Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Surprises in the Ordinary: $O(N)$ Invariant Surface Defect in the $\epsilon$-expansion

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The ordinary surface defect in the O(N) Wilson-Fisher CFT obeys a shadow relation: the bulk and defect mass dimensions add to 4 through second order in ε, with a small ε³ correction.

desk verdict Solid epsilon-expansion computation with a genuinely new shadow relation and d1 anomaly, but the central relation rests on a single unverified four-loop residue; deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16522 v2 pith:AJZOUOZ3 submitted 2024-11-25 hep-th

Oleksandr Diatlyk , Zimo Sun , Yifan Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords surfacedefectWilson-FisherCFTepsilonexpansionshadowrelationordinaryboundaryconformalanomalydisplacementoperatorO(N)model
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 studies a two-dimensional 'ordinary' surface defect in the O(N) Wilson-Fisher conformal field theory in d = 4 − ε dimensions, defined by concentrating the mass deformation φ² on a surface. It computes defect conformal data for the lightest O(N) singlet and vector operators to third order in the ε-expansion, and it extracts the first analytic value for the d₁ conformal anomaly of a non-supersymmetric interacting conformal surface defect at finite N. The headline result is a shadow relation: the scaling dimensions of the bulk mass operator φ² and its defect counterpart φ̂² add to 4 through second order in ε, with a computable ε³ correction. These ε-expansion results, combined with the factorization proposal that the d = 3 interface is |Ord⟩⟨Ord|, agree with Monte Carlo data for ordinary boundary conditions of the O(N) model.

What carries the argument

The engine is fourth-order renormalization of the defect coupling h₀ in minimal subtraction. Bulk-defect Feynman integrals are converted to Mellin-Barnes integrals, complex contour integrals whose pole residues give the divergent and finite parts of the ε-expansion. The renormalized one-point function of the bulk mass operator fixes the defect beta function β_h; at the bulk Wilson-Fisher fixed point λ⋆ the zero of β_h gives the defect fixed point h⋆, and the derivative ∂_h β_h evaluated there gives Δ_{φ̂²}. The shadow relation is the near-cancellation between this defect dimension and the known bulk dimension Δ_{φ²}; the displacement-operator Ward identity then converts the same data into the d₁ anomaly.

What would settle it

Recompute the ε³ coefficient of Δ_{φ̂²} by an independent method and compare it with (3.18); any mismatch changes Δ_{φ²} + Δ_{φ̂²} at order ε³ and falsifies the shadow relation as stated. A complementary d = 3 check is a precise measurement of Δ_{φ²} + 2Δ_{φ̂}^{bdry}: values outside the roughly 3.96–3.98 range the paper reports for N = 1, 2, 3, 4 would falsify the approximate shadow relation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is the shadow relation (3.21): $$\Delta_{\$varphi^{2}$}+\Delta_{\widehat{\varphi}^2}=4+\frac{72(N+2)}{(N+8)^3}\$epsilon^{3}$+O(\$epsilon^{4}$).$$ The linear and quadratic terms cancel exactly, and at order ε³ only a rational term survives at the leading transcendental weight. This says the IR scaling dimension of the defect mass operator is nearly the 'shadow' of the bulk mass dimension. The paper further claims the first analytic finite-N result for the d₁ conformal anomaly of a non-supersymmetric interacting conformal surface defect, obtained from the displacement-operator norm through the Ward identity, and it reports b-anomaly data to order ε⁴. It interprets these results as support for the factorization of the d = 3 interface into two ordinary boundary conditions, with numerical agreement at N = 1, 2, 3, 4.

Load-bearing premise

The shadow relation rests on the ε³ coefficient in (3.18), which comes entirely from the four-loop defect renormalization in Appendix C; if any of the twelve Mellin-Barnes pole coefficients tabulated there is wrong, the claimed ε³ term and hence the exact relation change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The shadow relation makes a concrete d = 3 prediction: for the ordinary boundary, Δ_{φ²} + 2Δ_{φ̂}^{bdry} ≈ 4, and the paper reports agreement with Monte Carlo and bootstrap data for N = 1, 2, 3, 4.
  • Defect conformal data — Δ_{φ̂²}, Δ_{φ̂ᴵ}, the one-point coefficient a_{O₂}, and the Zamolodchikov norm — are now known one order higher in ε than previous analytic results.
  • The first finite-N analytic d₁ anomaly fixes the displacement-operator two-point function, linking the defect's conformal anomaly to entanglement-related data.
  • The b anomaly computed through ε⁴ extrapolates consistently with the b-theorem at d = 3 and d = 2.
  • Agreement of resummed ε-expansion with boundary numerics supports the factorization of the d = 3 interface into a pair of ordinary boundary conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is whether the same shadow sum holds for the magnetic line defect; the leading-order conformal-perturbation argument fails there, so a nonzero ε³ term would distinguish generic non-renormalization from the surface-specific mechanism.
  • If the unit-normalized two-point function ⟨φᴵ φ̂ᴵ⟩/(N_φ N_{φ̂}) = 1 + O(ε³) persists, it suggests a non-renormalization theorem for a canonically normalized bulk-defect OPE coefficient that an analytic bootstrap could establish independently.
  • Factorization predicts a second protected dimension-3 operator built from the sum of the two boundary displacement operators; identifying it in the ε-expansion would be a direct finite-N check of the |Ord⟩⟨Ord| picture.
  • The approximate d = 3 shadow sum holds for all N with available data, and exactly in large N, so it may interpolate across N; bootstrap data at intermediate N could test whether the small deficit from 4 varies with N as the ε³ coefficient suggests.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies an O(N)-invariant surface defect in the Wilson-Fisher CFT in d = 4 - epsilon dimensions, defined by a mass deformation localized on a two-dimensional surface. It computes defect CFT data to third order in the epsilon expansion: the scaling dimensions of the defect operators [φ^2]_R and φ^I, the defect OPE coefficients of the bulk operators φ^2 and φ^I, the displacement operator and its Zamolodchikov norm, the b and d1 conformal anomalies, and a test of the fundamental Ward identity. The central quantitative result is the 'shadow relation' (3.21), Δ_{φ^2} + Δ_{φ^2}^{hat} = 4 + 72 (N+2)/(N+8)^3 ε^3 + O(ε^4), obtained by combining the bulk dimension (3.20) with a new four-loop defect computation in Appendix C. The paper also compares its epsilon-expansion results, after Padé resummation, with Monte Carlo and fuzzy-sphere data in d=3, finding support for the factorization of the ordinary surface defect into a pair of ordinary boundary conditions.

Significance. If the results are correct, this is a significant advance in defect CFT: it provides the first analytic result for the d1 conformal anomaly of a non-supersymmetric interacting conformal surface defect at finite N, uncovers surprising non-renormalization properties, and gives strong quantitative support for the factorization proposal of the ordinary surface defect in d=3. The paper has several genuine strengths: large-N limits are checked against [6], the Ward identity (5.17) is verified to the computed order, and the four-loop computation is internally consistent in structure. However, the shadow relation to O(ε^3) rests on the four-loop Mellin-Barnes pole data in Appendix C, which lacks an independent verification; this is the main obstacle to full acceptance.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (3.21); Appendix C, Eqs. (C.5)-(C.17)] The central shadow relation at O(ε^3) depends on the four-loop defect renormalization in Appendix C, specifically on the divergent parts of the Mellin-Barnes integrals J_{0,4}, J^{(α)}_{1,3}, and J^{(α)}_{2,2}. These results are presented as final pole expansions and are said to be obtained with the help of MB.m; no independent method (e.g., a second numerical evaluation, a different integral reduction, or a check against a known bootstrap result) is provided. A single incorrect 1/ε or 1/ε^2 coefficient in any of these integrals would change the ε^3 coefficient in (3.18) and hence break or alter the central relation (3.21). I ask the authors to provide an independent verification of the key pole coefficients, or at least to state explicitly which internal consistency checks beyond the large-N limit and the Ward identity were applied to this four-loop data.
  2. [Appendix D, Eqs. (D.1)-(D.3)] The consistency check in Appendix D is not fully independent of the diagrammatic calculation, as the paper itself notes. The ansatz (D.1) contains undetermined coefficients q_{1,2,3} and r_{1,2,3}; imposing finiteness fixes q_2, q_3, r_2, r_3, but the shadow relation (D.3) is shown to depend only on r_1, which is then taken from the diagrammatic result (C.23). Thus the check verifies that the structure of the four-loop poles is internally consistent, but it does not provide an independent validation of the coefficient that controls the central claim. This limitation should be clearly stated wherever the 'consistency check' is summarized, not only in the appendix.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (4.26)] The comparison between the epsilon-expansion prediction b_{φ φ^hat} ≈ 0.586 and the fuzzy-sphere value ≈ 0.87 shows a substantial discrepancy; a few sentences explaining the expected size of higher-order corrections would help readers calibrate this comparison.
  2. [§5.1, Eq. (5.9)] The Zamolodchikov norm C_D at ε=1, with the ε^3 term included, gives 0.0296 versus the fuzzy-sphere-derived 0.018; the paper mentions that resummation is needed, but it would be useful to show at least one resummation attempt (e.g., Padé) to indicate whether the trend is toward agreement.
  3. [General] There are occasional typographical issues, such as 'Noneth eless' in §4.1 and inconsistent spacing around some equations; a careful proofreading pass would improve readability.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (C.23)] The renormalization factor h_0 is presented to fourth order in couplings, but the diagrammatic origin of the h λ^3 term via (C.3) is described only in words; including the intermediate expression for J_{3,1} would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the shadow relation follows from explicit diagrammatic computation, and self-citations appear only as background.

full rationale

The central quantitative claims are derived from explicit Feynman-diagram computations rather than being imposed by construction. The defect renormalization factor and beta function in Section 3 are obtained by requiring finiteness of the bulk one-point function, with the individual diagrams evaluated as Mellin-Barnes integrals in Section 3 and Appendix C. The shadow relation (3.21) is an arithmetic consequence of the independently computed bulk dimension (3.20), taken from [64], and the defect dimension (3.18), computed in Appendix C; no parameter is fitted to enforce the relation. The Appendix D check is explicitly labeled a consistency check: it starts from an ansatz and reproduces (3.21) only after using the diagrammatic coefficient r1 from (C.23), so it is not the derivation of the relation and introduces no circular input. Cross-checks against the large-N results of [6] and the internal Ward identity (5.17) provide independent support. The paper's self-citations, such as [25] in the list of references for defect RG monotonicity and [60,61] in future directions about defect fusion, are background citations and are not load-bearing for any derived result. The remaining concern that the four-loop Mellin-Barnes pole extractions in Appendix C have not been independently recomputed is a correctness or verification risk, not a circularity risk: an incorrect residue would change the epsilon^3 coefficient, which shows the result is not predetermined by the structure of the calculation.

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

The central claims rest on standard perturbative QFT machinery (Mellin-Barnes integrals, MS scheme), the bulk renormalization from the literature, and two domain assumptions: the identification of the IR fixed point of the defect RG flow, and the d=3 factorization conjecture used for numerical comparisons. No ad hoc parameters or new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The O(N) Wilson-Fisher model in d=4-epsilon with the surface mass deformation (2.6) flows to the conformal fixed point described by the perturbative fixed point h_star (3.15).
    This is the premise of the whole defect perturbation theory, inherited from [3-7]. If the flow reached a different fixed point, the computed DCFT data would not describe the IR defect.
  • domain assumption In d=3, the conformal interface factorizes as |Ord><Ord| into two ordinary boundary conditions.
    Used to compare surface data to boundary Monte Carlo data (Section 3.1, Table 4.1, Eq. (5.11), Eq. (6.17)). Supported by large N [3,7] but not proven at finite N.
  • standard math The Mellin-Barnes representation (A.4) and the MB.m package [65] give correct analytic continuation and pole extraction for the bulk-defect integrals.
    Relied on throughout Appendices A and C to evaluate the divergent parts that fix the renormalization constants.
  • standard math The bulk renormalization factors Z_phi2, Z_phi and beta_lambda from [64] are correct to the orders used.
    Input to the defect renormalization in Sections 3 and 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Surprises in the Ordinary: $O(N)$ Invariant Surface Defect in the $\epsilon$-expansion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AJZOUOZ3

@misc{pith2026241116522,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Surprises in the Ordinary: $O(N)$ Invariant Surface Defect in the $\epsilon$-expansion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AJZOUOZ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16522}
}
abstract

We study an $O(N)$ invariant surface defect in the Wilson-Fisher conformal field theory (CFT) in $d=4-\epsilon$ dimensions. This defect is defined by mass deformation on a two-dimensional surface that generates localized disorder and is conjectured to factorize into a pair of ordinary boundary conditions in $d=3$. We determine defect CFT data associated with the lightest $O(N)$ singlet and vector operators up to the third order in the $\epsilon$-expansion, find agreements with results from numerical methods and provide support for the factorization proposal in $d=3$. Along the way, we observe surprising non-renormalization properties for surface anomalous dimensions and operator-product-expansion coefficients in the $\epsilon$-expansion. We also analyze the full conformal anomalies for the surface defect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16522 by the authors.

Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Diagrams contributing to hφ 2 (η)i at order h 3 0 , λ0h 2 0 and λ 2 0h0. In this section, we carry out the renormalization of the defect coupling h0 to the third order in coupling constants, by computing the one-point function of the bulk O(N) invariant operator φ 2 0 ≡ φ I 0φ I 0 . Based on this result, we will also derive the scaling dimension of the defect operator φˆ2 0 = φˆI 0φˆI 0 which dominates the bulk-defe… view at source ↗
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Diagrams for hφˆI 0 (x1)φˆI 0 (x2)i up to the quadratic order in the couplings. In this section, we shift our focus to the fundamental scalar φ I , which is the lightest nontrivial operator in the O(N) WF CFT. The OPE of this O(N) vector operator with the ordinary surface defect is dominated to leading order by the the defect fundamental field φˆI . We will derive the anomalous dimension of this defect operator to t… view at source ↗
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2. Diagrams for hφ IφˆI i up to the quadratic order in the couplings. The first diagram simply evaluates to Q0 = Cφ (x 2 1+η 2 1 ) d−2 2 . The contributions from the second and the third diagrams take a similar form Q1 = −2h0C 2 φ Z d 2x2 (x 2 12 + η 2 1 ) d−2 2 x d−2 2 , Q2 = 4h 2 0C 3 φC2; d−2 2 , d−2 2 Z d 2x2 (x 2 12 + η 2 1 ) d−2 2 x 2(d−3) 2 . (4.13) For our purpose, we need to expand Q1 to order ǫ and Q2 to orde… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.3. Figure 4.3: Contour deformation for the MB integral (4.16). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4_3.png]
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1: Renormalization of the operator ∂aφ 2 0 on the defect. The defect breaks the translational symmetry of the bulk theory. This symmetry breaking leads to protected primary operators on the defect, known as displacement operators [2]. More precisely, the displacement op…
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.1. Figure 6.1: Diagrams contributing to the b anomaly at the ǫ 4 order. At the fourth order in couplings, the five diagrams in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_6_1.png]
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.2. Figure 6.2: Contour deformation for the MB integral (6.7). T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_6_2.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Transdimensional Defects

    hep-th 2024-11 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Defects of continuously adjustable dimension p=2+δ are defined and analyzed in the O(N) model, yielding new interfaces and non-local 3d CFTs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [6]

    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,” JHEP 12 (2023) 004, arXiv:2305.11402 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Boundary and Defect CFT: Open Problems and Applications,

    N. Andrei et al. , “Boundary and Defect CFT: Open Problems and Applications, ” J. Phys. A 53 no. 45, (2020) 453002, arXiv:1810.05697 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [2]

    Def ects in conformal field theory,

    M. Bill` o, V. Gon¸ calves, E. Lauria, and M. Meineri, “Def ects in conformal field theory,” JHEP 04 (2016) 091, arXiv:1601.02883 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [3]

    A plane defect in the 3d O (N) model,

    A. Krishnan and M. A. Metlitski, “A plane defect in the 3d O (N) model,” SciPost Phys. 15 no. 3, (2023) 090, arXiv:2301.05728 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [4]

    Surface defects in the O(N) model,

    M. Tr´ epanier, “Surface defects in the O(N) model,” JHEP 09 (2023) 074, arXiv:2305.10486 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [5]

    Phases of surface defects i n Scalar Field Theories,

    A. Raviv-Moshe and S. Zhong, “Phases of surface defects i n Scalar Field Theories,” JHEP 08 (2023) 143, arXiv:2305.11370 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Critical behaviour of semi-in finite systems,

    A. J. Bray and M. A. Moore, “Critical behaviour of semi-in finite systems,” J. Phys. A 10 no. 11, (1977) 1927

    1977

  8. [8]

    Zinn-Justin, Quantum field theory and critical phenomena , vol

    J. Zinn-Justin, Quantum field theory and critical phenomena , vol. 77 of International Series of Monographs on Physics . Oxford University Press, 4, 2021. 43

    2021

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    The Theory of boundary critical phenomena,

    H. W. Diehl, “The Theory of boundary critical phenomena, ” Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 11 (1997) 3503–3523, arXiv:cond-mat/9610143

    1997 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Un covering Conformal Symmetry in the 3D Ising Transition: State-Operator Corres pondence from a Quantum Fuzzy Sphere Regularization,

    W. Zhu, C. Han, E. Huffman, J. S. Hofmann, and Y.-C. He, “Un covering Conformal Symmetry in the 3D Ising Transition: State-Operator Corres pondence from a Quantum Fuzzy Sphere Regularization,” Phys. Rev. X 13 no. 2, (2023) 021009, arXiv:2210.13482 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ising BCFT from Fuzzy Hemisphere,

    M. Dedushenko, “Ising BCFT from Fuzzy Hemisphere,” arXiv:2407.15948 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Studying the 3d Ising surface CFTs on the fuzzy sphere,

    Z. Zhou and Y. Zou, “Studying the 3d Ising surface CFTs on the fuzzy sphere,” arXiv:2407.15914 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    R´ e nyi entropy and conformal defects,

    L. Bianchi, M. Meineri, R. C. Myers, and M. Smolkin, “R´ e nyi entropy and conformal defects,” JHEP 07 (2016) 076, arXiv:1511.06713 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Conf ormal Invariance in the Long-Range Ising Model,

    M. F. Paulos, S. Rychkov, B. C. van Rees, and B. Zan, “Conf ormal Invariance in the Long-Range Ising Model,” Nucl. Phys. B 902 (2016) 246–291, arXiv:1509.00008 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A scaling theory for the long-range to short-range crossover and an infrared duality,

    C. Behan, L. Rastelli, S. Rychkov, and B. Zan, “A scaling theory for the long-range to short-range crossover and an infrared duality,” J. Phys. A 50 no. 35, (2017) 354002, arXiv:1703.05325 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Skeleton expansion and large spin boots trap for φ3 theory,

    V. Goncalves, “Skeleton expansion and large spin boots trap for φ3 theory,” arXiv:1809.09572 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    An alternat ive to diagrams for the critical O(N) model: dimensions and structure constants to order 1/N 2,

    L. F. Alday, J. Henriksson, and M. van Loon, “An alternat ive to diagrams for the critical O(N) model: dimensions and structure constants to order 1/N 2,” JHEP 01 (2020) 063, arXiv:1907.02445 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    O(N ) models with boundary interactions and their long range generalizations,

    S. Giombi and H. Khanchandani, “ O(N ) models with boundary interactions and their long range generalizations,” JHEP 08 no. 08, (2020) 010, arXiv:1912.08169 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Conformal anomaly of subman ifold observables in AdS / CFT correspondence,

    C. R. Graham and E. Witten, “Conformal anomaly of subman ifold observables in AdS / CFT correspondence,” Nucl. Phys. B 546 (1999) 52–64, arXiv:hep-th/9901021

    1999 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Weyl anomaly for Wilso n surfaces,

    M. Henningson and K. Skenderis, “Weyl anomaly for Wilso n surfaces,” JHEP 06 (1999) 012, arXiv:hep-th/9905163

    1999 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Entanglement Entropy, Tr ace Anomalies and Holography,

    A. Schwimmer and S. Theisen, “Entanglement Entropy, Tr ace Anomalies and Holography,” Nucl. Phys. B 801 (2008) 1–24, arXiv:0802.1017 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Constraint on Defect and Bou ndary Renormalization Group Flows,

    K. Jensen and A. O’Bannon, “Constraint on Defect and Bou ndary Renormalization Group Flows,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 no. 9, (2016) 091601, arXiv:1509.02160 [hep-th] . 44

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Irrevers ibility in quantum field theories with boundaries,

    H. Casini, I. Salazar Landea, and G. Torroba, “Irrevers ibility in quantum field theories with boundaries,” JHEP 04 (2019) 166, arXiv:1812.08183 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    To wards a C-theorem in defect CFT,

    N. Kobayashi, T. Nishioka, Y. Sato, and K. Watanabe, “To wards a C-theorem in defect CFT,” JHEP 01 (2019) 039, arXiv:1810.06995 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Surface defect, anomalies and b-extremizati on,

    Y. Wang, “Surface defect, anomalies and b-extremizati on,” JHEP 11 (2021) 122, arXiv:2012.06574 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    RG flows on two-dim ensional spherical defects,

    T. Shachar, R. Sinha, and M. Smolkin, “RG flows on two-dim ensional spherical defects,” SciPost Phys. 15 no. 6, (2023) 240, arXiv:2212.08081 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Irrevers ibility, QNEC, and defects,

    H. Casini, I. Salazar Landea, and G. Torroba, “Irrevers ibility, QNEC, and defects,” JHEP 07 (2023) 004, arXiv:2303.16935 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    The O(N ) model with φ6 potential in R2 × R+,

    C. P. Herzog and N. Kobayashi, “The O(N ) model with φ6 potential in R2 × R+,” JHEP 09 (2020) 126, arXiv:2005.07863 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Selected topics in anal ytic conformal bootstrap: A guided journey,

    A. Bissi, A. Sinha, and X. Zhou, “Selected topics in anal ytic conformal bootstrap: A guided journey,” Phys. Rept. 991 (2022) 1–89, arXiv:2202.08475 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    The ǫ-expansion from conformal field theory,

    S. Rychkov and Z. M. Tan, “The ǫ-expansion from conformal field theory,” J. Phys. A 48 no. 29, (2015) 29FT01, arXiv:1505.00963 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Conform al Bootstrap in Mellin Space,

    R. Gopakumar, A. Kaviraj, K. Sen, and A. Sinha, “Conform al Bootstrap in Mellin Space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 no. 8, (2017) 081601, arXiv:1609.00572 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A Mellin space approach to the conformal bootstrap,

    R. Gopakumar, A. Kaviraj, K. Sen, and A. Sinha, “A Mellin space approach to the conformal bootstrap,” JHEP 05 (2017) 027, arXiv:1611.08407 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Revisiting the dilatation operator of the W ilson–Fisher fixed point,

    P. Liendo, “Revisiting the dilatation operator of the W ilson–Fisher fixed point,” Nucl. Phys. B 920 (2017) 368–384, arXiv:1701.04830 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Anomalous dimensions of spinning operato rs from conformal symmetry,

    F. Gliozzi, “Anomalous dimensions of spinning operato rs from conformal symmetry,” JHEP 01 (2018) 113, arXiv:1711.05530 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Taming the ǫ-expansion with large spin perturbation theory,

    L. F. Alday, J. Henriksson, and M. van Loon, “Taming the ǫ-expansion with large spin perturbation theory,” JHEP 07 (2018) 131, arXiv:1712.02314 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Critical O(N) model to or derǫ4 from analytic bootstrap,

    J. Henriksson and M. Van Loon, “Critical O(N) model to or derǫ4 from analytic bootstrap,” J. Phys. A 52 no. 2, (2019) 025401, arXiv:1801.03512 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    On the Polyakov-Mellin boot strap,

    R. Gopakumar and A. Sinha, “On the Polyakov-Mellin boot strap,” JHEP 12 (2018) 040, arXiv:1809.10975 [hep-th] . 45

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Relating diagrammatic expansion wi th conformal correlator expansion,

    S. Guha and K. Sen, “Relating diagrammatic expansion wi th conformal correlator expansion,” arXiv:1911.11188 [hep-th]

    1911 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A pplications of dispersive sum rules: ε-expansion and holography,

    D. Carmi, J. Penedones, J. A. Silva, and A. Zhiboedov, “A pplications of dispersive sum rules: ε-expansion and holography,” SciPost Phys. 10 no. 6, (2021) 145, arXiv:2009.13506 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Analytic Boots trap for Boundary CFT,

    A. Bissi, T. Hansen, and A. S¨ oderberg, “Analytic Boots trap for Boundary CFT,” JHEP 01 (2019) 010, arXiv:1808.08155 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Crossing s ymmetry, transcendentality and the Regge behaviour of 1d CFTs,

    P. Ferrero, K. Ghosh, A. Sinha, and A. Zahed, “Crossing s ymmetry, transcendentality and the Regge behaviour of 1d CFTs,” JHEP 07 (2020) 170, arXiv:1911.12388 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    On analytic bootstrap for int erface and boundary CFT,

    P. Dey and A. S¨ oderberg, “On analytic bootstrap for int erface and boundary CFT,” JHEP 07 (2021) 013, arXiv:2012.11344 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Analytic bo otstrap of mixed correlators in the O(n) CFT,

    F. Bertucci, J. Henriksson, and B. McPeak, “Analytic bo otstrap of mixed correlators in the O(n) CFT,” JHEP 10 (2022) 104, arXiv:2205.09132 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Conformal dispersion relati ons for defects and boundaries,

    L. Bianchi and D. Bonomi, “Conformal dispersion relati ons for defects and boundaries,” SciPost Phys. 15 no. 2, (2023) 055, arXiv:2205.09775 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Probing magnetic line defects with t wo-point functions,

    A. Gimenez-Grau, “Probing magnetic line defects with t wo-point functions,” arXiv:2212.02520 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Analytic boot strap for the localized magnetic field,

    L. Bianchi, D. Bonomi, and E. de Sabbata, “Analytic boot strap for the localized magnetic field,” JHEP 04 (2023) 069, arXiv:2212.02524 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Fermions in boundary confor mal field theory: crossing symmetry and E-expansion,

    C. P. Herzog and V. Schaub, “Fermions in boundary confor mal field theory: crossing symmetry and E-expansion,” JHEP 02 (2023) 129, arXiv:2209.05511 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    The epsilon expansion of the O(N) model with line defect from conformal field theory,

    T. Nishioka, Y. Okuyama, and S. Shimamori, “The epsilon expansion of the O(N) model with line defect from conformal field theory,” JHEP 03 (2023) 203, arXiv:2212.04076 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Comments on epsilon expansion of the O(N) model with boundary,

    T. Nishioka, Y. Okuyama, and S. Shimamori, “Comments on epsilon expansion of the O(N) model with boundary,” JHEP 03 (2023) 051, arXiv:2212.04078 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bootstrapping conformal defect op erators on a line,

    P. Dey and K. Ghosh, “Bootstrapping conformal defect op erators on a line,” JHEP 10 (2024) 129, arXiv:2404.06576 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Pertur bation Theory at Large Order. 1. The phi**2N Interaction,

    E. Brezin, J. C. Le Guillou, and J. Zinn-Justin, “Pertur bation Theory at Large Order. 1. The phi**2N Interaction,” Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 1544–1557. 46

    1977

  44. [52]

    Precise determination of critical ex ponents and equation of state by field theory methods,

    J. Zinn-Justin, “Precise determination of critical ex ponents and equation of state by field theory methods,” Phys. Rept. 344 (2001) 159–178, arXiv:hep-th/0002136

    2001 arXiv

  45. [53]

    The critical O(N) CFT: Methods and conf ormal data,

    J. Henriksson, “The critical O(N) CFT: Methods and conf ormal data,” Phys. Rept. 1002 (2023) 1–72, arXiv:2201.09520 [hep-th]

    2023

  46. [54]

    Benchmarking the Ising universality class in 3 ≤d< 4 dimensions,

    C. Bonanno, A. Cappelli, M. Kompaniets, S. Okuda, and K. J. Wiese, “Benchmarking the Ising universality class in 3 ≤d< 4 dimensions,” SciPost Phys. 14 no. 5, (2023) 135, arXiv:2210.03051 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Divergence of the Perturbation Theory S eries and the Quasiclassical Theory,

    L. N. Lipatov, “Divergence of the Perturbation Theory S eries and the Quasiclassical Theory,” Sov. Phys. JETP 45 (1977) 216–223

    1977

  48. [56]

    Instantons or renormalons? R emarks on φ4 d− 4 theory in the MS scheme,

    G. V. Dunne and M. Meynig, “Instantons or renormalons? R emarks on φ4 d− 4 theory in the MS scheme,” Phys. Rev. D 105 no. 2, (2022) 025019, arXiv:2111.15554 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Fusion of conformal defects in four dim ensions,

    A. S¨ oderberg, “Fusion of conformal defects in four dim ensions,” JHEP 04 (2021) 087, arXiv:2102.00718 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A scaling limit for line and surfa ce defects,

    D. Rodriguez-Gomez, “A scaling limit for line and surfa ce defects,” JHEP 06 (2022) 071, arXiv:2202.03471 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Fusion of conformal defects in in teracting theories,

    A. S¨ oderberg Rousu, “Fusion of conformal defects in in teracting theories,” JHEP 10 (2023) 183, arXiv:2304.10239 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    D efect fusion and Casimir energy in higher dimensions,

    O. Diatlyk, H. Khanchandani, F. K. Popov, and Y. Wang, “D efect fusion and Casimir energy in higher dimensions,” JHEP 09 (2024) 006, arXiv:2404.05815 [hep-th]

    2024

  53. [61]

    E ffective Field Theory of Conformal Boundaries,

    O. Diatlyk, H. Khanchandani, F. K. Popov, and Y. Wang, “E ffective Field Theory of Conformal Boundaries,” arXiv:2406.01550 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Effective theor y for fusion of conformal defects,

    P. Kravchuk, A. Radcliffe, and R. Sinha, “Effective theor y for fusion of conformal defects,” arXiv:2406.04561 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    Impurities wit h a cusp: general theory and 3d Ising,

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

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Kleinert and V

    H. Kleinert and V. Schulte-Frohlinde, Critical properties of phi**4-theories . 2001

    2001

  57. [65]

    Automatized analytic continuation of Mell in-Barnes integrals,

    M. Czakon, “Automatized analytic continuation of Mell in-Barnes integrals,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 175 (2006) 559–571, arXiv:hep-ph/0511200

    2006 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Thermodynamic casimir force: A monte c arlo study of the crossover between the ordinary and the normal surface universality cl ass,

    M. Hasenbusch, “Thermodynamic casimir force: A monte c arlo study of the crossover between the ordinary and the normal surface universality cl ass,” 47 Phys. Rev. B 83 (Apr, 2011) 134425. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.134425

    2011 doi

  59. [67]

    The O(N ) Model in 4<d< 6 : Instantons and complex CFTs,

    S. Giombi, R. Huang, I. R. Klebanov, S. S. Pufu, and G. Tar nopolsky, “The O(N ) Model in 4<d< 6 : Instantons and complex CFTs,” Phys. Rev. D 101 no. 4, (2020) 045013, arXiv:1910.02462 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Spanning forest polynomials and the transcendental weight of Feynman graphs,

    F. Brown and K. Yeats, “Spanning forest polynomials and the transcendental weight of Feynman graphs,” Commun. Math. Phys. 301 (2011) 357–382, arXiv:0910.5429 [math-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Line an d surface defects for the free scalar field,

    E. Lauria, P. Liendo, B. C. Van Rees, and X. Zhao, “Line an d surface defects for the free scalar field,” JHEP 01 (2021) 060, arXiv:2005.02413 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Irreversibility of the Flux of th e Renormalization Group in a 2D Field Theory,

    A. B. Zamolodchikov, “Irreversibility of the Flux of th e Renormalization Group in a 2D Field Theory,” JETP Lett. 43 (1986) 730–732

    1986

  63. [71]

    Is There a c Theorem in Four-Dimensions?,

    J. L. Cardy, “Is There a c Theorem in Four-Dimensions?,” Phys. Lett. B 215 (1988) 749–752

    1988

  64. [72]

    F-Theorem wi thout Supersymmetry,

    I. R. Klebanov, S. S. Pufu, and B. R. Safdi, “F-Theorem wi thout Supersymmetry,” JHEP 10 (2011) 038, arXiv:1105.4598 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  65. [73]

    G eneralized F -Theorem and the ǫ Expansion,

    L. Fei, S. Giombi, I. R. Klebanov, and G. Tarnopolsky, “G eneralized F -Theorem and the ǫ Expansion,” JHEP 12 (2015) 155, arXiv:1507.01960 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  66. [74]

    The 1/n expansion in phase transitions and criti cal phenomena. vol. 6., c. domb and ms green eds,

    S. Ma, “The 1/n expansion in phase transitions and criti cal phenomena. vol. 6., c. domb and ms green eds,” 1976

    1976

  67. [75]

    The Critical O(N) sigma model at dim ensions 2 < d< 4: A List of quasiprimary fields,

    K. Lang and W. Ruhl, “The Critical O(N) sigma model at dim ensions 2 < d< 4: A List of quasiprimary fields,” Nucl. Phys. B 402 (1993) 573–603

    1993

  68. [76]

    The Critical O(N) sigma model at dim ension 2 < d < 4: Hardy-Ramanujan distribution of quasiprimary fields and a c ollective fusion approach,

    K. Lang and W. Ruhl, “The Critical O(N) sigma model at dim ension 2 < d < 4: Hardy-Ramanujan distribution of quasiprimary fields and a c ollective fusion approach,” Z. Phys. C 63 (1994) 531–540, arXiv:hep-th/9401116

    1994 arXiv

  69. [77]

    High -gradient operators in the N-vector model,

    S. E. Derkachov, S. K. Kehrein, and A. N. Manashov, “High -gradient operators in the N-vector model,” Nucl. Phys. B 493 (1997) 660–682, arXiv:cond-mat/9610106

    1997 arXiv

  70. [78]

    THE 1/N EXPANSION FOR THE N VECTOR M ODEL IN THE SEMIINFINITE SPACE,

    K. Ohno and Y. Okabe, “THE 1/N EXPANSION FOR THE N VECTOR M ODEL IN THE SEMIINFINITE SPACE,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 70 (1983) 1226–1239

    1983

  71. [79]

    The Bootstra p Program for Boundary CFT d,

    P. Liendo, L. Rastelli, and B. C. van Rees, “The Bootstra p Program for Boundary CFT d,” JHEP 07 (2013) 113, arXiv:1210.4258 [hep-th] . 48

    2013 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Preci sion Islands in the Ising and O(N ) Models,

    F. Kos, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, “Preci sion Islands in the Ising and O(N ) Models,” JHEP 08 (2016) 036, arXiv:1603.04436 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Localized magn etic field in the O(N) model,

    G. Cuomo, Z. Komargodski, and M. Mezei, “Localized magn etic field in the O(N) model,” JHEP 02 (2022) 134, arXiv:2112.10634 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Critica l behavior in the presence of an order-parameter pinning field,

    F. Parisen Toldin, F. F. Assaad, and S. Wessel, “Critica l behavior in the presence of an order-parameter pinning field,” Phys. Rev. B 95 no. 1, (2017) 014401, arXiv:1607.04270 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2017 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Boundar y and Interface CFTs from the Conformal Bootstrap,

    F. Gliozzi, P. Liendo, M. Meineri, and A. Rago, “Boundar y and Interface CFTs from the Conformal Bootstrap,” JHEP 05 (2015) 036, arXiv:1502.07217 [hep-th] . [Erratum: JHEP 12, 093 (2021)]

    2015 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Surfac e and bulk transitions in three-dimensional O(n) models,

    Y. J. Deng, H. W. J. Blote, and M. P. Nightingale, “Surfac e and bulk transitions in three-dimensional O(n) models,” Phys. Rev. E 72 (2005) 016128–016138, arXiv:cond-mat/0504173

    2005 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Extraordinary-log surfac e phase transition in the three-dimensional xy model,

    M. Hu, Y. Deng, and J.-P. Lv, “Extraordinary-log surfac e phase transition in the three-dimensional xy model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (Sep, 2021) 120603. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.120603

    2021 doi

  78. [86]

    Boundary critical behavior of the t hree-dimensional heisenberg universality class,

    F. Parisen Toldin, “Boundary critical behavior of the t hree-dimensional heisenberg universality class,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (Mar, 2021) 135701. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.135701

    2021 doi

  79. [87]

    Bulk and surface phase transitions in the thre e-dimensional o(4) spin model,

    Y. Deng, “Bulk and surface phase transitions in the thre e-dimensional o(4) spin model,” Phys. Rev. E 73 (May, 2006) 056116. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.73.056116

    2006 doi

  80. [88]

    The ordinary surface universality class of the three-dimensional O(N) model,

    F. P. Toldin, “The ordinary surface universality class of the three-dimensional O(N) model,” Phys. Rev. B 108 no. 2, (2023) L020404, arXiv:2303.16683 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2023 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Carving out OPE space and precise O(2) model critical exponents,

    S. M. Chester, W. Landry, J. Liu, D. Poland, D. Simmons-D uffin, N. Su, and A. Vichi, “Carving out OPE space and precise O(2) model critical exponents,” JHEP 06 (2020) 142, arXiv:1912.03324 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Bootstrapping Heisenberg magnets and their cubic instabi lity,

    S. M. Chester, W. Landry, J. Liu, D. Poland, D. Simmons-D uffin, N. Su, and A. Vichi, “Bootstrapping Heisenberg magnets and their cubic instabi lity,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 10, (2021) 105013, arXiv:2011.14647 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Bootstrapping the O(N ) vector models,

    F. Kos, D. Poland, and D. Simmons-Duffin, “Bootstrapping the O(N ) vector models,” JHEP 06 (2014) 091, arXiv:1307.6856 [hep-th] . 49

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.