Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

In a holographic superfluid at its critical point, the massless order parameter is a hydrodynamic mode but not a pole-skipping point: the only zero-frequency pole-skipping is the Maxwell diffusion mode.

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

2026-08-03 16:00 UTC pith:P7ET5KBV

load-bearing objection A practical master-variable-free pole-skipping formalism, applied to holographic superfluids, with a clean counterexample to the 'hydrodynamic pole ⇒ pole-skipping' rule; the central claim is likely right, but the low-temperature coupled-sector proof is not fully closed. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.14883 v2 pith:P7ET5KBV submitted 2025-12-16 hep-th gr-qc

Pole-skipping without master variable and holographic superfluids

Makoto Natsuume , Takashi Okamura This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qc
keywords pole-skippingholographic superfluidsAdS/CFThydrodynamic modesmaster variableFrobenius methodorder parameter
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.

Pole-skipping points are locations in the complex frequency/momentum plane where a thermal Green's function becomes indeterminate, taking a 0/0 form. Standard methods for finding them require a single 'master variable,' which is often unavailable for coupled multi-field systems. This paper presents a matrix formalism that works directly on the full set of first-order bulk equations, then applies it to holographic superfluids where the charged scalar order parameter couples to the gauge field. The central result is that, even when the order parameter becomes massless at the critical point, no new hydrodynamic pole-skipping appears: the only zero-frequency pole-skipping is the Maxwell diffusion point, shifted to q^2 = -ρ^2/2. The paper concludes that not all hydrodynamic poles are pole-skipping points.

Core claim

Pole-skipping points for holographic Green's functions are conventionally computed from a single 'master variable,' a reduction that is often unavailable for coupled bulk fields. The paper shows that the Frobenius coefficient-vector ambiguity—the criterion from the authors' earlier work—can be applied directly to the full matrix of first-order equations. Applying this to a holographic superfluid (a charged complex scalar coupled to a Maxwell field in the probe limit), the paper finds that in the low-temperature phase the only zero-frequency pole-skipping point is the Maxwell diffusion point (w, q^2) = (0, -ρ^2/2), which moves to (0,0) as the condensate ρ goes to zero. The amplitude and phase

What carries the argument

The central object is the coefficient-vector ambiguity in the Frobenius expansion of the near-horizon bulk solution. The system is written as a first-order matrix equation, and the generic incoming solution is a linear combination y_0 = Σ C_α x_{0,α} of the m incoming eigenvectors of the leading matrix M_{-1}. Pole-skipping points are found by demanding that all residues of the first correction y_1 vanish, which reduces to a determinant condition det R = 0 on the residue matrix. This replaces the master variable and automatically treats hydrodynamic and 'chaotic' pole-skippings uniformly: they arise from a 0/0 structure in the recursion relation, while the w=-in towers arise from the left-ha

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that coefficient-vector ambiguity in the Frobenius expansion is equivalent to pole-skipping, and that this equivalence still holds when the incoming solution is an arbitrary mixture of several fields; this is checked on single-field examples but not proven for the coupled superfluid.

What would settle it

Compute the exact low-temperature retarded Green's function for the order parameter in the solvable m^2=-4 background and evaluate its residue at the (ω,q)=(0,0) hydrodynamic pole. If the residue vanishes for any nonzero condensate, or if any coupled two-field model with a known exact Green's function has a hydrodynamic pole that is also pole-skipping, the central claim is refuted.

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

If this is right

  • For any multi-field system whose bulk equations can be written as a first-order matrix ODE with a regular singular point, pole-skipping points can be computed without a master variable; the generic incoming solution is a linear combination of the m incoming eigenvectors.
  • In the low-temperature superfluid, only the Maxwell diffusion channel pole-skips at zero frequency; the massless order-parameter channel does not, so 'hydrodynamic pole ⇒ pole-skipping point' is false.
  • At w=-i the theory has exactly three pole-skipping points—the Maxwell scalar point and the complex-scalar pair—with order-ρ^2 corrections; at the critical point they match the high-temperature values.
  • The method treats hydrodynamic and 'chaotic' pole-skippings uniformly: both arise from a 0/0 structure in the recursion relation, while the w=-in towers arise from the left-hand-side matrix.
  • The results extend qualitatively to arbitrary scalar mass, to nonminimal holographic superfluids, and, because the analysis is near-horizon, to holographic superconductors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's counting argument suggests a general rule for m-field systems: at each level w=-in there should be m pole-skipping points. Testing that count in a simple coupled two-field ODE with an exact Green's function would separate the formalism's core from the superfluid application.
  • A broader moral is that pole-skipping is not an automatic property of every gapless mode; it requires a specific 0/0 structure in the Green's function. Quantum critical points with Goldstone modes may therefore be invisible to a hydrodynamic pole-skipping search, and probes should look at the w=-i tower instead.
  • Because the paper computes the exact Green's function only in the high-temperature phase, the decisive test is to compute the low-temperature order-parameter Green's function in the solvable m^2=-4 background and check the residue at the hydrodynamic pole; the authors' formalism predicts a nonzero residue at all nonzero condensates.

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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a matrix Frobenius method for computing pole-skipping points in holographic systems with multiple coupled bulk fields, avoiding the need for a master variable. The method is illustrated on a scalar and on the Maxwell diffusive sector; the Maxwell example reproduces both the hydrodynamic (w=0) and w=-i pole-skipping points. The formalism is then applied to the SAdS5 holographic superfluid in the probe limit. The main physical claim is that at the critical point the massless order parameter has a hydrodynamic pole but no associated hydrodynamic pole-skipping; the only w=0 pole-skipping is the Maxwell diffusion point, shifted to q^2=-rho^2/2. The high-temperature phase is checked with an exact Green's function (3.39), while the low-temperature conclusion is obtained from the near-horizon coefficient-vector analysis. A formal argument in Sec. 4 shows the pole structure of the Frobenius coefficients under a diagonalizability assumption.

Significance. If the method is valid, it provides a practical tool for pole-skipping in multi-field systems and a concrete counterexample to the common intuition that every hydrodynamic pole is a pole-skipping point. The explicit checks against known scalar/Maxwell results and the exact high-temperature Green's function are valuable. The formal argument in Sec. 4 is a useful structural step. However, the equivalence between Frobenius coefficient-vector ambiguity and the boundary Green's-function 0/0 condition is not proven for the coupled low-temperature superfluid, so the central low-temperature claim is not yet fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.3.2 and Sec. 4] The low-temperature conclusion that there is no new hydrodynamic pole-skipping rests on the coefficient-vector ambiguity criterion (Sec. 2.3, step 6). This criterion is imported from Refs. [21,47] and is checked here only for single-field/master-variable examples and for the Maxwell system with a known master-variable reduction. In the superfluid, however, the system is genuinely coupled (3 fields), and no boundary Green's function is computed in the broken phase. Sec. 4 proves only that, under the diagonalizability assumption, y_n has m pole components; it does not prove that vanishing residues of near-horizon Frobenius coefficients are equivalent to a 0/0 structure in the dual Green's function for a coupled multi-field system. This is load-bearing: if the equivalence fails, the statement 'no new hydrodynamic pole-skipping associated with the order parameter' could be incomplete or spur
  2. [Sec. 3.3.2] The exclusion of new hydrodynamic pole-skipping in the low-temperature phase is based only on x1 (Eq. 3.17). At w=0, M_-1 in Eq. (3.13) is not diagonalizable (the scalar blocks are nilpotent), so the indicial structure degenerates. The recursion relation (2.10) could in principle produce 0/0 structures in x_n for n>=2. Linearity suggests any w=0 pole in x_n is sourced by x1,A and therefore occurs at the same q^2=-rho^2/2, but this is not demonstrated. Please add an argument (or compute x2 at w=0) to make the all-orders exclusion explicit. The current statement 'only x1,A has a pole at w=0' is necessary but not, by itself, a complete proof that no other hydrodynamic pole-skipping can appear at higher order.
  3. [Eq. (3.5) versus Eq. (3.34)] The high-temperature w=-i pole-skipping points are written as q^2 = -1 - i mu/2 and -1 + i mu/2 in Eqs. (3.5a,b). At the critical point mu=2, these give q^2 = -1 - i and -1 + i. The low-temperature expansion (3.27d) and the boundary-quantity expressions (3.34b,c) instead give q^2 = (-1 - i mu)/2 = -1/2 - i and -1/2 + i at mu=2. These should coincide in the epsilon->0 limit. Please correct the inconsistent factor of 2. This does not directly change the w=0 hydrodynamic claim, but it is a numerical error in a central set of results and will confuse readers.
  4. [Sec. 4] The formal argument assumes that M_-1 has m linearly independent incoming and m linearly independent outgoing eigenvectors and that the matrix P of Eq. (4.7) is invertible. This is verified for the superfluid example at generic w, but it fails at w=0, where the scalar blocks become nilpotent. Since the paper presents the formalism as generally applicable (Sec. 2.3), the diagonalizability assumption should be stated as part of the method, and the degenerate case w=0 should be discussed. Without this, the claim that the formalism is free from master-variable problems is stronger than what Sec. 4 actually proves.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3.3] The exact solutions for the w=-i pole-skipping points are withheld ('complicated expressions'). If the paper is intended to be a reference for the superfluid spectrum, consider including them, or explicitly stating that only the near-critical O(rho^2) expansions are being claimed.
  2. [Notation around Eq. (3.12)] The leading 't' is used to denote transpose, e.g., 't vec{X}'. This is nonstandard and easily misread; a superscript T or a note defining the notation would improve clarity.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, after Eq. (3.5)] The text says that at the critical point the order parameter 'becomes massless and has a hydrodynamic pole in the sense w,q->0.' It would be clearer to say that the retarded Green's function for psi has a pole at omega ~ q^2 in the hydrodynamic limit, but that this pole does not have a vanishing residue at (w,q)=(0,0).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the central claim has independent high-temperature Green's-function support, and the only self-citation is method-origin, not a load-bearing reduction.

full rationale

The paper's main claim—that the massless order parameter at the superfluid critical point does not create a new hydrodynamic pole-skipping point—is not obtained by fitting the answer into the inputs. In the high-temperature phase, Sec. 3.3.4 computes an exact boundary Green's function by standard AdS/CFT methods: Eq. (3.39) gives G_R^ψ = -4/(q^2 - 2ε_μ - (1-3i)iω), and at the (ω,q)=(0,0) hydrodynamic pole the residue is nonzero, so there is no pole-skipping. This is an independent check of the headline phenomenon. The low-temperature phase is analyzed with the matrix formalism whose origin is attributed to the authors' prior work ('based on our early work [47]'), but the formalism is re-derived in Sec. 2 and tested against single-field examples and the high-temperature exact result. The key identification 'coefficient-vector ambiguity = pole-skipping' is assumed for coupled systems rather than proved from boundary Green's functions, and Sec. 4 explicitly assumes linear independence of the M_-1 eigenvectors; these are unproven-premise/correctness risks for the coupled low-temperature conclusion, not a circular reduction. Likewise, the w=0 exclusion is argued from x1,A without an explicit all-orders proof. These gaps do not constitute circularity under the required standard: no equation is defined in terms of the target result, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the decisive high-temperature Green's-function calculation is independent of the matrix-formalism assumption. The self-citation is not load-bearing because the paper contains its own derivation and an external benchmark for the central phenomenon.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

No constants are fitted to data anywhere in the paper; the quantitative claims are expressed via the near-horizon background values ρ(1), A_t'(1) and the condensate ϵ. The conceptual input is the holographic dictionary plus the authors' earlier coefficient-ambiguity criterion for pole-skipping; both are domain assumptions rather than derived results. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • near-horizon condensate ρ(1) (abbreviated ρ) = model-dependent background value; near criticality ρ(1) = -ϵ/2 + O(ϵ³)
    Quantitative results depend on it: the w=0 pole-skipping point is q²=-ρ²/2 and the O(ρ²) corrections to the w=-i points involve ρ. It is determined by the background superfluid solution, not fitted, but it is a model input.
  • near-horizon gauge-field slope A_t'(1) = model-dependent; A_t'(1) = -2 + ϵ²/12 + O(ϵ⁴) for m²=-4
    Appears in the O(ρ²) corrections to q²_1 and in the C-ratio coefficients (3.27b,c,e,f,h,i). Background-determined, not fitted.
  • condensate ϵ (near-critical expansion parameter) = ϵ² = 24(µ-µ_c) + O(µ-µ_c)²
    The small parameter of the near-critical expansion used to present the pole-skipping points (Sec 3.3.4). Physical control parameter (temperature in units of chemical potential), not an ad hoc fit.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT holographic duality: SAdS5 bulk with matter fields is dual to a strongly coupled boundary field theory; boundary retarded Green's functions are read off from bulk solutions.
    The whole pole-skipping analysis and the Green's function computation (Sec 3.3.4) presume the holographic dictionary (Sec 1).
  • domain assumption Pole-skipping is equivalent to non-uniqueness of the bulk solution / Green's function at special (w,q), identified with ambiguity of Frobenius coefficient vectors x_n.
    Taken from the authors' Refs [21,47]; consistency-checked on free-field examples (Sec 2) but not re-derived from an independent definition of pole-skipping in the coupled case.
  • domain assumption Probe limit: the Maxwell-complex-scalar matter does not backreact on the SAdS5 geometry.
    Stated in Sec 3.1. The central claim is established in this limit; the backreacted superfluid is not analyzed.
  • domain assumption M_{-1} has m eigenvalues λ=-iw/2 and m eigenvalues λ=+iw/2 with linearly independent eigenvectors (P invertible).
    Explicitly assumed in Sec 4 for the formal argument; verified by explicit computation for the superfluid in Sec 3.3.1.
  • standard math Standard Frobenius theory applies once M diverges no more rapidly than 1/(u-1); the solution is a power series with indicial exponent from M_{-1}.
    Sec 2.3; standard regular singular point theory for first-order systems.
  • domain assumption The m²=-4 analytic background of Herzog [58] is used for the boundary-quantity rewrite; results are asserted to extend to arbitrary m².
    Sec 3.3.4 and Sec 5; the arbitrary-m² statement is asserted, not demonstrated.
invented entities (1)
  • None no independent evidence
    purpose: No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced.
    The gauge-invariant variables (a_t, a_u, δρ, Θ) are standard constructions. Pole-skipping points are not entities but properties of existing Green's functions.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18252 in / 43680 out tokens · 398271 ms · 2026-08-03T16:00:32.903647+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The pole-skipping is a universal property of Green's functions at strong coupling found by the AdS/CFT duality. There is a conventional formalism of the pole-skipping, but it relies on the existence of a "master variable." Namely, it is applicable to a system with a single field. We propose an alternative formalism that does not rely on a master variable. As an example, we study the pole-skipping of holographic superfluids. A "hydrodynamic" pole such as the diffusion pole is usually regarded as a pole-skipping point. But we point out that not all hydrodynamic poles are pole-skipping points.

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. Probing bulk geometry via pole skipping: from static to rotating spacetimes

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Pole-skipping data encodes enough information to reconstruct the full metric of 3D rotating black holes and the radial functions of 4D separable rotating black holes, with Einstein equations becoming algebraic constra...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith · 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,” Int. J. Theor. Phys.38(1999) 1113 [Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 231] [hep-th/9711200]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  2. [2]

    Anti-de Sitter space and holography,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theories,

    E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theories,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 505 [hep-th/9803131]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    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. B428(1998) 105 [hep-th/9802109]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    Casalderrey-Solana, H

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, H. Liu, D. Mateos, K. Rajagopal and U. A. Wiedemann,Gauge/String Duality, Hot QCD and Heavy Ion Collisions(Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014) [arXiv:1101.0618 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Natsuume,AdS/CFT Duality User Guide, Lecture Notes in Physics Vol

    M. Natsuume,AdS/CFT Duality User Guide, Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 903 (Springer Japan, Tokyo, 2015) [arXiv:1409.3575 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Ammon and J

    M. Ammon and J. Erdmenger,Gauge/gravity duality : Foundations and applications(Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    Zaanen, Y

    J. Zaanen, Y. W. Sun, Y. Liu and K. Schalm,Holographic Duality in Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015)

    2015

  9. [9]

    S. A. Hartnoll, A. Lucas and S. Sachdev,Holographic quantum matter(The MIT Press, 2018) [arXiv:1612.07324 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Baggioli,Applied Holography: A Practical Mini-Course, SpringerBriefs in Physics (Springer, 2019) [arXiv:1908.02667 [hep-th]]

    M. Baggioli,Applied Holography: A Practical Mini-Course, SpringerBriefs in Physics (Springer, 2019) [arXiv:1908.02667 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Viscosity in strongly interacting quantum field theories from black hole physics,

    P. Kovtun, D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, “Viscosity in strongly interacting quantum field theories from black hole physics,” Phys. Rev. Lett.94(2005), 111601 [arXiv:hep-th/0405231 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  12. [12]

    Black holes and the butterfly effect,

    S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, “Black holes and the butterfly effect,” JHEP1403(2014) 067 [arXiv:1306.0622 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  13. [13]

    Localized shocks,

    D. A. Roberts, D. Stanford and L. Susskind, “Localized shocks,” JHEP1503(2015) 051 [arXiv:1409.8180 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    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 [arXiv:1412.5123 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Stringy effects in scrambling,

    S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, “Stringy effects in scrambling,” JHEP1505(2015) 132 [arXiv:1412.6087 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    A bound on chaos,

    J. Maldacena, S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, “A bound on chaos,” JHEP1608(2016) 106 [arXiv:1503.01409 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    Black hole scrambling from hydrodynamics,

    S. Grozdanov, K. Schalm and V. Scopelliti, “Black hole scrambling from hydrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) no.23, 231601 [arXiv:1710.00921 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Many-body chaos and energy dynamics in holography,

    M. Blake, R. A. Davison, S. Grozdanov and H. Liu, “Many-body chaos and energy dynamics in holography,” JHEP1810(2018) 035 [arXiv:1809.01169 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    The complex life of hydrodynamic modes,

    S. Grozdanov, P. K. Kovtun, A. O. Starinets and P. Tadi´ c, “The complex life of hydrodynamic modes,” JHEP11(2019), 097 [arXiv:1904.12862 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    Horizon constraints on holographic Green’s functions,

    M. Blake, R. A. Davison and D. Vegh, “Horizon constraints on holographic Green’s functions,” JHEP01(2020), 077 [arXiv:1904.12883 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Nonuniqueness of Green’s functions at special points,

    M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Nonuniqueness of Green’s functions at special points,” JHEP1912 (2019) 139 [arXiv:1905.12015 [hep-th]]. – 21 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Holographic chaos, pole-skipping, and regularity,

    M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Holographic chaos, pole-skipping, and regularity,” PTEP2020 (2020) no.1, 013B07 [arXiv:1905.12014 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    Pole-skipping with finite-coupling corrections,

    M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Pole-skipping with finite-coupling corrections,” Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) no.12, 126012 [arXiv:1909.09168 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Higher curvature corrections to pole-skipping,

    X. Wu, “Higher curvature corrections to pole-skipping,” JHEP12(2019), 140 [arXiv:1909.10223 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Isolated zeros destroy Fermi surface in holographic models with a lattice,

    F. Balm, A. Krikun, A. Romero-Berm´ udez, K. Schalm and J. Zaanen, “Isolated zeros destroy Fermi surface in holographic models with a lattice,” JHEP01(2020), 151 [arXiv:1909.09394 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Fermionic pole-skipping in holography,

    N. Ceplak, K. Ramdial and D. Vegh, “Fermionic pole-skipping in holography,” JHEP07(2020), 203 [arXiv:1910.02975 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    Quantum Chaos in Topologically Massive Gravity,

    Y. Liu and A. Raju, “Quantum Chaos in Topologically Massive Gravity,” JHEP12(2020), 027 [arXiv:2005.08508 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Scrambling in Hyperbolic Black Holes: shock waves and pole-skipping,

    Y. Ahn, V. Jahnke, H. S. Jeong and K. Y. Kim, “Scrambling in Hyperbolic Black Holes: shock waves and pole-skipping,” JHEP10(2019), 257 [arXiv:1907.08030 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Pole-skipping of scalar and vector fields in hyperbolic space: conformal blocks and holography,

    Y. Ahn, V. Jahnke, H. S. Jeong, K. Y. Kim, K. S. Lee and M. Nishida, “Pole-skipping of scalar and vector fields in hyperbolic space: conformal blocks and holography,” JHEP09(2020), 111 [arXiv:2006.00974 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    Complexified quasinormal modes and the pole-skipping in a holographic system at finite chemical potential,

    N. Abbasi and S. Tahery, “Complexified quasinormal modes and the pole-skipping in a holographic system at finite chemical potential,” JHEP10(2020), 076 [arXiv:2007.10024 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Quasinormal modes in charged fluids at complex momentum,

    A. Jansen and C. Pantelidou, “Quasinormal modes in charged fluids at complex momentum,” JHEP 10(2020), 121 [arXiv:2007.14418 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Chaos and pole skipping in CFT 2,

    D. M. Ramirez, “Chaos and pole skipping in CFT 2,” JHEP12(2021), 006 [arXiv:2009.00500 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Classifying pole-skipping points,

    Y. Ahn, V. Jahnke, H. S. Jeong, K. S. Lee, M. Nishida and K. Y. Kim, “Classifying pole-skipping points,” JHEP03(2021), 175 [arXiv:2010.16166 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Pole-skipping and zero temperature,

    M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Pole-skipping and zero temperature,” Phys. Rev. D103(2021) no.6, 066017 [arXiv:2011.10093 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Holographic scalar and vector exchange in OTOCs and pole-skipping phenomena,

    K. Y. Kim, K. S. Lee and M. Nishida, “Holographic scalar and vector exchange in OTOCs and pole-skipping phenomena,” JHEP04(2021), 092 [erratum: JHEP04(2021), 229] [arXiv:2011.13716 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Pole skipping and chaos in anisotropic plasma: a holographic study,

    K. Sil, “Pole skipping and chaos in anisotropic plasma: a holographic study,” JHEP03(2021), 232 [arXiv:2012.07710 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Constraints on quasinormal modes and bounds for critical points from pole-skipping,

    N. Abbasi and M. Kaminski, “Constraints on quasinormal modes and bounds for critical points from pole-skipping,” JHEP03(2021), 265 [arXiv:2012.15820 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Pole-skipping and Rarita-Schwinger fields,

    N. Ceplak and D. Vegh, “Pole-skipping and Rarita-Schwinger fields,” Phys. Rev. D103(2021) no.10, 106009 [arXiv:2101.01490 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Bound of diffusion constants from pole-skipping points: spontaneous symmetry breaking and magnetic field,

    H. S. Jeong, K. Y. Kim and Y. W. Sun, “Bound of diffusion constants from pole-skipping points: spontaneous symmetry breaking and magnetic field,” JHEP07(2021), 105 [arXiv:2104.13084 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Nonuniqueness of scattering amplitudes at special points,

    M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Nonuniqueness of scattering amplitudes at special points,” Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.12, 126007 [arXiv:2108.07832 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Chaos and pole-skipping in rotating black holes,

    M. Blake and R. A. Davison, “Chaos and pole-skipping in rotating black holes,” JHEP01(2022), 013 [arXiv:2111.11093 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Construction of bulk solutions for towers of pole-skipping points,

    K. Y. Kim, K. S. Lee and M. Nishida, “Construction of bulk solutions for towers of pole-skipping points,” Phys. Rev. D105(2022) no.12, 126011 [arXiv:2112.11662 [hep-th]]. – 22 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Pole Skipping in Holographic Theories with Bosonic Fields,

    D. Wang and Z. Y. Wang, “Pole Skipping in Holographic Theories with Bosonic Fields,” Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) no.23, 231603 [arXiv:2208.01047 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Chaos and pole-skipping in a simply spinning plasma,

    M. A. G. Amano, M. Blake, C. Cartwright, M. Kaminski and A. P. Thompson, “Chaos and pole-skipping in a simply spinning plasma,” JHEP02(2023), 253 [arXiv:2211.00016 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Pole-skipping points in 2D gravity and SYK model,

    H. Yuan, X. H. Ge, K. Y. Kim, C. W. Ji and Y. Ahn, “Pole-skipping points in 2D gravity and SYK model,” JHEP08(2023), 157 [arXiv:2303.04801 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    Pole-skipping of gravitational waves in the backgrounds of four-dimensional massive black holes,

    S. Grozdanov and M. Vrbica, “Pole-skipping of gravitational waves in the backgrounds of four-dimensional massive black holes,” Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) no.12, 1103 [arXiv:2303.15921 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Pole skipping in a non-black-hole geometry,

    M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Pole skipping in a non-black-hole geometry,” Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) no.4, 046012 [arXiv:2306.03930 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    Pole skipping as missing states,

    M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Pole skipping as missing states,” Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no.10, 106006 [arXiv:2307.11178 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Pole-skipping as order parameter to probe a quantum critical point,

    N. Abbasi and K. Landsteiner, “Pole-skipping as order parameter to probe a quantum critical point,” JHEP09(2023), 169 [arXiv:2307.16716 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Pole skipping in holographic theories with gauge and fermionic fields,

    S. Ning, D. Wang and Z. Y. Wang, “Pole skipping in holographic theories with gauge and fermionic fields,” JHEP12(2023), 084 [arXiv:2308.08191 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Perturbing a quantum black hole,

    C. Cartwright, U. G¨ ursoy, J. F. Pedraza and G. Planella Planas, “Perturbing a quantum black hole,” JHEP03(2025), 039 [arXiv:2408.08010 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Duality and four-dimensional black holes: Gravitational waves, algebraically special solutions, pole skipping, and the spectral duality relation in holographic thermal CFTs,

    S. Grozdanov and M. Vrbica, “Duality and four-dimensional black holes: Gravitational waves, algebraically special solutions, pole skipping, and the spectral duality relation in holographic thermal CFTs,” Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.6, 066019 [arXiv:2505.14229 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Cosmological pole-skipping, shock waves and quantum chaotic dynamics of de Sitter horizons,

    Y. Ahn, S. Grozdanov, H. S. Jeong and J. F. Pedraza, “Cosmological pole-skipping, shock waves and quantum chaotic dynamics of de Sitter horizons,” [arXiv:2508.15589 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    Thermal field theory correlators in the large-Nlimit and the spectral duality relation,

    S. Grozdanov and M. Vrbica, “Thermal field theory correlators in the large-Nlimit and the spectral duality relation,” [arXiv:2509.18074 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  55. [55]

    Breaking an Abelian gauge symmetry near a black hole horizon,

    S. S. Gubser, “Breaking an Abelian gauge symmetry near a black hole horizon,” Phys. Rev. D78 (2008), 065034 [arXiv:0801.2977 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [56]

    Building a Holographic Superconductor,

    S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, “Building a Holographic Superconductor,” Phys. Rev. Lett.101(2008), 031601 [arXiv:0803.3295 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  57. [57]

    Holographic Superconductors,

    S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, “Holographic Superconductors,” JHEP12(2008), 015 [arXiv:0810.1563 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  58. [58]

    An Analytic Holographic Superconductor,

    C. P. Herzog, “An Analytic Holographic Superconductor,” Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 126009 [arXiv:1003.3278 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  59. [59]

    Holographic Lifshitz superconductors: Analytic solution,

    M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Holographic Lifshitz superconductors: Analytic solution,” Phys. Rev. D97(2018) no.6, 066016 [arXiv:1801.03154 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [60]

    Holographic Meissner effect,

    M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Holographic Meissner effect,” Phys. Rev. D106(2022) no.8, 086005 [arXiv:2207.07182 [hep-th]]. – 23 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022