta angle,” Nuclear Physics B484, 124–140 (1997), ISSN 0550-3213, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(96)00595-0

    work page doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(96)00595-0 1997

  28. [28]

    Softly broken n=2 qcd with massive quark hypermultiplets, i,

    L. ´ALVAREZ-GAUM´E, M. MARI˜NO, and F. ZAMORA, “Softly broken n=2 qcd with massive quark hypermultiplets, i,” International Journal of Modern Physics A13, 403–430 (1998), ISSN 1793-656X, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X98000184

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x98000184 1998

  29. [29]

    Candidate phases for su(2) adjoint qcd 4 with two flavors fromN= 2 supersymmetric yang-mills theory,

    C. C´ ordova and T. Dumitrescu, “Candidate phases for su(2) adjoint qcd 4 with two flavors fromN= 2 supersymmetric yang-mills theory,” SciPost Physics16(2024), ISSN 2542-4653, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.16.5.139

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.16.5.139 2024

  30. [30]

    S. P. MARTIN,A SUPERSYMMETRY PRIMER(WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 1998), p. 1–98, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1142/9789812839657_0001

    doi:10.1142/9789812839657_0001 1998

  31. [31]

    Wess and J

    J. Wess and J. Bagger,Supersymmetry and supergravity(Princeton University Press, Prince- ton, NJ, USA, 1992), ISBN 978-0-691-02530-8

    1992

  32. [32]

    Supersymmetric field theory,

    D. Tong, “Supersymmetric field theory,”,http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/susy. html(2022), accessed: May 2026

    2022

  33. [33]

    Superspace, or one thousand and one lessons in supersymmetry,

    S. J. G. Jr, M. T. Grisaru, M. Rocek, and W. Siegel, “Superspace, or one thousand and one lessons in supersymmetry,” (2001), hep-th/0108200, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/ 0108200

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  34. [34]

    Duality in n=2 susy su(2) yang-mills theory: A pedagogical introduction to the work of seiberg and witten,

    A. Bilal, “Duality in n=2 susy su(2) yang-mills theory: A pedagogical introduction to the work of seiberg and witten,” (1996), hep-th/9601007, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/ 9601007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  35. [35]

    Introduction to seiberg-witten theory and its stringy origin,

    W. Lerche, “Introduction to seiberg-witten theory and its stringy origin,” Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements55, 83–117 (1997), ISSN 0920-5632, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0920-5632(97)00073-X

    doi:10.1016/s0920-5632(97)00073-x 1997

  36. [36]

    Introduction tos-duality inn = 2 supersymmetric gauge theories (a pedagogical review of the work of seiberg and witten),

    L. Alvarez-Gaum´ e and S. F. Hassan, “Introduction tos-duality inn = 2 supersymmetric gauge theories (a pedagogical review of the work of seiberg and witten),” Fortschritte der Physik/Progress of Physics45, 159–236 (1997), ISSN 1521-3979, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/prop.2190450302

    doi:10.1002/prop.2190450302 1997

  37. [37]

    Tachikawa,N=2 Supersymmetric Dynamics for Pedestrians(Springer Interna- tional Publishing, 2015), ISBN 9783319088228, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-08822-8

    Y. Tachikawa,N=2 Supersymmetric Dynamics for Pedestrians(Springer Interna- tional Publishing, 2015), ISBN 9783319088228, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-08822-8

    2015

  38. [38]

    Supersymmetry-breaking loops from analytic continuation into superspace,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, G. F. Giudice, M. A. Luty, and R. Rattazzi, “Supersymmetry-breaking loops from analytic continuation into superspace,” Physical Review D58(1998), ISSN 1089- 4918, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.58.115005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.58.115005 1998

  39. [39]

    Holomorphy, rescaling anomalies and exact beta func- tions in supersymmetric gauge theories,

    N. Arkani-Hamed and H. Murayama, “Holomorphy, rescaling anomalies and exact beta func- tions in supersymmetric gauge theories,” Journal of High Energy Physics2000, 030–030 (2000), ISSN 1029-8479, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2000/06/030

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/06/030 2000

  40. [40]

    Magnetic monopoles, duality, and supersymmetry,

    J. A. Harvey, “Magnetic monopoles, duality, and supersymmetry,” (1996), hep-th/9603086, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9603086

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  41. [41]

    On the geometry behind n=2 supersymmetric effective actions in four dimen- sions,

    A. Klemm, “On the geometry behind n=2 supersymmetric effective actions in four dimen- sions,” (1998), hep-th/9705131, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9705131

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  42. [42]

    Higgs branch, hyper-k¨ ahler quotient and duality in susy n = 2 yang–mills theories,

    I. Antoniadis and B. Pioline, “Higgs branch, hyper-k¨ ahler quotient and duality in susy n = 2 yang–mills theories,” International Journal of Modern Physics A12, 4907–4931 (1997), ISSN 1793-656X, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X97002620. 70

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x97002620 1997

  43. [43]

    Exploring the strong-coupling region of su(n) seiberg-witten theory,

    E. D’Hoker, T. T. Dumitrescu, and E. Nardoni, “Exploring the strong-coupling region of su(n) seiberg-witten theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics2022(2022), ISSN 1029-8479, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2022)102

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2022)102 2022

  44. [44]

    New approach to the renormalization group,

    S. Weinberg, “New approach to the renormalization group,” Phys. Rev. D8, 3497 (1973)

    1973

  45. [45]

    Instanton calculations versus exact results in four dimensional susy gauge theories,

    D. Finnell and P. Pouliot, “Instanton calculations versus exact results in four dimensional susy gauge theories,” Nuclear Physics B453, 225–239 (1995), ISSN 0550-3213, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(95)00318-M

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00318-m 1995

  46. [46]

    The Moduli space of vacua of N=2 SUSY QCD and duality in N=1 SUSY QCD,

    P. C. Argyres, M. R. Plesser, and N. Seiberg, “The Moduli space of vacua of N=2 SUSY QCD and duality in N=1 SUSY QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B471, 159 (1996), hep-th/9603042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  47. [47]

    Andersson, S

    B. Andersson, S. Mohanty, and F. Soderberg, in36th Annual Winter School on Nuclear and Particle Physics (PINP 2002) and 8th St. Petersburg School on Theoretical Physics(2002), hep-ph/0212122

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  48. [48]

    The unquenched quark model,

    E. Santopinto and J. Ferretti, “The unquenched quark model,” EPJ Web of Conferences96, 01026 (2015), ISSN 2100-014X, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/20159601026

    work page doi:10.1051/epjconf/20159601026 2015

  49. [49]

    Guide to anomaly-mediated supersymmetry-breaking QCD,

    C. Cs´ aki, A. Gomes, H. Murayama, B. Noether, D. R. Varier, and O. Telem, “Guide to anomaly-mediated supersymmetry-breaking QCD,” Phys. Rev. D107, 054015 (2023), 2212.03260

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Kahler normal coordinate expansion in supersymmetric the- ories,

    K. Higashijima and M. Nitta, “Kahler normal coordinate expansion in supersymmetric the- ories,” Progress of Theoretical Physics105, 243–260 (2001), ISSN 1347-4081, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1143/PTP.105.243

    work page doi:10.1143/ptp.105.243 2001

  51. [51]

    Normal coordinates in kahler manifolds and the background field method,

    K. Higashijima, E. Itou, and M. Nitta, “Normal coordinates in kahler manifolds and the background field method,” Progress of Theoretical Physics108, 185–202 (2002), ISSN 1347- 4081, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1143/PTP.108.185

    work page doi:10.1143/ptp.108.185 2002