Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 76 references

Constraints from Entanglement Wedge Nesting for Holography at a Finite Cutoff

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Entanglement wedge nesting can fail when one region lives on a finite cutoff, even if the two regions are spacelike separated through the bulk.

desk verdict Careful analytic paper that derives a concrete EWN bound for the naive RT prescription on an ETW-brane cutoff; worth refereeing, but the physical punchline is conditional on the prescription choice made in Eq. (2.24). read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15024 v3 pith:KDCX56Z4 submitted 2025-01-25 hep-th gr-qcquant-ph

Krishan Saraswat This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qcquant-ph
keywords entanglementwedgenestingend-of-the-worldbranecutoffholographyholographicentropyAdS3/CFT2BTZblackholerestrictedmaximindouble
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 tries to establish that in AdS3 holography with a finite cutoff implemented by a subcritical end-of-the-world (ETW) brane, entanglement wedge nesting can fail even when the two chosen regions A (on the conformal boundary) and B (on the brane) are spacelike separated through the bulk. In the connected phase the nesting condition WE(A) ∪ WE(B) ⊆ WE(A ∪ B) is shown to hold if and only if |Δt| < min{Δt_A,EWN, Δt_2,EWN}, and this bound is exactly the condition that all RT surfaces involved are mutually spacelike separated. The same reasoning in a two-sided planar BTZ black hole with an ETW brane forbids connected RT surfaces that cross the Kruskal singularities at τ = ±π/2. If the claim is right, spacelike separation of subregions is not enough to make them independent in cutoff holography; the RT surfaces themselves must be spacelike separated, which is a precise geometric signature of the non-locality of the cutoff theory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the connected entanglement wedge WE(A ∪ B) = SL+_AdS3(χ1) ∩ SL-_AdS3(χ2) ∩ Mphys (Eq. 2.24), defined as the intersection of the sets of points spacelike separated from each RT segment toward the other, restricted to the physical spacetime in front of the brane. For a brane interval B the RT surface is extended behind the brane to a virtual boundary interval, giving WE(B) = WE(Vir(B)) ∩ Mphys. The argument is carried by the equivalence between entanglement wedge nesting and mutual spacelike separation of all RT surfaces χdis(A), χdis(B), χ1, χ2, expressed through the two computable bounds Δt_A,EWN and Δt_2,EWN whose minimum is the EWN threshold.

What would settle it

Take the paper's AdS3 parameters with 2a− > ℓ* so the connected phase dominates near the bound, and choose |Δt| between min{Δt_A,EWN, Δt_2,EWN} and Δt_c. Compute the entanglement entropy and wedges directly from the dual BCFT2 state, including boundary degrees of freedom, rather than from the postulated wedge; if the boundary computation gives the connected-phase entropy but still satisfies WE(A) ∪ WE(B) ⊆ WE(A ∪ B), the prescription in Eq. (2.24) is the incorrect entanglement wedge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the naive RT prescription for a brane interval B and a boundary interval A violates entanglement wedge nesting in the connected phase unless the time separation obeys |Δt| < min{Δt_A,EWN, Δt_2,EWN}. The first bound comes from requiring χdis(A) and χdis(B) to be spacelike separated; the second from requiring the two connected segments χ1 and χ2 to be spacelike separated. This is strictly stronger than requiring A and B to be spacelike separated through the bulk, and the paper shows explicitly that EWN can be violated while A and B remain spacelike separated. In the BTZ example the analogous nesting condition, in the limit of large intervals, translates into c− ≤ ct ≤ c+, which geometrically prevents the connected RT surface from touching the τ = ±π/2 singularities. The paper concludes that in holography at a cutoff, the entanglement wedges WE(A) and WE(B) must themselves be spacelike separated, and that the region of parameter space where this fails is precisely where restricted maximin and naive RT surfaces disagree.

Load-bearing premise

The connected-phase entanglement wedge is identified, by postulate, as the set of points spacelike separated from each RT segment toward the other (Eq. 2.24), rather than derived from a boundary replica or from the restricted maximin construction; if the true entanglement wedge in cutoff holography follows a different prescription, the derived EWN violation need not describe physical entanglement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the connected phase, EWN is equivalent to |Δt| < min{Δt_A,EWN, Δt_2,EWN}; any connected configuration with larger time separation violates nesting.
  • Spacelike separation of the subregions through the bulk is not sufficient; one must require the entanglement wedges themselves to be spacelike separated, equivalently all RT surfaces mutually spacelike.
  • The restricted maximin prescription and the naive RT prescription agree exactly where EWN is respected; outside that region restricted maximin produces time-dependent RT profiles even in static geometries, signaling that the subregions are not independent.
  • In the two-sided planar BTZ setup, the EWN condition disallows connected RT surfaces that cross the Kruskal singularities at τ = ±π/2, reinforcing earlier constraints on such surfaces.
  • In the conformal-boundary limit θ0 → π/2 the bound reduces to standard holography, where spacelike separation of A and B is sufficient for EWN.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable diagnostic suggested by the result: in any cutoff-holography model, treat two cutoff subregions as independent only when their associated extremal surfaces are mutually spacelike separated, not merely when the regions are spacelike separated.
  • One extension would be to check whether EWN violations always originate in arbitrarily small neighborhoods of the RT endpoints, as the paper observes for these examples; if so, higher-dimensional EWN conditions could be derived from local data near entangling surfaces.
  • When Neumann boundary conditions put dynamical gravity on the brane, the bound can be translated into constraints on brane gravitational couplings, since those couplings shift where RT surfaces end on the brane and thereby move B relative to A.
  • The observation that the wedge intersection with the brane grows when far-away regions are included suggests a concrete IR/UV split: IR information on the cutoff is stored locally, UV information non-locally, a structure one could look for in solvable T¯T-deformed models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies entanglement wedge nesting (EWN) in AdS3 with a finite cutoff implemented by an end-of-the-world (ETW) brane. It considers two constant-time intervals, A on the asymptotic boundary and B on the brane, constructs RT surfaces and associated entanglement wedges, and derives the condition |Δt| < min{Δt_A,EWN, Δt_2,EWN} (Eq. 3.12) as necessary and sufficient for EWN in the connected phase. It interprets this condition as the requirement that all RT surfaces involved are spacelike separated, argues that bulk spacelike separation of A and B is not sufficient for EWN, and contrasts the prescription with the restricted maximin construction of arXiv:2008.07022. The second part repeats the analysis for a two-sided planar BTZ black hole with an ETW brane in one exterior, obtaining constraints on the Kruskal-time parameter that prevent connected RT surfaces from crossing the τ = ±π/2 singularities.

Significance. If the prescription is accepted, the paper provides explicit, analytically derived constraints on a simple holographic model at finite cutoff, with useful limiting checks (θ0 → π/2 reproduces standard holography) and a clean geometric reinterpretation of EWN in terms of spacelike separation of all RT surfaces. The appendices contain substantial derivations, and the comparison with restricted maximin is valuable: it sharpens what is prescription-dependent versus what is a genuine property of cutoff holography. The BTZ result also gives a concrete bulk reason to discard connected RT surfaces through the singularities, complementing earlier work on DGP constraints. However, the central EWN-violation claim is load-bearing and, as discussed in the major comments, currently applies only to the paper's own connected-wedge prescription rather than to an independently defined physical entanglement wedge.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4.3, Eq. (2.24)] The connected entanglement wedge is introduced by postulate rather than derived. The text states that 'we can postulate the existence of a specific partial Cauchy slice Σ_{A∪B}' and identify its domain of dependence with SL+_AdS3(χ1) ∩ SL-_AdS3(χ2) ∩ Mphys. In standard AdS/CFT this identification follows from subregion duality or from a replica/maximin construction; here no such justification is given for the cutoff setup. Every bound in Section 3, including the central Eq. (3.12), is a constraint on this prescription. Since the paper itself argues in §3.5 that restricted maximin satisfies EWN by construction and disagrees with the naive RT prescription precisely in the claimed violation region, the abstract's statement that 'EWN can be violated' should be rephrased as 'the naive RT/EW prescription violates EWN' unless Eq. (2.24) is derived from a boundary construction or otherwise justified as the physical entanglement wedge.
  2. [§3.3 and §2.4.3] There is a circularity issue in the definition of W_E(A∪B) and the bound Δt_2,EWN. The construction of the connected wedge as a smooth tube is introduced 'as long as χ1 and χ2 are spacelike separated from each other,' and the paper later shows that |Δt| < Δt_2,EWN is precisely the condition for χ1 and χ2 to be spacelike separated. Thus the regime in which EWN is claimed to be violated (|Δt| ≥ Δt_2,EWN) is outside the domain where Eq. (2.24) is a well-defined domain of dependence. The paper partially acknowledges this in §3.3, but the violation claim still relies on extending the prescription beyond its regime of validity. The authors should either define W_E(A∪B) independently in that regime, or explicitly state that EWN is only defined when the connected wedge exists, in which case the 'violation' is not a violation of a physical nesting property but a breakdown of the prescription.
  3. [§3.2 and Appendix B.3] The nontriviality of the EWN constraint depends on the claim that the connected phase dominates before the EWN bound is reached, i.e., Δt_EWN − Δt_con > 0 for 2a− > ℓ*. This statement is supported by numerical scanning (Figures 16 and 17) rather than by an analytic proof. Since the paper's main conclusion is that spacelike-separated A and B can violate EWN, this phase-dominance assertion is load-bearing. An analytic proof, or at least a crisp analytic characterization of the parameter region where the connected phase dominates, would considerably strengthen the paper; as it stands, a skeptic cannot verify the claim beyond the sampled parameters.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§2.4.3, Eq. (2.27)] The expression 'tBr∩C+ ≈ 2.695 = b2 − b1/2 − 0.305' is ambiguous and dimensionally inconsistent as written; it should be t_{Br∩C+} ≈ 2.695 ≈ (b2 − b1)/2 − 0.305, with the understanding that the numerical value depends on the chosen parameters.
  2. [§3.2, Table 1] The table entries such as '|Δt| → Δt_2,EWN' would be clearer if they specified whether the approach is from below or from above, since the phase at the bound is not continuous in the parameter regimes discussed.
  3. [§3.5, Figure 11] The color-coded regions in Figure 11 are described in the text, but the figure itself lacks a legend; adding one would help the reader map the discussion of where the naive and restricted maximin surfaces agree.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EWN bound is a nontrivial geometric consequence of an explicitly postulated wedge prescription, not a re-packaging of the input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. RT curves are obtained by extremizing the area functional; the wedges WE(A) and WE(B) are defined as domains of dependence of partial Cauchy slices; the connected wedge WE(A∪B) is introduced in Eq. (2.24) as an explicit postulate. From this, the necessary and sufficient condition for EWN, Eq. (3.12), is obtained by concrete inequalities (3.1)-(3.5) and a separate connected-phase dominance analysis in Section 3.2. No parameter is fitted to the target quantity, no external benchmark is used, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The only self-citation is the author's own thesis [76] acknowledged at the end, which is not load-bearing. The skeptic concern that Eq. (2.24) already encodes spacelike separation of the RT segments is a scope limitation rather than circularity: the paper states that this is a postulate, and Section 3.5 explicitly concedes that restricted maximin, by contrast, automatically satisfies EWN and disagrees in the violating regime. Thus the result honestly describes the proposed prescription without reducing to its own assumptions by construction.

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

The paper introduces no fitted constants and no new physical entities. It relies on standard holographic assumptions (RT formula, EWN, ETW brane model) and on its own geometric prescription for the connected wedge, which is the main place where the central claim could fail.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Holographic entanglement entropy of any cutoff subregion is given by the HRRT area formula (Eq. 1.1), including for brane subregions.
    Invoked at the start of Section 1.1; the entire paper studies consequences of this assumption.
  • domain assumption The bulk is AdS3 or planar BTZ cut off by a co-dimension-one ETW brane of constant extrinsic curvature, with tension parameter sin(theta0) or sin(yBr), and Mphys is the region in front of the brane.
    Sections 2.1 and 4.1; this is the model under study rather than a derived fact.
  • ad hoc to paper For A union B in the connected phase, WE(A union B) equals the intersection of the sets of points spacelike separated from chi1 towards chi2 and from chi2 towards chi1, restricted to Mphys.
    Eq. (2.24); the paper explicitly postulates a partial Cauchy slice with this domain of dependence.
  • domain assumption Entanglement wedges must nest, WE(A) and WE(B) subsets of WE(A union B), inherited from tracing out boundary degrees of freedom.
    Section 1.1; the paper uses EWN as the constraint to impose.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints from Entanglement Wedge Nesting for Holography at a Finite Cutoff." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KDCX56Z4

@misc{pith2026250115024,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints from Entanglement Wedge Nesting for Holography at a Finite Cutoff},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KDCX56Z4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15024}
}
abstract

We explore constraints that arise from associating an entanglement wedge (EW) to subregions of a cutoff boundary at a finite distance in AdS/CFT, using a subcritical end-of-the-world (ETW) brane acting as a cutoff. In particular, we consider the case of two intervals in the holographic dual to a BCFT, with one interval $A$ located at the asymptotic boundary and the second interval $B$ located on the ETW brane. We discuss in detail subtleties that arise near the RT end-points when defining the EW for this configuration, particularly in the connected phase. Entanglement wedge nesting (EWN) requires that $\mathcal{W}_E(A) \cup \mathcal{W}_E(B) \subseteq \mathcal{W}_E(A\cup B)$. We demonstrate that already in the simplest example of an AdS$_3$ bulk geometry, EWN can be violated even if $A$ and $B$ are spacelike separated through the bulk and instead we must require the stronger condition that $\mathcal{W}_E(A)$ be spacelike separated from $\mathcal{W}_E(B)$, which highlights the non-local nature of the cutoff theory. Our prescription to associate EWs to subregions on the ETW brane is different from the restricted maximin procedure in arXiv:2008.07022 but will agree within the subset of parameter space where EWN is respected. Additionally, we study EWN in a two sided BTZ black hole geometry with an ETW brane in one of the exteriors. In the BTZ black hole example we find that our condition for EWN disallows configurations where the RT surface goes from the brane to the black hole singularity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [60]

    J. H. Lee, D. Neuenfeld and A. Shukla,Bounds on gravitational brane couplings and tomography in AdS3 black hole microstates, JHEP 10 (2022) 139 [2206.06511]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Grado-White, D

    B. Grado-White, D. Marolf and S. J. Weinberg,Radial Cutoffs and Holographic Entanglement, JHEP 01 (2021) 009 [2008.07022]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [2]

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

    arXiv 1998

  4. [3]

    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]

    arXiv 1998

  5. [4]

    S. S. Gubser,AdS / CFT and gravity, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 084017 [hep-th/9912001]. – 85 –

    arXiv 2001

  6. [5]

    Nastase,Introduction to AdS-CFT, 0712.0689

    H. Nastase,Introduction to AdS-CFT, 0712.0689

    arXiv

  7. [6]

    J. Polchinski,Introduction to Gauge/Gravity Duality, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: String theory and its Applications: From meV to the Planck Scale, pp. 3–46, 10, 2010,1010.6134, DOI

    arXiv 2010

  8. [7]

    Ammon and J

    M. Ammon and J. Erdmenger,Gauge/gravity duality: Foundations and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 4, 2015, 10.1017/CBO9780511846373

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511846373 2015

Show all 76 references
  1. [8]

    Van Raamsdonk,Lectures on gravity and entanglement., inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: New Frontiers in Fields and Strings, pp

    M. Van Raamsdonk,Lectures on gravity and entanglement., inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: New Frontiers in Fields and Strings, pp. 297–351, 2017, 1609.00026, DOI

    2017 arXiv

  2. [9]

    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

  3. [10]

    de Haro, S

    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

  4. [11]

    Cooper, M

    S. Cooper, M. Rozali, B. Swingle, M. Van Raamsdonk, C. Waddell and D. Wakeham,Black hole microstate cosmology, JHEP 07 (2019) 065 [1810.10601]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Miyaji and T

    M. Miyaji and T. Takayanagi,Surface/State Correspondence as a Generalized Holography, PTEP 2015 (2015) 073B03 [1503.03542]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Miyaji, T

    M. Miyaji, T. Numasawa, N. Shiba, T. Takayanagi and K. Watanabe,Continuous Multiscale Entanglement Renormalization Ansatz as Holographic Surface-State Correspondence, Phys. Rev. Lett.115 (2015) 171602 [1506.01353]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [14]

    A. B. Zamolodchikov,Expectation value of composite field T anti-T in two-dimensional quantum field theory, hep-th/0401146

    arXiv

  8. [15]

    Jiang,Lectures on solvable irrelevant deformations of 2d quantum field theory, 2019, https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:140264614

    Y. Jiang,Lectures on solvable irrelevant deformations of 2d quantum field theory, 2019, https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:140264614

    2019

  9. [16]

    Bonelli, N

    G. Bonelli, N. Doroud and M. Zhu,T ¯T-deformations in closed form, JHEP 06 (2018) 149 [1804.10967]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Dubovsky, V

    S. Dubovsky, V. Gorbenko and M. Mirbabayi,Asymptotic fragility, near AdS2 holography and T T, JHEP 09 (2017) 136 [1706.06604]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Grieninger,Entanglement entropy andT T deformations beyond antipodal points from holography, JHEP 11 (2019) 171 [1908.10372]

    S. Grieninger,Entanglement entropy andT T deformations beyond antipodal points from holography, JHEP 11 (2019) 171 [1908.10372]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [19]

    D. J. Gross, J. Kruthoff, A. Rolph and E. Shaghoulian,T T in AdS2 and Quantum Mechanics, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 026011 [1907.04873]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Cavaglià, S

    A. Cavaglià, S. Negro, I. M. Szécsényi and R. Tateo,T ¯T-deformed 2D Quantum Field Theories, JHEP 10 (2016) 112 [1608.05534]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Pant and H

    S. Pant and H. Parihar,Mixed state entanglement in deformed field theory at finite temperature, 2412.19680

    arXiv

  15. [22]

    McGough, M

    L. McGough, M. Mezei and H. Verlinde,Moving the CFT into the bulk withT T, JHEP 04 (2018) 010 [1611.03470]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Guica and R

    M. Guica and R. Monten,T ¯T and the mirage of a bulk cutoff, SciPost Phys. 10 (2021) 024 [1906.11251]. – 86 –

    2021 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Lewkowycz, J

    A. Lewkowycz, J. Liu, E. Silverstein and G. Torroba,T T and EE, with implications for (A)dS subregion encodings, JHEP 04 (2020) 152 [1909.13808]

    2020

  18. [25]

    Takayanagi,Holographic Dual of BCFT, Phys

    T. Takayanagi,Holographic Dual of BCFT, Phys. Rev. Lett.107 (2011) 101602 [1105.5165]

    2011 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Almheiri, R

    A. Almheiri, R. Mahajan, J. Maldacena and Y. Zhao,The Page curve of Hawking radiation from semiclassical geometry, JHEP 03 (2020) 149 [1908.10996]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [27]

    H. Geng, A. Karch, C. Perez-Pardavila, S. Raju, L. Randall, M. Riojas et al.,Information Transfer with a Gravitating Bath, SciPost Phys. 10 (2021) 103 [2012.04671]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Geng and A

    H. Geng and A. Karch,Massive islands, JHEP 09 (2020) 121 [2006.02438]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [29]

    H. Z. Chen, R. C. Myers, D. Neuenfeld, I. A. Reyes and J. Sandor,Quantum Extremal Islands Made Easy, Part I: Entanglement on the Brane, JHEP 10 (2020) 166 [2006.04851]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [30]

    H. Z. Chen, R. C. Myers, D. Neuenfeld, I. A. Reyes and J. Sandor,Quantum Extremal Islands Made Easy, Part II: Black Holes on the Brane, JHEP 12 (2020) 025 [2010.00018]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Hernandez, R

    J. Hernandez, R. C. Myers and S.-M. Ruan,Quantum extremal islands made easy. Part III. Complexity on the brane, JHEP 02 (2021) 173 [2010.16398]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Grimaldi, J

    G. Grimaldi, J. Hernandez and R. C. Myers,Quantum extremal islands made easy. Part IV. Massive black holes on the brane, JHEP 03 (2022) 136 [2202.00679]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [33]

    H. Geng, Y. Nomura and H.-Y. Sun,Information paradox and its resolution in de Sitter holography, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 126004 [2103.07477]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [34]

    H. Geng, S. Lüst, R. K. Mishra and D. Wakeham,Holographic BCFTs and Communicating Black Holes, JHEP 08 (2021) 003 [2104.07039]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Neuenfeld,Double holography as a model for black hole complementarity, 2021, https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:233714953

    D. Neuenfeld,Double holography as a model for black hole complementarity, 2021, https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:233714953

    2021

  29. [36]

    Neuenfeld,The Dictionary for Double Holography and Graviton Masses in d Dimensions, 2104.02801

    D. Neuenfeld,The Dictionary for Double Holography and Graviton Masses in d Dimensions, 2104.02801

    arXiv

  30. [37]

    Omiya and Z

    H. Omiya and Z. Wei,Causal structures and nonlocality in double holography, JHEP 07 (2022) 128 [2107.01219]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [38]

    H. Geng, A. Karch, C. Perez-Pardavila, L. Randall, M. Riojas, S. Shashi et al.,Constraining braneworlds with entanglement entropy, SciPost Phys. 15 (2023) 199 [2306.15672]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Geng,Revisiting Recent Progress in the Karch-Randall Braneworld, 2306.15671

    H. Geng,Revisiting Recent Progress in the Karch-Randall Braneworld, 2306.15671

    arXiv

  33. [40]

    Engelhardt and A

    N. Engelhardt and A. C. Wall,Quantum Extremal Surfaces: Holographic Entanglement Entropy beyond the Classical Regime, JHEP 01 (2015) 073 [1408.3203]

    2015 arXiv

  34. [41]

    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

  35. [42]

    V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani and T. Takayanagi,A Covariant holographic entanglement entropy proposal, JHEP 07 (2007) 062 [0705.0016]

    2007 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Donnelly and V

    W. Donnelly and V. Shyam,Entanglement entropy andT T deformation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 131602 [1806.07444]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Headrick and T

    M. Headrick and T. Takayanagi,A Holographic proof of the strong subadditivity of entanglement entropy, Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 106013 [0704.3719]. – 87 –

    2007 arXiv

  38. [45]

    A. C. Wall,Maximin Surfaces, and the Strong Subadditivity of the Covariant Holographic Entanglement Entropy, Class. Quant. Grav.31 (2014) 225007 [1211.3494]

    2014 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Headrick, V

    M. Headrick, V. E. Hubeny, A. Lawrence and M. Rangamani,Causality & holographic entanglement entropy, JHEP 12 (2014) 162 [1408.6300]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Akers, J

    C. Akers, J. Koeller, S. Leichenauer and A. Levine,Geometric Constraints from Subregion Duality Beyond the Classical Regime, 1610.08968

    arXiv

  41. [48]

    Akers, V

    C. Akers, V. Chandrasekaran, S. Leichenauer, A. Levine and A. Shahbazi Moghaddam, Quantum null energy condition, entanglement wedge nesting, and quantum focusing, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 025011 [1706.04183]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [49]

    B. Chen, B. Czech and Z.-z. Wang,Quantum information in holographic duality, Rept. Prog. Phys. 85 (2022) 046001 [2108.09188]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Leutheusser and H

    S. Leutheusser and H. Liu,Subregion-subalgebra duality: emergence of space and time in holography, 2212.13266

    arXiv

  44. [51]

    Bousso and G

    R. Bousso and G. Penington,Entanglement wedges for gravitating regions, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 086002 [2208.04993]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Geng,Some Information Theoretic Aspects of De-Sitter Holography, JHEP 02 (2020) 005 [1911.02644]

    H. Geng,Some Information Theoretic Aspects of De-Sitter Holography, JHEP 02 (2020) 005 [1911.02644]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Neuenfeld and M

    D. Neuenfeld and M. Srivastava,On the causality paradox and the Karch-Randall braneworld as an EFT, JHEP 10 (2023) 164 [2307.10392]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [54]

    F. Deng, Z. Wang and Y. Zhou,End of the World Brane meetsT ¯T, 2310.15031

    arXiv

  48. [55]

    Geng,Replica wormholes and entanglement islands in the Karch-Randall braneworld, JHEP 01 (2025) 063 [2405.14872]

    H. Geng,Replica wormholes and entanglement islands in the Karch-Randall braneworld, JHEP 01 (2025) 063 [2405.14872]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Karch and L

    A. Karch and L. Randall,Locally localized gravity, JHEP 05 (2001) 008 [hep-th/0011156]

    2001 arXiv

  50. [57]

    G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati,4-D gravity on a brane in 5-D Minkowski space, Phys. Lett. B485 (2000) 208 [hep-th/0005016]

    2000 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Geng,Aspects of AdS2 quantum gravity and the Karch-Randall braneworld, JHEP 09 (2022) 024 [2206.11277]

    H. Geng,Aspects of AdS2 quantum gravity and the Karch-Randall braneworld, JHEP 09 (2022) 024 [2206.11277]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [59]

    H. Geng, A. Karch, C. Perez-Pardavila, S. Raju, L. Randall, M. Riojas et al., Jackiw-Teitelboim Gravity from the Karch-Randall Braneworld, Phys. Rev. Lett.129 (2022) 231601 [2206.04695]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    K. Doi, J. Harper, A. Mollabashi, T. Takayanagi and Y. Taki,Pseudoentropy in dS/CFT and Timelike Entanglement Entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.130 (2023) 031601 [2210.09457]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    B. Liu, H. Chen and B. Lian,Entanglement entropy of free fermions in timelike slices, Phys. Rev. B 110 (2024) 144306 [2210.03134]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    K. Doi, J. Harper, A. Mollabashi, T. Takayanagi and Y. Taki,Timelike entanglement entropy, JHEP 05 (2023) 052 [2302.11695]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Li, Z.-Q

    Z. Li, Z.-Q. Xiao and R.-Q. Yang,On holographic time-like entanglement entropy, JHEP 04 (2023) 004 [2211.14883]. – 88 –

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Narayan,de Sitter space, extremal surfaces, and time entanglement, Phys

    K. Narayan,de Sitter space, extremal surfaces, and time entanglement, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 126004 [2210.12963]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Narayan,Further remarks on de Sitter space, extremal surfaces, and time entanglement, Phys

    K. Narayan,Further remarks on de Sitter space, extremal surfaces, and time entanglement, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 086009 [2310.00320]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Geng and L

    H. Geng and L. Randall,Holography and Causality in the Karch-Randall Braneworld, 2504.21856

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Mori and B

    T. Mori and B. Yoshida,Exploring causality in braneworld/cutoff holography via holographic scattering, JHEP 10 (2023) 104 [2308.00739]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Franken and T

    V. Franken and T. Mori,Horizon causality from holographic scattering in asymptotically dS3, JHEP 12 (2024) 199 [2410.09050]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Hartman and J

    T. Hartman and J. Maldacena,Time Evolution of Entanglement Entropy from Black Hole Interiors, JHEP 05 (2013) 014 [1303.1080]

    2013 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Kourkoulou and J

    I. Kourkoulou and J. Maldacena,Pure states in the SYK model and nearly-AdS2 gravity, 1707.02325

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Miyaji, T

    M. Miyaji, T. Takayanagi and T. Ugajin,Spectrum of End of the World Branes in Holographic BCFTs, JHEP 06 (2021) 023 [2103.06893]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Antonini and B

    S. Antonini and B. Swingle,Cosmology at the end of the world, Nature Phys. 16 (2020) 881 [1907.06667]

    2020 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Waddell,Bottom-up holographic models for cosmology, JHEP 09 (2022) 176 [2203.03096]

    C. Waddell,Bottom-up holographic models for cosmology, JHEP 09 (2022) 176 [2203.03096]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Gao and R

    S. Gao and R. M. Wald,Theorems on gravitational time delay and related issues, Class. Quant. Grav. 17 (2000) 4999 [gr-qc/0007021]

    2000 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Saraswat,Quantum Aspects of Black Holes: From Microstates to Echoes and Somewhere In-Between, Ph.D

    K. Saraswat,Quantum Aspects of Black Holes: From Microstates to Echoes and Somewhere In-Between, Ph.D. thesis, U. Waterloo (main), 2023. – 89 –

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.