Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 39 references

A Horizon-to-Boundary Dictionary Linking Smooth Horizon Continuation, Pole-Skipping, and \(SL(2,\mathbb R)\) Lowest-Weight Structure

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pole-skipping is not a loss of causality: preserving the ingoing branch fixes the retarded response uniquely at resonance.

desk verdict Solid AdS2 pole-skipping analysis with a clean new dictionary and one unreproducible numerical section. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.03800 v3 pith:JDX2IMZO submitted 2026-07-04 hep-th

Yoon-Seok Choun , Ki-Seok Kim This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords pole-skippingholographyAdS2blackholeretardedGreenfunctionhorizonregularitySL(2R)lowest-weightFrobeniusanalysisholographicsuperconductor
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 studies a free scalar on an exactly solvable two-dimensional black hole (the JT/AdS2 background) and asks what happens at 'pole-skipping' frequencies, where the boundary retarded Green function naively becomes 0/0. It shows that at these special points two distinct boundary-normalized branches of the bulk solution become simultaneously smooth at the horizon: the vanishing source coefficient is equivalent to smoothness of one residual branch and the vanishing response coefficient to smoothness of the other. The 0/0 ambiguity is therefore a geometric statement about global boundary data, not an algebraic accident. The paper then argues that the ambiguity is resolved by demanding that the retarded solution be the continuous limit of the unique non-resonant ingoing branch: the extra Frobenius freedom belongs to the outgoing branch and must vanish (a_N=0), yielding a unique boundary ratio B0/A0. It also identifies the pole-skipping lattice with SL(2,R) lowest-weight towers and adds a linear-independence (Wronskian) requirement to distinguish genuine pole-skipping from spurious branch-collapse points in static holographic superconductors.

What carries the argument

The residual field h(r)=χ^{-1}_N R(r), obtained by stripping the universal ingoing horizon factor, whose C∞ smoothness is the horizon-regularity test; the two boundary-normalized branches R1 and R2, which carry the source and response normalization; the Frobenius coefficient a_N that parametrizes the resonant freedom and whose outgoing character is exposed by restoring the full radial field; and the Wronskian W[R1,R2], which separates genuine pole-skipping from branch collapse. The SL(2,R) Killing generators J0,J± organize the response-normalized modes into lowest-weight towers, with the endpoint mode as the primary satisfying J−Φ=0.

What would settle it

Solve the time-dependent Klein-Gordon equation in the JT/AdS2 background for an ingoing wave packet with μ slightly above the resonant value N and Δ=p, then take the numerical limit to resonance and read off B/A; the paper predicts it approaches B0/A0 (the a_N=0 value). If the limit instead follows the unrestricted path-dependent formula (for example, the opposite ordered limit or a path δ=λε with λ≠1), the branch-continuation postulate is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is an exact horizon-to-boundary dictionary for the JT/AdS2 scalar: after removing the common singular ingoing factor, bA=0 (the boundary pole) holds iff the response-normalized residual branch is C∞ at the horizon, while bB=0 (the boundary zero) holds iff the source-normalized residual branch is C∞ there. Simultaneous vanishing of both coefficients is thus the simultaneous smooth continuation of two globally distinct boundary branches to the same horizon resonance. The extra coefficient a_N created by resonant Frobenius freedom is shown to be part of the outgoing branch, so preserving the pure-ingoing branch as the resonance is approached fixes a_N=0 and selects the unique

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the physical retarded response is defined by continuity from the non-resonant pure-ingoing branch (the branch-preserving limit with a_N=0), rather than by the unrestricted limit at the pole-skipping point; if that definition is not the correct physics, the 0/0 ambiguity is genuine.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The retarded Green function at a pole-skipping point is unique once the physical continuation is defined by branch preservation; the 0/0 form resolves to the concrete value B0/A0.
  • The pole and zero lines of the boundary correlator acquire independent bulk meanings: each zero of a common-factor-removed coefficient is equivalent to smoothness of one residual boundary-normalized branch at the horizon.
  • The extra near-horizon resonance freedom is not a genuine ambiguity of the causal response; it belongs to the outgoing branch and is excluded by the ingoing continuation.
  • The pole-skipping lattice μ=N, Δ=p is not an arbitrary set but forms SL(2,R) lowest-weight towers, with the response descendants generated from the endpoint primary by J+.
  • Static holographic-superconductor points at which two smoothness loci intersect can be spurious unless W≠0; the Wronskian test is needed to certify genuine pole-skipping.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to carry the same branch-preserving limit into a system with a small coupling that mixes the ingoing and outgoing branches; the paper's logic predicts a unique a_N=0 response, but a coupled calculation could verify whether the limit survives beyond the free scalar.
  • The Wronskian criterion gives a practical audit: previously catalogued pole-skipping points in holographic superconductors and other backgrounds could be re-examined for W≠0; those with W=0 would be demoted from genuine pole-skipping.
  • If the dictionary is generic, the same two-step logic—smoothness identifies branches, causality selects the representative, symmetry organizes the space—could organize pole-skipping for fermionic, vector, and higher-spin fields, where the residual smoothness condition must be redefined.
  • The resolution of the 0/0 ambiguity suggests that numerical or analytic computations of retarded correlators at special complex frequencies should enforce the ordered limit (restore the terminating branch first) rather than an unrestricted two-parameter limit; doing otherwise would produce path-dependent artifacts.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a massive scalar field in the JT/AdS2 black-hole background, factorizes the pure-ingoing horizon branch, and uses exact hypergeometric/Frobenius methods to construct a dictionary between horizon residual smoothness, pole-skipping of the boundary retarded Green function, and SL(2,R) lowest-weight structure. The main analytic claims are: (i) at the pole-skipping lattice μ=N, Δ=p (1≤p≤N), both boundary-normalized residual branches are C∞ at the horizon, so the boundary 0/0 form is equivalent to simultaneous horizon smoothness of the two branches (Eqs. 16–18); (ii) the pole-skipping ambiguity is resolved by pure-ingoing continuation because the extra Frobenius coefficient a_N corresponds to the outgoing radial branch (Eq. 24), yielding the unique retarded ratio B0/A0 (Eq. 27); (iii) the response modes organize into SL(2,R) lowest-weight towers (Eqs. 32–36); and (iv) genuine pole-skipping requires the two smooth branches to remain linearly independent, W[R1,R2]≠0, with a static holographic-superconductor sector showing apparent intersections that fail this test. The analytic derivations use standard connection formulas and contain no fitted parameters; the main unresolved issue is the numerical reproducibility of the HSC diagnostic.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a transparent exact unification of horizon regularity, pole-skipping, and conformal representation theory in a solvable holographic setting. The analytic parts are a genuine strength: the hypergeometric connection formulas, the half-integer exclusion, the dictionary of Eq. (16), and the a_N=0 resolution are supported by explicit calculations; the lattice μ=N, Δ=p matches the known pole-skipping lattice from Refs. [23,24], providing an independent anchor. The SL(2,R) lowest-weight construction is explicit and correctly distinguishes the response ladder from the source companion branch. The proposed Wronskian criterion (37) is a useful diagnostic that sharpens the distinction between genuine pole-skipping and branch collapse. However, the third major result depends crucially on the HSC numerical analysis of Section S9, and that analysis is not reproducible from the manuscript as written. The paper is therefore significant but requires a substantial revision of the numerical section before the full claims can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [S9, Eq. (S193), Fig. S1] The third major result — that the static HSC apparent pole-skipping intersections are branch-collapse points with K_{p-2}(λ*)≠0 and W=0 — is asserted from numerical evaluation, but no numerical data are provided. The text does not list the values of λ*, the computed K_{p-2}(λ*), the Wronskian values, the finite-truncation order, the convergence criterion, or the code used to produce Fig. S1. A reader cannot check whether any marked intersection is actually genuine (K=0 or W≠0), and the only negative example for criterion (37) therefore rests on unverifiable numerical claims. Please provide a table of (p, λ*, K_{p-2}, W) for every marked point, a precise description of the stabilized determinant method including truncation and convergence checks, and either code or the exact numerical data. The duplicate paragraph at the end of S9.D should also be removed.
  2. [Main text, 'Resolution of the pole-skipping ambiguity', Eqs. (20)–(27)] The logical status of the 'branch-preserving continuation' should be clarified. As written, the reader may infer that the uniqueness of the retarded representative rests on an additional physical postulate (continuity from non-resonant μ). However, Eq. (24) shows that the a_N term behaves as (r−1)^{+N/2}, i.e., it is the outgoing radial branch, so the standard Lorentzian ingoing boundary condition at the horizon already forces a_N=0. The boundary-matching argument of Sec. S7 is a cross-check, not the primary input. Please state this explicitly in the main text, and clarify that the unrestricted path-dependence of Eqs. (19) and (S46–S51) is a mathematical feature of the 0/0 form rather than a physical ambiguity once the causal horizon condition is imposed. This would remove the appearance of an extra assumption and strengthen the central claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. S1 and Sec. S9.B] The panel label 'Heun polynomial points' in Fig. S1 is not explained in the text. In addition, L±(Δ,λ) and T1(Δ,λ) are defined only verbally as coefficients of horizon logarithms; please give explicit defining expressions or the exact determinant formulas used in the finite-truncation method.
  2. [Main text, Eq. (37)] The criterion (37) uses χ_in without defining it for the HSC system. In S9 the analogous factor is (1+x)^{−λ/2} in Eq. (S165). Please define χ_in explicitly in the main text or refer the reader to Sec. S9.B when the criterion is introduced.
  3. [S9.D] The paragraph beginning 'For every marked intersection (p, λ*) in Fig. S1(b)...' is repeated verbatim twice at the end of S9.D. Remove one occurrence.
  4. [Introduction, second paragraph] The sentence 'without the coupled equations or numerical matching that obscure this distinction' is grammatically awkward. Since the intended meaning is that such methods obscure the branch distinction, please rephrase.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: JT/AdS2 derivation is self-contained; a_N=0 follows from the standard ingoing condition, not from a fitted or self-cited input.

full rationale

The central JT/AdS2 derivation is self-contained. The boundary coefficients in Eq. (8) follow from a standard hypergeometric connection formula, and the dictionary Eq. (16) is derived in Sec. S3 from the logarithmic-residual obstruction, not imposed by definition. The resolution a_N=0 is forced by the full-field ingoing condition: Eq. (24) shows that the a_N term restores to the outgoing branch (r-1)^{+N/2}, so the standard retarded prescription already selects G1 alone; the boundary-matching argument in Sec. S7 is an independent confirmation of the same limit. The pole-skipping lattice reproduces the previously known lattice cited as refs [23,24], providing an external anchor, and the SL(2,R) tower construction is verified by explicit generator actions rather than imported by ansatz. Self-citations [35,36] are used only for holographic-superconductor context and are not load-bearing for the main dictionary. No parameter is fitted and no claimed prediction reduces to an input. The one flagged weakness is non-circular: Sec. S9.D Eq. (S193) asserts "For every marked intersection (p, λ*) in Fig. S1(b), direct evaluation ... gives K_{p-2}(λ*)≠0" without supplying truncation orders, numerical values, or code, making the HSC negative-case claim irreproducible from the text; this is a reproducibility/correctness risk, not a circularity.

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

No free parameters are fitted: (μ, Δ, λ) are physical inputs, and normalizations such as C_{N,p}, C_n, and monic polynomial conventions are conventional and drop out of the physical ratio B0/A0. No new entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are postulated. The ledger's weight sits on two physical postulates: the branch-continuity definition of the retarded response, and the model-boundedness of the dictionary. The HSC diagnosis adds an unverifiable numerical claim.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard hypergeometric connection formulas and Gamma-function identities are used to extract A, B and the smoothness obstructions (Eqs. S11-S30).
    Invoked in Supplemental S2-S3; unproved background results, standard in the literature.
  • domain assumption The retarded dual response is defined by the pure-ingoing (future-horizon) branch and, at resonance, by continuity of that branch from non-resonant μ — 'preserving the unique pure-ingoing branch as the resonance is approached selects a definite retarded representative'.
    Main text, §Resolution of the pole-skipping ambiguity. This is a physical selection principle, not a consequence of the Klein-Gordon equation alone; it is the input that turns a 0/0 ambiguity into the unique value B0/A0.
  • domain assumption The AdS2 scalar (JT/AdS2) problem is taken as the exact benchmark from which the general horizon-to-boundary dictionary is asserted; generalizations to coupled perturbations and higher dimensions are mentioned only as future work.
    The dictionary (Eqs. 16-18) is proven for this model; the universal framing at the abstract/conclusion level is extrapolation.
  • domain assumption The static HSC reduction (Eq. S162) and the claim that every marked (p, λ*) intersection has K_{p−2}(λ*)≠0 and W=0 (S9.D) rest on numerical determinant computations not shown in the paper.
    Fig. S1 results are asserted with a sketch of the method ('stabilized finite-truncation determinant'): no code, data, truncation orders, or exact intersection values are provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Horizon-to-Boundary Dictionary Linking Smooth Horizon Continuation, Pole-Skipping, and \(SL(2,\mathbb R)\) Lowest-Weight Structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JDX2IMZO

@misc{pith2026260703800,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Horizon-to-Boundary Dictionary Linking Smooth Horizon Continuation, Pole-Skipping, and \(SL(2,\mathbb R)\) Lowest-Weight Structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JDX2IMZO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.03800}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding how fields behave near black-hole horizons is central to solving the puzzle of quantum gravity and holographic dualities. While the ingoing boundary condition typically selects a unique retarded response, special resonant frequencies induce a mathematical ambiguity in which the response becomes indeterminate -- a phenomenon known as pole-skipping. Here we show that this ambiguity has a precise horizon origin and admits a unique causal resolution. By analytically tracking a scalar field in an exactly solvable two-dimensional black hole, we demonstrate that pole-skipping emerges precisely when two distinct boundary branches simultaneously achieve smooth, singularity-free continuations at the horizon. This structure is governed by an underlying spacetime conformal symmetry, while a branch-preserving continuation uniquely selects the causal response. Furthermore, we introduce a strict linear-independence criterion to distinguish genuine resonances from spurious branch-collapse points in holographic superconductors. Our work reveals that horizon regularity, causal continuation, and spacetime symmetry unify seemingly disparate bulk structures -- including Frobenius freedom, conformal representation towers, and the resolution of boundary ambiguities. This establishes a rigorous horizon-to-boundary dictionary that sharpens how local horizon physics and spacetime symmetries constrain nonlocal observables in holographic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03800 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. (b) Apparent pole-skipping candidates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 13 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    canonical

    Thusa N = 0 is not an arbitrary extra prescription, but the smooth-continuation condition compatible with the non-resonant pure-ingoing branch. The complete res- onant Frobenius recurrence and the independent radial- branch and boundary-matching arguments fora N = 0 are given in Supplemental Material, Secs. S5 and S7. The representative selected in this w...

    2024

  2. [2]

    Minkowski-space corre- lators in AdS/CFT correspondence: recipe and applica- tions,

    D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, “Minkowski-space corre- lators in AdS/CFT correspondence: recipe and applica- tions,” JHEP09, 042 (2002)

    2002

  3. [3]

    Schwinger–Keldysh prop- agators from AdS/CFT correspondence,

    C. P. Herzog and D. T. Son, “Schwinger–Keldysh prop- agators from AdS/CFT correspondence,” JHEP03, 046 (2003)

    2003

  4. [4]

    Real-time gauge/gravity duality,

    K. Skenderis and B. C. van Rees, “Real-time gauge/gravity duality,” Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 081601 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    Real-time gauge/gravity duality and in- going boundary conditions,

    B. C. van Rees, “Real-time gauge/gravity duality and in- going boundary conditions,” Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 192–193, 193–196 (2009)

    2009

  6. [6]

    The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231–252 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9711200]

    arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    Anti de Sitter space and holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 253–291 (1998) [arXiv:hep- th/9802150]

    arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    Black hole scrambling from hydrodynamics,

    S. Grozdanov, K. Schalm and V. Scopelliti, “Black hole scrambling from hydrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 231601 (2018) [arXiv:1710.00921]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Many-body chaos and energy dynamics in holography,

    M. Blake, R. A. Davison, S. Grozdanov and H. Liu, “Many-body chaos and energy dynamics in holography,” JHEP10, 035 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Horizon con- straints on holographic Green’s functions,

    M. Blake, R. A. Davison and D. Vegh, “Horizon con- straints on holographic Green’s functions,” JHEP01, 077 (2020) [arXiv:1904.12883]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Holographic chaos, pole- skipping, and regularity,

    M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Holographic chaos, pole- skipping, and regularity,” Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2020, 013B07 (2020) [arXiv:1905.12014]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Nonuniqueness of Green’s functions at special points,

    M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Nonuniqueness of Green’s functions at special points,” JHEP12, 139 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Pole-skipping with finite-coupling corrections,

    M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Pole-skipping with finite-coupling corrections,” Phys. Rev. D100, 126012 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Higher curvature corrections to pole-skipping,

    X. Wu, “Higher curvature corrections to pole-skipping,” JHEP12, 140 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Pole-skipping and zero temperature,

    M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Pole-skipping and zero temperature,” Phys. Rev. D103, 066017 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Pole skipping away from maximal chaos,

    C. Choi, M. Mezei and G. S´ arosi, “Pole skipping away from maximal chaos,” JHEP02, 207 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Fermionic pole-skipping in holography,

    N. ˇCeplak, K. Ramdial and D. Vegh, “Fermionic pole-skipping in holography,” JHEP07, 203 (2020) [arXiv:1910.02975]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Pole skipping in holographic theories with bosonic fields,

    D. Wang and Z.-Y. Wang, “Pole skipping in holographic theories with bosonic fields,” Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 231603 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Pole-skipping and Rarita– Schwinger fields,

    N. ˇCeplak and D. Vegh, “Pole-skipping and Rarita– Schwinger fields,” Phys. Rev. D103, 106009 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Pole-skipping of scalar and vector fields in hyperbolic space: conformal blocks and holography,

    Y. Ahn, V. Jahnke, H.-S. Jeong, K.-Y. Kim, K.-S. Lee and M. Nishida, “Pole-skipping of scalar and vector fields in hyperbolic space: conformal blocks and holography,” JHEP09, 111 (2020). 7

    2020

  13. [21]

    Scram- bling in hyperbolic black holes: shock waves and pole- skipping,

    Y. Ahn, V. Jahnke, H.-S. Jeong and K.-Y. Kim, “Scram- bling in hyperbolic black holes: shock waves and pole- skipping,” JHEP10, 257 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Pole-skipping and hydrodynamic analysis in Lifshitz, AdS2 and Rindler geometries,

    H. Yuan and X.-H. Ge, “Pole-skipping and hydrodynamic analysis in Lifshitz, AdS2 and Rindler geometries,” JHEP 06, 165 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Chaos and pole skipping in CFT 2,

    D. M. Ramirez, “Chaos and pole skipping in CFT 2,” JHEP12, 006 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Pole-skipping points in 2D gravity and SYK model,

    H. Yuan, X.-H. Ge, K.-Y. Kim, C.-W. Ji and Y. Ahn, “Pole-skipping points in 2D gravity and SYK model,” JHEP08, 157 (2023) [arXiv:2303.04801]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Classifying pole-skipping points,

    Y. Ahn, V. Jahnke, H.-S. Jeong, K.-Y. Kim, K.-S. Lee and M. Nishida, “Classifying pole-skipping points,” JHEP03, 175 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Lower dimensional gravity,

    R. Jackiw, “Lower dimensional gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 252, 343–356 (1985)

    1985

  19. [27]

    Gravitation and Hamiltonian structure in two space-time dimensions,

    C. Teitelboim, “Gravitation and Hamiltonian structure in two space-time dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B126, 41–45 (1983)

    1983

  20. [28]

    Models of AdS 2 backreaction and holography,

    A. Almheiri and J. Polchinski, “Models of AdS 2 backreaction and holography,” JHEP11, 014 (2015) [arXiv:1402.6334]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Conformal sym- metry and its breaking in two dimensional Nearly Anti- de-Sitter space,

    J. Maldacena, D. Stanford and Z. Yang, “Conformal sym- metry and its breaking in two dimensional Nearly Anti- de-Sitter space,” Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2016, 12C104 (2016) [arXiv:1606.01857]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    The soft mode in the Sachdev- Ye-Kitaev model and its gravity dual,

    A. Kitaev and S. J. Suh, “The soft mode in the Sachdev- Ye-Kitaev model and its gravity dual,” JHEP05, 183 (2018) [arXiv:1711.08467]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Confor- mal field theory interpretation of black hole quasinormal modes,

    D. Birmingham, I. Sachs and S. N. Solodukhin, “Confor- mal field theory interpretation of black hole quasinormal modes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 151301 (2002)

    2002

  24. [32]

    Hidden conformal symmetry and quasinormal modes,

    B. Chen and J. Long, “Hidden conformal symmetry and quasinormal modes,” Phys. Rev. D82, 126013 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Build- ing a holographic superconductor,

    S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, “Build- ing a holographic superconductor,” Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 031601 (2008) [arXiv:0803.3295]

    2008 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Holographic superconductors,

    S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, “Holographic superconductors,” JHEP12, 015 (2008) [arXiv:0810.1563]

    2008 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Introduction to holographic super- conductors,

    G. T. Horowitz, “Introduction to holographic super- conductors,” Lect. Notes Phys.828, 313–347 (2011) [arXiv:1002.1722]

    2011 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Scaling dimension of Cooper pair operator from the black hole interior,

    Y.-S. Choun and S.-J. Sin, “Scaling dimension of Cooper pair operator from the black hole interior,” Eur. Phys. J. C83, 790 (2023) [arXiv:2203.08798]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Scaling dimension of operators from the black hole interior,

    Y.-S. Choun, K.-S. Kim and S.-J. Sin, “Scaling dimension of operators from the black hole interior,” Phys. Lett. B 872, 140043 (2026)

    2026

  30. [38]

    Particle creation by black holes,

    S. W. Hawking, “Particle creation by black holes,” Com- mun. Math. Phys.43, 199–220 (1975)

    1975

  31. [39]

    Action integrals and partition functions in quantum gravity,

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, “Action integrals and partition functions in quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D15, 2752–2756 (1977). 8 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL CONTENTS S1. Radial equation, horizon branches, and the ingoing solution 8 S2. Boundary coefficients and pole/zero lines ...

    1977

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.