SciPost Submission Page
Crossing Kernels for Boundary and Crosscap CFTs
by Matthijs Hogervorst
Submission summary
Authors (as registered SciPost users):  Matthijs Hogervorst 
Submission information  

Preprint Link:  https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.08159v2 (pdf) 
Date submitted:  20171115 01:00 
Submitted by:  Hogervorst, Matthijs 
Submitted to:  SciPost Physics 
Ontological classification  

Academic field:  Physics 
Specialties: 

Approach:  Theoretical 
Abstract
This paper investigates ddimensional CFTs in the presence of a codimensionone boundary and CFTs defined on real projective space RP^d. Our analysis expands on the alpha space method recently proposed for onedimensional CFTs in arXiv:1702.08471. In this work we establish integral representations for scalar twopoint functions in boundary and crosscap CFTs using planewavenormalizable eigenfunctions of different conformal Casimir operators. CFT consistency conditions imply integral equations for the spectral densities appearing in these decompositions, and we study the relevant integral kernels in detail. As a corollary, we find that both the boundary and crosscap kernels can be identified with special limits of the d=1 crossing kernel.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Strengths
1very clearly written
2several examples are provided
3mathematically rigorous
4method applicable in several situations
Weaknesses
1 the notation in some parts of the text is a bit heavy
2reference to previous work is not always well explained, for non expert readers can be a bit hard to follow all the logical steps
Report
I think the paper contains interesting results and can be very useful in the study of a hot topic nowadays as CFTs with boundaries/interfaces. The paper is clearly written and has a good mathematical rigour which strengthen the results.
Requested changes
1 (4.5), is it meant to be \Delta{\pm}? if not please explain how to interpret the signs.
Strengths
1 Very precise and carefully written. Although technical not too difficult to read.
2 Very topical area
Weaknesses
1 Result are mostly a precursor to other work
Report
Although rather technical and more in the area of mathematical rather than theoretical physics this is a nice paper
which merits publication.
One issue which might be mentioned if only in passing is whether the crossing kernels are idempotent as I imagine they should be. Perhaps this is obvious or the result of some basic theorem. More mathematically do the crossing kernels define compact operators on the relevant space. This would be relevant in applications.
There are a few typos which should be fixed and which I list below.
Requested changes
1 just before 2.11 I imagine it should say derived from 2.10 rather than 2.12.
2 In 4.5 the definition should be for Delta_{+} not just Delta_+
3 The use of the phrase gauging away just before 4.15 is inappropriate, just factoring off would be better.
4 Some references could be updated to include the journal, e.g ref 1 but there are others
Strengths
1. Rigorous in all areas that a physicist would expect.
2. Full of citations to the mathematical literature.
3. Selfcontained with a nice pedagogical section at the beginning.
4. Extremely relevant to current problems.
5. Well organized and a pleasure to read.
Weaknesses
1. Some context about the crossing kernel appears to be missing.
2. Most of the work was done in the author's previous paper.
Report
This is the second major study of alpha space  the integral transform that projects a correlator onto a normalizable eigenfunction of the conformal Casimir. The paper, by one of the two original authors, shows that for a boundary or crosscap CFT in arbitrary dimension, the scalar operator crossing kernel is a special case of the crossing kernel for 1D CFTs in flat space. The result is a unified framework for all of the main bootstrap problems that involve a single crossratio. The detail and clarity also help make this an exciting paper that SciPost should publisher.
Despite the extensive bibliography, there is one place where I would include a new paper (1705.05362) and one place where I would move existing references so that they appear earlier.
Requested changes
1. Check the references to equation (2.12). I think they should say (2.10) instead.
2. Similarly, check the first three references to equation (5.15). I think they should say (5.5).
3. It is redundant to say "boundary BCFT" in the first sentence of section 4.
4. The last paragraph, saying that BCFT Mellin amplitudes are unexplored, was perfectly correct when the paper was written. However, it would now be appropriate to update it so that it cites Rastelli and Zhou.
5. Finally, I would consider rewording the sentence with footnote 1. Reference 47 is far from the only paper that mentions the crossing kernel and studies of it in Liouville theory have led to some celebrated results. I agree that the alpha space papers are the first ones to find modelindependent expressions, but calling the object itself "new" is probably overstating things.