Light cone OPE in a CFT with lowest twist scalar primary

Atanu Bhatta; Soham Ray

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Light cone OPE in a CFT with lowest twist scalar primary

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a unitary CFT whose lowest-twist operator is a scalar, the scalar enters the lightcone OPE only at subleading order, and no scalar analogue of the averaged null energy condition can be derived.

desk verdict A short, correct extension of the Hartman-Kundu-Tajdini lightcone OPE to scalar lowest-twist operators; the no-go for a scalar ANEC is kinematically right, but the abstract overstates its reach. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06303 v2 pith:O5EEV4PS submitted 2019-08-17 hep-th gr-qc

Atanu Bhatta , Soham Ray This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thgr-qc MSC 81T40 PACS 11.25.Hf

keywords lightconeOPElowesttwistoperatorscalarprimaryaveragenullenergyconditionconformalfieldtheorylong-rangeIsingmodelN=4super-Yang-MillsRindlerpositivity

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

Two identical scalar operators in a conformal field theory usually see the stress tensor dominate their lightcone limit because it has the lowest twist. This paper asks what happens when the lowest-twist operator is itself a scalar, and claims that the scalar then enters only at subleading order, through a small prefactor $(uv)^{\Delta_\varphi/2}/u$ with a kernel fixed by conformal three-point functions. Because that suppression persists even when a scalar shares the lowest twist with the stress tensor, the stress tensor still sets the leading universal behaviour. From the same lightcone OPE the paper argues that no scalar analogue of the averaged null energy condition exists: the contour integral that proves positivity for the stress tensor evaluates to zero for the scalar. The examples are the long-range Ising model in $d=3$ and $\mathcal{N}=4$ super-Yang-Mills theory in $d=4$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the integral-form lightcone OPE with an undetermined kernel $K(u,u')$ and prefactor $f(u,v)$. Matching the conformal three-point functions fixes the kernel to $K(u,u')=(1-u'^2/u^2)^{\Delta_\varphi/2-1}$ and the prefactor to $f(u,v)=(uv)^{\Delta_\varphi/2}/u$. The argument then transplants the contour proof used for the stress tensor: after the coordinate change $v=-\eta\sigma$, $u=1/\sigma$, the scalar expectation value enters with $m-n+1=2$, making the relevant contour integral vanish identically and destroying any positivity bound.

What would settle it

Compute the residue of $\int d\sigma\,(1-G(\sigma))$ for a scalar smeared with a different kernel $K'(u,u')$ that still matches the same conformal three-point function; if the residue is nonzero, the no-scalar-ANEC claim fails. More directly, find any unitary CFT with a scalar as the unique lowest-twist operator in which $\langle O^\dagger S O\rangle$ is shown to have a definite sign.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a unitary CFT where a scalar primary is the unique lowest-twist operator, the lightcone OPE of two identical scalars takes the form $$\frac{\psi(u,v)\psi(-u,-v)}{\langle\psi(u,v)\psi(-u,-v)\rangle} = 1 + \lambda_{\psi\psi\varphi}\frac{(uv)^{\Delta_\varphi/2}}{u}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}du'\left(1-\frac{u'^2}{$u^{2}$}\right)^{\Delta_\varphi/2-1}\varphi(u',0),$$ so the scalar contribution is parametrically suppressed in the strict lightcone limit. If both the stress tensor and a scalar have minimal twist, as in $\mathcal{N}=4$ super-Yang-Mills theory, the stress tensor still contributes at leading order and the scalar at subleading order. Repeating the causality-and-analyticity proof that yields the averaged null energy condition for the stress tensor produces a factor that vanishes when the scalar twist is inserted, so no sign bound on the smeared scalar operator can be extracted. The paper concludes that a scalar analogue of the averaged null energy condition does not exist in any unitary CFT where a scalar is the unique lowest-twist operator.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the scalar's lightcone contribution is completely described by the kernel $(1-u'^2/u^2)^{\Delta_\varphi/2-1}$ with prefactor $(uv)^{\Delta_\varphi/2}/u$, and that the coordinate change $v=-\eta\sigma$, $u=1/\sigma$ spans all legitimate ways to extract a positivity bound from the contour integral.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In any unitary CFT whose unique lowest-twist operator is a scalar, the lightcone OPE is dominated by the identity, and the scalar correction is parametrically suppressed by $(uv)^{\Delta_\varphi/2}$.
When a scalar shares the minimal twist with the stress tensor, the leading universal lightcone term is the stress tensor's averaged null energy operator; scalar operators act only at the next order.
The averaged null energy condition for the stress tensor continues to hold even when the stress tensor is not the lowest-twist operator, because the same contour proof goes through unchanged.
Non-unitary CFTs, such as the $\phi^3$ Wilson-Fisher fixed point in $d=6-\epsilon$ dimensions, fall outside the argument since Rindler reflection positivity is used to bound the correlator.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the same contour argument could be run for a conserved current as the lowest-twist operator; an 'average null charge' positivity condition would exist only if the current's twist produces $m-n+1=0$.
Beyond the paper, a numerical bootstrap or lattice simulation of the long-range Ising model could directly check the claimed subleading scalar correction by measuring the $u\to\infty$ behaviour of $\langle\psi\psi\varphi\rangle$.
Beyond the paper, the result suggests that positivity conditions in CFTs are tied to the spin-2 twist family; lower-spin operators generically suppress the lightcone contribution and cancel the contour residue.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

This paper does two things: it writes down the lightcone OPE for a scalar lowest-twist operator, with kernel K = (1 - u'^2/u^2)^{Δ/2-1}, and it argues that no scalar analogue of the ANEC exists. The OPE derivation in Sec. 3 is elementary conformal three-point matching and, as far as I can tell, correct. That is a useful extension of the HKT program, and the N=4 ordering example (stress tensor leading, scalar subleading) is a clean illustration.

The no-go in Sec. 4 is more subtle than the authors let on. They start from a general OPE of the form 1 + λ u^n v^m S, with n=Δ/2-1, m=Δ/2 for a scalar. In the coordinates v=-ησ, u=1/σ this gives a contribution ~ σ, not ~ 1/σ, so the contour integral has no residue and no positivity bound follows. The reader's worry about "another smearing" is, I think, not a real loophole: the u,v scaling is fixed by the three-point function, so any light-ray operator built from this OPE term would have the same σ dependence. The conclusion "no scalar analogue of the ANEC" is thus kinematically correct for the natural scalar light-ray operator.

The soft spots are real but minor. The abstract says "a scalar is the lowest twist operator," while Sec. 4 needs it to be the unique lowest-twist scalar; that should be tightened. The long-range Ising example assumes φ^2 is a primary in the interacting theory, which is not checked and is questionable in a Wilson-Fisher-like fixed point. The N=4 discussion doesn't compute the relative OPE coefficients, so the leading/subleading claim is a scaling argument rather than a quantitative one. The proof also inherits the usual unitary-CFT caveats from the HKT analyticity and Rindler positivity, though the authors do flag that.

Overall, this is a competent and honest short paper. It doesn't resolve the scalar-ANEC question in a profound way—the absence of a scalar ANEC is basically what you'd expect from the kinematics—but it makes the point cleanly and gives the kernel explicitly. I'd send it to a serious referee, with a request to qualify the abstract and check the Ising example. I'd probably cite it if I were writing about light-cone bounds.

Best, [Your name]

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the lightcone OPE of two identical scalar primaries in CFTs where a scalar primary has the lowest twist. The authors propose an integral representation for the scalar contribution to the lightcone OPE, match its kernel against the three-point function, and apply the formalism to the long-range Ising model and to N=4 SYM. They argue that in N=4 SYM, where the stress tensor and a scalar share the lowest twist, the stress tensor dominates at leading order. The paper also attempts to rule out a scalar analogue of the ANEC by applying the causality contour argument of Hartman–Kundu–Tajdini to the derived scalar contribution.

Significance. The paper addresses a natural question in conformal field theory: what happens to the lightcone OPE and the ANEC when the lowest-twist operator is a scalar rather than the stress tensor? If the claims were correct, the result would clarify the universality of lightcone OPEs and delimit the ANEC program. The core three-point-function matching in Sec. 3 is standard and, as far as it goes, appears sound. However, the two headline conclusions—the N=4 leading-order statement and the non-existence of a scalar ANEC—are not supported by the paper's own equations. The N=4 claim conflicts with the scaling of the terms in Eq. (3.14), and the no-ANEC derivation is internally inconsistent with the stress-tensor proof reproduced in Appendix A. Because both claims are central to the abstract and conclusions, the manuscript in its current form is not publishable.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.14)] The conclusion that the stress tensor contributes at leading order in the lightcone OPE for N=4 SYM is inconsistent with the scaling of the terms written in Eq. (3.14). The stress-tensor term is proportional to $v/u^2$, while the scalar term is proportional to $v$. In the stated lightcone limit (|v|<<1, |u|>>1, |uv|<<1), the ratio of the scalar term to the stress-tensor term is $u^2$, so the scalar term dominates. Thus Eq. (3.14) implies the opposite of the claim in the text and abstract. The argument that the kernels decouple in the three-point functions does not change this kinematic comparison.
[Sec. 4 and Appendix A, Eqs. (4.6)–(4.10) and (A.8)] The contour calculation in Sec. 4 computes the $\sigma$-dependence of $1-G(\sigma)$ solely from the prefactor $u^n v^m$ in Eq. (4.2), treating the light-ray operator $S$ as a $\sigma$-independent local insertion. This is not a valid reduction for an operator defined by an integral over $u'$, such as $S$ in Eq. (3.8). The internal inconsistency becomes evident when the same logic is applied to the stress tensor: using the OPE (2.5) with $v/u^2$, i.e., $n=-2, m=1$, gives $m-n+1=4$ in Eq. (4.9), predicting no ANEC for the stress tensor, which contradicts the known result. Appendix A itself uses Eq. (A.8) with a $1/\sigma$ pole, not the $\sigma^3$ behaviour that would follow from naive substitution of (2.5). The missing step is the treatment of the $u'$ integration, which in the HKT proof is responsible for the pole. Therefore the derivation does not establish the absence of a scalar ANEC.
[Abstract and Sec. 5] The statement that 'there does not exist a scalar analog of the ANEC' is substantially stronger than what the analysis shows. Even if the contour argument of Sec. 4 were correct, it would at most show that the particular operator $S$ defined in Eq. (3.8) does not yield a positivity bound from the specific causality argument of HKT. The paper does not rule out the existence of a positive scalar light-ray operator constructed with a different smearing, nor does it show that no other method could prove positivity. A claim of non-existence requires a broader argument, which is absent. The conclusion should be softened to a statement about the failure of this particular derivation.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (2.3)] The notation 'vu3' in Eq. (2.3) is ambiguous; it should be written as $v/u^3$ or with an explicit fraction to avoid confusion with $v u^3$. The same ambiguity appears in the stress-tensor OPE terms.
[Sec. 3.1] The discussion of the long-range Ising model would benefit from stating explicitly that the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-odd operator $\phi$ cannot appear in the $\psi\psi$ OPE and that the lowest-twist even operator $\phi^2$ is the one actually exchanged; the current text introduces $T_{\mu\nu}$ and $\phi^2$ but the logic of which operator dominates is not spelled out.
[Appendix A] The reproduction of the ANEC proof is terse. In particular, the step from Eq. (A.9) to the positivity of $\langle O^\dagger E O\rangle$ in Eq. (A.13) should explain how the rotation $R$ maps the null line to itself and how the contour in the $\sigma$-plane is preserved; without this explanation the proof is hard to follow.
[Throughout] The symbol for the OPE coefficient is not consistently typeset: it appears as $\lambda_{\psi\psi\phi}$, $\lambda_{\psi\psi O}$, and $\lambda_{\psi\psi T}$ without a uniform convention for denoting the exchanged operator. Please standardise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scalar light-cone OPE and the no-scalar-ANEC conclusion are derived from conformal Ward identities and external analyticity inputs, not from the conclusion itself.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The scalar light-cone OPE (3.8) is obtained by substituting the scalar contribution ansatz (3.2)-(3.3), fixing the kernel K=(1-u'^2/u^2)^{Delta/2-1} by comparing the resulting three-point function with the conformally exact <psi psi phi> correlator (3.5). This is solving for the OPE data from known conformal structure, not fitting a predicted quantity. The no-scalar-ANEC result in Sec. 4 follows algebraically from the general OPE form (4.2) with m=Delta/2 and n=Delta/2-1, giving m-n+1=2, so the contour integral (4.7) enforces equality rather than an inequality. This is a corollary of the derived OPE, but a derivation may legitimately use its own derived intermediate result; there is no equation that reduces to its own input by construction. The analyticity and Rindler-positivity inputs are cited from independent work (Hartman-Kundu-Tajdini and Casini/Maldacena-Shenker-Stanford), not from the authors' own prior results. No parameter is fit to data and then renamed a prediction. The main caveat, that the no-go conclusion inherits the completeness of the integral ansatz (3.3) for the scalar contribution, is a validity/completeness concern about the derivation's assumptions, not a circularity, and per the rubric is not scored here.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard CFT tools: conformal Ward identities, lightcone OPE dominance, Rindler reflection positivity, and the lowest-twist spectrum of the two example theories. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. One undetermined OPE coefficient is present, but the scaling arguments do not depend on its value except for requiring it to be nonzero.

free parameters (1)

lambda_{psi psi phi}
Undetermined dynamical OPE coefficient in the scalar lightcone OPE. The no-ANEC argument divides by it and requires it to be nonzero, but no value is predicted.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Lightcone OPE is dominated by lowest-twist operators
Invoked in Sec. 2 and Sec. 3 to select the scalar phi and its u-derivatives as the leading contributions.
standard math Conformal Ward identities fix the three-point functions (3.4)-(3.6)
Used to determine the scalar kernel K in Eq. (3.7).
domain assumption Rindler reflection positivity holds in unitary CFTs
Used in Appendix A and Sec. 4 for the bound Re(G)<=1 and for the analyticity properties.
domain assumption G(sigma) is analytic in the lower half plane near the origin
Posited in Sec. 4 and Appendix A following the causality argument in Hartman-Kundu-Tajdini.
domain assumption In N=4 SYM, the stress tensor and O2 share the lowest twist and their two-point function vanishes
Cited from superconformal bootstrap references and used in Sec. 3.2 to separate the kernels.
domain assumption In the long-range Ising model, phi is Z2 odd and phi^2 is the relevant lowest-twist scalar
Used in Sec. 3.1; relies on long-range Ising bootstrap results [20-24].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light cone OPE in a CFT with lowest twist scalar primary." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5EEV4PS

@misc{pith2026190806303,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light cone OPE in a CFT with lowest twist scalar primary},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5EEV4PS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06303}
}

read the original abstract

We study the operator product expansion (OPE) of two identical scalar primary operators in the lightcone limit in a conformal field theory where a scalar is the operator with lowest twist. We see that in CFTs where both the stress tensor and a scalar are the lowest twist operators, the stress tensor contributes at the leading order in the lightcone OPE and the scalar contributes at the subleading order. We also see that there does not exist a scalar analogue of the average null energy condition (ANEC) for a CFT where a scalar is the lowest twist operator.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

[1]

R. A. Brandt and G. Preparata,Operator product expansions near the light cone, Nucl. Phys. B27 (1971) 541–567

work page 1971
[2]

Komargodski and A

Z. Komargodski and A. Zhiboedov,Convexity and Liberation at Large Spin, JHEP 11 (2013) 140, arXiv:1212.4103 [hep-th]

arXiv 2013
[3]

A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, and M. T. Walters,Universality of Long-Distance AdS Physics from the CFT Bootstrap, JHEP 08 (2014) 145, arXiv:1403.6829 [hep-th]

arXiv 2014
[4]

Simmons-Duﬃn,The light cone Bootstrap and the Spectrum of the 3d Ising CFT, JHEP 03 (2017) 086, arXiv:1612.08471 [hep-th]

D. Simmons-Duﬃn,The light cone Bootstrap and the Spectrum of the 3d Ising CFT, JHEP 03 (2017) 086, arXiv:1612.08471 [hep-th] . – 11 –

arXiv 2017
[5]

A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, D. Poland, and D. Simmons-Duﬃn,The Analytic Bootstrap and AdS Superhorizon Locality, JHEP 12 (2013) 004, arXiv:1212.3616 [hep-th]

arXiv 2013
[6]

C. Beem, M. Lemos, L. Rastelli, and B. C. van Rees,The (2, 0) superconformal bootstrap, Phys. Rev. D93 no. 2, (2016) 025016,arXiv:1507.05637 [hep-th]

arXiv 2016
[7]

A. L. Fitzpatrick and K.-W. Huang,Universal Lowest-Twist in CFTs from Holography, JHEP 08 (2019) 138, arXiv:1903.05306 [hep-th]

arXiv 2019
[8]

Huang,Stress-Tensor Commutator in CFT near the light cone, arXiv:1907.00599 [hep-th]

K.-W. Huang,Stress-Tensor Commutator in CFT near the light cone, arXiv:1907.00599 [hep-th]

arXiv 1907

Show all 33 references

[9]

A. L. Fitzpatrick, K.-W. Huang, and D. Li,Probing Universalities in d>2 CFTs: from Black Holes to Shockwaves, arXiv:1907.10810 [hep-th]

1907 arXiv
[10]

Hartman, S

T. Hartman, S. Kundu, and A. Tajdini,Averaged Null Energy Condition from Causality, JHEP 07 (2017) 066, arXiv:1610.05308 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[11]

Borde,Geodesic focusing, energy conditions and singularities, Class

A. Borde,Geodesic focusing, energy conditions and singularities, Class. Quant. Grav. 4 (1987) 343–356

1987
[12]

T. A. Roman,On the ’Averaged Weak Energy Condition’ and Penrose’s Singularity Theorem, Phys. Rev. D37 (1988) 546–548

1988
[13]

Hartman, S

T. Hartman, S. Jain, and S. Kundu,Causality Constraints in Conformal Field Theory, JHEP 05 (2016) 099, arXiv:1509.00014 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[14]

Faulkner, R

T. Faulkner, R. G. Leigh, O. Parrikar, and H. Wang,Modular Hamiltonians for Deformed Half-Spaces and the Averaged Null Energy Condition, JHEP 09 (2016) 038, arXiv:1605.08072 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[15]

Klinkhammer,Averaged energy conditions for free scalar ﬁelds in ﬂat space-times, Phys

G. Klinkhammer,Averaged energy conditions for free scalar ﬁelds in ﬂat space-times, Phys. Rev. D43 (1991) 2542–2548

1991
[16]

R. M. Wald and U. Yurtsever,General proof of the averaged null energy condition for a massless scalar ﬁeld in two-dimensional curved space-time, Phys. Rev. D44 (1991) 403–416

1991
[17]

Folacci,Averaged null energy condition for electromagnetism in Minkowski space-time, Phys

A. Folacci,Averaged null energy condition for electromagnetism in Minkowski space-time, Phys. Rev. D46 (1992) 2726–2729

1992
[18]

Verch,The Averaged Null energy condition for general quantum ﬁeld theories in two-dimensions, J

R. Verch,The Averaged Null energy condition for general quantum ﬁeld theories in two-dimensions, J. Math. Phys.41 (2000) 206–217,arXiv:math-ph/9904036 [math-ph]

2000 arXiv
[19]

Bousso, Z

R. Bousso, Z. Fisher, J. Koeller, S. Leichenauer, and A. C. Wall,Proof of the Quantum Null Energy Condition, Phys. Rev. D93 no. 2, (2016) 024017, arXiv:1509.02542 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[20]

M. F. Paulos, S. Rychkov, B. C. van Rees, and B. Zan,Conformal Invariance in the Long-Range Ising Model, Nucl. Phys. B902 (2016) 246–291,arXiv:1509.00008 [hep-th]. – 12 –

2016 arXiv
[21]

Rychkov, D

S. Rychkov, D. Simmons-Duﬃn, and B. Zan,Non-gaussianity of the critical 3d Ising model, SciPost Phys. 2 no. 1, (2017) 001,arXiv:1612.02436 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[22]

Behan, L

C. Behan, L. Rastelli, S. Rychkov, and B. Zan,Long-range critical exponents near the short-range crossover, Phys. Rev. Lett.118 no. 24, (2017) 241601, arXiv:1703.03430 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

2017 arXiv
[23]

Behan, L

C. Behan, L. Rastelli, S. Rychkov, and B. Zan,A scaling theory for the long-range to short-range crossover and an infrared duality, J. Phys. A50 no. 35, (2017) 354002, arXiv:1703.05325 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[24]

Behan,Bootstrapping the long-range Ising model in three dimensions, J

C. Behan,Bootstrapping the long-range Ising model in three dimensions, J. Phys. A52 no. 7, (2019) 075401,arXiv:1810.07199 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[25]

Gopakumar, A

R. Gopakumar, A. Kaviraj, K. Sen, and A. Sinha,A Mellin space approach to the conformal bootstrap, JHEP 05 (2017) 027, arXiv:1611.08407 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[26]

Goncalves,Skeleton expansion and large spin bootstrap forφ3 theory, arXiv:1809.09572 [hep-th]

V. Goncalves,Skeleton expansion and large spin bootstrap forφ3 theory, arXiv:1809.09572 [hep-th]

arXiv
[27]

C. Beem, M. Lemos, P. Liendo, W. Peelaers, L. Rastelli, and B. C. van Rees,Inﬁnite Chiral Symmetry in Four Dimensions, Commun. Math. Phys.336 no. 3, (2015) 1359–1433,arXiv:1312.5344 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[28]

C. Beem, L. Rastelli, and B. C. van Rees,TheN = 4 Superconformal Bootstrap, Phys. Rev. Lett.111 (2013) 071601, arXiv:1304.1803 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[29]

C. Beem, L. Rastelli, and B. C. van Rees,MoreN = 4 superconformal bootstrap, Phys. Rev. D96 no. 4, (2017) 046014,arXiv:1612.02363 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[30]

Osborn and A

H. Osborn and A. C. Petkou,Implications of conformal invariance in ﬁeld theories for general dimensions, Annals Phys. 231 (1994) 311–362,arXiv:hep-th/9307010 [hep-th]

1994 arXiv
[31]

Hartman, S

T. Hartman, S. Jain, and S. Kundu,A New Spin on Causality Constraints, JHEP 10 (2016) 141, arXiv:1601.07904 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[32]

Casini,Wedge reﬂection positivity, J

H. Casini,Wedge reﬂection positivity, J. Phys. A44 (2011) 435202, arXiv:1009.3832 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[33]

Maldacena, S

J. Maldacena, S. H. Shenker, and D. Stanford,A bound on chaos, JHEP 08 (2016) 106, arXiv:1503.01409 [hep-th] . – 13 –

2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

R. A. Brandt and G. Preparata,Operator product expansions near the light cone, Nucl. Phys. B27 (1971) 541–567

work page 1971

[2] [2]

Komargodski and A

Z. Komargodski and A. Zhiboedov,Convexity and Liberation at Large Spin, JHEP 11 (2013) 140, arXiv:1212.4103 [hep-th]

arXiv 2013

[3] [3]

A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, and M. T. Walters,Universality of Long-Distance AdS Physics from the CFT Bootstrap, JHEP 08 (2014) 145, arXiv:1403.6829 [hep-th]

arXiv 2014

[4] [4]

Simmons-Duﬃn,The light cone Bootstrap and the Spectrum of the 3d Ising CFT, JHEP 03 (2017) 086, arXiv:1612.08471 [hep-th]

D. Simmons-Duﬃn,The light cone Bootstrap and the Spectrum of the 3d Ising CFT, JHEP 03 (2017) 086, arXiv:1612.08471 [hep-th] . – 11 –

arXiv 2017

[5] [5]

A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, D. Poland, and D. Simmons-Duﬃn,The Analytic Bootstrap and AdS Superhorizon Locality, JHEP 12 (2013) 004, arXiv:1212.3616 [hep-th]

arXiv 2013

[6] [6]

C. Beem, M. Lemos, L. Rastelli, and B. C. van Rees,The (2, 0) superconformal bootstrap, Phys. Rev. D93 no. 2, (2016) 025016,arXiv:1507.05637 [hep-th]

arXiv 2016

[7] [7]

A. L. Fitzpatrick and K.-W. Huang,Universal Lowest-Twist in CFTs from Holography, JHEP 08 (2019) 138, arXiv:1903.05306 [hep-th]

arXiv 2019

[8] [8]

Huang,Stress-Tensor Commutator in CFT near the light cone, arXiv:1907.00599 [hep-th]

K.-W. Huang,Stress-Tensor Commutator in CFT near the light cone, arXiv:1907.00599 [hep-th]

arXiv 1907