Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

DualityCert: Verifier-Gated Language-Model Repair of Broken Duality Claims in Quantum Field Theory

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A symbolic verifier of Seiberg-duality consistency checks gates language-model repair of broken claims, improving success over single attempts on two models while the better exploitation policy reverses between them.

desk verdict A carefully preregistered and reproducible study of verifier-gated LLM repair; the headline effects are credible as statements about DUALITYCERT, and the verifier's narrow scope is openly disclosed but still the main caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23614 v2 pith:R6JSBELH submitted 2026-07-26 cs.CR cs.AIcs.LGhep-th

Xingyang Yu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.AIcs.LGhep-th
keywords Seibergdualityquivergaugetheorysymbolicverifierconsistencycertificatelanguage-modelrepairverifier-gatediterationanomalymatchingpreregisteredbenchmark
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 builds a symbolic verifier, DualityCert, for candidate Seiberg-duality claims in four-dimensional N=1 quiver gauge theories. The verifier runs the consistency checks the field itself uses — 't Hooft anomaly matching, superpotential R-charge consistency, central-charge agreement, and a bounded chiral-ring proxy — and issues a certificate stating that no tested inconsistency was found. The paper turns the verifier into a repair environment: a language model receives a deliberately broken claim and edits it until the verifier certifies it. On a preregistered benchmark of 145 broken claims, verifier-gated retry improves repair success over single-shot attempts on both confirmatory models, and the better of two budget-matched exploitation policies — a stop-first strategy portfolio versus independent verifier-filtered resampling — reverses order between the two models. The paper argues this establishes that language-model agents can exploit cheap exact certificates to repair physics claims, but that which exploitation policy wins is not universal across models.

What carries the argument

The consistency certificate from DualityCert, produced by a registry of obligations: gauge and mixed anomaly cancellation, 't Hooft anomaly matching, superpotential R-charge consistency, central-charge matching from the encoded R-symmetry, and a bounded classical chiral-ring proxy. A claim certifies if at least one obligation passes and none fails. The repair loop uses a feedback projection reporting only failed obligation names and categories; the final judge is at least as strict as the interaction-time verifier (chiral-ring word length 5 versus 3, plus a copy guard rejecting verbatim copies of the electric theory).

What would settle it

Re-run the repair experiment with a stricter verifier that additionally checks the Witten anomaly, performs a-maximization for central charges, or compares full chiral-ring data, and see whether the repair gains persist. Alternatively, build a benchmark of claims whose true duality status is known by independent means and test whether certified repairs track ground truth.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a cheap symbolic verifier of the consistency checks physicists use to test Seiberg duality can gate language-model repair of broken claims. On 145 preregistered fixtures, verifier-gated retry certifies more often than single-shot attempts, by +8.3 and +7.1 percentage points on the two confirmatory models. Under equal budgets of eleven attempts, the stop-first strategy portfolio loses to independent verifier-filtered resampling on one model and beats it on the other; on one model, structured feedback and interpretable obligation names add gains that are absent on the other. The certificate states only that no tested inconsistency was found, not that the duali

Load-bearing premise

That DualityCert's finite consistency checks are a meaningful judge of what counts as a broken or repaired Seiberg-duality claim. The verifier's scope is narrower than the physics: the SU(2) cubic condition is a chirality-balance convention, the Witten anomaly is not checked, central charges are trial values without a-maximization, and the chiral-ring comparison is a bounded classical proxy. If this judge is too weak or miscalibrated, the reported success rates measure agreem

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Verifier-gated retry improves final repair success over a single attempt on both confirmatory models, with Holm-adjusted p<0.002, so cheap exact checkers can anchor language-model repair in physics.
  • The better of the two budget-matched exploitation policies is not universal: independent verifier-filtered resampling beats the stop-first portfolio on one model, and the portfolio wins on the other.
  • On one model, category-level verifier feedback adds +8.7 points over content-free retry, and interpretable obligation identities add +6.4 points over masked feedback; neither effect is detected on the other model.
  • Every winning policy uses the same cheap consistency certificate, either as a filter over independent samples or as a source of feedback.
  • The certificate is a consistency statement, not a proof; a failed obligation rules out the claim only within the encoded scope.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pattern generalizes, any physics domain with sharp native consistency checks — other dualities, bootstrap constraints, anomaly cancellation — could support the same verifier-gated repair loop, making language-model output machine-checkable without a proof assistant.
  • The non-universality of policy rankings across models implies that evaluations of verifier-based agents should report per-model results rather than a single pooled verdict, since the optimal strategy is model-dependent.
  • Because the verifier omits the Witten anomaly, a-maximization, and a full chiral ring, the measured repair gains may shrink under a stricter checker; a direct test is to rerun the same benchmark with those obligations enabled.
  • The paper's five reusable ingredients — claim schema, obligation set, certificate, feedback projection, strict final judge — could be applied to other dualities such as 3d mirror symmetry or 2d triality.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces DUALITYCERT, a symbolic verifier for candidate Seiberg-duality claims in 4d N=1 quiver gauge theories. The verifier checks four families of consistency obligations — 't Hooft anomaly matching, superpotential R-charge consistency, central-charge matching, and a bounded chiral-ring proxy — and returns a certificate whose semantics are explicitly scoped to 'no tested inconsistency found.' The verifier is then used as a repair environment: language-model agents receive a deliberately broken claim and iteratively edit the magnetic theory until the verifier certifies it. On a preregistered benchmark of 145 fixtures, the paper reports that content-free retry improves final certified repair over single-shot (E2: +8.3 pp on DeepSeek-Chat, +7.1 pp on Qwen-Plus), that the relative performance of two budget-matched exploitation policies reverses between the two models (E4: -10.3 pp vs +14.7 pp), and that feedback-content effects appear only on Qwen-Plus. A MiniMax-M2.5 extension reproduces the E2 gain and the negative E4 ordering. The verifier, benchmark, protocol, and per-attempt records are released.

Significance. If the results stand, the paper provides a clean, reproducible template for using cheap, exact, domain-specific consistency checks to evaluate and steer LLM agents in theoretical physics, and a notable preregistered demonstration that the optimal feedback-exploitation policy is not universal across models. The statistical core is strong: preregistered endpoints, GEE with fixture clustering, Holm adjustment, consistent per-replication signs, and a complete audit trail. The main caveat is construct validity: the certificate is a consistency statement, and the paper is transparent about this. The load-bearing issue is that 'broken' and 'repaired' are defined by DUALITYCERT itself, whose obligations are narrower than Seiberg duality (Witten anomaly unchecked, no a-maximization, bounded chiral-ring proxy). Read strictly as a claim about DUALITYCERT-certified repair, the results are solid; read as a claim about repairing Seiberg-duality claims, they need additional qualification or external validation.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2 / §B.2] The copy guard rejects only a verbatim JSON copy of TA. Since quiver node and arrow labels are arbitrary, a relabeled or trivially reordered copy of TA is a distinct JSON object that passes every obligation in Table 2 while not being a dual pair or a repair of the broken TB. The verifier includes no quiver-isomorphism or non-triviality check, so the success label can be satisfied by a non-repair. Because the E2 and E4 effect sizes in Table 1 are defined by final certification, this loophole can inflate the headline gains. I request either an isomorphism/normalization check at final acceptance, or an analysis of the released per-attempt records reporting how many certified successes are isomorphic to TA or differ only by relabeling/trivial additions.
  2. [§2, §5, Appendix A] The certificate's scope is narrower than Seiberg duality: the SU(2) cubic anomaly is a chirality-balance convention, the Witten anomaly is unchecked, central charges are trial values without a-maximization, and the chiral-ring comparison is a bounded proxy whose grading is not duality-invariant. Since the benchmark, feedback, and success label all derive from this verifier, the reported iteration gains and E4 sign reversal measure success against DUALITYCERT, not against Seiberg duality. The paper is transparent about this, and I accept the scoped claim; nevertheless, the title and abstract should consistently say 'DUALITYCERT-certified repair' or equivalent, and ideally include a sample-based or stricter-checker validation of certified repairs. Without that, readers will over-infer physics-level validity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / §4] The abstract says 'verifier-gated retry improves final repair success,' but the reported E2 endpoint is gr−ss, i.e., content-free retry versus single-shot. The phrase should be clarified so that the reader understands E2 does not isolate verifier feedback content; that is E1's role.
  2. [Table 1, E5 rows] Please clarify whether the reported E5 p-values are raw or Holm-adjusted. For a two-hypothesis Holm family, a raw p of 0.0065 would be reported as Holm-adjusted 0.013; the current column label 'p Holm' is ambiguous.
  3. [§2 / §5] For the 34 singlet-containing fixtures, the interaction-time and final chiral-ring configurations coincide, so there is no held-out strictness for those fixtures. The paper notes this, but a sentence explaining the potential for overfitting to the exact final check would strengthen the limitations discussion.
  4. [§3 / Appendix F] The deterministic replay that constructs the stop-first portfolio from complete ss/gr/vf components is a useful design. The paper should state more explicitly that the portfolio's later stages inherit the early-stopping and invalid-round behavior of the underlying vf/gr components, since this is a design choice that affects the budget comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's empirical claims are explicitly scoped to DUALITYCERT's certificate, and no prediction reduces to a fitted input or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical contrasts of repair success under five policies, with success defined as certification by DUALITYCERT. The benchmark is constructed by perturbing certified seed pairs and keeping only fixtures the verifier marks as failed in scope; this is a task definition rather than a derivation, and the paper never presents the verifier's verdict as a proof of Seiberg duality ('A claim that passes receives a consistency certificate, which states that no tested inconsistency was found, not that the duality is proven.'). The E1/E2/E4/E5 quantities are GEE estimates of model behavior, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions; no equation is solved to match an outcome. The one self-citation ([1]) motivates the difficulty of judging tacit reasoning and is not load-bearing for the repair results; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. The stated limitations (Witten anomaly unchecked, no a-maximization, bounded chiral-ring proxy) are construct-validity caveats about the certificate's scope, which the paper explicitly acknowledges, rather than circular reductions. Consequently no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical study, so the ledger records design parameters and domain assumptions rather than fitted physics constants. The main burden is the assumption that DUALITYCERT's finite consistency checks are a meaningful stand-in for Seiberg duality; the paper discloses the gaps. No new physical entities are postulated; the verifier, certificate, and obligation registry are software artifacts.

free parameters (6)
  • Max repair rounds K = 5
    Chosen by hand; defines the iteration budget for gr/vf policies and the portfolio's 11-attempt cap. It directly determines how much improvement retry can yield.
  • Chiral-ring word-length cutoffs = L=3 (interaction), L=5 (final)
    For 111/145 fixtures the agent never observes the final judge during feedback; the gap sets the strictness protection and affects task difficulty.
  • Max R-charge cutoff for singlet grading = R=2
    For 34/145 singlet fixtures the two verifier configurations coincide, removing the L=3 vs L=5 protection; disclosed in Section 2 and Appendix B.1.
  • E4 budget = 11 = 2K+1
    Defines the equal-budget comparison between the portfolio (1+5+5 attempts) and best-of-eleven independent draws.
  • Replication count R = 3
    Selected from {2,3} via power analysis before protocol freeze; sets precision of the GEE confidence intervals.
  • Perturbation depth = depth one
    All confirmatory fixtures are single perturbations; Appendix D.2 shows depth-two fixtures are near-floor for all policies, so depth controls benchmark difficulty.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Consistency obligations are necessary conditions for Seiberg duality.
    Appendix A: if two theories flow to the same IR, protected quantities (anomalies, trial central charges, chiral-ring data) must agree. This is the field's standard evidence and the verifier's logic.
  • domain assumption Seed pairs created by toric dualization are genuine Seiberg-dual pairs.
    Appendix B.2 relies on Beasley–Plesser 'toric duality is Seiberg duality' [34] and on the mutation engine producing certified pairs; if seeds are not true duals, the benchmark's 'repairable' claims are mislabeled.
  • domain assumption The bounded chiral-ring proxy is a meaningful comparator.
    Appendix A admits word length is not invariant across duality, so this obligation is a proxy, not a physical necessary condition. The paper keeps it inside the encoded scope.
  • domain assumption The verifier implementation correctly computes the stated obligations.
    No formal proof or independent audit of DUALITYCERT is provided; the statistical results inherit the correctness of the released code.
  • domain assumption Malformed LM outputs count as failures and provider faults are exogenous.
    Appendix B.3/E define invalid-round handling and contamination rules; changing this classification would change the outcome variable.
  • standard math The preregistered GEE model is a valid inference model.
    Logit link, exchangeable correlation, robust sandwich covariance, fixture clustering (Appendix C); point estimates are empirical proportions but CIs depend on model assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DualityCert: Verifier-Gated Language-Model Repair of Broken Duality Claims in Quantum Field Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R6JSBELH

@misc{pith2026260723614,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DualityCert: Verifier-Gated Language-Model Repair of Broken Duality Claims in Quantum Field Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R6JSBELH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23614}
}
read the original abstract

We present DualityCert, a symbolic verifier for candidate Seiberg-duality claims in four-dimensional N=1 quiver gauge theories. The verifier evaluates 't Hooft anomaly matching, superpotential R-charge consistency, central-charge matching, and a bounded chiral-ring proxy. A claim that passes receives a consistency certificate, which states that no tested inconsistency was found, not that the duality is proven. We use the verifier as a repair environment for language-model agents, which receive a deliberately broken claim and must edit it until it certifies. On a preregistered benchmark of 145 broken claims, with the analysis fixed before the first confirmatory model call, verifier-gated retry improves final repair success over a single attempt by +8.3 percentage points (pp) on deepseek-chat and +7.1 pp on qwen-plus (Holm-adjusted p<0.002). Under an equal budget of eleven attempts, the stop-first strategy portfolio underperforms independent verifier-filtered resampling by 10.3 percentage points on deepseek-chat but outperforms it by 14.7 points on qwen-plus, reversing the ordering of the two tested verifier-exploitation policies across the two confirmatory models. On qwen-plus, category-level verifier feedback is worth +8.7 pp over content-free retry, and interpretable obligation identities alone are worth +6.4 pp over structurally identical masked feedback. Neither effect is detected on deepseek-chat. Separately, a preregistered MiniMax-M2.5 extension again finds an iteration gain and independent verifier-filtered resampling outperforming the strategy portfolio. Which policy is better thus differs between the two models, while every winning policy uses the same cheap certificate. The verifier, benchmark, protocol, and all per-attempt records are released.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23614 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The DUALITYCERT repair environment. A candidate claim is judged by the verifier. Failed obligations pass through a policy-dependent feedback projection to the agent, which returns a complete revised TB (at most K = 5 rounds; verbatim copies of TA are rejected). Final acceptance uses a configuration at least as strict as the interaction-time verifier (Section 2). language models [4], and AlphaGeometry pairs a generat… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. The DUALITYCERT repair environment. A candidate claim is judged by the verifier. Failed obligations pass through a policy-dependent feedback projection to the agent, which returns a complete revised TB (at most K = 5 rounds; verbatim copies of TA are rejected). Final acceptance uses a configuration at least as strict as the interaction-time verifier (Section 2). ’t Hooft anomaly table of TA to match that of TB [26].… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The E4 contrast: success-rate difference between the stop-first strategy portfolio and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Learning to Trace Seiberg Dualities

    hep-th 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Hybrid graph-transformer networks guiding A* and beam search find Seiberg-duality paths between ~10-node quivers more efficiently than BFS or pure physics heuristics, with a measured complexity breaking point.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 16 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Grading the Unspoken: Evaluating Tacit Reasoning in Quantum Field Theory and String Theory with LLMs

    Xingyang Yu, Yinghuan Zhang, Yufei Zhang, and Zijun Cui. Grading the Unspoken: Evaluating Tacit Reasoning in Quantum Field Theory and String Theory with LLMs. 2026. arXiv:2604.14188

    arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Daniel J. H. Chung, Zhiqi Gao, Yurii Kvasiuk, Tianyi Li, Moritz M ¨unchmeyer, Maja Rudolph, Frederic Sala, and Sai Chaitanya Tadepalli. Theoretical physics benchmark (TPBench)—a dataset and study of AI reasoning capabilities in theoretical physics.Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech., 6(3):030505, 2025. doi: 10.1088/ 2632-2153/adfcb0. arXiv:2502.15815

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Probing the Critical Point (CritPt) of AI Reasoning: a Frontier Physics Research Benchmark

    Minhui Zhu et al. Probing the Critical Point (CritPt) of AI Reasoning: a Frontier Physics Research Benchmark. 2025. arXiv:2509.26574

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Swope, Alex Gu, et al

    Kaiyu Yang, Aidan M. Swope, Alex Gu, et al. LeanDojo: Theorem Proving with Retrieval-Augmented Language Models. 2023. arXiv:2306.15626

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Trinh, Yuhuai Wu, Quoc V

    Trieu H. Trinh, Yuhuai Wu, Quoc V . Le, He He, and Thang Luong. Solving olympiad geometry without human demonstrations.Nature, 625:476–482, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06747-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06747-5 2024

  6. [6]

    Olympiad-level formal mathematical reasoning with reinforcement learning.Nature, 2025

    Thomas Hubert, Rishi Mehta, Laurent Sartran, et al. Olympiad-level formal mathematical reasoning with reinforcement learning.Nature, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09833-y

    doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09833-y 2025

  7. [7]

    Resolution of Erd ˝os Problem #728: a writeup of Aristotle’s Lean proof

    Nat Sothanaphan. Resolution of Erd ˝os Problem #728: a writeup of Aristotle’s Lean proof. 2026. arXiv:2601.07421

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Learning to Disprove: Formal Counterexample Generation with Large Language Models

    Zenan Li, Zhaoyu Li, Kaiyu Yang, Xiaoxing Ma, and Zhendong Su. Learning to Disprove: Formal Counterexample Generation with Large Language Models. 2026. arXiv:2603.19514

    arXiv 2026

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    N. Seiberg. Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories.Nucl. Phys. B, 435: 129–146, 1995. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(94)00023-8. arXiv:hep-th/9411149

    1995 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Intriligator and N

    Kenneth A. Intriligator and N. Seiberg. Lectures on supersymmetric gauge theories and electric-magnetic duality.Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl., 45BC:1–28, 1996. doi: 10.1016/0920-5632(95)00626-5. arXiv:hep- th/9509066

    1996

  3. [11]

    HepLean: Digitalising high energy physics.Comput

    Joseph Tooby-Smith. HepLean: Digitalising high energy physics.Comput. Phys. Commun., 308:109457,

  4. [12]

    Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet

    Jie Huang, Xinyun Chen, Swaroop Mishra, et al. Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet. 2023. arXiv:2310.01798

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Prob- lems

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, et al. Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Prob- lems. 2021. arXiv:2110.14168

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug

    Xinyun Chen, Maxwell Lin, Nathanael Sch ¨arli, et al. Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug

  7. [15]

    Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback

    Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, et al. Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback

  8. [16]

    Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Rein- forcement Learning

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Edward Berman, et al. Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Rein- forcement Learning. 2023. arXiv:2303.11366

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Let’s Verify Step by Step

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, et al. Let’s Verify Step by Step. 2023. arXiv:2305.20050

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models.Nature, 625:468–475, 2024

    Bernardino Romera-Paredes, Mohammadamin Barekatain, Alexander Novikov, et al. Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models.Nature, 625:468–475, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06924-6

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Quiver Mutations, Seiberg Duality and Machine Learning.Phys

    Jiakang Bao, Sebasti ´an Franco, Yang-Hui He, Edward Hirst, Gregg Musiker, and Yan Xiao. Quiver Mutations, Seiberg Duality and Machine Learning.Phys. Rev. D, 102(8):086013, 2020. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.102.086013. arXiv:2006.10783

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Heckman, Shani Meynet, Alessandro Mininno, and Gary Shiu

    Jonathan J. Heckman, Shani Meynet, Alessandro Mininno, and Gary Shiu. Learning to Trace Seiberg Dualities. 2026. arXiv:2607.28628

    2026 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Douglas, Sarah Hoback, Anna Mei, and Ron Nissim

    Michael R. Douglas, Sarah Hoback, Anna Mei, and Ron Nissim. Formalization of QFT. 2026. arXiv:2603.15770

    2026

  14. [22]

    Michael R. Douglas. Axioms for physical reasoning: codifying the Seiberg–Witten solution in Lean

  15. [23]

    PhysProver: Advancing Automatic Theorem Proving for Physics

    Hanning Zhang et al. PhysProver: Advancing Automatic Theorem Proving for Physics. 2026. arXiv:2601.15737. 9

    2026

  16. [24]

    Towards Verifiable and Self-Correcting AI Physicists for Quantum Many- Body Simulations

    Ken Deng, Xiangfei Wang, Guijing Duan, Chen Mo, Junkun Huang, Runqing Zhang, Ling Qian, Zhiguo Huang, Jize Han, and Di Luo. Towards Verifiable and Self-Correcting AI Physicists for Quantum Many- Body Simulations. 2026. arXiv:2604.00149

    2026 arXiv

  17. [25]

    An SU(2) Anomaly.Phys

    Edward Witten. An SU(2) Anomaly.Phys. Lett. B, 117:324–328, 1982. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(82) 90728-6

    1982 doi

  18. [26]

    Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking.NATO Sci

    Gerard ’t Hooft. Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking.NATO Sci. Ser. B, 59:135–157, 1980. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-7571-5 9

    1980 doi

  19. [27]

    Anselmi, D

    D. Anselmi, D. Z. Freedman, Marcus T. Grisaru, and A. A. Johansen. Nonperturbative formulas for central functions of supersymmetric gauge theories.Nucl. Phys. B, 526:543–571, 1998. doi: 10.1016/ S0550-3213(98)00278-8. arXiv:hep-th/9708042

    1998 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Intriligator and Brian Wecht

    Kenneth A. Intriligator and Brian Wecht. The Exact superconformal R symmetry maximizes a.Nucl. Phys. B, 667:183–200, 2003. doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(03)00459-0. arXiv:hep-th/0304128

    2003 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Douglas, Nathan Seiberg, and Edward Witten

    Freddy Cachazo, Michael R. Douglas, Nathan Seiberg, and Edward Witten. Chiral rings and anomalies in supersymmetric gauge theory.JHEP, 12:071, 2002. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/12/071. arXiv:hep- th/0211170

    2002

  22. [30]

    Douglas and Gregory W

    Michael R. Douglas and Gregory W. Moore. D-branes, quivers, and ALE instantons. 1996. arXiv:hep- th/9603167

    1996

  23. [31]

    D-brane gauge theories from toric singularities and toric du- ality.Nucl

    Bo Feng, Amihay Hanany, and Yang-Hui He. D-brane gauge theories from toric singularities and toric du- ality.Nucl. Phys. B, 595:165–200, 2001. doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00699-4. arXiv:hep-th/0003085

    2001 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kennaway

    Amihay Hanany and Kristian D. Kennaway. Dimer models and toric diagrams. 2005. arXiv:hep- th/0503149

    2005

  25. [33]

    Kennaway, David Vegh, and Brian Wecht

    Sebastian Franco, Amihay Hanany, Kristian D. Kennaway, David Vegh, and Brian Wecht. Brane dimers and quiver gauge theories.JHEP, 01:096, 2006. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2006/01/096. arXiv:hep- th/0504110

    2006

  26. [34]

    Beasley and M

    Chris E. Beasley and M. Ronen Plesser. Toric duality is Seiberg duality.JHEP, 12:001, 2001. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2001/12/001. arXiv:hep-th/0109053

    2001 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kung-Yee Liang and Scott L. Zeger. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73:13–22, 1986. doi: 10.1093/biomet/73.1.13

    1986 doi

  28. [36]

    You are a theoretical physicist repairing a proposed 4d N=1 supersymmetric gauge theory duality

    Sture Holm. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure.Scand. J. Statist., 6(2):65–70, 1979. A Physics primer: Seiberg duality and the consistency obligations Seiberg duality [9] is the statement that two different four-dimensionalN= 1gauge theories can flow to th...

    1979

  29. [2025]

    arXiv:2405.08863

    doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109457. arXiv:2405.08863

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.