Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The evaporation of black holes in supergravity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The spectrum of Hawking radiation from near-BPS black holes in N=2 supergravity contains a sharp line at ω=E_i; at low energies the flux deviates strongly from the black-body result.

desk verdict First controlled calculation of a discrete BPS line in Hawking radiation, with the main caveat that the N=4 Liouville QM is guessed and controls the line's normalization. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21077 v1 pith:X5R7Q5FQ submitted 2025-04-29 hep-th

Guanda Lin , Luca V. Iliesiu , Mykhaylo Usatyuk This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 83C5781T6083E50
keywords Hawkingradiationnear-BPSblackholesN=2supergravityN=4super-Schwarziansuper-Liouvillequantummechanicsholeevaporationabsorptioncross-sectionReissner-Nordström
topics Quantum Gravity
open problems Quantum Gravity
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 near-BPS black holes in flat-space $\mathcal{N}=2$ supergravity radiate in a sharply non-thermal way once the excess energy above the BPS bound reaches the scale $E_{\mathrm{brk}}=M_{\mathrm{Pl}}/Q^3$. Using the $\mathcal{N}=4$ super-Schwarzian as the effective description of near-horizon quantum fluctuations, the authors compute emission and absorption rates for massless scalars and fermions and find a discrete emission line at $\omega=E_i$ from direct transitions to BPS states. They also find that decay channels cut off when the final state would fall below the mass gap, and that the quantum-corrected flux can exceed the semiclassical black-body prediction at low energies. A sympathetic reader would care because this is the first controlled calculation in which the discreteness of black-hole energy levels, not just thermodynamic averages, shows up in the emitted radiation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $\mathcal{N}=4$ super-Liouville quantum mechanics, a Hamiltonian reformulation of the $\mathcal{N}=4$ super-Schwarzian theory with a Liouville direction $\ell$, an $SU(2)$ variable $g$, and fermionic partners. Its supercharges and Hamiltonian can be diagonalized exactly, and its eigenstates organize into the supermultiplets $|H\rangle$, $|\Psi\rangle$, $|\chi\rangle$, $|L\rangle$, plus a special BPS state. The quantitative work is done by two-point functions of the operator $e^{-\Delta\ell}$ between these states: every one-sided transition matrix element that enters Fermi's golden rule is expressed through these LQM correlators, with the density of states $\rho_{\mathrm{BPS}}(E_f)=e^{S_0}\delta(E_f)$ producing the delta-function emission line.

What would settle it

Evaluate the thermal two-point function of the $\mathcal{N}=4$ super-Schwarzian by a route that does not use the Liouville guess, such as a direct numerical evaluation of the path integral, and compare it with the super-Liouville correlators at energies $E\sim E_{\mathrm{brk}}$; a mismatch would falsify the predicted discrete line and the modified flux.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that quantum-gravity corrections change the emission spectrum of near-BPS Reissner-Nordström black holes in $\mathcal{N}=2$ supergravity from the semiclassical black-body form to a spectrum with a discrete line. When the black hole is in a state $|E_i,\Psi\rangle$ with energy $E_i$ above extremality, it can emit a single particle of frequency $\omega=E_i$ and land on the BPS state; this transition contributes a term proportional to $e^{S_0}\delta(E_f)$ in the rate. Transitions into other near-BPS states are controlled by the supermultiplet structure and stop abruptly when the final energy would fall below $E_0(j)=j^2/(2E_{\mathrm{brk}})$. The same machinery gives an absorption cross-section in which a BPS black hole is transparent for $\omega<E_{\mathrm{brk}}/8$, while near-BPS black holes show resonances where new absorption channels open or stimulated emission shuts off. The paper verifies that all these rates reduce to the standard semiclassical answer when $E_i\gg E_{\mathrm{brk}}$.

Load-bearing premise

Everything quantitative rests on the assumption that the $\mathcal{N}=4$ super-Liouville quantum mechanics guessed from symmetry principles is the exact reformulation of the $\mathcal{N}=4$ super-Schwarzian, since the paper states that the field redefinition connecting them is not explicitly known.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At initial energies $E_i\sim E_{\mathrm{brk}}$, the scalar flux has a Dirac-delta line at $\omega=E_i$ from near-BPS-to-BPS transitions, plus smooth contributions that end abruptly when final states disappear below the gap $E_0(j)=j^2/(2E_{\mathrm{brk}})$.
  • A BPS black hole absorbs nothing for $\omega<E_{\mathrm{brk}}/8$; a near-BPS black hole shows resonance structure in the absorption cross-section from new absorption channels and from lost stimulated-emission channels.
  • In the evaporation history, angular momentum is shed by spin-$1/2$ fermion emission, and the black hole reaches the BPS state with high probability after a time of order $1/E_{\mathrm{brk}}$ once it enters the quantum regime.
  • The semiclassical black-body spectrum is recovered only for $E_i\gg E_{\mathrm{brk}}$, with inverse temperature $\beta=\sqrt{2\pi^2/(E_{\mathrm{brk}}E_i)}$, and the BPS-transition flux is exponentially suppressed in that limit.
  • Fermionic emission into spin-$1/2$ channels cannot end in a BPS state because the spin-$1/2$ operator is itself BPS in the Liouville theory, so that transition is forbidden by a selection rule.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same $\mathcal{N}=4$ correlators should determine whether an evaporating near-BPS black hole has a non-thermal attractor state like the one found for non-supersymmetric charged holes; the paper derives the rates needed but does not analyze the late-time distribution from a thermal start.
  • Editorial inference: the selection rule that bans BPS transitions for spin-$1/2$ fermions suggests that which spectral lines are visible depends on the supermultiplet representation of the emitted operator, so a systematic classification of operators by BPS-ness would predict which channels show lines and which do not.
  • Editorial inference: if the predicted transparency of BPS black holes below $E_{\mathrm{brk}}/8$ holds, scattering experiments on near-extremal charged black holes could probe quantum gravity at energy scales far below the Planck mass without waiting for the slow Hawking evaporation.
  • Editorial inference: the same computation can be repeated for near-BPS black holes in AdS, using existing $\mathcal{N}=2$ super-Schwarzian correlators, to predict how the discrete line appears in holographic settings; the paper lists this as a next step rather than performing it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper computes the Hawking radiation spectrum of near-BPS charged black holes in four-dimensional N=2 supergravity, using the N=4 super-Schwarzian as the effective description of near-horizon quantum fluctuations. The authors replace the super-Schwarzian by an N=4 super-Liouville quantum mechanics whose eigenstates and two-point functions they construct explicitly, and then feed these correlators into Fermi's golden rule to obtain emission rates for massless scalars and spin-1/2 hypermultiplet fermions, including greybody factors. The main claims are that at low energies the spectrum deviates strongly from the semiclassical black-body form; that there is a discrete emission line at frequency omega = E_i corresponding to a transition from a near-BPS black hole to a BPS state; that near-BPS black holes can appear much larger than semiclassically; and that BPS black holes are transparent to low-frequency radiation. The paper also studies the time-dependent probability of reaching the BPS state and checks that all fluxes reduce to the semiclassical answers at large initial energy.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a significant step: it provides a controlled example in which the discreteness of black-hole energy levels is imprinted on the Hawking radiation spectrum, through a delta-function line whose position is fixed by the BPS gap. The technical work is substantial and largely transparent: the LQM eigenstates are given explicitly, the thermal partition function is matched to the known N=4 super-Schwarzian answer, the semiclassical limit is verified separately for each emission channel, and the paper ships a Mathematica notebook with the algebraic manipulations. The physical mechanism for the line, namely the BPS ground state plus the gap in the near-BPS density of states, is well motivated and does not rely on any fitted parameter. The main caveat is that the quantitative coefficient of the delta line is controlled by off-diagonal matrix elements of a Liouville model whose equivalence to the super-Schwarzian is assumed rather than derived; matching the partition function alone does not constrain those off-diagonal elements.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 and 3.2, Eqs. (3.1), (3.17), (3.33)] The N=4 super-Liouville quantum mechanics is introduced by symmetry guessing: Sec. 3.1 states that the field redefinition from the super-Schwarzian is not explicitly known and that the LQM is 'guessed based on symmetry principles,' and Eq. (3.17) is introduced with 'we will guess the correct ansatz.' All one-sided matrix elements used in the Hawking rates, including the BPS transition element in Eqs. (4.12)-(4.13), are computed in this model, and the BPS state itself is obtained by the analytic continuation |BPS> = lim_{s->i}|L_s> in Eq. (3.33). The check in Eq. (3.37) equates the thermal partition function of the LQM TFD with the known super-Schwarzian partition function; this verifies only diagonal, trace-level data and does not fix off-diagonal matrix elements or relative phases between |BPS> and the continuum states. Since the magnitude of the delta-function line is precisely such an off-diagonal quantity, a rescaling error in the guessed LQM would change the headline coefficient without affecting the semiclassical checks in Eq. (4.26). This is a genuine correctness risk, not an internal inconsistency. I ask the authors to provide an independent check of at least one off-diagonal correlator, for example by deriving it from a BF-theory or particle-on-group-manifold formulation of the N=4 super-Schwarzian, or by verifying a non-trivial supersymmetric Ward identity that fixes the BPS normalization.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (4.24) and (4.25)] The BPS transition terms in the final flux formulas are written without the delta function that defines a discrete emission line. In Eqs. (4.24) and (4.25), the last lines are finite, omega-independent expressions, whereas the preceding lines are integrals over domega of a spectral density. The BPS contribution should appear as a term proportional to delta(E_i - omega), as follows from the rho_BPS delta function in Eq. (4.16); the finite coefficient shown is the weight of that delta, not the spectral density itself. As written, Eq. (4.24) adds a constant to the total energy-loss rate and does not represent a line in the spectrum. This is the central new observable of the paper, so the notation must be corrected, for example by writing dE|Psi>/dt = [near-BPS integrals] + A(E_i) delta(E_i - omega) with A(E_i) given by the displayed coefficient, and similarly for the |L> initial state.
  3. [Appendix A.3, Eqs. (A.39)-(A.44)] The greybody factor for the hypermultiplet fermion is inferred rather than fully derived. The paper maps the fermion equations to scalar equations via the transformation (A.41) and then states that the greybody factor is 'identical to those of scalars,' quoting P_abs^{ferm}(j=1/2, Delta=1/2) = 4(r_+ omega)^2. The matching of the transformed radial problem to the original fermion boundary conditions, including the normalization of the transmission coefficient, is not shown. Since the fermion fluxes in Sec. 4.3 and the evaporation history in Sec. 4.4 depend on this factor, I ask the authors either to complete the matching explicitly or to state clearly that this is an assumption based on the supersymmetry relation between the fermion and scalar wave equations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2.15)] The formula E_0(j) = j^2/(2 E_brk) appears inconsistent with the later expressions and with the stated gap E_brk/8. In the units E_brk = 2 used in Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.14) and the theta functions in Eq. (4.24) imply E_0(1/2) = 1/4 = E_brk/8, whereas Eq. (2.15) gives a value off by a factor of four. This appears to be a typo, but it should be corrected because the density of states is a central input.
  2. [Eq. (3.45)] There is an unmatched closing parenthesis in the displayed formula for the |Psi> diagonal correlator; this makes the expression hard to read.
  3. [Eqs. (4.15) and (4.16)] The BPS term is written with a factor of omega in Eq. (4.15) and with omega^2 in Eq. (4.16); since Eq. (4.16) is the energy flux, the omega^2 version is correct, and Eq. (4.15) should be adjusted or clarified to avoid the apparent inconsistency.
  4. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.22)] The compact microcanonical expression uses the notation f|Phi_i> without an explicit definition in the surrounding text; a short explanation of the averaging fractions f_Psi, f_chi, f_L would help the reader follow the passage from Eq. (4.21) to Eq. (4.22).
  5. [Figures 1 and 5] Figures 1 and 5 show essentially the same comparison for the scalar flux but with different initial energies, and several caption claims are repeated. Merging or cross-referencing the figures would reduce redundancy and make the unit conventions (E_brk = 2) easier to track.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Hawking flux is derived from independently supported density-of-states and coupling inputs, with no parameter fitted to the new predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: the near-BPS density of states with BPS degeneracy e^{S0} delta(E) and gap (Eqs. 2.15-2.17) is taken from prior work [17], and the matter-Schwarzian coupling (Eqs. 4.7-4.8, 4.32) is taken from prior work [12]. Neither of these inputs is fitted to the Hawking radiation spectrum computed in this paper; both are parameter-free results with independent path-integral and semiclassical derivations. The LQM coefficients A0 and A_{s,j} are fixed by matching the known thermal partition function through Eq. (3.37)-(3.38), not by the emitted flux. The two-point functions and transition matrix elements are then computed, not adjusted to reproduce the claimed delta-function line. The semiclassical limit (4.26) is a consistency check, and the normalization N^2 is fixed by field-theoretic matching in [12] rather than by fitting the quantum deviations. The BPS emission line at omega = E_i follows from energy conservation combined with rho_BPS(E_f) = e^{S0} delta(E_f) and a computed LQM matrix element, so it is a derived consequence rather than a renaming or refitting of the input. The paper candidly states that the equivalence between the N=4 super-Schwarzian and the N=4 Liouville quantum mechanics is 'guessed based on symmetry principles' (Sec. 3.1) and that the TFD ansatz is guessed around Eq. (3.17); this is a genuine correctness risk because off-diagonal matrix elements may not be fixed by matching the partition function alone, but an unverified or guessed assumption is not the same as a circular reduction. No equation in the paper defines its target prediction in terms of that prediction, and no parameter fitted to a subset of the Hawking data is later called a prediction. Therefore the circularity burden is low; the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on the super-Schwarzian spectrum from prior work, the guessed LQM equivalence, and the normalization of the radiation coupling. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • N^2 for scalar coupling = 1/pi^2
    Normalization of the Schwarzian to free-scalar coupling fixed by matching the semiclassical Hawking flux for massless scalars in the large-E limit; not fitted to new data.
  • N^2 for fermion coupling = 4/pi^2
    Analogous normalization for the spin-1/2 channel, fixed by matching the semiclassical fermion flux.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The N=4 super-Schwarzian is the correct effective theory for the near-horizon dynamics of near-BPS black holes in N>=2 supergravity in flat space.
    Taken from [17] and used throughout Section 2 to define the spectrum and gap.
  • ad hoc to paper The N=4 super-Liouville quantum mechanics with Lagrangian (3.1) is equivalent to the N=4 super-Schwarzian.
    The field redefinition is not explicitly known; the LQM is guessed from supersymmetry (Section 3.1). All two-point functions feeding the Hawking radiation rates are computed in this LQM.
  • domain assumption The density of states (2.15)-(2.17) from [17], including BPS degeneracy e^{S0}, the gap E_brk/8, and E0(j)=j^2/(2E_brk), is correct.
    Input to Fermi's golden rule; has independent path-integral support.
  • domain assumption The coupling of the Schwarzian theory to free fields at infinity is via the source interaction (4.8), with normalization N^2=1/pi^2 fixed by the semiclassical limit.
    Standard AdS/CFT source coupling, taken from [12].
  • ad hoc to paper A near-BPS black hole can transition to a BPS state in asymptotically flat space by emitting all excess energy into a single quantum, with the 'BPS' label referring to the final black hole with radiation at null infinity.
    Interpretation used in Section 4 to attribute the delta-function line; subtle because a truly BPS state would not be transitioned into.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The evaporation of black holes in supergravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X5R7Q5FQ

@misc{pith2026250421077,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The evaporation of black holes in supergravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X5R7Q5FQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21077}
}
abstract

In supergravity, charged rotating black holes are generically driven towards becoming extremal and supersymmetric through the emission of Hawking radiation. Eventually, as the black hole approaches the BPS bound and is close to becoming supersymmetric, quantum gravity corrections become critical to describing the emission of Hawking radiation, making the QFT in curved spacetime approximation inaccurate. In this paper, we compute how such quantum gravity corrections affect the spectrum of Hawking radiation for black holes in $\mathcal N=2$ supergravity in flatspace. We show that due to such corrections, the spectrum of emitted Hawking radiation for both spin-0 and spin-$1/2$ particles deviates drastically at low temperatures from the naively expected black-body spectrum. Rather remarkably, the spectrum exhibits a discrete emission line from direct transitions from near-BPS to BPS states, providing the first controlled example where the discreteness of the black hole energies is visible in the emitted Hawking radiation. Similar quantum gravity effects drastically modify the absorption cross-section: BPS black holes are transparent to certain frequencies, while near-BPS black holes appear much larger than the semi-classical prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21077 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the semiclassical prediction vs. quantum corrected Hawking radiation into a massless scalar field. The energy flux is plotted for a black hole that is initially in an energy eigenstate |Ei , Ψ⟩ above extremality with zero angular momentum j = 0. Left: At large energies Ei ≫ Ebrk. the quantum flux approaches the semiclassical answer. Right: At low energies Ei ∼ Ebrk. there are very large deviations from… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We plot the evolution of the probability density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the semiclassical prediction (black dashed) vs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plot of the energy eigenfunctions in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the semiclassical prediction vs. quantum corrected Hawking radiation into a massless scalar field. The energy flux is plotted for an initial energy eigenstate |Ψ⟩ of the black hole with energy Ei above extremality with zero spin j = 0. Upper Left: At larg…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the integrated flux dE|Ψ⟩ dt from an initial state |Ψ⟩ with energy Ei into BPS states and near-BPS states |Ψ⟩, |χ⟩, |L⟩. The flux into BPS states dominates at very low energies Ei ∼ E0(J = 1 2 ) = Ebrk./8 since there are very few near-BPS states to transi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the semiclassical prediction vs. quantum corrected Hawking radiation into a spin half fermion. The energy flux is plotted for an initial energy eigenstate |Ψ⟩ of the black hole with energy Ei above extremality with spin j = 1 2 . Upper Left: At large ener…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: We plot the probability to be in the BPS state with time if we start in an initial state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Quantum gravity around ultracold black holes from DSSYK

    hep-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Ultracold Reissner-Nordström de Sitter black hole fluctuations are proposed to be described by a gauged near-flat dilaton gravity model with a Gaussian spectral density, yielding a finite partition function and dynami...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Limitations on the statistical description of black holes,

    J. Preskill, P. Schwarz, A. D. Shapere, S. Trivedi, and F. Wilczek, “Limitations on the statistical description of black holes,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A6 (1991) 2353–2362

    1991

  2. [2]

    Anti-de Sitter fragmentation,

    J. M. Maldacena, J. Michelson, and A. Strominger, “Anti-de Sitter fragmentation,” JHEP 02 (1999) 011, arXiv:hep-th/9812073 [hep-th]

    arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    Thermodynamics of near extreme black holes,

    D. N. Page, “Thermodynamics of near extreme black holes,” arXiv:hep-th/0012020 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    The statistical mechanics of near-extremal black holes,

    L. V. Iliesiu and G. J. Turiaci, “The statistical mechanics of near-extremal black holes,” arXiv:2003.02860 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2003

  5. [5]

    A universal Schwarzian sector in two-dimensional conformal field theories,

    A. Ghosh, H. Maxfield, and G. J. Turiaci, “A universal Schwarzian sector in two-dimensional conformal field theories,” JHEP 05 (2020) 104, arXiv:1912.07654 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Revisiting the Logarithmic Corrections to the Black Hole Entropy,

    L. V. Iliesiu, S. Murthy, and G. J. Turiaci, “Revisiting the Logarithmic Corrections to the Black Hole Entropy,” arXiv:2209.13608 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Logarithmic Corrections to Kerr Thermodynamics,

    D. Kapec, A. Sheta, A. Strominger, and C. Toldo, “Logarithmic Corrections to Kerr Thermodynamics,” arXiv:2310.00848 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Thermodynamics of the near-extremal Kerr spacetime,

    I. Rakic, M. Rangamani, and G. J. Turiaci, “Thermodynamics of the near-extremal Kerr spacetime,” arXiv:2310.04532 [hep-th]

    arXiv

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Looking at extremal black holes from very far away,

    M. Kolanowski, D. Marolf, I. Rakic, M. Rangamani, and G. J. Turiaci, “Looking at extremal black holes from very far away,” arXiv:2409.16248 [hep-th] . 52

  2. [10]

    Universality in logarithmic temperature corrections to near-extremal rotating black hole thermodynamics in various dimensions,

    S. Maulik, L. A. Pando Zayas, A. Ray, and J. Zhang, “Universality in logarithmic temperature corrections to near-extremal rotating black hole thermodynamics in various dimensions,” JHEP 06 (2024) 034, arXiv:2401.16507 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Fermionic Localization of the Schwarzian Theory,

    D. Stanford and E. Witten, “Fermionic Localization of the Schwarzian Theory,” JHEP 10 (2017) 008, arXiv:1703.04612 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    The evaporation of charged black holes,

    A. R. Brown, L. V. Iliesiu, G. Penington, and M. Usatyuk, “The evaporation of charged black holes,” arXiv:2411.03447 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Following the state of an evaporating charged black hole into the quantum gravity regime,

    A. Biggs, “Following the state of an evaporating charged black hole into the quantum gravity regime,” arXiv:2503.02051 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Towards Black Hole Evaporation in Jackiw-Teitelboim Gravity,

    T. G. Mertens, “Towards Black Hole Evaporation in Jackiw-Teitelboim Gravity,” JHEP 07 (2019) 097, arXiv:1903.10485 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Unruh detectors and quantum chaos in JT gravity,

    A. Blommaert, T. G. Mertens, and H. Verschelde, “Unruh detectors and quantum chaos in JT gravity,” JHEP 03 (2021) 086, arXiv:2005.13058 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Quantum cross-section of near-extremal black holes,

    R. Emparan, “Quantum cross-section of near-extremal black holes,” JHEP 04 (2025) 122, arXiv:2501.17470 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    The statistical mechanics of near-BPS black holes,

    M. Heydeman, L. V. Iliesiu, G. J. Turiaci, and W. Zhao, “The statistical mechanics of near-BPS black holes,” J. Phys. A 55 no. 1, (2022) 014004, arXiv:2011.01953 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Supersymmetric indices factorize,

    L. V. Iliesiu, M. Kologlu, and G. J. Turiaci, “Supersymmetric indices factorize,” JHEP 05 (2023) 032, arXiv:2107.09062 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    BPS and near-BPS black holes in AdS5 and their spectrum in N = 4 SYM,

    J. Boruch, M. T. Heydeman, L. V. Iliesiu, and G. J. Turiaci, “BPS and near-BPS black holes in AdS5 and their spectrum in N = 4 SYM,” arXiv:2203.01331 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Black hole microstate counting from the gravitational path integral,

    L. V. Iliesiu, S. Murthy, and G. J. Turiaci, “Black hole microstate counting from the gravitational path integral,” arXiv:2209.13602 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Supersymmetry breaking in SYK and the black hole spectrum,

    M. Heydeman, Y. Liu, and G. J. Turiaci, “Supersymmetry breaking in SYK and the black hole spectrum,” arXiv:2408.12138 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Supergravity spectrum of AdS 5 black holes,

    N. Ezroura and F. Larsen, “Supergravity spectrum of AdS 5 black holes,” JHEP 12 (2024) 020, arXiv:2408.11529 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    The spectrum of near-BPS Kerr-Newman black holes and the ABJM mass gap,

    M. Heydeman and C. Toldo, “The spectrum of near-BPS Kerr-Newman black holes and the ABJM mass gap,” arXiv:2412.03697 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    D-brane approach to black hole quantum mechanics,

    C. G. Callan and J. M. Maldacena, “D-brane approach to black hole quantum mechanics,” Nucl. Phys. B472 (1996) 591–610, arXiv:hep-th/9602043 [hep-th] . 53

    1996 arXiv

  17. [25]

    D-branes and fat black holes,

    J. M. Maldacena and L. Susskind, “D-branes and fat black holes,” Nucl. Phys. B475 (1996) 679–690, arXiv:hep-th/9604042 [hep-th]

    1996 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Universal low-energy dynamics for rotating black holes,

    J. M. Maldacena and A. Strominger, “Universal low-energy dynamics for rotating black holes,” Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 4975–4983, arXiv:hep-th/9702015 [hep-th]

    1997 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Solving the Schwarzian via the Conformal Bootstrap,

    T. G. Mertens, G. J. Turiaci, and H. L. Verlinde, “Solving the Schwarzian via the Conformal Bootstrap,” JHEP 08 (2017) 136, arXiv:1705.08408 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Supergroup structure of Jackiw-Teitelboim supergravity,

    Y. Fan and T. G. Mertens, “Supergroup structure of Jackiw-Teitelboim supergravity,” JHEP 08 (2022) 002, arXiv:2106.09353 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Looking at supersymmetric black holes for a very long time,

    H. W. Lin, J. Maldacena, L. Rozenberg, and J. Shan, “Looking at supersymmetric black holes for a very long time,” SciPost Phys. 14 no. 5, (2023) 128, arXiv:2207.00408 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Holography for people with no time,

    H. W. Lin, J. Maldacena, L. Rozenberg, and J. Shan, “Holography for people with no time,” SciPost Phys. 14 no. 6, (2023) 150, arXiv:2207.00407 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Evolution of probability density of states of a near-bps black hole

    M. U. Guanda Lin, Luca Iliesiu, “Evolution of probability density of states of a near-bps black hole.” Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw-UGrEVr08. Accessed: April 28, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    D. Z. Freedman and A. Van Proeyen, Supergravity. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 5, 2012

    2012

  25. [33]

    Supersymmetry of rotating branes,

    J. P. Gauntlett, R. C. Myers, and P. Townsend, “Supersymmetry of rotating branes,” Phys. Rev. D 59 (1998) 025001, arXiv:hep-th/9809065

    1998 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A Construction of Killing spinors on S**n,

    H. Lu, C. Pope, and J. Rahmfeld, “A Construction of Killing spinors on S**n,” J. Math. Phys. 40 (1999) 4518–4526, arXiv:hep-th/9805151

    1999 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kaluza-Klein Supergravity,

    M. Duff, B. Nilsson, and C. Pope, “Kaluza-Klein Supergravity,” Phys. Rept. 130 (1986) 1–142

    1986

  28. [36]

    Supersymmetry enhancement of D-p-branes and M-branes,

    R. Kallosh and J. Kumar, “Supersymmetry enhancement of D-p-branes and M-branes,” Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 4934–4941, arXiv:hep-th/9704189

    1997 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Superisometries of the AdS x S superspace,

    P. Claus and R. Kallosh, “Superisometries of the AdS x S superspace,” JHEP 03 (1999) 014, arXiv:hep-th/9812087

    1999 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Brane intersections, anti-de Sitter space-times and dual superconformal theories,

    H. J. Boonstra, B. Peeters, and K. Skenderis, “Brane intersections, anti-de Sitter space-times and dual superconformal theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 533 (1998) 127–162, arXiv:hep-th/9803231

    1998 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Mass spectrum of D = 11 supergravity on AdS(2) x S**2 x T**7,

    J. Lee and S. Lee, “Mass spectrum of D = 11 supergravity on AdS(2) x S**2 x T**7,” Nucl. Phys. B 563 (1999) 125–149, arXiv:hep-th/9906105

    1999 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Supergravity spectrum on AdS(2) ×S2,

    J. Michelson and M. Spradlin, “Supergravity spectrum on AdS(2) ×S2,” JHEP 09 (1999) 029, arXiv:hep-th/9906056 [hep-th] . 54

    1999 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz, “Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,” Phys. Rept. 323 (2000) 183–386, arXiv:hep-th/9905111

    2000 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hawking radiation by spherically-symmetric static black holes for all spins: Teukolsky equations and potentials,

    A. Arbey, J. Auffinger, M. Geiller, E. R. Livine, and F. Sartini, “Hawking radiation by spherically-symmetric static black holes for all spins: Teukolsky equations and potentials,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 10, (2021) 104010, arXiv:2101.02951 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Hawking radiation by spherically-symmetric static black holes for all spins. II. Numerical emission rates, analytical limits, and new constraints,

    A. Arbey, J. Auffinger, M. Geiller, E. R. Livine, and F. Sartini, “Hawking radiation by spherically-symmetric static black holes for all spins. II. Numerical emission rates, analytical limits, and new constraints,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 8, (2021) 084016, arXiv:2107.03293 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gravitational wavefunctions in JT supergravity,

    A. Belaey, F. Mariani, and T. G. Mertens, “Gravitational wavefunctions in JT supergravity,” JHEP 10 (2024) 037, arXiv:2405.09289 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Quantization of a particle moving on a group manifold,

    M.-f. Chu and P. Goddard, “Quantization of a particle moving on a group manifold,” Phys. Lett. B 337 (1994) 285–293, arXiv:hep-th/9407116

    1994 arXiv

  38. [46]

    How to Build the Thermofield Double State,

    W. Cottrell, B. Freivogel, D. M. Hofman, and S. F. Lokhande, “How to Build the Thermofield Double State,” JHEP 02 (2019) 058, arXiv:1811.11528 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Lecture notes for quantum field theory I,

    D. Harlow, “Lecture notes for quantum field theory I,”

  40. [48]

    Bras and Kets in Euclidean Path Integrals,

    E. Witten, “Bras and Kets in Euclidean Path Integrals,” arXiv:2503.12771 [hep-th]

  41. [49]

    Universality of low-energy absorption cross-sections for black holes,

    S. R. Das, G. W. Gibbons, and S. D. Mathur, “Universality of low-energy absorption cross-sections for black holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 417–419, arXiv:hep-th/9609052

    1997 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Four-dimensional grey body factors and the effective string,

    S. S. Gubser and I. R. Klebanov, “Four-dimensional grey body factors and the effective string,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 4491–4494, arXiv:hep-th/9609076

    1996 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Non-Perturbative Corrections to Charged Black Hole Evaporation,

    V. Mohan and L. Thorlacius, “Non-Perturbative Corrections to Charged Black Hole Evaporation,” JHEP 04 (2025) 069, arXiv:2411.13454 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Constructing all BPS black hole microstates from the gravitational path integral,

    J. Boruch, L. V. Iliesiu, and C. Yan, “Constructing all BPS black hole microstates from the gravitational path integral,” JHEP 09 (2024) 058, arXiv:2307.13051 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    BPS chaos,

    Y. Chen, H. W. Lin, and S. H. Shenker, “BPS chaos,” SciPost Phys. 18 no. 2, (2025) 072, arXiv:2407.19387 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Words to describe a black hole,

    C.-M. Chang and Y.-H. Lin, “Words to describe a black hole,” JHEP 02 (2023) 109, arXiv:2209.06728 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Decoding stringy near-supersymmetric black holes,

    C.-M. Chang, L. Feng, Y.-H. Lin, and Y.-X. Tao, “Decoding stringy near-supersymmetric black holes,” SciPost Phys. 16 no. 4, (2024) 109, arXiv:2306.04673 [hep-th] . 55

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Fortuity in SYK Models,

    C.-M. Chang, Y. Chen, B. S. Sia, and Z. Yang, “Fortuity in SYK Models,” arXiv:2412.06902 [hep-th]

  49. [57]

    Fortuity in the D1-D5 system,

    C.-M. Chang, Y.-H. Lin, and H. Zhang, “Fortuity in the D1-D5 system,” arXiv:2501.05448 [hep-th]

  50. [58]

    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,” JHEP 05 (2018) 183, arXiv:1711.08467 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  51. [59]

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

    J. Maldacena, D. Stanford, and Z. Yang, “Conformal symmetry and its breaking in two dimensional Nearly Anti-de-Sitter space,” PTEP 2016 no. 12, (2016) 12C104, arXiv:1606.01857 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [60]

    An investigation of AdS2 backreaction and holography,

    J. Engels¨ oy, T. G. Mertens, and H. Verlinde, “An investigation of AdS2 backreaction and holography,” JHEP 07 (2016) 139, arXiv:1606.03438 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Chaos in AdS 2 Holography,

    K. Jensen, “Chaos in AdS 2 Holography,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 no. 11, (2016) 111601, arXiv:1605.06098 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Nearly AdS 2 sugra and the super-Schwarzian,

    S. Forste and I. Golla, “Nearly AdS 2 sugra and the super-Schwarzian,” Phys. Lett. B 771 (2017) 157–161, arXiv:1703.10969 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Towards the Holographic Dual of N = 2 SYK,

    S. F¨ orste, J. Kames-King, and M. Wiesner, “Towards the Holographic Dual of N = 2 SYK,” JHEP 03 (2018) 028, arXiv:1712.07398 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  56. [64]

    The Schwarzian Theory - Origins,

    T. G. Mertens, “The Schwarzian Theory - Origins,” arXiv:1801.09605 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    Fine Structure of Jackiw-Teitelboim Quantum Gravity,

    A. Blommaert, T. G. Mertens, and H. Verschelde, “Fine Structure of Jackiw-Teitelboim Quantum Gravity,” arXiv:1812.00918 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    An exact quantization of Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity,

    L. V. Iliesiu, S. S. Pufu, H. Verlinde, and Y. Wang, “An exact quantization of Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity,” arXiv:1905.02726 [hep-th]

    1905 arXiv

  59. [67]

    On 2D gauge theories in Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity,

    L. V. Iliesiu, “On 2D gauge theories in Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity,” arXiv:1909.05253 [hep-th]

    1909 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Matrix ensembles with global symmetries and ’t Hooft anomalies from 2d gauge theory,

    D. Kapec, R. Mahajan, and D. Stanford, “Matrix ensembles with global symmetries and ’t Hooft anomalies from 2d gauge theory,” arXiv:1912.12285 [hep-th]

    1912 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Branes in JT (super)gravity from group theory,

    A. Belaey, F. Mariani, and T. G. Mertens, “Branes in JT (super)gravity from group theory,” JHEP 02 (2024) 058, arXiv:2310.04245 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    The Quantum Gravity Dynamics of Near Extremal Black Holes,

    Z. Yang, “The Quantum Gravity Dynamics of Near Extremal Black Holes,” JHEP 05 (2019) 205, arXiv:1809.08647 [hep-th] . 56

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    The Schwarzian Theory - A Wilson Line Perspective,

    A. Blommaert, T. G. Mertens, and H. Verschelde, “The Schwarzian Theory - A Wilson Line Perspective,” arXiv:1806.07765 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Solvable Models of Quantum Black Holes: A Review on Jackiw-Teitelboim Gravity,

    T. G. Mertens and G. J. Turiaci, “Solvable Models of Quantum Black Holes: A Review on Jackiw-Teitelboim Gravity,” arXiv:2210.10846 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Les Houches lectures on two-dimensional gravity and holography,

    G. J. Turiaci, “Les Houches lectures on two-dimensional gravity and holography,” arXiv:2412.09537 [hep-th]

  66. [74]

    Aspects of N = 4 supersymmetric JT gravity,

    G. Lin and M. Usatyuk, “Aspects of N = 4 supersymmetric JT gravity,” in progress

  67. [75]

    Perturbations of a rotating black hole. 1. Fundamental equations for gravitational electromagnetic and neutrino field perturbations,

    S. A. Teukolsky, “Perturbations of a rotating black hole. 1. Fundamental equations for gravitational electromagnetic and neutrino field perturbations,” Astrophys. J. 185 (1973) 635–647

    1973

  68. [76]

    Perturbations of a Rotating Black Hole. II. Dynamical Stability of the Kerr Metric,

    W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, “Perturbations of a Rotating Black Hole. II. Dynamical Stability of the Kerr Metric,” Astrophys. J. 185 (1973) 649–674

    1973

  69. [77]

    Dirac Equation Around a Charged, Rotating Black Hole,

    D. N. Page, “Dirac Equation Around a Charged, Rotating Black Hole,” Phys. Rev. D 14 (1976) 1509–1510

    1976

  70. [78]

    On a transformation of teukolsky’s equation and the electromagnetic perturbations of the kerr black hole,

    S. Chandrasekhar, “On a transformation of teukolsky’s equation and the electromagnetic perturbations of the kerr black hole,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 348 no. 1652, (1976) 39–55

    1976

  71. [79]

    Particle Emission Rates from a Black Hole. 3. Charged Leptons from a Nonrotating Hole,

    D. N. Page, “Particle Emission Rates from a Black Hole. 3. Charged Leptons from a Nonrotating Hole,” Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 2402–2411

    1977

  72. [80]

    Holographic Derivation of Kerr-Newman Scattering Amplitudes for General Charge and Spin,

    T. Hartman, W. Song, and A. Strominger, “Holographic Derivation of Kerr-Newman Scattering Amplitudes for General Charge and Spin,” JHEP 03 (2010) 118, arXiv:0908.3909 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Greybody Factors and Charges in Kerr/CFT,

    M. Cvetic and F. Larsen, “Greybody Factors and Charges in Kerr/CFT,” JHEP 09 (2009) 088, arXiv:0908.1136 [hep-th] . 57

    2009 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.