Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 46 references

$\mathcal{N}=2$ RG flows, Non-Invertible Symmetries and Matrix Factorisations

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Along the massless N=2 flow, the non-invertible lines that commute with the perturbation are obstructed at second order by a supersymmetry anomaly, so they do not reach the infrared.

desk verdict A careful, explicit matrix-factorisation computation that shows a commutation-preserved non-invertible line can still fail to survive as a B-type defect, with the physical scope honestly scoped by the authors themselves. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02717 v1 pith:4A6O7TMR submitted 2026-08-03 hep-th

Federico Ambrosino , Matthias R. Gaberdiel , Yu Nakayama This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords non-invertiblesymmetriestopologicaldefectlinesN=2minimalmodelsmatrixfactorisationsLandau-GinzburgrenormalisationgroupflowsupersymmetryanomalyChebyshevdeformation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper studies what happens to the topological defect lines of the $k$th $\mathcal{N}=2$ minimal model when the theory is deformed by its least relevant chiral perturbation, $W = X^{k+2} + \lambda X^k$, a flow believed to end at the $(k-2)$nd minimal model. Since every integer-spin non-invertible line $[2\ell,0,0]$ commutes with the perturbing field, the standard symmetry argument says those lines should survive into the infrared. The paper argues this expectation fails. The infrared minimal model's fusion category cannot contain the category $so(3)_k$ generated by these lines, and the matrix-factorisation description pins the failure down to order $\lambda^2$: the B-type defect can be deformed at first order but not at second, where a supersymmetry anomaly localised on the line appears. If instead the deformation is completed to the Chebyshev potential, the same lines deform to all orders and the flow ends in a massive integrable theory that preserves the whole family.

What carries the argument

The central object is the matrix factorisation of the Landau–Ginzburg superpotential $W_0 = X^d - Y^d$, $d=k+2$: a pair of polynomial matrices $E,J$ with $EJ = JE = W_0 \cdot 1$, which describes a B-type topological defect, meaning one compatible with the supersymmetric structure. A defect survives a bulk perturbation $W_0 \to W_0 + \lambda W_1$ exactly when $E$ and $J$ can be expanded in powers of $\lambda$ so that $E(\lambda)J(\lambda) = W_0 + \lambda W_1$ order by order. The argument is carried by the second-order condition $E_0 J_2 + E_2 J_0 = -E_1 J_1$: a polynomial solution exists iff $E_1 J_1$ lies in the ideal $(E_0,J_0)$, and the nonzero residue class $[E_1 J_1] \in \mathbb{C}[X,Y]/(E_0,J_0)$ is the supersymmetry anomaly. The alternative all-order solution is the factorisation identity for the Chebyshev–Dickson potential, $W(X,\lambda)-W(Y,\lambda) = (X-Y)\prod_{j=1}^m \bigl(X^2 - (\omega_d^j + \omega_d^{-j})XY + Y^2 + \lambda c_j\bigr)$, which preserves every line of the family.

What would settle it

Exhibit a matrix factorisation of $W = X^{k+2} + \lambda X^k$, polynomial in $X$ and $Y$ and reducing to the $[2\ell,0,0]$ line at $\lambda=0$, that exists to all orders in $\lambda$; or exhibit a fusion-ring homomorphism from $so(3)_k$ into the $(k-2)$nd minimal model for a case the paper excludes. Either would disprove the central claim. In the opposite direction, verifying that $[E_1J_1] \neq 0$ in $\mathbb{C}[X,Y]/(E_0,J_0)$ directly is a finite polynomial computation that settles the obstruction for any given $k,\ell$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that a topological defect line commuting with a perturbing operator is not automatically a symmetry of the infrared fixed point: the line must also be dressed order-by-order by counterterms localised on it, and the dressing can fail at second order. Concretely, for the massless flow $W = X^{k+2} + \lambda X^k$, the matrix factorisation for $[2\ell,0,0]$ satisfies the first-order deformation equation but fails at second order: the class $[E_1 J_1]$ in $\mathbb{C}[X,Y]/(E_0,J_0)$ is nonzero, and this class is invariant under gauge equivalence and stabilisation, so it belongs to the line itself. In the folded picture this class is the square of the first-order supercharge correction, so the obstruction is a supersymmetry/BRST anomaly caused by the collision of two perturbation insertions on the line, a quantity the commutation condition does not control. The CFT counterpart is that the $(k-2)$nd minimal model contains no subcategory isomorphic to $so(3)_k$, except for one small-$k$ case, so there is no candidate image for the family of lines. The same machinery shows that the obstruction is absent when the bulk deformation is the Chebyshev completion, and there the whole $so(3)_k$ family survives to all orders, with the infrared consisting of $k+1$ massive vacua rather than the $(k-2)$nd minimal model.

Load-bearing premise

The argument presumes that the endpoint of the massless flow $W = X^{k+2} + \lambda X^k$ really is the $(k-2)$nd $\mathcal{N}=2$ minimal model with its standard set of infrared lines, and that the two extra massive vacua created by the perturbation do not change the symmetry analysis of the massless sector.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The statement 'a perturbation commuting with a line preserves that line in the infrared' needs an extra condition: the defect-localised counterterms required at each order must exist, and second-order contact terms can obstruct them.
  • For the massless $N=2$ minimal-model flow, the non-invertible lines $[2\ell,0,0]$ do not act on the $(k-2)$nd minimal model, so symmetry-based conjectures that assume they do must be revised.
  • Preserving the whole category $so(3)_k$ along the flow selects a unique bulk completion within the shifted-quadratic ansatz, the Chebyshev deformation, whose endpoint is a massive integrable theory rather than a minimal model.
  • The obstruction is intrinsic to the line: it survives arbitrary changes of presentation, including adding trivial factors and gauge transformations, so no perturbative trick can remove it.
  • The same second-order mechanism offers a template for detecting when other supersymmetric RG flows fail to preserve a commuting non-invertible symmetry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct OPE computation of two perturbing fields inserted on the line, before any flow, should reveal a scheme-independent contact term whose coefficient is predicted by the class $[E_1J_1]$; this would test the anomaly mechanism independently of matrix factorisations.
  • The obstruction theory suggests a selection rule for integrable deformations: demanding that a full non-invertible category survives the flow fixes the higher-order bulk terms, and here the unique solution is the integrable Chebyshev direction, so integrability may be a consequence of symmetry preservation.
  • The formal continuation of the deformed factorisation to large $\lambda$ connects the obstruction to the two massive vacua at $X \sim \pm i\sqrt{\lambda}$; a testable extension is to check whether a non-supersymmetric defect acting on those vacua can be defined, which the paper leaves open.
  • The small-$k$ exception where a fusion-ring map exists but the matrix-factorisation obstruction persists suggests that matching quantum dimensions is necessary but not sufficient for a line to survive; this may be the general pattern in low-rank cases.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the fate of the non-invertible Verlinde lines [2l,0,0], which generate the category so(3)_k in the kth N=2 minimal model, under the least relevant perturbation W = X^{k+2} + lambda X^k. It argues that although the perturbing operator commutes with all these lines, the lines cannot survive as supersymmetric B-type defects along the massless flow to the (k-2)nd minimal model. The CFT fusion-ring argument shows that the (k-2)nd model contains no subcategory with the quantum dimensions of so(3)_k except in the exceptional case k=4. The matrix-factorisation analysis shows that the B-type realization of each nontrivial line [2l,0,0] can be adjusted at first order in lambda, but at second order the class [E1 J1] in the quotient ring C[X,Y]/(E0,J0) is nonzero, so no order-by-order polynomial deformation exists. The paper furthermore shows that modifying the bulk deformation to the Chebyshev/Dickson superpotential removes this obstruction to all orders, yielding a massive integrable flow on which all of so(3)_k survives, with the fusion rules reproduced by a resultant computation.

Significance. The paper gives an explicit, checkable counterexample to the common inference that a deformation operator commuting with a topological line guarantees that the line acts on the IR fixed point. The mechanism is identified as a defect-localised SUSY/BRST anomaly. The technical core is strong: the first-order uniqueness argument, the degree-counting obstruction, the higher-rank and gauge-invariance discussion in Appendix A, the Chebyshev factorisation theorem in Appendix B, and the resultant fusion computation in Appendix C are all explicit and well suited for spot checks. The CFT quantum-dimension no-go is elementary but rigorous. If the standard identification of the massless IR endpoint is accepted, the result is an important caveat for symmetry-based RG-flow arguments. The paper is also clear about its scope, noting in Section 5.2 that non-supersymmetric survival remains open.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract's phrase 'Using CFT arguments we show that this is not possible' should be qualified: the unconditional statement is the second-order matrix-factorisation obstruction of Section 3.4.2, while the physical no-go assumes the standard but unproven identification of the IR endpoint with the (k-2)nd minimal model (Sections 2.2 and 3.1) and restricts to B-type, supersymmetry-compatible polynomial realizations (Section 5.2, with non-supersymmetric survival left open). Please state this distinction explicitly in the abstract so that the conditional nature of the headline conclusion is not lost.
  2. [Section 2.2] The finite check for k<=9 is not presented; please include a table or a short explicit case analysis, especially since k=4 and k=6 are exceptional and later discussed.
  3. [Section 3.4.2] The trigonometric identity (3.38) for S_1-S_3 is stated without derivation; a one-line proof would help, since the nonvanishing of this product is the crux of the second-order obstruction.
  4. [Section 4.2] The statement that the Chebyshev flow has d-1 massive vacua should explicitly contrast with the massless flow, which has two additional massive vacua at X ~ +/- i sqrt(lambda), to avoid confusion about which IR theory is being discussed.
  5. [Section 5.3] The notation in 'x^3 \bar{x} ~ (3,3,0) x (1,-1,0)' and '3 tensor 1 = 2 direct sum 4' is terse; please define that the chiral field x carries labels (1,1,0) and that these are su(2) representations.
  6. [Typos] The header 'N= 2RG flows' is missing a space; in Section 5.5 'ansu(2) k singlet' should read 'a su(2)_k singlet'; and in Section 3.4 the statement that E0 and J0 have no common root should read 'no common factor'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the obstruction is an explicit computation, and the Chebyshev completion is fixed by consistency equations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The CFT no-go in Section 2.2 is a direct mathematical statement about the su(2) fusion rings of the assumed IR endpoint (the (k-2)nd minimal model); it does not use the commutation principle it refutes as an input. The matrix-factorisation obstruction in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 is an explicit calculation: the first-order solution E_1 is constructed, its uniqueness is fixed by a degree count, and the second-order class [E_1 J_1] in C[X,Y]/(E_0,J_0) is evaluated and shown to be nonzero (eqs. (3.37)-(3.38)). No parameter is fitted and no target conclusion is assumed. The higher-rank obstruction (Appendix A) is proven independently via the stabilisation and gauge-invariance moves. In Section 4, the Chebyshev deformation is derived within a clearly stated ansatz from the condition that the obstruction be cancelled order-by-order; the factorisation theorem is proven in Appendix B, and the resultant fusion rules in Appendix C are independent consequences. The self-citations [11-15] are cited only as the background expectation that the paper contradicts, so they are not load-bearing for the central result; the identification of defects with matrix factorisations [30] is a standard input, not the target conclusion. The paper's own scoping statements (e.g., Section 5.2: 'whether it survives in some non-supersymmetric form ... remains open'; the 'believed' endpoint of the massless flow in Sections 2.2 and 3.1) are limitations on the physical interpretation, not circular steps. The core computations stand on their own against external checks such as Gepner's chiral-ring identification and the known integrable deformation, so there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No data-fitted parameters enter: the coupling λ is the physical deformation parameter and the constants c_j are fixed by the first-order matching (4.7), not by fitting. The central claim rests on standard LG/CFT technology (matrix factorisations, Cardy defects), one explicitly flagged physical belief (the massless endpoint is the (k-2)nd model), and one method-internal restriction (polynomial, order-by-order, B-type deformations) that the paper itself identifies as the scope of the no-go (Sections 5.1 and 5.2). No new entities are postulated; the 'SUSY anomaly' is the computed class [E_1 J_1] in C[X,Y]/(E_0,J_0).

free parameters (2)
  • λ (deformation coupling)
    The coupling of the least relevant perturbation. It is the physical control parameter of the RG flow, not fitted to data; the analysis is an order-by-order expansion in λ.
  • c_j (Chebyshev quadratic shifts) = c_j = -(ω^j_d - ω^{-j}_d)^2 / d
    Constant shifts of the quadratic factors in the ansatz (4.4). They are fixed uniquely by matching the first-order deformation (Section 4.1), not fitted to data; they parameterize the symmetry-preserving deformation and are part of the derivation rather than free input.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Landau-Ginzburg description of the kth N=2 minimal model by W = X^(k+2), with B-type defects given by matrix factorisations of W(X) - W(Y)
    Invoked throughout Sections 3 and 4, citing [16-20, 28-30]. Standard in the literature and not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The perturbation W = X^(k+2) + λX^k drives the massless flow to the (k-2)nd minimal model
    Called 'believed' in the abstract, Section 2.2 ('It is believed to be triggered by...') and Section 3.1 ('this is believed to induce the flow'). This is the weakest assumption: it is the load-bearing physical input for the CFT puzzle and for the physical reading of the obstruction.
  • domain assumption N=2 superpotential non-renormalisation (the superpotential is protected from quantum corrections)
    Used in Section 5.3 to argue the massless IR endpoint is the (k-2)nd model and that the IR approach is governed by a Kähler-term deformation rather than a chiral-ring deformation.
  • ad hoc to paper A deformed defect line must be a polynomial matrix factorisation in X and Y, deformable order-by-order in C[X,Y,λ]
    Section 3.4.1: 'It is then natural to take the deformed matrix factorisation also to be polynomial in λ'. The paper shows the obstruction is independent of the presentation within this class, and Section 5.1 explicitly notes a non-polynomial continuation exists but 'we do not have a precise interpretation of it'. The central negative claim is scoped to this class.
  • standard math C[X,Y,λ] is a unique factorisation domain; irreducibility of W̃(λ) follows from degree-one-in-λ and gcd(W_0/(X-Y), W_1/(X-Y)) = 1
    Section 3.4.1, used to prove that no non-trivial rank-1 deformation exists.
  • standard math Gauge equivalence plus stabilisation by trivial factorisations generate all isomorphisms in the homotopy category of matrix factorisations; resultant/Sylvester properties
    Appendices A and C, citing [31, 32]. Used to argue the obstruction is an invariant of the line and to compute fusion rules via resultants.
  • standard math Cardy/S-matrix description of N=2 minimal model defects and the Verlinde formula
    Section 2.1, citing [24-27]. Standard RCFT technology used for the fusion-ring no-go argument.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $\mathcal{N}=2$ RG flows, Non-Invertible Symmetries and Matrix Factorisations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4A6O7TMR

@misc{pith2026260802717,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\mathcalN=2$ RG flows, Non-Invertible Symmetries and Matrix Factorisations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4A6O7TMR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02717}
}
abstract

We study the behaviour of the topological defect lines of the $k^{\rm th}$ ${\cal N}=2$ minimal models that are preserved by the least relevant perturbation to first order. It is usually believed that these defects should then also define symmetries of the IR theory, which for the usual "massless'' flow should be the $(k-2)^{\rm nd}$ ${\cal N}=2$ minimal model. Using CFT arguments we show that this is not possible. We also reproduce this result using matrix factorisation techniques: while the corresponding B-type defects can be adjusted to first order in the deformation, there is an obstruction at second order, which is associated with a supersymmetry anomaly. By contrast, for the associated massive integrable flow, which corresponds to a Chebyshev deformation of the superpotential, all of these defects can be consistently deformed, and they indeed define symmetries of the massive IR theory.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Topological defects and SUSY RG flow,

    I. Brunner, I. Mayer, and C. Schmidt-Colinet, “Topological defects and SUSY RG flow,” JHEP03(2021) 098,arXiv:2007.02353 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    ICTP lectures on (non-)invertible generalized symmetries,

    S. Schafer-Nameki, “ICTP lectures on (non-)invertible generalized symmetries,”Phys. Rept. 1063(2024) 1–55,arXiv:2305.18296 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [2]

    What’s Done Cannot Be Undone: TASI Lectures on Non-Invertible Symmetries,

    S.-H. Shao, “What’s Done Cannot Be Undone: TASI Lectures on Non-Invertible Symmetries,” inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics 2023: Aspects of Symmetry. 8, 2023.arXiv:2308.00747 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [3]

    Boundary conformal field theory approach to the critical two-dimensional Ising model with a defect line,

    M. Oshikawa and I. Affleck, “Boundary conformal field theory approach to the critical two-dimensional Ising model with a defect line,”Nucl. Phys. B495(1997) 533–582, arXiv:cond-mat/9612187

    arXiv 1997

  5. [4]

    TFT construction of RCFT correlators 1. Partition functions,

    J. Fuchs, I. Runkel, and C. Schweigert, “TFT construction of RCFT correlators 1. Partition functions,”Nucl. Phys. B646(2002) 353–497,arXiv:hep-th/0204148

    arXiv 2002

  6. [5]

    Duality and defects in rational conformal field theory,

    J. Fr¨ ohlich, J. Fuchs, I. Runkel, and C. Schweigert, “Duality and defects in rational conformal field theory,”Nucl. Phys. B763(2007) 354–430,arXiv:hep-th/0607247

    arXiv 2007

  7. [6]

    Bulk flows in Virasoro minimal models with boundaries,

    S. Fredenhagen, M. R. Gaberdiel, and C. Schmidt-Colinet, “Bulk flows in Virasoro minimal models with boundaries,”J. Phys. A42no. 49, (2009) 495403,arXiv:0907.2560 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2009

  8. [7]

    Domain Walls for Two-Dimensional Renormalization Group Flows,

    D. Gaiotto, “Domain Walls for Two-Dimensional Renormalization Group Flows,”JHEP12 (2012) 103,arXiv:1201.0767 [hep-th]. – 29 –

    arXiv 2012

Show all 46 references
  1. [8]

    Particle-soliton degeneracies from spontaneously broken non-invertible symmetry,

    C. Cordova, D. Garc´ ıa-Sep´ ulveda, and N. Holfester, “Particle-soliton degeneracies from spontaneously broken non-invertible symmetry,”JHEP07(2024) 154,arXiv:2403.08883 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Symmetries and strings of adjoint QCD2,

    Z. Komargodski, K. Ohmori, K. Roumpedakis, and S. Seifnashri, “Symmetries and strings of adjoint QCD2,”JHEP03(2021) 103,arXiv:2008.07567 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Topological Defect Lines and Renormalization Group Flows in Two Dimensions,

    C.-M. Chang, Y.-H. Lin, S.-H. Shao, Y. Wang, and X. Yin, “Topological Defect Lines and Renormalization Group Flows in Two Dimensions,”JHEP01(2019) 026, arXiv:1802.04445 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Infinitely many new renormalization group flows between Virasoro minimal models from non-invertible symmetries,

    Y. Nakayama and T. Tanaka, “Infinitely many new renormalization group flows between Virasoro minimal models from non-invertible symmetries,”JHEP11(2024) 137, arXiv:2407.21353 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Minimal Model Renormalization Group Flows: Noninvertible Symmetries and Nonperturbative Description,

    F. Ambrosino and S. Negro, “Minimal Model Renormalization Group Flows: Noninvertible Symmetries and Nonperturbative Description,”Phys. Rev. Lett.135no. 2, (2025) 021602, arXiv:2501.07511 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Defects inN= 1 minimal models and RG flows,

    M. R. Gaberdiel and L. Merkens, “Defects inN= 1 minimal models and RG flows,”JHEP 05(2026) 018,arXiv:2601.03879 [hep-th]

    2026 arXiv

  7. [14]

    RG flows of minimalW-algebra CFTs via non-invertible symmetries,

    F. Ambrosino and T. Proch´ azka, “RG flows of minimalW-algebra CFTs via non-invertible symmetries,”arXiv:2601.18667 [hep-th]

  8. [15]

    Non-invertible symmetries and selection rules for RG flows of coset models,

    V. Benedetti, P. Fendley, and J. M. Magan, “Non-invertible symmetries and selection rules for RG flows of coset models,”arXiv:2603.09591 [hep-th]

  9. [16]

    Algebraic Geometry and Effective Lagrangians,

    E. J. Martinec, “Algebraic Geometry and Effective Lagrangians,”Phys. Lett. B217(1989) 431–437

    1989

  10. [17]

    Catastrophes and the Classification of Conformal Theories,

    C. Vafa and N. P. Warner, “Catastrophes and the Classification of Conformal Theories,” Phys. Lett. B218(1989) 51–58

    1989

  11. [18]

    D branes in Landau-Ginzburg models and algebraic geometry,

    A. Kapustin and Y. Li, “D branes in Landau-Ginzburg models and algebraic geometry,” JHEP12(2003) 005,arXiv:hep-th/0210296

    2003 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Landau-Ginzburg realization of open string TFT,

    I. Brunner, M. Herbst, W. Lerche, and B. Scheuner, “Landau-Ginzburg realization of open string TFT,”JHEP11(2006) 043,arXiv:hep-th/0305133

    2006 arXiv

  13. [20]

    On the boundary coupling of topological Landau-Ginzburg models,

    C. I. Lazaroiu, “On the boundary coupling of topological Landau-Ginzburg models,”JHEP 05(2005) 037,arXiv:hep-th/0312286

    2005 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Scattering and thermodynamics of fractionally charged supersymmetric solitons,

    P. Fendley and K. A. Intriligator, “Scattering and thermodynamics of fractionally charged supersymmetric solitons,”Nucl. Phys. B372(1992) 533–558,arXiv:hep-th/9111014

    1992 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Fusion rings and geometry,

    D. Gepner, “Fusion rings and geometry,”Commun. Math. Phys.141(1991) 381–411

    1991

  16. [24]

    Di Francesco, P

    P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu, and D. S´ en´ echal,Conformal Field Theory. Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics. Springer, New York, 1997

    1997

  17. [25]

    Boundary conditions, fusion rules and the verlinde formula,

    J. L. Cardy, “Boundary conditions, fusion rules and the verlinde formula,”Nuclear Physics B324no. 3, (1989) 581–596

    1989

  18. [26]

    Generalised twisted partition functions,

    V. B. Petkova and J.-B. Zuber, “Generalised twisted partition functions,”Physics Letters B 504no. 1–2, (2001) 157–164,arXiv:hep-th/0011021. – 30 –

    2001 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Fusion rules and modular transformations in 2d conformal field theory,

    E. P. Verlinde, “Fusion rules and modular transformations in 2d conformal field theory,” Nucl. Phys. B300(1988) 360–376

    1988

  20. [28]

    D-branes in topological minimal models: The Landau-Ginzburg approach,

    A. Kapustin and Y. Li, “D-branes in topological minimal models: The Landau-Ginzburg approach,”JHEP07(2004) 045,arXiv:hep-th/0306001

    2004 arXiv

  21. [29]

    B-type defects in Landau-Ginzburg models,

    I. Brunner and D. Roggenkamp, “B-type defects in Landau-Ginzburg models,”JHEP08 (2007) 093,arXiv:0707.0922 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Matrix factorisations and permutation branes,

    I. Brunner and M. R. Gaberdiel, “Matrix factorisations and permutation branes,”JHEP07 (2005) 012,arXiv:hep-th/0503207

    2005 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Homological algebra on a complete intersection, with an application to group representations,

    D. Eisenbud, “Homological algebra on a complete intersection, with an application to group representations,”Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.260no. 1, (1980) 35–64

    1980

  24. [32]

    Yoshino,Cohen-Macaulay Modules over Cohen-Macaulay Rings, vol

    Y. Yoshino,Cohen-Macaulay Modules over Cohen-Macaulay Rings, vol. 146 ofLondon Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press, 1990

    1990

  25. [33]

    Topological strings in d<1,

    R. Dijkgraaf, H. L. Verlinde, and E. P. Verlinde, “Topological strings in d<1,”Nucl. Phys. B352(1991) 59–86

    1991

  26. [34]

    Topological antitopological fusion,

    S. Cecotti and C. Vafa, “Topological antitopological fusion,”Nucl. Phys. B367(1991) 359–461

    1991

  27. [35]

    Scattering and thermodynamics in integrable N=2 theories,

    P. Fendley and K. A. Intriligator, “Scattering and thermodynamics in integrable N=2 theories,”Nucl. Phys. B380(1992) 265–290,arXiv:hep-th/9202011

    1992 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Defects and bulk perturbations of boundary Landau-Ginzburg orbifolds,

    I. Brunner and D. Roggenkamp, “Defects and bulk perturbations of boundary Landau-Ginzburg orbifolds,”JHEP04(2008) 001,arXiv:0712.0188 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Topology Change in String Theory,

    M. Cvetic and D. Kutasov, “Topology Change in String Theory,”Phys. Lett. B240(1990) 61–66

    1990

  30. [38]

    Supersymmetry in boundary integrable models,

    N. P. Warner, “Supersymmetry in boundary integrable models,”Nucl. Phys. B450(1995) 663–694,arXiv:hep-th/9506064

    1995 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Non-local charges from perturbed defects via SymTFT in 2d CFT,

    F. Ambrosino, I. Runkel, and G. M. T. Watts, “Non-local charges from perturbed defects via SymTFT in 2d CFT,”J. Phys. A58no. 42, (2025) 425401,arXiv:2504.05277 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Translation invariant defects as an extension of topological symmetries,

    F. Ambrosino, I. Runkel, and G. M. T. Watts, “Translation invariant defects as an extension of topological symmetries,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A41no. 07, (2026) 2648001, arXiv:2511.02007 [hep-th]

    2026

  33. [41]

    Realizing IR theories by projections in the UV,

    F. Klos and D. Roggenkamp, “Realizing IR theories by projections in the UV,”JHEP01 (2020) 097,arXiv:1907.12339 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bulk perturbations of N=2 branes,

    M. R. Gaberdiel and A. Lawrence, “Bulk perturbations of N=2 branes,”JHEP05(2007) 087,arXiv:hep-th/0702036

    2007 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Defect Conformal Manifolds along RG Domain Walls betweenZ N-Parafermions and Minimal Models,

    J.-R. Zhang, J.-H. Jin, T.-K. Chen, and J. Chen, “Defect Conformal Manifolds along RG Domain Walls betweenZ N-Parafermions and Minimal Models,”arXiv:2605.24978 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Integrable perturbations of ZN parafermion models and the O(3) sigma model,

    V. A. Fateev and A. B. Zamolodchikov, “Integrable perturbations of ZN parafermion models and the O(3) sigma model,”Phys. Lett. B271(1991) 91–100

    1991

  37. [45]

    New integrable RG flows with parafermions,

    C. Ahn and Z. Bajnok, “New integrable RG flows with parafermions,”JHEP11(2024) 078, arXiv:2407.06582 [hep-th]. – 31 –

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    S-matrix bootstrap and non-invertible symmetries,

    C. Copetti, L. Cordova, and S. Komatsu, “S-matrix bootstrap and non-invertible symmetries,”JHEP03(2025) 204,arXiv:2408.13132 [hep-th]. – 32 –

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.