Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 88 references

The Bootstrap of Points and Lines

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives a positive semi-definite program from crossing symmetry of bulk and boundary correlators, yielding the first rigorous bounds on the boundary OPE gap and new bounds on boundary entropy and one-point coefficients in…

desk verdict Real step forward: first numerical bootstrap bounds from two-point-function crossing in 2D BCFTs, with a genuinely new mixed-correlator SDP; just don't let the word 'rigorous' pass without qualification. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17382 v1 pith:ECHWZAC6 submitted 2025-06-20 hep-th

Marco Meineri , Bharathkumar Radhakrishnan This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords conformalbootstrapboundaryfieldtheoryentropyOPEcoefficientssemidefiniteprogrammingtwo-dimensionalCFTWZWmodelcrossingsymmetry
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 paper aims to establish that boundary conditions in two-dimensional CFTs can be constrained by bootstrapping bulk and boundary correlators together, not just the annulus partition function. It derives a positive semi-definite program from crossing symmetry of three observables: the annulus partition function, the four-point function of identical bulk scalars, and the two-point function of those scalars in the presence of a boundary. The resulting mixed-correlator system gives access to data invisible to the annulus alone, above all the gap in the boundary OPE of a chosen bulk operator and the bulk-to-boundary OPE coefficients, and it tightens existing bounds on the boundary entropy. The method is tested on the Ising model and free boson, then applied to central charge $c=3/2$ theories with emphasis on the $\mathfrak{su}(2)_2$ WZW model, yielding new non-perturbative bounds.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the vector functional $\vec\alpha=(\alpha_4,\alpha_2,\alpha_a)$ acting on the four-point, two-point, and annulus crossing equations, together with the two-by-two matrix $\vec V_{\Delta,\ell=0}$ built from the scalar bulk blocks $F_{\Delta,0}$, $\tfrac12 G^{\rm bulk}_\Delta$, and $\chi_{\Delta/2}$. Positivity of this matrix for scalars is what couples the two-point crossing to the annulus and four-point equations; without those diagonal terms, a zero on the diagonal would force the two-point functional to vanish, making the two-point equation useless. The same functional acts on boundary blocks $-G^{\rm bry}_h$ and annulus characters $-\chi_h$, and the inequalities (2.44) turn existence of a suitable functional into a rigorous exclusion. Numerically, derivatives are taken in a derivative basis (2.45)\textendash(2.47), with the evaluation point fixed by the stability condition (A.41), $\xi_*\simeq0.03010$ and $\nu\simeq3.98513$.

What would settle it

Run the mixed-system semidefinite program at a point just inside the excluded region (for example, $h_{2pt}^{\rm gap}=0.49$ in the Ising setup) with a higher truncation order or with exact hypergeometric blocks; if a primal feasible solution appears, the exclusion is an artifact of the truncation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the crossing equations (2.31) for the four-point function, (2.32) for the two-point function with a boundary, and (2.33) for the annulus partition function combine into a single positivity structure (2.34). A functional $\vec\alpha=(\alpha_4,\alpha_2,\alpha_a)$ satisfying the inequalities (2.44) constitutes a valid semi-definite program: if such a functional exists, no unitary boundary CFT can have the assumed gaps and couplings. The payoff is a set of rigorous numerical exclusions: for the Ising model, $h_{2pt}^{\rm gap}<0.5$ (fig. 2); for the free boson, improved bounds on $g^2$ and $a^2_{\Delta_\phi}$ (figs. 4, 5, 10); and for $c=3/2$, new bounds on boundary entropy, gaps, and one-point coefficients in the $\mathfrak{su}(2)_2$ WZW model (figs. 13\textendash 16). In several regions the mixed system strengthens the annulus-only results; in others, the two-point-function constraints decouple and the annulus bound remains the tight one.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme stands on the numerical reliability of the truncated series for the conformal blocks and on the stability of the solver at the chosen evaluation point; the authors report that for very small boundary gaps (below 0.2 at $c=1$ and below 0.12 at $c=3/2$) the numerics become unstable, so the bounds there are not trustworthy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Boundary OPE data such as $h_{2pt}^{\rm gap}$ and bulk-to-boundary OPE coefficients, previously inaccessible to rigorous numerics, can now be bounded by the same crossing machinery used for bulk CFT data.
  • For $c=3/2$, the bounds give a quantitative map of allowed boundary conditions: stable boundaries require $\Delta_{\rm gap}\leq0.5932\ldots$, and with the bulk spectrum up to $\Delta=20$ input, the boundary gap obeys $h_{ann}^{\rm gap}\leq 1.12515(9)$ (table 3).
  • In free-boson examples, adding four-point and two-point constraints tightens the boundary-entropy window compared with the annulus alone, and makes the Neumann brane saturate the mixed-system bound at $R=4.3$ (fig. 4).
  • The setup also provides a new way to test whether a boundary condition is elementary: imposing $b_0=a_{\Delta_\phi}$ excludes non-elementary superpositions of branes from the primal problem, so bounds obtained with that relation probe genuine elementary boundaries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension the paper leaves implicit: bootstrapping with full Virasoro blocks instead of global $\mathfrak{sl}(2)$ blocks should sharpen the bounds further, especially in the $c=3/2$ case where the Virasoro annulus bounds are already near-optimal, and may resolve the low-gap numerical instabilities.
  • In the free-boson and WZW examples, the two-point-function constraints activate only when $h_{2pt}^{\rm gap}$ is sufficiently large; this suggests a practical rule: mixed systems are most powerful for OPE data unique to the two-point function, or when the physical boundary condition forces a large two-point gap.
  • The relation $b_0=a_{\Delta_\phi}$ could be turned into a numerical 'elementaryness probe': by optimizing the difference $b_0^2-a_{\Delta_\phi}^2$ rather than imposing it, one could classify boundary conditions as elementary or non-elementary directly from bootstrap bounds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a numerical conformal bootstrap for two-dimensional boundary CFTs by combining crossing symmetry of three observables: the bulk four-point function on the plane, the annulus partition function, and the two-point function in the presence of a boundary. These are assembled into a positive semi-definite program whose dual functionals yield bounds on boundary gaps, the boundary entropy g^2, and bulk-to-boundary OPE coefficients. The method is validated against the Ising model and the free boson, and then applied to c = 3/2 theories, with special focus on the su(2)_2 WZW model. The main new results include the claimed first rigorous bound on the boundary OPE gap h_2pt^gap (e.g., h_2pt^gap < 0.5 for the Ising model, Fig. 2) and new bounds on g^2 and a_phi^2 for c = 3/2 (Figs. 13-16).

Significance. If the bounds are genuinely rigorous, this is a significant methodological advance: it introduces a mixed bulk/boundary SDP that accesses previously unavailable boundary data and sometimes tightens existing annulus-only bounds. The derivation of the SDP is careful and standard, the method is tested on exactly solvable theories where it reproduces or improves known results, and the paper makes its numerical data and SDPB parameters publicly available on Zenodo. The analytic solution of the su(2)_k Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation in Appendix B is a useful independent contribution. The main caveat is the uncontrolled truncation of the two-point conformal blocks, which currently weakens the 'rigorous' characterization of the bounds.

major comments (1)
  1. [Appendix A.2 (eq. A.22); Section 3.1 (Fig. 2)] The central claim that the mixed-correlator bootstrap yields rigorous bounds, in particular the new bound h_2pt^gap < 0.5 for the Ising model (Fig. 2), is not fully supported because the two-point function blocks are evaluated using a truncated hypergeometric series without error control. The paper states (Appendix A.2) that N_trunc = 21, 27, 36 for N = 35, 45, 55 derivatives is 'the lowest number of terms observed to give us a stable SDP', which is an empirical stability criterion rather than a guarantee that the truncated block preserves the positivity properties required by the SDP. At the evaluation point xi* ≈ 0.03010 (eq. A.43), the boundary-channel radial coordinate is rho_bry ≈ 0.708, so the truncation error is not negligible. A functional that is non-negative on the truncated blocks can in principle be negative on the exact blocks, making the exclusion of h_2pt^gap = 0.5 spurious. The reported numerical instabilities for h_ann^gap < 0.2 (c=1) and < 0.12 (c=3/2) are consistent with this concern. The authors should either provide rigorous error bounds (e.g., interval arithmetic or a certificate that the positivity margin dominates the truncation error) or soften the 'rigorous' characterization of the affected bounds.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Section 1] The claim of 'first rigorous bootstrap result' for h_2pt^gap should be qualified with respect to the existing boundary bootstrap literature that already uses two-point function crossing equations, e.g., ref. [31] and the follow-ups cited in refs. [30-44].
  2. [Appendix B] The spelling 'Knizhnik-Zamalodchikov' should be 'Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov'.
  3. [References] Reference [46] is listed as 'To Appear' without a title or year; please complete the citation.
  4. [Section 3.2.2, eq. (3.18)] The objective in eq. (3.18) uses the relation b_{Δφ,h=2} = (Δφ/√(2c)) a_{Δφ}; a short derivation or citation for this relation in the general case would improve readability.
  5. [Section 2.2, eq. (2.44)] The sets I_a, I_2, I_4, and I_{2×2} are used in the inequalities (2.44) before their formal definitions in the following paragraph; reordering would make the presentation cleaner.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mixed-correlator bounds are produced by a forward SDP from crossing and positivity, not by fitting or by self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are numerical bounds obtained from the crossing equations (2.31)–(2.33), positivity conditions (2.44), and stated spectral assumptions. The functionals are solved for by SDPB; no parameter is fitted to the known Ising or free-boson solutions and then renamed a prediction. The test cases are external benchmarks used only for validation, and the WZW bulk spectrum and OPE coefficients are taken from the independent KZ solution reviewed in Appendix B. The self-citations (e.g., the radial-coordinate reference [87] and the defect-OPE review [33]) are technical references that are not load-bearing: the radial coordinate is a variable change, and the crossing equation for the two-point function is attributed to the independent reference [49]. The truncation of the hypergeometric series in Appendix A is a numerical approximation; the authors explicitly say N_trunc is the lowest order observed to give a stable SDP, and the numerical instabilities noted for small h_ann^gap are stated limitations. The possible lack of an interval-arithmetic certificate is a correctness/rigour concern, not a circularity, because the claimed exclusions do not reduce by construction to the inputs used to generate them. The bound h_2pt^gap < 0.5 in fig. 2 is a forward consequence of the crossing SDP under the stated gaps, not an output equivalent to the input spectrum.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard bootstrap axioms (unitarity, reflection positivity, conformal boundary, crossing) plus the method-of-images block identification. The two numerical normalization parameters listed are internal to the SDP implementation and do not change the physical content of the bounds. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • nu (one-point function rescaling exponent) = 3.98513
    Introduced in eq. (A.37) via a_Delta -> a_Delta nu^{-(Delta-Delta_min)} to ensure a common positive prefactor across the three crossing equations; its value is fixed by eq. (A.41) together with the choice tau* = 1 and z = 1/2. It is a numerical stabilization choice, not a physical parameter.
  • xi* (evaluation point for two-point function derivatives) = 0.03010
    Derivative functional alpha_2 in eq. (2.46) is evaluated at xi* = 0.03010, determined by eq. (A.41) to match the leading scaling of the other channels. The choice is made for numerical stability; the physical bounds should be insensitive to it if the SDP is solved exactly.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The BCFT is unitary and reflection positive, so OPE coefficients c_Delta^2, a_Delta^2, b_h^2 are non-negative and the exchange sums are positive.
    Used throughout section 2.2 to turn crossing equations into an SDP; stated in eq. (2.8) and around eq. (2.7).
  • domain assumption The boundary preserves a conformal subgroup (Cardy gluing T = T-bar, eq. (2.4)), so boundary operators organize into Virasoro multiplets.
    Section 2, under eq. (2.3), citing [47,48].
  • domain assumption Parity invariance is assumed so that spin is even and the OPE (2.1) holds with real coefficients.
    Section 2, text before eq. (2.1).
  • standard math The method-of-images relation identifies two-point function blocks with four-point chiral blocks (z -> -xi and z -> -1/xi, eq. (2.30)).
    Section 2.1.3, citing [49]; this is the key analytic input for the two-point crossing equation.
  • ad hoc to paper For the mixed system, only global sl(2) conformal blocks are used, not full Virasoro blocks, except for the annulus where Virasoro characters are sometimes used.
    Section 2.2 states 'when bootstrapping all three correlators, we will only use global blocks.' This weakens the constraints but the bounds remain valid for any CFT; it is a deliberate simplification.
  • domain assumption The relation b_0 = a_phi is imposed in SDP runs, assuming the external operator is the unique operator with a non-zero one-point function in its degenerate subspace.
    Section 2.1.3 and eq. (2.40); this excludes non-elementary boundary conditions from the primal problem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Bootstrap of Points and Lines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ECHWZAC6

@misc{pith2026250617382,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Bootstrap of Points and Lines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ECHWZAC6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17382}
}
abstract

We study two-dimensional conformal field theories (CFTs) with boundaries via the conformal bootstrap. We derive a positive semi-definite program from crossing symmetry of three observables: the annulus partition function, the two-point function of identical operators in the presence of a boundary, and the four-point function of the same operators on the infinite plane. The mixed-correlator system allows the numerical bootstrap to access new data, like the bulk-to-boundary Operator Product Expansion coefficients, and to strengthen the bounds on observables already contained in the partition function on the annulus, such as the boundary entropy. We test the method on the free boson CFT; then, as a first application, we produce new non-perturbative bounds on the entropy and the gaps in boundary CFTs with central charge $c=3/2,$ with special emphasis on the $\mathfrak{su}(2)_2$ WZW model.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Poland, S

    D. Poland, S. Rychkov, and A. Vichi,The Conformal Bootstrap: Theory, Numerical Techniques, and Applications,Rev. Mod. Phys.91(2019) 015002, [arXiv:1805.04405]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Rychkov and N

    S. Rychkov and N. Su,New developments in the numerical conformal bootstrap,Rev. Mod. Phys.96 (2024), no. 4 045004, [arXiv:2311.15844]. – 52 –

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    F. Kos, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi,Precision islands in the Ising and O(N)models, JHEP08(2016) 036, [arXiv:1603.04436]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Simmons-Duffin,The Lightcone Bootstrap and the Spectrum of the 3d Ising CFT,JHEP03(2017) 086, [arXiv:1612.08471]

    D. Simmons-Duffin,The Lightcone Bootstrap and the Spectrum of the 3d Ising CFT,JHEP03(2017) 086, [arXiv:1612.08471]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    S. M. Chester, W. Landry, J. Liu, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, N. Su, and A. Vichi,Carving out OPE space and preciseO(2)model critical exponents,JHEP06(2020) 142, [arXiv:1912.03324]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Nakayama and T

    Y. Nakayama and T. Ohtsuki,Conformal Bootstrap Dashing Hopes of Emergent Symmetry,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016), no. 13 131601, [arXiv:1602.07295]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    S. M. Chester, W. Landry, J. Liu, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, N. Su, and A. Vichi,Bootstrapping Heisenberg magnets and their cubic instability,arXiv:2011.14647

    arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    Rattazzi, V

    R. Rattazzi, V. S. Rychkov, E. Tonni, and A. Vichi,Bounding scalar operator dimensions in 4D CFT, JHEP0812(2008) 031, [arXiv:0807.0004]

    arXiv 2008

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    M. F. Paulos, J. Penedones, J. Toledo, B. C. van Rees, and P. Vieira,The S-matrix bootstrap. Part I: QFT in AdS,JHEP11(2017) 133, [arXiv:1607.06109]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    P. D. Anderson and M. Kruczenski,Loop Equations and bootstrap methods in the lattice,Nucl. Phys. B 921(2017) 702–726, [arXiv:1612.08140]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    X. Han, S. A. Hartnoll, and J. Kruthoff,Bootstrapping Matrix Quantum Mechanics,Phys. Rev. Lett. 125(2020), no. 4 041601, [arXiv:2004.10212]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    H. W. Lin,Bootstraps to strings: solving random matrix models with positivity,JHEP06(2020) 090, [arXiv:2002.08387]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    M. Cho, B. Gabai, Y.-H. Lin, V. A. Rodriguez, J. Sandor, and X. Yin,Bootstrapping the Ising Model on the Lattice,arXiv:2206.12538

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Poland, V

    D. Poland, V. Prilepina, and P. Tadić,The five-point bootstrap,JHEP10(2023) 153, [arXiv:2305.08914]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Antunes, S

    A. Antunes, S. Harris, A. Kaviraj, and V. Schomerus,Lining up a positive semi-definite six-point bootstrap,JHEP06(2024) 058, [arXiv:2312.11660]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Guerrieri, A

    A. Guerrieri, A. Homrich, and P. Vieira,Multiparticle Flux-Tube S-matrix Bootstrap,Phys. Rev. Lett. 134(2025), no. 4 041601, [arXiv:2404.10812]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J. L. Cardy,Conformal Invariance and Surface Critical Behavior,Nucl. Phys. B240(1984) 514–532

    1984

  10. [18]

    J. L. Cardy,Boundary Conditions, Fusion Rules and the Verlinde Formula,Nucl. Phys. B324(1989) 581–596

    1989

  11. [19]

    J. L. Cardy and D. C. Lewellen,Bulk and boundary operators in conformal field theory,Phys. Lett. B 259(1991) 274–278

    1991

  12. [20]

    Recknagel and V

    A. Recknagel and V. Schomerus,Boundary Conformal Field Theory and the Worldsheet Approach to D-Branes. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 11, 2013

    2013

  13. [21]

    D. C. Lewellen,Sewing constraints for conformal field theories on surfaces with boundaries,Nucl. Phys. B372(1992) 654–682

    1992

  14. [22]

    Sonoda,Sewing conformal field theories ii,Nuclear Physics B311(1988), no

    H. Sonoda,Sewing conformal field theories ii,Nuclear Physics B311(1988), no. 2 417–432

    1988

  15. [23]

    Runkel,Boundary structure constants for the A series Virasoro minimal models,Nucl

    I. Runkel,Boundary structure constants for the A series Virasoro minimal models,Nucl. Phys. B549 (1999) 563–578, [hep-th/9811178]. – 53 –

    1999 arXiv

  16. [24]

    R. E. Behrend, P. A. Pearce, V. B. Petkova, and J.-B. Zuber,Boundary conditions in rational conformal field theories,Nucl. Phys. B570(2000) 525–589, [hep-th/9908036]

    2000 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Friedan, A

    D. Friedan, A. Konechny, and C. Schmidt-Colinet,Lower bound on the entropy of boundaries and junctions in 1+1d quantum critical systems,Phys. Rev. Lett.109(2012) 140401, [arXiv:1206.5395]

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Collier, D

    S. Collier, D. Mazac, and Y. Wang,Bootstrapping Boundaries and Branes,arXiv:2112.00750

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Simmons-Duffin,A Semidefinite Program Solver for the Conformal Bootstrap,JHEP06(2015) 174, [arXiv:1502.02033]

    D. Simmons-Duffin,A Semidefinite Program Solver for the Conformal Bootstrap,JHEP06(2015) 174, [arXiv:1502.02033]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Mazac,Analytic bounds and emergence of AdS2 physics from the conformal bootstrap,JHEP04 (2017) 146, [arXiv:1611.10060]

    D. Mazac,Analytic bounds and emergence of AdS2 physics from the conformal bootstrap,JHEP04 (2017) 146, [arXiv:1611.10060]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    F. Kos, D. Poland, and D. Simmons-Duffin,Bootstrapping Mixed Correlators in the 3D Ising Model, JHEP11(2014) 109, [arXiv:1406.4858]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    D. M. McAvity and H. Osborn,Conformal field theories near a boundary in general dimensions,Nucl. Phys. B455(1995) 522–576, [cond-mat/9505127]

    1995 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Gliozzi, P

    F. Gliozzi, P. Liendo, M. Meineri, and A. Rago,Boundary and Interface CFTs from the Conformal Bootstrap,JHEP05(2015) 036, [arXiv:1502.07217]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Billó, V

    M. Billó, V. Gonçalves, E. Lauria, and M. Meineri,Defects in conformal field theory,JHEP04(2016) 091, [arXiv:1601.02883]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Liendo and C

    P. Liendo and C. Meneghelli,Bootstrap equations forN= 4 SYM with defects,JHEP01(2017) 122, [arXiv:1608.05126]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [35]

    de Leeuw, A

    M. de Leeuw, A. C. Ipsen, C. Kristjansen, K. E. Vardinghus, and M. Wilhelm,Two-point functions in AdS/dCFT and the boundary conformal bootstrap equations,JHEP08(2017) 020, [arXiv:1705.03898]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Lemos, P

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

    2018 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Mazáč, L

    D. Mazáč, L. Rastelli, and X. Zhou,An analytic approach to BCFTd,JHEP12(2019) 004, [arXiv:1812.09314]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Kaviraj and M

    A. Kaviraj and M. F. Paulos,The functional bootstrap for boundary CFT,JHEP04(2020) 135, [arXiv:1812.04034]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Bissi, T

    A. Bissi, T. Hansen, and A. Söderberg,Analytic Bootstrap for Boundary CFT,JHEP01(2019) 010, [arXiv:1808.08155]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Liendo, Y

    P. Liendo, Y. Linke, and V. Schomerus,A Lorentzian inversion formula for defect CFT,JHEP08 (2020) 163, [arXiv:1903.05222]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Padayasi, A

    J. Padayasi, A. Krishnan, M. A. Metlitski, I. A. Gruzberg, and M. Meineri,The extraordinary boundary transition in the 3d O(N) model via conformal bootstrap,SciPost Phys.12(2022), no. 6 190, [arXiv:2111.03071]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Barrat, A

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

    2022 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Bianchi, D

    L. Bianchi, D. Bonomi, and E. de Sabbata,Analytic bootstrap for the localized magnetic field,JHEP04 (2023) 069, [arXiv:2212.02524]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Gimenez-Grau,The Witten Diagram Bootstrap for Holographic Defects,arXiv:2306.11896

    A. Gimenez-Grau,The Witten Diagram Bootstrap for Holographic Defects,arXiv:2306.11896. – 54 –

    arXiv

  36. [45]

    R. A. Lanzetta,A defective approach to the conformal bootstrap. PhD thesis, University of Washington, 2024

    2024

  37. [46]

    Lanzetta, S

    R. Lanzetta, S. Liu, and M. Metlitski,To Appear,

  38. [47]

    Nakayama,Is boundary conformal in CFT?,Phys

    Y. Nakayama,Is boundary conformal in CFT?,Phys. Rev. D87(2013), no. 4 046005, [arXiv:1210.6439]

    2013 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Meineri, J

    M. Meineri, J. Penedones, and A. Rousset,Colliders and conformal interfaces,JHEP02(2020) 138, [arXiv:1904.10974]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Liendo, L

    P. Liendo, L. Rastelli, and B. C. van Rees,The Bootstrap Program for Boundary CFTd,JHEP07 (2013) 113, [arXiv:1210.4258]

    2013 arXiv

  41. [50]

    P. H. Ginsparg,APPLIED CONFORMAL FIELD THEORY, inLes Houches Summer School in Theoretical Physics: Fields, Strings, Critical Phenomena, 9, 1988.hep-th/9108028

    1988 arXiv

  42. [51]

    P. H. Ginsparg,Curiosities at c = 1,Nucl. Phys. B295(1988) 153–170

    1988

  43. [52]

    M. R. Gaberdiel, A. Recknagel, and G. M. T. Watts,The Conformal boundary states for SU(2) at level 1,Nucl. Phys. B626(2002) 344–362, [hep-th/0108102]

    2002 arXiv

  44. [53]

    M. R. Gaberdiel and A. Recknagel,Conformal boundary states for free bosons and fermions,JHEP11 (2001) 016, [hep-th/0108238]

    2001 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Cappelli and G

    A. Cappelli and G. D’Appollonio,Boundary states of c = 1 and 3/2 rational conformal field theories, JHEP02(2002) 039, [hep-th/0201173]

    2002 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Yamaguchi,Conformal boundary states incsu(2)1/G,Prog

    A. Yamaguchi,Conformal boundary states incsu(2)1/G,Prog. Theor. Phys.112(2004) 119–130, [hep-th/0309102]

    2004 arXiv

  47. [56]

    R. A. Janik,Exceptional boundary states at c=1,Nucl. Phys. B618(2001) 675–688, [hep-th/0109021]

    2001 arXiv

  48. [57]

    M. R. Gaberdiel, D. Israel, and E. Rabinovici,D-branes at multicritical points,JHEP04(2008) 086, [arXiv:0803.0291]

    2008 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Oshikawa and I

    M. Oshikawa and I. Affleck,Boundary conformal field theory approach to the critical two-dimensional Ising model with a defect line,Nucl. Phys. B495(1997) 533–582, [cond-mat/9612187]

    1997 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Recknagel and V

    A. Recknagel and V. Schomerus,Boundary deformation theory and moduli spaces of D-branes,Nucl. Phys. B545(1999) 233–282, [hep-th/9811237]

    1999 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Nemkov and S

    N. Nemkov and S. Ribault,Analytic conformal bootstrap and Virasoro primary fields in the Ashkin-Teller model,SciPost Phys.11(2021), no. 5 089, [arXiv:2106.15132]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [61]

    A. J. Bray and M. A. Moore,Critical behaviour of semi-infinite systems,Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General10(nov, 1977) 1927

    1977

  53. [62]

    Drukker, Z

    N. Drukker, Z. Kong, and G. Sakkas,Broken Global Symmetries and Defect Conformal Manifolds,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022), no. 20 201603, [arXiv:2203.17157]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Witten,Nonabelian Bosonization in Two-Dimensions,Commun

    E. Witten,Nonabelian Bosonization in Two-Dimensions,Commun. Math. Phys.92(1984) 455–472

    1984

  55. [64]

    Di Francesco, P

    P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu, and D. Senechal,Conformal Field Theory. Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997

    1997

  56. [65]

    Wess-zumino-witten models

    L. Eberhardt, “Wess-zumino-witten models.” https://www.conferences.itp.phys.ethz.ch/esi-school/Lecture_notes/WZW%20models.pdf, 2019

    2019

  57. [66]

    E. P. Verlinde,Fusion Rules and Modular Transformations in 2D Conformal Field Theory,Nucl. Phys. B300(1988) 360–376. – 55 –

    1988

  58. [67]

    V. G. Knizhnik and A. B. Zamolodchikov,Current Algebra and Wess-Zumino Model in Two-Dimensions,Nucl. Phys. B247(1984) 83–103

    1984

  59. [68]

    L. J. Dixon, P. H. Ginsparg, and J. A. Harvey,(central charge c) = 1 SUPERCONFORMAL FIELD THEORY,Nucl. Phys. B306(1988) 470–496

    1988

  60. [69]

    J. M. Maldacena, G. W. Moore, and N. Seiberg,Geometrical interpretation of D-branes in gauged WZW models,JHEP07(2001) 046, [hep-th/0105038]

    2001 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Kudrna,Boundary states in the SU(2)k WZW model from open string field theory,JHEP03(2023) 228, [arXiv:2112.12213]

    M. Kudrna,Boundary states in the SU(2)k WZW model from open string field theory,JHEP03(2023) 228, [arXiv:2112.12213]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Kudrna,Marginal deformations of SU(2)k WZW model boundary states in open string field theory, arXiv:2412.14024

    M. Kudrna,Marginal deformations of SU(2)k WZW model boundary states in open string field theory, arXiv:2412.14024

  63. [72]

    Fuchs and C

    J. Fuchs and C. Schweigert,Symmetry breaking boundaries. 1. General theory,Nucl. Phys. B558 (1999) 419–483, [hep-th/9902132]

    1999 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Quella and V

    T. Quella and V. Schomerus,Symmetry breaking boundary states and defect lines,JHEP06(2002) 028, [hep-th/0203161]

    2002 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Blakeley and A

    D. Blakeley and A. Recknagel,Symmetry-breaking boundary states for WZW models,Nucl. Phys. B806 (2009) 636–655, [arXiv:0705.1068]

    2009 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Quella, I

    T. Quella, I. Runkel, and G. M. T. Watts,Reflection and transmission for conformal defects,JHEP04 (2007) 095, [hep-th/0611296]

    2007 arXiv

  67. [76]

    El-Showk and M

    S. El-Showk and M. F. Paulos,Extremal bootstrapping: go with the flow,JHEP03(2018) 148, [arXiv:1605.08087]

    2018 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Cavaglià, N

    A. Cavaglià, N. Gromov, J. Julius, and M. Preti,Integrability and conformal bootstrap: One dimensional defect conformal field theory,Phys. Rev. D105(2022), no. 2 L021902, [arXiv:2107.08510]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Liendo, C

    P. Liendo, C. Meneghelli, and V. Mitev,Bootstrapping the half-BPS line defect,JHEP10(2018) 077, [arXiv:1806.01862]

    2018 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Gimenez-Grau and P

    A. Gimenez-Grau and P. Liendo,Bootstrapping line defects inN= 2theories,JHEP03(2020) 121, [arXiv:1907.04345]

    2020 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Behan, L

    C. Behan, L. Di Pietro, E. Lauria, and B. C. Van Rees,Bootstrapping boundary-localized interactions, JHEP12(2020) 182, [arXiv:2009.03336]

    2020 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Meineri, J

    M. Meineri, J. Penedones, and T. Spirig,Renormalization group flows in AdS and the bootstrap program,JHEP07(2024) 229, [arXiv:2305.11209]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Ghosh, M

    K. Ghosh, M. F. Paulos, and N. Suchel,Solving 1D crossing and QFT2/CFT1,arXiv:2503.22798

    arXiv

  74. [83]

    Bachas and I

    C. Bachas and I. Brunner,Fusion of conformal interfaces,JHEP02(2008) 085, [arXiv:0712.0076]

    2008 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Diatlyk, H

    O. Diatlyk, H. Khanchandani, F. K. Popov, and Y. Wang,Defect fusion and Casimir energy in higher dimensions,JHEP09(2024) 006, [arXiv:2404.05815]

    2024

  76. [85]

    Cuomo, Y.-C

    G. Cuomo, Y.-C. He, and Z. Komargodski,Impurities with a cusp: general theory and 3d Ising,JHEP 11(2024) 061, [arXiv:2406.10186]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [86]

    W. Zhu, C. Han, E. Huffman, J. S. Hofmann, and Y.-C. He,Uncovering Conformal Symmetry in the 3D Ising Transition: State-Operator Correspondence from a Quantum Fuzzy Sphere Regularization,Phys. Rev. X13(2023), no. 2 021009, [arXiv:2210.13482]

    2023 arXiv

  78. [87]

    Lauria, M

    E. Lauria, M. Meineri, and E. Trevisani,Radial coordinates for defect CFTs,JHEP11(2018) 148, [arXiv:1712.07668]. – 56 –

    2018 arXiv

  79. [88]

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

    2001 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Hogervorst and S

    M. Hogervorst and S. Rychkov,Radial Coordinates for Conformal Blocks,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 106004, [arXiv:1303.1111]. – 57 –

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.