Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

Spinor vs. conjugate spinor: it's all in the boundary condition

2026-07-09 13:25 UTC pith:AQ2XSYAH

load-bearing objection New partition functions and Seiberg-Witten curves for SO(2N) with spinor/conjugate spinor matter; the spinor vs. conjugate spinor distinction appears as different boundary conditions at w=±1 the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07347 v1 pith:AQ2XSYAH submitted 2026-07-08 hep-th

Thermodynamic limit for SO(2N) gauge theories with spinors/conjugate spinors

Xiaobin Li , Futoshi Yagi This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords Seiberg-Witten curveSO(2N) gauge theoryspinor representationconjugate spinortopological vertexO5-planethermodynamic limitbrane web
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 studies five-dimensional supersymmetric SO(2N) gauge theories coupled to matter in spinor or conjugate spinor representations, engineered using brane web diagrams with orientifold planes. The authors compute new partition functions for these theories using the topological vertex formalism adapted for O5-planes, then take the thermodynamic limit of those partition functions to derive the Seiberg-Witten curves. The central result is that the distinction between a theory with two spinors and a theory with one spinor plus one conjugate spinor — which look identical as brane webs in certain phases — manifests as a concrete difference in the boundary conditions that the Seiberg-Witten curve satisfies at the two orientifold plane positions (w=+1 and w=-1). Specifically, for two spinors the sign of a mass-dependent constant term is the same at both orientifold positions, while for one spinor plus one conjugate spinor the sign flips between the two positions.

Core claim

The difference between spinor and conjugate spinor matter in SO(2N) gauge theory is encoded as a sign choice in the boundary conditions of the Seiberg-Witten curve at the O5-plane locations. For two spinors, the product of amplitude functions at w=1 and w=-1 yields the same sign for the mass-dependent term M_L^{-(2^{N-4}-1)} M_R^{(2^{N-4}-1)}, giving identical boundary conditions at both points. For one spinor plus one conjugate spinor, the corresponding ratio evaluates to -1, meaning the sign of this term flips between w=1 and w=-1. This sign flip arises because the conjugate spinor strip involves reflecting the Nth color brane (a_N -> -a_N, mu_N -> mu_N^T), which introduces an asymmetry in

What carries the argument

Topological vertex formalism with O5-plane, strip diagram decomposition, profile functions for Young diagrams, saddle-point approximation in the thermodynamic limit (hbar -> 0), amplitude functions Y(z), and the Cameral curve construction relating the partition function to the Seiberg-Witten geometry.

Load-bearing premise

A combinatorial identity used to verify that the perturbative part of the partition function matches expected gauge theory results is conjectured but not proven, though it has been checked numerically up to high order for several values of N. Additionally, the derivation assumes that the supports of certain profile functions are disjoint, which is needed for the saddle-point equations to decouple but is not independently justified.

What would settle it

If the conjectured identity (2.35) fails at some order beyond what was checked, the partition function expressions feeding into the thermodynamic limit would be incorrect, potentially invalidating the derived Seiberg-Witten curves and their boundary conditions.

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

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies five-dimensional N=1 supersymmetric SO(2N) gauge theories with hypermultiplets in spinor and/or conjugate spinor representations, using 5-brane web diagrams with O5-planes. The authors apply the topological vertex formalism generalized to O5-planes to compute unrefined topological string partition functions for three distinct theories: two spinors (2S), two conjugate spinors (2C), and one spinor plus one conjugate spinor (1S+1C). They verify the perturbative parts against expected gauge theory results. They then take the thermodynamic limit of these partition functions using saddle-point methods to derive the Cameral curve and Seiberg-Witten curve for each theory. The central physical result is that the distinction between the 2S theory and the 1S+1C theory manifests as different boundary conditions on the Seiberg-Witten curve at the O5-plane positions w=±1: the sign of the mass-dependent constant term is the same at w=1 and w=-1 for 2S, while it flips for 1S+1C. Explicit Seiberg-Witten curves are presented for N=2, 3, and 4.

Significance. The paper addresses a well-motivated question: how the distinction between spinor and conjugate spinor representations in SO(2N) gauge theories — which is invisible in certain phases of the 5-brane web diagram — manifests at the level of partition functions and Seiberg-Witten curves. The computation is detailed and follows established methodology (topological vertex with O5-plane, thermodynamic limit à la Nekrasov-Okounkov). The new partition function expressions are a useful alternative to the ADHM-based results of [12]. The derivation of the Seiberg-Witten curves from first principles via the thermodynamic limit, rather than by assumption, is a strength. The perturbative consistency checks for N=2,3,4 provide evidence for the correctness of the partition function. The main result — the boundary condition distinction at w=±1 — is a concrete and falsifiable characterization of the spinor/conjugate spinor difference at the level of the Seiberg-Witten geometry.

major comments (2)
  1. §3.2, before Eq. (3.22): The assumption that the supports C_i, C_L, C_R (and their reflections -C_N, -C_L, -C_R) are all disjoint is stated without independent justification. This disjointness is load-bearing: it is what allows the functional variation δF/δf_i''(x) to be evaluated independently on each support, producing the decoupled saddle-point equations (3.22)–(3.29), from which the amplitude functions (3.31) and the monodromy structure (3.35)–(3.37) are derived. The key computation in (3.59) and (3.63) yielding the sign +1 vs. -1 distinguishing the two theories inherits this assumption. The authors should either justify that disjointness holds in the regime where the 5-brane web diagrams of Figure 2 distinguish the three theories (which, as noted in §1, is the small-mass regime), or state explicitly that the derivation is valid in the large-mass regime and discuss whether the result
  2. §2.3, Eq. (2.35): The identity used to verify the perturbative part is conjectured and verified only to O(Q^8) for N=1,2,3,4. While the authors correctly note that no proof is available, the perturbative check — which is the primary consistency check on the partition function expressions — depends on this conjecture. The authors should clarify whether the thermodynamic limit derivation in §3 depends on the correctness of (2.35) or only on the structure of the strip amplitudes (2.22). If the latter, this should be stated explicitly to isolate the conjecture's role.
minor comments (4)
  1. §2.3, Eq. (2.35): The conjectured identity is verified to O(Q^8) for N=1,2,3,4. It would help to state whether higher-order checks were attempted and failed, or whether computational cost was the limiting factor.
  2. §2.4: The relation between the expansion parameter Q = e^{-2a_L^S} used here and the parameter e^{-m_L} used in [12] is discussed qualitatively but not made precise. A more explicit statement of the parameter change would aid comparison.
  3. §3.5, Eqs. (3.69)–(3.71): The Seiberg-Witten curves are presented for N=2,3,4. The general-N structure is described in (3.47) and (3.66)–(3.67) but the explicit coefficients c_{i,j} beyond those fixed by (3.48) are not given. The authors should clarify whether these are determined by the constraints or remain as moduli parameters.
  4. Various typos: 'theoreis' (§2.2, before Eq. 2.19), 'respecitvely' (§2.1, after Eq. 2.1), 'asymptoric behavor' (§3.4, before Eq. 3.44).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and for identifying two points that warrant clarification. Both comments are well-taken: the first concerns the regime of validity of the disjoint-support assumption underlying the saddle-point analysis, and the second concerns the logical dependence of the perturbative check on the conjectured identity (2.35). We address each below and indicate the revisions we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3.2, before Eq. (3.22): The assumption that the supports C_i, C_L, C_R (and their reflections -C_N, -C_L, -C_R) are all disjoint is stated without independent justification. This disjointness is load-bearing: it is what allows the functional variation δF/δf_i''(x) to be evaluated independently on each support, producing the decoupled saddle-point equations (3.22)–(3.29), from which the amplitude functions (3.31) and the monodromy structure (3.35)–(3.37) are derived. The key computation in (3.59) and (3.63) yielding the sign +1 vs. -1 distinguishing the two theories inherits this assumption. The authors should either justify that disjointness holds in the regime where the 5-brane web diagrams of Figure 2 distinguish the three theories (which, as noted in §1, is the small-mass regime), or state explicitly that the derivation is valid in the large-mass regime and discuss whether the result

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies that the disjointness of the supports C_i, C_L, C_R, -C_N, -C_L, -C_R is a load-bearing assumption for the decoupled saddle-point equations and hence for the key results (3.59) and (3.63). We agree that this assumption is not independently justified in the current manuscript and that it should be clarified. The situation is as follows. The disjointness of the supports C_i (i=1,...,N) is a standard assumption in the thermodynamic limit literature for SO(2N) gauge theories: the Coulomb moduli a_i are taken to be well-separated, which is the regime where the profile functions f_i(x) have non-overlapping supports. This is the same regime used in the original Nekrasov-Okounkov framework and in our previous work [21]. The additional supports C_L, C_R and their reflections -C_L, -C_R correspond to the spinor/conjugate spinor matter. The parameters a_L^S, a_R^S (or a_L^C, a_R^C) are related to the spinor masses via (2.5), (2.8). In the large-mass regime where m_L, m_R are large compared to the Coulomb moduli, the supports C_L, C_R are well-separated from each other and from the C_i, and the reflected supports -C_L, -C_R, -C_N are also disjoint from all of the above. This is the regime where the 5-brane web diagrams of Figure 2 do not distinguish the three theories, as noted in §1. Thus, we must be honest: the derivation as presented is valid in the large-mass regime, not in the small-mass regime where the web diagrams distinguish the theories. However, the resulting Seiberg-Witten curves are algebraic objects defined for all values of the mass parameters, and the boundary condition distinction (same sign vs. opposite sign at w=±1) is a property of the curve that persists under analytic continuation in the mass parameters. The curves we obtain (3 revision: no

  2. Referee: §2.3, Eq. (2.35): The identity used to verify the perturbative part is conjectured and verified only to O(Q^8) for N=1,2,3,4. While the authors correctly note that no proof is available, the perturbative check — which is the primary consistency check on the partition function expressions — depends on this conjecture. The authors should clarify whether the thermodynamic limit derivation in §3 depends on the correctness of (2.35) or only on the structure of the strip amplitudes (2.22). If the latter, this should be stated explicitly to isolate the conjecture's role.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the perturbative consistency check in §2.3 depends on the conjectured identity (2.35), and we agree that the manuscript should state explicitly whether the thermodynamic limit derivation in §3 also depends on this conjecture. The answer is: it does not. The thermodynamic limit analysis in §3 depends only on the structure of the strip amplitudes (2.22) [more precisely, the rewritten form (2.52) in terms of the Nekrasov factors in sinh form], not on the conjectured identity (2.35). The identity (2.35) is used exclusively in §2.3 to perform the summation over the Young diagram λ in the perturbative limit (m_0 → ∞, where all μ_i = ∅), in order to show that the resulting expression matches the expected perturbative prepotential. In §3, the thermodynamic limit is taken of the full partition function including the sum over all Young diagrams {μ_i}, λ_L, λ_R. The saddle-point equations, amplitude functions, monodromy structure, and the key computations (3.59) and (3.63) are all derived from the profile-function representation of the strip amplitudes (2.52), which follows from (2.22) via the identities (3.4)–(3.7). None of these steps invoke (2.35). Thus, the conjecture's role is confined to the perturbative check in §2.3 and does not affect the Seiberg-Witten curve derivation in §3. We will add an explicit statement to this effect in the revised manuscript, at the end of §2.3 or the beginning of §3, to isolate the conjecture's role as the referee requests. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation chain is self-contained

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that the spinor vs. conjugate spinor distinction manifests as different boundary conditions (eq. 3.60 vs 3.64) — is derived through a genuine forward chain: 5-brane web diagrams → topological vertex computation → partition function → thermodynamic limit → saddle point equations → amplitude functions → Cameral/SW curve → boundary conditions. The spinor/conjugate spinor distinction enters at the level of the brane web (the replacement a_N → -a_N, μ_N → μ_N^T in eqs. 2.7, 2.12), propagates through the partition function, and emerges as the sign difference in (3.59) vs (3.63). No step reduces to its own input by construction. The self-citations [17] (Kim, Yagi) and [21] (Li, Yagi) provide the topological vertex formalism with O5-planes and strip amplitude formulas, but these are methodological tools also supported by external references [20] (Iqbal, Kashani-Poor) and [24] (Hayashi, Zhu), and the actual computation in this paper is new. The conjectured identity (2.35) is used only for the perturbative consistency check in Section 2.3, not as input to the SW curve derivation. The disjoint-support assumption before (3.22) is a correctness risk (as the skeptic notes), not a circularity issue. The score of 1 reflects the presence of self-citations that provide the computational framework, but these are not load-bearing in the circular sense — the central result has independent content derived from the brane web structure.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or other entities are postulated. The paper works entirely within the established framework of 5-brane webs, O5-planes, and topological vertex formalism.

free parameters (4)
  • m_0
    Instanton mass parameter, read off from the 5-brane web diagram. Not fitted to data but an input parameter of the gauge theory.
  • m_L, m_R
    Masses of the spinor/conjugate spinor hypermultiplets, read from the brane web. Input parameters, not fitted.
  • a_i (i=1,...,N)
    Coulomb moduli of the SO(2N) gauge theory, read from brane heights. Input parameters.
  • U_1, U_2, V, V'
    Coulomb moduli appearing in the final Seiberg-Witten curves, interpreted as physical moduli of the gauge theory.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Topological vertex formalism correctly computes the unrefined topological string partition function for 5-brane webs with O5-planes
    Invoked throughout Section 2. Based on [17,21], extended here to spinor strips.
  • domain assumption Gluing rule with ±1 shift for half-reflected edges (equation 2.16)
    Stated in Section 2.2, justified by requiring reflection independence of the final result. Cited from [6,17,21,24-26].
  • ad hoc to paper Conjectured identity (2.35) for summing over Young diagrams
    Used in Section 2.3 to verify the perturbative part. Verified numerically up to O(Q^8) for N=1,2,3,4 but unproven.
  • domain assumption Supports of profile functions f_i'', g_L'', g_R'' are all disjoint
    Assumed before equation (3.22) to derive decoupled saddle point equations. Not independently justified.
  • domain assumption Thermodynamic limit and saddle point approximation are valid for these partition functions
    Applied in Section 3.2 following [18,19]. Standard technique but involves principal value integrals.
  • domain assumption Analytic continuation replacement (2.38) for flop invariance
    Used in Section 2.3 to match perturbative part. Standard in topological string literature [28,29].

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 32098 in / 3582 out tokens · 199765 ms · 2026-07-09T13:25:21.181939+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this paper, we investigate five-dimensional $\mathcal{N} = 1$ supersymmetric $SO(2N)$ gauge theories coupled to hypermultiplets in spinor/conjugate spinor representation based on 5-brane web constructions with O5-planes. Based on the topological vertex formalism with O5-plane, we find new expressions for the partition functions for these theories, emphasizing the difference between the case with two spinors and that with one spinor and one conjugate spinor. Through the thermodynamic limit of these partition functions, we derive the Cameral and Seiberg-Witten curves. We show that the difference between the spinor and the conjugate spinor appears as a difference in the boundary conditions of the Seiberg-Witten curves at the orientifold planes.

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

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · 38 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Type IIB Superstrings, BPS Monopoles, And Three-Dimensional Gauge Dynamics

    A. Hanany and E. Witten,Type IIB superstrings, BPS monopoles, and three-dimensional gauge dynamics,Nucl.Phys.B492(1997) 152–190, [hep-th/9611230]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  2. [2]

    Branes, Superpotentials and Superconformal Fixed Points

    O. Aharony and A. Hanany,Branes, superpotentials and superconformal fixed points, Nucl.Phys.B504(1997) 239–271, [hep-th/9704170]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  3. [3]

    Webs of (p,q) 5-branes, Five Dimensional Field Theories and Grid Diagrams

    O. Aharony, A. Hanany, and B. Kol,Webs of (p,q) five-branes, five-dimensional field theories and grid diagrams,JHEP9801(1998) 002, [hep-th/9710116]. – 36 –

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Brane Dynamics and Gauge Theory

    A. Giveon and D. Kutasov,Brane dynamics and gauge theory,Rev. Mod. Phys.71 (1999) 983–1084, [hep-th/9802067]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  5. [5]

    Brane webs and $O5$-planes

    G. Zafrir,Brane webs andO5-planes,JHEP03(2016) 109, [arXiv:1512.08114]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    5-brane webs for 5d $\mathcal{N}=1$ $G_2$ gauge theories

    H. Hayashi, S.-S. Kim, K. Lee, and F. Yagi,5-brane webs for 5dN= 1 G 2 gauge theories,JHEP03(2018) 125, [arXiv:1801.03916]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Discrete theta angle from an O5-plane

    H. Hayashi, S.-S. Kim, K. Lee, and F. Yagi,Discrete theta angle from an O5-plane, JHEP11(2017) 041, [arXiv:1707.07181]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Monopole Condensation, And Confinement In N=2 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten,Electric - magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and confinement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,Nucl. Phys. B426(1994) 19–52, [hep-th/9407087]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 430, 485–486 (1994)]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  9. [9]

    Monopoles, Duality and Chiral Symmetry Breaking in N=2 Supersymmetric QCD

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten,Monopoles, duality and chiral symmetry breaking in N=2 supersymmetric QCD,Nucl. Phys. B431(1994) 484–550, [hep-th/9408099]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  10. [10]

    N. A. Nekrasov,Seiberg-Witten prepotential from instanton counting, Adv.Theor.Math.Phys.7(2004) 831–864, [hep-th/0206161]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  11. [11]

    ABCD of instantons

    N. Nekrasov and S. Shadchin,ABCD of instantons,Commun. Math. Phys.252 (2004) 359–391, [hep-th/0404225]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  12. [12]

    Y. Chen, J. Jiang, S. Nawata, and Y. Shao,Instantons on Young diagrams with matters,JHEP03(2023) 120, [arXiv:2301.02342]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    5-dim Superconformal Index with Enhanced En Global Symmetry

    H.-C. Kim, S.-S. Kim, and K. Lee,5-dim Superconformal Index with Enhanced En Global Symmetry,JHEP1210(2012) 142, [arXiv:1206.6781]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    Discrete theta and the 5d superconformal index

    O. Bergman, D. Rodr´ ıguez-G´ omez, and G. Zafrir,Discreteθand the 5d superconformal index,JHEP1401(2014) 079, [arXiv:1310.2150]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    The Topological Vertex

    M. Aganagic, A. Klemm, M. Marino, and C. Vafa,The Topological vertex, Commun.Math.Phys.254(2005) 425–478, [hep-th/0305132]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  16. [16]

    N. C. Leung and C. Vafa,Branes and toric geometry,Adv.Theor.Math.Phys.2 (1998) 91–118, [hep-th/9711013]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  17. [17]

    Kim and F

    S.-S. Kim and F. Yagi,Topological vertex formalism with O5-plane,Phys. Rev.D97 (2018) 026011, [arXiv:1709.01928]

    work page arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Seiberg-Witten Theory and Random Partitions

    N. Nekrasov and A. Okounkov,Seiberg-Witten theory and random partitions,Prog. Math.244(2006) 525–596, [hep-th/0306238]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  19. [19]

    Seiberg-Witten Geometry of Four-Dimensional $\mathcal N=2$ Quiver Gauge Theories

    N. Nekrasov and V. Pestun,Seiberg-Witten Geometry of Four-DimensionalN= 2 Quiver Gauge Theories,SIGMA19(2023) 047, [arXiv:1211.2240]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    The Vertex on a Strip

    A. Iqbal and A.-K. Kashani-Poor,The Vertex on a strip,Adv.Theor.Math.Phys.10 (2006) 317–343, [hep-th/0410174]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  21. [21]

    Thermodynamic limit of Nekrasov partition function for 5-brane web with O5-plane

    X. Li and F. Yagi,Thermodynamic limit of Nekrasov partition function for 5-brane web with O5-plane,JHEP06(2021) 004, [arXiv:2102.09482]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Akhond, F

    M. Akhond, F. Carta, S. Dwivedi, H. Hayashi, S.-S. Kim, and F. Yagi,To appear, . – 37 –

    work page

  23. [23]

    K. A. Intriligator, D. R. Morrison, and N. Seiberg,Five-dimensional supersymmetric gauge theories and degenerations of Calabi-Yau spaces,Nucl.Phys.B497(1997) 56–100, [hep-th/9702198]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  24. [24]

    More on topological vertex formalism for 5-brane webs with O5-plane

    H. Hayashi and R.-D. Zhu,More on topological vertex formalism for 5-brane webs with O5-plane,arXiv:2012.13303

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  25. [25]

    H.-C. Kim, M. Kim, and S.-S. Kim,Topological vertex for 6d SCFTs withZ 2-twist, JHEP03(2021) 132, [arXiv:2101.01030]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Refined topological vertex with ON-planes

    S.-S. Kim and X.-Y. Wei,Refined topological vertex with ON-planes,JHEP08 (2022) 006, [arXiv:2201.12264]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Dualities and 5-brane webs for 5d rank 2 SCFTs

    H. Hayashi, S.-S. Kim, K. Lee, and F. Yagi,Dualities and 5-brane webs for 5d rank 2 SCFTs,JHEP12(2018) 016, [arXiv:1806.10569]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Flop invariance of the topological vertex

    Y. Konishi and S. Minabe,Flop invariance of the topological vertex,Int.J.Math.19 (2008) 27–45, [math/0601352]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  29. [29]

    Flop Invariance of Refined Topological Vertex and Link Homologies

    M. Taki,Flop Invariance of Refined Topological Vertex and Link Homologies, arXiv:0805.0336

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Fiber-Base Duality and Global Symmetry Enhancement

    V. Mitev, E. Pomoni, M. Taki, and F. Yagi,Fiber-Base Duality and Global Symmetry Enhancement,JHEP1504(2015) 052, [arXiv:1411.2450]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  31. [31]

    S.-S. Kim, M. Taki, and F. Yagi,Tao Probing the End of the World,PTEP2015 (2015), no. 8 083B02, [arXiv:1504.03672]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    Equivalence of several descriptions for 6d SCFT

    H. Hayashi, S.-S. Kim, K. Lee, and F. Yagi,Equivalence of several descriptions for 6d SCFT,JHEP01(2017) 093, [arXiv:1607.07786]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    L. Bao, V. Mitev, E. Pomoni, M. Taki, and F. Yagi,Non-Lagrangian Theories from Brane Junctions,JHEP1401(2014) 175, [arXiv:1310.3841]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  34. [34]

    Topological strings and 5d T_N partition functions

    H. Hayashi, H.-C. Kim, and T. Nishinaka,Topological strings and 5dT N partition functions,JHEP1406(2014) 014, [arXiv:1310.3854]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

    5-Brane Webs, Symmetry Enhancement, and Duality in 5d Supersymmetric Gauge Theory

    O. Bergman, D. Rodr´ ıguez-G´ omez, and G. Zafrir,5-Brane Webs, Symmetry Enhancement, and Duality in 5d Supersymmetric Gauge Theory,JHEP1403(2014) 112, [arXiv:1311.4199]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

    Seiberg-Witten Geometry with Various Matter Contents

    S. Terashima and S.-K. Yang,Seiberg-Witten geometry with various matter contents, Nucl. Phys. B537(1999) 344–360, [hep-th/9808022]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  37. [37]

    Tinkertoys for the D_N series

    O. Chacaltana and J. Distler,Tinkertoys for theD N series,JHEP02(2013) 110, [arXiv:1106.5410]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  38. [38]

    Seiberg-Witten Geometries Revisited

    Y. Tachikawa and S. Terashima,Seiberg-Witten Geometries Revisited,JHEP09 (2011) 010, [arXiv:1108.2315]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  39. [39]

    Tinkertoys for the Twisted D-Series

    O. Chacaltana, J. Distler, and A. Trimm,Tinkertoys for the Twisted D-Series, JHEP04(2015) 173, [arXiv:1309.2299]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [40]

    Seiberg-Witten for $Spin(n)$ with Spinors

    O. Chacaltana, J. Distler, and A. Trimm,Seiberg-Witten forSpin(n)with Spinors, JHEP08(2015) 027, [arXiv:1404.3736]. – 38 –

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015