Strongly Coupled Radiation from Moving Mirrors and Holography in the Karch-Randall model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivated by the puzzles in understanding how Black Holes evaporate into a strongly coupled Conformal Field Theory, we study particle creation by an accelerating mirror. We model the mirror as a gravitating Domain Wall and consider a CFT coupled to it through gravity, in asymptotically Anti de Sitter space. This problem (backreaction included) can be solved exactly at one loop. At strong coupling, this is dual to a Domain Wall localized on the brane in the Karch-Randall model, which can be fully solved as well. Hence, in this case one can see how the particle production is affected by A) strong coupling and B) its own backreaction. We find that A) the amount of CFT radiation at strong coupling is not suppressed relative to the weak coupling result; and B) once the boundary conditions in the AdS5 bulk are appropriately mapped to the conditions for the CFT on the boundary of AdS4, the Karch-Randall model and the CFT side agree to leading order in the backreaction. This agreement holds even for a new class of self-consistent solutions (the ‘Bootstrap ’ Domain Wall
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".