# What is the exact relationship between on-shell amplitudes and off-shell correlators in AdS/CFT?

In this answer to a question, it is mentioned that in the AdS/CFT correspondence, on-shell amplitudes on the AdS side are related to off-shell correlators on the CFT side.

Can somebody explain this to me in some more (technical) details, maybe by an explanatory example?

-

First, a reference article, by Witten, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9802150v2.pdf

I'll try to expose the basic idea, with a flat space-time. Suppose you have a relativistic scalar field theory, on a flat space-time domain, with boundary. The equation of the field is :

$$\square \Phi(x) = 0$$ (fields on-shell)

Now, define the partition function

$$Z = e^{−S(\Phi)}$$, where $$S(\Phi) = \int d^nx \,\partial_i \Phi(x)\,\partial^i \Phi(x)$$ is the action for the field $\Phi$

After this, you make a integration by parts (using the above fied equation) , and Stokes theorem, and you get:

$$S(\Phi) = \int d^nx \, \partial_i \Phi(x)\,\partial^i \Phi(x) = \int d^nx \,\partial_i(\Phi(x)\,\partial^i \Phi(x))$$ $$= \int_{Boundary} d \sigma_i \,(\Phi(x)\,\partial^i \Phi(x))$$

Now, suppose that the field $\Phi(x)$ has the value $\Phi_0(x)$ on the boundary. Then, you can see that $S$ and $Z$ could be considered as functionals of $\Phi_0$, so we could write $Z(\Phi_0)$:

$$Z(\Phi_0) = e^{ \,( -\int_{Boundary} d \sigma_i \,(\Phi(x)\,\partial^i \Phi(x)))}$$

Now, the true calculus is not with flat space-time, but with Ads or euclidean Ads,so in your calculus, you must involve the correct metrics, but the idea is the same.

The last step is to say that there is a relation between, the Generating function of correlation functions of CFT operators $O(x)$ living on the boundary, and the partition function $Z$

$$<e^{\int_{Boundary} \Phi_0(x) O(x)}>_{CFT} = Z(\Phi_0)$$

The RHS and LHS terms of this equation should be seen as functionals of $\Phi_0$ You can make a development of these terms in powers of $\Phi_0$, and so you got all the correlations functions for the CFT operators $O(x)$

$$<O(x_1)O(x_2)...O(x_n)> \sim \frac{\partial^n Z}{\partial \Phi_0(X_1)\partial \Phi_0(X_2)...\partial \Phi_0(X_n)}$$

So, ADS side, we are using on-shell partitions functions (because field equations for $\Phi$ are satisfied)

Now, CFT/QFT side, the correlations functions $<O(x_1)O(x_2)...>$ are, by definition, off-shell correlation functions (by Fourier transforms, there is no constraint about momentum). To get scattering amplitudes, we simply need to put the external legs on-shell.

-
Comment to the answer (v1): In the future, please link to abstract page rather than pdf file if possible, e.g. arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9802150 –  Qmechanic May 9 '13 at 10:50
The statement can be understood in terms of the GKPW-formula (named after Gubser, Klebanov, Polyakov and Witten), which does exactly that: it relates correlation functions on the CFT side (boundary) to string amplitudes on the AdS side (bulk). Assume that $\phi(\vec{x},z)$ is some field in the bulk, where $z$ is the so-called "holographic coordinate", which reaches its CFT-value $\phi_0$ at the boundary at $z=0$. For some Operator $\mathcal{O}(\vec{x})$, the GKPW-formula is given by $$\langle e^{\int d^4x\,\phi_0(\vec{x})\mathcal{O}(\vec{x})}\rangle_{CFT}=\mathcal{Z}(\phi(\vec{x},z)|_{z=0}=\phi_0(\vec{x})).$$
Brunner Is there a typo in your 2nd RHS? Shouldn't that $\phi_0 (\vec{x})$ be in the subscript giving the boundary condition for the bulk Z? –  user6818 May 6 '13 at 18:15