Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 23 references

Replica wormhole and AMPS firewall

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

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

Pith's one-line read The replica wormhole topology generates a Dirac-delta firewall force on particles crossing the event horizon after the Page time.

desk verdict The replica wormhole firewall claim is not supported: Eq. (9) is an unproved ansatz, the n→1 limit removes the force, and the regularization is ad hoc. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09548 v1 pith:VNSNL22M submitted 2024-11-14 hep-th gr-qc

Amir A. Khodahami , Azizollah Azizi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qc
keywords AMPSfirewallreplicawormholemonogamyofentanglementHawkingradiationblackholeinformationparadoxPagecurveDiracdeltaforceSchwarzschildgeodesics
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 the replica wormhole saddle, which governs black hole evaporation after the Page time, imprints a Dirac-delta singularity on the Ricci scalar at the event horizon. Treating that singularity as a physical curvature source, the authors replace the Schwarzschild $g_{00}$ with a step-modified form and find that a radially infalling particle experiences a sharp, repulsive delta-function acceleration at the horizon, proportional to the square of its total energy. They identify this force with the AMPS firewall, the energy wall proposed to reconcile unitary Hawking radiation with monogamy of entanglement, and they show that the same wormhole topology that restores the Page curve also supplies the firewall. A Planck-length regularization makes the force finite and of order the Planck mass, leading the authors to conclude that the replica wormhole resolves both the information paradox and the AMPS monogamy paradox simultaneously.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the singular Ricci scalar $R=4\pi(1-n)k_1\,\delta(r-r_s)/r_s\,\theta(t-t_P)$ arising from the replica-trick deficit angle. The mechanism is to retain the product $(n-1)\delta(\cdot)$ in the $n\to1$ limit, which converts the singularity into a step-function modification of $g_{00}$; taking derivatives of that step in the geodesic equation produces a Dirac-delta proper acceleration at the horizon. The regularization replaces the delta with a Gaussian of Planck width and renormalizes $(n-1)$ logarithmically in $r_s/l_{Pl}$, yielding a finite firewall force proportional to $E^2/m^2$ and to $1/[l_{Pl}\ln(r_s/l_{Pl})]$.

What would settle it

Compute the backreacted metric of the replica wormhole from first principles in a model where the saddle is exactly known, and check whether $g_{00}$ acquires a step-function modification with coefficient $a=8\pi k_1(n-1)/3$. If the actual metric has no step, or if the singular part of the Ricci scalar is a coordinate artifact, then the Dirac-delta force of Eq. (20) does not follow and the AMPS firewall is not generated by this mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that after the Page time, the replica wormhole contribution to the black hole path integral carries a Ricci scalar with a singular term $R = 4\pi(1-n)k_1\,\delta(r-r_s)/r_s\,\theta(t-t_P)$, inherited from the deficit-angle delta of the replica construction. Keeping the combination $(n-1)\delta(\cdot)$ finite while sending $(n-1)\to0$, they adopt a metric in which $g_{00}$ is multiplied by $(1-a\,\theta(r-r_s)\theta(t-t_P))$ with $a=8\pi k_1(n-1)/3$, leaving the spatial part unchanged. Solving the geodesic equations for a radially infalling test particle in this spacetime gives the proper acceleration $r''=-r_s/(2r^2)+(E^2/2m^2)\,a\,\delta(r-r_s)\,\theta(t-t_P)$. The delta term is a horizon-localized, repulsive force that turns on at the Page time, which the paper interprets as the AMPS firewall. Because the replica wormhole is already the ingredient that makes the entropy follow the Page curve, the same topology resolves the information paradox and the firewall paradox in one stroke.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that the delta-function singularity in the replica wormhole's Ricci scalar forces the specific metric ansatz $g_{00}\to[1-a\,\theta(r-r_s)\theta(t-t_P)]g_{00}$; the paper asserts this metric correction rather than deriving it from the replica path integral or from Einstein's equations, so if the ansatz is not forced the delta firewall force disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An infalling observer crossing the horizon after the Page time encounters a sharp repulsive wall rather than a smooth horizon, matching the AMPS firewall scenario.
  • The firewall force grows as the square of the particle's total energy, so higher-energy probes feel a proportionally stronger wall.
  • The firewall switches on exactly at the Page time with a step-function turn-on, so the moment the Page curve begins to fall is also the moment the horizon becomes hostile.
  • The regularization predicts a finite firewall strength of order the Planck mass, with a mild logarithmic dependence on the black hole size.
  • Because the firewall is generated by the same replica wormhole that yields the Page-curve entropy, complementarity and nonlocal information-transfer mechanisms are not needed to rescue unitarity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A first-principles replica wormhole computation in a solvable model (for instance, two-dimensional gravity with matter) would show whether the step-function metric modification in Eq. (9) is forced by the geometry, and would fix the dimensionless coefficient $k_1$ that the paper leaves free.
  • The regularization scheme is one of several possible choices; varying the regulator (for instance, using a finite-width shell instead of a Planck-width Gaussian) would test whether the Planck-mass firewall strength is universal or regulator-dependent.
  • If the firewall is physical, it should be visible in the semiclassical stress tensor as a thin, Planck-scaled energy layer near the horizon; computing the bulk expectation value of the stress tensor in a holographic model with an explicit replica wormhole would give a sharp, testable signature.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the replica wormhole topology, which dominates the black-hole path integral after the Page time, produces a Dirac-delta force on radially infalling particles at the event horizon, in agreement with the AMPS firewall hypothesis. The argument proceeds by postulating a Ricci scalar of the form R = 4π(1-n)k1 δ(r-rs)/rs θ(t-tP) (Eq. 7), then asserting a modified Schwarzschild metric g00 → [1 - a θ(r-rs)θ(t-tP)] g00 with a = 8πk1(n-1)/3 (Eq. 9). From this metric the authors derive the radial geodesic equation r'' = -rs/(2r^2) + (E^2/2m^2) a δ(r-rs) θ(t-tP) (Eq. 20) and interpret the second term as a firewall force. Section 3 regularizes this force by replacing the delta with a Gaussian of width lPl and (n-1) with k2/ln(rs/lPl), obtaining a Planck-scale force. The paper concludes that the replica wormhole resolves both the information paradox and the AMPS monogamy paradox simultaneously.

Significance. If the central claim were established, connecting the replica wormhole to a firewall at the horizon would be a significant step in the AMPS debate. The paper has a clear structure, states its assumptions explicitly, and attempts to give a concrete, regularized expression for the force. However, the result hinges on a metric ansatz that is asserted rather than derived, on a distributional limit that is not mathematically well defined, and on a regularization that is introduced by hand. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the combination aδ(r-rs) is uncertain, yet the subsequent resolution is a choice rather than a consequence of the replica construction. As it stands, the paper does not provide a derivation of an AMPS firewall from replica wormholes, and the claimed resolution of both paradoxes is unsupported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (9)] The step-function modification of the metric is an assumption, not a derived result. The text says the metric 'undergoes a modification as [22]', but reference [22] is a Wolfram Mathematica package, not a physical derivation from the replica wormhole path integral or from Einstein's equations. No action principle or semiclassical gravity calculation is presented that would force g00 to take the form [1 - a θ(r-rs)θ(t-tP)] g00 with a = 8πk1(n-1)/3. Since Eq. (20) and the firewall force follow only from this ansatz, the central claim is conditional on an unproved premise.
  2. [Section 2, paragraph after Eq. (7)] The limiting prescription 'send (n-1) → 0 while keeping (n-1) δ(· · ·)' is not a valid distributional limit. For any test function f, ∫ (n-1) δ(r-rs) f(r) dr = (n-1) f(rs) → 0 as n → 1. Therefore the singular term in Eq. (7) vanishes as a distribution in the replica limit, and the coefficient a in Eqs. (9) and (20), which is proportional to (n-1), also vanishes. The later replacement (n-1) → k2/ln(rs/lPl) in Eq. (24) resurrects this vanishing quantity by fiat; no argument from the replica path integral is given for why such a logarithmic factor should appear.
  3. [Section 2, Eqs. (7) and (9)] The proposed metric is not shown to be consistent with the assumed Ricci scalar. The metric in Eq. (9) contains Heaviside functions θ(r-rs) and θ(t-tP), so its Ricci scalar will include terms such as δ(t-tP)θ(r-rs) and derivatives of δ(r-rs), which are absent from the assumed form in Eq. (7). The paper does not compute the Ricci scalar of Eq. (9), does not verify that it equals Eq. (7), and does not check the Einstein equations. Without such a consistency check, the geodesic equation (20) is not established as a consequence of the modified geometry.
  4. [Section 3, Eqs. (21)-(25)] The regularization is ad hoc and contains free parameters. The choices l → lPl in Eq. (23) and (n-1) → k2/ln(rs/lPl) in Eq. (24) are introduced so that the firewall force is of order the Planck mass, but no derivation from the replica construction, from quantum gravity, or from any other principle is supplied. The statement that logarithmic regularization is 'the only option remaining' is not justified. Consequently the claimed Planck-scale force is an input rather than a prediction, and the dimensionless constants k1, k2, and k3 are free parameters that can absorb any normalization.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (20)] The interpretation of r'' as a 'force per unit mass' is misleading: the particle is being described by a geodesic equation, so its 4-acceleration is zero; r'' is a coordinate acceleration. The authors should clarify whether the firewall is meant to be a genuine external force (making the motion non-geodesic) or an effective coordinate acceleration.
  2. [Introduction] There are minor grammatical errors, e.g., 'Further investigations has confirmed' should be 'have confirmed'.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (7)] The claim that including rs in the denominator makes the Ricci scalar a 'true scalar density' is not justified; in a general coordinate system, a scalar delta on a surface should be constructed using the appropriate volume element, not simply divided by a coordinate-dependent radius.
  4. [Reference [22]] The central equations (9), (11), (12), (16), and (20) are all attributed to a Mathematica package. The authors should provide a self-contained derivation or cite a standard reference, since a software citation does not substitute for a physical derivation.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The claimed firewall force is put into the metric ansatz by hand and then read back out of the geodesic equation, with the Planckian magnitude fixed by choosing the regularization; the derivation reduces to its inputs.

  1. self definitional [Section 2, Eqs. (9)-(10), (20); reference [22]]
    "Upon introducing the Ricci scalar R in Eq. (7), the metric tensor undergoes a modification as [22] gµν = diag( (1 − rs/r)(1 − aθ(r − rs)θ(t − tP)) , − 1/(1 − rs/r) , −r2 , −r2 sin2 θ ), where a = 8πk1(n − 1)/3. ... r′′ = − rs/(2r2) + E2/(2m2) aδ (r − rs) θ (t − tP)."

    The delta-force term in Eq. (20) is the same coefficient a that was inserted into the metric ansatz Eq. (9). Differentiating a step-function g00 necessarily produces a Dirac delta in the connection and hence in the geodesic acceleration; the force is therefore a direct derivative of the input ansatz, not an independent consequence of the replica wormhole. The ansatz itself is not derived from the replica path integral or from Einstein's equations; the citation [22] is a Mathematica package, so the step-function metric is an unverified input. The 'prediction' that an infalling particle feels a delta force at the horizon of strength proportional to a is equivalent, by construction, to the metric modification chosen to reproduce Eq. (7).

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Eqs. (23)-(25)]
    "Given rs and lPl as two inherent length scales in this problem, maintaining the firewall force strength at mPl necessitates that ( n − 1) is of O((lPl/rs)0). On the other hand, regularizing the firewall force requires regularizing ( n − 1) by lPl as well, ensuring that (n − 1) vanishes as lPl → 0. In conclusion, the only option remaining is logarithmic regularization, i.e., (n − 1) → k2/ln(rs/lPl)."

    The physical replica limit is n → 1, which makes the coefficient (n − 1) vanish; the distributional instruction to 'keep (n−1)δ' does not change this because ∫(n−1)δ f = (n−1)f(rs) → 0. The paper then replaces (n−1) by k2/ln(rs/lPl) solely so that the regularized force is of order the Planck mass, which was already assumed as the target ('we expect the firewall force magnitude to remain at mPl'). Thus the Planckian firewall strength is not derived but imposed through the choice of regularization; the central conclusion is fitted to the input.

full rationale

The central derivation consists of three moves: (i) assert a Ricci-scalar delta for the replica wormhole (Eq. (7)); (ii) convert it into a step-function metric ansatz (Eq. (9)) with coefficient a fixed to match Eq. (7); (iii) read the geodesic delta force (Eq. (20)) off the ansatz, and then choose a logarithmic regularization (Eq. (24)) so the force is Planckian. The force coefficient in Eq. (20) is exactly the input coefficient a, so the firewall force is built into the metric modification chosen in Eq. (9); the cited justification [22] is a Mathematica package, not a physical derivation. The regularization step is likewise fitted: since (n−1)→0 in the replica limit, the paper substitutes a nonzero logarithmic factor specifically to keep the force at mPl, making the Planckian-firewall conclusion an input rather than an output. There is no independent benchmark or external falsification that would break the circularity; the conclusion follows from the assumptions only because the assumptions already contain the answer. The self-citation [14] is not load-bearing here, and much of the algebra from Eq. (9) to Eq. (20) is internally consistent, but the physical claim is not: it reduces to the ansatz and to the fitted regularization. Score is 8 rather than 10 because the paper does not explicitly claim the ansatz is derived from first principles, but the presentation still presents the resulting force as a 'direct consequence' and as resolving both paradoxes.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces several hand-picked constants and an ad hoc metric ansatz. The delta term in R (Eq. 7) is assumed by analogy with the replica trick; the metric modification (Eq. 9) is asserted; the limiting procedure and the regularization (Eqs. 23-24) are chosen to make the firewall force Planckian. These choices, not any external benchmark, determine the claimed result.

free parameters (4)
  • k1 = order unity (not fixed)
    Introduced in Eq. (7) as an arbitrary coefficient of the delta term in the Ricci scalar; no theory fixes it.
  • k2 = order unity (not fixed)
    Introduced in Eq. (24) to make (n-1) ~ 1/ln(rs/lPl) and force the firewall magnitude to be Planckian; chosen ad hoc.
  • k3 = k1 k2 = order unity
    Combination appearing in the regularized force (25).
  • Regularization scale lPl = Planck length
    Chosen as the cutoff for the delta function, and the force magnitude is then determined by this choice.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper The Ricci scalar of an evaporating black hole after Page time contains a Dirac delta at the event horizon, R = 4π(1-n)k1 δ(r-rs)/rs θ(t-tP) (Eq. 7)
    This is assumed by analogy with Eq. (4) from the replica trick, but no derivation connects the replicated Euclidean geometry to this Lorentzian statement.
  • ad hoc to paper The metric perturbation takes the form g00 -> [1 - a θ(r-rs)θ(t-tP)] g00 (Eq. 9)
    Asserted without derivation; the reference [22] is a computer algebra package, not a physics justification.
  • ad hoc to paper The limit keeps (n-1)δ(r-rs) finite while sending (n-1)->0
    Standard replica trick uses n->1, but keeping products with deltas while sending the prefactor to zero is a distributional choice that is not justified physically.
  • ad hoc to paper The regularization of the delta with width lPl and of (n-1) with 1/ln(rs/lPl) gives a Planckian firewall
    The logarithmic form is selected by the requirement that the force magnitude be mPl; nothing in the replica trick fixes this.
  • standard math Standard distributional calculus and geodesic equations
    The geodesic equations in a distributional metric are used without discussion of well-posedness.
  • domain assumption Hawking radiation backreaction is negligible near the horizon because radiation is collected at asymptotic infinity
    Used to justify ignoring backreaction; standard but not always valid near the horizon.
invented entities (1)
  • Dirac delta firewall force at the event horizon
    purpose: To realize the AMPS firewall as a consequence of the replica wormhole
    The force appears in Eq. (20) as a distributional term in the radial geodesic acceleration; its existence is an output of the metric ansatz (9), not an independently measured or predicted quantity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Replica wormhole and AMPS firewall." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VNSNL22M

@misc{pith2026241109548,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Replica wormhole and AMPS firewall},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VNSNL22M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09548}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the potential for generating an AMPS firewall from the replica wormhole topology, which describes the post-Page time spacetime in the evaporation process of a black hole. Our analysis reveals that this topology gives rise to a Dirac delta force experienced by infalling particles at the event horizon, consistent with the AMPS firewall hypothesis. This force, proportional to the particle's total energy squared, is a direct consequence of the inherent Dirac delta in the Ricci scalar of the replica wormhole. We provide a regularization scheme for this force, which is crucial for obtaining physically meaningful results. Notably, our approach suggests that considering the replica wormhole resolves both the information paradox and the AMPS argument regarding the monogamy of entanglement simultaneously, yielding a more coherent framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09548 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: The curve that Page suggested for entanglement entropy of the radiation emitted from a black hole initially in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrating diagrams are given in [7] for two different contributions of Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    https://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/ MathSource/8329/

    The presented results and equations were generated using GRQUICK, a package within Wolfram Math- ematica. https://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/ MathSource/8329/. 7

    work page

  2. [1]

    S. W. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes, Com- mun.Math. Phys. 43 (3) (1975) 199–220. doi:10.1007/ BF02345020

    work page 1975

  3. [2]

    D. N. Page, Particle emission rates from a black hole: Massless particles from an uncharged, nonrotating hole, Phys. Rev. D 13 (2) (1976) 198–206. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.13.198

    work page 1976

  4. [3]

    S. W. Hawking, Breakdown of predictability in gravita- tional collapse, Phys. Rev. D 14 (10) (1976) 2460–2473. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.2460

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.14.2460 1976

  5. [4]

    D. N. Page, Comment on ”Entropy Evaporated by a Black Hole”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50 (13) (1983) 1013–1013. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.50.1013

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.50.1013 1983

  6. [5]

    D. N. Page, Information in Black Hole Radiation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (23) (1993) 3743–3746. arXiv:hep-th/ 9306083, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.3743

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.71.3743 1993

  7. [6]

    D. N. Page, Time Dependence of Hawking Radiation Entropy, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2013 (09) (2013) 028–028. arXiv:1301.4995, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2013/09/028

    arXiv 2013

  8. [7]

    Almheiri, T

    A. Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghou- lian, A. Tajdini, The entropy of Hawking radiation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93 (3) (2021) 035002. arXiv:2006. 06872, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.93.035002

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.93.035002 2021

Show all 23 references
  1. [8]

    S. Ryu, T. Takayanagi, Holographic Derivation of En- tanglement Entropy from AdS/CFT, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (18) (2006) 181602. arXiv:hep-th/0603001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.181602

    2006 arXiv

  2. [9]

    D. V. Fursaev, Proof of the Holographic Formula for Entanglement Entropy, J. High Energy Phys. 2006 (09) (2006) 018–018. arXiv:hep-th/0606184, doi:10.1088/ 1126-6708/2006/09/018

    2006 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Nishioka, S

    T. Nishioka, S. Ryu, T. Takayanagi, Holographic En- tanglement Entropy: An Overview, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42 (50) (2009) 504008. arXiv:0905.0932, doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/42/50/504008

    2009 arXiv

  4. [11]

    V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani, T. Takayanagi, A Co- variant Holographic Entanglement Entropy Proposal, J. High Energy Phys. 2007 (07) (2007) 062–062. arXiv: 0705.0016, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/07/062

    2007 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Faulkner, A

    T. Faulkner, A. Lewkowycz, J. Maldacena, Quantum corrections to holographic entanglement entropy, J. High Energ. Phys. 2013 (11) (2013) 74. arXiv:1307. 2892, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2013)074

    2013 doi

  6. [13]

    Engelhardt, A

    N. Engelhardt, A. C. Wall, Quantum Extremal Sur- faces: Holographic Entanglement Entropy beyond the Classical Regime, J. High Energ. Phys. 2015 (1) (2015)

    2015

  7. [14]

    A. A. Khodahami, A. Azizi, Holography and the Page curve of an evaporating black hole, submitted for pub- lication. arXiv:2305.16570

    arXiv

  8. [15]

    Almheiri, D

    A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski, J. Sully, Black Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls?, J. High Energ. 6 Phys. 2013 (2) (2013) 62. arXiv:1207.3123, doi:10. 1007/JHEP02(2013)062

    2013 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Almheiri, D

    A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski, D. Stanford, J. Sully, An Apologia for Firewalls, J. High Energ. Phys. 2013 (9) (2013) 18. arXiv:1304.6483, doi:10.1007/ JHEP09(2013)018

    2013 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Susskind, L

    L. Susskind, L. Thorlacius, J. Uglum, The Stretched Horizon and Black Hole Complementarity, Phys. Rev. D 48 (8) (1993) 3743–3761. arXiv:hep-th/9306069, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.3743

    1993 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Muthukrishnan, Unpacking Black Hole Complemen- tarity, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (2023) 728047arXiv:2211.15650, doi:10.1086/728047

    S. Muthukrishnan, Unpacking Black Hole Complemen- tarity, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (2023) 728047arXiv:2211.15650, doi:10.1086/728047

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    S. B. Giddings, Nonviolent nonlocality, Phys. Rev. D 88 (6) (2013) 064023. arXiv:1211.7070, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.88.064023

    2013 arXiv

  13. [20]

    S. B. Giddings, Nonviolent information transfer from black holes: A field theory parameterization, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2) (2013) 024018. arXiv:1302.2613, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.024018

    2013 arXiv

  14. [21]

    S. B. Giddings, A ”black hole theorem,” and its impli- cations, Class. Quantum Grav. 40 (8) (2023) 085002. arXiv:2110.10690, doi:10.1088/1361-6382/acbe8b

    2023 arXiv

  15. [73]

    arXiv:1408.3203, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2015)073

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

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