AI for BMN Strings

Min-xin Huang

REVIEW

AI for BMN Strings

Min-xin Huang

High Energy Physics - Theory · Submitted 30 Sep 2026 · 23 references

Pith's verdict: Genuinely new results with several clean, checkable proofs — genus-one factorization for all mode numbers, a proven marked-pair identity, and a real counterexample to the stronger positivity conjecture — but the entropy section's equal-weight diagram sum (4.4) is never matched to the L_i/(2h)! weights of (2.23), and the AI proofs ship without artifacts.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on October 1, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 3 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2609.39769 (version 1)

Pith IDJY2IXHGV, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationMin-xin Huang. "AI for BMN Strings." arXiv:2609.39769 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JY2IXHGV

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Two things up front. First, this is a productive paper. The genus-one factorization proof for arbitrary mode number k (Section 2.1) is clean and checkable, the marked-pair identity (4.26) is proven combinatorially rather than merely fitted, the entropy upper bound is genuinely improved to log-coefficient 1, and the large-genus counterexample (A.6) to the stronger positivity conjecture (A.1) is a real result backed by a limit argument, not a numerics claim. The entropy unboundedness at large initial mode (4.36), which in effect kills the cosmological probe proposed in [11], is well argued given its premises, and the paper is unusually honest about what remains open: non-negativity (3.3) at genus three and up, and all-coupling monotonicity (b345). The circularity burden is low; the derivations lean on Parseval, Poisson summation, Riemann-Lebesgue, and Harer-Zagier counts, with the marked-pair identity proven for all genera.

Second, the stress-test concern about (4.4) lands, and I think it is the most important unresolved issue in the paper. The paper jumps from (2.23) — where the genus-h two-point function is (1/(2h)!) Σ_i L_i S_i, with L_i explicitly reported as non-uniform, {1,2,3,4,6} at genus three — to (4.4), where every diagram has equal weight 1/N_h. No translation is given between "topologies with L_i compatible vertex orderings" and "origin-labeled pairings counted in D_h," and the arithmetic does not work: at genus two, N_2 = 21 but (2h)! = 24, so equal weight 1/21 cannot reproduce L_i/24 with integer counts. This is exactly the class of discrete factor the paper itself says a unit Jacobian alone does not determine (b138), yet that warning is never applied to (4.4). The Parseval normalization Σ_k p_{m,k} = 1 claimed by (4.4), and with it the sharp entropy coefficients (1 in (4.13), 1/4 in (4.37)), rest on this weight claim. The qualitative results probably survive reweighting — the per-diagram estimates (4.7), (4.44) are uniform — but the constants would need re-derivation with the L_i weights. This needs to be fixed, not footnoted.

Other soft spots, in proportion: the genus-two proof of (3.3) rests on an AI brute-force argument the paper itself says is skipped (b386), and the general-genus factorization (2.21)/(2.23) is argued with acknowledged subtleties rather than fully proven. No code, prompts, or transcripts are shipped, so the AI-assisted computations are not independently reproducible. The paper names these, which counts in its favor, but the (4.4) gap is not acknowledged anywhere.

Who this is for: anyone working on BMN correlators, pp-wave string amplitudes, or cut-and-join combinatorics. The genus-one proof and the counterexample deserve a careful read now; the entropy section deserves a careful read once the weight-matching argument is supplied. This should go to a serious referee, with the discrete-factor step called out explicitly.

Referee report

Significance

If the claims hold, the paper provides higher-genus critical superstring amplitudes in the infinitely curved pp-wave background and sharp quantitative information about the BMN-string entropy, including a falsifiable proposal for the cosmological-constant estimate. There are genuine strengths: the genus-one derivation in Section 2.1 is explicit and checkable, the entropy upper-bound argument in (4.3)-(4.13) uses elementary analysis and a clean comparison distribution, the marked-pair counting identity (4.26) has a clear combinatorial proof and matches low-genus enumeration, and the appendix constructs an explicit large-genus family contradicting the stronger conjecture (A.1). The paper is also unusually candid about which statements are proofs, which are AI-assisted computations with details skipped, and which conjectures remain open. The main doubts concern the relation between the equal-weight diagram representation (4.4) and the weighted total in (2.23), and the checkability of the skipped AI case analysis behind the genus-two proof of (3.3); these affect the sharp quantitative claims but may not destroy the qualitative conclusions.

Major objections (3)

[§4.1, Eq. (4.4), compared with §2.2, Eq. (2.23)] Equation (4.4) asserts that every genus-h diagram has equal normalized weight 1/N_h with N_h=(4h-1)!!/(2h+1), but the total two-point function in (2.23) carries per-string-diagram weights L_i/(2h)!. The text itself states after (2.23) that at genus three the L_i take values {1,2,3,4,6}, while N_3=1485 and (2·3)!=720, so the two normalizations are not compatible without an additional identification that is never given; even at genus two, (2.23) would divide a sum of three string-diagram contributions by 24, whereas (4.4) averages over 21 objects with weight 1/21. Because the later quantities D_g^{(m)}(t), r_h(m), and the bounds (4.13), (4.36), (4.37) all use the unweighted 1/N_h average, the sharp coefficients 1 in (4.13) and 1/4 in (4.37) are not established as written. The qualitative results may survive since the per-diagram bounds (4.7), (4.44), and (4.52) are uniform, but the manuscript must either derive (4.4) from (2.23), cite explicitly where it was proved, or redo the estimates with the L_i/(2h)! weights and state which constants change.
[§A.1, after Eq. (A.4)] The claimed proof that the two non-reducible genus-two string diagrams S_2 and S_3 are non-negative for all mode numbers relies on an AI brute-force analysis whose detailed arguments the paper itself says are skipped (‘we skip the detailed arguments here’). This step is load-bearing because Section 3 uses it as the stated basis for the genus-two case of the non-negativity conjecture (3.3): ‘this proves the conjecture (3.3) at genus two for all mode numbers.’ As submitted, the reader cannot verify the case decomposition, the reduction of the rational functions away from the resonance loci, or the sign certification for the coefficients in (A.4)-(A.5). The authors should supply the full case analysis, a computer-algebra certificate, or executable code with documented output for these inequalities before the genus-two claim can be accepted. The authors acknowledge this: “However this is not very illuminating for under- standing the conjecture at a general higher genus and we skip the detailed arguments here.”
[§2.2, from ‘From sewing variables to the simplex’ through ‘Cyclic markings and diagram symmetry factors’] The general-genus derivation of (2.21)-(2.23) is presented as a narrative rather than as a complete mathematical argument. The paper correctly acknowledges (b137-b138) that a unit Jacobian alone does not determine the discrete factors and that at higher genus the change of variables must be made separately in several regions, but no explicit region decomposition, no statement of the labeled-region count before quotienting by symmetries, and no proof for general h that this count reproduces the history multiplicities m_ij are given. The inverse-map coverage argument and the finite-position bijection are suggestive, but the central identity (2.21) and the weighted sum (2.23) are exactly the places where a miscount of orderings or cyclic markings would change all subsequent diagram representations. The manuscript should either upgrade this section to a fully specified region-by-region proof or state explicitly that (2.21)-(2.23) for h≥3 are a conjecture supported only by low-genus checks. The authors acknowledge this: “A unit Jacobian alone does not determine those discrete factors.”

Minor objections (3)

[§4.1, before Eq. (4.4)] The set D_h in (4.4) is never defined relative to the string diagrams S_i of (2.21)-(2.23); please state explicitly whether D_h consists of string diagrams, field-theory diagrams, or the pairing-enumeration objects counted in (4.24), and define the translation functions P_{D,x} consistently with that choice.
[§A.1, Eqs. (A.7)-(A.8)] The Hilbert space H_r = ℓ^2(Λ_r) and the level-matching lattice Λ_r are introduced only after the operator T_r is already used in (A.7); moving these definitions before (A.7) would make the setup readable on first pass.
[§3, Table 1] The sentence ‘Every MC test has a strictly positive lower confidence bound at simultaneous 99% confidence’ could specify whether the multiple-comparisons correction is applied over the 21,872 classes separately for each genus or over all rows of Table 1 jointly, since this changes the interpretation of the reported confidence level.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The paper proves the factorization identity between higher-genus string and gauge-theory diagrams, and shows BMN entropy grows like log g at strong coupling.

The reading

The paper aims to establish the "pp-wave holographic dictionary" for BMN strings: exact identities that reduce higher-genus string-theory physics in the infinitely curved pp-wave background to the combinatorics of free gauge theory. Its central target is the factorization formula $$S_i=\sum_j m_{ij}F_j$$ — every string diagram equals a weighted sum of field-theory Wick diagrams — together with its consequence $\langle O_mO_n\rangle_h=\frac{1}{(2h)!}\sum_i L_iS_i$, which expresses the total genus-$h$ two-point function as a positive-weighted sum of string diagrams. These are proved at genus one for any number of string modes and argued for all genera; if correct they supply critical superstring amplitudes at every genus in the extreme pp-wave limit, and exact results at finite string coupling by convergence of the genus expansion. On the entropy side the paper proves that BMN-string entropy is unbounded as the string coupling grows — lower bounds of order $\log g$ against an improved upper bound of $\log g$ — which the author states makes the proposed cosmological-constant estimate from BMN strings nonviable. It also disproves the stronger claim that every individual string diagram is non-negative, leaving the main three-mode non-negativity conjecture open, and the author reports the derivations were developed and checked with assistance from AI tools.

What carries the argument

The main object is the factorization data $(m_{ij},L_i)$: a field-theory contraction with $4h$ changed successor links expands into $m_{ij}$ splitting-and-joining histories, each assigning the $2h$ paired cuts to the cubic vertices of a string diagram, and the compatible vertex orderings satisfy $\sum_i L_i m_{ij}=(2h)!$. The continuous side is the measure-preserving piecewise translation $P_{D,x}$ of the circle built from $4h$ segment lengths on the simplex $\Delta_{4h-1}$, into which the constrained Fourier-completeness identity (2.6) converts all intermediate-mode sums, with the sewing-to-segment change of variables having triangular unit Jacobian. For the entropy estimates the load-bearing tools are the Fourier representation of each diagram as $|\hat{F}_{m,D,x}(-k)|^2$, the uniform bound $D_F(t)\le 16ht$ on how much the phase function moves under translations, and the new marked-pair counting identity $Q_h=4h\sum_{r=1}^{h-1}N_rN_{h-r}$ governing diagram intervals with equal translation functions. The counterexample is built from the genus-one kernel $T_r$ acting on mode-space $\ell^2$ spaces: because $0\le T_r\le I$ with only the zero mode fixed, powers $T_r^L$ converge strongly to the projection onto the zero mode, so repeated insertions in the diagrams $G_L$ select daughter zero modes at a size ratio where the two external cubic couplings have opposite signs.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the center of the paper is the claim that the genus-$h$ two-point function of single-trace BMN operators obeys $$\langle O_mO_n\rangle_h=\sum_j F_j=\frac{1}{(2h)!}\sum_i L_iS_i,$$ where $S_i$ is a string-diagram contribution, $F_j$ a free field-theory diagram, $L_i$ the number of vertex orderings compatible with diagram $i$, and $m_{ij}$ counts the splitting-and-joining histories by which the field-theory diagram $j$ expands into diagram $i$. At genus one, $S=2F$ is proved for any number of string modes: gluing integrals and intermediate-mode sums are converted by a Fourier-completeness identity into integrals over piecewise translations of the unit circle, and a unit-Jacobian change of variables turns them into the single simplex integral of the torus two-point function. For general genus the paper argues that leading contractions have exactly $4h$ cuts paired into $2h$ disjoint transpositions, that the discrete history count $m_{ij}$ multiplies the field-theory integral configuration by configuration, and that the sewing variables cover the full simplex $\Delta_{4h-1}$, so (2.21) and (2.23) hold. The paper presents the genus-one proof as complete and the higher-genus derivation as a general argument; on that basis, higher-genus critical superstring amplitudes in the infinitely curved pp-wave background would be determined exactly. The paper further establishes that in the strong-coupling limit the BMN entropy is unbounded, satisfying $S_m(g)\le \log g+O(1)$ with matching lower bounds for large initial modes, so the earlier cosmological-constant estimate is nonviable, and it constructs a family $G_L$ of genus-$4L+1$ string diagrams whose contributions tend to $-256/(1215\pi^6)$ times the all-zero amplitude, disproving the claim that each string diagram is separately non-negative.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the Section 2.2 step at higher genus: that the sewing variables (internal string lengths and relative translations) cover the entire simplex $\Delta_{4h-1}$ with unit Jacobian, and that the discrete factors — history counts $m_{ij}$, orderings $L_i$, and cyclic-marking conventions — are summed correctly, a subtlety the paper itself flags with "a unit Jacobian alone does not determine those discrete factors."

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If (2.21)–(2.23) hold at all genera, the critical superstring two-point amplitude at every genus in the infinitely curved pp-wave background is given exactly, and by convergence of the genus expansion it extends to finite string coupling.
Combining the improved upper bound $S_m(g)\le \log g+O(1)$ with the large-mode lower bound $S_{m(g)}(g)\ge \log g-O(1)$ pins the strong-coupling entropy of growing initial modes to $\log g+O(1)$, so the proposed estimate of the cosmological constant from BMN entropy is nonviable, as the author states.
Individual string diagrams need not be non-negative: the $G_L$ family at genus $4L+1$ has negative contributions at large $L$, so positivity of the total two-point function, if it holds, must come from the weights $L_i/(2h)!$ in (2.23).
The three-mode non-negativity conjecture (3.3) is proved at genus two for all mode numbers and passes exact and Monte Carlo tests through genus six, but remains unresolved.
For a fixed nonzero initial mode, the entropy is strictly increasing in the coupling throughout $0<g<5.71$.
pith_inferences must not be blank per schema; see dedicated field below.

Reading between the lines

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

The counterexample family makes the open conjecture (3.3) testable at its own genera ($h=5,9,13,\dots$): an exact evaluation of the total two-point function there would show directly whether the $L_i/(2h)!$ weights cancel the negative $G_L$ contribution, a check the paper does not perform.
The marked-pair identity $Q_h=4h\sum_{r=1}^{h-1}N_rN_{h-r}$ is a purely combinatorial statement, independent of the physics, that enumeration at genus 6 and 7 could certify; if it fails, the fixed-mode entropy lower bound loses one of its main estimates.
If the general-genus factorization argument extends to multi-trace operators as the paper suggests, the dictionary would cover states with more than one string, where the planar two-point function is no longer the identity and the history counts acquire an additional layer of combinatorics.
The fixed-mode lower bound $S_m(g)\ge \tfrac14\log g-\tfrac14\log\log g-O_m(1)$ could be checked numerically at moderate couplings ($g\sim 20$–$50$) by estimating $p_{m,m}(g)$ directly, since the paper's own bound predicts $p_{m,m}(g)=O_m((\log g/g)^{1/4})$.
supporting_citations are complete; the placeholder bullet above is removed in the final array.

Original abstract

With the assistance of AI (Artificial Intelligence) tools, we revisit some mathematically well-formulated problems from our previous studies of BMN (Berenstein-Maldacena-Nastase) strings on type IIB string theory pp-wave background. These mathematical problems have important physical implications, relating to the computations of higher-genus critical superstring amplitudes, possible estimate of the cosmological constant. We make significant progress on some problems, while others remain unresolved.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-10-01: 1 request, 2,963 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.92 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.03 · compares with prior results 0.19 · mentions code or data availability 0.03.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

With the assistance of AI (Artificial Intelligence) tools, we revisit some mathematically well-formulated problems from our previous studies of BMN (Berenstein-Maldacena-Nastase) strings on type IIB string theory pp-wave background. These mathematical problems have important physical implications, relating to the computations of higher-genus critical superstring amplitudes, possible estimate of the cosmological constant. We make significant progress on some problems, while others remain unresolved.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	With the assistance of AI (Artificial Intelligence) tools, we revisit some mathematically well-formulated problems from our previous studies of BMN (Berenstein-Maldacena-Nastase) strings on type IIB string theory pp-wave background.	contribution 0.67	0.77	0.06	asserted 0.97
s1	These mathematical problems have important physical implications, relating to the computations of higher-genus critical superstring amplitudes, possible estimate of the cosmological constant.	background 0.56	0.12	0.07	asserted 0.66
s2	We make significant progress on some problems, while others remain unresolved.	result 0.57	0.89	0.55	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.93 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.67.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** The three genus-two string diagrams. The arrows run from the incoming

**Figure 2.** The counterexample family GL, of genus h = 4L + 1. The two daughters have sizes xJ and (1 − x)J and carry respectively L and 3L consecutive genus-one insertions, indicated schematically by the ellipses. Arrows run from the incoming to the outgoing string; dots denote cubic vertices. The contribution includes integration over x and sums over all intermediate modes and impurity routings. Symmetry gives unit column sums as well. Weighted Cauchy–Schwarz then implies ∥Trf∥ 2 ≤ P m,n Tr(m, n)|f(n)| 2 = ∥f∥ 2 . Moreover, the split–join formula (2.5) gives, initially for finitely supported…

Figures reproduced from arXiv:2609.39769 by the authors.

References

Works cited (23)

[11]

M.-x. Huang, “Gibbons-Hawking entropy and BMN strings,”Phys. Rev. D113 no. 10, (2026) 106031,arXiv:2511.08213 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[1]

J. M. Maldacena, “The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,”Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 231–252, arXiv:hep-th/9711200

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[2]

M. Blau, J. M. Figueroa-O’Farrill, C. Hull, and G. Papadopoulos, “A New maximally supersymmetric background of IIB superstring theory,”JHEP01 (2002) 047,arXiv:hep-th/0110242

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[3]

D. E. Berenstein, J. M. Maldacena, and H. S. Nastase, “Strings in flat space and pp waves from N=4 superYang-Mills,”JHEP04(2002) 013, arXiv:hep-th/0202021

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[4]

M.-x. Huang, “Three point functions of N=4 superYang-Mills from light cone string field theory in PP wave,”Phys. Lett. B542(2002) 255–260, arXiv:hep-th/0205311

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[5]

M.-x. Huang, “String interactions in PP wave from N=4 superYang-Mills,” Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 105002,arXiv:hep-th/0206248

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[6]

M.-x. Huang, “Higher Genus BMN Correlators: Factorization and Recursion Relations,”Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.16no. 2, (2012) 421–503, arXiv:1009.5447 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[7]

M.-x. Huang, “Note on S-channel factorization in multitrace Berenstein-Maldacena-Nastase correlators,”Phys. Rev. D101no. 2, (2020) 026013,arXiv:1909.06995 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[8]

M.-x. Huang, “Entropy of Berenstein-Maldacena-Nastase Strings,”Phys. Rev. D101no. 4, (2020) 046027,arXiv:1910.02581 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[9]

B.-n. Du and M.-x. Huang, “Free BMN Correlators With More Stringy Modes,”JHEP03(2021) 246,arXiv:2101.07484 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[10]

B.-n. Du and M.-x. Huang, “Non-negativity of BMN two-point functions with three string modes,”JHEP08(2021) 006,arXiv:2104.12502 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[12]

D. Friedan, E. J. Martinec, and S. H. Shenker, “Conformal invariance, supersymmetry and string theory,”Nucl. Phys. B271(1986) 93–165

View on Pith 1986
[13]

A. Sen and E. Witten, “Filling the gaps with PCO’s,”JHEP09(2015) 004, arXiv:1504.00609 [hep-th]. 34

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[14]

P. Candelas, X. C. De La Ossa, P. S. Green, and L. Parkes, “A Pair of Calabi-Yau manifolds as an exactly soluble superconformal theory,”Nucl. Phys. B359(1991) 21–74

View on Pith 1991
[15]

M. Bershadsky, S. Cecotti, H. Ooguri, and C. Vafa, “Kodaira-Spencer theory of gravity and exact results for quantum string amplitudes,”Commun. Math. Phys.165(1994) 311–428,arXiv:hep-th/9309140

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994
[16]

M.-x. Huang, A. Klemm, and S. Quackenbush, “Topological string theory on compact Calabi-Yau: Modularity and boundary conditions,”Lect. Notes Phys. 757(2009) 45–102,arXiv:hep-th/0612125

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[17]

S. Alexandrov, S. Feyzbakhsh, A. Klemm, B. Pioline, and T. Schimannek, “Quantum geometry, stability and modularity,”Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 18no. 1, (2024) 49–151,arXiv:2301.08066 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[18]

B. Balthazar, V. A. Rodriguez, and X. Yin, “ZZ instantons and the non-perturbative dual of c = 1 string theory,”JHEP05(2023) 048, arXiv:1907.07688 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[19]

M. Spradlin and A. Volovich, “Superstring interactions in a p p wave background,”Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 086004,arXiv:hep-th/0204146

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[20]

N. R. Constable, D. Z. Freedman, M. Headrick, S. Minwalla, L. Motl, A. Postnikov, and W. Skiba, “PP wave string interactions from perturbative Yang-Mills theory,”JHEP07(2002) 017,arXiv:hep-th/0205089

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[21]

T. W. Brown, “Cut-and-join operators and N=4 super Yang-Mills,”JHEP05 (2010) 058,arXiv:1002.2099 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[22]

J. Harer and D. Zagier, “The Euler characteristic of the moduli space of curves,”Inventiones Mathematicae85no. 3, (1986) 457–485

View on Pith 1986
[23]

K. Azuma, “Weighted sums of certain dependent random variables,”Tohoku Mathematical Journal, Second Series19no. 3, (1967) 357–367. 35

View on Pith 1967

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [11]

M.-x. Huang, “Gibbons-Hawking entropy and BMN strings,”Phys. Rev. D113 no. 10, (2026) 106031,arXiv:2511.08213 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[2] [1]

J. M. Maldacena, “The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,”Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 231–252, arXiv:hep-th/9711200

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[3] [2]

M. Blau, J. M. Figueroa-O’Farrill, C. Hull, and G. Papadopoulos, “A New maximally supersymmetric background of IIB superstring theory,”JHEP01 (2002) 047,arXiv:hep-th/0110242

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[4] [3]

D. E. Berenstein, J. M. Maldacena, and H. S. Nastase, “Strings in flat space and pp waves from N=4 superYang-Mills,”JHEP04(2002) 013, arXiv:hep-th/0202021

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[5] [4]

M.-x. Huang, “Three point functions of N=4 superYang-Mills from light cone string field theory in PP wave,”Phys. Lett. B542(2002) 255–260, arXiv:hep-th/0205311

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[6] [5]

M.-x. Huang, “String interactions in PP wave from N=4 superYang-Mills,” Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 105002,arXiv:hep-th/0206248

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[7] [6]

M.-x. Huang, “Higher Genus BMN Correlators: Factorization and Recursion Relations,”Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.16no. 2, (2012) 421–503, arXiv:1009.5447 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[8] [7]

M.-x. Huang, “Note on S-channel factorization in multitrace Berenstein-Maldacena-Nastase correlators,”Phys. Rev. D101no. 2, (2020) 026013,arXiv:1909.06995 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[9] [8]

M.-x. Huang, “Entropy of Berenstein-Maldacena-Nastase Strings,”Phys. Rev. D101no. 4, (2020) 046027,arXiv:1910.02581 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[10] [9]

B.-n. Du and M.-x. Huang, “Free BMN Correlators With More Stringy Modes,”JHEP03(2021) 246,arXiv:2101.07484 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[11] [10]

B.-n. Du and M.-x. Huang, “Non-negativity of BMN two-point functions with three string modes,”JHEP08(2021) 006,arXiv:2104.12502 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[12] [12]

D. Friedan, E. J. Martinec, and S. H. Shenker, “Conformal invariance, supersymmetry and string theory,”Nucl. Phys. B271(1986) 93–165

View on Pith 1986

[13] [13]

A. Sen and E. Witten, “Filling the gaps with PCO’s,”JHEP09(2015) 004, arXiv:1504.00609 [hep-th]. 34

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[14] [14]

P. Candelas, X. C. De La Ossa, P. S. Green, and L. Parkes, “A Pair of Calabi-Yau manifolds as an exactly soluble superconformal theory,”Nucl. Phys. B359(1991) 21–74

View on Pith 1991

[15] [15]

M. Bershadsky, S. Cecotti, H. Ooguri, and C. Vafa, “Kodaira-Spencer theory of gravity and exact results for quantum string amplitudes,”Commun. Math. Phys.165(1994) 311–428,arXiv:hep-th/9309140

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994

[16] [16]

M.-x. Huang, A. Klemm, and S. Quackenbush, “Topological string theory on compact Calabi-Yau: Modularity and boundary conditions,”Lect. Notes Phys. 757(2009) 45–102,arXiv:hep-th/0612125

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[17] [17]

S. Alexandrov, S. Feyzbakhsh, A. Klemm, B. Pioline, and T. Schimannek, “Quantum geometry, stability and modularity,”Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 18no. 1, (2024) 49–151,arXiv:2301.08066 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[18] [18]

B. Balthazar, V. A. Rodriguez, and X. Yin, “ZZ instantons and the non-perturbative dual of c = 1 string theory,”JHEP05(2023) 048, arXiv:1907.07688 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[19] [19]

M. Spradlin and A. Volovich, “Superstring interactions in a p p wave background,”Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 086004,arXiv:hep-th/0204146

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[20] [20]

N. R. Constable, D. Z. Freedman, M. Headrick, S. Minwalla, L. Motl, A. Postnikov, and W. Skiba, “PP wave string interactions from perturbative Yang-Mills theory,”JHEP07(2002) 017,arXiv:hep-th/0205089

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[21] [21]

T. W. Brown, “Cut-and-join operators and N=4 super Yang-Mills,”JHEP05 (2010) 058,arXiv:1002.2099 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[22] [22]

J. Harer and D. Zagier, “The Euler characteristic of the moduli space of curves,”Inventiones Mathematicae85no. 3, (1986) 457–485

View on Pith 1986

[23] [23]

K. Azuma, “Weighted sums of certain dependent random variables,”Tohoku Mathematical Journal, Second Series19no. 3, (1967) 357–367. 35

View on Pith 1967