††institutetext: Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kalyanpur, Kanpur
208016. INDIA.

# BMS Field Theories and Weyl Anomaly

Arjun Bagchi  Sudipta Dutta  Kedar S. Kolekar  and Punit Sharma.
(abagchi, dsudipta, kedarsk<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
###### Abstract

Two dimensional field theories with Bondi-Metzner-Sachs symmetry have been
proposed as duals to asymptotically flat spacetimes in three dimensions. These
field theories are naturally defined on null surfaces and hence are conformal
cousins of Carrollian theories, where the speed of light goes to zero. In this
paper, we initiate an investigation of anomalies in these field theories.
Specifically, we focus on the BMS equivalent of Weyl invariance and its
breakdown in these field theories and derive an expression for Weyl anomaly.
Considering the transformation of partition functions under this symmetry, we
derive a Carrollian Liouville action different from ones obtained in the
literature earlier.

##  1 Introduction

The use of symmetry is the most basic and most useful of tools available to a
theoretical physicist. All symmetries of a classical physical system do not
automatically graduate to quantum mechanical symmetries of the corresponding
quantum system. These are called anomalies. Consider a physical system
governed by a classical action $S_{cl}$. $S_{cl}$ is invariant under a
symmetry group $G$, i.e. $\delta_{G}S_{cl}=0$. If the quantum mechanical
action $S_{q}$, obtained by quantising the classical system, does not respect
symmetry under $G$ ($\delta_{G}S_{q}\neq 0$), then $G$ is said to be
anomalous. Anomalies can be discrete or continuous, and anomalies can arise in
global or gauge symmetries. Global anomalies can have interesting physical
consequences. These may mean e.g. that classical selection rules are not
obeyed in the quantized theory and that some processes disallowed by the
classical analysis may actually take place in the quantum world. Anomalous
global symmetries are also very useful tools for non-pertubative analysis of
quantum field theories. Anomalous gauge symmetries, on the other hand, are
indicators of sickness and need to be canceled in order to have a physically
consistent theory. Anomalies have had a rich history and we point to the
excellent reviews Harvey:2005it ; Bilal:2008qx  for further details.

The discussion of anomalies in the past, with due justification, have
principally focussed on relativistic quantum field theories. In more recent
times, there has been work on anomalies in the context of non-relativistic
systems Jensen:2014hqa ; Arav:2014goa ; Auzzi:2015fgg ; Arav:2016xjc ;
Pal:2016rpz ; Auzzi:2016lrq ; Auzzi:2017jry . In our paper, we initiate a
discussion of anomalies for the case of field theories living on null
hypersurfaces, also called Carrollian field theories111See, however,
Jensen:2017tnb  for a discussion of anomalies in 2d Warped CFTs. These turn
out to be Carrollian CFTs for scaling exponent $z=0$. We are however
interested in $z=1$ theories, that can be obtained as an ultra-relativistic
limit of 2d CFTs, as we go on to explain in the paper.. Our explorations in
this paper will be limited to conformal cousins of Carrollian field theories
and the question of breaking of conformal invariance at a quantum level. In
other words, we will discuss Weyl symmetry and Weyl anomaly in the context of
two-dimensional field theories living on null surfaces.

### Weyl, Carroll, BMS

Classically, Weyl invariance of a system is the invariance of the classical
action under a local rescaling of the metric

$g_{\mu\nu}(x)\mapsto e^{2\Omega(x)}g_{\mu\nu}(x).$ (1)

For generally covariant theories, conformal invariance is a direct consequence
of Weyl invariance. Conformal transformations are the ones that change the
metric upto some Weyl scaling. Hence for theories that are Weyl invariant,
conformal symmetry would arise as residual symmetries after fixing a
background choice. A direct consequence of Weyl invariance is the vanishing of
the trace of the energy-momentum tensor of a field theory. Weyl symmetry is
anomalous in the quantum regime and this leads to a breaking of conformal
symmetry. In two dimensions, where the underlying symmetry of conformal field
theories enhance to two copies the Virasoro algebra, the Weyl anomaly is
proportional to the central charge multiplied by the Ricci scalar of the
manifold the CFT lives on. We will review all of this basically textbook
material briefly in the next section.

Our focus in this paper is on theories which are Carrollian instead of
Poincare invariant. The wonderfully named Carroll group (after Lewis Carroll
of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland fame) is obtained by a priori a rather
bizarre contraction of the Poincare group, where the speed of light goes to
zero LevyLeblond . Interestingly, these theories encompass theories living on
null hypersurfaces. Two of the most important classes of null hypersurfaces
that we encounter in physics are the null boundary of asymptotically flat
spacetimes and the event horizons of generic black holes. If we are interested
in defining field theories that live on null surfaces, it is of interest that
the degrees of freedom of the field theory don’t leave this null surface at a
later time. Any massive degree of freedom cannot travel at the speed of light
and hence would not do the job. So it is natural to consider massless
Carrollian theories, which are tantamount to conformal Carrollian theories.

For asymptotically flat spacetimes, the asymptotic symmetry groups at null
infinity are the Bondi-Metzner-Sachs (BMS) groups Bondi:1962px ; Sachs:1962zza
, which in dimensions three Barnich:2006av  and four are infinite dimensional
groups. After a long hiatus since its original discovery in the context of
four dimensional spacetimes in the late 1960s, the theoretical physics
community has now woken up to the realisation that the BMS group should be
omnipresent in the discussions of scattering theory in quantum field theories
defined in asymptotically flat spacetimes. Following the lead of Strominger
Strominger:2013jfa , a large volume of literature has built up linking the BMS
group with soft theorems and memory effects in a triangle of relations. We
refer the interested reader to Strominger:2017zoo  for a detailed discussion
on these issues and related references.

The conformal Carrollian field theories that we are discussing in this work
are also BMS-invariant field theories. This stems from the isomorphism between
these groups Duval:2014lpa ; Duval:2014uoa ; Duval:2014uva . This isomorphism
was discovered following an even more startling observation of the isomorphism
between Galilean conformal algebras and the BMS algebra Bagchi:2010zz . Field
theories defined on these Carrollian backgrounds suffer from the absence of a
non-degenerate metric; the theories are defined on a fibre-bundle structure
rather than a (pseudo-) Riemmannian one. Our task of investigating Weyl
symmetry would thus be complicated by this feature. In what follows, we shall
be exclusively focussing on conformal Carrollian or BMS invariant theories in
2 spacetime dimension.

### BMS Applications: Flat Holography and Tensionless Strings

For the sake of the uninitiated reader, let us pause to give a bit of context
to why we are interested in investigating theories that seem very exotic at
the outset.

Holography in Flat Spacetimes

The Holographic Principle tHooft:1993dmi ; Susskind:1994vu  has changed the
way we look at quantum gravity and AdS/CFT Maldacena:1997re  is by far the
most impressive of our present tools to attack this age-old problem of
bringing quantum mechanics and gravity together. Although there has been
spectacular progress in understanding Anti de Sitter spacetime and its dual
field theories, particularly in the context of the original Maldacena
correspondence between string theory on AdS${}_{5}\times$ S5 and
$\mathcal{N}=4$ Super Yang Mills theory in $d=4$, progress has surprisingly
been much less impressive in non-AdS scenarios. The question of holography for
asymptotically flat spacetimes, a subject that is clearly more relevant to the
real world, especially for applications in say astrophysics and astrophysical
black holes, has been receiving some attention more recently. Some of the
earlier works include Bagchi:2010zz ; deBoer:2003vf ; Barnich:2009se ;
Barnich:2010eb . More recent attempts based on holography of the celestial
sphere have built up following Strominger et al. These are somewhat tangential
to our work here and we shall refer the reader to Strominger:2017zoo  again
for a more detailed exposition.

In 3d asymptotically flat bulk and two dimensional boundary theory, progress
has been somewhat better. The symmetry group in question is BMS3. Following
the assertion that the putative dual theory has to be a BMS-invariant 2d field
theory in Bagchi:2010zz ; Bagchi:2012cy , a body of work has emerged, a
selected, non-exhaustive list of which includes Bagchi:2012xr
–Ciambelli:2018wre . The study of 2d BMS invariant field theories is thus
important to building on this proposed correspondence.

Dual theories to generic black holes

As we remarked earlier, Carrollian structures appear on generic null surfaces.
Hence if we are looking at building field theories which live on generic black
hole horizons, it is natural to consider Carrollian theories. (See
Donnay:2019jiz  for a detailed analysis of the emergence of Carrollian
structures on black hole event horizons.) Also, as per our previous argument,
if we want degrees of freedom of the theories not to leave the null surface,
we must necessarily consider massless or conformal Carrollian theories. There
have been attempts at understanding these horizon BMS symmetries in recent
times e.g. in Hawking:2016msc . BMS-invariant field theories thus can act as
putative duals for generic black holes. A derivation of the entropy of black
holes based on the BMS-Cardy formula Bagchi:2012xr  can be found in
Carlip:2017xne ; Carlip:2019dbu .

The theory of tensionless strings

Understanding the ultra-high energy regime of string theory has been long
sought-after, especially after the work of Gross and Mende Gross:1987ar ;
Gross:1987kza  who found substantial simplifications in string scattering in
this domain. This is the regime explored by the tensionless limit of string
theory, where the worldsheet of the string becomes null and the worldsheet
metric becomes degenerate. In this limit, the worldsheet conformal symmetry is
replaced by BMS3, which now arises as residual symmetries of the tensionless
worldsheet Isberg:1993av ; Bagchi:2013bga . So the theory of tensionless
strings is organised by this underlying BMS algebra in the same way as usual
string theory is dictated by worldsheet conformal invariance Bagchi:2015nca .
This is thus another very important place where two dimensional BMS invariant
theories play a pivotal role 222It is of interest to note here that some
rather unique phenomena in the quantum tensionless strings have been recently
unearthed Bagchi:2020ats ; Bagchi:2020fpr ; Bagchi:2019cay , a lot of which is
based on a better understanding of the underlying BMS algebra.. It is
important to stress here that the BMS symmetries that arise here are gauge
symmetries, as opposed to the case of putative dual theories to flatspace,
where BMS symmetries are global symmetries of the field theory.

Galilean CFTs

As mentioned above, there is a rather startling duality between non-
relativistic systems (where speed of light $c\to\infty$) and ultra-
relativistic or Carrollian systems ($c\to 0$) in spacetime dimensions $d=2$
Bagchi:2010zz . In general dimensions, both systems have degenerate metrics
and hence non-Riemannian background structures. These structures are fibre
bundles. In the case of non-relativistic systems, the base of the fibre bundle
is the time direction ${\rm I\\!R}_{t}$ and the fibres are $(d-1)$ dimensional
spatial slices ${\rm I\\!R}^{d-1}$ Bagchi:2009my ; Duval:2009vt . The
Carrollian limit interchanges the base and the fibre Duval:2014uoa . In the
case of $d=2$, the base and fibre are both one dimensional and interchanging
them does not change the background symmetry algebra. So Carrollian and
Galilean algebras in $d=2$ are isomorphic and the isomorphism extends to their
conformal counterparts, the Carrollian conformal and the Galilean conformal
algebras. Hence, results constructed for 2d Carrollian CFTs are valid (upto an
exchange of spatial and temporal directions for coordinate dependent answers)
for 2d Galilean CFTs and vice-versa.

### Weyl anomaly and BMS

The Weyl anomaly has had a very rich history dating back almost five
decades333For a wonderful memoir of the development of Weyl anomaly, the
reader is pointed to Duff:1993wm . and has found applications in diverse
fields such as quantum gravity, black hole physics, inflationary cosmology,
string theory and statistical physics. We are now concerned about the form of
Weyl symmetry and Weyl anomaly in 2d BMS-invariant field theories, which as
stated above, would be useful for understanding aspects of holography in
asymptotically flat 3d spacetime, or for tensionless string theories. It is
possible that this construction would find similar applications in logarithmic
corrections to entropies of Flat space cosmologies in 3d Bagchi:2013qva ,
aspects of inflationary cosmology, and even statistical physics. Our
constructions of the Weyl symmetry and its anomaly in this paper would be
purely from the field theoretic side. One can envision that a holographic
computation in flat spacetimes, following the lead of Henningson:1998gx  and
with suitable modifications for the asymptotically flat case, would reproduce
the answers we obtain in this paper.

### Outline for the rest of the paper

A brief outline of the paper is as follows. In Sec. 2, we revisit the well-
known features of Weyl invariance and Weyl anomaly in the context of 2d CFTs,
in an effort to set notation and set the stage for our explorations of Weyl
symmetry in BMS invariant field theories. In Sec. 3, we give a brief review of
the BMS algebra and 2d field theories invariant under the BMS3 algebra, which
we will call BMS field theories or BMSFTs for short. We review some basic
notions that we would require for calculations with 2d BMSFTs later in the
paper. In Sec. 4, we introduce TT OPEs and delta functions on our Carrollian
backgrounds and show how the delta function leads to Ward identities and
correlation functions which match and generalise answers in Bagchi:2015wna .
Armed with these formulae, we compute the BMS Weyl anomaly in Sec. 5. We
conclude with a summary and discussions about current and future directions of
further research in Sec. 6. A number of appendices contain more details about
our computations that are omitted in the main body of the paper.

##  2 A quick recap: Conformal symmetry and Weyl anomaly

As is very well known, the power of conformal symmetry in two dimensions is
greatly enhanced by the underlying infinite dimensional Virasoro algebra (two
copies of it):

$\displaystyle[\mathcal{L}_{n},\mathcal{L}_{m}]=(n-m)\mathcal{L}_{n+m}+\frac{c}{12}(m^{3}-m)\delta_{n+m,0},$
$\displaystyle[\mathcal{\bar{L}}_{n},\mathcal{\bar{L}}_{m}]=(n-m)\mathcal{\bar{L}}_{n+m}+\frac{\bar{c}}{12}(m^{3}-m)\delta_{n+m,0},$
(2) $\displaystyle[\mathcal{L}_{n},\mathcal{\bar{L}}_{m}]=0.$

Here $\mathcal{L}_{n}$ and $\mathcal{\bar{L}}_{n}$ are the holomorphic and
anti-holomorphic generators of the algebra respectively, whereas $c$ and
$\bar{c}$ are the central charges. For the purposes of this section, we shall
take $c=\bar{c}$. We present a brief discussion of the $c\neq\bar{c}$ case at
the end of the section.

We now investigate Weyl invariance and its implications on the stress energy
tensor. Consider a field theory coupled to some non-trivial background
described by the action

$S[\Phi,g_{\mu\nu}]=\int d^{2}x\sqrt{-g}\,\mathcal{L}[\Phi,g_{\mu\nu}].$ (3)

Variation of the action with respect to the metric is

$\delta S[\Phi,g_{\mu\nu}]=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int
d^{2}x\sqrt{-g}\,\,T_{\mu\nu}\delta g^{\mu\nu},\quad\text{where}\quad
T_{\mu\nu}=\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\delta S}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}}$ (4)

is the energy-momentum (EM) tensor. Under Weyl transformation (1), the metric
changes by an overall scale factor. For an infinitesimal Weyl transformation,
this is just $\delta g_{\mu\nu}=2\Omega(x)g_{\mu\nu}.$ The variation of the
action under the infinitesimal Weyl scaling becomes

$\delta S[\Phi,g_{\mu\nu}]=-\frac{1}{2\pi}\int
d^{2}x\sqrt{-g}\,2\,\Omega(x)T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}.$ (5)

Thus, we see that field theories invariant under Weyl transformations have
$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}=0$. This vanishing of trace of EM tensor is a defining
feature of conformal field theories.

Although the above statement defines CFTs at classical level, the trace of EM
tensor suffers from an anomaly and no longer vanishes in quantum theories.
This is because of the presence of central charge in Virasoro algebra. The
central charge captures the effect of soft breaking of conformal symmetry in
the presence of a scale. When the theory lives on a curved background, the
curvature introduces a scale in the theory. In $d=2$, the presence of the
central charge $c$ in the algebra leads to the trace anomaly

$\langle T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}\rangle=\frac{c}{12}\mathcal{R}.$ (6)

Here $\mathcal{R}$ is the Ricci scalar of the background manifold. Below we
derive this result.

### Derivation of trace anomaly

To set the stage for our calculations for the Weyl or trace anomalies in BMS
invariant field theories later in the paper, we now briefly review a
derivation of the same in 2d CFTs Tong:2009np . We will do this for CFTs on
backgrounds that are infinitesimally close to flat space. For this purpose,
consider a CFT on a complex plane parametrized by coordinates $(z,\bar{z})$.
The Operator Product Expansion (OPE) of the holomorphic $(T(z)\equiv
T_{zz}(z))$ and antiholomorphic $(\bar{T}(\bar{z})\equiv
T_{\bar{z}\bar{z}}(\bar{z}))$ parts of EM tensor of a 2d CFT are given by

$\displaystyle
T(z)T(z^{\prime})\sim\frac{c}{2(z-z^{\prime})^{4}}+\frac{2T(z^{\prime})}{(z-z^{\prime})^{2}}+\frac{\partial^{\prime}T(z^{\prime})}{(z-z^{\prime})}+\text{reg}$
(7)
$\displaystyle\bar{T}(\bar{z})\bar{T}(\bar{z}^{\prime})\sim\frac{\bar{c}}{2(\bar{z}-\bar{z}^{\prime})^{4}}+\frac{2\bar{T}(\bar{z}^{\prime})}{(\bar{z}-\bar{z}^{\prime})^{2}}+\frac{\bar{\partial}^{\prime}\bar{T}(\bar{z}^{\prime})}{(\bar{z}-\bar{z}^{\prime})}+\text{reg}$
(8)

where ‘reg’ denotes regular terms as
$(z,\bar{z})\rightarrow(z^{\prime},\bar{z}^{\prime})$. We will adopt the
following shorthands for the off-diagonal components of the EM tensor

$\mathcal{T}\equiv T_{\bar{z}z}(z,\bar{z}),\quad\bar{\mathcal{T}}\equiv
T_{z\bar{z}}(z,\bar{z}),$ (9)

The components of the conservation equation $\partial^{\mu}T_{\mu\nu}=0$ are

$\bar{\partial}T+\partial\mathcal{T}=0,\qquad\partial\bar{T}+\bar{\partial}\bar{\mathcal{T}}=0,$
(10)

Using the first of the above equations and $TT$ OPE, we can write

$\partial\partial^{\prime}\mathcal{T}\mathcal{T}^{\prime}=\bar{\partial}\bar{\partial}^{\prime}TT^{\prime}=\bar{\partial}\bar{\partial}^{\prime}\Big{(}\frac{c}{2(z-z^{\prime})^{4}}+\cdots\Big{)}=\bar{\partial}\bar{\partial}^{\prime}\Big{(}\frac{c}{12}\partial^{2}\partial^{\prime}\Big{(}\frac{1}{z-z^{\prime}}\Big{)}\Big{)}.$
(11)

Here $\mathcal{T}^{\prime}$ is a shorthand for writing
$\mathcal{T}(z^{\prime},\bar{z}^{\prime})$. Using the delta function

$\bar{\partial}\frac{1}{z-z^{\prime}}=2\pi\delta^{(2)}(z-z^{\prime},\bar{z}-\bar{z}^{\prime}),$
(12)

the above equation becomes

$\partial\partial^{\prime}\mathcal{T}\mathcal{T}^{\prime}=\frac{\pi
c}{6}\bar{\partial}^{\prime}\partial^{2}\partial^{\prime}\delta^{(2)}(z-z^{\prime},\bar{z}-\bar{z}^{\prime}),$
(13)

which implies

$\mathcal{T}\mathcal{T}^{\prime}=\frac{\pi
c}{6}\bar{\partial}^{\prime}\partial\delta^{(2)}(z-z^{\prime},\bar{z}-\bar{z}^{\prime})\
.$ (14)

Similarly using the second conservation equation, $\bar{T}\bar{T}$ OPE and an
$\delta$-function identity similar to (12), we get

$\bar{\mathcal{T}}\bar{\mathcal{T}}^{\prime}=\frac{\pi
c}{6}\partial^{\prime}\bar{\partial}\delta^{(2)}(z-z^{\prime},\bar{z}-\bar{z}^{\prime}).$
(15)

Using the conservation equations and $T\bar{T}$ OPE we can also show that
$\mathcal{T}\bar{\mathcal{T}}^{\prime}\sim\text{reg}$. Then the OPE of trace
($T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}=2(\mathcal{T}+\bar{\mathcal{T}})$) is

$\displaystyle T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}T^{\prime\nu}_{\
\nu}=4(\mathcal{T}\mathcal{T}^{\prime}+\bar{\mathcal{T}}\bar{\mathcal{T}}^{\prime})=\frac{2\pi
c}{3}\Big{(}\bar{\partial}^{\prime}\partial\delta^{(2)}(z-z^{\prime},\bar{z}-\bar{z}^{\prime})+\partial^{\prime}\bar{\partial}\delta^{(2)}(z-z^{\prime},\bar{z}-\bar{z}^{\prime})\Big{)}.$
(16)

Now consider an infinitesimal Weyl transformation of the plane metric, _i.e._
$\delta g_{\mu\nu}=2\Omega\delta_{\mu\nu}$, where $\Omega(z,\bar{z})$ is
small. We can expand $\langle T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}\rangle_{g}$ in $\Omega$ as

$\langle T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}\rangle_{g}=\langle T^{\mu}_{\
\mu}\rangle_{\delta}+\delta\langle T^{\mu}_{\
\mu}\rangle_{\delta}+(\text{higher order in}\ \Omega),$ (17)

where the subscript ‘$g$’ denotes that the expectation value is evaluated in a
CFT on a background metric $g_{\mu\nu}$. From the definition, $\langle
T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}\rangle_{\delta}=\frac{1}{Z}\int\mathcal{D}\Phi
e^{-S}T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$, we can compute the change in $\langle T^{\mu}_{\
\mu}\rangle_{\delta}$ under an infinitesimal Weyl transformation $\delta
g_{\mu\nu}=2\Omega\delta_{\mu\nu}$ as

$\delta\langle T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}\rangle_{\delta}=\frac{1}{Z}\int\mathcal{D}\Phi
e^{-S}\Big{(}-\frac{\delta S}{\delta g^{\alpha\beta}}\delta
g^{\alpha\beta}T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}\Big{)}=\frac{1}{Z}\int\mathcal{D}\Phi
e^{-S}\int\frac{d^{2}z^{\prime}}{2\pi}T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}T^{\prime\nu}_{\
\nu}\Omega^{\prime}.$ (18)

Substituting the $T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}T^{\prime\nu}_{\ \nu}$ OPE (16) and
simplifying, we get

$\displaystyle\delta\langle T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}\rangle_{\delta}=\frac{2\pi
c}{3}\int
d^{2}z^{\prime}\Big{(}\bar{\partial}^{\prime}\partial\delta^{(2)}(z-z^{\prime},\bar{z}-\bar{z}^{\prime})+\partial^{\prime}\bar{\partial}\delta^{(2)}(z-z^{\prime},\bar{z}-\bar{z}^{\prime})\Big{)}\Omega^{\prime}=-\frac{2c}{3}\partial\bar{\partial}\Omega.$
(19) (20)

Now, since the anomaly arises from regulating short distance divergences,
$\langle T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}\rangle$ is same for all states in the theory. So
$\langle T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}\rangle$ is equal to some geometric quantity of the
background metric, which must be local and dimension $2$, _i.e._ the Ricci
scalar $\mathcal{R}$. The Weyl anomaly vanishes on the plane due to
translational invariance _i.e._ $\langle T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}\rangle_{\delta}=0$.
This is consistent with the above argument. Now when we consider deformations
away from the plane, starting with a metric of the form:

$g_{\mu\nu}=e^{2\Omega}\delta_{\mu\nu}\Rightarrow\,\mathcal{R}=-8e^{-2\Omega}\partial\bar{\partial}\Omega\,\Rightarrow\,\mathcal{R}\approx-8\partial\bar{\partial}\Omega\quad\text{for
infinitesimal $\Omega$}.$

Putting all these together and (20) in (17), we can write the trace anomaly

$\langle T^{\mu}_{\
\mu}\rangle_{g}=-\frac{2c}{3}\partial\bar{\partial}\Omega+(\text{higher order
in}\ \Omega)=\frac{c}{12}\mathcal{R}.$ (21)

The above is of course very well known and basically text book material. But
it is important for us to keep this logical sequence in mind as we build
towards a similar derivation of the Weyl anomaly, now in the context of 2d
field theories governed by a different symmetry, i.e. the BMS3 algebra.

### Unequal central terms

We had assumed at the beginning of the section that we would take $c=\bar{c}$
in our derivations of the Weyl anomaly. Now let us briefly comment on the
choice and what happens if we choose unequal left and right central terms.
From the point of view of the 2d field theory, $c\neq\bar{c}$ implies a
violation of parity in the theory. From the context of AdS3/CFT2, this shows
up when one adds a gravitational Chern-Simons term to the Einstein-Hilbert
action. The resulting theory, called Topologically Massive Gravity, is one
where a diffeomorphism anomaly arises. The stress-energy tensor is not
conserved any more:

$\nabla_{\mu}T^{\mu\nu}=k(c-\bar{c})g^{\mu\nu}\varepsilon^{\alpha\beta}\partial_{\alpha}\partial_{\sigma}\Gamma^{\sigma}_{\mu\beta}.$
(22)

In the above $k$ is a constant and $k(c-\bar{c})$ is the coefficient of the
diffeomorphism anomaly. This anomaly can be equivalently traded for a Lorentz
anomaly:

$\Theta^{\mu\nu}-\Theta^{\nu\mu}=k(c-\bar{c})\varepsilon^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{R},$
(23)

where the improved stress tensor $\Theta^{\mu\nu}$ is no longer symmetric, but
now does obey the conservation equation $\nabla_{\mu}\Theta^{\mu\nu}=0$. It is
clear that our earlier simple-minded derivation of the Weyl anomaly would run
into rough waters here. The expression for the Weyl anomaly actually depends
on the formulation. For a stress tensor that yields consistency with Wess-
Zumino conditions, the Weyl anomaly gets a correction proportional to
$c-\bar{c}$. For a covariant stress tensor, constructed at the expense of not
satisfying the Wess-Zumino conditions, one get the same expression as (21),
with $c$ replaced by $\frac{1}{2}(c+\bar{c})$. Finally, for a non-symmetric
stress tensor where we have traded the gravitational anomaly for a Lorentz
anomaly, the Weyl anomaly is again the same as the covariant case, albeit that
the conservation equation now holds. We point the reader to Kraus:2005zm ;
Skenderis:2009nt  for further details on this.

##  3 BMS field theories: a reminder of the basics

The asymptotic symmetries of flat spacetimes in three dimensions at the null
boundary $\mathscr{I}^{\pm}$, which is topologically ${\rm
I\\!R}_{\text{null}}\times S^{1}$, is encapsulated in the BMS3 algebra:

$\displaystyle[L_{n},L_{m}]=(n-m)L_{n+m}+\frac{c_{L}}{12}n(n^{2}-1)\delta_{n+m,0},$
$\displaystyle[L_{n},M_{m}]=(n-m)M_{n+m}+\frac{c_{M}}{12}n(n^{2}-1)\delta_{n+m,0},$
(24) $\displaystyle[M_{n},M_{m}]=0.$

Here $L_{n}$ and $M_{n}$ generate diffeomorphisms of the $S^{1}$ at
$\mathscr{I}^{\pm}$ (superrotations) and angle dependent translations of the
null direction (supertranslation) respectively. $c_{L}$ and $c_{M}$ are
central terms which for Einstein gravity become $c_{L}=0,c_{M}=\frac{3}{G}$
Barnich:2006av .

Our prescription of Minkowskian holography draws heavily on the evolution of
AdS/CFT from the seminal work of Brown and Henneaux, who famously computed the
asymptotic symmetries of AdS3 to obtain two copies of the Virasoro algebra
that have since been understood as the global symmetries of the dual 2d field
theory. Following this lead, it has been proposed Bagchi:2010zz ;
Bagchi:2012cy  that the dual of 3d Minkowski spacetimes is a 2d field theory
living on $\mathscr{I}^{\pm}$ which has BMS3 as its underlying symmetry. We
shall call these field theories BMS field theories or BMSFTs in short.

###  3.1 Null cylinder and null plane

Since we would like a holographic understanding of Minkowski spacetimes, and
we have just mentioned that the BMSFT sits on $\mathscr{I}^{\pm}$ which has
the topology of cylinder, a convenient representation of the generators of the
BMS3 algebra in terms of differential operators is the so-called cylinder
representation:

$L_{n}=ie^{in\sigma}(\partial_{\sigma}+in\tau\partial_{\tau}),\qquad
M_{n}=ie^{in\sigma}\partial_{\tau}.$ (25)

where $\sigma$ is the angular coordinate of the $S^{1}$ and $\tau$
parametrises the null direction ${\rm I\\!R}_{\text{null}}$. We will also find
it particularly useful to speak of the plane representation where the field
theory is defined on ${\rm I\\!R}_{\text{null}}\times{\rm I\\!R}$. Here the
$S^{1}$ in the cylinder representation is unwrapped. The generators here take
the form

$L_{n}=-x^{n+1}\partial_{x}-(n+1)x^{n}t\partial_{t},\qquad
M_{n}=x^{n+1}\partial_{t}.$ (26)

The map from the null cylinder to the null plane is

$t=-i\tau e^{i\sigma},\qquad x=e^{i\sigma}.$ (27)

The energy momentum tensors of the 2d BMSFT can be defined through the
generators Bagchi:2010vw :

$T_{1}(x,t)=\sum_{n}\Big{[}L_{n}+(n+2)\frac{t}{x}M_{n}\Big{]}x^{-n-2},\qquad
T_{2}(x,t)=\sum_{n}M_{n}x^{-n-2}.$ (28)

One can also find the expressions of the EM tensor on the cylinder and these
are related to each other by the BMS version of the Schwartzian derivative
Basu:2015evh :

$T_{1}(\sigma,\tau)=\sum_{n}(L_{n}-in\tau
M_{n})e^{-in\sigma}+\frac{c_{L}}{24},\quad
T_{2}(\sigma,\tau)=\sum_{n}M_{n}e^{-in\sigma}+\frac{c_{M}}{24}.$ (29)

We would be interested in building representations of the BMS algebra in
analogy with the Virasoro algebra and hence would construct highest weight
representations. The states of the theory are labeled by quantum numbers that
are the eigenvalues of $L_{0}$ and $M_{0}$ :

$L_{0}|h_{L},h_{M}\rangle=h_{L}|h_{L},h_{M}\rangle,\qquad
M_{0}|h_{L},h_{M}\rangle=h_{M}|h_{L},h_{M}\rangle.$ (30)

As is evident from the algebra, the operators $L_{n}$ and $M_{n}$ for $n>0$
lower the $h_{L}$ eigenvalue of a state. We will demand that this spectrum is
bounded from below. This leads to a definition of a primary state
$(|h_{L},h_{M}\rangle_{p})$:

$L_{n}|h_{L},h_{M}\rangle_{p}=0,\qquad
M_{n}|h_{L},h_{M}\rangle_{p}=0,\qquad\forall\ n>0.$ (31)

Towers of states called the BMS modules can be built by the action of the
raising operators $L_{-n}$ and $M_{-n}$ on each of the primary states of the
spectrum.

###  3.2 BMS from CFT

Asymptotically flat spacetimes can be obtained from asymptotically AdS
spacetimes by taking the radius of AdS to infinity. It is thus expected that
the symmetries map into each other in this singular limit. At the level of the
asymptotic symmetry algebras, this limit is perceived as an Inönü-Wigner
contraction:

$L_{n}=\mathcal{L}_{n}-\mathcal{\bar{L}}_{-n},\qquad
M_{n}=\epsilon(\mathcal{L}_{n}+\mathcal{\bar{L}}_{-n}),$ (32)

where ${\mathcal{L}}$ and $\bar{{\mathcal{L}}}$ represent the left and right
moving Virasoros of the 2d CFT. One can think of this limit in terms of the
spacetime coordinates. The boundary topology of global AdS is a cylinder and
the limit takes us to the null boundary of flat space $\mathscr{I}^{\pm}$
which as we discussed earlier is a null cylinder ${\rm
I\\!R}_{\text{null}}\times S^{1}$. The limit can thus be thought of as an
ultra-relativistic (UR) boost. In terms of spacetime coordinates, if we start
with the Virasoro generators on the cylinder

${\mathcal{L}}_{n}=e^{inw}\partial_{w},\quad\bar{{\mathcal{L}}}_{n}=e^{in\bar{w}}\partial_{\bar{w}},$
(33)

where $w=\tau+\sigma$, $\bar{w}=\tau-\sigma$, the UR limit is

$\sigma\to\sigma,\tau\to\epsilon\tau,\,\epsilon\to 0.$ (34)

This is a limit where the speed of light in this 2d field theory goes to zero
and hence the theory is a non-Lorentzian theory. This closing of lightcones is
a peculiar feature and these theories have been dubbed Carrollian theory. It
is easy to check that the limit (34) on (33) naturally generates the linear
combinations of (32) and results in the expressions of the BMS generators we
presented earlier in (25). Using this map (34), the map between the
eigenvalues of ${\mathcal{L}}_{0},\bar{{\mathcal{L}}}_{0}$ and $L_{0},M_{0}$
simply becomes

$h_{L}=h-{\bar{h}},\quad h_{M}=\epsilon(h+{\bar{h}}).$ (35)

We mentioned a peculiar duality in $d=2$ between the ultra-relativistic or
$c\to 0$ and the non-relativistic or $c\to\infty$ theories in the
introduction. It is instructive to check that the limit diametrically opposite
to (34) Bagchi:2009my :

$\sigma\to\epsilon\sigma,\tau\to\tau,\,\epsilon\to 0$ (36)

that send the speed of light to infinity instead of zero results in the linear
combinations Bagchi:2009pe :

$L_{n}=\mathcal{L}_{n}+\mathcal{\bar{L}}_{n},\qquad
M_{n}=\epsilon(\mathcal{L}_{n}-\mathcal{\bar{L}}_{n}),$ (37)

which again yield the BMS from two copies of the Virasoro. The generators that
arise from contracting (33) using the non-relativistic (NR) limit (36) are

$L_{n}=ie^{in\tau}(\partial_{\tau}+in\sigma\partial_{\sigma}),\qquad
M_{n}=ie^{in\tau}\partial_{\sigma}.$ (38)

which is identical to (25) with an interchange of $\tau\leftrightarrow\sigma$.
The limit from 2d CFT to BMS3 gives us a vital tool for cross-checking answers
obtained by just using symmetries of BMS. Many of the answers, e.g. the
expressions of the BMS EM tensors, can be easily arrived at when we look at
the corresponding CFT expressions and carefully implement the limit.

###  3.3 From Carroll to BMS

Generic null manifolds are endowed with a Carrollian structure that replaces
the Riemannian structure due to the lack of a non-degenerate metric. The basic
geometric quantities that locally describe a Carrollian manifold are a no-
where vanishing vector field $\zeta$ and a degenerate metric ${\bar{h}}$. As
we remarked earlier in our introduction, BMS structures arise when we look at
the conformal version of Carrollian symmetry. In this case, we can look at the
conformal isometries of Carrollian manifolds we have just defined
Duval:2014lpa ; Duval:2014uoa ; Duval:2014uva . The conformal structures can
be defined on these manifolds by

$\mathfrak{L}_{\xi}\zeta=\lambda_{1}\zeta,\qquad\mathfrak{L}_{\xi}{\bar{h}}=\lambda_{2}{\bar{h}},$
(39)

where $\mathfrak{L}$ is the Lie derivative of these fields under a co-ordinate
transformation by $\xi$. The standard flat Carroll structure, arising from a
generalisation of usual Minkowskian spacetime, is given by a topology
$\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$. In a coordinate chart $(u,x^{i})$ with
$i=1,\ldots d$

$\zeta=\frac{\partial}{\partial u},\quad{\bar{h}}=\delta_{ij}dx^{i}dx^{j}.$
(40)

Solving the above equations (39) in the case of the flat Carroll structure
(40), one can find an expression for the vector field $\xi$. The individual
independent components close to what is called the conformal Carroll algebra.
When space and time dialate in the same way (in the language above this
amounts to $\lambda_{2}/\lambda_{1}=-2$), as is expected when one is computing
the asymptotic symmetries of a relativistic spacetime, the symmetry algebra
can be shown to be isomorphic to the BMS algebra. The process of UR
contractions mentioned above also lead us to the same vector fields. Thus the
limiting analysis is a rather nice way of understanding such manifolds and the
physics on these manifolds, starting out from relativistic physics and usual
Riemannian manifolds.

##  4 Warming up: delta functions, Ward identities and correlators

Before we delve into the details of the calculation of the Weyl anomaly for
BMSFTs, in this section, we touch upon some of the ingredients we would
require for our calculations. We begin by presenting the OPE of the BMS energy
momentum tensors. A delta-function identity would be required for the Weyl
anomaly calculation. We would present such an identity for Carrollian
manifolds. As a check of our proposed identity, we would then reproduce the
Ward identities and the known form of the stress-energy two point function of
the 2d BMSFT. We will first present analysis on the null plane before
indicating how the same works for the null cylinder.

###  4.1 BMSFT on a null plane

We begin with a 2d BMSFT on a null plane which is a $(1+1)$ dimensional flat
Carrollian background with topology ${\rm I\\!R}_{null}\times{\rm I\\!R}$. Let
$t$ and $x$ be the coordinates along ${\rm I\\!R}_{null}$ and ${\rm I\\!R}$
respectively. We propose a representation of the delta function on a null
plane:

$\partial_{t_{1}}\partial_{x_{1}}G(t_{1},x_{1};t_{2},x_{2})=2\pi\delta^{(2)}(t_{12},x_{12});\quad
G(t_{1},x_{1};t_{2},x_{2})=\log(t_{12}x_{12})$ (41)

where $x_{ij}=x_{i}-x_{j}$. Now for our other basic ingredient, the BMS
stress-tensor OPE. On the null plane this reads

$\displaystyle T_{1}(t_{1},x_{1})T_{1}(t_{2},x_{2})$ $\displaystyle\sim$
$\displaystyle\frac{c_{L}}{2x_{12}^{4}}-\frac{2t_{12}c_{M}}{x_{12}^{5}}+\frac{2T^{\prime}_{1}}{x_{12}^{2}}-\frac{4t_{12}T^{\prime}_{2}}{x_{12}^{3}}+\frac{\partial_{x_{2}}T^{\prime}_{1}}{x_{12}}-\frac{t_{12}(\partial_{t_{2}}T^{\prime}_{1}+\partial_{x_{2}}T^{\prime}_{2})}{2x_{12}^{2}}+\text{reg},$
$\displaystyle T_{1}(t_{1},x_{1})T_{2}(t_{2},x_{2})$ $\displaystyle\sim$
$\displaystyle\frac{c_{M}}{2x_{12}^{4}}+\frac{2T^{\prime}_{2}}{x_{12}^{2}}+\frac{\partial_{x^{\prime}}T^{\prime}_{2}}{x_{12}}+\text{reg},$
(42) $\displaystyle T_{2}(t_{1},x_{1})T_{2}(t_{2},x_{2})$ $\displaystyle\sim$
$\displaystyle\text{reg}.$

Here we use the shorthand $T^{\prime}\equiv T(x_{2},t_{2})$. The above can be
derived intrinsically from the symmetries of the algebra or from the limit of
the relativistic $TT$ OPE. From this, it is easy to derive the two-point
correlation functions of the BMS EM tensor. These are given by

$\langle
T_{1}(t_{1},x_{1})T_{1}(t_{2},x_{2})\rangle=\frac{c_{L}}{2x_{12}^{4}}-\frac{2t_{12}c_{M}}{x_{12}^{5}},\quad\langle
T_{1}(t_{1},x_{1})T_{2}(t_{2},x_{2})\rangle=\frac{c_{M}}{2x_{12}^{4}},$ (43)

while $\langle T_{2}T_{2}\rangle$ vanishes. Again, these can be derived
entirely from the algebra of the generators (3). We shall now rederive these
results from using the delta-function identity we have proposed.

### Ward identities and stress-energy correlators

In this part, we shall be adopting techniques outlined in Bagchi:2015wna . The
calculations there were performed on the null cylinder. Our formulation in
this subsection would be on the plane, before moving onto the cylinder in the
next subsection for completeness. We also have a non-zero $c_{L}$. So the
results are somewhat more general. We begin by considering a deformation to a
2d free BMSFT on a Carrollian plane, described by an action $S_{0}$, by
sources $\mu_{L}$ and $\mu_{M}$ for the stress tensor components :

$S_{\mu}=S_{0}-\int
dtdx\big{[}\mu_{L}(t,x)T_{1}(t,x)+\mu_{M}(t,x)T_{2}(t,x)\big{]}\ ,$ (44)

where we localize the sources at some point $(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})$ as

$\mu_{L}(t,x)=\epsilon_{L}\delta^{(2)}(t-t^{\prime},x-x^{\prime}),\qquad\mu_{M}(t,x)=\epsilon_{M}\delta^{(2)}(t-t^{\prime},x-x^{\prime})\
.$ (45)

Here $\epsilon_{L}$ and $\epsilon_{M}$ are small expansion parameters. The
expectation value of $T_{1}$ in the $\mu$-deformed theory gives the $2$-point
correlators of $T_{1}$ and $T_{2}$ in the free theory as

$\displaystyle\langle T_{1}(t,x)\rangle_{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\langle T_{1}(t,x)\exp{\int
dt^{\prime\prime}dx^{\prime\prime}\left(\mu_{L}(t^{\prime\prime},x^{\prime\prime})T_{1}(t^{\prime\prime},x^{\prime\prime})+\mu_{M}(t^{\prime\prime},x^{\prime\prime})T_{2}(t^{\prime\prime},x^{\prime\prime})\right)}\rangle_{0}$
(46) $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\langle
T_{1}(t,x)\rangle_{0}+\epsilon_{L}\langle
T_{1}(t,x)T_{1}(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})\rangle_{0}+\epsilon_{M}\langle
T_{1}(t,x)T_{2}(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})\rangle_{0}+O(\epsilon^{2}).$

Similarly for $T_{2}$:

$\langle T_{2}(t,x)\rangle_{\mu}=\langle
T_{2}(t,x)\rangle_{0}+\epsilon_{L}\langle
T_{2}(t,x)T_{1}(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})\rangle_{0}+\epsilon_{M}\langle
T_{2}(t,x)T_{2}(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})\rangle_{0}+O(\epsilon^{2}).$ (47)

Now we define $\mathcal{M}=\langle T_{2}\rangle_{\mu}$, $\mathcal{N}=\langle
T_{1}\rangle_{\mu}$ and expand in $\epsilon_{L/M}$ as

$\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{M}^{(0)}+\mathcal{M}^{(1)}+\cdots,\qquad\mathcal{N}=\mathcal{N}^{(0)}+\mathcal{N}^{(1)}+\cdots,$
(48)

where $\mathcal{M}^{(n)}\sim O(\epsilon^{n})$ and so on. Then comparing with
(46) and (47), we have

$\displaystyle\mathcal{M}^{(0)}=\langle
T_{2}\rangle_{0},\qquad\mathcal{M}^{(1)}=\epsilon_{L}\langle
T_{2}T^{\prime}_{1}\rangle_{0}+\epsilon_{M}\langle
T_{2}T^{\prime}_{2}\rangle_{0},$ $\displaystyle\mathcal{N}^{(0)}=\langle
T_{1}\rangle_{0},\qquad\mathcal{N}^{(1)}=\epsilon_{L}\langle
T_{1}T^{\prime}_{1}\rangle_{0}+\epsilon_{M}\langle
T_{1}T^{\prime}_{2}\rangle_{0}.$ (49)

Here we have reverted to the shorthand $T_{1}\equiv T_{1}(t,x)$,
$T^{\prime}_{1}\equiv T_{1}(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})$, and so on. The classical
conservation equations in the free theory can be written as

$\displaystyle\partial_{t}T_{2}=0\,\rightarrow\,\partial_{t}\mathcal{M}^{(0)}=0,\quad\partial_{t}T_{1}=\partial_{x}T_{2}\,\rightarrow\,\partial_{t}\mathcal{N}^{(0)}=\partial_{x}\mathcal{M}^{(0)}.$
(50)

To derive Ward identities we compute derivatives of $\langle
T_{1}\rangle_{\mu}$ and $\langle T_{2}\rangle_{\mu}$ as follows. Let us first
consider the time derivative of $\langle T_{2}\rangle_{\mu}$ :

$\displaystyle\partial_{t}\langle
T_{2}\rangle_{\mu}=\langle(-\partial_{t}S_{\mu})T_{2}+\partial_{t}T_{2}\rangle_{\mu}=\Big{\langle}\int
dt^{\prime}dx^{\prime}\Big{(}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\partial_{t}(T_{2}T^{\prime}_{1})+\mu^{\prime}_{M}\partial_{t}(T^{\prime}_{2}T_{2})\Big{)}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu},$
(51)

where we have used $\partial_{t}S_{0}=0$ and a conservation equation
$\partial_{t}T_{2}=0$. We use the OPEs (4.1) to simplify $\partial_{t}\langle
T_{2}\rangle_{\mu}$ further as

$\displaystyle\partial_{t}\langle T_{2}\rangle_{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\Big{\langle}\int
dt^{\prime}dx^{\prime}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\partial_{t}\Big{(}\frac{c_{M}}{2(x-x^{\prime})^{4}}+\frac{2T^{\prime}_{2}}{(x-x^{\prime})^{2}}+\frac{\partial_{x^{\prime}}T^{\prime}_{2}}{(x-x^{\prime})}+reg\Big{)}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu}$
(52) $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\Big{\langle}\int
dt^{\prime}dx^{\prime}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\Big{[}\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial_{t}\partial^{2}_{x}\partial^{\prime}_{x}\Big{(}\frac{1}{\Delta
x}\Big{)}-2T^{\prime}_{2}\partial_{t}\partial_{x}\Big{(}\frac{1}{\Delta
x}\Big{)}+\partial_{x^{\prime}}T^{\prime}_{2}\partial_{t}\Big{(}\frac{1}{\Delta
x}\Big{)}\Big{]}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu}$

where $\Delta x=x-x^{\prime}$ and $\Delta t=t-t^{\prime}$. Using the delta
function (41) as

$\partial_{t}\Big{(}\frac{1}{\Delta x}\Big{)}=2\pi\delta^{(2)}(\Delta t,\Delta
x)\equiv 2\pi\delta^{(2)},$

we get

$\displaystyle\partial_{t}\langle T_{2}\rangle_{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\Big{\langle}2\pi\int
dt^{\prime}dx^{\prime}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\Big{[}\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{2}_{x}\partial^{\prime}_{x}\delta^{(2)}-2T^{\prime}_{2}\partial_{x}\delta^{(2)}+\partial_{x^{\prime}}T^{\prime}_{2}\delta^{(2)}\Big{]}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\Big{\langle}2\pi\Big{(}-\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{3}_{x}\mu_{L}-2\partial_{x}(T_{2}\mu_{L})+\mu_{L}\partial_{x}T_{2}\Big{)}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu},$
$\displaystyle\Rightarrow-\frac{1}{2\pi}\partial_{t}\mathcal{M}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{3}_{x}\mu_{L}+2\mathcal{M}\partial_{x}\mu_{L}+\mu_{L}\partial_{x}\mathcal{M}.$
(53)

Thus we obtain the first Ward identity for the stress tensor component
$\mathcal{M}=\partial_{t}\langle T_{2}\rangle_{\mu}$. Expanding $\mathcal{M}$
as in (48) and using (45), the leading term gives a conservation equation
$\partial_{t}\mathcal{M}^{(0)}=0$ and $O(\epsilon)$ terms give a Ward identity
for $\mathcal{M}^{(1)}$ as

$-\frac{1}{2\pi}\partial_{t}\mathcal{M}^{(1)}=\epsilon_{L}\Big{[}\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{3}_{x}\delta^{(2)}+2\mathcal{M}^{(0)}\partial_{x}\delta^{(2)}+\delta^{(2)}\partial_{x}\mathcal{M}^{(0)}\Big{]}.$
(54)

Now let us consider the time derivative of $\langle T_{1}\rangle_{\mu}$ :

$\partial_{t}\langle T_{1}\rangle_{\mu}=\Big{\langle}\int
dt^{\prime}dx^{\prime}\Big{(}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\partial_{t}(T_{1}T^{\prime}_{1})+\mu^{\prime}_{M}\partial_{t}(T_{1}T^{\prime}_{2})\Big{)}+\partial_{t}T_{1}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu}$
(55)

Using the form of the OPEs, the delta function (41), and the conservation
equation $\partial_{t}T_{1}=\partial_{x}T_{2}$ (details in Appendix A.1), the
above gives rise to our second Ward identity

$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi}(\partial_{x}\mathcal{M}-\partial_{t}\mathcal{N})=\frac{c_{L}}{12}\partial^{3}_{x}\mu_{L}+2\mathcal{N}\partial_{x}\mu_{L}+\mu_{L}\partial_{x}\mathcal{N}+\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{3}_{x}\mu_{M}+2\mathcal{M}\partial_{x}\mu_{M}+\mu_{M}\partial_{x}\mathcal{M}.$
(56)

Expanding $\mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{M}$ as in (48) and using (45), the
leading term gives the conservation equation
$\partial_{t}\mathcal{N}^{(0)}=\partial_{x}\mathcal{M}^{(0)}$ and
$O(\epsilon)$ terms give a Ward identity for $\mathcal{N}^{(1)}$ as

$\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2\pi}(\partial_{t}\mathcal{N}^{(1)}-\partial_{x}\mathcal{M}^{(1)})=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon_{L}\Big{[}\frac{c_{L}}{12}\partial^{3}_{x}\delta^{(2)}+2\mathcal{N}^{(0)}\partial_{x}\delta^{(2)}+\delta^{(2)}\partial_{x}\mathcal{N}^{(0)}\Big{]}$
(57)
$\displaystyle+\epsilon_{M}\Big{[}\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{3}_{x}\delta^{(2)}+2\mathcal{M}^{(0)}\partial_{x}\delta^{(2)}+\delta^{(2)}\partial_{x}\mathcal{M}^{(0)}\Big{]}.$

Now using the values $\mathcal{M}^{(0)}=0=\mathcal{N}^{(0)}$ on a plane and
the delta function (41), we integrate the above Ward identities (54) and (57)
to get

$\displaystyle\mathcal{M}^{(1)}=\epsilon_{L}\frac{c_{M}}{2\Delta
x^{4}},\quad\mathcal{N}^{(1)}=\epsilon_{L}\Big{(}\frac{c_{L}}{2\Delta
x^{4}}-\frac{2c_{M}\Delta t}{\Delta
x^{5}}\Big{)}+\epsilon_{M}\frac{c_{M}}{2\Delta x^{4}}\ .$ (58)

Comparing these with (49), we get the desired $\langle T_{i}T_{j}\rangle$
correlators as

$\langle T_{1}(t,x)T_{1}(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})\rangle=\frac{c_{L}}{2\Delta
x^{4}}-\frac{2c_{M}\Delta t}{\Delta x^{5}},\quad\langle
T_{1}(t,x)T_{2}(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})\rangle=\frac{c_{M}}{2\Delta
x^{4}},\quad\langle T_{2}(t,x)T_{2}(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})\rangle=0.$ (59)

These are of course in keeping with our initial observations (4.1) and hence a
robust check of the validity of our proposed delta function identity. The
method above can be generalised to compute arbitrary point correlation
functions for BMS stress tensors on the null plane.

###  4.2 BMSFT on a null cylinder

We now present the analogous results of the analysis in the previous
subsection for the case of 2d BMSFTs on the null cylinder. The null cylinder
is a flat Carrollian manifold with topology ${\rm I\\!R}_{null}\times S^{1}$.
Let $\tau$ be the null time coordinate along ${\rm I\\!R}_{null}$ and
$\sigma\sim\sigma+2\pi$ be the spatial coordinate parametrizing $S^{1}$.
Similar to the case of BMSFT on a null plane, we need a representation of the
delta function. A delta function on a null cylinder, introduced in
Bagchi:2015wna , is

$\displaystyle\partial_{\tau}\partial_{\sigma}G(\tau-\tau^{\prime},\sigma-\sigma^{\prime})=2\pi\delta^{(2)}(\tau-\tau^{\prime},\sigma-\sigma^{\prime});$
$\displaystyle
G(\tau-\tau^{\prime},\sigma-\sigma^{\prime})=\log\Big{[}(\tau-\tau^{\prime})\sin\Big{(}\frac{\sigma-\sigma^{\prime}}{2}\Big{)}\Big{]},$
(60)

with the normalization $\int d\tau d\sigma\delta^{(2)}(\tau,\sigma)=1$. This
delta function was already justified in Bagchi:2015wna  by reproducing
correlators of stress tensor components in a BMSFT on a null cylinder, dual to
Einstein gravity with $c_{L}=0$. However for completeness and for generic
theories with $c_{L}\neq 0$, we briefly discuss the Ward identities and
$2$-point correlators of stress tensor components in appendix A.2. The
important results are listed below.

#### TT OPE on cylinder:

$\displaystyle T_{1}^{(1)}T_{1}^{(2)}$ $\displaystyle\sim$
$\displaystyle\frac{c_{L}}{2s_{12}^{4}}-\frac{c_{L}}{12s_{12}^{2}}-\frac{2c_{M}\tau_{12}c_{12}}{2s_{12}^{4}}+\frac{2c_{M}\tau_{12}c_{12}}{24s_{12}^{2}}+\frac{2T_{1}^{(2)}}{s_{12}^{2}}-\frac{2T_{2}^{(2)}\tau_{12}c_{12}}{s_{12}^{2}}$
(61a)
$\displaystyle+\frac{\partial_{\sigma_{2}}T_{1}^{(2)}}{s_{12}}-\frac{(\partial_{\tau_{2}}T_{1}^{(2)}+\partial_{\sigma_{2}}T_{2}^{(2)})\tau_{12}c_{12}}{4s_{12}}+{\text{reg}},$
$\displaystyle T_{1}^{(1)}T_{2}^{(2)}$ $\displaystyle\sim$
$\displaystyle\frac{c_{M}}{2s_{12}^{4}}-\frac{c_{M}}{12s_{12}^{2}}+\frac{2T_{2}^{(2)}}{s_{12}^{2}}+\frac{(\partial_{\tau_{2}}T_{1}^{(2)}+\partial_{\sigma_{2}}T_{2}^{(2)})}{2s_{12}}+{\text{reg}},$
(61b) $\displaystyle T_{2}^{(1)}T_{2}^{(2)}$ $\displaystyle\sim$
$\displaystyle\text{reg},$ (61c)

where we have defined $T_{a}^{(i)}\equiv T_{a}(\tau_{i},\sigma_{i})$ for
$a=1,2$, and $s_{ij}\equiv 2\sin(\frac{\sigma_{i}-\sigma_{j}}{2})$,
$c_{ij}\equiv\cot(\frac{\sigma_{i}-\sigma_{j}}{2})$,
$\tau_{ij}=\tau_{i}-\tau_{j}$. Here ‘reg’ denotes regular terms as
$(\tau_{1},\sigma_{1})\rightarrow(\tau_{2},\sigma_{2})$.

#### Ward identities:

$\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2\pi}\partial_{\tau}\mathcal{M}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{3}_{\sigma}\mu_{L}+2\mathcal{M}\partial_{\sigma}\mu_{L}+\mu_{L}\partial_{\sigma}\mathcal{M}.$
(62)
$\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2\pi}(\partial_{\tau}\mathcal{N}-\partial_{\sigma}\mathcal{M})$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{c_{L}}{12}\partial^{3}_{\sigma}\mu_{L}+2\mathcal{N}\partial_{\sigma}\mu_{L}+\mu_{L}\partial_{\sigma}\mathcal{N}+\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{3}_{\sigma}\mu_{M}+2\mathcal{M}\partial_{\sigma}\mu_{M}+\mu_{M}\partial_{\sigma}\mathcal{M}.$

As was stated before, these results generalise the analysis of Bagchi:2015wna
to non-zero values of $c_{L}$. The formulae would be useful when we derive the
BMS version of the Weyl anomaly for the BMSFTs on the null cylinder.

##  5 BMS-Weyl symmetry and trace anomaly

In this section, we study aspects of BMS-Weyl symmetry and trace anomaly in
BMSFTs in $(1+1)$ dimensions. These theories live on Carrollian background
spacetimes and we will mostly focus on field theories coupled to flat
Carrollian backgrounds, using zweibein formulation (see appendix B for some
details).

###  5.1 Weyl invariance and stress tensor

In relativistic CFTs, a consequence of conformal invariance is vanishing of
the trace of the stress tensor classically. Analogously in BMSFTs, the BMS-
Weyl symmetry also leads to vanishing of the trace of the stress tensor. To
see this, consider a 2d BMSFT described by an action $S[\phi,e^{a}_{\alpha}]$
for some field $\phi(\tau,\sigma)$ on a Carrollian background described by
zweibeins $e^{a}_{\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)$. Here $\tau$ and $\sigma$ are null
time and spatial coordinates respectively. We define the stress tensor in this
theory as a variation of the action with respect to zweibeins as

$T^{\alpha}_{\ \beta}\equiv\frac{e^{\alpha}_{a}}{2e}\frac{\delta S}{\delta
e^{\beta}_{a}}\ ,$ (63)

where $e=\det(e^{a}_{\alpha})$ is the determinant. In terms of zweibeins, the
BMS-Weyl transformation is given by

$e^{a}_{\alpha}\rightarrow e^{\Omega(\tau,\sigma)}e^{a}_{\alpha}\ ,\qquad
e^{\alpha}_{a}\rightarrow e^{-\Omega(\tau,\sigma)}e^{\alpha}_{a}\ ;\qquad
e\rightarrow e^{2\Omega(\tau,\sigma)}e\ .$ (64)

The above definition is equivalent to the one in the existing literature
Ciambelli:2018wre ; Ciambelli:2018xat ; Ciambelli:2019lap ; Gupta:2020dtl .
(See Appendix B for some further discussion on this.)

For small $\Omega(\tau,\sigma)$, we have an infinitesimal BMS-Weyl
transformation $\delta e^{\alpha}_{a}=-\Omega e^{\alpha}_{a}$ under which the
action $S[\phi,e^{a}_{\alpha}]$ changes as

$\displaystyle\delta S$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\int d^{2}\sigma
2\,e\,e^{a}_{\alpha}T^{\alpha}_{\ \beta}\delta e^{\beta}_{a}=-2\int
d^{2}\sigma\,e\,\Omega\,T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}\ .$ (65)

Thus we see that invariance of the theory under BMS-Weyl transformation,
_i.e._ $\delta S=0$ leads to vanishing of the trace of the stress tensor.

###  5.2 Avoiding the Diff Anomaly

We saw briefly in Sec. 2 that our discussions of the Weyl anomaly can be
complicated by the presence of a diffeomorphism anomaly in 2d CFTs which is
reflected in the difference between the central terms $c-\bar{c}$. This is
reflective of a violation of parity in the 2d theory. In our discussions of 2d
BMSFTs, we wish to also avoid the diffeomorphism anomaly in our present
considerations. In these 2d BMSFTs, there is no a priori notion of left and
right movers and hence perhaps it is somewhat unclear what one needs to do to
avoid the gravitational anomaly. Here we give an explanation of this from the
point of the proposed bulk dual, as well as some purely field theoretic
arguments.

2d BMSFTs are putative duals to gravitational theories in 3d asymptotically
flat spacetimes. When one considers 3d Einstein gravity, the central charges
of the dual BMSFT are given by:

$c_{L}=0,\quad c_{M}=\frac{3}{G}.$ (66)

We note here that Einstein gravity is a parity invariant theory. In order to
get a theory with a non-zero $c_{L}$, one needs to add a gravitational Chern-
Simons (GCS) term to the Einstein-Hilbert action. The resulting theory, called
Topologically Massive Gravity Deser:1982vy , thus has an action

$\displaystyle S_{\text{TMG}}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
S_{\text{EH}}+S_{\text{GCS}}+S_{\text{bdy}}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int
d^{3}x\sqrt{-g}\left\\{\mathcal{R}+\frac{1}{2\mu}\varepsilon^{\lambda\mu\nu}\Gamma^{\rho}_{\,\lambda\sigma}\left(\partial_{\mu}\Gamma^{\sigma}_{\,\rho\nu}+\frac{2}{3}\Gamma^{\sigma}_{\,\mu\tau}\Gamma^{\tau}_{\,\nu\rho}\right)\right\\}+S_{\text{bdy}}$

where $S_{\text{bdy}}$ is a boundary term put in to make the variational
problem well defined Bagchi:2013lma ; Detournay:2014fva . An asymptotic
symmetry analysis of its boundary following with appropriate asymptotically
flat boundary conditions Bagchi:2012yk  yields that the ASG is again given by
the BMS3, where now both central terms are switched on and are

$c_{L}=\frac{3}{\mu G},\quad c_{M}=\frac{3}{G}.$ (68)

The GCS term clearly violates parity and induces a handedness in the theory.
Hence in terms of the dual BMSFT, the violation of parity is encoded in
switching on a non-zero $c_{L}$. This is also clear from our discussions of
the ultra-relativistic limit, where

$c_{L}=c-\bar{c},\quad c_{M}=\epsilon(c+\bar{c}).$ (69)

Finally, just from the point of view of the boundary theory, without evoking a
dual bulk or the existence of a limit, there is a clear hint of this
condition. Let us envision a situation where

$c_{L}=24k,\quad c_{M}=0$ (70)

where $k$ some constant. By an analysis of null vectors, it can be shown
Bagchi:2009pe ; Bagchi:2012yk  that in this case, the BMS3 algebra reduces to
a single copy of a Virasoro algebra. This is also known as the chiral limit of
BMS3 in literature, and clearly this is a limit where the resulting field
theory is purely chiral. This limit, from the point of view of the dual bulk,
is where one takes the double scaling limit

$G\to\infty,\mu\to 0,\quad\text{keeping fixed}\,\,\mu G=\frac{1}{8k}.$ (71)

The gravitational theory then reduces to just the GCS term and this is what is
called Chern-Simons gravity. The conjecture of CS gravity with asymptotically
flat boundary conditions being dual a chiral half of a 2d CFT is known as the
Flatspace Chiral Gravity conjecture Bagchi:2012yk . For some further work on
this, the reader is referred to Bagchi:2013hja ; Grumiller:2015xaa ;
Bagchi:2018ryy .

The upshot of all this discussion is the fact that $c_{L}\neq 0$ theories are
naturally parity violating and would lead to diffeomorphism anomalies in the
2d BMSFTs. This is a complication that we will look to avoid in the current
paper and will come back to in future work.

###  5.3 BMS Trace Anomaly

For relativistic 2d CFTs coupled to non-trivial background, the trace of the
stress tensor, which vanishes classically, suffers from a quantum anomaly.
This trace anomaly arises because the underlying Virasoro symmetry algebra
admits a central extension. We are now interested in quantum field theories
that are BMS invariant. The BMS3 algebra (3), like the Virasoro, is centrally
extended. The expectation is that these central extensions in BMS3 algebra
would lead to a trace anomaly in 2d BMSFTs. In what follows, we will obtain
expression for this BMS trace or Weyl anomaly .

As we saw in Sec. 2, in relativistic CFTs, the trace anomaly can be computed
by considering an infinitesimal Weyl transformation of the flat background,
_i.e._ $\delta g_{\mu\nu}=2\Omega\delta_{\mu\nu}$ and expanding the trace of
the stress tensor in powers of $\Omega$. We now proceed to obtain the trace
anomaly in 2d BMSFTs by doing an analogous computation. To do so, we consider
a 2d BMSFT on a flat Carrollian background described by zweibeins

$e^{a}_{\mu}=\delta^{a}_{\mu}\quad\text{and}\,e^{\mu}_{a}=\delta^{\mu}_{a},$

where $a=1,2$ and $\mu=\tau,\sigma$ are tangent space and spacetime indices
respectively. (See appendix B for more details on Carrollian geometry.)
Consider that we are performing an infinitesimal Weyl transformation of the
flat Carrollian background:

$e^{a}_{\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)=e^{\Omega(\tau,\sigma)}\delta^{a}_{\alpha}\implies\delta
e^{a}_{\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)=\Omega(\tau,\sigma)\delta^{a}_{\alpha}$

for $\Omega(\tau,\sigma)$ small. Then in the quantum theory on a background
described by $e^{a}_{\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)$, the expectation value of the trace
of the stress tensor can be expanded in powers of $\Omega$ as

$\langle T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{e}=\langle T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{\delta}+\delta\langle T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{\delta}+\mathcal{O}(\Omega^{2}),$ (72)

where $\delta\langle T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}(\sigma)\rangle_{\delta}\sim\mathcal{O}(\Omega)$ and the subscript $e$
denotes that the quantity is evaluated in the theory on a background described
by $e^{a}_{\alpha}$. Translational invariance implies that $\langle
T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{\delta}=0$ for a flat Carrollian
background. The expansion of the trace becomes

$\langle T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{e}=\delta\langle
T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{\delta}+\mathcal{O}(\Omega^{2}).$
(73)

Using the definition of the expectation value

$\langle T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{e}=\frac{1}{Z}\int\mathcal{D}\phi
e^{-S[\phi,e^{a}_{\alpha}]}T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}(\tau,\sigma)$

and (65), we can compute the variation $\delta\langle T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{\delta}$ under an infinitesimal Weyl
transformation $\delta
e^{a}_{\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)=\Omega(\tau,\sigma)\delta^{a}_{\alpha}$ as

$\displaystyle\delta\langle T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{\delta}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{Z}\int\mathcal{D}\phi
e^{-S[\phi,\delta^{a}_{\alpha}]}(-\delta S)T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}(\tau,\sigma)$
(74) $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\frac{1}{Z}\int\mathcal{D}\phi
e^{-S[\phi,\delta^{a}_{\alpha}]}T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}(\tau,\sigma)\int
d^{2}\sigma^{\prime}\,(-2)e(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})\,e^{a}_{\beta}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})T^{\beta}_{\
\rho}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})\delta
e^{\rho}_{a}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{Z}\int\mathcal{D}\phi
e^{-S[\phi,\delta^{a}_{\alpha}]}\int d^{2}\sigma^{\prime}2\,T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)T^{\beta}_{\
\beta}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})\Omega(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime}),$

where we have used $e=1$ for
$e^{a}_{\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)=\delta^{a}_{\alpha}$.

We know that the trace of the stress tensor vanishes classically. However in
quantum theory, the $T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}T^{\prime\beta}_{\ \beta}$ OPE is
non-vanishing and leads to contact terms which contribute to the anomaly, as
can be seen from (74). Following a computation as in relativistic CFTs, we now
obtain the $T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}T^{\prime\beta}_{\ \beta}$ OPE using the OPEs
of the stress tensor components and the stress tensor conservation. The
$\beta=\tau,\sigma$ components of the stress tensor conservation equation
$\partial_{\alpha}T^{\alpha}_{\ \beta}=0$ are

$\displaystyle\partial_{\tau}T^{\tau}_{\ \tau}+\partial_{\sigma}T^{\sigma}_{\
\tau}=0,\,\partial_{\tau}T^{\tau}_{\ \sigma}+\partial_{\sigma}T^{\sigma}_{\
\sigma}=0.$ (75)

From sec. 3, we have $T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}=T^{\tau}_{\ \tau}+T^{\sigma}_{\
\sigma}=0$ classically and $T^{(cl)}_{1}=T^{\tau}_{\ \sigma}$,
$T^{(cl)}_{2}=T^{\tau}_{\ \tau}=-T^{\sigma}_{\ \sigma}$. However, in the
quantum theory, anticipating a non-vanishing $T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}$, we
define

$T^{\tau}_{\ \sigma}=T_{1},\qquad T^{\tau}_{\ \tau}=T_{2}+\frac{T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}}{2},\qquad T^{\sigma}_{\ \sigma}=-T_{2}+\frac{T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}}{2}.$ (76)

Then the second conservation equation (75) can be written as

$\partial_{\tau}T_{1}-\partial_{\sigma}T_{2}+\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\sigma}T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}=0,$ (77)

which leads to a differential equation for $T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)T^{\beta}_{\ \beta}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})$ as

$\displaystyle\partial_{\sigma}\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}T^{\prime\beta}_{\
\beta}=4\big{(}\partial_{\sigma}\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}T_{2}T_{2}^{\prime}-\partial_{\sigma}\partial_{\tau^{\prime}}T_{2}T_{1}^{\prime}-\partial_{\tau}\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}T_{1}T_{2}^{\prime}+\partial_{\tau}\partial_{\tau^{\prime}}T_{1}T_{1}^{\prime}\big{)}.$
(78)

Here we have used the shorthand $T_{1}\equiv T_{1}(\tau,\sigma)$,
$T^{\prime}_{1}\equiv T_{1}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})$ and so on. The
analysis leading to the differential equation (78) for the $T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}T^{\prime\beta}_{\ \beta}$ OPE is generic for a BMS3 invariant field
theory on any flat Carrollian background. In subsequent sections, we focus on
two particular flat Carrollian backgrounds : a degenerate plane and a
degenerate cylinder.

###  5.4 Anomaly for null plane

We begin on the null plane, where the null time coordinate is given by $t$ and
the unwrapped spatial coordinate by $x$. The BMS generators are given by (26).
The relevant delta-function identity and the EM-tensor OPEs we would be using
are given by (41) and (4.1) respectively. We will be turning off $c_{L}$ in
order to avoid complications arising out of diffeomorphism anomalies and the
possible non-conservation of the stress tensor, as discussed earlier. Armed
with this information, we now write the differential equation (78) for the
$T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}T^{\prime\beta}_{\ \beta}$ OPE in $(t,x)$ coordinates:

$\displaystyle\partial_{x}\partial_{x^{\prime}}T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}(t,x)T^{\beta}_{\ \beta}(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle
4\big{(}\partial_{t}\partial_{t^{\prime}}T_{1}(t,x)T_{1}(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})-\partial_{t}\partial_{x^{\prime}}T_{1}(t,x)T_{2}(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})$
(79)
$\displaystyle-\partial_{x}\partial_{t^{\prime}}T_{1}(t,x)T_{2}(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})+\partial_{x}\partial_{x^{\prime}}T_{2}(t,x)T_{2}(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})\big{)}.$

Substituting the central terms in the OPEs (4.1) in (79) and simplifying, we
get

$\displaystyle\partial_{x}\partial_{x^{\prime}}T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}(t,x)T^{\beta}_{\
\beta}(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})=\frac{c_{M}}{3}(\partial_{t}\partial^{2}_{x}+\partial_{x}\partial_{t^{\prime}}\partial_{x}-\partial_{t}\partial^{2}_{x})\partial^{2}_{x^{\prime}}\Big{(}\frac{1}{x-x^{\prime}}\Big{)}$
(80)

Using the delta function (41) and $\partial_{x}G=(x-x^{\prime})^{-1}$,
$\partial_{x^{\prime}}G=-(x-x^{\prime})^{-1}$, this gives

$T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}(t,x)T^{\beta}_{\
\beta}(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})=-\frac{2\pi
c_{M}}{3}\partial_{x}\partial_{x^{\prime}}\delta^{(2)}(\Delta t,\Delta x),$
(81)

where $\Delta t=t-t^{\prime}$ and $\Delta x=x-x^{\prime}$. Under an
infinitesimal Weyl transformation of the null plane $\delta
e^{a}_{\alpha}=\Omega\delta^{a}_{\alpha}$, we have from (74)

$\delta\langle T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}(t,x)\rangle_{\delta}=\int
dt^{\prime}dx^{\prime}2\,T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}(t,x)T^{\beta}_{\
\beta}(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})\Omega(t^{\prime},x^{\prime}).$ (82)

Substituting the $T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}(t,x)T^{\beta}_{\
\beta}(t^{\prime},x^{\prime})$ OPE (81) and simplifying, we get

$\delta\langle T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}(t,x)\rangle_{\delta}=\frac{4\pi}{3}c_{M}\partial^{2}_{x}\Omega.$ (83)

Further using (73), we get the trace anomaly in a 2d BMSFT on a slightly
curved Carroll background described by
$e^{a}_{\alpha}(t,x)=e^{\Omega(t,x)}\delta^{a}_{\alpha}$, with $\Omega(t,x)$
small, as

$\langle T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}\rangle_{e}=\frac{4\pi}{3}c_{M}\partial^{2}_{x}\Omega+(\text{higher
order in}\ \Omega).$ (84)

###  5.5 Anomaly for null cylinder

On the cylinder, we use the delta function identity (60) and the form of the
TT OPE (61). Now to solve the differential equation (78), we substitute the
central terms in the OPEs (61) in (78) to get

$\displaystyle\partial_{\sigma}\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}T^{\prime\beta}_{\
\beta}=2c_{M}\left[\partial_{\tau}\partial_{\tau^{\prime}}\Big{(}\frac{-2\Delta\tau
c_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}}{s_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}^{4}}+\frac{\Delta\tau
c_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}}{6s_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}^{2}}\Big{)}-\partial_{\sigma}\partial_{\tau^{\prime}}\Big{(}\frac{1}{s_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}^{4}}-\frac{1}{6s_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}^{2}}\Big{)}-\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}\partial_{\tau}\Big{(}\frac{1}{s_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}^{4}}-\frac{1}{6s_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}^{2}}\Big{)}\right].$

where $s_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}\equiv
2\sin(\frac{\sigma-\sigma^{\prime}}{2})$,
$c_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}\equiv\cot(\frac{\sigma-\sigma^{\prime}}{2})$,
$\Delta\tau=\tau-\tau^{\prime}$. Simplifying further using the Green’s
function in (60), we get

$\displaystyle\partial_{\sigma}\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)T^{\beta}_{\
\beta}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})=\frac{c_{M}}{3}\left(-\partial_{\tau}\partial^{4}_{\sigma}\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}G+\partial_{\tau^{\prime}}\partial^{3}_{\sigma}\partial^{2}_{\sigma^{\prime}}G-\partial_{\tau}\partial^{3}_{\sigma}\partial^{2}_{\sigma^{\prime}}G\right),$
(85)

which upon using the delta function (60) gives the $T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)T^{\beta}_{\ \beta}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})$ OPE

$\displaystyle T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}(\tau,\sigma)T^{\beta}_{\
\beta}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})=-\frac{2\pi}{3}c_{M}\partial_{\sigma}\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}\delta^{(2)}(\tau-\tau^{\prime},\sigma-\sigma^{\prime}).$
(86)

Substituting this OPE in the variation of the trace (74) under an
infinitesimal BMS-Weyl transformation of the cylinder $\delta
e^{a}_{\alpha}=\Omega\delta^{a}_{\alpha}$, we get

$\displaystyle\delta\langle T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{\delta}=-\frac{4\pi}{3}\int
d^{2}\sigma^{\prime}\big{[}c_{M}\partial_{\sigma}\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}\delta^{(2)}(\tau-\tau^{\prime},\sigma-\sigma^{\prime})\big{]}\Omega(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})=\frac{4\pi}{3}c_{M}\partial^{2}_{\sigma}\Omega(\tau,\sigma).$
(87)

Using $\langle T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{\delta}=0$, and the
expression for $\delta\langle T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{\delta}$ above in (73), we get the trace anomaly
in a 2d BMSFT on a slightly curved background described by
$e^{a}_{\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)=e^{\Omega(\tau,\sigma)}\delta^{a}_{\alpha}$, to
first order in $\Omega$:

${\boxed{\langle T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{e}=\frac{4\pi}{3}c_{M}\partial^{2}_{\sigma}\Omega(\tau,\sigma).}}$
(88)

This expression for the anomaly on the null cylinder (88) is the same as on
the null plane. Our main result of this paper is the above expression for the
BMS Weyl anomaly.

###  5.6 Transformation of the partition function

Now we turn to the transformation of partition functions under Weyl
transformation. We first revisit the case for usual 2d CFTs, where the
Liouville action arises as a response of Weyl variations to matter conformal
theories. We then go on to considering 2d BMSFTs, where we will end up with a
Carrollian version of Liouville theory, which is interestingly distinct from
the BMS-Liouville theories that have been studied in the literature
Barnich:2012rz ; Barnich:2013yka .

### Liouville theory arising from 2d CFT partition function

Consider two metrics related to each other by

$\bar{g}_{\alpha\beta}=e^{2\Omega(x)}\delta_{\alpha\beta}.$ (89)

We choose to work with a flat Euclidean background and perturbations around
it. Variation of the metric with respect to the Weyl factor changes the
partition function $Z[\bar{g},\Phi]$ as

$\displaystyle\frac{1}{Z}\frac{\partial Z}{\partial\Omega}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{Z}\int\mathcal{D}\Phi e^{-S}\Big{[}-\frac{\partial
S}{\partial\bar{g}_{\alpha\beta}}\frac{\partial\bar{g}_{\alpha\beta}}{\partial\Omega}\Big{]}=\frac{1}{Z}\int\mathcal{D}\Phi
e^{-S}\big{[}-\sqrt{\bar{g}}T^{\alpha}_{\ \alpha}\big{]}.$ (90)

Now if we use the expression for trace anomaly given by equation (6), then

$\displaystyle\frac{1}{Z}\frac{\partial Z}{\partial\Omega}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\sqrt{\bar{g}}\Big{(}\frac{c}{6\pi}\bar{\mathcal{R}}-\mu\Big{)}=-\frac{c}{6\pi}\sqrt{g}\Big{(}2\nabla^{2}\Omega+\mu
e^{2\Omega}\Big{)}.$ (91)

We can solve the above equation by integrating the partition function with
respect to the Weyl factor. This relates the partition functions on different
backgrounds which differ by the Weyl factor $\Omega(x)$. The solution is

$Z[\bar{g}]=Z[g]\exp\Big{[}-\int d^{2}\sigma\sqrt{g}\Big{(}\mu
e^{2\Omega}-\frac{c}{6\pi}g^{\alpha\beta}\partial_{\alpha}\Omega\partial_{\beta}\Omega\Big{)}\Big{]}.$
(92)

The action inside the exponential governs the dynamics for the Weyl factor.
With some redefinitions of the parameters we can write the above as

$Z[\bar{g}]=Z[g]\exp S_{L},$ (93)

where the Liouville action $S_{L}$ is given by

$\mathcal{S}_{L}(\Omega,g)=\int
d^{2}\sigma\sqrt{g}\,\Big{\\{}\frac{c}{6\pi}g^{\alpha\beta}\partial_{\alpha}\Omega\partial_{\beta}\Omega-\Lambda
e^{2\Omega}\Big{\\}}.$ (94)

Here the second term in the action is the Liouville potential.

### Carrollian Liouville theory

We now study the transformation of the BMSFT partition function under a Weyl
transformation. Let $Z[e]$ be the partition function for a 2d BMSFT, with an
action $S[\phi,e^{a}_{\alpha}]$, on a Carrollian background described by
$e^{a}_{\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)$. Then under an infinitesimal BMS-Weyl
transformation $e^{\prime a}_{\alpha}=e^{\Omega}e^{a}_{\alpha}$; $\delta
e^{\prime a}_{\alpha}=\Omega e^{a}_{\alpha}$, the partition function changes
as

$\displaystyle\frac{1}{Z}\frac{\delta Z}{\delta\Omega}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{Z}\int\mathcal{D}\phi e^{-S[\phi,e^{\prime
a}_{\alpha}]}\Big{(}-\frac{\delta
S}{\delta\Omega}\Big{)}=\frac{1}{Z}\int\mathcal{D}\phi e^{-S[\phi,e^{\prime
a}_{\alpha}]}\Big{(}-\frac{\delta S}{\delta e^{\prime\alpha}_{a}}\frac{\delta
e^{\prime\alpha}_{a}}{\delta\Omega}\Big{)}$ (95) $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{Z}\int\mathcal{D}\phi e^{-S[\phi,e^{\prime
a}_{\alpha}]}\Big{(}2\,e^{\prime}\,T^{\prime\alpha}_{\ \
\alpha}\big{)}=2\,e^{\prime}\langle T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}\rangle_{e^{\prime}}.$

Choosing $e^{a}_{\alpha}=\delta^{a}_{\alpha}$, _i.e._ a cylinder gives
$e^{\prime}=e^{\Omega}$, and using the expression for the anomaly (88), we get

$\frac{\delta}{\delta\Omega}\log
Z=\frac{8\pi}{3}c_{M}\partial_{\sigma}^{2}\Omega.$ (96)

This change in $Z$ can be obtained by variation of a local action with respect
to $\Omega(\tau,\sigma)$ as

$\log Z[e^{\prime}]-\log Z[e]=\frac{8\pi}{3}c_{M}\int
d^{2}\sigma\,\partial_{\sigma}\Omega\partial_{\sigma}\Omega,$ (97)

which can also be written as

$Z[e^{\prime}]=Z[e]e^{S_{cL}}\ ;\qquad S_{cL}=\frac{8\pi}{3}c_{M}\int
d^{2}\sigma\,\partial_{\sigma}\Omega\partial_{\sigma}\Omega.$ (98)

The action $S_{L}$ is the Carrollian analogue of the Liouville action (94)
which arises in relativistic CFTs. It can be shown that this action is
invariant under BMS3 transformations inprogress . Like in the usual 2d CFT
case, where the potential term appears due to renormalisation, one can
envision that a similar term may arise in this context as well. In this case,
the action would take the form

$\hat{S}_{cL}=\int
d^{2}\sigma\big{(}c_{M}\partial_{\sigma}\Omega\partial_{\sigma}\Omega-\mu
e^{2\Omega}\big{)}.$ (99)

It is interesting to note that the action here is different from the ones
obtained by the flat limit of the Liouville CFT. Liouville theory has been
used in the boundary dynamics of AdS3 at the classical level Barnich:2012rz ;
Barnich:2013yka . The flat versions have been used to provide a similar
holographic description of 3d flat spacetime. It would be of interest to
figure out what this new version leads to in terms of flat holography.

##  6 Conclusions

### Summary

In this paper, we have provided a first derivation for a quantum anomaly in a
BMS invariant field theory. Specifically, we have found the form of the Weyl
anomaly or equivalently the trace anomaly in 2d BMSFTs. For this we needed the
form of the OPEs of the stress tensors defined in these field theories and
importantly a delta-function identity for the Carrollian manifolds on which
these theories are defined. We proposed such an identity for the BMSFTs
defined on a null plane and showed that the identity correctly reproduced the
stress energy correlation functions. While working on the null cylinder, we
used an identity proposed earlier in Bagchi:2015wna , which had also produced
$n$-point correlation functions of the BMS EM tensors, which were also checked
by a limit from relativistic answers as well as matched with a holographic
computation in 3d flat space using the Chern-Simons formulation. Our
calculations on the null cylinder yielded more general results, for e.g. the
Ward identities, as unlike in Bagchi:2015wna , we chose to work with non-
vanishing $c_{L}$. For purposes of computing the Weyl anomaly, without
contamination from potential diffeomorphism anomalies, we then worked with
$c_{L}=0$. The final expression for the BMS Weyl anomaly for both the plane
and the cylinder for small perturbations away from a flat Carrollian manifold
gives:

$\langle T^{\alpha}_{\
\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{e}=\frac{4\pi}{3}c_{M}\partial^{2}_{\sigma}\Omega(\tau,\sigma).$
(100)

Finally, we looked at the change in the BMS partition functions under Weyl
transformations and found a Carrollian version of the Liouville action (98).
This was different from the ones found earlier in e.g. Barnich:2012rz .

Our analysis would be of use not only for studies of Minkowskian holography,
through these 2d BMSFTs, but to non-relativistic systems due to the duality
between Galilean and Carrollian systems in $d=2$, and also to the study of
tensionless strings.

### Discussions

There are several directions of research that require immediate attention.
First and foremost, it would be important to understand geometrically what the
form of the BMS-Weyl anomaly is and whether it can be given a form similar to
(the second equality of) (21). Our present investigations indicate that one
can indeed give an answer analogous to (21) in terms of the geometric data of
the Carrollian manifold. This will be presented in upcoming work.

Our principle follow-up work would be to generalise our construction to
theories with $c_{L}\neq 0$. As described in the paper, these theories would
be parity violating and would have a diffeomorphism anomaly, which in turn
would lead to a non-conservation of our EM tensor. In relativistic theories,
this anomaly can be traded for a Lorentz anomaly making the EM tensor
asymmetric. In our non-Lorentzian boundary theory, the EM tensor is already
asymmetric, so perhaps the natural avenue to take is to ensure the
conservation of the EM tensor and figure out where this leads and whether the
resulting “improved” stress tensor has something akin to Lorentz anomaly,
perhaps a Carroll anomaly. We wish to also investigate consistent (as in
consistent with Wess-Zumino conditions) and covariant versions of the Weyl
anomaly to figure out potential changes in our formulae.

It would also be good to re-derive our results in other methods, e.g. using
the Fujikawa procedure of path integrals. These methods would all need to be
re-examined however as we have an underlying degenerate metric structure and a
non-Riemmannian manifold where these field theories live. We are also
interested in a holographic check of our anomaly using methods similar to
Henningson:1998gx , now for 3d asymptotically flat spacetimes. Some of the
above are works in progress.

Our version of the Carrollian Liouville action throws up very interesting
avenues of further research. The difference with the limiting analysis of
Barnich:2012rz  is intriguing. It would mean that there is potentially another
limit that yields the Carrollian Liouville action. (We try and distinguish it
from the earlier work in the literature by calling this Carrollian Liouville
as opposed to BMS Liouville.) It would be instructive to construct this limit
explicitly in the relativistic Liouville theory and understand what it means.
It would also be very interesting to figure out how one can modify the
analysis of Barnich:2013yka  to get the Carrollian Liouville theory starting
out from a Chern-Simons formulation of 3d asymptotically flat gravity, then
going over to a WZW model and then doing a Hamiltonian reduction.

Finally, it would be of interest to see how our results would fit in with non-
relativistic anomalies. The algebra and the underlying field theory stays the
same. Hence the answers, obtained from an intrinsic analysis, like we have in
this paper, are supposed to hold, upto identifications of the space and time
directions. But clearly there is something very interesting and mysterious
happening here. The identification of central charges are flipped in the NR
limit:

$c_{L}=c+\bar{c},\quad c_{M}=\epsilon(c-\bar{c}).$ (101)

It seems that requiring no diffeomorphism anomaly would lead to $c_{M}=0$, but
as stated earlier, this reduces the symmetries to a single copy of Virasoro
algebra and the theory to a chiral half of a 2d CFT. This is clearly chiral
and hence should be associated with a gravitational anomaly. It is hence far
from clear what a gravitational anomaly means in the NR limit, and
consequently what the correct form of the Weyl anomaly should be. We wish to
investigate this in the near future with the hope of clarifying the above and
other related confusions.

## Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank Shamik Banerjee, Rudranil Basu, Daniel Grumiller,
Jelle Hartong, and Marika Taylor for several illuminating discussions and
comments on a draft of the paper.

AB’s research is supported by a Swarnajayanti fellowship of the Department of
Science and Technology and the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB),
India. AB is further supported by the following grants from SERB:
EMR/2016/008037, ERC/2017/000873, MTR/2017/000740; as well as an international
exchange grant (with the University of Southampton) from the Royal Society of
London.

## APPENDICES

##  Appendix A Ward identities and correlators in BMSFTs: Details

###  A.1 BMSFT on null plane

Here we provide some details of the computation of the Ward identity (56) on
the null plane. The time derivative of $\langle T_{1}\rangle_{\mu}$ in the
$\mu$-deformed theory is

$\partial_{t}\langle T_{1}\rangle_{\mu}=\Big{\langle}\int
dt^{\prime}dx^{\prime}\Big{(}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\partial_{t}(T_{1}T^{\prime}_{1})+\mu^{\prime}_{M}\partial_{t}(T_{1}T^{\prime}_{2})\Big{)}+\partial_{t}T_{1}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu}.$
(102)

Using the OPEs (4.1), this simplifies to

$\displaystyle\partial_{t}\langle T_{1}\rangle_{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\Big{\langle}\int
dt^{\prime}dx^{\prime}\Big{(}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\partial_{t}\Big{[}\frac{c_{L}}{2(\Delta
x)^{4}}-\frac{2c_{M}(\Delta t)}{(\Delta x)^{5}}+\frac{2T^{\prime}_{1}}{(\Delta
x)^{2}}-\frac{4T^{\prime}_{2}(\Delta t)}{(\Delta
x)^{3}}+\frac{\partial_{x^{\prime}}T^{\prime}_{1}}{(\Delta
x)}-\frac{\partial_{t^{\prime}}T^{\prime}_{1}(\Delta t)}{(\Delta
x)^{2}}\Big{]}$ (103)
$\displaystyle\qquad+\mu^{\prime}_{M}\partial_{t}\Big{[}\frac{c_{M}}{2(\Delta
x)^{4}}+\frac{2T^{\prime}_{2}}{(\Delta
x)^{2}}+\frac{\partial_{x^{\prime}}T^{\prime}_{2}}{(\Delta
x)}\Big{]}\Big{)}+\partial_{t}T_{1}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu}\ ,$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\Big{\langle}\int
dt^{\prime}dx^{\prime}\Big{(}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\Big{[}\frac{c_{L}}{12}\partial^{2}_{x}\partial_{x}^{\prime}\partial_{t}\Big{(}\frac{1}{\Delta
x}\Big{)}-2T^{\prime}_{1}\partial_{x}\partial_{t}\Big{(}\frac{1}{\Delta
x}\Big{)}+\partial_{x}^{\prime}T^{\prime}_{1}\partial_{t}\Big{(}\frac{1}{\Delta
x}\Big{)}\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle\qquad+\mu^{\prime}_{M}\Big{[}\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{2}_{x}\partial_{x}^{\prime}\partial_{t}\Big{(}\frac{1}{\Delta
x}\Big{)}-2T^{\prime}_{2}\partial_{x}\partial_{t}\Big{(}\frac{1}{\Delta
x}\Big{)}+\partial_{x}^{\prime}T^{\prime}_{2}\partial_{t}\Big{(}\frac{1}{\Delta
x}\Big{)}\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle\qquad+\mu^{\prime}_{L}\Big{[}-\frac{2c_{M}}{\Delta
x^{5}}-\frac{4T^{\prime}_{2}}{\Delta
x^{3}}-\frac{\partial_{t}^{\prime}T^{\prime}_{1}}{\Delta
x^{2}}\Big{]}+\partial_{t}T_{1}$ $\displaystyle\qquad+\Delta
t\mu^{\prime}_{L}\Big{[}-2c_{M}\partial_{t}\Big{(}\frac{1}{\Delta
x^{5}}\Big{)}-4T^{\prime}_{2}\partial_{t}\Big{(}\frac{1}{\Delta
x^{3}}\Big{)}-\partial_{t}^{\prime}T^{\prime}_{1}\partial_{t}\Big{(}\frac{1}{\Delta
x}\Big{)}\Big{]}\Big{)}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu}.$

Using the delta function (41), we see that each term in the $4th$ line above
is proportional to $\int dt^{\prime}dx^{\prime}\Delta t\delta^{(2)}(\Delta
t,\Delta x)\sim 0$. We can write the $3rd$ line above in terms of
$\mathcal{M}$ as

$\displaystyle\partial_{x}\mathcal{M}=\partial_{x}\langle T_{2}\rangle_{\mu}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\Big{\langle}\int
dt^{\prime}dx^{\prime}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\partial_{x}(T_{2}T^{\prime}1)+\partial_{x}T_{2}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu}$
(104) $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\Big{\langle}\int
dt^{\prime}dx^{\prime}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\Big{[}-\frac{2c_{M}}{\Delta
x^{5}}-\frac{4T^{\prime}_{2}}{\Delta
x^{3}}-\frac{\partial_{t}^{\prime}T^{\prime}_{1}}{\Delta
x^{2}}\Big{]}+\partial_{x}T_{2}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu}.$

Substituting this expression for $\partial_{x}\mathcal{M}$ and using the
conservation equation $\partial_{t}T_{1}=\partial_{x}T_{2}$, (103) simplifies
to

$\frac{1}{2\pi}(\partial_{t}\langle
T_{1}\rangle_{\mu}-\partial_{x}\mathcal{M})=\Big{\langle}-\frac{c_{L}}{12}\partial^{3}_{x}\mu_{L}-2\partial_{x}(\mu_{L}T_{1})+\mu_{L}\partial_{x}T_{1}-\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{3}_{x}\mu_{M}-2\partial_{x}(\mu_{M}T_{2})+\mu_{M}\partial_{x}T_{2}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu},$
(105)

which upon using $\mathcal{N}=\langle T_{1}\rangle_{\mu}$ and
$\mathcal{M}=\langle T_{2}\rangle_{\mu}$ is written as (57).

###  A.2 BMSFT on null cylinder

The derivation of correlators of the stress tensor components from Ward
identities using the delta function (60) was given in Bagchi:2015wna  for 2d
BMSFTs on cylinder with $c_{L}=0$. Here we generalize the analysis for
$c_{L}\neq 0$. Since the details of this analysis are same as in 4, we present
only key steps and results here.

We consider a deformation to a free 2d BMSFT on a null cylinder, described by
an action $S_{0}$, by localized sources for the stress tensor components :

$\displaystyle S_{\mu}=S_{0}-\int d\tau
d\sigma(\mu_{L}(\tau,\sigma)T_{1}(\tau,\sigma)+\mu_{M}(\tau,\sigma)T_{2}(\tau,\sigma));$
(106)
$\displaystyle\mu_{L}(\tau,\sigma)=\epsilon_{L}\delta^{(2)}(\tau-\tau^{\prime},\sigma-\sigma^{\prime})\
,\qquad\mu_{M}(\tau,\sigma)=\epsilon_{M}\delta^{(2)}(\tau-\tau^{\prime},\sigma-\sigma^{\prime}).$
(107)

The expectation values of $T_{1}$, $T_{2}$ in the deformed theory are related
to the correlators of $T_{1}$, $T_{2}$ in the free theory as

$\displaystyle\langle T_{1}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{\mu}=\langle
T_{1}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{0}+\epsilon_{L}\langle
T_{1}(\tau,\sigma)T_{1}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})\rangle_{0}+\epsilon_{M}\langle
T_{1}(\tau,\sigma)T_{2}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})\rangle_{0}+O(\epsilon^{2}),$
(108) $\displaystyle\langle T_{2}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{\mu}=\langle
T_{2}(\tau,\sigma)\rangle_{0}+\epsilon_{L}\langle
T_{2}(\tau,\sigma)T_{1}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})\rangle_{0}+\epsilon_{M}\langle
T_{2}(\tau,\sigma)T_{2}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})\rangle_{0}+O(\epsilon^{2}).$
(109)

Defining $\mathcal{M}=\langle T_{2}\rangle_{\mu}$, $\mathcal{N}=\langle
T_{1}\rangle_{\mu}$ and expanding in $\epsilon_{L/M}$ as

$\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{M}^{(0)}+\mathcal{M}^{(1)}+\cdots,\qquad\mathcal{N}=\mathcal{N}^{(0)}+\mathcal{N}^{(1)}+\cdots,$
(110)

where $\mathcal{M}^{(n)}\sim O(\epsilon^{n})$ and so on, we get

$\displaystyle\mathcal{M}^{(0)}=\langle
T_{2}\rangle_{0},\qquad\mathcal{M}^{(1)}=\epsilon_{L}\langle
T_{2}T^{\prime}_{1}\rangle_{0}+\epsilon_{M}\langle
T_{2}T^{\prime}_{2}\rangle_{0},$ $\displaystyle\mathcal{N}^{(0)}=\langle
T_{1}\rangle_{0},\qquad\mathcal{N}^{(1)}=\epsilon_{L}\langle
T_{1}T^{\prime}_{1}\rangle_{0}+\epsilon_{M}\langle
T_{1}T^{\prime}_{2}\rangle_{0}.$ (111)

Here we have reverted to the shorthand $T_{1}=T_{1}(\tau,\sigma)$,
$T^{\prime}_{1}=T_{1}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})$, Now we take the time
derivative of $\langle T_{2}\rangle_{\mu}$, and use $\partial_{\tau}S_{0}=0$,
a conservation equation $\partial_{\tau}T_{2}=0$ and the OPEs (61) to get

$\displaystyle\partial_{\tau}\langle T_{2}\rangle_{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\Big{\langle}\int
d\tau^{\prime}d\sigma^{\prime}\Big{(}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\partial_{\tau}(T_{2}T^{\prime}_{1})+\mu^{\prime}_{M}\partial_{\tau}(T^{\prime}_{2}T_{2})\Big{)}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\Big{\langle}\int
d\tau^{\prime}d\sigma^{\prime}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\partial_{\tau}\Big{[}\frac{c_{M}}{2\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{4}}-\frac{c_{M}}{12\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{2}}+\frac{2T^{\prime}_{2}}{\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{2}}+\frac{\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}T^{\prime}_{2}}{2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}}\Big{]}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu},$

where $\Delta\sigma=\sigma-\sigma^{\prime}$ and
$\Delta\tau=\tau-\tau^{\prime}$. Using the delta function (60), we can write

$\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}\partial^{4}_{\sigma}G+\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}\partial^{2}_{\sigma}G=-\frac{3}{4}\frac{\cos\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}}{\big{(}\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{5}},\quad\partial_{\tau}\Big{(}\frac{1}{2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}}\Big{)}=\partial_{\tau}\Big{(}\partial_{\sigma}G+\frac{1}{2}\tan\frac{\Delta\sigma}{4}\Big{)}=\partial_{\tau}\partial_{\sigma}G,$
(113)

since $\tan\frac{\Delta\sigma}{4}$ is non-singular as $\Delta\sigma\rightarrow
0$. Using these expressions and the delta function (60),
$\partial_{\tau}\langle T_{2}\rangle_{\mu}$ simplifies to

$\displaystyle\partial_{\tau}\langle T_{2}\rangle_{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\Big{\langle}\int
d\tau^{\prime}d\sigma^{\prime}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\partial_{\tau}\Big{[}\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{2}_{\sigma}\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}(\partial_{\sigma}G)+2T^{\prime}_{2}\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}(\partial_{\sigma}G)+\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}T^{\prime}_{2}(\partial_{\sigma}G)\Big{]}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\Big{\langle}2\pi\int
d\tau^{\prime}d\sigma^{\prime}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\Big{[}\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{2}_{\sigma}\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}\delta^{(2)}+2T^{\prime}_{2}\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}\delta^{(2)}+\delta^{(2)}\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}T^{\prime}_{2}\Big{]}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\Big{\langle}2\pi\Big{(}-\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{3}_{\sigma}\mu_{L}-\partial_{\sigma}(2T_{2}\mu_{L})+\partial_{\sigma}T_{2}\mu_{L}\Big{)}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu},$
$\displaystyle\Rightarrow-\frac{1}{2\pi}\partial_{\tau}\mathcal{M}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{3}_{\sigma}\mu_{L}+2\mathcal{M}\partial_{\sigma}\mu_{L}+\mu_{L}\partial_{\sigma}\mathcal{M}.$
(114)

Similarly

$\partial_{\tau}\langle T_{1}\rangle_{\mu}=\Big{\langle}\int
d\tau^{\prime}d\sigma^{\prime}\big{(}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\partial_{\tau}(T_{1}T^{\prime}_{1})+\mu^{\prime}_{M}\partial_{\tau}(T_{1}T^{\prime}_{2})\big{)}+\partial_{\tau}T_{1}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu}.$
(115)

The $\mu_{M}$ term in (115) is same as the $\mu_{L}$ term in
$\partial_{\tau}\langle T_{2}\rangle_{\mu}$ above. Let us simplify the
$\mu_{L}$ term :

$\displaystyle\int
d\tau^{\prime}d\sigma^{\prime}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\partial_{\tau}\Big{[}\frac{c_{L}}{2(2\sin(\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}))^{4}}-\frac{c_{L}}{12(2\sin(\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}))^{2}}-\frac{2c_{M}(\Delta\tau)\cos(\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2})}{(2\sin(\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}))^{5}}+\frac{2c_{M}(\Delta\tau)\cos(\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2})}{12(2\sin(\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}))^{3}}$
$\displaystyle\qquad+\frac{2T_{1}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})}{(2\sin(\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}))^{2}}-\frac{4T_{2}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})\cos(\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2})}{(2\sin(\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}))^{3}}+\frac{\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}T_{1}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})}{2\sin(\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2})}-\frac{\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}T_{2}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})(\Delta\tau)}{(2\sin(\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}))^{2}}\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\int
d\tau^{\prime}d\sigma^{\prime}\Big{(}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\partial_{\tau}\Big{[}\frac{c_{L}}{12}\partial^{2}_{\sigma}\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}(\partial_{\sigma}G)+2T^{\prime}_{1}\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}(\partial_{\sigma}G)+\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}T^{\prime}_{1}(\partial_{\sigma}G)\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle\qquad+\mu^{\prime}_{L}\Big{[}2c_{M}\Big{(}-\frac{\cos\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}}{\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{5}}+\frac{\cos\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}}{12\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{3}}\Big{)}-\frac{4T^{\prime}_{2}\cos\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}}{\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{3}}-\frac{\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}T^{\prime}_{2}\cos\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}}{\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{2}}\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle\qquad+\Delta\tau\mu^{\prime}_{L}\partial_{\tau}\Big{[}2c_{M}\Big{(}-\frac{\cos\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}}{\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{5}}+\frac{\cos\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}}{12\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{3}}\Big{)}-\frac{4T^{\prime}_{2}\cos\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}}{\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{3}}-\frac{\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}T^{\prime}_{2}\cos\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}}{\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{2}}\Big{]}\Big{)}.$

The $3rd$ line in the above expression is proportional to $\int
d\tau^{\prime}d\sigma^{\prime}\Delta\tau\delta^{(2)}(\Delta\tau,\Delta\sigma)\sim
0$ and the $2nd$ line can be expressed in terms of $\mathcal{M}$ as

$\displaystyle\partial_{\sigma}\mathcal{M}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\Big{\langle}\int
d\tau^{\prime}d\sigma^{\prime}\big{(}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\partial_{\sigma}(T_{2}T^{\prime}_{1})+\mu^{\prime}_{M}\partial_{\sigma}(T_{2}T^{\prime}_{2})\big{)}+\partial_{\sigma}T_{2}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu}$
(117) $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\Big{\langle}\int
d\tau^{\prime}d\sigma^{\prime}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\partial_{\sigma}\Big{[}\frac{c_{M}}{2(2\sin(\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}))^{4}}-\frac{c_{M}}{12(2\sin(\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}))^{2}}+\frac{2T_{2}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})}{(2\sin(\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}))^{2}}$
$\displaystyle\qquad+\frac{(\partial_{\tau^{\prime}}T_{1}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime})+\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}T_{2}(\tau^{\prime},\sigma^{\prime}))}{4\sin(\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2})}\Big{]}+\partial_{\sigma}T_{2}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\Big{\langle}\int
d\tau^{\prime}d\sigma^{\prime}\mu^{\prime}_{L}\Big{[}2c_{M}\Big{(}-\frac{\cos\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}}{\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{5}}+\frac{\cos\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}}{12\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{3}}\Big{)}-\frac{4T^{\prime}_{2}\cos\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}}{\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{3}}$
$\displaystyle\qquad-\frac{\partial_{\sigma^{\prime}}T^{\prime}_{2}\cos\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}}{\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{2}}\Big{]}+\partial_{\sigma}T_{2}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu}\
.$

Then using these expressions, we get

$\displaystyle\partial_{\tau}\langle T_{1}\rangle_{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\Big{\langle}2\pi\Big{(}-\frac{c_{L}}{12}\partial^{3}_{\sigma}\mu_{L}-\partial_{\sigma}(2T_{1}\mu_{L})+\mu_{L}\partial_{\sigma}T_{1}$
$\displaystyle\qquad-\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{3}_{\sigma}\mu_{M}-2T_{2}\partial_{\sigma}\mu_{M}-\mu_{M}\partial_{\sigma}T_{2}\Big{)}\Big{\rangle}_{\mu}+\partial_{\sigma}\mathcal{M},$
$\displaystyle\emph{i.e.}\quad-\frac{1}{2\pi}(\partial_{\tau}\mathcal{N}-\partial_{\sigma}\mathcal{M})$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{c_{L}}{12}\partial^{3}_{\sigma}\mu_{L}+2\mathcal{N}\partial_{\sigma}\mu_{L}+\mu_{L}\partial_{\sigma}\mathcal{N}$
(118) $\displaystyle\
+\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{3}_{\sigma}\mu_{M}+2\mathcal{M}\partial_{\sigma}\mu_{M}+\mu_{M}\partial_{\sigma}\mathcal{M}.$

Now expanding the Ward identities (114),(118) using the expansion (110) and
the expression for the sources (107), we get :
$(i)$ conservation equations from the leading term

$\partial_{\tau}\mathcal{M}^{(0)}=0\
,\qquad\partial_{\tau}\mathcal{N}^{(0)}=\partial_{\sigma}\mathcal{M}^{(0)},$
(119)

and
$(ii)$ Ward identities for $\mathcal{M}^{(1)}$ and $\mathcal{N}^{(1)}$ from
$O(\epsilon)$ terms

$\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2\pi}\partial_{\tau}\mathcal{M}^{(1)}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon_{L}\Big{[}\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{3}_{\sigma}\delta^{(2)}+2\mathcal{M}^{(0)}\partial_{\sigma}\delta^{(2)}+\delta^{(2)}\partial_{\sigma}\mathcal{M}^{(0)}\Big{]},$
(120)
$\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2\pi}(\partial_{\tau}\mathcal{N}^{(1)}-\partial_{\sigma}\mathcal{M}^{(1)})$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon_{L}\Big{[}\frac{c_{L}}{12}\partial^{3}_{\sigma}\delta^{(2)}+2\mathcal{N}^{(0)}\partial_{\sigma}\delta^{(2)}+\delta^{(2)}\partial_{\sigma}\mathcal{N}^{(0)}\Big{]}$
(121)
$\displaystyle+\epsilon_{M}\Big{[}\frac{c_{M}}{12}\partial^{3}_{\sigma}\delta^{(2)}+2\mathcal{M}^{(0)}\partial_{\sigma}\delta^{(2)}+\delta^{(2)}\partial_{\sigma}\mathcal{M}^{(0)}\Big{]}.$

Using the values $\mathcal{M}^{(0)}=\frac{c_{M}}{24}$ and
$\mathcal{N}^{(0)}=\frac{c_{L}}{24}$ in a free BMS3 invariant field theory on
a cylinder and the delta function (60), we solve the above Ward identities to
get

$\mathcal{M}^{(1)}=\epsilon_{L}\frac{c_{M}}{2\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{4}},\quad\mathcal{N}^{(1)}=\epsilon_{L}\Big{(}\frac{c_{L}}{2\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{4}}-\frac{2c_{M}\Delta\tau\cos\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}}{\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{5}}\Big{)}+\epsilon_{M}\frac{c_{M}}{2\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{4}}.$
(122)

Comparing these with (111), we get the desired correlators as

$\langle
T_{1}T^{\prime}_{1}\rangle=\frac{c_{L}}{2\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{4}}-\frac{2c_{M}\Delta\tau\cos\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}}{\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{5}},\quad\langle
T_{1}T^{\prime}_{2}\rangle=\frac{c_{M}}{2\big{(}2\sin\frac{\Delta\sigma}{2}\big{)}^{4}},\quad\langle
T_{2}T^{\prime}_{2}\rangle=0.$ (123)

The above method can be generalised to obtain arbitrary $N$-point functions of
the BMS EM tensors. For $c_{L}=0$, the results were also verified
holographically by a computation in 3d asymptotically flat Einstein gravity.
In order to reproduce the results with a non-zero $c_{L}$, one would need to
look at a generalisation of the bulk calculation to theories of topologically
massive gravity where one can generate two non-zero central charges.

##  Appendix B Zweibein formulation

The zweibein formulation of Carrollian geometries is discussed in
Hartong:2015xda ; Hartong:2015usd ; Bergshoeff:2017btm . In the zweibein
formulation, a $(1+1)$ dimensional Carrollian geometry is described by the
zweibeins $e^{0}_{\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)$ and $e^{1}_{\alpha}(\tau,\sigma)$,
with their inverses $e^{\alpha}_{0}(\tau,\sigma)$ and
$e^{\alpha}_{1}(\tau,\sigma)$ defined through the relations

$e^{0}_{\alpha}e^{\alpha}_{0}=1,\quad e^{1}_{\alpha}e^{\alpha}_{1}=1,\quad
e^{0}_{\alpha}e^{\alpha}_{1}=0,\quad e^{1}_{\alpha}e^{\alpha}_{0}=0,\quad
e^{0}_{\alpha}e^{\beta}_{0}+e^{1}_{\alpha}e^{\beta}_{1}=\delta^{\beta}_{\alpha}.$
(124)

For our discussion, we collectively write $e^{0}_{\alpha}$ and
$e^{1}_{\alpha}$ as $e^{a}_{\alpha}$ and the inverses as $e^{\alpha}_{a}$, in
terms of which the above relations become

$e^{a}_{\alpha}e^{\alpha}_{b}=\delta^{a}_{b},\qquad
e^{a}_{\alpha}e^{\beta}_{a}=\delta^{\beta}_{\alpha}.$ (125)

Here $\alpha,\beta$ are spacetime indices denoting the coordinates
$(\tau,\sigma)$ and $a,b,\dots=0,1$ are tangent space indices. We introduce
antisymmetric symbols $\epsilon^{\alpha\beta}$ and $\epsilon^{ab}$ defined as
$\epsilon^{\tau\sigma}=1=-\epsilon_{\tau\sigma}$ and
$\epsilon^{01}=1=-\epsilon_{01}$, which satisfy
$\epsilon_{\alpha\rho}\epsilon^{\rho\beta}=\delta_{\alpha}^{\beta}$ and
$\epsilon_{ac}\epsilon^{cb}=\delta_{a}^{b}$. Using these antisymmetric
symbols, we can write the determinants $e=\det(e^{a}_{\alpha})$,
$\frac{1}{e}=\det(e^{\alpha}_{a})$ and inverse zweibeins as

$e=\epsilon^{\alpha\beta}e^{0}_{\alpha}e^{1}_{\beta}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ab}e^{a}_{\alpha}e^{b}_{\beta}\epsilon^{\beta\alpha},\qquad\frac{1}{e}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{ab}e^{\alpha}_{a}e^{\beta}_{b}\epsilon_{\beta\alpha},\qquad
e^{\alpha}_{a}=\frac{1}{e}\epsilon^{\alpha\beta}e^{b}_{\beta}\epsilon_{ba}.$
(126)

Under spacetime diffeomorphisms
$\xi^{\alpha}\rightarrow\xi^{\prime\alpha}(\xi)$, the zweibeins transform as

$e^{\prime\alpha}_{a}=\frac{\partial\xi^{\prime\alpha}}{\partial\xi^{\beta}}e^{\beta}_{a}.$
(127)

A flat Carrollian spacetime in $(1+1)$ dimensions, with a degenerate metric,
given by

$ds^{2}=g_{\alpha\beta}d\sigma^{\alpha}d\sigma^{\beta}=-0\cdot
d\tau^{2}+d\sigma^{2},\qquad\zeta=\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau},\qquad\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\beta\rho}=0,$
(128)

is described by zweibeins

$e^{a}_{\alpha}=\delta^{a}_{\alpha},\qquad
e^{\alpha}_{a}=\delta^{\alpha}_{a}.$ (129)

### Carroll-Weyl and BMS-Weyl transformations

In Ciambelli:2018wre ; Ciambelli:2018xat ; Ciambelli:2019lap  (see also
Gupta:2020dtl ), Carrollian geometry is described in the metric formulation.
In this formulation in Ciambelli:2019lap , Carroll-Weyl transformations are
defined such that the metric data describing the temporal part of the geometry
scales differently than the non-degenerate metric on the spatial hypersurface,
the difference in scaling being governed by a real number $z$. For
$z=\frac{2}{N}$, for integer $N$ the conformal isometries of the Carrollian
spacetime form the conformal Carroll algebra $\mathfrak{ccarr}_{N}(d+1)$ of
level $N$ Duval:2014uoa ; Duval:2014uva ; Duval:2014lpa . It was shown that
for $N=2$ ($z=1$), the conformal Carroll algebra $\mathfrak{ccarr}_{2}(d+1)$
is isomorphic to BMS algebra in $d+2$ dimensions _i.e._
$\mathfrak{ccarr}_{2}(d+1)\simeq\mathfrak{bms}_{(d+2)}$. In particular, for
our case of $d=1$, we have $\mathfrak{ccarr}_{2}(2)\simeq\mathfrak{bms}_{3}$.
Also for Carrollian spacetimes describing null hypersurfaces embedded in
pseudo-Riemannian spacetimes and for those obtained by the ultrarelativistic
limit, the Weyl transformation has $z=1$ Ciambelli:2018wre ; Ciambelli:2018xat
.

In the zweibein formulation, the Carroll-Weyl transformation defined in
Ciambelli:2019lap  for general $z$, can be written as

$e^{0}_{\mu}\rightarrow e^{z\Omega(\tau,\sigma)}e^{0}_{\mu},\quad
h_{\mu\nu}\rightarrow e^{2\Omega(\tau,\sigma)}h_{\mu\nu},$ (130)

where $h_{\mu\nu}=e^{1}_{\mu}e^{1}_{\nu}$. For $z=1$, this Carroll-Weyl
transformation gives the BMS-Weyl transformation (64).

## References

  * (1) J. A. Harvey, “TASI 2003 lectures on anomalies,” [arXiv:hep-th/0509097 [hep-th]].
  * (2) A. Bilal, “Lectures on Anomalies,” [arXiv:0802.0634 [hep-th]].
  * (3) I. Arav, S. Chapman and Y. Oz, “Lifshitz Scale Anomalies,” JHEP 02, 078 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)078 [arXiv:1410.5831 [hep-th]].
  * (4) K. Jensen, “Anomalies for Galilean fields,” SciPost Phys. 5 (2018) no.1, 005 doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.5.1.005 [arXiv:1412.7750 [hep-th]].
  * (5) R. Auzzi, S. Baiguera and G. Nardelli, “On Newton-Cartan trace anomalies,” JHEP 02, 003 (2016) [erratum: JHEP 02, 177 (2016)] doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2016)177 [arXiv:1511.08150 [hep-th]].
  * (6) I. Arav, S. Chapman and Y. Oz, “Non-Relativistic Scale Anomalies,” JHEP 06, 158 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2016)158 [arXiv:1601.06795 [hep-th]].
  * (7) S. Pal and B. Grinstein, “Weyl Consistency Conditions in Non-Relativistic Quantum Field Theory,” JHEP 12 (2016), 012 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2016)012 [arXiv:1605.02748 [hep-th]].
  * (8) R. Auzzi, S. Baiguera, F. Filippini and G. Nardelli, “On Newton-Cartan local renormalization group and anomalies,” JHEP 11, 163 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2016)163 [arXiv:1610.00123 [hep-th]].
  * (9) R. Auzzi, S. Baiguera and G. Nardelli, “Trace anomaly for non-relativistic fermions,” JHEP 08, 042 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2017)042 [arXiv:1705.02229 [hep-th]].
  * (10) K. Jensen, “Locality and anomalies in warped conformal field theory,” JHEP 12, 111 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2017)111 [arXiv:1710.11626 [hep-th]].
  * (11) J. M. Lévy-Leblond, “Une nouvelle limite non-relativiste du groupe de Poincaré,” Annales de I’ILHP Physique théorique, Volume 3, Issue 1 (1965).
  * (12) H. Bondi, M. G. J. van der Burg and A. W. K. Metzner, “Gravitational waves in general relativity. 7. Waves from axisymmetric isolated systems,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 269 (1962), 21-52 doi:10.1098/rspa.1962.0161
  * (13) R. Sachs, “Asymptotic symmetries in gravitational theory,” Phys. Rev. 128 (1962), 2851-2864 doi:10.1103/PhysRev.128.2851
  * (14) G. Barnich and G. Compere, “Classical central extension for asymptotic symmetries at null infinity in three spacetime dimensions,” Class. Quant. Grav. 24 (2007), F15-F23 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/24/5/F01 [arXiv:gr-qc/0610130 [gr-qc]].
  * (15) A. Strominger, “On BMS Invariance of Gravitational Scattering,” JHEP 07 (2014), 152 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)152 [arXiv:1312.2229 [hep-th]].
  * (16) A. Strominger, “Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory,” [arXiv:1703.05448 [hep-th]].
  * (17) C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons, P. A. Horvathy and P. M. Zhang, “Carroll versus Newton and Galilei: two dual non-Einsteinian concepts of time,” Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 085016 (2014) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/8/085016 [arXiv:1402.0657 [gr-qc]].
  * (18) C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons and P. A. Horvathy, “Conformal Carroll groups and BMS symmetry,” Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 092001 (2014) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/9/092001 [arXiv:1402.5894 [gr-qc]].
  * (19) C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons and P. A. Horvathy, “Conformal Carroll groups,” J. Phys. A 47, no.33, 335204 (2014) doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/33/335204 [arXiv:1403.4213 [hep-th]].
  * (20) A. Bagchi, “Correspondence between Asymptotically Flat Spacetimes and Nonrelativistic Conformal Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 171601 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.171601 [arXiv:1006.3354 [hep-th]].
  * (21) G. ’t Hooft, “Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity,” Conf. Proc. C 930308, 284-296 (1993) [arXiv:gr-qc/9310026 [gr-qc]].
  * (22) L. Susskind, “The World as a hologram,” J. Math. Phys. 36 (1995), 6377-6396 doi:10.1063/1.531249 [arXiv:hep-th/9409089 [hep-th]].
  * (23) J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998), 231-252 doi:10.1023/A:1026654312961 [arXiv:hep-th/9711200 [hep-th]].
  * (24) J. de Boer and S. N. Solodukhin, “A Holographic reduction of Minkowski space-time,” Nucl. Phys. B 665 (2003), 545-593 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(03)00494-2 [arXiv:hep-th/0303006 [hep-th]].
  * (25) G. Barnich and C. Troessaert, “Aspects of the BMS/CFT correspondence,” JHEP 05 (2010), 062 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2010)062 [arXiv:1001.1541 [hep-th]].
  * (26) G. Barnich and C. Troessaert, “Symmetries of asymptotically flat 4 dimensional spacetimes at null infinity revisited,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010), 111103 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.111103 [arXiv:0909.2617 [gr-qc]].
  * (27) A. Bagchi and R. Fareghbal, “BMS/GCA Redux: Towards Flatspace Holography from Non-Relativistic Symmetries,” JHEP 10 (2012), 092 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2012)092 [arXiv:1203.5795 [hep-th]].
  * (28) A. Bagchi, S. Detournay, R. Fareghbal and J. Simón, “Holography of 3D Flat Cosmological Horizons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) no.14, 141302 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.141302 [arXiv:1208.4372 [hep-th]].
  * (29) A. Bagchi, S. Detournay and D. Grumiller, “Flat-Space Chiral Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 151301 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.151301 [arXiv:1208.1658 [hep-th]].
  * (30) G. Barnich, “Entropy of three-dimensional asymptotically flat cosmological solutions,” JHEP 10, 095 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2012)095 [arXiv:1208.4371 [hep-th]].
  * (31) G. Barnich, A. Gomberoff and H. A. González, “Three-dimensional Bondi-Metzner-Sachs invariant two-dimensional field theories as the flat limit of Liouville theory,” Phys. Rev. D 87, no.12, 124032 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.124032 [arXiv:1210.0731 [hep-th]].
  * (32) A. Bagchi, S. Detournay, D. Grumiller and J. Simon, “Cosmic Evolution from Phase Transition of Three-Dimensional Flat Space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, no.18, 181301 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.181301 [arXiv:1305.2919 [hep-th]].
  * (33) S. Detournay, D. Grumiller, F. Schöller and J. Simón, “Variational principle and one-point functions in three-dimensional flat space Einstein gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 89, no.8, 084061 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.084061 [arXiv:1402.3687 [hep-th]].
  * (34) H. Afshar, A. Bagchi, R. Fareghbal, D. Grumiller and J. Rosseel, “Spin-3 Gravity in Three-Dimensional Flat Space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, no.12, 121603 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.121603 [arXiv:1307.4768 [hep-th]].
  * (35) H. A. Gonzalez, J. Matulich, M. Pino and R. Troncoso, “Asymptotically flat spacetimes in three-dimensional higher spin gravity,” JHEP 09, 016 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2013)016 [arXiv:1307.5651 [hep-th]].
  * (36) A. Bagchi, R. Basu, D. Grumiller and M. Riegler, “Entanglement entropy in Galilean conformal field theories and flat holography,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, no.11, 111602 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.111602 [arXiv:1410.4089 [hep-th]].
  * (37) A. Bagchi, D. Grumiller and W. Merbis, “Stress tensor correlators in three-dimensional gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 93, no.6, 061502 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.061502 [arXiv:1507.05620 [hep-th]].
  * (38) A. Bagchi, M. Gary and Zodinmawia, “Bondi-Metzner-Sachs bootstrap,” Phys. Rev. D 96, no.2, 025007 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.025007 [arXiv:1612.01730 [hep-th]].
  * (39) G. Barnich, H. A. Gonzalez, A. Maloney and B. Oblak, “One-loop partition function of three-dimensional flat gravity,” JHEP 04, 178 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)178 [arXiv:1502.06185 [hep-th]].
  * (40) G. Barnich, L. Donnay, J. Matulich and R. Troncoso, “Asymptotic symmetries and dynamics of three-dimensional flat supergravity,” JHEP 08, 071 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2014)071 [arXiv:1407.4275 [hep-th]].
  * (41) R. Fareghbal and A. Naseh, “Aspects of Flat/CCFT Correspondence,” Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 135013 (2015) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/13/135013 [arXiv:1408.6932 [hep-th]].
  * (42) H. Jiang, W. Song and Q. Wen, “Entanglement Entropy in Flat Holography,” JHEP 07, 142 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2017)142 [arXiv:1706.07552 [hep-th]].
  * (43) E. Hijano and C. Rabideau, “Holographic entanglement and Poincaré blocks in three-dimensional flat space,” JHEP 05, 068 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2018)068 [arXiv:1712.07131 [hep-th]].
  * (44) E. Hijano, “Semi-classical BMS3 blocks and flat holography,” JHEP 10, 044 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2018)044 [arXiv:1805.00949 [hep-th]].
  * (45) D. Grumiller, P. Parekh and M. Riegler, “Local quantum energy conditions in non-Lorentz-invariant quantum field theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, no.12, 121602 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.121602 [arXiv:1907.06650 [hep-th]].
  * (46) J. Hartong, “Holographic Reconstruction of 3D Flat Space-Time,” JHEP 10, 104 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2016)104 [arXiv:1511.01387 [hep-th]].
  * (47) J. Hartong, “Gauging the Carroll Algebra and Ultra-Relativistic Gravity,” JHEP 08, 069 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2015)069 [arXiv:1505.05011 [hep-th]].
  * (48) L. Ciambelli, C. Marteau, A. C. Petkou, P. M. Petropoulos and K. Siampos, “Flat holography and Carrollian fluids,” JHEP 07, 165 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)165 [arXiv:1802.06809 [hep-th]].
  * (49) L. Donnay and C. Marteau, “Carrollian Physics at the Black Hole Horizon,” Class. Quant. Grav. 36, no.16, 165002 (2019) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab2fd5 [arXiv:1903.09654 [hep-th]].
  * (50) S. W. Hawking, M. J. Perry and A. Strominger, “Soft Hair on Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) no.23, 231301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.231301 [arXiv:1601.00921 [hep-th]].
  * (51) S. Carlip, “Black Hole Entropy from Bondi-Metzner-Sachs Symmetry at the Horizon,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) no.10, 101301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.101301 [arXiv:1702.04439 [gr-qc]].
  * (52) S. Carlip, “Near-horizon Bondi-Metzner-Sachs symmetry, dimensional reduction, and black hole entropy,” Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.4, 046002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.046002 [arXiv:1910.01762 [hep-th]].
  * (53) D. J. Gross and P. F. Mende, “The High-Energy Behavior of String Scattering Amplitudes,” Phys. Lett. B 197 (1987), 129-134 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)90355-8
  * (54) D. J. Gross and P. F. Mende, “String Theory Beyond the Planck Scale,” Nucl. Phys. B 303 (1988), 407-454 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90390-2
  * (55) J. Isberg, U. Lindstrom, B. Sundborg and G. Theodoridis, “Classical and quantized tensionless strings,” Nucl. Phys. B 411 (1994), 122-156 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)90056-6 [arXiv:hep-th/9307108 [hep-th]].
  * (56) A. Bagchi, “Tensionless Strings and Galilean Conformal Algebra,” JHEP 05 (2013), 141 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2013)141 [arXiv:1303.0291 [hep-th]].
  * (57) A. Bagchi, S. Chakrabortty and P. Parekh, “Tensionless Strings from Worldsheet Symmetries,” JHEP 01 (2016), 158 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2016)158 [arXiv:1507.04361 [hep-th]].
  * (58) A. Bagchi, A. Banerjee and S. Chakrabortty, “Rindler Physics on the String Worldsheet,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, no.3, 031601 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.031601 [arXiv:2009.01408 [hep-th]].
  * (59) A. Bagchi, A. Banerjee, S. Chakrabortty, S. Dutta and P. Parekh, “A tale of three — tensionless strings and vacuum structure,” JHEP 04, 061 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2020)061 [arXiv:2001.00354 [hep-th]].
  * (60) A. Bagchi, A. Banerjee and P. Parekh, “Tensionless Path from Closed to Open Strings,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, no.11, 111601 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.111601 [arXiv:1905.11732 [hep-th]].
  * (61) A. Bagchi and R. Basu, “3D Flat Holography: Entropy and Logarithmic Corrections,” JHEP 03 (2014), 020 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2014)020 [arXiv:1312.5748 [hep-th]].
  * (62) M. Henningson and K. Skenderis, “The Holographic Weyl anomaly,” JHEP 07 (1998), 023 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1998/07/023 [arXiv:hep-th/9806087 [hep-th]].
  * (63) M. J. Duff, “Twenty years of the Weyl anomaly,” Class. Quant. Grav. 11 (1994), 1387-1404 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/11/6/004 [arXiv:hep-th/9308075 [hep-th]].
  * (64) D. Tong, “String Theory,” [arXiv:0908.0333 [hep-th]].
  * (65) A. Bagchi, “Topologically Massive Gravity and Galilean Conformal Algebra: A Study of Correlation Functions,” JHEP 02, 091 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2011)091 [arXiv:1012.3316 [hep-th]].
  * (66) R. Basu and M. Riegler, “Wilson Lines and Holographic Entanglement Entropy in Galilean Conformal Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. D 93, no.4, 045003 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.045003 [arXiv:1511.08662 [hep-th]].
  * (67) A. Bagchi and R. Gopakumar, “Galilean Conformal Algebras and AdS/CFT,” JHEP 07, 037 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/07/037 [arXiv:0902.1385 [hep-th]].
  * (68) C. Duval and P. A. Horvathy, “Non-relativistic conformal symmetries and Newton-Cartan structures,” J. Phys. A 42, 465206 (2009) doi:10.1088/1751-8113/42/46/465206 [arXiv:0904.0531 [math-ph]].
  * (69) P. Kraus and F. Larsen, “Holographic gravitational anomalies,” JHEP 01, 022 (2006) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/01/022 [arXiv:hep-th/0508218 [hep-th]].
  * (70) K. Skenderis, M. Taylor and B. C. van Rees, “Topologically Massive Gravity and the AdS/CFT Correspondence,” JHEP 09, 045 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/045 [arXiv:0906.4926 [hep-th]].
  * (71) A. Bagchi, R. Gopakumar, I. Mandal and A. Miwa, “GCA in 2d,” JHEP 08, 004 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2010)004 [arXiv:0912.1090 [hep-th]].
  * (72) S. Deser, R. Jackiw and S. Templeton, “Three-Dimensional Massive Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 975-978 (1982) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.975
  * (73) A. Bagchi and D. Grumiller, “Holograms of flat space,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 22, 1342003 (2013) doi:10.1142/S0218271813420030
  * (74) D. Grumiller and W. Merbis, “Free energy of topologically massive gravity and flat space holography,” Springer Proc. Phys. 208, 95-103 (2018) doi:10.1007/978-3-319-94256-8_10 [arXiv:1509.08505 [hep-th]].
  * (75) A. Bagchi, R. Basu, S. Detournay and P. Parekh, “Flatspace Chiral Supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D 97, no.10, 106020 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.106020 [arXiv:1801.03245 [hep-th]].
  * (76) G. Barnich and H. A. Gonzalez, “Dual dynamics of three dimensional asymptotically flat Einstein gravity at null infinity,” JHEP 05, 016 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2013)016 [arXiv:1303.1075 [hep-th]].
  * (77) E. Bergshoeff, J. Gomis, B. Rollier, J. Rosseel and T. ter Veldhuis, “Carroll versus Galilei Gravity,” JHEP 03, 165 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2017)165 [arXiv:1701.06156 [hep-th]].
  * (78) A. Bagchi, A. Banerjee, S. Dutta, K. Kolekar, P. Sharma, Work in progress.
  * (79) L. Ciambelli, R. G. Leigh, C. Marteau and P. M. Petropoulos, “Carroll Structures, Null Geometry and Conformal Isometries,” Phys. Rev. D 100, no.4, 046010 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.046010 [arXiv:1905.02221 [hep-th]].
  * (80) L. Ciambelli, C. Marteau, A. C. Petkou, P. M. Petropoulos and K. Siampos, “Covariant Galilean versus Carrollian hydrodynamics from relativistic fluids,” Class. Quant. Grav. 35, no.16, 165001 (2018) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aacf1a [arXiv:1802.05286 [hep-th]].
  * (81) N. Gupta and N. V. Suryanarayana, “Constructing Carrollian CFTs,” JHEP 03, 194 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2021)194 [arXiv:2001.03056 [hep-th]].