Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Disturbing news about the $d=2+\epsilon$ expansion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A protected operator of dimension $N-1$ in the 2+epsilon nonlinear sigma model rules out analytic connection to the Wilson-Fisher $O(N)$ CFT for finite $N$.

desk verdict A clean protected-operator argument that makes the 2+epsilon expansion look disconnected from the Wilson–Fisher fixed point; the main gap is a missing exhaustive classification on the WF side, but the core math is solid and the paper deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21611 v3 pith:M2USF42D submitted 2025-05-27 hep-th cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el

Fabiana De Cesare , Slava Rychkov This is my paper
classification hep-thcond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el MSC 81T1781T4082B27
keywords 2+epsilonexpansionWilson-FisherfixedpointO(N)nonlinearsigmamodelprotectedoperatorsmultipletrecombinationevanescentdeconfinedcriticalityNeel-VBStransition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper targets a long-standing assumption: that the $O(N)$ nonlinear $\sigma$ model continued from $d=2+\epsilon$ and the Wilson-Fisher $O(N)$ fixed point continued from $d=4-\epsilon$ are the same conformal field theory family, so either expansion computes the 3D $O(N)$ critical exponents. It argues this is false for every finite $N$ because the $\sigma$-model CFT contains a protected operator of dimension $N-1$ built from the pullback of the sphere volume form, while the Wilson-Fisher CFT has no such operator. The only known mechanism that could still connect the two families, multiplet recombination, would require an operator with very large negative anomalous dimension and is disfavored. The paper therefore concludes that the two families are likely distinct for finite $N$, and that the 2+epsilon expansion in $d=3$ describes a different universality class, plausibly the hedgehog-suppressed deconfined critical point for $N=3$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the protected closed differential form $B$ above: an $O(N)$ pseudoscalar with $N-1$ antisymmetric Lorentz indices, constructed from the $O(N)$ field $n^a$ and derivatives. Because it is closed, a conformal-algebra computation using $[K_\mu,P_\nu]=2\delta_{\mu\nu}D-2M_{\mu\nu}$ shows its dimension must equal $N-1$; the one-loop check for $N=3$ confirms that the anomalous dimension cancels the classical $\epsilon$ shift. The other mechanism considered is multiplet recombination, in which a second primary $O$ with $N$ antisymmetric indices and dimension $N$ supplies the missing states so $B$ can be lifted; the lightest candidate in the NLSM has $N+4$ derivatives and dimension $N+4+O(\epsilon)$, so recombination would demand a large negative anomalous dimension.

What would settle it

Find, in the 4-epsilon Wilson-Fisher $O(N)$ CFT for any finite integer $N$, a primary operator that is an $O(N)$ pseudoscalar with $N-1$ antisymmetric Lorentz indices and scaling dimension $N-1$ (possibly evanescent in integer $d$); its existence would restore a protected spectrum match and remove the obstruction to analytic connection. Conversely, a reliable two-loop computation of the dimension of $O_4=(\partial_\mu n^a\partial^\mu n^a)^2-\frac{2}{N}\partial_\mu n^a\partial_\nu n^a\partial^\nu n^b\partial^\mu n^b$ that fails to reach marginality before $d=4$ would speak against the paper's preferred merger-and-annihilation scenario for $N=3$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the NLSM $O(N)$ CFT in $d=2+\epsilon$ and the WF $O(N)$ CFT in $d=4-\epsilon$ cannot be analytically connected for finite $N$. The obstruction is a primary operator $B_{\mu_1\ldots\mu_{N-1}}=\epsilon_{a_1\ldots a_N}\partial_{[\mu_1}n^{a_1}\cdots\partial_{\mu_{N-1}}n^{a_{N-1}}n^{a_N}$ which is closed, $\partial_{[\mu_1}B_{\mu_2\ldots\mu_N]}=0$, and therefore has protected dimension $N-1$ by a conformal-algebra argument: a closed $p$-form primary has dimension $p$ unless it is a top form in integer $d$. The WF CFT's analogous candidate operator has dimension $2N-1+O(\epsilon)$ and is not conserved. Since the operator is evanescent only for integer $d<N-1$ but nonvanishing for non-integer $d$, the discriminating power survives dimensional continuation. The paper examines the possible escape routes: multiplet recombination (continuous but non-analytic connection), intersection exactly at $d=3$ (allowed only for $N>4$), and distinct theories, which emerges as the favored scenario.

Load-bearing premise

The argument breaks if the Wilson-Fisher $O(N)$ CFT secretly contains a protected operator with the same quantum numbers as $B$ (an $O(N)$ pseudoscalar with $N-1$ antisymmetric Lorentz indices); the paper explicitly checks only the lowest candidate operator, Eq. (2.8), and does not exhaustively classify the full WF spectrum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the two families are distinct, the standard 2+epsilon expansion cannot be used to compute the 3D $O(N)$ Wilson-Fisher critical exponents at finite $N$, and its resummed series should continue to disagree with bootstrap and Monte Carlo values.
  • For $N=3$, the NLSM family should instead describe the hedgehog-suppressed $O(3)$ transition, with the extra $U(1)$ current in 3D arising as the Hodge dual of $B$; this links the NLSM to the Neel-VBS deconfined critical point.
  • For $N>4$, the two theories could still coincide exactly at $d=3$ because $B$ is evanescent there, although the paper considers this exotic.
  • At large $N$, the obstruction disappears because $B$ becomes infinitely heavy and decouples, consistent with the known large-$N$ equivalence of the two descriptions.
  • If multiplet recombination occurs instead, the continuous connection would be non-analytic and the 3D exponents would effectively be inaccessible from the 2+epsilon series.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A sharp test of the distinct-theories claim would be to compute the dimension of $B$ for $N>3$ at order $\epsilon^2$ in the NLSM: if the conformal-algebra protection argument is right it must stay $N-1$, whereas any drift would indicate an unappreciated subtlety.
  • The same closed-form logic should apply to any sigma-model target with nontrivial cohomology, so analogous obstructions may separate other 2+epsilon NLSM families from their naive 4-epsilon counterparts beyond the $O(N)$ case.
  • If the merger-and-annihilation scenario is correct, the 2+epsilon NLSM fixed point ceases to be a real CFT at a dimension near $d_m \simeq 2.67$ for $N=3$; lattice studies of the Neel-VBS transition should then see walking or pseudo-critical behavior rather than a true second-order point.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper challenges the long-standing conjecture that the O(N) nonlinear sigma model (NLSM) in d=2+epsilon and the Wilson-Fisher (WF) O(N) fixed point obtained from d=4-epsilon describe the same conformal field theory for finite N. The authors study a protected operator B with N-1 antisymmetric Lorentz indices and exact scaling dimension N-1, which exists in the NLSM CFT but which they claim is absent in the WF CFT. They prove the protected dimension using conformal algebra, verify it by a one-loop computation for N=3, and use this mismatch to rule out the "analytic connection" scenario. They then discuss alternative scenarios: a 3D intersection, multiplet recombination, and a distinct-theories picture in which the NLSM family may end by merger and annihilation. The paper concludes that the analytic connection is excluded for all finite N and argues that the most plausible scenario for N=3 is that the 2+epsilon family describes a different universality class, possibly related to the deconfined (hedgehog-suppressed) transition.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper resolves a longstanding puzzle about the status of the 2+epsilon expansion and has direct implications for O(N) critical exponents and for the N=3 Neel-VBS transition. The paper's strengths are its clean conformal-algebra derivation of the protected dimension in Appendix B, the explicit one-loop check in Appendix D.1, and the clear taxonomy of possible scenarios. The main weakness is that the exclusion of the analytic connection depends on an unproven assertion about the absence of a B-like operator in the WF spectrum; this is the load-bearing point that needs to be strengthened.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, after Eq. (2.8)] The central claim that the analytic connection is ruled out for all finite N requires not only that the lowest O(N) pseudoscalar with N-1 antisymmetric Lorentz indices in the WF CFT is not conserved, but that no primary with the quantum numbers of B (O(N) pseudoscalar, N-1 antisymmetric Lorentz indices, scaling dimension exactly N-1) exists anywhere in the WF family for 2<d<4. The paper only examines the lowest candidate (2.8), which is not conserved. A protected operator could in principle arise from a different, higher-dimension bare operator with a large negative anomalous dimension, or through a multiplet-recombination event inside the WF family. The authors should supply a systematic argument, for example a perturbative dimension-counting classification in d=4-epsilon together with an argument about conserved p-form symmetries, that excludes such operators. Without this, the exclusion of the scenario in Fig. 1 is conditional rather than established.
  2. [Appendix B and Section 2] The proof that the scaling dimension of B is exactly N-1 assumes that B is a conformal primary (see Eq. (B.5)). The paper states that primarity is 'easy to check' but does not provide the check. Since the entire protected-dimension argument rests on this, the authors should include a proof that B cannot be written as a total derivative of another local operator built from the constrained fields n^a, or provide a precise reference for this fact. Without primarity, the conservation equation (2.4) does not imply the dimension formula used in the main text.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Section 4] The paper correctly notes that its search for recombination candidates is incomplete: the lightest potential recombination partner with N+4 derivatives is not classified, and the authors defer this to future work [44]. Consequently, the Continuous Connection scenario remains genuinely open, and the paper does not claim to exclude it. However, the merger-and-annihilation scenario favored in Section 4 rests on the one-loop value of Delta_{O_4} in Eq. (4.2) and on the assumption that the NLSM family terminates at d_m=2+2-4/N. This is a reasonable conjecture but not a proof; the conclusion should be framed clearly as a scenario supported by limited perturbative evidence rather than as an established result. This does not affect the main analytic-connection claim, but it should be made explicit in the abstract or introduction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The entry 'NSLM O(N) CFT' contains a typo; it should read 'NLSM O(N) CFT'.
  2. [Eqs. (2.9)-(2.10)] The operator B in Eq. (2.9) is written with N antisymmetric Lorentz indices, but B has N-1 indices (see Eq. (2.3)). The antisymmetrized momentum structure in Eq. (2.10) should accordingly involve N-1 momenta, not N. Please check the index count and the tensor structure.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.11)] The notation in Eq. (A.11) is difficult to parse, e.g. '∂κ∂[νn2n3' is missing a closing bracket or subscript. Please clarify the antisymmetrization and the index contractions.
  4. [Section 4] The 'NLSM*' family is introduced by analogy with QCD* but is not defined in Table 1. A brief definition or a cross-reference to Ref. [59] would help the reader follow the merger-and-annihilation discussion.
  5. [Section 2, Table 2] The statement that 'for all procedures we tried, the disagreement is simply embarrassing' is informal and not backed by a systematic comparison. This is a supplementary numerical observation and should be either quantified or rephrased as a qualitative remark.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the protected-operator argument is self-contained, the one-loop check is an independent computation, and the main gap is an unproved exhaustive-absence statement rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central claim rests on two inputs: (i) the NLSM operator B is a closed (N-1)-form primary with protected dimension N-1, and (ii) no analogous protected operator exists in the WF O(N) CFT. Input (i) is derived in the paper from the constraint (2.2) via (2.5)-(2.7), and from a conformal-algebra argument in Appendix B (Eqs. (B.1)-(B.11)), with an explicit one-loop check in Appendix D.1 (Eqs. (D.12)-(D.23)). The citation to Jones [1] is background rather than a black box, because the argument is reproduced and generalized. Input (ii) is supported by identifying the lowest WF candidate (2.8), of dimension 2N-1+O(epsilon), and noting that it is not conserved because the scalar fields are unconstrained. This is a spectral statement about the WF theory, not a parameter fit, and it is not defined in terms of the target conclusion. The paper itself flags the corresponding open problem in Section 3.1: 'Until this is done, we consider Continuous Connection scenario as potentially allowed for all N >= 3.' The weakest point is that the paper checks only the lowest candidate operator (2.8) and does not give an exhaustive classification excluding a protected WF operator with B's quantum numbers; that is a missing proof or a gap in evidence, not a circular step. The self-citations (e.g., Rychkov-Tan [46], Gorbenko-Rychkov-Zan [60], Hogervorst-Rychkov-van Rees [34,35]) concern background scenarios, examples of recombination, and evanescent operators; they are not load-bearing for the protected-dimension derivation. No equation is equivalent to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

No new free parameters are introduced; all ingredients are standard epsilon-expansion quantities from prior literature. The central claim relies on the standard CFT fact that closed p-form primaries are protected, on the algebraic identity enforcing conservation of B, and on the unproven absence of a matching protected operator in the WF spectrum. The non-decoupling of B in non-integer dimensions is also an assumption rather than a theorem.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The standard 2+epsilon NLSM defines a family of d-dimensional CFTs with full conformal invariance for non-integer d.
    Stated in Section 1, footnote 1: 'we accept the usual assumption of having full conformal invariance' and 'we do not question the assumption that the technique defines a family of d-dimensional CFTs.'
  • standard math In a CFT, a primary closed p-form has protected scaling dimension p for p not equal to d.
    Proven in Appendix B using conformal algebra commutation relations; used to fix the dimension of B to N-1.
  • standard math The operator B is conserved because the constraint n^a n^a = 1 forces the antisymmetrized product of N derivatives to vanish.
    Section 2, Eqs. (2.5)-(2.7); an algebraic identity combined with the sphere constraint.
  • domain assumption The WF O(N) CFT has no protected operator with the quantum numbers of B.
    Section 2 after Eq. (2.8): the lowest pseudoscalar with N-1 antisymmetric indices has dimension 2N-1+O(epsilon) and is not conserved; no exhaustive proof is given that other candidates do not exist.
  • domain assumption The protected operator B does not decouple and has non-vanishing correlation functions in non-integer dimensions.
    Section 2 after Eq. (2.10): 'we find it hard to believe that operator B may somehow decouple in non-integer d.' This is heuristic rather than proven.
  • domain assumption In 3D, the O(3) Heisenberg universality class has no extra U(1) current, and the O(4) universality class has no dimension-3 pseudoscalar.
    Used to exclude the 3D Intersection scenario for N=3 and N=4; based on known CFT data and the absence of such operators in the bootstrap spectrum.
invented entities (1)
  • NLSM* CFT family
    purpose: A hypothetical CFT family that merges and annihilates with the NLSM fixed point at d = dm, making the NLSM disappear before d=3; invoked to motivate the distinct-theories scenario.
    Section 4 and Fig. 5: 'What is this dashed family, which we call NLSM* ... A priori we do not know.' No independent evidence is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Disturbing news about the $d=2+\epsilon$ expansion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M2USF42D

@misc{pith2026250521611,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Disturbing news about the $d=2+\epsilon$ expansion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M2USF42D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21611}
}
abstract

The $O(N)$ Non-Linear Sigma Model (NLSM) in $d=2+\epsilon$ has long been conjectured to describe the same conformal field theory (CFT) as the Wilson-Fisher (WF) $O(N)$ fixed point obtained from the $\lambda(\phi^2)^2$ model in $d=4-\epsilon$. In this work, we put this conjecture into question, building on the recent observation [Jones (2024)] that the NLSM CFT possesses a protected operator with dimension $N-1$, which is instead absent in the WF $O(N)$ CFT. We investigate the possibility of lifting this operator via multiplet recombination - the only known mechanism that could resolve this mismatch while preserving a connection between the two theories. We also explore an alternative scenario in which the NLSM $O(N)$ fixed point in $d=2+\epsilon$ is not continuously connected to the WF $O(N)$ CFT, and instead corresponds to a different universality class. For $N=3$, this could be related to the hedgehog-suppressed critical point, which describes the N\'eel-VBS phase transition in 3D.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A Perturbative Approach to Symmetric Mass Generation

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-07 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    A perturbative epsilon-expansion identifies a candidate fixed point with a single relevant direction that is conjectured to describe the universal critical behavior of symmetric mass generation transitions.

  2. On the Wilson-Fisher fixed point in the limit of integer spacetime dimensions

    hep-th 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The d→2 Wilson-Fisher limit is proposed to be strictly larger than the 2d Ising CFT, which emerges as a unitary subsector after negative-multiplicity operators cancel exactly.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [44]

    De Cesare and S

    F. De Cesare and S. Rychkov. work in progress

    work page

  2. [1]

    R. A. Jones, Explorations in two dimensional strongly correlated quantum matter: from exactly solvable models to conformal bootstrap . PhD thesis, MIT, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [2]

    The Conformal Bootstrap: Theory, Numerical Techniques, and Applications,

    D. Poland, S. Rychkov, and A. Vichi, “The Conformal Bootstrap: Theory, Numerical Techniques, and Applications,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 91 (2019) 015002, arXiv:1805.04405 [hep-th]. – 28 – (a) (b) Figure 6 : 1PI one-loop diagrams contributing to the correlation function Gij µν. Here the dashed outgoing line represents the momentum q of the composite operator, and ...

    arXiv 2019

  4. [3]

    Bootstrapping the O(N) Archipelago,

    F. Kos, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, “Bootstrapping the O(N) Archipelago,” JHEP 11 (2015) 106, arXiv:1504.07997 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [4]

    Carving out OPE space and precise O(2) model critical exponents,

    S. M. Chester, W. Landry, J. Liu, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, N. Su, and A. Vichi, “Carving out OPE space and precise O(2) model critical exponents,” JHEP 06 (2020) 142, arXiv:1912.03324 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [5]

    Bootstrapping Heisenberg magnets and their cubic instability,

    S. M. Chester, W. Landry, J. Liu, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, N. Su, and A. Vichi, “Bootstrapping Heisenberg magnets and their cubic instability,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 10, (2021) 105013, arXiv:2011.14647 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    Critical exponents in 3.99 dimensions,

    K. G. Wilson and M. E. Fisher, “Critical exponents in 3.99 dimensions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 28 (1972) 240–243

    1972

  8. [7]

    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

    1974

Show all 78 references
  1. [8]

    Interaction of Goldstone Particles in Two Dimensions. Applications to Ferromagnets and Massive Yang-Mills Fields,

    A. M. Polyakov, “Interaction of Goldstone Particles in Two Dimensions. Applications to Ferromagnets and Massive Yang-Mills Fields,” Phys. Lett. B 59 (1975) 79–81

    1975

  2. [9]

    Renormalization of the nonlinear sigma model in 2 + ϵ dimensions. Application to the Heisenberg ferromagnets,

    E. Brezin and J. Zinn-Justin, “Renormalization of the nonlinear sigma model in 2 + ϵ dimensions. Application to the Heisenberg ferromagnets,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 36 (1976) 691–694

    1976

  3. [10]

    Phase Transition in the Nonlinear σ Model in 2 + ϵ Dimensional Continuum,

    W. A. Bardeen, B. W. Lee, and R. E. Shrock, “Phase Transition in the Nonlinear σ Model in 2 + ϵ Dimensional Continuum,” Phys. Rev. D 14 (1976) 985

    1976

  4. [11]

    Renormalization of the Nonlinear Sigma Model in 2 + ϵ Dimension,

    E. Brezin, J. Zinn-Justin, and J. C. Le Guillou, “Renormalization of the Nonlinear Sigma Model in 2 + ϵ Dimension,” Phys. Rev. D 14 (1976) 2615

    1976

  5. [12]

    Spontaneous Breakdown of Continuous Symmetries Near Two-Dimensions,

    E. Brezin and J. Zinn-Justin, “Spontaneous Breakdown of Continuous Symmetries Near Two-Dimensions,” Phys. Rev. B 14 (1976) 3110

    1976

  6. [13]

    Three Loop Calculations in the Two-Dimensional Nonlinear Sigma Model,

    S. Hikami and E. Brezin, “Three Loop Calculations in the Two-Dimensional Nonlinear Sigma Model,” J. Phys. A 11 (1978) 1141–1150

    1978

  7. [14]

    Zinn-Justin, Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phenomena

    J. Zinn-Justin, Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phenomena . Oxford University Press, 2021

    2021

  8. [15]

    J. L. Cardy, Scaling and renormalization in statistical physics . Cambridge, UK: Univ. Pr., 238 p., 1996

    1996

  9. [16]

    D. J. Amit and V. Martin-Mayor, Field Theory, the Renormalization Group, and Critical Phenomena: Graphs to Computers . World Scientific, 3rd ed., 2005. – 29 –

    2005

  10. [17]

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

    J. Henriksson, “The critical O(N) CFT: Methods and conformal data,” Phys. Rept. 1002 (2023) 1–72, arXiv:2201.09520 [hep-th]

    2023

  11. [18]

    Scale and conformal invariance in field theory: A Physical counterexample,

    V. Riva and J. L. Cardy, “Scale and conformal invariance in field theory: A Physical counterexample,” Phys. Lett. B 622 (2005) 339–342, arXiv:hep-th/0504197

    2005 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Scale without conformal invariance in membrane theory,

    A. Mauri and M. I. Katsnelson, “Scale without conformal invariance in membrane theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 969 (2021) 115482, arXiv:2104.06859 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Scale without conformal invariance in dipolar ferromagnets,

    A. Gimenez-Grau, Y. Nakayama, and S. Rychkov, “Scale without conformal invariance in dipolar ferromagnets,” Phys. Rev. B 110 no. 2, (2024) 024421, arXiv:2309.02514 [hep-th]

    2024

  14. [21]

    Scale and Conformal Invariance in Quantum Field Theory,

    J. Polchinski, “Scale and Conformal Invariance in Quantum Field Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 303 (1988) 226–236

    1988

  15. [22]

    Scale invariance vs conformal invariance,

    Y. Nakayama, “Scale invariance vs conformal invariance,” Phys. Rept. 569 (2015) 1–93, arXiv:1302.0884 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Anomalous dimensions for the nonlinear σ model in 2 + ϵ dimensions ,

    F. Wegner, “Anomalous dimensions for the nonlinear σ model in 2 + ϵ dimensions ,” Nucl. Phys. B 280 (1987) 193–209

    1987

  17. [24]

    Is the phase transition in the Heisenberg model described by the (2 +ϵ) expansion of the non-linear σ-model?,

    G. E. Castilla and S. Chakravarty, “Is the phase transition in the Heisenberg model described by the (2 +ϵ) expansion of the non-linear σ-model?,” Nuclear Physics B 485 no. 3, (1997) 613–645

    1997

  18. [25]

    Fancy and facts in the ( d − 2)-expansion of non-linear sigma models,

    E. Brezin and S. Hikami, “Fancy and facts in the ( d − 2)-expansion of non-linear sigma models,” Phys.Rev.B no. 55, (1997) , arXiv:cond-mat/9612016. This paper was published under a different title: Irrelevance in the ( d − 2) expansion of nonlinear sigma and Heisenberg models

    1997 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Deconfined quantum criticality, scaling violations, and classical loop models,

    A. Nahum, J. Chalker, P. Serna, M. Ortu˜ no, and A. Somoza, “Deconfined quantum criticality, scaling violations, and classical loop models,” Physical Review X 5 no. 4, (Dec., 2015)

    2015

  20. [27]

    New O(3) transition in three dimensions,

    M. Kamal and G. Murthy, “New O(3) transition in three dimensions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (Sep, 1993) 1911–1914

    1993

  21. [28]

    Emergent photons and new transitions in the O(3) sigma model with hedgehog suppression,

    O. I. Motrunich and A. Vishwanath, “Emergent photons and new transitions in the O(3) sigma model with hedgehog suppression,” Phys. Rev. B 70 (2004) 075104, arXiv:cond-mat/0311222

    2004 arXiv

  22. [29]

    o(n) heisenberg model close to n = d = 2,

    J. L. Cardy and H. W. Hamber, “ o(n) heisenberg model close to n = d = 2,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 (Oct, 1980) 1217–1217

    1980

  23. [30]

    Quantum field theory models in less than four-dimensions,

    K. G. Wilson, “Quantum field theory models in less than four-dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 2911–2926

    1973

  24. [31]

    On the vanishing of evanescent operators,

    M. J. Dugan and B. Grinstein, “On the vanishing of evanescent operators,” Phys. Lett. B 256 (1991) 239–244

    1991

  25. [32]

    Leading and Next-to-leading QCD Corrections to ϵ Parameter and B0 − ¯B0 Mixing in the Presence of a Heavy Top Quark,

    A. J. Buras, M. Jamin, and P. H. Weisz, “Leading and Next-to-leading QCD Corrections to ϵ Parameter and B0 − ¯B0 Mixing in the Presence of a Heavy Top Quark,” Nucl. Phys. B 347 (1990) 491–536

    1990

  26. [33]

    Evanescent operators, scheme dependences and double insertions,

    S. Herrlich and U. Nierste, “Evanescent operators, scheme dependences and double insertions,” Nucl. Phys. B 455 (1995) 39–58, arXiv:hep-ph/9412375

    1995 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Truncated conformal space approach in d dimensions: A cheap alternative to lattice field theory?,

    M. Hogervorst, S. Rychkov, and B. C. van Rees, “Truncated conformal space approach in d dimensions: A cheap alternative to lattice field theory?,” Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 025005, arXiv:1409.1581 [hep-th]. – 30 –

    2015 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Unitarity violation at the Wilson-Fisher fixed point in 4-ϵ dimensions,

    M. Hogervorst, S. Rychkov, and B. C. van Rees, “Unitarity violation at the Wilson-Fisher fixed point in 4-ϵ dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 93 no. 12, (2016) 125025, arXiv:1512.00013 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Operator mixing in the ϵ-expansion: Scheme and evanescent-operator independence,

    L. Di Pietro and E. Stamou, “Operator mixing in the ϵ-expansion: Scheme and evanescent-operator independence,” Phys. Rev. D 97 no. 6, (2018) 065007, arXiv:1708.03739 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Unitarity violation in noninteger dimensional Gross-Neveu-Yukawa model,

    Y. Ji and M. Kelly, “Unitarity violation in noninteger dimensional Gross-Neveu-Yukawa model,” Phys. Rev. D 97 no. 10, (2018) 105004, arXiv:1802.03222 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Operator mixing in fermionic CFTs in noninteger dimensions,

    Y. Ji and A. N. Manashov, “Operator mixing in fermionic CFTs in noninteger dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 98 no. 10, (2018) 105001, arXiv:1809.00021 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Is Yang-Mills theory unitary in fractional spacetime dimensions?,

    Q. Jin, K. Ren, G. Yang, and R. Yu, “Is Yang-Mills theory unitary in fractional spacetime dimensions?,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67 no. 7, (2024) 271011, arXiv:2301.01786 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Generalized Global Symmetries,

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, “Generalized Global Symmetries,” JHEP 02 (2015) 172, arXiv:1412.5148 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Monopole operators from the 4 − ϵ expansion,

    S. M. Chester, M. Mezei, S. S. Pufu, and I. Yaakov, “Monopole operators from the 4 − ϵ expansion,” JHEP 12 (2016) 015, arXiv:1511.07108 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Anomalies in the Space of Coupling Constants and Their Dynamical Applications I,

    C. C´ ordova, D. S. Freed, H. T. Lam, and N. Seiberg, “Anomalies in the Space of Coupling Constants and Their Dynamical Applications I,” SciPost Phys. 8 no. 1, (2020) 001, arXiv:1905.09315 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Quantum field theory in the large N limit: A Review,

    M. Moshe and J. Zinn-Justin, “Quantum field theory in the large N limit: A Review,” Phys. Rept. 385 (2003) 69–228, arXiv:hep-th/0306133

    2003 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Random field Ising model and Parisi-Sourlas supersymmetry. Part II. Renormalization group,

    A. Kaviraj, S. Rychkov, and E. Trevisani, “Random field Ising model and Parisi-Sourlas supersymmetry. Part II. Renormalization group,” JHEP 03 (2021) 219, arXiv:2009.10087 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    The ϵ-expansion from conformal field theory,

    S. Rychkov and Z. M. Tan, “The ϵ-expansion from conformal field theory,” J. Phys. A 48 no. 29, (2015) 29FT01, arXiv:1505.00963 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    On (Un)Broken Higher-Spin Symmetry in Vector Models,

    E. D. Skvortsov, “On (Un)Broken Higher-Spin Symmetry in Vector Models,” in Proceedings, International Workshop on Higher Spin Gauge Theories: Singapore, Singapore, November 4-6, 2015, pp. 103–137. 2017. arXiv:1512.05994 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Constraining Conformal Field Theories with A Higher Spin Symmetry,

    J. Maldacena and A. Zhiboedov, “Constraining Conformal Field Theories with A Higher Spin Symmetry,” J. Phys. A46 (2013) 214011, arXiv:1112.1016 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Constraining conformal field theories with a higher spin symmetry in d >3 dimensions,

    V. Alba and K. Diab, “Constraining conformal field theories with a higher spin symmetry in d >3 dimensions,” JHEP 03 (2016) 044, arXiv:1510.02535 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    A structural test for the conformal invariance of the critical 3d Ising model,

    S. Meneses, J. Penedones, S. Rychkov, J. Viana Parente Lopes, and P. Yvernay, “A structural test for the conformal invariance of the critical 3d Ising model,” JHEP 04 (2019) 115, arXiv:1802.02319 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Higgs phenomenon for 4-D gravity in anti-de Sitter space,

    M. Porrati, “Higgs phenomenon for 4-D gravity in anti-de Sitter space,” JHEP 04 (2002) 058, arXiv:hep-th/0112166. – 31 –

    2002 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Confinement in Anti-de Sitter Space,

    O. Aharony, M. Berkooz, D. Tong, and S. Yankielowicz, “Confinement in Anti-de Sitter Space,” JHEP 02 (2013) 076, arXiv:1210.5195 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Taming Mass Gap with Anti-de-Sitter Space,

    C. Copetti, L. Di Pietro, Z. Ji, and S. Komatsu, “Taming Mass Gap with Anti-de-Sitter Space,” arXiv:2312.09277 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Exploring Confinement in Anti-de Sitter Space,

    R. Ciccone, F. De Cesare, L. Di Pietro, and M. Serone, “Exploring Confinement in Anti-de Sitter Space,” arXiv:2407.06268 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Curiosities at c = 1,

    P. H. Ginsparg, “Curiosities at c = 1,” Nucl. Phys. B 295 (1988) 153–170

    1988

  48. [56]

    Exactly Marginal Deformations and Global Symmetries,

    D. Green, Z. Komargodski, N. Seiberg, Y. Tachikawa, and B. Wecht, “Exactly Marginal Deformations and Global Symmetries,” JHEP 06 (2010) 106, arXiv:1005.3546 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Decoding a Three-Dimensional Conformal Manifold,

    M. Baggio, N. Bobev, S. M. Chester, E. Lauria, and S. S. Pufu, “Decoding a Three-Dimensional Conformal Manifold,” JHEP 02 (2018) 062, arXiv:1712.02698 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Deligne Categories in Lattice Models and Quantum Field Theory, or Making Sense of O(N ) Symmetry with Non-integer N ,

    D. J. Binder and S. Rychkov, “Deligne Categories in Lattice Models and Quantum Field Theory, or Making Sense of O(N ) Symmetry with Non-integer N ,” JHEP 04 (2020) 117, arXiv:1911.07895 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Conformality Lost,

    D. B. Kaplan, J.-W. Lee, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov, “Conformality Lost,” Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 125005, arXiv:0905.4752 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Walking, Weak first-order transitions, and Complex CFTs,

    V. Gorbenko, S. Rychkov, and B. Zan, “Walking, Weak first-order transitions, and Complex CFTs,” JHEP 10 (2018) 108, arXiv:1807.11512 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    On the stability problem in the O(N) nonlinear sigma model,

    S. E. Derkachov and A. N. Manashov, “On the stability problem in the O(N) nonlinear sigma model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 1423–1427, arXiv:hep-th/9705020

    1997 arXiv

  54. [62]

    RG Flows and Bifurcations,

    S. Gukov, “RG Flows and Bifurcations,” Nucl. Phys. B919 (2017) 583–638, arXiv:1608.06638 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Deconfined Quantum Critical Points,

    T. Senthil, A. Vishwanath, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, and M. P. A. Fisher, “Deconfined Quantum Critical Points,” Science 303 no. 5663, (2004) 1490–1494, arXiv:cond-mat/0311326

    2004 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Quantum criticality beyond the Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson paradigm,

    T. Senthil, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, and M. P. A. Fisher, “Quantum criticality beyond the Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson paradigm,” Phys. Rev. B 70 no. 14, (2004) 144407

    2004

  57. [65]

    Deconfined criticality critically defined,

    T. Senthil, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, and M. P. A. Fisher, “Deconfined criticality critically defined,” Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 74 no. Suppl, (Jan., 2005) 1–9

    2005

  58. [66]

    Phase transitions in non linear higgs models,

    I. D. Lawrie and C. Athorne, “Phase transitions in non linear higgs models,” J. Phys. A 16 (1983) L587–L590

    1983

  59. [67]

    SO(5) multicriticality in two-dimensional quantum magnets,

    J. Takahashi, H. Shao, B. Zhao, W. Guo, and A. W. Sandvik, “SO(5) multicriticality in two-dimensional quantum magnets,” arXiv:2405.06607 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Bootstrapping Deconfined Quantum Tricriticality,

    S. M. Chester and N. Su, “Bootstrapping Deconfined Quantum Tricriticality,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 no. 11, (2024) 111601, arXiv:2310.08343 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Phases of (2+1) D SO (5) nonlinear sigma model with a topological term on a sphere: Multicritical point and disorder phase,

    B.-B. Chen, X. Zhang, Y. Wang, K. Sun, and Z. Y. Meng, “Phases of (2+1) D SO (5) nonlinear sigma model with a topological term on a sphere: Multicritical point and disorder phase,” Physical Review Letters 132 no. 24, (2024) 246503

    2024

  62. [70]

    Emergent conformal symmetry at the multicritical – 32 – point of (2+1)D SO(5) model with Wess-Zumino-Witten term on a sphere,

    B.-B. Chen, X. Zhang, and Z. Yang Meng, “Emergent conformal symmetry at the multicritical – 32 – point of (2+1)D SO(5) model with Wess-Zumino-Witten term on a sphere,” Phys. Rev. B 110 no. 12, (2024) 125153, arXiv:2405.04470 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Many-Body Spin Berry Phases Emerging from the π-Flux State: Competition between Antiferromagnetism and the Valence-Bond-Solid State,

    A. Tanaka and X. Hu, “Many-Body Spin Berry Phases Emerging from the π-Flux State: Competition between Antiferromagnetism and the Valence-Bond-Solid State,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (Jul, 2005) 036402

    2005

  64. [72]

    Competing orders, nonlinear sigma models, and topological terms in quantum magnets,

    T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher, “Competing orders, nonlinear sigma models, and topological terms in quantum magnets,” Phys. Rev. B 74 (Aug, 2006) 064405

    2006

  65. [73]

    Theory of deconfined pseudocriticality,

    R. Ma and C. Wang, “Theory of deconfined pseudocriticality,” Phys. Rev. B 102 no. 2, (2020) 020407, arXiv:1912.12315 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Note on Wess-Zumino-Witten models and quasiuniversality in 2+1 dimensions,

    A. Nahum, “Note on Wess-Zumino-Witten models and quasiuniversality in 2+1 dimensions,” Phys. Rev. B 102 no. 20, (2020) 201116, arXiv:1912.13468 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Non-Wilson-Fisher kinks of O(N ) numerical bootstrap: from the deconfined phase transition to a putative new family of CFTs,

    Y.-C. He, J. Rong, and N. Su, “Non-Wilson-Fisher kinks of O(N ) numerical bootstrap: from the deconfined phase transition to a putative new family of CFTs,” SciPost Phys. 10 no. 5, (2021) 115, arXiv:2005.04250 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  68. [76]

    SO(5) Deconfined Phase Transition under the Fuzzy-Sphere Microscope: Approximate Conformal Symmetry, Pseudo-Criticality, and Operator Spectrum,

    Z. Zhou, L. Hu, W. Zhu, and Y.-C. He, “SO(5) Deconfined Phase Transition under the Fuzzy-Sphere Microscope: Approximate Conformal Symmetry, Pseudo-Criticality, and Operator Spectrum,” Phys. Rev. X 14 no. 2, (2024) 021044, arXiv:2306.16435 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    String theory on Calabi-Yau manifolds,

    B. R. Greene, “String theory on Calabi-Yau manifolds,” in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI 96): Fields, Strings, and Duality , pp. 543–726. 6, 1996. arXiv:hep-th/9702155

    1996 arXiv

  70. [78]

    The Conformal Bootstrap,

    D. Simmons-Duffin, “The Conformal Bootstrap,” in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: New Frontiers in Fields and Strings , pp. 1–74. 2017. arXiv:1602.07982 [hep-th]. – 33 –

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

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