Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

The N=2 twisted partition function on CP^2 is a contour integral in a single physical flux, with the three-flux sum replaced by extra residues.

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

2026-08-04 06:55 UTC pith:NZSWC53X

load-bearing objection New single-flux contour formula for CP2 localization, but the cancellation scheme that produces it is asserted rather than proved. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.27526 v2 pith:NZSWC53X submitted 2025-10-31 hep-th

Contour Integral for the Partition Function of mathcal{N}=2 Topologically Twisted on mathbb{CP}² and Physical Fluxes

Lorenzo Ruggeri This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords supersymmetric localizationtopological twistCP^2contour integralphysical fluxequivariant invariantsDonaldson invariantsdimensional reduction
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 computes the partition function of N=2 SU(2) gauge theory topologically twisted on CP^2, obtained by dimensional reduction from an N=1 theory on the five-sphere. Earlier expressions summed over three equivariant fluxes, one for each toric divisor of CP^2; here the result depends only on a single physical flux associated with the non-trivial two-cycle. The reduced flux sum is compensated by a one-dimensional contour integral that picks up many more poles in each topological sector. Because the dimensionally reduced Yang-Mills coupling is position dependent, the observable is new and yields equivariant invariants of CP^2 that reduce to Donaldson invariants in the non-equivariant limit. The central message is that two inequivalent localization prescriptions—different BPS solutions and different contours—produce the same partition function.

Core claim

The central claim is that the SU(2) N=2 topologically twisted partition function on CP^2 admits a contour-integral presentation depending on a single physical flux m1, rather than on three equivariant fluxes. The summation over the three fluxes is replaced by a richer residue sum, arranged so that only stable and semi-stable triples (k,l,p) survive, weighted by -2 and -1 respectively. The explicit formula (4.10) gives new equivariant invariants; their first terms appear in (4.12), and in the non-equivariant limit they reproduce Donaldson invariants, beginning with Z = -(3/2) q z + O(q^2). The paper also shows that the stability conditions restricting the flux sum arise naturally from the pro

What carries the argument

The central object is the contour integral over the Coulomb-branch parameter a along (a small deformation of) the imaginary axis, closed at infinity, with the integrand built from the classical, one-loop, and instanton factors obtained from dimensional reduction. The cancellations that reduce the residue sum to the stable/semi-stable region are governed by the 'abstruse duality' identity, equation (4.3), a limit statement relating fixed-point partition functions at symmetric points in the a-plane; the instanton factors are rewritten in Zamolodchikov form to make the pole structure manifest.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the 'abstruse duality' identity imported from earlier work—a limit statement about ratios of fixed-point partition functions—and on the claim that the same identity holds for the position-dependent-coupling integrand after relabelling the flux integers; if that identity fails, the cancellations that reduce the residue sum to the stable/semi-stable region collapse and the final formula does not follow.

What would settle it

Evaluate numerically the limiting ratio in the abstruse duality (4.3) for the full fixed-point integrand including the position-dependent classical factor and with the relabelling (k,l,p)<->(k1,k2,k3); if for any m,n the limit is not -sign(epsilon^l_1), the residue cancellations (4.7)-(4.9) fail and (4.10) would not agree with a direct sum over all poles of the integrand.

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

If this is right

  • A single physical flux m1, together with a contour that captures extra poles, is enough to reproduce the earlier three-flux result, up to the choice of observable.
  • The position-dependent Yang-Mills coupling defines a new supersymmetric observable, producing equivariant invariants of CP^2 that reduce to Donaldson invariants in the non-equivariant limit.
  • Stability conditions for gauge bundles over CP^2, for SU(N), follow automatically from the projection condition on flux sectors obtained via dimensional reduction.
  • The same contour and flux-sum logic extends naturally to SO(3) gauge theories and, with minimal changes, to higher-rank SU(N) theories.
  • The construction suggests a route to partition functions on other four-manifolds arising as S^1 quotients of toric Sasakian manifolds, such as T^{1,1}/S^1, and on orbifolds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The equivalence between the two localization schemes suggests a deeper symmetry: the extra residues in the one-flux formulation may be interpreted as contributions of degenerate BPS solutions that are invisible to the three-flux counting; proving the abstruse duality directly for the position-dependent observable would make the equivalence fully self-contained.
  • Because the new invariants are defined with squashing parameters, they interpolate between Donaldson invariants and genuinely equivariant invariants; this family may be the four-dimensional shadow of the squashing dependence of the five-sphere partition function.
  • A natural stress test would be to compare the one-loop/instanton factorisation at higher m1 from the single-flux formula against a brute-force residue sum over all poles without the cancellation shortcut; a mismatch would pinpoint the order in q at which the abstruse duality needs modification.

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 derives a contour-integral formula for the N=2 SU(2) topologically twisted partition function on CP^2 by dimensional reduction from an N=1 theory on S^5. It claims that only one physical flux m1 is needed, instead of three equivariant fluxes, with the missing flux sum compensated by a richer residue sum. The main result is Eq. (4.10), together with the first few terms (4.12). The observable differs from that of [18–20] because the 4d Yang-Mills coupling is position-dependent, so the paper claims to compute new equivariant invariants; in the non-equivariant limit it reproduces the Donaldson invariant -3/2 qz at leading order.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable result: it gives a first-principles explanation of how physical flux and equivariant flux descriptions are related, naturally incorporates stability conditions through the projection condition, and produces new topological invariants with a non-trivial check against Donaldson theory. The dimensional-reduction framework and the mapping of one-loop and instanton factors onto [18–20] are well organised. However, the decisive residue-sum cancellation relies on an unproved extension of the abstruse duality, and the explicit residue sum is largely asserted; these are load-bearing gaps.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (4.3)] The cancellation mechanism that reduces the residue sum to region A with factors -2 and -1 is entirely based on the abstruse duality (4.3) imported from [20]. The paper states that the identity continues to hold for the position-dependent-coupling integrand because the classical contribution differs only by a coupling constant, but this is not demonstrated. The ratio in (4.3) includes the classical factor; with the position-dependent coupling and shifted arguments a±i(mϵ1+nϵ2)/2, the exponential factors do not obviously cancel in the a→0 limit. A concrete proof, or at least a non-trivial numerical check at low m1, is required before (4.7)–(4.9), and hence (4.10), can be accepted. Footnote 26 concedes a discrepancy between the BPS solution used here and that of [18], so this is not a purely hypothetical concern.
  2. [§4.1, Eqs. (4.7)–(4.9)] The residue sum is not actually carried out. The text says 'It would be a long but straightforward computation' and then asserts the orbit cancellations (4.7)–(4.9). Since the central numerical content is (4.10)/(4.12), the reduction from the infinite residue sum to region A should be shown at least for a few low flux sectors, or the cancellation statement verified by explicit residues. As written, the reader cannot check the signs -2 and -1 or the vanishing of regions C, E, G from the displayed integrand alone.
  3. [§3.3, Eq. (3.32) and §4.2, Eq. (4.15)] The comparison with [18–20] is made patch-by-patch, and only after setting ω1=1: eq. (3.32) is a single-patch statement. When all three patches are combined, the classical contributions differ (3.10) vs (3.31). The paper argues that the non-equivariant limit restores equality. However, the Donaldson check is performed only at leading order O(q): eq. (4.15) contains just -3/2 qz. Given that the whole observable is new, the non-equivariant limit should be verified to at least O(q^2), or the claim should be explicitly restricted to the leading term.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (3.12)] The summation indices 'j,k' in (3.12) do not match those in (3.11) and (3.22)–(3.23), where k,l,p are used. Please correct this typo or clarify the relabelling.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (4.10)–(4.12)] The q variables are overloaded: q in (4.12) is not explicitly defined, while q1,q2,q3 appear in (3.19) and (4.10). State the exact relation between q and the qℓ's, including the normalization of the overall instanton counting parameter.
  3. [§3.3, p. 18] The statement 'The same can be shown to hold for the other two fixed points' is not shown. Please include the analogous equations or explicitly state the symmetry that makes the other two patches immediate.
  4. [§2.2, Eq. (2.20)] The classical term (2.20) is presented as being independent of m, but the intermediate expression contains terms with m. The cancellation is not displayed; a brief comment explaining why the m-dependent terms cancel would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No construction-level circularity: the single-flux contour formula is an independent computation checked against Donaldson invariants, with the imported abstruse duality posing a correctness risk rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. The integrand (3.8) is obtained by dimensional reduction from S^5 via [27,28]; the physical flux m1 is a winding-number label of flat connections on the lens-space quotient (2.15)-(2.18), not a parameter fitted to the final answer. Section 3.3 is an explicit comparison, not a definition: eqs. (3.30)-(3.33) map the three equivariant fluxes of [18,20] to the single-flux residue parameters and show the classical factors agree only patchwise at omega1=1 and globally in the non-equivariant limit. The residue-sum reduction in §4.1 imports the 'abstruse duality' (4.3) from [20] and extends it to the position-dependent-coupling integrand by the statement 'it is immediate to show'; that is an unproved lemma (and footnote 13 records a related BPS discrepancy), but it is not circular, since (4.3) is not a restatement of the target formula (4.10) and no constant is fitted to the Donaldson result. The final non-equivariant check (4.15) is an independent, externally known benchmark computed at leading nontrivial order. Self-citations [27,28,29,54,55,56] supply the prior dimensional-reduction framework but do not define the answer; the central new observable is checked against the independent Donaldson limit. No equation is shown to equal its own input by construction, and no fitted prediction occurs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters appear: the equivariant parameters, squashing parameters, coupling, and flux labels are physical variables or topological labels, not constants tuned to data. The derivation imports the localization formula, the dimensional-reduction dictionary, the projection condition, and the abstruse duality from prior work; these are the main axioms. No new physical entities such as particles or forces are postulated.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Supersymmetric localization reduces the path integral to a finite-dimensional integral over BPS zero-modes, with one-loop and instanton contributions captured by the cited determinants and Nekrasov factors.
    Used throughout; the starting formula (2.9) for the 5d partition function is taken from [38] as conjectured.
  • domain assumption Flat connections on S^5/Z_h, with winding number m, become flux saddles F4=−m db on CP^2 in the h→∞ limit, with φ4=m.
    Core flux-counting premise from author's prior works [27,28]; eqs. (2.14)-(2.18).
  • domain assumption The projection condition t=α(m) mod h and its large-h form t=α(m)≥0 restrict the allowed flux sectors and encode stability.
    Eqs. (2.21)-(2.22), (3.5)-(3.7); imported from [40,28].
  • domain assumption Abstruse duality (4.3): lim_{a→0} Z_C2(a−i/2(mϵ1+nϵ2))/Z_C2(a−i/2(mϵ1−nϵ2)) = −sign(ϵ1), from [20], continues to hold for the position-dependent-coupling integrand after relabelling (k,l,p).
    Used to derive the -2/-1 cancellations and final formula (4.10) in §4.1; extension asserted without proof.
  • domain assumption The Wick-rotated Coulomb-branch integral runs along the imaginary axis, and deforming it to iR−ε and closing at +∞ picks up all poles.
    Contour prescription in §3.2 and §4; needed to justify the residue sum (3.12).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21820 in / 15351 out tokens · 135424 ms · 2026-08-04T06:55:34.648308+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We compute the contour integral for the partition function of an $\mathcal{N}=2$ $SU(2)$ topologically twisted theory on $\mathbb{CP}^2$, dimensionally reducing from an $\mathcal{N}=1$ theory on $S^5$. Earlier works presented the partition function as a sum over three equivariant fluxes, one for each toric divisor of $\mathbb{CP}^2$. Our result depends only on a single physical flux, assigned to the non-trivial two-cycle of the manifold. The reduced summation over fluxes is compensated by a contour of integration, arising from a different solution of the BPS equations, which captures more poles in each topological sector. As our observable involves a position-dependent Yang-Mills coupling, we compute new equivariant invariants of $\mathbb{CP}^2$, which reduce to Donaldson invariants in the non-equivariant limit. Stability conditions of gauge bundles over $\mathbb{CP}^2$ appear intrinsically via the dimensional reduction.

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

56 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Topological Quantum Field Theory,

    E. Witten, “Topological Quantum Field Theory,”Commun. Math. Phys.117(1988) 353

    1988

  2. [2]

    Seiberg-Witten prepotential from instanton counting,

    N. A. Nekrasov, “Seiberg-Witten prepotential from instanton counting,”Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.7no. 5, (2003) 831–864,arXiv:hep-th/0206161

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  3. [3]

    Localization of gauge theory on a four-sphere and supersymmetric Wilson loops,

    V. Pestun, “Localization of gauge theory on a four-sphere and supersymmetric Wilson loops,”Commun. Math. Phys.313(2012) 71–129,arXiv:0712.2824 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Partition Functions ofN= (2,2) Gauge Theories on S 2 and Vortices,

    F. Benini and S. Cremonesi, “Partition Functions ofN= (2,2) Gauge Theories on S 2 and Vortices,”Commun. Math. Phys.334no. 3, (2015) 1483–1527,arXiv:1206.2356 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Exact Results in D=2 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories,

    N. Doroud, J. Gomis, B. Le Floch, and S. Lee, “Exact Results in D=2 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories,”JHEP05(2013) 093,arXiv:1206.2606 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    The equivariant A-twist and gauged linear sigma models on the two-sphere,

    C. Closset, S. Cremonesi, and D. S. Park, “The equivariant A-twist and gauged linear sigma models on the two-sphere,”JHEP06(2015) 076,arXiv:1504.06308 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Localization for nonabelian group actions,

    L. C. Jeffrey and F. C. Kirwan, “Localization for nonabelian group actions,” arXiv:alg-geom/9307001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    Elliptic genera of two-dimensional N=2 gauge theories with rank-one gauge groups,

    F. Benini, R. Eager, K. Hori, and Y. Tachikawa, “Elliptic genera of two-dimensional N=2 gauge theories with rank-one gauge groups,”Lett. Math. Phys.104(2014) 465–493, arXiv:1305.0533 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  9. [9]

    Witten Index and Wall Crossing,

    K. Hori, H. Kim, and P. Yi, “Witten Index and Wall Crossing,”JHEP01(2015) 124, arXiv:1407.2567 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    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(2009) 241–284,arXiv:0903.4172 [hep-th]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 864, 884 (2012)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    Index for three dimensional superconformal field theories with general R-charge assignments,

    Y. Imamura and S. Yokoyama, “Index for three dimensional superconformal field theories with general R-charge assignments,”JHEP04(2011) 007,arXiv:1101.0557 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  12. [12]

    Generalized Superconformal Index for Three Dimensional Field Theories,

    A. Kapustin and B. Willett, “Generalized Superconformal Index for Three Dimensional Field Theories,”arXiv:1106.2484 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    A topologically twisted index for three-dimensional supersymmetric theories,

    F. Benini and A. Zaffaroni, “A topologically twisted index for three-dimensional supersymmetric theories,”JHEP07(2015) 127,arXiv:1504.03698 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    Exact Results for Wilson Loops in Superconformal Chern-Simons Theories with Matter,

    A. Kapustin, B. Willett, and I. Yaakov, “Exact Results for Wilson Loops in Superconformal Chern-Simons Theories with Matter,”JHEP03(2010) 089,arXiv:0909.4559 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  15. [15]

    SUSY Gauge Theories on Squashed Three-Spheres,

    N. Hama, K. Hosomichi, and S. Lee, “SUSY Gauge Theories on Squashed Three-Spheres,” JHEP05(2011) 014,arXiv:1102.4716 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  16. [16]

    The Exact Superconformal R-Symmetry Extremizes Z,

    D. L. Jafferis, “The Exact Superconformal R-Symmetry Extremizes Z,”JHEP05(2012) 159,arXiv:1012.3210 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  17. [17]

    Supersymmetric partition functions and the three-dimensional A-twist,

    C. Closset, H. Kim, and B. Willett, “Supersymmetric partition functions and the three-dimensional A-twist,”JHEP03(2017) 074,arXiv:1701.03171 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    Exact results forN= 2 supersymmetric gauge theories on compact toric manifolds and equivariant Donaldson invariants,

    M. Bershtein, G. Bonelli, M. Ronzani, and A. Tanzini, “Exact results forN= 2 supersymmetric gauge theories on compact toric manifolds and equivariant Donaldson invariants,”JHEP07(2016) 023,arXiv:1509.00267 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    Gauge theories on compact toric surfaces, conformal field theories and equivariant Donaldson invariants,

    M. Bershtein, G. Bonelli, M. Ronzani, and A. Tanzini, “Gauge theories on compact toric surfaces, conformal field theories and equivariant Donaldson invariants,”J. Geom. Phys.118 (2017) 40–50,arXiv:1606.07148 [hep-th]. – 25 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Gauge theories on compact toric manifolds,

    G. Bonelli, F. Fucito, J. F. Morales, M. Ronzani, E. Sysoeva, and A. Tanzini, “Gauge theories on compact toric manifolds,”Lett. Math. Phys.111no. 3, (2021) 77, arXiv:2007.15468 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Instanton counting and Donaldson invariants,

    L. Gottsche, H. Nakajima, and K. Yoshioka, “Instanton counting and Donaldson invariants,” J. Diff. Geom.80no. 3, (2008) 343–390,arXiv:math/0606180

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  22. [22]

    Wall-crossing formulas, bott residue formula and the donaldson invariants of rational surfaces,

    G. Ellingsrud and L. G¨ ottsche, “Wall-crossing formulas, bott residue formula and the donaldson invariants of rational surfaces,” 1995

    1995

  23. [23]

    Path Integral Derivations Of K-Theoretic Donaldson Invariants,

    H. Kim, J. Manschot, G. W. Moore, R. Tao, and X. Zhang, “Path Integral Derivations Of K-Theoretic Donaldson Invariants,”arXiv:2509.23042 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  24. [24]

    On diagonalization in map(M,G),

    M. Blau and G. Thompson, “On diagonalization in map(M,G),”Commun. Math. Phys.171 (1995) 639–660,arXiv:hep-th/9402097

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  25. [25]

    Localizing gauge theories,

    N. A. Nekrasov, “Localizing gauge theories,” in14th International Congress on Mathematical Physics, pp. 645–654. 7, 2003

    2003

  26. [26]

    N= 2 supersymmetric gauge theories onS 2 ×S 2 and Liouville Gravity,

    A. Bawane, G. Bonelli, M. Ronzani, and A. Tanzini, “N= 2 supersymmetric gauge theories onS 2 ×S 2 and Liouville Gravity,”JHEP07(2015) 054,arXiv:1411.2762 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  27. [27]

    SYM on quotients of spheres and complex projective spaces,

    J. Lundin and L. Ruggeri, “SYM on quotients of spheres and complex projective spaces,” JHEP03(2022) 204,arXiv:2110.13065 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    From 5d Flat Connections to 4d Fluxes (the Art of Slicing the Cone),

    J. Lundin, R. Mauch, and L. Ruggeri, “From 5d Flat Connections to 4d Fluxes (the Art of Slicing the Cone),”arXiv:2305.02313 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Exact results for SYM on Y p,q and S2 ×S 2 with conical singularities,

    L. Ruggeri, “Exact results for SYM on Y p,q and S2 ×S 2 with conical singularities,”JHEP 09(2025) 004,arXiv:2502.13614 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Seifert fibering operators in 3dN= 2 theories,

    C. Closset, H. Kim, and B. Willett, “Seifert fibering operators in 3dN= 2 theories,”JHEP 11(2018) 004,arXiv:1807.02328 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

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

    C. Closset and H. Magureanu, “Partition functions and fibering operators on the Coulomb branch of 5d SCFTs,”JHEP01(2023) 035,arXiv:2209.13564 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    The giant graviton expansion,

    D. Gaiotto and J. H. Lee, “The giant graviton expansion,”JHEP08(2024) 025, arXiv:2109.02545 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    The perturbative partition function of supersymmetric 5D Yang-Mills theory with matter on the five-sphere,

    J. K¨ all´ en, J. Qiu, and M. Zabzine, “The perturbative partition function of supersymmetric 5D Yang-Mills theory with matter on the five-sphere,”JHEP08(2012) 157, arXiv:1206.6008 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [35]

    Perturbative partition function for squashedS 5,

    Y. Imamura, “Perturbative partition function for squashedS 5,”PTEP2013no. 7, (2013) 073B01,arXiv:1210.6308 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    Instantons on the 5-sphere and M5-branes,

    H.-C. Kim, J. Kim, and S. Kim, “Instantons on the 5-sphere and M5-branes,” arXiv:1211.0144 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Superconformal Partition Functions and Non-perturbative Topological Strings,

    G. Lockhart and C. Vafa, “Superconformal Partition Functions and Non-perturbative Topological Strings,”JHEP10(2018) 051,arXiv:1210.5909 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    Review of localization for 5d supersymmetric gauge theories,

    J. Qiu and M. Zabzine, “Review of localization for 5d supersymmetric gauge theories,”J. Phys. A50no. 44, (2017) 443014,arXiv:1608.02966 [hep-th]. – 26 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    N= 2 supersymmetric gauge theory on connected sums ofS 2 ×S 2,

    G. Festuccia, J. Qiu, J. Winding, and M. Zabzine, “N= 2 supersymmetric gauge theory on connected sums ofS 2 ×S 2,”JHEP03(2017) 026,arXiv:1611.04868 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [40]

    The Large N limit of M2-branes on Lens spaces,

    L. F. Alday, M. Fluder, and J. Sparks, “The Large N limit of M2-branes on Lens spaces,” JHEP10(2012) 057,arXiv:1204.1280 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  41. [41]

    Twisting with a Flip (the Art of Pestunization),

    G. Festuccia, J. Qiu, J. Winding, and M. Zabzine, “Twisting with a Flip (the Art of Pestunization),”Commun. Math. Phys.377no. 1, (2020) 341–385,arXiv:1812.06473 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    Transversally Elliptic Complex and Cohomological Field Theory,

    G. Festuccia, J. Qiu, J. Winding, and M. Zabzine, “Transversally Elliptic Complex and Cohomological Field Theory,”J. Geom. Phys.156(2020) 103786,arXiv:1904.12782 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Twisted supersymmetric 5D Yang-Mills theory and contact geometry,

    J. K¨ all´ en and M. Zabzine, “Twisted supersymmetric 5D Yang-Mills theory and contact geometry,”JHEP05(2012) 125,arXiv:1202.1956 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  44. [44]

    Contact toric manifolds,

    E. Lerman, “Contact toric manifolds,”J. Symplectic Geom.1no. 4, (2001) 785, arXiv:math/0107201

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  45. [45]

    Moduli spaces of contact instantons,

    D. Baraglia and P. Hekmati, “Moduli spaces of contact instantons,”Adv. Math.294(2016) 562–595.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2016.03.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aim.2016.03.001 2016

  46. [46]

    R. Mauch,Topics in Cohomological Field Theory : Let’s Twist Again!PhD thesis, Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Theoretical Physics., 2025

    2025

  47. [47]

    Recursion relations in CFT and N=2 SYM theory,

    R. Poghossian, “Recursion relations in CFT and N=2 SYM theory,”JHEP12(2009) 038, arXiv:0909.3412 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  48. [48]

    Recurrence relation for instanton partition function in SU(N) gauge theory,

    E. Sysoeva and A. Bykov, “Recurrence relation for instanton partition function in SU(N) gauge theory,”JHEP03(2023) 220,arXiv:2209.14949 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Chern-Simons and twisted supersymmetry in various dimensions,

    L. Baulieu, A. Losev, and N. Nekrasov, “Chern-Simons and twisted supersymmetry in various dimensions,”Nucl. Phys. B522(1998) 82–104,arXiv:hep-th/9707174

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  50. [50]

    Equivariant bundles on toral varieties,

    A. A. Klyachko, “Equivariant bundles on toral varieties,”Mathematics of the USSR-Izvestiya 35no. 2, (Apr, 1990) 337.https://dx.doi.org/10.1070/IM1990v035n02ABEH000707

    doi:10.1070/im1990v035n02abeh000707 1990

  51. [51]

    Topologically twisted indices in five dimensions and holography,

    S. M. Hosseini, I. Yaakov, and A. Zaffaroni, “Topologically twisted indices in five dimensions and holography,”JHEP11(2018) 119,arXiv:1808.06626 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    Accelerating black holes and spinning spindles,

    P. Ferrero, J. P. Gauntlett, J. M. P. Ipi˜ na, D. Martelli, and J. Sparks, “Accelerating black holes and spinning spindles,”Phys. Rev. D104no. 4, (2021) 046007,arXiv:2012.08530 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    Equivariant localization and holography,

    D. Martelli and A. Zaffaroni, “Equivariant localization and holography,”arXiv:2306.03891 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    Super Yang-Mills on Branched Covers and Weighted Projective Spaces,

    R. Mauch and L. Ruggeri, “Super Yang-Mills on Branched Covers and Weighted Projective Spaces,”arXiv:2404.11600 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  55. [55]

    Codimension-Two Defects and SYM on Orbifolds,

    R. Mauch and L. Ruggeri, “Codimension-Two Defects and SYM on Orbifolds,” arXiv:2502.13611 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    Cohomological localization ofN= 2 gauge theories with matter,

    G. Festuccia, A. Gorantis, A. Pittelli, K. Polydorou, and L. Ruggeri, “Cohomological localization ofN= 2 gauge theories with matter,”JHEP09(2020) 133,arXiv:2005.12944 [hep-th]. – 27 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020