Path Integral Optimization for $T\bar{T}$ Deformation

Ali Naseh; Ghadir Jafari; Hamed Zolfi

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Path Integral Optimization for $T\bar{T}$ Deformation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that applying path integral optimization to $T\bar{T}$-deformed two-dimensional CFTs produces time-slice geometries of the dual bulk that fill the entire spacetime, that a positive deformation parameter can equivalently…

desk verdict A useful, first pass at path-integral optimization for TTbar-deformed CFTs; the apparent thermal matching inconsistency dissolves once you account for tilde-mu = mu pi c/6, and the real caveat is the conjectural optimization step. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02357 v1 pith:7WP7CIBL submitted 2019-09-05 hep-th cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

Ghadir Jafari , Ali Naseh , Hamed Zolfi This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thcond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph PACS 03.67.-a03.70.+k11.10.Gh

keywords TTbardeformationpathintegraloptimizationholographiccomplexityLiouvilleactionentanglemententropythermofielddoublestateAdS3/CFT2finitebulkcutoff

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 applies the path integral optimization prescription to $T\bar{T}$-deformed two-dimensional CFTs and claims that the optimized Euclidean path integrals produce time slices of the bulk geometries dual to vacuum, primary, and thermal states. The central result is that these geometries cover the entire spacetime rather than stopping at a finite cutoff, which fits the integrability and expected UV-completeness of $T\bar{T}$-deformed theories. For a positive deformation parameter, the same solutions admit an alternative reading as geometries at a finite bulk radius, matching an earlier finite-cutoff proposal. The paper also computes holographic entanglement entropy and quantum state complexity for these solutions, and finds that the complexity of formation of the thermofield double state is ultraviolet finite and depends on temperature. If correct, the result recasts the $T\bar{T}$/gravity correspondence as a consequence of variational optimization of path integrals.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized Liouville action $S_{GL}[\Omega,g]$: the change in the partition function of the deformed theory under a Weyl factor $\Omega$, containing the standard Liouville term plus a $\tilde{\mu}$-suppressed term built from $\langle T\bar{T}\rangle$. Treating the deformed path integral's normalization $e^{S_{GL}}$ as a count of elementary gates, the paper minimizes $S_{GL}$ with respect to $\Omega$ and interprets the on-shell value as the state complexity. The equation of motion is solved perturbatively in $\tilde{\mu}$, and the integration constants are fixed by the UV condition $g_{zz}(\epsilon,x)\sim 1/\epsilon^2$ and by matching the gravitational energy to the known $T\bar{T}$ energy spectrum.

What would settle it

Compute the exact optimized geometry at finite deformation parameter $\mu$ beyond first order in $\tilde{\mu}$ and check whether the on-shell generalized Liouville action is still finite and reproduces the exact $T\bar{T}$ spectrum; a UV divergence or a mismatch at finite $\mu$ would falsify the central claim. Alternatively, simulate the deformed theory on a lattice and count the minimal gates needed to prepare the thermofield double state: the paper predicts a UV-finite, temperature-dependent complexity of formation with a specific coefficient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that minimizing the normalization of the deformed path integral, defined through a generalized Liouville action $S_{GL}[\Omega,\delta]$ that includes the $T\bar{T}$ insertion, produces explicit optimized Weyl factors $\Omega(z)$ for the vacuum, primary, and thermal states. The vacuum solution is the time slice of Poincaré AdS$_3$; the primary solution is a deformed global-AdS slice whose Fefferman–Graham expansion reproduces the deformed primary energy spectrum; and the thermal solution is the BTZ time slice with the deformed temperature $1/\beta' = (1+\tilde{\mu}c_1/l^2)/\beta$, whose mass matches the known $T\bar{T}$ spectrum at first order in the deformation parameter. In all cases the optimized metric remains smooth through the region that a finite-cutoff description would remove, which the paper reads as evidence that the whole bulk participates. The same thermal geometry, when written in Fefferman–Graham coordinates, has a conformal boundary that coincides with fixing the induced metric at finite radius $\rho_c = \mu/(32\pi G l)$, recovering the finite-cutoff interpretation for positive $\mu$. The complexity of formation $C_{BTZ}^{T\bar T}-2C_{AdS}^{T\bar T}$ is UV finite and depends on temperature.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the path integral optimization prescription, minimizing the normalization factor $e^{S_{GL}}$ and equating its on-shell value to complexity, remains valid for $T\bar{T}$-deformed CFTs; if that conjecture fails for deformed theories, the optimized geometries and complexity numbers are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the optimized geometries capture the entire bulk, the $T\bar{T}$ deformation is not literally a hard cutoff geometry: the finite-radius description is one valid reading for positive $\mu$, not the full story.
The holographic dictionary for $T\bar{T}$-deformed CFTs follows from the variational optimization principle, giving a derivation of the deformed geometry rather than a postulate.
Holographic entanglement entropy for deformed states acquires the extra term proportional to $\mu c^2/(144\beta^2)(\pi R/\beta \coth(\pi R/\beta)-1)$, which vanishes as the entangling region shrinks to zero.
The complexity of formation of the thermofield double state is UV finite and temperature dependent, consistent with holographic complexity proposals.
The stress tensor computed from the optimized action satisfies the first law of entanglement entropy and the Zamolodchikov flow equation, so the optimization and the deformed field theory agree on thermodynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper works to first order in $\tilde{\mu}$; a natural next step is a nonperturbative check of whether the optimized geometry still fills the entire bulk or develops a genuine singularity or cutoff at finite coupling.
If the complexity-as-on-shell-action identification is correct, the temperature dependence of the UV-finite complexity of formation predicts a specific gate-count scaling for tensor-network preparations of deformed thermofield double states, which could be tested in lattice simulations.
The same optimization could be applied to other solvable irrelevant deformations such as $J\bar{T}$ or $T\bar{J}$ to see whether a full-bulk geometry emerges there too, or whether the result is special to $T\bar{T}$.
Because the paper finds the energy density from both the first law and the action, the deformed stress tensor may be derivable directly from the optimized metric without invoking the usual holographic renormalization machinery, which would simplify future applications.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things up front. The paper is a workmanlike first application of the Caputa-Kundu-Miyaji-Takayanagi-Watanabe path-integral optimization to TTbar-deformed CFTs, and it mostly delivers what it promises: optimized vacuum, primary, and thermal geometries, plus entanglement entropy and complexity for those states. Second, the stress-test note you forwarded is wrong. The thermal integration constant is consistent. The metric in (31) is written with tilde-mu = mu pi c/6, not mu. Once you use that, the paper's c1 = G M_BTZ/(4 pi^2) gives exactly the shift mu M_BTZ/(8 pi l) required by the spectrum and by the Guica-Monten boundary metric. The apparent factor of 6/(pi c) comes from dropping the pi c/6 difference. So the central numerical matching holds.

What is new and good: this is the first time anyone has run the optimization program for TTbar, and the paper does not just assert the answer; it checks the deformed energy spectrum, the boundary metric against Guica-Monten, and the stress tensor from the first law against the one derived from the generalized Liouville action. Those checks are real, and the entropy result in (43) and the complexity-of-formation result are new enough to be worth having.

The soft spots are also real. The whole method leans on the unproven optimization conjecture: that minimizing e^{S_GL} selects the correct state and that the on-shell action is complexity. The paper does not justify that in the deformed setting beyond analogy and the energy-matching condition in the ansatz. Everything is first order in tilde-mu, so the 'entire bulk' claim is a perturbative statement, not a nonperturbative one. And in the complexity calculation, the UV finiteness comes from using the deformed temperature beta' in Eq. (32); that is the Hawking temperature of (31), so I do not think it is an unmotivated choice, but the paper should be read with the footnote in mind: use beta instead and the divergence returns.

Bottom line: the paper is a plausible, internally consistent step, not a proof. Read it if you work on TTbar holography or path-integral complexity; cite it as a first treatment. I would send it to a serious referee, with a request to make the tilde-mu vs mu notation explicit and to state more plainly that the optimization principle is assumed.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the Caputa-Kundu-Miyaji-Takayanagi-Watanabe path-integral optimization prescription to TTbar-deformed two-dimensional CFTs. It solves the deformed Liouville-type equation of motion perturbatively in the deformation parameter mu for vacuum, primary, and thermal states, obtaining optimized metrics that it identifies with time slices of bulk geometries. For the thermal state the geometry is a deformed BTZ solution whose mass is matched to the known TTbar energy spectrum, and for positive mu the metric is reinterpreted as a geometry at a finite bulk cutoff, in agreement with McGough-Mezei-Verlinde. The paper also computes holographic entanglement entropy and path-integral complexity for these states, claiming that the complexity of formation of the thermofield double state is UV finite and temperature dependent.

Significance. If the path-integral optimization conjecture is valid for TTbar-deformed CFTs, the paper offers a variational derivation of the TTbar/AdS3 dictionary and ties it to earlier proposals by MMV and Guica-Monten. The calculations are explicit and reproducible, and the paper checks its calibrations against independent external benchmarks: the Zamolodchikov-Smirnov energy spectrum, the MMV finite-cutoff proposal, and the Guica-Monten mixed-boundary-condition analysis. The predicted UV-finite, temperature-dependent complexity of formation is a concrete and, in principle, falsifiable statement. The main limitations are that the optimization conjecture is assumed rather than proved, and that all results are first order in the deformation parameter.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 2 (Path Integral Optimization), Eqs. (14)-(16)] The derivation assumes without proof that the CKMTW prescription - minimizing the normalization e^{S_GL} and identifying the on-shell S_GL with state complexity - extends verbatim to TTbar-deformed CFTs. This is the load-bearing step that converts the optimization into bulk geometry and complexity, and all subsequent results inherit it. I am not asking for a proof of the original conjecture, but the paper should state this assumption explicitly and provide whatever evidence is available, for example consistency of the resulting stress tensor with the TTbar trace-flow equation beyond the first-law check, or a comparison with a reference-family independence test.
[Sec. 2, Eq. (14)] The counterterm relation \bar{\Lambda} = \tilde{\Lambda} + (3/16)\tilde{\mu}\tilde{\Lambda}^2 is imposed with only the comment that 'the reason will be clear'. This relation fixes the O(\mu) terms in S_GL and therefore enters the equation of motion (16) and every optimized solution. A derivation from the TTbar Weyl anomaly, from the Zamolodchikov flow, or from holographic renormalization with mixed boundary conditions should be supplied; without it the action (14) is an ansatz rather than a derived effective action.
[Sec. 3, thermal state, Eqs. (29)-(35)] The calibration c1 = G M_BTZ/(4\pi^2) is the pivot that connects the optimized metric to the known TTbar spectrum and to the Guica-Monten boundary metric, but the algebra is not exhibited. Carrying it out with \tilde{\mu} = \pi c \mu/6 and c = 3l/(2G) does give M_TT = M_BTZ(1+\mu M_BTZ/(8\pi l)) and matches Eq. (40); I verified that the apparent normalization discrepancy disappears once \tilde{\mu} is substituted. Still, the matching for the primary state is only asserted ('matches ... for c1 = -1/32\pi^2') with no energy formula displayed, and the thermal matching is compressed. Please present the mass/spectrum comparison explicitly and state clearly that it holds only to first order in \mu.
[Sec. 4 (complexity), Eq. (51) and footnote [33]] The headline statement that the complexity of formation is UV finite depends on using the deformed inverse temperature \beta' from Eq. (32) in C^BTZ_TT. Footnote [33] acknowledges that replacing \beta' by the undeformed \beta produces an O(1/\epsilon^2) divergence. Since the finiteness claim is central, the physical justification of 1/\beta' as the temperature of the TFD state in the deformed theory should be moved into the main text and argued from the state definition in Eq. (25) and the Hawking temperature of (31), not only from the requirement of consistency with expected UV behavior.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 3, Eq. (21)] The definition of a is printed as 'a = 1 - 12h_\alpha/c'; if a^2 is what is intended, please clarify, since a enters the geometry and complexity formulas.
[Sec. 3, Eq. (28)] The solution of the second-order ODE (27) is written with only one integration constant; please identify the discarded mode (regularity at z=0 or a boundary condition) and state it explicitly.
[Sec. 4, Eqs. (52)-(53)] The first-law variation expansion is not derived; please give the short derivation or the precise reference, and define \beta' consistently in that paragraph.
[Abstract and Sec. 3] Phrases such as 'capture the entire bulk' and 'capture the entire spacetime' should be qualified as 'to first order in \mu' and 'within the path-integral-optimization framework'; as written they overstate the status of a first-order perturbative calculation.
[Throughout] There are minor typographical issues: 'kundu' is lowercase in the abstract, Eq. (35) appears to have a missing fraction in the display, and the order of footnote markers around [30] should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the integration constants are calibrated against the external TTbar spectrum, and the entropy, complexity, and stress-tensor results are independent evaluations on the optimized geometries.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The path-integral optimization framework of Caputa et al. is imported as a conjecture, but it does not already contain the TTbar results; the paper's new content is the application of that framework to TTbar-deformed CFTs. The integration constants are fixed by matching to the established TTbar energy spectrum of Zamolodchikov and Smirnov-Zamolodchikov for the primary and thermal states, and the resulting geometries are then used to compute entanglement entropy, complexity, and stress tensors. The agreement of the conformal boundary factor in Eq. (37) with the Guica-Monten deformed metric (40) is a consistency check that follows from the same c1 condition already fixed by the energy matching, rather than an independent prediction, so it does not amount to a fitted input being relabeled as a prediction. The only overlapping-author citation, [22], appears in a footnote about prior CA-complexity work and is not load-bearing. Because the central results are checked against external benchmarks and do not reduce to their own inputs by construction, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The main unproved input is the path integral optimization conjecture itself. The listed constants are integration constants fixed by matching to known TTbar spectrum or boundary conditions, so they are not free fits to new data but they are choices the final results depend on.

free parameters (3)

c1 for primary state = -1/(32 pi^2)
Fixed by matching the gravitational energy of metric (22)-(24) to the known TTbar-deformed primary energy in refs. [18,19]. The complexity result for the primary state depends on this value.
c1 for thermal state = G M_BTZ/(4 pi^2)
Fixed by matching the ADM mass of the deformed BTZ solution to the known TTbar energy spectrum in refs. [18,19]. This value enters the entanglement entropy and complexity results.
c2 in vacuum and primary solutions = 0
Set to zero by imposing the UV boundary condition g_zz(epsilon,x) ~ 1/epsilon^2; it removes a term from the deformed metrics.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Path integral optimization conjecture: minimizing the normalization factor e^{S_GL} gives the dual geometry, and the on-shell action defines complexity.
The paper relies on the Caputa-Kundu-Miyaji-Takayanagi-Watanabe proposal from refs. [12,13]; no proof is given here.
domain assumption TTbar deformation corresponds to mixed boundary conditions on the bulk metric.
Used to motivate allowing only the metric to vary while keeping the deformation coupling constant; based on refs. [20,23,21].
domain assumption The deformation parameter mu is small, so all solutions and physical quantities are kept to first order in mu.
Eq. (9) is derived assuming small mu, and the optimized geometries in Eqs. (19), (22), and (29) are first-order perturbative results.
ad hoc to paper The optimization is restricted to conformally flat metrics e^{2Omega}(dtau^2 + dx^2) with constant mu.
This ansatz is introduced to make the calculation tractable; coordinate dependence of the deformation coupling is excluded.
ad hoc to paper The counterterm relation \bar{Lambda} = \tilde{Lambda} + (3/16) \tilde{mu} \tilde{Lambda}^2 is imposed.
This relation is introduced in Eq. (14) so that the undeformed solution keeps its standard form; the paper says the reason will be clear later.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Path Integral Optimization for $T\bar{T}$ Deformation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7WP7CIBL

@misc{pith2026190902357,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Path Integral Optimization for $T\barT$ Deformation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7WP7CIBL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02357}
}

abstract

We use the path integral optimization approach of Caputa, kundu, Miyaji, Takayanagi and Watanabe to find the time slice of geometries dual to vacuum, primary and thermal states in the $T\bar{T}$ deformed two dimensional CFTs. The obtained optimized geometries actually capture the entire bulk which fits well with the integrability and expected UV-completeness of $T\bar{T}$-deformed CFTs. When deformation parameter is positive, these optimized solutions can be reinterpreted as geometries at finite bulk radius, in agreement with a previous proposal by McGough, Mezei and Verlinde. We also calculate the holographic entanglement entropy and quantum state complexity for these solutions. We show that the complexity of formation for the thermofield double state in the deformed theory is UV finite and it depends to the temperature.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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

Supertranslations in the bulk of spacetime
hep-th 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Supertranslations can be defined in the bulk as changes of null hypersurfaces, extending boundary symmetries into the interior and producing a curvature-dependent memory effect in Schwarzschild.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[33]

We have considered our diﬀerent convention in deﬁning the T T operator with [21] in coeﬃcient of g(2) term

work page
[1]

Ryu and T

S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 181602 (2006)

2006
[2]

Van Raamsdonk, Gen

M. Van Raamsdonk, Gen. Rel. Grav. 42, 2323 (2010) [Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 19, 2429 (2010)]

work page 2010
[3]

Swingle, Phys

B. Swingle, Phys. Rev. D 86, 065007 (2012)

work page 2012
[4]

Susskind, Fortsch

L. Susskind, Fortsch. Phys. 64, 49 (2016)

work page 2016
[5]

Maldacena and L

J. Maldacena and L. Susskind, Fortsch. Phys. 61, 781 (2013)

work page 2013
[6]

Susskind, Fortsch

L. Susskind, Fortsch. Phys. 64, 24 (2016)

work page 2016
[7]

Alishahiha, Phys

M. Alishahiha, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 12, 126009 (2015)

work page 2015

Show all 36 references

[8]

To understand better the holographic results, recently the computational complexity for quantum ﬁeld theory states have been studied [9, 10]

which share some similarities but diﬀer in many ways. To understand better the holographic results, recently the computational complexity for quantum ﬁeld theory states have been studied [9, 10]. In one approach which is based on the idea of Nielsen and collaborators [11], one...
[9]

Jeﬀerson and R

R. Jeﬀerson and R. C. Myers, JHEP 1710, 107 (2017)

2017
[10]

A. R. Brown, D. A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no. 19, 191301 (2016)

2016
[11]

Nielsen, Mark R

Michael A. Nielsen, Mark R. Dowling, Mile Gu, Andrew C. Doherty Science.1121541
[12]

Chapman, M.P.Heller, H

S. Chapman, M.P.Heller, H. Marrochio and F. Pastawski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, no. 12, 121602 (2018)

2018
[13]

Caputa, N

P. Caputa, N. Kundu, M. Miyaji, T. Takayanagi and K. Watanabe, JHEP 1711, 097 (2017)

2017
[14]

Caputa, N

P. Caputa, N. Kundu, M. Miyaji, T. Takayanagi and K. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no. 7, 071602 (2017)

2017
[15]

T.Takayanagi, JHEP 1812, 048 (2018)

2018
[16]

Bhattacharyya, P

A. Bhattacharyya, P. Caputa, S. R. Das, N. Kundu, M. Miyaji and T. Takayanagi, JHEP 1807, 086 (2018)

2018
[17]

H. A. Camargo, M. P. Heller, R. Jeﬀerson and J. Knaute, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, no. 1, 011601 (2019)

2019
[18]

Caputa and J

P. Caputa and J. M. Magan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no. 23, 231302 (2019)

2019
[19]

F. A. Smirnov and A. B. Zamolodchikov, Nucl. Phys. B 915, 363 (2017)

2017
[20]

A. B. Zamolodchikov, hep-th/0401146

arXiv
[21]

have shown that if a 2D CFT lives on the conformal boundary gαβ in (38), the deformed stress tensor becomes T [µ] αβ = 1 8πGl g(2) αβ + µ 64π2G2l2 g(4) αβ . (58) For example for the BTZ solution, g(2) tt = 2 π2l2/β2, g(4) tt = π4l4/β4 and c = 3l/2G which they together imply th...
[22]

McGough, M

L. McGough, M. Mezei and H. Verlinde, JHEP 1804, 010 (2018)

2018
[23]

Guica and R

M. Guica and R. Monten, arXiv:1906.11251 [hep-th]

1906 arXiv
[24]

Akhavan, M

A. Akhavan, M. Alishahiha, A. Naseh and H. Zolﬁ, JHEP 1812, 090 (2018)

2018
[25]

Witten, hep-th/0112258

E. Witten, hep-th/0112258

arXiv
[26]

de Haro, S

S. de Haro, S. N. Solodukhin and K. Skenderis, Commun. Math. Phys. 217, 595 (2001)

2001
[27]

B. Chen, L. Chen and P. X. Hao, Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 8, 086025 (2018)

2018
[28]

Donnelly and V

W. Donnelly and V. Shyam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no. 13, 131602 (2018)

2018
[29]

Chapman, H

S. Chapman, H. Marrochio and R. C. Myers, JHEP 1701, 062 (2017)

2017
[30]

Bhattacharya, M

J. Bhattacharya, M. Nozaki, T. Takayanagi and T. Uga- jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, no. 9, 091602 (2013)

2013
[31]

Cardy, arXiv:1907.03394

J. Cardy, arXiv:1907.03394

1907 arXiv
[32]

Based on bulk cut-oﬀ interpretation, the holographic complexity (CA) of thermoﬁeld double state in T T de- formed CFTs is studied in [22]
[34]

An easy way to see this result is substituting MBTZ with − 1/8G in (43) together with using (34)
[35]

We would like to mention here that for calculating CBTZ T T we have used 1 /β′, (32), not 1 /β. If one uses the unde- formed temperature, (34), the complexity contains new UV divergence at order O(1/ǫ2) which is clearly in con- tradiction with holographic complexity of T T def...
[36]

The holographic complexity of formation for BTZ black hole (33) can be found in [27]

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [33]

We have considered our diﬀerent convention in deﬁning the T T operator with [21] in coeﬃcient of g(2) term

work page

[2] [1]

Ryu and T

S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 181602 (2006)

2006

[3] [2]

Van Raamsdonk, Gen

M. Van Raamsdonk, Gen. Rel. Grav. 42, 2323 (2010) [Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 19, 2429 (2010)]

work page 2010

[4] [3]

Swingle, Phys

B. Swingle, Phys. Rev. D 86, 065007 (2012)

work page 2012

[5] [4]

Susskind, Fortsch

L. Susskind, Fortsch. Phys. 64, 49 (2016)

work page 2016

[6] [5]

Maldacena and L

J. Maldacena and L. Susskind, Fortsch. Phys. 61, 781 (2013)

work page 2013

[7] [6]

Susskind, Fortsch

L. Susskind, Fortsch. Phys. 64, 24 (2016)

work page 2016

[8] [7]

Alishahiha, Phys

M. Alishahiha, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 12, 126009 (2015)

work page 2015