Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Virasoro Blocks and Trouble at the Euclidean Horizon

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The semi-classical Virasoro block is derived from a geodesic at the Euclidean BTZ horizon, locating Euclidean information loss at half the thermal period.

desk verdict A genuinely new geometric route to the semiclassical Virasoro block with a clean half-period/horizon picture; the heavy-geodesic propagator product needs regularization but the main observation survives. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09504 v1 pith:3BR5BQDI submitted 2025-05-14 hep-th

Aaditya Datar , Chethan Krishnan This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords VirasoroblocksgeodesicWittendiagramsEuclideanBTZblackholehorizoninformationlosssemi-classicallimitAdS3/CFT2thermalcorrelators
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 the Euclidean information-loss puzzle in two-dimensional holographic CFTs a concrete bulk location. In the semi-classical limit $c\to\infty$, heavy-light-light-heavy correlators $\langle O_H O_L O_L O_H\rangle$ reduce to Virasoro blocks whose Euclidean-time singularities repeat periodically, while a unitary finite-$c$ CFT allows only the coincidence singularity; the open question is what makes the semi-classical approximation fail. The answer proposed here is geometric: evaluate the block as a geodesic Witten diagram directly in Euclidean BTZ coordinates, with the heavy geodesic pinned at the horizon $r=r_+$. The light geodesic carrying boundary time separation exists only for $0\le \tau \le \pi/r_+$, and at the upper endpoint it straddles the Euclidean horizon. The horizon is thereby identified as the place where semi-classical blocks begin to break down, so horizon-scale physics is where Euclidean information must be restored.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the geodesic Witten diagram of Eq. (2.1), evaluated in Euclidean BTZ coordinates instead of the conical-defect background used previously. The heavy operators sit at $r=r_+$ and $\phi=\pm\infty$, so the heavy geodesic runs along $\phi$ with affine parameter $\lambda=r_+\phi$. The light operators lie on the boundary at fixed $\phi$ and times $\tau_1,\tau_2$; solving (3.8)-(3.9) gives $r=r_+\csc\psi\cosh\lambda'$ and $\tan\theta=\tan\psi\tanh\lambda'$, with $\psi=r_+(\tau_2-\tau_1)/2$. The distinctive input is that the bulk-bulk and bulk-boundary propagators are the global AdS$_3$ propagators rewritten in BTZ coordinates through the chordal variable (3.4), with no BTZ image sum. That combination produces Eq. (3.23) and the existence bound $0\le\tau\le\pi/r_+$ for real geodesics.

What would settle it

Redo the double integral (3.22) with the BTZ image-summed bulk-bulk propagator (B.14) instead of the unquotiented one; if the resulting $W_{2h,0}(\tau)$ differs from (3.23) before $\tau=\pi/r_+$, or if finite-$c$ Virasoro block numerics already depart from the semi-classical block well before half the period, the horizon-straddling claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the semi-classical Virasoro block for HLLH correlators, $W_{2h,0}(\tau)$, is reproduced by a geodesic Witten diagram calculated on the unquotiented Euclidean BTZ patch, provided the heavy-operator geodesic sits at $r=r_+$ and the propagators are the global AdS$_3$ propagators written in BTZ coordinates with no image sum. The computation gives $$W_{2h,0}(\tau)\sim \bigl[\sin(r_+\tau/2)\bigr]^{2h-4h_L}\;{}_2F_1(h,h;2h;1-$e^{{ir_+\tau}}$)\;{}_2F_1(h,h;2h;1-$e^{{-ir_+\tau}}$),$$ and, just as importantly, the light geodesic with time-separated boundary endpoints exists only for $0\le \tau\le \pi/r_+$, reaching the horizon at the upper limit. The authors read this as the geometric origin of Euclidean information loss: half the thermal period is the boundary timescale at which the probe geodesic straddles the horizon, and it is precisely the scale at which numerical finite-$c$ Virasoro blocks begin to depart from their semi-classical form. They stress that no periodic thermal circle is used on either the bulk or the boundary, so the periodicity of the singularities emerges from the $r_+$ scale itself.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation rests on treating the unquotiented Euclidean BTZ patch as a plain coordinate patch of AdS$_3$, using ordinary AdS$_3$ propagators there with no image sum, and on placing the heavy geodesic exactly at $r=r_+$, the singular tip of the Euclidean cigar; if the right prescription requires the image sum or a regulated tip, the result (3.23) and the horizon-straddling picture do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The half-period $\tau=\pi/r_+$ marks the onset scale where semi-classical Virasoro blocks cease to be reliable, so finite-$c$ corrections in the Euclidean block should become sizeable there.
  • Euclidean information loss is geometrized: the loss arises from the light geodesic touching the horizon radius, not merely from thermal periodicity.
  • The same block follows from a single-integral expression whose inner integral solves the scalar bulk wave equation in BTZ coordinates, so the semi-classical block carries the expected wave-equation structure.
  • Because the calculation uses no periodic identification, the periodic singularities of the block are not put in by hand; they emerge from the scale $r_+$ and the geodesic cutoff at the horizon.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the horizon is the onset locus, finite-$c$ blocks should deviate most strongly from semi-classical behavior near half the thermal period, and the appendix's momentum-space transform (B.20) gives a concrete way to look for that deviation.
  • Beyond the paper: modifying the prescription near $r=r_+$ — smearing the heavy geodesic or adding a regulating tip — is the natural place to seek corrections that match finite-$c$ numerics.
  • Beyond the paper: the costless horizon-straddling geodesics parallel winding strings in cigar resolutions, suggesting a worldsheet version of the diagram could expose the unitarity-restoring mechanism.
  • Beyond the paper: because the interior $r<r_+$ never enters the computation, interior reconstruction from block data would need a different mechanism than continuing these geodesics.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a bulk geodesic Witten diagram prescription for semi-classical Virasoro blocks directly in the Euclidean BTZ coordinate patch, with the heavy operator geodesic placed at r = r_+ and with τ and φ spanning the full real line without quotient identification. The construction yields the known semi-classical block formula, Eq. (3.23), and the authors interpret the half-period τ = π/r_+ as the boundary timescale at which the light geodesic straddles the Euclidean horizon, thereby offering a bulk geometric explanation for the departure of finite-c Virasoro blocks from the semi-classical result seen numerically in Ref. [11]. An appendix gives a position-space to momentum-space Fourier transform identity for bulk BTZ correlators, verified numerically to high precision.

Significance. If the prescription is valid, the paper provides a concrete bulk picture for the Euclidean information-loss timescale in AdS3/CFT2 and explains why finite-c corrections to Virasoro blocks become noticeable near half the thermal period. The main result is not parameter-free, but it is benchmarked against externally known semi-classical blocks from Refs. [6] and [23] and against the finite-c numerics of Ref. [11]. The explicit Fourier-transform identity in Appendix B is a useful technical contribution, with numerical checks to high precision. The paper is candid about the fact that the propagator prescription is a step that is asserted rather than derived, which is also the main source of technical risk.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (3.7)] Equation (3.7) does not follow from the propagator (3.5). For the heavy geodesic y(λ) = (r_+, τ_0, λ/r_+) and boundary points x1 = (τ_0, −∞) and x2 = (τ_0, +∞), one has r_+ Δφ → ±∞ for every finite λ. Each bulk-boundary propagator in (3.5) then behaves as cosh^{-2h_H}(r_+ |Δφ|) → 0, so the product is zero, not ∼1. The displayed reduction to ∼1 appears to interchange the two endpoints or to rely on an unstated regularization; either way, a careful limiting procedure (e.g., boundary points at finite separation L, with the λ-integral performed before L → ∞, or an explicit multiplicative renormalization) is needed. This is load-bearing because the simplification to the λ-integral in Eq. (3.22), and hence the final block (3.23) and the horizon interpretation, all depend on this step.
  2. [§3.1–§3.2] The central propagator prescription is asserted rather than derived. The bulk-bulk and bulk-boundary propagators are taken to be the global AdS3 propagators expressed in BTZ coordinates, with no image sum and with τ, φ on the full real line, while the heavy geodesic is placed at r = r_+, the singular tip of the Euclidean cigar. The authors themselves describe this as a dramatic step and justify it by analogy with the conical-defect calculation of Ref. [6], but no path-integral or holographic argument is given. Because the final answer matches independent results, the prescription may be correct, but as written it is an independent axiom. A controlled derivation, or at least a demonstration that a regulated version (r = r_+ + ε with ε → 0, or a finite cutoff on the coordinate patch) gives the same propagators and the same integral, is required for the derivation to be self-contained.
  3. [§5, Figs. 2–3] The interpretive claim that information loss 'starts becoming substantial when the light operator geodesic starts probing the horizon radius' should be stated with the same precision as the technical result. The calculation shows that as τ approaches π/r_+, the minimal geodesic approaches r = r_+; the additional statement that this is where semi-classical blocks begin to fail compared with finite-c blocks comes from comparing with the numerics of Ref. [11], and the wording in Section 5 moves from a geometric observation to a causal claim about information loss. Please distinguish explicitly what is derived from the geodesic Witten diagram and what is an extrapolation from the numerical comparison.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.4.2, Eq. (3.17)] There is a parenthesis imbalance in the displayed expression for G_{b∂}(τ_1, y(λ′)) immediately before Eq. (3.18); the argument of the square root and the placement of the closing bracket should be corrected.
  2. [§3.3] The text would benefit from clarifying the orientation of the affine parameter λ and the ordering of the two heavy boundary points φ = ±∞. Since λ = r_+ φ, the statement in Eq. (3.7) that one factor is evaluated at λ → +∞ and the other at λ → −∞ reverses the natural ordering of x1 and x2; the signs are immaterial for the vanishing issue raised in the major comments, but the notation is confusing.
  3. [§3.4.1, Eq. (3.8)] The dot notation in Eqs. (3.8)–(3.10) is not defined; it should be stated that the dot denotes differentiation with respect to the affine parameter λ′ on the light geodesic.
  4. [Appendix B] Appendix B, while technically self-contained, is not used in the main text. A sentence at the start of the appendix explaining how the Fourier identity is expected to connect to the Virasoro-block computation would make its inclusion more transparent.
  5. [Section 5] The sentences describing 'the half-period' and 'the period' of the Euclidean BTZ cigar would be clearer if β = 2π/r_+ were recalled explicitly at the point where these terms are first used in the interpretive discussion.
  6. [Title and abstract] The phrase 'trouble at the Euclidean horizon' is evocative, but the abstract already notes that periodic Euclidean singularities are generic in thermal correlators; the title could mislead readers into thinking the paper claims that the horizon is the exclusive cause of those singularities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central semi-classical block result is benchmarked against independent external calculations, and the few self-citations appear only in contextual remarks.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing derivation is the BTZ geodesic Witten diagram in Sections 3.2-3.6. Its inputs -- the use of AdS3 propagators in BTZ coordinates without an image sum, the placement of the heavy geodesic at r = r+, and the geodesic equations for the light operators -- are specified as a prescription, not fitted to the target Virasoro block. The final expression (3.23) is then checked against the independently known semi-classical Virasoro block from refs. [6,23] and against the finite-c numerical blocks of ref. [11], none of which are authored by the present authors. The half-period/horizon interpretation is read off from the explicit geodesic solutions (3.14)-(3.16), in particular the condition 0 <= tau <= pi/r+ and the approach to r = r+ at tau = pi/r+, rather than being imposed to match a CFT datum. The self-citations ([16,17,22]) appear in the contextual discussion of microstate mechanisms and in Appendix B, which is a technical aside on Fourier transforms; they are not used to justify the central block computation. The normalization step in Eq. (3.7) is an asserted regulator/limit choice and may warrant scrutiny as a correctness or rigor issue, but it is not a circular reduction: no parameter is tuned to the final answer, and the target block expression is not used to define the propagator product. Therefore there is no significant circularity.

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

The derivation uses standard AdS3/CFT2 technology plus a small number of modeling choices. No data are fitted. The main load-bearing choices are the unquotiented BTZ patch with coordinate-transformed AdS3 propagators and the placement of the heavy geodesic at the horizon. Both are acknowledged by the authors but not derived from a more fundamental prescription.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The semi-classical Virasoro block is given by the geodesic Witten diagram (2.1) with propagators evaluated in the backreacted heavy-operator geometry.
    Inherited from Hijano-Kraus-Perlmutter-Snively [6] and Fitzpatrick-Kaplan-Walters [23]; used at Eq. (2.1).
  • ad hoc to paper In the Euclidean BTZ patch, bulk-boundary and bulk-bulk propagators are the global AdS3 propagators written in BTZ coordinates, without any image sum or quotient identification.
    Introduced in Sections 3.1-3.2; the paper calls it a dramatic step. An image sum would produce thermal-periodic singularities directly and change the block.
  • domain assumption The heavy-operator geodesic sits at r=r+ and the backreacted metric is the Euclidean BTZ metric (2.5).
    Section 3.1, Eqs. (3.1)-(3.6). The horizon is the singular tip of the cigar; the curve at r=r+ is understood as the limit of geodesics whose turning point approaches r+.
  • domain assumption Geodesics anchored at boundary points with time separation tau exist only for 0 <= tau <= pi/r+, and the result is extended to larger tau by analytic continuation.
    Section 3.4.1 and Section 5. The analytic continuation is standard for Euclidean correlators but not proven for this prescription.
  • domain assumption The heavy operator dimension maps to the horizon radius via r+^2 = 24 hH/c - 1.
    Standard BTZ thermodynamics; used to identify beta = 2 pi/r+ and the half-period.
  • standard math Radial quantization map z = e^{i(phi+i t)} converts cylinder data to the plane block.
    Used implicitly in comparing Eq. (3.23) with the standard semi-classical block; standard AdS3/CFT2 dictionary.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Virasoro Blocks and Trouble at the Euclidean Horizon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3BR5BQDI

@misc{pith2026250509504,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Virasoro Blocks and Trouble at the Euclidean Horizon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3BR5BQDI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09504}
}
abstract

In the semi-classical ($c \rightarrow \infty$) limit, 4-point HLLH correlators in 2D CFTs exhibit periodic Euclidean singularities. Periodic singularities in Euclidean time are a general feature of thermal correlators, even at weak coupling. Therefore, the bulk significance of this observation (in particular, the role of the horizon) is somewhat obscure. Explicit numerical computations of finite-$c$ Virasoro blocks furthermore suggest that their departure from semi-classical blocks may begin already at half the period. In this paper, we provide a bulk understanding of these facts and clarify the role of the horizon. We present a bulk geodesic Witten diagram calculation of semi-classical Virasoro blocks in coordinates that are naturally adapted to the BTZ black hole. This allows a bulk geometric interpretation for boundary time separation. In this language, half of a thermal time period is the boundary timescale at which the light operator geodesic straddles the Euclidean horizon, capturing both the role of the horizon and the associated timescale. This timescale arises in a calculation that does not involve a periodic thermal circle on the bulk or the boundary.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09504 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The BTZ prescription for the bulk geodesic Witten diagram. Even though it is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Geodesic plots for different τ = τ2 − τ1 values. We have set r+ = 1. The boundary is given in blue, while the horizon is given in yellow. Observe how as τ → π, the geodesics go closer to the horizon and also get a more rectangular profile. At τ = π they hit the horizon. Much of the above discussion on Virasoro blocks is in Lorentzian signature, while our focus in this paper is fundamentally Euclidean. In the semi-cl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Geodesic plots for different τ values. The boundary is given in blue, while the horizon is given in yellow. Observe how as τ → π, the geodesics go closer to the horizon and also get a more rectangular profile. 5 Information Loss from Geodesics at the Euclidean Horizon Before we go into details, we urge the reader to have a look at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The relative error between the two numerically computed quantities for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    A Numerical Approach to Virasoro Blocks and the Information Paradox,

    H. Chen, C. Hussong, J. Kaplan and D. Li, “A Numerical Approach to Virasoro Blocks and the Information Paradox,” JHEP 09, 102 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2017)102 [arXiv:1703.09727 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2017

  2. [6]

    Semiclassical Virasoro blocks from AdS3 gravity,

    E. Hijano, P. Kraus, E. Perlmutter and R. Snively, “Semiclassical Virasoro blocks from AdS3 gravity,” JHEP 12, 077 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2015)077 [arXiv:1508.04987 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2015

  3. [23]

    Virasoro Conformal Blocks and Thermality from Classical Background Fields,

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan and M. T. Walters, “Virasoro Conformal Blocks and Thermality from Classical Background Fields,” JHEP 11, 200 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2015)200 [arXiv:1501.05315 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [1]

    Hawking from Catalan,

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, M. T. Walters and J. Wang, “Hawking from Catalan,” JHEP 05, 069 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2016)069 [arXiv:1510.00014 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [2]

    On information loss in AdS 3/CFT2,

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, D. Li and J. Wang, “On information loss in AdS 3/CFT2,” JHEP 05, 109 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2016)109 [arXiv:1603.08925 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [3]

    Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system,

    J. M. Deutsch, “Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system,” Phys. Rev. A 43, no.4, 2046 (1991) doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.43.2046

    doi:10.1103/physreva.43.2046 1991

  7. [4]

    Chaos and Quantum Thermalization,

    M. Srednicki, “Chaos and Quantum Thermalization,” Phys. Rev. E 50, 888 doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.50.888 [arXiv:cond-mat/9403051 [cond-mat]]

    arXiv

  8. [5]

    Thermalization in Weakly Coupled Nonabelian Plasmas,

    A. Kurkela and G. D. Moore, “Thermalization in Weakly Coupled Nonabelian Plasmas,” JHEP 12, 044 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2011)044 [arXiv:1107.5050 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2011

Show all 31 references
  1. [7]

    String Theory Versus Black Hole Complementarity,

    A. Giveon and N. Itzhaki, “String Theory Versus Black Hole Complementarity,” JHEP 12, 094 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2012)094 [arXiv:1208.3930 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [8]

    String theory at the tip of the cigar,

    A. Giveon and N. Itzhaki, “String theory at the tip of the cigar,” JHEP 09, 079 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2013)079 [arXiv:1305.4799 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [9]

    A puncture in the Euclidean black hole,

    R. Brustein, A. Giveon, N. Itzhaki and Y. Zigdon, “A puncture in the Euclidean black hole,” JHEP 04, 021 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2022)021 [arXiv:2112.03048 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [10]

    A vestige of FZZ duality in higher dimensions,

    C. Krishnan and S. Talukdar, “A vestige of FZZ duality in higher dimensions,” JHEP 01, 177 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2025)177 [arXiv:2411.16669 [hep-th]]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Witten Diagrams Re- visited: The AdS Geometry of Conformal Blocks,

    E. Hijano, P. Kraus, E. Perlmutter and R. Snively, “Witten Diagrams Re- visited: The AdS Geometry of Conformal Blocks,” JHEP 01, 146 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2016)146 [arXiv:1508.00501 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Entropies of scalar fields on three-dimensional black holes,

    I. Ichinose and Y. Satoh, “Entropies of scalar fields on three-dimensional black holes,” Nucl. Phys. B 447, 340-372 (1995) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00197-Z [arXiv:hep- th/9412144 [hep-th]]. 28

    1995

  7. [14]

    Black Holes and Random Matrices,

    J. S. Cotler, G. Gur-Ari, M. Hanada, J. Polchinski, P. Saad, S. H. Shenker, D. Stanford, A. Streicher and M. Tezuka, “Black Holes and Random Matrices,” JHEP05, 118 (2017) [erratum: JHEP 09, 002 (2018)] doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2017)118 [arXiv:1611.04650 [hep- th]]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [15]

    On the Quantum Structure of a Black Hole,

    G. ’t Hooft, “On the Quantum Structure of a Black Hole,” Nucl. Phys. B 256, 727-745 (1985) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90418-3

    1985 doi

  9. [16]

    A smooth horizon without a smooth horizon,

    V. Burman, S. Das and C. Krishnan, “A smooth horizon without a smooth horizon,” JHEP 2024, 014 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2024)014 [arXiv:2312.14108 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    A Bottom-Up Approach to Black Hole Microstates,

    V. Burman and C. Krishnan, “A Bottom-Up Approach to Black Hole Microstates,” [arXiv:2409.05850 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  11. [18]

    Eternal black holes in anti-de Sitter,

    J. M. Maldacena, “Eternal black holes in anti-de Sitter,” JHEP 04, 021 (2003) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/04/021 [arXiv:hep-th/0106112 [hep-th]]

    2003 arXiv

  12. [19]

    What is the Simplest Linear Ramp?,

    S. Das, S. K. Garg, C. Krishnan and A. Kundu, “What is the Simplest Linear Ramp?,” JHEP 01, 172 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2024)172 [arXiv:2308.11704 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    An Analytic Zeta Function Ramp at the Black Hole Thouless Time,

    P. Basu, S. Das and C. Krishnan, “An Analytic Zeta Function Ramp at the Black Hole Thouless Time,” [arXiv:2505.00528 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  14. [21]

    The Bulk-to-Boundary Propagator in Black Hole Microstate Backgrounds,

    H. Chen, A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan and D. Li, “The Bulk-to-Boundary Propagator in Black Hole Microstate Backgrounds,” JHEP 06, 107 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2019)107 [arXiv:1810.02436 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Black Hole Vacua and Rotation,

    C. Krishnan, “Black Hole Vacua and Rotation,” Nucl. Phys. B 848, 268-287 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.02.017 [arXiv:1005.1629 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Synthetic fuzzballs: a linear ramp from black hole normal modes,

    S. Das, C. Krishnan, A. P. Kumar and A. Kundu, “Synthetic fuzzballs: a linear ramp from black hole normal modes,” JHEP 01, 153 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2023)153 [arXiv:2208.14744 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Fuzzballs and random matrices,

    S. Das, S. K. Garg, C. Krishnan and A. Kundu, “Fuzzballs and random matrices,” JHEP 10, 031 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2023)031 [arXiv:2301.11780 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Normal Modes of the Stretched Horizon: A Bulk Mechanism for Black Hole Microstate Level Spacing,

    C. Krishnan and P. S. Pathak, “Normal Modes of the Stretched Horizon: A Bulk Mechanism for Black Hole Microstate Level Spacing,” [arXiv:2312.14109 [hep-th]]. 29

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Brickwall, normal modes, and emerging thermality,

    S. Banerjee, S. Das, M. Dorband and A. Kundu, “Brickwall, normal modes, and emerging thermality,” Phys. Rev. D 109, no.12, 126020 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.126020 [arXiv:2401.01417 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Blackish Holes,

    S. Banerjee, S. Das, A. Kundu and M. Sittinger, “Blackish Holes,” [arXiv:2411.09500 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Black hole singularities in the framework of gauge/string duality

    G. Festuccia, “Black hole singularities in the framework of gauge/string duality”, MIT PhD Thesis, https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/45421

  22. [30]

    Perturbative connection formulas for Heun equations,

    O. Lisovyy, A. Naidiuk, “Perturbative connection formulas for Heun equations,” 2022 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55 434005. [arXiv:2208.01604 [math-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Exact solution of Kerr black hole perturbations via CFT2 and instanton counting: Greybody factor, quasi- normal modes, and Love numbers,

    G. Bonelli, C. Iossa, D. P. Lichtig and A. Tanzini, “Exact solution of Kerr black hole perturbations via CFT2 and instanton counting: Greybody factor, quasi- normal modes, and Love numbers,” Phys. Rev. D 105, no.4, 044047 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.044047 [arXiv:2105.0448...

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.