This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

aainstitutetext: Kavli Institute for Theoretical Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, Chinabbinstitutetext: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, 40506ccinstitutetext: State Key Laboratory of Quantum Optics and Quantum Optics Devices, Institute of Theoretical Physics, Shanxi University, Taiyuan 030006, P. R. Chinaddinstitutetext: Yau Mathematical Sciences Center, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

Holographic Renyi entropy of 2d CFT in KdV generalized ensemble

Liangyu Chen b    Anatoly Dymarsky a,c    Jia Tian a    and Huajia Wang [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Abstract

The eigenstate thermalization hypothesis (ETH) in chaotic two dimensional CFTs is subtle due to infinitely many conserved KdV charges. Previous works have demonstrated that primary CFT eigenstates have flat entanglement spectrum, which is very different from the microcanonical ensemble. This result is an apparent contradiction to conventional ETH, which does not take KdV charges into account. In a companion paper KdVETHgeneral , we resolve this discrepancy by studying the subsystem entropy of a chaotic CFT in KdV-generalized Gibbs and microcanonical ensembles. In this paper, we carry out parallel computations in the context of AdS/CFT. We focus on the high density limit, which is equivalent to thermodynamic limit in conformal theories. In this limit holographic Renyi entropy can be computed using the so-called gluing construction. We explicitly study the KdV-generalized microcanonical ensemble with the densities of the first two KdV charges 𝒬1=q1,𝒬3=q3\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle=q_{1},\langle\mathcal{Q}_{3}\rangle=q_{3} fixed and obeying q3q12q12q_{3}-q_{1}^{2}\ll q_{1}^{2}. In this regime we found that the refined Renyi entropy S~n\tilde{S}_{n} is nn-independent for n>ncutn>n_{cut}, where ncutn_{cut} depends on q1,q3q_{1},q_{3}. By taking the primary state limit q3q12q_{3}\to q_{1}^{2}, we recover flat entanglement spectrum characteristic of fixed-area states, in agreement with the primary state behavior. This provides a consistency check of the KdV-generalized ETH in 2d CFTs.

1 Introduction

Understanding the phenomena of pure state thermalization has been a crucial endeavor that, apart from its own interest and importance, plays important roles across many subjects ranging from quantum information to black hole physics – particularly the black hole information paradox Hawking:1975IP ; Hawking:1976IP ; Schack:1996 ; Zurek:1994 ; Shenker:2014 ; Sachdev:1993 ; Kitaev:2015 . A conjecture about the underlying mechanism is the notion of the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis (ETH), which proposes that high energy eigenstate whose energy density remains finite in the thermodynamic limit behave like thermal states upon evaluating the expectation values of observables Srednicki:1994 ; Deutsch:1991 ; Rigol:2008 ; Alessio:2016 . More precisely, in terms of the matrix elements in the eigenstate basis, ETH proposes that:

Ea|𝒪obs|Eb=f(E)δab+eS(E¯)/2Rab,E¯=Ea+Eb2\langle E_{a}|\mathcal{O}_{obs}|E_{b}\rangle=f(E)\delta_{ab}+e^{-S\left(\bar{E}\right)/2}R_{ab},\;\;\bar{E}=\frac{E_{a}+E_{b}}{2} (1)

where f(E)f(E) is a continuous function of EE encoding the thermal expectation value, while the second exponentially suppressed term exhibits random matrix behavior.

In practice, it is difficult to describe explicitly what constitutes the good observables 𝒪obs\mathcal{O}_{obs} that satisfy (1). For this reason, an alternative characterization of the ETH has been put forward in terms of the reduced density matrices (RDM) of the subsystems Dymarsky:2018 . In these versions, ETH proposes the proximity between the reduced density matrices ρaA=TrA¯|EaEa|\rho^{A}_{a}=\text{Tr}_{\bar{A}}|E_{a}\rangle\langle E_{a}| of a high energy eigenstate |Ea|E_{a}\rangle to those of the micro-canonical ensembles:

ρaAρAmicro\rho^{A}_{a}\approx\rho^{\text{micro}}_{A} (2)

More precisely, the notion of proximity is stated in terms of the trace distance measures between matrices:

ρaAρAmicro𝒪(ΔE/E),O=12TrOO||\rho^{A}_{a}-\rho^{\text{micro}}_{A}||\sim\mathcal{O}\left(\Delta E/E\right),\;\;\;||O||=\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\sqrt{OO^{\dagger}} (3)

where ΔE\Delta E is the width of the energy window in defining the microcanonical ensemble. Additional support based on numerical evidence was performed in Grover:2018 .

The notion of ETH is associated with the thermodynamic limit, i.e. a large number of degrees of freedom. While the standard thermodynamic limit is reached by taking the total system size LL to be large, in the context of conformal field theories (CFTs) one can explicitly define an “internal” thermodynamic limit in which the central charge cc becomes large. This is a necessary condition for the theory to have a weakly-coupled gravity dual through AdS/CFT, and in which the phenomena of thermalization is related to the black hole formation and evaporation Hawking:1975IP ; Hawking:1976IP . In fact the two thermodynamic limits can be taken simultaneously, which is then dual in the gravity side to the high temperature (LβL\gg\beta) black holes.

Studying ETH in the context of quantum field theories (QFTs) has revealed deeper aspects of both thermalization and QFTs. In 2d CFTs, we can study states on a circle of circumference L=2πL=2\pi with the spatial coordinate φ[0,2π]\varphi\in[0,2\pi]. The nature of the ETH becomes more subtle in this context due to the infinite number of symmetry generators forming the Virasoro algebra. Such an algebra gives rise to an infinite number of mutually commuting conserved charges called the KdV charges Bazhanov:1994KdV ; Bazhanov:1996KdV ; Bazhanov:1998KdV . They are constructed from the stress tensor operator. The first few charges are given by:

𝒬^1(T)=02πdφ2πT,𝒬^3(T)=02πdφ2π(TT),𝒬^5(T)=02πdφ2π(T(TT)+c+212(T)2)\displaystyle\hat{\mathcal{Q}}_{1}(T)=\int^{2\pi}_{0}\frac{d\varphi}{2\pi}T,\;\;\hat{\mathcal{Q}}_{3}(T)=\int^{2\pi}_{0}\frac{d\varphi}{2\pi}(TT),\;\;\hat{\mathcal{Q}}_{5}(T)=\int^{2\pi}_{0}\frac{d\varphi}{2\pi}\left(T(TT)+\frac{c+2}{12}(\partial T)^{2}\right)

These charges are universally present and as a result the energy eigenstates are attached with an infinite number of additional labels. The nature of ETH in this context is modified, it is believed that the “target” equilibrium state corresponds to the so-called generalized Gibbs ensemble (GGE) Cardy:2016GGE :

ρGGE(β,μ~i)=𝒩1eβH(μ~i),H(μ~i)=k1μ~2k1Q^2k1(T)\rho_{GGE}(\beta,\tilde{\mu}_{i})=\mathcal{N}^{-1}e^{-\beta H(\tilde{\mu}_{i})},\;\;H(\tilde{\mu}_{i})=\sum_{k\geq 1}\tilde{\mu}_{2k-1}\hat{Q}_{2k-1}(T) (4)

where 𝒩\mathcal{N} is a normalization constant. As a result, the study of subsystem ETH in 2d CFTs involves comparing the entanglement structure of energy eigenstates and those of the equilibrium states such as the GGEs. The simplest eigenstates in 2d CFTs consist of the primary states, which are created via the state-operator correspondence by local primary operators 𝒪h\mathcal{O}_{h} acting on the vacuum |Ω|\Omega\rangle on the complex plane \mathds{C}:

|h=limx0𝒪h(x)|Ω|h\rangle=\lim_{x\to 0}\mathcal{O}_{h}(x)|\Omega\rangle (5)

Properties of these states are computationally the most straightforward to probe. Their relations to thermalization has been studied in Fitzpatrick:2014 ; Chen:2017 ; Wang:2018 ; and those to subsystem ETH, e.g. entanglement entropy and Renyi entropies, have been studied Ryu:2006 ; Hartman:2013 ; Faulkner:2013 ; Hartnoll:2013 ; Asplund:2015 ; BinChen:2013 ; Perlmutter:2014 ; Lin:2016 ; He:2017 ; He:2017p2 .

In order to study or verify subsystem ETH in 2d CFTs, it is also necessary to reveal the entanglement structures in the thermal equilibrium side. In general, significant entanglement data, e.g. the entanglement spectrum, can be recovered from the knowledge of the Renyi entropies SnS_{n} for arbitrary Renyi index nn. In a companion paper KdVETHgeneral , we compute the subsystem entropies for various states in general chaotic CFTs, by assuming certain chaotic ansatz concerning the structure of eigenstate at high charge densities. In this paper, we focus the computation on the context of AdS/CFT, i.e. we compute the holographic Renyi entropies in thermal equilibrium states of the 2d CFTs. We focus on subsystems that are single intervals on the circle.

We make some remarks regarding the nature of the equilibrium states considered in this paper. Similar to the distinctions between canonical/micro-canonical ensembles in terms of the conditions imposed on the temperature/energy, with the additional KdV charges one could consider either the GGE represented by (4); or the micro-canonical version, i.e. fixing the KdV charges instead of the chemical potential. Although a possibly more appropriate term along the line of GGE should be the “KdV micro-canonical ensemble”, we will refer to the latter simply as the micro-canonical ensemble in this paper. Their density matrices take the form of projection operators on the full Hilbert-space:

ρq2k1micro=𝒩1P^Q^2k1=q2k1\rho^{micro}_{q_{2k-1}}=\mathcal{N}^{-1}\hat{P}_{\langle\hat{Q}_{2k-1}\rangle=q_{2k-1}} (6)

In the thermodynamic limit, the canonical and micro-canonical ensembles are often considered to be equivalent. However, the equivalence indeed depends on the choice of observables. In particular, it fails for observables that scale exponentially with the large thermodynamic parameter – when computing expectation values using the saddle point approximation, their “back-reaction” will cause the two ensembles to differ. Examples of such phenomena include Wang:2018 ; Dong:2018 . In the limit of c1c\gg 1 in 2d CFTs, they include heavy operators whose conformal dimension scales with cc, e.g. the twist operators σn\sigma_{n} that compute the Renyi entropies SnS_{n} for n>1n>1, whose conformal dimensions are given by:

hn=c24(n21n)h_{n}=\frac{c}{24}\left(\frac{n^{2}-1}{n}\right) (7)

For this reason, in this paper we emphasize the micro-canonical nature of the equilibrium state that appears in the proposal of ETH. The holographic Renyi entropies are computed in the micro-canonical ensembles. For reasons to be explained, we also compute Renyi entropies in more general forms of ensembles with fixed KdV charges.

In practice holographic computations in these ensembles become more difficult, because the corresponding boundary conditions are less transparent in terms of bulk geometries. To make progress, we will use a scheme of approximation to be introduced in later sections. They work for computing the leading order results in such ensembles with high charge densities. So let us clarify the limits we are working with explicitly. We begin with the cc\to\infty scaling ansatz for the CFT chemical potentials μ~2k1\tilde{\mu}_{2k-1}:

μ~2k1=(c24)k+1μ2k1\tilde{\mu}_{2k-1}=\left(\frac{c}{24}\right)^{-k+1}\mu_{2k-1} (8)

Under such a scaling, the leading order terms in the CFT Hamiltonian (4) describe a “classical” theory of the form:

H(μ~i)=c24(μi)+𝒪(c0),(μ)=kμ2k1𝒬2k1(u)H(\tilde{\mu}_{i})=\frac{c}{24}\mathcal{H}(\mu_{i})+\mathcal{O}(c^{0}),\;\;\mathcal{H}(\vec{\mu})=\sum_{k}\mu_{2k-1}\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}(u) (9)

where the classical density uu is related to the CFT stress tensor by:

u(φ)=24cT(φ)u(\varphi)=\frac{24}{c}T(\varphi) (10)

and 𝒬2k1(u)\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}(u) as functions of uu are the classical KdV charges, the first few of which are given by:

𝒬1(u)=02πdφ2πu(φ),𝒬3(u)=02πdφ2πu(φ)2,𝒬5(u)=02πdφ2π(u(φ)2+2u(φ)2)\mathcal{Q}_{1}(u)=\int^{2\pi}_{0}\frac{d\varphi}{2\pi}\;u(\varphi),\;\;\mathcal{Q}_{3}(u)=\int^{2\pi}_{0}\frac{d\varphi}{2\pi}\;u(\varphi)^{2},\;\;\mathcal{Q}_{5}(u)=\int^{2\pi}_{0}\frac{d\varphi}{2\pi}\left(u(\varphi)^{2}+2u^{\prime}(\varphi)^{2}\right)

They are related to the quantum KdV charges Q^2k1\hat{Q}_{2k-1} via the rescaling:

𝒬2k1(c24)kQ^2k1\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}\sim\left(\frac{c}{24}\right)^{-k}\hat{Q}_{2k-1} (11)

and taking the leading order part in cc\to\infty. The “classical” variables {u(x),μ2k1,𝒬2k1}\{u(x),\mu_{2k-1},\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}\} are what directly enter the holographic calculations. In this paper we will work with them in the context of AdS/CFT; and use (8,10,11) to convert to the original CFT parameters {T(x),μ~2k1,Q^2k1}\{T(x),\tilde{\mu}_{2k-1},\hat{Q}_{2k-1}\} when needed.

On top of these, we are then interested in the limit 𝒬2k11\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}\gg 1. We shall call this the high charge density limit. Strictly speaking, when defining a sensible micro-canonical ensemble the charges should be allowed to vary in a range of width ΔQ^2k1\Delta\hat{Q}_{2k-1}. In this work we take these widths to all be subleading ΔQ^2k1ck\Delta\hat{Q}_{2k-1}\ll c^{k}, the classical charges 𝒬2k1\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1} are therefore fixed in the cc\to\infty limit of our interest. We can also restore the LL-dependence by rescaling the spatial coordinates, then the limit corresponds for general circumference LL to:

𝒬2k1L12k\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}\gg L^{1-2k} (12)

In terms of the radial quantization states (5), we have that:

𝒬2k1h(hc)kL12k\langle\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}\rangle_{h}\sim\left(\frac{h}{c}\right)^{k}L^{1-2k} (13)

Therefore (12) is satisfied if the ensemble is dominated by the contribution from states |h|h\rangle satisfying:

h/c1,ch/c\gg 1,\;\;c\to\infty (14)

independent of LL, i.e. for different LL the limit (12) probes parametrically the same regime of the Hilbert space. Having clarified this, from now on we will ignore the LL-dependence by setting L=2πL=2\pi whenever convenient – especially during explicit computations; and will restore it via dimensional analysis when needed – mostly for the purpose of stating parametric limits.

This paper is organized as follows. In section (2) we first review the basics of the black holes solutions in AdS3/CFT2\text{AdS}_{3}/\text{CFT}_{2} that carry KdV charges; we will focus on the BTZ and one-zone black holes that are relevant for latter analysis, and conduct a thorough analysis of their thermodynamic properties in various types of GGEs. In section (3) we review the holographic computation of Renyi entropies via cosmic-brane backreaction; we introduce a scheme of constructing approximate solutions for the back-reaction called the gluing construction, which works in the high density limit and was first proposed in Dong:2018 ; we then discuss its extension to include higher KdV charges. In section (4) we explicitly perform the computation of holographic Renyi entropies in ensembles that fixes the first two KdV charges; we also discuss the implications of the results for the underlying entanglement spectrum. We conclude the paper in section (5) with some further comments and discussions.

2 KdV-charged black holes

In the holographic (large cc) limit the gravity background dual to a 2d CFT KdV GGE

ρe^,^=i=m+1μ2i1𝒬^2i1,\displaystyle\rho\propto e^{-{\hat{\cal H}}},\qquad\hat{\mathcal{H}}=\sum_{i=}^{m+1}\mu_{2i-1}\hat{\mathcal{Q}}_{2i-1}, (15)

is a KdV-charged black hole (more carefully, an ensemble of such black holes) Dymarsky:2020 , with the 3d metric specified in terms of two functions ff and uu,

ds2=(fr14r(uf2f′′))2dt2+(r+14ru)2dφ2+dr2r2.ds^{2}=-(fr-\frac{1}{4r}(uf-2f^{\prime\prime}))^{2}dt^{2}+(r+\frac{1}{4r}u)^{2}d\varphi^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{r^{2}}. (16)

The information about generalized chemical potentials μ2i1\mu_{2i-1} is encoded in the functional relation between ff and uu Perez:2016 ,

f[u]=2πδ(u)δu,(u)=i=1m+1μ2i1𝒬2i1(u),𝒟f=0,f[u]=2\pi\frac{\delta\mathcal{H}(u)}{\delta u},\quad\mathcal{H}(u)=\sum^{m+1}_{i=1}\mu_{2i-1}\mathcal{Q}_{2i-1}(u),\quad{\cal D}f=0, (17)

where 𝒟=φ3+uφ{\cal D}=\partial_{\varphi}^{3}+u\partial_{\varphi}. Assuming number of terms in \cal H is finite, the task of finding the black hole solution, i.e. the function u(φ),0φ2πu(\varphi),0\leq\varphi\leq 2\pi such that f[u]f[u] satisfies 𝒟f=0{\cal D}f=0 amounts to finding the so-called finite-zone solution Novikov:1974

{,u}=0,\displaystyle\{{\cal H},u\}=0, (18)

with the properly defined Poisson brackets. To be self-contained, we briefly summarize the procedure below.

2.1 Finite-zone solutions: a quick review

We begin by considering the eigenvalue problem for the Schro¨\ddot{\text{o}}dinger equation:

Ψ′′(φ)+u(φ)Ψ(φ)=λΨ(φ),\Psi^{{}^{\prime\prime}}(\varphi)+u(\varphi)\Psi(\varphi)=\lambda\Psi(\varphi), (19)

i.e. the function uu now enters as a periodic potential. For (19) defined on a circle, the discrete spectrum {λn}\{\lambda_{n}\} is defined by requiring periodic/anti-periodic boundary conditions for Ψ\Psi,

Ψ(φ+2π)=±Ψ(φ)\Psi(\varphi+2\pi)=\pm\Psi(\varphi) (20)

The relation between the Schro¨\ddot{\text{o}}dinger equation (19) and the original KdV equation (whose integrals of motion are the KdV charges) can be understood as follows. The solutions u(t,φ)u(t,\varphi) of higher KdV equations

tu={(u),u},(u)=i=1m+1μ2i1𝒬2i1(u)\partial_{t}u=\left\{\mathcal{H}(u),u\right\},\qquad\mathcal{H}(u)=\sum_{i=1}^{m+1}\mu_{2i-1}\mathcal{Q}_{2i-1}(u)\ (21)

define the spectrum λn(t)\lambda_{n}(t), which a priori is tt-dependent. But in fact λn\lambda_{n} are the integrals of motion, i.e. λ˙n(t)=0\dot{\lambda}_{n}(t)=0. We are interested in static, tt-independent solutions satisfying (18). These are the so-called finite-zone solution that have the spectrum {λn}\{\lambda_{n}\} with all but at most 2m+12m+1 eigenvalues forming degenerate pairs. The subset of non-degenerate eigenvalues {λ0<λ1<<λ2m}\{\lambda_{0}<\lambda_{1}<...<\lambda_{2m}\} (together with the information about which zones they correspond to, see below) completely characterizes the family of static solutions of (21). We note that only m+1m+1 of these parameters are free, other mm parameters are dependent. In addition to m+1m+1 independent λn\lambda_{n}, there are also mm parameters which deform u(φ)u(\varphi) without changing the spectrum – these are the isospectral deformations generated by first mm KdV generators 𝒬2i1\mathcal{Q}_{2i-1}. Thus, in total, the space of mm-zone solutions is parametrized by 2m+12m+1 continuous parameters.

These 2m+12m+1 parameters can be understood as follows. A periodic potential u(φ)u(\varphi) is an element of the co-adjoint orbit of Witt (Virasoro) algebra. One of these parameters specifies the orbit invariant hh, related to the monodromy of (19) for λ=0\lambda=0. Other 2m2m parameters are the coordinates on the symplectic space (reduction of the co-adjoint orbit), with mm parameters being the “action” variables IkI_{k} and other mm parameters – the “angles” ϕk\phi_{k}. Values of the first m+1m+1 KdV charges are the functions of hh and IkI_{k} (and independent of angles). For example, when m=0m=0, there is a one-parametric family of constant solutions u(φ)=Q1u(\varphi)=Q_{1}, parametrized by Q1Q_{1}. When m=1m=1, there is a three-parametric family of solutions u(φϕ)u(\varphi-\phi), parametrized by Q1,Q3Q_{1},Q_{3} and ϕ\phi.

In addition to continuous parameters, there is mm discrete natural numbers ki+1>kik_{i+1}>k_{i} which specify which zone λ2i1,λ2i\lambda_{2i-1},\lambda_{2i} correspond to. Thus, in the one-zone example above, the full space of solutions is parametrized by Q1,Q3Q_{1},Q_{3}, ϕ\phi and a positive integer kk, as we discuss below.

The 2m+12m+1 continuous parameters (say, Q2i1Q_{2i-1} for 1im+11\leq i\leq m+1 and angles ϕk\phi_{k}), together with mm positive integers kik_{i}, define the mm-zone solution u(φ)u(\varphi), but not f(φ)f(\varphi). Function ff, satisfying 𝒟f=0{\cal D}f=0 is mathematically defined only up to an overall coefficient (this implicitly assumes ff is sign-definite). One can see an mm-zone solution as a degenerate mm^{\prime}-zone solution with m>mm^{\prime}>m, coming from {,u}=0\{{\cal H}^{\prime},u\}=0 with a different {\cal H}^{\prime}. Accordingly both f=2πδ/δuf=2\pi\delta{\cal H}/\delta u and f=2πδ/δuf^{\prime}=2\pi\delta{\cal H}^{\prime}/\delta u will satisfy 𝒟f=𝒟f=0{\cal D}f={\cal D}f^{\prime}=0 but in general fff\neq f^{\prime}.

Out of 2m+12m+1 continuous parameters of an mm-zone u(φ)u(\varphi), mm parameters can be related to values of μ2i1/μ2m+1\mu_{2i-1}/\mu_{2m+1} in (21). Thus, if μ2i1\mu_{2i-1} for 1im+11\leq i\leq m+1 are specified, the space of static solution is parametrized by m+1m+1 additional continuous variables (hh and the angles). Instead of hh, one can introduce inverse black hole temperature as follows. Assuming f(φ)f(\varphi) is sign-definite (for sign-indefinite f(φ)f(\varphi) the bulk geometry has the event-horizon stretching all the way to asymptotic boundary, which suggests this case is unphysical), one can read out the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy (the horizon area) from the metric

S=πu02GN=πc3u0.S=\frac{\pi\sqrt{u_{0}}}{2G_{N}}=\frac{\pi c}{3}\sqrt{u_{0}}. (22)

Here u0u_{0} is defined as follows

u0=uf2+f22ff′′f02,f01=12π02πdφf(φ).u_{0}=\frac{uf^{2}+f^{{}^{\prime}2}-2ff^{{}^{\prime\prime}}}{f_{0}^{2}},\;\;f_{0}^{-1}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int^{2\pi}_{0}\frac{d\varphi}{f(\varphi)}. (23)

The parameter u0hu_{0}\equiv h labels the co-adjoint orbit u(φ)u(\varphi) belongs to. For the BTZ solution u0=𝒬1u_{0}=\mathcal{Q}_{1} and (22) is simply the 2d CFT density of states given by Cardy formula. For a generic finite-zone solution u0u_{0} is not the same as the average value of u(φ)u(\varphi), and thus is not equal to 𝒬1\mathcal{Q}_{1}.

For a generic finite-zone solution uu, accompanied by ff, it can be shown that the numerator of (23) is in fact a constant, and equals to temperature squared Dymarsky:2020

(2πT)2=uf2+f22ff′′,(2\pi T)^{2}=uf^{2}+f^{{}^{\prime}2}-2ff^{{}^{\prime\prime}}, (24)

while the sign of TT is the sign of ff. This fixes hh in terms of μ2m+1\mu_{2m+1}. Thus, m+1m+1 coefficients μ2i1\mu_{2i-1} fix all continuous parameters of mm-zone solutions, except for angles.

2.2 Example: one-zone black hole solutions

As an example relevant for latter analysis, we examine in detail the one-zone solutions, specified by zone end-points {λ1λ2λ3}\{\lambda_{1}\leq\lambda_{2}\leq\lambda_{3}\} 111From this section on, we will shift the zone parameter label by 1, i.e. the first zone parameter is λ1\lambda_{1}.. These three parameters have to satisfy

k=πλ3λ1K(p),p\displaystyle k=-\pi\frac{\sqrt{\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{1}}}{K(p)},\qquad p =\displaystyle= λ3λ2λ3λ1,\displaystyle\frac{\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{2}}{\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{1}}, (25)

where K(p)K(p) is the elliptic K function and k1k\geq 1 is a positive integer labeling the zone. Thus the one-zone solutions are parametrized by two continuous and one discrete parameters, in addition to a constant shift of the argument φ\varphi.

One can choose instead the continuous parameters to be 𝒬1{\cal Q}_{1} and 𝒬3{\cal Q}_{3}, and the discrete parameter pp,

𝒬1\displaystyle\mathcal{Q}_{1} =\displaystyle= 4λ34(λ2λ1)(2Π(p,p)K(p)1),𝒬3=J1μ1𝒬13\displaystyle 4\lambda_{3}-4(\lambda_{2}-\lambda_{1})\left(\frac{2\Pi(p,p)}{K(p)}-1\right),\;\;\mathcal{Q}_{3}=\frac{J_{1}-\mu_{1}\mathcal{Q}_{1}}{3}
J1=16(λ12+λ22+λ322λ3λ12λ1λ22λ2λ3),\displaystyle J_{1}=16\left(\lambda_{1}^{2}+\lambda_{2}^{2}+\lambda_{3}^{2}-2\lambda_{3}\lambda_{1}-2\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}-2\lambda_{2}\lambda_{3}\right),
μ1=8(λ1+λ2+λ3).\displaystyle\mu_{1}=-8(\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}+\lambda_{3}).

where Π(p,p)\Pi(p,p) is the complete elliptic integral of the third kind (EllipticPi in Mathematica). Alternatively, it is often convenient to keep kk as a discrete parameter, while pp will become a continuous parameter together with 𝒬1{\cal Q}_{1}:

u(φ)=42logθ(ik(φϕ),q)+𝒬1,\displaystyle u(\varphi)=-4\partial^{2}\log{\theta\left(ik(\varphi-\phi),q\right)}+\mathcal{Q}_{1},
θ(ikφ,q)=nqn2cos(nkφ),q=eπK(1p)K(p),\displaystyle\theta(ik\varphi,q)=\sum_{n}q^{n^{2}}\cos{(nk\varphi)},\quad q=e^{-\frac{\pi K(1-p)}{K(p)}}, (27)
𝒬3=𝒬12+64k4(p1)K(p)2(K(p)2+2(p2)K(p)Π(p,p)3(p1)Π(p,p)2)3π4.\displaystyle{\cal Q}_{3}={\cal Q}_{1}^{2}+\frac{64k^{4}(p-1)K(p)^{2}\left(K(p)^{2}+2(p-2)K(p)\Pi(p,p)-3(p-1)\Pi(p,p)^{2}\right)}{3\pi^{4}}.

Qualitatively, the solution u(φ)u(\varphi) oscillates along the circle with the frequency that is multiple of kk, and with the amplitudes controlled by q(p)q(p). The orbit invariant (23) associated with the one-zone solution can be evaluated explicitly,

u0=(4λ1λ2λ3)Π(1λ2λ3,p)K(p).\sqrt{u_{0}}=\left(\sqrt{\frac{4\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}}{\lambda_{3}}}\right)\frac{\Pi\left(1-\frac{\lambda_{2}}{\lambda_{3}},p\right)}{K\left(p\right)}. (28)

The one zone-solutions span the space of static solutions of (21) for the Hamiltonian of the form

=𝒬3+μ1𝒬1.\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{Q}_{3}+\mu_{1}\mathcal{Q}_{1}\,. (29)

Without loss of generality we have normalized the coefficient of the 𝒬3\mathcal{Q}_{3} to be one. For a given GGE ρeβ\rho\propto e^{-\beta{\cal H}} and a general static one-zone solution, the zone-parameters are related to the ensemble parameters as follows

2π/β=32λ1λ2λ3,μ11=8(λ1+λ2+λ3),f(φ)=2u(φ)+μ1.2\pi/\beta=32\sqrt{\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}\lambda_{3}},\;\;\mu_{1}-1=-8(\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}+\lambda_{3}),\quad f(\varphi)=2u(\varphi)+\mu_{1}. (30)

A particular finite-zone solution u(φ)u(\varphi) specifies corresponding f(φ)f(\varphi) up to an overall constant. Equation (21) provides a functional relation between uu and ff. In case of Hamiltonian (29) the relation is (30). A peculiar feature of the case when \cal H only includes 𝒬1{\cal Q}_{1} and 𝒬3{\cal Q}_{3} is that f(φ)f(\varphi) is always negative, forcing temperature of corresponding black hole background to be negative as well. As was pointed out in Dymarsky:2020 , this means corresponding Euclidean gravitational backgrounds are unstable. They give subleading contribution to the Euclidean path integral dual to GGE state ρeβ\rho\propto e^{-\beta{\cal H}} with \cal H given by (29), while leading contribution is always given by a BTZ (constant u(φ)u(\varphi)) geometries.

The same one-zone solutions u(φ)u(\varphi) can give rise to a black hole background with positive temperature and even give a dominant contribution to gravitational description of the GGE, when more chemical potentials are turned on Dymarsky:2020 . For example, let us consider the following GGE,

ρeβ(Q^5+μ3Q^3+μ1Q^1).\rho\propto e^{-\beta\left(\hat{Q}_{5}+\mu_{3}\hat{Q}_{3}+\mu_{1}\hat{Q}_{1}\right)}. (31)

Generic black holes in this case are described by two-zone solutions, parametrized by zone-parameters (λ0,,λ4)(\lambda_{0},...,\lambda_{4}). However the one-zone solutions are also saddle points of the Euclidean path integral associated with this GGE, provided μi\mu_{i} satisfy some additional conditions. Given the one-zone solution parametrized by λ1,λ2,λ3\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\lambda_{3}, the GGE parameters {β,μ3,μ1}\{\beta,\mu_{3},\mu_{1}\} must satisfy

μ1+48(λ12+λ22+λ32)+32(λ1λ2+λ2λ3+λ1λ3)+8μ3(λ1+λ2+λ3)=0,\displaystyle\mu_{1}+48\left(\lambda_{1}^{2}+\lambda_{2}^{2}+\lambda_{3}^{2}\right)+32\left(\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}+\lambda_{2}\lambda_{3}+\lambda_{1}\lambda_{3}\right)+8\mu_{3}\left(\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}+\lambda_{3}\right)=0,
π+16βλ1λ2λ3(4λ1+4λ2+4λ3+μ3)=0.\displaystyle\pi+16\beta\sqrt{\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}\lambda_{3}}\left(4\lambda_{1}+4\lambda_{2}+4\lambda_{3}+\mu_{3}\right)=0. (32)

We remark that there are only two equations relating {β,μ3,μ1}\{\beta,\mu_{3},\mu_{1}\} to λi\lambda_{i}. Thus, for fixed {λ1,λ2,λ3}\{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\lambda_{3}\}, one of the GGE parameters, e.g. β\beta, remains arbitrary, while two others are fixed in terms of λi\lambda_{i} and β\beta.

2.3 Smoothness and physical conditions

For later convenience, we gather here the list of conditions for the one-zone black holes to be physical and smooth as bulk geometries in the GGE (31). Related discussions has been performed in Dymarsky:2020 , for which the details of the derivations can be referred to. We summarize them in the form of inequalities relating the zone parameters (λ1λ2λ3)(\lambda_{1}\leq\lambda_{2}\leq\lambda_{3}) and the GGE parameters (β,μ3,μ1)(\beta,\mu_{3},\mu_{1}). Physically these conditions come from the following considerations:

  • The function f(φ)f(\varphi) is sign definite, i.e. does not contain zeros.

  • The temperature TT is positive.

  • The variational response satisfies the first law of thermodynamics with the correct sign: c12d=TdS\frac{c}{12}d\mathcal{H}=TdS.

  • The singularities of the metric (16) are covered by the horizon:

    rH(φ)>max{rs(φ),0},rs(φ)=u4,rH(φ)=uf22f′′f4f2r_{H}(\varphi)>\text{max}\{r_{s}(\varphi),0\},\;\;r_{s}(\varphi)=-\frac{u}{4},\;\;r_{H}(\varphi)=\frac{uf^{2}-2f^{{}^{\prime\prime}}f}{4f^{2}} (33)

These conditions are generic for all finite-zone black hole solutions. It can be checked that they amount to requiring that:

φ[0,2π],f(φ)>0;u0>0;uf2>f′′f\forall\varphi\in[0,2\pi],\;f(\varphi)>0;\;\;\;u_{0}>0;\;\;\;uf^{2}>f^{{}^{\prime\prime}}f (34)

As remarked before, for a fixed set of zone-parameters (λ1λ2λ3)(\lambda_{1}\leq\lambda_{2}\leq\lambda_{3}) the corresponding GGE is determined up to a free parameter, which for convenience of the present discussion we choose to be μ3\mu_{3}. In terms of these parameters, the smoothness and physical conditions can be translated into:

λ3λ2λ1>0\displaystyle\lambda_{3}\geq\lambda_{2}\geq\lambda_{1}>0
μ3<4(λ1+λ2+λ3)\displaystyle\mu_{3}<-4(\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}+\lambda_{3})
λ1λ2+λ1λ3+λ2λ3λ32>0.\displaystyle\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}+\lambda_{1}\lambda_{3}+\lambda_{2}\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{3}^{2}>0. (35)

We make some remarks relating these conditions to the classification of the BTZ black holes, i.e. whether they are deformable or isolated. As discussed before, in the limit of coincident zone-parameters, i.e. λ1=λ2=w/4\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{2}=w/4 or λ2=λ3=w/4\lambda_{2}=\lambda_{3}=w/4, the one-zone black hole reduces to a BTZ black hole. From this we can infer that a BTZ black hole is deformable if its zone-parameters (h,w)(h,w) satisfy the smoothness and physical conditions (2.3); otherwise it is isolated. For isolated BTZ black holes, the only condition is the positivity of the mass, i.e. h=𝒬1>0h=\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle>0. There is no restriction for the remaining parameter ww – it could even be complex. The arguments leading to (2.3) assume real zone-parameters to begin with, which is indeed necessary for non-degenerate one-zone black holes. On the other hand, for those isolated BTZ black holes with real w<0w<0, it is interesting to understand how do they as smooth solutions evade the arguments leading to (2.3). We provide some details discussing this in the appendix (A).

2.4 Thermodynamics

In this subsection, we analyze the thermodynamic properties of these one-zone black holes in the context of GGE (31) with 3 KdV chemical potentials:

ρ=𝒩1eβ,=Q^5+μ3Q^3+μ1Q^1\rho=\mathcal{N}^{-1}e^{-\beta\mathcal{H}},\;\;\mathcal{H}=\hat{Q}_{5}+\mu_{3}\hat{Q}_{3}+\mu_{1}\hat{Q}_{1} (36)

2.4.1 Phases of BTZ solutions

We are in particular interested in the thermodynamics of the one-zone black holes that are perturbatively close to a BTZ solution in the GGE (31). To this end, we first study the properties of BTZ solutions, in particular how do they depend on the BTZ parameters (h,w)(h,w) as well as the GGE parameters (β,μ1,μ2)(\beta,\mu_{1},\mu_{2}) they are in. Recall that (h,w)(h,w) is related to (β,μ1,μ3)(\beta,\mu_{1},\mu_{3}) by restricting (2.2) to cases with two coincident zone parameters:

T=𝒢(h),𝒢(h)12π(3h5/2+2μ3h3/2+μ1h1/2)\displaystyle T=\mathcal{G}(h),\;\;\mathcal{G}(h)\equiv\frac{1}{2\pi}(3h^{5/2}+2\mu_{3}h^{3/2}+\mu_{1}h^{1/2})
8w2+4(h+μ3)w+2πβh=0.\displaystyle 8w^{2}+4(h+\mu_{3})w+\frac{2\pi}{\beta\sqrt{h}}=0. (37)

where T=1/βT=1/\beta is the temperature. Positive roots to the first equation are identified as the masses of the BTZ black holes in the GGE. It is easily recognized as the saddle-point equation for the primary state contribution to the partition function:

Z(β,μ1,μ3)𝑑heβBTZ(h),BTZ(h)=c12(h3+μ3h2+μ1h)S(h)Z(\beta,\mu_{1},\mu_{3})\sim\int dh\;e^{-\beta\;\mathcal{F}_{BTZ}(h)},\;\;\mathcal{F}_{BTZ}(h)=\frac{c}{12}(h^{3}+\mu_{3}h^{2}+\mu_{1}h)-S(h) (38)

From (2.4.1), there are only three independent parameters specifying a BTZ black hole together with the GGE. We choose (h,β,μ3)(h,\beta,\mu_{3}) to facilitate latter discussions. Notice that at fixed (h,β,μ3)(h,\beta,\mu_{3}), while μ1\mu_{1} is uniquely determined, there are two solutions w±w^{\pm} to the second equation of (2.4.1). We interpret this as potentially two branches of one-zone black holes whose limits of either p0p\to 0 or p1p\to 1 give rise to the BTZ at the prescribed (h,β,μ3)(h,\beta,\mu_{3}). The properties that are relevant to us include the following key aspects:

  • Extremum type for BTZ(h):\mathcal{F}_{BTZ}(h): positive roots of the first equation in (2.4.1) are extremum of BTZ(h)\mathcal{F}_{BTZ}(h). The BTZ has to be a local minimum of BTZ(h)\mathcal{F}_{BTZ}(h) before surviving as the thermodynamically stable saddle of the full GGE. This can be checked by computing ′′(h)\mathcal{F}^{{}^{\prime\prime}}(h) at the roots, from which we obtain that a BTZ at (h,β,μ3)(h,\beta,\mu_{3}) is a local minimum if:

    3h+μ3>(π2βh3/2)3h+\mu_{3}>-\left(\frac{\pi}{2\beta h^{3/2}}\right) (39)
  • Deformable v.s. isolated type: For the BTZs satisfying (39), we are interested in whether they can be deformed into nearby one-zone black holes satisfying (2.3). As discussed before, this depends on whether the BTZ itself satisfies (2.3), which amounts to the following inequalities:

    μ3+h+2w<0,w>(21)h>0\mu_{3}+h+2w<0,\;\;w>\left(\sqrt{2}-1\right)h>0 (40)

    It turns out that when (h,β,μ3)(h,\beta,\mu_{3}) satisfy:

    h+μ3<(4πβh)1/2<0\displaystyle h+\mu_{3}<-\left(\frac{4\pi}{\beta\sqrt{h}}\right)^{1/2}<0 (41)

    Both branches of solutions w±w^{\pm} are positive:

    w±=(h+μ34)(1±14πβh(h+μ3)2)>0w^{\pm}=-\left(\frac{h+\mu_{3}}{4}\right)\left(1\pm\sqrt{1-\frac{4\pi}{\beta\sqrt{h}(h+\mu_{3})^{2}}}\right)>0 (42)

    Furthermore, they both satisfy the first inequality in (40):

    h+μ3+2w±=w<0h+\mu_{3}+2w^{\pm}=-w^{\mp}<0 (43)

    It is then left to checking the second inequality in (40) to determine whether they are deformable. In particular, if the BTZ corresponds to the p0p\to 0 limit of one-zone black holes, then w>h>(21)hw>h>(\sqrt{2}-1)h and it is automatically deformable.

  • Limit type of deformable BTZs: For those deformable BTZ black holes satisfying (40), we are then interested in whether they correspond to the p0p\to 0 limit or the p1p\to 1 limit of one-zone black holes. As mentioned previously this depends on the sign of Δ=hw\Delta=h-w, which satisfies the quadratic equation derived from (2.4.1):

    4Δ22(5h+μ3)Δ+(6h2+2hμ3+πβh)=04\Delta^{2}-2(5h+\mu_{3})\Delta+\left(6h^{2}+2h\mu_{3}+\frac{\pi}{\beta\sqrt{h}}\right)=0 (44)

    For local minimum satisfying (39), both branches Δ±\Delta^{\pm} are of the same sign as that of 5h+μ35h+\mu_{3}. We therefore conclude that they correspond to the p0p\to 0 limit for both branches w±>hw^{\pm}>h if 5h+μ3<05h+\mu_{3}<0; while for 5h+μ3>05h+\mu_{3}>0 they correspond to the p1p\to 1 limits for both branches w±<hw^{\pm}<h.

Based on these, we can derive the following phases regarding the BTZ black hole at fixed hh as one vary the remaining parameters:

χ1=(πTh5/2),χ2=(μ3h)\chi_{1}=\left(\frac{\pi T}{h^{5/2}}\right),\;\;\chi_{2}=\left(\frac{\mu_{3}}{h}\right) (45)

The phases are organized into windows of χ2\chi_{2} whose locations as well as structure vary with χ1\chi_{1}, see Table (1).

0<χ1<0<\chi_{1}<\infty Refer to caption
α2<χ1<α3\alpha_{2}<\chi_{1}<\alpha_{3} Refer to caption
α1<χ1<α2\alpha_{1}<\chi_{1}<\alpha_{2} Refer to caption
0<χ1<α10<\chi_{1}<\alpha_{1} Refer to caption
Table 1: The phases of BTZ black holes

  hh is a local maximum of BTZ\mathcal{F}_{BTZ}

  (h,w±)(h,w^{\pm}) are deformable to p0p\to 0

  (h,w±)(h,w^{\pm}) are deformable to p1p\to 1

  (h,w+)(h,w^{+}) is deformable to p1p\to 1

  both (h,w±)(h,w^{\pm}) are isolated

The ranges of of (χ1,χ2)(\chi_{1},\chi_{2}) are defined by intervals whose boundaries occur at the following values:

α1\displaystyle\alpha_{1} =\displaystyle= 4(21)2,α2=4(21),α3=4,ζ1~=χ1/23\displaystyle 4(\sqrt{2}-1)^{2},\alpha_{2}=4(\sqrt{2}-1),\alpha_{3}=4,\;\;\tilde{\zeta_{1}}=-\chi_{1}/2-3
ζ2~\displaystyle\tilde{\zeta_{2}} =\displaystyle= 5,ζ3~=(221)χ1/(222),ζ~4=2χ11\displaystyle-5,\tilde{\zeta_{3}}=-(2\sqrt{2}-1)-\chi_{1}/(2\sqrt{2}-2),\tilde{\zeta}_{4}=-2\sqrt{\chi_{1}}-1 (46)

More details for the derivation are included in the appendix (B). When the BTZ is deformable, it is likely to be thermodynamically unstable against nearby one-zone black holes in the GGE, one needs to further compute the free energies; when it is isolated we view it as thermodynamically stable, at least locally.

We can also focus only on the GGE parameters (β,μ1,μ3)(\beta,\mu_{1},\mu_{3}), and identify a phase where it contains two physical BTZ black holes. This corresponds to when the first equation in (2.4.1) has three positive roots (h1<h2<h3)(h_{1}<h_{2}<h_{3}). It is easy to see that (h1,h3)(h_{1},h_{3}) are local minimum and h2h_{2} is a local maximum for BTZ(h)\mathcal{F}_{BTZ}(h). This can only happen if 𝒢(h)\mathcal{G}(h) has two positive turning points 0<h<h+,𝒢(h±)=00<h_{-}<h_{+},\;\mathcal{G}^{\prime}(h_{\pm})=0, of which hh_{-} is a local maximum and h+h_{+} is a local minimum for 𝒢(h)\mathcal{G}(h); and the positive temperature is between the two extrema: 𝒢(h+)<T<𝒢(h)\mathcal{G}(h_{+})<T<\mathcal{G}(h_{-}), see Fig. (1). This can be translated into the following conditions for (T,μ1,μ3)(T,\mu_{1},\mu_{3}):

μ3<0,   0<μ1<35μ32,max{0,𝒢(h+)}<T<𝒢(h)\displaystyle\mu_{3}<0,\;\;\;0<\mu_{1}<\frac{3}{5}\mu_{3}^{2},\;\;\;\text{max}\{0,\;\mathcal{G}(h_{+})\}<T<\mathcal{G}(h_{-})
h±=μ35(1±15μ13μ32)\displaystyle h_{\pm}=-\frac{\mu_{3}}{5}\left(1\pm\sqrt{1-\frac{5\mu_{1}}{3\mu_{3}^{2}}}\right) (47)

When the BTZ solutions at h1,3h_{1,3} are deformable, it is easy to see that both branches (h1,w1±)(h_{1},w^{\pm}_{1}) are p0p\to 0 limits; and (h3,w3±)(h_{3},w^{\pm}_{3}) are p1p\to 1 limits. Among the local minimum (h1,h3)(h_{1},h_{3}) of BTZ(h)\mathcal{F}_{BTZ}(h), only one of them corresponds to the global minimum and is likely to be thermodynamically stable.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: A GGE satisfying (2.4.1) has three positive roots (h1<h2<h3)(h_{1}<h_{2}<h_{3}).

2.4.2 Thermodynamic stabilities near BTZ

The perturbative expansion of various quantities in these limits can be computed. Let us label the one-zone solution and the corresponding GGE after solving (2.2) by {λ1,λ3,p,μ}\{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{3},p,\mu\}, the results at leading orders can be summarized below.

We first study the thermodynamic stability near the p0p\to 0 limit. In this limit, the deviations from the BTZ solutions are controlled by powers of pp. In particular, the KdV charges and the entropy density are given to the leading orders in pp by:

𝒬1\displaystyle\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle =\displaystyle= 4λ1+12p2(λ3λ1)\displaystyle 4\lambda_{1}+\frac{1}{2}p^{2}(\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{1})
𝒬3\displaystyle\langle\mathcal{Q}_{3}\rangle =\displaystyle= 16λ12+4p2(λ3λ1)(2λ3λ1)\displaystyle 16\lambda_{1}^{2}+4p^{2}(\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{1})(2\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{1})
𝒬5\displaystyle\langle\mathcal{Q}_{5}\rangle =\displaystyle= 64λ13+8p2(λ3λ1)(8λ324λ1λ3λ12)\displaystyle 64\lambda_{1}^{3}+8p^{2}(\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{1})(8\lambda_{3}^{2}-4\lambda_{1}\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{1}^{2}) (48)
u0\displaystyle\sqrt{u_{0}} =\displaystyle= 2λ1+p2λ1λ3λ18λ3\displaystyle 2\sqrt{\lambda_{1}}+p^{2}\sqrt{\lambda_{1}}\frac{\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{1}}{8\lambda_{3}} (49)

However we are more interested in the difference between the BTZ solution and the one-zone solution when the GGE is specified. In particular, we care about how the free energy changes when we deform a BTZ solution. In the zero-zone limit, the zone parameters can be solved perturbatively in terms of the GGE parameters according to (2.2), therefore the free energy difference can be obtained. We find that the difference δF=Fone-zoneFBTZ\delta F=F_{\text{one-zone}}-F_{\text{BTZ}} starts to show up in the order of p4p^{4}:

δF=p4h3(w~1)364w~(χ14w~)(60w~47χ1w~319χ1w~2+χ1(34χ14)w~+3χ12)\displaystyle\delta F=\frac{p^{4}h^{3}(\tilde{w}-1)^{3}}{64\tilde{w}(\chi_{1}-4\tilde{w})}\left(60\tilde{w}^{4}-7\chi_{1}\tilde{w}^{3}-19\chi_{1}\tilde{w}^{2}+\chi_{1}\left(\frac{3}{4}\chi_{1}-4\right)\tilde{w}+3\chi_{1}^{2}\right) (50)

where we have written the result in terms of (χ1,χ2)(\chi_{1},\chi_{2}) defined in (45) and w~=w/h\tilde{w}=w/h. Recall from (42) that for the BTZ parametrized by (h,T,μ3)(h,T,\mu_{3}) it has two branches:

w~±=(1+χ24)(1±14χ1(1+χ2)2)\tilde{w}^{\pm}=-\left(\frac{1+\chi_{2}}{4}\right)\left(1\pm\sqrt{1-\frac{4\chi_{1}}{(1+\chi_{2})^{2}}}\right) (51)

For the BTZ to be deformable consistently as the p0p\to 0 limit, the parameters (χ1,χ2)(\chi_{1},\chi_{2}) can only be in the window:

χ1>4,ζ~1<χ2<ζ~4\chi_{1}>4,\;\;\;\tilde{\zeta}_{1}<\chi_{2}<\tilde{\zeta}_{4} (52)

Within this range w~±\tilde{w}^{\pm} are constrained to vary in the intervals:

1<w~<χ12<w~+<χ141<\tilde{w}^{-}<\frac{\sqrt{\chi_{1}}}{2}<\tilde{w}^{+}<\frac{\chi_{1}}{4} (53)

One can check that at fixed χ1>4\chi_{1}>4, the free energy cost δF\delta F as a function of w~\tilde{w} satisfies:

δF(χ14)>0,δF(χ12)<0,δF(1)>0\delta F\left(\frac{\chi_{1}}{4}\right)>0,\;\;\delta F\left(\frac{\sqrt{\chi_{1}}}{2}\right)<0,\;\;\delta F(1)>0 (54)

This implies that for both branches w±w^{\pm}, there must be a phase transition regarding the sign of δF\delta F within the range (52). More specifically, the branches w±w^{\pm} are thermodynamically unstable against nearby one-zone black holes for (y±<χ2<ζ~4)\left(y_{\pm}<\chi_{2}<\tilde{\zeta}_{4}\right); and are stable for (ζ~1<χ2<y±)\left(\tilde{\zeta}_{1}<\chi_{2}<y_{\pm}\right). The threshold values y±y_{\pm} are the roots of the following equations:

1±14χ1(1+y±)2=60χ1(y±+1)2+2χ12(7y±85)(y±+1)(30(1+y±)310χ12χ1(75+84y±7y±2))1\pm\sqrt{1-\frac{4\chi_{1}}{(1+y_{\pm})^{2}}}=\frac{60\chi_{1}(y_{\pm}+1)^{2}+2\chi_{1}^{2}(7y_{\pm}-85)}{(y_{\pm}+1)\left(30(1+y_{\pm})^{3}-10\chi_{1}^{2}-\chi_{1}(75+84y_{\pm}-7y_{\pm}^{2})\right)}

that are constrained to lie in:

ζ~1<y±<ζ~4\tilde{\zeta}_{1}<y_{\pm}<\tilde{\zeta}_{4} (55)

They are guaranteed to exist due to (54).

Next we look at the p1p\to 1 limit. It turns out in this limit, the leading order deviations from the BTZ solution are controlled by Λ11\Lambda^{-1}\ll 1, where:

Λ=ln(1p16)1\Lambda=-\ln{\left(\frac{1-p}{16}\right)}\gg 1 (56)

The KdV charges and entropy density are given to the leading order in Λ1\Lambda^{-1} by:

𝒬1\displaystyle\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle =\displaystyle= 4λ316Λ(λ3λ1)\displaystyle 4\lambda_{3}-\frac{16}{\Lambda}(\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{1})
𝒬3\displaystyle\langle\mathcal{Q}_{3}\rangle =\displaystyle= 16λ321283Λ(λ3λ1)(2λ1+λ3)\displaystyle 16\lambda_{3}^{2}-\frac{128}{3\Lambda}(\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{1})(2\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{3})
𝒬5\displaystyle\langle\mathcal{Q}_{5}\rangle =\displaystyle= 64λ332565Λ(λ3λ1)(3λ32+4λ1λ3+8λ12)\displaystyle 64\lambda_{3}^{3}-\frac{256}{5\Lambda}(\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{1})(3\lambda_{3}^{2}+4\lambda_{1}\lambda_{3}+8\lambda_{1}^{2}) (57)
u0\displaystyle\sqrt{u_{0}} =\displaystyle= 2λ34Λλ3λ1tanh1(1λ1λ3)\displaystyle 2\sqrt{\lambda_{3}}-\frac{4}{\Lambda}\sqrt{\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{1}}\tanh^{-1}\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{3}}}\right) (58)

Similarly, after specifying the GGE the difference of the free energy is

δF\displaystyle\delta F =\displaystyle= 8h3Λ[(1w~15w~)(8w~316w~2+(810χ1)w~5χ1)+χ11w~\displaystyle\frac{8h^{3}}{\Lambda}\Big{[}\left(\frac{1-\tilde{w}}{15\tilde{w}}\right)\left(8\tilde{w}^{3}-16\tilde{w}^{2}+(8-10\chi_{1})\tilde{w}-5\chi_{1}\right)+\chi_{1}\sqrt{1-\tilde{w}} (59)
×\displaystyle\times tanh1(1w~)]\displaystyle\tanh^{-1}\left(\sqrt{1-\tilde{w}}\right)\Big{]}

The BTZ is deformable consistently as the p=1p=1 limit of one-zone black holes if the parameters satisfy :

χ1<4,max{21,χ14}<w~<χ12<w~+<1\chi_{1}<4,\;\;\;\text{max}\left\{\sqrt{2}-1,\;\frac{\chi_{1}}{4}\right\}<\tilde{w}^{-}<\frac{\sqrt{\chi_{1}}}{2}<\tilde{w}^{+}<1 (60)

It can be verified that in this range, the branch w+w^{+} is always thermodynamically stable, i.e. featuring a positive definite free energy cost δF>0\delta F>0 to nearby one-zone black holes. However the branch w~\tilde{w}^{-}, when exists, contains a phase transition – it becomes thermodynamically unstable for χ2<y\chi_{2}<y. The threshold value yy is the single root of (59) for χ2\chi_{2} through its dependence from plugging ww^{-} in (51).

2.4.3 Ensembles at fixed KdV charges: micro-canonical and mixed

As mentioned in the introduction, it is the micro-canonical ensemble whose KdV charges are fixed that is the most closely related to ETH in 2d CFTs. There are infinitely many KdV charges that one can fix in principle, in this paper we discuss fixing only a finite number. The simplest such ensemble is the those fixing only 𝒬1\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle and 𝒬3\langle\mathcal{Q}_{3}\rangle:

ρq1,q3micro=𝒩1P^q1,q3\rho^{micro}_{q_{1},q_{3}}=\mathcal{N}^{-1}\hat{P}_{q_{1},q_{3}} (61)

where P^q1,q3\hat{P}_{q_{1},q_{3}} denotes the projector into the Hilbert sub-space with the prescribed KdV charges:

𝒬1=q1,𝒬3=q3\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle=q_{1},\;\;\langle\mathcal{Q}_{3}\rangle=q_{3} (62)

The first question one naturally asks about the micro-canonical ensemble ρq1,q3micro\rho^{micro}_{q_{1},q_{3}} is whether it has a well-defined bulk dual description. Abstractly, ρq1,q2micro\rho^{micro}_{q_{1},q_{2}} is related to ρμ1,μ3\rho_{\mu_{1},\mu_{3}} by an inverse Laplace transform:

ρq1,q3micro\displaystyle\rho^{micro}_{q_{1},q_{3}} =\displaystyle= Γ1𝑑μ1Γ3𝑑μ3eμ1q1+μ3q3ρμ1,μ3\displaystyle\oint_{\Gamma_{1}}d\mu_{1}\oint_{\Gamma_{3}}d\mu_{3}\;e^{\mu_{1}q_{1}+\mu_{3}q_{3}}\rho_{\mu_{1},\mu_{3}}
ρμ1,μ3\displaystyle\rho_{\mu_{1},\mu_{3}} =\displaystyle= 𝒩1eμ~1Q^1μ3~Q^3\displaystyle\mathcal{N}^{-1}e^{-\tilde{\mu}_{1}\hat{Q}_{1}-\tilde{\mu_{3}}\hat{Q}_{3}} (63)

where Γ1,3\Gamma_{1,3} are the corresponding Bromwich contours for μ1,3\mu_{1,3}. In the thermodynamic limit, the inverse Laplace transform can proceed by simply finding the saddle-points for μ1,3\mu_{1,3}. In physical terms this means finding a particular (μ1,3)(\mu^{*}_{1,3}) whose KdV charges 𝒬1\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle and 𝒬3\langle\mathcal{Q}_{3}\rangle match with their prescribed values (q1,q3)(q_{1},q_{3}). In the context of AdS3/CFT2\text{AdS}_{3}/\text{CFT}_{2}, its bulk dual will be a black hole solution at chemical potentials μ1,μ3\mu^{*}_{1},\mu^{*}_{3} giving the corresponding KdV charges. For generic values of q3q12q_{3}\neq q_{1}^{2}, they have to be one-zone black holes. However, at two chemical potentials (μ1,μ3)(\mu_{1},\mu_{3}) only the BTZ black holes are physical Euclidean saddles of the GGE. One therefore infers that at generic fixed KdV charges q3q12q_{3}\neq q_{1}^{2}, the micro-canonical ensembles do not admit well-defined bulk duals.

We have studied one-zone black holes in the GGEs (129) featuring three chemical potentials, in which they exhibit well-defined thermodynamic properties. Motivated by this, we can consider more general forms of ensembles with fixed 𝒬1\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle and 𝒬3\langle\mathcal{Q}_{3}\rangle. For example, we can consider the following ensembles:

ρq1,q3β=𝒩1P^q1,q3eβQ^5\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}}=\mathcal{N}^{-1}\hat{P}_{q_{1},q_{3}}\;e^{-\beta\hat{Q}_{5}} (64)

They describe a non-uniform distribution in the micro-canonical shell of KdV charges (q1,q3)(q_{1},q_{3}), the statistical weight is decorated by a temperature associated with 𝒬5\langle\mathcal{Q}_{5}\rangle. We refer to them as the mixed ensembles in this paper. They can be obtained from the GGE (129) via a similar Laplace transform:

ρq1,q3β\displaystyle\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}} =\displaystyle= Γ1𝑑μ1Γ3𝑑μ3eμ1q1+μ3q3ρβ,μ1,μ3\displaystyle\oint_{\Gamma_{1}}d\mu_{1}\oint_{\Gamma_{3}}d\mu_{3}\;e^{\mu_{1}q_{1}+\mu_{3}q_{3}}\rho_{\beta,\mu_{1},\mu_{3}}
ρβ,μ1,μ3\displaystyle\rho_{\beta,\mu_{1},\mu_{3}} =\displaystyle= 𝒩1eμ~1Q^1μ3~Q^3βQ^5\displaystyle\mathcal{N}^{-1}e^{-\tilde{\mu}_{1}\hat{Q}_{1}-\tilde{\mu_{3}}\hat{Q}_{3}-\beta\hat{Q}_{5}} (65)

Similarly, in the thermodynamic limit this is given via the saddle-point approximation by a black hole solution in the GGEs (129) whose first two KdV charges coincide with the prescribed values (q1,q3)(q_{1},q_{3}). This requirement does not uniquely fix the black hole solution. To determine the equilibrium configuration of ρq1,q3β\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}}, we need to find the black hole solution that minimizes the free energy:

Fq1,q3β𝒬5TSF^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}}\propto\mathcal{Q}_{5}-TS (66)

For the GGEs (129) the most generic black holes are two-zone solutions. In this paper, we focus on the one-zone sector. We assume that the two-zone black holes tend to cost higher free energies, though this should be checked more rigorously in future investigations.

Eliminating two of the three zone parameters (λ1λ2λ3)(\lambda_{1}\leq\lambda_{2}\leq\lambda_{3}) using the constraint on the fixed KdV charges (62), there is one free parameter remain. We take it to be p=λ3λ2λ3λ1p=\frac{\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{2}}{\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{1}}, which then parametrizes the micro-canonical shell of one-zone black holes. For each fixed pp there are two branches of solutions for the zone-parameters satisfying (62). Only one of them corresponds to zone parameters that are likely to be physical:

λ1=q14+3(q3q12)((p2)K(p)+2E(p))8(p1)K(p)22(p2)K(p)E(p)3E(p)2\displaystyle\lambda_{1}=\frac{q_{1}}{4}+\frac{\sqrt{3(q_{3}-q_{1}^{2})}\left((p-2)K(p)+2E(p)\right)}{8\sqrt{(p-1)K(p)^{2}-2(p-2)K(p)E(p)-3E(p)^{2}}}
λ3=q14+3(q3q12)((p1)K(p)+2E(p))8(p1)K(p)22(p2)K(p)E(p)3E(p)2\displaystyle\lambda_{3}=\frac{q_{1}}{4}+\frac{\sqrt{3(q_{3}-q_{1}^{2})}\left((p-1)K(p)+2E(p)\right)}{8\sqrt{(p-1)K(p)^{2}-2(p-2)K(p)E(p)-3E(p)^{2}}}
λ2=(1p)λ3+pλ1\displaystyle\lambda_{2}=(1-p)\lambda_{3}+p\lambda_{1} (67)

It can be checked from (2.4.3) that λ2,λ3+\lambda_{2},\lambda_{3}\to+\infty in the p0p\to 0 limit; while λ1,λ2\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}\to-\infty in the p1p\to 1 limit. The latter limit does not give physical one-zone black holes. It is therefore important to find the range of pp parametrizing the physical one-zone black holes satisfying (62). To this end, we plug the zone parameters (2.4.3) as functions of pp in the smoothness and physical conditions (2.3) and derive the bound on pp. It turns out that the tightest bound comes from the last condition of (2.3), which prohibits naked singularities in the one-zone black hole geometry:

λ1λ2+λ1λ3+λ2λ3λ32>0\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}+\lambda_{1}\lambda_{3}+\lambda_{2}\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{3}^{2}>0 (68)

This imposes the following bound on the allowed range of pp

0pp+0\leq p\leq p_{+} (69)

The upper bound p+p_{+} is the solution of a transcendental equation, and depends on the fixed KdV charges (q1,q3)(q_{1},q_{3}). For the purpose of latter discussions, we are interested in the following limit 222This is slightly different from the parameter ϵ=q3/q121\epsilon=q_{3}/q_{1}^{2}-1 defined in KdVETHgeneral .:

ϵ=1q1q3q121\epsilon=\frac{1}{q_{1}}\sqrt{q_{3}-q_{1}^{2}}\ll 1 (70)

In this limit, we can compute the leading order result for p+p_{+}:

p+=116exp(Λ+),Λ+=32(322)3ϵ2p_{+}=1-16\exp(-\Lambda_{+}),\quad\Lambda_{+}=\frac{32(3-2\sqrt{2})}{3\epsilon^{2}} (71)

Now we can discuss the thermodynamics of the mixed ensembles ρq1,q3β\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}} based on the allowed one-zone black holes (2.4.3) in the range (69). For a fixed temperature T=1/βT=1/\beta, the equilibrium configuration corresponds to the particular one-zone black hole parametrized by pTp_{T}^{*}, which minimizes the free energy (66):

Fq1,q3βp|pT=(𝒬5pTSp)|pT=0\frac{\partial F^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}}}{\partial p}\Big{|}_{p^{*}_{T}}=\left(\frac{\partial\mathcal{Q}_{5}}{\partial p}-T\frac{\partial S}{\partial p}\right)\Big{|}_{p^{*}_{T}}=0 (72)

Next we discuss the equilibrium value pTp^{*}_{T} as a function of the temperature TT. It can be checked that SS is maximized to be:

Sπq12GNS\to\frac{\pi\sqrt{q_{1}}}{2G_{N}} (73)

in the p0p\to 0 limit. On the other hand, 𝒬5\mathcal{Q}_{5}\to\infty in the same limit. Such an interplay between the two terms in Fq1,q3βF^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}} implies that the equilibrium pTp^{*}_{T} admis a high temperature expansion near pT=0p^{*}_{T}=0. At the leading order, it can be computed in terms of the rescaled temperature χ1=πT/q15/2\chi_{1}=\pi T/q_{1}^{5/2} by:

pT=ϵ8χ1+χ1ϵ2p^{*}_{T}=\epsilon\sqrt{\frac{8}{\chi_{1}}}+...\;\;\;\chi_{1}\gg\epsilon^{2} (74)

From this result, we can also obtain a corresponding high temperature expansion of the thermodynamic entropy S=πu0/2GNS=\pi\sqrt{u_{0}}/2G_{N} for the mixed ensemble ρq1,q3β\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}}, where:

u0=q1(1ϵ24χ1+)\sqrt{u_{0}}=\sqrt{q_{1}}\left(1-\frac{\epsilon^{2}}{4\sqrt{\chi_{1}}}+...\right) (75)

It is interesting to take the infinite temperature limit Tχ1T\propto\chi_{1}\to\infty. Doing this recovers the microcanonical ensemble at fixed (q1,q3)(q_{1},q_{3}). We discover that the entropy reduces to that of the ordinary microcanonical ensemble at fixed q1q_{1} at the leading order in GNG_{N}:

Smicro(q1,q3)=πq12GN+S_{micro}(q_{1},q_{3})=\frac{\pi\sqrt{q_{1}}}{2G_{N}}+... (76)

We clarify some subtleties here. In taking TT\to\infty, the equilibrium bulk configuration approaches the p0p\to 0 limit of one-zone black holes, which signals the degeneration into a BTZ black hole. On the other hand, the KdV charges of the BTZ black holes at the leading order in 1/c always satisfy: q3=q12ϵ=0q_{3}=q_{1}^{2}\to\epsilon=0. This is in contradiction with the charges we are fixing in ρq1,q3micro\rho^{micro}_{q_{1},q_{3}}. What happened is that at finite ϵ\epsilon, the limit p0p\to 0 also drives two of the zone-parameters to diverge:

λ2,λ3q1ϵ28p.\lambda_{2},\lambda_{3}\sim q_{1}\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon^{2}}{8p}}\to\infty. (77)

The result seems to suggest that despite not having a Euclidean bulk dual, the micro-canonical ensemble at fixed (q1,q3>q12)(q_{1},q_{3}>q_{1}^{2}) can be interpreted as a BTZ black hole decorated with a macroscopic condensation of bulk “hair” that accommodates the surplus Q3Q_{3} charges. In the companion paper KdVETHgeneral , similar results regarding the micro-canonical entropy at fixed (q1,q3)(q_{1},q_{3}) at large cc are also obtained using more general approaches.

As the temperature lowers, the equilibrium value pTp^{*}_{T} increases. It is found that pTp^{*}_{T} increases monotonously as χ1\chi_{1} decreases. There is then a threshold temperature T0T_{0} below which the equilibrium pTp^{*}_{T} is outside the range (69), it is marked by:

pT0=p+p^{*}_{T_{0}}=p_{+} (78)

In the limit ϵ1\epsilon\ll 1, the rescaled threshold temperature is given by an order 1 constant to the leading order:

χ1=πT0q15/2=32584125(210+2+3log[1+2222+2])𝒪(1)\chi^{-}_{1}=\frac{\pi T_{0}}{q_{1}^{5/2}}=\frac{32\sqrt{58-41\sqrt{2}}}{5(2\sqrt{10+\sqrt{2}}+3\log[1+2\sqrt{2}-2\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2}}])}\sim\mathcal{O}(1) (79)

We interpret this bond as follows. For χ1<χ1\chi_{1}<\chi^{-}_{1} the mixed ensembles ρq1,q3β\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}} does not have a well-defined gravity dual – at least not described by a one-zone black hole. It is also found that the thermodynamic entropy SS decreases monotonously with increasing pp in the range (69). We can therefore deduce that at fixed (q1,q3)(q_{1},q_{3}), there is a minimum thermodynamic entropy Smin=πu0min/2GNS^{\text{min}}=\pi\sqrt{u^{\text{min}}_{0}}/2G_{N} that a one-zone black hole in the micro-canonical shell can have. It is reached at the threshold temperature χ1\chi^{-}_{1}. In the limit ϵ1\epsilon\ll 1, the minimum entropy can be computed to the leading order in ϵ\epsilon as:

u0min=q1(1Bϵ2+..)\sqrt{u_{0}^{\text{min}}}=\sqrt{q_{1}}\left(1-B\epsilon^{2}+..\right) (80)

where the constant coefficient BB is given by:

B=316(3+22)(2+2+22tanh1[22])B=\frac{3}{16}\left(3+2\sqrt{2}\right)\left(-2+\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}}\tanh^{-1}\left[\sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}}\right]\right) (81)

We clarify that u0minu^{\text{min}}_{0} does not necessarily give the minimum thermodynamic entropy that ρq1,q3β\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}} can have. For χ1<χ1\chi_{1}<\chi^{-}_{1}, the mixed ensemble is not described by a one-zone black hole, computing its thermodynamic entropy is therefore beyond the current scope.

3 Renyi entropies from the gluing construction

We now proceed to the computation of holographic Renyi entropies. We are interested in the case of the entangling sub-region AA being a large interval on a circle, and the state ρ\rho being an ensemble at fixed KdV charges. For the purpose of being self-contained, we first quickly recall some ingredients of the computation in a more general context.

3.1 Review: cosmic-brane backreaction

The Renyi entropy is defined as:

Snψ(A)=11nlnTrρAn,ρA=TrA¯ρψS^{\psi}_{n}(A)=\frac{1}{1-n}\ln{\text{Tr}\rho^{n}_{A}},\;\;\rho_{A}=\text{Tr}_{\bar{A}}\rho^{\psi} (82)

Through AdS/CFT, we need to perform a bulk computation of the boundary partition function defined on a branched manifold ΣAn\Sigma^{n}_{A} glued across the sub-region AA, which specifies the boundary condition for the bulk:

ZCFT(ΣAn)=TrρAn=Zgrav(ΣAn)Z_{CFT}(\Sigma^{n}_{A})=\text{Tr}\rho^{n}_{A}=Z_{grav}(\Sigma^{n}_{A}) (83)

To compute Zgrav(ΣAn)Z_{grav}(\Sigma^{n}_{A}) one then looks for a particular bulk saddle n\mathcal{B}^{n} such that:

n=ΣAn\partial\mathcal{B}^{n}=\Sigma^{n}_{A} (84)

In addition, the asymptotic boundary conditions for the bulk fields are specified by replicating nn times those of the state ψ\psi, viewed as the bulk dual. The bulk path-integral thus enjoys a n\mathds{Z}_{n} replica symmetry in terms of the boundary conditions, If such a symmetry is inherited by the leading saddle n\mathcal{B}_{n}, we can consider its quotient geometry: ~n=n/n\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{n}=\mathcal{B}_{n}/\mathds{Z}_{n}. The partition functions are simply related by a factor of nn:

Zgrav(n)=nZgrav(~n)Z_{grav}(\mathcal{B}_{n})=nZ_{grav}(\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{n}) (85)

The quotient geometry ~n\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{n} can be effectively obtained by inserting a co-dimension two defect Σn\Sigma_{n}, i.e. a cosmic-brane, into the bulk state ψ\psi and allow it to backreact Dong:2016 . The tension TnT_{n} of the cosmic brane is related to the Renyi index nn via:

Tn=n14nGNT_{n}=\frac{n-1}{4nG_{N}}\;\;\; (86)

In the limit n1n\to 1, the cosmic-brane becomes tensionless and simply finds the minimal area configuration in the original geometry, extracting the leading order in n1n-1 effect then gives the RT formula.

To actually compute the Renyi entropy from the glued solution, it is more convenient to first compute the intermediate quantity called the refined Renyi entropy Dong:2016 , defined by:

S~n(A)=n2n(n1nSn(A))=n2n(1nlnTrρAn)\tilde{S}_{n}(A)=n^{2}\partial_{n}\left(\frac{n-1}{n}S_{n}(A)\right)=-n^{2}\partial_{n}\left(\frac{1}{n}\ln{\text{Tr}\rho^{n}_{A}}\right) (87)

In holography, this quantity has the advantage of being computed directly by the area of the back-reacted cosmic brane:

S~n(A)=Area(ΣAn)|n4GN\tilde{S}_{n}(A)=\frac{\text{Area}(\Sigma^{n}_{A})|_{\mathcal{B}_{n}}}{4G_{N}} (88)

instead of the bulk partition function defined by n\mathcal{B}_{n}. From the refined Renyi entropy one can integrate w.r.t nn to recover the original Renyi entropy:

Sn(A)=nn11nS~n~(A)n~2𝑑n~S_{n}(A)=\frac{n}{n-1}\int^{n}_{1}\frac{\tilde{S}_{\tilde{n}}(A)}{\tilde{n}^{2}}d\tilde{n} (89)

3.2 High-density limit: the gluing construction

In general, using the cosmic-brane prescription to actually compute the Renyi entropies is a formidable task – one needs to solve for the fully backreacted geometry. Further compromise needs to be conceded in order to make progress, e.g. computing the perturbation expansion in small n1n-1 Dong:2016n1 ; Bianchi:2016n2 or short distance \ell for the subsystem interval BinChen:2013 ; BinChen:2016 ; Guo:2018 ; Lin:2016 . The difficult part lies in having to deal with the interplay between cosmic-brane backreaction in the bulk and the asymptotic boundary condition related to the state specification. We are interested in the regime where the KdV charge densities are much larger than the appropriate powers of the inverse subsystem size LAL_{A}, which is a finite fraction ff of the total system size LL:

𝒬2k1h(hc)kLA12k,LA=fL\langle\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}\rangle_{h}\sim\left(\frac{h}{c}\right)^{k}L_{A}^{1-2k},\;\;L_{A}=fL (90)

On the other hand, we do not assume anything particular about the Renyi index nn. We call this the high charge density limit for the KdV charges. The holographic Renyi entropy in the similar limit of the energy micro-canonical ensemble was considered in Dong:2018 , in which a back-reacted solution B~n\tilde{B}_{n} was constructed explicitly using a gluing procedure. We shall follow a similar procedure in constructing the back-reacted solution.

The main idea underlying the gluing construction in Dong:2018 comes from the following considerations. For simplicity we consider the case of AdS3/CFT2 as in this paper, although the construction in Dong:2018 works in general dimensions. In the high energy density limit, the Euclidean geometry of the black hole solution fills the asymptotic boundary that is torus whose contractible thermal circle β\beta is much smaller than the non-contractable spatial circle of length LL. Upon inserting a cosmic-string ending on the end points A\partial A of a finite interval LA=fLL_{A}=fL, the back-reaction will equilibrate away from the end points, i.e. producing local geometry well approximated by that of a global black hole solution. If we choose to neglect the details near A\partial A, the full geometry can be approximated as two segments of black hole solutions, one along AA and the other along A¯\bar{A}, glued together at the junction A\partial A subject to some matching condition, see figure 2.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: An illustration for glued solution

The matching condition reflects the effect of the cosmic-string insertion, or equivalently the smoothness condition of the bulk saddle n\mathcal{B}_{n} before taking the quotient. By neglecting the details near the junction, only the global constraint that the thermal circle lengths in n\mathcal{B}_{n} must match across A\partial A remains, which in the back-reacted quotient geometry ~n\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{n} implies the following relation between the black hole temperatures βA,βA¯\beta_{A},\beta_{\bar{A}} of the two segments:

βA=nβA¯\beta_{A}=n\beta_{\bar{A}} (91)

We shall refer to this as the gluing condition. If we are interested in the canonical ensemble at fixed β\beta, the corresponding glued solution is directly given by:

βA=nβ,βA¯=β\beta_{A}=n\beta,\;\;\beta_{\bar{A}}=\beta (92)

On the other hand for the micro-canonical ensemble at fixed total energy EE, the glued solution is obtained by solving for β\beta in (92) via the additional matching condition:

fnβ+(1f)β=Ef\langle\mathcal{E}\rangle_{n\beta}+(1-f)\langle\mathcal{E}\rangle_{\beta}=E (93)

where β\langle\mathcal{E}\rangle_{\beta} is the energy expectation value, i.e. ADM mass of the black hole, at temperature β\beta. The matching condition (93) is basically imposing the asymptotic boundary condition encoding the original state:

ρψ=ρEmicro\rho^{\psi}=\rho^{micro}_{E} (94)

while including the cosmic-string backreaction βA=nβA¯\beta_{A}=n\beta_{\bar{A}}, simplified in the context of the gluing construction. In fact, the original holographic content has been so minimized that one expects the gluing and matching conditions (92, 93) apply to broader contexts featuring similar limits, see Grover:2017 for the case of chaotic energy eigenstates. In appendix (C) we supply additional arguments for (92, 93) based on finite dimensional intuitions. The argument there indeed reflects the agreement between the cosmic-brane proposal and the more general diagonal approximation used in the companion paper KdVETHgeneral , see also Dong:2023bfy for more discussions on this.

More quantitatively, by neglecting the details near the junction boundary A\partial A, one is essentially focusing only on the volume-dependence of the Renyi entropy, i.e. extracting the contribution that scales like:

Sn(A)LS_{n}(A)\propto L (95)

We should clarify that by volume-scaling it does not necessarily mean Sn(A)LAS_{n}(A)\propto L_{A} – there could be prefactor in (95) that depends non-linearly on ff. One can therefore summarize the validity of the gluing construction as follows: in the high charge density limit E1/LE\gg 1/L, the Renyi entropy of a finite fractional interval LA=fLL_{A}=fL is dominated by a contribution that scales with the total volume LL, and it is this contribution that can be captured by the gluing construction.

From the nn-dependent solution βn\beta_{n} of (93), the volume-scaling part of the refined entropy is simply given then by the partial horizon area from the segment of the black hole solution along AA.:

S~n(A)=fSth(nβn)\tilde{S}_{n}(A)=fS_{th}(n\beta_{n}) (96)

As was pointed out in Dong:2018 , the integration over nn for computing Sn(A)S_{n}(A) can in fact be done in the following closed form:

Sn(A)=fSth(nβn)+(1f)nSth(βn)nSth(β1)1nS_{n}(A)=\frac{fS_{th}(n\beta_{n})+(1-f)nS_{th}(\beta_{n})-nS_{th}(\beta_{1})}{1-n} (97)

This can be verified by first checking limn1[n1nSn(A)]=0\lim_{n\to 1}\left[\frac{n-1}{n}S_{n}(A)\right]=0 and then computing the following derivative in nn:

n[n1nSn(A)]=fsth(nβn)n2[fn(βSth)nβnn(nβn)+(1f)(βSth)βnnβn]\displaystyle\partial_{n}\left[\frac{n-1}{n}S_{n}(A)\right]=\frac{fs_{th}(n\beta_{n})}{n^{2}}-\left[\frac{f}{n}\left(\partial_{\beta}S_{th}\right)_{n\beta_{n}}\partial_{n}\left(n\beta_{n}\right)+(1-f)\left(\partial_{\beta}S_{th}\right)_{\beta_{n}}\partial_{n}\beta_{n}\right]

The terms inside the square bracket cancel by the thermodynamic relation:

1TddT=dSdTddβ=dSdβ1β\frac{1}{T}\frac{d\mathcal{E}}{dT}=\frac{dS}{dT}\to\frac{d\mathcal{E}}{d\beta}=\frac{dS}{d\beta}\frac{1}{\beta} (98)

in conjunction with the matching condition equation (93) for βn\beta_{n}. Therefore the following differential relation holds:

n[n1nSn(A)]=fsth(nβn)n2=S~n(A)n2\partial_{n}\left[\frac{n-1}{n}S_{n}(A)\right]=\frac{fs_{th}(n\beta_{n})}{n^{2}}=\frac{\tilde{S}_{n}(A)}{n^{2}} (99)

in accordance with Eq (89).

It may be worth discussing the range of the Renyi-index nn to which the gluing construction is applicable. To this end we perform the following rough estimate. In order for the gluing construction to be a good approximation, (n1)(n-1) also needs to be parametrically bounded from below. The effectiveness of the approximation requires the action contribution of the cosmic-brane to parametrically outweigh the corresponding bulk contribution from near the entangling surface A\partial A– the latter is neglected in the gluing construction. In very crude terms, this requires that:

(n21n)fSth(β)ζ\left(\frac{n^{2}-1}{n}\right)fS_{th}\gg\left(\beta\mathcal{E}\right)\zeta (100)

The left hand side represents the cosmic-brane effective action, and the right hand represents the bulk action within a characteristic length scale ζ\zeta near A\partial A. To be more explicit, we can make the following estimates:

Sth,β1/,ζβS_{th}\sim\sqrt{\mathcal{E}},\;\;\beta\sim 1/\sqrt{\mathcal{E}},\;\;\zeta\sim\beta (101)

Then (100) parametrically corresponds to requiring that:

n11/2n-1\gg\mathcal{E}^{-1/2} (102)

This lower bound is therefore invisible to us in the high density limit. The nature of this bound is conceptually similar to the requirement of (n1)1/c(n-1)\gg 1/c implicitly assumed in the cosmic-brane prescription – such that the classical action contribution from the cosmic-brane parametrically outweighs the quantum corrections that is neglected. It is worth mentioning that despite this subtlety, the limits of n1n\to 1 and cc\to\infty are usually assumed to be commuting in most holographic contexts. However, there are scenarios Akers:2020pmf ; Dong:2023xxe where they do not commute and the order of limits is indeed important.

3.3 Gluing construction at fixed KdV charges

Now we generalize the gluing construction to the context of ensembles at a finite number of fixed KdV charges. The goal is to compute the Renyi entropy in ensembles at fixed KdV charges 𝒬2k1=q2k1,k=1,,m\langle\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}\rangle=q_{2k-1},\;k=1,...,m, which we collective denote as {q}\{q\}:

Sn{q}(A)=11nlnTrρAn({q}),ρA({q})=TrA¯ρ{q}microS^{\{q\}}_{n}(A)=\frac{1}{1-n}\ln{\text{Tr}\rho^{n}_{A}(\{q\})},\;\;\;\rho_{A}(\{q\})=\text{Tr}_{\bar{A}}\rho^{micro}_{\{q\}} (103)

along a finite interval LA=fLL_{A}=fL. We begin with the micro-canonical ensemble at these KdV charges. By similar lines of argument, the gluing construction is an effective approximation in the large charge-density limit:

q2k1L12k,k=1,,mq_{2k-1}\gg L^{1-2k},\;\;k=1,...,m (104)

Given that q2k1q1kq_{2k-1}\geq q_{1}^{k}, this would follow if only the high energy density limit is fulfilled:

E=q1L1E=\langle q_{1}\rangle\gg L^{-1} (105)

Again we are only focusing the LL-scaling part of the result, i.e. ignoring contributions coming from the junction effects near A\partial A.

More specifically, we propose to construct the back-reacted geometry n\mathcal{B}_{n} computing Sn{q}(A)S^{\{q\}}_{n}(A) as follows. We glue two segments of black hole geometries long AA and A¯\bar{A} respectively. The segments are characterized by two sets of KdV chemical potentials {μA}\{\mu_{A}\} and {μA¯}\{\mu_{\bar{A}}\} – locally they are the black hole solutions describing the GGEs ekμ~A2k1Q^2k1e^{-\sum_{k}\tilde{\mu}_{A}^{2k-1}\hat{Q}_{2k-1}} and ekμ~A¯2k1Q^2k1e^{-\sum_{k}\tilde{\mu}_{\bar{A}}^{2k-1}\hat{Q}_{2k-1}} respectively. The natural gluing conditions to be imposed at the junction are:

μA2k1=nμA¯2k1=nμ2k1,k=1,,m\mu^{2k-1}_{A}=n\mu^{2k-1}_{\bar{A}}=n\mu^{2k-1},\;\;k=1,...,m (106)

while the asymptotic boundary conditions characterizing ρ{q}micro\rho^{micro}_{\{q\}} now impose additional matching conditions for each of the fixed KdV charges q2k1q_{2k-1}:

f𝒬2k1n{μ}+(1f)𝒬2k1{μ}=q2k1,k=1,,mf\langle\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}\rangle_{n\{\mu\}}+(1-f)\langle\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}\rangle_{\{\mu\}}=q_{2k-1},\;\;k=1,...,m (107)

where 𝒬2k1{μ}\langle\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}\rangle_{\{\mu\}} is the kk-th KdV charge density evaluated in the black solution describing ekμ~A2k1Q^2k1e^{-\sum_{k}\tilde{\mu}_{A}^{2k-1}\hat{Q}_{2k-1}}. From these we should solve for ({μn})(\{\mu_{n}\}), the refined and ordinary Renyi entropies are given analogously to (96, 97):

S~n{q}(A)\displaystyle\tilde{S}^{\{q\}}_{n}(A) =\displaystyle= fSth(n{μn})\displaystyle fS_{th}(n\{\mu_{n}\})
Sn{q}(A)\displaystyle S^{\{q\}}_{n}(A) =\displaystyle= fSth(n{μn})+(1f)nSth({μn})nSth({μ1})1n\displaystyle\frac{fS_{th}(n\{\mu_{n}\})+(1-f)nS_{th}(\{\mu_{n}\})-nS_{th}(\{\mu_{1}\})}{1-n} (108)

The integral over nn is done similarly by invoking the extended thermodynamic relations together with the matching conditions (107):

k=1mμ2k1d𝒬2k1dμ2j1=dSdμ2j1,j=1,,m\sum^{m}_{k=1}\mu^{2k-1}\frac{d\langle\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}\rangle}{d\mu^{2j-1}}=\frac{dS}{d\mu^{2j-1}},\;\;\;j=1,...,m (109)

So far the analysis has been a straightforward generalization of the computation for the ordinary micro-canonical ensemble in energy. Before we end the general discussion and turn to more concrete cases, let us clarify some subtleties that arises due to the nature of the KdV-charged black hole solutions.

Firstly, for GGEs with kk non-zero KdV chemical potentials, as discussed before the generic finite-zone black holes are labeled by k1k-1 free parameters. When carrying out the gluing construction, a glued solution is physical only when the black hole geometries along each of the segments AA and A¯\bar{A} are the dominant Euclidean saddle-points in the corresponding GGEs at (nβ,μ1,,μk)(n\beta,\mu_{1},...,\mu_{k}) and (β,μ1,,μk)(\beta,\mu_{1},...,\mu_{k}) respectively. Otherwise their charges do not represent the correct expectation values in the GGEs when satisfying matching conditions. However, it is beyond the scope of this work to fully identify the dominant Euclidean saddle-point systematically. For our purpose, we will for the most part confine the analysis to include only BTZ and one-zone black holes. We will refrain from including black hole solutions with more than two zones. Roughly speaking, black holes with a larger number of zones excite more oscillatory modes and thus tend to have higher energies, they are therefore less likely to be thermodynamically stable. These are intuitions subject to closer scrutiny, we leave them for future investigations.

Secondly, there may be cases where multiple glued solutions exist that are all physical in the sense just described, i.e. each consisting of segments from the dominant Euclidean saddle of the corresponding GGEs along AA and A¯\bar{A} respectively. They should then all be considered as quotients of legitimate Euclidean saddle-points for the partition function on the replica manifold that computes the Renyi entropy:

Z(ΣAn)=TrρAnZ(\Sigma^{n}_{A})=\text{Tr}\rho_{A}^{n} (110)

The glued solution to be identified as the dominant Euclidean saddle-point of Z(ΣAn)Z(\Sigma^{n}_{A}) should then be determined by minimizing the corresponding free energy, which in this case is proportional to the Renyi entropy Sn(A)S_{n}(A).

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 3: In a legitimate glued solution, each consisting of segments should come from the dominant Euclidean saddle of the corresponding GGEs along AA and A¯\bar{A} respectively.

Thirdly, as has been suggested in (106) by the index range, the glued solutions should be constructed using black holes segments from GGEs with only the first mm KdV chemical potentials {μ2k1,k=1,,m}\{\mu^{2k-1},k=1,...,m\} turned on. This is to be compatible with the underlying micro-canonical ensemble fixing the first mm total KdV charges:

ρ{q}micro=𝒩1P^{q}\rho^{micro}_{\{q\}}=\mathcal{N}^{-1}\hat{P}_{\{q\}} (111)

However, there may be cases where under such constraints it is impossible to find glued solutions that are valid saddle-points of the Renyi entropy computations in the sense just discussed. We can then choose to consider more general GGEs, i.e. those of the form with m>mm^{\prime}>m KdV chemical potentials turned on {μ2k1,k=1,,m}\{\mu^{2k-1},\;k=1,...,m^{\prime}\}. However, we shall interpret the additional chemical potentials {μ}={μ2k1,m<km}\{\mu^{\prime}\}=\{\mu^{2k-1},m<k\leq m^{\prime}\} as physical parameters, i.e. not to be solved from gluing/matching conditions. Accordingly the glued solutions constructed from these GGEs should be interpreted as saddle-points responsible for computing the Renyi entropies in the following ensembles:

ρ{q}{μ}=𝒩1P^{q}ek>mμ~2k1Q^2k1\rho^{\{\mu^{\prime}\}}_{\{q\}}=\mathcal{N}^{-1}\hat{P}_{\{q\}}e^{-\sum_{k>m}\tilde{\mu}^{2k-1}\hat{Q}_{2k-1}} (112)

Namely, in these ensembles the states within the micro-canonical shell labeled by {q}\{q\} do not contribute with equal weights as the micro-canonical ensemble does, but instead are weighted according to their higher KdV charges {𝒬2k1,m<km}\{\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1},\;m<k\leq m^{\prime}\}. These are the generalized form of the mixed ensemble considered in section (2.4.3). Related to this, the Renyi entropy formula (3.3) should be modified accordingly by replacing the thermodynamic quantities used:

SthSthk>mμ~2k1Q^2k1S_{th}\to S_{th}-\sum_{k>m}\tilde{\mu}^{2k-1}\hat{Q}_{2k-1} (113)

Lastly, generic finite-zone solutions are inhomogeneous, i.e. the classical stress energy field u(φ)u(\varphi) varies along the spatial circle. Such inhomogeneity may therefore add additional subtleties to the gluing construction, e.g. the location of the junction A\partial A inside each black hole segment may become relevant. Although most of the explicit gluing computations in later sections only concern the BTZ geometries, let us make some comments regarding this issue. We argue that in the limit of our interest, we can neglect such inhomogeneity and treat the KdV charge densities as homogeneously distributed along the spatial circle, i.e. the partial KdV charges along the segments are simply given by f𝒬2k1f\langle\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}\rangle and (1f)𝒬2k1(1-f)\langle\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}\rangle. There are two reasons for such an approximation. Firstly, in the high charge density limit a generic solution has its typical scale of density oscillation much smaller than the subsystem size. Therefore the details of density distribution reflecting the inhomogeneity is subleading to the limit we are interested. At a more fundamental level, in Dymarsky:2020 it was argued that the gravity dual of the CFT GGE, even at fixed zone parameters, does not correspond to an individual finite-zone solution, instead one should statistically average over the Jacobian manifold of the phase space related to the finite-zone solution. This includes in particular the images under translation. Upon averaging, the details related to the inhomogeneity are obliviated.

4 Holographic Renyi entropy at fixed 𝒬1\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle and 𝒬3\langle\mathcal{Q}_{3}\rangle

In this section, we apply the prescription in (3.3) to a concrete setting. We study in detail the ensembles fixing only the first two KdV charges:

𝒬1=q1,𝒬3=q3\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle=q_{1},\;\;\langle\mathcal{Q}_{3}\rangle=q_{3} (114)

In the high density limit we impose that q11,q31q_{1}\gg 1,\;q_{3}\gg 1. A glued solution consists of two segments of black hole solutions from a GGE with chemical potentials collectively denotes as μ={μ}\mu=\{\mu\}. The gluing/matching conditions combined take the form:

f𝒬1nβ,μ+(1f)𝒬1β,μ=q1\displaystyle f\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle_{n\beta,\mu}+(1-f)\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle_{\beta,\mu}=q_{1}
f𝒬3nβ,μ+(1f)𝒬3β,μ=q3\displaystyle f\langle\mathcal{Q}_{3}\rangle_{n\beta,\mu}+(1-f)\langle\mathcal{Q}_{3}\rangle_{\beta,\mu}=q_{3} (115)

We will consider the micro-canonical ensemble:

ρq1,q3micro=𝒩1P^q1,q3\rho^{micro}_{q_{1},q_{3}}=\mathcal{N}^{-1}\hat{P}_{q_{1},q_{3}} (116)

and will later extend to the mixed ensembles:

ρq1,q3β=𝒩1P^q1,q3eβQ^5\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}}=\mathcal{N}^{-1}\hat{P}_{q_{1},q_{3}}\;e^{-\beta\hat{Q}_{5}} (117)

4.1 Glued BTZ geometries

We begin with the computation in ρq1,q3micro\rho^{micro}_{q_{1},q_{3}}. The corresponding Renyi entropy Snq1,q3(A)S^{q_{1},q_{3}}_{n}(A) is then computed by constructing the glued solutions using GGEs of the form:

ρGGE(β,μ)=𝒩1eβ(Q^3+μ~Q^1)\rho_{GGE}(\beta,\mu)=\mathcal{N}^{-1}e^{-\beta\left(\hat{Q}_{3}+\tilde{\mu}\hat{Q}_{1}\right)} (118)

As has been discussed in section (2.2), these GGEs only have the BTZ black holes as stable Euclidean saddle-points, the one-zone black holes have negative temperatures. We therefore compute the glued-solutions using only BTZ black holes. When the black hole segments are both BTZs, their KdV charge densities satisfy:

𝒬3nβ,μ=𝒬1nβ,μ2=qA2,𝒬3β,μ=𝒬1β,μ2=qA¯2\langle\mathcal{Q}_{3}\rangle_{n\beta,\mu}=\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle^{2}_{n\beta,\mu}=q_{A}^{2},\;\;\langle\mathcal{Q}_{3}\rangle_{\beta,\mu}=\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle^{2}_{\beta,\mu}=q_{\bar{A}}^{2} (119)

In this case, (qA,qA¯)(q_{A},\;q_{\bar{A}}) can be solved from the matching conditions alone:

fqA+(1f)qA¯=q1,fqA2+(1f)qA¯2=q3fq_{A}+(1-f)q_{\bar{A}}=q_{1},\;\;fq_{A}^{2}+(1-f)q_{\bar{A}}^{2}=q_{3} (120)

They are explicitly given by:

qA±=q1(1/f1)1/2Δq3,qA¯±=q1±(1/f1)1/2Δq3q^{\pm}_{A}=q_{1}\mp\left(1/f-1\right)^{1/2}\sqrt{\Delta q_{3}},\;\;q^{\pm}_{\bar{A}}=q_{1}\pm\left(1/f-1\right)^{-1/2}\sqrt{\Delta q_{3}} (121)

where we have defined:

Δq3=q3q12>0\Delta q_{3}=q_{3}-q_{1}^{2}>0 (122)

We are interested in the effect of Δq3\Delta q_{3} that are visible in the high density limit, so we always assume that Δq3q121\Delta q_{3}\propto q_{1}^{2}\gg 1. There are two branches of glued BTZ solutions (121): the (+)(+) branch exists for Δq3/q12<(1/f1)1\Delta q_{3}/q_{1}^{2}<(1/f-1)^{-1}; the ()(-) branch exists for Δq3/q12<1/f1\Delta q_{3}/q_{1}^{2}<1/f-1. For each branch the KdV charges are nn-independent. The nn-dependence comes from the gluing conditions, and in this case they only determine the GGE parameters describing the BTZ geometries. They are fixed by requiring that:

qA=𝒬1nβn,μnBTZ,qA¯=𝒬1βn,μnBTZq_{A}=\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle^{BTZ}_{n\beta_{n},\mu_{n}},\;\;q_{\bar{A}}=\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle^{BTZ}_{\beta_{n},\mu_{n}} (123)

For BTZ geometries in (118) they become the following algebraic equations:

2πqA=nβn(2qA+μn),2πqB=βn(2qB+μn)\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{q_{A}}}=n\beta_{n}\left(2q_{A}+\mu_{n}\right),\;\;\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{q_{B}}}=\beta_{n}\left(2q_{B}+\mu_{n}\right) (124)

The solutions for (β,μ)(\beta,\mu) are given simply by:

βn=π(nqAqA¯)nqAqA¯(qA¯qA),μn=2nqA3/22qA¯3/2qA¯nqA\beta_{n}=\frac{\pi\left(n\sqrt{q_{A}}-\sqrt{q_{\bar{A}}}\right)}{n\sqrt{q_{A}q_{\bar{A}}}\left(q_{\bar{A}}-q_{A}\right)},\;\;\mu_{n}=\frac{2nq_{A}^{3/2}-2q^{3/2}_{\bar{A}}}{\sqrt{q_{\bar{A}}}-n\sqrt{q_{A}}} (125)

One can check that of the two branches in (121), only the qA,A¯+q^{+}_{A,\bar{A}} branch:

qA=q1(1/f1)1/2Δq3,qA¯=q1+(1/f1)1/2Δq3q_{A}=q_{1}-\left(1/f-1\right)^{1/2}\sqrt{\Delta q_{3}},\;\;q_{\bar{A}}=q_{1}+\left(1/f-1\right)^{-1/2}\sqrt{\Delta q_{3}} (126)

corresponds to BTZ segments with positive temperatures β>0\beta>0. From these 𝒬1\mathcal{Q}_{1} charges, one can directly obtain the Renyi entropies:

S~n(A)\displaystyle\tilde{S}_{n}(A) =\displaystyle= fπqA2GN\displaystyle\frac{f\pi\sqrt{q_{A}}}{2G_{N}}
Sn(A)\displaystyle S_{n}(A) =\displaystyle= πnqA2GN(n1)[u0qA(1f)qA¯qAfn]\displaystyle\frac{\pi n\sqrt{q_{A}}}{2G_{N}(n-1)}\left[\sqrt{\frac{u_{0}}{q_{A}}}-(1-f)\sqrt{\frac{q_{\bar{A}}}{q_{A}}}-\frac{f}{n}\right] (127)

where u0u_{0} is the thermal entropy of the original micro-canonical ensemble ρq1,q3micro\rho^{micro}_{q_{1},q_{3}}. An immediate problem with the glued BTZ solution (126, 125) is that the BTZ segments have positive temperatures only for nncn\geq n_{c}:

nc=qA¯/qAn_{c}=\sqrt{q_{\bar{A}}/q_{A}} (128)

For n<ncn<n_{c}, the BTZ segments are of negative temperatures, and thus (126, 125) ceases to be a valid saddle-point geometry of the cosmic-brane back-reaction. On the other hand, we know that for GGEs of the form (118) the only stable Euclidean saddle-point are the BTZ black holes. As a result, for n<ncn<n_{c} we run out of ingredients to construct a glued solution using well-defined black hole segments – the cosmic-brane back-reaction on ρq1,q2micro\rho^{micro}_{q_{1},q_{2}} no longer yields a well-defined bulk dual. We perceive this as a consequence of the fact discussed in section (2.4.3) that ρq1,q3micro\rho^{micro}_{q_{1},q_{3}} itself does not have well-defined bulk dual, which is revealed in the limit of diminishing back-reaction n1n\to 1. We remark that a phase transition at a critical Renyi index ncn_{c} precisely equal to (128) was also discovered in the companion paper KdVETHgeneral using more general approaches, but concerning a different class of ensembles.

As commented at the end of section (3.3), for lower n<ncn<n_{c} we could remedy the situation by considering glued solutions in more general ensembles. By doing this, the back-reacted solution is likely to have a well-defined gravity dual. The simplest choice is to add an additional chemical potential for Q^5\hat{Q}_{5}, which we view as the new temperature, and solve the gluing/matching equation by black holes in the GGEs:

ρ=𝒩1eβ,=Q^5+μ3Q^3+μ1Q^1\rho=\mathcal{N}^{-1}\;e^{-\beta\mathcal{H}},\;\;\mathcal{H}=\hat{Q}_{5}+\mu^{3}\hat{Q}_{3}+\mu^{1}\hat{Q}_{1} (129)

In section (2.4) we have studied in details the properties of the BTZ black holes in these GGEs. As a result of making this modification, we are now effectively computing the Renyi entropies in the mixed ensemble of the form studied in section (2.4.3):

ρq1,q3β=𝒩1P^q1,q3eβQ^5\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}}=\mathcal{N}^{-1}\hat{P}_{q_{1},q_{3}}\;e^{-\beta\hat{Q}_{5}} (130)

The glued BTZ solutions still consist of two branches of charge densities (121) – they come only from the matching conditions. The GGE parameters are solved by the gluing conditions in terms of the BTZ saddle-point equations in (129):

2πqA=nβ(3qA2+2μn3qA+μn1),2πqA¯=β(3qA¯2+2μn3qA¯+μn1)\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{q_{A}}}=n\beta\left(3q_{A}^{2}+2\mu^{3}_{n}q_{A}+\mu^{1}_{n}\right),\;\;\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{q_{\bar{A}}}}=\beta\left(3q_{\bar{A}}^{2}+2\mu^{3}_{n}q_{\bar{A}}+\mu^{1}_{n}\right) (131)

The temperature T=1/β>0T=1/\beta>0 is fixed as the physical parameter. In this case, both branches of (121) consists of BTZ segments with positive temperatures. We begin with the (+)(+) branch (126), and will discuss the other one subsequently. The remaining GGE parameters (μn3,μn1)(\mu^{3}_{n},\mu^{1}_{n}) can then be solved and are given by:

μn3\displaystyle\mu^{3}_{n} =\displaystyle= 2π(qA¯nqA)+3nqAqA¯(qA¯2qA2)β2nqAqA¯(qAqA¯)β\displaystyle\frac{2\pi\left(\sqrt{q_{\bar{A}}}-n\sqrt{q_{A}}\right)+3n\sqrt{q_{A}q_{\bar{A}}}\left(q_{\bar{A}}^{2}-q_{A}^{2}\right)\beta}{2n\sqrt{q_{A}q_{\bar{A}}}\left(q_{A}-q_{\bar{A}}\right)\beta}
μn1\displaystyle\mu^{1}_{n} =\displaystyle= 2π(nqA3/2qA¯3/2)+3n(qAqA¯)3/2(qAqA¯)βnqAqA¯(qAqA¯)β\displaystyle\frac{2\pi\left(nq^{3/2}_{A}-q^{3/2}_{\bar{A}}\right)+3n\left(q_{A}q_{\bar{A}}\right)^{3/2}\left(q_{A}-q_{\bar{A}}\right)\beta}{n\sqrt{q_{A}q_{\bar{A}}}\left(q_{A}-q_{\bar{A}}\right)\beta} (132)

Therefore at fixed β>0\beta>0, the glued BTZ solutions (126, 4.1) in the mixed ensemble (130) can stand as smooth bulk solutions to the gluing construction at any nn. The Renyi entropies from these glued solutions are given analogously by:

S~n(A)\displaystyle\tilde{S}_{n}(A) =\displaystyle= fπqA2GN\displaystyle\frac{f\pi\sqrt{q_{A}}}{2G_{N}}
Sn(A)\displaystyle S_{n}(A) =\displaystyle= πnqA2GN(n1)[u0qA(1f)qA¯qAfn]\displaystyle\frac{\pi n\sqrt{q_{A}}}{2G_{N}(n-1)}\left[\sqrt{\frac{u_{0}}{q_{A}}}-(1-f)\sqrt{\frac{q_{\bar{A}}}{q_{A}}}-\frac{f}{n}\right] (133)
\displaystyle- βn4GN(n1)[𝒬5(1f)qA¯3fqA3]\displaystyle\frac{\beta n}{4G_{N}(n-1)}\left[\mathcal{Q}_{5}-(1-f)q_{\bar{A}}^{3}-fq_{A}^{3}\right]

where we have invoked the substitution (112) for computing the Renyi entropy in the mixed ensembles, and (u0,𝒬5)(u_{0},\mathcal{Q}_{5}) are the entropy and 𝒬5\mathcal{Q}_{5} expectation value in the original ensemble ρq1,q3β\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}}. The next task is to investigate whether they correspond to the dominant Euclidean saddle of TrρAn\text{Tr}\rho_{A}^{n}, in which case (4.1) gives the correct Renyi entropies. The answer depends on the physical parameters, which in total include (q1,q3,n,β)(q_{1},q_{3},n,\beta). We will focus on a particular regime for q1q_{1} and q3q_{3} that we call the near-primary regime, to be introduced as follows.

4.2 Near-primary regime

As discussed in the introduction, our goal is to study ensembles that resemble the primary states. In terms of the fixed KdV charges (q1,q3)(q_{1},q_{3}), we are therefore interested in the cases where they approach to saturate the relation:

q3q12q_{3}\to q_{1}^{2} (134)

We emphasize that in doing this, we keep Δq3q121\Delta q_{3}\propto q_{1}^{2}\gg 1 visible in the high density limit, it is the ratio:

ϵ=Δq3/q1\epsilon=\sqrt{\Delta q_{3}}/q_{1} (135)

that we are sending to small values. Notice that if we send Δq3\Delta q_{3} itself to small values, but remain in the classical description, i.e. at the leading order in cc\to\infty, it describes the BTZ black holes. If we further enforce Q^3=Q^12\hat{Q}_{3}=\hat{Q}_{1}^{2} exactly on the quantum KdV charges, it describes primary states in the boundary CFTs. For this reason, we will take liberty to call the regime ϵ1\epsilon\ll 1 near-primary, even though Δq31\Delta q_{3}\gg 1.

From now on let us work in the near-primary regime and focus on the mixed ensemble ρq1,q3β\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}}. We are interested in the range of nn in which the glued BTZ solutions (126, 4.1) provide the dominant saddle-point for the computation of the Renyi entropy. The Renyi entropies are then given by (4.1). We remind that for the micro-canonical ensemble the range is simply given by:

n>nc=qA¯qA=1+ϵ2f(1f)+n>n_{c}=\sqrt{\frac{q_{\bar{A}}}{q_{A}}}=1+\frac{\epsilon}{2\sqrt{f(1-f)}}+... (136)

in the near-primary regime. As discussed at the end of section (3.3), an affirmative answer favoring the glued BTZ can be decomposed into two aspects: (i) it has to be a valid saddle-point in the sense discussed previously; (ii) when multiple saddle-points exist, it has to minimize the Renyi entropy against other possibilities.

4.2.1 Instability towards n1n\to 1

Recall that a glued solution is valid if both of the black hole geometries along AA and A¯\bar{A} are stable in the corresponding GGEs. For the glued BTZ solution (126, 4.1), this amounts to requiring that both BTZ segments along AA and A¯\bar{A} are thermodynamically stable in the GGE with parameters (nβ,μn3,μn1)(n\beta,\mu^{3}_{n},\mu^{1}_{n}) and (β,μn3,μn1)(\beta,\mu^{3}_{n},\mu^{1}_{n}) respectively. The answer to this question depends on the Renyi index nn through the GGE parameters. In what follows we analyze this question as nn is varied.

Let us first think in general about the n1n\to 1 limit of the glued BTZ solutions. It is clear that they cannot persist as good approximations to the back-reacted geometry. This is because that when the cosmic-brane tension vanishes as n1n\to 1, the bulk geometry of the original mixed ensemble should be recovered. It is studied in section (2.4.3), and among other properties it is homogeneous with respect to subregions. Therefore the distinction between the AA and A¯\bar{A} segments should diminish as n1n\to 1. It is clear that the glued BTZ solution fails to exhibit this, e.g. the charge density difference between AA and A¯\bar{A} remains fixed as one takes the limit n1n\to 1:

qA¯qA=Δq3f(1f)q_{\bar{A}}-q_{A}=\sqrt{\frac{\Delta q_{3}}{f(1-f)}} (137)

Related to this, it fails the expectation that in the n1n\to 1 limit S~n(A)\tilde{S}_{n}(A) should coincide with the von-Neumann entropy Svn(A)S_{vn}(A) of the original ensemble. In our case Svn(A)S_{vn}(A) is simply given by the fractional thermodynamical entropy computed in section (2.4.3):

limn1S~n(A)=fπqA2GNSvn(A)=fπu02GN\lim_{n\to 1}\tilde{S}_{n}(A)=\frac{f\pi\sqrt{q_{A}}}{2G_{N}}\neq S_{vn}(A)=\frac{f\pi\sqrt{u_{0}}}{2G_{N}} (138)

Because of this, sufficiently close to n=1n=1 the glued BTZ solution has to become unphysical and give ways to other forms of solutions, so as to be consistent with the above considerations. In other words, the BTZs along either of the segments AA and A¯\bar{A} has to become unstable in the corresponding GGEs.

We consider two types of instabilities. Firstly, it could become unstable due to additional BTZ solutions in the same GGE but has lower free energies, i.e. unstable via first order phase transitions, we will call these the first order instabilities. Secondly, the BTZ segment could become perturbatively unstable in free energies against nearby one-zone black holes, we will call these the second order instabilities for reasons to be discussed later. Both have been discussed in (2.4). It is worth pointing out that the first-order instability is guaranteed to be present at n=1n=1, where the BTZ segments along AA and A¯\bar{A} belong to the same GGE (β,μ13,μ11)(\beta,\mu^{3}_{1},\mu^{1}_{1}). As a result, the charge densities (h,h¯)=(qA,qA¯)(h,\bar{h})=(q_{A},q_{\bar{A}}) correspond to two distinct roots of the same saddle-point equation from extremizing BTZ(h)\mathcal{F}_{BTZ}(h):

2πh=β(3h2+2μ13h+μ11)\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{h}}=\beta\left(3h^{2}+2\mu^{3}_{1}h+\mu^{1}_{1}\right) (139)

It is impossible for both (h,h¯)(h,\bar{h}) to be the global minimum of the GGE. One of the them has to have higher free energy – either as a local maximum or as a meta-stable local minimum. This provides a “backup” channel of instability that prevents the glued BTZ solution from reaching all the way to n=1n=1, as expected.

Now we investigate in details the onset of the instabilities considered. The thermodynamic properties of the BTZ black hole segments along AA and A¯\bar{A} depend on the corresponding parameters (χ1,2A¯,χ1,2A)(\chi^{\bar{A}}_{1,2},\;\chi^{A}_{1,2}) defined in section (2.4). According to (4.1) they are given by:

χ1A\displaystyle\chi^{A}_{1} =\displaystyle= (πTnqA5/2),χ2A=(μn3qA)=2χ1A(ncn)+3nc(nc41)2nc(1nc2)\displaystyle\left(\frac{\pi T}{nq_{A}^{5/2}}\right),\;\;\chi^{A}_{2}=\left(\frac{\mu^{3}_{n}}{q_{A}}\right)=\frac{2\chi^{A}_{1}(n_{c}-n)+3n_{c}(n_{c}^{4}-1)}{2n_{c}(1-n_{c}^{2})}
χ1A¯\displaystyle\chi^{\bar{A}}_{1} =\displaystyle= (πTqA¯5/2),χ2A¯=(μn3qA¯)=2χ1A¯(ncn)+3n(1nc4)2n(nc21)\displaystyle\left(\frac{\pi T}{q_{\bar{A}}^{5/2}}\right),\;\;\chi^{\bar{A}}_{2}=\left(\frac{\mu^{3}_{n}}{q_{\bar{A}}}\right)=\frac{2\chi^{\bar{A}}_{1}(n_{c}-n)+3n\left(1-n_{c}^{-4}\right)}{2n\left(n_{c}^{-2}-1\right)} (140)

Let us recall some relevant discussions from the stability analysis in section (2.4). For our purpose, a BTZ segment, say along AA with 𝒬1\mathcal{Q}_{1} charge density hh, is perturbatively unstable against nearby one-zone black holes in the corresponding GGE if both its branches (h,w±)(h,w^{\pm}) are deformable and exhibit negative free energy cost δF<0\delta F<0, as computed in (54). When the BTZ is deformable as the p1p\to 1 limit of one-zone black holes, we have concluded that the w+w^{+} branch is always thermodynamically stable. In this case we can pick the w+w^{+} branch for the glued BTZ solution and avoid potential instabilities. Therefore the second order instabilities can only happen when the BTZ is deformable as the p0p\to 0 limit of one-zone black holes. This corresponds to when:

χ1>4,max{y±}<χ2<ζ~4=2χ11<0\chi_{1}>4,\;\;\;\text{max}\{y_{\pm}\}<\chi_{2}<\tilde{\zeta}_{4}=-2\sqrt{\chi_{1}}-1<0 (141)

where y±y_{\pm} are the threshold values determined by the roots of (2.4.2).

If any of the BTZ segments (4.2.1), say that along AA with 𝒬1\mathcal{Q}_{1} charge density hh, comes from a GGE satisfying (2.4.1), it becomes susceptible to the first order instability via bubble nucleation into another BTZ saddle-point with 𝒬1\mathcal{Q}_{1} charge density hh^{\prime} in the GGE that has lower free energy:

BTZ(h)>BTZ(h)\displaystyle\mathcal{F}_{BTZ}(h)>\mathcal{F}_{BTZ}(h^{\prime}) (142)

At generic values of nn, multiple types of instabilities in either BTZ segment may coexist. We are interested in the earliest onset of instability starting from sufficiently large nn, i.e. the maximum value of ncutn_{cut} at which some instability occurs in either BTZ segment (4.2.1). This value is very important because it provides a cut-off for nn below which we can no longer trust (4.1). As we will discuss later, it then reveals important entanglement properties underlying the ensemble ρq1,q3β\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}} across AA.

As nn is varied, χ1χ1A¯\chi_{1}\equiv\chi^{\bar{A}}_{1} is fixed, and we treat it as representing the temperature TT. In the near-primary limit nc1ϵ1n_{c}-1\sim\epsilon\ll 1, we can summarize the results regarding ncutn_{cut} as follows. The details of the analysis can be referred to in the appendix (D).

  • In the high temperature limit, ncutn_{cut} is dictated by the second order instability along the A¯\bar{A} segment and admits the following expansion in η=1/χ11/4\eta=1/\chi_{1}^{1/4}:

    ncut(χ1)=nc2(nc21)ncη2+9nc414nc2+52nc3η4+n_{cut}\left(\chi_{1}\right)=n_{c}-\frac{2(n_{c}^{2}-1)}{n_{c}}\eta^{2}+\frac{9n_{c}^{4}-14n_{c}^{2}+5}{2n_{c}^{3}}\eta^{4}+... (143)
  • In the low temperature regime, ncutn_{cut} is dictated by the first order instability along the AA segment, and there is a lower limit Δχ1\Delta\chi_{1} at which ncutn_{cut} diverges:

    ncut(χ1)=17nc414nc2+36nc62nc3(χ1Δχ1)+,Δχ1=(nc21)(3nc21)2n4\displaystyle n_{cut}\left(\chi_{1}\right)=\frac{17n_{c}^{4}-14n_{c}^{2}+3-6n_{c}^{6}}{2n_{c}^{3}\left(\chi_{1}-\Delta\chi_{1}\right)}+...,\;\;\;\Delta\chi_{1}=\frac{(n_{c}^{2}-1)(3n_{c}^{2}-1)}{2n^{4}} (144)

    For lower temperatures χ1Δχ1\chi_{1}\leq\Delta\chi_{1}, the glued BTZ solution becomes invalid for all n1n\geq 1.

  • There is an intermediate temperature χc\chi_{c}, at which the first order instabilities are absent along both segments for all n1n\geq 1, and ncutn_{cut} is given by the second order instability along AA:

    ncut(χc)=1+516(nc1)3+,χc=12nc4(1+nc)3\displaystyle n_{cut}(\chi_{c})=1+\frac{5}{16}\left(n_{c}-1\right)^{3}+...,\;\;\chi_{c}=\frac{1}{2}n_{c}^{-4}(1+n_{c})^{3} (145)

    This marks the closest to n=1n=1 that the lower cut-off ncutn_{cut} can get at fixed (q1,q3)(q_{1},q_{3}).

Refer to caption
Figure 4: The phase of ncut(χ1)n_{cut}(\chi_{1}) with nc=1.3n_{c}=1.3.The individual curves nA,A¯n_{A,\bar{A}} represent the second order instabilities along AA and A¯\bar{A} respectively; and nA,A¯n^{\prime}_{A,\bar{A}} represent the first order instabilities along AA and A¯\bar{A} respectively. The lower cut-off ncutn_{cut} is the maximum among these curves.

In terms of the small parameter ϵ\epsilon, we conclude that away from the low temperature gap χ1Δχ1ϵ\chi_{1}\gg\Delta\chi_{1}\sim\epsilon, ncutn_{cut} remains close to 1, i.e. ncut1nc1ϵn_{cut}-1\lesssim n_{c}-1\sim\epsilon; it approaches the closest to 1 with ncut1ϵ3n_{cut}-1\sim\epsilon^{3} at χ1=χc4\chi_{1}=\chi_{c}\approx 4. We illustrate these in figure (4), which shows the phases of ncut(χ1)n_{cut}(\chi_{1}) according to the numerically computed values of nA,A¯n_{A,\bar{A}} and nA,A¯n^{\prime}_{A,\bar{A}} for an explicit choice of nc=qA¯/qAn_{c}=\sqrt{q_{\bar{A}}/q_{A}}.

4.3 Other glued solutions

Having understood the range of validity for the glued BTZ solution (126,4.1), we address the remaining issue concerning its status as the dominant saddle-point for TrρAn\text{Tr}\rho_{A}^{n}. In practice, this amounts to asking whether there exist other glued solutions to the gluing/matching conditions yielding lower Renyi entropies. An obvious alternative glued solution is the other branch of (121):

qA=q1+(1/f1)1/2Δq3,qA¯=q1(1/f1)1/2Δq3q_{A}=q_{1}+\left(1/f-1\right)^{1/2}\sqrt{\Delta q_{3}},\;\;q_{\bar{A}}=q_{1}-\left(1/f-1\right)^{-1/2}\sqrt{\Delta q_{3}} (146)

For positive temperature β>0\beta>0, the remaining GGE parameters are still given by (4.1), but for this branch we have qA>qA¯q_{A}>q_{\bar{A}}. In the near-primary regime, after a careful analysis it is revealed that this branch can never be a valid saddle-point of TrρAn\text{Tr}\rho_{A}^{n}, despite having positive temperatures. More precisely, it can be checked that for n1n\geq 1 and qA>qA¯q_{A}>q_{\bar{A}}, the only possibility requires that h=qAh=q_{A} be a p=1p=1 limit BTZ in the GGE (nβ,μn3,μn1)(n\beta,\mu^{3}_{n},\mu^{1}_{n}); h¯=qA¯\bar{h}=q_{\bar{A}} be a p=0p=0 limit BTZ in the GGE (β,μn3,μn1)(\beta,\mu^{3}_{n},\mu^{1}_{n}); and both GGEs admit three BTZ solutions. Using the results of the BTZ phase diagram in section (2.4), one can then deduce that this is impossible.

We now discuss the possibility of glued solutions consisting of more general black hole segments, e.g. one-zone black holes. This requires that we solve the gluing/matching condition by assuming more general KdV charge relations representing one-zone black holes. It is a difficult but in principle doable computation. We will come back to this in the discussion section. For the moment let us observe that as nn decreases, for χ1>4\chi_{1}>4 the second-order instabilities are triggered as soon as the BTZ segments become deformable to nearby one-zone black holes; for χ1<4\chi_{1}<4 the first-order instabilities are triggered before the BTZ segments become deformable to nearby one-zone black holes. We therefore conclude that for n>ncutn>n_{cut}, the glued BTZ solution does not admit deformations to other glued solutions consisting of nearby one-zone black holes.

We conclude therefore that for n>ncutn>n_{cut}, the glued BTZ solution (126,4.1) is the only glued solution that is valid. We can therefore trust the Renyi entropies (4.1) for n>ncutn>n_{cut}. Admittedly, the perturbative analysis considers only nearby configurations when arguing for the thermodynamic stability of the BTZ segments and the absence of more general glued solutions. Intuitively, in the near-primary regime ϵ=q3q12/q11\epsilon=\sqrt{q_{3}-q_{1}^{2}}/q_{1}\ll 1 such considerations are likely to capture the full picture. We leave the task of non-perturbative analysis to the future. This is important for studying more general cases, e.g. ensembles with generic fixed KdV charges that are away from the near-primary regime.

4.4 Implications for the entanglement spectrum

Let us summarize the results in terms of the Renyi entropy. For ϵ=q3q12/q11\epsilon=\sqrt{q_{3}-q_{1}^{2}}/q_{1}\ll 1 and consider the micro-canonical and mixed ensemble of KdV charges:

ρq1,q3micro=P^q1,q3,ρq1,q3β=𝒩1eβQ^5P^q1,q3\rho^{micro}_{q_{1},q_{3}}=\hat{P}_{q_{1},q_{3}},\;\;\;\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}}=\mathcal{N}^{-1}e^{-\beta\hat{Q}_{5}}\;\hat{P}_{q_{1},q_{3}} (147)

The Renyi entropy Sn(A)S_{n}(A) is simply given by:

Sn(A)=π2GNfqA+π2GNn(1f)qA¯nSth1n,qA=q1(1ϵf11)S_{n}(A)=\frac{\frac{\pi}{2G_{N}}f\sqrt{q_{A}}+\frac{\pi}{2G_{N}}n(1-f)\sqrt{q_{\bar{A}}}-nS_{th}}{1-n},\;\;\;q_{A}=q_{1}\left(1-\epsilon\sqrt{f^{-1}-1}\right) (148)

This result is valid for Renyi indices n>ncutn>n_{cut}, where the lower cut-off ncut=qA¯/qAn_{cut}=\sqrt{q_{\bar{A}}/q_{A}} in ρq1,q3micro\rho^{micro}_{q_{1},q_{3}}, and depends on the rescaled temperature χ1=πT/qA¯5/2\chi_{1}=\pi T/q_{\bar{A}}^{5/2} according to the phases illustrated in figure (4) for ρq1,q3β\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}}. For n<ncutn<n_{cut}, the only knowledge is its value at n=1n=1, given by the von Neumann entropy:

S1(A)=SvN(A)=fSthS_{1}(A)=S_{vN}(A)=fS_{th} (149)

The interpolation from n=1n=1 to nncutn\geq n_{cut} depends on the resolutions of the instabilities discussed in section (4.2.1). They are beyond the scope of this work, and we leave its discussions to section (5).

Now we explore some implications. An important aspect of the entanglement properties regarding the reduced density matrix ρA=TrA¯ρq1,q3β\rho_{A}=\text{Tr}_{\bar{A}}\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}} is its entanglement spectral density g(λ)g(\lambda). It is related to the Renyi entropies via Laplace and inverse Laplace transformations:

TrρAn\displaystyle\text{Tr}\rho^{n}_{A} =\displaystyle= 𝑑λg(λ)enλ=e(n1)Sn(A),ρA=𝑑λeλ|λλ|\displaystyle\int d\lambda\;g(\lambda)e^{-n\lambda}=e^{-(n-1)S_{n}(A)},\;\;\rho_{A}=\int d\lambda\;e^{-\lambda}|\lambda\rangle\langle\lambda|
g(λ)\displaystyle g(\lambda) =\displaystyle= 12πiΓiΓ+i𝑑nenλe(1n)Sn(A)\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int^{\Gamma+i\infty}_{\Gamma-i\infty}dn^{\prime}\;e^{n^{\prime}\lambda}\;e^{(1-n^{\prime})S_{n^{\prime}}(A)} (150)

With only the partial knowledge of Sn(A)S_{n}(A) for n>ncutn>n_{cut}, it is difficult to perform the inverse Laplace transform explicitly. We instead aim at deducing features of the entanglement spectral density g(λ)g(\lambda) that could consistently reproduce the qualitative behaviors of the Renyi entropies. We focus on those that are relevant at ϵ1\epsilon\ll 1 for ρq1,q3micro\rho^{micro}_{q_{1},q_{3}} and the high temperature phase of ρq1,q3β\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}}:

  • As the Renyi-index nn varies between [1,][1,\infty], the value of the Renyi entropy is bounded by the asymptotic values in a window of width:

    ΔS=S1(A)S(A)ϵfSth\Delta S=S_{1}(A)-S_{\infty}(A)\propto\epsilon fS_{th} (151)

    The most prominent feature is that ΔS\Delta S shrinks with vanishing ϵ\epsilon.

  • The Renyi entropy approaches a constant, i.e. becomes independent of nn, for sufficiently large n1δncutn-1\gg\delta n_{cut}. The most prominent feature is that δncut\delta n_{cut} also shrinks with vanishing ϵ\epsilon, see Figure (5).

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 5: Left: general feature of the Renyi entropy Sn(A)S_{n}(A); right: general features of the entanglement spectral density g(λ)g(\lambda) implied by the left.

In order to be consistent with these features, we propose that the entanglement spectral density are characterized by a bounded support:

g(λ)={g(λ),fSthΔSλfSth+ΔS0,otherwiseg(\lambda)=\begin{cases}g(\lambda),\;\;fS_{th}-\Delta S\leq\lambda\leq fS_{th}+\Delta S\\ 0,\;\;\;\;\text{otherwise}\\ \end{cases} (152)

with vanishing densities towards the edges of the window, see Figure (5). Correspondingly, the most prominent feature is that the width of the spectral support coincides with ΔS\Delta S and thus also shrinks with vanishing ϵ\epsilon. In the appendix (E), we demonstrate this in a toy model expression of Sn(A)S_{n}(A) that exhibits similar features.

We end this section with the following comment. It is tempting to extrapolate this observation to the actual primary states with ϵ0\epsilon\to 0, towards which the entanglement spectral density collapse to a single delta functional peak:

g(λ)=eS0δ(λS0)g(\lambda)=e^{S_{0}}\delta(\lambda-S_{0}) (153)

and resulting in an nn-independent Renyi entropy for all n1n\geq 1:

Sn(A)=Svn(A),n1S_{n}(A)=S_{vn}(A),\;\;\;n\geq 1 (154)

In other words, the extrapolation to the primary states at ϵ0\epsilon\to 0 yields a flat entanglement spectrum. States whose entanglement properties exhibit this feature are important in understanding the backbones of AdS/CFT. For example, they characterize some tensor network models of holography TN1 ; TN2 ; they are also related to the so-called fixed area states that underly the effective configuration space of quantum gravity fixedarea1 ; fixedarea2 ; fixedarea3 .

5 Discussions

In the final section, we first summarize the main points of the paper. After that we discuss some remaining issues, along which potential outlooks for future investigations will be suggested.

5.1 Summary

In this paper, we discussed the computation of holographic Renyi entropies for ensembles with fixed KdV charges, and used the results to explore the underlying entanglement properties. This is relevant to the question of subsystem ETH in holographic 2d CFTs. The computation utilizes two ingredients: the cosmic-brane prescription, which is applicable to generic holographic states; and the gluing construction, which is an approximation scheme to solve the cosmic-brane back-reaction. The gluing construction was proposed in Dong:2018 , and we extended it to cases with fixed KdV charges. As an approximation scheme, it is effective when computing the Renyi entropies at the leading order in the high KdV charge density limit. This is the limit our computation focused on in this work.

To be explicit, we performed the computation on cases with the first two KdV charges fixed to 𝒬1=q1\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle=q_{1} and 𝒬3=q3>q12\langle\mathcal{Q}_{3}\rangle=q_{3}>q_{1}^{2}. We first considered the micro-canonical ensemble:

ρq1,q3micro=𝒩1P^q1,q3\rho^{micro}_{q_{1},q_{3}}=\mathcal{N}^{-1}\hat{P}_{q_{1},q_{3}} (155)

and subsequently extended to mixed ensembles decorated with a temperature β\beta for the next KdV charge 𝒬5\mathcal{Q}_{5}:

ρq1,q3β=𝒩1P^q1,q3eβQ^5\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}}=\mathcal{N}^{-1}\hat{P}_{q_{1},q_{3}}\;e^{-\beta\hat{Q}_{5}} (156)

The gluing construction involves finding segments of black hole geometries that solve a set of gluing/matching conditions. For our cases these black holes carry KdV charges in AdS3/CFT2\text{AdS}_{3}/\text{CFT}_{2}. They are described by the so-called finite-zone solutions, of which the BTZ black holes is a special class with zero-zone. We systematically surveyed the thermodynamic properties of the BTZ and one-zone black holes in the relevant ensembles. Based on the results, we focused on the glued-solutions in the near-primary regime between the fixed KdV charges:

ϵ=q3/q1211\epsilon=\sqrt{q_{3}/q_{1}^{2}-1}\ll 1 (157)

We found that for sufficiently large Renyi index n>ncutn>n_{cut}, the dominant glued solution takes the form of two segments of BTZ black holes of 𝒬1\mathcal{Q}_{1} charge densities:

qA=q1(1ϵf11),qA¯=q1(1+ϵf11)q_{A}=q_{1}\left(1-\epsilon\sqrt{f^{-1}-1}\right),\;\;q_{\bar{A}}=q_{1}\left(1+\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{f^{-1}-1}}\right) (158)

For n>ncutn>n_{cut}, the Renyi entropy Sn(A)S_{n}(A) is equal to:

Sn(A)=π2GNfqA+π2GNn(1f)qA¯nSth1nS_{n}(A)=\frac{\frac{\pi}{2G_{N}}f\sqrt{q_{A}}+\frac{\pi}{2G_{N}}n(1-f)\sqrt{q_{\bar{A}}}-nS_{th}}{1-n} (159)

This features an nn-independent refined Renyi entropy:

S~n(A)=fπqA2GN\tilde{S}_{n}(A)=\frac{f\pi\sqrt{q_{A}}}{2G_{N}} (160)

The lower cut-off ncutn_{cut} for the Renyi index corresponds to when the glued solution becomes unphysical. For the micro-canonical ensemble it is given by:

ncut=nc=qA¯qA=1+ϵ2f(1f)+n_{cut}=n_{c}=\sqrt{\frac{q_{\bar{A}}}{q_{A}}}=1+\frac{\epsilon}{2\sqrt{f(1-f)}}+... (161)

below which the BTZ segments have negative temperatures. For the mixed ensemble ncutn_{cut} depends on both ncn_{c} and the temperature through the combination χ1=πT/qA¯5/2\chi_{1}=\pi T/q_{\bar{A}}^{5/2}. It corresponds to when the BTZ segments become unstable in the corresponding GGE. We found that ncutn_{cut} is also close to 1, i.e. ncut1ϵn_{cut}-1\lesssim\epsilon, for sufficiently high temperatures satisfying χ1χc4\chi_{1}\gtrsim\chi_{c}\approx 4. The general features of the Renyi entropy imply that the underlying entanglement spectral density g(λ)g(\lambda) is characterized by a bounded support:

fSthΔSλfSth+ΔSfS_{th}-\Delta S\leq\lambda\leq fS_{th}+\Delta S (162)

The extrapolation to ϵ0\epsilon\to 0 then reveals a flat entanglement spectrum, which is reminiscent of the fixed-area states in AdS/CFT.

5.2 Primary states v.s. fixed-area states

The most prominent feature of the holographic Renyi entropy at fixed KdV charges (q1,q3)(q_{1},q_{3}) is the nn-independence of the refined Renyi entropy S~n(A)\tilde{S}_{n}(A) for n>ncutn>n_{cut}, where ncut1n_{cut}\to 1 in the ϵ0\epsilon\to 0 limit towards primary states. We can interpret this behavior as describing the restricted nature of the gravitational back-reaction in the bulk dual of the mixed ensemble (156), upon the insertion of cosmic-branes. It can be contrasted with that of ordinary BTZ black holes representing the micro-canonical ensembles. Intuitively the restriction is a result of the additional conservation law imposed on the KdV charges, which then affects the gravitational dynamics in AdS3/CFT2\text{AdS}_{3}/\text{CFT}_{2}.

Taking ϵ0\epsilon\to 0 then leads to a flat entanglement spectrum across any finite interval AA. The Renyi entropy Sn(A)S_{n}(A) is equal to the von-Neumann entropy for all n1n\geq 1. In these states, the insertion of cosmic-branes produces no effect on the minimal surface area. This is the defining character of the fixed-area states that encode super-selection sectors of the bulk configuration space fixedarea1 . In other words, the gravitational back-reaction is restricted to the maximal extent – it appears to be “frozen” in the ϵ0\epsilon\to 0 limit. One can understand this as follows. The saturation of q3q12q_{3}\geq q_{1}^{2} automatically implies the saturation of infinitely many relations q2k1q1kq_{2k-1}\geq q_{1}^{k} among the KdV charges. The states in the ϵ0\epsilon\to 0 limit is therefore implicitly defined by infinitely many conservation laws restricting its gravitational interaction with cosmic-branes. The flat entanglement spectrum may be a consequence of this. We remark that in the ϵ0\epsilon\to 0 limit, the metric of the original bulk dual is the same as an ordinary BTZ black hole. Its characterizations from ϵ0\epsilon\to 0 are encoded in the response to cosmic-brane insertions.

On the other hand, from the CFT side the computation for the Renyi entropy in primary states |h=𝒪h|Ω|h\rangle=\mathcal{O}_{h}|\Omega\rangle has been performed in Wang:2018 . It focused on the same limit of our interest, i.e. the leading order results for a finite interval in the high energy density limit h/cq11h/c\propto q_{1}\gg 1 while sending cc\to\infty. For pure states, we have to restrict to subsystems smaller than half of the total size, i.e. f<1/2f<1/2. In 2d CFTs, the Renyi entropy Sn(A)S_{n}(A) is related to the correlation function 𝒪hσnσn𝒪h\langle\mathcal{O}_{h}\sigma_{n}\sigma_{n}\mathcal{O}_{h}\rangle in the orbifold CFT, where σn\sigma_{n} is the twist operator. The computation was done via the method of monodromy, which computes the Virasoro vacuum block contribution to the correlation function in the cc\to\infty limit. This is essentially computing the gravitation back-reaction. The monodromy problem was solved in the high energy limit using the WKB approximation. The leading order result for Sn(A)S_{n}(A) is nn-independent and hence implies a flat entanglement spectrum. We therefore had an independent computation that verify the extrapolation directly for the primary states in 2d CFTs. We perceive this as in support of the subsystem ETH for the primary states according to their higher KdV charges. It is reasonable to expect that our results can be extended to all near-primary states in the high density limit, even for ϵc1\epsilon\lesssim c^{-1}. This is indeed the case based on the results in KdVETHgeneral .

We clarify by emphasizing that in the ϵ0\epsilon\to 0 limit, the fixed-area property only describes the leading order behavior of the Renyi entropy, in particular the part scaling with the total volume, or equivalently the total charge of the state. It is not clear whether the sub-leading contributions exhibit such properties. In the future, it is interesting to extend the analysis to subleading orders. Besides, recall that at finite ϵ\epsilon there exists a critical temperature χ1=χc\chi_{1}=\chi_{c} at which ncut1n_{cut}-1 is further suppressed to order 𝒪(ϵ3)\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{3}), extending the range of nn-independence for S~n(A)\tilde{S}_{n}(A) to the maximum. In the future, it is interesting to understand what underlies this.

5.3 Beyond instabilities

For the mixed ensembles ρq1,q3β\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}} we had based our analysis on identifying the instabilities of the glued BTZ solutions. We now discuss the nature of these instabilities, which may shed light on what the back-reacted solution becomes for n<ncutn<n_{cut}. We have classified the relevant instabilities into the first order and second order types. We first discuss the second order instabilities. They are identified by a BTZ black segment, say along AA, becomes unstable against nearby one-zone black holes in the corresponding GGE. It is reasonable to speculate that by crossing ncutn_{cut} of this nature, the back-reacted geometry takes the form of glued finite-zone black holes, at least along segment AA. For the sake of discussion let us assume it is a one-zone black holes characterized by p>0p>0, where we recall:

p=λ3λ2λ3λ1p=\frac{\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{2}}{\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{1}} (163)

The free energy functional is expected to vary continuously, thus the lowest energy configuration also changes continuously from p=0p=0 to p>0p>0 across n=ncutn=n_{cut}. As a result, we expect the properties of the glued solution to change continuously across the transition, with p=0p=0 on one side and p>0p>0 on the other. In particular, the Renyi entropy Sn(A)S_{n}(A), which represents the free energy of the partition function Z(ΣAn)Z(\Sigma^{n}_{A}), and the refined Renyi entropy S~n(A)\tilde{S}_{n}(A), which represents the derivative of the free energy, are both continuous across the transition. This is reminiscent of a second order phase transition. The one-zone parameter p>0p>0 can then serve as an order parameter. Computing glued solutions of this nature is in principle tractable, we leave it for future investigations.

Next we discuss the first order instabilities. They are characterized by one of the BTZ black segments, say with 𝒬1\mathcal{Q}_{1} charge density hh along AA, switching dominance with another BTZ saddle of 𝒬1\mathcal{Q}_{1} charge density hh^{\prime} in the corresponding GGE. We emphasize that it does not lead to a first-order phase transition between the two BTZ segments of charge density hh and hh^{\prime} – this violates the matching condition on the total KdV charges. As a result, it is unclear what the bulk saddle of Z(ΣAn)Z(\Sigma^{n}_{A}) becomes for n<ncutn<n_{cut}. Recall that ncutn_{cut} is dictated by the first order instability for lower temperatures χ1𝒪(1)\chi_{1}\lesssim\mathcal{O}(1). This is roughly the temperature regime that ρq1,q3β\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}} ceases to have a well-defined black hole dual, see (79). The difficulty for finding the glued solution below n<ncutn<n_{cut} may be a revelation of this fact, analogous to the discussion in section (4.1) regarding ρq1,q3micro\rho^{micro}_{q_{1},q_{3}} for n<ncn<n_{c}. It is found in the companion paper KdVETHgeneral that at large cc and for n<ncutn<n_{cut}, the Renyi entropy in ρq1,q3micro\rho^{micro}_{q_{1},q_{3}} is simply given by that of the ordinary micro-canonical ensemble at the leading order in 1/c1/c. The bulk implication of this remains unclear. We conjecture that below n<ncutn<n_{cut}, the Renyi entropy can still be computed by the gluing construction, whose validity extends beyond holography, see appendix (C). However, the segment of the glued solution can no longer be described by well-defined gravitational saddle-points. The original ensemble ρq1,q3β\rho^{\beta}_{q_{1},q_{3}} may be described similarly. We leave exploring these possibilities for the future.

5.4 Fixing more KdV charges

In this paper we have studied explicitly the holographic Renyi entropies for ensembles with fixed 𝒬1\langle\mathcal{Q}_{1}\rangle and 𝒬3\langle\mathcal{Q}_{3}\rangle. A natural follow up question is what happens for ensembles with more KdV charges fixed? In particular, how much of the qualitative features may be preserved as we fix more and more KdV charges? Without explicitly performing these computations it is difficult to give concrete answers; we instead discuss some plausible features of the computations based on their general structures.

The most important question concerns whether the refined holographic Renyi entropy remain nn-independent, at least in some interval, in ensembles with more KdV charges fixed. To this end, let us first extract the main reason driving behind this. In the case of the glued BTZ solutions, it comes from the fact that the matching and gluing conditions are solved separately. The charge densities of the BTZ segments are fixed from the matching conditions alone, which is independent of nn, and this determines the refined Renyi entropy; the nn-dependence is encoded in the gluing conditions, which determine the GGE parameters, but do not affect the refined Renyi entropy. This is to be contrasted with the computation of the ordinary micro-canonical ensembles in Dong:2018 , in which the gluing/matching condition can only be solved simultaneously, resulting in an nn-dependent refined Renyi entropy.

Let us imagine going one step further and solving the gluing/matching condition for fixing the first three KdV charges:

f𝒬2k1nβ,μ3,μ1+f𝒬2k1β,μ3,μ1=q2k1,k=1,2,3f\langle\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}\rangle_{n\beta,\mu^{3},\mu^{1}}+f\langle\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}\rangle_{\beta,\mu^{3},\mu^{1}}=q_{2k-1},\;\;\;\;k=1,2,3 (164)

By choosing to work with GGEs of three chemical potentials, we are computing the Renyi entropy in the micro-canonical ensemble ρq1,q3,q5micro\rho^{micro}_{q_{1},q_{3},q_{5}}. In this case, the matching condition can no longer be satisfied by gluing two BTZ black hole segments. The reason is that for each BTZ black hole segment, the KdV charges depend only on one parameter. A glued BTZ solution therefore has two independent parameters, which is over-determined to satisfy three matching conditions. We can naturally relax one of the black hole segments to be a one-zone black hole, whose KdV charges depend on three parameters, namely the zone-parameters (λ1,λ2,λ3)(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\lambda_{3}). In this case the glued solution consists of a BTZ segment and a one-zone segment. It has four independent parameters which is sufficient for satisfying three matching conditions. It is in fact under-determined. However, what matters is that for any choice of such glued solutions, it is always possible to find a set of GGEs that satisfy the gluing conditions. There are in total three equations – one from the BTZ segment and two from the one-zone segment, for the three independent parameters {β,μ3,μ1}\{\beta,\mu^{3},\mu^{1}\}. As a result, similar to the glued BTZ solution, the matching and gluing conditions are solved separately. Due to the under-determinacy of the procedure, we would obtain a class of glued solutions, each giving a refined Renyi entropy S~n(A)\tilde{S}_{n}(A) that is nn-independent.

From this example, we conjecture that the separation between solving the matching and gluing conditions is likely to remain when more KdV charges are fixed. Whether this eventually leads to refined Renyi entropies that are nn-independent (at least piece-wise) would require further studies. For example, with a class of glued solutions just described, there could be a few possibilities regarding the optimal one as nn is varied. It may undergo a series of phase transitions; or it may change continuously with nn. We should point out that if we fix four KdV charge 𝒬2k1=q2k1,k=1,,4\langle\mathcal{Q}_{2k-1}\rangle=q_{2k-1},k=1,...,4, there is a unique glued solution consisting of a one-zone and a BTZ segment satisfying the matching conditions, which is more analogous to the glued BTZ solution. So the answer may also depend on whether an even/odd number of KdV charges are fixed. We leave these for future investigations.

Acknowledgments

We thank Xi Dong, Sotaro Sugishita, Jieqiang Wu, and Long Zhang for useful discussions. L.C and H.W are supported by National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) grant no. 12175238. JT is supported by the National Youth Fund No.12105289. AD is supported by the NSF under grant PHY-2310426. This work was performed in part at Aspen Center for Physics, which is supported by National Science Foundation grant PHY-2210452.

Appendix A Conditions (2.3) v.s. isolated BTZ black hole

We address a potential paradox regarding the isolated BTZs with real zone parameters (h,w)(h,w). As pointed out, they emerge as limits of one-zone black holes that fail to satisfy the smoothness and physical conditions, yet are themselves perfectly smooth and physical. It appears in these cases that the conditions (2.3) cannot be extrapolated to at least one of the BTZ limits, i.e. p0p\to 0 or p1p\to 1. To understand this let us quote some of the details in Dymarsky:2020 when deriving the first condition in (2.3), which comes from requiring that ff be positive definite. For one-zone solutions in (31), recall that we have:

f(φ)=2(μ3+s1)(u(φ)s1)>0,s1=u1+u2+u3\displaystyle f(\varphi)=2(\mu_{3}+s_{1})\left(u(\varphi)-s_{1}\right)>0,\;\;s_{1}=u_{1}+u_{2}+u_{3}
u1=4(λ1+λ2λ3),u2=4(λ1λ2+λ3),u3=4(λ1+λ2+λ3)\displaystyle u_{1}=4(\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}-\lambda_{3}),\;u_{2}=4(\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{2}+\lambda_{3}),\;\;u_{3}=4(-\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}+\lambda_{3}) (165)

In addition, it can be derived that requiring u0>0u_{0}>0 forces the zone parameters to be one of the following arrangements:

{λ3λ2λ1>0}or{λ3>0>λ2λ1}\{\lambda_{3}\geq\lambda_{2}\geq\lambda_{1}>0\}\;\;\;\;\text{or}\;\;\;\;\{\lambda_{3}>0>\lambda_{2}\geq\lambda_{1}\} (166)

For any one-zone solution away from the p=1p=1 limit, i.e. λ1=λ2\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{2}, the profile u(φ)u(\varphi) of the solution oscillates between the interval [u1,u2][u_{1},u_{2}]. This also includes the p0p\to 0 limit, i.e. λ2=λ3\lambda_{2}=\lambda_{3}, for which u1=u2u_{1}=u_{2} and u(φ)u(\varphi) is correctly constrained to be constant. For these solution, one can obtain the maximum of f(φ)f(\varphi) by plugging in u(φ)=u1,2u(\varphi)=u_{1,2} depending on the sign of (μ3+s1)(\mu_{3}+s_{1}), and positive definiteness of f(φ)f(\varphi) imposes one of the following constraints:

{μ3<s1,λ2>0}or{μ3>s1,λ3<0}\displaystyle\{\mu_{3}<-s_{1},\;\lambda_{2}>0\}\;\;\;\;\text{or}\;\;\;\;\{\mu_{3}>-s_{1},\;\lambda_{3}<0\} (167)

Combining both sets of conditions (166) and (167) then gives part of the smoothness and physical conditions (2.3).

On the other hand, the BTZ black holes from the p1p\to 1 limit, i.e. λ1=λ2\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{2} poses an exception to this argument. The constant profile u(φ)=u2u(\varphi)=u_{2} does not oscillate between [u1,u2][u_{1},u_{2}] despite u1<u2u_{1}<u_{2}. This then alters the analysis of (167), and yields instead the condition:

{μ3<s1,λ2>0}or{μ3>s1,λ2<0}\{\mu_{3}<-s_{1},\;\lambda_{2}>0\}\;\;\;\;\text{or}\;\;\;\;\{\mu_{3}>-s_{1},\;\lambda_{2}<0\} (168)

which brings the following new possibility to satisfy the smoothness and physical condition:

μ3>s1,λ3>0>λ2=λ1\mu_{3}>-s_{1},\;\;\lambda_{3}>0>\lambda_{2}=\lambda_{1} (169)

This corresponds to and thus characterizes the isolated BTZ black hole with real-valued zone-parameters. As discussed before, physically the p0p\to 0 limit is approached by profiles u(φ)u(\varphi) with diminishing oscillating amplitudes; while the p1p\to 1 limit is approached by diminishing frequency k0k\to 0 with a potentially large amplitude. This explains the “jump” in the smoothness and physical condition away from isolated BTZ black holes of the p1p\to 1 limit.

Appendix B Phases of BTZ black holes

In this appendix we supplement some details in deriving the phase diagram summarized in the table (1). We have written down in section (2.4) the inequalities among (h,T,μ3)(h,T,\mu_{3}) characterizing the properties of the underlying BTZ black hole. Next we organize these inequalities into phases for μ3\mu_{3} at fixed (h,T)(h,T). To this end, let us first define the following quantities:

ζ1\displaystyle\zeta_{1} =\displaystyle= (πT2h3/2)3h,ζ2=5h\displaystyle-\left(\frac{\pi T}{2h^{3/2}}\right)-3h,\;\;\zeta_{2}=-5h
ζ3\displaystyle\zeta_{3} =\displaystyle= (221)hπT2(21)h3/2,ζ4=(4πTh)1/2h\displaystyle-\left(2\sqrt{2}-1\right)h-\frac{\pi T}{2(\sqrt{2}-1)h^{3/2}},\;\;\zeta_{4}=-\left(\frac{4\pi T}{\sqrt{h}}\right)^{1/2}-h (A.1)

Among them, one can check that we always have ζ1ζ4,ζ3ζ4\zeta_{1}\leq\zeta_{4},\;\;\zeta_{3}\leq\zeta_{4}. Then we can assemble and arrange the inequalities into the following phases as μ3\mu_{3} is varied:

  • For μ3<ζ1\mu_{3}<\zeta_{1}, the BTZ corresponds to a local maximum of BTZ\mathcal{F}_{BTZ} and thus cannot be considered as the thermodynamically dominant saddle-point of the GGE (β,μ1,μ3)(\beta,\mu_{1},\mu_{3}).

  • For ζ1<μ3<min{ζ2,ζ4}\zeta_{1}<\mu_{3}<\text{min}\left\{\zeta_{2},\zeta_{4}\right\}, both branches (h,w±)(h,w^{\pm}) are deformable as the p0p\to 0 limit of one-zone black holes.

  • For max{ζ1,ζ2}<μ3<ζ4\text{max}\left\{\zeta_{1},\;\zeta_{2}\right\}<\mu_{3}<\zeta_{4}, both branches (h,w±)(h,w^{\pm}) could be deformable as the p1p\to 1 limit of one-zone black holes if they further satisfy:

    w±>(21)hw^{\pm}>\left(\sqrt{2}-1\right)h (A.2)

    It turns out that this depends on the sign of:

    Δp=(21)h(πT4h)1/2\Delta_{p}=\left(\sqrt{2}-1\right)h-\left(\frac{\pi T}{4\sqrt{h}}\right)^{1/2} (A.3)

    If Δp>0\Delta_{p}>0, only the w+w^{+} branches is likely to be deformable, and it is so for:

    μ3<ζ3\mu_{3}<\zeta_{3} (A.4)

    If Δp<0\Delta_{p}<0, the w+w^{+} branch is automatically deformable, and the other branch ww^{-} is also deformable for:

    ζ3<μ3<ζ4\zeta_{3}<\mu_{3}<\zeta_{4} (A.5)
  • For μ3>ζ3\mu_{3}>\zeta_{3} in the case of Δp>0\Delta_{p}>0 and μ3>ζ4\mu_{3}>\zeta_{4} in the case of Δp<0\Delta_{p}<0, the BTZ is isolated.

Some of the phases could be absent if the corresponding window closes. This depends on (h,T)(h,T). To facilitate further analysis, we define the re-scaled parameters:

χ1\displaystyle\chi_{1} =\displaystyle= (πTh5/2)>0,χ2=(μ3h),ζ~1=χ123\displaystyle\left(\frac{\pi T}{h^{5/2}}\right)>0,\;\;\chi_{2}=\left(\frac{\mu_{3}}{h}\right),\;\;\tilde{\zeta}_{1}=-\frac{\chi_{1}}{2}-3
ζ~2\displaystyle\tilde{\zeta}_{2} =\displaystyle= 5,ζ~3=(221)χ12(21),ζ~4=2χ11\displaystyle-5,\;\;\tilde{\zeta}_{3}=-\left(2\sqrt{2}-1\right)-\frac{\chi_{1}}{2\left(\sqrt{2}-1\right)},\;\;\tilde{\zeta}_{4}=-2\sqrt{\chi_{1}}-1 (A.6)

We then find the following intervals for χ1\chi_{1} defined by (α1,α2,α3)(\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3}) of values:

α1=4(21)2,α2=4(21),α3=4\alpha_{1}=4\left(\sqrt{2}-1\right)^{2},\;\;\alpha_{2}=4\left(\sqrt{2}-1\right),\;\;\alpha_{3}=4 (A.7)

that characterize distinct phase structures as the χ2\chi_{2} is varied:

  • χ1[α3,]\chi_{1}\in[\alpha_{3},\;\infty]: in this range we have that:

    ζ3<ζ~1<ζ~4<ζ~2,Δp<0\zeta_{3}<\tilde{\zeta}_{1}<\tilde{\zeta}_{4}<\tilde{\zeta}_{2},\;\;\Delta_{p}<0 (A.8)

    with the following phases:

    χ2{[ζ~4,]:both (h,w±) are isolated[ζ~1,ζ~4]:both (h,w±) are deformable as the p0 limit[,ζ~1]:h is a local maximum of BTZ\chi_{2}\in\begin{cases}[\tilde{\zeta}_{4},\infty]:\;\;\;\text{both $(h,w^{\pm})$ are isolated}\\ [\tilde{\zeta}_{1},\tilde{\zeta}_{4}]:\;\;\;\text{both $(h,w^{\pm})$ are deformable as the $p\to 0$ limit}\\ [-\infty,\tilde{\zeta}_{1}]:\;\;\;\text{$h$ is a local maximum of $\mathcal{F}_{BTZ}$}\end{cases} (A.9)
  • χ1[α2,α3]\chi_{1}\in[\alpha_{2},\;\alpha_{3}]: in this range we have that:

    (ζ~2,ζ~3)<ζ~1<ζ~4,Δp<0,\left(\tilde{\zeta}_{2},\;\tilde{\zeta}_{3}\right)<\tilde{\zeta}_{1}<\tilde{\zeta}_{4},\;\;\Delta_{p}<0, (A.10)

    with the following phases:

    χ2{[ζ~4,]:both (h,w±) are isolated[ζ~1,ζ~4]:both (h,w±) are deformable as the p1 limit[,ζ~1]:h is a local maximum of BTZ\chi_{2}\in\begin{cases}[\tilde{\zeta}_{4},\infty]:\;\;\;\text{both $(h,w^{\pm})$ are isolated}\\ [\tilde{\zeta}_{1},\tilde{\zeta}_{4}]:\;\;\;\text{both $(h,w^{\pm})$ are deformable as the $p\to 1$ limit}\\ [-\infty,\tilde{\zeta}_{1}]:\;\;\;\text{$h$ is a local maximum of $\mathcal{F}_{BTZ}$}\end{cases} (A.11)
  • χ1[α1,α2]\chi_{1}\in[\alpha_{1},\;\alpha_{2}]: in this range we have that:

    ζ~2<ζ~1<ζ3<ζ~4,Δp<0\tilde{\zeta}_{2}<\tilde{\zeta}_{1}<\zeta_{3}<\tilde{\zeta}_{4},\;\;\Delta_{p}<0 (A.12)

    with the following phases:

    χ2{[ζ~4,]:both (h,w±) are isolated[ζ~3,ζ~4]:both (h,w±) are deformable as the p1 limit[ζ~1,ζ~3]:only (h,w+) is deformable as the p1 limit[,ζ~1]:h is a local maximum of BTZ\chi_{2}\in\begin{cases}[\tilde{\zeta}_{4},\infty]:\;\;\;\text{both $(h,w^{\pm})$ are isolated}\\ [\tilde{\zeta}_{3},\tilde{\zeta}_{4}]:\;\;\;\text{both $(h,w^{\pm})$ are deformable as the $p\to 1$ limit}\\ [\tilde{\zeta}_{1},\tilde{\zeta}_{3}]:\;\;\;\text{only $(h,w^{+})$ is deformable as the $p\to 1$ limit}\\ [-\infty,\tilde{\zeta}_{1}]:\;\;\;\text{$h$ is a local maximum of $\mathcal{F}_{BTZ}$}\end{cases} (A.13)
  • χ1[0,α1]\chi_{1}\in[0,\;\alpha_{1}]: in this range we have that:

    ζ~2<ζ~1<ζ~3<ζ~4,Δp>0\tilde{\zeta}_{2}<\tilde{\zeta}_{1}<\tilde{\zeta}_{3}<\tilde{\zeta}_{4},\;\;\Delta_{p}>0 (A.14)

    with the following phases:

    χ2{[ζ~3,]:both (h,w±) are isolated[ζ~1,ζ~3]:only (h,w+) is deformable as the p1 limit[,ζ~1]:h is a local maximum of BTZ\chi_{2}\in\begin{cases}[\tilde{\zeta}_{3},\infty]:\;\;\;\text{both $(h,w^{\pm})$ are isolated}\\ [\tilde{\zeta}_{1},\tilde{\zeta}_{3}]:\;\;\;\text{only $(h,w^{+})$ is deformable as the $p\to 1$ limit}\\ [-\infty,\tilde{\zeta}_{1}]:\;\;\;\text{$h$ is a local maximum of $\mathcal{F}_{BTZ}$}\end{cases} (A.15)

Appendix C Additional support for the gluing construction (92,  93)

We supplement additional support for the gluing constructions in section (3) based on the following ansatz for the density matrix of the canonical ensemble:

ρβ=𝒩1ijeβ(Ei+E¯j)|EiA|E¯jA¯Ei|AE¯j|A¯\rho^{\beta}=\mathcal{N}^{-1}\sum_{ij}e^{-\beta(E_{i}+\bar{E}_{j})}|E_{i}\rangle_{A}\otimes|\bar{E}_{j}\rangle_{\bar{A}}\;\langle E_{i}|_{A}\otimes\langle\bar{E}_{j}|_{\bar{A}} (A.16)

This can be derived from the following chaotic ansatz for the energy eigenstates:

|E=ijcij|EiA|EjA¯|E\rangle=\sum_{ij}c_{ij}|E_{i}\rangle_{A}\otimes|E_{j}\rangle_{\bar{A}} (A.17)

where cijc_{ij} are random variables satisfy:

cijcij¯=δiiδjj\overline{c_{ij}c_{i^{\prime}j^{\prime}}}=\delta_{ii^{\prime}}\delta_{jj^{\prime}} (A.18)

from which (A.16) can be obtained as the statistical average. In these ansatz, |EA|E\rangle_{A} and |E¯A¯|\bar{E}\rangle_{\bar{A}} are eigenstates of the subsystem Hamiltonians whose sum is approximately the total Hamiltonian:

HA|EA=E|EA,HA¯|E¯A¯=E¯|E¯A¯,HHA𝟙A+𝟙AHA¯H_{A}|E\rangle_{A}=E|E\rangle_{A},\;\;\;H_{\bar{A}}|\bar{E}\rangle_{\bar{A}}=\bar{E}|\bar{E}\rangle_{\bar{A}},\;\;\;H\approx H_{A}\otimes\mathds{1}_{A}+\mathds{1}_{A}\otimes H_{\bar{A}} (A.19)

This property encodes the assumptions that we are considering a subsystem AA of finite fraction ff in the high density limit. Based on (A.16) it is straight-forward to first write down the reduced density matrix across the subsystem A:

ρAβ=TrA¯ρβZA¯(β)ieβEi|EiEi|\rho^{\beta}_{A}=\text{Tr}_{\bar{A}}\;\rho^{\beta}\propto Z_{\bar{A}}(\beta)\sum_{i}e^{-\beta E_{i}}|E_{i}\rangle\;\langle E_{i}| (A.20)

where ZA¯(β)Z_{\bar{A}}(\beta) is the partition function of the subsystem Hamiltonian HA¯H_{\bar{A}}. The corresponding trace giving the Renyi entropy of the canonical ensemble can then computed by:

TrA(ρAβ)n=ZA(nβ)ZA¯(β)n\text{Tr}_{A}\left(\rho^{\beta}_{A}\right)^{n}=Z_{A}(n\beta)Z_{\bar{A}}(\beta)^{n} (A.21)

This is equivalent to the gluing construction for the canonical ensemble Renyi entropy, which only enforces the gluing condition:

βA=nβA¯=β\beta_{A}=n\beta_{\bar{A}}=\beta (A.22)

To obtain the micro-canonical counter-part, we first perform an inverse laplace transform of the ansatz for the canonical ensemble (A.16):

ρE=Γ𝑑βeβEρβ\rho^{E}=\oint_{\Gamma}d\beta\;e^{\beta E}\;\rho^{\beta} (A.23)

where Γ\Gamma is the corresponding Bromwich contour whose form will not be particularly important for us. The reduced density matrix is then given by:

ρAE=TrA¯ρE=𝑑βeβEZA¯(β)ieβEi|EiEi|\rho^{E}_{A}=\text{Tr}_{\bar{A}}\;\rho^{E}=\oint d\beta\;e^{\beta E}\;Z_{\bar{A}}(\beta)\sum_{i}e^{-\beta E_{i}}|E_{i}\rangle\;\langle E_{i}|\ (A.24)

The trace giving the Renyi entropy is then equal to:

TrA(ρAE)n=[k=1n𝑑βkeβkEZA¯(βk)]×ZA(k=1nβk)\text{Tr}_{A}\;\left(\rho^{E}_{A}\right)^{n}=\left[\prod^{n}_{k=1}\oint d\beta_{k}\;e^{\beta_{k}E}\;Z_{\bar{A}}\left(\beta_{k}\right)\right]\times Z_{A}\left(\sum^{n}_{k=1}\beta_{k}\right) (A.25)

In the saddle point approximation, the inverse Laplace transform is done by finding the saddle-points for βk\beta^{*}_{k}. To be consistent with the cosmic-brane prescription, we further assume that the saddle points are all identical:

β1=β2==βn=β\beta^{*}_{1}=\beta^{*}_{2}=...=\beta^{*}_{n}=\beta^{*} (A.26)

In this case, it can derived that the saddle-point equation for the single parameter β\beta^{*} takes the form:

ZA¯(β)β|β+ZA(nβ)nβ|β=E\frac{\partial Z_{\bar{A}}(\beta)}{\partial\beta}\Big{|}_{\beta^{*}}+\frac{\partial Z_{A}(n\beta)}{n\partial\beta}\Big{|}_{\beta^{*}}=E (A.27)

Using the relation between subsystem and total energy in the high density limit:

ZA¯(β)β|β=(1f)Eβ,ZA(nβ)nβ|β=fEnβ\frac{\partial Z_{\bar{A}}(\beta)}{\partial\beta}\Big{|}_{\beta^{*}}=(1-f)\langle E\rangle_{\beta^{*}},\;\;\frac{\partial Z_{A}(n\beta)}{n\partial\beta}\Big{|}_{\beta^{*}}=f\langle E\rangle_{n\beta^{*}} (A.28)

We finally obtain the gluing/matching conditions (92,  93) used in the gluing construction for computing the Renyi entropies in the micro-canonical ensembles.

Appendix D Details of computing ncutn_{cut}

We first examine the onset of second order instabilities towards nearby one-zone black holes. As nn is varied, χ1χ1A¯\chi_{1}\equiv\chi^{\bar{A}}_{1} is fixed, and we treat it as representing the temperature TT. In the near-primary limit nc1ϵ1n_{c}-1\sim\epsilon\ll 1, it can be derived that the BTZ segment along A becomes unstable when:

χ1nc5>4,n<min{χ14nc5,nA}\chi_{1}n_{c}^{5}>4,\;\;\;n<\text{min}\left\{\frac{\chi_{1}}{4}n_{c}^{5},\;n_{A}\right\} (B.1)

The BTZ segment along A¯\bar{A} becomes perturbatively unstable when:

χ1>4,n<nA¯\chi_{1}>4,\;\;\;n<n_{\bar{A}} (B.2)

The values nA,A¯n_{A,\bar{A}} mark the thresholds where the BTZ segments become deformable in their respective GGEs, i.e. χ2A,A¯=ζ~4A,A¯\chi^{A,\bar{A}}_{2}=\tilde{\zeta}^{A,\bar{A}}_{4}. They are explicitly given by:

nA(χ1)\displaystyle n_{A}\left(\chi_{1}\right) =\displaystyle= nc5χ1(64nc22nc4+4nc4χ12nc2+21+2nc23nc4+2nc4χ1)2\displaystyle n_{c}^{5}\chi_{1}\left(\frac{\sqrt{6-4n_{c}^{2}-2n_{c}^{4}+4n_{c}^{4}\chi_{1}}-2n_{c}^{2}+2}{1+2n_{c}^{2}-3n_{c}^{4}+2n_{c}^{4}\chi_{1}}\right)^{2}
nA¯(χ1)\displaystyle n_{\bar{A}}\left(\chi_{1}\right) =\displaystyle= 2nc5χ132nc2(1+2χ1)+nc4(2χ1+4χ11)\displaystyle\frac{2n_{c}^{5}\chi_{1}}{3-2n_{c}^{2}\left(1+2\sqrt{\chi_{1}}\right)+n_{c}^{4}\left(2\chi_{1}+4\sqrt{\chi_{1}}-1\right)} (B.3)

In the high temperature regime, the two onset values nA,A¯n_{A,\bar{A}} admit perturbative expansions in η=1/χ11/4\eta=1/\chi_{1}^{1/4}:

nA(χ1)\displaystyle n_{A}\left(\chi_{1}\right) =\displaystyle= nc2(nc21)ncη2+7nc410nc2+32nc3η4+\displaystyle n_{c}-\frac{2(n_{c}^{2}-1)}{n_{c}}\eta^{2}+\frac{7n_{c}^{4}-10n_{c}^{2}+3}{2n_{c}^{3}}\eta^{4}+...
nA¯(χ1)\displaystyle n_{\bar{A}}\left(\chi_{1}\right) =\displaystyle= nc2(nc21)ncη2+9nc414nc2+52nc3η4+\displaystyle n_{c}-\frac{2(n_{c}^{2}-1)}{n_{c}}\eta^{2}+\frac{9n_{c}^{4}-14n_{c}^{2}+5}{2n_{c}^{3}}\eta^{4}+... (B.4)

In this limit, they differ at the η4\eta^{4} order and satisfy nA¯>nAn_{\bar{A}}>n_{A}. On the other hand, the second order instabilities can only exist for sufficiently high temperature (χ14nc5)\left(\chi_{1}\geq 4n_{c}^{-5}\right) and so is absent in the low temperature limit.

Next we examine the first-order instabilities. The onset of such instabilities on a BTZ black hole with 𝒬1\mathcal{Q}_{1} charge density hh is marked by the existence of another root hhh^{\prime}\neq h that simultaneously solves the following two equations:

𝒢(h)=𝒢(h),BTZ(h)=BTZ(h)\mathcal{G}(h^{\prime})=\mathcal{G}(h),\;\;\mathcal{F}_{BTZ}(h^{\prime})=\mathcal{F}_{BTZ}(h) (B.5)

By eliminating hh^{\prime}, we obtain the following equation that controls the onset:

64χ12+(1824χ216χ22)χ1+(2+χ2)(3+χ2)3=064\chi_{1}^{2}+\left(18-24\chi_{2}-16\chi_{2}^{2}\right)\chi_{1}+\left(2+\chi_{2}\right)\left(3+\chi_{2}\right)^{3}=0 (B.6)

At the transition point (B.6), the other root hh^{\prime} can be obtained from:

hh=7+4χ2+158χ28.{\frac{h^{\prime}}{h}}=-\frac{7+4\chi_{2}+\sqrt{-15-8\chi_{2}}}{8}. (B.7)

Solutions of (B.6) are identified as the physical onset of the first order instabilities if h>0h^{\prime}>0. The onset nAn^{\prime}_{A} along the segment AA is the value of nn such that (χ1A,χ2A)(\chi^{A}_{1},\;\chi^{A}_{2}) satisfy (B.6); while the onset nA¯n^{\prime}_{\bar{A}} along A¯\bar{A} is when (χ1A¯,χ2A¯)(\chi^{\bar{A}}_{1},\;\chi^{\bar{A}}_{2}) satisfy (B.6). Explicit expressions for nA,A¯n^{\prime}_{A,\bar{A}} are expectedly very complicated and not particularly illuminating for generic temperature TT or χ1\chi_{1}. Instead, we study their asymptotic behaviors in a few limits.

In the high temperature limit χ11\chi_{1}\gg 1, the onset values nA,A¯n^{\prime}_{A,\bar{A}} also admit series expansions in η\eta analogous to (D):

nA(χ1)\displaystyle n^{\prime}_{A}(\chi_{1}) =\displaystyle= nc22(nc21)ncη225/4(nc21)nc2η3+(nc21)(22nc221)4nc3η4+\displaystyle n_{c}-\frac{2\sqrt{2}(n_{c}^{2}-1)}{n_{c}}\eta^{2}-\frac{2^{5/4}(n_{c}^{2}-1)}{n_{c}^{2}}\eta^{3}+\frac{(n_{c}^{2}-1)(22n_{c}^{2}-21)}{4n_{c}^{3}}\eta^{4}+...
nA¯(χ1)\displaystyle n^{\prime}_{\bar{A}}(\chi_{1}) =\displaystyle= nc22(nc21)ncη225/4(nc21)nc2η3(nc21)(27nc226)4nc3η4+\displaystyle n_{c}-\frac{2\sqrt{2}(n_{c}^{2}-1)}{n_{c}}\eta^{2}-\frac{2^{5/4}(n_{c}^{2}-1)}{n_{c}^{2}}\eta^{3}-\frac{(n_{c}^{2}-1)(27n_{c}^{2}-26)}{4n_{c}^{3}}\eta^{4}+... (B.8)

They differ at the η4\eta^{4} order. Comparing (D) and (D), we conclude that the cut-off ncut=max{nA,A¯,nA,A¯}n_{cut}=\text{max}\{n_{A,\bar{A}},n^{\prime}_{A,\bar{A}}\} for the Renyi index is given by:

ncut(χ1)=nA¯(χ1)=nc2(nc21)ncη2+9nc414nc2+52nc3η4+n_{cut}(\chi_{1})=n_{\bar{A}}(\chi_{1})=n_{c}-\frac{2(n_{c}^{2}-1)}{n_{c}}\eta^{2}+\frac{9n_{c}^{4}-14n_{c}^{2}+5}{2n_{c}^{3}}\eta^{4}+... (B.9)

As the low temperature limit is approached, the value of nAn^{\prime}_{A} first becomes divergent towards the lower limit temperature χ1Δχ1\chi_{1}\to\Delta\chi_{1}:

nA(χ1)=17nc414nc2+36nc62nc3(χ1Δχ1)+,Δχ1=(nc21)(3nc21)2n4n^{\prime}_{A}(\chi_{1})=\frac{17n_{c}^{4}-14n_{c}^{2}+3-6n_{c}^{6}}{2n_{c}^{3}\left(\chi_{1}-\Delta\chi_{1}\right)}+...,\;\;\;\Delta\chi_{1}=\frac{(n_{c}^{2}-1)(3n_{c}^{2}-1)}{2n^{4}} (B.10)

Below this temperature, the BTZ segment along AA is unstable in the corresponding GGE for all Renyi index n1n\geq 1333The other onset value nA¯n^{\prime}_{\bar{A}} also exhibits a divergence of similar nature at χ1=Δχ¯1<Δχ1\chi_{1}=\Delta\bar{\chi}_{1}<\Delta\chi_{1}, where the glued BTZ solution is already invalid for all n1n\geq 1.. We conclude that for χ1Δχ1\chi_{1}\leq\Delta\chi_{1} the glued BTZ solution does not give the refined Renyi entropy S~n(A)\tilde{S}_{n}(A) for all n1n\geq 1. Since for χ1Δχ1<4nc5\chi_{1}\sim\Delta\chi_{1}<4n_{c}^{-5} the second order instability is absent, the cut-off Renyi index ncutn_{cut} near the lower limit Δχ1\Delta\chi_{1} is dictated by the first order instability:

ncut(χ1)=nA(χ1)=17nc414nc2+36nc62nc3(χ1Δχ1)+n_{cut}(\chi_{1})=n^{\prime}_{A}(\chi_{1})=\frac{17n_{c}^{4}-14n_{c}^{2}+3-6n_{c}^{6}}{2n_{c}^{3}\left(\chi_{1}-\Delta\chi_{1}\right)}+... (B.11)

There is an interesting intermediate regime for temperatures close to χ1χc\chi_{1}\sim\chi_{c}:

χ1A¯χc=12nc4(1+nc)3\chi^{\bar{A}}_{1}\approx\chi_{c}=\frac{1}{2}n_{c}^{-4}(1+n_{c})^{3} (B.12)

The temperature χc\chi_{c} is marked by the property that nA=nA¯=1n^{\prime}_{A}=n^{\prime}_{\bar{A}}=1 at this point. As a result the glued BTZ solution is free from such instabilities all the way down to n=1n=1. Intuitively χc\chi_{c} corresponds to the fine-tuned temperature such that the two local minimal (h,h¯)(h,\bar{h}) of BTZ\mathcal{F}_{BTZ} in the GGE (β,μ13,μ11)(\beta,\mu^{3}_{1},\mu^{1}_{1}) have equal free energies. In the vicinity of χc\chi_{c}, the onset values nA,A¯n^{\prime}_{A,\bar{A}} are given by:

nA(χ1)\displaystyle n^{\prime}_{A}(\chi_{1}) =\displaystyle= 12nc3(nc1)2(nc+1)3(3nc)(χ1χc)+\displaystyle 1-\frac{2n_{c}^{3}(n_{c}-1)^{2}}{(n_{c}+1)^{3}(3-n_{c})}\left(\chi_{1}-\chi_{c}\right)+...
nA¯(χ1)\displaystyle n^{\prime}_{\bar{A}}(\chi_{1}) =\displaystyle= 1+2nc3(nc1)2(nc+1)4(χ1χc)+\displaystyle 1+\frac{2n_{c}^{3}(n_{c}-1)^{2}}{(n_{c}+1)^{4}}\left(\chi_{1}-\chi_{c}\right)+... (B.13)

There remains the second order instabilities against nearby one-zone black holes. Those from the segment along AA are present only for χ1>4nc5\chi_{1}>4n_{c}^{-5}; while those from the segment A¯\bar{A} are present for χ1>4\chi_{1}>4. It is observed that:

4nc5<χc<44n_{c}^{-5}<\chi_{c}<4 (B.14)

As a result, in the vicinity of χc\chi_{c} only the segment along AA is susceptible to second order instabilities. Therefore its onset value nAn_{A} dictates the cut-off ncutn_{cut} at χc\chi_{c}, and can be expanded in small nc1ϵn_{c}-1\sim\epsilon:

ncut(χc)=nA(χc)=1+516(nc1)3+n_{cut}(\chi_{c})=n_{A}(\chi_{c})=1+\frac{5}{16}\left(n_{c}-1\right)^{3}+... (B.15)

We see that ncut(χ1)1n_{cut}(\chi_{1})-1 is suppressed to the (nc1)3(n_{c}-1)^{3} order near χ1=χc\chi_{1}=\chi_{c}, this is to be compared with the (nc1)(n_{c}-1) order in the asymptotically high temperature limit χ1\chi_{1}\to\infty. It shows that in the vicinity of the intermediate temperature χc\chi_{c}, the range of validity for the glued BTZ solution, and thus the result (4.1), extends the closest to n=1n=1.

Appendix E Toy model analysis for entanglement spectral density

To this end, we can work with the following expression for Sn(A)S_{n}(A) as a toy model, whose full nn-dependence effectively captures the qualitative behaviors just listed:

Sn(A)\displaystyle S_{n}(A) =\displaystyle= fSth+(δncutΔS1n)ln[cosh(n1δncut)]\displaystyle fS_{th}+\left(\frac{\delta n_{cut}\Delta S}{1-n}\right)\ln{\left[\cosh{\left(\frac{n-1}{\delta n_{cut}}\right)}\right]} (B.1)

We need to evaluate the inverse Laplace transform:

g(λ)=(δncuteλ2πi)×ΓiΓ+idxexδncut(λfSth)cosh(x)δncutΔS,x=(n1δncut)g(\lambda)=\left(\frac{\delta n_{cut}\;e^{\lambda}}{2\pi i}\right)\times\int^{\Gamma+i\infty}_{\Gamma-i\infty}dx\;e^{x\;\delta n_{cut}(\lambda-fS_{th})}\cosh{\left(x\right)}^{\delta n_{cut}\Delta S},\;\;\;x=\left(\frac{n-1}{\delta n_{cut}}\right) (B.2)

This is still difficult for general choices of parameters. We can make further progress by assuming that

M=δncutΔSq1M=\delta n_{cut}\Delta S\sim\sqrt{q_{1}}\in\mathds{N} (B.3)

is a very large integer. In this case one can use the binomial expansion to obtain a series of delta-function peaks:

g(λ)=eλ2Mm=0ΔS(Mm)δ(λλm),λm=fSthδncut1(M2m)g(\lambda)=\frac{e^{\lambda}}{2^{M}}\sum^{\Delta S}_{m=0}\left(\begin{array}[]{c}M\\ m\\ \end{array}\right)\delta\left(\lambda-\lambda_{m}\right),\;\;\lambda_{m}=fS_{th}-\delta n_{cut}^{-1}\left(M-2m\right) (B.4)

The spectrum {λm}\{\lambda_{m}\} is confined to the interval:

λm[fSthΔS,fSth+ΔS]\lambda_{m}\in\left[fS_{th}-\Delta S,\;fS_{th}+\Delta S\right] (B.5)

In the holographic and high density limit SthΔSπq1/2GNS_{th}\sim\Delta S\sim\pi\sqrt{q_{1}}/2G_{N}\to\infty, we can bin together the δ\delta-function peaks into a continuous binomial distribution inside (B.5) weighted by an exponential growth factor. This produces the entanglement spectral density g(λ)g(\lambda) plotted in Figure (5).

References