Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 57 references

One-point functions in AdS/dCFT

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tree-level one-point functions in the D3-D5 defect CFT are captured by a single determinant formula.

desk verdict A solid, honest review of the D3-D5 one-point function program: read it as a status report, and keep the k=3 and SO(6) gaps in mind when citing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03444 v1 pith:GKWM2LS5 submitted 2019-08-09 hep-th cond-mat.stat-mech

Marius de Leeuw This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords AdS/CFTcorrespondencedefectconformalfieldtheoryD3-D5integrabilityBetheansatzmatrixproductstatesone-pointfunctionsdeterminantformulas
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 argues that tree-level one-point functions in the D3-D5 defect version of N=4 super Yang-Mills theory are exactly computable through integrability. The computation is rephrased as a normalized overlap between a Bethe eigenstate of the Heisenberg spin chain and a matrix product state encoding the defect, and the review derives and assembles determinant formulas for these overlaps. The central result, equation (5.25), expresses the one-point function coefficient $C_k$ in terms of Baxter polynomials, the factorized Gaudin determinant, and a transfer-matrix building block $T_{k-1}(0)$. The $k=2$ case is rigorously proven, even $k$ follows by recursion, while odd $k$ remains a conjecture; the same machinery extends to SU(3) and SO(6) scalar sectors with numerical support. If correct, this turns a set of hard defect-CFT data into closed-form output of the standard Bethe-ansatz solution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the matrix product state $|\mathrm{MPS}\rangle = \mathrm{tr}\prod_{n=1}^L (t_1\otimes|\uparrow\rangle_n + t_2\otimes|\downarrow\rangle_n)$, where $t_1,t_2,t_3$ form a $k$-dimensional irreducible representation of SU(2); it encodes the classical scalar vev that defines the defect. The argument runs through three steps: the MPS satisfies the integrability condition $\sigma t(v)\sigma|\mathrm{MPS}\rangle = t(v)|\mathrm{MPS}\rangle$, which forces Bethe rapidities to appear in pairs $\{u_i,-u_i\}$; the $k=2$ overlap is proven by identifying the MPS with the Néel state and importing Gaudin-type determinant results; and a recursion relation $|\mathrm{MPS}\rangle_{k+2} = \frac{t(ik/2)}{(k-1)^L}|\mathrm{MPS}\rangle_k - \left(\frac{k+1}{k-1}\right)^L |\mathrm{MPS}\rangle_{k-2}$ builds general $k$ from $k=2$. The final determinant formula (5.25) packages these ingredients: Baxter polynomials carry the Bethe-root data, $G_\pm$ carry the norm, and $T_{k-1}(0)$ carries the $k$-dependence.

What would settle it

Compute the exact overlap from the trace definition (3.23) for a $k=3$ defect and a Bethe state with chain length beyond the reported length-8 checks, and compare with (5.25); a single mismatch would refute the odd-$k$ formula. A direct proof or counterexample to the similarity transformation (5.23) would settle the conjecture either way.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that the overlap $C_k = \langle \mathrm{MPS}|u\rangle/\sqrt{\langle u|u\rangle}$ between the defect's matrix product state and a Bethe state is not a case-by-case quantity but a determinant. For paired rapidities $\{u_i,-u_i\}$, the formula reads $C_k = i^L T_{k-1}(0)\frac{\sqrt{Q(i/2)Q(0)}}{Q^2(ik/2)}\sqrt{\frac{\det G_+}{\det G_-}}$, with $Q$ the Baxter polynomial, $G_\pm$ the factors of the Gaudin norm matrix, and $T_n$ the transfer matrix in the $(n+1)$-dimensional representation. The $k=2$ case is proven by mapping the MPS to the Néel state and using known Gaudin-type overlap determinants; the general-$k$ formula is built by a recursion in $k$ that is proven for even $k$ and conjectured for odd $k$. The same construction is extended to the SU(3) and SO(6) scalar sectors, where the formulas are checked numerically but lack a proof. The net claim is that one-point functions in this holographic defect CFT are controlled by the same integrable structure that determines the spectrum.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the recursion relating matrix product states for neighbouring values of $k$ is valid for every $k$; for odd $k$ this recursion has not been proved, so the closed formula for odd $k$, including $k=3$, is a conjecture.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every tree-level one-point function in the SU(2) sector with even $k$ is fixed once the Bethe roots are known; no further dynamical input is needed.
  • In the large-$k$ limit, one-point functions become polynomials of degree $L-M+1$ in $k$ built from Bernoulli polynomials and conserved charges, the regime where supergravity predictions live.
  • The odd-$k$ gap is isolated: a proof of the recursion for $k=3$ would promote the conjectured formula (5.25) to a theorem for all $k$, and the proposed relation $C_3 = 2^L Q(0)/Q(i/2)\, C_2$ points to a Q-operator mechanism.
  • The same overlap strategy supplies one-point functions in the SU(3) and full scalar SO(6) sectors through formula (5.60), extending the reach beyond the SU(2) subsector.
  • At one loop the paper proposes an asymptotic version of the formula obtained by replacing Bethe functions and transfer matrices with their Zhukovsky-type quantum counterparts and inserting a flux factor; it matches explicit computations where tested.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not pursue this, but the odd-$k$ conjecture suggests a proof strategy via Q-operators: if $C_3$ is related to $C_2$ by Q-operators rather than a transfer matrix, the same relation may close the missing proof in the SO(6) sector, where the paper notes only states with $M=2$ are proven.
  • The integrability criterion (4.85) functions implicitly as a classification tool: the paper notes the SU(2) sector of the su(2)⊕su(2) D3-D7 defect violates it and no closed formula is known, so the criterion may mark exactly which defect theories admit determinant overlaps.
  • Because the overlap problem is identical to quantum-quench overlaps, the holographic one-point formulas could be transferred back to condensed-matter quench calculations, providing explicit data for nested systems where the paper says closed formulas are still under development.
  • A sharper test than currently available would compare the large-$k$ polynomial form against string-theory computations for non-protected operators, a regime the paper reports has almost no string-side results.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper is a review/lecture-note account of one-point functions in the D3-D5 defect CFT and their computation by integrability. It introduces the mapping from tree-level one-point functions to overlaps between Bethe states and a matrix product state (MPS), reviews the coordinate and algebraic Bethe ansatz for the Heisenberg chain, proves that the D3-D5 MPS is parity-even and integrable, and presents determinant formulas for the overlaps: the SU(2) k=2 formula (5.16), the general-k SU(2) formula (5.25), the SU(3) formula (5.53), the full SO(6) formula (5.60), and a one-loop generalization (6.8). The paper also discusses descendant states, the k-dependence of the results, loop-level computations, and Wilson-loop observables. Several of the formulas are explicitly flagged in the body as conjectural: the odd-k case (k=3) in Section 5.4, the SU(3) formula in Section 5.7, and the SO(6) formula in Section 5.8.

Significance. If the determinant formulas are correct, the paper is a useful pedagogical summary of an active research area, connecting AdS/dCFT one-point functions with integrable quenches and overlap formulas. Its strengths are the self-contained derivation of the Bethe-ansatz machinery, the explicit proof that the D3-D5 MPS is integrable, and the derivation of the k=2 SU(2) formula through the N\'eel-state mapping. The paper is also honest in disclosing which formulas lack rigorous proofs. However, the advertised central claim that a closed formula has been derived for all one-point functions in the scalar sector goes beyond the proven support, and there is a concrete algebraic inconsistency in the recursion relation used to derive the general-k formula. These issues affect the paper's reliability as a reference review and need to be fixed before publication.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.4, Eqs. (5.21)-(5.25)] The recursion relation (5.21) appears to be missing a normalization factor. From the local Lax action stated immediately after (5.21), L_{ia}(ik/2) acting on the MPS building block gives a factor [i(k-1)/2] per site. Consequently t(ik/2)|MPS>_k = [i(k-1)/2]^L (|MPS>_{k+2} + ((k+1)/(k-1))^L |MPS>_{k-2}), so solving for |MPS>_{k+2} introduces the coefficient (2/i(k-1))^L, not (k-1)^(-L) as written. As printed, Eq. (5.24) is inconsistent with Eq. (5.25). For the vacuum (M=0), Eq. (5.24) with k=2 gives C_4 = i^L(3^L+1)2^{1-2L}, whereas Eq. (5.25) and the direct trace formula give C_4 = 2^{1-L}(3^L+1). Please correct the prefactor in (5.21) and (5.24), or explicitly state the normalization convention for t(v) used there.
  2. [Abstract and Section 7 vs. Sections 5.4, 5.7, 5.8] The abstract and especially Section 7 state that a closed determinant formula has been derived for all one-point functions in the scalar sector. This overstates the support reported in the body. Section 5.4 states that the general-k formula for odd k, in particular k=3, remains an open question; Section 5.7 states that the SU(3) formula (5.53) has been checked numerically up to length 14 but lacks a direct proof; Section 5.8 states that the full SO(6) formula (5.60) is proven only for states with M=2 and checked numerically up to length 13. The conclusions should clearly separate the proven results (k=2 SU(2), the integrability of the MPS, and the k=2 descendant/loop results where proofs or references exist) from the conjectural ones, and the abstract should be adjusted accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.7, Eq. (5.46)] The last factor in Eq. (5.46) is (u_m - v_n - i/2)/(u_m - v_n - i/2), which is identically 1; the denominator should presumably be u_m - v_n + i/2. The same typo appears in Eq. (5.48) with the variables w_n.
  2. [Sections 5.7 and 5.8] The numerical checks supporting the conjectural SU(3) and SO(6) formulas are described only as 'perfect agreement' up to some length. Since these checks are the main evidence for formulas that lack proofs, please specify how many states were tested, which root configurations, the numerical precision, and whether the data or code are available, or give precise pointers to the original papers.
  3. [Section 5.6] There is a typo: 'lake the limit' should be 'take the limit'. Also, the descendant formula (5.36) is described as checked only up to L=18 with no proof; this should be stated more prominently, since Section 5.6's summary says the descendant one-point functions are proportional to primaries without repeating the caveat.
  4. [General editorial] There are several small typos and duplications: 'technqiues' in the Introduction, 'satifies' in Section 4.1, 'equivalent equivalent' in Section 5.3, and references [33] and [34] appear to refer to the same arXiv:1812.11094 entry with slightly different titles. These should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity: the k=2 formula is externally proven via Néel-state overlaps; the general-k recursion rests on a self-cited similarity lemma but does not reduce to its input; odd-k and SO(6) gaps are openly conjectural.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The k=2 overlap formula, Eq. (5.14)/(5.16), is anchored externally: the paper maps the MPS to the Néel state, Eqs. (5.17)-(5.20), and the resulting overlap is proven by condensed-matter determinant formulas [38,39], not by the paper's own fitted values. The general-k recursion (5.21) is a genuine recursion in the defect parameter k: it expresses |MPS>_{k+2} in terms of the transfer-matrix action on |MPS>_k and |MPS>_{k-2}. Although the similarity transformation (5.23) is cited to the author's prior work [8], the off-diagonal '⋆' entries are irrelevant for the trace over the auxiliary space, so this is a technical lemma rather than an assumption of the final result. Since the k=2 base is independently proven, solving the recursion to obtain (5.25) does not amount to an input-output circle. The remaining gaps are honestly disclosed: Section 5.4 states that a proof for k=3 'is still an open question'; Section 5.8 says that Eq. (5.60) 'can be proven for states with M=2' but 'a direct proof is still missing'; Section 7 repeats both limitations. These are unproven conjectures supported by numerical checks, which are correctness risks rather than circular steps. Similarly, the loop-level formula (6.8) is explicitly labeled an Ansatz and checked against explicit computations. Self-citation is pervasive in this review, but the load-bearing k=2 result reduces to independent condensed-matter theorems, so no prediction reduces by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a review and thus pulls many results from prior literature. No free parameters are introduced. The central challenge is that several of the key determinant formulas are conjectural, so the review's pedagogical claims rest on unproven assumptions that are honestly flagged.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The planar limit of N=4 SYM, where only planar diagrams contribute and single-trace operators map to spin chain states.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 to justify the spin chain description of conformal operators.
  • domain assumption The D3-D5 defect is described by the classical vev (3.16), yielding the MPS (3.24).
    The one-point functions are computed by inserting this vev at tree level, Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption The MPS satisfies the integrability condition (4.85) with the parity operator sigma.
    Proven in Section 5.1, but the proof uses properties of the SU(2) representation; it is a non-trivial property that underpins the determinant formulas.
  • ad hoc to paper The recursion relation (5.21) between MPSs with different k holds.
    Stated in Section 5.4 and proven via a similarity transformation (5.23) that is only sketched, with details in [8].
  • ad hoc to paper The determinant formulas (5.53) and (5.60) for the SU(3) and full scalar sectors are valid.
    These are conjectures supported by numerical checks; the paper explicitly states that a direct proof is still missing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of One-point functions in AdS/dCFT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GKWM2LS5

@misc{pith2026190803444,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: One-point functions in AdS/dCFT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GKWM2LS5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03444}
}
read the original abstract

In this review we discuss recent advances in the computation of one-point functions in defect conformal field theories with holographic duals. We briefly review the appearance of integrable spin chains in N=4 super Yang--Mills theory and reformulate the problem of computing one-point functions to determining overlaps between Bethe states and a Matrix Product State. We will then demonstrate how these overlaps can be computed by determinant formulas. This work is based on lectures given at the Young Researchers Integrability School and Workshop 2018. To appear in a special issue of J. Phys. A.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03444 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of a system with a codimension 1 defect. The defect acts as an interface through which some of the physical modes can propagate. The interface can also support non-trivial defect fields, which could couple to the physical modes in the bulk. In this review, we will focus on certain quantum field theories with a codimension one defect, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Representation of operator insertions in the bulk in a theory with a codimension one interface at x3 = 0. Correlation functions The correlation functions in a conformal field theory with a codimension one defect are less restricted than for a usual CFT. This is due to the fact that such a defect reduces the conformal symmetry to the conformal symmetry in one dimension lower. For instance, in contrast to a proper CFT… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The co-dimension 1 defect. The U(N) symmetry for x3 > 0 is broken by assigning a vacuum expectation value for the scalar fields φi . The explicit form of the vev of the scalar fields depends on the model. • The D3-D5 defect is parameterized by SU(2) representations [15]. More precisely, for x3 > 0 φ cl i = − (ti)k×k ⊕ 0(N−k)×(N−k) x3 φ cl 4,5,6 = 0 , i = 1, 2, 3 , (3.16) where the k × k matrices t1,2,3 form a k-dime… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two equivalent ways of describing a two-dimensional Euclidean field theory with a boundary. In the left picture, the time coordinate is chosen perpen￾dicular to the boundary so that it has the interpretation of a non-trivial initial state. In the right picture, time ru…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two diagrams have to be considered for the one-loop correction to a one-point function: the lollipop diagram (a) and the tadpole diagram (b). 6 Defect CFT at loop level So far, we only considered one-point functions at tree level. A natural question is to ask how it ex…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The different Wilson line configurations that have been studied in the D3-D5 defect version of N = 4 SYM theory: (a) a single infinite Wilson line of length T, (b) two antiparallel Wilson lines of length T, (c) A circular Wilson loop parallel to the defect. for T → ∞. …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergrav- ity

    J.M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergrav- ity”, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38, 1113 (1999), hep-th/9711200, [Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2,231(1998)]

    arXiv 1999

  2. [2]

    The Bethe ansatz for N=4 superYang-Mills

    J.A. Minahan & K. Zarembo, “The Bethe ansatz for N=4 superYang-Mills” , JHEP 0303, 013 (2003), hep-th/0212208

    arXiv 2003

  3. [3]

    Review of AdS/CFT Integrability: An Overview

    N. Beisert et al., “Review of AdS/CFT Integrability: An Overview” , Lett. Math. Phys. 99, 3 (2012), arXiv:1012.3982

    arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Holography and defect conformal field the- ories

    O. DeWolfe, D.Z. Freedman & H. Ooguri, “Holography and defect conformal field the- ories”, Phys. Rev. D66, 025009 (2002), hep-th/0111135.• A. Karch & L. Randall, “Open and closed string interpretation of SUSY CFT’s on branes with boundaries” , JHEP 0106, 063 (2001), hep-th/0105132

    arXiv 2002

  5. [5]

    Lectures on the holographic duality of gauge fields and strings

    G.W. Semenoff, “Lectures on the holographic duality of gauge fields and strings” , arXiv:1808.04074, in “Les Houches Summer School: Integrability: From Statistical Systems to Gauge Theory Les Houches, France, June 6-July 1, 2016”

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Scalar one-point func- tions and matrix product states of AdS/dCFT

    M. De Leeuw, C. Kristjansen & G. Linardopoulos, “Scalar one-point func- tions and matrix product states of AdS/dCFT” , Phys. Lett. B781, 238 (2018), arXiv:1802.01598

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    One-point Functions in Defect CFT and Integrability

    M. de Leeuw, C. Kristjansen & K. Zarembo, “One-point Functions in Defect CFT and Integrability”, JHEP 1508, 098 (2015), arXiv:1506.06958. 46

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    One-point Functions in AdS/dCFT from Matrix Product States

    I. Buhl-Mortensen, M. de Leeuw, C. Kristjansen & K. Zarembo, “One-point Functions in AdS/dCFT from Matrix Product States” , JHEP 1602, 052 (2016), arXiv:1512.02532

    arXiv 2016

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Exact solution for the quench dynamics of a nested integrable system

    M. Mestyn, B. Bertini, L. Piroli & P. Calabrese, “Exact solution for the quench dynamics of a nested integrable system” , J. Stat. Mech. 1708, 083103 (2017), arXiv:1705.00851

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Conformal Invariance and Surface Critical Behavior

    J.L. Cardy, “Conformal Invariance and Surface Critical Behavior” , Nucl. Phys. B240, 514 (1984)

    1984

  3. [11]

    Supersymmetric gauge theories and the AdS / CFT correspondence

    E. D’Hoker & D.Z. Freedman, “Supersymmetric gauge theories and the AdS / CFT correspondence”, in “Strings, Branes and Extra Dimensions: TASI 2001: Proceed- ings”, p. 3-158

    2001

  4. [12]

    Introduction to Integra- bility and One-point Functions in N = 4 SYM and its Defect Cousin

    M. de Leeuw, A.C. Ipsen, C. Kristjansen & M. Wilhelm, “Introduction to Integra- bility and One-point Functions in N = 4 SYM and its Defect Cousin” , in “Les Houches Summer School: Integrability: From Statistical Systems to Gauge Theory Les Houches, France, June 6-July 1, 2016”

    2016

  5. [13]

    A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions

    G. ’t Hooft, “A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions” , Nucl. Phys. B72, 461 (1974)

    1974

  6. [14]

    Boundary conditions for integrable quantum systems

    E.K. Sklyanin, “Boundary conditions for integrable quantum systems” , Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 21, 2375 (1988), http://stacks.iop.org/0305-4470/21/i=10/a=015

    1988

  7. [15]

    The Noncommutative bion core

    N.R. Constable, R.C. Myers & O. Tafjord, “The Noncommutative bion core” , Phys. Rev. D61, 106009 (2000), hep-th/9911136

    2000 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Chiral primary one-point functions in the D3-D7 defect conformal field theory

    C. Kristjansen, G.W. Semenoff & D. Young, “Chiral primary one-point functions in the D3-D7 defect conformal field theory”, JHEP 1301, 117 (2013), arXiv:1210.7015

    2013 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Non-abelian brane intersections

    N.R. Constable, R.C. Myers & O. Tafjord, “Non-abelian brane intersections”, JHEP 0106, 023 (2001), hep-th/0102080

    2001 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Longitudinal 5-branes as 4-spheres in matrix theory

    J. Castelino, S. Lee & W. Taylor, “Longitudinal 5-branes as 4-spheres in matrix theory”, Nucl.Phys. B526, 334 (1998), hep-th/9712105

    1998 arXiv

  11. [19]

    One-point functions of non- protected operators in the SO(5) symmetric D3-D7 dCFT

    M. de Leeuw, C. Kristjansen & G. Linardopoulos, “One-point functions of non- protected operators in the SO(5) symmetric D3-D7 dCFT” , J. Phys. A50, 254001 (2017), arXiv:1612.06236

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Zur Theorie der Metalle

    H. Bethe, “Zur Theorie der Metalle” , Zeitschrift f¨ ur Ph71, 205 (1931)

    1931

  13. [21]

    How algebraic Bethe ansatz works for integrable model

    L.D. Faddeev, “How algebraic Bethe ansatz works for integrable model” , in “Rela- tivistic gravitation and gravitational radiation. Proceedings, School of Physics, Les Houches, France, September 26-October 6, 1995” , p. pp. 149-219

    1995

  14. [22]

    The Bethe ansatz

    F. Levkovich-Maslyuk, “The Bethe ansatz” , J. Phys. A49, 323004 (2016), arXiv:1606.02950

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Field correlation functions in a one-dimensional Bose gas

    A.G. Izergin, V.E. Korepin & N.Y. Reshetikhin, “Field correlation functions in a one-dimensional Bose gas” , Journal of Soviet Mathematics 46, 1581 (1989), https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01099188

    1989 doi

  16. [24]

    Tailoring Three-Point Functions and Integrability

    J. Escobedo, N. Gromov, A. Sever & P. Vieira, “Tailoring Three-Point Functions and Integrability”, JHEP 1109, 028 (2011), arXiv:1012.2475. 47

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Calculation of scalar products of wave functions and form factors in the framework of the alcebraic Bethe ansatz

    N.A. Slavnov, “Calculation of scalar products of wave functions and form factors in the framework of the alcebraic Bethe ansatz” , Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 79, 502 (1989)

    1989

  18. [26]

    Diagonalization of a Class of Spin Hamiltonians

    M. Gaudin, “Diagonalization of a Class of Spin Hamiltonians” , J. Phys. France 37, 1086 (1976)

    1976

  19. [27]

    Calculation of Norms of Bethe Wave Functions

    V.E. Korepin, “Calculation of Norms of Bethe Wave Functions” , Com- mun. Math. Phys. 86, 391 (1982)

    1982

  20. [28]

    Introduction to Quan- tum Integrability in Out of Equilibrium Systems

    P. Calabrese, F.H.L. Essler & G. Mussardo, “Introduction to Quan- tum Integrability in Out of Equilibrium Systems” , Journal of Sta- tistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2016, 064001 (2016), http://stacks.iop.org/1742-5468/2016/i=6/a=064001

    2016

  21. [29]

    What is an integrable quench?

    L. Piroli, B. Pozsgay & E. Vernier, “What is an integrable quench?” , Nucl. Phys. B925, 362 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

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

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

    1994 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Integrable quenches in nested spin chains I: the exact steady states

    L. Piroli, E. Vernier, P. Calabrese & B. Pozsgay, “Integrable quenches in nested spin chains I: the exact steady states” , arXiv:1811.00432

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Integrable quenches in nested spin chains II: the Quantum Transfer Matrix approach

    L. Piroli, E. Vernier, P. Calabrese & B. Pozsgay, “Integrable quenches in nested spin chains II: the Quantum Transfer Matrix approach” , arXiv:1812.05330

    arXiv

  25. [34]

    Integrable Matrix Product States from boundary integrability

    B. Pozsgay, L. Piroli & E. Vernier, “Integrable Matrix Product States from boundary integrability”, arXiv e-prints A9, arXiv:1812.11094 (2018), arXiv:1812.11094

    2018 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Determinant formula for the six-vertex model with re- flecting end

    O. Tsuchiya, “Determinant formula for the six-vertex model with re- flecting end” , Journal of Mathematical Physics 39, 5946 (1998), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.532606, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.532606

    1998 doi

  27. [36]

    Overlaps with arbitrary two-site states in the XXZ spin chain

    B. Pozsgay, “Overlaps with arbitrary two-site states in the XXZ spin chain” , Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 5, 053103 (2018), arXiv:1801.03838

    2018 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Overlaps of partial N´ eel states and Bethe states

    O. Foda & K. Zarembo, “Overlaps of partial N´ eel states and Bethe states” , J. Stat. Mech. 1602, 023107 (2016), arXiv:1512.02533

    2016 arXiv

  29. [38]

    A Gaudin-like determinant for overlaps of N´ eel and XXZ Bethe states

    M. Brockmann, J. De Nardis, B. Wouters & J.S. Caux, “A Gaudin-like determinant for overlaps of N´ eel and XXZ Bethe states”, Journal of Physics A Mathematical Gen- eral 47, 145003 (2014), arXiv:1401.2877

    2014 arXiv

  30. [39]

    N´ eel-XXZ state overlaps: odd particle numbers and Lieb-Liniger scaling limit

    M. Brockmann, J. De Nardis, B. Wouters & J.S. Caux, “N´ eel-XXZ state overlaps: odd particle numbers and Lieb-Liniger scaling limit” , Journal of Physics A Math- ematical General 47, 345003 (2014), arXiv:1403.7469.• B. Pozsgay, “Overlaps between eigenstates of the XXZ spin-1/2...

    2014 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Overlaps of q-raised N´ eel states with XXZ Bethe states and their re- lation to the Lieb-Liniger Bose gas

    M. Brockmann, “Overlaps of q-raised N´ eel states with XXZ Bethe states and their re- lation to the Lieb-Liniger Bose gas”, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Ex- periment 2014, P05006 (2014). 48

    2014

  32. [41]

    A Shortcut to the Q-Operator

    V.V. Bazhanov, T. Lukowski, C. Meneghelli & M. Staudacher, “A Shortcut to the Q-Operator”, J. Stat. Mech. 1011, P11002 (2010), arXiv:1005.3261

    2010 arXiv

  33. [42]

    AdS/dCFT one-point functions of the SU(3) sector

    M. de Leeuw, C. Kristjansen & S. Mori, “AdS/dCFT one-point functions of the SU(3) sector”, Phys. Lett. B763, 197 (2016), arXiv:1607.03123

    2016 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Integrability in AdS/CFT: Exact Results for Correlation Functions

    J. Escobedo, “Integrability in AdS/CFT: Exact Results for Correlation Functions” , http://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/6788

  35. [44]

    Asymptotic Four Point Functions

    B. Basso, F. Coronado, S. Komatsu, H.T. Lam, P. Vieira & D.l. Zhong, “Asymptotic Four Point Functions”, arXiv:1701.04462

    arXiv

  36. [45]

    One- loop one-point functions in gauge-gravity dualities with defects

    I. Buhl-Mortensen, M. de Leeuw, A.C. Ipsen, C. Kristjansen & M. Wilhelm, “One- loop one-point functions in gauge-gravity dualities with defects” , Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 231603 (2016), arXiv:1606.01886.• I. Buhl-Mortensen, M. de Leeuw, A.C. Ipsen, C. Kristjansen & M. Wilhelm, “...

    2016 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Holographic Interface-Particle Potential

    K. Nagasaki, H. Tanida & S. Yamaguchi, “Holographic Interface-Particle Potential”, JHEP 1201, 139 (2012), arXiv:1109.1927

    2012 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Long-range psu(2, 2|4) Bethe Ans¨ atze for gauge theory and strings

    N. Beisert & M. Staudacher, “Long-range psu(2, 2|4) Bethe Ans¨ atze for gauge theory and strings”, Nucl. Phys. B727, 1 (2005), hep-th/0504190

    2005 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Transcendentality and Crossing

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

    2007 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Asymp- totic One-Point Functions in Gauge-String Duality with Defects

    I. Buhl-Mortensen, M. de Leeuw, A.C. Ipsen, C. Kristjansen & M. Wilhelm, “Asymp- totic One-Point Functions in Gauge-String Duality with Defects” , Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 261604 (2017), arXiv:1704.07386

    2017 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Two-point functions in AdS/dCFT and the boundary conformal bootstrap equations

    M. de Leeuw, A.C. Ipsen, C. Kristjansen, K.E. Vardinghus & M. Wilhelm,“Two-point functions in AdS/dCFT and the boundary conformal bootstrap equations” , JHEP 1708, 020 (2017), arXiv:1705.03898

    2017 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Two-point functions of SU(2)-subsector and length-two operators in dCFT

    E. Widen, “Two-point functions of SU(2)-subsector and length-two operators in dCFT”, Phys. Lett. B773, 435 (2017), arXiv:1705.08679

    2017 arXiv

  43. [52]

    One-loop Wilson loops and the particle-interface potential in AdS/dCFT

    M. de Leeuw, A.C. Ipsen, C. Kristjansen & M. Wilhelm, “One-loop Wilson loops and the particle-interface potential in AdS/dCFT” , Phys. Lett. B768, 192 (2017), arXiv:1608.04754

    2017 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Quark-antiquark potential in defect conformal field theory

    M. Preti, D. Trancanelli & E. Vescovi,“Quark-antiquark potential in defect conformal field theory”, JHEP 1710, 079 (2017), arXiv:1708.04884

    2017 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Circular Wilson loops in defect Conformal Field Theory

    J. Aguilera-Damia, D.H. Correa & V.I. Giraldo-Rivera, “Circular Wilson loops in defect Conformal Field Theory” , JHEP 1703, 023 (2017), arXiv:1612.07991

    2017 arXiv

  46. [55]

    A Quantum Check of Non- Supersymmetric AdS/dCFT

    A.G. Grau, C. Kristjansen, M. Volk & M. Wilhelm, “A Quantum Check of Non- Supersymmetric AdS/dCFT”, arXiv:1810.11463

    arXiv

  47. [56]

    A non-integrable quench from AdS/dCFT

    M. de Leeuw, C. Kristjansen & K.E. Vardinghus, “A non-integrable quench from AdS/dCFT”, arXiv:1906.10714

    1906 arXiv

  48. [57]

    One-point functions in β-deformedN = 4 SYM with defect

    E. Wid´ en, “One-point functions in β-deformedN = 4 SYM with defect” , JHEP 1811, 114 (2018), arXiv:1804.09514

    2018 arXiv

  49. [58]

    The Bootstrap Program for Boundary CFTd

    P. Liendo, L. Rastelli & B.C. van Rees, “The Bootstrap Program for Boundary CFTd”, JHEP 1307, 113 (2013), arXiv:1210.4258.• P. Liendo & C. Meneghelli, “Bootstrap equations for N = 4 SYM with defects” , JHEP 1701, 122 (2017), 49 arXiv:1608.05126.• N. Andrei et al., “Boundary an...

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.