REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 118 references
R\'enyi entropy of single-character CFTs on the torus
T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The second Rényi entropy of the E8,1 WZW model on the torus is exactly computable and two-periodic in both cycles.
desk verdict A genuinely new method for nonperturbative torus Rényi entropy, but the derivation of the central ODE has a weight mismatch that needs fixing. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The mechanism is the Wrońskian method: for a correlator with n conformal blocks, requiring the Wrońskians W_k to be elliptic functions with controlled poles at z=0 and controlled modular weights turns the block space into the solution space of an n-th order differential equation. Here it yields the third-order ODE $$\$partial_z^{3}$ F - 3\wp(z|\tau)\partial_z F - \tfrac{3}{2}\wp'(z|\tau)F = 0,$$ whose solutions are the $\theta$ ratios $\vartheta_i(z|\tau)/\vartheta_1(z|\tau)$. The Klein-$j$ normalizations fix the three physical blocks in Eq. (4.23), so that the full correlator Eq. (4.26) follows by combining blocks with the character degeneracy matrix $D=\mathrm{diag}(1,2,1)$.
What would settle it
Compute the Laurent expansion of $F_2(z|\tau)$ from Eq. (4.23) around $z=0$; if its leading term is $1/(\pi z)$ rather than a $z^3$ term, the ODE in Eq. (4.16) is fixed by singular data the claimed solutions do not have, and the derivation needs repair or reinterpretation.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper claims that the twist two-point function of Eq. (4.26), built from the theta-function conformal blocks in Eq. (4.23), is the exact partition function of the replicated E8,1 WZW theory on the two-sheeted torus. The blocks solve the differential equation derived in Eq. (4.16), are fixed by modular invariance, and are normalized so that zF_i tends to the orbifold characters as z goes to zero. From this correlator the second Rényi entropy is extracted in Eq. (4.30), and it is shown to be two-periodic along each torus cycle, to diverge logarithmically in the decompactification limit and as the interval approaches the full cycle, and to have UV-finite finite-q corrections. Along the way the paper proves that a Z2 cyclic orbifold of a meromorphic CFT realizes the toric code modular tensor category, with the E8,1 case giving only three characters because two of the four orbifold characters coincide.
Load-bearing premise
The derivation fixes the differential equation by assuming the third unnormalized conformal block vanishes as $z^3$ at $z=0$, yet the final normalized block $F_2$ in Eq. (4.24) contains $\cot(\pi z)$, a simple pole, so the singular input and output are not evidently consistent.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- The second Rényi entropy is exactly periodic with period 2 along both cycles of the torus, matching the replica-surface interpretation and extending the N-periodicity known for free fermions.
- In the decompactification limit the twist correlator returns the universal two-point function $\pi^2/|\sin(\pi z)|^2$, reproducing the expected cylinder behavior.
- Apart from the leading logarithmic UV divergence, the q-expansion is finite, so the subleading entanglement data are calculable and well-defined.
- The correlator diverges when the interval length approaches a full torus cycle, indicating that gluing two tori along a cycle is a singular limit.
- The Z2 orbifold data realize the toric code modular tensor category, giving a CFT realization of the anyonic fusion rules used in topological quantum information.
Reading between the lines
- Editorial inference: the paper notes the same ODE also governs the SU(2)_2 WZW model of three Majorana fermions, so the Wrońskian route is likely transferable to other low-character rational CFTs where propagator methods fail.
- Editorial inference: reading the two-periodicity as a fingerprint of the genus-two replica surface suggests that for the N-th Rényi entropy one should seek N-th order differential equations whose solutions are N-periodic; this is a testable generalization.
- Editorial inference: a corrected derivation of Eq. (4.16) based on the actual poles of the normalized blocks would likely extend the method to all c=8k meromorphic CFTs, where the k at least 2 case already has a candidate fourth-order differential equation.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This paper develops a Wronskian/MLDE method for the twist two-point function of a Z2 orbifold of a single-character CFT on the torus, and applies it to the E8,1 WZW model. The authors compute the Z2 orbifold characters, identify the four-character toric-code structure, and specialize to k=1, where two characters coincide and only three conformal blocks remain. They derive a third-order ODE (4.16), solve it in terms of theta functions, normalize the solutions so that zF_i tends to the orbifold characters, and assemble the correlator (4.26), from which the second Rényi entropy (4.30) is extracted. The main physical outputs are the two-periodicity of the correlator along both torus cycles, the correct cylinder/decompactification limit, and the UV-finite q-corrections away from the universal logarithmic divergence.
Significance. If the final expressions (4.23)–(4.26) are correct, this is a significant technical advance: it provides an exact, nonperturbative torus Rényi entropy for an interacting (meromorphic) CFT, with explicit conformal blocks, monodromy matrices, and verifiable q-expansions. The paper contains no free parameters, and the two-periodicity, the decompactification limit (4.27), and the equality of chi1 and chi3 are concrete, checkable outputs. The identification of the orbifold as a toric-code modular tensor category is also useful. The main weakness is that the derivation of the central ODE in Section IV.A is internally inconsistent, so as written the paper does not fully establish its central claim; however, the final formulas are explicit enough that the gap appears repairable by a direct verification of (4.16).
major comments (3)
- [§IV.A, Eqs. (4.12)–(4.16)] The derivation of the central third-order ODE is not self-consistent. After stating W3 ~ q^{-1} (so a = -1), the text sets b = 6 and then concludes that W3 is proportional to E6(m E4^3 + n E6^2), 'which makes it a modular form of weight 18'. But b = 6 is the modular weight of W3: using (2.6) with n = 3, k = 3, M(S) = tau S from (4.9), and det S_char = -1 from (3.33), one obtains W3 -> -tau^6 W3. Neither a holomorphic weight-6 form nor a holomorphic weight-18 form has a q^{-1} pole. The consistent statement is that W3 is a weakly holomorphic modular form of weight 6, for example E6(m E4^3 + n E6^2)/Delta. Consequently, the factorization in (4.13)–(4.14) and the constraints (4.15) do not follow as written. Since (4.16) is the equation from which all conformal blocks and the final correlator are obtained, this step must be repaired.
- [§IV.B, text after Eq. (4.17)] The only justification offered for (4.16), once the Wronskian derivation is set aside, is the statement 'one can verify that theta_i/theta_1, i = 2,3,4, satisfies the differential equation (4.16)'. Given that the preceding derivation contains the modular-weight inconsistency described above, this verification is load-bearing and should be shown explicitly. A few lines using the identities (C13)–(C16) or (D6)–(D9) would suffice; alternatively, the ODE can be derived from the known second-order equations satisfied by theta_i/theta_1.
- [§IV.A, leading-singularity paragraph] The leading-singularity discussion is ambiguous and appears to contradict the final normalized blocks. The text says the three blocks have leading singularities z^{-1}, z^1, z^2 (then z^3), but the physical blocks defined by the normalization condition (4.18) all diverge as 1/z; in particular (4.24) shows F2 containing cot(pi z), a simple pole. The z^1 and z^3 powers are the exponents of a Frobenius basis of the ODE, not the leading behaviors of the blocks in (4.23). This is not by itself fatal, because the final F2 is a linear combination of those Frobenius solutions, but the text should say so explicitly and use a consistent basis when deriving the Wronskian pole structure.
minor comments (4)
- [Eq. (4.23)] In the expression for F2, the argument of theta_4 is written as (z, tau); it should be (z|tau) for consistency with all other theta functions.
- [§IV.C, Eqs. (4.19)–(4.20)] The text says the theta-function basis and the Klein-j basis 'transform in the same way' under S, but (4.19) contains factors of i while (4.20) does not. Please state explicitly that the equivalence is up to an overall phase that is absorbed in the normalization factors.
- [§IV.A, Eq. (4.7)] The indexing of the Wronskian coefficients, especially the upper limits 4k-m-1 and the notation alpha^{(m)}_{2+l}, is hard to parse; defining the modular weight of each alpha explicitly would improve readability.
- [Introduction] There are several typographical and grammatical slips, for example 'heighest' for 'highest', and phrases such as 'the universal logarithmic divergent behavior in the decompactification limit of the torus, as expected as well as the interval approaches...' that should be edited.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the torus twist correlator is obtained by solving an ODE whose inputs are conformal dimensions and modular data, not by fitting the claimed Rényi entropy.
full rationale
The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The orbifold characters and conformal dimensions are computed from the Z2 orbifold partition function using standard modular transformations and Verlinde fusion, and the number of conformal blocks follows from the fusion rules; these are inputs, not the output. The third-order ODE (4.16) is constructed from the Wronskian method of Mathur, Mukhi, and Sen using only the leading singularities of the blocks at z=0 and modular/elliptic constraints, and no parameter is fitted to the final correlator. The solutions are then identified as ratios of Jacobi theta functions, which can be checked against the ODE using the identities in Appendices C and D, and the normalization (4.18) fixes the z-independent prefactors by demanding that the coincident limit reproduce the already-computed characters. The two-periodicity of the correlator is a derived property of the monodromy matrices M^(1) and M^(tau), computed from theta-function transformation laws; it is not imposed as an input, nor is it equivalent to the character data used for normalization. The only self-citations are incidental: references [61] and [87] appear in literature reviews and are not used to justify the central ODE or the periodicity claim. The paper does contain a separate rigor concern: the argument that W3 is proportional to E6(mE4^3+nE6^2) appears inconsistent with the weight-6 transformation derived from (2.6) and (4.9), and the assertion that the theta ratios satisfy (4.16) is stated as 'one can verify' without a full proof. These are correctness and rigor issues, not circularity: even if the derivation of (4.16) were incomplete, the claimed result is not equivalent by construction to its inputs. The score therefore remains low.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption The Wronskian method of Mathur, Mukhi, and Sen [1] correctly constructs differential equations for conformal blocks on the torus.
- domain assumption The Z2 cyclic orbifold partition function formula (3.14) and the resulting characters are correct.
- domain assumption The E8,1 WZW model is the unique meromorphic CFT with c=8.
- domain assumption The functions ϑ_i(z|τ)/ϑ_1(z|τ) satisfy the third-order ODE (4.16).
- domain assumption The conformal blocks can be normalized by requiring lim_{z→0} z F_i(z|τ) = χ_i(τ) and that this normalization yields the correct correlator.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of R\'enyi entropy of single-character CFTs on the torus." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ERZACTPJ
@misc{pith2026241200192,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: R\'enyi entropy of single-character CFTs on the torus},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ERZACTPJ}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00192}
}
abstract
We introduce a nonperturbative approach to calculate the R\'enyi entropy of a single interval on the torus for single-character (meromorphic) conformal field theories. Our prescription uses the Wro\'nskian method of Mathur, Mukhi, and Sen [Nucl. Phys. B312, 15 (1989)], in which we construct differential equations for torus conformal blocks of the twist two-point function. As an illustrative example, we provide a detailed calculation of the second R\'enyi entropy for the $\rm E_{8,1}$ Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) model. We find that the $\mathbb Z_2$ cyclic orbifold of a meromorphic conformal field theory (CFT) results in a four-character CFT which realizes the toric code modular tensor category. The $\mathbb Z_2$ cyclic orbifold of the $\rm E_{8,1}$ WZW model, however, yields a three-character CFT since two of the characters coincide. We then compute the torus conformal blocks and find that the twist two-point function, and therefore the R\'enyi entropy, is two-periodic along each cycle of the torus. The second R\'enyi entropy for a single interval of the $\rm E_{8,1}$ WZW model has the universal logarithmic divergent behavior in the decompactification limit of the torus, as expected as well as the interval approaches the size of the cycle of the torus. Furthermore, we see that the $q$-expansion is UV finite, apart from the leading universal logarithmic divergence. We also find that there is a divergence as the size of the entangling interval approaches the cycle of the torus, suggesting that gluing two tori along an interval the size of a cycle is a singular limit.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
The conformal blocks transform into each other un- der the periodicity conditions: Fi(z + 1|τ ) = X j M (1) ij Fj(z|τ ), Fi(z + τ |τ ) = X j M (τ ) ij Fj(z|τ ), (2.2) where z = z1 − z2 due to translation invariance and M (1), M(τ ) are constant matrices known as the monodromy matrices for each cycle, respectively
-
[2]
projection channel
It is possible to diagonalize M (1) by choosing an appropriate basis of conformal blocks. Then the eigenvalues turn out to be phasese2πi(hβ −hβ′ ), with hβ, hβ′ being the conformal dimensions of the inter- mediate primaries in the channel: Φ z1 ¯Φ z2 Φβ Φβ′ In other words, this is thez1 → z1 + 1 eigenstate basis. This requires the fusion ruleΦ⊗Φβ = Φβ′ to...
-
[3]
Modular invariance implies the eigenvalues ofM (1) and M (τ ) are the same
-
[4]
OPE channel
Going aroundz = 0 can be achieved by considering the loopz → z +1 → (z +1)+ τ → (z +1+ τ )−1 → (z +1+ τ −1)−τ. Therefore, the linear transforma- tion M (1)M (τ )(M (1))−1(M (τ ))−1 acts on the con- formal blocks when circling the coincident point. Choosing the basis where this matrix is diagonal corresponds to the channel: Φ1 Φ2 Φβ Φβ′ In other words, thi...
-
[5]
The conformal blocks must transform into each other under modular transformations, Fi(z|τ + 1) = X j TijFj(z|τ ), Fi z τ − 1 τ = X j SijFj(z|τ ). (2.3) This suggests that the computation for the conformal blocks of the two-point function will involve anNth order differential equation inz ≡ z1 − z2 whose n-independent solutions are then conformal blocks th...
-
[6]
Under a change in the basis ofF’s, the Wrońskian is multiplied by az-independent constant
-
[7]
The Wrońskian is invariant underM (1) and M (τ )
-
[8]
The Wrońskian is a single-valued meromorphic function on the torus with poles only at z = 0; i.e., the Wrońskian must be an elliptic function
Show all 118 references
-
[9]
square-free
The Wrońskian transforms underT and S as fol- lows: Wk → (det T )Wk, and Wk → τ n(n+1) 2 −k(det S)Wk. (2.6) A useful property of the Wrońskian isWn−1 = W ′ n, whose proof is straightforward in terms of wedge prod- ucts. Let us defineuk = ∂kFidxi. Then Wk = u0 ∧ u1 ∧ · · · ∧uk−...
-
[10]
The parent CFT is the E8,1 WZW model with c = 8, and the partition function is given by Z(τ, ¯τ ) = |j(τ ) 1 3 |2, (3.27) where j(τ ) is the Klein-j invariant [cf
Our goal now is to demonstrate that this represents a physical scenario, specifically that the two characters are identical. The parent CFT is the E8,1 WZW model with c = 8, and the partition function is given by Z(τ, ¯τ ) = |j(τ ) 1 3 |2, (3.27) where j(τ ) is the Klein-j inv...
-
[11]
We can check this by comparing the characters of the two CFTs
However, since ℓ ̸= 0, just matching these CFT data is not enough to say that these two are the same CFTs. We can check this by comparing the characters of the two CFTs. The characters ofSO(16)1 ⊗ E8,1 are 3 We thank Sunil Mukhi for bringing this to our attention. 10 readily c...
-
[12]
Using (2.6), we see thatW4 → τ 6(det M (S))W4
To findb, we can use the following argument. Using (2.6), we see thatW4 → τ 6(det M (S))W4. Since all the conformal blocks are vacuum blocks, i.e., they reduce to characters in the coincident limit, theS matrix for the blocks M (S) must be proportional to theS matrix of the ch...
-
[13]
This means thatα(4) 0 must be a modular form of weight 18 +k
Clearly, this implies thatα(4) 0 must be expressed asE6(τ )3fk(τ ), where fk(τ ) is a modular form of weight k, since the zero of order 3 2 must originate due to a factor ofE6(τ )3. This means thatα(4) 0 must be a modular form of weight 18 +k. Similarly, we can identify that t...
-
[14]
In this context, the two- point correlation function is defined by the Szegö kernels, which align with the solutions (4.17) [100, 101]. C. Normalizing the solutions to obtain conformal blocks To obtain the conformal blocks, we need to properly normalizethesolutionstothediffere...
-
[15]
Kitaev and J
A. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 110404 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0510092
2006 arXiv
-
[16]
S. D. Mathur, S. Mukhi, and A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. B312, 15 (1989)
1989
-
[17]
Reeh and S
H. Reeh and S. Schlieder, Nuovo Cim.22, 1051 (1961)
1961
-
[18]
T. J. Osborne and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A 66, 032110 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0202162
2002 arXiv
-
[19]
Vidal, J
G. Vidal, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 227902 (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/0211074
2003 arXiv
-
[20]
J. I. Latorre, C. A. Lutken, E. Rico, and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. A71, 034301 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0404120
2005 arXiv
-
[21]
M. B. Plenio, J. Eisert, J. Dreissig, and M. Cramer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 060503 (2005), arXiv:quant- ph/0405142
2005
-
[22]
Cramer, J
M. Cramer, J. Eisert, M. B. Plenio, and J. Dreis- sig, Phys. Rev. A 73, 012309 (2006), arXiv:quant- ph/0505092
2006
-
[23]
M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, M. B. Hastings, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 070502 (2008), arXiv:0704.3906 [quant-ph]
2008 arXiv
-
[24]
The moduli of the replicated torus are τ and z, where τ is the modulus of the individual tori andz is the interval along which the tori are glued. We find that z = {0, 1, 1 + τ } are singular points in the moduli space because the twist correlator can be interpreted as the par...
-
[25]
Bombelli, R
L. Bombelli, R. K. Koul, J. Lee, and R. D. Sorkin, Phys. Rev. D34, 373 (1986)
1986
- [26]
-
[27]
C. G. Callan, Jr. and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B333, 55 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9401072
1994 arXiv
-
[28]
Almheiri, T
A. Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghou- lian, and A. Tajdini, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 035002 (2021), arXiv:2006.06872 [hep-th]
2021 arXiv
-
[29]
Calabrese and J
P. Calabrese and J. L. Cardy, J. Stat. Mech. 0406, P06002 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0405152
2004 arXiv
- [30]
-
[31]
Casini, E
H. Casini, E. Testé, and G. Torroba, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 261602 (2017), arXiv:1704.01870 [hep-th]
2017 arXiv
- [32]
-
[33]
Ryu and T
S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 181602 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603001
2006 arXiv
-
[34]
J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D7, 2333 (1973)
1973
-
[35]
Strominger and C
A. Strominger and C. Vafa, Phys. Lett. B 379, 99 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9601029
1996 arXiv
-
[36]
Guenin and B
M. Guenin and B. Misra, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965) 30, 1272 (1963)
1963
-
[37]
J. J. Bisognano and E. H. Wichmann, J. Math. Phys. 16, 985 (1975)
1975
-
[38]
J. J. Bisognano and E. H. Wichmann, J. Math. Phys. 17, 303 (1976)
1976
-
[39]
J. L. Cardy and I. Peschel, Nucl. Phys. B 300, 377 (1988)
1988
-
[40]
Rényi, inProceedings of the 4th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematics, Statistics and Probability(University of California Press, Berkeley-Los Angeles, Calif., 1961) pp
A. Rényi, inProceedings of the 4th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematics, Statistics and Probability(University of California Press, Berkeley-Los Angeles, Calif., 1961) pp. 547–561
1961
-
[41]
J. J. Atick, L. J. Dixon, P. A. Griffin, and D. Nemeschansky, Nucl. Phys. B298, 1 (1988)
1988
-
[42]
Klemm and M
A. Klemm and M. G. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B245, 53 (1990)
1990
- [43]
-
[44]
Barrella, X
T. Barrella, X. Dong, S. A. Hartnoll, and V. L. Martin, JHEP 2013 (09), 109, arXiv:1306.4682 [hep-th]
2013 arXiv
- [45]
-
[46]
F. M. Haehl and M. Rangamani, JHEP2015 (03), 163, arXiv:1412.2759 [hep-th]
-
[47]
Kraus, A
P. Kraus, A. Maloney, H. Maxfield, G. S. Ng, and J.-q. Wu, JHEP2017 (09), 149, arXiv:1706.00047 [hep-th]
-
[48]
K. B. Alkalaev and V. A. Belavin, JHEP2017 (10), 140, arXiv:1707.09311 [hep-th]
-
[49]
Alkalaev and V
K. Alkalaev and V. Belavin, JHEP 2018 (08), 042, arXiv:1805.12585 [hep-th]
2018 arXiv
-
[50]
Ramos Cabezas, JHEP 2020 (08), 151, arXiv:2005.04128 [hep-th]
J. Ramos Cabezas, JHEP 2020 (08), 151, arXiv:2005.04128 [hep-th]
2020 arXiv
-
[51]
Alkalaev and V
K. Alkalaev and V. Belavin, JHEP 2020 (11), 121, arXiv:2007.10494 [hep-th]
2020 arXiv
-
[52]
Alkalaev, S
K. Alkalaev, S. Mandrygin, and M. Pavlov, JHEP2022 (10), 091, arXiv:2205.05038 [hep-th]
-
[53]
Pavlov, Eur
M. Pavlov, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1026 (2023), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 83, 1121 (2023)], arXiv:2302.10153 [hep- th]
2023
- [54]
-
[55]
Chen and J.-q
B. Chen and J.-q. Wu, Phys. Rev. D91, 105013 (2015), arXiv:1501.00373 [hep-th]
2015 arXiv
-
[56]
Angel-Ramelli, V
J. Angel-Ramelli, V. G. M. Puletti, and L. Thorlacius, JHEP 2019 (08), 072, arXiv:1906.08252 [hep-th]
2019 arXiv
-
[57]
Haag, Local Quantum Physics , Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012)
R. Haag, Local Quantum Physics , Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012)
2012
-
[58]
Fries and I
P. Fries and I. A. Reyes, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 211603 (2019), arXiv:1905.05768 [hep-th]
2019 arXiv
-
[59]
Erdmenger, P
J. Erdmenger, P. Fries, I. A. Reyes, and C. P. Simon, JHEP 2020 (12), 126, arXiv:2008.07532 [hep-th]
2020 arXiv
-
[60]
Fries and I
P. Fries and I. A. Reyes, Phys. Rev. D100, 105015 (2019), arXiv:1906.02207 [hep-th]
2019 arXiv
-
[61]
Blanco, H
D. Blanco, H. Casini, M. Leston, and F. Rosso, JHEP 2018 (01), 154, arXiv:1711.04816 [hep-th]
2018 arXiv
-
[62]
Lashkari, Phys
N. Lashkari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 041601 (2016), arXiv:1508.03506 [hep-th]
2016 arXiv
- [63]
-
[64]
S. F. Lokhande and S. Mukhi, JHEP2015 (06), 106, arXiv:1504.01921 [hep-th]
- [65]
-
[66]
Mukhi and S
S. Mukhi and S. Murthy, Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 13, 225 (2019), arXiv:1805.11114 [hep-th]
2019 arXiv
-
[67]
Aguilera-Damia, M
J. Aguilera-Damia, M. Solís, and G. Torroba, JHEP 2023 (12), 060, arXiv:2309.03302 [hep-th]
2023 arXiv
-
[68]
S. D. Mathur, S. Mukhi, and A. Sen, Phys. Lett. B213, 303 (1988)
1988
-
[69]
S. D. Mathur, S. Mukhi, and A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. B318, 483 (1989)
1989
-
[70]
S. G. Naculich, Nucl. Phys. B323, 423 (1989)
1989
-
[71]
H. R. Hampapura and S. Mukhi, JHEP2016 (01), 005, arXiv:1510.04478 [hep-th]
-
[72]
M. R. Gaberdiel, H. R. Hampapura, and S. Mukhi, JHEP 2016 (04), 156, arXiv:1602.01022 [hep-th]
2016 arXiv
-
[73]
H. R. Hampapura and S. Mukhi, JHEP2016 (07), 138, arXiv:1605.03314 [hep-th]. 25
-
[74]
A. R. Chandra and S. Mukhi, JHEP2019 (04), 153, arXiv:1810.09472 [hep-th]
-
[75]
A. R. Chandra and S. Mukhi, SciPost Phys. 6, 053 (2019), arXiv:1812.05109 [hep-th]
2019 arXiv
-
[76]
Mukhi, R
S. Mukhi, R. Poddar, and P. Singh, JHEP2020 (05), 003, arXiv:2002.01949 [hep-th]
2002 arXiv
-
[77]
Mukhi and B
S. Mukhi and B. C. Rayhaun, Commun. Math. Phys. 401, 1899 (2023), arXiv:2208.05486 [hep-th]
2023 arXiv
-
[78]
A. Das, C. N. Gowdigere, and S. Mukhi, JHEP2023 (03), 023, arXiv:2212.03136 [hep-th]
-
[79]
A. Das, C. N. Gowdigere, S. Mukhi, and J. Santara, JHEP 2023 (12), 143, arXiv:2308.00069 [hep-th]
2023 arXiv
-
[80]
Nayak, S
C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1083 (2008)
2008
-
[81]
Dong, E.Fradkin, R
S. Dong, E.Fradkin, R. G. Leigh,and S. Nowling, JHEP 2008 (05), 016, arXiv:0802.3231 [hep-th]
2008 arXiv
-
[82]
P. L. S. Lopes, V. L. Quito, B. Han, and J. C. Y. Teo, Phys. Rev. B100, 085116 (2019)
2019
-
[83]
Goddard, in Conference on Infinite-dimensional Lie Algebras and Groups(World Scientific, Singapore, 1994)
P. Goddard, in Conference on Infinite-dimensional Lie Algebras and Groups(World Scientific, Singapore, 1994)
1994
-
[84]
A. N. Schellekens, Commun. Math. Phys. 153, 159 (1993), arXiv:hep-th/9205072
1993 arXiv
-
[85]
A.Das,MeromorphicCFTshavecentralchargesc=8 N: a proof based on the MLDE approach and Rademacher series (2023), arXiv:2312.02129 [hep-th]
2023 arXiv
-
[86]
Witten, Commun
E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys.92, 455 (1984)
1984
-
[87]
V. G. Knizhnik and A. B. Zamolodchikov, Nucl. Phys. B 247, 83 (1984)
1984
-
[88]
D. J. Gross, J. A. Harvey, E. J. Martinec, and R. Rohm, Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 502 (1985)
1985
-
[89]
Frenkel, J
I. Frenkel, J. Lepowsky, and A. Meurman,Vertex Oper- ator Algebras and the Monster, Pure and Applied Math- ematics (Elsevier Science, 1989)
1989
-
[90]
J. H. Conway and S. P. Norton, Bull. London Math. Soc. 11, 308 (1979)
1979
-
[91]
R. E. Borcherds, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.83, 3068 (1986)
1986
-
[92]
J.Dixon, P.H
L. J.Dixon, P.H. Ginsparg,and J.A.Harvey, Commun. Math. Phys.119, 221 (1988)
1988
-
[93]
Bantay, Lett
P. Bantay, Lett. Math. Phys.22, 187 (1991)
1991
-
[94]
R. E. Borcherds, Invent. Math.109, 405 (1992)
1992
-
[95]
Chaudhuri and D
S. Chaudhuri and D. A. Lowe, Nucl. Phys. B469, 21 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9512226
1996 arXiv
-
[96]
M. R. Gaberdiel, S. Hohenegger, and R. Volpato, JHEP 2010 (10), 062, arXiv:1008.3778 [hep-th]
2010 arXiv
-
[97]
Gannon,Moonshine beyond the MonsterThe Bridge Connecting Algebra, Modular Forms and Physics, Cam- bridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 2010)
T. Gannon,Moonshine beyond the MonsterThe Bridge Connecting Algebra, Modular Forms and Physics, Cam- bridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 2010)
2010
-
[98]
M. C. N. Cheng and J. F. R. Duncan, Commun. Num. Theor. Phys.6, 697 (2012), arXiv:1110.3859 [math.RT]
2012 arXiv
-
[99]
M. C. N. Cheng, J. F. R. Duncan, and J. A. Har- vey, Commun. Num. Theor. Phys. 08, 101 (2014), arXiv:1204.2779 [math.RT]
2014 arXiv
-
[100]
M. C. N. Cheng, X. Dong, J. F. R. Duncan, S. Harrison, S. Kachru, and T. Wrase, Res. Math. Sci.2, 13 (2015), arXiv:1406.5502 [hep-th]
2015 arXiv
-
[101]
A. Das, C. N. Gowdigere, and S. Mukhi, JHEP2022 (07), 152, arXiv:2207.04061 [hep-th]
- [102]
-
[103]
Witten, Three-Dimensional Gravity Revisited (2007), arXiv:0706.3359 [hep-th]
E. Witten, Three-Dimensional Gravity Revisited (2007), arXiv:0706.3359 [hep-th]
2007 arXiv
- [104]
-
[105]
Keeler, V
C. Keeler, V. L. Martin, and A. Svesko, SciPost Phys. 8, 017 (2020), arXiv:1811.08433 [hep-th]
2020 arXiv
-
[106]
Castro, I
A. Castro, I. Coman, J. R. Fliss, and C. Zukowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 171602 (2023), arXiv:2304.02668 [hep- th]
2023 arXiv
-
[107]
D. Das, S. Datta, and S. Pal, JHEP2017 (10), 147, arXiv:1708.04242 [hep-th]
- [108]
-
[109]
Borisov, M
L. Borisov, M. B. Halpern, and C. Schweigert, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A13, 125 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9701061
1998 arXiv
-
[110]
E. P. Verlinde, Nucl. Phys. B300, 360 (1988)
1988
-
[111]
Christe and F
P. Christe and F. Ravanini, Phys. Lett. B 217, 252 (1989)
1989
-
[112]
Rowell, R
E. Rowell, R. Stong, and Z. Wang, Commun. Math. Phys. 292, 343 (2009), arXiv:0712.1377 [math.QA]
2009 arXiv
-
[113]
Arscott,Periodic Differential Equations(Pergamon Press, 1964)
F. Arscott,Periodic Differential Equations(Pergamon Press, 1964)
1964
-
[114]
E. T. Whittaker and G. N. Watson,A Course of Modern Analysis, 5th ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2021)
2021
-
[115]
S. D. Mathur, S. Mukhi, and A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. B305, 219 (1988)
1988
-
[116]
J. D. Fay, Theta functions on Riemann surfaces (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1973)
1973
-
[117]
J. J. Atick and A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. B286, 189 (1987)
1987
-
[118]
Polchinski,String theory
J. Polchinski,String theory. Vol. 1: An introduction to the bosonic string, Cambridge Monographs on Mathe- matical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2007)
2007
Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.