Pith. Sign in

RECORD

On Penrose inequality in holography

High Energy Physics - Theory · Submitted 26 Apr 2022

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

The authors' main claim In this case, the holographic argument implies that the Penrose inequality should still be valid but this paper use concrete example to show that whether the Penrose inequality holds or not will depend on what kind of quantization scheme we employ.

how it is stated · asserted 0.93 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID2204.12239 (version 2)
Pith IDATI6VAGR, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationRun-Qiu Yang, Zi-Qing Xiao. "On Penrose inequality in holography." arXiv:2204.12239 (2022). https://pith.science/paper/ATI6VAGR
Claim paper

The compiled record

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. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 5,019 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.08 · states limitation 0.82 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.06 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.10 · compares with prior results 0.95 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

The recent holographic deduction of Penrose inequality only assumes null energy condition while the weak or dominant energy condition is required in usual geometric proof. This paper makes a step toward filling up gap between these two approaches. For planar/spherically symmetrically asymptotically Schwarzschild anti-de Sitter (AdS) black holes, we give a purely geometric proof for Penrose inequality by assuming the null energy condition. We also point out that two naive generalizations of charged Penrose inequality are not generally true and propose two new candidates. When the spacetime is asymptotically AdS but not Schwarzschild-AdS, the total mass is defined according to holographic renormalization and depends on scheme of quantization. In this case, the holographic argument implies that the Penrose inequality should still be valid but this paper use concrete example to show that whether the Penrose inequality holds or not will depend on what kind of quantization scheme we employ.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 The recent holographic deduction of Penrose inequality only assumes null energy condition while the weak or dominant energy condition is required in usual geometric proof. background 0.97 0.08 0.09 asserted 1.00
s1 This paper makes a step toward filling up gap between these two approaches. contribution 0.49 0.52 0.05 asserted 0.91
s2 For planar/spherically symmetrically asymptotically Schwarzschild anti-de Sitter (AdS) black holes, we give a purely geometric proof for Penrose inequality by assuming the null energy condition. contribution 0.81 0.96 0.63 asserted 1.00
s3 We also point out that two naive generalizations of charged Penrose inequality are not generally true and propose two new candidates. result 0.72 0.94 0.15 asserted 1.00
s4 When the spacetime is asymptotically AdS but not Schwarzschild-AdS, the total mass is defined according to holographic renormalization and depends on scheme of quantization. background 0.88 0.17 0.06 asserted 1.00
s5 In this case, the holographic argument implies that the Penrose inequality should still be valid but this paper use concrete example to show that whether the Penrose inequality holds or not will depend on what kind of quantization scheme we employ. result 0.94 0.89 0.35 asserted 0.93

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 1.00.

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

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

The recent holographic deduction of Penrose inequality only assumes null energy condition while the weak or dominant energy condition is required in usual geometric proof. This paper makes a step toward filling up gap between these two approaches. For planar/spherically symmetrically asymptotically Schwarzschild anti-de Sitter (AdS) black holes, we give a purely geometric proof for Penrose inequality by assuming the null energy condition. We also point out that two naive generalizations of charged Penrose inequality are not generally true and propose two new candidates. When the spacetime is asymptotically AdS but not Schwarzschild-AdS, the total mass is defined according to holographic renormalization and depends on scheme of quantization. In this case, the holographic argument implies that the Penrose inequality should still be valid but this paper use concrete example to show that whether the Penrose inequality holds or not will depend on what kind of quantization scheme we employ.

Human review
References
How the literature uses it

3 arXiv papers cite this in 6 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 · 5 sentences without a confident label

Cites it as background 1 paper

What it cites · 33 sentences without a confident label

Contests 4 papers
Uses the method or tool of 6 papers
Compares with 1 paper
Cites as support 3 papers
Cites as background 5 papers

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.