Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Probing the Black Hole Interior with Holographic Entanglement Entropy and the Role of AdS/BCFT Correspondence

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Black hole entropy bottoms out at a microstate-dependent minimum; the paper ties that floor to smooth interiors.

desk verdict A transparent restatement of prior Horndeski-BCFT entropy results whose only new interpretive claim collapses because the T→0 limit removes the black hole entirely. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21224 v1 pith:4QSLCGLD submitted 2025-08-28 hep-th

Fabiano F. Santos This is my paper
classification hep-th PACS 04.70.Dy11.25.Tq04.50.Kd
keywords blackholeinformationparadoxholographicentanglemententropyAdS/BCFTcorrespondenceHorndeskigravityPagecurveislandsfirewallsresidual
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 tries to establish that the black hole interior can be probed by time-dependent holographic entanglement entropy in an AdS/BCFT setup with Horndeski gravity, and that this setup leaves a residual entropy. In the zero-temperature limit, with a parameter L set to 1, the black hole entropy does not vanish but tends to SBH = -ξ/6, where ξ encodes the Horndeski couplings. The paper interprets this floor as the imprint of a small subset of CFT microstates whose interiors remain smooth, while most microstates would produce firewalls and break the construction. The same residual value appears as the late-time saturation of entanglement entropy after linear growth, which the paper reads as evidence that black holes do not evaporate to zero information. The reason to care is that this proposes a state-dependent route through the information-loss paradox: the interior geometry and the Page curve depend on which microstate the black hole is in.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the minimal entropy SBH = -ξ/6, obtained in the limit T→0 with L→1; ξ = -α/2 + γΛ/α packages the Horndeski couplings. The derivation runs through the AdS/BCFT correspondence, a holographic dictionary in which an asymptotically AdS bulk ends on a boundary hypersurface whose boundary Lagrangian supplies additional entropy terms. Time dependence enters through a double-holographic brane setup: the entropy of a radiation region is the minimum of a time-evolving extremal surface, which grows linearly as S ≈ χ t/β, and an island surface; the Page curve is fixed by equating them. The saturation of the boundary channel at -ξ/6 is the mechanism that carries the microstate i

What would settle it

Derive L from the normalization of the boundary interval in the construction: if the size of subsystem A fixes L≠1, or if the T→0 limit of Eqs. (10)-(11) is dominated by divergent boundary terms instead of approaching -ξ/6, the central claim fails. A second check: pick a known smooth-interior microstate in the dual CFT and compute its entanglement entropy; if it does not equal -ξ/6, the identification of the floor with smooth interiors is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the entropy of a Horndeski-gravity black hole in the AdS/BCFT construction has a finite floor, SBH = -ξ/6, reached when the temperature goes to zero and the unitarity parameter L is set to 1. This floor is not a numerical accident: the same combination -ξ/6 is the saturation value of the time-dependent holographic entanglement entropy after a phase of linear growth, and the boundary entropy contributions reduce to -ξ/6 for large subsystems far from the boundary. The paper argues that this minimal entropy represents a small subset of CFT microstates—those corresponding to black holes with smooth, semiclassical interiors—while the majority of microstates corre

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that L, called the unitarity parameter, can be set to 1 and that the T→0 limit of Eqs. (9)-(11) is a physical entropy; the paper never defines or derives L, so if that step is not legitimate the microstate interpretation collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the T→0, L→1 limit is valid, black hole evaporation ends with a residual entropy -ξ/6, so information is not completely destroyed.
  • The late-time entanglement entropy of the radiation saturates at the same -ξ/6, making the residual entropy appear as a plateau in the boundary theory.
  • The Page curve of the model is corrected by Horndeski parameters: Page time and Page angle depend on the couplings, modifying when islands begin to dominate.
  • Only microstates with smooth interiors admit the semiclassical island construction; firewall microstates require a state-dependent interior/boundary map.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One can test the microstate interpretation by counting how many boundary CFT microstates have interiors described by the AdS/BCFT construction; if that count is not set by -ξ/6, the 'small subset' claim needs a sharper definition.
  • The paper sets L=1 without deriving it; a natural extension is to fix L by the normalization of the CFT interval, or to show that L is invariant under the renormalization group in the Horndeski boundary theory.
  • The same zero-temperature floor may appear in other modified-gravity holographic models; comparing their predicted Page times with the Horndeski one would show whether the floor is generic or specific to this action.
  • If the residual entropy is physical, it should leave a subleading imprint in the Hawking radiation density matrix, for instance as a nonthermal offset in Renyi entropies, giving a concrete target for further calculation.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to use the AdS/BCFT correspondence in Horndeski gravity to probe the black hole interior via time-dependent holographic entanglement entropy. It quotes the Horndeski-corrected BTZ entropy formulas, claims that in the T→0, L→1 limit the entropy approaches a finite value SBH = −ξ/6, and interprets this as the counting of a small subset of CFT microstates that correspond to smooth black hole interiors, while the majority of microstates would involve firewalls. The second part revisits the Hartman–Maldacena linear growth of entanglement entropy, with Horndeski parameter corrections, and combines it with boundary entropy terms to argue for a Page-curve-like competition. The central technical content is taken from previous papers by the author and collaborators, especially Refs. [12] and [32]; the new contribution is the interpretive link to the firewall/microstate picture.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, the paper would offer a concrete holographic signature of state-dependent black-hole interiors and a potential resolution of the firewall paradox within an Horndeski-gravity AdS/BCFT setup. The paper also correctly identifies that the linear growth of entanglement entropy in the Horndeski-corrected background parallels the Hartman–Maldacena result, with a modified coefficient. However, the significance is severely limited because the main result is not derived but quoted from prior work, and the interpretation rests on an undefined parameter limit and a quantity that can be negative for allowed parameters. The paper contains no machine-checked proofs or falsifiable predictions beyond the quotes. The strengths are the explicit presentation of the AdS/BCFT setup and the connection of Horndeski parameters to the Page time, but these are inherited from the cited papers rather than established here.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (9)–(12)] The central claim that the T→0, L→1 limit gives a minimal microstate entropy SBH = −ξ/6 is not supported by the equations themselves. In the metric (5) the horizon radius r_h is set by the temperature; as T→0, f(r)→r^2 and the geometry degenerates to empty AdS3, so there is no black hole interior left to be 'smooth' or to host a firewall. The constant −ξL/6 in Eq. (11) is manifestly the T-independent boundary term coming from the boundary action (7), not a horizon-area contribution. Indeed, Sec. V states that the behavior 'likely arises from boundary Lagrangian'. Thus the residual entropy −ξ/6 is a boundary/interface term, not black-hole microstate information. The claimed microstate/firewall interpretation after Eq. (12) is therefore an unsupported leap without a calculation.
  2. [Eqs. (1), (10)–(11), Sec. III] The 'unitarity parameter L' is never defined. Equation (1) defines L as the size of the region A, i.e., a length in the CFT. Setting L=1 in the T→0 limit is not a legitimate free choice: an interval length cannot be set to 1 independently of the UV cutoff, and no dimensionless ratio is identified. Without a definition of L in Eqs. (10)–(11), the result SBH = −ξ/6 reduces to an ad hoc assignment rather than a derivation.
  3. [Eqs. (15) and (30)] The equations are internally inconsistent. Equation (15) states S = min(SHM, Sisland) = Aisland/4G + AHM/4G, and Eq. (30) states SA = min(Sbulk, Sbdry) = Sbulk + Sbdry. The minimum of two quantities is not equal to their sum; these two expressions are mutually contradictory. This is not a minor typo: the claimed 'entanglement competition' leading to the Page curve relies on the correct minimization, yet the written formulas add the competing surfaces instead of selecting the minimum. The mathematical error undermines the Page-curve discussion in Sec. IV.
  4. [Sec. IV, parameter ranges and Eq. (28)–(29)] The residual entropy −ξ/6 is negative whenever ξ > 0. The allowed Horndeski parameter ranges stated in Sec. IV (−∞<β0≤−1 with α,γ<0, or −1≤β0<0 with α,γ>0) do not force ξ to be negative. Since entanglement entropy is non-negative by definition, the claim that −ξ/6 counts microstates or is a physical entropy is incompatible with the parameter ranges. No sign constraint or alternative interpretation is provided. This is a load-bearing issue because the central conclusion that SBH→−ξ/6 is a 'minimal information content' loses meaning if the quantity is negative.
  5. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (19)–(25)] The Page-time and Page-angle formulas, the island area, and the HM entropy are quoted from Ref. [12] without derivation, and the paper explicitly labels the plots as 'extracted and adapted from [12]'. Since the novelty is claimed to be the interpretation rather than the computation, this would be acceptable if the interpretation were self-contained. However, the interpretation rests on the erroneous limit of Sec. III, and the time-dependent part does not provide a new derivation that would correct or support that limit. The linear growth Sbulk → χt/β is the standard Hartman–Maldacena result with a modified coefficient; no new mechanism is derived.
minor comments (6)
  1. [General] The manuscript contains many typographical and grammatical errors, e.g., 'we probe that' instead of 'we prove/show', 'Lboudnary' for 'boundary', 'DA T A' in the data availability heading, and repeated sentences in the conclusion.
  2. [Eq. (11)] The term '−7π2L3ξ T2' appears to be missing a factor or parenthesis; it is not consistent with the surrounding terms. Please check the transcription from Ref. [12].
  3. [Eq. (24) and surrounding text] Equation (24) is empty, and the notation t ≲ L in Eq. (31) uses L without a clear definition; in view of the earlier definition of L as the subsystem size, the inequality should be stated in dimensionless terms.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'a fundamental challenge in theoretical physics' is vague; the introduction would benefit from a precise statement of the information loss paradox and the role of the Page curve.
  5. [References] Some references are incomplete or non-standard, e.g., Refs. [45] and [46] are Quantamagazine articles without authors or years, and Ref. [18] lists an unusually long author list without a title.
  6. [Sec. II] The 'Methodological Route and Achievements' section is more of a summary than a method; it repeats the abstract and does not state a falsifiable prediction. Please rephrase to describe the actual method.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Residual entropy −ξ/6 is a direct limit of the quoted entropy formula; the central microstate claim rests on this tautological corollary.

  1. self definitional [Sec. III, paragraph after Eq. (12); also Conclusion]
    "In the limit T → 0 with the unitarity parameterL → 1, the black hole entropy approaches its minimal value, SBH = −ξ/6. This minimal entropy reflects the residual information content of the black hole, even at zero temperature, and is consistent with the holographic principle [32]."

    The value SBH = −ξ/6 is obtained by substituting T=0 and L=1 into the quoted entropy formula (11), whose final term is −ξL/6. Thus the 'prediction' is a direct evaluation of an input formula, not an independent computation. The paper then uses boundary formulas (26)-(29) to get the same −ξ/6 and treats the agreement as physical evidence, but both quantities descend from the same boundary Lagrangian (7). The claimed minimal entropy is therefore equivalent, by construction, to a term already present in the model.

full rationale

The paper transparently states that it re-derives results from the author's prior work [12] and [32], but the central 'minimal entropy' claim is not an independent derivation. Eq. (11) already contains the boundary term −ξL/6; taking the limit T→0, L=1 merely reads off that term. The subsequent use of the same value in the boundary-entropy formulas (26)-(29) and in the conclusion (SA→−ξ/6 and SBH→−ξ/6) is a consistency check between two expressions that both originate from the same boundary Lagrangian, so the agreement is by construction rather than a physical test. The microstate/firewall interpretation is asserted rather than derived, and the 'unitarity parameter' L is undefined beyond the earlier identification of L as subsystem size in Eq. (1); those are correctness/assumption issues. The linear-growth result, by contrast, is the Hartman-Maldacena result [13] with a Horndeski-dependent coefficient χ, and is externally based, so it does not contribute to circularity. On balance, the paper's central residual-entropy prediction reduces to a term already present in its input formula, warranting a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the holographic dictionary applied to Horndeski gravity, on the quoted black string solution, on the state-dependence assumption, and on an unexplained limit L→1. The free parameters are combinations of Horndeski couplings plus the undefined L; none are fixed by external data.

free parameters (3)
  • ξ = -(α/2 + γΛ)/α
    Combination of Horndeski couplings α, γ, Λ. It sets the residual entropy -ξ/6 and appears in the boundary entropy formulas. Not fitted to data; chosen by hand.
  • β0 = α/(γΛ)
    Ratio of Horndeski parameters controlling χ and ω in the entanglement entropy expressions. Chosen in ranges -∞ < β0 ≤ -1 or -1 ≤ β0 < 0.
  • L = 1
    Called the unitarity parameter; set to 1 without definition to obtain SBH = -ξ/6.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The AdS/CFT and AdS/BCFT dictionaries, including the Ryu-Takayanagi formula and the island prescription, remain valid in Horndeski gravity.
    The entropy computations in Sec. IV assume the holographic entanglement entropy formula S = area/4GN and the island rule without derivation.
  • domain assumption The black string metric, Eq. (13), with a KR brane at constant u is a valid Horndeski gravity solution.
    Quoted from [12]; no verification is given in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper State dependence resolves the firewall paradox and maps a subset of CFT microstates to smooth interiors.
    Sec. III uses this as a premise to interpret the minimal entropy; it is asserted, not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The T→0 limit with L→1 of Eq. (11) yields a physical entropy.
    The limit is introduced to define the residual entropy; L is undefined and the limit is not justified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the Black Hole Interior with Holographic Entanglement Entropy and the Role of AdS/BCFT Correspondence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4QSLCGLD

@misc{pith2026250821224,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the Black Hole Interior with Holographic Entanglement Entropy and the Role of AdS/BCFT Correspondence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4QSLCGLD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21224}
}
read the original abstract

This work explores the black hole information loss paradox, a fundamental challenge in theoretical physics. It proposes insights using Holographic Entanglement Entropy (HEE) and the AdS/BCFT correspondence within Horndeski gravity. The work revisits the time-dependent behavior of HEE to probe black hole interiors and examines its implications for the Page curve, which describes the entropy evolution of Hawking radiation. It also discusses the relationship between conformal field theory (CFT) microstates and black hole thermodynamics through the AdS/BCFT correspondence, suggesting that only a subset of microstates corresponds to black holes with smooth interiors, while others may involve firewalls. The study extends black hole thermal entropy to time-dependent entanglement entropy, offering a perspective on the interplay between quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and gravity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21224 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Classical entropy has reached its maximum. The interior of a black hole can continue to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The construction of the Double Holographic Model shows that the island is connected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The entropy rises due to the increasing entanglement between Hawking quanta. After [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: In the left side, we have the AdS bulk represented as a circular region. The black hole is located in the center of the bulk. The BCFT resides on the boundary of the AdS space. In the right side, we have the Penrose diagram with Hawking Radiation: the Penrose diagram s…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: AdS/CFT correspondence with boundary hypersurface. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic representation of the black string. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The Page time tP age (Extracted and adapted from [12]) for various values of γ and fixed α = −8/3. The points where the Page angle gives the tensionless brane ρ = 0 are those where the parameter γ is furthest from zero. The fact that γ is far from its null value shows …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The evolution of the density of the Page angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Building an AdS/BCFT Josephson junction within Horndeski gravity

    hep-th 2025-10 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    AdS/BCFT with Horndeski gravity is claimed to yield Josephson junctions whose phase and current depend on the Horndeski couplings, but the condensate and critical temperature are put in by hand.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [12]

    F. F. Santos, B. Pourhassan, E. N. Saridakis, O. Sokoliuk, A. Baransky and E. O. Kahya, Holographic boundary conformal field theory within Horndeski gravity , JHEP 12, 217 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2024)217 [arXiv:2410.18781 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [32]

    F. F. Santos, E. F. Capossoli and H. Boschi-Filho, AdS/BCFT correspondence and BTZ black hole thermodynamics within Horndeski gravity , Phys. Rev. D 104, no.6, 066014 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.066014 [arXiv:2105.03802 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [1]

    S. W. Hawking, Particle Creation by Black Holes ,’ Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199-220 (1975) [erratum: Commun. Math. Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    work page 1975

  4. [2]

    S. W. Hawking, Breakdown of Predictability in Gravitational Collapse, Phys. Rev. D 14, 2460- 2473 (1976)

    work page 1976

  5. [3]

    Susskind, Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons, Fortsch

    L. Susskind, Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons, Fortsch. Phys. 64, 24-43 (2016) [arXiv:1402.5674 [hep-th]]; (Addendum) ibid. 44-48 [arXiv:1403.5695 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [4]

    A. R. Brown, D. A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle and Y. Zhao, Holographic Complexity Equals Bulk Action? , Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no.19, 191301 (2016) [arXiv:1509.07876 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [5]

    Lloyd, Ultimate physical limits to computation , Nature 406, 1047-1054 (2000)

    S. Lloyd, Ultimate physical limits to computation , Nature 406, 1047-1054 (2000)

    work page 2000

  8. [6]

    A. R. Brown, D. A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle and Y. Zhao, Complexity, action, and black holes , Phys. Rev. D 93, no.8, 086006 (2016) [arXiv:1512.04993 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 54 references
  1. [7]

    Susskind, Black Holes and Complexity Classes , [arXiv:1802.02175 [hep-th]]

    L. Susskind, Black Holes and Complexity Classes , [arXiv:1802.02175 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  2. [8]

    A. R. Brown, H. Gharibyan, H. W. Lin, L. Susskind, L. Thorlacius and Y. Zhao, Complexity of Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.4, 046016 (2019) [arXiv:1810.08741 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [9]

    A. R. Brown and L. Susskind, Second law of quantum complexity , Phys. Rev. D 97, no.8, 086015 (2018) [arXiv:1701.01107 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [10]

    A. R. Brown and L. Susskind, Complexity geometry of a single qubit , Phys. Rev. D 100, no.4, 046020 (2019) [arXiv:1903.12621 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [11]

    A. R. Brown and L. Susskind, holographic wormhole traversed in a quantum computer, Nature 612, no.7938, 41-42 (2022)

    2022

  6. [13]

    Hartman and J

    T. Hartman and J. Maldacena, Time Evolution of Entanglement Entropy from Black Hole Interiors, JHEP 05, 014 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2013)014 [arXiv:1303.1080 [hep-th]]. 19

    2013 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Engelhardt and A

    N. Engelhardt and A. C. Wall, Quantum Extremal Surfaces: Holographic Entanglement En- tropy beyond the Classical Regime , JHEP 01, 073 (2015) [arXiv:1408.3203 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Almheiri, R

    A. Almheiri, R. Mahajan and J. E. Santos, Entanglement islands in higher dimensions, SciPost Phys. 9, no.1, 001 (2020) [arXiv:1911.09666 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Susskind, Copenhagen vs Everett, Teleportation, and ER=EPR , Fortsch

    L. Susskind, Copenhagen vs Everett, Teleportation, and ER=EPR , Fortsch. Phys. 64, no.6-7, 551-564 (2016) doi:10.1002/prop.201600036 [arXiv:1604.02589 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Susskind, ER=EPR, GHZ, and the consistency of quantum measurements , Fortsch

    L. Susskind, ER=EPR, GHZ, and the consistency of quantum measurements , Fortsch. Phys. 64, 72-83 (2016) doi:10.1002/prop.201500094 [arXiv:1412.8483 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Farahani, J

    H. Farahani, J. Maldacena, L. M. Krauss, S. Upadhyay, S. Mamedov, L. G. Wang, J. Zhang, S. E. San, S. Masood and S. S. Wani, et al. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Holography and its Applications (ICHA3 2024) , doi:10.22128/jhap.2024.003.0012

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    H. Geng, A. Karch, C. Perez-Pardavila, S. Raju, L. Randall, M. Riojas and S. Shashi, En- tanglement phase structure of a holographic BCFT in a black hole background , JHEP 05, 153 (2022) [arXiv:2112.09132 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Geng, Revisiting Recent Progress in the Karch-Randall Braneworld, [arXiv:2306.15671 [hep- th]]

    H. Geng, Revisiting Recent Progress in the Karch-Randall Braneworld, [arXiv:2306.15671 [hep- th]]

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    H. Geng, A. Karch, C. Perez-Pardavila, S. Raju, L. Randall, M. Riojas and S. Shashi, Incon- sistency of islands in theories with long-range gravity , JHEP 01, 182 (2022) [arXiv:2107.03390 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Geng, Graviton Mass and Entanglement Islands in Low Spacetime Dimensions , [arXiv:2312.13336 [hep-th]]

    H. Geng, Graviton Mass and Entanglement Islands in Low Spacetime Dimensions , [arXiv:2312.13336 [hep-th]]

  16. [24]

    H. Geng, L. Randall and E. Swanson, BCFT in a black hole background: an analytical holo- graphic model, JHEP 12, 056 (2022) [arXiv:2209.02074 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ryu and T

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT , Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 181602 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0603001 [hep-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  18. [26]

    V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani and T. Takayanagi, A Covariant holographic entanglement entropy proposal, JHEP 07, 062 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/07/062 [arXiv:0705.0016 [hep-th]]. 20

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    V. E. Hubeny, Extremal surfaces as bulk probes in AdS/CFT , JHEP 07, 093 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012)093 [arXiv:1203.1044 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Abajo-Arrastia, J

    J. Abajo-Arrastia, J. Aparicio and E. Lopez, Holographic Evolution of Entanglement Entropy, JHEP 11, 149 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2010)149 [arXiv:1006.4090 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    D. Basu, H. Chourasiya, V. Raj and G. Sengupta, Reflected entropy in a BCFT on a black hole background, JHEP 05, 054 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)054 [arXiv:2311.17023 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Takayanagi, Holographic Dual of BCFT, Phys

    T. Takayanagi, Holographic Dual of BCFT, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 101602 (2011), [arXiv:1105.5165 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [31]

    F. F. Santos and H. Boschi-Filho, Geometric Josephson junction , JHEP 01, 135 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2025)135 [arXiv:2407.10008 [hep-th]]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [33]

    F. F. Santos, M. Bravo-Gaete, O. Sokoliuk and A. Baransky, AdS/BCFT correspondence and Horndeski gravity in the presence of gauge fields: holographic paramagnetism/ferromagnetism phase transition, [arXiv:2301.03121 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  25. [34]

    F. F. Santos, M. Bravo-Gaete, M. M. Ferreira and R. Casana, Magnetized AdS/BCFT Correspondence in Horndeski Gravity , Fortsch. Phys. 72, no.7-8, 2400088 (2024) doi:10.1002/prop.202400088 [arXiv:2310.17092 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [35]

    F. F. Santos and H. Boschi-Filho, Holographic complexity and residual entropy of a rotating charged BTZ black hole within Horndeski gravity , [arXiv:2407.10004 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  27. [36]

    S. Haco, S. W. Hawking, M. J. Perry and A. Strominger, Black Hole Entropy and Soft Hair , JHEP 12, 098 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2018)098 [arXiv:1810.01847 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [37]

    S. Haco, M. J. Perry and A. Strominger, Kerr-Newman Black Hole Entropy and Soft Hair , [arXiv:1902.02247 [hep-th]]

    1902 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Haco, Large Gauge Transformations and Black Hole Entropy , doi:10.17863/CAM.48185

    S. Haco, Large Gauge Transformations and Black Hole Entropy , doi:10.17863/CAM.48185

    doi

  30. [39]

    S. W. Hawking, The Information Paradox for Black Holes , [arXiv:1509.01147 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  31. [40]

    Calmet and S

    X. Calmet and S. D. H. Hsu, A brief history of Hawking’s information paradox , EPL 139, no.4, 49001 (2022) doi:10.1209/0295-5075/ac81e8 [arXiv:2207.08671 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [41]

    J. M. Maldacena, The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity , Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38, 1113 (1999) [Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998)] [hep-th/9711200]. 21

    1999 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Witten, Anti-de Sitter space and holography , Adv

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

    1998 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation

    EINSTEIN, A. Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation. Sitzungsberiche der K¨ oniglich Preufischen Akad. der Wissenschaften, pp. 844-847 (1915)

    1915

  35. [44]

    Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativit¨ atstheorie

    EINSTEIN, A. Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativit¨ atstheorie. Ann. Phys., v. 354, pp. 769-822 (1916)

    1916

  36. [45]

    Quantamagazine,

    The Most Famous Paradox in Physics Nears Its End. Quantamagazine,

  37. [46]

    Quantamagazine,

    Can Information Escape a Black Hole?. Quantamagazine,

  38. [47]

    Karch and L

    A. Karch and L. Randall, Locally localized gravity, JHEP 05, 008 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0011156 [hep-th]]

    2001 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, An Alternative to compactification , Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4690- 4693 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9906064 [hep-th]]

    1999 arXiv

  40. [49]

    F. A. Brito and F. F. Santos, Braneworlds in Horndeski gravity , Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, no.9, 1051 (2022) [arXiv:1810.08196 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [50]

    F. F. Santos, B. Pourhassan and E. Saridakis, de Sitter versus anti-de Sitter in Horndeski-like gravity, Fortsch. Phys. 72, no.3, 2300228 (2024) [arXiv:2305.05794 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Faulkner, M

    T. Faulkner, M. Guica, T. Hartman, R. C. Myers and M. Van Raamsdonk, Gravitation from Entanglement in Holographic CFTs, JHEP 03, 051 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2014)051 [arXiv:1312.7856 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Maldacena, S

    J. Maldacena, S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, A bound on chaos , JHEP 08, 106 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)106 [arXiv:1503.01409 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Almheiri, D

    A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski, D. Stanford and J. Sully, An Apologia for Firewalls , JHEP 09, 018 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2013)018 [arXiv:1304.6483 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Almheiri, T

    A. Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghoulian and A. Tajdini, The entropy of Hawk- ing radiation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, no.3, 035002 (2021) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.93.035002 [arXiv:2006.06872 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [55]

    X. Dong, X. L. Qi, Z. Shangnan and Z. Yang, Effective entropy of quantum fields coupled with gravity, JHEP 10, 052 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2020)052 [arXiv:2007.02987 [hep-th]]. 22

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.