Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Properties of the wormhole-dominant phase in two-dimensional quantum gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the wormhole-dominant phase of two-dimensional quantum gravity the continuum disk amplitude equals the pure-gravity one, and a renormalized double-trace coupling shifts the bulk cosmological constant through $\Lambda_{\mathrm{eff}} =…

desk verdict Careful large-N computation of the wormhole-dominant disk amplitude whose equality with pure gravity still hinges on an unproven order-of-limits equivalence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00369 v3 pith:C6ADY2YA submitted 2024-12-31 hep-th gr-qchep-lat

Tsunehide Kuroki , Yuki Sato This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qchep-lat
keywords double-tracematrixmodeltwo-dimensionalquantumgravitywormhole-dominantphasestringsusceptibilitydiskamplitudebulkcosmologicalconstantlarge-NlimitLiouville
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 works with the large-$N$ Hermitian one-matrix model modified by a double-trace interaction, which in the dynamical-triangulation interpretation weights random surfaces by the number of microscopic wormholes—tiny necks joining two points of the surface. The authors tune the double-trace coupling to its critical value, where wormhole effects dominate and the string susceptibility changes from $\gamma = -1/2$ to $\gamma = +1/3$. They compute the continuum limit of the resolvent, which encodes the marked disk amplitude, and find that it is exactly the same function of the renormalized cosmological constants as in pure two-dimensional quantum gravity, despite the different exponent. They also introduce a renormalized coupling $\Theta$ for the double-trace interaction and show that it is absorbed into the effective bulk cosmological constant as $\Lambda_{\mathrm{eff}} = \Lambda(1+\Theta/\Lambda^{3/2})^{2/3}$. A positive bare $\Lambda$ can therefore be cancelled at the fine-tuned value $\Theta = -\Lambda^{3/2}$, a toy-model echo of the Coleman mechanism that the authors explicitly distinguish from the original mechanism because it needs fine-tuning.

What carries the argument

The engine of the paper is the large-$N$ saddle-point solution of the double-trace matrix model. After diagonalizing the $N\times N$ Hermitian matrix, the effective eigenvalue potential is $V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\lambda)=V(\lambda)-\frac{g_D}{2}\left(\int\rho W\right)^2-2\int\rho\log|\lambda-\mu|\,d\mu$, and the saddle-point equation is $V'(\lambda)-g_D W_0 W'(\lambda)-2\,P\!\int\frac{\rho(\mu)}{\lambda-\mu}d\mu=0$. In terms of the resolvent $R_0(z)$, this becomes the quadratic loop equation $R_0(z)^2-\widetilde V'(z)R_0(z)+Q_0(z)=0$ with $\widetilde V=V-g_D W_0 W$, whose single-cut solution $R_0(z)=\frac12\left(\widetilde V'(z)+f(z)\sqrt{(z-a_1)(z-a_2)}\right)$ determines the eigenvalue density and hence the disk amplitude. The load-bearing scaling identity is $g=g_*e^{-(\epsilon^2\Lambda)^{3/2}}$, $z=a_*e^{\epsilon Z}$, $a^2=a_*^2e^{-\epsilon C}$ with $C=2^{-1/3}\sqrt\Lambda$ (and $C=2^{-2/3}\sqrt\Lambda$ for $W=\phi^4$), which turns the resolvent into the pure-gravity disk amplitude $W_\Lambda(Z)$. The same machinery with $g_D=g_D^*e^{-\epsilon^3\Theta}$ produces the effective-coupling identity $\Lambda_{\mathrm{eff}}=\Lambda\left(1+\Theta/\Lambda^{3/2}\right)^{2/3}$.

What would settle it

Compute the disk amplitude directly in the genuine double-scaling limit $N^2\epsilon^5=\mathrm{const}$ without first taking $N\to\infty$, and test whether the resulting $W_\Lambda(Z)$ equals $\left(Z-\frac12\sqrt{2^{-8/3}\Lambda}\right)\sqrt{Z+\sqrt{2^{-8/3}\Lambda}}$; any deviation, or the appearance of a second cut in the eigenvalue distribution for $g$ near $g_*$ and $g_D=g_D^*$, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the wormhole-dominant phase of the double-trace matrix model—the critical point where the string susceptibility becomes $\gamma=+1/3$—has a continuum marked-disk amplitude identical to that of pure two-dimensional quantum gravity. Concretely, for the quartic potential $V(\phi)=\frac12\phi^2-\frac{g}{4}\phi^4$ with $W(\phi)=\phi^2$, the scaling limit $g=g_*e^{-(\epsilon^2\Lambda)^{3/2}}$, $z=a_*e^{\epsilon Z}$, $a^2=a_*^2e^{-\epsilon C}$ converts the large-$N$ resolvent into $W_\Lambda(Z) = \left(Z-\frac12\sqrt{2^{-8/3}\Lambda}\right)\sqrt{Z+\sqrt{2^{-8/3}\Lambda}}$; the same functional form with $2^{-10/3}$ in place of $2^{-8/3}$ is obtained for $W(\phi)=\phi^4$, confirming universality. In Liouville-theory language, this is the disk amplitude of the conventional branch, even though the $\gamma=+1/3$ critical behavior is the unconventional branch. The paper's second claim is that the double-trace coupling can be renormalized with the scaling $g_D=g_D^*e^{-\epsilon^3\Theta}$, and that this new coupling enters the continuum theory only through the effective bulk cosmological constant $\Lambda_{\mathrm{eff}}=\Lambda(1+\Theta/\Lambda^{3/2})^{2/3}$. Hence wormhole dominance can make the effective bulk cosmological constant vanish even when the bare $\Lambda$ is positive, a toy realization of wormhole-modified cosmological dynamics that the authors note requires fine-tuning of $\Theta$.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the eigenvalue density has a single cut and that the 'large-$N$ first, then $\epsilon\to0$' scaling limit agrees with the genuine double-scaling limit in which $N^2\epsilon^5$ is held fixed; the authors note that the equivalence of the two prescriptions is far from a proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In both the $W(\phi)=\phi^2$ and $W(\phi)=\phi^4$ models, the continuum disk amplitude at the wormhole-dominant point is exactly the pure-gravity disk amplitude, so the same observable is shared by the conventional and unconventional Liouville branches.
  • The double-trace interaction becomes a renormalized coupling $\Theta$ with $\epsilon^3$ scaling, and its only continuum effect is to shift the bulk cosmological constant to $\Lambda_{\mathrm{eff}}=\Lambda(1+\Theta/\Lambda^{3/2})^{2/3}$; there is no independent new parameter in the disk sector.
  • At $\Theta=-\Lambda^{3/2}$ the effective bulk cosmological constant vanishes even when the bare $\Lambda$ is positive, the paper's toy analogue of wormhole-driven cosmological-constant cancellation (requiring fine-tuning).
  • The nonperturbative brane-tension calculation of Sec. 5 is built from the same disk function, so the leading nonperturbative effect is proportional to $\Lambda^{5/4}\epsilon^{5/2}$ and the paper expects it to coincide with the pure-gravity expression.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the disk-amplitude identity extends to arbitrary genus-zero loop observables, the wormhole-dominant phase and pure gravity would be indistinguishable through all marked-boundary correlators; distinguishing observables would then have to be higher-genus or multi-boundary amplitudes.
  • The absorption of $\Theta$ into $\Lambda_{\mathrm{eff}}$ suggests a general renormalization-group pattern: relevant double-trace deformations renormalize background couplings rather than introduce new degrees of freedom; testing this with different potentials $V$ and $W$ would separate the mechanism from the quartic example.
  • A natural stress test is to add two different double-trace terms and recompute the effective bulk cosmological constant: the paper's single-coupling formula suggests cancellations would occur on a surface in coupling space rather than at an isolated point, possibly making $\Lambda_{\mathrm{eff}}=0$ easier to reach.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the N×N Hermitian one-matrix model with a double-trace interaction, focusing on the wormhole-dominant phase at the critical point where the string susceptibility is γ = +1/3. After reviewing the large-N saddle-point solution and reproducing the known critical couplings and free-energy exponents for both W(φ)=φ² and W(φ)=φ⁴, the authors take a continuum limit of the resolvent and find a disk amplitude identical to that of pure two-dimensional quantum gravity. They then introduce a renormalized double-trace coupling Θ and show that it is absorbed into an effective bulk cosmological constant Λ_eff = Λ (1 + Θ/Λ^{3/2})^{2/3}, which can vanish for Θ = −Λ^{3/2}. The paper also computes a nonperturbative brane-tension-like effect in the same scaling limit and discusses possible connections to the Coleman mechanism.

Significance. If the main claim is correct, the paper provides a concrete, calculable example in which wormhole effects change the string susceptibility while leaving the disk amplitude unchanged, and in which a wormhole coupling renormalizes the bulk cosmological constant. The algebraic work is shown in detail and successfully reproduces several known limits: the Brezin et al. free energy, the critical points of Refs. [17] and [21], and the loop correlator of Ref. [25]. The comparison with Liouville boundary one-point functions in Sec. 4 is a useful cross-check. However, the central claim is conditional on an unproven exchange of the large-N limit and the double-scaling limit; the paper itself concedes in Sec. 2.2 that the equivalence of the two prescriptions is 'far from a proof'. The significance is therefore real but should be stated with that caveat.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2 and Sec. 4] The equality of the continuum disk amplitude with the pure-gravity result is obtained by first taking N→∞ and solving the single-cut saddle-point loop equation (3.13), and only then applying the scaling (4.1). The alternative double-scaling limit of Ref. [21] keeps N²ε⁵ fixed and expresses the wormhole-phase free energy as a two-sided Laplace transform, Eq. (2.27). The paper shows that the two prescriptions give the same critical couplings (3.69), but it does not show that they give the same disk amplitude; in fact, the text explicitly states that the equivalence is 'far from a proof'. Since the abstract's central claim is stated without this caveat, the paper should either prove the equality of the disk amplitudes in the Laplace-transform prescription or clearly restrict the claim to the N→∞-first prescription and analyze what changes if the limits do not commute.
  2. [Sec. 3, before Eq. (3.16)] The solution of the loop equation assumes a single cut, and this assumption is not justified in the scaling regime. Near the wormhole-dominant critical point the susceptibility diverges, so the standard one-cut large-N saddle point is not obviously valid along the approach defined by (4.1); the paper does not verify the absence of multi-cut solutions or the stability of the one-cut solution. At the critical point itself the explicit density (3.24) is nonnegative and vanishes as (a²−λ²)^{3/2} at the edges, which makes the assumption plausible, but the continuum-limit derivation needs a statement of the domain of validity of the one-cut ansatz.
  3. [Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (4.16)-(4.20)] The renormalized coupling Θ is introduced through the ad hoc scaling g_D = g_D* e^{−ε³Θ}, with n=3 chosen so that the deformation survives. The result Λ_eff = Λ(1 + Θ/Λ^{3/2})^{2/3} follows because Θ enters the endpoint equation (4.17) only through the combination Λ^{3/2}+Θ. To support the physical interpretation that wormholes shift the bulk cosmological constant, the paper should explain why n=3 is the correct continuum scaling and whether a derivation from the Laplace-transform prescription (2.27) gives the same shift; as it stands, the relation is an identification made within the large-N-first prescription.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2.27)] The Laplace transform is written with unclear notation; the exponential should be displayed explicitly so that the integration variable and the conjugate variable are unambiguous.
  2. [Eq. (4.5)] The sentence 'W_Λ(Z) ∼= Z^{3/2} − ... ∼ Λ ∼ (g*−g)^{1−1/3}' is hard to follow: the leading Z^{3/2} term is independent of Λ, so the derivation of γ = +1/3 should be spelled out with the identification between Z and the boundary cosmological constant and between Λ and (g*−g).
  3. [Footnote 9] There is a typo: 'unconvetional' should be 'unconventional'.
  4. [Sec. 5, Eq. (5.12)] The result V₁(b)−V₁(a) = (2/5) 3^{1/2} 5 ε^{5/2} Λ^{5/4} + O(ε^{7/2}) is presented as a brane-tension prediction, but the conversion to continuum Liouville units is not stated; a sentence relating this expression to the Liouville bulk/boundary parameters would make the claim more testable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the disk-amplitude equality and Lambda_eff shift are direct large-N saddle-point computations benchmarked against external Liouville results; the only self-citation (Ref. [26]) is methodological, and the admitted limit-order gap (Sec. 2.2) is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The wormhole-dominant critical point (g*, g*_D) = (3/64, 9/128) for W(z) = z^2 is obtained in Sec. 3.2 by solving the loop equation (3.13) with the self-consistency condition (3.25), and its coincidence with the f1 = f2 = 0 prescription of Ref. [21] is verified in Eq. (3.69). The continuum disk amplitude (4.4) is found by inserting the scaling ansatz (4.1), chosen to match the derived cubic approach (3.49), into the explicit resolvent (3.22); the equality with the pure-2D-gravity disk amplitude is then checked against the independent Liouville boundary formula (4.11) of Refs. [27,28] for b = sqrt(2/3) versus the unconventional b = sqrt(3/2), an external, parameter-free benchmark. Likewise, Lambda_eff = Lambda (1 + Theta / Lambda^{3/2})^{2/3} (Eq. (4.20)) follows algebraically from inserting the new, independent coupling Theta (Eq. (4.16)) into Eq. (3.27); Theta is not fitted to the predicted quantity, and the paper explicitly concedes (Sec. 4.1 and Sec. 6) that Lambda_eff = 0 requires the fine-tuning Theta = -Lambda^{3/2}, so no Coleman-type prediction is overclaimed. Two flagged caveats do not amount to circularity. (i) Sec. 5 and footnote 12 cite Ref. [26] (Kuroki is a co-author) for the loop-versus-matrices method and the flatness of V_1 on the cut; however, Eqs. (5.1)-(5.10) explicitly re-derive the method and the potential in-paper, so the self-citation is methodological and not load-bearing for the central claims. (ii) Sec. 2.2 states that the equivalence of the large-N-first prescription with the N^2 epsilon^5 fixed double-scaling limit of Ref. [21] is 'far from a proof'; this is an admitted, load-adjacent correctness gap (the disk-amplitude equality could differ under the Laplace-transform prescription (2.27)), but an unproven order-of-limits assumption is not a reduction of the result to its own input. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The results are derived in the standard large-N saddle-point approximation. The honest ledger is: one hand-chosen scaling exponent n = 3; the single-cut ansatz; the assumption that the large-N and continuum limits commute; and the unproven equivalence of two critical-point prescriptions. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • n (exponent in the g_D scaling) = 3
    In Eq. (4.16), g_D = g*_D exp(-epsilon^n Theta); n = 3 is chosen so that the renormalized coupling Theta survives in the continuum limit. The paper notes this is a redefinition, not a physical constant.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The resolvent has a single cut.
    Invoked before Eq. (3.16) when solving the quadratic loop equation; all subsequent disk amplitudes and critical exponents assume this spectral support.
  • standard math Large-N factorization of expectation values.
    Used in Appendix A to turn the Schwinger-Dyson equation into a quadratic equation for the resolvent; standard in random matrix theory.
  • domain assumption Equivalence of the two critical-point prescriptions (Refs. [17] and [21]).
    Sec. 2.2 says the equivalence is 'likely' and 'far from a proof'; the paper checks it only for W = z^2.
  • ad hoc to paper The large-N limit commutes with the continuum limit.
    Section 4 takes N to infinity first, then epsilon to zero with the scaling Eq. (4.1), rather than the double-scaling limit N^2 epsilon^5 = constant from Ref. [21].
  • domain assumption Convergence and validity of the Laplace-transform representation Eq. (2.27).
    Used in Section 2 and in the discussion; the paper notes it is 'unclear if the integral converges'.
  • domain assumption Interpreting the double-trace term as microscopic wormholes.
    Standard interpretation from Ref. [17] and Section 2.2; connects the matrix model to the random-surface picture.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Properties of the wormhole-dominant phase in two-dimensional quantum gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C6ADY2YA

@misc{pith2026250100369,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Properties of the wormhole-dominant phase in two-dimensional quantum gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C6ADY2YA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00369}
}
abstract

We study the $N \times N$ Hermitian one-matrix model modified by the double-trace interaction. It is known that the coupling for the double-trace interaction can control the weight for the microscopic wormholes if interpreting the matrix model as the lattice model of random surface; tuning the coupling to its critical value, the effect of wormholes become substantial to change the critical behavior of the pure $2$D quantum gravity, which is characterized by a certain positive value of the string susceptibility. In the large-$N$ limit, we calculate the continuum limit of the disk amplitude in which the wormhole effects are important. The resulting continuum disk amplitude is the same as that of the pure $2$D quantum gravity. We also introduce the renormalized coupling for the double-trace interaction, and show that the newly introduced renormalized coupling can alter the renormalized bulk cosmological constant effectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00369 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. A plot for F(t¯). We immediately find that crucial difference in these plots is attributed to the sign of the sphere free energy. Hence if the Coleman mechanism works only in the wormhole-dominant phase, there is a possibility that the sign of the free energy may play a key role in realization of the Coleman mechanism. Of course these plots are far from complete, because in the small t region, the expansion in Eq. (… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. A plot for F(t). 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -2 -1 0 1 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    Correlation func- tions in matrix models modified by wormhole terms,

    J. L. F. Barbon, K. Demeterfi, I. R. Klebanov and C. Schmid huber, “Correlation func- tions in matrix models modified by wormhole terms,” Nucl. Phy s. B 440 (1995), 189-214 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00084-6 [arXiv:hep-th/95010 58 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00084-6 1995

  2. [17]

    New Cri tical Behavior in d = 0 Large N Matrix Models,

    S. R. Das, A. Dhar, A. M. Sengupta and S. R. Wadia, “New Cri tical Behavior in d = 0 Large N Matrix Models,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 5 (1990), 1041-1056 doi:10.1142/S0217732390001165

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217732390001165 1990

  3. [21]

    Non-Perturbative Solution of Matrix Models Modified by Trace-Squared Terms

    I. R. Klebanov and A. Hashimoto, “Nonperturbative solu tion of matrix models modified by trace squared terms,” Nucl. Phys. B 434 (1995), 264-282 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)00518-J [arXiv:hep-th/9409064 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1995

  4. [1]

    Replica Wormholes and the Entropy of Hawking Radiation,

    A. Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghoulian an d A. Tajdini, “Replica Wormholes and the Entropy of Hawking Radiation,” JHEP 05 (2020), 013 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2020)013 [arXiv:1911.12333 [hep-th]]; G. Penington, S. H. Shenker, D. Stanford and Z. Yang, “Replic a wormholes and the black hole interior,” JHEP 03 (2022), 205 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2022)205...

    arXiv 2020

  5. [2]

    Why There Is Nothing Rather Than Somethin g: A Theory of the Cosmological Constant,

    S. R. Coleman, “Why There Is Nothing Rather Than Somethin g: A Theory of the Cosmological Constant,” Nucl. Phys. B 310 (1988), 643-668 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90097-1

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90097-1 1988

  6. [3]

    JT gravity as a mat rix integral,

    P. Saad, S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, “JT gravity as a mat rix integral,” [arXiv:1903.11115 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 1903

  7. [4]

    Averaging over Narain moduli s pace,

    A. Maloney and E. Witten, “Averaging over Narain moduli s pace,” JHEP 10 (2020), 187 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2020)187 [arXiv:2006.04855 [hep-th ]]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [5]

    Wormholes, a fluctua ting cosmological constant and the Coleman mechanism,

    J. Ambjørn, Y. Sato and Y. Watabiki, “Wormholes, a fluctua ting cosmological constant and the Coleman mechanism,” Phys. Lett. B 815 (2021), 136152 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136152 [arXiv:2101.00478 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 2021

Show all 30 references
  1. [6]

    Baby universes in 2d an d 4d theories of quantum gravity,

    Y. Hamada, H. Kawai and K. Kawana, “Baby universes in 2d an d 4d theories of quantum gravity,” JHEP 12 (2022), 100 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2022)100 [arXiv:2210.05 134 [hep-th]]

    2022 doi

  2. [7]

    2-D G ravity and random matrices,

    P. Di Francesco, P. H. Ginsparg and J. Zinn-Justin, “2-D G ravity and random matrices,” Phys. Rept. 254 (1995), 1-133 doi:10.1016/0370-1573(94)00084-G [arXiv: hep-th/9306153 [hep-th]]

    1995 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Quantum Geometry : A Statistical Field Theory Approach,

    J. Ambjørn, B. Durhuus and T. Jonsson, “Quantum Geometry : A Statistical Field Theory Approach,” Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0-521-01 736-7, 978-0-521-46167-2, 978-0- 511-88535-8 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511524417

    2005 doi

  4. [9]

    Elementary Introduction to Quantum Geomet ry,

    J. Ambjørn, “Elementary Introduction to Quantum Geomet ry,” CRC Press, 2022, ISBN 978- 1-003-32056-2 doi:10.1201/9781003320562

    2022 doi

  5. [10]

    Diseases of Tri angulated Random Surface Models, and Possible Cures,

    J. Ambjørn, B. Durhuus and J. Frohlich, “Diseases of Tri angulated Random Surface Models, and Possible Cures,” Nucl. Phys. B 257 (1985) 433. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90356-6

    1985 doi

  6. [11]

    The A ppearance of Critical Dimensions in Regulated String Theories,

    J. Ambjørn, B. Durhuus, J. Frohlich and P. Orland, “The A ppearance of Critical Dimensions in Regulated String Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 270 (1986) 457. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(86)90563-8

    1986 doi

  7. [12]

    Planar Diagrams, Two-Dimensional Lattice G ravity and Surface Models,

    F. David, “Planar Diagrams, Two-Dimensional Lattice G ravity and Surface Models,” Nucl. Phys. B 257 (1985) 45. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90335-9

    1985 doi

  8. [13]

    Microcanonical Simulations of Randomly Triangulated Planar Ran- dom Surfaces,

    A. Billoire and F. David, “Microcanonical Simulations of Randomly Triangulated Planar Ran- dom Surfaces,” Phys. Lett. 168B (1986) 279. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)90979-2

    1986 doi

  9. [14]

    Critical Pr operties of Randomly Triangulated Planar Random Surfaces,

    V. A. Kazakov, A. A. Migdal and I. K. Kostov, “Critical Pr operties of Randomly Triangulated Planar Random Surfaces,” Phys. Lett. 157B (1985) 295. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)90669-0 23

    1985 doi

  10. [15]

    Analytical and Numerical Study of the Model of Dynamically Triangulated Random Surfa ces,

    D. V. Boulatov, V. A. Kazakov, I. K. Kostov and A. A. Migda l, “Analytical and Numerical Study of the Model of Dynamically Triangulated Random Surfa ces,” Nucl. Phys. B 275 (1986)

    1986

  11. [16]

    Plana r Diagrams,

    E. Brezin, C. Itzykson, G. Parisi and J. B. Zuber, “Plana r Diagrams,” Commun. Math. Phys. 59 (1978), 35 doi:10.1007/BF01614153

    1978 doi

  12. [18]

    Generalized multi critical one-matrix models,

    J. Ambjørn, T. Budd and Y. Makeenko, “Generalized multi critical one-matrix models,” Nucl. Phys. B 913 (2016), 357-380 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.09.013 [a rXiv:1604.04522 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Perturbed gene ralized multicritical one- matrix models,

    J. Ambjørn, L. Chekhov and Y. Makeenko, “Perturbed gene ralized multicritical one- matrix models,” Nucl. Phys. B 928 (2018), 1-20 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2018.01.008 [arXiv:1712.03879 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Touching random surfaces and Liouvill e gravity,

    I. R. Klebanov, “Touching random surfaces and Liouvill e gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995), 1836-1841 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.1836 [arXiv:hep-th/ 9407167 [hep-th]]

    1995 doi

  15. [22]

    Multispin systems on a randomly triangula ted surface,

    B. Durhuus, “Multispin systems on a randomly triangula ted surface,” Nucl. Phys. B 426 (1994), 203-222 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)90132-5 [arXi v:hep-th/9402052 [hep-th]]

    1994 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Ultraviolet sta ble fixed point and scaling relations in (2+ ǫ)-dimensional quantum gravity,

    H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa and M. Ninomiya, “Ultraviolet sta ble fixed point and scaling relations in (2+ ǫ)-dimensional quantum gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 404 (1993), 684-716 doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(93)90594-F [arXiv:hep-th/9303123 [hep-th]]

    1993 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Stabilization of 2-D quantum gravity by bran ching interactions,

    O. Diego, “Stabilization of 2-D quantum gravity by bran ching interactions,” Phys. Lett. B 377 (1996), 23-27 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)00266-3 [arXiv: hep-th/9510012 [hep-th]]

    1996 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Loops versus matrices: The Nonperturbative aspects of noncritic al string,

    M. Hanada, M. Hayakawa, N. Ishibashi, H. Kawai, T. Kurok i, Y. Matsuo and T. Tada, “Loops versus matrices: The Nonperturbative aspects of noncritic al string,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 112 (2004), 131-181 doi:10.1143/PTP.112.131 [arXiv:hep-th/ 0405076 [hep-th]]

    2004 doi

  19. [27]

    Fateev, A

    V. Fateev, A. B. Zamolodchikov and A. B. Zamolodchikov, “Boundary Liouville field theory

  20. [28]

    Remarks on Liouville theory with boundar y,

    J. Teschner, “Remarks on Liouville theory with boundar y,” PoS tmr2000 (2000), 041 doi:10.22323/1.006.0041 [arXiv:hep-th/0009138 [hep-th ]]. 24

    2000 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Boundary state and boundary two point function,” [arXiv: hep-th/0001012 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  22. [641]

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(86)90578-X

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.