Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Yang-Mills interaction from boundary vector model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A boundary CFT's exact RG flow generates a Yang–Mills cubic interaction in the bulk.

desk verdict A genuine proof-of-principle result for the ERG-to-AdS program, but the cubic vertex rests on an asserted regulator approximation that needs to be justified before the g' = ig/6 ratio is trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14404 v1 pith:U7Y2IGEN submitted 2025-04-19 hep-th

Pavan Dharanipragada , B. Sathiapalan This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords exactrenormalisationgroupholographicYang-MillstheoryAdS/CFTcorrespondencevectormodelspin-1gaugefieldconformalWardidentitiesbulkreconstruction
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 derives a non-abelian spin-1 bulk action in AdS$_4$ from the exact renormalisation group (ERG) flow of a three-dimensional CFT, namely the $USp(2N)$-singlet sector of $2N$ free complex scalars. Its central claim is that the quadratic and cubic terms of the bulk action obtained as the ERG evolution operator are, once reduced on-shell and gauge fixed, those of a local gauge-invariant action: a Yang–Mills term quadratic in the field strength plus a term cubic in field strengths, with couplings $g = 1/(\sqrt{N}\,128\pi\gamma^3)$ and $g' = ig/6$. Because the bulk action is by construction the evolution operator for the boundary ERG equation, it is guaranteed to reproduce the correct boundary current correlators by the usual AdS/CFT prescription. If the claim holds, bulk gauge symmetry is not put in by hand but emerges from the renormalisation group of a boundary vector model.

What carries the argument

The central object is the flipped Polchinski ERG equation for the $USp(2N)$-singlet spin-1 current, whose solution is written as a $D+1$-dimensional path-integral evolution operator; that operator defines the bulk action. A field redefinition $\sigma^\mu = z\,f(z,p)\,a^\mu$ with $f$ fixed by a Bessel-function differential equation brings the kinetic term into the standard AdS form and maps the RG time $t$ to the Poincaré coordinate $z=1/\Lambda$. The load-bearing calculation is the momentum integral in Eq. (44), performed with a simplified low-energy propagator, which converts the Bessel factors in the cubic term into $|p|$-like factors; those factors are exchanged for $z$-derivatives and $p^2$ factors using the classical field equation, and the resulting action is shown to equal the gauge-fixed form of the $F^2+F^3$ action.

What would settle it

Evaluate the cubic momentum integral (44) using the full regulator $I(p,z)$ from Eq. (41) rather than the simplified propagator, and compare the coefficients of $q^\mu r^\nu p^\rho$, $\delta^{\mu\nu}p^\rho$, $q^\mu\delta^{\nu\rho}$, and $r^\nu\delta^{\mu\rho}$; if the ratios among these coefficients differ from those in Eq. (44), the on-shell equivalence to the gauge-invariant action and the relation $g'=ig/6$ fail. A second check is to compute the boundary three-point function from the bulk action at next order in $1/N$ and compare directly with the free-field current correlator of the $USp(2N)$ model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper shows that the cubic interaction produced by the RG flow of the spin-1 singlet current is classically equivalent, on-shell and in radial gauge with transverse boundary fields, to the cubic vertex of $S' = \frac{1}{4}\int d^{D+1}x\,\sqrt{G}\,F^i_{MN}F^{i\,MN} + g'\epsilon_{ijk}\int d^{D+1}x\,\sqrt{G}\,F^{i\,L}_{\ \ M}F^{j\,M}_{\ \ N}F^{k\,N}_{\ \ L}$, with Yang–Mills coupling $g=1/(\sqrt{N}\,128\pi\gamma^3)$ and $g'=ig/6$. The paper further verifies that the boundary three-point function computed from this action satisfies the conformal Ward identities in the form given by the momentum-space analysis it cites. Thus the ERG flow of the boundary theory is claimed to determine both the kinetic and cubic self-interaction of the bulk spin-1 gauge field, including the relative strength of the $F^3$ term.

Load-bearing premise

The computation of the cubic vertex in Section 5.2 replaces the actual Bessel-function low-energy propagator with a simpler propagator, and the claim that this changes correlators only at $O(p/\Lambda_b)$ is asserted rather than derived; if that simplification distorts the relative coefficients in the momentum integral (44), the match to gauge-fixed Yang–Mills plus $F^3$, and hence $g'=ig/6$, would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ERG flow of the $USp(2N)$ vector model fixes not just the Yang–Mills coupling but also the strength of the $F^3$ cubic vertex, with the fixed ratio $g'=ig/6$.
  • Because the bulk action is the ERG evolution operator, boundary correlators computed from it automatically match the boundary theory; the paper confirms this explicitly for the spin-1 current three-point function and its conformal Ward identities.
  • The construction extends the holographic-RG programme from Abelian gauge fields and scalar or graviton-scalar couplings to a non-abelian, self-interacting gauge field.
  • The equivalence is established on-shell in the large-$N$ semiclassical limit, so the gauge-invariant action and the ERG-derived action give the same boundary correlators in that limit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A sharper test of the mechanism would be to compute the $O(1/N)$ terms of the same flipped ERG equation and check whether they generate the quartic Yang–Mills vertex with coefficients consistent with the same gauge-invariant completion.
  • Because the simplified propagator is justified by an asserted $O(p/\Lambda_b)$ error, one could numerically evaluate the full Bessel-regulated momentum integral in Eq. (44) and see whether the relative coefficients that produce $g'=ig/6$ survive away from the strict $\Lambda_b\to\infty$ limit.
  • If the same derivation is applied to the spin-2 current of the model, one would expect the gravitational cubic coupling to be fixed by the same boundary RG data, connecting this construction to the graviton-scalar cubic interaction already derived in the same line of work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper constructs a bulk AdS_4 action for a triplet of spin-1 fields from the Exact Renormalisation Group flow of the free USp(2N) vector model. The authors start from the flipped ERG equation for the SU(2) singlet currents, interpret the evolution operator as a D+1-dimensional path integral, map the radial variable to the Poincaré coordinate z, and fix the field redefinition through a Bessel-function regulator so that the quadratic term becomes the standard AdS vector action. They then compute the cubic term by performing a momentum integral with a simplified low-energy propagator, and show that, on-shell and in radial gauge with transverse boundary fields, the resulting action is classically equivalent to the cubic part of Yang-Mills plus an F^3 term, with couplings g = 1/(√N 128πγ^3) and g' = i g/6 (Eq. (60)). Appendix F checks that the boundary 3-point function computed from the final action has the form required by the conformal Ward identities of [47].

Significance. If correct, this is a notable first-principles derivation: the ERG flow of a boundary vector model determines not only the quadratic kinetic term but also the cubic Yang-Mills and F^3 couplings, up to the boundary two-point normalization γ, with the resulting bulk action reproducing boundary correlators by construction. The paper is careful in several respects: the quadratic term is mapped to the standard AdS vector action using a regulator fixed through Eq. (19); the final on-shell equivalence is checked by explicit computation in Section 6; and the boundary 3-point function is benchmarked against the independent conformal Ward-identity result [47]. The only free parameter γ is an output of the boundary two-point function, and the couplings are not inserted by hand. These strengths make the claimed result worth publishing if the main computational gap described below is closed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2, Eqs. (43)-(44)] The central claim of the paper depends on the k-integral in Eq. (44), which fixes the relative coefficient of the z^2 q_μ r_ν p_ρ term and the (1+rz) δ_{μν} p_ρ terms. This integral is not evaluated with the actual low-energy propagator Δ_l required by the regulator constraints discussed in the footnote to Section 5.2; instead, Δ_l is replaced by a 'simple' propagator, with the statement that the error in correlators is O(p/Λ_b). As written, this error estimate is asserted rather than derived, and it is an estimate for boundary correlators, not for the off-shell coefficients of the bulk action. Because the rz term in Eq. (44) is itself O(p/Λ_b) near the boundary, an O(p/Λ_b) error in the propagator can change the relative weight of the terms that ultimately determine g'/g through Eqs. (57)-(60). The authors should either compute the integral with the actual regulator or prove the O(p/Λ_b) bound at the level of the tensor coefficients in Eq. (44), including their z-dependence.
  2. [Appendix F] The check in Appendix F verifies that the boundary 3-point function computed from the final action has the tensor structure required by the conformal Ward identities of [47]. It does not verify the specific value of the ratio g'/g = i/6, nor the normalization in terms of γ, because the Ward identities determine the form of the correlator up to constants. Thus Appendix F is consistent with the central claim but does not provide independent evidence that the simplified-propagator computation in Eq. (44) produces the correct relative coefficients. A direct evaluation of the SU(2) current 3-point function in the free USp(2N) model, or an argument that the ratio g'/g is independent of the propagator choice, would close this gap.
  3. [Section 5.2, after Eq. (43)] The sentence claiming that the quantities outside the ∂_z parentheses are z-independent is not correct as written: the factors p^{-ν}/K_ν(pz), q^{-ν}/K_ν(qz), and r^{-ν}/K_ν(rz) in Eq. (43) depend on z, as do the bulk fields a_μ(p,z). If the text is taken literally, the integration by parts that leads to evaluation at the endpoints would drop the Bessel functions that later cancel against Eq. (44). The calculation in Appendix E appears to keep this z-dependence, so the main derivation should be rewritten to describe the actual manipulation consistently.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2 heading and Section 7] There are minor typos: 'cublic' in the Section 5.2 heading, and 'verfied' and 'th ERG' in Section 7.
  2. [Eq. (42)] For ν = 1/2, the numerical factor 2^{-1+ν} Γ(ν) equals √(π/2), not √π/2 as written; please correct this and verify the downstream constants in Eq. (55) and Appendix F.
  3. [Appendix F, Eq. (141)] The on-shell solution in Eq. (141) appears to drop the factor γ 2^{1-ν}/Γ(ν) present in Eq. (55); please clarify whether this is a redefinition of the source A_i^μ and ensure that Eq. (143) contains all constants when compared with [47].
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and Introduction describe the cubic term as being 'those of' a gauge-fixed gauge-invariant action; Section 6 establishes this equivalence only on-shell, in radial gauge, and with transverse boundary fields, so the statement should be qualified as an on-shell/classical equivalence.
  5. [Eq. (60)] The appearance of the imaginary unit in g' = i g / 6 is surprising and deserves a brief comment on its origin, for instance whether it is a convention artifact of the Euclidean continuation used in Section 2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Yang-Mills and F^3 couplings g and g' are outputs fixed by the boundary two-point normalization γ, and the boundary 3-point function is checked against the independent conformal Ward identity result [47].

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required here: the bulk action is read off from the flipped ERG evolution operator (Eq. (14)), the field redefinition f is fixed by demanding a standard AdS kinetic term (Eq. (19)) with boundary conditions (24)-(30), the cubic k-integral is evaluated in Appendix E, and the on-shell comparison with the gauge-fixed gauge-invariant action fixes g and g' in Eq. (60). Nothing in this chain defines the output in terms of the input. In particular, g and g' are not fitted to the boundary 3-point function; they are expressed in terms of γ, the boundary two-point normalization of the free vector model, and the resulting 3-point function is then compared with the external result [47]. That comparison is an independent benchmark, not a parameter fit. The quadratic AdS kinetic term is indeed chosen by construction, but the paper does not present that as a prediction; the nontrivial claim is that the ERG-derived cubic term reduces on-shell to the Yang-Mills plus F^3 vertex, and that claim is not fixed by the kinetic-term choice. The self-citations to [1], [32], and [33] carry the programme and the regulator framework, but the regulator constraints are derived in prior work with stated assumptions that do not include the Yang-Mills/F^3 result, so they are independent support rather than a circular justification. The genuinely weak point is the replacement in Section 5.2 of the complicated ERG propagator by a 'simple' propagator with an asserted O(p/Λ_b) error; that is an uncontrolled approximation and a correctness risk, but it is not a circular reduction of the kind this analysis targets. The paper honestly flags locality and information-loss issues in Section 7 and footnote 2, which further supports the conclusion that the central derivation is not disguised as its own input. No load-bearing equation reduces by construction to an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the authors' own flipped-ERG-to-AdS map [1,30-33] (domain assumption), the large-N on-shell reduction (domain assumption), and one ad hoc approximation: the replacement of the ERG regulator by a tractable propagator in the cubic integral (Section 5.2). Standard mathematical identities (Appendix E) fill the remainder. The only constant entering the final couplings is gamma, the boundary normalization of the current two-point function; it is not tuned to the target result. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • gamma
    Boundary normalization of the current two-point function, introduced via I(p,0) approximately -gamma p^(2 nu) (Eq. (24)). It enters the final couplings g and g' in Eq. (60). It is determined by the free boundary theory, not fitted to the target Yang-Mills structure.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The flipped ERG prescription of [1] yields a bulk action that reproduces boundary correlators via the standard AdS/CFT dictionary (Section 1.1, step 6; footnote 2 in Section 4).
    The entire construction rests on this mapping; the paper notes that the flipped ERG loses information at finite Lambda and recovers it only as Lambda approaches infinity and near the boundary.
  • domain assumption On-shell equivalence at cubic order is sufficient to identify the bulk action's interactions (Section 6: 'the evaluation of correlators is done using the large N semi classical limit and so using the on-shell form of the action is not an additional restriction').
    The claim that the quadratic and cubic terms are 'those of a gauge fixed version of a gauge invariant action' is thereby limited to the on-shell regime; the abstract states it without this qualification.
  • ad hoc to paper The simplified low-energy propagator used in the k-integral reproduces the correct cubic vertex up to O(p/Lambda_b) (Section 5.2, after Eq. (43)).
    Introduced for tractability; the error bound is asserted, not derived.
  • standard math Standard modified Bessel function identities and momentum integrals used in Appendix E, including the K_(1+nu) reduction identity (Eqs. (137) and (138)).
    Unstated proof; referenced to an archived Wolfram functions page.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Yang-Mills interaction from boundary vector model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U7Y2IGEN

@misc{pith2026250414404,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Yang-Mills interaction from boundary vector model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U7Y2IGEN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14404}
}
abstract

We construct a non-abelian spin 1 gauge theory with a cubic interaction in AdS$_4$ from the Exact Renormalisation Group (ERG) flow of a CFT in 3 dimensions. The latter is the ${USp}(2N)$ singlet sector of the free field theory of $2N$ massless complex scalars. The quadratic and cubic terms in the bulk action are those of a gauge fixed version of a (local) gauge invariant action. By construction this bulk action is the evolution operator for the ERG equation of the boundary theory and thus is guaranteed to reproduce the correct boundary correlators using the usual AdS/CFT prescription. This work expands on the programme first set out in arXiv:1706.03371.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [47]

    Implications of co nformal invariance in momentum space,

    A. Bzowski, P. McFadden, and K. Skenderis, “Implications of co nformal invariance in momentum space,” JHEP 03 (2014) 111 , arXiv:1304.7760v4 [hep-th] . 3, 21

    arXiv 2014

  2. [1]

    A Holographic form for Wilson's RG

    B. Sathiapalan and H. Sonoda, “A holographic form for Wilson’s RG,” Nuclear Physics B 924 (Nov., 2017) 603–642 , arxiv:1706.03371. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0550321317303139. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  3. [2]

    Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity,” Conf. Proc. C 930308 (1993) 284–296, arXiv:gr-qc/9310026. 2

    arXiv 1993

  4. [3]

    The World as a hologram,

    L. Susskind, “The World as a hologram,” J. Math. Phys. 36 (1995) 6377–6396 , arXiv:hep-th/9409089. 2

    arXiv 1995

  5. [4]

    The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231–252 , arXiv:hep-th/9711200. 2

    arXiv 1998

  6. [5]

    Gauge theor y correlators from noncritical string theory,

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge theor y correlators from noncritical string theory,” Phys. Lett. B 428 (1998) 105–114 , arXiv:hep-th/9802109. 2

    arXiv 1998

  7. [6]

    Anti de Sitter space and holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 253–291 , arXiv:hep-th/9802150. 2

    arXiv 1998

  8. [7]

    Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, an d confinement in gauge theories,

    E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, an d confinement in gauge theories,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 505–532 , arXiv:hep-th/9803131. 2

    arXiv 1998

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    A Remark on the AdS / CFT correspondence an d the renormalization group flow,

    E. T. Akhmedov, “A Remark on the AdS / CFT correspondence an d the renormalization group flow,” Phys. Lett. B 442 (1998) 152–158 , arXiv:hep-th/9806217. 2

    1998 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Notes on multitrace operators and holograph ic renormalization group,

    E. T. Akhmedov, “Notes on multitrace operators and holograph ic renormalization group,” in 30 Years of Supersymmetry . 2, 2002. arXiv:hep-th/0202055. 2

    2002 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Hints o n integrability in the Wilsonian/holographic renormalization group,

    E. T. Akhmedov, I. B. Gahramanov, and E. T. Musaev, “Hints o n integrability in the Wilsonian/holographic renormalization group,” JETP Lett. 93 (2011) 545–550 , arXiv:1006.1970 [hep-th] . 2

    2011 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Geometric holography, the renorma lization group and the c theorem,

    E. Alvarez and C. Gomez, “Geometric holography, the renorma lization group and the c theorem,” Nucl. Phys. B 541 (1999) 441–460 , arXiv:hep-th/9807226. 2

    1999 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Space-time and the hologra phic renormalization group,

    V. Balasubramanian and P. Kraus, “Space-time and the hologra phic renormalization group,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 3605–3608 , arXiv:hep-th/9903190. 2

    1999 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Ren ormalization group flows from holography supersymmetry and a c theorem,

    D. Z. Freedman, S. S. Gubser, K. Pilch, and N. P. Warner, “Ren ormalization group flows from holography supersymmetry and a c theorem,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 3 (1999) 363–417 , arXiv:hep-th/9904017. 2

    1999 arXiv

  7. [14]

    On the holograph ic renormalization group,

    J. de Boer, E. P. Verlinde, and H. L. Verlinde, “On the holograph ic renormalization group,” JHEP 08 (2000) 003 , arXiv:hep-th/9912012. 2

    2000 arXiv

  8. [15]

    The Holographic renormalization group,

    J. de Boer, “The Holographic renormalization group,” Fortsch. Phys. 49 (2001) 339–358 , arXiv:hep-th/0101026. 2

    2001 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Integrating out geome try: Holographic Wilsonian RG and the membrane paradigm,

    T. Faulkner, H. Liu, and M. Rangamani, “Integrating out geome try: Holographic Wilsonian RG and the membrane paradigm,” JHEP 08 (2011) 051 , arXiv:1010.4036 [hep-th] . 2, 4

    2011 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Holographic and Wilsonian Renor malization Groups,

    I. Heemskerk and J. Polchinski, “Holographic and Wilsonian Renor malization Groups,” JHEP 06 (2011) 031 , arXiv:1010.1264 [hep-th] . 2

    2011 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Holographic renormalisation group flows and renormalisation from a Wilsonian perspective,

    J. M. Lizana, T. R. Morris, and M. Perez-Victoria, “Holographic renormalisation group flows and renormalisation from a Wilsonian perspective,” JHEP 03 (2016) 198 , arXiv:1511.04432 [hep-th] . 2

    2016 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Understanding the holographic principle via RG flow,

    A. Mukhopadhyay, “Understanding the holographic principle via RG flow,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31 no. 34, (2016) 1630059 , arXiv:1612.00141 [hep-th] . 2

    2016 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Holographic dual of free field theory,

    M. R. Douglas, L. Mazzucato, and S. S. Razamat, “Holographic dual of free field theory,” Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 071701 , arXiv:1011.4926 [hep-th] . 2

    2011 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Holographic description of quantum field theory,

    S.-S. Lee, “Holographic description of quantum field theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 832 (2010) 567–585 , arXiv:0912.5223 [hep-th] . 2 22

    2010 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Background independent holographic description : From matrix field theory to quantum gravity,

    S.-S. Lee, “Background independent holographic description : From matrix field theory to quantum gravity,” JHEP 10 (2012) 160 , arXiv:1204.1780 [hep-th] . 2

    2012 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Connecting the Holographic and Wilsonian Renorma lization Groups,

    D. Radicevic, “Connecting the Holographic and Wilsonian Renorma lization Groups,” JHEP 12 (2011) 023 , arXiv:1105.5825 [hep-th] . 2

    2011 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Constructing holographic spacetimes using entang lement renormalization,

    B. Swingle, “Constructing holographic spacetimes using entang lement renormalization,” arXiv:1209.3304 [hep-th] . 2

    arXiv

  18. [25]

    Higher spin versus renormalization group equations ,

    I. Sachs, “Higher spin versus renormalization group equations ,” Phys. Rev. D 90 no. 8, (2014) 085003 , arXiv:1306.6654 [hep-th] . 2, 10

    2014 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Higher Spin Holography, RG, and the Light Cone,

    E. Mintun and J. Polchinski, “Higher Spin Holography, RG, and the Light Cone,” arXiv:1411.3151 [hep-th] . 2, 10

    arXiv

  20. [27]

    Ab initio holography,

    P. Lunts, S. Bhattacharjee, J. Miller, E. Schnetter, Y. B. Kim , and S.-S. Lee, “Ab initio holography,” JHEP 08 (2015) 107 , arXiv:1503.06474 [hep-th] . 2

    2015 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Entanglement transfer from quantum ma tter to classical geometry in an emergent holographic dual description of a scalar field theory,

    K.-S. Kim and S. Ryu, “Entanglement transfer from quantum ma tter to classical geometry in an emergent holographic dual description of a scalar field theory,” JHEP 05 (2021) 260 , arXiv:2003.00165 [hep-th] . 2

    2021 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Holographic coars e-graining: correlators from the entanglement wedge and other reduced geometries,

    A. Guijosa, Y. D. Olivas, and J. F. Pedraza, “Holographic coars e-graining: correlators from the entanglement wedge and other reduced geometries,” JHEP 08 (2022) 118 , arXiv:2201.01786 [hep-th] . 2

    2022 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Holographic Wilson’s RG,

    B. Sathiapalan and H. Sonoda, “Holographic Wilson’s RG,” Nucl. Phys. B 948 (2019) 114767 , arXiv:1902.02486 [hep-th] . 2, 10

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Holographic RG and Exact RG in O(N) Model,

    B. Sathiapalan, “Holographic RG and Exact RG in O(N) Model,” Nucl. Phys. B 959 (2020) 115142 , arXiv:2005.10412 [hep-th] . 2, 7, 10

    2020 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Bulk gauge fields and holographic RG from exact RG,

    P. Dharanipragada, S. Dutta, and B. Sathiapalan, “Bulk gauge fields and holographic RG from exact RG,” arxiv:2201.06240. 2, 5, 7, 10

    arXiv

  26. [33]

    Holographic RG from ER G: Locality and General Coordinate Invariance in the Bulk,

    P. Dharanipragada and B. Sathiapalan, “Holographic RG from ER G: Locality and General Coordinate Invariance in the Bulk,” arXiv:2306.07442 [hep-th] . 2, 4, 9, 10

    arXiv

  27. [34]

    AdS dual of the critical O(N ) vector model,

    I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, “AdS dual of the critical O(N ) vector model,” Phys. Lett. B 550 (2002) 213–219 , arXiv:hep-th/0210114. 2

    2002 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Higher spin gauge theories: Star product and Ad S space,

    M. A. Vasiliev, “Higher spin gauge theories: Star product and Ad S space,” arXiv:hep-th/9910096. 2

    arXiv

  29. [36]

    Higher Spin Interactions from Conf ormal Field Theory: The Complete Cubic Couplings,

    C. Sleight and M. Taronna, “Higher Spin Interactions from Conf ormal Field Theory: The Complete Cubic Couplings,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 no. 18, (2016) 181602 , arXiv:1603.00022 [hep-th] . 2

    2016 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Higher Spin Gauge Theory and Holography: The Three-Point Functions,

    S. Giombi and X. Yin, “Higher Spin Gauge Theory and Holography: The Three-Point Functions,” JHEP 09 (2010) 115 , arXiv:0912.3462 [hep-th] . 2

    2010 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Large N collective fields and holography ,

    S. R. Das and A. Jevicki, “Large N collective fields and holography ,” Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 044011 , arXiv:hep-th/0304093. 2, 10

    2003 arXiv

  32. [39]

    AdS4/CFT 3 Construction from Collective Fields,

    R. de Mello Koch, A. Jevicki, K. Jin, and J. P. Rodrigues, “ AdS4/CFT 3 Construction from Collective Fields,” Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 025006 , arXiv:1008.0633 [hep-th] . 2, 10

    2011 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Higher Spin Realiza tion of the dS/CFT Correspondence,

    D. Anninos, T. Hartman, and A. Strominger, “Higher Spin Realiza tion of the dS/CFT Correspondence,” Class. Quant. Grav. 34 no. 1, (2017) 015009 , arXiv:1108.5735 [hep-th] . 2

    2017 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Ca nonical Formulation of O(N ) Vector/Higher Spin Correspondence,

    R. de Mello Koch, A. Jevicki, J. a. P. Rodrigues, and J. Yoon, “Ca nonical Formulation of O(N ) Vector/Higher Spin Correspondence,” J. Phys. A 48 no. 10, (2015) 105403 , arXiv:1408.4800 [hep-th] . 2, 10

    2015 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Higher Spin Fronsdal Equa tions from the Exact Renormalization Group,

    K. Jin, R. G. Leigh, and O. Parrikar, “Higher Spin Fronsdal Equa tions from the Exact Renormalization Group,” JHEP 06 (2015) 050 , arXiv:1503.06864 [hep-th] . 2, 10 23

    2015 arXiv

  36. [43]

    A Derivation of AdS/CFT for Vector Models,

    O. Aharony, S. M. Chester, and E. Y. Urbach, “A Derivation of AdS/CFT for Vector Models,” JHEP 03 (2021) 208 , arXiv:2011.06328 [hep-th] . 2, 10

    2021 arXiv

  37. [44]

    AdS from CFT f or scalar QED,

    O. Aharony, S. M. Chester, and E. Y. Urbach, “AdS from CFT f or scalar QED,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 12, (2021) 126011 , arXiv:2109.05512 [hep-th] . 2, 10

    2021 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Constructin g the bulk at the critical point of three-dimensional large N vector theories,

    C. Johnson, M. Mulokwe, and J. a. P. Rodrigues, “Constructin g the bulk at the critical point of three-dimensional large N vector theories,” Phys. Lett. B 829 (2022) 137056 , arXiv:2201.10214 [hep-th] . 2

    2022 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Understanding Higher-Spin Gravity through Biloca l Holography for Free Fermions,

    T. Solberg, “Understanding Higher-Spin Gravity through Biloca l Holography for Free Fermions,” arXiv:2302.14561 [hep-th] . 2, 10

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Renormalization and Effective Lagrangians,

    J. Polchinski, “Renormalization and Effective Lagrangians,” Nucl. Phys. B 231 (1984) 269–295 . 4

    1984

  41. [49]

    The Renormalization group and the epsilon expansion,

    K. G. Wilson and J. B. Kogut, “The Renormalization group and the epsilon expansion,” Phys. Rept. 12 (1974) 75–199 . 4

    1974

  42. [50]

    Renormalization group equatio n for critical phenomena,

    F. J. Wegner and A. Houghton, “Renormalization group equatio n for critical phenomena,” Phys. Rev. A 8 (1973) 401–412 . 4

    1973

  43. [51]

    The renormalization group and critical phenomena ,

    K. G. Wilson, “The renormalization group and critical phenomena ,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 55 (1983) 583–600 . 4

    1983

  44. [52]

    Exact evolution equation for the effective pote ntial,

    C. Wetterich, “Exact evolution equation for the effective pote ntial,” Phys. Lett. B 301 (1993) 90–94 , arXiv:1710.05815 [hep-th] . 4

    1993 arXiv

  45. [53]

    The Exact renormalization group and approximat e solutions,

    T. R. Morris, “The Exact renormalization group and approximat e solutions,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 9 (1994) 2411–2450 , arXiv:hep-ph/9308265. 4

    1994 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Exact renormalization group equat ions. An Introductory review,

    C. Bagnuls and C. Bervillier, “Exact renormalization group equat ions. An Introductory review,” Phys. Rept. 348 (2001) 91 , arXiv:hep-th/0002034. 4

    2001 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Exact renormalization group equat ions and the field theoretical approach to critical phenomena,

    C. Bagnuls and C. Bervillier, “Exact renormalization group equat ions and the field theoretical approach to critical phenomena,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16 (2001) 1825 , arXiv:hep-th/0101110. 4

    2001 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Realization of Symmetry in the ERG Approach to Quantum Field Theory,

    Y. Igarashi, K. Itoh, and H. Sonoda, “Realization of Symmetry in the ERG Approach to Quantum Field Theory,” Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 181 (2010) 1–166 , arXiv:0909.0327 [hep-th] . 4

    2010 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Fundamentals of the Exact Renormalization Gro up,

    O. J. Rosten, “Fundamentals of the Exact Renormalization Gro up,” Phys. Rept. 511 (2012) 177–272 , arXiv:1003.1366 [hep-th] . 4

    2012 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Scalar propagators on adS space,

    H. Erbin, “Scalar propagators on adS space,”. 6

  51. [59]

    Mapping from Exact RG to Holographic RG in Flat S pace,

    B. Sathiapalan, “Mapping from Exact RG to Holographic RG in Flat S pace,” arXiv:2408.00628 [hep-th] . 10

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Aspects o f the map from exact RG to holographic RG in AdS and dS,

    P. Dharanipragada, S. Dutta, and B. Sathiapalan, “Aspects o f the map from exact RG to holographic RG in AdS and dS,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 37 no. 37n38, (2022) 2250235 , arXiv:2301.13605 [hep-th] . 10

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    One Loop Tests of Higher Spin AdS /CFT,

    S. Giombi and I. R. Klebanov, “One Loop Tests of Higher Spin AdS /CFT,” JHEP 12 (2013) 068 , arXiv:1308.2337 [hep-th] . 11

    2013 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Higher Spin — CFT Duality,

    S. Giombi, “Higher Spin — CFT Duality,” in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: New Frontiers in Fields and St rings, pp. 137–214. 2017. arXiv:1607.02967 [hep-th] . 11 24

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.