Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

Finite-N holography has no quantum error correction

2026-07-10 03:06 UTC pith:KKIRFQSQ

load-bearing objection Clean algebraic lemma shows HQEC fails for ordinary bulk fields at finite N, but the key physical input is asserted rather than proven the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08684 v1 pith:KKIRFQSQ submitted 2026-07-09 hep-th quant-ph

Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction without Holographic Quantum Error Correction

Seiji Terashima This is my paper
classification hep-th quant-ph
keywords holographicreconstructionbulkcorrectionerrorquantumsubregioncode-preserving
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.

The paper argues that the popular interpretation of entanglement wedge reconstruction as holographic quantum error correction (HQEC) is wrong for ordinary finite-N holographic CFTs. In the HQEC picture, a single bulk operator is a 'logical' operator that has multiple equivalent boundary representatives in different regions, invisible to the complementary regions—like a secret shared across multiple parties. The author proves a simple locality lemma: any operator reconstructible from multiple boundary regions must commute with all code-preserving local operators in the complementary regions. In a real QFT, local observables like the stress tensor detect ordinary bulk excitations, so their commutant contains no nontrivial bulk operator. This kills the HQEC interpretation. What survives is 'subregion complementarity': each boundary region gets its own algebra of gravitationally dressed bulk operators, with no shared logical operator across regions.

Core claim

The central result is equation (3.22): R(A) ∩ R(B) = R(A ∩ B). This says that the only operators reconstructible from two boundary regions A and B are those already reconstructible from their geometric overlap. The proof uses Lemma 3.2, which shows that any operator commonly reconstructible from regions R_i must commute with the code-preserving local algebras in the complementary regions R_i^c. Combined with the QFT fact that local observables (especially the stress tensor) detect all ordinary low-energy excitations—leaving only trivial operators in the commutant—this eliminates any nontrivial common reconstruction. The argument is purely algebraic and does not rely on large-N, gravity, orRT

What carries the argument

The proof combines two ingredients. First, a purely quantum-information-theoretic lemma: if an operator w has code-preserving representatives in regions R_i, then by locality (disjoint regions commute), w must commute with every code-preserving operator in the complementary regions R_i^c. Second, a physical input from QFT: local low-energy observables, particularly smeared stress tensors, detect ordinary bulk excitations. If the complementary regions cover the full boundary, their code-preserving algebras generate all local observables, and the commutant of that is trivial (up to center/superselection data). Together these force any common reconstruction to be trivial. The N=∞ limit evades此论

Load-bearing premise

The physical input is that in an ordinary QFT, local low-energy observables—specifically smeared stress tensors—detect all ordinary low-energy excitations, leaving only trivial operators in their commutant. If a holographic CFT code subspace contained a nontrivial protected sector invisible to every local stress-tensor measurement, the argument would fail.

What would settle it

A nontrivial bulk operator that is code-preserving, reconstructible from two disjoint boundary regions A and B, and not reconstructible from their intersection A ∩ B, while commuting with all local stress-tensor measurements in the complements of A and B. This would violate equation (3.22) and revive the HQEC picture.

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

If this is right

  • The distinction between EWR (entanglement wedge reconstruction as a region-by-region statement) and HQEC (a shared logical operator with multiple representatives) becomes a sharp algebraic criterion, not a matter of approximation.
  • Tensor network models like HaPPY codes are confirmed to rely on a feature absent in real CFTs: a protected commutant invisible to local observables. They are not faithful models of finite-N holographic error correction.
  • The N=∞ agreement between global and subregion HKLL is reinterpreted as a free-field identity, not evidence for an error-correcting code. The code interpretation breaks down at the first 1/N correction, visible in three-point functions.
  • Subregion complementarity—where each boundary region has its own gravitationally dressed bulk algebra—is promoted to the correct finite-N replacement for HQEC.
  • Any future claim of holographic error correction for ordinary supergravity fields must identify a protected sector invisible to all local stress-tensor measurements, which this paper argues does not exist.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the argument holds, then the search for a finite-N quantum error-correcting code structure in AdS/CFT for low-energy supergravity fields is fundamentally misguided—no such structure exists for ordinary bulk operators.
  • The result suggests that gravitational dressing is not a technical complication but the mechanism that destroys error correction: different boundary regions necessarily produce different physical (dressed) operators, preventing any shared logical identity.
  • If a refined JLMS relation holds to all orders in 1/N, it would still not imply HQEC; it would only give region-dependent algebras with region-dependent bulk interpretations, each valid in its own domain.

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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper argues that entanglement wedge reconstruction (EWR) in AdS/CFT should be separated from the stronger holographic quantum error correction (HQEC) interpretation, in which a single region-independent logical bulk operator has code-preserving representatives in multiple boundary regions. The core argument proceeds in two steps: (1) Lemma 3.2, a purely algebraic result showing that any common reconstruction must commute with code-preserving local algebras in complementary regions; (2) the physical input of Section 3.2.1, asserting that in an ordinary finite-N holographic CFT, local observables such as smeared stress tensors detect ordinary low-energy excitations, so the commutant is trivial up to center or superselection data. The conclusion is that no HQEC structure exists for supergravity fields at finite N, and what remains is 'EWR without HQEC' or 'subregion complementarity': each boundary region has its own region-adapted dressed bulk algebra. The paper also argues that the N=∞ agreement of global and subregion HKLL formulae is a free-theory identity, not evidence for a finite-N error-correcting code.

Significance. The paper addresses a conceptually important question in AdS/CFT: whether subregion bulk reconstruction should be interpreted as quantum error correction. The algebraic Lemma 3.2 is clean and provides a useful conceptual distillation of the mechanism by which HaPPY-type codes achieve error correction (a protected commutant) and why ordinary CFTs do not. The distinction between the intersection property (HQEC, Eq. 3.27) and the non-factorization property (Eq. 3.26) is clearly articulated and valuable. The argument that the N=∞ agreement is a free-theory statement rather than evidence for HQEC is well-motivated. However, the paper is largely a reformulation and synthesis of the author's prior results [18-22] into an abstract algebraic framework; the genuinely new content is the finite-dimensional lemma and its interpretation, while the physical conclusion rests on prior computations.

major comments (1)
  1. §3.2.1, Eq. (3.14): The commutant-triviality claim is the load-bearing physical input of the entire argument, yet it is stated as an expectation ('are expected to detect') rather than a proven result. The algebras R(X) are code-preserving subalgebras restricted to H_low, not full local algebras on the full Hilbert space. Standard QFT results (Reeh-Schlieder, time-slice axiom) establish commutant triviality for full local algebras, but the restriction to H_low and to code-preserving operators creates a gap. The concrete evidence from [21, 22] (Eq. 4.7) shows that the stress tensor distinguishes two specific reconstructions (global vs. subregion HKLL) at first gravitational order, but this is a weaker statement than proving the full commutant is trivial for arbitrary candidate common reconstructions. The paper should more clearly delineate what is rigorously established versus what is a物理上
minor comments (6)
  1. §3.2.1: The phrase 'are expected to detect' should be sharpened. If this is a theorem in certain contexts, cite it; if it is a conjecture, label it as such.
  2. Eq. (3.16) and the surrounding text: the claim that L_cp' = R(X^c) is presented as a consequence of the same QFT detectability, but the logic is less transparent than for Eq. (3.14). A brief explanation of why the commutant on a subregion X gives exactly R(X^c) would help.
  3. §3.3, Eq. (3.28): The remark that complementary recovery R(R)' = R(R^c) 'can exist without QEC structure' is important but could be elaborated. The distinction between this commutant relation and the HQEC intersection property is central to the paper's thesis and deserves more than a single paragraph.
  4. §4, Eq. (4.6): The statement that the mismatch first appears in three-point functions is clear, but the notation O_1, O_2 for probe operators could be confused with the regional labels O_A, O_B used elsewhere. Consider renaming.
  5. The paper uses 'C·1_{H_low}' and 'C1_{H_low}' inconsistently for the trivial algebra. Standardize notation.
  6. Footnote 6 (p. 8): the observation that the intersection of entanglement wedges of R_i is non-empty even when the intersection of R_i is empty is interesting and motivates the HQEC paradox. This point could be flagged more prominently in the introduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the algebraic lemma is self-contained and the load-bearing physical input is a general QFT principle, not a self-cited result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain has two load-bearing steps: (1) Lemma 3.2, a purely algebraic result showing that common reconstructions lie in the commutant of complementary regional algebras — this is new and self-contained, following directly from locality (Eq. 3.3) and the definition of R(X) (Eq. 3.5); (2) the physical input of Section 3.2.1 (Eq. 3.14/3.16), asserting that in an ordinary QFT, smeared stress tensors and low-energy single-trace observables detect ordinary excitations, leaving only trivial operators in the commutant. This second input is a general QFT principle (related to the Reeh-Schlieder theorem and the fact that the stress tensor generates local time evolution), not a result defined in terms of the conclusion. The self-citations to [18–22] (by the same author and collaborators) provide concrete supporting evidence — specifically the stress-tensor double-commutator computation of Eq. 4.7 — but these are parameter-free CFT correlator calculations, not fitted quantities or definitions. The paper explicitly states these are 'two forms of a single statement' rather than one deriving the other. No step reduces to its inputs by construction: R(A) is defined independently of the intersection property, the commutant-triviality claim is a physics assumption external to the algebra, and the conclusion R(A)∩R(B) = R(A∩B) follows from combining two independently motivated inputs. The concern about whether Eq. 3.14 is actually true for holographic code subspaces is a correctness risk, not a circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, or forces. It works entirely within the established framework of AdS/CFT, operator algebras, and CFT stress tensors. The key objects (R(A), C_com, L_cp) are definitions within standard algebraic QFT. No free parameters are introduced.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Local QFT detectability: low-energy local observables (smeared stress tensors, single-trace operators) in an ordinary CFT do not leave a nontrivial ordinary low-energy operator in their commutant.
    Invoked in Section 3.2.1 as the physical input that, combined with Lemma 3.2, forces the commutant to be trivial. Stated as an expectation for holographic CFTs rather than a proven theorem.
  • standard math Physical locality: operators in disjoint spatial regions commute.
    Equation (3.3), used in the proof of Lemma 3.2 to establish that common reconstructions commute with complementary algebras.
  • domain assumption Code preservation: reconstructed operators must satisfy [O, P] = 0 where P projects onto the low-energy sector.
    Equation (2.1)/(3.5), defining R(A). Appendix A shows this follows from exact reconstruction, but it is an assumption about what counts as a valid reconstruction.
  • domain assumption The N=∞ holographic sector is a generalized free field theory equivalent to a free bulk theory.
    Section 4, used to explain why global and subregion HKLL agree at N=∞ and why this does not constitute evidence for HQEC at finite N.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 16382 in / 2149 out tokens · 206120 ms · 2026-07-10T03:06:02.232336+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Bulk reconstruction is a central problem in AdS/CFT, and entanglement wedge reconstruction is its subregion version. We argue that this subregion statement should be separated from the stronger holographic quantum error correction interpretation, in which one region-independent logical bulk operator has code-preserving representatives in several boundary regions. A simple locality argument shows that such a common reconstruction must commute with the code-preserving local algebras in the complementary regions. This is the mechanism realized in HaPPY-type codes: the erased regions are blind to a protected logical algebra. An ordinary finite $N$ holographic CFT does not have such a protected invisible sector for supergravity fields. Its low-energy local observables, in particular, suitably smeared stress tensors, detect the physical support and gravitational dressing of ordinary bulk operators, up to possible center or superselection data. Thus, there is no such holographic quantum error correction and the $N=\infty$ agreement of global and subregion HKLL formulae is a free-theory statement. What remains is entanglement wedge reconstruction without holographic quantum error correction, or subregion complementarity: each boundary region has its own code-preserving low-energy algebra and its own region-adapted bulk interpretation, rather than a shared logical operator.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · 37 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Gauge Theory Correlators from Non-Critical String Theory

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,”Phys. Lett. B428(1998) 105–114, arXiv:hep-th/9802109

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Anti De Sitter Space And Holography

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    AdS Dynamics from Conformal Field Theory

    T. Banks, M. R. Douglas, G. T. Horowitz, and E. J. Martinec, “AdS dynamics from conformal field theory,”arXiv:hep-th/9808016

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    On the construction of local fields in the bulk of AdS_5 and other spaces

    I. Bena, “On the construction of local fields in the bulk of AdS(5) and other spaces,” Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 066007,arXiv:hep-th/9905186

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  6. [6]

    Generalized free fields and the AdS-CFT correspondence

    M. Duetsch and K.-H. Rehren, “Generalized free fields and the AdS - CFT correspondence,”Annales Henri Poincare4(2003) 613–635,arXiv:math-ph/0209035

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    Holographic representation of local bulk operators

    A. Hamilton, D. N. Kabat, G. Lifschytz, and D. A. Lowe, “Holographic representation of local bulk operators,”Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 066009,arXiv:hep-th/0606141

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Local bulk operators in AdS/CFT: a boundary view of horizons and locality

    A. Hamilton, D. N. Kabat, G. Lifschytz, and D. A. Lowe, “Local bulk operators in AdS/CFT: A Boundary view of horizons and locality,”Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 086003,arXiv:hep-th/0506118

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  9. [9]

    Bulk vs. Boundary Dynamics in Anti-de Sitter Spacetime

    V. Balasubramanian, P. Kraus, and A. E. Lawrence, “Bulk versus boundary dynamics in anti-de Sitter space-time,”Phys. Rev. D59(1999) 046003, arXiv:hep-th/9805171. 15

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  10. [10]

    Construction of Bulk Fields with Gauge Redundancy

    I. Heemskerk, “Construction of Bulk Fields with Gauge Redundancy,”JHEP09 (2012) 106,arXiv:1201.3666 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    Reconstruction of Bulk Operators within the Entanglement Wedge in Gauge-Gravity Duality

    X. Dong, D. Harlow, and A. C. Wall, “Reconstruction of Bulk Operators within the Entanglement Wedge in Gauge-Gravity Duality,”Phys. Rev. Lett.117no. 2, (2016) 021601,arXiv:1601.05416 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    The Ryu-Takayanagi Formula from Quantum Error Correction

    D. Harlow, “The Ryu–Takayanagi Formula from Quantum Error Correction,” Commun. Math. Phys.354no. 3, (2017) 865–912,arXiv:1607.03901 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Relative entropy equals bulk relative entropy

    D. L. Jafferis, A. Lewkowycz, J. Maldacena, and S. J. Suh, “Relative entropy equals bulk relative entropy,”JHEP06(2016) 004,arXiv:1512.06431 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Holographic Derivation of Entanglement Entropy from AdS/CFT

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT,”Phys. Rev. Lett.96(2006) 181602,arXiv:hep-th/0603001

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  15. [15]

    Generalized gravitational entropy

    A. Lewkowycz and J. Maldacena, “Generalized gravitational entropy,”JHEP08 (2013) 090,arXiv:1304.4926 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  16. [16]

    Bulk Locality and Quantum Error Correction in AdS/CFT

    A. Almheiri, X. Dong, and D. Harlow, “Bulk Locality and Quantum Error Correction in AdS/CFT,”JHEP04(2015) 163,arXiv:1411.7041 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    Holographic quantum error-correcting codes: Toy models for the bulk/boundary correspondence

    F. Pastawski, B. Yoshida, D. Harlow, and J. Preskill, “Holographic quantum error-correcting codes: Toy models for the bulk/boundary correspondence,”JHEP06 (2015) 149,arXiv:1503.06237 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [18]

    Bulk Locality in AdS/CFT Correspondence

    S. Terashima, “Bulk locality in the AdS/CFT correspondence,”Phys. Rev. D104 no. 8, (2021) 086014,arXiv:2005.05962 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Simple Bulk Reconstruction in AdS/CFT Correspondence

    S. Terashima, “Simple bulk reconstruction in anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence,”PTEP2023no. 5, (2023) 053B02,arXiv:2104.11743 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Rindler Bulk Reconstruction and Subregion Duality in AdS/CFT

    S. Sugishita and S. Terashima, “Rindler bulk reconstruction and subregion duality in AdS/CFT,”JHEP11(2022) 041,arXiv:2207.06455 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Subregion Complementarity in AdS/CFT

    S. Sugishita and S. Terashima, “Subregion Complementarity in AdS/CFT,” arXiv:2309.04231 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    Bulk Reconstruction and Gauge Invariance

    S. Sugishita and S. Terashima, “Bulk reconstruction and gauge invariance,”Phys. Rev. D112no. 4, (2025) 046003,arXiv:2409.02534 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    AdS/CFT Correspondence in Operator Formalism

    S. Terashima, “AdS/CFT Correspondence in Operator Formalism,”JHEP02(2018) 019,arXiv:1710.07298 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Wave Packets in AdS/CFT Correspondence

    S. Terashima, “Wave packets in AdS/CFT correspondence,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 10, (2024) 106012,arXiv:2304.08478 [hep-th]. 16

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Diffeomorphism-invariant observables and their nonlocal algebra

    W. Donnelly and S. B. Giddings, “Diffeomorphism-invariant observables and their nonlocal algebra,”Phys. Rev. D93no. 2, (2016) 024030,arXiv:1507.07921 [hep-th]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 94, 029903 (2016)]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    Observables, gravitational dressing, and obstructions to locality and subsystems

    W. Donnelly and S. B. Giddings, “Observables, gravitational dressing, and obstructions to locality and subsystems,”Phys. Rev. D94no. 10, (2016) 104038, arXiv:1607.01025 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction via Universal Recovery Channels

    J. Cotler, P. Hayden, G. Penington, G. Salton, B. Swingle, and M. Walter, “Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction via Universal Recovery Channels,”Phys. Rev. X9no. 3, (2019) 031011,arXiv:1704.05839 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Quantum corrections to holographic entanglement entropy

    T. Faulkner, A. Lewkowycz, and J. Maldacena, “Quantum corrections to holographic entanglement entropy,”JHEP11(2013) 074,arXiv:1307.2892 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

    Quantum Extremal Surfaces: Holographic Entanglement Entropy beyond the Classical Regime

    N. Engelhardt and A. C. Wall, “Quantum Extremal Surfaces: Holographic Entanglement Entropy beyond the Classical Regime,”JHEP01(2015) 073, arXiv:1408.3203 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [30]

    On The Entanglement Entropy For Gauge Theories

    S. Ghosh, R. M. Soni, and S. P. Trivedi, “On The Entanglement Entropy For Gauge Theories,”JHEP09(2015) 069,arXiv:1501.02593 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  31. [31]

    Remarks on entanglement entropy for gauge fields

    H. Casini, M. Huerta, and J. A. Rosabal, “Remarks on entanglement entropy for gauge fields,”Phys. Rev. D89no. 8, (2014) 085012,arXiv:1312.1183 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    Holography at Finite N: Breakdown of Bulk Reconstruction for Subregions

    S. Terashima, “Holography at Finite N: Breakdown of Bulk Reconstruction for Subregions,”arXiv:2508.11592 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Null Geodesics, Local CFT Operators and AdS/CFT for Subregions

    R. Bousso, B. Freivogel, S. Leichenauer, V. Rosenhaus, and C. Zukowski, “Null Geodesics, Local CFT Operators and AdS/CFT for Subregions,”Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 064057,arXiv:1209.4641 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  34. [34]

    Finite N Black Holes through the Brick Wall

    S. Terashima, “Finite N Black Holes through the Brick Wall,”arXiv:2606.06613 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Rindler Physics with a UV Cutoff on the Lattice

    S. Chikazawa and S. Terashima, “Rindler Physics with a UV Cutoff on the Lattice,” arXiv:2604.07915 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Stretched Horizon Dissipation and the Fate of Echoes

    S. Terashima, “Stretched horizon dissipation and the fate of echoes,”JHEP10(2025) 147,arXiv:2506.20462 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Brick Walls for Black Holes in AdS/CFT

    N. Iizuka and S. Terashima, “Brick Walls for Black Holes in AdS/CFT,”Nucl. Phys. B895(2015) 1–32,arXiv:1307.5933 [hep-th]. 17

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015