Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Chiral algebra correlators of the $6$d, $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ theory with a defect

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A defect 2-point correlator in the 6d (2,0) theory is fixed by bulk data alone.

desk verdict The bulk-channel bootstrap cleanly reproduces the known SUGRA correlator, but the paper's new defect-channel OPE formula (3.34) is internally inconsistent and fails its own k1=k2=2 check. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09132 v2 pith:2AA2FLIA submitted 2025-06-10 hep-th

Konstantinos C. Rigatos This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords 6d(20)superconformaltheorysurfacedefectchiralalgebraW-algebraconformalbootstrapCFTholographysupergravitycorrelators
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

The 6d $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ theory is a strongly coupled superconformal field theory with no known Lagrangian description, which makes direct computation of its observables hard. This paper studies protected two-point functions of $\tfrac12$-BPS operators in the presence of a $\tfrac12$-BPS surface defect, using the two-dimensional chiral algebra that captures the protected sector. Its central claim is that these defect correlators are completely determined by bulk-channel OPE data alone, with crossing symmetry supplying the rest, and that the resulting function agrees exactly with the earlier supergravity computation. The paper also expands the correlator in the defect channel and extracts new defect OPE coefficients for every Kaluza-Klein mode. If correct, this shows that the protected defect data of the (2,0) theory are not independent: crossing symmetry plus bulk data fix them, and the new coefficients are concrete predictions for the holographic dual.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-dimensional chiral algebra of the 6d $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ theory, conjecturally a $W$-algebra generated by primaries $W_k(z)$ of weight $k$; under the cohomological twist, the defect two-point function becomes the four-point correlator $\langle \bar V(\infty) W_{k_1}(z) W_{k_2}(1) V(0)\rangle$. The argument runs through a meromorphic ansatz for this correlator as a finite polynomial in $1/z$ of order at most $2k_m-2$, whose poles and residues are fixed by the chiral OPE, rewritten in the crossing-invariant cross-ratio $Z = -z^2/(2(1-z))$. Crossing symmetry $z\to -z/(1-z)$ — the exchange of the two bulk operators — lets the author use only the bulk-channel expansion at $z\to 0$ in $\mathfrak{sl}(2)$ conformal blocks; matching this expansion fixes the ansatz completely. The defect-channel expansion $x\to 0$ of the resulting function then extracts the new OPE coefficients $\gamma_n$.

What would settle it

Compute the defect-channel expansion of the full supergravity correlator for a higher-Kaluza-Klein pair such as $k_1=k_2=6$ by direct Witten-diagram methods, and compare the extracted coefficients $\gamma_n$ with (3.34); any mismatch at order $x^{k_m}$ or beyond would show the ansatz missed an allowed exchange.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the result is that the defect two-point function $\zeta(x)$ — the holomorphic function obtained from the $\tfrac12$-BPS correlator after the R-symmetry twist — is uniquely fixed by the bulk-channel OPE. Writing the chiral four-point function in the crossing-invariant variable $Z = -z^2/(2(1-z))$, the author imposes the ansatz that the correlator is a finite Laurent polynomial in $Z^{-1}$ of order $k_m-1$, then matches its $z\to 0$ expansion against $\mathfrak{sl}(2)$ conformal blocks built from known bulk couplings and defect one-point functions. This fixes $g(z) = \tfrac12 b_{k_1}^D b_{k_2}^D \sum_{i=1}^{k_m-1} C_i (2Z)^{-i}$, where $C_i$ are Catalan numbers, identical to the supergravity formula (2.17). A defect-channel expansion $x\to 0$ of the same function gives the new coefficients $\gamma_n$ of (3.34), which reduce to $-n/4$ for $k_1=k_2=2$, matching the earlier lowest-mode result.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the chiral four-point function is completely captured by a single finite polynomial ansatz in $1/z$ of order at most $2k_m-2$, i.e. that all exchanges appear as poles at $z=0$ and $z=1$; if the true correlator contains additional analytic terms or higher-order singularities, matching this ansatz to bulk data could miss them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the protected defect two-point function of the (2,0) theory is not an independent piece of data: the bulk OPE data plus crossing symmetry determine it completely.
  • The agreement with the supergravity Witten-diagram result provides a consistency check of both the chiral-algebra bootstrap and the holographic computation, strengthening the chiral-algebra conjecture in the presence of defects.
  • The new coefficients $\gamma_n$ in (3.34) are explicit defect-channel CFT data for all Kaluza-Klein modes, with the leading term at order $x$ being single-trace and higher terms double-trace.
  • The crossing-symmetric ansatz in the variable $Z$ gives a template that can be applied to other defect setups, including those whose defect spectrum has no gap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same 'bulk-data-only' mechanism should extend to higher-point defect correlators with two defect insertions, where additional crossing symmetries may again leave only one channel of OPE data to be input.
  • Beyond the paper, the $\gamma_n$ formula provides a sharp target for a direct defect-channel Witten-diagram computation at higher KK level, which would test the completeness of the ansatz independently of the bulk matching.
  • Beyond the paper, since the chiral algebra data are believed to be exact while the supergravity comparison is large-$N$, the exact match suggests the protected defect correlators may hold for all $N$, not only at large $N$.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the protected-sector two-point correlators of 1/2-BPS operators in the 6d (2,0) theory in the presence of a 1/2-BPS surface defect. Using the chiral algebra description, the author proposes a meromorphic ansatz for the twisted correlator, imposes crossing symmetry, and fixes the coefficients by matching the bulk-channel expansion against known bulk OPE data. The resulting function, Eq. (3.29), reproduces the supergravity result of [41], Eq. (2.17). The paper then expands the same correlator in the defect channel and claims to extract new defect-channel OPE data, summarized in Eq. (3.34). The bulk-channel reproduction is the paper's main positive result; the defect-channel formula is the advertised new output.

Significance. If the bulk-channel derivation is sound, the paper provides a useful bootstrap derivation of a known holographic defect correlator and demonstrates an interesting feature: in this protected sector the correlator can be fixed from bulk-channel input alone. The explicit use of higher-Kaluza-Klein modes goes beyond the lowest case treated in [36] and provides a nontrivial consistency check of the supergravity computation. The paper is transparent about its inputs (bulk OPE coefficients and three-point couplings from [77,78]) and explicitly cross-checks Eq. (3.29) against cases not used in the fit. However, the advertised new defect-channel CFT data in Eq. (3.34) are internally inconsistent with the paper's own Eq. (2.17), as detailed below, so the claim of new predictions is not currently supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (3.34)] The defect-channel coefficient formula is inconsistent with the expansion of the paper's own result (2.17). For k1=k2=2, Eq. (2.17) gives ζ(x) = -x/[4(1-x)^2], whose Taylor expansion has coefficients γ_n = -n/4 for n≥1. Substituting k2=2 into Eq. (3.34) gives γ_n = -(b_2^D)^2/2 n (n+2)_4 = -n(n+2)(n+3)(n+4)(n+5)/4, which equals -n/4 only at n=0. The claimed agreement with [36] is therefore false as printed. More generally, expanding the finite sum in Eq. (2.17) directly yields γ_n = (1/2) b_{k1}^D b_{k2}^D Σ_{i=1}^{min(k2-1,n)} (-1)^i C_i binom(n+i-1, n-i), a finite alternating sum, not a single Pochhammer product. Since this section is the advertised new defect-channel CFT data, the error is load-bearing and must be corrected.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (3.23)] The equivalence between the crossing-symmetric ansatz (3.17) and the Z-expansion (3.19) is not proved; it is deduced from the cases k_m = 13, 14, 15 by pattern matching. Moreover, the ansatz (3.17) itself is assumed to be complete, with a finite pole order 2k_m-2 and no additional analytic terms. Because the bootstrap's central claim is that bulk-channel data alone determine the correlator, this completeness assumption is load-bearing: any term not captured by the ansatz would be invisible to the matching in §3.2, and the extracted β_i would not be the true OPE data. The paper should either provide a proof that the finite pole ansatz captures all exchanges, or clearly state this as an assumption and explain its status.
  3. [§3.2, second bootstrap method] The alternative defect-channel bootstrap described in the second half of §3.2 fixes the overall normalization by identifying it with defect-channel data from [41]. This is not "bulk-channel data only" and sits awkwardly with the abstract's claim. If the advertised bulk-data-only property refers only to the first method, the distinction should be stated explicitly to avoid overclaiming; if both methods are meant to be bulk-data-only, the normalization step needs further justification.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§3.3] The sentence preceding Eq. (3.34) says "Solving for the β_n-coefficients yields", but the coefficients being solved for are γ_n; please correct this notation.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including "predictitions" near the end of §3, "coefificients" after Eq. (3.19), and "particualrly" and "algrebra" in the Epilogue. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  3. [Abstract and Epilogue] The claim that the defect-channel expansion provides "new predictions for the theory" should be tempered: the coefficients extracted from Eq. (2.17) are mathematical consequences of an already-known correlator, not independent predictions of new physics. They may be new OPE data, but this language overstates their status.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the correlator's normalization is fixed by defect-channel data from [41], and the claimed new defect-channel OPE data are just Taylor coefficients of the same SUGRA result; the z-dependence is independently fixed.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, 'Another approach' paragraph after eq. (3.32)]
    "This can be fixed by identifying this number with the defect-channel data obtained in [41] and the large-N expansion of equation (2.11). This results in β1 = 1/4 bk1D bk2D."

    The parameter β1 is the overall coefficient of the ansatz (3.19). The paper fixes it using 'the defect-channel data obtained in [41]', i.e. using the SUGRA defect two-point function that the bootstrap is meant to determine. Once β1 is set equal to (1/4) b^D_{k1} b^D_{k2}, the final correlator (3.29) is normalized to equal eq. (2.17) by construction, so the advertised determination from bulk-channel data alone is undercut at least at the level of normalization. The z-dependence is still fixed independently by bulk OPE coefficients and crossing symmetry, so this is a partial, not total, circularity.

  2. self definitional [Section 3.3, eqs. (3.33)-(3.34)]
    "we need to expand the chiral correlator, equation (2.17), in defect-channel conformal blocks. These blocks are simply given by the monomials in x. Hence, we consider the decomposition of ζ(x)... Finally, we note that equation (3.34) is a new prediction that we obtain here."

    The coefficients γ_n are introduced as the expansion coefficients of ζ(x) in eq. (2.17), the SUGRA result reviewed in Section 2.2 and reproduced in (3.29). Consequently, any value of γ_n is obtained by expanding the input function, not by a new independent calculation. Calling (3.34) a 'new prediction' presents a mathematically implied Taylor coefficient of the known answer as independent CFT data. This is a definitional reduction: the prediction is defined as the Taylor expansion of the input. Whether (3.34) is even the correct Taylor coefficient is a separate correctness issue.

full rationale

The central bootstrap result (3.29) has the same z-dependence as the SUGRA result (2.17), and this part is fixed from bulk OPE data (a_k and λ from [77,78]) plus crossing symmetry, so it is not a definitional tautology. However, the paper explicitly fixes the overall normalization β1 by 'the defect-channel data obtained in [41]' (Section 3.2), which is the very two-point correlator the bootstrap is supposed to determine; the final formula then reproduces (2.17) by construction. In addition, Section 3.3 defines γ_n as the Taylor coefficients of eq. (2.17) and calls eq. (3.34) 'a new prediction', but these coefficients are a mathematical consequence of the input function, not an independent output. There is no problematic self-citation chain: refs. [36,41,77,78] are not by the present author. The ansatz completeness of (3.17) is an unproved assumption, but that is a correctness/completeness concern, not circularity. Separately, eq. (3.34) as written appears inconsistent with the expansion of (2.17) for general k2; this is an internal-consistency issue and does not affect the bulk-channel reproduction.

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

No new free parameters are fitted in this paper. The ansatz coefficients beta_i are fixed by crossing and bulk OPE data from prior work; b^D_k and lambda are inputs from the literature, not fitted here. No new particles, symmetries, or dynamical entities are introduced; the vertex operators V(0) and V(infinity) are the standard defect operators from [36].

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The protected sector of the 6d (2,0) theory is described by the W_N chiral algebra with central charge c2d = 4N^3 - 3N - 1.
    Invoked in section 2.1, eqs. (2.11)-(2.12); this is the chiral algebra conjecture of [46], not proven in this paper. The entire bootstrap is performed in this chiral algebra.
  • domain assumption The surface defect maps to two completely degenerate vertex operators at 0 and infinity under the cohomological reduction, with OPE (2.14).
    Used in section 2.1 and section 3, eqs. (2.13)-(2.15); established in [36] for the lowest modes and assumed here for all charges.
  • ad hoc to paper The chiral 4-point function is meromorphic and fully captured by the pole ansatz (3.17) with a finite sum up to order 2k_m-2.
    This is the key bootstrap assumption in section 3.1; the paper does not prove completeness of the ansatz or an upper bound on pole order beyond the examples.
  • domain assumption Crossing symmetry under z -> -z/(1-z) is an exact symmetry of the defect correlator.
    Stated in sections 2.2 and 3.1 as the bulk operator-exchange symmetry; it is used to halve the OPE data and is loaded from [36].
  • domain assumption The bulk-channel OPE coefficients a_k and lambda_{k1,k2,k} in eqs. (3.25)-(3.26) are correct and applicable at tree level.
    Taken from [77,78] and used as external data in eq. (3.24); if these are wrong or receive string corrections, the bootstrap output changes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chiral algebra correlators of the $6$d, $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ theory with a defect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2AA2FLIA

@misc{pith2026250609132,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chiral algebra correlators of the $6$d, $\mathcalN=(2,0)$ theory with a defect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2AA2FLIA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09132}
}
abstract

We revisit the computation of $2$-point correlation functions of $\tfrac{1}{2}$-BPS operators in the $6$d, $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ theory in the presence of a surface defect. We focus on the protected sector described by the chiral algebra and reproduce its correlators using a bootstrap approach. A unique feature of this calculation is that we can completely determine the answer by using bulk-channel data only. We, also, perform the operator expansion in the defect channel which provide new predictions for the theory.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. 2-loop free energy of M2 brane in AdS$_7 \times$ S$^4$ and surface defect anomaly in (2,0) theory

    hep-th 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The 2-loop (1/N) correction to the M2-brane free energy in AdS7×S4 vanishes in dimensional and ζ-function regularizations, so the boundary defect anomaly is b = 12N − 9, supporting the U(N) (2,0) interpretation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [41]

    Unmixing the Wilson line defect CFT. Part II. Analytic bootstrap,

    P. Ferrero and C. Meneghelli, “Unmixing the Wilson line defect CFT. Part II. Analytic bootstrap,”JHEP06(2024) 010,2312.12551. 22

    arXiv 2024

  2. [36]

    Meneghelli and M

    C. Meneghelli and M. Trépanier, “Bootstrapping string dynamics in the 6dN= (2,

  3. [1]

    The Bootstrap Program for Boundary CFTd,

    P. Liendo, L. Rastelli, and B. C. van Rees, “The Bootstrap Program for Boundary CFTd,”JHEP07(2013) 113,1210.4258

    arXiv 2013

  4. [2]

    Defects in conformal field theory,

    M. Billò, V. Gonçalves, E. Lauria, and M. Meineri, “Defects in conformal field theory,” JHEP04(2016) 091,1601.02883

    arXiv 2016

  5. [3]

    Universality at large transverse spin in defect CFT,

    M. Lemos, P. Liendo, M. Meineri, and S. Sarkar, “Universality at large transverse spin in defect CFT,”JHEP09(2018) 091,1712.08185

    arXiv 2018

  6. [4]

    A Lorentzian inversion formula for defect CFT,

    P. Liendo, Y. Linke, and V. Schomerus, “A Lorentzian inversion formula for defect CFT,”JHEP08(2020) 163,1903.05222

    arXiv 2020

  7. [5]

    Analytic Bootstrap for Boundary CFT,

    A. Bissi, T. Hansen, and A. Söderberg, “Analytic Bootstrap for Boundary CFT,” JHEP01(2019) 010,1808.08155

    arXiv 2019

  8. [6]

    An analytic approach to BCFTd,

    D. Mazáč, L. Rastelli, and X. Zhou, “An analytic approach to BCFTd,”JHEP12 (2019) 004,1812.09314

    arXiv 2019

Show all 82 references
  1. [7]

    A dispersion relation for defect CFT,

    J. Barrat, A. Gimenez-Grau, and P. Liendo, “A dispersion relation for defect CFT,” JHEP02(2023) 255,2205.09765

    2023 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Conformal dispersion relations for defects and boundaries,

    L. Bianchi and D. Bonomi, “Conformal dispersion relations for defects and boundaries,”SciPost Phys.15(2023), no. 2 055,2205.09775

    2023 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Localized magnetic field in the O(N) model,

    G. Cuomo, Z. Komargodski, and M. Mezei, “Localized magnetic field in the O(N) model,”JHEP02(2022) 134,2112.10634

    2022 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Spin impurities, Wilson lines and semiclassics,

    G. Cuomo, Z. Komargodski, M. Mezei, and A. Raviv-Moshe, “Spin impurities, Wilson lines and semiclassics,”JHEP06(2022) 112,2202.00040

    2022 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Monodromy defects from hyperbolic space,

    S. Giombi, E. Helfenberger, Z. Ji, and H. Khanchandani, “Monodromy defects from hyperbolic space,”JHEP02(2022) 041,2102.11815

    2022 arXiv

  6. [12]

    CFT in AdS and boundary RG flows,

    S. Giombi and H. Khanchandani, “CFT in AdS and boundary RG flows,”JHEP11 (2020) 118,2007.04955

    2020

  7. [13]

    Analytic bootstrap for the localized magnetic field,

    L. Bianchi, D. Bonomi, and E. de Sabbata, “Analytic bootstrap for the localized magnetic field,”JHEP04(2023) 069,2212.02524. 20

    2023 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Probing magnetic line defects with two-point functions,

    A. Gimenez-Grau, “Probing magnetic line defects with two-point functions,” 2212.02520

    arXiv

  9. [15]

    Phases of surface defects in Scalar Field Theories,

    A. Raviv-Moshe and S. Zhong, “Phases of surface defects in Scalar Field Theories,” JHEP08(2023) 143,2305.11370

    2023 arXiv

  10. [16]

    The O(N)-flavoured replica twist defect,

    A. Söderberg Rousu, “The O(N)-flavoured replica twist defect,”JHEP07(2023) 022, 2304.08116

    2023 arXiv

  11. [17]

    The discontinuity method in a BCFT,

    A. Söderberg Rousu, “The discontinuity method in a BCFT,”2304.02271

    arXiv

  12. [18]

    Surface defects in the O(N) model,

    M. Trépanier, “Surface defects in the O(N) model,”JHEP09(2023) 074,2305.10486

    2023 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Notes on a surface defect in the O(N) model,

    S. Giombi and B. Liu, “Notes on a surface defect in the O(N) model,”JHEP12(2023) 004,2305.11402

    2023 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Superconformal two-point functions of the Nahm pole defect in N=4 super-Yang-Mills theory,

    J. Baerman, A. Chalabi, and C. Kristjansen, “Superconformal two-point functions of the Nahm pole defect in N=4 super-Yang-Mills theory,”Phys. Lett. B853(2024) 138642,2401.13749

    2024 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Integrable corners in the space of Gukov-Witten surface defects,

    A. Chalabi, C. Kristjansen, and C. Su, “Integrable corners in the space of Gukov-Witten surface defects,”Phys. Lett. B866(2025) 139512,2503.22598

    2025 arXiv

  16. [22]

    B-type anomaly coefficients for the D3-D5 domain wall,

    M. de Leeuw, C. Kristjansen, G. Linardopoulos, and M. Volk, “B-type anomaly coefficients for the D3-D5 domain wall,”Phys. Lett. B846(2023) 138235,2307.10946

    2023 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Holographic correlators of semiclassical states in defect CFTs,

    G. Georgiou, G. Linardopoulos, and D. Zoakos, “Holographic correlators of semiclassical states in defect CFTs,”Phys. Rev. D108(2023), no. 4 046016, 2304.10434

    2023 arXiv

  18. [24]

    String theory methods for defect CFTs,

    G. Linardopoulos, “String theory methods for defect CFTs,”2501.11985

    arXiv

  19. [25]

    B-type anomaly coefficients for the D3-D7 domain wall,

    G. Linardopoulos, “B-type anomaly coefficients for the D3-D7 domain wall,” 2502.13613

    arXiv

  20. [26]

    Holographic two-point functions for Janus interfaces in theD1/D5CFT,

    M. Chiodaroli, J. Estes, and Y. Korovin, “Holographic two-point functions for Janus interfaces in theD1/D5CFT,”JHEP04(2017) 145,1612.08916

    2017 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Half-BPS Wilson loop and AdS2/CFT1,

    S. Giombi, R. Roiban, and A. A. Tseytlin, “Half-BPS Wilson loop and AdS2/CFT1,” Nucl. Phys. B922(2017) 499–527,1706.00756. 21

    2017 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Taming defects inN= 4 super-Yang-Mills,

    Y. Wang, “Taming defects inN= 4 super-Yang-Mills,”JHEP08(2020), no. 08 021, 2003.11016

    2020 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Defect CFT in the 6d (2,0) theory from M2 brane dynamics in AdS7×S4,

    N. Drukker, S. Giombi, A. A. Tseytlin, and X. Zhou, “Defect CFT in the 6d (2,0) theory from M2 brane dynamics in AdS7×S4,”JHEP07(2020) 101,2004.04562

    2020 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Boundary reparametrizations and six-point functions on the AdS2 string,

    S. Giombi, S. Komatsu, B. Offertaler, and J. Shan, “Boundary reparametrizations and six-point functions on the AdS2 string,”JHEP08(2024) 196,2308.10775

    2024 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Mellin amplitudes forAdS5 ×S 5,

    L. Rastelli and X. Zhou, “Mellin amplitudes forAdS5 ×S 5,”Phys. Rev. Lett.118 (2017), no. 9 091602,1608.06624

    2017 arXiv

  26. [32]

    How to Succeed at Holographic Correlators Without Really Trying,

    L. Rastelli and X. Zhou, “How to Succeed at Holographic Correlators Without Really Trying,”JHEP04(2018) 014,1710.05923

    2018 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Selected topics in analytic conformal bootstrap: A guided journey,

    A. Bissi, A. Sinha, and X. Zhou, “Selected topics in analytic conformal bootstrap: A guided journey,”Phys. Rept.991(2022) 1–89,2202.08475

    2022 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Bootstrapping the half-BPS line defect CFT in N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory at strong coupling,

    P. Ferrero and C. Meneghelli, “Bootstrapping the half-BPS line defect CFT in N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory at strong coupling,”Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 8 L081703,2103.10440

    2021 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Bootstrapping holographic defect correlators inN= 4 super Yang-Mills,

    J. Barrat, A. Gimenez-Grau, and P. Liendo, “Bootstrapping holographic defect correlators inN= 4 super Yang-Mills,”JHEP04(2022) 093,2108.13432

    2022 arXiv

  30. [37]

    theories,”JHEP07(2023) 165,2212.05020

    2023 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Aspects of higher-point functions in BCFTd,

    J. Chen and X. Zhou, “Aspects of higher-point functions in BCFTd,”JHEP09(2023) 204,2304.11799

    2023 arXiv

  32. [39]

    The Witten Diagram Bootstrap for Holographic Defects,

    A. Gimenez-Grau, “The Witten Diagram Bootstrap for Holographic Defects,” 2306.11896

    arXiv

  33. [40]

    Unmixing the Wilson line defect CFT. Part I. Spectrum and kinematics,

    P. Ferrero and C. Meneghelli, “Unmixing the Wilson line defect CFT. Part I. Spectrum and kinematics,”JHEP05(2024) 090,2312.12550

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Defect two-point functions in 6D (2,0) theories,

    J. Chen, A. Gimenez-Grau, and X. Zhou, “Defect two-point functions in 6D (2,0) theories,”Phys. Rev. D109(2024), no. 6 L061903,2310.19230

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Correlators of N=4 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory on Real Projective Space at Strong Coupling,

    X. Zhou, “Correlators of N=4 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory on Real Projective Space at Strong Coupling,”Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024), no. 20 201602,2408.04926

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Unitarity method for holographic defects,

    J. Chen, A. Gimenez-Grau, H. Paul, and X. Zhou, “Unitarity method for holographic defects,”Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 4 L041703,2406.13287

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Giant Graviton Correlators as Defect Systems,

    J. Chen, Y. Jiang, and X. Zhou, “Giant Graviton Correlators as Defect Systems,” 2503.22987

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Infinite Chiral Symmetry in Four Dimensions,

    C. Beem, M. Lemos, P. Liendo, W. Peelaers, L. Rastelli, and B. C. van Rees, “Infinite Chiral Symmetry in Four Dimensions,”Commun. Math. Phys.336(2015), no. 3 1359–1433,1312.5344

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Wsymmetry in six dimensions,

    C. Beem, L. Rastelli, and B. C. van Rees, “Wsymmetry in six dimensions,”JHEP05 (2015) 017,1404.1079

    2015 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Exact Correlators of BPS Operators from the 3d Superconformal Bootstrap,

    S. M. Chester, J. Lee, S. S. Pufu, and R. Yacoby, “Exact Correlators of BPS Operators from the 3d Superconformal Bootstrap,”JHEP03(2015) 130,1412.0334

    2015 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Deformation quantization and superconformal symmetry in three dimensions,

    C. Beem, W. Peelaers, and L. Rastelli, “Deformation quantization and superconformal symmetry in three dimensions,”Commun. Math. Phys.354(2017), no. 1 345–392, 1601.05378

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Stress-tensor OPE inN= 2superconformal theories,

    P. Liendo, I. Ramirez, and J. Seo, “Stress-tensor OPE inN= 2superconformal theories,”JHEP02(2016) 019,1509.00033

    2016 arXiv

  43. [51]

    N= 2central charge bounds from2dchiral algebras,

    M. Lemos and P. Liendo, “N= 2central charge bounds from2dchiral algebras,” JHEP04(2016) 004,1511.07449

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Flavor Symmetries and Unitarity Bounds inN= 2Superconformal Field Theories,

    C. Beem, “Flavor Symmetries and Unitarity Bounds inN= 2Superconformal Field Theories,”Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019), no. 24 241603,1812.06099

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    TheN= 4Superconformal Bootstrap,

    C. Beem, L. Rastelli, and B. C. van Rees, “TheN= 4Superconformal Bootstrap,” Phys. Rev. Lett.111(2013) 071601,1304.1803

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    TheN= 2 superconformal bootstrap,

    C. Beem, M. Lemos, P. Liendo, L. Rastelli, and B. C. van Rees, “TheN= 2 superconformal bootstrap,”JHEP03(2016) 183,1412.7541. 23

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    The (2, 0) superconformal bootstrap,

    C. Beem, M. Lemos, L. Rastelli, and B. C. van Rees, “The (2, 0) superconformal bootstrap,”Phys. Rev. D93(2016), no. 2 025016,1507.05637

    2016 arXiv

  48. [56]

    BootstrappingN= 3 superconformal theories,

    M. Lemos, P. Liendo, C. Meneghelli, and V. Mitev, “BootstrappingN= 3 superconformal theories,”JHEP04(2017) 032,1612.01536

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    MoreN= 4superconformal bootstrap,

    C. Beem, L. Rastelli, and B. C. van Rees, “MoreN= 4superconformal bootstrap,” Phys. Rev. D96(2017), no. 4 046014,1612.02363

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bootstrapping Coulomb and Higgs branch operators,

    A. Gimenez-Grau and P. Liendo, “Bootstrapping Coulomb and Higgs branch operators,”JHEP01(2021) 175,2006.01847

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bootstrapping mixed correlators inN= 4 super Yang-Mills,

    A. Bissi, A. Manenti, and A. Vichi, “Bootstrapping mixed correlators inN= 4 super Yang-Mills,”JHEP05(2021) 111,2010.15126

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    M-Theory Reconstruction from (2,0) CFT and the Chiral Algebra Conjecture,

    S. M. Chester and E. Perlmutter, “M-Theory Reconstruction from (2,0) CFT and the Chiral Algebra Conjecture,”JHEP08(2018) 116,1805.00892

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    More on holographic correlators: Twisted and dimensionally reduced structures,

    C. Behan, P. Ferrero, and X. Zhou, “More on holographic correlators: Twisted and dimensionally reduced structures,”JHEP04(2021) 008,2101.04114

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Implications of superconformal symmetry for interacting (2,0) tensor multiplets,

    G. Arutyunov and E. Sokatchev, “Implications of superconformal symmetry for interacting (2,0) tensor multiplets,”Nucl. Phys. B635(2002) 3–32,hep-th/0201145

    2002 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Aspects of superconformal field theories in six dimensions,

    P. J. Heslop, “Aspects of superconformal field theories in six dimensions,”JHEP07 (2004) 056,hep-th/0405245

    2004 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Holographic Four-Point Functions in the (2, 0) Theory,

    L. Rastelli and X. Zhou, “Holographic Four-Point Functions in the (2, 0) Theory,” JHEP06(2018) 087,1712.02788

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    On Superconformal Four-Point Mellin Amplitudes in Dimensiond >2,

    X. Zhou, “On Superconformal Four-Point Mellin Amplitudes in Dimensiond >2,” JHEP08(2018) 187,1712.02800

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    M-theory Beyond The Supergravity Approximation,

    P. Heslop and A. E. Lipstein, “M-theory Beyond The Supergravity Approximation,” JHEP02(2018) 004,1712.08570

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Recursion relations for anomalous dimensions in the 6d(2,0)theory,

    T. Abl, P. Heslop, and A. E. Lipstein, “Recursion relations for anomalous dimensions in the 6d(2,0)theory,”JHEP04(2019) 038,1902.00463

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    All Tree-Level Correlators for M-theory onAdS7 ×S 4,

    L. F. Alday and X. Zhou, “All Tree-Level Correlators for M-theory onAdS7 ×S 4,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020), no. 13 131604,2006.06653. 24

    2020 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Regge trajectories for the (2, 0) theories,

    M. Lemos, B. C. van Rees, and X. Zhao, “Regge trajectories for the (2, 0) theories,” JHEP01(2022) 022,2105.13361

    2022 arXiv

  62. [70]

    6D (2,0) bootstrap with the soft-actor-critic algorithm,

    G. Kántor, V. Niarchos, C. Papageorgakis, and P. Richmond, “6D (2,0) bootstrap with the soft-actor-critic algorithm,”Phys. Rev. D107(2023), no. 2 025005,2209.02801

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Rényi entropies, the analytic bootstrap, and 3D quantum gravity at higher genus,

    M. Headrick, A. Maloney, E. Perlmutter, and I. G. Zadeh, “Rényi entropies, the analytic bootstrap, and 3D quantum gravity at higher genus,”JHEP07(2015) 059, 1503.07111

    2015 arXiv

  64. [72]

    TheW-algebra bootstrap of 6dN= (2,0)theories,

    M. Woolley, “TheW-algebra bootstrap of 6dN= (2,0)theories,”2506.08094

  65. [73]

    Lectures on chiral algebras ofN⩾2superconformal field theories,

    M. Lemos, “Lectures on chiral algebras ofN⩾2superconformal field theories,” 2006.13892

    2006 arXiv

  66. [74]

    W-algebras and their representations,

    G. M. T. Watts, “W-algebras and their representations,” inConformal Field Theories and Integrable Models(Z. Horváth and L. Palla, eds.), (Berlin, Heidelberg), pp. 55–84, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1997

    1997

  67. [75]

    W symmetry in conformal field theory,

    P. Bouwknegt and K. Schoutens, “W symmetry in conformal field theory,”Phys. Rept. 223(1993) 183–276,hep-th/9210010

    1993 arXiv

  68. [76]

    The Models of Two-Dimensional Conformal Quantum Field Theory with Z(n) Symmetry,

    V. A. Fateev and S. L. Lukyanov, “The Models of Two-Dimensional Conformal Quantum Field Theory with Z(n) Symmetry,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A3(1988) 507

    1988

  69. [77]

    The Mellin Formalism for Boundary CFTd,

    L. Rastelli and X. Zhou, “The Mellin Formalism for Boundary CFTd,”JHEP10 (2017) 146,1705.05362

    2017 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Correlation functions of operators and Wilson surfaces in the d = 6, (0,2) theory in the large N limit,

    R. Corrado, B. Florea, and R. McNees, “Correlation functions of operators and Wilson surfaces in the d = 6, (0,2) theory in the large N limit,”Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 085011,hep-th/9902153

    1999 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Three point functions of chiral primary operators in d = 3, N=8 and d = 6, N=(2,0) SCFT at large N,

    F. Bastianelli and R. Zucchini, “Three point functions of chiral primary operators in d = 3, N=8 and d = 6, N=(2,0) SCFT at large N,”Phys. Lett. B467(1999) 61–66, hep-th/9907047

    1999 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Semiclassical quantization of M5 brane probes wrapped on AdS3×S 3 and defect anomalies,

    M. Beccaria, L. Casarin, and A. A. Tseytlin, “Semiclassical quantization of M5 brane probes wrapped on AdS3×S 3 and defect anomalies,”JHEP01(2025) 088, 2411.11626. 25

    2025 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Dissecting supergraviton six-point function with lightcone limits and chiral algebra,

    V. Goncalves, M. Nocchi, and X. Zhou, “Dissecting supergraviton six-point function with lightcone limits and chiral algebra,”2502.10269

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    Flat-space limit of defect correlators and stringy AdS form factors,

    L. F. Alday and X. Zhou, “Flat-space limit of defect correlators and stringy AdS form factors,”JHEP03(2025) 182,2411.04378. 26

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.