Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Symmetric orbifold OPE from string theory

T0 review · 2 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 This paper claims that the worldsheet OPE of spectrally flowed vertex operators reproduces the longest single-cycle term of the symmetric orbifold fusion rule, with the boundary-coordinate exponent equal to the dual conformal weight…

desk verdict The longest-cycle OPE computation is real and new; the shorter-cycle mechanism rests on an unproven spectral-flow assignment for the screening operator, so the paper's full claim outruns its evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18244 v2 pith:5KDQ765Z submitted 2025-04-25 hep-th

Vit Sriprachyakul This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords symmetricorbifoldOPEworldsheetspectralflowAdS3/CFT2tensionlessstringscreeningoperatorhybridformalismx-basisvertexoperators
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 argues that the OPE of spectrally flowed vertex operators in the worldsheet theory of strings on $\mathrm{AdS}_3\times X$ directly encodes the fusion rule of the dual symmetric orbifold CFT. Fusing two $x$-basis vertex operators with twists $w_1$ and $w_2$ produces, at leading order, a single operator of twist $w_1+w_2-1$ whose boundary-coordinate separation exponent equals the difference of dual CFT conformal weights. The authors demonstrate this in two settings with explicit vertex operators: $k_b=3$ bosonic strings in the near-boundary limit and $k=1$ hybrid strings on $\mathrm{AdS}_3\times S^3\times \mathbb{T}^4$. They then propose that shorter-cycle channels, of twist $w_1+w_2-1-2l$, are generated by repeated fusion with the worldsheet screening operator. If correct, this gives a concrete mechanism by which short-distance spacetime OPE data are already present in the short-distance behaviour of the worldsheet theory.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $x$-basis spectrally flowed vertex operator, built from the delta-function product $\delta_w(\gamma-x)=\prod_{i=1}^{w-1}\delta(\partial^i\gamma)\delta(\gamma-x)$, whose OPE is dominated by the delta-function constraint that relates boundary and worldsheet separations. The mechanism that carries the argument is the leading-order identity (3.15)--(3.17): two flowed operators fuse into one of twist $w_1+w_2-1$, with the boundary separation exponent fixed by the dual conformal weights. The screening operator $O^-=\int d^2z\,D\overline{D}$, a singlet under the $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ currents, is then used to extract shorter-cycle channels by lowering the spectral flow in steps of two.

What would settle it

One concrete check: compute the OPE of the screening operator $D$ with a spectrally flowed vertex operator beyond leading order in $z_{12}$ and $x_{12}$. If the neglected delta-function derivative terms in (3.14)--(3.16) contribute at the same power of $x_{12}$, or if $D$ cannot be assigned an effective spectral flow $w=0$ consistent with (3.39), the shorter-cycle mechanism fails; equivalently, evaluate the three-point function (3.43) at $l=1$ and see whether it vanishes despite the bound (3.49).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the leading term in the worldsheet OPE of two integrated $x$-basis vertex operators is itself a spectrally flowed vertex operator, with spectral flow $w_1+w_2-1$, momentum $p_1+p_2$, and the compact operator produced by the compact OPE; the boundary-coordinate separation $x_{12}$ appears with exponent $h_a-h_1-h_2$, exactly the difference of dual CFT conformal weights (equations (3.23) and (3.24)). The delta-function structure forces $x_{12}\sim z_{12}^{w_1+w_2-1}$, so the short-distance behaviour of the spacetime OPE is encoded in the short-distance $z$-behaviour of the worldsheet theory. The paper demonstrates this for $k_b=3$ bosonic strings near the $\mathrm{AdS}_3$ boundary and for $k=1$ hybrid strings on $\mathrm{AdS}_3\times S^3\times \mathbb{T}^4$, and argues that fusing the worldsheet screening operator $O^-$ into the OPE generates the shorter-cycle channels $w_1+w_2-3$, $w_1+w_2-5$, and so on.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that equation (3.23) remains valid, at the order shown, whenever $w_1+w_2-1>0$, even though the derivation assumed $w_1,w_2\ge 1$; this extension lets the screening operator $O^-$ (effectively $w=0$) participate in the fusion, and it is justified only heuristically in Appendix C.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The exponent of the boundary-coordinate separation $x_{12}$ in the worldsheet OPE equals the difference of dual CFT conformal weights, matching the OPE expansion in the spacetime CFT.
  • The fused leading-order operator carries twist $w_1+w_2-1$, momentum $p_1+p_2$, and the compact operator from the OPE, so the worldsheet fusion rule maps onto the longest-cycle single-term fusion rule.
  • Repeated fusion with the screening operator $O^-$ is proposed to produce the shorter-cycle channels $w_1+w_2-1$, $w_1+w_2-3$, and so on, down to $|w_1-w_2|+1$.
  • The delta-function constraint implies $x_{12}\sim z_{12}^{w_1+w_2-1}$, giving the covering-map degree that appears in the symmetric orbifold description.
  • For $w_1=w_2=1$ the general result reduces to earlier worldsheet OPEs, including the spacetime current-algebra OPE and the untwisted-sector OPEs, serving as consistency checks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that if the dictionary (3.2) is exact, the worldsheet OPE is the spacetime OPE, so the subleading terms in (3.14)--(3.16) should reorganise into descendant contributions; checking this would turn the leading-order match into a full-OPE statement.
  • A testable extension is to compute (3.23) at generic level $k_b$: the near-boundary dual is then a deformed symmetric orbifold, and the $x$-exponent would presumably acquire deformation corrections, showing how much of the fusion rule survives away from the free point.
  • The covering-map degree count $N'=N-l$ suggests that each screening fusion lowers the effective covering degree by one; one could test the mechanism by computing the three-point function (3.43) for $l=1$ and checking that its numerical prefactor matches the symmetric orbifold structure constant.
  • Although the paper treats $k=1$ hybrid strings and $k_b=3$ bosonic strings separately, the same $x$-basis OPE derivation should apply to other backgrounds with explicit flowed vertex operators, giving a uniform explanation of the symmetric orbifold OPE.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the worldsheet OPE of x-basis spectrally flowed vertex operators in two AdS3 string constructions: bosonic strings on AdS3 × X at k_b = 3 in the near-boundary limit, and hybrid strings at k = 1 on AdS3 × S3 × T4. The main technical result is that the OPE of two such vertex operators, after integration over worldsheet coordinates, produces an expansion in the boundary coordinate x12 whose exponents are the dual CFT conformal-weight differences, and whose fused operator carries spectral flow w1 + w2 − 1 and momentum p1 + p2. This is identified with the longest single-cycle term of the symmetric orbifold fusion rule. The paper then proposes a mechanism, based on fusing with the screening operator O−, for generating shorter-cycle contributions with spectral flows w1 + w2 − 1 − 2l. Section 3.4 checks the method against earlier results of Kutasov–Seiberg and Naderi, and the appendices supply technical details for the numerical prefactors and the extended claim used in Section 3.3.

Significance. The longest-cycle computation of Section 3.2 is a genuine and explicit calculation: equations (3.14)–(3.16) show how successive delta-function replacements isolate the leading fused channel, the on-shell condition (3.22) correctly converts the z12 power into the spacetime exponent, and the final OPE (3.23) has the expected structure with exponents h_a − h1 − h2. The checks against known OPEs in Section 3.4, including the current algebra OPE of Kutasov–Seiberg and the w = 1 fermion and boson OPEs of Naderi, are independent and give nontrivial confidence in the method. If the longest-cycle result stands, it is a valuable step toward deriving symmetric orbifold OPE data from the worldsheet. However, the shorter-cycle mechanism advertised in the abstract is not established: it relies on an extended claim whose justification is heuristic, and on treating the screening operator as an effective w = −1 spectrally flowed operator, a property that is never derived. The significance of the paper as a whole is therefore currently dominated by the longest-cycle result, with the shorter-cycle part being a plausible but unproven proposal.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (3.39)] This is the load-bearing step: (3.39) is obtained by fusing the screening operator D(z; x1) with the vertex operator V^{w1+w2−1} using the extended claim (3.23). Since (3.23) combines spectral flows as w1 + w2 − 1, the arithmetic requires D to carry effective spectral flow w_D = −1. But D, defined in (2.18)–(2.19), is a local exponential e^{−2Φ/√2} e^{ϕ+2iκ} with no spectral flow label, and it does not contain the x-basis delta function δ(γ − x) that is an essential ingredient of the vertex operators (2.7) for which (3.23) was derived. The data quoted for D, namely h(D) = 0 and j(D) = 1/2, do not determine w_D, because the relation h = m + 3w/2 admits multiple (m, w) pairs with h = 0. Thus (3.39) does not follow from the extended claim, and since (3.40)–(3.41) rest entirely on (3.39), the generation of all shorter-cycle contributions is unsupported.
  2. [§3.3 and Appendix C] The paper claims that equation (3.23) is valid for any w1 + w2 − 1 > 0, including negative individual spectral flows. This is stronger than what was derived in Section 3.2, where w1, w2 ≥ 1 was assumed. Appendix C is offered as a heuristic justification, but it does not close the gap: in the line-operator manipulation leading to (C.4), the x12-dependent terms in the exponents are dropped before the delta function δ(x12 − ∂^{w1+w2−1}γ z^{w1+w2−1}/(w1+w2−1)!) is obtained, so the crucial x12-dependence is not recovered. Moreover, the appendix only concerns ordinary vertex operators of the form (2.7); it never addresses the screening operator D or any operator lacking an x-basis delta function. The manuscript itself concedes in Section 4 that 'We currently do not have solid evidence for this claim,' but the claim is used to present (3.39)–(3.41) as derived results. The shorter-cycle part therefore needs either a real derivation of D's effective spectral flow and x-basis structure, or a clear reframing as a conjecture with the abstract revised accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (2.9)] The delta function δ_w(γ − x) is defined for w ∈ Z_+, but Section 3.3 invokes the extended claim for w1 + w2 − 1 > 0 with possibly negative individual w. Please state explicitly how δ_w and (∂^w γ) are defined or interpreted when w ≤ 0.
  2. [§3.2, around Eq. (3.20)] The integration over z1 leading to the Jacobian factor (w1 + w2 − 2)!/∂^{w1+w2−1}γ is somewhat terse; a brief remark on the holomorphic/antiholomorphic split and on the treatment of the absolute value in the delta-function constraint would improve readability.
  3. [§3.4, footnote 6] The remark that the central charge has been checked using the technique of the paper is not accompanied by any calculation or reference to an appendix. Please either show the computation or omit the claim.
  4. [§3.3, Eq. (3.38)] The x-translation property (3.38) is stated for the integrated screening operator O−, but the subsequent fusion in (3.39) uses the local operator D(z; x1). Please clarify how the locality of D is compatible with the x-translation of O−, or define D(z; x) explicitly.
  5. [Throughout] Several equations contain typographical artifacts, e.g. 'z−∆1−∆2+∆a+(w1+w2−1)' and the repeated '±' choices in (3.27)–(3.35); a careful proofread of the displayed formulas is recommended.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Shorter-cycle fusion is an input: applying (3.23) to D requires the unstated choice w_D=-1; longest-cycle result is self-contained.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, eq. (3.39)]
    "If we now fuse the secret representation insertion D(z;x1) to the vertex operator on the RHS of (3.23) using the claim above, we get ... where we have used that ∆(D) = 1, h(D) = 0, j(D) = (kb−2)/2 = 1/2."

    The fusion formula (3.23) combines two operators with spectral flows w_a, w_b into a channel with flow w_a + w_b − 1. Applied to D and V^{w1+w2−1}, the output flow is w_D + (w1+w2−1) − 1. The displayed result V^{w1+w2−3} therefore requires w_D = −1. The paper never assigns or derives this value: D is defined in (2.18)–(2.19) as a local exponential with no spectral-flow label, while the vertex-operator formula (2.7) and the delta functions (2.9) are defined only for w ∈ Z_+. The quoted data ∆(D)=1, h(D)=0, j(D)=1/2 determine only |w_D|=1 through (2.10)–(2.11), so w_D=+1 is equally allowed by those data and would give the fused flow w1+w2−1, not w1+w2−3.

full rationale

The longest-cycle calculation in Section 3.2 (eqs. (3.12)–(3.24)) is a genuine OPE computation: the x12 exponents are produced by integrating the delta-function constraint x12 ∼ z12^{w1+w2−1}, and the derivation is cross-checked in Section 3.4 against the independent results of Kutasov–Seiberg [28] and Naderi [15]. The dictionary (3.2) is imported from prior work [7,18,21], but those are separate, parameter-free derivations, and the OPE result does not reduce to that dictionary. The circularity burden is confined to the shorter-cycle mechanism of Section 3.3. To obtain eq. (3.39), the paper applies the extended claim (3.23) to the screening operator D, which forces D to carry effective spectral flow w_D = −1, since the fused flow is w_D + (w1+w2−1) − 1 = w1+w2−3. D is defined in (2.18)–(2.19) with no spectral-flow label, and the vertex-operator formula (2.7) is only given for positive integer spectral flow. The data quoted for D determine only |w_D| = 1 from ∆(D)=1, so w_D = −1 is an unstated choice that manufactures the desired subleading twist. The paper candidly labels this part as an argument rather than a derivation and, in Section 4, says 'We currently do not have solid evidence for this claim', which reduces the concealment but not the structural circularity. Overall score 5: the central longest-cycle claim is independent; the secondary shorter-cycle prediction is circular by construction.

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

The central derivation rests on the x-basis vertex operator constructions and screening operators from the author's prior work [7,18,19,21], on the assumed dictionary map (3.2) between integrated worldsheet operators and CFT operators, and on a stronger unproven claim (Section 3.3) that extends the OPE formula to w1+w2-1>0. No parameters are fitted to data; the quantum numbers (p, w, m, j) are physical. The main formal tool, the leading-order replacement of products of delta functions (3.14)-(3.16), is a domain assumption standard in this free field realization literature.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The near-boundary free action (2.3), with the interaction term ββ̄e^{-QΦ} dropped, is exact for k_b=3 long-string ground state amplitudes.
    Used throughout the bosonic computation; exactness is argued via footnote 2, citing Section 5 of [21].
  • domain assumption Integrated worldsheet vertex operators are identified with dual CFT operators: ∫d²z V^w_{m,j,X}(z;x) = O_{w,p,X}(x) (3.2).
    The bridge converting the worldsheet OPE into the CFT OPE; stated as an expectation based on amplitude matching (3.1), not derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The stronger claim: equation (3.23) holds for any w1+w2-1>0, including negative individual spectral flows.
    Introduced in Section 3.3 to fuse the screening operator and generate shorter cycles; justified only heuristically in Appendix C.
  • ad hoc to paper The screening operator D (2.19) fuses as an effective spectrally flowed operator carrying the charges used in (3.39), producing flow w1+w2-3.
    The fusion arithmetic in (3.39) requires D to behave as w = -1; this assignment is neither stated nor derived.
  • domain assumption Leading-order delta function replacements (3.14)-(3.16) dominate the OPE; neglected terms are subleading.
    Formal distribution manipulations standard in the Wakimoto/free field realization; the paper does not bound the neglected terms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetric orbifold OPE from string theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5KDQ765Z

@misc{pith2026250418244,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetric orbifold OPE from string theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5KDQ765Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18244}
}
abstract

We discuss how to obtain the symmetric orbifold fusion rule/OPE from the dual string theory. We consider two explicit examples: $k_b=3$ bosonic strings in ${\rm AdS_3}\times X$ in the near-boundary limit and $k=1$ hybrid strings in $\rm AdS_3\times S^3\times\mathbb{T}^4$. The main advantage of these two examples is that they have explicit expressions for the vertex operators in the $x$-basis. We show that the OPE of such vertex operators explicitly captures the longest cycle contribution in the symmetric orbifold fusion rule/OPE. We then argue how one can obtain the shorter-cycle contributions using the screening operators existing in the theories. We also discuss how our general result reduces to the earlier results in the literature.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tensionless string spectra on AdS 3,

    M. R. Gaberdiel and R. Gopakumar, “Tensionless string spectra on AdS 3,” JHEP 05 (2018) 085, arXiv:1803.04423 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    The Worldsheet Dual of the Symmetric Product CFT,

    L. Eberhardt, M. R. Gaberdiel, and R. Gopakumar, “The Worldsheet Dual of the Symmetric Product CFT,” JHEP 04 (2019) 103, arXiv:1812.01007 [hep-th] . – 27 –

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Deriving the AdS 3/CFT2 correspondence,

    L. Eberhardt, M. R. Gaberdiel, and R. Gopakumar, “Deriving the AdS 3/CFT2 correspondence,” JHEP 02 (2020) 136, arXiv:1911.00378 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Free field world-sheet correlators for AdS 3,

    A. Dei, M. R. Gaberdiel, R. Gopakumar, and B. Knighton, “Free field world-sheet correlators for AdS 3,” JHEP 02 (2021) 081, arXiv:2009.11306 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Superstrings on AdS3 at k = 1,

    G. Giribet, C. Hull, M. Kleban, M. Porrati, and E. Rabinovici, “Superstrings on AdS3 at k = 1,” JHEP 08 (2018) 204, arXiv:1803.04420 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Tensionless strings on AdS3×S3×S3×S1,

    M. R. Gaberdiel and V. Sriprachyakul, “Tensionless strings on AdS3×S3×S3×S1,” arXiv:2411.16848 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Solving AdS 3 string theory at minimal tension: tree-level correlators,

    A. Dei, B. Knighton, and K. Naderi, “Solving AdS 3 string theory at minimal tension: tree-level correlators,” JHEP 09 (2024) 135, arXiv:2312.04622 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    D-branes in AdS3 × S3 × T4 at k = 1 and their holographic duals,

    M. R. Gaberdiel, B. Knighton, and J. Voˇ smera, “D-branes in AdS3 × S3 × T4 at k = 1 and their holographic duals,” JHEP 12 (2021) 149, arXiv:2110.05509 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Topological defects and tensionless holography,

    B. Knighton, V. Sriprachyakul, and J. Voˇ smera, “Topological defects and tensionless holography,” arXiv:2406.03467 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Non-invertible symmetries in SN orbifold CFTs and holography,

    M. Gutperle, Y.-Y. Li, D. Rathore, and K. Roumpedakis, “Non-invertible symmetries in SN orbifold CFTs and holography,” JHEP 09 (2024) 110, arXiv:2405.15693 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Holographic Interfaces in Symmetric Product Orbifolds,

    S. Harris, Y. Hikida, V. Schomerus, and T. Tsuda, “Holographic Interfaces in Symmetric Product Orbifolds,” arXiv:2504.00078 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Summing over Geometries in String Theory,

    L. Eberhardt, “Summing over Geometries in String Theory,” JHEP 05 (2021) 233, arXiv:2102.12355 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Type II string theory on AdS3 ×S3×T4 and symmetric orbifolds,

    O. Aharony and E. Y. Urbach, “Type II string theory on AdS3 ×S3×T4 and symmetric orbifolds,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 4, (2024) 046028, arXiv:2406.14605 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    On the central charge of spacetime current algebras and correlators in string theory on AdS 3,

    J. Kim and M. Porrati, “On the central charge of spacetime current algebras and correlators in string theory on AdS 3,” JHEP 05 (2015) 076, arXiv:1503.07186 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Space-time symmetry from the world-sheet,

    K. Naderi, “Space-time symmetry from the world-sheet,” JHEP 03 (2025) 128, arXiv:2407.15575 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A perturbative CFT dual for pure NS–NS AdS 3 strings,

    L. Eberhardt, “A perturbative CFT dual for pure NS–NS AdS 3 strings,” J. Phys. A 55 no. 6, (2022) 064001, arXiv:2110.07535 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    String correlators on AdS 3: Analytic structure and dual CFT,

    A. Dei and L. Eberhardt, “String correlators on AdS 3: Analytic structure and dual CFT,” SciPost Phys. 13 no. 3, (2022) 053, arXiv:2203.13264 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Unravelling AdS 3/CFT2 near the boundary,

    B. Knighton and V. Sriprachyakul, “Unravelling AdS 3/CFT2 near the boundary,” JHEP 01 (2025) 042, arXiv:2404.07296 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Spectral flow and localisation in AdS 3 string theory,

    B. Knighton, S. Seet, and V. Sriprachyakul, “Spectral flow and localisation in AdS 3 string theory,” JHEP 05 (2024) 113, arXiv:2312.08429 [hep-th] . – 28 –

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Engineering perturbative string duals for symmetric product orbifold CFTs,

    Y. Hikida and V. Schomerus, “Engineering perturbative string duals for symmetric product orbifold CFTs,” JHEP 06 (2024) 071, arXiv:2312.05317 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Superstrings near the conformal boundary of AdS 3,

    V. Sriprachyakul, “Superstrings near the conformal boundary of AdS 3,” JHEP 08 (2024) 203, arXiv:2405.03678 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Spacetime dilaton in AdS 3 × X holography,

    V. Sriprachyakul, “Spacetime dilaton in AdS 3 × X holography,” JHEP 11 (2024) 083, arXiv:2408.13488 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Correlators of long strings on AdS 3×S3×T4,

    Z.-f. Yu and C. Peng, “Correlators of long strings on AdS 3×S3×T4,” JHEP 01 (2025) 017, arXiv:2408.16712 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    The D1 / D5 system and singular CFT,

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “The D1 / D5 system and singular CFT,” JHEP 04 (1999) 017, arXiv:hep-th/9903224

    1999 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Deriving the long-string CFT in AdS 3,

    B. Knighton, “Deriving the long-string CFT in AdS 3,” arXiv:2410.16904 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Asymptotically free AdS3/CFT2,

    B. Balthazar, A. Giveon, D. Kutasov, and E. J. Martinec, “Asymptotically free AdS3/CFT2,” JHEP 01 (2022) 008, arXiv:2109.00065 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Effective AdS 3/CFT2,

    S. Chakraborty, A. Giveon, and D. Kutasov, “Effective AdS 3/CFT2,” JHEP 03 (2025) 030, arXiv:2501.09119 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    More comments on string theory on AdS(3),

    D. Kutasov and N. Seiberg, “More comments on string theory on AdS(3),” JHEP 04 (1999) 008, arXiv:hep-th/9903219

    1999 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Conformal field theory of AdS background with Ramond-Ramond flux,

    N. Berkovits, C. Vafa, and E. Witten, “Conformal field theory of AdS background with Ramond-Ramond flux,” JHEP 03 (1999) 018, arXiv:hep-th/9902098

    1999 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Strings in AdS(3) and SL(2,R) WZW model 1.: The Spectrum,

    J. M. Maldacena and H. Ooguri, “Strings in AdS(3) and SL(2,R) WZW model 1.: The Spectrum,” J. Math. Phys. 42 (2001) 2929–2960, arXiv:hep-th/0001053

    2001 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Strings in AdS(3) and the SL(2,R) WZW model. Part 2. Euclidean black hole,

    J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and J. Son, “Strings in AdS(3) and the SL(2,R) WZW model. Part 2. Euclidean black hole,” J. Math. Phys. 42 (2001) 2961–2977, arXiv:hep-th/0005183

    2001 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Strings in AdS(3) and the SL(2,R) WZW model. Part 3. Correlation functions,

    J. M. Maldacena and H. Ooguri, “Strings in AdS(3) and the SL(2,R) WZW model. Part 3. Correlation functions,” Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 106006, arXiv:hep-th/0111180

    2002 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Modular invariance of SU(1,1) strings,

    M. Henningson, S. Hwang, P. Roberts, and B. Sundborg, “Modular invariance of SU(1,1) strings,” Phys. Lett. B 267 (1991) 350–355

    1991

  26. [34]

    Cosets as gauge slices in SU(1,1) strings,

    S. Hwang, “Cosets as gauge slices in SU(1,1) strings,” Phys. Lett. B 276 (1992) 451–454, arXiv:hep-th/9110039

    1992 arXiv

  27. [35]

    The no ghost theorem for AdS(3) and the stringy exclusion principle,

    J. M. Evans, M. R. Gaberdiel, and M. J. Perry, “The no ghost theorem for AdS(3) and the stringy exclusion principle,” Nucl. Phys. B 535 (1998) 152–170, arXiv:hep-th/9806024

    1998 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Comments on string theory on AdS(3),

    A. Giveon, D. Kutasov, and N. Seiberg, “Comments on string theory on AdS(3),” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 733–782, arXiv:hep-th/9806194. – 29 –

    1998 arXiv

  29. [37]

    String theory on AdS(3),

    J. de Boer, H. Ooguri, H. Robins, and J. Tannenhauser, “String theory on AdS(3),” JHEP 12 (1998) 026, arXiv:hep-th/9812046

    1998 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Fock representations of the affine lie algebra A1(1),

    M. Wakimoto, “Fock representations of the affine lie algebra A1(1),” Commun. Math. Phys. 104 (1986) 605–609

    1986

  31. [39]

    DDF operators in the hybrid formalism,

    K. Naderi, “DDF operators in the hybrid formalism,” JHEP 12 (2022) 043, arXiv:2208.01617 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Perturbing the symmetric orbifold from the worldsheet,

    M.-A. Fiset, M. R. Gaberdiel, K. Naderi, and V. Sriprachyakul, “Perturbing the symmetric orbifold from the worldsheet,” JHEP 07 (2023) 093, arXiv:2212.12342 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Gravity from CFT on S**N(X): Symmetries and interactions,

    A. Jevicki, M. Mihailescu, and S. Ramgoolam, “Gravity from CFT on S**N(X): Symmetries and interactions,” Nucl. Phys. B 577 (2000) 47–72, arXiv:hep-th/9907144

    2000 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Diagrams for Symmetric Product Orbifolds,

    A. Pakman, L. Rastelli, and S. S. Razamat, “Diagrams for Symmetric Product Orbifolds,” JHEP 10 (2009) 034, arXiv:0905.3448 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  35. [43]

    The OPE of bare twist operators in bosonic SN orbifold CFTs at large N,

    B. A. Burrington, I. T. Jardine, and A. W. Peet, “The OPE of bare twist operators in bosonic SN orbifold CFTs at large N,” JHEP 08 (2018) 202, arXiv:1804.01562 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    The large N limit of OPEs in symmetric orbifold CFTs with N = (4, 4) supersymmetry,

    T. De Beer, B. A. Burrington, I. T. Jardine, and A. W. Peet, “The large N limit of OPEs in symmetric orbifold CFTs with N = (4, 4) supersymmetry,” JHEP 08 (2019) 015, arXiv:1904.07816 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    The operator rings of topological symmetric orbifolds and their large N limit,

    S. K. Ashok and J. Troost, “The operator rings of topological symmetric orbifolds and their large N limit,” JHEP 04 (2024) 039, arXiv:2309.17052 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Three point functions for M(N) / S(N) orbifolds with N=4 supersymmetry,

    O. Lunin and S. D. Mathur, “Three point functions for M(N) / S(N) orbifolds with N=4 supersymmetry,” Commun. Math. Phys. 227 (2002) 385–419, arXiv:hep-th/0103169

    2002 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Correlation functions for M**N / S(N) orbifolds,

    O. Lunin and S. D. Mathur, “Correlation functions for M**N / S(N) orbifolds,” Commun. Math. Phys. 219 (2001) 399–442, arXiv:hep-th/0006196

    2001 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Polchinski, String theory

    J. Polchinski, String theory. Vol. 1: An introduction to the bosonic string . Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 12, 2007

    2007

  41. [49]

    The free field realisation of the BVW string,

    M. R. Gaberdiel, K. Naderi, and V. Sriprachyakul, “The free field realisation of the BVW string,” JHEP 08 (2022) 274, arXiv:2202.11392 [hep-th] . – 30 –

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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