Towards Large-Spin Effective Theory II: $O(2)$ model in $d=4-\epsilon$

A. Liam Fitzpatrick; Giulia Fardelli; Wei Li

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Towards Large-Spin Effective Theory II: $O(2)$ model in $d=4-\epsilon$

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A holographic effective Hamiltonian built from three bulk exchanges and one contact interaction is shown to reproduce every leading-twist anomalous dimension of the O(2) model at order ε², for all charge Q and spin J.

desk verdict A real result with a real caveat: the Hamiltonian works, the unpredicted sectors match beautifully, but two parameters are fitted and the core potentials sit in an unpublished companion. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20160 v1 pith:KBBPMDLL submitted 2025-08-27 hep-th cond-mat.stat-mech

Giulia Fardelli , A. Liam Fitzpatrick , Wei Li This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thcond-mat.stat-mech

keywords O(2)modelepsilonexpansionlarge-spineffectivetheoryholographicanomalousdimensionsleading-twistoperatorsghostfieldAdS/CFT

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper seeks to establish that the entire leading-twist spectrum of the O(2) model in d=4−ε can be captured, through second order in ε, by a very small holographic Hamiltonian: one-body motion plus two- and three-body potentials generated by bulk exchanges of a charged scalar φ, a neutral scalar s≈φφ*, and a 'ghost' field c, together with a single local (φφ*)² interaction. The construction rests on the idea that at large spin J, multi-particle states in AdS are weakly coupled at long distances, so short-distance physics can be encoded in a few local terms whose coefficients are fixed by a small amount of CFT data. The paper's central result is that with the ghost coupling fixed by one Q=3 family, the same Hamiltonian reproduces the dimensions of all leading-twist operators for every Q and J tested, up to O(ε²), including sectors checked numerically to 20 digits. If true, this means a model with only three bulk fields and one coupling encodes an infinite family of CFT data, and it provides a concrete template for building similar effective theories. The paper also uses the Hamiltonian to analyze large-J phenomena such as leading logarithms, Z_Q configurations, and the twist-to-charge ratio r(Q).

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective Dilatation operator H acting on a Fock space of single-particle highest-weight states a†_ℓ|vac⟩ with spin ℓ. It is written as H = H1 + H2 + H3 with one-, two-, and three-body terms; the two- and three-body potentials are taken from the scalar exchange formula (A.1) and the Φ/ghost three-body potentials (A.3). The crucial mechanism is the ghost subtraction: a 'ghost' field c with vertex c φ² φ* removes the spurious exchange of Φ²Φ* that would otherwise appear as an independent bulk primary, so that the composite operator is counted only once. This subtraction-plus-local-contact-term structure is what allows a finite, small Hamiltonian to encode the inf

What would settle it

Take the Q=10, J=10 spectrum printed in (V.8) or the log J/J² coefficient of the Q=4 [Φ²,Φ²]_J trajectory. Compute these independently from the two-loop mixing matrix without using any of the paper's Hamiltonian matrix elements; any mismatch beyond numerical precision (20 digits in the paper's checks) would falsify the claim that one small Hamiltonian encodes the full leading-twist spectrum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the effective Hamiltonian H = H1 + H2 + H3, assembled from the diagrams of Fig. 2, exactly reproduces the O(ε²) anomalous dimensions of all leading-twist operators with any charge Q and spin J. The key matching subtlety is that a naive bulk theory overcounts the composite operator Φ²Φ*: it appears both as an independent three-particle state and, through the equations of motion, as a descendant of Φ. The paper removes the redundant exchange by adding a ghost field c with a coupling fixed by matching the [Φ,Φ²]_J family, and shows that one coefficient then works for all J. After this subtraction, the spectrum exhibits the expected structures: a unique [Φ,Φ²]_J traject

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the spurious bulk primary Φ²Φ* is correctly removed by adding a ghost field whose coupling is fixed from one Q=3 family, and that this single subtraction reproduces every spin and charge. If that subtract-and-add matching rule is not the correct effective-field-theory prescription, the claimed all-Q, all-J agreement at O(ε²) fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

All leading-twist anomalous dimensions of the O(2) model at O(ε²) are summarized by the paper's four-diagram Hamiltonian; no further bulk input is needed beyond the dimensions of Φ, S, and the scalar operators used to fix contact terms.
Large-spin phenomena such as the leading log series c²_{SΦΦ*}/J^{ΔS} and the Z_Q configurations with γ_{Z_Q} ≈ −ε² Q³(Q²−1)/(300 J²) follow automatically from tree-level S exchange.
At Q=4 the O(ε) degeneracies split at O(ε²) into identifiable operator families, including [Φ²,[Φ,Φ]ℓ], [Φ,[Φ,Φ²]ℓ], and [Φ²,Φ²]_J, the last exhibiting log J/J² behavior.
At Q≥5 the paper checks many sectors numerically, matching the two-loop mixing matrix to at least 20 digits, for example the full Q=10, J=10 spectrum.
The twist-to-charge ratio r(Q) is computable from the Hamiltonian; the small-Q results hint at nontrivial 'blob' bound states at larger Q.

Reading between the lines

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

The ghost-subtraction rule is likely a general feature of holographic effective theories: whenever a bulk field is dual to a composite that is redundant with a descendant through equations of motion, matching will require subtracting an unwanted exchange; the same 'subtract a field of the redundant twist' trick should apply to other models.
Because the Hamiltonian is so compact, a natural test is to push it to O(ε³) or to the O(N) Wilson–Fisher model; any need for additional bulk fields or interactions at the next order would directly probe the completeness of the exchange classification.
The apparent coincidence that no |φ|⁶ contact term is needed for Q=3, J=0 may signal an unbroken structure, such as a symmetry or a cancellation between exchange and contact diagrams, worth isolating at higher orders.
The paper's comparison between treating Φ² as a fundamental bulk field and treating it as a composite suggests a practical rule: for composite double-twist operators, tree-level diagrams in the composite basis automatically resum the one-loop diagrams one would have to compute in a fundamental-field basis.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this one. First, it is a genuine, substantive result: the authors construct a small three-particle Hamiltonian and show that it reproduces the O(epsilon^2) anomalous dimensions of the leading-twist sector of the O(2) model across a wide range of Q and J, matching Kehrein's two-loop mixing matrix to twenty digits in the sectors they test. That is a real check, not a toy. Second, the construction is not fully self-contained: the three-body potentials are quoted from the companion paper [5], which is not public, and two parameters—the bulk quartic coupling and the ghost coupling—are fitted to the data being reproduced. So "reproduces" is not "predicts from nothing." But the paper is transparent about where the fits happen, and the unpredicted sectors are extensive.

The genuinely new elements are the ghost-field subtraction of the spurious Phi^2 Phi* exchange, the Q=4 analysis (including the [Phi^2, Phi^2]_J identification), the Z_Q configuration formula, and the twist-to-charge ratio r(Q). Section VI, showing that treating Phi^2 as a fundamental bulk field fails at order epsilon, is a nice control experiment that supports the composite treatment. The paper also flags its own loose ends, e.g., the unexpected absence of a |phi|^6 term and the lack of an analytic proof for Q>=5. That honesty earns credit.

Where are the soft spots? The ghost subtraction is the biggest. The rule is not derived from bulk Feynman rules; the coupling is fixed by matching the [Phi, Phi^2]_J family. The fact that a single coefficient fits all J and leaves the rest of the spectrum predictive is strong evidence, but it is still a fitted residue rather than a first-principles computation. The dependence on [5] is the second soft spot: explicit potentials are listed in Appendix A, so a patient reader could check them, but the derivation lives elsewhere, and that limits independent verification. Sharing the numerical code would help too, though that is minor.

None of this sinks the paper. The stress-test concern about circularity is real but diminishes on reading: lambda is fitted to Delta_Phi2 and the ghost to Q=3, but Q>=4 and large parts of Q=3 are unpredicted data, and they match. The central claim holds up much better than the stress-test note suggested. This is for anyone working on large-spin effective theory, the conformal bootstrap, or the epsilon expansion, and it deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send it to review, with the request that [5] be made available and that the fitted-vs-predicted status be stated explicitly in the text.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a holographic effective Hamiltonian for the leading-twist operators of the O(2) model in d=4−ϵ, working to O(ϵ^2). The Hamiltonian is built from bulk exchanges of a charged scalar φ, a neutral scalar s∼φφ*, and a 'ghost' field c, together with a single local quartic interaction (φφ*)^2. At O(ϵ) the S-exchange is shown to be equivalent to a contact term; at O(ϵ^2) the authors add φ-exchange and a ghost subtraction designed to remove a spurious Φ^2Φ* exchange. Two parameters are fixed by CFT input: the quartic coupling λ to the dimension of Φ^2 (Eq. III.5 and IV.2), and the ghost coupling to the [Φ,Φ^2]_J family (Sec. IV). The resulting spectrum is compared with Kehrein's two-loop mixing matrix for Q=2,3,4 analytically/numerically and for Q≥5 numerically to 20 digits. The paper also derives large-J logarithms, Z_Q configurations, and the twist-to-charge ratio r(Q).

Significance. If correct, the paper is a significant proof of principle: a non-large-N, strongly coupled CFT can have its entire leading-twist spectrum at O(ϵ^2) encoded in a small holographic Hamiltonian. The paper contains extensive internal checks, including closed-form results for Q=2 and the [Φ,Φ^2]_J family, full Q=4 spectra, and 20-digit agreement for Q≥5. It also makes falsifiable predictions, such as r(Q) and Z_Q large-J anomalous dimensions. However, the central EFT matching prescription is not fully derived in this manuscript: the ghost subtraction is presented as a fit, and the core potentials are quoted from the unpublished companion [5]. These issues must be resolved before the central claim is fully established.

major comments (4)

[Sec. IV, Eqs. (IV.3)–(IV.4); App. A, Eq. (A.6)] The ghost subtraction is the load-bearing step of the O(ϵ^2) construction. Section IV states that the coefficient of the ghost coupling is fixed by matching the [Φ,Φ^2]_J family, but App. A, Eq. (A.6) states V_{3,gh} = −V_3^{(2)} with g = \tildeλ, which looks like a fixed identity rather than a fitted parameter. Please clarify whether the coefficient is derived from the bulk Feynman rules (e.g., by subtracting the ΔE=0 pole term in second-order perturbation theory) or is fitted. As written, the 'reproduction' includes its own fitting points, and the fact that one coefficient fits all J is evidence but not a derivation. An independent computation of the cφ^2φ* vertex, or an explicit matching argument, is needed.
[App. A, Eqs. (A.1), (A.3)–(A.5)] All scalar exchange potentials and their epsilon expansions are quoted from the unpublished companion [5]. This is not merely a presentation issue: the numerical agreement reported in Sec. V cannot be independently checked from the material in this paper. Please include the derivations or a self-contained summary sufficient to reproduce the potentials, or arrange for [5] to be available. Without this, the central numerical claim is unverifiable.
[Abstract and Sec. V.D] The abstract and Introduction claim that the Hamiltonian 'completely reproduces' the dimensions for all Q and J. Section V.D explicitly states that there is no analytic proof for Q≥5, only numerical checks (albeit to 20 digits) for a large number of sectors. Either provide an argument that the Hamiltonian must agree for all Q,J (e.g., by induction on Q or by structural uniqueness), or soften the claim to 'for all sectors checked'. The current overclaim is not supported by the evidence presented.
[Sec. IV, Eq. (IV.3)] The mismatch (IV.3) has the 1/J^3 large-J behavior expected from a twist-3 exchange, and the interpretation that Φ^2Φ* is doubled in the bulk is plausible. However, the subtraction is justified only by the fit described above. Please show explicitly that the ghost term removes precisely the spurious exchange of the composite Φ^2Φ*, rather than just fitting the numerical discrepancy in one family. This would turn the prescription into a derivation.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. V.D, Eq. (V.8)] The last eigenvalue in the list is written in a different format from the others; aligning the notation would improve readability.
[App. A, Eq. (A.2)] The indicator notation I(ℓ4≤ℓ2) is not defined until after the equation; define it before first use.
[Sec. VIII, Eq. (VIII.2)] The Q=5 entry is an upper bound, not a value; label it clearly as an upper bound in Eq. (VIII.2) as well as in the text.
[References] Reference [5] is listed without an arXiv number or publication status; please add one if available, or state that it is a companion paper in preparation.
[Notation around Eq. (III.9) and Eq. (V.4)] The notation γ2Φ can be misread as γ_{Φ_2} or γ_Φ². Consider using an unambiguous notation, e.g., 2γ_Φ or γ_{Φ^2}.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Fitted matching points are counted among the 'reproduced' spectrum; core potentials are imported from unpublished companion [5], but the Q>=4 sectors provide independent confirmation against Kehrein's external two-loop matrix.

fitted input called prediction [Section III Eq. (III.5), Section IV Eq. (IV.2), Section V.A Eq. (V.1)]
"However, after fixing the coupling λ to ε3λ =πd/2(−1600ϵ + 800(5 +γE)ϵ2 +O(ϵ3)), (IV.2) ... in order to reproduce the dimension for Φ 2 at O(ϵ2) from (II.4), one finds ... γΦ2≡ ∆Φ2− 2∆Φ = ϵ 5 + ϵ2 25, (V.1)"

The contact coupling λ is the only free parameter at this stage; it is fixed by requiring the Hamiltonian to give exactly the O(ε²) dimension of Φ² from the CFT input (II.4). Equation (V.1) then reports that same value as a 'found' anomalous dimension. Thus the Q=2, J=0 entry in the claimed 'all dimensions' reproduction is the input restated, not an independent output. The J>0 Q=2 dimensions are independent, but they do not remove the tautological character of this one datum.
fitted input called prediction [Section IV (after Eq. IV.3), Section V.B Eq. (V.3), Appendix A Eq. (A.6)]
"We fix the coefficient of the coupling to the ghost by matching the dimension of the operators [Φ, Φ2]J. A nontrivial test of this procedure is that a single value of the coefficient is sufficient to match all J."

The ghost vertex is introduced to cancel the spurious Φ²Φ* exchange, but its coefficient is not derived from the bulk Feynman rules; it is adjusted so that the Hamiltonian reproduces the known Q=3 [Φ,Φ²]_J anomalous dimensions. Consequently the later formula (V.3) for exactly those dimensions is a matching condition, not a prediction. Appendix A makes the by-construction nature explicit: V3,gh = −V3^(2) (A.6), so the ghost term is defined to be minus the problematic part, with its overall coefficient set by the same matching. The all-J match is nontrivial because one coefficient must reproduce the full J-dependence, and the Q=4 and Q≥5 sectors are genuinely independent; nevertheless, the Q=3 family is counted among the 'reproduced' data by construction.

full rationale

The paper is not fundamentally circular: after λ and the ghost coefficient are fixed by two Q=2/Q=3 inputs, the same HEFT reproduces the full J-dependence of those families as a consistency check, the entire Q=4 spectrum, and all Q≥5 sectors checked numerically to 20 digits against Kehrein's external two-loop mixing matrix [8] (e.g., Eq. V.8). These are independent, falsifiable benchmarks, so the central claim has real content. The circularity is partial: the abstract's 'correctly reproduces all dimensions' includes the two sets of data used for matching — the Φ² dimension fixes λ, and the [Φ,Φ²]_J family fixes the ghost — so those entries are reproduced by construction rather than predicted. A secondary concern is provenance rather than logical circularity: the core potentials (A.1)-(A.8), including the ghost potential V3,gh = −V3^(2), are quoted from the authors' unpublished companion [5], making the derivation chain depend on a load-bearing self-citation; the external comparison with [8] mitigates this. Net score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the large-spin/AdS separation assumption, the completeness of a small exchange set at O(epsilon^2), and the ghost subtraction rule; two interaction coefficients are fitted to known CFT data, so the ledger is small but not input-free.

free parameters (2)

lambda, bulk quartic coupling |phi|^4 = lambda = -1600 pi^2 / epsilon^2 at O(epsilon); epsilon^3 lambda = pi^(d/2)(-1600 epsilon + 800(5+gamma_E) epsilon^2 + O(
Local contact term needed to adjust the Q=2, J=0 dimension; fixed by matching Delta_Phi2 from Eq. (II.4).
ghost coupling of c phi^2 phi* vertex = not given a symbol; one coefficient fixed by matching gamma_[Phi,Phi^2]_J
Ghost field introduced in Section IV to subtract the spurious Phi^2 Phi* exchange; coefficient chosen so that the Q=3 family [Phi,Phi^2]_J is reproduced, with all-J agreement checked.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption At large spin J and any charge Q, leading-twist states can be modeled as Q particles in AdS_(d+1) separated on average by log J, with short-distance effects local.
Section I: 'The key assumption of the construction is...' This is the EFT validity premise; if false the whole Hamiltonian construction has no regime of validity.
standard math The Lorentzian inversion formula converges for spin J>=2, so all bulk exchanges can in principle be recovered and only local contact terms need fitting.
Section II, citing [13]; used to justify completeness of the exchange plus contact term ansatz.
domain assumption At O(epsilon^2) only the Phi and S exchanges contribute; higher-twist/higher-spin exchanges and more-particle OPE coefficients are suppressed until higher order.
Section II and Appendix D; the suppression estimates rely on GFF OPE coefficients and perturbative anomalous dimensions, so they are derived within the same expansion.
domain assumption No |phi phi*|^n bulk terms with n>=4 are generated at O(epsilon^2), and the n=3 term is not needed.
Section V.B: 'manifest from the structure of the loop diagrams' but no detailed proof; the Q=3 J=0 agreement is called an 'apparent coincidence'.
domain assumption Phi^2 Phi* is a descendant of Phi by the O(2) model equations of motion, so its bulk exchange is spurious and removable.
Section IV and the ghost discussion; this is specific to the O(2) model and is the basis for the ghost subtraction.
domain assumption Kehrein's two-loop mixing matrix M (B.1) is the correct benchmark for Csym to O(epsilon^2).
Appendix B, external result [8]; all reproduction claims are checked against it.

invented entities (1)

Ghost bulk field c
purpose: Subtracts the spurious exchange of the composite state Phi^2 Phi*, which appears both as a three-particle bulk state and as a descendant of Phi; without it the Q=3 spectrum is off by (IV.3).
The ghost has no physical observable of its own, no external data, and no falsifiable handle outside this matching procedure; its only support is the internal consistency of the O(2) spectrum.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Large-Spin Effective Theory II: $O(2)$ model in $d=4-\epsilon$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KBBPMDLL

@misc{pith2026250820160,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Large-Spin Effective Theory II: $O(2)$ model in $d=4-\epsilon$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KBBPMDLL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20160}
}

abstract

We show how to construct a holographic effective theory for the leading-twist operators in the $O(2)$ model in the $4-d=\epsilon$ expansion up to $O(\epsilon^2)$, based on the separation of short-distance and long-distance effects that arises as a function of spin $J$. We obtain the Hamiltonian of the theory and show that it correctly reproduces all the dimensions at $O(\epsilon^2)$ of the leading twist operators for all values of the charge $Q$ and spin $J$. The holographic Hamiltonian is given by the bulk exchange of a charged scalar $\phi$, neutral scalar $s \sim \phi \phi^*$, and a `ghost' field $c$, as well as a single local bulk interaction $(\phi \phi^*)^2$. We analyze various aspects of the spectrum and discuss their interpretation in light of the bulk description.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20160 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Spectrum of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Spectrum of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: , we show the anomalous dimensions of all Q = 4 operators O where γO vanishes at O(ϵ). Compared to the corresponding figure at Q = 3, one can now see that there are many families of accumulation points in anomalous dimension at large J. D. Q ≥ 5 For Q ≥ 5, although we …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. The trajectory of eigenvalues at each spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Anomalous dimension at order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[5]

Fardelli, A

G. Fardelli, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and W. Li, Towards Large- Spin Effective Theory I: Three-Particle States in AdS ϕ4 Theory

work page
[1]

A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, D. Poland, and D. Simmons-Duffin, JHEP 12, 004 (2013), arXiv:1212.3616 [hep-th]

arXiv 2013
[2]

Komargodski and A

Z. Komargodski and A. Zhiboedov, JHEP 11, 140 (2013), arXiv:1212.4103 [hep-th]

arXiv 2013
[3]

S. Pal, J. Qiao, and S. Rychkov, Commun. Math. Phys. 402, 2169 (2023), arXiv:2212.04893 [hep-th]

arXiv 2023
[4]

B. C. van Rees, (2024), arXiv:2412.06907 [hep-th]

arXiv 2024
[6]

Kehrein, F

S. Kehrein, F. Wegner, and Y. Pismak, Nucl. Phys. B 402, 669 (1993)

work page 1993
[7]

S. K. Kehrein and F. Wegner, Nucl. Phys. B 424, 521 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9405123

work page Pith review arXiv 1994
[8]

S. K. Kehrein, Nucl. Phys. B 453, 777 (1995), arXiv:hep- th/9507044

work page arXiv 1995

Show all 28 references

[9]

S. E. Derkachov and A. N. Manashov, Nucl. Phys. B455, 685 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9505110

1995 arXiv
[10]

Derkachov and A

S. Derkachov and A. Manashov, Nuclear Physics B 455, 685 (1995)

1995
[11]

Liendo, Nucl

P. Liendo, Nucl. Phys. B 920, 368 (2017), arXiv:1701.04830 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[12]

K. G. Wilson and J. B. Kogut, Phys. Rept. 12, 75 (1974)

1974
[13]

Caron-Huot, JHEP 09, 078 (2017), arXiv:1703.00278 [hep-th]

S. Caron-Huot, JHEP 09, 078 (2017), arXiv:1703.00278 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[14]

Simmons-Duffin, JHEP 03, 086 (2017), arXiv:1612.08471 [hep-th]

D. Simmons-Duffin, JHEP 03, 086 (2017), arXiv:1612.08471 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[15]

Penedones, JHEP 03, 025 (2011), arXiv:1011.1485 [hep-th]

J. Penedones, JHEP 03, 025 (2011), arXiv:1011.1485 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[16]

Anand, A

N. Anand, A. L. Fitzpatrick, E. Katz, Z. U. Khandker, M. T. Walters, and Y. Xin, (2020), arXiv:2005.13544 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[17]

Bertucci, J

F. Bertucci, J. Henriksson, and B. McPeak, JHEP 10, 104 (2022), arXiv:2205.09132 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[18]

L. F. Alday, J. Henriksson, and M. van Loon, JHEP 07, 131 (2018), arXiv:1712.02314 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[19]

Henriksson and M

J. Henriksson and M. Van Loon, J. Phys. A 52, 025401 (2019), arXiv:1801.03512 [hep-th]. 15

2019 arXiv
[20]

Henriksson, Phys

J. Henriksson, Phys. Rept. 1002, 1 (2023), arXiv:2201.09520 [hep-th]

2023
[21]

Gopakumar, A

R. Gopakumar, A. Kaviraj, K. Sen, and A. Sinha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 081601 (2017), arXiv:1609.00572 [hep- th]

2017 arXiv
[22]

Gopakumar, A

R. Gopakumar, A. Kaviraj, K. Sen, and A. Sinha, JHEP 05, 027 (2017), arXiv:1611.08407 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[23]

P. Dey, A. Kaviraj, and A. Sinha, JHEP 07, 019 (2017), arXiv:1612.05032 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[24]

Dey and A

P. Dey and A. Kaviraj, JHEP 02, 153 (2018), arXiv:1711.01173 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[25]

Henriksson, P

J. Henriksson, P. Kravchuk, and B. Oertel, JHEP07, 248 (2024), arXiv:2312.09283 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[26]

Fardelli, A

G. Fardelli, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and W. Li, JHEP 08, 202 (2024), arXiv:2403.07079 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[27]

A. L. Fitzpatrick and J. Kaplan, JHEP 10, 032 (2012), arXiv:1112.4845 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv
[28]

M. S. Costa, V. Gon¸ calves, and J. a. Penedones, JHEP 09, 064 (2014), arXiv:1404.5625 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

Fardelli, A

G. Fardelli, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and W. Li, Towards Large- Spin Effective Theory I: Three-Particle States in AdS ϕ4 Theory

work page

[2] [1]

A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, D. Poland, and D. Simmons-Duffin, JHEP 12, 004 (2013), arXiv:1212.3616 [hep-th]

arXiv 2013

[3] [2]

Komargodski and A

Z. Komargodski and A. Zhiboedov, JHEP 11, 140 (2013), arXiv:1212.4103 [hep-th]

arXiv 2013

[4] [3]

S. Pal, J. Qiao, and S. Rychkov, Commun. Math. Phys. 402, 2169 (2023), arXiv:2212.04893 [hep-th]

arXiv 2023

[5] [4]

B. C. van Rees, (2024), arXiv:2412.06907 [hep-th]

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

Kehrein, F

S. Kehrein, F. Wegner, and Y. Pismak, Nucl. Phys. B 402, 669 (1993)

work page 1993

[7] [7]

S. K. Kehrein and F. Wegner, Nucl. Phys. B 424, 521 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9405123

work page Pith review arXiv 1994

[8] [8]

S. K. Kehrein, Nucl. Phys. B 453, 777 (1995), arXiv:hep- th/9507044

work page arXiv 1995