Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

The paper derives a fixed-point formula for the superconformal index in large-N quiver mechanics and shows that it exactly reproduces the part of the microscopic scaling BPS index that the Coulomb-branch Witten index misses.

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

2026-08-01 23:36 UTC pith:PWQS5BJU

load-bearing objection The main result has a sign problem: Eq. (6.28) is wrong for odd N, so the central identification (6.43) fails as stated — though the underlying localization framework is worth taking seriously. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15348 v1 pith:PWQS5BJU submitted 2026-07-16 hep-th

On conformal symmetry in large-N quiver mechanics

Andrea De Marco , Mustafa Mullahasanoglu , Joris Raeymaekers , Paolo Rossi , Gizem Seng\"or This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords superconformal indexquiver mechanicsCoulomb branchAdS2/CFT1 correspondencelocalizationBPS stateslarge-N limitscaling solutions
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 tries to establish that the superconformal symmetry which emerges in the scaling limit of Coulomb-branch quiver mechanics is physically real: it derives a fixed-point formula for the superconformal index and shows that, in a large-N limit of abelian cyclic quivers, the index exactly reproduces a part of the microscopic scaling BPS index that the standard Coulomb-branch Witten index cannot see. The captured contribution is the 'unequal-sign' piece of the scaling index; the fixed points producing it lie at distances of order N, in the regime where the conformal description is reliable and superpotential corrections are negligible. If correct, this shows that conformal symmetry carries information about the BPS spectrum that the ordinary Coulomb-branch calculation misses, and it is a step toward a microscopic, stringy realization of AdS2/CFT1 for supersymmetric black holes. The main technical achievement is a localization formula that regularizes the scaling solutions through a spurious deformation of the collinear equations.

Core claim

The central claim is an identity: in the large-N limit with fixed angular momentum J3, the superconformal index equals the unequal-sign contribution to the microscopic scaling BPS index, evaluated at q → −q⁻¹. The paper shows that the fixed points of the superconformal localization solve deformed collinear equations whose large-N solutions sit at |Z*_a| = O(N), precisely the region where the conformal approximation is trustworthy. This identifies on the Coulomb branch, for the first time, a sector of the scaling BPS spectrum that had been hidden, and it implies that the emergent D(2,1;0) superconformal symmetry is not a formal artifact but governs actual short multiplets.

What carries the argument

The central object is the superconformal index, defined with the conformal Hamiltonian H + K + 2J3 in place of H, together with its localization fixed-point formula. The mechanism carrying the argument is an ω-regularization: conjugating the supercharge by e^{−ωK} shifts the Coulomb and Dirac potentials and converts the collinear BPS equations into the deformed equations (5.44), with a potential Φ~ = ½ Σ κ_ab sgn z_ab ln|z_ab| − ωK. The index depends only on the ordering of the centers on the z-axis; at large N the relevant orderings are those with J3 = O(1), and for these the fixed points satisfy |Z*_a| = O(N), making the conformal computation reliable and producing the equality with the sc

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumed two-loop superpotential correction to the Coulomb-branch metric, which is taken from earlier work in the form w²ẋ²/r⁶ with w of order one and no enhancement with N; if the actual correction has different radial behavior or grows with N, the conformal window closes and the identification fails.

What would settle it

Compute the two-loop superpotential correction directly from the full quiver theory with a cubic superpotential and compare it with the assumed form; if it differs (for instance, if it is enhanced by powers of N), the large-N fixed points no longer lie in the reliable region. Alternatively, evaluate the full microscopic index for a finite-N cyclic quiver and verify whether the O(N)-fixed-point contributions of the superconformal index match the unequal-sign scaling contribution term by term.

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

If this is right

  • The superconformal index is a computable observable in the scaling regime, where the ordinary Witten index is spoiled by noncompactness of the moduli space.
  • At large N the localization fixed points lie in the conformally reliable window, so the index calculation is under control.
  • The result gives a Coulomb-branch realization of the unequal-sign scaling contribution, which had been thought to be invisible in that branch.
  • It supports the view that the emergent conformal symmetry encodes actual BPS states rather than being a formal artifact.
  • It is a concrete step toward a stringy description of the ground states of BPS black holes in AdS2/CFT1.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Whether the remaining 'same-sign' part of the scaling index also has a conformal interpretation is left open; a natural extension is to seek a different superconformal algebra or large-N limit that captures it.
  • Because the index depends only on the ordering of the centers, the identity should be insensitive to small variations of the charges; numerical checks on other cyclic quiver sequences would be a low-cost test.
  • The reliability window depends on the two-loop correction being genuinely of order one and independent of N; deriving that correction from the full theory would sharpen or undermine the claim.
  • The ω-regularized localization scheme may extend to the D(2,1;α) family of superconformal algebras, where analogous fixed-point formulas might expose further scaling contributions invisible to the Witten index.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Coulomb-branch quiver mechanics description of D-brane bound states, focusing on cyclic abelian quivers in the deep scaling limit where an emergent D(2,1;0) superconformal symmetry appears. The main technical claim is a fixed-point formula (5.42) for the superconformal index, obtained by a formal localization argument; taking the spurious parameter ω to zero reproduces the known Manschot–Pioline–Sen Witten-index formula (5.49). The authors then identify a large-N regime (N centers, J3=O(1)) in which the fixed points satisfy |Z_a^*|=O(N) and hence lie in the region where two-loop superpotential corrections are claimed to be negligible. In this regime they equate their superconformal index with the "unequal-sign" part Ω_uneq of the microscopic scaling index of Beaujard–Mondal–Pioline, Eq. (6.43), thereby giving a Coulomb-branch interpretation of a contribution previously invisible there. The paper contains explicit three-center checks, numerical tables, and a detailed discussion of the relation between the superconformal and Witten indices.

Significance. If the main equality survives, the paper provides a nontrivial bridge between conformal Coulomb-branch mechanics and the microscopic scaling index of [19], with the parameters fixed on both sides rather than fitted. The ω→0 limit check, the explicit 3-center solution (6.19), and the identification of a concrete large-N trust window are genuine strengths. The result would establish that conformal symmetry in quiver mechanics captures a specific part of the microscopic BPS index and would sharpen the AdS2/CFT1 discussion. However, the central sign factor in Eq. (6.28) appears to be incorrect for odd N, and since (6.43) inherits this sign, the main equality must be corrected or restricted. The overall approach is sound enough that the issue is repairable within the scope of the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.3, Eq. (6.28)] The sign-factor simplification σ(Z*)=∏_a s_a is asserted without proof and is incorrect for odd N. For the large-N class with all t_a=+1, the Hessian in (5.42) can be evaluated by Cauchy–Binet: with z_N fixed, H=B^T D B, B the N×(N−1) cycle incidence matrix, so det H=(∏ h_a)(Σ 1/h_a). At the fixed points (6.26), h_a≈−S² s_a/(2N²κ_a) with S=Σ s_a κ_a<0, giving sign(∏ h_a)=(−1)^N ∏ s_a and positive Σ1/h_a. Thus σ(Z*)=(−1)^N∏s_a. This is not merely an asymptotic subtlety: an exact N=5 solution with κ_a=1 and signs (++---) has Z_+=13/2, Z_-=−13/3, for which σ=+1 while ∏s_a=−1. The authors' own 3-center example is already a check: for signs (−,−,+), ∏s_a=+1 but σ=−1. Consequently Eq. (6.29) and the central equality (6.43) need an additional factor (−1)^N, or must be restricted to even N.
  2. [§5.2, Eqs. (5.39)–(5.41)] The determinant evaluation leading to the prefactor (q−q^{-1})^{1−N} is too compressed to be independently checked. Eq. (5.39) contains an apparent index mismatch (m vs. n), and the factor ∏_{n∈Z\0}(−1) is not explained; the zeta/heat-kernel regularization that converts the product into (4 sin²θ)^{(1−N)/2} should be displayed explicitly. Since this prefactor multiplies every fixed-point contribution, the derivation should be expanded before publication.
  3. [§3.3 and §6.3] The reliability window (6.21) rests on the assumed two-loop correction δL=w²ẋ²/r⁶ with w=O(1), imported from [14] rather than computed here. The paper explicitly acknowledges this, but the central identification (6.43) is only justified inside this window. If the actual superpotential corrections are enhanced by powers of N, or have a different radial dependence, the large-N fixed points (6.26) might leave the trust region and the equality would lose its microscopic justification. Please state the N-dependence of the correction explicitly, or frame (6.43) as conditional on the form (3.23).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] The abstract contains a duplicated phrase "in order to to clarify"; the introduction has "formula of by Beaujard–Mondal–Pioline".
  2. [Eq. (6.1)] The definition of κ_N is garbled: "κ_N := zN 1" should presumably read κ_N := κ_{N,1}. Please correct the notation.
  3. [§5.2, text after Eq. (5.17)] Footnote 16 contains an unfinished sentence: "leading to This leads to an effective shift ...". The text needs editing.
  4. [§6.2, Eq. (6.18)] The sign factor is written s(Z) here but σ(Z*) elsewhere; please use consistent notation. Also Table 2 has no caption and the numerical search method for the fixed points is not described.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central large-N match (6.43) compares two independently derived localization sums and is not forced by construction.

full rationale

No circular step is exhibited. The superconformal-index fixed-point formula (5.42) is derived in Section 5 from the quiver path integral, and the Witten-index formula (5.46) is rederived as an independent consistency check. The large-N fixed points (6.26) are actual solutions of the conformal localization equations (6.9)-(6.10); no parameter is fitted to the BMP result. The parameter ω is a spurious regulator introduced in (5.2) and set to 1 in (6.11), and the sign sum in (6.29) runs over genuine fixed points satisfying the self-consistency conditions, not over adjusted input data. The BMP side, Ω_uneq (6.40), is an independent, externally derived JK-residue expression from [19]. The matching relation (6.43) requires nontrivial ingredients: coincidence of the large-N fixed points ((6.37) versus (6.26)), the identification (6.31) together with the R-charge assignment (6.33)-(6.34), and the sign simplification (6.28). None of these reduces the target to an input: the R-charges are fixed by the abelian cyclic quiver data, and the sign factor is stated as a calculation ('One also shows', (6.28)), not inherited as a fit or citation. The small-N checks in Table 2 explicitly show that the superconformal index and Ω_uneq generally disagree ('the latter often misses contributions while also the sign factor σ(Z*) is typically different'), which makes the large-N agreement a falsifiable identification rather than a tautology. The self-citations [15,44,45] provide background derivations and methods but are not load-bearing in the sense of importing the central result; no uniqueness theorem from the authors' earlier work is invoked to forbid alternatives. The paper's own caveats—the two-loop correction taken from [14] rather than computed here (Section 3.3), and the asserted but unproved sign simplification (6.28)—are rigor or correctness gaps, not circularity: they do not make (6.43) true by construction. Accordingly the score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The ω-deformation (5.6)–(5.7) is a regularizing technical parameter, and the D(2,1;0) superconformal algebra is the known symmetry of the scaling limit [14,15]. The central claim rests on the standard Coulomb-branch effective description, an assumed form of the superpotential corrections, a formal localization principle, the existence of regular fixed points, a regime restriction, and an ad hoc identification of the conformal K-charge with the BMP real-mass term. Three hand-set scales appear (ω, w, Im θ/β); none is fitted to data, and the comparison to [19] involves no fitted constants.

free parameters (3)
  • ω (spurious deformation parameter) = set to 1 (eq. 6.11)
    Defines the superconformal Hamiltonian H̃ = H + ω²K + 2ωJ₃ (5.2); claimed to drop out because the index depends only on center ordering, but hand-set to 1 for all evaluations.
  • w (superpotential coupling) = O(1) in string units (Sec. 3.3)
    Controls the conformal-breaking correction (3.23) and the reliability threshold |r_ab| ≫ w^{2/3} ~ O(1) (3.25); the value is assumed from [12,14], not computed.
  • Im θ/β (imaginary chemical potential) = set to 1, sign assumed positive (6.35)
    Spurious scale in the BMP comparison (6.30); identified with ω via (6.31); hand-set for the numerical comparison.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The one-loop Coulomb branch Lagrangian (2.4) with the wHKT data (2.10) is the correct effective description of the D-brane dynamics in the regime considered.
    Standard quiver-mechanics setup (Denef [11]); the paper works entirely within this approximation and notes its breakdown near the Coulomb–Higgs intersection (Sec. 3.3).
  • domain assumption Superpotential corrections to the sigma-model metric take the form δL = w²ẋ²/r⁶ (3.23) with w ~ O(1).
    Taken from [14]; not computed in this paper. The reliability criterion (6.21) and hence the validity of the large-N identification (6.43) depend on this form.
  • domain assumption The Euclidean path integral localizes on the locus (5.28) with the stated fluctuation determinants (5.37–5.41).
    Localization is invoked 'on general grounds' (Sec. 5.2); the history of the Witten-index analogue (proven in [34]) shows such arguments are not automatic in the non-compact scaling regime.
  • domain assumption Fixed points of (6.9) are isolated and satisfy the non-degeneracy conditions (5.38).
    Verified only for the sampled examples ('We checked that in all cases...', Sec. 6.2); assumed generally.
  • ad hoc to paper The conformal K-charge can be identified with the BMP real-mass term: K = Σ κ_ab J̃₃(φ_ab)/(2|z_ab|) with J̃₃(φ_ab) ~ sgn κ_ab (6.33–6.34).
    Makes the two deformation schemes agree at first subleading order; argued for abelian cyclic quivers but not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper In the large-N limit, the relevant branch has all t_a = +1, κ_a = O(1), and J₃ = O(1) (6.22–6.25).
    Regime restriction that produces |Z*_a| = O(N); checked for self-consistency at leading order, and it is precisely the regime of the BMP comparison.
  • domain assumption The index receives contributions only from the fixed-point ordering, so ω (and Im θ) are spurious.
    Argued in Sec. 5.2/6.2 for ω and in [19] for Im θ; the index formulas (5.42, 6.15) indeed depend only on the signs s_a = sgn Z_a.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26492 in / 19077 out tokens · 168630 ms · 2026-08-01T23:36:55.646781+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The microscopic description of extremal supersymmetric black holes in AdS$_2$/CFT$_1$ holography has remained elusive despite recent progress in the statistical description of near-extremal black hole physics. In this work we revisit Denef's quiver mechanics description of D-brane bound states in the Coulomb branch, which displays an emergent conformal symmetry in the AdS$_2$ scaling limit. This conformal symmetry is however broken by superpotential corrections near the locus where the Coulomb and Higgs branches meet, and its significance has so far remained unclear. In order to to clarify this issue, we derive and interpret a fixed-point formula for the superconformal quiver index using localization techniques. Focusing on cyclic abelian quivers, we show that, in a certain large-$N$ limit (with the rank $N$ of the quiver gauge group), the fixed points are located in the regime where the conformal description is reliable. In this limit, our expression for the superconformal index precisely captures a contribution to the microscopic scaling BPS index derived by Beaujard, Mondal and Pioline, which was hitherto not visible on the Coulomb branch. Our results are hoped to provide a step towards a stringy realization of AdS$_2$/CFT$_1$ duality.

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

48 extracted references · 44 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Microscopic origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy,

    A. Strominger and C. Vafa, “Microscopic origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy,” Phys. Lett. B 379 (1996) 99–104, arXiv:hep-th/9601029

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  2. [2]

    Black hole entropy in M theory,

    J. M. Maldacena, A. Strominger, and E. Witten, “Black hole entropy in M theory,” JHEP 12 (1997) 002, arXiv:hep-th/9711053

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  3. [3]

    The Fuzzball proposal for black holes: An Elementary review,

    S. D. Mathur, “The Fuzzball proposal for black holes: An Elementary review,” Fortsch. Phys. 53 (2005) 793–827, arXiv:hep-th/0502050

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    Holographic covering and the fortuity of black holes,

    C.-M. Chang and Y.-H. Lin, “Holographic covering and the fortuity of black holes,” arXiv:2402.10129 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    Anti-de Sitter fragmentation,

    J. M. Maldacena, J. Michelson, and A. Strominger, “Anti-de Sitter fragmentation,” JHEP 02 (1999) 011, arXiv:hep-th/9812073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    Quantum Entropy Function from AdS(2)/CFT(1) Correspondence,

    A. Sen, “Quantum Entropy Function from AdS(2)/CFT(1) Correspondence,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24 (2009) 4225–4244, arXiv:0809.3304 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    The statistical mechanics of near-extremal black holes,

    L. V. Iliesiu and G. J. Turiaci, “The statistical mechanics of near-extremal black holes,” JHEP 05 (2021) 145, arXiv:2003.02860 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    The statistical mechanics of near-BPS black holes,

    M. Heydeman, L. V. Iliesiu, G. J. Turiaci, and W. Zhao, “The statistical mechanics of near-BPS black holes,” J. Phys. A 55 no. 1, (2022) 014004, arXiv:2011.01953 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Solvable models of quantum black holes: a review on Jackiw–Teitelboim gravity,

    T. G. Mertens and G. J. Turiaci, “Solvable models of quantum black holes: a review on Jackiw–Teitelboim gravity,” Living Rev. Rel. 26 no. 1, (2023) 4, arXiv:2210.10846 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev models and beyond: Window into non-Fermi liquids,

    D. Chowdhury, A. Georges, O. Parcollet, and S. Sachdev, “Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev models and beyond: Window into non-Fermi liquids,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 94 no. 3, (2022) 035004, arXiv:2109.05037 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Quantum quivers and Hall / hole halos,

    F. Denef, “Quantum quivers and Hall / hole halos,” JHEP 10 (2002) 023, arXiv:hep-th/0206072 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  12. [12]

    Split states, entropy enigmas, holes and halos,

    F. Denef and G. W. Moore, “Split states, entropy enigmas, holes and halos,” JHEP 11 (2011) 129, arXiv:hep-th/0702146

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  13. [13]

    Scaling BPS Solutions and pure-Higgs States,

    I. Bena, M. Berkooz, J. de Boer, S. El-Showk, and D. Van den Bleeken, “Scaling BPS Solutions and pure-Higgs States,” JHEP 11 (2012) 171, arXiv:1205.5023 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    Conformal quivers and melting molecules,

    D. Anninos, T. Anous, P. de Lange, and G. Konstantinidis, “Conformal quivers and melting molecules,” JHEP 03 (2015) 066, arXiv:1310.7929 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Superconformal mechanics of AdS2 D-brane boundstates,

    D. Mirfendereski, J. Raeymaekers, and D. Van Den Bleeken, “Superconformal mechanics of AdS2 D-brane boundstates,” arXiv:2009.07107 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  16. [16]

    Wall Crossing from Boltzmann Black Hole Halos,

    J. Manschot, B. Pioline, and A. Sen, “Wall Crossing from Boltzmann Black Hole Halos,” JHEP 07 (2011) 059, arXiv:1011.1258 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  17. [17]

    A Fixed point formula for the index of multi-centered N=2 black holes,

    J. Manschot, B. Pioline, and A. Sen, “A Fixed point formula for the index of multi-centered N=2 black holes,” JHEP 05 (2011) 057, arXiv:1103.1887 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  18. [18]

    From Black Holes to Quivers,

    J. Manschot, B. Pioline, and A. Sen, “From Black Holes to Quivers,” JHEP 11 (2012) 023, arXiv:1207.2230 [hep-th]. – 33 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  19. [19]

    Multi-centered black holes, scaling solutions and pure-Higgs indices from localization,

    G. Beaujard, S. Mondal, and B. Pioline, “Multi-centered black holes, scaling solutions and pure-Higgs indices from localization,” SciPost Phys. 11 no. 2, (2021) 023, arXiv:2103.03205 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Witten Index and Wall Crossing,

    K. Hori, H. Kim, and P. Yi, “Witten Index and Wall Crossing,” JHEP 01 (2015) 124, arXiv:1407.2567 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    A Superconformal Index for HyperK¨ ahler Cones,

    A. E. Barns-Graham and N. Dorey, “A Superconformal Index for HyperK¨ ahler Cones,” arXiv:1812.04565 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    An Index for Superconformal Quantum Mechanics,

    N. Dorey and A. Singleton, “An Index for Superconformal Quantum Mechanics,” arXiv:1812.11816 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Superconformal quantum mechanics on K¨ ahler cones,

    N. Dorey and D. Zhang, “Superconformal quantum mechanics on K¨ ahler cones,” JHEP 05 (2020) 115, arXiv:1911.06787 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Disordered Quivers and Cold Horizons,

    D. Anninos, T. Anous, and F. Denef, “Disordered Quivers and Cold Horizons,” JHEP 12 (2016) 071, arXiv:1603.00453 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [25]

    A supersymmetric SYK model with a curious low energy behavior,

    A. Biggs, J. Maldacena, and V. Narovlansky, “A supersymmetric SYK model with a curious low energy behavior,” JHEP 08 (2024) 124, arXiv:2309.08818 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Supergravity flows and D-brane stability,

    F. Denef, “Supergravity flows and D-brane stability,” JHEP 08 (2000) 050, arXiv:hep-th/0005049 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  27. [27]

    Exact solutions for supersymmetric stationary black hole composites,

    B. Bates and F. Denef, “Exact solutions for supersymmetric stationary black hole composites,” JHEP 11 (2011) 127, arXiv:hep-th/0304094

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  28. [28]

    Gauging N=4 Supersymmetric Mechanics,

    F. Delduc and E. Ivanov, “Gauging N=4 Supersymmetric Mechanics,” Nucl. Phys. B 753 (2006) 211–241, arXiv:hep-th/0605211

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  29. [29]

    A. V. Smilga, Differential Geometry through Supersymmetric Glasses . WSP, 2020

    2020

  30. [30]

    to appear,

    A. D. Marco, M. Mullahasanoglu, J. Raeymaekers, P. Rossi, and G. Sengor, “to appear,”

  31. [31]

    Conformal Invariance in Quantum Mechanics,

    V. de Alfaro, S. Fubini, and G. Furlan, “Conformal Invariance in Quantum Mechanics,” Nuovo Cim. A 34 (1976) 569

    1976

  32. [32]

    The Geometry of (super)conformal quantum mechanics,

    J. Michelson and A. Strominger, “The Geometry of (super)conformal quantum mechanics,” Commun. Math. Phys. 213 (2000) 1–17, arXiv:hep-th/9907191

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  33. [33]

    Superconformal Mechanics,

    S. Fedoruk, E. Ivanov, and O. Lechtenfeld, “Superconformal Mechanics,” J. Phys. A 45 (2012) 173001, arXiv:1112.1947 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  34. [34]

    Ab Initio Wall-Crossing,

    H. Kim, J. Park, Z. Wang, and P. Yi, “Ab Initio Wall-Crossing,” JHEP 09 (2011) 079, arXiv:1107.0723 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  35. [35]

    Supersymmetries and Their Representations,

    W. Nahm, “Supersymmetries and Their Representations,” Nucl. Phys. B 135 (1978) 149

    1978

  36. [36]

    Conformal symmetry on world volumes of branes,

    P. Claus, R. Kallosh, and A. Van Proeyen, “Conformal symmetry on world volumes of branes,” in ICTP Conference on Super Five Brane Physics in 5+1 Dimensions , pp. 211–230. 12, 1998. arXiv:hep-th/9812066

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  37. [37]

    The geometry of gauged (super)conformal mechanics,

    D. Mirfendereski, J. Raeymaekers, C. S ¸anlı, and D. Van den Bleeken, “The geometry of gauged (super)conformal mechanics,” JHEP 08 (2022) 081, arXiv:2203.10167 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Framed BPS States,

    D. Gaiotto, G. W. Moore, and A. Neitzke, “Framed BPS States,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 17 no. 2, (2013) 241–397, arXiv:1006.0146 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [39]

    BPS States, Refined Indices, and Quiver Invariants,

    S.-J. Lee, Z.-L. Wang, and P. Yi, “BPS States, Refined Indices, and Quiver Invariants,” JHEP 10 (2012) 094, arXiv:1207.0821 [hep-th]. – 34 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  40. [40]

    Quantizing N=2 Multicenter Solutions,

    J. de Boer, S. El-Showk, I. Messamah, and D. Van den Bleeken, “Quantizing N=2 Multicenter Solutions,” JHEP 05 (2009) 002, arXiv:0807.4556 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  41. [41]

    A Bound on the entropy of supergravity?,

    J. de Boer, S. El-Showk, I. Messamah, and D. Van den Bleeken, “A Bound on the entropy of supergravity?,” JHEP 02 (2010) 062, arXiv:0906.0011 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  42. [42]

    Quiver Invariants from Intrinsic Higgs States,

    S.-J. Lee, Z.-L. Wang, and P. Yi, “Quiver Invariants from Intrinsic Higgs States,” JHEP 07 (2012) 169, arXiv:1205.6511 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  43. [43]

    D0-branes in black hole attractors,

    D. Gaiotto, A. Simons, A. Strominger, and X. Yin, “D0-branes in black hole attractors,” JHEP 03 (2006) 019, arXiv:hep-th/0412179

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  44. [44]

    Superconformal indices and localization in N = 2B quantum mechanics,

    J. Raeymaekers, C. Sanli, and D. Van den Bleeken, “Superconformal indices and localization in N = 2B quantum mechanics,” JHEP 05 (2024) 275, arXiv:2403.07665 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Index and localization for type B superconformal mechanics on singular spaces,

    J. Raeymaekers, P. Rossi, and C. Sanli, “Index and localization for type B superconformal mechanics on singular spaces,” arXiv:2412.04390 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    Coulomb Branch Localization in Quiver Quantum Mechanics,

    K. Ohta and Y. Sasai, “Coulomb Branch Localization in Quiver Quantum Mechanics,” JHEP 02 (2016) 106, arXiv:1512.00594 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  47. [47]

    Schur Indices, BPS Particles, and Argyres-Douglas Theories,

    C. Cordova and S.-H. Shao, “Schur Indices, BPS Particles, and Argyres-Douglas Theories,” JHEP 01 (2016) 040, arXiv:1506.00265 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  48. [48]

    Multicentered black hole saddles for supersymmetric indices,

    J. Boruch, L. V. Iliesiu, S. Murthy, and G. J. Turiaci, “Multicentered black hole saddles for supersymmetric indices,” arXiv:2507.07166 [hep-th]. – 35 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv