Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 73 references

Hydrodynamical transports in generic AdS Gauss-Bonnet-scalar Gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 A scalar-coupled Gauss-Bonnet correction yields exact analytic viscosities that deviate from the universal $1/(4\pi)$ ratio and vary with temperature.

desk verdict Interesting new formulas for holographic transport with a scalar-Gauss-Bonnet coupling, but the claimed Kubo cross-check is internally inconsistent and needs repair before the results can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13184 v2 pith:6IAF7DTV submitted 2025-07-17 hep-th gr-qchep-ph

Chenwei Tong , Rohit Mishra , Yanqi Wang , Song He This is my paper
classification hep-thgr-qchep-ph
keywords holographichydrodynamicsGauss-Bonnetgravityshearviscositybulkquark-gluonplasmaentropyproductionhigher-derivativecorrectionseventhorizon
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 tries to establish that in a five-dimensional Einstein-Scalar-Maxwell theory with a scalar-coupled Gauss-Bonnet term (a specific higher-curvature combination of curvature-squared terms), the shear and bulk viscosities of the dual boundary fluid can be computed analytically even though no exact black-brane solution is known. The method is an entropy-production analysis at the event horizon: the second variation of the horizon entropy along a null generator is matched to the fluid entropy balance law, and reading off the coefficients of the shear-squared and expansion-squared terms gives closed formulas for $\eta$ and $\zeta$. The formulas deviate from the universal $\eta/s = 1/(4\pi)$ value and carry an explicit dependence on horizon data, which the paper connects to the temperature-dependent shear and bulk viscosities observed in heavy-ion collisions. A retarded Green's function computation reproduces the shear viscosity exactly and reduces the bulk viscosity to a single constant that must be found numerically.

What carries the argument

The central object is the horizon entropy functional $S = \frac{1}{4G_N}\int_{\partial H} d^{D-2}x\,\sqrt{h}\,\left(1+2\alpha H(\phi)\bar R\right)$, the Gauss-Bonnet-corrected entropy of a horizon cross-section. The mechanism that carries the argument is the entropy-production matching: the second variation of this functional along the null generator of a dynamical horizon, built from the generalized null Raychaudhuri equation for Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity and truncated to second order in the expansion $\theta$ and shear $\sigma$, is set equal to the fluid entropy balance law $T\Delta S = \int \sqrt{h}(2\eta\sigma^2+\zeta\theta^2)$. The coefficients of $\sigma^2$ and $\theta^2$ in the resulting expression are read off as $2\eta$ and $\zeta$, which is why the transport coefficients are obtained without solving the bulk metric.

What would settle it

Numerically construct the black-brane solution for a concrete choice of $H(\phi)$, $V(\phi)$, and $Z(\phi)$; solve the scalar fluctuation equation (4.18) to fix the constant $z_0$ in the retarded Green's function bulk viscosity (4.29); and compare the resulting $\zeta$ with Eq. (6.8). Agreement would confirm the entropy-production identification, while any mismatch would show that the boundary terms dropped in the second variation contribute to transport.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the horizon entropy functional $S = \frac{1}{4G_N}\int_{\partial H} d^{3}x\,\sqrt{h}\,\left(1+2\alpha H(\phi)\bar R\right)$, varied along the null generator of a dynamical event horizon and truncated at second order in the expansion $\theta$ and shear $\sigma$, equals the fluid production rate $T\Delta S = \int \sqrt{h}\,(2\eta\sigma^2+\zeta\theta^2)$. Comparing the two gives the exact analytic coefficients $\eta = \frac{1}{16\pi G_N}\left[1-\frac{2\alpha f'(r_h)}{r_h}\left(H(\phi_h)+r_h H'(\phi_h)\phi'(r_h)\right)\right]$ and $\zeta = -\frac{4}{3}\eta + \frac{\alpha}{3\pi G_N} f'(r_h)H'(\phi_h)\phi'(r_h) + \frac{1}{16\pi G_N}\frac{r_h^2}{9}\phi'(r_h)^2$. At $\alpha=0$ these reduce to the Einstein-gravity values and the ratio $\eta/s$ returns to $1/(4\pi)$. The shear formula agrees with the retarded Green's function calculation, while the bulk formula leaves one numerical constant in the Green's function route, so the two derivations agree up to that constant.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the change in the horizon entropy, computed to second order in the expansion and shear along the horizon generator with boundary terms discarded, equals exactly the entropy a boundary fluid would produce through shear and bulk viscosity; if that identification is not exact, the formulas in Eqs. (6.7) and (6.8) do not describe the fluid's transport.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The shear-to-entropy ratio is no longer fixed at $1/(4\pi)$: it shifts by a term proportional to $\alpha f'(r_h)\,[H(\phi_h)+r_h H'(\phi_h)\phi'(r_h)]$, so the ratio becomes temperature dependent as the horizon data vary.
  • The bulk viscosity separates into three contributions: an Einstein-type term $-\frac{4}{3}\eta$, an explicit Gauss-Bonnet-scalar term, and a scalar-gradient term proportional to $r_h^2\phi'(r_h)^2$, each identifiable at the horizon.
  • Setting $\alpha=0$ in both formulas recovers the known Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton results, including $\eta/s = 1/(4\pi)$, giving the paper its main consistency check.
  • The agreement between the entropy-production and retarded Green's function results for $\eta$ shows that first-order transport coefficients can be obtained without an analytic black-brane solution, opening nonanalytic backgrounds to hydrodynamic study.
  • For $\zeta$, the retarded Green's function method isolates a single constant determined by a scalar fluctuation equation; computing it numerically would complete an independent check of the bulk viscosity formula.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper's formulas are right, the temperature dependence of $\eta/s$ and $\zeta/s$ is encoded entirely in the horizon data $f'(r_h)$, $H(\phi_h)$, and $\phi'(r_h)$; with a numerical background these ratios could be mapped as functions of temperature and compared with lattice or heavy-ion extractions, a calibration the paper does not perform.
  • The sign of $H(\phi_h)+r_h H'(\phi_h)\phi'(r_h)$ is not fixed by the derivation, so the model can produce $\eta/s$ either above or below $1/(4\pi)$; choosing $H>0$ with $H'\phi'<0$ at the horizon would realize the sub-universal values that motivate the work.
  • The same horizon-variation machinery should extend to conductivities and second-order transport coefficients; a natural test is to apply it to this action and to check numerically that the boundary terms discarded in the second variation remain negligible, especially because in pure Einstein gravity at $D=4$ the same method yields a negative bulk viscosity.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies five-dimensional Einstein-Scalar-Maxwell-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with a scalar-dependent Gauss-Bonnet coupling αH(φ). Because no closed-form black hole solutions are available, the authors employ an entropy-production method at the event horizon, based on the Jacobson-Myers entropy functional (6.1), to derive analytic formulas for the shear viscosity η and bulk viscosity ζ: Eqs. (6.7) and (6.8). These formulas reduce to η/s = 1/(4π) when α = 0 and exhibit corrections involving H(φ), φ'(r_h), and f'(r_h). The paper also performs Kubo computations in Section 4, claiming perfect agreement for η with Eq. (4.12), while for ζ it isolates a constant z0 that is left for numerical determination. Section 5 calibrates the entropy-production method on the Sakai-Sugimoto model and on Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton gravity.

Significance. If correct, the result would be valuable: it provides closed-form transport coefficients in a non-integrable holographic model with higher-derivative corrections, without fitting any free parameter to η or ζ. The entropy-production method is not circular, and its calibration on the Sakai-Sugimoto and EMD models in Section 5 is a genuine strength. However, the claimed Kubo cross-check for η is invalidated by an internal inconsistency in Section 4.1, and the ζ cross-check is incomplete because z0 in Eq. (4.29) is undetermined. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on resolving these issues.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Eqs. (4.10) and (4.12)] The two Kubo expressions for the shear viscosity are mutually inconsistent. Ansatz (4.11) is exactly the h = 0 limit of ansatz (3.5), so the two formulas must coincide in that limit. Eq. (4.10) gives 4πη/s = 1 + 2α r_h f'(r_h)[H(r_h) - r_h H'(φ_h)φ'(r_h)], while Eq. (4.12) gives 4πη/s = 1 - 2α f'(r_h)/r_h [H(r_h) + r_h H'(φ_h)φ'(r_h)]. These differ in the overall prefactor and in the sign of the H'φ' term. Since both expressions are analytic in h, no coordinate or gauge discontinuity can explain the mismatch. Therefore at least one of the Kubo derivations is wrong as printed. Because only Eq. (4.12) is quoted as agreeing with the entropy-production result Eq. (6.7), the claimed independent cross-check for η cannot be credited until the authors identify and correct the erroneous formula.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (4.29), and §7] The Kubo computation of the bulk viscosity determines ζ only up to the constant z0, which is fixed by the unsolved equation (4.18) and is stated to require numerical determination. Consequently Eq. (6.8) has not been independently verified. The statement in Section 7 that the Kubo formalism gives 'perfect agreement for η and isolating a single undetermined constant in ζ' is technically accurate, but it should not be read as a complete dual derivation of ζ. The analytic result (6.8) remains without a quantitative cross-check unless z0 is actually computed, and the abstract should be reworded to distinguish a confirmed cross-check for η from an unconfirmed one for ζ.
  3. [§5, Eq. (5.11), and §6] The entropy-production method yields ζ = -1/(16πG_N) in D = 4 pure Einstein gravity and ζ = -4/(3(16πG_N)) in D = 5, i.e., a negative bulk viscosity. The paper calls this the known result and attributes the sign to future boundary conditions on the event horizon, citing Refs. [60,61]. However, for the dual fluid the bulk viscosity must be nonnegative by the local second law. Since Section 6 uses the same entropy-production identification to derive ζ in Eq. (6.8), the physical interpretation of Eq. (6.8) is not established unless this sign issue is addressed. At minimum, the authors should explain why the negative pure-gravity piece is not part of the physical ζ of the boundary fluid, or show that the full expression (6.8) is nonnegative under the appropriate stability and causality bounds on α and H(φ).
minor comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (4.9)] As printed, the prefactor c_2^2/(2κ_N^2 c_1 c_2^3) in Eq. (4.9) reduces to 1/(2κ_N^2 c_1 c_2); if this is not the intended expression, the displayed formula should be corrected.
  2. [§5, Eq. (5.9)] The constant C in Eq. (5.9) is introduced without a general definition; it is fixed only later for specific models in Appendices B and C. A general definition of C in terms of the null generator and the background fields should be stated before Eq. (5.9) is used in Eq. (5.11).
  3. [§7, first paragraph] The statement that the results reveal 'clear deviations from η/s = 1/(4π) and nontrivial temperature scaling' should be qualified by the stability and causality bounds on the Gauss-Bonnet coupling and on H(φ); otherwise a deviation could be unphysical.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central transport formulas are obtained from an independent entropy-production calculation, and the model functions cited from the authors' earlier work are not used to fix η or ζ. The internal Kubo-formula inconsistency is a correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation (Section 6, Eqs. (6.7)–(6.8)) is obtained by varying the Jacobson-Myers entropy functional (6.1) along the horizon generator and matching the coefficients of σ² and θ² in the fluid entropy balance (5.1)/(6.6). This is a direct calculation from the action and entropy functional; no parameter is fitted to η or ζ, and the result is not defined to equal the Kubo answer. The functions V(ϕ) and Z(ϕ) are quoted from the authors' earlier papers [50–52], but they only specify the background model; the derived formulas are expressed in terms of near-horizon data f'(r_h), H(ϕ_h), H'(ϕ_h), φ'(r_h) and therefore do not reduce to the input potentials. The claimed 'perfect agreement' between Eq. (6.7) and the Kubo result (4.12) is a cross-check, not a built-in identity. However, the cross-check cannot currently be credited: Eq. (4.10), derived from the general ansatz (3.5), and Eq. (4.12), derived from the same metric with h=0, are algebraically inconsistent in the h→0 limit, differing in prefactor and in the relative sign of the H'φ' term. Since (4.11) is the h=0 limit of (3.5), at least one Kubo expression is erroneous as printed; this undermines the validation but is a correctness/consistency problem, not circularity. Similarly, the Kubo bulk-viscosity result (4.29) leaves the constant z0 undetermined for numerical resolution, so it is not a completed independent check of ζ. These issues do not make the central entropy-production derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the entropy-production identification, the JM entropy choice, and the clean vanishing of boundary terms, rather than on fitted parameters. The only undetermined constant is z0 in the unfinished Kubo bulk-viscosity computation. The model functions V, Z, H are inputs from earlier work and are not fitted to the transport results.

free parameters (1)
  • z0 = undetermined (to be solved numerically)
    The Kubo bulk viscosity (4.29) is proportional to z0², where z0 satisfies the scalar fluctuation equation (4.18); the paper defers its determination to numerical work, so the Kubo ζ is incomplete.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The entropy balance law T∆S = ∫√h(2ησ² + ζθ²) applies to the horizon membrane fluid (Eq 5.1), and the horizon entropy production can be compared term-by-term to extract η and ζ.
    This is the core of the entropy-production method used in Sections 5 and 6; it is not derived from the boundary theory, and its validity for the scalar-GB theory is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper The Jacobson-Myers entropy functional (6.1) is the correct entropy for a dynamical horizon in Einstein-Scalar-Maxwell-Gauss-Bonnet gravity, and its variation along the null generator captures the dissipative part.
    Adopted in Section 6 to overcome Wald entropy ambiguities; the generalized Raychaudhuri equation (D.5) is derived under this choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The boundary terms in the entropy variation vanish: the initial bifurcation surface lies at λ=0 and the final stationary horizon has vanishing expansion θk (Section 5, after Eq 5.8).
    Used to simplify Eq (5.8) and the final comparison; if these terms do not vanish, Eqs (6.7)-(6.8) would acquire additional contributions.
  • domain assumption The metric ansatz is the static planar black brane (C.1) and the horizon cross-section is flat (¯R_abcd=0, Appendix E), so intrinsic curvature terms drop out.
    Restricts the result to planar horizons; used throughout Section 6 and Appendix E.
  • domain assumption The scalar satisfies ∇k H(φ) = (r_h/(D-2)) H'(φ_h) φ'(r_h) θ_k (Eq C.6), a relation derived for the static background and used to simplify the Raychaudhuri equation terms.
    This relation links the null derivative of H(φ) to the expansion; it assumes the background is static and the horizon is planar.
  • standard math The null Raychaudhuri equation (D.1) and the Gauss-Codazzi equations (A.5)-(A.6) on the horizon cross-section.
    Standard results in null hypersurface geometry, used in Appendices D and E to decompose curvature terms into expansion and shear.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hydrodynamical transports in generic AdS Gauss-Bonnet-scalar Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6IAF7DTV

@misc{pith2026250713184,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hydrodynamical transports in generic AdS Gauss-Bonnet-scalar Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6IAF7DTV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13184}
}
abstract

The experimentally observed temperature-dependent shear and bulk viscosities of the quark-gluon plasma (QGP), along with its apparent violation of the Kovtun-Son-Starinets (KSS) bound $\eta/s=1/(4\pi)$, necessitate a holographic description that incorporates higher-derivative corrections. We propose a five-dimensional Einstein-Scalar-Maxwell-Gauss-Bonnet model in which a scalar-Gauss-Bonnet coupling $H(\phi)$ encodes leading curvature corrections. Although no closed-form black hole solution is available, we employ an entropy-production analysis at the event horizon to derive exact analytic formulas for the shear viscosity $\eta$ and bulk viscosity $\zeta$. These expressions exhibit apparent deviation from the KSS bound and nontrivial temperature dependence. We then perform an independent computation via the retarded Green function (Kubo) method, finding perfect agreement for $\eta$ and isolating a single constant in $\zeta$ that requires numerical determination. Our dual derivation underscores the pivotal role of higher-derivative terms in realistic QGP modeling and demonstrates the efficacy of nonanalytic holographic backgrounds in capturing the dynamics of strongly coupled fluids.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alford, L

    M.G. Alford, L. Bovard, M. Hanauske, L. Rezzolla and K. Schwenzer, Viscous Dissipation and Heat Conduction in Binary Neutron-Star Mergers , Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 041101 [1707.09475]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    E.R. Most, A. Haber, S.P. Harris, Z. Zhang, M.G. Alford and J. Noronha, Emergence of Microphysical Bulk Viscosity in Binary Neutron Star Postmerger Dynamics , Astrophys. J. Lett. 967 (2024) L14 [ 2207.00442]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Shternin and D.G

    P.S. Shternin and D.G. Yakovlev, Shear viscosity in neutron star cores , Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 063006 [ 0808.2018]

    arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    Gursoy, M

    U. Gursoy, M. Jarvinen and G. Nijs, Holographic QCD in the Veneziano Limit at a Finite Magnetic Field and Chemical Potential , Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 242002 [ 1707.00872]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Iosifidis, E

    D. Iosifidis, E. Jensko and T.S. Koivisto, Relativistic interacting fluids in cosmology , JCAP 11 (2024) 043 [ 2406.01412]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Murphy, Graviton Viscosity in the Early Universe , Phys

    G.L. Murphy, Graviton Viscosity in the Early Universe , Phys. Lett. A 62 (1977) 75

    work page 1977

  7. [7]

    Cosmological consequences of first-order general-relativistic viscous fluid dynamics

    F.S. Bemfica, M.M. Disconzi, J. Noronha and R.J. Scherrer, Cosmological consequences of first-order general-relativistic viscous fluid dynamics , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 023512 [2210.13372]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Busza, K

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal and W. van der Schee, Heavy Ion Collisions: The Big Picture, and the Big Questions , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68 (2018) 339 [ 1802.04801]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Heinz and R

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings, Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63 (2013) 123 [ 1301.2826]

    2013 arXiv

  2. [10]

    G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. G¨ ursoy and R. Snellings, Transverse Momentum Differential Global Analysis of Heavy-Ion Collisions , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 202301 [ 2010.15130]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. G¨ ursoy and R. Snellings, Bayesian analysis of heavy ion collisions with the heavy ion computational framework Trajectum , Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) 054909 [2010.15134]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Nijs and W

    G. Nijs and W. van der Schee, A generalized hydrodynamizing initial stage for Heavy Ion Collisions, 2304.06191

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Giacalone, G

    G. Giacalone, G. Nijs and W. van der Schee, Determination of the Neutron Skin of Pb208 from Ultrarelativistic Nuclear Collisions , Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 202302 [ 2305.00015]. – 23 –

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    JETSCAPE collaboration, Multisystem Bayesian constraints on the transport coefficients of QCD matter , Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) 054904 [ 2011.01430]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Apostolidis, U

    T. Apostolidis, U. G¨ ursoy and E. Pr´ eau,Higher derivative holography and temperature dependence of QGP viscosities , 2502.19195

  8. [16]

    Denicol, S

    G.S. Denicol, S. Jeon and C. Gale, Transport Coefficients of Bulk Viscous Pressure in the 14-moment approximation, Phys. Rev. C 90 (2014) 024912 [ 1403.0962]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Moreland, J.E

    J.S. Moreland, J.E. Bernhard and S.A. Bass, Alternative ansatz to wounded nucleon and binary collision scaling in high-energy nuclear collisions , Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 011901 [1412.4708]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Denicol, T

    G.S. Denicol, T. Kodama, T. Koide and P. Mota, Shock propagation and stability in causal dissipative hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. C 78 (2008) 034901 [ 0805.1719]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Baggioli, Y

    M. Baggioli, Y. Bu and X. Sun, Chiral anomalous magnetohydrodynamics in action: effective field theory and holography , JHEP 04 (2025) 126 [ 2412.02361]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bhattacharyya, V.E

    S. Bhattacharyya, V.E. Hubeny, S. Minwalla and M. Rangamani, Nonlinear Fluid Dynamics from Gravity, JHEP 02 (2008) 045 [ 0712.2456]

    2008 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bhattacharyya, V.E

    S. Bhattacharyya, V.E. Hubeny, R. Loganayagam, G. Mandal, S. Minwalla, T. Morita et al., Local Fluid Dynamical Entropy from Gravity , JHEP 06 (2008) 055 [ 0803.2526]

    2008 arXiv

  14. [22]

    C. Wu, Y. Chen and M. Huang, Chiral vortical effect from the compactified D4-branes with smeared D0-brane charge, JHEP 03 (2017) 082 [ 1608.04922]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    C. Wu, Y. Wang and Y.-A. Wang, The dynamical second-order transport coefficients of smeared Dp-brane, JHEP 10 (2023) 048 [ 2307.15542]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Torabian and H.-U

    M. Torabian and H.-U. Yee, Holographic nonlinear hydrodynamics from AdS/CFT with multiple/non-Abelian symmetries, JHEP 08 (2009) 020 [ 0903.4894]

    2009 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Policastro, D.T

    G. Policastro, D.T. Son and A.O. Starinets, The Shear viscosity of strongly coupled N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills plasma , Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 081601 [ hep-th/0104066]

    2001 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Son and A.O

    D.T. Son and A.O. Starinets, Viscosity, Black Holes, and Quantum Field Theory , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 95 [ 0704.0240]

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    D. Li, S. He and M. Huang, Temperature dependent transport coefficients in a dynamical holographic QCD model, JHEP 06 (2015) 046 [ 1411.5332]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Villarreal, L.A.H

    N.A. Villarreal, L.A.H. Mamani, A. Ballon-Bayona, A.S. Miranda and V.T. Zanchin, Transport coefficients and quasinormal modes in Einstein-dilaton holographic QCD , 2507.04165

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Grozdanov, D.M

    S. Grozdanov, D.M. Hofman and N. Iqbal, Generalized global symmetries and dissipative magnetohydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 096003 [ 1610.07392]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Wang, P.-J

    Y. Wang, P.-J. Hu and Y. Pang, A holographic model of magnetohydrodynamics with fortuitous SO(3) symmetry , JHEP 10 (2024) 035 [ 2408.04791]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Natsuume, AdS/CFT Duality User Guide , vol

    M. Natsuume, AdS/CFT Duality User Guide , vol. 903 (2015), 10.1007/978-4-431-55441-7, [1409.3575]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kovtun, D.T

    P. Kovtun, D.T. Son and A.O. Starinets, Holography and hydrodynamics: Diffusion on stretched horizons, JHEP 10 (2003) 064 [ hep-th/0309213]. – 24 –

    2003 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Erdmenger, P

    J. Erdmenger, P. Kerner and H. Zeller, Non-universal shear viscosity from Einstein gravity , Phys. Lett. B 699 (2011) 301 [ 1011.5912]

    2011 arXiv

  26. [34]

    X. H. Feng, H. S. Liu, H. L¨ u and C. N. Pope,Black Hole Entropy and Viscosity Bound in Horndeski Gravity, JHEP 11 (2015), 176 [ 1509.07142]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bravo-Gaete and M

    M. Bravo-Gaete and M. M. Stetsko, Planar black holes configurations and shear viscosity in arbitrary dimensions with shift and reflection symmetric scalar-tensor theories , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.2, 024038 [ 2111.10925]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bravo-Gaete, F

    M. Bravo-Gaete, F. F. Santos and H. Boschi-Filho, Shear viscosity from black holes in generalized scalar-tensor theories in arbitrary dimensions , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.6, 066010 [2201.07961]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Bravo-Gaete, L

    M. Bravo-Gaete, L. Guajardo and F. F. Santos, Exploring the shear viscosity in four-dimensional planar black holes beyond general relativity , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.10, 104032 [ 2303.07493]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Cremonini, The Shear Viscosity to Entropy Ratio: A Status Report , Mod

    S. Cremonini, The Shear Viscosity to Entropy Ratio: A Status Report , Mod. Phys. Lett. B 25 (2011) 1867 [ 1108.0677]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Buchel, Holographic Gauss-Bonnet transport, Phys

    A. Buchel, Holographic Gauss-Bonnet transport, Phys. Lett. B 853 (2024), 138666 [2402.16109]

    2024

  32. [41]

    Ge and S.-J

    X.-H. Ge and S.-J. Sin, Shear viscosity, instability and the upper bound of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling constant, JHEP 05 (2009) 051 [ 0903.2527]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [42]

    X.-H. Ge, Y. Matsuo, F.-W. Shu, S.-J. Sin and T. Tsukioka, Viscosity Bound, Causality Violation and Instability with Stringy Correction and Charge , JHEP 10 (2008) 009 [0808.2354]

    2008 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Y. Bu, M. Lublinsky and A. Sharon, Hydrodynamics dual to Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity: all-order gradient resummation , JHEP 06 (2015) 162 [ 1504.01370]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Buchel, S

    A. Buchel, S. Cremonini and L. Early, Holographic transport beyond the supergravity approximation, JHEP 04 (2024) 032 [ 2312.05377]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [46]

    D. G. Boulware and S. Deser, Effective Gravity Theories With Dilatons , Phys. Lett. B. 175 (1986), 409-412

    1986

  37. [47]

    Caceres, C

    N. Caceres, C. Corral, F. Diaz and R. Olea, Holographic renormalization of Horndeski gravity, JHEP 05 (2024), 125 [ 2311.04054]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [48]

    Iyer and R.M

    V. Iyer and R.M. Wald, Some properties of Noether charge and a proposal for dynamical black hole entropy , Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 846 [ gr-qc/9403028]

    1994 arXiv

  39. [49]

    Bodendorfer and Y

    N. Bodendorfer and Y. Neiman, Wald entropy formula and loop quantum gravity , Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 084054 [ 1304.3025]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [50]

    R.-G. Cai, S. He, L. Li and Y.-X. Wang, Probing QCD critical point and induced gravitational wave by black hole physics , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) L121902 [ 2201.02004]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [51]

    Y.-Q. Zhao, S. He, D. Hou, L. Li and Z. Li, Phase structure and critical phenomena in two-flavor QCD by holography , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 086015 [ 2310.13432]. – 25 –

    2024 arXiv

  42. [52]

    Q. Fu, S. He, L. Li and Z. Li, Revisiting holographic model for thermal and dense QCD with a critical point , JHEP 25 (2020) 221 [ 2404.12109]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [53]

    Myers, M.F

    R.C. Myers, M.F. Paulos and A. Sinha, Holographic Hydrodynamics with a Chemical Potential, JHEP 06 (2009) 006 [ 0903.2834]

    2009 arXiv

  44. [54]

    Iqbal and H

    N. Iqbal and H. Liu, Universality of the hydrodynamic limit in AdS/CFT and the membrane paradigm, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 025023 [ 0809.3808]

    2009 arXiv

  45. [55]

    Weinberg, Gravitation and cosmology: principles and applications of the general theory of relativity,

    S. Weinberg, Gravitation and cosmology: principles and applications of the general theory of relativity,

  46. [56]

    Batchelor, Fluid mechanics

    G.K. Batchelor, Fluid mechanics. by ld landau and em lifshitz. 2nd english edition. pergamon press, 1987. 539 pp. £ 45 or 29.50 (paperback). , Journal of Fluid Mechanics 205 (1989) 593

    1989

  47. [57]

    Bemfica, M.M

    F.S. Bemfica, M.M. Disconzi and J. Noronha, First-Order General-Relativistic Viscous Fluid Dynamics, Phys. Rev. X 12 (2022) 021044 [ 2009.11388]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [58]

    Fairoos, A

    C. Fairoos, A. Ghosh and S. Sarkar, Black Hole Entropy production and Transport coefficients in Lovelock Gravity, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 024036 [ 1802.00177]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [59]

    Benincasa and A

    P. Benincasa and A. Buchel, Hydrodynamics of Sakai-Sugimoto model in the quenched approximation, Phys. Lett. B 640 (2006) 108 [ hep-th/0605076]

    2006 arXiv

  50. [60]

    Jacobson, A

    T. Jacobson, A. Mohd and S. Sarkar, Membrane paradigm for Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 064036 [ 1107.1260]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [61]

    Mishra, S

    A. Mishra, S. Chakraborty, A. Ghosh and S. Sarkar, On the physical process first law for dynamical black holes , JHEP 09 (2018) 034 [ 1709.08925]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [62]

    Eling and Y

    C. Eling and Y. Oz, A Novel Formula for Bulk Viscosity from the Null Horizon Focusing Equation, JHEP 06 (2011) 007 [ 1103.1657]

    2011 arXiv

  53. [63]

    Gursoy, E

    U. Gursoy, E. Kiritsis, G. Michalogiorgakis and F. Nitti, Thermal Transport and Drag Force in Improved Holographic QCD , JHEP 12 (2009) 056 [ 0906.1890]

    2009 arXiv

  54. [64]

    Buchel, On Eling-Oz formula for the holographic bulk viscosity , JHEP 05 (2011) 065 [1103.3733]

    A. Buchel, On Eling-Oz formula for the holographic bulk viscosity , JHEP 05 (2011) 065 [1103.3733]

    2011 arXiv

  55. [65]

    Buchel, U

    A. Buchel, U. Gursoy and E. Kiritsis, Holographic bulk viscosity: GPR versus EO , JHEP 09 (2011) 095 [ 1104.2058]

    2011 arXiv

  56. [66]

    Brigante, H

    M. Brigante, H. Liu, R.C. Myers, S. Shenker and S. Yaida, Viscosity Bound Violation in Higher Derivative Gravity , Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 126006 [ 0712.0805]

    2008 arXiv

  57. [67]

    Jacobson and R.C

    T. Jacobson and R.C. Myers, Black hole entropy and higher curvature interactions , Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 3684 [ hep-th/9305016]

    1993 arXiv

  58. [68]

    Jacobson, G

    T. Jacobson, G. Kang and R.C. Myers, On black hole entropy , Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 6587 [gr-qc/9312023]

    1994 arXiv

  59. [69]

    Jacobson, G

    T. Jacobson, G. Kang and R.C. Myers, Black hole entropy in higher curvature gravity , in 16th Annual MRST (Montreal-Rochester-Syracuse-Toronto) Meeting on High-energy Physics: What Next? Exploring the Future of High-energy Physics , 5, 1994 [ gr-qc/9502009]

    1994 arXiv

  60. [70]

    Edelstein, Lovelock theory, black holes and holography , Springer Proc

    J.D. Edelstein, Lovelock theory, black holes and holography , Springer Proc. Math. Stat. 60 (2014) 19 [ 1303.6213]

    2014 arXiv

  61. [71]

    Sotiriou and V

    T.P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, f(R) Theories Of Gravity , Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 451 [0805.1726]. – 26 –

    2010 arXiv

  62. [72]

    Lewandowski and T

    J. Lewandowski and T. Pawlowski, Quasi-local rotating black holes in higher dimension: Geometry, Class. Quant. Grav. 22 (2005) 1573 [ gr-qc/0410146]

    2005 arXiv

  63. [73]

    Hashimoto, S

    K. Hashimoto, S. Sugishita, A. Tanaka and A. Tomiya, Deep Learning and Holographic QCD, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.10, 106014 [ 1809.10536]

    2018 arXiv

  64. [74]

    R. G. Cai, S. He, L. Li and H. A. Zeng, Neural Ordinary Differential Equations for Mapping the Magnetic QCD Phase Diagram via Holography , 2406.12772

  65. [75]

    Aarts, K

    G. Aarts, K. Fukushima, T. Hatsuda, A. Ipp, S. Shi, L. Wang and K. Zhou, Physics-driven learning for inverse problems in quantum chromodynamics , Nature Rev. Phys. 7 (2025) no.3, 154-163 [2501.05580]. – 27 –

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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