Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 62 references

The paper claims that a generalized defect-extremal-surface rule exactly reproduces the island-formula entanglement entropy in holographic interface CFTs, in the large brane tension limit, for both static intervals and eternal black hole ra

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 00:12 UTC pith:7EWHGTFX

load-bearing objection A careful but partly circular extension of DES to ICFTs; the claimed exact match is built in by construction, and the branch selection leaves a regime where it is unverified. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15083 v1 pith:7EWHGTFX submitted 2026-07-16 hep-th

Defects extremal surfaces and interface CFTs

Ankur Dey This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords defect extremal surfaceisland formulainterface conformal field theoryAdS3/CFT2entanglement entropyPage curveend-of-the-world braneinduced island
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 proposes that the defect extremal surface (DES) prescription, originally built for boundary CFTs, can be extended to interface CFTs—two different CFTs joined along a shared interface—whose holographic dual is two AdS3 regions glued across an end-of-the-world brane. The central claim is that, in the large brane tension limit, the generalized DES formula exactly reproduces the island-formula entanglement entropy for both finite intervals in static setups and semi-infinite radiation intervals coupled to a two-dimensional eternal black hole. The paper works through three phases—no island, island, and the interface-specific induced island—and derives the Page curve, finding that the induced island phase is always subdominant. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives a purely higher-dimensional, geometric route to islands and Page curves without writing an explicit lower-dimensional gravity action, provided the identification of the defect entropy term is accepted.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is that the generalized DES prescription of eq. (3.15)—minimize the sum of the bulk geodesic length term and the defect conformal-matter entropy over extremal surfaces that may end on or cross the interface brane—yields exactly the same entanglement entropy as the island formula of eq. (3.12) in the large brane tension limit. The match is demonstrated explicitly for finite subsystems on both CFTs in time-independent settings and for semi-infinite subsystems in time-dependent settings containing a two-dimensional eternal black hole on the brane. In the time-dependent case the computation produces a Page curve with a Hawking saddle at early times an

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized DES formula (eq. 3.15): S_DES = min/ext_{\Gamma,X} [ S_RT(\Gamma) + S_defect(D) ], where \Gamma is a bulk entanglement surface in the two AdS3 regions, D is the end-of-the-world interface brane, and X = \Gamma \cap D is the surface's intersection with the brane. The defect term S_defect is the entropy of the conformal matter on the brane, evaluated from twist-field two-point functions on the two CFTs (the fields that implement the replica trick), with the OPE or BOE channel selected by the cross ratio \eta=(y2-y1)^2/(4 y1 y2). A partial dimensional reduction of the bulk yields an effective two-dimensional Newton constant on the brane, 1/G_N^(2) = (\

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the defect term in the DES formula is exactly the same object as the effective matter term in the island formula—both computed from the same twist-field two-point functions, with no additional interface-localized degrees of freedom, as Appendix A explicitly assumes—so if that identification gives way, the claimed exact agreement collapses.

What would settle it

Add a nonzero amount of localized degrees of freedom at the interface (a boundary entropy) and recompute the defect term in eq. (3.17); the paper's Appendix A assumes none. The island formula's effective entropy would be unchanged, so the DES-island equality would shift; any such mismatch at large tension would falsify the claim that the generalized DES formula exactly reproduces the island result.

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

If this is right

  • If the generalized DES prescription is correct, islands and induced islands in this class of AdS3/ICFT2 models can be computed directly from bulk geodesics ending on or crossing the interface brane, with no lower-dimensional gravity action needed.
  • The exact agreement in the large tension limit makes the island formula's output for finite and semi-infinite intervals a consequence of a single geometric extremization principle.
  • The derived Page curve gives a concrete Page time formula (eq. 5.16), so the framework makes a definite quantitative prediction for when the entropy saturates.
  • The subdominance of the induced island phase means the interface-specific replica wormhole saddles do not alter the Page curve, despite being present in the geometry.
  • The same construction should extend the DES formalism to other defect and interface theories with unequal central charges and interface-crossing extremal surfaces.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: because S_defect and S_eff are computed from the same twist-field two-point functions on the same two CFTs, the reported match is best read as a consistency check that the bulk geodesic extremization yields the same island endpoints, rather than as an independent derivation of the island formula.
  • Inference: a sharper test would be to compute a mixed-state entanglement measure, such as reflected entropy or entanglement negativity, using the same defect term; if one S_defect cannot reproduce both the von Neumann and mixed-state island results, the identification of the defect term as the full brane matter entropy would need revision.
  • Inference: at finite brane tension, brane fluctuations should generate corrections beyond the leading-order match; comparing the two prescriptions at first subleading order would delineate the regime where the higher-dimensional route is exact.
  • Inference: the eternal-black-hole state may be special in making the induced island phase subdominant; in evaporating or multi-boundary interface configurations the double-crossing saddle could dominate, which would be a natural place to look for the framework's distinctive predictions.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a generalization of the defect extremal surface (DES) prescription to holographic interface CFTs. In the AdS3/ICFT2 model of two AdS3 geometries joined by an end-of-the-world brane with conformal matter, it defines a bulk quantity S_DES = S_RT(Γ) + S_defect, eq. (3.15), and claims that this exactly reproduces the lower-dimensional island-formula entropy S_Is = S_eff(A∪I_A) + S_area, eq. (3.12), in the large brane tension limit. The paper checks this for finite subsystems in static setups and for semi-infinite subsystems in a time-dependent setup leading to an eternal black hole on the brane, and it presents Page curves. A large part of the paper consists of standard holographic geodesic length computations and CFT twist-field two-point function evaluations in the channels selected by the cross ratio η.

Significance. If the claimed matching were an independent derivation, the paper would provide a purely higher-dimensional route to islands and induced islands in interface CFTs, avoiding an explicit lower-dimensional JT gravity description. The organization of the phases is useful, and the explicit geodesic computations are a strength: the static no-island and island phase expressions are clearly derived, and the time-dependent Page curve is presented with an analytic condition for the subdominance of the induced island phase. However, the significance is substantially reduced by the fact that S_defect is computed from the same brane CFT data that enter S_eff in the island formula. The equality is then, to a large extent, a consistency check between two evaluations of the same matter entropy rather than an independent higher-dimensional derivation. The paper also selects the η>1 branch without fully analyzing the η<1 regime, and one of the claimed time-dependent extrema is not actually stationary as written. These issues affect the central claim of exact reproduction, although they appear repairable by a more careful statement of the logic and corrected extremization.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (3.15), (3.17), (A.3)-(A.6)] The defect term S_defect is computed from the same twist-field two-point functions, the same conformal factors Ω_k, and the same central charges that define S_eff(A∪I_A) in eqs. (3.13), (4.7), (4.12)-(4.13). S_defect is therefore not an independently derived brane quantity; it is the matter entanglement entropy of the same CFT data. The matching of the remaining terms, namely S_RT(Γ) with S_area plus the crossed two-point contributions, is meaningful, but the full equality in §§4-5 is partially built in by construction. The paper should either derive S_defect from the defect Lagrangian L_Σ, or explicitly frame the result as a consistency check between two evaluations of the same brane/bath matter entropy rather than as an independent derivation of the island contribution.
  2. [§4.2, after Eq. (4.10)] The bulk computation selects the η>1 branch of eq. (3.17) because the η<1 branch gives no extremum. However, the field-theoretic island computation of eqs. (4.7)-(4.8) is extremized at y1=x1, y2=x2 without any restriction on η. For finite intervals with (x2-x1)^2 < 4 x1 x2, this extremum has η<1, so the claimed exact reproduction is not established in that regime. The paper needs to show that the island formula also has no admissible saddle when η<1, or else restrict the claimed range of validity of the exact match. The same branch-selection issue recurs in the time-dependent island phase via footnote 6 of §5.2.
  3. [§5.3, Eqs. (5.13) and (5.15)] The claimed extremum (xb,y)=(x1,τ1) is not a stationary point of the displayed Sgen. In eq. (5.13), the derivative with respect to xb at xb=x1 is c_II/(3 x1), which is nonzero for any c_II>0. The same issue appears in the bulk expression (5.15), where the L_II terms give a nonzero derivative at xb=x1. For cI≫cII the stationary point is shifted by O(cII/cI), so the final entropy in the induced island phase is not correctly evaluated at the claimed point. The matching to eq. (5.14) therefore needs to be redone at the corrected extremum, or the phase should be treated in an explicit leading-order approximation in cII/cI.
  4. [§4.3 and Appendix B] The induced island phase in the static setup is solved only under x2≫x1 and cI≫cII, and the cubic equation (B.3) is replaced by the linear equation (B.4). This is an asymptotic approximation, not an exact extremization. The abstract and introduction state that the generalized DES prescription 'exactly reproduces' the lower-dimensional results without listing these restrictions. The claims should be qualified accordingly, and the range of validity of the reported match should be stated precisely.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] There are several typographical and grammatical issues: 'entanaglement' in §4.3, '2deternal' in the abstract/introduction and §5, and inconsistent use of 'CFTI' vs 'CFT_I'. These should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (A.4)-(A.6)] The notation in the OPE and BOE channel expressions is compressed. In particular, S_defect in the η>1 channel is independent of y1 and y2; this property is what makes the extremization in §4.2 work, and it should be stated explicitly when the branch is selected.
  3. [§2.3, Eq. (2.14)-(2.15)] The review of islands and DES would benefit from a sentence clarifying that in the later sections the 'defect term' and the 'effective entropy' are not independent inputs but are both computed from the same brane CFT data. This would help the reader identify the bookkeeping at an early stage.
  4. [Figure 8] The Page curve plot would be easier to interpret with the three phases distinguished by markers or with a legend showing the analytic expressions used; the caption lists parameters but not the formulas.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Partial circularity: S_defect in the DES formula is evaluated from the same ICFT twist correlators that define S_eff in the island formula, so the exact match is partly built in; the RT geodesic part is still an independent check.

specific steps
  1. other [Appendix A, eqs. (A.3)-(A.6); used in eqs. (3.15), (3.17) and all phases in §§4-5]
    "S_defect represents the contribution to the entanglement entropy from the bulk conformal matter localized on the brane, which in the present case is limited to the degrees of freedom confined within the island region. S_defect is then obtained in the defect AdS3/ICFT2 framework as ..."

    This is the same two-point function data (same CFT_I,II, same conformal factors Ω_k from eq. (2.19), same weights h^n_k) that defines S_eff(A∪I_A) in the island formula, eqs. (3.12)-(3.13), (4.6)-(4.7), (4.11)-(4.13). In the large-central-charge factorization used throughout, S_defect is exactly the matter entanglement entropy of the island interval [y1,y2] on the brane, a term already contained in S_eff. Therefore the reported 'exact reproduction' of the island formula by the generalized DES formula is partly built in: the defect term in eq. (3.15) is an input fixed by the same CFT data that appears in the target S_eff, not an independent higher-dimensional derivation. Only the RT/geodesic part of the match (e.g. eqs. (4.10), (5.11)) is an independent check; the η>1 branch of (3.17) is se

full rationale

Most of the geometric computation is an honest check: the Brown-Henneaux relation is used to convert bulk geodesic lengths to CFT central charges, the area term follows from the partial dimensional reduction in eq. (3.8), and the Page curve is obtained from the standard competition among saddles. The central overlap is S_defect: eq. (A.3) evaluates it from the very same ICFT twist correlators and conformal factors that enter S_eff in the island formula. Hence the 'exact reproduction' is a consistency check between two evaluations sharing the brane-matter input, rather than an independent derivation of the island term from bulk geometry alone. The RT-geodesic part still has independent content, matching the bath-interval and cross terms, so this is partial circularity rather than a fully forced identity. The selected η>1 branch is a further limitation, but it is primarily a correctness/coverage issue rather than an additional circular step. No self-citation is load-bearing: the ICFT model is taken from Anous et al. [50], the original DES from Deng et al. [22], and the author's own papers are cited only as background and not as the source of the uniqueness or the central equations. Thus the score reflects the built-in input overlap, not a self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard holography plus three substantive modeling choices: the large-tension limit, factorization of large-c twist correlators, and the identification of S_defect with brane CFT entropy. The free parameters are not fitted to data, but the choice of the η>1 branch and the large-tension regime strongly shape the results.

free parameters (2)
  • Brane tension T = large (not fitted; brane angles ρ0_I=2, ρ0_II=4.03 used in Fig. 8)
    The central claim is confined to the large-tension limit, where the brane approaches the asymptotic boundary. T fixes the brane angles via Israel conditions (2.20)-(2.22) but is chosen as a regime, not fitted to data.
  • Cross-ratio threshold η_c = 1
    The OPE/BOE split in S_defect is set by equating the two expressions in (A.4)-(A.6), giving η_c=1. The physical computations then discard the η<1 branch because it gives no extremum; this selection is a modeling choice.
axioms (4)
  • standard math AdS3/CFT2 correspondence, RT formula, and Brown-Henneaux c=3L/(2G_N)
    Used throughout to convert bulk geodesic lengths to CFT entanglement entropies (eqs. 2.3-2.5, 4.5).
  • domain assumption Four-point twist correlators factorize into two-point functions in the large central charge limit
    Used repeatedly in §§4-5 (eqs. 4.6, 4.11, 5.8, 5.12) to evaluate effective entanglement entropies.
  • domain assumption Conformal matter on the EOW brane has ⟨T_ab⟩∝h_ab and only renormalizes the brane tension without backreacting
    Eq. (3.2) and §3.1; this keeps the bulk AdS3 geometries fixed and lets S_defect be computed from CFT two-point functions.
  • domain assumption Large brane tension limit with brane fluctuations set to zero
    §3.2 and footnote 3: the effective 2d gravity action (3.8) is obtained by integrating the near-brane wedges with the brane fixed; all comparisons, including the Page curve, are made in this limit.
invented entities (1)
  • Conformal matter localized on the EOW brane (L_Σ) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the defect contribution S_defect in the generalized DES formula (3.15) and enables an effective 2d description coupled to gravity.
    The entity is imported from the DES literature [22], not proposed here; no independent falsifiable signature is predicted. It enters the action via (3.1)-(3.2) and is assumed to have maximally symmetric stress tensor.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21092 in / 18354 out tokens · 187193 ms · 2026-08-02T00:12:36.501367+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose a generalization of the defect extremal surface (DES) prescription to holographic interface conformal field theories (ICFTs), extending its applicability beyond the AdS$_3$/BCFT$_2$ framework. We consider a holographic ICFT$_2$ comprising two CFT$_2$s coupled across an interface, dual to two asymptotically AdS$_3$ geometries joined by a codimension-one end-of-the-world (EOW) brane. In the corresponding effective lower-dimensional description obtained via partial dimensional reduction on the brane-boundary combination, the theory on the brane is coupled to gravity, thereby enabling the computation of fine-grained entanglement entropy via the island formula. We demonstrate that the generalized DES prescription exactly reproduces the effective lower-dimensional results for finite subsystems in time-independent scenarios in the large brane tension limit, corresponding to weak gravitational coupling on the EOW brane. We further compute the entanglement entropy of semi-infinite bipartite pure states in radiation subsystems coupled to $2d$ eternal black holes, and obtain the corresponding Page curves.

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

62 extracted references · 58 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Information in black hole radiation,

    D. N. Page, “Information in black hole radiation,”Phys. Rev. Lett.71(1993) 3743–3746, arXiv:hep-th/9306083

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  2. [2]

    Average entropy of a subsystem,

    D. N. Page, “Average entropy of a subsystem,”Phys. Rev. Lett.71(1993) 1291–1294, arXiv:gr-qc/9305007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  3. [3]

    Time Dependence of Hawking Radiation Entropy,

    D. N. Page, “Time Dependence of Hawking Radiation Entropy,”JCAP09(2013) 028, arXiv:1301.4995 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Quantum Extremal Surfaces: Holographic Entanglement Entropy beyond the Classical Regime,

    N. Engelhardt and A. C. Wall, “Quantum Extremal Surfaces: Holographic Entanglement Entropy beyond the Classical Regime,”JHEP01(2015) 073,arXiv:1408.3203 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    The Page curve of Hawking radiation from semiclassical geometry,

    A. Almheiri, R. Mahajan, J. Maldacena, and Y. Zhao, “The Page curve of Hawking radiation from semiclassical geometry,”JHEP03(2020) 149,arXiv:1908.10996 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    The entropy of bulk quantum fields and the entanglement wedge of an evaporating black hole,

    A. Almheiri, N. Engelhardt, D. Marolf, and H. Maxfield, “The entropy of bulk quantum fields and the entanglement wedge of an evaporating black hole,”JHEP12(2019) 063, arXiv:1905.08762 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Replica Wormholes and the Entropy of Hawking Radiation,

    A. Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghoulian, and A. Tajdini, “Replica Wormholes and the Entropy of Hawking Radiation,”JHEP05(2020) 013, arXiv:1911.12333 [hep-th]. – 26 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Entanglement islands in higher dimensions,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Islands outside the horizon,

    A. Almheiri, R. Mahajan, and J. Maldacena, “Islands outside the horizon,” arXiv:1910.11077 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  10. [10]

    The entropy of Hawking radiation,

    A. Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghoulian, and A. Tajdini, “The entropy of Hawking radiation,”Rev. Mod. Phys.93no. 3, (6, 2020) 035002,arXiv:2006.06872 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    BCFT entanglement entropy at large central charge and the black hole interior,

    J. Sully, M. V. Raamsdonk, and D. Wakeham, “BCFT entanglement entropy at large central charge and the black hole interior,”JHEP03(2021) 167,arXiv:2004.13088 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Information radiation in BCFT models of black holes,

    M. Rozali, J. Sully, M. Van Raamsdonk, C. Waddell, and D. Wakeham, “Information radiation in BCFT models of black holes,”JHEP05(2020) 004,arXiv:1910.12836 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Quantum Extremal Islands Made Easy, Part I: Entanglement on the Brane,

    H. Z. Chen, R. C. Myers, D. Neuenfeld, I. A. Reyes, and J. Sandor, “Quantum Extremal Islands Made Easy, Part I: Entanglement on the Brane,”JHEP10(2020) 166, arXiv:2006.04851 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Quantum Extremal Islands Made Easy, Part II: Black Holes on the Brane,

    H. Z. Chen, R. C. Myers, D. Neuenfeld, I. A. Reyes, and J. Sandor, “Quantum Extremal Islands Made Easy, Part II: Black Holes on the Brane,”JHEP12(2020) 025, arXiv:2010.00018 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Quantum Extremal Islands Made Easy, Part IV: Massive Black Holes on the Brane,

    G. Grimaldi, J. Hernandez, and R. C. Myers, “Quantum Extremal Islands Made Easy, Part IV: Massive Black Holes on the Brane,”arXiv:2202.00679 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    BCFT and Islands in Two Dimensions,

    K. Suzuki and T. Takayanagi, “BCFT and Islands in Two Dimensions,”arXiv:2202.08462 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    Massive islands,

    H. Geng and A. Karch, “Massive islands,”JHEP09(2020) 121,arXiv:2006.02438 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    Information Transfer with a Gravitating Bath,

    H. Geng, A. Karch, C. Perez-Pardavila, S. Raju, L. Randall, M. Riojas, and S. Shashi, “Information Transfer with a Gravitating Bath,”SciPost Phys.10no. 5, (2021) 103, arXiv:2012.04671 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Holographic BCFTs and Communicating Black Holes,

    H. Geng, S. Lüst, R. K. Mishra, and D. Wakeham, “Holographic BCFTs and Communicating Black Holes,”jhep08(2021) 003,arXiv:2104.07039 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Entanglement Phase Structure of a Holographic BCFT in a Black Hole Background,

    H. Geng, A. Karch, C. Perez-Pardavila, S. Raju, L. Randall, M. Riojas, and S. Shashi, “Entanglement Phase Structure of a Holographic BCFT in a Black Hole Background,” arXiv:2112.09132 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Inconsistency of Islands in Theories with Long-Range Gravity,

    H. Geng, A. Karch, C. Perez-Pardavila, S. Raju, L. Randall, M. Riojas, and S. Shashi, “Inconsistency of Islands in Theories with Long-Range Gravity,”arXiv:2107.03390 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    Defect extremal surface as the holographic counterpart of Island formula,

    F. Deng, J. Chu, and Y. Zhou, “Defect extremal surface as the holographic counterpart of Island formula,”JHEP03(2021) 008,arXiv:2012.07612 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Page curve from defect extremal surface and island in higher dimensions,

    J. Chu, F. Deng, and Y. Zhou, “Page curve from defect extremal surface and island in higher dimensions,”JHEP10(2021) 149,arXiv:2105.09106 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Defect extremal surface for reflected entropy,

    T. Li, M.-K. Yuan, and Y. Zhou, “Defect extremal surface for reflected entropy,”JHEP01 (2022) 018,arXiv:2108.08544 [hep-th]. – 27 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Defect extremal surfaces for entanglement negativity,

    D. Basu, H. Parihar, V. Raj, and G. Sengupta, “Defect extremal surfaces for entanglement negativity,”arXiv:2205.07905 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Entanglement negativity and defect extremal surface,

    Y. Shao, M.-K. Yuan, and Y. Zhou, “Entanglement negativity and defect extremal surface,” SciPost Phys. Core7no. 2, (2024) 027,arXiv:2206.05951 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Bridging Boundaries:T¯T, Double Holography, and Reflected Entropy,

    D. Basu, H. Chourasiya, A. Dey, and V. Raj, “Bridging Boundaries:T¯T, Double Holography, and Reflected Entropy,”arXiv:2411.12827 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  29. [29]

    Aspects of Holographic Entanglement Entropy,

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Aspects of Holographic Entanglement Entropy,”JHEP08 (2006) 045,arXiv:hep-th/0605073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  30. [30]

    Holographic Dual of BCFT,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  31. [31]

    Aspects of AdS/BCFT,

    M. Fujita, T. Takayanagi, and E. Tonni, “Aspects of AdS/BCFT,”JHEP11(2011) 043, arXiv:1108.5152 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  32. [32]

    Structure of holographic BCFT correlators from geodesics,

    J. Kastikainen and S. Shashi, “Structure of holographic BCFT correlators from geodesics,” Phys. Rev. D105no. 4, (2022) 046007,arXiv:2109.00079 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Brane dynamics of holographic BCFTs,

    K. Izumi, T. Shiromizu, K. Suzuki, T. Takayanagi, and N. Tanahashi, “Brane dynamics of holographic BCFTs,”JHEP10(2022) 050,arXiv:2205.15500 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Studies of Boundary Entropy in AdS/BCFT,

    A. G. Cavalcanti, D. Melnikov, and M. R. O. Silva, “Studies of Boundary Entropy in AdS/BCFT,”Class. Quant. Grav.37no. 10, (2020) 105009,arXiv:1808.07966 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Black Holes in AdS/BCFT and Fluid/Gravity Correspondence,

    J. M. Magán, D. Melnikov, and M. R. O. Silva, “Black Holes in AdS/BCFT and Fluid/Gravity Correspondence,”JHEP11(2014) 069,arXiv:1408.2580 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

    Bubble quenches in the AdS/BCFT model,

    A. G. Cavalcanti and D. Melnikov, “Bubble quenches in the AdS/BCFT model,”Phys. Rev. D103no. 4, (2021) 046022,arXiv:2006.04623 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Chern-Simons Gravity Dual of BCFT,

    T. Takayanagi and T. Uetoko, “Chern-Simons Gravity Dual of BCFT,”JHEP04(2021) 193, arXiv:2011.02513 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Boundary conformal field theory,

    J. L. Cardy, “Boundary conformal field theory,”arXiv:hep-th/0411189

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    Addendum to: Entanglement of defect subregions in double holography,

    Y. Liu, Q. Chen, Y. Ling, C. Peng, Y. Tian, and Z.-Y. Xian, “Addendum to: Entanglement of defect subregions in double holography,”JHEP09(2024) 194,arXiv:2312.08025 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Reflected entropy in double holography,

    Y. Ling, P. Liu, Y. Liu, C. Niu, Z.-Y. Xian, and C.-Y. Zhang, “Reflected entropy in double holography,”JHEP02(2022) 037,arXiv:2109.09243 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Codimension two holography for wedges,

    I. Akal, Y. Kusuki, T. Takayanagi, and Z. Wei, “Codimension two holography for wedges,” Phys. Rev. D102no. 12, (2020) 126007,arXiv:2007.06800 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    An Exact Construction of Codimension two Holography,

    R.-X. Miao, “An Exact Construction of Codimension two Holography,”JHEP01(2021) 150, arXiv:2009.06263 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Double holography of entangled universes,

    R. C. Myers, S.-M. Ruan, and T. Ugajin, “Double holography of entangled universes,”JHEP 07(2024) 035,arXiv:2403.17483 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    End of the world brane meetsTT,

    F. Deng, Z. Wang, and Y. Zhou, “End of the world brane meetsTT,”JHEP07(2024) 036, arXiv:2310.15031 [hep-th]. – 28 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Partial reduction and cosmology at defect brane,

    Z. Wang, Z. Xu, S. Zhou, and Y. Zhou, “Partial reduction and cosmology at defect brane,” JHEP05(2022) 049,arXiv:2112.13782 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    Entanglement, defects, andTTon a black hole background,

    A. Dey, “Entanglement, defects, andTTon a black hole background,”JHEP02(2026) 242, arXiv:2511.05256 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Holographic reflected entropy: islands and defect phases,

    A. Dey and G. Sengupta, “Holographic reflected entropy: islands and defect phases,”JHEP 12(2025) 086,arXiv:2509.06551 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Open and closed string interpretation of SUSY CFT’s on branes with boundaries,

    A. Karch and L. Randall, “Open and closed string interpretation of SUSY CFT’s on branes with boundaries,”JHEP06(2001) 063,arXiv:hep-th/0105132

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  49. [49]

    Permeable conformal walls and holography,

    C. Bachas, J. de Boer, R. Dijkgraaf, and H. Ooguri, “Permeable conformal walls and holography,”JHEP06(2002) 027,arXiv:hep-th/0111210

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  50. [50]

    Sailing past the End of the World and discovering the Island,

    T. Anous, M. Meineri, P. Pelliconi, and J. Sonner, “Sailing past the End of the World and discovering the Island,”arXiv:2202.11718 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    Islands and dynamics at the interface,

    M. Afrasiar, D. Basu, A. Chandra, V. Raj, and G. Sengupta, “Islands and dynamics at the interface,”JHEP11(2023) 192,arXiv:2306.12476 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    Holographic Entanglement Entropy in Janus deformed AdS3 Geometries,

    A. Anand, H. Chourasiya, A. Dey, and G. Sengupta, “Holographic Entanglement Entropy in Janus deformed AdS3 Geometries,”arXiv:2512.06374 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  53. [53]

    Holographic reflected entropy and islands in interface CFTs,

    J. K. Basak, D. Basu, V. Malvimat, H. Parihar, and G. Sengupta, “Holographic reflected entropy and islands in interface CFTs,”JHEP05(2024) 143,arXiv:2312.12512 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Dual of the Janus solution: An interface conformal field theory,

    A. B. Clark, D. Z. Freedman, A. Karch, and M. Schnabl, “Dual of the Janus solution: An interface conformal field theory,”Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 066003,arXiv:hep-th/0407073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  55. [55]

    Entanglement entropy at holographic interfaces,

    M. Gutperle and J. D. Miller, “Entanglement entropy at holographic interfaces,”Phys. Rev. D93no. 2, (2016) 026006,arXiv:1511.08955 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  56. [56]

    On AdS3/ICFT2 with a dynamical scalar field located on the brane,

    Y. Liu, H.-D. Lyu, and C.-Y. Wang, “On AdS3/ICFT2 with a dynamical scalar field located on the brane,”JHEP10(2024) 001,arXiv:2403.20102 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory,

    P. Calabrese and J. L. Cardy, “Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory,”J. Stat. Mech.0406(2004) P06002,arXiv:hep-th/0405152

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  58. [58]

    Entanglement entropy of two disjoint intervals in conformal field theory,

    P. Calabrese, J. Cardy, and E. Tonni, “Entanglement entropy of two disjoint intervals in conformal field theory,”J. Stat. Mech.0911(2009) P11001,arXiv:0905.2069 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  59. [59]

    Entanglement entropy and conformal field theory,

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, “Entanglement entropy and conformal field theory,”J. Phys. A 42(2009) 504005,arXiv:0905.4013 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  60. [60]

    Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction and the Information Paradox,

    G. Penington, “Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction and the Information Paradox,”JHEP 09(2020) 002,arXiv:1905.08255 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

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

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

    1986

  62. [62]

    Eternal black holes in anti-de Sitter,

    J. M. Maldacena, “Eternal black holes in anti-de Sitter,”JHEP04(2003) 021, arXiv:hep-th/0106112. – 29 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003