author: Borun D. Chowdhury
bibliography: Papers.bib
title: Cool horizons lead to information loss

# Introduction

There are two results in Hawking's black hole evaporation analysis  which serve as evidence for loss of unitarity:

**Result 1**. A pure initial state evolves to a mixed state,

**Result 2**. The map from the initial state to the final state is many to one and thus non-invertible.

Both of these originate from the assumption that the horizon of a black hole is in the Unruh vacuum, independent of the state of the matter that formed the black hole. Any proposed resolution of the information paradox must address/fix *both* these issues.[^1] Note that in order to fix [Result 1](#Result1), the entropy of the outside radiation has to start decreasing no later than when half of the entropy of black hole has evaporated away .

In Ref  Mathur demonstrated the stability of Hawking's result. The essence of his proof is:

**Statement 1**. A pure state at the horizon implies increase in the entanglement entropy of radiation *at each step* of the evaporation.

In fact, this is only the leading order result and Mathur actually showed that *small deviations from purity at the horizon* still imply an increase in the entanglement entropy of the radiation at each step of the evaporation. This statement implies [Result 1](#Result1). Since the Unruh vacuum is a pure state, this implies that small corrections to the Unruh vacuum at the horizon cannot fix [Result 1](#Result1). Mathur used this result to argue for structure at the horizon, a defining characteristic of fuzzballs. Recently Almheiri et. al. (AMPS)  observed that the contrapositive of the above statement:

**Statement 2**. A pure final state implies a mixed state at the horizon *after half of the entropy of the black hole has evaporated (Page time)*

implies that, assuming purity of final state, a black hole maximally entangled with its radiation cannot have its horizon in the Unruh vacuum state. Claiming that any other state would not allow free infall, AMPS dubbed the state at the horizon a firewall.[^2]

The qualifier about when the horizon has to become a mixed state, comes from the result of Ref.  mentioned above. This has resulted in a discussion about "young" (pure state) and "old" (maximally entangled with radiation or some other system) black holes. While AMPS expressed a belief that firewalls must exist before Page time, the nature of the proof in  (trying to address only [Result 1](#Result1)) does not allow one to conclusively argue that.[^3]

In  and most of the discussion following it, [Result 2](#Result2) has not been considered at all except in Ref.  to the best of our knowledge. In  the author, along with Avery and Puhm, took a different approach than Ref. . We argued that purity of final state is necessary but not sufficient for unitarity. We showed that if one considers fixing [Result 2](#Result2) also, i.e. demand that the initial to final state map be invertible, then there has to be an order one deviation from the Unruh vacuum at the horizon at every step of evaporation ( i.e. even before Page time/for pure states).[^4]

Naively, there seems to be a caveat to our proof. We show that for generic states in the $e^{S_{BH}}$ sized Hilbert space of the black hole, the horizon cannot be in any fiducial state in general and the Unruh vacuum in particular. However, if the actual microstates of the black hole are special in that they live in a smaller dimensional sub Hilbert space then our result above does not apply for the following reason. One may still conjecture some *special dynamics for special states* such that the horizon is predominantly in the Unruh vacuum before Page time . In fact, allowing for some amount of non-locality (see for example ), *special non-local dynamics for special states* may allow the horizon to be predominantly in the Unruh vacuum at all times. One reason to suspect such special states for black holes would be that 't Hooft  showed that the information content of black holes formed from stellar collapse is $S_{BH}^{3/4}$ which is parametrically smaller that $S_{BH}$.

However, properties of black holes should not depend on how they are formed and whether or not they are in special states *unless* there is a fundamental obstruction to making black holes in non-special states. In this paper we show that it is possible to adiabatically collapse radiation in an arbitrary state living in a Hilbert space of size $e^{S_{BH}}$, to form a black holes in *any* of the $e^{S_{BH}}$ states. While this claim was made by Zurek in , it turns out to not work for Schwarzschild black holes. Nevertheless, it does work for the D1-D5-P black string. The difference comes from the sign of the specific heat in the two cases. While we demonstrate the possibility of adiabatic collapse explicitly for the D1-D5-P black string, we expect it to work for any big black hole in AdS. After all, in the context of AdS/CFT the claim just amounts to saying we can excite the CFT into any one of the microscopic states accounting for the microcanonical entropy. There doesn't seem to be any fundamental obstruction to it.

Having established this, our proof of  is on a firm footing. We then analyze some recent attempts to do away with fuzzballs/firewalls . We find that the common theme in all of them is to find a way to oppose [Statement 2](#Statement2). This is done in various ways (e.g. the so called $A=C$ models postulate the inside and the radiation are not independent systems). However, [Statement 2](#Statement2) is closely related to [Result 1](#Result1). Whatever model one proposes, [Result 2](#Result2) still needs to be taken care of to ensure unitarity.

Concretely, just by establishing that the "horizon" (however a given model defines it) is pure does not mean it is in the Unruh vacuum. We find that one then has two ways to interpret these models:

-   These models are of the kind "special dynamics for special states" with the fine tuned dynamics ensuring the horizon is always in the Unruh vacuum for special states. If we apply these to more generic states then the horizon will not be smooth.

-   One can understand the models as applying to all states. In such a case, we demonstrate that [Result 2](#Result2) still stands and we end up loosing unitarity again as a cost for smooth horizons.

Thus the main result of the paper is that a smooth, information free horizon in a fiducial state (Unruh vacuum) generically leads to information loss. Thus, we conclude that if unitarity is to be preserved then the horizon of a black hole cannot be in the Unruh vacuum at any time during the evolution for generic states. Since a horizon cannot exist but in an Unruh vacuum state, our result shows that, as far as one can trust qubit models, quantum gravity microstates have to end in a (possibly complicated Planck scale) cap outside the horizon i.e. fuzzballs.

We go on to discuss how analytic continuation and thermofield doubling are related and why one should not trust the results they provide for "behind the horizon physics". We also propose a solution to the puzzle raised by Sen that if quantum gravity effects become important at horizon scale, why does semi-classical gravity work so well for black hole microstate counting.

While this paper was being written, Ref.  discussing structure at horizons for pure states using different arguments appeared on the arXiv. It also criticizes the claims of  based on arguments independent of those in this paper.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section we briefly review the information loss paradox, the stability of Hawking's result  and the firewall argument . In Section  we discuss how black holes may be formed in any of the $e^{S_{BH}}$ states by adiabatically compressing radiation in a box. In Section  we give a intuitive explanation of the proof of  and explain how certain models proposed to do away with fuzzballs/firewalls either do not work generically, or lead to loss of unitarity depending on the interpretation. We end with conclusions and discussions in Section .

# Information paradox and small corrections

## Leading order Hawking result

In  Hawking showed that a black hole formed from the collapse of a pure state evaporates away into radiation which is in a thermal state. The final radiation being in a mixed state and the map from initial to final state being non-invertible both imply a breakdown of unitarity, a problem otherwise known as the information paradox.

Hawking's process can be understood in terms of stretching of "nice slices" (see ). When such slices in the vacuum state (Unruh vacuum) stretch, the stretching produces particle pairs at intervals ($t \sim M$) which were shown in  to be given by $$|\text{Unruh Vacuum} \rangle=C e^{\gamma \hat b^\dagger b^\dagger} |\hat 0 \rangle |0 \rangle\,.$$ We have adopted the notation where hatted quantities are for the Hilbert space inside the black hole and unhatted ones are for the Hilbert space outside. $C$ is a normalization constant and $\gamma$ is an order one number. One can truncate this to the first two terms $$|\varphi_1 \rangle\vcentcolon=|\text{Unruh Vacuum} \rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt 2} (|\hat 0 \rangle |0 \rangle + |\hat 1 \rangle |1 \rangle) \label{QubitUnruhVacuum}$$ to make the process analyzable using qubits. We view the black hole as a system and the outside as another system and the horizon as the interface of these two systems.

In these terms, Hawking's result implies that a state of the black hole described by $n$ qubits $$|BH \rangle = \sum C_{\hat q_1  \dots \hat q_n} |\hat q_1  \dots \hat q_n  \rangle$$ evolves to $$\begin{aligned}
|BH \rangle
&& \longrightarrow|BH \rangle \otimes \Big[ \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} (|\hat 0 \rangle |0 \rangle + |\hat 1 \rangle |1 \rangle) \Big] \nonumber \\
&& \longrightarrow |BH \rangle \otimes \Big[ \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} (|\hat 0 \rangle |0 \rangle + |\hat 1 \rangle |1 \rangle) \Big]^2 \nonumber \\
&& \vdots  \nonumber \\
&& \longrightarrow |BH \rangle \otimes \Big[ \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} (|\hat 0 \rangle |0 \rangle + |\hat 1 \rangle |1 \rangle) \Big]^m \nonumber \\
&&\vdots  \label{HawkingEvolution}
\end{aligned}$$

This process terminates after $n$ steps because of energy conservation. Each emission carries away some energy leading to the black hole eventually evaporating away.[^5] It is easy to see that the von Neumann entropy of the radiation outside starts at zero and grows by $\log 2$ at each step going upto $n \log 2$. Since we started with a pure state, *one* of the requirements for unitarity is that the entropy goes back to zero after $n$ steps.

However, one may think that this is a leading order process and there could be small corrections to it. These could originate from non-perturbative effects, for instance, making them of the order of $e^{-GM^2}$. The large number of states $e^{GM^2}$ could offset this smallness and restore unitarity. In the qubit models the number of states is $2^n$ and so the small corrections would then be $\sim 2^{-n}$.

Page conjectured in  (and this was proven in ) that for typical states in a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$ of dimension $D_{\mathcal H}$, the von-Neuman entropy of a subsystem $\mathcal A$ of dimension $D_{\mathcal A}$ increases from zero with the dimension of $D_{\mathcal A}$ till $D_{\mathcal A}^2 = D_{\mathcal H}$ and then starts to decrease, going back to zero when $D_{\mathcal A} = D_{\mathcal H}$. So any small corrections would have to make the entropy of the radiation turn around after half the black hole has evaporated ($n/2$ steps) and bring it down to zero in the end ($n$ steps) as shown in Figure a. This would be *one* of the requirements for unitarity.

## Small corrections to Hawking's process and purity of final state

Note that the state at the interface is a two qubit system which, in principle, could be in a four dimensional Hilbert space spanned by the Bell states $$\begin{aligned}
|\varphi_1 \rangle &\vcentcolon=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\big(|\hat{0}  \rangle|0  \rangle
                           + |\hat{1}  \rangle|1  \rangle\big)\,,\\
|\varphi_2 \rangle &\vcentcolon=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\big(|\hat{0}  \rangle|0  \rangle
                           - |\hat{1}  \rangle|1  \rangle\big)\,,\\
|\varphi_3 \rangle &\vcentcolon=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\big(|\hat{0}  \rangle|1  \rangle
                           + |\hat{1}  \rangle|0  \rangle\big)\,,\\
|\varphi_4 \rangle &\vcentcolon=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\big(|\hat{0}  \rangle|1  \rangle
                           - |\hat{1}  \rangle|0  \rangle\big)\,,\\ \label{interfacestates}
\end{aligned}$$ but, according to Hawking's result, is in a one dimensional Hilbert space spanned by $|\varphi_1 \rangle$.

Consider the state of the system when $m$ qubits of radiation have already been emitted. In the computational basis the state of the system may then be written as $$|BH+rad_m \rangle=\sum C_{\hat q_1  \dots \hat q_{n+m} q_m  \dots q_1} |\hat q_1  \dots \hat q_{n+m}  \rangle \otimes|q_m  \dots q_1 \rangle\,.$$ Mathur introduced small corrections to the Hawking's process in  by changing the evolution () to $$\begin{aligned}
&& |BH+rad_m \rangle \nonumber \\
 && \longrightarrow \sum C_{\hat q_1  \dots \hat q_{n+m} q_m  \dots q_1} ~~ \hat P_1\left( |\hat q_1 \hat q_2 \dots \hat q_{n+m} \rangle \right)~ \otimes ~|\varphi_1^{n+m+1,m+1} \rangle ~\otimes~|q_m q_{m-1} \dots q_1 \rangle \nonumber \\
&& ~~+\sum C_{\hat q_1  \dots \hat q_{n+m} q_m  \dots q_1} ~~ \hat P_2 \left( |\hat q_1 \hat q_2 \dots \hat q_{n+m} \rangle \right)~ \otimes ~|\varphi_2^{n+m+1,m+1} \rangle ~\otimes~ |q_m q_{m-1} \dots q_1 \rangle \nonumber \\
\end{aligned}$$ where note that $\hat P_1$ and $\hat P_2$ act only on the hatted qubits and the superscripts in $|\varphi_i \rangle$ denote the location of the newly created qubit pair for hatted and unhatted qubits respectively. He showed that as long as $$\frac{\langle \hat P_2^\dagger \hat P_2 \rangle}{\langle \hat P_1^\dagger \hat P_1 \rangle} = \epsilon \ll 1 \label{smallcorrections}\,,$$ where the expectation value in () is taken with respect to the state $|BH+rad_m \rangle$, the entropy of the radiation keeps increasing at every step, never turning around to make the final state pure as shown in Figure b. The condition () serves to keep the corrections to the leading process () small. Avery  generalized this to include the other two directions in the space of Hilbert space of the two qubits () at the intersection completing Mathur's proof.

Simply stated, small corrections to the Hawking's process which respect effective field theory outside the black hole ($\hat P$s do not act on the unhatted qubits) lead to an ever increasing von-Neumann entropy of the radiation outside and thus have no hope of restoring unitarity. Since Hawking's process arose because of the state at the horizon being in the Unruh vacuum, the above result can be restated as

> Small corrections to the Unruh vacuum at the horizon maintain an ever increasing entropy of the radiation outside as shown in Figure b, thus precluding purity of the final state and therefore unitarity.

Recently, Almheiri et. al.  (AMPS) argued for the contrapositive of the above statement

> Requiring the entropy of the radiation to go down after Page time, in accordance with Figure a, implies large deviations from the Unruh vacuum at the horizon *after Page time*,

to argue that an infalling observer would see drastic consequences on trying to fall through the horizon of an "old" black hole. They dubbed the horizon of an old black hole a firewall.[^6]

Note that "old" black hole means a black hole entangled with some other system. While this system is the Hawking radiation in this case, it could be an arbitrary system. In the case of big black holes in AdS/CFT, the other system may be thought of as a system coupled to the CFT which sucks out the Hawking radiation leading to mixed state .

## Possibility of structure at horizon before Page time/ for pure states

While one would expect that any structure at the horizon would be independent of how "old" the black hole is, or more precisely whether the black hole is in a pure state or maximally mixed state, the nature of the argument in  depends on just the purity of the final state of the radiation and thus the non-smoothness of the horizon can only be inferred after Page time.

In  the author, along with Avery and Puhm, argued that purity of final state is only one of the requirements of unitarity. Using other requirements for unitarity – linearity, norm preservation and invertibility – we argued that the horizon cannot be smooth even before Page time, i.e. for black holes in pure states. Our proof depends on the assumption that the initial black hole state is not special i.e. one can start in any of the $e^{S_{BH}}$ states. This is certainly not true for black holes formed from stellar collapse . In such cases the Hilbert space of pre-collapse configurations are much smaller than the Hilbert space of the black hole formed after collapse. Thus, such states are special in a sense.

If black holes always formed in some special states, it is possible to speculate that the dynamics of black hole evaporation may be fine tuned to act on such special states in such as way so as to delay any significant deviation from the Unruh vacuum at the horizon till after Page time(see  for instance). In fact, one may even speculate non-local fine tuned dynamics to act on special states to keep the horizon predominantly in the Unruh vacuum.

However, in the next section we will see that there is no fundamental obstruction in creating black holes in generic states. This will put the proof of  on a firm footing.

# The storage capacity of a black hole and its efficient utilization

Black hole entropy is huge compared to ordinary matter we encounter everyday. In particular it is given by the area of the black hole in Planck units $$S_{BH} = \frac{A}{4G}\,.$$ Entropy is a measure of information and therefore of storage capacity. A natural question is whether all this storage space can be used. In other words, can a black hole be formed in any of the $e^{S_{BH}}$ states (or superpositions thereof) or is the actual storage capacity considerably limited (like an old 5 1/4" floppy disk with bad sectors)?

Black holes are usually thought of as formed from collapse of stars so the information content of a black hole formed from collapse is at best the amount of information in the pre-collapsed star. This amount was estimated in . The most probable state of matter of energy $E$ in a ball of volume $V$ is a gas at temperature $T$ with the equation of state $$E = c_1 V T^4\,.$$ The entropy and therefore the logarithm of the number of possible pre-collapse configurations of the star is $$S = c_2 V T^3\,.$$ The constants $c_1$, $c_2$ above and $c_3$ below are order one numbers. For the star to exist, it has to be bigger than its own Schwarzschild radius $$2 G E < (\frac{3 V}{4 \pi})^\frac{1}{3}\,.$$ Thus, we find the entropy of the star to be $$S_{matter} < c_3 (\frac{A}{G})^\frac{3}{4}\,.$$ Since the number of states is exponential in the entropy, it seems that while the black hole could in principle have existed in many different states, it actually exists in far fewer ones, at least for black holes formed by collapse of stars. When a state in a Hilbert space gets mapped to a bigger Hilbert space, a corollary of the no-cloning theorem is that the map has to be of the form $$|\psi \rangle \to |\psi \rangle \otimes |\Phi \rangle$$ where $|\Phi \rangle$ is a fiducial state independent of $|\psi \rangle$ . In time this tensor product nature of the state will change as the state gets scrambled but it does not change the fact that the map is from a smaller Hilbert space to a bigger one and so these states are special in a sense. This has implications for the information paradox and the recent discussion about fuzzballs/firewalls.

In terms of qubit models, the above discussion amounts to saying that the black hole is a $n$-qubit system and $n^{3/4}$ qubits contain some information of the state but the rest are in a fiducial state. For large $n$, the number of qubits carrying any actual information is a small fraction and one may imagine the black hole state to be more or less independent of the pre-collapse state. Then one may conjecture special dynamics for these small set of special states which allow a drama free experience at the horizon. So, it is very important to ask if black holes are limited to a exponentially suppressed number of total states available or they can be formed in any one of the $e^{S_{BH}}$ states.

## Schwarzschild black hole

First we begin by looking at Schwarzschild black holes in $1+3$ dimensions and ask if we can arrange things such that $$S_{matter} \sim S_{BH} \label{equalEntropies}\,.$$ In , Zurek showed that while the process of free streaming Hawking radiation produces more entropy in the radiation than is lost by the black hole[^7], the black hole may be evaporated in an adiabatic fashion so that the entropy gained by the radiation is equal to that lost by the black hole. The idea is to put a black hole in a perfectly reflecting box so that it is in equilibrium with its own radiation. The walls of the box can be connected to a piston so that it can be adiabatically expanded with no net entropy production. Once all, or at least a major fraction, of the energy has been converted into radiation one can tweak the state of the radiation to produce any one of the $e^{S_{BH}}$ states and adiabatically collapse the tweaked state again to form a black hole in any desired state. He concluded that the states of the black hole correspond to pre-collapse configurations. This process is depicted in Figure .

Let us revisit this problem. We take a system consisting of radiation of energy $E_{rad}$ and a black hole of energy $E_{BH}$ in a box of volume $V$. The entropies of the individual subsystems are $$\begin{gathered}
S_{rad} =\frac{4 \sqrt{\pi}}{3 (15)^\frac{1}{4}} V^{1/4} E_{rad}^{3/4}\,, \qquad S_{BH} = 4 \pi G E_{BH}^2
\end{gathered}$$ and the entropy of the total system is the sum of the entropies of the subsystems, $S= S_{rad} + S_{BH}$. The most stable configuration would be the one which maximized the entropy subject to the constraint $E= E_{rad} + E_{BH}$ being constant. These amount to , $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial S_{rad}}{\partial E_{rad}}  - \frac{\partial S_{BH}}{\partial E_{BH}} =0 &~~~ \Longleftrightarrow ~~~T \vcentcolon=\left( \frac{15 E_{rad}}{\pi^2 V} \right)^{1/4} = \frac{1}{8 \pi G E_{BH}}\,,  \label{Temperature}\\
\frac{\partial^2 S_{rad}}{\partial E_{rad}^2}  + \frac{\partial^2 S_{BH}}{\partial E_{BH}^2} <0 & ~~~ \Longleftrightarrow ~~~ E_{rad} < \frac{1}{4} E_{BH}\,. \label{ConditionOnEnery}
\end{aligned}$$ We can rewrite the total entropy and the condition for stable equilibrium () in terms of the common temperature () $$S=  \frac{1}{16 \pi G T^2}( \frac{64 \pi^3 GVT^5}{45} + 1)\,, \label{Entropy}$$ and $$\frac{32 \pi^3 G V T^5}{15} <1 \label{ConditionOnTemperature}$$ respectively.

Now we immediately see a problem. In order for the gas to have more entropy than the black hole we need $$GVT^5 \gg 1$$ which is inconsistent with the stability condition. So, contrary to the claims of Zurek, we can not adiabatically evaporate a Schwarzschild black hole sufficiently to confirm that the entropy of the black hole is a measure of pre-collapse configurations.

It is easy to see what the source of the above problem is. The black hole has a negative specific heat and when we expand the box adiabatically, at some point the black hole will become small enough so that the total specific heat will become negative. Then the black hole will not remain in stable equilibrium with its radiation. While it seemed bound to happen at some point, it was not obvious a priori that this will happen before the radiation can have more entropy than the black hole.

However, just because this procedure does not work for Schwarzschild black holes, does not mean it will not work for other black holes as we will see next.

## D1-D5 black string

The D1-D5 system has been very useful in the study of black holes. We will study this system for its storage capacity. One of the key differences of the near extremal D1-D5-P black string compared to the Schwarzschild black hole is that it has positive specific heat. Thus we may bypass the problem we faced in the preceding section. We give a brief description of this system sufficient for our purposes. For a more in-depth review of the system see  for example.

We compactify type IIB on string theory on $S^1 \times T^4$ with the four torus being string scale and the radius of $S^1$ being $R$. We wrap $n_1$ D1 branes on $S^1$ and $n_5$ D5 branes on $S^1 \times T^4$. We focus on the limit $R \gg g l_s$ where D-branes are a lot heavier than momentum along $S^1$ and any extra energy goes into exciting equal amounts of momentum and anti-momentum along $S^1$. The metric and other fields of this system may be found in full detail in . For our purposes it is sufficient to consider the system when there is no rotation in the non-compact direction and no net momentum. This simplified metric may be found in .

The energy, entropy and temperature in terms of the quantized charges are $$E_{BS} = \frac{2 n_p}{R}\,, \qquad S_{BS} =4 \pi \sqrt{n_p n_1 n_5}\,, \qquad T_{BS} = \frac{1}{\pi R} \sqrt{\frac{n_p}{n_1 n_5 }}\,.$$ The above expression for the entropy can be obtained from the gravity as well as field theory .

The system will behave differently for high and low temperatures but as we will see we need only worry about high temperatures. At high temperatures ($T_{rad}R \gg 1$) the box is effectively $5+1$ dimensional and the energy and entropy of radiation is given by $$E_{rad} = c_4 V R T_{rad}^6\,, \qquad S_{rad} = c_5 V  R T_{rad}^5$$ where $c_4$ and $c_5$ are some order one constants. This makes the total entropy $$S= c_2 V R \left( \frac{E_{rad}}{c_1 VR} \right)^{5/6} + 2 \pi \sqrt{2 R n_1 n_5 E_{BS}}\,.$$ The condition for equilibrium is that the subsystems have the same temperature $$T \vcentcolon=\left( \frac{E_{rad}}{c_1 V R} \right)^{1/6} =  \frac{1}{\pi R} \sqrt{ \frac{E_{BS} R}{2 n_1 n_5}}\,.$$ This equilibrium is always stable as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^2 S_{rad}}{\partial E_{rad}^2}  + \frac{\partial^2 S_{BS}}{\partial E_{BS}^2}  &=& - \left( \frac{5  c_2}{36  c_1^2 R V T^7}+\frac{1}{4 \pi^2 n_1 n_5   R  T^3} \right) <0
\end{aligned}$$ so we do not expect problems like we had with the Schwarzschild black hole in adiabatically evaporating the black string.

As we increase the volume of the surrounding box adiabatically, the temperature will decrease. There is evidence from the weakly coupled D1-D5 system at the orbifold point that around $T R \sim 1$ there will be a phase transition coming from the long string sector converting into shorter strings . Further, when $TR \sim 1$ the surrounding box becomes $4+1$ dimensional so the radiation system also undergoes a phase transition. Fortunately we will not have to worry about these subtleties since by that time the radiation will have much more entropy than the black string as we will see.

In order to see this we first write the entropy in terms of the common temperature $$S  =4 \pi^2  RT( \frac{c_2}{4 \pi^2} \frac{V}{R^4}  (RT)^4 +  n_1 n_5 )\,.$$ We want to start with a high temperature configuration such that most of the entropy is in the black string. The entropy is then $$S \approx  RT_i n_1 n_5\,. \label{InitialEntropy}$$ We want to adiabatically expand the box till the temperature is order one $T_f R \sim 1$. The entropy is the same as before but in terms of the final volume is $$S \approx \frac{V_f}{R^4} + n_1 n_5 \label{FinalEntropy}\,.$$ Equating () and () and using $R T_i \gg 1$ we find $$\frac{V_f}{R^4} \approx RT_i n_1 n_5 \gg n_1 n_5$$ so most of the entropy is in the radiation by the time $TR \sim 1$. One can now change the state of the radiation and adiabatically pump it back into the D1-D5 system producing it in any of the $e^{S_{BS}}$ states.

We expect this to work for all black holes with positive specific heat. Specifically, it should work for all big black holes in AdS. After all, in that case all we are saying is that the dual CFT can be put in any one of the $e^{S_{BH}}$ states accounting for its microcanonical entropy and there does not seem to be any fundamental obstruction to this.

# The cost of cool horizons

In the previous section we established that it is indeed possible to make black holes in any one of $e^{S_{BH}}$ states. This process will be slow but that should not in any fundamental way affect the properties of the black hole. In this section we will be talking about such black holes in arbitrary states. We will review an earlier result  which showed that such black holes cannot have Unruh vacuum at the horizon even before Page time. We will then end by demonstrating how some of the arguments against fuzzballs/firewalls do not refute the results of Ref. .

## Unitarity requires order one corrections at each step of emission

Since the argument about small corrections made by Mathur and Avery was based on purity (or lack thereof) of the final state of the radiation from a black hole, the contrapositive of the statement could only be made after Page time. This has resulted in a lot of discussion about "young" vs. "old" black holes. Expecting this to be a red herring, the author along with Avery and Puhm revisited the problem . Instead of focussing merely on purity of final radiation, which is necessary but not sufficient for unitarity, we analyzed other requirements – linearity, norm-preservation and invertibility. Either by appealing to finiteness of the black hole Hilbert space (which appears violated in the nice slice description but is necessary in a unitary theory) or by appealing to energy conservation one can argue that the process of radiation from an $n$-qubit system terminates after $n$ steps (see footnote ). Thus, all the information of $n$ qubits have to be mapped onto the outside Hilbert space in $n$ steps. This allows very little wiggle room. At each step one qubit worth of information has to be removed from the inside Hilbert space and mapped to the outside Hilbert space.

The proof of this rather intuitive idea is technical and we will not repeat it here. The interested reader can find it in Ref. . Fortunately, the result can be stated quite simply:

> The typical state of the interface of two interacting systems, at least one of which is local (the outside), can not preferentially be in a subspace of the the Hilbert space spanned by (). Instead, the typical state necessarily explores the full four dimensional Hilbert space.

Our result is stronger than the results of  and proves that there has to be an order one correction to the Unruh vacuum at the horizon even for young black holes. At this point one may choose to say that a firewall has to be there from the beginning but since the main point of the fuzzball proposal is that there is structure at the horizon precluding universal infall, our result strongly supports the fuzzball conjecture.

In fact, it is not obvious how one should see firewalls as distinct from fuzzballs (see also ). The distinction seems to originate from confusing the fuzzball proposal with fuzzball complementarity in the original AMPS paper. The fuzzball proposal argues for structure at the horizon which would change the evolution of typical ($E \sim T_{BH}$) quanta by order one and is agnostic about the infall of non-typical quanta. This proposal is primarily a constructive one with many string theoretic microstates of gravity having been systematically found over the last decade(see  for reviews). The latter, on the other hands, is a relatively recent proposal which states that non-typical infalling quanta may still experience a universal behavior described by free infall. In this article we will not say much about fuzzball complementarity as our goal is to argue that structure at the horizon – fuzzballs – are present from very early on, possibly being delayed till scrambling time. For a recent discussion on fuzzball complementarity, especially in relation to AMPS, see . In this paper we shall refer to order one deviation from the Unruh vacuum as fuzzballs mainly and occasionally as firewalls when describing responses to AMPS.

## Why some "resolutions" of our result/fuzzballs/firewalls do not work

The results of  are in direct contradiction with some papers claiming to resolve some or all issues with fuzzballs/firewalls so we will address three such models out of the burgeoning literature.

There are two results in  which show violation of unitarity during black hole evaporation:

-   A pure initial state evolves to a mixed state,

-   The map from the initial state to the final state is many to one and thus non-invertible.

Thus, even if one proposes a model, with or without a mechanism to bypass Hawking's pair production, that ends up giving a final state which is pure, it still needs to be checked for invertibility of the map from the initial to the final state. We will see that the proposed resolutions that we discuss, end up making the horizon smooth at the cost of unitarity.

The proofs of Mathur , Avery  and AMPS  only address the first issue above and boil down to using strong subadditivity on three systems. Following the notation of these three papers they are $A$ – the early radiation, $B$ – the outgoing hawking quantum and $C$ – the infalling hawking quantum. We will not repeat the proofs here but the punch line of the argument forwarded by AMPS is that purity of the final state implies the horizon cannot be pure after Page time $$S_{AB}< S_A ~~\Rightarrow ~~S_{BC} \ne 0  \qquad  \forall ~ t>t_{\text{Page}}\,.$$ In particular, this implies the horizon cannot be in the Unruh vacuum which is pure $$S_{BC} \ne 0  ~~~ \Rightarrow ~~~ |BC \rangle \ne |\varphi_1 \rangle  \label{SBCZero1}\,.$$ where recall that in the qubit models $|\varphi_1 \rangle$ is the Unruh vacuum (). A lot of responses to AMPS have focussed on finding a way to make the $BC$ system pure in such a way that $B$ is maximally entangled with $C$. The problem with this approach is that the Unruh vacuum is not the only state with this property.[^8] In particular this property is shared by all the four Bell states () and only one of them, $|\varphi_1 \rangle$, plays the role of the Unruh vacuum (). The others are an order one deviation and cannot allow free infall. More explicitly, $$S_{BC} = 0  ~~~ {\not \Rightarrow} ~~~ |BC \rangle = |\varphi_1 \rangle \label{SBCZero2}\,.$$
In fact, the most general two qubit state with $S_{BC}=0$ and with $B$ and $C$ maximally entangled is of the form $$|\eta_{\theta,\phi,\chi} \rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Bigg[  \left( \cos \Big(\frac{\theta}{2}\Big) ~|\hat 0 \rangle +e^{i \phi} \sin \Big(\frac{\theta}{2}\Big)~ |\hat 1 \rangle \right)) |0 \rangle + e^{i \chi} \left( \sin \Big(\frac{\theta}{2}\Big) ~|\hat 0 \rangle - e^{i \phi} \cos \Big(\frac{\theta}{2}\Big)~ |\hat 1 \rangle \right) |1 \rangle \Bigg]   \label{GeneralBC}$$ where $0 \le \theta \le \pi, 0 \le \phi,\chi < 2 \pi$. We will refer to these as generalized Bell pairs. The fact that $S_{BC}=0$ does not imply that $|BC \rangle=|\varphi_1 \rangle$ and instead only implies that $|BC \rangle$ is one of the generalized Bell pairs () will be the central theme in the problems with the models we discuss below.[^9]

### Model 1 - Distillable entanglement model

In  Susskind explains that if we take a Hilbert space of size $2^n$ and divide it into system $A$ of size $2^m$ and $B$ of size $2^{n-m}$, any typical state $|\psi \rangle$ on $A \cup B$ may be written as $$|\psi \rangle = U_A \otimes U_B \left[ \frac{ |0_A \rangle |0_B \rangle +|1_A \rangle |1_B \rangle}{\sqrt{2}} \right]^{Min(m,n-m)}$$ for $n,m,n-m \gg 1$, where $U_A, ~U_B$ are unitary operations on $A$ and $B$ respectively. This follows from the result of Page . What has been done here is that the entanglement between system $A$ and system $B$ has been first expressed in terms of Bell pairs () (or more precisely in terms generalized Bell pairs ()) and then these have been rotated into the first Bell pair $|\varphi_1 \rangle$. A count of how much two systems are entangled is the distillable entanglement. However, that entanglement generically is not in the form of $|\varphi_1 \rangle$ and to convert all other generalized Bell pairs to $|\varphi_1 \rangle$ requires a *state dependent* transformation.

One can then posit that the dynamics of the black hole is such that it takes a typical state and acts on it with $(U_A \otimes U_B)^{-1}$ for equal sized systems so that $m=n/2$. $$|BH \rangle = (U_A \otimes U_B)^{-1} |\psi \rangle = \left[ \frac{ |0_A \rangle |0_B \rangle +|1_A \rangle |1_B \rangle}{\sqrt{2}} \right]^{n/2}\,. \label{SusskindMap}$$ Then before Page time quanta from system $A$ are emitted in such a way that the interface is always in the state $$\frac{ |0_A \rangle |0_B \rangle +|1_A \rangle |1_B \rangle}{\sqrt{2}}\,.$$ This will allow free infall. However, after Page time this process has to stop as now quanta from system $B$ will be emitted and there can be no free fall. Thus, in  Susskind argued that firewalls can be avoided before Page time but not after.

One problem with this kind of argument, as mentioned above, is that $(U_A \otimes U_B)^{-1}$ is state dependent $$(U_A \otimes U_B)^{-1} = (U^{|\psi \rangle}_A \otimes U^{|\psi \rangle}_B)^{-1}\,.$$ A worse problem is the fact that it is a non-invertible map. Recall that the information problem stemmed from a many to one non-invertible map in the first place.

If this is the model of black hole evaporation then the question is how would Bob standing outside the black hole collecting all the radiation coming from the black hole construct the original state $|\psi \rangle$. A system which can perform the map () would have to be at least as big as the black hole and according to the no-hiding theorem , would have absorbed all the information. After the black hole evaporates, Bob has access to the radiation but it carries no information. Bob would need access to the system which bleached out the black hole to produce the map () but there is no such system left.

So in summary the problem with this model is that it restores purity but still looses unitarity. In fact a model equivalent to this was explicitly constructed in  to show how it does *not* restore unitarity even though the final radiation is pure.

### Model 2 - "A=C" models

Another argument voiced by many, based in no small extent on the original idea of black hole complementarity, is that the inside Hawking quantum $C$ should not be thought of as distinct from the early radiation quanta $A$. The claim is that this invalidates a key assumption in the proofs of .

Papadodimas and Raju tried to make this argument concrete by proposing a model based on this idea in . They envision the following dynamics for infall. When Alice encounters a qubit $B$, it is maximally entangled with the rest of the qubits when the full state is a typical state in the Haar measure sense. However, the entanglement entropy is $\log 2$ so $B$ is entangled with *one* non-locally spread out qubit $C$ such that $S_{BC}=0$.

Papadodimas and Raju posit infall dynamics such that it is this non-local $C$ which Alice encounters right after $B$. They claim that this will make Alice's experience fuzzball/firewall free both before and after Page time. The problem with this is of course that $S_{BC}=0$ is not enough to say the state is the Unruh vacuum as explained in the beginning of this section and mentioned explicitly in () and ().

To say that the observer always encounters $BC$ such that it is in the state $|\varphi_1 \rangle$ implies that the *non-local* dynamics involves the bleaching operation $$|\eta_{\theta,\phi,\chi} \rangle \to |\varphi_1 \rangle\,. \label{ManyToOne}$$ which converts all generalized Bell pair states () to the Unruh vacuum $|\varphi_1 \rangle$. Thus we again have a non-invertible map like in the previous model and the cost we pay for smooth horizons is information loss.

### Model 3 - "ER=EPR" model

A variant of the firewall argument may be made by replacing the Hawking radiation by an arbitrary heat bath which is entangled with the CFT .

A similar idea was recently discussed by Maldacena and Susskind in  but with the opposite conclusion. To begin, note that Maldacena  has proposed that a system of two CFTs which are entangled in a particular way $$|EBH \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{Z}} \sum e^{-\beta E/2} |E \rangle_L \otimes |E \rangle_R   \label{MaldacenaState}$$ is dual to the eternal AdS black hole.

Maldacena and Susskind argue that it is possible for Alice to collect all the radiation of an old black hole and collapse it to form another black hole. While these two black holes will be maximally entangled they might not be in the state (). In this case the horizons will not be "cool". This is the analogue of our () and (). However, Maldacena and Susskind claim that if Alice has an extremely powerful quantum computer she can have it do a quantum operation to put the two black holes in the state () leading to "cool" horizons.

While we agree with the above, we would like to add something to this. Of course, if Alice has access to the original black hole and radiation, she can have her extremely powerful quantum computer do a quantum bleaching operation on the total system to put it in the state (). However, by unitarity such an operation would require the quantum computer to *extract all the information of the original state onto a storage device* . If this has to work for generic states the size of the storage device has to be at least as big as $e^{S_{BH}}$. This is shown in Figure a.

So we see that in order to convert the original black hole and radiation into the eternal black hole state, Alice has to have access to another storage device as big as the black hole to save the information of the original state into. However, for the information loss problem we are not interested in what Alice can do but what quantum gravity does. If instead of Alice, *quantum gravity* has to do this quantum bleaching operation on generic states of the black hole, then what is this extra storage space? This is shown in Figure b. If such a storage space does not exist (or is not accessible to asymptotic observer Bob), as seems to be the case then we are back with information loss.[^10]

## Relation to earlier work refuting $A=C$ models

It was observed by Bousso earlier in  that $A=C$ models for generic maximally entangled states require a many to one map.[^11] This was later also mentioned in  where he noted that there seems to be problems with linearity because of this.

While our work in this section has some overlap with the technical findings of Bousso's work, but our paper goes beyond this. Though he claims that for many to one maps there seem to be problems with linearity, this misses a very important physical implication of non-invertibility.

As we discussed in detail above, such non-invertible maps are quantum operations which bleach a given Hilbert space. Such bleaching operations, if they are to preserve unitarity, need to transfer the information of the original state on the Hilbert space to some other Hilbert space (see Figure ). While one can certainly imagine such operations being performed by Alice with access to a huge storage, in quantum gravity such a storage is missing and any model which proposes such maps are basically advocating information loss. Of course if one advocates that information is lost, then there is no reason to even assume the final state is pure and Hawking's original model is fine.

# Conclusion and discussion

Information loss paradox cannot be solved by simply proposing a model that makes the final state of the radiation pure. The map from the initial to the final state has to be invertible. We had demonstrated in  that the latter requirement implies order one deviations from the Unruh vacuum during the entire evaporation of a black hole. A loophole in our proof could be found if black holes only forms in special states. If such were the case, one could postulate special dynamics for special states which could keep the horizon predominantly in the Unruh vacuum. However, in this paper we have established that it is indeed possible to make black holes in any one of the $e^{S_{BH}}$ states.

In light of this, models of  may be interpreted in two ways: (i) they only allow a fuzz/fire free horizon for special states, (ii) they work on all states to allow fuzz/fire free horizons but at the cost of unitarity. Neither of these is a pleasing option. The problems with the first option are justifying the fine tuned dynamics for black holes formed from astrophysical collapse and treating black holes formed by fast and adiabatic collapse differently. Occam's razor would suggest that there is fuzzy structure at the horizon throughout a black hole's lifetime. The problem with option two is of course that we are back where we started – information loss.

We are of the opinion that the results of this paper (see also ) strongly support the idea that the horizon of black holes are not smooth and instead the geometries end in fuzzy-stringy states outside the horizon i.e. fuzzballs. See  for some reviews of this proposal.

We end with a few general comments on why the black hole picture seems to work in so many respects despite being so problematic as far as unitarity is concerned.

## Analytic continuation and thermo-field doubling

The technique of thermo-field doubling (TFD)  is used as a calculational tool in thermal field theory. If one has a density matrix in a thermal state of system "Right" $$\rho_R = \frac{1}{Z} \sum e^{-\beta E} |E \rangle_R \langle E |_R\,, \label{densityMatrix}$$ one can *formally* purify this mixed state by doubling the Hilbert space by adding system "Left" which is identical to the system "Right" and writing the purified state as $$|TFD \rangle \vcentcolon=\frac{1}{\sqrt Z} \sum e^{-\beta E/2 } |E \rangle_L \otimes |E \rangle_R\,. \label{PurifiedState}$$ Note that one recovers () from () by tracing over the system "Left". This procedure has an intimate relationship with analytic continuation. The eternal Schwarzschild black hole is obtained by maximally analytically continuing the Schwarzschild solution on the right, beyond the horizon. Israel observed that the left side of such a black hole is a TFD of the right side . In fact this result also applies to the two Rindler wedges obtained by Rindler decomposition of Minkowski space. Using ideas from AdS/CFT, Maldacena proposed that the eternal AdS black hole is dual to a system of two CFTs in a TFD state .

However, () is not the only purification of (). For simplicity we discuss these ideas using qubits. Let us look at the density matrix $$\rho_{unhatted} = \frac{1}{2}( |0 \rangle\langle 0 | + |1 \rangle\langle 1 |)\,.  \label{densityMatrixQubit}$$ The TFD method would tell us that the purified state is $$|TFD \rangle  = \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} ( |\hat 0 \rangle |0 \rangle + |\hat 1 \rangle |1 \rangle)\,. \label{PurifiedStateQubit}$$ We certainly recover () by tracing over the hatted Hilbert space in (). However, we also recover the () by tracing over the hatted Hilbert space in any of the following $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\sqrt 2} ( |\hat 0 \rangle |0 \rangle - |\hat 1 \rangle |1 \rangle)\,, \qquad  \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} ( |\hat 1 \rangle |0 \rangle + |\hat 0 \rangle |1 \rangle)\,, \qquad\frac{1}{\sqrt 2} ( |\hat 1 \rangle |0 \rangle - |\hat 0 \rangle |1 \rangle)\,,
\end{aligned}$$ among a continuum of other possibilities (). In fact, we can also purify () as $$|\text{\cancel{TFD} purification} \rangle  = \left( \sum c_{12\dots n} |\hat q_1 \hat q_2 \dots \hat q_n \rangle \right) \otimes \left[ \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} ( |\hat 0 \rangle |0 \rangle + |\hat 1 \rangle |1 \rangle) \right] \label{PurifiedStateQubit}$$ with $n$ arbitrary. How do we understand this ambiguity in "purification"? The point is that any mixed state will be mixed with something (its environment/ancillia/heat bath) and without access to the rest of the system, it is simply not possible to predict what the full state is. The TFD technique *assumes* that the system is mirrored in the heat bath.[^12]

For instance, let us assume an accelerating Bob sees the thermal state (). While a purification of the kind () corresponds to analytic continuation of Bob's wedge giving Minkowski vacuum, another possible purification contains a Rindler (accelerating) elephant in the left wedge. These scenarios are shown in Figure . Being accelerated, Bob will see a horizon in addition to the thermal state () as shown in Figure a. If he uses analytic continuation or TFD purification he would expect the full state to be the Minkowski vacuum state () as shown in Figure b. However, suppose the actual state is in fact the one with a Rindler elephant in the left wedge, as shown in Figure c. Bob would not know that and will tell Alice that she may safely fall through the horizon. When Alice actually does so, she may get hit by a *firewall of water* splashed by the Rindler elephant in Figure d.

The moral of the story is that by just having access to the thermal density matrix () Bob is not justified in saying the full state is the thermo-field double state. Alternately, Bob is not justified in doing an analytic continuation.

## Why does black hole counting work *or* what about the successes of semi-classical gravity?

The discussion above tells us that if unitarity is to be preserved, quantum gravity effects become important at horizon scale. Unitarity dictates that there is no hairless horizon and no interior of a black hole. Of course without these two, the phrase black hole does not make sense and the above discussion tells us that the true microstate of quantum gravity are fuzzballs which end in a quantum-fuzzy-stringy mess before the horizon.

However, horizon scale is parametrically larger than Planck scale where one would naively have expected quantum gravity to become important. One question which has been asked in the context of fuzzballs is – if this is the case how does one explain success of semi-classical gravity like black hole state counting ? Here we will attempt to answer this question.

There are two ways to measure the entropy of a system (among others) – in the microcanonical ensemble and in the canonical ensemble. In the microcanonical ensemble one actually counts the number of microstates consistent with the given macroscopic charges. In the canonical ensemble on the other hand, the entropy is given by $$S= \beta (E-F) = (\beta \partial_\beta -1)(\beta F)\,.$$ In the canonical ensemble the density matrix is thermal $\rho=e^{-\beta H}$ from which we get $$S=(\beta \partial_{\delta \beta} -1) [- \log Tr \rho^{1+ \delta \beta/\beta}] \Big |_{\delta \beta =0} = - Tr [\hat  \rho \log \hat \rho]$$ where $\hat \rho = \frac{\rho}{Tr \rho}$ is the normalized density matrix. So the entropy in the canonical ensemble is the von-Neuman entropy. Thus, we see that the canonical ensemble entropy measures how much *the system is entangled with the heat bath*. One may then think that the states counted in the microcanonical ensemble end up getting entangled with the heat bath in the canonical ensemble in the thermodynamic limit.

Now, suppose we want to ask how many fuzzballs exists for a certain energy. For specificity we consider asymptotically AdS fuzzballs which are supposed to be dual to the CFT microstates. We can either count them one by one[^13] or we can couple the fuzzballs to a heat bath and count entanglement. It turns out that for gravitational thermal density matrices there is an easy way to count entanglement.

From the discussion above we learnt that a thermal state may be purified in many different ways. The TFD purification is the simplest in many ways as it models the heat bath as another copy of the system. If we take the TFD purification of a thermal ensemble of fuzzballs, Van Raamsdonk argued in Ref.  that we get the eternal AdS black hole. For mysterious reasons, the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the eternal AdS black hole counts the entanglement entropy of one CFT with its thermofield double . Thus, the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy is a measure of entanglement of a thermal ensemble of fuzzballs with its heat bath.

To summarize, the Bekenstein Hawking entropy counts the entanglement entropy of a thermal ensemble of fuzzballs with its heat bath. If we had chosen to purify the thermal ensemble to a state other than the TFD we would not have had a geometric interpretation and would not have been able to obtain the answer so elegantly. However, that operation would not have effected the entanglement entropy. Also note that while the TFD purification makes entropy counting easier, it does not actually tell us the properties of the heat bath and the interaction of the ensemble of fuzzballs with it.

# Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Steve Avery, Bartek Czech, Samir Mathur, Ashoke Sen and Erik Verlinde for helpful discussions.

[^1]: In the literature the term "black hole" is used in two senses. In the strict sense it is a solution of classical gravity which leads to information loss and seems to have an infinite dimensional Hilbert space inside based on . In a loose sense, it refers to the conjectured objects in quantum gravity which have a Hilbert space of size $e^{S_{BH}}$ and behave as black holes in as many ways as possible and yet *somehow* evaporate unitarily. They are supposed to be the models one would get after fixing the issues listed above. Two such proposed models are the "membranes" (of membrane paradigm and black hole complementarity) and the "fuzzballs" (of the fuzzball proposal). We believe our usage will be clear from the context.

[^2]: It is not obvious how one should see firewalls as distinct from fuzzballs. We comment more on this in Section .

[^3]: Note that [Statement 1](#Statement1) of Mathur does not talk about young or old black holes. It simply states that a horizon in a pure state (or pure state up to small corrections) leads to increase in the entanglement of radiation. This of course precludes purity of the final state but does not treat black holes in pure or mixed states differently. We thank Samir Mathur for pointing this out.

[^4]: Structure at the horizon for pure states was also predicted based on AdS/CFT in Ref.  before the firewall discussion started and was referred to as fuzzballs. Ref.  argues for structure at the horizon for pure states which are Haar atypical but also expresses the opinion that such effects may cancel for Haar typical states. Ref.  has also argued for structure at the horizon for pure states based on different arguments about perturbative field theory modes in the bulk.

[^5]: For Schwarzschild black holes, each emission carries away energy $(GM)^{-1}$ so the process stops after $GM^2$ steps. The entropy of the black hole is $e^{GM^2}$. So the map to qubit models is $GM^2 \sim n$.

[^6]: Relatedly, Ref. , using a different argument, posits that an infalling observer hits an "energetic curtain" at the horizon of a black hole; however it is suggested that this phenomenon may only arise once the black hole is Planck-sized.

[^7]: This process is not unique to black holes and happens free streaming radiation from any black body.

[^8]: We thank Steve Avery for helpful discussions on this point.

[^9]: Note it is not correct to *define* the hatted qubits so that $|BC \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( |\hat 0 0 \rangle + |\hat 1 1 \rangle)$ qubit pair by qubit pair. This is because the Unruh vacuum is defined by the physics of infall which fixes the definition once and for all.

[^10]: If one were tempted to postulate such a storage in quantum gravity then one can simply postulate it for the original model of black hole evaporation without a need for models which give a pure final state. In the presence of an adequately large storage a pure-to-mixed map simply implies perfect thermalization with respect to the storage. Of course, one then has to explain what degrees of freedom are responsible for this extra storage.

[^11]: We thank Raphael Bousso for pointing this out to us.

[^12]: This was also discussed in  but the claim was that the system *is* mirrored in the heat bath. This crucial point is what leads to the incorrect claim that smooth horizons are compatible with unitarity as discussed in Section .

[^13]: This Herculian task is in fact being attempted by Bena, Warner and their collaborators .


abstract: The upgrade of the DA$\Phi$NE machine layout requires a modification of the size and position of the inner focusing quadrupoles of KLOE$^2$ thus asking for the realization of two new calorimeters covering the quadrupoles area. To improve the reconstruction of $K_L\to 2\pi^0$ events with photons hitting the quadrupoles, a tile calorimeter, QCALT, with high efficiency to low energy photons (20-300 MeV), time resolution of less than 1 ns and space resolution of few cm, is needed. We propose a tile calorimeter with a high granularity readout corresponding to about 2500 silicon photomultipliers (SiPM) of $1\times 1$ mm$^2$ area. Moreover, the low polar angle regions need the realization of a dense crystal calorimeter with very high time resolution performances to extend the acceptance for multiphotons events. Best candidates for this calorimeter are LYSO crystals with APD readout or PbWO$_4$ crystals with large area SIPM readout.
address: Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati dell'INFN; Dipartimento di Energetica Univ. Roma La Sapienza
author: F.Happacher
, M.Martini$^{a,}$
[^1], S.Miscetti$^{a}$, I.Sarra$^{a}$
title: Tile and crystal calorimeters for the KLOE$^2$ experiment

# The KLOE$^2$ proposal

In the last decade a wide experimental program has been carried out at Da$\Phi$ne, the $e^+e^-$ collider of the Frascati National Laboratories, running at a center of mass energy of 1020 MeV, the $\Phi$ resonance mass. During KLOE run, Da$\Phi$ne delivered a peak luminosity of 1.5$\times$`<!-- -->`{=html}10$^{32}$ cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ which granted about 1 fb$^{-1}$ per year in the last data taking period.

A new machine scheme has been recently proposed by the Frascati accelerator group aiming at increasing the luminosity of the machine up to a factor 5. This scheme has been succesfully tested at Da$\Phi$ne, and these encouraging results push for a new data taking compaign for the KLOE experiment to complete its physics program and to perform a new interesting set of measurements.

The new experiment, named KLOE$^2$, expects to collect 5 fb$^{-1}$/year. We are now working to improve the performances of our detector adding: an inner tracker, a tagger system to study $\gamma\gamma$ physics, a new small angle calorimeter and a new quadrupole calorimeter. In this paper we explain the project and the R&D for these last two items.

# Quadrupole tile calorimeter, QCALT

In Fig., we show a section of the KLOE detector in which is visible the old position of the focalizing quadrupoles and the surrounding calorimeters QCAL which have a polar angle coverage of 0.94$\,<|\cos\theta|<\break$`<!-- -->`{=html}0.99. Each calorimeter consists of 16 azimuthal sectors composed by alternating layers of 2 mm lead and 1 mm BC408 scintillator tiles, for a total thickness of $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}5X$_0$. The readout is done by wavelength shifter fibers (Kuraray Y11-200) and photomultipliers. The fiber arrangement allows the measurement of the longitudinal coordinate by time differences. These calorimeters are characterized by a low light response ($\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}3 pe/mip/tile at zero distance from the photomultiplier) due to the coupling in air, to the fiber lenght ($\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}2 m for each tile) and to the quantum efficiency of the used photomultipliers (standard bialkali with $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}20% QE).

The project of the new QCAL consists in a dodecagonal structure, 1 m long, covering the region of the quadrupoles. The structure consists in a sampling of 5 layers of 5 mm thick scintillator plates alternated with 3.5 mm thick tungsten plates, for a total depth of 4.75 cm (5.5 X$_0$). The active part of each plane is divided into twenty tiles of 5$\times$`<!-- -->`{=html}5 cm$^2$ area with 1 mm diameter WLS fibers embedded in circular grooves. Each fiber is then optically connected to a silicon photomultiplier of 1 mm$^2$ area, SiPM, for a total of 2400 channels.

We have done some R&D studies on SiPM, fibers and tiles to choose the combination which optimizes the response of our system.

## Test on MPPC

We have compared the characteristics of two different SiPM produced by Hamamatsu (multi pixel photon counter, MPPC): 100 (S10362-11-100U) and 400 pixels (S10362-11-050U), both with 1$\times 1$ mm$^2$ active area. To manage the signals, the electronic service of the Frascati Laboratory (SELF) has developed a custom electronics composed by a 1$\times$`<!-- -->`{=html}2 cm$^2$ card, containing the pre-amplifier, and a multifunction NIM board. For these tests, we have set the pre-amplifier gain to 50. The NIM board supplies the voltage to the photodetector (Vbias) with a precision of 2 mV and a stability at the level of 0.03 permill. A low threshold discriminator and a fanout are also present in the board.

To determine the gain, we have prepared a setup based on a blue light LED and a polaroid filter to change light intensity. We have measured the gain and the dark rate variation as a function of the applied Vbias and the temperature of the photodetector.

The readout electronics was based on CAMAC, with a charge sensitivity of 0.25 pC/count and a time of 125 ps/count.

Our tests confirm the performances declared by Hamamatsu and show a significative variation of the detector gain as a function of the temperature. The 400 pixels shows a temperature dependence of the gain which is a factor four smaller than the 100 pixels (3% versus 12%), with a gain reduction of a factor five.

## Tests on fibers

We have studied the light response of three different, 1 mm$^2$, fibers optically connected to MPPC:

-   Kuraray SCSF81 (blue scintillating)

-   Saint Gobain BCF92 single cladding (WLS from blue to green)

-   Saint Gobain BCF92 multi cladding (WLS from blue to green)

The test is done firing the fiber with a Sr$^{90}$ source. The trigger is provided by a NE110 scintillator finger (1$\times$`<!-- -->`{=html}5$\times$`<!-- -->`{=html}0.5 cm$^3$) connected to a bialkali photomultiplier positioned below the fiber.

As expected, a large light yield is shown for SCSF81 while the WLS fibers have a reduced response. However, the BCF92 multi cladding has a reasonable light yield as shown in Fig.. For this fiber we have: maximum light yield, fast response (5 ns/pe) and high attenuation length (3.5 m).

## Tests on tiles

Light response and time resolution of tiles have been measured using cosmic rays. The system was prepared connecting the fiber to the MPPC and using two NE110 fingers to trigger the signal. We have prepared two different tiles:

A

:   3 mm thick tile with 400 pixels MPPC,

B

:   5 mm thick tile with 100 pixels MPPC.

Using ADC distribution we find: 14 pe/mip for tile "A" and 26 pe/mip for tile "B" (See Fig.). These results are comparable taking into account the thickness ratio between tiles and the photon detection efficiency of the two detectors (40% for 400 pixels and 45% for 100 pixels).

Correcting for the time dependence on pulse height, we find a preliminary time resolution of 1000 ps (750 ps) for tile "A" ("B").

## Next plans

We are now assembling two small dimension multi-tiles prototypes of the QCAL, to study signal transportation and to measure the effective radiation length. In 2009, we plan also to construct a "module 0" consisting of a complete slice of the dodecagon (1/12 of one calorimeter) with final material and electronics.

# Crystal calorimeter with timing, CCALT

In the new design of Da$\Phi$ne interaction region, the position of the quadrupoles increases the acceptance of the central calorimeter from 21$^{\circ}$ to 18$^{\circ}$. Below this limit we can safely insert few crystals to improve the acceptance for photons coming from $\eta$ and $K_S$ decays. This detector could work as veto detector for photons down to 8$^{\circ}$. The particular region is visible in Fig. and is delimited between the focalizing quadrupoles and the spherical interaction region of the KLOE detector.

The proposed solution is to insert an homogeneus calorimeter based on LYSO ($Lu_{18}Y_{.2}SiO_5:Ce$) crystals. The most important characteristics of these crystals are a very high light yield, a time emission, $\tau$, of 40 ns, high density and X$_0$ without beeing hygroscopic (See Tab.). These crystals well match the request of high efficiency to low energy photons and excellent time resolution for the CCALT, which will help in fighting the high level of machine background events present in the low energy region.

The preliminary project consists in a dodecagonal barrel for each side of the interaction region, composed by LYSO crystals (2$\times$`<!-- -->`{=html}2$\times$`<!-- -->`{=html}13 cm$^3$) readout using avalanche photodiodes (APD).

## Preliminary tests on LYSO

We have tested one LYSO crystals from Saint Gobain (2$\times$`<!-- -->`{=html}2$\times$`<!-- -->`{=html}15 cm$^3$) using both cosmic rays and electrons from Frascati beam test facility (BTF). For cosmic rays test, the crystal was readout using standard bialkali photomultiplier, while in the test beam we used a 5$\times$`<!-- -->`{=html}5 mm$^2$ avalanche photodiode provided by Hamamatsu (S8664-55).

In both cases, the crystal was simply wrapped with mylar and the photodevice coupled with optical grease and simple mechanical arrangement.

After correcting the time dependence on pulse height, we obtain, from cosmic rays, a preliminary time resolution $\sigma_T=360$ ps, which corresponds to 12000 pe/mip ($N_{pe}=(\tau/\sigma_T)^2$). Assuming a MIP to deposit 10 MeV/cm this correponds to 600 pe/MeV.

At the BTF, we have used electrons from 50 to 400 MeV to measure the time resolution of the crystals which is well parametrized by: $$\sigma_T=\frac{82\,ps}{\sqrt{E(GeV)}}\oplus 293\,ps$$

The constant term is probably related to the different arrival times of the showering photons along the crystal axis. From the statistical term we derive a light yield of 240 pe/MeV which is in rough agreement with the results from cosmic rays taking into account quantum and collection efficiency.

## Next plans

A dedicated test beam with electrons will be held in Frascati beam test facility in the first months of 2009. The aim of the test is to characterize energy and time resolution of a 3$\times$`<!-- -->`{=html}3 matrix of high quality crystals surrounded by an outer leakage detector done with PbWO. This test will also allow to compare the response of different kind of LYSO crystals (Saint Gobain and Scionix) and a similar crystal (LFS by Zecotek) which could be an alternative candidate (See Tab.).

|                            | LYSO |   LFS   |
|:--------------------------:|:----:|:-------:|
|          Density           | 7.1  | 7.2-7.3 |
|  Attenuation lenght (cm)   | 1.2  |  1.12   |
|    Decay constant (ns)     |  41  |  35-36  |
|     Max emission (nm)      | 420  | 435-438 |
| Light yield (relative NaI) |  75  |  80-85  |
|     Energy resolution      |  8   |  9-12   |
|        Hygroscopic         |  no  |   no    |
|      Refractive index      | 1.81 |  1.78   |

Comparison between LYSO and LFS characteristics

# Conclusions

The new scheme proposed for the Da$\Phi$ne machine allows a factor 5 increase in the delivered luminosity. Some R&D are in progress to add new components to the KLOE apparatus. We have presented the proposal for two low angle calorimeters. QCALT is a tile calorimeter surronding the focalizing quadrupoles to increase the coverage of the electromagnetic calorimeter. CCALT is a LYSO calorimeter aimed to be a good veto for low angle photons. We have presented the preliminary measurement on tiles and crystals and the characterization of the photodevices used with tiles.

# Acknowledgement

We want to thank G.Corradi, D.Tagnani and C.Paglia to have developed the readout electronics of the SiPM; M.Cordelli for his help during the preparation of test setup; M.Arpaia, G.Bisogni, A.Cassarà, A.Di Virgilio, U.Martini and A.Olivieri for their help in the mechanical preparation of the setup and in the preparation of the tiles.

[^1]: Corresponding author. Mail: email@example.com


author: Rahul-Vigneswaran K; Prabaharan Poornachandran; Soman KP
title: A Compendium on Network and Host based Intrusion Detection Systems

# Introduction

The field of cybersecurity has recently gained a significant importance due to the digitalization of developing countries. In several other perspectives, it is even considered as a new way of warfare, due to which several nations are pushing towards a more robust firewall for all the nation's digital assets. This lead to the development of Intrusion Detection System (IDS), which acts as the first layer of the system and helps in identifying the inbound threats which must be apprehended for safety reasons.

IDSs are a strategically placed layer in the system that detects threats and monitors the exchanged packets. These type if security layers are there in existence since 1980's . They use the hard-coded algorithms to analyze the patterns in the captured data and filter the anomalies. These have proven effective in certain cases but due to its inherent if-else nature, the problem of false positive or false negative alarms was a common issue. Due to the false triggers of alarms by the IDS, network administrators faced increased difficulty in handling intrusion reports. Also, their inability to tackle unknown attack types rendered them useless.

Commonly there are two types of IDS that exists, namely :

-   **Network based Intrusion Detection System (NIDS):** NIDS is a platform which is independent and aims at detecting intrusions by examination of network traffic and monitoring multiple hosts. These type of system access traffic by behaving like a parasite to the network hub, a switch specifically designed for port mirroring. For accuracy and efficiency, the sensors are situated at the strategically chosen choke locations, often in the demilitarized zone. These receptors collect all the network data and analyze the contents of packets.

-   **Host-based Intrusion Detection System (HIDS):** It usually has a singular agent embedded onto a host system that detects intrusions by going through the logs, calls made by the system, modifications of file-system and other states and activities. In HIDS, a software agent is a sensor.

Traditionally, these IDS systems take advantage and make use of the signatures of known attacks to identify the inbound attacks. But due to the rapid advancement of new types of malware whose signatures are unknown, the filtering of ever-increasing types of state of the art malware becomes difficult. This paved way for the conjunction of machine learning and cybersecurity. IDS in machine learning is a classification problem. Therefore, possibly an unbiased dataset is used for training the model and that model is optimized for integrating into the IDS to predict malware more accurately. This whole prediction principle eliminates the complete dependency of malware signatures for detection, hence acting as an advantage over traditional IDS.

For the prediction model to work more efficiently, we need to feed it with a lot of training data. Often these raw data are unlabelled and come with improper feature engineering. The pitfall with traditional machine learning is that the training data must be labelled properly for the model to discover patterns and therefore provide prediction results. But this is not always possible to the vast size of the data. This is where Deep Learning (DL) has explicit advantages over conventional algorithms in scenarios of processing data that is unstructured. Pattern discovery can be done without the ancillary task of labelling. In classical machine learning theory, engineering features become an imperative part. DL lacks the feature scrutiny. This becomes vital in plots where the objective is to segregate fraudulent sequences versus non-fraudulent sequences and justify how we reached our conclusions. Fortunately, the ultimate motive of an IDS is this, which makes deep learning a perfect match for Intrusion Detection Systems.

# Big Data Analytics

Presently, the current networks of computers are generating a huge amount of data traffic in a fast past. This generation of data is increasing continuously and the types of data that the network traffic contains is also different. Current traffic of the public satisfies all the three V's of big data namely, volume, velocity, and variety . Big Data is a term implicates the large volume of data (structured & unstructured) that deluge business worldwide at a faster rate than anyone can predict. A large pool of data doesn't always signify that everything is useful and this calls for a tool that can extract the essence from it to decide the cardinal step. This is where the Analytics of the so-called Big Data comes into play. Rapid digitization has to lead the current world to a point where we might run out storage capabilities soon. This implicates a much-required need to deduce the pool of data into useful decisions.

Detection of intrusion often involves analyzing Big data. This is defined as a research problem which the technologies of computing which are mainstream cannot cope up with the flow of information. Even an isolated source of the event can lead to Big data challenges. According to , a 1 Gigabytes/second of continuous network data can cause issues related to Big Data for Intrusion Detection even when inspecting deep data packets. Traditional storage methods like Relational databases inherently have the capacity to effectively gamut against the nature of Big data challenges caused by detection of intrusion. A common solution used to handle such problems is an open sourced tool called Hadoop. It is a storage platform which is distributed and is generously open-sourced. It has the capability to run on most of the hardware and has been exploited to better entertain the Big Data storage requirements of gigantic Volume and agility along with potentially very versatile data structures that are natively heterogeneous. Hadoop is collective name for several other technologies such as Pig, MapReduce, Hive, HDFS, etc.. proposes the use of these technologies to overcome the hurdles in big data and states that the 3Vs are not sufficient to handle these issues and hence introduces the 3Cs concept – Cardinality, Continuity, and Complexity.

The process of mining this Big data and analyzing it is called Big Data analytics. The fast-paced emendations in aspects of processing, storing and analyzing of Big Data in recent years includes :

-   The rapid decrease in storage expense and CPU power.

-   Cost-effectiveness and Flexibility of Cloud computing and Datacenters in accordance with storage and elastic computation.

-   Development of revolutionary and new frameworks such as Hadoop.

The ultimate objective of Big Data analytics for IDS is to ensure promising, market-ready real-time intelligence. Even though it has a compelling future, there are several problems (such as data provenance, privacy) that must be diminished in order to unleash the actual potential of it.

# Neural Networks

A Neural Network is a paradigm related to the processing of information whose thought process is motivated by the way the nervous systems of several biological parts, such as the brain, analyze and segregate information. The important aspect of this approach is the novel assembly of the system that processes information. It is built with numerous neurons which are highly connected with each other, working in unison to understand the training dataset and solve problems specific to the set. These, like people, learn by example. Learning in biological environment systems involves tuning of these links that between the neurons of multiple layers. This is true of artificial neural networks as well.

# Deep Learning

It is a natural extension to the existing field of ML exercised with models that are motivated by the assembly and function of brain cells. One of the key aspects of Neural networks is scalability which signifies that the result's superiority is directly proportional to the amount of data that we use but it also implies the need for significantly more computational time. In addition to the advantage of easy scaling, another often stated plus point is their intuitive ability to eliminate the burden of large-scale feature engineering. Especially, DL shines in scenarios which require analogue input-outputs which enables it to work with RGB pixel data from images, text data from documents or audio data from music files rather than limiting the user to use quantities in a tabular format.

# Neural Networks and Deep learning techniques for Network based IDS (NIDS)

The aim of an IDS is to detect abnormalities in the traffic and mitigate a possible intrusion. This must be done in an efficient way considering the ever-increasing variants of malware and types of attacks in the field of cybersecurity. The use of signature-based and traditional if-else algorithm based detection layers have been drawn ineffective which calls for the inclusion of AI in the field of NIDS to predict an inbound attack that is likely to cause damage or theft of digital assets.

Many researchers have been actively working for years now to experiment with different types of techniques and datasets to establish a Network-based IDS that has superhuman accuracies and capabilities. The use of deep learning and artificial neural networks have proven effective in such applications due to the improvement in the computational power of the commercially viable processors. To overcome the principle challenges of a traditional intrusion detection systems, has proposed and implemented an analysis method that combines the abilities of kernel PCA and LSTM-RNN. To obtain the desired result, features like pre-processing of data, extraction of features, detection of attacks have been incorporated into the layer proposed by it. They have used the NSL-KDD dataset for benchmarking and has outperformed the capabilities shown by SVM, neural network, and Bayesian methods.

The experiments done by with LSTM-RNNs on the KDD99 dataset has shown an accuracy of 93.82% due to their inherent ability to correlate consecutive records of connections by peeking back in time. An avant-garde DL technique for NIDs has been discussed by , in which they have adduced an NDAE (Non-symmetric Deep Auto-Encoder) for learning in unsupervised conditions. The outcome of it when benchmarked against both KDD99 and NSL-KDD datasets has shown a 5% improvement in accuracy and 98.81% reduction in training time. has done a comparative study of deep learning like vanilla DNN, self-taught learning (STL) approach, RNN based LSTM on the KDD99 dataset and then compared with a baseline shallow algorithm that uses multinomial logistic regression to evaluate if deep learning models perform better in this scenario. An important observation that STL model could be used in a scenario where the data is unclean is made by this experimentation.

As a whole, when various methods of deep learning and neural network methods are compared with each other and studied, one can attain a state of understanding that different scenarios require different AI models. Even in NIDS, most of the models can be made to have high accuracy when proper hyperparameter tuning is done. One of the major drawback reported by all the researchers is the availability of latest ID dataset. All the research that is currently done is based on either original or modified old datasets which don't consider the more advanced threats that the modern day NIDS is required to filter.

takes a rather different approach to the whole intrusion detection system. The model learns the user behaviour and when it the new behaviour doesn't match it, the alarm is triggered indicating a possible security breach. In this, a backpropagation neural network has been used and the results turned out with a 96% accuracy in detection of events that are unusual, with a false-alarm rate of 7%. On the other hand, takes into account a variety of neural network structures to figure out the appropriate model for the current scenario. Fortunately, an early barring corroboration method is also administered during the training to substantially escalate the capability of the network to generalize, which lends an accuracy rate of 91% and 87% with two hidden neuron layers and one hidden neuron layers respectively.

The use of Genetic Network Programming is undertaken by and has been combined with the fuzzy set theory for better results. KDD99 and 98 datasets have been used for benchmarking which lends success rates that are high compared with other ML techniques and data mining which is crisp with GNP. A common problem faced by all the existing approaches are false-alarm rates, however small it may be, they can cause a lot of unwanted distractions to the system administrators and an ideal IDS would have zero false-alarm rates. In the path towards the ideal IDS, has tried to enhance the system's performance by using keyword selection and neural networks. have applied the technique of deletion of features one at a time for performing experiments on NNs and SVMs to estimate the hierarchy of priority of DARPA ID dataset's input features. Hence, doing so, they have identified the important features for IDS and as a result, drastically reduced the training time.

Taking into account the reality that, terabytes of data pour through the IDS if we tried to analyze the entire traffic flow, has developed an anomaly detector that considers the only certain portion of attack space that is deemed vital for the detecting things such as protocols, that are forecastable. Within the limitations of the experimental setup, the conclusions show that this model truly responds to the anomalies, not to signatures of known attacks.

has taken a notable approach to IDS. Convolutional neural networks have a structure that favours computer vision and has provided significant results in that field. This significance is being transported to cybersecurity by using CNN-RNN in IDS layers and one of the main reason for choosing such an approach is the model's ability to extract high-level features and represent the consolidated form of low-level features. Both and have used KDD99 as their benchmarking datasets and the former tries to run a comparison between shallow and deep neural networks in the scenario of NIDS and approves that many of the inherent characteristics of deep networks provide an overall advantage for it compared to shallow networks while the later experiments the usage of stacked-RNNs. The stacked-RNN models show reduced false-alarm rate due to its nature and potential to learn complex temporal behaviours quickly.

# Neural Networks and Deep learning techniques for Host based IDS (HIDS)

A host-based intrusion detection system (HIDS) is a scheme that supervises and logs activities of the computer on which it is installed to alert the admin in case the protocols are breached. Host-based IDS can be conceived as an agent that oversees and analyzes whether anything or anyone (both internal and external), has bypassed the security policy of the system. NIDS is usually placed at the demilitarized zone of the network. Its purpose is to check the incoming data and eliminate threats and then pass the data forward to the proprietor if the existence of potentially malicious packets is non-existent with the transmission of data. It is more focused on the singular local node, unlike NIDS. has made comprehensive experimentation by using DNNs and SVMs (Support Vector Machines) on the KDD-DARPA benchmarking dataset for making an Host-based IDS to overcome the drawbacks of the traditional hard-coded logic and algorithms. The accuracy has been concluded as greater than 99% with a training time of 17.77 sec. But here too the pitfall of inability to train with new attack patterns have been cautioned.

An approach where Radial basis functions neural networks as containers are being used by for host-based IDS which proves robust compared to the soft computing methods with very low training time and high accuracy in prediction. Therefore the answer to the question about superiority is very important. The ultimate solution is using both NIDS and HIDS in conjunction with each other and AI integrated into them. In order for the host (and network) to remain secure, it is essential that we should select the right IDS scheme that is appropriate for the provided circumstances.

# Conclusion

As the importance of IDS in the day-to-day digital world is more obvious, the necessity for a more accurate model with no false alarm rate has become apparent. To attain an algorithm that is more robust to the ever-increasing variety of malware and threats, researchers have taken an array of paths and have succeeded in achieving exponentially high accuracy rates while benchmarking with the existing publicly available dataset. It is clear that, with proper hyperparameter tuning, most of the model existing in the market can achieve superhuman ability in identifying inbound threats, which leads us to the conjunction of most of the research papers that have been made on artificial intelligence based IDS. Due to the basic principle of deep learning which dictates that more data equals more accuracy, we need to train the models with a dataset that has signatures and features of more recent advanced cyber warfare attacks, in order to prepare the research stage IDS into a robust market-ready product.