Holographic BCFTs and communicating black holes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract We study the AdS/BCFT duality between two-dimensional conformal field theories with two boundaries and three-dimensional anti-de Sitter space with two Karch-Randall branes. We compute the entanglement entropy of a bipartition of the BCFT, on both the gravity side and the field theory side. At finite temperature this entanglement entropy characterizes the communication between two braneworld black holes, coupled to each other through a common bath. We find a Page curve consistent with unitarity. The gravitational result, computed using double-holographically realized quantum extremal surfaces, matches the conformal field theory calculation. At zero temperature, we obtain an interesting extension of the AdS 3 /BCFT 2 correspondence. For a central charge c , we find a gap $$ \left(\frac{c}{16},\frac{c}{12}\right) $$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mfenced> <mml:mfrac> <mml:mi>c</mml:mi> <mml:mn>16</mml:mn> </mml:mfrac> <mml:mfrac> <mml:mi>c</mml:mi> <mml:mn>12</mml:mn> </mml:mfrac> </mml:mfenced> </mml:math> in the spectrum of the scaling dimension ∆ bcc of the boundary condition changing operator (which interpolates mismatched boundary conditions on the two boundaries of the BCFT). Depending on the value of ∆ bcc , the gravitational dual is either a defect global AdS 3 geometry or a single sided black hole, and in both cases there are two Karch-Randall branes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".