Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 68 references

Out-of-bounds hydrodynamics in holographic anisotropic Dirac semimetals

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 This paper claims that a backreacted holographic anisotropic Dirac semimetal violates the KSS shear-viscosity bound in its semi-Dirac quantum critical region, with $\eta/s$ falling as $T^{0.561}$ toward zero temperature.

desk verdict Solid but incomplete numerical holography paper; the η/s scaling at the Lifshitz point is plausible and worth refereeing, but the ν=1/z link needs error bars and a proper derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13497 v1 pith:MWKC6Z6F submitted 2025-07-17 hep-th cond-mat.other

Sebastián Bahamondes , Ignacio Salazar Landea , Rodrigo Soto-Garrido This is my paper
classification hep-thcond-mat.other
keywords holographicsemimetalshearviscosityKSSboundLifshitzdynamicalexponentquantumcriticalpointsemi-DiracdispersionAdS/CFTbackreaction
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 extends a holographic model of a strongly coupled 2+1-dimensional anisotropic Dirac semimetal by including backreaction of the matter fields on the spacetime geometry, which makes the shear viscosity of the dual fluid computable. The central result is that in the semi-Dirac quantum critical region the ratio $\eta/s$ drops below the Kovtun-Son-Starinets bound and continues to fall as temperature decreases, following $\eta/s \sim (T/\Delta_1)^{\nu}$ with $\nu \approx 0.561$. The paper further constructs explicit $T=0$ domain-wall solutions for the semimetallic and insulating phases and shows they meet at a quantum critical point at $(\Delta_2/\Delta_1)_c \approx 0.879$ whose deep-IR geometry is Lifshitz-like, with dynamical critical exponent $z \approx 1.896$. Because $1/z \approx 0.527$ agrees with the measured $\nu$ within 6.4%, the claimed low-temperature scaling is tied to a genuine zero-temperature quantum phase transition rather than a finite-temperature crossover. If correct, the model provides a strongly coupled example where anisotropy alone forces $\eta/s$ to vanish as $T\to 0$ while still respecting the improved bound $\eta/s \geq (T/\Delta_1)^2$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the backreacted four-dimensional bulk action with an SU(2) gauge field, an adjoint scalar with a $\phi^4$ potential, and an anisotropic black-brane metric $ds^2 = r^{-2}\left(-f N^2 dt^2 + dr^2/f + h^2 dx^2 + h^{-2} dy^2\right)$. The shear viscosity $\eta_{xy,xy}$ is extracted through the Kubo formula from the retarded correlator of the boundary stress tensor, computed numerically by a shooting method that matches infalling horizon data to the UV asymptotics and completes the seven-dimensional space of fluctuations with two pure-gauge solutions. The $T=0$ critical point is carried by the Lifshitz ansatz whose scaling $(r,t,x,y) \mapsto (\lambda^{1/(1-\alpha)} r, \lambda t, \lambda^{(1+\alpha)/(1-\alpha)} x, \lambda y)$ defines the dynamical exponent $z = (1-\alpha)/(1+\alpha) \approx 1.896$; this exponent is what fixes the low-temperature slope $\nu = 1/z$ of $\eta/s$.

What would settle it

Compute $\eta/s$ at $k=0$ using explicitly gauge-invariant combinations of the metric and matter fluctuations, without the pure-gauge completion, and compare with the reported values; a mismatch would show the KSS violation is a gauge artifact. Alternatively, measure the low-temperature slope $\nu$ from several fixed values of $\Delta_1/T$ with quoted errors: if $\nu$ deviates from $1/z \approx 0.527$ by more than the numerical uncertainty, the geometry-transport link is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the backreacted holographic anisotropic Dirac semimetal exhibits a parametric violation of the KSS bound in its semi-Dirac quantum critical phase, with $\eta/s$ scaling as $T^{\nu}$ at low temperature, and that this scaling is set by the Lifshitz dynamical critical exponent $z$ of the $T=0$ critical point through $\nu = 1/z$. The $T=0$ solutions are explicit: an AdS$_4$ domain wall with constant scalar (insulator), an AdS$_4$ domain wall with constant gauge field (semimetal), and at the separating critical value $(\Delta_2/\Delta_1)_c \approx 0.879$ an exact Lifshitz-type solution in which time and the $x$ and $y$ directions scale with different powers. The finite-temperature shooting data converge toward the zero-temperature results as $T$ decreases, including the discontinuous jump of the IR scalar value across the transition, supporting the identification of the thermal semi-Dirac phase as the finite-temperature shadow of a quantum phase transition.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the low-temperature shear viscosity follows the Lifshitz dimensional-analysis relation $\eta/s \sim T^{1/z}$ imported from other holographic settings, checked here to a 6.4% level with no quoted uncertainty, together with the assertion that completing the fluctuation basis with two pure-gauge solutions yields the physical, gauge-invariant value of $\eta/s$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the semi-Dirac quantum critical region, $\eta/s$ violates the KSS bound and decreases monotonically as $T \to 0$, so anisotropy alone is sufficient to produce parametrically small viscosity in a strongly coupled holographic fluid.
  • The low-temperature exponent satisfies $\nu \approx 0.561 < 2$, so the result is compatible with the improved bound $\eta/s \geq (T/\Delta_1)^2$ proposed for low temperatures.
  • The finite-temperature phase transition found earlier in the probe limit originates from a real quantum critical point at $T=0$ located at $(\Delta_2/\Delta_1)_c \approx 0.879$.
  • The Lifshitz exponent near $z \approx 1.896$ means the quantum critical point scales roughly quadratically in one spatial direction and linearly in the other, matching the semi-Dirac band structure of probe fermions.
  • The boundary conditions and shooting results imply that the IR value of the scalar field jumps discontinuously from $0$ to $\sqrt{2}$ across the quantum critical point as $T \to 0$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $\nu = 1/z$ relation holds beyond this model, low-temperature measurements of $\eta/s$ in semi-Dirac materials such as ZrSiS could serve as a probe of the bulk dynamical critical exponent, something the paper does not itself claim.
  • The same backreacted setup could be used to compute other components of the viscosity tensor or the bulk viscosity; the paper only reports $\eta_{xy,xy}$ as $\eta$, leaving the gauge-invariant status of the other entries open.
  • Because the reported $\eta/s$ depends on completing the fluctuation basis with two pure-gauge modes, a direct construction of gauge-invariant perturbations at $k=0$ would provide an independent check of the numerical values; the paper argues for the completion following earlier holographic examples but does not prove gauge independence of the final numbers explicitly.
  • Adding a finite U(1) charge density, suggested by the authors in their outlook, would test whether the KSS violation survives in a compressible phase or is replaced by a superconducting instability.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies a backreacted holographic model of a 2+1-dimensional anisotropic Dirac semimetal. The bulk action (2.2) contains gravity, an SU(2) gauge field, and an adjoint scalar with a phi^4 term; the authors numerically construct finite-temperature backgrounds, compute the shear viscosity eta_xy,xy through the Kubo formula (2.21), and find that eta/s falls below the KSS bound in the quantum critical region and scales as eta/s ~ T^nu with nu approximately 0.561 at low temperature. They also construct explicit T=0 domain-wall solutions for the semimetal and insulator phases, which meet at a quantum critical point (Delta_2/Delta_1)_c approximately 0.879; the critical IR geometry is Lifshitz-like with dynamical exponent z approximately 1.896, and the paper identifies nu with 1/z.

Significance. If the central identification nu=1/z holds, the paper provides a concrete holographic realization in which a genuine T=0 Lifshitz quantum critical point controls the low-temperature shear viscosity, producing a parametric KSS violation with an exponent tied to the geometry. The main strengths are the explicit T=0 solutions, the critical-exponent fits for the shooting parameter, and the fact that the finite-temperature exponent and the zero-temperature Lifshitz exponent are independent computations that agree within about 6%; this is a genuine cross-check rather than a fit to a single dataset. The main weaknesses are that the nu=1/z relation is imported from dimensional analysis in Refs. [28,30,65] rather than derived for this theory, and that the numerical fits are reported without uncertainties; both issues need to be addressed before the headline claim is fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.3 / Eq. (4.22) and Sec. 3] The relation nu=1/z is the load-bearing quantitative result, but it is imported from dimensional analysis in Refs. [28,30,65] rather than derived from the Kubo formula (2.21) or from the linearized fluctuation equations of this model. Please provide an in-theory derivation, or at least an explicit scaling analysis of the shear sector showing that the Lifshitz IR controls eta_xy,xy. In addition, quote the fit range, the number of points, and the statistical uncertainty for nu approximately 0.561; with no error bar, the quoted 6.4% agreement with 1/z approximately 0.527 is not a meaningful test.
  2. [Sec. 3, Fig. 4] The text fixes the scaling line at Delta_2/Delta_1 approximately 0.879 (the T=0 critical value), but the Figure 4 caption states Delta_2/Delta_1 = 0.876... . Please reconcile these values and show that the fitted exponent is stable when Delta_2/Delta_1 is varied around the critical point; otherwise the power law in Fig. 4 could be a crossover effect rather than the T=0 quantum critical scaling.
  3. [Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 2.3] The background and fluctuation equations are never written down ('the explicit shape of these ODEs is not particularly enlightening'), so the numerical results cannot be reproduced or independently checked from the manuscript. Please include the explicit ODEs in an appendix or make the numerical code available; this is particularly important because the main results are numerical.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.3 and Sec. 2.1] The phrase 'not very enlightening so as to be worth writing down explicitly' should read 'not enlightening enough to be worth writing down'; similar wording appears in Sec. 2.1.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B.15)] The expression for delta_diff h_xy should read i(k_y xi_x - k_x xi_y), not i(k_y xi_x - k_y xi_x).
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical errors ('adressed', 'necesarily', 'exponentes', 'assymptotically', 'lienarly', 'makest', 'otherwhise'); a careful proofread is needed.
  4. [Sec. 4.3] The statement that 't roughly scales quadratically with distance in the x-direction' is imprecise; with z approximately 1.896 the scaling is t ~ x^z, which is close to but distinct from quadratic.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption should define the fit interval for the slope and state whether the plotted line is a best fit or a guide to the eye.
  6. [References] References [8], [33], and [41] lack complete bibliographic information (article numbers or journal details) and should be completed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the viscosity fit and the T=0 Lifshitz exponent are independent computations, and the ν ≈ 1/z comparison is a genuine, if under-tested, cross-check.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is not circular. The finite-T viscosity computation (Secs. 2.2–3) is independent of the T=0 critical-geometry computation (Sec. 4). The shear viscosity entry ηxy,xy/s is obtained from the Kubo formula (2.21) and the renormalized VEV expression (2.36) using numerical shooting; the power-law exponent ν ≈ 0.561 is fitted from the log-log slope in Fig. 4 at fixed Δ2/Δ1 ≈ 0.879. The Lifshitz exponent z ≈ 1.896 is independently derived by solving the T=0 equations of motion with the Lifshitz ansatz (4.22) and the associated transcendental equation for α; it is not tuned to match the viscosity fit. The comparison of ν to 1/z ≈ 0.527 is therefore a genuine test of the dimensional-analysis relation imported from [28, 30, 65], although it is under-tested: no uncertainty is quoted for ν, the agreement is at the 6.4% level, and there is a small inconsistency between the text's Δ2/Δ1 ≈ 0.879 and the Fig. 4 caption's 0.876... . These are correctness or robustness concerns, not circularity. The use of [8] for the model and phase labels is a normal continuation and is not load-bearing for the new QCP construction: the T=0 domain-wall solutions and the Lifshitz critical solution are found in this paper, and the finite-T phase behavior is independently consistent with the backreacted numerics. The Appendix B gauge ambiguity affects non-gauge-invariant components (hxx, hyy, htt) at k=0, but the shear component hxy is invariant at k=0 and decouples from those modes, so the central ηxy,xy result is not fed by the pure-gauge completion in a way that would make the prediction equivalent to its input. No equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is used to predict, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper's quantitative claims rest on an invented bulk model (from [8], extended with an ad hoc ϕ^4 term), hand-chosen parameters (κ = λ = 1, m² = -2), an imported dimensional-analysis relation (ν = 1/z), and numerical fits (ν ≈ 0.561, β±) with no error bars. The T=0 exponents z ≈ 1.896 and the critical point (Δ2/Δ1)_c = 0.879 come from solving the model's own EOMs, so their validity is internal to the model. No real-material data are fitted anywhere in the paper, and no falsifiable handle outside the model is provided.

free parameters (5)
  • κ (gravitational coupling) = 1 (chosen)
    Set to 1 for all numerics (Section 2.4: 'We also choose κ = λ = 1 for all numerical calculations'). All quantitative claims (η/s values, exponents, z ≈ 1.9) are stated for this value; no scan over κ is shown.
  • λ (scalar self-coupling) = 1 (chosen)
    Set to 1 alongside κ. The quartic term was added ad hoc to stabilize the negative-mass scalar (Section 2.1), and its coefficient is part of the model input.
  • m² (scalar mass) = -2 (chosen)
    Chosen as in [8]; it sets the scalar conformal dimension Δ_φ = 1 and the IR scalar value √(-m²/λ) = √2 (Section 4.1).
  • ν (low-T scaling exponent of η/s) = ≈ 0.561
    Power-law fit to the numerical η/s data in Figure 4 (Section 3). Compared to the T=0 prediction 1/z ≈ 0.527; no error bars or fit range are given.
  • β± (critical exponents of the B0 shooting parameter) = β+ = -0.776, β- = 0.275
    Nonlinear fits to numerical data near the critical point (Figure 7, Section 4.3).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT duality: the 4D classical bulk theory (2.2) computes the physics of a strongly coupled 2+1D boundary field theory
    The whole dictionary (GKPW, Kubo formulas, holographic renormalization) rests on this conjecture, cited via [12-15]. Cannot be verified within the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The bulk action (2.2) with SU(2) gauge field and adjoint scalar with m² = -2 plus the added λϕ^4 term is the correct dual of the semi-Dirac toy model (2.1)
    Model introduced in [8]; the ϕ^4 term is introduced here 'since the value of the scalar's mass will be taken to be negative and, therefore, might lead to instabilities' (Section 2.1). No derivation from a microscopic string construction.
  • domain assumption The phase boundaries are located by the a0-b0 crossing, inherited from the probe-fermion band structure analysis of [8]
    Section 3: 'the point of crossing of both parameters would naively correspond to the second-order phase transition between the semimetalic and semi-Dirac phases [8]'.
  • domain assumption η/s scales as T^(1/z) in a Lifshitz geometry with dynamical exponent z (dimensional analysis)
    Section 4.3: 'from dimensional analysis alone (see [28, 30, 65] for a detailed derivation), it can be deduced that the scaling of η/s with temperature ... scales as η/s ∼ T^ν ... ν = 1/z'. Quoted, not derived for this model.
  • standard math The standard holographic counterterms (4 + R[γ] + 2K and Tr[Φ†Φ]) render the on-shell action finite
    Section 2.4, following [46-48, 50, 51]. Applied without modification.
  • standard math The Kubo formula η = -lim_{ω→0} (1/ω) Im G^R(ω) describes the shear viscosity, and the local-rest-frame conditions hold
    Sections 2.2-2.4; the rest-frame condition ⟨T^{tx}⟩ = ⟨T^{ty}⟩ = 0 is verified at linear order (Section 2.4).
  • ad hoc to paper The IR ansatze (4.1), (4.14), (4.22) are the correct fixed points for the insulating, semimetalic and critical phases at T=0
    Postulated as 'sensible candidates' (Sections 4.1-4.3); their connection to the UV is achieved numerically by shooting, which is the central numerical claim.
invented entities (2)
  • 4D bulk holographic theory (gravity + SU(2) gauge field + adjoint scalar with m² = -2 and λϕ^4)
    purpose: Dual description of a strongly coupled 2+1D anisotropic (semi-Dirac) semimetal with backreaction, enabling the viscosity computation
    Inherited from [8] and extended with the ϕ^4 term; its only external anchor is qualitative (semi-Dirac materials such as ZrSiS [9]). No quantitative prediction outside the holographic framework is tested against experiment; the η/s ~ T^0.56 scaling is internal to the model.
  • Lifshitz-type IR geometry at the critical point (eq. 4.22), with exponents α ≈ -0.309 and z ≈ 1.896
    purpose: Describes the T=0 quantum critical point separating the semimetalic and insulating phases and fixes the low-T scaling of η/s
    This is a derived solution of the model rather than a new particle or force, but it carries the paper's main quantitative claims; its only independent evidence is the internal consistency between ν and 1/z.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Out-of-bounds hydrodynamics in holographic anisotropic Dirac semimetals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MWKC6Z6F

@misc{pith2026250713497,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Out-of-bounds hydrodynamics in holographic anisotropic Dirac semimetals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MWKC6Z6F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13497}
}
abstract

We present a version of a strongly correlated 2+1-dimensional condensed matter system that features a thermal phase transition between a semimetal and an insulator through a semi-Dirac quantum critical region using AdS/CFT holography. We introduce backreaction into the bulk equations of motion to measure transport coefficients in the boundary; specifically the shear viscosity $\eta$. By explicitly breaking rotational symmetry we find a new instance of violation of the KSS-bound for the $\eta/s$ ratio in the quantum critical region, as well as a monotone dependence on temperature in the $T\to 0$ regime fixed by a Lifshitz dynamical critical exponent. We find that the Lifshitz critical exponent in the anisotropic direction is approximately equal to $2$ for our choice of backreaction parameters. We find explicit $T=0$ solutions separated by a quantum critical point in parameter space, showing that the thermal critical phase found in previous work comes from a quantum phase transition at zero temperature.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Bahamondes, I

    S. Bahamondes, I. Salazar and R. Soto-Garrido, Holographic description of an anisotropic dirac semimetal, J. High. Energ. Phys. 2024 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, M. I. Katsnelson, I. V. Grigorieva et al., Two-dimensional gas of massless dirac fermions in graphene , Nature 438 (2005) 04233

    work page 2005

  3. [2]

    Worku and D

    A. Worku and D. Ayele, Recent advances of graphene-based materials for emerging technologies , Res. in Chem. 5 (2023) 100971

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    S´ anchez-Barriga, O

    J. S´ anchez-Barriga, O. J. Clark, M. G. Vergniory, M. Krivenkov, A. Varykhalov, O. Rader et al., Experimental realization of a three-dimensional dirac semimetal phase with a tunable lifshitz transition in au2Pb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 236402. – 29 –

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Tight-binding modeling and low-energy behavior of the semi-Dirac point

    S. Banerjee, R. Singh, V. Pardo and W. Pickett, Tight-binding modeling and low-energy behavior of the semi-dirac point, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 016402 [ 0906.1564]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  6. [5]

    J. M. Link, B. N. Narozhny, E. I. Kiselev and J. Schmalian, Out-of-bounds hydrodynamics in anisotropic Dirac fluids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 196801 [ 1708.02759]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    Armitage, E

    N. Armitage, E. Mele and A. Vishwanath, Weyl and Dirac semimetals in three-dimensional solids , Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 (2018) 015001 [ 1705.01111]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [7]

    M. D. Uryszek, E. Christou, A. Jaefari, F. Kr¨ uger and B. Uchoa, Quantum Criticality of Semi-Dirac Fermions in 2+1 Dimensions , Phys. Rev. B 100 (2019) 155101 [ 1907.11810]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Shao, S. Moon, A. N. Rudenko, J. Wang, J. Herzog-Arbeitman, M. Ozerov et al., Semi-dirac fermions in a topological metal , Phys. Rev. X 14 (2024) 041057

    2024

  2. [10]

    Tarruell, D

    L. Tarruell, D. Greif, T. Uehlinger, G. Jotzu and T. Esslinger, Creating, moving and merging dirac points with a fermi gas in a tunable honeycomb lattice , Nature 483 (2012) 302 [ 1111.5020]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    D´ ora, I

    B. D´ ora, I. F. Herbut and R. Moessner, Coupling, merging, and splitting dirac points by electron-electron interaction, Phys. Rev. B 88 (2013) 075126

    2013

  4. [12]

    S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, Holographic Superconductors, JHEP 12 (2008) 015 [0810.1563]

    2008 arXiv

  5. [13]

    S. A. Hartnoll, Lectures on holographic methods for condensed matter physics , Class. Quant. Grav. 26 (2009) 224002 [ 0903.3246]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Erdmenger and A

    J. Erdmenger and A. M, Gauge/Gravity Duality: foundations and applications . Cambridge University Press, 2015

    2015

  7. [16]

    Witten, Anti-de Sitter space and holography , Adv

    E. Witten, Anti-de Sitter space and holography , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 253 [hep-th/9802150]

    1998 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Maldacena, The large-N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity , International journal of theoretical physics 38 (1999) 1113

    J. Maldacena, The large-N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity , International journal of theoretical physics 38 (1999) 1113

    1999

  9. [18]

    Landsteiner and Y

    K. Landsteiner and Y. Liu, The holographic Weyl semi-metal , Phys. Lett. B 753 (2016) 453 [1505.04772]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Landsteiner, Y

    K. Landsteiner, Y. Liu and Y.-W. Sun, Holographic Topological Semimetals, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63 (2020) 250001 [ 1911.07978]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Juriˇ ci´ c, I

    V. Juriˇ ci´ c, I. Salazar Landea and R. Soto-Garrido,Phase transitions in a holographic multi-Weyl semimetal, JHEP 07 (2020) 052 [ 2005.10387]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Juriˇ ci´ c, O

    V. Juriˇ ci´ c, O. Miskovic and F. R. Carrasco,Holographic Weyl semimetals with dislocations , 2410.18853

  13. [22]

    J. N. Laia and D. Tong, A Holographic Flat Band , JHEP 11 (2011) 125 [ 1108.1381]

    2011 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Grandi, V

    N. Grandi, V. Juriˇ ci´ c, I. Salazar Landea and R. Soto-Garrido,Towards holographic flat bands, JHEP 05 (2021) 123 [ 2103.01690]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Grandi, V

    N. Grandi, V. Juriˇ ci´ c, I. Salazar Landea and R. Soto-Garrido,Probing holographic flat bands at finite density, JHEP 01 (2024) 030 [ 2304.08603]. – 30 –

    2024 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Amado, M

    I. Amado, M. Kaminski and K. Landsteiner, Hydrodynamics of Holographic Superconductors, JHEP 05 (2009) 021 [ 0903.2209]

    2009 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Iqbal, H

    N. Iqbal, H. Liu and M. Mezei, Lectures on holographic non-Fermi liquids and quantum phase transitions, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: String theory and its Applications: From meV to the Planck Scale , pp. 707–816, 10, 2011, 1110.3814, DOI

    2011 arXiv

  18. [27]

    X. Liu, J. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, B. I. Halperin et al., Crossover between strongly coupled and weakly coupled exciton superfluids , Science 375 (2022) 205

    2022

  19. [28]

    S. A. Hartnoll, D. M. Ramirez and J. E. Santos, Entropy production, viscosity bounds and bumpy black holes, J. High. Energ. Phys. 2016 (2016)

    2016

  20. [29]

    Kovtun, D

    P. Kovtun, D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, Viscosity in strongly interacting quantum field theories from black hole physics , Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 111601 [ hep-th/0405231]

    2005 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Landsteiner, Y

    K. Landsteiner, Y. Liu and Y.-W. Sun, Odd viscosity in the quantum critical region of a holographic Weyl semimetal , Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 081604 [ 1604.01346]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Rebhan and D

    A. Rebhan and D. Steineder, Violation of the holographic viscosity bound in a strongly coupled anisotropic plasma, Physical Review Letters 108 (2012)

    2012

  23. [32]

    Critelli, S

    R. Critelli, S. Finazzo, M. Zaniboni and J. Noronha, Anisotropic shear viscosity of a strongly coupled non-abelian plasma from magnetic branes , Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014)

    2014

  24. [33]

    N. W. M. Plantz, F. Garc ´ ıa Fl´ orez and H. T. C. Stoof,Massive Dirac fermions from holography , JHEP 04 (2018) 123 [ 1802.04191]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Erdmenger, P

    J. Erdmenger, P. Kerner and Z. Hansj¨ org,Transport in anisotropic superfluids: a holographic description, J. High. Energ. Phys. 2012 (2012) 59

    2012

  26. [35]

    Zaanen, Y

    J. Zaanen, Y. Liu, Y.-W. Sun and K. Schalm, Holographic Duality in Condensed Matter Physics . Cambridge University Press, 2015

    2015

  27. [36]

    D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, Viscosity, black holes, and quantum field theory , Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 95

    2007

  28. [37]

    M. P. Heller, A. Serantes, M. Spali´ nski, V. Svensson and B. Withers, Hydrodynamic gradient expansion in linear response theory , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 066002 [ 2007.05524]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Czajka and S

    A. Czajka and S. Jeon, Kubo formulas for the shear and bulk viscosity relaxation times and the scalar field theory shear τπ calculation, Physical Review C 95 (2017)

    2017

  30. [39]

    S. Jain, R. Samanta and S. P. Trivedi, The shear viscosity in anisotropic phases , Journal of High Energy Physics 2015 (2015)

    2015

  31. [40]

    D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, Minkowski-space correlators in ads/cft correspondence: recipe and applications, J. High. Energ. Phys. 2002 (2002) 042–042

    2002

  32. [41]

    Rai and K

    N. Rai and K. Landsteiner, Hydrodynamic modes of holographic weyl semimetals , 2024

    2024

  33. [42]

    Are´ an, M

    D. Are´ an, M. Baggioli, S. Grieninger and K. Landsteiner, A holographic superfluid symphony , J. High. Energ. Phys. 2021 (2021)

    2021

  34. [43]

    Kaminski, K

    M. Kaminski, K. Landsteiner, J. Mas, J. P. Shock and J. Tarrio, Holographic operator mixing and quasinormal modes on the brane , J. High Energy Phys. 2010 (2010) 1

    2010

  35. [44]

    Ammon, J

    M. Ammon, J. Erdmenger, M. Kaminski and A. O’Bannon, Fermionic Operator Mixing in Holographic p-wave Superfluids, JHEP 05 (2010) 053 [ 1003.1134]

    2010 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Gubser, I

    S. Gubser, I. Klebanov and A. Polyakov, Gauge theory correlators from non-critical string theory , Phys. Lett. B 428 (1998) 105 . – 31 –

    1998

  37. [46]

    de Haro, K

    S. de Haro, K. Skenderis and S. N. Solodukhin, Holographic reconstruction of spacetime and renormalization in the ads/cft correspondence , Commun. Math. Phys. 217 (2001) 595–622

    2001

  38. [47]

    Bianchi, D

    M. Bianchi, D. Z. Freedman and K. Skenderis, Holographic renormalization, Nucl. Phys. B 631 (2002) 159–194

    2002

  39. [48]

    Skenderis, Lecture notes on holographic renormalization , Class

    K. Skenderis, Lecture notes on holographic renormalization , Class. Quant. Grav. 19 (2002) 5849–5876

    2002

  40. [49]

    Papadimitriou, Lectures on holographic renormalization, in Theoretical Frontiers in Black Holes and Cosmology (R

    I. Papadimitriou, Lectures on holographic renormalization, in Theoretical Frontiers in Black Holes and Cosmology (R. Kallosh and E. Orazi, eds.), (Cham), pp. 131–181, Springer International Publishing, 2016

    2016

  41. [50]

    Ammon, J

    M. Ammon, J. Erdmenger, V. Grass, P. Kerner and A. O’Bannon, On holographic p-wave superfluids with back-reaction, Phys. Lett. B 686 (2010) 192–198

    2010

  42. [51]

    R. E. Arias and I. S. Landea, Backreacting p-wave Superconductors, JHEP 01 (2013) 157 [ 1210.6823]

    2013 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Cremonini, The shear viscosity to entropy ratio: a status report , Mod, Phys

    S. Cremonini, The shear viscosity to entropy ratio: a status report , Mod, Phys. Lett. B 25 (2011) 1867–1888

    2011

  44. [53]

    Di Sante, J

    D. Di Sante, J. Erdmenger, M. Greiter, I. Matthaiakakis, R. Meyer, D. R. Fern´ andez et al., Turbulent hydrodynamics in strongly correlated kagome metals , Nat. Comm. 11 (2020)

    2020

  45. [54]

    Xie and A

    H.-Y. Xie and A. Levchenko, Negative viscosity and eddy flow of the imbalanced electron-hole liquid in graphene, Phys. Rev. B 99 (2019) 045434

    2019

  46. [55]

    Erdmenger, I

    J. Erdmenger, I. Matthaiakakis, R. Meyer and D. R. Fern´ andez, Strongly coupled electron fluids in the poiseuille regime, Phys. Rev. B 98 (2018) 195143

    2018

  47. [56]

    Landsteiner, Y

    K. Landsteiner, Y. Liu and Y.-W. Sun, Quantum phase transition between a topological and a trivial semimetal from holography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 081602

    2016

  48. [57]

    Chesler, A

    P. Chesler, A. Lucas and S. Sachdev, Conformal field theories in a periodic potential: results from holography and field theory , Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 026005 [ 1308.0329]

    2014 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Donos, J

    A. Donos, J. P. Gauntlett and C. Pantelidou, Conformal field theories in d = 4 with a helical twist , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 066003 [ 1412.3446]

    2015 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Landsteiner, Y

    K. Landsteiner, Y. Liu and Y.-W. Sun, Quantum phase transition between a topological and a trivial semimetal from holography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 081602 [ 1511.05505]

    2016 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Donos, J

    A. Donos, J. P. Gauntlett and O. Sosa-Rodriguez, Anisotropic plasmas from axion and dilaton deformations, JHEP 11 (2016) 002 [ 1608.02970]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Donos, J

    A. Donos, J. P. Gauntlett, C. Rosen and O. Sosa-Rodriguez, Boomerang RG flows with intermediate conformal invariance, JHEP 04 (2018) 017 [ 1712.08017]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Donos, J

    A. Donos, J. P. Gauntlett, C. Rosen and O. Sosa-Rodriguez, Boomerang RG flows in M-theory with intermediate scaling, JHEP 07 (2017) 128 [ 1705.03000]

    2017 arXiv

  54. [63]

    C´ aceres, R

    E. C´ aceres, R. Castillo V´ asquez, K. Landsteiner and I. Salazar Landea,Holographic a-functions and Boomerang RG flows, JHEP 02 (2024) 019 [ 2310.15983]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Grandi, V

    N. Grandi, V. Juriˇ ci´ c, I. S. Landea and R. Soto-Garrido,Engineering holographic flat fermionic bands , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) L081902 [ 2112.12198]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Y. Ling, Z. Xian and Z. Zhou, Holographic shear viscosity in hyperscaling violating theories without translational invariance, J. High. Energ. Phys. 2016 (2016)

    2016

  57. [66]

    Z. Z. Ma, Hawking radiation of black p-branes from gravitational anomaly , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23 (2008) 2783–2800. – 32 –

    2008

  58. [67]

    Susskind, The world as a hologram , Journal of Mathematical Physics 36 (1995) 6377–6396

    L. Susskind, The world as a hologram , Journal of Mathematical Physics 36 (1995) 6377–6396

    1995

  59. [68]

    ’t Hooft, Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity , 2009

    G. ’t Hooft, Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity , 2009

    2009

  60. [69]

    Carlip, Dimension and dimensional reduction in quantum gravity , Class

    S. Carlip, Dimension and dimensional reduction in quantum gravity , Class. Quant. Grav. 34 (2017) 193001. – 33 –

    2017

Pith tools

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