Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 40 references

The ERG evolution operator has SO(1,d+1) conformal symmetry for any cutoff function, with generators that adapt to the cutoff.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 12:37 UTC pith:GOCV4FUH

load-bearing objection A well-constructed set of cutoff-dependent conformal generators for the ERG evolution action, but the paper's strong 'any cutoff / evolution operator symmetry' claim is undercut by the authors' own decision to ignore RG-time boundary terms. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.02056 v2 pith:GOCV4FUH submitted 2026-01-05 hep-th gr-qc

SO(1, d + 1) symmetry of the Exact RG equation

classification hep-th gr-qc
keywords exact renormalization groupSO(1,d+1) symmetryconformal symmetryevolution operatorcutoff functionPolchinski equationholographic RGAdS/CFT
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that the conformal symmetry behind AdS/CFT is not an accident of a special cutoff: the evolution operator of Polchinski's exact renormalization group equation carries a full SO(1,d+1) symmetry for any admissible cutoff function. The scale and special-conformal generators must be modified, with the special-conformal generator acquiring cutoff-dependent terms that make it quasi-local. If true, it explains why the special cutoff that maps ERG evolution to AdS space is special: only there the modified transformations reduce to standard AdS isometries. It also shows the ERG equation for the full Wilson action, not just the interaction part, can be rewritten as the same diffusion form by a field redefinition, so it has the same symmetry.

Core claim

In the paper's own terms: the Euclidean conformal group SO(1,d+1) is a symmetry of the action S[φ] that appears in the functional integral representation of the ERG evolution operator, for any admissible cutoff function G(p,t). The standard conformal generators get modified: D = p·∂_p + (d-Δ_φ) - ∂_t, and C_μ = 2(d-Δ_φ)∂_{pμ} + 2p_ρ∂²_{pρ pμ} - p_μ∂²_{pρ pρ} - 2∂_t∂_{pμ} - Ġ(∂_{pμ}1/Ġ)∂_t. These generators close under commutation on SO(1,d+1). For the special cutoff satisfying the AdS condition, C_μ reduces to the standard AdS special conformal generator with the z²p_μ term, so the symmetry becomes the usual AdS isometry; for generic cutoffs the generator is quasi-local but still closes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the evolution action S[φ] = (1/2)∫_p∫_t ∂_tφ(p,t)∂_tφ(-p,t)/Ġ(p,t), a free-particle-like action in momentum space whose inverse kinetic coefficient is the t-derivative of the cutoff function. The proof builds the symmetry by adding a -∂_t term to the dilatation generator and a combination of -2∂_t∂_{pμ} and -Ġ∂_{pμ}(1/Ġ)∂_t to the special conformal generator, using the identities p_μ∂_{pρ}(1/Ġ)=p_ρ∂_{pμ}(1/Ġ) and ∂_t(1/Ġ) - p·∂_p(1/Ġ) = -2ν/Ġ to cancel unwanted variations. These identities are what the cutoff function must satisfy for the argument to go through.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that the evolution action is invariant throws away all boundary terms in RG time t; the claimed symmetry of the evolution operator follows only if those boundary terms can be cancelled by boundary conditions, which the paper does not show.

What would settle it

Take a concrete admissible cutoff, such as the Gaussian K(p e^t)=e^{-p^2 e^{2t}}, and compute the variation of the ERG evolution operator including the t=t_i and t=t_f boundary terms explicitly. A non-vanishing boundary term that no local boundary condition on φ(p,t_i), φ(p,t_f) can remove would refute the claimed operator symmetry; a vanishing result for every cutoff would confirm it.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Scale invariance of fixed-point Wilson actions is realized with modified generators that include RG-time evolution, reconciling a finite cutoff with conformal symmetry.
  • For the specific cutoff that maps ERG evolution to AdS space, the modified generators take the standard AdS isometry form, explaining why that cutoff is singled out in holographic constructions.
  • The ERG equation for the full Wilson action can be rewritten in the same diffusion form by a field redefinition, so it too has the SO(1,d+1) symmetry; holographic-RG maps apply to the full action, not just the interaction part.
  • In the Hamiltonian formulation, the Hamiltonian that generates RG time is one of the SO(1,d+1) charges, and the modified conformal charges close correctly under commutation.
  • The symmetry is quasi-local (a Taylor expansion in derivatives) for generic cutoffs, which is a concrete property one can look for in exact-RG implementations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One could test numerically whether the discarded RG-time boundary terms vanish for non-special cutoffs; if they do not, the symmetry may hold only for special boundary conditions, which would make the special AdS cutoff physically distinguished.
  • The cutoff-dependent generators suggest a continuous family of 'soft conformal symmetries' interpolating between AdS and other bulk geometries, such as flat-space holography, where the same construction might yield different modified generators.
  • If the full-action ERG symmetry is confirmed, the same field-redefinition trick should make the symmetry visible in generating functionals with sources, connecting it directly to correlation functions of the boundary CFT.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the ERG evolution operator for Polchinski's equation has an SO(1,d+1) symmetry for any cutoff function. The modified scale generator is D = p·∂_p + (d−Δ_ϕ) − ∂_t (Eq. 3.11), and the modified special conformal generator is C_μ = 2(d−Δ_ϕ)∂_{pμ} + 2p_ρ∂²_{pρ pμ} − p_μ∂²_{pρ pρ} − 2∂_t∂_{pμ} − Ḡ(∂_{pμ}1/Ḡ)∂_t (Eq. 3.19). The authors show that the evolution action S[ϕ] (Eq. 3.1) is invariant under these transformations, extend the analysis to the transformed field y(p,z), provide a Hamiltonian derivation, verify the SO(1,d+1) Lie algebra in Appendix H, and show that the full Wilson action can be rewritten in Polchinski form. The proof, however, drops boundary terms in the RG time t (explicitly in §3, §4, and §9), and the central claim that the evolution operator, as opposed to the action, has the symmetry is therefore not established.

Significance. If fully established, the result would be a notable contribution to the ERG approach to holography: it would show that an SO(1,d+1) symmetry exists for a general cutoff and that the standard AdS isometries emerge only for a special cutoff. The paper contains substantial technical work: the modified generators are constructed explicitly, many consistency checks are performed, and the Lie algebra closure is verified in detail in the appendices. The authors are also transparent about the boundary-term limitation. Nevertheless, the advertised operator-level symmetry is exactly what is left unproven, because the action is shown to be invariant only modulo t-boundary terms. This is load-bearing for the paper's central claim and requires either a proof that the boundary terms vanish on the fixed-endpoint configuration space, a modification of the claim to quasi-invariance, or a treatment of boundary conditions and boundary states.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, §9; Eqs. (3.17), (2.9)] The central claim is that the ERG evolution operator in Eq. (2.9) is invariant under the modified SO(1,d+1) generators. The proof, however, establishes only that the action S[ϕ] is invariant up to boundary terms in the RG time t. For the scale generator the residual variation is a total t-derivative (Eq. 3.5), and for the conformal generator it is displayed in Eq. (3.17). The authors state in §3 that 'the boundary terms are ignored' and in §9 that 'we did not attempt any analysis on the boundary terms.' This is not a harmless technicality: the evolution operator is a path integral with fixed endpoint fields ϕ(t_i)=ϕ_i and ϕ(t_f)=ϕ_f, and the boundary terms depend on ˙ϕ at the endpoints, which are not fixed by the Dirichlet data. A quasi-invariance of the integrand does not imply invariance of the integrated operator unless the boundary terms vanish or are cancelled by a prescribed transf
  2. [§4, §4.1, Eq. (4.1)] The same boundary-term issue appears in the analysis of the transformed action S[y]. In Eq. (4.1) the total derivative term is dropped with the comment 'We will ignore the boundary term and its effect on the conformal symmetry of the boundary CFT in this paper.' This affects the claimed invariance of S[y] and, consequently, the map to AdS in §7. A symmetry of S[y] modulo boundary terms is not a symmetry of the corresponding evolution operator unless the boundary term is shown to be harmless. The paper does not provide such a demonstration, so the conclusion that the bulk AdS action enjoys the SO(1,d+1) isometry for the special cutoff remains conditional on the same unresolved boundary issue.
  3. [§5, Appendix G] The Hamiltonian derivation in §5 and Appendix G also relies on dropping boundary terms, both in momentum and in the RG time coordinate. For example, the computation of the self-commutator [C_μ,C_ν]=0 in Eq. (G.36) uses integration by parts and ignores total derivative terms. While momentum-space boundary terms are often benign for sufficiently decaying fields, the t/z-directed boundary terms are the same ones that the functional derivation ignores. Thus the Hamiltonian argument does not independently close the gap; it inherits it. The paper should either specify the class of fields and boundary conditions for which all discarded boundary terms vanish, or state the result as quasi-invariance of the action rather than invariance of the evolution operator.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §2.1] The abstract and introduction state 'for any form of the cutoff function', but §2.1 defines G(p,t)=K(p,t)/p^{2ν} with K analytic, depending only on |p|, and satisfying the scaling relation (2.3). The derivations use the specific properties (2.4)–(2.5). The claim should be qualified to this class of cutoff functions, or a separate argument should be given for genuinely arbitrary cutoffs.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (3.3)] Equation (3.3) has a likely typo: the integrand on the right-hand side is written as ˙ϕ(p,t)˙ϕ(p,t), whereas the action (3.1) and the preceding line contain ˙ϕ(p,t)˙ϕ(-p,t). Please check and correct; the same apparent typo appears in Eq. (3.5).
  3. [General editorial] The text contains several typos, e.g., 'chsoen' and 'raipdly' in §2.1. In §6 the generators are written with z=e^t while §3 uses t; the notation should be made uniform or the conversion explicitly restated. These are presentation issues and do not affect the technical content.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the SO(1,d+1) generators are constructed explicitly and the algebra check is independent; the main caveat is the dropped RG-time boundary terms, which is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

No significant circularity. The modified scale generator D (3.11) and conformal generator C (3.19) are constructed by explicit cancellation: C4 is proposed, then C5 is chosen so that its variation cancels the residual (3.15), with the residual boundary term (3.17) displayed. This is the standard method of constructing an invariance and is not circular; the independent content is that the resulting generators satisfy the SO(1,d+1) algebra. The closure computation in App. H uses only the cutoff properties (2.4)-(2.5), (7.1)-(7.3) and not the desired algebra as an input. No data are fitted and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to [28,29] motivate the AdS map and the special cutoff condition (7.6), but the any-cutoff symmetry proof is carried out in this paper, and the AdS reduction in Sec. 7 is a consistency check, not the load-bearing step. No uniqueness theorem by the same authors is invoked. The main caveat is the explicitly conceded dropping of RG-time boundary terms: Sec. 3 states "The boundary terms in t, however can modify the boundary states ψ_i,f ... We do not attempt to analyse this in the present work - and the boundary terms are ignored," and Sec. 9 repeats "we did not attempt any analysis on the boundary terms." Since the evolution operator is a path integral with fixed endpoints, action invariance up to t-boundary terms does not by itself prove the claimed operator-level symmetry unless the boundary terms vanish or are compensated. This is a genuine correctness gap in the paper's own terms, but it is not a circular reduction: the boundary terms are omitted rather than being equal by construction to the claimed result. I therefore keep the circularity score low (2) while flagging that gap.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central derivation assumes the standard ERG path-integral representation, an analytic cutoff class with scaling relations, and ignores RG-time boundary terms; no data fitting, no new entities.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Admissible cutoff functions K(p,t) are analytic, depend only on |p|, satisfy K=1 for p²e^{2t}/Λ0²<1, decay rapidly at large argument, and obey (p∂_p − ∂_t)K = 0.
    Defines the actual 'any cutoff' class; properties (2.4)-(2.5) and the entire cancellation algebra rely on it. Not literally any function.
  • domain assumption The ERG evolution operator has the free-particle path-integral representation with evolution action S[φ] = 1/2 ∫ dt dp φdot² / Ġ.
    Starting point from the Polchinski equation; standard ERG result, not re-derived.
  • domain assumption Boundary terms in RG time t can be dropped when checking invariance; they do not shield the claimed operator symmetry.
    Stated in §3 and §9; load-bearing because a symmetry of the action only up to boundary terms may not be a symmetry of the path integral with fixed endpoints.
  • domain assumption Fixed-point Wilson actions are conformally invariant 'with few exceptions'.
    Used in the Introduction as motivation for why the symmetry should exist; not used in the explicit construction, so it is not load-bearing.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 40444 in / 14370 out tokens · 148618 ms · 2026-08-03T12:37:22.498556+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

There is a method for constructing from first principles, a holographic bulk dual action in Euclidean $AdS_{d+1}$ space for a $d$-dimensional Euclidean CFT on the boundary, starting from the Polchinski's Exact Renormalization Group (ERG) equation that describes the RG evolution of the interaction part of the boundary Wilson action. The bulk action in $AdS_{d+1}$ has an $SO(1,d+1)$ symmetry and is obtained from the evolution operator of the Polchinski's ERG equation by a map that involves a field redefinition and requires a $\textit{special}$ form of the UV cutoff function in the ERG equation. In this paper, we show that for $\textit{any form}$ of the cutoff function, the ERG evolution operator has an $SO(1,d+1)$ symmetry. The generators of the special conformal transformation depend on the cutoff function. For the special cutoff function that maps to $AdS$ space, the transformations have the standard form of $AdS$ isometry. We also show that the ERG evolution operator for the $\textit{full}$ Wilson action can be put in the same form as the Polchinski's ERG equation by a field redefinition and consequently also has an $SO(1,d+1)$ symmetry for any cutoff function.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 33 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergrav- ity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergrav- ity,” Int. J. Theor. Phys.38, 1113 (1999) [Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 231 (1998)] doi:10.1023/A:1026654312961arXiv:hep-th/9711200

  2. [2]

    Gauge theory correlators from non- critical string theory,

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

  3. [3]

    Anti-de Sitter space and holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 253- 291,arXiv:hep-th/9802150

  4. [4]

    Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theo- ries,

    E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theo- ries,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 505 (1998)arXiv:hep-th/9803131

  5. [5]

    Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity,” Conf. Proc. C930308, 284 (1993) [gr-qc/9310026]

  6. [6]

    The World as a hologram,

    L. Susskind, “The World as a hologram,” J. Math. Phys.36, 6377 (1995) doi:10.1063/1.531249 [hep-th/9409089]

  7. [7]

    A Remark on the AdS / CFT correspondence and the renormalization group flow,

    E. T. Akhmedov, “A Remark on the AdS / CFT correspondence and the renormalization group flow,” Phys. Lett.B442(1998) 152-158,arXiv:hep-th/9806217 [hep-th]

  8. [8]

    Notes on multitrace operators and holographic renormalization group

    E. T. Akhmedov, “Notes on multitrace operators and holographic renormalization group". Talk given at 30 Years of Supersymmetry, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 13-27 Oct 2000, and at Workshop on Integrable Models, Strings and Quantum Gravity, Chennai, India, 15-19 Jan 2002.arXiv: hep-th/0202055

  9. [9]

    Hints on integrability in the Wilso- nian/holographic renormalization group

    E. T. Akhmedov, I.B. Gahramanov, E.T. Musaev,“ Hints on integrability in the Wilso- nian/holographic renormalization group"arXiv:1006.1970 [hep-th]

  10. [10]

    Geometric holography, the renormalization group and the c theorem,

    E. Alvarez and C. Gomez, “Geometric holography, the renormalization group and the c theorem,” Nucl.Phys.B541(1999) 441-460,arXiv:hep-th/9807226 [hep-th]. V.BalasubramanianandP.Kraus, “Space-timeandtheholographicrenormalizationgroup,” Phys. Rev. Lett.83(1999) 3605-3608,arXiv:hep-th/9903190 [hep-th]

  11. [11]

    Renormalization group flows from holography supersymmetry and a c theorem,

    D. Freedman, S. Gubser, K. Pilch, and N. Warner, “Renormalization group flows from holography supersymmetry and a c theorem,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.3(1999) 363-417, arXiv:hep-th/9904017 [hep-th]

  12. [12]

    On the holographic renormalization group,

    J. de Boer, E. P. Verlinde, and H. L. Verlinde, “On the holographic renormalization group,” JHEP08(2000) 003,arXiv:hep-th/9912012

  13. [13]

    The Holographic renormalization group,

    J. de Boer, “The Holographic renormalization group,” Fortsch. Phys.49(2001) 339-358, arXiv:hep-th/0101026 [hep-th]

  14. [14]

    Integrating out geometry: Holographic Wilsonian RG and the membrane paradigm,

    T. Faulkner, H. Liu, and M. Rangamani, “Integrating out geometry: Holographic Wilsonian RG and the membrane paradigm,” JHEP1108, 051 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2011)051 arXiv:1010.4036 [hep-th]

  15. [15]

    Realization of Symmetry in the ERG Approach to Quantum Field Theory,

    Y. Igarashi, K. Itoh, and H. Sonoda, “Realization of Symmetry in the ERG Approach to Quantum Field Theory,” Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.181, 1 (2010) doi:10.1143/PTPS.181.1 arXiv:0909.0327 [hep-th] 49

  16. [16]

    Construction of the Energy-Momentum Tensor for Wilson Actions,

    H. Sonoda, “Construction of the Energy-Momentum Tensor for Wilson Actions,” Phys. Rev. D92, no.6, 065016 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.065016 [arXiv:1504.02831 [hep-th]]

  17. [17]

    AdS / CFT correspondence and symmetry breaking,

    I. R. Klebanov and E. Witten, “AdS / CFT correspondence and symmetry breaking,” Nucl. Phys.B556, 89 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00387-9arXiv:hep-th/9905104

  18. [18]

    Holographic and Wilsonian Renormalization Groups,

    I. Heemskerk and J. Polchinski, “Holographic and Wilsonian Renormalization Groups,” JHEP1106, 031 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2011)031arXiv:1010.1264 [hep-th]

  19. [19]

    Holographic renormalisation group flows and renormalisation from a Wilsonian perspective,

    J. M. Lizana, T. R. Morris, and M. Perez-Victoria, “Holographic renormalisation group flows and renormalisation from a Wilsonian perspective,” JHEP1603, 198 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2016)198arXiv:1511.04432 [hep-th]

  20. [20]

    Scalar 3-point functions in CFT: renormalisa- tion, beta functions and anomalies,

    A. Bzowski, P. McFadden, and K. Skenderis, “Scalar 3-point functions in CFT: renormalisa- tion, beta functions and anomalies,” JHEP1603, 066 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2016)066 arXiv:1510.08442 [hep-th]

  21. [21]

    Holographic reconstruction of space-time and renormalization in the AdS / CFT correspondence,

    S. de Haro, S. N. Solodukhin, and K. Skenderis, “Holographic reconstruction of space-time and renormalization in the AdS / CFT correspondence,” Comm. Math. Phys.217, 595 (2001) doi:10.1007/s002200100381arXiv:hep-th/0002230

  22. [22]

    Lecture Notes on Holographic Renormalization,

    “Lecture Notes on Holographic Renormalization," Class.Quant.Grav.19:5849-5876,2002, arXiv:hep-th/0209067

  23. [23]

    Holographic description of quantum field theory

    S.-S. Lee, “Holographic description of quantum field theory”, Nuclear Physics B 832 (Jun,

  24. [24]

    Background independent holographic description: from matrix field theory to quantum gravity

    S.-S. Lee, “Background independent holographic description: from matrix field theory to quantum gravity”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2012 (Oct, 2012) 160,arXiv:1204.1780

  25. [25]

    The Renormalization group and the epsilon expansion,

    K. G. Wilson and J. B. Kogut, “The Renormalization group and the epsilon expansion,” Phys. Rept.12, 75 (1974). doi:10.1016/0370-1573(74)90023-4

  26. [26]

    Renormalization group equation for critical phenomena,

    F. J. Wegner and A. Houghton, “Renormalization group equation for critical phenomena,” Phys. Rev.A8(1973) 401-412

  27. [27]

    The renormalization group and critical phenomena,

    K. G. Wilson, “The renormalization group and critical phenomena,” Rev. Mod. Phys.55 (1983) 583-600

  28. [28]

    A Holographic form for Wilson’s RG,

    B. Sathiapalan and H. Sonoda, “A Holographic form for Wilson’s RG,” Nucl. Phys. B924, 603 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2017.09.018 [arXiv:1706.03371 [hep-th]]

  29. [29]

    Holographic Wilson’s RG,

    B. Sathiapalan and H. Sonoda, “Holographic Wilson’s RG,” Nucl. Phys. B948, 114767 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2019.114767 [arXiv:1902.02486 [hep-th]]

  30. [30]

    Renormalization and Effective Lagrangians,

    J. Polchinski, “Renormalization and Effective Lagrangians,” Nucl. Phys.B231, 269 (1984). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90287-6

  31. [31]

    Holographic RG and Exact RG in O(N) Model,

    B. Sathiapalan, “Holographic RG and Exact RG in O(N) Model,” Nucl. Phys. B959, 115142 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2020.115142 [arXiv:2005.10412 [hep-th]]

  32. [32]

    Bulk gauge fields and holographic RG from exact RG,

    P. Dharanipragada, S. Dutta and B. Sathiapalan, “Bulk gauge fields and holographic RG from exact RG,” JHEP23, 174 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2023)174 [arXiv:2201.06240 [hep-th]]. 50

  33. [33]

    Aspects of the map from exact RG to holographic RG in AdS and dS,

    P. Dharanipragada, S. Dutta and B. Sathiapalan, “Aspects of the map from exact RG to holographic RG in AdS and dS,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A37, no.37n38, 2250235 (2022) doi:10.1142/S0217732322502352 [arXiv:2301.13605 [hep-th]]

  34. [34]

    Holographic RG from an exact RG: Locality and general coordinate invariance in the bulk,

    P. Dharanipragada and B. Sathiapalan, “Holographic RG from an exact RG: Locality and general coordinate invariance in the bulk,” Phys. Rev. D109, no.10, 106017 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.106017 [arXiv:2306.07442 [hep-th]]

  35. [35]

    Mapping from Exact RG to Holographic RG in Flat Space,

    B. Sathiapalan “Mapping from Exact RG to Holographic RG in Flat Space,” JHEP09 (2025) 022 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2025)022 [arXiv:2408.00628]

  36. [36]

    Bulk Local Operators, Conformal Descendants and Radial Quan- tization,

    Z-L Wang, Y.Yan “Bulk Local Operators, Conformal Descendants and Radial Quan- tization," Adv.High Energy Phys. 2017 (2017) 8185690, doi:10.1155/2017/8185690, [arXiv:1507.05550]

  37. [37]

    On Functional Representations of the Conformal Algebra,

    O.J. Rosten “On Functional Representations of the Conformal Algebra," Phys. J. C (2017) 77: 477, [arXiv:1411.2603]

  38. [38]

    A Wilsonian Energy-Momentum Tensor,

    O.J. Rosten “A Wilsonian Energy-Momentum Tensor,"Eur. Phys. J. C (2018) 78: 312, [arXiv:1605.01055]

  39. [39]

    Conformal invariance for Wilson actions,

    H.Sonoda “Conformal invariance for Wilson actions," PTEP2017.083B05, [arXiv:1705.01239]. 51

  40. [2010]

    567585,arXiv:0912.5223