Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 86 references

Correlation versus Causation in Quantum Criticality

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Causation can decay fifteen powers faster than correlation at quantum critical points, and the mechanism exposes hidden primary operators.

desk verdict Right mechanism, real results in 1+1D and at point defects; the d≥3 bulk sieve is overclaimed and needs one honest assumption stated or a proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12770 v1 pith:D7Z2L3QN submitted 2026-08-13 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

Conrad Wichmann , Ryan Thorngren , Ruben Verresen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph
keywords quantumcriticalitystaticsusceptibilitycausationfunctionconformalfieldtheoryprimaryoperatorsgaplesssymmetry-protectedtopologicalphasesedgemodesplittingtimereversalsymmetry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that static susceptibility — the change in one observable when the Hamiltonian is perturbed by another, which the authors call 'causation' — behaves very differently from correlation at quantum critical points. In time-reversal-symmetric systems, any operator that is a time derivative of another contributes nothing to static response, so causation is controlled by the lowest-dimension quasiprimary (in 1+1D) or primary (in three or more dimensions) in the operator expansion, not by the lowest-dimension field overall. The result is that causation can decay far faster than correlation, up to fifteen powers of distance faster in the Ising CFT, and can expose primary operators that correlations hide. The authors use this to identify a corner primary of dimension about 8.8 and a magnetic line defect primary of dimension about 4.6 in the (2+1)-dimensional critical Ising model, and to explain and engineer extremely small edge-mode splittings in gapless symmetry-protected topological phases.

What carries the argument

The carrying identity is Eq. (2): if $A = i[H,C]$ is a time derivative of $C$, then the causation function $\langle A G B\rangle$ equals $i\langle [C(x),B(y)]\rangle$, which vanishes for spatially separated operators (or, under time-reversal symmetry and same $T$-charge, vanishes generally). Here $G=(E_0-H)^{-1}$ is the resolvent, so the causation function is the static Green's function of perturbation theory. This identity kills every descendant that is a time derivative; in $(0+1)$-dimensional defects or boundaries every descendant is either a time derivative or a quasiprimary, so the leading causation comes from the lowest quasiprimary, and in $d\ge 3$ from the lowest primary. Virasoro character counting supplies the quasiprimary levels in the 1+1D examples.

What would settle it

In the (2+1)D Ising model on an $L\times L$ lattice, measure the corner-to-corner static response of a parity-even operator (a symmetric linear combination of two mirror-related local operators). If the decay exponent matches a spatial descendant of the lowest primary instead of that primary itself, the claimed primary sieve is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in a critical system with time-reversal symmetry, the static response (causation) between two lattice operators is governed by the lowest-dimension field in each operator's continuum expansion that is not a time derivative. Because time-derivative fields have vanishing static response, causation decays as $L^{-2\Delta+1}$ where $\Delta$ is the dimension of that lowest non-time-derivative field, whereas correlation decays as $L^{-2\Delta_{\rm min}}$ with the absolute lowest dimension. In one spatial dimension this means causation is controlled by the lowest quasiprimary on the boundary; in three or more dimensions, by the lowest primary. This explains why causation can be dramatically more suppressed than correlation, and turns causation into a sieve that filters out descendant fields. The paper demonstrates the mechanism in the critical Ising and tricritical Ising chains and free-fermion chains, extracts previously invisible primary dimensions in the (2+1)D Ising CFT, and shows that edge-mode splittings in gapless symmetry-protected topological phases are causation functions, leading to spin chains with splittings as small as $1/L^{18}$ and $1/L^{25}$.

Load-bearing premise

The sieve in higher dimensions rests on the assumption that a generic lattice operator of indefinite spatial parity flows to fields of every spatial parity, so no parity selection rule can prevent the operator's own primary from being the lowest non-time-derivative contributor; if a conserved spatial parity excluded that primary, a spatial descendant could dominate causation and the sieve would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Causation functions become practical probes of primary operator spectra in higher-dimensional CFTs, since they filter out descendants that dominate correlation.
  • Computing causation by symmetry sector isolates the lowest primary with given quantum numbers, as demonstrated for the corner and defect primaries in the 3D Ising CFT.
  • Edge-mode splittings in gapless symmetry-protected topological phases are governed by causation, explaining previously observed anomalously small splittings and predicting how to engineer even smaller ones.
  • The mechanism extends to other boundaries, defects, and critical models; any ground-state method that computes correlation functions can compute causation.
  • Because time-derivative fields vanish from static response, the suppression is a generic feature of time-reversal-symmetric critical points, not a fine-tuned accident.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the primary sieve holds generically, causation could complement the conformal bootstrap as a numerical source of conformal data, especially for heavy operators that are difficult to access through correlation.
  • The same principle that time-derivative fields are invisible to static response may apply to other symmetry constraints, such as spatial parity or rotation symmetry, potentially providing analogous sieves for other representation-theoretic sectors; the paper leaves this open.
  • The exponential localization of free-fermion causation suggests a broader design principle: irrelevant perturbations convert algebraic cancellations into exponential localization, which could be useful for protecting edge qubits in noisy settings.
  • Since causation is a linear-response quantity, it may be directly measurable in ultracold-atom or trapped-ion quantum simulators through the response to a local perturbation, giving experimental access to primary dimensions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces 'causation' as the static susceptibility ⟨A G B⟩, with G = (E0 − H)^{−1}, and proves that operators which are total time derivatives have vanishing Hermitian causal response. It then argues that at criticality the leading decay of causation is controlled by the lowest-dimension quasiprimary/primary in the operator expansion that is not a time derivative, in contrast with correlation, which is controlled by the lowest-dimension field. In 1+1D boundary CFT this yields explicit exponents (L^{−14}, L^{−21}, L^{−17}, exponential) for the Ising, tricritical Ising, and free-fermion chains, with numerical confirmation. The same logic is applied to gapless SPT edge splittings, explaining prior L^{−14} results and predicting L^{−18} and L^{−25} splittings in new spin chains. In d≥3, the authors claim a 'primary sieve' and use DMRG on the (2+1)D Ising model to extract a corner primary Δ≈8.8 and a magnetic-defect primary Δ≈4.6. The End Matter contains a proof of exponential decay of causation for BDI Majorana chains and derivations of the SPT splittings.

Significance. Equation (2) is a clean, rigorous identity, and the 1+1D exponent bookkeeping from Virasoro characters is convincing; Figs. 1 and 2 provide explicit numerical confirmation, including the new L^{−18} and L^{−25} splittings. The free-fermion theorem in the End Matter is a genuine proof and a useful result in its own right. If the d≥3 'primary sieve' can be put on firm footing, this would be a valuable new numerical tool for probing heavy primary operators in higher-dimensional CFTs; the defect dimension Δ≈4.6 matching the independent fuzzy-sphere value 4.64(14) is encouraging. However, the d≥3 sieve rests on an unproven parity-genericity assumption, and the numerical extractions are based on small system sizes without error bars. These issues do not affect the 1+1D results or the central identity, but they do limit the strength of the third key result as currently stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Application: Primary sieve in d≥3 CFTs] The claim that a lattice operator of indefinite spatial parity 'flows to fields of every spatial parity, so no parity rule forbids its primary φ whenever a spatial descendant ... contributes' is not a consequence of conformal invariance. Indefinite parity only ensures that the expansion contains fields of both parities; it does not ensure that the parent primary of a contributing spatial descendant is present. For example, in a unitary CFT, O = ∂_x φ + ψ, with φ and ψ both even under spatial parity, has indefinite parity (odd component ∂_x φ, even component ψ), contains no φ, and yet contains a spatial descendant of φ; if Δψ > Δφ+1, the leading causation of O is set by the descendant ∂_x φ rather than by a primary. This is a load-bearing point for the third key result: the bulk and extended-defect versions of the sieve require either a proof from lattice locality and translation invariance, or a reformulation that restricts the sieve to (0+1)D defects and corners and states the bulk sieve as a conjecture. The numerics in Fig. 3 use corner operators and a point on the defect; only the latter, if the defect is genuinely extended, would test the parity-genericity assumption, and a single example does not establish the general sieve.
  2. [Application: Primary sieve in d≥3 CFTs / Figure 3] The extraction of the corner primary Δ≈8.8 and the defect primary Δ≈4.6 is based on power-law fits over L=2–6 (and up to L=10 for the defect) at a single bond dimension, with no error bars or convergence checks reported. The correlation fit for the light corner operator already gives Δ_Z≈1.8 versus the Monte Carlo value β_2/ν≈2.03, which the authors attribute to finite-size effects; the same or larger systematic uncertainties could affect the heavy-primary exponents. To make the 'previously unresolved' primary claims convincing, the paper should report bond-dimension dependence, fit-range variation, or a scaling collapse, and state explicit error estimates.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Application: Primary sieve in d≥3 CFTs / Figure 3c] Clarify whether the 'magnetic line defect' is implemented by pinning a single site or a line of sites; the text says 'the center spin pinned downwards' while the caption and references describe a line defect, and the phrase '(0+1)D magnetic line defect' is internally inconsistent, since a line defect in a 2D spatial lattice has one spatial dimension. The distinction matters for the comparison with the fuzzy-sphere line-defect value.
  2. [End Matter, Theorem 1 proof] The statement 'anti-hermiticity forces ⟨γ_a γ_L⟩=δ_{aL}' is incomplete: for a≠L, γ_a γ_L is anti-Hermitian, but the conclusion that its expectation vanishes also uses T-symmetry of the ground state; please spell this out explicitly.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'fifteen additional orders in x' (and 'fifteen orders of magnitude') is a statement about a difference in power-law exponents; at a generic L it is not fifteen orders of magnitude in the value of the function. Rephrase to avoid overstatement.
  4. [Figure 3a] Specify the symmetry, for example reflection across the diagonal, that relates O1 at the bottom-left corner to O2 at the top-right corner, and state how the operators are defined for even L in the defect geometry.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the causation mechanism and quasiprimary counting are derived in-paper; the d≥3 parity-genericity premise is an unproven assumption, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The vanishing of time-derivative contributions to static susceptibility is derived in Eq. (2) from the resolvent identity, not assumed. The 1+1D quasiprimary counting uses explicit Virasoro characters and a unitarity-based injectivity argument, and the resulting exponents L^{-14}, L^{-21}, L^{-17} are checked against independent free-fermion, exact-diagonalization, and resolvent computations in Figs. 1 and 2. The gapless-SPT splitting formula, Eq. (9), is standard second-order perturbation theory rather than a fitted input, and the new L^{-18} and L^{-25} splittings are numerically confirmed rather than extracted from the same data that defines the prediction. The d≥3 primary sieve does depend on a stated parity-genericity premise: the paper asserts that a lattice operator of indefinite spatial parity flows to fields of every spatial parity, so that a primary appears whenever a spatial descendant contributes. That premise is not proved, and the corner/point-defect demonstrations in Fig. 3 do not directly test it because they are (0+1)D settings. However, this is an inference gap or correctness risk, not circularity: the conclusion is not contained by definition in the premise, and the 3D corner and defect primary dimensions are checked against independent external data (fuzzy-sphere Δ=4.64(14)). Self-citations such as [11] and [16] are present but are not load-bearing: the relevant counting arguments are reproduced in this paper, and the numerical validations stand independently.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanism (time-derivative exclusion) is derived inside the paper; the only fitted quantities are the new primary dimensions extracted from DMRG. No new physical entities are postulated. The main background assumptions are standard CFT axioms plus a genericity assumption specific to the d≥3 sieve.

free parameters (2)
  • Corner primary dimension Δ_c^T = ≈8.8
    Extracted from the DMRG causation decay L^{-16.6} in Fig. 3b. This is a reported output of the method, not an input used to fit the mechanism.
  • Defect primary dimension Δ_d^T = ≈4.6
    Obtained as 13.4 - 8.8 from the corner-to-defect causation decay L^{-12.4} in Fig. 3d, and benchmarked against the fuzzy-sphere value 4.64(14). Reported output, not an input.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The lattice models at criticality admit a continuum limit described by a local CFT, so lattice operators expand into scaling fields with well-defined conformal dimensions.
    Assumed throughout; standard for critical spin chains and the 3D Ising CFT. Invoked in the Ising CFT examples and the primary-sieve section.
  • standard math The CFTs considered are unitary, so the Virasoro generator L_{-1} acts injectively on non-vacuum modules, ensuring quasiprimary existence at levels where character coefficients grow.
    Used in the quasiprimary counting argument (footnote 64) for the Ising and tricritical Ising CFTs.
  • ad hoc to paper A generic lattice operator without definite spatial parity flows to fields of every spatial parity, and therefore includes its own primary whenever a spatial descendant contributes.
    Stated in the 'Application: Primary sieve in d≥3 CFTs' section without proof. This is the key assumption for extending the sieve beyond (0+1)D defects; the paper's DMRG corner example supports it, but it is not a rigorous derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correlation versus Causation in Quantum Criticality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D7Z2L3QN

@misc{pith2026260812770,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correlation versus Causation in Quantum Criticality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D7Z2L3QN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12770}
}
abstract

Correlation functions $\langle O_1(x) O_2(0) \rangle$ reveal scaling dimensions through spatial decay. We instead consider static susceptibility, the change in $\langle O_1(x) \rangle$ from perturbing the Hamiltonian by $O_2(0)$, which we term causation for short. In a conformal field theory (CFT), dimensional analysis predicts decay of $|x|^{-2\Delta}$ for correlation and $|x|^{-2\Delta+1}$ for causation. Yet we find causation can decay up to fifteen additional orders in $x$ through a general mechanism, which we trace to time-derivative fields being unable to contribute to static response. In higher-dimensional CFTs, this mechanism ensures leading causation arises from primaries, even when descendants dominate correlation, which we leverage with DMRG to identify a previously unresolved corner primary of $\Delta \approx 8.8$ and a heavy magnetic line defect primary of $\Delta \approx 4.6$ in the $(2+1)$D critical Ising model. Moreover, the same mechanism governs edge-mode localization in $(1+1)$D gapless symmetry-protected topological phases, explaining previously observed anomalously small edge-mode splittings and guiding our construction of spin chains with splittings as small as $1/L^{18}$ and $1/L^{25}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12770 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed

    S. Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed. (Cam- bridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  2. [2]

    Wen,Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Sys- tems: From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    X.-G. Wen,Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Sys- tems: From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  3. [3]

    Fradkin,Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics, 2nd ed

    E. Fradkin,Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    Kubo, Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes

    R. Kubo, Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes. I. General theory and simple applications to magnetic and conduction problems, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 12, 570 (1957). 6

    1957

  5. [5]

    Kubo, The fluctuation-dissipation theorem, Rep

    R. Kubo, The fluctuation-dissipation theorem, Rep. Prog. Phys.29, 255 (1966)

    1966

  6. [6]

    Polkovnikov, K

    A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Vengalat- tore, Colloquium: Nonequilibrium dynamics of closed in- teracting quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 863 (2011)

    2011

  7. [7]

    Forster,Hydrodynamic Fluctuations, Broken Symme- try, and Correlation Functions(CRC Press, 2018)

    D. Forster,Hydrodynamic Fluctuations, Broken Symme- try, and Correlation Functions(CRC Press, 2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Giuliani and G

    G. Giuliani and G. Vignale,Quantum Theory of the Elec- tron Liquid(Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Here, we compare two equilibrium quantities, which dif- fers from the known effect that theq→0 andω→0 limits of the dynamical susceptibility need not commute [7]

  2. [10]

    Scaffidi, D

    T. Scaffidi, D. E. Parker, and R. Vasseur, Gapless symmetry-protected topological order, Phys. Rev. X7, 041048 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Verresen, R

    R. Verresen, R. Thorngren, N. G. Jones, and F. Poll- mann, Gapless topological phases and symmetry- enriched quantum criticality, Phys. Rev. X11, 041059 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    J. P. Kestner, B. Wang, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Prediction of a gapless topological Haldane liquid phase in a one-dimensional cold polar molecular lattice, Phys. Rev. B83, 174409 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    Grover and A

    T. Grover and A. Vishwanath, Quantum criticality in topological insulators and superconductors: Emer- gence of strongly coupled Majoranas and supersymmetry (2012), arXiv:1206.1332 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Keselman and E

    A. Keselman and E. Berg, Gapless symmetry-protected topological phase of fermions in one dimension, Phys. Rev. B91, 235309 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    D. E. Parker, T. Scaffidi, and R. Vasseur, Topological Luttinger liquids from decorated domain walls, Phys. Rev. B97, 165114 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Verresen, N

    R. Verresen, N. G. Jones, and F. Pollmann, Topology and edge modes in quantum critical chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 057001 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Verresen, Topology and edge states survive quan- tum criticality between topological insulators (2020), arXiv:2003.05453 [cond-mat.str-el]

    R. Verresen, Topology and edge states survive quan- tum criticality between topological insulators (2020), arXiv:2003.05453 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Borla, R

    U. Borla, R. Verresen, J. Shah, and S. Moroz, Gauging the Kitaev chain, SciPost Phys.10, 148 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Thorngren, A

    R. Thorngren, A. Vishwanath, and R. Verresen, Intrin- sically gapless topological phases, Phys. Rev. B104, 075132 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    C. M. Duque, H.-Y. Hu, Y.-Z. You, V. Khemani, R. Verresen, and R. Vasseur, Topological and symmetry- enriched random quantum critical points, Phys. Rev. B 103, L100207 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Hidaka, S

    Y. Hidaka, S. C. Furuya, A. Ueda, and Y. Tada, Gapless symmetry-protected topological phase of quantum anti- ferromagnets on anisotropic triangular strip, Phys. Rev. B106, 144436 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    R. Ma, L. Zou, and C. Wang, Edge physics at the decon- fined transition between a quantum spin Hall insulator and a superconductor, SciPost Phys.12, 196 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Yu, R.-Z

    X.-J. Yu, R.-Z. Huang, H.-H. Song, L. Xu, C. Ding, and L. Zhang, Conformal boundary conditions of symmetry- enriched quantum critical spin chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 210601 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Wen and A

    R. Wen and A. C. Potter, Bulk-boundary correspondence for intrinsically gapless symmetry-protected topological phases from group cohomology, Phys. Rev. B107, 245127 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Wen and A

    R. Wen and A. C. Potter, Classification of 1+1D gapless symmetry protected phases via topological holography, Phys. Rev. B111, 115161 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    L. Li, M. Oshikawa, and Y. Zheng, Decorated defect con- struction of gapless-SPT states, SciPost Phys.17, 013 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Su and M

    L. Su and M. Zeng, Gapless symmetry-protected topo- logical phases and generalized deconfined critical points from gauging a finite subgroup, Phys. Rev. B109, 245108 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    X.-J. Yu, S. Yang, H.-Q. Lin, and S.-K. Jian, Universal entanglement spectrum in one-dimensional gapless sym- metry protected topological states, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 026601 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Prembabu, R

    S. Prembabu, R. Thorngren, and R. Verresen, Boundary- deconfined quantum criticality at transitions between symmetry-protected topological chains, Phys. Rev. B 109, L201112 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Prembabu and R

    S. Prembabu and R. Verresen, Multicriticality between purely gapless SPT phases with unitary symmetry (2025), arXiv:2509.20431 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025

  23. [31]

    Prembabu, S.-H

    S. Prembabu, S.-H. Shao, and R. Verresen, Non- invertible interfaces between symmetry-enriched critical phases (2025), arXiv:2512.23706 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025

  24. [32]

    A. M. Polyakov, Conformal symmetry of critical fluctu- ations, JETP Lett.12, 381 (1970)

    1970

  25. [33]

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

    1972

  26. [34]

    A. M. Polyakov, Non-Hamiltonian approach to conformal quantum field theory, Sov. Phys. JETP39, 10 (1974)

    1974

  27. [35]

    Rychkov,EPFL Lectures on Conformal Field Theory in D≥3 Dimensions(Springer, 2017)

    S. Rychkov,EPFL Lectures on Conformal Field Theory in D≥3 Dimensions(Springer, 2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Henriksson, The critical O(N) CFT: Methods and con- formal data, Phys

    J. Henriksson, The critical O(N) CFT: Methods and con- formal data, Phys. Rep.1002, 1 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Gaiotto, D

    D. Gaiotto, D. Mazac, and M. F. Paulos, Bootstrapping the 3d Ising twist defect, J. High Energy Phys.2014, 100

    2014

  30. [38]

    M. A. Metlitski, Boundary criticality of the O(N) model ind= 3 critically revisited, SciPost Phys.12, 131 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Padayasi, A

    J. Padayasi, A. Krishnan, M. A. Metlitski, I. A. Gruzberg, and M. Meineri, The extraordinary boundary transition in the 3d O(N) model via conformal bootstrap, SciPost Phys.12, 190 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Parisen Toldin and M

    F. Parisen Toldin and M. A. Metlitski, Boundary critical- ity of the 3D O(N) model: From normal to extraordinary, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 215701 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Z. Zhou, D. Gaiotto, Y.-C. He, and Y. Zou, Theg- function and defect changing operators from wavefunc- tion overlap on a fuzzy sphere, SciPost Phys.17, 021 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Zhou and Y

    Z. Zhou and Y. Zou, Studying the 3d Ising surface CFTs on the fuzzy sphere, SciPost Phys.18, 031 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    R. A. Lanzetta, S. Liu, and M. A. Metlitski, The begin- ning of the endpoint bootstrap for conformal line defects (2025), arXiv:2508.14964 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025

  36. [44]

    Rattazzi, V

    R. Rattazzi, V. S. Rychkov, E. Tonni, and A. Vichi, Bounding scalar operator dimensions in 4D CFT, J. High Energy Phys.2008(12), 031

    2008

  37. [45]

    El-Showk, M

    S. El-Showk, M. F. Paulos, D. Poland, S. Rychkov, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, Solving the 3D Ising model with the conformal bootstrap, Phys. Rev. D86, 025022 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    F. Kos, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, 7 Precision islands in the Ising and O(N) models, J. High Energy Phys.2016(8), 036

    2016

  39. [47]

    Simmons-Duffin, The lightcone bootstrap and the spectrum of the 3d Ising CFT, J

    D. Simmons-Duffin, The lightcone bootstrap and the spectrum of the 3d Ising CFT, J. High Energy Phys. 2017(3), 086

    2017

  40. [48]

    Poland, S

    D. Poland, S. Rychkov, and A. Vichi, The conformal bootstrap: Theory, numerical techniques, and applica- tions, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015002 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    W. Zhu, C. Han, E. Huffman, J. S. Hofmann, and Y.- C. He, Uncovering conformal symmetry in the 3D Ising transition: State-operator correspondence from a quan- tum fuzzy sphere regularization, Phys. Rev. X13, 021009 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    He and W

    Y.-C. He and W. Zhu, A fuzzy sphere journey in crit- ical phenomena, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics17, 1 (2026)

    2026

  43. [51]

    Pelissetto and E

    A. Pelissetto and E. Vicari, Critical phenomena and renormalization-group theory, Phys. Rep.368, 549 (2002)

    2002

  44. [52]

    Hasenbusch, Finite size scaling study of lattice models in the three-dimensional Ising universality class, Phys

    M. Hasenbusch, Finite size scaling study of lattice models in the three-dimensional Ising universality class, Phys. Rev. B82, 174433 (2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    R. S. K. Mong, D. J. Clarke, J. Alicea, N. H. Lindner, and P. Fendley, Parafermionic conformal field theory on the lattice, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.47, 452001 (2014)

    2014

  46. [54]

    Y. Zou, A. Milsted, and G. Vidal, Conformal fields and operator product expansion in critical quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 040604 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    A. W. Sandvik, Using operator covariance to disen- tangle scaling dimensions in lattice models (2024), arXiv:2406.12681 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    By generic, we refer to lattice operators without definite spatial parity

  49. [57]

    (1) is well-defined

    We assumeAandBhave vanishing ground-state ex- pectation values and that the ground state is non- degenerate, such that Eq. (1) is well-defined

  50. [58]

    Di Francesco, P

    P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu, and D. S´ en´ echal,Conformal Field Theory(Springer-Verlag, 1997)

    1997

  51. [59]

    This renders⟨AGB⟩real; vanishing follows by anti- Hermiticity ofi⟨CB⟩

  52. [60]

    Cardy,Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics(Cambridge University Press, 1996)

    J. Cardy,Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics(Cambridge University Press, 1996)

    1996

  53. [61]

    Cardy, Boundary conformal field theory (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0411189

    J. Cardy, Boundary conformal field theory (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0411189

    2004 arXiv

  54. [62]

    J. L. Cardy, Effect of boundary conditions on the op- erator content of two-dimensional conformally invariant theories, Nuclear Physics B275, 200 (1986)

    1986

  55. [63]

    See End Matter for more details

    This follows fromTL −nT−1 = (−1)nL−n on the bound- ary. See End Matter for more details

  56. [64]

    Injectivity follows from unitarity. For a state of weighth, ∥L−1|ψ⟩∥2 = 2h∥|ψ⟩∥2+∥L1|ψ⟩∥2, where unitarity guar- anteesh >0 and norms are non-negative for all states above the vacuum, so the right-hand side is strictly pos- itive; the identity (h= 0) is the only exception, whi...

  57. [65]

    von Gehlen, Non-hermitian tricriticality in the Blume- Capel model with imaginary field, Int

    G. von Gehlen, Non-hermitian tricriticality in the Blume- Capel model with imaginary field, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 8, 3507 (1994)

    1994

  58. [66]

    Altland and M

    A. Altland and M. R. Zirnbauer, Nonstandard symme- try classes in mesoscopic normal-superconducting hybrid structures, Phys. Rev. B55, 1142 (1997)

    1997

  59. [67]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Unpaired Majorana fermions in quantum wires, Phys.-Usp.44, 131 (2001)

    2001

  60. [68]

    This can fail, for instance, when the two ends of the chain carry distinct boundary conditions [29]

    We assume symmetry forbidsO(λ) contributions. This can fail, for instance, when the two ends of the chain carry distinct boundary conditions [29]

  61. [69]

    Verresen, R

    R. Verresen, R. Moessner, and F. Pollmann, One- dimensional symmetry protected topological phases and their transitions, Phys. Rev. B96, 165124 (2017)

    2017

  62. [70]

    Suzuki, Relationship among exactly soluble models of critical phenomena

    M. Suzuki, Relationship among exactly soluble models of critical phenomena. I: 2D Ising model, dimer problem and the generalized XY-model, Progress of Theoretical Physics46, 1337 (1971)

    1971

  63. [71]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  64. [72]

    J. P. Keating and F. Mezzadri, Random matrix theory and entanglement in quantum spin chains, Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics252, 543 (2004)

    2004

  65. [73]

    Kopp and S

    A. Kopp and S. Chakravarty, Criticality in correlated quantum matter, Nature Physics1, 53 (2005)

    2005

  66. [74]

    W. Son, L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Hamma, S. Pascazio, and V. Vedral, Quantum phase transition between cluster and antiferromagnetic states, EPL95, 50001 (2011)

    2011

  67. [75]

    I.e., has components of both spatial parities; for example, Z1X2∝(Z 1X2 +X 1Z2) + (Z1X2−X 1Z2) decomposes into even- and odd-parity components

  68. [76]

    S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  69. [77]

    S. R. White, Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. B48, 10345 (1993)

    1993

  70. [78]

    Hauschild and F

    J. Hauschild and F. Pollmann, Efficient numerical sim- ulations with tensor networks: Tensor Network Python (TeNPy), SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes5(2018)

    2018

  71. [79]

    Hauschildet al., Tensor network Python (TeNPy) ver- sion 1, SciPost Phys

    J. Hauschildet al., Tensor network Python (TeNPy) ver- sion 1, SciPost Phys. Codebases41(2024)

    2024

  72. [80]

    Pleimling and W

    M. Pleimling and W. Selke, Critical phenomena at edges and corners, Eur. Phys. J. B5, 805 (1998)

    1998

  73. [81]

    Allais, Magnetic defect line in a critical Ising bath (2014), arXiv:1412.3449 [cond-mat.str-el]

    A. Allais, Magnetic defect line in a critical Ising bath (2014), arXiv:1412.3449 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2014 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Parisen Toldin, F

    F. Parisen Toldin, F. F. Assaad, and S. Wessel, Critical behavior in the presence of an order-parameter pinning field, Phys. Rev. B95, 014401 (2017)

    2017

  75. [83]

    Cuomo, Z

    G. Cuomo, Z. Komargodski, and M. Mezei, Localized magnetic field in the O(N) model, J. High Energy Phys. 2022(2), 134

    2022

  76. [84]

    Hu, Y.-C

    L. Hu, Y.-C. He, and W. Zhu, Solving conformal defects in 3D conformal field theory using fuzzy sphere regular- ization, Nature Communications15, 3659 (2024). End Matter Free Fermions—As mentioned in the main text, lat- tice fermions flow to single fermionic operators in the l...

    2024

  77. [85]

    IfN p >0, then⟨˜γ 1GγL⟩≲e −L/ξ

  78. [86]

    Here,ξ=−1/ln|z ∗|, withz ∗ the largest zero off inside the unit circle

    Otherwise,⟨˜γ1 Gγ L⟩= 0. Here,ξ=−1/ln|z ∗|, withz ∗ the largest zero off inside the unit circle. Here we use the convention thatGprojects out the ground state subspace. The proof follows from writing ˜γ1 as the time derivative of an exponentially localized operator in case one...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.