REVIEW 1 cited by
The puzzle of bulk conformal field theories at central charge c=0
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
Non-trivial critical models in 2D with central charge c=0 are described by Logarithmic Conformal Field Theories (LCFTs), and exhibit in particular mixing of the stress-energy tensor with a "logarithmic" partner under a conformal transformation. This mixing is quantified by a parameter (usually denoted b), introduced in [V. Gurarie, Nucl. Phys. B 546, 765 (1999)], and which was first thought to play the role of an "effective" central charge. The value of b has been determined over the last few years for the boundary versions of these models: $b_{\rm perco}=-5/8$ for percolation and $b_{\rm poly} = 5/6$ for dilute polymers. Meanwhile, the existence and value of $b$ for the bulk theory has remained an open problem. Using lattice regularization techniques we provide here an "experimental study" of this question. We show that, while the chiral stress tensor has indeed a single logarithmic partner in the chiral sector of the theory, the value of b is not the expected one: instead, b=-5 for both theories. We suggest a theoretical explanation of this result using operator product expansions and Coulomb gas arguments, and discuss the physical consequences on correlation functions. Our results imply that the relation between bulk LCFTs of physical interest and their boundary counterparts is considerably more involved than in the non-logarithmic case.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Logarithmic operators in $c=0$ bulk CFTs
The bulk energy four-point function in percolation and self-avoiding walk CFTs is non-zero at c=0, driven by coupling to a rank-3 Jordan block associated with the second energy operator.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.