Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Holography of a novel codimension-2 defect CFT

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 new holographic duality pairs a nonsupersymmetric codimension-2 defect CFT with a stable D5-brane probe in AdS5 × S5, and the weak- and strong-coupling one-point functions match in a large-flux limit.

desk verdict New non-supersymmetric codimension-2 defect with a plausible holographic dual and a leading-order weak/strong match — worth refereeing, but the stability proof in §2.2 is too thin to back the abstract's stability claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14505 v2 pith:2LYJL27F submitted 2025-06-17 hep-th

George Georgiou , Georgios Linardopoulos , Dimitrios Zoakos This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords AdS/CFTcorrespondencedefectCFTD5-braneprobeN=4superYang-Millschiralprimaryoperatorsone-pointfunctionscodimension-2Breitenlohner-Freedmanbound
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a new holographic duality between a non-supersymmetric codimension-2 defect conformal field theory and a probe D5-brane in AdS5 × S5. The brane wraps an S2 inside the internal sphere, carries k units of flux through that S2, and ends on a two-dimensional subspace of the boundary, so the field-theory side is a two-dimensional defect in N=4 SYM. The authors prove the brane configuration is stable, compute the one-point functions of the stress-energy tensor and of chiral primary operators at strong coupling, and compute the same quantities at weak coupling from a classical field-theory solution. In the limit sqrt(lambda)/k << 1, the two sets of results agree, which is the paper's main evidence that the proposed duality is correct. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a quantitative holographic test in a setting where supersymmetry is completely broken.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-parameter family of D5-brane embeddings z = $\sigma$ r with worldvolume gauge field A = kappa/(2 pi $\alpha$') cos($\beta$) d gamma, where kappa = (4 + $sigma^{2}$)/($\sigma$ $\sqrt$(8 - $sigma^{2}$)); the induced metric is AdS3 × S1 × S2 and the brane ends on an R(1,1) boundary subspace. This embedding carries the stability analysis through the Breitenlohner-Freedman bound and provides the geometry on which the holographic stress-tensor and CPO one-point functions are evaluated. The matching of weak and strong coupling is carried by the flux-quantization relation k = kappa $\sqrt$($\lambda$)/pi, which converts the limit $\sigma$ -> 0 into the parametric regime $\sqrt$($\lambda$)/k << 1 and allows the leading terms of the field-theory and supergravity results to be compared directly.

What would settle it

Perform a complete mode analysis on AdS3 × S1 × S2 of all transverse fluctuations (delta z, delta psi-tilde, delta $\beta$-tilde, delta gamma-tilde, and delta A) with general worldvolume dependence; if any mode has mass squared below -1 for $\sigma$ in (0,1], the configuration is unstable and the proposed duality is false. Alternatively, compute the next order in $\lambda$/$k^{2}$ of the CPO one-point function on both sides and check agreement, since the paper's match is only at leading order.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a D5-brane probe embedded in AdS5 × S5 with the embedding ansatz z = $\sigma$ r, wrapping an S2 with k units of worldvolume flux and ending on an R(1,1) plane of the boundary, is the holographic dual of a non-supersymmetric codimension-2 defect CFT. The brane's induced metric has symmetry AdS3 × S1 × S2. The paper shows that the one-point functions of the stress-energy tensor and of the chiral primary operators calculated from supergravity agree with tree-level field-theory calculations in the limit $\sqrt$($\lambda$)/k << 1, which is the regime k $\sqrt$($\lambda$) = kappa / pi >> 1 and, equivalently, $\sigma$ -> 0. Explicit agreement is presented for the leading-order CPO one-point functions for $\Delta$ = 4, 6, 8, and numerically checked up to $\Delta$ = 40. The same comparison fixes one B-type Weyl anomaly coefficient, d2, which also matches between weak and strong coupling because it is proportional to the stress-tensor coefficient h.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the stability check covers all physical fluctuations: the paper's proof assumes every fluctuation depends only on time, so a full analysis on the AdS3 × S1 × S2 worldvolume could still reveal an unstable mode that would make the D5 configuration an invalid gravity dual.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the proposed duality is correct, nonsupersymmetric codimension-2 defects in N=4 SYM admit stable holographic duals, showing that the absence of supersymmetry is not an obstacle to AdS/dCFT.
  • The matching one-point functions in the limit sqrt(lambda)/k << 1 constitute a quantitative test of the correspondence, analogous to comparing observables order by order in a BMN-type small parameter.
  • The strong-coupling result fixes the B-type Weyl anomaly coefficient d2 to be positive and proportional to lambda^{3/2}; since h(weak) = h(strong) in the same limit, the anomaly coefficient also matches across the duality.
  • The classical field-theory profile phi_{i+3}(r') = (1/r') t_i with a k-dimensional su(2) representation is the proposed dual solution, and it determines the CPO one-point functions for general even conformal dimension Delta at leading order.
  • The stability bound sigma <= 1 implies that the brane's inclination angle cannot exceed pi/4, so the proposed duality predicts a geometric cutoff on valid defect configurations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of whether the agreement is more than leading order would be to compute the first correction in lambda/k^2 on both sides; the paper matches only the leading term, so a mismatch at the next order would show the duality is not exact.
  • The stability proof treats fluctuations that depend only on time, so a complete mode analysis on AdS3 × S1 × S2 could either confirm or overturn the duality; until such an analysis exists, the proposed correspondence should be regarded as provisional.
  • The su(2) vev structure of size k suggests that, in the large-k limit, the field-theory defect may admit a fuzzy-sphere interpretation, possibly connecting this construction to the known classification of nonsupersymmetric codimension-2 defects.
  • If the d2 matching holds, the remaining Weyl anomaly coefficients b and d1 should also be extractable in the same limit, which offers an immediate further check of the proposed duality.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new holographic duality between a non-supersymmetric codimension-2 defect CFT and a D5-brane probe in AdS5 x S5. The D5 brane wraps an S2 in S5, carries k units of worldvolume flux, has induced geometry AdS3 x S1 x S2, and ends on an R^(1,1) subspace of the boundary. The authors compute one-point functions of the stress tensor and of chiral primary operators at strong coupling from the DBI+WZ actions, propose a classical field-theory solution (5.6) on the N=4 SYM side, and compute the same one-point functions at weak coupling. In the limit sqrt(lambda)/k << 1 they find agreement of the leading terms for h and for CPOs with Delta = 4,6,8, and report checks up to Delta = 40. They also claim stability of the D5 solution from a BF-bound analysis and extract a B-type Weyl anomaly coefficient.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable new example of AdS/dCFT without supersymmetry, with non-trivial weak/strong agreement in a tunable BMN-like limit. The strong- and weak-coupling computations are independent: flux quantization fixes k in terms of lambda and sigma, the strong side uses bulk-to-boundary propagators and the DBI+WZ action, and the weak side uses the classical solution (5.6). The explicit agreement for the stress-tensor coefficient h and for CPOs up to Delta = 40 is a genuinely non-trivial test of the proposed duality. The main weakness is that the stability proof, which is used to validate the gravity dual, is incomplete. Since the paper explicitly claims a proof of stability, this is a load-bearing issue rather than a presentation issue.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eqs. (2.12)-(2.18)] The stability proof is incomplete. The calculation assumes all fluctuations depend only on the time coordinate x0; under this assumption the equations for delta beta-tilde and delta gamma-tilde are trivially satisfied and no masses are assigned to them. However, the brane worldvolume is AdS3 x S1 x S2, and the transverse scalars delta beta-tilde and delta gamma-tilde couple to the worldvolume gauge field A = kappa cos beta d gamma and to the curvature of the wrapped S2. Modes with non-trivial dependence on beta, gamma, psi, or on the AdS3 spatial coordinates can have effective masses different from the x0-only modes. The abstract's claim that 'the masses of all the fluctuations of the transverse to the brane coordinates respect the B-F bound' is therefore not established by the computation presented in Section 2.2.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eqs. (2.13)-(2.18)] The mass extraction procedure is not the standard AdS stability analysis. The BF bound applies to the effective mass in the quadratic fluctuation action after separating the full AdS3 Laplacian; solving delta z''(s) - sigma^2 delta z = 0 for a purely time-dependent ansatz does not determine this AdS-invariant mass. In addition, the induced metric (2.11) has AdS3 radius squared R^2 = (1+sigma^2)/sigma^2, so the proper time along x0 is ds = sqrt(1+sigma^2)/(sigma r) dx0, not ds = dx0/(sigma r) as stated before Eq. (2.14). This missing factor changes the numerical masses m_z^2 and m_psi-tilde^2 and hence the claimed stability interval sigma in (0,1]. The equation delta A''(s) = 0 is also not a massless wave equation, so the conclusion m_A^2 = 0 in Eq. (2.18) is not justified. Because an unstable brane would invalidate the proposed gravity dual, this point is load-bearing.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (2.7)] The definition of kappa is typeset ambiguously; it should read kappa = (4+sigma^2)/(sigma sqrt(8-sigma^2)), which is the form used later in the flux-quantization and large-k limit.
  2. [Section 6, after Eq. (6.1)] The relation printed as 'k = sqrt(2) lambda/(pi sigma)' should be k = sqrt(2 lambda)/(pi sigma), or equivalently k = sqrt(2) sqrt(lambda)/(pi sigma); as written the square root appears to cover only lambda.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption contains the typo 'ansx' in 'the coordinates x0 ans x1'; it should read 'and'.
  4. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2.18)] The inference 'delta A''(s) = 0 implies m_A^2 = 0' is not a standard mass assignment; a massless scalar in AdS obeys a wave equation, and the purely time-dependent truncation does not exhibit it.
  5. [References] Reference [32] is cited as 'JHEP (2025) accepted for publication' without an article number; this should be updated before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the claimed weak/strong agreement is an independent comparison with no fitted parameter.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the strong-coupling D5-brane computation and the weak-coupling SYM computation agree in the limit sqrt(lambda)/k << 1. The strong-coupling one-point functions are obtained from the DBI+WZ action and bulk-to-boundary propagators (eqs. (3.16), (4.28), (4.29)), while the weak-coupling results are obtained from the classical solution (5.6) and the N=4 SYM Lagrangian (eqs. (5.14), (5.20)). The relation k = sqrt(2) sqrt(lambda)/(pi sigma) used in the comparison is not an adjustable fit: it follows from flux quantization, eq. (2.8), combined with the solution for the world-volume gauge field, eq. (2.7), in the sigma -> 0 limit. No parameter is tuned to force the agreement, and the subleading terms are explicitly stated to disagree. The only self-citations are to the authors' earlier holographic recipe [21] and to standard formulas for the improved energy-momentum tensor [31,32]; these are methodological or standard results and do not assume the target duality. The stability proof in Section 2.2 is incomplete because it restricts fluctuations to x0-dependence and does not assign masses to delta beta and delta gamma, but this is a correctness risk rather than a circularity. Overall, no derivation step reduces by construction to its own input, so the paper is not circular; the score of 1 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard AdS/CFT (axiom 1), the specific identification of the field theory dual (axiom 2), a restricted stability check (axiom 3), and a standard propagator (axiom 4). No new particles or forces are introduced. The continuous parameter sigma is a modulus, fixed by flux quantization, not a fitted constant.

free parameters (1)
  • brane modulus sigma = 0 < sigma <= 1 (stability bound); sigma -> 0 corresponds to k/sqrt(lambda) -> infinity
    Parameterizes the D5 embedding z = sigma r and the gauge field (2.7). It is not fitted to observables; it is related to k and lambda by flux quantization (2.8). The weak/strong agreement is tested in the sigma -> 0 limit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT correspondence for AdS5 x S5 / N=4 SYM, and the probe D-brane one-point prescription of [21] (eqs. (3.6)-(3.10))
    The strong-coupling calculations assume standard holographic dictionary and the validity of the authors' earlier prescription for one-point functions in the presence of a heavy brane.
  • ad hoc to paper The classical field configuration (5.6) is the correct dual to the D5 brane
    The vev ansatz with su(2) matrices t_i is chosen to match the brane symmetries and satisfies the classical equations of motion, but its uniqueness and precise role as the dual are conjectured.
  • ad hoc to paper Stability can be established from x0-dependent fluctuations of the transverse coordinates
    Section 2.2 restricts fluctuations to depend only on x0 and does not perform a full mode decomposition on AdS3 x S1 x S2; the paper does not give masses for delta beta tilde and delta gamma tilde.
  • standard math Bulk-to-boundary graviton propagator in de Donder gauge (eqs. (3.11)-(3.14))
    Standard AdS5 propagator taken from [24,25], used to evaluate the stress tensor one-point function.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Holography of a novel codimension-2 defect CFT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2LYJL27F

@misc{pith2026250614505,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Holography of a novel codimension-2 defect CFT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2LYJL27F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14505}
}
abstract

We propose and study a new holographic duality between a non-supersymmetric defect conformal field theory (dCFT) and its gravity dual. On the gravity side, the defect is realised by a novel solution of a D5 probe brane embedded in the $AdS_5\times S^5$ geometry. The D5 brane wraps an $S^2\subset S^5$ and accommodates $k$ units of flux through the $S^2$. The symmetry of the induced on the brane metric is $AdS_3\times S^1\times S^2$. The brane ends on an $\mathbb{R}^{(1,1)}$ subspace of the 4-dimensional $AdS_5$ boundary resulting to a codimension-2 defect. We first prove that our brane configuration is stable by showing that the masses of all the fluctuations of the transverse to the brane coordinates respect the B-F bound. On the field theory side, the 2-dimensional defect is described by a classical solution whose precise form we determine. Subsequently, we calculate the one-point functions of the energy-momentum tensor and of the chiral primary operators (CPOs), first at strong and then at weak coupling. In an appropriate limit, we find compelling agreement between the weak and strong coupling results. Furthermore, we also extract one of the B-type Weyl anomaly coefficients.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    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. D108no. 4, (2023) 046016,arXiv:2304.10434 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    The Bethe ansatz for N=4 superYang-Mills,

    J. A. Minahan and K. Zarembo, “The Bethe ansatz for N=4 superYang-Mills,”JHEP03 (2003) 013,arXiv:hep-th/0212208

    arXiv 2003

  3. [2]

    Hidden Symmetries of the AdS 5 ×S 5 Superstring,

    I. Bena, J. Polchinski, and R. Roiban, “Hidden Symmetries of the AdS 5 ×S 5 Superstring,” Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 046002,arXiv:hep-th/0305116. – 24 –

    arXiv 2004

  4. [3]

    The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 231–252,arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    arXiv 1998

  5. [4]

    Supersymmetric Boundary Conditions inN= 4 Super Yang-Mills Theory,

    D. Gaiotto and E. Witten, “Supersymmetric Boundary Conditions inN= 4 Super Yang-Mills Theory,”J. Statist. Phys.135(2009) 789–855,arXiv:0804.2902 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2009

  6. [5]

    Gauge Theory, Ramification, And The Geometric Langlands Program,

    S. Gukov and E. Witten, “Gauge Theory, Ramification, And The Geometric Langlands Program,”arXiv:hep-th/0612073

    arXiv

  7. [6]

    Integrability of Green-Schwarz Sigma Models with Boundaries,

    A. Dekel and Y. Oz, “Integrability of Green-Schwarz Sigma Models with Boundaries,”JHEP 08(2011) 004,arXiv:1106.3446 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2011

  8. [7]

    Gauge/Gravity duality with a chiral N=(0,8) string defect,

    J. A. Harvey and A. B. Royston, “Gauge/Gravity duality with a chiral N=(0,8) string defect,”JHEP08(2008) 006,arXiv:0804.2854 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2008

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    Integrable Conformal Defects in N=4 SYM,

    M. de Leeuw and A. Holguin, “Integrable Conformal Defects in N=4 SYM,” arXiv:2406.13741 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    Integrability and Conformal Blocks for Surface Defects inN= 4 SYM,

    A. Holguin and H. Kawai, “Integrability and Conformal Blocks for Surface Defects inN= 4 SYM,”arXiv:2503.09944 [hep-th]

  3. [10]

    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,arXiv:2503.22598 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [11]

    String integrability of defect CFT and dynamical reflection matrices,

    G. Linardopoulos and K. Zarembo, “String integrability of defect CFT and dynamical reflection matrices,”JHEP05(2021) 203,arXiv:2102.12381 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    String integrability of the ABJM defect,

    G. Linardopoulos, “String integrability of the ABJM defect,”JHEP06(2022) 033, arXiv:2202.06824 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [13]

    String theory methods for defect CFTs,

    G. Linardopoulos, “String theory methods for defect CFTs,”arXiv:2501.11985 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  7. [14]

    Probing N=4 SYM With Surface Operators,

    N. Drukker, J. Gomis, and S. Matsuura, “Probing N=4 SYM With Surface Operators,” JHEP10(2008) 048,arXiv:0805.4199 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Positive Energy in anti-De Sitter Backgrounds and Gauged Extended Supergravity,

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman, “Positive Energy in anti-De Sitter Backgrounds and Gauged Extended Supergravity,”Phys. Lett. B115(1982) 197–201

    1982

  9. [16]

    Conformal anomaly of submanifold observables in AdS / CFT correspondence,

    C. R. Graham and E. Witten, “Conformal anomaly of submanifold observables in AdS / CFT correspondence,”Nucl. Phys. B546(1999) 52–64,arXiv:hep-th/9901021

    1999 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Weyl anomaly for Wilson surfaces,

    M. Henningson and K. Skenderis, “Weyl anomaly for Wilson surfaces,”JHEP06(1999) 012, arXiv:hep-th/9905163

    1999 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Entanglement Entropy, Trace Anomalies and Holography,

    A. Schwimmer and S. Theisen, “Entanglement Entropy, Trace Anomalies and Holography,” Nucl. Phys. B801(2008) 1–24,arXiv:0802.1017 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Universality in the geometric dependence of Renyi entropy,

    A. Lewkowycz and E. Perlmutter, “Universality in the geometric dependence of Renyi entropy,”JHEP01(2015) 080,arXiv:1407.8171 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [20]

    From the Weyl Anomaly to Entropy of Two-Dimensional Boundaries and Defects,

    K. Jensen, A. O’Bannon, B. Robinson, and R. Rodgers, “From the Weyl Anomaly to Entropy of Two-Dimensional Boundaries and Defects,”Phys. Rev. Lett.122no. 24, (2019) 241602,arXiv:1812.08745 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Two and three-point correlators of operators dual to folded string solutions at strong coupling,

    G. Georgiou, “Two and three-point correlators of operators dual to folded string solutions at strong coupling,”JHEP02(2011) 046,arXiv:1011.5181 [hep-th]. – 25 –

    2011 arXiv

  15. [23]

    SL(2) sector: weak/strong coupling agreement of three-point correlators,

    G. Georgiou, “SL(2) sector: weak/strong coupling agreement of three-point correlators,” JHEP09(2011) 132,arXiv:1107.1850 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  16. [24]

    On four point functions in the CFT / AdS correspondence,

    H. Liu and A. A. Tseytlin, “On four point functions in the CFT / AdS correspondence,” Phys. Rev. D59(1999) 086002,arXiv:hep-th/9807097

    1999 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Three point Green function of the stress energy tensor in the AdS / CFT correspondence,

    G. Arutyunov and S. Frolov, “Three point Green function of the stress energy tensor in the AdS / CFT correspondence,”Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 026004,arXiv:hep-th/9901121

    1999 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Correlators of massive string states with conserved currents,

    G. Georgiou, B.-H. Lee, and C. Park, “Correlators of massive string states with conserved currents,”JHEP03(2013) 167,arXiv:1301.5092 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Expectation values of chiral primary operators in holographic interface CFT,

    K. Nagasaki and S. Yamaguchi, “Expectation values of chiral primary operators in holographic interface CFT,”Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 086004,arXiv:1205.1674 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

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

    C. Kristjansen, G. W. Semenoff, and D. Young, “Chiral primary one-point functions in the D3-D7 defect conformal field theory,”JHEP01(2013) 117,arXiv:1210.7015 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,”Phys. Lett. B428(1998) 105–114,arXiv:hep-th/9802109

    1998 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A new improved energy-momentum tensor,

    R. J. C. G. Callan Jr., S. R. Coleman, “A new improved energy-momentum tensor,”Annals Phys.59(1970) 42

    1970

  23. [31]

    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,arXiv:2307.10946 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

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

    G. Linardopoulos, “B-type anomaly coefficients for the D3-D7 domain wall,”JHEP(2025) accepted for publication,arXiv:2502.13613 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    One-point functions in defect CFT and integrability,

    M. de Leeuw, C. Kristjansen, and K. Zarembo, “One-point functions in defect CFT and integrability,”JHEP08(2015) 098,arXiv:1506.06958 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    One-point functions in AdS/dCFT from matrix product states,

    I. Buhl-Mortensen, M. de Leeuw, C. Kristjansen, and K. Zarembo, “One-point functions in AdS/dCFT from matrix product states,”JHEP02(2016) 052,arXiv:1512.02532 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Scalar one-point functions and matrix product states of AdS/dCFT,

    M. de Leeuw, C. Kristjansen, and G. Linardopoulos, “Scalar one-point functions and matrix product states of AdS/dCFT,”Phys. Lett.B781(2018) 238,arXiv:1802.01598 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Spin chain overlaps and the twisted Yangian,

    M. de Leeuw, T. Gombor, C. Kristjansen, G. Linardopoulos, and B. Pozsgay, “Spin chain overlaps and the twisted Yangian,”JHEP01(2020) 176,arXiv:1912.09338 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Bubbling surface operators and S-duality,

    J. Gomis and S. Matsuura, “Bubbling surface operators and S-duality,”JHEP06(2007) 025,arXiv:0704.1657 [hep-th]. – 26 –

    2007 arXiv

Pith tools

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