Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

In a deformed AdS/CFT background, a hanging D5/anti-D5 pair acts as a U(1) symmetry defect, and passing a giant graviton across it measures the charge of the dual determinant operator.

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 06:08 UTC pith:4BJ5OHJG

load-bearing objection The central D5 example contradicts the paper's own BPS equations, so the proposed charge measurement is unsubstantiated as written. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21994 v1 pith:4BJ5OHJG submitted 2026-07-24 hep-th

Linking defects via AdS/CFT holography

Varun Gupta This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords AdS/CFT correspondencetopological defectsU(1) global symmetrydeterminant operatorsgiant gravitonsD5/anti-D5 pairHanany-Witten effectN=4 super-Yang-Mills
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 proposes a holographic mechanism for measuring the U(1) global symmetry charge of heavy determinant operators in N=4 super-Yang-Mills. In a type IIB background obtained by deforming AdS5×S5 with a U(1) gauge field, a probe D5 brane with a U-shaped hanging profile, placed coincidentally on its anti-D5 partner, is claimed to be dual to a codimension-1 topological symmetry defect. When a giant graviton D3 brane—the dual of a determinant operator—is moved across the pair, the Hanany-Witten effect generates a fundamental string and the effective action acquires a phase exp(2πi α_γ (Σ2·S3)). The paper asserts that this phase is exactly the U(1) charge of the boundary determinant operator. If correct, this turns the brane/anti-brane resolution of continuous symmetry defects into a working charge-measurement setup.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the large-c D5/anti-D5 pair hanging from the AdS boundary is the holographic dual of a codimension-1 topological defect for a U(1) 0-form global symmetry, and that a determinant operator (dual to a giant graviton) carries charge under that symmetry equal to the holonomy of the D5 worldvolume gauge field times the intersection number of the wrapped spheres. The charge measurement proceeds by passing the giant graviton through the pair in the θ direction; the Hanany-Witten effect generates a fundamental string, and the resulting phase, exp(2πi α_γ (Σ2·S3)), is identified with the charge acquired by the boundary determinant operator. This is stated as a p

What carries the argument

The central objects are: (1) the holomorphically embedded probe D5 brane with embedding condition Φ0Φ1Z3 = c1 (Z2=0) in the deformed background, whose profile becomes U-shaped when the real parameter c is large; (2) its coincident anti-D5 partner, forming a brane/anti-brane pair that is dual to a codimension-1 topological defect; (3) the giant graviton D3 brane wrapping an S3 in the compact space, dual to the determinant operator det Z; and (4) the Hanany-Witten transition (fundamental-string creation when branes cross) that produces the phase factor exp(2πi α_γ (Σ2·S3)) from the worldvolume gauge field holonomy. In the large-c limit the D5 action reduces to a topological Wess-Zumino term, s

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the coincident large-c D5/anti-D5 pair really is the topological defect of the U(1) 0-form symmetry, and that the determinant operator is genuinely charged under it; the paper asserts this as a proposal and does not prove the stability of the pair or the operator's charge.

What would settle it

Compute the U(1) charge of det Z directly in the boundary N=4 SYM theory (e.g., by acting with the symmetry generator and checking for a phase exp(2πi α_γ (Σ2·S3))); if the operator is neutral, the central claim fails. Alternatively, check the D5-anti-D5 pair for a tachyon: a tachyonic mode would destabilize the defect interpretation.

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

If this is right

  • If the proposal is correct, the U(1) charge of heavy determinant operators can be read off holographically from brane kinematics without a boundary computation.
  • The D5-anti-D5 pair provides a concrete brane realization of a topological symmetry defect for a continuous 0-form symmetry, extending the non-BPS brane picture.
  • The phase formula ties the charge to a topological intersection number, suggesting the charge is quantized when the holonomy is fixed.
  • The construction works in the deformed background with f≠0, so the defect survives a deformation away from pure AdS5×S5.
  • The large-c limit freezes the brane dynamics, making the defect effectively topological and amenable to a symmetry-topological-field-theory treatment.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • One could test the proposal by computing the OPE of det Z with the defect and checking that it reproduces the phase; this is not done in the paper.
  • If the pair is unstable to annihilation away from large c, the defect may only be well-defined in the boundary-close limit, which would limit the claim's range.
  • The same charge-measurement trick might generalize to measuring charges of other operators (e.g., Wilson loops) or other continuous symmetries in deformed backgrounds.
  • The dependence of the charge on the holonomy parameter α_γ suggests a one-parameter family of U(1) symmetries, potentially connected to the deformation parameter f.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a holographic realization of a U(1) 0-form symmetry defect in N=4 SYM by a coincident hanging D5/anti-D5 pair in a U(1)-deformed AdS5×S5 background. Section 2 derives general D5 and anti-D5 embeddings from kappa symmetry; the special solution Φ0Φ1Z3^2=c, Z2=0 is claimed to become U-shaped when c is large and, when coincident with its anti-brane, to be dual to a topological defect. Section 3 presents D3 giant graviton embeddings dual to determinant operators and uses a Hanany-Witten process to identify the phase from moving the D3 through the pair as the charge of det Z under the U(1) symmetry. The paper concludes by proposing that this phase measures the U(1) charge of heavy determinant operators.

Significance. If correct, the construction would be a concrete holographic realization of continuous symmetry defects via brane/anti-brane pairs in a deformed background, and would provide a bulk derivation of charges of determinant operators. The idea of resolving non-BPS branes into brane/anti-brane pairs and measuring charges via Hanany-Witten transitions follows the recent program of references [26-28]; extending it to a deformed background with a U(1) gauge field is potentially interesting. However, the central example is internally inconsistent as written, and the charge measurement rests on an input parameter and an assumed dictionary rather than on an independent derivation. These issues affect the main claim of the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2.1, Eq. (2.26)] The case example does not solve the defining condition (2.24). With β=π/2, Z3=l cosα cosβ e^{-iξ3}=0, so Φ0Φ1Z3^2=0 identically for all remaining coordinates; it cannot equal the nonzero constant c1. The U-shaped profile shown in Fig. 1 and used in §3.1 is therefore not a solution of the BPS equations as written. In addition, the phase condition ξ3=−(ϕ0+ϕ1)/2 makes Φ0Φ1Z3^2 have phase e^{2i(ϕ0+ϕ1)}, not constant; a constant phase requires ξ3=+(ϕ0+ϕ1)/2. The sign written is precisely the one that makes the anti-brane expression Φ0Φ1Z3^{-2} constant, i.e. condition (2.45). Thus the D5 and anti-D5 do not even share the same embedding phase; the brane/anti-brane pair needed for §3.1 has not been exhibited.
  2. [§2.2, Eqs. (2.15)-(2.25)] The reduction of the 22 six-form kappa-symmetry constraints to the two holomorphic conditions is asserted rather than demonstrated. Setting the coefficients of E^a and (e^0−e^9) to zero in (2.23) is claimed to solve all constraints, but no verification of the remaining equations is given, and the failure of the single example above shows the procedure is not reliably implemented. Since the anti-D5 solution (2.39) and the D3 conditions (3.1) are obtained by the same holomorphic reduction, the inconsistency propagates to the rest of the paper.
  3. [§3.1, Eq. (3.10)] The phase exp(2πi αγ (Σ2·S3)) is not an independent prediction. The parameter αγ is introduced by hand in (2.35) as the holonomy of the worldvolume gauge field a∼α(dϕ+dψ); the 'measured' charge is therefore an input of the construction. The identification of this phase with the U(1) charge of the determinant operator is explicitly a proposal ('Our proposal in this work is that ...'), not a derivation; no computation shows that det Z is charged under the symmetry, nor that the coincident D5/anti-D5 pair realizes the symmetry defect in this deformed background (the text only states this holds for large c). The central claim is thus an assumed dictionary, and the paper does not provide an independent check or falsifiable prediction that would test it.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1] 'Hannay-Witten' should be 'Hanany-Witten'.
  2. [§2.2.1, Eq. (2.28)] The induced metric is presented without a derivation from the embedding (2.26); some terms appear to depend on the reparametrization θ→2θ from (2.20), which is not tracked, making the metric difficult to reproduce.
  3. [§2.2.1, Eq. (2.38)] The counterterm subtraction that converts the quadratically divergent 1/sinθ piece into the finite result (2.38) is not described. This is needed to reproduce the effective action value.
  4. [§2.1] 'closed time like trajectory curve' should read 'closed timelike curves'.
  5. [References] Reference [24] appears to contain a typo in the author name; please check the spelling against the published version.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The charge measurement in §3.1 reduces to the arbitrarily chosen D5 worldvolume holonomy αγ; the det-Z charge assignment is a proposal, not an independent prediction.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [§2.2.1 (eq. 2.35), §3.1 (eq. 3.10), Conclusion]
    "Next we consider the 1-form worldvolume gauge field a to be of the following form a∼α(dϕ+dψ) ... exp(2πi (Σ2·S3) ∫_γ a) = exp(2πi αγ (Σ2·S3)) ... Our proposal in this work is that this phase factor corresponds to the charge acquired by the holographically dual determinant operator in the boundary N=4 SYM theory under the U(1) global 0-form symmetry."

    αγ is fixed by the ansatz a∼α(dϕ+dψ) in eq. (2.35). Eq. (3.10) then gives the acquired phase as 2πi αγ(Σ2·S3), and the paper calls this phase the measured charge of the determinant operator. No independent boundary computation fixes αγ or establishes that det Z carries this charge; the 'measurement' is the inverse of the definition of the symmetry operator through the D5 worldvolume holonomy. The predicted charge is therefore an input parameter renamed as an output.

full rationale

The D5 and D3 embedding machinery is mostly self-contained or cited to non-self references ([33], [37]); the only apparent self-citation, [38], is used only as context for codimension-2 defects and is not load-bearing. The central load-bearing step, however, is circular in the constructional sense: the U(1) charge phase in eq. (3.10) is exactly exp(2πi αγ(Σ2·S3)), where αγ is the holonomy of a worldvolume gauge field a that the paper introduced by the ansatz a∼α(dϕ+dψ) in eq. (2.35). Thus the quantitative 'charge measured' is an input of the construction, not an independent output. Moreover, the identification of the D5/anti-D5 pair with the U(1) topological defect and of the determinant operator with a charged object is asserted as 'Our proposal' rather than derived from the boundary theory. The paper's own self-reporting of these statements as proposals supports the reading that the central claim is not an independent prediction. A separate consistency issue—eq. (2.26) sets β=π/2, which makes Z3=0 and therefore Φ0Φ1Z3^2=0≠c—is a correctness concern, not a circularity, so it is not counted here.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, fields, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated. The U-shaped D5/anti-D5 pair, the giant graviton, and the fundamental string are standard objects; the novelty is the interpretation of the pair as a symmetry operator, which is an interpretive claim, not an invented entity. Independent evidence for a new entity is therefore not applicable. The main ledger entries are hand-set parameters (c, alpha_gamma, and the giant positions) plus assumptions inherited from [26-28,33,37,39-42].

free parameters (4)
  • c (embedding parameter) = large (c -> infinity limit used)
    Real constant in (2.26); the U-shape/hanging profile and the topological-defect interpretation require large c (Section 2.2.1, Section 3.1).
  • alpha_gamma (worldvolume holonomy parameter) = unspecified (free)
    Introduced in (2.35) via a ~ alpha(dphi+dpsi); the predicted charge phase (3.10) is linearly proportional to it.
  • c2, c3, c4 (giant graviton embedding parameters) = tuned (|c3| > 1)
    Set the radius/position of the giant graviton (3.3)-(3.5); placement between the boundary and the D5 bulge is assumed, not derived.
  • f (background deformation parameter) = carried from [33]
    The U(1) gauge-field deformation of the background; the defect action (2.38) is proportional to it. Introduced in prior literature, not fitted here, but load-bearing.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The deformed background of [33] is a supersymmetric Type IIB solution with Killing spinor satisfying projections (2.9)-(2.11).
    Entered at Section 2.1; the probe-brane BPS analysis inherits its supersymmetry from this background.
  • ad hoc to paper The 22 kappa-symmetry constraints (2.15) are solved by setting the E^a and (e^0 - e^9) coefficients in (2.23) to zero, yielding the holomorphic conditions (2.24)-(2.25).
    Section 2.2 asserts this reduction without verifying all 22 six-form equations; the completion is a derivation gap.
  • domain assumption A coincident D5/anti-D5 pair with large-c U-shaped profile is the holographic dual of the codimension-1 topological defect of a U(1) 0-form symmetry.
    Section 3.1; taken from [26-28] for AdS5 x S5 and assumed valid in this deformed background; the paper states the duality holds only for large c.
  • domain assumption In the large-c limit the D5 is heavy and the DBI term decouples, leaving the Wess-Zumino term (2.31)-(2.34).
    Section 2.2.1; standard heavy-probe approximation, but the finite-action result (2.38) depends on it.
  • domain assumption Giant graviton D3 branes (3.3) are dual to determinant operators det Z (3.4), which carry U(1) charge.
    Section 3; the first half is from [39-41], the charge statement is the paper's proposal with no boundary-side evidence.
  • domain assumption The Hanany-Witten effect creates a fundamental string when the D5/anti-D5 pair passes across the D3 brane.
    Section 3.1; from [42], assumed to apply in this deformed background.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10972 in / 30846 out tokens · 289902 ms · 2026-08-01T06:08:42.389451+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this article, we discuss some supersymmetric probe D5 brane solutions embedded in a type 2b supergravity background solution obtained by deforming the global $AdS_5 \times S^5$ spacetime. The D5 brane solution of interest has a non-compact worldvolume, and when it is coincidentally placed on top of its anti-$\overline{\text{D5}}$ solution, the combination is dual to a codimension-1 defect of the boundary $SYM$ theory. The dual defect becomes a topological symmetry defect of a $U(1)$ $0$-form global symmetry if we move the profile of the probe D5 more towards the boundary of the bulk spacetime, resulting in a U-shaped profile hanging from the boundary. We show how the hanging D5 brane can be used holographically to measure the $U(1)$ global symmetry charge of the heavy determinant operators in the SYM theory by moving them across dual giant graviton D3 branes in the bulk spacetime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21994 by Varun Gupta.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: In this figure, we plot the profile of the probe D5 in the r-θ directions(r = lsinh ρ) at a fixed α and for different values of the constant parameter c. 2.2.1 Case Example: Φ0Φ1Z 2 3 = c1 ; Z2 = 0 ; In terms of the real coordinates, these conditions take the form sinh 2ρ sin θ sin2 α = c , ξ3 = − 1 2 (ϕ0 + ϕ1) , β = π 2 (2.26) We work with a static gauge condition where we consider the following identific… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Charge measurement: the figures depict the positioning of the coincidentally placed hanging probe D5 and anti-D5 brane from the radial boundary stretched along θ direction and the other three spacetime directions. A giant graviton D3 brane(represented by a blue dot) is placed between the boundary and the maximum bulge of the D5-D5(in the radial direction). In the right figure, we show the relative movement… 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

42 extracted references · 38 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Gukov,Surface operators, Part of New Dualities of Supersymmetric Gauge Theories, 223-259, Springer (2016),arXiv:1412.7145

    S. Gukov,Surface operators, Part of New Dualities of Supersymmetric Gauge Theories, 223-259, Springer (2016),arXiv:1412.7145

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Gukov and E

    S. Gukov and E. Witten,Gauge Theory, Ramification, And The Geometric Langlands Program,hep-th/0612073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Gukov and E

    S. Gukov and E. Witten,Rigid Surface Operators,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.14 (2010), no. 1 87–178, [arXiv:0804.1561]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Gaiotto, S

    D. Gaiotto, S. Gukov and N. Seiberg,Surface Defects and Resolvents, JHEP09(2013) 070, [arxiv:1307.2578]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Frenkel, S

    E. Frenkel, S. Gukov, J. Teschner,Surface operators and separation of variables, JHEP01(2016) 179,arXiv:1506:07508

    2016

  6. [6]

    Gorsky, B

    A. Gorsky, B. Le Floch, A. Milekhin and N. Sopenko,Surface defects and instanton–vortex interaction, Nucl. Phys. B920(2017), [arxiv:1702.03330]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    S. K. Ashok, M. Billo, E. Dell’Aquila, M. Frau, V. Gupta, R.R. John and A. Lerda, Surface operators, chiral rings and localization in N = 2 gauge theories, JHEP11(2017) 137, [arxiv:1707.08922]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    S. K. Ashok, S. Ballav, M. Billo, E. Dell’Aquila, M. Frau, V. Gupta, R.R. John and A. Lerda,Surface operators, dual quivers and contours, Eur.Phys.J.C79(2019) 3, 278, [arxiv:1807.06316]. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Bill` o, V

    M. Bill` o, V. Gon¸ calves, E. Lauria, M. Meineri,Defects in conformal field theory, JHEP04(2016) 091,arXiv:1601.02883

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Giombi, R

    S. Giombi, R. Roiban, and A. Tseytlin,Half-BPS Wilson loop and AdS2/CFT1,Nucl. Phys.B 922(2017) 499–527,arXiv:1706.00756

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Jensen, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    Wang,Taming defects inN= 4super-Yang-Mills JHEP08(2020) 021, arXiv:2003.11016

    Y. Wang,Taming defects inN= 4super-Yang-Mills JHEP08(2020) 021, arXiv:2003.11016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, B. Willett,Generalized Global Symmetries, JHEP02(2015) 172, arxiv:1412.5148

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    Gupta, K

    V. Gupta, K. Narayan,M5-brane prongs, string soliton bound states and wall-crossing,SciPost Phys.Core8(2025) 004,arXiv:2203.03674

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Holguin, H

    A. Holguin, H. Kawai,Integrability and Conformal Blocks for Surface Defects in N= 4SYM,JHEP11(2025) 043, arxiv:2503.09944

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Chalabi, C

    A. Chalabi, C. Kristjansen, C. Su,Integrable Corners in the Space of Gukov-Witten Surface Defects,Phys.Lett.B866 (2025) 139512, arxiv:2503.22598

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Bhardwaj, L

    L. Bhardwaj, L. E. Bottini, L. Fraser-Taliente, L. Gladden, D. S. W. Gould, A. Platschorre, H. Tillim,Lectures on Generalized Symmetries,Physics Reports,1051 (2024), arxiv:2307.07547

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Sch¨ afer-Nameki,ICTP lectures on (non-)invertible generalized symmetries,Physics Reports,1063(2024), arxiv:2305.18296

    S. Sch¨ afer-Nameki,ICTP lectures on (non-)invertible generalized symmetries,Physics Reports,1063(2024), arxiv:2305.18296

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Kaidi,Introduction to Generalized Symmetries, arxiv:2603.08798

    J. Kaidi,Introduction to Generalized Symmetries, arxiv:2603.08798

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Apruzzi, I

    F. Apruzzi, I. Bah, F. Bonetti, S. Schafer-Nameki,Non-Invertible Symmetries from Holography and Branes,Phys.Rev.Lett.130(2023) 12, 121601,arxiv:2208.07373

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    I. G. Etxebarria,Branes and Non-Invertible Symmetries,Fortsch.Phys.70(2022) 11, 2200154,arxiv:2208.07508

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    J. J. Heckman, M. H¨ ubner, E. Torres, H. Y. Zhang,The Branes Behind Generalized Symmetry Operators,Fortsch.Phys.70(2022) 11, 2200154,arxiv:2209.03343

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Bergman, E

    O. Bergman, E. Garcia-Valdecasas, F. Mignosa, D. Rodriguez-Gomez,Non-BPS branes and continuous symmetries,JHEP02(2025) 066,arxiv:2407.00773

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Benini, A

    F. Benini, A. Antunucci,Anomalies and gauging ofU(1)symmetries,Phys.Rev.B 111(2025) 2,arxiv:2401.10165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Waddleton,U(1) R-symmetry topological operators from branes in holography, JHEP11(2025) 104, 2408.14542

    T. Waddleton,U(1) R-symmetry topological operators from branes in holography, JHEP11(2025) 104, 2408.14542. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Calvo, F

    H. Calvo, F. Mignosa, D. Rodriguez-Gomez,Continuous symmetry defects and brane/anti-brane systems,JHEP06(2025) 196,arxiv:2503.04892

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    I. Bah, F. Bonetti, M. Chitoto, E. Leung,Non-Abelian Symmetry Operators from Hanging Branes inAdS 5 ×S 5,arxiv:2510.19812

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    I. Bah, F. Bonetti, M. Chitoto, E. Leung,Continuous symmetries and charge measurement of boundary operators in holography,arxiv:2602.22377

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Mignosa, D

    F. Mignosa, D. Rodriguez-Gomez,Non-Abelian R-symmetry and dielectric branes, JHEP05(2026) 089,arxiv:2601.23217

    arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Rodriguez-Gomez,Holographic correlators of giant gravitons in monodromy defects,JHEP05(2026) 125,arxiv:2601.10788

    D. Rodriguez-Gomez,Holographic correlators of giant gravitons in monodromy defects,JHEP05(2026) 125,arxiv:2601.10788

    arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Witten,Anti de Sitter space and holography,Adv

    E. Witten,Anti de Sitter space and holography,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 253–291, [hep-th/9802150]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  32. [32]

    Maldacena,The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity, Int.J.Theor.Phys.38(1999) 1113-1133, [arXiv:hep-th/9711200]

    J. Maldacena,The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity, Int.J.Theor.Phys.38(1999) 1113-1133, [arXiv:hep-th/9711200]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  33. [33]

    J. P. Gauntlett, J. B. Gutowski, N.V. Suryanarayana,A Deformation of AdS(5) x S**5,Class.Quant.Grav.21(2004) 5021-5034, [arXiv:hep-th/0406188]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  34. [34]

    J. P. Gauntlett and J. B. Gutowski,All supersymmetric solutions of minimal gauged supergravity in five dimensions,Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 105009, [arXiv:hep-th/0304064]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  35. [35]

    Sen,Stable non-BPS bound states of BPS D-branes,JHEP08(1998) 010, arxiv:hep-th/9805019

    A. Sen,Stable non-BPS bound states of BPS D-branes,JHEP08(1998) 010, arxiv:hep-th/9805019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  36. [36]

    Alishahiha, H

    M. Alishahiha, H. Ita, Y. Oz,On superconnections and the tachyon effective action, Physics Letters B503(2001) 181, arxiv:hep-th/0012222

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  37. [37]

    S. K. Ashok and N. V. Suryanarayana,Counting Wobbling Dual-Giants,JHEP05 (2009) 090,arXiv:0808.2042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  38. [38]

    S. K. Ashok, V. Gupta and N. V. Suryanarayana,On BPS Strings inN= 4 Yang-Mills Theory,JHEP01(2021) 008, [arXiv:2008.00891]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Mikhailov,Giant Gravitons from Holomorphic Surfaces,JHEP11(2000) 027, hep-th/0010206

    A. Mikhailov,Giant Gravitons from Holomorphic Surfaces,JHEP11(2000) 027, hep-th/0010206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  40. [40]

    M. T. Grisaru, R. C. Myers, and O. Tafjord,SUSY and goliath,JHEP08(2000) 040, [hep-th/0008015]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  41. [41]

    McGreevy, L

    J. McGreevy, L. Susskind, and N. Toumbas,Invasion of the giant gravitons from Anti-de Sitter space,JHEP06(2000) 008, [hep-th/0003075]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  42. [42]

    Hanany and E

    A. Hanany and E. Witten,Type IIB superstrings, BPS monopoles, and three-dimensional gauge dynamics,Nucl. Phys.B492(1997) 152-190, hep-th/9611230. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997