Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Remarks on the Higgs Branch of 5d Conformal Matter

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For every 5d conformal matter atom, circle reduction lands on a 4d class-S trinion whose puncture data fix the Higgs branch dimension.

desk verdict Solid A/D-type magnetic quiver work carries the paper; the E-type rows rest on a class-S identification that is plausible but weaker than the text lets on. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04431 v2 pith:BCPDRZEF submitted 2025-02-06 hep-th

Mario De Marco , Michele Del Zotto , Julius F. Grimminger , Andrea Sangiovanni This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 81T6081T3014J3217B22 PACS 11.25.-w11.30.Pb
keywords 5dSCFTconformalmatterHiggsbranchclass-Stheorymagneticquiverbranewebnilpotentorbitsgeometricengineering
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 claims that every 5d conformal matter atom $T_{X_g^{(i)}}$ has a 4d $\mathcal{N}=2$ descendant given by a class-S trinion, determined by the regular punctures listed in Table 2, and that the quaternionic dimension of the Higgs branch is protected under circle reduction. The same dimension follows from the 5d quiver phase with an added root-system correction and from the class-S puncture data, giving $\dim_H \mathrm{HB}(T_{X_g^{(i)}}) = n_H - n_V + \#\mathrm{roots}(g)$. For A- and D-type atoms and molecules the result is confirmed by explicit $(p,q)$ brane webs and magnetic quivers; for E-type atoms the class-S identification is the main tool, extending the answer to $E_6,E_7,E_8$. If correct, the paper fixes the Higgs branch dimensions of all 5d conformal matter atoms and molecules and predicts new families of 4d $\mathcal{N}=2$ SCFTs with $g\times g$ flavor symmetry that are not class-S theories with regular punctures.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 5d conformal matter atom $T_{X_g^{(i)}}$, a 5d SCFT with at least $g\times g$ flavor symmetry engineered by M-theory on the canonical threefold singularity $X_g^{(i)}$ obtained from a Du Val singularity by replacing one coordinate with $x_i=uv$; a partial crepant resolution produces a Dynkin quiver gauge theory $Q_{X_g^{(i)}}$ that is used for counting. The main identity is the Higgs branch dimension formula (3.5), $\dim_H\mathrm{HB}(T_{X_g^{(i)}}) = n_H - n_V + \#\mathrm{roots}(g)$, where $n_H-n_V$ is the hypermultiplet minus vector multiplet count of the quiver and the root count accounts for instantonic M2-brane states that become massless at infinite coupling. The complementary machinery is the magnetic quiver, a 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theory whose Coulomb branch is the 5d Higgs branch; for A- and D-type atoms the magnetic quivers are read from $(p,q)$ brane webs, using O5 planes for the D-type cases, and their Coulomb branch dimensions reproduce every entry of Table 3 and Table 4.

What would settle it

Scan, for a fixed exceptional $g$, all nilpotent orbits $O$ with the same complex dimension as the orbit $O_{III}$ listed in Table 2 and the same stabilizer flavor as $F_{\mathrm{rest}}$; if any such orbit gives a different value in the class-S formula (3.6), then the trinion is not fixed by the three matching criteria and the E-type Higgs branch dimensions do not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for each 5d conformal matter atom $T_{X_g^{(i)}}$ engineered by M-theory on the threefold singularity $X_g^{(i)}$, the circle reduction $D^\circ_{S^1} T_{X_g^{(i)}}$ is a 4d $\mathcal{N}=2$ class-S trinion: the 6d $(2,0)$ theory of type $g$ on a sphere with two maximal punctures and a third regular puncture whose nilpotent orbit $O_{III}$ is given in Table 2. The trinion is fixed by matching the 5d and 4d Coulomb branch ranks, the flavor symmetry, and the absence of 1-form symmetry, and the Higgs branch dimension computed from the class-S formula (3.6) equals the 5d formula (3.5) in every row of Table 3. For molecules, the circle reduction is not a reduction of the undeformed SCFT but of the generalized quiver phase $\tilde{Q}_{X_g^{(1^{n_1},2^{n_2},3^{n_3})}}$, and the apparent mismatch in flavor symmetry is attributed to the mass deformations needed to reach that phase. The brane-web and magnetic quiver computations for A- and D-type atoms and molecules reproduce the predicted dimensions, while the non-star-shaped magnetic quivers of molecules show that their 4d descendants are not class-S theories with regular punctures.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 4d class-S trinion is uniquely fixed by matching Coulomb branch dimension, flavor symmetry, and the absence of 1-form symmetry; the paper states that a rigorous description would require the Type IIA analysis and defers it to future work (Section 3.1).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The circle reduction of every 5d conformal matter atom is identified with a specific 4d class-S trinion (Table 2), so Higgs branch data for the 5d SCFT are computable from the nilpotent orbit of the third puncture.
  • The root-system correction $\#\mathrm{roots}(g)$ in formula (3.5) is the number of instantonic or M2 modes opening up at infinite coupling, and it is confirmed by the class-S formula (3.6) for all ADE atoms.
  • All A- and D-type atoms and molecules admit explicit brane webs and magnetic quivers whose 3d Coulomb branch dimensions match the predicted Higgs branch dimensions exactly.
  • For molecules, the descent to 4d class-S goes through the generalized quiver phase rather than the undeformed SCFT, and the decrease in flavor symmetry is explained by giving masses to deformations used to reach that phase.
  • The resulting 4d descendants of molecules are not class-S theories with regular punctures, predicting new ADE families of 4d $\mathcal{N}=2$ SCFTs with $g\times g$ flavor symmetry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A sharper test of the E-type claims would be to construct an independent 3d magnetic quiver for one of the exceptional atoms; the paper's logic fixes its Coulomb branch dimension, so any alternative construction giving a different number would pinpoint where the class-S matching assumption fails.
  • If the trinion identification is correct, the known Coulomb branch and conformal data of the class-S theories in Table 2 should determine more than the dimension of the E-type Higgs branch, such as its symplectic leaves and Hilbert series, which the paper does not extract.
  • The counting of obstructed root modes in the partial resolution appears to be a general geometric phenomenon: any collapsed configuration of P1s arranged as a Dynkin diagram at the collision point of two singular lines should add one Higgs branch direction per root, a rule that could be tested on other geometric engineering examples.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Higgs branches of 5d conformal matter theories, both the basic 'atoms' and the 'molecules' obtained by fusion. For A- and D-type atoms, the authors construct dual (p,q) brane webs, read off 3d magnetic quivers, and compute the quaternionic Higgs branch dimension. For all types, including E-type, they propose that the circle reduction of a 5d conformal matter atom is a 4d N=2 class-S trinion with the regular punctures listed in Table 2, and they match the resulting Higgs branch dimension (3.6) with the 5d formula dim_H HB(T_X) = n_H - n_V + #roots(g) of Eq. (3.5). For molecules, the same class-S logic leads to Eq. (5.8), and the paper derives explicit brane webs and magnetic quivers for the A- and D-type generalized quiver phases. The central numerical results are collected in Tables 3 and 4.

Significance. If the class-S identification is correct, the paper provides a systematic computation of Higgs branch dimensions for all 5d conformal matter atoms and molecules, with a clean cross-dimensional consistency check between 5d, 4d, and 3d descriptions. The A- and D-type analysis is a genuine independent computation: the magnetic quivers are read directly from brane webs, and the resulting Coulomb branch dimensions agree with the class-S formula in every row of Table 3. The paper also predicts new infinite families of 4d N=2 SCFTs with g x g x F_X flavor symmetry, which is a substantive output. The presentation is mostly clear and the notation is carefully defined.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Table 2 footnote] The statement that the criteria 'uniquely constrain' the three regular punctures is contradicted by the paper's own footnote: for X^(2)_D7, the alternative puncture O'_III = [3^2,1^8] has the same Coulomb branch dimension and flavor symmetry as the chosen O_III = [2^6,1^2], and is set aside only because it does not fit the infinite family labelled by j. This is a pattern-preserving choice, not a derivation. Since the E-type rows of Table 3 have no magnetic-quiver or brane-web check, the Higgs branch dimensions 81, 80, 79, 137, 136, 134, 252, 250, 249 for E6, E7, E8 rest entirely on the unproven uniqueness of the puncture choice. Please either prove uniqueness of the E-type orbits among nilpotent orbits with the stated data, compute the alternative orbit's HB dimension and show it agrees, or explicitly mark the E-type rows as conjectural and adjust the abstract and introduction accordingly.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, final paragraph] The paper states that a completely rigorous description of the 4d descendants would require the Type IIA analysis and that 'We leave such analysis for future work.' Thus the identification T4d = D°_{S1} T_X is a conjecture, not a derived result. For A- and D-type atoms the magnetic quiver analysis of Section 4 provides strong independent support, but for E-type atoms there is no such check. The current wording in the abstract and introduction ('giving an alternative derivation of their Higgs branches which extend also to the E types') overstates the status of the E-type results. Please separate the established A/D results from the conjectural E-type predictions in the summary and conclusion.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.5)] The universal '+ #roots(g)' term in the 5d Higgs branch formula is argued from the M2-brane geometry and is verified for the trinion example in Appendix B and for all A/D rows of Table 3. For E-type atoms, however, this term is only as reliable as the class-S identification from which the T4d dimensions in Table 3 are obtained. Since the uniqueness of the puncture data is not established (see the first major comment), the E-type rows of Table 3 should be presented as predictions, not as derivations, and the text should say so explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (B.2)] The expression 'dim_H HB(Q_{C^3/(Zm x Zm)}) = n_V - n_H' has the sign reversed; the subsequent computation gives n_H - n_V = 1/2(m^2 + m - 2). Please correct the sign.
  2. [Appendix C, Eq. (C.17)] In the last line, 'rank(F_III,4d) = n1 + n2 + n3 = rank(F_III,4d) - n_masses' should read 'rank(F_III,4d) = n1 + n2 + n3 = rank(F_rest) - n_masses'.
  3. [Section 3, first paragraph] There is a typo: 'costruction' should be 'construction'.
  4. [Appendix C, heading] The word 'Higging' should be 'Higgsing'.
  5. [Table 2 footnote] The notation for the alternative puncture O'_III = [3^2,1^8] is introduced without explaining that the numbers are row lengths of the Hitchin partition; a one-sentence reminder would help the reader check the stated equivalence.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Class-S puncture is fitted to the 5d CB dimension and flavor, so the CB/flavor agreement is by construction and the E-type HB rows inherit the fitted choice.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, paragraph after Eq. (3.2); Table 2 and Eq. (3.6)]
    "The third puncture OIII is chosen in such a way to match the expected CB dimension (i.e. the dimension of the CB of T5d). Non-trivially, the third puncture must also account for the Frest flavor symmetry factor of T5d. ... Notice the perfect agreement between the rank of the 5d and 4d CB dimensions, as well as the full flavor symmetry."

    Because the class-S Coulomb branch dimension is fixed by the puncture orbits through Eq. (3.1), choosing OIII so that Eq. (3.1) reproduces the 5d CB dimension makes the later 'perfect agreement' of CB ranks an identity rather than a test. The same fitted OIII is then used in Eq. (3.6) to compute the 'predicted' Higgs branch dimensions in Table 3, so the E-type rows are outputs of the fit, not independent 4d predictions.

full rationale

The paper's core Higgs-branch results are not, for the most part, circular. For A- and D-type atoms, the magnetic quivers of Section 4 are derived directly from brane webs and reproduce the class-S HB dimensions, providing an external cross-check. The only genuinely circular element is the CB-dimension/flavor 'confirmation' of the class-S identification: those data are the fitting criteria used to select the puncture, so their agreement is guaranteed by construction. The D7 footnote in Table 2 shows that the fitting data do not always determine a unique puncture; the alternative O'III is set aside solely to preserve the infinite-family pattern. For E-type atoms, which have no brane-web or magnetic-quiver check, the Table 3 HB dimensions are therefore fixed by a pattern-preserving choice rather than by a forced derivation. This is a correctness/rigor concern (the identification is not unique and no Type IIA derivation is supplied; the authors leave it for future work), but it is not a second circular step: the HB dimension is not among the data used to fit the puncture, so the HB match is a genuine, if underdetermined, check. Score 2 reflects the minor self-definitional step while acknowledging the independent magnetic-quiver evidence for A and D.

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

No continuous parameters are fitted to data; j and n_i are discrete labels of the theory families. The central assumptions are standard string-theory dictionaries (geometric engineering, brane-web to magnetic-quiver) and the consistency-based identification of the 4d descendant, which is the weakest point.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption M-theory on the canonical threefold singularities X_g^{(i)} engineers 5d SCFTs with at least g x g flavor symmetry
    Taken from [9]; the whole paper builds on this geometric engineering claim.
  • domain assumption The magnetic quiver prescription from (p,q) brane webs, including O5/ON5 planes, correctly computes the 5d Higgs branch as the 3d Coulomb branch
    Invoked throughout Sections 4 and 6, citing [60,66].
  • standard math The class-S Higgs branch dimension formula (3.6) from nilpotent orbit data is valid
    Citing [75]; used for all 4d HB dimension computations.
  • domain assumption The number of extra UV Higgs branch modes from instantonic particles equals the number of roots of g, #roots(g)
    Used in (3.5) and Table 3; based on [83] and the M2-brane wrapping argument in Section 3.2.
  • ad hoc to paper The 4d class-S descendant is uniquely determined by matching Coulomb branch dimension, flavor symmetry, and 1-form symmetry
    Section 3.1; no rigorous proof is given, and alternative orbits are possible as noted in the Table 2 footnote for D7.
invented entities (1)
  • New ADE families of 4d N=2 SCFTs with flavor symmetry g x g x F_X
    purpose: Predicted as the 4d circle reductions of 5d conformal matter molecules that do not admit a class-S realization with regular punctures
    Section 6.3 and Outlook item 4; no explicit construction or independent check is provided yet, so independent_evidence is false.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Remarks on the Higgs Branch of 5d Conformal Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BCPDRZEF

@misc{pith2026250204431,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Remarks on the Higgs Branch of 5d Conformal Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BCPDRZEF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04431}
}
abstract

Among the elementary building blocks in the atomic classification of 5d SCFTs there are 5d bifundamental conformal matter theories of various kinds. In this work we study the Higgs branch of these models and of the corresponding molecules arising from their fusion. To this aim we use two complementary independent strategies. On the one hand for the type $A$ and $D$ conformal matter, we identify dual $(p,q)$ brane webs in IIB and exploit them to read off the corresponding magnetic quivers. On the other hand, we exploit circle reductions and study the resulting 4d $\mathcal N=2$ SCFTs, giving an alternative derivation of their Higgs branches which extend also to the $E$ types.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04431 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of toroidal compactifications of a 5d conformal matter atom. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of toroidal compactifications of a 5d conformal matter molecule. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Generalised quiver representing an atom of 5d conformal matter of type [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Low-energy Dynkin quiver description for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pictorial representation of Xe(i) E6 . The red point corresponds to the origin and its preimage under ϵ consists of a collection of singular P 1 ’s, arranged like a E6 Dynkin diagram. A key feature of 5d conformal matter theories is that, for fixed g, there come physic…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The most general molecule of 5d conformal matter. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Low-energy quiver phase corresponding to the molecule with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The conformal matter 5d theory of type X (i) g and its 4d descendant realized as a class-S setup with three regular punctures. This corresponds to the vertical blue arrow in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The generalized quiver with 5d conformal matter edges and its 4d descendant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Higgsings between conformal matter atoms. (Many more phases exists in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p061_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Quiver description of the low-energy gauge theory limit of M-theory on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p067_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Toric diagram of the partial resolution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p068_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Toric diagram of the full resolution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p069_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: At the top, the fully resolved phase of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p071_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. 5d Higgs Branches: Stratifications from Geometry

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Dynamical complex structure deformations of non-compact Calabi-Yau threefolds with non-isolated singularities reproduce the full Higgs branch stratification of 5d SCFTs, matching magnetic quiver predictions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    String theory dynamics in various dimensions,

    E. Witten, “String theory dynamics in various dimensions,”Nucl. Phys. B443 (1995) 85–126, hep-th/9503124

    arXiv 1995

  2. [2]

    Open p-branes,

    A. Strominger, “Open p-branes,”Phys. Lett. B383 (1996) 44–47,hep-th/9512059

    arXiv 1996

  3. [3]

    Five-branes and M theory on an orbifold,

    E. Witten, “Five-branes and M theory on an orbifold,”Nucl. Phys. B463 (1996) 383–397, hep-th/9512219

    arXiv 1996

  4. [4]

    Small E(8) instantons and tensionless noncritical strings,

    O. J. Ganor and A. Hanany, “Small E(8) instantons and tensionless noncritical strings,” Nucl. Phys. B474 (1996) 122–140, hep-th/9602120

    arXiv 1996

  5. [5]

    Nontrivial fixed points of the renormalization group in six-dimensions,

    N. Seiberg, “Nontrivial fixed points of the renormalization group in six-dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B390 (1997) 169–171, hep-th/9609161

    arXiv 1997

  6. [6]

    Five dimensional susy field theories, non-trivial fixed points and string dynamics,

    N. Seiberg, “Five dimensional susy field theories, non-trivial fixed points and string dynamics,” Physics Letters B388 (Nov, 1996) 753–760. 77

    1996

  7. [7]

    Extremal transitions and five-dimensional super- symmetric field theories,

    D. R. Morrison and N. Seiberg, “Extremal transitions and five-dimensional super- symmetric field theories,”Nuclear Physics B483 (Jan, 1997) 229–247

    1997

  8. [8]

    Small instantons, Del Pezzo surfaces and type I-prime theory,

    M. R. Douglas, S. H. Katz, and C. Vafa, “Small instantons, Del Pezzo surfaces and type I-prime theory,”Nucl. Phys. B497 (1997) 155–172, hep-th/9609071

    arXiv 1997

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    5d Conformal Matter,

    M. De Marco, M. Del Zotto, M. Graffeo, and A. Sangiovanni, “5d Conformal Matter,” 2311.04984

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    6d Conformal Matter,

    M. Del Zotto, J. J. Heckman, A. Tomasiello, and C. Vafa, “6d Conformal Matter,” JHEP 02 (2015) 054, 1407.6359

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Atomic Classification of 6D SCFTs,

    J. J. Heckman, D. R. Morrison, T. Rudelius, and C. Vafa, “Atomic Classification of 6D SCFTs,”Fortsch. Phys.63 (2015) 468–530, 1502.05405

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    F-theory and the Classification of Little Strings,

    L. Bhardwaj, M. Del Zotto, J. J. Heckman, D. R. Morrison, T. Rudelius, and C. Vafa, “F-theory and the Classification of Little Strings,”Phys. Rev. D93 (2016), no. 8, 086002,1511.05565. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 100, 029901 (2019)]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Revisiting the classifications of 6d SCFTs and LSTs,

    L. Bhardwaj, “Revisiting the classifications of 6d SCFTs and LSTs,”JHEP 03 (2020) 171, 1903.10503

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Branes, Calabi-Yau spaces, and toroidal compactification of the N=1 six-dimensional E(8) theory,

    O. J. Ganor, D. R. Morrison, and N. Seiberg, “Branes, Calabi-Yau spaces, and toroidal compactification of the N=1 six-dimensional E(8) theory,”Nucl. Phys. B 487 (1997) 93–127, hep-th/9610251

    1997 arXiv

  7. [15]

    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

    1997 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Webs of (p,q) five-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,”JHEP 01 (1998) 002, hep-th/9710116

    1998 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Five-branes, seven-branes and five-dimensional E(n) field theories,

    O. DeWolfe, A. Hanany, A. Iqbal, and E. Katz, “Five-branes, seven-branes and five-dimensional E(n) field theories,”JHEP 03 (1999) 006, hep-th/9902179

    1999 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Five-dimensional supersymmetric gauge theories and degenerations of calabi-yau spaces,

    K. Intriligator, D. R. Morrison, and N. Seiberg, “Five-dimensional supersymmetric gauge theories and degenerations of calabi-yau spaces,”Nuclear Physics B497 (Jul, 1997) 56–100

    1997

  11. [19]

    Branes and toric geometry,

    N. C. Leung and C. Vafa, “Branes and toric geometry,” 1997

    1997

  12. [20]

    Confinement in Five Dimensions,

    B. S. Acharya, “Confinement in Five Dimensions,”2407.03171. 78

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Threedimensionalcanonicalsingularityandfivedimensional N = 1 SCFT,

    D.XieandS.-T.Yau, “Threedimensionalcanonicalsingularityandfivedimensional N = 1 SCFT,”JHEP 06 (2017) 134, 1704.00799

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Towards Classification of 5d SCFTs: Single Gauge Node,

    P. Jefferson, H.-C. Kim, C. Vafa, and G. Zafrir, “Towards Classification of 5d SCFTs: Single Gauge Node,”SciPost Phys.14 (2023) 122, 1705.05836

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    On Geometric Classification of 5d SCFTs,

    P. Jefferson, S. Katz, H.-C. Kim, and C. Vafa, “On Geometric Classification of 5d SCFTs,” JHEP 04 (2018) 103, 1801.04036

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Fibers add Flavor, Part I: Classification of 5d SCFTs, Flavor Symmetries and BPS States,

    F. Apruzzi, C. Lawrie, L. Lin, S. Schäfer-Nameki, and Y.-N. Wang, “Fibers add Flavor, Part I: Classification of 5d SCFTs, Flavor Symmetries and BPS States,” JHEP 11 (2019) 068, 1907.05404

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Fibers add flavor. part II. 5d SCFTs, gauge theories, and dualities,

    F. Apruzzi, C. Lawrie, L. Lin, S. Schäfer-Nameki, and Y.-N. Wang, “Fibers add flavor. part II. 5d SCFTs, gauge theories, and dualities,”Journal of High Energy Physics 2020 (mar, 2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Coulomb and Higgs Branches from Canonical Singularities: Part 0,

    C. Closset, S. Schafer-Nameki, and Y.-N. Wang, “Coulomb and Higgs Branches from Canonical Singularities: Part 0,”JHEP 02 (2021) 003, 2007.15600

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    5d and 4d SCFTs: Canonical Singularities, Trinions and S-Dualities,

    C. Closset, S. Giacomelli, S. Schafer-Nameki, and Y.-N. Wang, “5d and 4d SCFTs: Canonical Singularities, Trinions and S-Dualities,”JHEP 05 (2021) 274, 2012.12827

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    CoulombandHiggsbranchesfrom canonical singularities. Part I. Hypersurfaces with smooth Calabi-Yau resolutions,

    C.Closset, S.Schäfer-Nameki, andY.-N.Wang, “CoulombandHiggsbranchesfrom canonical singularities. Part I. Hypersurfaces with smooth Calabi-Yau resolutions,” JHEP 04 (2022) 061, 2111.13564

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Higgs branches of 5d rank-zero theories from geometry,

    A. Collinucci, M. De Marco, A. Sangiovanni, and R. Valandro, “Higgs branches of 5d rank-zero theories from geometry,”JHEP 10 (2021), no. 18, 018,2105.12177

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Genus zero Gopakumar-Vafa invariants from open strings,

    A. Collinucci, A. Sangiovanni, and R. Valandro, “Genus zero Gopakumar-Vafa invariants from open strings,”JHEP 09 (2021) 059, 2104.14493

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Higgs Branches of rank-0 5d theories from M- theory on (Aj, Al) and (Ak, Dn) singularities,

    M. De Marco and A. Sangiovanni, “Higgs Branches of rank-0 5d theories from M- theory on (Aj, Al) and (Ak, Dn) singularities,” JHEP 03 (2022) 099, 2111.05875

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    5D and 6D SCFTs fromC3 orbifolds,

    J. Tian and Y.-N. Wang, “5D and 6D SCFTs fromC3 orbifolds,” SciPost Phys. 12 (2022), no. 4, 127,2110.15129

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Partition functions and fibering operators on the Coulomb branch of 5d SCFTs,

    C. Closset and H. Magureanu, “Partition functions and fibering operators on the Coulomb branch of 5d SCFTs,”JHEP 01 (2023) 035, 2209.13564. 79

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Flops of any length, Gopakumar-Vafa invariants and 5d Higgs branches,

    A. Collinucci, M. De Marco, A. Sangiovanni, and R. Valandro, “Flops of any length, Gopakumar-Vafa invariants and 5d Higgs branches,”JHEP 08 (2022) 292, 2204.10366

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    5d Higgs branches from M- theory on quasi-homogeneous cDV threefold singularities,

    M. De Marco, A. Sangiovanni, and R. Valandro, “5d Higgs branches from M- theory on quasi-homogeneous cDV threefold singularities,”JHEP 10 (2022) 124, 2205.01125

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Reading between the rational sections: Global structures of 4d N = 2 KK theories,

    C. Closset and H. Magureanu, “Reading between the rational sections: Global structures of 4d N = 2 KK theories,” SciPost Phys. 16 (2024), no. 5, 137, 2308.10225

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    5d SCFTs from isolated complete intersec- tion singularities,

    J. Mu, Y.-N. Wang, and H. N. Zhang, “5d SCFTs from isolated complete intersec- tion singularities,” JHEP 02 (2024) 155, 2311.05441

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Generalized Toric Polygons, T-branes, and 5d SCFTs,

    A. Bourget, A. Collinucci, and S. Schafer-Nameki, “Generalized Toric Polygons, T-branes, and 5d SCFTs,”2301.05239

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Webs of five-branes and N=2 super- conformal field theories,

    F. Benini, S. Benvenuti, and Y. Tachikawa, “Webs of five-branes and N=2 super- conformal field theories,”JHEP 09 (2009) 052, 0906.0359

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

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

    O. Bergman, D. Rodríguez-Gómez, and G. Zafrir, “5-Brane Webs, Symmetry Enhancement, and Duality in 5d Supersymmetric Gauge Theory,”JHEP 03 (2014) 112, 1311.4199

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Duality and enhancement of symmetry in 5d gauge theories,

    G. Zafrir, “Duality and enhancement of symmetry in 5d gauge theories,”JHEP 12 (2014) 116, 1408.4040

    2014 arXiv

  34. [42]

    6d SCFTs, 5d Dualities and Tao Web Diagrams,

    H. Hayashi, S.-S. Kim, K. Lee, and F. Yagi, “6d SCFTs, 5d Dualities and Tao Web Diagrams,” JHEP 05 (2019) 203, 1509.03300

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    A new 5d description of 6d D-type minimal conformal matter,

    H. Hayashi, S.-S. Kim, K. Lee, M. Taki, and F. Yagi, “A new 5d description of 6d D-type minimal conformal matter,”JHEP 08 (2015) 097, 1505.04439

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    5d fixed points from brane webs and O7-planes,

    O. Bergman and G. Zafrir, “5d fixed points from brane webs and O7-planes,” JHEP 12 (2015) 163, 1507.03860

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    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,”JHEP 12 (2018) 016, 1806.10569

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    5-brane webs for 5dN = 1 G2 gauge theories,

    H. Hayashi, S.-S. Kim, K. Lee, and F. Yagi, “5-brane webs for 5dN = 1 G2 gauge theories,” JHEP 03 (2018) 125, 1801.03916. 80

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Rank-3 antisymmetric matter on 5-brane webs,

    H. Hayashi, S.-S. Kim, K. Lee, and F. Yagi, “Rank-3 antisymmetric matter on 5-brane webs,”JHEP 05 (2019) 133, 1902.04754

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Complete prepotential for 5dN = 1 superconformal field theories,

    H. Hayashi, S.-S. Kim, K. Lee, and F. Yagi, “Complete prepotential for 5dN = 1 superconformal field theories,”Journal of High Energy Physics2020 (Feb, 2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    The Cat’s Cradle: deforming the higher rank E1 and ˜E1 theories,

    O. Bergman and D. Rodríguez-Gómez, “The Cat’s Cradle: deforming the higher rank E1 and ˜E1 theories,” JHEP 02 (2021) 122, 2011.05125

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    6D SCFTs and Phases of 5D Theories,

    M. Del Zotto, J. J. Heckman, and D. R. Morrison, “6D SCFTs and Phases of 5D Theories,” JHEP 09 (2017) 147, 1703.02981

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Classifying5d SCFTs via6d SCFTs: Rank one,

    L. Bhardwaj and P. Jefferson, “Classifying5d SCFTs via6d SCFTs: Rank one,” JHEP 07 (2019) 178, 1809.01650. [Addendum: JHEP 01, 153 (2020)]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Classifying 5d SCFTs via 6d SCFTs: Arbitrary rank,

    L. Bhardwaj and P. Jefferson, “Classifying 5d SCFTs via 6d SCFTs: Arbitrary rank,” JHEP 10 (2019) 282, 1811.10616

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Do all 5d SCFTs descend from 6d SCFTs?,

    L. Bhardwaj, “Do all 5d SCFTs descend from 6d SCFTs?,”JHEP 04 (2021) 085, 1912.00025

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Classification of 5dN = 1 gauge theories,

    L. Bhardwaj and G. Zafrir, “Classification of 5dN = 1 gauge theories,”JHEP 12 (2020) 099, 2003.04333

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Monopole operators and hilbert series of coulomb branches of 3dN = 4 gauge theories,

    S. Cremonesi, A. Hanany, and A. Zaffaroni, “Monopole operators and hilbert series of coulomb branches of 3dN = 4 gauge theories,”Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (Jan, 2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Instanton Operators and the Higgs Branch at Infinite Coupling,

    S. Cremonesi, G. Ferlito, A. Hanany, and N. Mekareeya, “Instanton Operators and the Higgs Branch at Infinite Coupling,”JHEP 04 (2017) 042, 1505.06302

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    A tale of two cones: the Higgs Branch of Sp(n) theories with 2n flavours,

    G. Ferlito and A. Hanany, “A tale of two cones: the Higgs Branch of Sp(n) theories with 2n flavours,”1609.06724

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    3d Coulomb branch and 5d Higgs branch at infinite coupling,

    G. Ferlito, A. Hanany, N. Mekareeya, and G. Zafrir, “3d Coulomb branch and 5d Higgs branch at infinite coupling,”JHEP 07 (2018) 061, 1712.06604

    2018 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Quiver Subtractions,

    S. Cabrera and A. Hanany, “Quiver Subtractions,” JHEP 09 (2018) 008, 1803.11205

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Tropical Geometry and Five Dimensional Higgs Branches at Infinite Coupling,

    S. Cabrera, A. Hanany, and F. Yagi, “Tropical Geometry and Five Dimensional Higgs Branches at Infinite Coupling,”JHEP 01 (2019) 068, 1810.01379. 81

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Magnetic quivers, Higgs branches, and 6d N=(1,0) theories,

    S. Cabrera, A. Hanany, and M. Sperling, “Magnetic quivers, Higgs branches, and 6d N=(1,0) theories,” JHEP 06 (2019) 071, 1904.12293. [Erratum: JHEP 07, 137 (2019)]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    The Higgs mechanism — Hasse diagrams for symplectic singularities,

    A. Bourget, S. Cabrera, J. F. Grimminger, A. Hanany, M. Sperling, A. Zajac, and Z. Zhong, “The Higgs mechanism — Hasse diagrams for symplectic singularities,” JHEP 01 (2020) 157, 1908.04245

    2020 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Brane Webs and Magnetic Quivers for SQCD,

    A. Bourget, S. Cabrera, J. F. Grimminger, A. Hanany, and Z. Zhong, “Brane Webs and Magnetic Quivers for SQCD,”JHEP 03 (2020) 176, 1909.00667

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Magnetic quivers, Higgs branches, and 6d N = (1, 0) theories — orthogonal and symplectic gauge groups,

    S. Cabrera, A. Hanany, and M. Sperling, “Magnetic quivers, Higgs branches, and 6d N = (1, 0) theories — orthogonal and symplectic gauge groups,”JHEP 02 (2020) 184, 1912.02773

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Hasse diagrams for 3dN = 4 quiver gauge theories — Inversion and the full moduli space,

    J. F. Grimminger and A. Hanany, “Hasse diagrams for 3dN = 4 quiver gauge theories — Inversion and the full moduli space,”JHEP09 (2020) 159,2004.01675

    2020 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Magnetic Quivers from Brane Webs with O5 Planes,

    A. Bourget, J. F. Grimminger, A. Hanany, M. Sperling, and Z. Zhong, “Magnetic Quivers from Brane Webs with O5 Planes,”JHEP 07 (2020) 204, 2004.04082

    2020 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Magnetic quivers for rank 1 theories,

    A. Bourget, J. F. Grimminger, A. Hanany, M. Sperling, G. Zafrir, and Z. Zhong, “Magnetic quivers for rank 1 theories,”JHEP 09 (2020) 189, 2006.16994

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Five-brane webs, Higgs branches and unitary/orthosymplectic magnetic quivers,

    M. Akhond, F. Carta, S. Dwivedi, H. Hayashi, S.-S. Kim, and F. Yagi, “Five-brane webs, Higgs branches and unitary/orthosymplectic magnetic quivers,”JHEP 12 (2020) 164, 2008.01027

    2020 arXiv

  61. [69]

    S-fold magnetic quivers,

    A.Bourget, S.Giacomelli, J. F.Grimminger, A. Hanany, M.Sperling, and Z.Zhong, “S-fold magnetic quivers,”JHEP 02 (2021) 054, 2010.05889

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    (5d RG-flow) Trees in the Tropical Rain Forest,

    M. Van Beest, A. Bourget, J. Eckhard, and S. Schäfer-Nameki, “(5d RG-flow) Trees in the Tropical Rain Forest,”JHEP 03 (2021) 241, 2011.07033

    2021 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Fission, Fusion, and 6D RG Flows,

    J. J. Heckman, T. Rudelius, and A. Tomasiello, “Fission, Fusion, and 6D RG Flows,” JHEP 02 (2019) 167, 1807.10274

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    New phenomena in SU(3) supersymmetric gauge theory,

    P. C. Argyres and M. R. Douglas, “New phenomena in SU(3) supersymmetric gauge theory,” Nucl. Phys. B448 (1995) 93–126, hep-th/9505062

    1995 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Tinkertoys for Gaiotto Duality,

    O. Chacaltana and J. Distler, “Tinkertoys for Gaiotto Duality,”JHEP 11 (2010) 099, 1008.5203. 82

    2010 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Tinkertoys for theDN series,

    O. Chacaltana and J. Distler, “Tinkertoys for theDN series,” JHEP 02 (2013) 110, 1106.5410

    2013 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Nilpotent orbits and codimension- two defects of 6d N=(2,0) theories,

    O. Chacaltana, J. Distler, and Y. Tachikawa, “Nilpotent orbits and codimension- two defects of 6d N=(2,0) theories,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28 (2013) 1340006, 1203.2930

    2013 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Gaiotto duality for the twisted A2N −1 series,

    O. Chacaltana, J. Distler, and Y. Tachikawa, “Gaiotto duality for the twisted A2N −1 series,” JHEP 05 (2015) 075, 1212.3952

    2015 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Tinkertoys for the Twisted D-Series,

    O. Chacaltana, J. Distler, and A. Trimm, “Tinkertoys for the Twisted D-Series,” JHEP 04 (2015) 173, 1309.2299

    2015 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Tinkertoys for the E6 theory,

    O. Chacaltana, J. Distler, and A. Trimm, “Tinkertoys for the E6 theory,” JHEP 09 (2015) 007, 1403.4604

    2015 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Tinkertoys for the TwistedE6 Theory,

    O. Chacaltana, J. Distler, and A. Trimm, “Tinkertoys for the TwistedE6 Theory,” 1501.00357

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Tinkertoys for the Z3-twisted D4 Theory,

    O. Chacaltana, J. Distler, and A. Trimm, “Tinkertoys for the Z3-twisted D4 Theory,” 1601.02077

    arXiv

  73. [81]

    Tinkertoys for the E7 theory,

    O. Chacaltana, J. Distler, A. Trimm, and Y. Zhu, “Tinkertoys for the E7 theory,” JHEP 05 (2018) 031, 1704.07890

    2018 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Tinkertoys for theE8 Theory,

    O. Chacaltana, J. Distler, A. Trimm, and Y. Zhu, “Tinkertoys for theE8 Theory,” 1802.09626

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    Instanton operators and symmetry enhancement in 5d supersym- metric quiver gauge theories,

    K. Yonekura, “Instanton operators and symmetry enhancement in 5d supersym- metric quiver gauge theories,”JHEP 07 (2015) 167, 1505.04743

    2015 arXiv

  76. [84]

    upcoming,

    A. Bourget, M. De Marco, M. Del Zotto, J. F. Grimminger, and A. Sangiovanni, “upcoming,”

  77. [85]

    6dN = (1, 0) theories on S1 /T2 and class S theories: part II,

    K. Ohmori, H. Shimizu, Y. Tachikawa, and K. Yonekura, “6dN = (1, 0) theories on S1 /T2 and class S theories: part II,”JHEP 12 (2015) 131, 1508.00915

    2015 arXiv

  78. [86]

    On the compactification of 5d theories to 4d,

    M. Martone and G. Zafrir, “On the compactification of 5d theories to 4d,”JHEP 08 (2021) 017, 2106.00686

    2021 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Nilpotent orbits in semisimple lie algebras,

    D. Collingwood and W. McGovern, “Nilpotent orbits in semisimple lie algebras,”. 83

  80. [88]

    1-form Symmetries of 4d N=2 Class S Theories,

    L. Bhardwaj, M. Hubner, and S. Schafer-Nameki, “1-form Symmetries of 4d N=2 Class S Theories,”SciPost Phys.11 (2021) 096, 2102.01693

    2021 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Nonperturbative superpotentials in string theory,

    E. Witten, “Nonperturbative superpotentials in string theory,”Nucl. Phys. B474 (1996) 343–360, hep-th/9604030

    1996 arXiv

  82. [90]

    A Note on enhanced gauge symmetries in M and string theory,

    A. Sen, “A Note on enhanced gauge symmetries in M and string theory,”JHEP 09 (1997) 001, hep-th/9707123

    1997 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Dynamics of multiple Kaluza-Klein monopoles in M and string theory,

    A. Sen, “Dynamics of multiple Kaluza-Klein monopoles in M and string theory,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.1 (1998) 115–126, hep-th/9707042

    1998 arXiv

  84. [92]

    M theory, G(2)-manifolds and four-dimensional physics,

    B. S. Acharya, “M theory, G(2)-manifolds and four-dimensional physics,”Class. Quant. Grav.19 (2002) 5619–5653

    2002

  85. [93]

    Issues on orientifolds: On the brane construc- tion of gauge theories with SO(2n) global symmetry,

    A. Hanany and A. Zaffaroni, “Issues on orientifolds: On the brane construc- tion of gauge theories with SO(2n) global symmetry,” JHEP 07 (1999) 009, hep-th/9903242

    1999 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Magnetic Lattices for Orthosymplectic Quivers,

    A. Bourget, J. F. Grimminger, A. Hanany, R. Kalveks, M. Sperling, and Z. Zhong, “Magnetic Lattices for Orthosymplectic Quivers,”JHEP 12 (2020) 092, 2007.04667

    2020 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Mirrors of 3d Sicilian theories,

    F. Benini, Y. Tachikawa, and D. Xie, “Mirrors of 3d Sicilian theories,”JHEP 09 (2010) 063, 1007.0992

    2010 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Complex Symplectic Contractions and 3d Mirrors,

    A. Dancer, J. F. Grimminger, J. Martens, and Z. Zhong, “Complex Symplectic Contractions and 3d Mirrors,”2406.09626

    arXiv

  89. [97]

    6dN = (1, 0) theories on T 2 and class S theories: Part I,

    K. Ohmori, H. Shimizu, Y. Tachikawa, and K. Yonekura, “6dN = (1, 0) theories on T 2 and class S theories: Part I,”JHEP 07 (2015) 014, 1503.06217

    2015 arXiv

  90. [98]

    upcoming,

    M. De Marco, M. Del Zotto, J. F. Grimminger, and A. Sangiovanni, “upcoming,”

  91. [99]

    Five-dimensional scfts and gauge theory phases: an m-theory/type iia perspective,

    C. Closset, M. Del Zotto, and V. Saxena, “Five-dimensional scfts and gauge theory phases: an m-theory/type iia perspective,”SciPost Physics6 (May, 2019)

    2019

  92. [100]

    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. B 492 (1997) 152–190, hep-th/9611230. 84

    1997 arXiv

  93. [101]

    (Symplectic) Leaves and (5d Higgs) Branches in the Poly(go)nesian Tropical Rain Forest,

    M. van Beest, A. Bourget, J. Eckhard, and S. Schafer-Nameki, “(Symplectic) Leaves and (5d Higgs) Branches in the Poly(go)nesian Tropical Rain Forest,” JHEP 11 (2020) 124, 2008.05577. 85

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.