This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

aainstitutetext: Institut für Physik, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Zum Großen Windkanal 6, 12489 Berlin, Germany
bbinstitutetext: II. Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Hamburg
Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany
ccinstitutetext: Scuola Normale Superiore, Piazza dei Cavalieri 7 I-56126 Pisa, Italy
and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare - sezione di Pisa
ddinstitutetext: Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics
31 Caroline Street North, ON N2L 2Y5, Canada
eeinstitutetext: Center for Theoretical Physics and Department of Physics,
University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A.

Rényi entropy and conformal defects.

Lorenzo Bianchi c,d    Marco Meineri d    Robert C. Myers e    Michael Smolkin
Abstract

We propose a field theoretic framework for calculating the dependence of Rényi entropies on the shape of the entangling surface in a conformal field theory. Our approach rests on regarding the corresponding twist operator as a conformal defect and in particular, we define the displacement operator which implements small local deformations of the entangling surface. We identify a simple constraint between the coefficient defining the two-point function of the displacement operator and the conformal weight of the twist operator, which consolidates a number of distinct conjectures on the shape dependence of the Rényi entropy. As an example, using this approach, we examine a conjecture regarding the universal coefficient associated with a conical singularity in the entangling surface for CFTs in any number of spacetime dimensions. We also provide a general formula for the second order variation of the Rényi entropy arising from small deformations of a spherical entangling surface, extending Mezei’s results for the entanglement entropy.

Keywords:
Rényi entropy, twist operator, displacement operator, conformal defect
preprint: DESY 15-229

1 Introduction

There has been a growing interest in entanglement and Rényi entropies as probes of complex interacting quantum systems in a variety of areas ranging from condensed matter physics, e.g., wenx ; kitaev ; haldane to quantum gravity, e.g., qg1 ; qg2 ; qg3 ; qg4 . While commonly regarded as a useful theoretical diagnostic, the past year has seen remarkable experimental advances where the Rényi entropy, as well as quantum purity and mutual information, of a system of delocalized interacting particles can be measured in the laboratory expEE . This experimental breakthrough strengthens the motivation to develop further theoretical insight into these entanglement measures, particularly in the framework of quantum field theory (QFT). In this paper, we focus our attention on Rényi entropies renyi1 ; renyi2 in the context of conformal field theories (CFTs). Conformal symmetry obviously introduces additional constraints on the Rényi entropy beyond those in a general QFT, however, CFTs are still a very important class of QFTs since they describe physics at the quantum critical points and also shed light on the structure of gravity through the AdS/CFT duality.

In the case of holographic CFTs with a gravitational dual, the Ryu-Takayanagi prescription Ryu:2006bv ; Ryu:2006ef — and its generalizations Hubeny:2007xt ; Hung:2011xb ; deBoer:2011wk ; Dong:2013qoa ; Camps:2013zua — provides an elegant and practical tool to evaluate the entanglement entropy across an arbitrary entangling surface. While the recent derivation Lewkowycz:2013nqa of this prescription presents a generalization to holographic Rényi entropies in principle, explicit holographic calculations of the Rényi entropy have been largely restricted to a spherical entangling surface Casini:2011kv ; Hung:2011nu — however, see recent progress in dong33 . Similarly, efficient computational tools to study the Rényi entropies for more general CFTs are rare. Numerical techniques have been developed to evaluate the Rényi entropy in lattice models describing critical theories, e.g., roger1 ; roger2 ; roger3 but these are demanding and must be adapted for the specifics of a given model. Beyond these numerical studies, the existing literature considers primarily the Rényi entropy across a spherical entangling surface for a CFT living in flat space, e.g., Casini:2011kv ; Casini:2010kt ; Perlmutter:2013gua ; Hung:2014npa ; Lee:2014zaa ; Lewkowycz:2014jia .

In this paper, we build on conformal defect techniques to develop a field theoretic framework which allows for quantitative studies of the Rényi entropy. Conformal defects have a long story, both in two and higher dimensions — see e.g. Cardy:1984bb ; McAvity:1995zd ; billo:confdef . In section 2, we begin from the basic definitions to draw a parallel between conformal defects and the twist operators, which enter the calculation of the Rényi entropy. This perspective demonstrates that the Rényi entropy readily lends itself to the application of defect CFT techniques. In particular, we define the so-called displacement operator for the twist operators, which then implements small deformations of the entangling surface.

Hence the displacement operator can be used for perturbative calculations of the Rényi entropy when small modifications are made in the geometry of the entangling surface. Our focus on the displacement operator in the following arises because recently there has been a great deal of interest in the shape dependence of Rényi and entanglement entropies, e.g., mark0 ; mark1 ; Bueno:2015rda ; Bueno:2015xda ; Bueno:2015qya ; Bueno:2015lza ; safdi1 ; aitor7 . First, we show below for a planar or spherical entangling surface that the second order variation of the Rényi  entropy is fixed by the two-point function of the displacement operator. Given this framework, one of our key results is then to identify a simple relation between the coefficient defining the two-point function of the displacement operator and the conformal weight of the twist operator, which unifies a number of distinct conjectures with regards to the shape dependence of the Rényi entropy. In particular, in section 3, we apply this approach to evaluate the second order variation of the Rényi  entropy for a spherical region. In the limit that the Rényi index goes to one, using the new relation, we precisely recover Mezei’s conjecture for variations of the entanglement entropy mark0 — see also mark1 . Further the displacement operator can also be used to examine the variation of the Rényi entropy for small but ‘singular’ deformations of the entangling surface. In section 4, we consider the case of a planar entangling surface which undergoes a singular deformation to create a small conical singularity. With the previous relation, our result for the change in the Rényi entropy matches previous conjectures with regards to cusp and cone geometries in the limit that the entangling surface is almost smooth Bueno:2015rda ; Bueno:2015xda ; Bueno:2015qya ; Bueno:2015lza . In section 5, we focus on the Rényi entropy across an arbitrary entangling surface in four spacetime dimensions. We are able to relate two coefficients in the universal contribution to the Rényi entropy to the conformal weight of the twist operator and to the coefficient in the two-point function of the displacement operator, respectively. Our relation between the latter two quantities then yields the equality of these coefficients, as was conjectured for all four-dimensional CFTs in safdi1 . Hence, interestingly, the relation between the coefficient of the two-point function of the displacement and the conformal weight of the twist operator underlies a number of existing conjectures in the literature about the Rényi  entropy.

However, at this point, we must add that recent holographic calculations dong34 imply that the proposed relation does not hold for general values of the Rényi index in four-dimensional holographic CFTs dual to Einstein gravity. Hence it becomes an interesting question to ask for precisely which CFTs does such a constraint hold. For example, our calculations in Appendix C confirm that it does in fact hold for free massless scalars in four dimensions.

In section 6, we pose the question whether it may be possible to define the twist operator through the operator product expansion generically available in the presence of defects, and we point out an intriguing universal feature of the fusion of the stress-tensor with this specific extended operator. We conclude with a discussion of our results and possible future directions in section 7. We also have a number appendices where we present various technical calculations whose results are used in the main text. In Appendix A, we derive a set of Ward identities in the presence of a twist operator. In Appendix B, we list some useful formulas which describe variation of various geometrical objects around the flat space. We devote Appendix C to the example of a four-dimensional free scalar field, where the displacement operator can be given a precise identity in terms of the elementary field.

Finally, let us add that while this paper was in the final stages of preparation, ref. new appeared. Although their discussion only considers the entanglement entropy, some of the results overlap with aspects of the present paper.

2 Twist operators as conformal defects

A central object for our discussion will be the twist operator which naturally arises in evaluating Rényi entropies in quantum field theory Hung:2014npa ; Calabrese:2004eu ; Cardy:2007mb .111In two-dimensional CFTs, twist fields associated to branch points were first introduced in Knizhnik:1987xp ; Dixon:1986qv . Therefore, let us start by recalling the definition of our main player. We begin with a generic QFT in flat dd-dimensional spacetime. On a given time slice, the QFT is in a global state described by the density matrix ρ\rho — in fact, shortly we will restrict our attention to the vacuum state. We consider the density matrix ρA\rho_{A} obtained when the state is restricted to a particular region AA, i.e., obtained by tracing over the degrees of freedom in the complementary region A¯\bar{A} of the time slice:

ρA=TrA¯(ρ).\rho_{A}=\textup{Tr}_{\bar{A}}(\rho)\,. (2.1)

The one-parameter family of Rényi entropies associated to the reduced density matrix ρA\rho_{A} is defined as follows renyi1 ; renyi2 :

Sn=11nlogTr(ρAn).S_{n}=\frac{1}{1-n}\,\log\textup{Tr}(\rho_{A}^{n}). (2.2)

The entanglement entropy, i.e., the von Neumann entropy, is recovered with the limit:

limn1Sn=SEE=Tr(ρAlogρA).\lim_{n\to 1}S_{n}=S_{\textup{EE}}=-\textup{Tr}(\rho_{A}\log\rho_{A})\,. (2.3)

Here we have implicitly considered the Rényi index nn in (2.2) to be a real number. However, specifically for integer nn (with n>1n>1), a path integral construction, which is widely known as the replica trick, allows us to evaluate the Rényi entropies for a QFT. An analytic continuation is then required to make contact with the entanglement entropy but we will have nothing to add about the conditions under which the continuation is reliable.

The replica trick begins by evaluating the reduced density matrix ρA\rho_{A} in terms of a (Euclidean) path integral on d\mathbb{R}^{d} but with independent boundary conditions fixed over the region AA as it is approached from above and below in Euclidean time, e.g., with tE0±t_{\textrm{\tiny E}}\to 0^{\pm}. The expression Tr(ρAn)\textup{Tr}(\rho_{A}^{n}) is then evaluated by extending the above to a path integral on a nn-sheeted geometry Calabrese:2004eu ; Cardy:2007mb , where the consecutive sheets are sewn together on cuts running over AA. Denoting the corresponding partition function as ZnZ_{n}, we can write the Rényi entropy (2.2) as

Sn=11nlogZnZ1n,S_{n}=\frac{1}{1-n}\ \log\frac{Z_{n}}{Z_{1}^{n}}\,, (2.4)

where the denominator Z1nZ_{1}^{n} is introduced here to ensure the correct normalization, i.e., Tr[ρA]=1\textup{Tr}[\rho_{A}]=1. The partition function ZnZ_{n} has an important symmetry. That is, even if in the above construction we chose to glue the copies together along the codimension-one submanifold AA on the tE=0t_{\textrm{\tiny E}}=0 slice, the precise location of the cut between different sheets is meaningless — see for instance section 3.1 of Caraglio:2008pk . Hence the only source of breaking of translational invariance on each sheet is at the location of the entangling surface, i.e., the boundary of AA. Since the modification is local in this sense, it can be reinterpreted as the insertion of a twist operator τn\tau_{n}. In defining τn\tau_{n}, the above construction is replaced by a path integral over nn copies of the underlying QFT on a single copy of the flat space geometry. The twist operator is then defined as a codimension-two surface operator in this nn-fold replicated QFT, which extends over the entangling surface and whose expectation value yields

τnZnZ1n=e(1n)Sn.\braket{\tau_{n}}\equiv\frac{Z_{n}}{Z_{1}^{n}}=e^{(1-n)S_{n}}. (2.5)

Hence eq. (2.5) implies that τn\tau_{n} opens a branch cut over the region AA which then connects consecutive copies of the QFT in the nn-fold replicated theory. Note that here and in the following, we omit the AA dependence of τn\tau_{n} to alleviate the notation.

In proceeding, we restrict our attention to the case where the QFT of interest is a conformal field theory and the state is simply the flat space vacuum state. Now let us take a closer look at the residual symmetry group in the presence of the twist operator. In doing so, we restrict ourselves to a very symmetric situation where we choose AA to be half of the space. That is, we choose τn\tau_{n} to lie on a flat (d2d\!-\!2)-dimensional plane, which we denote as Σ\Sigma. For concreteness, we parametrize d\mathbb{R}^{d} with coordinates (x1,,xd)(x^{1},\dots,x^{d}), and we locate the twist operator at x1=0=x2x^{1}=0=x^{2}. In the following, we will denote directions orthogonal to Σ\Sigma with Latin indices from the beginning of the alphabet (a,b,a,\,b,\dots) and parallel directions with Latin indices from the middle of the alphabet (i,j,i,\ j,\dots), while μ=(i,a)\mu=(i,a). Let us explicitly notice that since a spherical entangling surface can be obtained from the planar one by means of a conformal transformation, the following applies equally well to the spherical case.

Now, the stabilizer of a (d2)(d\!-\!2)-dimensional plane within the dd-dimensional conformal algebra is the subalgebra so(d1,1)×u(1)so(d-1,1)\times u(1). The first factor comprises the conformal transformations in (d2)(d\!-\!2) dimensions, while the second consists of rotations in the transverse space. Let us choose the cut to lie along a half-plane in d\mathbb{R}^{d}, e.g., x1<0x^{1}<0 (and x2=0x^{2}=0), then a moment’s thought is sufficient to realize that the gluing condition is preserved only if the same conformal transformation is applied to all the copies at the same time.222In the density matrix language, this is rephrased in the statement that the transformation UρAU1U\rho_{A}U^{-1} is a symmetry of ZnZ_{n} only if applied to the nn factors of ρA\rho_{A} appearing in the trace (2.2). The rotations in the transverse plane, on the other hand, move the cut, which can be brought back to the original position through the symmetry of the partition function which we referred to above. This leads to a remark on the structure of the symmetry group. A rotation of an angle 2π2\pi has the net effect of shifting by one the labeling of the replicas: in a correlation function, an operator inserted in the ii-th copy ends up in the (i+1)(i+1)-th one. Therefore, the u(1)u(1) algebra exponentiates in the nn-fold cover of the group O(2)O(2). Up to this subtlety, we see that the symmetry group preserved by the twist operator is the same as the one preserved by a flat conformally invariant extended operator, i.e., a conformal defect.

The symmetry algebra places constraints on observables, which in many cases have been worked out in the context of defect CFTs. In particular, this is the case for correlation functions of local operators billo:confdef . The twist operator is a conformal defect placed in the tensor product (CFT)n(\textup{CFT})^{n} rather than in the original conformal field theory. Therefore, it is especially interesting to consider the consequences of interactions among replicas, which distinguish this setup from a mere local modification of a CFT on d\mathbb{R}^{d}: these are probed by correlation functions of operators belonging to different copies of the theory. Such correlators do not escape the defect CFT framework and in particular can be handled with the classical tool available in any conformal field theory: the existence of an operator product expansion (OPE), which converges inside correlation functions. In the presence of a defect, bulk excitations can be brought close to the extended operator, and be expressed as a sum over local operators on the defect. This corresponds to a new OPE channel, usually referred to as the defect OPE. If we denote defect operators with a hat, the defect OPE of a bulk scalar of scaling dimension Δ\Delta takes the following form:

O(xa,xi)bO^0rΔ^0ΔO^0(xi)+,r|xa|.O(x^{a},x^{i})\sim b_{\widehat{O}_{0}}\,r^{\widehat{\Delta}_{0}-\Delta}\widehat{O}_{0}(x^{i})+\dots,\qquad r\equiv|x^{a}|. (2.6)

The meaning of the label 0 given to the defect operator will become clear in a moment. Let us stress that operators in our formulae will always be thought of as inserted on a single copy of the CFT and when present, sums over replicas will be written explicitly. Now consider a correlator of bulk primaries which belong to different factors of the nn-fold replicated CFT. We can substitute to each of them the respective defect OPE, and since the latter converges inside correlation functions, the resulting sum over two-point functions of defect operators must reproduce the original correlator. In particular, we see that the expression on the right hand side of eq. (2.6) must retain the information about the copy in which the primary on the left hand side was inserted. This is possible thanks to the global structure of the symmetry group — that is, the fact that rotations around the defect are combined non-trivially with the n\mathbb{Z}_{n} replica symmetry. The rotational symmetry around an extended operator is a global symmetry from the point of view of the theory on the defect. As a consequence, defect operators carry a u(1)u(1) quantum number ss. In our case, this transverse spin is rational: s=k/ns=k/n, kk being an integer. We see that the defect OPE of a bulk scalar contains in general terms of the form

O(xa,xi)bO^s|xa|Δ^sΔeisϕO^s(xi)+O(x^{a},x^{i})\sim b_{\widehat{O}_{s}}\,|x^{a}|^{\widehat{\Delta}_{s}-\Delta}e^{is\phi}\widehat{O}_{s}(x^{i})+\dots (2.7)

where ϕ[0,2πn)\phi\in[0,2\pi n) is the angle in a plane orthogonal to the defect and provides the information about the replica on which the bulk primary has been inserted. In appendix C, we shall see explicit examples of OPEs of the form (2.7) in the free scalar theory, and how they allow us to decompose correlation functions of bulk primaries placed in arbitrary positions.

The breaking of translational invariance in the directions transverse to the entangling surface gives rise to an operator of transverse spin s=1s=1, which is always present on defects in local theories. Indeed, the Noether current which generates translations fails to be conserved only at the position of the defect, so that a new contact term should be present in the Ward identities of the stress-tensor. This defines the displacement operator DaD^{a}:

m=1nμT(m)μa(xν)=δΣ(x)Da(xi),\sum_{{\rm m}=1}^{n}\partial_{\mu}T_{\textrm{\tiny(m)}}^{\mu a}(x^{\nu})=\delta_{\Sigma}(x)\ D^{a}(x^{i}), (2.8)

where the index m runs over the replicas333We stress again that in general, our calculations will refer to bulk operators in a single copy of the replicated CFT. Hence T(m)μνT_{\textrm{\tiny(m)}}^{\mu\nu} here denotes the stress tensor in the m’th copy of the CFT and the total stress tensor for the full theory would be given by Ttotμν=m=1nT(m)μνT_{\textrm{\tiny tot}}^{\mu\nu}=\sum_{{\rm m}=1}^{n}T_{\textrm{\tiny(m)}}^{\mu\nu}. However, in order to reduce clutter in expressions below, we will drop the subscript (m) but TμνT^{\mu\nu} still denotes the single-copy stress tensor. The total stress tensor will always be denoted as TtotμνT_{\textrm{\tiny tot}}^{\mu\nu}. and δΣ\delta_{\Sigma} denotes the delta function in the transverse space with support on the Σ\Sigma. The sum over replicas appears because, as mentioned, symmetry transformations should be applied to all the sheets in the same way, resulting in a sum over insertions of the stress-tensor. Eq. (2.8) is written in a somewhat loose notation, which highlights the properties of the displacement. The right hand side should be intended as an additional contribution arising when the left hand side is inserted in a correlation function. We refer to appendix A for a derivation, and we content ourselves here with a few remarks: It is important that the quantum numbers of DaD^{a} are fixed by the Ward identity, i.e., its scaling dimension is Δ=d1\Delta=d-1 and it carries one unit of spin under rotations around the defect. Notice that its normalization is also fixed by (2.8). Therefore, its Zamolodchikov norm CD(n)C_{D}(n) is a property of the defect under consideration:

Da(xi)Db(0)n=CD(n)δab|xi|2(d1).\braket{D^{a}(x^{i})\,D^{b}(0)}_{n}=C_{D}(n)\ \frac{\delta^{ab}}{|x^{i}|^{2(d-1)}}\,. (2.9)

Here and in the following the subscript nn applied to expectation values implies the presence of the twist operator:

OnτnOτn.\braket{O}_{n}\equiv\frac{\braket{\tau_{n}\,O}}{\braket{\tau_{n}}}. (2.10)

Let us finally mention that generic defects might have a more complicated structure of contact terms showing up in the divergence of the stress-tensor: more operators might be present, associated with derivatives of δ\delta-functions appearing in eq. (2.8). They can be written down systematically billo:confdef but we will not need this information here.

A consequence of the Ward identity (2.8) is that a small deformation δxa(xi)\delta x^{a}(x^{i}) of the defect, is obtained by integrating the displacement operator in the action. The first order variation under such a deformation can be written

δXn=dd2xδxa(xi)Da(xi)Xn.\delta\braket{X}_{n}=-\int\!d^{d-2}x\,\delta x^{a}(x^{i})\braket{D^{a}(x^{i})X}_{n}. (2.11)

where XX is an arbitrary product of local operators. As already pointed out, a flat twist operator preserves a subgroup of the conformal transformations which includes dilatations. As an immediate consequence, scale invariance prevents defect operators from acquiring an expectation value in this particular case. Hence, the first order variation of the partition function (2.5) vanishes for a flat (or spherical) entangling surface, or more precisely, it is non-universal. The second order variation is then related directly to CDC_{D}. Indeed, denoting the variation as ϵδxa\epsilon\,\delta x^{a}, we find

1τnd2dϵ2τn|ϵ=0=dd2xdd2xDa(x)Db(x)nδxaδxb.\left.\frac{1}{\braket{\tau_{n}}}\frac{d^{2}}{d\epsilon^{2}}\braket{\tau_{n}}\right|_{\epsilon=0}=\int\!d^{d-2}x\int\!d^{d-2}x^{\prime}\braket{D^{a}(x)D^{b}(x^{\prime})}_{n}\delta x_{a}\delta x^{\prime}_{b}. (2.12)

The double integration will contain divergences which must be regulated. However, power-law divergences can be unambiguously tuned away, and finite or logarithmically divergent parts are universal well defined quantities, proportional to CDC_{D}.

Hence eq. (2.12) shows very explicitly that the displacement operator is the key element of the defect CFT living on the twist operator, which governs the shape dependence of the Rényi entropy, which has been extensively studied in the recent literature e.g., mark0 aitor7 . A key result of this paper is unify a variety of conjectures related to this shape dependence in terms of a constraint on CDC_{D}, the coefficient defining the two-point function (2.9) of the displacement operator. In particular, these conjectures imply that the value of CDC_{D} is entirely determined by the one-point function of the stress tensor in presence of the defect, also called the conformal dimension of the twist operator. The latter, dubbed hnh_{n}, is defined by the leading singularity of the one-point function TμνnTμντn/τn\braket{T_{\mu\nu}}_{n}\equiv\braket{T_{\mu\nu}\,\tau_{n}}/\braket{\tau_{n}}. For a planar conformal defect in Euclidean flat geometry, this leading singularity is easily identified as it is completely fixed by symmetry

Tijn\displaystyle\braket{T_{ij}}_{n} =hn2πnδijrd,\displaystyle=-\frac{h_{n}}{2\pi n}\frac{\delta_{ij}}{r^{d}}\,, Tajn\displaystyle\braket{T_{aj}}_{n} =0,\displaystyle=0\,, Tabn\displaystyle\braket{T_{ab}}_{n} =hn2πn(d1)δabdnanbrd.\displaystyle=\frac{h_{n}}{2\pi n}\frac{(d-1)\,\delta_{ab}-d\,n_{a}n_{b}}{r^{d}}\,. (2.13)

Here nan_{a} is a unit normalized vector normal to the entangling surface and r=|xa|r=|x^{a}| the transverse distance. The factor nn in the denominator appears so that hnh_{n} is the coefficient in the one-point function for the total stress tensor (summed over all of the replicas), e.g., as defined in Hung:2014npa . In the following, we demonstrate that if, in a dd-dimensional CFT, the values of CD(n)C_{D}(n) and hnh_{n} are constrained to obey the following equality

CD(n)=dΓ(d+12)(2π)d1hn,C_{D}(n)=d\,\Gamma\!\left(\tfrac{d+1}{2}\right)\,\left(\tfrac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\right)^{d-1}\,h_{n}, (2.14)

then the Rényi entropy satisfies a number of interesting properties, outlined below, with regards to shape dependence.

One immediate consequence of this relation is CD(1)=0C_{D}(1)=0, which must hold since the defect disappears for n=1n=1. Further, if we analytically continue (2.14) to real nn, we can consider the first order variation around n=1n=1:

nCD|n=1\displaystyle\partial_{n}C_{D}|_{n=1} =dΓ(d+12)(2π)d1nhn|n=1=2π2d+1CT,\displaystyle=d\,\Gamma\!\left(\tfrac{d+1}{2}\right)\,\left(\tfrac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\right)^{d-1}\,\partial_{n}h_{n}|_{n=1}=\frac{2\pi^{2}}{d+1}C_{T}, (2.15)

where we used the relation

nh|n=1=2πd2+1Γ(d2)Γ(d+2)CT,\partial_{n}h|_{n=1}=2\pi^{\frac{d}{2}+1}\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2})}{\Gamma(d+2)}C_{T}, (2.16)

first observed in Hung:2011nu for holographic theories and then proven in Hung:2014npa for general CFTs. Implicity, the recent results of new imply that eq. (2.15) holds for generic CFTs. Hence in the vicinity of n=1n=1, the proposed relation (2.14) is a constraint that holds for general CFTs.

Moving away from n=1n=1, the constraint in eq. (2.14) produces an number of interesting properties for the shape dependence of the Rényi entropy, which have appeared previously in the literature as conjectures:

  • In section 3, we calculate the second order correction to the Rényi entropy induced by small perturbations of a perfect sphere. In the limit n1n\to 1, the formula (2.15) reproduces the variation of the entanglement entropy across a deformed sphere conjectured in mark0 for arbitrary dimensions, which was recently proven in new .

  • Eq. (2.15) also allows one to compute the universal contribution to the Rényi entropy for an entangling surface with a (hyper)conical singularity of opening angle Ω\Omega. The leading coefficient in an expansion around the smooth entangling surface has been conjectured to be related the conformal weight hnh_{n} Bueno:2015lza — see also Bueno:2015rda ; Bueno:2015xda ; Bueno:2015qya . In section 4, we prove the equivalence of that conjecture and formula (2.15).

  • With d=4d=4, eq. (2.14) implies the equivalence of the coefficients fb(n)f_{b}(n) and fc(n)f_{c}(n) in the universal part of the four-dimensional Rényi entropy for general nn, as discussed in Lewkowycz:2014jia ; safdi1 . This is demonstrated in section 5 by relating fbf_{b} to CDC_{D}, and fcf_{c} to hnh_{n}. However, we re-iterate that dong34 recently showed that the proposed equivalence fb(n)=fc(n)f_{b}(n)=f_{c}(n) does not hold for four-dimensional holographic CFTs dual to Einstein gravity.

The latter result demonstrates that eq. (2.14) is not a universal relation that holds in all CFTs (for general values of nn). However, it is then interesting to ask for precisely which CFTs does such a constraint hold. It seems that free field theories are a good candidate for such a theory. Certainly, the results of Bueno:2015qya ; Dowker1 ; Dowker2 imply that eq. (2.14) holds for free scalars and fermions in three dimensions. Further, our calculations in Appendix C confirm that it also holds for free massles scalars in four dimensions. We hope to return to this question in future work future .

3 Rényi and entanglement entropy across a deformed sphere

In this section, we study shape dependence of the Rényi entropy for a generic CFT in flat space. In particular, we calculate the second order correction to the Rényi entropy induced by small perturbations of a perfect sphere. In the limit n1n\to 1, our findings agree with the holographic results previously found in mark0 .

Starting from (2.12), we note that upon slightly deforming a spherical entangling surface with ϵδxa\epsilon\,\delta x^{a}, the leading correction to SnS_{n} appears at second order and is given by

δSn=ϵ22(1n)ΣΣDa(x)Db(x)nδxaδxb+𝒪(δx3).\delta S_{n}=\frac{\epsilon^{2}}{2(1-n)}\int_{\Sigma}\int_{\Sigma^{\prime}}\ \langle D^{a}(x)D^{b}(x^{\prime})\rangle_{n}\,\delta x_{a}\,\delta x^{\prime}_{b}+\mathcal{O}(\delta x^{3})~. (3.1)

Here, the two integrals run over the original spherical entangling surface of radius RR. We will restrict the deformation to the tE=0t_{\textrm{\tiny E}}=0 time slice and denote δx=f(x)r^\delta\vec{x}=f(x)\,\hat{r} where r^\hat{r} is a unit vector in the radial direction. The relevant correlator (2.9) then beomes

Dr(x)Dr(x)n=CD(xx)2(d1)=CD(2R2)d11(1cosγ)d1,\langle D^{r}(x)\,D^{r}(x^{\prime})\rangle_{n}={C_{D}\over(x-x^{\prime})^{2(d-1)}}={C_{D}\over(2R^{2})^{d-1}}\,{1\over(1-\cos\gamma)^{d-1}}~, (3.2)

with γ\gamma being the angle between x,xSd2x,x^{\prime}\in S^{d-2}.

Let us now represent the two-point correlator (3.2) in the basis of spherical harmonics on SNS^{N} (Nd2N\equiv d-2)

YN1(θNθ1)=12πei1θ1n=2Ncnn1n(sinθn)2n2Pn+n22(n1+n22)(cosθn)Y_{\ell_{N}\ldots\ell_{1}}(\theta_{N}\ldots\theta_{1})={1\over\sqrt{2\pi}}\,e^{i\ell_{1}\theta_{1}}\,\prod_{n=2}^{N}\ {}_{n}c_{\ell_{n}}^{\ell_{n-1}}\,(\sin\theta_{n})^{2-n\over 2}\,P_{\ell_{n}+{n-2\over 2}}^{-\left({\ell_{n-1}+{n-2\over 2}}\right)}(\cos\theta_{n}) (3.3)

where NN1|1|\ell_{N}\geq\ell_{N-1}\geq\ldots\geq|\ell_{1}| are integers and

dsN2\displaystyle ds^{2}_{N} =\displaystyle= dθN2+sin2θNdsN12,ds12=dθ12,\displaystyle d\theta_{N}^{2}+\sin^{2}\theta_{N}ds^{2}_{N-1}~,\quad ds_{1}^{2}=d\theta_{1}^{2}~, (3.4)
g\displaystyle\sqrt{g} =\displaystyle= sinN1θNsinN2θN1sinθ2,\displaystyle\sin^{N-1}\theta_{N}\sin^{N-2}\theta_{N-1}\cdots\sin\theta_{2}~, (3.5)
Pνμ(x)\displaystyle P^{-\mu}_{\nu}(x) =\displaystyle= 1Γ(1+μ)(1x1+x)2μ/2F1(ν,ν+1;1+μ;1x2),\displaystyle{1\over\Gamma(1+\mu)}\left({1-x\over 1+x}\right)^{\mu/2}\ _{2}F_{1}\left(-\nu~,~\nu+1~;~1+\mu~;~{1-x\over 2}\right)\quad, (3.6)
cLln{}_{n}c_{L}^{l} =\displaystyle= [2L+n12(L+l+n2)!(Ll)!]1/2.\displaystyle\left[{2L+n-1\over 2}{(L+l+n-2)!\over(L-l)!}\right]^{1/2}\quad. (3.7)

For simplicity, we assume that one of the points is sitting at the north pole, in which case only spherical harmonics with N1=N2==1=0\ell_{N-1}=\ell_{N-2}=\ldots=\ell_{1}=0 contribute

YN00(θN)=Γ(N2)2πN2NcN0(sinθN)2N2PN+N22N22(cosθN).Y_{\ell_{N}0\ldots 0}(\theta_{N})=\sqrt{\Gamma\left(N\over 2\right)\over 2\pi^{N\over 2}}\ _{N}c_{\ell_{N}}^{0}\,(\sin\theta_{N})^{2-N\over 2}\,P_{\ell_{N}+{N-2\over 2}}^{-{N-2\over 2}}(\cos\theta_{N})~. (3.8)

Hence, by assumption γ=θN\gamma=\theta_{N} in (3.2), and the following identity holds

D(x)D(x)n\displaystyle\langle D(x)D(x^{\prime})\rangle_{n} =\displaystyle= CD(2R2)d1NANYN00(γ),\displaystyle{C_{D}\over(2R^{2})^{d-1}}\sum_{\ell_{N}}A_{\ell_{N}}Y_{\ell_{N}0\ldots 0}(\gamma)~,
AN\displaystyle A_{\ell_{N}} =\displaystyle= 2πN2Γ(N2)NcN011𝑑z(1z2)N24(1z)N+1PN+N22N22(z)\displaystyle\sqrt{2\pi^{N\over 2}\over\Gamma\left(N\over 2\right)}\ _{N}c_{\ell_{N}}^{0}\int_{-1}^{1}dz\,{(1-z^{2})^{N-2\over 4}\over(1-z)^{N+1}}\,P_{\ell_{N}+{N-2\over 2}}^{-{N-2\over 2}}(z) (3.9)

where we introduced a new variable z=cosγz=\cos\gamma.

The above integral diverges at z=1z=1. This is not surprising given that the coefficients ANA_{\ell_{N}} correspond to a spherical harmonic representation of a singular function (3.2). To regulate these coefficients let us modify the power of (1cosγ)(1-\cos\gamma) in (3.2) by introducing a new parameter α\alpha such that ANA_{\ell_{N}} takes the form

AN=πNN4cN02N+12Γ32(N2)limα001𝑑yy2αN+42F1(NN2+1,N+N2;N2;y).A_{\ell_{N}}={\pi^{N\over 4}\,\ _{N}c_{\ell_{N}}^{0}\over 2^{N+1\over 2}\,\Gamma^{3\over 2}\left({N\over 2}\right)}\lim_{\alpha\to 0}\int_{0}^{1}dy\,y^{\alpha-{N+4\over 2}}\ _{2}F_{1}\Big{(}-\ell_{N}-{N\over 2}+1~,~\ell_{N}+{N\over 2}~;~{N\over 2}~;~y\Big{)}~. (3.10)

where y=(1z)/2y=(1-z)/2 and we used (3.7) to express the associated Legendre polynomial in terms of the hypergeometric function. Now the integral can be readily evaluated assuming that α\alpha is large enough444As usual, small values of α\alpha are treated by analytic continuation.

AN=πNN4cN02N+12Γ32(N2)limα0F23(αN21,NN2+1,N+N2;αN2,N2;1)αN21A_{\ell_{N}}={\pi^{N\over 4}\ _{N}c_{\ell_{N}}^{0}\over 2^{N+1\over 2}\,\Gamma^{3\over 2}\left({N\over 2}\right)}\lim_{\alpha\to 0}{\ {}_{3}F_{2}\Big{(}\alpha-{N\over 2}-1~,~-\ell_{N}-{N\over 2}+1~,~\ell_{N}+{N\over 2}~;~\alpha-{N\over 2}~,~{N\over 2}~;~1\Big{)}\over\alpha-{N\over 2}-1} (3.11)

For odd NN (odd dd) the limit α0\alpha\to 0 is finite. However, it diverges for even NN (even dd). Therefore we analyze these cases separately.

Odd dd

For odd dd, we have

AN\displaystyle A_{\ell_{N}} =\displaystyle= πNN4cN02N12Γ32(N2)F23(N21,NN2+1,N+N2;N2,N2;1)N+2\displaystyle-{\pi^{N\over 4}\ _{N}c_{\ell_{N}}^{0}\over 2^{N-1\over 2}\,\Gamma^{3\over 2}\left({N\over 2}\right)}{\ {}_{3}F_{2}\Big{(}-{N\over 2}-1~,~-\ell_{N}-{N\over 2}+1~,~\ell_{N}+{N\over 2}~;~-{N\over 2}~,~{N\over 2}~;~1\Big{)}\over N+2} (3.12)
=\displaystyle= (1)N12πNN+44cN02N32N(N+2)Γ32(N2)Γ(N+1)k=1,,N+2(N+k2)\displaystyle(-1)^{N-1\over 2}{\pi^{N+4\over 4}\ _{N}c_{\ell_{N}}^{0}\over 2^{N-3\over 2}\,N(N+2)\,\Gamma^{3\over 2}\left({N\over 2}\right)\Gamma(N+1)}\,\prod_{k=1,\ldots,N+2}(\ell_{N}+k-2)

Using now the addition theorem for spherical harmonics

YN00(γ)=1cN0N(4π)N2Γ(N2)2N1,,1YN1(x)YN1(x),Y_{\ell_{N}0\ldots 0}(\gamma)={1\over{}_{N}c_{\ell_{N}}^{0}}\,\sqrt{(4\pi)^{N\over 2}\Gamma\left(N\over 2\right)\over 2}\sum_{\ell_{N-1},\ldots,\ell_{1}}Y^{*}_{\ell_{N}\ldots\ell_{1}}(x)Y_{\ell_{N}\ldots\ell_{1}}(x^{\prime})~, (3.13)

we obtain from (3.9)

D(x)D(x)\displaystyle\langle D(x)D(x^{\prime})\rangle =\displaystyle= CD(1)N12πN+222(2R2)N+1Γ(N+1)Γ(N2+2)\displaystyle\,C_{D}\,{(-1)^{N-1\over 2}\,\pi^{N+2\over 2}\over 2(2R^{2})^{N+1}\Gamma(N+1)\Gamma\left({N\over 2}+2\right)} (3.14)
×\displaystyle\times N,,1YN1(x)YN1(x)k=1,,N+2(N+k2).\displaystyle\sum_{\ell_{N},\ldots,\ell_{1}}Y^{*}_{\ell_{N}\ldots\ell_{1}}(x)Y_{\ell_{N}\ldots\ell_{1}}(x^{\prime})\prod_{k=1,\ldots,N+2}(\ell_{N}+k-2)~.

Substituting this result into (3.1), yields

δSn=ϵ2CD(n1)(1)d12πd22d+1Γ(d1)Γ(d2+1)N,,1|aN1|2k=1,,d(N+k2)+𝒪(ϵ3),\delta S_{n}=\epsilon^{2}\,{C_{D}\over(n-1)}\,{(-1)^{d-1\over 2}\pi^{d\over 2}\over 2^{d+1}\,\Gamma(d-1)\Gamma\left({d\over 2}+1\right)}\sum_{\ell_{N},\ldots,\ell_{1}}|a_{\ell_{N}\ldots\ell_{1}}|^{2}\prod_{k=1,\ldots,d}(\ell_{N}+k-2)+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{3})\,~, (3.15)

where aN1a_{\ell_{N}\ldots\ell_{1}} are the coefficients of f(x)f(x) in a spherical harmonics representation. This result agrees with mark0 for any odd dd provided that (2.15) holds.

Even dd

For even dd, the limit α0\alpha\to 0 in (3.11) is singular due to logarithmic divergence. To extract the numerical coefficient of this divergence, we expand the integrand in (3.9) around z=1z=1 and keep only the logarithmically divergent term:

(1z2)N24(1z)N+1PN+N22N22(z)=(1)N2k=1,,N+2(N+k2)2N+22Γ(N+1)Γ(N2+2)1z1+,{(1-z^{2})^{N-2\over 4}\over(1-z)^{N+1}}\,P_{\ell_{N}+{N-2\over 2}}^{-{N-2\over 2}}(z)=\frac{(-1)^{N\over 2}\prod_{k=1,\ldots,N+2}(\ell_{N}+k-2)}{2^{N+2\over 2}\Gamma(N+1)\Gamma\left({N\over 2}+2\right)}\,{1\over z-1}+\ldots\,, (3.16)

The ellipsis denotes terms which do not generate logarithms upon integration. Hence,

AN=(1)N+222πN2Γ(N2)NcN0k=1,,N+2(N+k2)2N2Γ(N+1)Γ(N2+2)log(R/δ)+,A_{\ell_{N}}=(-1)^{N+2\over 2}\sqrt{2\pi^{N\over 2}\over\Gamma\left(N\over 2\right)}\ _{N}c_{\ell_{N}}^{0}\,\frac{\prod_{k=1,\ldots,N+2}(\ell_{N}+k-2)}{2^{N\over 2}\Gamma(N+1)\Gamma\left({N\over 2}+2\right)}\log(R/\delta)+\ldots\,, (3.17)

with δ=Rδγ\delta=R\cdot\delta\gamma being the short-distance cut-off. Using now (3.13), we obtain

D(x)D(x)n\displaystyle\langle D(x)D(x^{\prime})\rangle_{n} =\displaystyle= log(R/δ)CD(1)N+22πN2(2R2)N+1Γ(N+1)Γ(N2+2)\displaystyle\log(R/\delta)\,C_{D}\,{(-1)^{N+2\over 2}\,\pi^{N\over 2}\over(2R^{2})^{N+1}\Gamma(N+1)\Gamma\left({N\over 2}+2\right)} (3.18)
×\displaystyle\times N,,1YN1(x)YN1(x)k=1,,N+2(N+k2)+.\displaystyle\sum_{\ell_{N},\ldots,\ell_{1}}Y^{*}_{\ell_{N}\ldots\ell_{1}}(x)Y_{\ell_{N}\ldots\ell_{1}}(x^{\prime})\prod_{k=1,\ldots,N+2}(\ell_{N}+k-2)+\ldots\,~.

Substituting this result into (3.1), yields

δSn\displaystyle\delta S_{n} =\displaystyle= ϵ2CD(n1)(π)d222dΓ(d1)Γ(d2+1)log(R/δ)\displaystyle\epsilon^{2}\,{C_{D}\over(n-1)}\,{(-\pi)^{d-2\over 2}\over 2^{d}\,\Gamma(d-1)\Gamma\left({d\over 2}+1\right)}\,\log(R/\delta) (3.19)
×N,,1|aN1|2k=1,,d(N+k2)+,\displaystyle\qquad\times\ \sum_{\ell_{N},\ldots,\ell_{1}}|a_{\ell_{N}\ldots\ell_{1}}|^{2}\prod_{k=1,\ldots,d}(\ell_{N}+k-2)+\ldots\,~,

where aN1a_{\ell_{N}\ldots\ell_{1}} are coefficients of f(x)f(x) in a spherical harmonics representation. Combined with (2.15), this result is again in full agreement with mark0 .

4 The cone conjecture

In this section, we consider the relation of the proposed constraint (2.14) to various conjectures about the universal contribution to the Rényi  entropy coming from singular deformations of entangling surfaces. In particular, Bueno:2015rda ; Bueno:2015xda proposed a conjecture for the universal corner contribution to the entanglement entropy in three-dimensional CFTs, and this conjecture was then extended to Rényi entropy in Bueno:2015qya . Finally, the discussion was extended to higher dimensions in Bueno:2015lza . In order to introduce the claim of these conjectures, we consider a deformation of a flat entangling surface which consists in creating a conical singularity. The three- and four-dimensional cases are shown in figure 1 of ref. Bueno:2015lza . The universal contribution to the Rényi (and consequently the entanglement) entropy is affected by this modification. In particular, if the twist operator is smooth, the universal contribution would be logarithmically divergent in even dimensions and constant (i.e., regulator independent) in odd dimensions. When a conical singularity is present an additional logarithm emerges and the universal contribution to the Rényi entropy takes the form

Snuniv(A)={(1)d12an(d)(Ω)log(/δ)d odd(1)d22an(d)(Ω)log2(/δ)d evenS_{n}^{\text{univ}}(A)=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}(-1)^{\frac{d-1}{2}}\ a_{n}^{(d)}(\Omega)\ \log(\ell/\delta)&\qquad d\text{ odd}\\ (-1)^{\frac{d-2}{2}}\ a_{n}^{(d)}(\Omega)\ \log^{2\,}\!(\ell/\delta)&\qquad d\text{ even}\end{array}\right. (4.1)

Here Ω\Omega is the opening angle of the cone, varying in the interval [0,π2][0,\frac{\pi}{2}] and approaching π2\frac{\pi}{2} in the limit of smooth surface.555The angle Ω\Omega actually varies over the full range [0,π][0,\pi], but, since the Rényi entropy evaluated for a pure state is equal for the region AA or for its complement A¯\bar{A}, the function an(d)a_{n}^{(d)} is symmetric for reflections with respect to Ω=π2\Omega=\frac{\pi}{2}, i.e. an(d)(Ω)=an(d)(πΩ)a_{n}^{(d)}(\Omega)=a_{n}^{(d)}(\pi-\Omega) and we can consistently focus on the interval [0,π2][0,\frac{\pi}{2}] The function an(d)a_{n}^{(d)} is the universal contribution to the Rényi entropy and depends on the angle Ω\Omega only. Further \ell and δ\delta are the IR and UV regulators, respectively. The former can be thought of as a (macroscopic) length scale characterizing the geometry of the entangling region AA (i.e., the region enclosed by the twist operator), whereas the latter can be taken to be a short-distance cut-off originating from the infinite number of short-distance correlations in proximity of the twist-operator. The cusp conjecture, in the most general formulation of Bueno:2015lza , states that, for an arbitrary conformal field theory, the leading contribution to an(d)a_{n}^{(d)} for Ωπ2\Omega\to\frac{\pi}{2} is controlled by the constant hnh_{n} introduced in (2.13). Explicitly,

an(d)(Ω)Ωπ/24σn(d)(Ωπ2)2,σn(d)=hnn(n1)(d1)(d2)πd42Γ[d12]216Γ[d/2]3×{πdodd,1d even.a_{n}^{(d)}(\Omega)\overset{\scriptscriptstyle\Omega\to\pi/2}{\sim}4\,\sigma_{n}^{(d)}(\Omega-\tfrac{\pi}{2})^{2}\,,~~\sigma_{n}^{(d)}=\frac{h_{n}}{n(n-1)}\ \frac{(d-1)(d-2)\,\pi^{\frac{d-4}{2}}\,\Gamma\left[\frac{d-1}{2}\right]^{2}}{16\ \Gamma[{d}/{2}]^{3}}\ \times\,\left\{\begin{array}[]{cll}\pi&&d\,\,\text{odd}\,,\\ 1&&d\text{ even}\,.\end{array}\right. (4.2)

Restricting to the case n=1n=1 and using (2.16), one finds the following relation between the small angle contribution to the entanglement entropy and the central charge CTC_{T} of a CFT

σ1(d)σ(d)=CTπd1(d1)(d2)Γ[d12]28Γ[d/2]2Γ[d+2]×{πd odd,1deven.\sigma_{1}^{(d)}\equiv\sigma^{(d)}=C_{T}\,\frac{\pi^{d-1}(d-1)(d-2)\Gamma[\frac{d-1}{2}]^{2}}{8\,\Gamma[{d}/{2}]^{2}\,\Gamma[d+2]}\times\left\{\begin{array}[]{cll}\pi&&d\text{ odd}\,,\\ 1&&d\,\,\text{even}\,.\end{array}\,\right. (4.3)

In the following, we will apply the theoretical framework introduced in section 2 to this particular deformation and find a connection between σn\sigma_{n} and CDC_{D}. This allows us to prove the equivalence of the cusp conjecture and eq. (2.14).

4.1 Conical deformation from the displacement operator

One of the appealing features of the displacement operator is that equation (2.12) is valid for any kind of deformation of the defect, regardless of whether or not it is smooth. It is then clear that the response (4.1) of the Rényi entropy to a conical singularity in the limit Ωπ2\Omega\to\frac{\pi}{2} can be related to the two-point function of the displacement operator (2.12) integrated over a planar defect with the appropriate profile. In particular combining (2.5) and (4.2), we obtain

12Σ(d)121τnd2dϵ2τn|ϵ=0=4(n1)σn(d)×{(1)d+12log(/δ)d odd(1)d2log2(/δ)d even\frac{1}{2}\Sigma^{(d)}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\left.\frac{1}{\braket{\tau_{n}}}\frac{d^{2}}{d\epsilon^{2}}\braket{\tau_{n}}\right|_{\epsilon=0}=4(n-1)\,\sigma^{(d)}_{n}\times\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}(-1)^{\frac{d+1}{2}}\ \log(\ell/\delta)&\qquad d\text{ odd}\\ \ (-1)^{\frac{d}{2}}\ \,\ \log^{2\,}(\ell/\delta)&\qquad d\text{ even}\end{array}\right. (4.4)

where the first equality is just the definition of Σ(d)\Sigma^{(d)}. In the following, we will compute Σ(d)\Sigma^{(d)} in terms of CDC_{D} using (2.12). Then, exploiting the conjectured relation (2.14), we will reproduce the cusp conjecture (4.2).

Consider a planar defect, parametrized by parallel coordinates xix^{i} with i=3,,di=3,\ldots,d, and its deformation into a configuration with a conical singularity at the origin. The two coordinates for the orthogonal directions are xax^{a} with a=1,2a=1,2. To deform the plane into a cone, we introduce spherical coordinates {r,θ1,,θd3}\{r,\theta^{1},\ldots,\theta^{d-3}\} in the directions parallel to the entangling surface and we consider a variation ϵδxa\epsilon\,\delta x^{a} in the direction 22 proportional to the radius rr, i.e.,

δxa=δ2ar.\delta x^{a}=\delta^{a}_{2}\,r\,. (4.5)

Plugging this expression into (2.12) combined with (2.9) and using the symmetries of the problem to perform the angular integrations, we are left with

Σ(d)=CDΩd3Ωd4𝑑r1𝑑r202π𝑑θ12r1d2r2d2sind4θ12(r12+r222r1r2cosθ12)d1.\Sigma^{(d)}=C_{D}\,\Omega_{d-3}\Omega_{d-4}\int dr_{1}\,dr_{2}\,\int_{0}^{2\pi}d\theta_{12}\,\frac{r_{1}^{d-2}r_{2}^{d-2}\sin^{d-4}\theta_{12}}{(r_{1}^{2}+r_{2}^{2}-2r_{1}r_{2}\cos\theta_{12})^{d-1}}. (4.6)

where θ12\theta_{12} is the angle described by the position of the two displacement operators in the plane defined by them and the origin. Further Ωm=2πm+12/Γ(m+12)\Omega_{m}=2\pi^{\frac{m+1}{2}}/\Gamma(\frac{m+1}{2}) is the volume of a unit mm-sphere. The integration over θ12\theta_{12} yields

Σ(d)=CD2d3Γ(d32)Γ(d12)Γ(d1)×dr1dr2[|r12r22|d1r1d2r2d2((d2)r14+2dr12r22+(d2)r24)]\Sigma^{(d)}=C_{D}\frac{2^{d-3}\Gamma\left(\frac{d-3}{2}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{d-1}{2}\right)}{\Gamma(d-1)}\\ \times\int dr_{1}\,dr_{2}\,\Bigg{[}\left|r_{1}^{2}-r_{2}^{2}\right|^{-d-1}r_{1}^{d-2}r_{2}^{d-2}\bigg{(}(d-2)r_{1}^{4}+2d\,r_{1}^{2}r_{2}^{2}+(d-2)r_{2}^{4}\bigg{)}\Bigg{]} (4.7)

One has to be particularly careful in the integration over r1r_{1} and r2r_{2} since we expect a singularity along the line r1=r2r_{1}=r_{2}. Therefore it is useful to note the symmetry of the integral under the exchange r1r2r_{1}\leftrightarrow r_{2} and restrict the integration contour to the region r1>r2r_{1}>r_{2}. We then regulate the divergences for r1r2r_{1}\to r_{2} and for r1,r20r_{1},r_{2}\to 0 with a UV cut-off δ\delta, and the divergence for r1,r2r_{1},r_{2}\to\infty with an IR cut-off \ell. Introducing the variables x=r1+r2x=r_{1}+r_{2} and y=r1r2y=r_{1}-r_{2}, the integral takes the form

Σ(d)=CD232dπd2Γ(d21)Γ(d2)δ𝑑x×δxdy[(x2y2)d2(xy)d1((d1)x4+2(d3)x2y2+(d1)y4)]\Sigma^{(d)}=C_{D}\frac{2^{3-2d}\pi^{d-2}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}\int_{\delta}^{\ell}dx\\ \times\int_{\delta}^{x}dy\Bigg{[}\left(x^{2}-y^{2}\right)^{d-2}(xy)^{-d-1}\left((d-1)x^{4}+2(d-3)x^{2}y^{2}+(d-1)y^{4}\right)\Bigg{]} (4.8)

An additional change of variables w=(y/x)2w=(y/x)^{2} yields

Σ(d)=CD222dπd2Γ(d21)Γ(d2)×δdxx(δx)21dw[(1w)d2w1d2((d1)w2+2(d3)w+d1)]\Sigma^{(d)}=C_{D}\frac{2^{2-2d}\pi^{d-2}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}\\ \times\int_{\delta}^{\ell}\frac{dx}{x}\int_{\left(\frac{\delta}{x}\right)^{2}}^{1}dw\Bigg{[}\left(1-w\right)^{d-2}w^{-1-\frac{d}{2}}\left((d-1)w^{2}+2(d-3)w+d-1\right)\Bigg{]} (4.9)

Since the treatment of this integral differs substantially in even and odd dimensions, it is convenient to analyze the two cases separately.

Even dimension

It is useful to note that, for integer dd, the binomial (1w)d2(1-w)^{d-2} can be converted in a finite sum over powers of ww. Furthermore, if dd is even also the exponent of w1d/2w^{1-d/2} is an integer, which implies that the integral over ww contains a first logarithmic divergence for small ww. We focus on that contribution and we perform the first integration, which yields

Σeven(d)=CD(1)d2252dπd2Γ(d)d(d1)Γ(d21)Γ(d2)3δdxxlogxδ+\Sigma^{(d)}_{\text{even}}=C_{D}\frac{(-1)^{\frac{d}{2}}2^{5-2d}\pi^{d-2}\Gamma\left(d\right)}{d(d-1)\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)^{3}}\int_{\delta}^{\ell}\frac{dx}{x}\log\frac{x}{\delta}+\cdots (4.10)

where the missing terms contain power-law divergences. The last integration can be trivially carried out and the final result is

Σeven(d)=CD(1)d22dπd52dΓ(d12)Γ(d21)Γ(d2+1)2log2(/δ)+.\Sigma^{(d)}_{\text{even}}=C_{D}\frac{(-1)^{\frac{d}{2}}2^{-d}\pi^{d-\frac{5}{2}}d\,\Gamma\left(\frac{d-1}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}+1\right)^{2}}\log^{2}(\ell/\delta)+\cdots\,. (4.11)

Comparing this result with eqs. (4.3) and (4.4), we find perfect agreement when using (2.14) for CDC_{D}.

One aspect of the computation deserves a comment: Each of the integrations in eq. (4.9) contribute one of the logarithmic factors to the final expression (4.11). We can see then that one of the logarithmic singularities arises from x0x\sim 0, which corresponds to the region near the tip of the cone (since x=r1+r2x=r_{1}+r_{2}). Further, the second comes from w0w\sim 0, which corresponds to the collision of the two displacement operators (since wr1r2w\sim r_{1}-r_{2}). Implicitly then, the latter appears everywhere along the entangling surface and is sensitive to the geometry far from the tip of the cone. Of course, this fits in nicely with the lore that in even dimensions, the Rényi entropy contains a (universal) logarithmic factor that is geometric in nature, e.g., see eq. (5.1) below. In a certain sense then, the presence of the cone is completely encoded in the logarithm coming from the integration over xx in eq. (4.9), while the second logarithm is sensitive to the smooth geometry far from the tip of the cone and is largely unaware of this singular feature. We also note that SnS_{n} may also contain contributions with a single logarithmic factor but these are no longer universal in the presence of the conical singularity sing , e.g., they will be modified when the cut-off changed because of the logarithm-squared term. As we shall see below, similar comments apply for odd dimensions as well. However, the ‘universal’ factor coming from the ww integration is simply a constant (independent of δ\delta) and also receives contributions from configurations in which the two displacement operators are separated by a finite distance.

Odd dimension

In odd dimensions, it is still true that the binomial (1w)d2(1-w)^{d-2} can be expanded as a finite sum but 1d21-\frac{d}{2} is not an integer anymore. Hence (4.9) becomes an integral of the form

Σodd(d)\displaystyle\Sigma^{(d)}_{\text{odd}} =CD222dπd2Γ(d21)Γ(d2)δdxxk=0d2(d2k)(1)k\displaystyle=C_{D}\frac{2^{2-2d}\pi^{d-2}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}\int_{\delta}^{\ell}\frac{dx}{x}\sum_{k=0}^{d-2}\binom{d-2}{k}(-1)^{k}
×(δx)121dw((d1)wk1d2+2(d3)wkd2+(d1)wk+1d2)\displaystyle\times\int_{\left(\frac{\delta}{x}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}^{1}dw\left((d-1)w^{k-1-\frac{d}{2}}+2(d-3)w^{k-\frac{d}{2}}+(d-1)w^{k+1-\frac{d}{2}}\right) (4.12)

For odd dd, all the exponents in the last bracket are half-integers, and the integration over ww only leads to power-like divergences. The only logarithmic term comes from the integration over xx, combined with the finite part of the integration over ww, i.e.,

Σodd(d)\displaystyle\Sigma^{(d)}_{\text{odd}} =CD222dπd2Γ(d21)Γ(d2)log(/δ)\displaystyle=C_{D}\frac{2^{2-2d}\pi^{d-2}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}\log(\ell/\delta) (4.13)
×k=0d2(d2k)(1)k(d1kd2+2d3k+1d2+d1k+2d2)+.\displaystyle\times\sum_{k=0}^{d-2}\binom{d-2}{k}(-1)^{k}\left(\frac{d-1}{k-\frac{d}{2}}+2\frac{d-3}{k+1-\frac{d}{2}}+\frac{d-1}{k+2-\frac{d}{2}}\right)+\cdots\,. (4.14)

Performing the finite sums, we find

Σodd(d)=CD(1)d+122dπd32dΓ(d12)Γ(d21)Γ(d2+1)2log(/δ)+.\Sigma^{(d)}_{\text{odd}}=C_{D}\frac{(-1)^{\frac{d+1}{2}}2^{-d}\pi^{d-\frac{3}{2}}d\,\Gamma\left(\frac{d-1}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}+1\right)^{2}}\log(\ell/\delta)+\cdots\,. (4.15)

Again, substituting for CDC_{D} using (2.14) produces precise agreement with eqs. (4.3) and (4.4).

4.2 Wilson lines in supersymmetric theories and entanglement in d=3d=3

The relation between the expectation value of the stress tensor and the two-point function of the displacement operator has been explored, in fact, at least in one other example of a defect CFT, i.e., for Wilson lines Lewkowycz:2013laa . In that context, CDC_{D} is better known as the Bremsstrahlung function. Indeed, a sudden acceleration of a charged source creates a cusp in the Wilson line that describes its trajectory, and it can be shown that the coefficient of the two-point function of the displacement operator measures the energy emitted in the process Correa:2012at . The precise relation between the two quantities is

CDWL=12B,C^{WL}_{D}=12\,B\,, (4.16)

where BB is the Bremsstrahlung function. The authors of Lewkowycz:2013laa observed that the ratio between BB and hh (the conformal dimension of the Wilson line) is theory dependent. However, a restricted form of universality is valid within a certain class of conformal gauge theories, whose Bremsstrahlung function is related to the one-point function of the stress tensor through a coefficient that only depends on the dimension of spacetime. This class includes theories with 𝒩=4\mathcal{N}=4 Lewkowycz:2013laa and four-dimensional 𝒩=2\mathcal{N}=2 Fiol:2015spa ; Mitev:2015oty supersymmetry. In particular, in three dimensions, the general formula conjectured in Lewkowycz:2013laa yields

CDWL=24hWL,C^{WL}_{D}=24\,h^{WL}, (4.17)

where hWLh^{WL} is the constant entering the one-point function of the stress-tensor in the presence of a Wilson line.

Now the three-dimensional case is especially interesting for us, because twist operators become one-dimensional line operators as well. Furthermore, if we consider holographic CFTs, the calculation of the Wilson line JJ1 ; sjrey and the Ryu-Takayanagi prescription Ryu:2006bv ; Ryu:2006ef for holographic entanglement entropy both reduce to evaluating the area of extremal surfaces anchored on the AdS boundary. The only difference in the two calculations is the overall factor multiplying the extremal area in evaluating the final physical quantity, but this constant factor will cancel out in the ratio between CDC_{D} and hh. Hence for theories which possess a holographic dual and belong to the class for which (4.17) is valid, e.g., ABJM theory abjm , the relation between nCD|n=1\partial_{n}C_{D}|_{n=1} and nhn|n=1\partial_{n}h_{n}|_{n=1} has to coincide with (4.17) — at strong coupling. Hence it is a nontrivial check that, indeed, formula (2.14) reduces to (4.17) for d=3d=3. Let us make two additional remarks: This agreement is better than required in that CD(n)=24hnC_{D}(n)=24\,h_{n} for all nn whereas our argument only indicated a match in the n1n\to 1 limit. Notice, furthermore, that both eqs. (2.14) and (4.17) are independent of the coupling. Hence this special relation between the CFT data for the two separate physical observables, i.e., Wilson lines and Rényi entropies, which are apparently unrelated, not only agree at strong coupling but also at any coupling.

5 Entanglement entropy and anomalies in 4d Defect CFTs

In any even number of dimensions, the universal contribution to the Rényi entropy (2.2) depends only on the shape of the spatial region AA through local geometric quantities. In four dimensions, in particular, when the theory is conformal, Weyl invariance fixes the universal contribution up to three functions of nn. If we denote by \ell a characteristic length scale of the entangling surface Σ\Sigma, then the Renyi entropy takes the form666In what follows we suppress the well-known ‘area law’ (μ)2\sim(\mu\ell)^{2}. Its coefficient is scheme dependent and thus non-universal. In particular, it vanishes within dimensional regularization scheme which we employ throughout this paper.

Sn=(fa(n)2πΣRΣfb(n)2πΣK~ijaK~ija+fc(n)2πΣγijγklCikjl)log(μ)+λn,S_{n}=\left(-{f_{a}(n)\over 2\pi}\int_{\Sigma}R_{\Sigma}-{f_{b}(n)\over 2\pi}\int_{\Sigma}\tilde{K}_{ij}^{a}\tilde{K}_{ij}^{a}+{f_{c}(n)\over 2\pi}\int_{\Sigma}\gamma^{ij}\gamma^{kl}C_{ikjl}\right)\log(\mu\ell)+\lambda_{n}~, (5.1)

where γij\gamma^{ij} is the inverse of the induced metric on the entangling surface, μ\mu is an arbitrary mass scale typically chosen to be of order of the inverse cut-off, and λn\lambda_{n} is a non-universal constant. Further, K~ija\tilde{K}_{ij}^{a} is a traceless part of the extrinsic curvature of Σ\Sigma

K~ija=KijaKa2γij,\tilde{K}_{ij}^{a}=K_{ij}^{a}-{K^{a}\over 2}\gamma_{ij}~, (5.2)

with Ka=γklKklaK^{a}=\gamma^{kl}K_{kl}^{a}. Now, two of the coefficients appearing in (5.1) are conjectured to be equal to each other Lee:2014xwa :

fb(n)=fc(n).f_{b}(n)=f_{c}(n)\,. (5.3)

This relation has been proven for n=1n=1, but remains an open question in general. On the other hand, from our defect CFT point of view, the expression (5.1) has the form of a conformal anomaly, which simply arises because the presence of a defect in the vacuum provides additional ways to violate Weyl invariance. Since the aa and cc coefficients of the trace anomalies in a generic even dimensional CFT appear in correlation functions of the stress tensor, one might wonder if the same happens in a defect CFT. In this section we show that this is indeed the case, in the sense that fbf_{b} and fcf_{c} are directly related to CDC_{D} and hh, respectively, i.e.,

fc(n)=3π2hnn1,fb(n)=π216CD(n)n1.f_{c}(n)={3\pi\over 2}{h_{n}\over n-1}\,,\qquad f_{b}(n)={\pi^{2}\over 16}{C_{D}(n)\over n-1}~. (5.4)

The relation between fcf_{c} and hnh_{n} was recently found in the context of entanglement entropy aitor7 , but both equalities turn out to be true in a generic defect CFT.777See for instance Drukker:2008wr for a discussion of anomalies in the context of surface operators in 𝒩=4\mathcal{N}=4 SYM. The relations reported in eq. (5.4) clearly apply for those defects as well. In the case of the replica defect, they also establish the equivalence of the conjecture (5.3) with the four-dimensional version of eq. (2.14). As a first step towards eq. (5.4), we notice that by dimensional analysis (or direct calculation), we have

μμSnSn=0μμSn=Snuniv,\mu{{\partial}\over{\partial}\mu}S_{n}-\ell{{\partial}\over{\partial}\ell}S_{n}=0\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad\mu{{\partial}\over{\partial}\mu}S_{n}=S_{n}^{\text{univ}}~, (5.5)

where SnunivS_{n}^{\text{univ}} denotes the universal Renyi entropy

Snuniv=fa(n)2πΣRΣfb(n)2πΣK~ijaK~ija+fc(n)2πΣγijγklCikjl.S_{n}^{\text{univ}}=-{f_{a}(n)\over 2\pi}\int_{\Sigma}R_{\Sigma}-{f_{b}(n)\over 2\pi}\int_{\Sigma}\tilde{K}_{ij}^{a}\tilde{K}_{ij}^{a}+{f_{c}(n)\over 2\pi}\int_{\Sigma}\gamma^{ij}\gamma^{kl}C_{ikjl}~. (5.6)

Varying both sides of (5.5) with respect to the metric and using (2.4), yields

11nμμm(T(m)μν(x)nTμν(x)1)\displaystyle{1\over 1-n}\,\mu{{\partial}\over{\partial}\mu}\sum_{\textrm{\tiny m}}\Big{(}\langle T^{\mu\nu}_{\textrm{\tiny(m)}}(x)\rangle_{n}-\langle T^{\mu\nu}(x)\rangle_{1}\Big{)} =\displaystyle= 2g(x)δSnunivδgμν(x),\displaystyle{-2\over\sqrt{g(x)}}{\delta S_{n}^{\text{univ}}\over\delta g_{\mu\nu}(x)}~, (5.7)
11nμμ(l,mT(l)μν(x)T(m)αβ(y)nnTμν(x)Tαβ(y)1)\displaystyle{1\over 1-n}\,\mu{{\partial}\over{\partial}\mu}\Big{(}\sum_{\textrm{\tiny l,m}}\langle T^{\mu\nu}_{\textrm{\tiny(l)}}(x)T^{\alpha\beta}_{\textrm{\tiny(m)}}(y)\rangle_{n}-n\langle T^{\mu\nu}(x)T^{\alpha\beta}(y)\rangle_{1}\Big{)} =\displaystyle= 4g(y)δδgαβ(y)1g(x)δSnunivδgμν(x),\displaystyle{4\over\sqrt{g(y)}}{\delta\over\delta g_{\alpha\beta}(y)}{1\over\sqrt{g(x)}}{\delta S_{n}^{\text{univ}}\over\delta g_{\mu\nu}(x)},

where indices mm and nn run over the replicas. In the next subsection, we build on eq. (5.7) to prove that fcf_{c} appears in the one-point function of the stress-tensor, while eq. (LABEL:vevTT) will be needed in subsection 5.2 to match fbf_{b} with the two-point function of the displacement operator.

5.1 fcf_{c} and the expectation value of the stress tensor

Substituting d=4d=4 into eq. (2.13), the nontrivial terms in the one-point function of the stress tensor become888For convenience in this section, we work with the total energy-momentum tensor of the replicated CFT: Ttotμν=m=1nT(m)μνT_{\textrm{\tiny tot}}^{\mu\nu}=\sum_{{\rm m}=1}^{n}T_{\textrm{\tiny(m)}}^{\mu\nu}.

Ttotijn\displaystyle\langle T^{ij}_{\textrm{\tiny tot}}\rangle_{n} =\displaystyle= hn2πδijr4+,\displaystyle-{h_{n}\over 2\pi}\,{\delta^{ij}\over r^{4}}+\ldots~,
Ttotabn\displaystyle\langle T^{ab}_{\textrm{\tiny tot}}\rangle_{n} =\displaystyle= hn2π3δacr24xaxcr6+,\displaystyle{h_{n}\over 2\pi}\,{3\,\delta^{ac}\,r^{2}-4\,x^{a}x^{c}\over r^{6}}+\ldots~, (5.9)

where as usual the indices a,ca,c and i,ji,j denote the two transverse directions and two parallel directions to the entangling surface, respectively. Further, rr denotes the transverse distance from the defect with r2=δacxaxcr^{2}={\delta_{ac}\,x^{a}x^{c}}. Note that hnh_{n} in the above expression is a constant, i.e., we are in the regime when the surface and the background are flat and thus all curvatures can be ignored. While eq. (2.13) was written for a planar twist operator, this expression also coincides with the leading singularity for general entangling surfaces if xx is sufficiently close to Σ\Sigma. In particular, the same constant appears for the conformal weight hnh_{n} independently of the geometry of the entangling surface.

Of course, (5.9) is independent of μ\mu, and thus one might think that we reached a contradiction with (5.7). However, this conclusion is too fast. The right hand side of (5.7) vanishes unless r=0r=0, but r=0r=0 corresponds to a singular point of (5.9). This singularity should be carefully defined as distribution. As we will see, this results in a dependence on a mass scale μ\mu.

In what follows we use dimensional regularization and expand all the results around d=4d=4. In particular, we start from the analog of (5.9) with dimension of the entangling surface being fixed (i.e., two in our case), while the transverse space to the entangling surface is assumed to have dimension d2d-2 (rather than two, as in four dimensions). Hence, the analog of (5.9) reads

Ttotijn\displaystyle\langle T^{ij}_{\textrm{\tiny tot}}\rangle_{n} =\displaystyle= hn2πδijrd,\displaystyle-{h_{n}\over 2\pi}\,{\delta^{ij}\over r^{d}}~, (5.10)
Ttotabn\displaystyle\langle T^{ab}_{\textrm{\tiny tot}}\rangle_{n} =\displaystyle= hn2π1d33δacr2dxaxcrd+2=hn2π(d2)(d3)(δac2ac)1rd2,\displaystyle{h_{n}\over 2\pi}\,{1\over d-3}\,{3\delta^{ac}\,r^{2}-d\,x^{a}x^{c}\over r^{d+2}}={h_{n}\over 2\pi(d-2)(d-3)}\left(\delta^{ac}{\partial}^{2}_{\perp}-{\partial}^{a}{\partial}^{c}\right){1\over r^{d-2}}~,

where 2=δacac{\partial}^{2}_{\perp}=\delta^{ac}{\partial}_{a}{\partial}_{c} is Laplace operator in the transverse space.

Now using the standard Fourier integral

dd2k(2π)d2eikx(k2)α=Γ(d/2α1)(4π)(d2)/2Γ(α)(4x2)d/2α1,\int{d^{d-2}k\over(2\pi)^{d-2}}{e^{ik\cdot x}\over(k^{2})^{\alpha}}={\Gamma(d/2-\alpha-1)\over(4\pi)^{(d-2)/2}\Gamma(\alpha)}\left({4\over x^{2}}\right)^{d/2-\alpha-1}~, (5.11)

we deduce

1(r2)d/2α1=4απ(d2)/2Γ(α)Γ(d/2α1)(2)αδΣ,{1\over(r^{2})^{d/2-\alpha-1}}={4^{\alpha}\pi^{(d-2)/2}\Gamma(\alpha)\over\Gamma(d/2-\alpha-1)}(-{\partial}^{2}_{\perp})^{-\alpha}\delta_{\Sigma}~, (5.12)

where equality holds between the distributions and we recall that δΣ\delta_{\Sigma} denotes the delta function in the transverse space with support on Σ\Sigma. Now examining the cases α=1+ϵ\alpha=-1+\epsilon and α=0+ϵ\alpha=0+\epsilon with ϵ1\epsilon\ll 1, and replacing (2)ϵμ2ϵ(-{\partial}^{2}_{\perp})^{\epsilon}\to\mu^{2\epsilon} yields

1rd2\displaystyle{1\over r^{d-2}} =\displaystyle= Ωd3(12ϵ+log(μr)+)δΣ,\displaystyle-\Omega_{d-3}\left({1\over 2\epsilon}+\log(\mu\,r)+\ldots\right)\delta_{\Sigma}~,
1rd\displaystyle{1\over r^{d}} =\displaystyle= Ωd14π(12ϵ+log(μr)+)2δΣ.\displaystyle-{\Omega_{d-1}\over 4\pi}\left({1\over 2\epsilon}+\log(\mu\,r)+\ldots\right){\partial}^{2}_{\perp}\delta_{\Sigma}~. (5.13)

where Ωd1=2πd/2/Γ(d/2)\Omega_{d-1}=2\pi^{d/2}/\Gamma(d/2) and ellipses correspond to a finite μ\mu-independent constant as ϵ0\epsilon\to 0. Consequently, rdr^{-d} and r(d2)r^{-(d-2)} although defined by analytic continuation in dd are singular when d=4d=4. Hence, to define (5.10) as a sensible distribution, one has to subtract the singular part,

1rd2\displaystyle\mathcal{R}{1\over r^{d-2}} =\displaystyle= Ωd3(log(μr)+a)δΣ,\displaystyle-\Omega_{d-3}\left(\log(\mu\,r)+a\right)\delta_{\Sigma}~,
1rd\displaystyle\mathcal{R}{1\over r^{d}} =\displaystyle= Ωd14π(log(μr)+a)2δΣ,\displaystyle-{\Omega_{d-1}\over 4\pi}\left(\log(\mu\,r)+a\right){\partial}^{2}_{\perp}\delta_{\Sigma}~, (5.14)

with aa an arbitrary constant (which may be absorbed into μ\mu). Note that such a subtraction modifies (5.10) in the limit of coincident points only. Furthermore, the details of this subtraction are not important as long as the result is used in (5.7)

hn4(n1)δij2δΣ\displaystyle-{h_{n}\over 4(n-1)}\delta^{ij}{\partial}^{2}_{\perp}\delta_{\Sigma} =\displaystyle= 2δSnunivδgij(x)|gμν=δμν,\displaystyle-2{\delta S_{n}^{\text{univ}}\over\delta g_{ij}(x)}\Big{|}_{g_{\mu\nu}=\delta_{\mu\nu}}~,
hn2(n1)(δac2ac)δΣ\displaystyle{h_{n}\over 2(n-1)}\left(\delta^{ac}{\partial}^{2}_{\perp}-{\partial}^{a}{\partial}^{c}\right)\delta_{\Sigma} =\displaystyle= 2δSnunivδgab(x)|gμν=δμν.\displaystyle-2{\delta S_{n}^{\text{univ}}\over\delta g_{ab}(x)}\Big{|}_{g_{\mu\nu}=\delta_{\mu\nu}}~. (5.15)

Next we use (5.6) to evaluate the variation on the right hand side. We start from noting that the term proportional to fa(n)f_{a}(n) is topological, and therefore its variation vanishes. Hence, in general we need only vary fb(n)f_{b}(n) and fc(n)f_{c}(n) terms. Now in four dimensions, the following relations hold

Cμσνλ\displaystyle C^{\lambda}_{~\,\mu\sigma\nu} =\displaystyle= Rμσνλ(g[σλRν]μgμ[σRν]λ)+13Rg[σλgν]μ,\displaystyle R^{\lambda}_{~\,\mu\sigma\nu}-\left(g^{\lambda}_{[\sigma}R_{\nu]\mu}-g_{\mu[\sigma}R^{\lambda}_{\nu]}\right)+{1\over 3}R\,g^{\lambda}_{[\sigma}g_{\nu]\mu}~,
γijγklCikjl\displaystyle\gamma^{ij}\gamma^{kl}C_{ikjl} =\displaystyle= γijγklRikjlγijRij+13R\displaystyle\gamma^{ij}\gamma^{kl}R_{ikjl}-\gamma^{ij}R_{ij}+{1\over 3}R (5.16)
=\displaystyle= 13(γijγklRikjlγijgμνRiμjν+gμνgαβRμανβ),\displaystyle{1\over 3}\left(\gamma^{ij}\gamma^{kl}R_{ikjl}-\gamma_{ij}g^{\perp}_{\mu\nu}R^{i\mu j\nu}+g^{\perp}_{\mu\nu}g^{\perp}_{\alpha\beta}R^{\mu\alpha\nu\beta}\right)~,

where gμν=nμanνcδacg^{\perp}_{\mu\nu}=n^{a}_{\mu}n^{c}_{\nu}\delta_{ac} is the metric in the transverse space to Σ\Sigma, i.e., gμν=γμν+gμνg_{\mu\nu}=\gamma_{\mu\nu}+g^{\perp}_{\mu\nu}. One can use the Gauss-Codazzi relation

γijγklRikjl=RΣ+KijaKaijKaKa,\gamma^{ij}\gamma^{kl}R_{ikjl}=R_{\Sigma}+K_{ij}^{a}K^{ij}_{a}-K^{a}K_{a}~, (5.17)

where RΣR_{\Sigma} is the intrinsic curvature of the entangling surface, to write

γijγklCikjl=13(RΣ+KijaKaijKaKaγijgμνRiμjν+gμνgαβRμανβ)\gamma^{ij}\gamma^{kl}C_{ikjl}={1\over 3}\left(R_{\Sigma}+K_{ij}^{a}K^{ij}_{a}-K^{a}K_{a}-\gamma_{ij}g^{\perp}_{\mu\nu}R^{i\mu j\nu}+g^{\perp}_{\mu\nu}g^{\perp}_{\alpha\beta}R^{\mu\alpha\nu\beta}\right) (5.18)

Now recall that (5.10) is valid in the limit when all curvatures (extrinsic, intrinsic and background) are negligibly small. Hence, we expand the relevant curvature components around the flat space, gμν=δμν+hμνg_{\mu\nu}=\delta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu},

δRiaia\displaystyle\delta R_{~~ia}^{ia} =\displaystyle= 12(2aihai2hiiiihaa)+𝒪(h2),\displaystyle{1\over 2}\left(2\,{\partial}^{a}{\partial}^{i}h_{ai}-{\partial}_{\perp}^{2}h_{~i}^{i}-{\partial}^{i}{\partial}_{i}h^{a}_{~a}\right)+\mathcal{O}(h^{2})~,
δRabab\displaystyle\delta R_{~~ab}^{ab} =\displaystyle= abhab2haa+𝒪(h2),\displaystyle{\partial}^{a}{\partial}^{b}h_{ab}-{\partial}_{\perp}^{2}h^{a}_{~a}+\mathcal{O}(h^{2})~, (5.19)

where we used the results listed in Appendix B and summation over the repeated indices is assumed.

Next we again use the fact that the integral of the intrinsic curvature over a two-dimensional manifold is a topological invariant, and therefore its variation vanishes. As a result, we obtain999Note that the third term in (5.19) is a total derivative.

2δSnunivδgij(x)|gμν=δμν\displaystyle-2{\delta S_{n}^{\text{univ}}\over\delta g_{ij}(x)}\Big{|}_{g_{\mu\nu}=\delta_{\mu\nu}} =\displaystyle= fc(n)6πδij2δΣ,\displaystyle-{f_{c}(n)\over 6\pi}\delta^{ij}{\partial}^{2}_{\perp}\delta_{\Sigma}~,
2δSnunivδgab(x)|gμν=δμν\displaystyle-2{\delta S_{n}^{\text{univ}}\over\delta g_{ab}(x)}\Big{|}_{g_{\mu\nu}=\delta_{\mu\nu}} =\displaystyle= fc(n)3π(abδab2)δΣ,\displaystyle-{f_{c}(n)\over 3\pi}\left({\partial}^{a}{\partial}^{b}-\delta^{ab}{\partial}^{2}_{\perp}\right)\delta_{\Sigma}~, (5.20)

where we have used the following identities

δgαβ(y)δgμν(x)=δ(αμδβ)νδ(xy),Σδ(xy)=δΣ(xa)foryΣ.{\delta g_{\alpha\beta}(y)\over\delta g_{\mu\nu}(x)}=\delta^{\mu}_{(\alpha}\delta^{\nu}_{\beta)}\delta(x-y)~,\quad\int_{\Sigma}\delta(x-y)=\delta_{\Sigma}(x_{a})~\text{for}~y\in\Sigma~. (5.21)

Comparing (5.15) and (5.20), yields

fc(n)=3π2hnn1.f_{c}(n)={3\pi\over 2}{h_{n}\over n-1}~. (5.22)

In full agreement with the existing results for free fields safdi1 . As we mentioned above, this result was also found with a complementary argument in aitor7 .

5.2 fbf_{b} and the two-point function of the displacement operator

We now turn to the second equality in eq. (5.4). Since we like to find the appearance of CDC_{D}, we begin by considering the following Ward identity derived in appendix A

Da(x)Dc(y)nδΣ(x)δΣ(y)=μTtotμa(x)νTtotνc(y)nforxyΣ.\langle D^{a}(x)D^{c}(y)\rangle_{n}\delta_{\Sigma}(x)\,\delta_{\Sigma}(y)=-\langle\nabla_{\mu}T_{\textrm{\tiny tot}}^{\mu a}(x)\nabla_{\nu}T_{\textrm{\tiny tot}}^{\nu c}(y)\rangle_{n}\quad\text{for}\quad x\neq y\in\Sigma~. (5.23)

Of course, when either xx or yy are away from Σ\Sigma, the correlator on the right hand side vanishes identically. However, as we will see, it does not vanish when xx and yy hit the entangling surface Σ\Sigma. This is why the δΣ\delta_{\Sigma}’s are explicitly included on the left hand side of the above identity. In particular, we are interested in the leading order singularity of Da(x)Dc(y)n\langle D^{a}(x)D^{c}(y)\rangle_{n} when xx approaches yy. In this limit curvature corrections are subleading, i.e., both the entangling surface and the background can be regarded as flat. From (LABEL:vevTT), we have

11nμμμTtotμa(x)νTtotνc(y)n|gμν=δμν\displaystyle{1\over 1-n}\,\mu{{\partial}\over{\partial}\mu}\langle{\partial}_{\mu}T^{\mu a}_{\textrm{\tiny tot}}(x)~{\partial}_{\nu}T^{\nu c}_{\textrm{\tiny tot}}(y)\rangle_{n}\Big{|}_{g_{\mu\nu}=\delta_{\mu\nu}} =\displaystyle= 2yνxμ( 4δ2Snunivδgνc(y)δgμa(x)|gμν=δμν\displaystyle\,{{\partial}^{2}\over{\partial}y^{\nu}\,{\partial}x^{\mu}}\left(\,4{\delta^{2}S_{n}^{\text{univ}}\over\delta g_{\nu c}(y)\delta g_{\mu a}(x)}\Big{|}_{g_{\mu\nu}=\delta_{\mu\nu}}\right. (5.24)
\displaystyle- 2δνcδ(xy)δSnunivδgμa(x)|gμν=δμν).\displaystyle\left.2\,\delta^{\nu c}\,\delta(x-y)\,{\delta S_{n}^{\text{univ}}\over\delta g_{\mu a}(x)}\Big{|}_{g_{\mu\nu}=\delta_{\mu\nu}}\right)~.

The results of appendix B yield101010As before summation over the repeated indices is assumed.

δ2Ria=ia14(2ahiμihaμ+ahiμahiμ2ahiμμhai+ihaμihaμ2ihaμμhai+μhaiμhai)14(4ahaμihiμ2ahaμμhii2μhaaihiμ+μhaaμhii)+12hab(abhii2ibhai+iihab)+12hij(aahij2ajhai+ijhaa)+hai(aihjjajhijijhaj+jjhai).\begin{split}\delta^{2}R^{ia}{}_{ia}=&\frac{1}{4}\left(2\partial_{a}h_{i\mu}\partial^{i}h^{a\mu}+\partial_{a}h_{i\mu}\partial^{a}h^{i\mu}-2\partial_{a}h_{i\mu}\partial^{\mu}h^{ai}+\partial_{i}h_{a\mu}\partial^{i}h^{a\mu}\right.\\ &\left.-2\partial_{i}h_{a\mu}\partial^{\mu}h^{ai}+\partial_{\mu}h_{ai}\partial^{\mu}h^{ai}\right)\\ &-\frac{1}{4}\left(4\partial^{a}h_{a\mu}\partial_{i}h^{i\mu}-2\partial_{a}h^{a\mu}\partial_{\mu}h^{i}_{i}-2\partial_{\mu}h_{a}^{a}\partial_{i}h^{i\mu}+\partial_{\mu}h_{a}^{a}\partial^{\mu}h^{i}_{i}\right)\\ &+\frac{1}{2}h^{ab}\left(\partial_{a}\partial_{b}h^{i}_{i}-2\partial_{i}\partial_{b}h^{i}_{a}+\partial_{i}\partial^{i}h_{ab}\right)\\ &+\frac{1}{2}h^{ij}\left(\partial^{a}\partial_{a}h_{ij}-2\partial_{a}\partial_{j}h^{i}_{a}+\partial_{i}\partial_{j}h_{a}^{a}\right)\\ &+h^{ai}\left(\partial_{a}\partial_{i}h^{j}_{j}-\partial_{a}\partial_{j}h_{i}^{j}-\partial_{i}\partial_{j}h_{a}^{j}+\partial^{j}\partial_{j}h_{ai}\right).\end{split} (5.25)

Similarly,

δ2Rab=ab12(ahbμbhaμ+ahbμahbμahbμμhabbhaμμhab+12μhabμhab)ahaμbhbμ+ahaμμhbb14μhaaμhbb+hab(abhcc2bchac+cchab)2hai(abhibbbhaiaihbb+ibhab).\begin{split}\delta^{2}R^{ab}{}_{ab}=&\frac{1}{2}\left(\partial_{a}h_{b\mu}\partial^{b}h^{a\mu}+\partial_{a}h_{b\mu}\partial^{a}h^{b\mu}-\partial_{a}h_{b\mu}\partial^{\mu}h^{ab}-\partial_{b}h_{a\mu}\partial^{\mu}h^{ab}+\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}h_{ab}\partial^{\mu}h^{ab}\right)\\ &-\partial^{a}h_{a\mu}\partial_{b}h^{b\mu}+\partial_{a}h^{a\mu}\partial_{\mu}h^{b}_{b}-\frac{1}{4}\partial_{\mu}h^{a}_{a}\partial^{\mu}h^{b}_{b}\\ &+h^{ab}\left(\partial_{a}\partial_{b}h^{c}_{c}-2\partial_{b}\partial_{c}h^{c}_{a}+\partial_{c}\partial^{c}h_{ab}\right)\\ &-2h^{ai}\left(\partial_{a}\partial_{b}h^{b}_{i}-\partial_{b}\partial^{b}h_{ai}-\partial_{a}\partial_{i}h^{b}_{b}+\partial_{i}\partial_{b}h^{b}_{a}\right).\end{split} (5.26)

and

δ2(KijaKaij)|gμν=δμν\displaystyle\delta^{2}\left(K^{a}_{ij}K_{a}^{ij}\right)\Big{|}_{g_{\mu\nu}=\delta_{\mu\nu}} =\displaystyle= 12ihajihaj+12jhaiihajahijihaj+14ahijahij,\displaystyle{1\over 2}{\partial}_{i}h_{aj}{\partial}^{i}h^{aj}+{1\over 2}{\partial}_{j}h_{ai}{\partial}^{i}h^{aj}-{\partial}_{a}h_{ij}{\partial}^{i}h^{aj}+{1\over 4}{\partial}_{a}h_{ij}{\partial}^{a}h^{ij}~,
δ2(KaKa)|gμν=δμν\displaystyle\delta^{2}\left(K^{a}K_{a}\right)\Big{|}_{g_{\mu\nu}=\delta_{\mu\nu}} =\displaystyle= ihaijhajihaiahjj+14ahiiahjj.\displaystyle{\partial}_{i}h^{ai}{\partial}_{j}h^{j}_{a}-{\partial}_{i}h^{ai}{\partial}^{a}h^{j}_{j}+{1\over 4}{\partial}_{a}h^{i}_{i}\,{\partial}^{a}h^{j}_{j}~. (5.27)

These expansions together with (5.19) are sufficient to evaluate the variation on the right hand side of (5.24). There is, however, a significant simplification if we notice that the general term of this variation contains: two delta functions, δΣ\delta_{\Sigma}, which restrict the final answer to the entangling surface, one delta function intrinsic to the entangling surface and 4 derivatives, a{\partial}_{a} and i{\partial}_{i}, which act on these delta functions. Among all such terms only those with four derivatives parallel to the entangling surface will contribute to the leading singularity of Da(x)Db(y)n\langle D^{a}(x)D^{b}(y)\rangle_{n} as xx approaches yy. Hence, the relevant part of the variations are

δ2Riaia\displaystyle\delta^{2}R^{ia}{}_{ia} =\displaystyle= 12(ihajihajihajjhai)+hai(ijhaj+jjhai)+\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\left(\partial_{i}h_{aj}\partial^{i}h^{aj}-\partial_{i}h_{aj}\partial^{j}h^{ai}\right)+h^{ai}\left(-\partial_{i}\partial_{j}h_{a}^{j}+\partial^{j}\partial_{j}h_{ai}\right)+\dots
δ2(KijaKaij)|gμν=δμν\displaystyle\delta^{2}\left(K^{a}_{ij}K_{a}^{ij}\right)\Big{|}_{g_{\mu\nu}=\delta_{\mu\nu}} =\displaystyle= 12(ihajihaj+jhaiihaj)+,\displaystyle{1\over 2}\left({\partial}_{i}h_{aj}{\partial}^{i}h^{aj}+{\partial}_{j}h_{ai}{\partial}^{i}h^{aj}\right)+\ldots~,
δ2(KaKa)|gμν=δμν\displaystyle\delta^{2}\left(K^{a}K_{a}\right)\Big{|}_{g_{\mu\nu}=\delta_{\mu\nu}} =\displaystyle= ihaijhaj+\displaystyle{\partial}_{i}h^{ai}{\partial}_{j}h^{j}_{a}+\ldots (5.28)

where the ellipses encode terms which do not contribute to the leading singularity of Da(x)Db(y)n\langle D^{a}(x)D^{b}(y)\rangle_{n} as xx approaches yy.

Now it follows from (5.18) that the term proportional to fc(n)f_{c}(n) in (5.6) does not contribute to the leading singularity of Da(x)Db(y)n\langle D^{a}(x)D^{b}(y)\rangle_{n} while fb(n)f_{b}(n) gives

42yνxμδ2Snunivδgνc(y)δgμa(x)|gμν=δμν=fb(n)2πδac(ii)2δ(xy)δΣ(x)δΣ(y),4\,{{\partial}^{2}\over{\partial}y^{\nu}\,{\partial}x^{\mu}}\,{\delta^{2}S_{n}^{\text{univ}}\over\delta g_{\nu c}(y)\delta g_{\mu a}(x)}\Big{|}_{g_{\mu\nu}=\delta_{\mu\nu}}=-{f_{b}(n)\over 2\pi}\,\delta^{ac}\,({\partial}_{i}{\partial}^{i})^{2}\delta_{\|}(x-y)\,\delta_{\Sigma}(x)\,\delta_{\Sigma}(y)~, (5.29)

where δ(xy)\delta_{\|}(x-y) is the delta function intrinsic to Σ\Sigma. Substituting into (5.24) and using (5.23), yields111111It follows from (5.20) that the first variation of SnunivS_{n}^{\textrm{\tiny univ}} does not have the same singularity structure as DaDb\langle D^{a}D^{b}\rangle, and therefore it does not contribute.

11nμμDa(x)Db(y)n=fb(n)2πδab(ii)2δ(xy)forx,yΣ.{1\over 1-n}\mu{{\partial}\over{\partial}\mu}\langle D^{a}(x)D^{b}(y)\rangle_{n}={f_{b}(n)\over 2\pi}\,\delta^{ab}\,({\partial}_{i}{\partial}^{i})^{2}\delta_{\|}(x-y)\quad\text{for}\quad x,y\in\Sigma~. (5.30)

Now let us recall that the leading singularity of Da(x)Db(y)n\langle D^{a}(x)D^{b}(y)\rangle_{n} is entirely fixed based on translation invariance along the flat entangling plane and scaling dimension of μTμa{\partial}_{\mu}T^{\mu\,a}, i.e., up to a constant CDC_{D}, we have

Da(x)Db(y)n=CDδab|xy|6=CDδab(xy)2(d1)forx,yΣ.\langle D^{a}(x)D^{b}(y)\rangle_{n}=C_{D}{\delta^{ab}\over|x-y|^{6}}=C_{D}\,{\delta^{ab}\over(x-y)^{2(d-1)}}\quad\text{for}\quad x,y\in\Sigma~. (5.31)

In particular, we should use the analog of (5.12) to interpret this correlator in the limit xyx\to y.121212The analog is obtained by replacing δΣ\delta_{\Sigma} and 2{\partial}_{\perp}^{2} with δ\delta_{\|} and ii{\partial}^{i}{\partial}_{i} respectively. The final answer takes the form

1r6=π32(12ϵ+log(μr)+)(ii)2δ(r).{1\over r^{6}}=-{\pi\over 32}\left({1\over 2\epsilon}+\log(\mu\,r)+\ldots\right)({\partial}_{i}{\partial}^{i})^{2}\,\delta_{\|}(r)~. (5.32)

Combining altogether, yields

CDn1=16π2fb(n).{C_{D}\over n-1}={16\over\pi^{2}}\,f_{b}(n)~. (5.33)

Further, let us note that this result is in full agreement with (2.15) since fb(1)=c=π4CT/40f_{b}(1)=c=\pi^{4}\,C_{T}/40.

6 Twist operators and the defect CFT data

In the most general sense, a conformal field theory is defined by a set of data, whose knowledge is sufficient to compute all the observables in the theory. A minimal definition of the CFT data includes the spectrum of scaling dimensions of local operators and the OPE coefficients which regulate their fusion. Knowledge of such a set of numbers is sufficient to compute correlation functions with any number of points. However, one might argue that a more complete definition of the CFT data should include those associated to non-local probes, i.e., defects: certainly, they are part of the observables of a theory. A possible objection is that the set of defects that can be inserted in a higher dimensional conformal field theory may be very large, even nearly as large as the set of lower dimensional conformal field theories. We may point out that in two dimensions the study of boundaries and interfaces has uncovered a beautiful and simple picture — see e.g., Cardy:1989ir ; Cardy:1991tv ; Behrend:1999bn ; Quella:2002ct ; Quella:2006de . However, even in d=2d=2, a complete classification of the defect lines which can be placed in a given CFT is a difficult problem, without a solution for the generic case. The situation is better in the special case of topological defects Frohlich:2006ch , which have been classified for the Virasoro minimal models Petkova:2000ip and for the free boson Fuchs:2007tx . In higher dimensions, it is perhaps better to think of a theory with a defect as a separate problem, more similar in spirit to the question of which new fixed points can be obtained by coupling two CFTs together. The CFT data that describes a defect CFT are then again associated to correlation functions of local operators in this system, and therefore to the spectrum of primaries and their fusion rules. As we mentioned in section 2, the main news in the defect CFT setup are given by the spectrum of defect operators, and by the existence of a defect OPE, again regulated by a set of OPE coefficients.

It is then natural to ask what is the set of CFT data which characterizes the twist operator. This question is not only a simple curiosity. The definition of the replica defect is through a boundary condition in the path-integral. This is often sufficient, but a new definition in terms of CFT data would apply to any conformal field theory, irrespectively of the availability of a path-integral description.131313We thank Davide Gaiotto for a discussion on this point. Again, some care is needed in setting up this question. The large majority of the OPE coefficients appearing in formulae such as (2.7) will depend on the theory in which the twist operator is inserted. However, if an unambiguous characterization exists, it should be possible to single out some universal pattern, unique to this defect and independent of the CFT. In fact, in the present paper, we highlighted the presence of two interesting features. First, the CFT data associated to a flat twist operator always includes a spectrum of defect primaries with rational spin under rotations around the defect. Second, we have the suggestion that the coefficient of the two-point function of the displacement and the one of the expectation value of the stress-tensor might be constrained to obey eq. (2.14). Both these facts are theory independent, but both of them are not unique to the twist operator. Codimension-two defects supporting operators with non-integer transverse spin can be easily constructed — see for instance Billo:2013jda — while the relation (2.14) is shared by Wilson lines in a class of three-dimensional supersymmetric gauge theories, as we discussed in section 4.

Of course, we also understand that the latter constraint will only be obeyed within a special class of CFTs. Eq. (2.14) is nevertheless remarkable, and one might wonder whether it is possible to understand it from the abstract perspective that we are adopting here. In fact, something special does happen in the defect OPE of the stress tensor, when this relation is fulfilled: a certain number of singular contributions to this OPE disappear, as we now show. The appearance of the displacement operator in the defect OPE of the stress tensor is constrained by Lorentz and scale invariance to take the following form:

Tij(x)\displaystyle T^{ij}(x) +αxbDbδijr2+βxbijDb+γxbδijkkDb+\displaystyle\sim\dots+\alpha\frac{x_{b}D^{b}\,\delta^{ij}}{r^{2}}+\beta\,x_{b}\,\partial_{i}\partial_{j}D^{b}+\gamma\,x_{b}\,\delta^{ij}\,\partial_{k}\partial^{k}D^{b}+\dots (6.1a)
Tbi(x)\displaystyle T^{bi}(x) +δxbxciDcr2+ϵiDb+\displaystyle\sim\dots+\delta\,\frac{x^{b}x_{c}\,\partial^{i}D^{c}}{r^{2}}+\epsilon\,\partial^{i}D^{b}+\dots (6.1b)
Tbc(x)\displaystyle T^{bc}(x) +ζxbxcxaDar4+ηδbcxaDar2+λDbxc+Dcxbr2+\displaystyle\sim\dots+\zeta\,\frac{x^{b}x^{c}x_{a}D^{a}}{r^{4}}+\eta\,\frac{\delta^{bc}x_{a}D^{a}}{r^{2}}+\lambda\frac{D^{b}x^{c}+D^{c}x^{b}}{r^{2}}+\dots (6.1c)

where rr denotes the transverse distance from the defect, as usual. The first ellipsis in each line alludes to the identity and to operators which might be lighter than the displacement, and the second ellipsis indicates less-singular contributions, including higher descendants of the displacement itself. Conformal invariance and conservation of the energy-momentum tensor place constraints on the coefficients in eq. (6.1), and only two of them are independent. More interestingly, these two numbers are in fact fixed in terms of the conformal weight hh and the coefficient CDC_{D}. A proof of these statements appears in billo:confdef , but it is not difficult to understand how they may come about. The form of the OPE is determined by the two-point function of the displacement operator with the stress-tensor, which is fixed by conformal symmetry up to three coefficients:141414Our conventions differ from the ones in billo:confdef in the following way: the displacement has opposite sign — and with it the constants bDTib_{DT}^{i} — and the conformal weight of the twist operator is denoted there as aT=dh/2πa_{T}=-d\,h/2\pi.

Da(x1)Tij(x2)\displaystyle\braket{D^{a}(x_{1})T^{ij}(x_{2})} =x2a(x122)d1r21d{bDT1(4dr2x12ix12jx124δij)+bDT2δij},\displaystyle=\frac{x_{2}^{a}}{(x_{12}^{2})^{d-1}r^{2}}\frac{1}{d}\left\{b^{1}_{DT}\left(\frac{4d\,r^{2}\,x_{12}^{i}x_{12}^{j}}{x_{12}^{4}}-\delta^{ij}\right)+b^{2}_{DT}\,\delta^{ij}\right\},
Da(x1)Tib(x2)\displaystyle\braket{D^{a}(x_{1})T^{ib}(x_{2})} =x12i(x122)d{2bDT1x2ax2br2(12r2x122)+bDT3(δabx2ax2br2)},\displaystyle=\frac{x_{12}^{i}}{(x_{12}^{2})^{d}}\left\{2b^{1}_{DT}\,\frac{x^{a}_{2}x_{2}^{b}}{r^{2}}\left(1-\frac{2r^{2}}{x_{12}^{2}}\right)+b^{3}_{DT}\left(\delta^{ab}-\frac{x^{a}_{2}x_{2}^{b}}{r^{2}}\right)\right\},
Da(x1)Tbc(x2)\displaystyle\braket{D^{a}(x_{1})T^{bc}(x_{2})} =1(x122)d1r{bDT1x2ar[x2bx2cr2(x1222r2)2x1241dδbc]\displaystyle=\frac{1}{(x_{12}^{2})^{d-1}r}\left\{b^{1}_{DT}\,\frac{x_{2}^{a}}{r}\left[\frac{x_{2}^{b}x_{2}^{c}}{r^{2}}\frac{\left(x_{12}^{2}-2r^{2}\right)^{2}}{x_{12}^{4}}-\frac{1}{d}\delta^{bc}\right]\right.
+bDT2x2ar(x2bx2cr2d1dδbc)\displaystyle+\left.b^{2}_{DT}\,\frac{x_{2}^{a}}{r}\left(\frac{x_{2}^{b}x_{2}^{c}}{r^{2}}-\frac{d-1}{d}\delta^{bc}\right)\right.
+bDT3(12r2x122)(δabx2c+δacx2b2rx2ax2bx2cr3)}.\displaystyle+\left.b^{3}_{DT}\left(1-\frac{2r^{2}}{x_{12}^{2}}\right)\left(\frac{\delta^{ab}x_{2}^{c}+\delta^{ac}x_{2}^{b}}{2r}-\frac{x_{2}^{a}x_{2}^{b}x_{2}^{c}}{r^{3}}\right)\right\}. (6.2)

Here x1x_{1} is, of course, confined to the defect while rr denotes the transverse distance of TμνT^{\mu\nu} from the defect, and x12μ=x1μx2μx_{12}^{\mu}=x_{1}^{\mu}-x_{2}^{\mu}. Now imagine integrating the displacement along the defect: this is equivalent to an infinitesimal translation in the direction labeled by aa. We see that the integrated two-point function is proportional to the derivative aTμν\partial_{a}\braket{T^{\mu\nu}}, whence two linear relations follow:

bDT2\displaystyle b_{DT}^{2} =1d1(d2bDT3bDT1),\displaystyle=\frac{1}{d-1}\left(\frac{d}{2}b_{DT}^{3}-b_{DT}^{1}\right), (6.3a)
bDT3\displaystyle b_{DT}^{3} =2ddπd12Γ(d+12)h2π.\displaystyle=2^{d}d\,\pi^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}\Gamma\!\left(\frac{d+1}{2}\right)\frac{h}{2\pi}. (6.3b)

The first of the (6.3) reduces to two the independent coefficients and is compatible with conservation. On the other hand, if we contract the same two-point function with a derivative, we obtain the two-point function of the displacement via eq. (2.8), and this provides the relation involving CDC_{D}:

bDT2=1d2(d2bDT32CD2π).b_{DT}^{2}=\frac{1}{d-2}\left(\frac{d}{2}\,b_{DT}^{3}-2\frac{C_{D}}{2\pi}\right). (6.4)

We see that the two-point function, and so the relative contribution to the defect OPE of the stress-tensor, are fixed in terms of CDC_{D} and hh.

Let us now consider the most singular contributions in every component in (6.1). In Euclidean signature, all terms in the the OPE of TbiT^{bi} and TbcT^{bc} have the same degree of singularity. We can still define the most singular terms in Lorentzian signature, by considering a spacelike defect — this is especially natural when talking about Rényi entropy. Now as the insertion approaches the null cone, the individual xax^{a} may remain finite while rr approaches zero. In this circumstance, the most singular terms are those multiplied by α,δ\alpha,\,\delta and ζ\zeta. Comparing eqs. (6.1) and (6), we easily find

α=1dCD(bDT2bDT1),δ=12(d1)CD(2bDT1bDT3),ζ=1CD(bDT1+bDT2bDT3).\alpha=\frac{1}{d\,C_{D}}(b_{DT}^{2}-b_{DT}^{1}),\quad\delta=\frac{1}{2(d-1)C_{D}}(2b_{DT}^{1}-b_{DT}^{3}),\quad\zeta=\frac{1}{C_{D}}(b_{DT}^{1}+b_{DT}^{2}-b_{DT}^{3}). (6.5)

Remarkably, the three constants vanish when eq. (2.14) holds, i.e.,

α=δ=ζ=0CD(n)=dΓ(d+12)(2π)d1hn\alpha=\delta=\zeta=0\iff C_{D}(n)=d\,\Gamma\left(\tfrac{d+1}{2}\right)\,\left(\tfrac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\right)^{d-1}\,h_{n} (6.6)

This observation is appealing, even if its meaning remains somewhat obscure. One may speculate that the twist operator is a “mild” defect, in some sense. It is obtained through a modification of the geometry, rather than the addition of local degrees of freedom, and now we see that the OPE of the stress-tensor is less singular than for a generic defect. However, this idea should not be taken too literally. The identity appears in the same defect OPE, with a more severe singularity. Moreover, lighter defect operators with respect to the displacement might exist — in fact, they do in a free scalar theory, as discussed in Appendix C. Some of them may also appear in the defect OPE of the stress tensor. Whatever the right interpretation may be, it is worth emphasizing that it would have been probably difficult to recognize the special character of the relation (2.14), without adopting the defect CFT perspective.

7 Discussion

Twist operators were originally defined in examining Rényi entropies in two-dimensional CFTs Calabrese:2004eu ; Cardy:2007mb and they are easily understood in this context since they are local primary operators. As discussed in section 2, twist operators are formally defined for general QFTs through the replica trick, as in eq. (2.5). In higher dimensions then, they become nonlocal surface operators and their properties are less well understood. In the present paper, we have begun to explore twist operators for CFTs in higher dimensions from the perspective of conformal defects. This approach naturally introduces a number of tools that are unfamiliar in typical discussions of Rényi entropies. In particular, our discussion has focused on the displacement operator DaD^{a}, which appears with the new contact term in the Ward identity (2.8).

A key role of the displacement operator is to implement small local deformations of the entangling surface, as in eq. (2.11). As shown in eq. (2.12), the expectation value of the twist operator itself only varies at second order for such deformations of a planar (or spherical) entangling surfaces and is determined by the two-point function (2.9) of the displacement operator. This behaviour was previously seen in holographic studies of the so-called entanglement density Nozaki:2013vta and more recently in new . These results correspond to the special case of the n1n\to 1 limit in eq. (2.12). We might also like to note that the connection with Wilson lines in holographic conformal gauge theories discussed in section 4.2 would also relate these entanglement variations to the wavy-line behaviour of Wilson lines wavy .

Our main result was to unify a variety of distinct conjectures, summarized at the end of section 2, about the shape dependence of Rényi entropy to a constraint (2.14) relating the coefficient defining the two-point function of the displacement operator and the conformal weight of the twist operator. While the connections between these conjectures, were already considered in Bueno:2015lza — see also discussion in new — eq. (2.14) appears to provide the root source with a relation between two pieces of CFT data characterizing the twist operators.

One of these conjectures was the equivalence of the coefficients fb(n)f_{b}(n) and fc(n)f_{c}(n) appearing in the universal part of the four-dimensional Rényi entropy for general nn Lewkowycz:2014jia ; safdi1 . However, it was very recently shown that this equivalence does not hold for four-dimensional holographic CFTs dual to Einstein gravity dong34 . As a consequence, it follows that eq. (2.14) does not hold for general nn in these holographic CFTs either. On the other hand, this relation does hold in the vicinity of n=1n=1 for general CFTs. That is, the recent results of new demonstrate that the first order expansion of eq. (2.14) about n=1n=1 is a constraint which holds for generic CFTs. Despite the fact that this relation does not hold for all values of nn for all CFTs, it is still interesting to ask for precisely which CFTs does this constraint hold. It seems that free field theories are a good candidate for such a theory. The results of Bueno:2015qya ; Dowker1 ; Dowker2 for the universal corner contribution to the Rényi entropy in three dimensions imply that eq. (2.14) holds for free scalars and fermions in this dimension. Further, our calculations in Appendix C confirm that it holds for free massles scalars in four dimensions. We hope to return to this question in future work future .

While eq. (2.14), and hence the related conjectures, are not completely universal, it is nevertheless a remarkable relation. It may still be interesting to explore other implications which this relation has for Rényi entropies in other geometries and other dimensions. For example, it could provide a relation (for arbitrary nn) between different coefficients appearing in the universal contribution to the Rényi entropy in d=6d=6 or higher even dimensions, along the lines of our four-dimensional discussion in section 5.

Recalling that the twist operator is a local primary in two-dimensional CFTs, we might ask how the displacement operator appears in this context. Here, the natural object is the first descendant, i.e., derivative, of the twist operator which would be analogous to the combination of the displacement and twist operators together. This matches the appropriate contact term in the two-dimensional version of the Ward identity (2.8). Here we refer to an analogy (rather than a precise match) keeping in mind that as a local operator, the two-dimensional twist operator can be moved but not deformed. Still one might make sense of the two-point correlator (2.9) by considering a “spherical” entangling surface. In two dimensions, the (zero-dimensional) sphere would correspond to two points whose separation defines the diameter of the sphere. Hence eq. (2.9) would be given by taking derivatives of the correlator of two twist operators and hence one finds that the corresponding CDC_{D} is indeed proportional to the conformal weight hnh_{n}.

Our discussion has highlighted hnh_{n} and CDC_{D} as two pieces of CFT data which characterize twist operators. With this perspective of regarding the twist operator as a conformal defect, we began in section 6 to consider the question of what are the defining characteristics of the twist operator? Certainly the relation (2.14) would be an important feature since, as we noted there, it has an interesting impact on the defect OPE with the stress tensor. However, this relation is not completely universal and, as described in section 2, this property is also shared by Wilson line operators in certain superconformal gauge theories. Another important property discussed in section 2 is that the spectrum of defect operators can contain operators with fractional spins k/nk/n. Certainly, our analysis of the free scalar theory in appendix C explicitly reveals the presence of such operators. But again twist operators are not unique in this regard. Another interesting point that arises in our discussion is that the twist operators are naturally defined for integer nn but in discussing hnh_{n} and CDC_{D}, as well as the Rényi entropy, one continues the results to real nn almost immediately. Here derivatives of correlators with respect to the Rényi entropy index are naturally defined in terms of the modular Hamiltonian Hung:2014npa ; solo . This seems to point to a unique characteristic of twist operators in higher dimensions. In any event, better understanding the definition of the twist operator as a conformal defect remains an open question. Undoubtedly it is a question whose answer will produce a better understanding of the entanglement properties of CFTs, and perhaps QFTs more generally.

Acknowledgements.
We would like to thank Marco Billò, Jürgen Fuchs, Edoardo Lauria, Aitor Lewkowycz, Jonathan Toledo and especially Davide Gaiotto and Vasco Goncalves for valuable comments and correspondence. Research at Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through Industry Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research & Innovation. RCM acknowledges support from an NSERC Discovery grants and funding from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. The work of LB is supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in Sonderforschungsbereich 676 “Particles, Strings, and the Early Universe”. The work of MS is supported in part by the Berkeley Center for Theoretical Physics and by the National Science Foundation (award numbers 1214644, 1316783, and 1521446).

Appendix A Ward identities in the presence of a twist operator

This appendix is devoted to the Ward identities obeyed by the stress tensor in the presence of a twist operator. We shall focus on the displacement operator and opt for a streamlined derivation. We refer to billo:confdef for a more detailed account. Let us consider a qq-point correlator of the scalar fields on an arbitrary replicated manifold n\mathcal{M}_{n}

Γ(x1,x2,xq,Σ,gμν)ϕ(x1)ϕ(x2)ϕ(xq)nϕ(x1)ϕ(x2)ϕ(xq)τn(Σ),\Gamma(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots x_{q},\Sigma,g_{\mu\nu})\equiv\langle\phi(x_{1})\phi(x_{2})\cdots\phi(x_{q})\rangle_{n}\equiv\langle\phi(x_{1})\phi(x_{2})\cdots\phi(x_{q})\,\tau_{n}(\Sigma)\rangle~, (A.1)

where nn is the replica parameter and τn(Σ)\tau_{n}(\Sigma) is the twist operator associated with the entangling surface Σ\Sigma. By definition Γ(x1,x2,xq,Σ,gμν)\Gamma(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots x_{q},\Sigma,g_{\mu\nu}) transforms as a scalar under diffeomorphisms of the manifold. This means it will be unchanged if we simultaneously make the following infinitesimal replacements

δxiμ\displaystyle\delta x^{\mu}_{i} =\displaystyle= ξμ|xifori=1,q,\displaystyle\xi^{\mu}|_{x_{i}}\quad\text{for}\quad i=1,\ldots q~,
δxμ\displaystyle\delta x^{\mu} =\displaystyle= (ξαnc^α)nc^μforxμΣ,\displaystyle(\xi_{\alpha}\,n^{\alpha}_{\hat{c}})\,n^{\mu}_{\hat{c}}\quad\text{for}\quad x^{\mu}\in\Sigma~,
δgμν\displaystyle\delta g_{\mu\nu} =\displaystyle= μξννξμ,\displaystyle-\nabla_{\mu}\xi_{\nu}-\nabla_{\nu}\xi_{\mu}~, (A.2)

where na^μn_{\hat{a}}^{\mu} with a=1,2a=1,2 denotes an orthonormal basis of vectors in the transverse space to Σ\Sigma. Thus to leading order in ξμ\xi^{\mu} we have

0\displaystyle 0 =\displaystyle= i=1qξμ|xiϕ(x1)μϕ(xi)ϕ(xq)n+ϕ(x1)ϕ(x2)ϕ(xq)ΣξαDαn\displaystyle-\sum_{i=1}^{q}\xi^{\mu}|_{x_{i}}\langle\phi(x_{1})\cdots{\partial}_{\mu}\phi(x_{i})\cdots\phi(x_{q})\rangle_{n}+\langle\phi(x_{1})\phi(x_{2})\cdots\phi(x_{q})\int_{\Sigma}\xi^{\alpha}D_{\alpha}\rangle_{n} (A.3)
+\displaystyle+ ϕ(x1)ϕ(x2)ϕ(xq)nTμνμξνn,\displaystyle\langle\phi(x_{1})\phi(x_{2})\cdots\phi(x_{q})\int_{\mathcal{M}_{n}}T^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\mu}\xi_{\nu}\rangle_{n}~,

where Dα(y)=nc^αDc^(y)D^{\alpha}(y)=n^{\alpha}_{\hat{c}}D_{\hat{c}}(y) is a local operator which implements displacement of the surface operator, ΦΣ\Phi_{\Sigma}, at yμΣy^{\mu}\in\Sigma (analog of μ{\partial}_{\mu} for a scalar operator ϕ(x)\phi(x)). Now recall that ξμ\xi^{\mu} is arbitrary, but must be the same vector on all the sheets in the replicated geometry. With this in mind, we arrive at the following Ward identity

0\displaystyle 0 =\displaystyle= i=1qδ(xxi)ϕ(x1)νϕ(xi)ϕ(xq)n+δΣ(x)ϕ(x1)ϕ(x2)ϕ(xq)Dν(x)n\displaystyle-\sum_{i=1}^{q}\delta(x-x_{i})\langle\phi(x_{1})\cdots{\partial}_{\nu}\phi(x_{i})\cdots\phi(x_{q})\rangle_{n}+\delta_{\Sigma}(x)\,\langle\phi(x_{1})\phi(x_{2})\cdots\phi(x_{q})D_{\nu}(x)\rangle_{n} (A.4)
\displaystyle- m=1nϕ(x1)ϕ(x2)ϕ(xq)μTνμ(xm)n,\displaystyle\sum_{m=1}^{n}\langle\phi(x_{1})\phi(x_{2})\cdots\phi(x_{q})\nabla_{\mu}T^{\mu}_{\nu}(x_{m})\rangle_{n}~,

where xmx_{m} is a point on the mm-th replica. Of course, this is a more precise expression of the identity ‘loosely’ introduced in eq. (2.8). This Ward identity defines the displacement operator by specifying its matrix elements: the only additional input is the one of locality of the theory and of the defect, which guarantees that the displacement is a local operator.

Next we assume that there are no scalar field insertions and consider a special case when ξμ\xi^{\mu} is peaked around the two given disjoint points xx and yy, but otherwise is arbitrary. Then expanding to linear order in ξμ\xi^{\mu} around xx and yy and using the above Ward identity, results in (from the cross term ξμ(x)ξν(y)\xi^{\mu}(x)\xi^{\nu}(y))151515Note that there are two cross terms of the form δΣ(y)μTtotμa(x)Dc(y)n\delta_{\Sigma}(y)\langle\nabla_{\mu}T^{\mu a}_{\textrm{\tiny tot}}(x)D^{c}(y)\rangle_{n}. They vanish identically since only one stress tensor hits the defect, whereas the correlator Ttotμa(x)Dc(y)n\langle T^{\mu a}_{\textrm{\tiny tot}}(x)D^{c}(y)\rangle_{n} for xΣx\notin\Sigma is conserved.

δΣ(x)δΣ(y)Da(x)Dc(y)n+μTtotμa(x)νTtotνc(y)n=0forxy.\delta_{\Sigma}(x)\,\delta_{\Sigma}(y)\,\langle D^{a}(x)D^{c}(y)\rangle_{n}+\langle\nabla_{\mu}T^{\mu a}_{\textrm{\tiny tot}}(x)\nabla_{\nu}T^{\nu c}_{\textrm{\tiny tot}}(y)\rangle_{n}=0\quad\text{for}\quad x\neq y~. (A.5)

Appendix B Small variations of the metric

Consider a small perturbation of the flat metric gμν=δμν+hμνg_{\mu\nu}=\delta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}, then we find the following variations:
Christoffel symbols

δΓμνλ=12δλρ(μhρν+νhμρρhμν)\delta\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}={1\over 2}\delta^{\lambda\rho}\left({\partial}_{\mu}h_{\rho\nu}+{\partial}_{\nu}h_{\mu\rho}-{\partial}_{\rho}h_{\mu\nu}\right) (B.1)

Riemann tensor

Rρμσν\displaystyle R_{\rho\mu\sigma\nu} =\displaystyle= 12(μσgρν+ρνgμσμνgρσρσgμν)+gλβ(ΓμσλΓρνβΓμνλΓρσβ)\displaystyle{1\over 2}\left({\partial}_{\mu}{\partial}_{\sigma}g_{\rho\nu}+{\partial}_{\rho}{\partial}_{\nu}g_{\mu\sigma}-{\partial}_{\mu}{\partial}_{\nu}g_{\rho\sigma}-{\partial}_{\rho}{\partial}_{\sigma}g_{\mu\nu}\right)+g_{\lambda\beta}\left(\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\sigma}\Gamma^{\beta}_{\rho\nu}-\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}\Gamma^{\beta}_{\rho\sigma}\right)
δRρμσν\displaystyle\delta R_{\rho\mu\sigma\nu} =\displaystyle= 12(μσhρν+ρνhμσμνhρσρσhμν),\displaystyle{1\over 2}\left({\partial}_{\mu}{\partial}_{\sigma}h_{\rho\nu}+{\partial}_{\rho}{\partial}_{\nu}h_{\mu\sigma}-{\partial}_{\mu}{\partial}_{\nu}h_{\rho\sigma}-{\partial}_{\rho}{\partial}_{\sigma}h_{\mu\nu}\right)~,
δ2Rρμσν\displaystyle\delta^{2}R_{\rho\mu\sigma\nu} =\displaystyle= δλβ(δΓμσλδΓρνβδΓμνλδΓρσβ)\displaystyle\delta_{\lambda\beta}\left(\delta\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\sigma}\delta\Gamma^{\beta}_{\rho\nu}-\delta\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}\delta\Gamma^{\beta}_{\rho\sigma}\right) (B.2)

Surface forming normal vectors

gμνnμanνc\displaystyle g^{\mu\nu}\,n^{a}_{\mu}n^{c}_{\nu} =\displaystyle= δacδnμancμ+naμδnμc=naμncνδgμν,\displaystyle\delta^{ac}\quad\Rightarrow\quad\delta n^{a}_{\mu}n^{c\mu}+n^{a\mu}\delta n^{c}_{\mu}=n^{a\mu}n^{c\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}~,
nμatiμ\displaystyle n^{a}_{\mu}t^{\mu}_{i} =\displaystyle= 0δnμatiμ=0,\displaystyle 0\quad~~\,\Rightarrow\quad\delta n^{a}_{\mu}t^{\mu}_{i}=0~, (B.3)

where tiμ=xμ/yit^{\mu}_{i}={\partial}x^{\mu}/{\partial}y^{i} are tangent vectors to the entangling surface. Thus,

δnμa=Acanμc,\delta n^{a}_{\mu}=A^{a}_{~c}n^{c}_{\mu}~, (B.4)

with

A11=12n1μn1νδgμν,A22=12n2μn2νδgμν,A21+A12=n1μn2νδgμν.A^{1}_{~1}={1\over 2}n^{1\mu}n^{1\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}~,\quad A^{2}_{~2}={1\over 2}n^{2\mu}n^{2\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}~,\quad A^{1}_{~2}+A^{2}_{~1}=n^{1\mu}n^{2\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}~. (B.5)

Extrinsic curvatures

δKija=δ(inja)=δΓijμnμa+iδnja=12naμ(iδgμj+jδgμiμδgij)+AcaKijc.\delta K^{a}_{ij}=\delta\left(\nabla_{i}n^{a}_{j}\right)=-\delta\Gamma_{ij}^{\mu}n^{a}_{\mu}+\nabla_{i}\delta n^{a}_{j}=-{1\over 2}n^{a\mu}\left(\nabla_{i}\delta g_{\mu j}+\nabla_{j}\delta g_{\mu i}-\nabla_{\mu}\delta g_{ij}\right)+A^{a}_{~c}K^{c}_{ij}~. (B.6)

Transverse metric

gμν=nμanνcδacδgμν=Abanμbnνcδac+nμaAbcnνbδac,g^{\perp}_{\mu\nu}=n^{a}_{\mu}n^{c}_{\nu}\delta_{ac}\quad\Rightarrow\quad\delta g^{\perp}_{\mu\nu}=A^{a}_{~b}n^{b}_{\mu}n^{c}_{\nu}\delta_{ac}+n^{a}_{\mu}A^{c}_{~b}n^{b}_{\nu}\delta_{ac}~, (B.7)

or equivalently

δgμν=(n1αn1βδgαβ)nμ1nν1+(n2αn2βδgαβ)nμ2nν2+(n1αn2βδgαβ)(nμ2nν1+nμ1nν2).\delta g^{\perp}_{\mu\nu}=(n^{1\alpha}n^{1\beta}\delta g_{\alpha\beta})n^{1}_{\mu}n^{1}_{\nu}+(n^{2\alpha}n^{2\beta}\delta g_{\alpha\beta})n^{2}_{\mu}n^{2}_{\nu}+(n^{1\alpha}n^{2\beta}\delta g_{\alpha\beta})(n^{2}_{\mu}n^{1}_{\nu}+n^{1}_{\mu}n^{2}_{\nu})~. (B.8)

Appendix C Displacement operator for the free scalar

In this appendix, we consider the theory of a free scalar in four dimensions, and we explore the defect OPE of the low lying bulk primaries. In doing so, we give a concrete expression for the displacement operator in terms of Fourier modes of the fundamental field and we verify the conjecture (2.14) for this particular case. Given the Lagrangian of a four-dimensional free massless boson

=12(μϕ)2,\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\phi)^{2}\,, (C.1)

the propagator in presence of a conical singularity with an angular excess 2π(n1)2\pi(n-1) placed in r=0r=0 can be derived Guimaraes:1994sw :

ϕ(x)ϕ(x)n=sinh(ηn)8π2nrrsinhη(cosh(ηn)cos(θn)),\braket{\phi(x)\phi(x^{\prime})}_{n}=\frac{\sinh(\frac{\eta}{n})}{8\pi^{2}nrr^{\prime}\sinh\eta\left(\cosh(\frac{\eta}{n})-\cos(\frac{\theta}{n})\right)}, (C.2)

where

coshη=r2+r2+y22rr.\cosh\eta=\frac{r^{2}+{r^{\prime}}^{2}+y^{2}}{2rr^{\prime}}. (C.3)

We use alternatively polar coordinates around the defect with x=(r,θ,y1,y2)x=(r,\theta,y^{1},y^{2}), x=(r,0,0,0)x^{\prime}=(r^{\prime},0,0,0) or complex coordinates x=(z,z¯,yi)x=(z,\bar{z},y^{i}), x=(z,z¯,0)x^{\prime}=(z^{\prime},\bar{z}^{\prime},0) with z=reiθz=re^{i\theta} and z=rz^{\prime}=r^{\prime}. Assuming integer values of nn and expanding (C.2) in the defect OPE limit, i.e., for r0r\to 0 and r0r^{\prime}\to 0, one finds

ϕ(r,θ,yi)ϕ(r,0,0)n=14nπ2(1y2+2k=1n1rknrkn(y2)1+kncoskθnr2+r22rrcosθy4+)\braket{\phi(r,\theta,y^{i})\phi(r^{\prime},0,0)}_{n}=\frac{1}{4n\pi^{2}}\left(\frac{1}{y^{2}}+2\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\frac{r^{\frac{k}{n}}{r^{\prime}}^{\frac{k}{n}}}{(y^{2})^{1+\frac{k}{n}}}\cos\frac{k\theta}{n}-\frac{r^{2}+{r^{\prime}}^{2}-2rr^{\prime}\cos\theta}{y^{4}}+\cdots\right) (C.4)

where y2=(y1)2+(y2)2y^{2}=(y^{1})^{2}+(y^{2})^{2} and the ellipsis indicates terms with higher powers of r/yr/y and r/yr^{\prime}/y. This result can be precisely reproduced by the following OPE expansion for the field ϕ\phi 161616The two contributions proportional to r2r^{2} and r2{r^{\prime}}^{2} in (C.4) originate from the descendant iϕ\partial_{i}\phi.

ϕ(z,z¯)=ϕ(0)+12πnk(zknOkn+z¯knO¯kn)+\phi(z,\bar{z})=\phi(0)+\frac{1}{2\pi\sqrt{n}}\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\left(z^{\frac{k}{n}}O_{\frac{k}{n}}+\bar{z}^{\frac{k}{n}}\bar{O}_{\frac{k}{n}}\right)+\cdots (C.5)

where the operators OknO_{\frac{k}{n}} are defect primaries with transverse spin s=kns=\frac{k}{n} and scaling dimension Δ=s+1\Delta=s+1 and the ellipsis indicates contributions from the descendants. This spectrum of twist-one171717We are calling twist the difference between the scaling dimension and the charge under a transverse rotation. However, let us stress that the latter is a global symmetry from the point of view of the defect theory defect primaries can be easily understood through the requirement that every conformal family appearing on the r.h.s. of (C.5) is annihilated by the Laplace operator. Indeed, the latter reduces to the two-dimensional zz¯\partial_{z}\partial_{\bar{z}} differential operator once we disregard descendants, and the holomorphicity property of the contribution of defect primaries to the OPE quickly follows. On the other hand the possible values of the spin are fixed by the symmetry preserved by the defect, i.e., a nn-fold cover of SO(2)SO(2). The normalization of the operators is fixed by

OknO¯knn=1(y2)1+kn\braket{O_{\frac{k}{n}}\bar{O}_{\frac{k}{n}}}_{n}=\frac{1}{(y^{2})^{1+\frac{k}{n}}} (C.6)

Let us make one more comment on the nature of the defect spectrum. The twist operator is responsible for the presence of a tower of primaries with non-integer transverse spin. While these Fourier modes do not possess a local expression in terms of the elementary field, this is not so for the defect operators with integer spin. Their contribution to the defect OPE is modified by the defect, but we can still identify them with derivatives of ϕ\phi in directions orthogonal to the defect.181818This is somewhat loose: a defect primary will in general be a combination of derivatives orthogonal and parallel to the defect. The one exception is aϕ\partial_{a}\phi, for which no mixing happens. In particular, it will be important in a moment that a defect operator O1=zϕO_{1}=\partial_{z}\phi exists.

We expect to find evidence of the presence of the displacement operator in the defect OPE expansion of the scalar operator ϕ2\phi^{2}. Therefore we consider the connected correlator

ϕ(x)2ϕ(x)2nϕ(x)2nϕ(x)2n=2ϕ(x)ϕ(x)n2\braket{\phi(x)^{2}\phi(x^{\prime})^{2}}_{n}-\braket{\phi(x)^{2}}_{n}\braket{\phi(x^{\prime})^{2}}_{n}=2\,{\braket{\phi(x)\phi(x^{\prime})}_{n}}^{2} (C.7)

in the defect OPE limit and we extract the contribution given by operators of dimension 33 (spin 11), which reads

ϕ(x)2ϕ(x)2n|spin 1rrcosθ4n2π4y6(n+1)\left.\braket{\phi(x)^{2}\phi(x^{\prime})^{2}}_{n}\right|_{\text{spin }1}\sim\frac{rr^{\prime}\cos\theta}{4n^{2}\pi^{4}y^{6}}(n+1) (C.8)

This formula can be interpreted in terms of the OPE expansion of ϕ2\phi^{2}, which can be obtained by studying the fusion of two ϕ\phi OPEs. In particular at dimension 33 one has several possible contributions coming from the combination of all the possible spins summing to 11 and the result is

ϕ2(z,z¯)+14π2nk=0n(zO(kn,nkn)+z¯O¯(kn,nkn))+\phi^{2}(z,\bar{z})\sim\cdots+\frac{1}{4\pi^{2}n}\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(z\,O_{(\frac{k}{n},\frac{n-k}{n})}+\bar{z}\,\bar{O}_{(\frac{k}{n},\frac{n-k}{n})}\right)+\cdots (C.9)

where O(kn,kn)=OknOknO_{\big{(}\frac{k}{n},\frac{k^{\prime}}{n}\big{)}}=O_{\frac{k}{n}}O_{\frac{k^{\prime}}{n}} and the ellipses indicate that we are focusing only on the spin-one contribution. Notice that the sum in (C.9) is redundant since O(kn,kn)=O(kn,kn)O_{\big{(}\frac{k}{n},\frac{k^{\prime}}{n}\big{)}}=O_{\big{(}\frac{k^{\prime}}{n},\frac{k}{n}\big{)}}, nevertheless we keep this notation so as not to clutter the following expressions. Inserting the OPE in the two-point function and performing the Wick contractions, one obtains

ϕ(x)2ϕ(x)2n|spin 1=2(zz¯+zz¯)16π4n2k=0nOknO¯knOnknO¯nkn=zz¯+zz¯8n2π4y6(n+1),\left.\braket{\phi(x)^{2}\phi(x^{\prime})^{2}}_{n}\right|_{\text{spin }1}=\frac{2(z\bar{z}^{\prime}+z^{\prime}\bar{z})}{16\pi^{4}n^{2}}\sum_{k=0}^{n}\braket{O_{\frac{k}{n}}\bar{O}_{\frac{k}{n}}}\braket{O_{\frac{n-k}{n}}\bar{O}_{\frac{n-k}{n}}}=\frac{z\bar{z}^{\prime}+z^{\prime}\bar{z}}{8n^{2}\pi^{4}y^{6}}(n+1)\,, (C.10)

in agreement with (C.8). The degeneracy we just observed complicates the task of singling out the displacement operator. In the following we will start from a general Ansatz and derive a set of constraints which allows to fix the precise form of the displacement operator for n5n\leq 5 and to extrapolate a general pattern for higher nn. In the process we will also prove that for this specific theory the relation (2.14) holds for any nn.

We start from the general linear combination 191919Here we discuss only the holomorphic part of the displacement operator, but analogous considerations are valid for the anti-holomorphic component D¯\bar{D}.

D=12πn2k=0nckO(kn,nkn)D=\frac{1}{2\pi n^{2}}\sum_{k=0}^{n}c_{k}O_{(\frac{k}{n},\frac{n-k}{n})} (C.11)

where the normalization factor has been introduced for future convenience. The redundancy of the sum gives the first constraint on the coefficients

ck=cnkc_{k}=c_{n-k} (C.12)

In order to find further constraints we compute the coupling of the displacement with ϕ2\phi^{2} and with the stress tensor

Tμν=μϕνϕ12δμνϕϕ16(μνδμν2)ϕ2.T_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi-\frac{1}{2}\delta_{\mu\nu}\partial\phi\cdot\partial\phi-\frac{1}{6}\left(\partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}-\delta_{\mu\nu}\partial^{2}\right)\phi^{2}\,. (C.13)

The former is fixed by the Ward identity

d2yϕ2(z,z¯,0)D(yi)n=zϕ2(z,z¯,0)n\int d^{2}y\braket{\phi^{2}(z,\bar{z},0)D(y^{i})}_{n}=\partial_{z}\braket{\phi^{2}(z,\bar{z},0)}_{n} (C.14)

whereas the latter is determined in terms of CDC_{D} and hnh_{n} by equations (6), (6.3a), (6.3b) and (6.4).

We start with the coupling to ϕ2\phi^{2}. The bulk-defect correlator ϕ2O(kn,nkn)n\braket{\phi^{2}O_{(\frac{k}{n},\frac{n-k}{n})}}_{n} is fixed by symmetry up to a normalization which can be extracted from the OPE (C.9). The result is

ϕ2(z,z¯,0)O(kn,nkn)(y)n=z¯2π2n(y2+zz¯)3\braket{\phi^{2}(z,\bar{z},0)\,O_{(\frac{k}{n},\frac{n-k}{n})}(y)}_{n}=\frac{\bar{z}}{2\pi^{2}n(y^{2}+z\bar{z})^{3}} (C.15)

On the other hand the one-point function ϕ2(z,z¯,0)n\braket{\phi^{2}(z,\bar{z},0)}_{n} on the r.h.s. of (C.14) is simply

ϕ2(z,z¯,0)n=1n248n2π2zz¯\braket{\phi^{2}(z,\bar{z},0)}_{n}=\frac{1-n^{2}}{48n^{2}\pi^{2}z\bar{z}} (C.16)

It is then clear that the Ward identity (C.14) gives a constraint on the sum of the coefficients ckc_{k}. Explicitly

k=0nck=(n1)n(n+1)6\sum_{k=0}^{n}c_{k}=\frac{(n-1)n(n+1)}{6} (C.17)

Notice that the r.h.s. of this expression is always an integer.

We now move to the computation of the two-point function of the displacement with the stress tensor. By standard Wick contraction one can compute the coupling of O(kn,nkn)O_{(\frac{k}{n},\frac{n-k}{n})} with the parallel components of the stress tensor TijT^{ij}. This gives

Tij(z,z¯,0)O(kn,nkn)(y)=2k(nk)n3π2z¯yiyj(y2+zz¯)5\braket{T^{ij}(z,\bar{z},0)\,O_{(\frac{k}{n},\frac{n-k}{n})}(y)}=\frac{2k(n-k)}{n^{3}\pi^{2}}\frac{\bar{z}\,y^{i}y^{j}}{(y^{2}+z\bar{z})^{5}} (C.18)

Comparing this expression with equation (6) we notice the absence of a term proportional to δij\delta^{ij} which implies that, regardless of the explicit form of the displacement operator, the most singular part of the defect OPE of TijT^{ij} has to vanish. The immediate consequence of that is

bDT1bDT2=0CD(n)=24hnπb^{1}_{DT}-b^{2}_{DT}=0\qquad\Rightarrow\qquad C_{D}(n)=\frac{24\,h_{n}}{\pi} (C.19)

for any value of nn. Hence we have verified that (2.14) holds for the four-dimensional free scalar!

The result (C.18) provides also an additional constraint. Indeed comparing with (6) we can extract

bDT1=k=0nckk(nk)2n4π3b^{1}_{DT}=\sum_{k=0}^{n}\frac{c_{k}k(n-k)}{2n^{4}\pi^{3}} (C.20)

and using (6.3a), (6.4), (C.19) and the value of hnh_{n} for a free scalar in four dimensions Hung:2014npa

hn=n41720πn3,h_{n}=\frac{n^{4}-1}{720\,\pi\,n^{3}}, (C.21)

we obtain

bDT1=n4160n4π3b^{1}_{DT}=\frac{n^{4}-1}{60n^{4}\pi^{3}} (C.22)

Equating the two expressions for bDT1b^{1}_{DT} we get

k=0nckk(nk)=n(n41)30.\sum_{k=0}^{n}c_{k}k(n-k)=\frac{n(n^{4}-1)}{30}\,. (C.23)

Once more, rather non-trivially, the r.h.s. is an integer. Since we have determined the exact value of CDC_{D} we can also use the two-point function of the displacement to put a quadratic constraint on the coefficients

k=0nck2=n(n41)30\sum_{k=0}^{n}c_{k}^{2}=\frac{n(n^{4}-1)}{30} (C.24)

The constraints collected so far allow to compute the exact values of ckc_{k} for n5n\leq 5. The result is

n\displaystyle n =2\displaystyle=2 c0\displaystyle c_{0} =c2=0c1=1\displaystyle=c_{2}=0\qquad c_{1}=1 (C.25)
n\displaystyle n =3\displaystyle=3 c0\displaystyle c_{0} =c3=0c1=c2=2\displaystyle=c_{3}=0\qquad c_{1}=c_{2}=2 (C.26)
n\displaystyle n =4\displaystyle=4 c0\displaystyle c_{0} =c4=0c1=c3=3c2=4\displaystyle=c_{4}=0\qquad c_{1}=c_{3}=3\qquad c_{2}=4 (C.27)
n\displaystyle n =5\displaystyle=5 c0\displaystyle c_{0} =c5=0c1=c4=4c2=c3=6\displaystyle=c_{5}=0\qquad c_{1}=c_{4}=4\qquad c_{2}=c_{3}=6 (C.28)

Based on these results and on the structure of the constraints it is very natural to assume that the coefficient ckc_{k} are integers. In this case they admit the unique solution

ck=k(nk)D=12πn2k=0nk(nk)O(kn,nkn)\displaystyle c_{k}=k(n-k)\qquad\Rightarrow\qquad D=\frac{1}{2\pi n^{2}}\sum_{k=0}^{n}k(n-k)O_{(\frac{k}{n},\frac{n-k}{n})} (C.29)

It may be possible to explicitly verify this expression for higher values of n(>5)n\,(>5) by examining the two-point function of the displacement with the higher spin currents future .

References

  • (1) M. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Detecting Topological Order in a Ground State Wave Function, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 110405.
  • (2) A. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Topological entanglement entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 110404 [hep-th/0510092].
  • (3) H. Li and F. Haldane, Entanglement Spectrum as a Generalization of Entanglement Entropy: Identification of Topological Order in Non-Abelian Fractional Quantum Hall Effect States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008), no. 1 010504.
  • (4) M. Van Raamsdonk, Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement, Gen. Rel. Grav. 42 (2010) 2323–2329 [1005.3035]. [Int. J. Mod. Phys.D19,2429(2010)].
  • (5) E. Bianchi and R. C. Myers, On the Architecture of Spacetime Geometry, Class. Quant. Grav. 31 (2014) 214002 [1212.5183].
  • (6) J. Maldacena and L. Susskind, Cool horizons for entangled black holes, Fortsch. Phys. 61 (2013) 781–811 [1306.0533].
  • (7) T. Jacobson, Entanglement equilibrium and the Einstein equation, 1505.04753.
  • (8) R. Islam, R. Ma, P. M. Preiss, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli and M. Greiner, Measuring entanglement entropy through the interference of quantum many-body twins, 1509.01160.
  • (9) A. Rényi, On measures of entropy and information, in Fourth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, vol. 1, pp. 547–561, 1961.
  • (10) A. Rényi, On the foundations of information theory, Revue de l’Institut International de Statistique (1965) 1–14.
  • (11) S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT, Phys.Rev.Lett. 96 (2006) 181602 [hep-th/0603001].
  • (12) S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Aspects of Holographic Entanglement Entropy, JHEP 0608 (2006) 045 [hep-th/0605073].
  • (13) V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani and T. Takayanagi, A Covariant holographic entanglement entropy proposal, JHEP 0707 (2007) 062 [0705.0016].
  • (14) L.-Y. Hung, R. C. Myers and M. Smolkin, On Holographic Entanglement Entropy and Higher Curvature Gravity, JHEP 1104 (2011) 025 [1101.5813].
  • (15) J. de Boer, M. Kulaxizi and A. Parnachev, Holographic Entanglement Entropy in Lovelock Gravities, JHEP 07 (2011) 109 [1101.5781].
  • (16) X. Dong, Holographic Entanglement Entropy for General Higher Derivative Gravity, JHEP 1401 (2014) 044 [1310.5713].
  • (17) J. Camps, Generalized entropy and higher derivative Gravity, JHEP 1403 (2014) 070 [1310.6659].
  • (18) A. Lewkowycz and J. Maldacena, Generalized gravitational entropy, JHEP 1308 (2013) 090 [1304.4926].
  • (19) H. Casini, M. Huerta and R. C. Myers, Towards a derivation of holographic entanglement entropy, JHEP 1105 (2011) 036 [1102.0440].
  • (20) L.-Y. Hung, R. C. Myers, M. Smolkin and A. Yale, Holographic Calculations of Renyi Entropy, JHEP 12 (2011) 047 [1110.1084].
  • (21) X. Dong, An Area-Law Prescription for Holographic Renyi Entropies, 1601.06788.
  • (22) M. B. Hastings, I. González, A. B. Kallin and R. G. Melko, Measuring renyi entanglement entropy in quantum monte carlo simulations, Physical review letters 104 (2010), no. 15 157201.
  • (23) A. B. Kallin, M. B. Hastings, R. G. Melko and R. R. Singh, Anomalies in the entanglement properties of the square-lattice heisenberg model, Physical Review B 84 (2011), no. 16 165134.
  • (24) A. B. Kallin, E. Stoudenmire, P. Fendley, R. R. Singh and R. G. Melko, Corner contribution to the entanglement entropy of an o (3) quantum critical point in 2+ 1 dimensions, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2014 (2014), no. 6 P06009.
  • (25) H. Casini and M. Huerta, Entanglement entropy for the n-sphere, Phys.Lett. B694 (2010) 167–171 [1007.1813].
  • (26) E. Perlmutter, A universal feature of CFT Rényi entropy, JHEP 03 (2014) 117 [1308.1083].
  • (27) L.-Y. Hung, R. C. Myers and M. Smolkin, Twist operators in higher dimensions, JHEP 10 (2014) 178 [1407.6429].
  • (28) J. Lee, A. Lewkowycz, E. Perlmutter and B. R. Safdi, Rényi entropy, stationarity, and entanglement of the conformal scalar, JHEP 03 (2015) 075 [1407.7816].
  • (29) A. Lewkowycz and E. Perlmutter, Universality in the geometric dependence of Rényi entropy, JHEP 01 (2015) 080 [1407.8171].
  • (30) J. L. Cardy, Conformal Invariance and Surface Critical Behavior, Nucl.Phys. B240 (1984) 514–532.
  • (31) D. McAvity and H. Osborn, Conformal field theories near a boundary in general dimensions, Nucl.Phys. B455 (1995) 522–576 [cond-mat/9505127].
  • (32) M. Billò, V. Goncalves, E. Lauria and M. Meineri, Defects in conformal field theory, 1601.02883.
  • (33) M. Mezei, Entanglement entropy across a deformed sphere, Phys. Rev. D91 (2015), no. 4 045038 [1411.7011].
  • (34) A. Allais and M. Mezei, Some results on the shape dependence of entanglement and Rényi entropies, Phys. Rev. D91 (2015), no. 4 046002 [1407.7249].
  • (35) P. Bueno, R. C. Myers and W. Witczak-Krempa, Universality of corner entanglement in conformal field theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015), no. 2 021602 [1505.04804].
  • (36) P. Bueno and R. C. Myers, Corner contributions to holographic entanglement entropy, JHEP 08 (2015) 068 [1505.07842].
  • (37) P. Bueno, R. C. Myers and W. Witczak-Krempa, Universal corner entanglement from twist operators, JHEP 09 (2015) 091 [1507.06997].
  • (38) P. Bueno and R. C. Myers, Universal entanglement for higher dimensional cones, JHEP 12 (2015) 168 [1508.00587].
  • (39) J. Lee, L. McGough and B. R. Safdi, Rényi entropy and geometry, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014), no. 12 125016 [1403.1580].
  • (40) A. Lewkowycz and E. Perlmutter, Universality in the geometric dependence of Renyi entropy, JHEP 01 (2015) 080 [1407.8171].
  • (41) X. Dong, Shape Dependence of Holographic Renyi Entropy in Conformal Field Theories, 1602.08493.
  • (42) T. Faulkner, R. G. Leigh and O. Parrikar, Shape Dependence of Entanglement Entropy in Conformal Field Theories, 1511.05179.
  • (43) P. Calabrese and J. L. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory, J. Stat. Mech. 0406 (2004) P06002 [hep-th/0405152].
  • (44) J. L. Cardy, O. A. Castro-Alvaredo and B. Doyon, Form factors of branch-point twist fields in quantum integrable models and entanglement entropy, J. Statist. Phys. 130 (2008) 129–168 [0706.3384].
  • (45) V. G. Knizhnik, Analytic Fields on Riemann Surfaces. 2, Commun. Math. Phys. 112 (1987) 567–590.
  • (46) L. J. Dixon, D. Friedan, E. J. Martinec and S. H. Shenker, The Conformal Field Theory of Orbifolds, Nucl. Phys. B282 (1987) 13–73.
  • (47) M. Caraglio and F. Gliozzi, Entanglement Entropy and Twist Fields, JHEP 11 (2008) 076 [0808.4094].
  • (48) J. S. Dowker, Conformal weights of charged Rényi entropy twist operators for free scalar fields in arbitrary dimensions, J. Phys. A49 (2016), no. 14 145401 [1508.02949].
  • (49) J. S. Dowker, Conformal weights of charged Renyi entropy twist operators for free Dirac fields in arbitrary dimensions, 1510.08378.
  • (50) L. Bianchi and etal, On the Shape Dependence of Rényi Entropy in Free CFTs, in preparation.
  • (51) R. C. Myers and A. Singh, Entanglement Entropy for Singular Surfaces, JHEP 09 (2012) 013 [1206.5225].
  • (52) A. Lewkowycz and J. Maldacena, Exact results for the entanglement entropy and the energy radiated by a quark, JHEP 1405 (2014) 025 [1312.5682].
  • (53) D. Correa, J. Henn, J. Maldacena and A. Sever, An exact formula for the radiation of a moving quark in N=4 super Yang Mills, JHEP 1206 (2012) 048 [1202.4455].
  • (54) B. Fiol, E. Gerchkovitz and Z. Komargodski, The Exact Bremsstrahlung Function in N=2 Superconformal Field Theories, 1510.01332.
  • (55) V. Mitev and E. Pomoni, Exact Bremsstrahlung and Effective Couplings, 1511.02217.
  • (56) J. M. Maldacena, Wilson loops in large N field theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 4859–4862 [hep-th/9803002].
  • (57) S.-J. Rey and J.-T. Yee, Macroscopic strings as heavy quarks in large N gauge theory and anti-de Sitter supergravity, Eur. Phys. J. C22 (2001) 379–394 [hep-th/9803001].
  • (58) O. Aharony, O. Bergman, D. L. Jafferis and J. Maldacena, N=6 superconformal Chern-Simons-matter theories, M2-branes and their gravity duals, JHEP 10 (2008) 091 [0806.1218].
  • (59) J. Lee, L. McGough and B. R. Safdi, Renyi entropy and geometry, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014), no. 12 125016 [1403.1580].
  • (60) N. Drukker, J. Gomis and S. Matsuura, Probing N=4 SYM With Surface Operators, JHEP 10 (2008) 048 [0805.4199].
  • (61) J. L. Cardy, Boundary Conditions, Fusion Rules and the Verlinde Formula, Nucl.Phys. B324 (1989) 581.
  • (62) J. L. Cardy and D. C. Lewellen, Bulk and boundary operators in conformal field theory, Phys.Lett. B259 (1991) 274–278.
  • (63) R. E. Behrend, P. A. Pearce, V. B. Petkova and J.-B. Zuber, Boundary conditions in rational conformal field theories, Nucl. Phys. B570 (2000) 525–589 [hep-th/9908036]. [Nucl. Phys.B579,707(2000)].
  • (64) T. Quella and V. Schomerus, Symmetry breaking boundary states and defect lines, JHEP 06 (2002) 028 [hep-th/0203161].
  • (65) T. Quella, I. Runkel and G. M. Watts, Reflection and transmission for conformal defects, JHEP 0704 (2007) 095 [hep-th/0611296].
  • (66) J. Frohlich, J. Fuchs, I. Runkel and C. Schweigert, Duality and defects in rational conformal field theory, Nucl. Phys. B763 (2007) 354–430 [hep-th/0607247].
  • (67) V. B. Petkova and J. B. Zuber, Generalized twisted partition functions, Phys. Lett. B504 (2001) 157–164 [hep-th/0011021].
  • (68) J. Fuchs, M. R. Gaberdiel, I. Runkel and C. Schweigert, Topological defects for the free boson CFT, J. Phys. A40 (2007) 11403 [0705.3129].
  • (69) M. Billó, M. Caselle, D. Gaiotto, F. Gliozzi, M. Meineri et. al., Line defects in the 3d Ising model, JHEP 1307 (2013) 055 [1304.4110].
  • (70) M. Nozaki, T. Numasawa, A. Prudenziati and T. Takayanagi, Dynamics of Entanglement Entropy from Einstein Equation, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013), no. 2 026012 [1304.7100].
  • (71) G. W. Semenoff and D. Young, Wavy Wilson line and AdS / CFT, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A20 (2005) 2833–2846 [hep-th/0405288].
  • (72) M. Smolkin and S. N. Solodukhin, Correlation functions on conical defects, Phys. Rev. D91 (2015), no. 4 044008 [1406.2512].
  • (73) M. E. X. Guimaraes and B. Linet, Scalar Green’s functions in an Euclidean space with a conical-type line singularity, Commun. Math. Phys. 165 (1994) 297–310.