On the correspondence between boundary and bulk lattice models and (logarithmic) conformal field theories

Abstract

The relationship between bulk and boundary properties is one of the founding features of (rational) conformal field theory (CFT). Our goal in this paper is to explore the possibility of having an equivalent relationship in the context of lattice models. We focus on models based on the Temperley–Lieb algebra, and use the concept of ‘braid translation’, which is a natural way, in physical terms, to ‘close’ an open spin chain by adding an interaction between the first and last spins using braiding to ‘bring’ them next to each other. The interaction thus obtained is in general non-local, but has the key feature that it is expressed solely in terms of the algebra for the open spin chain—the ‘ordinary’ Temperley–Lieb algebra and its blob algebra generalization. This is in contrast with the usual periodic spin chains which involve only local interactions, and are described by the periodic Temperley–Lieb algebra. We show that for the restricted solid-on-solid models, which are known to be described by minimal unitary CFTs (with central charge ) in the continuum limit, the braid translation in fact does provide the ordinary periodic model starting from the open model with fixed (identical) boundary conditions on the two sides of the strip. This statement has a precise mathematical formulation, which is a pull-back map between irreducible modules of, respectively, the blob algebra and the affine Temperley–Lieb algebra. We then turn to the same kind of analysis for two models whose continuum limits are logarithmic CFTs (LCFTs)—the alternating and spin chains. We find that the result for minimal models does not hold any longer: braid translation of the relevant (in that case, indecomposable but not irreducible) modules of the Temperley–Lieb algebra does not give rise to the modules known to be present in the periodic chains. In the case, the content in terms of the irreducibles is the same, as well as the spectrum, but the detailed structure (like logarithmic coupling) is profoundly different. This carries over to the continuum limit. The situation is similar for the case. The problem of relating bulk and boundary lattice models for LCFTs thus remains open.