Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 76 references

Probe-wave chaos grows as BPS microstate geometries approach black holes; geodesic chaos shrinks.

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

2026-07-12 02:29 UTC pith:VZRHFCVR

load-bearing objection Solid numerical hierarchy of Berry-wave vs geodesic chaos across BPS geometries; the stable-orbit explanation is plausible but uncounted, and the CFT half is provisional. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03434 v1 pith:VZRHFCVR submitted 2026-07-03 hep-th gr-qcnlin.CD

Berry Picking: Random Wave Chaos Hierarchy for BPS Microstate Geometries

Vladan Djuki\'c , Milica Stepanovi\'c , Mihailo \v{C}ubrovi\'c This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qcnlin.CD
keywords BPS microstate geometriesBerry random wavewave chaosgeodesic chaossuperstrataLLM geometriesAdS throatRényi entropy
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.

The paper asks whether smooth supersymmetric microstate geometries become more chaotic as they look more like black holes. It places massless scalar waves and null geodesics into a sequence of backgrounds (LLM geometries, two-charge and three-charge supertubes, superstrata) that successively lower supersymmetry or lengthen the interior AdS throat. Wave eigenfunctions move steadily closer to the Berry random-wave correlator and the Porter–Thomas intensity law, so bulk wave chaos strengthens. Geodesic Poincaré sections move the other way: the motion becomes more regular. The authors attribute the split to stable periodic orbits that proliferate inside long throats even while the measure of KAM tori shrinks; waves, being nonlocal, still register the growing chaotic sea, while geodesics linger on the local regular orbits. Weak-coupling Rényi (Shannon and participation) entropies of the dual CFT coherent states show no matching universal hierarchy—they depend on the detailed strand content of each state. The paper therefore concludes that the BPS chaos hierarchy is different in the bulk and on the boundary, and that neither version can be read off as a simple proxy for true black-hole chaos.

Core claim

In the ordered family LLM → 2-charge supertubes → 3-charge supertubes/superstrata, massless scalar waves become more Berry-random (stronger chaos) as supersymmetry falls and the AdS throat lengthens, while null geodesics become more regular; the opposite trends are explained by an increasing population of stable periodic orbits inside long throats whose measure remains zero for the waves but dominates local geodesic motion.

What carries the argument

Berry random-wave hypothesis: the two-point correlator of a chaotic eigenfunction is the Bessel function of the mean wave-number, and the intensity histogram is the Porter–Thomas law; deviations diagnose residual KAM structure or caustics from stable periodic orbits.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that weak-coupling CFT Rényi entropies can only grow (never shrink) when the theory is driven to strong coupling, so they supply a lower bound on bulk complexity.

What would settle it

Compute the same Berry correlators and Poincaré sections for an ensemble-averaged or fortuitous superstratum whose throat length is taken to infinity; if the wave–geodesic dichotomy disappears or reverses, the claimed hierarchy fails.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies massless scalar waves and null geodesics as probes of chaos in a sequence of smooth BPS supergravity backgrounds of decreasing supersymmetry and/or increasing AdS throat length (1/2-BPS LLM disk+ring and grayscale geometries; 1/4-BPS 2-charge supertubes; 1/8-BPS 3-charge bubbling supertubes and (2,1,n) superstrata). Wave chaos is diagnosed by proximity of two-point correlators C(Δr) and intensity histograms P(I) to the Berry random-wave form (Bessel correlator and Porter–Thomas law), quantified by a χ^{-2} measure and a low-intensity weight w_<(I_0); geodesic chaos is diagnosed by Poincaré sections. The central claim is that wave chaos strengthens while geodesic chaos weakens as one approaches black-hole-like regimes, with the dichotomy attributed to proliferation of stable periodic orbits (of measure zero) inside long throats even as the measure of KAM tori shrinks. Weak-coupling CFT Rényi (Shannon/participation) entropies of the dual coherent states are computed and shown not to follow the same universal hierarchy, leading to the conclusion that bulk and boundary BPS-chaos hierarchies differ and neither extrapolates simply to black holes.

Significance. If the bulk trends hold, the work supplies a concrete, computable bulk diagnostic (Berry compliance of probe waves) for a hierarchy of chaos among horizonless BPS microstate geometries that is complementary to existing CFT-side criteria (LMRS spectral form factors, Berry curvature of states). The systematic comparison across LLM, supertubes and superstrata, the explicit UV/IR boundary conditions, the Galerkin numerics, and the summary Table 1 are genuine strengths; the observation that geodesic regularity can increase while wave chaos increases is interesting and potentially relevant to scars and approximate throat symmetries. The CFT Rényi calculations, while at weak coupling, give a useful lower-bound benchmark and correctly emphasize that complexity depends on state details rather than only SUSY fraction or throat length. The paper is therefore a useful contribution to the fuzzball/microstate-geometry literature provided the load-bearing explanatory claims are tightened.

major comments (3)
  1. [§§4.1.1, 4.2.2, 4.3; Abstract; Table 1] The abstract and §§1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.2, 4.3 and Table 1 assert that the wave–geodesic dichotomy is explained by “the existence of stable periodic orbits inside long throats while the overall measure of KAM tori decreases.” The supporting evidence is the rise of χ^{-2} with throat length l (Figs. 4, 8), the appearance of high-I spikes and the drop of w_<(I_0) (Figs. 5, 8), and the progressive foliation of Poincaré sections (Figs. 3, 7, 9). These are consistent with more stable orbits, but the paper never extracts periodic orbits (e.g., by monodromy or Newton–Raphson on the Poincaré map) nor measures the chaotic-sea area fraction versus l. Without that quantification the causal link remains an inference; the same data could arise from throat-induced approximate separability (already noted for superstrata in the cited Ref. [66]). Either a direct orbit count or a clear softening of the claim i
  2. [§5 (opening paragraphs); §§5.1–5.4] Section 5 opens by stating that weak-coupling Rényi entropies of the dual coherent states furnish a lower bound on strong-coupling complexity because “flowing toward the strongly coupled regime can only increase chaos but should not decrease it.” This monotonicity assumption is used to compare the bulk hierarchy with the CFT results and to conclude that the two hierarchies differ. No argument or reference is given for why Rényi entropies of these particular coherent states cannot decrease under the RG flow to supergravity. If the assumption fails, the bulk–boundary dichotomy claim loses its CFT half. The assumption should either be justified or the comparison language should be restricted to “weak-coupling complexity.”
  3. [§3.2, Eqs. (3.14)–(3.15); Fig. 2] For the grayscale LLM geometries the IR boundary condition is chosen to be infalling (Eq. (3.14)–(3.15)) on the grounds that the curvature singularity is an “incipient black hole.” While this is a reasonable physical interpretation, it is not the only possible one (reflecting or self-adjoint extensions are also conceivable for a Gubser-good singularity). Because the grayscale case is used to claim that “creating a singularity … makes the probe more chaotic” (Fig. 2), a short robustness check with an alternative IR condition, or an explicit statement that the conclusion is conditional on the infalling choice, is needed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §§3, 5 headings] Several typographical slips appear in the front matter and section headings (“supersymetry,” “W eak wave chaos,” “F rom bulk to boundary,” “dychotomy”). A careful proof-read is needed.
  2. [§4.1.1, Eq. (4.8)] The definition of the proximity measure χ^{-2} (Eq. (4.8)) is non-standard (it is not a Pearson χ^{2} statistic). A one-sentence clarification that it is simply a normalized inverse mean-square residual would help the reader.
  3. [Figs. 4, 8; §3.2 footnote on numerics] Figures 4 and 8 plot χ^{-2} and w_< versus l (or log l) but do not report error bars or the number of independent eigenfunctions averaged. Adding a brief statement on numerical convergence of the Galerkin basis would strengthen reproducibility.
  4. [§5.1, after Eq. (5.29)] The participation-entropy calculation is stated to give the same scaling as Shannon entropy, yet only the latter is plotted/discussed. A single sentence confirming that Sp was evaluated for every family would remove any ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Berry/Porter–Thomas and Poincaré diagnostics are external benchmarks applied to known supergravity solutions; throat length and charges are input parameters, not fitted to force the hierarchy.

full rationale

The paper’s central bulk claim is an empirical hierarchy obtained by solving the massless Klein–Gordon equation and null geodesic equations on a sequence of known BPS geometries (LLM, 2-charge supertubes, 3-charge supertubes, (2,1,n) superstrata) and comparing the resulting eigenfunctions and Poincaré sections to external, literature-standard diagnostics (Berry random-wave correlator C_BRW, Porter–Thomas P(I), visual structure of Poincaré sections). Throat length l and charges appear as free parameters of the metrics; they are not adjusted to maximize χ^{-2} or to produce the claimed ranking. The CFT Shannon/participation entropies are computed from coherent-state coefficients already present in the cited literature and yield a different (non-universal) hierarchy; the monotonicity assumption that weak-coupling entropies lower-bound strong-coupling complexity is an interpretive hypothesis, not a circular definition of the bulk result. Mild self-citation to the authors’ prior LLM geodesic study [18] supplies background for one geometry but is not load-bearing for the new hierarchy or the dichotomy explanation. The explanation that stable periodic orbits proliferate while KAM measure shrinks is an inference from caustics and regular sections; it is not derived by counting orbits and is therefore under-supported, but under-support is not circularity. No equation reduces by construction to its own input, no fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors’ prior work to forbid alternatives. Score 1 reflects only the non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central hierarchy is empirical-numerical on known supergravity solutions plus standard Berry/Porter–Thomas diagnostics. Free parameters are geometric charges and throat lengths chosen to scan the family, not fitted to force the claim. Load-bearing axioms are the Berry random-wave hypothesis as a chaos diagnostic for BPS systems, the probe (non-backreacting) limit, Dirichlet/normalizable boundary conditions dual to fixed CFT states, and the monotonicity assumption that weak-coupling Rényi complexity only grows toward strong coupling. No new particles or forces are invented; “incipient black hole” for grayscale LLM is an interpretive boundary-condition choice.

free parameters (3)
  • Throat length l (and related a,b,Q1,Q5,Ry,n,γ1,2)
    Scanned by hand across short-to-long throats to establish trends; values such as l=10,100,1000 or a=0.1 vs 10 are choices that define the hierarchy plots, not outputs of a fit to external data.
  • Angular-momentum / mode quantum numbers (ℓ,k,˜k,p,q1,q2,ω)
    Selected representative modes for wave solutions and geodesics; hierarchy claims assume trends are not artifacts of particular mode choices.
  • Cutoff intensity I0 for caustic weight w<
    Arbitrary small cutoff used to quantify high-I spikes; paper states it is in principle arbitrary, so the quantitative caustic trend depends on this choice.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Berry random-wave hypothesis: chaotic eigenfunctions are statistically equivalent to monochromatic random-phase superpositions, implying Bessel two-point correlators and Porter–Thomas intensity statistics.
    Adopted in §2 as the primary bulk chaos diagnostic for BPS systems where level-repulsion RMT fails due to degeneracy.
  • domain assumption Probe approximation: massless scalar and null geodesics do not backreact; their chaos diagnoses the background.
    Standard throughout §§3–4; required for linear KG and geodesic Hamiltonians.
  • domain assumption Normalizable/Dirichlet UV and smooth (or infalling for grayscale) IR boundary conditions select dual CFT states without sources.
    Stated in §§3.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.2; grayscale infalling choice is extra modeling.
  • ad hoc to paper Weak-coupling Rényi entropy of dual coherent states is a lower bound on strong-coupling complexity (can only increase under RG flow to supergravity).
    Explicit pragmatic assumption in §5; not protected by supersymmetry for the full state.
  • domain assumption Bohigas–Giannoni–Schmidt / RMT level statistics fail for BPS spectra due to supercharge degeneracy, motivating eigenvector (Berry) diagnostics instead.
    Motivation in §§1–2, aligned with LMRS/BPS-chaos literature.
invented entities (1)
  • χ^{-2} proximity measure to Berry correlator / Porter–Thomas no independent evidence
    purpose: Scalar score of wave chaos vs throat length for ranking geometries.
    Defined in eq. (4.8) as inverse mean-square deviation; not a new physical object, but an ad hoc diagnostic constructed for this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 39623 in / 3841 out tokens · 34129 ms · 2026-07-12T02:29:37.987466+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We estimate the strength of chaos of probe waves and probe geodesics in different smooth supergravity backgrounds of decreasing supersymmetry and/or increasing length of the AdS throat in the interior (LLM geometry, supertubes, superstrata). We find that the wave chaos becomes stronger and stronger with less supersymetry and longer throats; in other words, chaos becomes stronger as we approach black hole solutions. Geodesic motion shows the opposite trend, becoming more and more regular. Testing the wave chaos by its compliance with the Berry random wave hypothesis and the geodesic chaos by computing Poincare sections, we explain the dichotomy between wave and geodesic motion by the existence of stable periodic orbits inside long throats while the overall measure of KAM tori decreases. Computing the Renyi entropies for the dual CFT states in the weak coupling regime, we show that they do not have such universal trends and the complexity depends on the specifics of the state rather than just the amount of supersymmetry and throat length. We conclude that the hierarchy of BPS chaos works differently in the bulk and in field theory, and in either case cannot be simply extrapolated to black holes.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 59 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford,Black holes and the butterfly effect,JHEP03(2014) 067, [arXiv:1306.0622]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    Polchinski,Chaos in the black hole S-matrix,arXiv:1505.08108

    J. Polchinski,Chaos in the black hole S-matrix,arXiv:1505.08108. – 39 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    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(2017) 118, [arXiv:1611.04650]. [Erratum: JHEP 09, 002 (2018)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    P. Saad, S. H. Shenker, and D. Stanford,JT gravity as a matrix integral,arXiv:1903.11115

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1903

  5. [5]

    Almheiri, T

    A. Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghoulian, and A. Tajdini,The entropy of Hawking radiation,Rev. Mod. Phys.93(2021), no. 3 035002, [arXiv:2006.06872]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford,Stringy effects in scrambling,JHEP05(2015) 132, [arXiv:1412.6087]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Balasubramanian, A

    V. Balasubramanian, A. Lawrence, J. M. Magan, and M. Sasieta,Microscopic Origin of the Entropy of Black Holes in General Relativity,Phys. Rev. X14(2024), no. 1 011024, [arXiv:2212.02447]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Giataganas, A

    D. Giataganas, A. Kehagias, and A. Riotto,Quasinormal Modes and Universality of the Penrose Limit of Black Hole Photon Rings,arXiv:2403.10605

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Giataganas, G

    D. Giataganas, G. F. Giudice, A. Kehagias, F. Quevedo, and A. Riotto,Black Hole Photon Rings Saturate the Quantum Chaos Bound,arXiv:2605.29923

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    Sekino and L

    Y. Sekino and L. Susskind,Fast Scramblers,JHEP10(2008) 065, [arXiv:0808.2096]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  11. [11]

    Maldacena, S

    J. Maldacena, S. H. Shenker, and D. Stanford,A bound on chaos,JHEP08(2016) 106, [arXiv:1503.01409]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    Haake,Quantum Signatures of Chaos

    F. Haake,Quantum Signatures of Chaos. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006

    2006

  13. [13]

    P. Saad, S. H. Shenker, and D. Stanford,A semiclassical ramp in SYK and in gravity, arXiv:1806.06840

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Basu and L

    P. Basu and L. A. Pando Zayas,Chaos rules out integrability of strings on AdS5×T1,1, Phys. Lett. B700(2011) 243–248, [arXiv:1103.4107]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  15. [15]

    Djukić and M

    V. Djukić and M. Čubrović,Correlation functions for open strings and chaos,JHEP04 (2024) 025, [arXiv:2310.15697]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Giataganas,Chaotic Motion near Black Hole and Cosmological Horizons,Fortsch

    D. Giataganas,Chaotic Motion near Black Hole and Cosmological Horizons,Fortsch. Phys. 70(2022), no. 1 2200001, [arXiv:2112.02081]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Berenstein, E

    D. Berenstein, E. Maderazo, R. Mancilla, and A. Ramirez,Chaotic LLM billiards,JHEP08 (2024) 056, [arXiv:2305.19321]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Berenstein, M

    D. Berenstein, M. Čubrović, and V. Djukić,Trapping, chaos and averaging in bubbling AdS spaces,JHEP02(2026) 157, [arXiv:2508.09669]

    arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Y. Chen, H. W. Lin, and S. H. Shenker,BPS chaos,SciPost Phys.18(2025), no. 2 072, [arXiv:2407.19387]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Y. Chen, S. Colin-Ellerin, O. Mamroud, and K. Papadodimas,Chaos of Berry curvature for BPS microstates,arXiv:2604.23287

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Strominger and C

    A. Strominger and C. Vafa,Microscopic origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy,Phys. Lett. B379(1996) 99–104, [hep-th/9601029]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  22. [22]

    Dijkgraaf, E

    R. Dijkgraaf, E. P. Verlinde, and H. L. Verlinde,Counting dyons in N=4 string theory,Nucl. Phys. B484(1997) 543–561, [hep-th/9607026]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  23. [23]

    J. M. Maldacena, A. Strominger, and E. Witten,Black hole entropy in M theory,JHEP12 (1997) 002, [hep-th/9711053]. – 40 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  24. [24]

    I. Bena, S. El-Showk, and B. Vercnocke,Black Holes in String Theory,Springer Proc. Phys. 144(2013) 59–178

    2013

  25. [25]

    N. P. Warner,Lectures on Microstate Geometries,arXiv:1912.13108

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  26. [26]

    I. Bena, E. J. Martinec, S. D. Mathur, and N. P. Warner,Snowmass White Paper: Micro- and Macro-Structure of Black Holes,arXiv:2203.04981

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Bena and N

    I. Bena and N. P. Warner,Microstate Geometries,arXiv:2503.17310

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Raju and P

    S. Raju and P. Shrivastava,Critique of the fuzzball program,Phys. Rev. D99(2019), no. 6 066009, [arXiv:1804.10616]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Chang and Y.-H

    C.-M. Chang and Y.-H. Lin,Holographic covering and the fortuity of black holes, arXiv:2402.10129

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    H. W. Lin, J. Maldacena, L. Rozenberg, and J. Shan,Looking at supersymmetric black holes for a very long time,SciPost Phys.14(2023), no. 5 128, [arXiv:2207.00408]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    H. W. Lin, J. Maldacena, L. Rozenberg, and J. Shan,Holography for people with no time, SciPost Phys.14(2023), no. 6 150, [arXiv:2207.00407]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Dabholkar,Exact counting of black hole microstates,Phys

    A. Dabholkar,Exact counting of black hole microstates,Phys. Rev. Lett.94(2005) 241301, [hep-th/0409148]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  33. [33]

    Shigemori,Superstrata,Gen

    M. Shigemori,Superstrata,Gen. Rel. Grav.52(2020), no. 5 51, [arXiv:2002.01592]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Shigemori,Counting Superstrata,JHEP10(2019) 017, [arXiv:1907.03878]

    M. Shigemori,Counting Superstrata,JHEP10(2019) 017, [arXiv:1907.03878]

    arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    D. R. Mayerson and M. Shigemori,Counting D1-D5-P microstates in supergravity,SciPost Phys.10(2021), no. 1 018, [arXiv:2010.04172]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    I. Bena, P. Heidmann, and D. Turton,AdS2 holography: mind the cap,JHEP12(2018) 028, [arXiv:1806.02834]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    I. Bena, E. Martinec, D. Turton, and N. P. Warner,Momentum Fractionation on Superstrata,JHEP05(2016) 064, [arXiv:1601.05805]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  38. [38]

    M. R. R. Hughes and M. Shigemori,Fortuity and supergravity,JHEP03(2026) 130, [arXiv:2505.14888]

    arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Chervonyi and O

    Y. Chervonyi and O. Lunin,(Non)-Integrability of Geodesics in D-brane Backgrounds,JHEP 02(2014) 061, [arXiv:1311.1521]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  40. [40]

    I. Bena, D. Turton, R. Walker, and N. P. Warner,Integrability and Black-Hole Microstate Geometries,JHEP11(2017) 021, [arXiv:1709.01107]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    Bianchi, A

    M. Bianchi, A. Grillo, and J. F. Morales,Chaos at the rim of black hole and fuzzball shadows,JHEP05(2020) 078, [arXiv:2002.05574]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    M. V. Berry,Regular and irregular semiclassical wavefunctions,Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General10(dec, 1977) 2083

    1977

  43. [43]

    M. V. Berry,Quantizing a classically ergodic system: Sinai’s billiard and the KKR method, Annals Phys.131(1981) 163–216

    1981

  44. [44]

    M. V. Berry,Riemann’s Zeta function: A model for quantum chaos?,Lect. Notes Phys.263 (1986) 1–17

    1986

  45. [45]

    M. Berry,Semiclassical mechanics of regular and irregular motion in chaotic behavior of – 41 – deterministic systems, inLes Houches Lectures XXXVI, G.Iooss, R.H.G.Helleman and R.Stora (eds.) : Amsterdam, pp 171-271

  46. [46]

    J. D. Urbina and K. Richter,Random Wave Functions with boundary and normalization constraints: Quantum statistical physics meets quantum chaos,Eur. Phys. J. ST145(2007) 255–269, [arXiv:0801.1197]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  47. [47]

    Stöckmann,Quantum Chaos: An Introduction

    H.-J. Stöckmann,Quantum Chaos: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999

    1999

  48. [48]

    A. D. Mirlin,Statistics of energy levels and eigenfunctions in disordered systems,Physics Reports326(2000), no. 4-6 259–382

    2000

  49. [49]

    I. V. Gornyi and A. D. Mirlin,Wave function correlations on the ballistic scale: Exploring quantum chaos by quantum disorder,Phys. Rev. E65(Jan, 2002) 025202(R)

    2002

  50. [50]

    J. D. Urbina and K. Richter,Semiclassical Construction of Random Wave Functions for Confined Systems,nlin/0309004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    Hortikar and M

    S. Hortikar and M. Srednicki,Correlations in chaotic eigenfunctions at large separation, Phys. Rev. Lett.80(Feb, 1998) 1646–1649

    1998

  52. [52]

    H. Lin, O. Lunin, and J. M. Maldacena,Bubbling AdS space and 1/2 BPS geometries,JHEP 10(2004) 025, [hep-th/0409174]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  53. [53]

    Berenstein,A Toy model for the AdS / CFT correspondence,JHEP07(2004) 018, [hep-th/0403110]

    D. Berenstein,A Toy model for the AdS / CFT correspondence,JHEP07(2004) 018, [hep-th/0403110]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  54. [54]

    R. C. Myers and O. Tafjord,Superstars and giant gravitons,JHEP11(2001) 009, [hep-th/0109127]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  55. [55]

    Balasubramanian, J

    V. Balasubramanian, J. de Boer, V. Jejjala, and J. Simon,The Library of Babel: On the origin of gravitational thermodynamics,JHEP12(2005) 006, [hep-th/0508023]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  56. [56]

    Takayama and A

    Y. Takayama and A. Tsuchiya,Complex matrix model and fermion phase space for bubbling AdS geometries,JHEP10(2005) 004, [hep-th/0507070]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  57. [57]

    Mandal,Fermions from half-BPS supergravity,JHEP08(2005) 052, [hep-th/0502104]

    G. Mandal,Fermions from half-BPS supergravity,JHEP08(2005) 052, [hep-th/0502104]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  58. [58]

    Balasubramanian, D

    V. Balasubramanian, D. Berenstein, A. Lewkowycz, A. Miller, O. Parrikar, and C. Rabideau, Emergent classical spacetime from microstates of an incipient black hole,JHEP01(2019) 197, [arXiv:1810.13440]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [59]

    Lunin and S

    O. Lunin and S. D. Mathur,Metric of the multiply wound rotating string,Nucl. Phys. B610 (2001) 49–76, [hep-th/0105136]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  60. [60]

    Lunin, J

    O. Lunin, J. M. Maldacena, and L. Maoz,Gravity solutions for the D1-D5 system with angular momentum,hep-th/0212210

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    Giusto, S

    S. Giusto, S. Rawash, and D. Turton,AdS3 holography at dimension two,JHEP07(2019) 171, [arXiv:1904.12880]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  62. [62]

    Bena and N

    I. Bena and N. P. Warner,A Harmonic family of dielectric flow solutions with maximal supersymmetry,JHEP12(2004) 021, [hep-th/0406145]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  63. [63]

    Giusto, R

    S. Giusto, R. Russo, and D. Turton,New D1-D5-P geometries from string amplitudes,JHEP 11(2011) 062, [arXiv:1108.6331]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  64. [64]

    Giusto, O

    S. Giusto, O. Lunin, S. D. Mathur, and D. Turton,D1-D5-P microstates at the cap,JHEP 02(2013) 050, [arXiv:1211.0306]. – 42 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  65. [65]

    Giusto, E

    S. Giusto, E. Moscato, and R. Russo,AdS3 holography for 1/4 and 1/8 BPS geometries, JHEP11(2015) 004, [arXiv:1507.00945]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  66. [66]

    I. Bena, F. Eperon, P. Heidmann, and N. P. Warner,The Great Escape: Tunneling out of Microstate Geometries,JHEP04(2021) 112, [arXiv:2005.11323]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    V. P. Frolov, P. Krtous, and D. Kubiznak,Black holes, hidden symmetries, and complete integrability,Living Rev. Rel.20(2017), no. 1 6, [arXiv:1705.05482]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [68]

    Berenstein and S

    D. Berenstein and S. Wang,BPS coherent states and localization,JHEP08(2022) 164, [arXiv:2203.15820]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  69. [69]

    Lin,Coherent state excitations and string-added coherent states in gauge-gravity correspondence,Nucl

    H. Lin,Coherent state excitations and string-added coherent states in gauge-gravity correspondence,Nucl. Phys. B986(2023) 116066, [arXiv:2206.06524]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    Kazakov, H

    V. Kazakov, H. Murali, and P. Vieira,Huge BPS Operators and Fluid Dynamics inN= 4 SYM,arXiv:2406.01798

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  71. [71]

    Anempodistov, A

    P. Anempodistov, A. Holguin, V. Kazakov, and H. Murali,(Un)solvable Matrix Models for BPS Correlators,arXiv:2508.20094

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  72. [72]

    L. F. Santos, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol,Entropy of isolated quantum systems after a quench,Phys. Rev. Lett.107(Jul, 2011) 040601

    2011

  73. [73]

    Schiulaz, E

    M. Schiulaz, E. J. Torres-Herrera, F. Pérez-Bernal, and L. F. Santos,Self-averaging in many-body quantum systems out of equilibrium: Chaotic systems,Phys. Rev. B101(May,

  74. [74]

    I. Bena, S. Giusto, E. J. Martinec, R. Russo, M. Shigemori, D. Turton, and N. P. Warner, Asymptotically-flat supergravity solutions deep inside the black-hole regime,JHEP02(2018) 014, [arXiv:1711.10474]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  75. [75]

    C. V. Johnson,Fortuitous Chaos, BPS Black Holes, and Random Matrices, arXiv:2601.17122

    arXiv

  76. [76]

    Chen,Fortuity with a single matrix,arXiv:2511.00790

    Y. Chen,Fortuity with a single matrix,arXiv:2511.00790. – 43 –

    arXiv