From O(3) to Cubic CFT: Conformal Perturbation and the Large Charge Sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Cubic CFT can be understood as the O(3) invariant CFT perturbed by a slightly relevant operator. In this paper, we use conformal perturbation theory together with the conformal data of the O(3) vector model to compute the anomalous dimension of scalar bilinear operators of the Cubic CFT. When the $Z_2$ symmetry that flips the signs of $ϕ_i$ is gauged, the Cubic model describes a certain phase transition of a quantum dimer model. The scalar bilinear operators are the order parameters of this phase transition. Based on the conformal data of the O(3) CFT, we determine the correction to the critical exponent as $η_{*}^{Cubic}-η_{*}^{O(3)}\approx -0.0215(49)$. The O(3) data is obtained using the numerical conformal bootstrap method to study all four-point correlators involving the four operators: $v=ϕ_i$, $s=\sum_i ϕ_iϕ_i$ and the leading scalar operators with O(3) isospin $j=2$ and 4. According to large charge effective theory, the leading operator with charge $Q$ has scaling dimension $Δ_{Q}=c_{3/2} Q^{3/2}+c_{1/2}Q^{1/2}$. We find a good match with this prediction up to isospin $j=6$ for spin 0 and 2 and measured the coefficients $c_{3/2}$ and $c_{1/2}$.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".