Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 125 references

For the \hat{A}_m family of toric quiver gauge theories, the coefficients of the large-N superconformal index obey an explicit Hardy-Ramanujan asymptotic formula, c_n ~ K' n^{(m-5)/4} exp(2C sqrt n), with C = pi sqrt(m/18 + 1/(6m)), determi

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

2026-08-04 16:39 UTC pith:2ZCEY4Z5

load-bearing objection Solid, honest paper with real new results; the \hat{A}_m asymptotics are likely right but remain conditional because the tail bound (IV.18) is unproven. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.12123 v3 pith:2ZCEY4Z5 submitted 2025-09-15 hep-th math-phmath.COmath.MP

Quiver superconformal index and giant gravitons: asymptotics and expansions

Souradeep Purkayastha , Zishen Qu , Ali Zahabi This is my paper
classification hep-th math-phmath.COmath.MP MSC 11P8205A1781T6081T40
keywords superconformal indextoric quiverlarge-N limitHardy-Ramanujan asymptoticssaddle-point methodgiant graviton expansioneffective central chargeR-charge factorization
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 establishes that the BPS state degeneracy encoded in the large-N superconformal index of a broad class of toric quiver gauge theories grows at large charge according to a Hardy-Ramanujan law: the logarithm of the coefficient is asymptotically a constant times the square root of the charge plus a logarithmic correction. For the infinite \hat{A}_m family the constants are fully explicit, obtained by factorising the index into an infinite product over quiver cycles and applying classical saddle-point techniques at the dominant singularity. If correct, this yields concrete predictions for the entropy of the dual gravity theory and a systematic definition of an effective central charge from quiver data, and it also isolates quivers where the growth is only polynomial. The paper further generalises the giant graviton expansion to multi-matrix quiver models.

Core claim

The central mathematical discovery is the asymptotic expansion of the coefficients of the generating function g(z) = prod_{k>=1} (1-z^{3k})^{2m} / ((1-z^{2km})^2 (1-z^{2k})^m): c_n ~ (K/(2 sqrt(pi) C^{(m-3)/2})) n^{(m-5)/4} exp(2 C sqrt n), where C = pi sqrt(m/18 + 1/(6m)) and K collects the constant terms in the Freiman expansion. Equivalently, ln|c_n| ~ 2C sqrt n - ((m-2)/2) ln n + ln K + o(1). The proof proceeds by substituting t = z^3, reflecting the quiver's R-charges, then localising the Cauchy integral at the singularity z = -1 and evaluating the resulting Gaussian integral. The result covers the N=4 SYM case (m=1) and Y^{1,1} (m=2) as special cases, is verified numerically for 1 <= m

What carries the argument

The key object is the factorised large-N index determinant, which converts the quiver index into an infinite product of the form of a coloured partition generating function, together with the saddle-point method applied to this product. The load-bearing identity is the saddle equation n = (pi^2/xi^2)(m/18 + 1/(6m)) + ((m-2)/2)(1/xi) + O(1), whose solution defines the saddle radius xi_max and the constant C appearing in the exponential growth; Freiman's formula is then used to expand the logarithm of the product near the singularity at z = -1.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that the integral over the contour away from the saddle point is negligible—the tail bound (IV.18)—is not established; the paper states this remains to be proven, so without it the asymptotic formula (IV.17) is only a local saddle contribution and not a proven coefficient asymptotics.

What would settle it

Compute the coefficients c_n of the \hat{A}_m generating function for, say, m = 5 up to n = 10^5 using high-precision integer arithmetic and compare ln|c_n| to 2C sqrt(n) - ((m-2)/2) ln n + ln K; any persistent deviation beyond o(1) would refute (IV.17). More directly, evaluate the contour integral (IV.5) with xi = xi_max numerically and estimate the integral over |theta| > n^{-delta} for delta in (2/3, 3/4); if it is not o(n^{(m-5)/4} e^{2C sqrt n}), the central claim collapses.

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

If this is right

  • For each m, the dual gravity state count is predicted to grow as exp(2C sqrt n) n^{(m-5)/4} up to a constant, giving an effective central charge c_eff = m/3 + 1/m for the \hat{A}_m family.
  • The logarithmic correction to the entropy changes sign at m = 5, so the subleading correction vanishes for \hat{A}_5.
  • The bivariate main-diagonal index for \hat{A}_1 and \hat{A}_3 also obeys a Hardy-Ramanujan formula with explicit constants, yielding c_eff,biv = 3 and 11/3.
  • The quivers dP3, Y^{3,3}, Y^{2,0}, and generally Y^{p,0}, grow only polynomially, with the sum-of-squares function controlling dP3 and Y^{2,0}.
  • The matrix-coupling giant graviton expansion (V.52) iteratively corrects the large-N index to the finite-N index; for \hat{A}_2 and \hat{A}_3 it reproduces the finite-N index to the computed order.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same saddle-point structure may govern other Y^{p,q} families with rational R-charges, so their effective central charges could be extracted by the same method even when the full asymptotic proof is not yet available.
  • The transition at m = 5, where the logarithmic correction vanishes, might be visible as a qualitative change in the subleading entropy of the dual black-hole or graviton-gas system; this is a testable prediction for a future gravity-side computation.
  • The polynomial-growth cases are all generating functions that factor through Jacobi triple product identities; a possible general principle is that exponential Hardy-Ramanujan growth occurs precisely when the factorised product cannot be reduced to such theta-like blocks.
  • Because the giant-graviton expansion relies only on the circulant structure of the large-N index matrix, the multi-matrix formula (V.52) may apply to any multi-matrix model with simultaneously diagonalisable couplings, not just the quiver indices studied here.

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 large-N superconformal index of toric quiver gauge theories, combining algebraic factorization of the large-N index matrix with saddle-point analysis of the resulting infinite products. It obtains factorizations for the Y^{p,q} and A-hat_m families and for dP3, uses a-maximization to fix on-shell R-charges, and then derives univariate and bivariate coefficient asymptotics. The stated principal mathematical result is Eq. (IV.17): for the A-hat_m univariate generating function, the coefficients satisfy Hardy-Ramanujan-type growth with exponential parameter 2 C n^{1/2} and a polynomial prefactor n^{(m-5)/4}. The paper also identifies polynomial-growth cases, gives numerical conjectures for several Y^{p,p} quivers, and generalizes Murthy's giant graviton expansion to matrix-coupling models. The central asymptotic formula is supported by extensive numerical checks, but the proof of the required tail bound (IV.18) is explicitly deferred, so the main result is presently a well-motivated conditional statement.

Significance. If the main asymptotic formulas are fully established, the paper gives a clean family of Hardy-Ramanujan asymptotics for large-N quiver indices, with explicit constants and logarithmic corrections, and introduces an effective central charge (IV.50) for these theories. The giant graviton expansion for matrix couplings, Eqs. (V.52)-(V.53), is a valuable generalization that goes beyond the scalar-coupling results and is checked to low order in the appendix. Strengths of the paper include the absence of fitted parameters in the A-hat_m derivation, the use of on-shell R-charges from a-maximization rather than from the asymptotic formula itself, and the extensive symbolic and numerical verification of factorizations and coefficient growth. The paper is also honest in labelling several statements as conjectures. However, the single load-bearing issue is the unproved tail estimate (IV.18), without which Eq. (IV.17) is a saddle-point contribution rather than a proven asymptotic expansion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.B, Eq. (IV.18)] The derivation of Eq. (IV.17) restricts the Cauchy integral (IV.5) to |θ| < n^{-δ} with δ in (2/3, 3/4). For this to yield the asymptotics of c_n, the integral over the complement must be o(n^{(m-5)/4} exp(2 C n^{1/2})). The manuscript explicitly states: 'It remains to prove that the remnant of the contour integral (IV.4) contributes negligibly' and 'We hope to return to a rigorous treatment of (IV.18) in future works.' Because g(z) has a dense set of singularities on the unit circle, this is not a routine dominant-singularity argument. Consequently Eq. (IV.17), Table I, and the derived effective central charge (IV.50) are conditional on an unproved bound. The numerical checks in Fig. 9 support the formula for finitely many n and m but do not constitute a proof. This is the principal gap and should be resolved or the result should be explicitly reframed as a conjecture with a clearly ide
  2. [Section IV.C, Eqs. (IV.21) and (IV.24)] The generalized asymptotic formulas are stated as obtained results, but no tail bound or dominance proof is supplied for the general function (IV.19) or its z -> -z transform (IV.23). The paper says that when (IV.21) is valid it 'can be proved by bounding the Cauchy integral', but the proof is not given, and the validity conditions (IV.27) are only conditions on the exponent inequality, not a demonstration that the saddle contribution dominates all other unit-circle singularities. The paper itself notes for Y^{2,2} that the z=-1 contribution (IV.28) is not the true asymptotic growth. These formulas should therefore be presented as conditional contributions unless a tail estimate is provided, particularly because they are used as the basis for statements about other quiver families.
  3. [Section III.C, Eq. (III.28)] The A-hat_m factorization (III.31) and the subsequent on-shell charges (III.6) depend on an assumed superpotential and on the zig-zag path method, which Section II.B describes as conjectural for inexact R-charges. The paper verifies the factorization by computer for several m and by hand in the symmetric equal-charge case, which is useful evidence, but it does not establish the ansatz or the zig-zag factorization for all m. Since Section IV uses exactly this factorization to define the generating function (IV.6), the status of this assumption should be clearly stated at the point where the asymptotic analysis begins. This is not a criticism of the numerical checks, but a request for explicitness about the provenance of a load-bearing ingredient.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.B, before Eq. (IV.18)] The text promises that 'the next subsection proves the integral over the remaining points is comparatively negligible', but the following subsection explicitly provides only computational evidence and defers a rigorous proof. The wording should be corrected to avoid implying a proof that is not present.
  2. [Notation throughout] The symbols p,q denote both fugacities and the integers labelling the Y^{p,q} family, while m denotes both the A-hat_m index and, in Section V, a giant-graviton tuple index. These overloaded notations are common in the literature but make the paper harder to read; a short reminder when switching between the two uses would help.
  3. [Table III and Fig. 11] Table III lists the polynomial-growth case Y^{3,3}, while the caption of Fig. 11(b) and the surrounding text refer to Y^{3,0}. Please check which quiver is actually being plotted and make the notation uniform.
  4. [Appendix B] The giant graviton corrections are verified only to O(z^15) for N=1 and O(z^12) for N=2. This is adequate for a consistency check, but the limited truncation should be stated in the main text when these computations are cited as evidence for the matrix-coupling expansion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Â_m asymptotic derivation is parameter-free and self-contained; the unproven tail bound is a proof gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central derivation of Eq. (IV.17) is not circular by construction. The generating function g(z) (IV.6) follows from the factorization (III.31)/(III.33), and the on-shell R-charges r_U=r_V=r_Y=2/3 are obtained independently from a-maximization (III.34)–(III.38); no coefficient of g is fitted from the asymptotic formula. The saddle-point constants C and K are computed from Freiman/Euler–Maclaurin expansions (IV.10)–(IV.13) and are not adjusted to match c_n. The numerical checks in Fig. 9 are independent verification of a derived formula, not an input. The explicitly acknowledged gap is the tail bound in §IV.B: "It remains to prove that the remnant of the contour integral (IV.4) contributes negligibly" and "We hope to return to a rigorous treatment of (IV.18) in future works." This makes (IV.17) a conditional saddle-point estimate rather than a fully proved theorem, but conditionality is a correctness/completeness issue, not circularity. The Â_m superpotential ansatz (III.28) is an unproven assumption, as the paper states ("the superpotential is not known in general"), and it is not defined in terms of the asymptotic coefficients; it is checked through independent factorization and a-maximization. No load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation by the present authors: the factorization proof is cited to [18], the zig-zag method to [19], and a-maximization to [20], all external. The paper's own prior-work citations are not used to force the central asymptotics. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

Most of the paper's inputs are standard in the literature: the large-N index product (II.6), a-maximization, the Jacobi triple product and the Borodin-Okounkov formula. The load-bearing nonstandard premises are the conjectural zig-zag factorization for off-shell charges, the assumed \hat{A}_m superpotential, the unproven tail bound, and the dominance of the z=-1 singularity.

free parameters (1)
  • Y^{2,2} exponential constants 3/8 and 5/8 = 3/8 for n=3 mod 4; 5/8 for even n
    Inferred by fitting numerical ratios ln|c_n|/(pi sqrt(n)) to rational values in Table VI; presented as a conjecture, not derived.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Large-N index formula I_infinity(p,q) = product_{k>=1} ((1-p^k)^V (1-q^k)^V) / det M(p^k,q^k) (II.6)
    Standard Coulomb-gas/large-N result from the literature [10,17,62-64]; the entire analysis of Section IV operates on this infinite product.
  • domain assumption Zig-zag path factorization detM(t) = product_i (1 - t^{sum of R-charges}) (II.14) holds off-shell
    The paper states this technique is conjectural for inexact R-charges (Section II.B, third paragraph). Used to derive the \hat{A}_m and dP3 factorizations.
  • ad hoc to paper The \hat{A}_m superpotential is W = sum_k (U_k Y_{k+1} V_{k+1} - Y_k U_k V_{k+1}) (III.28)
    The exact superpotential for \hat{A}_m is not known; the paper says 'we utilize an ansatz that correctly outputs detM(t) on-shell' (Section III.C). The on-shell R-charges r=2/3 follow from a-maximization on this ansatz.
  • ad hoc to paper Tail bound (IV.18) holds
    Necessary for (IV.17) to be a true asymptotic; explicitly left unproved ('We hope to return to a rigorous treatment').
  • domain assumption a-maximization gives the on-shell R-charges used in the generating functions
    Standard principle [20] used to fix R-charges; invoked throughout Sections III and IV.
  • ad hoc to paper For the \hat{A}_m generating functions, the singularity at z=-1 dominates the asymptotics
    Supported by truncated-product heuristics and numerical checks (Section IV.B), but rigorous dominance requires the unproven tail bound.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 59691 in / 20268 out tokens · 203277 ms · 2026-08-04T16:39:08.786507+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study asymptotics of the $d=4$, $\mathcal{N}=1$ superconformal index for toric quiver gauge theories. Using graph-theoretic and algebraic factorization techniques, we obtain a cycle expansion for the large-$N$ index in terms of the $R$-charge-weighted adjacency matrix. Applying saddle-point techniques at the on-shell $R$-charges, we determine the asymptotic degeneracy in the univariate specialization for $\hat{A}_{m}$, and along the main diagonal for the bivariate index for $\mathcal{N}=4$ and $\hat{A}_{3}$. In these cases we find $\ln |c_{n}| \sim \gamma n^{\frac{1}{2}}+ \beta \ln n + \alpha$ (Hardy-Ramanujan type). We also identify polynomial growth for $dP3$, $Y^{3,3}$ and $Y^{p,0}$, and give numerical evidence for $\gamma$ in further $Y^{p,p}$ examples. Finally, we generalize Murthy's giant graviton expansion via the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation and Borodin-Okounkov formula to multi-matrix models relevant for quivers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.12123 by Ali Zahabi, Souradeep Purkayastha, Zishen Qu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The clover quiver for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The periodic tiling and the corresponding dimer with three zig-zag paths for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: An example of toric duality in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Construction of the planar quiver for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The four zig-zag paths for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The planar quiver and dimer for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The fit of the coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The growth of the exponential sector ln [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Polynomially growing asymptotics of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: The fit of the coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

125 extracted references · 82 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity,” Conf. Proc. C930308(1993) 284–296,arXiv:gr-qc/9310026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  2. [2]

    Quantum geometry and BPS states

    For p= 2 values in Table II let us conjecture ceff[Y 2,2] = { 27 128, n≡3 (mod 4), 75 128, n≡1 (mod 2), (IV.51) corresponding toa=c= 1. It would be interesting to obtainc eff for generalY p,q. In the case of the bivariate main-diagonal generating functions in Table V, we obtain ceff,biv[ ˆA1] = 3, ceff,biv[ ˆA3] = 11 3 .(IV.52) These generating functions ...

    2022

  3. [3]

    The largeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. Maldacena, “The largeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics38no. 4, (1999) 1113–1133,ArXiv:hep-th/9711200 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  4. [4]

    For theY p,p quivers, we havea=c= p

  5. [5]

    The world as a hologram,

    L. Susskind, “The world as a hologram,” Journal of Mathematical Physics36no. 11, (Nov, 1995) 6377–6396, arXiv:hep-th/9409089 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  6. [6]

    AdS/CFT duality user guide,

    M. Natsuume, “AdS/CFT duality user guide,”arXiv:1409.3575 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    Particle creation by black holes,

    S. W. Hawking, “Particle creation by black holes,” Communications in Mathematical Physics43no. 3, (1975) 199 – 220

    1975

  8. [8]

    Microscopic origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy,

    A. Strominger and C. Vafa, “Microscopic origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy,” Physics Letters B379no. 1-4, (Jun,

  9. [9]

    Constraints on supersymmetry breaking,

    E. Witten, “Constraints on supersymmetry breaking,” Nuclear Physics B202no. 2, (1982) 253–316

    1982

  10. [10]

    D-branes, quivers, and ALE instantons,

    M. R. Douglas and G. Moore, “D-branes, quivers, and ALE instantons,”arXiv:hep-th/9603167 [hep-th]. 46

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    Lectures on D-branes, Gauge Theories and Calabi-Yau Singularities,

    Y.-H. He, “Lectures on D-branes, Gauge Theories and Calabi-Yau Singularities,”arXiv:hep-th/0408142 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    An infinite family of superconformal quiver gauge theories with Sasaki-Einstein duals,

    S. Benvenuti, S. Franco, A. Hanany, D. Martelli, and J. Sparks, “An infinite family of superconformal quiver gauge theories with Sasaki-Einstein duals,” Journal of High Energy Physics2005no. 06, (Jun, 2005) 064–064,ArXiv:hep-th/0411264 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  13. [13]

    An index for 4 dimensional super conformal theories,

    J. Kinney, J. Maldacena, S. Minwalla, and S. Raju, “An index for 4 dimensional super conformal theories,” Communications in Mathematical Physics275no. 1, (Jun, 2007) 209–254,arXiv:hep-th/0510251 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  14. [14]

    Quivers, words and fundamentals,

    P. Mattioli and S. Ramgoolam, “Quivers, words and fundamentals,” Journal of High Energy Physics2015no. 3, (Mar,

  15. [15]

    Affine root systems and Dedekind’sη-function.,

    I. MacDonald, “Affine root systems and Dedekind’sη-function.,” Inventiones mathematicae15(1971/72) 91–143

    1971

  16. [16]

    N. A. Nekrasov and A. Okounkov, Seiberg-Witten theory and random partitions. Birkh¨ auser Boston, Boston, MA, 2006. arXiv:hep-th/0306238 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  17. [17]

    The growth of the 1 16-BPS index in 4dN= 4 SYM,

    S. Murthy, “The growth of the 1 16-BPS index in 4dN= 4 SYM,”arXiv:2005.10843 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  18. [18]

    Pemantle, M

    R. Pemantle, M. C. Wilson, and S. Melczer, Analytic combinatorics in several variables. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2 ed., 2024

    2024

  19. [19]

    A zig-zag index,

    P. Agarwal, A. Amariti, and A. Mariotti, “A zig-zag index,”arXiv:1304.6733 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    The exact superconformal R-symmetry maximizes a,

    K. Intriligator and B. Wecht, “The exact superconformal R-symmetry maximizes a,” Nuclear Physics B667no. 1-2, (Sep,

  21. [21]

    On the superconformal index ofN= 1 IR fixed points. A holographic check,

    A. Gadde, L. Rastelli, S. S. Razamat, and W. Yan, “On the superconformal index ofN= 1 IR fixed points. A holographic check,” Journal of High Energy Physics2011no. 3, (Mar, 2011) 041,ArXiv:1011.5278 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  22. [22]

    Superconformal indices, Sasaki-Einstein manifolds, and cyclic homologies,

    R. Eager, J. Schmude, and Y. Tachikawa, “Superconformal indices, Sasaki-Einstein manifolds, and cyclic homologies,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.18no. 1, (2014) 129–175,arXiv:1207.0573 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    de Bruijn, Asymptotic methods in analysis

    N. de Bruijn, Asymptotic methods in analysis. Bibliotheca Mathematica. North-Holland Publishing Company, Netherlands, 3rd ed., 1970

    1970

  24. [24]

    Asymptotic formulaæ in combinatory analysis,

    G. H. Hardy and S. Ramanujan, “Asymptotic formulaæ in combinatory analysis,” Proceedings of the London Mathematical Societys2-17no. 1, (1918) 75–115

    1918

  25. [25]

    Asymptotic expressions of numerical functions occurring in problems of partitions of numbers,

    J. Uspensky, “Asymptotic expressions of numerical functions occurring in problems of partitions of numbers,” Bull. Acad. Sci. de Russie14(1920) 199–218

    1920

  26. [26]

    Quivers as calculators: counting, correlators and Riemann surfaces,

    J. Pasukonis and S. Ramgoolam, “Quivers as calculators: counting, correlators and Riemann surfaces,” Journal of High Energy Physics2013no. 4, (Apr, 2013) 94,arXiv:1301.1980 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [27]

    Quiver asymptotics:N= 1 free chiral ring,

    S. Ramgoolam, M. C. Wilson, and A. Zahabi, “Quiver asymptotics:N= 1 free chiral ring,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53no. 10, (Feb, 2020) 105401,arXiv:1811.11229 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Microscopic and macroscopic entropy of extremal black holes in string theory,

    A. Sen, “Microscopic and macroscopic entropy of extremal black holes in string theory,” General Relativity and Gravitation 46no. 5, (Apr, 2014) ,arXiv:1402.0109 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  29. [29]

    c eff for 3dN= 2 theories,

    S. Gukov and M. Jagadale, “c eff for 3dN= 2 theories,” International Journal of Modern Physics A0no. 0, (0) 2446012, arXiv:2308.05360 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    ceff from resurgence at the stokes line,

    G. Adams, O. Costin, G. V. Dunne, S. Gukov, and O. ¨Oner, “ceff from resurgence at the stokes line,”arXiv:2508.10112 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    R. C. Vaughan, The Hardy-Littlewood Method. Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2 ed., 1997

    1997

  32. [32]

    Arithmetic ofN= 8 black holes,

    A. Sen, “Arithmetic ofN= 8 black holes,” Journal of High Energy Physics2010no. 2, (Feb, 2010) ,0908.0039 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  33. [33]

    Logarithmic correction to the bekenstein-hawking entropy,

    R. K. Kaul and P. Majumdar, “Logarithmic correction to the bekenstein-hawking entropy,” Physical Review Letters84 no. 23, (June, 2000) 5255–5257.http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.5255

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.84.5255 2000

  34. [34]

    General logarithmic corrections to black hole entropy,

    S. Das, P. Majumdar, and R. K. Bhaduri, “General logarithmic corrections to black hole entropy,” Class. Quant. Grav.19 (2002) 2355–2368,arXiv:hep-th/0111001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  35. [35]

    Logarithmic corrections toN= 2 black hole entropy: an infrared window into the microstates,

    A. Sen, “Logarithmic corrections toN= 2 black hole entropy: an infrared window into the microstates,” General Relativity and Gravitation44no. 5, (Feb, 2012) 1207–1266,arXiv:1108.3842 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  36. [36]

    c eff from surgery and modularity,

    S. Harichurn, M. Jagadale, D. Noshchenko, and D. Passaro, “c eff from surgery and modularity,”arXiv:2508.10087 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Conical singularity and quantum corrections to the entropy of a black hole,

    S. N. Solodukhin, “Conical singularity and quantum corrections to the entropy of a black hole,” Physical Review D51 no. 2, (Jan., 1995) 609–617,hep-th/9407001 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  38. [38]

    Sub-leading structures in superconformal indices: subdominant saddles and logarithmic contributions,

    A. Gonz´ alez Lezcano, J. Hong, J. T. Liu, and L. A. Pando Zayas, “Sub-leading structures in superconformal indices: subdominant saddles and logarithmic contributions,” Journal of High Energy Physics2021no. 1, (Jan., 2021) , arXiv:2007.12604 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [40]

    Unitary matrix models, free fermion ensembles, and the giant graviton expansion,

    S. Murthy, “Unitary matrix models, free fermion ensembles, and the giant graviton expansion,”arXiv:2202.06897 [hep-th]. 47

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [41]

    Logarithmic corrections to Schwarzschild and other non-extremal black hole entropy in different dimensions,

    A. Sen, “Logarithmic corrections to Schwarzschild and other non-extremal black hole entropy in different dimensions,” Journal of High Energy Physics2013no. 4, (Apr, 2013) ,arXiv:1205.0971 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [42]

    Microstate counting via Bethe Ans¨ atze in the 4dN= 1 superconformal index,

    A. Gonz´ alez Lezcano and L. A. Pando Zayas, “Microstate counting via Bethe Ans¨ atze in the 4dN= 1 superconformal index,” JHEP03(2020) 088,arXiv:1907.12841 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [43]

    Giant graviton expansion for general Wilson line operator indices,

    Y. Imamura, A. Sei, and D. Yokoyama, “Giant graviton expansion for general Wilson line operator indices,” Journal of High Energy Physics2024no. 9, (Sep, 2024) 202,arXiv:2406.19777 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [44]

    Simple-Sum Giant Graviton Expansions for Orbifolds and Orientifolds,

    S. Fujiwara, Y. Imamura, T. Mori, S. Murayama, and D. Yokoyama, “Simple-Sum Giant Graviton Expansions for Orbifolds and Orientifolds,” PTEP2024no. 2, (2024) 023B02,arXiv:2310.03332 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [45]

    Finite N indices and the giant graviton expansion,

    J. T. Liu and N. J. Rajappa, “Finite N indices and the giant graviton expansion,” Journal of High Energy Physics2023 no. 4, (Apr., 2023) ,ArXiv:2212.05408 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [46]

    Giant graviton expansion from bubbling geometry: Discreteness from quantized geometry,

    E. Deddo, J. T. Liu, L. A. Pando Zayas, and R. J. Saskowski, “Giant graviton expansion from bubbling geometry: Discreteness from quantized geometry,” Phys. Rev. Lett.132(Jun, 2024) 261501,arXiv:2402.19452 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [47]

    Analytic continuation for giant gravitons,

    Y. Imamura, “Analytic continuation for giant gravitons,” Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2022no. 10, (09, 2022) 103B02,arXiv:2205.14615 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [48]

    Deformed Schur indices and Macdonald polynomials,

    Y. Hatsuda, “Deformed Schur indices and Macdonald polynomials,”arXiv:2503.03952 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [49]

    Trace relations and open string vacua,

    J. H. Lee, “Trace relations and open string vacua,” Journal of High Energy Physics2024no. 2, (Feb, 2024) 224, 2312.00242 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [50]

    One-loop quantization of Euclidean D3-branes in holographic backgrounds,

    F. F. Gautason and J. van Muiden, “One-loop quantization of Euclidean D3-branes in holographic backgrounds,” JHEP06 (2024) 073,arXiv:2402.16779 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [51]

    Analytic continuation and the giant graviton expansion,

    N. Ezroura, J. T. Liu, and N. J. Rajappa, “Analytic continuation and the giant graviton expansion,” Journal of High Energy Physics01(2025) 028,arXiv:2408.02759 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [52]

    The giant graviton expansion inAdS 5×S 5,

    G. Eleftheriou, S. Murthy, and M. Rossell´ o, “The giant graviton expansion inAdS 5×S 5,” SciPost Physics17no. 4, (Oct,

  52. [53]

    Rychkov, EPFL Lectures on Conformal Field Theory in D≥ 3 Dimensions

    S. Rychkov, EPFL Lectures on Conformal Field Theory in D≥ 3 Dimensions. Springer International Publishing, 2017. arXiv:1601.05000 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  53. [54]

    Superconformal symmetry and representations,

    L. Eberhardt, “Superconformal symmetry and representations,” J. Phys. A54no. 6, (2021) 063002,arXiv:2006.13280 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [55]

    Fulton and J

    W. Fulton and J. Harris, Representation Theory: A First Course. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer New York, 2004

    2004

  55. [56]

    J. F. Adams, Lectures on Lie Groups. Midway reprint. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, Jan., 1983

    1983

  56. [57]

    Lectures on the Superconformal Index,

    A. Gadde, “Lectures on the Superconformal Index,”arXiv:2006.13630 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  57. [58]

    Calculating the superconformal index and Seiberg duality,

    C. R¨ omelsberger, “Calculating the superconformal index and Seiberg duality,”arXiv:0707.3702 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [59]

    Possible third-order phase transition in the large-Nlattice gauge theory,

    D. J. Gross and E. Witten, “Possible third-order phase transition in the large-Nlattice gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 446–453

    1980

  59. [60]

    N=∞Phase Transition in a Class of Exactly Soluble Model Lattice Gauge Theories,

    S. R. Wadia, “N=∞Phase Transition in a Class of Exactly Soluble Model Lattice Gauge Theories,” Phys. Lett. B93 (1980) 403–410

    1980

  60. [61]

    A Study ofU(N) Lattice Gauge Theory in 2-dimensions,

    S. R. Wadia, “A Study ofU(N) Lattice Gauge Theory in 2-dimensions,”arXiv:1212.2906 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [62]

    Applications of the superconformal index for protected operators and q-hypergeometric identities to dual theories,

    F. Dolan and H. Osborn, “Applications of the superconformal index for protected operators and q-hypergeometric identities to dual theories,” Nuclear Physics B818no. 3, (Sep, 2009) 137–178,arXiv:0801.4947 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  62. [63]

    A method for the computation of quantum distribution functions,

    R. Stratonovich, “A method for the computation of quantum distribution functions,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR115no. 6, (1957) 1097–1100

    1957

  63. [64]

    Calculation of partition functions,

    J. Hubbard, “Calculation of partition functions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.3(Jul, 1959) 77–78

    1959

  64. [65]

    Restrictions imposed by superconformal invariance on quantum field theories,

    S. Minwalla, “Restrictions imposed by superconformal invariance on quantum field theories,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2 (1998) 783–851,arXiv:hep-th/9712074

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  65. [66]

    Dimer models from mirror symmetry and quivering amoebae,

    B. Feng, Y.-H. He, K. D. Kennaway, and C. Vafa, “Dimer models from mirror symmetry and quivering amoebae,” Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics12no. 3, (2008) 489–545,arXiv:hep-th/0511287 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  66. [67]

    An introduction to the dimer model,

    R. Kenyon, “An introduction to the dimer model,”arXiv:math/0310326 [math.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  67. [68]

    Brane dimers and quiver gauge theories,

    S. Franco, A. Hanany, D. Vegh, B. Wecht, and K. D. Kennaway, “Brane dimers and quiver gauge theories,” Journal of High Energy Physics2006no. 01, (Jan, 2006) 096–096,ArXiv:hep-th/0504110 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  68. [69]

    Counting BPS operators in gauge theories: quivers, syzygies and plethystics,

    S. Benvenuti, B. Feng, A. Hanany, and Y.-H. He, “Counting BPS operators in gauge theories: quivers, syzygies and plethystics,” Journal of High Energy Physics2007no. 11, (Nov., 2007) 050–050,arXiv:hep-th/0608050 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  69. [70]

    The deconfinement and Hagedorn phase transitions in weakly coupled large N gauge theories,

    O. Aharony, J. Marsano, S. Minwalla, K. Papadodimas, and M. Van Raamsdonk, “The deconfinement and Hagedorn phase transitions in weakly coupled large N gauge theories,” Comptes Rendus Physique5no. 9-10, (Nov, 2004) 945–954, arXiv:hep-th/0310285 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  70. [71]

    The holographic weyl anomaly,

    M. Henningson and K. Skenderis, “The holographic weyl anomaly,” Journal of High Energy Physics1998no. 07, (July,

  71. [72]

    Supersymmetric phases of 4dN= 4 SYM at large N,

    A. Cabo-Bizet and S. Murthy, “Supersymmetric phases of 4dN= 4 SYM at large N,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2020no. 9, (Sep, 2020) 184,ArXiv:1909.09597 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  72. [73]

    Aztec castles and the dP3 quiver,

    M. Leoni, G. Musiker, S. Neel, and P. Turner, “Aztec castles and the dP3 quiver,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical47no. 47, (Nov, 2014) 474011,arXiv:1308.3926 [math.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  73. [74]

    D-brane gauge theories from toric singularities and toric duality,

    B. Feng, A. Hanany, and Y.-H. He, “D-brane gauge theories from toric singularities and toric duality,” Nuclear Physics B 48 595no. 1-2, (Feb, 2001) 165–200,arXiv:hep-th/0003085 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  74. [75]

    Positivity constraints on anomalies in supersymmetric gauge theories,

    D. Anselmi, J. Erlich, D. Z. Freedman, and A. A. Johansen, “Positivity constraints on anomalies in supersymmetric gauge theories,” Physical Review D57no. 12, (June, 1998) 7570–7588,arXiv:hep-th/9711035 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  75. [76]

    New results on superconformal quivers,

    S. Benvenuti and A. Hanany, “New results on superconformal quivers,” Journal of High Energy Physics2006no. 04, (Apr,

  76. [77]

    Toeplitz and circulant matrices: A review,

    R. M. Gray, “Toeplitz and circulant matrices: A review,” Foundations and Trends® in Communications and Information Theory2no. 3, (2006) 155–239

    2006

  77. [78]

    Eigenvectors of block circulant and alternating circulant matrices,

    G. J. Tee, “Eigenvectors of block circulant and alternating circulant matrices,” New Zealand Journal of Mathematics36 (2007) 195–211

    2007

  78. [79]

    Construction g´ eom´ etrique de la correspondance de McKay,

    G. Gonzalez-Sprinberg and J. l. Verdier, “Construction g´ eom´ etrique de la correspondance de McKay,”Annales scientifiques de l’´Ecole Normale Sup´ erieure4e s´erie, 16no. 3, (1983) 409–449

    1983

  79. [80]

    Symmetries of toric duality,

    B. Feng, S. Franco, A. Hanany, and Y.-H. He, “Symmetries of toric duality,” Journal of High Energy Physics2002no. 12, (Jan, 2003) 076,arXiv:hep-th/0205144 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  80. [81]

    Toric mutations in the dP 2 quiver and subgraphs of the dP 2 Brane Tiling,

    Y. Gao, Z. Li, T.-D. Vuong, and L. Yang, “Toric mutations in the dP 2 quiver and subgraphs of the dP 2 Brane Tiling,” The electronic journal of combinatorics26no. 2, (2019) ,arXiv:1611.05320 [math.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.