Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 110 references

Holographic Fractional Order Phase Transitions in CFTs Dual to AdS Black Holes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The two kinds of Davies points are fractional phase transitions of order 3/2 and 4/3 in the CFT duals of AdS black holes.

desk verdict The 3/2 vs 4/3 Ehrenfest classification is sound for RN and ModMax, but the Kaniadakis leg rests on an uncontrolled small-κ truncation and needs validation before the headline claim holds across all three models. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21947 v2 pith:ZZGSZ6NC submitted 2025-06-27 hep-th

Abhishek Baruah , Prabwal Phukon This is my paper
classification hep-th PACS 04.70.-s05.70.Fh11.25.Tq
keywords fractionalphasetransitionsgeneralizedEhrenfestclassificationDaviespointsAdS/CFTcorrespondenceRN-AdSblackholesModMaxelectrodynamicsKaniadakisentropyderivatives
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 sets out to show that the generalized Ehrenfest classification, which reads the order of a phase transition from fractional derivatives of the free energy, can distinguish the two types of Davies points in the boundary CFT descriptions of AdS black holes. It claims that a Davies point where the temperature profile has an extremum hosts a fractional phase transition of order $\alpha = 3/2$, whereas the Davies point that is a temperature inflection, namely the critical point, hosts an order $\alpha = 4/3$ transition. This $3/2$ versus $4/3$ pattern is reported for RN-AdS, ModMax-AdS, and Kaniadakis-deformed RN-AdS black holes. The distinction matters because both types of Davies point show the same divergent heat capacity, so the usual thermodynamic analysis cannot tell them apart; the fractional order gives a finer fingerprint of the boundary phase structure.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the fractional-order Ehrenfest test: expand the free energy near the transition point in dimensionless variables and look for the smallest $\alpha$ at which the fractional derivative $D^\alpha_t F$ has a finite jump rather than being continuous or divergent. The equation of state is quartic in $\rho$, and its branches near the Davies point carry fractional powers of $t$, such as $\sqrt{-t}$ or $t^{2/3}$, which propagate into $F(t)$ as $(-t)^{3/2}$ or $t^{4/3}$ terms. Those leading fractional powers set the observed order: $3/2$ at temperature extrema and $4/3$ at the inflection-type critical point, with the same structure recurring across the three black hole systems.

What would settle it

Repeat the series expansion at a different parameter set: for RN-AdS take $Q=0.4$ or $Q=0.7$ at the left Davies point and evaluate $\lim_{t\to 0^-} D^{3/2}F$; if the limit is zero or divergent rather than a finite nonzero constant, the $3/2$ order claim fails. For the Kaniadakis model, run the same calculation at $\kappa=0.1$ or with the untruncated entropy to see whether the critical point still yields $4/3$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the order of the CFT phase transition at a Davies point is fixed by the local shape of the temperature profile: an extremum gives $\alpha = 3/2$, while an inflection gives $\alpha = 4/3$. Concretely, expanding the CFT equation of state near the Davies point in the dimensionless variables $T = T_c(1+t)$, $S = S_c(1+\rho)$, $Q = Q_c(1+q)$ turns it into a quartic in $\rho$ whose solutions contain fractional powers of $t$; the leading fractional term in the free energy is $(-t)^{3/2}$ near temperature extrema and $t^{4/3}$ near the critical point. Using fractional derivatives of the free energy, $D^\alpha F$ is continuous for $\alpha$ below the order, has a finite jump at the order, and diverges above it, which identifies the transition order. The same $3/2$ versus $4/3$ pattern is obtained for RN-AdS, ModMax-AdS, and Kaniadakis-modified RN-AdS black holes. Under the particular constraint $2t+8q=0$, the critical point of RN-AdS and ModMax-AdS switches to $3/2$, whereas both critical points of the Kaniadakis model remain $4/3$, showing that the order is path-dependent and model-dependent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the leading fractional power read from a series expansion at one representative parameter choice fixes the transition order across the whole allowed parameter range, and that the small-$\kappa$ truncation and the hand-picked path $2t+8q=0$ do not change that order.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Heat-capacity divergence alone does not fix the order of a phase transition; the local shape of the temperature profile does.
  • The generalized Ehrenfest classification transfers from bulk black hole thermodynamics to the boundary CFT side for these three models.
  • Along the special path $2t+8q=0$, the critical point of RN-AdS and ModMax-AdS shows a $3/2$ transition that is absent in the bulk formulation, indicating boundary-specific critical features.
  • With Kaniadakis entropy, two critical points appear and both keep order $4/3$ even on constrained paths, so the entropy model can remove path sensitivity of the transition order.
  • The fractional order is not universal: it depends on both the underlying spacetime theory and the entropy statistics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $3/2$ versus $4/3$ split is robust across parameters, the fractional derivative order could serve as a boundary diagnostic that separates extremum-type instabilities from genuine critical points in holographic duals, possibly with analogues in systems where fractional derivatives of thermodynamic potentials are measurable.
  • The hand-picked path $2t+8q=0$ suggests the critical point may have direction-dependent transition order; one natural extension is to map all directions in the $(t,q)$ plane and check whether $4/3$ is generic and $3/2$ exceptional.
  • Because the Kaniadakis calculation truncates in small $\kappa$ without an error estimate, the natural stress test is to repeat it at larger $\kappa$ or with the untruncated entropy; a change in order would indicate an artifact of the truncation.
  • The same fractional-derivative diagnostic could be applied to ordinary first-order transition lines, not only Davies points, extending the classification beyond divergent-heat-capacity loci.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies a generalized Ehrenfest classification based on Caputo fractional derivatives of the free energy to the CFT thermodynamics of three AdS black hole families: Reissner-Nordström-AdS, ModMax-AdS, and RN-AdS with Kaniadakis entropy. It claims that Davies points of the first type, where the temperature has a local extremum, correspond to fractional phase transitions of order alpha=3/2, while the critical point, where the temperature has an inflection, corresponds to order alpha=4/3. The claim is worked out through series expansions of the CFT equation of state near the Davies/critical points, with explicit expansions for the free energy and with limiting behavior of fractional derivatives used to identify the transition order. Under a specially chosen path 2t+8q=0, the authors find 3/2 for RN-AdS and ModMax-AdS, whereas for the Kaniadakis case both critical points yield 4/3 under the analogous constrained paths. The paper states that these results are consistent with earlier bulk-side results [104,106].

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a clean, parameter-free classification on the CFT side: temperature-extremum Davies points give a t^{3/2} free-energy term and hence a 3/2-order transition, while inflection-type critical points give a t^{4/3} term and a 4/3-order transition. For RN-AdS and ModMax-AdS the local scaling argument is independent of the particular numerical values used in the illustrations, and the series expansions are explicit and checkable. This is a useful extension of earlier gravitational-side studies to the boundary CFT, and the paper is appropriately careful in marking the 4/3 result as the generic one and the 3/2 constrained-path result as a special case. However, the Kaniadakis section, which is load-bearing for the claimed model-dependence of the constrained-path order, rests on an uncontrolled small-kappa truncation and on a special-path construction that appears internally inconsistent; those points need substantial work before the headline claim is fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (72)-(77), (89), (96)] The Kaniadakis leg of the paper is built on a small-kappa expansion in which E and T are truncated at order kappa^2 before locating the critical points. For the first critical point, kappa*Sc = 0.016*19.339 ≈ 0.309, so kappa^2*Sc^2 ≈ 0.096; for the second critical point kappa*Sc ≈ 0.114. The omitted kappa^4 terms are therefore not negligible compared with the retained kappa^2 corrections, yet no error estimate, next-order check, or parameter scan is provided. If the truncated equation of state shifts the critical points or changes the local degeneracy of T(S), the claimed alpha=4/3 critical behavior—and the contrast with the RN/ModMax result—would not survive. The authors should verify the result with an explicit remainder bound, with a next-order calculation, or with a scan over kappa, and should state the range of kappa for which the truncation is controlled.
  2. [Section IV.B, Eqs. (90), (94), (97), (101)] The special-path construction is not implemented consistently. For the first Kaniadakis critical point the constraint is 2q+712.141t=0, i.e. q=-356.0705t. Substituting this into the last parenthesis of Eq. (90) gives q^2+2q-712.141t = 126787t^2 - 1424.28t, which still contains a linear term; Eq. (94) similarly retains a residual -0.001t term. The constrained direction therefore does not cancel the linear term that, in the RN-AdS case, changes the scaling of rho(t) from t^{1/3} to sqrt(t). Since the claimed 3/2-versus-4/3 contrast along fine-tuned paths depends on this cancellation, the derivation must be corrected or the claim about the Kaniadakis constrained paths must be withdrawn.
  3. [Section II.B, Eq. (41), and Section III.B] The text states immediately after Eq. (41) that 'this behavior was not observed in the case of RN-AdS black holes,' and Section III.B repeats that such behavior was 'absent in the RN-AdS black hole case.' This is contradicted by Eqs. (41)-(42), which explicitly produce fractional powers t^{3/2} and a 3/2-order transition for RN-AdS along the constrained path. The intended statement appears to be that the constrained path yields 4/3 only for the Kaniadakis model, not for RN-AdS, but as written the internal contradiction obscures the central comparison. Please rephrase these passages consistently and make the comparison model-by-model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II.A] The sentence 'By substituting the solutions derived from Eq. (80) into the expression for the free energy above' should refer to Eq. (24), not Eq. (80), which appears later in the Kaniadakis section.
  2. [Section II.A] The phrase 'rather than being first-order, as traditionally presumed' contradicts the earlier statement in the same section that conventional Ehrenfest classification identifies these Davies points as second-order; the paper should use 'second-order' throughout or clarify the intended contrast.
  3. [Section IV, Figures 12-14] The captions of Figures 12-14 describe the plots as 'for the CFT of ModMax AdS black hole' and label them as left/right Davies points, even though these figures show the first, second, and third Davies points of the Kaniadakis-deformed RN-AdS model; the captions should be corrected.
  4. [Eqs. (81) and (91)] Equation (81) appears to have a missing decimal point in '0002rho^4', and Eq. (91) has a spurious '=0' at the end of the series solution for rho(t).
  5. [General] Several figure captions and inline references contain garbled phrases such as 'the right bottom panel presents the plots' and 'top panel displays the corresponding D^alpha_t F(t) vs t curves, while the bottom right panel presents'; the wording should be cleaned up throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fractional orders 3/2 and 4/3 follow from the paper's own re-derived local expansions of T(S) and F, not from fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The central claim is that first-type Davies points (temperature extrema) correspond to fractional order 3/2 and second-type critical points (temperature inflections) correspond to 4/3. This is derived in the text from the local structure of the CFT equation of state. For example, near the left Davies point of RN-AdS, the paper solves the dimensionless equation of state and obtains series with leading non-analytic term proportional to sqrt(-t) (Eq. (24)), which produces a (-t)^{3/2} term in the free energy (Eq. (26)); the subsequent fractional-derivative analysis identifies the discontinuity at alpha = 3/2. Near the critical point, the quartic equation of state (Eq. (35)) is solved as a Puiseux series with leading term t^{1/3} (Eq. (36)), giving a t^{4/3} term in the free energy (Eq. (38)) and hence a discontinuity at alpha = 4/3. These expansions are re-derived in the paper itself rather than imported as conclusions from prior work. The self-citations to the authors' earlier papers ([52, 53, 61, 62]) concern the RPST/CFT dictionary and related thermodynamic frameworks, but the specific CFT energy, temperature, heat capacity, and free-energy expansions used for the fractional-order determination are presented explicitly in Sections II-IV, so the central claim does not reduce to those citations. The special constrained path 2t + 8q = 0 is chosen by hand and explicitly labeled as fine-tuned; this affects physical interpretation but is not circular because the resulting 3/2 order is still computed from the paper's own equation of state. The Kaniadakis section relies on a small-kappa truncation without an error estimate, which is a legitimate robustness concern, but it is a matter of approximation error, not circular reasoning: the exponents are computed from the truncated expressions that the paper states, not assumed as inputs. No parameter is fitted to a target result, and no prediction is equivalent by construction to an input. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The analysis rests on the AdS/CFT dictionary with central charge and volume as thermodynamic variables, on Kaniadakis entropy with a small-kappa expansion, and on Hilfer's fractional Ehrenfest postulate. Two hand-chosen parameters (kappa = 0.016 and eta = 1) set the illustrative systems; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Kaniadakis parameter kappa = 0.016
    Hand-chosen in Section IV; the number of critical points and the claimed 4/3 order depend on this value, and no justification or scan over kappa is provided.
  • ModMax parameter eta = 1
    Set to unity in the ModMax sections (for example in Eq. (54) and the caption of Fig. 6); results are shown only for this value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT dictionary with central charge C and volume V as thermodynamic variables, and the CFT first law dE = T dS + phi dQ - p dV + mu dC
    Adopted from refs [55-63]; the entire CFT-side thermodynamics is built on it in Section II, Eqs. (15)-(18).
  • domain assumption Kaniadakis entropy S = (1/kappa) sinh(pi kappa r^2/G) and its small-kappa expansion
    Postulated in Eq. (71) and used in Section IV to derive E, T, and C_Q; the small-kappa series truncation is unvalidated.
  • domain assumption Hilfer's generalized Ehrenfest classification using Caputo fractional derivatives of the free energy is a valid criterion for phase transition order
    The paper's interpretive framework, taken from refs [64, 104]; the physical meaning of a fractional-order transition is assumed rather than derived.
  • standard math The quartic equation of state near Davies points can be series-expanded in fractional powers of t, with the leading terms determining the transition order
    This is a standard Puiseux expansion, but the paper applies it numerically at single parameter points without a general proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Holographic Fractional Order Phase Transitions in CFTs Dual to AdS Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZGSZ6NC

@misc{pith2026250621947,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Holographic Fractional Order Phase Transitions in CFTs Dual to AdS Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZGSZ6NC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21947}
}
abstract

In this work, we investigate the CFT phase transitions of various AdS black hole solutions, including the Reissner-Nordstr\"om-AdS (RN-AdS) black hole, the ModMax-AdS black hole, and the RN-AdS black hole formulated within the framework of Kaniadakis statistics, through the lens of the AdS/CFT correspondence. Employing the generalized Ehrenfest classification scheme based on fractional-order derivatives, we analyze the nature of phase transitions at both Davies points and critical points. Davies points, defined as the loci of divergent heat capacity, are typically associated with second-order transitions in the classical Ehrenfest paradigm. However, a refined analysis reveals that these points can be categorized into two distinct types: the first corresponds to extrema in the temperature profile, while the second aligns with its inflection point, i.e., the thermodynamic critical point. Our findings demonstrate that the order of the phase transition is sensitive to this classification, with the first type corresponding to a fractional order of $3/2$, and the second to $4/3$, which is consistent across RN-AdS black holes. Notably, when a specific constraint is imposed, we observe a $3/2$-order phase transition for both the RN-AdS and ModMax-AdS black holes, whereas in the case of the RN-AdS black hole with Kaniadakis statistics, two critical points arise under constrained paths, each exhibiting a transition of order $4/3$. This generalized, fractional-order framework enables a more precise and discriminating characterization of CFT phase transitions in holographic settings, revealing distinctions that remain hidden under traditional classifications. The results provide deeper insight into the rich structure of black hole thermodynamics on the CFT side and highlight the significance of fractional calculus as a powerful tool for probing critical phenomena within the AdS/CFT framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21947 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The heat capacity of the RN-AdS black hole is plotted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The heat capacity in the CFT thermodynamic frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The heat capacity for the CFT dual of the RN-AdS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The behaviour of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. The behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. The behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. The behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [104]

    Drepanou, A

    N. Drepanou, A. Lymperis, E. N. Saridakis, and K. Yesmakhanova, arXiv:2109.09181 [gr-qc] (2021)

    arXiv 2021

  2. [106]

    Chabab and S

    M. Chabab and S. Iraoui, Front. Phys. 8, 620430 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [1]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 1344 (1971)

    1971

  4. [2]

    + ” sign denotes the case where the Davies point is approached from the left, while the “ −

    (13) 4 The line element of the two-sphere is denoted bydΩ2 2, and ω represents an arbitrary, dimensionless conformal factor. In certain studies, this conformal factor is chosen as ω = R/l , where R corresponds to the curvature radius. The parameter ω facilitates the analysis of a holographic first law wherein Newton’s constant remains fixed while the cosm...

  5. [3]

    S. W. Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974)

    1974

  6. [4]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975)

    1975

  7. [5]

    J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter, and S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 31, 161 (1973)

    1973

  8. [6]

    Bekenstein, Phys

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

    1973

Show all 110 references
  1. [7]

    R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 20, 1271 (1979)

    1979

  2. [8]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Today 33, 24 (1980)

    1980

  3. [9]

    R. M. Wald, Living Rev. Rel. 4, 6 (2001)

    2001

  4. [10]

    Hut, Mon

    P. Hut, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 180, 379 (1977)

    1977

  5. [11]

    P. C. W. Davies, Rep. Prog. Phys. 41, 1313 (1978)

    1978

  6. [12]

    L. M. Sokolowski and P. Mazur, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 13, 1113 (1980)

    1980

  7. [13]

    Chamblin, R

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

    1999

  8. [14]

    Chamblin, R

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

    1999

  9. [15]

    C. S. Pe¸ ca and J. P. S. Lemos, Phys. Rev. D59, 124007 (1999)

    1999

  10. [16]

    Carlip and S

    S. Carlip and S. Vaidya, Class. Quantum Grav.20, 3827 (2003)

    2003

  11. [17]

    J. X. Lu, S. Roy, and Z. Xiao, JHEP 2011, 133 (2011)

    2011

  12. [18]

    H. Liu, H. L¨ u, M. Luo, and K.-N. Shao, JHEP 2010, 054 (2010)

    2010

  13. [19]

    Banerjee, S

    R. Banerjee, S. K. Modak, and S. Samanta, Phys. Rev. D 84, 064024 (2011)

    2011

  14. [20]

    Cao, Y.-X

    Q.-J. Cao, Y.-X. Chen, and K.-N. Shao, Phys. Rev. D 83, 064015 (2011)

    2011

  15. [21]

    M. Wang, S. Chen, and J. Jing, Phys. Lett. B 695, 401 (2011)

    2011

  16. [22]

    C. Niu, Y. Tian, and X.-N. Wu, Phys. Rev. D85, 024017 (2012)

    2012

  17. [23]

    Wei and Y.-X

    S.-W. Wei and Y.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 87, 044014 (2013)

    2013

  18. [24]

    Wei and Y.-X

    S.-W. Wei and Y.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 105, 104003 (2022)

    2022

  19. [25]

    Wei, Y.-X

    S.-W. Wei, Y.-X. Liu, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 191101 (2022)

    2022

  20. [26]

    Hazarika and P

    B. Hazarika and P. Phukon, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2024, 04 (2024), arXiv:2401.16756 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [27]

    N. J. Gogoi and P. Phukon , arXiv:2312.13577 [hep-th] (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Hazarika and P

    B. Hazarika and P. Phukon, arXiv:2312.06324 [hep-th] (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Hazarika, N

    B. Hazarika, N. J. Gogoi, and P. Phukon, arXiv:2404.02526 [hep-th] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [30]

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

    2011

  25. [31]

    Kubizˇ n´ ak and R

    D. Kubizˇ n´ ak and R. B. Mann, JHEP2012, 033 (2012)

    2012

  26. [32]

    Cai, L.-M

    R.-G. Cai, L.-M. Cao, L. Li, and et al., JHEP 2013, 005 (2013)

    2013

  27. [33]

    S. H. Hendi and M. H. Vahidinia, Phys. Rev. D 88, 084045 (2013)

    2013

  28. [34]

    Chen, X.-F

    S.-B. Chen, X.-F. Liu, and C.-Q. Liu, Chin. Phys. Lett. 30, 060401 (2013)

    2013

  29. [35]

    Mo, X.-X

    J.-X. Mo, X.-X. Zeng, G.-Q. Li, and et al., JHEP 2013, 056 (2013)

    2013

  30. [36]

    Liu, D.-C

    Y. Liu, D.-C. Zou, and B. Wang, JHEP 2014, 179 (2014)

    2014

  31. [37]

    M.-S. Ma, F. Liu, and R. Zhao, Class. Quantum Grav. 31, 095001 (2014)

    2014

  32. [38]

    H. Xu, W. Xu, and L. Zhao, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3074 (2014)

    2014

  33. [39]

    Ma and Y.-Q

    M.-S. Ma and Y.-Q. Ma, Class. Quantum Grav. 32, 035024 (2015)

    2015

  34. [40]

    Xu, L.-M

    J. Xu, L.-M. Cao, and Y.-P. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 91, 124033 (2015)

    2015

  35. [41]

    S.-W. Wei, P. Cheng, and Y.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 93, 084015 (2016)

    2016

  36. [42]

    Ma and R.-H

    M.-S. Ma and R.-H. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 96, 024052 (2017)

    2017

  37. [43]

    Xu, Phys

    Z.-M. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 104, 104022 (2021)

    2021

  38. [44]

    Gao and L

    Z. Gao and L. Zhao, Class. Quantum Grav. 39, 075019 (2022)

    2022

  39. [45]

    Z. Gao, X. Kong, and L. Zhao, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 112 (2022) 20

    2022

  40. [46]

    Sadeghi, M

    J. Sadeghi, M. Shokri, S. N. Gashti, and M. R. Alipour, arXiv:2205.03648 [hep-th] (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  41. [47]

    M. S. Ali, S. G. Ghosh, and A. Wang, arXiv:2308.00489 [hep-th] (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  42. [48]

    M. B. Awal and P. Phukon, arXiv:2404.03261 [hep-th] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  43. [49]

    Ladghami, B

    Y. Ladghami, B. Asfour, A. Bouali, A. Errahmani, and T. Ouali, Phys. Dark Universe 41, 101261 (2023)

    2023

  44. [50]

    Sadeghi, M

    J. Sadeghi, M. Shokri, S. N. Gashti, and M. R. Alipour, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 54, 129 (2022)

    2022

  45. [51]

    Sadeghi, M

    J. Sadeghi, M. R. Alipour, S. N. Gashti, and M. A. S. Af- shar, Chin. Phys. C 48, 095106 (2024)

    2024

  46. [52]

    M. R. Alipour, J. Sadeghi, S. N. Gashti, and M. A. S. Af- shar, arXiv:2406.13784 [hep-th] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Baruah and P

    A. Baruah and P. Phukon, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 536 (2025)

    2025

  48. [54]

    Baruah and P

    A. Baruah and P. Phukon, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 57, 77 (2025)

    2025

  49. [55]

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

    1998

  50. [56]

    Visser, Phys

    M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 105, 106014 (2022)

    2022

  51. [57]

    Karch and B

    A. Karch and B. H. Robinson, J. High Energ. Phys. 2015, 73 (2015)

    2015

  52. [58]

    Mancilla, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06605 [hep-th] (2024)

    R. Mancilla, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06605 [hep-th] (2024)

    2024

  53. [59]

    W. Cong, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 091301 (2021)

    2021

  54. [60]

    W. Cong, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, R. B. Mann, et al., J. High Energy Phys. 2022, 174 (2022)

    2022

  55. [61]

    M. B. Ahmed, W. Cong, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak,et al., J. High Energy Phys. 2023, 142 (2023)

    2023

  56. [62]

    Baruah and P

    A. Baruah and P. Phukon, Phys. Rev. D 111, 066022 (2025)

    2025

  57. [63]

    Baruah and P

    A. Baruah and P. Phukon, arXiv:2407.11058 [hep-th] (2024), last revised 19 Jun 2025, version 6

    2024

  58. [64]

    S. J. Yang, M. S. Ali, S. W. Wei, and Y. X. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 420 (2025)

    2025

  59. [65]

    Hilfer, Phys

    R. Hilfer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 190 (1992)

    1992

  60. [66]

    Hilfer, Applications of Fractional Calculus in Physics (World Scientific, 2000)

    R. Hilfer, Applications of Fractional Calculus in Physics (World Scientific, 2000)

    2000

  61. [67]

    Heisenberg and H

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

    1936

  62. [68]

    J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 82, 664 (1951)

    1951

  63. [69]

    S. L. Adler, Ann. Phys. 67, 599 (1971)

    1971

  64. [70]

    Bandos, K

    I. Bandos, K. Lechner, D. Sorokin, and P. K. Townsend, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 161603 (2020), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.161603

    2020 doi

  65. [71]

    Bordo, K

    A. Bordo, K. Lechner, and L. Ravera, Phys. Lett. B807, 135519 (2020), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135519

    2020

  66. [72]

    Barrientos, F

    J. Barrientos, F. Correa, and A. Rinc´ on, Phys. Rev. D 105, 024059 (2022), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.024059

    2022 doi

  67. [73]

    Pantig, Y

    R. Pantig, Y. K. Gergely, and A. ¨Ovg¨ un, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 61 (2023), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11140-9

    2023 doi

  68. [74]

    Babaei-Aghbolagh, M

    H. Babaei-Aghbolagh, M. M. Bagheri, and K. Nozari, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 576 (2022), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10535-4

    2022 doi

  69. [75]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D 105, 044042 (2022)

    2022

  70. [76]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and T. Paul, Phys. Lett. B 831, 137189 (2022)

    2022

  71. [77]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and T. Paul, Phys. Lett. B 847, 138321 (2023)

    2023

  72. [78]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 845, 138130 (2023)

    2023

  73. [79]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D 104, 8, 084030 (2021), arXiv:2109.05315 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  74. [80]

    Elizalde, S

    E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, Universe 11, 2, 60 (2025), arXiv:2502.05801 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  75. [81]

    Kumar, Gen

    N. Kumar, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 56, 47 (2024)

    2024

  76. [82]

    Bialas, W

    A. Bialas, W. Czyz, and R. En”tropies”, EPL 83, 60009 (2008)

    2008

  77. [83]

    Huang and Y

    X. Huang and Y. Zhou, JHEP 2015, 068 (2015)

    2015

  78. [84]

    Brustein and A

    R. Brustein and A. Medved, Phys. Rev. D 91, 084062 (2015)

    2015

  79. [85]

    Nishioka, JHEP 2014, 061 (2014)

    T. Nishioka, JHEP 2014, 061 (2014)

    2014

  80. [86]

    V. G. Czinner and H. Iguchi, Phys. Lett. B 752, 306 (2016)

    2016

  81. [87]

    Dong, Nat

    X. Dong, Nat. Commun. 7, 12472 (2016)

    2016

  82. [88]

    W. Y. Wen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26, 1750106 (2017)

    2017

  83. [89]

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

    2017

  84. [90]

    Qolibikloo and A

    S. Qolibikloo and A. Ghodsi, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 406 (2019)

    2019

  85. [91]

    C. V. Johnson, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, 1950091 (2019)

    2019

  86. [92]

    Tannukij, P

    L. Tannukij, P. Wongjun, E. Hirunsirisawat, T. Deesuwan, and C. Promsiri, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 500 (2020)

    2020

  87. [93]

    Promsiri,E

    C. Promsiri,E. Hirunsirisawat, and W. Liewrian, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064014 (2020)

    2020

  88. [94]

    Samart and P

    D. Samart and P. Channuie, arXiv:2012.14828 [hep-th] (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  89. [95]

    Ren, JHEP 2021, 080 (2021)

    J. Ren, JHEP 2021, 080 (2021)

    2021

  90. [96]

    Mejrhit and R

    K. Mejrhit and R. Hajji, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1060 (2020)

    2020

  91. [97]

    Nakarachinda, E

    R. Nakarachinda, E. Hirunsirisawat,L. Tannukij, and P. Wongjun, Phys. Rev. D 104, 064003 (2021)

    2021

  92. [98]

    E. M. C. Abreu and J. AnaniasNeto,

  93. [99]

    R´ enyi, Proc

    A. R´ enyi, Proc. 4th Berkeley Symp. on Mathematics, Statistics and Probability , 547–556 (1960)

    1960

  94. [100]

    Tsallis, J

    C. Tsallis, J. Stat. Phys. 52, 479 (1988)

    1988

  95. [101]

    J. D. Barrow, Phys. Lett. B 808, 135643 (2020), arXiv:2004.09444 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  96. [102]

    Sayahian Jahromi, S

    A. Sayahian Jahromi, S. A. Moosavi, H. Morad- pour, J. P. Morais Gra¸ ca, I. P. Lobo, I. G. Salako, and A. Jawad, Phys. Lett. B 780, 21 (2018), arXiv:1802.07722 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  97. [103]

    Kaniadakis, Phys

    G. Kaniadakis, Phys. Rev. E 72, 036108 (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0507311

    2005 arXiv

  98. [105]

    Ma, Phys

    M.-S. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 795, 490 (2019)

    2019

  99. [107]

    L.-H. Wang, Y. He, and M.-S. Ma, Chin. Phys. C 47, 035102 (2023)

    2023

  100. [108]

    Caputo, Geophys

    M. Caputo, Geophys. J. Int. 13, 529 (1967)

    1967

  101. [109]

    A. A. Kilbas, O. I. Marichev, and S. G. Samko, Frac- tional Integrals and Derivatives: Theory and Applica- tions (Gordon and Breach, Switzerland, 1993)

    1993

  102. [110]

    Gorenflo and F

    R. Gorenflo and F. Mainardi, Fractals and Fractional Calculus in Continuum Mechanics, edited by A. Carpin- teri and F. Mainardi (Springer, 1997)

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.