Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Analytic Bootstrap for Logarithmic CFT

T0 review · 1 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 This paper shows that crossing symmetry fixes the leading large-spin anomalous dimension of even-spin rank-3 double-trace operators in a logarithmic CFT, so cluster decomposition holds whenever all operator dimensions are positive.

desk verdict A plausible first application of the large-spin analytic bootstrap to LogCFTs, but the abstract's cluster-decomposition claim is too strong: the derivation requires positive minimal twist τ_m, not merely positive scaling dimensions. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10437 v2 pith:PGVZJ5N4 submitted 2019-08-27 hep-th

Pinaki Banerjee , Parijat Dey This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords logarithmicconformalfieldtheoryanalyticbootstraplarge-spinlimitanomalousdimensionclusterdecompositionAdS/CFTcorrespondencenon-unitaryCFTcrossingsymmetry
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

Logarithmic conformal field theories (LogCFTs) are CFTs whose correlation functions contain logarithms because the dilatation operator acts non-diagonally; they appear in settings from disordered systems to string theory. Standard numerical bootstrap methods require unitarity, which LogCFTs lack, so this paper applies the analytic large-spin bootstrap instead. It studies the four-point function of a rank-2 multiplet of logarithmic scalars and shows that crossing symmetry, through the bootstrap equation (2.15), determines the leading anomalous dimension of the even-spin rank-3 double-trace operators to be $\gamma_{0,\ell} \sim \gamma_0/\ell^{\tau_m}$, where $\tau_m$ is the twist of the minimal-twist operator and $\gamma_0$ is given in (3.16) in terms of that operator's OPE data. Consequently, if all operator dimensions are positive, the anomalous dimension vanishes at infinite spin and cluster decomposition holds for these non-unitary theories. A holographic check with $\tau_m=2$ reproduces the parametric $1/\ell^2$ decay as the binding energy of two rapidly orbiting particles in AdS.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the large-spin analytic bootstrap, applied to the crossing-symmetric bootstrap equation (2.15). In the limit $v \ll u \ll 1$ with $\ell \gg 1$ and $v\ell^2$ held fixed, the conformal blocks reduce to modified Bessel functions $K_0(2\ell\sqrt{v})$, and comparing the $\log u$ coefficient on both sides of the equation forces the anomalous-dimension exponent to equal the minimal twist $\tau_m$ (the twist is dimension minus spin). The rank-3 logarithmic multiplet, the set of three even-spin double-trace operators $S_1, S_2, S_3$ built from two logarithmic scalars, enters through the OPE data $a_p, b_p, c_p$ packaged in the coefficient $D_{\mathcal{O}}$ of (2.18), which fixes $\gamma_0$ in (3.16). The assumption that all operator dimensions are positive enters here: $\tau_m > 0$ makes the exponent positive and the anomalous dimension vanish at infinite spin.

What would settle it

Take a concrete solvable four-dimensional LogCFT whose spectrum has all positive dimensions, such as a perturbed logarithmic generalized free field, compute its four-point function to the order that isolates the $\log u$ coefficient, and compare the large-spin anomalous dimension with $\gamma_0/\ell^{\tau_m}$ using (3.16); a mismatch in the exponent or a divergent prefactor would disprove the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the crossing equation (2.15) for the function $F_2(u,v)$, which encodes the four-point function of two rank-2 logarithmic scalars, determines the leading large-spin behaviour of the double-trace operators that appear in their operator product expansion (OPE). Matching the coefficient of $\log u$ between the s-channel expansion, dominated by large-spin double-trace operators, and the t-channel exchange of the minimal-twist operator fixes the exponent in the ansatz $\gamma_{0,\ell} \sim \gamma_0/\ell^a$ to be $a = \tau_m$. The prefactor $\gamma_0$ is given by (3.16) and depends on the OPE coefficients $a_p, b_p, c_p$ of the rank-3 logarithmic multiplet through the block coefficients (2.18). The paper further argues that, because $\gamma_{0,\ell} \to 0$ as $\ell \to \infty$ whenever $\tau_m > 0$, the cluster decomposition principle survives in this class of non-unitary LogCFTs, and it verifies the parametric decay in a simplified holographic model where the minimal twist is 2.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes every operator in the theory has positive scaling dimension; if an operator with negative dimension existed, the twist (dimension minus spin) that controls the crossed channel would be negative and the anomalous dimension would grow rather than vanish at large spin.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any LogCFT with positive operator dimensions has a large-spin sector whose double-trace anomalous dimensions vanish as $\ell^{-\tau_m}$, so the operators become asymptotically free at infinite spin.
  • Cluster decomposition, usually proven using unitarity, holds for this class of non-unitary LogCFTs in four dimensions, and the bootstrap argument is expected to extend to general spacetime dimension.
  • The leading large-spin spectrum is universal: crossing symmetry forces every LogCFT to contain a tower of double-trace operators with twists $2\tau + n$, independent of the details of the theory.
  • In the holographic dual, the anomalous dimension equals the binding energy of two rapidly rotating scalars in AdS; the paper's $\tau_m = 2$ calculation gives a $1/\ell^2$ energy shift, matching the bootstrap prediction parametrically.
  • The method provides a route to bootstrap non-unitary theories where numerical approaches fail because OPE coefficients are not positive.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same crossing equation should also determine subleading $1/\ell$ corrections to $\gamma_{0,\ell}$; computing them in the integral-transform formulation of the bootstrap would give a sharper test of the $\tau_m > 0$ assumption.
  • Editorial extension: if a LogCFT with a negative-dimension operator were found, the exponent $a = \tau_m$ would become negative and the anomalous dimension would grow with spin, possibly marking a breakdown of cluster decomposition in physically realised LogCFTs.
  • Editorial extension: because the derivation does not use positivity of OPE coefficients, the large-spin bootstrap could be applied to other non-unitary CFTs, where the same $\log u$ matching would predict analogous large-spin scaling.
  • Editorial extension: the appearance of dimension-derivatives of conformal blocks in (3.15) suggests that logarithmic partners contribute through derivative-type OPE data; testing whether higher-rank logarithmic multiplets obey the same pattern would extend the result beyond rank 2.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies analytic (large-spin) conformal bootstrap to a four-dimensional logarithmic CFT built from a rank-2 logarithmic scalar multiplet. It uses the crossing equation (2.15) for the function F2 to reproduce the mean-field correlator from a sum over large-spin double-trace operators, and then derives the leading large-spin anomalous dimension of rank-3 even-spin double-trace operators, obtaining γ_{0,ℓ} ∼ γ0/ℓ^{τ_m} with γ0 given in (3.16) in terms of the minimal-twist OPE coefficients a_p, b_p, c_p. The paper also studies a higher-derivative AdS dual toy model, computes a binding energy decaying as 1/ℓ^2, and compares it qualitatively with the bootstrap result. The advertised physical conclusion is that cluster decomposition holds for LogCFTs as long as all operator dimensions are positive.

Significance. The conditional result is a useful extension of large-spin bootstrap techniques to non-unitary logarithmic CFTs, a direction with comparatively few higher-dimensional results. The computation is detailed, the appendices supply the main technical steps, and the authors are candid that the bulk model is toy-like and that the holographic expression (4.25) does not match (3.16). The final formula (3.16) is a crossing-symmetry constraint expressed in terms of independent OPE data rather than a closed numerical prediction, which is appropriate for a bootstrap relation. The main weakness is that the advertised sufficient condition for cluster decomposition is stated too broadly: positivity of scaling dimensions does not imply positivity of the minimal twist that controls the large-spin behavior.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (3.16); Abstract and Conclusion] The sufficient condition for the cluster-decomposition conclusion is misstated. The derivation fixes the exponent a by comparing the v-dependence of (3.4) and (3.15), giving a = τ_m, and the decay γ_{0,ℓ} ∼ γ0/ℓ^{τ_m} requires τ_m > 0. The paper explicitly assumes 'the operator dimensions are always positive and τ_m > 0' just before (3.5), but the Abstract and the concluding paragraphs replace this with the weaker statement 'as long as the dimensions of the operators are positive.' For a spinning minimal-twist operator, τ_m = Δ_m − ℓ_m, so Δ_m > 0 does not imply τ_m > 0; for example, in d = 4 a primary with Δ_m = 1 and ℓ_m = 2 has τ_m = −1. If such an operator is the minimal-twist exchange, the t-channel block behaves as v^{τ_m/2} = v^{-1/2}, the matching forces a = −1, and γ_{0,ℓ} ∼ γ0 ℓ grows with spin, so the advertised cluster-decomposition conclusion fails. The correct condition under which the derivation yields a vanishing large-spin anomalous dimension is positivity of the minimal twist (equivalently Δ_m > ℓ_m for the minimal-twist operator), not merely positivity of scaling dimensions. The Abstract and Conclusion should be amended to state this narrower condition, or the class of LogCFTs considered should be restricted accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (4.25)] Because (4.25) does not match (3.16) and the bulk derivation relies on the ad hoc prescription (B.13) for Γ(1+q) at negative integer q, the holographic discussion should be framed as a heuristic check of the 1/ℓ^2 parametric behavior rather than as a derivation or quantitative confirmation of the bootstrap result.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (2.30)] The lower limit ℓ0 in the integrals in (2.30) is not defined; a sentence identifying it as a large-spin cutoff (for instance, ℓ0 ≫ 1) would avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (3.12)] The passage from the general derivative structure of the logarithmic OPE to the 'relevant' terms in (3.12) is quite compressed; a short explanation of why the discarded terms cannot contribute to the coefficient of log u would improve readability.
  4. [References] Reference [76] lists the third author as 'F. Lalo'; the standard spelling is 'Laloë'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the large-spin anomalous dimension is derived by matching log u coefficients between s- and t-channels and is expressed in terms of independent OPE data.

full rationale

The central result (3.16) is a crossing-symmetry constraint, not a re-statement of an input. In Section 3 the authors assume an expansion γ0,ℓ∼γ0/ℓ^a (eq. (3.3)), compute the log u coefficient in the s-channel (eq. (3.4)), compute the corresponding log u coefficient from a t-channel minimal-twist exchange (eq. (3.15)), and match them. The matching determines a=τ_m and expresses γ0 in terms of the OPE coefficients a_p,b_p,c_p and the twist τ_m, none of which are the anomalous dimension being predicted. No parameter is fitted to the quantity that is then called a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input by construction. The mean-field consistency check in Section 2 and the bulk calculation in Section 4 are independent checks (the bulk result is explicitly acknowledged not to match (3.16) exactly). The paper's reliance on [30] for LogCFT kinematics and on [46,47] for large-spin blocks is external, standard input, not a self-citation chain. The abstract's phrase 'as long as the dimensions of the operators are positive' is weaker than the derivation's stated assumption τ_m>0 in Section 3, since positivity of Δ_m does not by itself imply τ_m=Δ_m−ℓ_m>0; this is a condition-sufficiency concern about the advertised scope, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation is an application of the standard large-spin bootstrap, so the chief inputs are the LogCFT four-point function structure from [30] and the large-spin technology from [46]. The final anomalous dimension is relational: the OPE coefficients of the minimal-twist operator are free inputs. The bulk section introduces a particular Green's function prescription for the fourth-order equation, which is an ad hoc mathematical choice. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Minimal-twist OPE coefficients a_p, b_p, c_p = not fitted
    The final formula (3.16) for γ0 is an expression in terms of these coefficients, which are inputs from a given LogCFT. Without their values, the leading correction to the anomalous dimension is not a numeric prediction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Conformal block decomposition of LogCFT correlators takes the form (2.17)-(2.24), with derivatives with respect to dimensions acting on ordinary blocks.
    This structure is imported from [30]; if logarithmic multiplets alter the block expansion beyond these derivatives, the s-channel computation in Section 3 would need revision.
  • domain assumption The t-channel is dominated by a single minimal-twist operator with twist τ_m>0.
    Section 3 assumes 'the subleading correction comes from the minimal twist operators' and that τ_m>0; negative-dimension operators would change the exponent.
  • standard math Large-spin sums can be approximated by half-integrals and the Bessel-function formulas (2.30).
    Standard analytic bootstrap technology from [46,69,70].
  • domain assumption The bulk dual of a rank-2 LogCFT is a scalar satisfying (□-M^2)^2 Φ=0, and the anomalous dimension equals the gravitational binding energy.
    Taken from [24,25,48,72]; the bulk calculation in Section 4 relies on this identification.
  • ad hoc to paper The finite part of Γ(1+q) at negative integer q is assigned by the prescription Γ(1-p)=(-1)^{p-1}/(p-1)! ψ(p).
    Appendix B uses this continuation to obtain the particular solution (B.15); the finite part of a divergent expression is prescription-dependent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytic Bootstrap for Logarithmic CFT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PGVZJ5N4

@misc{pith2026190810437,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytic Bootstrap for Logarithmic CFT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PGVZJ5N4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10437}
}
read the original abstract

We study logarithmic conformal field theory (LogCFT) in four dimensions using conformal bootstrap techniques in the large spin limit. We focus on the constraints imposed by conformal symmetry on the four point function of certain logarithmic scalar operators and compute the leading correction to the anomalous dimension of double trace operators in the large spin limit. There exist certain holographic duals to such LogCFTs, which involve higher derivative equations of motion. The anomalous dimension is related to the binding energy of a state where two scalars rotate around each other with a large angular momentum. We compute this energy shift and compare it to the anomalous dimension of the large spin double trace operators due to stress tensor exchange in the LogCFT. Our result shows that the cluster decomposition principle is satisfied for LogCFTs as long as the dimensions of the operators are positive.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Ising surface defects can get dirty

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Replica one-loop RG of Wilson-Fisher theory with surface random field yields a mixed-stable dirty defect fixed point and logarithmic multiplets in the N o0 limit.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Rozansky and H

    L. Rozansky and H. Saleur, Quantum field theory for the multivariable Alexander-Conway polynomial, Nucl. Phys. B376 (1992) 461–509

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    Polymers and percolation in two dimensions and twisted N=2 supersymmetry

    H. Saleur, Polymers and percolation in two-dimensions and twisted N=2 supersymmetry , Nucl. Phys. B382 (1992) 486–531, arXiv:hep-th/9111007 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1992

  3. [3]

    Gurarie, Logarithmic operators in conformal field theory , Nucl

    V. Gurarie, Logarithmic operators in conformal field theory , Nucl. Phys. B410 (1993) 535–549, arXiv:hep-th/9303160 [hep-th]

    arXiv 1993

  4. [4]

    Cardy, Logarithmic conformal field theories as limits of ordinary CFTs and some physical applications, J

    J. Cardy, Logarithmic conformal field theories as limits of ordinary CFTs and some physical applications, J. Phys. A46 (2013) 494001, arXiv:1302.4279 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    J. L. Cardy, Logarithmic correlations in quenched random magnets and polymers , arXiv:cond-mat/9911024 [cond-mat]

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    M. R. Rahimi Tabar and S. Rouhani, Turbulent two-dimensional magnetohydrodynamics and conformal field theory, Annals Phys. 246 (1996) 446–458, arXiv:hep-th/9503005 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1996

  7. [7]

    M. R. Rahimi Tabar and S. Rouhani, Logarithmic correlation functions in two-dimensional turbulence, Phys. Lett. A224 (1997) 331, arXiv:hep-th/9606154 [hep-th] . – 21 –

    work page Pith review arXiv 1997

  8. [8]

    M. A. I. Flohr, Two-dimensional turbulence: Yet another conformal field theory solution , Nucl. Phys. B482 (1996) 567–578, arXiv:hep-th/9606130 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1996

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Ruelle, A c=-2 boundary changing operator for the Abelian sandpile model , Phys

    P. Ruelle, A c=-2 boundary changing operator for the Abelian sandpile model , Phys. Lett. B539 (2002) 172–177, arXiv:hep-th/0203105 [hep-th]

    2002 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Mahieu and P

    S. Mahieu and P. Ruelle, Scaling fields in the two-dimensional Abelian sandpile model , Phys. Rev. E64 (2001) 066130, arXiv:hep-th/0107150 [hep-th]

    2001 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M. Jeng, G. Piroux, and P. Ruelle, Height variables in the Abelian sandpile model: Scaling fields and correlations, J. Stat. Mech. 0610 (2006) P10015, arXiv:cond-mat/0609284 [cond-mat]

    2006 arXiv

  4. [12]

    J. S. Caux, I. I. Kogan, and A. M. Tsvelik, Logarithmic operators and hidden continuous symmetry in critical disordered models , Nucl. Phys. B466 (1996) 444–462, arXiv:hep-th/9511134 [hep-th] . [,2223(1995)]

    1996 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gurarie, c theorem for disordered systems , Nucl

    V. Gurarie, c theorem for disordered systems , Nucl. Phys. B546 (1999) 765, arXiv:cond-mat/9808063 [cond-mat]

    1999 arXiv

  6. [14]

    M. J. Bhaseen, I. I. Kogan, O. A. Solovev, N. Tanigichi, and A. M. Tsvelik, Towards a field theory of the plateau transitions in the integer quantum Hall effect , Nucl. Phys. B580 (2000) 688–720, arXiv:cond-mat/9912060 [cond-mat]

    2000 arXiv

  7. [15]

    I. I. Kogan and A. M. Tsvelik, Logarithmic operators in the theory of plateau transition , Mod. Phys. Lett. A15 (2000) 931–938, arXiv:hep-th/9912143 [hep-th]

    2000 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. W. W. Ludwig, A Free field representation of the Osp(2—2) current algebra at level k = -2, and Dirac fermions in a random SU(2) gauge potential , arXiv:cond-mat/0012189 [cond-mat]

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Read and H

    N. Read and H. Saleur, Exact spectra of conformal supersymmetric nonlinear sigma models in two-dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B613 (2001) 409, arXiv:hep-th/0106124 [hep-th]

    2001 arXiv

  10. [18]

    I. I. Kogan and N. E. Mavromatos, World sheet logarithmic operators and target space symmetries in string theory , Phys. Lett. B375 (1996) 111–120, arXiv:hep-th/9512210 [hep-th]

    1996 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Periwal and O

    V. Periwal and O. Tafjord, D-brane recoil, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) R3690–R3692, arXiv:hep-th/9603156 [hep-th]

    1996 arXiv

  12. [20]

    N. E. Mavromatos and R. J. Szabo, Matrix D-brane dynamics, logarithmic operators and quantization of noncommutative space-time , Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 104018, arXiv:hep-th/9808124 [hep-th]

    1999 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Sfetsos, String backgrounds and LCFT , Phys

    K. Sfetsos, String backgrounds and LCFT , Phys. Lett. B543 (2002) 73–80, arXiv:hep-th/0206091 [hep-th]

    2002 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bakas and K

    I. Bakas and K. Sfetsos, PP waves and logarithmic conformal field theories , Nucl. Phys. B639 (2002) 223–240, arXiv:hep-th/0205006 [hep-th]

    2002 arXiv

  15. [23]

    I. I. Kogan and D. Polyakov, World sheet logarithmic CFT in AdS strings, ghost matter mixing and M-theory, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A16 (2001) 2559–2576, arXiv:hep-th/0012128 [hep-th]

    2001 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A. M. Ghezelbash, M. Khorrami, and A. Aghamohammadi, Logarithmic conformal field theories and AdS correspondence, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A14 (1999) 2581–2592, arXiv:hep-th/9807034 [hep-th]. – 22 –

    1999 arXiv

  17. [25]

    I. I. Kogan, Singletons and logarithmic CFT in AdS / CFT correspondence , Phys. Lett. B458 (1999) 66–72, arXiv:hep-th/9903162 [hep-th]

    1999 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Moghimi-Araghi, S

    S. Moghimi-Araghi, S. Rouhani, and M. Saadat, On the AdS / CFT correspondence and logarithmic operator, Phys. Lett. B518 (2001) 157–162, arXiv:hep-th/0105123 [hep-th]

    2001 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Jabbari-Faruji and S

    S. Jabbari-Faruji and S. Rouhani, Calculation of four point correlation function of logarithmic conformal field theory using AdS / CFT correspondence , Phys. Lett. B548 (2002) 237–242, arXiv:hep-th/0205016 [hep-th]

    2002 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Grumiller, W

    D. Grumiller, W. Riedler, J. Rosseel, and T. Zojer, Holographic applications of logarithmic conformal field theories, J. Phys. A46 (2013) 494002, arXiv:1302.0280 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Witten, Open Strings On The Rindler Horizon , JHEP 01 (2019) 126, arXiv:1810.11912 [hep-th]

    E. Witten, Open Strings On The Rindler Horizon , JHEP 01 (2019) 126, arXiv:1810.11912 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hogervorst, M

    M. Hogervorst, M. Paulos, and A. Vichi, The ABC (in any D) of Logarithmic CFT , JHEP 10 (2017) 201, arXiv:1605.03959 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. A. Migdal, Conformal invariance and bootstrap, Phys. Lett. 37B (1971) 386–388

    1971

  24. [32]

    Ferrara, A

    S. Ferrara, A. F. Grillo, G. Parisi, and R. Gatto, Covariant expansion of the conformal four-point function, Nucl. Phys. B49 (1972) 77–98. [Erratum: Nucl. Phys.B53,643(1973)]

    1972

  25. [33]

    Ferrara, A

    S. Ferrara, A. F. Grillo, and R. Gatto, Tensor representations of conformal algebra and conformally covariant operator product expansion, Annals Phys. 76 (1973) 161–188

    1973

  26. [34]

    A. M. Polyakov, Nonhamiltonian approach to conformal quantum field theory , Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 66 (1974) 23–42. [Sov. Phys. JETP39,9(1974)]

    1974

  27. [35]

    Rattazzi, V

    R. Rattazzi, V. S. Rychkov, E. Tonni, and A. Vichi, Bounding scalar operator dimensions in 4D CFT, JHEP 12 (2008) 031, arXiv:0807.0004 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  28. [36]

    V. S. Rychkov and A. Vichi, Universal Constraints on Conformal Operator Dimensions , Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 045006, arXiv:0905.2211 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Poland and D

    D. Poland and D. Simmons-Duffin, Bounds on 4D Conformal and Superconformal Field Theories, JHEP 05 (2011) 017, arXiv:1009.2087 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Rattazzi, S

    R. Rattazzi, S. Rychkov, and A. Vichi, Central Charge Bounds in 4D Conformal Field Theory , Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 046011, arXiv:1009.2725 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Rattazzi, S

    R. Rattazzi, S. Rychkov, and A. Vichi, Bounds in 4D Conformal Field Theories with Global Symmetry, J. Phys. A44 (2011) 035402, arXiv:1009.5985 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Poland, D

    D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, Carving Out the Space of 4D CFTs , JHEP 05 (2012) 110, arXiv:1109.5176 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Gliozzi, More constraining conformal bootstrap, Phys

    F. Gliozzi, More constraining conformal bootstrap, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 161602, arXiv:1307.3111 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Gliozzi and A

    F. Gliozzi and A. Rago, Critical exponents of the 3d Ising and related models from Conformal Bootstrap, JHEP 10 (2014) 042, arXiv:1403.6003 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    El-Showk, M

    S. El-Showk, M. F. Paulos, D. Poland, S. Rychkov, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, Solving the 3D Ising Model with the Conformal Bootstrap , Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 025022, arXiv:1203.6064 [hep-th] . – 23 –

    2012 arXiv

  36. [44]

    El-Showk, M

    S. El-Showk, M. F. Paulos, D. Poland, S. Rychkov, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, Solving the 3d Ising Model with the Conformal Bootstrap II. c-Minimization and Precise Critical Exponents, J. Stat. Phys. 157 (2014) 869, arXiv:1403.4545 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    F. Kos, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, Precision Islands in the Ising and O(N) Models, JHEP 08 (2016) 036, arXiv:1603.04436 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, D. Poland, and D. Simmons-Duffin, The Analytic Bootstrap and AdS Superhorizon Locality, JHEP 12 (2013) 004, arXiv:1212.3616 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Komargodski and A

    Z. Komargodski and A. Zhiboedov, Convexity and Liberation at Large Spin , JHEP 11 (2013) 140, arXiv:1212.4103 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, and M. T. Walters, Universality of Long-Distance AdS Physics from the CFT Bootstrap , JHEP 08 (2014) 145, arXiv:1403.6829 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    L. F. Alday, A. Bissi, and T. Lukowski, Large spin systematics in CFT , JHEP 11 (2015) 101, arXiv:1502.07707 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Kaviraj, K

    A. Kaviraj, K. Sen, and A. Sinha, Analytic bootstrap at large spin , JHEP 11 (2015) 083, arXiv:1502.01437 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Kaviraj, K

    A. Kaviraj, K. Sen, and A. Sinha, Universal anomalous dimensions at large spin and large twist, JHEP 07 (2015) 026, arXiv:1504.00772 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    L. F. Alday and A. Zhiboedov, Conformal Bootstrap With Slightly Broken Higher Spin Symmetry, JHEP 06 (2016) 091, arXiv:1506.04659 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    L. F. Alday and A. Zhiboedov, An Algebraic Approach to the Analytic Bootstrap , JHEP 04 (2017) 157, arXiv:1510.08091 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    D. Li, D. Meltzer, and D. Poland, Non-Abelian Binding Energies from the Lightcone Bootstrap , JHEP 02 (2016) 149, arXiv:1510.07044 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    P. Dey, A. Kaviraj, and K. Sen, More on analytic bootstrap for O(N) models , JHEP 06 (2016) 136, arXiv:1602.04928 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  48. [56]

    L. F. Alday, Large Spin Perturbation Theory for Conformal Field Theories , Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 no. 11, (2017) 111601, arXiv:1611.01500 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    L. F. Alday, Solving CFTs with Weakly Broken Higher Spin Symmetry , JHEP 10 (2017) 161, arXiv:1612.00696 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    P. Dey, K. Ghosh, and A. Sinha, Simplifying large spin bootstrap in Mellin space , JHEP 01 (2018) 152, arXiv:1709.06110 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Dey and A

    P. Dey and A. Kaviraj, Towards a Bootstrap approach to higher orders of epsilon expansion , JHEP 02 (2018) 153, arXiv:1711.01173 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Gopakumar, A

    R. Gopakumar, A. Kaviraj, K. Sen, and A. Sinha, Conformal Bootstrap in Mellin Space , Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 no. 8, (2017) 081601, arXiv:1609.00572 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Gopakumar, A

    R. Gopakumar, A. Kaviraj, K. Sen, and A. Sinha, A Mellin space approach to the conformal bootstrap, JHEP 05 (2017) 027, arXiv:1611.08407 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  54. [62]

    P. Dey, A. Kaviraj, and A. Sinha, Mellin space bootstrap for global symmetry , JHEP 07 (2017) 019, arXiv:1612.05032 [hep-th] . – 24 –

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Gopakumar and A

    R. Gopakumar and A. Sinha, On the Polyakov-Mellin bootstrap , JHEP 12 (2018) 040, arXiv:1809.10975 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Ghosh, Polyakov-Mellin Bootstrap for AdS loops , arXiv:1811.00504 [hep-th]

    K. Ghosh, Polyakov-Mellin Bootstrap for AdS loops , arXiv:1811.00504 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    F. A. Dolan and H. Osborn, Conformal four point functions and the operator product expansion, Nucl. Phys. B599 (2001) 459–496, arXiv:hep-th/0011040 [hep-th]

    2001 arXiv

  58. [66]

    F. A. Dolan and H. Osborn, Conformal partial waves and the operator product expansion , Nucl. Phys. B678 (2004) 491–507, arXiv:hep-th/0309180 [hep-th]

    2004 arXiv

  59. [67]

    F. A. Dolan and H. Osborn, Conformal Partial Waves: Further Mathematical Results , arXiv:1108.6194 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick and J. Kaplan, Unitarity and the Holographic S-Matrix , JHEP 10 (2012) 032, arXiv:1112.4845 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  61. [69]

    L. F. Alday and J. M. Maldacena, Comments on operators with large spin , JHEP 11 (2007) 019, arXiv:0708.0672 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  62. [70]

    L. F. Alday and A. Bissi, Higher-spin correlators, JHEP 10 (2013) 202, arXiv:1305.4604 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  63. [71]

    http://dlmf.nist.gov/

    NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions , . http://dlmf.nist.gov/. F. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis, D. W. Lozier, B. I. Schneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller and B. V. Saunders, eds

  64. [72]

    E. A. Bergshoeff, S. de Haan, W. Merbis, M. Porrati, and J. Rosseel, Unitary Truncations and Critical Gravity: a Toy Model , JHEP 04 (2012) 134, arXiv:1201.0449 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Balasubramanian, P

    V. Balasubramanian, P. Kraus, and A. E. Lawrence, Bulk versus boundary dynamics in anti-de Sitter space-time, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 046003, arXiv:hep-th/9805171 [hep-th]

    1999 arXiv

  66. [74]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, E. Katz, D. Poland, and D. Simmons-Duffin, Effective Conformal Theory and the Flat-Space Limit of AdS , JHEP 07 (2011) 023, arXiv:1007.2412 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Vafa, Non-Unitary Holography, arXiv:1409.1603 [hep-th]

    C. Vafa, Non-Unitary Holography, arXiv:1409.1603 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  68. [76]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, B

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Lalo, Quantum mechanics. Wiley, New York, NY, 1977. https://cds.cern.ch/record/101367. Trans. of : Mcanique quantique. Paris : Hermann, 1973

    1977

  69. [77]

    L. U. Ancarani and G. Gasaneo, Derivatives of any order of the Gaussian hypergeometric function (2)F1(a, b, c z) with respect to the parameters a, b and c , J. Phys. A42 (2009) 395208. – 25 –

    2009

Pith tools

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