Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Coulomb Branches in 3d $\mathcal{N} = 4$ Revisited

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In an Omega-deformed 3d N=4 gauge theory with dual boundary conditions, monopole operator products are exactly the convolution products defining the BFN Coulomb branch algebra, and line defects give the KLRW algebras.

desk verdict The dual-boundary-condition localization is a genuinely new physical derivation of the BFN Coulomb branch and KLRW algebras, but the localization reduction that carries the argument is assumed at physical rigor rather than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17904 v1 pith:YXE4SPOQ submitted 2024-12-23 hep-th

Spencer Tamagni This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords 3dN=4supersymmetricgaugetheorylocalizationmonopoleoperatorsCoulombbranchaffineGrassmannianOmega-deformationKLRWalgebrasgeometricLanglands
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 attempts to show that the mathematical definition of the Coulomb branch of a 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ gauge theory—the operator product algebra of dressed monopole operators—is not an external construct but follows directly from supersymmetric localization. The novel ingredient is a pair of dual boundary conditions on $\mathbb{R}^2 \times [0,1]$, which force the $\Omega$-deformed path integral to collapse onto finite-dimensional moduli spaces of Bogomolny solutions with Dirac singularities. Holomorphically those moduli spaces are spaces of successive Hecke modifications, i.e. convolution Grassmannians, and evaluating the resulting equivariant integrals reproduces the BFN convolution algebra. The same setup with a codimension-two defect produces the cylindrical KLRW algebras underlying the construction of tilting bundles on Coulomb branches. If the calculation is right, the BFN definition is the direct output of 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ localization and the paper supplies the missing physical explanation for why that formalism works.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pair of dual boundary conditions together with the $\Omega$-deformation. At $t=0$ the gauge field obeys Dirichlet conditions and $\varphi$ is fixed to $\mathrm{diag}(\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_k)$; at $t=1$ $\sigma$ is fixed to zero and the other fields obey covariant Neumann conditions, and one divides only by gauge transformations trivial at $t=0$. With $\Omega$-deformation, the path integral reduces to a finite-dimensional equivariant integral over the moduli space of Bogomolny equations with Dirac singularities, whose holomorphic description is the space of successive Hecke modifications of a trivial bundle (the convolution Grassmannian). The paper evaluates these integrals using the $U(1)_\epsilon \times G$-equivariant index of the linearized Bogomolny complex, computed by an instanton/monopole correspondence and assembled from local contributions via the jumping behavior of the universal bundle along the $t$-axis. This gives explicit formulas for correlation functions of dressed monopole operators and for the convolution product that defines the BFN algebra; inserting a codimension-two defect replaces Hecke modifications by parabolic ones, producing the affine-flag-manifold geometry behind the KLRW algebras.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop determinant for pure $U(1)$ or $U(2)$ gauge theory on $\mathbb{R}^2\times[0,1]$ with the paper's Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions and $\Omega$-deformation: any nonzero bulk or boundary contribution, or any $\Omega$-deformation anomaly, would invalidate the localization reduction and therefore the claimed isomorphism between the monopole operator product and the BFN convolution algebra.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

With Dirichlet conditions at $t=0$ (the gauge field vanishing and the complex scalar fixed to a generic diagonal matrix $\mathrm{diag}(\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_k)$) and covariant Neumann conditions at $t=1$ (with $\sigma=0$), the $\Omega$-deformed twisted theory localizes onto the moduli space $M(\{\mu_i;p_i\})$ of Bogomolny solutions with prescribed Dirac singularities. This space is, in holomorphic terms, the convolution Grassmannian of successive Hecke modifications of a trivial bundle, and the product of monopole operators is the convolution product. The paper computes the equivariant characters of the tangent spaces at torus fixed points via the instanton/monopole correspondence and the weights of the universal bundle, and shows that the resulting algebra of linear maps on $H^*_{U(1)_\epsilon\times G}(\mathrm{pt})$ is 'in a tautological way' isomorphic to the BFN convolution algebra $H^{C^\times_\epsilon\ltimes G_C(O)}_*(\mathrm{Gr}_G)$. When a codimension-two defect is inserted at the origin of $\mathbb{R}^2$, the localization locus becomes parabolic Hecke modifications and the affine flag manifold, and the local operators along the defect generate the cylindrical nilHecke and KLRW algebras. A further consequence is an explicit determination of the Dirichlet and Neumann boundary states as modules/branes over the quantized Coulomb branch.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, with the paper's boundary conditions, the $\Omega$-deformed path integral collapses exactly to a finite-dimensional equivariant integral over the Bogomolny moduli space, with no boundary terms, no one-loop determinant corrections, and no anomaly from the $\Omega$-deformation; if that reduction fails, the claimed identifications of monopole OPEs with BFN convolution and with KLRW algebras do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the derivation is correct, the BFN Coulomb branch algebra is the operator product algebra of dressed monopole operators in 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ gauge theory, so the mathematical and physical definitions coincide.
  • Monopole operator correlators can be evaluated by finite-dimensional equivariant integrals, and the difference-operator (abelianized) realization of the Coulomb branch algebra follows directly from the localization formulas.
  • The K-theoretic version of the same calculation gives the algebra of Wilson-'t Hooft line operators in 4d $\mathcal{N}=2$ gauge theory on a circle, matching the K-theoretic Coulomb branch.
  • Inserting a codimension-two defect produces the cylindrical nilHecke and KLRW algebras, giving a physical derivation of the endomorphism algebras of tilting bundles on Coulomb branches.
  • The Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions become explicit modules/branes over the quantized Coulomb branch, confirming the proposed description of such boundaries in terms of symplectic duality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same boundary-condition localization should apply to arbitrary quiver gauge theories, providing a uniform derivation of BFN Coulomb branch algebras beyond the $U(k)$ minuscule cases explicitly treated here.
  • Because the localization formulas give an injective homomorphism from the BFN algebra into difference operators, the paper effectively supplies a physical proof of the abelianization map; extending it to non-minuscule monopole charges would test whether the full algebra, including singular-locus fixed points, is captured.
  • The $\mathbb{Z}_p$-orbifold description of line defects suggests a characteristic-zero approximation to Frobenius pushforward and characteristic-$p$ quantization, an analogy the paper notes but leaves undeveloped.
  • A natural test of the mechanism would be to repeat the calculation with other boundary conditions or with a torus rather than a slab; if the localization reduction survives, each boundary condition should produce a module over the same quantized Coulomb branch algebra.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a field-theoretic derivation of the mathematical Coulomb branch construction of Braverman, Finkelberg and Nakajima, together with its line-defect generalization to Webster's KLRW algebras, starting from 3d N=4 supersymmetric gauge theory on R^2 x [0,1] with Omega-deformation and a pair of dual boundary conditions. The localization locus is identified with spaces of Hecke modifications, and correlation functions of monopole operators are reduced to equivariant integrals over these spaces. For pure U(k) gauge theory the paper computes explicit difference-operator realizations of the minuscule monopole operators, verifies one nontrivial operator product, and claims a 'tautological' isomorphism with the BFN convolution algebra. It then extends the formalism to hypermultiplets, to K-theoretic analogs, and to codimension-two defects, obtaining the cylindrical nilHecke and KLRW algebras. The exposition is explicitly at physical level of rigor, and several analytic steps are acknowledged rather than proved.

Significance. If correct, the paper would give a satisfying physical origin for the BFN definition of Coulomb branches and for the appearance of KLRW algebras as algebras of line-defect operators. The explicit formulas in the pure-gauge case, notably the localization integrals (39), their composition check (41)-(42), and the line-operator formulas (74)-(77) and (86)-(87), are concrete and independently checkable. The paper is also unusually candid about its limitations, explicitly flagging the analytic subtleties it does not resolve. However, the central claim depends on a localization reduction that is asserted rather than proved, and the extension to matter and to line defects contains further unproven identifications. The significance is therefore conditional: the paper is a promising framework with several verified low-degree checks, but it does not yet constitute a complete derivation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (11)-(13); Appendix A; Appendix B] The paper's central reduction from the path integral to a finite-dimensional equivariant integral is not actually demonstrated. The boundary conditions in Appendix A are derived for the undeformed supercharge delta, while the Omega-deformed variations in Eq. (6) contain additional terms proportional to i V_epsilon F_A and i V_epsilon D_A sigma whose variations can produce boundary contributions at t=0 and t=1 that the conditions (90)-(91) were not designed to kill. Appendix B solves the classical equation for Phi and then asserts that the one-loop determinants cancel by supersymmetry, but no computation of the determinant of the fluctuation complex (27) with the boundary conditions (90)-(91) is given. Since every later formula, including (39), (41), (51), and the claimed BFN/KLRW identifications, is normalized by this reduction, a nonzero boundary term or determinant would shift all correlators by a phi- and epsilon-dependent factor. This gap must be addressed, either by a direct computation or by a precise citation to a theorem that covers these boundary conditions in the Omega-deformed setup.
  2. [Section 4.2.5, Eqs. (49)-(51)] The matter extension is load-bearing for the claim that the BFN construction is derived for theories with hypermultiplets, but the identification of the bundle F is made only in equivariant K-theory. The paper explicitly states that proving F coincides with the corresponding coherent sheaf on the Schubert variety 'would require a more careful analysis of the cokernel of the Dirac operator than I am willing or able to give here.' Moreover, the assumption that ker /D = 0, which makes F an actual vector bundle rather than a virtual one, is asserted in Section 4.2.2 without proof. Since the Euler class insertion in Eq. (45) and the resulting difference operators in Eqs. (51)-(52) depend on this assumption, the matter-sector derivation is not yet complete.
  3. [Section 4.1.6 and 4.1.8, Eqs. (41)-(42)] The claimed isomorphism between the algebra generated by monopole operators and the BFN convolution algebra is verified only for the single product O_{mu_-} O_{mu_+}, with the statement that the argument 'may be repeated line by line for any pair of minuscule coweights.' The further assertion in Section 4.1.8 that this realizes the convolution algebra 'in a tautological way' is not a proof: one still needs to check compatibility of the map with all products and with the localization homomorphism to difference operators, and to establish injectivity of the abelianization map. This is particularly important because the difference-operator realization (40) is stated as an identification of operators without a proof that it preserves the full operator product algebra.
  4. [Section 5, especially Eqs. (73), (80), (83)-(87)] The KLRW section is advertised as a direct gauge-theory construction of the cylindrical KLRW algebras, but several essential steps are asserted rather than derived. The tangent-space formula (73) is stated without derivation, the orbifold computation leading to Eq. (80) is described as an 'elementary exercise,' and the identification of junction operators with affine Weyl group elements relies on imported results from [21] and [28]. Since the paper's stated goal is to give a physical derivation of Webster's construction, these missing derivations make it difficult to verify that the resulting algebra is indeed the full cylindrical KLRW algebra and not just a set of generators with a checked module action.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos, including 'minusucle' (Section 3.7.2), 'mathemathical' (beginning of Section 4.1), 'decscribed' (Section 3.1), and 'Dircihlet' (Section 4.5).
  2. [Eq. (13)] The notation Omega_P is used before it is explained; the text should define it explicitly at the point where Eq. (13) is introduced.
  3. [Figure 1] The caption 'The coordinate t runs from right to left' is confusing, since the figure shows operators ordered by t; please label the t-axis or state the ordering convention directly in the caption.
  4. [Section 2.2.3] The phrase 'viewed as equivariant parameters/twisted masses associated to the G ≃ G/G_0 global symmetry' is unclear; G/G_0 is a quotient of the group of gauge transformations, and the notation should be distinguished from the group G used for the gauge symmetry elsewhere in the paper.
  5. [References] Reference [36] is listed as 'to appear' with no arXiv number or additional information; if available, more complete bibliographic data would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the BFN and KLRW identifications rest on external moduli-space results and independent equivariant integral computations; the paper's own 'tautological' wording describes a comparison step, not a derivation input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (11)->(13) localization collapse; identification of the Bogomolny localization locus with affine-Grassmannian Schubert varieties (Section 3.3, Eq. (17), citing Kapustin-Witten [25]); computation of universal-bundle weights and tangent characters (Sections 3.6-3.7); difference-operator realization of correlators (39)-(42); and final comparison with the BFN convolution algebra (Section 4.1.8). The step that could look circular is the last one: the paper says the subalgebra is 'isomorphic in a tautological way' to the BFN convolution algebra 'just identify' monopole products with convolution classes. This is a comparison after the fact: the monopole operators are defined by Dirac singularities (Eq. (9)), not by the affine Grassmannian, and the localization locus is identified with GrG by the external result [25]. The independent content—the explicit integrals (39), (41), (74), (86), (87) and the product/associativity check (42), (76)—does not presuppose the BFN or KLRW algebras. The cited [25] and [9] are external, not self-citations; the author's own citations ([36], [37]) are not load-bearing. The unproven localization reduction of Section 3.1 and the one-loop determinant assertion in Appendix B are analytic-rigor limitations, explicitly disclaimed in Sections 1.1.2 and 1.3, not circular self-support. Section 4.2.5 honestly states that matching the Dirac bundle to the BFN sheaf 'would require a more careful analysis' and only claims K-theoretic identification, again a limitation rather than a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard background results (localization, Bogomolny/Hecke identification, instanton-monopole correspondence, index vanishing, excision) plus three paper-specific assumptions: the reinterpretation of phi boundary values as equivariant parameters, the expected vanishing of ker /D for hypermultiplets, and the minuscule generation assumption. No free parameters are fitted to data; all external parameters (epsilon, phi_i, m_alpha, defect parameters) are inputs of the setup.

assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Supersymmetric localization reduces the path integral to a finite-dimensional equivariant integral over the zero locus of the supercharge, with no one-loop corrections.
    Stated as standard in Section 3.1.1 and used in formula (13); the paper asserts determinant cancellation by supersymmetry in Appendix B but gives no proof for its boundary conditions.
  • domain assumption With the chosen boundaries, the localization locus is the moduli space of Bogomolny solutions, identified with spaces of successive Hecke modifications and affine Grassmannian Schubert varieties.
    Taken from sections 9 and 10 of [25] and restated in Sections 3.2-3.3; this identification underlies the comparison with [9].
  • domain assumption Monopoles with Dirac singularities correspond to U(1)-invariant instantons on C2, giving the local model for tangent space characters.
    Used in Section 3.5 to compute the fixed point character (32), citing [26] and [25].
  • domain assumption At torus fixed points in the smooth locus, H^0 and H^2 of the deformation complex vanish, so the equivariant index gives the tangent character.
    Section 3.6.1 states this with reference to a vanishing theorem in [25]; no proof is given in the paper.
  • domain assumption Contributions of individual monopoles to tangent characters add, with universal bundle weights shifted by previous Hecke modifications (excision).
    Used in formulas (36) and (50); justified by locality and factorization in Sections 3.6.6-3.7.8.
  • ad hoc to paper For hypermultiplets, the Dirac operator has no kernel under the complementary boundary conditions, so the Euler class is an actual vector bundle.
    Section 4.2.2 calls this 'reasonable to expect'; Section 4.2.5 later admits the coherent sheaf identification is not proved.
  • domain assumption Minuscule dressed monopole operators generate the Coulomb branch algebra.
    Used in Section 4.1; the justification is 'known a priori on mathematical or physical grounds' (dimension counts and R-symmetry), not proven in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The boundary value phi(t=0)=diag(phi_i) is not integrated over and is reinterpreted as equivariant parameters; gauge transformations are trivial at t=0.
    Section 2.2.3 states this is 'obvious' and essential; it converts boundary data into the equivariant variables appearing in all formulas.
  • domain assumption Codimension-two defects can be engineered by Z_p-orbifolds, using the equivalence between parabolic bundles and orbifold sheaves, with C2 as a local model.
    Used in Section 5.2, citing [28] and [21]; the paper notes the characteristic-p analogy is not made precise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coulomb Branches in 3d $\mathcal{N} = 4$ Revisited." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YXE4SPOQ

@misc{pith2026241217904,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coulomb Branches in 3d $\mathcalN = 4$ Revisited},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YXE4SPOQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17904}
}
abstract

Using ideas from the gauge theory approach to the geometric Langlands program, we revisit supersymmetric localization with monopole operators in 3d $\mathcal{N} = 4$ supersymmetric gauge theories subject to $\Omega$-deformation. The key novel feature of our setup is a pair of dual boundary conditions, which drastically simplify the dynamics of the theory and the nature of the localization loci. From a careful calculation with these boundary conditions, the mathematical definition of Coulomb branches proposed by Braverman, Finkelberg and Nakajima emerges naturally. It is straightforward to incorporate codimension two defects in the setup, and in this way we gain insight into Webster's construction of tilting bundles on Coulomb branches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17904 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Geometry of R 2 ε×[0, 1] for computation of correlation functions ⟨f(φ(0, t = 1)Oµn (tn). . . Oµ1 (t1)⟩ = ⟨f| Oµn (tn). . . Oµ1 (t1)|φ⟩. The coordinate t runs from right to left. 4.1.1 Difference operator realization Let us begin by introducing a notation for some of the equivariant integrals we explained how to compute in section 3. Suppose we consider a correlation function of n monopole operators of charges µi , … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The worldsheet of the effective A-model with target MC upon performing cigar reduction. Moreover, the normalization is determined by the fact that with no insertions, the gauge theory path integral reduces to the integral of 1 over a point ⟨f = 1|φ⟩ = 1. (62) On the other hand, by our discussion in section 3.7 we know that in the pure gauge theory (with a straight￾forward generalization to include matter): ⟨f| Oµn (… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Boundaries, mirror symmetry, and symplectic duality in 3dN = 4 gauge theory

    M. Bullimore et al. “Boundaries, mirror symmetry, and symplectic duality in 3dN = 4 gauge theory”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2016.10 (Oct. 2016). doi: 10 . 1007 / jhep10(2016 ) 108. url: https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fjhep10%282016%29108

    work page 2016

  2. [25]

    Kapustin and E

    A. Kapustin and E. Witten.Electric-Magnetic Duality And The Geometric Langlands Program. 2007. arXiv: hep-th/0604151 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2007

  3. [21]

    Gukov and E

    S. Gukov and E. Witten.Gauge Theory, Ramification, And The Geometric Langlands Program. 2007. arXiv: hep-th/0612073 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2007

  4. [28]

    BPS/CFT correspondence IV: sigma models and defects in gauge theory

    N. Nekrasov. “BPS/CFT correspondence IV: sigma models and defects in gauge theory”. In:Letters in Mathematical Physics109.3 (July 2018), pp. 579–622.doi: 10.1007/s11005- 018- 1115- 7. url: https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11005-018-1115-7

    doi:10.1007/s11005- 2018

  5. [1]

    Knot Categorification from Mirror Symmetry, Part I: Coherent Sheaves

    M. Aganagic. Knot Categorification from Mirror Symmetry, Part I: Coherent Sheaves. 2023. arXiv: 2004.14518 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  6. [2]

    Aganagic

    M. Aganagic. Knot Categorification from Mirror Symmetry, Part II: Lagrangians. 2023. arXiv:2105. 06039 [hep-th]

    work page 2023

  7. [3]

    Aganagic et al

    M. Aganagic et al. Quiver Hecke algebras from Floer homology in Couloumb branches. 2024. arXiv: 2406.04258 [math.SG]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [4]

    The Yang-Mills Equations over Riemann Surfaces

    M. F. Atiyah and R. Bott. “The Yang-Mills Equations over Riemann Surfaces”. In:Philosophical Trans- actions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences308.1505 (1983), pp. 523–615. issn: 00804614. url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/37156 (visited on 04/24/2024)

    work page 1983

Show all 46 references
  1. [5]

    Topological Lagrangians and cohomology

    M.F. Atiyah and L. Jeffrey. “Topological Lagrangians and cohomology”. In:Journal of Geometry and Physics 7.1 (1990), pp. 119–136.issn: 0393-0440. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0393-0440(90) 90023-V

    1990 doi

  2. [6]

    Bezrukavnikov, M

    R. Bezrukavnikov, M. Finkelberg, and I. Mirković.Equivariant (K-)homology of affine Grassmannian and Toda lattice. 2014. arXiv:math/0306413 [math.AG]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [7]

    Bezrukavnikov and D

    R. Bezrukavnikov and D. Kaledin.Fedosov quantization in positive characteristic. 2007. arXiv:math/ 0501247 [math.AG]

    2007

  4. [8]

    Braverman, M

    A. Braverman, M. Finkelberg, and H. Nakajima.Coulomb branches of3d N = 4 quiver gauge theories and slices in the affine Grassmannian (with appendices by Alexander Braverman, Michael Finkelberg, Joel Kamnitzer, Ryosuke Kodera, Hiraku Nakajima, Ben Webster, and Alex Weekes). 201...

    2018 arXiv

  5. [9]

    Braverman, M

    A. Braverman, M. Finkelberg, and H. Nakajima. Towards a mathematical definition of Coulomb branches of 3-dimensional N = 4 gauge theories, II. 2019. arXiv:1601.03586 [math.RT]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [10]

    Braverman and D

    A. Braverman and D. Gaitsgory.Geometric Eisenstein series. 2000. arXiv:math/9912097 [math.AG]

    2000 arXiv

  7. [11]

    On ’t Hooft defects, monopole bubbling and su- persymmetric quantum mechanics

    T. D. Brennan, A. Dey, and Gregory W. Moore. “On ’t Hooft defects, monopole bubbling and su- persymmetric quantum mechanics”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2018.9 (Sept. 2018). issn: 1029-8479. doi: 10.1007/jhep09(2018)014. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2018)014

    2018 doi

  8. [12]

    Bullimore, T

    M. Bullimore, T. Dimofte, and D. Gaiotto.The Coulomb Branch of 3dN = 4 Theories. 2015. arXiv: 1503.04817 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Bullimore et al

    M. Bullimore et al. Vortices and Vermas. 2018. arXiv:1609.04406 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Lectures on 2D yang-mills theory, equivariant cohomology and topological field theories

    S. Cordes, G. Moore, and S. Ramgoolam. “Lectures on 2D yang-mills theory, equivariant cohomology and topological field theories”. In:Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements41.1–3 (Apr. 1995), pp. 184–244. issn: 0920-5632. doi: 10.1016/0920-5632(95)00434-b. url: http://dx.d...

    1995 doi

  11. [16]

    Coulomb branch operators and mirror symmetry in three dimensions

    M. Dedushenko et al. “Coulomb branch operators and mirror symmetry in three dimensions”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics2018.4 (Apr. 2018).issn: 1029-8479.doi: 10.1007/jhep04(2018)037. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2018)037. 56

    2018 doi

  12. [17]

    Mirror symmetry and line operators

    T. Dimofte et al. “Mirror symmetry and line operators”. In:Journal of High Energy Physics2020.2 (Feb. 2020). issn: 1029-8479. doi: 10.1007/jhep02(2020)075. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP02(2020)075

    2020 doi

  13. [18]

    Exact results for ’t Hooft loops in Gauge theories on S 4

    J. Gomis, T. Okuda, and V. Pestun. “Exact results for ’t Hooft loops in Gauge theories on S 4”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics2012.5 (May 2012).issn: 1029-8479.doi: 10.1007/jhep05(2012)141. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2012)141

    2012 doi

  14. [19]

    S. Gukov. Surface Operators. 2014. arXiv:1412.7127 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [20]

    Branes and quantization

    S. Gukov and E. Witten. “Branes and quantization”. In:Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 13.5 (2009), pp. 1445–1518.doi: 10.4310/atmp.2009.v13.n5.a5 . url: https://doi.org/ 10.4310%2Fatmp.2009.v13.n5.a5

    2009 doi

  16. [22]

    Type IIB superstrings, BPS monopoles, and three-dimensional gauge dynamics

    A. Hanany and E. Witten. “Type IIB superstrings, BPS monopoles, and three-dimensional gauge dynamics”. In:Nuclear Physics B492.1-2 (May 1997), pp. 152–190.doi: 10.1016/s0550-3213(97) 80030-2. url: https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fs0550-3213%2897%2980030-2

    1997 doi

  17. [23]

    Line operators on S1 × R3 and quantization of the Hitchin mod- uli space

    Y. Ito, T. Okuda, and M. Taki. “Line operators on S1 × R3 and quantization of the Hitchin mod- uli space”. In:Journal of High Energy Physics2012.4 (Apr. 2012). issn: 1029-8479. doi: 10.1007/ jhep04(2012)010. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2012)010

    2012 doi

  18. [24]

    D. Kaledin. Derived equivalences by quantization. 2006. arXiv:math/0504584 [math.AG]

    2006 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Kronheimer

    P. Kronheimer. Monopoles and Taub-NUT Metrics. 1985. url: https://people.math.harvard.edu/ ~kronheim/MSc-Thesis-Oxford-1985.pdf

    1985

  20. [27]

    Issues in topological gauge theory

    A. Losev, N. Nekrasov, and S. Shatashvili. “Issues in topological gauge theory”. In:Nuclear Physics B 534.3 (Nov. 1998), pp. 549–611.doi: 10.1016/s0550-3213(98)00628-2. url: https://doi.org/10. 1016%2Fs0550-3213%2898%2900628-2

    1998 doi

  21. [29]

    Five-dimensional gauge theories and relativistic integrable systems

    N. Nekrasov. “Five-dimensional gauge theories and relativistic integrable systems”. In:Nuclear Physics B 531.1-3 (Oct. 1998), pp. 323–344.doi: 10.1016/s0550- 3213(98)00436- 2 . url: https://doi. org/10.1016%2Fs0550-3213%2898%2900436-2

    1998 doi

  22. [30]

    Nekrasov

    N. Nekrasov. Seiberg-Witten Prepotential From Instanton Counting. 2002. arXiv: hep - th / 0206161 [hep-th]

    2002

  23. [31]

    Nekrasov and A

    N. Nekrasov and A. Okounkov. Seiberg-Witten Theory and Random Partitions. 2003. arXiv: hep - th/0306238 [hep-th]

    2003

  24. [32]

    The omega deformation, branes, integrability and Liouville theory

    N. Nekrasov and E. Witten. “The omega deformation, branes, integrability and Liouville theory”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics2010.9 (Sept. 2010). doi: 10.1007/jhep09(2010)092 . url: https: //doi.org/10.1007%2Fjhep09%282010%29092

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    T. Okuda. Line operators in supersymmetric gauge theories and the 2d-4d relation. 2014. arXiv:1412. 7126 [hep-th]. 57

    2014

  26. [34]

    Monopole moduli spaces for compact 3-manifolds

    M. Pauly. “Monopole moduli spaces for compact 3-manifolds.” In:Math Ann311 (1998), pp. 125–146. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s002080050180

    1998 doi

  27. [35]

    Seiberg and E

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten.Gauge Dynamics And Compactification To Three Dimensions. 1996. arXiv: hep-th/9607163 [hep-th]

    1996 arXiv

  28. [36]

    S. Tamagni. Nonabelian shift operators and shifted Yangians. to appear

  29. [37]

    S. Tamagni. Stable Envelopes, Vortex Moduli Spaces, and Verma Modules. 2023. arXiv: 2311.03462 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    C. Teleman. Gauge theory and mirror symmetry. 2014. arXiv:1404.6305 [math-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    C. Teleman. The role of Coulomb branches in 2D gauge theory. 2019. arXiv:1801.10124 [math.AG]

    2019

  32. [40]

    Coherent sheaves and quantum Coulomb branches I: tilting bundles from integrable systems

    B.Webster. Coherent sheaves and quantum Coulomb branches I: tilting bundles from integrable systems

  33. [41]

    E. Witten. A New Look At The Path Integral Of Quantum Mechanics. 2010. arXiv: 1009 . 6032 [hep-th]

    2010

  34. [42]

    Geometric Langlands And The Equations Of Nahm And Bogomolny.2009.arXiv: 0905.4795 [hep-th]

    E.Witten. Geometric Langlands And The Equations Of Nahm And Bogomolny.2009.arXiv: 0905.4795 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Introduction to cohomological field theories

    E. Witten. “Introduction to cohomological field theories”. In:Int. J. Mod. Phys. A6 (1991), pp. 2775–

    1991

  36. [44]

    Topological quantum field theory

    E. Witten. “Topological quantum field theory”. In: Communications in Mathematical Physics117.3 (1988), pp. 353–386. 58

    1988

  37. [2019]

    arXiv: 1905.04623 [math.AG]

    1905 arXiv

  38. [2792]

    doi: 10.1142/S0217751X91001350

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.