Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Finite-cutoff Holographic Thermodynamics

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Schwarzschild-AdS black hole cut off at a finite radius and its dual $T^2$-deformed CFT obey the same first law, with the deformation parameter $\lambda$ as a thermodynamic variable.

desk verdict Genuinely new finite-cutoff holographic thermodynamics framework whose headline teardrop phase-transition claim currently rests on one figure and no analytic coexistence equation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01010 v2 pith:BAH4YX4X submitted 2025-07-01 hep-th gr-qc

Ming Zhang , Wen-Di Tan , Mengqi Lu , Dyuman Bhattacharya , Jiayue Yang , Robert B. Mann This is my paper
classification hep-thgr-qc MSC 81T4083C5783E30 PACS 04.70.Dy11.25.Tq
keywords finite-cutoffholographyT^2deformationholographicthermodynamicsSchwarzschild-AdSblackholequasilocalenergyHawking-Pagetransitionconfinement-deconfinementSmarrrelation
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

The paper tries to establish that holographic thermodynamics survives when the gravitational bulk is cut off at a finite radius rather than extending to the AdS boundary. For a Schwarzschild-AdS black hole with a Dirichlet cutoff, and for the $T^2$-deformed CFT living on that cutoff surface, the same first law holds on both sides, with the deformation parameter $\lambda$ entering as a genuine thermodynamic variable alongside entropy, pressure/volume, and central charge. If this is right, the quasilocal mass of the cutoff black hole and the dressed energy spectrum of the deformed CFT describe exactly the same thermodynamics, including a teardrop-shaped coexistence curve on which up to three deformed states share one phase-transition temperature. The wider interest is that it gives a concrete dictionary for quantum gravity in a finite spacetime region and for effective field theories with a UV cutoff.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the holographic dictionary $\tilde\lambda \equiv \lambda/R^3 = 4\pi G\ell/(3r_c^3)$, together with the rescaled quasilocal mass $E = r_c\mathcal{M}/\ell$ and the identification $\ell E = R\bar E$. This dictionary converts the cutoff-area term $\tau\,dA_c$ in the bulk first law into the deformation term $\nu\,d\lambda$ on the boundary, while the remaining terms reorganize into $-\bar P\,d\bar V + \mu\,dc$. Two scaling laws, one under $\bar E(\zeta \bar S, \bar V, \zeta c, \zeta^{-1}\lambda) = \zeta\bar E$ and one under $\bar E(\bar S, \zeta^{2/3}\bar V, c, \zeta\lambda) = \zeta^{-1/3}\bar E$, produce the Euler relation and the deformed equation of state.

What would settle it

Compute the quasilocal mass of the cutoff SAdS black hole to the next order in $1/r_c$ and compare the resulting first law with the one derived from the exact $T^2$-deformed spectrum; if the dictionary (24) has any finite-$r_c$ correction, the $\nu\,d\lambda$ and $\tau\,dA_c$ terms will fail to match and the Rupert curve will move.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a dual pair of first laws: on the bulk side, $dE = T\,dS + V\,dP + \tau\,dA_c$ for the cutoff Schwarzschild-AdS black hole, and on the boundary side, $d\bar E = \bar T\,d\bar S - \bar P\,d\bar V + \mu\,dc + \nu\,d\lambda$ for the $T^2$-deformed CFT. The paper shows that each first law can be derived from the other through a holographic dictionary that identifies the cutoff radius $r_c$ with the deformation parameter $\lambda$ and the rescaled quasilocal mass $E = r_c\mathcal{M}/\ell$ with the deformed energy $\bar E$. This yields a holographic Euler relation, an equation of state, a Smarr relation, and a Rupert teardrop coexistence curve where the confinement/deconfinement and Hawking-Page phase transitions coincide, with up to three deformed theories sharing one transition temperature.

Load-bearing premise

The relation $\lambda/R^3 = 4\pi G\ell/(3r_c^3)$ linking the deformation parameter to the cutoff radius is assumed exact, and the rescaled quasilocal energy $E = r_c\mathcal{M}/\ell$ is assumed to be the correct thermodynamic energy; if either receives corrections at finite $r_c$, the dual first laws, Smarr relation, and teardrop phase diagram all shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The boundary first law with the $\nu\,d\lambda$ term is exactly derivable from the bulk first law with the $\tau\,dA_c$ term; the two are not independent statements.
  • The deformed CFT satisfies the holographic Euler relation $\bar E = \bar T\bar S + \mu c - \nu\lambda$ and the equation of state $\bar P = \bar E/(2\bar V) + 3\lambda\nu/(2\bar V)$, both reducing to the seed CFT results as $\lambda\to0$.
  • The cutoff bulk satisfies the Smarr relation $E = 2TS - 2VP + 2\tau A_c$, extending the integral structure of extended black hole thermodynamics to finite cutoff.
  • The Hawking-Page and confinement/deconfinement coexistence curve is a teardrop-shaped Rupert curve, along which up to three deformed CFTs or cutoff black holes share a common phase-transition temperature, one of them matching the undeformed seed theory.
  • A shock singularity bound, $\lambda > \pi\sqrt{c}\,\bar V^{3/2}/(3\bar S^{3/2})$, delimits the positive-deformation regime where the canonical thermodynamic description applies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the dictionary is exact, the deformation flow along the teardrop can be read as a one-parameter family of effective field theories labelled by the cutoff scale, suggesting that $\lambda$ could serve as a renormalization-group coordinate for quantities like entanglement entropy and correlation functions.
  • Applying the same construction to charged or rotating black holes would test whether the $\tau\,dA_c$ term always repackages cleanly into $\mu\,dc + \nu\,d\lambda$, or whether new boundary terms appear when the horizon is not spherically symmetric.
  • The triple-state coexistence at one temperature resembles a multicritical point; checking whether the island survives at subleading $1/N$ order would show whether the effect is intrinsically classical or receives quantum corrections.
  • The dictionary $\lambda/R^3 = 4\pi G\ell/(3r_c^3)$ could in principle be tested numerically by comparing the full quasilocal mass at finite $r_c$ with the deformed spectrum beyond the leading energy-matching order.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper develops a framework for holographic thermodynamics in finite-cutoff AdS/CFT. For a Schwarzschild-AdS black hole with a Dirichlet cutoff at r_c and its proposed dual three-dimensional T^2-deformed CFT, the authors write first laws with the deformation parameter λ and the cutoff surface area A_c as thermodynamic variables, derive a holographic Euler relation, an equation of state, and a Smarr relation, and identify bulk and boundary energies via the dictionary λ/R^3 = 4πGℓ/(3r_c^3). They also report a teardrop-shaped coexistence curve in the (S,T) plane along which up to three deformed CFTs or cutoff SAdS configurations share one phase transition temperature.

Significance. The construction is coherent and the algebraic structure is internally plausible: the energy formulas from the T^2-deformed CFT and the rescaled quasilocal mass are consistent under the stated dictionary, and the first-law framework is a natural extension of black hole chemistry to finite-cutoff holography. The paper is also explicit that the dictionary (24) is imported from earlier energy-matching results. However, the headline phase-transition result is not supported by an explicit calculation: the coexistence curve is shown only as a single figure. Because the teardrop topology and the three-fold degeneracy are the paper's main new physical claims, the evidence is insufficient as it stands.

major comments (2)
  1. [Phase transitions and Fig. 1] The central claim of a Rupert teardrop coexistence curve with up to three deformed CFTs (or cutoff SAdS configurations) sharing one phase transition temperature is not supported by a stated condition. The text says the curve is revealed by comparing free energies, but the coexistence equation is never written; on the boundary it should be Ebar_bh(S, Tbar, λ) - Tbar S = Ebar_vac(λ), and on the bulk side E_bh - T S = E_vac. No analytic or numerical solution of this equation is provided, and the parameter range of λ along the curve is not specified. The description of the λ-flow (X0 → X1 → X2 → X3, then back to X0) is ambiguous about whether λ is single-valued along the loop. Since the three-fold degeneracy claim is a statement about the solution set of the coexistence condition, the figure alone is insufficient. Please provide the explicit coexistence equation, the numerical method used to trace it, and a clear parametrization of the curve by λ.
  2. [Supplemental, Eqs. (41)-(44)] The derivation of the boundary first law (25) from the bulk first law (33) is a term-by-term identification rather than a derivation: after imposing the dictionary (24), the coefficients in Eqs. (43) and (44) are asserted to equal Tbar, -Pbar, μ, and ν. The algebra that verifies these identifications is not shown. Because the equivalence of the two first laws is a central claim, please either display the substitution or state explicitly that the dictionary (24) is an input from prior energy-matching results and that the coefficient matching is part of the dictionary's definition. The current text ('we just solve dEbar to find...') is too terse for the reader to judge whether the result is a theorem or a construction.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eqs. (16)-(19)] The 'holographic Euler relation' (16) contains no -Pbar Vbar term even though the first law (15) contains -Pbar dVbar. This follows from the scaling law (17), which does not scale Vbar, while the equation of state (19) follows from a different scaling law (18). Please clarify why Vbar is treated differently in the two scaling laws and whether (16) should be called an Euler relation in the standard thermodynamic sense.
  2. [Eqs. (11), (20), (21)] The notation for the bulk energy is confusing: E(rc) in (11), the quasilocal energy M in (20), and the rescaled mass E in (21) are not cleanly distinguished. In particular, (11) states E(rc) = ω Ebar, while (24) is said to make ℓE = R Ebar; a reader could take E(rc) to be the quasilocal energy of (20). Please use distinct symbols for the quasilocal energy and the rescaled energy.
  3. [Eq. (14)] The symbol Ebar appears on both sides of (14); the Ebar inside the square root is the seed-CFT energy, not the deformed energy. Please use different notation for the seed energy to avoid confusion.
  4. [Phase transitions, shock singularity] The bound on the shock singularity, λ > π√c Vbar^{3/2}/(3 Sbar^{3/2}), is stated without derivation or citation. Please add a brief derivation or reference.
  5. [Fig. 1] Figure 1 is too small to distinguish the four marked points clearly, and the relation between the color bar and the coexistence curve is not explained. A higher-resolution figure with labeled axes and separate curves for λ would improve reproducibility.
  6. [Phase transitions] The term 'Rupert teardrop' is used without definition or reference; if it is a standard curve, please provide a citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the first-law and phase-diagram results follow by differentiation and free-energy comparison from externally imported energy formulas, not from self-fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The boundary energy spectrum (14) is taken from Hartman et al. [52] and the bulk quasilocal energy (20) from Brown-Creighton-Mann [54]; both are external results. The holographic dictionary (24) relating lambda to r_c is imported from prior finite-cutoff holography [51-53] and is not fitted to the paper's own first-law or phase-diagram outputs; it is an input definition. Given that dictionary, the statement that it makes ℓE = R Ebar is a consistency check, not a fitted claim. The first laws (15) and (22) are obtained by differentiating the given energy functions; the boundary first law follows from the bulk first law by a term-by-term change of variables in the Supplemental Material, so the two are equivalent by construction, which is the paper's stated goal rather than a concealed prediction. The scaling laws (17)-(18), the Euler relation (16), and the equation of state (19) are mathematical consequences of the explicit energy formulas. The coexistence curve is a numerical consequence of comparing free energies G = E - T S; its teardrop shape is not obtained by assuming the target result. The only self-citations (e.g., [35], [54], [80], [81]) supply standard or independently published formulas that are not ad hoc fits to this paper's results; under the stated review rules, such citations count as real evidence and do not raise the circularity score. No step in the chain reduces to its own conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entity is invented. The framework imports the T^2 energy spectrum and the cutoff-to-deformation dictionary from earlier work. The only hand-set numbers are the illustrative c=4 and V_bar=20 in Fig. 1. The scaling laws and the resulting Euler relation and equation of state are internal consequences of the imported energy formula.

free parameters (2)
  • boundary central charge c (example value) = 4
    Hand-chosen for Fig. 1. The coexistence curve and the three-state claim are only shown for this value, not proven for general c.
  • boundary volume V_bar (example value) = 20
    Hand-chosen for Fig. 1 together with c=4. The dependence of the teardrop island on V_bar is not analyzed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT correspondence with Brown-Henneaux-like relation c = ell^2 / (4G)
    Used throughout to translate bulk quantities into boundary central charge. Appears in Eq. (7) and is the basis of the holographic dictionary.
  • domain assumption T^2-deformed CFT energy spectrum Eq. (14)
    The starting point for all boundary thermodynamic quantities. Imported from [52] and used to compute T_bar, P_bar, mu, nu.
  • domain assumption Holographic dictionary lambda / R^3 = 4 pi G ell / (3 r_c^3)
    Relates the deformation parameter to the bulk cutoff radius. Stated in Eq. (24) and cited to earlier finite-cutoff holography, but not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Brown-York quasilocal energy Eq. (20) is the correct bulk energy before rescaling
    Standard quasilocal thermodynamics result [54] used to define the cutoff black hole energy and to construct the rescaled mass E.
  • domain assumption Hawking-Page free energy comparison extends to finite cutoff and to the deformed CFT
    The phase transition is identified by equating G = E - T S for the black hole and vacuum at the same temperature. This criterion is invoked without derivation for the rescaled mass and deformed CFT.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite-cutoff Holographic Thermodynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BAH4YX4X

@misc{pith2026250701010,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite-cutoff Holographic Thermodynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BAH4YX4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01010}
}
abstract

We develop a framework for holographic thermodynamics in finite-cutoff holography, extending the anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory (AdS/CFT) correspondence to incorporate a finite radial cutoff in the bulk and a $T^2$-deformed CFT on the boundary. We formulate the first laws of thermodynamics for a Schwarzschild-AdS (SAdS) black hole with a Dirichlet cutoff on the quasilocal boundary and its dual deformed CFT, introducing the deformation parameter as a thermodynamic variable. The holographic Euler relation for the deformed CFT and its equation of state are derived, alongside the Smarr relation for the bulk. We show that the Rupert teardrop coexistence curve defines a phase space island where deformation flow alters states, with up to three deformed CFTs or cut-off SAdS sharing a same phase transition temperature, one matching the seed CFT or original SAdS. These results offer insights into gravitational thermodynamics with boundary constraints and quantum gravity in finite spacetime regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01010 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Coexistence curve of the boundary confine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Topological perspective on bulk boundary thermodynamic equivalence

    hep-th 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A two-central-charge CFT dictionary reproduces the extended first law, critical point, and topological charges of the 5D charged Gauss-Bonnet AdS black hole.

  2. Noncommutative black holes: Topological bulk-boundary correspondence and Binary Merger Bounds

    gr-qc 2026-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    For noncommutative RN-AdS black holes, the paper claims bulk and boundary thermodynamic topological charges equal to zero and derives perturbative second-law corrections to the remnant-mass bound.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Bousso, Rev

    R. Bousso, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 825 (2002), arXiv:hep- th/0203101

    arXiv 2002

  2. [2]

    Here ω is a variable conformal factor, and dΩ2 2 is the line element of the unit sphere S2

    (4) that can be obtained by a Weyl rescaling of the asymp- totic AdS metric [71, 72]. Here ω is a variable conformal factor, and dΩ2 2 is the line element of the unit sphere S2. The thermodynamic first law dM = T dS + V dP + · · · (5) in the gravitational bulk is holographically dual to d ¯E = ¯T d ¯S − ¯P d ¯V + µdc + · · · (6) on the conformal boundary ...

  3. [3]

    Susskind, J

    L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys. 36, 6377 (1995), arXiv:hep- th/9409089

    arXiv 1995

  4. [4]

    ’t Hooft, Conf

    G. ’t Hooft, Conf. Proc. C 930308, 284 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9310026

    arXiv 1993

  5. [5]

    J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 428, 105 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802109

    arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    Witten, Adv

    E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802150

    arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    de Haro, K

    S. de Haro, K. Skenderis, and S. N. Solodukhin, Class. Quant. Grav. 18, 3171 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0011230

    arXiv 2001

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    Strominger and C

    A. Strominger and C. Vafa, Phys. Lett. B 379, 99 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9601029

    1996 arXiv

  2. [10]

    S. W. Hawking and D. N. Page, Communications in Mathematical Physics 87, 577 (1983)

    1983

  3. [11]

    Witten, Adv

    E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 505 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9803131

    1998 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Natsuume, AdS/CFT duality user guide , Vol

    M. Natsuume, AdS/CFT duality user guide , Vol. 903 (Springer, 2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Papadimitriou and K

    I. Papadimitriou and K. Skenderis, IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys. 8, 73 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0404176

    2005 arXiv

  6. [14]

    S. W. Hawking and D. N. Page, Commun. Math. Phys. 87, 577 (1983)

    1983

  7. [15]

    Chamblin, R

    A. Chamblin, R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson, and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D 60, 064018 (1999), arXiv:hep- th/9902170

    1999

  8. [16]

    Chamblin, R

    A. Chamblin, R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson, and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D 60, 104026 (1999), arXiv:hep- th/9904197

    1999

  9. [17]

    Kubiznak and R

    D. Kubiznak and R. B. Mann, JHEP 07, 033 (2012), arXiv:1205.0559 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    R. A. Hennigar, R. B. Mann, and E. Tjoa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 021301 (2017), arXiv:1609.02564 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Wei, Y.-X

    S.-W. Wei, Y.-X. Liu, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 071103 (2019), arXiv:1906.10840 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kastor, S

    D. Kastor, S. Ray, and J. Traschen, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 195011 (2009), arXiv:0904.2765 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  13. [21]

    B. P. Dolan, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 125020 (2011), arXiv:1008.5023 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  14. [22]

    B. P. Dolan, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 235017 (2011), arXiv:1106.6260 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  15. [23]

    H. Lu, Y. Pang, C. N. Pope, and J. F. Vazquez-Poritz, Phys. Rev. D 86, 044011 (2012), arXiv:1204.1062 [hep- th]

    2012 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Y. Xiao, Y. Tian, and Y.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 021401 (2024), arXiv:2308.12630 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A. M. Frassino, J. F. Pedraza, A. Svesko, and M. R. Visser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 161501 (2023), arXiv:2212.14055 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Kubiznak, R

    D. Kubiznak, R. B. Mann, and M. Teo, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 063001 (2017), arXiv:1608.06147 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Kubiznak and R

    D. Kubiznak and R. B. Mann, Can. J. Phys. 93, 999 (2015), arXiv:1404.2126 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    C. V. Johnson, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 205002 (2014), arXiv:1404.5982 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    B. P. Dolan, JHEP 10, 179 (2014), arXiv:1406.7267 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kastor, S

    D. Kastor, S. Ray, and J. Traschen, JHEP 11, 120 (2014), arXiv:1409.3521 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Zhang, R.-G

    J.-L. Zhang, R.-G. Cai, and H. Yu, JHEP 02, 143 (2015), arXiv:1409.5305 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    B. P. Dolan, Entropy 18, 169 (2016), arXiv:1603.06279 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Karch and B

    A. Karch and B. Robinson, JHEP 12, 073 (2015), arXiv:1510.02472 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    W. Cong, D. Kubiznak, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 091301 (2021), arXiv:2105.02223 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Zeyuan and L

    G. Zeyuan and L. Zhao, Class. Quant. Grav. 39, 075019 (2022), arXiv:2112.02386 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    M. B. Ahmed, W. Cong, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, R. B. Mann, and M. R. Visser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 181401 (2023), arXiv:2302.08163 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    de Boer, E

    J. de Boer, E. P. Verlinde, and H. L. Verlinde, JHEP 08, 003 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9912012

    2000 arXiv

  30. [38]

    de Haro, S

    S. de Haro, S. N. Solodukhin, and K. Skenderis, Commun. Math. Phys. 217, 595 (2001), arXiv:hep- th/0002230

    2001

  31. [39]

    E. P. Verlinde and H. L. Verlinde, JHEP05, 034 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9912018

    2000 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Freidel, (2008), arXiv:0804.0632 [hep-th]

    L. Freidel, (2008), arXiv:0804.0632 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Faulkner, H

    T. Faulkner, H. Liu, and M. Rangamani, JHEP 08, 051 (2011), arXiv:1010.4036 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Heemskerk and J

    I. Heemskerk and J. Polchinski, JHEP 06, 031 (2011), arXiv:1010.1264 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Papadimitriou, Springer Proc

    I. Papadimitriou, Springer Proc. Phys. 176, 131 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Lee, JHEP 01, 076 (2014), arXiv:1305.3908 [hep- th]

    S.-S. Lee, JHEP 01, 076 (2014), arXiv:1305.3908 [hep- th]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. B. Zamolodchikov, (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0401146

    2004 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Dubovsky, R

    S. Dubovsky, R. Flauger, and V. Gorbenko, JHEP 09, 133 (2012), arXiv:1205.6805 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  39. [47]

    F. A. Smirnov and A. B. Zamolodchikov, Nucl. Phys. B 915, 363 (2017), arXiv:1608.05499 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Cavagli` a, S

    A. Cavagli` a, S. Negro, I. M. Sz´ ecs´ enyi, and R. Tateo, JHEP 10, 112 (2016), arXiv:1608.05534 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Cardy, JHEP 10, 186 (2018), arXiv:1801.06895 [hep- th]

    J. Cardy, JHEP 10, 186 (2018), arXiv:1801.06895 [hep- th]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bonelli, N

    G. Bonelli, N. Doroud, and M. Zhu, JHEP 06, 149 (2018), arXiv:1804.10967 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Ferko, J

    C. Ferko, J. Hou, T. Morone, G. Tartaglino- Mazzucchelli, and R. Tateo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 7 101603 (2025), arXiv:2409.18740 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Taylor, Adv

    M. Taylor, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 27, 37 (2023), arXiv:1805.10287 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Hartman, J

    T. Hartman, J. Kruthoff, E. Shaghoulian, and A. Taj- dini, JHEP 03, 004 (2019), arXiv:1807.11401 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    McGough, M

    L. McGough, M. Mezei, and H. Verlinde, JHEP 04, 010 (2018), arXiv:1611.03470 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    J. D. Brown, J. Creighton, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 50, 6394 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9405007

    1994 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Kraus, J

    P. Kraus, J. Liu, and D. Marolf, JHEP 07, 027 (2018), arXiv:1801.02714 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    S. E. Aguilar-Gutierrez, (2024), arXiv:2410.18303 [hep- th]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Cardy, JHEP 12, 160 (2019), arXiv:1907.03394 [hep- th]

    J. Cardy, JHEP 12, 160 (2019), arXiv:1907.03394 [hep- th]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    S. He, Y. Li, Y.-Z. Li, and Y. Zhang, JHEP 06, 116 (2023), arXiv:2303.13280 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    He, Y.-Z

    S. He, Y.-Z. Li, and Y. Zhang, JHEP 05, 254 (2024), arXiv:2311.09636 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    He, Y.-Z

    S. He, Y.-Z. Li, and Y. Xie, JHEP 10, 208 (2024), arXiv:2406.04042 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    S. He, Y. Sun, and J. Yin, Phys. Rev. D 111, 086016 (2025), arXiv:2310.20516 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Donnelly and V

    W. Donnelly and V. Shyam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 131602 (2018), arXiv:1806.07444 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  56. [64]

    B. Chen, L. Chen, and P.-X. Hao, Phys. Rev. D 98, 086025 (2018), arXiv:1807.08293 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    D. J. Gross, J. Kruthoff, A. Rolph, and E. Shaghoulian, Phys. Rev. D 101, 026011 (2020), arXiv:1907.04873 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Caputa, S

    P. Caputa, S. Datta, and V. Shyam, JHEP 05, 112 (2019), arXiv:1902.10893 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Jiang, Commun

    Y. Jiang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 73, 057201 (2021), arXiv:1904.13376 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    S. He, Y. Li, H. Ouyang, and Y. Sun, (2025), arXiv:2503.09997 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Fefferman and C

    C. Fefferman and C. R. Graham, The ambient metric (AM-178) (Princeton University Press, 2012)

    2012

  62. [70]

    C. R. Graham and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 546, 52 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9901021

    1999 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Skenderis, Class

    K. Skenderis, Class. Quant. Grav. 19, 5849 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0209067

    2002 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Emparan, C

    R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson, and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D 60, 104001 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9903238

    1999 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Emparan, JHEP 06, 036 (1999), arXiv:hep- th/9906040

    R. Emparan, JHEP 06, 036 (1999), arXiv:hep- th/9906040

    1999

  66. [74]

    T.-F. Gong, J. Jiang, and M. Zhang, JHEP 06, 105 (2023), arXiv:2305.00267 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  67. [75]

    M. B. Ahmed, W. Cong, D. Kubiznak, R. B. Mann, and M. R. Visser, JHEP 08, 142 (2023), arXiv:2305.03161 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    M. R. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 105, 106014 (2022), arXiv:2101.04145 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. W. Peet, Phys. Rev. D 54, 3915 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9602135

    1996 arXiv

  70. [78]

    E. P. Verlinde, (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0008140

    2000 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Savonije and E

    I. Savonije and E. P. Verlinde, Phys. Lett. B 507, 305 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0102042

    2001 arXiv

  72. [80]

    J. D. Brown and M. Henneaux, Commun. Math. Phys. 104, 207 (1986)

    1986

  73. [81]

    W. Cong, D. Kubiznak, R. B. Mann, and M. R. Visser, JHEP 08, 174 (2022), arXiv:2112.14848 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Zhang and J

    M. Zhang and J. Jiang, JHEP 06, 115 (2023), arXiv:2303.17515 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Marolf, Gen

    D. Marolf, Gen. Rel. Grav. 41, 903 (2009), arXiv:0810.4886 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Anabal´ on, M

    A. Anabal´ on, M. Appels, R. Gregory, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, R. B. Mann, and A. Ovg¨ un, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104038 (2018), arXiv:1805.02687 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  77. [85]

    R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D 60, 046002 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9903203

    1999 arXiv

  78. [86]

    M. M. Caldarelli, G. Cognola, and D. Klemm, Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 399 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9908022

    2000 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Penrose, Annals N

    R. Penrose, Annals N. Y. Acad. Sci. 224, 125 (1973)

    1973

  80. [88]

    Cvetic, G

    M. Cvetic, G. W. Gibbons, D. Kubiznak, and C. N. Pope, Phys. Rev. D 84, 024037 (2011), arXiv:1012.2888 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Strominger, JHEP 11, 049 (2001), arXiv:hep- th/0110087

    A. Strominger, JHEP 11, 049 (2001), arXiv:hep- th/0110087

    2001

  82. [90]

    Alishahiha, A

    M. Alishahiha, A. Karch, E. Silverstein, and D. Tong, AIP Conf. Proc. 743, 393 (2004), arXiv:hep- th/0407125

    2004

  83. [91]

    Gorbenko, E

    V. Gorbenko, E. Silverstein, and G. Torroba, JHEP 03, 085 (2019), arXiv:1811.07965 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Lewkowycz, J

    A. Lewkowycz, J. Liu, E. Silverstein, and G. Torroba, JHEP 04, 152 (2020), arXiv:1909.13808 [hep-th]

    2020

  85. [93]

    Flauger, V

    R. Flauger, V. Gorbenko, A. Joyce, L. McAllister, G. Shiu, and E. Silverstein, in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.07629 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Silverstein and G

    E. Silverstein and G. Torroba, JHEP 03, 156 (2025), arXiv:2409.08709 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  87. [95]

    S. E. Aguilar-Gutierrez, A. Svesko, and M. R. Visser, JHEP 01, 120 (2025), arXiv:2410.18257 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Araujo-Regado, R

    G. Araujo-Regado, R. Khan, and A. C. Wall, JHEP 03, 026 (2023), arXiv:2204.00591 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Araujo-Regado, (2022), arXiv:2212.03219 [hep-th]

    G. Araujo-Regado, (2022), arXiv:2212.03219 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Khan, (2023), arXiv:2309.08116 [gr-qc]

    R. Khan, (2023), arXiv:2309.08116 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  91. [99]

    R. M. Soni and A. C. Wall, (2024), arXiv:2407.16769 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  92. [100]

    W. Cong, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, R. B. Mann, and M. R. Visser, (2024), arXiv:2410.16145 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Guica and R

    M. Guica and R. Monten, SciPost Phys. 10, 024 (2021), arXiv:1906.11251 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  94. [102]

    J. Gu, Y. Jiang, and H. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2503.19350 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  95. [103]

    X. Liu, J. E. Santos, and T. Wiseman, JHEP 06, 044 (2024), arXiv:2402.04308 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  96. [104]

    X. Liu, H. S. Reall, J. E. Santos, and T. Wiseman, (2025), arXiv:2505.20410 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  97. [105]

    M. He, S. He, and Y.-h. Gao, JHEP 03, 044 (2022), arXiv:2109.12885 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  98. [106]

    He and Y

    M. He and Y. Sun, Nucl. Phys. B 990, 116190 (2023), arXiv:2301.04435 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Parvizi, M

    A. Parvizi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and V. Taghiloo, (2025), arXiv:2503.09371 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Parvizi, M

    A. Parvizi, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and V. Taghiloo, (2025), arXiv:2503.09372 [hep-th]

    2025

  101. [109]

    Mancilla, (2024), arXiv:2410.06605 [hep-th]

    R. Mancilla, (2024), arXiv:2410.06605 [hep-th]

    2024

  102. [110]

    Tian, X.-N

    Y. Tian, X.-N. Wu, and H.-B. Zhang, JHEP 10, 170 (2014), arXiv:1407.8273 [hep-th]. 8 Supplemental Material for: Finite-cutoff Holographic Thermodynamics Explicit expressions for thermodynamic quantities We show explicit expressions for the thermodynamic quantities in the first...

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.