Segal’s semigroup, Virasoro structure, and Ward identities in Compactified Imaginary Liouville Theory

Let g_{\mathbb{D}}:=|dz|^2 and g a metric on {\mathbb{D}} extending g_f. We apply the gluing axiom for the free field ([BCILT, Theorem 4.1]) to {\mathbb{A}}_f\# f({\mathbb{D}})={\mathbb{D}} with a magnetic insertion at z=0. Informally and in terms of integrals, it states that for \widetilde{\varphi}^k\in{\mathcal{D}}'({\mathbb{T}},{\mathbb{T}}_R) and functionals F_1,F_2, we have

where the constraints on the integrals are \phi|_{\mathbb{T}}=\widetilde{\varphi}^k and \phi_1\circ f|_{\mathbb{T}}=\phi_2\circ f|_{\mathbb{T}}=\widetilde{\varphi}_2^k, and C=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi} in this case. Taking F_1(\phi_1)=F(\phi_1\circ f|_{\mathbb{T}}) and F_2 the integrand of the CILT amplitude on ({\mathbb{A}}_f,g_f,{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}_f), we obtain

where the expectation is over the GFF X_{\mathbb{D}}, the integrals \int_{f({\mathbb{D}})}^{{\mathrm{reg}}}|d\arg f^{-1}|_{g}^2\,{\mathrm{d}} v_{g},\int_{{\mathbb{D}}}^{{\mathrm{reg}}}|d\arg\!|_{g}^2\,{\mathrm{d}} v_{g} are regularized as in [BCILT, Section 2.6] by taking the principal part, and the curvature term \int_{{\mathbb{A}}_f}K_{g_f}P\widetilde{\varphi}^k\,{\mathrm{d}} v_{g_f} is regularized as in [BCILT, Section 5].

We first compute \int_{f({\mathbb{D}})}^{{\mathrm{reg}}}|d\arg f^{-1}|_{g}^2\,{\mathrm{d}} v_{g}-\int_{{\mathbb{D}}}^{{\mathrm{reg}}}|d\arg\!|_{g}^2\,{\mathrm{d}} v_{g}. Since this is conformally invariant, using g_{\mathbb{D}} in place of g, it becomes

Now f(z)=f'(0)z+O(z^2) as z\to0, so it is not hard to see that this converges to 2\pi\log|f'(0)|. Thus e^{-\frac{1}{4\pi} R^2k^2\left(\int_{f({\mathbb{D}})}^{{\mathrm{reg}}}|d\arg f^{-1}|_{g}^2\,{\mathrm{d}} v_{g}-\int_{{\mathbb{D}}}^{{\mathrm{reg}}}|d\arg\!|_{g}^2\,{\mathrm{d}} v_{g}\right)} = |f'(0)|^{-\frac{R^2k^2}{2}}.

Next we claim that \int_{{\mathbb{A}}_f}K_{g_f}P\widetilde{\varphi}^k\,{\mathrm{d}} v_{g_f}=0 (modulo 2\pi R{\mathbb{Z}}). Indeed,

where we view both {\mathbb{D}} and f({\mathbb{D}}) as surfaces with a magnetic insertion at 0 and tangent vector \partial_z. By the formula for change of conformal metric ([BCILT, Proposition 5.2.(4)]), writing g=e^\rho\,|dz|^2, we have

We compute the first term by regularizing with respect to the separating family consisting only of the straight line segment from 0 to 1. Then

where we used the mean value property of harmonic functions. As for the second term, since g_f is admissible, we have \rho(z) = -2\log|z| near \partial{\mathbb{D}}, so by integration by parts,

By the same token,

where we regularize on ({\mathbb{D}},f^*g) with respect to the separating family consisting only of the straight line segment from 0 to e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\arg f'(0)}. Now \arg(f(e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\arg f'(0)}z)/z) is well-defined and harmonic on {\mathbb{D}} and its value at 0 is 0, so by the mean value property,

Thus the claim is proved.

Returning to (Proof), we perform the imaginary Girsanov transform (see [BCILT, Theorem 3.4]) with respect to

Consider the harmonic function h_f on f({\mathbb{D}}) defined by h_f(f(z))=\log\frac{|zf'(z)|}{|f(z)|}, so that f^*g_{\mathbb{A}}=e^{2h_f\circ f}g_{\mathbb{A}}. Note that h_f\circ f\big|_{{\mathbb{T}}}=\log\frac{|f'|}{|f|}\big|_{\mathbb{T}}. Since g_f is admissible, we have g_f=e^{-2\chi_f}g_{\mathbb{A}} where \chi_f\in C^\infty({\mathbb{A}}_f,{\mathbb{R}}) is 0 near {\mathbb{T}} and equal to h_f near f({\mathbb{T}}). We extend \chi_f to {\mathbb{D}} by defining it to be h_f on f({\mathbb{D}}). Now K_{g_f} = -2e^{2\chi_f}\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{A}}}\chi_f, {\mathrm{d}} v_{g_f} = e^{-2\chi_f}\,{\mathrm{d}} v_{g_{\mathbb{A}}}, so

where G=G_{\mathbb{D}} is the Green’s function on {\mathbb{D}} with Dirichlet boundary condition. Similarly,

where \nu is the unit normal vector pointing towards {\mathbb{A}}_f. Since \chi_f is harmonic in f({\mathbb{D}}), \frac{\partial\chi_f}{\partial\nu}\circ f=\frac{|f|}{|f'|}{\mathbf{D}}(\chi_f\circ f|_{\mathbb{T}}) by definition, so the last term is precisely Q^2\left\langle{\mathbf{D}}\log\tfrac{|f'|}{|f|}\big|_{\mathbb{T}},\log\tfrac{|f'|}{|f|}\big|_{\mathbb{T}}\right\rangle.

It remains to show that

By [BCILT, Lemma 4.3],

where the last term is a certain Fredholm determinant. The calculation at the end of the proof of [Segal_semigroup, Proposition 3.4] shows that

By the Polyakov formula (see [Boundary_Segal, Proposition 5.10] for example),

Thus (?) is proved.

By the gluing axiom of CILT amplitudes ([CILT, Proposition 8.13], [BCILT, Theorem 7.8]), it suffices to show that the functional W is additive in the sense that

where g_{f_1\circ f_2} is an admissible metric on {\mathbb{A}}_{f_1\circ f_2}={\mathbb{A}}_{f_1}\# f_1({\mathbb{A}}_{f_2}) obtained by gluing an admissible metric g_{f_1} on {\mathbb{A}}_{f_1} and an admissible metric (f_1)_*g_{f_2} on f_1({\mathbb{A}}_{f_2}). Additivity of the first term \log|f'(0)| in W is clear. Recall from the previous proof that

where g is any conformal metric on {\mathbb{D}}, and we define h_f,\chi_f as in the previous proof for f\in\{f_1,f_2,f_1\circ f_2\}. We have

so

Similarly,

so

Thus the identity \chi_{f_1\circ f_2}\circ f_1 = h_{f_1}\circ f_1 + \chi_{f_2} holds on {\mathbb{D}}. Clearly \chi_{f_1\circ f_2} = \chi_{f_1} on {\mathbb{A}}_{f_1}, so

where we used that h_{f_1}\circ f_1 is harmonic.

The quadratic form {\mathcal{Q}} is strictly m-accretive in the sense defined in [ReedSimon, Section VIII.6]. Thus we obtain the operator {\mathbf{H}} which coincides with the adjoint of the operator associated with {\mathcal{Q}} as in Theorem VIII.16 (ibid.). Using the polarization identity and the second bound in (4.1), there exists C'>0 such that |{\mathcal{Q}}(u,v)|\leq C'\sqrt{{\mathcal{Q}}_0(u,u){\mathcal{Q}}_0(v,v)} for u,v\in{\mathcal{D}}({\mathcal{Q}}_0). This shows that {\mathbf{H}} is bounded as an operator {\mathcal{D}}({\mathcal{Q}}_0)\to{\mathcal{D}}'({\mathcal{Q}}_0).

By the lemma following Theorem VIII.16 (ibid.), we have that any \lambda\in{\mathbb{C}} with \operatorname{Re}\lambda<0 is in the resolvent set of {\mathbf{H}} and \|({\mathbf{H}}-\lambda)^{-1}\|_{{\mathcal{H}}\to{\mathcal{H}}}\leq(-\operatorname{Re}\lambda)^{-1}. By the Hille–Yosida theorem and [Pazy, Theorem 2.5.2.(d)], {\mathbf{H}} generates an analytic contraction semigroup t\mapsto e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}} and we have \|{\mathbf{H}} e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}}\|_{{\mathcal{H}}\to{\mathcal{H}}}\leq C_1/t (t>0) for some uniform C_1>0. In particular, {\mathbf{H}} e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}}\in{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}). Thus for u\in{\mathcal{H}}, we have \|e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}}u\|_{{\mathcal{D}}({\mathcal{Q}}_0)}^2={\mathcal{Q}}_0(e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}}u,e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}}u)\leq C|{\mathcal{Q}}(e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}}u,e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}}u)|=C|\langle {\mathbf{H}} e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}}u,e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}}u\rangle_{{\mathcal{H}}}|\leq C\|{\mathbf{H}} e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}}u\|_{\mathcal{H}}\|e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}}u\|_{\mathcal{H}}\leq C_2\|u\|_{\mathcal{H}}^2 with C_2:=C\|{\mathbf{H}} e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}}\|_{{\mathcal{H}}\to{\mathcal{H}}}\|e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}}\|_{{\mathcal{H}}\to{\mathcal{H}}}<\infty. In other words, e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}} is bounded as an operator {\mathcal{H}}\to{\mathcal{D}}({\mathcal{Q}}_0). By duality (for {\mathbf{H}}^*), it extends to a bounded operator {\mathcal{D}}'({\mathcal{Q}}_0)\to{\mathcal{H}}. Thus for t>0, e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}}=e^{-\frac{t}{2}{\mathbf{H}}}e^{-\frac{t}{2}{\mathbf{H}}}:{\mathcal{D}}'({\mathcal{Q}}_0)\to{\mathcal{H}}\to{\mathcal{D}}({\mathcal{Q}}_0) is bounded.

Clearly \widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}^0 is well-defined on {\mathcal{E}}({\mathcal{D}}'({\mathbb{T}},{\mathbb{T}}_R)). Let (F_n)_{n=1}^\infty\subset{\mathcal{E}}({\mathcal{D}}'({\mathbb{T}},{\mathbb{T}}_R)) be a sequence such that \widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}^0(F_m-F_n,F_m-F_n)\to0 as m,n\to\infty. Since \widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}^0\geq\frac{\min(1,Q^2)}2\|\!\cdot\!\|_{L^2}^2, (F_n)_n is Cauchy in L^2({\mathcal{D}}'({\mathbb{T}},{\mathbb{T}}_R)). Suppose \|F_n-F_0\|_{L^2}\to0 for some F_0\in L^2({\mathcal{D}}'({\mathbb{T}},{\mathbb{T}}_R)). To show that \widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}^0 is closable, it suffices to show that F_0=0 implies \widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}^0(F_n,F_n)\to0. Consider the Hilbert space {\mathcal{H}}_0:=L^2({\mathbb{T}}_R\times{\mathcal{D}}_0'({\mathbb{T}},{\mathbb{R}})) with the norm \|F\|_{{\mathcal{H}}_0}^2:=\int_{{\mathbb{T}}_R}{\mathbb{E}}[|F(c+\varphi)|^2]\,{\mathrm{d}} c (the expectation being over the mean-zero GFF \varphi on {\mathbb{T}}) and the product Hilbert space {\mathcal{H}}_0^\infty:=\bigoplus_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}({\mathcal{H}}_0\oplus{\mathcal{H}}_0\oplus{\mathcal{H}}_0^{{\mathbb{N}}_{\geq1}}\oplus{\mathcal{H}}_0^{{\mathbb{N}}_{\geq1}}) with the norm

Then we have the linear map

such that \widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}^0(F,F)=\|\iota F\|_{{\mathcal{H}}_0^\infty}^2. The condition \widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}^0(F_m-F_n,F_m-F_n)\to0 implies that (\iota F_m)_m is Cauchy in {\mathcal{H}}_0^\infty, so we can assume that \iota F_m converges to some (F_k^1,F_k^2,(F_{kn}^3)_{n\geq1},(F_{kn}^4)_{n\geq1})_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\in{\mathcal{H}}_0^\infty. In particular, {\mathbf{A}}_n F_m\to(F_{kn}^3)_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}} in L^2({\mathcal{D}}'({\mathbb{T}},{\mathbb{T}}_R))\cong\oplus_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{\mathcal{H}}_0. For any G\in{\mathcal{E}}({\mathcal{D}}'({\mathbb{T}},{\mathbb{T}}_R)), we have

so F_{kn}^3=0 for all k,n. Similarly, one shows that F_k^1=F_k^2=F_{kn}^4=0 for all k,n. Thus \iota F_m converges to 0 in {\mathcal{H}}_0^\infty, i.e., \widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}^0(F_m,F_m)=\|\iota F_m\|_{{\mathcal{H}}_0^\infty}^2\to0.

Since (\mathbf L_n^{0,\beta})^*=\mathbf L_{-n}^{0,-\beta} and \mathbf H^0=\mathbf L^{0}_0+\widetilde{\mathbf L}^0_0, it suffices to consider the case n> 0.

Recall (?), (?) and that {\mathbf{A}}_0=\tfrac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2}\partial_c- \frac12Q- \frac12Rk. By Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities, we have

The second line above is bounded by C\sqrt{\widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}^0(F,F)}. Using [\mathbf{A}_j,\mathbf{A}_{-j}]=\frac j2, we obtain \|A_{-j} G\|^2_2=\|A_{j} G\|^2_2+\frac j2\|G\|_2^2. Thus

where the last line is bounded by Cn\sqrt{\widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}^0(G,G)}.

For k\in{\mathbb{Z}}, let {\mathcal{H}}_k:=L^2({\mathbb{T}}_R\times{\mathcal{D}}_0'({\mathbb{T}},{\mathbb{R}})\times\{k\})\subset L^2({\mathcal{D}}'({\mathbb{T}},{\mathbb{T}}_R)), so that L^2({\mathcal{D}}'({\mathbb{T}},{\mathbb{T}}_R))=\bigoplus_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{\mathcal{H}}_k. Clearly all the operators above preserve each {\mathcal{H}}_k.

First consider the case k=0. To show that {\mathbf{T}}_{f_t}^0 = e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}_{\rm v}^0} on {\mathcal{H}}_0, it suffices to repeat the end of the proof of [Virasoro_structure, Theorem 2.8] (more precisely, Propositions 2.11 and 2.12), mutatis mutandis. Indeed, the calculation of \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\big|_{t=0}F\big(P\widetilde{\varphi}\circ f_t\big|_{\mathbb{T}} + Q\log\tfrac{|f_t'|}{|f_t|}\big|_{\mathbb{T}}\big) in Proposition 2.11 (ibid.) holds for all Q\in{\mathbb{C}} if F is analytic in the zero mode c, and the calculation of \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\big|_{t=0}{\mathbb{E}}\big[F\big(\widetilde{\varphi} + (X_{\mathbb{D}}\circ f_t)\big|_{\mathbb{T}}\big)\big] in Proposition 2.12 (ibid.) carries over verbatim since they concern the same GFF X_{\mathbb{D}}.

For a general k\in{\mathbb{Z}}, we have {\mathbf{T}}_{f_t}^0|_{{\mathcal{H}}_k} = |f_t'(0)|^{\frac{R^2k^2}{2}}\, {\mathbf{T}}_{f_t}^0|_{{\mathcal{H}}_0} \circ \tau_{k,t}, where we identify {\mathcal{H}}_k and {\mathcal{H}}_0 via the natural isomorphism and \tau_{k,t} is the translation on {\mathcal{H}}_0 defined by (\tau_{k,t}F)(\widetilde{\varphi}) := F(\widetilde{\varphi} + Rkg_t|_{\mathbb{T}}), where g_t(z):=\arg f_t(z)-\arg z=\operatorname{Im}\log\frac{f_t(z)}{z}. Note that g_t admits a continuous branch on {\mathbb{D}} and is well-defined up to a global constant in 2\pi{\mathbb{Z}}. Thus the generator of {\mathbf{T}}_{f_t}^0|_{{\mathcal{H}}_k} is

To compute the last term,

so

The rest of the proof is a straightforward algebraic calculation.

Note that \sup_{\theta\in[0,2\pi]}|\operatorname{Re}(e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\theta}v(e^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta}))|\leq\sum_{n=0}^\infty|v_n|=|\omega|+\sum_{n\geq1}|v_n|. Taking N large enough in (4.6), we have

where we can take \delta arbitrarily small, say, \delta=\min(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\sup_{\theta\in[0,2\pi]}|\operatorname{Re}(e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\theta}v(e^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta}))|). Combining with (?), we obtain

Since \widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}^0\geq\frac{\min(1,Q^2)}2\|\!\cdot\!\|_{L^2}^2, this proves the lemma taking N>2\operatorname{Re}\omega\,Q^2.

We follow the proof in [Virasoro_structure, Theorem 3.1] and [Guillarmou2024, Section 5.2]. Denote by X:=c + P\varphi + kR\arg+X_{\mathbb{D}} the GFF restricted to the disk and X_\varepsilon:=\frac1{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}X(x+\varepsilon e^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta}) {\mathrm{d}}\theta its regularisation. Pulling back by the diffeomorphism [0,t]\times[0,2\pi]\mapsto{\mathbb{A}}_{f_t}, (s,\theta)\mapsto f_s(e^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta}), we get by change of variables

When \varepsilon\to0, as a consequence of the uniqueness of GMC, we have

where \varepsilon_{s,\theta}=\varepsilon/|f'_s(e^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta})|. Hence, the right hand side of (Proof) can be written as

By changing the cutoff \varepsilon_{s,\theta} and using [Virasoro_structure, Lemma 2.4], we have

The above lemma says the quadratic form from the semigroup \mathbf T_{f_t} is equal to {\mathcal{Q}}_{\rm v} for F,G\in{\mathcal{E}}({\mathcal{D}}'({\mathbb{T}},{\mathbb{T}}_R)). Then we just need to prove the resolvents of \mathbf T_{f_t} and {\mathcal{Q}}_{\rm v} are the same.

Define

Since V_{\rm v}^{(\delta)} is bounded when \delta is fixed, we can define the operator \mathbf H^{(\delta)}_{{\rm v}}:=\mathbf H^0_{{\rm v}}+\mu V_{\rm v}^{(\delta)} associated with {\mathcal{Q}}_{\rm v}^{(\delta)}(F,G). Then using the Trotter product formula [EN, Exercise 5.11 in Chapter III] and the fact that V_{\rm v}^{(\delta)} is bounded, one can obtain the following formula by following the proof of [Guillarmou2024, Proposition 5.3]

We follow the strategy in [Guillarmou2024, Proposition 5.5]. First we have the representation of the resolvent

Note that \|\mathbf T_{f_t}F\|\leq e^{Ct}\|F\| (see ? below) so \mathbf R_{{\rm v},\lambda}F is well-defined if we consider \lambda large enough. Now we want to show that \mathbf R_{{\rm v},\lambda}^{(\delta)}F converges to \mathbf R_{{\rm v},\lambda}F in L^2({\mathcal{D}}'({\mathbb{T}},{\mathbb{T}}_R)). Using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have

Then by Jensen’s inequality, one can obtain

We can apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality again to separate F and GMC exponential moment with the F part controlled by e^{Ct}\|F^2\|_{L^2}^2. Thus we only need to show that the GMC exponential moment part converges and is bounded by a function of t (in fact e^{Ct},C>0) independent of \delta. Since for all t>0, we have the L^2 convergence of GMC [Lacoin2015], the convergence of the resolvent is a consequence of the following lemma.

Before the lemma, recall in [Virasoro_structure, Lemma 2.3], as s\to\infty, e^{\omega s}f_s(e^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta}) and e^{\omega s}f_s'(e^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta}) converge uniformly in \theta\in[0,2\pi] to some function f_*(e^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta}) and f'_*(e^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta}), with f_* biholomorphic in (1+\varepsilon')\mathbb D for some \varepsilon'>0.

We stress that when s becomes large, |f_s(e^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta})|\approx|f_s'(e^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta})|\approx C e^{-s{\operatorname{Re}\omega} }. Take in ?

and

where the above is bounded in s>0 and \theta\in[0,2\pi]. Now applying change of variable to (?), we have when T large

Evaluating the last integral on C^le^{-l\,T\operatorname{Re}\omega }\leq|z_1|,|z_2|\leq C^{l-1}e^{-(l-1)\, T\operatorname{Re}\omega },l\geq1 shows that u^2_\delta(T)\leq C(1+T\operatorname{Re}\omega). Therefore the bound in ? is at most exponential in T and independent of \delta<\delta_0. Then we can take the \delta\to0 limit in (?) and obtain the L^2 convergence of the resolvent if we choose \lambda large enough.

We first state a general lemma about convergence.

By the definition of {\mathcal{Q}}_{\rm v}^{(\delta)}, for G\in{\mathcal{E}}({\mathcal{D}}'({\mathbb{T}},{\mathbb{T}}_R)) we have

Especially one can take G=\mathbf R_{{\rm v},\lambda}^{(\delta)}F (by approximation) and get \sup_{0<\delta<1} |{\mathcal{Q}}_{\rm v}^{(\delta)}(\mathbf R_{{\rm v},\lambda}^{(\delta)}F,\mathbf R_{{\rm v},\lambda}^{(\delta)}F)|<\infty. In Lemma 4.7, specifically in Lemma 4.6, the comparison between {\mathcal{Q}}_{\rm v}^{(\delta)} and \widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}_0 is uniform in \delta. We thus have \sup_{0<\delta<1} |\widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}^0(\mathbf R_{{\rm v},\lambda}^{(\delta)}F,\mathbf R_{{\rm v},\lambda}^{(\delta)}F)|<\infty (for each \delta, {\mathcal{Q}}^0_{\rm v}(\mathbf R_{{\rm v},\lambda}^{(\delta)}F,\mathbf R_{{\rm v},\lambda}^{(\delta)}F) is finite since V_{\rm v}^{(\delta)} is bounded). Then according to [Ma_1992, Lemma 2.12], there is a subsequence of (\mathbf R_{{\rm v},\lambda}^{(\delta)}F)_{\delta} that converges weakly in \widetilde{\mathcal Q}^0 and \mathbf R_{{\rm v},\lambda}F\in\mathcal D(\widetilde{\mathcal Q}^0). Recall (?), and we can easily use ? with \mathbf H^0+Q^2 to get the convergence of {\mathcal{Q}}_{\rm v}^{(\delta)}(\mathbf R_{{\rm v},\lambda}^{(\delta)}F,G) to {\mathcal{Q}}_{\rm v}(\mathbf R_{{\rm v},\lambda}F,G).

In the end, we have shown that for \lambda large enough,

which means the resolvents from two approaches agree and therefore the proof is complete by the uniqueness of the resolvent.

Let g_f be an admissible metric on {\mathbb{A}}_f that depends in a C^1 fashion on f. Since the prefactor W(f,g_f) in Proposition 3.1 is clearly continuous in f, we only need to show the continuity of the annulus amplitude {\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathbb{A}}_f,g_f,{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}_f}. Let \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}^k=(\widetilde{{\varphi}}^k_1,\widetilde{{\varphi}}^k_2)\in{\mathcal{D}}'({\mathbb{T}},{\mathbb{T}}_R)^2 with k\in{\mathbb{Z}}. Recall the decompositions \widetilde{\varphi}_1^k=c_1+\varphi_1+kR\arg, \widetilde{\varphi}_2^k=c_2+\varphi_2+kR\arg with c_1,c_2\in{\mathbb{T}}_R, \varphi_1,\varphi_2\in{\mathcal{D}}_0'({\mathbb{T}},{\mathbb{R}}). For j\in{\mathbb{Z}}, recall {\mathbf{c}}_j:=(c_1+2\pi Rj,c_2) and the 1-form \nu_{f,k} on {\mathbb{A}}_f

where P=P_{{\mathbb{A}}_f} is the Poisson operator on {\mathbb{A}}_f, i.e., P(h_1,h_2) is the unique harmonic function on {\mathbb{A}}_f that equals h_1 on \mathbb T and h_2 on f(\mathbb T). Then by definition,

And

where I(\nu_{f,k})(z):=\int_1^z \nu_{f,k} (see ? for the choice of arc d_f) and X_{g_f} is the Dirichlet GFF on the annulus {\mathbb{A}}_f. Here the curvature term \int_{{\mathbb{A}}_f}^{\mathrm{reg}}K_{g_f}X_{g_f}^{k,j}\,{\mathrm{d}} v_{g_f} is regularized as in [BCILT, Section 5] as

where k_{g_f} is the geodesic curvature and {\mathrm{d}}\ell_{g_f} is the length measure under metric g_f.

Consider a sequence (f_n)_n that converges to f. Then there exists \varepsilon>0 such that f_n,f\in{\mathcal{S}}_\varepsilon for all n large enough and f_n\to f under \|\!\cdot\!\|_{\varepsilon,\ell} for all \ell. Then we can similarly introduce X_{g_{f_n},k,j}. In the following, we denote X_{g_{f_n},k,j} by X_{n}^{k,j} (X^{k,j}:=X_{g_f}^{k,j} as well) and X_n (X resp.) for the Dirichlet GFF on {\mathbb{A}}_{f_n} ({\mathbb{A}}_f resp.). Similarly, we have P_n({\mathbf{c}}_j+\boldsymbol{\varphi}) and P({\mathbf{c}}_j+\boldsymbol{\varphi}) for the harmonic extension on \mathbb A_{f_n} and \mathbb A_{f} then \nu_{f_n,k}^{n},d_{f_n},{\mathbf{n}}_n for the 1-form, the separating arc and outward normal vector on \mathbb A_{f_n}. We also replace the surface (\mathbb A_{f_n},g_{f_n}),(\mathbb A_{f},g_f), the volume form {\mathrm{d}} v_{g_{f_n}},{\mathrm{d}} v_{g_f}, and the curvature K_{g_{f_n}},K_{g_f}, with (\Sigma_n,g_n),(\Sigma,g), {\mathrm{d}} v_n,{\mathrm{d}} v and K_n,K. Take 0<\xi<\varepsilon and consider the subset

Let

and \mathcal A^0_j(\widetilde{{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}}^k) accordingly for \Sigma and f. In the following proof, we will focus on a fixed k\in\mathbb Z. Indeed, first notice that |{\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathbb{A}}_{f_n},g_{f_n},{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}_{f_n}}|\leq C\sum_{j\in\mathbb Z}\mathcal A^0_{j,n} and |{\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathbb{A}}_{f},g_{f},{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}_{f}}|\leq C\sum_{j\in\mathbb Z}\mathcal A^0_j for some constant C>0 that does not depend on \widetilde{{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}}, k and n, because of [CILT, Proposition 5.3]. According to the first item in Lemma 5.2, the norm estimate of \sum_{|k|\geq K}{\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathbb{A}}_{f_n},g_{f_n},{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}_{f_n}}(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}^k) for some large K>0 is dominated by the norm of \sum_{|k|\geq K}\sum_{j\in\mathbb Z}\mathcal A^0_j.

For n large enough, we have \Sigma^{\xi}\subset\Sigma_n and {\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathbb{A}}_{f_n},g_{f_n},{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}_{f_n}}(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}^k)=A_{n,\xi}^{(1)}+A_{n,\xi}^{(2)}, where

and

By applying Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to the expectation in A_{n,\xi}^{(2)}, we have

where

Using the fact that |e^z-1|^2\leq (e^{|z|}-1)^2\leq e^{2|z|}-1 for all z\in\mathbb C, we can bound \mathcal K_{n,\xi}^{k,j}(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}^k) with

According to [CILT, Proposition 5.3], for some constant C only depending on \beta, the above is bounded by

where

Then by [Guillarmou2021, Lemma 4.5], the first and second item in Lemma 5.2, A_{n,\xi}^{(2)} yields an operator on \mathcal H with norm (\iint |A_{n,\xi}^{(2)}|^2 ({\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{\varphi}^k)^{\otimes2})^{1/2} of order \xi^{\frac12-\frac{\beta^2}{4}}.

Similarly, we write {\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathbb{A}}_{f},g_{f},{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}_{f}}(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}^k)=A_{\xi}^{(1)}+A_{\xi}^{(2)}, where

and again the norm of A_{\xi}^{(2)} is under control.

Now we estimate A_{n,\xi}^{(1)}-A_{\xi}^{(1)}=B_{n,\xi}^{(1)}+B_{n,\xi}^{(2)}, with

and

The estimate of B_{n,\xi}^{(2)} is a consequence of the third item in Lemma 5.2 together with [CILT, Theorem 6.11]. We will now focus on B_{n,\xi}^{(1)}. First using the imaginary Cameron–Martin theorem (the proof of [CILT, Theorem 6.11]), B_{n,\xi}^{(1)} can be written as

where \mathcal G_n(x):=\int_{\Sigma_n}K_n(x')G_n(x,x')\ {\mathrm{d}} v_n(x') and (2\pi)^{-1}G_n is the Green’s function on \Sigma_n with Dirichlet boundary conditions (\mathcal G(x) is similarly defined). Suppose g_n=e^{\rho_n}g on \Sigma^\xi and it is not hard to see that \sup_{\Sigma^\xi}|\rho_n|\to0. Recall that

where e^{\frac{\beta^2}{4}\rho_n} is the effect of changing the metric regularisation for GFF. Then we can replace the term containing \mathbb E_{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}^k}[e^{-\mu\int_{\Sigma^{\xi}}M_\beta(X_n^{k,j}-\frac{{\mathrm{i}} Q}{4\pi}\mathcal G_n,{\mathrm{d}} v_n)}] in (?) with \mathbb E_{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}^k}[e^{-\mu\int_{\Sigma^{\xi}}M_\beta(X_n^{k,j}-\frac{{\mathrm{i}} Q}{4\pi}\mathcal G,{\mathrm{d}} v)}] if we can control

For each j\in\mathbb Z, the convergence of the term e^{-\frac{{\mathrm{i}} Q}{4\pi}\int_{\Sigma_n}^{\mathrm{reg}}K_{n}\ (X_n^{k,j}-X_n)\,{\mathrm{d}} v_n-\frac{Q^2}{32\pi^2}\int K_n\ \mathcal G_n\ {\mathrm{d}} v_n} above is already addressed in [Segal_semigroup, Proposition 3.11] (and the convergence of \int_{d_{f_n}}k_{g_{f_n}}{\mathrm{d}} \ell_{g_{f_n}} is straightforward), then we apply the dominated convergence theorem. And according to [Segal_semigroup, Lemma 3.12] and [CILT, Proposition 5.3], we can bound the GMC difference in ? since \sup_{\Sigma^\xi}|\rho_n|\to0 and \sup_{\Sigma^\xi}|\mathcal G_n-\mathcal G|\to0 [Segal_semigroup, Lemma 3.12 (3)].

For the rest of the proof, we just need to show that

for suitably large n. Note that we now compare two different GFFs so we cannot use [CILT, Proposition 5.3] directly. Instead, using the Taylor expansion of the exponential, we obtain

where W_{n} is the Robin mass of X_n under the regularisation of the metric g, namely

Let us consider the Dirichlet GFF X^{\xi} on \Sigma^\xi. Since \Sigma^\xi\subset \cap_{n\geq N}\Sigma_n, we have the monotonicity of the X^{\xi} Green’s function G^{\xi}\leq G_n on (\Sigma^{\xi})^2 and Robin mass W^\xi\leq W_{n} on \Sigma^{\xi}. Thus the second line in (?) is further bounded by

Therefore, for each moment in the expansion of (?), we provide a uniform bound independent of n,k,j and \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}^k. For each \xi>0, we can pick a large S, such that

is arbitrarily small, uniformly over n,k,j and \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}^k. For s<S, we clearly have that the integral

converges to the one corresponding to X since \sup_{(\Sigma^\xi)^2}|G_n-G| and \sup_{\Sigma^\xi}|P_n\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}^k-P\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}^k| goes to zero when n gets large as stated in [Segal_semigroup, Lemma 3.12 (2),(4)] (semigroup lemma). We thus have (?) using dominated convergence theorem by (?).

1. Notice that \mathcal A^0_n is just a free field annulus amplitude and \| \mathcal A_{n}^0(\widetilde{{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}}^k)-\mathcal A_{}^0(\widetilde{{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}}^k)\|_{\mathcal H^{\otimes2}} consists of partition functions of gluing \Sigma_n (or \Sigma) with \Sigma (or \Sigma_n). Take the gluing of \Sigma_n and reflected \Sigma_n as an example. The convergence of (\Sigma_n,g_n) makes sure that the determinant and the harmonic representatives of the monodromy also converge, so the partition function converges to that of \Sigma gluing reflected \Sigma as well. Thus we obtain the convergence.

2. Recall that h_n(f_n(z))=\log\frac{|zf_n'(z)|}{|f_n(z)|} on a neighborhood of f(\mathbb D) and g_n=e^{-2 h_n\chi}\frac{|{\mathrm{d}} z|^2}{|z|^2}, where \chi\in C^{\infty}(\cup_{n\geq N}\Sigma_n) for some large N is equal to 1 near f(\mathbb T) and 0 near \mathbb T. It is not hard to see that h_n converges to h uniformly on \cap_{n\geq N}\Sigma_n.

   When n>N, we have C^{-1} e^{-2h}\leq e^{-2 h_n\chi}\leq Ce^{-2 h} in the region \cup_{n\geq N}\Sigma_n\backslash\Sigma^{\xi_0}\cap(1-\xi_0)\mathbb D for a fixed \xi_0>0, where the constant C does not depend on \xi and n. First notice that \Sigma_n\backslash\Sigma^{\xi} contains two collars: the inner one \Sigma_n\backslash\Sigma^{\xi}\cap(1-\xi)\mathbb D and the outer one near \mathbb T. The two collars do not intersect when \xi is sufficiently small, and we will only estimate the integral for the inner one, since the other ones are simple. Besides, when n is large enough, f_n^{-1}((\Sigma_n\backslash\Sigma^{\xi})\cap(1-\xi)\mathbb D)\subset (1+C'\xi)\mathbb D and the two integrals in (?) restricted to (\Sigma_n\backslash\Sigma^{\xi})\cap(1-\xi)\mathbb D) are further bounded by

   \iint_{(\mathbb A_{1,1+C'\xi})^2}|x-y|^{-\beta^2}\ {\mathrm{d}} x{\mathrm{d}} y, \ \ \ \int_{1}^{1+C'\xi}|r-1|^{-\frac{\beta^2}2}r\ {\mathrm{d}} r,

   where \mathbb A_{1,1+C'\xi}:=\{z:1\leq|z|\leq 1+C'\xi\} (C'\xi<\varepsilon). Therefore we complete the proof.

3. It is plain to see that \nu_{f_n,1}({\mathbf{n}}_n) is smooth on \partial\Sigma_n and converges in C^\infty to \nu_{f,1}({\mathbf{n}}), therefore the proof follows from [Segal_semigroup, Lemma 3.12 (6)]. Especially,

   |\log A_{j,n}^0(\widetilde{{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}}^k)-\log A_{j}^0(\widetilde{{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}}^k)|\leq \delta'_n(1+j^2+k^2+\|{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}\|_{H^{-s}}^2),

   where \delta'_n\to0^+ and \|{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}\|_{H^{-s}} is the norm on Sobolev space H^{-s}(\mathbb T)^{2},s>0.

We still need to handle the non-autonomous flows as in [Segal_semigroup, Section 4.1.2]. Consider a non-autonomous flow

Consider v\in\mathcal A\mathrm{Hol}^\bullet_\varepsilon(\mathbb D) such that v/f'\in\mathcal A\mathrm{Hol}^\bullet_\varepsilon(\mathbb D) and satisfies the coercivity condition of item (?). According to [Segal_semigroup, Lemma 4.6], with item (?), for some \varepsilon'<\varepsilon, we can then find \delta>0 and \eta>0 such that

and

Fix n>0 and set t_l:=l\delta/n for 0\leq l\leq n. We construct recursively the flow f_t^n for t\in[0,\delta] as follows: we set f_t^n=f_t^{n,l} for t\in[t_l,t_{l+1}] where f^{n,l} is constructed inductively on l as the solution of the autonomous flow

In the following, we pick the N>0 in (?) (as we have (?)) such that the estimate for e^{-Nt}\mathbf T_{f_t^n} can be adapted from [Segal_semigroup, Lemma 4.9].

Recall the norm \|\cdot\|_{\widetilde{\mathbf H}^0,s} defined in item (?) of Assumption 5.3. It is not hard to see that W^{-1}=\mathcal D'(\widetilde{\mathcal Q}^0),W^0=\mathcal H,W^1=\mathcal D(\widetilde{\mathcal Q}^0). Moreover, we have

and

We also have the Sobolev inequality

where C is some constant independent of F. Recall \eta>0 appeared in (?). Below we provide a weaker version of [Segal_semigroup, Lemma 4.10] since we only have e^{-t\mathbf H}:W^{-1}\to W^1.

The proof for the above lemma is exactly the same as in [Segal_semigroup, Lemma 4.10]. Recall the \delta in (?). Now we claim

We follow the rest of the proof in [Segal_semigroup, Section 4.1.3]. Since t^{-1}\langle e^{-Nt}F-F,G\rangle clearly exists, it is enough to study \langle\mathbf e^{-Nt}T_{f_t}F,G\rangle_{L^2}-\langle F,G\rangle_{L^2}. First using (?), we have

Especially, we put \mathbf T_f^* G with G\in\mathcal D'(\widetilde{\mathcal Q}_0) in the above equation, and

Using item (?) for \mathcal Q_{{\mathrm w}_0} and ?, we have

By the Riesz representation theorem, we can find an element D_{{\rm v}}\mathbf T_f F\in\mathcal D(\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}^0) such that \langle D_{{\rm v}}\mathbf T_f F,G\rangle_{L^2}=-\mathcal Q_{{\mathrm w}_0}(F,\mathbf T_f^*G) for all G\in\mathcal D'(\widetilde{\mathcal Q}^0). Now we just prove R^1_t,R^2_t are o(t) in operator norm \mathcal D(\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}^0)\to \mathcal D(\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}^0).

For R_t^2, using [Segal_semigroup, Lemma 4.12] (the proof is the same except that \mathcal Q_{\rm v}(F,e^{-t\mathbf H^*}G)=\mathcal Q_{{\rm v}_t}(e^{-t\mathbf H}F,G) where v_t(z):=e^{-t}v(e^tz)) and ?, we have

which leads to the same estimate in [Segal_semigroup] using [Segal_semigroup, Lemma 4.12] (\mathcal Q_{\rm v}(F,e^{-t\mathbf H^*}G)=\mathcal Q_{{\rm v}_t}(e^{-t\mathbf H}F,G)), item (?), and ?

The proof of R_t^1 is the same except that in [Segal_semigroup, Lemma 4.14], we bound the difference of quadratic form using \widetilde{\mathcal Q}^0.

The rest of the proof is the same as those in [Segal_semigroup, Section 4.1].

This follows from Corollary 5.8 in the same way as in [Segal_semigroup, Section 4.3], noting that taking the adjoint of CILT amplitudes requires replacing \mu,\beta by \bar{\mu},-\beta. We give a self-contained proof here for the sake of completeness.

First we need to consider amplitudes of outer annuli. Let \iota:z\mapsto 1/\bar{z} and {\mathbb{D}}^*:=\iota({\mathbb{D}})=\hat{{\mathbb{C}}}\setminus{\mathbb{D}}^\circ the closed outer unit disk. Note that \iota|_{\mathbb{T}}={\mathrm{id}}_{\mathbb{T}}. For f\in{\mathcal{S}}, the map f^\iota:=\iota\circ f\circ\iota is a holomorphic embedding {\mathbb{D}}^*\to({\mathbb{D}}^*)^\circ with f^\iota(\infty)=\infty, and we associate to it the outer annulus {\mathbb{A}}_{f^\iota}:=\iota({\mathbb{A}}_f)={\mathbb{D}}^*\setminus f^\iota(({\mathbb{D}}^*)^\circ) with boundary parametrizations {\boldsymbol{\zeta}}_{f^\iota}:=(f^\iota|_{\mathbb{T}},{\mathrm{id}}_{{\mathbb{T}}}). Then for an admissible metric g_f on {\mathbb{A}}_f, we have

where we have made explicit the dependence on \mu,\beta. Indeed, by diffeomorphism invariance, we have for \widetilde{\varphi}_1^k,\widetilde{\varphi}_2^k\in{\mathcal{D}}'({\mathbb{T}},{\mathbb{T}}_R)

If t\mapsto f_t\in{\mathcal{S}} is the flow on {\mathbb{D}} generated by a Markovian holomorphic vector field {\rm v}=-\sum_{n=0}^\infty v_nz^{n+1}\partial_z, then t\mapsto f_t^\iota is the flow on {\mathbb{D}}^* generated by {\rm v}^\iota:=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\overline{v_n}z^{-n+1}\partial_z, so that by Proposition 3.1,

where g_{f_t} is any admissible metric on {\mathbb{A}}_{f_t} and we have used (?). Similarly, defining {\mathbf{T}}_{f^\iota}^{\mu,\beta}:=({\mathbf{T}}_f^{\bar{\mu},-\beta})^* for f\in{\mathcal{S}}, we have analogously to Corollary 5.8

where t\mapsto f_t\in{\mathcal{S}} is a differentiable family with f_0=f and \partial_t|_{t=0}f_t={\rm v}.

The proof relies on the observation that an annulus in {\mathcal{S}}({\mathbb{A}}) can be decomposed into an inner annulus and an outer annulus, both parametrized by {\mathcal{S}}. Indeed, for f\in{\mathcal{S}}({\mathbb{A}}), consider the closed Riemann surface S_f:=({\mathbb{D}}^*\cup{\mathbb{A}}_f)\sqcup{\mathbb{D}}/\!\sim where the quotient relation is z\in\partial{\mathbb{D}}\sim f(z)\in\partial({\mathbb{D}}^*\cup{\mathbb{A}}_f). This is topologically a sphere, so there exists a uniformizing biholomorphism \Phi_f:S_f\to\hat{\mathbb{C}}, which is unique if we require that \Phi_f(0)=0, \Phi_f'(0)=a, \Phi_f(\infty)=\infty, where r<a<1 is fixed. We apply this with f=f_t\in{\mathcal{S}}({\mathbb{A}}) as in the statement of the lemma and let f_{{\rm out},t}:=\iota\circ(\Phi_{f_t}|_{{\mathbb{A}}_{f_t}}\circ{\mathrm{id}}_{\mathbb{T}})\circ\iota, f_{{\rm in},t}:=\Phi_{f_t}|_{{\mathbb{A}}_{f_t}}\circ f_t|_{\mathbb{T}}, which both extend to holomorphic maps on {\mathbb{D}}. We have \Phi_{f_0}=\frac{a}{r}{\mathrm{id}} on {\mathbb{A}}_{f_0}, so for t small, we have {\mathbb{T}}\subset\Phi_{f_t}({\mathbb{A}}_{f_t}^\circ), so that f_{{\rm out},t},f_{{\rm in},t}\in{\mathcal{S}}. Note that f_{{\rm out},0}=\frac{r}{a}{\mathrm{id}}, f_{{\rm in},0}=a\;\!{\mathrm{id}}. Let {\rm v}_{\rm out}:=\partial_t|_{t=0}f_{{\rm out},t}, {\rm v}_{\rm in}:=\partial_t|_{t=0}f_{{\rm in},t}. Differentiating the relation f_{{\rm out},t}^\iota\circ f_t=f_{{\rm in},t} on {\mathbb{T}} at t=0, we obtain

By conformal covariance, we may assume that (\Phi_{f_t})_*g_{f_t}=g_{\mathbb{A}} near {\mathbb{T}}. Indeed, this can be achieved by a smooth conformal change supported away from the original boundary components and vanishing at t=0. Since g_{f_0}=g_{\mathbb{A}} is flat, the corresponding Weyl anomaly is O(t^2), so this modification does not change the derivative at t=0. Now by gluing,

where g_{f_{{\rm out},t}}:=\iota_*(\Phi_{f_t}|_{{\mathbb{A}}_{f_t}})_*g_{f_t}|_{{\mathbb{A}}_{f_{{\rm out},t}^\iota}}, g_{f_{{\rm in},t}}:=(\Phi_{f_t}|_{{\mathbb{A}}_{f_t}})_*g_{f_t}|_{{\mathbb{A}}_{f_{{\rm in},t}}}. Thus

where we used Proposition 3.1, Corollary 5.8 and the remarks above on outer annuli.

We claim that

for any holomorphic vector field {\rm w}=-\sum_{n\in{\mathbb{Z}}}w_nz^{n+1}\partial_z on {\mathbb{A}}_{f_0}, so that the last two terms in (?) add up to -{\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathbb{A}}_{f_0},g_{\mathbb{A}},{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}_{f_0}}{\mathbf{H}}_{{\rm v}/r} by (?). This is equivalent to the commutation relation {\mathbf{L}}_ne^{-t{\mathbf{H}}}=e^{-nt}e^{-t{\mathbf{H}}}{\mathbf{L}}_n (n\in{\mathbb{Z}}) with t=-\log r. By duality, we may assume n\geq0, i.e., {\rm w} is holomorphic on {\mathbb{D}}. By linearity, it suffices to consider the case where {\rm w} is Markovian. Letting t\mapsto h_t be the flow generated by {\rm w}, we have -{\mathbf{H}}_{\rm w}{\mathbf{T}}_{f_0}=\partial_t|_{t=0}{\mathbf{T}}_{h_t}{\mathbf{T}}_{f_0}=\partial_t|_{t=0}{\mathbf{T}}_{h_t\circ f_0}, so it suffices to compute \partial_t|_{t=0}(h_t\circ f_0)={\rm w}(r\cdot) and apply again Corollary 5.8.

It remains to compute the factor of the first term in (?). By definition,

Suppose g_{\mathbb{A}}=e^{\omega_t}g_{f_t}, (\Phi_{f_t}|_{{\mathbb{A}}_{f_t}})^*g_{\mathbb{A}}=e^{\omega_t+u_t}g_{f_t}. Then

Since \omega_0=u_0=0, K_{g_{f_0}}=K_{g_{\mathbb{A}}}=0, we obtain \partial_t\big|_{t=0}S_{\mathrm{L}}^0({\mathbb{A}}_{f_t},g_{f_t},(\Phi_{f_t}|_{{\mathbb{A}}_{f_t}})^*g_{\mathbb{A}})=\partial_t\big|_{t=0}S_{\mathrm{L}}^0({\mathbb{A}}_{f_t},g_{f_t},g_{\mathbb{A}}). By (?) again,

Finally, we have \partial_t\big|_{t=0}\big\langle{\mathbf{D}}\log\frac{|f_{{\rm out},t}'|}{|f_{{\rm out},t}|}\big|_{\mathbb{T}},\log\frac{|f_{{\rm out},t}'|}{|f_{{\rm out},t}|}\big|_{\mathbb{T}}\big\rangle=0 since {\mathbf{D}}\log\frac{|f_{{\rm out},0}'|}{|f_{{\rm out},0}|}\big|_{\mathbb{T}}=0, and similarly for f_{{\rm in},t}.

See [block, Corollary 4.8] for the counterpart in real Liouville CFT; both the statement and the proof are parallel. Consider the closed Riemann surface \hat{\Sigma} obtained by gluing a disk {\mathbb{D}} or {\mathbb{D}}^* along each boundary circle \zeta_j({\mathbb{T}})\subset\partial\Sigma via \zeta_j. We extend {\rm w} to a neighborhood of \Sigma in \hat{\Sigma}. For t small, the flow t\mapsto f_t of {\rm w} exists near \Sigma, and (f_t)_*g is well-defined. By diffeomorphism invariance, {\mathcal{A}}_{f_t(\Sigma),(f_t)_*g,(f_t)_*{\mathbf{v}},{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},{\mathbf{m}},f_t\circ{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}}={\mathcal{A}}_{\Sigma,g,{\mathbf{v}},{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},{\mathbf{m}},{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}} is constant in t. We shall compute the derivative \partial_t\big|_{t=0}{\mathcal{A}}_{f_t(\Sigma),(f_t)_*g,(f_t)_*{\mathbf{v}},{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},{\mathbf{m}},f_t\circ{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}}=0 in another way. For notational simplicity, suppose {\mathfrak{b}}^+=0, i.e., all boundaries are incoming. The general case follows from the analog of Lemma 6.1 for outer annuli, obtained by taking suitable adjoints.

Now each \zeta_j extends to a holomorphic embedding {\mathbb{D}}\to\hat{\Sigma}. Take r<1 such that each \zeta_j extends to a holomorphic embedding r^{-1}{\mathbb{D}}\to\hat{\Sigma}. Let {\boldsymbol{\xi}}=(\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_{\mathfrak{b}}) where \xi_j=\zeta_j(r^{-1}\cdot) for each j. Let \Sigma_0:=\Sigma\setminus\bigcup_{j=1}^{\mathfrak{b}}\xi_j({\mathbb{D}}^\circ) with boundary parametrizations {\boldsymbol{\xi}}|_{{\mathbb{T}}}. By admissibility and shrinking r if necessary, we may assume that \xi_j^*g=g_{\mathbb{A}} on \{r-\varepsilon<|z|<1+\varepsilon\} for some \varepsilon>0, so that in particular g|_{\Sigma_0} is admissible. For each j, let f_{j,t}:=\xi_j^{-1}\circ f_t\circ\zeta_j\in{\mathcal{S}}({\mathbb{A}}) and g_{f_{j,t}} an admissible metric on {\mathbb{A}}_{f_{j,t}} depending in a C^1 fashion on t with g_{f_{j,0}}=g_{\mathbb{A}}=|dz|^2/|z|^2. We have f_{j,0}:z\mapsto rz and \partial_t|_{t=0}f_{j,t}=r{\rm w}_j. Let g_t be the metric on f_t(\Sigma) such that g_t|_{\Sigma_0}=g|_{\Sigma_0} and \xi_j^*g_t=g_{f_{j,t}} for each j. By gluing,

where C is a constant depending only on {\mathfrak{b}}. Thus

where (f_t)_*g=e^{\rho_t}g_t and we used the Weyl anomaly formula ([CILT, Proposition 8.12], [BCILT, Theorem 7.6]) and Lemma 6.1. Note that t\mapsto f_t is also the flow generated by the real vector field W=2\operatorname{Re}(w(z)\partial_z). Since g_t=g_0 on \Sigma_0, we have \partial_t\big|_{t=0}\rho_t=-\operatorname{div}_gW on \Sigma_0. It remains to collect the S_{\mathrm{L}}^0 terms, which give c_{\mathrm{L}} times

For each j,

where we used \xi_j^*g=g_{\mathbb{A}} on {\mathbb{A}}_{f_{j,t}} for t small. Since g_t=g on \Sigma_0, the above is equal to

(1): The proof is the same Girsanov transform calculation as in Proposition 3.1, upon applying the gluing axiom for the free field to {\mathbb{A}}_f^+\#f({\mathbb{D}}^+)={\mathbb{D}}^+. The only nontrivial part is the determinant term \frac{\det'\Delta_{g|_{f({\mathbb{D}}^+)}}}{\det'\Delta_{g|_{{\mathbb{D}}^+}}} where g is a Neumann extendible metric on {\mathbb{D}}^+ extending g_f. Now by the Polyakov formula [Boundary_Segal, Proposition 5.10] (for Neumann extendible metrics on surfaces with both Neumann and Dirichlet boundaries), we have

where we view g as an even metric on {\mathbb{D}}. Thus we can apply (?) to get that this is precisely e^{\frac{1}{6}W^+(f,g_f)}, as desired.

(2): That {\mathbf{T}}_f^+ is bounded on L^2({\mathcal{D}}'({\mathbb{T}}^+,{\mathbb{T}}_R)) follows from (1) and the boundedness of the BCILT amplitude ([BCILT, Theorem 7.5]). The rest follows from (Proof) as in the proof of Proposition 3.3.

(3): We emphasize that, in the proof of Proposition 4.8, we only used the existence of the GMC exponential moment, the convergence of \mathbb E[\exp(|\mu \int_{\mathbb A_t}|x|^{\beta Q} |x-y|^{\beta^2}M_\beta(P\widetilde{\varphi}^k+X_{{\mathbb{D}}},{\mathrm{d}} x)|)] to 1 (uniformly over y in a thin annulus), and the convergence of exponential moment of GMC cut-off (?). Similar to [boundary_bootstrap, Proposition 7.6], we have

where X^+:=P\widetilde{\varphi}^{\mathrm{h}}+X_{{\mathbb{D}}^+}. Also we have

The control of the boundary GMC exponential moment can be found in [BCILT, Proposition 6.2]. Specifically, given a general function f(x), for some constant C depending on \beta, we have

where

And we can prove the boundary version of ? by using again the martingale argument.

(4): The continuity follows the discussion in [Segal_semigroup, Proposition 3.11], [boundary_bootstrap, Lemma 7.10] and Proposition 5.1. Here we point out the main difference in the proof of a BCILT version compared to those. First, there is no magnetic operator on the boundary, so the amplitude becomes simpler. Next is the estimate of GMC exponential moment when the area is small. Similar to (?), for some C,\xi>0, we bound the small area GMC exponential moment with

where \mathbb A_{1,1+C\xi}:=\{z:1\leq|z|\leq 1+C\xi\} and \mathbb A_{1,1+C\xi}^+:=\mathbb A_{1,1+C\xi}\cap \mathbb H. The integrals above can be controlled by \xi^{a} for some a>0.

Next let us consider a sequence of surfaces (\Sigma_n^+,g)_{n\geq1} and a surface \Sigma^{+,\xi}\subset\cap_{n\geq N}\Sigma_n^+ for large N. Denote by {\widetilde{\partial}_{\mathrm{D}}}\Sigma_n^+ the Dirichlet boundaries of \Sigma_n^+ and {\widetilde{\partial}_{\mathrm{N}}}\Sigma_n^+ the Neumann boundaries of \Sigma_n^+. Then we can construct GFF X_n^+ on \Sigma_n^+ with corresponding boundary conditions. We now show how to provide a bound for \mathbb E_{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}^h}[e^{-\mu\int_{\Sigma^{+,\xi}}f(x)M_\beta(X_n^{+}+Z,{\mathrm{d}} v_g(x))}] uniformly in n and in Z (Z must be real and independent of X_n^+) or \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}^h the value on the Dirichlet boundary {\widetilde{\partial}_{\mathrm{D}}}\Sigma_n^+.

Denote by \Sigma_n and \Sigma^\xi the Neumann double of \Sigma^+_n and \Sigma^{+,\xi} under reflection \tau. We have respectively the Dirichlet Green’s function (2\pi)^{-1}G_n and (2\pi)^{-1}G^\xi and mixed Green’s function (2\pi)^{-1}G_n^+(x,y)=(2\pi)^{-1}(G_n(x,y)+G_n(x,\tau(y))) and (2\pi)^{-1}G^{+,\xi}(x,y)=(2\pi)^{-1}(G^\xi(x,y)+G^\xi(x,\tau(y))). Since we have G_n\geq G^\xi, we also have G_n^+\geq G^{+,\xi}. Again by Taylor’s expansion we have

where X^{+,\xi} is the GFF on \Sigma^{+,\xi} with covariance G^{+,\xi}. Then we just follow the proof of [boundary_bootstrap, Lemma 7.10] and Proposition 5.1.

By verifying Assumption 5.3, we can get differentiability from Proposition 5.4 just as the proof of [boundary_bootstrap, Proposition 7.9] in [boundary_bootstrap, Section 7.5.1] does.

All we need to prove is

Then using identity (\mathbf H^0+\lambda)^{-\frac12}=\frac1{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_0^\infty t^{-\frac12}e^{-\lambda t} e^{-t\mathbf H^0}\,\mathrm{d}t when \lambda is sufficiently large and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality would finish the proof. From now on we will only focus on (?). Let \widetilde{\varphi}^{\text{arc}}_\delta(\theta):=\frac{1}{2\delta}\int_{\theta-\delta}^{\theta+\delta}\widetilde{\varphi}(\theta'){\mathrm{d}}\theta'. Denote by

Now let us focus on \|(T_{s,t,\delta}(\theta'))^* T_{s,t,\delta}(\theta)\|^{\frac12}_{L^2\to L^2}. Denote by \widetilde{\varphi}^k_t(\theta):=(P\widetilde{\varphi}^k+X_{\mathbb D})(e^{-t+{\mathrm{i}}\theta}) the restriction of the GFF to a circle with radius e^{-t}. Now we take two i.i.d. Dirichlet GFFs X_\mathbb D^1 and X_\mathbb D^2 and we have \widetilde{\varphi}^{k,j}_t(\theta):=(P\widetilde{\varphi}^k+X^j_{\mathbb D})(e^{-t+{\mathrm{i}}\theta}),\ j=1,2. In fact, let

which is the GFF on the sphere with a DOZZ metric g_0=\frac {|{\mathrm{d}} z|^2}{1\vee |z|^4}. Also define \widetilde{\varphi}^{k,j}_{s,\delta}(\theta):=\frac{1}{2\delta}\int_{\theta-\delta}^{\theta+\delta}\widetilde{\varphi}^{k,j}_{s}(\theta')\,{\mathrm{d}}\theta'. Then

Denote by P(\widetilde{\varphi}^{k,1}_{s+t},\widetilde{\varphi}^{k,2}_{s+t})(z) the harmonic extension from \widetilde{\varphi}^{k,1}_{s+t}(\theta) on |z|=e^{-s-t} and \widetilde{\varphi}^{k,2}_{s+t}(\theta) on |z|=e^{s+t}, to the annulus e^{-s-t}\leq |z|\leq e^{s+t}. By the domain Markov property, we can write X_{g_0}(z) as X_{g_0}=P(\widetilde{\varphi}^{k,1}_{s+t},\widetilde{\varphi}^{k,2}_{s+t})+X_{D,s+t} when e^{-s-t}\leq |z|\leq e^{s+t}, where X_{D,s+t} is a Dirichlet GFF on e^{-s-t}\leq |z|\leq e^{s+t} that is independent of \widetilde{\varphi}^{k,1}_{s+t},\widetilde{\varphi}^{k,2}_{s+t}.

Conditioning on \widetilde{\varphi}^{k,1}_{s+t},\widetilde{\varphi}^{k,2}_{s+t}, we have

Denote by G_{D,s+t}(\cdot,\cdot) the covariance kernel of X_{D,s+t}. To give a bound for (?), we check that

Using ?, ?, the invariance of G_{D,s+t} under z\to1/z, and that G_{D,s+t} is bounded by the covariance of X_{g_0} G_{g_0}(x,y)+\log2=\log\frac{(|x|\vee1)(|y|\vee1)}{|x-y|} +\log2, we find (?) is bounded by

This implies the operator norm of (T_{s,t,\delta}(\theta'))^* T_{s,t,\delta}(\theta) is controlled by Ce^{(Q^2-R^2k^2)(s+t)}\sup_{\theta\in[0,2\pi]}|\operatorname{Re}(e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\theta}v(e^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta}))|^2(1-e^{-t})^{-\beta^2}|e^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta}-e^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta'}|^{-\beta^2} by using Cauchy–Schwarz inequality and that \widetilde{\varphi}^{k,1}_{s+t} has the same distribution as \widetilde{\varphi}^{k}. Therefore,

Similarly, we have

By using the continuous Cotlar-Stein lemma (see [CALDERON1971]), we have

This brings us back to (?) and thus we have finished the proof.

We simply follow Lemma 4.6, and prove

Define

The study of \langle T_{s,t,\delta}^+(\theta')F,T_{s,t,\delta}^+(\theta)G \rangle_{L^2} again boils down to the estimate of Green’s function on a thin annulus. Specifically, denote by (2\pi)^{-1}G_{D,s+t} the Dirichlet Green’s function on the annulus e^{-s-t}\leq|z|\leq e^{s+t}. Then we have the mixed Green’s function (2\pi)^{-1}G_{D,s+t}^+(z,w):=(2\pi)^{-1}(G_{D,s+t}(z,w)+G_{D,s+t}(z,\bar{w})) on the half annulus e^{-s-t}\leq|z|\leq e^{s+t},\operatorname{Im} z\geq0. Following the proof of Lemma 4.6, we need to provide a \delta-uniform bound in terms of s,t,\theta,\theta'

Since \theta,\theta'\in[0,\pi], we have

which is a consequence of the following lemma.

Therefore we can throw away the boundary-sensitive terms G_{D,s+t}(e^{-s+{\mathrm{i}}\theta},e^{-s-{\mathrm{i}}\theta}),G_{D,s+t}(e^{s+{\mathrm{i}}\theta},e^{s-{\mathrm{i}}\theta}) and

G_{D,s+t}(e^{-s+{\mathrm{i}}\theta},e^{s-{\mathrm{i}}\theta}) in I_{\delta,s,t}(\theta,\theta'), and use ? again to get

with C independent of \delta,s,t,\theta,\theta'. Note that the \theta dependence in \mathbb E[(\varphi^{\text{h,arc}}_\delta)^2(\theta)] is canceled by \log|\sin\theta|. Now we can use Cotlar-Stein lemma [CALDERON1971, pp. 374-375] for \int_{\delta}^{\pi-\delta}T_{s,t,\delta}^+(\theta){\mathrm{d}}\theta and repeat what is done in Lemma 4.6.

Next, we deal with V^{+,{\rm R},(\delta)}; V^{+,{\rm L},(\delta)} is handled in a similar way. We claim that

Denote by \widetilde{\varphi}^{\mathrm{h}}_t(\theta):=(P\widetilde{\varphi}^{\mathrm{h}}+X_{\mathbb D^+})(e^{-t+{\mathrm{i}}\theta}) the restriction of the GFF to a circle with radius e^{-t}, where X_{\mathbb D^+} is the mixed GFF on \mathbb D^+:=\mathbb D\cap\mathbb H. Now we take two i.i.d. Dirichlet GFF X_{\mathbb D^+}^1 and X_{\mathbb D^+}^2 and we have \widetilde{\varphi}^{{\mathrm{h}},j}_t(\theta):=(P\widetilde{\varphi}^{\mathrm{h}}+X^j_{\mathbb D^+})(e^{-t+{\mathrm{i}}\theta}),\ j=1,2.

By studying the expectation e^{{\mathrm{i}}\frac\beta2\widetilde{\varphi}^{\text{h,arc}}_\delta(0)} conditioned on \widetilde{\varphi}^{{\mathrm{h}},1}_{t},\widetilde{\varphi}^{{\mathrm{h}},2}_{s}, we get a bound

where we can bound the Robin mass using ?

Finally the claim (?) is true and we have obtained the estimate for V_{\rm v}^{\boldsymbol{\mu}} that we want.