Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Genus 2 Superstring Chiral Measure From The 3-Dimensional Gelca-Hamilton TQFT

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The genus 1 and 2 superstring chiral measures are path integrals of a 3D topological field theory.

desk verdict A tidy but mostly restatement-level TQFT interpretation of the known genus 1 and 2 chiral measures; worth a referee but not a milestone. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19342 v2 pith:4K33OBLC submitted 2024-11-28 hep-th

Saki Koizumi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 81T3081T4514K2532G15
keywords superstringchiralmeasureGelca-HamiltonTQFTJacobivarietythetaseriesextendedmappingclassgroupmodulartransformationanomalyinflowgenus2superstrings
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 aims to show that the genus 1 and genus 2 superstring chiral measures—the integrands of superstring perturbation theory on the worldsheet—can be reproduced as path integrals of the Gelca-Hamilton 3-dimensional topological field theory on bulk extended manifolds whose boundaries are Jacobi varieties. The known measures are built from characteristic theta functions; the paper rewrites each theta function in terms of N=2 theta series, which are exactly the states in the Hilbert space of the Gelca-Hamilton TQFT. Using the TQFT's defining axiom that a genus-g handlebody path integral returns a theta series, every term in the chiral measure becomes a 3D path integral on a handlebody or a handlebody glued to a mapping cylinder. The payoff is that the modular transformation of the chiral measure, normally an anomalous phase, is reinterpreted as the action of the extended mapping class group on the bulk 3-manifolds, independent of the Z-extension. If correct, the worldsheet measure is a boundary effect of a 3D topological theory, giving the anomaly-inflow picture a concrete realization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the extended 3-manifold (M,L,n): a 3-manifold M whose boundary is a Riemann surface, a Lagrangian subspace L of the boundary homology that encodes the complex structure (so the boundary is the Jacobi variety), and an integer n encoding the framing. The Gelca-Hamilton TQFT is the functor that assigns to an extended surface the Hilbert space spanned by theta series θ_{N,μ}(τ,z), and to a bulk extended manifold a linear map; the axiom (4.34) fixes the handlebody path integral to be exactly a theta series. The identity Θ_{(ρ,0)}(2z,2τ)=θ_{N=2,ρ}(τ,z) connects this Hilbert space to the characteristic theta functions used in the superstring measure, and the discrete Fourier transform connects the modular group action on theta series to the extended mapping class group representation up to an eighth root of unity.

What would settle it

Compute the N=2 Gelca-Hamilton path integral of axiom (4.34) for a genus-1 handlebody with the Lagrangian L(-τ) and the link class of μ=0, and compare it term-by-term with the theta series θ_{2,0}(-τ,z) that enters (5.10); a discrepancy in the phase, the τ-dependence, or the index assignment would falsify the identification. A second check is to act by a mapping class ϕ that is nontrivial in the Torelli group and see whether the glued path integral changes only by the eighth roots that are claimed to cancel in (5.13).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that for genus g ≤ 2 the superstring chiral measure is exactly a linear combination of products of Gelca-Hamilton TQFT path integrals. The rewrite passes through the identity Θ_{(ρ,0)}(2z,2τ)=θ_{N=2,ρ}(τ,z), which identifies the N=2 theta series with characteristic theta functions of the form (ρ,0); modular transformations then reach all even spin structures and hence every theta function appearing in the genus 1 and 2 measures. Applying axiom (4.34) of the TQFT, each theta series is replaced by the path integral Z_2 over a genus-g handlebody with boundary the extended surface and with a framed link class specifying the index. The modular transformation of the measure is implemented by gluing the mapping cylinder of an extended diffeomorphism (ϕ,n) onto each handlebody. The eighth-root-of-unity ambiguities in the extended mapping class group representation cancel in the full measure, so the action is well defined and reproduces the modular transformation rule (2.45) of the characteristic theta functions.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on an imported axiom, stated in the paper as (4.34), that the Gelca-Hamilton TQFT path integral over a genus-g handlebody with boundary extended surface returns exactly the theta series indexed by the Lagrangian and framed-link class; the paper cites this rather than proving it, and if the dictionary is off by even a phase, the 3D path-integral interpretation of the chiral measure collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The genus 1 and genus 2 Type II, Type 0A, and Type 0B chiral measures can be written as finite sums of products of 3D Gelca-Hamilton TQFT path integrals over handlebodies and mapping cylinders.
  • A modular transformation of the worldsheet is realized as an extended mapping class group move on the bulk, and the Z-extension ambiguity n does not affect the chiral measure.
  • Any even characteristic theta function appearing in the measure is reachable from theta series by modular transformations, so the full spin-structure sum is encoded in the bulk link data [L].
  • The argument identifies a sufficient criterion for a theta-product expression to admit a 3D TQFT formulation: it must be a weight-8 modular form of Γ_g(1,2) built from even theta functions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the dictionary generalizes, the anomaly-inflow intuition becomes a mathematical statement: the anomalous modular phase of the 2D chiral measure is the boundary expression of a well-defined 3D topological invariant, so one could look for analogous bulk representations of other string-theory amplitudes that are built from theta series.
  • The paper only needs N=2 theta series; this suggests a level-2 quantization of the Jacobi variety is naturally tied to superstring chiral measures, and one could test whether higher-level theta series correspond to other conformal field theories on the same worldsheet.
  • The same rewrite might be attempted for known genus 3 candidate measures, since the paper notes modular invariance and super-diffeomorphism invariance still coincide there, but the paper does not itself construct the genus 3 bulk path integral.
  • A practical test of the framework is to feed a proposed higher-genus chiral measure into the theta-series expansion and check whether the modular anomalies cancel term-by-term in the bulk picture; this would give a purely topological obstruction without computing worldsheet integrals.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the known genus-1 and genus-2 superstring chiral measures admit a path-integral representation in the Gelca-Hamilton TQFT on suitable 3-dimensional extended manifolds, and that modular transformations of the measures are realized by the extended mapping class group acting on the bulk. The argument proceeds by rewriting the known chiral measures, which are expressed as products and sums of even characteristic theta constants, in terms of the theta series of the Gelca-Hamilton Hilbert space, and then replacing each theta series by the handlebody path integral using the imported axiom (4.34). The genus-2 construction uses explicit modular transformations to write all ten even characteristics as images of theta series, and the genus-1 construction is handled similarly.

Significance. If the handlebody axiom and the required independence properties are valid, the paper provides a concrete dictionary between superstring perturbation theory and a 3D TQFT, potentially giving an anomaly-inflow-style interpretation of the modular phases of the chiral measure. The manuscript contains explicit expansions, a full list of the genus-2 even characteristics, and a precise candidate TQFT formula. However, the central result is conditional on an unproved axiom imported from the Gelca-Hamilton book, and several displayed identities in Section 5 are not correct as written. The paper is therefore a potentially useful reformulation rather than an independent derivation of the chiral measure.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eq. (5.10)] The three claimed identities Θ_(0,0)(τ,z)=θ_{2,0}(τ,z), Θ_(1,0)(τ,z)=θ_{2,1}(τ,z), and Θ_(0,1)(τ,z)=κ θ_{2,0}(−τ,z) are inconsistent with the paper's own identity (4.26). From (4.26), θ_{2,μ}(τ,z)=Θ_(μ,0)(2τ,2z), so Θ_(0,0)(τ,z)=θ_{2,0}(τ/2,z/2) and Θ_(1,0)(τ,z)=θ_{2,1}(τ/2,z/2), not the relations displayed. Moreover, at z=0, Θ_(0,1)(τ,0)=θ_4(τ)=θ_{2,0}((τ+1)/2,0), which is not a constant multiple of θ_{2,0}(−τ,0); no eighth root of unity can convert θ_3(τ) into θ_4(τ). As a consequence, the genus-1 expressions (5.11), (5.12), and their TQFT counterparts (5.15), (5.16) do not reproduce the standard chiral measure as written. This affects the claimed genus g≤2 statement and must be corrected.
  2. [Section 5.2, Eq. (5.13)] In the displayed expression for G_2^(2), the second factor in the double sum reads {Z_2(H_2, ∅, Σ, L(τ_j/2), L_{κ_j}, 0) · 0}^4, with a literal multiplication by 0. This sets that factor to zero, making G_2^(2) vanish identically and contradicting both the definition in (5.9) and the known nonvanishing of the genus-2 measure. The factor should presumably be "· 1" in accord with axiom (4.34) and with the other terms in the same line. As printed, the central path-integral formula for the measure is invalid.
  3. [Section 4.5, Eq. (4.34); Section 5.2] Axiom (4.34) states that the handlebody path integral returns θ_{N,[L]}^{τ(L)}(z), where the same symbol L denotes both the boundary Lagrangian (which determines the complex structure τ(L)) and the framed link (whose homology class [L] determines the theta-series index). In the replacement used throughout (5.13), these two data are chosen independently: L(τ_j/2) fixes the period matrix while L_{κ_j} fixes the index. The paper does not prove, or cite a statement proving, that the Gelca-Hamilton TQFT state factorizes into an independent choice of boundary Lagrangian and link class. If the state in [22] is defined only for a correlated pair (for instance, if the link class is determined by the Lagrangian), then the entries in (5.13) are undefined and the central 'path-integral representation' is vacuous. This independence is the primary load-bearing point and must be established.
  4. [Section 5.2, paragraph after Eq. (5.14)] The claim that the eighth-root-of-unity phases 'cancel totally' on the superstring chiral measure is asserted without an explicit computation. The modular transformation law (2.45) involves nontrivial theta multipliers χ(T) and φ_m(T), and the chiral measure is a sum of products of several theta constants with different characteristics. Demonstrating that the phases cancel in the full combination (5.13) requires term-by-term bookkeeping, including the cross terms in G_2^(2). Without this explicit verification, the central assertion that modular transformations are consistently represented by the extended mapping class group action is not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (3.7)] The formula for Z^(n) contains a duplicated factor 'Z(a,b) Z(a,b)'; the intended expression is a single factor Z(a,b) inside the sum.
  2. [Section 5.1, Eqs. (5.4)–(5.9)] The theta-series subscript is written with a lowercase 'n' in several places (e.g., θ_{n=2,κ_j}) while elsewhere the paper uses uppercase 'N=2'; please make the notation uniform.
  3. [Section 5.2, Eqs. (5.13)–(5.17)] The notation for the path integral arguments is inconsistent: the same expression uses both Σ and the explicit genus labels H_2, H_1. Please clarify that Σ in (5.13) denotes the genus-2 boundary surface and align the argument ordering with (4.34).
  4. [References] Several references are informal course notes or web pages (e.g., [24], [25], [40]–[43]) rather than archival publications; for a journal submission, please replace these with published versions where available, especially for the cited handlebody axiom [22].

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The 'derivation' of the genus-2 measure from the Gelca-Hamilton TQFT reduces to substituting axiom (4.34), which defines the TQFT path integral to equal the theta series.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.2, equation (5.13), using axiom (4.34)]
    "By using the axiom (4.34) of the Gelca-Hamilton TQFT, it can be expressed by Z2 of the Gelca-Hamilton TQFT, just replace θτ N=2,μ(z) to Z2(H2, Ø, Σ, {0}, L(τ), Lμ, 0) · 1, where Lμ is the framed link in S3 corresponds to μ ∈ ZgN, and H2 is the genus 2 handlebody:"

    Axiom (4.34) defines the Gelca-Hamilton path integral on a handlebody to be exactly the theta series: ZN(Hg, Ø, Σg, {0}, L, L, 0): 1 ↦ θ^{τ(L)}_{N,[L]}(z). Equation (5.13) then rewrites the known genus-2 measure (3.10), already expanded in theta series in (5.8)-(5.9), by replacing each theta series with the corresponding TQFT path-integral value. Thus the central claim that the superstring chiral measure 'can be obtained' by the TQFT is a substitution of the defining axiom of the TQFT, not a derivation from TQFT data. The measure remains the input D'Hoker-Phong/Grushevsky expression.

  2. renaming known result [Section 5.2, equation (5.15), and conclusion Section 6]
    "The numerator of Type 0A and Type 0B partition function (5.11) can be written as |Z2(H1, Ø, Σ, {0}, L(τ), L0, 0) · 1|16 + |Z2(H1, Ø, Σ, {0}, L(τ), L1, 0) · 1|16 + |Z2(H1, Ø, Σ, {0}, L(−τ), L0, 0) · 1|16 ... When we formulated the genus g ≤ 2 type II superstring chiral measure by path integral of 3-dimensional bulk the Gelca-Hamilton TQFT, we only use the fact that the genus g ≤ 2 superstring chiral measure is expressed by characteristic theta functions with even spin structure and the fact that it is weight 8 modular form of Γg(1, 2)."

    The genus-1 partition functions (5.11)-(5.12) are known string-theory results; (5.15)-(5.16) merely relabel each theta-series factor via axiom (4.34) as a TQFT path integral. The paper's own conclusion admits that no additional structure beyond the known theta-function form and modular-weight property is used. The headline result is therefore a renaming of known theta-series formulas in terms of TQFT notation, with no independent TQFT computation of the measure.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: take the known genus g ≤ 2 chiral measure, expand it in characteristic theta functions, rewrite those as N = 2 theta series using (4.26), and then invoke axiom (4.34) to replace every theta series by a Gelca-Hamilton TQFT path integral. Since (4.34) defines the TQFT path integral on a handlebody to equal the theta series by assumption, the final step is a notational substitution rather than a computation. Some nontrivial bookkeeping does occur: matching the ten even genus-2 characteristics to shifted theta-series arguments and tracking the theta-multiplier phases φj. That gives the expansion (5.8)-(5.9) genuine content, and the modular-transformation discussion would be meaningful if the asserted eighth-root cancellation were actually exhibited. However, the paper's central claim, that the superstring chiral measure 'is obtained' by the Gelca-Hamilton TQFT, is true by construction because the TQFT was assumed to return exactly the theta series appearing in the measure. The conclusion's own statement that the formulation 'only use[s]' known facts confirms the lack of an independent derivation. No external benchmark is computed, and no assumption independent of the target result is tested, so this is not merely an incidental self-citation issue but a central definitional circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No data are fitted, and no new entities are postulated. The only hand choices are the matrix entries in (5.3). The central premise is the imported Gelca-Hamilton TQFT axiom, and the chiral measure itself is an input from prior string literature. The ledger is therefore heavy on domain assumptions and light on original axioms.

free parameters (1)
  • Arbitrary entries a,b,c in the B_j matrices = not fixed (e.g., b in B2, B3, B4)
    These integers appear in the representative modular transformations (5.2)-(5.3) used to reach the even characteristics. The paper leaves them unspecified and claims the final measure is independent of them. They are hand choices, not data fits.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Gelca-Hamilton TQFT exists and satisfies axiom (4.34): the path integral over a genus-g handlebody maps 1 to the theta series theta_{N,[L]}.
    Used without proof in section 5.2 to replace every theta series by a TQFT path integral. Imported from [22].
  • domain assumption The genus 2 chiral measure is the D'Hoker-Phong and Grushevsky form (3.10)-(3.11).
    The paper starts from this known string-theory result and rewrites it; it is not derived from the TQFT.
  • standard math The theta multiplier transformation (2.45) and the equivalence of the modular action with the extended mapping class group representation up to an eighth root of unity.
    Used in sections 4.4 and 5.2 to convert modular transformations into bulk moves. Taken from [23] and [22].
  • standard math The symplectic isomorphism (2.19) between (J2(Sigma), Weil pairing) and H1(Sigma,Z) tensor Z2.
    Proved in Appendix C using cited Tate module and Abel-Jacobi results. Needed to identify spin structure transformations.
  • domain assumption The Torelli map is bijective for genus <= 3, so modular invariance corresponds to super-diffeomorphism invariance.
    Invoked in section 3.2 to justify focusing on genus g <= 2 from the super Riemann surface perspective.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Genus 2 Superstring Chiral Measure From The 3-Dimensional Gelca-Hamilton TQFT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4K33OBLC

@misc{pith2026241119342,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Genus 2 Superstring Chiral Measure From The 3-Dimensional Gelca-Hamilton TQFT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4K33OBLC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19342}
}
abstract

In the path integral formulation of the superstring, the chiral measure acquires a phase under the modular transformation of a Riemann surface. This motivated the use of anomaly inflow to define the superstring chiral measure by a path integral formalism of a modular invariant $3$-dimensional theory. A Gelca-Hamilton topological field theory (TQFT) is one of the Atiyah's TQFT on a $3$-dimensional extended manifold with the boundary Jacobi variety of a Riemann surface, whose Hilbert space is spanned by the theta series. We show that genus $g\leq 2$ superstring chiral measure in the path integral can be obtained by the path integral of the Gelca-Hamilton TQFT on some $3$-dimensional bulk extended manifolds. The modular transformation of the superstring chiral measure can be understood as the action of the extended mapping class group on the bulk $3$-dimensional extended manifolds.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    R.Gelca, Theta functions and knots, world scientific, 2 014. 33

    work page

  2. [1]

    60 (1988) 917

    E.D’Hoker, D.H.Phong, The geometry of string perturbat ion theory, Rev.Mod.Phys. 60 (1988) 917

    work page 1988

  3. [2]

    E.D’Hoker, D.H.Phong, Two-loop superstrings I, Main Fo rmulas, Phys.Lett.B 529 (2002) 241-255, arXiv:hep-th/0110247

    arXiv 2002

  4. [3]

    E.D’Hoker, D.H.Phong, Two-Loop Superstrings II, The Ch iral Measure on Moduli Space, Nucl.Phys.B 636 (2002) 3-60, arXiv:hep-th/0110283

    arXiv 2002

  5. [4]

    9The Weil pairing of the Tate module is different from the Weil p airing defined in (2.18)

    E.D’Hoker, D.H.Phong, Two-Loop Superstrings III, Slic e Independence and Absence of Ambiguities, Nucl.Phys.B 636 (2002) 61-79, arXiv:hep-th/ 0111016. 9The Weil pairing of the Tate module is different from the Weil p airing defined in (2.18). 32

    work page 2002

  6. [5]

    E.D’Hoker, D.H.Phong, Two-Loop Superstrings IV, The Co smological Constant and Mod- ular Forms, Nucl.Phys.B 639 (2002) 129-181, arXiv:hep-th/ 0111040

    work page 2002

  7. [6]

    E.D’Hoker, D.H.Phong, Lectures on Two-loop superstrin gs, Conf.Proc.C 0208124 (2002) 85-123, arXiv:hep-th/0211111

    arXiv 2002

  8. [7]

    M.Batchelor, The structure of supermanifolds, transac tions of the American mathematical society Volume 253, September 1979

    work page 1979

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    90 (2015) 19-72, arXiv:1304.7798

    R.Donagi, E.Witten, Supermoduli space is not projected , Proc.Symp.Pure Math. 90 (2015) 19-72, arXiv:1304.7798

    2015 arXiv

  2. [9]

    S.Grushevsky, The Schottky Problem, arXiv:1009.0369 [ math.AG]

    arXiv

  3. [10]

    D’Hoker, D.H

    E. D’Hoker, D.H. Phong, Asyzygies, modular forms, and t he superstring measure 1, Nucl. Phys. B 710 (2005) 58-82, arXiv:hep-th/0411159

    2005 arXiv

  4. [11]

    D’Hoker, D.H

    E. D’Hoker, D.H. Phong, Asyzygies, modular forms, and t he superstring measure 2, Nucl. Phys. B 710 (2005) 83-116, arXiv:hep-th/0411182

    2005 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Cacciatori, Francesco Dalla Piazza, Bert van Geemen, Modular forms and three loop superstring amplitudes, Nucl.Phys.B 800 (2008) 565-5 90, arXiv:0801.2543[hep-th]

    Sergio L. Cacciatori, Francesco Dalla Piazza, Bert van Geemen, Modular forms and three loop superstring amplitudes, Nucl.Phys.B 800 (2008) 565-5 90, arXiv:0801.2543[hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Grushevsky, Superstring scattering amplitudes in h igher genus, Commun.Math.Phys

    S. Grushevsky, Superstring scattering amplitudes in h igher genus, Commun.Math.Phys. 287 (2009) 749-767, arXiv:0803.3469[hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  7. [14]

    G.Farkas, Theta characteristics and their moduli, arX iv:1201.2557[math.AG]

    arXiv

  8. [15]

    Salvati Manni, Remarks on superstring amplitudes in higher genus, Nucl.Phys.B 801 (2008) 163-173, arXiv:0804.0512[hep-th]

    R. Salvati Manni, Remarks on superstring amplitudes in higher genus, Nucl.Phys.B 801 (2008) 163-173, arXiv:0804.0512[hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Grushevsky and R

    S. Grushevsky and R. Salvati Manni, The superstring cos mological constant and the schot- tky form in genus 5, Am.J.Math. 133 (2011) 4, 1007-1027, Am.J .Math. 134 (2012) 4, 1139-1142 (erratum), arXiv:0809.1391[math.AG]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [17]

    M. Oura, C. Poor, R. Salvati Manni, and D. Yuen, Modular f orms of weight 8 for Γ g(1, 2), arXiv:0811.2259[math.NT]

    arXiv

  11. [18]

    P.Dunin-Barkowski, A.Sleptsov, A.Stern, NSR superst ring measures in genus 5, Nucl.Phys.B 872 (2013) 106-126, arXiv:1208.2324[hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [19]

    C.G.Callan Jr., J.A.Harvey, Anomalies and fermion zer o modes on strings and domain walls, Nucl.Phys.B, 250, Issues 1-4, 1985, 427-436

    1985

  13. [20]

    D.Tong, K.Wong, Monopoles and Wilson Lines, JHEP 06 (20 14) 048, arXiv:1401.6167 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  14. [21]

    E.Witten, K.Yonekura, Anomaly inflow and the η-invariant, arXiv:1909.08775[hep-th]

    1909 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J.Igusa, On the Graded Ring of Theta-Constants, Americ an Journal of Mathematics , Jan., 1964, Vol. 86, No. 1 (Jan., 1964), pp. 219-246

    1964

  16. [24]

    Home page of Professor S.Yanagida, https://www.math.nagoya-u.ac.jp/ ~yanagida/ 2018WA.html

  17. [25]

    mathematik.hu-berlin.de/ ~bakkerbe/faltings3.pdf

    G.Bruns, The Tate module and finiteness theorems for abe lian varieties, https://www2. mathematik.hu-berlin.de/ ~bakkerbe/faltings3.pdf

  18. [26]

    Lee, Edward Y.Miller, Steven H

    R. Lee, Edward Y.Miller, Steven H. Weintraub, Rochlin i nvariants, theta functions and the holonomy of some determinant line bundle, J.reine angew . Math.392(1988), 187-218

    1988

  19. [27]

    Ching-Li Chai, Riemann’s theta function, https://www2.math.upenn.edu/~chai/ papers_pdf/riemann-theta_v2.pdf

  20. [28]

    Carl L.Siegel, On the theory of indefinite quadratic for ms, Annuals of mathematics, vol.45(1944), pp.577-622

    1944

  21. [29]

    C.LeBrun, M.Rothstein, Moduli of Super Riemann Surfac es, Commun. Math. Phys. 117, 159-176 (1988)

    1988

  22. [30]

    15 (2019) 1, 57-211, arXiv:1209.2459[hep-th]

    E.Witten, Notes On Super Riemann Surfaces And Their Mod uli, Pure Appl.Math.Quart. 15 (2019) 1, 57-211, arXiv:1209.2459[hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bryce DeWitt, Supermanifolds, Cambridge Monographs o n Mathematical Physics, 2011

    2011

  24. [32]

    Freed, David R.Morrison, Lisa C.Jeffrey, E.Witten, Quantum Fields and Strings:A Course for Mathematicians, Volume 1, American Mathematical Society Institute for Advanced St udy,1999

    P.Deligne, D.Kahdan, P.Etingof, John W.Morgan, Danie l S. Freed, David R.Morrison, Lisa C.Jeffrey, E.Witten, Quantum Fields and Strings:A Course for Mathematicians, Volume 1, American Mathematical Society Institute for Advanced St udy,1999

    1999

  25. [33]

    9 (2020) 10, arXiv:1911.11780[hep-th]

    Justin Kaidi, Julio Parra-Martinez, Yuji Tachikawa wi th a mathematical appendix by Arun Debray, Topological Superconductors on Superstring W orldsheets, SciPost Phys. 9 (2020) 10, arXiv:1911.11780[hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    124 (2020) 12, 121601 arXiv:1908.04805[hep-th]

    J.Kaidi, J.Parra-Martinez, Y.Tachikawa, GSO project ions via SPT phases, Phys.Rev.Lett. 124 (2020) 12, 121601 arXiv:1908.04805[hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    J.Igusa, On Siegel Modular Forms of Genus Two (2), Ameri can Journal of Mathematics, Vol. 84, No. 1 (Jan., 1962), pp. 175-200

    1962

  28. [36]

    R.Salvati Manni, On the dimension of the vector space C[θm]4, Nagoya Math. J. Vol.98(1985), 99-107

    1985

  29. [37]

    K.Walker, On Witten’s 3-manifold Invariants, https://canyon23.net/math/ 1991TQFTNotes.pdf

  30. [38]

    John D.Fay, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Theta Functi ons on Riemann Surfaces, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York 1973. 34

    1973

  31. [39]

    D.Tong, C.Turner, Notes on 8 Majorana Fermions, SciPos t Phys.Lect.Notes 14 (2020) 1, arXiv:1906.07199[hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    D.S.Nagaraj, B.Sury, A quick introduction to algebrai c geometry and elliptic curves, https://www.isibang.ac.in/~sury/lastintro.pdf

  33. [41]

    D.Mumford, Picard Groups of moduli problems, https://www.dam.brown.edu/people/ mumford/alg_geom/papers/1965b--PicGpMod-EmeryScan.p df

  34. [42]

    leidenuniv.nl/~pbruin/tate-pairing.pdf

    P.Bruin, The Tate pairing for Abelian varieties over fin ite fields, https://www.math. leidenuniv.nl/~pbruin/tate-pairing.pdf

  35. [43]

    Visser, The Abel-Jacobi map, https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/maths/people/ staff/visser/abel_jacobi_map.pdf 35

    R. Visser, The Abel-Jacobi map, https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/maths/people/ staff/visser/abel_jacobi_map.pdf 35

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.