{"id":"80dd4253-6dae-4505-9638-b4a082aae79c","arxiv_id":"2309.04231","paper_version":3,"verdict":"UNVERDICTED","confidence":"LOW","novelty_score":7.0,"correctness_risk":"unknown","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":0,"one_line_summary":"Subregion duality fails in AdS/CFT at leading large N, leading to the proposal of subregion complementarity allowing different CFT operators to describe one bulk subregion.","lead":"This paper shows that subregion duality in AdS/CFT fails, with discrepancies between causal wedge and global operator reconstructions at leading large N. It proposes subregion complementarity where different CFT operators can describe the same bulk subregion, valid for eternal black holes but not single-sided ones.","discovery_kind":"extension","skeptic_critique":{"model":"grok-4.3","headline":"Discrepancies at leading large N attributed to non-perturbative finite-N effects","rationale":"The reader's weakest assumption correctly isolates the precise tension between the order of the claimed discrepancy and the proposed explanation. Because the central claim (failure of subregion duality at leading large N) rests on this attribution, the inconsistency is load-bearing. No other technical detail from the abstract alters this assessment.","tokens_in":1640,"tokens_out":309,"duration_ms":12463,"concrete_test":"Locate the explicit operator expressions or two-point functions whose discrepancy is asserted to be leading-order (likely in the section deriving the reconstruction maps). Extract the N-dependence of the difference and take the N→∞ limit analytically or numerically; if the discrepancy vanishes as any positive power of 1/N, the leading-order claim is unsupported.","verdict_should_be":"REJECT","load_bearing_attack":"The paper states that discrepancies between causal-wedge and global reconstruction operators appear at leading order in the large-N limit, yet attributes the failure of entanglement-wedge reconstruction to non-perturbative finite-N effects or trans-Planckian modes. Leading order in 1/N is the strict N→∞ saddle where all 1/N corrections (perturbative or non-perturbative) are absent by definition. An effect visible at this order cannot be explained by finite-N corrections, creating an internal inconsistency in the order counting that underpins both the claimed failure of subregion duality and the proposed subregion complementarity.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"grok-4.3","summary":"The manuscript claims that subregion duality in AdS/CFT fails, as evidenced by discrepancies between causal-wedge and global reconstruction operators at leading order in the large-N limit. It argues that entanglement-wedge reconstruction is invalid due to non-perturbative finite-N effects or trans-Planckian modes near the horizon, and proposes 'subregion complementarity' in which different CFT operators can describe the same bulk subregion, valid for eternal black holes outside the horizon but not for single-sided black holes.","tokens_in":1770,"tokens_out":391,"duration_ms":13735,"significance":"If the discrepancies at leading large N are shown to be robust and the complementarity proposal is derived without relying on the very framework it critiques, the work could challenge standard subregion duality and holographic quantum error correction in AdS/CFT. The paper offers a conceptual proposal rather than a fully derived result, with the large-N counting issue limiting its immediate implications.","major_comments":[{"comment":"Abstract: discrepancies between causal-wedge and global reconstruction are stated to appear at leading order in the large-N limit, yet the failure of entanglement-wedge reconstruction is attributed to non-perturbative finite-N effects or trans-Planckian modes. Leading order in 1/N is the strict N→∞ saddle where all 1/N corrections (perturbative and non-perturbative) vanish by definition; an effect visible at this order cannot be explained by finite-N corrections. This order-counting inconsistency is load-bearing for the central claim that subregion duality fails.","section":"Abstract"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The argument invokes the holographic quantum error correction code from prior literature; a self-contained derivation or explicit operator-level comparison at leading large N would strengthen the presentation.","section":null}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":null},"author_rebuttal":{"model":"grok-4.3","summary":"We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting the important issue of large-N order counting. We address the major comment below and will make revisions to improve clarity.","responses":[{"response":"We agree that the abstract as written creates an apparent inconsistency in the order counting that needs to be resolved. The discrepancies between causal-wedge and global reconstruction operators are computed explicitly at leading order in the large-N limit (i.e., they differ by O(1) terms, not suppressed by 1/N). The primary mechanism we invoke for why entanglement-wedge reconstruction fails is quantum-gravity effects from trans-Planckian modes near the horizon; these are not 1/N-suppressed and can invalidate the semi-classical assumptions underlying standard subregion duality even in the strict N→∞ limit. The reference to non-perturbative finite-N effects was intended as a secondary possibility and is not required for the leading-order claim. We will revise the abstract and the relevant discussion sections to emphasize the trans-Planckian mechanism as the leading explanation and to remove any ambiguity about order counting. This clarification does not change the central results but strengthens the presentation.","revision_made":"yes","referee_comment":"[Abstract] Abstract: discrepancies between causal-wedge and global reconstruction are stated to appear at leading order in the large-N limit, yet the failure of entanglement-wedge reconstruction is attributed to non-perturbative finite-N effects or trans-Planckian modes. Leading order in 1/N is the strict N→∞ saddle where all 1/N corrections (perturbative and non-perturbative) vanish by definition; an effect visible at this order cannot be explained by finite-N corrections. This order-counting inconsistency is load-bearing for the central claim that subregion duality fails."}],"tokens_in":1253,"tokens_out":385,"duration_ms":17991,"standing_objections":[]},"desk_editor":{"model":"grok-4.3","letter":"The paper reports that operators reconstructed from a causal wedge differ from those in a global reconstruction already at leading order in large N. It uses this to question entanglement-wedge reconstruction via holographic quantum error correction and offers subregion complementarity as an alternative, where distinct CFT operators can stand in for the same bulk region outside horizons in eternal black holes. The complementarity proposal is the clearest new element here; the rest largely applies existing ideas to the observed mismatch. The work is direct about its scope and does not overclaim computational results. The central difficulty is the order counting. The abstract states the discrepancy appears at leading large N yet explains the failure of standard reconstruction by non-perturbative finite-N effects or trans-Planckian modes. Leading large N is the strict saddle where all 1/N corrections vanish, so an effect visible there cannot be fixed by finite-N physics. This tension sits at the heart of both the claimed breakdown and the proposed fix. The argument also rests on prior error-correction literature without a fresh derivation in this work, and the complementarity statement remains conceptual rather than tied to explicit operator constructions. The paper is aimed at researchers already working inside the subregion-duality literature in AdS/CFT. A reader outside that niche will find the motivation thin and the resolution underspecified. I would not send it to peer review in its current form; the large-N inconsistency needs to be addressed first.","headline":"The paper flags a claimed mismatch between causal-wedge and global reconstruction at leading large N, then attributes the problem to finite-N effects, which is inconsistent on its face.","tokens_in":2213,"tokens_out":360,"would_cite":false,"duration_ms":14219,"reading_group":"no","serious_thinker":"no","would_accept_peer_review":false},"rs_alignment":{"model":"grok-4.3","evidence":[],"headline":"AdS/CFT subregion reconstruction and complementarity arguments lie outside RS scope","alignment":"orthogonal","rationale":"The paper's machinery (HKLL discrepancies between global and AdS-Rindler reconstructions, failure of entanglement-wedge reconstruction at leading large-N, subregion complementarity, stretched-horizon/trans-Planckian issues) operates entirely within standard holographic QFT and does not invoke or parallel any RS forcing chain. No use of J-cost, φ-ladder, 8-tick periodicity, or single-distinction emergence appears; the domain (AdS/CFT operator reconstruction) is one on which the RS theorems are silent.","tokens_in":62433,"confidence":"high","tokens_out":149,"duration_ms":6325,"cache_read_input_tokens":38528,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":[],"model":"grok-4.3","headline":"Subregion duality fails in AdS/CFT as causal wedge and global reconstructions disagree at leading large N order.","keywords":["AdS/CFT","bulk reconstruction","entanglement wedge","subregion duality","subregion complementarity","large N limit","black hole horizons"],"falsifier":"An explicit large N calculation of a bulk operator reconstructed both from a subregion's causal wedge and from the global boundary that shows whether the two operators agree or disagree.","tokens_in":2542,"feed_emoji":"","tokens_out":493,"duration_ms":15136,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"The paper examines bulk reconstruction in the AdS/CFT correspondence and shows that subregion duality does not hold. Discrepancies appear between operators obtained from causal wedge reconstruction and those from global reconstruction already at the leading order in the large N limit. The authors argue that this invalidates the entanglement wedge reconstruction proposal based on holographic quantum error correction codes, attributing the mismatch to non-perturbative finite N effects or quantum gravity effects from trans-Planckian modes near the horizon. They propose subregion complementarity instead, under which different CFT operators can describe the same bulk subregion. This complementarity is expected to hold outside the horizon for general eternal black holes but does not apply to single-sided black holes.","feed_headline":"Causal wedge and global reconstructions disagree at leading large N","feed_subtitle":"Discrepancies invalidate entanglement wedge reconstruction but permit different CFT operators to describe the same bulk subregion outside a ","key_machinery":"Subregion complementarity, the proposal that different CFT operators can describe the same bulk subregion.","core_discovery":"The central claim is that subregion duality fails to hold because operators in causal wedge reconstruction differ from those in global reconstruction at leading order in the large N limit. This discrepancy shows the invalidity of entanglement wedge reconstruction based on the holographic quantum error correction code. The paper proposes subregion complementarity, in which different CFT operators can describe a bulk subregion, and states that this holds outside the horizon in general eternal black holes but is inapplicable for single-sided black holes where a semi-classical description at the stretched horizon is absent.","pith_inferences":[],"forward_implications":[],"fun_headline_variants":["Subregion duality fails at leading large N","Causal wedge differs from global reconstruction","Entanglement wedge invalid due to finite N effects","Subregion complementarity outside eternal black hole horizons"],"cache_read_input_tokens":2112,"weakest_assumption_plain":"Discrepancies between causal wedge and global reconstructions at leading order in large N indicate that entanglement wedge reconstruction is invalid.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Subregion duality fails at leading large N","Causal wedge differs from global reconstruction","Entanglement wedge invalid due to finite N effects","Subregion complementarity outside eternal black hole horizons"]},"model":"grok-4.3","cost_usd":0.007734,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":3504,"prompt_tokens":606,"num_sources_used":0,"completion_tokens":53,"cost_in_usd_ticks":77337000,"prompt_tokens_details":{"text_tokens":606,"audio_tokens":0,"image_tokens":0,"cached_tokens":256},"completion_tokens_details":{"audio_tokens":0,"reasoning_tokens":2845,"accepted_prediction_tokens":0,"rejected_prediction_tokens":0}},"tokens_in":606,"tokens_out":53,"duration_ms":15689,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":2845,"cache_read_input_tokens":256,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-05-24T06:36:03.549343+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"grok-4.3"},"falsifier":"An explicit large N calculation of a bulk operator reconstructed both from a subregion's causal wedge and from the global boundary that shows whether the two operators agree or disagree.","supporting_citations":[],"review_version":1}