PTEP 2016, 053B03 H. Iha et al.
S(1.2). Then, the mass anomalous dimension γ
∗
m
and the scaling dimension
φ
¯
k
i
(at the fixed point)
are related by
γ
∗
m
= 3 −
φ
¯
k
i
. (1.5)
This also directly follows from the partially conserved axial current (PCAC) relation.
In Sect. 2, we consider a four-point function of a spin 0 adjoint operator φ
¯
k
i
without specifying its
actual microscopic structure such as Eq. (1.4).
3
We derive the crossing relation associated with the
four-point function,
4
basically following the notational conventions of Ref. [18]. Then, in Sect. 3,
we apply the numerical conformal bootstrap to the crossing relation. For this, we used a semidefinite
programming code, the SDPB of Ref. [35].
In this way, among other things, we found that for N = 12 the system contains a spin 0 relevant
operator in the representation [N − 1, N − 1, 1, 1] of SU(N),
5
when
φ
¯
k
i
< 1.71, for N = 12. (1.6)
Since this relevant operator in the [N − 1, N − 1, 1, 1] representation appears in the operator product
expansion (OPE) of two φ
¯
k
i
s, if the latter is identified with the pseudo-scalar density in Eq. (1.4),
this is a scalar density. Such an SU(12) non-invariant operator is not radiatively induced, even if
it is relevant, if our regularization preserves the SU(12) symmetry. We note, however, that in all
existing lattice simulations of the 12-flavor QCD, the staggered fermion [49]isemployedtoprevent
the fermion mass operator (which is believed to be a unique spin 0 SU(12)-invariant relevant operator
associated with the infrared fixed point under consideration) from being radiatively induced. This is
accomplished by the exact U (1)
A
symmetry [50] that the massless staggered fermion possesses. Still,
however, the staggered fermion cannot preserve the full SU(12) flavor symmetry (the so-called taste
breaking). Generally, when the regularization does not preserve a symmetr y, relevant operators that
are not invariant under the symmetry are radiatively induced and, to achieve the desired continuum or
low-energy limit, one has to tune the coefficients of those non-invariant operators in the action. The
fact that actual lattice simulations [12,39–47]ofthe12-flavor QCD are consistent with the existence
of an infrared fixed point without such a fine-tuning strongly indicates that the theory does not contain
the above SU(12) non-invariant relevant operator in the spectrum.
Thus, assuming the absence of the spin 0 relevant operator in the representation [N − 1,
N − 1, 1, 1], we have the inequality
φ
¯
k
i
≥ 1.71. Then the upper bound on the mass anomalous
dimension (1.1) follows from the relation (1.5).
We stress that our upper bound (1.1) is a physical proper ty of a conformal field theory at the infrared
fixed point under consideration. The validity of our upper bound and whether one uses the staggered
fermion in actual lattice simulations are completely independent issues. We have used the fact indi-
cated by existing lattice simulations, just to support our assumption on the absence of the spin 0
relevant operator in the representation [N − 1, N − 1, 1, 1] around the fixed point. Whether there
3
We do not assume the underlying gauge theory either; we assume only that the theory is conformal and
possesses a global SU(N) symmetry.
4
We learned that this crossing relation had already been derived in Ref. [25]. We would like to thank the
referee for pointing out this fact.
5
We label representations of SU(N ) by a list of the (non-increasing) number of boxes in each column of the
corresponding Young tableau. For example, the adjoint representation is denoted as [N − 1, 1].ForN = 12,
we should say [11, 11, 1, 1] rather than [N − 1, N − 1, 1, 1], but in this paper we use the latter notation even
for N = 12. This remark applies also for other representations and for other values of N .
3/15