Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 56 references

Reflection groups and 3d $\mathcal{N}\ge $ 6 SCFTs

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read After suitable finite gaugings, every known highly supersymmetric 3d theory has a moduli space shaped by a reflection group, and two sporadic symmetries predict new N=8 theories.

desk verdict A genuinely useful organizing claim for 3d N≥6 SCFTs, with solid moduli-space computations and a clean ABJM equivalence, but the H3/H4 prediction rests on an unproved uniqueness/completeness premise that the authors mostly acknowledge. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03346 v1 pith:7UL3YQHB submitted 2019-08-09 hep-th

Yuji Tachikawa , Gabi Zafrir This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords 3dN=8SCFTsN=6modulispacesrealreflectiongroupscomplexABJMtheoryABJfinitegaugings
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

The paper sets out to show that three-dimensional SCFTs with maximal or near-maximal supersymmetry are usefully labelled by reflection groups: after gauging suitable finite symmetry groups, the moduli space of every known N=8 theory is $C^{4r}/\Gamma$ with $\Gamma$ a real reflection group, and the moduli space of every known N=6 theory is $C^{4r}/\Gamma$ with $\Gamma$ a complex reflection group. Because real reflection groups are classified as dihedral groups, Weyl groups, or the two sporadic groups $H_3$ and $H_4$, and because the dihedral and Weyl cases are already realized by the BLG and super Yang-Mills theories, the paper concludes that two N=8 SCFTs for $H_3$ and $H_4$ have yet to be discovered. For N=6, all known examples fall into the infinite family $G(k,p,N)$, leaving the exceptional complex reflection groups as a natural place to look for new theories. Along the way, the paper proves that the ABJM theories $(SU(N)_k\times SU(N)_{-k})/\mathbb{Z}_N$ and $(U(N)_k\times U(N)_{-k})/\mathbb{Z}_k$ are the same SCFT.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the orbifold moduli space $\mathbb{C}^{4r}/\Gamma$ read through the Chevalley-Shephard-Todd theorem: the invariant ring is a polynomial ring precisely when $\Gamma$ is a complex reflection group, so the degrees of the invariant generators are a fingerprint of the theory. The paper determines $\Gamma$ by isolating the subgroup of the unbroken gauge group that acts trivially on both the matter fields and the monopole operators; the Chern-Simons level dictates which finite quotients are consistent, and the surviving identifications---phase rotations $z_i\mapsto e^{2\pi i p/k}z_i$ and pairwise rotations $(z_i,z_j)\mapsto(e^{2\pi i/k}z_i,e^{-2\pi i/k}z_j)$ together with permutations---generate exactly $G(k,p,N)$, reducing to dihedral and Weyl groups in the N=8 cases. The proof that the two ABJM variants agree is carried by a one-form $U(1)$ symmetry: integrating along this symmetry direction produces a delta function that identifies the two determinant $U(1)$s, converting $(U(N)_k\times U(N)_{-k})/\mathbb{Z}_k$ into $(SU(N)_k\times SU(N)_{-k})/\mathbb{Z}_N$.

What would settle it

Construct or discover a 3d N=8 SCFT whose moduli space, after gauging every non-anomalous finite symmetry, is not $\mathbb{C}^{4r}/\Gamma$ with $\Gamma$ a real reflection group; or prove rigorously that no 3d N=8 SCFT can have moduli space $\mathbb{C}^4/H_4$, in which case the proposed one-to-one labeling by real reflection groups is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that reflection groups give a classification scheme for 3d $\mathcal{N}\ge 6$ SCFTs rather than just a bookkeeping device. Supersymmetry forces the moduli space of an N=8 theory to be $\mathbb{R}^{8r}/\Gamma$ and that of an N=6 theory to be $\mathbb{C}^{4r}/\Gamma$, with $\Gamma$ induced from an action that commutes with the R-symmetry; the new observation is that, once finite gaugings are used to pass to a `locally oldest' relative, $\Gamma$ is always a reflection group. The authors then argue that for N=8 the group $\Gamma$ appears to distinguish relatives: two N=8 theories are related by finite gaugings exactly when their $\Gamma$s agree. Since the classification of real reflection groups is short, this turns the zoo of known theories into a periodic table whose empty cells are $H_3$ and $H_4$, and it identifies the missing N=8 theories as the main open problem. For N=6, the same analysis places every known theory in the family $G(k,p,N)$ and motivates a search for theories labelled by exceptional complex reflection groups.

Load-bearing premise

The periodic table rests on the premise, inferred from known examples and conjectural dualities rather than proved, that every N=8 theory has a unique `oldest' relative and that two N=8 theories are relatives exactly when their reflection groups agree; if that fails, the $H_3$ and $H_4$ prediction loses its basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the periodic table is right, the N=8 SCFTs are labelled by the finite list of real reflection groups; the empty entries $H_3$ and $H_4$ are concrete predictions of two new theories.
  • The equivalence $(U(N)_k\times U(N)_{-k})/\mathbb{Z}_k = (SU(N)_k\times SU(N)_{-k})/\mathbb{Z}_N$ holds for all $N$ and $k$, removing the coprime restriction that limited earlier checks of the same duality.
  • A 3d N=6 theory whose reflection group is one of the exceptional groups $G_4$ through $G_{37}$ would be genuinely new and cannot be a relative of any known ABJ(M) theory.
  • The scheme sharpens the contrast with 4d: there the crystallographic condition selects Weyl groups for N=4 and crystallographic complex groups for N=3, while the non-crystallographic groups $H_3$, $H_4$, and the non-crystallographic exceptionals appear to be special to 3d.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical consequence the paper leaves implicit: if $H_3$ and $H_4$ theories exist, their sphere partition functions and superconformal indices should be determined by the reflection-group data alone, for instance through the degrees of the basic invariants, so one could test the prediction without possessing a Lagrangian.
  • The uniqueness of the oldest relative could fail in a way that is now well defined: an N=8 theory with two locally oldest relatives carrying different reflection groups, or two non-relative theories with the same $\Gamma$, would overturn the one-to-one labeling while leaving the moduli-space observations intact.
  • The one-form-symmetry integration used to prove the ABJM equivalence looks like a general duality machine, not a special trick; applying it to other Chern-Simons-matter theories with several abelian factors may produce further unexpected identifications among theories with different-looking gauge groups.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the moduli spaces of all known 3d N=8 and N=6 SCFTs, after suitable gaugings of finite symmetries so that one passes to a 'locally oldest' relative, take the form C^{4r}/Γ, where Γ is a real reflection group for N=8 and a complex reflection group for N=6. The known N=8 examples realize the dihedral and Weyl groups; the only remaining irreducible real reflection groups are H_3 and H_4, which the paper suggests correspond to two yet-to-be-discovered N=8 theories. The known N=6 theories realize the infinite family G(k,p,N), and the paper suggests looking for N=6 theories associated with exceptional complex reflection groups. Along the way, the paper gives a detailed derivation of the moduli spaces for (SU(N)_k × SU(N)_-k)/Z_m ABJM theories, (U(N+x)_k × U(N)_-k)/Z_p ABJ(M) theories, and U Sp(2N)_k × SO(2)_-2k theories, including checks of the consistency of the finite quotients with the Chern-Simons levels. It also proves, by a path-integral argument and a superconformal index check, the equivalence of (U(N)_k × U(N)_-k)/Z_k and (SU(N)_k × SU(N)_-k)/Z_N.

Significance. The paper's concrete computations are a genuine contribution: the moduli-space derivations in Sec. 3 are explicit and internally consistent, the quotient consistency checks via instanton numbers and monopole charges are nontrivial, and the proof of the ABJM equivalence in Sec. 4, supported by the superconformal index comparison in Sec. 4.3, appears sound. The organization of known 3d N>=6 SCFTs by real and complex reflection groups is a clean and potentially useful organizing principle, and the specific H_3/H_4 prediction is falsifiable in principle. The authors are appropriately explicit that the H_3/H_4 gap is a conjecture rather than a theorem, and the paper does not hide the fact that the N=6 side lacks a uniqueness statement. If the reflection-group classification can be placed on a firmer basis, this would be an important step toward a periodic table of highly supersymmetric 3d theories.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 1.3, paragraph beginning 'For N=8, however...'] The H_3/H_4 prediction and the 'periodic table' of N=8 theories rest on two unproved assertions: that every N=8 theory has a unique locally oldest relative, and that two N=8 theories are relatives if and only if their reflection groups agree. The paper presents these as consequences of 'the inspection of the list of known N=4 theories and various data', but no systematic derivation or exhaustive check is given. This is load-bearing because, as the paper itself acknowledges in the preceding paragraph, a theory can have more than one locally oldest relative with different reflection groups; if that happens for some N=8 theory, or if an unknown N=8 theory has a moduli space not of reflection-group form, the H_3/H_4 gaps need not be filled by hidden theories. I ask the authors to either provide a systematic verification of uniqueness and completeness over the known examples, or state explicitly in the abstract and in Sec. 1.1 that the H_3/H_4 conjecture is conditional on these two premises.
  2. [Sec. 2.2.3 and Table 1] Table 1 is used as evidence that the known N=8 theories are in one-to-one correspondence with real reflection groups, but at least one row is itself conjectural: the G_2 row requires identifying (SU(2)_6 × SU(2)_-6)/Z_2 with the low-energy limit of G_2 SYM, an equivalence that Sec. 2.2.3 supports only through indirect 4d S-fold evidence. Since the one-to-one correspondence claim depends on every real reflection group being realized by exactly one known theory, this entry should be marked as conjectural in Table 1, and the table should distinguish established dualities from proposed ones.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 1.3, first paragraph after the N=8 uniqueness assertion] The phrase 'the inspection of the list of known N=4 theories' is confusing; since the surrounding discussion is about N=8 theories, it should either read 'known N=8 theories' or explicitly explain that N=8 theories are being viewed as a subclass of 3d N=4 theories.
  2. [Reference [42]] Reference [42] is listed as 'O. Bergman to appear'; this is incomplete. Please provide a preprint number or a more specific citation, or remove it and cite the relevant published work.
  3. [Sec. 1.3, list of real reflection groups] The statement that real reflection groups are dihedral, Weyl, or H_3,H_4 should specify 'irreducible real reflection groups', since direct products of real reflection groups are also real reflection groups and appear in some of the moduli spaces discussed in the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: moduli spaces are computed from Lagrangians, the ABJM equivalence is derived via path integral and index check, and the H3/H4 suggestion is an extrapolation from a classification rather than a fit.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are self-contained against explicit computations. Section 3 derives each moduli space directly from the Chern-Simons-matter Lagrangian: it identifies the subgroup acting on the bifundamental vevs by studying monopole operators and Chern-Simons consistency, and the resulting quotient groups G(k,p,N) and the dihedral/Weyl groups are obtained, not assumed. The ABJM equivalence in Section 4 is established by a path-integral argument reducing to Witten's duality, with a separate superconformal index check in Section 4.3. The H3/H4 'prediction' is an extrapolation from the mathematical classification of real reflection groups (dihedral, Weyl, and the sporadic H3,H4) combined with the observation that all known N=8 theories realize dihedral or Weyl groups; no parameter is fitted to the predicted entries, so the prediction is not forced by construction. The paper explicitly acknowledges that a unique locally oldest relative is not guaranteed in general, and its N=8 uniqueness claim is stated as an empirical inspection of known theories rather than as a derived theorem; this is a conjecture about completeness, not a circular definition. The only self-citation of note, [34] used as indirect evidence for the G2 BLG/SYM duality, is not load-bearing for the central classification or the H3/H4 suggestion, and it is an independently testable external observation. Thus no circular step satisfying the quoted-reduction standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted anywhere in the paper: N, k, and p are discrete labels of the known theories, not parameters introduced to force the reflection-group form. The main axioms are standard supersymmetry moduli-space facts, standard abelian-duality technology, the Shephard-Todd classification, and the cited classifications of N=6 and N=8 theories. No new physical entities are postulated; the H3 and H4 theories are predicted to exist but are not given any independent dynamical content.

assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption 3d N=8 moduli space is R^{8r}/Γ and 3d N=6 moduli space is C^{4r}/Γ, with Γ induced from a linear action commuting with the R-symmetry.
    Used throughout Sec. 1.3 and Sec. 3 to set up the moduli space computations; standard consequence of supersymmetry, cited to Bashkirov [14,15].
  • domain assumption Gauging a non-anomalous finite 0-form symmetry G yields a dual 1-form symmetry Ĝ, and gauging Ĝ recovers the original theory.
    Defines the network of relatives in Sec. 1.3; from Kapustin-Seiberg and Gaiotto-Kapustin-Seiberg-Willett [29,30].
  • standard math A U(1) flavor symmetry in 3d has no global anomaly, Tors Ω_4^spin(BU(1)) = 0, so any finite subgroup can be gauged.
    Footnote 5 in Sec. 1.3, justifies the gaugings used to reach 'oldest' relatives; cited to García-Etxebarria-Montero and Monnier-Moore [27,28].
  • standard math The instanton number ∫ (1/2) tr(F/2π)^2 modulo 1 on a closed spin 4-manifold is fixed by the Stiefel-Whitney class of the gauge bundle.
    Used in Sec. 3.2 and 3.3 to test consistency of finite quotients with Chern-Simons levels; cited to Witten and Aharony-Seiberg-Tachikawa [46,47].
  • domain assumption In 3d abelian gauge theories, dualizing gauge fields to periodic scalars identifies the moduli space as the quotient of matter vevs by the subgroup fixing all monopole operators.
    Central technique in Sec. 3.2-3.4 to determine H''; standard 3d abelian duality, used without a single citation but ubiquitous in the literature.
  • standard math The classification of real reflection groups (Weyl, dihedral I2(m), H3, H4) and Shephard-Todd classification of complex reflection groups (G(k,p,N) plus 34 exceptions).
    Appendix A, used to identify the groups appearing in moduli spaces and to formulate the H3/H4 prediction.
  • domain assumption The Schnabl-Tachikawa classification of Lagrangian N=6 theories is exhaustive up to abelian factors and enhancements.
    Sec. 3.5 relies on [16] to cover all possible Lagrangian N=6 gauge algebras.
  • domain assumption The table of known N=8 SCFTs (SYM, BLG, and the N=8-enhancing ABJ(M) theories) is complete for the purpose of the classification.
    Sec. 2 and Table 1; the H3/H4 prediction assumes the absence of these groups in the table means the corresponding theories are undiscovered, not non-existent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reflection groups and 3d $\mathcal{N}\ge $ 6 SCFTs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7UL3YQHB

@misc{pith2026190803346,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reflection groups and 3d $\mathcalN\ge $ 6 SCFTs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7UL3YQHB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03346}
}
abstract

We point out that the moduli spaces of all known 3d $\mathcal{N}=$ 8 and $\mathcal{N}=$ 6 SCFTs, after suitable gaugings of finite symmetry groups, have the form $\mathbb{C}^{4r}/\Gamma$ where $\Gamma$ is a real or complex reflection group depending on whether the theory is $\mathcal{N}=$ 8 or $\mathcal{N}=$ 6, respectively. Real reflection groups are either dihedral groups, Weyl groups, or two sporadic cases $H_{3,4}$. Since the BLG theories and the maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories correspond to dihedral and Weyl groups, it is strongly suggested that there are two yet-to-be-discovered 3d $\mathcal{N}=$ 8 theories for $H_{3,4}$. We also show that all known $\mathcal{N}=$ 6 theories correspond to complex reflection groups collectively known as $G(k,x,N)$. Along the way, we demonstrate that two ABJM theories $(SU(N)_k\times SU(N)_{-k})/\mathbb{Z}_N$ and $(U(N)_k\times U(N)_{-k})/\mathbb{Z}_k$ are actually equivalent.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bagger and N

    J. Bagger and N. Lambert, Gauge Symmetry and Supersymmetry of Multiple M2-Branes, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 065008, arXiv:0711.0955 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2008

  2. [2]

    Gustavsson, Algebraic Structures on Parallel M2-Branes, Nucl

    A. Gustavsson, Algebraic Structures on Parallel M2-Branes, Nucl. Phys. B811 (2009) 66–76 , arXiv:0709.1260 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    Aharony, O

    O. Aharony, O. Bergman, D. L. Jafferis, and J. Maldacena, N = 6 Superconformal Chern-Simons-Matter Theories, M2-Branes and Their Gravit y Duals, JHEP 10 (2008) 091, arXiv:0806.1218 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    Aharony, O

    O. Aharony, O. Bergman, and D. L. Jafferis, Fractional M2-Branes, JHEP 11 (2008) 043, arXiv:0807.4924 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    Brink, J

    L. Brink, J. H. Schwarz, and J. Scherk, Supersymmetric Y ang-Mills Theories,Nucl. Phys. B121 (1977) 77–92

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    Witten, Some Comments on String Dynamics, in Future Perspectives in String Theory

    E. Witten, Some Comments on String Dynamics, in Future Perspectives in String Theory. Proceedings of Strings’95 , pp. 501–523. 1995. arXiv:hep-th/9507121

    arXiv 1995

  7. [7]

    Self-dual strings in six dimensions: Anomalies, the ADE-classification, and the world-sheet WZW-model

    M. Henningson, Self-Dual Strings in Six Dimensions: Anomalies, the ADE-Cl assification, and the World-Sheet WZW-Model, Commun. Math. Phys. 257 (2005) 291–302 , arXiv:hep-th/0405056

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Garcıa-Etxebarria and D

    I. Garcıa-Etxebarria and D. Regalado, N = 3 four dimensional field theories, JHEP 03 (2016) 083, arXiv:1512.06434 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    V an Raamsdonk, Comments on the Bagger-Lambert Theory and Multiple M2-Bran es, JHEP 05 (2008) 105, arXiv:0803.3803 [hep-th]

    M. V an Raamsdonk, Comments on the Bagger-Lambert Theory and Multiple M2-Bran es, JHEP 05 (2008) 105, arXiv:0803.3803 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kao, K.-M

    H.-C. Kao, K.-M. Lee, and T. Lee, The Chern-Simons Coefficient in Supersymmetric Y ang-Mills Chern-Simons Theories,Phys. Lett. B373 (1996) 94–99 , arXiv:hep-th/9506170

    1996 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Kapustin and M

    A. Kapustin and M. J. Strassler, On Mirror Symmetry in Three-Dimensional Abelian Gauge Theories, JHEP 04 (1999) 021, arXiv:hep-th/9902033

    1999 arXiv

  4. [12]

    J. H. Schwarz, Superconformal Chern-Simons Theories, JHEP 11 (2004) 078, arXiv:hep-th/0411077

    2004 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gaiotto and X

    D. Gaiotto and X. Yin, Notes on Superconformal Chern-Simons-Matter Theories, JHEP 08 (2007) 056, arXiv:0704.3740 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bashkirov, A Note on N ≥ 6 Superconformal Quantum Field Theories in three dimensions, arXiv:1108.4081 [hep-th]

    D. Bashkirov, A Note on N ≥ 6 Superconformal Quantum Field Theories in three dimensions, arXiv:1108.4081 [hep-th]. 34

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Bashkirov, BLG Theories at Low V alues of Chern-Simons Coupling, arXiv:1211.4887 [hep-th]

    D. Bashkirov, BLG Theories at Low V alues of Chern-Simons Coupling, arXiv:1211.4887 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Schnabl and Y

    M. Schnabl and Y . Tachikawa, Classification of N = 6 Superconformal Theories of Abjm Type, JHEP 09 (2010) 103, arXiv:0807.1102 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Kapustin, B

    A. Kapustin, B. Willett, and I. Y aakov, Nonperturbative Tests of Three-Dimensional Dualities, JHEP 10 (2010) 013, arXiv:1003.5694 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bashkirov and A

    D. Bashkirov and A. Kapustin, Supersymmetry Enhancement by Monopole Operators, JHEP 05 (2011) 015, arXiv:1007.4861 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    D. Gang, E. Koh, K. Lee, and J. Park, ABCD of 3d N = 8 and 4 Superconformal Field Theories, arXiv:1108.3647 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Lambert and C

    N. Lambert and C. Papageorgakis, Relating U(N) × U(N) to SU (N) × SU (N) Chern-Simons Membrane Theories, JHEP 04 (2010) 104, arXiv:1001.4779 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bashkirov and A

    D. Bashkirov and A. Kapustin, Dualities Between N = 8 Superconformal Field Theories in Three Dimensions, JHEP 05 (2011) 074, arXiv:1103.3548 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  14. [22]

    N. B. Agmon, S. M. Chester, and S. S. Pufu, A new duality between N = 8 superconformal field theories in three dimensions, JHEP 06 (2018) 005, arXiv:1708.07861 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Córdova, What’s new with Q?, https://indico.oist.jp/indico/event/5/page/14

    C. Córdova, What’s new with Q?, https://indico.oist.jp/indico/event/5/page/14. Review talk at Strings 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Kapustin, R

    A. Kapustin, R. Thorngren, A. Turzillo, and Z. Wang, Fermionic Symmetry Protected Topological Phases and Cobordisms, JHEP 12 (2015) 052, arXiv:1406.7329 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    D. S. Freed and M. J. Hopkins, Reflection Positivity and Invertible Topological Phases, arXiv:1604.06527 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Y onekura, On the Cobordism Classification of Symmetry Protected Topol ogical Phases, Commun

    K. Y onekura, On the Cobordism Classification of Symmetry Protected Topol ogical Phases, Commun. Math. Phys. 368 (2019) 1121–1173 , arXiv:1803.10796 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    García-Etxebarria and M

    I. García-Etxebarria and M. Montero, Dai-Freed anomalies in particle physics, arXiv:1808.00009 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Monnier and G

    S. Monnier and G. W. Moore, Remarks on the Green-Schwarz Terms of Six-Dimensional Supergravity Theories, arXiv:1808.01334 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Kapustin and N

    A. Kapustin and N. Seiberg, Coupling a QFT to a TQFT and Duality, JHEP 04 (2014) 001, arXiv:1401.0740 [hep-th]. 35

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, Generalized Global Symmetries, JHEP 02 (2015) 172, arXiv:1412.5148 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bhardwaj and Y

    L. Bhardwaj and Y . Tachikawa, On Finite Symmetries and Their Gauging in Two Dimensions, JHEP 03 (2018) 189, arXiv:1704.02330 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bergman and S

    O. Bergman and S. Hirano, Anomalous Radius Shift in Ad S4/CFT3, JHEP 07 (2009) 016, arXiv:0902.1743 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Aharony, A

    O. Aharony, A. Hashimoto, S. Hirano, and P . Ouyang, D-Brane Charges in Gravitational Duals of 2+1 Dimensional Gauge Theories and Duality Cascade s, JHEP 01 (2010) 072, arXiv:0906.2390 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Aharony and Y

    O. Aharony and Y . Tachikawa, S-Folds and 4D N = 3 Superconformal Field Theories, JHEP 06 (2016) 044, arXiv:1602.08638 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Caorsi and S

    M. Caorsi and S. Cecotti, Geometric classification of 4d N = 2 SCFTs, JHEP 07 (2018) 138, arXiv:1801.04542 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    P . C. Argyres, A. Bourget, and M. Martone, Classification of all N ≥ 3 moduli space orbifold geometries at rank 2, arXiv:1904.10969 [hep-th]

    1904 arXiv

  29. [37]

    C. Beem, M. Lemos, P . Liendo, W. Peelaers, L. Rastelli, a nd B. C. van Rees, Infinite Chiral Symmetry in Four Dimensions, Commun. Math. Phys. 336 (2015) 1359–1433 , arXiv:1312.5344 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bonetti, C

    F. Bonetti, C. Meneghelli, and L. Rastelli, VOAs Labelled by Complex Reflection Groups and 4D SCFTs, JHEP 05 (2019) 155, arXiv:1810.03612 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Nishinaka and Y

    T. Nishinaka and Y . Tachikawa, On 4d rank-one N = 3 superconformal field theories, JHEP 09 (2016) 116, arXiv:1602.01503 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Witten, SL(2, Z) Action on Three-Dimensional Conformal Field Theories with Abelian Symmetry, arXiv:hep-th/0307041

    E. Witten, SL(2, Z) Action on Three-Dimensional Conformal Field Theories with Abelian Symmetry, arXiv:hep-th/0307041

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Honda and Y

    M. Honda and Y . Honma, 3D Superconformal Indices and Isomorphisms of M2-Brane Theories, JHEP 01 (2013) 159, arXiv:1210.1371 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bergman to appear

    O. Bergman to appear

  35. [43]

    Cheon, D

    S. Cheon, D. Gang, C. Hwang, S. Nagaoka, and J. Park, Duality between N=5 and N=6 Chern-Simons matter theory, JHEP 11 (2012) 009, arXiv:1208.6085 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Bagger, N

    J. Bagger, N. Lambert, S. Mukhi, and C. Papageorgakis, Multiple Membranes in M-theory, Phys. Rept. 527 (2013) 1–100 , arXiv:1203.3546 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  37. [45]

    P .-S. Hsin, H. T. Lam, and N. Seiberg, Comments on One-Form Global Symmetries and Their Gauging in 3D and 4D, SciPost Phys. 6 (2019) 039, arXiv:1812.04716 [hep-th]. 36

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Witten, Supersymmetric Index in Four-Dimensional Gauge Theories, Adv

    E. Witten, Supersymmetric Index in Four-Dimensional Gauge Theories, Adv. Theor . Math. Phys. 5 (2002) 841–907 , arXiv:hep-th/0006010

    2002 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Aharony, N

    O. Aharony, N. Seiberg, and Y . Tachikawa, Reading Between the Lines of Four-Dimensional Gauge Theories, JHEP 08 (2013) 115, arXiv:1305.0318 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Distler, S

    J. Distler, S. Mukhi, C. Papageorgakis, and M. V an Raams donk, M2-Branes on M-Folds, JHEP 05 (2008) 038, arXiv:0804.1256 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Bhattacharya, S

    J. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, S. Minwalla, and S. R aju, Indices for Superconformal Field Theories in 3,5 and 6 Dimensions, JHEP 02 (2008) 064, arXiv:0801.1435 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Kim, The complete superconformal index for N=6 Chern-Simons the ory, Nucl

    S. Kim, The complete superconformal index for N=6 Chern-Simons the ory, Nucl. Phys. B821 (2009) 241–284 , arXiv:0903.4172 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Imamura and S

    Y . Imamura and S. Y okoyama,Index for three dimensional superconformal field theories with general R-charge assignments, JHEP 04 (2011) 007, arXiv:1101.0557 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  44. [52]

    G. I. Lehrer and D. E. Taylor, Unitary reflection groups , vol. 20 of Australian Mathematical Society Lecture Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009

    2009

  45. [53]

    T. A. Springer, Invariant theory, vol. 585 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer-V erlag, Berlin-New Y ork, 1977

    1977

  46. [54]

    Geck and G

    M. Geck and G. Malle, Reflection groups, in Handbook of algebra. Vol. 4 , pp. 337–383. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2006. arXiv:math.RT/0311012

    2006

  47. [55]

    I. V . Dolgachev, Reflection groups in algebraic geometry, Bull. Amer . Math. Soc. (N.S.) 45 (2008) 1–60 , arXiv:math.AG/0610938

    2008

  48. [56]

    Cecotti and M

    S. Cecotti and M. Del Zotto, Higher S-Dualities and Shephard-Todd Groups, JHEP 09 (2015) 035, arXiv:1507.01799 [hep-th]. 37

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.