Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 30 references

Entanglement Entropy at Large-N

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read At early times a high-energy stack of NS5-branes suppresses Hawking evaporation in the large-$N$ limit, with entanglement entropy growing only as $1/\sqrt{N}$; at much later times island saddles lift the suppression and evaporation…

desk verdict A clean early-time large-N suppression result in NS5/LST entanglement entropy, but the late-time island saddle that is claimed to restore evaporation is asserted rather than computed. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09427 v2 pith:V43QB5NG submitted 2024-11-14 hep-th

classification hep-th PACS 04.70.Dy11.25.-w
keywords NS5-branesLittleStringTheoryentanglemententropylarge-NlimitislandformulaHagedorntemperatureKruskalcoordinatesblackholeevaporation
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 argues that a black hole made from a large stack of NS5-branes at high energy evaporates anomalously slowly at early times, and that the slowdown is a real large-$N$ effect rather than a coordinate choice. The central quantity is the entanglement entropy between the black hole and its radiation bath: at early times it grows as $S \sim \frac{c}{3}\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\frac{t_y}{l_s}$, so for $N \gg 1$ the growth rate tends to zero and the system decouples from the surrounding radiation. The paper's answer to its motivating question is that the suppression is the large-$N$ limit itself, not the Hagedorn temperature, that makes the radiation effectively white noise. At much later times, non-trivial saddles of the gravitational path integral (island configurations) develop an unsuppressed entropy set by $A(\partial I)/(4G_N)$, and evaporation proceeds in the usual unitary way. The mechanism is the parametric dependence of the Kruskal coordinate constant $c_i$ on $N$; because the metric is not scale-invariant, no coordinate redefinition can remove the suppression, and the same pattern appears in a wrapped-five-brane dual of $\mathcal{N}=1$ SQCD-like theories.

What carries the argument

The central object is the constant $c_i$ in the Kruskal transformation $U = -e^{c_i(F_i(x)-ax_1)}$, $V = e^{c_i(F_i(x)+ax_1)}$, chosen so that the conformal factor $\Omega^2$ in $ds^2 = -\Omega^2 dU dV + \cdots$ stays finite at the horizon. For NS5/LST, $c_{\mathrm{LST}} = 1/b$ with $b^2 = N/(m_s^2 r_0^2)$, so $c_{\mathrm{LST}} \sim 1/\sqrt{N}$ in the large-$N$ window. Because the universal 2d CFT entropy (3.21) contains $c_i t/r_0$ inside a logarithm, this $N$-dependence becomes a $1/\sqrt{N}$ slope for the early-time entropy. The island contribution is handled with the generalized entropy formula (3.18), whose matter part is the two-interval entanglement entropy (3.31) evaluated near the horizon and near the boundary. The machinery also includes the coordinate-scaling check of Section 4: the functions $f_1$ and $A_{\mathrm{LST}}$ in (2.7) transform differently under a rescaling, so the suppression cannot be scaled away.

What would settle it

Compute the entanglement entropy of the interval in the full ten-dimensional metric (2.7) directly, for example by finding the holographic entanglement surface anchored at the interval endpoints in the numerical background, and compare its early-time slope with $(c/3)(1/\sqrt{N})(t_y/l_s)$; a slope that does not vanish as $N \to \infty$ would falsify the claimed suppression.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the two-sided NS5-brane geometry dual to Little String Theory, the coefficient $c_i$ that enters the Kruskal transformation is not a harmless constant: for the LST background it is $c_{\mathrm{LST}} = 1/b = \sqrt{m_s^2 r_0^2/N}$, and the single-interval entanglement entropy inherits this factor in its time dependence, $S_{\mathrm{matter}} \sim \frac{c}{3} c_{\mathrm{LST}} \frac{t_y}{r_0} \sim \frac{c}{3}\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\frac{t_y}{l_s}$. Under the validity bounds $1 \ll N \ll m_s^2 r_0^2$, this suppresses the early-time entanglement growth in the large-$N$ limit, so the black hole effectively stops interacting with its radiation bath. The two-interval island computation then shows that at late times the extremum of the generalized entropy is controlled by the area term $A(\partial I)/(4G_N)$, independent of the $1/\sqrt{N}$ suppression, so the island saddles dominate and evaporation is no longer suppressed. The paper also verifies that a coordinate rescaling that absorbs $N$ into the metric fails because the time and radial functions in (2.7) scale differently, establishing that the suppression is not an artifact of coordinatisation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the universal two-dimensional CFT interval formula, applied to the $(x_1,u)$ slice of the ten-dimensional NS5 metric with the $S^3$ treated as a spectator, gives the full matter entanglement entropy, and that the late-time island configuration extremizes the generalized entropy including the area term $A(\partial I)/(4G_N)$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $1 \ll N \ll m_s^2 r_0^2$, the early-time entanglement entropy grows as $(c/3)(1/\sqrt{N})(t_y/l_s)$; the NS5/LST black hole therefore radiates into its bath at a rate that vanishes as $N \to \infty$.
  • The Page time is estimated as $t_y \gtrsim N m_s^2 r_0^2$, so the regime of suppressed evaporation can be made arbitrarily long by increasing $N$.
  • Well before the Page time, the island configuration with $\epsilon = 1/(2 y_2^2)$ and $t_{y_1}=t_{y_2}$ gives $S(\chi) \approx A(\partial I)/(4G_N)$, an unsuppressed, $N$-independent entropy that restores unitary evaporation.
  • A rescaling of coordinates cannot remove the $1/\sqrt{N}$ suppression, because the time and radial pieces of the LST metric carry the $N$-dependence in different ways; the effect is therefore a property of the background, not of the coordinate chart.
  • The same $1/\sqrt{N}$ suppression appears in a wrapped-five-brane background dual to $\mathcal{N}=1$ SQCD-like theories, indicating the phenomenon is not special to the NS5/LST geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The mechanism suggests a search criterion: any gravitational background whose Kruskal conformal factor carries a parameter $c_i(N)$ that tends to zero in some large-$N$ limit will exhibit frozen early-time entanglement growth; scanning known brane and wrapped-brane solutions for such $c_i(N)$ could turn up new examples beyond the two shown here.
  • If the 2d interval formula genuinely captures the entropy, the suppression is essentially a statement about the relative normalization of time and energy in the holographic dual: the Hagedorn temperature is $N$-independent while the effective energy gap is $1/\sqrt{N}$, which could be tested by a lattice or matrix-model computation of the spectral form factor.
  • A direct ten-dimensional holographic entanglement-entropy calculation, anchoring a Ryu-Takayanagi surface at the interval endpoints, would either confirm the $1/\sqrt{N}$ slope or expose the 2d reduction as the fragile step; this is a concrete next computation implied by the paper's logic.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the time-dependent entanglement entropy of a stack of N near-extremal NS5-branes in the decoupled (LST) limit, using the island prescription of Almheiri–Mahajan–Maldacena. The author writes the ten-dimensional supergravity metric (2.7) in Kruskal coordinates (2.11)–(2.13), fixes the constant c_LST = sqrt(m_s^2 r_0^2 / N) by requiring the conformal factor to be regular at the horizon, and feeds it into the universal 2d CFT interval-entropy formula (3.21). The single-interval ('Hawking') entropy then grows at rate dS/dt_y = (c/3)(1/sqrt(N))(1/l_s), Eq. (3.26), which is interpreted as a large-N suppression of the early evaporation process. The island section considers two disjoint intervals, approximates the matter entropy (3.33) in two regimes, claims an extremum at t_y1 = t_y2, epsilon = 1/(2 y_2^2), and asserts S(chi) ≈ A(dI)/(4G_N) (3.37), from which it concludes that the late-time saddles are no longer suppressed at large N. Section 4 attempts to show that the suppression is not a coordinate artifact, and Section 6 repeats the computation for an SQCD-like background. The early-time derivation is internally consistent given its stated 2d s-wave assumptions; the late-time conclusion is not supported by the calculation as written, for the reasons detailed below.

Significance. If the early-time result (3.26) is correct, it is a novel and striking large-N effect: the NS5/LST system would decouple from its radiation bath at large N, echoing the zero-width meson argument from large-N QCD cited in the introduction. The central 1/sqrt(N) factor is derived rather than fitted: c_LST is fixed by regularity of the Kruskal conformal factor (2.15), the standard smoothness condition in two-sided black-hole analyses, and no free parameter is tuned to enforce the suppression. The paper is also commendably explicit about its own circumscribed setting: the s-wave reduction, the 2d CFT formula, and the footnote after (3.18) noting that the Page curve obtained is that of a non-gravitating theory. The principal limitation is that the late-time half of the abstract's claim rests on an uncomputed area term; if that gap is closed and the normalization and central-charge questions raised below are answered, this would be a worthwhile contribution to the holographic information-paradox literature. As it stands, the paper presents an interesting candidate mechanism whose second half is not yet demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.1, Eqs. (3.30)–(3.37); abstract; Sec. 5] The late-time claim that the island saddles are 'no longer suppressed at large-N' is not established. The variation leading to (3.36) is performed on the matter term S^a_matter alone; the area term A(dI)/(4G_N) in (3.30) is never evaluated for the LST metric (2.7) nor included in the extremization. A stationary point of the sum (3.18) is not in general a stationary point of one summand, so (3.37) does not follow. Moreover, at the candidate values (3.36) the matter term is not small: at the extremum S^a_matter ≈ c log y_2 + O(1), which grows with the bath size y_2, so dropping it in (3.37) requires an explicit comparison with A/(4G_N). The needed area involves the S^3 of radius sqrt(N)/m_s in (2.7), whose volume is proportional to N^{3/2}; the ratio of this area to G_N is never computed, and without it nothing can be said about the N-dependence of (3.37). Finally, the paper's own caveats conflict with (3.37): the footnote after (3.18) states that the Page curve obtained is 'that of a non-gravitating theory ... and not that of the black hole', and the final remark of Section 5 says that '(3.18) does not take gravitational effects into account'. Both statements describe a computation without the gravitational area term, i.e., precisely the computation actually performed.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (3.19), (3.26)] The normalization of the entropy and the N-dependence of its prefactor are load-bearing but never stated. Eq. (3.19) is introduced as the 2d CFT matter entropy 'per unit area' of the metric (2.13), yet (3.26) is used as the entropy S(chi) with no multiplication by, or reduction of, the transverse volume. The LST metric (2.7) has an S^3 of radius sqrt(N)/m_s and volume proportional to N^{3/2}; under the literal 'per unit area' reading, the total entropy growth rate would acquire a factor N^{3/2} and would grow, not vanish, at large N. If instead c in (3.19) is meant to be the central charge of the reduced s-wave theory, its value and N-dependence must be specified: the suppression in (3.26) is only O(1/sqrt(N)), so a central charge scaling as N^alpha with alpha > 0 would weaken or destroy the effect. Please state the normalization that converts (3.19) into S(chi) and justify the N-independence of the prefactor, specifying whether c is O(1).
  3. [Sec. 3.2.1, Eqs. (3.35)–(3.36)] The extremization as printed cannot be reproduced from the displayed expression. Using Omega(y) = b r_0 y from (2.15), so that d/d(epsilon) log Omega(1+epsilon) ≈ 1 for small epsilon, stationarity of (3.35) with respect to epsilon gives y_2 sqrt(2 epsilon) = 2(1 + epsilon) ≈ 2, i.e., epsilon ≈ 2/y_2^2, a factor 4 larger than the claimed 1/(2 y_2^2). Reproducing the paper's value would require the coefficient of the log Omega term in (3.35) to be 2c/3 rather than c/3, or an additional epsilon-dependence that is not displayed. Since epsilon fixes the position of the island boundary y_1 = 1 + epsilon, and hence the location at which A(dI) would be evaluated, this discrepancy must be resolved; the derivation of (3.35) and (3.36) should be given in full.
  4. [Sec. 4, Eqs. (4.39)–(4.42)] The argument intended to show that the suppression is not a coordinate artifact is too terse to be a demonstration. The claims that 'the ratio time/space must be invariant under scaling' and that the scale-independence of f_1 forces x_1 and u to scale in the same way, 'inconsistent with the scaling of A_LST', are not supported by any explicit computation of how the Kruskal time t_y appearing in (3.26) is related to a canonically normalized asymptotic time under the proposed rescalings. Furthermore, the abstract's statement that the effect is 'due to the non-invariance of the metric under coordinate parameterisation' is not a well-defined explanation in a diffeomorphism-invariant theory, since the entanglement entropy is a physical quantity and must be invariant. The paper should either present a complete coordinate-invariance check (showing that no rescaling of x_1, u, and t_y together can remove the factor c_LST(N) from the growth rate) or reformulate the claim as a property of a specific parametrization.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Fig. 1] The caption contains a typo: 'Haking radiation' should read 'Hawking radiation'.
  2. [Sec. 1] The string coupling is written as 'g alpha' in 'vanishing string coupling, g_alpha -> 0'; the subscript should be g_s.
  3. [Sec. 3.2 heading; Sec. 1] The heading 'Entaglement entropy for two-disjoint intervals' should read 'Entanglement', and in the introduction 'this new configurations will be complex solutions' should agree in number ('these new configurations').
  4. [Sec. 3.2.2] The sentence 'If we assume t_a ≠ t_b this inverts the inequality in (3.34)' uses undefined symbols t_a and t_b; presumably t_{y1} and t_{y2} are meant.
  5. [Eq. (3.29); Sec. 5] The time scales stated in (3.29) and in Section 5 ('O(t) ~ O(sqrt(m_s^2 r_0^2 / N))') are dimensionally inconsistent as printed: both N m_s^2 r_0^2 and sqrt(m_s^2 r_0^2 / N) are dimensionless, while t_y is a length. Please state the units (e.g., string length) and the per-volume normalization of the entropy used in the comparison with (2.8).
  6. [References] Ref. [14] is cited as 'Unpublished, 2023' and underpins the Kruskal-coordinate technology (2.11)–(2.16) used throughout the paper; a published source would be preferable for this load-bearing step.
  7. [Sec. 2.1, Eqs. (2.11)–(2.13)] The constant a is introduced to make arguments dimensionless but its value is never stated; the appearance of F_i(a r) in (2.13) while F_i is defined in (2.12) as a function of x, and the value a = 1/r_0 implied by the time dependence in (3.21), should be clarified explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 1/sqrt(N) suppression factor is derived from the NS5/LST metric and Kruskal regularity, not fitted or defined into the result.

full rationale

The central early-time result (3.26) is obtained by combining the universal 2d CFT entanglement entropy (3.19) with the Kruskal conformal factor for the LST metric (2.7). The N-dependence enters through c_LST = 1/b, with b^2 = N/(m_s^2 r0^2), fixed by the requirement that the conformal factor be regular at the horizon (2.15); it is not tuned to reproduce the target entropy. The thermodynamic input (2.8) is taken from standard supergravity and earlier literature, but the suppression factor does not involve fitting any free parameter. The island step (3.37) simply substitutes the matter extremum and leaves the area term A(∂I)/(4G_N) uncomputed; this is a calculational gap rather than a circular reduction, and the paper itself flags that the obtained Page curve is that of a non-gravitating theory rather than the full black hole. Self-citations to [2], [12], and [14] provide background thermodynamics and coordinate conventions; none is invoked as the unique justification for the parametric suppression, which is derived from the metric and further tested by the scaling argument in Section 4. No equation in the derivation is equivalent to its own input by construction.

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

The central result rests on the island prescription and the 2d CFT entropy formula; both are standard tools taken from the cited literature. The N-dependence is derived from the metric via Kruskal smoothness. The main unexamined input is the reduction of the full higher-dimensional geometry to a 2d CFT interval, which is where the 1/sqrt(N) factor enters.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The island prescription (3.18): generalized entropy is the minimum over extrema of area/4G_N plus bulk matter entropy (Almheiri-Mahajan-Maldacena).
    Invoked in Section 3 as the standard tool for computing entanglement entropy with islands; not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The 2d CFT interval entanglement entropy formula (3.19) applies to the reduced x1-u geometry, with the S^3 factor ignored.
    Appears in Section 3.1; the 1/sqrt(N) suppression is proportional to the c_i obtained from this reduction, so the result inherits this assumption.
  • domain assumption The supergravity validity regime 1 << N << m_s^2 r0^2 (Eq. (3.24)), which combines small string coupling at the horizon with small curvature.
    Used to conclude c_LST >> 1 and c_NS5 -> 1; if the hierarchy is not satisfied, the parametric behavior changes.
  • domain assumption LST is holographically dual to string theory on the CGHS-type black hole and its thermodynamics is given by (2.8).
    Taken from [1,12] and used as the physical identification of the background.
  • domain assumption Replica wormhole saddles of [8] exist and give the island contribution at late times.
    The late-time restoration of evaporation relies on these saddles; the paper does not construct them for this background.
  • standard math Kruskal coordinate constants c_i are uniquely fixed by requiring the conformal factor Omega to be regular on the horizon.
    Stated in Section 2.1; this is the standard smoothness condition for Kruskal extension, not an ad hoc choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entanglement Entropy at Large-N." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V43QB5NG

@misc{pith2026241109427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entanglement Entropy at Large-N},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V43QB5NG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09427}
}
read the original abstract

I show that at early times the evaporation process for a stack of NS5-branes at high energy is suppressed in the large-N limit. At much later times, the new saddles in the gravitational action are no longer suppressed at large-N, and evaporation proceeds as usual. This effect is due to the non-invariance of the metric under coordinate parameterisation. This fact introduces a parametric dependence in the thermodynamic quantities, which can lead to quantities that are suppressed in a particular corner of the parameter space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09427 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Conformal diagram for either (2.2) or (2.7). Each point in the diagram represents a two-dimensional Euclidean space, in our case extending in the directions {x1, u} of (2.9). Although the conformal factors (2.15, 2.16) are different, their causal structures are the same. Red curves show the singularity at r → 0. Dashed lines represent the horizon, r → r0. Finally, solid black lines represent the asymptotic. One sali… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Karananas, Alex Kehagias, and John Taskas

    Georgios K. Karananas, Alex Kehagias, and John Taskas. Islands in linear dilaton black holes. JHEP, 03:253, 2021. 15

  2. [1]

    Callan, Jr., Jeffrey A

    Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Jeffrey A. Harvey, and Andrew Strominger. Supersymmetric string solitons. 11 1991

  3. [2]

    Lorente-Espin and P

    O. Lorente-Espin and P. Talavera. A Silent black hole: Hawking radiation at the Hagedorn temperature. JHEP, 04:080, 2008

  4. [3]

    Michael Lachmann, M. E. J. Newman, and Cristopher Moore. The physical limits of communication or why any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from noise. American Journal of Physics , 72(10):1290–1293, 2004

  5. [4]

    Schlosshauer

    Maximilian A. Schlosshauer. Decoherence and the Quantum-To-Classical Transition. Springer Nature, 2007

  6. [5]

    Islands outside the horizon

    Ahmed Almheiri, Raghu Mahajan, and Juan Maldacena. Islands outside the horizon. 10 2019

  7. [6]

    Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction and the Information Para- dox

    Geoffrey Penington. Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction and the Information Para- dox. JHEP, 09:002, 2020

  8. [7]

    The entropy of bulk quantum fields and the entanglement wedge of an evaporating black hole

    Ahmed Almheiri, Netta Engelhardt, Donald Marolf, and Henry Maxfield. The entropy of bulk quantum fields and the entanglement wedge of an evaporating black hole. JHEP, 12:063, 2019

Show all 30 references
  1. [8]

    Replica Wormholes and the Entropy of Hawking Radiation

    Ahmed Almheiri, Thomas Hartman, Juan Maldacena, Edgar Shaghoulian and Amirhossein Tajdini. Replica Wormholes and the Entropy of Hawking Radiation. JHEP, 05:013, 2020

  2. [9]

    Testing an approximation to large N(c) QCD with a toy model.JHEP, 01:024, 2002

    Maarten Golterman, Santiago Peris, Boris Phily, and Eduardo De Rafael. Testing an approximation to large N(c) QCD with a toy model.JHEP, 01:024, 2002

  3. [10]

    Linear dilatons, NS five-branes and holography.JHEP, 10:004, 1998

    Ofer Aharony, Micha Berkooz, David Kutasov, and Nathan Seiberg. Linear dilatons, NS five-branes and holography.JHEP, 10:004, 1998

  4. [11]

    Giddings and Andrew Strominger

    Steven B. Giddings and Andrew Strominger. Dynamics of extremal black holes.Phys. Rev. D, 46:627–637, 1992

  5. [12]

    A. L. Cotrone, J. M. Pons, and P. Talavera. Notes on a SQCD-like plasma dual and holographic renormalization. JHEP, 11:034, 2007. 14

  6. [13]

    Onsuperdensesuperstringgases: Aheretic string model approach

    PerSalomonsonandBo-StureSkagerstam. Onsuperdensesuperstringgases: Aheretic string model approach. Nuclear Physics B , 268(2):349–361, 1986

  7. [14]

    J. M. Pons and P. Talavera. A pedagogical introduction to Kruskal coordinates and its application to static spherically symmetric spacetimes.Unpublished, 2023

  8. [15]

    Failure of the split property in gravity and the information paradox

    Suvrat Raju. Failure of the split property in gravity and the information paradox. Class. Quant. Grav. , 39(6):064002, 2022

  9. [16]

    Don N. Page. Time Dependence of Hawking Radiation Entropy.JCAP, 09:028, 2013

  10. [17]

    Pasquale Calabrese and John L. Cardy. Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory. J. Stat. Mech. , 0406:P06002, 2004

  11. [18]

    Fiola, John Preskill, Andrew Strominger, and Sandip P

    Thomas M. Fiola, John Preskill, Andrew Strominger, and Sandip P. Trivedi. Black hole thermodynamics and information loss in two-dimensions.Phys. Rev. D, 50:3987– 4014, 1994

  12. [19]

    Ahmed Almheiri, Raghu Mahajan, and Jorge E. Santos. Entanglement islands in higher dimensions. SciPost Phys., 9(1):001, 2020

  13. [20]

    Islands in Schwarzschild black holes

    Koji Hashimoto, Norihiro Iizuka, and Yoshinori Matsuo. Islands in Schwarzschild black holes. JHEP, 06:085, 2020

  14. [21]

    The Black hole singularity in AdS / CFT.JHEP, 02:014, 2004

    Lukasz Fidkowski, Veronika Hubeny, Matthew Kleban Stephen Shenker. The Black hole singularity in AdS / CFT.JHEP, 02:014, 2004

  15. [22]

    String distributions above the hagedorn energy density

    Nivedita Deo, Sanjay Jain, and Chung-I Tan. String distributions above the hagedorn energy density. Phys. Rev. D , 40:2626–2635, Oct 1989

  16. [23]

    Lowe and Larus Thorlacius

    David A. Lowe and Larus Thorlacius. Hot string soup. Phys. Rev. D , 51:665–670, 1995

  17. [24]

    Harmark and N.A

    T. Harmark and N.A. Obers. Hagedorn behaviour of little string theory from string corrections to ns5-branes. Physics Letters B , 485(1):285–292, 2000

  18. [25]

    Casini, C

    H. Casini, C. D. Fosco, and M. Huerta. Entanglement and alpha entropies for a massive Dirac field in two dimensions.J. Stat. Mech. , 0507:P07007, 2005

  19. [27]

    Semiclassical black holes with large n rescaling and information loss problem.International Journal of Modern Physics A , 26(19):3287–3314, 2011

    DONG-HAN YEOM and HEESEUNG ZOE. Semiclassical black holes with large n rescaling and information loss problem.International Journal of Modern Physics A , 26(19):3287–3314, 2011

  20. [28]

    Atick and Edward Witten

    Joseph J. Atick and Edward Witten. The Hagedorn Transition and the Number of Degrees of Freedom of String Theory.Nucl. Phys. B , 310:291–334, 1988

  21. [29]

    Gubser, Arkady A

    Steven S. Gubser, Arkady A. Tseytlin and Mikhail S. Volkov. NonAbelian 4-d black holes, wrapped five-branes, and their dual descriptions.JHEP, 09:017,2001

  22. [30]

    hep-th/0602027

    Roberto Casero, Carlos Nunez and Angel Paredes. Towards the string dual of N=1 SQCD-like theories. eprint = "hep-th/0602027",Phys. Rev. D , 73, 086005, 2006. 16

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.