Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Non-conformal Line Defect (Shell Operator) in AdS$_3$/CFT$_2$: Spinning and Higher Point Correlators

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spinning and four-defect correlators match across ETH, Virasoro blocks, and gravity.

desk verdict Careful extension of the thin-shell triangle to spinning and higher-point correlators; the spinning two-point result is solid, the four-point matching has an unproved non-crossing assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12711 v1 pith:4BJAJSFP submitted 2025-06-15 hep-th

Yuefeng Liu , Boyang Yu This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords thin-shelloperatorsnon-conformallinedefectsAdS3/CFT2VirasoroconformalblockseigenstatethermalizationhypothesisjunctionconditionsrotatingBTZblackholeshigher-pointcorrelators
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 extends a triangular equivalence, previously established for scalar thin-shell operators, to two new settings: defects carrying spin and correlators with four or more defects. It claims that in both settings the same correlator is produced by three independent methods: the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis (ETH) with Gaussian random matrix elements, the vacuum Virasoro conformal block solved by monodromy, and the Euclidean on-shell action of a backreacted geometry of glued BTZ black holes. For spinning defects the correlator factorizes into independent left- and right-moving halves, and the gravitational side requires a relaxed junction condition in which the induced metric may jump while the volume form stays continuous. For four defects, two insertion orderings match across all three methods and the third ordering vanishes at leading order, showing that line-defect correlators depend on operator ordering. The result matters because it extends the statistical characterization of chaotic high-energy sectors of holographic CFTs from local operators and scalar defects to spinning and multi-defect observables.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the triangular matching among three calculational frameworks: the ETH ansatz $D_{ij}=e^{-S(\bar E)/2}g_2(\bar E,\omega)R_{ij}$ with Gaussian random variables, the vacuum Virasoro block computed by imposing trivial monodromy on the solution of a Fuchsian equation whose stress tensor is obtained in the continuous limit of infinitely many local insertions along the defect, and the Euclidean gravitational on-shell action of BTZ patches glued across a dust domain wall. The new ingredient for spinning defects is the relaxed junction condition from the first-order formalism with torsion, $[\mathrm{Vol}]=0$ together with $\iota[e^a\wedge[e^b]]=0$, which allows the induced metric to be discontinuous while keeping the volume form single-valued; this produces the spin current and the additional spin term in the action. For higher-point correlators the machinery is the pairing of defects into non-crossing channels: each pair contributes one monodromy loop in field theory, one dust trajectory in the bulk, and one Gaussian contraction in ETH, and the paper shows these pairings are equivalent.

What would settle it

A direct test is to solve the Mathisson–Papapetrou–Dixon equation for the Euclidean rotating domain wall without assuming geodesic motion and check whether any non-geodesic solution yields a finite, competing on-shell action. A second test is to search numerically for solutions of the crossing-ordering monodromy conditions (5.23) with $\rho_2 \neq \rho_1$: the paper asserts the diagonal blocks force $\rho_2=\rho_4=\rho_1$ and the off-diagonal equations then over-constrain $\rho_3$, so one consistent solution would falsify the claimed vanishing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the matching among ETH, vacuum Virasoro blocks, and gravitational on-shell actions holds for spinning thin-shell operators and for higher-point scalar defect correlators. Concretely, the spinning-defect correlator factorizes as $\log G_{E_L,E_R}(t) = \frac{1}{2}(\log G_{2E_L}(t) + \log G_{2E_R}(t))$, with each half equal to a scalar defect correlator, and the same factorization holds for the thermal correlator. On the gravity side, this requires treating the domain wall of spinning dust with a junction condition that only demands continuity of the volume form, $[\mathrm{Vol}]=0$ and $\iota[e^a\wedge[e^b]]=0$, rather than continuity of the induced metric, together with an extra spin term in the on-shell action; the resulting action reproduces the field-theory factorization exactly at leading order. For four scalar defects, the two non-crossing orderings admit backreacted saddles consisting of three BTZ patches and give matching answers in all three methods, while the crossing ordering has no consistent Gaussian contraction and no stable saddle, so it vanishes at leading order.

Load-bearing premise

That spinning dust particles follow geodesic trajectories: the paper notes in section 4.2.1 that the Mathisson–Papapetrou–Dixon equation also admits non-geodesic solutions with non-perturbative spin dependence, and sets them aside; if such solutions contributed to the Euclidean saddle, the junction condition, the on-shell action, and the claimed matching would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spinning thin-shell correlators factorize into independent left- and right-moving pieces, each equal to half a scalar-defect correlator, and the same factorization holds for the thermal correlator.
  • Holographically, a spinning dust domain wall in rotating BTZ requires a relaxed junction condition: the induced metric may jump across the wall while the volume form stays continuous, with a spin-current term contributing to the on-shell action.
  • Four-defect correlators depend on the order of insertions: the two non-crossing orderings match across ETH, monodromy, and gravity, while the crossing ordering vanishes at leading order.
  • The same pairing structure extends to $2n$-point correlators: $n$ pairs of defects give $n$ monodromy loops, $n$ bulk dust trajectories, and $n+1$ BTZ regions, with Gaussian statistics at leading order.
  • The matching determines the ETH envelope function for both scalar and spinning defects, so the statistical description of these heavy defects in holographic CFTs is fixed by the same function that solves the monodromy equations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The factorization into chiral halves suggests spinning defect correlators could serve as clean probes of individual left- and right-moving sectors, for instance in out-of-time-order correlators or in entanglement measures sensitive to gravitational anomalies, where the scalar case would mix the two sectors.
  • If non-geodesic spinning solutions of the MPD equation exist as saddles, the relaxed junction condition would need modification; locating them would test not just this paper's matching but the semiclassical treatment of spinning matter in AdS3.
  • The order-dependence of defect correlators is reminiscent of a noncommutativity of nonlocal operators; a Lorentzian analytic continuation of the two matching orderings could reveal whether this ordering structure persists in real time and affects chaos diagnostics.
  • The vanishing of the crossing ordering at leading order implies non-Gaussian statistics in higher-point defect correlators only appear at subleading order or via multi-boundary wormhole saddles; computing $1/c$ corrections to the crossing vacuum block is a concrete next step.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. This paper extends the triangular equivalence between ETH-type statistical matrix elements, vacuum Virasoro blocks computed by the monodromy method, and Euclidean gravitational on-shell actions for thin-shell line defects in AdS3/CFT2. The first extension treats defects carrying spin: the ETH ansatz is taken to factorize into left- and right-moving pieces, the vacuum block is shown to obey factorized monodromy equations, and the gravity side is constructed by gluing rotating BTZ patches across a dust domain wall with a relaxed junction condition derived from the first-order formalism. The authors show that the spinning thermal correlator factorizes and that the gravitational action, including a spin term, matches the field-theoretic result through identities such as (4.44), (4.45), and (4.69). The second extension treats four- and higher-point correlators of scalar defects. For four defects, two orderings are matched across ETH, monodromy, and gravity, while the third ordering is argued to vanish in all three approaches: the ETH contractions give zero, the monodromy equations admit no solution, and gravity is asserted to have no stable crossing-domain-wall saddle.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a substantial technical extension of the thin-shell operator program: it demonstrates that the factorization of spinning defect correlators is visible from all three corners of the correspondence, and it gives a concrete four-point example in which ordering dependence, a feature special to codimension-one defects, is reproduced consistently. The computations are largely explicit and checkable; the factorization identities (4.44), (4.45), and (4.69) are welcome concrete results, and the monodromy equations for the four-defect cases are stated in enough detail to be independently verified. The main caveats are that the ETH corner relies on an envelope function chosen in prior work, and that two gravitational assertions—the geodesic assumption for spinning dust and the nonexistence of crossing domain-wall saddles—are not fully derived.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2.1, Eqs. (4.47)-(4.48)] The treatment of spinning dust assumes that the worldline is geodesic. The paper notes that the MPD equation admits additional solutions with non-perturbative dependence on the spin s and simply discards them. This assumption is load-bearing: the on-shell action contains the spin term Ispin in Eq. (4.63), and the final matching (4.70) is derived for geodesic saddles only. Since the MPD equation is third order, the geodesic branch is a measure-zero subset of phase space, and the order-by-order argument in (4.48) does not control saddles that are non-analytic in s. The authors should either prove that non-geodesic branches cannot contribute to the Euclidean saddle or state explicitly a regime where they are negligible; as written, the spinning matching is conditional on an unverified premise.
  2. [§5.3 and §5.5] The vanishing of the third four-defect ordering G3 rests on the assertion, repeated in §5.3 and §5.5, that there is no stable saddle geometry in which two domain walls cross. No derivation or reference is provided. In Euclidean AdS3, codimension-one shells can in principle intersect along curves; such an intersection would require a careful treatment of the Israel junction conditions on each shell together with a jump-vector closure condition around the intersection. If a crossing saddle existed, its on-shell action would generically be nonzero, and the gravitational prediction would disagree with the ETH result (5.8) and the monodromy result derived from (5.23)-(5.24), both of which give zero. Because this is the only gravitational justification for the vanishing of G3, the higher-point matching is not yet established at the same level of rigor as the two-point and spinning results.
  3. [§2.4, §3.3, §5.4] The ETH/CFT matching is partly by construction: the envelope function f_hD in Eq. (2.27) was chosen in prior work precisely so that the ETH saddle equation (2.9) coincides with the monodromy equation (2.19). The present paper imports this function to define the spinning envelope f-tilde in (3.33) and to identify the ETH saddle with the vacuum block in (5.31). Consequently, the matching checks in this paper demonstrate consistency between ETH, the vacuum block, and gravity, but the ETH corner is not an independent derivation of the CFT block. The abstract's phrase 'precise matching' should be qualified, since the envelope function itself is fixed by the matching condition rather than derived from a microscopic statistical ensemble.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'speficfy' in §3.2, 'stastistical' in the introduction, 'F our' in the table of contents, and 'veilbeins' in §4.2.1 and Appendix A. These should be corrected.
  2. [§4.2.2] The on-shell action for the spinning defect is computed only for the case t > tc2, with the other time regimes dismissed as analytic continuations or 'expected to be the same.' Since the matching is claimed for general t, it would be clearer to show at least the saddle equations for the intermediate regime tc1 < t < tc2 explicitly, or to state the analytic-continuation map.
  3. [§5.3, Eq. (5.30)] The terms in the second-case action (5.30) are described as 'similar' to (5.27) but not written out. Given that this action is used for the matching in §5.4, listing the explicit expressions would improve verifiability.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The ETH-to-CFT matching is enforced by construction: the envelope f_hD is chosen so that the ETH saddle equation equals the monodromy equation, and the same f is imported for spinning and higher-point correlators; the gravitational computations remain independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.4, equations (2.26)-(2.27) and (2.9)/(2.19)]
    "Such identification can be realized if we choose the envelop function to be f_hD(E_H, E) = ... With such choice, it can be proved that the saddle point equation (2.9) for E is precisely the monodromy equation (2.19) for -cρ_2^2/3. Therefore, (2.26) holds and the microcanonical correlator computed by ETH ansatz matches with the vacuum Virasoro block obtained by the monodromy method in holographic CFT_2."

    The envelope f_hD is not derived from an independent measurement or first principle; section 2.1 states openly that 'the matching among them determines the envelop function f_hD.' Thus f_hD is constructed precisely so that the ETH saddle equation (2.9) becomes identical to the monodromy equation (2.19). The claimed ETH-CFT matching is therefore an identity by definition, not a prediction that could fail. Any correlator built from this f is guaranteed to satisfy the two-point saddle equation matching, so this corner of the triangle is a consistency condition rather than an independent check.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, equation (3.33)]
    "Using the fact that S(2E) = 2S(E/2) and comparing with (3.3), we can easily get the envelop function for the spinning defect f̃(E_L, E_R, E'_L, E'_R) = (f_hD(2E_L, 2E'_L) + f_¯hD(2E_R, 2E'_R))/2."

    The factorization log G = (1/2)(log G_{2E_L} + log G_{2E_R}) is read off from the monodromy result, and then f̃ is defined as the specific combination of the scalar envelope functions that makes the ETH expression (3.3) reproduce that factorization identically. Hence the claimed precise agreement between ETH and CFT for spinning defects is built into the definition of f̃. The only genuinely independent content is the gravitational on-shell computation, which is matched separately.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.4, equation (5.31)]
    "Using the choice of the envelop function (2.27), it is easy to show that saddle equations (5.5) match with monodromy equations (5.21) under the identification M̃_12 = -cρ_2^2/3, M̃_34 = -cρ_4^2/3."

    The four-point ETH saddle equations (5.5) are built from the same two-point envelope f_hD that was earlier constructed to identify (2.9) with (2.19). The four-point monodromy equations (5.21) reduce to pairs of two-point equations of exactly the same functional form. The four-point ETH-CFT matching is therefore a structurally forced consequence of the two-point construction, not an independent derivation. It confirms that the chosen envelope extrapolates, but it does not independently verify the ETH ansatz against the Virasoro block. The four-point gravitational action is the part that carries independent content.

full rationale

The paper is not globally circular: the gravitational on-shell computations in Sections 4.1-4.2 and 5.3 are self-contained in the sense that they solve junction conditions, evaluate Euclidean actions, and then match the field-theory expressions through the stated AdS/CFT dictionary (c = 3/2G, h_D = m/8G, etc.). The spinning action, including the additional I_spin term, is computed independently and then shown to agree with the factorized field-theory result. The circular content is localized in the ETH-to-CFT corner of the triangle. Section 2.4 explicitly constructs f_hD so that the ETH saddle equation is 'precisely' the monodromy equation, and Section 2.1 admits that the matching 'determines' the envelope function. The same constructed f_hD is then used to define the spinning envelope (3.33) and to match the four-point saddle equations (5.5) to the four-point monodromy equations (5.21). Those are real consistency checks, but they are forced by the way f_hD and f̃ are defined, so they count as partial circularity rather than independent predictions. The assertion in Sections 5.3 and 5.5 that 'there is no stable saddle geometry where the two domain walls cross each other' is load-bearing for the gravitational vanishing of the third ordering but is stated without proof; this is a correctness gap, not a circularity, and it does not by itself raise the circularity score. Self-citations to [15] are present and the methods are inherited from that work, but the key f_hD is explicitly restated in the present paper, so the circularity does not rely on citation authority. On balance, one corner of the claimed triangle is definitional, while the gravitational corner is independent, giving a partial-circularity score of 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central new results rest on the prior scalar-defect framework, whose envelope function is constructed to enforce ETH-CFT matching, plus a set of domain assumptions about large-c dominance, Cardy entropy, the continuous limit, geodesic dust motion, and the import of a relaxed junction condition. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • Envelope function f_hD(E_H,E) and spinning f̃(E_L,E_R,E'_L,E'_R) = Function chosen in (2.27)-(2.28) so ETH saddle equation (2.9) equals monodromy equation (2.19); spinning version…
    Introduced in the authors' prior work and imported here; it is not derived from an independent principle. All new ETH-CFT matchings in this paper use this constructed function.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption ETH ansatz for line defects with g1=0
    Assumed in (2.5); the statistical description underlying the ETH corner. Its validity for nonlocal defects is the hypothesis being tested.
  • domain assumption Vacuum Virasoro block dominance at large c
    Invoked throughout (e.g., Section 2.2, 3.2, 5.2) as the dominant contribution to the defect correlator at large c.
  • standard math Cardy entropy for high-energy states, including nonzero spin
    Used in (2.7) and (3.4) for the density of states; standard CFT input.
  • domain assumption Continuous defect limit and rotational symmetry fixing accessory parameters
    In Section 3.2, the stress tensor is approximated by an integral and the angular dependence of c_Psi,a is fixed to K_a e^{-iθ} by rotational symmetry; this determines T(z) in (3.18).
  • domain assumption Geodesic motion for spinning dust particles
    Section 4.2.1: non-geodesic solutions to the MPD equation are excluded as non-perturbative without proof. The spinning junction condition and on-shell action rely on this.
  • domain assumption Relaxed junction condition [Vol]=0 and ι[e^a ∧ [e^b]]=0 from [59]
    Imported from Giacomini-Troncoso-Willison to allow a discontinuous induced metric; used in Section 4.2.1 and Appendix A.
  • ad hoc to paper No crossing domain walls in higher point saddles
    Section 5.3 states 'there is no stable saddle geometry where the two domain walls cross' without a derivation; this structural assumption underlies the higher-point matching.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-conformal Line Defect (Shell Operator) in AdS$_3$/CFT$_2$: Spinning and Higher Point Correlators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4BJAJSFP

@misc{pith2026250612711,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-conformal Line Defect (Shell Operator) in AdS$_3$/CFT$_2$: Spinning and Higher Point Correlators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4BJAJSFP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12711}
}
abstract

Recently, a special type of non-conformal line defect, known as thin-shell operator, has played a key role in demonstrating the chaotic nature of the high energy sector in AdS$_3$/CFT$_2$. The chaotic nature was revealed concretely through a matching among the vacuum Virasoro block in holographic CFT$_2$, ETH analysis, and gravitational on-shell partition function in AdS$_3$ with nontrivial backreaction. In this work, we generalize this matching in two ways. First, we compute two-point correlator of the spinning defects, in contrast to previous scalar defect correlator, in both the microcanonical ensemble and the canonical ensemble. Holographically, these spinning defects correspond to bulk domain walls composed of dust particles with angular momentum. Using the first order formalism of gravity, it is shown that the junction condition deviates from Israel's junction condition, resulting in a discontinuous metric across the domain wall. Second, we calculate general higher point correlators involving multiple scalar defects and provide a detailed example with four defects. We see explicitly that, because line operators in CFT$_2$ are codimension one objects, the correlators depend on the order in which these nonlocal defects are inserted, unlike the Euclidean correlators of local operators. In both generalizations, we achieve a precise matching between field theory solutions, ETH analysis and gravitational on-shell actions.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The Baby Universe is Fine and the CFT Knows It: On Holography for Closed Universes

    hep-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A closed universe in AdS/CFT is not ruled out by recent SWAP-test arguments; the one-dimensional Hilbert space seen from the CFT is external indistinguishability, and CFT data can reconstruct the closed universe's geometry.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231–252, hep-th/9711200

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Anti-de Sitter space and holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 253–291, hep-th/9802150

    arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,” Phys. Lett. B 428 (1998) 105–114, hep-th/9802109

    arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    JT gravity as a matrix integral,

    P. Saad, S. H. Shenker, and D. Stanford, “JT gravity as a matrix integral,” 1903.11115

    arXiv 1903

  5. [5]

    Replica wormholes and the black hole interior,

    G. Penington, S. H. Shenker, D. Stanford, and Z. Yang, “Replica wormholes and the black hole interior,” JHEP 03 (2022) 205, 1911.11977

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Replica Wormholes and the Entropy of Hawking Radiation,

    A. Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghoulian, and A. Tajdini, “Replica Wormholes and the Entropy of Hawking Radiation,” JHEP 05 (2020) 013, 1911.12333

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Random statistics of OPE coefficients and Euclidean wormholes,

    A. Belin and J. de Boer, “Random statistics of OPE coefficients and Euclidean wormholes,” Class. Quant. Grav. 38 (2021), no. 16, 164001, 2006.05499

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Wormholes and black hole microstates in AdS/CFT,

    J. Cotler and K. Jensen, “Wormholes and black hole microstates in AdS/CFT,” JHEP 09 (2021) 001, 2104.00601

    arXiv 2021

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Semiclassical 3D gravity as an average of large-c CFTs,

    J. Chandra, S. Collier, T. Hartman, and A. Maloney, “Semiclassical 3D gravity as an average of large-c CFTs,” JHEP 12 (2022) 069, 2203.06511

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Microscopic origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy,

    A. Strominger and C. Vafa, “Microscopic origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy,” Phys. Lett. B 379 (1996) 99–104, hep-th/9601029

    1996 arXiv

  3. [11]

    The Fuzzball proposal for black holes: An Elementary review,

    S. D. Mathur, “The Fuzzball proposal for black holes: An Elementary review,” Fortsch. Phys. 53 (2005) 793–827, hep-th/0502050

    2005 arXiv

  4. [12]

    From operator statistics to wormholes,

    A. Altland, D. Bagrets, P. Nayak, J. Sonner, and M. Vielma, “From operator statistics to wormholes,” Phys. Rev. Res. 3 (2021), no. 3, 033259, 2105.12129

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    AdS 3/RMT2 duality,

    G. Di Ubaldo and E. Perlmutter, “AdS 3/RMT2 duality,” JHEP 12 (2023) 179, 2307.03707

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    OPE statistics from higher-point crossing,

    T. Anous, A. Belin, J. de Boer, and D. Liska, “OPE statistics from higher-point crossing,” JHEP 06 (2022) 102, 2112.09143

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Correlation function of thin-shell operators,

    B. Chen, Y. Liu, and B. Yu, “Correlation function of thin-shell operators,” JHEP 08 (2024) 082, 2404.11423

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Statistics of three-dimensional black holes from Liouville line defects,

    J. Chandra, T. Hartman, and V. Meruliya, “Statistics of three-dimensional black holes from Liouville line defects,” 2404.15183

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Multiboundary wormholes and OPE statistics,

    J. de Boer, D. Liska, and B. Post, “Multiboundary wormholes and OPE statistics,” JHEP 10 (2024) 207, 2405.13111

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    No ensemble averaging below the black hole threshold,

    J.-M. Schlenker and E. Witten, “No ensemble averaging below the black hole threshold,” JHEP 07 (2022) 143, 2202.01372

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A precision test of averaging in AdS/CFT,

    J. Cotler and K. Jensen, “A precision test of averaging in AdS/CFT,” JHEP 11 (2022) 070, 2205.12968

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Thermalization in large-N CFTs,

    R. Karlsson, A. Parnachev, and P. Tadi´ c, “Thermalization in large-N CFTs,” JHEP 09 (2021) 205, 2102.04953. – 37 –

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Chaos and Quantum Thermalization,

    M. Srednicki, “Chaos and Quantum Thermalization,” Phys. Rev. E 50 (3, 1994) cond-mat/9403051

    1994 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system,

    J. M. Deutsch, “Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system,” Phys. Rev. A 43 (1991), no. 4, 2046

    1991

  15. [23]

    Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems,

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, “Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems,” Nature 452 (2008), no. 7189, 854–858, 0708.1324

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics,

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, “From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics,” Adv. Phys. 65 (2016), no. 3, 239–362, 1509.06411

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A principle of maximum ignorance for semiclassical gravity,

    J. de Boer, D. Liska, B. Post, and M. Sasieta, “A principle of maximum ignorance for semiclassical gravity,” JHEP 2024 (2024) 003, 2311.08132

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A bound on chaos,

    J. Maldacena, S. H. Shenker, and D. Stanford, “A bound on chaos,” JHEP 08 (2016) 106, 1503.01409

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Virasoro Conformal Blocks and Thermality from Classical Background Fields,

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, and M. T. Walters, “Virasoro Conformal Blocks and Thermality from Classical Background Fields,” JHEP 11 (2015) 200, 1501.05315

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Black Holes and Random Matrices,

    J. S. Cotler, G. Gur-Ari, M. Hanada, J. Polchinski, P. Saad, S. H. Shenker, D. Stanford, A. Streicher, and M. Tezuka, “Black Holes and Random Matrices,” JHEP 05 (2017) 118, 1611.04650. [Erratum: JHEP 09, 002 (2018)]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A semiclassical ramp in SYK and in gravity,

    P. Saad, S. H. Shenker, and D. Stanford, “A semiclassical ramp in SYK and in gravity,” 1806.06840

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    AdS 3 gravity and random CFT,

    J. Cotler and K. Jensen, “AdS 3 gravity and random CFT,” JHEP 04 (2021) 033, 2006.08648

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Quantum chaos in 2D gravity,

    A. Altland, B. Post, J. Sonner, J. van der Heijden, and E. P. Verlinde, “Quantum chaos in 2D gravity,” SciPost Phys. 15 (2023), no. 2, 064, 2204.07583

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A convergent genus expansion for the plateau,

    P. Saad, D. Stanford, Z. Yang, and S. Yao, “A convergent genus expansion for the plateau,” JHEP 09 (2024) 033, 2210.11565

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Boundary and Defect CFT: Open Problems and Applications,

    N. Andrei et al., “Boundary and Defect CFT: Open Problems and Applications,” J. Phys. A 53 (2020), no. 45, 453002, 1810.05697

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Generalized Global Symmetries,

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, “Generalized Global Symmetries,” JHEP 02 (2015) 172, 1412.5148

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    On finite symmetries and their gauging in two dimensions,

    L. Bhardwaj and Y. Tachikawa, “On finite symmetries and their gauging in two dimensions,” JHEP 03 (2018) 189, 1704.02330

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Topological Defect Lines and Renormalization Group Flows in Two Dimensions,

    C.-M. Chang, Y.-H. Lin, S.-H. Shao, Y. Wang, and X. Yin, “Topological Defect Lines and Renormalization Group Flows in Two Dimensions,” JHEP 01 (2019) 026, 1802.04445

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory,

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

    2004 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Some results on the mutual information of disjoint regions in higher dimensions,

    J. Cardy, “Some results on the mutual information of disjoint regions in higher dimensions,” J. Phys. A 46 (2013) 285402, 1304.7985

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    R´ enyi entropy and conformal defects,

    L. Bianchi, M. Meineri, R. C. Myers, and M. Smolkin, “R´ enyi entropy and conformal defects,” JHEP 07 (2016) 076, 1511.06713. – 38 –

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Lectures on generalized symmetries,

    L. Bhardwaj, L. E. Bottini, L. Fraser-Taliente, L. Gladden, D. S. W. Gould, A. Platschorre, and H. Tillim, “Lectures on generalized symmetries,” Phys. Rept. 1051 (2024) 1–87, 2307.07547

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    What’s Done Cannot Be Undone: TASI Lectures on Non-Invertible Symmetries,

    S.-H. Shao, “What’s Done Cannot Be Undone: TASI Lectures on Non-Invertible Symmetries,” 2308.00747

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Wormholes from heavy operator statistics in AdS/CFT,

    M. Sasieta, “Wormholes from heavy operator statistics in AdS/CFT,” JHEP 03 (2023) 158, 2211.11794

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Black Hole Collapse in the 1/c Expansion,

    T. Anous, T. Hartman, A. Rovai, and J. Sonner, “Black Hole Collapse in the 1/c Expansion,” JHEP 07 (2016) 123, 1603.04856

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Microscopic Origin of the Entropy of Black Holes in General Relativity,

    V. Balasubramanian, A. Lawrence, J. M. Magan, and M. Sasieta, “Microscopic Origin of the Entropy of Black Holes in General Relativity,” Phys. Rev. X 14 (2024), no. 1, 011024, 2212.02447

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Microscopic Origin of the Entropy of Astrophysical Black Holes,

    V. Balasubramanian, A. Lawrence, J. M. Magan, and M. Sasieta, “Microscopic Origin of the Entropy of Astrophysical Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024), no. 14, 141501, 2212.08623

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Universal construction of black hole microstates,

    A. Climent, R. Emparan, J. M. Magan, M. Sasieta, and A. Vilar L´ opez, “Universal construction of black hole microstates,” Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 8, 086024, 2401.08775

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Microscopic Origin of the Entropy of Single-sided Black Holes,

    H. Geng and Y. Jiang, “Microscopic Origin of the Entropy of Single-sided Black Holes,” 2409.12219

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Factorization of the Hilbert space of eternal black holes in general relativity,

    V. Balasubramanian, B. Craps, J. Hernandez, M. Khramtsov, and M. Knysh, “Factorization of the Hilbert space of eternal black holes in general relativity,” JHEP 01 (2025) 046, 2410.00091

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Notes on the Factorisation of the Hilbert Space for Two-Sided Black Holes in Higher Dimensions,

    P. Li, “Notes on the Factorisation of the Hilbert Space for Two-Sided Black Holes in Higher Dimensions,” 2410.23886

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Entanglement Entropy at Large Central Charge,

    T. Hartman, “Entanglement Entropy at Large Central Charge,” 1303.6955

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Holographic Entanglement Entropy from 2d CFT: Heavy States and Local Quenches,

    C. T. Asplund, A. Bernamonti, F. Galli, and T. Hartman, “Holographic Entanglement Entropy from 2d CFT: Heavy States and Local Quenches,” JHEP 02 (2015) 171, 1410.1392

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Thermality and excited state R´ enyi entropy in two-dimensional CFT,

    F.-L. Lin, H. Wang, and J.-j. Zhang, “Thermality and excited state R´ enyi entropy in two-dimensional CFT,” JHEP 11 (2016) 116, 1610.01362

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Probing beyond ETH at large c,

    T. Faulkner and H. Wang, “Probing beyond ETH at large c,” JHEP 06 (2018) 123, 1712.03464

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Holographic entanglement entropy and gravitational anomalies,

    A. Castro, S. Detournay, N. Iqbal, and E. Perlmutter, “Holographic entanglement entropy and gravitational anomalies,” JHEP 07 (2014) 114, 1405.2792

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Holographic complexity of rotating quantum black holes,

    B. Chen, Y. Liu, and B. Yu, “Holographic complexity of rotating quantum black holes,” JHEP 01 (2024) 055, 2307.15968

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Spinning operators and defects in conformal field theory,

    E. Lauria, M. Meineri, and E. Trevisani, “Spinning operators and defects in conformal field theory,” JHEP 08 (2019) 066, 1807.02522

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Spinning conformal defects,

    N. Kobayashi and T. Nishioka, “Spinning conformal defects,” JHEP 09 (2018) 134, 1805.05967

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    General relativity with torsion,

    T. Watanabe and M. J. Hayashi, “General relativity with torsion,” gr-qc/0409029. – 39 –

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Junction conditions in general relativity with spin sources,

    A. Giacomini, R. Troncoso, and S. Willison, “Junction conditions in general relativity with spin sources,” Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 104014, gr-qc/0603084

    2006 arXiv

  52. [60]

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

    J. D. Brown and M. Henneaux, “Central Charges in the Canonical Realization of Asymptotic Symmetries: An Example from Three-Dimensional Gravity,” Commun. Math. Phys. 104 (1986) 207–226

    1986

  53. [61]

    Operator Content of Two-Dimensional Conformally Invariant Theories,

    J. L. Cardy, “Operator Content of Two-Dimensional Conformally Invariant Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 270 (1986) 186–204

    1986

  54. [62]

    Conformal symmetry in two-dimensional space: Recursion representation of conformal block,

    A. B. Zamolodchikov, “Conformal symmetry in two-dimensional space: Recursion representation of conformal block,” Theor. Math. Phys. 73 (1987), no. 1, 1088–1093

    1987

  55. [63]

    Universal Spectrum of 2d Conformal Field Theory in the Large c Limit,

    T. Hartman, C. A. Keller, and B. Stoica, “Universal Spectrum of 2d Conformal Field Theory in the Large c Limit,” JHEP 09 (2014) 118, 1405.5137

    2014 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Neue mechanik materieller systemes,

    M. Mathisson, “Neue mechanik materieller systemes,” Acta Phys. Polon. 6 (1937) 163–200

    1937

  57. [65]

    Spinning test particles in general relativity. 1.,

    A. Papapetrou, “Spinning test particles in general relativity. 1.,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 209 (1951) 248–258

    1951

  58. [66]

    Dynamics of extended bodies in general relativity. I. Momentum and angular momentum,

    W. G. Dixon, “Dynamics of extended bodies in general relativity. I. Momentum and angular momentum,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 314 (1970) 499–527

    1970

  59. [67]

    On information loss in AdS 3/CFT2,

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, D. Li, and J. Wang, “On information loss in AdS 3/CFT2,” JHEP 05 (2016) 109, 1603.08925

    2016 arXiv

  60. [68]

    On the Late-Time Behavior of Virasoro Blocks and a Classification of Semiclassical Saddles,

    A. L. Fitzpatrick and J. Kaplan, “On the Late-Time Behavior of Virasoro Blocks and a Classification of Semiclassical Saddles,” JHEP 04 (2017) 072, 1609.07153

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    A Numerical Approach to Virasoro Blocks and the Information Paradox,

    H. Chen, C. Hussong, J. Kaplan, and D. Li, “A Numerical Approach to Virasoro Blocks and the Information Paradox,” JHEP 09 (2017) 102, 1703.09727

    2017 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Real-time gauge/gravity duality,

    K. Skenderis and B. C. van Rees, “Real-time gauge/gravity duality,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 081601, 0805.0150

    2008 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Real-time gauge/gravity duality: Prescription, Renormalization and Examples,

    K. Skenderis and B. C. van Rees, “Real-time gauge/gravity duality: Prescription, Renormalization and Examples,” JHEP 05 (2009) 085, 0812.2909

    2009 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Conformal four point functions and the operator product expansion,

    F. A. Dolan and H. Osborn, “Conformal four point functions and the operator product expansion,” Nucl. Phys. B 599 (2001) 459–496, hep-th/0011040

    2001 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Nonuniform state of superconductors,

    A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, “Nonuniform state of superconductors,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47 (1964) 1136–1146

    1964

  66. [74]

    Two-dimensional conformal field theory and the butterfly effect,

    D. A. Roberts and D. Stanford, “Two-dimensional conformal field theory and the butterfly effect,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015), no. 13, 131603, 1412.5123

    2015 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Lyapunov Exponent and Out-of-Time-Ordered Correlator’s Growth Rate in a Chaotic System,

    E. B. Rozenbaum, S. Ganeshan, and V. Galitski, “Lyapunov Exponent and Out-of-Time-Ordered Correlator’s Growth Rate in a Chaotic System,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017), no. 8, 086801, 1609.01707

    2017 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Black holes and the butterfly effect,

    S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, “Black holes and the butterfly effect,” JHEP 03 (2014) 067, 1306.0622

    2014 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Multiple Shocks,

    S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, “Multiple Shocks,” JHEP 12 (2014) 046, 1312.3296

    2014 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Stringy effects in scrambling,

    S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, “Stringy effects in scrambling,” JHEP 05 (2015) 132, 1412.6087. – 40 –

    2015 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Towards a C-theorem in defect CFT,

    N. Kobayashi, T. Nishioka, Y. Sato, and K. Watanabe, “Towards a C-theorem in defect CFT,” JHEP 01 (2019) 039, 1810.06995

    2019 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Renormalization Group Flows on Line Defects,

    G. Cuomo, Z. Komargodski, and A. Raviv-Moshe, “Renormalization Group Flows on Line Defects,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022), no. 2, 021603, 2108.01117

    2022 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Factorizing Defects from Generalized Pinning Fields,

    F. K. Popov and Y. Wang, “Factorizing Defects from Generalized Pinning Fields,” 2504.06203. – 41 –

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.