Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 86 references

Gauss-Bonnet holographic superconductors in exponential nonlinear electrodynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with exponential nonlinear electrodynamics, higher curvature and nonlinear parameters lower the critical temperature of the holographic superconductor, while the condensation value rises and the critical…

desk verdict Useful incremental extension with a solid Tc cross-check; condensation and conductivity sections need numerical verification and the printed formulas need cleanup. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06711 v2 pith:Z7ONJ4RH submitted 2019-08-19 hep-th gr-qc

Cao H. Nam This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qc
keywords holographicsuperconductorsGauss-BonnetgravityexponentialnonlinearelectrodynamicscriticaltemperaturecondensationvalueexponentopticalconductivitySturm-Liouvillemethod
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper extends the holographic superconductor construction to arbitrary spacetime dimension, combining Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with exponential nonlinear electrodynamics in the probe limit. It aims to show how the higher-curvature Gauss-Bonnet term and the nonlinear electrodynamics parameter reshape the superconducting transition: they lower the critical temperature, raise the condensation value, and leave the critical exponent at 1/2. It also aims to establish how these two corrections move the optical conductivity and the superconducting energy gap. The motivation is that the low-energy limits of string theory generate both kinds of corrections, so a holographic model should include them together.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on the Sturm-Liouville eigenvalue method applied to the scalar-field equation near the critical temperature. The gauge-field profile is written through a Lambert W function, and the nonlinear parameter is handled by a perturbative iterative procedure with step size 0.05, evaluating $b\lambda^2$ at each step from the previous value. The trial function $F(z)=1-az^2$ is inserted, and minimizing the Sturm-Liouville expression fixes $\lambda$, hence $T_c$. The same machinery is then expanded to second order in the condensation to obtain the coefficient $\beta$ and the universal exponent $1/2$, and a linearized fluctuation equation for $A_x$ with holographic renormalization yields the optical conductivity.

What would settle it

Compute the same critical-temperature coefficient for $d=5$, $\alpha=0.06$, and the nonlinear parameter $b=0.15$ by solving the full boundary-value problem directly without the iterative step approximation, and compare it with the analytic value $0.139\rho^{1/3}$; a disagreement beyond the few-percent level quoted in the table would show the approximation is responsible for the reported numbers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a set of monotonicity results for $d$-dimensional s-wave holographic superconductors with exponential nonlinear electrodynamics. For fixed charge density, the critical temperature decreases when the Gauss-Bonnet parameter or the nonlinear parameter increases, while for sufficiently low charge density it increases with spacetime dimension. The scalar condensation value at fixed $T/T_c$ grows with all three of these quantities. The critical exponent stays $1/2$ regardless of the Gauss-Bonnet or nonlinear corrections, the mean-field value. In the conductivity spectrum the superconducting energy gap widens with the Gauss-Bonnet parameter and narrows with the nonlinear parameter, with the expected delta function at zero frequency and the high-frequency power-law $\mathrm{Re}[\sigma] \propto \omega^{d-4}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the perturbative iterative approximation for $b\lambda^2$, which replaces the value at each step of 0.05 by the value at the previous step, is accurate enough at the largest nonlinear parameters studied; the paper itself notes that a smaller step size improves the approximation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The transition becomes harder to achieve as either correction grows: for fixed charge density, $T_c$ shifts downward with both the Gauss-Bonnet and nonlinear parameters.
  • At fixed $T/T_c$, the condensate is larger for larger Gauss-Bonnet parameter, nonlinear parameter, or spacetime dimension, so these effects strengthen the ordered state below $T_c$.
  • The universal exponent $1/2$ means the phase transition remains of the mean-field type despite higher-curvature and nonlinear gauge corrections.
  • The optical conductivity develops a superconducting energy gap below $T_c$, with the gap growing with the Gauss-Bonnet parameter and shrinking with the nonlinear parameter.
  • In arbitrary dimensions the high-frequency conductivity follows $\mathrm{Re}[\sigma] \propto \omega^{d-4}$, and the dimension dependence of $T_c$ flips with the charge-density regime.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the $1/2$ exponent survives backreaction and other matter couplings, the correction terms change the location and strength of the transition but not its mean-field universality class.
  • Since the gauge-field equation for exponential nonlinear electrodynamics agrees with Born-Infeld electrodynamics to first order in the nonlinear parameter, at least the leading shifts in $T_c$ and condensate reported here should also appear in a Born-Infeld version of the same model.
  • A direct numerical solution without the iterative step approximation would separate genuine physical effects from approximation artifacts; this is within reach of standard shooting methods.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies d-dimensional s-wave holographic superconductors in the probe limit, combining Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with exponential nonlinear electrodynamics. Using the Sturm-Liouville eigenvalue method, it derives analytic expressions for the critical temperature Tc ~ rho^{1/(d-2)}, the condensation value <O+> ~ (1 - T/Tc)^{1/2}, and the optical conductivity, and it reports numerical shooting results for Tc in d=5. The central qualitative claims are that Tc decreases with increasing Gauss-Bonnet coupling or nonlinear parameter, while it increases with spacetime dimension at sufficiently low charge density; that the condensation value increases with all three; and that the critical exponent remains 1/2 independently of these deformations.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful but incremental extension of holographic superconductor phenomenology to a motivated higher-curvature and nonlinear-electrodynamics setting. The paper has the virtue of not fitting parameters to target outcomes: the variational coefficient is optimized through the Sturm-Liouville functional, and the Tc comparison in Table I provides a genuine numerical cross-check for d=5. The qualitative trends are plausible and consistent with earlier GB and Born-Infeld-type studies. However, the quantitative condensation and conductivity predictions rest on an uncontrolled iterative approximation and on printed formulas that contain sign and integrand inconsistencies, so the contribution currently needs repair before its quantitative claims can be relied upon.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (31)] The perturbative iterative procedure replaces b*lambda^2 at each step by its value at the previous b-step, with step size Delta b = 0.05, and the paper states only that smaller steps improve accuracy. No convergence study is presented. Because lambda_min determines the coefficient gamma in Eq. (39), and the same b*lambda^2 enters the integrand for A in Eq. (62) and hence the condensation and conductivity plots, the quantitative results of Figs. 2-7 are not yet supported. Please demonstrate convergence by rerunning with smaller step sizes or by solving the fixed-point equation for b*lambda^2, and add a numerical check for <O+> or the optical gap analogous to the Tc check in Table I.
  2. [Section IV, Eqs. (58) and (61)] As printed, Eq. (58) gives beta proportional to sqrt(-lambda (d-2)! / chi^{(d-3)}(0)). Since lambda > 0 and chi'(z) > 0 from Eq. (54), chi^{(d-3)}(0) is positive, so the argument of the square root is negative and beta would be imaginary. The final expression Eq. (61) drops both the minus sign and lambda and is positive. This sign inconsistency must be resolved; otherwise the derivation of the condensation coefficient is not reproducible as written. If Eq. (61) is the formula actually used for the plots, that should be stated explicitly and Eq. (58) corrected.
  3. [Section III, Eqs. (25), (28), (30), (62)] The printed integrands are mutually inconsistent. Eq. (25) as typeset appears to place the factor sqrt(b)*tilde z in the denominator, while Eqs. (30) and (62) effectively use sqrt(b)*tilde z^2. The b -> 0 limit xi = 1 - z^{d-3} and the second-order expansion in Eq. (28) both select the tilde z^2 form. The authors should reconcile these expressions, since the Sturm-Liouville functional in Eq. (38) and the coefficient A in Eq. (62) are evaluated with the tilde z^2 denominator.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (51)] Equation (51) is stated as 'we find' with no derivation. It follows from Eq. (24) by expanding to the stated order in b, but a one-line derivation or an explicit reference would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'sapcetime' in the conclusion, 'dimesnional' in the introduction, and 'This can been seen' in Section III. Please copyedit the manuscript.
  3. [Figures 2-7] The axis labels in the figures are rendered in a nonstandard notation that is difficult to parse; please rewrite them using conventional mathematical notation, for example <O+>^{1/Delta_+}/T_c versus T/T_c.
  4. [Section V] The numerical conductivity results are presented only for d=5, while Eqs. (71)-(73) give expressions for d=5,6,7. Please clarify whether the higher-dimensional formulas are used anywhere or are included only for completeness.
  5. [Section III, text near Table I] The statement that the analytic and numerical results are in 'very good agreement' is somewhat stronger than the table suggests: the b=0.1 and b=0.15 rows differ by about 4-7 percent, which is acceptable but should be described as moderate agreement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation; central claims are variational/numerical outputs from stated inputs, with only a non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The Sturm-Liouville functional (38) is minimized over the stated trial function F(z)=1-a z^2, with no parameter fitted to the target observables; the eigenvalue lambda_min then enters the algebraic scaling relation (39) for T_c, and beta is obtained from the perturbative expansion of phi in <O_+> (Eqs. (49)-(62)). The iterative b*lambda^2 procedure in Eq. (31) is an explicitly acknowledged fixed-point approximation with step-size dependence, not a fit of T_c or <O_+> to data. The analytical T_c is benchmarked against an independent shooting method in Table I. The only same-author citation, Ref. [76], appears in a general list of prior GB-superconductor works and is not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from it. The manuscript's own caveat that smaller Delta b improves accuracy is a numerical-convergence limitation, and the sign/printing inconsistencies around Eqs. (58) and (61) are internal-consistency concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are model inputs (b, α, m²) and variational/numerical parameters (a, Δb). The key assumptions are the probe limit, the chosen background, the exponential NED Lagrangian, and the standard Sturm-Liouville and AdS/CFT machinery. The derivation relies on the validity of these imported elements rather than on fitting to external data.

free parameters (5)
  • b (nonlinear parameter) = 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15 (varied)
    Input parameter of exponential nonlinear electrodynamics; the paper scans its values to study effects. Not fitted to data.
  • α (Gauss-Bonnet coupling) = 0.02, 0.04, 0.06 (also 0.001, 0.005, 0.01, 0.05, 0.08 in figures)
    Input parameter of GB gravity; varied to study effects.
  • a (trial function coefficient) = 0.784748 for d=5, α=0.05, b=0; 0.834335 for b=0.05
    Variational parameter in trial function F=1-a z², chosen to minimize the Sturm-Liouville eigenvalue functional (Eq. 38).
  • Δb (step size) = 0.05
    Step size in the perturbative iterative procedure for bλ²; smaller step sizes would improve accuracy, as the paper states.
  • m² (scalar mass squared) = -2 or -3
    Scalar field mass, a model input; the paper checks the BF bound and uses m²l_eff²=-3 in Table I and m²=-2/-3 in figures.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Probe limit: matter fields' backreaction on the geometry is neglected, T_μν ≃ 0, fixing the background as a planar GB AdS black hole.
    Stated in Sec. II after Eq. (6). This is necessary for the analytic treatment.
  • domain assumption Planar GB AdS black hole metric (Eqs. 7-8) is taken from Ref. [77] and assumes α ≥ 0 and α̃ ≤ l²/4 for a real solution.
    The background geometry is imported from prior literature, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The matter Lagrangian Lm = (1/b)(e^{-bF}-1) - |Dψ|² - m²|ψ|² is postulated, following Ref. [44].
    This is the exponential nonlinear electrodynamics model under study.
  • standard math Sturm-Liouville eigenvalue method: the eigenvalue functional Eq. (38) is minimized over trial functions to obtain the lowest eigenvalue λ².
    A standard variational method; the paper relies on its accuracy for the reported coefficients.
  • standard math Lambert W function properties are used to solve the gauge field equation at T_c (Eq. 25).
    The solution and its series expansion (Eq. 27) are standard mathematical tools.
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT dictionary and holographic renormalization are used to read off chemical potential, charge density, operator expectation values, and conductivity.
    This is the framework that maps the bulk fields to boundary observables; the counterterm action (Eq. 71) is asserted without detailed derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gauss-Bonnet holographic superconductors in exponential nonlinear electrodynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z7ONJ4RH

@misc{pith2026190806711,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gauss-Bonnet holographic superconductors in exponential nonlinear electrodynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z7ONJ4RH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06711}
}
abstract

The low-energy limits of the string theory lead to the higher-order curvature corrections for Einstein gravity. Also, they give the higher-order derivative corrections for the Maxwell or linear electrodynamics, which suggests the nonlinear electrodynamics. Inspired by this, in this paper we investigate $d$-dimensional holographic superconductors in the probe limit in the framework of Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity and exponential nonlinear electrodynamics. Based on the Sturm-Liouville eigenvalue method, we compute the critical temperature, the condensation value, and the critical exponent. It is observed that the critical temperature decreases when the Gauss-Bonnet (GB) parameter or the nonlinear parameter increases, but it increases with the higher dimension of the spacetime at the efficiently low charge density. In addition, we found that the condensation value becomes larger as increasing the GB parameter, the nonlinear parameter as well as the spacetime dimension. Finally, we calculate the optical conductivity and study the effects of the GB term and exponential nonlinear electrodynamics on superconducting energy gap.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06711 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Plots of the critical temperature in terms of the charge de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The dimensionless condensation operator as a function of t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The dimensionless condensation operator as a function of t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The real part of the conductivity as a function in terms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The behavior of the imaginary part of the conductivity in ter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The real part of the conductivity as a function in terms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The behavior of the imaginary part of the conductivity in ter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [74]

    Yao and J

    W. Yao and J. Jing, JHEP 05, 101 (2013)

    work page 2013

  2. [1]

    φ →λ1φ, ψ →λ1ψ, q →λ−1 1 q, b →λ−2 1 b

  3. [2]

    Using these scaling symmetries, one can set q = l = 1

    φ →λ2φ, ψ →λ1/2 2 ψ, b →λ−2 2 b ~α →λ−1 2 ~α, l →λ−1/2 2 l, m →λ1/2 2 m. Using these scaling symmetries, one can set q = l = 1. In order to solve Eqs. (14) and (15) and obtain the behavior of the gauge field and scalar field, first we need to impose the appropriate boundary conditions for φ(r) and ψ(r) at the event horizon r+. The matter fields are regular at...

    2000

  4. [3]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957)

    1957

  5. [4]

    J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998)

    1998

  6. [5]

    Witten, Adv

    E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253 (1998)

    1998

  7. [6]

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 428, 105 (1998)

    1998

  8. [7]

    Aharony, S

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz , Phys. Rept. 323, 183 (2000)

    work page 2000

Show all 86 references
  1. [8]

    S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog, and G. T. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. Let t. 101, 031601 (2008)

    2008

  2. [9]

    S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog, and G. T. Horowitz, JHEP 0812, 015 (2008)

    2008

  3. [10]

    S. S. Gubser, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 5121 (2005)

    2005

  4. [11]

    S. S. Gubser, Phys. Rev. D 78, 065034 (2008)

    2008

  5. [12]

    G. T. Horowitz and M. M. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D 78, 126008 (2008)

    2008

  6. [13]

    Franco, A

    S. Franco, A. Garcia-Garcia, and D. Rodriguez-Gomez, JHEP 04, 092 (2010)

    2010

  7. [14]

    Siopsis and J

    G. Siopsis and J. Therrien, JHEP 05, 013 (2010)

    2010

  8. [15]

    X.-H. Ge, B. Wang, S.-F. Wu, and G.-H. Yang, JHEP 08, 108 (2010)

    2010

  9. [16]

    Chen and M.-F

    C.-M. Chen and M.-F. Wu, Prog. Theor. Phys. 126, 387 (2011)

    2011

  10. [17]

    H.-B. Zeng, X. Gao, Y. Jiang, and H.-S. Zong, JHEP 1105, 002 (2011)

    2011

  11. [18]

    Cai, H.-F Li, and H.-Q

    R.-G. Cai, H.-F Li, and H.-Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 83, 126007 (2011)

    2011

  12. [19]

    R.-G. Cai, L. Li, L.-F. Li, R.-Q. Yang, Sci China Phys. Mech. Astro n. 58, 060401 (2015)

    2015

  13. [20]

    Amoretti, A

    A. Amoretti, A. Braggio, N. Maggiore, N. Magnoli, and D. Musso, JHEP 1401, 054 (2014)

    2014

  14. [21]

    Nakonieczny and M

    /suppress L. Nakonieczny and M. Rogatko, Phys. Rev. D90, 106004 (2014)

    2014

  15. [22]

    Nakonieczny, M

    /suppress L. Nakonieczny, M. Rogatko, and K. I. Wysokinski, Phys. Rev. D 91, 046007 (2015)

    2015

  16. [23]

    Nakonieczny, M

    /suppress L. Nakonieczny, M. Rogatko, and K. I. Wysokinski, Phys. Rev. D 92, 066008 (2015)

    2015

  17. [24]

    Y. Peng, Q. Pan, and Y. Liu, Nucl. Phys. B 915, 69 (2017)

    2017

  18. [25]

    Natsuume, Phys

    M. Natsuume, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3949 (1994)

    1994

  19. [26]

    Y. Kats, L. Motl, and M. Padi, JHEP 0712, 068 (2007)

    2007

  20. [27]

    Cai, Z.-Y

    R.-G. Cai, Z.-Y. Nie, and Y.-W. Sun, Phys. Rev. D 78, 126007 (2008)

    2008

  21. [28]

    J. T. Liu and P. Szepietowski, Phys. Rev. D 79, 084042 (2009)

    2009

  22. [29]

    Anninos and G

    D. Anninos and G. Pastras, JHEP 0907, 030 (2009)

    2009

  23. [30]

    Ritz and R

    A. Ritz and R. Delbourgo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 11, 253 (1996)

    1996

  24. [31]

    J. Jing, Q. Pan, and S. Chen, JHEP 11, 045 (2011)

    2011

  25. [32]

    Gangopadhyay and D

    S. Gangopadhyay and D. Roychowdhury, JHEP 05, 156 (2012). 21

    2012

  26. [33]

    Roychowdhury, Phys

    D. Roychowdhury, Phys. Rev. D 86, 106009 (2012)

    2012

  27. [34]

    Z. Zhao, Q. Pan, S. Chen, and J. Jing, Nucl. Phys. B 871, 98 (2013)

    2013

  28. [35]

    Banerjee, S

    R. Banerjee, S. Gangopadhyay, D. Roychowdhury, and A. La la, Phys. Rev. D 87, 104001 (2013)

    2013

  29. [36]

    C. Lai, Q. Pan, J. Jing, and Y. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 749, 437 (2015)

    2015

  30. [37]

    Sheykhi, F

    A. Sheykhi, F. Shaker, Phys. Lett. B 754, 281 (2016)

    2016

  31. [38]

    Ghorai and S

    D. Ghorai and S. Gangopadhyay, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 146 (2016)

    2016

  32. [39]

    J. Jing, L. Jiang, and Q. Pan, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 025001 (2016)

    2016

  33. [40]

    Sheykhi, H

    A. Sheykhi, H. R. Salahi, and A. Montakhab, JHEP 04, 058 (2016)

    2016

  34. [41]

    Y. Liu, Y. Gong, and B. Wang, JHEP 02, 116 (2016)

    2016

  35. [42]

    Sheykhi, A

    A. Sheykhi, A. Ghazanfari, and A. Dehyadegari, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 159 (2018)

    2018

  36. [43]

    Sheykhi, D

    A. Sheykhi, D. H. Asl, A. Dehyadegari, Phys. Lett. B 781, 139 (2018)

    2018

  37. [44]

    Boillat, J

    G. Boillat, J. Math. Phys. 11, 941 (1970); 11, 1482 (1970)

    1970

  38. [45]

    G. W. Gibbons and D. A. Rasheed, Nucl. Phys. B 454, 185 (1995)

    1995

  39. [46]

    S. H. Hendi, JHEP 03, 065 (2012)

    2012

  40. [47]

    S. H. Hendi, Ann. Phys. 333, 282 (2013)

    2013

  41. [48]

    S. H. Hendi, Ann. Phys. 346, 42 (2014)

    2014

  42. [49]

    Sheykhi and A

    A. Sheykhi and A. Kazemi, Phys. Rev. D 90, 044028 (2014)

    2014

  43. [50]

    S. H. Hendi, A. Sheykhi, M. S. Rad, and K. Matsuno, Gen. Rel. Gr av. 47, 117 (2015)

    2015

  44. [51]

    S. I. Kruglov, Europhys. Letters 115, 60006 (2016)

    2016

  45. [52]

    S. I. Kruglov, Ann. Phys. 378, 59 (2017)

    2017

  46. [53]

    Hajkhalili and A

    S. Hajkhalili and A. Sheykhi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 27, 1850075 (2018)

    2018

  47. [54]

    Zwiebach, Phys

    B. Zwiebach, Phys. Lett. B 156, 315 (1985)

    1985

  48. [55]

    D. J. Gross and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 277, 1 (1986)

    1986

  49. [56]

    D. J. Gross and J. H Sloan, Nucl. Phys. B 291, 41 (1987)

    1987

  50. [57]

    R. R. Metsaev and A. A. Tseytlin, Phys. Lett. B 185, 52 (1987); 191, 354 (1987); Nucl. Phys. B 293, 385 (1987)

    1987

  51. [58]

    M. C. Bento and O. Bertolami, Phys. Lett. B 368, 198 (1996)

    1996

  52. [59]

    Gregory, S

    R. Gregory, S. Kanno, and J. Soda, JHEP 0910, 010 (2009)

    2009

  53. [60]

    Q. Pan, B. Wang, E. Papantonopoulos, J. Oliveira, and A. B. Pav an, Phys. Rev. D 81, 106007 (2010)

    2010

  54. [61]

    Pan and B

    Q. Pan and B. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 693, 159 (2010)

    2010

  55. [62]

    Barclay, R

    L. Barclay, R. Gregory, S. Kanno, and P. Sutcliffe, JHEP 1012, 029 (2010)

    2010

  56. [63]

    Cai, Z.-Y

    R.-G. Cai, Z.-Y. Nie, and H.-Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 82, 066007 (2010)

    2010

  57. [64]

    Li, R.-G

    H.-F. Li, R.-G. Cai, and H.-Q. Zhang, JHEP 04, 028 (2011)

    2011

  58. [65]

    Barclay, R

    L. Barclay, R. Gregory, S. Kanno, and P. Sutcliffe, JHEP 1012, 029 (2010),

    2010

  59. [66]

    Kanno, Class

    S. Kanno, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 127001 (2011)

    2011

  60. [67]

    J. Jing, L. Wang, Q. Pan, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 83, 066010 (2011)

    2011

  61. [68]

    Cai, Z.-Y

    R.-G. Cai, Z.-Y. Nie, and H.-Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 83, 066013 (2011). 22

    2011

  62. [69]

    Barclay, JHEP 10, 044 (2011)

    L. Barclay, JHEP 10, 044 (2011)

    2011

  63. [70]

    Q. Pan, J. Jing, and B. Wang, JHEP 11, 088 (2011)

    2011

  64. [71]

    J. Jing, Q. Pan, and S. Chen, Phys. Lett. B 716, 385 (2012)

    2012

  65. [72]

    R.-G. Cai, L. Li, L.-F. Li, H.-Q. Zhang, and Y.-L. Zhang, Phys. Rev . D 87, 026002 (2013)

    2013

  66. [73]

    Cui and Z

    S.-L. Cui and Z. Xue, Phys. Rev. D 88, 107501 (2013)

    2013

  67. [75]

    Cai, L.-Li, and L.-F

    R.-G. Cai, L.-Li, and L.-F. Li, JHEP 1401, 032 (2014)

    2014

  68. [76]

    Dey and A

    S. Dey and A. Lala, Annals Phys. 354, 165 (2014)

    2014

  69. [77]

    Parai, S

    D. Parai, S. Gangopadhyay, D. Ghorai, Ann. Phys. 403, 59 (2019)

    2019

  70. [78]

    C. H. Nam, arXiv: 1908.05031

    1908 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Cai, Phys

    R.-G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D 65, 084014 (2002)

    2002

  72. [80]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman, Ann. Phys. 144, 249 (1982)

    1982

  73. [81]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Lett. B 115, 197 (1982)

    1982

  74. [82]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of mathematical functions (Dover, New York, 1972)

    1972

  75. [83]

    Skenderis, Class

    K. Skenderis, Class. Quant. Grav. 19, 5849 (2002)

    2002

  76. [84]

    Barclay, R

    L. Barclay, R. Gregory, S. Kanno, and P. Sutcliffe, JHEP 12, 29 (2010)

    2010

  77. [85]

    J. R. Sun, S. Y. Wu, and H. Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 87, 086005 (2013)

    2013

  78. [86]

    Tong, Lectures on holographic conductivity , Presented at Cracow School of Theoretical Physics,(2013)

    D. Tong, Lectures on holographic conductivity , Presented at Cracow School of Theoretical Physics,(2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.