Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Evaporating universes

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Extended holographic entropy, applied to wormholes in flat spacetime, reproduces the Page curve and makes Hawking decoding complexity polynomial at late times.

desk verdict A conditional flat-space toy model of evaporation that is honest about its debts; worth refereeing, but the Page curve and PLC results stand or fall with the author's unproven flat-space HRT conjecture. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05363 v3 pith:LOYBLTSA submitted 2025-07-07 hep-th gr-qc

Divij Gupta This is my paper
classification hep-thgr-qc
keywords blackholeevaporationPagecurveholographicentanglemententropyBrill-Lindquistwormholespython'slunchconjectureHawkingradiationdecodingcomplexityER=EPRasymptoticallyflatholography
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 proposes a holographic toy model of black hole evaporation in four-dimensional asymptotically flat spacetime. Its central claim is that a recently conjectured extension of the HRT formula, applied to Brill-Lindquist wormholes with $n=3$ or $n=4$ asymptotic regions, produces the Page curve for the entanglement entropy, so the model is consistent with unitarity. The same geometry contains index-1 extremal surfaces; the generalized python's lunch conjecture reads those surfaces as barriers that make decoding Hawking radiation exponentially hard, and their areas approach the radiation-surface area as the black hole evaporates, making the decoding complexity polynomial at late times. A reader should care because this is a concrete, purely classical-geometric setting in which two central holographic predictions, entropy turning around and decoding complexity easing, can be checked in flat space rather than anti-de Sitter space.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the conjectured extension of the HRT formula in (2.1): for a classical connected solution with $n$ asymptotically Minkowski regions, $S(A) = |\gamma_{\mathrm{RT}}(A)|/(4G_N)$, where $\gamma_{\mathrm{RT}}(A)$ is the minimal-area surface homologous to a union of entire boundary components. The spacetimes are four-dimensional Brill-Lindquist wormholes, time-symmetric conformally flat initial data with $n$ asymptotic regions; their minimal surfaces and index-1 extremal companions are found numerically by a shooting method. The generalized python's lunch conjecture (2.14) converts those index-1 surfaces into candidate bulges whose area relative to the constriction surface sets the decoding complexity of the Hawking radiation. The argument's load is carried by the area differences between these surfaces as the puncture-separation parameter $t = \alpha_i/\sigma$ evolves.

What would settle it

A direct check is to compute $|\tilde{\gamma}_3| - |\gamma_R|$ in the $n=3$ model at times approaching $\tau \to \pi/2$; if this difference does not tend to zero and instead stays positive, the python's lunch prediction that decoding complexity becomes polynomial is false. A stronger falsifier would be any independent first-principles computation of the same entanglement entropy that disagrees with the minimal-surface value, since the extended HRT formula is the foundation on which the entire model rests.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery the author is trying to establish is that the extended HRT formula (2.1) turns Brill-Lindquist wormholes into working models of black hole evaporation. In the $n=3$ model, identifying the head with the evaporating black hole and the two legs with radiation baths, the minimal-surface entanglement entropy first rises and then falls, with the crossing at $t_{\mathrm{Page}} \approx 0.41$; in the $n=4$ model the Page-curve behavior again emerges, now alongside additional candidate surfaces such as $\gamma_{12} \cup \gamma_3$. The paper also identifies index-1 extremal surfaces as candidate python's-lunch bulges and shows that the area difference controlling the exponential decoding complexity, $|\tilde{\gamma}_3| - |\gamma_R|$ in the $n=3$ model, vanishes as evaporation ends, in agreement with the generalized python's lunch conjecture's prediction that decoding becomes polynomially hard once the black hole has evaporated.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the conjectured extended HRT formula for asymptotically flat spacetimes is valid: a classical connected solution with $n$ asymptotically Minkowski regions really represents an entangled state whose entropy is $S(A) = |\gamma_{\mathrm{RT}}(A)|/(4G_N)$; if that conjecture is false, the computed 'entanglement entropies' are not actual entropies and the Page curve loses its significance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the extended HRT formula is valid, the Page curve is reproduced in asymptotically flat spacetime without any dual CFT: the entanglement entropy grows, turns around at the Page time, and returns toward zero at late times.
  • The generalized python's lunch conjecture is realized concretely: the decoding complexity of the Hawking radiation is controlled by $|\gamma_b| - |\gamma_R|$, and this difference tends to zero as evaporation completes, so the exponential decoding obstacle disappears.
  • In the $n=4$ model, the lunch transition occurs at $|\gamma_{\mathrm{BH}}(\tau_{\mathrm{Lunch}})|/|\gamma_0| \approx 0.48$, close to the value 0.5 conjectured for a forward-reverse sweep transition, so the switch from one bulge to another fits that picture.
  • Mutual information between radiation baths is zero before the Page time and becomes positive afterward, matching the expectation that late Hawking quanta are correlated among themselves as well as with the black hole.
  • For $n=4$, the extra minimal surface $\gamma_M$ never becomes the RT surface; the complexity is instead set by the bulges in the two Cauchy subregions, with the controlling area difference switching from $|\gamma_{b2}| - |\gamma_R|$ to $|\gamma_{b1}| - |\gamma_R|$ near $\tau \approx 0.47$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, this suggests a general rule: whenever an evaporation wormhole has a bulge surface whose area tracks the radiation constriction, the decoding complexity will become polynomial at the end of evaporation, regardless of the number of baths.
  • A testable extension is to carry the same numerics to $n>4$ Brill-Lindquist wormholes; the paper expects the Page curve to persist and more lunch transitions to appear, which would test whether the $n=4$ near-0.5 transition is universal.
  • The model drops the bulk-entropy term $S_{\mathrm{bulk}}$; including it would shift the Page time and could restore a connected geometry at early and late times, giving a sharper comparison with Page's 0.60 area-ratio estimate for photon and graviton emission.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a holographic toy model of black hole evaporation in four-dimensional asymptotically flat spacetime using Brill-Lindquist (BL) wormholes. The author assumes the extended HRT conjecture of Ref. [10] for multi-boundary asymptotically flat geometries, interprets the BL wormhole as an ER=EPR entanglement geometry between an evaporating black hole ('head') and radiation baths ('legs'), and computes candidate RT surface areas numerically for n=3 and n=4 BL wormholes. The minimal-area curves are shown to produce a Page curve for the entanglement entropy. Index-1 extremal surfaces are identified as candidate python's-lunch bulges, and a generalized PLC formula is introduced and used to compute the complexity of decoding Hawking radiation; the area differences are claimed to tend to zero at late times, implying polynomial decay of exponential complexity. The paper is explicitly presented as a continuation of [10] and relies on several stated assumptions about the regime of validity of classical geometry.

Significance. If the extended HRT conjecture and the generalized PLC formula are accepted, the paper provides an explicit flat-space geometric realization of the Page curve and of the PLC prediction that decoding complexity becomes polynomial as the black hole evaporates. The use of fixed-n BL wormholes with mass-conserving dynamics is a clean departure from the growing-octopus model of [19], and the paper honestly lists many limitations, including the early/late-time quantum regimes, the symmetric-slice assumption, and the approximate n=4 critical separation. The numerical computations via the shooting method are a useful concrete test of the conjectures in a relatively simple setting. However, the evidential weight of the results is conditional on conjectures that are not independently established here, and the paper does not provide code, error bars, or a sharp statement of the range of validity of its quantitative claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (2.1)] The entire interpretation of the computed areas as entanglement entropies rests on Conjecture 3 of Ref. [10], which is not proven or independently tested in this manuscript. If Eq. (2.1) does not hold for the BL configurations considered, then Figs. 9, 17, and all associated entropy claims reduce to statements about areas of minimal surfaces in a classical geometry. The paper should state its logical structure explicitly as 'conditional on Conjecture 3 of [10]' and should provide at least one independent check, such as the n=2 Schwarzschild limit where the entanglement structure is known, or a direct verification that the AdS-gluing construction introduces no new minimal surfaces for the specific parameter ranges used here.
  2. [§3.1, Fig. 9 and §3.2, Fig. 17] The Page curve is largely guaranteed by construction: S(A) is defined as min(|γ_BH|, |γ_R|)/(4G_N), and the model's constraints (3.1)-(3.3) are chosen so that |γ_BH| decreases and |γ_R| increases monotonically with the time parameter t. The min of a decreasing and an increasing curve necessarily has a maximum. The paper should clarify the evidential status of this result: it demonstrates that a specific flat-space geometry admits an HRT-type realization of the Page curve under the assumed conjecture, but it does not by itself test unitarity, since the entropy formula already selects the minimal area. This clarification would help the reader distinguish the geometric computation from a dynamical derivation of information conservation.
  3. [§2.3, Eq. (2.14)] The generalized PLC formula (2.14) is introduced without a derivation or independent justification. The min-before-max ordering is asserted to be necessary because the maximization is 'ill-defined' without a unique bulge, but it is not shown to follow from the Almgren-Pitts min-max principle cited in the same section. Since all subsequent complexity claims in Secs. 3.1 and 3.2 (Figs. 12 and 22) depend on this formula, the paper should either prove the ordering from the minimax construction or test it on a solvable tensor-network model, or otherwise explicitly label Eq. (2.14) as a conjecture.
  4. [§3, bullet list and Figs. 12, 22] The asymptotic claim that the decoding complexity becomes polynomial as τ→π/2 is made in a regime that the paper itself identifies as invalid: the text states that at late times the black hole becomes small enough that quantum effects dominate and the classical BL geometry breaks down. The numerical trend in Fig. 12 and Fig. 22 is therefore an extrapolation beyond the model's stated regime of validity. Additionally, the paper acknowledges that the assumption that all relevant extremal surfaces lie on the time-symmetric slice may fail, citing explicit counterexamples from [46]. The PLC complexity results should be framed as a bound or as evidence within the classical regime, rather than as a sharp confirmation of the polynomial limit.
  5. [§3.2, footnote 9 and numerical methods] The n=4 model starts at an approximate critical separation, and the paper admits that a complete analysis of the critical separation(s) for n=4 is incomplete. The Page curve and the existence of the surfaces γ12 and γ23 depend on the presence of the connected wormhole geometry, so it is important to specify the range of t for which the numerical results are reliable. Furthermore, the paper provides no numerical error estimates or code for the shooting method, despite reporting quantitative values such as t_Page ≈ 0.41, area differences, and mass ratios. Please include numerical precision estimates and, ideally, code or data for reproducibility.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1, Abstract] The abstract says 'four-boundary BL wormholes' for n=4; since the paper also refers to 'n asymptotic regions', it would be clearer to consistently say 'four-asymptotic-region' or 'four-boundary' throughout.
  2. [§3.1, after Fig. 13] There is a typo in the sentence 'thus the areas must approach each other as well as.' — 'as well as' should be 'as well'.
  3. [Figures 11, 20, 21] Several figure captions do not state the fixed parameters used (e.g., m_total, α, or the time range). Adding these would improve reproducibility and readability.
  4. [Eq. (3.6)] The notation 4I(1:2) is used without explicitly stating that this is the mutual information multiplied by 4G_N after setting G_N=1; a brief reminder would avoid confusion for readers tracking units.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central results are conditional on the author's own explicitly labeled conjecture, but they are genuine numerical consequences of that premise rather than identities.

full rationale

The paper's outputs are not hidden restatements of its inputs. Section 2.1 explicitly imports Eq. (2.1) as conjecture 3 of [10] by the same authors; this is a load-bearing premise but it is not derived from, nor equivalent to, the Page curve. The Page curve follows from numerically computed BL minimal-surface areas (Figs. 9, 17) with S(A)=min(|gamma_R|,|gamma_BH|)/(4G_N); the monotonicity of the two areas is a consequence of the mass-conservation constraint (3.3) and the BL geometry, not a fitted target. The PLC check is likewise an evaluation of the stated generalized PLC (2.14) on explicit index-1 surfaces; the late-time area differences (|gamma_tilde_3|-|gamma_R| -> 0, etc.) are geometric results, not assumed. External comparisons, such as Page's area ratio at the Page time and the PLC forward-reverse transition value, are genuinely independent benchmarks. The main caveat is a correctness risk, not circularity: if (2.1) or the generalized PLC is false, the computed quantities are merely areas, but the paper does not pretend otherwise.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central results depend on the author's own conjectured extension of HRT [10], a new generalized PLC formula, a hand-chosen time parameter, and several modeling assumptions about the BL geometry and the nature of the baths. The numerical area computations are not fitted, but the conceptual output is conditional on these unproven inputs.

free parameters (5)
  • Time evolution parameter t = α_i/σ = t from ≈1/3 to 0.56 (n=3); t0≈0.31 start, τ=arctan t (n=4)
    Chosen by hand as the ratio of puncture strength to separation to parametrize evaporation; no derivation from microscopic dynamics.
  • Equal bath mass constraints m_i = m_j = m1=m2 (n=3); m1=m2=m3 (n=4)
    Imposed for symmetry and to reduce parameter space; affects which surfaces are minimal and the Page time.
  • Total mass = m_total=10
    Arbitrary normalization; with G_N=1, area ratios are scale-invariant but absolute entropies depend on it.
  • Start time / critical separation = r_12 ≈ 3.1α (n=3); r_12 ≈ 3.2 α_2 (n=4, approximate)
    Initial connected-wormhole configuration chosen near the critical separation; n=4 critical separation is acknowledged as approximate and incomplete.
  • Equal separations r_ij = σ|i-j| = n-3 parameters fixed this way
    Convenience choice to reduce free parameters; no physical derivation.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Existence of a quantum theory of gravity with Minkowski vacuum and tensor product Hilbert spaces; extended HRT formula (2.1) holds for asymptotically flat multi-boundary spacetimes.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 as conjecture 3 of [10]; the paper takes it as the necessary ingredient for identifying BL minimal surface areas with entanglement entropies.
  • domain assumption ER=EPR: the BL wormhole represents the entanglement geometry between evaporating black hole and radiation baths.
    Sections 1 and 3; used to justify modeling the black hole-bath state by a connected wormhole.
  • domain assumption Python's lunch conjecture formulas (2.11), (2.13), and the generalized formula (2.14) compute decoding complexity from bulge surface areas.
    Section 2.3; (2.14) is a new generalization introduced here without proof.
  • domain assumption All relevant extremal surfaces lie on the time-symmetric slice.
    Stated in Section 3.2 bullet; [46] gives counterexamples where maximinimax picks a surface off the symmetric slice, so this is a nontrivial assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper BL initial data at each snapshot represents a moment of evaporation, with time evolution encoded by changing separation.
    Section 3; the time parameter t = α_i/σ is chosen by hand and no dynamical equation is given.
  • domain assumption The radiation baths can be approximated as living in distinct universes (asymptotic regions).
    Section 3.2 bullet and [9]; valid only when regions are sufficiently far apart, and gluing error is assumed small.
  • domain assumption Total ADM mass is conserved and equal to the sum of head plus baths.
    Equations (3.1)-(3.3); used to fix parameters and define the evolution; physically motivated but not derived.
  • standard math Morse theory behavior of extremal surfaces under metric deformations.
    Used in Section 2.2 to assert an index-1 surface accompanies each new minimal surface.
invented entities (1)
  • Generalized PLC formula (2.14)
    purpose: Fix which index-1 surface is the bulge in each Cauchy subregion before maximizing over subregions.
    Introduced in Section 2.3 as a new conjecture combining [42] and [43]; not proven and not independently tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evaporating universes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LOYBLTSA

@misc{pith2026250705363,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evaporating universes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LOYBLTSA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05363}
}
abstract

Recent work by Headrick, Sasieta and myself provides an extension of the HRT formula for asymptotically flat spacetimes. I use this formula to construct a holographic model of black hole evaporation in four-dimensional asymptotically flat spacetimes using Brill-Lindquist (BL) wormholes. The wormhole is interpreted via ER=EPR to represent the entanglement geometry between an evaporating black hole and baths into which the Hawking radiation is collected. Applying HRT, I compute the entanglement entropy by numerically computing the areas of the minimal surfaces, which is shown to obey the Page curve, consistent with information conservation. Numerical analysis is done for both three and four-boundary BL wormholes ($n=3,4$). Index-1 surfaces in the wormhole interior are interpreted as the candidate bulges involved in the python's lunch conjecture (PLC), and their areas are used to compute the restricted complexity $\mathcal{C}$ of decoding the Hawking radiation. The results are compared to the time-dependent predictions of the PLC.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Gupta, M

    D. Gupta, M. Headrick and M. Sasieta,Entangled universes,2505.08945

    work page arXiv

  2. [19]

    Akers, N

    C. Akers, N. Engelhardt and D. Harlow,Simple holographic models of black hole evaporation,JHEP08(2020) 032 [1910.00972]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [46]

    Engelhardt, G

    N. Engelhardt, G. Penington and A. Shahbazi-Moghaddam,Twice upon a time: timelike-separated quantum extremal surfaces,JHEP01(2024) 033 [2308.16226]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [1]

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

    arXiv 1998

  5. [2]

    Czech, J

    B. Czech, J. L. Karczmarek, F. Nogueira and M. Van Raamsdonk,The Gravity Dual of a Density Matrix,Class. Quant. Grav.29(2012) 155009 [1204.1330]

    arXiv 2012

  6. [3]

    Almheiri, X

    A. Almheiri, X. Dong and D. Harlow,Bulk Locality and Quantum Error Correction in AdS/CFT,JHEP04(2015) 163 [1411.7041]

    arXiv 2015

  7. [4]

    D. L. Jafferis, A. Lewkowycz, J. Maldacena and S. J. Suh,Relative entropy equals bulk relative entropy,JHEP06(2016) 004 [1512.06431]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [5]

    X. Dong, D. Harlow and A. C. Wall,Reconstruction of Bulk Operators within the Entanglement Wedge in Gauge-Gravity Duality,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 021601 [1601.05416]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 49 references
  1. [6]

    Van Raamsdonk,Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement,Gen

    M. Van Raamsdonk,Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement,Gen. Rel. Grav.42(2010) 2323 [1005.3035]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [7]

    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]. – 32 –

    2006 arXiv

  3. [8]

    V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani and T. Takayanagi,A Covariant holographic entanglement entropy proposal,JHEP07(2007) 062 [0705.0016]

    2007 arXiv

  4. [9]

    Maldacena and L

    J. Maldacena and L. Susskind,Cool horizons for entangled black holes,Fortsch. Phys. 61(2013) 781 [1306.0533]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [11]

    S. W. Hawking,Particle Creation by Black Holes,Commun. Math. Phys.43(1975) 199

    1975

  6. [12]

    S. W. Hawking,Breakdown of Predictability in Gravitational Collapse,Phys. Rev. D 14(1976) 2460

    1976

  7. [13]

    D. N. Page,Information in black hole radiation,Physical Review Letters71(1993) 3743–3746

    1993

  8. [14]

    D. N. Page,Time dependence of hawking radiation entropy,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2013(2013) 028–028 [1301.4995]

    2013 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Engelhardt and A

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

    2015 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Almheiri, N

    A. Almheiri, N. Engelhardt, D. Marolf and H. Maxfield,The entropy of bulk quantum fields and the entanglement wedge of an evaporating black hole,JHEP12(2019) 063 [1905.08762]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Penington,Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction and the Information Paradox, JHEP09(2020) 002 [1905.08255]

    G. Penington,Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction and the Information Paradox, JHEP09(2020) 002 [1905.08255]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Almheiri, R

    A. Almheiri, R. Mahajan, J. Maldacena and Y. Zhao,The Page curve of Hawking radiation from semiclassical geometry,JHEP03(2020) 149 [1908.10996]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [20]

    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

  14. [21]

    Li and T

    W. Li and T. Takayanagi,Holography and Entanglement in Flat Spacetime,Phys. Rev. Lett.106(2011) 141301 [1010.3700]

    2011 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Apolo, H

    L. Apolo, H. Jiang, W. Song and Y. Zhong,Swing surfaces and holographic entanglement beyond AdS/CFT,JHEP12(2020) 064 [2006.10740]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [23]

    S. A. Gentle and C. Keeler,On the reconstruction of Lifshitz spacetimes,JHEP03 (2016) 195 [1512.04538]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Bagchi, R

    A. Bagchi, R. Basu, D. Grumiller and M. Riegler,Entanglement entropy in Galilean conformal field theories and flat holography,Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) 111602 [1410.4089]. – 33 –

    2015 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Sato,Comments on Entanglement Entropy in the dS/CFT Correspondence,Phys

    Y. Sato,Comments on Entanglement Entropy in the dS/CFT Correspondence,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 086009 [1501.04903]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [26]

    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

  20. [27]

    Narayan, T

    K. Narayan, T. Takayanagi and S. P. Trivedi,AdS plane waves and entanglement entropy,JHEP04(2013) 051 [1212.4328]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Narayan,Extremal surfaces in de Sitter spacetime,Phys

    K. Narayan,Extremal surfaces in de Sitter spacetime,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 126011 [1501.03019]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Narayan,On extremal surfaces and de Sitter entropy,Phys

    K. Narayan,On extremal surfaces and de Sitter entropy,Phys. Lett. B779(2018) 214 [1711.01107]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Narayan,de Sitter future-past extremal surfaces and the entanglement wedge,Phys

    K. Narayan,de Sitter future-past extremal surfaces and the entanglement wedge,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 086014 [2002.11950]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [31]

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

    K. Narayan,de Sitter space, extremal surfaces, and time entanglement,Phys. Rev. D 107(2023) 126004 [2210.12963]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [32]

    I. Akal, Y. Kusuki, T. Takayanagi and Z. Wei,Codimension two holography for wedges, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 126007 [2007.06800]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Ogawa, T

    N. Ogawa, T. Takayanagi, T. Tsuda and T. Waki,Wedge holography in flat space and celestial holography,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 026001 [2207.06735]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Jiang, W

    H. Jiang, W. Song and Q. Wen,Entanglement Entropy in Flat Holography,JHEP07 (2017) 142 [1706.07552]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Wen,Towards the generalized gravitational entropy for spacetimes with non-Lorentz invariant duals,JHEP01(2019) 220 [1810.11756]

    Q. Wen,Towards the generalized gravitational entropy for spacetimes with non-Lorentz invariant duals,JHEP01(2019) 220 [1810.11756]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [36]

    D. R. Brill and R. W. Lindquist,Interaction energy in geometrostatics,Phys. Rev.131 (1963) 471

    1963

  30. [37]

    Lin and J

    L.-M. Lin and J. Novak,A new spectral apparent horizon finder for 3d numerical relativity,Classical and Quantum Gravity24(2007) 2665–2676

    2007

  31. [38]

    Harlow,The Ryu–Takayanagi Formula from Quantum Error Correction,Commun

    D. Harlow,The Ryu–Takayanagi Formula from Quantum Error Correction,Commun. Math. Phys.354(2017) 865 [1607.03901]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Ohya and D

    M. Ohya and D. Petz,Quantum Entropy and Its Use. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1993

    1993

  33. [40]

    Cotler, P

    J. Cotler, P. Hayden, G. Penington, G. Salton, B. Swingle and M. Walter, Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction via Universal Recovery Channels,Phys. Rev. X9 (2019) 031011 [1704.05839]. – 34 –

    2019 arXiv

  34. [41]

    A. R. Brown, H. Gharibyan, G. Penington and L. Susskind,The Python ’s Lunch: geometric obstructions to decoding Hawking radiation,JHEP08(2020) 121 [1912.00228]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Arora, M

    G. Arora, M. Headrick, A. Lawrence, M. Sasieta and C. Wolfe,Geometric surprises in the Python ’s lunch conjecture,SciPost Phys.16(2024) 152 [2401.06678]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Engelhardt, G

    N. Engelhardt, G. Penington and A. Shahbazi-Moghaddam,Finding pythons in unexpected places,Class. Quant. Grav.39(2022) 094002 [2105.09316]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Faulkner, A

    T. Faulkner, A. Lewkowycz and J. Maldacena,Quantum corrections to holographic entanglement entropy,JHEP11(2013) 074 [1307.2892]

    2013 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Headrick,Lectures on entanglement entropy in field theory and holography, 1907.08126

    M. Headrick,Lectures on entanglement entropy in field theory and holography, 1907.08126

    1907 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Swingle,Entanglement Renormalization and Holography,Phys

    B. Swingle,Entanglement Renormalization and Holography,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 065007 [0905.1317]

    2012 arXiv

  40. [48]

    N. Bao, G. Penington, J. Sorce and A. C. Wall,Beyond Toy Models: Distilling Tensor Networks in Full AdS/CFT,JHEP11(2019) 069 [1812.01171]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Abdolrahimi, D

    S. Abdolrahimi, D. N. Page and C. Tzounis,Ingoing Eddington-Finkelstein Metric of an Evaporating Black Hole,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 124038 [1607.05280]. – 35 –

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.