Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 62 references

The paper identifies the admissible twists of the BFSS and IKKT matrix models and matches their minimally twisted sectors to twisted IIA and IIB supergravity.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 20:45 UTC pith:G7WEMXJR

load-bearing objection Solid BV cohomology for twisted BFSS/IKKT, but the IIA/IIB identification rests on program conjectures and the abstract overstates it; still worth refereeing. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.22318 v3 pith:G7WEMXJR submitted 2026-02-25 hep-th math-phmath.MP

Twisting BFSS & IKKT

Fabian Hahner , Natalie M. Paquette This is my paper
classification hep-th math-phmath.MP
keywords twisted holographyBFSS matrix modelIKKT matrix modelBV-BRST cohomologyBCOV theorytwisted supergravitytopological descentlarge-N duality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper initiates a twisted-holography analysis of the two central matrix dualities: the IKKT matrix model (D(-1)-branes / IIB string theory) and the BFSS matrix quantum mechanics (D0-branes / M-theory). Working in the planar limit and in perturbation theory around the trivial background, it classifies the square-zero twisting supercharges (nilpotent supersymmetry generators that select protected subsectors), computes the BV-BRST cohomology of the twisted theories, and identifies the minimally twisted single-trace sectors with twisted supergravity: minimal BCOV-type theory on C^5 for IKKT/IIB, and minimal BCOV-type theory on C^4 times de Rham forms on R^2 for BFSS/IIA. The non-minimal twists are shown to be cohomologically acyclic, so trivial in a formal neighborhood of field space, with BFSS still carrying observables constructed by topological descent. If the identifications hold, the protected sectors of these matrix models are controlled by infinite-dimensional symmetry algebras (such as super-divergence-free vector fields on C^{5|5}), which should pin down large-N BPS three-point functions.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the protected subsectors of the BFSS and IKKT dualities are perturbatively isomorphic to twisted IIA and IIB supergravity. For IKKT, the gauge-invariant cohomology of the minimal twist is the cyclic cohomology of the algebra C[θ1,...,θ5], which maps to holomorphic polyvector fields on C^5 and, via a spectral sequence with the divergence operator, to the BV complex of minimal BCOV theory; this is the conjectural holomorphic twist of IIB. For BFSS, the same chain gives minimal BCOV on C^4 times the de Rham complex on R^2, identified with the SU(4) twist of IIA, and the paper shows these IIA twists arise as zero-mode truncations of the two twists of 11d supergr

What carries the argument

The engine is the open-closed duality chain run on the twisted gauge theory. Single-trace gauge-invariant operators are identified, via the standard cyclic-cohomology/Lie-algebra cohomology theorem, with the cyclic cohomology of the algebra of twisted fields; the Hochschild-cohomology theorem identifies that cyclic cohomology with holomorphic polyvector fields on C^d; and a spectral sequence with the divergence operator converts the polyvector fields into the BV complex of BCOV theory, (PV^{•,•}(C^d)[[t]], ∂̄ + t ∂_Ω), tensored with (Ω^•(R^2), d) in the BFSS case. This is the mechanism by which a point brane 'knows about' its ambient geometry. The minimal models of these complexes are infini

Load-bearing premise

The identification of the matrix-model twists with IIA/IIB string theory depends on the conjectures that BCOV theory on C^5 is the holomorphic twist of IIB and that BCOV on C^4 × (Ω^•(R^2), d) is the SU(4) twist of IIA, together with the open-closed duality conjecture that cyclic cohomology of the twisted gauge theory equals the twisted closed-string fields; so far these are checked only at the free supergravity level.

What would settle it

Compute the full interacting BV-BRST cohomology of the holomorphic twist of type IIB supergravity and compare it with minimal BCOV theory on C^5: any extra cohomology classes or interaction vertices that cannot be identified would falsify the IKKT match. Similarly, finding a nonzero cohomology class in the Spin(7)-twist of type IIB supergravity would falsify the claim that this twist is perturbatively trivial.

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

If this is right

  • If the match holds, minimal IKKT and BFSS twisted sectors are exactly BCOV-type theories on C^5 and C^4 × R^2, giving concrete field-content descriptions of the protected subsectors.
  • The infinite-dimensional symmetry algebras in the twisted duals, such as SHO(C^{5|5}), are large enough to fix large-N BPS three-point functions.
  • Non-minimal twists are perturbatively trivial in field space; for BFSS all nontrivial protected observables come from topological descent, so their correlation functions compute intersection numbers on the fixed-moduli space.
  • The BFSS IIA twists are zero-mode truncations of the two twists of 11d supergravity, connecting the matrix model's protected sector to twisted M-theory.
  • Minimal BFSS and IKKT are related by T-duality (A-model on R×S^1 ↔ B-model on C^×), consistent with D0/D(-1) brane equivalence.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same cyclic-cohomology chain could be applied to other reduced or dimensionally reduced SYM models, such as Dp-brane matrix models, to predict their twisted gravitational duals.
  • The acyclicity of the non-minimal twists suggests that their physical content lives in global field-space geometry; a derived-algebraic-geometry treatment of the moduli stack may expose nonperturbative observables that local perturbation theory misses.
  • The identification of the IIA twists as truncations of 11d twists suggests that a direct twist of the BFSS matrix model might capture more of the minimal 11d twist than the IIA reduction alone, potentially testable by matching symmetry algebras.
  • The T-duality relation between the two matrix twists could be probed at the level of operator algebras, giving a matrix-model realization of twisted S-duality.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper initiates a study of twisted holography for the BFSS and IKKT matrix models. After classifying square-zero supercharges, the authors compute the linearized twisted BV complexes for the minimal and non-minimal twists in each model. For the minimal twists, they identify the cohomology with the fields of a dimensionally reduced holomorphic Chern–Simons theory: C[θ1,...,θ5]⊗gl_N for IKKT and Ω•(R)⊗C[θ1,...,θ4]⊗gl_N for BFSS. They then use the Loday–Quillen–Tsygan theorem, Hochschild–Kostant–Rosenberg, and the Connes spectral sequence to map single-trace operators to BCOV-type complexes: (PV•,•(C5)[[t]], ∂bar + t∂Ω) for IKKT and (PV•,•(C4)[[t]], ∂bar + t∂Ω) ⊗ (Ω•(R2), d) for BFSS. Non-minimal twists are shown to have acyclic BV complexes; the paper argues that the corresponding supergravity twists are perturbatively trivial, deferring a detailed IIB computation to forthcoming work. Section 4 relates the BFSS minimal twist to the SU(4)-twist of IIA supergravity via dimensional reduction of the minimal twist of 11d supergravity, and discusses T-duality to the IIB side.

Significance. If the proposed identifications hold, the paper would be a substantial step: it gives explicit twisted holography for BFSS and IKKT, exposes infinite-dimensional symmetry algebras such as SHO(C^{5|5}) and divergence-free vector fields, and suggests that large-N BPS three-point functions in these models are constrained by the protected subsector. The matrix-model computations are explicit, self-contained, and internally consistent; the acyclic-pair bookkeeping in §2.3.2 and §3.3.1 checks out, and the paper contains no fitted parameters. The authors are also transparent about many of the conjectural inputs. However, the advertised central claim—that the matrix-model twists are 'identified' with corresponding twists of IIA/IIB string theories—is stronger than what is actually established. The matching is made at the level of cochain complexes, while the interacting L∞ structure is not shown to match, and the closed-string side relies on the Costello–Li and Costello–Gaiotto conjectures. The paper's computational content is valuable independently of those conjectures, but the central claim needs to be re-scoped.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.4, Eqs. (2.22)–(2.27)] The identification of single-trace operators with CC•(A), and then CC•(A) with the underlying cochain complex of BCOV fields, is a statement about cochain complexes. The LQT theorem (2.22) and the Connes spectral sequence (2.27) do not by themselves establish that the BV differential and brackets of the twisted IKKT model (2.21) are quasi-isomorphic as an L∞ algebra to BCOV theory with the Schouten bracket and interactions (2.28). The sentence 'Interactions can be included ... by equipping both sides with suitable brackets' is an assertion, not a derivation. The same issue applies to the BFSS discussion in §3.4. Since this is the step that converts a cohomology computation into a holographic identification, the manuscript should either provide an explicit L∞ quasi-isomorphism or clearly state that the matching is at cochain level modulo the Costello–Gaiotto open-closed dictionary conject
  2. [Abstract; §2.4, §3.4] The abstract and introduction claim a definitive identification with twists of IIA/IIB string theories, but the body states that BCOV theory on C^5 'is the (conjectural) holomorphic twist of type IIB string theory' and that the SU(4)-twist of IIA is 'conjectured' to be the corresponding BCOV-type theory. These conjectures are checked only at the free supergravity level in [6,7]. The manuscript should visibly qualify the central claim, e.g., 'assuming the Costello–Li conjectures and the Costello–Gaiotto dictionary', so that the reader can distinguish established results (matrix-model cohomology) from conjectural identifications.
  3. [§2.5.3, §3.5.1] For the non-minimal twists, the matrix-model side is computed completely (acyclicity), but the supergravity-side matching is not. The perturbative triviality of the Spin(7)-twist of IIB supergravity is deferred to the authors' forthcoming work [41]; for IIA, §3.5.1 gives a heuristic argument from the residual supertranslation algebra and the statement 'we expect'. Without these supergravity computations, the claim that the non-minimal twists are 'matched' with corresponding twists of IIA/IIB is not supported. The paper should either include the supergravity-side computation or explicitly label these as conjectural predictions.
  4. [§2.4, Eqs. (2.27), (2.30)] The gauge-theory single-trace computation yields the full BCOV complex (2.27), while the supergravity twist computed in [6] is minimal BCOV (2.30). The paper explains that the difference is expected to encode massive string modes, but the introduction states that the IKKT twist is matched with 'minimally twisted type IIB supergravity'. The truncation from full to minimal BCOV is an extra step that is not derived. Please clarify whether the claimed identification is with full string theory (where the conjecture involves full BCOV) or with the supergravity truncation, and justify the truncation if the latter is intended.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.4] Typo: 'Hochshild' should be 'Hochschild'.
  2. [§3.3.1] Typo: 'holommorphically' should be 'holomorphically'.
  3. [§3.5] Typo: 'transfomation' should be 'transformation'.
  4. [Tables 1 and 2] The table captions appear as 'T able 1' and 'T able 2' in the text; formatting should be fixed.
  5. [References] Reference [41] is incomplete: it lists only authors and no title. If it is forthcoming work, it should be marked as such, and the title or preprint number should be provided if available.
  6. [§4.1 diagram] The notation 'C×' in the duality diagram is ambiguous; it should be 'C^×' or 'C^*' (the punctured complex line) to avoid confusion with a product.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the twist-cohomology computations are self-contained; the IIA/IIB identifications are explicitly conjectural external inputs, not outputs forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central computations are the twisted BV complexes of IKKT and BFSS (§2.3, §3.3). These are obtained directly from the BV actions by decomposing fields under the stabilizer of the twisting supercharge, reading off acyclic pairs, and assembling the remaining fields and brackets into C[θ1..θ5]⊗gl_N and Ω•(R)⊗C[θ1..θ4]⊗gl_N. This part is self-contained and does not presuppose the string-theory identifications. The bridge from gauge-invariant single-trace operators to BCOV uses the Loday–Quillen–Tsygan quasi-isomorphism, HKR, and the Connes spectral sequence (2.22)–(2.27); these are external mathematical theorems, not the paper's own conclusions. The final matching step to IIB/IIA string theory is explicitly stated as conjectural: 'BCOV theory on C5 is the (conjectural) holomorphic twist of type IIB string theory in a flat background [1]' (§2.4) and 'It is conjectured to be the SU(4) twist of the type IIA string [1]' (§3.4). Thus the abstract's identification with string theories inherits the Costello–Li and Costello–Gaiotto conjectures; that is an unproven assumption, not circular reasoning, and the cohomological content survives even if those conjectures fail. Self-citations appear ([30] for square-zero elements in IIB supersymmetry, [11] for higher symmetries, [41] for the forthcoming Spin(7)-twist analysis), but none is used to define or fit the matrix-model cohomology. The missing perturbative triviality of the Spin(7)-twist of IIB supergravity is explicitly deferred: 'Further work on this perspective will appear in [41]' (§2.5.3); on the matrix-model side the analogous acyclicity is proven directly in (2.37) and (3.25)–(3.26). There are no fitted parameters, no quantity called a prediction that was used as an input, and no definition in terms of the target result. Accordingly, there is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes explicit computations (twist cohomology tables, acyclicity) and inherits its load-bearing structural identifications from prior conjectures: BCOV = twisted IIB/IIA string theories [1], and the open-closed dictionary [2]. No new physical entities are postulated, and there are no numbers fitted to data. The main unproven ingredient unique to this paper is the IIB Spin(7)-twist acyclicity, deferred to [41].

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption BCOV theory on C⁵ is the (conjectural) holomorphic twist of type IIB string theory in a flat background
    Load-bearing for the IKKT identification (§2.4); conjecture from [1], free-field supergravity check in [6].
  • domain assumption SU(4)-twist of type IIA string theory = BCOV theory on C⁴ × (Ω•(R²), d) (conjectural)
    Load-bearing for the BFSS identification (§3.4); conjectural [1], supergravity-level support in [6,7].
  • domain assumption Open-closed duality: single-trace gauge invariants ↔ closed-string sector via LQT/cyclic cohomology
    The twisted-holography dictionary of [2,3], used in §2.4 and §3.4; the LQT quasi-isomorphism is a theorem, its interpretation as holography is the assumption.
  • standard math Orbit classification of square-zero supercharges into minimal and maximal orbits
    Used in §2.2 and §3.2; Igusa [29] for spinor orbits, [30] for the IIB algebra.
  • domain assumption Perturbative triviality of the Spin(7)-twist of IIB supergravity (fundamental-string-extension acyclicity)
    Asserted in §2.5.3 and §3.5.1 to explain the match between acyclic non-minimal matrix-model twists and trivial supergravity twists; the computation is deferred to the authors' forthcoming [41], so this paper itself provides no derivation.
  • standard math BV-BRST / L∞ framework and homotopy transfer to minimal models
    Standard toolset of the twisted-holography program, used throughout.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 5000 in / 5338 out tokens · 249238 ms · 2026-08-02T20:45:32.824548+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this note we initiate the study of ``twisted holography'' for the dualities involving the BFSS matrix quantum mechanics and the IKKT matrix model in their $N \rightarrow \infty$ limits. We identify the admissible twists of each model, compute their cohomology in the BV-BRST formalism, and identify them -- in the planar limit and in perturbation theory around the trivial background -- with corresponding twists of IIA and IIB string theories, respectively. The twisted gravitational duals make manifest certain infinite dimensional symmetry algebras. In the BFSS example, the dual IIA supergravity twists are also obtained as certain zero mode truncations of the minimal (1/16-BPS) and maximal (1/4-BPS) twists of eleven-dimensional supergravity.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 53 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Costello and S

    K. Costello and S. Li,Twisted supergravity and its quantization,1606.00365

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    Costello and D

    K. Costello and D. Gaiotto,Twisted holography,JHEP01(2025) 087 [1812.09257]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Costello and N.M

    K. Costello and N.M. Paquette,Twisted Supergravity and Koszul Duality: A case study in AdS3,Commun. Math. Phys.384(2021) 279 [2001.02177]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Costello and S

    K. Costello and S. Li,Anomaly cancellation in the topological string,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.24(2020) 1723 [1905.09269]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Costello,M-theory in the Omega-background and 5-dimensional non-commutative gauge theory,1610.04144

    K. Costello,M-theory in the Omega-background and 5-dimensional non-commutative gauge theory,1610.04144

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Saberi and B.R

    I. Saberi and B.R. Williams,Twisting pure spinor superfields, with applications to supergravity,Pure and Applied Mathematics Quarterly20(2024) 645 [2106.15639]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Raghavendran, I

    S. Raghavendran, I. Saberi and B.R. Williams,Twisted Eleven-Dimensional Supergravity, Commun. Math. Phys.402(2023) 1103 [2111.03049]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Eager and F

    R. Eager and F. Hahner,Maximally Twisted Eleven-Dimensional Supergravity,Commun. Math. Phys.398(2023) 59 [2106.15640]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Hahner and I

    F. Hahner and I. Saberi,Eleven-dimensional supergravity as a Calabi–Yau twofold,Selecta Math.31(2025) 38 [2304.12371]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Hahner, S

    F. Hahner, S. Raghavendran, I. Saberi and B.R. Williams,Local superconformal algebras, 2410.08176

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    Hahner, N.M

    F. Hahner, N.M. Paquette and S. Raghavendran,Higher Symmetries in Twisted Eleven-Dimensional Supergravity,SIGMA21(2025) 100 [2506.02246]

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Banks, W

    T. Banks, W. Fischler, S.H. Shenker and L. Susskind,M theory as a matrix model: A conjecture,Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 5112 [hep-th/9610043]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  13. [13]

    Fern´ andez, N.M

    V.E. Fern´ andez, N.M. Paquette and B.R. Williams,Twisted holography on AdS 3 ×S 3×K3 & the planar chiral algebra,SciPost Phys.17(2024) 109 [2404.14318]. – 24 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Ishibashi, H

    N. Ishibashi, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa and A. Tsuchiya,A Large N reduced model as superstring,Nucl. Phys. B498(1997) 467 [hep-th/9612115]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  15. [15]

    Eager, F

    R. Eager, F. Hahner, I. Saberi and B.R. Williams,Perspectives on the pure spinor superfield formalism,Journal of Geometry and Physics180(2022) [2111.01162]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Ciceri and H

    F. Ciceri and H. Samtleben,Holography for the Ishibashi-Kawai-Kitazawa-Tsuchiya Matrix Model,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 061601 [2503.08771]

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Kimura and Y

    Y. Kimura and Y. Kitazawa,Supercurrent interactions in noncommutative Yang-Mills and IIB matrix model,Nucl. Phys. B598(2001) 73 [hep-th/0011038]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  18. [18]

    Kitazawa,Vertex operators in IIB matrix model,JHEP04(2002) 004 [hep-th/0201218]

    Y. Kitazawa,Vertex operators in IIB matrix model,JHEP04(2002) 004 [hep-th/0201218]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  19. [19]

    H. Aoki, S. Iso, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa, A. Tsuchiya and T. Tada,IIB matrix model,Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.134(1999) 47 [hep-th/9908038]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  20. [20]

    Nishimura,New perspectives on the emergence of (3+1)D expanding space-time in the Lorentzian type IIB matrix model,PoSCORFU2019(2020) 178 [2006.00768]

    J. Nishimura,New perspectives on the emergence of (3+1)D expanding space-time in the Lorentzian type IIB matrix model,PoSCORFU2019(2020) 178 [2006.00768]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Anagnostopoulos, T

    K.N. Anagnostopoulos, T. Azuma, K. Hatakeyama, M. Hirasawa, Y. Ito, J. Nishimura et al., Progress in the numerical studies of the type IIB matrix model,Eur. Phys. J. ST232(2023) 3681 [2210.17537]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Hartnoll and J

    S.A. Hartnoll and J. Liu,The polarised IKKT matrix model,JHEP03(2025) 060 [2409.18706]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Komatsu, A

    S. Komatsu, A. Martina, J. Penedones, A. Vuignier and X. Zhao,Einstein gravity from a matrix integral. Part II,JHEP12(2025) 030 [2411.18678]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Komatsu, A

    S. Komatsu, A. Martina, J. Penedones, A. Vuignier and X. Zhao,Einstein gravity from a matrix integral. Part I,JHEP12(2025) 029 [2410.18173]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Elliott and P

    C. Elliott and P. Yoo,Geometric Langlands twists ofN= 4gauge theory from derived algebraic geometry,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.22(2018) 615 [1507.03048]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Alfonsi and C.A.S

    L. Alfonsi and C.A.S. Young,Towards non-perturbative BV-theory via derived differential geometry,2307.15106

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Eager, I

    R. Eager, I. Saberi and J. Walcher,Nilpotence varieties,Annales Henri Poincar´ e22(2021) 1319 [1807.03766]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Elliott and P

    C. Elliott and P. Safronov,Topological twists of supersymmetric algebras of observables, Commun. Math. Phys.371(2019) 727 [1805.10806]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Igusa,A Classification of Spinors Up to Dimension Twelve,American Journal of Mathematics92(1970) 997

    J.-I. Igusa,A Classification of Spinors Up to Dimension Twelve,American Journal of Mathematics92(1970) 997

    1970

  30. [30]

    Hahner,On square-zero elements in the IIB supersymmetry algebra,2511.05659

    F. Hahner,On square-zero elements in the IIB supersymmetry algebra,2511.05659

    arXiv

  31. [31]

    Baulieu,SU(5)-invariant decomposition of ten-dimensional Yang-Mills supersymmetry, Phys

    L. Baulieu,SU(5)-invariant decomposition of ten-dimensional Yang-Mills supersymmetry, Phys. Lett. B698(2011) 63 [1009.3893]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  32. [32]

    Eager and I

    R. Eager and I. Saberi,Holomorphic field theories and Calabi–Yau algebras,International Journal of Modern Physics A(2019) [1805.02084]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Ginot, O

    G. Ginot, O. Gwilliam, A. Hamilton and M. Zeinalian,Large n phenomena and quantization of the loday-quillen-tsygan theorem,Advances in Mathematics409(2022) 108631 [2108.12109]. – 25 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Paquette and B.R

    N.M. Paquette and B.R. Williams,Koszul duality in quantum field theory.,Confluentes Math.14(2023) 87 [2110.10257]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Costello and S

    K.J. Costello and S. Li,Quantum BCOV theory on Calabi-Yau manifolds and the higher genus B-model,1201.4501

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Quantization of open-closed BCOV theory, I

    K. Costello and S. Li, “Quantization of open-closed BCOV theory, I.” 2015

    2015

  37. [37]

    Bershadsky, S

    M. Bershadsky, S. Cecotti, H. Ooguri and C. Vafa,Kodaira–Spencer theory of gravity and exact results for quantum string amplitudes,Comm. Math. Phys.165(1994) 311

    1994

  38. [38]

    Raghavendran and P

    S. Raghavendran and P. Yoo,Minimal models for minimal BCOV theories,2410.11837

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    Cushing, G.W

    J. Cushing, G.W. Moore, M. Roˇ cek and V. Saxena,Superconformal Gravity And The Topology Of Diffeomorphism Groups,2311.08394

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    Hahner, S

    F. Hahner, S. Noja, I. Saberi and J. Walcher,Six-dimensional Supermultiplets from Bundles on Projective Spaces,Commun. Math. Phys.406(2025) 31 [2206.08388]

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Hahner, N.M

    F. Hahner, N.M. Paquette, S. Raghavendran and I. Saberi

  42. [42]

    Seiberg,Why is the matrix model correct?,Phys

    N. Seiberg,Why is the matrix model correct?,Phys. Rev. Lett.79(1997) 3577 [hep-th/9710009]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  43. [43]

    Sen,D0-branes onT n and matrix theory,Adv

    A. Sen,D0-branes onT n and matrix theory,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 51 [hep-th/9709220]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  44. [44]

    Susskind,Another conjecture about M(atrix) theory,hep-th/9704080

    L. Susskind,Another conjecture about M(atrix) theory,hep-th/9704080

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    Paban, S

    S. Paban, S. Sethi and M. Stern,Constraints from extended supersymmetry in quantum mechanics,Nucl. Phys. B534(1998) 137 [hep-th/9805018]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  46. [46]

    Kabat and W

    D.N. Kabat and W. Taylor,Linearized supergravity from matrix theory,Phys. Lett. B426 (1998) 297 [hep-th/9712185]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  47. [47]

    Taylor and M

    W. Taylor and M. Van Raamsdonk,Supergravity currents and linearized interactions for matrix theory configurations with fermionic backgrounds,JHEP04(1999) 013 [hep-th/9812239]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  48. [48]

    Taylor,M(atrix) Theory: Matrix Quantum Mechanics as a Fundamental Theory,Rev

    W. Taylor,M(atrix) Theory: Matrix Quantum Mechanics as a Fundamental Theory,Rev. Mod. Phys.73(2001) 419 [hep-th/0101126]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  49. [49]

    Berkooz and M.R

    M. Berkooz and M.R. Douglas,Five-branes in M(atrix) theory,Phys. Lett. B395(1997) 196 [hep-th/9610236]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  50. [50]

    Banks, N

    T. Banks, N. Seiberg and S.H. Shenker,Branes from matrices,Nucl. Phys. B490(1997) 91 [hep-th/9612157]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  51. [51]

    Kabat and W

    D.N. Kabat and W. Taylor,Spherical membranes in matrix theory,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2(1998) 181 [hep-th/9711078]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  52. [52]

    Chepelev and A.A

    I. Chepelev and A.A. Tseytlin,Long distance interactions of D-brane bound states and longitudinal five-brane in M(atrix) theory,Phys. Rev. D56(1997) 3672 [hep-th/9704127]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  53. [53]

    Herderschee and J

    A. Herderschee and J. Maldacena,Three point amplitudes in matrix theory,J. Phys. A57 (2024) 165401 [2312.12592]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Tropper and T

    A. Tropper and T. Wang,Lorentz symmetry and IR structure of the BFSS matrix model, JHEP07(2023) 150 [2303.14200]. – 26 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Herderschee and J

    A. Herderschee and J. Maldacena,Soft theorems in matrix theory,JHEP11(2024) 052 [2312.15111]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Asano, G

    Y. Asano, G. Ishiki and Y. Murayama,Localization of the BFSS matrix model and three-point amplitude in M-theory,2602.11667

    arXiv

  57. [57]

    Maldacena and A

    J. Maldacena and A. Milekhin,To gauge or not to gauge?,JHEP04(2018) 084 [1802.00428]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  58. [58]

    Itzhaki, J.M

    N. Itzhaki, J.M. Maldacena, J. Sonnenschein and S. Yankielowicz,Supergravity and the large N limit of theories with sixteen supercharges,Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 046004 [hep-th/9802042]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  59. [59]

    Polchinski,M theory and the light cone,Prog

    J. Polchinski,M theory and the light cone,Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.134(1999) 158 [hep-th/9903165]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  60. [60]

    Cordes, G.W

    S. Cordes, G.W. Moore and S. Ramgoolam,Lectures on 2-d Yang-Mills theory, equivariant cohomology and topological field theories,Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.41(1995) 184 [hep-th/9411210]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  61. [61]

    Benetti Genolini, P

    P. Benetti Genolini, P. Richmond and J. Sparks,Topological AdS/CFT,JHEP12(2017) 039 [1707.08575]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [62]

    Raghavendran and P

    S. Raghavendran and P. Yoo,Twisted S-duality,SciPost Phys.19(2025) 049 [1910.13653]. – 27 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025