Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 48 references

For 3d CFTs with a moduli space, the projected minimal dimension at large charge is asymptotically convex: the subleading coefficient α0 is never positive, while α1 has no universal bound.

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 00:34 UTC pith:UKT2UMAF

load-bearing objection A careful, mostly convincing proof of a projected convexity bound for large-charge towers, with a clean EFT counterexample to the stronger fixed-ray version; worth sending to a serious referee.

arxiv 2607.28726 v1 pith:UKT2UMAF submitted 2026-07-30 hep-th

Towers of Operators in CFTs and Convexity Bounds at Large Charge

Fedor K. Popov , Adar Sharon This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords large-charge expansionconformal field theorymoduli spacecharge convexityweak gravity conjectureprojected observable3d N=1alpha0 bound
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.

Working in 3d conformal field theories that have a moduli space along which a U(1) symmetry is spontaneously broken, the paper establishes a convexity property of the lightest operators at large charge. The observable it uses is the projected minimal dimension: fix the charge under one chosen generator and minimize over all other commuting charges. The paper proves that in the large-charge expansion Δ = α1 Q + α0 + O(1/Q), the subleading coefficient α0 is never positive, so the tower is asymptotically convex; for a single U(1) this is exactly the charge-convexity bound suggested by the weak gravity conjecture. The proof uses only the moduli-space effective field theory, giving a concrete CFT-side derivation of a swampland-motivated bound. The paper also shows the leading slope α1 has no universal bound beyond α1 ≥ 0, and gives a two-derivative EFT counterexample to the stronger fixed-charge-ray version of convexity.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is the projected convexity bound: for any Cartan generator T_n of a 3d CFT with a moduli space, the projected minimal dimension satisfies α0^(n) ≤ 0 in the expansion Δ^(n)_min(Q) = α1^(n) Q + α0^(n) + O(1/Q). In the single-U(1) case this is the asymptotic charge convexity bound α0 ≤ 0. The argument shows that the saddle computing the projected observable must have a positive semidefinite mass matrix M ≥ 0; then a variational comparison with a reference harmonic Hamiltonian with relativistic dispersion proves the one-loop Casimir energy is non-positive, while fermion and gauge contributions are already known to be non-positive. The paper further claims α1 admits no u

What carries the argument

The central object is the projected large-charge saddle and the quadratic fluctuation problem around it. Fluctuations split into a universal charged sector (radial dilaton plus the Goldstone along the chosen direction) and a non-universal sector of n−2 modes, governed by a Lagrangian with kinetic matrix K, antisymmetric mixing A, and symmetric mass matrix M. The projected observable fixes only the charge along T_n, so the orthogonal charge fluctuations (encoded in canonical momenta) are unconstrained; minimality then forces M ≥ 0. The proof of α0 ≤ 0 uses a variational inequality comparing the true ground-state energy of the quadratic Hamiltonian to that of the reference Hamiltonian with rel

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the unconstrained charges orthogonal to the chosen direction can be varied infinitesimally in the stability argument—but in an actual CFT those charges are quantized, so a genuinely nearby state may not exist.

What would settle it

A direct falsifier would be a single 3d CFT with a moduli space and a chosen Cartan generator for which the projected large-charge tower has α0^(n) > 0, computed non-perturbatively (e.g., by lattice simulation or bootstrap). A more targeted check: if charge quantization prevents infinitesimal orthogonal-charge fluctuations, then the mass matrix M could have a negative eigenvalue; computing M for the projected saddle in a solvable finite-N model and finding a negative direction would break the proof.

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

If this is right

  • The projected large-charge tower is asymptotically superadditive whenever α0 < 0; if α0 = 0 the sign of the next correction decides, so the asymptotic charge convexity conjecture is recovered in this projected sense.
  • The bound α0 ≤ 0 is proven from the moduli-space EFT, giving a CFT-side derivation of a weak-gravity-conjecture-motivated convexity constraint in the projected setting.
  • Fixed-charge-ray convexity cannot be established by moduli-space EFT alone; a two-derivative supersymmetric EFT violates it, so stronger statements need additional UV assumptions.
  • α1 cannot be universally bounded: finite quotienting of a U(1) scales α1 up arbitrarily, and long primitive directions in higher-rank charge lattices scale it down arbitrarily.
  • The new computations in SO(N)×SO(N), SO(3), SQED, and SU(2) SQCD provide explicit examples with α0 ≤ 0, including some of the first direct 3d computations of the subleading coefficient.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The stability proof's reliance on continuous orthogonal-charge fluctuations is the point most worth stress-testing: if charge quantization forbids infinitesimal shifts of the orthogonal charges, the proof of M ≥ 0—and with it α0 ≤ 0—could fail.
  • The EFT counterexample to fixed-charge-ray convexity suggests that the strong version of the conjecture, if true in all CFTs, must follow from UV input (unitarity, crossing, or full-spectrum data) rather than from the two-derivative moduli-space EFT; seeking a UV-complete realization of this counterexample would test that.
  • In the saturation case α0 = 0, the next O(1/Q) term decides convexity; computing it in models with exactly linear towers (or finding a model with α0 = 0 and a subleading violation) would settle whether the bound is tight.
  • The normalized slope √(CJ/CT) α1 may be a more robust diagnostic of scale separation than α1 alone; the paper leaves its upper bound open, so a next step is to search for holographic or bootstrap bounds on that combination.

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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the large-charge expansion Δ_min(Q)=α1 Q+α0+O(1/Q) in 3d CFTs with a moduli space and a spontaneously broken symmetry. Its main result is a proof, within the moduli-space EFT of [1], that for the projected observable in which only one linear combination T_n of Cartan charges is held fixed, the one-loop coefficient satisfies α0^(n)≤0. The proof combines a stability argument for the projected saddle (§3.3, M≥0) with a variational bound showing that M≥0 implies a non-positive scalar Casimir energy (§3.2), while fermionic and gauge contributions are imported from [1]. The paper also shows that the stronger fixed-charge-ray convexity statement cannot be derived from the two-derivative EFT, and it provides a concrete 3d N=1 EFT counterexample with positive α0. In addition, the paper computes α1 and α0 in several models (SO(N)×SO(N), SO(3), SQED, SU(2) SQCD) and argues that α1 has no universal upper or lower bound beyond α1≥0.

Significance. If correct, the projected convexity bound is a nontrivial, swampland-motivated CFT inequality that is explicitly provable within the moduli-space EFT. It also sharpens the distinction between projected and fixed-charge-ray convexity, and the EFT counterexample convincingly shows that the stronger statement cannot be established from the two-derivative EFT alone. The paper is careful in stating its assumptions and the conditional nature of the EFT derivation, and it provides several new explicit computations of subleading large-charge coefficients. The variational argument of §3.2 and the explicit counterexample of §3.4.3 are particularly clean. The main limitation, acknowledged by the authors, is the reliance on the large-charge framework of [1] rather than on a full non-perturbative CFT proof.

minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3, Eqs. (3.50)–(3.52)] The fluctuation X=εv, P=AX is used to argue that a negative direction of M destabilizes the projected saddle. Because the orthogonal Cartan charges are quantized in the CFT, the statement that this is an 'allowed nearby configuration' needs a brief justification. I suggest adding one sentence: the configuration should be viewed as a coherent-state trial wavefunction with expectation values (X,P)=(εv,Aεv). Its energy expectation is 1/2 ε² vᵀM v, and if negative, projecting onto integer-charge sectors yields a lower-energy state at the same n·Q. This removes the apparent charge-quantization obstruction and makes the proof of M≥0 immediate.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (3.43)] The proof that E_Cas≤E_ref_Cas requires the difference D to be finite. The paper states this is 'easily checked' but does not show the asymptotic cancellation. Since this is the step where the regulator is removed, please add a one-line estimate: the O(ℓ) and O(1/ℓ) terms in the sum of frequencies cancel, leaving a difference O(ℓ^{-3/2}), so the sum converges.
  3. [§2.2.2 and Figure 1] The function ξ(x) is plotted only for |x|≤1/4, but later equations, e.g. (2.91) and (3.72), require ξ for arguments outside this range. Please state the domain of validity and the asymptotic behavior of ξ for large positive arguments, so the reader can verify the non-positivity claims in those ranges.
  4. [§3.4.3, Eq. (3.63)] The counterexample metric is presented as a local expression. Please specify the periodicities of θ1, θ2, and x so that the target metric is globally well-defined on a compact manifold (e.g., a T^2×S^1 or a torus bundle). This would make the EFT counterexample unambiguous.
  5. [References and typos] There are a few minor presentation issues: Ref. [44] is missing journal/arXiv information; §2.1.1 has 'Ind= 4−ϵdimensions' with missing spaces; in §3.4.2 the sentence about n≤3 moduli spaces would benefit from a parenthetical explanation for n=2. These are non-blocking.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central convexity bound is derived from a variational stability argument; the only self-citation is independent support.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, α0^(n)≤0, is not an input or a renamed version of an input. It is derived in §3.2–3.3 by proving (i) the scalar one-loop Casimir energy is non-positive whenever M≥0 (via a variational comparison to a reference Hamiltonian), and (ii) the projected saddle necessarily has M≥0, because a negative direction would give a lower-energy trial configuration X=εv, P=AX with the same n·Q. Step (ii) uses the definition of the projected minimization (orthogonal charges are not held fixed), but that is a legitimate stability argument, not a circular reduction: the saddle is shown to be inconsistent with being the projected minimum if M<0. The only load-bearing citation is [1] for the non-positivity of fermion/gauge contributions; [1] is a separate published derivation by overlapping authors (including A. Sharon), but it is parameter-free, does not assume the target bound α0≤0, and is externally checkable, so it qualifies as independent support rather than circular self-citation. Section 2's α1,α0 computations are direct large-N/epsilon-expansion evaluations, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions, and the Section 3.4 EFT counterexample is self-contained. The charge-quantization concern about the trial fluctuation is a consistency issue about the EFT treatment, not circularity; the fluctuation is a coherent-state trial state in the continuous large-charge formalism. Overall, no circular step was found; the derivation is self-contained apart from benign reliance on the prior moduli-space EFT framework.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central bound is derived within the two-derivative moduli-space EFT, carrying the standard large-charge axioms from [1]. No new physical entities are introduced. The hand-chosen c and f(x) parameters appear only in example computations or the counterexample, not in the proof of the projected bound.

free parameters (2)
  • Wilson coefficient c in SU(2) SQCD moduli-space EFT = not determined (1+O(1/N_f) at large N_f)
    Appears in α1=1/√c and α0(c,N_f) in §2.5. The bound α0≤0 holds for all c>0, so c does not need to be fitted for the central claim.
  • Metric amplitude f(x)=(1/2)sin(2x) in the EFT counterexample = 1/2
    Chosen by hand in §3.4.3 to construct a fixed-charge-ray EFT with M̸≥0 and positive Casimir energy. It is a construction, not a fit.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The large-charge expansion ∆min(Q)=α1Q+α0+O(1/Q) for a CFT with a broken U(1) on a moduli space, taken from [1].
    Used throughout §§1 and 3.1 as the central setup; the present paper does not re-derive this expansion.
  • domain assumption The two-derivative moduli-space EFT action (3.6) with homogeneous helical saddle and constant transverse moduli.
    Explicitly assumed in §3.1: 'We assume, as usual in this large-charge EFT analysis, that the transverse moduli are constant on the saddle.'
  • standard math Dimensional regularization with local power divergences removed, giving ξ(0)=0 for Casimir sums.
    Used to define regulated Casimir energies in §2.2.2 and §3.2; the sign of α0 is regularization-sensitive in principle.
  • standard math The variational principle applies to the quadratic Hamiltonian with a centered Gaussian reference ground state.
    Used in §3.2 to prove Eℓ≤E_ref; requires M≥0 and the existence of the reference ground state, including possible zero-mode limits.
  • ad hoc to paper Orthogonal Cartan charge fluctuations may be treated as continuous in the projected-saddle stability argument.
    In §3.3, the fluctuation X=εv, P=AX is assumed to be an allowed nearby configuration; this ignores charge quantization/lattice effects.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28304 in / 19662 out tokens · 209949 ms · 2026-08-03T00:34:12.258348+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In arXiv:2406.19441, it was shown that for 3d CFTs with a moduli space along which a $U(1)$ symmetry is spontaneously broken, the minimum scaling dimension at large charge $Q$ scales as $\Delta_{\min}(Q)=\alpha_1 Q+\alpha_0+O(1/Q)$. Motivated by the holographic swampland program, we study possible bounds on the coefficients $\alpha_i$. For $\alpha_0$, the weak gravity conjecture motivates the CFT charge convexity conjecture, which requires the bound $\alpha_0\leq 0$. Using the moduli space EFT we prove this bound for the $\textit{projected}$ $\Delta_{\min}(Q)$, obtained by fixing a single charge $Q$ and minimizing the dimension while allowing all other charges to vary. This provides a WGC-motivated bound that is explicitly provable using CFT methods. On the other hand, we show that $\alpha_1$ admits no universal bound apart from the trivial bound $\alpha_1\geq 0$. We also compute $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_0$ in several new 3d $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories via the $\epsilon$-expansion and large-$N$ methods.

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

48 extracted references · 46 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Cuomo, L

    G. Cuomo, L. Rastelli and A. Sharon,Moduli spaces in CFT: large charge operators,JHEP 09(2024) 185 [2406.19441]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Komargodski and A

    Z. Komargodski and A. Zhiboedov,Convexity and Liberation at Large Spin,JHEP11(2013) 140 [1212.4103]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Fitzpatrick, J

    A.L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, D. Poland and D. Simmons-Duffin,The Analytic Bootstrap and AdS Superhorizon Locality,JHEP12(2013) 004 [1212.3616]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Caron-Huot,Analyticity in Spin in Conformal Theories,JHEP09(2017) 078 [1703.00278]

    S. Caron-Huot,Analyticity in Spin in Conformal Theories,JHEP09(2017) 078 [1703.00278]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Maldacena and A

    J. Maldacena and A. Zhiboedov,Constraining Conformal Field Theories with A Higher Spin Symmetry,J. Phys. A46(2013) 214011 [1112.1016]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    Maldacena and A

    J. Maldacena and A. Zhiboedov,Constraining conformal field theories with a slightly broken higher spin symmetry,Class. Quant. Grav.30(2013) 104003 [1204.3882]. – 41 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Vafa,The String landscape and the swampland,hep-th/0509212

    C. Vafa,The String landscape and the swampland,hep-th/0509212

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    Ooguri and C

    H. Ooguri and C. Vafa,On the Geometry of the String Landscape and the Swampland,Nucl. Phys. B766(2007) 21 [hep-th/0605264]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  9. [9]

    Palti,The Swampland: Introduction and Review,Fortsch

    E. Palti,The Swampland: Introduction and Review,Fortsch. Phys.67(2019) 1900037 [1903.06239]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Perlmutter, L

    E. Perlmutter, L. Rastelli, C. Vafa and I. Valenzuela,A CFT Distance Conjecture,JHEP10 (2021) 070 [2011.10040]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Baume and J

    F. Baume and J. Calder´ on-Infante,On higher-spin points and infinite distances in conformal manifolds,JHEP12(2023) 163 [2305.05693]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Baume and J

    F. Baume and J. Calder´ on Infante,Tackling the SDC in AdS with CFTs,JHEP08(2021) 057 [2011.03583]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Hellerman, D

    S. Hellerman, D. Orlando, S. Reffert and M. Watanabe,On the CFT Operator Spectrum at Large Global Charge,JHEP12(2015) 071 [1505.01537]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    Hellerman, S

    S. Hellerman, S. Maeda and M. Watanabe,Operator Dimensions from Moduli,JHEP10 (2017) 089 [1706.05743]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    Hellerman and S

    S. Hellerman and S. Maeda,On the LargeR-charge Expansion inN= 2Superconformal Field Theories,JHEP12(2017) 135 [1710.07336]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    Gaiotto, Z

    D. Gaiotto, Z. Komargodski and J. Wu,Curious Aspects of Three-DimensionalN= 1 SCFTs,JHEP08(2018) 004 [1804.02018]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Arkani-Hamed, L

    N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis and C. Vafa,The String landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force,JHEP06(2007) 060 [hep-th/0601001]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  18. [18]

    Aharony and E

    O. Aharony and E. Palti,On Convexity of Charged Operators in CFTs and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 126005 [2108.04594]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Antipin, J

    O. Antipin, J. Bersini, N.A. Dondi, F. Sannino and Z.-W. Wang,More on the Weak Gravity Conjecture via Convexity of Charged Operators,2109.04946

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Aharony and Y.-N

    O. Aharony and Y.-N. Breitstein,Tests of the Charge Convexity Conjecture in Caswell-Banks-Zaks Theory,2305.08947

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Palti and A

    E. Palti and A. Sharon,Convexity of Charged Operators with Multiple Abelian Symmetries, 2206.06703

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    Orlando and E

    D. Orlando and E. Palti,Goldstone Bosons and Convexity,2303.02178

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Cohen, K

    T.D. Cohen, K. Fadakar, D. Gomes, A. Monin and R. Rattazzi,Superadditivity at Large Charge,2503.16603

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Sharon and M

    A. Sharon and M. Watanabe,A counterexample to the CFT convexity conjecture,JHEP05 (2023) 202 [2301.08262]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Cheung and G.N

    C. Cheung and G.N. Remmen,Naturalness and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 051601 [1402.2287]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  26. [26]

    Gautason, M

    F.F. Gautason, M. Schillo, T. Van Riet and M. Williams,Remarks on scale separation in flux vacua,JHEP03(2016) 061 [1512.00457]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    L¨ ust, E

    D. L¨ ust, E. Palti and C. Vafa,AdS and the Swampland,Phys. Lett. B797(2019) 134867 [1906.05225]. – 42 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Cribiori and G

    N. Cribiori and G. Dall’Agata,Weak gravity versus scale separation,JHEP06(2022) 006 [2203.05559]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    Coudarchet,Hiding the extra dimensions: A review on scale separation in string theory, Physics Reports1064(2024) 1

    T. Coudarchet,Hiding the extra dimensions: A review on scale separation in string theory, Physics Reports1064(2024) 1

    2024

  30. [30]

    DeWolfe, A

    O. DeWolfe, A. Giryavets, S. Kachru and W. Taylor,Type IIA Moduli Stabilization,JHEP 07(2005) 066 [hep-th/0505160]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  31. [31]

    Camara, A

    P.G. Camara, A. Font and L.E. Ibanez,Fluxes, moduli fixing and MSSM-like vacua in a simple IIA orientifold,JHEP09(2005) 013 [hep-th/0506066]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  32. [32]

    A. Font, A. Herr´ aez and L.E. Ib´ a˜ nez,On scale separation in type II AdS flux vacua,JHEP 03(2020) 013 [1912.03317]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Polchinski and E

    J. Polchinski and E. Silverstein,Dual Purpose Landscaping Tools: Small Extra Dimensions in AdS/CFT,0908.0756

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    de Alwis, R.K

    S. de Alwis, R.K. Gupta, F. Quevedo and R. Valandro,On KKLT/CFT and L VS/CFT Dualities,JHEP07(2015) 036 [1412.6999]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  35. [35]

    Conlon and F

    J.P. Conlon and F. Quevedo,Putting the Boot into the Swampland,JHEP03(2019) 005 [1811.06276]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Conlon and F

    J.P. Conlon and F. Revello,Moduli Stabilisation and the Holographic Swampland,LHEP 2020(2020) 171 [2006.01021]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Collins, D

    T.C. Collins, D. Jafferis, C. Vafa, K. Xu and S.-T. Yau,On Upper Bounds in Dimension Gaps of CFT’s,2201.03660

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Gates, S

    J. Gates, S. James, M.T. Grisaru, M. Rocek and W. Siegel,Superspace, or One Thousand and One Lessons in Supersymmetry, Benjamin/Cummings, Reading, MA (1983), [hep-th/0108200]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1983

  39. [39]

    Arias-Tamargo, D

    G. Arias-Tamargo, D. Rodriguez-Gomez and J.G. Russo,The large charge limit of scalar field theories and the Wilson-Fisher fixed point atϵ= 0,JHEP10(2019) 201 [1908.11347]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    Badel, G

    G. Badel, G. Cuomo, A. Monin and R. Rattazzi,The Epsilon Expansion Meets Semiclassics, JHEP11(2019) 110 [1909.01269]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [41]

    Watanabe,Accessing Large Global Charge via theϵ-Expansion,JHEP04(2021) 264 [1909.01337]

    M. Watanabe,Accessing Large Global Charge via theϵ-Expansion,JHEP04(2021) 264 [1909.01337]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Sharon and M

    A. Sharon and M. Watanabe,Transition of LargeR-Charge Operators on a Conformal Manifold,JHEP01(2021) 068 [2008.01106]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    L. Fei, S. Giombi, I.R. Klebanov and G. Tarnopolsky,Yukawa CFTs and Emergent Supersymmetry,PTEP2016(2016) 12C105 [1607.05316]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    Thomas,Emergent Supersymmetry,

    S. Thomas,Emergent Supersymmetry,

  45. [45]

    Breitstein and A

    Y.-N. Breitstein and A. Sharon,Hunting 3dN= 1 SQED in theϵ-expansion,JHEP10 (2024) 197 [2407.07148]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Alvarez-Gaume, D

    L. Alvarez-Gaume, D. Orlando and S. Reffert,Large charge at large N,JHEP12(2019) 142 [1909.02571]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  47. [47]

    Giombi and J

    S. Giombi and J. Hyman,On the Large Charge Sector in the CriticalO(N)Model at Large N,JHEP09(2021) 184 [2011.11622]. – 43 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Gaum´ e, D

    L.A. Gaum´ e, D. Orlando and S. Reffert,Selected topics in the large quantum number expansion,Phys. Rept.933(2021) 1 [2008.03308]. – 44 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021