Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Boundary Conditions and Entanglement in Anti-de Sitter Space

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Boundary conditions at the conformal boundary of AdS leave the UV-divergent entanglement entropy universal but imprint a UV-finite quadratic correction that interpolates from one-sixth for Neumann conditions to zero for Dirichlet.

desk verdict Solid new result on boundary-condition dependence of the UV-finite entanglement entropy in AdS4, with an analytic anchor at the Neumann point, but the interpolating curve c_A(A) needs stronger convergence evidence before I'd trust it fully. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04229 v1 pith:ZT7PLNWG submitted 2026-08-04 hep-th gr-qc

Konstantinos Boutivas , Dimitrios Katsinis , Georgios Pastras , Nathan Smeyers , Nikolaos Tetradis This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qc
keywords entanglemententropyanti-deSitterspaceboundaryconditionsconformallycoupledscalarself-adjointextensionslatticediscretizationUV-finiteDirichletandNeumann
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 studies the entanglement entropy of a conformally coupled scalar field in the ground state on global (3+1)-dimensional anti-de Sitter space, for a spherical entangling surface near the center, and asks whether the choice of boundary conditions at the conformal boundary leaves any imprint. It argues that the UV-divergent parts are universal: the area-law coefficient $d_1 \simeq 0.29543145$ and the logarithmic coefficient $-1/90$ are the same for every admissible boundary condition. The UV-finite part, by contrast, depends on the boundary conditions. Measured relative to Dirichlet conditions, it grows quadratically in the entangling radius $R$, with a coefficient $c_A$ that interpolates smoothly from $1/6$ for Neumann conditions ($A=0$) down to $0$ in the Dirichlet limit ($A\to\infty$). A reader should care because it shows that boundary data at infinity of AdS can produce an observable-in-principle, UV-finite correction to entanglement near the center, while leaving the short-distance structure untouched.

What carries the argument

The central object is the discrete coupling matrix $K_{ij}$ of the radial lattice (equation 2.24), built on a discretization of the tortoise coordinate $w$, with an auxiliary boundary value $Q=(1-\pi A/[2(N+1)])/(1+\pi A/[2(N+1)])$ at the last lattice site encoding the mixed boundary condition. As $N\to\infty$, $Q=0$ gives Dirichlet and $Q=1$ gives Neumann; intermediate $A$ interpolates. The entropy per angular sector is computed from eigenvalues of $M=(\Omega^{-1})_C(\Omega)_C$, with $\Omega$ the positive square root of $K$, and the total entropy sums $(2\ell+1)S_\ell$. The argument that the finite part is a clean probe rests on the differential operator $D_R=45(R^2\,d^2/dR^2-R\,d/dR)$, which isolates the universal $-\frac{1}{90}\ln R$ term while annihilating a pure $R^2$ term, and on the subtraction of the Dirichlet entropy to remove scheme-dependent shifts.

What would settle it

Recompute the difference $\Delta S^{(0)}(A;R)$ using an independent discretization of the radial coordinate $r$ instead of the tortoise coordinate $w$, and check whether the extracted coefficient $c_A(A)$ in the quadratic fit is unchanged; if it shifts with the regularization, the claimed boundary-condition dependence is a lattice artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a conformally coupled scalar in AdS$_4$ (mass parameter $\kappa=1/2$), the paper claims that boundary conditions on the conformal boundary produce no new UV divergences but do change the finite part of the entanglement entropy. Using the one-parameter family of self-adjoint boundary conditions labeled by $A$, defined through the ratio of the field's derivative to its value at the boundary, it shows numerically that the leading area-law coefficient and the coefficient of $\ln(a/\epsilon)$ remain $A$-independent. The finite part is analyzed through the difference $\Delta S^{(0)}(A;R)=S^{(0)}_A(R)-S^{(0)}_{A\to\infty}(R)$, which is scheme-independent because the divergent coefficients are $A$-independent. For small $R$ the difference is quadratic, $\Delta S^{(0)}=c_A R^2/a^2$, with $c_A$ decreasing monotonically from $c_A=1/6$ at Neumann conditions to $0$ at Dirichlet conditions. The $\ell=0$ angular sector dominates this effect, and for the Neumann case the value $c_A=1/6$ is reproduced by an exact $(1+1)$-dimensional calculation with Dirichlet on one end and Neumann on the other.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the discrete lattice model, with the boundary condition encoded through one auxiliary number at the last lattice site, converges to the continuum theory with that same boundary condition for every mode and for the entropy itself; the paper checks this convergence only for a few modes and parameters, not for the full spectrum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the UV-divergent structure of the entropy is boundary-condition independent: the area-law coefficient $d_1\simeq0.29543145$ and the logarithmic coefficient $-1/90$ hold for every admissible boundary condition.
  • The UV-finite part becomes a boundary-condition observable near the center of AdS: Neumann conditions give a correction $(1/6)R^2/a^2$ relative to Dirichlet, so the conformal boundary data leave a measurable imprint at radii smaller than the AdS length.
  • Mixed boundary conditions introduce no new logarithmic divergence despite introducing the new scale $A$, because long-distance boundary effects do not alter the UV structure.
  • The $\ell=0$ angular sector dominates the boundary-condition dependence, so the effect is captured by a $(1+1)$-dimensional free scalar on a segment with Dirichlet on one end and mixed conditions on the other.
  • The $a$-function built from $D_R S^{(0)}(R)$ exhibits only the $R\to0$ UV fixed point with coefficient $-1/90$ for every boundary condition, meaning no new IR fixed point is generated by the boundary conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: repeating the extraction of $c_A(A)$ with an independent lattice discretization (for example, discretizing the radial coordinate $r$ instead of the tortoise coordinate $w$) would provide a sharp test of whether this coefficient is a genuine physical quantity or a regularization artifact.
  • Editorial inference: because $c_A$ interpolates monotonically from $1/6$ to $0$, it may be possible to derive a closed-form expression for $c_A(A)$ from the transcendental equation (2.16) in the $\ell=0$ sector, giving an analytic curve to compare with the numerical fit.
  • Editorial inference: the result implies that entanglement measures in the deep interior of AdS can serve as probes of boundary conditions at infinity; extending the calculation to entangling surfaces anchored at the conformal boundary could translate this UV-finite correction into a direct holographic statement.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the entanglement entropy of a conformally coupled scalar field in the ground state on global AdS4, for spherical entangling surfaces centered at the origin, with one-parameter mixed boundary conditions at the conformal boundary. The discretization follows Srednicki's method with a radial lattice in the tortoise coordinate, and the mixed boundary condition is implemented through an auxiliary boundary value Q depending on the parameter A. The main claims are: (i) the UV-divergent terms of the entropy, both the area-law coefficient and the logarithmic coefficient -1/90, are independent of the boundary conditions; (ii) the UV-finite part is sensitive to boundary conditions; (iii) after subtracting the Dirichlet result, the leading small-radius finite correction is quadratic, with coefficient c_A(A) interpolating smoothly from c_A=1/6 at the Neumann endpoint A=0 to c_A=0 at the Dirichlet endpoint A to infinity. The Neumann endpoint is supported by an exact analytical calculation in a 1+1 dimensional flat model corresponding to the ell=0 sector. The paper concludes that boundary conditions at the conformal boundary produce a UV-finite, observable-in-principle correction to entanglement entropy even for small entangling regions near the center of AdS.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper establishes a concrete, quantitative effect of conformal-boundary conditions on a UV-finite entanglement observable in AdS, going beyond the universal divergent terms. The result is significant because it connects self-adjoint extension data of the bulk field to an information-theoretic quantity that survives in the small-radius, flat-space-like limit. The paper has several genuine strengths: the analytic appendix provides a parameter-free derivation of the Neumann endpoint coefficient c_A=1/6 (eq. A.38); the universality of the divergent coefficients is checked with increasing lattice sizes; the subtraction construction (3.12) is well motivated; and the numerical pipeline uses high-precision arithmetic and a controlled cutoff expansion. No fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction. The main risk is computational: the continuum extrapolation for intermediate A is the load-bearing step for the interpolation curve, and the convergence evidence shown for that regime is thinner than for the endpoints.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.16) and Fig. 2] Equation (2.16) is internally inconsistent with the limits stated immediately after it. The displayed formula A = -pi Gamma(s+nu+1/2) sin(pi s) Gamma(1/2-s)/(Gamma(s)Gamma(s+nu)) vanishes for positive integer s, whereas the text says these values give A to infinity (Dirichlet); at half-integer s the factor Gamma(1/2-s) has a pole, which would make A diverge, whereas the text says A=0 (Neumann). The sentences about the sine function in the denominator and about the poles of Gamma(1/2-s) indicate that the formula should have these factors inverted. Since this s-to-A mapping is used in Fig. 2 to label continuum modes and supports the verification statements in Sec. 2.2, the displayed relation must be corrected and the mode identifications rechecked.
  2. [Secs. 3.1 and 3.2, Figs. 7 and 8] The central quantitative claim, the smooth interpolation of c_A(A) from 1/6 to 0, rests on the continuum extrapolation of the finite part S^(0)_A(R) for intermediate A. The only lattice-size convergence checks shown, Figs. 4 and 6, are for A=0, and the discrete eigenmode comparison in Fig. 2 covers only four low-lying modes at N=300. No evidence is presented that the O(1/N) boundary implementation (2.22) converges uniformly in mode label and energy for fixed finite A, nor that the extracted finite parts are stable for the intermediate values A in {0.15, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.5, 4}. Please add convergence tables or plots for c_A at finite A as N is increased, including both the ell=0 sector and the full ell-sum; without this, the interpolating curve in Fig. 8 could be contaminated by lattice artifacts.
  3. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.8)] The notation for the mass is ambiguous at the conformal point. In (2.4) mu is the coefficient of the quadratic term in the action, while in (2.15) the conformal coupling produces an effective mass-squared mu_eff^2 = mu^2 - xi d(d+1)/a^2. The value kappa=1/2 for a massless conformally coupled scalar follows only if the kappa in (2.8) is expressed in terms of mu_eff^2, not the bare mu^2 of (2.4). Please disambiguate the symbol mu in (2.8) so the reader can verify that the conformal point indeed corresponds to kappa=1/2.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, first paragraph] The word 'descretizing' should be 'discretizing'.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 8] The central figure for c_A(A) is presented without error bars or any uncertainty estimate; even approximate uncertainties from the fits, or from the spread across lattice sizes, would help the reader judge the significance of the monotonic decrease.
  3. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.10)] The value d1 approx 0.29543145 is quoted without an uncertainty; since the claim is that this value is A-independent, a short table giving the fitted value for each A in the set (3.2) would be more convincing than the single quoted number.
  4. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.22)] The sentence stating that variations of the discretized boundary condition only introduce modifications at order epsilon^2 should be justified or referenced, since the combination (Q-1)/epsilon is what enters the Hamiltonian and carries the O(1/N) deviation from Neumann.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the boundary-condition dependence of the UV-finite entropy is a genuinely computed quantity, not a relabeled fit or a self-citation reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The boundary-condition parameter A is an input that defines the self-adjoint extension through (2.16), and it is implemented on the lattice through (2.20)-(2.22). The entanglement entropy is then computed from the spectrum of the coupling matrix (2.24), and the finite-part difference (3.12) is a computed output. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: the fits in (3.4), (3.6), and (3.14) are standard extrapolation and data-description steps, and the coefficient c_A is the target observable, not a predetermined answer. The A=0 endpoint is independently reproduced by the parameter-free 1+1-dimensional calculation of appendix A, culminating in eq. (A.38), while the Dirichlet endpoint is tied to the known flat-space logarithmic term. Self-citations to [25] supply the discretization machinery and analytic mode solutions, but the central new claim—that the UV-finite part of the entropy depends on the boundary conditions and that c_A interpolates smoothly between 1/6 and 0—does not reduce to those inputs by construction. The manuscript contains explicit mode-level checks (Fig. 2) and an independent analytical endpoint, so the cited prior work is support rather than a circular load-bearing premise. The convergence caveat for intermediate A raised by the skeptic is a numerical-reliability concern, not a circularity: no equation defines c_A(A) to equal the input A or fits a quantity to a subset that includes itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No physical free parameters are introduced into the model: the boundary-condition parameter A is the independent variable, and the lattice size and cutoff are regulators. The numerical analysis involves fitted extrapolation coefficients and fitted c_A values, but these are outputs of the calculation, not inputs on which the claim is silently built. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or other entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption For 0 ≤ κ < 1, the admissible boundary conditions form a one-parameter family of self-adjoint extensions labeled by the ratio A in (2.16).
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to justify using A to select mixed boundary conditions; relies on references [29-31], not proven in this paper.
  • domain assumption The finite-difference coupling matrix (2.24), with Q from (2.22), converges to the continuum Hamiltonian with boundary condition A for all modes as N tends to infinity.
    Section 2.2 defines this discretization; agreement is shown for selected eigenvectors in Fig. 2, but convergence of the full spectrum and of the entropy extraction is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper The ℓ-sum truncation and the cutoff expansion (3.4)-(3.7) extrapolate the entropy to infinite ℓmax and zero lattice spacing without systematic error.
    Section 3.1; the ansatze are chosen to fit the numerical data and are not derived from the theory, so their validity is an assumption about the extrapolation.
  • domain assumption The endpoint deviations of S_log from -1/90 in Fig. 3 are numerical artefacts rather than physical boundary-condition effects.
    Section 3.2 interprets the decreasing deviations with larger N as artefacts; the evidence is suggestive but is not a proof of the continuum statement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boundary Conditions and Entanglement in Anti-de Sitter Space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZT7PLNWG

@misc{pith2026260804229,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boundary Conditions and Entanglement in Anti-de Sitter Space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZT7PLNWG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04229}
}
abstract

We study the entanglement entropy of a conformally coupled scalar field at its ground state in $(3+1)$-dimensional AdS space in global coordinates. We consider spherical entangling surfaces centered at the origin of AdS and allow for general boundary conditions at the conformal boundary. Through numerical and analytical means, we show that the UV-divergent part of the entropy has a universal form, while the UV-finite part is sensitive to the boundary conditions. We determine the dependence of the latter part on mixed boundary conditions that interpolate between Dirichlet and Neumann.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    On the Entropy of the Vacuum outside a Horizon

    R. D. Sorkin, “On the Entropy of the Vacuum outside a Horizon”, 10th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, July 1983, Padua, Italy [arXiv:1402.3589 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 1983

  2. [2]

    A Quantum Source of Entropy for Black Holes,

    L. Bombelli, R. K. Koul, J. Lee and R. D. Sorkin, “A Quantum Source of Entropy for Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. D34(1986), 373-383

    work page 1986

  3. [3]

    Entropy and area,

    M. Srednicki, “Entropy and area,” Phys. Rev. Lett.71(1993), 666-669 [arXiv:hep-th/9303048 [hep-th]]. – 24 –

    arXiv 1993

  4. [4]

    Entanglement entropy, conformal invariance and extrinsic geometry,

    S. N. Solodukhin, “Entanglement entropy, conformal invariance and extrinsic geometry,” Phys. Lett. B665(2008), 305-309 [arXiv:0802.3117 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    Entanglement entropy for the n-sphere,

    H. Casini and M. Huerta, “Entanglement entropy for the n-sphere,” Phys. Lett. B694 (2011), 167-171 [arXiv:1007.1813 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    Entanglement entropy in free quantum field theory,

    H. Casini and M. Huerta, “Entanglement entropy in free quantum field theory,” J. Phys. A 42, 504007 (2009) [arXiv:0905.2562 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Numerical determination of entanglement entropy for a sphere,

    R. Lohmayer, H. Neuberger, A. Schwimmer and S. Theisen, “Numerical determination of entanglement entropy for a sphere,” Phys. Lett. B685(2010), 222-227 [arXiv:0911.4283 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Is There a c Theorem in Four-Dimensions?,

    J. L. Cardy, “Is There a c Theorem in Four-Dimensions?,” Phys. Lett. B215(1988), 749-752

    1988

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Analogs for thecTheorem for Four-dimensional Renormalizable Field Theories,

    I. Jack and H. Osborn, “Analogs for thecTheorem for Four-dimensional Renormalizable Field Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B343(1990), 647-688

    1990

  2. [10]

    On Renormalization Group Flows in Four Dimensions,

    Z. Komargodski and A. Schwimmer, “On Renormalization Group Flows in Four Dimensions,” JHEP12(2011), 099 [arXiv:1107.3987 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Averaged null energy and the renormalization group,

    T. Hartman and G. Mathys, “Averaged null energy and the renormalization group,” JHEP 12(2023), 139 [arXiv:2309.14409 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A Finite entanglement entropy and the c-theorem,

    H. Casini and M. Huerta, “A Finite entanglement entropy and the c-theorem,” Phys. Lett. B 600(2004), 142-150 [arXiv:hep-th/0405111 [hep-th]]

    2004 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Entanglement and alpha entropies for a massive scalar field in two dimensions,

    H. Casini and M. Huerta, “Entanglement and alpha entropies for a massive scalar field in two dimensions,” J. Stat. Mech.0512(2005), P12012 [arXiv:cond-mat/0511014 [cond-mat]]

    2005 arXiv

  6. [14]

    On the RG running of the entanglement entropy of a circle,

    H. Casini and M. Huerta, “On the RG running of the entanglement entropy of a circle,” Phys. Rev. D85(2012), 125016 [arXiv:1202.5650 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Markov Property of the Conformal Field Theory Vacuum and the a Theorem,

    H. Casini, E. Testé and G. Torroba, “Markov Property of the Conformal Field Theory Vacuum and the a Theorem,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) no.26, 261602 [arXiv:1704.01870 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Computing c- and a-functions from entanglement,

    K. Boutivas, D. Katsinis, G. Pastras and N. Tetradis, “Computing c- and a-functions from entanglement,” Phys. Rev. D113, no.10, 105026 (2026) [arXiv:2509.03259 [hep-th]]

    2026 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Entanglement and Renormalization Group Irreversibility of Quantum Field Theory in AdS,

    N. Abate, I. Salazar and G. Torroba, “Entanglement and Renormalization Group Irreversibility of Quantum Field Theory in AdS,” [arXiv:2603.10117 [hep-th]]

  10. [18]

    Irreversibility of quantum field theory in de Sitter: the C, F and A theorems,

    N. Abate and G. Torroba, “Irreversibility of quantum field theory in de Sitter: the C, F and A theorems,” [arXiv:2411.08961 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Entanglement entropy in de Sitter space,

    J. Maldacena and G. L. Pimentel, “Entanglement entropy in de Sitter space,” JHEP02 (2013), 038 [arXiv:1210.7244 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Entanglement Entropy as a Probe Beyond the Horizon,

    K. Boutivas, D. Katsinis, G. Pastras and N. Tetradis, “Entanglement Entropy as a Probe Beyond the Horizon,” Phys. Rev. Lett.135, no.6, 061602 (2025) [arXiv:2407.07824 [hep-th]]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Numerical calculation of entanglement entropy in de Sitter space,

    K. Boutivas, D. Katsinis, G. Pastras and N. Tetradis, “Numerical calculation of entanglement entropy in de Sitter space,” Phys. Rev. D111, no.6, 6 (2025) [arXiv:2407.07811 [hep-th]]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Entanglement on a sphere,

    K. Boutivas, D. Katsinis, G. Pastras, N. Prountzos and N. Tetradis, “Entanglement on a sphere,” Phys. Rev. D112, no.6, 065020 (2025) [arXiv:2507.01174 [hep-th]]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Entanglement and expansion

    K. Boutivas, G. Pastras and N. Tetradis, “Entanglement and expansion”, JHEP05(2023), 199 [arXiv:2302.14666 [hep-th]]. – 25 –

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Entanglement in cosmology,

    K. Boutivas, D. Katsinis, G. Pastras and N. Tetradis, “Entanglement in cosmology,” JCAP 04, 017 (2024) [arXiv:2310.17208 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Entanglement entropy of a scalar field in anti-de Sitter space,

    K. Boutivas, D. Katsinis, I. Papadimitriou, G. Pastras and N. Tetradis, “Entanglement entropy of a scalar field in anti-de Sitter space,” JHEP11, 064 (2025) [arXiv:2505.15980 [hep-th]]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Some Calculable Contributions to Entanglement Entropy,

    M. P. Hertzberg and F. Wilczek, “Some Calculable Contributions to Entanglement Entropy,” Phys. Rev. Lett.106(2011), 050404 [arXiv:1007.0993 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Positive Energy in anti-De Sitter Backgrounds and Gauged Extended Supergravity,

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman, “Positive Energy in anti-De Sitter Backgrounds and Gauged Extended Supergravity,” Phys. Lett. B115(1982), 197-201

    1982

  20. [28]

    Stability in Gauged Extended Supergravity,

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman, “Stability in Gauged Extended Supergravity,” Annals Phys.144(1982), 249

    1982

  21. [29]

    Dynamics in nonglobally hyperbolic static space-times. 3. Anti-de Sitter space-time,

    A. Ishibashi and R. M. Wald, “Dynamics in nonglobally hyperbolic static space-times. 3. Anti-de Sitter space-time,” Class. Quant. Grav.21(2004), 2981-3014 [arXiv:hep-th/0402184 [hep-th]]

    2004 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Boundary conditions and vacuum fluctuations inAdS4,

    V. S. Barroso and J. P. M. Pitelli, “Boundary conditions and vacuum fluctuations inAdS4,” Gen. Rel. Grav.52(2020) no.3, 29 [arXiv:1904.10920 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Self-adjoint Extensions in Quantum Mechanics: General Theory and Applications to Schrodinger and Dirac Equations with Singular Potentials,

    D. M. Gitman, and I. V. Tyutin and B. L. Voronov, “Self-adjoint Extensions in Quantum Mechanics: General Theory and Applications to Schrodinger and Dirac Equations with Singular Potentials,” Birkhäuser Boston, MA (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Calculation of reduced density matrices from correlation functions,

    I. Peschel, “Calculation of reduced density matrices from correlation functions,” J. Phys. A 36, no.14, L205 (2003) [arXiv:cond-mat/0212631 [cond-mat]]

    2003 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Entanglement in (1+1)-dimensional free scalar field theory: Tiptoeing between continuum and discrete formulations,

    D. Katsinis and G. Pastras, “Entanglement in (1+1)-dimensional free scalar field theory: Tiptoeing between continuum and discrete formulations,” Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.8, 085015 [arXiv:2406.11031 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    On geometric entropy,

    C. G. Callan, Jr. and F. Wilczek, “On geometric entropy,” Phys. Lett. B333, 55-61 (1994) [arXiv:hep-th/9401072 [hep-th]]

    1994 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory

    P. Calabrese and J. L. Cardy, “Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory”, J. Stat. Mech.0406, P06002 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0405152 [hep-th]]

    2004 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Entanglement entropy for free scalar fields in AdS,

    S. Sugishita, “Entanglement entropy for free scalar fields in AdS,” JHEP09(2016), 128 [arXiv:1608.00305 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT,

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT,” Phys. Rev. Lett.96(2006), 181602 [arXiv:hep-th/0603001 [hep-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Aspects of Holographic Entanglement Entropy,

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Aspects of Holographic Entanglement Entropy,” JHEP08 (2006), 045 [arXiv:hep-th/0605073 [hep-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Table of Integrals, Series, and Products,

    I.S. Gradshteyn and I.M. Ryzhik, “Table of Integrals, Series, and Products,” Academic Press, Amsterdam, 7 ed. (2007). – 26 –

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.