How to Count States in Gravity

Tom Yildirim; Vijay Balasubramanian

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

How to Count States in Gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the Euclidean gravity path integral with periodic time is exactly a thermal trace over the single-boundary Hilbert space, not merely a thermodynamic analogue.

desk verdict A plausible derivation that the Gibbons-Hawking path integral really is a Hilbert-space trace, but the proof leans heavily on two unpublished companions and one asserted analytic continuation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15767 v2 pith:2TC7Y2KL submitted 2025-06-18 hep-th gr-qchep-ph

Vijay Balasubramanian , Tom Yildirim This is my paper

classification hep-thgr-qchep-ph

keywords Gibbons-HawkingpathintegralthermaltraceblackholemicrostatesBekenstein-HawkingentropyHilbertspacefactorizationwormholessingle-sidedshellstatesRényi

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

A longstanding proposal—the Gibbons-Hawking prescription—says that the Euclidean gravity path integral with periodic time is the thermal partition function of gravity. This paper tries to establish that the proposal is literally correct: that path integral equals an explicit thermal trace, $\operatorname{Tr}_{H_X}(e^{-\beta H})$, over the Hilbert space of quantum gravity with one asymptotic boundary. The equality is shown twice, once from factorization of the two-boundary Hilbert space and once by carrying out the trace in a spanning basis of shell states built from the path integral. The same reasoning is applied to replicated path integrals, showing that they compute traces of powers of the reduced density matrix and hence genuine Rényi entropies of entangled universes. If the argument is right, the Bekenstein-Hawking area formula counts actual microstates after a micro-canonical projection.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the resolution of a trace over an overcomplete, non-orthogonal basis: $\operatorname{Tr}_{H_X}(O) = \lim_{n\to -1} G^n_{ij}\langle j|O|i\rangle$, with Gram matrix $G_{ij}=\langle i|j\rangle$; the inverse $G^{-1}$ is defined by analytically continuing powers $G^n$ down to $n=-1$. The paper combines this identity with states made by cutting open the Euclidean path integral—single-sided shell states obtained by inserting heavy matter-shell operators on a half-line boundary—and with a limit, $\kappa_R\to\infty$, in which these states are claimed to span the single-boundary Hilbert space. In that limit only geometries that do not break shell index loops survive, which lets each contributing geometry on the trace side be matched, by an action-preserving bijection, to a contributing geometry on the periodic-boundary side. For the replica argument, the same trace identity plays the role of gluing density matrices together along boundary cuts.

What would settle it

Evaluate the explicit trace formula (3.11) in any concrete model with known Gram-matrix eigenvalues: if the limit $\lim_{n\to -1}\kappa_R^{n+1} Z(\beta+(n+1)\beta_R)/Z(\beta_R)^{n+1}$ differs from $Z(\beta)$ for some $\beta$, or if a state in $H_X$ is exhibited that no combination of shell states can reproduce, the fine-grained equality fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, Eq. (3.6), is the fine-grained equality $\operatorname{Tr}_{H_X}(e^{-\beta H}) = Z(\beta)$, where $Z(\beta)$ is the Euclidean gravity path integral with one periodic boundary of period $\beta$. The equality is 'fine-grained' in the sense that each geometry contributing to the trace side is matched by an equal contribution to the periodic-boundary side, not merely that coarse-grained averages agree. The first proof inserts a resolution of the identity on the single-boundary Hilbert space between the two halves of the Euclidean time evolution and uses the factorization of the two-boundary Hilbert space to convert the trace into the overlap $\langle\beta|\beta\rangle = Z(\beta)$. The second proof evaluates the trace in the single-sided shell basis; in the large-shell-mass limit, powers $G^n$ of the Gram matrix combine with the matrix element $\langle j|e^{-\beta H}|i\rangle$ to give $\kappa_R^{n+1} Z(\beta+(n+1)\beta_R)/Z(\beta_R)^{n+1}$, and the analytic continuation $n\to -1$ yields $Z(\beta)$. The same machinery shows that the replicated path integral with a single periodic boundary computes $\operatorname{Tr}_{H_{X_R}}(\rho_R^n)$, explaining why the replica trick gives the Rényi entropy of a universe entangled with another universe.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation depends on believing that the special shell states, taken in the infinite-family limit, cover every possible state of the single-boundary Hilbert space, and on the analytic continuation of powers of the overlap table down to the exponent minus one giving the correct inverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Gibbons-Hawking free-energy derivative does compute the gravitational entropy, because the periodic-boundary path integral really is a thermal trace.
In the regime where the Euclidean black hole is the leading saddle, the micro-canonical density of states is $\exp(A/4G_N)$, so the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy counts actual microstates after projection to fixed energy.
At energies above the black-hole threshold, the states counted are black-hole microstates: their exterior matches the black-hole saddle, while the interior behind the horizon is nontrivial.
The replicated single-periodic-boundary path integral used in holographic Rényi calculations is the Hilbert-space trace $\operatorname{Tr}(\rho_R^n)$, so those calculations compute genuine entanglement entropy of two entangled universes.
The equality fails in perturbative gravity without wormhole topologies; the nonperturbative sum over topologies is essential for the trace interpretation.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next test is to repeat the explicit trace in a finite-dimensional toy model where the Gram matrix and its analytic continuation are exactly computable; this would isolate whether the $n\to -1$ step or the spanning claim is the delicate one.
The paper leaves open whether the equality requires factorization of the two-boundary Hilbert space; the argument suggests one could search for a consistent theory with one-boundary wormholes but no mixed wormholes, where the trace equality might hold without factorization.
Extending the same cutting and gluing logic to tracing out a subregion of a connected boundary would connect this Hilbert-space trace construction to algebraic approaches to gravitational entropy, a direction the paper flags as future work.
Because the shell-state basis need not contain horizons, the counting argument suggests the Bekenstein-Hawking dimension is a property of the boundary Hilbert space itself rather than of any particular interior geometry; this could be tested in lower-dimensional models.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Balasubramanian and Yildirim take on a real puzzle: why should the Euclidean gravity path integral with periodic time equal an actual thermal trace over a Hilbert space? If their central equalities (3.6) and (4.3) hold, they give a holography-independent reason why the Gibbons-Hawking free-energy derivative computes gravitational entropy and why the replica trick computes Rényi entropy. That is genuinely new: the earlier papers [5] and [6] contain the tools, but not these single-boundary trace statements. The general argument in Sec. 3.1 is clean: if the two-boundary Hilbert space factorizes and the Hamiltonian generates asymptotic time evolution, the trace over the single-boundary Hilbert space collapses to the periodic path integral. The explicit shell-basis calculation in Sec. 3.2 is coherent and gives a concrete picture of what gets counted after micro-canonical projection: black hole microstates with the standard exterior and arbitrary interiors. The Rényi extension in Sec. 4 is a natural and useful step. I also find the claim that nonperturbative wormholes are essential plausible and worth taking seriously.

The soft spots are real, and they are concentrated exactly where the reader's report puts them. The paper is not self-contained. Factorisation (2.1), the spanning property of the single-sided shell states, and the trace formula (2.2) are all imported from the two companion papers. In particular, the definition G^{-1} = lim_{n->-1} G^n is asserted, and then applied to coarse-grained, wormhole-summed path integrals. The n -> -1 limit in Eqs. (3.11)-(3.12) is not derived, and no argument is given that the analytic continuation of the coarse-grained object equals the inverse of the actual Gram matrix of the full Hilbert space. Since both derivations of (3.6) route through (2.2), this is a load-bearing step. It is not necessarily fatal: [5] may supply the missing justification. But as submitted, a referee cannot fully check the central claim without the companions. I would also point out that the Summary claims the shell-basis derivation does not need factorization; that is true in the sense of not using (2.1), but it still relies on the toolkit from [5], so it is not an independent derivation.

Who is this for? People working on the gravitational path integral, black hole microstates, and replica wormholes. It deserves a serious referee, provided the referee also gets [5] and [6]. My recommendation: send to peer review, with a request that the authors either prove the analytic-continuation step or state clearly which results are assumptions from the companions.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims to explain why the Gibbons-Hawking Euclidean gravitational path integral with one periodic asymptotic boundary computes a thermal trace over the Hilbert space of quantum gravity with a single boundary. The central assertion is Eq. (3.6), T r_{H_X}(e^{-βH}) = Z(β), and the paper offers two derivations: first, a general argument assuming factorization of the two-boundary Hilbert space (imported from companion paper [6]) and using a resolution of the identity; second, an explicit evaluation of the trace in a basis of single-sided shell states, which is claimed to collapse to the Gibbons-Hawking path integral after an analytic continuation n→−1. The paper also extends the method to Rényi entropies of entangled universes, arguing that the holographic replica path integral computes the required Hilbert-space trace, and draws conclusions about the microstates counted by the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy.

Significance. If the central equality (3.6) holds, the paper resolves a long-standing interpretational puzzle: it would show that the Gibbons-Hawking free-energy derivative genuinely computes gravitational entropy and that the Bekenstein-Hawking formula counts microstates after microcanonical projection, without invoking holography. The paper is commendably explicit about the ingredients it needs—Hamiltonian-generated boundary time evolution, a complete basis of path-integral states, and a trace formula for overcomplete bases—and it attempts a fine-grained equality via both first and second moments. The extension to Rényi entropies in Sec. 4 is a natural and potentially important application. However, almost every load-bearing ingredient is imported from the companion preprints [5] and [6], in particular the analytic-continuation definition of the trace and the statement that single-sided shell states span the Hilbert space; the present manuscript does not supply proofs of these ingredients, so its conclusions are conditional on results that the reader cannot verify from this paper alone.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 2, Eq. (2.2)] The definition of the trace by analytic continuation, G^{-1}_{ij} = lim_{n→−1} G^n_{ij}, is the single most load-bearing ingredient in the paper: it is used in both derivations of Eq. (3.6), namely Eq. (3.1) and Eq. (3.10). The paper imports this prescription from [5] and does not derive it here. In particular, G^n_{ij} entering the path integral is a coarse-grained (wormhole-summed) object, while the inverse Gram matrix that a resolution of the identity requires is a property of the fine-grained Hilbert space; the text does not show that the n→−1 limit of the former reproduces the latter. Since the companion paper [5] is unpublished and this step is load-bearing, the manuscript should either provide the derivation or state (2.2) as an explicit assumption and analyze the possible nonperturbative corrections to it.
[Sec. 3.2.1, Eqs. (3.10)–(3.12)] The explicit trace evaluation passes through the limit n→−1 of κ_R^{n+1} Z(β+(n+1)β_R)/Z(β_R)^{n+1}. For positive integer n the argument of Z is β+(n+1)β_R > β, but the analytic continuation to n=−1 is an assertion. The text does not discuss the domain of analyticity of the ratio, the possible branch cuts or poles in n, or whether the continuation commutes with the saddlepoint sum and with the κ_R→∞ limit. Because (3.12) is the second derivation of the central equality, this gap is load-bearing; a concrete test would be to check the continuation in a solvable model such as JT gravity, where both sides can be computed as matrix integrals.
[Sec. 3.2.1 and Sec. 4.2] The explicit trace also relies on two statements imported from [5,6]: that the single-sided shell states span H_X in the κ_R→∞ limit, and that in this limit only geometries that do not break shell index loops contribute. These statements are used to justify Eqs. (3.10) and (4.2), but no proof or even a precise formulation is given in the present manuscript. Without them, the collapse of the trace to Z(β) and the analogous Rényi statement are not established. The authors should either reproduce the arguments or sharply delimit the regime in which they hold.
[Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.5) and final paragraph of Sec. 3.2] The fine-grained equality claim requires both first and second moments, but Eq. (3.5) is written as an incomplete expression, '(T r_{H_X}(e^{-βH_X}) − Z(β))^2', with no '=0' and no specification of the coarse-graining (overbar) operation. The final paragraph of Sec. 3.2 then asserts that the full path integrals are equal, citing Appendix B.3 of [6], rather than demonstrating the correspondence here. Since the distinction between coarse-grained and fine-grained equality is central to the paper's method, this needs to be stated completely and justified.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The abstract contains grammatical and typographical errors: 'Why is this interpretation is correct' should be 'Why is this interpretation correct', and 'ana priori' should be 'an a priori'.
[Sec. 3.2.1, text before Eq. (3.11)] There is a duplicated 'establish establish' in the opening sentence of Sec. 3.2.1. In addition, Eq. (3.11) writes the Hamiltonian as H_R, which collides with the notation H_R for the right Hilbert space used in Sec. 4; this should be H_X (or simply H) to avoid confusion.
[Sec. 3.3] There are several typos, including 'micro-canonial' instead of 'micro-canonical' and the phrase 'disconncted' in Sec. 4; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
[Sec. 4, footnote 8] Footnote 8 contains a doubled phrase, 'call it it Rényi entropy', which should be corrected to 'call it the Rényi entropy'.
[Eqs. (3.7) and (3.9)] The notation Z_{m_i} (or Z m_i) is used for the universal shell contribution to the action, but it is not explicitly defined as a function of the shell mass; please define it, for example as Z_{m_i} ≡ Z(m_i), when it first appears.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the trace/partition-function equality is derived from prior companion constructions rather than assumed, though the n→−1 continuation is a correctness risk.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain for the central claim T r_{H_X}(e^{−βH}) = Z(β). The general argument in Sec. 3.1 inserts the resolution of the identity (2.3) and uses the factorization (2.1); the explicit argument in Sec. 3.2.1 evaluates the trace in the single-sided shell basis and takes the n→−1 limit of Eq. (3.11). At no point is (3.6) inserted as an input. The load-bearing ingredients — the analytic-continuation trace prescription (2.2), the spanning property of the shell states, and the factorization of the two-boundary Hilbert space — are imported from the authors' companion preprints [5] and [6]. These are prior parameter-free constructions with stated assumptions that do not include the target equality, so under the review rules self-citation alone does not constitute circularity. The skeptic's objection concerns the unproven analytic continuation G^{−1}=lim_{n→−1}G^n and the asserted but not exhibited fine-grained variance identity after (3.12); these are correctness and completeness risks, not instances where a prediction reduces by construction to its input. I therefore find no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted numerical parameters. Its axioms are the trace-by-analytic-continuation definition, the coarse-graining/fine-grained equality criterion, the two-boundary Hilbert space factorization, and the spanning property of shell states. The last three are imported from the authors' companion preprints [5] and [6], and none are independently verified in the present text. The only invented entity is the single-sided shell state basis, which serves as the computational tool for the explicit trace.

assumptions (4)

ad hoc to paper The trace over an overcomplete basis of path-integral states is defined by analytic continuation: T r_{H_X}(O) = lim_{n→-1} G^n_{ij}⟨j|O|i⟩ (Eq. 2.2).
This definition is central to both proofs; if the analytic continuation is not a legitimate Hilbert-space trace, the equality with Z(β) is not established.
domain assumption The gravitational path integral computes coarse-grained averages, and a fine-grained equality A=B follows from \bar{A}-\bar{B}=0 and \overline{(A-B)^2}=0 (Sec. 2, following [5]).
This interpretive step is needed to go from equality of averaged path integrals to an operator equality in the fine-grained theory.
domain assumption The two-boundary Hilbert space factorizes: H_{X_L∪X_R}=H_{X_L}⊗H_{X_R} (Eq. 2.1).
Used in the first proof (Sec. 3.1) to replace 1_{X_L}⊗1_{X_R} with 1_{X_L∪X_R}; imported from companion paper [6].
domain assumption Single-sided shell states of arbitrary mass span the single-boundary Hilbert space H_X as κ_R→∞ (Sec. 3.2, from [6]).
Used in the explicit trace evaluation (Eq. 3.10).

invented entities (1)

Single-sided shell states (path-integral states with heavy dust-shell operator insertions on a half-line boundary)
purpose: Provide a spanning basis for the single-boundary Hilbert space H_X, enabling explicit computation of the thermal trace.
These states are defined within the authors' path-integral framework and are not connected to any external falsifiable observable beyond reproducing the known Bekenstein-Hawking entropy at the saddlepoint level.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How to Count States in Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TC7Y2KL

@misc{pith2026250615767,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How to Count States in Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TC7Y2KL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15767}
}

read the original abstract

Gibbons and Hawking proposed that the Euclidean gravity path integral with periodic boundary conditions in time computes the thermal partition sum of gravity. As a corollary, they argued that a derivative of the associated free energy with respect to the Euclidean time period computes gravitational entropy. Why is this interpretation correct? That is, why does this path integral compute a trace over the Hilbert space? Here, we show that the quantity computed by the Gibbons-Hawking path integral is equal to an {\it a priori} different object -- an explicit thermal trace over the Hilbert space spanned by states produced by the Euclidean gravity path integral. This follows in two ways: (a) if the Hilbert space with two boundaries factorizes into a product of two single boundary Hilbert spaces, as we have previously shown; and (b) via explicit resolution of the trace by a spanning basis of states. We similarly show how a replicated Euclidean gravity path integral with a single periodic boundary computes a Hilbert space trace of powers of the density matrix, explaining why this approach computes the entropy of states entangled between two universes.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Microstate counting from defects in de Sitter
hep-th 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Counting defect microstates via Lorentzian wormholes reproduces the de Sitter and Schwarzschild-de Sitter entropy area laws.
Multidimensional arrow of time
gr-qc 2026-01 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

The direction of time is claimed to be fixed by the exponentially growing entropy of expanding extra dimensions, which dominates every other entropy source in the universe.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

[5]

Balasubramanian and T

V. Balasubramanian and T. Yildirim,A Nonperturbative Toolkit for Quantum Gravity, arXiv:2504.16986

arXiv
[6]

Balasubramanian and T

V. Balasubramanian and T. Yildirim,The Nonperturbative Hilbert Space of Quantum Gravity With One Boundary,arXiv:2506.04319

arXiv
[1]

J. D. Bekenstein,Black holes and entropy, Phys. Rev. D7(1973) 2333–2346

1973
[2]

J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter, and S. W. Hawking,The Four laws of black hole mechanics, Commun. Math. Phys.31(1973) 161–170

work page 1973
[3]

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

1975
[4]

G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking,Action Integrals and Partition Functions in Quantum Gravity, Phys. Rev. D15(1977) 2752–2756

1977
[7]

Sasieta,Wormholes from heavy operator statistics in AdS/CFT, JHEP03(2023) 158, [arXiv:2211.11794]

M. Sasieta,Wormholes from heavy operator statistics in AdS/CFT, JHEP03(2023) 158, [arXiv:2211.11794]

arXiv 2023
[8]

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]

arXiv 2024

Show all 38 references

[9]

Balasubramanian, A

V. Balasubramanian, A. Lawrence, J. M. Magan, and M. Sasieta,Microscopic Origin of the Entropy of Astrophysical Black Holes, Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024), no. 14 141501, [arXiv:2212.08623]

2024 arXiv
[10]

Climent, R

A. Climent, R. Emparan, J. M. Magan, M. Sasieta, and A. Vilar L´ opez,Universal construction of black hole microstates, Phys. Rev. D109(2024), no. 8 086024, [arXiv:2401.08775]

2024 arXiv
[11]

Balasubramanian, B

V. Balasubramanian, B. Craps, J. Hernandez, M. Khramtsov, and M. Knysh,Counting microstates of out-of-equilibrium black hole fluctuations,arXiv:2412.06884
[12]

Keranen, H

V. Keranen, H. Nishimura, S. Stricker, O. Taanila, and A. Vuorinen,Gravitational collapse of thin shells: Time evolution of the holographic entanglement entropy, JHEP06(2015) 126, [arXiv:1502.01277]

2015 arXiv
[13]

Chandra and T

J. Chandra and T. Hartman,Coarse graining pure states in AdS/CFT, JHEP10(2023) 030, [arXiv:2206.03414]

2023 arXiv
[14]

Boruch, L

J. Boruch, L. V. Iliesiu, G. Lin, and C. Yan,How the Hilbert space of two-sided black holes factorises,arXiv:2406.04396

arXiv
[15]

Balasubramanian, B

V. Balasubramanian, B. Craps, J. Hernandez, M. Khramtsov, and M. Knysh,Factorization of the Hilbert space of eternal black holes in general relativity, JHEP01(2025) 046, [arXiv:2410.00091]

2025 arXiv
[16]

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

1903 arXiv
[17]

Saad,Late Time Correlation Functions, Baby Universes, and ETH in JT Gravity, arXiv:1910.10311

P. Saad,Late Time Correlation Functions, Baby Universes, and ETH in JT Gravity, arXiv:1910.10311. – 25 –

1910 arXiv
[18]

Marolf and H

D. Marolf and H. Maxfield,Transcending the ensemble: baby universes, spacetime wormholes, and the order and disorder of black hole information, JHEP08(2020) 044, [arXiv:2002.08950]

2020 arXiv
[19]

de Boer, D

J. de Boer, D. Liska, B. Post, and M. Sasieta,A principle of maximum ignorance for semiclassical gravity, JHEP2024(2024) 003, [arXiv:2311.08132]

2024 arXiv
[20]

de Boer, D

J. de Boer, D. Liska, and B. Post,Multiboundary wormholes and OPE statistics, JHEP10 (2024) 207, [arXiv:2405.13111]

2024 arXiv
[21]

Penington, S

G. Penington, S. H. Shenker, D. Stanford, and Z. Yang,Replica wormholes and the black hole interior, JHEP03(2022) 205, [arXiv:1911.11977]

2022 arXiv
[22]

Almheiri, T

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]

2020 arXiv
[23]

Marolf,On the nature of ensembles from gravitational path integrals, J

D. Marolf,On the nature of ensembles from gravitational path integrals, J. Phys. A58(2025), no. 3 035204, [arXiv:2407.04625]

2025 arXiv
[24]

Antonini, M

S. Antonini, M. Sasieta, and B. Swingle,Cosmology from random entanglement, JHEP11 (2023) 188, [arXiv:2307.14416]

2023 arXiv
[25]

Banihashemi and T

B. Banihashemi and T. Jacobson,The enigmatic gravitational partition function, Gen. Rel. Grav.57(2025), no. 2 43, [arXiv:2411.00267]

2025 arXiv
[26]

Israel,Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in general relativity, Nuovo Cim

W. Israel,Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in general relativity, Nuovo Cim. B44S10 (1966) 1. [Erratum: Nuovo Cim.B 48, 463 (1967)]

1966
[27]

S. W. Hawking and D. N. Page,Thermodynamics of Black Holes in anti-De Sitter Space, Commun. Math. Phys.87(1983) 577

1983
[28]

Geng and Y

H. Geng and Y. Jiang,Microscopic Origin of the Entropy of Single-sided Black Holes, arXiv:2409.12219

arXiv
[29]

J. M. Maldacena,Eternal black holes in anti-de Sitter, JHEP04(2003) 021, [hep-th/0106112]

2003 arXiv
[30]

A. Goel, H. T. Lam, G. J. Turiaci, and H. Verlinde,Expanding the Black Hole Interior: Partially Entangled Thermal States in SYK, JHEP02(2019) 156, [arXiv:1807.03916]

2019 arXiv
[31]

Balasubramanian, A

V. Balasubramanian, A. Kar, and T. Ugajin,Entanglement between two gravitating universes, Class. Quant. Grav.39(2022), no. 17 174001, [arXiv:2104.13383]

2022 arXiv
[32]

Balasubramanian, A

V. Balasubramanian, A. Kar, and T. Ugajin,Entanglement between two disjoint universes, JHEP02(2021) 136, [arXiv:2008.05274]

2021 arXiv
[33]

Balasubramanian, A

V. Balasubramanian, A. Kar, and T. Ugajin,Islands in de Sitter space, JHEP02(2021) 072, [arXiv:2008.05275]

2021 arXiv
[34]

Lewkowycz and J

A. Lewkowycz and J. Maldacena,Generalized gravitational entropy, JHEP08(2013) 090, [arXiv:1304.4926]

2013 arXiv
[35]

Ryu and T

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

2006 arXiv
[36]

Ryu and T

S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi,Aspects of Holographic Entanglement Entropy, JHEP08(2006) 045, [hep-th/0605073]. – 26 –

2006 arXiv
[37]

V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani, and T. Takayanagi,A Covariant holographic entanglement entropy proposal, JHEP07(2007) 062, [arXiv:0705.0016]

2007 arXiv
[38]

Colafranceschi, X

E. Colafranceschi, X. Dong, D. Marolf, and Z. Wang,Algebras and Hilbert spaces from gravitational path integrals. Understanding Ryu-Takayanagi/HRT as entropy without AdS/CFT, JHEP10(2024) 063, [arXiv:2310.02189]. – 27 –

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

Balasubramanian and T

V. Balasubramanian and T. Yildirim,A Nonperturbative Toolkit for Quantum Gravity, arXiv:2504.16986

arXiv

[2] [6]

Balasubramanian and T

V. Balasubramanian and T. Yildirim,The Nonperturbative Hilbert Space of Quantum Gravity With One Boundary,arXiv:2506.04319

arXiv

[3] [1]

J. D. Bekenstein,Black holes and entropy, Phys. Rev. D7(1973) 2333–2346

1973

[4] [2]

J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter, and S. W. Hawking,The Four laws of black hole mechanics, Commun. Math. Phys.31(1973) 161–170

work page 1973

[5] [3]

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

1975

[6] [4]

G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking,Action Integrals and Partition Functions in Quantum Gravity, Phys. Rev. D15(1977) 2752–2756

1977

[7] [7]

Sasieta,Wormholes from heavy operator statistics in AdS/CFT, JHEP03(2023) 158, [arXiv:2211.11794]

M. Sasieta,Wormholes from heavy operator statistics in AdS/CFT, JHEP03(2023) 158, [arXiv:2211.11794]

arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

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]

arXiv 2024