4.4 Article

Holographic RG flow and reparametrization invariance of Wilson loops

期刊

JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
卷 -, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP10(2022)028

关键词

AdS-CFT Correspondence; Gauge-Gravity Correspondence; Wilson; 't Hooft and Polyakov loops; Random Systems

资金

  1. Consejeria de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidad del Principado de Asturias through the Severo Ochoa fellowship [PA-20-PF-BP19-044]
  2. AEI through the Spanish grant [PGC2018-096894-B-100]
  3. FICYT through the Asturian grant [SV-PA-21-AYUD/2021/52177]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article studies the fate of reparametrization invariance of Wilson loops under the RG flow, using large-N, strongly coupled CFTs and the holographic dual description. The results show that a cutoff in the holographic radial direction breaks conformal invariance and induces an effective defect action at the cutoff scale.
We study the fate of reparametrization invariance of Wilson loops, also known as 'zig-zag' symmetry, under the RG flow using some simple cases as guidance. We restrict our analysis to large-N, strongly coupled CFTs and use the holographic dual description of a Wilson loop as a fundamental string embedded in asymptotically AdS spaces, at zero and nonzero temperature. We then introduce a cutoff in the holographic radial direction and integrate out the section of the string closer to the AdS boundary in the spirit of holographic Wilsonian renormalization. We make explicit the map between Wilson loop reparametrizations and conformal transformation of the string worldsheet and show that a cutoff anchored to the worldsheet breaks conformal invariance and induces an effective defect action for reparametrizations at the cutoff scale, in a way similar to nearly-AdS(2) gravity or SYK models. On the other hand, a cutoff in the target space breaks worldsheet diffeomorphisms and Weyl transformations but keeps conformal transformations unbroken and does not generate a non-trivial action for reparametrizations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据