Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Extremal AdS Black Holes as Fluids: A Matrix Large-Charge EFT Approach

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 Extremal AdS black holes can be understood as large-charge ground states of a matrix-valued large-charge EFT, where O(N^2) modes condense and the resulting rigidly rotating fluid matches the black hole's thermodynamics.

desk verdict Honest speculative framework: the fluid matching is real, the microstate claim is openly unsupported, and the paper deserves a serious referee for the fluid part. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21240 v2 pith:4CCGDTJK submitted 2025-07-28 hep-th

Eunwoo Lee This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords large-chargeEFTextremalAdSblackholesmatrixmodelmean-fieldapproximationconformalfluidfluid/gravitycorrespondenceBPSangularmomentum
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

This paper proposes that extremal AdS black holes, in the large-charge and large-angular-momentum regime, can be described as the ground states of a matrix-valued version of large-charge effective field theory. The theory promotes the usual charged complex scalar to an N by N adjoint matrix, so that O($N^{2}$) nearly degenerate modes condense at zero temperature. A mean-field approximation turns the interacting quartic model into a linear equation, and the resulting rigidly rotating solution has a stress tensor and charge density that coincide with those of a zero-temperature conformal fluid. Matching the fluid to the extremal AdS5 black hole fixes the coupling by $N^{2}$/$\lambda$ = alpha1/(16 pi G5). The paper also notes that BPS black holes lie outside the hydrodynamic regime but their charge-spin relations simplify to a similar form at large spin.

What carries the argument

The central object is the adjoint-matrix large-charge EFT: a complex N x N matrix scalar with a quartic, U(1) x SU(N)-invariant potential on S3 x R. The argument runs through the mean-field replacement that turns the quartic interaction into a constant C, reducing the equation of motion to the linear form (-∂$_t^{2}$ + ∇^2)X_ij = C X_ij. Mode expansion in S3 scalar harmonics with energies E_n = $\sqrt$((n+1)^2 + C), together with the self-consistency condition C ≈ $mu^{2}$/(1-$\Omega$^2), selects a Bose-Einstein condensate of modes with n ≈ mu $\Omega$/(1-$\Omega$^2) and occupation n0 ≈ $2mu^{2}$/($\Omega$(1-$\Omega$^2)). This condensate realizes rigid rotation with angular velocity $\Omega$, and its stress tensor and charge density take the zero-temperature conformal fluid form. The mapping to gravity is the coefficient identity $N^{2}$/$\lambda$ = alpha1/(16 pi G5).

What would settle it

Compute the first subleading correction in 1/Q or 1/N in the quartic matrix model, for instance with planar diagrams or numerical large-N methods, and check whether the self-consistent C and the condensate occupation numbers remain as the mean-field solution predicts; alternatively, add the proposed random quartic interaction and see whether the entropy rises from O($N^{2}$ log mu) toward O(Q).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the thermodynamic data of an extremal, charged, rotating AdS5 black hole—its energy, angular momenta, charge, and O($N^{2}$) entropy—can be reproduced by a matrix large-charge EFT on S3 x R. Promoting the U(1)-charged complex scalar to a complex N x N adjoint scalar X and imposing a self-consistent mean field $\lambda$/$N^{2}$ <Tr(X Xbar)> = C reduces the quartic equation of motion to a linear one. The solution occupies S3 harmonics with n approximately mu $\Omega$/(1-$\Omega$^2), forming a rigidly rotating condensate whose local stress-energy tensor and charge density exactly match those of a zero-temperature conformal fluid; the identification $N^{2}$/$\lambda$ = alpha1/(16 pi G5) makes the match to the black hole concrete. The author takes this as evidence that extremal black holes can be seen as large-charge EFT ground states with O($N^{2}$) condensed modes, with the caveat that the Gaussian approximation underestimates the black hole entropy.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation replaces the quartic interaction by a constant mean field, turning the theory into a solvable quadratic one, and assumes this Gaussian approximation is valid at large charge; if that replacement is not the true saddle point, the match to black hole thermodynamics has no foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The stress-energy tensor, charge density, and energy-charge-spin relations of extremal AdS5 black holes follow from the matrix EFT with the identification N^2/lambda = alpha1/(16 pi G5).
  • The mode-counting interpretation assigns the entropy to O(N^2) macroscopically occupied S3 harmonic modes, giving an entropy of order N^2 log mu from a field-theoretic count.
  • The fluid regime holds for 1 << Q << J << Q^{3/2} in d=4, and the matrix model's solution covers exactly that window.
  • BPS black holes, although outside the fluid regime, obey charge-spin relations that simplify in the large-spin limit to forms reminiscent of the extremal fluid solution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mean-field saddle point survives beyond leading order, the matrix EFT would give a boundary derivation of the extremal black-hole microstate count, and the proposed random-matrix interaction is the natural candidate for lifting the Gaussian degeneracy to produce S ~ Q.
  • The same construction should extend to other dimensions: d=3 with a single rotation plane and d=4 with unequal angular velocities are direct tests of whether the fluid form is universal.
  • The BPS discussion suggests a route to a supersymmetric large-charge matrix model whose ground state reproduces BPS charge-spin relations, potentially connecting microstate counting of supersymmetric AdS black holes to the large-charge EFT.
  • The identification N^2/lambda = alpha1/(16 pi G5) turns the matrix EFT coupling into a gravitational datum, which may organize large-N corrections to black-hole thermodynamics order by order.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a matrix generalization of the large-charge EFT in which the U(1)-charged complex scalar is promoted to an N×N adjoint matrix. In the equal-spin sector (Ω1=Ω2), a mean-field replacement reduces the quartic theory to a linear equation, and the authors find a rigidly rotating condensate on S^3 whose stress tensor and charge density match the zero-temperature conformal-fluid data dual to large extremal AdS5 black holes, provided N^2/λ = α1/(16πG5). The paper also presents a mode-counting estimate of an O(N^2) entropy and comments on BPS black holes at large angular momentum, proposing a universal ∏(1−Ω_a^2)^{-1} structure and a specific free-energy function for N=4 SYM.

Significance. The explicit matching of the matrix-model stress tensor (3.43) with the fluid/gravity data (2.15) is a clean and useful result, and the ansatz in Appendix B provides an independent route to the same densities. If the mean-field saddle point could be justified, the construction would offer a concrete field-theoretic description of the hydrodynamic sector of extremal black holes, and the BPS section suggests an interesting universal regime. However, the central microscopic claim—that the Gaussian condensate accounts for the black-hole microstates—is not supported: the mean-field approximation is uncontrolled, the entropy is parametrically too small, and the paper itself delegates the required enhancement to a conjectured disordered interaction. The paper is therefore valuable as a fluid-data match and as a proposal, but not yet as a derivation of black-hole thermodynamics from a matrix model.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, footnote 4 and Eqs. (3.23)–(3.24), (3.41)–(3.42)] The mean-field replacement λ⟨φ*φ⟩ ≡ C and its matrix analogue λ/N^2 ⟨Tr(X bar X)⟩ ≡ C are asserted to be valid at large charge, but no expansion in 1/Q or 1/N is supplied. Since all subsequent thermodynamic quantities and the mode occupation numbers follow from the resulting Gaussian saddle point, the approximation needs at least a consistency check, such as a 1/Q expansion of the self-consistency loop or a numerical test, before the microstate counting can be trusted.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (3.34)–(3.35)] There is an inconsistency in the treatment of the angular velocity. Equation (3.34) gives ⟨φ*φ⟩ ≈ n0Ω/2, so the self-consistency condition C = λ⟨φ*φ⟩ should yield C = λ n0Ω/2 (or C = n0Ω/2 in the normalized convention), not C = n0/2 as written in (3.35). The occupation number n0 ≈ 2μ^2/[Ω(1−Ω^2)] used in the entropy (3.44) corresponds to the corrected relation, so the text should be adjusted to make the derivation internally consistent.
  3. [Section 3.3.1, Eq. (3.44) and Appendix A, Eq. (A.3)] The entropy computed from the mean-field condensate is S ∼ N^2 μ log μ, while the charge is Q ∼ N^2 μ^3 and the extremal AdS5 black hole has S_BH ≈ (√2 π/3) Q. The paper explicitly concedes this discrepancy and defers the enhancement to a conjectured SYK-like interaction (3.45). Since the abstract and Section 1 claim that the mode counting 'accounts for the O(N^2) entropy' as part of the black-hole description, this parametric mismatch is load-bearing; without a quantitative treatment of the disordered interaction, the microscopic identification with the extremal black hole is not established.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (3.37)] The identity ∑ m1 |Y_{n,m1,m2}|^2 = n sin^2 θ requires a specific normalization of the scalar harmonics. The derivation in Appendix C is not explicit about the overall volume factor: the normalization condition (C.4)–(C.5) gives |N_{n,m1}|^2 = binom(n,m1) times a common factor that drops out only in integrals over the full sphere, not in the pointwise identity used in (3.36) and (3.44). Please state the normalization convention or provide a reference; as written, the local stress-tensor components T_tφ and T_tψ and the entropy count are not fully justified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] There is a typo: 'd−dimensioanl CFTs' should read 'd-dimensional CFTs'.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (4.2)] Equation (4.2) has the universal factor in the wrong place: the partition function should have the denominator ∏_a (1−Ω_a^2), as in Eq. (2.8) and as used in Eq. (4.3); the product in the numerator is a typo.
  3. [Section 3.1, Eq. (3.16)] Equation (3.16) uses 'c3' where the text defines c1; please clarify the notation and the relation between α1 in (2.13) and α in (3.1).
  4. [Section 3.3] The statement that the matrix model 'can be viewed as essentially N^2 copies of the complex scalar theory' is too quick: for the potential λ/(2N^2)(Tr X bar X)^2, the interaction couples the trace and does not factorize into N^2 independent copies; it is the mean-field treatment that makes them independent, and this point should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Section 4, Eqs. (4.11)–(4.12)] The step from the BPS charge–spin relation (4.11) to the specific homogeneous function g(δ) in (4.12) is presented without derivation; please indicate whether this is an exact rewriting or an ansatz.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

No structural circularity in the core derivation: the Ω-dependence of the fluid stress tensor is derived from a mode sum; the coefficient match N²/λ = α₁/(16πG₅) is a disclosed parameter identification, the entropy gap is conceded by the paper, and the BPS free energy is fit to a known constraint.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, matching sentence below eq. (3.43); cf. abstract]
    "Ttt = N 2µ4(3 + Ω2)/(2λ(1 − Ω2)3 ), Ttϕ = − 2N 2µ4Ω sin2 θ/(λ(1 − Ω2)3 ), ρ = jt = 2N 2µ3/(λ(1 − Ω2)2 ), The stress energy tensor and charge density coincides with the stress energy tensor and charge density of (2.15) if one sets N 2/λ = α1/(16πG5)."

    The match that carries the headline claim ('exactly reproduce the thermodynamics') is conditional on setting the free EFT ratio N²/λ equal to the black-hole-side coefficient α₁/(16πG₅); neither side determines the other, so the numerical normalization of E, J and Q is a parameter identification, not a derived prediction. The Ω-dependence is not circular: the (3+Ω²)/(1−Ω²)³ structure of Ttt and the sin²θ/cos²θ profiles are computed from the mode sum (3.25) with the BEC condition (3.31), independently of (2.15), so the free content of the claim is the functional form, and the coefficient matching is disclosed.

  2. other [Section 4, eqs. (4.10)–(4.13)]
    "In the large-charge, large-spin limit (qi, ja ≫ 1), this simplifies to j1j2/2 ≈ (q1 + q2)(q2 + q3)(q3 + q1). ... It turns out that the following homogeneous function g(δ) reproduce the relation above. g(δ) = N 2/16 (δ1 + δ2 − δ3)(δ2 + δ3 − δ1)(δ3 + δ1 − δ2)."

    The free-energy function g(δ) is selected (4.12) so that the derived free energy (4.13) reproduces the target constraint (4.11) taken from the known 1/16-BPS black-hole data [41]; relation (4.10) likewise follows from the assumed partition function (4.3) with a free coefficient a. The paper labels this honestly ('It turns out that ... reproduce the relation above') and frames Section 4 as a comment rather than a derivation, so this is a minor fit-to-target rather than a load-bearing circular step.

full rationale

The central fluid matching is not circular by construction. The stress tensor (3.36)/(3.43) is computed from the mean-field linear equation (3.42) via the S³ mode expansion (3.25) with the BEC condition (3.31), and the angular profiles use the binomial harmonic identity of Appendix C; the (3+Ω²)/(1−Ω²)³ normalization and the sin²θ/cos²θ profiles are derived data, not imported from the fluid/gravity formulas (2.15). The comparison to (2.15) is a genuine equality of functional forms up to the disclosed identification N²/λ = α₁/(16πG₅), which fixes the free EFT coupling by matching; the numerical normalization is therefore matched, not predicted, and the abstract's 'exactly reproduce' is stronger than the conditional statement in Section 3.3. That is the mild fitted-input step scored above. The self-citation [24] (Choi–Lee) for the fluid-regime ground state is not load-bearing: independent support exists ([18,26]) and the paper re-derives the rotating-fluid solution internally (Sections 3.1, 3.2, Appendix B). No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The genuine weakness is the microscopic identification, which the paper itself concedes: Section 3.3.1 states that the Gaussian mean-field entropy S ∼ N²μ ln μ is parametrically smaller than Q ∼ N²μ³, whereas the extremal AdS₅ black hole has S_BH ∝ Q (A.3), and defers an SYK-like interaction to future work; Section 5 repeats this caveat. Footnote 4 asserts the mean-field replacement (3.41) 'should be valid at large charge since other contributions are suppressed in powers of 1/Q ≪ 1' without supplying the expansion — a correctness gap, not a circularity. The mode-counting algebra of Section 3.2 is also not transparent: (3.34) carries factors μΩ/(1−Ω²) and 1/(2En), while (3.35) drops the Ω and λ factors needed by the text's own n₀ ≈ 2μ²/(Ω(1−Ω²)); these are technical inconsistencies to repair, not circular steps. Verdict: the thermodynamic fluid claim has independent content and is checked against external black-hole data (Appendix A, [31]); the microstate claim is an acknowledged conjecture; circularity is limited to disclosed parameter identification and one fit-to-target in the BPS comment.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central construction depends on the large-charge EFT, the fluid/gravity benchmark, a hand-set matching coefficient, and an unproven mean-field approximation. The matrix field and the proposed random interaction are new entities without independent evidence.

free parameters (2)
  • EFT coupling alpha (or lambda/N^2) = N^2/lambda = alpha1/(16 pi G5)
    The overall coefficient of the matrix quartic potential is not predicted; it is set equal to black hole data in Eq. (2.15) so the stress tensors coincide.
  • BPS free-energy function g(delta_i) = (N^2/16)(delta1+delta2-delta3)(delta2+delta3-delta1)(delta3+delta1-delta2)
    This function is chosen by hand in Eq. (4.12) to reproduce the known BPS charge-spin relation (4.11); no independent derivation is given.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Large-charge EFT hierarchy 1/R << mu << Lambda_UV and leading action L = c |partial chi|^d
    Imported from Hellerman et al.; the entire analysis assumes this EFT is valid and that the saddle point dominates.
  • domain assumption Fluid/gravity correspondence and universal partition function log Z_rot = log Z_non-rot / prod(1 - Omega_a^2)
    Taken from Bhattacharyya et al.; used as the benchmark that the EFT must reproduce.
  • ad hoc to paper Mean-field replacement lambda <phi* phi> = C (matrix version: lambda/N^2 <Tr(X bar X)> = C) with C constant on S^3
    Asserted in Section 3.2, Eq. (3.23) and footnote 4; no controlled expansion is provided, and the paper acknowledges quantum corrections are neglected.
  • domain assumption For J1=J2, SO(4) symmetry guarantees C is constant on the sphere
    Used to solve the linearized equation of motion; unequal-spin case is not treated.
  • ad hoc to paper Low-temperature BPS partition function scaling ln Z = (1/T) V g(mu_i) / prod(1 - Omega_a^2)
    Assumed in Eq. (4.3) with the statement 'we assume that the leading behavior ... is given by'; no derivation from the BPS Hilbert space is provided.
  • domain assumption Classically extremal black hole has finite nonzero entropy at T=0, with Schwarzian quantum effects ignored
    Stated in footnote 2 and in Section 3.3.1; the classical model is the target, not the exact quantum zero-temperature limit.
invented entities (2)
  • Complex N x N adjoint scalar X in large-charge EFT
    purpose: Provides O(N^2) modes so the ground state can carry large entropy and match extremal black hole thermodynamics.
    No falsifiable prediction is derived from this entity; the mode-counting entropy N^2 mu log mu is parametrically smaller than the black hole entropy Q ~ N^2 mu^3.
  • Random quartic (SYK-like) interaction among matrix modes
    purpose: Proposed to induce level repulsion and lift the entropy to O(Q), recovering black hole entropy.
    Introduced as a conjecture in Section 3.3.1 ('We expect that such interactions would ...'); no quantitative calculation is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extremal AdS Black Holes as Fluids: A Matrix Large-Charge EFT Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4CCGDTJK

@misc{pith2026250721240,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extremal AdS Black Holes as Fluids: A Matrix Large-Charge EFT Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4CCGDTJK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21240}
}
abstract

We develop a simple, yet powerful, matrix-valued large-charge EFT that captures the thermodynamic behavior of rotating extremal large-charge AdS black holes. We introduce a minimal "matrix EFT" by promoting the complex scalar in large charge EFT to a complex $N\times N$ adjoint scalar, whose $O(N^2)$ modes contribute at zero temperature. Employing a mean-field approximation, we solve the self-consistency equations and obtain explicit rigidly rotating fluid solutions. We demonstrate that their energy, angular momenta, and charge densities exactly reproduce the thermodynamics and boundary stress tensor of zero-temperature conformal fluids. A microscopic mode-counting further accounts for the $O(N^2)$ entropy. Via the fluid/gravity correspondence, this fluid describes an extremal AdS black hole in large charge limit. We also comment on supersymmetric BPS black holes, which fall outside the usual hydrodynamic regime but nevertheless exhibit simple, universal behavior in the large angular momentum limit. In this regime, their non-linear charge-spin relations simplify to form reminiscent of our extremal fluid solutions at large angular momentum limit.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Policastro, D

    G. Policastro, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets, From AdS / CFT correspondence to hydrodynamics , JHEP 09 (2002) 043, [ hep-th/0205052]

    arXiv 2002

  2. [2]

    R. A. Janik and R. B. Peschanski, Asymptotic perfect fluid dynamics as a consequence of Ads/CFT , Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 045013, [ hep-th/0512162]. – 22 –

    arXiv 2006

  3. [3]

    D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, Viscosity, Black Holes, and Quantum Field Theory , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 95–118, [ arXiv:0704.0240]

    arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    Bhattacharyya, V

    S. Bhattacharyya, V. E. Hubeny, S. Minwalla, and M. Rangamani, Nonlinear Fluid Dynamics from Gravity, JHEP 02 (2008) 045, [ arXiv:0712.2456]

    arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    V. E. Hubeny, S. Minwalla, and M. Rangamani, The fluid/gravity correspondence, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: String theory and its Applications: From meV to the Planck Scale , pp. 348–383, 2012. arXiv:1107.5780

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Bhattacharyya, S

    S. Bhattacharyya, S. Lahiri, R. Loganayagam, and S. Minwalla, Large rotating AdS black holes from fluid mechanics, JHEP 09 (2008) 054, [ arXiv:0708.1770]

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Hellerman, D

    S. Hellerman, D. Orlando, S. Reffert, and M. Watanabe, On the CFT Operator Spectrum at Large Global Charge, JHEP 12 (2015) 071, [ arXiv:1505.01537]

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Alvarez-Gaume, O

    L. Alvarez-Gaume, O. Loukas, D. Orlando, and S. Reffert, Compensating strong coupling with large charge, JHEP 04 (2017) 059, [ arXiv:1610.04495]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Loukas, Abelian scalar theory at large global charge , Fortsch

    O. Loukas, Abelian scalar theory at large global charge , Fortsch. Phys. 65 (2017), no. 9 1700028, [arXiv:1612.08985]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Loukas, D

    O. Loukas, D. Orlando, and S. Reffert, Matrix models at large charge , JHEP 10 (2017) 085, [arXiv:1707.00710]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Hellerman, N

    S. Hellerman, N. Kobayashi, S. Maeda, and M. Watanabe, A Note on Inhomogeneous Ground States at Large Global Charge, JHEP 10 (2019) 038, [ arXiv:1705.05825]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Hellerman, S

    S. Hellerman, S. Maeda, and M. Watanabe, Operator Dimensions from Moduli , JHEP 10 (2017) 089, [arXiv:1706.05743]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hellerman and S

    S. Hellerman and S. Maeda, On the Large R-charge Expansion in N = 2 Superconformal Field Theories, JHEP 12 (2017) 135, [ arXiv:1710.07336]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Monin, D

    A. Monin, D. Pirtskhalava, R. Rattazzi, and F. K. Seibold, Semiclassics, Goldstone Bosons and CFT data, JHEP 06 (2017) 011, [ arXiv:1611.02912]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Jafferis, B

    D. Jafferis, B. Mukhametzhanov, and A. Zhiboedov, Conformal Bootstrap At Large Charge , JHEP 05 (2018) 043, [ arXiv:1710.11161]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bourget, D

    A. Bourget, D. Rodriguez-Gomez, and J. G. Russo, A limit for large R-charge correlators in N = 2 theories, JHEP 05 (2018) 074, [ arXiv:1803.00580]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Hellerman, S

    S. Hellerman, S. Maeda, D. Orlando, S. Reffert, and M. Watanabe, Universal correlation functions in rank 1 SCFTs , JHEP 12 (2019) 047, [ arXiv:1804.01535]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Cuomo, Superfluids, vortices and spinning charged operators in 4d CFT , JHEP 02 (2020) 119, [arXiv:1906.07283]

    G. Cuomo, Superfluids, vortices and spinning charged operators in 4d CFT , JHEP 02 (2020) 119, [arXiv:1906.07283]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Badel, G

    G. Badel, G. Cuomo, A. Monin, and R. Rattazzi, Feynman diagrams and the large charge expansion in 3 − ε dimensions, Phys. Lett. B 802 (2020) 135202, [ arXiv:1911.08505]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cuomo and Z

    G. Cuomo and Z. Komargodski, Giant Vortices and the Regge Limit , JHEP 01 (2023) 006, [arXiv:2210.15694]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Cuomo, J

    G. Cuomo, J. M. V. P. Lopes, J. Matos, J. Oliveira, and J. Penedones, Numerical tests of the large charge expansion, JHEP 05 (2024) 161, [ arXiv:2305.00499]

    2024

  14. [22]

    Badel, A

    G. Badel, A. Monin, and R. Rattazzi, Identifying Large Charge operators, JHEP 02 (2023) 119, [arXiv:2207.08919]. – 23 –

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    N. A. Dondi and G. Sberveglieri, NLO in the large charge sector of the critical O(N ) model at large N , arXiv:2409.06781

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Choi and E

    J. Choi and E. Lee, Large charge operators at large spin from relativistically rotating vortices , JHEP 05 (2025) 087, [ arXiv:2501.07198]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Watanabe, Large-charge R´ enyi entropy, arXiv:2506.10072

    M. Watanabe, Large-charge R´ enyi entropy, arXiv:2506.10072

  18. [26]

    Cuomo, A

    G. Cuomo, A. de la Fuente, A. Monin, D. Pirtskhalava, and R. Rattazzi, Rotating superfluids and spinning charged operators in conformal field theory , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018), no. 4 045012, [arXiv:1711.02108]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Loukas, D

    O. Loukas, D. Orlando, S. Reffert, and D. Sarkar, An AdS/EFT correspondence at large charge , Nucl. Phys. B 934 (2018) 437–458, [ arXiv:1804.04151]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    L. V. Iliesiu and G. J. Turiaci, The statistical mechanics of near-extremal black holes , JHEP 05 (2021) 145, [arXiv:2003.02860]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Kovtun, D

    P. Kovtun, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets, Viscosity in strongly interacting quantum field theories from black hole physics , Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 111601, [ hep-th/0405231]

    2005 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Banerjee, J

    N. Banerjee, J. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharyya, S. Jain, S. Minwalla, and T. Sharma, Constraints on Fluid Dynamics from Equilibrium Partition Functions , JHEP 09 (2012) 046, [ arXiv:1203.3544]

    2012 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Z. W. Chong, M. Cvetic, H. Lu, and C. N. Pope, General non-extremal rotating black holes in minimal five-dimensional gauged supergravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 161301, [ hep-th/0506029]

    2005 arXiv

  24. [32]

    L. F. Alday and J. M. Maldacena, Comments on operators with large spin , JHEP 11 (2007) 019, [arXiv:0708.0672]

    2007 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Komargodski and A

    Z. Komargodski and A. Zhiboedov, Convexity and Liberation at Large Spin , JHEP 11 (2013) 140, [arXiv:1212.4103]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, D. Poland, and D. Simmons-Duffin, The Analytic Bootstrap and AdS Superhorizon Locality, JHEP 12 (2013) 004, [ arXiv:1212.3616]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Sachdev and J

    S. Sachdev and J. Ye, Gapless spin fluid ground state in a random, quantum Heisenberg magnet , Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 3339, [ cond-mat/9212030]

    1993 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Maldacena and D

    J. Maldacena and D. Stanford, Remarks on the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model , Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016), no. 10 106002, [ arXiv:1604.07818]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    J. S. Cotler, G. Gur-Ari, M. Hanada, J. Polchinski, P. Saad, S. H. Shenker, D. Stanford, A. Streicher, and M. Tezuka, Black holes and random matrices , Journal of High Energy Physics 2017 (2017), no. 5 1–54

    2017

  30. [38]

    Bajaj, V

    K. Bajaj, V. Kumar, S. Minwalla, J. Mukherjee, and A. Rahaman, Grey Galaxies in AdS5, arXiv:2412.06904

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. B. Gutowski and H. S. Reall, Supersymmetric AdS(5) black holes , JHEP 02 (2004) 006, [hep-th/0401042]

    2004 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Z. W. Chong, M. Cvetic, H. Lu, and C. N. Pope, Charged rotating black holes in four-dimensional gauged and ungauged supergravities, Nucl. Phys. B 717 (2005) 246–271, [ hep-th/0411045]

    2005 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Kim and K.-M

    S. Kim and K.-M. Lee, 1/16-BPS Black Holes and Giant Gravitons in the AdS(5) X S**5 Space , JHEP 12 (2006) 077, [ hep-th/0607085]

    2006 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Larsen and S

    F. Larsen and S. Lee, Supersymmetric charge constraints on AdS black holes from free fields , JHEP 09 (2024) 118, [ arXiv:2405.17648]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Chang, Y

    C.-M. Chang, Y. Chen, B. S. Sia, and Z. Yang, Fortuity in SYK Models , arXiv:2412.06902. – 24 –

  36. [44]

    Cuomo, L

    G. Cuomo, L. Rastelli, and A. Sharon, Moduli spaces in CFT: large charge operators , JHEP 09 (2024) 185, [arXiv:2406.19441]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Komargodski, M

    Z. Komargodski, M. Mezei, S. Pal, and A. Raviv-Moshe, Spontaneously broken boosts in CFTs , JHEP 09 (2021) 064, [ arXiv:2102.12583]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Dondi, S

    N. Dondi, S. Hellerman, I. Kalogerakis, R. Moser, D. Orlando, and S. Reffert, Fermionic CFTs at large charge and large N , JHEP 08 (2023) 180, [ arXiv:2211.15318]. – 25 –

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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