Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Complex CFTs: Holography and Interfaces

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using holographic beta functions, this paper derives the Im-flip identity for complex conjugate CFTs and constructs complex Janus and linear-dilaton interfaces that transmit more than unitarity would allow.

desk verdict Useful exploratory paper with explicit holographic and CFT interface constructions, but the Im-flip 'proof' is a leading-order check in a tuned superpotential and the claimed CFT/holographic agreement is a fitted normalization. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08292 v1 pith:3CNYHVWB submitted 2026-08-08 hep-th

Luis Camargo-Carlos , Michael Gutperle This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords complexconformalfieldtheorywalkingRGflowIm-fliprelationholographicrenormalizationgroupJanussolutioninterfaceboundarystatelineardilaton
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

Complex conformal field theories are non-unitary CFTs that appear when two real fixed points of a renormalization group flow collide and move into the complex plane, and they are believed to control 'walking' flows in which the coupling lingers near the origin. This paper sets out to put the central property of these theories, the Im-flip relation, on a holographic footing: for complex conjugate CFTs the ratio of the imaginary scaling dimension of an operator to its OPE coefficient with the almost marginal operator is the same for every operator. Using the $\beta$ functions of a two-scalar superpotential in a fake-supergravity bulk, the paper derives this ratio identity to leading order in the distance $\epsilon$ of the fixed points from the real axis, and argues that the same ratio holds at any point along the flow up to a universal shift. The paper also constructs complex Janus and numerical RG-flow interfaces between conjugate vacua, and builds exact boundary states for free-boson and linear-dilaton interfaces, where reflection and transmission coefficients exhibit super-transmission ($T>1$) that signals non-unitarity. A sympathetic reader would care because if the identification of the complex conjugate theory with the nontrivial fixed point of the deformed action is right, the Im-flip identity is a universal property of walking CFTs with observable consequences for the imaginary parts of OPE coefficients.

What carries the argument

The central object is the holographic $\beta$ function $\beta^a = d\phi^a/dA = -2 G^{ab} W^{-1} \partial_b W$, built from a 'fake' superpotential $W$ that generates the potential via $V = 2(G^{ab}\partial_a W\partial_b W - W^2)$ without requiring supersymmetry. For the two-scalar superpotential (2.17) with critical points at $\phi = \pm i\epsilon$, the quadratic and linear terms of these $\beta$ functions encode the OPE coefficients and imaginary scaling dimensions whose ratios coincide, which is the Im-flip identity. For interfaces, the complex Janus solution takes the known Janus metric with $\alpha = i\gamma$, keeping the metric real while the massless scalar rolls between conjugate imaginary asymptotic values; on the CFT side the folding trick turns an interface into a boundary state with a gluing matrix $S$ characterized by an angle $\theta$, and for conjugate linear-dilaton theories $\tan\theta = Q^{(2)}/Q^{(1)}$ is fixed by the ratio of complex background charges.

What would settle it

Evaluate the two-scalar superpotential $\beta$ functions at next order in $\epsilon$ or add a generic coupling such as $c_4\psi^2\phi^2$: if $\operatorname{Im}(\Delta_\phi)/C_{\phi\phi\phi}$ and $\operatorname{Im}(\Delta_\psi)/C_{\psi\psi\phi}$ no longer coincide at $O(\epsilon^3)$, the Im-flip identity is an artifact of the leading-order tuned model. A second check would be to recompute the linear-dilaton interface coefficients (B.16)-(B.17) with a different primary $\langle\phi|$; if the result changes, the ad-hoc replacement of the vacuum is not a valid regulator.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim of the paper is that the Im-flip property of complex conjugate CFTs can be established holographically rather than only by the conformal perturbation theory argument of [1]. For the two-scalar superpotential $W = w_0 + a\phi(\tfrac{1}{3}\phi^2 - \tfrac{1}{2}\phi(\phi_1+\phi_2) + \phi_1\phi_2) + \tfrac{1}{2}c_2\psi^2 + c_3\psi^2\phi$ with complex conjugate critical points at $\phi = \pm i\epsilon$, the holographic $\beta$ functions give $\operatorname{Im}(\Delta_\phi) = \mp 4a\epsilon/w_0 + O(\epsilon^2)$, $\operatorname{Im}(\Delta_\psi) = \mp 4c_3\epsilon/w_0 + O(\epsilon^2)$, and $C_{\phi\phi\phi} = -(4a)/(\pi w_0)$, $C_{\psi\psi\phi} = -(4c_3)/(\pi w_0)$, so the ratios coincide: $\operatorname{Im}(\Delta_\phi)/C_{\phi\phi\phi} = \operatorname{Im}(\Delta_\psi)/C_{\psi\psi\phi}$ to leading order. The paper reads this as a proof of the Im-flip relation for this class of models, notes that the equality holds only to $O(\epsilon^2)$ and that the original argument also breaks down at higher order, and shows the same ratio holds at a general point along the flow up to a universal shift.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the complex conjugate CFT $\bar C$ is exactly the theory at the nontrivial fixed point $g_{FP}$ of the deformed action (1.2); the paper notes there is no independent proof of this identification, and without it the Im-flip relation and its holographic derivation lose their footing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the holographic derivation is correct, the Im-flip ratio $\operatorname{Im}(\Delta_{\text{operator}})/C_{\text{operator},O,\text{operator}}$ is the same for every operator in a walking complex CFT, so one measured imaginary dimension fixes all imaginary OPE coefficients.
  • Complex Janus interfaces have a real metric and real entanglement entropy, but their transmission coefficient $T$ exceeds 1 and reflection $R$ is negative for any nonzero deformation $\gamma$; the free-boson CFT with imaginary stiffness reproduces the holographic $T$ to order $\gamma^2$.
  • For linear-dilaton interfaces between complex conjugate background charges, the folded product has real central charge $c_{\text{total}} = 2 + 12(q_R^2 - q_I^2)$, and the interface transmits with $T = \sec^2(2\varphi) \geq 1$ while conserving $T+R=1$.
  • The imaginary-distance bound $\Delta\phi = i\pi/2$ for the complex Janus solution is saturated, and the appendix generalizes it to a bound on geodesic distance on the scalar moduli space of nonlinear sigma-model Janus solutions.
  • Numerical RG-flow interfaces between conjugate vacua exist in the quartic superpotential model, but they are highly sensitive to initial conditions, so analytic examples in gauged supergravity would be needed for reliable holographic observables.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the identification of $\bar C$ with the $g_{FP}$ fixed point is accepted, the Im-flip identity should be testable in lattice models of the $Q>4$ Potts model by extracting $\operatorname{Im}(\Delta)/C$ for several operators from complex transfer-matrix spectra.
  • Editorial inference: super-transmission $T>1$ and negative reflection $R<0$ may serve as a general signature of non-unitary conformal interfaces; a non-Hermitian transport experiment across a defect could look for transmitted energy exceeding incident energy, though the paper itself does not propose such a setting.
  • Editorial inference: the near-universality of the Im-flip ratio may be only asymptotic near the merging of fixed points; a generic three-scalar or higher-order superpotential could break the equality at $O(\epsilon^3)$, so the holographic 'proof' is likely a leading-order consistency check rather than an exact theorem.
  • Editorial inference: because the linear-dilaton reflection/transmission result is independent of the choice of primary $\langle\phi|$ and of the momentum $p$, the same construction may extend to complex Liouville theories without restricting the background charges to the $c=26$ case.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates complex conformal field theories and interfaces between complex conjugate CFTs, using both AdS3 holography and two-dimensional CFT techniques. It reviews the Im-flip relation of Gorbenko-Rychkov-Zan and claims a holographic proof in §2.2 based on a two-scalar superpotential with complex conjugate critical points, computing beta functions, OPE coefficients, and scaling dimensions. The paper constructs a complex Janus solution with imaginary deformation parameter, computes entanglement entropies and reflection/transmission coefficients (finding T>1 and R<0), and obtains numerical RG-flow interfaces between complex conjugate vacua. On the CFT side, it constructs complex interfaces for a free boson with imaginary stiffness and for linear dilaton theories with complex conjugate background charges, deriving boundary states, interface entropies, and transmission/reflection coefficients. The paper closes with a proposed modification of the Quella-Runkel-Watts formula for linear dilaton interfaces.

Significance. If the holographic proof of the Im-flip relation held generally, it would be an important result connecting walking CFTs to holography. The paper contains several solid explicit computations: the algebraic identity T+R=1 for complex couplings, the exact complex Janus solution and its entanglement entropies, the sigma-model generalization of the imaginary distance bound in Appendix C, and a reproducible numerical construction of RG-flow interfaces. However, the central 'holographic proof' is a leading-order check in a non-generic superpotential, and the advertised holographic/CFT agreement at O(γ^2) in §4.1 is obtained by fixing a free normalization. The linear dilaton reflection/transmission calculation in §4.2 relies on an ad hoc replacement of the vacuum. The results are suggestive and useful, but the paper's central claims need reframing and additional support.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Eqs. (2.17)-(2.19)] The holographic derivation of the Im-flip relation is not a proof for general holographic models. In the superpotential (2.17), the leading O(ε) imaginary parts of both Im Δ_ψ and C_{ψψφ} are proportional to the single coupling c3, and likewise Im Δ_φ and C_{φφφ} are proportional to a, so the ratio identity (1.4) is satisfied by construction at O(ε^2). This is not stable under generic allowed deformations: adding a real term f ψ^2 φ^2 preserves the critical points (φ,ψ)=(±iε,0) but contributes 4fφ to W_{φψψ}, giving an O(ε) imaginary correction to C_{ψψφ} while Im Δ_ψ receives no O(ε) correction from f; the ratio then fails at O(ε^2) for f≠0. The paper explicitly notes the non-genericity and the O(ε^3) failure, but the abstract and §5 present this as a proof. The claim should be weakened to a leading-order consistency check in a minimal model, or the stability under additional couplings should be established.
  2. [§4.1.1, Eq. (4.10)] The claimed holographic/CFT agreement of the transmission coefficient at O(γ^2) is not an independent prediction. Equation (4.10) defines γ_cft = sqrt(8π/c) γ; since no independent determination of the normalization of the marginal source is given, this equality simply fixes the free parameter N_γ to match the holographic result. The statement in §5 that the agreement is 'inherited from the real case' is therefore overstated. The check would be meaningful if the same normalization were used to compare a second observable, such as the entanglement entropy in (3.13) and (4.16), or if the O(γ^4) coefficients were compared without further adjustment.
  3. [§B.2, Eqs. (B.16)-(B.19)] The reflection/transmission coefficients for the linear dilaton interface rely on an ad hoc modification of the Quella-Runkel-Watts formula. Because the overlap ⟨0|B⟩⟩ vanishes, the vacuum is replaced by the specific primary ⟨φ| in (B.19); the paper states 'we propose to replace' and 'this prescription has to be modified'. The sum rule (B.18) is engineered by the normalization in (B.17), and the p-independence of (B.22) is necessary but not sufficient to justify the prescription. Since T=sec^2(2φ), R=−tan^2(2φ) is one of the central CFT results of §4.2, the authors should either derive this prescription from a microscopic OPE calculation or clearly present it as a conjecture.
  4. [§1.1 and §2.2] The holographic derivation inherits the unproven identification of the complex conjugate CFT C-bar with the theory at the nontrivial fixed point g_FP, a premise that the paper itself acknowledges in §1.1 ('there is no independent proof at this point of which we are aware'). The computation in §2.2 does not remove this assumption; it shows only that, within a special two-scalar model, the leading-order beta function data are consistent with (1.4). The abstract's phrase 'holographic proof' should be qualified to make explicit that the identity rests on this identification and on the restricted form of the superpotential.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1.1, Eq. (1.5)] Equation (1.5) contains an unbalanced parenthesis: 'Im(∆ψ(gFP)) = −Im(∆ψ(gFP))' has a stray opening parenthesis after the first equals sign.
  2. [§2.2, Eqs. (2.16) and (2.18)] The notation changes from β_{1,2} in (2.16) to β_φ, β_ψ in (2.18) without explicit definition; the two sets of signs should be mapped to the two critical points clearly.
  3. [§4.1.1, Eqs. (4.6)-(4.7)] The symbol R is used both for the amplitude ratio in (4.5) and for the energy/stress-tensor reflection coefficient in (4.6)-(4.7), which is potentially confusing; a different symbol for the amplitude would help.
  4. [§4.1.2, Eq. (4.14)] The boundary state normalization 1/sqrt(sin 2θ) diverges as θ→0; the text should state the limiting procedure that selects this normalization in the compact-boson case.
  5. [Figures 1 and 2] The captions do not define the plotted quantities or the meaning of the colors/curves; adding axis labels and a short legend would make the numerical results easier to assess.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Im-flip 'holographic proof' is built into the chosen superpotential, and the CFT/holographic transmission agreement is fixed by choosing γ_cft = √(8π/c) γ.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.2, Eqs. (2.17)-(2.19)]
    "From (2.8) we can read off the OPE coefficients and imaginary parts of the scaling dimension, giving Im(∆ϕ)=∓4aϵ/w0+O(ϵ²), Im(∆ψ)=∓4c3ϵ/w0+O(ϵ²), Cϕϕϕ=−(1/π)4a/w0+O(ϵ²), Cψψϕ=−(4/π)c3/w0+O(ϵ²). It is easy to see that the Im-flip relation is indeed satisfied up to second order in powers of ϵ. While the choice of superpotential (2.17) looks non-generic..."

    The superpotential (2.17) is chosen so that both Im Δφ and Cφφφ are controlled by the single coupling a, while both Im Δψ and Cψψφ are controlled by the single coupling c3. Substituting (2.19) into the Im-flip relation (1.4) gives (∓4aϵ/w0)/(−4a/πw0) = (∓4c3ϵ/w0)/(−4c3/πw0) = ±πϵ identically, for any values of a and c3. The relation thus imposes no constraint on the model; it is automatic from the ansatz, so the 'holographic proof' verifies a built-in property rather than deriving a nontrivial relation. The paper itself concedes that the superpotential choice 'looks non-generic' and that the relation ceases to hold at O(ϵ³), confirming that the result is an artifact of the tuned model rather than a general proof.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1.1, Eq. (4.10)]
    "Note that γcft and γ as used in the holographic model in the previous section are related due to the duality ϕ↔g. This gives γcft = Nγγ for some normalization Nγ, which results in γcft = sqrt(8π/c) γ. Thus we see agreement in the transmission coefficient up to quadratic order in γ."

    The two deformation parameters γ (bulk Janus) and γcft (boundary stiffness phase) are a priori independent variables in the two computations. Instead of deriving the normalization, the paper introduces Nγ and sets it to √(8π/c). With this choice, the CFT expansion T = 1 + γcft² + O(γcft⁴) becomes T = 1 + (8π/c)γ² + O(γ⁴), exactly matching the holographic expansion T = 1 + 8πγ²/c + O(γ⁴) at quadratic order. The 'agreement' is therefore imposed by the parametrization, not obtained as an independent prediction. It is a fitted normalization presented as a cross-check.

full rationale

The most load-bearing claim, the holographic proof of the Im-flip relation in §2.2, is only a leading-order consistency check of a specially tuned two-scalar superpotential: both sides of (1.4) are proportional to the same couplings by construction, and the paper acknowledges the relation fails at O(ϵ³). Separately, the claimed CFT/holographic agreement for the transmission coefficient in §4.1.1 is forced by choosing γcft = √(8π/c)γ, so it is a normalization rather than a prediction. The identification of the complex conjugate theory C̄ with the nontrivial fixed point at g_FP is explicitly admitted to lack an independent proof (§1.1); this is an unproven assumption that weakens the derivation, though it is not itself a circular step. The remaining constructions—complex Janus solutions, RG-flow interface numerics, and linear dilaton boundary states—are self-contained calculations with independent content, and the ad hoc replacement of the vacuum by the primary ⟨ϕ| in eq. (B.19) is a fragility rather than a circularity. Because the central 'proof' and the transmission comparison reduce by construction, the paper is partially circular, but the bulk of the holographic and boundary-state work is independent, so the score is 6 rather than higher.

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

The central claims rest on model parameters (epsilon, gamma, superpotential couplings) and on two unproven identifications: the nontrivial fixed point equals the conjugate CFT, and the modified QRW vacuum replacement for linear dilaton interfaces. No new particles or fields are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • epsilon (imaginary part of complex fixed points) = small; 0.1 in the numerical model
    Controls the walking region and the epsilon expansion; the Im-flip relation is shown only to leading orders and fails at O(epsilon^3).
  • gamma (imaginary Janus deformation) = arbitrary real; gamma_cft = sqrt(8*pi/c) * gamma
    Parameter of the complex Janus solution; its normalization relative to the CFT coupling is fitted in eq. (4.10).
  • N_gamma (coupling normalization) = sqrt(8*pi/c)
    Chosen so that the CFT transmission coefficient matches the holographic one at O(gamma^2); a fitted constant, not derived from first principles.
  • superpotential parameters a, w0, c3, phi_r = e.g. a=-0.8, w0=1, phi_r=1 in the numerics
    Model parameters defining the walking potential and the Im-flip example; the leading Im-flip relation is independent of a and w0, but the numerical flows depend on them.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The complex conjugate CFT C-bar is exactly the theory at the nontrivial fixed point g_FP (nonproliferation of complex fixed points).
    Stated in section 1.1 as necessary for the Im-flip argument and explicitly acknowledged as lacking independent proof.
  • domain assumption Fake supergravity first-order equations (2.7) capture the RG flow relevant for the Im-flip derivation.
    The paper notes the first-order system is a fine-tuning of the full second-order equations (section 2).
  • ad hoc to paper The Quella-Runkel-Watts reflection/transmission formula can be modified by replacing the vacuum with the primary field of eq. (B.19).
    Proposed in appendix B.2 because the vacuum overlap vanishes; justified only by p-independence and by reduction to the Q=0 case.
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT dictionary: asymptotic scalar values of the Janus solution map to marginal couplings on the boundary.
    Used in section 4.1 to identify k_L and k_R with gamma_cft; standard in holography.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Complex CFTs: Holography and Interfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3CNYHVWB

@misc{pith2026260808292,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Complex CFTs: Holography and Interfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3CNYHVWB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08292}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate complex conformal field theories and interfaces between such theories, using methods of holography and two dimensional CFT. We use holography to prove the Im-flip property of complex conjugate CFTs. We construct a complex Janus solution and calculate some holographic observables. Complex RG-flow interfaces are obtained numerically. On the CFT side, complex interfaces are constructed for free boson CFTs with and without background charge. Boundary states are constructed, and transmission and reflection coefficients are calculated in both cases.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gorbenko, S

    V. Gorbenko, S. Rychkov and B. Zan,Walking, Weak first-order transitions, and Complex CFTs,JHEP10(2018) 108 [1807.11512]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Gorbenko, S

    V. Gorbenko, S. Rychkov and B. Zan,Walking, Weak first-order transitions, and Complex CFTs II. Two-dimensional Potts model atQ >4,SciPost Phys.5(2018) 050 [1808.04380]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Kaplan, J.-W

    D.B. Kaplan, J.-W. Lee, D.T. Son and M.A. Stephanov,Conformality Lost,Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 125005 [0905.4752]

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    Jacobsen and K.J

    J.L. Jacobsen and K.J. Wiese,Lattice Realization of Complex Conformal Field Theories: Two-Dimensional Potts Model with Q>4 States,Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) 077101 [2402.10732]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Y. Tang, H. Ma, Q. Tang, Y.-C. He and W. Zhu,Reclaiming the Lost Conformality in a Non-Hermitian Quantum 5-State Potts Model,Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) 076504 [2403.00852]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Ma and Y.-C

    H. Ma and Y.-C. He,Shadow of complex fixed point: Approximate conformality of Q>4 Potts model,Phys. Rev. B99(2019) 195130 [1811.11189]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Haldar, O

    A. Haldar, O. Tavakol, H. Ma and T. Scaffidi,Hidden Critical Points in the Two-Dimensional O(n>2) Model: Exact Numerical Study of a Complex Conformal Field Theory,Phys. Rev. Lett. 131(2023) 131601 [2303.02171]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Giombi, R

    S. Giombi, R. Huang, I.R. Klebanov, S.S. Pufu and G. Tarnopolsky,TheO(N)Model in 4< d <6: Instantons and complex CFTs,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 045013 [1910.02462]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Benini, C

    F. Benini, C. Iossa and M. Serone,Conformality Loss, Walking, and 4D Complex Conformal Field Theories at Weak Coupling,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 051602 [1908.04325]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    C. Wang, A. Nahum, M.A. Metlitski, C. Xu and T. Senthil,Deconfined quantum critical points: symmetries and dualities,Phys. Rev. X7(2017) 031051 [1703.02426]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Senthil,Deconfined quantum critical points: a review,2306.12638

    T. Senthil,Deconfined quantum critical points: a review,2306.12638

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Furuta, W

    Y. Furuta, W. Harada, Y. Kusuki and Y. Tang,Complex Conformal Manifolds,2606.30720

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Q. Tang, Z. Wei and X. Wen,Exactly solvable non-unitary conformal interfaces in unitary CFTs,2606.32035

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    de Boer, E.P

    J. de Boer, E.P. Verlinde and H.L. Verlinde,On the holographic renormalization group,JHEP 08(2000) 003 [hep-th/9912012]

    2000 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Freedman, S.S

    D.Z. Freedman, S.S. Gubser, K. Pilch and N.P. Warner,Renormalization group flows from holography supersymmetry and a c theorem,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.3(1999) 363 [hep-th/9904017]

    1999 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Skenderis and P.K

    K. Skenderis and P.K. Townsend,Gravitational stability and renormalization group flow,Phys. Lett. B468(1999) 46 [hep-th/9909070]

    1999 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Freedman, C

    D.Z. Freedman, C. Nunez, M. Schnabl and K. Skenderis,Fake supergravity and domain wall stability,Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 104027 [hep-th/0312055]

    2004 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Faedo, C

    A.F. Faedo, C. Hoyos, D. Mateos and J.G. Subils,Holographic Complex Conformal Field Theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 161601 [1909.04008]. – 31 –

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Faedo, C

    A.F. Faedo, C. Hoyos, D. Mateos and J.G. Subils,Multiple mass hierarchies from complex fixed point collisions,JHEP10(2021) 246 [2106.01802]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    D. Bak, M. Gutperle and S. Hirano,A Dilatonic deformation of AdS(5) and its field theory dual,JHEP05(2003) 072 [hep-th/0304129]

    2003 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Clark, D.Z

    A.B. Clark, D.Z. Freedman, A. Karch and M. Schnabl,Dual of the Janus solution: An interface conformal field theory,Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 066003 [hep-th/0407073]

    2005 arXiv

  14. [22]

    D. Bak, M. Gutperle and S. Hirano,Three dimensional Janus and time-dependent black holes, JHEP02(2007) 068 [hep-th/0701108]

    2007 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Maldacena, A

    J. Maldacena, A. Maloney and B. McPeak,Wormholes and the imaginary distance bound, 2605.05336

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Di Ubaldo, L.V

    G. Di Ubaldo, L.V. Iliesiu, H.W. Lin and C. Yan,Positivity of the gravitational path integral implies the axionic weak gravity conjecture,2605.05305

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Wormholes and the imaginary distance bound

    J. Maldacena, “Wormholes and the imaginary distance bound.” Plenary talk at the Strings 2026 Conference, Shanghai, July, 2026

    2026

  18. [26]

    Ghodsi, J.K

    A. Ghodsi, J.K. Ghosh, E. Kiritsis, F. Nitti and V. Nourry,Holographic QFTs on AdSd, wormholes and holographic interfaces,JHEP01(2023) 121 [2209.12094]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ryu and T

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi,Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT, Phys. Rev. Lett.96(2006) 181602 [hep-th/0603001]

    2006 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Azeyanagi, A

    T. Azeyanagi, A. Karch, T. Takayanagi and E.G. Thompson,Holographic calculation of boundary entropy,JHEP03(2008) 054 [0712.1850]

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Chiodaroli, M

    M. Chiodaroli, M. Gutperle and L.-Y. Hung,Boundary entropy of supersymmetric Janus solutions,JHEP09(2010) 082 [1005.4433]

    2010 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gutperle and J.D

    M. Gutperle and J.D. Miller,Entanglement entropy at holographic interfaces,Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 026006 [1511.08955]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bachas, S

    C. Bachas, S. Baiguera, S. Chapman, G. Policastro and T. Schwartzman,Energy Transport for Thick Holographic Branes,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 021601 [2212.14058]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Gaiotto,Domain Walls for Two-Dimensional Renormalization Group Flows,JHEP12 (2012) 103 [1201.0767]

    D. Gaiotto,Domain Walls for Two-Dimensional Renormalization Group Flows,JHEP12 (2012) 103 [1201.0767]

    2012 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Arav, K.C.M

    I. Arav, K.C.M. Cheung, J.P. Gauntlett, M.M. Roberts and C. Rosen,Superconformal RG interfaces in holography,JHEP11(2020) 168 [2007.07891]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    K. Chen, M. Gutperle and C. Hultgreen-Mena,Janus and RG-flow interfaces in three-dimensional gauged supergravity,JHEP03(2022) 057 [2111.01839]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    S. Baig, A. Karch and M. Wang,Transmission coefficient of super-Janus solution,JHEP10 (2024) 235 [2408.00059]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bachas, J.d

    C. Bachas, J.d. Boer, R. Dijkgraaf and H. Ooguri,Permeable conformal walls and holography, Journal of High Energy Physics2002(2002) 027–027

    2002

  29. [37]

    Oshikawa and I

    M. Oshikawa and I. Affleck,Boundary conformal field theory approach to the critical two-dimensional Ising model with a defect line,Nucl. Phys. B495(1997) 533 [cond-mat/9612187]. – 32 –

    1997 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Sakai and Y

    K. Sakai and Y. Satoh,Entanglement through conformal interfaces,JHEP12(2008) 001 [0809.4548]

    2008 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Brehm and I

    E.M. Brehm and I. Brunner,Entanglement entropy through conformal interfaces in the 2D Ising model,JHEP09(2015) 080 [1505.02647]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Collier, L

    S. Collier, L. Eberhardt, B. Mühlmann and V.A. Rodriguez,Complex Liouville String,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 251602 [2409.17246]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Collier, L

    S. Collier, L. Eberhardt, B. Mühlmann and V.A. Rodriguez,The complex Liouville string: The worldsheet,SciPost Phys.19(2025) 033 [2409.18759]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Collier, L

    S. Collier, L. Eberhardt, B. Mühlmann and V.A. Rodriguez,The complex Liouville string: Worldsheet boundaries and non-perturbative effects,SciPost Phys.19(2025) 034 [2410.09179]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Quella, I

    T. Quella, I. Runkel and G.M.T. Watts,Reflection and transmission for conformal defects, JHEP04(2007) 095 [hep-th/0611296]

    2007 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Jacobsen and K.J

    J.L. Jacobsen and K.J. Wiese,Making complex CFTs real: The two-dimensional Potts model forQ >4and complexQ,2606.18125

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    di Francesco, H

    P. di Francesco, H. Saleur and J.B. Zuber,Relations between the Coulomb gas picture and conformal invariance of two-dimensional critical models,J. Statist. Phys.49(1987) 57

    1987

  38. [46]

    Dotsenko and V.A

    V.S. Dotsenko and V.A. Fateev,Conformal Algebra and Multipoint Correlation Functions in Two-Dimensional Statistical Models,Nucl. Phys. B240(1984) 312

    1984

  39. [47]

    Jacobsen,Loop models and boundary CFT,Lect

    J.L. Jacobsen,Loop models and boundary CFT,Lect. Notes Phys.853(2012) 141

    2012

  40. [48]

    Bachas and I

    C. Bachas and I. Brunner,Fusion of conformal interfaces,JHEP02(2008) 085 [0712.0076]

    2008 arXiv

  41. [49]

    ground-state degeneracy

    I. Affleck and A.W.W. Ludwig,Universal noninteger “ground-state degeneracy” in critical quantum systems,Phys. Rev. Lett.67(1991) 161

    1991

  42. [50]

    Zamolodchikov,Irreversibility of the Flux of the Renormalization Group in a 2D Field Theory,JETP Lett.43(1986) 730

    A.B. Zamolodchikov,Irreversibility of the Flux of the Renormalization Group in a 2D Field Theory,JETP Lett.43(1986) 730. – 33 –

    1986

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.