Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 45 references

The leading quantum gravity correction to two maximal giant gravitons plus two light supergravitons is reconstructed in closed form from tree-level data via defect AdS unitarity.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 02:27 UTC pith:3Z24RXPB

load-bearing objection Solid first one-loop giant-graviton correlator via defect unitarity; closed Mellin/position forms and leading-twist γ̂^(2) are real, with a narrow residual uniqueness gap on single poles that does not sink the result. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25054 v1 pith:3Z24RXPB submitted 2026-07-27 hep-th

Quantum Gravity Corrections to Giant Graviton Correlators

Junding Chen , Xi-Er Du , Hynek Paul , Xinan Zhou This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords giant gravitonsAdS unitaritydefect CFTMellin amplitudeone-loop correlatorsN=4 SYManomalous dimensionsholographic defects
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Giant gravitons are heavy, highly supersymmetric operators that still feel genuinely non-planar physics even at infinite N. This paper treats a pair of maximal giants as a zero-dimensional defect and computes the first quantum-gravity (one-loop) correction to their correlator with two light stress-tensor multiplet operators. The calculation does not evaluate new Witten diagrams; instead it glues known tree-level OPE data with a defect version of the AdS unitarity method, producing the full one-loop reduced correlator in closed form both as a Mellin amplitude with simultaneous poles and as an explicit position-space function of weight at most three. From the same object the authors extract the one-loop shift to the binding energy of the lightest giant-plus-supergraviton bound states. The result supplies a concrete, checkable window into quantum corrections that sit between the planar limit and finite-N physics.

Core claim

The leading O(1/c) one-loop reduced correlator of two maximal giant gravitons and two stress-tensor multiplet operators is completely determined (up to a constant contact counterterm and an additive multiple of the tree-level answer) by defect AdS unitarity from lower-order OPE data. It admits a closed Mellin representation whose numerator coefficients are hypergeometric 3F2 functions, and an equivalent position-space expression written as a fourth-order differential operator acting on a simple weight-≤3 transcendental pre-correlator; the same correlator yields the one-loop anomalous dimensions of the leading-twist defect-channel bound states.

What carries the argument

Defect AdS unitarity: the one-loop defect two-point function is reconstructed by gluing tree-level bulk and defect OPE data into the leading logarithmic singularities, which are then completed to the full correlator by a simultaneous-pole Mellin ansatz (or a finite transcendental basis in position space).

Load-bearing premise

The one-loop Mellin amplitude is assumed to contain only simultaneous simple poles with constant numerators and no extra single-pole terms; that assumption is checked after the fact but is not derived from first principles.

What would settle it

Compute any independent residue or low-order series coefficient of the one-loop correlator (for example R0,0 or the coefficient of log²V in the defect channel) by a different method—direct Witten-diagram evaluation, localization, or a higher-charge unitarity cut—and check whether it matches the closed-form expressions given in the paper.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The same unitarity glueing determines one-loop giant-graviton correlators with higher Kaluza-Klein light operators once the corresponding tree-level data are known.
  • The fourth-order differential operator that organizes the position-space answer suggests a possible iterative construction of two-loop and higher corrections.
  • The extracted one-loop anomalous dimensions give the first quantum correction to the binding energies of giant-plus-supergraviton bound states in AdS.
  • The flat-space limit of the Mellin amplitude reduces to a single one-loop Feynman diagram of massless particles scattering off an extended defect, providing a direct bulk check.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The appearance of the same 3F2 building blocks found earlier for surface defects hints that simultaneous-pole Mellin amplitudes with hypergeometric numerators may be universal for a broad class of holographic defects.
  • Once the contact-term ambiguity is fixed by an integrated correlator or free-theory input, the result becomes a precision benchmark for any future direct string or supergravity computation of D3-brane loop effects.
  • Extending the construction beyond maximal giants would test how much of the defect unitarity method survives for more general heavy 1/2-BPS backgrounds.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes the leading O(1/c) one-loop correction to the correlator of two maximal giant gravitons and two stress-tensor multiplet operators in strongly coupled N=4 SYM, treating the giant gravitons as a zero-dimensional defect. Using the defect AdS unitarity method of [18], the authors glue lower-order OPE data into bulk- and defect-channel leading logarithmic singularities, resum them in closed form (3.21), (3.36), and reconstruct the full reduced correlator H22^(2) in two ways: a Mellin-space ansatz with only simultaneous simple poles whose constant numerators c_mn are fixed to a closed 3F2 form (4.4), and a position-space bootstrap over an eight-function transcendental basis (5.1), (5.4), yielding H22^(2) = Δ̂^(4)P^(2) + ½H22^(1) with explicit coefficients (5.9). The flat-space limit reproduces a single one-loop Feynman diagram off the defect, and the one-loop anomalous dimensions of leading-twist defect-channel operators are extracted (5.16). The answer is determined up to a contact counterterm c0 and an additive multiple of the tree-level correlator.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a substantial advance: the first quantum-gravity (one-loop) correction to a correlator of maximal giant gravitons — heavy operators that retain non-planar physics at N=∞ — computed in closed form in both Mellin and position space. Specific strengths: the reduced amplitude admits the closed simultaneous-pole form (4.1) with coefficients given explicitly by 3F2 hypergeometrics (4.4); the position-space answer takes the compact form (5.6) with a bounded weight-≤3 transcendental basis and a newly identified letter alphabet {z,z̄,1−z,1−z̄,V,1−V}, answering the open position-space question left by [18]; the flat-space limit is shown to agree with a single one-loop Feynman diagram (§4.3); and the construction is validated by multiple internal cross-checks (bulk/defect LLS unmixing, overconstrained Mellin–position-space matching, agreement of the logU·log²V coefficient between channels). The extracted leading-twist defect anomalous dimensions (5.16) are concrete, falsifiable CFT data. The result is also a proof of principle that defect unitarity works for a zero-dimensional defect, the case relevant for light-light-heavy-heavy correlators generally.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4, Eq. (4.1), steps 2–4] §4, ansatz (4.1) and step 2: the reduced one-loop Mellin amplitude is assumed to contain only simultaneous simple poles with constant numerators c_mn, with no single-pole terms a_n/(δ+n) or b_m/(γ−3−2m). The manuscript demonstrates sufficiency, not necessity: the c_mn are extracted from the logB·log²D coefficient under this assumption, and the subsequent reproduction of the subleading LLS (log²D, logB·logD, logB) in §4.2 validates the solution found but does not exclude a second solution with nonzero single-pole residues and shifted c_mn — such terms were never included as free parameters in the fit, and constant-residue single poles are compatible with the OPE log-degree cap of Fig. 2. The gap propagates: six of the seven unfixed position-space coefficients in §5.2 are fixed by matching to the Mellin residues (B.3)–(B.9), so the position-space result (5.6) and the anomalous dimensions (
  2. [§4.2, Eqs. (4.11)–(4.13)] §4.2, Eqs. (4.11)–(4.13): the regularization of the divergent double sum introduces a regulator d_mn and a constant shift C, and it is asserted that the residual scheme ambiguity is exactly one constant, interpreted as the one-loop contact counterterm. This needs a justification. A priori, two admissible regularizations of a doubly-divergent sum can differ by finite terms that are regular but non-constant in (δ,γ) (e.g., derivative-contact-like contributions); the manuscript should argue either from the finite set of available one-loop defect counterterms for this correlator, or from the flat-space analysis of §4.3 (step 5), why no such terms can occur. As written, the claim that step 5 leaves 'just a constant' is stated rather than derived, and the position-space matching in §5.2 uses c0 as the sole free parameter, so the completeness of the final answer (5.6)–(5.9) depends on it.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2] §5.2: the statement that the Mellin matching is 'highly over-constrained' would be more informative with a count: seven residues R_ij are used to fix six parameters plus the c0 relation, but each R_ij is itself a multi-coefficient function of logB and logD. Please state how many independent coefficient equations beyond the number of unknowns were actually checked.
  2. [§5.4, Eq. (5.16)] §5.4, Eq. (5.16): the s=0 anomalous dimension retains the c0 dependence, so the leading-twist binding-energy correction is determined only for s≥1. This is acknowledged via the spin-0 pole discussion, but the abstract's claim of extracting 'the quantum correction to the anomalous dimension' should be qualified accordingly.
  3. [Various] Typographical: 'give difference slices' in §4.1 should read 'different slices'; 'These result are' in §4.2 should be 'These results are'; 'position space corelator' in the final comment of §5.3 should be 'correlator'. Footnote 13 contains numbered equations (5.12)–(5.13) that interrupt the numbering flow; consider moving to the main text or an appendix.
  4. [§3.2, Fig. 3] §3.2: the notation m_d in (3.14) and m_b in (3.30) for the shifted summation indices is easy to confuse with the defect-twist label m used elsewhere; suggest renaming. Figure 3 is central to the logic of the paper and would benefit from a caption explicitly stating which coefficients fix c_mn and which are predictions.
  5. [§5.1, Eq. (5.3)] Eq. (5.3): the definition of the one-loop box ϕ(1) omits the customary prefactor 1/(z−z̄); since this convention feeds into the parity assignments of Q1 and Q2 in (5.1), a one-line remark on the normalization would prevent confusion with the defect-free literature [21].

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: one-loop result is completed from lower-order OPE data by a validated ansatz, not forced by definition or self-fit.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§1 Introduction; §3.1; refs [4,5,18]]
    "By viewing the giant gravitons as a zero-dimensional defect, we employ the defect version of the AdS unitarity method to reconstruct the one-loop correction from the known tree-level correlators. ... The defect unitarity method has already been developed in [18] ... build on the results of [4, 5]"

    Tree-level giant-graviton correlators and the defect unitarity method are taken from overlapping-author preprints. This is load-bearing for inputs and framework, but those citations are independent prior calculations (not a uniqueness theorem forbidding alternatives, and not a rearrangement of the one-loop H22^(2) being computed). Central closed forms (4.4), (5.6)–(5.9), (5.16) are new content fixed by LLS matching and cross-checks, so this is minor sequential self-citation rather than circular derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is the standard AdS unitarity bootstrap: disconnected and tree-level OPE data (from free theory, known four-point results, and prior tree-level giant-graviton correlators) determine the one-loop leading logarithmic singularities via unmixing formulas (3.13)–(3.14) and (3.28)–(3.29); those LLS then constrain a Mellin ansatz and a position-space transcendental ansatz, which are completed and cross-checked (subleading logs, bulk/defect channel agreement, flat-space Feynman integral, residue matching). That LLS coefficients are built from lower-order averages is the method by design, not a circular reduction of the one-loop target to itself. The constant-numerator simultaneous-pole assumption (4.1) is stated as an assumption and justified a posteriori by matching independently resummed subleading logs; it is not defined to equal the answer. The contact term c0 is an acknowledged scheme ambiguity, not a fitted prediction sold as a result. Self-citations to overlapping-author works [4,5,18] supply tree-level inputs and the defect unitarity framework; those are prior independent computations, not algebraic rearrangements of H22^(2). No equation identifies a claimed prediction with its own fitting input. Score 1 only for ordinary sequential self-citation of method/inputs, not for load-bearing circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The computation sits on standard AdS/CFT and superconformal kinematics, on tree-level giant-graviton correlators and the defect unitarity method from prior work, and on several technical ansatz choices (simultaneous-pole Mellin form, constant cmn, chosen regulator dmn, transcendental alphabet). One free scheme parameter c0 remains. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • c0 (one-loop contact counterterm) = unfixed
    Constant ambiguity in the regularized Mellin amplitude (4.11)–(4.13) and in position-space q6,q7; contributes only to spin-0 OPE data. Not fixed by unitarity or LLS; left for integrated correlators or free-theory input.
  • additive coefficient of tree-level H22^(1) inside H22^(2) = ½ in the written formula; scheme-dependent
    Footnote 4 and §5.3: poles at δ=γ=1 can be added with arbitrary coefficient; position-space form writes ½H^(1) to match the chosen regularization, but the coefficient is an extra ambiguity pending protected OPE analysis.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Large-c supergravity limit of N=4 SYM / AdS5×S5 with giant gravitons as D3-branes (maximal, dimension N)
    Stated in §1–2; defines the expansion (2.11) and the defect interpretation.
  • domain assumption Tree-level reduced correlators H^(1) and defect/bulk OPE data from Chen–Jiang–Zhou [4,5]
    Primary input to unitarity gluing; quoted e.g. (2.16), (3.16)–(3.18), (3.31)–(3.34).
  • domain assumption Defect AdS unitarity method (LLS from gluing lower-order data determine the loop correlator up to regular terms)
    Imported from Chen–Gimenez-Grau–Paul–Zhou [18] and applied at p=0 in §3.
  • ad hoc to paper One-loop reduced Mellin amplitude has only simultaneous simple poles with constant numerators cmn (no single poles)
    Explicit ansatz assumption in §4 steps 1–2, eq. (4.1); justified after the fact by matching subleading logs.
  • ad hoc to paper Position-space one-loop answer lies in the eight-function span Q1…Q8 built from letters {z,z̄,1−z,1−z̄,V,1−V} with polynomial coefficients of bounded degree
    Bootstrap ansatz (5.1)–(5.5); Q8 added to match both channel LLS simultaneously.
  • standard math Superconformal block structure of the reduced correlator H22 (bulk blocks g_{Δ+4,ℓ}, defect blocks bg_{bΔ+2,s}) and R-factor kinematics
    §2, following [25,26] and defect reduction of [4,5].
  • ad hoc to paper Regulator dmn in (4.12) renders the double sum finite; finite remainder is a constant contact diagram
    §4.2; choice affects only the scheme constant C/c0.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 35785 in / 3930 out tokens · 77561 ms · 2026-07-31T02:27:01.981255+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We compute the leading quantum gravity correction to the correlation function of two maximal giant gravitons and two light supergravitons in the stress tensor multiplet in the supergravity limit of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theory. By viewing the giant gravitons as a zero-dimensional defect, we employ the defect version of the AdS unitarity method to reconstruct the one-loop correction from the known tree-level correlators. We obtain the one-loop result in closed form in both Mellin and position space. We also extract the quantum correction to the anomalous dimension of operators describing a bound state of a giant graviton and a light supergraviton at the leading conformal twist in the defect channel OPE.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 43 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Invasion of the giant gravitons from Anti-de Sitter space,

    J. McGreevy, L. Susskind, and N. Toumbas, “Invasion of the giant gravitons from Anti-de Sitter space,”JHEP06(2000) 008,arXiv:hep-th/0003075

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  2. [2]

    Giant gravitons in conformal field theory,

    V. Balasubramanian, M. Berkooz, A. Naqvi, and M. J. Strassler, “Giant gravitons in conformal field theory,”JHEP04(2002) 034,arXiv:hep-th/0107119

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  3. [3]

    Large branes in AdS and their field theory dual,

    A. Hashimoto, S. Hirano, and N. Itzhaki, “Large branes in AdS and their field theory dual,” JHEP08(2000) 051,arXiv:hep-th/0008016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  4. [4]

    Giant Graviton Correlators as Defect Systems,

    J. Chen, Y. Jiang, and X. Zhou, “Giant Graviton Correlators as Defect Systems,”Phys. Rev. Lett.135no. 8, (2025) 081602,arXiv:2503.22987 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Defect approach to giant graviton dynamics,

    J. Chen, Y. Jiang, and X. Zhou, “Defect approach to giant graviton dynamics,”Rept. Prog. Phys.89no. 6, (2026) 067801,arXiv:2602.13570 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Holographic three-point functions of giant gravitons,

    A. Bissi, C. Kristjansen, D. Young, and K. Zoubos, “Holographic three-point functions of giant gravitons,”JHEP06(2011) 085,arXiv:1103.4079 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    Extremal versus Non-Extremal Correlators with Giant Gravitons,

    P. Caputa, R. de Mello Koch, and K. Zoubos, “Extremal versus Non-Extremal Correlators with Giant Gravitons,”JHEP08(2012) 143,arXiv:1204.4172 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Structure constants inN= 4 SYM at finite coupling as worldsheet g-function,

    Y. Jiang, S. Komatsu, and E. Vescovi, “Structure constants inN= 4 SYM at finite coupling as worldsheet g-function,”JHEP07no. 07, (2020) 037,arXiv:1906.07733 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Exact Three-Point Functions of Determinant Operators in PlanarN= 4Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory,

    Y. Jiang, S. Komatsu, and E. Vescovi, “Exact Three-Point Functions of Determinant Operators in PlanarN= 4Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory,”Phys. Rev. Lett.123 no. 19, (2019) 191601,arXiv:1907.11242 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Orbit averaging coherent states: holographic three-point functions of AdS giant gravitons,

    A. Holguin and W. W. Weng, “Orbit averaging coherent states: holographic three-point functions of AdS giant gravitons,”JHEP05(2023) 167,arXiv:2211.03805 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Giant correlators at quantum level,

    Y. Jiang, Y. Wu, and Y. Zhang, “Giant correlators at quantum level,”JHEP05(2024) 345, arXiv:2311.16791 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Bootstrapping Giant Graviton Correlators,

    S. He, C. Shi, Y. Tang, and C. Wen, “Bootstrapping Giant Graviton Correlators,” arXiv:2605.14281 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    Mellin amplitudes forAdS5 ×S 5,

    L. Rastelli and X. Zhou, “Mellin amplitudes forAdS5 ×S 5,”Phys. Rev. Lett.118no. 9, (2017) 091602,arXiv:1608.06624 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    How to Succeed at Holographic Correlators Without Really Trying,

    L. Rastelli and X. Zhou, “How to Succeed at Holographic Correlators Without Really Trying,”JHEP04(2018) 014,arXiv:1710.05923 [hep-th]. – 35 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    The Witten Diagram Bootstrap for Holographic Defects,

    A. Gimenez-Grau, “The Witten Diagram Bootstrap for Holographic Defects,” arXiv:2306.11896 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    Defect two-point functions in 6D (2,0) theories,

    J. Chen, A. Gimenez-Grau, and X. Zhou, “Defect two-point functions in 6D (2,0) theories,” Phys. Rev. D109no. 6, (2024) L061903,arXiv:2310.19230 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Correlators of N=4 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory on Real Projective Space at Strong Coupling,

    X. Zhou, “Correlators of N=4 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory on Real Projective Space at Strong Coupling,”Phys. Rev. Lett.133no. 20, (2024) 201602,arXiv:2408.04926 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Unitarity method for holographic defects,

    J. Chen, A. Gimenez-Grau, H. Paul, and X. Zhou, “Unitarity method for holographic defects,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 4, (2025) L041703,arXiv:2406.13287 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Quantum Gravity from Conformal Field Theory,

    F. Aprile, J. M. Drummond, P. Heslop, and H. Paul, “Quantum Gravity from Conformal Field Theory,”JHEP01(2018) 035,arXiv:1706.02822 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    Loop corrections for Kaluza-Klein AdS amplitudes,

    F. Aprile, J. M. Drummond, P. Heslop, and H. Paul, “Loop corrections for Kaluza-Klein AdS amplitudes,”JHEP05(2018) 056,arXiv:1711.03903 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    One-loop amplitudes in AdS5×S5 supergravity fromN= 4 SYM at strong coupling,

    F. Aprile, J. Drummond, P. Heslop, and H. Paul, “One-loop amplitudes in AdS5×S5 supergravity fromN= 4 SYM at strong coupling,”JHEP03(2020) 190,arXiv:1912.01047 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Graviton scattering in AdS5×S 5 at two loops,

    Z. Huang and E. Y. Yuan, “Graviton scattering in AdS5×S 5 at two loops,”JHEP04(2023) 064,arXiv:2112.15174 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Two-loop supergravity on AdS5×S5 from CFT,

    J. M. Drummond and H. Paul, “Two-loop supergravity on AdS5×S5 from CFT,”JHEP08 (2022) 275,arXiv:2204.01829 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    AdS super gluon scattering up to two loops: a position space approach,

    Z. Huang, B. Wang, E. Y. Yuan, and X. Zhou, “AdS super gluon scattering up to two loops: a position space approach,”JHEP07(2023) 053,arXiv:2301.13240 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Partial nonrenormalization of the stress tensor four point function in N=4 SYM and AdS / CFT,

    B. Eden, A. C. Petkou, C. Schubert, and E. Sokatchev, “Partial nonrenormalization of the stress tensor four point function in N=4 SYM and AdS / CFT,”Nucl. Phys. B607(2001) 191–212,arXiv:hep-th/0009106

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  26. [26]

    Superconformal Ward identities and their solution,

    M. Nirschl and H. Osborn, “Superconformal Ward identities and their solution,”Nucl. Phys. B711(2005) 409–479,arXiv:hep-th/0407060

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  27. [27]

    D-independent representation of Conformal Field Theories in D dimensions via transformation to auxiliary Dual Resonance Models. Scalar amplitudes,

    G. Mack, “D-independent representation of Conformal Field Theories in D dimensions via transformation to auxiliary Dual Resonance Models. Scalar amplitudes,”arXiv:0907.2407 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Writing CFT correlation functions as AdS scattering amplitudes,

    J. Penedones, “Writing CFT correlation functions as AdS scattering amplitudes,”JHEP03 (2011) 025,arXiv:1011.1485 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  29. [29]

    The Mellin Formalism for Boundary CFTd,

    L. Rastelli and X. Zhou, “The Mellin Formalism for Boundary CFTd,”JHEP10(2017) 146, arXiv:1705.05362 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [30]

    A note on defect Mellin amplitudes,

    V. Goncalves and G. Itsios, “A note on defect Mellin amplitudes,”arXiv:1803.06721 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    Loops in AdS from Conformal Field Theory,

    O. Aharony, L. F. Alday, A. Bissi, and E. Perlmutter, “Loops in AdS from Conformal Field Theory,”JHEP07(2017) 036,arXiv:1612.03891 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    Loop Corrections to Supergravity onAdS5 ×S 5,

    L. F. Alday and A. Bissi, “Loop Corrections to Supergravity onAdS5 ×S 5,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 119no. 17, (2017) 171601,arXiv:1706.02388 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    On genus-one string amplitudes onAdS5 ×S 5,

    L. F. Alday, “On genus-one string amplitudes onAdS5 ×S 5,”JHEP04(2021) 005, – 36 – arXiv:1812.11783 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Simplicity of AdS Supergravity at One Loop,

    L. F. Alday and X. Zhou, “Simplicity of AdS Supergravity at One Loop,”JHEP09(2020) 008,arXiv:1912.02663 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Unmixing Supergravity,

    F. Aprile, J. M. Drummond, P. Heslop, and H. Paul, “Unmixing Supergravity,”JHEP02 (2018) 133,arXiv:1706.08456 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [36]

    Flat-space limit of defect correlators and stringy AdS form factors,

    L. F. Alday and X. Zhou, “Flat-space limit of defect correlators and stringy AdS form factors,”JHEP03(2025) 182,arXiv:2411.04378 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Notes on flat-space limit of holographic defect correlators in position space,

    Q. Chen, Y.-X. Tao, and X. Zhou, “Notes on flat-space limit of holographic defect correlators in position space,”arXiv:2507.14421 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    One-loop gluon amplitudes in AdS,

    L. F. Alday, A. Bissi, and X. Zhou, “One-loop gluon amplitudes in AdS,”JHEP02(2022) 105,arXiv:2110.09861 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Holography from Conformal Field Theory,

    I. Heemskerk, J. Penedones, J. Polchinski, and J. Sully, “Holography from Conformal Field Theory,”JHEP10(2009) 079,arXiv:0907.0151 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  40. [40]

    Exact results for giant graviton four-point correlators,

    A. Brown, F. Galvagno, and C. Wen, “Exact results for giant graviton four-point correlators,”JHEP07(2024) 049,arXiv:2403.17263 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Giant graviton integrated correlators at finite coupling and all orders in1/N,

    A. Brown, D. Dorigoni, and C. Wen, “Giant graviton integrated correlators at finite coupling and all orders in1/N,”arXiv:2603.20083 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  42. [42]

    Ten dimensional symmetry ofN= 4 SYM correlators,

    S. Caron-Huot and F. Coronado, “Ten dimensional symmetry ofN= 4 SYM correlators,” JHEP03(2022) 151,arXiv:2106.03892 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    One-loop string corrections to AdS amplitudes from CFT,

    J. M. Drummond and H. Paul, “One-loop string corrections to AdS amplitudes from CFT,” JHEP03(2021) 038,arXiv:1912.07632 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    One-loop string corrections for AdS Kaluza-Klein amplitudes,

    J. M. Drummond, R. Glew, and H. Paul, “One-loop string corrections for AdS Kaluza-Klein amplitudes,”JHEP12(2021) 072,arXiv:2008.01109 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    One-loop string amplitudes in AdS5×S5: Mellin space and sphere splitting,

    F. Aprile, J. M. Drummond, R. Glew, and M. Santagata, “One-loop string amplitudes in AdS5×S5: Mellin space and sphere splitting,”JHEP02(2023) 087,arXiv:2207.13084 [hep-th]. – 37 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023