Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Bootstrapping the Simplest Deconfined Quantum Critical Point

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the CP$^2$ model, the simplest remaining candidate for a deconfined quantum critical point, is described by a conformal bootstrap bound, with scaling dimensions matching large-$N$ and lattice results.

desk verdict A careful bootstrap study that plausibly identifies the CP^2 critical point, but the central claim rests on an unvaried large-N input and an assumed relevant spectrum. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06283 v1 pith:NHNS76SU submitted 2025-07-08 hep-th cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el

Shai M. Chester , Alessandro Piazza , Marten Reehorst , Ning Su This is my paper
classification hep-thcond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el
keywords conformalbootstrapdeconfinedquantumcriticalpointCP^2modelmonopoleoperatorslarge-NexpansionlargechargescalingdimensionsO(2)globalsymmetry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to show that the CP$^2$ model, the $N=3$ member of the CP$^{N-1}$ family, is the simplest remaining candidate for a deconfined quantum critical point, meaning a continuous transition between ordered phases described by an emergent gauge field and a conformal field theory. By studying four-point functions of scalar operators with U(1) charges $0$, $1$, and $2$, and assuming these are the only relevant operators, the authors find that fixing the charge-$1$ dimension to its large-$N$ value and minimizing the charge-$0$ dimension produces scaling dimensions for charges $2$, $3$, and $4$ that match large-$N$ monopole calculations, and a charge-$0$ dimension that matches one lattice estimate. The paper also predicts the dimensions of the lowest spinning monopole operators and finds they agree with the large-charge effective theory for spin less than or equal to charge. If the identification is right, the bootstrap supplies a concrete operator spectrum for the simplest deconfined quantum critical point, including testable lattice predictions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conformal bootstrap for mixed correlators of scalar operators $\phi_0$, $\phi_1$, $\phi_2$ with charges $0$, $1$, $2$ under the U(1), or O(2), global symmetry. Crossing symmetry of the four-point functions, combined with unitarity and the assumed spectrum, produces a space of allowed scaling dimensions; at the boundary of this space one finds an approximate solution to crossing from which operator data can be extracted. The $q=0,1,2$ external operators give access to exchanged operators of charges up to $4$. The input $\Delta_1$ comes from a large-$N$ saddle-point computation of monopole operator dimensions via the state-operator correspondence, and the comparison for spinning operators uses the large-charge effective theory formula $\Delta_{q,\ell}=c_{3/2} q^{3/2}+c_{1/2} q^{1/2}-0.0937+\sqrt{\ell(\ell+1)/2}+O(q^{-1/2})$ with coefficients fixed by large $N$. The numerical bootstrap machinery includes a truncation parameter $\Lambda$ whose extrapolation to infinity controls the reported errors.

What would settle it

A lattice or Hamiltonian simulation of the would-be CP$^2$ critical theory that found a relevant scalar operator of U(1) charge $3$, a relevant SU(3) adjoint, or a value of $\Delta_1$ clearly outside $0.755$ would break the matching. Concretely, measuring the lowest charge-3 excitation and the singlet dimension $\Delta_0$ with errors small enough to distinguish $\Delta_0\approx 1.61$ from the competing lattice estimate $\Delta_0\approx 1.28$ would settle whether the bootstrap point is the physical theory.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the critical CP$^2$ model appears on the boundary of the allowed region of three-dimensional conformal field theories with O(2) global symmetry and a single relevant operator of each charge $q=0,1,2$. Setting $\Delta_1=0.755$, the value from the large-$N$ expansion extrapolated to $N=3$, and minimizing $\Delta_0$, the bootstrap yields $\Delta_2=1.841(1)$, $\Delta_3=3.173(4)$, $\Delta_4=4.65(9)$, and $\Delta_0=1.61(1)$. These numbers agree with the large-$N$ monopole dimensions $\Delta_2=1.81$, $\Delta_3=3.10$, $\Delta_4=4.59$ and with the lattice value $\Delta_0=1.46(7)$ from [14], while a competing lattice estimate [15] gives $\Delta_0=1.28$ and $\Delta_1=0.785$. The lowest spinning monopole dimensions computed from the bootstrap match the large-charge effective theory for $\ell\leq q$, the same pattern seen in the critical O(2) model. The paper concludes that this suggests the critical CP$^2$ model is described by the bootstrap bound.

Load-bearing premise

The identification of the bound with the CP$^2$ model rests on the assumptions that the theory has exactly one relevant scalar of each charge $q=0,1,2$ and none with higher charge, and that the large-$N$ extrapolated value $\Delta_1=0.755$ used as input is accurate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, CP$^2$ is a conformal field theory with a single relevant U(1)-singlet scalar, and Tables I and II give its lowest scalar and spinning monopole scaling dimensions.
  • The bootstrap prediction $\Delta_0\approx 1.61$ provides a target for lattice simulations that can distinguish it from the earlier estimate $\Delta_0\approx 1.28$.
  • The match for spinning monopoles at $\ell\leq q$ suggests the large-charge effective theory works beyond its formal regime $\ell\ll q^{1/2}$, as also seen in the critical O(2) model.
  • The same U(1)-sector bootstrap, with $\Delta_1$ replaced by the large-$N$ value for larger $N$, gives partial results for CP$^3$ and CP$^4$, but the CP$^{N-1}$ model no longer sits on the lower bound as $N$ grows.
  • A relevant $q=3$ operator would instead indicate the critical O(2) model, so the assumed spectrum is what selects CP$^2$ from other O(2) conformal field theories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's success in the U(1) sector does not by itself certify the full SU(3) structure; the authors note the adjoint bootstrap gives weak bounds, so a mixed-correlator study involving SU(3) adjoints is the natural next test.
  • If the $\ell\leq q$ matching holds generally, then large-charge effective theory may be a reliable spectral tool even at small charge and moderate spin; computing non-lowest monopoles at large $N$ would test this directly.
  • The bootstrap's spectral assumption could be probed by lattice searches for a charge-3 relevant operator; absence of such an operator would support the CP$^2$ identification, while presence would point to the critical O(2) model.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same U(1)-sector bootstrap to gauge theories with Chern-Simons couplings or QCD3, though the paper does not carry this out.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper applies the conformal bootstrap to 3d CFTs with O(2) global symmetry, using correlators of scalar operators with U(1) charges q=0,1,2, to study the CP^{N-1} model at N=3 (CP^2). After assuming that only the lowest q=0,1,2 scalar operators are relevant and setting Δ1=0.755 from a large-N extrapolation, the authors minimize Δ0 and read off the spectrum at the resulting boundary point. They report Δ2=1.841(1), Δ3=3.173(4), Δ4=4.65(9), and Δ0=1.61(1), claiming agreement with large-N predictions for monopole operators and with a lattice estimate for Δ0 from Ref. [14]. They also extract spinning monopole dimensions Δ_{q,ℓ} for ℓ≤4 and compare them to a large-charge effective theory for ℓ≤q. The paper concludes that the critical CP^2 model is described by this bootstrap bound.

Significance. If the identification is correct, this is an important step: it would provide bootstrap evidence that CP^2 is a CFT with a single relevant U(1)-singlet scalar and would yield predictions for a hierarchy of monopole operators. The numerical work is carefully documented: parameter tables (Tables IV and V), finite-Λ data (Tables VI, VIII, X), explicit extrapolation procedures (Appendices B and C), and an auxiliary data file. The comparison to the O(2) large-charge effective theory (Appendix D) is a useful cross-check. The paper is honest about the non-rigorous nature of extremal functional extractions and the weak SU(3) sector. However, the central claim rests on load-bearing assumptions—the value of Δ1, the irrelevance of q=3,4 scalars, and the interpretation of boundary saturation—that are not yet fully tested. The result is best viewed as a suggestive identification rather than a conclusive one.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Figure 2, Table I] The central boundary point is computed at the single value Δ1=0.755, taken from the large-N extrapolation of Ref. [17] extrapolated to N=3. The paper never varies Δ1 over the range suggested by conflicting lattice determinations (Δ1=0.71(4) in Ref. [14] and Δ1=0.785 in Ref. [15]). Since Δ1 is a free input in the Navigator minimization, all extracted quantities (Δ0, Δ2, Δ3, Δ4, and spinning dimensions) can depend on it. A sensitivity scan is essential: if the boundary point moves significantly with Δ1, the claimed agreement shown in Table I could be an artifact of the chosen input. The only independent CP^2 anchor, Δ0, matches lattice Ref. [14] only at about the 2σ level (1.61(1) vs 1.46(7)) and is far from the Ref. [15] value (1.28). The authors should provide a scan over the allowed Δ1 range or otherwise quantify how robust their outputs are to this input.
  2. [Appendix C, Table IX] The same procedure, applied to CP^4 with Δ1=1.005, yields Δ4(bootstrap)=3.5(4), which is in stark disagreement with the large-N value 6.21, while Δ3=4.6(4) vs 4.18 is only marginal. This demonstrates that a boundary point at the large-N Δ1 does not by itself identify the target theory. The authors do not address why the CP^4 failure is not expected to affect the CP^2 result. Since the CP^2 identification rests on the same logic of inputting Δ1 and minimizing Δ0, this inconsistency must be resolved—for example, by explaining why the relevant operator content is different for CP^2 (so that the imposed gap structure is justified) or by showing that the CP^4 discrepancy is due to an unsupported spectral assumption.
  3. [Section III, paragraph beginning 'We next consider correlators'] The bootstrap input explicitly imposes that all q=3 and q=4 scalar operators are irrelevant, i.e., that the target theory has exactly one relevant operator per charge q=0,1,2. This assumption is not derived from the U(1) sector and is not tested by the correlators considered; a relevant q=3 scalar (as in the critical O(2) model, which the paper excludes) or a relevant SU(3) adjoint would alter the allowed region and the location of the boundary point. The U(1)-only bootstrap cannot rule out these alternatives. Because the central identification depends on this assumption, it should be treated as a hypothesis and either supported by additional mixed correlators or explicitly framed as such in the conclusions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table X caption] The caption lists '∆1 = 0.1005'; this should be '∆1 = 1.005'.
  2. [Section IV, paragraph 'We would also like to generalize'] The statement that increasing the gap above Δ0 above three 'might address this problem' for larger N is vague and speculative; the authors should either provide a concrete estimate for the needed gap or remove the conjecture.
  3. [Table I and Section III] The text describes the Δ0 comparison with lattice Ref. [14] as a 'match', but the numbers 1.61(1) vs 1.46(7) differ by about two combined standard deviations; the discrepancy should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Appendix C and Introduction] The abstract and Section I promise results for N=4,5, but only CP^4 (N=4) bootstrap output is shown in Appendix C; CP^5 appears only in Figure 1. Please clarify whether CP^5 bootstrap results were obtained.
  5. [Table IV] The column header 'spin-ranges' should be 'spin sets' or 'spin ranges' for grammatical clarity.
  6. [Introduction, first paragraph] The phrase 'the N=3 bosonic theory' refers to CP^2 (i.e., CP^{N-1} with N=3); defining this notation earlier would help the reader avoid confusion with the N in CP^{N-1}.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the only target-theory input is the external large-N value Δ1=0.755; the extracted Δ0, Δ2..Δ4 and spinning dimensions are boundary data compared with, not fitted to, independent benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in any load-bearing way. The bootstrap computation takes as input the single value Δ1 = 0.755, which is taken from the independent large-N calculation of Dyer, Mezei, Pufu and Sachdev [17], not from the present authors' prior work. The outputs Δ0, Δ2, Δ3, Δ4 and the spinning dimensions Δq,ℓ are then read off from the boundary of the allowed region obtained by minimizing Δ0 at fixed Δ1. These outputs are determined by the crossing equations and the stated spectral assumptions, not by any fitted parameter that was tuned to reproduce the comparison values. The agreement with large-N estimates for q=2,3,4 is a genuine consistency check: no large-N value for Δ2, Δ3 or Δ4 is inserted into the bootstrap. The lattice comparison for Δ0 is likewise a post-hoc test: Δ0 is minimized, but the resulting boundary value is compared with, not chosen to match, the lattice result. The paper also explicitly flags the main assumption that only the lowest q=0,1,2 scalar operators are relevant, and this assumption is not hidden in a citation. Self-citations appear for the O(2) bootstrap setup [23] and the Navigator algorithm [37], but these are standard, independently developed numerical tools and are not used as evidence for the physical identification of CP^2. The large-charge comparison in Eq. (3) uses coefficients fixed in [26], but again as an external benchmark. No equation or fitted parameter reduces to the claimed prediction by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the large-N extrapolated Δ1 input and the assumed relevant-operator spectrum, both imported from prior literature or stated as assumptions in Section III. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The bootstrap framework and large-charge EFT are established tools, not invented here.

free parameters (2)
  • Δ1 input (lowest q=1 scalar scaling dimension) = 0.755
    Input from the large-N expansion of the CP^{N-1} model extrapolated to N=3 [17]. All boundary-point outputs depend on this value. It is not fitted to bootstrap data, but the extrapolation to N=3 is approximate.
  • Large-charge coefficients c_{3/2}, c_{1/2} = 0.4983, 0.3449 (N=3)
    Coefficients in Eq. (3), fixed in [26] via the large-N expansion for ℓ=0. Used to generate Table III. Not fitted in this paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The CP^{N-1} model at N=3 flows to a conformal field theory in the IR.
    The central claim under test. The bootstrap results are interpreted as the CP^2 model only if this flow exists. Stated in Section I and Section IV.
  • domain assumption The large-N expansion for monopole scaling dimensions is accurate at N=3, including Δ1=0.755.
    Used to set the input Δ1 and as a benchmark for Δ2..Δ4. The paper states the expansion is 'extremely accurate even at small N' (Section II.A), but this is an extrapolation from large N to N=3.
  • ad hoc to paper Only the lowest q=0,1,2 scalar operators are relevant; all q=3,4 scalars are irrelevant.
    This spectral assumption defines the bootstrap allowed region and excludes the critical O(2) model. Stated in Section III as an assumption, not derived.
  • domain assumption The large-charge effective theory (Eq. 3) applies to spinning monopole operators for ℓ ≤ q.
    Used to interpret Table III. The paper notes the formal validity is ℓ ≪ q^{1/2} but observes matching for ℓ ≤ q, citing a similar pattern in the critical O(2) model (Section IV and Appendix D).
  • standard math Standard conformal bootstrap machinery: crossing symmetry, unitarity, and conformal block expansion are valid.
    Background for the numerical method. This is not specific to the paper but underpins all bounds and EFM estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bootstrapping the Simplest Deconfined Quantum Critical Point." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NHNS76SU

@misc{pith2026250706283,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bootstrapping the Simplest Deconfined Quantum Critical Point},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NHNS76SU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06283}
}
abstract

We study the $N=3$ case of the $CP^{N-1}$ model, which is a field theory of $N$ complex scalars in $3d$ coupled to an Abelian gauge field with $SU(N) \times U(1)$ global symmetry. Recent evidence suggests the $N=2$ theory is not critical, which makes the $N=3$ theory the simplest possibility of deconfined quantum criticality. We apply the conformal bootstrap to correlators of charge $q=0,1,2$ scalar operators under the $U(1)$ symmetry, which gives us access also to $q=3,4$ operators. After imposing that only the lowest $q=0,1,2$ scalar operators are relevant, we find that the bootstrap bounds are saturated by the large $N$ prediction for $q=1,2,3,4$ scalar monopole operator scaling dimensions, which were shown earlier to be accurate even for small $N$, as well as a lattice prediction for the $q=0$ non-monopole scalar operator. We also predict the scaling dimensions of the lowest spinning monopole operators, which we match to the large charge prediction for spinning operators. This suggests that the critical $CP^{2}$ model is described by this bootstrap bound.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06283 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Allowed region for (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Linear least-squares fits in 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Linear least-squares fits in 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Linear least-squares fits in 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Linear least-squares fits in 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Understanding Anomalous Magnetothermal Transport via Disentangling Shear and Compression Phonons

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Mode-selective spin-phonon coupling of shear versus compression phonons produces a peak-dip-peak magnetothermal heat current in spin-orbit-coupled Mott insulators.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [14]

    Antiferromagnetic to valence-bond-soild transitions in two-dimensional SU(N) Heisenberg models with multi-spin interactions

    J. Lou, A. W. Sandvik, and N. Kawashima, “Antiferromagnetic to valence-bond-solid transitions in two-dimensional SU(N) Heisenberg models with multispin interactions,” Phys. Rev. B 80 (Nov., 2009) 180414, 0908.0740

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  2. [15]

    Possibility of deconfined criticality in SU(N) Heisenberg models at small N,

    K. Harada, T. Suzuki, T. Okubo, H. Matsuo, J. Lou, H. Watanabe, S. Todo, and N. Kawashima, “Possibility of deconfined criticality in SU(N) Heisenberg models at small N,” Phys. Rev. B 88 (Dec., 2013) 220408, 1307.0501

    arXiv 2013

  3. [17]

    Scaling dimensions of monopole operators in the CPNb−1 theory in 2 + 1 dimensions,

    E. Dyer, M. Mezei, S. S. Pufu, and S. Sachdev, “Scaling dimensions of monopole operators in the CPNb−1 theory in 2 + 1 dimensions,” JHEP 06 (2015) 037, 1504.00368

    arXiv 2015

  4. [1]

    Deconfined Quantum Critical Points,

    T. Senthil, A. Vishwanath, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, and M. P. A. Fisher, “Deconfined Quantum Critical Points,” Science 303 (2004), no. 5663 1490–1494, cond-mat/0311326

    arXiv 2004

  5. [2]

    Quantum criticality beyond the Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson paradigm,

    T. Senthil, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, and M. P. A. Fisher, “Quantum criticality beyond the Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson paradigm,” Phys. Rev. B 70 (Oct., 2004) 144407, cond-mat/0312617

    arXiv 2004

  6. [3]

    First-Order Phase Transitions in Superconductors and Smectic-A Liquid Crystals,

    B. I. Halperin, T. C. Lubensky, and S.-k. Ma, “First-Order Phase Transitions in Superconductors and Smectic-A Liquid Crystals,” Phys. Rev. Lett.32 (Feb,

  7. [4]

    Critical behavior in (2 + 1)-dimensional QED,

    T. Appelquist, D. Nash, and L. Wijewardhana, “Critical behavior in (2 + 1)-dimensional QED,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 60 (1988) 2575

    1988

  8. [5]

    Deconfined quantum critical points: a review,

    T. Senthil, “Deconfined quantum critical points: a review,” 2306.12638

    arXiv

Show all 98 references
  1. [6]

    Bootstrapping conformal QED 3 and deconfined quantum critical point,

    Z. Li, “Bootstrapping conformal QED 3 and deconfined quantum critical point,” 1812.09281

    arXiv

  2. [7]

    Symmetry Enhancement, SPT Absorption, and Duality in QED 3,

    S. M. Chester and Z. Komargodski, “Symmetry Enhancement, SPT Absorption, and Duality in QED 3,” 2409.17913. 6

    arXiv

  3. [8]

    Symmetry Breaking from Monopole Condensation in QED3,

    T. T. Dumitrescu, P. Niro, and R. Thorngren, “Symmetry Breaking from Monopole Condensation in QED3,” 2410.05366

    arXiv

  4. [9]

    The Conformal Bootstrap: Theory, Numerical Techniques, and Applications,

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

    2019 arXiv

  5. [10]

    Bootstrapping Deconfined Quantum Tricriticality,

    S. M. Chester and N. Su, “Bootstrapping Deconfined Quantum Tricriticality,” Phys. Rev. Lett.132 (2024), no. 11 111601, 2310.08343

    2024 arXiv

  6. [11]

    SO(5) multicriticality in two-dimensional quantum magnets,

    J. Takahashi, H. Shao, B. Zhao, W. Guo, and A. W. Sandvik, “SO(5) multicriticality in two-dimensional quantum magnets,” 2405.06607

    arXiv

  7. [12]

    The SO(5) Deconfined Phase Transition under the Fuzzy Sphere Microscope: Approximate Conformal Symmetry, Pseudo-Criticality, and Operator Spectrum,

    Z. Zhou, L. Hu, W. Zhu, and Y.-C. He, “The SO(5) Deconfined Phase Transition under the Fuzzy Sphere Microscope: Approximate Conformal Symmetry, Pseudo-Criticality, and Operator Spectrum,” 2306.16435

    arXiv

  8. [13]

    Lattice Abelian-Higgs model with noncompact gauge fields,

    C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, “Lattice Abelian-Higgs model with noncompact gauge fields,” Phys. Rev. B103 (2021), no. 8 085104, 2010.06311

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Monopoles in CPN −1 model via the state-operator correspondence,

    M. A. Metlitski, M. Hermele, T. Senthil, and M. P. Fisher, “Monopoles in CPN −1 model via the state-operator correspondence,” Phys.Rev. B78 (2008) 214418, 0809.2816

    2008 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Monopole operators and mirror symmetry in three dimensions,

    V. Borokhov, A. Kapustin, and X.-k. Wu, “Monopole operators and mirror symmetry in three dimensions,” JHEP 0212 (2002) 044, hep-th/0207074

    2002 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Lattice Model for the SU(N) N´ eel to Valence-Bond Solid Quantum Phase Transition at Large N,

    R. K. Kaul and A. W. Sandvik, “Lattice Model for the SU(N) N´ eel to Valence-Bond Solid Quantum Phase Transition at Large N,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (Mar.,

  12. [20]

    Evidence for web of dualities from monopole operators,

    S. M. Chester, E. Dupuis, and W. Witczak-Krempa, “Evidence for web of dualities from monopole operators,” Phys. Rev. D108 (2023), no. 2 L021701, 2210.12370

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Mandelstam ’t Hooft Duality in Abelian Lattice Models,

    M. E. Peskin, “Mandelstam ’t Hooft Duality in Abelian Lattice Models,” Annals Phys. 113 (1978) 122

    1978

  14. [22]

    Phase Transition in a Lattice Model of Superconductivity,

    C. Dasgupta and B. I. Halperin, “Phase Transition in a Lattice Model of Superconductivity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 (Nov, 1981) 1556–1560

    1981

  15. [23]

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

    S. M. Chester, W. Landry, J. Liu, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, N. Su, and A. Vichi, “Carving out OPE space and precise O(2) model critical exponents,” 1912.03324

    1912 arXiv

  16. [24]

    On the CFT Operator Spectrum at Large Global Charge,

    S. Hellerman, D. Orlando, S. Reffert, and M. Watanabe, “On the CFT Operator Spectrum at Large Global Charge,” JHEP 12 (2015) 071, 1505.01537

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Semiclassics, Goldstone Bosons and CFT data,

    A. Monin, D. Pirtskhalava, R. Rattazzi, and F. K. Seibold, “Semiclassics, Goldstone Bosons and CFT data,” JHEP 06 (2017) 011, 1611.02912

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    The large charge expansion at large N ,

    A. De La Fuente, “The large charge expansion at large N ,” JHEP 08 (2018) 041, 1805.00501

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    The Lorentzian inversion formula and the spectrum of the 3d O(2) CFT,

    J. Liu, D. Meltzer, D. Poland, and D. Simmons-Duffin, “The Lorentzian inversion formula and the spectrum of the 3d O(2) CFT,” JHEP 09 (2020) 115, 2007.07914. [Erratum: JHEP 01, 206 (2021)]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Conformal dimensions via large charge expansion,

    D. Banerjee, S. Chandrasekharan, and D. Orlando, “Conformal dimensions via large charge expansion,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120 (2018), no. 6 061603, 1707.00711

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Coleman, Aspects of Symmetry: Selected Erice Lectures

    S. Coleman, Aspects of Symmetry: Selected Erice Lectures. Cambridge University Press, 1985

    1985

  22. [30]

    Quantum criticality of U(1) gauge theories with fermionic and bosonic matter in two spatial dimensions,

    R. K. Kaul and S. Sachdev, “Quantum criticality of U(1) gauge theories with fermionic and bosonic matter in two spatial dimensions,” Physical Review B77 (apr, 2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    QED’s in 2+1 dimensions: complex fixed points and dualities,

    S. Benvenuti and H. Khachatryan, “QED’s in 2+1 dimensions: complex fixed points and dualities,” 1812.01544

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Lattice CP N −1 models and their large-N behaviour,

    P. D. Vecchia, A. Holtkamp, R. Musto, F. Nicodemi, and R. Pettorino, “Lattice CP N −1 models and their large-N behaviour,” Nuclear Physics B190 (1981), no. 4 719–733

    1981

  25. [33]

    1/N expansion for critical exponents of magnetic phase transitions in the CP N −1 model for 2 < d <4,

    V. Y. Irkhin, A. A. Katanin, and M. I. Katsnelson, “1/N expansion for critical exponents of magnetic phase transitions in the CP N −1 model for 2 < d <4,” Phys. Rev. B54 (Nov, 1996) 11953–11956

    1996

  26. [34]

    The CP N −1 model: Calculation of anomalous dimensions and the mixing matrices in the order 1 /N,

    A. N. Vasilev and M. Y. Nalimov, “The CP N −1 model: Calculation of anomalous dimensions and the mixing matrices in the order 1 /N,” Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 56 (1983), no. 1 643–653

    1983

  27. [35]

    Action of hedgehog instantons in the disordered phase of the (2 + 1)-dimensional CPN −1 model,

    G. Murthy and S. Sachdev, “Action of hedgehog instantons in the disordered phase of the (2 + 1)-dimensional CPN −1 model,” Nucl.Phys. B344 (1990) 557–595

    1990

  28. [36]

    Bounding scalar operator dimensions in 4D CFT,

    R. Rattazzi, V. S. Rychkov, E. Tonni, and A. Vichi, “Bounding scalar operator dimensions in 4D CFT,” JHEP 0812 (2008) 031, 0807.0004

    2008 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Navigator Function for the Conformal Bootstrap,

    M. Reehorst, S. Rychkov, D. Simmons-Duffin, B. Sirois, N. Su, and B. van Rees, “Navigator Function for the Conformal Bootstrap,” SciPost Phys. 11 (2021) 072, 2104.09518

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Fate of CPN −1 Fixed Points with q Monopoles,

    M. S. Block, R. G. Melko, and R. K. Kaul, “Fate of CPN −1 Fixed Points with q Monopoles,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (Sept., 2013) 137202, 1307.0519

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bootstrapping the O(N) Archipelago,

    F. Kos, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, “Bootstrapping the O(N) Archipelago,” JHEP 11 (2015) 106, 1504.07997

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    autoboot: A generator of bootstrap equations with global symmetry,

    M. Go and Y. Tachikawa, “autoboot: A generator of bootstrap equations with global symmetry,” JHEP 06 (2019) 084, 1903.10522

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    From O(3) to Cubic CFT: Conformal Perturbation and the Large Charge Sector,

    J. Rong and N. Su, “From O(3) to Cubic CFT: Conformal Perturbation and the Large Charge Sector,” 2311.00933

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    A roadmap for bootstrapping critical gauge theories: decoupling operators of conformal field theories in d >2 dimensions,

    Y.-C. He, J. Rong, and N. Su, “A roadmap for bootstrapping critical gauge theories: decoupling operators of conformal field theories in d >2 dimensions,” SciPost Phys. 11 (2021) 111, 2101.07262

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Exploring SU (N ) adjoint correlators in 3 d,

    A. Manenti and A. Vichi, “Exploring SU (N ) adjoint correlators in 3 d,” 2101.07318

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Emergent SO(5) Symmetry at the N´ eel to Valence-Bond-Solid Transition,

    A. Nahum, P. Serna, J. T. Chalker, M. Ortu˜ no, and A. M. Somoza, “Emergent SO(5) Symmetry at the N´ eel to Valence-Bond-Solid Transition,” Phys. Rev. Lett.115 (2015), no. 26 267203, 1508.06668

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Intrinsic and 7 emergent anomalies at deconfined critical points,

    M. A. Metlitski and R. Thorngren, “Intrinsic and 7 emergent anomalies at deconfined critical points,” Phys. Rev. B 98 (2018), no. 8 085140, 1707.07686

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Towards bootstrapping QED3,

    S. M. Chester and S. S. Pufu, “Towards bootstrapping QED3,” JHEP 08 (2016) 019, 1601.03476

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bootstrapping Nf =4 conformal QED 3,

    S. Albayrak, R. S. Erramilli, Z. Li, D. Poland, and Y. Xin, “Bootstrapping Nf =4 conformal QED 3,” Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022), no. 8 085008, 2112.02106

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Solving the 3D Ising Model with the Conformal Bootstrap,

    S. El-Showk, M. F. Paulos, D. Poland, S. Rychkov, D. Simmons-Duffin, et. al., “Solving the 3D Ising Model with the Conformal Bootstrap,” Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 025022, 1203.6064

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Precision Islands in the Ising and O(N ) Models,

    F. Kos, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, “Precision Islands in the Ising and O(N ) Models,” JHEP 08 (2016) 036, 1603.04436

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bootstrapping Heisenberg magnets and their cubic instability,

    S. M. Chester, W. Landry, J. Liu, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, N. Su, and A. Vichi, “Bootstrapping Heisenberg magnets and their cubic instability,” Phys. Rev. D104 (Nov, 2021) 105013

    2021

  43. [51]

    Particle-Vortex Duality from 3d Bosonization,

    A. Karch and D. Tong, “Particle-Vortex Duality from 3d Bosonization,” Phys. Rev. X6 (2016), no. 3 031043, 1606.01893

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    A Duality Web in 2+1 Dimensions and Condensed Matter Physics,

    N. Seiberg, T. Senthil, C. Wang, and E. Witten, “A Duality Web in 2+1 Dimensions and Condensed Matter Physics,” Annals Phys. 374 (2016) 395–433, 1606.01989

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Deconfined quantum critical points: symmetries and dualities,

    C. Wang, A. Nahum, M. A. Metlitski, C. Xu, and T. Senthil, “Deconfined quantum critical points: symmetries and dualities,” Phys. Rev. X7 (2017), no. 3 031051, 1703.02426

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Phases of U(Nc) QCD3 from Type 0 Strings and Seiberg Duality,

    M. Akhond, A. Armoni, and S. Speziali, “Phases of U(Nc) QCD3 from Type 0 Strings and Seiberg Duality,” JHEP 09 (2019) 111, 1908.04324

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Duality between the deconfined quantum-critical point and the bosonic topological transition,

    Y. Q. Qin, Y.-Y. He, Y.-Z. You, Z.-Y. Lu, A. Sen, A. W. Sandvik, C. Xu, and Z. Y. Meng, “Duality between the deconfined quantum-critical point and the bosonic topological transition,” Phys. Rev. X7 (2017), no. 3 031052, 1705.10670

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Bootstrapping the O(N ) vector models,

    F. Kos, D. Poland, and D. Simmons-Duffin, “Bootstrapping the O(N ) vector models,” JHEP 06 (2014) 091, 1307.6856

    2014 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Navigating through the O(N) archipelago,

    B. Sirois, “Navigating through the O(N) archipelago,” 2203.11597

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bootstrapping frustrated magnets: the fate of the chiral O(N ) × O(2) universality class,

    M. Reehorst, S. Rychkov, B. Sirois, and B. C. van Rees, “Bootstrapping frustrated magnets: the fate of the chiral O(N ) × O(2) universality class,” SciPost Phys. 18 (2025), no. 2 060, 2405.19411

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Scalar CFTs and Their Large N Limits,

    J. Rong and N. Su, “Scalar CFTs and Their Large N Limits,” JHEP 09 (2018) 103, 1712.00985

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Upper critical dimension of the 3-state Potts model,

    S. M. Chester and N. Su, “Upper critical dimension of the 3-state Potts model,” 2210.09091

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bootstrapping 3D Fermions with Global Symmetries,

    L. Iliesiu, F. Kos, D. Poland, S. S. Pufu, and D. Simmons-Duffin, “Bootstrapping 3D Fermions with Global Symmetries,” JHEP 01 (2018) 036, 1705.03484

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    The Gross-Neveu-Yukawa archipelago,

    R. S. Erramilli, L. V. Iliesiu, P. Kravchuk, A. Liu, D. Poland, and D. Simmons-Duffin, “The Gross-Neveu-Yukawa archipelago,” JHEP 02 (2023) 036, 2210.02492

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Bootstrapping the Minimal 3D SCFT,

    A. Atanasov, A. Hillman, and D. Poland, “Bootstrapping the Minimal 3D SCFT,” JHEP 11 (2018) 140, 1807.05702

    2018 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Bootstrapping the minimal N = 1 superconformal field theory in three dimensions,

    J. Rong and N. Su, “Bootstrapping the minimal N = 1 superconformal field theory in three dimensions,” JHEP 06 (2021) 154, 1807.04434

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Precision bootstrap for the N = 1 super-Ising model,

    A. Atanasov, A. Hillman, D. Poland, J. Rong, and N. Su, “Precision bootstrap for the N = 1 super-Ising model,” JHEP 08 (2022) 136, 2201.02206

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Numerical tests of the large charge expansion,

    G. Cuomo, J. M. V. P. Lopes, J. Matos, J. Oliveira, and J. Penedones, “Numerical tests of the large charge expansion,” JHEP 05 (2024) 161, 2305.00499

    2024

  59. [67]

    On the critical fluctuations in superconductors,

    R. Folk and Y. Holovatch, “On the critical fluctuations in superconductors,” Journal of Physics A29 (1996) 3409–3425

    1996

  60. [68]

    Abelian Higgs model at four loops, fixed-point collision, and deconfined criticality,

    B. Ihrig, N. Zerf, P. Marquard, I. F. Herbut, and M. M. Scherer, “Abelian Higgs model at four loops, fixed-point collision, and deconfined criticality,” Phys. Rev. B100 (Oct, 2019) 134507

    2019

  61. [69]

    Weizmann Lectures on the Numerical Conformal Bootstrap,

    S. M. Chester, “Weizmann Lectures on the Numerical Conformal Bootstrap,” 1907.05147

    1907 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Giant Vortices and the Regge Limit,

    G. Cuomo and Z. Komargodski, “Giant Vortices and the Regge Limit,” JHEP 01 (2023) 006, 2210.15694

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    The M-theory Archipelago,

    N. B. Agmon, S. M. Chester, and S. S. Pufu, “The M-theory Archipelago,” JHEP 02 (2020) 010, 1907.13222

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Higher-derivative corrections in M-theory from precision numerical bootstrap,

    S. M. Chester, R. Dempsey, and S. S. Pufu, “Higher-derivative corrections in M-theory from precision numerical bootstrap,” 2412.14094

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Bounds on 4D Conformal and Superconformal Field Theories,

    D. Poland and D. Simmons-Duffin, “Bounds on 4D Conformal and Superconformal Field Theories,” JHEP 05 (2011) 017, 1009.2087

    2011 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Bootstrapping Conformal Field Theories with the Extremal Functional Method,

    S. El-Showk and M. F. Paulos, “Bootstrapping Conformal Field Theories with the Extremal Functional Method,” Phys. Rev. Lett.111 (2013), no. 24 241601, 1211.2810

    2013 arXiv

  67. [75]

    The Lightcone Bootstrap and the Spectrum of the 3d Ising CFT,

    D. Simmons-Duffin, “The Lightcone Bootstrap and the Spectrum of the 3d Ising CFT,” JHEP 03 (2017) 086, 1612.08471

    2017 arXiv

  68. [76]

    N. Su. simpleboot: A mathematica framework for bootstrap calculations

  69. [77]

    https://gitlab.com/bootstrapcollaboration/ scalar_blocks

  70. [78]

    Scaling the semidefinite program solver SDPB,

    W. Landry and D. Simmons-Duffin, “Scaling the semidefinite program solver SDPB,” 1909.09745

    1909 arXiv

  71. [79]

    The Random-Bond Ising Model in 2.01 and 3 Dimensions,

    Z. Komargodski and D. Simmons-Duffin, “The Random-Bond Ising Model in 2.01 and 3 Dimensions,” J. Phys. A50 (2017), no. 15 154001, 1603.04444

    2017 arXiv

  72. [80]

    https://gitlab.com/bootstrapcollaboration/ spectrum-extraction

  73. [81]

    Hastie, R

    T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman, The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. Springer, New York, 2 ed., 2009

    2009

  74. [82]

    In particular, if the theory were conformal, then it would be expected to have an enhanced O(4) symmetry [51–54], but the bootstrap puts bounds on the scaling dimension of the order parameter that exclude the lattice estimate [55] by a huge margin

  75. [83]

    no relevant SO(5) singlets

    In particular, the theory is believed to have an enhanced SO(5) symmetry [44], but the lattice estimate for the order parameter is ruled out by the bootstrap if one assumes there is just one relevant SU (2) × U (1) singlet, i.e. no relevant SO(5) singlets

  76. [84]

    For odd N , one must have non-zero Chern-Simons coupling

  77. [85]

    This theory is also referred to as non-compact QED3 or N CCPN −1 model in condensed matter literature, which refers to the fact that the theory has an explicit U (1) symmetry that forbids monopoles from being added to the action. 8

  78. [86]

    The theory is believe to be conformal for all N ≥ Ncrit, so if Ncrit = 4, then N = 3 would not be conformal

  79. [87]

    We emphasize that physical theories do not exactly appear on the boundary of an allowed region formed by bootstrapping a finite amount of correlators, because this would then imply that adding further correlators to the bootstrap could not change the bound even slightly. Nonet...

  80. [88]

    For instance, the critical O(N ) models [39, 56, 57], O(N ) × O(2) models [58], N = 4 fermionic QED3 [46, 47], N = 2 bosonic QED3 [10], bosonic QED3 for very large N [42], the 3-state Potts model [59, 60], the Gross-Neveu-Yukawa model [61, 62], and the N = 1 Ising model [63–65]

  81. [89]

    The large charge expansion for the critical O(2) model was previously compared against lattice predictions for ℓ = 0 in [66]

  82. [90]

    One can also tune both m2 and u to zero to get a tricritical theory

  83. [91]

    The scaling dimensions were also computed using the 4 − ϵ expansion [3, 67, 68], which is also not accurate for ϵ = 1

  84. [92]

    We normalize q as twice the value given in [10, 17]

  85. [93]

    This can be seen from the fact that p ℓ(ℓ + 1)/2 = 1 for ℓ = 1

  86. [94]

    For more details, see e.g

    One must also truncate the set of spins to some maximal value, but in practice this does not effect the numerical results as long as the value is large enough. For more details, see e.g. [69]

  87. [95]

    In [39], ∆ 1 and ∆0 are denoted as ∆ ϕ and ∆s, respectively

  88. [96]

    Recall that the CP 1 theory is believed to either have two q = 0 relevant operators or to have a weakly first order transition

  89. [97]

    Note that the large charge expansion for larger values of ℓ was worked out in [70], but these expansions do not match bootstrap data either for the critical O(2) model or for our theory, which might be because these large q expansions are known to fewer orders than the small ℓ...

  90. [98]

    external

    Precise bootstrap islands have been found for 3 d supersymmetric gauge theories such as ABJM theory in [71, 72], but this required the additional input of supersymmetric localization constraints. Supplemental Materials Appendix A: Numerical bootstrap details We remind the read...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.