Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Transdimensional Defects

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

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

Pith's one-line read Conformal defects can be defined at a continuously tunable dimension, and the new parameter δ produces a conformal interface unlike any previously known one.

desk verdict A genuinely new framework for continuously variable defect dimension with careful, honest calculations; the headline interface result hinges on an unproven resummation, so treat the extrapolations as conjectures. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17809 v3 pith:QKGIJYQW submitted 2024-11-26 hep-th cond-mat.stat-mech

Elia de Sabbata , Nadav Drukker , Andreas Stergiou This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords conformaldefectsdefectCFTepsilonexpansiontransdimensionalO(N)vectormodelnon-localrenormalizationgroupinterfaces
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces "transdimensional defects," conformal defects whose spatial dimension p is a continuously adjustable parameter rather than a fixed integer. Working in d=4−ε with a defect of dimension p=2+δ, the authors compute defect observables to all orders in δ at fixed order in ε, and show that the defect flows to an infrared fixed point for every δ. The payoff is two new objects: at δ=1−ε the defect becomes an interface whose low-lying spectrum differs from the standard O(N) Dirichlet interface, and at δ=1 the same construction produces a non-local three-dimensional CFT whose operator dimensions are unlike anything previously catalogued. If the resummation is sound, defect CFTs form continuous families parameterized by δ, not just isolated integer-dimensional points.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the new parameter δ entering every defect integral through the defect dimension p=2+δ, on top of the bulk dimension shift d=4−ε. The technical engine is the all-orders-in-δ resummation of the infinite class of "hopping" diagrams on the defect: the geometric series Σ(−δ)^k is replaced by its analytic continuation 1/(1+δ), turning previously integer-only defect calculations into closed rational functions of δ (Eqs. (A.31), (A.35), (2.26)–(2.27)). A second ingredient is the function f(δ) of Eq. (2.24), which controls the dimension of the singlet defect operator ̂S; its first ten series coefficients are packaged in a compact exponential form, and its value at δ=1 is estimated as f(1)=0.4999(3) via Padé-conformal approximants and then taken to be 1/2. That identification is what makes the interface spectrum (2.28) differ from two Dirichlet copies of the boundary theory.

What would settle it

Continue the series for f(δ) to one more order in δ (δ¹¹) or evaluate it by a non-perturbative method: if f(1) differs from exactly 1/2 by more than the stated error, the interface spectrum (2.28) shifts and the claimed novelty of the interface is falsified. Alternatively, compute the δ=1−ε interface spectrum to second order in ε: if ̂S and ̂D become degenerate (or ̂S becomes heavier) at ε², the claim that this is a new interface rather than two Dirichlet copies is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a conformal defect of non-integer dimension p=2+δ is a consistent, renormalizable object, and that the δ-expansion can be resummed to all orders so that one can genuinely interpolate between integer-dimensional defects. For the free and interacting O(N) vector models in d=4−ε, the defect beta function has an IR fixed point h∗=δ+ε+O(ε²), and the dimensions of the defect operators ̂φ and ∂⊥ ̂φ become rational functions of δ after resummation (Eqs. (2.26) and (2.27)). Setting δ=1−ε gives an interface whose singlet operator ̂S is lighter than the displacement operator at first order in ε; this is the paper's evidence that the interface is not two copies of the ordinary O(N) boundary CFT. Setting δ=1 gives a non-local three-dimensional CFT with spectrum (2.29)–(2.30), which the authors state does not match any theory known to them. The same δ-machinery is applied at large N for 4≤d≤6, where it interpolates between line and surface defects and matches known results at both ends.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction stands on the assumption that the perturbative series in δ, although divergent, can be resummed and then continued to δ of order one — in particular to δ=1 and δ=1−ε — without changing the fixed point.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Defect CFTs become continuous families: for every real δ in the range studied there is a conformal defect fixed point, not only at integer p.
  • The δ=1−ε interface provides a concrete new conformal interface in d=4−ε whose singlet spectrum is calculable and distinct from the Dirichlet-interface spectrum.
  • The δ=1 defect realizes a non-local three-dimensional CFT with operator dimensions (2.29)–(2.30) that are not reproduced by any known CFT construction.
  • In the large-N limit the same δ-continuum connects symmetry-breaking line defects near d=4 with surface defects near d=6, recovering known results at both endpoints.
  • Nearly marginal defect operators can be made exactly marginal by choosing δ as a function of the coupling, generating conformal manifolds of transdimensional defects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the resummation is valid at δ of order one, the same method should produce continuous defect families in other bulk theories (fermionic, multi-scalar, or gauged) wherever a weakly relevant defect deformation exists in non-integer dimension.
  • The apparent exactness of f(1)=1/2 suggests that f(δ) might have a closed analytic form; discovering it would replace the Padé estimate with a proof and might reveal a hidden integrable structure.
  • The δ=1−ε interface is a natural target for the conformal bootstrap: a singlet-sector gap computation would independently test whether ̂S stays lighter than the displacement operator at ε=1.
  • Transdimensional defects may offer a perturbative handle on fractional-dimensional defects in condensed-matter settings, where the defect dimension could be tuned by geometry or by ensemble averaging rather than by analytic continuation.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the notion of a 'transdimensional defect', i.e. a conformal defect whose dimension p is a continuously variable parameter, and studies it in two main settings. In the free O(N) scalar theory in d=4−ε with a defect of dimension p=2+δ, the defect RG flow is solved exactly to all orders in δ and first orders in ε, giving the defect operator dimensions, one-point functions, and OPE coefficients. In the interacting O(N) vector model, the authors compute the defect beta function and anomalous dimensions to first order in ε and to high or all orders in δ, and then extrapolate to δ=1−ε (an interface in d=3−ε) and δ=1 (a three-dimensional defect in d=4−ε). In the former case they claim a new interface CFT that is not equivalent to two copies of the O(N) boundary CFT, and in the latter they claim a new non-local 3d CFT. A third section studies symmetry-breaking defects in the large-N O(N) model for 4<d<6, using δ as a regulator around p=(d−2)/2, and checks the results against known line and surface defect limits. The paper is self-contained and includes extensive Feynman integral computations in the appendices.

Significance. If the extrapolations in δ are valid, the paper opens a genuinely new direction in defect CFT: interpolating between defects of different integer dimensions in the same way that the ε expansion interpolates between spacetime dimensions. The free-field results are exact and clean, and the interacting O(N) calculation is a substantial perturbative effort with detailed appendices; the large-N analysis also provides nontrivial analytic continuation checks. The strength of the paper lies in the internal consistency of the perturbative framework and in the verification against known integer-dimension limits. However, the two headline claims—the new interface spectrum (2.28) and the non-local 3d CFT dimensions (2.29)—depend on evaluating resummed series at δ=O(1), outside the radius of convergence of the δ expansion, and on the conjectured value f(1)=1/2. This makes the paper's most interesting claims conditional rather than established. The technical work is a solid contribution even if the extrapolations are later revised, but the current presentation does not fully separate the exact perturbative results from the conjectural analytic continuations.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Eqs. (2.24)–(2.25)] The value f(1)=1/2 is inferred, not derived. The function f(δ) is known only through ten terms in (2.24); its series has radius 2/3 because of an apparent pole at δ=−2/3, and the estimate f(1)=0.4999(3) comes from Padé/conformal approximations. The text states 'It is tempting to conclude that f(1)=1/2, and we use this value in what follows.' This is a numerical conjecture, and it is load-bearing: the interface spectrum (2.28) and the non-local CFT dimensions (2.29) use f(1) directly in the O(ε) terms. Unless f(1)=1/2 can be proven or supported by an independent argument, the headline claims should be explicitly presented as conditional on this conjecture.
  2. [§2.2, Eqs. (2.26) and (A.31)] The all-orders-in-δ resummation of the geometric series Σ(−δ)^k as 1/(1+δ) is an analytic continuation that is not derived from the field theory. At δ=1 the original series diverges, and replacing it by 1/2 is a choice of summation (Abel/Cesàro). If the true beta-function coefficients contain non-perturbative corrections in δ, the O(ε) coefficient in (2.26) and hence also the lightest-singlet comparison in (2.28) would change. The paper does not provide a mechanism (e.g. a Borel summability argument or a known non-perturbative consistency condition) that would justify this analytic continuation uniquely. This is not a minor technicality: it directly affects the claimed difference between the transdimensional interface and two decoupled copies of the Dirichlet boundary CFT.
  3. [§2.2, Eq. (2.28)] The central claim that the δ=1−ε interface is a 'completely new interface' rests on the inequality ΔS<ΔD at first order in ε. This inequality follows from (2.28), which in turn relies on f(1)=1/2 and on the geometric-series resummation discussed above. Moreover, the paper itself notes that higher orders in ε could restore equality and that a two-loop extrapolation 'somewhat supports' the identity at ε=1. Given this tension, the conclusion in §4 that this is 'therefore a completely new interface' is stronger than what the presented evidence establishes. The authors should either provide a robustness check (e.g. show that the inequality survives within a range of f(1) values consistent with the Padé error estimate) or rephrase the conclusion as a conjecture.
  4. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.3); footnote 1] The decomposition of two-regulator integrals into the form (A.3) with a unique set of poles and a regular remainder is asserted but not proved. Since footnote 1 acknowledges that in the interacting case the minimal subtraction scheme requires a convention for how to minimize over two regulators, the uniqueness of (A.3) is an additional assumption, not a consequence of dimensional analysis. If integrals with two regulators can also produce terms such as log(ε/δ) or other non-polynomial dependence, the extracted beta-function coefficients and the all-orders-in-δ expressions would be scheme-dependent. The authors should justify (A.3) more explicitly or state it as an axiom of the two-regulator scheme they adopt.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (2.10)] The one-point function coefficient a_S is said to be 'guessed' after expanding in ε and δ; it would be helpful to state explicitly the order to which the guess has been verified and whether the closed form is proven or conjectural.
  2. [§2.2, Fig. 1] The plot of f(δ) has no error bars or indication of the Padé error estimate; adding a shaded band reflecting the uncertainty (2.25) would help the reader judge how reliable the extrapolation to δ=1 is.
  3. [§2.2, Eq. (2.28)] The notation ˆ∆|3−ε is used without definition; it is presumably the dimension in d=3−ε, but this should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion with the defect dimension.
  4. [Acknowledgments] There is a typo: 'would like the acknowledge' should read 'would like to acknowledge'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central defect-dimension results are derived by explicit perturbative resummation and checked against known limits; the conjectured f(1)=1/2 is a flagged extrapolation, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained perturbative calculation. The free-field case is solved by resumming the bubble diagrams (A.16)-(A.18), yielding the exact beta function (2.7) and the one-point function (2.10). The interacting O(N) calculation evaluates the O(λ) diagrams (2.18) to all orders in h, extracts the counterterm (2.21), the beta function (2.22), and the anomalous dimensions (A.31) and (A.35), and then evaluates them at the Wilson-Fisher and defect fixed points. The δ=1−ε and δ=1 results are evaluations of these derived functions, not definitions of those functions in terms of the target spectra. Known integer-dimensional limits (δ=0 surface defect, δ=−1 line defect, δ=1−ε free interface) are used as consistency checks and reproduce known results, which is independent corroboration rather than circular input. Self-citations such as [12], [19], [45], and [62] are background or technical and do not carry the load-bearing equations (2.22)-(2.27). The step f(1)=0.4999(3), conjectured as f(1)=1/2, is a numerical extrapolation of the computed series via Padé and ratio analysis; the paper itself flags it as 'tempting to conclude' and conditional. That makes the new-interface claim uncertain but not circular, since the input is not identical to the output. No step satisfies the quoted-reduction criterion for circularity.

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

The central claim rests on the consistency of dimensional continuation in the defect dimension, a specific two-regulator pole decomposition, standard perturbation theory, and the guessed value f(1)=1/2. The only fitted numerical input is f(1); the rest are standard assumptions.

free parameters (1)
  • f(1) value = 1/2 (inferred; series gives 0.4999(3))
    Used to evaluate the interface spectrum in Eq. (2.28) after setting δ=1-ε. The paper infers f(1)=1/2 from stable Padé approximants without a rigorous proof, so the numerical result is an input to the central conclusion.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Defect integrals over p=2+δ dimensions are well-defined by analytic continuation
    The paper defines defect actions with d^p τ for non-integer p (Section 2.1, Eq. (2.2)) and uses standard dimensional regularization without further justification.
  • ad hoc to paper The pole structure of two-regulator integrals admits the unique decomposition (A.3)
    Appendix A states that Feynman integrals admit this decomposition; it underlies the MS scheme choice for the interacting theory, where poles involve different linear combinations of ε and δ.
  • standard math The Wilson-Fisher fixed point exists for d=4-ε and is conformal
    Standard epsilon-expansion assumption cited to Wilson and Fisher [1] and Kompaniets-Panzer [2].
  • ad hoc to paper f(1)=1/2
    Inferred from Padé-Conformal approximants and series analysis (Section 2.2, Eq. (2.25)); used to compute Eq. (2.28).
  • standard math Large-N limit with sigma propagator N_σ^2/|x-y|^4
    Section 3, Eq. (3.4); standard large-N vector-model result.
  • domain assumption The epsilon-expansion results can be continued to epsilon=1 (d=3)
    The paper compares defect results at epsilon=1 with known 3d boundary CFT results, assuming the leading-order expansion is reliable at epsilon=1.
invented entities (1)
  • Transdimensional defect (conformal defect of continuously variable dimension p=2+δ) independent evidence
    purpose: Serve as a new class of conformal defects interpolating between integer-dimensional defects and providing new CFT data
    The defect is defined by analytical continuation in its dimension and is tested against known integer limits (surface δ=0, interface δ=1-ε). It yields concrete anomalous dimensions that could be probed by bootstrap or lattice methods at specific values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transdimensional Defects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QKGIJYQW

@misc{pith2026241117809,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transdimensional Defects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QKGIJYQW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17809}
}
abstract

This note introduces a novel paradigm for conformal defects with continuously adjustable dimensions. Just as the standard $\varepsilon$ expansion interpolates between integer spacetime dimensions, a new parameter, $\delta$, is used to interpolate between different integer-dimensional defects. The ensuing framework is explored in detail for defects of dimension $p=2+\delta$ in both free and interacting $O(N)$ bulk conformal field theories (CFTs) in $d=4-\varepsilon$. Comprehensive calculations are performed to first and second order in $\varepsilon$ and to high or all orders in $\delta$. Additionally, in the large-$N$ limit, the interpolation between defects of dimensions $p=1$ and $p=2$ is analysed for spacetime dimensions $4\leq d\leq 6$. The new parameter $\delta$ provides a natural enrichment of the space of defect CFTs and allows to find new integer dimension or co-dimension defects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17809 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A graph of the function f(δ) in (2.24) that controls the dimension of Sˆ. With relatively little further effort we can compute the dimensions of ϕˆ and ∂⊥ϕˆ. The resulting expressions are easier and match the expansion of rational functions (A.31), (A.35), which we resum to ∆ˆ ϕˆ = 1 + δ + ε 2 − N + 2 N + 8 ε 1 + δ + O(ε 2 ), (2.26) ∆ˆ ∂⊥ϕˆ = 2 − ε 2 − N + 2 N + 8 ε δ (2 − δ)(1 + δ) + O(ε 2 ). (2.27) We are now read… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Monodromy Pinning Defects in the Critical $\mathrm{O}(2N)$ Model

    hep-th 2025-10 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A relevant spin-v perturbation of the O(2N) monodromy defect flows to a new 'monodromy pinning' spinning DCFT whose large-N operator dimensions and one-point functions are computed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [7]

    Localized magnetic field in the O(N) model

    G. Cuomo, Z. Komargodski & M. Mezei,“Localized magnetic field in the O(N) model”, JHEP 2202, 134 (2022), arXiv:2112.10634

    arXiv 2022

  2. [13]

    Surface defects in the O(N ) model

    M. Trépanier, “Surface defects in the O(N ) model”, JHEP 2309, 074 (2023), arXiv:2305.10486

    arXiv 2023

  3. [1]

    Critical exponents in 3.99 dimensions

    K. G. Wilson & M. E. Fisher,“Critical exponents in 3.99 dimensions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 240 (1972)

    work page 1972

  4. [2]

    Minimally subtracted six loop renormalization of O(n)-symmetric ϕ4 theory and critical exponents

    M. V. Kompaniets & E. Panzer, “Minimally subtracted six loop renormalization of O(n)-symmetric ϕ4 theory and critical exponents”, Phys. Rev. D 96, 036016 (2017), arXiv:1705.06483

    arXiv 2017

  5. [3]

    Critical phenomena and renormalization group theory

    A. Pelissetto & E. Vicari, “Critical phenomena and renormalization group theory”, Phys. Rept. 368, 549 (2002), cond-mat/0012164

    arXiv 2002

  6. [4]

    Seeking fixed points in multiple coupling scalar theories in the ϵ expansion

    H. Osborn & A. Stergiou,“Seeking fixed points in multiple coupling scalar theories in the ϵ expansion”, JHEP 1805, 051 (2018), arXiv:1707.06165

    arXiv 2018

  7. [5]

    Conformal field theories near a boundary in general dimensions

    D. M. McAvity & H. Osborn,“Conformal field theories near a boundary in general dimensions”, Nucl. Phys. B455, 522 (1995), cond-mat/9505127

    arXiv 1995

  8. [6]

    Defects in conformal field theory

    M. Billo, V. Goncalves, E. Lauria & M. Meineri,“Defects in conformal field theory”, JHEP 1604, 091 (2016), arXiv:1601.02883

    arXiv 2016

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    Bootstrapping line defects with O(2) global symmetry

    A. Gimenez-Grau, E. Lauria, P. Liendo & P. van Vliet,“Bootstrapping line defects with O(2) global symmetry”, JHEP 2211, 018 (2022), arXiv:2208.11715

    2022 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Line defects in fermionic CFTs

    S. Giombi, E. Helfenberger & H. Khanchandani,“Line defects in fermionic CFTs”, JHEP 2308, 224 (2023), arXiv:2211.11073

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Analytic bootstrap for the localized magnetic field

    L. Bianchi, D. Bonomi & E. de Sabbata,“Analytic bootstrap for the localized magnetic field”, JHEP 2304, 069 (2023), arXiv:2212.02524

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Probing magnetic line defects with two-point functions

    A. Gimenez-Grau, “Probing magnetic line defects with two-point functions” , arXiv:2212.02520

    arXiv

  5. [12]

    Line defect RG flows in theε expansion

    W. H. Pannell & A. Stergiou,“Line defect RG flows in theε expansion”, JHEP 2306, 186 (2023), arXiv:2302.14069

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Phases of surface defects in scalar field theories

    A. Raviv-Moshe & S. Zhong,“Phases of surface defects in scalar field theories”, JHEP 2308, 143 (2023), arXiv:2305.11370

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Notes on a surface defect in the O(N) model

    S. Giombi & B. Liu,“Notes on a surface defect in the O(N) model”, JHEP 2312, 004 (2023), arXiv:2305.11402. 22

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Analytic bootstrap for magnetic impurities

    L. Bianchi, D. Bonomi, E. de Sabbata & A. Gimenez-Grau,“Analytic bootstrap for magnetic impurities”, JHEP 2405, 080 (2024), arXiv:2312.05221

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Boundaries and interfaces with localized cubic interactions in the O(N) model

    S. Harribey, I. R. Klebanov & Z. Sun,“Boundaries and interfaces with localized cubic interactions in the O(N) model”, JHEP 2310, 017 (2023), arXiv:2307.00072

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bootstrapping conformal defect operators on a line

    P. Dey & K. Ghosh,“Bootstrapping conformal defect operators on a line”, JHEP 2410, 129 (2024), arXiv:2404.06576

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Multiscalar critical models with localised cubic interactions

    S. Harribey, W. H. Pannell & A. Stergiou,“Multiscalar critical models with localised cubic interactions”, arXiv:2407.20326

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    A note on defect stability ind = 4 − ε

    W. H. Pannell,“A note on defect stability ind = 4 − ε”, arXiv:2408.15315

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Exploring defects with degrees of freedom in free scalar CFTs

    V. Bashmakov & J. Sisti,“Exploring defects with degrees of freedom in free scalar CFTs”, arXiv:2410.01716

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Electromagnetic current correlations in reduced quantum electrodynamics

    S. Teber, “Electromagnetic current correlations in reduced quantum electrodynamics”, Phys. Rev. D 86, 025005 (2012), arXiv:1204.5664

    2012 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Line and surface defects for the free scalar field

    E. Lauria, P. Liendo, B. C. Van Rees & X. Zhao,“Line and surface defects for the free scalar field”, JHEP 2101, 060 (2021), arXiv:2005.02413

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Conformal invariance in the long-range Ising model

    M. F. Paulos, S. Rychkov, B. C. van Rees & B. Zan,“Conformal invariance in the long-range Ising model”, Nucl. Phys. B902, 246 (2016), arXiv:1509.00008

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Critical properties ofΦ4-theories

    H. Kleinert & V. Schulte-Frohlinde,“Critical properties ofΦ4-theories”, World Scientific (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    The critical O(N) CFT: Methods and conformal data

    J. Henriksson,“The critical O(N) CFT: Methods and conformal data”, Phys. Rept.1002, 1 (2023), arXiv:2201.09520

    2023

  19. [27]

    BPS Wilson loop inN = 2 superconformal SU (N ) orientifold gauge theory and weak-strong coupling interpolation

    M. Beccaria, G. V. Dunne & A. A. Tseytlin,“BPS Wilson loop inN = 2 superconformal SU (N ) orientifold gauge theory and weak-strong coupling interpolation”, JHEP 2107, 085 (2021), arXiv:2104.12625

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Field-theoretical approach to static critical phenomena in semi-infinite systems

    H. W. Diehl & S. Dietrich,“Field-theoretical approach to static critical phenomena in semi-infinite systems”, Z. Phys. B42, 65 (1981)

    1981

  21. [29]

    Surface critical behavior in fixed dimensionsd <4: Nonanalyt- icity of critical surface enhancement and massive field theory approach

    H. W. Diehl & M. Shpot,“Surface critical behavior in fixed dimensionsd <4: Nonanalyt- icity of critical surface enhancement and massive field theory approach”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3431 (1994), cond-mat/9409064

    1994 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Massive field theory approach to surface critical behavior in three-dimensional systems

    H. W. Diehl & M. Shpot,“Massive field theory approach to surface critical behavior in three-dimensional systems”, Nucl. Phys. B528, 595 (1998), cond-mat/9804083

    1998 arXiv

  23. [31]

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

    A. Krishnan & M. A. Metlitski,“A plane defect in the 3d O(N) model”, SciPost Phys. 15, 090 (2023), arXiv:2301.05728

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Deligne categories in lattice models and quantum field theory, or making sense ofO(N ) symmetry with non-integerN

    D. J. Binder & S. Rychkov,“Deligne categories in lattice models and quantum field theory, or making sense ofO(N ) symmetry with non-integerN”, JHEP 2004, 117 (2020), arXiv:1911.07895

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Unitarity violation at the Wilson-Fisher fixed point in4 − ϵ dimensions

    M. Hogervorst, S. Rychkov & B. C. van Rees,“Unitarity violation at the Wilson-Fisher fixed point in4 − ϵ dimensions”, Phys. Rev. D93, 125025 (2016), arXiv:1512.00013. 23

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Quantum ϕ4 theory in AdS4 and its CFT dual

    I. Bertan, I. Sachs & E. D. Skvortsov,“Quantum ϕ4 theory in AdS4 and its CFT dual”, JHEP 1902, 099 (2019), arXiv:1810.00907

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Critical exponents for long-range interactions

    M. E. Fisher, S.-k. Ma & B. G. Nickel,“Critical exponents for long-range interactions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 917 (1972)

    1972

  28. [36]

    Long-range vector models at largeN

    N. Chai, M. Goykhman & R. Sinha,“Long-range vector models at largeN”, JHEP 2109, 194 (2021), arXiv:2107.08052

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Quantum field theory in the largeN limit: A Review

    M. Moshe & J. Zinn-Justin,“Quantum field theory in the largeN limit: A Review”, Phys. Rept. 385, 69 (2003), hep-th/0306133

    2003 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Critical O(N ) models in 6 − ϵ dimensions

    L. Fei, S. Giombi & I. R. Klebanov, “Critical O(N ) models in 6 − ϵ dimensions”, Phys. Rev. D 90, 025018 (2014), arXiv:1404.1094

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Three loop analysis of the critical O(N) models in6 − ε dimensions

    L. Fei, S. Giombi, I. R. Klebanov & G. Tarnopolsky,“Three loop analysis of the critical O(N) models in6 − ε dimensions”, Phys. Rev. D 91, 045011 (2015), arXiv:1411.1099

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Four loop renormalization ofϕ3 theory in six dimensions

    J. A. Gracey,“Four loop renormalization ofϕ3 theory in six dimensions”, Phys. Rev. D 92, 025012 (2015), arXiv:1506.03357

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    More on the cubic versus quartic interaction equivalence in theO(N ) model

    O. Antipin, J. Bersini, F. Sannino, Z.-W. Wang & C. Zhang,“More on the cubic versus quartic interaction equivalence in theO(N ) model”, Phys. Rev. D104, 085002 (2021), arXiv:2107.02528

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bootstrapping O(N ) vector models in4 < d <6

    S. M. Chester, S. S. Pufu & R. Yacoby,“Bootstrapping O(N ) vector models in4 < d <6”, Phys. Rev. D 91, 086014 (2015), arXiv:1412.7746

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Symplectic critical models in6 + ϵ dimensions

    A. Stergiou, “Symplectic critical models in6 + ϵ dimensions”, Phys. Lett. B751, 184 (2015), arXiv:1508.03639

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Six dimensional QCD at two loops

    J. A. Gracey,“Six dimensional QCD at two loops”, Phys. Rev. D93, 025025 (2016), arXiv:1512.04443

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    C T for non-unitary CFTs in higher dimensions

    H. Osborn & A. Stergiou, “C T for non-unitary CFTs in higher dimensions”, JHEP 1606, 079 (2016), arXiv:1603.07307

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Spectral function of a localized fermion coupled to the Wilson- Fisher conformal field theory

    A. Allais & S. Sachdev,“Spectral function of a localized fermion coupled to the Wilson- Fisher conformal field theory”, Phys. Rev. B90, 035131 (2014), arXiv:1406.3022

    2014 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Surprises in the ordinary: O(N ) invariant surface defect in theϵ-expansion

    O. Diatlyk, Z. Sun & Y. Wang,“Surprises in the ordinary: O(N ) invariant surface defect in theϵ-expansion”, arXiv:2411.16522

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Field theoretic approach to second order phase transitions in two-dimensional and three-dimensional systems

    G. Parisi, “Field theoretic approach to second order phase transitions in two-dimensional and three-dimensional systems”, J. Stat. Phys.23, 49 (1980)

    1980

  41. [49]

    Boundary conformal field theory at the extraordinary transition: The layer susceptibility to O(ε)

    M. A. Shpot,“Boundary conformal field theory at the extraordinary transition: The layer susceptibility to O(ε)”, JHEP 2101, 055 (2021), arXiv:1912.03021

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Operator expansions, layer susceptibility and two-point functions in BCFT

    P. Dey, T. Hansen & M. Shpot,“Operator expansions, layer susceptibility and two-point functions in BCFT”, JHEP 2012, 051 (2020), arXiv:2006.11253

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Boundary criticality of the O(N) model in d = 3 critically revisited

    M. A. Metlitski,“Boundary criticality of the O(N) model in d = 3 critically revisited”, SciPost Phys. 12, 131 (2022), arXiv:2009.05119. 24

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    The bootstrap program for boundary CFTd

    P. Liendo, L. Rastelli & B. C. van Rees,“The bootstrap program for boundary CFTd”, JHEP 1307, 113 (2013), arXiv:1210.4258

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Boundary and Interface CFTs from the Conformal Bootstrap

    F. Gliozzi, P. Liendo, M. Meineri & A. Rago,“Boundary and Interface CFTs from the Conformal Bootstrap”, JHEP 1505, 036 (2015), arXiv:1502.07217, [Erratum: JHEP 12, 093 (2021)]

    2015 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Analytic bootstrap for boundary CFT

    A. Bissi, T. Hansen & A. Söderberg,“Analytic bootstrap for boundary CFT”, JHEP 1901, 010 (2019), arXiv:1808.08155

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    The functional bootstrap for boundary CFT

    A. Kaviraj & M. F. Paulos,“The functional bootstrap for boundary CFT”, JHEP 2004, 135 (2020), arXiv:1812.04034

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    An analytic approach to BCFTd

    D. Mazáč, L. Rastelli & X. Zhou,“An analytic approach to BCFTd”, JHEP 1912, 004 (2019), arXiv:1812.09314

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    On analytic bootstrap for interface and boundary CFT

    P. Dey & A. Söderberg,“On analytic bootstrap for interface and boundary CFT”, JHEP 2107, 013 (2021), arXiv:2012.11344

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A Lorentzian inversion formula for defect CFT

    P. Liendo, Y. Linke & V. Schomerus,“A Lorentzian inversion formula for defect CFT”, JHEP 2008, 163 (2020), arXiv:1903.05222

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A dispersion relation for defect CFT

    J. Barrat, A. Gimenez-Grau & P. Liendo,“A dispersion relation for defect CFT”, JHEP 2302, 255 (2023), arXiv:2205.09765

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Conformal dispersion relations for defects and boundaries

    L. Bianchi & D. Bonomi,“Conformal dispersion relations for defects and boundaries”, SciPost Phys. 15, 055 (2023), arXiv:2205.09775

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Line defect correlators in fermionic CFTs

    J. Barrat, P. Liendo & P. van Vliet, “Line defect correlators in fermionic CFTs”, arXiv:2304.13588

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Broken global symmetries and defect conformal manifolds

    N. Drukker, Z. Kong & G. Sakkas,“Broken global symmetries and defect conformal manifolds”, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 201603 (2022), arXiv:2203.17157. 25

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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