Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Braid Group Representations and Defect Operators in AdS/CFT Correspondence

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that bulk Wilson loops in AdS correspond exactly to boundary defect operators, so braid-group representations in the bulk become unitary conjugations of CFT operators.

desk verdict Repackaged survey of known AdS/CFT and anyon material; the claimed bulk-to-boundary braid dictionary rests on an unproven Wilson-loop commutation relation, so the central theorems don't hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16817 v1 pith:MO5R4232 submitted 2025-05-22 hep-th math-phmath.MP

Tzu-Miao Chou This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath-phmath.MP
keywords braidgrouprepresentationsdefectoperatorsWilsonloopsAdS/CFTcorrespondenceanyonsmodulartensorcategoriesChern-Simonstheorytopologicaldefects
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 tries to establish a precise holographic dictionary for topological data: a defect operator inserted on a codimension-$k$ surface in the boundary CFT should equal the insertion of a bulk Wilson line or surface ending on that surface. If right, it would mean that bulk braiding statistics---the anyonic exchange rules encoded in Wilson loops---are not lost at the boundary but reappear as unitary conjugation of defect operators. The paper also argues that the fusion and braiding data of bulk anyons form a modular tensor category whose $F$- and $R$-symbols constrain the boundary defect operator algebra. A sympathetic reader would care because this would give holographic anyons a concrete algebraic home and connect AdS/CFT to topological quantum computation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are Wilson loop operators $W_\gamma = \mathrm{Tr}\,P\exp\left(i\oint_\gamma A\right)$ in the AdS bulk, the braid group $B_n$ generated by adjacent exchanges $\sigma_i$, and the AdS/CFT dictionary that sends a boundary defect support $\Sigma$ to a bulk submanifold $\gamma$ ending on $\Sigma$. The proposed mechanism is to identify each braid generator with a Wilson loop, $\rho(\sigma_i)=W_{\gamma_i}$, and to transport the resulting braid algebra to the boundary as unitary conjugation on defect operators. On the categorical side, modular tensor categories supply the fusion rules, $F$-symbols for associativity, and $R$-symbols for braiding that the defect operators are claimed to obey.

What would settle it

Compute the commutator of two linked Wilson loops in a concrete Chern-Simons theory on AdS$_3$, for instance SU(2)$_k$. If the commutator is not a scalar phase $e^{2\pi i\theta}$ for linked loops, or if the operators assigned to $\sigma_i$ fail the braid relation, then Theorem 3.1 is false; a second check is to evaluate $\langle O_D(\Sigma)\cdots\rangle_{\mathrm{CFT}}$ and $\langle W_\gamma\cdots\rangle_{\mathrm{bulk}}$ in a solvable AdS$_3$/CFT$_2$ example and see whether the equality holds beyond the classical Wilson-line approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2.1: for a defect operator $O_D$ supported on a codimension-$k$ submanifold $\Sigma$ of the boundary CFT and a Wilson line or Wilson surface $W_\gamma$ in the bulk with $\partial\gamma=\Sigma$, the AdS/CFT dictionary gives $\langle O_D(\Sigma)\cdots\rangle_{\mathrm{CFT}}=\langle W_\gamma\cdots\rangle_{\mathrm{bulk}}$. Building on this, Theorem 3.1 claims that Wilson loop operators in a topological gauge theory on an asymptotically AdS $(2+1)$-manifold satisfy the braid group relations $W_{\gamma_i}W_{\gamma_{i+1}}W_{\gamma_i}=W_{\gamma_{i+1}}W_{\gamma_i}W_{\gamma_{i+1}}$ and commute for non-adjacent loops. Corollary 3.1.1 concludes that a bulk Wilson loop representing a braid generator induces a boundary defect operator transforming by unitary conjugation, $\rho(\sigma_i)\triangleright O_\gamma = U_{\sigma_i}O_\gamma U_{\sigma_i}^{-1}$. In short, the paper aims to show that bulk braid statistics are realized as boundary defect operator data through Wilson loops.

Load-bearing premise

The mapping collapses if linked Wilson loops in the bulk do not actually satisfy the braid-like algebra $W_{\gamma_i}W_{\gamma_j}=e^{2\pi i\theta_{ij}}W_{\gamma_j}W_{\gamma_i}$ and if the assignment $\rho(\sigma_i)=W_{\gamma_i}$ is not a genuine representation of the braid group; the paper asserts this algebra rather than deriving it from a concrete Hilbert space.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bulk braiding statistics become boundary data: a braid generator realized by a bulk Wilson loop acts on the boundary Hilbert space by unitary conjugation of a defect operator.
  • Topological defects in the boundary CFT form a fusion category, and in rational cases a modular tensor category, with $F$- and $R$-symbols satisfying pentagon and hexagon identities.
  • In AdS$_3$/CFT$_2$, a bulk Wilson line ending on the boundary corresponds to a twist operator of conformal dimension $h_\sigma = \frac{c}{24}\left(1-\frac{1}{n^2}\right)$, making braiding computable from conformal block monodromies.
  • Inserting a Wilson loop in the bulk modifies the bulk action by a source term localized on the loop, which is the bulk-side image of a boundary defect insertion.
  • If the correspondence holds, holographic anyon models inherit modular tensor category structure, connecting AdS/CFT topological sectors to topological quantum computation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same dictionary would suggest that higher-form symmetries on the boundary are labeled by bulk linking numbers, so braiding phases might be computable as linking integrals in concrete AdS gauge theories.
  • The author leaves implicit that a derivation of the phase $\theta_{ij}$ in the linked-loop algebra from an explicit action would turn Theorem 3.1 from an assumption into a calculation; that derivation is the natural next step.
  • If boundary defect operators transform by unitary conjugation under braiding, braiding is a symmetry of the boundary operator algebra, implying topological protection of information encoded in defect sectors---a consequence the paper does not draw.
  • A concrete testable extension would be to compute the linked-loop commutator in a lattice Chern-Simons regularization and check whether $\rho(\sigma_i)=W_{\gamma_i}$ satisfies the braid relation on the low-energy Hilbert space.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims to establish a holographic dictionary between braid group representations realized by bulk Wilson loops in AdS and defect operators in the boundary CFT. Its central results are Theorem 2.1 (Sec. 2.3.2, Eq. (4)), asserting that a boundary defect operator on a codimension-k submanifold Sigma equals, under the AdS/CFT dictionary, a bulk Wilson line/surface ending on Sigma; Theorem 3.1 (Sec. 3.3.2, Eqs. (12)-(18)), asserting that Wilson loop operators in a topological gauge theory satisfy braid group relations; and Corollary 3.1.1 (Sec. 3.5, Eq. (21)), asserting that bulk braid generators act by unitary conjugation on boundary defect operators. The rest of the paper reviews modular tensor category formalism (fusion rules, F- and R-symbols, pentagon and hexagon identities, and the Chern-Simons/Drinfeld-center/quantum-group constructions) and offers schematic examples in AdS3/CFT2 and AdS4/CFT3. The paper itself concedes in Sec. 2.4 that the mapping of braid representations to defect operators is an open problem, which frames the theorems as the purported resolution.

Significance. The direction is a legitimate one: how bulk topological and braiding data is encoded in boundary defect operators is an active question at the interface of holography and topological order, and the manuscript correctly assembles a good deal of standard background (braid group presentation, the axioms of a modular tensor category, and the three standard constructions). Credit is due for stating the intended correspondence clearly and for identifying the categorical data (F- and R-symbols) that any such correspondence would have to match. However, the paper ships no machine-checked proofs, no reproducible code, no parameter-free derivations, and no falsifiable predictions. Its central results do not follow from the arguments given: Theorem 2.1 restates the dictionary it assumes, while Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 3.1.1 rest on Eqs. (14)-(15), which are asserted and are not properties of nonabelian Wilson loop operators in the standard formalism. The present contribution is therefore a review of background material plus a conjecture, not an established correspondence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.3.2, Theorem 2.1 and Eq. (4)] The theorem is a restatement of the AdS/CFT dictionary rather than a derivation. Its proof begins by assuming the dictionary (Eq. (5) and the asymptotic behavior of bulk fields), inserts a path-integral characterization of the defect insertion (Eqs. (6)-(7)), and then concludes the equality by 'matching boundary conditions and classical solutions near the boundary, one verifies [23]'. No mechanism is exhibited that would establish <OD(Sigma)...>_CFT = <W_gamma...>_bulk beyond the dictionary entry being assumed, and the citation to [23] outsources the actual verification. The paper itself concedes in Sec. 2.4 that the bulk-to-boundary mapping for braid/defect data is an open problem, so a circular theorem cannot serve as the foundation for the rest of the paper. The theorem should be reframed as an explicit assumption or conjecture, or replaced by a genuine derivation within a concrete holographic model.
  2. [Sec. 3.3.2, Theorem 3.1, Eqs. (14)-(15)] The two equations that carry the theorem are asserted rather than derived, and neither is a property of nonabelian Wilson loop operators. Eq. (14) states W_gamma_i W_gamma_j = e^{2 pi i theta_ij} W_gamma_j W_gamma_i for linked loops; for a nonabelian gauge field the holonomies along linked curves are group-valued operators and do not commute up to a scalar phase - the scalar-phase commutation is the abelian (Aharonov-Bohm/Chern-Simons) statement, while products of nonabelian Wilson loops obey skein-type relations in correlation functions, not Eq. (14). Eq. (15) identifies the braid generator with the Wilson loop operator, rho(sigma_i) = W_gamma_i, but no Hilbert space H, inner product, or action of rho is constructed anywhere in the paper; in the standard quantization of Chern-Simons theory the braid group acts by monodromy/braiding matrices on the space of conformal blocks, while Wilson loops are path-integral observables, and sigma_i (an operation exchanging strands) is not a closed loop gamma_i, so the identification is a category error. Step 4 of the proof ('these phases can be absorbed into the definition of the representation rho') is likewise asserted. Since Eqs. (14)-(15) are the entire content of the theorem, Theorem 3.1 does not establish a braid group representation from Wilson loops.
  3. [Sec. 3.5, Corollary 3.1.1 and Eq. (21)] The corollary inherits the unsupported Eqs. (14)-(15) from Theorem 3.1 and adds a second unproved premise, namely that the boundary defect operators 'must satisfy the same algebraic relations up to unitary conjugation' because the CFT 'must reproduce the bulk OPEs under holographic duality'. The boundary Hilbert space H_d and the unitary operators U_sigma_i are never constructed, and no argument shows that a bulk braided correlation function on linked loops translates into a unitary automorphism of a boundary operator algebra. The corollary's conclusion - the central claim of the paper according to the abstract and introduction - therefore has no supporting derivation.
  4. [Secs. 5.1-5.2 and Sec. 3.6] The promised derivations do not materialize. In Sec. 5.1, Eq. (59) defines D_gamma = exp(i integral_{boundary AdS} A_gamma) in terms of a 'boundary gauge field corresponding to the bulk Wilson loop', but the object A_gamma is never defined and its relation to W[gamma] in Eq. (58) is not shown. In Sec. 5.2, Eq. (60) writes <D_gamma D_delta> = Tr P exp(i integral_{gamma union delta} A) as the 'computation' of the AdS3/CFT2 example, but no braid group representation is computed or exhibited, and Example 2 (AdS4/CFT3) merely repeats a version of Eq. (59). Separately, Sec. 3.6 promises explicit F- and R-symbol computations for SU(3)_2, SU(4)_1, and the Fibonacci category, which never appear in the text. The standard MTC background in Secs. 3.6-3.7, 4.1.3, and 4.3 consequently cannot substitute for the missing derivation of Eqs. (14)-(15).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 4.2.2, Eqs. (43)-(45)] The 'modified Maxwell-Chern-Simons' equation D_nu F^{nu mu} = J^mu mixes Yang-Mills-type dynamics into a context (Chern-Simons theory, invoked in Theorem 3.1) whose pure equations of motion are F = 0; the underlying theory should be specified unambiguously or these equations removed.
  2. [Sec. 4.1.3 Eq. (34); Sec. 4.3.1 Eq. (53); Sec. 3.7.2] The pentagon identity in Eq. (34), the pentagon identity in Eq. (53), and the 'Algebraic Form (Positive Hexagon)' in Sec. 3.7.2 have inconsistent indices: for example, n is summed on the left of Eq. (34) but free on the right, and the R-symbol indices in the hexagon equation are not in a standard form; these should be corrected to the standard statements of the pentagon and hexagon identities.
  3. [Sec. 2.2.1, Eq. (2)] The expression O_D = sum_i alpha_i phi_i(x) psi_i(t) is not a definition of a defect operator; a defect operator should be defined as an operator supported on a submanifold with specified OPE or boundary-condition data, and the ansatz in Eq. (2) should be removed or replaced.
  4. [Sec. 2.1.2] The 'Brauer-Wigner representation' [9] is not a standard term and the cited reference appears to be nonexistent; Eq. (1) is not the standard action of the braid group on a Hilbert space, and the paragraph should be rewritten with correct terminology (e.g., Burau, Jones, or quantum-group representations).
  5. [Sec. 3.6] The sentence 'In this thesis, ...' is a leftover from a thesis draft, and the promised computations of fusion rules, F-symbols, and R-symbols for SU(3)_2, SU(4)_1, and the Fibonacci category never appear; either the computations should be added or the claim removed.
  6. [Secs. 3.3.2, 3.5, and Sec. 4.1.2] The notation is inconsistent: rho denotes both the braid group representation (Sec. 3.3.2) and a symmetry-group representation acting on local operators (Eqs. (24)-(25)), and the Hilbert spaces H and H_d are used before being defined; distinct symbols and explicit definitions are needed.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The paper's central theorems restate their inputs: Theorem 2.1 is the AdS/CFT dictionary itself, and Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 3.1.1 assume the braid representation they claim to establish.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 2.3.2, Theorem 2.1 and its proof, Eqs. (4)-(8)]
    "Then, under the AdS/CFT dictionary [22][23], the boundary insertion of OD corresponds to the bulk insertion of Wγ. That is, ⟨OD(Σ)···⟩CFT = ⟨Wγ···⟩bulk. (4) ... Given that γ asymptotes to Σ at the boundary, the insertion of Wγ in the bulk corresponds to the insertion of OD in the CFT."

    Theorem 2.1's content is precisely the holographic dictionary for extended operators. Its proof begins with the dictionary ('The AdS/CFT correspondence posits...'), asserts that 'the dictionary generalizes' to defects, and ends by restating the theorem ('the insertion of Wγ in the bulk corresponds to the insertion of OD in the CFT') with citations [22],[23] as the only support. No independent derivation from a weaker premise is given; the claimed equality (4) is the premise, renamed as a theorem. This is self-definitional rather than a derived bulk-to-boundary correspondence.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 3.3.2, Theorem 3.1 proof, Eqs. (14)-(17)]
    "When two loops γi and γj are linked, their operators satisfy non-trivial commutation relations characterized by the linking number Link(γi, γj): Wγi Wγj = e2πiθij Wγj Wγi , (14) ... In TQFT, braiding induces an action on the Hilbert space H through: ρ(σi) = Wγi , (15) ... Since the Wilson loop operators implement the braiding, the same relations hold: Wγi Wγi+1 Wγi = Wγi+1 Wγi Wγi+1 . (17)"

    The proof defines the representation by setting ρ(σi) = Wγi and assumes the linked-loop commutation relation (14); both are asserted in the proof, not derived from the Wilson-loop definition (10) or from any Hilbert-space construction in Chern-Simons theory. For nonabelian Wilson loops, (14) is not a general identity: path-ordered holonomies need not commute by a phase. The braid relations (12)/(17) are then presented as consequences of 'the Wilson loop operators implement the braiding,' which is exactly the representation being established. The theorem's conclusion is therefore an input restated by construction.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. 3.5, Corollary 3.1.1 and its proof, Eqs. (21)-(23)]
    "Given a bulk Wilson loop operator Wγ corresponding to a braid group generator σi via the representation ρ : Bn → Aut(H), there exists an associated boundary defect operator Oγ satisfying: ρ(σi) ▷ Oγ = Uσi OγU −1 σi , (21) ... Mapping to the boundary, the corresponding defect operators must satisfy the same algebraic relations up to unitary conjugation, because the boundary CFT must reproduce the bulk operator product expansions (OPEs) under holographic duality."

    The corollary assumes the conclusion it announces: it starts with a bulk Wilson loop that already 'corresponds to a braid group generator σi via the representation ρ' and asserts the existence of boundary defect operators Oγ transforming by Uσi Oγ Uσi^{-1}. The proof simply exports the assumed bulk braid relations to the boundary through the dictionary. No boundary Hilbert space H∂, unitary operators Uσi, or defect OPE is constructed, and no independent argument shows why the bulk braid representation should act by conjugation on boundary defects. The statement inherits the circularity of Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 2.1.

full rationale

No load-bearing self-citations by the author are present; the circularity is definitional and assumption-based rather than citation-based. Theorem 2.1 takes the AdS/CFT dictionary as its premise and outputs it as Eq. (4). Theorem 3.1 assumes the linked-loop commutation (14) and the identification ρ(σi)=Wγi, then concludes that the Wilson loops form a braid-group representation. Corollary 3.1.1 inherits both assumptions and only re-labels the bulk braid action as boundary unitary conjugation. The extensive modular tensor category material in Sections 3.6-3.7 and 4.3 recites standard pentagon/hexagon identities, but it does not supply the missing derivation of Eqs. (14), (15), or (21). Because the paper's central claims reduce to their own inputs by construction, the appropriate circularity score is 8.

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

The paper rests on the AdS/CFT dictionary as a domain assumption, on a nonstandard Wilson-loop braiding algebra that is asserted ad hoc, and on standard anyon category axioms. It introduces no fitted parameters and no new physical entities, but the central derivation depends on the unsupported bulk Wilson-loop algebra.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT correspondence holds: bulk fields near the boundary scale as z^{d-Δ} φ0, and extended bulk operators ending on the boundary map to boundary defect operators.
    Invoked in the proof of Theorem 2.1, Sec. 2.3.2, Eqs. (5)-(8); the theorem is a restatement of this dictionary.
  • ad hoc to paper Wilson loop operators in a topological gauge theory satisfy the algebra Wγi Wγj = exp(2πi θij) Wγj Wγi and ρ(σi)=Wγi.
    Stated as Theorem 3.1 in Sec. 3.3.2, Eqs. (14)-(15); this is not a general property of nonabelian Wilson loops and is used as an input for the bulk braid representation.
  • domain assumption Topological defects in a CFT form a fusion category, or modular tensor category, with F-symbols satisfying pentagon and R-symbols satisfying hexagon identities.
    Standard anyon model input used throughout Secs. 3-4; cited to Refs. [35]-[38], but taken as background rather than derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Gravitational dressing phases in asymptotically AdS spaces can be absorbed into the definition of the representation ρ.
    Sec. 3.3.2, Step 4 states 'these phases can be absorbed into the definition of the representation rho'; no argument is given for why this preserves a genuine braid group representation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Braid Group Representations and Defect Operators in AdS/CFT Correspondence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MO5R4232

@misc{pith2026250516817,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Braid Group Representations and Defect Operators in AdS/CFT Correspondence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MO5R4232}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16817}
}
read the original abstract

This paper investigates the connection between braid group representations, defect operators, and holography within the AdS/CFT framework. It focuses on the correspondence between bulk Wilson loops and boundary defect operators, emphasizing how braid group representations map to these operators. The study also explores fusion and braiding operations in modular tensor categories, which are crucial for understanding anyons in topological quantum field theories. By providing a unified framework, this work bridges the gap between bulk and boundary physics and offers insights into the holographic realization of topological defects. The results suggest new avenues for research in holographic anyons and their applications in quantum field theory and condensed matter physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16817 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fusion associativity expressed via the F-move. Pentagon Identity: The F-symbols must satisfy the pentagon identity, en￾suring the consistency of associativity across quadruple fusion processes [36]: X n (F e bcd)mn(F f and)lp = X k (F k abc)lm(F f akd)kp(F f bcd)nk. (34) 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Braiding of a and b defects, depicted via the R-move and its compat￾ibility with fusion via F-moves. Braiding R-symbols: The exchange (braiding) of two defects a and b is implemented by a unitary isomorphism: Rab : V c ab → V c ba, (35) where V c ab is the fusion space. The R-symbol specifies the phase (or more generally, the unitary transfor￾mation) acquired when defects a and b are braided [39]. (a × b) × (c × d) … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pentagon identity for fusion, ensuring the consistency of associativity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hexagon identity relating F- and R-symbols. 4.2 Bulk Duals of Boundary Defects The AdS/CFT correspondence implies that boundary defects have bulk duals. These bulk objects are localized around submanifolds extending into the AdS bulk whose boundary coincides with the d…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Wilson loop γ in the AdS bulk mapped holographically to a defect operator Dγ on the boundary CFT. 4.2.2 Modification of the Bulk Action The presence of a defect modifies the bulk action by adding localized terms: Sbulk[Φ; Γ] = Sbulk[Φ] + Sdefect[Φ|Γ], (38) where Φ coll…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A schematic depiction of the holographic correspondence between a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    Lecture notes on holographic renormalization,

    K. Skenderis, “Lecture notes on holographic renormalization,” Classical and Quantum Gravity , vol. 19, pp. 5849–5876, 2002. doi: 10.1088/0264- 9381/19/22/306. arXiv: hep-th/0209067 [hep-th]. 34

    arXiv 2002

  2. [1]

    Anti-de sitter space and holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti-de sitter space and holography,” Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 253–291, 1998. doi: 10.4310/ ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a1

    work page 1998

  3. [2]

    Spin chains and the ads/cft correspon- dence,

    D. Gaiotto and A. Kapustin, “Spin chains and the ads/cft correspon- dence,” Journal of High Energy Physics , vol. 2009, no. 8, pp. 9–35, 2009. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/08/027

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/08/027 2009

  4. [3]

    Large n field theories, string theory and gravity,

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and E. Silverstein, “Large n field theories, string theory and gravity,”Physics Reports, vol. 323, no. 3, pp. 183–386, 2000. doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00084-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(99)00084-x

  5. [4]

    Polchinski, String theory

    J. Polchinski, String theory. Vol. 1: An introduction to the bosonic string . Cambridge University Press, 1998, isbn: 978-0-521-63303-4

    work page 1998

  6. [5]

    On the representations of the braid group,

    R. Brauer, “On the representations of the braid group,” Annals of Math- ematics, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 568–590, 1954. doi: 10.2307/1969633

    work page doi:10.2307/1969633 1954

  7. [6]

    Braid groups, hecke algebras and von neumann algebras,

    V. F. R. Jones, “Braid groups, hecke algebras and von neumann algebras,” Belfast: Queen ’s University, 1985

    work page 1985

  8. [7]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,

    A. Y. Kitaev, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,” Annals of Physics, vol. 303, no. 1, pp. 2–30, 2003. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4916(02) 00018-0

    doi:10.1016/s0003-4916(02 2003

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    Theory of braids,

    E. Artin, “Theory of braids,” Annals of Mathematics , vol. 48, pp. 101– 135, 1947. 33

    1947

  2. [9]

    On the representation of the braid group,

    R. Brauer and E. P. Wigner, “On the representation of the braid group,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 26, pp. 201–208, 1940

    1940

  3. [10]

    Topological quantum com- putation,

    M. H. Freedman, M. Larsen, and Z. Wang, “Topological quantum com- putation,” Mathematical Reviews, vol. 106, pp. 597–601, 2002

    2002

  4. [11]

    Confinement of quarks,

    K. G. Wilson, “Confinement of quarks,” Physical Review D, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 2445–2459, 1974. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.10.2445

    1974 doi

  5. [12]

    Conformal invariance and surface operators in two-dimensional statistical mechanics,

    J. Cardy, “Conformal invariance and surface operators in two-dimensional statistical mechanics,” Nuclear Physics B , vol. 240, no. 4, pp. 514–532,

  6. [13]

    Topological defects in conformal field theory,

    J. Dubail, “Topological defects in conformal field theory,” Journal of Sta- tistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment , vol. 2015, no. 12, p. 12 006,

    2015

  7. [14]

    Defect operators and the ads/cft correspondence,

    D. Harlow, J. Kaplan, and M. Larson, “Defect operators and the ads/cft correspondence,” Journal of High Energy Physics , vol. 12, pp. 456–470, 2015

    2015

  8. [15]

    Topological defects in quantum field theory and their role in the ads/cft correspondence,

    R. Dijkgraaf and E. Witten, “Topological defects in quantum field theory and their role in the ads/cft correspondence,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 924, pp. 362–377, 2017

    2017

  9. [16]

    The boundary operator algebra of ads/cft,

    M. Henningson, “The boundary operator algebra of ads/cft,” Journal of High Energy Physics , vol. 1999, no. 10, p. 35, 1999. doi: 10.1088/1126- 6708/1999/10/035

    1999 doi

  10. [17]

    A stress tensor for anti-de sitter grav- ity,

    V. Balasubramanian and P. Kraus, “A stress tensor for anti-de sitter grav- ity,” Physical Review D , vol. 59, no. 4, p. 104 021, 1999. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.59.104021

    1999

  11. [18]

    Topological quantum field theory,

    E. Witten, “Topological quantum field theory,” Communications in Math- ematical Physics , vol. 117, no. 3, pp. 353–386, 1988. doi: 10 . 1007 / BF01223371

    1988

  12. [19]

    Gauge theory correlators from non-critical string theory,

    S. S. Gubser, “Gauge theory correlators from non-critical string theory,” Physics Letters B , vol. 428, pp. 105–114, 1998

    1998

  13. [20]

    Anti-de sitter space and holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti-de sitter space and holography,” Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics , vol. 2, pp. 253–291, 1998

    1998

  14. [21]

    The bulk dual of the boundary s-matrix,

    D. Harlow, “The bulk dual of the boundary s-matrix,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 11, p. 124, 2011

    2011

  15. [22]

    Holographic reconstruc- tion of spacetime and renormalization in the ads/cft correspondence,

    S. d. Haro, K. Skenderis, and S. N. Solodukhin, “Holographic reconstruc- tion of spacetime and renormalization in the ads/cft correspondence,” Communications in Mathematical Physics , vol. 217, pp. 595–622, 2001. doi: 10.1007/s002200100381. arXiv: hep-th/0002230 [hep-th]

    2001 arXiv

  16. [24]

    The holographic dual of a boundary conformal field theory,

    O. Aharony, A. Clark, A. Karch, and D. Kutasov, “The holographic dual of a boundary conformal field theory,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 86, p. 086 006,

  17. [25]

    Macroscopic strings as heavy quarks in large n gauge theory and anti-de sitter supergravity,

    S.-J. Rey and J.-T. Yee, “Macroscopic strings as heavy quarks in large n gauge theory and anti-de sitter supergravity,” European Physical Journal C, vol. 22, pp. 379–394, 2001. doi: 10.1007/s100520100799. arXiv: hep- th/9803001 [hep-th]

    2001

  18. [26]

    Wilson loops in large n field theories,

    J. M. Maldacena, “Wilson loops in large n field theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 80, pp. 4859–4862, 1998. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.4859. arXiv: hep-th/9803002 [hep-th]

    1998 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J. S. Birman, Braids, Links, and Mapping Class Groups . Princeton Uni- versity Press, 1974

    1974

  20. [28]

    Non- abelian anyons and topological quantum computation,

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, “Non- abelian anyons and topological quantum computation,” Reviews of Mod- ern Physics , vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 1083–1159, 2008

    2008

  21. [29]

    Quantum field theory and the jones polynomial,

    E. Witten, “Quantum field theory and the jones polynomial,” Communi- cations in Mathematical Physics , vol. 121, no. 3, pp. 351–399, 1989

    1989

  22. [30]

    Classical and quantum conformal field theory,

    G. Moore and N. Seiberg, “Classical and quantum conformal field theory,” Communications in Mathematical Physics , vol. 123, pp. 177–254, 1989

    1989

  23. [31]

    Wang, Topological Quantum Computation (CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics)

    Z. Wang, Topological Quantum Computation (CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics). American Mathematical Society, 2010, vol. 112

    2010

  24. [33]

    On classification of modular tensor categories,

    E. C. Rowell, R. Stong, and Z. Wang, “On classification of modular tensor categories,” Communications in Mathematical Physics , vol. 292, no. 2, pp. 343–389, 2009. doi: 10.1007/s00220-009-0908-z

    2009 doi

  25. [34]

    Worldvolume action for string solitons,

    C. Bachas, M. R. Douglas, and C. Schweigert, “Worldvolume action for string solitons,” Journal of High Energy Physics , vol. 2000, no. 05, p. 048,

    2000

  26. [35]

    Topological field theory, higher categories, and their ap- plications,

    A. Kapustin, “Topological field theory, higher categories, and their ap- plications,” Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians ,

  27. [36]

    Bakalov and A

    B. Bakalov and A. Kirillov, Lectures on Tensor Categories and Modu- lar Functors (University Lecture Series). American Mathematical Society, 2001, vol. 21

    2001

  28. [37]

    Lurie, On the classification of topological quantum field theories, arXiv:0905.0465, 2009

    J. Lurie, On the classification of topological quantum field theories, arXiv:0905.0465, 2009

    2009 arXiv

  29. [38]

    J. K. Pachos, Introduction to Topological Quantum Computation . Cam- bridge University Press, 2012. 35

    2012

  30. [39]

    Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond,

    A. Kitaev, “Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond,” Annals of Physics, vol. 321, no. 1, pp. 2–111, 2006

    2006

  31. [41]

    Taming the conformal zoo,

    G. Moore and N. Seiberg, “Taming the conformal zoo,” Physics Letters B, vol. 220, no. 3, pp. 422–430, 1989

    1989

  32. [42]

    The large n limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. Maldacena, “The large n limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. , vol. 2, pp. 231–252, 1998. arXiv: hep-th/9711200 [hep-th]

    1998 arXiv

  33. [43]

    Quantum field theory and the jones polynomial,

    E. Witten, “Quantum field theory and the jones polynomial,” Commun. Math. Phys. , vol. 121, pp. 351–399, 1989

    1989

  34. [44]

    Large n field theories, string theory and gravity,

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz, “Large n field theories, string theory and gravity,” Phys. Rept., vol. 323, pp. 183– 386, 2000. arXiv: hep-th/9905111 [hep-th]

    2000 arXiv

  35. [45]

    Bakalov and A

    B. Bakalov and A. A. Kirillov Jr, Lectures on Tensor Categories and Mod- ular Functors. American Mathematical Society, 2001, vol. 21

    2001

  36. [46]

    Turaev, Quantum Invariants of Knots and 3-Manifolds

    V. Turaev, Quantum Invariants of Knots and 3-Manifolds . Walter de Gruyter, 1994, vol. 18

    1994

  37. [47]

    Topological defects and fusion in 2+1 dimensions,

    T. Brunner and A. O’Bannon, “Topological defects and fusion in 2+1 dimensions,” JHEP, vol. 2008, no. 06, p. 021, 2008

    2008

  38. [48]

    Modular tensor categories and topological quantum field the- ory,

    E. Witten, “Modular tensor categories and topological quantum field the- ory,” J. Math. Phys. , vol. 50, p. 072 302, 2009

    2009

  39. [49]

    Wilson lines and entanglement entropy in higher spin gravity,

    E. Hijano, P. Kraus, E. Perlmutter, and R. Snively, “Wilson lines and entanglement entropy in higher spin gravity,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2015, no. 05, p. 163, 2015. eprint: 1501.02260

    2015 arXiv

  40. [50]

    Surface operators and knot homologies,

    S. Gukov and E. Witten, “Surface operators and knot homologies,” Progress in Mathematics , vol. 269, pp. 445–477, 2008

    2008

  41. [51]

    The interface between high-energy physics and string theory,

    M. R. Douglas, “The interface between high-energy physics and string theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics , vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 1–24, 2005. doi: 10.1007/JHEP01(2005)013. 36

    2005 doi

  42. [1984]

    doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(84)90278-5

    doi

  43. [2000]

    eprint: hep-th/0003037

    arXiv

  44. [2012]

    arXiv: 1305.2581 [hep-th]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.086006. arXiv: 1305.2581 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  45. [2015]

    doi: 10.1088/1742-5468/2015/12/12006

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.