Werner and Wu showed that when a simple conformal loop ensemble CLEκ\mathrm{CLE}_\kappa with κ∈(8/3,4]\kappa\in(8/3,4] is combined with an independent one-sided restriction sample of exponent α>0\alpha>0 (realizable as the right boundary of a Poissonian cloud of Brownian excursions), the rightmost boundary of the union of the restriction path with all CLEκ\mathrm{CLE}_\kappa loops it intersects is an SLEκ(ρ)\mathrm{SLE}_\kappa(\rho) curve, with α=(ρ+2)(ρ+6−κ)/(4κ)\alpha=(\rho+2)(\rho+6-\kappa)/(4\kappa); this also yields simultaneous couplings of all such curves on one probability space. The construction, identification, and coupling results are confined to the simple-loop regime κ∈(8/3,4]\kappa\in(8/3,4] with ρ>−2\rho>-2. The paper leaves several independent open directions. Two of them — systematic second-moment and boundary-proximity estimates, and the detailed comparison with Gaussian-free-field flow-line constructions — have since been largely carried out by later work and are recorded as prior progress. The remaining open directions are construction-theoretic: (a) build the CLE-plus-excursion construction, its identification theorem, and its coupling corollaries with non-simple conformal loop ensembles, κ∈(4,8)\kappa\in(4,8), for which no Brownian loop-soup construction is known, and (b) for the generalized SLEκ(ρ)\mathrm{SLE}_\kappa(\rho) processes with ρ≤−2\rho\le-2 within the same Brownian framework, a direction the paper notes but expressly excludes from its scope; a secondary facet (c) asks to make precise the scaling-limit comparison between discrete Ising-type couplings with mixed boundary conditions and the continuum coupling.

Background

In the scaling-limit theory of two-dimensional critical lattice models, three families of random geometric objects play central roles. A chordal Schramm–Loewner evolution (SLEκ\mathrm{SLE}_\kappa) is a random curve joining two boundary points of a simply connected planar domain, defined through Loewner's conformal-mapping equation driven by a one-dimensional Brownian motion of speed κ\kappa; the parameter κ\kappa controls roughness, and for κ∈(8/3,4]\kappa\in(8/3,4] the curve is simple. An SLEκ(ρ)\mathrm{SLE}_\kappa(\rho) process is a variant in which an additional point, called a force point, is marked on the boundary and the driving Brownian motion acquires a drift of size ρ\rho divided by the current distance between the force point and the curve tip; for κ∈(8/3,4]\kappa\in(8/3,4] and ρ>−2\rho>-2 these are simple curves, which may touch the boundary when ρ<(κ/2)−2\rho<(\kappa/2)-2. A conformal loop ensemble (CLEκ\mathrm{CLE}_\kappa) is a random, conformally invariant, nested collection of non-crossing loops in the domain, expected and in cases proved to be the scaling limit of the loop interfaces of critical lattice models; its loops are simple for κ∈(8/3,4]\kappa\in(8/3,4] and self-touching (non-simple) for κ∈(4,8)\kappa\in(4,8). Two classical building blocks generate CLEκ\mathrm{CLE}_\kappa and restriction curves in the simple regime: the Brownian loop soup, a Poissonian cloud of unrooted Brownian loops, whose cluster outer boundaries give CLEκ\mathrm{CLE}_\kappa but only for κ∈(8/3,4]\kappa\in(8/3,4] (Sheffield–Werner); and one-sided restriction measures — random half-plane curves from one boundary point to another, characterized by the property that when conditioned to avoid a compact set their law transforms by a conformal-map factor of exponent α\alpha — parametrized by α>0\alpha>0 and constructible as the right boundary of a Poisson cloud of Brownian excursions (Brownian-type paths starting and ending on the boundary) of intensity α\alpha. Werner and Wu combined these: take a CLEκ\mathrm{CLE}_\kappa Γ\Gamma, an independent one-sided restriction path γ\gamma of exponent α\alpha from aa to bb, attach to γ\gamma all loops of Γ\Gamma that it intersects, and take the rightmost boundary η\eta of the result. They proved (Theorems 1–2) that for κ∈(8/3,4]\kappa\in(8/3,4] this boundary is an SLEκ(ρ)\mathrm{SLE}_\kappa(\rho) curve with α=(ρ+2)(ρ+6−κ)/(4κ)\alpha=(\rho+2)(\rho+6-\kappa)/(4\kappa), the intensity–drift bijection between α∈(0,∞)\alpha\in(0,\infty) and ρ∈(−2,∞)\rho\in(-2,\infty). The construction lets one build, on a single probability space, all these SLEκ(ρ)\mathrm{SLE}_\kappa(\rho)'s simultaneously, gives a Brownian proof of their reversibility, and allows second-moment and boundary-proximity estimates via Brownian computations. In parallel, the Gaussian free field (GFF) — a random generalized function, the continuum analog of a massless Gaussian spin field — provides another route: in Miller–Sheffield's imaginary geometry, the flow lines and counterflow lines of the GFF (its level lines at a chosen angle, and their reversal-direction analogs) are exactly SLEκ(ρ)\mathrm{SLE}_\kappa(\rho)-type curves for a wide parameter range, and the light cones — the sets of points reachable from a given point by a sequence of such rays — agree in law with the ranges of the generalized SLEκ(ρ)\mathrm{SLE}_\kappa(\rho) processes obtained by Lévy compensation, which extends the definition from ρ>−2\rho>-2 to ρ>−2−κ/2\rho>-2-\kappa/2. The Werner–Wu paper itself stresses that its approach 'does not yield any result for κ∉[8/3,4]\kappa\notin[8/3,4]', that generalized SLEκ(ρ)\mathrm{SLE}_\kappa(\rho)'s for some ρ≤−2\rho\le-2 (definable via a symmetrization or a compensation procedure) are not treated, and that the Brownian construction and the GFF construction should be compared. The natural open targets are therefore extensions of the Brownian-framework construction, its identification theorem, and its coupling results beyond the simple regime, along the several independent directions the paper indicates.

Problem Statement

The problem is to extend the Werner–Wu construction — take a CLEκ\mathrm{CLE}_\kappa, combine it with an independent one-sided restriction path of exponent α\alpha (the right boundary of a Poissonian cloud of Brownian excursions of intensity α\alpha), attach to the path all loops of the ensemble that it intersects, and keep the rightmost boundary of the union — together with its identification theorem and its coupling corollaries, beyond the simple-loop regime κ∈(8/3,4]\kappa\in(8/3,4], ρ>−2\rho>-2 in which it is currently proved. Concretely, with the intensity–drift relation

α=(ρ+2)(ρ+6−κ)4κ\alpha=\frac{(\rho+2)(\rho+6-\kappa)}{4\kappa}

as the target identification. In the proved regime, for fixed κ∈(8/3,4]\kappa\in(8/3,4], this relation is an increasing bijection from α∈(0,∞)\alpha\in(0,\infty) onto ρ∈(−2,∞)\rho\in(-2,\infty); how it extends into the target regimes is itself part of the open problem. For fixed κ∈(4,8)\kappa\in(4,8), the equation (ρ+2)(ρ+6−κ)=4κα(\rho+2)(\rho+6-\kappa)=4\kappa\alpha with α>0\alpha>0 has two real roots — one in (κ−6,∞)(\kappa-6,\infty) and one in (−∞,−2)(-\infty,-2) — so the relation is no longer a bijection onto ρ>−2\rho>-2 there, and determining which branch (if either) the constructed rightmost boundary realizes is part of the identification task in regime (a); likewise, direction (b) is sought for κ∈(8/3,4]\kappa\in(8/3,4] and ρ∈(−2−κ/2,−2]\rho\in(-2-\kappa/2,-2] — the range in which the same Brownian framework and the generalized SLEκ(ρ)\mathrm{SLE}_\kappa(\rho) processes are defined. The directions are:

(a) Non-simple input regime: carry out the same construction-theoretic program for κ∈(4,8)\kappa\in(4,8), where the conformal loop ensemble consists of self-touching loops and no Brownian loop-soup construction of the ensemble is known, so that both the input object and the excursion/restriction geometry must be reworked; identify the resulting curves as (non-simple, boundary-touching) SLEκ(ρ)\mathrm{SLE}_\kappa(\rho) curves with ρ\rho given by one of the two roots of α=(ρ+2)(ρ+6−κ)/(4κ)\alpha=(\rho+2)(\rho+6-\kappa)/(4\kappa) (or the corresponding generalized, Lévy-compensated SLEκ(ρ)\mathrm{SLE}_\kappa(\rho) if the negative root ρ<−2\rho<-2 is realized), and derive the accompanying coupling results, such as the simultaneous realization of the whole family on one probability space and reversibility-type consequences.

(b) Generalized processes: a direction suggested by the source's remark that generalized SLEκ(ρ)\mathrm{SLE}_\kappa(\rho) processes for some ρ≤−2\rho\le-2 (defined in the literature via symmetrization or Lévy compensation) are 'very closely related to CLEs as well', although the paper itself does not treat them: construct and identify these processes within the same CLE/loop-soup plus Brownian-excursion framework, noting that the intensity–drift relation in the proved regime reaches only ρ>−2\rho>-2 and that these processes have so far been constructed through GFF light-cone machinery or bubble-decomposition methods outside this framework.

(c) Secondary facet of the same program: make precise, in scaling limits, the comparison between natural discrete couplings of critical lattice models (e.g., the Ising model with mixed versus uniform boundary conditions) and the continuum CLE-plus-excursion coupling, as suggested in the source paper.

These directions correspond to independent open remarks in the source paper — the κ∉[8/3,4]\kappa\notin[8/3,4] limitation of intro comment 3, the ρ≤−2\rho\le-2 scope exclusion of §2.2, and the Ising-comparison parenthetical. Directions (a) and (b) are the independent primary construction-theoretic targets; the secondary facet (c) is a further open direction in its own right. The broader picture motivating them is a Brownian (loop-soup, excursion, and restriction) account of the CLE\mathrm{CLE}–SLEκ(ρ)\mathrm{SLE}_\kappa(\rho) correspondence beyond the simple regime, complementing what imaginary geometry achieves on the Gaussian-free-field side. The quantitative-estimate and GFF-comparison directions originally listed alongside these in the source have been carried out by later work and are prior results, not part of the open target.

References

  1. Wendelin Werner and Hao Wu, 'From CLE(κ) to SLE(κ, ρ)'s', Electronic Journal of Probability 18 (2013), no. 36, 1–20, DOI 10.1214/ejp.v18-2376, arXiv:1210.3264, https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.3264
  2. Ewain Gwynne, Jason Miller and Wei Qian, 'Conformal invariance of CLE_κ on the Riemann sphere for κ ∈ (4, 8)', International Mathematics Research Notices 2021 (2021), no. 23, 17971–18036, DOI 10.1093/imrn/rnz328, arXiv:1811.00514, https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00514
  3. Jason Miller, Scott Sheffield and Wendelin Werner, 'CLE percolations', Forum of Mathematics, Pi 5 (2017), e4, DOI 10.1017/fmp.2017.5, arXiv:1602.03884, https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03884
  4. Jason Miller and Scott Sheffield, 'Gaussian free field light cones and SLE_κ(ρ)', Annals of Probability 47 (2019), no. 6, DOI 10.1214/18-aop1331, arXiv:1606.02260, https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.02260
  5. Antti Kemppainen and Wendelin Werner, 'The nested simple conformal loop ensembles in the Riemann sphere', Probability Theory and Related Fields 165 (2016), no. 3–4, 835–866, DOI 10.1007/s00440-015-0647-3, arXiv:1402.2433, https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2433
  6. Juhan Aru and Philémon Bordereau, 'SLE and its partition function in multiply connected domains via the Gaussian Free Field and restriction measures', arXiv:2405.20148 (2024, revised 2026), https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.20148
  7. Clément Hongler and Kalle Kytölä, 'Ising Interfaces and Free Boundary Conditions', Journal of the American Mathematical Society 26 (2013), no. 4, 1107–1189, DOI 10.1090/S0894-0347-2013-00774-2, arXiv:1108.0643, https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.0643
  8. Menglu Wang and Hao Wu, 'Remarks on the intersection of SLE_κ(ρ) curve with the real line', arXiv:1507.00218 (2015), https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00218
  9. Oded Schramm and Wang Zhou, 'Boundary proximity of SLE', Probability Theory and Related Fields 146 (2010), no. 3–4, DOI 10.1007/s00440-008-0195-1, arXiv:0711.3350, https://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3350
  10. Jason Miller and Hao Wu, 'Intersections of SLE Paths: the double and cut point dimension of SLE', Probability Theory and Related Fields 167 (2017), no. 1–2, 45–105, DOI 10.1007/s00440-015-0677-x, arXiv:1303.4725, https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.4725
  11. Lukas Schoug, 'A multifractal boundary spectrum for SLE_κ(ρ)', Probability Theory and Related Fields 178 (2020), no. 1–2, 173–233, DOI 10.1007/s00440-020-00975-w, arXiv:1905.11307, https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.11307
  12. Wei Qian, 'Generalized disconnection exponents', Probability Theory and Related Fields 179 (2021), no. 1–2, 117–164, DOI 10.1007/s00440-020-01005-5, arXiv:1901.05436, https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05436
  13. Haoyu Liu, Xin Sun, Pu Yu and Zijie Zhuang, 'The bulk one-arm exponent for the CLE_{κ'} percolations', Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 133 (2026), no. 1, e70176, DOI 10.1112/plms.70176, arXiv:2410.12724, https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12724
  14. Wei Qian and Wendelin Werner, 'Coupling the Gaussian Free Fields with Free and with Zero Boundary Conditions via Common Level Lines', Communications in Mathematical Physics 361 (2018), no. 1, 53–80, DOI 10.1007/s00220-018-3159-z, arXiv:1703.04350, https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04350
  15. Antoine Jego, Titus Lupu and Wei Qian, 'Conformally invariant fields out of Brownian loop soups', Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society 322 (2026), no. 1641, DOI 10.1090/memo/1641, arXiv:2307.10740, https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.10740
  16. Titus Lupu and Hao Wu, 'A level line of the Gaussian free field with measure-valued boundary conditions', Science China Mathematics 67 (2024), no. 2, 367–404, DOI 10.1007/s11425-021-2081-8, arXiv:2106.15169, https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.15169
  17. Jason Miller and Scott Sheffield, 'Imaginary Geometry I: Interacting SLEs', Probability Theory and Related Fields 164 (2016), no. 3–4, 553–705, DOI 10.1007/s00440-016-0698-0, arXiv:1201.1496, https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1496
  18. Scott Sheffield and Wendelin Werner, 'Conformal Loop Ensembles: The Markovian characterization and the loop-soup construction', Annals of Mathematics 176 (2012), no. 3, 1827–1917, DOI 10.4007/annals.2012.176.3.8, arXiv:1006.2374, https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2374
  19. Fenglin Huang, Léonie Papon and Aoteng Xia, 'Scaling limits of the single-curve interface and outermost loops in the planar random field Ising model', arXiv:2606.13147 (2026), https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.13147