Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Boundary Quantum Field Theories Perturbed by ${\rm T}\bar{\rm T}$: Towards a Form Factor Program

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In boundary integrable field theories perturbed by T anti-T, one-particle minimal form factors factorize into an undeformed part, a universal T anti-T block, and a free cosh-series factor; the sinh-Gordon Dirichlet model realizes this.

desk verdict Useful boundary T\bar T form-factor program with a real sign error in the central block; the explicit sinh-Gordon representation survives but the general factorization needs correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11647 v2 pith:TSCGXM77 submitted 2025-01-20 hep-th

Olalla A. Castro-Alvaredo , Stefano Negro , Fabio Sailis This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords TTperturbationboundaryintegrablequantumfieldtheoryformfactorsminimalfactorsinh-GordonmodelDirichletconditionsreflectionamplitudeirrelevantperturbations
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

A ${\rm T}\bar{\rm T}$ perturbation multiplies the scattering matrix by a CDD factor (a factor that solves the unitarity and crossing equations and encodes the deformation without destroying integrability); this paper asks what the same deformation does to correlation functions of integrable quantum field theories with a boundary. The proposal is that the one-particle minimal form factor, the universal seed of all boundary form factors, keeps its undeformed shape and acquires two extra factors: one, $\phi^\alpha$, fixed by the deformed reflection phase, and one, $C^\beta$, a free sum of $\cosh(s\theta)$ terms (Eq. (15)). The paper then shows this structure is not merely an ansatz by rewriting the $\sinh$-Gordon minimal form factor with Dirichlet boundary conditions in exactly this form (Eq. (47)), with every piece explicit. That identifies the Dirichlet $\sinh$-Gordon boundary theory, at the level of minimal form factors, with the fixed-boundary Ising model dressed by infinitely many irrelevant boundary perturbations. The payoff is a boundary analogue of the bulk ${\rm T}\bar{\rm T}$ form factor program and an explicit, numerically efficient formula for a central building block of boundary correlation functions.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the minimal one-particle boundary form factor $r^{\rm min}_a(\theta)$, the pole-free solution of the boundary form factor equations (9), together with the log-block formula $\log\phi^\alpha_a(\theta)=\frac{2\theta-i\pi}{4\pi i}\log\Phi^\alpha_{aa}(2\theta)$, which turns the CDD factor of the deformed scattering matrix into a multiplicative phase in rapidity space. The free factor $C^\beta_a$, a sum of $\cosh(s\theta)$ terms, parametrizes the CDD-type ambiguity of the boundary problem. In the $\sinh$-Gordon section the workhorse is the contour-integral evaluation of $h(\vartheta,B)$ in Eq. (40), which converts the integral representation (34) into the explicit dilogarithm formula (41) and thereby exposes the block structure (47).

What would settle it

Compute the deformed one-particle minimal form factor by solving (9) with the square-root reflection deformation (7), or by evaluating the known integral representation (34) to high precision, and compare with the factorized prediction (15) and (47); any unaccounted-for pole in the physical strip, or any discrepancy in the coefficients (50) beyond numerical error, would falsify the claim. For the sinh-Gordon Dirichlet case this is directly testable because the paper's formula (41) is explicit and the original integral representation is independently available.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Eq. (15): in a boundary integrable quantum field theory deformed by ${\rm T}\bar{\rm T}$ or its higher-spin relatives, the minimal one-particle form factor takes the factorized form $r^{\rm min}_a(\theta;\alpha,\beta)=r^{\rm min}_a(\theta)\,\phi^\alpha_a(\theta)\,C^\beta_a(\theta)$, where $\log\phi^\alpha_a(\theta)=\frac{2\theta-i\pi}{4\pi i}\log\Phi^\alpha_{aa}(2\theta)$ is fixed by the deformed scattering phase and $C^\beta_a$ is an arbitrary series of $\cosh(s\theta)$ terms. Working with the $\sinh$-Gordon model with Dirichlet boundary conditions, the paper shows that the known minimal form factor (33) is exactly of this type: $r^{\rm min}(\theta)=a(B)\,r^{\rm fixed}(\theta)\,e^{\frac{2\theta-i\pi}{4\pi i}\log(-S(2\theta))}C^\beta(\theta)$ (Eq. (47)), where $r^{\rm fixed}$ is the fixed-boundary Ising minimal form factor, $S$ is the $\sinh$-Gordon scattering matrix, and $C^\beta$ is given in closed form by the dilogarithm expression (48) with coefficients (50). The representation is fully explicit and free of integrals or infinite products, and the same block construction is extended to generic Ising boundary conditions and to the other $\sinh$-Gordon reflection blocks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, flagged in footnote 2, is that the boundary form factor equations (9), (17), (18) remain exactly unchanged once a ${\rm T}\bar{\rm T}$ perturbation is switched on; if the perturbation generates new singularities or modifies the axioms, the factorization (15) has no foundation, and the free parameters $\beta$ are not uniquely fixed by the construction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any diagonal boundary integrable quantum field theory, the deformed one-particle minimal form factor is determined up to the free $\cosh$-series $C^\beta$; the universal factor $\phi^\alpha$ depends only on the deformed S-matrix.
  • The closed form (41) makes the Dirichlet sinh-Gordon minimal form factor cheap to evaluate to high precision, opening a practical route to boundary correlation functions.
  • The two-particle ansatz (23) lifts the factorization to higher form factors, giving a starting point for non-minimal solutions and full correlation functions in the deformed boundary theory.
  • The bulk dichotomy carries over to the boundary: form-factor expansions converge strongly for negative deformation parameter and diverge for positive, so the sign of the perturbation controls the regime of validity.
  • The same block construction covers generic Ising boundary conditions and the remaining sinh-Gordon reflection blocks, so the representation is not an accident of Dirichlet boundary conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the factorization survives closer scrutiny, the free parameters $\beta$ are more than ambiguities: they parametrize a family of boundary conditions or boundary CDD interactions, and fixing them with independent data such as UV limits or lattice calculations would make the construction fully predictive.
  • The same block procedure could be applied to affine Toda field theories with known boundary reflection amplitudes, giving a direct test of whether the ${\rm T}\bar{\rm T}$ block structure is universal across boundary integrable models.
  • Reading the Dirichlet sinh-Gordon boundary theory as the fixed-boundary Ising theory plus infinitely many irrelevant boundary operators suggests a perturbative route to boundary entanglement or overlap amplitudes, starting from the exactly solved Ising building block.
  • A testable extension would be to compute the two-particle boundary form factor of the deformed Dirichlet sinh-Gordon model from (23) and compare its large-rapidity asymptotics with direct TBA or numerical data; requiring a renormalization of the $\beta$ coefficients would signal that the block structure needs corrections.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a form-factor program for boundary integrable quantum field theories perturbed by T\bar{T} and higher-spin irrelevant operators. It argues that a deformation of the two-body S-matrix by a CDD factor lifts to a deformed boundary reflection amplitude, and that the one-particle minimal form factor factorizes as r_min(θ) φ^α(θ) C^β(θ), with log φ^α(θ) = (2θ−iπ)/(4π i) log Φ^α(2θ). The same block structure is then claimed to be realized by the Dirichlet sinh-Gordon model, whose minimal form factor is rewritten as a product of the Ising fixed-boundary factor, a CDD-type factor built from the sinh-Gordon S-matrix, and an explicit C^β factor. The paper also discusses the extension to two-particle and higher form factors, the role of free parameters β, and the generalization to other boundary conditions.

Significance. If the construction is correct, it extends the recent bulk T\bar{T} form-factor program [9-13] to theories with integrable boundaries and provides a new, numerically efficient representation of the Dirichlet sinh-Gordon minimal form factor. The paper is explicit: the central representation (41) is given in closed form in terms of elementary functions and dilogarithms, and the decomposition into Ising plus CDD blocks is concrete and testable. The authors are also candid about the non-trivial assumption that the boundary form-factor axioms are unchanged by the deformation and about the unresolved freedom in the parameters β, \hat{β}, and γ_k. However, the printed central formula (14) contains a sign error and does not solve the defining equations, and the same sign problem appears in the identification leading to the main sinh-Gordon representation (47). The result is therefore not established as written, although the error appears to be locally fixable.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (14)] Equation (14) does not satisfy the first equation in (13). Let ℓ(θ)=log φ(θ) and L(θ)=log Λ(θ). The first equation in (13) is ℓ(θ)=L(θ)+ℓ(−θ), i.e. ℓ(θ)−ℓ(−θ)=L(θ). Since Λ(θ)Λ(−θ)=1, L is odd. Inserting the printed solution ℓ(θ)= (2θ−iπ)/(2π i) L(θ) gives ℓ(θ)−ℓ(−θ) = [(2θ−iπ)+(−2θ−iπ)]/(2π i) L(θ) = −L(θ), which has the wrong sign for any non-zero L. The coefficient that solves the equation is (iπ−2θ)/(4π i) log Φ(2θ), equivalently (2θ+iπ)/(2π i) log Λ(θ). This invalidates the factorization (15) as written and is inconsistent with the later equations (27)-(28), which use the opposite sign.
  2. [§5, Eqs. (46)-(47)] The sign error reappears in the identification of the sinh-Gordon block. The contribution −iϑ/(2π) log[...] in Eq. (41) is equal to (iπ−2θ)/(4π i) log(−S(2θ)), not to (2θ−iπ)/(4π i) log(−S(2θ)) as printed in Eq. (46). Consequently Eq. (47), which uses the printed coefficient in the exponential, does not follow from the preceding computation. Since Eq. (47) is the central claim that the Dirichlet sinh-Gordon minimal form factor decomposes into the Ising fixed-boundary factor, the φ^α block, and C^β, this claim is not justified as stated. The consistency of the left-hand side of Eq. (46) with the corrected coefficient suggests that the error is a sign typo, but the correction must be carried through Eq. (47) and through the coefficient identifications (49)-(50).
  3. [Footnote 2, §3.2] The derivation assumes that the boundary form-factor equations (9), (17), and (18) are unchanged under the irrelevant T\bar{T}-type deformation. This assumption is load-bearing: the deformed two-particle factorized form (23), and hence the whole program, collapses if the deformation generates new singularities or modifies the boundary form-factor axioms. The authors explicitly acknowledge this as a non-trivial assumption deferred to future work, which is honest, but the present manuscript does not offer a consistency check (for example, a check against the undeformed limit or against a TBA-based computation). This should be addressed, or at least sharply delimited, before the construction is regarded as established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "modification the two-body scattering amplitudes" is missing "of".
  2. [§1, first sentence] "It has been know" should be "It has been known".
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (24)] "underformed" should be "undeformed".
  4. [§4, after Eq. (31)] The cross-reference "as explained in footnote 2" appears to point to the wrong footnote; the relevant definitional remark about rxs_θ is in the later footnote.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the boundary deformation factors are constructed explicitly and the sinh-Gordon representation is checked against a known integral form; self-citations are technical, not load-bearing.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain and found no step in which the target result is fed back in as an input. Section 3 constructs the deformed one-particle minimal form factor as r_min(θ;α,β)=r_min(θ)φ^α(θ)C^β(θ), where φ^α is defined by the boundary form-factor equations (13) and (14) and C^β is the known homogeneous ambiguity (16). This is an explicit algebraic construction from the deformed reflection amplitude, not a fit. The sinh-Gordon representation in Eq. (47) is likewise an explicit rewriting of the known minimal form factor (33): Eq. (46) identifies one logarithmically computed contribution with (2θ−iπ)/(4πi) log(−S(2θ)), and Eq. (49) expands the remaining even remainder in cosh modes with coefficients (50). No quantity is fitted to a target and then renamed a prediction; the coefficients β are read off from the already-known function. The paper's reliance on the authors' earlier works [9–13] is for bulk form-factor technology and for the CDD representation of the sinh-Gordon S-matrix; those are technical inputs, not a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz that itself contains the boundary result. Footnote 2 explicitly flags the assumption that the form-factor equations are unchanged under the deformation, and the paper labels it non-trivial and defers it; an acknowledged assumption is not a circular input. An algebraic sign issue in Eq. (14) relative to Eq. (13) would be a correctness defect rather than a circular reduction, so it does not affect the circularity score. Overall, the central construction is self-contained and independently checkable, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or auxiliary fields. It repackages existing form factors and reflection amplitudes into a new block structure. The free parameters are the undetermined CDD coefficients beta, beta-hat, and gamma_k; the axioms are the standard bootstrap assumptions together with the explicitly flagged assumption that the form factor equations survive T anti-T deformation.

free parameters (3)
  • beta_s = unspecified
    Undetermined coefficients in C_beta(theta), Eq. (16), giving an infinite family of minimal form factor solutions. The paper notes their meaning is not fully understood.
  • beta-hat_s = unspecified
    Undetermined coefficients in the deformed bulk two-particle minimal form factor, Eq. (25). These parameters are arbitrary.
  • gamma_k = 0
    CDD ambiguity in the reflection amplitude deformation, Eq. (8). The authors set gamma_k = 0 by hand, not by derivation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The boundary form factor equations (9), (17), (18) remain unchanged under irrelevant T anti-T perturbations.
    Stated in Section 3.2, footnote 2, as a non-trivial assumption deferred to future work [38]. This is load-bearing for the factorization in Eqs. (15), (23), and (26).
  • domain assumption The deformed reflection amplitude takes the minimal form Lambda(θ) = sqrt(Phi(2θ)) with all additional CDD factors gamma_k set to zero.
    Eqs. (7)-(8): the square-root factor is required, but the exponential ambiguity is removed by a choice rather than by a physical argument.
  • standard math The minimal form factor has no poles in the physical strip and is determined up to multiplicative cosh(sθ) blocks.
    Standard boundary form factor bootstrap from [26], used to define the family C_beta in Eq. (16).
  • domain assumption The sinh-Gordon scattering matrix factorizes as the Ising S-matrix times a CDD factor.
    Used in Section 5, following [13], to identify the T anti-T type factor in Eq. (46). This factorization is an input, not derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boundary Quantum Field Theories Perturbed by ${\rm T}\bar{\rm T}$: Towards a Form Factor Program." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TSCGXM77

@misc{pith2026250111647,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boundary Quantum Field Theories Perturbed by $\rm T\bar\rm T$: Towards a Form Factor Program},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TSCGXM77}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11647}
}
read the original abstract

Our understanding of irrelevant perturbations of integrable quantum field theories has greatly expanded over the last decade. In particular, we know that, from a scattering theory viewpoint at least, their effect is realised as a modification the two-body scattering amplitudes by a CDD factor. While this sounds like a relatively small change, this CDD factor incorporates a non-trivial dependence on the perturbation parameter(s) and alters substantially the high-energy physics of the model. This occurs through the introduction of a natural length scale and is associated with phenomena such as the Hagedorn transition. In this paper we discuss how all these features extend to boundary integrable quantum field theories and propose a construction for the building blocks of matrix elements of local fields. We show that the same type of building blocks are also found in the sinh-Gordon model with Dirichlet boundary conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11647 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The absolute value squared of the function ˆu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗

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. A Toy Model for Topological Entanglement Features in 1+1D Integrable Quantum Field Theory

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In the Federbush model, branch-point twist field form factors and first-order quench corrections are independent of the topological coupling λ, so Rényi entropies of the infinite-volume vacuum match two free Dirac fermions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field T anti-T in two-dimensional quantum field theory , hep-th/0401146

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    F. A. Smirnov and A. B. Zamolodchikov, On space of integrable quantum field theories , Nucl. Phys. B 915 (2017) 363–383 [ 1608.05499]

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Dubovsky, R

    S. Dubovsky, R. Flauger and V. Gorbenko, Solving the Simplest Theory of Quantum Gravity , JHEP 09 (2012) 133 [ 1205.6805]

    arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Quantisation of the effective string with TBA

    M. Caselle, D. Fioravanti, F. Gliozzi and R. Tateo, Quantisation of the effective string with TBA, JHEP 07 (2013) 071 [ 1305.1278]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Cavagli` a, S

    A. Cavagli` a, S. Negro, I. M. Sz´ ecs´ enyi and R. Tateo,T ¯T -deformed 2D Quantum Field Theories, JHEP 10 (2016) 112 [ 1608.05534]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Dubovsky, V

    S. Dubovsky, V. Gorbenko and G. Hern´ andez-Chifflet,T T partition function from topological gravity, JHEP 09 (2018) 158 [ 1805.07386]. 13

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    On Factorizable S-matrices, Generalized TTbar, and the Hagedorn Transition

    G. Camilo, T. Fleury, M. Lencs´ es, S. Negro and A. Zamolodchikov, On factorizable S-matrices, generalized TTbar, and the Hagedorn transition , JHEP 10 (2021) 062 [2106.11999]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz past turning points: the (elliptic) sinh-Gordon model

    L. C´ ordova, S. Negro and F. I. Schaposnik Massolo, Thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz past turning points: the (elliptic) sinh-Gordon model , JHEP 01 (2022) 035 [ 2110.14666]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, S. Negro and F. Sailis, Completing the bootstrap program for T ¯T-deformed massive integrable quantum field theories , J. Phys. A 57 (2024), no. 26 265401 [2305.17068]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, S. Negro and F. Sailis, Form Factors and Correlation Functions of TT-Deformed Integrable Quantum Field Theories , JHEP 09 (2023) 048 [ 2306.01640]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, S. Negro and F. Sailis, Entanglement entropy from form factors in TT-deformed integrable quantum field theories , JHEP 11 (2023) 129 [ 2306.11064]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    M. He, J. Hou and Y. Jiang, T T -deformed entanglement entropy for IQFT , JHEP 03 (2024) 056 [2306.07784]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, S. Negro and I. M. Sz´ ecs´ enyi,On the representation of minimal form factors in integrable quantum field theory , Nucl. Phys. B 1000 (2024) 116459 [ 2311.16955]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Jiang, F

    Y. Jiang, F. Loebbert and D.-l. Zhong, Irrelevant deformations with boundaries and defects , J. Stat. Mech. 2204 (2022), no. 4 043102 [ 2109.13180]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Brizio, T

    N. Brizio, T. Morone and R. Tateo, A Note on T ¯T Deformations and Boundaries , 2410.20947

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Ghoshal and A

    S. Ghoshal and A. B. Zamolodchikov, Boundary S matrix and boundary state in two-dimensional integrable quantum field theory , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 9 (1994) 3841–3886 [hep-th/9306002]. [Erratum: Int.J.Mod.Phys.A 9, 4353 (1994)]

    1994 arXiv

  9. [17]

    I. V. Cherednik, Factorizing Particles on a Half Line and Root Systems , Theor. Math. Phys. 61 (1984) 977–983

    1984

  10. [18]

    E. K. Sklyanin, Boundary Conditions for Integrable Quantum Systems , J. Phys. A 21 (1988) 2375–2389

    1988

  11. [19]

    Corrigan, P

    E. Corrigan, P. E. Dorey and R. H. Rietdijk, Aspects of affine Toda field theory on a half line, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 118 (1995) 143–164 [ hep-th/9407148]

    1995 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bowcock, E

    P. Bowcock, E. Corrigan, P. Dorey and R. Rietdijk, Classically integrable boundary conditions for affine toda field theories , Nuclear Physics B 445 (1995), no. 2 469–500

    1995

  13. [21]

    Castro-Alvaredo and A

    O. Castro-Alvaredo and A. Fring, Universal boundary reflection amplitudes , Nucl. Phys. B 682 (2004) 551–584 [ hep-th/0308004]

    2004 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Fring and R

    A. Fring and R. Koberle, Boundary bound states in affine Toda field theory , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10 (1995) 739–752 [ hep-th/9404188]

    1995 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Riva, Boundary bootstrap principle in two-dimensional integrable quantum field theories , Nucl

    V. Riva, Boundary bootstrap principle in two-dimensional integrable quantum field theories , Nucl. Phys. B 604 (2001) 511–536 [ hep-th/0102163]. 14

    2001 arXiv

  16. [24]

    LeClair, G

    A. LeClair, G. Mussardo, H. Saleur and S. Skorik, Boundary energy and boundary states in integrable quantum field theories , Nucl. Phys. B 453 (1995) 581–618 [ hep-th/9503227]

    1995 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bajnok, C

    Z. Bajnok, C. Rim and A. Zamolodchikov, Sinh-Gordon boundary TBA and boundary Liouville reflection amplitude , Nucl. Phys. B 796 (2008) 622–650 [ 0710.4789]

    2008 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Bajnok, L

    Z. Bajnok, L. Palla and G. Takacs, On the boundary form-factor program , Nucl. Phys. B 750 (2006) 179–212 [ hep-th/0603171]

    2006 arXiv

  19. [27]

    O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, Form factors of boundary fields for A(2)-affine Toda field theory , J. Phys. A 41 (2008) 194005 [ 0710.0501]

    2008 arXiv

  20. [28]

    O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, Boundary form factors of the sinh-Gordon model with Dirichlet boundary conditions at the self-dual point , J. Phys. A 39 (2006) 11901–11914 [hep-th/0606269]

    2006 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Kormos and G

    M. Kormos and G. Takacs, Boundary form-factors in finite volume , Nucl. Phys. B 803 (2008) 277–298 [ 0712.1886]

    2008 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Takacs, Form-factors of boundary exponential operators in the sinh-Gordon model , Nucl

    G. Takacs, Form-factors of boundary exponential operators in the sinh-Gordon model , Nucl. Phys. B 801 (2008), no. 3 187–206 [ 0801.0962]

    2008 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Lencses and G

    M. Lencses and G. Takacs, Breather boundary form factors in sine-Gordon theory , Nucl. Phys. B 852 (2011) 615–633 [ 1106.1902]

    2011 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bajnok and L

    Z. Bajnok and L. Hollo, On form factors of boundary changing operators , Nucl. Phys. B 905 (2016) 96–131 [ 1510.08232]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Hollo, Z

    L. Hollo, Z. B. Laczko and Z. Bajnok, Explicit boundary form factors: The scaling Lee–Yang model, Nucl. Phys. B 886 (2014) 1029–1045 [ 1405.3820]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Corrigan and A

    E. Corrigan and A. Taormina, Reflection factors and a two parameter family of boundary bound states in the Sinh-Gordon model , J. Phys. A 33 (2000) 8739–8754 [ hep-th/0008237]

    2000 arXiv

  27. [35]

    D. J. Gross, J. Kruthoff, A. Rolph and E. Shaghoulian, T T in AdS2 and Quantum Mechanics, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020), no. 2 026011 [ 1907.04873]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Karowski and P

    M. Karowski and P. Weisz, Exact Form-Factors in (1+1)-Dimensional Field Theoretic Models with Soliton Behavior , Nucl. Phys. B 139 (1978) 455–476

    1978

  29. [37]

    F. A. Smirnov, Form factors in completely integrable models of quantum field theory , vol. 14. World Scientific, 1992

    1992

  30. [38]

    Sailis, O

    F. Sailis, O. A. Castro-Alvaredo and S. Negro, Complete Minimal Form Factors for Irrelevant Perturbations, 2025. To appear

    2025

  31. [39]

    Schroer, T

    B. Schroer, T. Truong and P. Weisz, Towards an explicit construction of the sine-gordon theory, Phys. Lett. B63 (1976) 422–424

    1976

  32. [40]

    Arafeva and V

    I. Arafeva and V. Korepin, Scattering in two-dimensional model with lagrangian l“ 1{γp1{2pBµuuq2` m2pcos u´ 1qq, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 20 (1974) 680

    1974

  33. [41]

    Vergeles and V

    S. Vergeles and V. Gryanik, Two-dimensional quantum field theories having exact solutions , Yad. Fiz. 23 (1976) 1324–1334. 15

    1976

  34. [42]

    Egger, A

    R. Egger, A. Komnik and H. Saleur, Effect of irrelevant boundary scaling operators , Phys. Rev. B 60 (1999) R5113–R5116

    1999

  35. [43]

    Llabr´ es,General solutions in Chern-Simons gravity and T T -deformations, JHEP 01 (2021) 039 [ 1912.13330]

    E. Llabr´ es,General solutions in Chern-Simons gravity and T T -deformations, JHEP 01 (2021) 039 [ 1912.13330]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ebert, C

    S. Ebert, C. Ferko, H.-Y. Sun and Z. Sun, T ¯T in JT Gravity and BF Gauge Theory , SciPost Phys. 13 (2022), no. 4 096 [ arXiv:2205.07817]. 16

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.