Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 49 references

This paper derives the all-loop reflection matrix for scattering off a boundary that carries its own trapped excitation, when scattering preserves SU(1|2), by requiring the boundary to keep a remnant of Yangian symmetry.

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 02:59 UTC pith:PVOWRK6O

load-bearing objection Solid extension of integrable boundary scattering to a boundary with a 4-d SU(1|2) degree of freedom; the Yangian derivation is explicit but the BYBE and bootstrap checks are asserted rather than shown. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.09195 v2 pith:PVOWRK6O submitted 2026-02-09 hep-th

Boundary bound states and integrable Wilson loops in ABJM

Diego H. Correa , Maximiliano G. Ferro , Victor I. Giraldo-Rivera , Nicolas A. Ivanovich This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords reflection matrixboundary bound stateYangian symmetrySU(1|2)integrabilityABJM Wilson loopopen spin chainboundary Yang-Baxter equation
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 aims to determine what happens when a magnon-like excitation is already stuck at the boundary of an integrable open spin chain and a second excitation scatters off it. The residual SU(1|2) symmetry leaves three of the twenty reflection amplitudes undetermined, so the authors impose a boundary remnant of the bulk Yangian symmetry; this fixes the matrix up to one physical parameter that sets the trapped excitation's energy. The resulting matrix satisfies the boundary Yang-Baxter equation. In the ABJM Wilson-loop realization, the trapped state is a boundary bound state produced by a pole in the singlet-boundary reflection phase, and the matrix obtained from Yangian symmetry agrees component-by-component with the boundary bound state bootstrap. Explicit weak-coupling checks on the open-spin-chain Hamiltonian confirm the leading orders of the result.

Core claim

If a boundary of an SU(1|2)-invariant open chain carries a four-dimensional degree of freedom, imposing commutation of the reflection matrix with the twisted grade-1 Yangian generators collapses the twenty reflection functions to a single overall function times a one-parameter family labelled by kappa, with the boundary excitation energy given by E_B = 1/2 + g kappa. The resulting reflection matrix solves the BYBE. In the ABJM 1/2 BPS Wilson-loop setup, the value kappa = 1 + i/x_B reproduces the boundary bound state energy, and the matrix coincides with the bootstrap expression built from the residue of the singlet-reflection dressing factor; the paper verifies this identification for every

What carries the argument

The central object is the twisted grade-1 Yangian co-product of the boundary remnant Y(h,g), with h = su(1|2). This infinite-dimensional extension of the ordinary symmetry supplies the extra constraints beyond the grade-0 generators, fixing the reflection matrix; the evaluation parameter u_B of the boundary degree of freedom is determined by two central-charge conditions, and the remaining freedom is the physical parameter kappa.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the boundary degree of freedom does not alter the twisted Yangian co-product, so the evaluation-parameter relations used for a symmetric-pair boundary also constrain a boundary carrying spin; this is asserted rather than proven in the paper.

What would settle it

Compute the two-loop correction to a ratio of off-diagonal reflection components, e.g. R^{1 1}_{1 1}/R^{4 1}_{1 4}, in the ABJM Wilson-loop spin chain at kappa = 1 + i/x_B; if the result disagrees with the expansion of the Yangian-derived expression (3.25) after using the spectral-parameter constraints, the assumed boundary Yangian co-product is wrong.

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

If this is right

  • The exact reflection matrix for a boundary carrying a trapped fundamental magnon can be inserted into Bethe-Yang equations for the ABJM Wilson-loop spectral problem.
  • The boundary bound state bootstrap reproduces the Yangian-derived matrix at kappa = 1 + i/x_B, confirming that the pole in the singlet dressing factor describes a genuine boundary bound state.
  • For kappa satisfying |1/2 + g kappa| > E(pi), the boundary degree of freedom is a true bound state; for other kappa the matrices remain valid solutions of the BYBE.
  • Weak-coupling perturbation theory with the open-chain Hamiltonian H = lambda V0 + lambda^2 sum(1-P) reproduces the predicted reflection ratios, such as R^{2 1}_{1 2}/R^{1 1}_{1 1} = 2(1-e^{2ip})/(2-e^{ip}) at leading order.
  • The same twisted-Yangian method extends to higher-rank boundary representations, where grade-0 symmetry alone is insufficient to fix reflection matrices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • An immediate testable extension is a two-loop computation of off-diagonal reflection ratios in the SU(3) sector; disagreement would signal that the boundary degree of freedom modifies the twisted Yangian co-product, which the paper assumes rather than proves.
  • The one-parameter family labelled by kappa suggests a classification of integrable boundaries with degrees of freedom by the trapped-state energy plus representation data, with CDD-type factors generating the allowed family.
  • The weak-coupling eigenstates |B_Q> with energies lambda + lambda^2/Q hint that the all-loop Bethe ansatz will involve a nested structure built from the new reflection matrix; this is directly checkable in the ABJM Wilson-loop setting.
  • If the proposal is correct, strong-coupling checks using open strings in AdS4 x CP3 should reproduce the same kappa-dependent reflection phases, providing an independent test beyond weak coupling.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs an integrable reflection matrix for scattering off a boundary that carries a non-trivial SU(1|2) degree of freedom. After showing that SU(1|2) symmetry alone leaves three functions in the reflection matrix undetermined, the authors impose the boundary remnant of the twisted Yangian symmetry. This yields a two-parameter family of reflection matrices, one parameter being physical (kappa, related to the boundary bound-state energy) and the other being a normalization artifact. The family is then applied to the ABJM 1/2 BPS Wilson-line spin chain, where the boundary degree of freedom is identified with a boundary bound state. The paper also compares the Yangian result with a boundary bound-state bootstrap formula and performs weak-coupling checks using the perturbative open spin-chain Hamiltonian, including a leading-order match of a reflection-matrix ratio.

Significance. If the construction is correct, the paper provides a nontrivial extension of integrable boundary scattering to boundaries with dynamical degrees of freedom in an AdS/CFT context. The explicit all-loop reflection matrix for the ABJM Wilson-line boundary bound state is a concrete and potentially useful result, and the comparison with the bootstrap procedure gives an independent route to the same object. The weak-coupling tests of bound-state energies and of a reflection component ratio are valuable consistency checks. The main limitation is that the most load-bearing algebraic checks — the BYBE verification and the component-wise bootstrap comparison — are asserted rather than demonstrated, which currently prevents the reader from certifying the central claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, after Eq. (3.17) and Appendix D] The central claim that the reflection matrix is integrable rests on the sentence 'We have checked that this reflection matrix satisfies the BYBE.' No explicit computation, code, or structural argument is shown. Since BYBE is the defining property of an integrable boundary, this check is load-bearing. Please exhibit the verification, for example as a computer-algebra notebook or an appendix listing the independent BYBE equations, or give a proof that the Yangian-symmetric matrix automatically satisfies BYBE.
  2. [§3.1, Eqs. (3.11)–(3.14)] The twisted Yangian coproduct is imported from the symmetric-pair construction of Refs. [17–20] without explaining why a boundary carrying a non-trivial SU(1|2) representation leaves that coproduct unchanged. If the boundary DOF modifies the evaluation parameter u_B or adds a boundary term to the coproduct, then the constraints (3.16)–(3.17) are not forced and the matrix in Appendix D is merely one SU(1|2)-invariant solution rather than the unique integrable one. Please either justify the coproduct assumption from first principles or confirm the matrix by an independent route.
  3. [§3.2, Eqs. (3.22)–(3.27)] The comparison with the boundary bound-state bootstrap is stated but not demonstrated: 'we have checked that the entire list of functions determined by Yangian symmetry coincides' with the bootstrap expressions. This is an independent confirmation of the ABJM realization, but the reader cannot verify it from the only displayed component, Eq. (3.24). Please provide the complete component-wise match, or at least a supplementary file with the full comparison.
  4. [Section 4, Eqs. (4.22)–(4.27)] The weak-coupling check verifies one reflection ratio at leading order and the bound-state energies. This is a meaningful consistency test, but it does not fix the full matrix structure or the higher-order terms of the reflection matrix. The text should state this limitation explicitly, so the reader does not over-interpret the perturbative success as a derivation of the all-loop matrix.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (3.18)] The text says the reflection matrix is fixed 'in terms of a single overall function' and then announces a family with two parameters. Please clarify immediately that the second parameter, eta2, is unphysical and can be removed by redefining boundary-state normalization; this would avoid apparent inconsistency.
  2. [Appendix D] Several symbols are used without definition: f, Sigma, eta2, and the square-root factors. Please define all notation at the start of the appendix, as the compact expressions are otherwise very hard to parse.
  3. [§4, Eq. (4.4)] The cusp anomalous dimension formula has ambiguous parentheses: log(cos φ/2)^2 could be read as [log(cos(φ/2))]^2 or log[(cos(φ/2))^2]. Please clarify the intended expression.
  4. [§4, Eq. (4.27)] The wave-function in (4.22) uses the reflection matrix R, but the final ratio in (4.27) is called a ratio of 'right reflection factors'. Please clarify the relation between left/right conventions and the R used in the ansatz.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Yangian-derived family is a genuine symmetry derivation with the parameter left free; the ABJM value of kappa is a physical input, and the weak-coupling checks are independent benchmarks.

full rationale

The central derivation in Section 3.1 is not circular. Starting from the most general SU(1|2)-invariant reflection matrix with twenty functions, the paper imposes the twisted grade-1 Yangian coproduct (3.14) and obtains constraints (3.16)-(3.17) that reduce the solution to a family parameterized by kappa and an unphysical eta_2. The family is derived before any ABJM data are used, so this is a genuine symmetry derivation, not a fit renamed as a prediction. The later identification kappa = 1 + i/x_B is an explicit matching of the physical boundary bound state energy (2.15) to the energy formula EB = 1/2 + g kappa; the paper does not claim to predict that energy. The bootstrap comparison in (3.22)-(3.27) is a cross-check between the Yangian construction and the independent boundary bound state bootstrap formula; the two share the physical input x_B/E_B but are not identical by construction, and the agreement is asserted rather than exhibited. The weak-coupling verifications use the Hamiltonian (4.6) from [8] together with the external cusp anomalous dimension [40] to fix beta_0 = 0, then compute boundary bound state energies and a reflection ratio. These are independent checks; the fact that the leading-order ratio does not test the kappa-dependence is a limitation in scope, not circularity. Self-citation of [8] supplies the concrete ABJM realization (dressing-phase pole, x_B, E_B, Hamiltonian), but it is not load-bearing for the general Yangian result and is an externally falsifiable published computation. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a predicted quantity. The asserted BYBE and bootstrap checks are not shown in the text, but absence of shown algebra is a rigor gap, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, mediators, or conserved quantities are postulated. The boundary bound states are composite states of existing magnons in a known theory. The main new input is a family parameter kappa for the boundary energy, plus the representation-choice parameter eta2 that the authors argue is unphysical.

free parameters (2)
  • kappa = 1 + i/x_B in the ABJM realization; otherwise arbitrary
    Labels the energy of the boundary DOF via E_B = 1/2 + g*kappa; not fixed by the Yangian algebra. For the ABJM realization it is set by matching the known boundary bound state energy from [8].
  • eta2 = not assigned (removed by normalization)
    Appears in some components of the reflection matrix; the paper declares it unphysical and removable by redefining the relative normalization of bosonic and fermionic boundary states.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The bulk su(2|2) S-matrix and dressing factors, including the BES phase, are exact and satisfy crossing.
    Used throughout as input for bulk scattering and for the boundary bootstrap; taken from [26,27,30,31,32], not re-derived.
  • domain assumption The boundary remnant of the Yangian is generated by twisted grade-1 generators with co-product (3.14), and the symmetric-pair condition (3.12) holds.
    This is the key tool; imported from [17-20] and assumed to apply unchanged to a boundary with a non-trivial degree of freedom.
  • domain assumption The boundary degree of freedom transforms in a 4-dimensional SU(1|2) module with coefficients satisfying the algebra closure constraint (3.2).
    Concrete representation choice motivated by the fundamental magnon trapped at the singlet boundary; needed for the Yangian constraints.
  • domain assumption A pole in the singlet boundary reflection matrix dressing factor signals a boundary bound state with spectral parameters (2.14)/(2.21).
    Standard integrable-QFT interpretation; used to identify the ABJM realization and to fix kappa = 1 + i/x_B.
  • domain assumption The weak-coupling ABJM Wilson-line spin-chain Hamiltonian (4.6) with beta0 = 0 is correct.
    Taken from [8] with beta0 fixed via the cusp anomalous dimension [40]; used for the perturbative consistency checks.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19957 in / 11903 out tokens · 114049 ms · 2026-08-03T02:59:42.045299+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We derive an integrable reflection matrix for the scattering of excitations from a boundary with a degree of freedom when the reflection process preserves an $SU(1|2)$ symmetry. As this residual symmetry is not sufficient to fully determine the reflection matrix, we use the boundary remnant of the Yangian symmetry invariance and obtain a family of integrable solutions. A concrete realization of this setup is found when studying insertions in the 1/2 BPS Wilson loop in ABJM theory. The boundary degree of freedom appears as a boundary bound state due to poles in the dressing phase of the reflection matrix. We also compare our results with those obtained from the boundary bound state bootstrap procedure. The ABJM Wilson loop example enables us to perform perturbative verifications of our results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.09195 by Diego H. Correa, Maximiliano G. Ferro, Nicolas A. Ivanovich, Victor I. Giraldo-Rivera.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Boundary bound state bootstrap condition. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Insertion of two constant primary operators. They work as DCOs, transforming [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Boundary bound state bootstrap with higher rank representations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] 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

49 extracted references · 46 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Small deformations of supersymmetric Wilson loops and open spin-chains,

    N. Drukker and S. Kawamoto, “Small deformations of supersymmetric Wilson loops and open spin-chains,” JHEP07(2006), 024arXiv:hep-th/0604124

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    Drukker, ‘Integrable Wilson loops,” JHEP10(2013), 135arXiv:1203.1617 [hep- th]

    N. Drukker, ‘Integrable Wilson loops,” JHEP10(2013), 135arXiv:1203.1617 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    The quark anti-quark potential and the cusp anomalous dimension from a TBA equation,

    D. Correa, J. Maldacena and A. Sever, “The quark anti-quark potential and the cusp anomalous dimension from a TBA equation,” JHEP08(2012), 134arXiv:1203.1913 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Quantum Spectral Curve for PlanarN= 4 Super-Yang-Mills Theory,

    N. Gromov, V. Kazakov, S. Leurent and D. Volin, “Quantum Spectral Curve for PlanarN= 4 Super-Yang-Mills Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett.112(2014) no.1, 011602 arXiv:1305.1939 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Quantum Spectral Curve for a cusped Wilson line inN= 4 SYM,

    N. Gromov and F. Levkovich-Maslyuk, “Quantum Spectral Curve for a cusped Wilson line inN= 4 SYM,” JHEP04(2016), 134arXiv:1510.02098 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Bootstrapping the half-BPS line defect,

    P. Liendo, C. Meneghelli and V. Mitev, “Bootstrapping the half-BPS line defect,” JHEP 10(2018), 077arXiv:1806.01862 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Integrability and conformal bootstrap: One dimensional defect conformal field theory,

    A. Cavagli` a, N. Gromov, J. Julius and M. Preti, “Integrability and conformal bootstrap: One dimensional defect conformal field theory,” Phys. Rev. D105(2022) no.2, L021902 arXiv:2107.08510 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Integrable Wilson loops in ABJM: a Y-system computation of the cusp anomalous dimension,

    D. H. Correa, V. I. Giraldo-Rivera and M. Lagares, “Integrable Wilson loops in ABJM: a Y-system computation of the cusp anomalous dimension,” JHEP06(2023), 179 arXiv:2304.01924 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    The S-matrix of AdS / CFT and Yangian symmetry,

    N. Beisert, “The S-matrix of AdS / CFT and Yangian symmetry,” PoSSOL V AY(2006), 002arXiv:0704.0400 [nlin.SI]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  10. [10]

    The Bound State S-Matrix for AdS(5) x S**5 Superstring,

    G. Arutyunov, M. de Leeuw and A. Torrielli, “The Bound State S-Matrix for AdS(5) x S**5 Superstring,” Nucl. Phys. B819(2009), 319-350arXiv:0902.0183 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    Lectures on Yangian Symmetry,

    F. Loebbert, “Lectures on Yangian Symmetry,” J. Phys. A49(2016) no.32, 323002 arXiv:1606.02947 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    The Feyn-structure of Yangian symmetry

    F. Loebbert and H. Mathur, “The Feyn-structure of Yangian symmetry” ,JHEP01 (2025), 112arXiv:2410.11936 [hep-th]. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Nonlocal Symmetries of Planar Feyn- man Integrals,

    F. Loebbert, L. R ¨uenaufer and S. F. Stawinski, “Nonlocal Symmetries of Planar Feyn- man Integrals,” Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) no.15, 151603arXiv:2505.05550 [hep- th]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Boundary scattering, symmetric spaces and the principal chiral model on the half line,

    N. J. MacKay and B. J. Short, “Boundary scattering, symmetric spaces and the principal chiral model on the half line,” Commun. Math. Phys.233(2003), 313-354 [erratum: Commun. Math. Phys.245(2004), 425-428] arXiv:hep-th/0104212 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  15. [15]

    Boundary remnant of Yangian symmetry and the structure of rational reflection matrices,

    G. W. Delius, N. J. MacKay and B. J. Short, “Boundary remnant of Yangian symmetry and the structure of rational reflection matrices,” Phys. Lett. B522(2001), 335-344 [erratum: Phys. Lett. B524(2002), 401-401] arXiv:hep-th/0109115 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  16. [16]

    Reflecting magnons,

    D. M. Hofman and J. M. Maldacena, “Reflecting magnons,” JHEP11(2007), 063 arXiv:0708.2272 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  17. [17]

    Yangian symmetry and bound states in AdS/CFT boundary scattering,

    C. Ahn and R. I. Nepomechie, “Yangian symmetry and bound states in AdS/CFT boundary scattering,” JHEP05(2010), 016arXiv:1003.3361 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [18]

    On the reflection of magnon bound states,

    N. MacKay and V. Regelskis, “On the reflection of magnon bound states,” JHEP08 (2010), 055arXiv:1006.4102 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  19. [19]

    Yangian symmetry of the Y=0 maximal giant graviton,

    N. MacKay and V. Regelskis, “Yangian symmetry of the Y=0 maximal giant graviton,” JHEP12(2010), 076arXiv:1010.3761 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  20. [20]

    Yangian symmetry of boundary scattering in AdS/CFT and the explicit form of bound state reflection matrices,

    L. Palla, “Yangian symmetry of boundary scattering in AdS/CFT and the explicit form of bound state reflection matrices,” JHEP03(2011), 110arXiv:1102.0122 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  21. [21]

    Reflecting magnons from D7 and D5 branes,

    D. H. Correa and C. A. S. Young, “Reflecting magnons from D7 and D5 branes,” J. Phys. A41(2008), 455401arXiv:0808.0452 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  22. [22]

    Open Spin Chains from Determinant Like Operators in ABJM Theory,

    H. H. Chen, H. Ouyang and J. B. Wu, “Open Spin Chains from Determinant Like Operators in ABJM Theory,” Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.10, 106012arXiv:1809.09941 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    N=6 superconformal Chern- Simons-matter theories, M2-branes and their gravity duals,

    O. Aharony, O. Bergman, D. L. Jafferis and J. Maldacena, “N=6 superconformal Chern- Simons-matter theories, M2-branes and their gravity duals,” JHEP10(2008), 091 arXiv:0806.1218 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  24. [24]

    A Supermatrix model for N=6 super Chern-Simons- matter theory,

    N. Drukker and D. Trancanelli, “A Supermatrix model for N=6 super Chern-Simons- matter theory,” JHEP02(2010), 058,arXiv:0912.3006 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  25. [25]

    1/2-BPS Wilson Loops and Vortices in ABJM Model,

    K. M. Lee and S. Lee, “1/2-BPS Wilson Loops and Vortices in ABJM Model,” JHEP 09(2010), 004arXiv:1006.5589 [hep-th]. 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  26. [26]

    The Bethe ansatz for superconformal Chern-Simons,

    J. A. Minahan and K. Zarembo, “The Bethe ansatz for superconformal Chern-Simons,” JHEP09(2008), 040arXiv:0806.3951 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  27. [27]

    Spin Chains in N=6 Superconformal Chern-Simons- Matter Theory,

    D. Gaiotto, S. Giombi and X. Yin, “Spin Chains in N=6 Superconformal Chern-Simons- Matter Theory,” JHEP04(2009), 066,arXiv:0806.4589 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  28. [28]

    The all loop AdS4/CFT3 Bethe ansatz,

    N. Gromov and P. Vieira, “The all loop AdS4/CFT3 Bethe ansatz,” JHEP01(2009), 016arXiv:0807.0777 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  29. [29]

    Exact Slope and Interpolating Functions in N=6 Su- persymmetric Chern-Simons Theory,

    N. Gromov and G. Sizov, “Exact Slope and Interpolating Functions in N=6 Su- persymmetric Chern-Simons Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) no.12, 121601 arXiv:1403.1894 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [30]

    The SU(2|2) dynamic S-matrix,

    N. Beisert, “The SU(2|2) dynamic S-matrix,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.12(2008), 945- 979, arXiv:hep-th/0511082 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  31. [31]

    Transcendentality and Crossing,

    N. Beisert, B. Eden and M. Staudacher, “Transcendentality and Crossing,” J. Stat. Mech.0701(2007), P01021,arXiv:hep-th/0610251 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  32. [32]

    N=6 super Chern-Simons theory S-matrix and all-loop Bethe ansatz equations,

    C. Ahn and R. I. Nepomechie, “N=6 super Chern-Simons theory S-matrix and all-loop Bethe ansatz equations,” JHEP09(2008), 010,arXiv:0807.1924 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  33. [33]

    Roadmap on Wilson loops in 3d Chern–Simons-matter theories,

    N. Drukker, D. Trancanelli, L. Bianchi, M. S. Bianchi, D. H. Correa, V. Forini, L. Griguolo, M. Leoni, F. Levkovich-Maslyuk and G. Nagaoka,et al.“Roadmap on Wilson loops in 3d Chern–Simons-matter theories,” J. Phys. A53(2020) no.17, 173001 arXiv:1910.00588 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    TBA and Y-system for planar AdS(4)/CFT(3),

    D. Bombardelli, D. Fioravanti and R. Tateo, “TBA and Y-system for planar AdS(4)/CFT(3),” Nucl. Phys. B834(2010), 543-561arXiv:0912.4715 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  35. [35]

    Finite size corrections for open strings/open chains in planar AdS/CFT,

    D. H. Correa and C. A. S. Young, “Finite size corrections for open strings/open chains in planar AdS/CFT,” JHEP08(2009), 097arXiv:0905.1700 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  36. [36]

    Hopf algebras and the quantum Yang-Baxter equation,

    V. G. Drinfeld, “Hopf algebras and the quantum Yang-Baxter equation,” Sov. Math. Dokl.32(1985), 254-258

    1985

  37. [37]

    Boundary S matrix and boundary state in two- dimensional integrable quantum field theory,

    S. Ghoshal and A. B. Zamolodchikov, “Boundary S matrix and boundary state in two- dimensional integrable quantum field theory,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A9(1994), 3841-3886 [erratum: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A9(1994), 4353]arXiv:hep-th/9306002 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  38. [38]

    From defects to boundaries,

    Z. Bajnok and A. George, “From defects to boundaries,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A21(2006), 1063-1078arXiv:hep-th/0404199 [hep-th]. 28

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  39. [39]

    Constant primary operators and where to find them: the strange case of BPS defects in ABJ(M) theory,

    N. Gorini, L. Griguolo, L. Guerrini, S. Penati, D. Seminara and P. Soresina, “Constant primary operators and where to find them: the strange case of BPS defects in ABJ(M) theory,” JHEP02(2023), 013,arXiv:2209.11269 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    The generalized cusp in ABJ(M) N = 6 Super Chern-Simons theories,

    L. Griguolo, D. Marmiroli, G. Martelloni and D. Seminara, “The generalized cusp in ABJ(M) N = 6 Super Chern-Simons theories,” JHEP05(2013), 113arXiv:1208.5766 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [41]

    Novel BPS Wilson loops in three- dimensional quiver Chern–Simons-matter theories,

    H. Ouyang, J. B. Wu and J. j. Zhang, “Novel BPS Wilson loops in three- dimensional quiver Chern–Simons-matter theories,” Phys. Lett. B753(2016), 215-220 arXiv:1510.05475 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [42]

    Construction and classification of novel BPS Wilson loops in quiver Chern–Simons-matter theories,

    H. Ouyang, J. B. Wu and J. j. Zhang, “Construction and classification of novel BPS Wilson loops in quiver Chern–Simons-matter theories,” Nucl. Phys. B910(2016), 496- 527arXiv:1511.02967 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    Supersymmetric mixed bound- ary conditions in AdS 2 and DCFT 1 marginal deformations,

    D. H. Correa, V. I. Giraldo-Rivera and G. A. Silva, “Supersymmetric mixed bound- ary conditions in AdS 2 and DCFT 1 marginal deformations,” JHEP03(2020), 010 arXiv:1910.04225 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    Interpolating Wilson loops and enriched RG flows,

    L. Castiglioni, S. Penati, M. Tenser and D. Trancanelli, “Interpolating Wilson loops and enriched RG flows,” JHEP08(2023), 106arXiv:2211.16501 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Wilson loops and defect RG flows in ABJM,

    L. Castiglioni, S. Penati, M. Tenser and D. Trancanelli, “Wilson loops and defect RG flows in ABJM,” JHEP06(2023), 157arXiv:2305.01647 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    New supersymmetric Wilson loops in ABJ(M) theories,

    V. Cardinali, L. Griguolo, G. Martelloni and D. Seminara, “New supersymmetric Wilson loops in ABJ(M) theories,” Phys. Lett. B718(2012), 615-619arXiv:1209.4032 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  47. [47]

    Wilson lines as superconformal defects in ABJM theory: a formula for the emitted radiation,

    L. Bianchi, L. Griguolo, M. Preti and D. Seminara, “Wilson lines as superconformal defects in ABJM theory: a formula for the emitted radiation,” JHEP10(2017), 050, arXiv:1706.06590 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    Classifying Superconformal Defects in Diverse Dimensions Part I: Superconformal Lines,

    N. B. Agmon and Y. Wang, “Classifying Superconformal Defects in Diverse Dimensions Part I: Superconformal Lines,”arXiv:2009.06650 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  49. [49]

    Analytic bootstrap and Witten diagrams for the ABJM Wilson line as defect CFT 1,

    L. Bianchi, G. Bliard, V. Forini, L. Griguolo and D. Seminara, “Analytic bootstrap and Witten diagrams for the ABJM Wilson line as defect CFT 1,” JHEP08(2020), 143, arXiv:2004.07849 [hep-th]. 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020