Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Tree-level S matrix for $\lambda$-deformed AdS3 strings

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For λ-deformed AdS3 strings, tree-level worldsheet scattering is purely elastic, confirming integrability for 0≤λ<1.

desk verdict First tree-level S matrix for supersymmetric λ-deformed AdS3×S3×T4; the main integrability claim rests on numerical spot-checks rather than analytic proof, but the computation is careful and the λ→1 caution is worth taking seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.27846 v2 pith:E54YB4LH submitted 2026-06-26 hep-th

Marco Costantino , Silvia Penati , Alessandro Sfondrini This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords λ-deformationAdS3×S3×T4superstringworldsheetS-matrixlight-conegaugeintegrabilityclassicalYang-Baxterequationtree-levelscatteringnon-AbelianT-duality
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 tries to establish that the supersymmetric λ-deformation of the AdS3×S3×T4 superstring remains integrable after gauge-fixing, at least at tree level. It computes the two-to-two bosonic worldsheet S-matrix in the light-cone gauge and finds that, for 0≤λ<1, every non-elastic amplitude — reflection or particle production — vanishes, so the S-matrix is diagonal and trivially satisfies the classical Yang–Baxter equation. This matters because integrability is the main tool available for quantizing superstring backgrounds with Ramond-Ramond flux, and a tree-level check is the first nontrivial test any exact S-matrix proposal must pass. The paper verifies the cancellation numerically for sampled momenta and λ values, and also argues that the λ→1 limit of the S-matrix is ill-defined, suggesting that the geometric link to the non-Abelian T-dual does not lift to the worldsheet theory.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the uniform light-cone gauge-fixed Hamiltonian expanded around the pp-wave limit: a quadratic piece H(2) fixing the free spectrum and a quartic piece H(4) generating two-to-two scattering. The central objects are the dispersion relations ω±(p) and ω0=|p|, which kinematically allow non-elastic on-shell solutions; the S-matrix is decomposed into transmission T, reflection R, and inelastic I. The argument rests on the exact cancellation of R and I after delta-function integration, leaving only T.

What would settle it

Compute the explicit tree-level amplitudes at a point not covered by the paper's numerical grid — for instance at p=±√m, at λ extremely close to 0 or 1, or for mixed branch processes — and find a non-zero reflection or inelastic amplitude. Alternatively, find an admissible null geodesic (satisfying the metric-signature constraint |ρ|>1) for the non-Abelian T-dual background, which would contradict the paper's claim that no light-cone gauge exists in the λ→1 limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that for generic 0≤λ<1, the tree-level bosonic worldsheet S-matrix of the supersymmetric λ-deformed background is purely elastic: all reflection and inelastic amplitudes vanish after the energy-momentum delta functions are integrated, leaving only transmission. The resulting diagonal S-matrix trivially satisfies the classical Yang–Baxter equation, which the paper reads as confirmation that integrability survives quantization at this order. The vanishing is verified numerically for various values and combinations of incoming momenta and for different λ; no analytic proof is given. For λ→1, the quartic Hamiltonian and the S-matrix become ill-defined, and the paper argues no ad

Load-bearing premise

The paper's elastic-scattering conclusion rests on numerically verified vanishing of reflection and inelastic amplitudes for sampled momenta and λ values; if some unsampled branch or momentum produces a non-zero non-elastic amplitude, the claim that the tree-level S-matrix is purely elastic would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The vanishing of non-elastic amplitudes means the tree-level S-matrix is diagonal; since a diagonal matrix trivially solves the classical Yang–Baxter equation, the light-cone worldsheet theory is integrable at this order.
  • The computed transmission amplitudes provide a concrete tree-level benchmark that any proposed exact all-loop S-matrix for the λ-deformed background must reproduce.
  • At λ=0 the results reduce to known pure-NSNS results, so the deformation interpolates consistently between the WZW point and the deformed regime.
  • The ill-defined λ→1 S-matrix implies the non-Abelian T-dual geometry cannot be reached by taking the deformation limit at the level of the worldsheet S-matrix.
  • The tree-level computation is a necessary first step toward including fermionic and higher-order contributions, which the paper leaves open.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the numerically observed cancellations hold analytically, they likely reflect a hidden deformed symmetry at the worldsheet level; an exact S-matrix could be bootstrapped from symmetry plus this elastic ansatz.
  • The same cancellation pattern appears in other deformed models, so the mechanism might be generic for integrable λ-deformations; a symbolic proof of R=I=0 would unify these cases.
  • The λ→1 obstruction could be bypassed by choosing a different light-cone gauge or a different (possibly complex) geodesic; testing that would clarify whether the non-Abelian T-dual string is simply not light-cone quantizable.
  • The numerical checks in the paper could be upgraded to a finite algebraic verification by substituting the explicit amplitude expressions at generic momenta, which would remove the main residual uncertainty.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper computes the tree-level bosonic worldsheet S-matrix for the supersymmetric λ-deformed AdS3×S3×T4 superstring in the uniform light-cone gauge. Using the λ-deformed background of Itsios–Sfetsos–Siampos, the authors expand the gauge-fixed Hamiltonian around a pp-wave limit to quartic order in transverse fields, solve the free equations to obtain the dispersion relations ω± and ω0, and evaluate two-to-two amplitudes at order 1/T. The central claim is that, after integrating the energy-conservation delta function, all reflection and inelastic amplitudes vanish for 0≤λ<1, so the S-matrix is purely elastic, reflectionless, diagonal, and trivially satisfies the classical Yang–Baxter equation, thereby confirming tree-level compatibility with integrability. The paper further claims that the λ→1 limit of the S-matrix is ill-defined, and interprets this as evidence that the non-Abelian T-dual geometry is not obtained as a full worldsheet dynamical limit. The main cancellation is supported only by finite numerical checks, and the explicit vertex expressions are omitted.

Significance. If established analytically, the result would be a valuable check of classical integrability for a non-trivial one-parameter deformation of AdS3×S3×T4 and a benchmark for future exact S-matrix proposals. The derivation of the quartic Hamiltonian and of the dispersion relations from the known background is a substantial computation, no fitted parameters enter, and the λ=0 comparison with earlier results provides a useful consistency check. However, the central claim rests on an unproven algebraic cancellation: the paper's finite numerical verification cannot by itself establish that all off-diagonal amplitudes vanish identically, and the omission of the vertex expressions makes the computation non-reproducible from the text. A supplementary analytic or computer-algebra proof would be needed to make the paper self-contained.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6, Eq. (55), footnote 8] The central claim of the paper is that R^{φψ}_{βα}=I^{φψ}_{αβ}=0 after the energy-delta integration, leading to the diagonal S-matrix and the classical Yang–Baxter conclusion. The only evidence offered is the statement that the vanishing 'has been verified numerically for various values and combinations of p1 and p2, as well as for different values of the deformation parameter λ', while footnote 8 says the vertex expressions are not reported. This is not sufficient: each amplitude is an algebraic function of p1, p2 and the parameters (through b, m, μ, ω), so a finite sample cannot prove the numerator is identically zero; a non-zero polynomial can vanish on the sampled points. The issue is especially delicate at the branch boundaries p=±√m where ω− is non-analytic and for the inelastic branch in Eq. (50). The authors should provide the explicit vertices (at least as a supplementary file)
  2. [Sec. 7, Eqs. (69) and discussion of null geodesics] The conclusion that no suitable null geodesic exists for the non-Abelian T-dual background is used to support the abstract's claim that the λ→1 limit does not capture the full worldsheet dynamics. The search in Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 7 appears to rely on a restricted ansatz: no acceleration, motion only along γ and γ̃, and only two solutions are found, one of which is discarded. For the dual metric (69), only one attempted solution is described. This does not establish exhaustiveness. Either provide a derivation showing that the geodesic equations force the discarded or strictly forbidden configuration under the stated regularity assumptions, or soften the claim to 'the natural pp-wave geodesic used for 0≤λ<1 does not survive the limit.' This issue is secondary to the main computation but is part of the paper's advertised conclusions.
  3. [Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 6 (gauge parameter a)] The light-cone gauge parameter a is left free throughout, and the final amplitudes in Eqs. (57), (62), (64), and (67) depend explicitly on a through c1...c4 and the explicit a terms. Since a parametrizes equivalent light-cone gauges, the on-shell amplitudes — and in particular the claimed vanishing of R and I — should be checked for a-independence, or the value of a used in the numerical verification should be stated. If the amplitudes depend on a, the status of the S-matrix as a gauge-invariant observable needs discussion. At minimum, the numerical checks should be repeated for different values of a, or an analytic argument for a-independence should be given.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (8)] The parenthetical '(∂τ f(τ)= ḟ(τ))' is tautological; presumably the no-acceleration condition is ∂²τ f=0. Please correct.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The phrase 'oscillation' in the caption appears to be a typo; it should read 'for λ=0.25 and λ=0.75' or similar.
  3. [Sec. 2 heading] The heading 'The underformed model' should read 'The undeformed model'.
  4. [Eq. (67)] The expression for T^{XX} is typeset ambiguously; the denominator should be written with explicit parentheses or brackets so that the intended fraction is unambiguous.
  5. [Eq. (69)] In the dual metric, 'cosh ˜β2' and 'sinβ2' should be written as cosh²β̃ and sin²β; the current notation is confusing.
  6. [Sec. 6.3] The statement that 'for λ=0 our results reduce to those of [49,50]' is not demonstrated in detail. Given the complexity of the amplitudes, a short verification or a reference to supplementary material would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the S-matrix computation is self-contained given the external [33] background, and the numerical cancellation check is a correctness limitation, not a circular step.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain and found no step where a claimed output is equivalent by construction to an input, or where a fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The background metric, B-field, dilaton, and RR statement are taken from Ref. [33], which is an external supergravity paper and is used as an input, not as an output of the present S-matrix computation. The light-cone Hamiltonian and quartic vertex (Eqs. (26), (32)) are expanded explicitly from that background, and the transmission, reflection, and inelastic entries are then computed from those vertices via canonical quantization. The central claim that reflection and inelastic amplitudes vanish is supported only numerically ("has been verified numerically for various values and combinations of the incoming momenta p1 and p2, as well as for different values of the deformation parameter λ") and the vertex expressions are not printed ("Given their complicated expressions, we avoid reporting them explicitly"). These are honest limitations and correctness risks, but they are not circularity: the vanishing is not assumed to define the S matrix, nor is any parameter fitted to force it. The λ=0 limit is checked against the external [49] result and the overlapping-author [50] benchmark; that comparison tests the computed transmission entries and is not the basis of the deformed-model conclusion. The λ→1 ill-defined limit is derived from the explicit singular behaviour of the Hamiltonian coefficients and the geodesic analysis, not from a self-citation-driven uniqueness theorem. Self-citations appear only as benchmarks, reviews, and prior undeformed or related models, none of which is load-bearing for the central elastic-S-matrix claim. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

No fitted constants enter the calculation: λ is the physical deformation parameter and a is a gauge choice. The inputs are the background of Ref. [33] and standard light-cone perturbation theory. No new particles, forces, or entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • light-cone gauge parameter a = generic real (unspecified)
    Introduced in eq. (11) to parametrize the uniform light-cone gauge. Physical amplitudes should be independent of a, but this is not demonstrated; all amplitudes in Section 6 depend on a through the c_i and g_i coefficients.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The λ-deformed metric, B-field, dilaton and RR fluxes from Ref. [33] solve the type II supergravity equations for 0≤λ<1.
    Input background used in Section 2 without re-derivation; the S-matrix computation inherits any error in this background.
  • domain assumption Classical integrability of the sigma model before gauge fixing, as established in the literature, is used to frame the expectation of elasticity.
    Referenced in the Introduction and used as a guiding principle, but not used as an input in the computation itself.
  • domain assumption The 1/T expansion around the pp-wave limit is a valid perturbative scheme, and the quartic Hamiltonian H^(4) in eq. (32) gives the complete O(1/T) tree-level S matrix.
    Standard light-cone perturbation theory, invoked in Sections 3 and 5; no higher-order checks or error bounds are given.
  • domain assumption The Fradkin–Tseytlin term and RR flux couplings do not contribute to the bosonic tree-level S matrix at this order.
    Stated in Section 2 ('we can neglect the contribution of the Fradkin–Tseytlin term... and we will not need the explicit form of the RR fluxes'), but not demonstrated explicitly.
  • domain assumption The torus directions can be treated as R^4 for the perturbative S matrix, so that SO(4) invariance fixes the massless amplitudes.
    Footnote 9 in Section 6.2 notes that the torus is treated as R^4 for this purpose; valid only perturbatively.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tree-level S matrix for $\lambda$-deformed AdS3 strings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E54YB4LH

@misc{pith2026260627846,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tree-level S matrix for $\lambda$-deformed AdS3 strings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E54YB4LH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.27846}
}
abstract

We consider the supersymmetric $\lambda$-deformation of $\text{AdS}_3 \times \text{S}^3 \times \text{T}^4$ superstrings and compute its perturbative bosonic tree-level worldsheet S matrix in the light-cone gauge. For generic values of $0 \leq \lambda < 1$, we show that the worldsheet scattering remains compatible with integrability due to a non-trivial cancellation of non-elastic scattering processes. By contrast, the S matrix becomes ill-defined for $\lambda \to 1$, despite the fact that this limit reproduces the non-Abelian T-dual geometry up to an analytic continuation. This suggests that the $\lambda \to 1$ limit does not capture the full worldsheet dynamics of the T-dual theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.27846 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Group velocity v−(p) = ∂ω−/∂p oscillation for λ = 0.25 (blue), and λ = 0.75 (red). The jump discontinuities indicate the presence of different branches in the ω− dispersion relation, which can be treated as distinct types of particles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. On the left we plot the dispersion relations (44) obtained by setting λ = 0 in the general expression (35). The yellow line indicates ω+, whereas the blue line is ω−. On the right we interpret the particles on the same slope as part of the same branch (see eq. (45)), in line with refs. [36, 49]. Particles of the non-Abelian T-dual model (λ → 1). While at the level of string background the λ → 1 limit requires some c… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 46 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity

    Juan Martin Maldacena. The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., 2:231–252, 1998.arXiv:hep-th/9711200,doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998. v2.n2.a1

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Strings in AdS(3) and SL(2,R) WZW model 1.: The Spectrum.J

    Juan Martin Maldacena and Hirosi Ooguri. Strings in AdS(3) and SL(2,R) WZW model 1.: The Spectrum.J. Math. Phys., 42:2929–2960, 2001.arXiv:hep-th/0001053,doi:10.1063/1. 1377273

    arXiv 2001

  3. [3]

    Figueroa-O’Farrill, Christopher Hull, and George Papadopoulos

    Matthias Blau, Jose M. Figueroa-O’Farrill, Christopher Hull, and George Papadopoulos. Pen- rose limits and maximal supersymmetry.Class. Quant. Grav., 19:L87–L95, 2002.arXiv: hep-th/0201081,doi:10.1088/0264-9381/19/10/101

    arXiv 2002

  4. [4]

    R. R. Metsaev and Arkady A. Tseytlin. Exactly solvable model of superstring in Ramond- Ramond plane wave background.Phys. Rev. D, 65:126004, 2002.arXiv:hep-th/0202109, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.126004

    arXiv 2002

  5. [5]

    Foundations of the AdS 5 ×S 5 Superstring

    Gleb Arutyunov and Sergey Frolov. Foundations of the AdS 5 ×S 5 Superstring. Part I.J. Phys. A, 42:254003, 2009.arXiv:0901.4937,doi:10.1088/1751-8113/42/25/254003

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    Review of AdS/CFT Integrability: An Overview.Lett

    Niklas Beisert et al. Review of AdS/CFT Integrability: An Overview.Lett. Math. Phys., 99:3–32, 2012.arXiv:1012.3982,doi:10.1007/s11005-011-0529-2

    arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Zamolodchikov and Alexei B

    Alexander B. Zamolodchikov and Alexei B. Zamolodchikov. Factorized s Matrices in Two- Dimensions as the Exact Solutions of Certain Relativistic Quantum Field Models.Annals Phys., 120:253–291, 1979.doi:10.1016/0003-4916(79)90391-9

    doi:10.1016/0003-4916(79)90391-9 1979

  8. [8]

    A. B. Zamolodchikov. Thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz in Relativistic Models. Scaling Three State Potts and Lee-yang Models.Nucl. Phys. B, 342:695–720, 1990.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90) 90333-9

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90 1990

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    On String S-matrix, Bound States and TBA.JHEP, 12:024, 2007.arXiv:0710.1568,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/12/024

    Gleb Arutyunov and Sergey Frolov. On String S-matrix, Bound States and TBA.JHEP, 12:024, 2007.arXiv:0710.1568,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/12/024

    2007 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Integrable deformations of sigma models.J

    Ben Hoare. Integrable deformations of sigma models.J. Phys. A, 55(9):093001, 2022.arXiv: 2109.14284,doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ac4a1e

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Seibold and Alessandro Sfondrini

    Fiona K. Seibold and Alessandro Sfondrini. AdS3 integrability tensionless limits, and de- formations: A review. InMATRIX Book Series, volume 7, 8 2024.arXiv:2408.08414, doi:10.1007/978-3-032-16202-1_5

    2024

  4. [12]

    Retore, Fiona K

    Saskia Demulder, Sibylle Driezen, Bob Knighton, Gerben Oling, Ana L. Retore, Fiona K. Sei- bold, Alessandro Sfondrini, and Ziqi Yan. Exact approaches on the string worldsheet.J. Phys. A, 57(42):423001, 2024.arXiv:2312.12930,doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ad72be. 15 IOP PublishingJourna...

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Towards a two-parameter q-deformation of AdS 3 ×S 3 ×M 4 superstrings.Nucl

    Ben Hoare. Towards a two-parameter q-deformation of AdS 3 ×S 3 ×M 4 superstrings.Nucl. Phys. B, 891:259–295, 2015.arXiv:1411.1266,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.12.012

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Integrable deformations of theG k1 × Gk2 /Gk1+k2 coset CFTs.Nucl

    Konstantinos Sfetsos and Konstantinos Siampos. Integrable deformations of theG k1 × Gk2 /Gk1+k2 coset CFTs.Nucl. Phys. B, 927:124–139, 2018.arXiv:1710.02515,doi:10.1016/ j.nuclphysb.2017.12.011

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Fiona K. Seibold. Two-parameter integrable deformations of theAdS 3 ×S 3 ×T 4 superstring. JHEP, 10:049, 2019.arXiv:1907.05430,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2019)049

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Seibold, and Arkady A

    Ben Hoare, Fiona K. Seibold, and Arkady A. Tseytlin. Integrable supersymmetric deformations of AdS3×S 3×T 4.JHEP, 09:018, 2022.arXiv:2206.12347,doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)018

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ben Hoare, Nat Levine, and Fiona K. Seibold. Bi-ηand bi-λdeformations ofZ 4 permutation supercosets.JHEP, 04:024, 2023.arXiv:2212.08625,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2023)024

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Seibold and Alessandro Sfondrini

    Fiona K. Seibold and Alessandro Sfondrini. Interpolating families of integrable AdS 3 back- grounds.J. Phys. A, 58(23):235401, 2025.arXiv:2502.07103,doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ addb96

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Integrable interpolations: From exact CFTs to non-Abelian T-duals.Nucl

    Konstadinos Sfetsos. Integrable interpolations: From exact CFTs to non-Abelian T-duals.Nucl. Phys. B, 880:225–246, 2014.arXiv:1312.4560,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.01.004

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hollowood, J

    Timothy J. Hollowood, J. Luis Miramontes, and David M. Schmidtt. Integrable Defor- mations of Strings on Symmetric Spaces.JHEP, 11:009, 2014.arXiv:1407.2840,doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2014)009

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Thompson

    Konstantinos Sfetsos and Daniel C. Thompson. Spacetimes forλ-deformations.JHEP, 12:164, 2014.arXiv:1410.1886,doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2014)164

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hollowood, J

    Timothy J. Hollowood, J. Luis Miramontes, and David M. Schmidtt. An Integrable Deformation of theAdS 5 ×S 5 Superstring.J. Phys. A, 47(49):495402, 2014.arXiv:1409.1538,doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/47/49/495402

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    S-matrix for strings onη-deformed AdS5 x S5.JHEP, 04:002, 2014.arXiv:1312.3542,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)002

    Gleb Arutyunov, Riccardo Borsato, and Sergey Frolov. S-matrix for strings onη-deformed AdS5 x S5.JHEP, 04:002, 2014.arXiv:1312.3542,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)002

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Yang-Baxter sigma models and dS/AdS T duality.JHEP, 12:051, 2002.arXiv: hep-th/0210095,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/12/051

    Ctirad Klimcik. Yang-Baxter sigma models and dS/AdS T duality.JHEP, 12:051, 2002.arXiv: hep-th/0210095,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/12/051

    2002 arXiv

  17. [25]

    An integrable deformation of theAdS 5 ×S 5 superstring action.Phys

    Francois Delduc, Marc Magro, and Benoit Vicedo. An integrable deformation of theAdS 5 ×S 5 superstring action.Phys. Rev. Lett., 112(5):051601, 2014.arXiv:1309.5850,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.112.051601

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Jordanian deformations of the AdS5xS5 superstring.JHEP, 04:153, 2014.arXiv:1401.4855,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014) 153

    Io Kawaguchi, Takuya Matsumoto, and Kentaroh Yoshida. Jordanian deformations of the AdS5xS5 superstring.JHEP, 04:153, 2014.arXiv:1401.4855,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014) 153

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    van Tongeren

    Stijn J. van Tongeren. On classical Yang-Baxter based deformations of the AdS 5 ×S 5 super- string.JHEP, 06:048, 2015.arXiv:1504.05516,doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2015)048

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Affineq-deformed symmetry and the classical Yang-Baxterσ-model.JHEP, 03:126, 2017.arXiv:1701.03691, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2017)126

    Francois Delduc, Takashi Kameyama, Marc Magro, and Benoit Vicedo. Affineq-deformed symmetry and the classical Yang-Baxterσ-model.JHEP, 03:126, 2017.arXiv:1701.03691, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2017)126

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Thompson

    Konstantinos Sfetsos, Konstantinos Siampos, and Daniel C. Thompson. Generalised integrableλ - andη-deformations and their relation.Nucl. Phys. B, 899:489–512, 2015.arXiv:1506.05784, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.08.015

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hoare, R

    B. Hoare, R. Roiban, and A. A. Tseytlin. On deformations ofAdS n xS n supercosets.JHEP, 06:002, 2014.arXiv:1403.5517,doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2014)002

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hoare and A

    B. Hoare and A. A. Tseytlin. On integrable deformations of superstring sigma models related to AdSn ×S n supercosets.Nucl. Phys. B, 897:448–478, 2015.arXiv:1504.07213,doi:10.1016/ j.nuclphysb.2015.06.001. 16 IOP PublishingJournal of Physics ACostantinoet al

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Deformed integrableσ-models, classical R-matrices and classical exchange algebra on Drinfel’d doubles.J

    Benoit Vicedo. Deformed integrableσ-models, classical R-matrices and classical exchange algebra on Drinfel’d doubles.J. Phys. A, 48(35):355203, 2015.arXiv:1504.06303,doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/48/35/355203

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Supersymmetric backgrounds fromλ-deformations.JHEP, 01:084, 2024.arXiv:2310.17700,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2024) 084

    Georgios Itsios, Konstantinos Sfetsos, and Konstantinos Siampos. Supersymmetric backgrounds fromλ-deformations.JHEP, 01:084, 2024.arXiv:2310.17700,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2024) 084

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    The complete AdS3×S 3×T 4 worldsheet S matrix.JHEP, 10:066, 2014.arXiv:1406.0453,doi:10.1007/ JHEP10(2014)066

    Riccardo Borsato, Olof Ohlsson Sax, Alessandro Sfondrini, and Bogdan Stefanski. The complete AdS3×S 3×T 4 worldsheet S matrix.JHEP, 10:066, 2014.arXiv:1406.0453,doi:10.1007/ JHEP10(2014)066

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    The complete worldsheet S matrix of superstrings on AdS 3×S 3×T 4 with mixed three-form flux.Nucl

    Thomas Lloyd, Olof Ohlsson Sax, Alessandro Sfondrini, and Bogdan Stefa´ nski, Jr. The complete worldsheet S matrix of superstrings on AdS 3×S 3×T 4 with mixed three-form flux.Nucl. Phys. B, 891:570–612, 2015.arXiv:1410.0866,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.12.019

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Integrable spin chain for stringy Wess-Zumino-Witten models.JHEP, 07:109, 2018.arXiv:1806.00422,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)109

    Andrea Dei and Alessandro Sfondrini. Integrable spin chain for stringy Wess-Zumino-Witten models.JHEP, 07:109, 2018.arXiv:1806.00422,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)109

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Hollowood, Dafydd Price, and Daniel C

    Calan Appadu, Timothy J. Hollowood, Dafydd Price, and Daniel C. Thompson. Yang Baxter and Anisotropic Sigma and Lambda Models, Cyclic RG and Exact S-Matrices.JHEP, 09:035, 2017.arXiv:1706.05322,doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2017)035

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Strings in flat space and pp waves from N=4 superYang-Mills.JHEP, 04:013, 2002.arXiv:hep-th/0202021, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/04/013

    David Eliecer Berenstein, Juan Martin Maldacena, and Horatiu Stefan Nastase. Strings in flat space and pp waves from N=4 superYang-Mills.JHEP, 04:013, 2002.arXiv:hep-th/0202021, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/04/013

    2002 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Seibold, Stijn J

    Fiona K. Seibold, Stijn J. van Tongeren, and Yannik Zimmermann. On quantum deformations of AdS3 ×S 3 ×T 4 and mirror duality.JHEP, 09:110, 2021.arXiv:2107.02564,doi:10.1007/ JHEP09(2021)110

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Uniform light-cone gauge for strings in AdS(5) x S**5: Solv- ingSU(1|1) sector.JHEP, 01:055, 2006.arXiv:hep-th/0510208,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/ 2006/01/055

    Gleb Arutyunov and Sergey Frolov. Uniform light-cone gauge for strings in AdS(5) x S**5: Solv- ingSU(1|1) sector.JHEP, 01:055, 2006.arXiv:hep-th/0510208,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/ 2006/01/055

    2006 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Strings on NS-NS Backgrounds as Integrable Defor- mations.Phys

    Marco Baggio and Alessandro Sfondrini. Strings on NS-NS Backgrounds as Integrable Defor- mations.Phys. Rev. D, 98(2):021902, 2018.arXiv:1804.01998,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98. 021902

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Frolov.T TDeformation and the Light-Cone Gauge.Proc

    Sergey A. Frolov.T TDeformation and the Light-Cone Gauge.Proc. Steklov Inst. Math., 309(1):107–126, 2020.arXiv:1905.07946,doi:10.1134/S0081543820030098

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Scattering in integrable pp-wave backgrounds: S- matrix and absence of particle production.Nucl

    George Georgiou and Konstantinos Sfetsos. Scattering in integrable pp-wave backgrounds: S- matrix and absence of particle production.Nucl. Phys. B, 987:116096, 2023.arXiv:2208.01072, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2023.116096

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Retore, and Fiona K

    Ben Hoare, Ana L. Retore, and Fiona K. Seibold. Elliptic deformations of the AdS 3 ×S 3 ×T 4 string.JHEP, 04:042, 2024.arXiv:2312.14031,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2024)042

    2024

  37. [45]

    Particle production in a light-cone gauge fixed Jordanian deformation of AdS5×S5.Phys

    Riccardo Borsato and Sibylle Driezen. Particle production in a light-cone gauge fixed Jordanian deformation of AdS5×S5.Phys. Rev. D, 111(8):086010, 2025.arXiv:2412.08411,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.111.086010

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Ben Hoare and Fiona K. Seibold. Supersymmetry and integrability of the elliptic AdS 3×S 3× T4 superstring.JHEP, 02:139, 2026.arXiv:2507.18548,doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2026)139

    2026

  39. [47]

    Hofman and Juan Martin Maldacena

    Diego M. Hofman and Juan Martin Maldacena. Giant Magnons.J. Phys. A, 39:13095–13118, 2006.arXiv:hep-th/0604135,doi:10.1088/0305-4470/39/41/S17

    2006 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Towards the All-Loop Worldsheet S Matrix forAdS 3 ×S 3 ×T 4.Phys

    Riccardo Borsato, Olof Ohlsson Sax, Alessandro Sfondrini, and Bogdan Stefanski. Towards the All-Loop Worldsheet S Matrix forAdS 3 ×S 3 ×T 4.Phys. Rev. Lett., 113(13):131601, 2014. arXiv:1403.4543,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.131601

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Hoare and A

    B. Hoare and A. A. Tseytlin. On string theory onAdS 3 ×S 3 ×T 4 with mixed 3-form flux: tree-level S-matrix.Nucl. Phys. B, 873:682–727, 2013.arXiv:1303.1037,doi:10.1016/j. nuclphysb.2013.05.005. 17 IOP PublishingJournal of Physics ACostantinoet al

    2013 arXiv

  42. [50]

    On the worldsheet S matrix of the AdS 3/CFT2 mixed-flux mirror model.JHEP, 05:237, 2024.arXiv:2308.15927, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)237

    Nicola Baglioni, Davide Polvara, Andrea Pone, and Alessandro Sfondrini. On the worldsheet S matrix of the AdS 3/CFT2 mixed-flux mirror model.JHEP, 05:237, 2024.arXiv:2308.15927, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)237

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Near BMN dynamics of the AdS(3) x S(3) x S(3) x S(1) superstring.JHEP, 07:159, 2012.arXiv:1204.4742,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012) 159

    Nitin Rughoonauth, Per Sundin, and Linus Wulff. Near BMN dynamics of the AdS(3) x S(3) x S(3) x S(1) superstring.JHEP, 07:159, 2012.arXiv:1204.4742,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012) 159. 18

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.