Phase Diagram Magnetic Features of Holographic Anisotropic Model for $z^4$-term Heavy Quarks

Kristina Rannu

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 19 references

Phase Diagram Magnetic Features of Holographic Anisotropic Model for $z^4$-term Heavy Quarks

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a holographic anisotropic heavy-quark model, the confinement/deconfinement transition temperature rises with the magnetic-field parameter for both the first-order transition and the temporal Wilson loop crossover, while the string…

desk verdict Incremental but legitimate holographic phase-diagram paper; the new WLx3 line and string-tension scan are real, but the headline string-tension result leans on an un-derived dilaton boundary and the direct catalysis is built into the model. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09580 v1 pith:XLHMTRIZ submitted 2025-05-14 hep-th

Kristina Rannu This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords AdS/QCDholographyphasetransitionWilsonloopsstringtensionheavyquarksmagneticfieldcatalysis

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 sets out to show that a previously constructed five-dimensional anisotropic holographic model of heavy quarks in a hot, dense, magnetized plasma exhibits direct magnetic catalysis: as the magnetic-field parameter $q_3$ grows, the temperature of the confinement/deconfinement transition rises. The evidence comes from two independent probes. The first-order phase transition, located by the swallow-tail of the free energy, moves up in temperature with $q_3$ (Figs. 7 and 11), and the temporal Wilson loop crossover, found where the dynamical-wall equations lose real solutions, moves up as well (Fig. 9). The string tension, extracted from the Wilson loop asymptotics, falls by roughly three orders of magnitude when $q_3$ increases by one order (Fig. 12). If the claim holds, the model gives a holographic realization of direct magnetic catalysis for heavy quarks, which the introduction states as the objective of the model construction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the anisotropic black-hole background of the five-dimensional gravitational theory with a dilaton and three Abelian gauge fields, with warp factor $b(z)=e^{2A(z)}=e^{-cz^2/2 - 2(p-c_B q_3)z^4}$, where $z$ is the holographic radial coordinate, $q_3$ is the magnetic-field charge, $c_B$ the secondary-anisotropy coefficient, and $\nu$ the primary-anisotropy parameter. Temperature and entropy are read at the horizon $z_h$; the first-order transition is located by the self-intersecting 'swallow-tail' of the free energy $F=-\int s\,dT$. For the Wilson loops, the paper uses the string world-sheet action, defines an effective potential $V(z)$, and finds its stationary 'dynamical wall' point $z_{DW}$; the string tension is $\sigma=M\sqrt{F}$ evaluated at $z_{DW}$ or, if no wall exists, at the horizon. The dilaton boundary $z_0=3e^{-z_h/2}+0.1$ is adopted for the string-tension plots.

What would settle it

Recompute the string tension at fixed $(\mu,T)$ with the earlier dilaton boundary $z_0=e^{-z_h/4}+0.1$ instead of $z_0=3e^{-z_h/2}+0.1$ and compare the ratio $\sigma(q_3=0.1)/\sigma(q_3=1)$; if the claimed three-order magnetic suppression does not survive, the boundary choice, not the model, is driving the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in the anisotropic heavy-quark holographic model, both probes of confinement/deconfinement respond to the magnetic-field parameter $q_3$ in the same direction: the first-order transition temperature and the temporal Wilson loop crossover temperature both increase with $q_3$, i.e. direct magnetic catalysis. The free-energy 'swallow-tail' determines the first-order line, and the loss of real solutions of the dynamical-wall equations for the Wilson loops determines the crossover. The string tension extracted from the Wilson loop asymptotics decreases with the magnetic field, with about three orders of magnitude difference in $\sigma$ for one order of magnitude in $q_3$, so the confining region in the $(\mu,T)$ plane shrinks as the magnetic field grows. The author states that the direct magnetic catalysis is 'clearly seen' in the phase diagram.

Load-bearing premise

The string-tension results rest on the un-derived choice of where the dilaton field, the scalar field of the model, is set to zero, $z_0=3e^{-z_h/2}+0.1$, which the paper calls optimal without a derivation; if a different boundary is correct, the magnetic-field dependence of the string tension could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The first-order transition temperature rises with $q_3$ for fixed negative $c_B$, so the thermodynamic probe realizes direct magnetic catalysis.
The temporal Wilson loop crossover temperature also rises with $q_3$, so the two probes agree on the direction of the effect.
Larger $|c_B|$ strengthens the $q_3$-dependence and can suppress the first-order transition at small $q_3$, while primary anisotropy $\nu$ lowers the transition temperature but stabilizes the transition.
The string tension falls by about three orders of magnitude when $q_3$ grows by one order, and the confinement region in the $(\mu,T)$ plane is bounded by the first-order line and the crossover.

Reading between the lines

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

The author does not derive the dilaton boundary $z_0=3e^{-z_h/2}+0.1$; if a principle-based boundary replaces it, the quantitative three-order suppression of the string tension may not survive, even though the qualitative direction of catalysis might.
Mapping the two independent magnetic parameters $c_B$ and $q_3$ onto a physical magnetic field and collision geometry would turn the predicted $T_c(q_3)$ curves into a direct quantitative test against lattice and heavy-ion data.
The same Wilson-loop machinery could be extended one step further to the full static quark-antiquark potential with a Coulomb plus linear term; comparing its magnetic-field dependence with the string tension would show whether the catalysis is carried by the linear confinement term alone or by the whole potential.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a modest, honest extension of the author's holographic heavy-quark program. The genuinely new pieces are real: the WLx3 temporal Wilson loop line and the string-tension scan for the z^4 warp-factor model from [1]. But the paper's most striking quantitative claim—string tension dropping about three orders of magnitude when q3 rises by one order (Fig. 12)—is not established, because it leans on an un-derived dilaton boundary z0.

What the paper does well: the holographic thermodynamics and Nambu-Goto machinery are standard, the equations are stated, and the limits cB=0, ν=1 correctly reduce to earlier results. The extension is incremental but legitimate; the citation pattern is appropriate, with prior model papers [1,4,5] being exactly where the WLx1/WLx2 curves were computed. The author is also honest about limitations, which counts.

The soft spots are in proportion. First, the direct magnetic catalysis reported in Section 3 is inherited from the model construction, as Section 2 says explicitly: the warp factor and f0 were chosen to produce it. The phase diagram is still a concrete output for this model, but it is not independent evidence for catalysis. Second, and load-bearing, the string tension depends on z0 = 3 e^{-zh/2} + 0.1, called 'considered optimal' with no derivation or sensitivity analysis. Because z0 depends on zh, changing the boundary rescales ϕ by a zh-dependent constant and changes σDW in (4.14). The Discussion itself concedes that the dilaton boundary question 'retains its importance.' Without a sensitivity test, the three-order drop in Fig. 12 could be an artifact of the choice. Third, the manuscript is sloppy: duplicated captions, typos like 'asitropic' and 'anisoropic', and title says z^4 while the Discussion says z^5. These are fixable.

Who this is for: holographic QCD/QGP specialists who want the phase diagram of this particular model as a fitting tool. A serious referee should engage with it, but the requested revision should include a sensitivity analysis of z0, a clear statement that direct catalysis is model input rather than prediction, and cleanup. I would send it out, not desk-reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper computes thermodynamical and Wilson-loop observables in a five-dimensional Einstein-dilaton-three-Maxwell anisotropic holographic model for heavy quarks whose warp factor contains a z^4 term (Eq. (2.5)), extending the solution found in [1]. Using the explicit blackening function, temperature and entropy, the author constructs the free energy and locates the first-order transition by a swallowtail; the transition temperature rises with the magnetic parameter q3 for fixed cB, which is reported as direct magnetic catalysis (Figs. 3-7). Temporal Wilson loops are evaluated in the Nambu-Goto approximation, dynamical-wall equations for three spatial orientations are derived (Eqs. (4.16)-(4.18)), and the boundaries where the dynamical wall disappears are interpreted as a confinement-deconfinement crossover (Figs. 9-10). Combined phase diagrams (Fig. 11) and string-tension density plots (Fig. 12) are presented, with the claim that increasing q3 by one order reduces the normalized string tension by roughly three orders of magnitude (Section 5). The paper concludes that the model reproduces direct magnetic catalysis while remaining flexible enough for fitting lattice and experimental data.

Significance. The computations follow standard, clearly stated holographic thermodynamics and Nambu-Goto minimal-surface techniques; the equations for T, s, F, the dynamical-wall conditions, and the solution in Appendix A are explicit and reproducible. If the claims hold, the paper's useful content is a compact phenomenological phase diagram for a heavy-quark anisotropic model: the interplay of the first-order transition and the Wilson-loop crossover under direct magnetic catalysis, including the cases (A)-(D) of magnetic-field parametrization and the orientation-dependent Wilson-loop equations. The most striking quantitative result, the three-order-of-magnitude drop of the string tension with q3, is, however, not yet established because it rests on a single ad hoc dilaton-boundary choice, which weakens the headline claim. The qualitative direct-catalysis trend is also an input of the model rather than an output. Genuine strengths include the explicit, falsifiable predictions (phase-boundary shapes in the (mu,T) plane and the orientation dependence encoded in Eqs. (4.16)-(4.18)) that could be compared with lattice data, and the complete statement of the solution functions in the appendix.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, Eqs. (A.3) and (4.14), Fig. 12; Section 5] The central quantitative result, that sigma/sigma0 drops by roughly three orders of magnitude when q3 goes from 0.1 to 1 (Section 5, Fig. 12), rests entirely on the un-derived dilaton boundary z0 = 3 exp(-zh/2) + 0.1 introduced in Section 4. The dilaton phi(z) is defined in Eq. (A.3) as an integral from an arbitrary boundary z0, so changing the boundary adds a zh-dependent constant to phi, rescales the string-frame warp factor bs(z) = b(z) exp(sqrt(2/3) phi(z)), and shifts both the dynamical-wall position and sigma_DW = M(z_DW) sqrt(F(z_DW)) in Eq. (4.14). The paper states only that this expression is 'considered optimal', and the Discussion itself concedes that 'the question on the dilaton boundary retains its importance'. As written, the three-order drop is not robustly established. Please add a sensitivity analysis over the boundary formula (for example z0 = a exp(-b zh) + c over a plausible range of a, b, c), or derive z0 from an independent requirement, and restate the string-tension conclusion accordingly.
[Section 2 (Eqs. (2.5)-(2.6)) and Section 3 (Figs. 7, 9)] The paper reports direct magnetic catalysis as a key outcome ('The direct magnetic catalysis is clearly seen', Section 3), but this qualitative behavior is an input to the model: Section 2 states that the warp factor and the electric Maxwell coupling were chosen precisely 'to provide the direct magnetic catalysis effect', and Section 1 recalls that producing this effect was the main objective of the model [1]. Consequently, the rising transition temperature with q3 in Figs. 7 and 9 is inherited from the ansatz rather than a prediction. Please separate explicitly in the text which properties are imposed by construction and which are computed (e.g., the shape of the T_c(mu) curves, the hierarchy between the first-order and crossover boundaries, and the cB-driven switch from direct to inverse catalysis in Fig. 10), and, as a concrete robustness check, state what happens to the phase diagram when the z^4 coupling (p - cB q3) in Eq. (2.5) is switched off.
[Section 4, Eqs. (4.16)-(4.18), Figs. 9 and 11] The Wilson-loop crossover is defined as the boundary where Eqs. (4.16)-(4.18) stop having real solutions, but these equations cover only the three principal orientations x1, x2, x3. The Nambu-Goto effective potential (4.6)-(4.7) depends on the full orientation through g1 cos^2 theta sin^2 alpha + g2 sin^2 theta sin^2 alpha + g3 cos^2 alpha, and for a general orientation the turning-point condition is not any of (4.16)-(4.18); the crossover line may therefore be orientation dependent. Since the phase diagram of Fig. 11 is built from the WLx3 line, please state explicitly which orientation is shown in Figs. 9 and 11 and justify treating this single direction as representative, or determine the crossover condition for intermediate orientations.

minor comments (7)

[Title and Section 5] The Discussion states 'This work investigates the z5-correction in the holographic warp factor exponent', while the title and abstract say 'z^4-term' and the warp factor (2.5) contains a z^4 term; unify the terminology.
[Section 5, first paragraph] The first sentence of the Discussion, 'Both 1-st order phase transition and confinement-deconfinement phase transition, originating from TWL', is an incomplete fragment; complete or delete it.
[Figure captions and Section 2] There are numerous typos that should be corrected in proof: 'catasysis' (Section 2), 'extent' for 'extend' (Introduction), 'asitropic' (Fig. 7), 'anisoropic' (Fig. 11), and 'a-st line' and 'w-nd line' (Fig. 10).
[Figures 1-7] In the compiled text the captions of Figures 1 through 7 appear twice in immediate succession; if this duplication is present in the manuscript source rather than in the extraction pipeline, remove the duplicate captions so each figure appears once.
[Eq. (4.14) and Fig. 12] State the dimensional conventions used for the reported string tension: Eq. (4.14) defines sigma_DW from the reduced action without the 1/(2 pi alpha') prefactor, and Fig. 12 gives only normalized quantities; a sentence fixing the L and alpha' conventions would make sigma/sigma0 quantitatively interpretable.
[Figs. 7, 9, 11 and Fig. 12] Units are given for mu, zh and T only in Fig. 12; state the units (presumably GeV and GeV^-1, as in Fig. 12) used in all other phase-diagram plots, or state that all quantities are in the same units throughout.
[Section 3, text after Fig. 5] Minor wording: 'Fig.1-2 show, that' should be 'Figs. 1-2 show that', and 'the larger absolute cB value is, the lesser gap' should be rephrased as 'the larger the absolute value of cB, the smaller the gap'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Direct magnetic catalysis is designed into the ansatz (Eq. 2.5), so its 'observation' is not independent; quantitative phase diagram and string tension remain computed, not fitted.

self definitional [Section 2, Eq. (2.5); Section 3, text after Fig. 7]
"To provide the the direct magnetic catasysis effect the warp factor and the “electric” Maxwell field coupling function are chosen as [1] b(z) = e^{2A(z)} = e^{−cz^2/2 −2(p−c_B q_3) z^4}, f_0 = e^{−(R_gg + c_B q_3/2) z^2} z^{−2+2/ν} √b,"

The warp factor (2.5) is explicitly selected to produce the direct magnetic catalysis effect, with q3 entering the exponent by hand. The temperature (3.1), the swallow-tail free energy, and the first-order transition line are functionals of this b(z), so the later statement in Section 3 that 'The direct magnetic catalysis is clearly seen' reports the design input of the ansatz rather than an independent prediction. The quantitative positions of the phase-transition and crossover curves are computed rather than fitted, but the qualitative direction of the magnetic-field dependence is built into the model from [1].

full rationale

The paper is a continuation of [1] by the same group, and the model in [1] was explicitly constructed to produce direct magnetic catalysis: 'the main objective of the model was to get the effect of direct magnetic catalysis' and 'To provide the direct magnetic catalysis effect the warp factor and the electric Maxwell field coupling function are chosen as [1]'. The subsequent statement in Section 3 that 'The direct magnetic catalysis is clearly seen' therefore reports the design goal of the ansatz, not a prediction that could have failed. This is the one genuinely circular element: the qualitative direction of the magnetic-field dependence of the transition temperature is an input of b(z), not a consequence derived independently of the construction. On the other hand, the quantitative phase-diagram curves (swallow-tail position, Wilson-loop crossover lines from Eqs. (4.16)-(4.18), and the string-tension maps in Fig. 12) are computed rather than fitted to the claimed effect; the constants Rgg and p come from Regge-spectrum fits, not from the magnetic-catalysis target. Thus this is not a case of a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The string-tension claim is additionally weakened by the un-derived choice z0 = 3e^{-zh/2} + 0.1, called 'considered optimal', and by the author's own caveat that 'the question on the dilaton boundary retains its importance'. That is a robustness and support gap, not circularity, because z0 is not fitted to the string-tension result and no sensitivity analysis is given. Overall, the central qualitative claim is partially circular by construction, while the quantitative content has independent computational content, giving a score of 6.

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

The central results rest on prior model-building choices: the action and background solution from [1] are taken as given, the warp factor and coupling were chosen to enforce direct magnetic catalysis, and the string tension uses a hand-picked dilaton boundary. Rgg and p are fitted to Regge spectra; cB and q3 are scanned without physical unit mapping.

free parameters (6)

Rgg = 1.16
Sets c=4Rgg/3 in the warp factor; fitted to Regge spectra of mesons in [18].
p = 0.273
Coefficient of the z^4 term in the warp factor; fitted to Regge spectra in [18].
cB = scanned: -0.1, -0.3, -0.4, -0.5, -0.6, -0.8, -1, -1.2, -2, -5
Secondary anisotropy or magnetic metric coefficient; chosen negative to satisfy NEC (Table 1).
q3 = scanned: 0, 0.1, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6
Magnetic field parameter controlling magnetic catalysis; no physical units attached.
nu = 1 and 4.5
Primary anisotropy parameter; values chosen to represent isotropic and anisotropic cases.
z0 = 3 exp(-zh/2) + 0.1
Dilaton boundary for string tension calculations; 'considered optimal' without derivation in Section 4.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Einstein-dilaton-three-Maxwell action (2.1) provides a valid bottom-up holographic description of heavy-quark QGP in a magnetic field.
The paper uses this action and does not motivate it from QCD beyond prior work.
domain assumption The background solution (A.1)-(A.6) from [1] is taken as given and not re-derived.
All subsequent thermodynamics and Wilson loop calculations assume this solution solves the equations of motion.
standard math Standard holographic dictionary identifications apply: Hawking temperature, horizon entropy, Nambu-Goto minimal surfaces.
The paper applies standard AdS/CFT prescriptions without revisiting their validity.
ad hoc to paper The warp factor and f0 are chosen to enforce direct magnetic catalysis.
Section 2 states these functions are chosen 'to provide the direct magnetic catalysis effect', so the qualitative outcome is an input.
ad hoc to paper The 'optimal' dilaton boundary z0 = 3e^{-zh/2} + 0.1 is imposed for string tension.
Section 4 declares this expression optimal without derivation or sensitivity analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase Diagram Magnetic Features of Holographic Anisotropic Model for $z^4$-term Heavy Quarks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XLHMTRIZ

@misc{pith2026250509580,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase Diagram Magnetic Features of Holographic Anisotropic Model for $z^4$-term Heavy Quarks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XLHMTRIZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09580}
}

read the original abstract

Thermodynamical features depending on magnetic field of the previously found five-dimensional anisotropic holographic solution for heavy quarks supported by Einstein-dilaton-three-Maxwell action with extended warp factor and improved coupling function for the Maxwell field providing chemical potential are studied. Direct/inverse magnetic catalysis behavior is considered. Phase diagram, composed of the 1-st order phase transition and temporal Wilson loops, corresponding to the stable direct magnetic catalysis scenario is presented. String tension behavior in magnetic field is discussed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[1]

Magnetic catalysis in holographic model with two types of anisotropy for heavy quarks

I. Y. Aref’eva, A. Hajilou, K. Rannu and P. Slepov, “Magnetic catalysis in holographic model with two types of anisotropy for heavy quarks”, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.12, 1143 [arXiv:2305.06345 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2023
[2]

Magnetic catalysis and anisotropic confinement in QCD

V. A. Miransky and I. A. Shovkovy, “Magnetic catalysis and anisotropic confinement in QCD”, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002), 045006 [arXiv:hep-ph/0205348 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2002
[3]

Magnetic Catalysis: A Review

I. A. Shovkovy, “Magnetic Catalysis: A Review”, Lect. Notes Phys. 871 (2013), 13-49 [arXiv:1207.5081 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2013
[4]

Holographic Anisotropic Background with Confinement-Deconfinement Phase Transition

I. Ya. Aref’eva and K. A. Rannu, “Holographic Anisotropic Background with Confinement-Deconfinement Phase Transition”, JHEP 05, 206 (2018), [arXiv:1802.05652 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2018
[5]

Orientation dependence of confinement-deconfinement phase transition in anisotropic media

I. Ya. Aref’eva, K. A. Rannu and P. S. Slepov, “Orientation dependence of confinement-deconfinement phase transition in anisotropic media”, PLB 792, 470 (2019), [arXiv:1808.05596 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2019
[6]

Holographic Anisotropic Model for Heavy Quarks in Anisotropic Hot Dense QGP with External Magnetic Field

I. Ya. Aref’eva, K. A. Rannu and P. S. Slepov, “Holographic Anisotropic Model for Heavy Quarks in Anisotropic Hot Dense QGP with External Magnetic Field”, JHEP 07, 161 (2021) [arXiv:2011.07023 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2021
[7]

Running coupling for holographic QCD with heavy and light quarks: Isotropic case

I. Y. Aref’eva, A. Hajilou, P. Slepov and M. Usova, “Running coupling for holographic QCD with heavy and light quarks: Isotropic case”, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.12, 126009 [arXiv:2402.14512 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2024
[8]

Holographic QCD running coupling for light quarks in strong magnetic field

I. Y. Aref’eva, A. Hajilou, A. Nikolaev and P. Slepov, “Holographic QCD running coupling for light quarks in strong magnetic field”, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.8, 8 [arXiv:2407.11924 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2024

Show all 19 references

[9]

Beta-function dependence on the running coupling in holographic QCD models

I. Y. Aref’eva, A. Hajilou, P. Slepov and M. Usova, “Beta-function dependence on the running coupling in holographic QCD models”, Teor. Mat. Fiz. 221 (2024) no.3, 2132-2143 [arXiv:2407.14448 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[10]

Magnetic versus inverse magnetic catalysis in hot and dense quark matter

P. Slepov, “Magnetic versus inverse magnetic catalysis in hot and dense quark matter”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 39 (2024) no.35, 2443015

2024
[11]

Holographic β-Function for Light and Heavy Quarks Models

M. K. Usova, “Holographic β-Function for Light and Heavy Quarks Models”, Moscow Univ. Phys. Bull. 79 (2024) no.Suppl 1, 551-554

2024
[12]

In Search of Magnetic Catalysis for Heavy Quarks in Anisotropic Holographic Model

A. Hajilou, “In Search of Magnetic Catalysis for Heavy Quarks in Anisotropic Holographic Model”, Moscow Univ. Phys. Bull. 79 (2024) no.Suppl 1, 543-546 [arXiv:2410.16815 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[13]

Beta-functions and RG flows for – 16 – holographic QCD with heavy and light quarks: Isotropic case

I. Y. Aref’eva, A. Hajilou, P. Slepov and M. Usova, “Beta-functions and RG flows for – 16 – holographic QCD with heavy and light quarks: Isotropic case”, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) no.4, 046013 [arXiv:2503.09444 [hep-th]]

2025 arXiv
[14]

Holographic QCD Running Coupling for Heavy Quarks in Strong Magnetic Field

I. Y. Aref’eva, A. Hajilou, A. Nikolaev and P. Slepov, “Holographic QCD Running Coupling for Heavy Quarks in Strong Magnetic Field”, [arXiv:2503.07521 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[15]

Holographic Anisotropic Model for Light Quarks with Confinement-Deconfinement Phase Transition

I. Aref’eva, K. Rannu and P. Slepov, “Holographic Anisotropic Model for Light Quarks with Confinement-Deconfinement Phase Transition”, JHEP 06, 090 (2021) [arXiv:2009.05562 [hep-th]]

2021 arXiv
[16]

Holographic model for light quarks in anisotropic hot dense QGP with external magnetic field

I. Y. Aref’eva, A. Ermakov, K. Rannu and P. Slepov, “Holographic model for light quarks in anisotropic hot dense QGP with external magnetic field”, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.1, 79 (2023) [arXiv:2203.12539 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[17]

Anisotropic solution of the holographic model of light quarks with an external magnetic field

I. Y. Aref’eva, K. A. Rannu and P. S. Slepov, “Anisotropic solution of the holographic model of light quarks with an external magnetic field”, Theor. Math. Phys. 210, no.3, 363-367 (2022)

2022
[18]

Analytic Study of Magnetic Catalysis in Holographic QCD

S. Hea, Y. Yang and P.-H. Yuan, “Analytic Study of Magnetic Catalysis in Holographic QCD”, [arXiv:2004.01965 [hep-th]]

2004 arXiv
[19]

Phase Transition of Anisotropic Hot Dense QGP in Magnetic Field: z5-term Holography for Heavy Quarks

K. Rannu, “Phase Transition of Anisotropic Hot Dense QGP in Magnetic Field: z5-term Holography for Heavy Quarks”, [arXiv:2405.07881 [hep-th]] – 17 –

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Magnetic catalysis in holographic model with two types of anisotropy for heavy quarks

I. Y. Aref’eva, A. Hajilou, K. Rannu and P. Slepov, “Magnetic catalysis in holographic model with two types of anisotropy for heavy quarks”, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.12, 1143 [arXiv:2305.06345 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2023

[2] [2]

Magnetic catalysis and anisotropic confinement in QCD

V. A. Miransky and I. A. Shovkovy, “Magnetic catalysis and anisotropic confinement in QCD”, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002), 045006 [arXiv:hep-ph/0205348 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2002

[3] [3]

Magnetic Catalysis: A Review

I. A. Shovkovy, “Magnetic Catalysis: A Review”, Lect. Notes Phys. 871 (2013), 13-49 [arXiv:1207.5081 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2013

[4] [4]

Holographic Anisotropic Background with Confinement-Deconfinement Phase Transition

I. Ya. Aref’eva and K. A. Rannu, “Holographic Anisotropic Background with Confinement-Deconfinement Phase Transition”, JHEP 05, 206 (2018), [arXiv:1802.05652 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2018

[5] [5]

Orientation dependence of confinement-deconfinement phase transition in anisotropic media

I. Ya. Aref’eva, K. A. Rannu and P. S. Slepov, “Orientation dependence of confinement-deconfinement phase transition in anisotropic media”, PLB 792, 470 (2019), [arXiv:1808.05596 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2019

[6] [6]

Holographic Anisotropic Model for Heavy Quarks in Anisotropic Hot Dense QGP with External Magnetic Field

I. Ya. Aref’eva, K. A. Rannu and P. S. Slepov, “Holographic Anisotropic Model for Heavy Quarks in Anisotropic Hot Dense QGP with External Magnetic Field”, JHEP 07, 161 (2021) [arXiv:2011.07023 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2021

[7] [7]

Running coupling for holographic QCD with heavy and light quarks: Isotropic case

I. Y. Aref’eva, A. Hajilou, P. Slepov and M. Usova, “Running coupling for holographic QCD with heavy and light quarks: Isotropic case”, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.12, 126009 [arXiv:2402.14512 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

Holographic QCD running coupling for light quarks in strong magnetic field

I. Y. Aref’eva, A. Hajilou, A. Nikolaev and P. Slepov, “Holographic QCD running coupling for light quarks in strong magnetic field”, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.8, 8 [arXiv:2407.11924 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2024