Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

For superconformal RG interfaces between N=4 SYM and the Leigh-Strassler SCFT, the defect contribution to sphere entanglement entropy is cutoff-independent, changes sign twice as a function of the mass-deformation source, and diverges quadr

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

2026-08-01 07:58 UTC pith:EOM5TWDV

load-bearing objection A careful, honest computation of a new defect entanglement entropy for backreacted RG interfaces; the quantitative curve is scheme-dependent and the large-|phi| scaling rests partly on a proxy, but it deserves refereeing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21270 v1 pith:EOM5TWDV submitted 2026-07-23 hep-th

Defect entanglement entropy for superconformal RG Interfaces

Evangelos Afxonidis , Christopher Rosen This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords defect entanglement entropyholographic RG interfacessuperconformal interfacesLeigh-Strassler SCFTsphere entanglement entropyholographic renormalizationdefect conformal field theoryon-shell action
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.

Using the holographic dual of the one-parameter family of superconformal RG interfaces that separate N=4 super Yang-Mills from the Leigh-Strassler SCFT, this paper isolates a cutoff-independent interface contribution C^I to the entanglement entropy of a spherical region centered on the interface. The calculation is the first fully backreacted holographic extraction of this quantity for RG interfaces in more than two dimensions, and it requires careful analytic subtraction of ambient-theory divergences because the bulk solutions are known only numerically. The paper finds that C^I is a nontrivial function of the supersymmetric mass-deformation source phi(s): it vanishes twice, changes sign, and for large |phi(s)| diverges as |phi(s)|^gamma with gamma approximately 2. It also shows that the renormalized on-shell action can be written in terms of C^I plus the stress-tensor one-point coefficients of the two ambient theories, and that a scheme-independent combination takes the form C^I = I_D + (4 pi^2 / 3) a_D. A sympathetic reader would care because C^I is a candidate measure of defect degrees of freedom whose monotonicity properties remain an open question, and the mass-deformation dependence offers a concrete target for boundary field-theory tests.

Core claim

The central claim, on the paper's own terms: for the one-parameter family of holographic superconformal RG interfaces between N=4 SYM and the Leigh-Strassler SCFT, the interface contribution C^I to the sphere entanglement entropy is a cutoff-independent quantity, defined by eq. (4.16) as the finite remainder of the minimal-surface area after subtracting the ambient theories' quadratic and logarithmic divergences and their finite Fefferman-Graham terms. In the fully backreacted numerical solutions, C^I changes sign, vanishes twice as a function of the mass-deformation source phi(s), and diverges as C^I ~ |phi(s)|^gamma with gamma roughly 2 for large |phi(s)|. The paper further shows that the

What carries the argument

The central object is C^I, defined in eq. (4.16) as the finite, cutoff-independent remainder of the holographic minimal-surface area once the ambient theories' quadratic and logarithmic divergences and their finite Fefferman-Graham terms are subtracted. Its evaluation is carried by a semi-analytic split: the near-boundary integrals are performed with the analytic Fefferman-Graham expansion of the solution, while the interior radial integral is done numerically, and the r0-independence of the resulting sum is checked by rerunning over many cut-off locations. The argument is completed by a second identity, derived from Wald's formalism for the on-shell action, that rewrites the bulk action in

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the subtraction scheme: assigning the finite Fefferman-Graham terms of (4.13) to the ambient theories rather than to the interface, a choice the paper's own appendix D shows is not unique and whose alternatives shift the quantitative curve.

What would settle it

A boundary-theory computation of the defect contribution to sphere entanglement entropy for the same one-parameter family, or a high-precision re-evaluation of (4.16) with reported error bars, that produces a different functional form - in particular a scaling exponent clearly different from 2 at large |phi(s)|, or a different number of zeroes - would settle against the paper's central quantitative claim.

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

If this is right

  • C^I is a universal, cutoff-independent observable of these RG interface theories, computable even when the dual bulk solution is known only numerically.
  • As |phi(s)| grows, C^I diverges as |phi(s)|^2, and the scaling is traced to a parametrically growing region of the bulk geometry that tracks the Poincare-invariant RG flow between N=4 SYM and the Leigh-Strassler fixed point (appendix C).
  • The renormalized on-shell action can be written as vol(AdS4)[3/(4 pi^2) C^I - (a_T^{N=4} + a_T^{LS})] under a permitted choice of finite counterterms, placing C^I alongside the stress-tensor one-point data.
  • The scheme-independent combination C^I = I_D + (4 pi^2 / 3) a_D connects the defect entropy to a defect free energy plus an energy term; in the undeformed case a_D vanishes and C^I reduces to I_D.
  • Alternative subtraction schemes change the quantitative curve but not the qualitative features - two zeroes, extrema, and quadratic divergence - so those qualitative features are the robust predictions (appendix D).

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if a future principle fixes the subtraction scheme by requiring, say, a specific defect Weyl anomaly or a monotone defect C-function, the quantitative curve C^I(phi(s)) shown in Fig. 3 may shift; only the sign changes and quadratic growth should be expected to survive.
  • Editorial inference: the observed scaling exponent gamma near 2 suggests the large-deformation limit may be amenable to analytic control via the junction geometries the solutions approach; if so, the exponent could be derived exactly rather than read off numerically.
  • Editorial inference: a field-theory (boundary) computation of the same sphere-entanglement defect coefficient in the large-N limit would provide a direct test of both the sign structure and the quadratic scaling, since C^I is expressed in field-theory units in eq. (4.19).

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 computes the defect contribution C^I to the sphere entanglement entropy for a one-parameter family of supersymmetric RG interfaces separating the Leigh-Strassler SCFT and mass-deformed N=4 SYM, using the fully backreacted holographic duals of [11]. The authors develop a semi-analytic Fefferman-Graham subtraction to extract a cutoff-independent piece from the minimal-area integral (3.5), obtaining (4.16). They find C^I(phi_s) changes sign twice and diverges as |phi_s|^gamma with gamma approx 2 for large sources (Figs. 3-4). They also derive a relation between the renormalized on-shell action, C^I, and the stress-tensor coefficients a_T (Eq. (5.8)), and a scheme-independent combination C^I = I_D + (4 pi^2/3) a_D (Eq. (5.12)).

Significance. If the results hold, this is the first fully backreacted holographic computation of interface entanglement entropy for superconformal RG interfaces in d>2, and it provides a nontrivial check of the relationship between defect entropy, on-shell action, and stress-tensor data. The FG-based subtraction is careful: the r^+-_0 independence is verified, and the algebra leading to (5.8) and (5.12) is internally consistent (I confirmed the cited steps). However, the significance is tempered by the scheme-dependence of C^I acknowledged in Appendix D and by the fact that the large-|phi_s| scaling is inferred from a proxy rather than directly from Eq. (4.16).

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C / Sec. 4.2 (Eqs. (4.16), (4.20), (C.1)-(C.5))] The claimed scaling C^I ~ |phi_s|^gamma with gamma approx 2 (Eq. (4.20), Fig. 4) is not directly established. For large |phi_s| the defining expression (4.16) is not evaluated; instead, the support comes from the proxy C^I_flow = integral_{r_IR}^{r_UV} e^{2A} dr (C.4), with r_IR, r_UV defined by the arbitrary threshold (C.2). This proxy is only one term in the full combination C^I = pi/(2G_N)(J^+ - J^- - integral_{r^-_0}^{r^+_0} e^{2A} dr); it ignores J^+ which contains a term -(1/3) phi_s^2 r^+_0 e^{2A^+_0} (4.17) that could cancel the large positive integral. No bound is given for the complementary intervals or for J^pm. The paper acknowledges this 'numerical delicacy', but the conclusion (4.20) requires either a direct evaluation with error control or an argument that the proxy is proportional to C^I.
  2. [Sec. 4.1 / Eq. (4.16) and Appendix D] C^I as defined in (4.16) is scheme-dependent: the subtraction of the finite 'second line' terms of (4.13) is a choice about what belongs to the ambient theory. Appendix D shows that two equally natural alternatives, (D.1) and (D.4), yield different quantitative C^I(phi_s) curves (Figs. 7, 8), with only qualitative features (zeroes, extrema, quadratic divergence) robust. The abstract's phrase 'the cutoff-independent interface contribution' is therefore too strong; the paper should state in the abstract/outlook that C^I is defined within a specific subtraction scheme and that only scheme-independent statements are being made.
  3. [Secs. 4.1-4.2 (Eq. (4.16), Fig. 3, footnote 6)] The numerical evaluation of (4.16) involves a cancellation between large terms at large |phi_s|. No error bars, convergence tests, or tolerances are reported for the shooting/integration; the r^+-_0 independence is stated to hold 'over many values' without a quantitative tolerance. Given that C^I is a small difference of O(phi_s^2) quantities (Figs. 3, 4), the reported sign changes and the exponent gamma approx 2 could be sensitive to numerical precision. Please include error estimates (e.g., from varying the shooting tolerance and FG gluing points) or at least report the residual r^+-_0 dependence of C^I.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B] Typo: 'counterm action' should read 'counterterm action'.
  2. [Fig. 4 and Eq. (4.20)] The two panels of Fig. 4 use different x-axis conventions (negative vs. positive log|phi_s|); consider plotting against |phi_s| on a log scale for easier comparison of the asymptotic exponent.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.19)] The normalization C^I_0 approx 0.040 * (2/pi) N^2 would be clearer if also expressed in units of L^3/G_N, and if the numerical uncertainty in the 0.040 is stated.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (C.2)] The threshold 10^{-5} used to define r_IR and r_UV is arbitrary; a sentence on sensitivity to this choice would help assess the robustness of the proxy scaling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: C^I is evaluated from a BPS solution rather than fitted; self-citations are parameter-free inputs.

full rationale

The central quantity C^I is defined in (4.16) as a deterministic functional of the already-constructed numerical BPS solutions of [11] and their Fefferman-Graham expansions; no parameter is fitted to reproduce C^I or its φ(s)-dependence. The divergence and scaling claims are read from the computed ratio (Figs. 3–4), not from a fitted model. Appendix C introduces C_flow^I only as a separate diagnostic: the paper states it "sidesteps the numerical delicacy involved in forming the r0±-independent sum of (4.16)" and offers it as evidence that the full-C^I scaling is robust, not as the definition of C^I. This is a numerical-support limitation, not a circular reduction. Section 5's relations (5.8) and (5.12) are scheme-dependent and partly algebraic identities after the stated counterterm choice (5.7) and the definitions (5.9); the paper explicitly labels these as choices, and the abstract's main entanglement result does not rest on them. The reliance on [9], [11], [33], [41], [42] is substantial, but those are published, parameter-free BPS/consistent-truncation constructions with stated assumptions that do not include the target entanglement entropy; co-authorship alone does not make the citations circular. Scheme ambiguity is acknowledged in Appendix D and in the Discussion; ambiguity is not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The computation rests on the numerical BPS solutions constructed in the same authors' earlier work [9,11] and on the standard defect-holographic EE framework [17,18]; no new physical entities are postulated. The scheme-dependent definitions (C^I, I_D, a_D) and the unfixed finite counterterms δ are the main inputs chosen by hand; the r±_0-independence checks and the Appendix C RG-flow-region proxy are the paper's evidence that its numerical outputs are robust to those choices.

free parameters (5)
  • φ(s) (supersymmetric mass source; family label ζ)
    The physical deformation parameter labeling the one-parameter family of RG interfaces (§2.2-2.3). It is an input coupling, not fitted to data; the observable C^I is computed as a function of it. Listed for completeness as the parameter the central claim is a function of.
  • δ_R², δ_ΔR², δ_Rφ²(1), δ_α, δ_β, δ̃_R², δ̃_ΔR² (finite counterterm coefficients)
    Scheme parameters of holographic renormalization left unfixed by supersymmetry. They enter the renormalized on-shell action (5.2) and the stress-tensor coefficient (5.5); the elegant form (5.8) requires the ad hoc choice (5.7). Not fitted to data, but chosen by hand and explicitly not determined (§5, §6).
  • Subtraction scheme defining C^I
    Eq. (4.16) subtracts the FG-determined finite 'second line' terms of (4.13) as ambient-theory contributions. Appendix D shows alternative attributions change the quantitative curve while preserving qualitative features. This is a definitional choice that the headline result depends on quantitatively.
  • r±_0 (FG gluing points)
    Numerical choice of where to match the numeric solution to the analytic Fefferman-Graham expansion, subject to inequality (4.9) and a 1-part-in-1000 accuracy requirement (§4.1). The paper verifies the final C^I is independent of these points; listed as a numerical rather than physical parameter.
  • γ (scaling exponent of C^I ~ |φ(s)|^γ) = ≈2
    An output estimate read from the logarithmic derivative of the numerical curve (§4.2, Fig. 4), with log-derivative values ranging 1.9-2.5. It is approximately 2, not a parameter that makes the derivation work; included because the 'quadratic divergence' claim depends on this estimate.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The 5d theory (2.1) is a consistent truncation of N=8 SO(6) gauged supergravity and oxidizes to type IIB supergravity.
    Basis for the holographic model, inherited from ref. [36] and used throughout §2; the holographic dictionary (2.6) for the scalars α, β, ϕ relies on this.
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT correspondence, the Ryu-Takayanagi prescription (3.3), and its defect extension [17,18], including the minimal surface being x² = R² − r²_|| (3.4) for a sphere centered on the defect.
    The holographic dictionary connecting bulk minimal areas to boundary entanglement entropy; the x(r_||, r) independence of the minimal surface (3.4) is proven in [17] and assumed here.
  • domain assumption The BPS equations generate the full one-parameter family of interface solutions from the single growing mode (2.9) around the LS vacuum.
    The numerical shooting algorithm of §2.2 relies on the structure and uniqueness of the BPS flow; the family spans AdS^{N=4}, AdS^{LS}, or singular boundaries, and this classification is assumed.
  • domain assumption Holographic renormalization with the counterterm actions (B.7)-(B.11), and that supersymmetry fixes only some of the finite counterterm coefficients.
    Underlies the renormalized on-shell action and stress-tensor one-point functions (5.2)-(5.6); the unfixed δ's enter the final relations (5.8), (5.12).
  • ad hoc to paper Ambient-theory subtraction: the finite terms on the second line of (4.13) are attributed to the ambient theories on either side of the interface rather than to the defect.
    This is the scheme choice (4.16) defining C^I. The paper itself shows in Appendix D that alternative attributions change the quantitative curve, making this the least externally pinned-down premise of the central claim.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22268 in / 22786 out tokens · 218844 ms · 2026-08-01T07:58:05.540381+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the defect contribution to the entanglement entropy of a spherical region centred on four-dimensional superconformal RG interfaces. These interfaces are supersymmetric codimension one defects separating the Leigh--Strassler SCFT vacuum and the $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theory deformed by spatially varying mass terms. Exploiting the holographic dual to these interfaces, we extract a cutoff-independent interface contribution to the entanglement entropy, $\mathcal{C}^I$. We quantify the non-trivial dependence of $\mathcal{C}^I$ on the supersymmetric mass deformation, and observe a scaling regime for large deformations. We further relate $\mathcal{C}^I$ to the renormalized on-shell action and the stress-tensor one-point function of the interface theory. Our results provide the first fully backreacted holographic computation of this entanglement quantity for superconformal RG interfaces in more than two dimensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21270 by Christopher Rosen, Evangelos Afxonidis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representative solutions spanning the solution space of the RG interfaces studied [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The dashed colored curves indicate the domain of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The interface contribution to the sphere entanglement entropy for the RG inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The logarithmic derivative of C I with respect to the source ϕ(s) . The color coding is correlated with that of figure 1. The quadratic behavior at large |ϕ(s) | is clearly visible as ϕ(s) → ±∞. . invariant RG flow between N = 4 SYM and the LS+ SCFT along a constant r hypersur￾face. As ϕ(s) diverges towards positive infinity, the RG interface solution instead resembles a junction solution in which the Poin… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The bulk radial profiles for e 2A (top row) and A′ (bottom row) for several represen￾tative solutions with large negative ϕ(s) (left column) and large positive ϕ(s) (right column). The color coding is correlated with that of figure 1. In the left column, the curves correspond to ϕ(s) = {−7759.4, −3553.2, −2728.9}, ordered from darkest to lightest. In the right col￾umn, the curves correspond to ϕ(s) = {288.… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The logarithmic derivative of |CI flow| with respect to log |ϕ(s) | for large negative (left) and positive (right) deformations. The color coding is correlated with that of figure 1. We note that this attribution of the asymptotic scaling observed in the full C I to the parametric growth of the RG flow region sidesteps the numerical delicacy involved in form￾ing the r ± 0 independent sum of (4.16). Thus, i… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The interface contribution to the sphere entanglement entropy for the RG inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The interface contribution to the sphere entanglement entropy for the RG inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_8.png] view at source ↗

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

46 extracted references · 44 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A Dilatonic deformation of AdS(5) and its field theory dual,

    D. Bak, M. Gutperle, and S. Hirano, “A Dilatonic deformation of AdS(5) and its field theory dual,”JHEP05(2003) 072,arXiv:hep-th/0304129

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  2. [2]

    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. 30

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Super Janus,

    A. Clark and A. Karch, “Super Janus,”JHEP10(2005) 094,arXiv:hep-th/0506265

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    Ten-dimensional supersymmetric Janus solutions,

    E. D’Hoker, J. Estes, and M. Gutperle, “Ten-dimensional supersymmetric Janus solutions,”Nucl. Phys. B757(2006) 79–116,arXiv:hep-th/0603012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    Janus Configurations, Chern-Simons Couplings, And The theta-Angle in N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory,

    D. Gaiotto and E. Witten, “Janus Configurations, Chern-Simons Couplings, And The theta-Angle in N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory,”JHEP06(2010) 097, arXiv:0804.2907 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    On Marginal Operators in Boundary Conformal Field Theory,

    C. P. Herzog and I. Shamir, “On Marginal Operators in Boundary Conformal Field Theory,”JHEP10(2019) 088,arXiv:1906.11281 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    How a-type anomalies can depend on marginal couplings,

    C. P. Herzog and I. Shamir, “How a-type anomalies can depend on marginal couplings,”Phys. Rev. Lett.124no. 1, (2020) 011601,arXiv:1907.04952 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Marginal deformations and defect anomalies,

    L. Bianchi, “Marginal deformations and defect anomalies,”Phys. Rev. D100no. 12, (2019) 126018,arXiv:1907.06193 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Spatially modulated and supersymmetric mass deformations ofN= 4 SYM,

    I. Arav, K. C. M. Cheung, J. P. Gauntlett, M. M. Roberts, and C. Rosen, “Spatially modulated and supersymmetric mass deformations ofN= 4 SYM,”JHEP11(2020) 156,arXiv:2007.15095 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Rigid Supersymmetric Theories in Curved Superspace,

    G. Festuccia and N. Seiberg, “Rigid Supersymmetric Theories in Curved Superspace,” JHEP06(2011) 114,arXiv:1105.0689 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  11. [11]

    Superconformal RG interfaces in holography,

    I. Arav, K. C. M. Cheung, J. P. Gauntlett, M. M. Roberts, and C. Rosen, “Superconformal RG interfaces in holography,”JHEP11(2020) 168, arXiv:2007.07891 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Exactly marginal operators and duality in four-dimensional N=1 supersymmetric gauge theory,

    R. G. Leigh and M. J. Strassler, “Exactly marginal operators and duality in four-dimensional N=1 supersymmetric gauge theory,”Nucl. Phys. B447(1995) 95–136,arXiv:hep-th/9503121

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  13. [13]

    Boundary and Defect CFT: Open Problems and Applications,

    N. Andreiet al., “Boundary and Defect CFT: Open Problems and Applications,”J. Phys. A53no. 45, (2020) 453002,arXiv:1810.05697 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Defects and bulk perturbations of boundary Landau-Ginzburg orbifolds,

    I. Brunner and D. Roggenkamp, “Defects and bulk perturbations of boundary Landau-Ginzburg orbifolds,”JHEP04(2008) 001,arXiv:0712.0188 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  15. [15]

    Domain Walls for Two-Dimensional Renormalization Group Flows,

    D. Gaiotto, “Domain Walls for Two-Dimensional Renormalization Group Flows,” JHEP12(2012) 103,arXiv:1201.0767 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  16. [16]

    Irreversibility, QNEC, and defects,

    H. Casini, I. Salazar Landea, and G. Torroba, “Irreversibility, QNEC, and defects,” JHEP07(2023) 004,arXiv:2303.16935 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Holography, Entanglement Entropy, and Conformal Field Theories with Boundaries or Defects,

    K. Jensen and A. O’Bannon, “Holography, Entanglement Entropy, and Conformal Field Theories with Boundaries or Defects,”Phys. Rev. D88no. 10, (2013) 106006, arXiv:1309.4523 [hep-th]. 31

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    On Holographic Defect Entropy,

    J. Estes, K. Jensen, A. O’Bannon, E. Tsatis, and T. Wrase, “On Holographic Defect Entropy,”JHEP05(2014) 084,arXiv:1403.6475 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  19. [19]

    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

  20. [20]

    Holographic calculation of boundary entropy,

    T. Azeyanagi, A. Karch, T. Takayanagi, and E. G. Thompson, “Holographic calculation of boundary entropy,”JHEP03(2008) 054,arXiv:0712.1850 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  21. [21]

    Entanglement Entropy at Large Central Charge,

    T. Hartman, “Entanglement Entropy at Large Central Charge,”arXiv:1303.6955 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    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

  23. [23]

    From the Weyl Anomaly to Entropy of Two-Dimensional Boundaries and Defects,

    K. Jensen, A. O’Bannon, B. Robinson, and R. Rodgers, “From the Weyl Anomaly to Entropy of Two-Dimensional Boundaries and Defects,”Phys. Rev. Lett.122no. 24, (2019) 241602,arXiv:1812.08745 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Janus and RG-flow interfaces in three-dimensional gauged supergravity,

    K. Chen, M. Gutperle, and C. Hultgreen-Mena, “Janus and RG-flow interfaces in three-dimensional gauged supergravity,”JHEP03(2022) 057,arXiv:2111.01839 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Splitting interfaces in 4dN= 4 SYM,

    C. F. Uhlemann and M. Wang, “Splitting interfaces in 4dN= 4 SYM,”JHEP12 (2023) 053,arXiv:2307.08740 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Universality of effective central charge in interface CFTs,

    A. Karch, Y. Kusuki, H. Ooguri, H.-Y. Sun, and M. Wang, “Universality of effective central charge in interface CFTs,”JHEP11(2023) 126,arXiv:2308.05436 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    RG Interfaces from Double-Trace Deformations,

    S. Giombi, E. Helfenberger, and H. Khanchandani, “RG Interfaces from Double-Trace Deformations,”arXiv:2407.07856 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Entanglement C-functions of defects and interfaces inN= 4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,

    N. Jokela, J. Kastikainen, J. M. Pen ´ ın, R. Rodgers, and H. Ruotsalainen, “Entanglement C-functions of defects and interfaces inN= 4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,”arXiv:2510.00123 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Double Trace Interfaces,

    C. Melby-Thompson and C. Schmidt-Colinet, “Double Trace Interfaces,”JHEP11 (2017) 110,arXiv:1707.03418 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [30]

    Entanglement Entropy in a Holographic Kondo Model,

    J. Erdmenger, M. Flory, C. Hoyos, M.-N. Newrzella, and J. M. S. Wu, “Entanglement Entropy in a Holographic Kondo Model,”Fortsch. Phys.64(2016) 109–130, arXiv:1511.03666 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    Towards aC-theorem in defect CFT,

    N. Kobayashi, T. Nishioka, Y. Sato, and K. Watanabe, “Towards aC-theorem in defect CFT,”JHEP01(2019) 039,arXiv:1810.06995 [hep-th]. 32

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Weyl anomalies of four dimensional conformal boundaries and defects,

    A. Chalabi, C. P. Herzog, A. O’Bannon, B. Robinson, and J. Sisti, “Weyl anomalies of four dimensional conformal boundaries and defects,”JHEP02(2022) 166, arXiv:2111.14713 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Defect entanglement entropy for superconformal monodromy defects,

    A. Conti, Y. Lozano, F. Rogdakis, and C. Rosen, “Defect entanglement entropy for superconformal monodromy defects,”JHEP05(2026) 036,arXiv:2511.22695 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Holographic reconstruction of space-time and renormalization in the AdS / CFT correspondence,

    S. de Haro, S. N. Solodukhin, and K. Skenderis, “Holographic reconstruction of space-time and renormalization in the AdS / CFT correspondence,”Commun. Math. Phys.217(2001) 595–622,arXiv:hep-th/0002230

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  35. [35]

    Holographic renormalization,

    M. Bianchi, D. Z. Freedman, and K. Skenderis, “Holographic renormalization,”Nucl. Phys. B631(2002) 159–194,arXiv:hep-th/0112119

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  36. [36]

    Holography forN= 1 ? on S4,

    N. Bobev, H. Elvang, U. Kol, T. Olson, and S. S. Pufu, “Holography forN= 1 ? on S4,”JHEP10(2016) 095,arXiv:1605.00656 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  37. [37]

    Holographic RG-flows and Boundary CFTs,

    M. Gutperle and J. Samani, “Holographic RG-flows and Boundary CFTs,”Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 106007,arXiv:1207.7325 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  38. [38]

    Aspects of Holographic Entanglement Entropy,

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Aspects of Holographic Entanglement Entropy,”JHEP 08(2006) 045,arXiv:hep-th/0605073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  39. [39]

    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

  40. [40]

    Holographic QFTs on AdSd, wormholes and holographic interfaces,

    A. Ghodsi, J. K. Ghosh, E. Kiritsis, F. Nitti, and V. Nourry, “Holographic QFTs on AdSd, wormholes and holographic interfaces,”JHEP01(2023) 121, arXiv:2209.12094 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Superconformal monodromy defects inN=4 SYM and LS theory,

    I. Arav, J. P. Gauntlett, Y. Jiao, M. M. Roberts, and C. Rosen, “Superconformal monodromy defects inN=4 SYM and LS theory,”JHEP08(2024) 177, arXiv:2405.06014 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Monodromy defects in massive Type IIA,

    A. Conti, Y. Lozano, and C. Rosen, “Monodromy defects in massive Type IIA,”JHEP 04(2026) 173,arXiv:2512.10006 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Defects in conformal field theory,

    M. Bill` o, V. Gon¸ calves, E. Lauria, and M. Meineri, “Defects in conformal field theory,”JHEP04(2016) 091,arXiv:1601.02883 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    Towards a derivation of holographic entanglement entropy,

    H. Casini, M. Huerta, and R. C. Myers, “Towards a derivation of holographic entanglement entropy,”JHEP05(2011) 036,arXiv:1102.0440 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  45. [45]

    Holographic Weyl anomalies for 4d defects in 6d SCFTs,

    P. Capuozzo, J. Estes, B. Robinson, and B. Suzzoni, “Holographic Weyl anomalies for 4d defects in 6d SCFTs,”JHEP04(2024) 120,arXiv:2310.17447 [hep-th]. 33

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    The defect b-theorem under bulk RG flows,

    T. Shachar, R. Sinha, and M. Smolkin, “The defect b-theorem under bulk RG flows,” JHEP09(2024) 057,arXiv:2404.18403 [hep-th]. 34

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024