format: text

text:
# Conformal Field Theories of Stochastic Loewner Evolutions. [ CFTs of SLEs ]

## 1 Introduction.

Two dimensional conformal field theories  have produced an enormous amount of exact results for multifractal properties of conformally invariant critical clusters. See eg. refs. and references therein. These in particular include the famous Cardy formula giving the probability for the existence of a connected cluster percolating between two opposite sides of a rectangle in two dimensional critical percolation .

This set of results triggered the search for a probabilistic, and more rigourous, formulation of the statistical laws governing critical clusters. It lead O. Schramm to introduce  the notion of stochastic Loewner evolution $`(SLE_\kappa )`$. These are conformally covariant processes which describe the evolutions of random sets, called the $`SLE_\kappa `$ hulls. Two classes of stochastic Loewner evolutions have been defined : the radial and the chordal $`SLE_\kappa `$. They differ by the positions of the end points connected by the random sets. Below, we shall only consider the so-called chordal $`SLE_\kappa `$.

The probabilistic approach has already lead to many new results, including the Brownian intersection exponents obtained by Lawler, Werner and Schramm . It is also directly related to Smirnov’s proof of Cardy’s formula and of the conformal invariance of the scaling limit of critical percolation .

Although motivated by results obtained using conformal field theory (CFT) techniques, the relation between $`SLE_\kappa `$ evolutions and conformal field theories in the sense of ref. remains elusive and indirect. A step toward formulating this relation was done in ref.. There we presented a group theoretical formulation of $`SLE_\kappa `$ processes and we exhibited a relation between zero modes of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ evolutions and conformal null vectors. The aim of this paper is to develop this connection and to make it more explicit.

Our approach is based on an algebraic – and group theoretical – formulation of $`SLE_\kappa `$ growths which takes into account the fact that these processes are encoded in random conformal transformations which are closely connected to special random vector fields defined over $`𝐇`$. This leads naturally to lift the $`SLE_\kappa `$ evolutions to Markov processes in a group, whose Lie algebra is a Borel subalgebra of the Virasoro algebra, and which may be identified with a Borel subgroup of the group of conformal transformations. By adjoint action on conformal fields, the flows of these lifted processes induce that of the original $`SLE_\kappa `$ evolutions.

The next key step consists in coupling the lifted $`SLE_\kappa `$ processes to boundary conformal field theories with specific Virasoro central charges $`c_\kappa <1`$ depending on $`\kappa `$. These CFTs are defined on random domains $`𝐇_𝐭`$ which are the complement of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ hulls in the upper half plane, see below for details. Fluctuations and evolutions of the domains $`𝐇_𝐭`$, or of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ hulls, are then naturally encoded in boundary states, called the hull boundary states, in the CFT representation spaces. These states possess a natural geometrical interpretation in the lattice statistical models underlying $`SLE_\kappa `$ evolutions. We show that these hull boundary states are zero modes of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ evolutions, meaning that they are conserved in mean. In probabilistic terms, this also means that all components of these states – and there is an infinite number of them – are local martingales of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ evolutions.

This martingale property allows us to compute crossing probabilities in purely algebraic terms. We show that, thanks to this property, the generalized crossing probabilities are solutions of linear systems whose coefficients are multipoint conformal correlations functions. Stated differently, the martingale property of the hull boundary states provides a direct link between $`SLE_\kappa `$ stopping time problems and CFT conformal blocks.

Conformal field theories coupled to $`SLE_\kappa `$ hulls may be thought of as CFTs in presence of 2D gravity since they are coupled to random geometry. By analysing the behavior of the conformal correlation functions close to the $`SLE_\kappa `$ hulls, this alternative viewpoint leads us to an interesting connection between operator product expansions in the presence of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ hulls and the KPZ formula for gravitationally dressed scaling dimensions. Relations between scaling properties of critical clusters and 2D gravity are crucial for the approach developed in ref. and it would be interesting to connect both approaches.

It is clear that the approach we present in this paper does not reach the level of rigor of refs.. The aim of this paper is mainly to show that a bridge linking the algebraic and the probabilistic formulations of CFT may be developed. As is well known, it is a delicate matter to specify the appropriate group of conformal transformations, and we do not give below a precise definition of the group we use. However, given the germs at infinity of the conformal transformations $`f_t(z)`$, eq.(2), which code for the $`SLE_\kappa `$ processes, it is possible to give a constructive definition of the group elements, which we shall call $`G_t`$, eq.(3), when acting on highest weight vector representations of the Virasoro algebra. We also do not specify precisely the set of functions $`F(G_t)`$ for which the stochastic equation eq.(4) may be applied, although matrix elements of $`G_t`$ in highest weight vector representations of the Virasoro algebra clearly belong to this set. We would consider it an important research project for mathematical physicists to make the connection between $`SLE_\kappa `$ and CFT presented in this paper rigorous. For some work in this direction see .

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we recall the definition of the stochastic Loewner evolutions and a few of its basic properties. We then present the group theoretical formulation of these processes. Section 3 is devoted to the algebraic construction of $`SLE_\kappa `$ martingales, ie. zero modes of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ evolution operator, and to their link with null vectors in degenerate Virasoro modules. In Section 4, we give the geometrical interpretation of these martingales and explain how they may be identified with the hull boundary states. We also give there the connection between CFTs coupled to $`SLE_\kappa `$ hulls and 2D gravity. The algebraic derivation of generalized crossing probabilities is described in Section 5. Section 6 gathers informations on the behavior of conformal correlators when the hull swallows a domain. A conjectural reconstruction scheme for conformal field theories based on the relation between generalized crossing probabilities and multipoint CFT correlation functions is proposed in the conclusions.

Acknowledgement: We thank John Cardy, Philippe Di Francesco, Antti Kupiainen, Vincent Pasquier and Jean-Bernard Zuber for discussions and explanations on conformal field theories and $`SLE_\kappa `$ processes. This research is supported in part by the European EC contract HPRN-CT-2002-00325.

## 2 Basics of SLE.

The aim of this section is to recall basic properties of stochastic Loewner evolutions (SLE) and its generalizations that we shall need in the following. Most results that we recall can be found in . See  for a nice introduction to SLE for physicists.

### 2.1 $`SLE_\kappa `$ processes.

Stochastic Loewner evolutions $`SLE_\kappa `$ are growth processes defined via conformal maps which are solutions of Loewner’s equation:

$$_tg_t(z)=\frac{2}{g_t(z)\xi _t},g_{t=0}(z)=z$$
(1)
When $`\xi _t`$ is a smooth real-valued function, the map $`g_t(z)`$ is the uniformizing map for a simply connected domain $`𝐇_t`$ embedded in the upper half plane $`𝐇`$, $`\mathrm{Im}z>0`$. At infinity $`g_t(z)=z+2t/z+\mathrm{}`$. For fixed $`z`$, $`g_t(z)`$ is well-defined up to the time $`\tau _z`$ for which $`g_{\tau _z}(z)=\xi _{\tau _z}`$. Following refs., define the sets $`K_t=\{z𝐇:\tau _zt\}`$. They form an increasing sequence of sets, $`K_t^{}K_t`$ for $`t^{}<t`$, and for smooth enough driving source $`\xi _t`$, they are simple curves embedded in $`𝐇`$. The domain $`𝐇_t`$ is $`𝐇K_t`$.

$`SLE_\kappa `$ processes are defined  by choosing a Brownian motion as driving term in the Loewner’s equation: $`\xi _t=\sqrt{\kappa }B_t`$ with $`B_t`$ a normalized Brownian motion and $`\kappa `$ a real positive parameter so that $`𝐄[\xi _t\xi _s]=\kappa \mathrm{min}(t,s)`$ 111Here and in the following, $`𝐄[\mathrm{}]`$ denotes expectation (with respect to the $`SLE_\kappa `$ measure), and $`𝐏[\mathrm{}]`$ refers to probability.. The growth processes are then that of the sets $`K_t`$ which are called the hulls of the process. See refs.  for more details concerning properties of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ evolutions.

It will be convenient to introduce the function $`f_t(z)g_t(z)\xi _t`$ whose Itô derivative is:

$`df_t(z)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{f_t(z)}}dtd\xi _t`$ (2)
Let $`g_t^1(z)`$ and $`f_t^1(z)`$ be the inverse of $`g_t(z)`$ and $`f_t(z)`$ respectively. One has $`g_t^1(z)=f_t^1(z\xi _t)`$. For $`t>s`$ both $`(f_tf_s^1)(z)`$ and $`f_{ts}(z)`$ have identical distributions. In a way similar to the two dimensional Brownian motion, $`a^1f_{a^2t}(az)`$ and $`f_t(z)`$ also have identical distributions.

The trace $`\gamma [0,t]`$ of $`SLE_\kappa `$ is defined by $`\gamma (t)=lim_{ϵ0^+}f_t^1(iϵ)`$. Its basic properties were deciphered in ref.. It is known that it is almost surely curve. It is almost surely a simple (non-intersecting) path for $`0<\kappa 4`$ and it then coincides with the hull $`K_t`$; for $`4<\kappa <8`$, it almost surely possesses double points but never crosses itself, it goes back an infinite number of times to the real axis and $`𝐇_t`$ is then the unbounded component of $`𝐇\gamma [0,t]`$; the trace of $`SLE_\kappa `$ is space filling for $`\kappa 8`$. See Figure (1).

The time $`\tau _z`$, which we shall refer to as the swallowing time of the point $`z`$, is such that $`f_{\tau _z}(z)=0`$. For $`0<\kappa 4`$, the time $`\tau _z`$ is almost surely infinite since the trace is a simple path, while for $`\kappa >4`$ it is finite with probability one. For $`\kappa 8`$, the trace goes almost surely to infinity: $`lim_t\mathrm{}|\gamma (t)|=\mathrm{}`$.

A duality conjecture  states that the boundary $`K_t`$ of the hull $`K_t`$ of $`SLE_\kappa `$ with $`\kappa >4`$ is statistically equivalent to the trace of the $`SLE_{\widehat{\kappa }}`$ process with dual parameter $`\widehat{\kappa }=16/\kappa <4`$.

$`SLE_\kappa `$ evolutions may be defined on any simply connected domain $`𝒟𝐇`$ by conformal transformations. Namely, let $`a,b𝒟`$ be two points of the boundary of $`𝒟`$ and $`\phi `$ be a conformal uniformizing transformation mapping $`𝒟`$ onto $`𝐇`$ such that $`\phi (a)=0`$ and $`\phi (b)=\mathrm{}`$. Then the $`SLE_\kappa `$ growth from $`a`$ to $`b`$ in $`𝒟`$ is defined as that of the hull of the random map $`g_t\phi `$ from $`𝒟`$ to $`𝐇`$.

Two simple examples of determistic Loewner maps are presented in Appendix A to help understanding the underlying geometry.

### 2.2 Lifted $`SLE_\kappa `$ processes.

We now formulate the group theoretical presentation of $`SLE_\kappa `$ processes introduced ref.. It consists in viewing these evolutions as Markov processes in the group of conformal transformations.

Let $`L_n`$ be the generators of the Virasoro algebra $`vir`$ – the central extension of the Lie algebra of conformal transformations – with commutation relations

$$[L_n,L_m]=(nm)L_{n+m}+\frac{c}{12}n(n^21)\delta _{n+m,0}$$

with $`c`$, the central charge, in the center of $`vir`$. Let $`Vir_{}`$ be the formal group obtained by exponentiating the generators $`L_n`$, $`n<0`$, of negative grade of the Virasoro algebra. A possibly more rigorous but less global definition of this group consists in identifying it with the group of germs of conformal tranformations $`zz+_{n>0}a_nz^{1n}`$ at infinity, the group law being composition.

We define a formal stochastic Markov process on $`Vir_{}`$ by the first order stochastic differential equation generalizing random walks on Lie groups:

$$G_t^1dG_t=2dtL_2+d\xi _tL_1,G_{t=0}=1$$
(3)
The elements $`G_t`$ belong to the formal group $`Vir_{}`$. We refer to the formal group $`Vir_{}`$ because we do not specify it precisely. We present in Section 3.3 simple computations illustrating the relation between equations (3) and (1) which are based on identifying $`Vir_{}`$ with the group of germs of conformal transformations at infinity. See also ref.. Remark that for $`t>s`$, both $`G_s^1G_t`$ and $`G_{ts}`$ have identical distributions.

This definition is motivated by the fact that eq.(2) may be written as $`\dot{f}_t(z)=2/f_t(z)\dot{\xi }_t`$ with $`d\xi _t=\dot{\xi }_tdt`$. In this form eq.(2) is slightly ill-defined, since $`\dot{\xi }_t`$ is not regular enough, but it nevertheless indicates that $`SLE_\kappa `$ describe flows for the vector field $`\frac{2}{w}_w\dot{\xi _t}_w`$.

Eq.(3) is written using the Stratonovich convention for stochastic differential calculus. This can be done using Ito integrals as well. Observables of the random process $`G_t`$ may be thought of as functions $`F(G_t)`$ on $`Vir_{}`$. Using standard rules of stochastic calculus 222We use formal rules extending those valid in finite dimensional Lie groups, and we do not try to specify the most general class of functions on which we may apply these rules., one finds their Itô differentials:

$`dF(G_t)=𝒜F(G_t)dt+d\xi _t_1F(G_t)`$ (4)
with $`𝒜`$ the quadratic differential operator

$`𝒜2_2+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}_1^{2}`$ (5)
where $`_n`$ are the left invariant vector fields associated to the elements $`L_n`$ in $`vir`$ defined by $`(_nF)(G)=\frac{d}{du}F(Ge^{uL_n})|_{u=0}`$ for any appropriate function $`F`$ on $`Vir_{}`$. Since left invariant Lie derivatives form a representation of $`vir`$, the evolution operator $`𝒜`$ may also be written as:

$$𝒜=2L_2+\frac{\kappa }{2}L_1^2$$
(6)
with the Virasoro generators $`L_n`$ acting on the appropriate representation space.

In particular, the time evolution of expectation values of observables $`F(G_t)`$ reads:

$$_t𝐄[F(G_t)]=𝐄[𝒜F(G_t)]$$
(7)
Notice that, in agreement with the scaling property of $`SLE_\kappa `$, $`𝒜`$ is homogenous of degree two if we assign degree $`n`$ to $`_n`$.

To test properties of the process $`G_t`$, we shall couple it to a boundary conformal field theory (CFT) defined over $`𝐇_t`$. We refer to  for an introduction to boundary CFTs that we shall mainly deal with in the operator formalism – see also Section 4. Its stress tensor,

$$T(z)=\underset{n}{}L_nz^{n2},$$

is the generator of conformal transformations and conformal (primary) operators are Virasoro intertwiners. We shall consider two kinds of conformal fields depending whether they are localized on the boundary or in the bulk of the domain. More precisely, let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)`$ be a boundary intertwiner with dimension $`\delta `$. In our case the boundary of $`𝐇_t`$, away from the hull, is the real axis so that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)`$ depends on the real variable $`x`$. By definition, it is an operator mapping a Virasoro module $`𝒱_1`$ into another, possibly different, Virasoro module $`𝒱_2`$ and satisfying the interwining relations:

$`[L_n,\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)]=\mathrm{}_n^\delta (x)\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x),\mathrm{}_n^\delta (x)x^{n+1}_x+\delta (n+1)x^n.`$ (8)
Bulk intertwiners $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{h,\overline{h}}(z,\overline{z})`$ with conformal dimensions $`h`$ and $`\overline{h}`$ are localized in the bulk of $`𝐇_t`$ and depend on the complex coordinates $`z`$ and $`\overline{z}`$. They act from a Virasoro module to another one and they satisfy the interwining relations:

$`[L_n,\mathrm{\Phi }_{h,\overline{h}}(z,\overline{z})]=\left(\mathrm{}_n^h(z)+\mathrm{}_n^{\overline{h}}(\overline{z})\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_{h,\overline{h}}(z,\overline{z}),`$
$`\mathrm{with}\mathrm{}_n^h(z)z^{n+1}_z+h(n+1)z^n.`$ (9)
In the following, we shall only consider highest weight Virasoro modules. More details on properties of interwiners, including in particular the fusion rules they satisfy and the differential equations their correlators obey, are briefly summarized in Appendix B. We shall need these properties in the following Sections.

The above relations mean that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)(dx)^\delta `$ or $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{h,\overline{h}}(z,\overline{z})(dz)^h(d\overline{z})^{\overline{h}}`$ transform covariantly under conformal transformations. As a consequence, the group $`Vir`$ acts on conformal primary fields. In particular for the flows (3), one has:

$`G_t^1\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)G_t`$ $`=`$ $`[f_t^{}(x)]^\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (f_t(x)),`$ (10)
$`G_t^1\mathrm{\Phi }_{h,\overline{h}}(z,\overline{z})G_t`$ $`=`$ $`[f_t^{}(z)]^h[\overline{f}_t^{}(\overline{z})]^{\overline{h}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h,\overline{h}}(f_t(z),\overline{f}_t(\overline{z})).`$
with $`f_t(z)`$ solution of the Loewner’s equation (2) and $`f_t^{}(z)_zf_t(z)`$. In words, by adjoint action the flows of the lifted $`SLE_\kappa `$ implement the conformal transformations of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ evolutions on the primary fields.

Eqs.(10) follow by construction but they may also be checked by taking their derivatives. Consider for instance a boundary primary field $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)`$. By eq.(4), the Itô derivative of the left hand side of eq.(10) reads:

$$d(\mathrm{l}.\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{s}.)=[2L_2dtd\xi _tL_1,G_t^1\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)G_t]+\frac{\kappa }{2}[L_1,[L_1,G_t^1\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)G_t]]$$

Similarly, the chain rule together with eq.(2) and the intertwining relations (8) gives for the Itô derivative of the right hand side of (10):

$$d(\mathrm{r}.\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{s}.)=[f_t^{}(x)]^\delta \{[2L_2dtd\xi _tL_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (f_t(x))]+\frac{\kappa }{2}[L_1,[L_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (f_t(x))]]\}$$

Making precise equations (10) requires stating precisely what is the domain of $`G_t`$, but eqs.(10) clearly make sense as long as the conformal fields are located in the definition domain of the conformal map $`f_t(z)`$.

The occurrence of the Virasoro algebra in $`SLE_\kappa `$ evolutions may also be seen by implementing perturbative computations valid close to $`z=\mathrm{}`$, as explained below in Section 3.3.

## 3 Martingales and null vectors.

The aim of this section is to show that martingales for $`SLE_\kappa `$ processes, which may be thought of as $`SLE_\kappa `$ observables which are conserved in mean, are closely related to null vectors of appropriate Verma modules of the Virasoro algebra.

### 3.1 Modules and null vectors.

Let us first recall a few basic facts concerning highest weight modules of the Virasoro algebra . Such a module is generated by the iterated action of negative grade Virasoro generators $`L_n`$, $`n1`$ on a reference state, say $`|h`$, which is annihilated by the positively graded Virasoro generators, $`L_n|h=0`$, $`n>0`$, and has a given conformal weight $`h`$, $`L_0|h=h|h`$. These modules are quotients of Verma modules. By definition, a Virasoro Verma module, denoted $`𝒱_h`$, is a highest weight module which is the free linear span of vectors $`_pL_{n_p}|h`$ obtained by acting with the $`L_n`$’s, $`n<0`$, on $`|h`$. Thus $`𝒱_h`$ may be identified with $`(Vir_{})|h`$. Generically Verma modules are irreducible.

The Virasoro algebra acts on the space $`𝒱_h^{}`$ dual to the Verma module $`𝒱_h`$ by $`L_nv^{}|=v^{}|L_n`$ for any $`v^{}𝒱_h^{}`$. The state $`h|𝒱_h^{}`$, dual of the highest weight vector $`|h`$ satisfies $`h|L_n=0`$ for any $`n<0`$ and $`h|L_0=hh|`$.

The vacuum state $`|0`$ is a highest weight vector with zero conformal weight so that $`L_n|0=0`$ for all $`n1`$. Its dual $`0|`$ satisfies $`0|L_n=0`$ for $`n1`$.

With $`SLE_\kappa `$ evolutions in view, we shall consider modules with central charges

$$c_\kappa =\frac{\left(3\kappa 8\right)\left(6\kappa \right)}{2\kappa }=1\frac{3(4\kappa )^2}{2\kappa }$$
(11)
It is then customary to parametrize the conformal weights as

$`h_{r,s}^\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{(r\kappa 4s)^2(\kappa 4)^2}{16\kappa }}`$ (12)
Notice that $`c_\kappa =16h_{1,2}^\kappa h_{2,1}^\kappa <1`$ and that $`h_{r,s}^\kappa =h_{s,r}^{\widehat{\kappa }}`$ with $`\widehat{\kappa }=16/\kappa `$ the dual parameter.

For $`r`$ and $`s`$ positive integers, the corresponding Virasoro Verma module $`𝒱_{h_{rs}^\kappa }`$ possesses a highest weight vector submodule and is reducible. This means that there exists a state $`|n_{r,s}𝒱_{h_{rs}^\kappa }`$, usually called a null vector, which is annihilated by the $`L_n`$, $`n>0`$. If we assign degree $`n`$ to the $`L_n`$, this state is at degree $`rs`$. For generic value of $`\kappa `$, the quotient $`𝒱_{h_{r,s}}/(Vir_{})|n_{r,s}`$ is then an irreducible module, and we shall denote it by $`_{r,s}`$.

### 3.2 Zero modes and martingales.

By definition, zero modes are observables which are eigenvectors of the evolution operator $`𝒜`$ with zero eigenvalue so that their expectation is conserved in mean.

We shall need details on the module $`𝒱_{h_{1,2}^\kappa }`$ with weight

$$h_{1,2}^\kappa =\frac{6\kappa }{2\kappa }$$

We label its highest weight vector as $`|\omega `$ so that $`L_n|\omega =0`$ for $`n>0`$ and $`L_0|\omega =h_{1,2}^\kappa |\omega `$. The null vector is at degree two and it is equal to $`|n_{1,2}=(2L_2+\frac{\kappa }{2}L_1^2)|\omega `$. Indeed, let $`𝒜=2L_2+\frac{\kappa }{2}L_1^2`$ as in eq.(6), then $`|n_{1,2}=𝒜|\omega `$ and

$$[L_n,𝒜]=(2(n+2)+\frac{\kappa }{2}n(n+1))L_{n2}+\kappa (n+1)L_1L_{n1}c\delta _{n,2}$$

Hence $`L_n|n_{1,2}=[L_n,𝒜]|\omega =0`$ for all $`n>0`$ since $`2\kappa h_{1,2}^\kappa =6\kappa `$ and $`c_\kappa =h_{1,2}^\kappa (3\kappa 8)`$. The quotient $`_{1,2}𝒱_{h_{1,2}}/(Vir_{})|n_{1,2}`$ is generically irreducible, and $`𝒜|\omega =0`$ as a vector in $`_{1,2}`$.

Let us now define the observable $`F_\omega (G_t)G_t|\omega `$ where the group element $`G_t`$ is viewed as acting on the irreducible module $`_{1,2}`$ – not on the reducible Verma module $`𝒱_{h_{1,2}}`$. In particular, $`F_\omega (G_t)`$ is a vector in the infinite dimensional space $`_{1,2}`$.

By construction, $`F_\omega (G_t)`$ is a zero mode. Indeed $`(𝒜F_\omega )(G_t)=G_t(2L_2+\frac{\kappa }{2}L_1^2)|\omega =G_t|n_{1,2}`$ vanishes as a vector in $`_{1,2}`$, since $`|n_{1,2}=𝒜|\omega `$ does in $`_{1,2}`$. By eq.(7), the expectation $`𝐄[F_\omega (G_t)]`$ is thus conserved:

$`_t𝐄[G_t|\omega ]=0`$ (13)
The stationary property of the expectation of $`F_\omega (G_t)`$ is a direct consequence of the existence of a null vector in the corresponding Virasoro Verma module.

Summarizing leads to the following 333For simplicity, we shall write ‘martingales’ instead of the more appropriate denomination ‘local martingales’.

Proposition. Let $`|\omega `$ be the highest weight vector of the irreducible Virasoro module with central charge $`c_\kappa =(3\kappa 8)(6\kappa )/2\kappa `$ and conformal weight $`h_{1,2}^\kappa =(6\kappa )/2\kappa `$. Then $`\{F_\omega (G_t)G_t|\omega \}_{t0}`$ is a martingale of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ evolution, meaning that for $`t>s`$:

$`𝐄[G_t|\omega |\{G_{us}\}]=G_s|\omega `$ (14)
This is a direct consequence of the conservation law (13) and of the fact that $`G_s^1G_t`$ and $`G_{ts}`$ are identically distributed.

Using Dynkin’s formula, see ref. p. 118, the above proposition has the following

Corollary. Let $`\tau `$ be a stopping time such that $`𝐄[\tau ]<\mathrm{}`$, then:

$`𝐄[G_\tau |\omega ]=|\omega `$ (15)
All components of the vector $`𝐄[G_t|\omega ]`$ are conserved and we may choose the vector on which we project it at will depending on the problem. The most convenient choices of vectors will be those generated by products of conformal operators. Namely,

$`\chi |{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_j,\overline{h}_j}(z_j,\overline{z}_j){\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _p}(x_p)`$
with $`\chi |`$ the dual of a highest weight vector with weight $`h_\chi `$. Since $`\chi |L_n=0`$ for any $`n<0`$, we have

$$\chi |G_t^1=\chi |$$

because $`G_tVir_{}`$. As a consequence, the conservation law (13) projected on these vectors reads:

$`_t𝐄[\chi |{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}[f_t^{}(z_j)]^{h_j}[\overline{f}_t^{}(\overline{z}_j)]^{\overline{h}_j}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_j,\overline{h}_j}(f_t(z_j),\overline{f}_t(\overline{z}_j))`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}[f_t^{}(x_p)]^{\delta _p}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _p}(f_t(x_p))|\omega ]=0`$ (16)
where we moved $`G_t`$ to the left using the intertwining relations (10).

Example. The simplest example is provided by considering correlations of the stress tensor $`T(z)`$. For instance, from eq.(13) we have:

$$𝐄[\omega |T(z)G_t|\omega ]=\omega |T(z)|\omega $$

For non-vanishing central charge, $`T(z)`$ transforms anomalously under conformal transformations  so that:

$$G_t^1T(z)G_t=[f_t^{}(z)]^2T(f_t(z))+\frac{c_\kappa }{12}\{f_t(z),z\}$$

with $`\{f_t(z),z\}`$ the Schwarzian derivative of $`f_t(z)`$. Since $`\omega |T(z)|\omega =z^2h_{1,2}^\kappa `$ and $`\omega |G_t^1T(z)|\omega =\omega |T(z)|\omega `$, we get:

$$𝐄[h_{1,2}^\kappa \left(\frac{f_t^{}(z)}{f_t(z)}\right)^2+\frac{c_\kappa }{12}\{f_t(z),z\}]=\frac{h_{1,2}^\kappa }{z^2}$$

This may be checked by a perturbative expansion in $`1/z`$ around $`z=\mathrm{}`$. The extension to an arbitrary number of stress tensor insertions is straightforward.

### 3.3 Perturbative computations in SLE.

The group $`Vir`$ acts on germs of meromorphic functions with a pole at infinity $`z(1+a_1/z+a_2/z^2+\mathrm{})`$ with $`a_k`$ as coordinates, similar to Fock space coordinates. The Virasoro generators are then differential operators in the $`a_k`$’s. See ref..

Concretely, the $`SLE_\kappa `$ equation $`\dot{g}_t(z)=\frac{2}{g_t(z)\xi _t}`$ turns into a hierarchy of ordinary differential equations for the coefficients of the expansion of $`g_t(z)`$ at infinity. Writing $`g_t(z)z(1+_{i2}a_iz^i)`$ and $`a_1\xi _t`$ leads to

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \dot{a}_2& =& 2\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{a}_j& =& _{i=1}^{j2}a_i\dot{a}_{ji},j3.\hfill \end{array}$$

Define polynomials $`p_j`$ in the variables $`a_i`$ by

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill p_1& =& 0\hfill \\ \hfill p_2& =& 1\hfill \\ \hfill p_j& =& _{i=1}^{j2}a_ip_{ji},j3.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then by construction

$$\dot{a}_j=2p_j(a_1,\mathrm{}),j2.$$

If one assigns degree $`i`$ to $`a_i`$, $`p_j`$ is homogeneous of degree $`j2`$. Using the fact that $`a_1(t)`$ is a Brownian motion and Ito’s formula, one derives a general formula of Fokker-Planck type to compute the expectation of any (polynomial, say) function $`q(a_1(t),a_2(t),\mathrm{})`$ :

$$𝐄[q(a_1(t),a_2(t),\mathrm{}]=\left(e^{t\widehat{A}}q(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{})\right)_{0=a_1=a_2=\mathrm{}}$$

where $`A`$ is the differential operator

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{a_1^2}}+2{\displaystyle \underset{j2}{}}p_j{\displaystyle \frac{}{a_j}}.`$ (17)
In fact, $`A`$ is yet another avatar of the evolution operator $`𝒜=2L_2+\frac{\kappa }{2}L_1^2`$ from eq.(6), this time acting on polynomials of the $`a_i`$’s. To check this, remember that $`w=f_t(z)`$ describes the integral curve starting from $`z`$ at $`t=0`$ for the time dependent meromorphic vector field $`\frac{2}{w}_w\dot{\xi _t}_w`$. Then by definition $`a_i=w(z)z^{i2}𝑑z`$ and the vector field $`w^{n+1}_w`$ acts as

$$\delta _na_i=\delta _nw(z)z^{i2}𝑑z=w(z)^{n+1}z^{i2}𝑑z.$$

For $`n1`$ the right hand side vanishes for $`i0`$ which is a consistency condition. One checks that $`\delta _1a_i=\delta _{i,1}`$ and $`\delta _2a_i=p_ii2`$, so on polynomials in the variables $`a_1,a_2,\mathrm{}`$, $`L_1`$ acts as $`\frac{}{a_1}`$ and $`L_2`$ as $`_{j2}p_j\frac{}{a_j}.`$

Using the representation (17) for the stochastic evolution operator $`2L_2+\frac{\kappa }{2}L_1^2`$, one may show that polynomial martingales – which are polynomials in the $`a_i`$ in the kernel of $`A`$ – are in one-to-one correspondence with states in $`_{1,2}`$. Namely, let us assign degree $`j`$ to $`a_j`$ and set $`\mathrm{dim}_q\mathrm{Ker}A=_{n0}q^nD(n)`$ with $`D(n)`$ the number of independent homogeneous polynomials of degree $`n`$ in $`\mathrm{Ker}A`$. Then:

$$\mathrm{dim}_q\mathrm{Ker}A=\frac{1q^2}{_{n1}(1q^n)}$$

This coincides with the graded character of $`_{1,2}`$. Furthermore, polynomials in $`a_1,a_2,\mathrm{}`$ do not vanish when the variables $`a_i`$ are replaced by their explicit expressions in terms of the Brownian motion as obtained by solving Loewner’s equation. This indicates that $`G_t|\omega `$ is a universal martingale – meaning that it contains all martingales. See ref. for more details.

## 4 Geometrical interpretation and 2D gravity.

The aim of this section is to explain that the state $`G_t|\omega `$ involved in the definition of the above martingales possesses a simple geometrical interpretation.

For each realization, the domain $`𝐇_𝐭=𝐇K_t`$ is conformally equivalent to the upper half plane. A boundary CFT defined over it is coupled to the random $`SLE_\kappa `$ hulls. Correlation functions of boundary operators $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _p}(x_p)`$ and of bulk operators $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_j}(z_j,\overline{z}_j)`$ (with identical left and right conformal dimensions $`h_j=\overline{h}_j`$ to keep formulæ readable), are naturally defined by:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _p}(x_p){\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_j}(z_j,\overline{z}_j)_{\omega ;𝐇_𝐭}`$ (18)
$`0|{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _p}(x_p){\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_j}(z_j,\overline{z}_j)G_t|\omega `$
where the subscript $`\omega ;𝐇_𝐭`$ refers to the domain of definition and to the boundary conditions imposed to the conformal field theory, as we shall discuss. The r.h.s. are products of intertwiner operators and $`0|`$ is the conformally invariant dual vacuum with $`0|L_n=0`$ for $`n1`$. Using eq.(10) to implement the conformal transformations represented by $`G_t`$, these correlators may also be presented as

$`0|{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}[f_t^{}(x_p)]^{\delta _p}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _p}(f_t(x_p)){\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}|f_t^{}(z_j)|^{2h_j}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_j}(f_t(z_j),\overline{f}_t(\overline{z}_j))|\omega `$ (19)
Although natural as a definition for a CFT over $`𝐇_𝐭`$, the peculiarity of eq.(19) is that the conformal transformations $`G_t`$ do not act on the state $`|\omega `$ 444This is actually necessary as the transformations $`f_t(z)`$ are singular at the origin..

### 4.1 The hull boundary state.

We first present an interpretation in terms of statistical models of the occurrence of the state $`|\omega `$ with conformal weight $`h_{1,2}^\kappa `$. We then give a meaning to the state $`G_t|\omega `$ in terms of boundary CFT.

Let us recall a few basic elements concerning the microscopic definition of the lattice statistical models that are believed to underlie $`SLE_\kappa `$ processes. Consider for instance the $`Q`$-state Potts model, defined over some lattice, whose partition functions is:

$$Z=\underset{\{s(𝐫)\}}{}\mathrm{exp}[J\underset{𝐫𝐫^{}}{}\delta _{s(𝐫),s(𝐫^{})}]$$

where the sum is over all spin configurations and the symbol $`𝐫𝐫^{}`$ refers to neighbor sites $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐫^{}`$ on the lattice. The spin $`s(𝐫)`$ at sites $`𝐫`$ takes $`Q`$ possible values from $`1`$ to $`Q`$. By expanding the exponential factor in the above expression using $`\mathrm{exp}[J(\delta _{s(𝐫),s(𝐫^{})}1)]=(1p)+p\delta _{s(𝐫),s(𝐫^{})}`$ with $`p=1e^J`$, the partition function may be rewritten following Fortuin-Kastelyn  as a sum over cluster configurations

$$Z=e^{JL}\underset{C}{}p^C(1p)^{LC}Q^{N_C}$$

where $`L`$ is the number of links of the lattice, $`N_C`$ the number of clusters in the configuration $`C`$ and $`C`$ the number of links inside the $`N_C`$ clusters. In each of these so-called FK-clusters all spins take arbitrary but identical values.

Imagine now considering the $`Q`$-state Potts models on a lattice covering the upper half plane with boundary conditions on the real line such that all spins at the left of the origin are frozen to the same identical value while spins on the right of the origin are free with non assigned values. In each FK-cluster configuration there exists a cluster growing from the negative half real axis into the upper half plane whose boundary starts at the origin. In the continuum limit, this boundary curve is conjectured to be statistically equivalent to a $`SLE_\kappa `$ trace . See Figure (2)555We thank A. Kupianen for his explanations concerning this point..

Being the boundary of a FK-cluster, the spin boundary conditions on both sides of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ trace are not identical. Indeed, from the above microscopic description we infer that in one side the spins are fixed whereas in the other side they are free. This change in boundary conditions corresponds to the insertion of a boundary changing operator  which is naturally identified with the operator $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\omega `$ creating the state $`\omega `$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\omega (0)|0=|\omega $$

with $`|0`$ the vacuum of the CFT defined over $`𝐇`$. Note that creating a state at the origin in $`𝐇`$ corresponds indeed to creating a state at the tip of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ trace since $`\gamma (t)=f_t^1(0)`$. This explains the occurrence of the state $`|\omega `$ in eq.(18,19).

The relation between $`Q`$ and $`\kappa `$ can be found by matching the known value of the dimension of the boundary changing operator for the $`Q`$-state Potts model with $`h_{1,2}^\kappa `$. One gets:

$$Q=4\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{4\pi }{\kappa }\right),\kappa 4$$

$`Q=1`$ for $`\kappa =6`$ as it should be for percolation, and $`Q=2`$ with $`\kappa =16/3`$ for the Ising model.

To formulate the boundary CFT coupled to the $`SLE_\kappa `$ hulls, imagine mapping back the domain $`𝐇_𝐭`$ away from the hulls to a strip of width $`\pi `$ such that half circles are mapped onto straight lines. The map is $`z=e^{\sigma +i\theta }w=\mathrm{log}z`$ with $`\theta [0,\pi ]`$. There is a natural operator formalism for the CFT defined on the strip, which is usually referred to as the open string formalism, see eg. ref. chapters 6 and 11. Boundary conditions on the two sides $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$ of the strip are those inherited from the boundary conditions on the two sides of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ traces that we just described. Constant ‘time’ slices, over which are defined conformal Hilbert spaces, are $`\mathrm{Re}w\sigma =\mathrm{const}.`$ with the associated hamiltonian operators generating evolutions in the $`\sigma `$ direction. Under this map, the $`SLE_\kappa `$ hulls appear as disturbances localized in the far past region, with $`\sigma `$ small enough, thus generating states belonging to the conformal Hilbert spaces. See Figure (3). Similarly, the domain $`𝐇_𝐭`$ is mapped onto the upper half plane using the by now familiar transformation $`zf_t(z)`$ sending the tip of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ traces to the origin. Under compositions of these two maps, the images of the $`\sigma =\mathrm{const}.`$ slices are curves topologically equivalent to half circles around the origin. The ‘time’ quantization valid in the strip is replaced by the ‘radial’ quantization with conformal Hilbert spaces defined over these curves or over the constant radius half circles. The $`SLE_\kappa `$ hulls, which are then local perturbations localized around the origin, generate states, which we denote $`|K_t`$, in the radial quantization Hilbert spaces. From eq.(10), we learn that $`G_t`$ intertwins the conformal field theories defined over $`𝐇_𝐭`$ and $`𝐇`$ so that $`G_t^1|K_t`$ is constant under $`SLE_\kappa `$ evolution. This leads to the identification

$`|K_t=G_t|\omega `$ (20)
where we introduce the state $`|\omega `$ to keep track of the boundary conditions we described above. Of course, up to the particular role played by the state $`|\omega `$, this identification only reflects the fact that conformal correlation functions on $`𝐇_𝐭`$ are defined via the conformal map $`f_t(z)`$ represented by $`G_t`$.

This explains our identification (18).

### 4.2 SLE and 2D gravity.

We may interpret conformal field theories coupled to $`SLE_\kappa `$ hulls as CFT’s on random environments either by viewing them as CFT on random domains $`𝐇_𝐭`$ but with a trivial metric, or by viewing them in the fixed domain $`𝐇`$, the upper half plane, but with random metrics $`|f_t^{}(z)|^2dzd\overline{z}`$ at points $`f_t(z)`$. These points of view are similar to those adopted in studying 2D gravity.

The conservation law (13) then translates into a statement concerning the averaged conformal correlators in these random environments. Namely:

$$𝐄[\underset{p}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _p}(x_p)\underset{j}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_j}(z_j,\overline{z}_j)_{\omega ;𝐇_𝐭}]=0|\underset{p}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _p}(x_p)\underset{j}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_j}(z_j,\overline{z}_j)|\omega $$

There is an intriguing, but interesting, link between the influence of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ hulls on conformal scaling properties and the KPZ formula for gravitationally dressed dimensions . As we are going to argue below, in average, scaling properties of a boundary field $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)`$ of dimension $`\delta `$ close to the hulls are dressed such that:

$`𝐄[\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)_{\omega ;𝐇_𝐭}]_{x0}\mathrm{const}.x^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (21)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ refers to the insertion of any operators away from the hulls. The small $`x`$ limit mimics the approach of the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)`$ close to the hull since $`\gamma (t)=f_t^1(0)`$. The dressed dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is determined by fusion rules and is solution of the quadratic equation

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa 4}{\kappa }}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\kappa }}\delta `$ (22)
with solutions

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\delta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}\left(\kappa 4\pm \sqrt{(\kappa 4)^2+16\kappa \delta }\right)`$ (23)
As a consequence, eq.(23) also determines the conformal weights of the intermediate states propagating in the correlation functions we shall consider in the following Sections.

Eq.(21) may be derived as follows. From eq.(13) we have in average:

$$𝐄[\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)_{\omega ;𝐇_𝐭}]=0|\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)|\omega $$

For $`x0`$, the leading contribution to the r.h.s. comes from the highest weight vector, say $`|\alpha `$, created by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)`$ acting on $`|\omega `$. Hence,

$$0|\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)|\omega 0|\mathrm{}|\alpha \alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)|\omega $$

As recalled in Appendix B, the null vector relation $`(2L_2+\frac{\kappa }{2}L_1^2)|\omega =0`$ imposes constraints on the possible states $`|\alpha `$ and on the possible scalings of $`\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)|\omega `$. One has:

$$\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{}_2^\delta (x)+\frac{\kappa }{2}\mathrm{}_1^\delta (x)^2\right)\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)|\omega =0$$

This gives $`\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)|\omega =\mathrm{const}.x^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ solution of the eq.(22).

Eq.(22) is the famous KPZ relation linking scaling dimension in flat space with that dressed by 2D gravity , at least for $`\kappa 4`$. The KPZ relation is usually written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{\mathrm{str}.})=(1\gamma _{\mathrm{str}.})\delta $$

where $`\gamma _{\mathrm{str}.}`$ takes one of the two possible values

$$\gamma _{\mathrm{str}.}^\pm =\left(c1\pm \sqrt{(1c)(25c)}\right)/12.$$

The choice $`\gamma _{\mathrm{str}.}^{}`$ is usually picked on based on semi-classical arguments valid for $`c\mathrm{}`$. Being a function of the central charge, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{str}.}^\pm `$ is invariant by duality, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{str}.}^\pm (\kappa )=\gamma _{\mathrm{str}.}^\pm (\widehat{\kappa })`$ for $`\widehat{\kappa }=16/\kappa `$. One has:

$$\gamma _{\mathrm{str}.}^{}(\kappa )=\frac{\kappa 4}{\kappa },\gamma _{\mathrm{str}.}^+(\kappa )=\frac{4\kappa }{4};\kappa 4$$

Hence, eq.(22) matches with the KPZ equation with $`\gamma _{\mathrm{str}.}=\gamma _{\mathrm{str}.}^{}`$ for $`\kappa 4`$. To reconciliate the two equations for $`\kappa 4`$ one may try to invoke that the other branch for $`\gamma _{\mathrm{str}.}`$ has to be used above the selfdual point.

The fact that the scaling relation (21) reproduces that predicted by the KPZ relation suggests that, at least for $`\kappa 4`$, the $`SLE_\kappa `$ average samples a part of the 2D gravity phase space large enough to test – and to exhibit – scaling behaviors in presence of gravity. It would be interesting to turn the above observation in more complete statements.

## 5 SLE crossing probabilities from CFT.

In this section we show on a few examples how to use the martingale properties (14,15) to compute crossing probabilities first computed refs..

The approach consists in choosing, in an appropriate way depending on the problem, the vector $`v|`$ on which eq.(15) is projected such that the expectation

$$𝐄[v|G_\tau |\omega ]=v|\omega $$

may be computed in a simple way in terms of the crossing probabilities. In other words, given an event $``$ associated to a stopping time $`\tau `$, we shall identify a vector $`v_{}|`$ such that

$$v_{}|G_\tau |\omega =\mathrm{𝟏}_{}$$

This leads to linear systems for these probabilities whose coefficients are correlation functions of a conformal field theory defined over the upper half plane. Although our approach and that of refs. are of course linked, they are in a way reversed one from the other. Indeed, the latter evaluate these crossing probabilities using the differential equations they satisfy – because they are associated to martingales, while we compute them by identifying them with CFT correlation functions – because they are associated to martingales – and as such they satisfy the differential equations. For the events $``$ we shall consider below, the vectors $`v_{}|`$ are constructed using conformal fields. Since we use operator product expansion properties  of conformal fields to show that the vectors $`v_{}|`$ satisfy the appropriate requirements, our apporach is more algebraic than that of refs. but less rigorous.

### 5.1 Generalized Cardy’s formula.

The most famous crossing probability is that of Cardy  which gives the probability that there exists a percolating cluster in critical percolation connecting to opposite sides of a rectangle.

Cardy’s formula for critical percolation applies to $`SLE_6`$. It may be extended  to a formula valid in $`SLE_\kappa `$ for any $`\kappa >4`$. The problem is then formulated as follows. Let $`\mathrm{}<a<0<b<\mathrm{}`$ and define the stopping times $`\tau _a`$ and $`\tau _b`$ as the first times at which the $`SLE_\kappa `$ trace $`\gamma (t)`$ touches the interval $`(\mathrm{},a]`$ and $`[b,+\mathrm{})`$ respectively:

$`\tau _a`$ $`=`$ $`inf\{t>0;\gamma (t)(\mathrm{},a]\}`$
$`\tau _b`$ $`=`$ $`inf\{t>0;\gamma (t)[b,+\mathrm{})\}`$
By definition, Cardy’s crossing probability is the probability that the trace hits first the interval $`(\mathrm{},a]`$, that is:

$$𝐏[\tau _a<\tau _b]$$

Let $`F_t^{(1)}(a,b)`$ be the following correlation function

$$F_t^{(1)}(a,b)\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(a)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(b)G_t|\omega $$

with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(x)`$ a boundary conformal field of scaling dimension zero and $`\omega |`$ the dual of the highest weight vector $`|\omega `$. There exist actually two linearly independent correlators, one of them being constant, but we shall not specify yet which non constant correlation function we pick. Recall that $`G_{t=0}=1`$. By dimensional analysis – or because of the commutation relations with $`L_0`$$`F_{t=0}^{(1)}(a,b)`$ is only a function of the dimensionless ratio $`a/(ab)`$:

$$F_{t=0}^{(1)}(a,b)=\stackrel{~}{F}_{\delta =0}(u),u\frac{a}{ab}$$

The cross ratio $`u`$, $`0<u<1`$, has a simple interpretation: it is the image of the origin, the starting point of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ trace, by the homographic transformation fixing the infinity and mapping the point $`a`$ to $`0`$ and $`b`$ to $`1`$.

We apply the martingale property (15) for the stopping time $`\tau =\mathrm{min}(\tau _a,\tau _b)`$ so that:

$`𝐄[F_\tau ^{(1)}(a,b)]=F_{t=0}^{(1)}(a,b)=\stackrel{~}{F}_{\delta =0}(u)`$ (24)
Similarly as in eq.(16) we compute $`F_\tau ^{(1)}(a,b)`$ by using the intertwining relation (10) to move $`G_\tau `$ to the left of the correlators. This gives:

$$F_\tau ^{(1)}(a,b)=F_{t=0}^{(1)}(f_\tau (a),f_\tau (b))=\stackrel{~}{F}_{\delta =0}(u_\tau ),u_\tau =\frac{f_\tau (a)}{f_\tau (a)f_\tau (b)}$$

The important observation is that $`u_\tau `$ takes two simple non-random values depending whether $`\tau `$ equals $`\tau _a`$ or $`\tau _b`$:

$`\tau =\tau _a\tau _a<\tau _b`$ $`:`$ $`u_\tau =0`$ (25)
$`\tau =\tau _b\tau _a>\tau _b`$ $`:`$ $`u_\tau =1`$
Indeed, $`\tau =\tau _a`$ means that the trace $`\gamma (t)`$ hits first the interval $`(\mathrm{},a]`$. As illustrated in the example of Appendix A, at the instance at which the trace gets back to the real axis, all points which have been surrounded by it are mapped to the origin by $`f_t(z)`$. Therefore, if $`\tau =\tau _a`$ then $`f_\tau (a)=0`$ while $`f_\tau (b)`$ remains finite and thus $`u_\tau =0`$. The case $`\tau =\tau _b`$ is analysed similarly. Thus

$$F_\tau ^{(1)}(a,b)=\mathrm{𝟏}_{\{\tau _a<\tau _b\}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\delta =0}(0)+\mathrm{𝟏}_{\{\tau _a>\tau _b\}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\delta =0}(1)$$

and we can compute $`𝐄[F_\tau ^{(1)}(a,b)]`$ in terms of $`𝐏(\tau _a<\tau _b)`$:

$$𝐄[F_\tau ^{(1)}(a,b)]=𝐏[\tau _a<\tau _b]\stackrel{~}{F}_{\delta =0}(0)+(1𝐏[\tau _a<\tau _b])\stackrel{~}{F}_{\delta =0}(1)$$

where we used that $`𝐏[\tau _a>\tau _b]=1𝐏[\tau _a<\tau _b]`$. Together with the basic martingale equation (24) we get Cardy’s formula:

$`𝐏[\tau _a<\tau _b]={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{F}_{\delta =0}(u)\stackrel{~}{F}_{\delta =0}(1)}{\stackrel{~}{F}_{\delta =0}(0)\stackrel{~}{F}_{\delta =0}(1)}}`$ (26)
The correlation function $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\delta =0}(u)`$ is shown below to be a hypergeometric function.

Cardy’s formula can be further generalized  by considering for instance the expectation:

$$𝐄[\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{\{\tau _a<\tau _b\}}\left(\frac{f_\tau ^{}(b)}{f_\tau (b)f_\tau (a)}\right)^\delta ]$$

This may be computed as above but considering correlation functions with the insertions of two boundary operators, one of dimension zero and the other one of dimension $`\delta `$. Namely 666To be precise, the state $`\omega |`$ in eq.(27) belongs, for generic $`\delta `$, to the dual space of the contravariant representation $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{h_{1,2}^\kappa }`$, cf. Appendix B. We however still denote it by $`\omega |`$ to avoid cumbersome notations.:

$`F_t^{(2)}(a,b)\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(a)\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (b)G_t|\omega `$ (27)
Again there exist two independent such correlators, corresponding to two different conformal blocks , and we shall specify in a while which one we choose. See Appendix B for further details. Since $`G_{t=0}=1`$, dimensional analysis tells that:

$$F_{t=0}^{(2)}(a,b)=\frac{1}{(ba)^\delta }\stackrel{~}{F}_\delta (u),u=\frac{a}{ab}$$

As above, we start from the martingale relation (15):

$$𝐄[F_\tau ^{(2)}(a,b)]=F_{t=0}^{(2)}(a,b)$$

with $`\tau =\mathrm{min}(\tau _a,\tau _b)`$. Moving $`G_\tau `$ to the left using the intertwining relation (10) gives:

$$F_\tau ^{(2)}(a,b)=\left(\frac{f_\tau ^{}(b)}{f_\tau (b)f_\tau (a)}\right)^\delta \stackrel{~}{F}_\delta (u_\tau ),u_\tau =\frac{f_\tau (a)}{f_\tau (a)f_\tau (b)}$$

The difference with the previous computation for Cardy’s formula is the occurrence of the Jacobian $`f_t^{}(b)`$ since $`\delta `$ is non vanishing. The argument (25) concerning the possible values of $`u_\tau `$ still applies. So, choosing the correlation function $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\delta (u)`$ which vanishes at $`u=1`$ selects the case $`\tau _a<\tau _b`$ as the only contribution to the expectation $`𝐄[F_\tau ^{(2)}(a,b)]`$. Hence:

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_\delta (0)𝐄[\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{\{\tau _a<\tau _b\}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_\tau ^{}(b)}{f_\tau (b)f_\tau (a)}}\right)^\delta ]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(ba)^\delta }}\stackrel{~}{F}_\delta (u)`$ (28)
with $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\delta (u=1)=0`$. This agrees with ref.. Choosing different boundary conditions for $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\delta (u)`$ would give different weights to the events $`\{\tau _a<\tau _b\}`$ and $`\{\tau _a>\tau _b\}`$.

As rederived in Appendix B, the correlation function $`\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(a)\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (b)|\omega `$ satisfies a differential equation as a consequence of the existence of the null vector $`|n_{1,2}`$ at level two in the Verma module generated over $`|\omega `$. For the function $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\delta (u)`$ this differential equation translates into:

$`\left[4\delta +4(u1)(2u1)_u+\kappa u(u1)^2_u^2\right]\stackrel{~}{F}_\delta (u)=0`$
The two solutions correspond to the two possible conformal blocks, and as discussed above we select one of them by demanding $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\delta (1)=0`$. As it is well known, the solutions may be written in terms of hypergeometric functions.

Notice that the states propagating in the intermediate channel of the correlation $`\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(a)\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (b)|\omega `$ are those created by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$ acting on $`|\omega `$ with conformal weights $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\delta )+\delta +h_{1,2}^\kappa `$, eq.(23), as explained in Appendix B. As $`b0`$, or equivalently $`u1`$, the leading contributions are governed by these intermediate states so that:

$$\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(a)\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (b)|\omega _{b0}b^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\delta )}C_{\delta \omega }^{h_\pm (\delta )}\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(a)|h_\pm (\delta )+\mathrm{}$$

with $`h_\pm (\delta )=\delta +h_{1,2}^\kappa +\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\delta )`$ and $`C_{\delta \omega }^{h_\pm (\delta )}`$ the structure constants. As recalled in Appendix B, the two possibilities correspond to the two possible choices of intertwiners acting on $`_{1,2}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+(\delta )>0`$ while $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\delta )<0`$ for $`\delta >0`$, imposing $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\delta (1)=0`$ selected the conformal block creating the states $`|h_+(\delta )`$, ie $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x):_{1,2}𝒱_{h_+(\delta )}`$, for $`\delta >0`$.

### 5.2 Boundary excursion probability.

As another application of the conformal machinery to a probabilistic stopping time problem, consider the following question, already answered by standard methods in ref.. If $`\gamma (t)`$ is an $`SLE_\kappa `$ path, $`\kappa ]4,8[`$, and $`u`$ a point on the positive real axis, let $`x=inf\{[u,+\mathrm{}[\gamma [0,+\mathrm{}[\}`$ be the first point $`u`$ touched by the $`SLE_\kappa `$ path. What is the distribution of $`x`$ ? This question is similar to the one answered by Cardy’s formula. Note that in fact, $`x`$ is the position of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ trace at time $`\tau _u`$, the last time for which the Loewner map is well-defined at $`z=u`$.

To prepare for the answer to this question, we study the two point correlator

$$\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(v)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(u)G_t|\omega $$

for $`0<u<v<+\mathrm{}`$.

First, suppose that $`t=0`$. If $`u`$ comes close to $`0`$, we can expand this function by computing the operator product expansion of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(u)|\omega `$. As already discussed at length, this can involve at most two conformal families. The conformal family of $`|\omega `$ could be one of these but we shall remove it by demanding that it does not appear in the operator product expansion. This fixes the boundary conditions we shall impose on the correlation functions. Then $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(u)|\omega u^{\frac{\kappa 4}{\kappa }}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =\frac{\kappa 2}{2\kappa }}`$. This goes to $`0`$ iff $`\kappa >4`$

If the points $`u`$ and $`v`$ come close together, the operator product expansion $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(v)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(u)`$ is more involved. General rules of conformal field theory ensure that the identity operator contributes, but apart from that, there is no a priori restrictions on the conformal families $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$ that may appear. However, only those for which $`\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta |\omega 0`$ remain, and this restricts to two conformal families, the identity and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =h_{1,3}^\kappa }`$. See Appendix B. Thus, when $`u`$ and $`v`$ come close together, the dominant contribution to $`\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(v)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(u)|\omega `$ is either $`1`$ or $`(vu)^{\frac{8\kappa }{\kappa }}\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =h_{1,3}^\kappa }|\omega `$ depending on whether $`\kappa <8`$ or $`\kappa >8`$.

Hence, if $`\kappa ]4,8[`$, the correlation function $`\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(v)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(u)|\omega `$ vanishes at $`u=0`$ and takes value $`1`$ at $`u=v`$.

For nonzero $`t`$, we write

$`\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(v)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(u)G_t|\omega `$ $`=`$ $`\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(f_t(v))\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(f_t(u))|\omega `$
$`=`$ $`\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(f_t(u)/f_t(v))|\omega .`$
The last equality follows by dimensional analysis. Now if $`x`$, the position of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ trace at $`t=\tau _u`$, satisfies $`u<x<v`$, $`f_{\tau _u}(v)`$ remains away from the origin but $`f_{\tau _u}(u)=0`$ and the correlation function vanishes. On the other hand, if $`vx`$, it is a general property of hulls that $`lim_{t\tau _u}f_t(u)/f_t(v)=1`$ and the correlation function is unity.

To summarize $`\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(v)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(u)G_{\tau _u}|\omega =\mathrm{𝟏}_{\{xv\}}`$. From the martingale property (15) we infer that the probability distribution function of $`x`$ is

$`𝐄[\mathrm{𝟏}_{\{xv\}}]=\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(v)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(u)|\omega .`$ (29)
As recalled in Appendix B, the fact that

$$\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(v)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(u)(2L_2+\frac{\kappa }{2}L_1^2)|\omega =0$$

translates into the differential equation

$$\left(\frac{2}{u}_u+\frac{2}{v}_v+\frac{\kappa }{2}(_u+_v)^2\right)\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(v)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(u)|\omega =0.$$

Since the correlation function depends only on $`s=u/v`$, we derive that

$$\left(\frac{d^2}{ds^2}+\left(\frac{4}{\kappa s}+\frac{2(4\kappa )}{\kappa (1s)}\right)\frac{d}{ds}\right)\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(s)|\omega =0.$$

The differential operator annihilates the constants, a remnant of the fact that the identity operator has weight 0. With the normalization choosen for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}`$, the relevant solution vanishes at the origin. The integration is straightforward.

Finally,

$$𝐏[xu/s]𝐄[\mathrm{𝟏}_{\{xu/s\}}]=\frac{s^{\frac{\kappa 4}{\kappa }}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{4}{\kappa }\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\kappa 4}{\kappa }\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{8\kappa }{\kappa }\right)}_0^1𝑑\sigma \sigma ^{\frac{4}{\kappa }}(1s\sigma )^{2\frac{4\kappa }{\kappa }}$$

This example is instructive, because it shows in a fairly simple case that the thresholds $`\kappa =4,8`$ for topological properties of $`SLE_\kappa `$ appear in the CFT framework as thresholds at which divergences emerge in operator product expansions.

### 5.3 Domain wall probability.

We now present another percolation formula involving bulk operators. For the underlying statistical model defined on the upper half plane as in Section 4, this formula gives the probability for the position of the domain wall limiting the FK-cluster connected to the negative real axis relative to a given point in $`𝐇`$. It was first proved in  using the $`SLE_\kappa `$ formulation and it was not yet derived within conformal field theory.

Let $`\kappa <8`$ and $`z`$ be a point in $`𝐇`$. One looks for the probability that the $`SLE_\kappa `$ trace goes to the left or to the right of that point. Following ref., it is convenient to reformulate this problem as a statement concerning the behavior of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ trace at the time $`\tau _z`$ at which the point $`z`$ is swallowed by the hull:

$$\tau _z=\mathrm{inf}\{t>0;f_t(z)=0\}$$

At time $`t\tau _z^{}`$, the point $`z`$ is mapped to the origin by $`f_t`$. Furthermore, with $`f_t(z)=x_t(z)+iy_t(z)`$, almost surely the ratio $`x_t(z)/y_t(z)`$ goes to $`\pm \mathrm{}`$, as illustrated in Appendix A. The sign $`\pm \mathrm{}`$ depends whether the point is surrounded by the trace $`\gamma (t)`$ from the right or from the left – by convention, we say that the trace goes to the right if it loops around $`z`$ positively. Hence, if $`\theta _zlim_{t\tau _z^{}}x_t(z)/y_t(z)`$ then :

$$𝐏[\gamma (t)\mathrm{to}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{left}[\mathrm{right}]\mathrm{of}z]=𝐏[\theta _z=\mathrm{}[+\mathrm{}]]$$

with $`𝐏[\theta _z=+\mathrm{}]+𝐏[\theta _z=\mathrm{}]=1`$.

We shall derive these probabilities using the martingale equation (15) with the correlation function

$`C_t^{(1)}(z,\overline{z})\omega |\mathrm{\Phi }_{h=0}(z,\overline{z})G_t|\omega `$ (30)
with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{h=0}(z,\overline{z})`$ a bulk operator of scaling dimensions zero. As for Cardy’s formula, we choose arbitrarily any non-constant such correlators. Since $`G_{t=0}=1`$, dimensional analysis implies that $`C_t^{(1)}(z,\overline{z})`$ only depends on a dimensionless ratio:

$$C_{t=0}^{(1)}(z,\overline{z})=\stackrel{~}{C}_{h=0}(x/y),z=x+iy$$

The martingale equation (15) applied to $`C_t^{(1)}(z,\overline{z})`$ at $`t\tau _z^{}`$ yields:

$`𝐄[C_{\tau _z}^{(1)}(z,\overline{z})]=\stackrel{~}{C}_{h=0}(x/y).`$ (31)
As above, $`G_t`$ may be moved to the left by using the intertwining relation (10) so that:

$$C_{\tau _z}^{(1)}(z,\overline{z})=\underset{t\tau _z}{lim}C_{t=0}^{(1)}(f_t(z),\overline{f}_t(\overline{z}))=\stackrel{~}{C}_{h=0}(\theta _z)$$

Since $`\theta _z`$ takes the two simple non-random values $`\theta _z=\pm \mathrm{}`$, the expectation $`𝐄[C_{\tau _z}^{(1)}(z,\overline{z})]`$ is computable:

$$𝐄[C_{\tau _z}^{(1)}(z,\overline{z})]=𝐏[\theta _z=+\mathrm{}]\stackrel{~}{C}_{h=0}(+\mathrm{})+𝐏[\theta _z=\mathrm{}]\stackrel{~}{C}_{h=0}(\mathrm{})$$

With the martingale equation (31), it implies:

$`𝐏[\theta _z=+\mathrm{}]={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{C}_{h=0}(x/y)\stackrel{~}{C}_{h=0}(\mathrm{})}{\stackrel{~}{C}_{h=0}(+\mathrm{})\stackrel{~}{C}_{h=0}(\mathrm{})}}`$ (32)
As we recall below, the function $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{h=0}(x/y)`$ satisfies a second order differential equation and it is expressible as a hypergeometric function. Eq.(32) agrees with that of ref..

As with Cardy’s formula, the above crossing probability admits a simple generalization. Let us define

$`C_t^{(2)}(z,\overline{z})\omega |\mathrm{\Phi }_h(z,\overline{z})G_t|\omega `$ (33)
with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_h(z,\overline{z})`$ a bulk operator of scaling dimension $`h`$. Scaling analysis implies that at initial time

$$C_{t=0}^{(2)}(z,\overline{z})=y^{2h}\stackrel{~}{C}_h(x/y),z=x+iy$$

As we are now familiar with, the martingale equation (15) for $`t\tau _z^{}`$ gives:

$`𝐄[\left({\displaystyle \frac{|f_{\tau _z}^{}(z)|}{\mathrm{Im}f_{\tau _z}(z)}}\right)^{2h}\stackrel{~}{C}_h(\theta _z)]=y^{2h}\stackrel{~}{C}_h(x/y)`$ (34)
with as before $`\theta _z=lim_{t\tau _z^{}}x_t(z)/y_t(z)`$. Since $`\theta _z`$ takes only two values $`\pm \mathrm{}`$ depending whether the trace loops positively or negatively around $`z`$, eq.(34) becomes:

$`𝐄[\left({\displaystyle \frac{|f_{\tau _z}^{}(z)|}{\mathrm{Im}f_{\tau _z}(z)}}\right)^{2h}\left(\mathrm{𝟏}_{\{\theta _z=+\mathrm{}\}}\stackrel{~}{C}_h(+\mathrm{})+\mathrm{𝟏}_{\{\theta _z=\mathrm{}\}}\stackrel{~}{C}_h(\mathrm{})\right)]`$
$`=y^{2h}\stackrel{~}{C}_h(x/y)`$ (35)
There exist two conformal blocks for the correlation function (33) and therefore two possible independent choices for $`C_t^{(2)}(z,\overline{z})`$. As a basis, one may select the even and odd correlations $`\stackrel{~}{C}_h(x/y)`$. Each choice leads to different informations on the expectation (34). The simplest is provided by choosing the even conformal block so that the $`\theta _z`$ dependence in eq.(34) factorizes. This yields:

$`𝐄[\left({\displaystyle \frac{|f_{\tau _z}^{}(z)|}{\mathrm{Im}f_{\tau _z}(z)}}\right)^{2h}]\stackrel{~}{C}_h^{[even]}(\mathrm{})=y^{2h}\stackrel{~}{C}_h^{[even]}(x/y)`$ (36)
As recalled in Appendix B, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_h(x/y)`$ satisfies a second order differential equation due to the existence of the null vector $`|n_{1,2}`$ at level two. Its form is

$$[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}16}h+8(1+\eta ^2)\eta _\eta +\kappa (1+\eta ^2)^2_\eta ^2]\stackrel{~}{C}_h(\eta )=0$$

with $`\eta =x/y`$. As usual its solutions are hypergeometric functions. To conclude for the expectation (34) one has to evaluate $`\stackrel{~}{C}_h(\pm \mathrm{})`$, and to check whether it is finite, zero or infinite. As discussed in ref., this depends on the values $`h`$ and $`\kappa `$.

The different cases are distinguished according to the conformal weights of the intermediate states propagating in the correlations (33). They may also be understood in terms of fusion rules. The limit $`x/y\mathrm{}`$ may be thought as the limit in which the bulk operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_h(z,\overline{z})`$ gets close to the real axis. By operator product expansion, it then decomposes on boundary operators $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)`$. Since we are taking matrix elements between $`|\omega `$ and $`|h_{1,2}^\kappa `$, only the operators with $`\delta =0`$ or $`\delta =h_{1,3}^\kappa `$ give non-vanishing contributions, see Appendix B. Thus:

$$y^{2h}\mathrm{\Phi }_h(z,\overline{z})_{y0}𝐁_h^0[\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =0}(x)+\mathrm{}]+y^{h_{1,3}^\kappa }𝐁_h^{h_{1,3}^\kappa }[\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta =h_{1,3}^\kappa }(x)+\mathrm{}]+\mathrm{}$$

The different cases depend on the finiteness of the two bulk-boundary coupling constants $`𝐁_h^0`$ and $`𝐁_h^{h_{1,3}^\kappa }`$ and on the sign of $`h_{1,3}^\kappa =\frac{8\kappa }{\kappa }`$ – that is whether $`\kappa >8`$ or $`\kappa <8`$.

## 6 Exterior/interior hull relations.

As the examples we have treated in detail show, the behavior of conformal correlators when points are swallowed by the $`SLE_\kappa `$ hull is crucial for the probabilistic interpretation. In this section we gather a few general remarks on this behavior.

Suppose that a domain $`D`$ is swallowed by the hull at time $`t=t_c`$. Then it is known that

in the unbounded component, the Loewner map $`g_t`$ has a limit. This limit maps the unbounded component conformally onto $`𝐇`$,

in the bounded component $`D`$, the Loewner map has a limit which is a constant map, so that the image of $`D`$ collapses to the point $`\xi _{t_c}`$ on the real axis.

for $`z,z^{}D`$, $`lim_{tt_c}\frac{g_t(z)\xi _t}{g_t(z^{})\xi _t}=1.`$

Let us elaborate a little bit on property $`iii)`$. We concentrate on the case when a simple path $`\gamma _t`$ starts from the origin at $`t=0`$ and touches the real axis at $`t=t_c`$ 777In more complicated cases, the path has a self intersection at $`t_c`$ and/or has already made a (finite) number of self intersections before $`t_c`$, but choosing any $`t_o`$ such that $`\gamma _t`$ is simple for $`t[t_o,t_c]`$, the study of $`g_tg_{t_o}^1`$ instead of $`g_t`$ reduces the problem to the situation that we treat in some detail.. Then the boundary of $`D`$ contains an open interval $`I`$ of the real axis. Let $`x`$ be a point in this interval. By appropriate fractional linear transformations on $`z`$ and $`g_t(z)`$, one can exchange the role of the bounded and the unbounded component and then use property $`i)`$ 888For instance, on may choose any $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ such that $`x\stackrel{~}{x}<0`$ and set $`\stackrel{~}{z}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}z}{zx}`$. The fractional linear transformation for $`g_t(z)`$ is then fixed by the normalization condition at infinity.. This leads to

For $`zD`$ and $`xI`$, $`lim_{tt_c}\frac{g_t(z)g_t(x)}{g_t^{}(x)}`$ exists and maps $`D`$ conformally onto $`𝐇`$.

Put together, properties $`ii)`$, $`iii)`$ and $`iv)`$ imply that there exist two functions of $`t`$, $`\epsilon _t^{(0)}=o(1)`$ and $`\epsilon _t^{(1)}=o(\epsilon _t^{(0)})`$ such that

$$\underset{tt_c}{lim}\frac{g_t(z)\xi _t\epsilon _t^{(0)}}{\epsilon _t^{(1)}}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{t_c}(z)$$

exists and maps $`D`$ conformally onto $`𝐇`$.

For the semicircle example treated in detail in the appendix, one can take $`\epsilon _t^{(0)}=\sqrt{2(t_ct)}`$, $`\epsilon _t^{(1)}=2(t_ct)`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{t_c}(z)=\frac{z}{(r+z)^2}`$. In fact heuristic arguments suggest that $`\epsilon _t^{(0)}\pm \sqrt{2(t_ct)}`$ and $`\epsilon _t^{(1)}2(t_ct)`$ if the curve $`\gamma _t`$ is smooth enough 999The sign is $`+`$ if the boundary of $`D`$ is oriented clockwise by the path and $``$ otherwise..

This smoothness assumption is not natural in the context of $`SLE_\kappa `$ so we work with $`\epsilon _t^{(0)}`$ and $`\epsilon _t^{(1)}`$.

Suppose there is a collection of fields in $`𝐇`$, with the convention that the “$`i(n)`$” arguments are inside $`D`$ or $`I`$, and the “$`o(ut)`$” arguments sit outside. Inserting resolutions of the identity and using covariance under similarities as detailed in the Appendix C, we find that the dominant contribution to the correlator

$$0|\underset{p_o}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _{p_o}}(x_{p_o})\underset{j_o}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_{j_o}}(z_{j_o},\overline{z}_{j_o})\underset{p_i}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _{p_i}}(x_{p_i})\underset{j_i}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_{j_i}}(z_{j_i},\overline{z}_{j_i})G_t|\alpha $$

for $`t`$ close to $`t_c`$ is given by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta ,\eta }{}}𝐂_{\alpha \eta }^\beta (\epsilon _t^{(0)})^{\delta _\beta \delta _\alpha \delta _\eta }(\epsilon _t^{(1)})^{\delta _\eta }0|{\displaystyle \underset{p_o}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _{p_o}}(x_{p_o}){\displaystyle \underset{j_o}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_{j_o}}(z_{j_o},\overline{z}_{j_o})G_{t_c}|\beta `$
$`\eta |\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{t_c}^1{\displaystyle \underset{p_i}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _{p_i}}(x_{p_i}){\displaystyle \underset{j_i}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_{j_i}}(z_{j_i},\overline{z}_{j_i})\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{t_c}|0`$ (37)
where $`𝐂_{\alpha \eta }^\beta `$ is the structure constant of the operator algebra, and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{t_c}`$ the element of $`Vir`$ representing the map $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_{t_c}(z)`$ defined on $`D`$. In fact only the fields for which

$$\underset{\beta ,\eta }{}𝐂_{\alpha \eta }^\beta (\epsilon _t^{(0)})^{\delta _\beta \delta _\alpha \delta _\eta }(\epsilon _t^{(1)})^{\delta _\eta }$$

is dominant are really significant in the above sum. Note that from the conformal field theory viewpoint the scaling $`\epsilon _t^{(1)}(\epsilon _t^{(0)})^2`$ (which is also suggested by independent arguments for smooth $`\gamma _t`$) yields a formula for which the domain $`D`$ and its complement appear symmetrically. We do not know if this scaling relation holds for a typical $`SLE_\kappa `$ trace ($`\kappa ]4,8[`$), but when subdomains of $`𝐇`$ containing field insertions are swallowed by the $`SLE_\kappa `$ hull, full conformal field theory correlation functions survive the swallowing.

## 7 Conclusions and conjectural perspectives.

We have established a precise connection between $`SLE_\kappa `$ evolutions and boundary conformal field theories, with central charge $`c_\kappa `$, eq.(11). Geometrically, this relation is based on identifying the hull boundary state $`|K_t`$, eq.(20), which encodes the evolution of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ hull. The key point is that this state, which belongs to a Virasoro module possessing a null vector at level two, is conserved in mean. It is thus a generating function for $`SLE_\kappa `$ martingales. The simplest illustration of this property is provided by the algebraic derivation of generalized crossing probabilities that we gave in Section 5. It yields solutions of $`SLE_\kappa `$ stopping time problems in terms of CFT correlation functions. It is clear that the method we described can be generalized to deal with many more examples involving multipoint correlation functions than just the ones we presented in this paper.

Although we point out a direct relation between $`SLE_\kappa `$ evolution and 2D gravity via the KPZ formula (22), this is clearly calling for developments, in order in particular to make contact with ref..

Knowing the relation between crossing probabilities – or more generally stopping time problems – and conformal correlation functions, it is natural to wonder whether conformal field theories can be reconstructed from $`SLE_\kappa `$ data. In view of the explicit examples, eg eqs.(28,29,35), and their multipoint generalizations, it is tempting to conjecture that appropriate choices for stopping time $`\tau `$ and state $`v^{}|`$ in the relation

$$𝐄[v^{}|G_\tau |\omega ]=v^{}|\omega $$

should lead to a reconstruction formula for, say, the boundary fields, expressing

$$0|\underset{j}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _j}(x_j)|\omega $$

as a linear combination of $`SLE_\kappa `$ expectations of the form

$$𝐄[\mathrm{𝟏}_{r(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n)}C(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)_{\delta _1,\mathrm{},\delta _n}]$$

where $`r(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n)`$ specifies a relation between the swallowing times of the points $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ and $`C(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)_{\delta _1,\mathrm{}\delta _n}`$ is an appropriate function depending locally on the $`f_{\tau _j}(x_j)`$ as in eq.(28,29). The analogue ansatz for bulk operators would also involve the events coding for the position of the $`SLE_\kappa `$ trace with respect to the insertion points of the bulk operators as in eq.(35) and its multipoint generalizations. We plan to report on this problem in a near future .

The existence of such reconstruction scheme would indicate that $`SLE_\kappa `$ evolutions, or its avatars, provide alternative formulations of, at least conformal, statistical field theories. Contrary to usual approaches, the peculiarity of this, yet virtual, reformulation of field theories would be that its elementary objects are non-local and extended, with, at an even more hypothetical level, possible applications to (a dual formulation of) gauge theories.

## 8 Appendix A: Deterministic Loewner evolutions.

The simplest example of deterministic Loewner evolution is when the driving term vanishes, so that the equation reduces to $`\dot{g}=2/g`$, which combined with $`g_{t=0}=z`$ leads to $`g^2=z^2+4t`$. When $`z`$ is real, $`g`$ is real as well, but $`g`$ is real also when $`z`$ is pure imaginary, $`z=2i\sqrt{t^{}}`$, $`t^{}]0,t]`$. So the hull is $`K_t=\{2i\sqrt{t^{}},t^{}[0,t]\}`$, and with a slight abuse of notation, we write $`g=\sqrt{z^2+4t}`$, being understood that the determination of the square root is choosen to make $`g`$ continuous on $`\overline{𝐇}K_t`$ and behave like $`z`$ at $`\mathrm{}`$.

This trivial example allows to construct a more instructive one : by appropriate fractional linear transformations in the source and image of $`g(z)`$, one can construct a conformal representation for the situation when the hull is an arc of circle of radius $`r`$ centered at the origin and emerging from the real axis at $`r`$. Straightforward computations lead to a family of maps

$$g_\lambda (z):=r\frac{\frac{2\lambda +1}{\lambda +1}\sqrt{\lambda +\left(\frac{zr}{z+r}\right)^2}\frac{2\lambda 1}{\sqrt{\lambda +1}}}{\sqrt{\lambda +\left(\frac{zr}{z+r}\right)^2}\sqrt{\lambda +1}}$$

The determination of $`\sqrt{\lambda +\left(\frac{zr}{z+r}\right)^2}`$ is chosen in such a way that the behavior at large $`z`$ is $`g_\lambda (z)=z+O(1/z)`$. The parameter $`r`$ simply sets the scale, but the nonnegative parameter $`\lambda `$ sets the angular extension $`\theta `$ of the arc : apart from the real axis, the points $`z`$ such that $`g_\lambda (z)`$ is real are of the form $`z=re^{i\vartheta },\vartheta [0,\theta ]`$ with $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta /2=\lambda `$.

When $`\lambda +\mathrm{}`$, $`\theta \pi `$, and the free end of the arc approches the real axis at the point $`r`$. Our aim is to observe what happens in this limit, especially to the points that are being “swallowed” (i.e. the points inside the open half disc $`D_r`$ of radius $`r`$ centered at the origin).

The determination of $`\sqrt{\lambda +\left(\frac{zr}{z+r}\right)^2}`$ is such that on the two sides of the cut it is equal to $`\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{tan}^2\theta /2\mathrm{tan}^2\vartheta /2}`$ for $`z=r^\pm e^{i\vartheta }`$. Explicit computation shows that

$$g_\lambda (r)=r\frac{2\lambda +1}{\lambda +1},g_\lambda (re^{i\theta })=r\frac{2\lambda 1}{\lambda +1}$$

and

$$g_\lambda (r^\pm )=\pm 2r\sqrt{\frac{\lambda }{\lambda +1}}+\frac{r}{\lambda +1}.$$

Moreover, $`\sqrt{\lambda +\left(\frac{zr}{z+r}\right)^2}`$ is pure imaginary when $`z=re^{i\vartheta },\vartheta [\theta ,\pi ]`$. As $`g_\lambda `$ is a real homographic function of $`\sqrt{\lambda +\left(\frac{zr}{z+r}\right)^2}`$, we conclude that $`\{re^{i\vartheta },\vartheta [\theta ,\pi ]\}`$ is mapped to a semicircle by $`g_\lambda `$, and $`D_r`$ is mapped to the open half disc bounded by this semicircle and a segment of the real axis.

The important observation is that for large $`\lambda `$, $`g_\lambda (r^+)2r`$, while $`g_\lambda (r)`$, $`g_\lambda (r^{})`$ and $`g_\lambda (re^{i\theta })`$ have the same limit $`2r`$, so that the image of $`D_r`$ shrinks to a point. On the other hand, if $`z𝐇\overline{D}_r`$, $`lim_{\lambda +\mathrm{}}g_\lambda (z)=z+r^2/z`$, so that the image of $`𝐇\overline{D}_r`$ is $`𝐇`$:

$$\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}g_\lambda (z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}z+r^2/z\hfill & \text{, for }|z|r\hfill \\ 2r\hfill & \text{, for }|z|<r\hfill \end{array}$$

The approach to the limit is interesting. Let $`g_\lambda (z)=2r+x_\lambda (z)+iy_\lambda (z)`$ with $`y_\lambda (z)>0`$ by construction. For $`zD_r`$, we have $`x_\lambda (z)=2r/\lambda +O(1/\lambda ^2)`$ and $`y_\lambda (z)=O(1/\lambda ^2)`$ so that $`lim_\lambda \mathrm{}x_\lambda (z)/y_\lambda (z)=+\mathrm{}`$ as expected for a loop surrounding the point $`z`$ positively.

The rate at which the points in $`D_r`$ go to $`2r`$ is also interesting. If $`zD_r`$ one checks that, for large $`\lambda `$, $`g_\lambda (z)g_\lambda (re^{i\theta })=r/\lambda +O(1/\lambda ^2)`$, so that if we take another $`z^{}D_r`$, the ratio

$$\frac{g_\lambda (z)g_\lambda (re^{i\theta })}{g_\lambda (z^{})g_\lambda (re^{i\theta })}1,$$

showing that the points $`z`$ and $`z^{}`$ are come close to each other faster than they approach the collapse point.

Going one step further in the expansion gives

$$g_\lambda (z)g_\lambda (re^{i\theta })=\frac{r}{\lambda }+\frac{r}{\lambda ^2}\left(1+\frac{rz}{(r+z)^2}\right)+O(1/\lambda ^3),$$

and one checks that the map that appears at order $`\lambda ^2`$ maps $`D_r`$ conformally onto $`𝐇`$.

Up to now, we have not given a description of this example in terms of Loewner evolution. Explicit computation shows that

$$\frac{g_\lambda (z)}{\lambda }=\frac{2r^2}{(\lambda +1)^3}\frac{1}{g_\lambda (z)+r\frac{2\lambda 1}{\lambda +1}}.$$

So, to deal with a normalized Loewner evolution, we need to make a change of evolution parameter. We set

$$t\frac{r^2}{2}\left(1\frac{1}{(\lambda +1)^2}\right),\xi _tr\frac{2\lambda 1}{\lambda +1},$$

and, with an abuse of notation, write $`g_t`$ for $`g_{\lambda (t)}`$. Then $`_tg_t(z)=2/(g_t(z)\xi _t)`$ as usual. The semicircle closes at $`t_c=r^2/2`$. For $`zD_r`$ and $`t`$ close to $`t_c`$,

$$g_t(z)\xi _t=(2(t_ct))^{1/2}+2(t_ct)\frac{z}{(r+z)^2}+O((t_ct)^{3/2}.$$

## 9 Appendix B: Virasoro intertwiners and their correlation functions.

Here, we gather a few basic informations on Virasoro intertwiners.

Let us first deal with boundary operators $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)`$, acting from one highest weight Virasoro module $`𝒱_r`$ to another module $`𝒱_l`$ with respective highest weight vectors $`|h_r`$ and $`|h_l`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x):𝒱_r𝒱_l$$

They are constrained by the intertwinning relations (8). When $`𝒱_r`$ and $`𝒱_l`$ are irreducible Verma modules, the space of intertwinners between them is one dimensional. When $`𝒱_l`$ is an irreducible module, this space is $`0`$ or $`1`$ dimensional. This is so because in these cases, all the matrix elements of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)`$ can be obtained from the scalar products

$$h_l|\underset{p}{}L_{n_p}\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)\underset{q}{}L_{n_q}|h_r$$

and these are fixed by the three-point function $`h_l|\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)|h_r`$ and the intertwinning relations (8).

Commutation relation with $`L_0`$ fix the scaling form of the three point function:

$$h_l|\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)|h_r=𝐂_{\delta h_r}^{h_l}x^{h_lh_r\delta }$$

The constant $`𝐂_{\delta h_l}^{h_r}`$ is called the structure constant. The intertwiner $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)`$ from $`𝒱_r`$ to $`𝒱_l`$ exists whenever this constant does not vanish. The fusion rules are those imposed by demanding that $`𝐂_{\delta h_r}^{h_l}`$ be non zero.

If $`\delta `$ is generic and $`𝒱_l`$ and $`𝒱_r`$ are the possibly reducible Virasoro Verma modules no constraint is imposed on the possible values of the weight $`h_l`$, $`h_r`$ and $`\delta `$.

Constraints on $`𝐂_{\delta h_r}^{h_l}`$ arise when the Virasoro modules possess null vector. As we shall only deal with null vectors at level two, let us concentrate on the case where $`𝒱_r=_{1,2}`$ with $`|h_r=|\omega `$ and $`\delta `$ is generic. Recall that $`|\omega `$ has weight $`h_{1,2}^\kappa =(6\kappa )/2\kappa `$. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x):_{1,2}𝒱_l`$. Since $`|n_{1,2}=(2L_2+\frac{\kappa }{2}L_1^2)|\omega `$ vanishes in $`_{1,2}`$ we have:

$$h_l|\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)(2L_2+\frac{\kappa }{2}L_1^2)|\omega =0$$

By using the intertwining relation (8) to move the $`L_n`$ to the left, this translates into

$$\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{}_2^\delta (x)+\frac{\kappa }{2}\mathrm{}_1^\delta (x)^2\right)h_l|\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)|\omega =0$$

This either imposes to $`𝐂_{\delta \omega }^{h_l}`$ to vanish, or $`h_l\delta h_{1,2}^\kappa `$ to be one of the two solutions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\delta )`$ of eq.(22). In other words, the only Virasoro intertwiners acting on $`_{1,2}`$ are

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x):_{1,2}𝒱_{h_\pm (\delta )},h_\pm (\delta )=\delta +h_{1,2}^\kappa +\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\delta )$$

with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\delta )`$ given in eq.(23). These are the fusion rules. For instance, in the particular case $`\delta =h_{1,2}^\kappa `$ then $`h_\pm (h_{1,2}^\kappa )`$ takes the two possible values:

$$h_\pm (h_{1,2}^\kappa )\{0;h_{1,3}^\kappa =\frac{8\kappa }{\kappa }\}$$

Symmetrically, the only interwiners $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x):_{1,2}𝒱_{h_{1,2}^\kappa }`$ which couple $`|\omega `$ to the state $`|h_{1,2}^\kappa `$ with identical conformal weights should have $`\delta =0`$ or $`\delta =h_{1,3}^\kappa `$, since then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\delta )+\delta =0`$.

Multipoint correlators are computed by composing intertwiners. For instance the four point function $`h|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _1}(x_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _2}(x_2)|\omega `$ may be thought as a matrix elements of the composition of two intertwiners:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _1}(x_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _2}(x_2):_{1,2}𝒱_{h_\pm (\delta _2)}𝒱_h$$

The fact that there are two possible choices for $`h_\pm (\delta _2)`$ is what is meant by the fact that there are two possible conformal blocks.

The differential equations satisfied by the four point functions also follow from the existence of the null vector $`|n_{1,2}`$ since:

$$h|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _1}(x_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _2}(x_2)(2L_2+\frac{\kappa }{2}L_1^2)|\omega =0$$

Using again the intertwining relations (8) to move the Virasoro generators to the left gives:

$`\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(\mathrm{}_2^{\delta _1}(x_1)+\mathrm{}_2^{\delta _2}(x_2))+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}(\mathrm{}_1^{\delta _1}(x_1)+\mathrm{}_1^{\delta _2}(x_2))^2\right]h|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _1}(x_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _2}(x_2)|\omega =0`$
These are partial differential equations which turn into second order ordinary differential equations, once the trivial scaling behaviors have been factorized. Some examples appear in the main text.

Consider now bulk intertwiners $`\mathrm{\Phi }_h(z,\overline{z})`$ of dimension $`h`$. The logic is the same as before except that the intertwining relations (9) are slightly more involved. In particular, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_h(z,\overline{z})`$ acting from one module to another one

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_h(z,\overline{z}):𝒱_r𝒱_l$$

is also determined by its three point function $`h_l|\mathrm{\Phi }_h(z,\overline{z})|h_r`$ although, contrary to boundary operators, the intertwining relations (9) do not completely fix it. $`h_l|\mathrm{\Phi }_h(z,\overline{z})|h_r`$ is generally more involved than simply a power law.

As before no constraint is imposed if $`h`$ is generic and $`𝒱_l`$ and $`𝒱_r`$ are Verma modules. Constraints arise if one of the two modules possesses null vectors. For simplicity, assume that $`𝒱_r=_{1,2}`$ and $`|h_r=|\omega `$ as almost surely everywhere in this paper, so that:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_h(z,\overline{z}):_{1,2}𝒱_l$$

Then, since $`|n_{1,2}`$ vanishes in $`_{1,2}`$,

$$h_l|\mathrm{\Phi }_h(z,\overline{z})(2L_2+\frac{\kappa }{2}L_1^2)|\omega =0$$

or equivalently,

$`\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(\mathrm{}_2^h(z)+\mathrm{}_2^h(\overline{z}))+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}(\mathrm{}_1^h(z)+\mathrm{}_1^h(\overline{z}))^2\right]h_l|\mathrm{\Phi }_h(z,\overline{z})|\omega =0`$ (38)
Generically this equation has two independent solutions implying that the space of Virasoro intertwiners acting in $`_{1,2}`$ is two dimensional. This is what is meant by the fact that there are two conformal blocks in the bulk.

Further constraints, implying fusion rules, arise if we demand that the image space $`𝒱_l`$ also possesses null vectors. Bulk operators may be thought of as the compositions of two chiral intertwiners depending respectively on $`z`$ and $`\overline{z}`$.

Finally, besides the highest weight Verma modules $`𝒱_h`$ one may also consider the contravariant representations $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_h`$ induced on their dual spaces. For generic $`h`$, $`𝒱_h`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_h`$ are isomorphic as Virasoro modules, but they are not if $`𝒱_h`$ possesses sub-modules. In particular $`𝒱_{h_{1,2}^\kappa }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{h_{1,2}^\kappa }`$ are not isomorphic but $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{h_{1,2}^\kappa }`$ contains a submodule isomorphic to $`_{1,2}`$. Contravariant modules arise when defining conformal fields. Namely, one may show that the intertwinners $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)`$,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x):𝒱_h\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{h_{1,2}^\kappa }$$

from the Verma module $`𝒱_h`$ to the contravariant module $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{h_{1,2}^\kappa }`$ exist, while there are no intertwinner from $`𝒱_h`$ to $`𝒱_{h_{1,2}^\kappa }`$, for generic $`\delta `$. If the fusion rules are satisfied, then $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta (x)`$ maps $`𝒱_h`$ into $`_{1,2}`$, viewed as $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{h_{1,2}^\kappa }`$ submodules. This is the subtilities alluded in footnote 6, eq.(27).

## 10 Appendix C: Derivation of formula (6).

To derive eq.6, we manipulate

$$0|\underset{p_o}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _{p_o}}(x_{p_o})\underset{j_o}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_{j_o}}(z_{j_o},\overline{z}_{j_o})\underset{p_i}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _{p_i}}(x_{p_i})\underset{j_i}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_{j_i}}(z_{j_i},\overline{z}_{j_i})G_t|\alpha .$$

Remember that the “$`i(n)`$” arguments are inside $`D`$ or $`I`$, and the “$`o(ut)`$” arguments sit outside.

We conjugate by $`G_t`$ and then insert the identity operator $`\mathrm{𝟏}=_\beta |\beta \beta |`$ to separate the “$`i(n)`$” and the “$`o(ut)`$” contributions, leading to:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}`$ $`0|{\displaystyle \underset{p_o}{}}[f_t^{}(x_{p_o})]^{\delta _{p_o}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _{p_o}}(f_t(x_{p_o})){\displaystyle \underset{j_o}{}}|f_t^{}(z_{j_o})|^{2h_{j_o}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_{j_o}}(f_t(z_{j_o}),\overline{f}_t(\overline{z}_{j_o}))|\beta `$
$`\beta |{\displaystyle \underset{p_i}{}}[f_t^{}(x_{p_i})]^{\delta _{p_i}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _{p_i}}(f_t(x_{p_i})){\displaystyle \underset{j_i}{}}|f_t^{}(z_{j_i})|^{2h_{j_i}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_{j_i}}(f_t(z_{j_i}),\overline{f}_t(\overline{z}_{j_i}))|\alpha .`$
The “$`o(ut)`$” part behaves nicely when $`tt_c`$, but for the “$`i(n)`$” part we write $`f_t(z)=\epsilon _t^{(0)}+\epsilon _t^{(1)}\stackrel{ˇ}{f}_t(z)`$ and use the covariance under similarities :

$`\beta |{\displaystyle \underset{p_i}{}}[f_t^{}(x_{p_i})]^{\delta _{p_i}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _{p_i}}(f_t(x_{p_i})){\displaystyle \underset{j_i}{}}|f_t^{}(z_{j_i})|^{2h_{j_i}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_{j_i}}(f_t(z_{j_i}),\overline{f}_t(\overline{z}_{j_i}))|\alpha =`$
$`(\epsilon _t^{(1)})^{\delta _\beta \delta _\alpha }\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _\alpha }(\epsilon _t^{(0)}/\epsilon _t^{(1)}){\displaystyle \underset{p_i}{}}[\stackrel{ˇ}{f}_t^{}(x_{p_i})]^{\delta _{p_i}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _{p_i}}(\stackrel{ˇ}{f}_t(x_{p_i}))`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j_i}{}}|\stackrel{ˇ}{f}_t^{}(z_{j_i})|^{2h_{j_i}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_{j_i}}(\stackrel{ˇ}{f}_t(z_{j_i}),\overline{\stackrel{ˇ}{f}}_t(\overline{z}_{j_i}))}|0`$
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _\alpha }`$ is the field such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _\alpha }(0)|0=|\alpha `$. Upon insertion of the identity operator $`\mathrm{𝟏}=_\eta |\eta \eta |`$ to separate $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _\alpha }`$ from the “$`i(n)`$” fields, we find

$`\beta |{\displaystyle \underset{p_i}{}}[f_t^{}(x_{p_i})]^{\delta _{p_i}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _{p_i}}(f_t(x_{p_i})){\displaystyle \underset{j_i}{}}|f_t^{}(z_{j_i})|^{2h_{j_i}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_{j_i}}(f_t(z_{j_i}),\overline{f}_t(\overline{z}_{j_i}))|\alpha =`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\eta }{}}(\epsilon _t^{(1)})^{\delta _\beta \delta _\alpha }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _t^{(0)}}{\epsilon _t^{(1)}}}\right)^{\delta _\beta \delta _\alpha \delta _\eta }\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _\alpha }(1)|\eta `$
$`\eta |{\displaystyle \underset{p_i}{}}[\stackrel{ˇ}{f}_t^{}(x_{p_i})]^{\delta _{p_i}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _{p_i}}(\stackrel{ˇ}{f}_t(x_{p_i})){\displaystyle \underset{j_i}{}}|\stackrel{ˇ}{f}_t^{}(z_{j_i})|^{2h_{j_i}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{h_{j_i}}(\stackrel{ˇ}{f}_t(z_{j_i}),\overline{\stackrel{ˇ}{f}}_t(\overline{z}_{j_i}))|0`$
In fact $`\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta _\alpha }(1)|\eta =𝐂_{\alpha \eta }^\beta `$ is the structure constant of the operator algebra. When $`tt_c`$, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{f}_t`$ has a limit which maps conformally $`D`$ onto the upper half plane, and we may represent it by an operator $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{t_c}`$. This leads to formula (6).