Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The thermodynamic stability and phase structure of the Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-AdS black holes

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The thermodynamics of Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-AdS black holes keeps the same qualitative phase structure as Reissner-Nordstrom-AdS black holes, with large holes stable and small ones evaporating.

desk verdict The canonical ensemble analysis is fine, but the grand canonical ensemble is invalid because the electric potential is inconsistent with the mass formula. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11075 v1 pith:X7VF4IMO submitted 2025-01-19 hep-th

Yinan Zhao , Hongbo Cheng This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 83C5783C22 PACS 04.70.Dy04.70.-s
keywords Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-AdSblackholenonlinearelectrodynamicsthermodynamicsphasestructureheatcapacitycanonicalensemblegrandthermodynamicstability
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

The paper asks whether the nonlinear self-interactions of strong electromagnetic fields alter the thermodynamic behavior of charged AdS black holes. It derives the Hawking temperature, Helmholtz free energy, Gibbs potential, entropy, and heat capacity for the Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-AdS metric in both fixed-charge and fixed-potential ensembles. The central claim is that these nonlinear corrections shift the thermodynamic quantities but leave the overall phase structure intact: large black holes have positive heat capacity and are stable, small ones have negative heat capacity and evaporate, and the phase transition occurs at the minimum temperature. The paper also argues, via the second law, that these black holes cannot split, because the entropy of any division into two pieces would be lower than the original.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian $L_{EH} = -\frac14 F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} + \frac{\mu}{4}\left[(F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu})^2 + \frac74(-\ast F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu})^2\right]$ with $\mu = 2\alpha^2/(45 m_e^4)$, which modifies the Reissner-Nordstrom-AdS metric by the term $-\mu Q^4/(20 r^6)$. The argument then runs entirely on the standard black-hole thermodynamic identities: the Hawking temperature $T = f'(r_+)/(4\pi)$, the area law $S = \pi r_+^2$, the first law $dM = T dS + \Phi dQ$, and the definitions $F = M - TS$ and $G = M - TS - \Phi Q$ in the canonical and grand canonical ensembles. The sign of $C_Q = T(\partial S/\partial T)_Q$, read off the slope of the entropy-temperature plot, is the probe of stability; the minimum of $T(r_+)$ provides the critical temperature; and the sign of $\Delta S(\epsilon)$ decides whether the black hole can split.

What would settle it

Compute the entropy and free energy by an independent method, such as evaluating the on-shell Euclidean action for the Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-AdS metric, and check whether $dM = T dS + \Phi dQ$ and $S = \pi r_+^2$ still hold exactly; a disagreement would alter the signs of the heat capacities and could overturn the no-splitting conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-AdS black hole, whose metric contains a $\mu Q^4/(20r^6)$ self-interaction correction to the Reissner-Nordstrom-AdS solution, the authors derive the temperature $T = \frac{1}{4\pi r_+}\left(1 - \frac{Q^2}{r_+^2} + \frac{\mu Q^4}{4r_+^6} + \frac{3r_+^2}{l^2}\right)$, the Helmholtz free energy $F = \frac{r_+}{4}\left(1 + \frac{3Q^2}{r_+^2} - \frac{7\mu Q^4}{20 r_+^6} - \frac{r_+^2}{l^2}\right)$, and the corresponding grand-canonical quantities. In both ensembles the temperature as a function of horizon radius has a single minimum $T_c$, and the entropy-temperature diagram splits at $T_c$ into an upper branch of large black holes with positive slope and a lower branch of small black holes with negative slope. The paper concludes that the phase transition happens at this lowest temperature, that the large-hole branch is thermodynamically stable while the small-hole branch evaporates, and that the nonlinear factor $\mu$ (bounded by $\mu \le l^2/7$) changes the magnitudes but not this qualitative structure. It further shows, using the entropy difference $\Delta S = \pi(r_1^2 + r_2^2) - \pi r_+^2$ for a split into fractions $\epsilon$ and $1-\epsilon$, that $\Delta S$ stays negative, so fragmentation cannot occur spontaneously.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the standard first law of thermodynamics and the area-law entropy $S=\pi r_+^2$ hold unchanged for this nonlinear electrodynamics black hole, and it does not independently verify that assumption for the Euler-Heisenberg metric.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-AdS black hole inherits the full Reissner-Nordstrom-AdS phase structure: in both ensembles there is a minimum temperature, and for $T > T_c$ a large stable black hole coexists with a small evaporating one.
  • The nonlinear self-interaction shifts the critical temperature, the free energy, and the heat-capacity branches, but it does not create any new phase or change the order of the transition at the minimum temperature.
  • The no-splitting result means that a single Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-AdS black hole with given mass and charge cannot spontaneously fragment into two such black holes while respecting the second law of thermodynamics.
  • Because the allowed range of the self-interaction parameter is constrained by $\mu \le l^2/7$, the paper's stability conclusions hold for all physically admissible values of the nonlinear factor rather than only for a special tuning.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This result suggests that nonlinear electromagnetic corrections of this type act as subleading perturbations that shift, but do not generate, phase structure in four-dimensional static charged AdS black holes; one could test whether higher-order Euler-Heisenberg terms or other nonlinear electrodynamics models behave similarly.
  • The no-splitting argument relies on the area law and the first law for each fragment; if those identities were modified for charged nonlinear sources, the fragmentation picture could change, so an independent check of the first law for the Euler-Heisenberg metric would be valuable.
  • A concrete observable extension: computing quasinormal modes or Lyapunov exponents on the two entropy-temperature branches could provide a dynamical signature of the stable large-hole versus evaporating small-hole distinction that goes beyond the thermodynamic analysis.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the thermodynamics of the Einstein–Euler–Heisenberg–AdS black hole. Starting from the metric (5), the authors derive the Hawking temperature, Helmholtz free energy, entropy, and heat capacity in the canonical ensemble, and a Gibbs potential in the grand canonical ensemble using the electric potential Phi = Q/r+. The central claims are that the electromagnetic self-interaction shifts thermodynamic quantities but does not qualitatively change the Reissner–Nordstrom–AdS phase structure (large black holes stable, small ones evaporate) and that the second law prevents such black holes from splitting. The algebraic definitions of T and F are internally consistent with the stated metric, but the grand-canonical analysis depends on an asserted first law that is not verified and is in fact inconsistent with the paper's own mass formula.

Significance. If the first-law issue were repaired, the paper would provide a useful explicit check that Euler–Heisenberg nonlinear corrections do not qualitatively change the stability and phase structure of charged AdS black holes. The canonical-ensemble computations and the fragmentation entropy-difference argument are straightforward and reproducible from the stated metric, and the paper does not rely on fitted data or circular reasoning. However, the manuscript currently does not establish its two-ensemble claim, because the grand-canonical section is built on an incorrect identification of the electric potential conjugate to the charge.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (16)-(17)] The first law as written is internally inconsistent with the mass formula (7). Since S = pi r_+^2, holding S fixed means holding r_+ fixed, so the correct conjugate to Q is (partial M/partial Q)|_S = (partial M/partial Q)|_{r_+}. From Eq. (7) this gives Q/r_+ - mu Q^3/(10 r_+^5), not Q/r_+ as asserted in Eq. (17), unless mu = 0. Consequently Eqs. (27), (28), (29), (30), (33) and Figures 7-11 in Section IV are not the thermodynamics of this black hole at fixed electrostatic potential. This is not merely an unverified external assumption; it contradicts the paper's own mass formula. The grand-canonical branch of the central claim is therefore unsupported, and the correct conjugate must be derived from the variation of the Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg action before Section IV can be used.
  2. [Section II, Eqs. (10)-(14)] The paper presents r_c, Q_c, and T_c as 'the minimum of Hawking temperature' by imposing both partial T/partial r_+ = 0 and partial^2 T/partial r_+^2 = 0. For a fixed charge Q, however, the minimum temperature solves only partial T/partial r_+ = 0 and is Q-dependent; the simultaneous conditions select a single critical charge. The text and Figures 2-5 do not state which Q and l are used, so the claimed vertical tangent in the entropy-temperature plots at the quoted T_c is not demonstrated for the plotted curves. The phase-transition analysis should be formulated for fixed Q and the relevant stationary point of T(r_+), with the critical point treated as a separate special case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, cross-references] In Section IV, the text says 'by substituting the definition of electric potential like Eq.(17) into the black hole's mass (17) and the temperature (8)', but the mass formula is Eq. (7), not Eq. (17); later references to 'the temperature (23)' should instead refer to Eq. (28).
  2. [Eq. (30)] The expression under the square root in Eq. (30) appears to contain a typo: it should presumably be (1 - Phi^2)^2 + 9 mu Phi^4/l^2 rather than (1 - Phi)^2 + 9 mu Phi^4/l^2, and as printed the parentheses are mismatched.
  3. [Figures 2-11] The figures do not state the values of the AdS radius l and of the charge Q (or potential Phi) used, so the reader cannot reproduce the curves or check whether the plotted critical temperatures agree with Eqs. (14) and (29).
  4. [Figure 6 caption] In the caption of Figure 6, 'ration' should be 'ratio'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the thermodynamic results are derived forward from the metric and standard black-hole thermodynamic identities; the Φ=Q/r+ first-law issue is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

All load-bearing thermodynamic quantities are obtained by substituting the previously published metric function (5) into standard definitions: mass from f(r+)=0 (Eq. 7), Hawking temperature from f'(r+)/4π (Eq. 8), entropy from the area law (Eq. 9), and free energies from M−TS and M−TS−ΦQ (Eqs. 15 and 33). The phase-structure claims (positive heat capacity for large holes, negative for small holes, and no splitting) are then read off from the parametric S(T) curves and from the sign of ΔS (Eq. 26), which are direct consequences of those expressions. No parameter is fitted to the predicted quantities, no conclusion is defined so as to match an input, and no load-bearing step cites the present authors' prior work. The reader-flagged inconsistency—that Φ=Q/r+ is not the true conjugate of Q implied by Eq. (7) when μ≠0—is a possible error in the external first-law assumption, not a circular reduction: the grand-canonical results follow from the assumed Φ, they do not presuppose the RN-AdS phase structure. Hence no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's results rest on the EEH metric and the standard black hole thermodynamic relations. No new entities are introduced, and the only model parameter, mu, is a known coupling from the Euler-Heisenberg theory. The key unverified input is the applicability of the first law and the area law to this nonlinear electrodynamics solution.

free parameters (1)
  • Euler-Heisenberg coupling mu = 0.08, 0.1, 0.14 in plots (physical value fixed by alpha and m_e)
    Treated as a variable in numerical plots; the central qualitative results do not depend on a specific value, but the allowed range mu <= l^2/7 is imposed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian (1) with the quadratic correction accurately describes the electromagnetic self-interaction to one loop.
    The paper adopts this Lagrangian from quantum electrodynamics results [24,25] and uses it as the matter source in the action (3).
  • domain assumption The static spherically symmetric metric (4)-(5) is a valid solution of the Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg equations.
    The metric is taken from prior literature [26,28,29] without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption The black hole entropy is given by the area law S = pi r+^2.
    Standard Bekenstein-Hawking entropy [68], assumed to hold for this solution; not derived.
  • domain assumption The first law of thermodynamics dM = T dS + Phi dQ holds for this black hole.
    Asserted in Eq. (16) with a citation [69] but not verified for the specific nonlinear Lagrangian; the free energy and heat capacity depend on it.
  • standard math The horizon radius is the largest real root of f(r)=0, and the mass is defined by f(r+)=0.
    Standard definition for static black holes; used to express M in Eq. (7).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The thermodynamic stability and phase structure of the Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-AdS black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X7VF4IMO

@misc{pith2026250111075,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The thermodynamic stability and phase structure of the Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-AdS black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X7VF4IMO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11075}
}
abstract

In both canonical ensemble and grand canonical ensemble, the thermodynamic stability and phase structure of Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-AdS black hole are studied. We derive the Hawking temperature, Helmholtz free energy, Gibbs potential, entropy and heat capacity of the black holes. We compute the minimum temperature to find that the phase transition may happen at the lowest point. The entropy-temperature diagram consists of two parts. The upper part belonging to the large black holes under the influence from the electromagnetic self-interactions keeps the positive heat capacity, leading the huge compact objects to survive. The lower curves corresponding to the small ones show that the heat capacity of the tiny black holes is negative, which means that the nonlinear-effect-corrected smaller sources will evaporate. The further discussions show that the nonlinear effect modifies the thermodynamic quantities, but the corrections limited by the nonlinear factor $\mu$ with allowed values can not change the properties and the phase structure fundamentally and thoroughly. We argue that the influence from self-interaction can not make the Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-AdS black holes to split under the second law of thermodynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11075 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The solid, dotted and dashed curves corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The solid, dotted and dashed curves of the Helmholtz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The curves of the entropy of Einstein-Euler [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The curves of the entropy of Einstein-Euler [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The curves of the entropy of Einstein-Euler [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The solid, dashed and dotted curves of entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: It should be pointed out that the curves shapes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The solid, dotted and dashed curves corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The curves of the entropy of Einstein-Euler [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The curves of the entropy of Einstein-Euler [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Shadow and geometric scattering analysis of a new black hole with magnetic charge

    gr-qc 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper derives a magnetically charged black hole metric with a tiny q^6/r^10 correction and claims EHT constraints on the charge, but its naked-singularity branches still have horizons.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes (Oxford University Press, 1992) N

    S. Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes (Oxford University Press, 1992) N. Straumann, General Relativity (Springer Sci- ence+Business Media Dordrecht, 2013)

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    08, 0. 1, 0. 14 respectively. The profiles of curves based on each diagram also resemble each other. If the tempera- ture approaches the critical value Tc, the entropy (19) will become lim T − →Tc SQ = − limT − → Tc ( ∂F ∂r + )Q limT − → Tc ( ∂T ∂r + )Q − → ∞ because of the condition (10) [40, 41]. It is discovered that the tangent line of the entropy func...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The entropy difference between the initial Einstein-Euler- Heisenberg-AdS black hole and the final system includ- ing two black holes is shown graphically in the Figure 6

    − πr 2 + (26) The fragmented black holes have their own horizons r1 and r2 satisfying f1(r1) = 0 and f2(r2) = 0 respectively. The entropy difference between the initial Einstein-Euler- Heisenberg-AdS black hole and the final system includ- ing two black holes is shown graphically in the Figure 6. The figure 6 declares that the difference keeps negative no mat...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (29) with r0 = l√ 6 √ 1 − Φ 2 + √ (1 − Φ) 2 + 9µ Φ 4 l2 (30) There are two valued r+ to support the equation T (r+) > T min, one r+ for smaller black hole and the other for the larger one. In the grand canonical ensembles, the Gibbs free en- ergy is defined as [40, 41], G = M − T S − Φ Q (31) From the first law of thermodynamics of black holes in Eq.(16), t...

    work page

  5. [5]

    LIGO Scientific and Virgo collaborations, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031040 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    LIGO Scientific and Virgo collaborations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    B. P. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241103 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    B. P. Abbott et.al., Phys. Rev. D 94, 064035 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Event Horizon Telescope collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L3 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    A. E. Broderick, R. Narayan, J. Kormendy, E. S. Perl- man, M. J. Rieke, S. S. Doeleman, Astrophys. J. 805, 179 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Event Horizon Telescope collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L1 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Event Horizon Telescope collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L2 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Event Horizon Telescope collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L14 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Event Horizon Telescope collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L4 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Event Horizon Telescope collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L12 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Event Horizon Telescope collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L13 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Bialynicka-Birula, I

    Z. Bialynicka-Birula, I. Bialynicka-Birula, Phys. Re v. D 2, 2341 (1970)

    1970

  10. [18]

    Witten, Adv

    E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 505 (1985)

    1985

  11. [19]

    Gold, Nature (London) 218, 731 (1968)

    T. Gold, Nature (London) 218, 731 (1968)

    1968

  12. [20]

    M. G. Baring, AIP Conf. Proc. 1051, 53 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    A. N. Luiten, J. C. Peterson, Phys. Lett. A 330, 429 (2004)

    2004

  14. [22]

    Brezin, C

    E. Brezin, C. Itzykson, Phys. Rev. D 3, 618 (1971)

    1971

  15. [23]

    de Melo, L

    C. de Melo, L. Medeiros, P. Pompeia, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 30, 1550025 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Brodin, M

    G. Brodin, M. Marklund, L. Stenflo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 171801 (2001)

    2001

  17. [25]

    Heisenberg, H

    W. Heisenberg, H. Euler, Z. Phys. 98, 714 (1936)

    1936

  18. [26]

    Gies, Eur

    H. Gies, Eur. Phys. J. D 55, 311 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    Karbstein, Particles 3, 39 (2020)

    F. Karbstein, Particles 3, 39 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Euler, B

    H. Euler, B. Kockel, Naturwissenschaften 23, 246 (1935 )

    1935

  21. [29]

    Amaro, A

    D. Amaro, A. Macias, Phys. Rev. D 102, 104054 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    S. A. Gutierrez, A. L. Dudley, J. F. Plebaski, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 22, 2835 (1981)

    1981

  23. [31]

    V. A. de Lorenci, R. Klippert, M. Novello, J. M. Salim, Phys. Lett. B 482, 134 (2000)

    2000

  24. [32]

    Ruffini, Y

    R. Ruffini, Y. Wu, S. Xue, Phys. Rev. D 88, 085004 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    B. P. Dolan, Class. Quantum Grav. 28, 125020 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Breton, L

    N. Breton, L. A. Lopez, Phys. Rev. D 104, 024064 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    S. W. Hawking, D. N. Page, Math. Phys. 87, 577 (1983)

    1983

  28. [36]

    Kastor, S

    D. Kastor, S. Ray, J. Traschen, Class. Quantum Grav. 26, 195011 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    B. P. Dolan, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 30, 1540002 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    B. P. Dolan, Class. Quantum Grav. 28, 235017 (2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    Cvetic, C

    M. Cvetic, C. W. Gibbons, D. Kubiznak, C. N. Pope, Phys. Rev. D 84, 024037 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Kubiznak, R

    D. Kubiznak, R. B. Mann, JHEP 1207, 033 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    Chamblin, R

    A. Chamblin, R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson, R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D 60, 104026 (1999)

    1999

  34. [42]

    S. Wu, X. Ge, Y. Liu, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 49, 85 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Kubiznak, R

    D. Kubiznak, R. B. Mann, M. Teo, Class. Quantum Grav. 34, 063001 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Chamblin, R

    A. Chamblin, R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson, R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D 60, 064018 (1999)

    1999

  37. [45]

    R. Li, J. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 102, 024085 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    R. G. Cai, S. P. Kim, B. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 76, 024011 (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    V. G. Czinner, H. Iguchi, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 892 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Mejrhit, S

    K. Mejrhit, S. E. Ennadifi, Phys. Lett. B 794, 45 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    B. Su, N. Li, Nucl. Phys. B 979, 115782 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    B. Su, Y. Wang, N. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 305 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    W. Zhao, G. Liu, N. Li, Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 136, 981 9 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Z. Xu, B. Wu, W. Yang, Phys. Lett. B 821, 136632 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    R. Li, K. Zhang, J. Wang, JHEP 2010, 090 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Mbarek, R

    S. Mbarek, R. B. Mann, JHEP 1902, 103 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    Belhaj, A

    A. Belhaj, A. El Balali, W. Ei Hadri, E. Torrente-Lujan, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135871 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    S. Wei, Y. Liu, R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 102, 104011 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    Zhang, R

    J. Zhang, R. G. Cai, H. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 91, 044028 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    R. Li, K. Zhang, J. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 104, 084060 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    G. A. Marks, F. Simovic, R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 104, 104056 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Kubiznak, R

    D. Kubiznak, R. B. Mann, Can. J. Phys. 93(2015)999

    2015

  53. [61]

    M. U. Shahzad, L. Nosheen, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 470 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Hansen, D

    D. Hansen, D. Kubiznak, R. B. Mann, JHEP 1701, 047 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    Y. Hu, H. Zeng, Z. Jiang, H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 100, 084004 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Y. Hu, L. Cai, X. Liang, S. Kong, H. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 822, 136661 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    Chaturvedi, S

    P. Chaturvedi, S. Mondal, G. Sengupta, Phys. Rev. D 98, 086016 (2018)

    2018

  58. [66]

    Abdusattar, Phys

    H. Abdusattar, Phys. Dark Universe 40, 101228 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    It is necessary to scrutinize the thermodynamic char- acteristics of Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-AdS (EEH-AdS) black hole under different conditions of fixed charge or fixed potential

    derived and computed the thermodynamic quantities of phantom AdS black holes to show the Hawking-Page phase transition and the sign of heat capacity graphically [67]. It is necessary to scrutinize the thermodynamic char- acteristics of Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-AdS (EEH-AdS) b...

  60. [68]

    M. Ma, R. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 751, 278 (2015)

    2015

  61. [69]

    S. G. Ghosh, L. Tannukij, P. Wongjun, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 119 (2016)

    2016

  62. [70]

    Z. Mai, R. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 104, 044008 (2021)

    2021

  63. [71]

    Abdusattar, Eur

    H. Abdusattar, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 614 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333 (1973)

    1973

  65. [73]

    D. F. Jardim, M. E. Rodrigues, M. J. S. Houndjo, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 127, 123 (2012)

    2012

  66. [74]

    Emparan, R

    R. Emparan, R. C. Myers, JHEP 0309, 025 (2003)

    2003

  67. [75]

    B. Gwak, B. H. Lee, D. Ro, Phys. Lett. B 761, 437 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

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