SciPost Submission Page
Sequential Flows by Irrelevant Operators
by Christian Ferko, Savdeep Sethi
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Christian Ferko |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.04787v3 (pdf) |
| Date accepted: | 2023-02-15 |
| Date submitted: | 2022-12-12 19:25 |
| Submitted by: | Ferko, Christian |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Theoretical |
Abstract
We explore whether one can $T \overline{T}$ deform a collection of theories that are already $T \overline{T}$-deformed. This allows us to define classes of irrelevant deformations that know about subsystems. In some basic cases, we explore the spectrum that results from this procedure and we provide numerical evidence in favor of modular invariance. We also study the flow of the classical Lagrangian for free bosons and free fermions under successive deformations. Some of the models found by sequentially flowing are likely to have interesting holographic interpretations.
Author comments upon resubmission
List of changes
The discussion of the leading irrelevant operator around equation (1.7) has been clarified. The derivation arounds equations (3.7) and (3.8) has been corrected and the language now emphasizes that one must work to leading order in $\lambda_3$ in intermediate steps for the last line of equation (3.8) to be correct. The sentences before and after equation (3.24) has also been modified, since this result depended on equation (3.8), to reflect the additional assumption that $\lambda_3$ and thus $r$ are small.
Published as SciPost Phys. 14, 098 (2023)
Reports on this Submission
Report
I thank the authors for adding the subleading term in (3.7) and (3.8). The additional terms did not end up changing the bound (3.24), which suggests that it might be substantially more difficult to obtain a sharper bound than the one derived here. That is outside the reasonable scope for this article.
Given the strengths of this paper already mentioned in the review of version 1, I recommend publication as is.