Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 45 references

Teukolsky-like equations with various spins in a deformed Kerr spacetime

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single Teukolsky-like master equation unifies all massless spin fields on a radially deformed Kerr spacetime.

desk verdict A useful unified spin-s Teukolsky equation on a deformed Kerr background, conditional on the spin-2 separable gauge; the gap is real but not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17878 v1 pith:D6MQFR7G submitted 2024-12-23 gr-qc

Hiroaki Nakajima , Ya Guo , Wenbin Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords deformedKerrmetricTeukolskymasterequationNewman-Penroseformalismspin-weightedspheroidalharmonicsPetrovtypeDseparablegaugeradialsingularitiesblackholeperturbationtheory
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 scalar, neutrino, electromagnetic, and gravitational perturbations on a Kerr metric deformed by an arbitrary radial function $L(r)$ all obey a single Teukolsky-like master equation (Eq. (3.34)/(3.40)). The equation is built from Newman-Penrose quantities and, after a rescaling by $\bar{\rho}^{|s|-s}$, separates into the standard spin-weighted spheroidal harmonic angular equation and a radial ODE that depends on the deformation only through $L$, $L'$, and $L''$. When $L(r)=r^2-2Mr+a^2$, both pieces reduce to the standard Teukolsky equations on Kerr. If the result is right, perturbation calculations for all massless spin fields on this deformed background can be run with one separated radial equation rather than separate formalisms for each spin.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin-$s$ differential operator in Eq. (3.40): a combination of the Newman-Penrose directional derivatives $\Delta$, $D$, $\bar\delta$, $\delta$ with spin-coefficient shifts, minus $(1+3s+2s^2)\Psi_2$ and $2(1-3|s|+2|s|^2)\Lambda$. The rescaling $\psi(s)=\bar{\rho}^{|s|-s}\tilde\psi(s)$ removes the $|s|$-dependent derivative terms, which is what makes the explicit PDE (3.41) separable. For $s=\pm2$ the decoupling also assumes the separable gauge conditions (3.27) and (3.32), imported from the earlier study of this background; all dependence on the deformation then sits in the radial equation through $L(r)$, $L'(r)$ and $L''(r)$.

What would settle it

Take a small deformation $L(r)=r^2-2Mr+a^2+\epsilon\,\delta L(r)$, expand the gauge conditions (3.27) and (3.32) to first order in $\epsilon$, and solve for the perturbed spin coefficients and tetrad; if the conditions have no nontrivial solution for a smooth $\delta L(r)$, the paper's claim fails for that deformation. A numerical evolution of the linearised Einstein equations on the deformed background compared with the prediction of (3.41) for $s=\pm2$ would settle the question independently.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Eq. (3.40) is a unified master equation for all massless spins on the deformed Kerr metric (2.1). After substituting the background tetrads, it becomes the explicit PDE (3.41); for homogeneous fields the separation ansatz $\psi_{(s)}=e^{-i\omega t}e^{im\varphi}R(r)S(\theta)$ produces the angular equation (3.44), whose solutions are the spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics ${}_{s}S^{\omega}_{lm}(\theta,\varphi)$, and the radial equation (3.43), generalised to (3.53) with a source. The paper also claims that the singularity structure of the radial equation is controlled by the zeros and poles of $\tilde L(z)$: simple roots give regular singular points, coincident roots give irregular ones, the origin is a regular singular point whose exponent depends on $n$ and $s$, and infinity is an irregular singular point of Poincaré rank one. The local solution behaviours around the zeros and at infinity match the Kerr forms, with the deformation entering only through the connection coefficients.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on the separable gauge conditions (3.27) and (3.32) being genuinely satisfiable for any deformation $L(r)$ appearing in (2.1); if they are not, the unified master equation (3.34)/(3.40) is not established for the gravitational $s=\pm2$ case, even though the lower-spin equations may remain valid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gravitational, electromagnetic, neutrino, and scalar perturbations on any background of the form (2.1) can be treated with the same separated radial equation, so a single numerical routine can cover all spins by varying $s$ and $L(r)$.
  • Quasinormal-mode and scattering computations reduce to the radial ODE (3.53) with the known spin-weighted spheroidal eigenvalues, and the standard Kerr results are recovered exactly when $L(r)=r^2-2Mr+a^2$.
  • The near-horizon and asymptotic solution behaviours are universal: the exponents and the $z^{\mp s}e^{\pm i z_*}$ falloffs coincide with the Kerr-Teukolsky forms, so waveform extraction at infinity follows the same pattern.
  • The singularity classification gives a practical diagnostic: for a truncated post-Newtonian form $\tilde L(z)=z^{-n}P_{n+2}(z)$, the roots of $P_{n+2}$ are the regular or irregular singular points, $z=0$ is a regular singular point, and infinity is always irregular of Poincaré rank one.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the consistency of the separable gauge (3.27)/(3.32) is the main risk; one can test it order by order in a perturbative deformation around Kerr, and if an obstruction appears, the unified equation would still describe spins $|s|\le 1$ but not gravitational perturbations.
  • Editorial inference: the angular part being exactly the spin-weighted spheroidal equation independent of $L(r)$ suggests the deformed background inherits a hidden symmetry from the type-D structure, rather than the separation being a gauge artifact.
  • Editorial inference: the connection problem of the radial equation with extra singular points could be attacked with the same CFT/gauge-theory methods used for Kerr quasinormal modes; a concrete check would be to compare the first few deformed quasinormal frequencies with the small-deformation limit of (3.53).
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies massless wave equations of spins s = 0, ±1/2, ±1, ±2 on the deformed Kerr metric (2.1), in which the Kerr function r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 is replaced by a general radial function L(r). After deriving the individual Newman-Penrose equations (3.7), (3.11), (3.16), (3.22), (3.26), (3.28), (3.30), and (3.33), the authors combine them into the unified operator equation (3.34). A rescaling ψ = ¯ρ^{|s|−s}ψ̃ simplifies this to (3.40), whose explicit coordinate form (3.41) separates into the spin-weighted spheroidal harmonic angular equation (3.44) and the radial equation (3.43)/(3.53). The paper further analyzes the singularity structure of the radial equation under a truncated large-r expansion of L(r) and obtains near-horizon and asymptotic behaviors. In the Kerr limit L(r) = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2, the equations reduce to the standard Teukolsky master equation and radial equation.

Significance. If the derivation is sound, the paper provides a single Teukolsky-like master equation for all massless spins on a non-vacuum, Petrov-type-D axisymmetric background that is a natural deformation of Kerr. The angular part is universal and governed by the standard spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics, while the radial part depends only on L(r), which is convenient for black-hole perturbation theory and effective-one-body applications. The algebraic consistency of (3.34) with the individual spin equations and the reduction to the Kerr Teukolsky equation are explicit and checkable; no constants are fitted and no target result is assumed as an input. The singularity analysis, though based on a truncated expansion, gives a useful qualitative picture and correctly reproduces the confluent Heun structure in the Kerr limit.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4, Eqs. (3.27), (3.28), (3.30), (3.32)] The spin ±2 equations are imported from Ref. [13] under the separable-gauge conditions (3.27) and (3.32). The manuscript states that these are gauge choices, but it does not prove that for arbitrary L(r) in (2.1) there exists a tetrad/coordinate gauge satisfying both conditions simultaneously, nor that the conditions impose no restriction on the physical perturbation. Since (3.34), (3.40), and (3.41) incorporate the s = ±2 branch through (3.28) and (3.30), the central claim is contingent on this unproven existence. The authors should either provide a proof of the consistency of the separable gauge for generic L(r) or explicitly state the restricted class of deformations for which the master equation is guaranteed to describe gravitational perturbations.
  2. [§3.5, Eq. (3.41)] The transition from the operator form (3.40) to the explicit PDE (3.41) is not shown. The final result is reassuringly consistent in the Kerr limit and the separation of variables works, but a reader cannot verify the coefficients involving L'(r) and L''(r), the s-dependent t- and φ-derivative terms, or the Λ-coefficient without repeating a lengthy Newman-Penrose computation. Because (3.41) is the main explicit new equation of the paper, the intermediate substitution steps or an appendix containing them should be included.
  3. [§4, Eqs. (4.2)–(4.5)] The singularity classification is carried out on the truncated expansion (4.3), not on the exact L(r), and the paper itself notes in footnote 1 that artificial zeros can arise from the termination. However, subsequent statements such as 'z = 0 always appears as the regular singularity' are worded as general conclusions. Please clarify which singularity statements are rigorous properties of the exact radial equation and which are properties of the truncated or Padé-approximated model. This caveat does not affect the master-equation claim in (3.40)–(3.41), but it is important for the reliability of §4.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§3.5, after Eq. (3.41)] The text says that (3.41) with s = ±2 differs from the equation in 'our previous study [11]', whereas the Introduction refers to the previous deformed-Kerr study as Ref. [13]. Please check which reference is intended and correct the citation.
  2. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors and broken line breaks, e.g., 'back ground' in the abstract, 'the the positive' in the Introduction, and 'gravitationa l' in §3. A careful proofread is needed.
  3. [§4, Eq. (4.25)] The case n = 1, |s| = 2 is described as producing a logarithm, but the displayed exponent z^{1+s/2} should be checked: for s = ±2, the exponent is z^2 or z^0, respectively, and the log term should be confirmed against the Frobenius analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the unified master equation is a compact summary of previously derived spin equations, with the s=±2 branch transparently imported from the authors' own prior work under a stated gauge.

full rationale

The derivation is algebraic and self-contained except for the s=±2 input. The Newman-Penrose quantities for metric (2.1) are given in (2.5)-(2.12), and the spin 0, ±1/2, ±1 equations are derived in Sections 3.1-3.3. For s=±2, the paper states 'We take the separable gauge [13] as (3.27)' and 'Under the separable gauge, the wave equation ... is (3.28)', importing the decoupled gravitational perturbation equations from the authors' previous JCAP paper. This is a stated prior result, not a restatement of the paper's conclusion. The unified equation (3.34) is explicitly constructed from the individual equations (3.7), (3.11), (3.16), (3.22), (3.26), (3.28), and (3.33), so it is a compact notation rather than a circular derivation; it does not assume the conclusion. The rescaling (3.39) is obtained by solving the two first-order conditions (3.38), not by fitting. The explicit PDE (3.41) reduces to the standard Teukolsky equation in the Kerr limit L = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2, an external consistency check; the angular equation (3.44) is identified with the known spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics, and the eigenvalue expansion (3.49) is taken from [24,25], independent of the authors. No empirical data are fitted and no target quantity is used as an input. The only caveat is that existence of the separable gauge (3.27)/(3.32) for arbitrary L(r) is not proved here; as the Summary admits, the study is restricted to A=1 and the tetrad (2.3) is assumed. This is an unproven assumption or derivation gap, not circularity. Score 2 reflects the low but nonzero self-citation burden.

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

No numbers are fitted to data and no new physical entities are postulated. The analysis depends on the deformed Kerr ansatz, the type D and Goldberg-Sachs conditions, and the separable gauge imported from [13].

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Background metric is the deformed Kerr form (2.1) with arbitrary L(r) and Petrov type D conditions (2.5)-(2.12).
    The whole calculation uses this ansatz. The paper verifies type D but does not justify L(r) as a solution of any specific matter theory.
  • standard math Non-vacuum Goldberg-Sachs conditions κ=λ=σ=ν=0 hold, giving the simplified Newman-Penrose relations in (2.5).
    Cited to [20-23] and used in deriving the wave equations for spins ±1/2 and ±1 in vacuum-like form.
  • ad hoc to paper The separable gauge conditions (3.27) and (3.32) can be imposed consistently for arbitrary L(r).
    Imported from the authors' prior work [13]. It is the load-bearing premise for the s=±2 master equations (3.28) and (3.30) and hence for the unified equation (3.34).
  • domain assumption The conformal factor A(r,θ) in (2.13) is identically unity, so the Ricci-tensor components obey (2.10).
    Stated in Section 2 and revisited in Section 5. The derivation does not cover A≠1 except for the spherically symmetric case.
  • domain assumption For the singularity analysis, ~L(z) is approximated by a truncated expansion z^{-n}P_{n+2}(z) whose roots α_k are assumed to be simple.
    Section 4. The authors note possible artificial zeros from truncation and assume single roots for simplicity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Teukolsky-like equations with various spins in a deformed Kerr spacetime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D6MQFR7G

@misc{pith2026241217878,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Teukolsky-like equations with various spins in a deformed Kerr spacetime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D6MQFR7G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17878}
}
read the original abstract

We study the wave equations with the various spins on the background of the Kerr metric deformed by a function of the radial coordinate, on which background we have studied the gravitational-wave equations previously. We obtain the unified expression of the Teukolsky-like master equations and the corresponding radial equations with various spins. We find that taking the separable gauge introduced in previous study simplifies the unified form. We also discuss the structure of the radial equation as an ordinary differential equation, such as the existence of the regular and the irregular singularities of the equation and the behavior of the solution around each singularity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Y. Guo, H. Nakajima and W. Lin, JCAP 02, 046 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2024/02/046 [arXiv:2309.06237 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Abbott et al

    B. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no.6, 061102 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 [arXiv:1602.03837 [gr- qc]]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [2]

    Y. Mino, M. Sasaki, M. Shibata, H. Tagoshi and T. Tanaka, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 128, 1-121 (1997) doi:10.1143/PTPS.128.1 [arXiv:gr-qc/9712057 [gr-q c]]

    arXiv 1997

  4. [3]

    Buonanno and T

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 62, 064015 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.064015 [arXiv:gr-qc/0001013 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2000

  5. [4]

    Damour, Phys

    T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 64, 124013 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.124013 [arXiv:gr-qc/0103018 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2001

  6. [5]

    Damour, Phys

    T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 94, no.10, 104015 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.104015 [arXiv:1609.00354 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [6]

    Classification of spaces defined by gravitational fields,

    A. Z. Petrov, “Classification of spaces defined by gravitational fields,” Uch. Zapiski Kazan Gos. Univ. 144, 55 (1954)

    work page 1954

  8. [7]

    Newman and R

    E. Newman and R. Penrose, J. Math. Phys. 3, 566 (1962) doi:10.1063/1.1724257

    doi:10.1063/1.1724257 1962

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J. 185, 635 (1973) doi:10.1086/152444

    1973 doi

  2. [9]

    J. Jing, S. Chen, M. Sun, X. He, M. Wang and J. Wang, Sci. China Ph ys. Mech. Astron. 65, no.6, 260411 (2022) doi:10.1007/s11433-022-1885-6 [arXiv:2112 .09838 [gr-qc]]

    2022 doi

  3. [10]

    J. Jing, S. Long, W. Deng, M. Wang and J. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 65, no.10, 100411 (2022) doi:10.1007/s11433-022-1951-1 [arXiv:220 8.02420 [gr-qc]]

    2022 doi

  4. [11]

    Y. Guo, H. Nakajima and W. Lin, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, no.7, 270412 (2023) doi:10.1007/s11433-023-2087-8 [arXiv:2301.08318 [gr-qc]]. 16

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Teukolsky-like equations with va rious spins in spherically symmetric spacetime,

    Y. Guo, H. Nakajima and W. Lin, “Teukolsky-like equations with va rious spins in spherically symmetric spacetime,” to appear in Chin. Phys. C doi:10.108 8/1674- 1137/ad2a61 [arXiv:2309.04758 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    J. Jing, W. Deng, S. Long and J. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. As tron. 66, no.7, 270411 (2023) doi:10.1007/s11433-023-2084-1 [arXiv:2305.03225 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    C. M. Harris and P. Kanti, JHEP 10, 014 (2003) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/10/014 [arXiv:hep-ph/0309054 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  8. [16]

    E. C. Vagenas, A. Farag Ali, M. Hemeda and H. Alshal, Annals Phys . 432, 168574 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2021.168574 [arXiv:2008.09853 [hep-th]]

    2021

  9. [17]

    Arbey, J

    A. Arbey, J. Auffinger, M. Geiller, E. R. Livine and F. Sartini, Phys . Rev. D 103, no.10, 104010 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.104010 [arXiv:2101 .02951 [gr-qc]]

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    G. Q. Li and J. X. Mo, Astrophys. Space Sci. 336, 441-445 (2011) doi:10.1007/s10509- 011-0784-9

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    Lectures on General Relativity,

    F. A. E. Pirani, “Lectures on General Relativity,” Brandeis Summ er Institute in Theoretical Physics, 1964

    1964

  12. [20]

    Kundt and A

    W. Kundt and A. Thompson, C. R. Acad. Sci. (Paris) 254, 4257 (1962)

    1962

  13. [21]

    Robinson and A

    I. Robinson and A. Schild, J. Math. Phys. 4, 484 (1963)

    1963

  14. [22]

    J. N. Goldberg and R. K. Sachs, Acta Phys. Polon. Suppl. 22, 13 (1962)

    1962

  15. [23]

    Stephani, D

    H. Stephani, D. Kramer, M. A. H. MacCallum, C. Hoenselaers and E. Herlt, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003, ISBN 978-0-521-46702-5, 978-0- 511-05917-9 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511535185

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    Seidel, Class

    E. Seidel, Class. Quant. Grav. 6, 1057 (1989) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/6/7/012

    1989 doi

  17. [25]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso and M. Casals, Phys. Rev. D 73, 024013 (2006) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 73, 109902 (2006)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.109902 [arXiv:gr-qc/05 11111 [gr-qc]]

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    Heun’s Differential Equations,

    A. Ronveaux, “Heun’s Differential Equations,” Oxford Universit y Press, Oxford, New York, October 1995

    1995

  19. [27]

    The algebraic structure of the tensor of ma tter,

    J. F. Pleba´ nski, “The algebraic structure of the tensor of ma tter,” Acta Phys. Polon. 26, 963 (1964). 17

    1964

  20. [28]

    Sulla teoria e sulla classificazione delle omografie in uno s pazio lineare ad un numero qualcunque di dimensioni,

    C. Segre, “Sulla teoria e sulla classificazione delle omografie in uno s pazio lineare ad un numero qualcunque di dimensioni,” Memorie della R. Accademia dei Lin cei, ser. 3a XIX, 127 (1884)

  21. [29]

    Kinnersley, J

    W. Kinnersley, J. Math. Phys. 10, 1195-1203 (1969) doi:10.1063/1.1664958

    1969 doi

  22. [30]

    Arbey, J

    A. Arbey, J. Auffinger, M. Geiller, E. R. Livine and F. Sartini, Phys . Rev. D 104, no.8, 084016 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.084016 [arXiv:2107.0 3293 [gr-qc]]

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Cardoso, K

    V. Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. P. Macedo and A. Mase lli, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.6, L061501 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.L061501 [arXiv:210 9.00005 [gr-qc]]

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Cardoso, K

    V. Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. Panosso Macedo and A . Maselli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, no.24, 241103 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.241103 [arXiv:2210.01133 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Destounis, A

    K. Destounis, A. Kulathingal, K. D. Kokkotas and G. O. Papadop oulos, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.8, 084027 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.084027 [arXiv:221 0.09357 [gr- qc]]

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Figueiredo, A

    E. Figueiredo, A. Maselli and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.10, 104033 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.104033 [arXiv:2303.08183 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bonelli, C

    G. Bonelli, C. Iossa, D. P. Lichtig and A. Tanzini, [arXiv:2105.04483 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bonelli, C

    G. Bonelli, C. Iossa, D. Panea Lichtig and A. Tanzini, Commun. Mat h. Phys. 397, no.2, 635-727 (2023) doi:10.1007/s00220-022-04497-5 [arXiv:220 1.04491 [hep-th]]

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Fucito and J

    F. Fucito and J. F. Morales, JHEP 03, 106 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2024)106 [arXiv:2311.14637 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Y. F. Bautista, G. Bonelli, C. Iossa, A. Tanzini and Z. Zhou, Phy s. Rev. D 109, no.8, 084071 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.084071 [arXiv:2312.0 5965 [hep-th]]

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Seiberg and E

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 426, 19-52 (1994) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 430, 485-486 (1994)] doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)90124-4 [arXiv:hep -th/9407087 [hep- th]]

    1994

  32. [40]

    Seiberg and E

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 431, 484-550 (1994) doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(94)90214-3 [arXiv:hep-th/9408099 [hep-th]]

    1994 arXiv

  33. [41]

    N. A. Nekrasov, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 7, no.5, 831-864 (2003) doi:10.4310/ATMP.2003.v7.n5.a4 [arXiv:hep-th/0206161 [hep-th]]

    2003 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Nekrasov and A

    N. Nekrasov and A. Okounkov, Prog. Math. 244, 525-596 (2006) doi:10.1007/0-8176- 4467-9 15 [arXiv:hep-th/0306238 [hep-th]]. 18

    2006 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Quantization of integrab le systems and four dimensional gauge theories,

    N. A. Nekrasov and S. L. Shatashvili, “Quantization of integrab le systems and four dimensional gauge theories,” XVIth International Congress on Ma thematical Physics, World Scientific, March 2010, pp. 265-289

    2010

  36. [44]

    L. F. Alday, D. Gaiotto and Y. Tachikawa, Lett. Math. Phys. 91, 167-197 (2010) doi:10.1007/s11005-010-0369-5 [arXiv:0906.3219 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Gaiotto, J

    D. Gaiotto, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 462, no.1, 012014 (2013) doi:10.1088/1742- 6596/462/1/012014 [arXiv:0908.0307 [hep-th]]. 19

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.