Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Holography with Null Boundaries

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims a string-theory derivation of holography for spacetimes with a null boundary, with a non-commutative open string theory on D1-D5-F1 branes as the dual.

desk verdict A serious null-boundary holography proposal with a load-bearing identity (3.39) that the paper's own equations contradict; likely a typo in (3.25), but as printed the central asymptotics and entropy are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20765 v2 pith:LNC67NKV submitted 2025-06-25 hep-th gr-qc

Christian Ferko , Savdeep Sethi This is my paper
classification hep-thgr-qc MSC 81T3083E3083C57 PACS 11.25.Tq04.70.Dy
keywords nullboundarycelestialholographynon-commutativeopenstringtheoryD1-D5-F1branesHagedorndensityofstatesTsTtransformationfluxquantizationblackholeentropy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a string-theory holographic correspondence for quantum gravity in spacetimes with a null boundary, in contrast to the timelike boundary of $\mathrm{AdS}$. The construction starts with bound states of D1-branes, D5-branes, and fundamental strings and applies the non-commutative open string (NCOS) decoupling limit; the resulting supergravity solutions interpolate between a small-radius $\mathrm{AdS}_3$ region and a six-dimensional asymptotic spacetime. The holographic dual is a spacetime non-commutative open string theory, and because null geodesics take infinite time to reach the boundary, radiation genuinely escapes to null infinity. If the correspondence is correct, it is a top-down example of celestial holography, and large black holes in these spacetimes have a Hagedorn density of states. The central technical step is an exact-looking identity that makes the leading asymptotics independent of the black-hole mass parameter.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a TsT transformation, a sequence of T-duality, a coordinate boost, and another T-duality, applied to the non-extremal D1-D5 supergravity solution, followed by the NCOS decoupling limit in which $\alpha'\to 0$ with the electric field and $B_2$ tuned to critical values. This produces the string-frame metric (3.15), the dilaton (3.14), and the quantized fluxes (3.22)--(3.24). The load-bearing identity is $\tilde g^2/(r_1^2+r_5^2+r_e^2)=\tilde V_4/m_1$, inferred from a high-order series expansion; it fixes the normalization constant $c_1=m_1\tilde V_4/\tilde g^2$ and is what makes the asymptotic spacetime independent of the mass parameter $r_e^2$.

What would settle it

Evaluate the next term in the series for $\tilde g^2/(r_1^2+r_5^2+r_e^2)$ using (3.25) and (3.27): any non-zero coefficient at order beyond $r_e^{40}$ would invalidate the normalization $c_1$, the asymptotic metric (3.40), and the entropy relation (3.70). Also solve the full dilaton including the $(\alpha')^2 f_e$ term for $r_e^2<0$; a singularity or mass dependence near $u=0$ would show that the negative-mass branch is not as clean as claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's result is that the D1-D5-F1 brane system in the NCOS decoupling limit provides a holographic definition of a family of gravitational spacetimes whose boundary is null. The extremal solution is $\mathrm{AdS}_3$ at small radius and becomes a six-dimensional Einstein-frame metric at large radius with a linear-dilaton-like logarithmic dilaton, and the same family includes non-extremal black holes for $r_e^2>0$ and horizonless negative-mass spacetimes whose most negative member is global $\mathrm{AdS}_3$. Flux quantization fixes the open-string data to $G_o^2=n_1/m_1$ and $\tilde V_4=n_1/n_5$, so the dual is a genuine spacetime non-commutative open string theory rather than a local QFT. The paper singles out the identity $\tilde g^2/(r_1^2+r_5^2+r_e^2)=\tilde V_4/m_1$ as the fact that forces the leading asymptotic metric, dilaton, and fluxes to be independent of the mass parameter $r_e^2$; combined with the horizon-area computation, it yields the linear entropy $S(M)=\frac{m_1-1}{2m_1-1}\pi^2 M+\cdots$ and hence Hagedorn growth.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the unproven algebraic identity $\tilde g^2/(r_1^2+r_5^2+r_e^2)=\tilde V_4/m_1$, checked only by a power-series expansion to order $r_e^{40}$, together with the assumption that a small $O((\alpha')^2 f_e)$ dilaton term can be dropped even when $r_e^2<0$ and no horizon hides the origin; if either fails, the mass-independent asymptotics and the entropy relation would need revision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because light rays take infinite time to reach the boundary, these spacetimes admit a genuine S-matrix, making the correspondence a concrete top-down setting for celestial holography.
  • The holographic dual is not a local quantum field theory: spacetime non-commutativity organizes observables through a star product, and the open string modes that normally decouple remain part of the theory.
  • Black-hole dynamics differs qualitatively from AdS: radiation escapes rather than reflecting, and large black holes have a Hagedorn density of states rather than the usual AdS-type growth.
  • The D5-branes are not decoupled, and their finite gauge coupling makes the asymptotic boundary effectively five-dimensional, so the boundary dimension can differ from the interior $\mathrm{AdS}_3$ dimension.
  • In the negative-$r_e^2$ branch, the most negative mass solution is exactly global $\mathrm{AdS}_3$ in the interior, giving a vacuum state with no conical excess.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the identity (3.39) is exact, it likely follows from a closed algebraic relation among $r_1$, $r_5$, $\tilde g$, and the brane integers; a direct proof would replace the series check and expose why the mass cancels.
  • The asymptotic expansion integrated inward from null infinity suggests a route from this background to celestial OPE data: subleading scalar modes determine boundary correlators that could eventually be compared with NCOS perturbation theory, a comparison the paper does not carry out.
  • The structural similarity to asymptotically linear-dilaton spacetimes and to single-trace $T\bar T$ deformations suggests that Hagedorn growth plus a null boundary, rather than the particular deformed CFT, may be the universal feature; a controlled comparison of NCOS and little-string observables would test this.
  • A concrete extension would be to compute one-loop corrections to the entropy (3.70) and check whether the Hagedorn temperature drifts with $\tilde g$; if it does not, the Hagedorn behavior is a robust strong-coupling prediction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a top-down holographic correspondence for quantum gravity in spacetimes with a null boundary. Starting from the D1-D5 system with fundamental strings, the authors perform a TsT transformation and the NCOS decoupling limit to obtain extremal and non-extremal type IIB supergravity solutions. The solutions interpolate between an AdS3 interior and a six-dimensional asymptotic geometry with a null boundary, and the paper proposes a non-commutative open string theory on D1-D5 branes as the holographic dual, with parameters fixed by flux quantization. The paper also analyzes scalar field propagation, computes ADM masses for non-extremal solutions, and derives a Hagedorn entropy for large black holes.

Significance. If the construction is sound, this is a significant contribution: it is a concrete string-theoretic example of holography beyond AdS with a nonlocal dual, and it connects NCOS theory, null boundaries, and Hagedorn black-hole dynamics in an explicit supergravity setting. The paper is careful about flux quantization and states that the supergravity equations are checked explicitly, which are real strengths. The asymptotic scalar analysis is a useful step toward understanding observables at null infinity. The significance is conditional, however, because the key normalization identity (3.39) is load-bearing and, as printed, is inconsistent with Eq. (3.25) in the extremal limit.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (3.25) and (3.39)] Setting r_e=0 in the constraint (3.25) gives r_5^2 = tilde g n_5 and r_1^2 = tilde g n_1 / sqrt(eV4), whereas the decoupled extremal solution (2.22) and (2.73) requires r_1^2 = tilde g n_1 / eV4. These agree only when eV4=1; Section 2.5 allows eV4=n1/n5, which is not generally 1. Consequently Eq. (3.39) is already violated at zeroth order in r_e for generic parameters. For example, with n1=n5=1, eV4=2, m1=3, r_e=0, one obtains tilde g=1, so the left side of (3.39) is 1/(1+1/sqrt2) ~ 0.586, while the right side is eV4/m1 = 2/3. A Mathematica expansion to order r_e^40 cannot fix an identity that fails at r_e=0. Because (3.39) fixes c1 and controls the mass-independent asymptotics (3.40), the definition of the quantum-gravity theory, and the entropy relation (3.70), this is a load-bearing problem as printed. If the intended second line of (3.25) is r_1^2 = (1/2)(sqrt(4 tilde g^2 n1^2/eV4^2 + r_e^4) - r_e^2), then (3.39) follows exactly from (3.25) and (3.26); please correct the equation and give the algebraic derivation rather than a truncated series.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.13)] The decoupled dilaton contains the exact term (alpha'/b)^2 f_e in the denominator, and the text drops it for r_e^2>0 because the origin is screened by a horizon, but explicitly assumes it can also be dropped for r_e^2<0. On the negative-r_e^2 branch there is no horizon and f_e = 1 + |r_e^2|/u^2 diverges at u=0, so the limit alpha' -> 0 is not uniform in u. The negative-r_e^2 solutions are used later to reach global AdS3 and to discuss the vacuum, so this assumption is load-bearing for those claims. Please provide a controlled decoupling-limit argument for dropping the term on this branch, or restrict the claims to r_e^2>0.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.63) and (3.70)] The leading large-r_e expression for b contains factors (m1-1) in denominators, and the final Hagedorn relation S = ((m1-1)/(2m1-1)) pi^2 M also degenerates at m1=1. The paper does not state the allowed range of m1 for which the large-black-hole entropy is derived. Since m1 is the number of fundamental strings and the NCOS perturbative regime is described as m1 -> infinity, the likely range is m1 > 1, but this should be stated explicitly so that the Hagedorn claim is not read as holding at m1=1.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.3, after Eq. (2.54)] The text says 'the c1 solution of (2.54) is not normalizable'; this should presumably read 'the a1 solution'.
  2. [Introduction and Sec. 2.3] The phrase 'casual structure' appears where 'causal structure' is meant; please correct the spelling.
  3. [Sec. 2.5, Eq. (2.81)] The Coulomb-branch argument that fixes G_o^2 = n1/m1 and eV4 = n1/n5 is stated rather tersely; one or two sentences explaining why the torus volume is renormalized in this way would make the dual parameter map easier to verify.
  4. [Sec. 2.1, near Eq. (2.18)] The phrase 'not, apriori, a solution of string theory' should be 'not, a priori, a solution of string theory'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivation is self-contained, with flux quantization and independent supergravity/ADM computations carrying the argument. The fragile Eq. (3.39) is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's claimed chain of results is not circular. The holographic parameters are fixed by flux quantization and by the DBI quantization conditions of the brane system: Eq. (2.37) fixes g-tilde from string charge quantization, and Eqs. (2.80)-(2.81) fix the NCOS open string coupling and torus volume. The non-extremal solution is obtained by applying the same TsT/decoupling procedure to the standard non-extremal D1-D5 solution, with the algebraic constraints (3.25) imposed by the supergravity equations and (3.27) imposed by string charge quantization. The constant c1 in (3.15) is an undetermined normalization, and Eq. (3.37) chooses it so that the leading t-x5 part of the metric is mass-independent; this is a normalization choice, not a fit of a target prediction. The later claim (3.39) that tilde_g^2/(r1^2+r5^2+re^2)=eV4/m1 is presented as an algebraic identity supported by a series expansion in Mathematica, not as an input or fitted parameter, and the Hagedorn entropy relation (3.70) follows by combining the independent area computation (3.69) with the ADM mass computation (3.67). Self-citations ([38], [40]) are used for comparison and context, not as the load-bearing source of the central result. Two caveats should be recorded as correctness risks rather than circularity: the paper explicitly assumes the (alpha')^2 fe term in the dilaton can be dropped even for negative re^2 (text near Eq. (3.13)), and Eq. (3.39) is asserted from a finite power-series check rather than proven. Moreover, as printed, the constraints (3.25) give r1^2 = tilde_g n1 / sqrt(eV4) at re=0, which conflicts with the extremal value r1^2 = tilde_g n1 / eV4 of Eq. (2.74); this suggests a typographical error in (3.25). These are concerns about validity and internal consistency of an identity, but the derivation is not circular: the claimed predictions are not equivalent by construction to the inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or dimensions. It relies on standard string-theory ingredients plus one unproven algebraic identity and one explicit approximation in the non-extremal dilaton. The free parameter c1 is a coordinate normalization chosen by convention, not fitted to data. The axioms are the standard supergravity/T-duality framework plus the two technical assumptions flagged above.

free parameters (1)
  • c1 = c1 = r1^2 + r5^2 + r_e^2 = m1 * tilde_g^2 / eV4
    Introduced as an undetermined normalization of the (tilde_t, tilde_x5) coordinates in the non-extremal metric (3.15), then fixed by requiring the leading asymptotic metric to be independent of the mass parameter r_e (3.37). It is a convention rather than a fitted constant, but it enters the definition of the quantum gravity asymptotics.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Type IIB supergravity with standard flux Bianchi identities is a valid description of the decoupled brane system.
    Used throughout to generate and verify the solutions; standard string-theory background.
  • domain assumption TsT solution generating via Buscher T-duality rules (Appendix B) preserves the solution and produces the desired B-field.
    The solution-generating procedure in Section 2.1 assumes these standard duality rules.
  • domain assumption The NCOS decoupling limit (2.18)/(2.76) is a valid limit of the D1-D5-F1 system defining a string theory.
    The dual definition rests on this limit from prior NCOS literature [1, 2, 20]; the paper extends it to D1-D5.
  • domain assumption The flux quantization conditions (A.2) and (A.30) are the correct quantization for the backgrounds.
    Appendix A derives the string charge quantization using assumptions about closed RR fluxes along S3 x T4.
  • ad hoc to paper The exact relation tilde_g^2/(r1^2 + r5^2 + r_e^2) = eV4/m1 holds.
    Asserted from a power series check to (r_e)^40 rather than proven; used to fix c1 and mass-independent asymptotics.
  • ad hoc to paper The (alpha')^2 f_e term in the non-extremal dilaton can be dropped for r_e^2 < 0.
    Explicitly assumed in Section 3.1 because the origin may be accessible for negative mass solutions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Holography with Null Boundaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LNC67NKV

@misc{pith2026250620765,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Holography with Null Boundaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LNC67NKV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20765}
}
abstract

One of the key issues in holography is going beyond $\mathrm{AdS}$ and defining quantum gravity in spacetimes with a null boundary. Recent examples of this type involve linear dilaton asymptotics and are related to the $T \overline{T}$ deformation. We present a holographic correspondence derived from string theory, which is an example of a kind of celestial holography. The holographic definition is a spacetime non-commutative open string theory supported on D1-D5 branes together with fundamental strings. The gravity solutions interpolate between $\mathrm{AdS}_3$ metrics and six-dimensional metrics. Radiation can escape to null infinity, which makes both the encoding of quantum information in the boundary and the dynamics of black holes quite different from $\mathrm{AdS}$ spacetimes.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S duality and noncommutative gauge theory,

    R. Gopakumar, J. M. Maldacena, S. Minwalla, and A. Strominger, “S duality and noncommutative gauge theory,” JHEP 06 (2000) 036, hep-th/0005048

    arXiv 2000

  2. [2]

    Strings in background electric field, space / time noncommutativity and a new noncritical string theory,

    N. Seiberg, L. Susskind, and N. Toumbas, “Strings in background electric field, space / time noncommutativity and a new noncritical string theory,” JHEP 06 (2000) 021, hep-th/0005040

    arXiv 2000

  3. [3]

    Duality and Non-Commutative Gauge Theory

    O. J. Ganor, G. Rajesh, and S. Sethi, “Duality and noncommutative gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 125008, hep-th/0005046

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  4. [4]

    Space-time noncommutative field theories and unitarity,

    J. Gomis and T. Mehen, “Space-time noncommutative field theories and unitarity,” Nucl. Phys. B 591 (2000) 265–276, hep-th/0005129

    arXiv 2000

  5. [5]

    The UV/IR Interplay in Theories with Space-time Varying Non-commutativity

    D. Robbins and S. Sethi, “The UV / IR interplay in theories with space-time varying noncommutativity,” JHEP 07 (2003) 034, hep-th/0306193

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  6. [6]

    (OM) theory in diverse dimensions,

    R. Gopakumar, S. Minwalla, N. Seiberg, and A. Strominger, “(OM) theory in diverse dimensions,” JHEP 08 (2000) 008, hep-th/0006062

    arXiv 2000

  7. [7]

    (F1, D1, D3) Bound State, Its Scaling Limits and SL(2,Z) Duality

    R.-G. Cai and N. Ohta, “(F1, D1, D3) bound state, its scaling limits and SL(2,Z) duality,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 104 (2000) 1073–1087, hep-th/0007106

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  8. [8]

    On Noncommutative Open String Theories

    J. G. Russo and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, “On noncommutative open string theories,” JHEP 07 (2000) 052, hep-th/0006202

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Noncommutative field theory,

    M. R. Douglas and N. A. Nekrasov, “Noncommutative field theory,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 73 (2001) 977–1029, hep-th/0106048

    2001 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Large N limit of noncommutative gauge theories,

    J. M. Maldacena and J. G. Russo, “Large N limit of noncommutative gauge theories,” JHEP 09 (1999) 025, hep-th/9908134

    1999 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Thermodynamics of spinning branes and their dual field theories,

    T. Harmark and N. A. Obers, “Thermodynamics of spinning branes and their dual field theories,” JHEP 01 (2000) 008, hep-th/9910036

    2000 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Phase structure of noncommutative field theories and spinning brane bound states,

    T. Harmark and N. A. Obers, “Phase structure of noncommutative field theories and spinning brane bound states,” JHEP 03 (2000) 024, hep-th/9911169

    2000 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Supergravity and large N noncommutative field theories,

    M. Alishahiha, Y. Oz, and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, “Supergravity and large N noncommutative field theories,” JHEP 11 (1999) 007, hep-th/9909215. 39

    1999 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Supergravity and space-time noncommutative open string theory,

    T. Harmark, “Supergravity and space-time noncommutative open string theory,” JHEP 07 (2000) 043, hep-th/0006023

    2000 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Open branes in space-time noncommutative little string theory,

    T. Harmark, “Open branes in space-time noncommutative little string theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 593 (2001) 76–98, hep-th/0007147

    2001 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Holographic noncommutativity,

    D. S. Berman, V. L. Campos, M. Cederwall, U. Gran, H. Larsson, M. Nielsen, B. E. W. Nilsson, and P. Sundell, “Holographic noncommutativity,” JHEP 05 (2001) 002, hep-th/0011282

    2001 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Strong coupling effects in noncommutative spaces from OM theory and supergravity,

    J. G. Russo and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, “Strong coupling effects in noncommutative spaces from OM theory and supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 600 (2001) 62–80, hep-th/0009141

    2001 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Time dependent warping, fluxes, and NCYM,

    K. Dasgupta, G. Rajesh, D. Robbins, and S. Sethi, “Time dependent warping, fluxes, and NCYM,” JHEP 03 (2003) 041, hep-th/0302049

    2003 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Dynamics of (n, 1) strings,

    S. Gukov, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, “Dynamics of (n, 1) strings,” Phys. Lett. B 423 (1998) 64–70, hep-th/9711112

    1998 arXiv

  12. [20]

    (1+1)-dimensional NCOS and its U(N) gauge theory dual,

    I. R. Klebanov and J. M. Maldacena, “(1+1)-dimensional NCOS and its U(N) gauge theory dual,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 4 (2000) 283–302, hep-th/0006085

    2000 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Stable massive states in 1+1 dimensional NCOS,

    C. P. Herzog and I. R. Klebanov, “Stable massive states in 1+1 dimensional NCOS,” Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 046001, hep-th/0009017

    2001 arXiv

  14. [22]

    The Phases of 2-D NCOS,

    V. Sahakian, “The Phases of 2-D NCOS,” JHEP 09 (2000) 025, hep-th/0008073

    2000 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Geometry from D-branes in nonrelativistic string theory,

    A. Guijosa and I. C. Rosas-L´ opez, “Geometry from D-branes in nonrelativistic string theory,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 39 (2024), no. 17n18, 2450031, 2312.03332

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Deformations of QFTs and construction of models

    G. Lechner, “Deformations of QFTs and construction of models.” Video recording of talk at the Simons workshop “TTbar and Other Solvable Deformations of Quantum Field Theories”, April 9, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Deformations of quantum field theories and integrable models,

    G. Lechner, “Deformations of quantum field theories and integrable models,” Commun. Math. Phys. 312 (2012) 265–302, 1104.1948

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    T T deformed scattering happens within matrices,

    V. Shyam and Y. Yargic, “ T T deformed scattering happens within matrices,” JHEP 04 (2023) 132, 2209.11753. 40

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Expectation value of composite field T anti-T in two-dimensional quantum field theory,

    A. B. Zamolodchikov, “Expectation value of composite field T anti-T in two-dimensional quantum field theory,” hep-th/0401146

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    T ¯T -deformed 2D Quantum Field Theories,

    A. Cavagli` a, S. Negro, I. M. Sz´ ecs´ enyi, and R. Tateo, “T ¯T -deformed 2D Quantum Field Theories,” JHEP 10 (2016) 112, 1608.05534

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Lectures on solvable irrelevant deformations of 2d quantum field theory,

    Y. Jiang, “Lectures on solvable irrelevant deformations of 2d quantum field theory,” 1904.13376

    1904 arXiv

  22. [30]

    T T Deformation: Introduction and Some Recent Advances,

    S. He, Y. Li, H. Ouyang, and Y. Sun, “ T T Deformation: Introduction and Some Recent Advances,” 2503.09997

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    A Truly marginal deformation of SL(2, R) in a null direction,

    S. Forste, “A Truly marginal deformation of SL(2, R) in a null direction,” Phys. Lett. B 338 (1994) 36–39, hep-th/9407198

    1994 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Superstrings on NS5 backgrounds, deformed AdS(3) and holography,

    D. Israel, C. Kounnas, and M. P. Petropoulos, “Superstrings on NS5 backgrounds, deformed AdS(3) and holography,” JHEP 10 (2003) 028, hep-th/0306053

    2003 arXiv

  25. [33]

    T T and LST,

    A. Giveon, N. Itzhaki, and D. Kutasov, “T T and LST,” JHEP 07 (2017) 122, 1701.05576

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A solvable irrelevant deformation of AdS3/CFT2,

    A. Giveon, N. Itzhaki, and D. Kutasov, “A solvable irrelevant deformation of AdS3/CFT2,” JHEP 12 (2017) 155, 1707.05800

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Holography Beyond AdS,

    M. Asrat, A. Giveon, N. Itzhaki, and D. Kutasov, “Holography Beyond AdS,” Nucl. Phys. B 932 (2018) 241–253, 1711.02690

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Holographic integration of T ¯T \& J ¯T via O(d, d),

    T. Araujo, E. ´O. Colg´ ain, Y. Sakatani, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and H. Yavartanoo, “Holographic integration of T ¯T \& J ¯T via O(d, d),” JHEP 03 (2019) 168, 1811.03050

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    TsT, T ¯T and black strings,

    L. Apolo, S. Detournay, and W. Song, “TsT, T ¯T and black strings,” JHEP 06 (2020) 109, 1911.12359

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Holography and irrelevant operators,

    C.-K. Chang, C. Ferko, and S. Sethi, “Holography and irrelevant operators,” Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), no. 12, 126021, 2302.03041

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Holography of linear dilaton spacetimes from the bottom up,

    S. Fichet, E. Megias, and M. Quiros, “Holography of linear dilaton spacetimes from the bottom up,” Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 10, 106011, 2309.02489. 41

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Tensionless AdS 3/CFT2 and single trace T T ,

    A. Dei, B. Knighton, K. Naderi, and S. Sethi, “Tensionless AdS 3/CFT2 and single trace T T ,” JHEP 11 (2024) 145, 2408.00823

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    BMS supertranslations and Weinberg’s soft graviton theorem,

    T. He, V. Lysov, P. Mitra, and A. Strominger, “BMS supertranslations and Weinberg’s soft graviton theorem,” JHEP 05 (2015) 151, 1401.7026

    2015 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Strominger, Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory

    A. Strominger, Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory . 3, 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    Lectures on Celestial Holography,

    A.-M. Raclariu, “Lectures on Celestial Holography,” 2107.02075

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Lectures on celestial amplitudes,

    S. Pasterski, “Lectures on celestial amplitudes,” Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021), no. 12, 1062, 2108.04801

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Celestial holography: An asymptotic symmetry perspective,

    L. Donnay, “Celestial holography: An asymptotic symmetry perspective,” Phys. Rept. 1073 (2024) 1–41, 2310.12922

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Top-Down Holography in an Asymptotically Flat Spacetime,

    K. Costello, N. M. Paquette, and A. Sharma, “Top-Down Holography in an Asymptotically Flat Spacetime,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023), no. 6, 061602, 2208.14233

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Burns space and holography,

    K. Costello, N. M. Paquette, and A. Sharma, “Burns space and holography,” JHEP 10 (2023) 174, 2306.00940

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Self-Dual Gauge Theory from the Top Down,

    R. Bittleston, K. Costello, and K. Zeng, “Self-Dual Gauge Theory from the Top Down,” 2412.02680

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Holography in flat spacetimes: the case for Carroll,

    A. Bagchi, P. Dhivakar, and S. Dutta, “Holography in flat spacetimes: the case for Carroll,” JHEP 08 (2024) 144, 2311.11246

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bridging Carrollian and celestial holography,

    L. Donnay, A. Fiorucci, Y. Herfray, and R. Ruzziconi, “Bridging Carrollian and celestial holography,” Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), no. 12, 126027, 2212.12553

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    The Carrollian Kaleidoscope,

    A. Bagchi, A. Banerjee, P. Dhivakar, S. Mondal, and A. Shukla, “The Carrollian Kaleidoscope,” 2506.16164

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    High Energy String Theory and the Celestial Sphere,

    X. Kervyn and S. Stieberger, “High Energy String Theory and the Celestial Sphere,” 2504.13738. 42

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    Black holes and the phases of brane thermodynamics,

    E. J. Martinec, “Black holes and the phases of brane thermodynamics,” in NATO Advanced Study Institute: TMR Summer School on Progress in String Theory and M-Theory, pp. 117–145. 5, 1999. hep-th/9909049

    1999 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Ascending the attractor flow in the D1-D5 system,

    S. Georgescu, M. Guica, and N. Kovensky, “Ascending the attractor flow in the D1-D5 system,” 2401.01298

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Noncommutative Yang-Mills and the AdS / CFT correspondence,

    A. Hashimoto and N. Itzhaki, “Noncommutative Yang-Mills and the AdS / CFT correspondence,” Phys. Lett. B 465 (1999) 142–147, hep-th/9907166

    1999 arXiv

  48. [56]

    U(1) charges and moduli in the D1 - D5 system,

    F. Larsen and E. J. Martinec, “U(1) charges and moduli in the D1 - D5 system,” JHEP 06 (1999) 019, hep-th/9905064

    1999 arXiv

  49. [57]

    S. G. Avery, Using the D1D5 CFT to Understand Black Holes . PhD thesis, The Ohio State University, 2010. 1012.0072

    2010 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Conformal invariants,

    C. Fefferman and C. R. Graham, “Conformal invariants,” in ´Elie Cartan et les math´ ematiques d’aujourd’hui - Lyon, 25-29 juin 1984, no. S131 in Ast´ erisque, pp. 95–116. Soci´ et´ e math´ ematique de France, 1985

    1984

  51. [59]

    The ambient metric,

    C. Fefferman and C. R. Graham, “The ambient metric,” arXiv e-prints (Oct., 2007) arXiv:0710.0919, 0710.0919

    2007 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Microscopic formulation of black holes in string theory,

    J. R. David, G. Mandal, and S. R. Wadia, “Microscopic formulation of black holes in string theory,” Phys. Rept. 369 (2002) 549–686, hep-th/0203048

    2002 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Hawking radiation from non-extremal D1-D5 black hole via anomalies,

    H. Shin and W. Kim, “Hawking radiation from non-extremal D1-D5 black hole via anomalies,” JHEP 06 (2007) 012, 0705.0265

    2007 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Classical Stability of Round and Squashed Seven Spheres in Eleven-dimensional Supergravity,

    D. N. Page, “Classical Stability of Round and Squashed Seven Spheres in Eleven-dimensional Supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 2976

    1983

  55. [63]

    Chern-Simons terms and the three notions of charge,

    D. Marolf, “Chern-Simons terms and the three notions of charge,” in International Conference on Quantization, Gauge Theory, and Strings: Conference Dedicated to the Memory of Professor Efim Fradkin , pp. 312–320. 6, 2000. hep-th/0006117

    2000 arXiv

  56. [64]

    A Symmetry of the String Background Field Equations,

    T. H. Buscher, “A Symmetry of the String Background Field Equations,” Phys. Lett. B 194 (1987) 59–62. 43

    1987

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.