Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The paper claims that a qutrit detector at a CFT boundary harvests more mana when the bulk scalar uses the standard rather than the alternate quantization, making a boundary-condition choice an operational observable.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 06:04 UTC pith:FWGAWDJU

load-bearing objection Boundary-first mana harvesting in a holographic CFT is a genuinely new and usable framework, but the central Δ+ > Δ− claim rests on a flagged-yet-unjustified erfi subtraction that could flip the ordering under a different scheme. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.07895 v3 pith:FWGAWDJU submitted 2026-02-08 hep-th gr-qcquant-ph

Probing holographic conformal field theories

Ming Zhang , Jiayue Yang , Dyuman Bhattacharya , Robert B. Mann This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qcquant-ph PACS 04.62.-v11.25.Tq
keywords mana harvestingUnruh-DeWitt detectorAdS/CFTholographic CFTWightman functionscalar quantizationBreitenlohner-Freedman windownon-stabilizerness
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that an ordinary localized quantum probe—a three-level Unruh-DeWitt detector sitting at a fixed point on the boundary cylinder—can tell apart the two admissible quantizations of a dual scalar field in AdS/CFT. Reading out a quantum-computation resource called mana from the detector's reduced state, the authors claim the standard quantization (larger operator dimension) yields more harvested mana than the alternate quantization within the Breitenlohner-Freedman window. This matters because it turns a bulk/boundary condition choice into a laboratory-style observable computed from the universal CFT two-point function, and it demonstrates that holographic data can be accessed operationally by finite-dimensional probes. The paper also argues that a local bulk detector does not reduce to this boundary protocol, so the bulk-boundary mismatch is a diagnostic about operator reconstruction rather than a contradiction.

Core claim

The central claim is that detector-based mana harvesting provides an operational discriminator of holographic scalar quantizations. For a static qutrit detector coupled to a scalar primary O of dimension Delta on the R_tau x S^2_R boundary of global AdS_4, the harvested mana M(Delta_+) computed from the renormalized reduced state is larger than M(Delta_-) for the two admissible roots in the BF window. Although the Delta_+ correlator decays faster at long time separations, its stronger short-time singularity drives more non-stabilizerness into the finite-dimensional detector state during a finite interaction. Consequently, a boundary-condition choice in the bulk is readable from a measured qu

What carries the argument

The universal conformal Wightman function on the cylinder, W(s) = C_Delta [2R^2(cos((s - i epsilon)/R) - 1)]^{-Delta}, pulled back to a static worldline, fixes the detector dynamics to second order in the coupling. Expanding W in a geometric series gives a closed-form series for the excitation probability q and a divergent series for the coherence beta; the divergent erfi tail is discarded as a local UV coincidence-limit counterterm to define beta_ren. The mana formula M = ln(1 - q + (1/3)(|q - Re(beta) - sqrt(3) Im(beta)| + |q + 2 Re(beta)| + |q - Re(beta) + sqrt(3) Im(beta)|)) then maps the Wightman function's Delta-dependence into a single scalar ordering.

Load-bearing premise

The derived ordering rests on the renormalization prescription that discards the divergent erfi contribution to the coherence beta as a local UV coincidence-limit effect; if a different physically correct subtraction is adopted, the mana ordering between the two quantizations could change.

What would settle it

Compute beta_ren with an alternative renormalization scheme—for example, a different UV cutoff in the time-ordered integral or a covariant counterterm—and check whether M(Delta_+) > M(Delta_-) still holds; or run a numerical scan over (Omega, sigma, R, lambda) to find any region where the inequality reverses. The paper's current demonstration is at a single parameter point, so either check would settle the robustness of the claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, the two admissible boundary conditions of a BF-window scalar are operationally distinguishable by a finite-dimensional boundary probe without needing entanglement or geometric observables.
  • Mana increases along the double-trace flow from Delta_- to Delta_+, giving a resource-theoretic signature of RG flow in holography.
  • Boundary-local detector experiments and bulk-local detector experiments are genuinely different operational tasks; matching them requires engineering the HKLL-smeared boundary coupling, which is a concrete program for future reconstruction tests.
  • The calculational template applies to any holographic setting with universal boundary correlators (dS/CFT, BTZ/CFT, defect CFTs), extending RQI protocols to strong coupling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The claim that standard quantization yields 'systematically larger' mana is supported only at a single parameter point (R=1, sigma=1, lambda=1); a full scan over (Omega, sigma, R) could reveal regimes where the ordering reverses, which would sharpen or qualify the claim.
  • The renormalization of beta is scheme-dependent as stated; alternative subtractions (point-splitting with different regulators, covariant counterterms) could either preserve or destroy the mana ordering, so a scheme-independent formulation would strengthen the result.
  • The underlying mechanism—the short-distance singularity exponent 2Delta—suggests the ordering may persist for other resource quantifiers (e.g., negativity or contextuality) and for other UDW monopole couplings, but that is an extrapolation beyond the paper.
  • The boundary detector's response is essentially a Gaussian channel whose Stinespring dilation is fixed by the Wightman function; one could test whether channel-discrimination capacities reproduce the mana ordering.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a boundary-first relativistic quantum information scheme in AdS/CFT: a static Unruh-DeWitt qutrit detector is coupled to a scalar primary operator of a holographic CFT on R_τ × S^{d-1}_R, and its reduced density matrix is computed to second order in the coupling from the universal Wightman function. The central physical claim is that the harvested mana distinguishes the two admissible scalar quantizations in the Breitenlohner-Freedman window, with the standard quantization (Δ_+) yielding systematically larger mana than the alternate quantization (Δ_-). The paper also claims that de-excitation spectroscopy tracks the double-trace flow, and that a local boundary detector is inequivalent to a bulk-local detector under HKLL reconstruction. The quantitative evidence is a closed-form series for the excitation probability q and a renormalized coherence β_ren, evaluated at one parameter point (R=1, σ=1, λ=1) and plotted in Fig. 2.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper would establish a concrete, operational boundary observable—detector mana—that depends on the bulk scalar quantization, thereby connecting quantum information resource theory to the AdS/CFT dictionary. The strengths are the use of the universal CFT Wightman function, the closed-form perturbative expressions, the absence of fitted parameters in the comparison between Δ_+ and Δ_-, and the explicit discussion of why a local boundary detector should not reproduce a bulk-detector result. However, the significance is currently conditional: the mana ordering rests on an unsupported subtraction of the divergent erfi series in β, and the evidence for 'systematically larger' is limited to a single parameter triple. The abstract also promises a de-excitation spectroscopy result that is not present in the text.

major comments (3)
  1. [After Eq. (13)] The central result depends on defining β_ren by discarding the divergent erfi series in β. This is not a minor technicality: the erfi term carries the entire imaginary part of the time-ordered integral, since the series factor is (1 - i erfi(...)). The paper declares this contribution to be a local UV coincidence-limit effect, but provides no independent justification, no point-splitting or mode-cutoff calculation, no scheme-dependence analysis, and no check that the resulting reduced density matrix is positive semidefinite. Because the mana expression displayed after Eq. (13) depends on both Re β and Im β, a different renormalization could change M and potentially reverse the Δ_+/Δ_- ordering in Fig. 2. This load-bearing step needs either a derivation or an explicit demonstration that the ordering is scheme-independent.
  2. [Fig. 2 and abstract] The abstract and Discussion state that the standard quantization yields 'systematically larger' mana, but all plotted data are for R=1, σ=1, λ=1. The perturbative computation is explicitly second order in λ, and λ=1 is not obviously in the perturbative regime; higher-order terms are not estimated. Without a parameter scan (in σ, Ω, R, and small λ) or an analytic monotonicity argument, the word 'systematically' is not supported. The authors should either provide such evidence or soften the claim to 'for the parameters shown.'
  3. [Abstract and Discussion] The abstract claims that 'de-excitation spectroscopy tracks the double-trace flow through the lowest cylinder gap,' but no de-excitation spectroscopy is performed anywhere in the manuscript. The text computes only ground-state excitation probability q and ground-to-second-level coherence β; there is no initial excited detector state, no line-shape or spectroscopy analysis, and no definition of the 'lowest cylinder gap' in the detector response. This advertised result should either be implemented or removed from the abstract.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The notation 'i2∆' is ambiguous; it should be written as i^{2Δ} or 2iΔ depending on intent. Please clarify the phase factor and check the surrounding algebra.
  2. [Fig. 2] The bulk curves are reproduced from [47] without specifying the detector parameters used in the bulk calculation. Since the comparison is used to argue for bulk-boundary inequivalence, the figure caption or text should state the bulk parameter values.
  3. [Eq. (8)] The normalization C_Δ is quoted with reference [44], but for general Δ in the alternate quantization the ratio (2Δ-d)Γ(Δ)/Γ(Δ-d/2) can vanish or change sign. The paper should state the range of Δ for which this normalization is positive and physically admissible.
  4. [General presentation] The paper would benefit from a short subsection on the reduced-state positivity and trace condition for (q, β_ren), as this is standard in UDW detector calculations and would reassure the reader that β_ren defines a valid density matrix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction found; central claim is a direct evaluation of universal CFT Wightman functions. The only self-citation ([47]) is non-load-bearing, and the ad hoc beta_ren subtraction is a soundness concern, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the detector reduced state is computed from the universal boundary Wightman function (Eq. 8) via standard UDW perturbation theory (Eqs. 9-10), with Delta constrained only by the BF mass-dimension relation (Eq. 6). No parameter is fitted to the mana values; the Delta_+ > Delta_- ordering in Fig. 2 is obtained by inserting Delta-plus and Delta-minus into the same closed-form series (Eqs. 12-13). The only overlapping-author citation, [47], supplies a standard mode-sum method and the reference bulk curves; it does not define the boundary Wightman function, the mana formula, or the quantization labels, so it is not load-bearing. The authors explicitly acknowledge that beta in Eq. (13) diverges from the erfi tail and define beta_ren by discarding it; this is an unverified renormalization/scheme-dependence assumption that could affect the claimed ordering, but it is a soundness risk, not a circular reduction, because the discarded term is not reintroduced as a fitted parameter or as an equivalent prediction. Accordingly, no circular step is identified; the score of 2 reflects only the presence of one minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No data are fitted and no new entities are postulated. The physical free parameters are probe settings (λ, σ, R, Ω), not fit parameters. The main burden is the ad hoc β renormalization; the rest rests on standard conformal and AdS/CFT background results.

free parameters (4)
  • coupling λ = λ=1
    The coupling strength is set to 1 in the plot; q and β scale as λ², so the mana comparison is shown only at one perturbative coupling.
  • Gaussian switching width σ = σ=1
    Interaction duration chosen as 1; the Δ-ordering of mana may depend on σ and is not scanned.
  • cylinder radius R = R=1
    Sets the spatial scale; together with Ω and σ it determines the dimensionless arguments of q and β. The result is only shown for R=1.
  • energy gap Ω = scanned in Fig. 2
    Detector gap is scanned, but the claimed 'systematically larger' mana for Δ+ is only demonstrated numerically over that scan, not proven analytically.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The cylinder Wightman function of a scalar primary has the universal conformal form (8) with normalization C_Δ = (2Δ−d)Γ(Δ)/(π^{d/2}Γ(Δ−d/2)).
    Invoked in the paragraph after Eq. (8); the entire calculation inherits this form and normalization from Refs. [38–45].
  • domain assumption The AdS/CFT mass–dimension relation m_eff² ℓ² = Δ(Δ−d) holds, with both standard and alternate quantizations admissible in the BF window.
    Eq. (6) and the following paragraph define the Δ± pair being compared.
  • ad hoc to paper The divergent erfi contribution in β is a local UV coincidence-limit effect that can be removed by detector-sector renormalization, leaving β_ren as the physical coherence.
    Introduced after Eq. (13); no independent derivation or scheme-dependence check is given, and the central mana values depend on this subtraction.
  • domain assumption The second-order Dyson expansion gives the reduced detector state; higher orders in λ are negligible.
    Standard in RQI and used in Eqs. (9)-(10), but still an approximation whose validity for λ=1 is not discussed.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 36 in / 9723 out tokens · 104034 ms · 2026-08-04T06:04:19.962433+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We embed relativistic quantum information protocols in AdS/CFT: an Unruh-DeWitt detector coupled to a local primary of a holographic CFT has a reduced state fixed by the universal boundary Wightman function. We find that the mana generated in a qutrit probe reads off the boundary condition of the dual bulk scalar, de-excitation spectroscopy tracks the double-trace flow through the lowest cylinder gap, and a local boundary detector is inequivalent to the HKLL representation of a bulk-local one.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.07895 by Dyuman Bhattacharya, Jiayue Yang, Ming Zhang, Robert B. Mann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic holographic setup. A probe scalar field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Mana [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Induced Resource Theories and Harvesting via Quantum Probes

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Introduces induced resource theories with precise conditions for interpreting quantum probe harvesting as evidence of resources in environments without complete resource-theoretic descriptions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 46 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  2. [2]

    B. S. DeWitt, inGeneral Relativity: An Einstein Cen- tenary Survey, edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, 1979)

    1979

  3. [3]

    P. M. Alsing and I. Fuentes, Classical and Quantum Gravity29, 224001 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    T. C. Ralph and R. B. Mann, Class. Quant. Grav.29, 220301 (2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    Fuentes-Schuller and R

    I. Fuentes-Schuller and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 120404 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0410172

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    Rideoutet al., Class

    D. Rideoutet al., Class. Quant. Grav.29, 224011 (2012), arXiv:1206.4949 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Pozas-Kerstjens and E

    A. Pozas-Kerstjens and E. Martin-Martinez, Phys. Rev. D94, 064074 (2016), arXiv:1605.07180 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    M. Zych, F. Costa, I. Pikovski, T. C. Ralph, and Č. Brukner, Classical and Quantum Gravity29, 224010 (2012)

    2012

  9. [9]

    B. L. Hu, S.-Y. Lin, and J. Louko, Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 224005 (2012), arXiv:1205.1328 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    Kent, Classical and Quantum Gravity29, 224013 (2012)

    A. Kent, Classical and Quantum Gravity29, 224013 (2012)

    2012

  11. [11]

    J. G. A. Caribé, R. H. Jonsson, M. Casals, A. Kempf, and E. Martín-Martínez, Phys. Rev. D108, 025016 (2023), arXiv:2303.01402 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Hodgkinson, J

    L. Hodgkinson, J. Louko, and A. C. Ottewill, Phys. Rev. D89, 104002 (2014), arXiv:1401.2667 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  13. [13]

    ’t Hooft, Conf

    G. ’t Hooft, Conf. Proc. C930308, 284 (1993), arXiv:gr- qc/9310026

    arXiv 1993

  14. [14]

    Susskind, J

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

    arXiv 1995

  15. [15]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  16. [16]

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B428, 105 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802109 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  17. [17]

    Witten, Adv

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  18. [18]

    Ryu and T

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 181602 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  19. [19]

    V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani, and T. Takayanagi, JHEP 07, 062 (2007), arXiv:0705.0016 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  20. [20]

    Van Raamsdonk, Gen

    M. Van Raamsdonk, Gen. Rel. Grav.42, 2323 (2010), arXiv:1005.3035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  21. [21]

    R. C. Myers and A. Sinha, JHEP01, 125 (2011), arXiv:1011.5819 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  22. [22]

    Almheiri, X

    A. Almheiri, X. Dong, and D. Harlow, JHEP04, 163 (2015), arXiv:1411.7041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    Pastawski, B

    F. Pastawski, B. Yoshida, D. Harlow, and J. Preskill, JHEP06, 149 (2015), arXiv:1503.06237

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  24. [24]

    A. R. Brown, D. A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 191301 (2016), arXiv:1509.07876

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [25]

    D. L. Jafferis, A. Lewkowycz, J. Maldacena, and S. J. Suh, JHEP06, 004 (2016), arXiv:1512.06431

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    Belin, R

    A. Belin, R. C. Myers, S.-M. Ruan, G. Sárosi, and A. J. Speranza, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 081602 (2022), arXiv:2111.02429 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Takayanagi, Phys

    T. Takayanagi, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 240001 (2025), arXiv:2506.06595 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Rangamani and T

    M. Rangamani and T. Takayanagi, (2016), arXiv:1609.01287 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    Harlow, Rev

    D. Harlow, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 015002 (2016), arXiv:1409.1231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0403025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  31. [31]

    Emerson, D

    J. Emerson, D. Gottesman, S. A. H. Mousavian, and V. Veitch, New J. Phys.16, 013009 (2014), arXiv:1307.7171 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    Howard, J

    M. Howard, J. J. Wallman, V. Veitch, and J. Emerson, Nature510, 351 (2014), arXiv:1401.4174 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [33]

    Aharony, S

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz, Phys. Rept.323, 183 (2000), arXiv:hep- th/9905111

    arXiv 2000

  34. [34]

    I. R. Klebanov and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B556, 89 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9905104

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  35. [35]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman, Annals Phys.144, 249 (1982)

    1982

  36. [36]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Lett. B115, 197 (1982)

    1982

  37. [37]

    Hamilton, D

    A. Hamilton, D. N. Kabat, G. Lifschytz, and D. A. Lowe, Phys. Rev. D74, 066009 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0606141

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  38. [38]

    Simmons-Duffin, Theoretical Advanced Study Insti- tute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI, 2019) (2019)

    D. Simmons-Duffin, Theoretical Advanced Study Insti- tute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI, 2019) (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    Bak and A

    D. Bak and A. Trivella, JHEP09, 086 (2017), arXiv:1707.05366 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [40]

    Osborn and A

    H. Osborn and A. C. Petkou, (1994), arXiv:hep- th/9307010

    arXiv 1994

  41. [41]

    Simmons-Duffin, (2016), arXiv:1602.07982 [hep-th]

    D. Simmons-Duffin, (2016), arXiv:1602.07982 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [42]

    Applied conformal field theory,

    P. Ginsparg, “Applied conformal field theory,” (1988), arXiv:hep-th/9108028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1988

  43. [43]

    Rychkov, (2016), arXiv:1601.05000 [hep-th]

    S. Rychkov, (2016), arXiv:1601.05000 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    D. Z. Freedman, S. D. Mathur, A. Matusis, and L. Rastelli, Nucl. Phys. B546, 96 (1999), arXiv:hep- th/9804058

    arXiv 1999

  45. [45]

    Miyaji, T

    M. Miyaji, T. Numasawa, N. Shiba, T. Takayanagi, and K. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 261602 (2015), arXiv:1507.07555 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    Nyström, N

    R. Nyström, N. Pranzini, and E. Keski-Vakkuri, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033085 (2025), arXiv:2409.11473 [quant-ph]. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    J. Yang, D. Bhattacharya, M. Zhang, and R. B. Mann, (2025), arXiv:2508.16466 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Strominger, JHEP10, 034 (2001), arXiv:hep- th/0106113

    A. Strominger, JHEP10, 034 (2001), arXiv:hep- th/0106113

    arXiv 2001

  49. [49]

    J. M. Maldacena, JHEP05, 013 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0210603

    arXiv 2003

  50. [50]

    Spradlin, A

    M. Spradlin, A. Strominger, and A. Volovich, inLes Houches Summer School: Session 76: Euro Summer School on Unity of Fundamental Physics: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings(2001) pp. 423–453, arXiv:hep- th/0110007

    arXiv 2001

  51. [51]

    Anninos, T

    D. Anninos, T. Hartman, and A. Strominger, Class. Quant. Grav.34, 015009 (2017), arXiv:1108.5735 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  52. [52]

    Keski-Vakkuri, Phys

    E. Keski-Vakkuri, Phys. Rev. D59, 104001 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9808037

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  53. [53]

    Guica, T

    M. Guica, T. Hartman, W. Song, and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. D80, 124008 (2009), arXiv:0809.4266 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  54. [54]

    Bissi, T

    A. Bissi, T. Hansen, and A. Söderberg, JHEP01, 010 (2019), arXiv:1808.08155 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    Mazáč, L

    D. Mazáč, L. Rastelli, and X. Zhou, JHEP12, 004 (2019), arXiv:1812.09314 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  56. [56]

    Takayanagi, Phys

    T. Takayanagi, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 101602 (2011), arXiv:1105.5165 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  57. [57]

    D. C. Brody, J. Phys. A47, 035305 (2013), arXiv:1308.2609 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  58. [58]

    Chang, J.-S

    P.-Y. Chang, J.-S. You, X. Wen, and S. Ryu, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033069 (2020), arXiv:1909.01346 [cond-mat.str- el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    K. Doi, J. Harper, A. Mollabashi, T. Takayanagi, and Y. Taki, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 031601 (2023), arXiv:2210.09457 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    J. L. Jacobsen and K. J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 077101 (2024), arXiv:2402.10732 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Y. Tang, H. Ma, Q. Tang, Y.-C. He, and W. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 076504 (2024), arXiv:2403.00852 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Barnich and C

    G. Barnich and C. Troessaert, JHEP05, 062 (2010), arXiv:1001.1541 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  63. [63]

    Pasterski, S.-H

    S. Pasterski, S.-H. Shao, and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. D96, 065026 (2017), arXiv:1701.00049 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    D. M. Avalos, K. Gallock-Yoshimura, L. J. Henderson, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L042039 (2023), arXiv:2204.02983 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023