Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We reconsider the role of wormholes in the AdS/CFT correspondence. We focus on Euclidean wormholes that connect two asymptotically AdS or hyperbolic regions with 𝕊1 × 𝕊d−1 boundary. There is no solution to Einstein’s equations of this sort, as the wormholes possess a modulus that runs to infinity. To find on-shell wormholes we must stabilize this modulus, which we can do by fixing the total energy on the two boundaries. Such a wormhole gives the saddle point approximation to a non-standard problem in quantum gravity, where we fix two asymptotic boundaries and constrain the common energy. Crucially the dual quantity does not factorize even when the bulk is dual to a single CFT, on account of the fixed energy constraint. From this quantity we extract a smeared version of the microcanonical spectral form factor. For a chaotic theory this quantity is self-averaging, i.e. well-approximated by averaging over energy windows, or over coupling constants. We go on to give a precision test involving the microcanonical spectral form factor where the two replicas have slightly different coupling constants. In chaotic theories this form factor is known to smoothly decay at a rate universally predicted in terms of one replica physics, provided that there is an average either over a window or over couplings. We compute the expected decay rate for holographic theories, and the form factor from a wormhole, and the two exactly agree for a wide range of two-derivative effective field theories in AdS. This gives a precision test of averaging in AdS/CFT. Our results interpret a number of confusing facts about wormholes and factorization in AdS and suggest that we should regard gravitational effective field theory as a mesoscopic description, analogous to semiclassical mesoscopic descriptions of quantum chaotic systems.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".