Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 67 references

S-fold line operator indices agree with enhanced N=4 SYM once giant graviton corrections are included, with fundamental strings identified as specific dyonic Wilson-'t Hooft lines.

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

2026-08-03 14:13 UTC pith:JZ35OX5K

load-bearing objection Real new line-defect index computations for S-folds with a clean k=2 anchor, but the k=3 dyonic match rests on an explicit unproved ansatz, so the F1 charge identification is suggestive, not established. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.29067 v1 pith:JZ35OX5K submitted 2026-07-31 hep-th

Line operator indices of S-fold theories

Yosuke Imamura , Masato Inoue , Akihiro Sei This is my paper
classification hep-th MSC 81T6081T3081T1381T40 PACS 11.25.Tq11.30.Pb11.15.-q
keywords S-fold theoriessuperconformal indexline operatorsgiant graviton expansionWilson-'t Hooft linesSchur indexfivebrane junctionsAdS/CFT correspondence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper takes up line operators in S-fold theories — four-dimensional N=3 superconformal theories defined by S-duality orbifolds — and computes their Schur indices from the gravity side. It argues that including singly wrapped giant graviton corrections brings the holographic index of a fundamental-string line into agreement with a specific dyonic Wilson-'t Hooft line index in the enhanced N=4 SYM theories that describe the rank-2 cases. For k=3 the first three terms match exactly; for k=4 and k=6 the agreement improves, with the k=6 gap attributable to omitted monopole bubbling. It also constructs fivebrane-junction configurations for 'fat string' line operators and derives their large-N indices as concrete predictions. If the matching holds, the giant graviton expansion extends from local operators to defects, and line-operator indices become a sharper probe of S-fold dynamics than the 1-form symmetry classification alone.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the fundamental string in AdS5×S5/Zk does not map to the fundamental Wilson line of the enhanced N=4 theory, as naive screening would suggest, but to a genuinely dyonic Wilson-'t Hooft line whose electric and magnetic charges are read from the string-junction lattice without modding out by dynamical charges. Inserting this charge into the minuscule 't Hooft index formula modified by a factor |χ_e|² (Eq 45) yields, for k=3, an index whose first three t-expansion terms coincide exactly with the holographic result including singly wrapped giant gravitons; for k=4 the match improves similarly, and for k=6 the remaining O(t²) discrepancy is attributed to monopole bub

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the giant graviton expansion of the Schur index with a line insertion, adapted to the Z_k quotient: the supergravity index and single-giant-graviton vector-multiplet indices are projected by P_k (Eq 9), while the fundamental-string factor remains the k=1 one. For the gauge-theory side, the load-bearing identity is Eq (45), which generalizes the minuscule 't Hooft index formula by inserting |χ_e|² for the electric weight character, together with the string-junction lattice calculation that fixes the dyonic charge q_F1 of the fundamental string (e.g., Eq 39 for k=3). For fat strings, the key mechanism is the fivebrane junction boundary-value problem: continuity an

Load-bearing premise

The comparison for k=3,4,6 rests on the assumed formula (45), that a dyonic Wilson-'t Hooft index is obtained by inserting |χ_e|² into the minuscule 't Hooft formula with no monopole bubbling; if that formula fails, the apparent agreement does not establish the F1 identification.

What would settle it

Compute the k=6 G2 Wilson-'t Hooft index with monopole bubbling contributions included; if the discrepancy with Eq (68) does not vanish at O(t²), the assumed formula (45) or the F1 charge assignment is wrong. Alternatively, for k=3, include multiply wrapped giant gravitons (mx+my≥2) and check whether the u^7 and u^{-7} terms at O(t^5) cancel, as they must for the expansion to converge.

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

If this is right

  • The fundamental-string line operator in S-fold theories carries a definite dyonic charge; ignoring screening, it is a Wilson-'t Hooft line, not a pure Wilson line.
  • Giant graviton corrections are essential: without them, the holographic index disagrees with the boundary index at order t² for k=3.
  • The agreement for k=3 at the first three orders supports the proposed N=3 to N=4 supersymmetry enhancement for rank-2 S-fold theories.
  • For k=6, the discrepancy at O(t²) is explicitly tied to omitted monopole bubbling effects, marking it as the next target for calculation.
  • The fat-string indices (80)–(82) give the leading large-N line-operator indices for k=3,4,6, providing new predictions for the non-Lagrangian boundary theories.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If Eq (45) survives scrutiny, any dyonic line index in a gauge theory with minuscule magnetic weights can be computed by inserting |χ_e|²; this is a testable conjecture for N=4 SYM with other gauge groups.
  • The decision not to mod out the F1 charge by screening suggests that line-operator indices distinguish operators within the same 1-form symmetry class; this may provide a holographic handle on the full charge lattice, beyond Z_N × Z_N.
  • The k=6 mismatch could be resolved by computing monopole bubbling; if a future calculation brings Eq (66) into agreement with Eq (68), the F1 charge identification q_F1 = -w1 - w2 + m1 + 2m2 is strongly confirmed.
  • The fat-string indices for k≥3 might admit a finite-N completion through giant gravitons, analogous to Eq (70); checking whether the simple-sum form persists for fivebrane defects would extend the paper's method.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes superconformal Schur indices with line-operator insertions for S-fold theories from the AdS5 × S5/Zk dual. For fundamental-string lines, it includes finite-N corrections from singly wrapped giant gravitons and compares the resulting series with line-operator indices in the enhanced N=4 SYM descriptions for k=3,4,6 (rank 2) and with SO(2N) gauge theory for k=2. A central proposal is that the fundamental string corresponds to a dyonic Wilson-’t Hooft line whose electric charge is not reduced by the screening equivalence. For fivebrane (fat-string) lines, the paper constructs (p,q)-fivebrane junction configurations for k≥3 and derives large-N indices by mode analysis. The main quantitative evidence is an exact three-term match for k=3, with partial or preliminary agreement for k=4 and k=6, and numerical checks for k=2.

Significance. If the main claims hold, this is a useful step: it extends the giant-graviton expansion to line-operator indices in non-Lagrangian S-fold theories, provides a dynamical probe that goes beyond the 1-form-symmetry classification of line operators, and gives concrete predictions for fat-string line-operator indices. The k=2 comparison against known SO(2N) line-operator indices is a valuable independent anchor for the giant-graviton expansion, and the explicit fivebrane-junction mode analysis for k≥3 is a substantial technical contribution. The significance is tempered by the fact that the k=3,4,6 comparisons rely on an assumed, unproved dyonic-index formula; the central quantitative claim is therefore conditional on an ansatz that the paper itself labels as an assumption.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4.2, Eq. (45)] The entire k=3,4,6 comparison rests on Eq. (45), introduced by the sentence "We assume that (43) can be generalized to dyonic lines by simply inserting the factor |χ_e|^2". This is not a consequence of the cited minuscule 't Hooft formula (43): no derivation of the |χ_e|^2 insertion is supplied, no monopole-bubbling argument for dyonic charges is given, and the k=2 SO(2N) checks test only pure Wilson lines, not this dyonic formula. Since the pure fundamental-Wilson assignment disagrees with (33), the agreement of Eq. (47) with Eq. (33) could be an artifact of this ansatz. The authors should either derive (45) from localization or a known defect-index formalism, provide an independent benchmark where (45) is verified, or explicitly present the charge identification as a conjecture and weaken the conclusions accordingly.
  2. [§2.4.3–2.4.4] The claims of agreement are stronger than the displayed expansions warrant. For k=4, Eq. (58) and Eq. (52) differ already at O(t^2): the coefficients are 3u^2+3+3/u^2 versus 2u^2+3+2/u^2, before the expected negative-power discrepancies at O(t^3). For k=6, Eq. (66) and Eq. (68) differ at O(t^2), and the text itself calls the comparison preliminary because monopole bubbling is omitted. Thus the k=4 case is not an independent confirmation of the dyonic ansatz, and the k=6 case cannot be used as evidence beyond a mild consistency check. The abstract and introduction should be qualified to state explicitly, for each k, which orders are matched and where the mismatch begins.
  3. [§2.4.2, charge assignment] The dyonic charge qF1 in Eqs. (39), (56), and (61) is adopted after the pure Wilson-line comparison fails, and the screening equivalence Λ_dyn ~ 0 is deliberately not used. This choice changes the line-operator index, but no independent physical criterion is given for why the fundamental-string endpoint should not be screened when computing the index. Since screening-equivalent line operators can have different indices, one needs an argument from the brane realization or from the S-fold projection that the unscreened charge is the correct one. As written, the charge assignment looks selected to match the gravity-side series, which further compounds the risk posed by the assumed formula (45).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (37)] The Dirac pairing list repeats ⟨w1,m2⟩ twice and never gives ⟨w2,m1⟩; one occurrence is presumably a typo.
  2. [Eq. (82)] The displayed t-expansions for the fat-string indices contain no u dependence. Please state explicitly whether u is set to 1 or some other specialization is used.
  3. [§2.4.1 and §2.4.2] Minor wording issues: "It is also the case for the multiply wrapped giant gravitons" is unclear; and "as (Figure 2)" should read "as shown in Figure 2".
  4. [§2.3, Figures 1 and 5] The numerical checks are presented only as leading orders of x at each y order. A few explicit coefficients of the discrepancy would help the reader assess the rate of convergence, especially where the leading order shifts non-monotonically for N=1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction; the k=3 agreement is conditional on an openly stated dyonic-index ansatz, which is a correctness risk rather than a definitional fit.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The k=2 orientifold case is an external anchor: holographic line indices including giant-graviton corrections are compared numerically with the independently known SO(2N) vector/spinor line indices, and the discrepancy orders increase with mmax. This validates the giant-graviton machinery against gauge-theory data that do not enter the calculation. For k=3,4,6, the gravity-side prediction is computed from the large-N supergravity index, the F1 worldsheet contribution I^(α)_F1 in (7), and the single-giant-graviton indices (27); none of these steps uses the boundary Wilson-'t Hooft formula (45). The candidate boundary operator is fixed by an independent junction-lattice expansion of the F1 charge, (39), (56), (61), following [49]. The only genuinely unproven input is Eq. (45), the dyonic generalization of the 't Hooft index by inserting |χ_e|^2, which the paper itself labels as an assumption: 'We assume that (43) can be generalized to dyonic lines by simply inserting the factor |χ_e|^2'. For k=6 the paper explicitly flags monopole bubbling as missing and the comparison as preliminary. An unproven ansatz is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction: (47) is not constructed from (33), and no parameter is fitted to force the agreement. Self-citations ([27], [39], [46], [57], [50]) are present and in places load-bearing, but the cited results are anchored by the paper's own successful no-line comparisons with SU(3)/SO(5)/G2 Schur indices and by the k=2 benchmark, so they count as real evidence rather than circular support. Verdict: no significant circularity; score 2 reflects the unproven dyonic-index assumption and the heavy reliance on prior work by the same authors, not a definitional reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central k>=3 matching depends on an assumed line-index formula, a post hoc charge assignment, and a truncation to single giant gravitons. The k=2 checks provide an independent anchor, but the strongest new predictions inherit these unproven inputs.

free parameters (1)
  • Line operator charge assignment q_F1 = k=3: (1/3,-1/3,-1/3,-2/3); k=4: (1,1/2,1/2,1); k=6: (-1,-1,1,2)
    Chosen by expanding the fundamental-string charge in the junction lattice without screening. The initial Wilson-line identification failed, and this dyonic assignment was adopted post hoc before matching Eq (47).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT correspondence for S-fold theories: type IIB on AdS5 x S5/Z_k is dual to the S-fold SCFT S_{k,1}(N).
    Invoked throughout (Sec 1, Sec 2); standard in prior work [1,2,3,26], not proved here.
  • domain assumption The giant graviton expansion applies to line-operator indices in S-fold backgrounds, including truncation to single wrapping for k>=3.
    Assumed in Eqs (6), (16), (26); multiply wrapped contributions for k>=3 are not computed (Sec 2.4.1, Sec 4).
  • domain assumption The Z_k projection operator P_k in Eq (9) gives the correct projected letter indices for supergravity and giant graviton multiplets.
    Used in Eqs (10), (12), (18), (72); based on [27] and earlier orbifold index work.
  • ad hoc to paper Dyonic Wilson-'t Hooft line index is given by Eq (45), inserting |χ_e|^2 into the minuscule 't Hooft formula without monopole bubbling.
    Stated explicitly as an assumption in Sec 2.4.2; no derivation is provided; central to the k=3,4 comparisons.
  • ad hoc to paper The fundamental-string charge q_F1 should not be screened by the dynamical-particle lattice Λ_dyn when computing the index.
    The paper abandons the 1-form-symmetry equivalence ∼ and keeps the dyonic charge (39), (56), (61); this choice is made because the Wilson-line comparison failed.
  • domain assumption Boundary conditions on (p,q)-fivebrane junctions, Eqs (117)-(130), are the correct supersymmetric conditions for mode analysis.
    Derived in Appendix C from supersymmetry and charge conservation; used to obtain the fat-string index (80).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 35351 in / 12852 out tokens · 125568 ms · 2026-08-03T14:13:05.087212+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study superconformal indices in the presence of line operators in S-fold theories. We consider two types of lines, realized by fundamental strings and fivebranes, respectively, in AdS$_5 \times S^5/\mathbb{Z}_k$. For fundamental lines, we analyze the corresponding indices including finite-$N$ corrections arising from giant graviton configurations. For $k=2$, we compare the holographic results with line operator indices in $\mathcal{N}=4$ super Yang-Mills theories with orthogonal gauge groups. For $k=3,4$ and $6$, we focus on the rank $2$ case, in which the supersymmetry is enhanced to ${\cal N}=4$, and compare them with the corresponding Wilson-'t Hooft line operator indices. In both cases, we find improved agreement once giant graviton contributions are included. For line operators realized by fivebranes, after confirming agreement for $k=2$, we construct BPS configurations for $k\geq 3$ explicitly using fivebrane junctions and derive the indices in the large $N$ limit by the mode analysis on the fivebrane junctions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29067 by Akihiro Sei, Masato Inoue, Yosuke Imamura.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The leading order in x at each order of y in the expansion of ∆ (mmax) SO(2N),vec up to mmax ≤ 5: nx is the leading order in x, and ny is the order in y. increase for N = 2 and N = 3 as we increase mmax. For N = 1, one finds that the leading order occasionally shifts to a lower order when mmax is increased. This behavior is nevertheless expected. This is because the giant graviton index includes negative p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The electric component e and the magnetic component m of the charge qF1 are shown as vectors on the weight lattices of the electric su(3) and the magnetic su(3) = Lsu(3). The vectors labeled by z1, z2, and z3 represent the charges associated with the fugacities z1, z2, and z3 = (z1z2) −1 in (46). qF1 = 1 3 w1 − 1 3 w2 − 1 3 m1 − 2 3 m2. (39) If we allow screening, this would be in the same class as qF1 ∼ q… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The electric component e and the magnetic component m of the charge qF1 are shown as vectors in the weight lattices of so(5) and usp(4) = Lso(5). The vectors labeled by z1 and z2 represent charges associated with the fugacities used in (57). 2.4.4 k = 6 The S-fold theory S6,1(2) is expected to be equivalent to N = 4 SYM with the G2 gauge group. This case is qualitatively different because the candi￾date ga… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The electric component e and the magnetic component m of the charge qF1 are shown as vectors in the weight lattices of G2 and G2 = LG2. The corresponding results on the gravity side are [27] I (m=0) S6,1(2) = 1 + 0t + t 2 + (−2u − 2 u )t 3 + 4t 4 + · · · , I (m≤1) S6,1(2) = 1 + 0t + (u 2 + 1 + 1 u2 )t 2 + (−2u − 2 u )t 3 + (2u + 4 + 2 u )t 4 + · · · (63) The agreement improves once the giant graviton contr… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The leading order in x at each order of y in the expansion of ∆ (mmax) SO(2N),spinor up to mmax ≤ 3: nx is the leading order in x, and ny is the order in y. 3.2 Fat strings for k ≥ 3 Let us consider fat-string type line operators in the S-fold theories with k = 3, 4, 6. Since the boundary-theory description is not understood, we focus on the gravity-side analysis. Furthermore, there is a difficulty in calc… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A fat string of the Z3 S-fold theory configurations. We rotate one of them by an angle π. The two fat strings then carry opposite fivebrane charges on each branch and can annihilate in pairs. This implies that a copy of a fat string carries a Z2-valued charge. For k = 6, Γ6 = 0, and a single fat string has vanishing topological charge. This can be shown as follows. We start from a single fat string configu… view at source ↗

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

67 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N = 3 four dimensional field theories,

    I. Garc ´ ıa-Etxebarria and D. Regalado, “ N = 3 four dimensional field theories,” JHEP 03, 083 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2016)083 [arXiv:1512.06434 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    On four dimensional N = 3 sup ercon- formal theories,

    O. Aharony and M. Evtikhiev, “On four dimensional N = 3 sup ercon- formal theories,” JHEP 04, 040 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)040 [arXiv:1512.03524 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    S-folds and 4d N=3 superconformal field theories,

    O. Aharony, Y. Tachikawa and K. Gomi, “S-folds and 4d N=3 superconformal field theories,” JHEP 06, 044 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2016)044 [arXiv:1602.08638 [hep-th ]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Wilson-’t Hooft operators in four-dimens ional gauge theories and S-duality,

    A. Kapustin, “Wilson-’t Hooft operators in four-dimens ional gauge theories and S-duality,” Phys. Rev. D 74, 025005 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.025005 [arXiv:hep-th/0501015 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    Generalized Global Symmetries,

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg and B. Willett, “Generalized Global Symmetries,” JHEP 02, 172 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)172 [arXiv:1412.5148 [hep-th] ]. 44

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    Reading betwee n the lines of four-dimensional gauge theories,

    O. Aharony, N. Seiberg and Y. Tachikawa, “Reading betwee n the lines of four-dimensional gauge theories,” JHEP 08, 115 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2013)115 [arXiv:1305.0318 [hep-th] ]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    The Large N limit of superconformal field theo- ries and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theo- ries and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231-252 (1998) doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a1 [arXiv:hep-th/9711200 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    Gauge the ory corre- lators from noncritical string theory,

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge the ory corre- lators from noncritical string theory,” Phys. Lett. B 428, 105-114 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00377-3 [arXiv:hep-th/9802 109 [hep-th]]

    doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)00377-3 1998

  9. [9]

    Anti de Sitter space and holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Th eor. Math. Phys. 2, 253-291 (1998) doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a2 [arXiv: hep- th/9802150 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 1998

  10. [10]

    Branes and symmetries for N = 3 S-folds,

    M. Etheredge, I. Garcia Etxebarria, B. Heidenreich and S. Rauch, “Branes and symmetries for N = 3 S-folds,” JHEP 09, 005 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2023)005 [arXiv:2302.14068 [hep-th ]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    The holography of duality in N = 4 Super-Yang-Mills theory,

    O. Bergman and S. Hirano, “The holography of duality in N = 4 Super-Yang-Mills theory,” JHEP 11, 069 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2022)069 [arXiv:2208.09396 [hep-th ]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Wilson loops in large N field theories,

    J. M. Maldacena, “Wilson loops in large N field theories, ” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4859-4862 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.4859 [arXiv:hep-th/9803002 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  13. [13]

    Macroscopic strings as heavy qua rks in large N gauge theory and anti-de Sitter supergravity,

    S. J. Rey and J. T. Yee, “Macroscopic strings as heavy qua rks in large N gauge theory and anti-de Sitter supergravity,” Eur. Phys. J . C 22, 379- 394 (2001) doi:10.1007/s100520100799 [arXiv:hep-th/980 3001 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.1007/s100520100799 2001

  14. [14]

    Baryons and branes in anti-de Sitter space,

    E. Witten, “Baryons and branes in anti-de Sitter space, ” JHEP 07, 006 (1998) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1998/07/006 [arXiv:he p-th/9805112 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 1998

  15. [15]

    Counting chiral primaries in N = 1, d= 4 su- perconformal field theories,

    C. Romelsberger, “Counting chiral primaries in N = 1, d= 4 su- perconformal field theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 747, 329-353 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.03.037 [arXiv:hep-th/0510060 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  16. [16]

    An I ndex for 4 dimensional super conformal theories,

    J. Kinney, J. M. Maldacena, S. Minwalla and S. Raju, “An I ndex for 4 dimensional super conformal theories,” Commun. Math. Phys . 275, 209-254 (2007) doi:10.1007/s00220-007-0258-7 [arXiv:he p-th/0510251 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2007

  17. [17]

    Exact Results for ’t Hooft Loops in Gauge Theories on S4,

    J. Gomis, T. Okuda and V. Pestun, “Exact Results for ’t Hooft Loops in Gauge Theories on S4,” JHEP 05, 141 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2012)141 [arXiv:1105.2568 [hep-th] ]. 45

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  18. [18]

    Line operators on S1 × R3 and quan- tization of the Hitchin moduli space,

    Y. Ito, T. Okuda and M. Taki, “Line operators on S1 × R3 and quan- tization of the Hitchin moduli space,” JHEP 04, 010 (2012) [erratum: JHEP 03, 085 (2016)] doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2016)085 [arXiv:1111.4 221 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2016)085 2012

  19. [19]

    Line Operator Index on S1 ×S3,

    D. Gang, E. Koh and K. Lee, “Line Operator Index on S1 ×S3,” JHEP 05, 007 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2012)007 [arXiv:1201.55 39 [hep- th]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2012)007 2012

  20. [20]

    3-Manifolds and 3d Indices,

    T. Dimofte, D. Gaiotto and S. Gukov, “3-Manifolds and 3d Indices,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 17, no.5, 975-1076 (2013) doi:10.4310/ATMP.2013.v17.n5.a3 [arXiv:1112.5179 [hep -th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    The N = 4 Schur index with Polyakov loops,

    N. Drukker, “The N = 4 Schur index with Polyakov loops,” JHEP 12, 012 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2015)012 [arXiv:1510.024 80 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2015)012 2015

  22. [22]

    Exact N = 2 ∗ Schur line defect correlators,

    Y. Hatsuda and T. Okazaki, “Exact N = 2 ∗ Schur line defect correlators,” JHEP 06, 169 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2023)169 [arXiv:2303.14887 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    N=2 Schur index and line operators,

    Z. Guo, Y. Li, Y. Pan and Y. Wang, “N=2 Schur index and line operators,” Phys. Rev. D 108, no.10, 106002 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.106002 [arXiv:2307.15650 [he p-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Large N and large representa - tions of Schur line defect correlators,

    Y. Hatsuda and T. Okazaki, “Large N and large representa - tions of Schur line defect correlators,” JHEP 01, 096 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2024)096 [arXiv:2309.11712 [hep-th ]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Excitations of bubbling geo metries for line defects,

    Y. Hatsuda and T. Okazaki, “Excitations of bubbling geo metries for line defects,” [arXiv:2311.13740 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Superconformal index of N = 3 orien- tifold theories,

    Y. Imamura and S. Yokoyama, “Superconformal index of N = 3 orien- tifold theories,” J. Phys. A 49, no.43, 435401 (2016) doi:10.1088/1751- 8113/49/43/435401 [arXiv:1603.00851 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    Finite N Corrections to the Supercon- formal Index of S-fold Theories,

    R. Arai and Y. Imamura, “Finite N Corrections to the Supercon- formal Index of S-fold Theories,” PTEP 2019, no.8, 083B04 (2019) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptz088 [arXiv:1904.09776 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Invasion of th e gi- ant gravitons from Anti-de Sitter space,

    J. McGreevy, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, “Invasion of th e gi- ant gravitons from Anti-de Sitter space,” JHEP 0006, 008 (2000) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/06/008 [hep-th/0003075]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  29. [29]

    Giant gravitons from holomorphic surfa ces,

    A. Mikhailov, “Giant gravitons from holomorphic surfa ces,” JHEP 0011, 027 (2000) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/11/027 [hep- th/0010206]. 46

    arXiv 2000

  30. [30]

    Gauge Th eories and Macdonald Polynomials,

    A. Gadde, L. Rastelli, S. S. Razamat and W. Yan, “Gauge Th eories and Macdonald Polynomials,” Commun. Math. Phys. 319, 147-193 (2013) doi:10.1007/s00220-012-1607-8 [arXiv:1110.3740 [hep-t h]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  31. [31]

    The exact Schur in dex of N = 4 SYM,

    J. Bourdier, N. Drukker and J. Felix, “The exact Schur in dex of N = 4 SYM,” JHEP 11, 210 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2015)210 [arXiv:1507.08659 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    Exact Schur index in closed form ,

    Y. Pan and W. Peelaers, “Exact Schur index in closed form ,” Phys. Rev. D 106, no.4, 045017 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.045017 [arXiv:2112.09705 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    N = 2 ∗ Schur indices,

    Y. Hatsuda and T. Okazaki, “ N = 2 ∗ Schur indices,” JHEP 01, 029 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2023)029 [arXiv:2208.01426 [ hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Green-Schwa rz string in AdS(5) x S**5: Semiclassical partition function,

    N. Drukker, D. J. Gross and A. A. Tseytlin, “Green-Schwa rz string in AdS(5) x S**5: Semiclassical partition function,” JHEP 04, 021 (2000) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/04/021 [arXiv:hep-th/0001 204 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/04/021 2000

  35. [35]

    The Spectrum of Exci- tations of Holographic Wilson Loops,

    A. Faraggi and L. A. Pando Zayas, “The Spectrum of Exci- tations of Holographic Wilson Loops,” JHEP 05, 018 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2011)018 [arXiv:1101.5145 [hep-th] ]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  36. [36]

    Finite-N superconformal index via the AdS/CFT correspondence,

    Y. Imamura, “Finite-N superconformal index via the AdS/CFT correspondence,” PTEP 2021, no.12, 123B05 (2021) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptab141 [arXiv:2108.12090 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    The Giant Graviton Expansion,

    D. Gaiotto and J. H. Lee, “The Giant Graviton Expansion, ” [arXiv:2109.02545 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Unitary matrix models, free fermions, and t he giant gravi- ton expansion,

    S. Murthy, “Unitary matrix models, free fermions, and t he giant gravi- ton expansion,” Pure Appl. Math. Quart. 19, no.1, 299-340 (2023) doi:10.4310/PAMQ.2023.v19.n1.a12 [arXiv:2202.06897 [h ep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Giant Graviton Expansions for the Line Ope rator In- dex,

    Y. Imamura, “Giant Graviton Expansions for the Line Ope rator In- dex,” PTEP 2024, no.6, 063B03 (2024) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptae084 [arXiv:2403.11543 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    N = 4 SYM line defect Schur index and semiclassical string,

    M. Beccaria, “ N = 4 SYM line defect Schur index and semiclassical string,” [arXiv:2407.06900 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Giant graviton expa nsion for general Wilson line operator indices,

    Y. Imamura, A. Sei and D. Yokoyama, “Giant graviton expa nsion for general Wilson line operator indices,” JHEP 09, 202 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2024)202 [arXiv:2406.19777 [hep-th ]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Schur inde x of the N = 4 U (N ) supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory via the AdS/CFT correspondence,

    R. Arai, S. Fujiwara, Y. Imamura and T. Mori, “Schur inde x of the N = 4 U (N ) supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory via the AdS/CFT correspondence,” Phys. Rev. D 101, no.8, 086017 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.086017 [arXiv:2001.11667 [he p-th]]. 47

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    The Spectrum of the s**5 Comp act- ification of the Chiral N=2, D=10 Supergravity and the Unitar y Supermultiplets of U(2, 2/4),

    M. Gunaydin and N. Marcus, “The Spectrum of the s**5 Comp act- ification of the Chiral N=2, D=10 Supergravity and the Unitar y Supermultiplets of U(2, 2/4),” Class. Quant. Grav. 2, L11 (1985) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/2/2/001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/2/2/001 1985

  44. [44]

    The Mas s Spec- trum of Chiral N=2 D=10 Supergravity on S**5,

    H. J. Kim, L. J. Romans and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “The Mas s Spec- trum of Chiral N=2 D=10 Supergravity on S**5,” Phys. Rev. D 32, 389 (1985) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.32.389

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.32.389 1985

  45. [45]

    Analytic continuation for giant graviton s,

    Y. Imamura, “Analytic continuation for giant graviton s,” PTEP 2022, no.10, 103B02 (2022) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptac127 [arXiv:22 05.14615 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/ptac127 2022

  46. [46]

    Simple-Sum Giant Graviton Expansions for Orbifolds and Or ien- tifolds,

    S. Fujiwara, Y. Imamura, T. Mori, S. Murayama and D. Yoko yama, “Simple-Sum Giant Graviton Expansions for Orbifolds and Or ien- tifolds,” PTEP 2024, no.2, 023B02 (2024) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptae006 [arXiv:2310.03332 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Orbifold ETW brane an d half-indices,

    Y. Hatsuda, H. Lin and T. Okazaki, “Orbifold ETW brane an d half-indices,” JHEP 12, 227 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2024)227 [arXiv:2409.16841 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    N = 4 line defect correlators of type BCD,

    Y. Hatsuda, H. Lin and T. Okazaki, “ N = 4 line defect correlators of type BCD,” JHEP 07, 054 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2025)054 [arXiv:2502.18110 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    One-form symmetries in N = 3 S-folds,

    A. Amariti, D. Morgante, A. Pasternak, S. Rota and V. Tat itscheff, “One-form symmetries in N = 3 S-folds,” SciPost Phys. 15, no.4, 132 (2023) doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.15.4.132 [arXiv:2303. 07299 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.15.4.132 2023

  50. [50]

    Supersymmetry En- hancement and Junctions in S-folds,

    Y. Imamura, H. Kato and D. Yokoyama, “Supersymmetry En- hancement and Junctions in S-folds,” JHEP 10, 150 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2016)150 [arXiv:1606.07186 [hep-th ]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  51. [51]

    Notes on S-folds and N = 3 theories,

    P. Agarwal and A. Amariti, “Notes on S-folds and N = 3 theories,” JHEP 09, 032 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2016)032 [arXiv:1607.00 313 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2016)032 2016

  52. [52]

    Electric-Magnetic Duality And The Geo- metric Langlands Program,

    A. Kapustin and E. Witten, “Electric-Magnetic Duality And The Geo- metric Langlands Program,” Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 1, 1-236 (2007) doi:10.4310/CNTP.2007.v1.n1.a1 [arXiv:hep-th/0 604151 [hep- th]]

    doi:10.4310/cntp.2007.v1.n1.a1 2007

  53. [53]

    On ’t Hooft defects , monopole bubbling and supersymmetric quantum mechanics,

    T. D. Brennan, A. Dey and G. W. Moore, “On ’t Hooft defects , monopole bubbling and supersymmetric quantum mechanics,” JHEP 09, 014 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2018)014 [arXiv:1801.01 986 [hep- th]]. 48

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2018)014 2018

  54. [54]

    On monopole bubbling contri butions to ’t Hooft loops,

    B. Assel and A. Sciarappa, “On monopole bubbling contri butions to ’t Hooft loops,” JHEP 05, 180 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2019)180 [arXiv:1903.00376 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    Wilson loops of anti-symmetric represe ntation and D5-branes,

    S. Yamaguchi, “Wilson loops of anti-symmetric represe ntation and D5-branes,” JHEP 05, 037 (2006) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/037 [arXiv:hep-th/0603208 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  56. [56]

    One-loop Effec tive Action of the Holographic Antisymmetric Wilson Loop,

    A. Faraggi, W. Mueck and L. A. Pando Zayas, “One-loop Effec tive Action of the Holographic Antisymmetric Wilson Loop,” Phys . Rev. D 85, 106015 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.106015 [arXiv:1 112.5028 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.106015 2012

  57. [57]

    Brane expansions for anti-sym metric line operator index,

    Y. Imamura and M. Inoue, “Brane expansions for anti-sym metric line operator index,” JHEP 08, 020 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)020 [arXiv:2404.08302 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Supersymmetric Boundary Con ditions in N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory,

    D. Gaiotto and E. Witten, “Supersymmetric Boundary Con ditions in N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory,” J. Statist. Phys. 135, 789-855 (2009) doi:10.1007/s10955-009-9687-3 [arXiv:0804.2902 [hep-t h]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  59. [59]

    S-Duality of Boundary Condit ions In N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory,

    D. Gaiotto and E. Witten, “S-Duality of Boundary Condit ions In N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 13, no.3, 721-896 (2009) doi:10.4310/ATMP.2009.v13.n3.a5 [arXiv:0807.3720 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  60. [60]

    Gauge Theories Lab elled by Three-Manifolds,

    T. Dimofte, D. Gaiotto and S. Gukov, “Gauge Theories Lab elled by Three-Manifolds,” Commun. Math. Phys. 325, 367-419 (2014) doi:10.1007/s00220-013-1863-2 [arXiv:1108.4389 [hep-t h]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  61. [61]

    Walls, Lines, and Spec - tral Dualities in 3d Gauge Theories,

    A. Gadde, S. Gukov and P. Putrov, “Walls, Lines, and Spec - tral Dualities in 3d Gauge Theories,” JHEP 05, 047 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)047 [arXiv:1302.0015 [hep-th] ]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  62. [62]

    Mirror symmetry of 3D N = 4 gauge theories and supersymmetric indices,

    T. Okazaki, “Mirror symmetry of 3D N = 4 gauge theories and supersymmetric indices,” Phys. Rev. D 100, no.6, 066031 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.066031 [arXiv:1905.04608 [he p-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    The Complete superconformal index for N=6 Chern-Simons theory,

    S. Kim, “The Complete superconformal index for N=6 Chern-Simons theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 821, 241-284 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009.06.025 [arXiv:0903.4172 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  64. [64]

    Index for three dimensiona l supercon- formal field theories with general R-charge assignments,

    Y. Imamura and S. Yokoyama, “Index for three dimensiona l supercon- formal field theories with general R-charge assignments,” J HEP 04, 007 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2011)007 [arXiv:1101.0557 [h ep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  65. [65]

    Superconformal index on RP2 × S1 and mirror symmetry,

    A. Tanaka, H. Mori and T. Morita, “Superconformal index on RP2 × S1 and mirror symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 91, 105023 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.105023 [arXiv:1408.3371 [hep- th]]. 49

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  66. [66]

    Webs of (p,q) five-bran es, five- dimensional field theories and grid diagrams,

    O. Aharony, A. Hanany and B. Kol, “Webs of (p,q) five-bran es, five- dimensional field theories and grid diagrams,” JHEP 01, 002 (1998) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1998/01/002 [arXiv:hep-th/9710 116 [hep-th]]

    doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1998/01/002 1998

  67. [67]

    String webs and 1/4 BPS monopoles ,

    O. Bergman and B. Kol, “String webs and 1/4 BPS monopoles ,” Nucl. Phys. B 536, 149-174 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00565-3 [arXiv:hep-th/9804160 [hep-th]]. 50

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998