Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Entanglement C-functions of defects and interfaces in $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A closed-form holographic entropy for massive D3/D5 defects and interfaces is derived, and the defect C-function is shown to stay monotone until dissolved D3 charge sends it to −∞ in the infrared.

desk verdict New analytic result for massive D3/D5 defect entropy, but the central formula rests on an unproven identity for a non-absolutely-convergent integral; deserves a referee, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.00123 v2 pith:5FKDZERV submitted 2025-09-30 hep-th

Niko Jokela , Jani Kastikainen , José Manuel Penín , Ronnie Rodgers , Helime Ruotsalainen This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th PACS 11.25.Tq11.10.Hi
keywords entanglemententropyholographyN=4SYMD3/D5defectholographicC-functionprobebranegeneralizedgravitationalRGflow
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

The paper claims to compute, for the first time, the analytic contribution of a massive codimension-one defect or interface to the ball entanglement entropy in planar N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory, using the holographic D3/D5 probe-brane description. The central result is a closed formula for the leading defect/interface entropy as a function of the dimensionless radius a=mℓ and the dissolved-D3 flux q. From that formula, the paper extracts entropic C-functions: for a pure defect (q=0) the C-function decreases monotonically from the UV defect free energy to zero in the infrared; for an interface (q≠0) the same C-function is found to be monotone for every sampled value of q, but it diverges to −∞ in the infrared, so it stops counting degrees of freedom. The paper then builds four-dimensional 'A-functions' more suited to interfaces; the best behaved one interpolates between the average of the two Weyl anomaly coefficients and the un-interface value N3², at the cost of non-monotonic intermediate behavior for small q. If correct, this gives the first analytic holographic entropy through a massive defect RG flow and a concrete laboratory for defect monotonicity.

What carries the argument

The calculation uses the probe-brane version of generalized gravitational entropy: the D5-brane action is evaluated in the ball's replica geometry with a horizon at ζ=ζ_H, and the entropy is extracted by differentiating with respect to ζ_H. The action splits into three terms—'brane' (explicit ζ_H dependence), 'horizon' (boundary at ζ=1), and 'variation' (implicit dependence through the embedding). Because the integrand contains a non-integrable piece (ζ−1)⁻¹ cos(2τ), changing variables to Poincaré coordinates changes the value of the integral; the paper posits the relation S_brane = S_brane^(Poinc) − S_var to repair this. The defect C-function is the differential operator (ℓ∂ℓ − 1) acting on

What would settle it

Numerically evaluate the original (τ, ζ, s) integral for S_brane to high precision at several values of (a, q) and check whether the difference from the Poincaré-coordinate result equals S_var within numerical accuracy; a single mismatch beyond round-off falsifies the assumed relation and hence the quoted entropy. A direct analytic evaluation of the singular subtracted integral (3.63), integrating τ first over the exact integration region, would also settle the issue.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At leading order in the probe limit (√λ N5 ≪ N3), the paper derives a closed-form expression for the defect/interface contribution to the entanglement entropy of a ball of radius ℓ centered on the D3/D5 defect: S1 = (√λ N3 N5/3π)[(2−q²)a/(µε) − (3(1+4a²−4q²)/(8a)) sin⁻¹σ + 3q sinh⁻¹(q/√(1−σ²)) + √(1−σ²)((1−2σ²)a³/σ³ + (4σ²−9)a/(2σ) + (15−2σ²)σ/(8a))] + O(ε), with a = 2πmℓ/√λ and σ defined in Eq. (3.47). The formula reduces to the known conformal answer at m=0, and its large-a expansion reproduces half the Coulomb-branch entropy of the n3 dissolved D3-branes, confirming the probe calculation in two limits. From this S1 the paper evaluates the defect/interface C-function C = (ℓ∂ℓ − 1)S_def, fi

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes, without proof, that S_brane equals the Poincaré-coordinate integral S_brane^(Poinc) minus the variation term S_var; since the integrand is not absolutely convergent, this relation is what converts a coordinate-dependent integral into the physical entropy, and if it fails, the analytic formula (3.56) changes by a finite term.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Eq. (3.56) is correct, the entanglement entropy of a massive defect/interface is now known analytically across its entire RG flow, providing a benchmark for future backreacted, numerical, or field-theoretic computations.
  • For q=0 the C-function decreases monotonically from F_def,UV to zero in the infrared, confirming that the massive defect degrees of freedom are gapped out as expected.
  • For q≠0 the same C-function diverges to −∞ in the infrared; the O(a²) and O(log a) pieces are exactly one half of the Coulomb-branch entropy of the dissolved D3-branes, explaining why a defect-adapted C-function fails for interfaces.
  • The A-function eALM is finite in both ultraviolet and infrared, interpolating between the average Weyl anomaly of the two sides and the un-interface value N3², though it is not monotone for q < 1/2.
  • The assumed relation S_brane = S_brane^(Poinc) − S_var, if true, resolves the long-standing discrepancy about the 'variation' boundary term in probe-brane entropy calculations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the assumed relation between the Poincaré-coordinate integral and the variation term is false, every probe-brane entanglement entropy computed in Poincaré coordinates for non-AdS worldvolumes inherits a finite error; settling this identity would therefore affect more than the present D3/D5 system.
  • A rigorous derivation of that relation via a distributional treatment of the singular integrand would likely apply to all such probe-brane calculations and could be checked numerically on the simpler D3-brane Coulomb-branch example worked out in the appendix.
  • The non-monotonicity of eALM for small q suggests that no single differential-polynomial C-function built from the ball entropy will simultaneously be monotone and finite for interfaces; a relative-entropy or modular-Hamiltonian construction may be needed instead.
  • A testable extension is to compute the leading backreacted geometry for the massive n3≠0 D3/D5 system and compare with Eq. (3.56); agreement would independently confirm the tentative relation S_brane = S_brane^(Poinc) − S_var.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes the holographic entanglement entropy of a ball-shaped region centered on a codimension-one defect or interface in N=4 SYM theory, realized by probe D5-branes in AdS5×S5. Working at leading order in the probe limit (√λ N5, n3 ≪ N3), it derives an analytic expression S1 for the defect/interface contribution when the defect hypermultiplets are massive or, for q≠0, when one side of the interface is on the Coulomb branch. The central formula is Eq. (3.56). From this entropy the authors construct the CST entanglement C-function (4.10) and several alternative A-functions. They find that for q=0 the CST C-function is monotone and interpolates from the defect free energy to zero, while for q≠0 it is still monotone but diverges to −∞ in the IR. The alternative function e_ALM interpolates between the averaged Weyl anomaly and N3² in the IR, but is not always monotone. The calculation of Sbrane relies on the identity Sbrane = S_brane^(Poinc) − S_var, Eq. (3.64), which the authors state they assume and cannot derive.

Significance. If correct, this is the first analytic entanglement entropy for a massive D3/D5 defect/interface and provides a concrete holographic example of the CST defect C-function, including an interface case where the standard monotonicity theorem does not apply. The paper contains useful consistency checks: the m=0 limit (3.31) reproduces the probe limit of the backreacted conformal defect entropy, the large-a expansion (3.58) reproduces half of the Coulomb-branch entropy, and the numerical comparison in Fig. 7 supports the disputed relation. It also clarifies the role of the S_var boundary term in earlier probe-brane calculations. However, the central formula is conditional on an unproven change-of-variables identity, so the quantitative results for finite a are not yet established beyond reasonable doubt.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4, Eq. (3.64)] The headline result (3.56) rests on the assumed identity Sbrane = S_brane^(Poinc) − S_var. As the manuscript states, the integrand in (3.59) is not absolutely convergent because of the cos(2τ)/(ζ²−1) term, and the toy integral (3.60)–(3.62) demonstrates that a change of variables can alter the value of such an integral. The paper explicitly says “it is not obvious to us how to derive” (3.64). Since Sbrane enters S1 through (3.51), any function of a and q by which (3.64) fails changes S1 and all C-functions in §4. The m=0 and large-a checks constrain only endpoints, not the finite interior. This is a load-bearing unproven assumption; a derivation of (3.64) or an equivalent first-principles justification is needed.
  2. [§3.4, Fig. 7, App. C] The evidence offered for (3.64) is suggestive but not conclusive. Fig. 7 checks ∆Sbrane for selected q and a ∈ [0,5], but no numerical error estimates or convergence details are given, and the analytic curves are obtained using the same identity under test. The D3/D7/D6 comparisons in ref. [47] and the D3-brane Coulomb-branch check in App. C are different systems; they show the relation holds there, not that it holds for the D5-brane. App. C does provide a direct residue evaluation for the D3-brane, but no analogous direct evaluation is given for the present case. Please supply a derivation or a substantially stronger numerical verification.
  3. [§4.2, after Eq. (4.22)] The monotonicity of C(a) for q≠0 is advertised as a key result, yet the text says only that monotonicity was found “for every value of q that we have checked.” For interfaces there is no theorem protecting monotonicity, and the abstract and conclusions present this as a finding. Since the analytic expression is available, a proof of monotonicity, or at least a precise statement of the parameter range verified and the numerical method used, should be provided. The same comment applies to the conclusion that C(a) remains monotonic for q≠0.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.4, after Eq. (3.63)] The claim that the integral in (3.63) is finite but nonzero because “there are values of ζ and s for which the range of τ is more limited” is not demonstrated. A plot or explicit inequality would help the reader verify this important point.
  2. [Fig. 7] Please add error bars or describe the numerical integration scheme and convergence criterion. The |q|=0.1 panel has a very small vertical range and would benefit from a zoom or a different scale.
  3. [§3.3, Eq. (3.55)] The derivation of S_var in App. B.2 is clear, but the final expression (3.55c) uses σ without an explicit definition in that appendix. Please refer to Eq. (3.47) at the point of use.
  4. [Abstract and §2] The abstract says the interface RG flow is triggered by “a mass term for vector multiplets,” while §2 describes it as a Coulomb-branch boundary condition at spatial infinity. Consider aligning the wording to avoid the impression of a localized mass term.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity: S1 (3.56) is a genuine first-principles probe-brane calculation; the underived identity (3.64) is an acknowledged gap, not a definitional/fitted relation, and self-citations used as evidence are externally benchmarked.

full rationale

Walked the chain: D5 action (2.4) -> ansatz (2.5) -> CHM thermal entropy for m=0 (Sec. 3.2) -> generalized entropy decomposition (3.35) -> S_brane (3.51 via App. B), S_hor (3.53), S_var (3.55) -> S1 (3.56) -> C-functions (4.20), (4.22), (4.26), (4.29), (4.33), (4.37). No parameter is fitted to the target outputs: q, mu, N3, N5, lambda are fixed by the brane construction, and sigma/a are definitions. The m=0 limit (3.31) matches the backreacted result of ref. [36], and the large-a interface result (3.58) matches half of the Coulomb-branch entropy [68]; these are external benchmarks, not inputs. The only load-bearing delicate step is (3.64), S_brane = S_brane^(Poinc) - S_var. The paper explicitly flags it: 'Based on this evidence, we assume equation (3.64) is true... However, it is not obvious to us how to derive the former equation.' This is a correctness gap, not circularity: S_var is independently defined by (3.38), and (3.64) is not an identity by construction; it is supported by the D3/D7/D6 comparisons, Fig. 7 numerics, and the D3 Coulomb-branch example in App. C, where the analogous relation is verified against a backreacted multi-center geometry. The self-citations ([47], [68], [87], [99]) are method/context and supporting evidence; [47] and [68] are benchmarked against backreacted geometries, so under the reviewing rules they are independent support. No fitted-input-called-prediction, uniqueness-imported-from-authors, ansatz-smuggled-via-citation, or renaming patterns are present. Score 2 reflects minor self-citation reliance plus an unproved (but non-circular) assumption; the central result is not forced by its inputs by construction.

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

No fitted constants: q, μ, N3, N5 are physical parameters of the brane setup, not tuned to data. The main non-standard input is the assumed identity (3.64); no new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Large-N/strong-coupling probe limit: √λ N5 ≪ N3 and n3 ≪ N3, so D5-branes do not backreact.
    Used throughout §2–3; the whole S1 expansion is in powers of √λ N5/N3.
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT correspondence plus RT/generalized gravitational entropy, evaluated with the probe D5 action and embedding ansatz (2.2), (2.5).
    Central mapping from bulk area/action to field-theory entanglement entropy; standard background result assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper Equation (3.64): Sbrane = Sbrane^(Poinc) − Svar.
    Assumed in §3.4 with numerical and precedential evidence; explicitly stated to be unproven and needed for the analytic Sbrane.
  • domain assumption Monotonicity theorem of Casini–Salazar Landea–Torroba for defect RG flows [18].
    Used to frame and check the q=0 C-function; not needed for the raw entropy formula itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entanglement C-functions of defects and interfaces in $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5FKDZERV

@misc{pith2026251000123,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entanglement C-functions of defects and interfaces in $\mathcalN=4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5FKDZERV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.00123}
}
abstract

We consider planar codimension-one defects and interfaces in $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills (SYM) theory, realized by the D3/D5-brane intersection. Working in the probe limit, where the number of D5-branes is small compared to the number of D3-branes, we obtain analytic results for the holographic entanglement entropy of a ball-shaped region centered on the defect. A defect renormalization group flow is triggered by giving the defect hypermultiplets a mass, which corresponds to separating the D3- and D5-branes. Along this flow the entanglement C-function decreases monotonically. We also allow the D5-branes to carry worldvolume flux corresponding to dissolved D3-branes, in which case the setup describes an interface between two copies of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theory with different gauge groups, where an RG flow is triggered by placing one side of the interface onto the Coulomb branch. Here we again find monotonic behavior of the entanglement C-function, although its interpretation as a measure of effective degrees of freedom is problematic. We investigate possible alternative measures of degrees of freedom.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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

  1. Defect entanglement entropy for superconformal RG Interfaces

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A holographic computation of the defect entanglement entropy for superconformal RG interfaces between N=4 SYM and the Leigh-Strassler SCFT, finding a mass-squared scaling at large deformation and a relation between C^...

  2. On decoding the string from interfaces in 2d conformal field theories

    hep-th 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Stringy vibrations of an AdS3 junction between two thermal CFTs map to half-sided conformal transformations, producing perfectly reflected wavepackets, and are readable from interval entanglement entropy even at zero tension.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 92 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [47]

    Jokela, J

    N. Jokela, J. Kastikainen, J.M. Penín and H. Ruotsalainen,Flavors of entanglement,JHEP 07(2024) 270 [2401.07905]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Zamolodchikov,Irreversibility of the Flux of the Renormalization Group in a 2D Field Theory,JETP Lett.43(1986) 730

    A.B. Zamolodchikov,Irreversibility of the Flux of the Renormalization Group in a 2D Field Theory,JETP Lett.43(1986) 730

    1986

  3. [2]

    Jafferis, I.R

    D.L. Jafferis, I.R. Klebanov, S.S. Pufu and B.R. Safdi,Towards the F-Theorem: N=2 Field Theories on the Three-Sphere,JHEP06(2011) 102 [1103.1181]

    arXiv 2011

  4. [3]

    Myers and A

    R.C. Myers and A. Sinha,Holographic c-theorems in arbitrary dimensions,JHEP01(2011) 125 [1011.5819]

    arXiv 2011

  5. [4]

    Casini and M

    H. Casini and M. Huerta,On the RG running of the entanglement entropy of a circle,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 125016 [1202.5650]

    arXiv 2012

  6. [5]

    Cardy,Is There a c Theorem in Four-Dimensions?,Phys

    J.L. Cardy,Is There a c Theorem in Four-Dimensions?,Phys. Lett. B215(1988) 749

    1988

  7. [6]

    Osborn,Derivation of a Four-dimensionalcTheorem,Phys

    H. Osborn,Derivation of a Four-dimensionalcTheorem,Phys. Lett. B222(1989) 97

    1989

  8. [7]

    Jack and H

    I. Jack and H. Osborn,Analogs for thecTheorem for Four-dimensional Renormalizable Field Theories,Nucl. Phys. B343(1990) 647

    1990

Show all 99 references
  1. [8]

    Komargodski and A

    Z. Komargodski and A. Schwimmer,On Renormalization Group Flows in Four Dimensions, JHEP12(2011) 099 [1107.3987]

    2011 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Grover,Entanglement Monotonicity and the Stability of Gauge Theories in Three Spacetime Dimensions,Phys

    T. Grover,Entanglement Monotonicity and the Stability of Gauge Theories in Three Spacetime Dimensions,Phys. Rev. Lett.112(2014) 151601 [1211.1392]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Deser and A

    S. Deser and A. Schwimmer,Geometric classification of conformal anomalies in arbitrary dimensions,Phys. Lett. B309(1993) 279 [hep-th/9302047]

    1993 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Casini, M

    H. Casini, M. Huerta and R.C. Myers,Towards a derivation of holographic entanglement entropy,JHEP05(2011) 036 [1102.0440]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Giombi and I.R

    S. Giombi and I.R. Klebanov,Interpolating betweenaandF,JHEP03(2015) 117 [1409.1937]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Friedan and A

    D. Friedan and A. Konechny,On the boundary entropy of one-dimensional quantum systems at low temperature,Phys. Rev. Lett.93(2004) 030402 [hep-th/0312197]

    2004 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Cuomo, Z

    G. Cuomo, Z. Komargodski and A. Raviv-Moshe,Renormalization Group Flows on Line Defects,Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022) 021603 [2108.01117]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Jensen and A

    K. Jensen and A. O’Bannon,Constraint on Defect and Boundary Renormalization Group Flows,Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) 091601 [1509.02160]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Wang,Defect a-theorem and a-maximization,JHEP02(2022) 061 [2101.12648]

    Y. Wang,Defect a-theorem and a-maximization,JHEP02(2022) 061 [2101.12648]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Komargodski, F.K

    Z. Komargodski, F.K. Popov and B.C. Rayhaun,Defect Anomalies, a Spin-Flux Duality, and Boson-Kondo Problems,2508.14963

  11. [18]

    Casini, I

    H. Casini, I. Salazar Landea and G. Torroba,Irreversibility, QNEC, and defects,JHEP07 (2023) 004 [2303.16935]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Casini and M

    H. Casini and M. Huerta,A Finite entanglement entropy and the c-theorem,Phys. Lett. B 600(2004) 142 [hep-th/0405111]

    2004 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Casini, E

    H. Casini, E. Testé and G. Torroba,Markov Property of the Conformal Field Theory Vacuum and the a Theorem,Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) 261602 [1704.01870]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Kobayashi, T

    N. Kobayashi, T. Nishioka, Y. Sato and K. Watanabe,Towards aC-theorem in defect CFT, JHEP01(2019) 039 [1810.06995]. – 52 –

    2019 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Graham and E

    C.R. Graham and E. Witten,Conformal anomaly of submanifold observables in AdS / CFT correspondence,Nucl. Phys. B546(1999) 52 [hep-th/9901021]

    1999 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Henningson and K

    M. Henningson and K. Skenderis,Weyl anomaly for Wilson surfaces,JHEP06(1999) 012 [hep-th/9905163]

    1999 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Schwimmer and S

    A. Schwimmer and S. Theisen,Entanglement Entropy, Trace Anomalies and Holography, Nucl. Phys. B801(2008) 1 [0802.1017]

    2008 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Herzog, K.-W

    C.P. Herzog, K.-W. Huang and K. Jensen,Universal Entanglement and Boundary Geometry in Conformal Field Theory,JHEP01(2016) 162 [1510.00021]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Herzog, K.-W

    C. Herzog, K.-W. Huang and K. Jensen,Displacement Operators and Constraints on Boundary Central Charges,Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 021601 [1709.07431]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Faraji Astaneh and S.N

    A. Faraji Astaneh and S.N. Solodukhin,Boundary conformal invariants and the conformal anomaly in five dimensions,Phys. Lett. B816(2021) 136282 [2102.07661]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Chalabi, C.P

    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 [2111.14713]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Jensen, A

    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.122(2019) 241602 [1812.08745]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Maldacena,The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,Adv

    J.M. Maldacena,The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 231 [hep-th/9711200]

    1998 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Gubser, I.R

    S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov and A.M. Polyakov,Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,Phys. Lett. B428(1998) 105 [hep-th/9802109]

    1998 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Witten,Anti de Sitter space and holography,Adv

    E. Witten,Anti de Sitter space and holography,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 253 [hep-th/9802150]

    1998 arXiv

  26. [33]

    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

  27. [34]

    Ryu and T

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

    2006 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Lewkowycz and J

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

    2013 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Estes, K

    J. Estes, K. Jensen, A. O’Bannon, E. Tsatis and T. Wrase,On Holographic Defect Entropy, JHEP05(2014) 084 [1403.6475]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Kumar and D

    S.P. Kumar and D. Silvani,Entanglement of heavy quark impurities and generalized gravitational entropy,JHEP01(2018) 052 [1711.01554]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Rodgers,Holographic entanglement entropy from probe M-theory branes,JHEP03(2019) 092 [1811.12375]

    R. Rodgers,Holographic entanglement entropy from probe M-theory branes,JHEP03(2019) 092 [1811.12375]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Estes, D

    J. Estes, D. Krym, A. O’Bannon, B. Robinson and R. Rodgers,Wilson Surface Central Charge from Holographic Entanglement Entropy,JHEP05(2019) 032 [1812.00923]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Nakayama and T

    H. Nakayama and T. Nishioka,Holographic defect CFTs with Dirichlet end-of-the-world branes,2509.22270

  34. [41]

    Karch and E

    A. Karch and E. Katz,Adding flavor to AdS / CFT,JHEP06(2002) 043 [hep-th/0205236]. – 53 –

    2002 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Karch, A

    A. Karch, A. O’Bannon and K. Skenderis,Holographic renormalization of probe D-branes in AdS/CFT,JHEP04(2006) 015 [hep-th/0512125]

    2006 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Jensen and A

    K. Jensen and A. O’Bannon,Holography, Entanglement Entropy, and Conformal Field Theories with Boundaries or Defects,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 106006 [1309.4523]

    2013 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Karch and C.F

    A. Karch and C.F. Uhlemann,Generalized gravitational entropy of probe branes: flavor entanglement holographically,JHEP05(2014) 017 [1402.4497]

    2014 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Chang and A

    H.-C. Chang and A. Karch,Entanglement Entropy for Probe Branes,JHEP01(2014) 180 [1307.5325]

    2014 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Jones and M

    P.A.R. Jones and M. Taylor,Entanglement entropy and differential entropy for massive flavors,JHEP08(2015) 014 [1505.07697]

    2015 arXiv

  40. [48]

    DeWolfe, D.Z

    O. DeWolfe, D.Z. Freedman and H. Ooguri,Holography and defect conformal field theories, Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 025009 [hep-th/0111135]

    2002 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Erdmenger, Z

    J. Erdmenger, Z. Guralnik and I. Kirsch,Four-dimensional superconformal theories with interacting boundaries or defects,Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 025020 [hep-th/0203020]

    2002 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Karch and L

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

    2001 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Skenderis and M

    K. Skenderis and M. Taylor,Branes in AdS and p p wave space-times,JHEP06(2002) 025 [hep-th/0204054]

    2002 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Gaiotto and E

    D. Gaiotto and E. Witten,Supersymmetric Boundary Conditions in N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory,J. Statist. Phys.135(2009) 789 [0804.2902]

    2009 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Ipsen and K.E

    A.C. Ipsen and K.E. Vardinghus,The dilatation operator for defect conformalN= 4SYM, 1909.12181

    1909 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Arean, A.V

    D. Arean, A.V. Ramallo and D. Rodríguez-Gómez,Mesons and Higgs branch in defect theories,Phys. Lett. B641(2006) 393 [hep-th/0609010]

    2006 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Arean, A.V

    D. Arean, A.V. Ramallo and D. Rodríguez-Gómez,Holographic flavor on the Higgs branch, JHEP05(2007) 044 [hep-th/0703094]

    2007 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Liu and M

    H. Liu and M. Mezei,A Refinement of entanglement entropy and the number of degrees of freedom,JHEP04(2013) 162 [1202.2070]

    2013 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Liu and M

    H. Liu and M. Mezei,Probing renormalization group flows using entanglement entropy, JHEP01(2014) 098 [1309.6935]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Gutperle and J.D

    M. Gutperle and J.D. Miller,Entanglement entropy at holographic interfaces,Phys. Rev. D 93(2016) 026006 [1511.08955]

    2016 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Gutperle and J.D

    M. Gutperle and J.D. Miller,A note on entanglement entropy for topological interfaces in RCFTs,JHEP04(2016) 176 [1512.07241]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Karch, Z.-X

    A. Karch, Z.-X. Luo and H.-Y. Sun,Universal relations for holographic interfaces,JHEP09 (2021) 172 [2107.02165]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Karch and M

    A. Karch and M. Wang,Universal behavior of entanglement entropies in interface CFTs from general holographic spacetimes,JHEP06(2023) 145 [2211.09148]. – 54 –

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Karch, Y

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

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Karch, Y

    A. Karch, Y. Kusuki, H. Ooguri, H.-Y. Sun and M. Wang,Universal Bound on Effective Central Charge and Its Saturation,Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) 091604 [2404.01515]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Afxonidis, A

    E. Afxonidis, A. Karch and C. Murdia,The boundary entropy function for interface conformal field theories,JHEP07(2025) 132 [2412.05381]

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Gutperle and C

    M. Gutperle and C. Hultgreen-Mena,Janus and RG-interfaces in minimal 3d gauged supergravity,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A40(2025) 2550113 [2412.16749]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Afxonidis, I

    E. Afxonidis, I. Carreño Bolla, C. Hoyos and A. Karch,Connecting boundary entropy and effective central charge at holographic interfaces,2507.09171

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    Uhlemann and M

    C.F. Uhlemann and M. Wang,Splitting interfaces in 4dN= 4 SYM,JHEP12(2023) 053 [2307.08740]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Chalabi, S.P

    A. Chalabi, S.P. Kumar, A. O’Bannon, A. Pribytok, R. Rodgers and J. Sisti,Holographic entanglement entropy of the Coulomb branch,JHEP04(2021) 153 [2012.05188]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Karch and L

    A. Karch and L. Randall,Locally localized gravity,JHEP05(2001) 008 [hep-th/0011156]

    2001 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Nagasaki and S

    K. Nagasaki and S. Yamaguchi,Expectation values of chiral primary operators in holographic interface CFT,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 086004 [1205.1674]

    2012 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Callan and J.M

    C.G. Callan and J.M. Maldacena,Brane Dynamics From the Born-Infeld Action,Nucl. Phys. B513(1998) 198 [hep-th/9708147]

    1998 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Mikhaylov and E

    V. Mikhaylov and E. Witten,Branes And Supergroups,Commun. Math. Phys.340(2015) 699 [1410.1175]

    2015 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Gomis and C

    J. Gomis and C. Romelsberger,Bubbling Defect CFT’s,JHEP08(2006) 050 [hep-th/0604155]

    2006 arXiv

  66. [74]

    D’Hoker, J

    E. D’Hoker, J. Estes and M. Gutperle,Exact half-BPS Type IIB interface solutions. I. Local solution and supersymmetric Janus,JHEP06(2007) 021 [0705.0022]

    2007 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Jokela, J.M

    N. Jokela, J.M. Penín, A.V. Ramallo and D. Zoakos,Gravity dual of a multilayer system, JHEP03(2019) 064 [1901.02020]

    2019 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Henningson and K

    M. Henningson and K. Skenderis,The Holographic Weyl anomaly,JHEP07(1998) 023 [hep-th/9806087]

    1998 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Emparan,AdS / CFT duals of topological black holes and the entropy of zero energy states,JHEP06(1999) 036 [hep-th/9906040]

    R. Emparan,AdS / CFT duals of topological black holes and the entropy of zero energy states,JHEP06(1999) 036 [hep-th/9906040]

    1999 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Casini, I

    H. Casini, I. Salazar Landea and G. Torroba,The g-theorem and quantum information theory,JHEP10(2016) 140 [1607.00390]

    2016 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Casini, I

    H. Casini, I. Salazar Landea and G. Torroba,Entropic g Theorem in General Spacetime Dimensions,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 111603 [2212.10575]

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Casini, E

    H. Casini, E. Teste and G. Torroba,Relative entropy and the RG flow,JHEP03(2017) 089 [1611.00016]

    2017 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Casini, I

    H. Casini, I. Salazar Landea and G. Torroba,Irreversibility in quantum field theories with boundaries,JHEP04(2019) 166 [1812.08183]

    2019 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Green, M

    D.R. Green, M. Mulligan and D. Starr,Boundary Entropy Can Increase Under Bulk RG Flow,Nucl. Phys. B798(2008) 491 [0710.4348]. – 55 –

    2008 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Sato,Boundary entropy under ambient RG flow in the AdS/BCFT model,Phys

    Y. Sato,Boundary entropy under ambient RG flow in the AdS/BCFT model,Phys. Rev. D 101(2020) 126004 [2004.04929]

    2020 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Shachar, R

    T. Shachar, R. Sinha and M. Smolkin,The defect b-theorem under bulk RG flows,JHEP09 (2024) 057 [2404.18403]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Robinson and C.F

    B. Robinson and C.F. Uhlemann,Supersymmetric D3/D5 for massive defects on curved space,JHEP12(2017) 143 [1709.08650]

    2017 arXiv

  78. [86]

    González Lezcano, J

    A. González Lezcano, J. Hong, J.T. Liu, L.A. Pando Zayas and C.F. Uhlemann,c-functions in flows across dimensions,JHEP10(2022) 083 [2207.09360]

    2022 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Jokela, J

    N. Jokela, J. Kastikainen, C. Núñez, J.M. Penín, H. Ruotsalainen and J.G. Subils,On entanglement c-functions in confining gauge field theories,2505.14397

  80. [88]

    Conde, H

    E. Conde, H. Lin, J.M. Penín, A.V. Ramallo and D. Zoakos,D3–D5 theories with unquenched flavors,Nucl. Phys. B914(2017) 599 [1607.04998]

    2017 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Penín, A.V

    J.M. Penín, A.V. Ramallo and D. Zoakos,Anisotropic D3-D5 black holes with unquenched flavors,JHEP02(2018) 139 [1710.00548]

    2018 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Garbayo, C

    A. Garbayo, C. Hoyos, N. Jokela, J.M. Penín and A.V. Ramallo,Flavored anisotropic black holes,JHEP10(2022) 061 [2208.04958]

    2022 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Núñez, A

    C. Núñez, A. Paredes and A.V. Ramallo,Unquenched Flavor in the Gauge/Gravity Correspondence,Adv. High Energy Phys.2010(2010) 196714 [1002.1088]

    2010 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Fonda, L

    P. Fonda, L. Giomi, A. Salvio and E. Tonni,On shape dependence of holographic mutual information in AdS4,JHEP02(2015) 005 [1411.3608]

    2015 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Jokela and A

    N. Jokela and A. Pönni,Notes on entanglement wedge cross sections,JHEP07(2019) 087 [1904.09582]

    2019 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Casini, M

    H. Casini, M. Huerta, R.C. Myers and A. Yale,Mutual information and the F-theorem, JHEP10(2015) 003 [1506.06195]

    2015 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Bergman, N

    O. Bergman, N. Jokela, G. Lifschytz and M. Lippert,Quantum Hall Effect in a Holographic Model,JHEP10(2010) 063 [1003.4965]

    2010 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Kristjansen, G.W

    C. Kristjansen, G.W. Semenoff and D. Young,Chiral primary one-point functions in the D3-D7 defect conformal field theory,JHEP01(2013) 117 [1210.7015]

    2013 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Linardopoulos,String theory methods for defect CFTs,2501.11985

    G. Linardopoulos,String theory methods for defect CFTs,2501.11985

    arXiv

  90. [98]

    de Haro, S.N

    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 [hep-th/0002230]

    2001 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Jokela, J

    N. Jokela, J. Kastikainen, E. Kiritsis and F. Nitti,Flavored ABJM theory on the sphere and holographic F-functions,JHEP03(2022) 091 [2112.08715]. – 56 –

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.