Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 3 cited by

Renormalization fixes the imaginary part of the de Sitter wavefunction at all loops from its scale dependence alone.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-15 12:25 UTC pith:4SUGYVN4

load-bearing objection Manuscript mismatch: abstract is photonic QML/MMD training; supplied full text is an unrelated de Sitter wavefunction paper, so the central claim cannot be checked. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.08793 v2 pith:4SUGYVN4 submitted 2026-03-09 quant-ph

Efficient training of photonic quantum generative models

Felix Gottlieb , Chayma Faraji , Rawad Mezher , Brian Ventura , Shane Mansfield , Alexia Salavrakos This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords de Sitter wavefunctionrenormalizationcosmological correlatorsquantum anomalyall-loop relationsBunch-Davies vacuumdilation isometry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper shows that for shift-symmetric scalars in de Sitter space, renormalization forces a precise link between the real and imaginary parts of the cosmological wavefunction to every order in the loop expansion. At tree level the wavefunction is purely real; loops produce an imaginary piece that is completely determined by how the real part depends on the renormalization scale. The relation follows from unitarity, locality, the dilation isometry of de Sitter, and the Bunch-Davies vacuum, and it holds for light fields with soft infrared interactions. Because the imaginary part enters correlators of fields and their conjugate momenta, the same relation produces an infinite family of identities among those observables. The result turns what looks like an ultraviolet ambiguity into a universal constraint that organizes the entire perturbative expansion of the wavefunction.

Core claim

The renormalized de Sitter wavefunction coefficients of massless fields obey Im bψ_n = tan(π/2 µ∂_µ) Re bψ_n to all loop orders. Equivalently, at any finite loop order L the coefficients take the universal form of a finite sum of real kinematic functions times (log(µ/H) + iπ/2)^ℓ. This imaginary part is therefore fixed solely by the renormalization-scale dependence of the real part.

What carries the argument

The operator identity Im bψ_n = tan(π/2 µ∂_µ) Re bψ_n, which converts any logarithmic dependence on the renormalization scale µ into the corresponding imaginary contribution required by unitarity and the Bunch-Davies condition.

Load-bearing premise

The theories must remain infrared-finite for light fields with sufficiently soft interactions so that the only source of imaginary parts is the renormalization of ultraviolet divergences.

What would settle it

An explicit two-loop (or higher) calculation of a wavefunction coefficient for a massless scalar with soft interactions that is free of infrared divergences, yet whose imaginary part fails to equal tan(π/2 µ∂_µ) acting on its real part.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The submission under review is identified as arXiv:2603.08793, whose abstract claims an efficient classical training procedure for photon-native quantum generative models based on maximum mean discrepancy (MMD), exploiting intermediate-complexity structure of quantum linear optics so that training is classically efficient while deployment corresponds to boson sampling, together with numerical results, proposed datasets, and studies of initialization, kernels, and ansätze. The full manuscript text supplied with the review package is, however, an entirely different paper (All-Loop Renormalization and the Phase of the de Sitter Wavefunction, arXiv:2603.08794), which derives an all-loop relation Im ψ̂_n = tan(π/2 μ∂_μ) Re ψ̂_n for renormalized de Sitter wavefunction coefficients of massless fields and discusses implications for correlators. None of the photonic constructions, complexity arguments, MMD training procedure, datasets, or numerical experiments promised by the abstract of 2603.08793 appear in the provided full text.

Significance. If the abstract claims of 2603.08793 were substantiated—i.e., a rigorous demonstration that MMD objectives (or gradients) for linear-optical circuits are classically poly-time while sampling remains hard, plus reproducible numerics—they would be a meaningful contribution to train-on-classical/deploy-on-quantum generative models and photonic QML. That significance cannot be assessed from the supplied manuscript, which contains no photonic generative-model content. Separately, the de Sitter paper that was actually provided would, if under review, be a theoretically interesting all-loop constraint from unitarity, locality, dilation, and Bunch-Davies; but that is not the paper named in the review request.

major comments (3)
  1. Manuscript identity mismatch: the review package labels the work as 2603.08793 (photonic quantum generative models / MMD / boson sampling) but the full text is 2603.08794 (all-loop renormalization of the de Sitter wavefunction). No section, equation, figure, or appendix of the supplied text addresses quantum linear optics, MMD training, intermediate-complexity circuits, or boson sampling. The central claim of the paper under review is therefore uncheckable.
  2. Load-bearing intermediate-complexity claim (abstract of 2603.08793): classical efficiency of MMD evaluation/gradients over linear-optical circuits while sampling remains hard is asserted but nowhere derived in the provided text. There is no complexity statement, no regime of photon number/modes, no reduction to permanent estimation or known simulable fragments, and no comparison to hardness results. Without that derivation the train-on-classical/deploy-on-quantum separation is unsupported.
  3. Missing empirical content promised by the abstract: numerical results, proposed datasets, and ablations of initialization, kernel, and ansatz choice are not present in the supplied manuscript. No tables, error bars, or training curves can be inspected.
minor comments (2)
  1. If the de Sitter manuscript (2603.08794) was the intended submission, its presentation is largely clear; residual presentation issues (e.g., equation numbering continuity across the excerpt, figure/diagram placeholders in the appendix) would be minor and secondary to the identity mismatch.
  2. The abstract of 2603.08793 should, in any resubmission, state the precise photon-number and mode regime in which classical MMD training is claimed to be efficient.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation chain is inspectable for the claimed photonic QLO+MMD result; supplied full text is an unrelated cosmology paper.

full rationale

The target abstract (arXiv:2603.08793) proposes an efficient classical MMD training procedure for photon-native generative models whose deployment is boson sampling, plus numerical exploration of initialization, kernels, and ansatze. That is a methods-and-numerics claim, not a first-principles prediction forced by redefining a fitted quantity. The CACHEABLE full manuscript text, however, is an entirely different paper (All-Loop Renormalization and the Phase of the de Sitter Wavefunction, arXiv:2603.08794) containing none of the linear-optical circuits, MMD objectives, complexity arguments, or training results. With no derivation equations, no complexity reduction, and no fitted-parameter-as-prediction steps present for 2603.08793, no self-definitional, fitted-input, or load-bearing self-citation circularity can be exhibited by quote. Residual risk that training success is scored by the same MMD objective used to train is ordinary generative-model practice and does not meet the bar for circularity under the stated rules. Score 0; steps empty.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review of a methods paper. Load-bearing premises are domain assumptions about intermediate complexity of linear optics, classical efficiency of MMD training estimates, and hardness of boson sampling at deployment. No free parameters or invented physical entities can be extracted from the abstract; none are fitted constants in the usual theory sense.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Quantum linear optics has intermediate-complexity structure: training-related quantities can be simulated classically efficiently while sampling generally requires quantum hardware (boson sampling).
    Stated as the enabling analogy for the proposed train-on-classical, deploy-on-quantum procedure.
  • domain assumption Maximum mean discrepancy is a suitable training objective for photon-native quantum generative models.
    Abstract bases the efficient training procedure on MMD without further justification available here.
  • domain assumption Deployment of the trained model corresponds to the boson sampling task.
    Core mapping claimed in the abstract between generative sampling and boson sampling.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 11855 in / 2169 out tokens · 23719 ms · 2026-07-15T12:25:00.135265+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The topic of generative learning has gained traction within the field of quantum machine learning, in particular with the advent of train-on-classical, deploy-on-quantum methods. This approach exploits the properties of intermediate-complexity circuits whose training can be simulated classically efficiently, but that generally require quantum hardware for the corresponding sampling problem. Quantum linear optics possess similar properties, which allow us to propose an efficient training procedure for photon-native quantum generative models based on the maximum mean discrepancy, where the deployment of the model corresponds to the task of boson sampling. We provide numerical results, propose datasets, and we also explore how initialization strategies, kernel and ansatz choice affect the training.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Quantum Fourier Generative Models Trainable at Large Scale

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Quantum Fourier generative models are trained classically at over 1000-qubit scale using log-likelihood loss from Parseval's identity and deployed on superconducting hardware for fast sampling that preserves multi-mod...

  2. Spectral Born machines: classically trainable quantum generative models for discrete data

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Spectral Born machines are Fourier-phase quantum generative models over Z_d^n that train classically via graph-spectral MMD and show reduced parameters plus apparent overfitting resistance on integer data.

  3. Qudit extension of parameterized IQP circuits: A generative quantum machine learning approach to integer data

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Qudit extension of parameterized IQP circuits proposed for generative modeling of integer data, with loss function and covariance matrix, validated on electron shower energy deposits in CLIC electromagnetic calorimeter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    + + + + + (1↔2) + (1↔3) # +O(λ 4) (B8) while ibC3(p1,p 2;p 3) = + + + + +

    and understood more generally as a consequence of Weyl anomaly [4] and renormalization [7]. A remarkable finding of [7] was that given any regulators compatible with unitarity, the imaginary part at one-loop is tied to the logarithmic renormalization scale dependence, and is therefore universal. This suggest deeper implications for the RG structure of cos...

    arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Baume, B

    F. Baume, B. Keren-Zur, R. Rattazzi, and L. Vi- tale, Journal of High Energy Physics2014, 10.1007/jhep08(2014)152 (2014)

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2014)152 2014

  3. [3]

    T. Liu, X. Tong, Y. Wang, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP04, 189, arXiv:1909.01819 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1909

  4. [4]

    Cabass, S

    G. Cabass, S. Jazayeri, E. Pajer, and D. Stefanyszyn, JHEP02, 021, arXiv:2210.02907 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    Goodhew, A

    H. Goodhew, A. Thavanesan, and A. C. Wall, (2024), arXiv:2408.17406 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Thavanesan, (2025), arXiv:2501.06383 [hep-th]

    A. Thavanesan, (2025), arXiv:2501.06383 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    M. H. G. Lee, C. McCulloch, and E. Pajer, JHEP11, 038, arXiv:2305.11228 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    D. Jain, E. Pajer, and X. Tong, (2025), arXiv:2509.02696 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Nucl. Phys. B474, 235 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9602315

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  10. [10]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D72, 043514 (2005), arXiv:hep- th/0506236. 9

    arXiv 2005

  11. [11]

    Marolf and I

    D. Marolf and I. A. Morrison, Phys. Rev. D82, 105032 (2010), arXiv:1006.0035 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  12. [12]

    Krotov and A

    D. Krotov and A. M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B849, 410 (2011), arXiv:1012.2107 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  13. [13]

    J. Bros, H. Epstein, and U. Moschella, JCAP02, 003, arXiv:hep-th/0612184

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Senatore and M

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, JHEP12, 008, arXiv:0912.2734 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Marolf and I

    D. Marolf and I. A. Morrison, Phys. Rev. D84, 044040 (2011), arXiv:1010.5327 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  16. [16]

    D. P. Jatkar, L. Leblond, and A. Rajaraman, Phys. Rev. D85, 024047 (2012), arXiv:1107.3513 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  17. [17]

    G. L. Pimentel, L. Senatore, and M. Zaldarriaga, JHEP 07, 166, arXiv:1203.6651 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    Green and A

    D. Green and A. Premkumar, JHEP04, 064, arXiv:2001.05974 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  19. [19]

    Cohen and D

    T. Cohen and D. Green, JHEP12, 041, arXiv:2007.03693 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  20. [20]

    Di Pietro, V

    L. Di Pietro, V. Gorbenko, and S. Komatsu, (2023), arXiv:2312.17195 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Heckelbacher, I

    T. Heckelbacher, I. Sachs, E. Skvortsov, and P. Vanhove, JHEP08, 139, arXiv:2204.07217 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    Chowdhury and K

    C. Chowdhury and K. Singh, JHEP12, 109, arXiv:2305.18529 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Green and K

    D. Green and K. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D112, 043526 (2025), arXiv:2410.11973 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Huenupi, E

    J. Huenupi, E. Hughes, G. A. Palma, and S. Sypsas, (2024), arXiv:2412.01891 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Huenupi, E

    J. Huenupi, E. Hughes, G. A. Palma, and S. Sypsas, Phys. Rev. D110, 123536 (2024), arXiv:2406.07610 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    G. A. Palma, S. Sypsas, and D. Tapia, (2025), arXiv:2507.21310 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Benincasa, G

    P. Benincasa, G. Brunello, M. K. Mandal, P. Mastro- lia, and F. Vaz˜ ao, Phys. Rev. D111, 085016 (2025), arXiv:2408.16386 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Braglia and L

    M. Braglia and L. Pinol, (2025), arXiv:2504.07926 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Nowinski and I

    M. Nowinski and I. Sachs, (2025), arXiv:2507.21224 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Bhowmick, D

    S. Bhowmick, D. Ghosh, and F. Ullah, JHEP10, 057, arXiv:2405.10374 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    Bhowmick, M

    S. Bhowmick, M. H. G. Lee, D. Ghosh, and F. Ullah, JHEP02, 116, arXiv:2503.21880 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Chowdhury, A

    C. Chowdhury, A. Lipstein, J. Mei, I. Sachs, and P. Van- hove, JHEP03, 007, arXiv:2312.13803 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Chowdhury, P

    C. Chowdhury, P. Chowdhury, R. N. Moga, and K. Singh, JHEP10, 202, arXiv:2408.00074 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    Premkumar, Phys

    A. Premkumar, Phys. Rev. D109, 045003 (2024), arXiv:2110.12504 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Melville and E

    S. Melville and E. Pajer, JHEP05, 249, arXiv:2103.09832 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    C´ espedes, A.-C

    S. C´ espedes, A.-C. Davis, and D.-G. Wang, JHEP04, 004, arXiv:2311.17990 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Qin and Z.-Z

    Z. Qin and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP09, 116, arXiv:2304.13295 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Qin and Z.-Z

    Z. Qin and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP01, 168, arXiv:2308.14802 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    Qin, JHEP03, 051, arXiv:2411.13636 [hep-th]

    Z. Qin, JHEP03, 051, arXiv:2411.13636 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    H. Liu, Z. Qin, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP02, 101, arXiv:2407.12299 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Baumann, H

    D. Baumann, H. Goodhew, and H. Lee, JHEP07, 131, arXiv:2410.17994 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    Ansari, S

    E. Ansari, S. Bhowmick, and D. Ghosh, (2025), arXiv:2512.11040 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    G. L. Pimentel and T. Westerdijk, (2026), arXiv:2601.00952 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    Gr¨ afe and I

    J. Gr¨ afe and I. Sachs, (2026), arXiv:2602.09977 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    Chowdhury, S

    C. Chowdhury, S. Jazayeri, A. Lipstein, J. Marshall, J. Mei, and I. Sachs, (2026), arXiv:2602.03841 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    X. Chen, Y. Wang, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP08, 051, arXiv:1604.07841 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Wang, Z.-Z

    L.-T. Wang, Z.-Z. Xianyu, and Y.-M. Zhong, JHEP02, 085, arXiv:2109.14635 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    Xianyu and H

    Z.-Z. Xianyu and H. Zhang, JHEP04, 103, arXiv:2211.03810 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    Bodas, E

    A. Bodas, E. Broadberry, R. Sundrum, and Z. Xu, (2025), arXiv:2507.22978 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Kristiano and J

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D109, 103541 (2024), arXiv:2303.00341 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Firouzjahi and A

    H. Firouzjahi and A. Riotto, JCAP02, 021, arXiv:2304.07801 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    Beneke, P

    M. Beneke, P. Hager, and A. F. Sanfilippo, JHEP04, 006, arXiv:2312.06766 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [53]

    Fumagalli, JHEP05, 162, arXiv:2305.19263 [astro- ph.CO]

    J. Fumagalli, JHEP05, 162, arXiv:2305.19263 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    Choudhury, S

    S. Choudhury, S. Panda, and M. Sami, JCAP11, 066, arXiv:2303.06066 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  55. [55]

    Firouzjahi, JCAP10, 006, arXiv:2303.12025 [astro- ph.CO]

    H. Firouzjahi, JCAP10, 006, arXiv:2303.12025 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    Frolovsky and S

    D. Frolovsky and S. V. Ketov, Phys. Rev. D111, 083533 (2025), arXiv:2502.00628 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Inomata, Phys

    K. Inomata, Phys. Rev. D111, 103504 (2025), arXiv:2502.08707 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Fang, Z.-H

    C.-J. Fang, Z.-H. Lyu, C. Chen, and Z.-K. Guo, Phys. Rev. D112, 023547 (2025), arXiv:2502.09555 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Inomata, Phys

    K. Inomata, Phys. Rev. D111, 123517 (2025), arXiv:2502.12112 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Braglia and L

    M. Braglia and L. Pinol, (2025), arXiv:2504.13136 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Y. Ema, M. Hong, R. Jinno, and K. Mukaida, (2025), arXiv:2506.15780 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    D. Wang, X. Wang, Y. Wang, and W. Yu, (2025), arXiv:2508.12856 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Maru and A

    N. Maru and A. Okawa, (2021), arXiv:2101.10634 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  64. [64]

    X. Niu, M. H. Rahat, K. Srinivasan, and W. Xue, JCAP 05, 018, arXiv:2211.14324 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  65. [65]

    Fujita, T

    T. Fujita, T. Murata, I. Obata, and M. Shiraishi, JCAP 05, 127, arXiv:2310.03551 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  66. [66]

    Reinhard, Z

    M. Reinhard, Z. Slepian, J. Hou, and A. Greco, (2024), arXiv:2412.16037 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Garcia-Saenz, Y

    S. Garcia-Saenz, Y. Lu, and S. Renaux-Petel, (2025), arXiv:2503.18516 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Caron-Huot and M

    S. Caron-Huot and M. Wilhelm, Journal of High Energy Physics2016, 10.1007/jhep12(2016)010 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2016)010 2016

  69. [69]

    Chavda, D

    A. Chavda, D. McLoughlin, S. Mizera, and J. Staunton, (2025), arXiv:2510.25822 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Chavda, D

    A. Chavda, D. McLoughlin, S. Mizera, and J. Staunton, (2025), arXiv:2511.10613 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    J. M. Maldacena, JHEP05, 013, arXiv:astro- ph/0210603

    arXiv

  72. [72]

    Anninos, T

    D. Anninos, T. Anous, D. Z. Freedman, and G. Konstan- tinidis, JCAP11, 048, arXiv:1406.5490 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  73. [73]

    Sleight and M

    C. Sleight and M. Taronna, Phys. Rev. D104, L081902 (2021), arXiv:2007.09993 [hep-th]. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  74. [74]

    Harlow and D

    D. Harlow and D. Stanford, (2011), arXiv:1104.2621 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  75. [75]

    Bzowski, P

    A. Bzowski, P. McFadden, and K. Skenderis, (2023), arXiv:2312.17316 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    McFadden and K

    P. McFadden and K. Skenderis, Phys. Rev. D81, 021301 (2010), arXiv:0907.5542 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  77. [77]

    Kontsevich and G

    M. Kontsevich and G. Segal, Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. 72, 673 (2021), arXiv:2105.10161 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  78. [78]

    Witten, (2021), arXiv:2111.06514 [hep-th]

    E. Witten, (2021), arXiv:2111.06514 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  79. [79]

    Stefanyszyn, X

    D. Stefanyszyn, X. Tong, and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 221501 (2024), arXiv:2406.00099 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    S. A. Salcedo, M. H. G. Lee, S. Melville, and E. Pajer, JHEP06, 020, arXiv:2212.08009 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

Showing first 80 references.