Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 43 references

How negative can null energy be in large N CFTs?

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In large N CFTs, the negative smeared null energy of scalar-primary and stress-tensor states scales at worst with the central charge, supporting a C_T-linear bound for interacting conformal field theories.

desk verdict A serious, honestly-labeled large-N argument that smeared null energy in interacting CFTs may scale at worst with the central charge, but the headline C_T scaling is conditional on factorization assumptions that are not fully proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10618 v1 pith:LHW5E3FQ submitted 2024-12-13 hep-th

Jackson R. Fliss , Ben Freivogel , Eleni-Alexandra Kontou , Diego Pardo Santos This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords quantumenergyinequalitiesnullconditionsmearedconformalfieldtheorylargeNfactorizationcentralchargestress-energytensoraveraged
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

The paper tests a long-standing question: can interacting quantum field theories in more than two spacetime dimensions have a lower bound on smeared null energy, or do they suffer the same unbounded violations as free fields? It argues that within the large N approximation, states built from scalar primary operators or from the stress-energy tensor itself have negative smeared null energy that scales at worst linearly with the central charge C_T. This matters because it would mean interacting CFTs are better behaved than free conformally coupled scalars, where piling up particles makes smeared null energy arbitrarily negative. If the suggested bound is right, a general state-independent quantum energy inequality proportional to C_T would hold for generic interacting CFTs, extending a known two-dimensional result to higher dimensions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is large N factorization: single-trace operators have two-point functions of order one, three-point functions of order $N^{{-1}}$, and connected four-point functions of order $N^{{-2}}$, so correlators of multi-trace operators [O^p] and [T^p] are dominated by disconnected two-point functions at large N. The central charge C_T, defined as the coefficient of the stress-energy tensor two-point function and set equal to $N^{2}$, turns the counting of p insertions into an energy scale: the combinatorics of connected higher-point functions stops the multi-trace order at p_max ~ N or at most p_max ~ $N^{{4/3}}$ with connected four-point functions, which translates into $C_T^{{1/2}}$, $C_T^{{2/3}}$, or C_T bounds. For stress-energy tensor states, the argument also uses the collinear frame of the ⟨TTT⟩ three-point function, whose eigenvalue matrix is fixed up to three CFT parameters and constrained by bounds derived from the averaged null energy condition; the matrix is found numerically to be non-negative in d ≥ 4, leaving superpositions of T^p states as the source of negativity.

What would settle it

Compute the smeared null energy beyond the large N expansion in a concrete large N CFT, such as the 3d O(N) model, for multi-trace states with p ~ $N^{{1+ε}}$; if the negative value exceeds a constant times C_T with that constant independent of N, the central claim is false. More directly, any interacting CFT in d ≥ 3 admitting a state whose integrated smeared null energy scales as C_T^β with β > 1 would refute the conjecture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the free-field mechanism for unbounded negative null energy—adding more particles to amplify a one-particle violation—fails in large N CFTs before it can beat the central charge. States prepared by scalar primaries with conformal dimension Δ ≥ d have positive null energy density, while light operators with Δ < d can produce negative smeared null energy; multi-trace versions of such states amplify it by the order p of the operator. Large N factorization limits how large p can be: keeping only factorized two-point functions gives p_max ~ N, hence negative smeared null energy of order $C_T^{{1/2}}$; allowing connected correlators, product constructions, or holographic weak interactions pushes the scaling up to order C_T but not beyond. For stress-energy tensor states, superpositions of consecutive multi-stress tensors reach $C_T^{{3/4}}$ within strict factorization and order C_T in holographic theories. The paper reads this as evidence for its strong conjecture: a state-independent bound on smeared null energy with a constant linear in C_T, with a weaker spectrum-dependent variant kept open.

Load-bearing premise

The bound depends on the assumption that the large N counting of connected correlation functions is complete, in particular that odd-point contributions and overlaps between many-particle and few-particle operator states stay negligible, so the number of operators p can be pushed to N.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the free conformally coupled scalar's unbounded smeared null energy is an artifact of being non-interacting; any interacting large N CFT would have a finite, C_T-scaled floor.
  • Heavy scalar primary states (Δ ≥ d) and, for d ≥ 4, states made by pointwise stress-energy tensor insertions would have positive null energy density, so negative smeared null energy requires light operators or superpositions with the vacuum.
  • A state-independent lower bound linear in C_T would give the first quantum energy inequality for interacting CFTs in d > 2, matching the known two-dimensional bound and providing a universal constant for semiclassical applications.
  • Multi-stress-tensor superposition states offer a universal construction that needs no light scalar in the spectrum, reaching C_T^{3/4} within strict factorization and order C_T in holographic theories.
  • If the weak conjecture holds, effective descriptions of states with bounded null energy would be characterized by expectation values of finitely many light operators, giving clear diagnostics for which effective field theories have lower-bounded energy densities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same large N counting should apply to other observables built from repeated single-trace insertions, suggesting that energy densities of conserved-charge currents or R-symmetry currents may obey similar C_T-scaled floors.
  • Beyond the paper: computing the first 1/N correction to the minimal smeared null energy in a specific model, such as the critical O(N) model, would show whether the bound approaches the free-field value from above or below; the conjecture predicts corrections that do not remove the C_T floor.
  • Beyond the paper: the collinear-frame positivity of the ⟨TTT⟩ matrix is numerical evidence; a symbolic proof that the relevant matrix is positive semidefinite for all d ≥ 4 would turn the paper's stress-tensor positivity result into a rigorous statement.
  • Beyond the paper: if the strong conjecture survives contact with explicit models, semiclassical singularity theorems could be run on CFT states with a universal central-charge constant, whereas the weak conjecture would instead tie the bound to a handful of light expectation values.
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 studies how negative the smeared null energy can be in large N CFTs. It first shows that states prepared by scalar primary operators with conformal dimension Δ ≥ d have positive null energy density, and it gives evidence that pointwise stress-tensor insertions also give positive null energy in d ≥ 4. It then constructs states with negative smeared null energy using light scalars and superpositions involving the stress-energy tensor. The main claim is that, within the large N factorization approximation, the negative smeared null energy of states built from multi-trace operators scales at worst as the central charge C_T, with intermediate results scaling as √C_T, C_T^{2/3}, or C_T^{3/4}. The paper is explicit that these are arguments rather than proofs, and Section VII states that the bound proportional to C_T has not been proved.

Significance. If the central scaling claim can be made rigorous, the paper would be a significant step toward quantum energy inequalities in interacting CFTs in d > 2, extending known two-dimensional and free-field results. The paper has several genuine strengths: the positivity proof for scalar state norms in Appendix A is analytic; the conformal-frame reduction of the stress-tensor three-point function is a useful simplification; the product and holographic constructions provide concrete families of states with negative null energy of order C_T; and the authors are commendably explicit about which steps are conjectural. The main weakness is that the advertised "at worst C_T" statement is conditional on unproven large-N factorization and mixing assumptions, and the paper does not fully establish even the intermediate √C_T scaling once subleading corrections are tracked.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV C, Eqs. (84)-(87)] The estimate p_max ~ N is not established. Equation (85) gives a correction to the norm of order p(p-1)(p-2)N^{-2}, which is parametrically larger than the connected four-point correction of order p^2 N^{-2} in Eq. (84) once p > N^{2/3}. The authors remove this contribution by stating, immediately after Eq. (85), that they have fixed all connected odd-point functions to vanish, but they do not demonstrate that this fixing can be performed at the required subleading order without changing the numerator ⟨T--⟩ at the same order. Moreover, even the connected four-point correction in Eq. (84) is of order one relative to the leading term when p ~ N, so the regime of controlled factorization is p ≪ N, not p ~ N. The claimed √C_T scaling of multi-trace scalar states therefore needs either a proof of the odd-point/mixing assumption or a restriction to a smaller regime of p.
  2. [Section V A, Eqs. (92)-(99)] The extrapolation to C_T^{a/(a+1)} is schematic. The argument resums connected correlators up to 2a_max, but the analysis in Appendix C establishes the asymptotic behavior of the ratio R only under assumptions about the dominance of particular combinatorial terms, and the text explicitly acknowledges in Section V A that terms where T-- itself appears in a higher-point connected correlator are ignored. Since the central claim is an upper bound — that negative null energy scales 'at worst' as C_T — the paper needs to show that 1/N corrections beyond the leading factorized value cannot make the null energy more negative in the regime where factorization breaks down. No such monotonicity statement is proved or even explicitly assumed.
  3. [Section III C, Figure 1 and Table I] The non-negativity of the stress-tensor three-point contribution in d ≥ 4 rests on numerical eigenvalue checks for free boson, fermion, and tensor structures, combined with the decomposition (62) and the Hofman-Maldacena constraints (63). The paper correctly acknowledges that this is not a proof. This issue is load-bearing for the stress-tensor state analysis: Section VI constructs negative null energy by using the assumed positivity of the ⟨TTT⟩ contribution to isolate the cross terms in the superposition (124). If a negative eigenvalue of B_{ab--cd} exists for some d ≥ 4, the scaling estimates in Eqs. (131)-(134) would need to be revisited.
  4. [Section IV B, Eqs. (80)-(83)] The definition of the multi-trace state |O^p_h⟩ via iterated OPE projections is only valid to leading order in N. The paper does not verify that the subleading corrections required to define [O^p] as a primary operator, including the order N^{-1} mixing with the single-trace operator O, leave the leading factorized expectation value in Eq. (82) unchanged. If those corrections shift the numerator and denominator at the same order as the leading p-dependent terms, the linear p amplification in Eq. (83) is itself conditional. This is the same assumption that drives the p_max estimate, and it should be stated as an explicit technical assumption with a clear estimate of its error term.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III B, matrix display] The display of B_{ab--cd} is very hard to read: the row and column labels use dots as separators that do not align with the block structure. Reformatting the matrix with explicit block separators or listing the nonzero blocks would substantially improve readability.
  2. [Section I, Introduction] The phrase 'part-in-parcel' should be 'part and parcel'.
  3. [Section II A, Eq. (28)] The definition of the scaled preparation function h'_Δ(x) ≡ λ^{d-Δ} h_Δ(λx) would benefit from a short explanation of how the integration measure and the support of h transform, since this is the key step leading to Eq. (29).
  4. [Section V C, Eq. (110)] The estimate N_grav ~ G_N p^2 / ℓ^{D-2} would be clearer if the authors stated the bulk-dimension conventions explicitly and commented on the régime in which the number of exchanged gravitons is small compared with p; this would help the reader see why Eq. (113) is weaker than full factorization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the large-N scaling argument is self-contained, and the only self-citation with a substantive role is an external free-field input rather than a restatement of the target bound.

full rationale

The central derivation does not assume the target bound. The large-N scaling of the multi-trace null energy, p<T-->_O, follows from the factorization scaling (64) and the OPE construction (75)-(82); the estimate pmax ~ N is obtained by comparing combinatoric prefactors (84)-(85) with the N^{-2} suppression after the stated odd-point-function assumption. That assumption is a genuine technical assumption about the large-N theory, not a restatement of a CT bound. The ANEC and Hofman-Maldacena constraints in Appendix B are external inputs used only to sign the TTT contribution, not to define the bound. The product-CFT argument derives linear CT scaling from additivity of T and CT, and the holographic estimate uses independent bulk gravity scales; neither reduces to the claim. The only self-citation with a load-bearing role is [17], used to exhibit a light-scalar state with negative null energy; that is a free-field example serving as an input to the large-N construction, not an equivalent of the large-N scaling result, and it does not make the derivation circular. The paper also honestly labels the CT scaling as an argument rather than a proof, stating in Section V A that the estimate is 'only schematic' and in Section VII that the maximal scaling is not proved. The unverified vanishing of connected odd-point functions and the absence of a demonstrated upper bound on 1/N corrections beyond the factorization regime are correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted constants and no new entities. Its results rest on standard large N factorization assumptions, the existence of multi-trace primaries, and external ANEC or Hofman-Maldacena constraints. These assumptions are listed above.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Large N factorization: single-trace correlators factorize with a single parameter N, all single-trace three-point functions are suppressed as N^-1, and C_T = N^2.
    Used throughout Sections IV and VI to compute multi-trace state norms and null energy, e.g. equations (64)-(65) and (8). The authors note counterexamples in Ref [11].
  • domain assumption The stress-energy tensor is a single-trace operator with scaling <TT> ~ N^2, <TTT> ~ N^2, and connected higher-point functions ~ N^2.
    Section VI opening, equation (117); this sets the N scaling for multi-stress-tensor states.
  • domain assumption Multi-trace primaries [O^p] exist with dimensions p Delta + gamma(p), gamma ~ N^-2, and OPE coefficients lambda = p+1.
    Section IV A, equations (69)-(77); needed to construct p-operator states.
  • domain assumption Hofman-Maldacena and ANEC constraints imply that for d>=4 the coefficients (n_s, n_f, n_t) of free boson, fermion, and tensor structures in <TTT> are non-negative.
    Section III C, equations (62)-(63) and (B.27); used to infer non-negative eigenvalues of the stress-tensor three-point matrix for interacting CFTs.
  • domain assumption In holographic theories, bulk gravitational interaction energy estimates give p << C_T as the weak interaction regime, and typical graviton counting arguments apply.
    Section V C, equations (106)-(112); used to argue for C_T scaling of negative null energy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How negative can null energy be in large N CFTs?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LHW5E3FQ

@misc{pith2026241210618,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How negative can null energy be in large N CFTs?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LHW5E3FQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10618}
}
abstract

Smeared null energy has been shown to be bounded from below for free minimally coupled quantum field theories. This is not the case for conformally coupled free bosonic theories where states of unbounded null energy can be constructed by increasing the particle number. Little is known for interacting conformal field theories (CFTs) in dimensions larger than two. In this work we consider states that are superpositions of scalar primary operators or the stress-energy tensor itself in large N CFTs. Within the large N approximation we present arguments that the negative smeared null energy of such states scales at worst as the central charge of theory, $C_T$. This provides evidence for a general bound for CFTs in d-dimensions proportional to the central charge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10618 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. presents the eigenvalues of Bab−−cd for a free bosonic field in dimensions 4 ≤ d ≤ 20. Zeros and degenerate eigenvalues are not included. Unlike the d = 3 case, all of the eigenvalues are non-negative. We have found the same non-negativity for the eigenvalues of free fermionic and tensor theories. Although this is not a proof, it indicates that we can expect non-negativity of the ⟨T T T⟩ contribution to (59) for dim… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Numerical plots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The contour deformation yielding the integral ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    35 with Iab(x) = δab − 2 xaxb x2 the inversion operator

    The two-point function Imposing conformal symmetry and the conservation of the stress-energy tensor, the two- point function of Tab has the following structure [10, 37] ⟨Tab(x)Tcd(0)⟩ = CT x2d Iab,cd(x) , (B.1) where CT characterizes the leading singularity of the two-point function and 11 Iab,cd(s) = Iae(s)Ibf (s)Eef,cd , (B.2) 11 Note that the Einstein ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The three-point function a. The general frame The general expression for the three-point function of the stress-energy tensor with two scalar operators O of conformal dimension ∆ is [10] ⟨Tab(x1)O(x2)O(x3)⟩ = CT OO xd 12xd 13x2∆−d 23 tab(X) , (B.4) where tab(X) = XaXb X 2 − 1 d δab , X = x12 x2 12 − x13 x2 13 , (B.5) and xij = xi − xj. The coefficient is ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Constraints of the three-point function This subsection includes details on the constraints on these three parameters for free and interacting CFTs discussed in Section III C. a. Free theories Tables II and III show the three independent parameters of the three-point functions of the stress-energy tensor in free boson, fermion, and tensor theories in the ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    amaxY a=1 ⟨(Oh)a†(Oh)a⟩ma conn (a!)2mama! # = (p!)2⟨O† hOh⟩p ×

    Combinatorics Consider the two-point function ⟨(Oh)p†(Oh)p⟩ of the multi-trace operator defined in (81) and say we wish to factor this into all possible connected (2 a)-point functions of some maximum order: 1 ≤ a ≤ amax. We can organize this as follows. Let {ma}a=1,...,amax be a collection of natural numbers satisfying amaxX a=1 a ma = p . (C.1) Then we ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    We are interested in the large p, small |x| asymptotics of this object as p ∼ N α and xa ∼ N 2−2a in the large N limit

    Asymptotics of R A quantity of interest in Section V is the ratio Ramax({xa}, p) = P≤p−1 {ma}a=2,...,amax (p−1)! (p−Pamax a=2 ama−1)! hQamax a=2 xmaa ma! i P≤p {ma}a=2,...,amax p! (p−Pamax a=2 ama)! hQamax a=2 xmaa ma! i (C.12) which appears in the ratio of ⟨(Oh)p−1†(Oh)p−1⟩ and ⟨(Oh)p†(Oh)p⟩ after breaking up into connected (2a)-point correlators up to a...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Nonpositivity of energy density in Quantized field theories,

    H. Epstein, V. Glaser, and A. Jaffe, “Nonpositivity of energy density in Quantized field theories,” Nuovo Cim. 36 (1965) 1016

    work page 1965

  7. [7]

    Null energy conditions in quantum field theory,

    C. J. Fewster and T. A. Roman, “Null energy conditions in quantum field theory,” Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 044003, arXiv:gr-qc/0209036. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 80, 069903 (2009)]

    arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    The double smeared null energy condition,

    J. R. Fliss, B. Freivogel, and E.-A. Kontou, “The double smeared null energy condition,” SciPost Phys. 14 no. 2, (2023) 024, arXiv:2111.05772 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum Energy Inequalities for the Non-Minimally Coupled Scalar Field,

    C. J. Fewster and L. W. Osterbrink, “Quantum Energy Inequalities for the Non-Minimally Coupled Scalar Field,” J. Phys. A 41 (2008) 025402, arXiv:0708.2450 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Quantum strong energy inequalities,

    C. J. Fewster and E.-A. Kontou, “Quantum strong energy inequalities,” Phys. Rev. D 99 no. 4, (2019) 045001, arXiv:1809.05047 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Quantum Energy Inequality for the Massive Ising Model,

    H. Bostelmann, D. Cadamuro, and C. J. Fewster, “Quantum Energy Inequality for the Massive Ising Model,” Phys. Rev. D 88 no. 2, (2013) 025019, arXiv:1304.7682 [math-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Quantum Energy Inequalities in Integrable Models with Several Particle Species and Bound States,

    H. Bostelmann, D. Cadamuro, and J. Mandrysch, “Quantum Energy Inequalities in Integrable Models with Several Particle Species and Bound States,” Annales Henri Poincare 25 no. 10, (2024) 4497–4542, arXiv:2302.00063 [math-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Quantum energy inequalities in two-dimensional conformal field theory,

    C. J. Fewster and S. Hollands, “Quantum energy inequalities in two-dimensional conformal field theory,” Rev. Math. Phys. 17 (2005) 577, arXiv:math-ph/0412028

    2005 arXiv

  6. [14]

    The Smeared Null Energy Condition,

    B. Freivogel and D. Krommydas, “The Smeared Null Energy Condition,” JHEP 12 (2018) 067, arXiv:1807.03808 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Implications of conformal invariance in field theories for general dimensions,

    H. Osborn and A. C. Petkou, “Implications of conformal invariance in field theories for general dimensions,” Annals Phys. 231 (1994) 311–362, arXiv:hep-th/9307010

    1994 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Multiple trace operators and nonlocal string theories,

    O. Aharony, M. Berkooz, and E. Silverstein, “Multiple trace operators and nonlocal string theories,” JHEP 08 (2001) 006, arXiv:hep-th/0105309

    2001 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Emergent Spacetime and Holographic CFTs,

    S. El-Showk and K. Papadodimas, “Emergent Spacetime and Holographic CFTs,” JHEP 10 (2012) 106, arXiv:1101.4163 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Generalized free fields and the AdS - CFT correspondence,

    M. Duetsch and K.-H. Rehren, “Generalized free fields and the AdS - CFT correspondence,” Annales Henri Poincare 4 (2003) 613–635, arXiv:math-ph/0209035

    2003 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Holography from Conformal Field Theory,

    I. Heemskerk, J. Penedones, J. Polchinski, and J. Sully, “Holography from Conformal Field Theory,” JHEP 10 (2009) 079, arXiv:0907.0151 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Conformal field theories dual to quantum gravity with strongly coupled matter,

    L. Apolo, A. Belin, S. Bintanja, A. Castro, and C. A. Keller, “Conformal field theories dual to quantum gravity with strongly coupled matter,” Phys. Rev. D 108 no. 6, (2023) L061901, arXiv:2212.07436 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Positive Energy Conditions in 4D Conformal Field Theory,

    K. Farnsworth, M. A. Luty, and V. Prilepina, “Positive Energy Conditions in 4D Conformal Field Theory,” JHEP 10 (2016) 001, arXiv:1512.01592 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Non-minimal coupling, negative null energy, and effective field theory,

    J. R. Fliss, B. Freivogel, E.-A. Kontou, and D. P. Santos, “Non-minimal coupling, negative null energy, and effective field theory,” arXiv:2309.10848 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Causality Constraints in Conformal Field Theory,

    T. Hartman, S. Jain, and S. Kundu, “Causality Constraints in Conformal Field Theory,” JHEP 05 (2016) 099, arXiv:1509.00014 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Averaged Null Energy Condition from Causality,

    T. Hartman, S. Kundu, and A. Tajdini, “Averaged Null Energy Condition from Causality,” JHEP 07 (2017) 066, arXiv:1610.05308 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Einstein gravity from ANEC correlators,

    A. Belin, D. M. Hofman, and G. Mathys, “Einstein gravity from ANEC correlators,” JHEP 08 (2019) 032, arXiv:1904.05892 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Modular Hamiltonians for Deformed 45 Half-Spaces and the Averaged Null Energy Condition,

    T. Faulkner, R. G. Leigh, O. Parrikar, and H. Wang, “Modular Hamiltonians for Deformed 45 Half-Spaces and the Averaged Null Energy Condition,” JHEP 09 (2016) 038, arXiv:1605.08072 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Rychkov, EPFL Lectures on Conformal Field Theory in D >= 3 Dimensions

    S. Rychkov, EPFL Lectures on Conformal Field Theory in D >= 3 Dimensions. SpringerBriefs in Physics. 1, 2016. arXiv:1601.05000 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Holographic GB gravity in arbitrary dimensions,

    A. Buchel, J. Escobedo, R. C. Myers, M. F. Paulos, A. Sinha, and M. Smolkin, “Holographic GB gravity in arbitrary dimensions,” JHEP 03 (2010) 111, arXiv:0911.4257 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A Proof of the Conformal Collider Bounds,

    D. M. Hofman, D. Li, D. Meltzer, D. Poland, and F. Rejon-Barrera, “A Proof of the Conformal Collider Bounds,” JHEP 06 (2016) 111, arXiv:1603.03771 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Conformal collider physics: Energy and charge correlations,

    D. M. Hofman and J. Maldacena, “Conformal collider physics: Energy and charge correlations,” JHEP 05 (2008) 012, arXiv:0803.1467 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Modified weak energy condition for the energy momentum tensor in quantum field theory.,

    J. I. Latorre and H. Osborn, “Modified weak energy condition for the energy momentum tensor in quantum field theory.,” Nucl. Phys. B 511 (1998) 737–759, arXiv:hep-th/9703196

    1998 arXiv

  24. [32]

    The Conformal Bootstrap,

    D. Simmons-Duffin, “The Conformal Bootstrap,” in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: New Frontiers in Fields and Strings, pp. 1–74. 2017. arXiv:1602.07982 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Proof of the Quantum Null Energy Condition,

    R. Bousso, Z. Fisher, J. Koeller, S. Leichenauer, and A. C. Wall, “Proof of the Quantum Null Energy Condition,” Phys. Rev. D 93 no. 2, (2016) 024017, arXiv:1509.02542 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A General Proof of the Quantum Null Energy Condition,

    S. Balakrishnan, T. Faulkner, Z. U. Khandker, and H. Wang, “A General Proof of the Quantum Null Energy Condition,” JHEP 09 (2019) 020, arXiv:1706.09432 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Quantum focusing conjecture,

    R. Bousso, Z. Fisher, S. Leichenauer, and A. C. Wall, “Quantum focusing conjecture,” Phys. Rev. D 93 no. 6, (2016) 064044, arXiv:1506.02669 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Energy density from second shape variations of the von Neumann entropy,

    S. Leichenauer, A. Levine, and A. Shahbazi-Moghaddam, “Energy density from second shape variations of the von Neumann entropy,” Phys. Rev. D 98 no. 8, (2018) 086013, arXiv:1802.02584 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Entropy variations and light ray operators from replica defects,

    S. Balakrishnan, V. Chandrasekaran, T. Faulkner, A. Levine, and A. Shahbazi-Moghaddam, “Entropy variations and light ray operators from replica defects,” JHEP 09 (2022) 217, arXiv:1906.08274 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Singularities from Entropy,

    R. Bousso and A. Shahbazi-Moghaddam, “Singularities from Entropy,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 no. 23, (2022) 231301, arXiv:2201.11132 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Quantum singularities,

    R. Bousso and A. Shahbazi-Moghaddam, “Quantum singularities,” Phys. Rev. D 107 no. 6, (2023) 066002, arXiv:2206.07001 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    The Return of the Singularities: Applications of the Smeared Null Energy Condition,

    B. Freivogel, E.-A. Kontou, and D. Krommydas, “The Return of the Singularities: Applications of the Smeared Null Energy Condition,” SciPost Phys. 13 no. 1, (2022) 001, arXiv:2012.11569 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Upper and Lower Bounds on the Integrated Null Energy in Gravity,

    S. Leichenauer and A. Levine, “Upper and Lower Bounds on the Integrated Null Energy in Gravity,” JHEP 01 (2019) 133, arXiv:1808.09970 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Conserved currents and the energy momentum tensor in conformally invariant theories for general dimensions,

    J. Erdmenger and H. Osborn, “Conserved currents and the energy momentum tensor in conformally invariant theories for general dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B 483 (1997) 431–474, arXiv:hep-th/9605009

    1997 arXiv

  35. [43]

    A New Spin on Causality Constraints,

    T. Hartman, S. Jain, and S. Kundu, “A New Spin on Causality Constraints,” JHEP 10 (2016) 141, arXiv:1601.07904 [hep-th]. 46

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.