Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Integrability and Renormalization under $T \bar T$

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives the one-loop renormalized Lagrangian of the $T\bar T$ deformation of a free massive scalar and shows that quantum integrability forces its two quartic couplings to be unequal.

desk verdict Careful one-loop calculation giving a new renormalized Lagrangian for the TT-deformed free scalar, with a real but clearly stated open check: whether that Lagrangian satisfies the defining TT flow equation. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02640 v2 pith:RQFYX5PT submitted 2019-09-05 hep-th

Vladimir Rosenhaus , Michael Smolkin This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords TTbardeformationrenormalizedLagrangianintegrablequantumfieldtheoryS-matrixone-looprenormalizationfreemassivescalarNambu-Gotoactionhigher-spindeformations
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 asks what the deformation known as $T\bar T$ does to a quantum field theory at the level of the Lagrangian. For the $T\bar T$ deformation of a free massive scalar in two dimensions, it derives the one-loop renormalized Lagrangian to second order in the deformation parameter by demanding that the Lagrangian reproduce the known deformed S-matrix, $\exp(i\lambda m^2\sinh\theta)$. The central result is that quantum integrability forces the two quartic couplings of the renormalized Lagrangian to be different, even though the classical deformed Lagrangian has a single coupling. This matters because once the renormalized Lagrangian is known, other observables such as correlation functions can in principle be computed perturbatively, and because it shows how integrability can fix the finite parts of counterterms that are ordinarily ambiguous.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $T\bar T$ flow equation, $\partial_\lambda L = -4(T_{zz}\bar T_{\bar z\bar z} - T_{z\bar z}^2)$, which defines the deformation and from which the deformed S-matrix phase factor $\exp(i\lambda m^2\sinh\theta)$ follows. The machinery that carries the paper's argument is S-matrix matching: start from the classical Lagrangian, compute the perturbative S-matrix, and fix the finite parts of counterterms by requiring the result to equal the known phase factor; integrability ensures that the one-loop amplitude contains only powers of $\sinh\theta$ and no logarithms, so local counterterms suffice. A second ingredient is the derivation in Sec. 4.1 that a $T\bar T$ deformation multiplies any $n$-body S-matrix by $\exp(i\lambda m^2 \sum_{i<j}\sinh\theta_{ij}/2)$, obtained by evaluating the wedge product of conserved-current one-forms on a circle in radial quantization.

What would settle it

Compute the two-to-two S-matrix at order $\lambda^3$ from the proposed renormalized Lagrangian; the claim fails unless the imaginary part is cancelable by local counterterms and the real part matches the expansion of $\exp(i\lambda m^2\sinh\theta)$. A more direct check is to verify $\partial_\lambda L_{\mathrm{ren}} = -4(T_{zz}\bar T_{\bar z\bar z}-T_{z\bar z}^2)$ with the renormalized stress tensor, a step the paper identifies as unfinished.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the renormalized Lagrangian of the $T\bar T$ deformation of a free massive scalar, to second order in $\lambda$ at one loop, is $L = 2\partial\varphi\bar\partial\varphi + \tfrac12 m^2\varphi^2 - 4g(\partial\varphi\bar\partial\varphi)^2 + \tfrac14 h m^4\varphi^4 + \cdots$, where $g$ and $h$ are given in Eqs. (3.35)-(3.36), up to finite pieces the paper does not display. The derivation starts from the classical Lagrangian, computes the tree-level and one-loop S-matrix from tadpole and bubble diagrams, and adds counterterms to cancel the imaginary parts that would violate the known deformed S-matrix $\exp(i\lambda m^2\sinh\theta)$. The finite parts of these counterterms are fixed by demanding quantum integrability, and the result is qualitative: the two quartic couplings, which share one coefficient $\lambda$ in the classical Lagrangian, renormalize differently. In the massless case the same matching procedure yields a renormalization of the coupling, while an off-shell effective-action analysis produces counterterms that vanish on shell and therefore do not affect the S-matrix at this order.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that matching the known S-matrix uniquely fixes the renormalized Lagrangian of the $T\bar T$ deformation; the paper explicitly leaves open whether this Lagrangian satisfies the original $T\bar T$ flow equation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The presented renormalized Lagrangian makes perturbative correlation functions of $\varphi$ in the deformed theory well-defined to order $\lambda^2$, with counterterms fixed by the S-matrix.
  • Quantum integrability changes the form of the Lagrangian: the single classical coupling $\lambda$ splits into two unequal quartic couplings, unlike sinh-Gordon where renormalization preserves the classical form.
  • For any two-dimensional theory, the $T\bar T$ deformation multiplies the $n$-body S-matrix by $\exp(i\lambda m^2\sum_{i<j}\sinh\theta_{ij}/2)$, so the flow-to-S-matrix connection does not require integrability of the starting theory.
  • Every Lagrangian of the form $L=f(\lambda\partial\varphi\bar\partial\varphi)$ with $f$ analytic near zero is classically integrable, placing $T\bar T$ in an infinite family of integrability-preserving deformations.
  • The $T_{s+1}T_{s+1}$ deformations of a free massless scalar produce Lagrangians that are power series in $(\partial\varphi\bar\partial\varphi)^{s+1}$ with recursively determined coefficients, generalizing the Nambu-Goto result at $s=1$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the S-matrix continues to determine the Lagrangian at higher orders, then correlation functions of the deformed theory are unique predictions of integrability; a direct test would be computing the order-$\lambda^3$ S-matrix from the proposed Lagrangian.
  • The unequal renormalization of the two quartic couplings suggests that the classical one-parameter Lagrangians expand into a multi-parameter coupling space under renormalization, and dimensional regularization could reveal a scheme-independent ratio $g/h$.
  • Applying the same S-matrix-matching to the higher-spin $T_{s+1}T_{s+1}$ deformations should produce analogous coupling splits, and the classical integrability of all $L=f(\lambda\partial\varphi\bar\partial\varphi)$ Lagrangians hints that these deformations form a family with a common renormalization structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the T\bar T deformation of a free massive scalar in two dimensions. Starting from the classical Lagrangian (2.10), expanded through O(\lambda^2) in (3.1), the authors compute the one-loop 2-to-2 S-matrix from tadpole and bubble diagrams in Sec. 3.2. They then choose counterterms so that the S-matrix equals the phase exp(i\lambda m^2\sinh\theta) of Eq. (2.9), obtaining the renormalized couplings g and h in Eqs. (3.35)-(3.36), whose inequality is the paper's main physical result. The paper also presents a derivation of the S-matrix dressing factor from the T\bar T flow equation using conserved charges in radial quantization (Sec. 4.1), discusses the relation between the renormalized Lagrangian, the flow equation, and correlation functions (Secs. 4.2-4.3), and studies more general integrable deformations of free scalars (Sec. 4.4). The central claim is that Eq. (3.34), with g and h as in (3.35)-(3.36), is the renormalized Lagrangian of the T\bar T-deformed free massive scalar to second order in \lambda at one loop.

Significance. The one-loop calculation is detailed and internally consistent: the \theta-dependent logarithmic terms cancel between s-, t-, and u-channel contributions as required for an integrable S-matrix, and the real part of S^{(2)} correctly matches the unitarity-fixed expansion of the target phase (2.9). This is a nontrivial demonstration that quantum integrability can fix the divergent counterterm structure of an irrelevant deformation. If the identification with the T\bar T-deformed theory is established, the result would provide an explicit quantum Lagrangian for a T\bar T-deformed QFT, a route to correlation functions, and a concrete prediction that quantum effects split the two quartic couplings that are equal in the classical Lagrangian. The derivation in Sec. 4.1 of the S-matrix phase from the flow equation is also a valuable contribution. The paper is transparent about what is and is not verified, notably in Sec. 4.2 and footnote 7.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (1.1)] The central identification of Eq. (3.34) as the renormalized Lagrangian of the T\bar T-deformed theory is not established because the paper does not verify that this Lagrangian satisfies the defining quantum T\bar T flow equation (1.1). The text explicitly states only that "one thing that remains of interest to verify is that the renormalized Lagrangian satisfies the original TT flow equation." Matching the 2-to-2 S-matrix to exp(i\lambda m^2\sinh\theta) is necessary but not sufficient: on-shell 2-to-2 data cannot uniquely determine an off-shell local Lagrangian, since field redefinitions and operators vanishing on shell are invisible to this check, and the ellipsis in (3.34) leaves other O(\lambda^2) terms unconstrained. This is a load-bearing gap in the paper's central claim and should be addressed, or the claim should be explicitly weakened to the statement that (3.34) is a local Lagrangian whose one-loop S-matrix reproduces the T\bar T phase.
  2. [Sec. 3.2.2, footnote 7 and Eqs. (3.34)-(3.36)] The renormalized Lagrangian is not actually fully specified: the finite parts of the counterterms are not written, and Appendix A states that in evaluating divergent integrals the authors "drop all terms that are finite." Consequently the couplings g and h in Eqs. (3.35)-(3.36) are only the divergent parts in a particular hard-cutoff scheme. Since the S-matrix matching fixes only on-shell 2-to-2 quantities, it cannot determine the finite off-shell completion, and Sec. 4.3 itself states that computing correlation functions requires the correct finite pieces. Thus Eq. (3.34) does not yet provide the complete renormalized Lagrangian promised in the abstract, and the advertised correlation-function program cannot be carried out with the results as presented.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (4.10)-(4.12)] The derivation of the S-matrix dressing factor assumes that the n-particle state is an eigenstate of the truncated charge operator Q(\phi) with a specific order of particles around the circle and a midpoint prescription at the jumps. These assumptions are stated but not justified from the dynamics; if this is intended as a proof, a justification should be supplied, otherwise the argument should be labeled as a heuristic derivation.
  2. [Throughout] The manuscript contains drafting remnants that should be removed: editorial notes such as "Have summary of what the point is" and "Should we change this??", duplicated passages around Eq. (3.1), and an unresolved "Fig. ??" reference in Sec. 4.1. These distract from the scientific content.
  3. [Sec. 3.1.1, Eq. (3.18)] The statement that the counterterms in (3.18) vanish when contracted with on-shell external particles is correct, but the text could be clearer that these terms must be kept for off-shell quantities and for higher-order computations, as otherwise the reader may incorrectly conclude they are irrelevant.
  4. [Appendix A] The notation L\mu\nu and L\mu\nu\alpha\beta for the integrals in (A.17) and (A.20) is easy to confuse with the function L(s) used for the massless bubble diagram; renaming one of these objects would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the renormalized Lagrangian is fixed by matching an externally specified S-matrix from the TT flow equation, not by fitting the computed amplitude to itself.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The S-matrix phase exp(i lambda m^2 sinh theta) is an external input obtained from the TT flow equation and prior work (Smirnov-Zamolodchikov, Dubovsky-Flauger-Gorbenko), not from the renormalized Lagrangian that the paper constructs. The counterterms in Sec. 3.2.2 are added to cancel the unwanted imaginary parts of the one-loop S-matrix computed from the bare Lagrangian, while the real part is independently computed and is found to match the unitarity-determined real part of the target S-matrix. Thus the couplings g and h in Eqs. (3.35)-(3.36) are outputs of a matching calculation, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The one self-citation (Komatsu-Rosenhaus, unpublished, for the Ts+1Ts+1 classical Lagrangian in Sec. 4.4.2) is peripheral and not load-bearing for the central result. The paper does invoke the classical TT solution (2.10) from the literature, but it explicitly verifies that this Lagrangian solves the classical flow equation, so no ansatz is smuggled in by citation. The acknowledged gap is stated in Sec. 4.2: 'One thing that remains of interest to verify is that the renormalized Lagrangian satisfies the original TT flow equation.' This is a completeness or consistency limitation, not circularity, because the S-matrix used to fix the Lagrangian is not being derived from that same Lagrangian. The paper is self-contained in its perturbative one-loop matching and does not reduce its conclusion to its own inputs by construction.

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

The calculation does not fit any constants to target data; lambda and m are inputs from the undeformed theory and the deformation. The main unquantified input is the undetermined finite part of the counterterms, listed as a free parameter. The axioms are standard QFT perturbation theory, the flow-equation definition, the known T Tbar S-matrix benchmark, and the unverified identification of the S-matrix-matched Lagrangian with the flow-equation theory. No new particles, forces, or fields are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • finite parts of the one-loop counterterms
    Footnote 7 states that g and h also have finite pieces that are not written out, although they are needed for correlation functions; the written Lagrangian is therefore not fully specified.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption TT flow equation (1.1) defines the deformed theory, with both sides renormalized and UV finite.
    Used as the definition of the T Tbar deformation throughout; if the composite operator is not uniquely defined, the target S-matrix and Lagrangian change. Stated in Sec. 1 and Sec. 2.1.
  • domain assumption The S-matrix of the T Tbar-deformed free scalar is S(theta)=exp(i lambda m^2 sinh theta).
    Taken from Smirnov-Zamolodchikov [1] and related work [3,5]; it is the external benchmark used to fix counterterms in Sec. 3. The paper also gives a derivation in Sec. 4.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Each n-particle state is an eigenstate of the truncated charge operator Q(phi), with localized particles at separated angles and midpoint value at jumps.
    This assumption is introduced in Sec. 4.1 to derive the flow-equation-to-S-matrix dressing factor. If the charge action is not of this step-function form, Eq. (4.14) does not follow.
  • ad hoc to paper A local Lagrangian matching the S-matrix to order lambda^2 is the renormalized Lagrangian of the T Tbar-deformed theory.
    This is the identification needed for the central result; Sec. 4.2 explicitly leaves open the verification that the constructed Lagrangian satisfies the T Tbar flow equation.
  • domain assumption In two dimensions, the renormalized stress tensor differs from the bare one by conserved improvement terms, so the T Tbar composite changes only by a total derivative.
    Used in Sec. 4.2 to argue the flow equation can hold with the renormalized Lagrangian; this is a general field-theory argument, not a check of the specific computed Lagrangian.
  • standard math Standard Feynman diagram perturbation theory, unitarity, and crossing constrain the one-loop S-matrix.
    Used throughout Sec. 3; the real part of S(2) is said to be fixed by unitarity, and the theta-dependent parts are expected to cancel in integrable theories.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrability and Renormalization under $T \bar T$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RQFYX5PT

@misc{pith2026190902640,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrability and Renormalization under $T \bar T$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RQFYX5PT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02640}
}
abstract

Smirnov and Zamolodchikov recently introduced a new class of two-dimensional quantum field theories, defined through a differential change of any existing theory by the determinant of the energy-momentum tensor. From this $T\bar T$ flow equation one can find a simple expression for both the energy spectrum and the $S$-matrix of the $T\bar T$ deformed theories. Our goal is to find the renormalized Lagrangian of the $T\bar T$ deformed theories. In the context of the $T\bar T$ deformation of an integrable theory, the deformed theory is also integrable and, correspondingly, the $S$-matrix factorizes into two-to-two $S$-matrices. One may thus hope to be able to extract the renormalized Lagrangian from the $S$-matrix. We do this explicitly for the $T\bar T$ deformation of a free massive scalar, to second order in the deformation parameter. Once one has the renormalized Lagrangian one can, in principle, compute all other observables, such as correlation functions. We briefly discuss this, as well as the relation between the renormalized Lagrangian, the $T\bar T$ flow equation, and the $S$-matrix. We also mention a more general class of integrability-preserving deformations of a free scalar field theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02640 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The only divergent diagrams in the sinh-Gordon model are tadpole diagrams. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The bubble diagram contribution to the sinh-Gordon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The one-loop contribution to the S-matrix in the TT deformation of a massless free scalar (the gauge-fixed Nambu-Goto theory). Solid lines represent propagators of ∂φ, while dashed lines are propagators of ∂φ. infinity. In this limit, the S-matrix (2.9) becomes, S = exp (iλ s/2) . (3.5) At zero coupling our action is that of a free massless scalar, L = 2∂φ∂φ, with correlation functions, hφ(z1 )φ(z2 )i = − 1 4π log z… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Tadpole diagram contribution to the S-matrix of the TT deformation of a massive free scalar. Here in the first equality we acted with the derivatives inside the parentheses and used the equations of motion. We then regrouped the terms to get the second equality, and th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    On space of integrable quantum field theories,

    F. A. Smirnov and A. B. Zamolodchikov, “On space of integrable quantum field theories,” Nucl. Phys. B915 (2017) 363–383, arXiv:1608.05499 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    A. B. Zamolodchikov and A. B. Zamolodchikov, “Factorized s Matrices in Two-Dimensions as 13The conformal four-point integral is well known, as it is equivalent to the integral definition of a conformal partial wave, see e.g. [46,47]. An efficient way to evaluate the conformal partial wave integral is by noting that the partial wave is a sum of a conformal bl...

    work page 1979

  3. [3]

    TT -deformed 2D Quantum Field Theories,

    A. Cavagli` a, S. Negro, I. M. Sz´ ecs´ enyi, and R. Tateo, “TT -deformed 2D Quantum Field Theories,” JHEP 10 (2016) 112, arXiv:1608.05534 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    TT -deformations in closed form,

    G. Bonelli, N. Doroud, and M. Zhu, “ TT -deformations in closed form,” JHEP 06 (2018) 149, arXiv:1804.10967 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Solving the Simplest Theory of Quantum Grav- ity,

    S. Dubovsky, R. Flauger, and V. Gorbenko, “Solving the Simplest Theory of Quantum Grav- ity,” JHEP 09 (2012) 133, arXiv:1205.6805 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Quantisation of the effective string with TBA,

    M. Caselle, D. Fioravanti, F. Gliozzi, and R. Tateo, “Quantisation of the effective string with TBA,” JHEP 07 (2013) 071, arXiv:1305.1278 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Natural Tuning: Towards A Proof of Con- cept,

    S. Dubovsky, V. Gorbenko, and M. Mirbabayi, “Natural Tuning: Towards A Proof of Con- cept,” JHEP 09 (2013) 045, arXiv:1305.6939 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Expectation value of composite field T anti-T in two-dimensional quantum field theory,

    A. B. Zamolodchikov, “Expectation value of composite field T anti-T in two-dimensional quantum field theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0401146 [hep-th]

    arXiv

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Asymptotic fragility, near AdS 2 holography and TT ,

    S. Dubovsky, V. Gorbenko, and M. Mirbabayi, “Asymptotic fragility, near AdS 2 holography and TT ,” JHEP 09 (2017) 136, arXiv:1706.06604 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    TT partition function from topological gravity,

    S. Dubovsky, V. Gorbenko, and G. Hernndez-Chifflet, “TT partition function from topological gravity,” JHEP 09 (2018) 158, arXiv:1805.07386 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    The TT deformation of quantum field theory as random geometry,

    J. Cardy, “The TT deformation of quantum field theory as random geometry,” JHEP 10 (2018) 186, arXiv:1801.06895 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    The T T perturbation and its geometric interpretation,

    R. Conti, S. Negro, and R. Tateo, “The T T perturbation and its geometric interpretation,” JHEP 02 (2019) 085, arXiv:1809.09593 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Generalised Born-Infeld models, Lax operators and the TT perturbation,

    R. Conti, L. Iannella, S. Negro, and R. Tateo, “Generalised Born-Infeld models, Lax operators and the TT perturbation,” JHEP 11 (2018) 007, arXiv:1806.11515 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Moving the CFT into the bulk with TT ,

    L. McGough, M. Mezei, and H. Verlinde, “Moving the CFT into the bulk with TT ,” JHEP 04 (2018) 010, arXiv:1611.03470 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    TT and the mirage of a bulk cutoff,

    M. Guica and R. Monten, “ TT and the mirage of a bulk cutoff,” arXiv:1906.11251 [hep-th]

    1906 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Holography at finite cutoff with a T 2 deformation,

    T. Hartman, J. Kruthoff, E. Shaghoulian, and A. Tajdini, “Holography at finite cutoff with a T 2 deformation,” JHEP 03 (2019) 004, arXiv:1807.11401 [hep-th] . 34

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    TT deformations in general dimensions,

    M. Taylor, “TT deformations in general dimensions,” arXiv:1805.10287 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    T T and LST,

    A. Giveon, N. Itzhaki, and D. Kutasov, “T T and LST,” JHEP 07 (2017) 122, arXiv:1701.05576 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    TT -deformations, AdS/CFT and correlation functions,

    G. Giribet, “ TT -deformations, AdS/CFT and correlation functions,” JHEP 02 (2018) 114, arXiv:1711.02716 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    dS/dS and TT ,

    V. Gorbenko, E. Silverstein, and G. Torroba, “dS/dS and TT ,” JHEP 03 (2019) 085, arXiv:1811.07965 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    TT deformed partition functions,

    S. Datta and Y. Jiang, “ TT deformed partition functions,” JHEP 08 (2018) 106, arXiv:1806.07426 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Lectures on solvable irrelevant deformations of 2d quantum field theory,

    Y. Jiang, “Lectures on solvable irrelevant deformations of 2d quantum field theory,” arXiv:1904.13376 [hep-th]

    1904 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Modular invariance and unique- ness of TT deformed CFT,

    O. Aharony, S. Datta, A. Giveon, Y. Jiang, and D. Kutasov, “Modular invariance and unique- ness of TT deformed CFT,” JHEP 01 (2019) 086, arXiv:1808.02492 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Scattering in two-dimensional model with Lagrangian (1/gamma) ((d(mu)u)**2/2 + m**2 cos(u-1)),

    I. Arefeva and V. Korepin, “Scattering in two-dimensional model with Lagrangian (1/gamma) ((d(mu)u)**2/2 + m**2 cos(u-1)),” Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 20 (1974) 680

    1974

  17. [25]

    Anyons from Strings,

    L. Mezincescu and P. K. Townsend, “Anyons from Strings,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 191601, arXiv:1008.2334 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Four Loop Scattering in the Nambu-Goto Theory,

    P. Conkey and S. Dubovsky, “Four Loop Scattering in the Nambu-Goto Theory,” JHEP 05 (2016) 071, arXiv:1603.00719 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Dimensional Regularization of Composite Operators in Scalar Field Theory,

    L. S. Brown, “Dimensional Regularization of Composite Operators in Scalar Field Theory,” Annals Phys. 126 (1980) 135

    1980

  20. [28]

    L. S. Brown, Quantum Field Theory . Cambridge University Press, 1992

    1992

  21. [29]

    Cutoff AdS 3 versus the TT deformation,

    P. Kraus, J. Liu, and D. Marolf, “Cutoff AdS 3 versus the TT deformation,” JHEP 07 (2018) 027, arXiv:1801.02714 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    The TT* deformation at large central charge,

    O. Aharony and T. Vaknin, “The TT* deformation at large central charge,” JHEP 05 (2018) 166, arXiv:1803.00100 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    On correlation functions in JT -deformed CFTs,

    M. Guica, “On correlation functions in JT -deformed CFTs,” J. Phys. A52 (2019) no. 18, 184003, arXiv:1902.01434 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    TT deformation of correlation functions,

    J. Cardy, “TT deformation of correlation functions,” arXiv:1907.03394 [hep-th] . 35

    1907 arXiv

  25. [33]

    On TT deformations and supersymmetry,

    M. Baggio, A. Sfondrini, G. Tartaglino-Mazzucchelli, and H. Walsh, “On TT deformations and supersymmetry,” JHEP 06 (2019) 063, arXiv:1811.00533 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Supersymmetry and TT deformations,

    C.-K. Chang, C. Ferko, and S. Sethi, “Supersymmetry and TT deformations,” JHEP 04 (2019) 131, arXiv:1811.01895 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    An integrable Lorentz-breaking deformation of two-dimensional CFTs,

    M. Guica, “An integrable Lorentz-breaking deformation of two-dimensional CFTs,” SciPost Phys. 5 (2018) no. 5, 048, arXiv:1710.08415 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Solving a family of TT -like theories,

    B. Le Floch and M. Mezei, “Solving a family of TT -like theories,” arXiv:1903.07606 [hep-th]

    1903 arXiv

  29. [37]

    TTbar deformation and the light-cone gauge,

    S. Frolov, “TTbar deformation and the light-cone gauge,” arXiv:1905.07946 [hep-th]

    1905 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Expectation value of T T operator in curved spacetimes,

    Y. Jiang, “Expectation value of T T operator in curved spacetimes,” arXiv:1903.07561 [hep-th]

    1903 arXiv

  31. [39]

    TT in AdS2 and Quantum Mechan- ics,

    D. J. Gross, J. Kruthoff, A. Rolph, and E. Shaghoulian, “ TT in AdS2 and Quantum Mechan- ics,” arXiv:1907.04873 [hep-th]

    1907 arXiv

  32. [40]

    KdV charges inTT theories and new models with super-Hagedorn behavior,

    B. Le Floch and M. Mezei, “KdV charges inTT theories and new models with super-Hagedorn behavior,” arXiv:1907.02516 [hep-th]

    1907 arXiv

  33. [41]

    TT deformations as TsT transformations,

    A. Sfondrini and S. J. van Tongeren, “ TT deformations as TsT transformations,” arXiv:1908.09299 [hep-th]

    1908 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Comments on Ts+1Ts+1 deformations,

    S. Komatsu and V. Rosenhaus, “Comments on Ts+1Ts+1 deformations,” unpublished

  35. [43]

    Samaj and Z

    L. Samaj and Z. Bajnok, Introduction to the Statistical Physics of Integrable Many-Body Systems. Cambridge University Press, 2013

    2013

  36. [44]

    Exact S matrices,

    P. Dorey, “Exact S matrices,” in Conformal field theories and integrable models. Proceed- ings, Eotvos Graduate Course, Budapest, Hungary, August 13-18, 1996 , pp. 85–125. 1996. arXiv:hep-th/9810026 [hep-th]

    1996 arXiv

  37. [45]

    No Particle Production in Two Dimen- sions: Recursion Relations and Multi-Regge Limit,

    B. Gabai, D. Maz, A. Shieber, P. Vieira, and Y. Zhou, “No Particle Production in Two Dimen- sions: Recursion Relations and Multi-Regge Limit,” JHEP 02 (2019) 094, arXiv:1803.03578 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Conformal Blocks for Arbitrary Spins in Two Dimensions,

    H. Osborn, “Conformal Blocks for Arbitrary Spins in Two Dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B718 (2012) 169–172, arXiv:1205.1941 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Properties of Partial Wave Amplitudes in Conformal Invariant Field Theories,

    S. Ferrara, R. Gatto, and A. F. Grillo, “Properties of Partial Wave Amplitudes in Conformal Invariant Field Theories,” Nuovo Cim. A26 (1975) 226. 36

    1975

  40. [48]

    Multipoint Conformal Blocks in the Comb Channel,

    V. Rosenhaus, “Multipoint Conformal Blocks in the Comb Channel,” JHEP 02 (2019) 142, arXiv:1810.03244 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    All point correlation functions in SYK,

    D. J. Gross and V. Rosenhaus, “All point correlation functions in SYK,” JHEP 12 (2017) 148, arXiv:1710.08113 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Conformal bootstrap for the BFKL pomeron,

    G. P. Korchemsky, “Conformal bootstrap for the BFKL pomeron,” Nucl. Phys. B550 (1999) 397–423, arXiv:hep-ph/9711277 [hep-ph]

    1999 arXiv

  43. [51]

    d-dimensional SYK, AdS Loops, and 6j Symbols,

    J. Liu, E. Perlmutter, V. Rosenhaus, and D. Simmons-Duffin, “ d-dimensional SYK, AdS Loops, and 6j Symbols,” JHEP 03 (2019) 052, arXiv:1808.00612 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Analyticity in Spin in Conformal Theories,

    S. Caron-Huot, “Analyticity in Spin in Conformal Theories,” JHEP 09 (2017) 078, arXiv:1703.00278 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    A spacetime derivation of the Lorentzian OPE inversion formula,

    D. Simmons-Duffin, D. Stanford, and E. Witten, “A spacetime derivation of the Lorentzian OPE inversion formula,” JHEP 07 (2018) 085, arXiv:1711.03816 [hep-th] . 37

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.