SciPost Submission Page
2-Group Symmetries and M-Theory
by Michele Del Zotto, Iñaki García Etxebarria, Sakura Schafer-Nameki
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Iñaki García Etxebarria |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.10097v2 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2022-09-05 11:05 |
| Submitted by: | García Etxebarria, Iñaki |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Theoretical |
Abstract
Quantum Field Theories engineered in M-theory can have 2-group symmetries, mixing 0-form and 1-form symmetry backgrounds in non-trivial ways. In this paper we develop methods for determining the 2-group structure from the boundary geometry of the M-theory background. We illustrate these methods in the case of 5d theories arising from M-theory on ordinary and generalised toric Calabi-Yau cones, including cases in which the resulting theory is non-Lagrangian. Our results confirm and elucidate previous results on 2-groups from geometric engineering.
Author comments upon resubmission
We are very thankful to the referees for the very useful comments. We have addressed them in the revised version as follows:
Point 1 of Referee 1: We have modified the discussion between (2.2) and (2.4) to indicate that indeed ker\alpha is the general form but in our cases it is always \widehat{C}. We also agree that more generally F does not have to be the simply-connected version
but this is not a very strong assumption and a generalization to non-simply connected F is straightforward. The choice made in the paper makes the presentation less cluttered.
Point 2 of Referee 1: This was indeed very poorly phrased, and potentially misleading. We have added a paragraph on page 6 (just above
the beginning of the "2-Groups." paragraph), and some additional comments below (2.7) that should now be clearer.
We have also implemented the other comments by Referee 1 and Referee 2.
Point 1 of Referee 1: We have modified the discussion between (2.2) and (2.4) to indicate that indeed ker\alpha is the general form but in our cases it is always \widehat{C}. We also agree that more generally F does not have to be the simply-connected version
but this is not a very strong assumption and a generalization to non-simply connected F is straightforward. The choice made in the paper makes the presentation less cluttered.
Point 2 of Referee 1: This was indeed very poorly phrased, and potentially misleading. We have added a paragraph on page 6 (just above
the beginning of the "2-Groups." paragraph), and some additional comments below (2.7) that should now be clearer.
We have also implemented the other comments by Referee 1 and Referee 2.
Current status:
Has been resubmitted