Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

The role of torsion in holographic conductivity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that coupling the bulk electromagnetic field to spacetime torsion turns holographic conductivity into a metallic response with a Drude peak, a feature the standard minimal coupling cannot produce.

desk verdict A clean, honest first computation of holographic conductivity with bulk torsion; the qualitative Drude peak and crossover are plausible, but the probe limit and imported conductivity formula leave quantitative results explicitly conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00934 v3 pith:L4QMNN4F submitted 2025-01-01 hep-th

Dušan {DJ}or{j̣ević , Ivana {DJ}or{j̣ević , Aleksandra Gočanin , Dragoljub Gočanin This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 83D0581T3583C57 PACS 11.25.Tq04.50.Kd72.80.-r
keywords holographicconductivitytorsionRiemann-CartangeometryChern-SimonsgravityspincurrentDrudepeakprobelimitoptical
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 asks whether spacetime torsion in the holographic bulk can change the electrical conductivity of the boundary theory, and answers yes. Working in five-dimensional Chern-Simons gravity with a torsionful black hole, the authors add a U(1) gauge field coupled non-minimally to torsion. The coupling acts as a position-dependent dilaton, producing a finite DC conductivity $\sigma_{\mathrm{DC}} = \sqrt{\mu} + 3\gamma^2\delta^2/\sqrt{\mu}$ and an AC conductivity with a Drude peak, a low-frequency peak in the optical response, that the minimal coupling does not give. The authors argue that this torsion-mediated response is a better match to measured optical conductivity of the Dirac semimetal Ir2In8Se than the usual minimal coupling can provide.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the non-minimal substitution (3.1) in the bulk Maxwell action, which multiplies the field strength by a torsion-dependent factor; on the black hole background it reduces to the effective coupling $C = 1 + 3\gamma^2\delta^2/r^2$. This is a dilaton-type coupling, and it is what allows the DC conductivity to be computed exactly by the conserved radial flux of the membrane paradigm, giving $\sigma_{\mathrm{DC}} = \sqrt{\mu} + 3\gamma^2\delta^2/\sqrt{\mu}$. The torsion itself comes from a known parallelizable black hole solution of five-dimensional Chern-Simons gravity, whose boundary dual carries a spin current $\langle S_{ij}\rangle = k\mu\delta\, dx^i \wedge dx^j \wedge dt$; the parameter $\delta$ sets the torsion or spin-current scale, $\gamma$ is the coupling constant, and $\mu$ sets the temperature. The same machinery gives an analytic $\sigma(\omega)$ in the $\delta = 0$ limit and numerical AC conductivity with a Drude peak for $\delta \neq 0$.

What would settle it

A numerical construction of the backreacted solution of five-dimensional Chern-Simons gravity coupled to the U(1) field with torsion, or a measurement of the optical conductivity of Ir2In8Se at lower frequencies and temperatures than reported, would settle whether the predicted Drude peak and the resistivity turnaround at $T_c = \sqrt{3}\gamma\delta/(2\pi)$ survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a non-minimal coupling between an Abelian gauge field and bulk torsion, implemented by replacing $\star F$ with $(1 - \gamma^2 \star(T^A \wedge \star T_A))\star F$, is a viable holographic mechanism for realistic metallic conductivity. On the torsionful black hole background the effective gauge-field coupling becomes $C = 1 + 3\gamma^2\delta^2/r^2$, so torsion acts like a dilaton. The membrane-paradigm calculation gives $\sigma_{\mathrm{DC}} = \sqrt{\mu} + 3\gamma^2\delta^2/\sqrt{\mu}$, and numerical solution of the perturbation equation shows a Drude-like peak in the real part of the AC conductivity whose height grows with $\gamma\delta$. The same AC equation also follows from the alternative coupling (3.7), $\int (T^A \wedge F) \wedge \star(T_A \wedge F)$, so the conductivity prediction is shared by both standard torsion-photon couplings. The paper takes this as evidence that torsion couplings, rather than minimal coupling, are better suited to reproduce experimental conductivity data such as those for Ir2In8Se.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's load-bearing premise is the probe limit: the electromagnetic field is treated as a test field on a fixed torsionful black hole, with the standard conductivity-extraction rule imported by analogy; if backreaction changes the torsion or the metric, or if that rule fails for torsion, the predicted Drude peak and DC resistivity would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The non-minimal torsion coupling gives holographic models a control knob, the product $\gamma\delta$, that sets the height of the Drude peak.
  • The DC resistivity $\rho = 1/\sigma_{\mathrm{DC}}$ rises with temperature at low $T$ and falls above $T_c = \sqrt{3}\gamma\delta/(2\pi)$, reproducing the metallic-to-semiconductor-like crossover seen in some Dirac semimetals.
  • Both standard non-minimal torsion-photon couplings yield the same AC conductivity equation for the electric perturbation, so the prediction is not an artifact of one particular coupling.
  • With $\delta = 0$ the conductivity reduces to the torsion-free analytic result with no Drude peak, showing that a nonzero torsion or spin-current background is essential for the effect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper works in the probe limit and no backreacted torsionful solution is known, the most direct extension is to construct such a solution numerically; if backreaction changes how torsion falls off with radius, the effective $C(r)$ and hence $\sigma_{\mathrm{DC}}$ would change.
  • The same dilaton-type coupling could be transplanted to holographic superconductors or to three- and four-dimensional torsionful bulks, where the Drude peak should appear with a torsion-controlled width.
  • The comparison with Ir2In8Se is qualitative; a quantitative test would fix $\gamma\delta$ from the measured Drude peak and then check the predicted frequency dependence of the optical conductivity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the holographic dictionary to a five-dimensional Chern-Simons gravity with torsion, using a known Riemann-Cartan black hole solution with non-vanishing torsion. A bulk U(1) gauge field is added with a non-minimal coupling to torsion, which effectively replaces the Maxwell kinetic term by C F^2 with C = 1 + 3 γ² δ² / r². Working in the probe limit, the authors compute the DC conductivity analytically, obtaining σ_DC = √μ + 3γ²δ²/√μ (Eq. 3.18), and obtain the AC conductivity numerically, finding a Drude-like peak at low frequency for non-zero torsion. The resistivity-vs-temperature curve is interpreted as metallic at low T and semiconductor-like above a critical temperature, and a qualitative comparison with the optical conductivity of Ir2In8Se is claimed. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the probe limit is assumed and that no backreacting torsionful black hole solution is known.

Significance. If the probe-limit computation and the imported conductivity formula are valid, the paper offers a new, tunable mechanism for generating a Drude peak in holographic conductivity without introducing a lattice or momentum dissipation: the torsion parameter δ and coupling γ control the DC offset and peak height. This is a useful contribution to Riemann-Cartan holography and to bottom-up holographic models of condensed matter. The analytic DC result (3.18) is a clean, falsifiable prediction of the model, and the paper is commendably explicit about its assumptions and omissions, including the lack of a backreacting solution and the absence of holographic renormalization in the torsionful theory. However, because those two omissions are exactly the steps that connect the model to actual boundary observables, the phenomenological conclusions are only conditionally supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (3.13)-(3.18)] The central results are computed in a fixed torsionful background (2.4)-(2.5), treating the U(1) gauge field as a test field. The paper itself states in Section III that no full backreacting black hole solution of five-dimensional CS gravity coupled to electromagnetism with torsion is known, even for γ = 0, and that the probe limit 'may have to be realized in some theory similar to, yet different from CS gravity.' This is load-bearing: if the Maxwell stress tensor backreacts on the torsion equation (2.3) or the metric equation (2.2), the effective kinetic function C = 1 + 3γ²δ²/r² and the radial metric used in (3.13) would be corrected, so the quantitative content of σ_DC in (3.18) and of the Drude-peak dependence on γδ is not controlled beyond the probe limit. The authors should either construct or cite a backreacted solution, or at minimum estimate the size of backreaction corrections and explicitly reframe the claims as a probe-limit proof of principle rather than a quantitative explanation of experiments.
  2. [Section III.A, Eq. (3.8)] The holographic conductivity formula σ(ω) = (2/iω) A(1)/A(0) + iω/2 is imported by analogy from Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theories, with the argument that 'the same result has to apply' because the torsion coupling is of dilaton type and C → 1 at the boundary. This is not a derivation for the torsionful action (3.2), and the paper later concedes in Section IV that holographic renormalization of the torsionful theory has not been performed. The boundary limit C → 1 does not by itself rule out finite boundary terms or modified counterterms involving torsion, which could shift the relation between A(1) and the dual current. Since both the DC and AC conductivities are extracted from A(1), this unproven dictionary step is load-bearing. The authors should derive (3.8) from holographic renormalization of the torsionful action, or clearly state it as an assumption and explain why possible torsion-dependent finite boundary terms cannot affect the conductivity.
  3. [Section III.A, Figs. 2-3 and Section IV] The claim that the model provides 'an explanation of the experimental results' for Ir2In8Se is based on visual similarity with Ref. [29]: the manuscript does not overlay the experimental conductivity or resistivity data, does not perform a fit, and does not specify the matching frequency/temperature window or quantitative accuracy. Given that γδ is scanned over a few values and no parameter extraction is attempted, the comparison is qualitative. The abstract's stronger statement that torsion couplings are 'more suitable candidates' than minimal coupling for describing experimental findings should be tempered, or supported with a quantitative comparison to the data of Ref. [29], including error bars and the fitted values of γ and δ.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3.15)] The text below Eq. (3.15) says the conserved quantity is (1 + 12γ²δ²z²)(1/z - μz)∂z a(z), but the preceding equation contains (1 + 3γ²δ²z²); the factor 12 appears to be a typo, since the subsequent DC result (3.17) uses 3γ²δ²/μ.
  2. [Section III.A and Fig. 1] The material name is given as 'Ir2In8Sl' in the text immediately before the experimental comparison, while the cited reference [29] is about Ir2In8Se; this appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  3. [Section I and throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'Hologarphy' in Section I, 'it's name', 'Quazinormal' before Eq. (3.12), and 'alterneive' before Eq. (3.7); a careful proofread is needed.
  4. [Section IV] The final remark that the boundary dual of five-dimensional CS gravity is nonunitary, citing Ref. [33], is not reconciled with the use of the same model for condensed matter predictions; a brief comment on why the conductivity results are expected to be robust against this feature would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the conductivity results are computed from the action, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations and model-selection effects.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained: the torsionful black hole (2.4)-(2.5) and the non-minimal coupling (3.1) are taken from external references ([15] and [22]), the effective kinetic function C=1+3γ^2δ^2/r^2 is computed from them, and the DC and AC conductivities, Eqs. (3.18) and Figs. 2-3, are obtained by solving the resulting U(1) equation of motion (3.13) with in-falling boundary conditions. The output is a non-trivial function of the input parameters γ,δ, not equal to them by construction; Eq. (3.13) has no analytic solution, so the Drude peak is a genuine computed consequence rather than a renamed input. The comparison to Ir2In8Se (Section III) involves scanning γδ and choosing the sign in (3.1), which are model choices, not fitted inputs disguised as predictions. The paper explicitly flags the probe-limit assumption and the absence of holographic renormalization for the torsionful theory (Section III and IV); these are acknowledged limitations that affect the holographic dictionary, but they are not circular reductions. The self-citations [13] and [19] are used for context and a radial-coordinate change and do not carry the conductivity argument. The score of 2 reflects only these minor self-citation and model-selection issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central computation depends on four inputs not derived in this paper: the holographic dictionary for torsionful gravity, the standard conductivity formula, the probe limit, and the assumption that nonunitarity of the dual does not spoil the conductivity interpretation. None of these are invented by the paper, but the latter two are explicitly admitted as open issues.

free parameters (2)
  • δ (torsion strength) = arbitrary constant; plots use γδ = 1, 2, 2.4
    Controls the magnitude of the bulk torsion and the boundary spin current (eq. 2.5). It is a free parameter of the black hole solution, not determined by the theory.
  • γ (gauge-torsion coupling) = not fixed; γδ scanned over values
    Coupling constant in the non-minimal substitution (3.1), adapted from Rubilar-Obukhov-Hehl [22]. Chosen by hand; the sign is selected to give positive C.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The holographic dictionary for first-order CS gravity with torsion (spin-current one-point function (2.11), stress tensor, FG expansion) is correct.
    Invoked in Section II to compute ⟨S_ij⟩; cited from [5,10,11] but not re-derived.
  • domain assumption The conductivity formula (3.8), established for Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theories, applies unchanged to the torsionful bulk with C(r)=1+3γ²δ²/r².
    Stated in Section III after eq. (3.8): 'we can rely on the well-known result... the same result has to apply'. The paper admits full holographic renormalization remains to be done.
  • ad hoc to paper The probe limit is valid: backreaction of the gauge field on the torsionful geometry is negligible.
    Explicitly assumed in Section III: 'we will assume that it makes sense to work in the probe limit'. No backreacting solution is known, even for γ=0.
  • domain assumption The boundary dual of 5D CS gravity, despite being nonunitary, has physically meaningful conductivity.
    Mentioned in Section IV: 'the boundary dual... is a nonunitary theory [33]'. The paper proceeds with the physical interpretation without analyzing unitarity constraints on the response.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The role of torsion in holographic conductivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L4QMNN4F

@misc{pith2026250100934,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The role of torsion in holographic conductivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L4QMNN4F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00934}
}
abstract

Generalizing the usual setup for holographic duality, where bulk spacetime is described by pseudo-Riemannian geometry, we consider a Riemann-Cartan bulk with non-trivial torsion as a background for an electromagnetic gauge field dual to $U(1)$ boundary current. Working in the probe limit, we explore how the bulk torsion, which induces spin current at the boundary, affects the electric conductivity of the boundary theory. We consider standard types of non-minimal couplings between torsion and the electromagnetic field found in the literature, and the results indicate that these torsion couplings are more suitable candidates, compared to the common minimal coupling regime, for a holographic description of the existing experimental findings regarding conductivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00934 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DC resistivity in terms of temperature, for fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Real part of conductivity σ. In numerical calcula￾tion temperature is set to T = 2π. Lines in the bottom-up order correspond to γδ = 0 (blue), γδ = 1 (orange), γδ = 2 (grey), γδ = 2.4 (red) respectively. Color online. We can immediately note a few characteristics of the ploted graphs. First, the case δ = 0 corresponds to the analytic formula that we have previously obtained. In￾deed, we can see from the graph the ∼ … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Imaginary part of conductivity σ. In numerical calculation temperature is set to T = 2π. Lines in the bottom￾up order correspond to γδ = 0 (blue), γδ = 1 (orange), γδ = 2 (grey), γδ = 2.4 (red) respectively. Color online. the form of the real part of conductivity, especially for γδ ≈ 2.5, matches the experimental results discussed in [29] where the conductivity properties of Ir2In8Sl were ex￾perimentally tested. Act… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Actually, one can see the similarity between the ρ(T ) dependence experimentally obtained in [29] and the one we got from our holographic model

    where the conductivity properties of Ir2In8Sl were ex- perimentally tested. Actually, one can see the similarity between the ρ(T ) dependence experimentally obtained in [29] and the one we got from our holographic model. This similarity with experimental data is valid only below the critical temperature Tc (modulo small corrections for very small temperat...

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    J. M. Maldacena, The Large N limit of superconfor- mal field theories and supergravity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231–252. arXiv:hep-th/9711200, doi: 10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a1

    arXiv 1998

  3. [2]

    Blagojevic, et al., Gravitation and gauge symmetries, Tech

    M. Blagojevic, et al., Gravitation and gauge symmetries, Tech. rep., Institute of Physics Pub. (2002)

    work page 2002

  4. [3]

    A. H. Chamseddine, Topological Gauge Theory of Gravity in Five-dimensions and All Odd Dimensions, Phys. Lett. B 233 (1989) 291–294. doi:10.1016/ 0370-2693(89)91312-9

    work page 1989

  5. [4]

    Hassaine, J

    M. Hassaine, J. Zanelli, Chern-Simons (Super-) Gravity, 100 years of general relativity, World Scientific, 2016. URL https://books.google.rs/books?id= vjOFjgEACAAJ

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    Banados, O

    M. Banados, O. Miskovic, S. Theisen, Holographic cur- rents in first order gravity and finite Fefferman-Graham expansions, JHEP 06 (2006) 025. arXiv:hep-th/ 0604148, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/06/025

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/06/025 2006

  7. [6]

    Klemm, G

    D. Klemm, G. Tagliabue, The CFT dual of AdS gravity with torsion, Class. Quant. Grav. 25 (2008) 035011. arXiv:0705.3320, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/25/ 3/035011

    arXiv 2008

  8. [7]

    R. G. Leigh, N. N. Hoang, A. C. Petkou, Torsion and the Gravity Dual of Parity Symmetry Breaking in AdS(4) / CFT(3) Holography, JHEP 03 (2009) 033. arXiv:0809. 5258, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/03/033

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/03/033 2009

Show all 35 references
  1. [8]

    A. C. Petkou, Torsional degrees of freedom in AdS4/CFT3, 2010. arXiv:1004.1640

    2010 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Blagojevic, B

    M. Blagojevic, B. Cvetkovic, O. Miskovic, R. Olea, Holography in 3D AdS gravity with torsion, JHEP 05 (2013) 103. arXiv:1301.1237, doi:10.1007/ JHEP05(2013)103

    2013 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Cvetkovi´ c, O

    B. Cvetkovi´ c, O. Miskovic, D. Simi´ c, Holography in Lovelock Chern-Simons AdS Gravity, Phys. Rev. D 96 (4) (2017) 044027. arXiv:1705.04522, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.96.044027

    2017 arXiv

  4. [11]

    A. D. Gallegos, U. G¨ ursoy, Holographic spin liquids and Lovelock Chern-Simons gravity, JHEP 11 (2020) 151. arXiv:2004.05148, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2020)151

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Erdmenger, B

    J. Erdmenger, B. Heß, I. Matthaiakakis, R. Meyer, Universal Gibbons-Hawking-York term for theories with curvature, torsion and non-metricity, SciPost Phys. 14 (5) (2023) 099. arXiv:2211.02064, doi:10.21468/ SciPostPhys.14.5.099

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Dord ¯ evi´ c, D

    D. Dord ¯ evi´ c, D. Goˇ canin, Boundary terms, branes, and AdS/BCFT duality in first-order gravity, Phys. Rev. D 109 (8) (2024) 086026. arXiv:2401.16306, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.109.086026

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Juriˇ ci´ c, O

    V. Juriˇ ci´ c, O. Miskovic, F. R. Carrasco, Holographic Weyl semimetals with dislocations (10 2024). arXiv: 2410.18853

    2024

  8. [15]

    Canfora, A

    F. Canfora, A. Giacomini, R. Troncoso, Black holes, par- allelizable horizons and half-BPS states for the Einstein- Gauss-Bonnet theory in five dimensions, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 024002. arXiv:0707.1056, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.77.024002

    2008 arXiv

  9. [16]

    de Juan, A

    F. de Juan, A. Cortijo, M. A. H. Vozmediano, Dislo- cations and torsion in graphene and related systems, Nucl. Phys. B 828 (2010) 625. arXiv:0909.4068, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009.11.012

    2010 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Kr¨ oner, Crystal lattice defects and differential geom- etry, Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Materials 5 (1994) 233 – 246

    E. Kr¨ oner, Crystal lattice defects and differential geom- etry, Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Materials 5 (1994) 233 – 246. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 122689342

    1994

  11. [18]

    Huang, B

    Z.-M. Huang, B. Han, M. Stone, Nieh-yan anomaly: Torsional landau levels, central charge, and anomalous thermal hall effect, Physical Review B (2019). URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 207870000

    2019

  12. [19]

    Djordjevi´ c, D

    D. Djordjevi´ c, D. Goˇ canin, Holographic aspects of even-dimensional topological gravity, Phys. Rev. D 108 (8) (2023) 086022. arXiv:2307.03215, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.108.086022

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Cartwright, D

    C. Cartwright, D. Gallegos, U. G¨ ursoy, R. Klein, A. Yarom, A supersymmetric spin current (8 2024). arXiv:2408.04399

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Z. An, F. Liu, C. Liu, The universal definition of spin current (2011). arXiv:1112.5320. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.5320

    2011 arXiv

  15. [22]

    G. F. Rubilar, Y. N. Obukhov, F. W. Hehl, Tor- sion nonminimally coupled to the electromagnetic field and birefringence, Class. Quant. Grav. 20 (2003) L185– L192. arXiv:gr-qc/0305049, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/ 20/14/101

    2003 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Y. Itin, F. W. Hehl, Maxwell’s field coupled nonmin- imally to quadratic torsion: axion and birefringence, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 127701. arXiv:gr-qc/0307063, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.127701

    2003 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Dehyadegari, M

    A. Dehyadegari, M. Kord Zangeneh, A. Sheykhi, Holo- graphic conductivity in the massive gravity with power- law Maxwell field, Phys. Lett. B 773 (2017) 344–353. arXiv:1703.00975, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.08. 029

    2017 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Liu, X.-J

    Y. Liu, X.-J. Wang, J.-P. Wu, X. Zhang, Holographic superfluid with gauge–axion coupling, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (8) (2023) 748. arXiv:2212.01986, doi:10.1140/ epjc/s10052-023-11918-9

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Ren, One-dimensional holographic superconductor from AdS 3/CFT2 correspondence, JHEP 11 (2010) 055

    J. Ren, One-dimensional holographic superconductor from AdS 3/CFT2 correspondence, JHEP 11 (2010) 055. 8 arXiv:1008.3904, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2010)055

    2010 arXiv

  20. [27]

    D. V. G´ omez-Navarro, A. L´ opez-Ortega, Electromag- netic quasinormal modes of five-dimensional topological black holes, Rev. Mex. Fis. 63 (6) (2017) 541. arXiv: 1806.06539

    2017 arXiv

  21. [28]

    J. Ren, W. Zheng, Analytic AC conductivities from holography, Phys. Rev. D 105 (6) (2022) 066013. arXiv: 2109.07481, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.066013

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    S. Xu, H. Pi, R. Li, T. Hu, Q. Wu, D. Wu, H. Weng, N. Wang, Linear-in-frequency optical conductivity over a broad range in the three-dimensional dirac semimetal candidate ir 2 in 8 se, Physical Review B 106 (11) (2022) 115121

    2022

  23. [31]

    R. Y. Chen, S. Zhang, J. A. Schneeloch, C. Zhang, Q. Li, G. Gu, N. Wang, Optical spectroscopy study of the three-dimensional dirac semimetal zrte 5, Physical Review B 92 (2015) 075107. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 73650304

    2015

  24. [32]

    Pavlosiuk, D

    O. Pavlosiuk, D. Kaczorowski, X. Fabr` eges, A. Gukasov, P. Wi´ sniewski, Antiferromagnetism and superconduc- tivity in the half-heusler semimetal hopdbi, Scientific Reports 6 (2015). URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 1721863

    2015

  25. [33]

    G. T. Horowitz, J. E. Santos, D. Tong, Optical Conduc- tivity with Holographic Lattices, JHEP 07 (2012) 168. arXiv:1204.0519, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012)168

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Banados, A

    M. Banados, A. Schwimmer, S. Theisen, Chern-Simons gravity and holographic anomalies, JHEP 05 (2004)

    2004

  27. [39]

    arXiv:hep-th/0404245, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/ 2004/05/039

    2004 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.