Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

This paper constructs an effective AdS Hamiltonian for low-twist CFT states at large spin and shows it reproduces the three-particle anomalous dimension [Φ,Φ2]_J in λ|φ|^4 theory through O(λ^2).

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A regulated large-spin effective Hamiltonian with three-body phi exchange and local terms gives the O(lambda^2) anomalous dimension of [Phi, Phi^2]_J, including a log J / J^(2 Delta) correction.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A real and mostly sound construction: a large-spin effective Hamiltonian for triple-twist states with a new O(lambda^2) anomalous dimension, held back by an admitted integer-Delta analytic continuation that means the non-integer-Delta application is not yet established. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.20158 v1 pith:W4XF5KQE submitted 2025-08-27 hep-th

Towards Large-Spin Effective Theory I: Three-Particle States in AdS $\phi^4$ Theory

Giulia Fardelli , A. Liam Fitzpatrick , Wei Li This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords large-spin effective theoryAdS/CFTtriple-twist operatorsanomalous dimensionsconformal bootstrapthree-particle stateseffective Hamiltonianφ^4 theory in AdS
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

At large angular momentum J, particles in AdS sit roughly a distance ℓ_AdS log J apart, so low-energy states should be governed by an effective Hamiltonian with short-range local terms and long-range potential exchanges. The paper makes this concrete for the toy theory of a complex bulk scalar with a λ|φ|^4 interaction, working to order λ^2 and focusing on three-particle (triple-twist) states of charge 3. Its central claim is that a Hamiltonian assembled from t-channel exchanges below a twist cutoff plus local counterterms reproduces the large-spin CFT bootstrap data for [Φ,Φ2]_J, provided the three-body φ-exchange is regulated by subtracting the redundant lowest-twist intermediate state. The resulting formula (6.1) gives the anomalous dimension to order λ^2, including a log J/J^{2Δ} term, and in the special case d=4, Δ=2 predicts the full result through order 1/J^4. If this construction is right, it supplies a general route to holographic-style effective theories for CFTs that lack any large-N or sparse-spectrum limit.

Core claim

Central claim: equation (6.1), the O(λ^2) large-spin anomalous dimension of [Φ,Φ2]_J: (λγ^(1)_{Φ2}+λ^2γ^(2)_{Φ2})(1+((-1)^J/J^Δ)2Γ(2Δ)/Γ(Δ)) plus λ^2(γ^(1)_{Φ2})^2 harmonic/log terms at J^{-Δ} and (log J)/J^{2Δ}. All O(λ^2) effects are organized by a Hamiltonian: one-loop bubbles give two-body potentials and counterterms, while a tree-level three-to-three φ-exchange gives the genuine three-body term. The three-body term is regulated by subtracting the lowest-twist Q=3 state already in the Hilbert space; deforming the exchanged dimension exposes it as a pole, and removing the pole leaves a finite propagator. The resulting large-J expression matches the CFT bootstrap, with the log-J piece aris

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the regulated three-body exchange: the bulk-to-bulk propagator G_Δ^(reg) for φ, defined by deforming the exchanged dimension to Δ_χ, isolating the pole at Δ_χ=Δ coming from the lowest-twist Q=3 intermediate state, and subtracting it (5.6). This single step converts a divergent 'three-to-three' diagram into a finite effective three-body potential and prevents double-counting the O(λ) states already in the Hilbert space. Around it sits the twist cutoff Λτ: exchanges with twist below Λτ are kept as nonlocal potentials built from bulk propagators, whose spectral decomposition is the tower of double-trace scalars (twists 2Δ+2n); higher-twist exchanges collapse into loca

Load-bearing premise

The final large-spin formula is derived by first taking Δ to be an integer and then asserting the result holds for all real Δ; footnote 20 admits this continuation is assumed, not proven, so applications to non-integer-dimension CFTs such as the 3d Ising model rely on that unproven step.

What would settle it

Compute the O(λ^2/J^4) contribution to γ_{[Φ,Φ2]_J} in d=4, Δ=2 directly from the Lorentzian inversion formula, including the resummed twist-2 tower J_ℓ=[Φ,Φ*]_ℓ, and compare with the Hamiltonian prediction (6.5): the difference (6.9) is a definite number, so agreement or mismatch settles the claim. Alternatively, evaluate (6.1) at a non-integer Δ, say the 3d Ising value Δ≈1.412, by direct numerical bootstrap and check the H_{Δ-1} and log J coefficients.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • In d=4, Δ=2, the Hamiltonian computation predicts the complete [Φ,Φ2]_J anomalous dimension through O(1/J^4); the difference with the perturbative inversion formula is a definite number, so the twist-2 tower contribution J_ℓ is pinned down.
  • At this order the only Q=3 state corrected at O(λ) is [Φ,Φ2]_J; other triple-particle states receive O(λ^2) corrections from bubble diagrams, visible as trajectories approaching [Φ,[Φ,Φ]_ℓ]_{J-ℓ}.
  • Because two-body terms in the Q=2 Hamiltonian automatically act on Q=3 states as spectators, some multi-twist t-channel exchanges are already accounted for and need not be added as new nonlocal potentials at O(λ^2).
  • The EFT can be matched directly to CFT data: choose twist cutoff, add t-channel low-twist exchanges, fix local counterterms from low-spin Q=2 anomalies and OPE coefficients, and then predict triple-twist states in CFTs without large central charge or sparse spectrum.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors' admitted integer-Δ derivation of (5.11) means the main formula's reach to non-integer dimensions, e.g. the 3d Ising model at Δ≈1.412, is a conjecture; a direct bootstrap computation of γ_{[Φ,Φ2]_J} at large J in that theory would test it.
  • The two origins of the log J term — wavefunction leakage into higher-ℓ Q=2 states in the Hamiltonian versus the O(λ) anomalous dimension of [Φ,Φ*]_0 in the bootstrap — look like two sides of the same resummation; making that equivalence explicit could simplify higher-order calculations.
  • The same EFT logic suggests that in non-holographic CFTs one should match both anomalous dimensions and OPE coefficients of low-spin double-twist operators, since those OPE coefficients control the accuracy of the three-body sector; this is a testable prescription for building the EFT from CFT data.
  • The 'snowflake' vertex discussion implies that, at higher accuracy, genuine higher-body interactions can be traded for lower-body effective vertices, so the recursive Q-by-Q construction may extend beyond three particles without adding new nonlocal potentials for each accumulation point.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a large-spin effective Hamiltonian for low-twist states in AdS, using a bulk complex scalar with a λ|φ|^4 interaction as a controlled toy model. It organizes the Hamiltonian into two-body and three-body terms, computes the O(λ^2) bubble and three-body exchange contributions, and presents formula (6.1) for the anomalous dimension of the triple-twist state [Φ, Φ2]_J at large spin. The authors cross-check the O(λ) terms against the CFT large-spin expansion and compare the O(λ^2) terms with the Lorentzian inversion formula for the special case d=4, Δ=2. The intended application includes non-holographic CFTs such as the 3d Ising model, where Δ is non-integer.

Significance. If the central result (6.1) is established, the paper provides a systematic EFT framework for multi-particle large-spin states beyond large-N, including explicit O(λ^2) computations, a concrete treatment of pole subtractions, and a new prediction for log J terms. The detailed Hamiltonian computations, the analytic cross-check in Appendix B, and the numerical study for d=4, Δ=2 are valuable and carefully presented. The authors are also unusually transparent about the limitations of their derivations, which facilitates assessment.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, Eq. (5.11) and Footnote 20] The three-body contribution (5.11), which supplies the leading H_{Δ-1}/J^Δ term and the part of the 1/J^{2Δ} term in the main result (6.1), is derived by first assuming Δ is an integer and then asserting validity for all real Δ. Footnote 20 explicitly concedes this: "Shamefully, we derived (5.11) by assuming that Δ is an integer, and then assuming the result is true for all real Δ." Since the motivation includes non-integer Δ CFTs such as the 3d Ising model, this is a load-bearing gap for the paper's stated scope. I request either a proof (or at least a controlled numerical test) of the analytic continuation for representative non-integer Δ, or a clear restriction of the final claims to integer Δ with the general-Δ formula presented as a conjecture.
  2. [§6.2, Eqs. (6.6)–(6.9)] The comparison with the Lorentzian inversion formula is not completed: the contribution γ_(Jℓ),LIF from the tower of twist-two operators Jℓ is only approximated numerically, and the leftover difference in Eq. (6.9) is left as an unresolved residual. The text states that the Hamiltonian result "should ultimately be reproduced" by the inversion formula, but this is not demonstrated. Consequently, the 1/J^4 terms are not independently verified. Please either complete the inversion computation or explicitly downgrade the status of the 1/J^4 comparison from a cross-check to a prediction.
  3. [§4.2, Eq. (4.27)] A similar analytic-continuation assumption appears in the bubble-diagram contribution: Eq. (4.27) is stated as derived for integer Δ, with the expectation that it holds for generic values. This is then used in Eq. (4.46), which feeds into (6.1). Together with the three-body assumption in (5.11), every non-trivial term in (6.1) at O(λ^2) relies on an unproven continuation. I would like to see a unified discussion of the domain of validity of these formulas, or a dedicated appendix supplying the missing argument.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Footnote 20] The word "Shamefully" is unprofessional and unnecessary; a neutral sentence such as "We derived (5.11) for integer Δ and conjecture it extends to all real Δ" would be more appropriate.
  2. [§1, Abstract] The abstract states the framework applies to d≥3 CFTs, but most explicit closed-form results are derived only for d=4, Δ=2 or for integer Δ. Please add a sentence clarifying the general case versus the explicitly computed cases.
  3. [§4.2.2, Eq. (4.30)] The quantity p_m is defined after Eq. (4.30), but it is used in the preceding formula. Please move the definition earlier or add a pointer.
  4. [§7, Future Directions] The proposed bulk ghost field for the O(2) model is introduced without details and cited to a companion paper "in preparation." If this is essential to the advertised generalization, label it more clearly as a speculation; otherwise the reader may mistake it for an established result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Q=3 anomalous dimension is computed from the bulk Hamiltonian with only the renormalized two-particle quantity γΦ2 as input, and is checked against CFT large-spin bootstrap rather than reduced to it.

full rationale

The central result (6.1) is obtained by evaluating regulated bulk diagrams (bubble and three-body exchange) and by combining them with the O(λ) spectrum; the only external input is the renormalized two-particle anomalous dimension γΦ2, which is an independent physical quantity of the same toy model, not the target observable. The O(λ²) three-body contribution (5.11) is derived from second-order perturbation theory with a pole subtraction, not from fitting to [Φ,Φ2]_J data. The comparison in (6.2)–(6.4) is a cross-check against the lightcone bootstrap, and the paper explicitly notes where the Hamiltonian computation and the bootstrap differ (e.g., the mechanism producing the log J term) rather than identifying them by construction. The self-citations [12] and [25] are technical or forward-looking; neither carries the derivation of (6.1). Footnote 20 and the analogous remark after (4.27) concede that the closed-form large-J expressions were first derived for integer Δ and then assumed for all real Δ; this is an unproven analytic-continuation assumption that limits applicability to non-integer-Δ CFTs such as the 3d Ising model, but it is not circularity because the derivation does not assume the target result. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the only free parameter, the renormalized coupling fixed by γΦ2, is analogous to using a physical mass as input for a scattering calculation. Hence no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the bulk Lagrangian with physical inputs lambda and Delta, a chosen twist cutoff, and the standard AdS/CFT dictionary. The only special unproven inputs are the truncation to two- and three-body terms and the integer-to-real Delta continuation. No new physical degrees of freedom are used in the main calculation.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda = renormalized bulk quartic coupling
    The perturbative expansion parameter of the toy model. It is not fitted to the Q=3 target data, but the renormalized value enters all predictions.
  • Delta = input; detailed example uses Delta = 2, d = 4
    The bulk mass satisfies m^2 = Delta(Delta - d); Delta fixes wavefunctions, conformal dimensions, and spectral sums. It is taken as data from the CFT/bulk theory.
  • Twist cutoff Lambda_tau = 2 Delta + 2 N = N integer
    Chosen by hand to divide the effective Hamiltonian into nonlocal low-twist exchanges and local high-twist counterterms. Physical predictions should be cutoff independent, but the split itself is N dependent.
  • delta_lambda^(2)(N) = fixed by the renormalization condition that the dimension of Phi2 is 2 Delta + gamma_Phi2
    The local counterterm coefficient is chosen to cancel loop corrections to the two-particle spin-0 state. It is a matching parameter, not a prediction.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT correspondence for a bulk scalar: bulk modes map to CFT operators and the dilatation operator maps to the AdS Hamiltonian.
    Used throughout Section 2.2 to translate CFT dimensions into eigenvalues of a many-body Hamiltonian in AdS.
  • standard math Large-spin and lightcone bootstrap results: leading large-J corrections are controlled by low-twist conformal blocks, with twist accumulation points.
    Invoked in Section 2.1, especially equation (2.1), to motivate the EFT and to benchmark the Hamiltonian results.
  • domain assumption Perturbation theory in the bulk coupling lambda with UV renormalization is valid to O(lambda^2).
    All computations are truncated at second order; possible nonperturbative effects or strong-coupling breakdown are not treated.
  • ad hoc to paper The low-twist Q <= 3 sector can be described by a Hamiltonian truncated to two-body and three-body interactions.
    The paper argues this is sufficient for lowest-twist three-particle states, but it is a working assumption of the EFT construction rather than a proven theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper The three-body formula (5.11), derived for integer Delta, is valid for all real Delta.
    Footnote 20 explicitly admits this analytic continuation is assumed without proof; the central result (6.1) relies on it.
invented entities (1)
  • Bulk ghost field for the O(2) model no independent evidence
    purpose: Proposed in Section 7 as one possible way to remove the unphysical Phi2 Phi* degree of freedom in a future O(2) model analysis.
    Mentioned only as a future-direction idea and cited to the unpublished companion paper [25]; it plays no role in the present toy-model calculation.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Large-Spin Effective Theory I: Three-Particle States in AdS $\phi^4$ Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W4XF5KQE

@misc{pith2026250820158,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Large-Spin Effective Theory I: Three-Particle States in AdS $\phi^4$ Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W4XF5KQE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20158}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We describe how to construct an effective Hamiltonian for leading twist states in $d\ge 3$ CFTs based on the separation of scales that emerges at large spin $J$ between the AdS radius $\ell_{\rm AdS}$ and the characteristic distance $\sim \ell_{\rm AdS} \log J$ between particles rotating in AdS with angular momentum $J$. As a controlled example, we work specifically with the toy model of a bulk complex scalar field $\phi$ with a $\lambda |\phi|^4$ coupling in AdS, up to $O(\lambda^2)$. For a given choice of twist cutoff $\Lambda_\tau$ in the effective theory, interactions are separated into long-distance nonlocal potential terms, arising from $t$-channel exchange of states with twist $\le \Lambda_\tau$, and short-distance local terms fixed by matching to low spin CFT data. At $O(\lambda^2)$, the effective Hamiltonian for the toy model has two-body nonlocal potential terms from one-loop bulk diagrams as well as three-body nonlocal potential terms from tree-level exchange of $\phi$. We describe in detail how these contributions are evaluated and how they are related to the CFT data entering in the large spin expansion. We discuss how to apply the construction of such effective Hamiltonians for models which do not have a large central charge or a sparse spectrum and are not typically considered holographic.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Thermal One-point Functions and Asymptotic CFT Data: QFT in AdS

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Thermal inversion formulas produce asymptotically accurate CFT data for heavy operators that remains reliable at intermediate dimensions and survives first-order bulk interactions.

  2. Higher-Trace Operators and Cut Diagrammatics in the Conformal Block Expansion

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Introduces a cut-diagrammatic framework to apply crossing symmetry to individual topologies in large-N CFT correlators and computes associated OPE data for higher-trace operators.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    L. F. Alday and J. M. Maldacena,Comments on operators with large spin, JHEP 11 (2007) 019, [0708.0672]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  2. [2]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Komargodski and A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Heemskerk, J

    I. Heemskerk, J. Penedones, J. Polchinski and J. Sully,Holography from Conformal Field Theory, JHEP 10 (2009) 079, [0907.0151]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Caron-Huot,Analyticity in Spin in Conformal Theories, JHEP 09 (2017) 078, [1703.00278]

    S. Caron-Huot,Analyticity in Spin in Conformal Theories, JHEP 09 (2017) 078, [1703.00278]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    S. Pal, J. Qiao and S. Rychkov,Twist Accumulation in Conformal Field Theory: A Rigorous Approach to the Lightcone Bootstrap, Commun. Math. Phys.402 (2023) 2169–2214, [2212.04893]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    B. C. van Rees,Theorems for the Lightcone Bootstrap, 2412.06907

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    Simmons-Duffin,The Lightcone Bootstrap and the Spectrum of the 3d Ising CFT, JHEP 03 (2017) 086, [1612.08471]

    D. Simmons-Duffin,The Lightcone Bootstrap and the Spectrum of the 3d Ising CFT, JHEP 03 (2017) 086, [1612.08471]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    L. F. Alday,Large Spin Perturbation Theory for Conformal Field Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 111601, [1611.01500]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    M. S. Costa, V. Gonçalves and J. a. Penedones,Spinning AdS Propagators, JHEP 09 (2014) 064, [1404.5625]. – 53 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, E. Katz, D. Poland and D. Simmons-Duffin,Effective Conformal Theory and the Flat-Space Limit of AdS, JHEP 07 (2011) 023, [1007.2412]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  12. [12]

    Holography and Regge Phases with $U(1)$ Charge

    G. Fardelli, A. L. Fitzpatrick and W. Li,Holography and Regge phases with U(1) charge, JHEP 08 (2024) 202, [2403.07079]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick and J. Kaplan,Unitarity and the Holographic S-Matrix, JHEP 10 (2012) 032, [1112.4845]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    Penedones,Writing CFT correlation functions as AdS scattering amplitudes, JHEP 03 (2011) 025, [1011.1485]

    J. Penedones,Writing CFT correlation functions as AdS scattering amplitudes, JHEP 03 (2011) 025, [1011.1485]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  15. [15]

    Mikhailov,Notes on higher spin symmetries, hep-th/0201019

    A. Mikhailov,Notes on higher spin symmetries, hep-th/0201019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    D. Z. Freedman, S. D. Mathur, A. Matusis and L. Rastelli,Correlation functions in the CFT(d) / AdS(d+1) correspondence, Nucl. Phys. B 546 (1999) 96–118, [hep-th/9804058]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  17. [17]

    M. F. Paulos,Towards Feynman rules for Mellin amplitudes, JHEP 10 (2011) 074, [1107.1504]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  18. [18]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick and J. Kaplan,Analyticity and the Holographic S-Matrix, JHEP 10 (2012) 127, [1111.6972]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  19. [19]

    D’Hoker, D

    E. D’Hoker, D. Z. Freedman and L. Rastelli,AdS / CFT four point functions: How to succeed at z integrals without really trying, Nucl. Phys. B 562 (1999) 395–411, [hep-th/9905049]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  20. [20]

    Carmi, J

    D. Carmi, J. Penedones, J. A. Silva and A. Zhiboedov,Applications of dispersive sum rules: e-expansion and holography, SciPost Phys. 10 (2021) 145, [2009.13506]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Aharony, L

    O. Aharony, L. F. Alday, A. Bissi and E. Perlmutter,Loops in AdS from Conformal Field Theory, JHEP 07 (2017) 036, [1612.03891]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, M. T. Walters and J. Wang,Eikonalization of Conformal Blocks, JHEP 09 (2015) 019, [1504.01737]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    Kravchuk and J

    P. Kravchuk and J. A. Mann,AdS N-body problem at large spin, 2412.12328

    arXiv

  24. [24]

    Harris, A

    S. Harris, A. Kaviraj, J. A. Mann, L. Quintavalle and V. Schomerus,Comb channel lightcone bootstrap: triple-twist anomalous dimensions, JHEP 08 (2024) 122, [2401.10986]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Fardelli, A

    G. Fardelli, A. L. Fitzpatrick and W. Li,Towards Large-Spin Effective Theory II:O(2) model in d = 4 − ϵ,

    work page

  26. [26]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick and D. Shih,Anomalous Dimensions of Non-Chiral Operators from AdS/CFT, JHEP 10 (2011) 113, [1104.5013]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  27. [27]

    Scattering bound states in AdS

    W.-J. Ma and X. Zhou,Scattering bound states in AdS, JHEP 08 (2022) 107, [2204.13419]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    L. F. Alday and S. Caron-Huot,Gravitational S-matrix from CFT dispersion relations, JHEP 12 (2018) 017, [1711.02031]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    L. F. Alday, J. Henriksson and M. van Loon,Taming the ϵ-expansion with large spin perturbation theory, JHEP 07 (2018) 131, [1712.02314]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Henriksson,Analytic bootstrap for perturbative conformal field theories

    J. Henriksson,Analytic bootstrap for perturbative conformal field theories. PhD thesis, Oxford University, University of Oxford, Oxford U., 2020.2008.12600

    work page arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Bertucci, J

    F. Bertucci, J. Henriksson and B. McPeak,Analytic bootstrap of mixed correlators in the O(n) CFT, JHEP 10 (2022) 104, [2205.09132]. – 54 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.