Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Near-Boundary Asymptotics and Unique Continuation for the AdS--Einstein--Maxwell System

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Boundary data uniquely determine the metric and Maxwell field near the conformal boundary in AdS–Einstein–Maxwell theory, under the same geometric condition as the vacuum case.

desk verdict First extension of Holzegel–Shao unique continuation to a nontrivial matter model, with a genuinely new Fefferman–Graham expansion, but the Carleman closing argument hides a key algebraic estimate that needs referee scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10298 v1 pith:WYHUYARD submitted 2025-01-17 gr-qc hep-thmath.AP

Simon Guisset This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-thmath.AP MSC 83C0535B6035L0558J45
keywords asymptoticallyanti-deSitterspacetimesEinstein–MaxwellsystemFefferman–GrahamexpansionuniquecontinuationCarlemanestimatesholographicdatageneralisednullconvexitycriterionconformalboundary
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proves that the coupled Einstein–Maxwell system in asymptotically anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetimes has the same near-boundary uniqueness behaviour as the vacuum Einstein equations. The main claim is that on a boundary domain satisfying the generalised null convexity criterion (GNCC)—a geometric condition that prevents near-boundary null geodesics from hovering over the domain—the holographic data, namely the metric coefficients $(\mathfrak{g}^{(0)},\mathfrak{g}^{(n)})$ together with the Maxwell coefficients $(\mathfrak{f}^{(0)},\mathfrak{f}^{(1)})$, determine the bulk metric and electromagnetic field uniquely in a neighbourhood of the boundary domain, up to gauge. To support this, the paper first derives a Fefferman–Graham-type expansion for the metric and Maxwell field in finite regularity, identifies which expansion coefficients are free and which are constrained, and characterises when two sets of boundary data are gauge-equivalent. If correct, this is the first nonlinear unique-continuation result for a nontrivial matter-coupled Einstein system from the conformal boundary, and it shows the geometric hypothesis does not need to be strengthened when matter is added.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the renormalised difference field $\Delta A := \delta A - \tfrac12 g^{bc}\sum_{j} A_{\cdots b \cdots}(\delta g+Q)_{\cdots c \cdots}$ (with $Q$ an auxiliary antisymmetric tensor solving a transport equation and $B\sim D\delta g$ its curl companion), because it makes the uncontrollable second derivatives of $\delta g$ cancel in the difference wave equations. Around this, the paper builds a vertical wave-transport system for the Weyl-tensor components $w_\star,w_1,w_2$ and the Maxwell-derived fields $h_0,h_2$, closes it with the Carleman estimate of Theorem 4.43 whose weight is constructed from the GNCC-defining function $\eta$, and kills the boundary terms using the improved vanishing of the difference fields obtained by iterating the transport equations. For the expansion part, the key mechanism is an ODE/Frobenius analysis of transport equations of the form $\rho f'(\rho)-c f(\rho)=h(\rho)$, which yields the power-of-$\rho$ and logarithmic terms in the Fefferman–Graham expansion and identifies the free coefficients.

What would settle it

A concrete observation that would refute the central claim is a pair of smooth Maxwell-FG-aAdS solutions whose holographic data are gauge-equivalent on a domain $D$ satisfying the GNCC but whose metrics are not isometric in any neighbourhood of $\{0\}\times D$; Theorem 4.51 asserts no such pair exists, so one explicit counterexample would settle the question negatively. A more computational check is to verify the claimed cancellation of the $\mathrm{D}^2\delta g$ terms in Proposition 4.29: locating a missed term with the same weight as the left-hand side of (4.49) would break the Carleman closing argument.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result, Theorem 4.51, states that two Maxwell-FG-aAdS segments (spacetimes of the form $\rho^{-2}(d\rho^2 + g(\rho))$ solving the Einstein–Maxwell equations with the stated boundary limits) whose holographic data $(\mathfrak{g}^{(0)}, \mathfrak{g}^{(n)}, \mathfrak{f}_{0,((n-4)+)}, \mathfrak{f}_{1,(0)})$ are gauge-equivalent on a domain $D \subset \mathcal{I}$ satisfying the GNCC must be isometric in a neighbourhood of $\{0\}\times D$, with the Maxwell fields mapped to each other by the same boundary-preserving diffeomorphism. In the fixed Fefferman–Graham gauge, Proposition 4.45 sharpens this: identical data on $D$ force $(g,F)=(\check g,\check F)$ near the boundary. The proof route is: first derive the near-boundary expansion (Theorem 3.5) showing which data are free; then write the difference of two solutions as a coupled wave-transport system for renormalised fields; then apply Carleman estimates whose boundary terms vanish because of the improved vanishing order from Corollary 4.35. The paper also proves that the coefficient $g_{(2)}$ in the expansion is the same combination of the boundary Ricci tensor as in vacuum, so the GNCC is not affected by the Maxwell field.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the generalised null convexity criterion on the boundary domain $D$: existence of a positive function $\eta$ vanishing on $\partial D$ with $(\mathrm{D}^2\eta - \eta\, g_{(2)})(X,X)>c\,\eta\,h(X,X)$ along every $g_{(0)}$-null vector $X$; without it the wave Carleman estimate is unavailable and the paper's own earlier linear counterexamples show unique continuation fails generically.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any two Maxwell-FG-aAdS solutions with gauge-equivalent holographic data on a GNCC domain are isometric near that domain, so the map from boundary data to near-boundary bulk solutions is injective.
  • The Maxwell field does not change the unique-continuation condition: the GNCC for the coupled system is exactly the vacuum GNCC, since $g_{(2)}$ is the same Schouten-type combination of the boundary Ricci tensor.
  • The free holographic data are precisely $(\mathfrak{g}^{(0)}, \mathfrak{g}^{(n)}, \mathfrak{f}_{0,((n-4)+)},\mathfrak{f}_{1,(0)})$, and the remaining lower-order coefficients in the Fefferman–Graham expansion are determined from these data, with the constraints on the free data written down explicitly.
  • The local isometry extends the symmetries of the boundary data, so any Killing field of the boundary data on $D$ extends to a bulk symmetry near $\{0\}\times D$ in the gauge-invariant sense of Theorem 4.51.
  • The known linear counterexamples on domains violating the GNCC mean the condition cannot simply be dropped, so the nonlinear theorem is at the expected sharp boundary.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One testable extension is to verify the transformation laws (4.101)–(4.102) against an explicit exact family, such as the AdS–Reissner–Nordström solutions, where the holographic data can be computed explicitly in two different Fefferman–Graham gauges.
  • The paper's machinery suggests that for Klein–Gordon matter the same unique continuation may hold in the well-posed mass range, but the scalar mass would mix powers in the ODE analysis, making the existence of a clean free-coefficient hierarchy the main open technical question.
  • Because the boundary coefficient $g_{(2)}$ is shown to be independent of the Maxwell data, the GNCC remains a property of the boundary geometry alone; one could therefore search for a purely geometric characterisation of the largest domains on which the unique continuation holds, without solving the coupled system.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: The central result, Theorem 4.51, states that two Maxwell-FG-aAdS segments (spacetimes of the form $\rho^{-2}(d\rho^2 + g(\rho))$ solving the Einstein–Maxwell equations with the stated boundary limits) whose holographic data $(\mathfrak{g}^{(0)}, \mathfrak{g}^{(n)}, \mathfrak{f}_{0,((n-4)+)}, \mathfrak{f}_{1,(0)})$ are gauge-equivalent on a domain $D \subset \mathcal{I}$ satisfying the GNCC must b

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends the near-boundary Fefferman-Graham expansion of Shao and the local unique-continuation theorem of Holzegel–Shao from the vacuum AdS Einstein equations to the coupled Einstein–Maxwell system with negative cosmological constant. In the first part, the author derives, under finite regularity assumptions, a partial near-boundary expansion of the metric and of the Maxwell field, identifies the free holographic data (g(0), g(n), f0,((n−4)+), f1,(0)), and derives constraints on these data. In the second part, using a vertical wave–transport formalism, renormalised difference fields Q, B and ΔA, and Carleman estimates imported from [6], the author proves that two Maxwell-FG-aAdS segments with gauge-equivalent holographic data on a domain D satisfying the generalised null convexity criterion (GNCC) are isometric near D, with the Maxwell fields equal up to a boundary-preserving diffeomorphism. The proof is presented in a fixed Fefferman-Graham gauge first and then extended to the gauge-invariant statement via conformal transformations of the boundary data.

Significance. If the proof is correct, this is a substantive extension of the existing vacuum results to the first nontrivial matter model, and it confirms that the electromagnetic field does not alter the geometric null-convexity condition for unique continuation, since g(2) is still the Schouten tensor of g(0) for n ≥ 3. The paper is largely self-contained in its analytic framework: the transport equations (3.33)–(3.36) and the ODE proposition (Proposition 3.22) are standard and internally consistent, the free coefficients are genuinely boundary data delivered by Frobenius analysis rather than fitted parameters, and the F=0 limit reduces the results to the vacuum theorems. The main result, Theorem 4.51, is conditional on the Carleman estimate of [6] and on the weight hierarchy in Proposition 4.29, both of which are clearly stated hypotheses. The paper is written in a detailed, if long, style and gives many of the intermediate computations in appendices.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.6, Theorem 4.51 (and §4.5, Proposition 4.45)] The central claim rests on Proposition 4.29, but its proof is not complete: the passage from the displayed individual estimates in the proof of Proposition 4.29 to the final formulas (4.51)–(4.52) is asserted with the phrase “after a careful analysis”. In particular, the cancellation of the uncontrollable D^2δg terms in I_{2,h}+I_{3,h} and I_{2,w}+I_{3,w} is not demonstrated; the reader is asked to trust that the terms in (4.60)–(4.61) and (4.66)–(4.67) exactly cancel. Since the Carleman estimate (4.93) controls only ρ^4|DA|^2 and not D^2δg, any residual D^2(δg+Q) term, or an error term whose ρ-power is one less than stated, would break the absorption step in Proposition 4.45. This is a load-bearing algebraic gap and needs a step-by-step verification.
  2. [§4.2, Proposition 4.29, equations (4.51)–(4.52)] The ρ-weight hierarchy in Proposition 4.29 is exactly what allows the Carleman closing argument to work, and it is not robust to off-by-one errors. The proof of Proposition 4.29 lists many estimates for terms such as ρ^2δS(g; Dw, f) and ρ^2δS(g; Dh, f), but it does not show how the final sums I_{1,h}+I_{2,h}+I_{3,h} and I_{1,w}+I_{2,w}+I_{3,w} are assembled into the displayed forms (4.52) and (4.51), respectively. The extra Maxwell fields h0 and h2 introduce many new error terms, and the boundary of the claim is precisely that these do not destabilise the vacuum mechanism. The author should either display the relevant summation or give a precise combinatorial lemma covering all terms in the wave equations (4.26)–(4.29) and their differences.
  3. [§4.3, Proposition 4.34 and Corollary 4.35] The iteration that improves the order of vanishing of the difference fields is only sketched: the hierarchy (4.80), the assertion that each integration gains “two powers of ρ”, and the claimed regularity losses are stated without a formal proof. In particular, the repeated integrations of the transport equations (4.70)–(4.77) require tracking the regularity index M0 in each step, and the final statement in (4.86) depends on a specific choice of M0−n even. The current proof is plausible and the displayed formulas are consistent, but the induction is not written out. Since Proposition 4.34 is used to eliminate the boundary terms in the Carleman estimate, a concise but complete induction should be included.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1.1, after Eq. (1.8)] The sentence “the coefficient g(0), as well as the divergence– and trace–free parts of g(n) are not constrained by the equations of motion” is accurate, but the parenthetical in footnote 1 says the trace and divergence are constrained; the text should explicitly distinguish the free parts from the constrained trace/divergence to avoid confusion.
  2. [§3.2, Lemma 3.28] In the proof of Lemma 3.28, the phrase “Let first n ≥ 4; the case n = 3 follows an identical reasoning” appears after formulas that are only written for n ≥ 4; the n=3 case is then not actually demonstrated. The reader would benefit from a short sentence explaining the n=3 modifications, especially in the treatment of the stress-energy tensor terms.
  3. [§4.4, Definition 4.38] The GNCC is defined for a strongly FG-aAdS segment, but Theorem 4.51 assumes only Maxwell-FG-aAdS segments; the proof of Proposition 3.8 shows that such segments are strongly FG-aAdS, but this implication should be stated explicitly at the point where the GNCC is invoked.
  4. [§4.5, Proposition 4.45] The constants “M0 big enough” and “f⋆ small enough” are not quantified. This is common in unique-continuation arguments, but the author should at least state an explicit lower bound on M0 (e.g., M0 ≥ n + 6 or whatever the proof requires) so the statement can be verified.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including “Ho lzegel” in the abstract, “satsifies” in Assumption 1, and missing closing parentheses in some displayed formulas (e.g., Eq. (3.20) and the line after (4.91)). A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the boundary data are genuine free ODE coefficients, the Carleman machinery is imported from external works, and the Maxwell extension is derived rather than assumed; only non-load-bearing self-citations and a non-circular algebraic gap appear.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The holographic data (g(0), g(n), f0,((n-4)+), f1,(0)) are obtained as the free coefficients of a Frobenius/ODE analysis (Theorem 3.5 and Proposition 3.8) from the Einstein-Maxwell equations; they are not fitted parameters, and Proposition 4.45 uses identical data as a hypothesis to conclude coincidence of the solutions, which is the content of unique continuation rather than an input. The key Carleman estimates are quoted from Chatzikaleas-Shao [6, Thm 5.11] and Holzegel-Shao [18, Prop 4.9]; these are external benchmarks with stated assumptions (the GNCC) independent of the present paper's results. The F=0 limit is honestly identified as returning to the vacuum theorems, which is specialization, not circularity. Self-citation is confined to [14] (the author's thesis) in Remark 3.23 and footnote 14 for technical improvements, and to [15] for counterexamples to linearized unique continuation; neither is load-bearing for Theorem 4.51. One non-circular correctness risk should be flagged: in the proof of Proposition 4.29 (equations (4.51)-(4.52)), after many rho^2 delta-S estimates, the text states 'After a careful analysis, one can show that the I1,h and I1,w can be written as ...', and the cancellation of the uncontrolled D^2 delta-g terms in I2 and I3 is not displayed; the closing of the Carleman absorption step in Proposition 4.45 depends on the exact rho-powers. This is an omitted algebraic verification, not a reduction of the conclusion to its assumptions, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No fitted parameters and no new physical entities are introduced. The renormalized difference fields Q, B, and Delta A are technical tools in the spirit of [18], not postulated physics. The free holographic coefficients g(n), f0,((n-4)+), f1,(0) are outputs of the ODE analysis (boundary data), not adjustable inputs. The analysis rests on the FG gauge, the regularity hypotheses of Definition 3.3, the boundary-limit assumptions of Definition 2.29, the GNCC (Definition 4.38), and the Carleman framework of [6, 18] imported as black boxes.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Fefferman-Graham gauge ansatz: M = (0,rho0] x I with g = rho^{-2}(drho^2 + g(rho)) and g(rho) tending to g(0).
    The entire expansion and unique-continuation analysis works in this gauge (Definition 2.7, equation 2.6). It fixes m = L_rho g and the vertical formalism; residual gauge freedom is handled only later in Section 4.6.
  • domain assumption Regularity and decay hypotheses of Definition 3.3: g bounded in C^{M0+2}, Maxwell fields bounded in C^{M0+1}, integrability conditions (3.3) on m and on the Maxwell fields, with M0 >= n+2.
    Theorem 3.5's expansion and the bootstrap arguments (Lemma 3.26) need these bounds; they are the finite-regularity substitute for the analyticity assumed in formal FG constructions.
  • domain assumption Existence of conformal boundary limits: g tending to g(0) and the Maxwell limits of Definition 2.29 (f1,(0) for n>=4, f0,(0) for n=2,3, with the appropriate rho-scaling).
    These limits define what a Maxwell-FG-aAdS segment is and are the starting data for the ODE analysis in Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption Generalised Null Convexity Criterion (Definition 4.38): existence of eta > 0 with eta = 0 on the boundary of D and (D^2 eta - eta*g(2))(X,X) > c*eta*h(X,X) for all g(0)-null X.
    Required for the wave Carleman estimate, Theorem 4.43, imported from [6]; Proposition 4.45 and Theorem 4.51 are conditional on it. The paper shows the condition is the same as in vacuum because g(2) is the Schouten tensor (Proposition 4.39).
  • standard math Carleman estimates of [6] and [18] (Theorem 4.43 and Proposition 4.41).
    Used as black boxes for the wave and transport estimates; the GNCC is the geometric input they require. Cited from prior work, not re-proved.
invented entities (1)
  • Renormalized difference fields Q, B, and Delta A (Definition 4.26)
    purpose: Control the difference of the two solutions in the wave-transport system and eliminate the second-derivative terms of delta g that the Carleman estimates cannot handle.
    These are proof devices introduced to close the Carleman argument, analogous to the renormalization in [18]. They carry no physics content and cannot be falsified independently, but they are standard tools rather than postulated physical entities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Near-Boundary Asymptotics and Unique Continuation for the AdS--Einstein--Maxwell System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WYHUYARD

@misc{pith2026250110298,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Near-Boundary Asymptotics and Unique Continuation for the AdS--Einstein--Maxwell System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WYHUYARD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10298}
}
abstract

In this article, we extend the results of both Shao and Holzegel-Shao to the AdS-Einstein-Maxwell system $({M}, g, F)$. We study the asymptotics of the metric $g$ and the Maxwell field $F$ near the conformal boundary ${I}$ for the fully nonlinear coupled system. Furthermore, we characterise the holographic (boundary) data used in the second part of this work. We also prove the local unique continuation property for solutions of the coupled Einstein equations from the conformal boundary. Specifically, the prescription of the coefficients $(\mathfrak{g}^{(0)}, \mathfrak{g}^{(n)})$ in the near-boundary expansion of $g$, along with the boundary data for the Maxwell fields $(\mathfrak{f}^{0}, \mathfrak{f}^{1})$, on a domain ${D} \subset {I}$ uniquely determines $(g, F)$ near ${D}$. The geometric conditions required for unique continuation are identical to those in the vacuum case, regardless of the presence of the Maxwell fields. This work is part of the author's thesis.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    A gauge-invariant unique continua tion criterion for waves in asymp- totically Anti-de Sitter spacetimes

    A. Chatzikaleas and A. Shao. “A gauge-invariant unique continua tion criterion for waves in asymp- totically Anti-de Sitter spacetimes”. In: Commun. Math. Phys. 395 (2022), pp. 1–50

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    A non uniqueness result for opera tors of principal type

    S. Alinhac and M. S. Baouendi. “A non uniqueness result for opera tors of principal type”. In: Math. Z. 220.1 (1995), pp. 561–568

    work page 1995

  3. [2]

    Continuation unique ` a partir de l’infini conforme pou r les m´ etriques d’Einstein

    O. Biquard. “Continuation unique ` a partir de l’infini conforme pou r les m´ etriques d’Einstein”. In: Math. Res. Lett. 15.6 (2008), pp. 1091–1099

    work page 2008

  4. [3]

    Central Charges in the Canon ical Realization of Asymptotic Symmetries: An Example from Three-Dimensional Gravity

    J. David Brown and M. Henneaux. “Central Charges in the Canon ical Realization of Asymptotic Symmetries: An Example from Three-Dimensional Gravity”. In: Commun. Math. Phys. 104 (1986), pp. 207–226. doi: 10.1007/BF01211590

    doi:10.1007/bf01211590 1986

  5. [4]

    Holographic thermalization, quasinormal mo des and superradiance in Kerr- AdS

    Vitor Cardoso et al. “Holographic thermalization, quasinormal mo des and superradiance in Kerr- AdS”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2014.4 (Apr. 2014). issn: 1029-8479. doi: 10.1007/jhep04(2014)183. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2014)183

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2014)183 2014

  6. [5]

    Construction of anti-de Sitter-like spacetimes using the metric conformal Einstein field equations: the vacuum case

    Diego A. Carranza and Juan A. Valiente Kroon. “Construction of anti-de Sitter-like spacetimes using the metric conformal Einstein field equations: the vacuum cas e”. In: Class. Quant. Grav. 35.24 (2018), p. 245006. doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aaeb54. arXiv: 1807.04212 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Unique continuation and extensions of Killing vectors for stationary vacuum space-times

    P. Chru´ sciel and E. Delay. “Unique continuation and extensions of Killing vectors for stationary vacuum space-times”. In: J. Geom. Phys. 61.8 (2011), pp. 1249–1257

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Conformal invariants

    C. Fefferman and C. R. Graham. “Conformal invariants”. In: ´Elie Cartan et les math´ ematiques d’aujourd’hui - Lyon, 25-29 juin 1984 . Ast´ erisque. Soci´ et´ e math´ ematique de France, 1985, pp. 95– 116

    work page 1984

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Robin Graham

    Charles Fefferman and C. Robin Graham. The ambient metric . 2008. arXiv: 0710.0919 [math.DG] . url: https://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0919

    2008 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Superradiant instability in AdS

    Bogdan Ganchev. Superradiant instability in AdS. 2016. arXiv: 1608.01798 [hep-th] . url: https://arxiv.org/abs

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Linear Stability of Schwarzschild-Anti-de Sitter spaceti mes I: The system of gravitational perturbations

    Olivier Graf and Gustav Holzegel. Linear Stability of Schwarzschild-Anti-de Sitter spaceti mes I: The system of gravitational perturbations. 2024. arXiv: 2408.02251 [gr-qc] . url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.02251

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Linear Stability of Schwarzschild-Anti-de Sitter spaceti mes II: Logarithmic decay of solutions to the Teukolsky system

    Olivier Graf and Gustav Holzegel. Linear Stability of Schwarzschild-Anti-de Sitter spaceti mes II: Logarithmic decay of solutions to the Teukolsky system . 2024. arXiv: 2408.02252 [gr-qc] . url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.02252

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Linear Stability of Schwarzschild-Anti-de Sitter spaceti mes III: Quasimodes and sharp decay of gravitational perturbations

    Olivier Graf and Gustav Holzegel. Linear Stability of Schwarzschild-Anti-de Sitter spaceti mes III: Quasimodes and sharp decay of gravitational perturbations . 2024. arXiv: 2410.21994 [gr-qc] . url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21994

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Asymptotic Properties of Anti-de Sitter Space times

    Simon Guisset. “Asymptotic Properties of Anti-de Sitter Space times”. PhD thesis. Queen Mary University of London, Sept. 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    On counterexamples to unique co ntinuation for critically singu- lar wave equations

    Simon Guisset and Arick Shao. “On counterexamples to unique co ntinuation for critically singu- lar wave equations”. In: Journal of Differential Equations 395 (2024), pp. 223–261. issn: 0022-0396. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2024.02.031. url: https://www.sciencedirect.co...

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Holographic reconstruction of space-time and renormalization in the AdS / CFT correspondence

    Sebastian de Haro, Sergey N. Solodukhin, and Kostas Skender is. “Holographic reconstruction of space-time and renormalization in the AdS / CFT correspondence”. In: Commun. Math. Phys. 217 (2001), pp. 595–622. doi: 10.1007/s002200100381. arXiv: hep-th/0002230

    2001 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Hawking and George F

    Stephen W. Hawking and George F. R. Ellis. The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time . Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press , Feb. 2023. isbn: 978-1-009- 25316-1, 978-1-009-25315-4, 978-0-521-20016-5, 978-0-5 21-09906-6, 978-0-511-82630-6, 978...

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    The bulk-boundary correspondenc e for the Einstein equations in asymp- totically Anti-de Sitter spacetimes

    G. Holzegel and A. Shao. “The bulk-boundary correspondenc e for the Einstein equations in asymp- totically Anti-de Sitter spacetimes”. In: Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 247 (2023), p. 56

    2023

  11. [19]

    Unique continuation from infinity in asy mptotically Anti-de Sitter spacetimes

    G. Holzegel and A. Shao. “Unique continuation from infinity in asy mptotically Anti-de Sitter spacetimes”. In: Comm. Math. Phys. 347.3 (2016), pp. 1–53

    2016

  12. [20]

    Unique continuation from infinity in asy mptotically Anti-de Sitter spacetimes II: Non-static boundaries

    G. Holzegel and A. Shao. “Unique continuation from infinity in asy mptotically Anti-de Sitter spacetimes II: Non-static boundaries”. In: Comm. Partial Differential Equations 42.12 (2017), pp. 1871–1922. 70 Asymptotics & Unique continuation on AdS–Einstein–Maxwel l

    2017

  13. [21]

    Well-posedness for the Massive Wave Equatio n on Asymptotically Anti-de Sit- ter Spacetimes

    Gustav Holzegel. “Well-posedness for the Massive Wave Equatio n on Asymptotically Anti-de Sit- ter Spacetimes”. In: Journal of Hyperbolic Differential Equations 09.02 (2012), pp. 239–261. doi: 10.1142/S0219891612500087. eprint: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219891612500087. url: ht...

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    Decay properties of Klein-Gordon fields on Kerr-AdS spacetimes

    Gustav Holzegel and Jacques Smulevici. Decay properties of Klein-Gordon fields on Kerr-AdS spacetimes. 2013. arXiv: 1110.6794 [gr-qc] . url: https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.6794

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Asymptotic properties of linear field equ ations in anti-de Sitter space

    Gustav Holzegel et al. “Asymptotic properties of linear field equ ations in anti-de Sitter space”. In: Commun. Math. Phys. 374.2 (2019), pp. 1125–1178. doi: 10.1007/s00220-019-03601-6 . arXiv: 1502.04965 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    The AdS/CFT correspondence

    Veronika E Hubeny. “The AdS/CFT correspondence”. In: Classical and Quantum Gravity 32.12 (June 2015), p. 124010. issn: 1361-6382. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/12/124010. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.108

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    Burnett’s conjecture in generalized wave coordinates

    C´ ecile Huneau and Jonathan Luk. Burnett’s conjecture in generalized wave coordinates. 2024. arXiv: 2403.03470 [gr-qc] . url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.03470

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    High-frequency solutions to the Einstein equations

    C´ ecile Huneau and Jonathan Luk. High-frequency solutions to the Einstein equations . 2024. arXiv: 2404.07659 [gr-qc] . url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.07659

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Diffeomorphisms and holographic anomalies

    C Imbimbo et al. “Diffeomorphisms and holographic anomalies”. In: Classical and Quantum Grav- ity 17.5 (Feb. 2000), pp. 1129–1138. issn: 1361-6382. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/17/5/322. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/17/5/322

    2000 doi

  20. [28]

    Rigidity Results in General Relativity: a Review

    Alexandru Ionescu and Sergiu Klainerman. Rigidity Results in General Relativity: a Review . 2015. arXiv: 1501.01587 [gr-qc] . url: https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.01587

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    On the local exte nsion of Killing vector-fields in Ricci flat manifolds

    Alexandru D. Ionescu and Sergiu Klainerman. “On the local exte nsion of Killing vector-fields in Ricci flat manifolds”. In: (Aug. 2011). arXiv: 1108.3575 [math.AP]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    On a conjecture of Fefferman and G raham

    Satyanad Kichenassamy. “On a conjecture of Fefferman and G raham”. In: Advances in Mathematics 184.2 (2004), pp. 268–288. issn: 0001-8708. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8708(03)00145-2 . url: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001870803001452

    2004 doi

  23. [31]

    The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity

    J. M. Maldacena. “The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity”. In: Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38 (1999), pp. 1113–1133

    1999

  24. [32]

    Unique Continuation at Infinity and Embedded Eig envalues for Asymptotically Hy- perbolic Manifolds

    Rafe Mazzeo. “Unique Continuation at Infinity and Embedded Eig envalues for Asymptotically Hy- perbolic Manifolds”. In: American Journal of Mathematics 113.1 (1991), pp. 25–45. issn: 00029327, 10806377. url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2374820 (visited on 08/18/2024)

    1991

  25. [33]

    Null geodesics and improved unique contin uation for waves in asymptot- ically Anti-de Sitter spacetimes

    A. McGill and A. Shao. “Null geodesics and improved unique contin uation for waves in asymptot- ically Anti-de Sitter spacetimes”. In: Class. Quantum Grav. 38 (2020), p. 054001

    2020

  26. [34]

    Holographic Characterisation of Locally Anti-de Sitter Spacetimes

    Alex McGill. Holographic Characterisation of Locally Anti-de Sitter Spacetimes. 2021. arXiv: 2111.11155 [gr-qc] . url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.11155

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Counterexamples to H¨ olmgren’s uniqueness foranalytic non linear Cauchy problems

    G. M´ etivier. “Counterexamples to H¨ olmgren’s uniqueness foranalytic non linear Cauchy problems”. In: Inventiones mathematicae 112 (1993), pp. 217–222

    1993

  28. [36]

    A proof of the instability of AdS for the Einstein–massless V lasov system

    Georgios Moschidis. A proof of the instability of AdS for the Einstein–massless V lasov system

  29. [37]

    A proof of the instability of AdS for the Eins tein-null dust system with an inner mirror

    Georgios Moschidis. “A proof of the instability of AdS for the Eins tein-null dust system with an inner mirror”. In: Analysis & PDE 13.6 (Sept. 2020), pp. 1671–1754. issn: 2157-5045. doi: 10.2140/apde.2020.13.1671. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/apde.2020.13.1671

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Introduction to Gauge/Gravity Duality

    Joseph Polchinski. “Introduction to Gauge/Gravity Duality”. I n: Theoretical Advanced Study In- stitute in Elementary Particle Physics: String theory and i ts Applications: From meV to the Planck Scale. Oct. 2010, pp. 3–46. doi: 10.1142/9789814350525_0001. arXiv: 1010.6134 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  31. [39]

    From AdS/CFT correspondence to hydrodynamics

    Giuseppe Policastro, Dam T Son, and Andrei O Starinets. “From AdS/CFT correspondence to hydrodynamics”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2002.09 (Sept. 2002), pp. 043–043. issn: 1029-

    2002

  32. [40]

    Condensed Matter and AdS/CFT

    Subir Sachdev. “Condensed Matter and AdS/CFT”. In: Lecture Notes in Physics . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 273–311. isbn: 9783642048647. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04864-7_9 . url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04864-7_9

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    The near-boundary geometry of Einstein-vacuum a symptotically Anti-de Sitter space- times

    A. Shao. “The near-boundary geometry of Einstein-vacuum a symptotically Anti-de Sitter space- times”. In: Class. Quantum Grav. 38 (2020), p. 034001. 71 Asymptotics & Unique continuation on AdS–Einstein–Maxwel l

    2020

  34. [42]

    Asymptotically Anti-de Sitter spacetimes a nd their stress energy tensor

    Kostas Skenderis. “Asymptotically Anti-de Sitter spacetimes a nd their stress energy tensor”. In: International Journal of Modern Physics A 16.05 (Feb. 2001), pp. 740–749. issn: 1793-656X. doi: 10.1142/s0217751x0100386x. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X0100386X

    2001 doi

  35. [43]

    Geometric optics approximation for the Einste in vacuum equations

    Arthur Touati. “Geometric optics approximation for the Einste in vacuum equations”. In: Commun. Math. Phys. 402.3 (2023), pp. 3109–3200

    2023

  36. [44]

    The massive wave equation in asymptotically AdS s pacetimes

    C. M. Warnick. “The massive wave equation in asymptotically AdS s pacetimes”. In: Commun. Math. Phys. 321 (2013), pp. 85–111

    2013

  37. [45]

    Anti de Sitter space and holography

    E. Witten. “Anti de Sitter space and holography”. In: Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998), pp. 253– 291. 72 Asymptotics & Unique continuation on AdS–Einstein–Maxwel l A Proofs of Section 1 A.1 Proof of Proposition 2.13 We will here simply prove the metric compatibility. The other...

    1998

  38. [2018]

    url: https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.04268

    arXiv: 1812.04268 [math.AP] . url: https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.04268

    arXiv

  39. [8479]

    url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2002/09/043

    doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/09/043. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2002/09/043

    2002 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.