Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 46 references

A Central Charge for sub-AdS Holography

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The paper proposes that sub-AdS scales in holographic geometries carry a central charge set by the number of D-branes in the sub-stack, with $c(R_0)=(M/N)^2 c(L)$ in the canonical $AdS_5\times S^5$ case.

desk verdict A clear, honest synthesis of sub-AdS holography ideas whose central dictionary—R0 ↔ M—is a stated conjecture, not a derived result; worth engaging, but the load-bearing localized geometry is never constructed. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15201 v2 pith:PW7ARYXK submitted 2024-12-19 hep-th

Abir Ghosh , Chethan Krishnan , Adinath Mahalingam This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords sub-AdSholographylongstringcentralchargeD-branesubstackssmallblackholesAdS/CFTcorrespondenceIR/UVdualityCoulombbranch
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 tries to give a quantitative handle on holography at distances shorter than the Anti-de Sitter (AdS) length, the regime where the usual conformal-field-theory tools lose power. Its central proposal is that the AdS length itself is the length of the long string formed by a stack of $N$ backreacted D-branes, so that a sub-AdS length scale $R_0$ should be described by a sub-stack of $M

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the backreacted long string: the identification of the AdS length with the length scale of the long string in a stack of $N$ D3-branes, together with the rescaling identity $\lambda^2\,ds^2_{AdS_{d+1}\times S^q}(L)=ds^2_{AdS_{d+1}\times S^q}(\lambda L)$. This identity turns the intuitive sub-stack idea into a calculational rule: replace $N$ by $M<N$, obtain $R_0^4=4\pi g_s l_s^4 M$, and then define the central charge at scale $R_0$ by the area formula $c(R_0)/12=A(R_0)/(16\pi G_{d+1}(R_0))$. The compact space enters through the dimension $d+q-1$ in the scaling law, and the physics of long-string fractionation supplies the interpretation of the resulting IR/IR duality at sub-AdS scales.

What would settle it

A numerical search in type IIB supergravity for a smooth metric that is $AdS_5\times S^5$ with radius $L$ at large distances and $AdS_5\times S^5$ with radius $R_0$ near a point, with D3-charge sources turned on; if no such solution can exist, the proposed dictionary between sub-stacks and sub-AdS scales is not realized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is an extension of the long-string picture: when $N$ D-branes backreact to form $AdS_5\times S^5$, the AdS length $L=(4\pi g_s N)^{1/4}l_s$ should be read as the length of the long string of the whole stack. A constant rescaling of an $AdS\times S$ metric just rescales the AdS length, so sub-stacks of $M$ branes define rescaled AdS geometries with $R_0^4=4\pi g_s l_s^4 M$. Attaching to each rescaled geometry the standard central-charge formula gives $c(R_0)/12=(R_0/L)^{d+q-1}c(L)/12$, which in $AdS_5\times S^5$ is $(M/N)^2$ times the parent central charge. The paper argues that this picture reproduces the entropy scaling and negative specific heat of small black holes, connects naturally to heating up the Coulomb branch of the gauge theory, and extends to non-conformal Dp-brane theories with sixteen supercharges, whose conformally Poincare geometries are identified with fully deconfined phases.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a smaller $AdS_5\times S^5$ of length $R_0$ can actually sit inside the original $AdS_5\times S^5$; the paper writes an interpolating metric but does not solve the field equations to prove such a localized solution exists.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Small black holes localized on the $S^5$ of $AdS_5\times S^5$ inherit the thermodynamics of large black holes in a rescaled $AdS_5\times S^5$ whose AdS length equals the horizon radius, giving $S\sim r_+^8/G_{10}$ and negative specific heat.
  • The central charge grows with the relevant length scale below the AdS radius, because larger sub-AdS scales activate larger sub-stacks of matrix degrees of freedom, while above the AdS radius it stays constant.
  • Sub-AdS scales exhibit IR/IR duality: longer bulk distances correspond to lower microscopic energy scales, in contrast to the IR/UV duality of super-AdS scales.
  • For non-conformal Dp-brane theories with sixteen supercharges, the near-horizon geometries are conformally Poincare AdS and represent fully deconfined phases, with positive specific heat and minimal energy quantum scaling as $\epsilon_{\rm dof}\sim 1/z$ toward the bulk IR.
  • In the D1-D5 and ABJM/M-theory cases, the same rescaling rule with the appropriate length scale reproduces the expected small-black-hole entropy scalings in those compactifications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves open is that genuine sub-AdS locality would require a family of supergravity solutions, a small $AdS_5\times S^5$ of radius $R_0$ embedded in the large one; the interpolating metric written in Section 3.3 is an ansatz, and the paper states that solving the full equations is not undertaken.
  • The central charge defined here is a bulk-geometric quantity, not the standard CFT central charge, so its growth at short distances probably does not violate a c-theorem; a microscopic matrix-model definition would settle whether the apparent tension is real.
  • The sub-stack picture suggests a concrete route to flat-space holography: sub-AdS physics resembles flat space, and a matrix-model dual of M-theory would predict long-string fractionation effects at finite $M/N$ that the gravity side does not yet resolve.
  • A testable extension is to compute the Gregory-Laflamme clumping scale for heated sub-stacks and compare it with $R_0$; a parametrically different clumping scale would require modifying the identification of $R_0$ as the local AdS length.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new organizing principle for sub-AdS holography: the AdS length L in an AdS×X compactification is identified with the length of the long string in a stack of N backreacted D-branes, and sub-AdS scales R0 are governed by sub-stacks of M<N branes through R0^4 = 4π g_s l_s^4 M (Eq. 2.5). From this it defines a scale-dependent central charge c(R0)/12 = (R0/L)^{d+q-1} c(L)/12 (Eq. 2.8), which for AdS5×S5 gives c(R0) = (M/N)^2 c(L) (Eq. 2.9). The proposal is tested against the thermodynamics of small black holes localized on the compact sphere, motivated by Coulomb-branch brane-separation pictures, and extended to non-conformal Dp-brane theories, where the authors argue for an IR/UV correspondence in the decoupled phases. The paper explicitly acknowledges the conjectural status of the key identification and, in Section 3.3, does not construct the localized rescaled AdS5×S5 geometry, stating that solving for it would require numerical PDEs that are not undertaken.

Significance. If the central conjecture is correct, the paper offers a concrete and reasonably general framework for associating holographic degrees of freedom to sub-AdS scales, unifying sub-matrix deconfinement, long-string fractionation, and small black hole thermodynamics. The scaling relations are simple, the small black hole entropy and specific heat checks work, and the paper makes useful connections to existing literature, including the work of van Leuven, Verlinde and Visser and the Coulomb-branch picture. The authors are also commendably candid about the assumptions they make. However, the central dictionary rests on an identification that is not derived, and the required localized supergravity solution is not exhibited. The paper thus sharpens a conjecture rather than proving it; its value lies in the consistency checks and the clarity of the proposed framework, not in a derivation from string theory.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eqs. (3.6)–(3.8)] The central claim that a rescaled AdS5×S5(R0) appears as a localized region inside the original AdS5×S5(L) is not demonstrated. The authors write a metric ansatz with an undetermined interpolating function f(ρ,ξ) and state that finding the full solution 'will involve solving PDEs numerically, and we will not undertake it.' No regular solution is shown, and the 5-form flux is not addressed: because the local AdS radius changes with ρ, the Freund-Rubin flux cannot be undeformed, and additional D3-charge sources would be needed. Without a solution or an existence argument, Eq. (2.9) remains a conjecture rather than a derived dictionary.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (2.5); Section 5] The identification L = (4π g_s N)^{1/4} l_s with the backreacted long string length, and its sub-stack analogue R0^4 = 4π g_s l_s^4 M, is assumed rather than derived. The paper is explicit about this ('A key suggestion... we view the equality as relating the two'), but the assumption is load-bearing: the entire scale-dependent central charge formula and the sub-stack/sub-AdS dictionary rest on it. The weak-coupling linear scaling versus strong-coupling quarter-power behavior is left as an open question, and no string-theoretic derivation is provided. This limits the status of the paper to a well-posed conjecture with supporting consistency checks.
  3. [Section 2.3] The small black hole entropy and specific heat checks are presented as evidence for the proposal, but they only follow after setting the rescaled AdS length R0 equal to the horizon radius r_+. That step is effectively the dictionary itself (Eqs. 2.5 and 2.9). Thus the computation demonstrates consistency but does not independently confirm the dictionary. The paper should state more clearly that these are consistency checks, not independent derivations, and ideally specify an independent falsifiable prediction (for example, a gauge-theory computation that predicts the M-dependence of c(R0) without inputting R0 = r_+).
  4. [Section 3.1] The multi-center Coulomb branch solution of Eq. (3.2) is a harmonic-function solution in asymptotically flat space before the near-horizon limit, not a solution that is asymptotically global AdS5×S5(L). While it supports the Poincaré-patch intuition of resolving sub-stacks of branes, it does not provide the localized rescaled AdS inside global AdS that the global-case central charge formula requires. The paper separates the Poincaré and global discussions, but this distinction should be emphasized because the central charge formula is used for global AdS, and the only concrete supergravity realization offered is in the Poincaré/semi-classical brane picture.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2.8)] The definition of c(R0)/12 in Eq. (2.8) uses a lower-dimensional Newton constant G_{d+1}(R0) obtained by reducing on a compact sphere of radius R0, but for a region localized on the compact space it is not obvious that such a reduction is the correct one. Clarify the sense in which the compact-space volume is R0^q for a sub-AdS region.
  2. [Section 2.3] The statement 'The entropy now scales as S ∼ r_+^8/G10, which is the expected correct scaling [7]' should specify that the equality is a scaling relation up to numerical factors; similarly for the specific heat expression below it.
  3. [Section 4.2.1, Eq. (4.10)] The specific heat is stated to be positive for all p<5, but the parameter regime of validity of the supergravity background (as given in Appendix C, Eq. (C.4)) is not discussed when interpreting the result. State the range of T and N for which this calculation is trustworthy.
  4. [Section 5] The discussion of the apparent tension with c-theorems is left as a qualitative expectation ('we expect that sharpening these issues will reveal...'). A concrete check, such as a two-point function or entanglement entropy computation that distinguishes this 'central charge' from the conventional field-theory central charge, would substantially strengthen the claims.
  5. [Throughout] The term 'central charge' is used for a scale-dependent quantity that is not the conventional field-theory central charge. The authors note this in Section 5, but the terminology may mislead readers; consider renaming it 'effective central charge' or 'holographic degree-of-freedom count'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central charge scaling (2.8)-(2.9) is an identity following from the definition of c(R0) as the rescaled AdS area (2.7) plus the assumed R0^4 ∝ M dictionary; the small-black-hole check in Sec. 2.3 similarly rewrites large-AdS formulas with L → r+ by construction.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 2, Eqs. (2.6)-(2.9)]
    "c(R0)/12 = A(R0)/(16πG_{d+1}(R0)) ... c(R0)/12 = Ω_{d−1}Ω_q R0^{d+q−1}/(16πG_{d+q+1}) = (R0/L)^{d+q−1} c(L)/12 ... c(R0)/12 = (R0/L)^8 c(L)/12 = (M/N)^2 c(L)/12."

    Equation (2.6) defines c(L) as A(L)/(16πG_{d+1}(L)), and Eq. (2.7) defines c(R0) by the same area formula at radius R0. Equation (2.8) is then the algebraic identity A(R0)/G_{d+1}(R0) = (R0/L)^{d+q−1} A(L)/G_{d+1}(L), because A(R0) ∝ R0^{d−1} and G_{d+1}(R0) ∝ G_{d+q+1}/R0^q. Substituting the assumed sub-stack scaling R0^4 = 4πg_s l_s^4 M from Eq. (2.5) turns this into the claimed (M/N)^2 factor. No independent supergravity or CFT computation enters; the 'prediction' is the definition of c(R0) combined with the assumed dictionary R0 ↔ M.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 2.3, after Eqs. (2.20)-(2.23)]
    "We can reproduce the correct scaling behavior of the entropy of the small black hole as well as the negativity of its specific heat by viewing it as a large AdS black hole in a rescaled AdS × S geometry with AdS length scale equal to the horizon radius. This is easily seen, by replacing the AdS length scale L with r+ in the above expressions. The entropy now scales as S ∼ r+^8/G10, which is the expected correct scaling [7] and matches that of the flat space 10 dimensional black hole."

    The check takes the large-AdS black hole formulas (2.20)-(2.23) and replaces L by r+; that replacement is exactly the proposal that the sub-AdS scale equals the horizon radius. The resulting S ∼ r+^8/G10, μ ∼ r+^2, T ∼ 1/r+ and negative specific heat are algebraic consequences of the substitution, so the 'reproduced' small-black-hole thermodynamics is the input restated rather than an independent verification. The paper's own wording ('by viewing it as ... with AdS length scale equal to the horizon radius') makes the construction explicit.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the headline formula is: take the standard area definition of the AdS central charge (2.6), define a sub-AdS central charge by the same area formula at a rescaled AdS radius (2.7), and substitute the assumed sub-stack relation R0^4 ∝ M (2.5). Equation (2.9), c(R0)/c(L) = (M/N)^2, then follows by pure algebra; it carries no information beyond the definitions and the assumed dictionary. The small-black-hole consistency check in Sec. 2.3 is likewise an identity: large-AdS black hole formulas with L set equal to r+ reproduce the flat-space scalings by construction. These are the two load-bearing 'predictions,' and both reduce to inputs. There is no significant self-citation circularity: [21] and [22] are the authors' earlier works on Page curves and IR/IR duality, but the central formula does not rest on them; [6] and [7] are external. The paper is also explicit that the localized rescaled AdS5×S5 inside AdS5×S5 is not constructed: Sec. 3.3 states of the interpolating ansatz, 'This will involve solving PDEs numerically, and we will not undertake it.' This is an omitted proof / limitation rather than a circular step, but it means the dictionary R0 ↔ M and the formula (2.9) remain conjectural rather than derived from an explicit supergravity solution. Overall, the honest finding is partial circularity: the central scaling is definitional and the thermodynamic check is by construction, while the genuinely new physical input (sub-stack long-string length R0^4 ∝ M) is assumed.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several posited identifications (long string length equals AdS radius, sub-stack length governs sub-AdS scale, and a localized rescaled AdS exists). These are stated clearly and are not disguised as derivations. The only hand-chosen parameter is the sub-stack size M; no numerical fitting to data occurs.

free parameters (2)
  • M, sub-stack brane number = arbitrary integer; M/N held fixed as N tends to infinity
    M governs the sub-AdS scale through R0^4 = 4 pi g_s l_s^4 M. It is not fixed by the theory, and the paper's results depend on its scaling.
  • rho_0, interpolation width in Section 3.3 ansatz = unspecified
    Appears in the illustrative function f(rho, xi) = R^2/L^2 + (1 - R^2/L^2) tanh(rho/rho_0); any function with the stated limits would do, so this parameter is not load-bearing.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT correspondence, including the standard dictionary between bulk geometry and boundary field theory.
    Invoked throughout; e.g., Section 1 and Section 2.3 rely on the standard large-N limit and Hawking-Page thermodynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper The AdS length L equals the length of the backreacted long string in a stack of N D-branes.
    Stated in Section 2 and Section 5, eq (5.1). This is the paper's central postulate and is acknowledged to be a conjecture.
  • ad hoc to paper A sub-stack of M branes sets the sub-AdS scale through R0^4 = 4 pi g_s l_s^4 M.
    Equation (2.5). This nonlinear in M scaling is assumed; the paper does not derive it dynamically.
  • ad hoc to paper A localized rescaled AdS5 x S5 with length R0 exists inside the original AdS5 x S5.
    Section 3.3; an ansatz is given, but the paper notes it is not yet a supergravity solution.
  • ad hoc to paper Small black hole thermodynamics is captured by replacing L with r_+ in the large AdS black hole formulas.
    Section 2.3, near eqs (2.20)-(2.23). This is the 'smallest large black hole' picture, assumed rather than derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Central Charge for sub-AdS Holography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PW7ARYXK

@misc{pith2026241215201,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Central Charge for sub-AdS Holography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PW7ARYXK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15201}
}
abstract

We synthesize and sharpen various observations about sub-AdS holography in the literature to associate a central charge to sub-AdS scales of AdS x $X$ geometries. A key ingredient in our proposal is the idea that the AdS length is the length of the long string in a stack of $N$ $backreacted$ D-branes. This allows us to make statements about sub-AdS scales by considering long strings in sub-stacks of $M < N$ branes. Our proposal applies in general dimensions, connects with and refines previous ideas about sub-matrix deconfinement & long strings, makes crucial use of the compact space, and is consistent with the expected thermodynamics of small black holes localized on $X$. Some of our arguments draw intuition from separating branes, and have natural connections to (heating up) the Coulomb branch of the gauge theory. We apply related ideas to non-conformal D-branes at zero and finite temperature, discuss the holographic bound and IR/UV duality in theories with 16 supercharges, and find broad consistency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15201 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A Coulomb branch configuration with two D-brane stacks marked as red dots. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A Coulomb branch configuration that can heat up to a localized black hole on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Summary of “conformal-mapping-between-holographic-screens” argument of [6]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Summary of the argument in [6], but viewed as a statement about central charges [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and super- gravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and super- gravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231-252 (1998) doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a1 [arXiv:hep-th/9711200 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Anti-de Sitter space and holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253-291 (1998) doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a2 [arXiv:hep-th/9802150 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Karch and C

    A. Karch and C. F. Uhlemann, Phys. Rev. D 91, no.8, 086005 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.086005 [arXiv:1501.00003 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Operators in the Internal Space and Locality

    H. Bohra, S. R. Das, G. Mandal, K. K. Nanda, M. H. Radwan and S. P. Trivedi, “Operators in the internal space and locality,” JHEP 08, 014 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)014 [arXiv:2404.04339 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theories,

    E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theories,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 505-532 (1998) doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n3.a3 [arXiv:hep-th/9803131 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    Towards non-AdS Holography via the Long String Phenomenon,

    S. Leuven, E. Verlinde and M. Visser, “Towards non-AdS Holography via the Long String Phenomenon,” JHEP 06, 097 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2018)097 [arXiv:1801.02589 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    A proposal of the gauge theory description of the small Schwarzschild black hole in AdS 5×S5,

    M. Hanada and J. Maltz, “A proposal of the gauge theory description of the small Schwarzschild black hole in AdS 5×S5,” JHEP 02, 012 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2017)012 [arXiv:1608.03276 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Small AdS black holes from SYM,

    C. T. Asplund and D. Berenstein, “Small AdS black holes from SYM,” Phys. Lett. B 673, 264-267 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.02.043 [arXiv:0809.0712 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2009

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Partial Deconfinement,

    M. Hanada, G. Ishiki and H. Watanabe, “Partial Deconfinement,” JHEP 03, 145 (2019) [erratum: JHEP 10, 029 (2019)] doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2019)145 [arXiv:1812.05494 [hep- th]]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bulk geometry in gauge/gravity duality and color degrees of free- dom,

    M. Hanada, “Bulk geometry in gauge/gravity duality and color degrees of free- dom,” Phys. Rev. D 103, no.10, 106007 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.106007 [arXiv:2102.08982 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Partial deconfinement in gauge theories,

    M. Hanada, G. Ishiki and H. Watanabe, “Partial deconfinement in gauge theories,” PoS LATTICE2019, 055 (2019) doi:10.22323/1.363.0055 [arXiv:1911.11465 [hep-lat]]. 35

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Matrix entanglement,

    V. Gautam, M. Hanada, A. Jevicki and C. Peng, “Matrix entanglement,” JHEP 01, 003 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2023)003 [arXiv:2204.06472 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Nonperturbative effects in AdS in five-dimensions x S**5 string theory and d = 4 SUSY Yang-Mills,

    T. Banks and M. B. Green, “Nonperturbative effects in AdS in five-dimensions x S**5 string theory and d = 4 SUSY Yang-Mills,” JHEP 05, 002 (1998) doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/1998/05/002 [arXiv:hep-th/9804170 [hep-th]]

    1998 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Vacua of M theory and string theory,

    R. Kallosh and A. Rajaraman, “Vacua of M theory and string theory,” Phys. Rev. D 58, 125003 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.125003 [arXiv:hep-th/9805041 [hep-th]]

    1998 arXiv

  7. [15]

    On the Non-renormalization of the AdS Radius,

    L. Mazzucato and B. C. Vallilo, “On the Non-renormalization of the AdS Radius,” JHEP 09, 056 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/056 [arXiv:0906.4572 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Supersymmetric gauge theories and the AdS / CFT correspondence,

    E. D’Hoker and D. Z. Freedman, “Supersymmetric gauge theories and the AdS / CFT correspondence,” [arXiv:hep-th/0201253 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Central Charges in the Canonical Realization of Asymptotic Symmetries: An Example from Three-Dimensional Gravity,

    J. D. Brown and M. Henneaux, “Central Charges in the Canonical Realization of Asymptotic Symmetries: An Example from Three-Dimensional Gravity,” Commun. Math. Phys. 104, 207-226 (1986) doi:10.1007/BF01211590

    1986 doi

  10. [18]

    Excitations of D strings, entropy and duality,

    S. R. Das and S. D. Mathur, “Excitations of D strings, entropy and duality,” Phys. Lett. B 375, 103-110 (1996) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)00242-0 [arXiv:hep-th/9601152 [hep-th]]

    1996 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Microscopic origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking en- tropy,

    A. Strominger and C. Vafa, “Microscopic origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking en- tropy,” Phys. Lett. B 379, 99-104 (1996) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)00345-0 [arXiv:hep- th/9601029 [hep-th]]

    1996

  12. [20]

    D-branes and fat black holes,

    J. M. Maldacena and L. Susskind, “D-branes and fat black holes,” Nucl. Phys. B 475, 679-690 (1996) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(96)00323-9 [arXiv:hep-th/9604042 [hep-th]]

    1996 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Page Curve and the Information Paradox in Flat Space,

    C. Krishnan, V. Patil and J. Pereira, “Page Curve and the Information Paradox in Flat Space,” [arXiv:2005.02993 [hep-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A holographic entanglement entropy at spi,

    A. Ghosh and C. Krishnan, “A holographic entanglement entropy at spi,” JHEP 06, 068 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2024)068 [arXiv:2311.16056 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Elliptic genera of symmetric products and second quantized strings,

    R. Dijkgraaf, G. W. Moore, E. P. Verlinde and H. L. Verlinde, “Elliptic genera of symmetric products and second quantized strings,” Commun. Math. Phys. 185, 197- 209 (1997) doi:10.1007/s002200050087 [arXiv:hep-th/9608096 [hep-th]]

    1997 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Modeling Multiple M2’s,

    J. Bagger and N. Lambert, “Modeling Multiple M2’s,” Phys. Rev. D 75, 045020 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.045020 [arXiv:hep-th/0611108 [hep-th]]. J. Bagger and 36 N. Lambert, “Gauge symmetry and supersymmetry of multiple M2-branes,” Phys. Rev. D 77, 065008 (2008) doi:10.1103/...

    2007 arXiv

  17. [25]

    N=6 superconformal Chern- Simons-matter theories, M2-branes and their gravity duals,

    O. Aharony, O. Bergman, D. L. Jafferis and J. Maldacena, “N=6 superconformal Chern- Simons-matter theories, M2-branes and their gravity duals,” JHEP 10, 091 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/10/091 [arXiv:0806.1218 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Anomalous radius shift in AdS(4)/CFT(3),

    O. Bergman and S. Hirano, “Anomalous radius shift in AdS(4)/CFT(3),” JHEP 07, 016 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/07/016 [arXiv:0902.1743 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A New Three-Algebra Representation for the N=6 su(N) x su(N) Superconformal Chern-Simons Theory,

    M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, “A New Three-Algebra Representation for the N=6 su(N) x su(N) Superconformal Chern-Simons Theory,” JHEP 12, 111 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2008/12/111 [arXiv:0810.3782 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  20. [28]

    https://sites.google.com/view/matthew-headrick/

  21. [29]

    The Coulomb branch of gauge theory from rotating branes,

    P. Kraus, F. Larsen and S. P. Trivedi, “The Coulomb branch of gauge theory from rotating branes,” JHEP 03, 003 (1999) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1999/03/003 [arXiv:hep- th/9811120 [hep-th]]

    1999

  22. [30]

    Localised AdS5 × S5 Black Holes,

    ´O. J. C. Dias, J. E. Santos and B. Way, “Localised AdS5 × S5 Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no.15, 151101 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.151101 [arXiv:1605.04911 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Localised and nonuniform thermal states of super-Yang-Mills on a circle,

    ´O. J. C. Dias, J. E. Santos and B. Way, “Localised and nonuniform thermal states of super-Yang-Mills on a circle,” JHEP 06, 029 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2017)029 [arXiv:1702.07718 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Supergravity and the large N limit of theories with sixteen supercharges,

    N. Itzhaki, J. M. Maldacena, J. Sonnenschein and S. Yankielowicz, “Supergravity and the large N limit of theories with sixteen supercharges,” Phys. Rev. D 58, 046004 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.046004 [arXiv:hep-th/9802042 [hep-th]]

    1998 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri and Y. Oz, “Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,” Phys. Rept.323, 183-386 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0370- 1573(99)00083-6 [arXiv:hep-th/9905111 [hep-th]]

    2000 arXiv

  26. [35]

    A Brief review of ‘little string theories’,

    O. Aharony, “A Brief review of ‘little string theories’,” Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 929-938 (2000) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/17/5/302 [arXiv:hep-th/9911147 [hep-th]]. 37

    2000 arXiv

  27. [36]

    The Holographic bound in anti-de Sitter space,

    L. Susskind and E. Witten, “The Holographic bound in anti-de Sitter space,” [arXiv:hep- th/9805114 [hep-th]]

  28. [37]

    Deriving the AdS 3/CFT2 cor- respondence,

    L. Eberhardt, M. R. Gaberdiel and R. Gopakumar, “Deriving the AdS 3/CFT2 cor- respondence,” JHEP 02, 136 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2020)136 [arXiv:1911.00378 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [38]

    String Dual to Free N=4 Super- symmetric Yang-Mills Theory,

    M. R. Gaberdiel and R. Gopakumar, “String Dual to Free N=4 Super- symmetric Yang-Mills Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, no.13, 131601 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.131601 [arXiv:2104.08263 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Renormalization group approach to matrix mod- els,

    E. Brezin and J. Zinn-Justin, “Renormalization group approach to matrix mod- els,” Phys. Lett. B 288, 54-58 (1992) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)91953-7 [arXiv:hep- th/9206035 [hep-th]]

    1992

  31. [40]

    Exactly Solvable Field Theories of Closed Strings,

    E. Brezin and V. A. Kazakov, “Exactly Solvable Field Theories of Closed Strings,” Phys. Lett. B 236, 144-150 (1990) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90)90818-Q

    1990 doi

  32. [41]

    Strings in Less Than One-Dimension,

    M. R. Douglas and S. H. Shenker, “Strings in Less Than One-Dimension,” Nucl. Phys. B 335, 635 (1990) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90522-F

    1990 doi

  33. [42]

    Nonperturbative Two-Dimensional Quantum Gravity,

    D. J. Gross and A. A. Migdal, “Nonperturbative Two-Dimensional Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 127 (1990) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.127

    1990 doi

  34. [43]

    M theory as a matrix model: A conjecture,

    T. Banks, W. Fischler, S. H. Shenker and L. Susskind, “M theory as a matrix model: A conjecture,” Phys. Rev. D 55, 5112-5128 (1997) doi:10.1201/9781482268737- 37 [arXiv:hep-th/9610043 [hep-th]]

    1997 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Some speculations about black hole entropy in string theory,

    L. Susskind, “Some speculations about black hole entropy in string theory,” [arXiv:hep- th/9309145 [hep-th]]

  36. [45]

    Holographic covering and the fortuity of black holes,

    C. M. Chang and Y. H. Lin, “Holographic covering and the fortuity of black holes,” [arXiv:2402.10129 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  37. [46]

    Fortuity in the D1-D5 system,

    C. M. Chang, Y. H. Lin and H. Zhang, “Fortuity in the D1-D5 system,” [arXiv:2501.05448 [hep-th]]

  38. [47]

    Entwinement and the emergence of spacetime,

    V. Balasubramanian, B. D. Chowdhury, B. Czech and J. de Boer, “Entwinement and the emergence of spacetime,” JHEP 01, 048 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2015)048 [arXiv:1406.5859 [hep-th]]. 38

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

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