Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Harvested mana from a boundary qutrit distinguishes the two admissible AdS scalar quantizations.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 03:26 UTC pith:FWGAWDJU

load-bearing objection A clever boundary-first detector protocol whose central mana ordering rests on an unjustified subtraction; worth refereeing, not yet established. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.07895 v2 pith:FWGAWDJU submitted 2026-02-08 hep-th gr-qcquant-ph

Probing holographic conformal field theories

Ming Zhang , Jiayue Yang , Dyuman Bhattacharya , Robert B. Mann This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qcquant-ph MSC 81T4083C4781P45 PACS 04.62.+v11.25.Tq03.67.-a
keywords AdS/CFT correspondenceholographic CFTUnruh-DeWitt detectormana resourcemagic statesscalar primaryBreitenlohner-Freedman windowrelativistic quantum information
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper aims to make holographic bulk data accessible to laboratory-style boundary measurements. It couples a static Unruh–DeWitt qutrit to a scalar primary operator of a three-dimensional holographic CFT, computes the detector's reduced state from the universal boundary Wightman function, and evaluates the harvested resource 'mana' (non-stabilizerness). The central result is that mana is systematically larger in the standard quantization Δ₊ than in the alternate Δ₋, even though the Δ₊ correlator decays faster at long times, because the short-distance UV structure drives the resource. If correct, this gives a boundary-only, operational readout of the bulk scalar boundary condition in the Breitenlohner–Freedman window. The paper also clarifies that a local boundary detector is not equivalent to a near-boundary bulk detector, since bulk locality maps to smeared nonlocal couplings on the boundary.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the mana harvested by a qutrit UDW detector is a direct functional of the conformal two-point function of a scalar primary and, via the bulk mass–dimension relation m²_eff ℓ² = Δ(Δ−3), of the choice of quantization of the dual bulk scalar in global AdS₄. For equal adjacent gaps and Gaussian switching, the reduced density operator is captured by two numbers — the excitation probability q and a renormalized coherence β_ren computed in closed series form. The resulting mana satisfies M(Δ₊) > M(Δ₋) in the parameter range shown, so the two boundary conditions in the BF window are distinguishable by a single static boundary probe. The sign of the ine

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the universal vacuum Wightman function (the two-point correlation function) of a scalar primary on the cylinder R×S², whose short-distance behavior W(s)∼(s−iε)^{−2Δ} transfers UV vacuum fluctuations to the detector; the bulk-side anchor is the mass–dimension relation that ties Δ to the standard (Δ₊) or alternate (Δ₋) quantization in the Breitenlohner–Freedman window; and the probe is a three-level Unruh–DeWitt detector with adjacent-monopole transitions, whose second-order reduced state is encoded in an excitation probability q and a coherence β renormalized by subtracting a UV-divergent erfi term. The mana formula maps this pair to a non-stabilizerness measure tha

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the finite qutrit state relevant for mana is correctly captured by q and the renormalized β obtained by simply discarding the UV-divergent erfi term in Eq. (13); if another valid renormalization scheme changes the sign of M(Δ₊)−M(Δ₋), the 'mana reads off quantization' claim is unsupported.

What would settle it

Compute β with a finite UV regulator (e.g., a hard cutoff on the mode sum or a smeared coincidence limit) at the same (Ω, σ) and check whether M(Δ₊) > M(Δ₋) persists; a sign flip or strong cutoff dependence would falsify the claimed readout.

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

If this is right

  • A boundary-only measurement of harvested mana can distinguish the two scalar quantizations in the BF window, supplying a new class of local, probe-based holographic observables.
  • Under the double-trace deformation that flows from the Δ₋ fixed point in the UV to the Δ₊ fixed point in the IR, the mana available to a fixed probe increases — an operational signature of the RG flow (without implying a universal magic monotonicity theorem).
  • A local bulk detector approaching the boundary does not reproduce the local boundary-detector protocol; the mismatch is a diagnostic of HKLL smearing and locality in holographic reconstruction, not a contradiction.
  • The perturbative reduced-state machinery generalizes to other RQI protocols — entanglement harvesting, metrology, channel discrimination — and to holographic settings with known boundary correlators such as dS/CFT and defect/boundary CFTs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A finite-regulator computation of the time-ordered coherence integral (rather than an outright discard of the erfi term) is the natural next check; the paper's renormalization is plausible but not derived, and the mana ordering is contingent on it.
  • If the ordering is scheme-independent, the protocol becomes a practical way to estimate the operator dimension Δ from a single local probe, since the coincidence-limit exponent 2Δ sets the resource yield.
  • The paper's perturbative truncation leaves open whether stronger couplings or multilevel probes amplify or mask the quantization signal; testing higher-order corrections is a concrete extension.
  • The bulk–boundary mismatch suggests engineering the boundary coupling to implement the HKLL-smeared operator corresponding to a chosen bulk detector — an explicit program the paper motivates but does not carry out.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a boundary-first framework for relativistic quantum information in AdS/CFT: an Unruh–DeWitt (UDW) detector is coupled to a local scalar primary of the boundary CFT, and the detector's reduced density operator is computed perturbatively from the universal CFT Wightman function. The main application is qutrit 'mana' harvesting, where the harvested magic is claimed to distinguish the two admissible scalar quantizations in the Breitenlohner–Freedman window: for d=3 global AdS_4, the standard quantization Δ+ is reported to yield systematically larger mana than the alternate Δ−. The paper also argues that a local boundary detector is operationally inequivalent to a bulk-local detector under HKLL reconstruction, and it outlines extensions to dS/CFT, BTZ/CFT, and other settings.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers an operational, probe-based observable that is local on the boundary yet sensitive to bulk quantization data—an attractive bridge between RQI resource theory and holography. The approach has notable strengths: the input Wightman function is fixed by conformal symmetry and Δ, so the Δ+ vs Δ− ordering is not obtained by fitting; the excitation probability q is given in closed form as a convergent series; and the bulk/boundary mismatch is explicitly acknowledged rather than glossed over. The mana-ordering claim is also falsifiable in principle. However, the entire ordering result is carried by the renormalized coherence β_ren, whose definition is a stated subtraction rather than a derivation. The current manuscript therefore does not yet establish the advertised result; the gap is correctable but load-bearing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Probing the holographic CFT, Eqs. (9)–(13) and following paragraph] The central claim that M(Δ+) > M(Δ−) relies entirely on the renormalized coherence β_ren: in the mana formula following Eq. (8), setting β=0 gives M=0 for any q. Yet β diverges and β_ren is defined by 'discarding the divergent erfi contribution' in Eq. (13), with no regulator, counterterm action, or renormalization condition. The time-ordered integral's short-distance singularity is regulator-dependent, and the finite remainder of β is therefore ambiguous. A different allowed subtraction—for example, a point-splitting regulator with finite δ or an alternate iε prescription—could change the absolute values entering the mana formula and could plausibly reduce, enhance, or invert the ordering. Since the abstract and Discussion state the ordering as the main physical result, this is a load-bearing gap. Please provide a regulator, prove scheme independence (or at least test a family of admiss
  2. [Abstract vs. main text] The abstract claims 'de-excitation spectroscopy tracks the double-trace flow through the lowest cylinder gap,' but no section of the paper computes de-excitation rates or the lowest cylinder gap. The double-trace flow is mentioned only qualitatively in the Discussions. Either add the promised computation or remove this claim from the abstract; as written, an advertised result is unsupported.
  3. [Fig. 2 and the series expansion; reliance on companion paper [47]] The boundary series expansion in Eq. (11) is stated to follow '[47] for details of the methods,' and the bulk curves in Fig. 2 are 'reproduced from [47].' The central numerical comparison with the bulk detector and the series derivation therefore rest on a companion paper. For a self-contained journal submission, the essential steps of the expansion and the precise bulk detector model (gaps, switching, coupling, renormalization of any divergences) should be included in this paper or an appendix. In particular, if the bulk curves also involve a divergent coherence, the same renormalization concern applies.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] There are missing spaces in the rendered text, e.g., 'RQIhasdevelopedabroadsetofprotocols' and 'CFT,which.' Please fix formatting.
  2. [Eq. (8) and following] The reduced density matrix of the qutrit is not written explicitly; the mana formula uses only q and β, which follow from selection rules, but the full form and positivity constraints on (q, β_ren) should be stated. This is especially relevant because β_ren is complex and the mana formula uses Re and Im parts.
  3. [Eq. (13)] The notation i^{2Δ} is fine for the integer Δ± in d=3, but for general d (e.g., d=2) Δ± can be half-integer; consider a note about the branch of the logarithm, or restrict the claim to d=3.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption/body] Please specify all parameters used for the bulk curves (worldline position, switching, gaps, coupling, and any renormalization) so the reader can reproduce them; the current caption only says 'reproduced from [47].'
  5. [Discussion] The statement that the Δ+ correlator is 'more singular at short separation' is plausible, but the explanation of why this enhances mana is only heuristic. A short quantitative argument (e.g., showing that the β_ren series is dominated by large-n for larger Δ) would strengthen the interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No constructed circularity: the central mana computation is a direct function of the universal Wightman function; the self-citation to [47] is peripheral and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing result—that the mana harvested by a static qutrit UDW detector distinguishes Δ+ from Δ−—is computed from the universal CFT Wightman function (8) through the explicit series (11)–(13) and the mana formula following Eq. (8). No parameter is fitted to produce the ordering; q and βren are explicit functions of Δ, Ω, σ, R, and λ. The companion self-citation [47] supplies only 'details of the methods' for a standard binomial expansion of the Wightman function and the reference bulk AdS curves in Fig. 2, which the paper explicitly labels 'For reference'; the boundary-series result itself is written out in the paper, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The renormalization of β by discarding the divergent erfi contribution is a stated subtraction rather than a derived regulator scheme, and the paper does not demonstrate scheme independence; this is a robustness/correctness gap, not a circularity, because βren is not chosen to enforce the claimed ordering. The discussion of HKLL nonlocality is a definitional clarification rather than a fitted prediction. Overall, no circular step is exhibited; the score reflects one minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central plot uses four hand-chosen probe parameters (R, Ω, σ, λ). The physics input is the universal conformal two-point function and the mass-dimension/quantization dictionary. The two genuinely ad hoc items are the β renormalization subtraction and the reduction of the mana formula to only q and β_ren; both are load-bearing for the claimed Δ+ > Δ− ordering.

free parameters (4)
  • Detector energy gap Ω = varied from 1 to 4 in Fig. 2
    Tunable probe parameter; the Δ+ vs Δ− mana ordering is displayed over this range.
  • Gaussian switching width σ = 1 in Fig. 2
    Controls how much short-time (UV) structure of W(s) the detector samples; chosen by hand.
  • Coupling λ = 1 in Fig. 2
    Perturbative expansion parameter; mana scales as λ^2 for small λ, so the ordering is unchanged for nonzero λ, but the plotted magnitude uses λ=1.
  • Boundary sphere radius R = 1 in Fig. 2
    Sets the unit of energy/time; all dimensionful quantities are measured in units of R.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Universal CFT Wightman function (Eq. 8) with normalization C_Δ = (2Δ-d)Γ(Δ)/π^{d/2}Γ(Δ-d/2) governs the detector response.
    Relies on conformal symmetry and holographic normalization from [38–44]; this is the input that carries all Δ-dependence.
  • domain assumption The bulk mass-dimension relation m²_eff ℓ² = Δ(Δ-d) and the BF window admit exactly two quantizations Δ±=(d±1)/2 in d=3.
    Borrowed from Klebanov–Witten and Breitenlohner–Freedman; necessary for the Δ± comparison.
  • domain assumption The series expansion of W(s) (Eq. 11) and term-by-term integration are valid; details are in the self-cited companion [47].
    The paper does not re-derive the convergence/exchange steps; it relies on the authors' own prior work.
  • ad hoc to paper The UV divergence in β is a local counterterm contribution and is correctly removed by discarding the erfi term in Eq. (13).
    No regulator or counterterm action is specified; the subtraction is asserted and is load-bearing for the mana result.
  • ad hoc to paper The qutrit mana of the reduced state is fully determined by q and β_ren.
    The mana formula is cited from [46], but the paper does not show that the other density matrix elements vanish or do not affect mana for this specific second-order state.
  • domain assumption Initial state is |0>_D ⊗ |0> and the detector is static on S^2.
    Standard UDW setup; defines the protocol.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10020 in / 17770 out tokens · 183149 ms · 2026-08-03T03:26:52.665502+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We embed relativistic quantum information protocols in AdS/CFT: an Unruh-DeWitt detector coupled to a local primary of a holographic CFT has a reduced state fixed by the universal boundary Wightman function. We find that the mana generated in a qutrit probe reads off the boundary condition of the dual bulk scalar, de-excitation spectroscopy tracks the double-trace flow through the lowest cylinder gap, and a local boundary detector is inequivalent to the HKLL representation of a bulk-local one.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.07895 by Dyuman Bhattacharya, Jiayue Yang, Ming Zhang, Robert B. Mann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic holographic setup. A probe scalar field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Mana [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Induced Resource Theories and Harvesting via Quantum Probes

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Introduces induced resource theories with precise conditions for interpreting quantum probe harvesting as evidence of resources in environments without complete resource-theoretic descriptions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 46 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  2. [2]

    B. S. DeWitt, inGeneral Relativity: An Einstein Cen- tenary Survey, edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, 1979)

    1979

  3. [3]

    P. M. Alsing and I. Fuentes, Classical and Quantum Gravity29, 224001 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    T. C. Ralph and R. B. Mann, Class. Quant. Grav.29, 220301 (2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    Fuentes-Schuller and R

    I. Fuentes-Schuller and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 120404 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0410172

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    Rideoutet al., Class

    D. Rideoutet al., Class. Quant. Grav.29, 224011 (2012), arXiv:1206.4949 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Pozas-Kerstjens and E

    A. Pozas-Kerstjens and E. Martin-Martinez, Phys. Rev. D94, 064074 (2016), arXiv:1605.07180 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    M. Zych, F. Costa, I. Pikovski, T. C. Ralph, and Č. Brukner, Classical and Quantum Gravity29, 224010 (2012)

    2012

  9. [9]

    B. L. Hu, S.-Y. Lin, and J. Louko, Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 224005 (2012), arXiv:1205.1328 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    Kent, Classical and Quantum Gravity29, 224013 (2012)

    A. Kent, Classical and Quantum Gravity29, 224013 (2012)

    2012

  11. [11]

    J. G. A. Caribé, R. H. Jonsson, M. Casals, A. Kempf, and E. Martín-Martínez, Phys. Rev. D108, 025016 (2023), arXiv:2303.01402 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Hodgkinson, J

    L. Hodgkinson, J. Louko, and A. C. Ottewill, Phys. Rev. D89, 104002 (2014), arXiv:1401.2667 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  13. [13]

    ’t Hooft, Conf

    G. ’t Hooft, Conf. Proc. C930308, 284 (1993), arXiv:gr- qc/9310026

    arXiv 1993

  14. [14]

    Susskind, J

    L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys.36, 6377 (1995), arXiv:hep- th/9409089

    arXiv 1995

  15. [15]

    J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 231 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9711200 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  16. [16]

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B428, 105 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802109 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  17. [17]

    Witten, Adv

    E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 253 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802150 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  18. [18]

    Ryu and T

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 181602 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  19. [19]

    V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani, and T. Takayanagi, JHEP 07, 062 (2007), arXiv:0705.0016 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  20. [20]

    Van Raamsdonk, Gen

    M. Van Raamsdonk, Gen. Rel. Grav.42, 2323 (2010), arXiv:1005.3035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  21. [21]

    R. C. Myers and A. Sinha, JHEP01, 125 (2011), arXiv:1011.5819 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  22. [22]

    Almheiri, X

    A. Almheiri, X. Dong, and D. Harlow, JHEP04, 163 (2015), arXiv:1411.7041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    Pastawski, B

    F. Pastawski, B. Yoshida, D. Harlow, and J. Preskill, JHEP06, 149 (2015), arXiv:1503.06237

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  24. [24]

    A. R. Brown, D. A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 191301 (2016), arXiv:1509.07876

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [25]

    D. L. Jafferis, A. Lewkowycz, J. Maldacena, and S. J. Suh, JHEP06, 004 (2016), arXiv:1512.06431

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    Belin, R

    A. Belin, R. C. Myers, S.-M. Ruan, G. Sárosi, and A. J. Speranza, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 081602 (2022), arXiv:2111.02429 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Takayanagi, Phys

    T. Takayanagi, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 240001 (2025), arXiv:2506.06595 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Rangamani and T

    M. Rangamani and T. Takayanagi, (2016), arXiv:1609.01287 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    Harlow, Rev

    D. Harlow, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 015002 (2016), arXiv:1409.1231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0403025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  31. [31]

    Emerson, D

    J. Emerson, D. Gottesman, S. A. H. Mousavian, and V. Veitch, New J. Phys.16, 013009 (2014), arXiv:1307.7171 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    Howard, J

    M. Howard, J. J. Wallman, V. Veitch, and J. Emerson, Nature510, 351 (2014), arXiv:1401.4174 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [33]

    Aharony, S

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz, Phys. Rept.323, 183 (2000), arXiv:hep- th/9905111

    arXiv 2000

  34. [34]

    I. R. Klebanov and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B556, 89 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9905104

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  35. [35]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman, Annals Phys.144, 249 (1982)

    1982

  36. [36]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Lett. B115, 197 (1982)

    1982

  37. [37]

    Hamilton, D

    A. Hamilton, D. N. Kabat, G. Lifschytz, and D. A. Lowe, Phys. Rev. D74, 066009 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0606141

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  38. [38]

    Simmons-Duffin, Theoretical Advanced Study Insti- tute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI, 2019) (2019)

    D. Simmons-Duffin, Theoretical Advanced Study Insti- tute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI, 2019) (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    Bak and A

    D. Bak and A. Trivella, JHEP09, 086 (2017), arXiv:1707.05366 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [40]

    Osborn and A

    H. Osborn and A. C. Petkou, (1994), arXiv:hep- th/9307010

    arXiv 1994

  41. [41]

    Simmons-Duffin, (2016), arXiv:1602.07982 [hep-th]

    D. Simmons-Duffin, (2016), arXiv:1602.07982 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [42]

    Applied conformal field theory,

    P. Ginsparg, “Applied conformal field theory,” (1988), arXiv:hep-th/9108028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1988

  43. [43]

    Rychkov, (2016), arXiv:1601.05000 [hep-th]

    S. Rychkov, (2016), arXiv:1601.05000 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    D. Z. Freedman, S. D. Mathur, A. Matusis, and L. Rastelli, Nucl. Phys. B546, 96 (1999), arXiv:hep- th/9804058

    arXiv 1999

  45. [45]

    Miyaji, T

    M. Miyaji, T. Numasawa, N. Shiba, T. Takayanagi, and K. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 261602 (2015), arXiv:1507.07555 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    Nyström, N

    R. Nyström, N. Pranzini, and E. Keski-Vakkuri, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033085 (2025), arXiv:2409.11473 [quant-ph]. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    J. Yang, D. Bhattacharya, M. Zhang, and R. B. Mann, (2025), arXiv:2508.16466 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Strominger, JHEP10, 034 (2001), arXiv:hep- th/0106113

    A. Strominger, JHEP10, 034 (2001), arXiv:hep- th/0106113

    arXiv 2001

  49. [49]

    J. M. Maldacena, JHEP05, 013 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0210603

    arXiv 2003

  50. [50]

    Spradlin, A

    M. Spradlin, A. Strominger, and A. Volovich, inLes Houches Summer School: Session 76: Euro Summer School on Unity of Fundamental Physics: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings(2001) pp. 423–453, arXiv:hep- th/0110007

    arXiv 2001

  51. [51]

    Anninos, T

    D. Anninos, T. Hartman, and A. Strominger, Class. Quant. Grav.34, 015009 (2017), arXiv:1108.5735 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  52. [52]

    Keski-Vakkuri, Phys

    E. Keski-Vakkuri, Phys. Rev. D59, 104001 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9808037

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  53. [53]

    Guica, T

    M. Guica, T. Hartman, W. Song, and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. D80, 124008 (2009), arXiv:0809.4266 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  54. [54]

    Bissi, T

    A. Bissi, T. Hansen, and A. Söderberg, JHEP01, 010 (2019), arXiv:1808.08155 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    Mazáč, L

    D. Mazáč, L. Rastelli, and X. Zhou, JHEP12, 004 (2019), arXiv:1812.09314 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  56. [56]

    Takayanagi, Phys

    T. Takayanagi, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 101602 (2011), arXiv:1105.5165 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  57. [57]

    D. C. Brody, J. Phys. A47, 035305 (2013), arXiv:1308.2609 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  58. [58]

    Chang, J.-S

    P.-Y. Chang, J.-S. You, X. Wen, and S. Ryu, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033069 (2020), arXiv:1909.01346 [cond-mat.str- el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    K. Doi, J. Harper, A. Mollabashi, T. Takayanagi, and Y. Taki, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 031601 (2023), arXiv:2210.09457 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    J. L. Jacobsen and K. J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 077101 (2024), arXiv:2402.10732 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Y. Tang, H. Ma, Q. Tang, Y.-C. He, and W. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 076504 (2024), arXiv:2403.00852 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Barnich and C

    G. Barnich and C. Troessaert, JHEP05, 062 (2010), arXiv:1001.1541 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  63. [63]

    Pasterski, S.-H

    S. Pasterski, S.-H. Shao, and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. D96, 065026 (2017), arXiv:1701.00049 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    D. M. Avalos, K. Gallock-Yoshimura, L. J. Henderson, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L042039 (2023), arXiv:2204.02983 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023