The Kerr/CFT correspondence and its extensions
 1.8k Downloads
 1 Citations
Abstract
We present a firstprinciples derivation of the main results of the Kerr/CFT correspondence and its extensions using only tools from gravity and quantum field theory. Firstly, we review properties of extremal black holes with in particular the construction of an asymptotic Virasoro symmetry in the nearhorizon limit. The entropy of extremal spinning or charged black holes is shown to match with a chiral half of Cardy’s formula. Secondly, we show how a thermal 2dimensional conformal field theory (CFT) is relevant to reproduce the dynamics of nearsuperradiant probes around nearextremal black holes in the semiclassical limit. Thirdly, we review the hidden conformal symmetries of asymptoticallyflat black holes away from extremality and present how the nonextremal entropy can be matched with Cardy’s formula. We follow an effective field theory approach and consider the Kerr–Newman black hole and its generalizations in various supergravity theories. The interpretation of these results by deformed dual conformal field theories is discussed and contrasted with properties of standard 2dimensional CFTs. We conclude with a list of open problems.
Keywords
Black holes Holography AdS/CFT Conformal field theory1 Introduction
It is known since the work of Bekenstein (1972), Bardeen et al. (1973), and Hawking (1975) that black holes are thermodynamical systems equipped with a temperature and an entropy. In analogy to Bolzmann’s statistical theory of gases, one expects that the entropy of black holes counts microscopic degrees of freedom. Understanding what these degrees of freedom actually are is one of the main challenges that a theory of quantum gravity should address.
Since the advent of string theory, several black holes enjoying supersymmetry have been understood microscopically. In such cases, supersymmetry and its nonrenormalization theorems allow to map the black hole states to dual states in a weaklycoupled description in terms of elementary strings and Dbranes, which also provides a method to microscopically reproduce Hawking radiation slightly away from extremality (Strominger and Vafa 1996; Callan and Maldacena 1996), see Gubser (1998), David et al. (2002), Dabholkar and Nampuri (2012) for reviews.
These results can be contrasted with the challenge of describing astrophysical black holes that are nonsupersymmetric and nonextremal, for which these methods cannot be directly applied. Astrophysical black holes are generically rotating and have approximately zero electromagnetic charge. Therefore, the main physical focus should be to understand the microstates of the Kerr black hole and to a smaller extent the microstates of the Schwarzschild, the Kerr–Newman and the Reissner–Nordström black hole.
All black holes in Einstein gravity coupled to matter admit an entropy equal to their area in Planck units divided by 4. This universality deserves an explanation which is missing so far. One temptative explanation comes from the holographic principle proposed in ’t Hooft (1994) and Susskind (1995) which states that gravity can be described equivalently by a theory with a lower number of dimensions. In particular, black holes would be holographic in the sense that their microscopic degrees of freedom are encoded on a holographic plate on their horizon.
One of the greatest achievements of modern theoretical physics to have provided explicit realizations of the holographic principle: the exact AdS/CFT correspondences. They provide a dual description of specific systems in Type IIB supergravity or Mtheory in terms of specific conformal field theories (Maldacena et al. 1997; Maldacena 1998a; Witten 1998). Some supersymmetric black holes are described in such correspondences. They contain in their nearhorizon limit a factor of threedimensional antide Sitter spacetime \(\mathrm {AdS}_{3}\) (Maldacena and Strominger 1997; Cvetič and Larsen 1997b) or more precisely a quotient thereof known as the BTZ black hole (Bañados et al. 1992, 1993). The existence of a dual 2D CFT description is enough to account for the black hole entropy thanks to universality of the asymptotic growth of states, namely Cardy’s formula (Cardy 1986). Cardy’s formula only depends upon the Virasoro zero modes and the CFT central charges which can be evaluated in classical gravity using asymptotic symmetry methods (Brown and Henneaux 1986a). Therefore, the exact microscopic description in terms of elementary strings and branes becomes unnecessary details and the black hole entropy follows from a universal relation whose ingredients can be computed in classical gravity (Strominger 1998).
A special limit of \(\mathrm {AdS}_3/\mathrm {CFT}_2\) correspondences is relevant for our purposes. When the BTZ black hole that appears in the nearhorizon limit is taken extremal, it admits itself a nearhorizon limit, the socalled selfdual orbifold (Coussaert and Henneaux 1994) which consists of \(\mathrm {AdS}_2\) with a twisted U(1) fiber. The selfdual orbifold is sometimes called the “very nearhorizon limit” of the original extremal black hole (Azeyanagi et al. 2009c). It turns out that a chiral half of the conformal structure of the 2D CFT extends to the very nearhorizon limit (Balasubramanian et al. 2010; Compère et al. 2016). The very nearhorizon limit admits one copy of the Virasoro algebra as asymptotic symmetry algebra which extends the U(1) rotational Killing symmetry. The entropy in the very nearhorizon geometry is then reproduced by a chiral half of Cardy’s formula, which is inherited from the 2D CFT.
Motivated by the universality of growth of states in a 2D CFT, the authors of Guica et al. (2009) formulated the original version of the Kerr/CFT correspondence which conjectures that “Quantum gravity near the extreme Kerr horizon is dual to a twodimensional CFT”. The Kerr/CFT correspondence can be viewed as a concrete proposal for realizing the holographic principle in a physically realistic gravitational setting. The starting point of the Kerr/CFT correspondence is the observation that the extremal Kerr geometry admits a decoupled nearhorizon limit (Bardeen and Horowitz 1999). This decoupled geometry contains an \(\mathrm {AdS}_2\) factor and has a \(SL(2,\mathbb {R}) \times U(1)\) symmetry which extends the 2 Killing symmetries of Kerr. This nearhorizon geometry differs in two important ways with respect to the decoupled geometries appearing in exact \(\mathrm {AdS}_3/\mathrm {CFT}_2\) correspondences. First, there is no \(\mathrm {AdS}_3\) factor but a deformation thereof known as warped \(\mathrm {AdS}_3\) (Bengtsson and Sandin 2006) which can be understood in string inspired models as an irrelevant deformation of the CFT dual to \(\mathrm {AdS}_3\) (Guica and Strominger 2011; Compère et al. 2011). Second and most importantly, as realized soon after the original conjecture was made (Azeyanagi et al. 2009c; Amsel et al. 2009a; Dias et al. 2009), the nearhorizon geometry does not contain a black hole with arbitrary energy in contrast to the BTZ black hole in the \(\mathrm {AdS}_3/\mathrm {CFT}_2\) case. Instead, it contains a warped deformation of the selfdual orbifold. The nearhorizon region of the extremal Kerr black hole is therefore a “very nearhorizon limit”. The asymptotic symmetry algebra of the nearhorizon geometry was found to admit one copy of the Virasoro algebra with central charge 12J where J is the angular momentum (Guica et al. 2009).^{1} A thermal version of a chiral sector of Cardy’s formula then exactly equates the black hole entropy. Here, such a relationship cannot be qualified as a microscopic counting since there is no definition of a dual field theory in terms of elementary fields; there is no justification for the validity of Cardy’s formula and there are even strong reasons to think that such a dual theory does not exist.
The main obstruction towards the existence of a dual 2D CFT is simply that away from extremality the nearhorizon region couples to the asymptotic region which is not scale invariant. Turning on finite energy in the nearhorizon description amounts to quitting exact extremality (Amsel et al. 2009a; Dias et al. 2009). Turning on finite energy should therefore also turn on irrelevant couplings (with respect to scale invariance) which encode the couplings to the asymptotic region Baggio et al. (2013). On the contrary, in the \(\mathrm {AdS}_3/\mathrm {CFT}_2\) correspondences, finite energy perturbations (e.g., the BTZ black hole) exist in the nearhorizon region described by a 2D dual CFT. Such intermediate region does not exist for the extremal Kerr black hole. At best, one might conjecture a 2D dual field theory obtained from a CFT with irrelevant deformations in both sectors, so nothing like a standard CFT.^{2}
Given this state of affairs, it might come as a surprize that the chiral thermal version of Cardy’s formula universally reproduces the entropy of all known extremal black holes with a U(1) axial symmetry. The matching extends to the Kerr–Newman black hole but also to large classes of black holes in gravity coupled to matter, with antide Sitter asymptotic regions, with higher curvature corrections or in higher dimensions as extensively detailed later on. Moreover, a nontrivial matching can be done with a standard thermal 2D CFT correlation function slightly away from extremality for a limited number of gravitational observables which explore the nearhorizon region (Bredberg et al. 2010). Finally, a Cardy formula also applies away from extremality and \(SL(2,\mathbb {R}) \times SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) scale invariance can be identified for certain probes away from extremality. This points to the relevance of the concepts of 2D CFTs away from extremality (Cvetič and Larsen 1997b; Castro et al. 2010; Cvetič and Larsen 2012a) even though it should not be considered as a duality with a standard CFT (Baggio et al. 2013; Castro et al. 2013b).^{3} These results shall be collectively referred to as the “Kerr/CFT correspondence”. The main scope of this review is to present the firstprinciple arguments for the Kerr/CFT correspondence with the hope that a deeper explanation for their origin and meaning could be achieved in the future.
1.1 Extension to gauge fields
Another notable extension of the thermal chiral Cardy relation exists for the Reissner–Nordström black hole (Hartman et al. 2009). This extension is valid only after one assumes that the U(1) electromagnetic field can be promoted to be a Kaluza–Klein vector of a higherdimensional spacetime. The U(1) electric charge is then uplifted as a U(1) axial angular momentum in the higher dimensional spacetime. Both angular momenta are then treated on an equal footing by the higherdimensional version of the Kerr/CFT correspondence. This construction strengthen the strong parallel between the physics of static charged black holes and rotating black holes. Our point of view is that a proper understanding of the concepts behind the Kerr/CFT correspondence is facilitated by studying in parallel static charged black holes and rotating black holes. The relevance of the Kaluza–Klein construction also motivates to consider the Kerr/CFT correspondence in higher dimensions.
1.2 Classes of effective field theories
We already motivated the study of the Kerr/CFT correspondence in the Einsteinmatter system in 4 and higher dimensions. Embedding this correspondence in string theory has the potential to give microscopic realizations of these correspondences. Efforts in that direction include Nakayama (2009), Azeyanagi et al. (2009c), Guica and Strominger (2011), Compère et al. (2011), Azeyanagi et al. (2011), de Boer et al. (2011), Balasubramanian et al. (2011), Song and Strominger (2012b), SheikhJabbari and Yavartanoo (2011), Song and Strominger (2012a), de Boer et al. (2012), ElShowk and Guica (2012), Bena et al. (2013), Compère et al. (2014), Bena et al. (2016).^{5} Such constructions are only theoretical since there is no reasonable control on how the standard model of particle physics and cosmology fits in string theory despite active research in this area, see, e.g., Grana (2006), Denef (2008), McAllister and Silverstein (2008), Maharana and Palti (2013).
One additional motivation for studying this general class of theories comes from the AdS/CFT correspondence (Maldacena 1998a; Witten 1998). While asymptotically flat black holes are the most physically relevant black holes, gauge/gravity correspondences are mostly understood with the AdS asymptotics. Studying the possible relationship between the Kerr/CFT correspondence and AdS/CFT correspondences therefore naturally leads to considering such actions. We focus on the case where \(f_{AB}(\chi )\), \(k_{IJ}(\chi )\) and \(b_{IJ}(\chi )\) are positive definite and the scalar potential \(V(\chi )\) is nonpositive in (3). This ensures that matter obeys the usual energy conditions and it covers the case of zero and negative cosmological constant. However, we will not discuss the supergravities required to embed AdS–Einstein–Maxwell theory. Threedimensional models are also relevant with regards to the \(\mathrm {AdS}_3/\mathrm {CFT}_2\) correspondences. In three dimensions we allow for massive vector fields which naturally arise in string theory compactifications (Ó Colgáin and Samtleben 2011; Detournay and Guica 2013; Karndumri and Ó Colgáin 2013).
The final motivation for studying this class of theories is simply that the nearhorizon limits of extremal solutions take a universal form for any theory in the class (3). We will discuss this point in Sect. 2.2.2, see also the review Kunduri and Lucietti (2013). It is therefore convenient to discuss the theory (3) in one swoop.
1.3 Extremal black holes and astrophysics
Another motivation for the study of extremal black holes comes from astrophysics. Astrophysical black holes are usually assumed to have approximately zero electric charge. They are usually embedded in magnetic fields and surrounded by an accretion disk. In the first approximation they are described by the Kerr geometry (Middleton 2016). The bound on the Kerr angular momentum derived from the cosmiccensorship hypothesis is \(J \le G M^2\). No physical process exists that would turn a nonextremal black hole into an extremal one. This is the third law of black hole thermodynamics (Bardeen et al. 1973). Using detailed models of accretion disks around the Kerr black hole, Thorne derived the bound \(J \le 0.998 \, G M^2\) (Thorne 1974).
Quite surprisingly, it has been claimed that several known astrophysical black holes, such as the black holes in the Xray binary GRS 1905+105 (McClintock et al. 2006) and Cygnus X1 (Gou et al. 2011), are more than 95% close to the extremality bound. More recent observations push the bound even further around 98% for both the GRS 105+1915 (Blum et al. 2009; Miller et al. 2013) and Cygnus X1 Gou et al. (2014) black hole. Also, the spintomass–square ratio of the supermassive black holes in the active galactic nuclei MCG63015 (Brenneman and Reynolds 2006) and 1H 0707495 (Fabian et al. 2009) have been claimed to be around 98%. However, these measurements are subject to controversy since independent data analyses based on different assumptions led to opposite results as reviewed in Fender et al. (2010): e.g., the spintomass–square ratio of the black hole in Cygnus X1 has been evaluated as \(J/(GM^2) = 0.05\) (McClintock and Remillard 2009). If the measurements of high angular momenta are confirmed and generally accepted, it would promote nearextremal spinning black holes as physical objects of nature.
Due to enhanced \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) symmetry, extremal black holes can be considered as critical conformal systems in the sense of condensed matter theory. Even though such systems are never reached, their symmetries control the physics in the vicinity of the horizon of nearextremal black holes. More precisely, the \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) symmetry controls the nearhorizon physics of all fields which can be written in an asymptotically matched expansion between the asymptotically flat region and the nearhorizon region.^{7} This study was initiated in Bredberg et al. (2010) which we shall review and which points to a symmetry enhancement beyond the \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) isometry.
This approach led to further developments which we shall only mention here. \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) symmetry allows to analytically solve for gravitational wave emission on plunge orbits in the nearhorizon region by relating this emission to the one on more easily computable circular orbits (Porfyriadis and Strominger 2014; Hadar et al. 2014, 2015; Gralla et al. 2015). The profile of gravitational waves arising from probes falling in the nearhorizon geometry carries signatures of scale invariance for nearly extreme spins which differ from the otherwise characteristic signature (Gralla et al. 2016a). The presence of \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) symmetry also allows to deduce analytic solutions for forcefree electromagnetic fields in the nearhorizon region (Lupsasca et al. 2014; Li et al. 2014; Zhang et al. 2014; Lupsasca and Rodriguez 2015; Compère and Oliveri 2016) but only few such solutions arise as a limit from the asymptotic region (Gralla et al. 2016b).
1.4 Organization of the review
Since extremal black holes are the main objects of study, we will spend a large amount of time describing their properties in Sect. 2. We will contrast the properties of static extremal black holes and of rotating extremal black holes. We will discuss how one can decouple the nearhorizon region from the exterior region. We will then show that one can associate thermodynamical properties with any extremal black hole and we will argue that nearhorizon geometries contain no local bulk dynamics. Since we aim at drawing parallels between black holes and twodimensional CFTs, we will quickly review some relevant properties of standard 2D CFTs in Sect. 3.
After this introductory material, we will discuss the core of the Kerr/CFT correspondence starting from the Cardy matching of the entropy of extremal black holes in Sect. 4. There, we will review how the nearhorizon region admits a set of asymptotic symmetries at its boundary, which form a Virasoro algebra. Several choices of boundary conditions exist, where the algebra extends a different compact U(1) symmetry of the black hole. Following semiclassical quantization rules, the operators, which define quantum gravity in the nearhorizon region, form a representation of the Virasoro algebra. We will also review the arguments that the thermodynamical potential associated with the U(1) symmetry could be interpreted as a limiting temperature of the density matrix dual to the black hole. This leads to considering matching the black hole entropy with the thermal chiral Cardy formula. In Sect. 5 we will move to the description of nonextremal black holes, and we will concentrate our analysis on asymptoticallyflat black holes for simplicity. We will describe how part of the dynamics of probe fields in the nearextremal Kerr–Newman black hole matches with the thermal 2point functions of CFTs with both a left and a rightmoving sector. The leftmoving sector of the CFTs will match with the corresponding chiral limit of the CFTs derived at extremality. In Sect. 6 we will review the hidden local conformal symmetry that is present in some probes around the generic Kerr–Newman black hole. Finally, we will summarize the key results of the Kerr/CFT correspondence in Sect. 7 and provide a list of open problems.
This review complements the lectures on the Kerr black hole presented in Bredberg et al. (2011) by providing an overview of the Kerr/CFT correspondence and its extensions for general rotating or charged black holes in gravity coupled to matter fields in a larger and updated context. Since we follow an effective fieldtheory approach, we will cover stringtheory models of black holes only marginally. We refer the interested reader to the complementary string theoryoriented review of extremal black holes (Simón 2011).
2 Extremal black holes
In this section, we review some key properties of extremal black holes in the context of fourdimensional theories of gravity coupled to matter. We first contrast how to decouple from the asymptotic region the nearhorizon region of static and rotating black holes. We then derive the thermodynamic properties of black holes at extremality. We then discuss nearhorizon geometries close to extremality and emphasize their lack of local bulk dynamics.
2.1 General properties
For simplicity, we will strictly concentrate our analysis on stationary black holes. Since we are concerned with the region close to the horizon, one could only require that the nearhorizon region is stationary, while radiation would be allowed far enough from the horizon. Such a situation could be treated in the framework of isolated horizons (Ashtekar et al. 1999, 2000; see Ashtekar and Krishnan 2004 for a review). However, for our purposes, it will be sufficient and much simpler to assume stationarity everywhere. We expect that all results derived in this review could be generalized for isolated horizons (see Wu and Tian 2009 for results along these lines).
Many theorems have been derived that characterize the generic properties of fourdimensional stationary black holes that admit an asymptoticallytimelike Killing vector. First, they have one additional axial Killing vector—they are axisymmetric^{8}—and their event horizon is a Killing horizon.^{9} In asymptoticallyflat spacetimes, black holes have spherical topology (Hawking and Ellis 1973).
 Angular velocity. Spinning black holes are characterized by a chemical potential—the angular velocity \(\varOmega _J\)—conjugate to the angular momentum. The angular velocity can be defined in geometrical terms as the coefficient of the blackhole–horizon generator proportional to the axial Killing vectorThe net effect of the angular velocity is a framedragging effect around the black hole. This gravitational kinematics might be the clue of an underlying microscopic dynamics. Part of the intuition behind the Kerr/CFT correspondence is that the degrees of freedom responsible for the black hole entropy are rotating at the speed of light at the horizon.$$\begin{aligned} \xi = \partial _t + \varOmega _J \partial _\phi . \end{aligned}$$(8)
 Electrostatic potential. Electricallycharged black holes are characterized by a chemical potential—the electrostatic potential \(\varPhi _e\)—conjugated to the electric charge. It is defined on the horizon \(r=r_+\) aswhere \(\xi \) is the horizon generator defined in (8). Similarly, one can associate a magnetic potential \(\varPhi ^I_m\) to the magnetic monopole charge. The form of the magnetic potential can be obtained by electromagnetic duality, or reads as the explicit formula derived in Copsey and Horowitz (2006) (see also Compère et al. 2009a for a covariant expression). Part of the intuition behind the Reissner–Nordström/CFT correspondence is that this kinematics is the sign of microscopic degrees of freedom “moving along the gauge direction”. We will make that statement more precise in Sect. 4.1.$$\begin{aligned} \varPhi ^I_e = \xi ^\mu A^I_\mu _{r=r_+}, \end{aligned}$$(9)

Ergoregion. Although the Killing generator associated with the mass of the black hole, \(\partial _t\), is timelike at infinity, it does not need to be timelike everywhere outside the horizon. The region where \(\partial _t\) is spacelike is called the ergoregion and the boundary of that region where \(\partial _t\) is lightlike is the ergosphere. If there is no ergoregion, \(\partial _t\) is a global timelike Killing vector outside the horizon. However, it should be noted that the presence of an ergoregion does not preclude the existence of a global timelike Killing vector. For example, the extremal spinning Kerr–AdS black hole has an ergoregion. When the horizon radius is smaller than the AdS length, the horizon generator becomes spacelike at large enough distances and there is no global timelike Killing vector, as for the Kerr black hole. On the contrary, when the horizon radius is larger than the AdS length, the horizon generator is timelike everywhere outside the horizon.
 Superradiance. One of the most fascinating properties of some rotating black holes is that neutral particles or waves sent towards the black hole with a frequency \(\omega \) and angular momentum m inside a specific bandcome back to the exterior region with a higher amplitude. This amplification effect or Penrose effect allows the extraction of energy very efficiently from the black hole. Superradiance occurs for the Kerr and Kerr–Newman black hole and is related to the presence of the ergoregion and the lack of a global timelike Killing vector. Because of the presence of a global timelike Killing vector, there is no superradiance for large Kerr–AdS black holes (when reflective boundary conditions for incident massless waves are imposed) (Hawking and Reall 2000; Winstanley 2001).$$\begin{aligned} 0< \omega < m \varOmega _J \end{aligned}$$(10)
 Electromagnetic analogue to superradiance. Charged black holes contain electrostatic energy that can also be extracted by sending charged particles or waves with frequency \(\omega \) and charge \(q_e\) inside a specific band (Christodoulou and Ruffini 1971; see Jacobson 1996 for a review)There is no ergoregion in the fourdimensional spacetime. However, for asymptoticallyflat black holes, there is a fivedimensional ergoregion when considering the uplift (1). For the Reissner–Nordström black hole, the fivedimensional ergoregion lies in the range \(r_+< r < 2M\), where M is the mass and r the standard Boyer–Lindquist radius.$$\begin{aligned} 0< \omega < q_e \varPhi _e. \end{aligned}$$(11)The combined effect of rotation and charge allows one to extract energy in the rangeWhen considering a wave scattering off a black hole, one can define the absorption probability \(\sigma _{\mathrm {abs}}\) or macroscopic greybody factor as the ratio between the absorbed flux of energy at the horizon and the incoming flux of energy from infinity,$$\begin{aligned} 0< \omega < m \varOmega _J +q_e \varPhi _e. \end{aligned}$$(12)In the superradiant range (12), the absorption probability is negative because the outgoing flux of energy is higher than the incoming flux.$$\begin{aligned} \sigma _{\mathrm {abs}} = \frac{dE_{\mathrm {abs}} / dt}{dE_{\text {in}}/dt}. \end{aligned}$$(13)
 No thermal radiation but spontaneous emission. Taking quantum mechanical effects into account, nonextremal black holes radiate with a perfect blackbody spectrum at the horizon at the Hawking temperature \(T_H\) (Hawking 1975). The decay rate of a black hole as observed from the asymptotic region is the product of the blackbody spectrum decay rate with the greybody factor \(\sigma _{\mathrm {abs}}\),The greybody factor accounts for the fact that waves (of frequency \(\omega \), angular momentum m and electric charge \(q_e\)) need to travel from the horizon to the asymptotic region in the curved geometry. In the extremal limit, the thermal factor becomes a step function. The decay rate then becomes$$\begin{aligned} \varGamma = \frac{1}{e^{\frac{\omega  m\varOmega _Jq_e \varPhi _e}{T_H} } 1}\sigma _{\mathrm {abs}}. \end{aligned}$$(14)As a consequence, ordinary Hawking emission with \(\sigma _{\mathrm {abs}}>0\) and \(\omega > m \varOmega _J+q_e\varPhi _e\) vanishes while quantum superradiant emission persists. Therefore, extremal black holes that exhibit superradiance, spontaneously decay to nonextremal black holes by emitting superradiant waves.$$\begin{aligned} \varGamma _{\mathrm {ext}} = \varTheta (\omega +m\varOmega _J+q_e\varPhi _e)\sigma _{\mathrm {abs}}. \end{aligned}$$(15)

Innermost stable orbit approaching the horizon in the extremal limit. Nearextremal black holes have an innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) very close to the horizon (in Boyer–Lindquist coordinates, the radius of such an orbit coincides with the radius of the horizon. However, since the horizon is a null surface, while the ISCO is timelike, the orbit necessarily lies outside the horizon, which can be seen explicitly in more appropriate coordinates. See Fig. 2 of Bardeen et al. 1972.^{11}) As a consequence, the region of the black hole close to the horizon can support accretion disks of matter and, therefore, measurements of electromagnetic waves originating from the accretion disk of nearextremal rotating black holes contain (at least some marginal) information from the nearhorizon region. For a careful analysis of the physical processes around rotating black holes, see Bardeen et al. (1972).

Classical singularities approaching the horizon in the extremal limit. Stationary axisymmetric nonextremal black holes admit a smooth inner and outer horizon, where curvatures are small. However, numerical results (Brady and Smith 1995; Brady and Chambers 1995; Brady et al. 1998; Dafermos 2005) and the identification of unstable linear modes using perturbation theory (McNamara 1978; Dotti et al. 2008, 2011) showed that the inner horizon is unstable and develops a curvature singularity when the black hole is slightly perturbed. The instability is triggered by tiny bits of gravitational radiation that are blueshifted at the inner Cauchy horizon and which create a null singularity. In the nearextremality limit, the inner horizon approaches the outer horizon and it can be argued that test particles encounter a curvature singularity immediately after they enter the horizon of a nearextremal black hole (Marolf 2010). In fact, there is an instability at the horizon of both extreme Reissner–Nordström and Kerr as subsequently proven (Aretakis 2011a, b, 2012, 2015).
2.2 Nearhorizon geometries of extremal black holes
We will define the nearhorizon limit of static and rotating black holes at extremality and describe in detail their properties. We will also present some explicit examples of general interest. The extension of the nearhorizon limit for nearextremal geometries will be described in Sect. 2.4 after first presenting the thermodynamic properties of extremal horizons in Sect. 2.3.
2.2.1 Static nearhorizon geometries
For some supersymmetric theories, the values \(v_1,v_2,\chi ^A_\star ,e_I\) are generically completely fixed by the electric (\(q^I\)) and magnetic (\(p^I\)) charges of the black hole and do not depend continuously on the asymptotic value of the scalar fields in the asymptotic region—the scalar moduli. This is the attractor mechanism (Ferrara et al. 1995; Strominger 1996; Ferrara and Kallosh 1996). It was then realized that it still applies in the presence of certain higherderivative corrections (Lopes Cardoso et al. 1999, 2000b, a). The attractor mechanism was also extended to nonsupersymmetric extremal static black holes (Ferrara et al. 1997; Sen 2005; Goldstein et al. 2005; Kallosh 2005). As a consequence of this mechanism, the entropy of these extremal black hole does not depend continuously on any moduli of the theory.^{12} The entropy can however still have discrete jumps when crossing walls of marginal stability in the scalar moduli space since the index which captures it has jumps (Ooguri et al. 2004; Denef and Moore 2011). The attractor mechanism generally allows to account for the black hole entropy by varying the moduli to a weaklycoupled description of the system without gravity, where states with fixed conserved charges can be counted. Therefore, the attractor mechanism led to an explanation (Astefanesei et al. 2008; Dabholkar et al. 2007) of the success of previous string theory calculations of the entropy of certain nonsupersymmetric extremal black holes (Kaplan et al. 1997; Horowitz et al. 1996; Dabholkar 1997; Tripathy and Trivedi 2006; Emparan and Horowitz 2006; Emparan and Maccarrone 2007).
2.2.2 Spinning nearhorizon geometries
Geodesic completeness of these geometries has not been shown in general, even though it is expected that they are geodesically complete. For the case of the nearhorizon geometry of Kerr, geodesic completeness has been proven explicitly in Bardeen and Horowitz (1999) after working out the geodesic equations.
At fixed polar angle \(\theta \), the geometry can be described in terms of 3D warped antide Sitter geometries; see Anninos et al. (2009) for a relevant description and Nutku (1993), Gürses (1994), Rooman and Spindel (1998), Duff et al. (1999), Ait Moussa et al. (2003), Israël et al. (2003), Israël et al. (2005), Andrade et al. (2005), Detournay et al. (2005), Bengtsson and Sandin (2006), Bañados et al. (2006), Compère and Detournay (2007), Ait Moussa et al. (2008) for earlier work on these threedimensional geometries. Warped antide Sitter spacetimes are deformations of \(\mathrm {AdS}_{3}\), where the \(S^1\) fiber is twisted around the \(\mathrm {AdS}_2\) base. Because of the identification \(\phi \sim \phi +2 \pi \), the geometries at fixed \(\theta \) are quotients of the warped AdS geometries, which are characterized by the presence of a Killing vector of constant norm (namely \(\partial _\phi \)). These quotients are often called selfdual orbifolds by analogy to similar quotients in \(\mathrm {AdS}_{3}\) (Coussaert and Henneaux 1994).^{15}
One can show the existence of an attractor mechanism for extremal spinning black holes, which are solutions of the action (3) (Astefanesei et al. 2006). According to Astefanesei et al. (2006), the complete nearhorizon solution is generically independent of the asymptotic data and depends only on the electric charges \(\mathcal {Q}^I_{e}\), magnetic charges \(\mathcal {Q}^I_{m}\) and angular momentum \(\mathcal {J}\) carried by the black hole, but in special cases there may be some dependence of the near horizon background on this asymptotic data. In all cases, the entropy only depends on the conserved electromagnetic charges and the angular momentum of the black hole and might only jump discontinuously upon changing the asymptotic values of the scalar fields, as it does for static charged black holes (Ooguri et al. 2004; Denef and Moore 2011).
2.2.3 Explicit nearhorizon geometries
Let us now present explicit examples of nearhorizon geometries of interest. We will discuss the cases of the 4D extremal Kerr and Reissner–Nordström black holes as well as the 4D extremal Kerr–Newman and Kerr–Newman–AdS black holes. We will also present the 3D extremal BTZ black hole since it is quite universal. Other nearhorizon geometries of interest can be found, e.g., in Clément and Gal’tsov (2001), Dias et al. (2008), Lü et al. (2009a).
2.2.4 Extremal Kerr
2.2.5 Extremal Reissner–Nordström
2.2.6 Extremal Kerr–Newman
2.2.7 Extremal Kerr–Newman–AdS
2.2.8 Extremal BTZ
2.3 Thermodynamics at extremality
Black holes are characterized by thermodynamic variables which obey an analogue of the standard four laws of thermodynamics (Bardeen et al. 1973). In this section we review various definitions of thermodynamic variables at extremality, discuss their equivalence and scope and deduce the consequences of the four laws of thermodynamics at extremality. We also mention two dynamical properties of the entropy which go beyond the thermodynamic limit: the entropy as extremum of the entropy function and the form of quantum logarithmic corrections.
2.3.1 Entropy
2.3.2 Temperature and chemical potentials
Even though the Hawking temperature is zero at extremality, quantum states just outside the horizon are not pure states when one defines the vacuum using the generator of the horizon. Let us review these arguments following Guica et al. (2009), Hartman et al. (2009), Chow et al. (2009). We assume that all thermodynamical quantities are analytic as function of the parameters defining the nearhorizon geometries. We will drop the index I distinguishing different gauge fields since this detail is irrelevant to the present arguments.
The interpretation of these chemical potentials can be made in the context of quantum field theories in curved spacetimes; see Birrell and Davies (1982) for an introduction. The Hartle–Hawking vacuum for a Schwarzschild black hole, restricted to the region outside the horizon, is a density matrix \(\rho = e^{\omega /T_{H}}\) at the Hawking temperature \(T_H\). For spacetimes that do not admit a global timelike Killing vector, such as the Kerr geometry, the Hartle–Hawking vacuum does not exist, but one can use the generator of the horizon to define positive frequency modes and, therefore, define the vacuum in the region where the generator is timelike (close enough to the horizon). This is known as the Frolov–Thorne vacuum (Frolov and Thorne 1989; see also Duffy and Ottewill 2008). One can take a suitable limit of the definition of the Frolov–Thorne vacuum to provide a definition of the vacuum state for any spinning or charged extremal black hole.
Now, as noted in Amsel et al. (2009a), there is a caveat in the previous argument for the Kerr black hole and, as a trivial generalization, for all black holes that do not possess a global timelike Killing vector. For any nonextremal black hole, the horizongenerating Killing field is timelike just outside the horizon. If there is no global timelike Killing vector, this vector field should become null on some surface at some distance away from the horizon. This surface is called the velocity of light surface. For positiveenergy matter, this timelike Killing field defines a positive conserved quantity for excitations in the nearhorizon region, ruling out instabilities. However, when approaching extremality, it might turn out that the velocity of light surface approaches asymptotically the horizon. In that case, the horizongenerating Killing field of the extreme black hole may not be everywhere timelike. This causes serious difficulties in defining quantum fields directly in the nearhorizon geometry (Kay and Wald 1991; Ottewill and Winstanley 2000a, b). However, (at least classically) dynamical instabilities might appear only if there are actual bulk degrees of freedom in the nearhorizon geometries. We will argue that this is not the case in Sect. 2.5. As a conclusion, extremal Frolov–Thorne temperatures can be formally and uniquely defined as the extremal limit of nonextremal temperatures and chemical potentials. However, the physical interpretation of these quantities is better understood finitely away from extremality.
The condition for having a global timelike Killing vector was spelled out in (33). This condition is violated for the extremal Kerr black hole or for any extremal Kerr–Newman black hole with \(a \ge Q/\sqrt{3}\), as can be shown by using the explicit values defined in (2.2.3) (the extremal Kerr–Newman nearhorizon geometry does possess a global timelike Killing vector when \(a < Q/\sqrt{3}\) and the Kerr–Newman–AdS black holes do as well when \(4a^2/(\varDelta _0 r_+^2)<1\), which is true for large black holes with \(r_+ \gg l\). Nevertheless, there might be other instabilities due to the electric superradiant effect).
2.3.3 The three laws of nearhorizon geometries
 Balance equation: The entropy at extremality obeys the balance equation$$\begin{aligned} \delta \mathcal {S}_{\mathrm {ext}} = \frac{1}{T_{\phi }}\delta \mathcal {J}+ \frac{1}{T_e}\delta \mathcal {Q}_e+ \frac{1}{T_m}\delta \mathcal {Q}_m. \end{aligned}$$(74)
 Zero law: The angular chemical potential \(T_\phi \) and electromagnetic potential \(T_e\) are given bywhere \(k,\, e\) are constants over the nearhorizon geometry.$$\begin{aligned} T_\phi = \frac{1}{2 \pi k},\qquad T_e = \frac{1}{2\pi e}, \end{aligned}$$(75)
 Entropy function law: The entropy at extremality is the extremum of the entropy functionamong nearhorizon geometries of the form (24) where \(\mathcal {L}\) is the Lagrangian and \(\varSigma \) is a sphere at fixed time and radius.$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {E} \equiv \frac{\mathcal {J}}{T_\phi }+\frac{\mathcal {Q}_e}{T_e}+\frac{\mathcal {Q}_m}{T_m}  2\pi \int _\varSigma d\theta \, d\phi \sqrt{g}\mathcal {L}, \end{aligned}$$(76)
The zero law is a consequence of both the zero law of thermodynamics for nonextremal black holes and the presence of \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) invariance in the extremal limit, which ensures that k and e are constant. Since no dynamical processes outside equilibrium are allowed in the nearhorizon geometries as we will discuss in Sect. 2.5, there is no analogue of the second law of thermodynamics \(\delta \mathcal {S} \ge 0\) at extremality.
The entropy function law is a statement about the dynamics of gravity among the class of nearhorizon geometries and it has no obvious analogue away from extremality since it depends upon the existence of the nearhorizon limit. It provides with the ground state entropy at extremality as a function of the other dynamical quantities in the system. The generalization to lower and higher dimensions is straightforward.
2.3.4 Temperatures and entropies of specific extremal black holes
2.4 Nearextremal nearhorizon geometries
An important question about nearhorizon geometries is the following: how much dynamics of gravity coupled to matter fields is left in a nearhorizon limit such as (22)? We already discussed in Sect. 2.2.2 the absence of nonperturbative solutions in nearhorizon geometries, such as black holes. In this section, we will discuss the existence of nearextremal solutions obtained from a combined nearhorizon limit and zero temperature limit. We will show that these solutions are related to extremal nearhorizon geometries via a nontrivial diffeomorphism and we will point out that their temperature has to be fixed in order to be able to define the energy (which is then fixed as well). There is therefore no black hole of arbitrary energy in nearhorizon geometries. In Sect. 2.5, we will argue for the absence of local bulk degrees of freedom. We will discuss later in Sect. 4.3 the remaining nontrivial boundary dynamics generated by large diffeomorphisms.
2.5 Absence of bulk dynamics in nearhorizon geometries
In this section, we will review arguments pointing to the absence of local degrees of freedom in the nearhorizon geometries (24) or (85), following the arguments of Amsel et al. (2009a) and Dias et al. (2009) for Einstein gravity in the NHEK geometry. The only nontrivial dynamics will be argued to occur at the boundary of the nearhorizon geometries due to nontrivial diffeomorphisms. The analysis of these diffeomorphisms will be deferred until Sect. 4.1. This lack of dynamics is familiar from the \(\mathrm {AdS}_2 \times S^2\) geometry (Maldacena et al. 1999), which, as we have seen in Sects. 2.2.1–2.2.2, is the static limit of the spinning nearhorizon geometries.^{18}
Propagating degrees of freedom have finite energy. If nearhorizon geometries contain propagating modes, one expects that a highlysymmetric solution would exist which has a nontrivial spectrum of energy. Such solution would then approximate the latetime thermalized state after dissipation has occurred. However, in the case of 4D Einstein gravity, one can prove that the NHEK (nearhorizon extremal Kerr geometry) is the unique (up to diffeomorphisms) regular stationary and axisymmetric solution asymptotic to the NHEK geometry with a smooth horizon (Amsel et al. 2009a). This can be understood as a Birkoff theorem for the NHEK geometry. This can be paraphrased by the statement that there are no black holes “inside” of the NHEK geometry. The nearextremal nearhorizon geometries are not candidates for thermalized states since they do not have a nontrivial spectrum of energy, as we showed in Sect. 2.4.
One can also prove that there is a nearhorizon geometry in the class (24), which is the unique (up to diffeomorphisms) nearhorizon stationary and axisymmetric solution of 4D AdS–Einstein–Maxwell theory (Kunduri and Lucietti 2009a, b; Kunduri 2011). The assumption of axisymmetry can be further relaxed since stationarity implies axisymmetry (Hollands and Ishibashi 2009). Additional results can be obtained for various theories of the class (3) in lower and higher dimensions, see Kunduri and Lucietti (2013).
It is then natural to conjecture that any stationary solution of the more general action (3), which asymptotes to a nearhorizon geometry of the form (24) is diffeomorphic to it. This conjecture remains to be proven but if correct, it would imply, together with the result in Sect. 2.4, that there is no nontrivial candidate stationary nearhorizon solution with arbitrary finite energy in any theory of the form (3). One can then argue that there will be no solution asymptotic to (24)—even nonstationary—with a nonzero energy above the background nearhorizon geometry, except solutions related via a diffeomorphism.
In order to test directly whether or not there exist any local bulk dynamics in the class of geometries, which asymptote to the nearhorizon geometries (24), one can perform a linear analysis and study which modes survive at the nonlinear level after backreaction is taken into account. This analysis has been performed with care for the massless spin 0 and spin 2 field around the NHEK geometry in Amsel et al. (2009a) and Dias et al. (2009) under the assumption that all nonlinear solutions have vanishing \(SL(2,\mathbb {R}) \times U(1)\) charges (which is justified by the existence of a Birkoff theorem as mentioned earlier). The conclusion is that there is no linear mode that is the linearization of a nonlinear solution. In other words, there is no local massless spin 0 or spin 2 bulk degree of freedom around the NHEK solution. The result could very likely be extended to massive scalars, gauge fields and gravitons propagating on the general class of nearhorizon solutions (24) of the action (3), but such an analysis has not been done at that level of generality.
3 Twodimensional conformal field theories
Since we aim at drawing parallels between black holes and twodimensional CFTs (2D CFTs), it is useful to describe some of their key properties. An important caveat is that, as discussed in the Introduction (1), there is no standard 2D CFT dual to the Kerr black hole, nor a chiral part of a standard 2D CFT dual to the extremal Kerr black hole. The language of 2D CFTs is however relevant to describe the properties of gravity and its probes (Bredberg et al. 2010; Hartman et al. 2010; Porfyriadis and Strominger 2014).
A 2D CFT can be uniquely characterized by a list of (primary) operators \(\mathcal {O}\), the conformal dimensions of these operators (their eigenvalues under \(\mathcal {L}_0\) and \(\bar{\mathcal {L}}_0\)) and the operator product expansions between all operators. Since we will only be concerned with universal properties of CFTs here, such detailed data of individual CFTs will not be important for our considerations.
We will describe in the next short sections some properties of CFTs that are most relevant to the Kerr/CFT correspondence and its extensions: the Cardy formula and its range of validity, some properties of the discrete lightcone quantization (DLCQ), another closely related class of conformally invariant theories namely the warped conformal field theories, and some classes of irrelevant deformations. The material in this section is far too preliminary to formulate concrete proposals for dual theories to black holes but it contains some ingredients which are expected to play a role in such a holographic correspondence.
3.1 Cardy’s formula and its extended range
The origin of Cardy’s formula lies in an IR/UV connection implied by modular invariance. The spectrum of states at high energies is dictated by the spectrum of states at small energies. As we will discuss in Sect. 4.3, the matching between the entropy of extremal black holes and Cardy’s formula will not be performed in its range of validity. It is therefore crucial to investigate whether or not its range of validity can be extended for classes of CFTs that might be relevant for holography. Two such extensions have been derived which we review herebelow.
3.1.1 Extended validity for large central charge and sparse light spectrum
It was shown in Hartman et al. (2014) that symmetric orbifold theories at the orbifold point (where the theory is free and its spectrum known) not only obey the bounds (101)–(104) but also saturate them. This shows that the bounds are optimal and that these theories are the most dense theories that are still compatible with Cardy’s growth of states.
3.1.2 Extended validity for long strings
The “long string CFT” can be made more explicit in the context of symmetric product orbifold CFTs. The Virasoro generators of the resulting infrared CFT can then be formally constructed from the generators \(\mathcal {L}_m\) of the original infrared CFT as (107). Conversely, if one starts with a symmetric product orbifold, one can isolate the “long string” sector, which contains the “long” twisted operators. One can argue that such a sector can be effectively described in the infrared by a CFT, which has a Virasoro algebra expressed as (108) in terms of the Virasoro algebra of the low energy CFT of the symmetric product orbifold (Maldacena and Susskind 1996). The derivation of Sect. 3.1.1 makes a more precise statement on the range of validity of Cardy’s formula for orbifold CFTs.
3.2 DLCQ as a chiral limit
The role of the DLCQ of CFTs in the context of the Kerr/CFT correspondence was emphasized in Balasubramanian et al. (2010) (for closely related work see Strominger 1999; Azeyanagi et al. 2009c). Here, we will review how a DLCQ is performed and how it leads to a chiral half of a CFT. A chiral half of a CFT is here defined as a sector of a 2D CFT defined on the cylinder, where the rightmovers are set to the Ramond–Ramond ground state after the limiting DLCQ procedure. We will use these considerations in Sect. 4.3.
In summary, the DLCQ of a 2D CFT leads to a chiral half of the CFT with central charge c. The limiting procedure removes most of the dynamics of the original CFT. Conversely, given a spectrum such as (118) one possible completion of the theory which is modular invariant is a 2D CFT.
3.3 Warped conformal field theories as chiral irrelevant deformations
As a field theory with universal properties, it is of interest in order to formulate possible holographic correspondences. Nevertheless, the role of warped conformal field theories in the description of extremal (not to say nonextremal) black holes is far from clear. A DLCQ is necessary in order to match the extremal limit on the gravitational side. The occurence of complex weights in nearhorizon geometries without global timelike Killing vector such as NHEK also indicates that the putative dual theory will not be standard. The common properties of warped conformal field theories and nearhorizon extremal geometries are the exact \(SL(2,\mathbb {R}) \times U(1)\) symmetries and the occurrence of a Virasoro algebra. A precise relationship was attempted for several classes of extremal black holes in supergravity whose nearhorizon geometry contains a warped deformation of \(\mathrm {AdS}_3\) both perturbatively (Compère et al. 2011; ElShowk and Guica 2012; see also Maldacena et al. 2008) and nonperturbatively (Song and Strominger 2012a; Bena et al. 2013). However, such efforts did not lead to precise correspondences for realistic extremal black holes. Another issue is that warped \(\mathrm {AdS}_3\) geometries (as well as \(\mathrm {AdS}_3\) geometries themselves) admit boundary conditions which are described by either the conformal algebra (Guica 2013, 2012; Compère et al. 2013) or the warped conformal algebra (Compère and Detournay 2007, 2009b, a; Blagojević and Cvetković 2009; Anninos et al. 2010; Henneaux et al. 2011; Castro and Song 2014; Compère et al. 2014) and it is not clear which one is realized in a consistent quantum gravity, see Compère et al. (2011), ElShowk and Guica (2012), Song and Strominger (2012b), Song and Strominger (2012a), Bena et al. (2013) for proposals.^{19}
3.4 Irrelevant deformations on both sectors
The description of nonextremal black holes with an asymptotically flat or AdS region requires to consider 2D CFTs with irrelevant deformations in both left and right sectors. One issue with such a description is that the IR cutoff set by the temperature will in general be of the same order of magnitude as the UV cutoff set by the mass scale associated with irrelevant perturbations (Baggio et al. 2013). Therefore the CFT description will have no range of validity. Exceptions are special black holes in string theory where the \(\mathrm {AdS}_3/\mathrm {CFT}_2\) correspondence precisely applies in the extremal limit. The CFT then controls part of the physics away from extremality. Given such considerations, it might then come as a surprise that there are some CFT features of black holes away from extremality (an effective string description (Cvetič and Larsen 1997b), a Cardytype formula and the \(SL(2,\mathbb {R}) \times SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) invariance of some probes (Castro et al. 2010)) as we will describe in Sect. 6.
4 Matching the entropy of extremal black holes
We discussed that nearhorizon geometries of compact extremal black holes are isolated systems with universal properties and we reviewed that they have no local bulk dynamics. Given the nontrivial thermodynamic properties of these systems even at extremality, one can suspect that some dynamics is left over. It turns out that there is one remaining dynamical sector: nontrivial diffeomorphisms which are associated with nonvanishing conserved surface charges. We will discuss that fourdimensional spinning extremal black holes belong to a phase space which represent one copy of the Virasoro algebra with a specific central charge. The chiral Cardy formula reproduces the black hole entropy which points to the relevance of a CFT description. We will discuss the generalization to charged extremal black holes and to higher dimensions.
4.1 Boundary conditions and asymptotic symmetry algebra
The theory of nontrivial diffeomorphisms in gravity goes back to the work of ADM on the definition of asymptotically conserved quantities in asymptotically flat spacetimes (Arnowitt et al. 1961). The framework to define asymptotic conserved charges and their algebra was then generalized in several respects in Hamiltonian (Regge and Teitelboim 1974; Brown and Henneaux 1986b; Troessaert 2015) and Lagrangian formalisms Lee and Wald (1990), Iyer and Wald (1994), Barnich and Brandt (2002), Barnich and Compère (2008), Compère (2007). In gravity, most diffeomorphisms are pure gauge because they are associated with trivial canonical surface charges. Some diffeomorphisms are however too large at the boundary: they are associated with infinite charges and should be discarded. In the intermediate case, some diffeomorphisms are associated with finite surface charges. The quotient of allowed diffeomorphism by trivial diffeomorphisms constitutes a Lie algebra known as the asymptotic symmetry algebra or by extension to the group, the asymptotic symmetry group. A given set of boundary conditions comes equipped with an asymptotic symmetry group which preserves the boundary conditions. Boundary conditions are restricted by the condition that all surface charges are finite and integrable. There is no universal method or uniqueness in the construction of boundary conditions but once boundary conditions are proposed, their consistency can be checked.
Imposing consistent boundary conditions and obtaining the associated asymptotic symmetry algebra requires a careful analysis of the asymptotic dynamics of the theory. If the boundary conditions are too strong, all interesting excitations are ruled out and the asymptotic symmetry algebra is trivial. If they are too weak, the boundary conditions are inconsistent because transformations preserving the boundary conditions are associated to infinite or illdefined charges. In general, there is a narrow window of consistent and interesting boundary conditions. There is not necessarily a unique set of consistent boundary conditions.
As an illustration, asymptotically antide Sitter spacetimes in spacetime dimensions \(d+1\) admit the SO(2, d) asymptotic symmetry algebra for \(d \ge 3\) (Abbott and Deser 1982; Ashtekar and Magnon 1984; Henneaux and Teitelboim 1985; Henneaux 1986) and two copies of the Virasoro algebra for \(d=2\) (Brown and Henneaux 1986a). However, other boundary conditions are also possible Compère and Marolf (2008), Compère et al. (2013), Troessaert (2013), Avery et al. (2014), Donnay et al. (2016), Afshar et al. (2016), Pérez et al. (2016). Asymptoticallyflat spacetimes admit as asymptotic symmetry algebra the Poincaré algebra at spatial infinity (Arnowitt et al. 1961; Geroch 1972; Regge and Teitelboim 1974; Ashtekar and Hansen 1978; Ashtekar et al. 1991; Ashtekar and Romano 1992; Compère et al. 2011; Compère and Dehouck 2011) and the BMS algebra at null infinity with or without Virasoro generators (Bondi et al. 1962; Sachs 1962; Penrose 1963; Ashtekar and Hansen 1978; Ashtekar et al. 1991; Barnich and Troessaert 2010b, 2011; Strominger 2014). From these examples, we learn that the asymptotic symmetry algebra can be larger than the exact symmetry algebra of the background spacetime and it might in some cases contain an infinite number of generators. We also notice that several choices of boundary conditions, motivated from different physical considerations, might lead to different asymptotic symmetry algebras.
In three dimensions, a Virasoro algebra can also be found in the nearhorizon limit of the BTZ black hole (Balasubramanian et al. 2010). There it was shown that the asymptotic symmetry group of the nearhorizon geometry of the extremal BTZ black hole of angular momentum J given in (48) consists of one chiral Virasoro algebra extending the U(1) symmetry along \(\partial _\phi \), while the charges associated with the \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) symmetry group are identically zero. These observations are consistent with the analysis of fourdimensional nearhorizon geometries (24), whose constant \(\theta \) sections share similar qualitative features with the threedimensional geometries (48).
Let us also discuss what happens in higher dimensions (\(d > 4\)). The presence of several independent planes of rotation allows for the construction of one Virasoro ansatz and an associated Frolov–Thorne temperature for each plane of rotation (Lü et al. 2009a; Isono et al. 2009; Azeyanagi et al. 2009b; Nakayama 2009; Chow et al. 2009). More precisely, given n compact commuting Killing vectors, one can consider an \(SL(n,\mathbb {Z})\) family of Virasoro ansätze by considering all modular transformations on the \(U(1)^n\) torus (Loran and Soltanpanahi 2009; Chen and Zhang 2012). However, no boundary condition is known that allows simultaneously two different Virasoro algebras in the asymptotic symmetry algebra (Azeyanagi et al. 2009b). It was confirmed in the analysis of Compère et al. (2015c) that there are mutuallyincompatible boundary conditions for each choice of Virasoro ansatz. However, there is an alternative boundary condition that exists in higher dimensions with an algebra which differs from the Virasoro algebra (Compère et al. 2015b, c). These alternative boundary conditions will not be discussed here.
The occurrence of multiple choices of boundary conditions in the presence of multiple U(1) symmetries raises the question of whether or not the (AdS)–Reissner–Nördstrom black hole admits interesting boundary conditions where the U(1) gauge symmetry (which is canonically associated to the conserved electric charge Q) plays the prominent role. One can also ask these questions for the general class of (AdS)–Kerr–Newman black holes.
4.1.1 Absence of \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) asymptotic symmetries
The boundary conditions discussed so far do not admit solutions with nontrivial charges under the \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) exact symmetry group of the background geometry generated by \(\zeta _{0,\pm 1}\) (28). In fact, the boundary conditions are not even invariant under the action of the generator \(\zeta _1\). One could ask whether such an enlargement of boundary conditions is possible, which would open the possibility of enlarging the asymptoticsymmetry group to include the \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) group and even a Virasoro extension thereof. We will now argue that such enlargement would result in trivial charges, which would not belong to the asymptotic symmetry algebra.
First, we saw in Sect. 2.4 that there is a class of nearextremal solutions (85) obeying the boundary conditions (130)–(136) with nearhorizon energy \(\slash \delta \mathcal {Q}_{\partial _t} = T^{\mathrm {nearext}}\delta \mathcal {S}_{\mathrm {ext}}\). However, the charge \(\slash \delta \mathcal {Q}_{\partial _t}\) is a heat term, which is not integrable when both \(T^{\mathrm {nearext}}\) and \(\mathcal {S}_{\mathrm {ext}}\) can be varied. Moreover, upon scaling the coordinates as \(t \rightarrow t/\alpha \) and \(r \rightarrow \alpha r\) using the \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) generator (23), one obtains the same metric as (85) with \(T^{\mathrm {nearext}} \rightarrow T^{\mathrm {nearext}}/\alpha \). If one would allow the class of nearextremal solutions (85) and the presence of \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) symmetries in a consistent set of boundary conditions, one would be forced to fix the entropy \(\mathcal {S}_{\mathrm {ext}}\) to a constant, in order to define integrable charges. The resulting vanishing charges would then not belong to the asymptotic symmetry algebra. Since there is no other obvious candidate for a solution with nonzero nearhorizon energy, we argued in Sect. 2.5 that there is no such solution at all. If that assumption is correct, the \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) algebra would always be associated with zero charges and would not belong to the asymptotic symmetry group. Hence, no additional nonvanishing Virasoro algebra could be derived in a consistent set of boundary conditions which contains the nearhorizon geometries.^{21}
Second, as far as extremal geometries are concerned, there is no need for a nontrivial \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) or second Virasoro algebra. As we will see in Sect. 4.3, the entropy of extremal black holes will be matched using a single copy of the Virasoro algebra, using the assumption that Cardy’s formula applies. Matching the entropy of nonextremal black holes and justifying Cardy’s formula requires two Virasoro algebras, as we will discuss in Sect. 5.4. However, nonextremal black holes do not admit a nearhorizon limit and, therefore, are not dynamical objects described by a consistent class of nearhorizon boundary conditions. At most, one could construct the near horizon region of nonextremal black holes in perturbation theory as a large deformation of the extremal nearhorizon geometry (Castro and Larsen 2009).
4.2 Virasoro algebra and central charge
Let us now assume in the context of the general theory (3) that a consistent set of boundary conditions exists that admits the Virasoro algebra generated by (124)–(125) as asymptoticsymmetry algebra. Current results are consistent with that assumption but, as emphasized earlier, boundary conditions have only been partially checked (Guica et al. 2009; Amsel et al. 2009b; Azeyanagi et al. 2009b) and other ansatzes or boundary conditions exist (Compère et al. 2015b, c). We will also assume the definition of the Barnich–Brandt surface charge and ignore the potential ambiguities \(Y^{\mu \nu }\) in (129), see Compère et al. (2015c) for discussions.
The values of the central charges (148), (149), (150), (151), (152), (154), (155), (156) are the main results of this section.
4.3 Cardy matching of the entropy
In Sect. 4.2 we have discussed the existence of an asymptotic Virasoro algebra at the boundary \(r = \infty \) of the nearhorizon geometry. We also discussed that the \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) symmetry is associated with zero charges. Following semiclassical quantization rules, the operators that define quantum gravity with the boundary conditions (130), (136), (135) form a representation of the Virasoro algebra and are in a ground state with respect to the representation of the \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) symmetry (Strominger 1998; Guica et al. 2009). A consistent theory of quantum gravity in the nearhorizon region, if it can be defined at all, can therefore be (i) a chiral CFT or (ii) a chiral half of a twodimensional CFT or (iii) a chiral half of a twodimensional deformed CFT with a Virasoro algebra in the IR and in the dual semiclassical gravity regime. A chiral CFT is defined as a holomorphicallyfactorized CFT with zero central charge in one sector, while a chiral half of a 2D CFT can be obtained, e.g., after a chiral limit of a 2D CFT, see Sect. 3.2. None of (i) and (ii) seem to apply for the description of the properties of nearextremal and nonextremal black holes as discussed in the Introduction (1) and in the next sections. In the case (iii), the CFT can be deformed as long as the asymptotic growth of states is still captured by Cardy’s formula.
Before moving further on, let us step back and first review an analogous reasoning in \(\mathrm {AdS}_{3}\) (Strominger 1998). In the case of asymptotically \(\mathrm {AdS}_{3}\) spacetimes, the asymptotic symmetry algebra contains two Virasoro algebras. Also, one can define a twodimensional flat cylinder at the boundary of \(\mathrm {AdS}_{3}\) using the Fefferman–Graham theorem (Fefferman and Robin Graham 1985). One is then led to identify quantum gravity in \(\mathrm {AdS}_{3}\) spacetimes with a twodimensional CFT defined on the cylinder. The known examples of AdS/CFT correspondences involving \(\mathrm {AdS}_{3}\) factors can be understood as a correspondence between an ultraviolet completion of quantum gravity on \(\mathrm {AdS}_{3}\) and a specific CFT. The vacuum \(\mathrm {AdS}_{3}\) spacetime is more precisely identified with the \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\times SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) invariant vacuum of the CFT, which is separated with a mass gap of \(c/24\) from the zeromass black holes. Extremal black holes with \(\mathrm {AdS}_{3}\) asymptotics, the extremal BTZ black holes (Bañados et al. 1992), are thermal states in the dual CFT with one chiral sector excited and the other sector set to zero temperature. It was further understood in Balasubramanian et al. (2010) that taking the nearhorizon limit of the extremal BTZ black hole corresponds to taking the DLCQ of the dual CFT (see Sect. 3.2 for a review of the DLCQ procedure and Balasubramanian et al. 2011; Goldstein and Soltanpanahi 2012 for further supportive studies). The resulting CFT is chiral and has a frozen \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) right sector.
Given the close parallels between the nearhorizon geometry of the extremal BTZ black hole (48) and the nearhorizon geometries of fourdimensional extremal black holes (24), it has been suggested in Balasubramanian et al. (2010) that extremal black holes are described by a chiral limit of twodimensional CFT. This assumption nicely accounts for the fact that only one Virasoro algebra appears in the asymptotic symmetry algebra and it is consistent with the conjecture that no nonextremal excitations are allowed in the nearhorizon limit as we discussed earlier. Moreover, the assumption that the chiral half of the CFT originates from a limiting DLCQ procedure is consistent with the fact that there is no natural \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\times SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) invariant geometry in the boundary conditions (130), which would be dual to the vacuum state of the CFT. Indeed, even in the threedimensional example, the geometric dual to the vacuum state (the \(\mathrm {AdS}_{3}\) geometry) does not belong to the phase space defined in the nearhorizon limit of extremal black holes. However, here there is no natural \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\times SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) invariant geometry which would be dual to the vacuum state due to the warping. This leads to considering a deformed 2D CFT which in the DLCQ limit would reproduce the growth of states.
One can easily be puzzled by the incredible matching (160) valid for virtually any extremal black hole and outside the usual Cardy regime, as discussed in Sect. 3.1. Indeed, there are no arguments for unitarity and modular invariance, since there is no clear definition of a dual deformed CFT, which we will refer to by the acronym \(\mathrm {CFT}_J\). Moreover, the regime \(T_R = 0\) lies outside the range of Cardy’s formula even for exact CFTs with a sparse light spectrum. This might suggest the existence of a form of universality. Note also that the central charge depends on the blackhole parameters, such as the angular momentum or the electric charge. This is not too surprising since, in known AdS/CFT correspondences where the black hole contains an \(\mathrm {AdS}_{3}\) factor in the nearhorizon geometry, the Brown–Henneaux central charge \(c=3l/2G_3\) (Brown and Henneaux 1986a) also depends on the parameters of the black hole because the AdS length l is a function of the black hole charges (Maldacena 1998b).
Finally, when two U(1) symmetries are present, one can apply a modular transformation mixing the two U(1) and one obtains a different description for each choice of \(SL(2,\mathbb {Z})\) element. Indeed, we argued that the set of generators (139) obeys the Virasoro algebra with central charge (155). After performing an \(SL(2,\mathbb {Z})\) change of basis in the Boltzman factor (69), we deduce the temperatures and Cardy’s formula is similarly reproduced. We will denote the corresponding class of conjectured dual deformed CFTs by the acronym \(\mathrm {CFT}_{(p_1,p_2,p_3)}\).
Several extensions of the construction of a Virasoro algebra which allows to reproduce the extremal black hole entropy via the chiral thermal Cardy formula exist. The same reasoning applies to magnetized black holes (Astorino 2015b, a; Siahaan 2016), black holes in the large d limit (Guo et al. 2016), superentropic black holes (Sinamuli and Mann 2016), black rings (Sadeghian and Yavartanoo 2016) and black holes with acceleration (Astorino 2016).
5 Scattering from nearextremal black holes
5.1 Nearextremal Kerr–Newman black holes
Nearextremal Kerr–Newman black holes are characterized by their mass M, angular momentum \(J = M a\) and electric charge Q (we take \(a,Q \ge 0\) without loss of generality). They contain nearextremal Kerr and Reissner–Nordström black holes as particular instances. The metric and thermodynamic quantities can be found in many references and will not be reproduced here.
Nearextremal black holes are characterized by an approximative nearhorizon geometry, which controls the behavior of probe fields in the window (165). Upon taking \(T_H = O(\lambda )\) and taking the limit \(\lambda \rightarrow 0 \) the nearhorizon geometry decouples, as we saw in Sect. 2.4.
The conclusion of this section is that the geometries (85) control the behavior of probes in the nearextremal regime (164)–(165). We identified the quantity n as a natural coefficient defined near extremality. It will have a role to play in later Sects. 5.3 and 5.4. We will now turn our attention to how to solve the equations of motion of probes close to extremality.
5.2 Macroscopic greybody factors
The problem of scattering of a general spin field from a Kerr black hole was solved in a series of classic papers by Starobinskii (1973), Starobinskii and Churilov (1974), Teukolsky (1972), Teukolsky (1973), Press and Teukolsky (1973), and Teukolsky and Press (1974) in the early 1970s (see also Futterman et al. 1988; Amsel et al. 2009a; Dias et al. 2009). The scattering of a spin 0 and 1/2 field from a Kerr–Newman black hole has also been solved (Teukolsky and Press 1974), while the scattering of spins 1 and 2 from the Kerr–Newman black hole cannot be solved analytically, except in special regimes (Pani et al. 2013a, b).
In summary, for all separable cases, the dynamics of probes in the Kerr–Newman geometry can be reduced to a secondorder equation for the angular part of the master scalar \(S^s_{\omega ,A,m}(\theta )\) and a secondorder equation for the radial part of the master scalar \(R^s_{\omega ,A,m}(r)\). Let us now discuss their solutions after imposing regularity as boundary conditions, which include ingoing boundary conditions at the horizon. We will limit our discussion to the nonnegative integer spins \(s=0,1,2\) in what follows.
5.3 Macroscopic greybody factors close to extremality
The Sturm–Liouville problem (178) cannot be solved analytically. However, in the regime of nearextremal excitations (164)–(165) an approximative solution can be obtained analytically using asymptotic matched expansions: the wave equation is solved in the nearhorizon region and in the far asymptoticallyflat region and then matched along their common overlap region.

Nearhorizon region: \(x \ll 1\),

Far region: \(x \gg \tau _H\),

Overlap region: \(\tau _H \ll x \ll 1\).
We will now show that the formulae (197) are Fourier transforms of CFT correlation functions. We will not consider the scattering of unstable fields with \(\beta \) imaginary in this review. We refer the reader to Bredberg et al. (2010) for arguments on how the scattering absorption probability of unstable spin 0 modes around the Kerr black hole matches with a dual CFT description as well.
5.4 Microscopic greybody factors
In this section we model the emission amplitudes from a microscopic point of view. We will first discuss nearextremal spinning black holes and we will extend our discussion to general charged and/or spinning black holes at the end of this section. The presentation mostly summarizes Bredberg et al. (2010), Cvetič and Larsen (2009), Hartman et al. (2010). Relevant earlier work includes Maldacena and Strominger (1997), Mathur (1998), Gubser (1997).
The working assumption of the microscopic model is that the nearhorizon region of any nearextremal spinning black hole can be described and therefore effectively replaced by a dual twodimensional CFT. This is a strong assumption since as we discussed earlier one would expect departure from a standard CFT in several respects. Assuming the existence of a 2D CFT with possible deformations, the nearhorizon region is removed from the spacetime and replaced by the CFT glued along the boundary. Therefore, it is the nearhorizon region contribution alone that we expect to be reproduced by the CFT. The normalization \(\sigma _{\mathrm {abs}}^{\text {match}}\) defined in (183 184) will then be dictated by the explicit coupling between the CFT and the asymptoticallyflat region.
In summary, nearsuperradiant absorption probabilities of probes in the nearhorizon region of nearextremal black holes are exactly reproduced by conformal field theory twopoint functions. This shows the intriguing role of an underlying CFT description (or multiple CFT descriptions in the case where several U(1) symmetries are present) of part of the dynamics of nearextremal black holes. We expect that a general scattering theory around any nearextremal blackhole solution of (3) will also be consistent with a CFT description, as supported by all cases studied beyond the Kerr–Newman black hole (Cvetič and Larsen 2009; Chen and Long 2010a; Shao and Zhang 2011; Chen et al. 2011, 2010d; Birkandan and Cvetič 2011).
The conformal symmetries of the Kerr–Newman geometry close to extremality can be further investigated along several routes. First, one can attempt to match higher order correlation functions with CFT expectations. This line of thought has been partially developed for threepoint functions (Becker et al. 2011, 2010, 2014). One can also match other gravitational observables in the nearextremal nearhorizon region with CFT observables such as the gravitation emitted by a circular orbit or a plunge orbit at the vicinity of an extremal spinning black hole (Porfyriadis and Strominger 2014; Hadar et al. 2014, 2015). Conformal invariance in the nearhorizon geometry also constraints electromagnetic radiation emitted close to the horizon (Li et al. 2014; Lupsasca et al. 2014; Zhang et al. 2014; Lupsasca and Rodriguez 2015; Compère and Oliveri 2016; Gralla et al. 2016b).
5.5 Microscopic accounting of superradiance
We mentioned in Sect. 2.1 that extremal spinning black holes that do not admit a globallydefined timelike Killing vector spontaneously emit quanta in the range of frequencies (10). This quantum effect is related by detailed balance to the classical effect of superradiant wave emission, which occur in the same range of frequencies.
It has been argued that the bound (10) essentially follows from Fermi–Dirac statistics of the fermionic spincarrying degrees of freedom in a dual twodimensional CFT (Dias et al. 2008; see also Emparan and Maccarrone 2007). These arguments were made for specific black holes in string theory but one expects that they can be applied to generic extremal spinning black holes, at least qualitatively. Let us review these arguments here.
One starts with the assumption that extremal spinning black holes are modeled by a 2D CFT, where the left and right sectors are coupled only very weakly. Therefore, the total energy and entropy are approximately the sum of the left and right energies and entropies. The state corresponding to an extremal spinning black hole is modeled as a filled Fermi sea on the right sector with zero entropy and a thermal state on the left sector, which accounts for the blackhole entropy. The rightmoving fermions form a condensate of aligned spins \(s=+1/2\), which accounts for the macroscopic angular momentum. It is expected from details of emission rates in several parametric regimes that fermions are only present on the right sector, while bosons are present in both sectors (Cvetič and Larsen 1998, 2009).
Superradiant spontaneous emission is then modeled as the emission of quanta resulting from interaction of a left and a rightmoving mode. Using details of the model such as the fact that the Fermi energy should be proportional to the angular velocity \(\varOmega _J\), one can derive the bound (10). We refer the reader to Emparan and Maccarrone (2007) for further details. It would be interesting to better compare these arguments to the present setup, and to see how these arguments could be generalized to the description of the bound (11) for static extremal rotating black holes.
6 Conformal symmetry for nonextremal black holes
The analyses in Sects. 4 and 5 strongly relied on the existence of a decoupled nearhorizon region in the extremal limit with enhanced symmetry. More precisely, it was found that there is an exact \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) symmetry, an additional asymptotic Virasoro symmetry. Moreover, the full conformal group seems to be the symmetry controlling the formula for nearhorizon scattering crosssections. Away from extremality, one cannot decouple the horizon from the surrounding geometry. Therefore, it is unclear why the previous considerations will be useful in describing any nonextremal physics.
In most of the regimes, probe scalar fields are not constrained by conformal invariance. There is therefore no 2D CFT dual to a nonextremal Kerr–Newman black hole, at best there might be a 2D CFTs with irrelevant deformations in both left and right sectors. This idea can be made more precise by considering deformations of the black hole which preserve its thermodynamics but transform the asymptotics to a geometry with an \(\mathrm {AdS}_3\) geometry. Such deformations have been dubbed “subtracted geometries” (Cvetič and Larsen 2012b, a; Cvetič and Gibbons 2012). Subtracted geometries are supported by additional matter fields, they can be uplifted in 5 dimensions to \(\mathrm {AdS}_3 \times S^2\) and they can be formally generated using particular solution generating techniques named Harrison transformations (Virmani 2012; Cvetič et al. 2013). In the asymptotically \(\mathrm {AdS}_3\) geometry, the \(\mathrm {AdS}_3/\mathrm {CFT}_2\) correspondence applies and one can obtain the operators necessary to deform the geometry to the asymptotically flat one (Baggio et al. 2013). Such operators correspond indeed to irrelevant deformations in both sectors. The main outcome of this analysis is that the IR cutoff set by the temperatures (215) will in general be of the same order of magnitude as the UV cutoff set by the mass scale associated with irrelevant perturbations which make the CFT description of the Kerr–Newman geometry doubtful (Baggio et al. 2013).
Yet, given the possible generalization of the extremal Kerr/CFT results to general classes of extremal spinning or charged black holes, it is natural to test the ideas proposed in Castro et al. (2010) to more general black holes than the Kerr geometry. First, hidden conformal symmetry can be found around the nonextremal Reissner–Nordström black hole (Chen and Sun 2010; Chen et al. 2010a) under the assumption that the gauge field can be understood as a Kaluza–Klein gauge field, as done in the extremal case (Hartman et al. 2010). One can also generalize the analysis to the Kerr–Newman black hole (Wang and Liu 2010; Chen and Long 2010b; Chen et al. 2010b). In complete parallel with the existence of an \(SL(2,\mathbb {Z})\) family of CFT descriptions, there is a class of hidden \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\times SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) symmetries of the Kerr–Newman black hole related with \(SL(2,\mathbb {Z})\) transformations (Chen and Zhang 2011).^{27} As we will discuss in Sect. 6.3.1 each member of the \(SL(2,\mathbb {Z})\) family of CFT descriptions describes only probes with a fixed ratio of probe angular momentum to probe charge. Remarkably, for all cases where a hidden local conformal invariance can be described, the nonextremal blackhole entropy matches with Cardy’s formula using the central charges \(c_R=c_L\) and using the value \(c_L\) in terms of the quantized conserved charges derived at extremality. Another natural question is whether or not this hidden conformal symmetry can be found for higher spin waves and in particular spin 2 waves around the Kerr black hole. The answer is affirmative (Lowe et al. 2014) and the same temperatures (215) are found for any massless spin s field around Kerr. Moreover it was found in Lowe et al. (2014) that the angular part of the wave is described by a similar hidden \(SU(2) \times SU(2)\) symmetry. Fivedimensional asymptoticallyflat black holes were also discussed in Krishnan (2010) and Chen et al. (2010d).
In attempting to generalize the hidden symmetry arguments to fourdimensional black holes in AdS one encounters an apparent obstruction, as we will discuss in Sect. 6.2. It is expected that hidden symmetries are present at least close to extremality, as illustrated by fivedimensional analogues (Birkandan and Cvetič 2011). However, the structure of the wave equation is more intricate far from extremality because of the presence of complex poles (and associated additional monodromies), which might have a role to play in microscopic models (Cvetič et al. 2011).^{28}
In what follows, we first define various quantities at the inner horizon of black holes and review several of their puzzling features. We then review the equations of motion of scalar probing nonextremal black hole geometries and we study their separability properties. We then present a summary of the derivation of the hidden symmetries of the Kerr–Newman black hole and we discuss their possible CFT interpretation. We will mostly follow the approach of Castro et al. (2010) but we will generalize the discussion to the Kerr–Newman black hole and their generalization to supergravity theories, which contains several new interesting features. In particular, we will show that each member of the conjectured \(SL(2,\mathbb {Z})\) family of CFT descriptions of the Kerr–Newman black hole controls part of the dynamics of low energy, low charge and low mass probes.
6.1 Properties of inner horizons
6.2 Scalar wave equation
Let us discuss general features of the massless Klein–Gordon equation in nonextremal black holes geometries. We restrict our discussions to four dimensions for simplicity. An essential property of all known black holes solutions is the existence of a conformal Killing–Stäckel tensor which implies that the massless Klein–Gordon equation is separable. A rank2 conformal Killing–Stäckel tensor is a symmetric tensor \(Q_{\mu \nu } = Q_{(\mu \nu )}\) that satisfies \(\nabla _{(\mu } Q_{\nu \rho )} = q_{(\mu } g_{\mu \nu )}\) for some \(q_\mu \). The existence of such a tensor allows to build the operator \(Q^{\mu \nu }\nabla _\mu \nabla _\nu \) which commutes with the Laplacian \(\square \equiv \nabla ^\mu \nabla _\mu \).
The radial equation has a more involved form than the corresponding flat equation (240) due to the fact that \(\varDelta _r\) is a quartic instead of a quadratic polynomial in r; see (41)–(231). The radial equation is a general Heun’s equation due to the presence of two conjugate complex poles in (244) in addition to the two real poles corresponding to the inner and outer horizons and the pole at infinity.
It has been suggested that all these poles have a role to play in the microscopic description of the AdS black hole (Cvetič et al. 2011). It is an open problem to unravel the structure of the hidden symmetries, if any, of the full nonextremal radial equation (244). It has been shown that in the context of fivedimensional black holes, one can find hidden conformal symmetry in the nearhorizon region close to extremality (Birkandan and Cvetič 2011). It is expected that one could similarly neglect the two complex poles in the nearhorizon region of nearextremal black holes, but this remains to be checked in detail.^{30} Since hidden symmetries for AdS black holes are not understood, we will not discuss AdS black holes further.
6.2.1 Nearregion scalarwave equation
Using the approximations (245), the wave equation greatly simplifies. It can be solved both in the near region and in the far region \(r \gg M\) in terms of special functions. A complete solution can then be obtained by matching near and far solutions together along a surface in the matching region \(M \ll r \ll \omega ^{1}\). As noted in Castro et al. (2010), conformal invariance results from the freedom to locally choose the radius of the matching surface within the matching region.
6.3 Hidden conformal symmetries
6.3.1 Local \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\times SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) symmetries
In conclusion, any low energy and low mass scalar probe in the near region (246) of the Kerr black hole admits a local hidden \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\times SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) symmetry. Similarly, any low energy, low mass and low charge scalar probe in the near region (246) of the Reissner–Nordström black hole admits a local hidden \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\times SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) symmetry. In the case of the Kerr–Newman black hole, we noticed that probes obeying (245) also admit an \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\times SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) hidden symmetry, whose precise realization depends on the ratio between the angular momentum and the electric charge of the probe. For a given ratio (265), hidden symmetries can be constructed using the coordinate \(\phi ^\prime = p_1 \phi +p_2 \chi /R_\chi \). Different choices of coordinate \(\phi ^\prime \) are relevant to describe different sectors of the low energy, low mass and low charge dynamics of scalar probes in the near region of the Kerr–Newman black hole. The union of these descriptions cover the entire dynamical phase space in the near region under the approximations (245)–(246).
6.3.2 Symmetry breaking to \(U(1)_L \times U(1)_R\) and Cardy entropy matching
The situation is similar to the BTZ black hole in 2+1 gravity that has a \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})_L \times SL(2,\mathbb {R})_R\) symmetry, which is spontaneously broken by the identification of the angular coordinate. This breaking of symmetry can be interpreted in that case as placing the dual CFT to the BTZ black hole in a density matrix with left and rightmoving temperatures dictated by the \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})_L \times SL(2,\mathbb {R})_R\) group element generating the \(2\pi \) identification of the geometry (Maldacena and Strominger 1998).
The quantum state describing this accelerating strip of Minkowski spacetime is obtained from the \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})_L \times SL(2,\mathbb {R})_R\) invariant Minkowski vacuum by tracing over the quantum state in the region outside the strip. The result is a thermal density matrix at temperatures \((T_L,T_R)\). Hence, under the assumption of the existence of a CFT with a vacuum state, nonextremal black holes can be described as a finite temperature \((T_L,T_R)\) mixed state in a dual CFT.
It is familiar from the threedimensional BTZ black hole that the identifications required to obtain extremal black holes are different than the ones required to obtain nonextremal black holes (Bañados et al. 1993; Maldacena and Strominger 1998). Here as well, the vector fields (254)–(255) are not defined in the extremal limit because the change of coordinates (250) breaks down. Nevertheless, the extremal limit of the temperatures \(T_L\) and \(T_R\) match with the temperatures defined at extremality in Sect. 5.4. More precisely, the temperatures \(T_L\) and \(T_R\) defined in (262), (264) and (266) match with the temperatures defined at extremality \(T_\phi ,\, R_\chi T_e\) and \((p_1 T_\phi ^{1}+p_2 (R_\chi T_e)^{1})^{1}\), respectively, where \(T_\phi \) and \(T_e\) are defined in (80). This is consistent with the interpretation that states corresponding to extremal black holes in the CFT can be defined as a limit of states corresponding to nonextremal black holes.
It turns out that in each case, the nonextremal black hole entropy matches Cardy’s formula with the temperatures \(T_L\), \(T_R\) derived earlier and the central charges (276) with \(c_L\) computed at extremality. In particular, the central charge does not depend upon the mass M. This is a nontrivial feature of this Cardy matching which has no explanation so far.
7 Summary and open problems
7.1 Summary
The Kerr/CFT correspondence is a set of relations between the classical physics of spinning or charged black holes and representation of conformal symmetry (which depending on the context is either \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) symmetry, Virasoro symmetry or the full 2D conformal group). In its strong original form, the Kerr/CFT correspondence is the statement that the microscopic degrees of freedom of black holes can be counted by an effective CFT model. Subsequent developments indicate that such putative dual theories would differ from standard CFTs in several respects (irrelevant deformations, warped deformations, complex conformal weights, \(\ldots \)) but would still be constrained by conformal invariance to ensure that Cardy’s formula applies. At present, no construction of such a dual theory has been achieved for an embedding of the extremal Kerr black hole in string theory.^{31} One could therefore be skeptical on the validity of the strong Kerr/CFT correspondence. Nevertheless, several observations remain intruiging and not explained at present such as the occurrence and relevance of various symmetries and the incomprehensible universal match of Cardy’s formula with the black hole entropy.
We have reviewed that any extremal black hole containing a compact U(1) axial symmetry admits in its nearhorizon geometry a Virasoro algebra with a nontrivial central charge. The blackhole entropy is reproduced by a chiral half of Cardy’s formula. This result is robust for any diffeomorphisminvariant theory and holds even including scalar and gauge field couplings and higherderivative corrections. Moreover, if a U(1) gauge field can be geometrized into a Kaluza–Klein vector in a higherdimensional spacetime, a Virasoro algebra can be defined along the Kaluza–Klein compact U(1) direction and all the analysis goes through in a similar fashion as for the axial U(1) symmetry. The deep similarity between the effects of rotation and electric charge can be understood from the fact that they are on a similar footing in the higherdimensional geometry. When two U(1) symmetries are present, one can mix up the compact directions using a modular transformation and the construction of Virasoro algebras can still be made.
Independently of these constructions, the scattering probabilities of probes around the nearextremal Kerr–Newman black hole can be reproduced near the superradiant bound by manipulating nearchiral thermal twopoint functions of a twodimensional CFT. The result extends straightforwardly to other asymptoticallyflat or AdS black holes in various gravity theories. Finally away from extremality, hidden \(SL(2,\mathbb {R}) \times SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) symmetries are present in some scalar probes around the Kerr–Newman black hole close enough to the horizon. We showed that several such hidden symmetries are required to account for the entire probe dynamics in the near region in the regime of small mass, small energy and small charge. This analysis does not extend straightforwardly to AdS black holes.
A fair concluding remark would be that several new and intriguing properties of the Kerr–Newman black hole and their generalizations in string theory have been uncovered over the last years, but there is still a long road ahead to comprehend what these results are really telling us about the nature of quantum black holes.
7.2 Set of open problems
 1.
Nearhorizon geometries of blackhole solutions of (3) have been classified. Classify the fourdimensional nearhorizon geometries of extremal black holes for gravity coupled to charged scalars, massive vectors, pforms and nonabelian gauge fields. Are there new features?
 2.
Nonextremal asymptotically flat black holes admit universal features such as the product of area formula and relationships among inner and outer horizon quantities. Investigate whether or not all black holes in string theory (with higher curvature corrections) admit these features. Either try to formulate a proof or find a counterexample. Extend the analysis to AdS black holes.
 3.
A black hole in de Sitter spacetime can be extremal in the sense that its outer radius coincides with the cosmological horizon. The resulting geometry, called the rotating Narirai geometry, has many similarities with the nearhorizon geometries of extremal black holes in flat spacetime or in AdS spacetime. The main difference is that the nearhorizon geometry is a warped product of \(dS_2\) with \(S^2\) instead of \(\mathrm {AdS}_2\) with \(S^2\). Some arguments of the Kerr/CFT correspondence have been extended to this setting (Anninos and Hartman 2010). Extend the dictionary much further.
 4.
Formulate a general scattering theory around nearextremal blackhole solutions of (3). Classify the geometries admitting a Killing–Yano tensor or other special algebraic tensors so that the wave equation could be separated. This would allow to check the matching with CFT twopoint functions in much more generality.
 5.
In the analysis of nearextremal superradiant scattering for any spin, the modes that are below the Breitenlohner–Freedman bound were discarded. Such modes lead to nonconserved flux at the boundary, they lead to instabilities, and their interpretation by a CFT remains unclear. Clarify the match between these modes and CFT expectations for the Kerr–Newman black hole. Also, the match of nearextremal scattering waves with a CFT required to introduce a rightmoving current algebra with the matching condition (201). Clarify why.
 6.
Understand how the extension of the Kerr/CFT correspondence to extremal AdS black holes fits within the AdS/CFT correspondence. As discussed in Lü et al. (2009b), the extremal AdS–Kerr/CFT correspondence suggests that one can identify a nontrivial Virasoro algebra acting on the lowenergy states of strongly coupled large N superYang–Mills theory in an extremal thermal ensemble. Try to make this picture more precise.
 7.
Boundary conditions alternative to the Kerr/CFT boundary conditions have been proposed for higher dimensional extremal vacuum black holes (Compère et al. 2015b). These admit a generalized Virasoro algebra as asymptotic symmetry algebra with the black hole entropy as a central charge. Find criteria to assert which boundary condition is consistent with quantum gravity and in particular is relevant to describe the microscopic entropy. First find whether these boundary conditions can be extended with matter and higher derivative corrections.
 8.
The hidden symmetry arguments for the nonextremal Kerr–Newman black hole rely on an choice of U(1) circle on the two torus spanned by the azimuthal direction and the Kaluza–Klein direction obtained by the uplift of the gauge field. This leads to a \(SL(2,\mathbb {Z})\) family of \(SL(2,\mathbb {R}) \times SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) hidden symmetries. However only one subtracted geometry has been derived for the Kerr–Newman black hole. Does it exist a \(SL(2,\mathbb {Z})\) family?
 9.
Provide with a procedure to compute the central charges \(c_L\) and \(c_R\) away from extremality, or prove that it is not possible.
 10.
Find the largest class of field theories and states such that Cardy’s formula applies.
 11.
Find astrophysical observables in the nearhorizon region of nearextremal Kerr which are constrained by \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) symmetry and use the symmetry to analytically compute these observables. Find whether or not there exist signatures of Virasoro symmetry.
 12.
Embed the extremal Kerr black hole in string theory and construct one exact holographic quantum field theory dual. Use this correspondence to precisely define the notion of a DLCQ of a warped deformation of a 2D CFT which is conjectured relevant to describe the microstates of the extremal Kerr black hole. In this model, compute the quantum corrections to the central charge \(c_L\) and check that it reproduces the quantumcorrected entropy of extremal black holes derived in Sen (2012).
Footnotes
 1.
A smooth covariant phase space could not be constructed using the original ansatz for the Virasoro generator (Amsel et al. 2009b) but a modification of the ansatz allows for an explicit construction (Compère et al. 2015b, c) which as a byproduct also realizes the Virasoro symmetry in the entire nearhorizon region. This provides an example of asymptotic symmetries which extend into the bulk, also known as symplectic symmetries (Compère et al. 2016; see also Barnich and Troessaert 2010a; Compère et al. 2015a).
 2.
Conjectured properties of such a field theory dual are detailed, e.g., in ElShowk and Guica (2012), Song and Strominger (2012b), Bena et al. (2013), Baggio et al. (2013). Also note that such a theory will not be unitary since it couples to the asymptotic region. A signature of nonunitarity are the complex conformal weights, as explained in Sect. 5.4.
 3.
 4.
These considerations can also be applied to black holes in antide Sitter spacetimes. However, the situation is more intricate because no consistent Kaluza–Klein reduction from five dimensions can give rise to the fourdimensional Einstein–Maxwell theory with cosmological constant (Lü et al. 2009b). As a consequence, the fourdimensional Kerr–Newman–AdS black hole cannot be lifted to a solution of any fivedimensional theory. Rather, embeddings in elevendimensional supergravity exist, which are obtained by adding a compact sevensphere (Chamblin et al. 1999; Cvetič et al. 1999).
 5.
Some classes of black holes admit a vanishing horizon area \(A_h\) and zero temperature T limit such that the ratio \(A_h/T\) is finite. Such extremal vanishing horizon (EVH) black holes admit nearhorizon limits, which contain (singular) identifications of \(\mathrm {AdS}_{3}\) that can be used for string model building (Guica and Strominger 2011; Compère et al. 2011; de Boer et al. 2011; ElShowk and Guica 2012; de Boer et al. 2012). Most of the ideas developed for the Kerr/CFT correspondence can be developed similarly for EVH black holes (SheikhJabbari and Yavartanoo 2011).
 6.
The most general stationary axisymmetric singlecenter spinning–blackhole solution of the theory (3) is not known (see however Youm 1998; Mei 2010; Chow and Compère 2014a for general ansätze). The general 4dimensional nonextremal rotating dyonic black hole in \(\mathcal {N}=8\) supergravity has been found recently in a specific Uduality frame Chow and Compère (2014a, c). The general charged rotating black hole of 5 dimensional \(\mathcal {N}= 4\) supergravity was found in Cvetič and Youm (1996).
 7.
Note that even though there is an important redshift in the vicinity of the horizon, particles orbit faster and the boost exactly compensates for the redshift (Piran and Shaham 1977; Bañados et al. 2009, 2011; Gralla et al. 2016b). Therefore, signatures of the nearhorizon region can be observable by the asymptotic observer.
 8.
“Stationarity implies axisymmetry” has been proven for any nonextremal black hole in \(d=4\) Einstein gravity coupled to any matter obeying the weak energy condition with hyperbolic equations of motion and asymptoticallyflat boundary conditions (Hawking 1972; Hawking and Ellis 1973; Sudarsky and Wald 1992; Chruściel and Wald 1994; Friedrich et al. 1999). The proof has been extended to extremal black holes, to higher dimensions and to antide Sitter asymptotics in Hollands et al. (2007), Hollands and Ishibashi (2009), Chruściel and Lopes Costa (2008).
 9.
 10.
Nevertheless, one can describe the process of spontaneous creation of extremal black holes in an electromagnetic field as an analogue to the Schwinger process of particle creation (Dowker et al. 1994).
 11.
We thank the anonymous referee for pointing out this reference.
 12.
In some special cases, there may be some continuous dependence of the nearhorizon parameters on the scalar moduli, but the entropy is constant under such continuous changes (Astefanesei et al. 2006).
 13.
In \(d=3\), the kinematics is sufficiently constrained and the existence of the fourth Killing vector \(\zeta _1\) is guaranteed by the nearhorizon limit. It is natural to assume that the strong energy condition will again implies the existence of an \(\mathrm {AdS}_2\) factor. The review by Kunduri and Lucietti (2013) gives the proof for electrovacuum geometries in \(d=3\) but the generalization to the action (3) is straightforward.
 14.We fix the range of \(\theta \) as \(\theta \in [0,\pi ]\). Since the original black hole has \(S^2\) topology and no conical singularities, the functions \(\gamma (\theta )\), \(\alpha (\theta )\) also obey regularity conditions at the north and south polesSimilar regularity requirements apply for the scalar and gauge fields.$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\gamma (\theta )^2}{\alpha (\theta )^2}\sim \theta ^2 +O(\theta ^3) \sim \left( \pi \theta \right) ^2 +O\left( (\pi \theta )^3\right) . \end{aligned}$$(26)
 15.
In singular limits where both the temperature and horizon area of black holes can be tuned to zero, while keeping the areaovertemperature–ratio fixed, singular nearhorizon geometries can be constructed. Such singular nearhorizon geometries contain a local \(\mathrm {AdS}_{3}\) factor, which can be either a null selfdual orbifold or a pinching orbifold, as noted in Bardeen and Horowitz (1999), Balasubramanian et al. (2008), Fareghbal et al. (2008), Azeyanagi et al. (2011) (see de Boer et al. 2011 for a comprehensive study of the simplest threedimensional model and SheikhJabbari and Yavartanoo (2011) for a partial classification of fourdimensional vanishing area nearhorizon solutions of (3)).
 16.
Our conventions for the infinitesimal charges associated with symmetries is as follows: the energy is \(\delta \mathcal {M} = \delta \mathcal {Q}_{\partial _t}\), the angular momentum is \(\delta \mathcal {J} = \delta \mathcal {Q}_{\partial _\phi }\) and the electric charge is \(\delta \mathcal {Q}_e =\delta \mathcal {Q}_{\partial _{\chi }}\). In other words, the electric charge is associated with the gauge parameter \(\varLambda =1\). The first law then reads \(T_H\delta \mathcal {S}=\delta \mathcal {M}\varOmega _J \delta \mathcal {J}\varPhi _e \delta \mathcal {Q}_e\).
 17.
 18.
In the arguments of Maldacena et al. (1999), the presence of the compact \(S^2\) is crucial. Conversely, in the case of noncompact horizons, such as the extremal planar AdS–Reissner–Nordström black hole, flux can leak out the \(\mathbb {R}^2\) boundary and the arguments do not generalize straightforwardly. There are indeed interesting quantum critical dynamics around \(\mathrm {AdS}_2 \times \mathbb {R}^2\) nearhorizon geometries (Faulkner et al. 2011), but we will not touch upon this topic here since we concentrate exclusively on compact black holes.
 19.
 20.
The sign choice in this expansion is motivated by the fact that the central charge to be derived in Sect. 4.2 will be positive with this choice. Also, the zero mode \(\epsilon = 1\) is canonically associated with the angular momentum in our conventions.
 21.
 22.
We thank Tom Hartman for helping deriving this central charge during a private communication.
 23.
Extensions to the Kerr–Newman–AdS black hole or other specific black holes in four and higher dimensions in gauged or ungauged supergravity can be found in Bredberg et al. (2010), Cvetič and Larsen (2009), Chen and Long (2010a), Shao and Zhang (2011), Birkandan and Cvetič (2011) (see also Chen et al. 2011, 2010d; Durkee and Reall 2011; Murata 2011). No general scattering theory around nearextremal blackhole solutions of (3) has been proposed so far.
 24.
There is a \(\mathbb {Z}_2\) ambiguity in the definition of parameters since Eq. (190) is invariant upon replacing (a, b, c) by \((i s +2b a,b,c+(2bis)(is+2b2a))\). We simply chose one of the two identifications.
 25.
 26.
Note that at extremality \(J=M^2\), so the central charge at extremality (148) could as well be written as \(c_L = 12M^2\). However, away from extremality, matching the black hole entropy requires that the central charge be expressed in terms of the quantized charge \(c_L = 12 J\).
 27.
Therefore, one can expect that there will be also a \(SL(2,\mathbb {Z})\) family of subtracted geometries for the Kerr–Newman black hole, which has not been constructed so far.
 28.
One single copy of hidden \(SL(2,\mathbb {R})\) symmetry can also be found around the Schwarzschild black hole (Bertini et al. 2012; see also Lowe and Skanata 2012) but no analogue of the temperatures (215) could be defined. Since there is no extremal limit of the Schwarzschild geometry, this approach cannot be supported to an asymptotic symmetry group derivation.
 29.
In this section we follow the conventions of Cvetič et al. (2011) for the normalizations of the charges.
 30.
Alternatively, it was suggested in Chen and Long (2010a) and Chen et al. (2011) that one can describe the dynamics of the scalar field in the nearhorizon region using the truncated expansion of \(\varDelta _r(r)\) around \(r_+\) at second order. However, the resulting function \(\varDelta _r^{\text {trunc}}\) has, in addition to the pole \(r_+\), a fake pole \(r_*\), which is not associated with any geometric or thermodynamic feature of the solution. Therefore, the physical meaning of this truncation is unclear.
 31.
There are, however, other extremal black holes in string theory which admit in addition to their nearhorizon limit an intermediate decoupling limit with a warped \(\mathrm {AdS}_3\) spacetime with finite energy excitations (ElShowk and Guica 2012; Detournay and Guica 2013). In those cases, one can construct of a dynamical phase space admitting two copies of the Virasoro algebra as asymptotic symmetry algebra, as long as no travelling waves are present, which point to the existence of a dual 2D CFT (Compère et al. 2014). These toy models are encouraging but rely on the existence of an intermediate decoupling limit and on the absence of travelling wave instabilities, both hypotheses which are untrue in extremal Kerr.
Notes
Acknowledgements
This review originates from lectures given at Iberian Strings 2012 in Bilbao. I am very grateful to the organizers I. Bandos, I. Egusquiza, J. L. Mañes, M. A. Valle and C. Meliveo for the invitation to lecture in this outstanding and agreeable conference. I gratefully thank V. Balasubramanian, J. de Boer, B. Chen, C.M. Chen, B. Chowdury, A. Castro, S. Detournay, J. Jottar, F. Larsen, S. Markoff, K. Murata, M. Rangamani, H. Reall, S. SheikhJabbari, K. Skenderis, A. Strominger, A. Virmani and especially M. Guica and T. Hartman for interesting exchanges during the writing of this review. I also thank the organizers D. Berman, J. Conlon, N. Lambert, S. Mukhi and F. Quevedo of the program “Mathematics and Applications of Branes in String and Mtheory” at the Isaac Newton Institute, Cambridge for support and hospitality during the final stages of the first version of this work. I finally thank K. Hajian, S. S. Jabbari. J. Lucietti and A. Seraj for precisions and anonymous referees for suggestions during the update to version 2. This work has been financially supported by the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) via an NWO Vici Grant. It is also currently supported by the FNRS, Belgium and the ERC Starting Grant 335146 “HoloBHC”.
References
 Abbott LF, Deser S (1982) Stability of gravity with a cosmological constant. Nucl Phys B 195:76–96. doi: 10.1016/05503213(82)900499 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Adelberger EG, Heckel BR, Nelson AE (2003) Tests of the gravitational inversesquare law. Annu Rev Nucl Part Sci 53:77–121. doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.53.041002.110503. arXiv:hepph/0307284 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Afshar H, Detournay S, Grumiller D, Merbis W, Pérez A, Tempo D, Troncoso R (2016) Soft Heisenberg hair on black holes in three dimensions. Phys Rev D 93:101,503. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.101503. arXiv:1603.04824 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Agullo I, NavarroSalas J, Olmo GJ, Parker L (2010) Hawking radiation by Kerr black holes and conformal symmetry. Phys Rev Lett 105:211305. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.211305. arXiv:1006.4404 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ait Moussa K, Clément G, Leygnac C (2003) Black holes of topologically massive gravity. Class Quantum Grav 20:L277–L283. doi: 10.1088/02649381/20/24/L01. arXiv:grqc/0303042 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ait Moussa K, Clément G, Guennoune H, Leygnac C (2008) Threedimensional Chern–Simons black holes. Phys Rev D 78:064065. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.064065. arXiv:0807.4241 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Amsel AJ, Horowitz GT, Marolf D, Roberts MM (2009a) No dynamics in the extremal Kerr throat. J High Energy Phys 09:044. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2009/09/044. arxiv:0906.2376
 Amsel AJ, Marolf D, Roberts MM (2009b) On the stress tensor of Kerr/CFT. J High Energy Phys 10:021. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2009/10/021. arxiv:0907.5023
 Andrade T, Bañados M, Benguria R, Gomberoff A (2005) (2+1)dimensional charged black hole in topologically massive electrodynamics. Phys Rev Lett 95:021102. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.021102. arXiv:hepth/0503095 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Anninos D, Hartman T (2010) Holography at an extremal de Sitter horizon. J High Energy Phys 03:096. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2010)096. arXiv:0910.4587 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Anninos D, Li W, Padi M, Song W, Strominger A (2009) Warped AdS\(_3\) black holes. J High Energy Phys 03:130. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2009/03/130. arXiv:0807.3040 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Anninos D, Compère G, de Buyl S, Detournay S, Guica M (2010) The curious case of null warped space. J High Energy Phys 11:119. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2010)119. arXiv:1005.4072 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Aretakis S (2011a) Stability and instability of extreme Reissner–Nordström black hole spacetimes for linear scalar perturbations I. Commun Math Phys 307:17–63. doi: 10.1007/s0022001112545. arXiv:1110.2007 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Aretakis S (2011b) Stability and instability of extreme Reissner–Nordstrom black hole spacetimes for linear scalar perturbations ii. Ann H Poincare 12:1491–1538. doi: 10.1007/s0002301101107. arXiv:1110.2009 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Aretakis S (2012) Decay of axisymmetric solutions of the wave equation on extreme Kerr backgrounds. J Funct Anal 263:2770–2831. doi: 10.1016/j.jfa.2012.08.015. arXiv:1110.2006 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Aretakis S (2015) Horizon instability of extremal black holes. Adv Theor Math Phys 19:507–530. doi: 10.4310/ATMP.2015.v19.n3.a1. arXiv:1206.6598 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Arnowitt R, Deser S, Misner CW (1961) Coordinate invariance and energy expressions in general relativity. Phys Rev 122:997–1006. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.122.997 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ashtekar A, Hansen RO (1978) A unified treatment of null and spatial infinity in general relativity. I. Universal structure, asymptotic symmetries, and conserved quantities at spatial infinity. J Math Phys 19:1542–1566. doi: 10.1063/1.523863 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ashtekar A, Krishnan B (2004) Isolated and dynamical horizons and their applications. Living Rev Relativity 7:lrr200410, doi: 10.1007/lrr200410. http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr200410. arxiv:grqc/0407042
 Ashtekar A, Magnon A (1984) Asymptotically antide Sitter space–times. Class Quantum Grav 1:L39–L44. doi: 10.1088/02649381/1/4/002 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ashtekar A, Romano JD (1992) Spatial infinity as a boundary of space–time. Class Quantum Grav 9:1069–1100. doi: 10.1088/02649381/9/4/019 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ashtekar A, Bombelli L, Reula OA (1991) The covariant phase space of asymptotically flat gravitational fields. In: Francaviglia M, Holm D (eds) Mechanics, analysis and geometry: 200 years after lagrange. NorthHolland, Amsterdam, pp 417–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ashtekar A, Beetle C, Fairhurst S (1999) Isolated horizons: a generalization of black hole mechanics. Class Quantum Grav 16:L1–L7. doi: 10.1088/02649381/16/2/027. arXiv:grqc/9812065 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ashtekar A, Beetle C, Dreyer O, Fairhurst S, Krishnan B, Lewandowski J, Wisniewski J (2000) Generic isolated horizons and their applications. Phys Rev Lett 85:3564–3567. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.3564. arXiv:grqc/0006006 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Astefanesei D, Yavartanoo H (2008) Stationary black holes and attractor mechanism. Nucl Phys B 794:13–27. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.10.015. arXiv:0706.1847 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Astefanesei D, Goldstein K, Jena RP, Sen A, Trivedi SP (2006) Rotating attractors. J High Energy Phys 10:058. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2006/10/058. arXiv:hepth/0606244 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Astefanesei D, Goldstein K, Mahapatra S (2008) Moduli and (un)attractor black hole thermodynamics. Gen Relativ Gravit 40:2069–2105. doi: 10.1007/s1071400806166. arXiv:hepth/0611140 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Astorino M (2015) Magnetised Kerr/CFT correspondence. Phys Lett B 751:96–106. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.10.017. arXiv:1508.01583 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Astorino M (2015) Microscopic entropy of the magnetised extremal Reissner–Nordstrom black hole. J High Energy Phys 2015(10):016. doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2015)016. arXiv:1507.04347 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Astorino M (2016) CFT duals for accelerating black holes. Phys Lett B 760:393–405. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.019. arXiv:1605.06131 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Avery SG, Poojary RR, Suryanarayana NV (2014) An \(sl(2,\mathbb{R}\)) current algebra from \({AdS}_3\) gravity. J High Energy Phys 2014:144. doi: 10.1007/JHEP01(2014)144. arXiv:1304.4252 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Azeyanagi T, Compère G, Ogawa N, Tachikawa Y, Terashima S (2009a) Higherderivative corrections to the asymptotic Virasoro symmetry of 4D extremal black holes. Prog Theor Phys 122:355–384. doi: 10.1143/PTP.122.355. arXiv:0903.4176 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Azeyanagi T, Ogawa N, Terashima S (2009b) Holographic duals of Kaluza–Klein black holes. J High Energy Phys 04:061. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2009/04/061. arxiv:0811.4177
 Azeyanagi T, Ogawa N, Terashima S (2009c) The Kerr/CFT correspondence and string theory. Phys Rev D 79:106009. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.106009. arXiv:0812.4883 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Azeyanagi T, Ogawa N, Terashima S (2011) Emergent AdS\(_3\) in the zero entropy extremal black holes. J High Energy Phys 03:004. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2011)004. arXiv:1010.4291 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bañados M, Silk J, West SM (2009) Kerr black holes as particle accelerators to arbitrarily high energy. Phys Rev Lett 103(111):102. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.111102. arXiv:0909.0169 Google Scholar
 Bañados M, Hassanain B, Silk J, West SM (2011) Emergent flux from particle collisions near a Kerr black hole. Phys Rev D 83(023):004. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.023004. arXiv:1010.2724 Google Scholar
 Baggio M, de Boer J, Jottar JI, Mayerson DR (2013) Conformal symmetry for black holes in four dimensions and irrelevant deformations. J High Energy Phys 04:084. doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2013)084. arXiv:1210.7695 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Balasubramanian V, de Boer J, Jejjala V, Simón J (2008) Entropy of nearextremal black holes in AdS\(_5\). J High Energy Phys 05:067. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2008/05/067. arXiv:0707.3601 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Balasubramanian V, de Boer J, SheikhJabbari MM, Simón J (2010) What is a chiral 2D CFT? and what does it have to do with extremal black holes? J High Energy Phys 02:017. doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2010)017. arXiv:0906.3272 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Balasubramanian V, Parsons J, Ross SF (2011) States of a chiral 2D CFT. Class Quantum Grav 28:045004. doi: 10.1088/02649381/28/4/045004. arXiv:1011.1803 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bañados M (1999) Embeddings of the Virasoro algebra and black hole entropy. Phys Rev Lett 82:2030–2033. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.2030. arXiv:hepth/9811162 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bañados M, Teitelboim C, Zanelli J (1992) Black hole in threedimensional spacetime. Phys Rev Lett 69:1849–1851. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.1849. arXiv:hepth/9204099 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bañados M, Henneaux M, Teitelboim C, Zanelli J (1993) Geometry of the (2+1) black hole. Phys Rev 48:1506–1525. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.48.1506. arXiv:grqc/9302012 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bañados M, Barnich G, Compère G, Gomberoff A (2006) Threedimensional origin of Gödel spacetimes and black holes. Phys Rev D 73:044006. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.044006. arXiv:hepth/0512105 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bardeen JM, Horowitz GT (1999) Extreme Kerr throat geometry: a vacuum analog of \({AdS}_2 \times s^2\). Phys Rev D 60:104030. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.104030. arXiv:hepth/9905099 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bardeen JM, Press WH, Teukolsky SA (1972) Rotating black holes: locally nonrotating frames, energy extraction, and scalar synchrotron radiation. Astrophys J 178:347–369. doi: 10.1086/151796 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bardeen JM, Carter B, Hawking SW (1973) The four laws of black hole mechanics. Commun Math Phys 31:161–170. doi: 10.1007/BF01645742. http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1103858973
 Barnich G, Brandt F (2002) Covariant theory of asymptotic symmetries, conservation laws and central charges. Nucl Phys B 633:3–82. doi: 10.1016/S05503213(02)002511. arXiv:hepth/0111246 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Barnich G, Compère G (2008) Surface charge algebra in gauge theories and thermodynamic integrability. J Math Phys 49:042901. doi: 10.1063/1.2889721. arXiv:0708.2378 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Barnich G, Troessaert C (2010a) Aspects of the BMS/CFT correspondence. J High Energy Phys 05:062. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2010)062. arxiv:1001.1541
 Barnich G, Troessaert C (2010b) Symmetries of asymptotically flat 4 dimensional spacetimes at null infinity revisited. Phys Rev Lett 105:111103. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.111103. arXiv:0909.2617 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Barnich G, Troessaert C (2011) Bms charge algebra. J High Energy Phys 12:105. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2011)105. arXiv:1106.0213 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Becker M, Schulgin W (2012) Boundary terms, spinors and Kerr/CFT. J High Energy Phys 04:063. doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2012)063. arXiv:1202.1528 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Becker M, Cremonini S, Schulgin W (2010) Correlation functions and hidden conformal symmetry of Kerr black holes. J High Energy Phys 09:022. doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2010)022. arXiv:1005.3571 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Becker M, Cremonini S, Schulgin W (2011) Extremal threepoint correlators in Kerr/CFT. J High Energy Phys 02:007. doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2011)007. arXiv:1004.1174 ADSMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Becker M, Cabrera Y, Su N (2014) Finitetemperature threepoint function in 2D CFT. J High Energy Phys 9:157. doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2014)157. arXiv:1407.3415 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bekenstein JD (1972) Black holes and the second law. Lett Nuovo Cimento 4:737–740. doi: 10.1007/BF02757029 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bena I, Guica M, Song W (2013) Untwisting the NHEK with spectral flows. J High Energy Phys 03:028. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2013)028. arXiv:1203.4227 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bena I, Heurtier L, Puhm A (2016) AdS\(_{3}\): the NHEK generation. J High Energy Phys 2016(05):120. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2016)120. arXiv:1510.08055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bengtsson I, Sandin P (2006) Anti de Sitter space, squashed and stretched. Class Quantum Grav 23:971–986. doi: 10.1088/02649381/23/3/022. arXiv:grqc/0509076 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Berti E, Cardoso V, Casals M (2006) Eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of spinweighted spheroidal harmonics in four and higher dimensions. Phys Rev D 73:024013. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.024013. arXiv:grqc/0511111 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bertini S, Cacciatori SL, Klemm D (2012) Conformal structure of the Schwarzschild black hole. Phys Rev D 85:064018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.064018. arXiv:1106.0999 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Birkandan T, Cvetič M (2011) Conformal invariance and nearextreme rotating AdS black holes. Phys Rev D 84:044018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.044018. arXiv:1106.4329 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Birrell ND, Davies PCW (1982) Quantum fields in curved space. Cambridge monographs on mathematical physics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Blagojević M, Cvetković B (2009) Asymptotic structure of topologically massive gravity in spacelike stretched AdS sector. J High Energy Phys 09:006. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2009/09/006. arXiv:0907.0950 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Blöte HWJ, Cardy JL, Nightingale MP (1986) Conformal invariance, the central charge, and universal finitesize amplitudes at criticality. Phys Rev Lett 56:742–745. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.56.742 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Blum JL, Miller JM, Fabian AC, Miller MC, Homan J et al (2009) Measuring the spin of GRS 1915+105 with relativistic disk reflection. Astrophys J 706:60–66. doi: 10.1088/0004637X/706/1/60. arXiv:0909.5383 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bondi H, van der Burg MGJ, Metzner AWK (1962) Gravitational waves in general relativity. VII. Waves from axisymmetric isolated systems. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A 269:21–52. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1962.0161 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Brady PR, Chambers CM (1995) Nonlinear instability of Kerrtype Cauchy horizons. Phys Rev 51:4177–4186. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.51.4177. arXiv:grqc/9501025 ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Brady PR, Smith JD (1995) Black hole singularities: a numerical approach. Phys Rev Lett 75:1256–1259. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.1256. arXiv:grqc/9506067 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Brady PR, Droz S, Morsink SM (1998) Latetime singularity inside nonspherical black holes. Phys Rev D 58:084034. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.084034. arXiv:grqc/9805008 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bredberg I, Hartman T, Song W, Strominger A (2010) Black hole superradiance from Kerr/CFT. J High Energy Phys 04:019. doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2010)019. arXiv:0907.3477 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bredberg I, Keeler C, Lysov V, Strominger A (2011) Lectures on the Kerr/CFT correspondence. Nucl Phys B (Proc Suppl) 216:194–210. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2011.04.155. arXiv:1103.2355 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Breitenlohner P, Freedman DZ (1982a) Positive energy in antide Sitter backgrounds and gauged extended supergravity. Phys Lett B 115:197–201. doi: 10.1016/03702693(82)906438 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Breitenlohner P, Freedman DZ (1982b) Stability in gauged extended supergravity. Ann Phys (NY) 144:249–281. doi: 10.1016/00034916(82)901166 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Brenneman LW, Reynolds CS (2006) Constraining black hole spin via Xray spectroscopy. Astrophys J 652:1028–1043. doi: 10.1086/508146. arXiv:astroph/0608502 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Brown JD, Henneaux M (1986a) Central charges in the canonical realization of asymptotic symmetries: an example from three dimensional gravity. Commun Math Phys 104:207–226. doi: 10.1007/BF01211590. http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1104114999
 Brown JD, Henneaux M (1986b) On the Poisson brackets of differentiable generators in classical field theory. J Math Phys 27:489–491. doi: 10.1063/1.527249 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Caldarelli MM, Cognola G, Klemm D (2000) Thermodynamics of Kerr–Newman–AdS black holes and conformal field theories. Class Quantum Grav 17:399–420. doi: 10.1088/02649381/17/2/310. arXiv:hepth/9908022 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Callan CG, Maldacena JM (1996) Dbrane approach to black hole quantum mechanics. Nucl Phys B 472:591–610. doi: 10.1016/05503213(96)002258. arXiv:hepth/9602043 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cardy JL (1986) Operator content of twodimensional conformally invariant theories. Nucl Phys B 270:186–204ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Carlip S (1998) What we don’t know about BTZ black hole entropy. Class Quantum Grav 15:3609–3625. doi: 10.1088/02649381/15/11/020. arXiv:hepth/9806026 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Carlip S (1999) Black hole entropy from conformal field theory in any dimension. Phys Rev Lett 82:2828–2831. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.2828. arXiv:hepth/9812013 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Carter B (1968) Global structure of the Kerr family of gravitational fields. Phys Rev 174:1559–1571. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.174.1559 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Carter B (1973) Black hole equilibrium states. In: DeWitt C, DeWitt B (eds) Black holes. Gordon and Breach, New York, pp 57–214Google Scholar
 Castro A, Larsen F (2009) Near extremal Kerr entropy from AdS\(_2\) quantum gravity. J High Energy Phys 12:037. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2009/12/037. arXiv:0908.1121 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Castro A, Rodriguez MJ (2012) Universal properties and the first law of black hole inner mechanics. Phys Rev D 86:024008. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.024008. arXiv:1204.1284 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Castro A, Song W (2014) Comments on \({AdS}_2\) gravity. Eprints. arxiv:1411.1948
 Castro A, Maloney A, Strominger A (2010) Hidden conformal symmetry of the Kerr black hole. Phys Rev D 82:024008. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.024008. arXiv:1004.0996 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Castro A, Dehmami N, Giribet G, Kastor D (2013a) On the universality of inner black hole mechanics and higher curvature gravity. J High Energy Phys 07:164. doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2013)164. arxiv:1304.1696
 Castro A, Lapan JM, Maloney A, Rodriguez MJ (2013b) Black hole monodromy and conformal field theory. Phys Rev D 88:044003. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044003. arXiv:1303.0759 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Castro A, Lapan JM, Maloney A, Rodriguez MJ (2013c) Black hole scattering from monodromy. Class Quantum Grav 30(165):005. doi: 10.1088/02649381/30/16/165005. arXiv:1304.3781 MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Castro A, Hofman DM, Sárosi G (2015) Warped Weyl fermion partition functions. J High Energy Phys 2015(11):129. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2015)129. arXiv:1508.06302 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Chamblin A, Emparan R, Johnson CV, Myers RC (1999) Charged AdS black holes and catastrophic holography. Phys Rev D 60:064018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.064018. arXiv:hepth/9902170 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Chandrasekhar S (1983) The mathematical theory of black holes, the international series of monographs on physics, vol 69. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
 Chen B, Chu CS (2010) Realtime correlators in Kerr/CFT correspondence. J High Energy Phys 05:004. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2010)004. arXiv:1001.3208 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Chen B, Long J (2010a) On holographic description of the Kerr–Newman–AdS–ds black holes. J High Energy Phys 08:065. doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2010)065. arxiv:1006.0157
 Chen B, Long J (2010b) Realtime correlators and hidden conformal symmetry in Kerr/CFT correspondence. J High Energy Phys 06:018. doi: 10.1007/JHEP06(2010)018. arxiv:1004.5039
 Chen B, Zhang JJ (2011) General hidden conformal symmetry of 4D Kerr–Newman and 5D Kerr black holes. J High Energy Phys 08:114. doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2011)114. arXiv:1107.0543 ADSMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Chen B, Jj Zhang (2012) Novel CFT duals for extreme black holes. Nucl Phys B 856:449–474. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.11.014. arXiv:1106.4148 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Chen B, Chen CM, Ning B (2011) Holographic Qpicture of Kerr–Newman–AdS–ds black hole. Nucl Phys B 853:196–209. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.07.024. arXiv:1010.1379 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Chen CM, Sun JR (2010) Hidden conformal symmetry of the Reissner–Nordström black holes. J High Energy Phys 08:034. doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2010)034. arXiv:1004.3963 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Chen CM, Sun JR (2011) Holographic dual of the Reissner–Nordström black hole. J Phys: Conf Ser 330:012009. doi: 10.1088/17426596/330/1/012009. arXiv:1106.4407 Google Scholar
 Chen CM, Huang YM, Sun JR, Wu MF, Zou SJ (2010a) On holographic dual of the dyonic Reissner–Nordstrom black hole. Phys Rev D 82:066003. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.066003. arXiv:1006.4092 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Chen CM, Huang YM, Sun JR, Wu MF, Zou SJ (2010b) Twofold hidden conformal symmetries of the Kerr–Newman black hole. Phys Rev D 82:066004. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.066004. arXiv:1006.4097 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Chen CM, Huang YM, Zou SJ (2010c) Holographic duals of nearextremal Reissner–Nordstrøm black holes. J High Energy Phys 03:123. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2010)123. arxiv:1001.2833
 Chen CM, Kamali V, Setare MR (2010d) Holographic Qpicture of black holes in five dimensional minimal supergravity. Eprints arxiv:1011.4556
 Chow DDK (2010) Symmetries of supergravity black holes. Class Quantum Grav 27(205):009. doi: 10.1088/02649381/27/20/205009. arXiv:0811.1264 MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Chow DDK, Compère G (2014a) Black holes in \(\cal{N}=8\) supergravity from so(4,4) hidden symmetries. Phys Rev D 90:025029. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.025029. arXiv:1404.2602 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Chow DDK, Compère G (2014b) Dyonic AdS black holes in maximal gauged supergravity. Phys Rev D 89:065003. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.065003. arXiv:1311.1204 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Chow DDK, Compère G (2014c) Seed for general rotating nonextremal black holes of \(\cal{N}= 8\) supergravity. Class Quantum Grav 31(022):001. doi: 10.1088/02649381/31/2/022001. arXiv:1310.1925 MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Chow DDK, Cvetič M, Lü H, Pope CN (2009) Extremal black hole/CFT correspondence in (gauged) supergravities. Phys Rev D 79:084018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084018. arXiv:0812.2918 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Christodoulou D, Ruffini R (1971) Reversible transformations of a charged black hole. Phys Rev D 4:3552–3555. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.4.3552 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Chruściel PT, Lopes Costa J (2008) On uniqueness of stationary vacuum black holes. Asterisque 321:195–265 arXiv:0806.0016 MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Chruściel PT, Wald RM (1994) Maximal hypersurfaces in asymptotically stationary space–times. Commun Math Phys 163:561–604. doi: 10.1007/BF02101463. arXiv:grqc/9304009 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Chrzanowski PL (1975) Vector potential and metric perturbations of a rotating black hole. Phys Rev D 11:2042–2062. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.11.2042 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Clément G, Gal’tsov DV (2001) Conformal mechanics on rotating Bertotti–Robinson spacetime. Nucl Phys B 619:741–759. doi: 10.1016/S05503213(01)005016. arXiv:hepth/0105237 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cohen JM, Kegeles LS (1975) Space–time perturbations. Phys Lett A 54:5–7. doi: 10.1016/03759601(75)905836 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Colgáin Ó, E, Samtleben H (2011) 3D gauged supergravity from wrapped M5branes with AdS/CMT applications. J High Energy Phys 2011(02):031. doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2011)031. arxiv:1012.2145
 Compère G (2007) Symmetries and conservation laws in Lagrangian gauge theories with applications to the mechanics of black holes and to gravity in three dimensions. PhD thesis, Université libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles. arxiv:0708.3153
 Compère G, Dehouck F (2011) Relaxing the parity conditions of asymptotically flat gravity. Class Quantum Grav 28(245):016. doi: 10.1088/02649381/28/24/245016, 10.1088/02649381/30/3/039501. arxiv:1106.4045
 Compère G, Detournay S (2007) Centrally extended symmetry algebra of asymptotically gödel spacetimes. J High Energy Phys 03:098. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2007/03/098. arXiv:hepth/0701039 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Compère G, Detournay S (2009a) Boundary conditions for spacelike and timelike warped \({AdS}_3\) spaces in topologically massive gravity. J High Energy Phys 08:092. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2009/08/092. arxiv:0906.1243
 Compère G, Detournay S (2009b) Semiclassical central charge in topologically massive gravity. Class Quantum Grav 26:012001. doi: 10.1088/02649381/26/1/012001. arXiv:0808.1911 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Compère G, Marolf D (2008) Setting the boundary free in AdS/CFT. Class Quantum Grav 25:195014. doi: 10.1088/02649381/25/19/195014. arXiv:0805.1902 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Compère G, Oliveri R (2016) Nearhorizon extreme Kerr magnetospheres. Phys Rev D 93:024,035. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.069906, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024035, erratum: Phys. Rev. D 93:069906 (2016). arxiv:1509.07637
 Compère G, de Buyl S, Jamsin E, Virmani A (2009a) \(g_2\) dualities in \(d=5\) supergravity and black strings. Class Quantum Grav 26:125016. doi: 10.1088/02649381/26/12/125016. arXiv:0903.1645 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Compère G, Murata K, Nishioka T (2009b) Central charges in extreme black hole/CFT correspondence. J High Energy Phys 05:077. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2009/05/077. arxiv:0902.1001
 Compère G, Dehouck F, Virmani A (2011) On asymptotic flatness and Lorentz charges. Class Quantum Grav 28(145):007. doi: 10.1088/02649381/28/14/145007. arXiv:1103.4078 MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Compère G, Song W, Virmani A (2011) Microscopics of extremal Kerr from spinning M5 branes. J High Energy Phys 10:087. doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2011)087. arXiv:1010.0685 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Compère G, Song W, Strominger A (2013) New boundary conditions for \({AdS}_3\). J High Energy Phys 05:152. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2013)152. arXiv:1303.2662 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Compère G, Guica M, Rodriguez MJ (2014) Two Virasoro symmetries in stringy warped AdS\(_3\). J High Energy Phys 12:012. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2014)012. arXiv:1407.7871 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Compère G, Donnay L, Lambert PH, Schulgin W (2015a) Liouville theory beyond the cosmological horizon. J High Energy Phys 03:158. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2015)158. arxiv:1411.7873
 Compère G, Hajian K, Seraj A, SheikhJabbari MM (2015b) Extremal rotating black holes in the nearhorizon limit: phase space and symmetry algebra. Phys Lett B 749:443–447. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.08.027. arxiv:1503.07861
 Compère G, Hajian K, Seraj A, SheikhJabbari MM (2015c) Wiggling throat of extremal black holes. J High Energy Phys 2015(10):093. doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2015)093. arxiv:1506.07181
 Compère G, Mao PJ, Seraj A, SheikhJabbari MM (2016) Symplectic and Killing symmetries of AdS\(_{3}\) gravity: holographic vs boundary gravitons. J High Energy Phys 2016(01):080. doi: 10.1007/JHEP01(2016)080. arXiv:1511.06079 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Copsey K, Horowitz GT (2006) Role of dipole charges in black hole thermodynamics. Phys Rev D 73:024015. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.024015. arXiv:hepth/0505278 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Coussaert O, Henneaux M (1994) Selfdual solutions of 2+1 Einstein gravity with a negative cosmological constant. Eprints arxiv:hepth/9407181
 Carneiro da Cunha B, de Queiroz AR (2010) Kerr–CFT from blackhole thermodynamics. J High Energy Phys 2010(08):076. doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2010)076. arXiv:1006.0510 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Curir A (1979) Spin entropy of a rotating black hole. Nuovo Cimento B 51:262–266. doi: 10.1007/BF02743435 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Curir A, Francaviglia M (1979) Spin thermodynamics of a Kerr black hole. Nuovo Cimento B 52:165–176. doi: 10.1007/BF02739031 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cvetič M, Gibbons GW (2012) Conformal symmetry of a black hole as a scaling limit: a black hole in an asymptotically conical box. J High Energy Phys 07:014. doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2012)014. arXiv:1201.0601 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cvetič M, Larsen F (1997a) General rotating black holes in string theory: grey body factors and event horizons. Phys Rev D 56:4994–5007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.56.4994. arXiv:hepth/9705192 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cvetič M, Larsen F (1997b) Greybody factors for rotating black holes in four dimensions. Nucl Phys B 506:107–120. doi: 10.1016/S05503213(97)005415. arXiv:hepth/9706071 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cvetič M, Larsen F (1998) Greybody factors for black holes in fourdimensions: particles with spin. Phys Rev D 57:6297–6310. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.57.6297. arXiv:hepth/9712118 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cvetič M, Larsen F (2009) Greybody factors and charges in Kerr/CFT. J High Energy Phys 09:088. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2009/09/088. arXiv:0908.1136 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cvetič M, Larsen F (2012a) Conformal symmetry for black holes in four dimensions. J High Energy Phys 09:076. doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2012)076. arxiv:1112.4846
 Cvetič M, Larsen F (2012b) Conformal symmetry for general black holes. J High Energy Phys 02:122. doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2012)122. arxiv:1106.3341
 Cvetič M, Youm D (1996) General rotating fivedimensional black holes of toroidally compactified heterotic string. Nucl Phys B 476:118–132. doi: 10.1016/05503213(96)003550. arXiv:hepth/9603100 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cvetič M, Duff MJ, Hoxha P, Liu JT, Lü H, Lu JX, MartinezAcosta R, Pope CN, Sati H, Tran TA (1999) Embedding AdS black holes in ten and eleven dimensions. Nucl Phys B 558:96–126. doi: 10.1016/S05503213(99)004198. arXiv:hepth/9903214 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cvetič M, Gibbons GW, Pope CN (2011) Universal area product formulae for rotating and charged black holes in four and higher dimensions. Phys Rev Lett 106:121301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.121301. arXiv:1011.0008 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cvetič M, Guica M, Saleem ZH (2013) General black holes, untwisted. J High Energy Phys 09:017. doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2013)017. arXiv:1302.7032 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Dabholkar A (1997) Microstates of nonsupersymmetric black holes. Phys Lett B 402:53–58. doi: 10.1016/S03702693(97)004395. arXiv:hepth/9702050 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Dabholkar A, Nampuri S (2012) Quantum black holes. In: Baumgartl M, Brunner I, Haack M (eds) Strings and fundamental physics, vol 851. Springer, Berlin, pp 165–232. doi: 10.1007/9783642259470_5. arxiv:1208.4814
 Dabholkar A, Sen A, Trivedi SP (2007) Black hole microstates and attractor without supersymmetry. J High Energy Phys 01:096. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2007/01/096. arXiv:hepth/0611143 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Dafermos M (2005) The interior of charged black holes and the problem of uniqueness in general relativity. Commun Pure Appl Math 58:445–504. doi: 10.1002/cpa.20071. arXiv:grqc/0307013 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 David JR, Mandal G, Wadia SR (2002) Microscopic formulation of black holes in string theory. Phys Rep 369:549–686. doi: 10.1016/S03701573(02)002715. arXiv:hepth/0203048 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 de Boer J (1999) Sixdimensional supergravity on \(s^3 \times {AdS}_3\) and 2D conformal field theory. Nucl Phys B 548:139–166. doi: 10.1016/S05503213(99)001601. arXiv:hepth/9806104 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 de Boer J, SheikhJabbari MM, Simón J (2011) Near horizon limits of massless BTZ and their CFT duals. Class Quantum Grav 28:175012. doi: 10.1088/02649381/28/17/175012. arXiv:1011.1897 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 de Boer J, Johnstone M, SheikhJabbari MM, Simón J (2012) Emergent IR dual 2D CFTs in charged AdS\(_5\) black holes. Phys Rev D 85:084039. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.084039. arXiv:1112.4664 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Denef F (2008) Les Houches lectures on constructing string vacua. Eprints arxiv:0803.1194
 Denef F, Moore GW (2011) Split states, entropy enigmas, holes and halos. J High Energy Phys 11:129. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2011)129. arXiv:hepth/0702146 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Detournay S, Guica M (2013) Stringy Schrödinger truncations. J High Energy Phys 08:121. doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2013)121. arXiv:1212.6792 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Detournay S, Orlando D, Petropoulos PM, Spindel P (2005) Threedimensional black holes from deformed anti de Sitter. J High Energy Phys 07:072. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2005/07/072. arXiv:hepth/0504231 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Detournay S, Hartman T, Hofman DM (2012) Warped conformal field theory. Phys Rev D 86:124018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.124018. arXiv:1210.0539 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Di Francesco P, Mathieu P, Sénéchal D (1997) Conformal field theory. Graduate texts in contemporary physics. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
 Dias ÓJC, Emparan R, Maccarrone A (2008) Microscopic theory of black hole superradiance. Phys Rev D 77:064018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.064018. arXiv:0712.0791 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Dias ÓJC, Reall HS, Santos JE (2009) Kerr–CFT and gravitational perturbations. J High Energy Phys 08:101. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2009/08/101. arXiv:0906.2380 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Dijkgraaf R (1999) Instanton strings and hyperKähler geometry. Nucl Phys B 543:545–571. doi: 10.1016/S05503213(98)008694. arXiv:hepth/9810210 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Donnay L, Giribet G, Gonzalez HA, Pino M (2016) Supertranslations and superrotations at the black hole horizon. Phys Rev Lett 116:091,101. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.091101. arXiv:1511.08687 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Dotti G, Gleiser RJ, RaneaSandoval IF, Vucetich H (2008) Gravitational instabilities in Kerr space times. Class Quantum Grav 25:245012. doi: 10.1088/02649381/25/24/245012. arXiv:0805.4306 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Dotti G, Gleiser RJ, RaneaSandoval IF (2011) Instabilities in Kerr spacetimes. Int J Mod Phys E 20:27–31. doi: 10.1142/S0218301311040049. arXiv:1111.5974 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Dowker F, Gauntlett JP, Giddings SB, Horowitz GT (1994) On pair creation of extremal black holes and Kaluza–Klein monopoles. Phys Rev D 50:2662–2679. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.50.2662. arXiv:hepth/9312172 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Duff MJ, Lü H, Pope CN (1999) \({AdS}_3 \times s^3\) (un)twisted and squashed, and an \(o(2,2, z)\) multiplet of dyonic strings. Nucl Phys B 544:145–180. doi: 10.1016/S05503213(98)008104. arXiv:hepth/9807173 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Duffy G, Ottewill AC (2008) The renormalized stress tensor in Kerr space–time: Numerical results for the Hartle–Hawking vacuum. Phys Rev D 77:024007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.024007. arXiv:grqc/0507116 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Durkee MN, Reall HS (2011) Perturbations of nearhorizon geometries and instabilities of Myers–Perry black holes. Phys Rev D 83:104044. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.104044. arXiv:1012.4805 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 ElShowk S, Guica M (2012) Kerr/CFT, dipole theories and nonrelativistic CFTs. J High Energy Phys 12:009. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)009. arXiv:1108.6091 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 ElShowk S, Papadodimas K (2012) Emergent spacetime and holographic CFTs. J High Energy Phys 10:106. doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2012)106. arXiv:1101.4163 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Emparan R, Horowitz GT (2006) Microstates of a neutral black hole in M theory. Phys Rev Lett 97:141601. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.141601. arXiv:hepth/0607023 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Emparan R, Maccarrone A (2007) Statistical description of rotating Kaluza–Klein black holes. Phys Rev D 75:084006. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.084006. arXiv:hepth/0701150 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Emparan R, Reall HS (2002) A rotating black ring solution in five dimensions. Phys Rev Lett 88:101101. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.101101. arXiv:hepth/0110260 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Fabian AC, Zoghbi A, Ross RR, Uttley P, Gallo LC, Brandt WN, Blustin AJ, Boller T, CaballeroGarcia MD, Larsson J, Miller JM, Miniutti G, Ponti G, Reis RC, Reynolds CS, Tanaka Y, Young AJ (2009) Broad line emission from iron K and Lshell transitions in the active galaxy 1H0707495. Nature 459:540–542. doi: 10.1038/nature08007 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Fareghbal R, Gowdigere CN, Mosaffa AE, SheikhJabbari MM (2008) Nearing extremal intersecting giants and new decoupled sectors in \(n=4\) SYM. J High Energy Phys 08:070. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2008/08/070. arXiv:0801.4457 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Faulkner T, Liu H, McGreevy J, Vegh D (2011) Emergent quantum criticality, Fermi surfaces, and AdS\(_2\). Phys Rev D 83:125002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.125002. arXiv:0907.2694 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Fefferman C, Robin Graham C (1985) Conformal invariants. In: Élie Cartan et les mathématiques d’aujourd’hui, Société mathématique de France, Paris, Astérisque, p 95Google Scholar
 Fender RP, Gallo E, Russell D (2010) No evidence for black hole spin powering of jets in Xray binaries. Mon Not R Astron Soc 406:1425–1434. doi: 10.1111/j.13652966.2010.16754.x. arXiv:1003.5516 ADSGoogle Scholar
 Ferrara S, Kallosh RE (1996) Supersymmetry and attractors. Phys Rev D 54:1514–1524. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.54.1514. arXiv:hepth/9602136 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ferrara S, Kallosh RE, Strominger A (1995) \(n=2\) extremal black holes. Phys Rev D 52:5412–5416. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.52.R5412. arXiv:hepth/9508072 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ferrara S, Gibbons GW, Kallosh RE (1997) Black holes and critical points in moduli space. Nucl Phys B 500:75–93. doi: 10.1016/S05503213(97)003246. arXiv:hepth/9702103 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Floyd R (1973) The dynamics of Kerr fields. PhD thesis, London University, LondonGoogle Scholar
 Friedrich H, Rácz I, Wald RM (1999) On the rigidity theorem for spacetimes with a stationary event horizon or a compact Cauchy horizon. Commun Math Phys 204:691–707. doi: 10.1007/s002200050662. arXiv:grqc/9811021 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Frolov VP, Thorne KS (1989) Renormalized stress–energy tensor near the horizon of a slowly evolving, rotating black hole. Phys Rev D 39:2125–2154. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.39.2125 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Futterman JAH, Handler FA, Matzner RA (1988) Scattering from black holes. Cambridge monographs on mathematical physics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Garousi MR, Ghodsi A (2010) The RN/CFT correspondence. Phys Lett B 687:79–83. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2010.03.002. arXiv:0902.4387 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Geroch R (1972) Structure of the gravitational field at spatial infinity. J Math Phys 13:956–968. doi: 10.1063/1.1666094 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gibbons GW, Rietdijk RH, van Holten JW (1993) SUSY in the sky. Nucl Phys B 404:42–64. doi: 10.1016/05503213(93)904722. arXiv:hepth/9303112 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ginsparg PH (1988) Applied conformal field theory. Eprints arxiv:hepth/9108028
 Goldstein K, Soltanpanahi H (2012) CFT duals of black rings with higher derivative terms. Class Quantum Grav 29:085016. doi: 10.1088/02649381/29/8/085016. arXiv:1108.4362 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Goldstein K, Iizuka N, Jena RP, Trivedi SP (2005) Nonsupersymmetric attractors. Phys Rev D 72:124021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.124021. arXiv:hepth/0507096 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Goldstein K, Jejjala V, Nampuri S (2015) Hot attractors. J High Energy Phys 01:075. doi: 10.1007/JHEP01(2015)075. arXiv:1410.3478 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gou L, McClintock JE, Reid MJ, Orosz JA, Steiner JF, Narayan R, Xiang J, Remillard RA, Arnaud KA, Davis SW (2011) The extreme spin of the black hole in Cygnus X1. Astrophys J 742:85. doi: 10.1088/0004637X/742/2/85. arXiv:1106.3690 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gou L, McClintock JE, Remillard RA, Steiner JF, Reid MJ, Orosz JA, Narayan R, Hanke M, García J (2014) Confirmation via the continuumfitting method that the spin of the black hole in Cygnus X1 is extreme. Astrophys J 790:29. doi: 10.1088/0004637X/790/1/29. arXiv:1308.4760 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gralla SE, Porfyriadis AP, Warburton N (2015) Particle on the innermost stable circular orbit of a rapidly spinning black hole. Phys Rev D 92:064,029. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.064029. arXiv:1506.08496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gralla SE, Hughes SA, Warburton N (2016a) Inspiral into Gargantua. Class Quantum Grav 33:155002. doi: 10.1088/02649381/33/15/155002. arxiv:1603.01221
 Gralla SE, Lupsasca A, Strominger A (2016b) Nearhorizon Kerr magnetosphere. Phys Rev D 93:104,041. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.104041. arxiv:1602.01833
 Grana M (2006) Flux compactifications in string theory: a comprehensive review. Phys Rep 423:91–158. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.10.008. arXiv:hepth/0509003 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gubser SS (1997) Can the effective string see higher partial waves? Phys Rev D 56:4984–4993. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.56.4984. arXiv:hepth/9704195 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gubser SS (1998) Dynamics of Dbrane black holes. PhD thesis, Princeton University, Princeton. arxiv:hepth/9908004
 Guica M (2012) A Fefferman–Grahamlike expansion for null warped AdS\(_{3}\). J High Energy Phys 2012(12):084. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)084. arXiv:1111.6978 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Guica M (2013) Decrypting the warped black strings. J High Energy Phys 2013(011):025. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2013)025. arXiv:1305.7249 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Guica M, Strominger A (2011) Microscopic realization of the Kerr/CFT correspondence. J High Energy Phys 02:010. doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2011)010. arXiv:1009.5039 ADSMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Guica M, Hartman T, Song W, Strominger A (2009) The Kerr/CFT correspondence. Phys Rev D 80:124008. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.124008. arXiv:0809.4266 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Guica M, Skenderis K, Taylor M, van Rees BC (2011) Holography for Schrödinger backgrounds. J High Energy Phys 02:056. doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2011)056. arXiv:1008.1991 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Guo ED, Li M, Sun JR (2016) CFT dual of charged AdS black hole in the large dimension limit. Int J Mod Phys D 25:1650085. doi: 10.1142/S0218271816500851. arXiv:1512.08349 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gürses M (1994) Perfect fluid sources in 2+1 dimensions. Class Quantum Grav 11:2585–2587. doi: 10.1088/02649381/11/10/017 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hadar S, Porfyriadis AP, Strominger A (2014) Gravity waves from extrememassratio plunges into Kerr black holes. Phys Rev D 90:064045. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.064045. arXiv:1403.2797 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hadar S, Porfyriadis AP, Strominger A (2015) Fast plunges into Kerr black holes. J High Energy Phys 2015(07):078. doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2015)078. arXiv:1504.07650 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hajian K, Jabbari SA, Seraj A (2014a) Killing horizons in NHEG. UnpublishedGoogle Scholar
 Hajian K, Seraj A, SheikhJabbari MM (2014b) Near horizon extremal geometry perturbations: dynamical field perturbations vs. parametric variations. J High Energy Phys 2014(10):111. doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2014)111. arxiv:1407.1992
 Hajian K, Seraj A, SheikhJabbari MM (2014c) NHEG mechanics: laws of near horizon extremal geometry (thermo)dynamics. J High Energy Phys 03:014. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2014)014. arxiv:1310.3727
 Hartman T, Murata K, Nishioka T, Strominger A (2009) CFT duals for extreme black holes. J High Energy Phys 04:019. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2009/04/019. arXiv:0811.4393 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hartman T, Song W, Strominger A (2010) Holographic derivation of Kerr–Newman scattering amplitudes for general charge and spin. J High Energy Phys 03:118. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2010)118. arXiv:0908.3909 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hartman T, Keller CA, Stoica B (2014) Universal spectrum of 2D conformal field theory in the large c limit. J High Energy Phys 09:118. doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2014)118. arXiv:1405.5137 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hawking SW (1972) Black holes in general relativity. Commun Math Phys 25:152–166. doi: 10.1007/BF01877517 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hawking SW (1975) Particle creation by black holes. Commun Math Phys 43:199–220. doi: 10.1007/BF02345020 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hawking SW, Ellis GFR (1973) The large scale structure of space–time. Cambridge monographs on mathematical physics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hawking SW, Horowitz GT (1996) The gravitational Hamiltonian, action, entropy and surface terms. Class Quantum Grav 13:1487–1498. doi: 10.1088/02649381/13/6/017. arXiv:grqc/9501014 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hawking SW, Reall HS (2000) Charged and rotating AdS black holes and their CFT duals. Phys Rev D 61:024014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.61.024014. arXiv:hepth/9908109 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hayashi H, Tai TS (2012) \(r^2\) correction to BMPV black hole entropy from Kerr/CFT correspondence. Phys Lett B 710:352–357. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.03.018. arXiv:1112.5417 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Henneaux M (1986) Asymptotically antide Sitter universes in \(d = 3, 4\) and higher dimensions. In: Ruffini R (ed) Proceedings of the fourth Marcel Grossmann meeting on general relativity. NorthHolland, Amsterdam, pp 959–966Google Scholar
 Henneaux M, Teitelboim C (1985) Asymptotically antide Sitter spaces. Commun Math Phys 98:391–424. doi: 10.1007/BF01205790, http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1103942446
 Henneaux M, Martinez C, Troncoso R (2011) Asymptotically warped antide Sitter spacetimes in topologically massive gravity. Phys Rev D 84(124):016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.124016. arXiv:1108.2841 Google Scholar
 Hofman DM, Rollier B (2015) Warped conformal field theory as lower spin gravity. Nucl Phys B 897:1–38. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.05.011. arXiv:1411.0672 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hofman DM, Strominger A (2011) Chiral scale and conformal invariance in 2D quantum field theory. Phys Rev Lett 107:161601. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.161601. arXiv:1107.2917 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hollands S, Ishibashi A (2009) On the ‘stationary implies axisymmetric’ theorem for extremal black holes in higher dimensions. Commun Math Phys 291:403–441. doi: 10.1007/s0022000908411. arXiv:0809.2659 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hollands S, Ishibashi A, Wald RM (2007) A higher dimensional stationary rotating black hole must be axisymmetric. Commun Math Phys 271:699–722. doi: 10.1007/s0022000702164. arXiv:grqc/0605106 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Horowitz GT, Lowe DA, Maldacena JM (1996) Statistical entropy of nonextremal fourdimensional black holes and \(u\) duality. Phys Rev Lett 77:430–433. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.430. arXiv:hepth/9603195 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Isono H, Tai TS, Wen WY (2009) Kerr/CFT correspondence and fivedimensional BMPV black holes. Int J Mod Phys A 24:5659–5668. doi: 10.1142/S0217751X09047533. arXiv:0812.4440 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Israël D, Kounnas C, Petropoulos PM (2003) Superstrings on NS5 backgrounds, deformed AdS\(_3\) and holography. J High Energy Phys 10:028. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2003/10/028. arXiv:hepth/0306053 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Israël D, Kounnas C, Orlando D, Petropoulos PM (2005) Electric/magnetic deformations of \(s^3\) and AdS\(_3\), and geometric cosets. Fortschr Phys 53:73–104. doi: 10.1002/prop.200410190. arXiv:hepth/0405213 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Iyer V, Wald RM (1994) Some properties of Noether charge and a proposal for dynamical black hole entropy. Phys Rev D 50:846–864. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.50.846. arXiv:grqc/9403028 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Jacobson TA (1996) Introductory lectures on black hole thermodynamics. http://www.physics.umd.edu/grt/taj/776b/
 Jacobson TA, Kang G, Myers RC (1994) On black hole entropy. Phys Rev 49:6587–6598. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.6587. arXiv:grqc/9312023 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Johnstone M, SheikhJabbari MM, Simón J, Yavartanoo H (2013) Extremal black holes and the first law of thermodynamics. Phys Rev D 88:101503. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.101503. arXiv:1305.3157 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kallosh RE (2005) New attractors. J High Energy Phys 2005(12):022. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2005/12/022. arXiv:hepth/0510024 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kang G, Koga J, Park MI (2004) Near horizon conformal symmetry and black hole entropy in any dimension. Phys Rev D 70:024005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.024005. arXiv:hepth/0402113 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kaplan DM, Lowe DA, Maldacena JM, Strominger A (1997) Microscopic entropy of \(n=2\) extremal black holes. Phys Rev D 55:4898–4902. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.4898. arXiv:hepth/9609204 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Karndumri P, Ó Colgáin E (2013) 3D supergravity from wrapped D3branes. J High Energy Phys 10:094. doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2013)094. arXiv:1307.2086 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kay BS, Wald RM (1991) Theorems on the uniqueness and thermal properties of stationary, nonsingular, quasifree states on space–times with a bifurcate killing horizon. Phys Rep 207:49–136. doi: 10.1016/03701573(91)90015E ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Keeler C, Larsen F (2012) Separability of black holes in string theory. J High Energy Phys 10:152. doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2012)152. arXiv:1207.5928 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kim SP, Page DN (2008) Schwinger pair production in \(ds_2\) and \({AdS}_2\). Phys Rev D 78:103517. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.103517. arXiv:0803.2555 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kim SS, Lindman Hörnlund J, Palmkvist J, Virmani A (2010) Extremal solutions of the s\(^3\) model and nilpotent orbits of g\(_2(2)\). J High Energy Phys 08:072. doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2010)072. arXiv:1004.5242 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Klemm A, Schmidt MG (1990) Orbifolds by cyclic permutations of tensor product conformal field theories. Phys Lett B 245:53–58. doi: 10.1016/03702693(90)901642 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kostelecky VA, Perry MJ (1996) Solitonic black holes in gauged \(n=2\) supergravity. Phys Lett B 371:191–198. doi: 10.1016/03702693(95)016074. arXiv:hepth/9512222 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kraus P (2008) Lectures on black holes and the AdS\(_3\)/CFT\(_2\) correspondence. In: Bellucci S (ed) Supersymmetric mechanics—vol. 3: attractors and black holes in supersymmetric gravity. Lecture notes in physics, vol 755. Springer, Berlin, pp 193–247. doi: 10.1007/9783540795230_4. arxiv:hepth/0609074
 Kraus P, Larsen F (2006) Holographic gravitational anomalies. J High Energy Phys 01:022. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2006/01/022. arXiv:hepth/0508218 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Krishnan C (2010) Hidden conformal symmetries of fivedimensional black holes. J High Energy Phys 2010(07):039. doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2010)039. arXiv:1004.3537 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Krishnan C, Kuperstein S (2009) A comment on Kerr–CFT and Wald entropy. Phys Lett B 677:326–331. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2009.05.056. arXiv:0903.2169 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kunduri HK (2011) Electrovacuum nearhorizon geometries in four and five dimensions. Class Quantum Grav 28:114010. doi: 10.1088/02649381/28/11/114010. arXiv:1104.5072 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kunduri HK, Lucietti J (2009a) A classification of nearhorizon geometries of extremal vacuum black holes. J Math Phys 50:082502. doi: 10.1063/1.3190480. arXiv:0806.2051 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kunduri HK, Lucietti J (2009b) Uniqueness of nearhorizon geometries of rotating extremal AdS\(_4\) black holes. Class Quantum Grav 26:055019. doi: 10.1088/02649381/26/5/055019. arXiv:0812.1576 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kunduri HK, Lucietti J (2013) Classification of nearhorizon geometries of extremal black holes. Living Rev Relativity 16:lrr20138, doi: 10.12942/lrr20138. http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20138. arxiv:1306.2517
 Kunduri HK, Lucietti J, Reall HS (2007) Nearhorizon symmetries of extremal black holes. Class Quantum Grav 24:4169–4190. doi: 10.1088/02649381/24/16/012. arXiv:0705.4214 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Larsen F (1997) A string model of black hole microstates. Phys Rev D 56:1005–1008. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.56.1005. arXiv:hepth/9702153 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lee J, Wald RM (1990) Local symmetries and constraints. J Math Phys 31:725–743. doi: 10.1063/1.528801 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Li H, Yu C, Wang J, Xu Z (2014) Forcefree magnetosphere on nearhorizon geometry of nearextreme Kerr black holes. Phys Rev D 023009. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023009. arxiv:1403.6959
 Long JC, Price JC (2003) Current short range tests of the gravitational inverse square law. C R Phys 4:337–346. doi: 10.1016/S16310705(03)000422. arXiv:hepph/0303057 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lopes Cardoso G, de Wit B, Mohaupt T (1999) Corrections to macroscopic supersymmetric black hole entropy. Phys Lett B 451:309–316. doi: 10.1016/S03702693(99)002270. arXiv:hepth/9812082 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lopes Cardoso G, de Wit B, Käppeli J, Mohaupt T (2000a) Stationary bps solutions in \(n=2\) supergravity with \(r^2\)interactions. J High Energy Phys 2000(12):019. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2000/12/019. arxiv:hepth/0009234
 Lopes Cardoso G, de Wit B, Mohaupt T (2000b) Macroscopic entropy formulae and nonholomorphic corrections for supersymmetric black holes. Nucl Phys B 567:87–110. doi: 10.1016/S05503213(99)00560X. arXiv:hepth/9906094 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Loran F, Soltanpanahi H (2009) 5D extremal rotating black holes and CFT duals. Class Quantum Grav 26:155019. doi: 10.1088/02649381/26/15/155019. arXiv:0901.1595 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lowe DA, Skanata A (2012) Generalized hidden Kerr/CFT. J Phys A: Math Gen 45:475401. doi: 10.1088/17518113/45/47/475401. arXiv:1112.1431 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lowe DA, Messamah I, Skanata A (2014) Hidden Kerr/CFT correspondence at finite frequencies. Phys Rev D 89(064):005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.064005. arXiv:1309.6574 Google Scholar
 Lü H, Mei J, Pope CN (2009a) Kerr–AdS/CFT correspondence in diverse dimensions. J High Energy Phys 04:054. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2009/04/054. arxiv:0811.2225
 Lü H, Mei J, Pope CN, VázquezPoritz JF (2009b) Extremal static AdS black hole/CFT correspondence in gauged supergravities. Phys Lett B 673:77–82. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2009.01.070. arxiv:0901.1677
 Lupsasca A, Rodriguez MJ (2015) Exact solutions for extreme black hole magnetospheres. J High Energy Phys 07:090. doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2015)090. arXiv:1412.4124 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lupsasca A, Rodriguez MJ, Strominger A (2014) Forcefree electrodynamics around extreme Kerr black holes. J High Energy Phys 12:185. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2014)185. arXiv:1406.4133 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Maharana A, Palti E (2013) Models of particle physics from type IIB string theory and Ftheory: a review. Int J Mod Phys A 28(1330):005. doi: 10.1142/S0217751X13300056. arXiv:1212.0555 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Maldacena JM (1998a) The large \(n\) limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity. Adv Theor Math Phys 2:231–252 arXiv:hepth/9711200 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Maldacena JM (1998b) The large\(n\) limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity. Adv Theor Math Phys 2:231–252. doi: 10.1023/A:1026654312961. arXiv:hepth/9711200 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Maldacena JM, Strominger A (1997) Universal lowenergy dynamics for rotating black holes. Phys Rev D 56:4975–4983. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.56.4975. arXiv:hepth/9702015 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Maldacena JM, Strominger A (1998) \({AdS}_3\) black holes and a stringy exclusion principle. J High Energy Phys 12:005. doi: 10.1088/11266708/1998/12/005. arXiv:hepth/9804085 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Maldacena JM, Susskind L (1996) Dbranes and fat black holes. Nucl Phys B 475:679–690. doi: 10.1016/05503213(96)003239. arXiv:hepth/9604042 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Maldacena JM, Strominger A, Witten E (1997) Black hole entropy in M theory. J High Energy Phys 12:002. doi: 10.1088/11266708/1997/12/002. arXiv:hepth/9711053 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Maldacena JM, Michelson J, Strominger A (1999) Antide Sitter fragmentation. J High Energy Phys 02:011. doi: 10.1088/11266708/1999/02/011. arXiv:hepth/9812073 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Maldacena JM, Martelli D, Tachikawa Y (2008) Comments on string theory backgrounds with nonrelativistic conformal symmetry. J High Energy Phys 10:072. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2008/10/072. arXiv:0807.1100 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Marolf D (2010) The dangers of extremes. Gen Relativ Gravit 42:2337–2343. doi: 10.1007/s107140101027z. arXiv:1005.2999 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Marolf D, Ross SF (2006) Boundary conditions and new dualities: vector fields in AdS/CFT. J High Energy Phys 11:085. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2006/11/085. arXiv:hepth/0606113 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Mathur SD (1998) Absorption of angular momentum by black holes and Dbranes. Nucl Phys B 514:204–226. doi: 10.1016/S05503213(97)008158. arXiv:hepth/9704156 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Matsuo Y, Nishioka T (2010) New near horizon limit in Kerr/CFT. J High Energy Phys 12:073. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2010)073. arXiv:1010.4549 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Matsuo Y, Tsukioka T, Yoo CM (2010a) Another realization of Kerr/CFT correspondence. Nucl Phys B 825:231–241. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009.09.025. arXiv:0907.0303 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Matsuo Y, Tsukioka T, Yoo CM (2010b) Yet another realization of Kerr/CFT correspondence. Europhys Lett 89:60001. doi: 10.1209/02955075/89/60001. arXiv:0907.4272 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 McAllister L, Silverstein E (2008) String cosmology: a review. Gen Relativ Gravit 40:565–605. doi: 10.1007/s1071400705566. arXiv:0710.2951 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 McClintock JE, Remillard RA (2009) Measuring the spins of stellarmass black holes. In: Astro2010: the astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey—science white papers. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/bpa/BPA_050603. arxiv:0902.3488
 McClintock JE, Shafee R, Narayan R, Remillard RA, Davis SW, Li LX (2006) The spin of the nearextreme Kerr black hole GRS 1915+105. Astrophys J 652:518–539. doi: 10.1086/508457. arXiv:astroph/0606076 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 McNamara JM (1978) Instability of black hole inner horizons. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A 358:499–517. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1978.0024 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Mei J (2010) The entropy for general extremal black holes. J High Energy Phys 2010(04):005. doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2010)005. arXiv:1002.1349 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Middleton M (2016) Black hole spin: theory and observation. In: Bambi C (ed) Astrophysics of black holes: from fundamental aspects to latest developments, astrophysics and space science library, Springer, Berlin, pp 99–151. doi: 10.1007/9783662528594_3. arxiv:1507.06153
 Miller JM, Parker ML, Fuerst F, Bachetti M, Harrison FA, Barret D, Boggs SE, Chakrabarty D, Christensen FE, Craig WW, Fabian AC, Grefenstette BW, Hailey CJ, King AL, Stern DK, Tomsick JA, Walton DJ, Zhang WW (2013) NuSTAR spectroscopy of GRS 1915+105: disk reflection, spin, and connections to jets. Astrophys J Lett 775:L45. doi: 10.1088/20418205/775/2/L45. arXiv:1308.4669 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Murata K (2011) Conformal weights in the Kerr/CFT correspondence. J High Energy Phys 2011(05):117. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2011)117. arXiv:1103.5635 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Nakayama Y (2009) Emerging AdS from extremally rotating NS5branes. Phys Lett B 673:272–278. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2009.02.031. arXiv:0812.2234 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Nutku Y (1993) Exact solutions of topologically massive gravity with a cosmological constant. Class Quantum Grav 10:2657–2661. doi: 10.1088/02649381/10/12/022 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Okamoto I, Kaburaki O (1992) The ‘innerhorizon thermodynamics’ of Kerr black holes. Mon Not R Astron Soc 255:539–544ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ooguri H, Strominger A, Vafa C (2004) Black hole attractors and the topological string. Phys Rev D 70:106007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.106007. arXiv:hepth/0405146 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ottewill AC, Winstanley E (2000a) Divergence of a quantum thermal state on Kerr space–time. Phys Lett A 273:149–152. doi: 10.1016/S03759601(00)004874. arXiv:grqc/0005108 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ottewill AC, Winstanley E (2000b) The renormalized stress tensor in Kerr space–time: general results. Phys Rev D 62:084018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.084018. arXiv:grqc/0004022 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Pakman A, Rastelli L, Razamat SS (2009) Diagrams for symmetric product orbifolds. J High Energy Phys 10:034. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2009/10/034. arXiv:0905.3448 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Pani P, Berti E, Gualtieri L (2013a) Gravitoelectromagnetic perturbations of Kerr–Newman black holes: stability and isospectrality in the slowrotation limit. Phys Rev Lett 110(241):103. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.241103. arXiv:1304.1160 Google Scholar
 Pani P, Berti E, Gualtieri L (2013b) Scalar, electromagnetic and gravitational perturbations of Kerr–Newman black holes in the slowrotation limit. Phys Rev D 88:064048. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.064048. arXiv:1307.7315 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Penrose R (1963) Asymptotic properties of fields and space–times. Phys Rev Lett 10:66–68. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.10.66 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Penrose R (1973) Naked singularities. Ann NY Acad Sci 224:125–134. doi: 10.1111/j.17496632.1973.tb41447.x ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Pérez A, Tempo D, Troncoso R (2016) Boundary conditions for general relativity on AdS\(_{3}\) and the KdV hierarchy. J High Energy Phys 6:103. doi: 10.1007/JHEP06(2016)103. arXiv:1605.04490 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Pioline B, Troost J (2005) Schwinger pair production in \({AdS}_2\). J High Energy Phys 03:043. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2005/03/043. arXiv:hepth/0501169 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Piran T, Shaham J (1977) Upper bounds on collisional penrose processes near rotating black hole horizons. Phys Rev D 16:1615–1635. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1615 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Polchinski J (1988) Scale and conformal invariance in quantum field theory. Nucl Phys B 303:226–236. doi: 10.1016/05503213(88)901794 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Polchinski J (1998) String theory. Vol. 1: an introduction to the Bosonic string. Cambridge monographs on mathematical physics, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
 Porfyriadis AP, Strominger A (2014) Gravity waves from the Kerr/CFT correspondence. Phys Rev D 90:044038. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.044038. arXiv:1401.3746 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Press WH, Teukolsky SA (1973) Perturbations of a rotating black hole. II. Dynamical stability of the Kerr metric. Astrophys J 185:649–673. doi: 10.1086/152445 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Rasmussen J (2010) Isometrypreserving boundary conditions in the Kerr/CFT correspondence. Int J Mod Phys A 25:1597–1613. doi: 10.1142/S0217751X10048986. arXiv:0908.0184 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Regge T, Teitelboim C (1974) Role of surface integrals in the Hamiltonian formulation of general relativity. Ann Phys (NY) 88:286–318. doi: 10.1016/00034916(74)904047 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Rooman M, Spindel P (1998) Gödel metric as a squashed antide Sitter geometry. Class Quantum Grav 15:3241–3249. doi: 10.1088/02649381/15/10/024. arXiv:grqc/9804027 ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Sachs RK (1962) Gravitational waves in general relativity. VIII. Waves in asymptotically flat space–times. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A 270:103–126. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1962.0206 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Sadeghian S, Yavartanoo H (2016) Black rings in U(1)\(^3\) supergravity and their dual 2D CFT. Class Quant Grav 33:095,006. doi: 10.1088/02649381/33/9/095006. arXiv:1510.01209 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Seiberg N (1997) Why is the matrix model correct? Phys Rev Lett 79:3577–3580. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.3577. arXiv:hepth/9710009 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Sen A (2005) Black hole entropy function and the attractor mechanism in higher derivative gravity. J High Energy Phys 2005(09):038. doi: 10.1088/11266708/2005/09/038. arXiv:hepth/0506177 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Sen A (2012) Logarithmic corrections to rotating extremal black hole entropy in four and five dimensions. Gen Relativ Gravit 44:1947–1991. doi: 10.1007/s1071401213730. arXiv:1109.3706 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Shao KN, Zhang Z (2011) Hidden conformal symmetry of rotating black hole with four charges. Phys Rev D 83:106008. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.106008. arXiv:1008.0585 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 SheikhJabbari MM, Yavartanoo H (2011) EVH black holes, AdS\(_3\) throats and EVH/CFT proposal. J High Energy Phys 10:013. doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2011)013. arXiv:1107.5705 ADSMathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Siahaan HM (2016) Magnetized Kerr/CFT correspondence. Class Quantum Grav 33:155013. doi: 10.1088/02649381/33/15/155013. arXiv:1508.01152