The black hole final state
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This story is in effect simply the Horowitz-Maldacena final state postselection proposal.
“This story is, in effect, simply the Horowitz-Maldacena final state postselection proposal [42].”
From Entanglement wedge reconstruction and the information paradox (2020) · cites this paper as [42]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 270
- Authors
- Horowitz, G. T., & Maldacena, J.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
- Institute for Advanced Study (US)
- Venue
- Journal of High Energy Physics
- Published
- 2004-02-06
- Volume
- 2004
- Issue
- 02
- Pages
- 008-008
- ISSN
- 1029-8479 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1968719750
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 8.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of High Energy Physics (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (DE-FG02-90ER40542, 0244764)
- U.S. Department of Energy (DE‐FG02‐, FG0290ER40542, DEFG0290ER40542)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Black Holes and Theoretical Physics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Relativity and Gravitational Theory
- Keywords
- black hole singularities, black hole evaporation, unitarity, quantum gravity, string theory, semiclassical black holes
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
