Pith.

High Energy Physics - Theory · arXiv:1307.5915 v2 · submitted 23 Jul 2013

Cool horizons lead to information loss

Borun D. Chowdhury

The paper says

“We also demonstrate how models proposed by Susskind, Papadodimas et al. and Maldacena et al. end up making the initial to final state map non-invertible and thus make the horizon "cool" at the cost of unitarity.”

from the abstract · picked out as the main claim by a classifier

Pith says

Pith has not reviewed this paper.

Get a Pith Review, $5

Reviews

Reviews by people

No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

There are two evidences for information loss during black hole evaporation: (i) a pure state evolves to a mixed state and (ii) the map from the initial state to final state is non-invertible. Any proposed resolution of the information paradox must address both these issues. The firewall argument focuses only on the first and this leads to order one deviations from the Unruh vacuum for maximally entangled black holes. The nature of the argument does not extend to black holes in pure states. It was shown by Avery, Puhm and the author that requiring the initial state to final state map to be invertible mandates structure at the horizon even for pure states. The proof works if black holes can be formed in generic states and in this paper we show that this is indeed the case. We also demonstrate how models proposed by Susskind, Papadodimas et al. and Maldacena et al. end up making the initial to final state map non-invertible and thus make the horizon "cool" at the cost of unitarity.

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

How the main claim is stated: asserted 1.00

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.08 · states limitation 0.33 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.06 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.13 · compares with prior results 0.94 · mentions code or data availability 0.02

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v2). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
There are two evidences for information loss during black hole evaporation: (i) a pure state evolves to a mixed state and (ii) the map from the initial state to final state is non-invertible. background 1.00 0.12 0.09 asserted 1.00
Any proposed resolution of the information paradox must address both these issues. background 0.92 0.09 0.07 asserted 0.99
The firewall argument focuses only on the first and this leads to order one deviations from the Unruh vacuum for maximally entangled black holes. background 0.60 0.14 0.06 asserted 1.00
The nature of the argument does not extend to black holes in pure states. background 0.33 0.09 0.04 asserted 1.00
It was shown by Avery, Puhm and the author that requiring the initial state to final state map to be invertible mandates structure at the horizon even for pure states. background 0.57 0.37 0.19 asserted 1.00
The proof works if black holes can be formed in generic states and in this paper we show that this is indeed the case. contribution 0.66 0.90 0.20 asserted 1.00
We also demonstrate how models proposed by Susskind, Papadodimas et al. and Maldacena et al. end up making the initial to final state map non-invertible and thus make the horizon "cool" at the cost of unitarity. result 0.67 0.87 0.41 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.97 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.87

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v2

Not examined

  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers

Levels run

  • P abstract

Not run

  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 5,600 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

Cited by 5 Pith papers
How the literature uses it

11 arXiv papers cite this in 13 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 10 sentences without a confident label

Cites it as background 3 papers

What it cites · 81 sentences without a confident label

Contests 1 paper
Builds on 1 paper
  • Avery [ref] generalized this to include the other two directions in the space of Hilbert space of the two qubits interfacestates at the intersection completing Mathur's proof.

    Qubit Models of Black Hole Evaporation · Small corrections to Hawking's process and purity of final state · 0.80

Compares with 3 papers
  • A similar idea was recently discussed by Maldacena and Susskind in [ref] but with the opposite conclusion.

    Cool horizons for entangled black holes · Model 3 - “ER=EPR" model · 0.93

  • Our result is stronger than the results of [ref] and proves that there has to be an order one correction to the Unruh vacuum at the horizon even for young black holes.

    Qubit Models of Black Hole Evaporation · Unitarity requires order one corrections at each step of emission · 0.97

  • Our result is stronger than the results of [ref] and proves that there has to be an order one correction to the Unruh vacuum at the horizon even for young black holes.

    The information paradox: A pedagogical introduction · Unitarity requires order one corrections at each step of emission · 0.97

Cites as support 3 papers
  • This will put the proof of [ref] on a firm footing.

    Unitarity and fuzzball complementarity: "Alice fuzzes but may not even know it!" · Possibility of structure at horizon before Page time/ for pure states · 0.96

  • There is evidence from the weakly coupled D1-D5 system at the orbifold point that around $T R ∼1$ there will be a phase transition coming from the long string sector converting into shorter strings [ref] .

    The quantum structure of black holes · D1-D5 black string · 0.96

  • We are of the opinion that the results of this paper (see also [ref] ) strongly support the idea that the horizon of black holes are not smooth and instead the geometries end in fuzzy-stringy states outside the horizon i.e. fuzzballs.

    Evaporating Firewalls · Conclusion and discussion · 1.00

Cites as background 12 papers
  • Page conjectured in [ref] (and this was proven in [ref] ) that for typical states in a Hilbert space $ℋ$ of dimension $D_ℋ$, the von-Neuman entropy of a subsystem $𝒜$ of dimension $D_𝒜$ increases from zero with the dimension of $D_𝒜$ till $D_𝒜^2 = D_ℋ$ and then starts to decrease, going back to zero when $D_𝒜 = D_ℋ$.

    Average Entropy of a Subsystem · Leading order Hawking result · 0.81

  • Page conjectured in [ref] (and this was proven in [ref] ) that for typical states in a Hilbert space $ℋ$ of dimension $D_ℋ$, the von-Neuman entropy of a subsystem $𝒜$ of dimension $D_𝒜$ increases from zero with the dimension of $D_𝒜$ till $D_𝒜^2 = D_ℋ$ and then starts to decrease, going back to zero when $D_𝒜 = D_ℋ$.

    Average Entropy of a Subsystem · Leading order Hawking result · 0.81

  • In Section [ref] we briefly review the information loss paradox, the stability of Hawking's result [ref] and the firewall argument [ref] .

    The information paradox: A pedagogical introduction · Introduction · 1.00

Challenges and discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment