Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Anomaly Matching in 6d $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ SCFTs from M5 Cobordism

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read M5 bordism classifies the invertible anomalies of 6d (2,0) SCFTs, and the Hopf-Wess-Zumino term is an integer-quantized phase transgressing to the second Pontryagin class of the R-symmetry bundle.

desk verdict Solid new M5 bordism group calculation, but the HWZ-term identification is an inference that appears to rest on a mistaken Steenrod-module claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04785 v1 pith:OLWHFAOQ submitted 2025-01-08 hep-th

Aiden Sheckler This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords M5bordism6d(20)SCFTanomalymatchingHopf-Wess-ZuminoterminvertiblephasesAndersondualityAtiyah-Hirzebruchspectralsequencetensorbranch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes that M5 bordism — the cobordism theory for manifolds carrying the full 6d $(2,0)$ structure, including a rank-5 R-symmetry bundle with Euler structure, a spin structure on $TM\oplus N$, and a degree-4 class from the M-theory C-field — classifies the invertible parts of the 7d anomaly theory of 6d $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ SCFTs for all ADE gauge groups. It computes the 7d invertible phases to be $\mathrm{Inv}^{M5}_7=(D\Omega^{M5})_8\cong\mathbb{Z}^{11}$, matching the known structure of the $A_n$ anomaly field theory. The main result is in anomaly matching: on the tensor branch, where $SO(5)_R$ breaks to $SO(4)_R$ and the target is $S^4$, the usual cohomological and spin-bordism classifications produce no integer-quantized WZW term, but the M5-bordism spectral sequence yields an invertible phase $(D\Omega^{\mathrm{spin}})_7(X)=\mathbb{Z}_2^2\times\mathbb{Z}$ whose transgression kills the second Pontryagin class $p_2$ of the R-symmetry bundle. This is proposed as the origin of the Hopf-Wess-Zumino term, resolving a long-standing puzzle in a way that fits the standard transgression picture of WZW terms.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is M5 bordism, defined by the Thom spectrum $M\mathrm{Spin}\wedge\Sigma^{-5}T\,BSO(5)[e]\wedge K(\mathbb{Z},4)_+$; this is the cobordism theory of manifolds equipped with a rank-5 R-symmetry bundle with Euler structure, a spin structure on $TM\oplus N$, and a degree-4 class representing the M-theory C-field. Its Anderson dual supplies the invertible phases, and the paper uses the Adams spectral sequence to compute the M5 bordism groups and hence $\mathrm{Inv}^{M5}_7\cong\mathbb{Z}^{11}$. For the Hopf-Wess-Zumino term, the machinery is the generalized Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence for the symmetry-breaking fibration $X \to \Gamma_{IR} \to \Gamma_{UV}$, where $\Gamma_{UV}=\Sigma^{-5}T\,BSO(5)[e]\wedge K(\mathbb{Z},4)$ and $\Gamma_{IR}=\Sigma^{-4}T\,BSO(4)[e]\wedge K(\mathbb{Z},4)$; the transgression differential $d_8^{0,7}$ is the map that sends the candidate WZW phase to $p_2$.

What would settle it

Compute the mod 2 Steenrod module of $H^*(\Sigma^{-4}T\,BSO(4)[e]\wedge K(\mathbb{Z},4);\mathbb{Z}_2)$ directly. If it differs from $H^*(\Gamma_{UV};\mathbb{Z}_2)$, for instance if the class corresponding to $W_4$ is no longer annihilated by $Sq^1$, then the 11 generators of $(D\Omega^{\mathrm{spin}})_8(\Gamma_{IR})$ would not match those of $\Gamma_{UV}$, and the spectral sequence would no longer force a $\mathbb{Z}$ factor in $(D\Omega^{\mathrm{spin}})_7(X)$ with differential $d_8^{0,7}=p_2$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the full invertible anomaly content of a 6d $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ SCFT with any ADE gauge group is captured by M5 bordism, the cobordism theory built from a rank-5 R-symmetry bundle with Euler structure, a spin structure on $TM\oplus N$, and a degree-4 class for the M-theory C-field. Concretely, the paper computes the M5 bordism groups through dimension 8 and finds $\Omega^{M5}_k = \mathbb{Z},0,0,0,\mathbb{Z}_4,\mathbb{Z}_2^3,\mathbb{Z}_2^5,0,\mathbb{Z}^{11}$, so the 7-dimensional invertible phases are $\mathrm{Inv}^{M5}_7 = (D\Omega^{M5})_8 \cong \mathbb{Z}^{11}$, matching the known anomaly field theory structure for the $A_n$ series. The main new result is in anomaly matching: after spontaneous breaking $SO(5)_R \to SO(4)_R$, the effective target space is $S^4$, and the paper runs a generalized Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence for the fibration $X \to \Gamma_{IR} \to \Gamma_{UV}$. It finds evidence that $(D\Omega^{\mathrm{spin}})_7(X) = \mathbb{Z}_2^2 \times \mathbb{Z}$ and that the transgression map sends the $\mathbb{Z}$ generator to the second Pontryagin class $p_2$ of the R-symmetry bundle; this integer-quantized phase is proposed as the origin of the Hopf-Wess-Zumino term.

Load-bearing premise

The anomaly-matching calculation assumes that the UV and IR classifying spaces $\Gamma_{UV}\equiv\Sigma^{-5}T\,BSO(5)[e]\wedge K(\mathbb{Z},4)$ and $\Gamma_{IR}\equiv\Sigma^{-4}T\,BSO(4)[e]\wedge K(\mathbb{Z},4)$ have identical mod 2 cohomology and Steenrod module structure; if that equality fails, the target groups in the spectral sequence change and the integer-level Hopf-Wess-Zumino phase need not exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If M5 bordism is the right classification, the full invertible anomaly theory for every ADE gauge group has 11 independent $\mathbb{Z}$ generators, so all Euler-structure, C-field, and gravitational terms in anomaly polynomials are captured by bordism invariants.
  • The Hopf-Wess-Zumino term is not obstructed by $H^7(S^4)=0$; it is an invertible phase in $(D\Omega^{\mathrm{spin}})_7(X)$, so the standard transgression framework for WZW terms extends to this case.
  • The integer level of the Hopf-Wess-Zumino term arises because the generator transgresses to $p_2$, whose integrality fixes the coefficient to be an integer, consistent with the known coefficient $c(G)-c(H)$.
  • The vanishing $\Omega^{M5}_7=0$ means 7-manifolds with M5 structure are null-bordant up to torsion, confirming a conjecture on M5-brane worldvolume bordism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the identification of the transgression $d_8^{0,7}(a_7)=p_2$ can be promoted from spectral-sequence evidence to an explicit cohomology-level statement, the coefficient $c(G)-c(H)$ of the Hopf-Wess-Zumino term would be fixed by the integrality of $p_2$, giving a bordism derivation of the known 't Hooft anomaly coefficients.
  • The same spectral-sequence machinery, with the M5 structure replaced by the analogous exotic tangential structure of other 6d theories, could predict the existence and quantization of WZW terms on their tensor branches; this is a testable extension beyond the paper.
  • Because the 11 generators correspond to explicit classes such as $W_4g$, $W_2^2g$, and $w_4g$, one could in principle evaluate them on mapping tori to produce closed-form anomaly polynomials for the $D$ and $E$ series, which the paper does not derive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the invertible parts of the 7d anomaly field theories of 6d N=(2,0) SCFTs are classified by a cobordism theory called M5 bordism, which incorporates the R-symmetry bundle, Euler structure, spin structure on T M ⊕ N, and the M-theory C-field data. It computes the M5 bordism groups through dimension 8, finding Inv^{M5}_7 = (DΩ^{M5})_8 ≅ Z^{11}, and attempts to match the anomaly on the tensor branch by studying a generalized Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence for the fibration X → Γ_IR → Γ_UV induced by the symmetry breaking SO(5) → SO(4). The central claim is that the Hopf-Wess-Zumino term is realized by an integer-level invertible phase in Inv^{M5}_6(X) = (DΩ^{spin})_7(X) = Z_2^2 × Z that transgresses to the second Pontryagin class p_2 of the R-symmetry bundle. The paper is framed as providing evidence rather than a full proof, and it explicitly defers a full proof that the transgression kills p_2 to future work.

Significance. If the proposal is correct, it would give a unified cobordism classification of 6d (2,0) anomaly theories and, for the first time, a transgression-based origin for the Hopf-Wess-Zumino term, resolving a long-standing puzzle about that term. The paper's strength is that it produces concrete, tabulated bordism groups and a definite candidate invertible phase, with the calculations carried out through an Adams spectral sequence and a generalized AHSS. The comparison of the 11 generators with the known A-type anomaly theory of Monnier is suggestive. However, the central anomaly-matching computation in Appendix B rests on an unproved and, as stated, apparently incorrect assertion about the Steenrod module structures of Γ_UV and Γ_IR. Because the integer-level WZW phase is identified through that computation, the main claim is not yet established. The paper is honest about its limitations, but the current form leaves a load-bearing gap.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B, pages 24-25] The assertion that 'Γ_UV and Γ_IR have precisely the same mod 2 cohomology and Steenrod module structure' is not justified and appears to be incorrect as stated. For BSO(5)[e], the Euler structure kills the Euler class e ∈ H^5(BSO(5),Z), whose mod 2 reduction is w5; for BSO(4)[e], the Euler class lives in H^4(BSO(4),Z) and reduces to w4, not w5. The appendix's observation that w5 vanishes for BSO(4) addresses the wrong class. If BSO(4)[e] is taken literally as the homotopy fiber of BSO(4) → K(Z,4), then w4 and its Steenrod descendants are killed, so H^*(Γ_IR,Z_2) and its Steenrod module structure differ from those of Γ_UV. Consequently, the entries of Table 4 and the diagonal counting that forces E^{0,7}_2 ∋ Z and d^{0,7}_8(a_7) = p_2 are not valid. Since the paper itself states in Section 5 that a full proof that the transgression kills p_2 is left to future work, the integer-level Hopf-Wess-Zumino phase is a plausible inference rather than an established consequence.
  2. [Appendix A, pages 21-23] The Adams spectral sequence calculation is not shown in sufficient detail for the reader to verify the claimed bordism groups in Table 1 and the 11 generators in (A.8). In particular, the statement 'There are no Adams differentials in the relevant range' is made without presenting the Ext groups or the differential analysis. Since the classification claim Inv^{M5}_7 ≅ Z^{11} and the generator correspondence (B.2) depend directly on this computation, the paper should include either the full Ext chart and differential structure or a reproducible computational recipe.
  3. [Section 3.2, pages 13-15] The comparison between the 11 invertible phases and the known anomaly theory (2.6) is qualitative and partly circular: M5 bordism was defined specifically to incorporate the R-symmetry bundle, Euler structure, and C-field data that appear in (2.6), so finding those structures among the generators is expected. The paper does not derive the specific coefficients in (2.6), such as n(n+1)/2 or (n+2)(n+1)n/6, from the bordism invariants. The proposal would be much stronger if the authors could show how the 11 generators reproduce the full anomaly polynomial, including the group-theoretic multiplicities, rather than only matching the types of terms.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1] The text reads 'Steifel-Whitney class'; this should be 'Stiefel-Whitney class'.
  2. [Section 4.3 and Appendix B] The notation Γ_UV and Γ_IR is introduced in Section 4.3 but used prominently in Appendix B without restating the definitions; a brief reminder at the start of Appendix B would improve readability.
  3. [Tables 2 and 6] The indexing of the invertible phases is inconsistent: Table 2 lists (DΩ^{spin})^k(X) for k = 0,...,7, while Table 6 lists the same groups but the text calls them Inv^{M5}_k(X) = (DΩ^{spin})_{k+1}(X). The distinction between upper and lower indices should be clarified.
  4. [Reference [39]] Reference [39] is listed as 'A. Strominger and M. Dine, Open p-branes'; the conventional attribution for this paper is M. Dine and A. Strominger (or just A. Strominger, depending on the version), and the author list should be checked.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed p2-transgressing WZW phase is reverse-engineered in Appendix B: the Z in E0,7 and the differential d0,7_8(a7)=p2 are forced by matching a pre-assigned target bordism group, itself obtained from an unproved Steenrod-module identification of Γ_UV with Γ_IR; the M5 spectrum was also deliberately built from the anomaly data, so the qualitative match in Sec. 3 is partly by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix B, Anomaly Matching Spectral Sequence (pp. 26–29)]
    "But now, we can count that there are 12 generators along the diagonal which converge to (DΩ spin)8(Γ IR ) = Z11, whereas we only need to match 11 generators. The only possibility left to us is that E0,7 contains a factor of Z. If we call the generator of this factor a7, then we must have that this generator is sent by the differential d0,7 8 : E0,7 8 → E8,0 8 to kill a generator in E8,0 ∼= H 8(Γ U V , Z), in order to give us the correct number of generators in the E∞ page. ... The final question we can ask is which generator in E8,0 ∼= H 8(Γ U V , Z) does a7 kill?"

    The WZW phase is not computed from the fiber X or from an independent transgression; it is inserted as the missing Z in E0,7 so that the E∞ diagonal matches the pre-assigned target (DΩ spin)8(Γ IR) = Z11, and its target class p2 is selected only because all other H^8(Γ UV,Z) generators were already 'naturally' paired with the 11 known bordism generators in (B.2). This is explicitly reverse engineering: the paper states 'Our plan is to work backwards from our knowledge of (DΩ spin)k(Γ IR) and of the cohomology of Γ U V in order to determine the invertible phases of the effective theory'. The predicted integer-level HWZ transgression is therefore forced by the choice of target and by elimination, not derived.

  2. self definitional [Section 3.1–3.2, M5 Bordism and Invertible Phases (pp. 12–15)]
    "Given that all the tangential structure we reviewed in Section 2.1 makes a pivotal appearance in the anomaly (2.6), we deem it reasonable to conjecture that the appropriate invertible phases which define this anomaly are classified by a cobordism theory which incorporates this structure. ... In doing this, we see that all of the major features of (2.6) are present in our invertible phases. The generator g ∈ H 4(K(Z, 4), Z2) represents the presence of the C-field. The class W4 ∈ H 4(BSO (5)[e], Z2) represents the presence of the Euler structure..."

    The M5 spectrum is built by including the exact structures whose anomaly content is being 'discovered': Σ^{-5} T BSO(5)[e] for the Euler-structured R-symmetry bundle and K(Z,4) for the C-field class. The generators (3.6) are then just products of the Stiefel-Whitney classes of those factors, so finding W4, W4g, g, etc. among the 11 bordism classes is guaranteed by the Thom/Künneth construction rather than being an independent check. The identification with the anomaly terms in (2.6) is an inspection of the input data, not a derivation. The paper itself defers 'a thorough description of the precise topological invariants' and a precise matching to future work.

full rationale

M5 bordism itself is computed by an independent Adams spectral sequence in Appendix A, so the paper is not vacuous: the 11 generators of Inv^{M5}_7 = Z^{11} are genuine bordism-theoretic outputs. However, the central new prediction — the integer-level WZW phase whose transgression kills p2 — is not obtained from an independent computation of (DΩ^spin)^7(X). Appendix B explicitly works backwards: the target groups (DΩ^spin)^k(Γ_IR) are set equal to the UV groups under the unproved assertion that Γ_UV and Γ_IR have identical mod 2 Steenrod modules, and the Z in E0,7 plus the differential d0,7_8(a7)=p2 are forced by the requirement that the E∞ diagonal recover Z11. The differential's target is selected by elimination after pairing all other H^8 generators with the 11 classes of Appendix A. This is fitting, not derivation; the paper concedes that a full proof is future work. The qualitative match in Section 3 is also partly by construction, since the M5 spectrum was deliberately assembled from the very BSO(5)[e], K(Z,4), and spin structures that appear in the known anomaly theory (2.6). The paper explicitly leaves open a derivation from M-theory directly. Overall, the central claim has independent computational content but its headline WZW prediction is reverse-engineered; hence partial circularity, score 6.

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

The classification rests on the prior definition of M5 bordism and on the anomaly theory from Monnier 2018, so the new content is the computation of bordism groups and the spectral sequence inference. The most fragile input is the unproved equality of Steenrod module structures of Gamma_UV and Gamma_IR in Appendix B, which fixes the target groups of the anomaly matching spectral sequence.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The A-type anomaly theory is given by equation (2.6), as derived in Monnier arXiv:1706.01903.
    Section 2.2 adopts this result as the starting point; the M5 bordism proposal is designed to reproduce it.
  • domain assumption M5 bordism is defined by the Thom spectrum MSpin ^ Sigma^-5 F5 ^ K(Z,4)+ with F5 = T BSO(5)[e].
    Section 3.1 adopts the bordism theory proposed in Monnier 2018; the entire classification depends on this choice of tangential structure.
  • domain assumption The IR theory on the tensor branch has R-symmetry broken from SO(5) to SO(4), with an S4 sigma model target.
    Section 2.3; standard anomaly matching setup from Intriligator 2000.
  • ad hoc to paper Gamma_UV and Gamma_IR have identical mod 2 cohomology and Steenrod module structure.
    Appendix B asserts this without proof; it fixes the target groups (DOmega^spin)^k(Gamma_IR) used to reverse-engineer the WZW phase.
  • domain assumption The Adams spectral sequence for MSpin ^ Gamma_UV has no nontrivial differentials in the relevant range, and the E2 page is as in Appendix A.
    Appendix A presents the computation but omits the projective resolution and details of the Steenrod module calculation; the result is taken as input.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anomaly Matching in 6d $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ SCFTs from M5 Cobordism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OLWHFAOQ

@misc{pith2026250104785,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anomaly Matching in 6d $\mathcalN=(2,0)$ SCFTs from M5 Cobordism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OLWHFAOQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04785}
}
abstract

We investigate the anomalies of 6d $\mathcal{N} = (2, 0)$ superconformal field theories for any ADE gauge group using the modern characterization of anomalies by cobordism. We propose that, in order to account for all features of the anomaly, a bordism theory with exotic tangential structure is needed. We then attempt to match the anomaly in the IR effective theory on the tensor branch with a suitable WZW term. Once again, we show that the exotic bordism structure is necessary to achieve this. Our results suggest a natural explanation for the origin of the Hopf-Wess-Zumino term.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Freed and M.J

    D.S. Freed and M.J. Hopkins, Reflection positivity and invertible topological phases , Geometry & Topology 25 (2021) 1165–1330 [1604.06527]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Kapustin, R

    A. Kapustin, R. Thorngren, A. Turzillo and Z. Wang, Fermionic symmetry protected topological phases and cobordisms , Journal of High Energy Physics 2015 (2015) 1–21 [1406.7329]

    arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Yonekura, On the cobordism classification of symmetry protected topol ogical phases, Communications in Mathematical Physics 368 (2019) 1121–1173 [1803.10796]

    K. Yonekura, On the cobordism classification of symmetry protected topol ogical phases, Communications in Mathematical Physics 368 (2019) 1121–1173 [1803.10796]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Gaiotto and T

    D. Gaiotto and T. Johnson-Freyd, Symmetry protected topological phases and generalized cohomology, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019 (2019) [1712.07950]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Minimalist approach to the classification of symmetry protected topological phases

    C.Z. Xiong, Minimalist approach to the classification of symmetry prote cted topological phases, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 51 (2018) 445001 [1701.00004]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Freed and G.W

    D.S. Freed and G.W. Moore, Setting the quantum integrand of m-theory , Communications in Mathematical Physics 263 (2006) 89–132 [hep-th/0409135]

    arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Lecture notes for felix klein lectures on n=2 gauge th eories

    G. Moore, “Lecture notes for felix klein lectures on n=2 gauge th eories.” https://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~gmoore/FelixKleinLectureNotes.pdf

    work page

  8. [8]

    Heckman and T

    J.J. Heckman and T. Rudelius, Top Down Approach to 6D SCFTs , J. Phys. A 52 (2019) 093001 [1805.06467]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Gaiotto, N=2 dualities , JHEP 08 (2012) 034 [0904.2715]

    D. Gaiotto, N=2 dualities , JHEP 08 (2012) 034 [0904.2715]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Alday, D

    L.F. Alday, D. Gaiotto and Y. Tachikawa, Liouville Correlation Functions from Four-dimensional Gauge Theories , Lett. Math. Phys. 91 (2010) 167 [0906.3219]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Witten, Geometric Langlands From Six Dimensions , 0905.2720

    E. Witten, Geometric Langlands From Six Dimensions , 0905.2720. – 30 –

    arXiv

  4. [13]

    C. Beem, M. Lemos, L. Rastelli and B.C. van Rees, The (2, 0) superconformal bootstrap , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 025016 [1507.05637]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Seiberg, Non-trivial fixed points of the renormalization group in six dimensions, Physics Letters B 390 (1997) 169–171 [hep-th/9609161]

    N. Seiberg, Non-trivial fixed points of the renormalization group in six dimensions, Physics Letters B 390 (1997) 169–171 [hep-th/9609161]

    1997 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Seiberg and E

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Comments on string dynamics in six dimensions , Nuclear Physics B 471 (1996) 121–134 [hep-th/9603003]

    1996 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Freed and C

    D.S. Freed and C. Teleman, Relative quantum field theory , 2014

    2014

  8. [17]

    Gukov, P.-S

    S. Gukov, P.-S. Hsin and D. Pei, Generalized global symmetries of T [M ] theories. Part I , JHEP 04 (2021) 232 [2010.15890]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Harvey, R

    J.A. Harvey, R. Minasian and G. Moore, Non-abelian tensor-multiplet anomalies , Journal of High Energy Physics 1998 (1998) 004–004 [hep-th/9808060]

    1998 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Intriligator, Anomaly matching and a hopf–wess–zumino term in six-dimens ional, field theories, Nuclear Physics B 581 (2000) 257–273 [hep-th/0001205]

    K. Intriligator, Anomaly matching and a hopf–wess–zumino term in six-dimens ional, field theories, Nuclear Physics B 581 (2000) 257–273 [hep-th/0001205]

    2000 arXiv

  11. [21]

    Monnier, The anomaly field theories of six-dimensional (2,0) superco nformal theories , Adv

    S. Monnier, The anomaly field theories of six-dimensional (2,0) superco nformal theories , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 22 (2018) 2035 [1706.01903]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [22]

    Monnier, The global anomalies of (2,0) superconformal field theories in six dimensions , Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (2014) [1406.4540]

    S. Monnier, The global anomalies of (2,0) superconformal field theories in six dimensions , Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (2014) [1406.4540]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [23]

    Monnier, Global gravitational anomaly cancellation for five-branes , Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 19 (2015) 701–724 [1310.2250]

    S. Monnier, Global gravitational anomaly cancellation for five-branes , Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 19 (2015) 701–724 [1310.2250]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [24]

    Intriligator, 6d, N = (1, 0) coulomb branch anomaly matching , Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (2014) [1408.6745]

    K. Intriligator, 6d, N = (1, 0) coulomb branch anomaly matching , Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (2014) [1408.6745]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [25]

    Ohmori, H

    K. Ohmori, H. Shimizu, Y. Tachikawa and K. Yonekura, Anomaly polynomial of general 6d scfts, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2014 (2014) 103B07 [1408.5572]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [26]

    Heckman, D.R

    J.J. Heckman, D.R. Morrison, T. Rudelius and C. Vafa, Geometry of 6D RG Flows , JHEP 09 (2015) 052 [1505.00009]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [27]

    C´ ordova, T.T

    C. C´ ordova, T.T. Dumitrescu and K. Intriligator, Anomalies, renormalization group flows, and the a-theorem in six-dimensional (1, 0) theories , Journal of High Energy Physics 2016 (2016) [1506.03807]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [28]

    Cordova, T.T

    C. Cordova, T.T. Dumitrescu and X. Yin, Higher derivative terms, toroidal compactification, and Weyl anomalies in six-dimensional (2, 0) theories , JHEP 10 (2019) 128 [1505.03850]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [29]

    Fiorenza, H

    D. Fiorenza, H. Sati and U. Schreiber, Twisted cohomotopy implies level quantization of the full 6d wess-zumino term of the m5-brane , Communications in Mathematical Physics 384 (2021) 403–432 [1906.07417]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Kalkkinen and K

    J. Kalkkinen and K. Stelle, Large gauge transformations in m-theory , Journal of Geometry and Physics 48 (2003) 100–132 [hep-th/0212081]

    2003 arXiv

  21. [31]

    Hu and D

    S. Hu and D. Nanopoulosa, Hopf-wess-zumino term in the effective action of the 6d, (2, 0 ) field theory revisted , Journal of High Energy Physics 2011 (2011) [1110.0861]. – 31 –

    2011 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Arvanitakis, Brane Wess-Zumino terms from AKSZ and exceptional generali sed geometry as an L∞ -algebroid, Adv

    A.S. Arvanitakis, Brane Wess-Zumino terms from AKSZ and exceptional generali sed geometry as an L∞ -algebroid, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 23 (2019) 1159 [1804.07303]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [33]

    Y. Lee, K. Ohmori and Y. Tachikawa, Revisiting wess-zumino-witten terms , SciPost Physics 10 (2021) [2009.00033]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Freed, Pions and Generalized Cohomology , J

    D.S. Freed, Pions and Generalized Cohomology , J. Diff. Geom. 80 (2008) 45 [hep-th/0607134]

    2008 arXiv

  25. [35]

    Freed, Z

    D.S. Freed, Z. Komargodski and N. Seiberg, The sum over topological sectors and θ in the 2+1-dimensional CP1σ -model, Communications in Mathematical Physics 362 (2018) 167–183 [1707.05448]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [36]

    Saito, Wess-Zumino-Witten Terms of Sp QCD by Bordism Theory , 2404.06185

    S. Saito, Wess-Zumino-Witten Terms of Sp QCD by Bordism Theory , 2404.06185

    arXiv

  27. [37]

    Lee and Y

    Y. Lee and Y. Tachikawa, Some comments on 6D global gauge anomalies , PTEP 2021 (2021) 08B103 [2012.11622]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [39]

    Strominger and M

    A. Strominger and M. Dine, Open p-branes, Phys. Lett. B 383 (1996) 44 [hep-th/9512059]

    1996 arXiv

  29. [40]

    Monnier, Topological field theories on manifolds with wu structures , Reviews in Mathematical Physics 29 (2017) 1750015 [1607.01396]

    S. Monnier, Topological field theories on manifolds with wu structures , Reviews in Mathematical Physics 29 (2017) 1750015 [1607.01396]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [41]

    Monnier, The global anomaly of the self-dual field in general backgrou nds, Annales Henri Poincar´ e17 (2015) 1003–1036 [1309.6642]

    S. Monnier, The global anomaly of the self-dual field in general backgrou nds, Annales Henri Poincar´ e17 (2015) 1003–1036 [1309.6642]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [42]

    Witten, Five-brane effective action in m-theory , Journal of Geometry and Physics 22 (1997) 103–133 [hep-th/9610234]

    E. Witten, Five-brane effective action in m-theory , Journal of Geometry and Physics 22 (1997) 103–133 [hep-th/9610234]

    1997 arXiv

  32. [43]

    Witten, Duality relations among topological effects in string theor y, Journal of High Energy Physics 2000 (2000) 031–031 [hep-th/9912086]

    E. Witten, Duality relations among topological effects in string theor y, Journal of High Energy Physics 2000 (2000) 031–031 [hep-th/9912086]

    2000 arXiv

  33. [44]

    Witten, On flux quantization in M theory and the effective action , J

    E. Witten, On flux quantization in M theory and the effective action , J. Geom. Phys. 22 (1997) 1 [hep-th/9609122]

    1997 arXiv

  34. [45]

    Bonetti, M

    F. Bonetti, M. Del Zotto and R. Minasian, SymTFTs and Non-Invertible Symmetries of 6d (2,0) SCFTs of Type D from M-theory, 2412.07842

    arXiv

  35. [46]

    Henningson and K

    M. Henningson and K. Skenderis, The Holographic Weyl anomaly , JHEP 07 (1998) 023 [hep-th/9806087]

    1998 arXiv

  36. [47]

    Dai and D.S

    X.-z. Dai and D.S. Freed, eta invariants and determinant lines , J. Math. Phys. 35 (1994) 5155 [hep-th/9405012]

    1994 arXiv

  37. [48]

    Witten and K

    E. Witten and K. Yonekura, Anomaly Inflow and the η-Invariant, in The Shoucheng Zhang Memorial Workshop , 9, 2019 [ 1909.08775]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [49]

    Garc ´ ıa-Etxebarria and M

    I.n. Garc ´ ıa-Etxebarria and M. Montero,Dai-Freed anomalies in particle physics , JHEP 08 (2019) 003 [1808.00009]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [50]

    Bordism: Old and new

    D. Freed, “Bordism: Old and new.” https://web.ma.utexas.edu/users/dafr/bordism.pdf

  40. [51]

    Dijkgraaf and E

    R. Dijkgraaf and E. Witten, Topological gauge theories and group cohomology , Communications in Mathematical Physics 129 (1990) 393

    1990

  41. [52]

    Witten, On holomorphic factorization of wzw and coset models , Communications in Mathematical Physics 144 (1992) 189

    E. Witten, On holomorphic factorization of wzw and coset models , Communications in Mathematical Physics 144 (1992) 189 . – 32 –

    1992

  42. [53]

    Brown, The cohomology of bson and bon with integer coefficients , Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 85 (1982) 283

    E.H. Brown, The cohomology of bson and bon with integer coefficients , Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 85 (1982) 283

    1982

  43. [54]

    Integrals on spin manifolds and the k-theory of k( z,4)

    J. Francis, “Integrals on spin manifolds and the k-theory of k( z,4).” https://sites.math.northwestern.edu/~jnkf/writ/bspin2011.pdf. – 33 –

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.