Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper claims that a Horndeski gravity model, via the AdS/BCFT correspondence, reproduces constriction and normal Josephson junctions, with the supercurrent J = J_max sin(Γ) tuned by the Horndeski parameters.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 10:59 UTC pith:QU4MMJRW

load-bearing objection The Horndeski brane profile is a real new piece, but the two headline claims — the normal-junction phase and the second-order transition — are either internally inconsistent or asserted without derivation. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2510.07165 v2 pith:QU4MMJRW submitted 2025-10-08 hep-th

Building an AdS/BCFT Josephson junction within Horndeski gravity

Fabiano F. Santos , Henrique Boschi-Filho This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords AdS/BCFT correspondenceHorndeski gravityJosephson junctionholographic superconductorcurrent-phase relationsecond-order phase transitioncoherence lengthprobe approximation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that the AdS/BCFT correspondence within Horndeski gravity—a scalar-tensor theory of gravity—can describe two types of Josephson junctions: constriction junctions and superconductor-normal-superconductor (SNS) junctions. The authors claim that below a critical temperature a charged condensate forms via a second-order phase transition, and that the condensate consists of quasiparticle pairs. The supercurrent across the junction is said to obey the standard sine relation, J = J_max sin(Γ), where the phase difference Γ is determined entirely by the shape of the boundary surface and is tuned by the Horndeski parameters α and γ. They also derive explicit formulas for the condensate and critical current as functions of temperature and junction width, which have the exponential form familiar from standard Josephson junctions. If correct, this would be the first demonstration that Horndeski gravity can control the Josephson effect in a holographic BCFT setting.

Core claim

The central claim is that a single scalar field in Horndeski gravity, coupled to a U(1) gauge field in the probe limit, provides a dual description of a Josephson junction once a boundary is introduced via AdS/BCFT. Solving the Neumann boundary condition gives a boundary profile y(u) whose integrated slope determines the phase difference Γ = −∫ y′(u)/u du between the two superconductors. This leads to a current–phase relation J = J_max sin(Γ), with J_max given by an exponential in the junction width and in the Horndeski combinations α and γ. The paper further claims that the same construction yields both constriction-type and normal (SNS) junctions, with a coherence length ζ = sqrt((α+γΛ)/(6

What carries the argument

The central object is the boundary profile y(u) — the shape of the hypersurface ∂Ω where the two superconductors meet — which is fixed by a Neumann condition. The phase difference Γ is then read off as the integral Γ = −∫ y′(u)/u du, a shortcut that bypasses solving the full bulk equations. Horndeski parameters α and γ enter through the black-hole metric f(u) = (α/(3γ))(u² − u_h³/u) and the scalar field ψ²(u) = −2κ(α+γΛ)/(αγ f(u)); they determine how sharply the profile bends and thus how large the phase difference is. The final formulas for the condensate and critical current are exponentials in the junction width divided by the coherence length ζ = sqrt((α+γΛ)/(6αγ)), so the Horndeski para

Load-bearing premise

The central claim collapses if the phase difference is not actually determined by the boundary-surface profile alone, or if the divergent integral that defines Γ in the normal junction has no consistent regularization.

What would settle it

Numerically evaluate the integral in Eq. (5.7) using the profile (5.6) over the stated domains: it diverges, so the finite result (5.8) cannot be reproduced without an unstated regularization. A second check is to solve the full coupled equations (3.7)–(3.11) for α=8/3, γ=−0.1, u_h=1, Σ=1/4 and compare the phase obtained from the gauge field with the geometric Γ; any disagreement invalidates the geometric shortcut.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the supercurrent in both constriction and SNS junctions follows the standard relation J = J_max sin(Γ), meaning the Horndeski setup reproduces the hallmark of Josephson physics in a holographic setting.
  • The condensate forms only below a critical temperature and is a second-order phase transition, matching the standard holographic superconductor picture.
  • The paper's explicit formulas, ⟨O⟩/T_c² = A₁√|−ξ| exp(−Σu_h/(2ζ)) and J_max/T_c² = A₀√|−ξ| exp(−Σu_h/ζ), predict an exponential suppression of the critical current with junction width, tunable by the Horndeski parameters.
  • For the normal junction, the analogous formulas (5.9)–(5.10) show that the Horndeski parameter γ controls both the phase difference and the coherence length, so varying γ changes the transparency of the superconductor–normal interfaces.
  • The identification of the condensate with a dimension-two operator ⟨O⟩ = Ψ⁽²⁾ gives a concrete holographic dictionary for comparing with laboratory Josephson junction measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that the geometric shortcut — computing Γ from the boundary profile alone — has not been cross-checked against a full solution of the coupled equations (3.7)–(3.11). A reader should not assume the shortcut is valid until such a check is done.
  • For the normal junction, the integral in (5.7) is formally divergent; the claimed finite result (5.8) must rely on an unstated regularization. If no consistent regularization exists, the normal-junction results (5.9)–(5.10) would not be supported.
  • A testable consequence of the exponential formulas is that J_max in a constriction junction should scale with the barrier tension Σ as exp(−Σ u_h/ζ); this is a sharp, parameter-dependent prediction that could be compared with experimental Ic(H) patterns in real junctions.
  • The construction might be extended to time-dependent or higher-dimensional cases, but doing so would require solving the full gauge-scalar system; the present method's reliance on the geometric profile would likely need modification.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs AdS/BCFT Josephson junctions in Horndeski gravity, using a planar AdS4 Schwarzschild black hole solution with a Horndeski scalar field. The authors impose Neumann boundary conditions on the defect brane, obtain bulk profiles y(u) for constriction and normal (SNS) junctions, and propose that the Josephson phase difference Γ is given by integrals of y'(u)/u (Eqs. 4.12, 5.7). They then state exponential formulas for the condensate <O>/T_c^2 and the maximum supercurrent J_max/T_c^2 (Eqs. 4.13, 4.15, 5.9, 5.10), with coefficients A0=A1=1, and conclude that the junctions exhibit a second-order phase transition at a critical temperature T_c and satisfy the current-phase relation J=J_max sin Γ. The manuscript is largely a formal extension of the authors' earlier 'geometric Josephson junction' work [48] and of Horowitz-Santos-Way [53].

Significance. If established, the claimed Horndeski-parameter dependence of the condensate and critical current would be a novel analytic result for holographic Josephson junctions in AdS/BCFT. However, the paper's central quantitative content is not actually derived. The phase-integral shortcut is internally inconsistent in the normal-junction case, the exponential condensate/current formulas are posited rather than obtained from the bulk equations, and no critical temperature is computed. The manuscript therefore does not presently support its main claims. Credit is due for clearly identifying the relevant Horndeski/BCFT framework and for connecting to prior literature, but the paper's contribution is currently a set of ansätze rather than a calculation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5, Eq. (5.7)–(5.8)] The normal-junction phase difference is not derived. Eq. (5.7) states Γ = −∫ du y'(u)/u, but the following integrals contain the profile y(u) itself, i.e. (3/(4α))√(γ/α)(1+u+1/u), not y'(u)/u = (3/(4α))√(γ/α)(1/u − 1/u^3). Moreover, whether one uses y or y'/u, the integrals over (−∞,−u_h] and [u_h,∞) diverge logarithmically or worse, so the finite result Eq. (5.8) does not follow. Since J=J_max sin Γ and Eq. (5.10) depends on this Γ, the normal-junction supercurrent is unsupported.
  2. [§4, Eqs. (4.13)–(4.15); §5, Eqs. (5.9)–(5.10)] The central quantitative claims are asserted, not computed. No solution of the scalar and gauge equations (3.7)–(3.11) is presented; no linearized analysis determines the critical temperature T_c; and the constants A0=A1=1 are free normalization factors. Consequently, the exponential forms for <O>/T_c^2 and J_max/T_c^2 are not predictions derived from the holographic dual but ansätze with adjustable parameters. The claimed second-order phase transition is therefore not established.
  3. [§4, Eq. (4.12)] The constriction-junction phase Γ is obtained by replacing the gauge-field/phase integral with the boundary profile y(u), following ref. [48], without solving the bulk equations. This geometric shortcut assumes a relation between the brane embedding and the Josephson phase that is not demonstrated for the Horndeski action. Because this relation underpins Eq. (4.10) and all subsequent current-phase results, it is a load-bearing assumption, not a derived result.
  4. [§3, Eq. (3.3); §5, Eq. (5.6)] There is a sign inconsistency in the parameter range. For the values used in Figs. 7 and 9 (α=8/3, γ<0, Λ=−1), the metric function f(u)=α/(3γ)(u^2−u_h^3/u) is negative outside the horizon, while the profile Eq. (5.6) contains √(γ/α), which is imaginary. In Fig. 8 the caption instead takes α=−8/3 with γ<0, for which √(γ/α) is real but the background sign changes again. The paper does not clarify which sign convention makes the background a Lorentzian black hole and the profile real. This undermines the interpretation of the plotted curves.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (4.9)] The expression contains an undefined 'O(complex terms)' and an unclear limiting procedure for ν(y). This should be made precise or removed.
  2. [§2, Eq. (2.3)] The rescaling Ψ = Ψ̃/q and A = Ã/q followed by q→∞ in the action should be written more carefully; as printed, the q^2 prefactor seems to change the normalization of the matter action.
  3. [Keywords/Abstract] There are typographical issues, e.g. 'Horndesky' in the keywords and the phrase 'the boundaries in aM' in the Introduction. These should be corrected.
  4. [Figures 5, 6, 8, 9] The figures plot curves for representative parameter values but do not show the underlying numerical data or a comparison with any explicit solution. Since A0 and A1 are set to unity, the plots illustrate the exponential ansatz rather than a calculation.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

Normal-junction Γ (5.8) does not follow from divergent integral (5.7); the Horndeski-dependent phase is imported from self-cited [48], and condensate/Jmax exponentials with A0=A1=1 rename the empirical SNS law.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 4, Eqs. (4.8)-(4.12)]
    "Following the steps of [48, 53], this new phase difference between the condensate of two superconductors has contributions from Horndeski gravity through the boundary profile, which is given by the gauge invariance: Γ = ∆θ−∫Ay, (4.8) ... Analogously [48], we have the following: Γ = − 1/J ∫ dy[ν(y)−ν(±∞)− O(complex terms)], (4.9) ... Recalling equation (4.9) ... Γ = −∫ du y′(u)/u ... (4.12)"

    The paper never solves the bulk gauge-field and scalar equations (3.7)-(3.11) for ν(y) or the phase; instead it declares 'Analogously [48]' and identifies Γ with an integral of the boundary profile y(u)/u. Reference [48] is the authors' own prior 'Geometric Josephson junction' paper, so the load-bearing phase shortcut is a self-citation rather than an independent derivation. All subsequent current-phase results (4.10) inherit this premise; if the shortcut is wrong, the Horndeski-dependent Josephson effect is unsupported. This is not independent support: [48] is neither machine-checked nor a parameter-free external result.

  2. other [Sec. 5, Eqs. (5.6)-(5.8)]
    "Γ =− Z +∞ −∞ du y′(u)/u =− Z −uh −∞ 3 4α q γ α (1+u+ 1/u)du+ Z ∞ uh 3 4α q γ α (1+u+ 1/u)du.(5.7) By solving this equation, we have the following: Γ = 1 4 3 4α q γ α u2 h. (5.8)"

    Using y(u) from (5.6), y'(u)/u = (3/(4α))√(γ/α)(1/u - 1/u^3). Each of the integrals in (5.7) diverges logarithmically at infinity, so the finite value Γ=(1/4)(3/(4α))√(γ/α)u_h^2 in (5.8) does not follow from the stated integral. The displayed integrand in (5.7) even omits the derivative. No cutoff or principal-value prescription is specified that would produce (5.8). Since Γ is the only physical input to Eq. (4.10) and Eq. (5.10), the normal-junction supercurrent is an asserted value, not a derived prediction.

  3. renaming known result [Sec. 4, Eqs. (4.13)-(4.15); Sec. 5, Eqs. (5.9)-(5.10); Fig. 6 caption]
    "To show the behavior of the condensate, we extract the expectation value of the operator O, which is given by <O>| y=0,J=0 /T 2 c = A1p |−ξ| e− Σu h 2ζ .(4.13) ... Jmax T 2 c = A0p |−ξ| e −Σuh ζ .(4.15) The curve aligns well with the experimental observations [25], which predict exponential behavior for Josephson junctions"

    Eqs. (4.13)/(4.15) and (5.9)/(5.10) appear without derivation from the equations of motion or from the asymptotic operator expansion (3.15). The constants A0,A1 are free; the figures use A0=A1=1. The exponential form exp(-Σu_h/ζ) is the standard experimental SNS exponential law, and the paper itself states that the curve 'aligns well with the experimental observations [25], which predict exponential behavior.' Thus the 'prediction' is a renaming of the empirical law with Horndeski parameters, and the claimed second-order transition with a critical temperature T_c is never computed from the bulk theory.

full rationale

Most of the actual computation is self-contained: the brane profiles y'(u) (4.7) and y(u) (5.6) are obtained from the boundary conditions of the action. But the chain connecting those profiles to the Josephson current is not. The phase Γ is imported from the authors' prior paper [48] ('Analogously [48]'), not obtained by solving the bulk gauge-field and scalar equations (3.7)-(3.11); for the normal junction the defining integral (5.7) diverges and does not give (5.8). The condensate and J_max formulas (4.13), (4.15), (5.9), (5.10) are written down with free constants A0=A1=1 and are explicitly aligned with the experimental exponential law from [25]; they are an input ansatz, not a derived prediction. No critical temperature is computed; plots simply use T/Tc with the assumed exponentials. Hence the advertised Horndeski-dependent quantitative predictions reduce largely to the initial Josephson relation plus a self-cited geometric shortcut.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

All quantitative outputs — condensate, J_max, T_c dependence — are either posited exponential formulas with free constants or geometric phase integrals whose identification with the physical Josephson phase is assumed. The only genuinely new computation is the profile y(u) with Horndeski terms, which is then fed into assumed current/condensate relations.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (Horndeski scalar-kinetic coupling) = scanned: 8/3, 0.1-0.4 in figures
    Coupling in the Horndeski action (2.7); enters the black hole metric (3.3), the phase integrals (4.12), (5.7), and the claimed current; no independent determination, and values are chosen for plots.
  • gamma (Horndeski derivative coupling) = -0.1 to -0.4 and 0.1 to 0.4 in figures
    Controls the sign and size of gamma psi^2 in the profile (4.7) and the normal-junction profile (5.6); is the main tuning parameter for J, zeta, and the condensate.
  • Sigma (brane tension / junction width) = 1/4
    Sets the weak-link size of the constriction junction in (4.7); its value is chosen, not derived.
  • A0, A1 (normalization constants) = 1
    Appear in Eqs. (4.13), (4.15), (5.9), (5.10); set to unity in all figures; no derivation given.
  • T_c (critical temperature scale) = not defined; used to normalize T/T_c axes
    No equation defines T_c; the claimed phase transition temperature is absent, so the plotted x-axis is normalized by an implicit scale.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT and AdS/BCFT duality is a valid holographic correspondence (Maldacena; Takayanagi).
    Invoked from the start; the entire mapping of the Horndeski bulk to a BCFT boundary is assumed.
  • domain assumption The no-hair-evading gauge fixing E_phi[g_rr,phi] = E_rr[g_rr,phi] = 0 (Eq. 3.2) yields the black hole solution (3.3)-(3.4).
    Borrowed from prior Horndeski papers [9,27-29,47,72]; without it the whole spacetime and the psi^2 entering (4.7) fail.
  • domain assumption The probe limit q->infinity with Psi = Psi_tilde/q, A = A_tilde/q is valid so backreaction is negligible.
    Stated in Sec. 1; all subsequent equations of motion are solved in a fixed background.
  • domain assumption The Neumann boundary condition with vanishing boundary stress tensor S=0, Eq. (4.4), correctly determines the junction profile.
    Used to obtain (4.7) and (5.6); no independent check that this is the right junction condition.
  • ad hoc to paper The boundary profile y(u) determines the Josephson phase via Gamma = - integral du y'/u (Eqs. 4.12, 5.7).
    Assumed following [48,53]; not derived from the gauge-field equations; the normal-junction version (5.7) is inconsistent.
  • ad hoc to paper The exponential forms (4.13), (4.15), (5.9), (5.10) describe the condensate and maximal current.
    Stated without derivation; A0,A1 free; these are the quantities later called 'predictions'.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17785 in / 19597 out tokens · 148435 ms · 2026-08-04T10:59:38.654618+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This work explores the constriction and normal Josephson junctions of superconductors within Horndeski's gravitational theory framework. Through a single scalar field of this theory, we provide a dual holographic description via the AdS/BCFT correspondence. We identify a critical temperature below which a charged condensate forms through a second-order phase transition in constriction and normal junctions. Our findings reveal that the condensate comprises pairs of quasiparticles. The junctions between superconductors are characterized by weak links that lead to supercurrent flow, with their magnitude determined by the phase difference between the superconductors, which is modulated by the Horndeski parameters. The supercurrents are governed by the Josephson current-phase relation, highlighting the intricate interplay between gravitational theory and superconducting phenomena.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Josephson's effect in the Schwarzschild background

    hep-th 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0

    Josephson dynamics in Schwarzschild spacetime reduce to flat-space laws with redshifted voltages, giving critical currents that scale as α, power as α², and Shapiro steps fixed in asymptotic variables.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    S. Haco, S. W. Hawking, M. J. Perry and A. Strominger,Black Hole Entropy and Soft Hair, JHEP12, 098 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2018)098 [arXiv:1810.01847 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    S. Haco, M. J. Perry and A. Strominger,Kerr-Newman Black Hole Entropy and Soft Hair, [arXiv:1902.02247 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1902

  3. [3]

    Haco,Large Gauge Transformations and Black Hole Entropy, doi:10.17863/CAM.48185

    S. Haco,Large Gauge Transformations and Black Hole Entropy, doi:10.17863/CAM.48185

    doi:10.17863/cam.48185

  4. [4]

    J. M. Maldacena,The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity, Int. J. Theor. Phys.38, 1113 (1999) [Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 231 (1998)] [hep-th/9711200]. – 18 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  5. [5]

    Witten,Anti-de Sitter space and holography, Adv

    E. Witten,Anti-de Sitter space and holography, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998), 253-291 doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a2 [arXiv:hep-th/9802150 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    Gauge / string duality and scalar glueball mass ratios,

    H. Boschi-Filho and N. R. F. Braga, “Gauge / string duality and scalar glueball mass ratios,” JHEP05, 009 (2003) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/05/009 [arXiv:hep-th/0212207 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    QCD / string holographic mapping and glueball mass spectrum,

    H. Boschi-Filho and N. R. F. Braga, “QCD / string holographic mapping and glueball mass spectrum,” Eur. Phys. J. C32, 529-533 (2004) doi:10.1140/epjc/s2003-01526-4 [arXiv:hep-th/0209080 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    Mateos,String Theory and Quantum Chromodynamics, Class

    D. Mateos,String Theory and Quantum Chromodynamics, Class. Quant. Grav.24, S713-S740 (2007) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/24/21/S01 [arXiv:0709.1523 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  9. [9]

    AdS/BCFT Correspondence and Horndeski Gravity in the Presence of Gauge Fields: Holographic Paramagnetism/Ferromagnetism Phase Transition,

    F. F. Santos, M. Bravo-Gaete, O. Sokoliuk and A. Baransky, “AdS/BCFT Correspondence and Horndeski Gravity in the Presence of Gauge Fields: Holographic Paramagnetism/Ferromagnetism Phase Transition,” Fortsch. Phys.71, no.12, 2300008 (2023) doi:10.1002/prop.202300008 [arXiv:2301.03121 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Fujita, M

    M. Fujita, M. Kaminski and A. Karch,SL(2,Z) Action on AdS/BCFT and Hall Conductivities, JHEP07, 150 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012)150 [arXiv:1204.0012 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz,Building a Holographic Superconductor, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 031601 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.031601 [arXiv:0803.3295 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  12. [12]

    S. A. Hartnoll and P. Kovtun,Hall conductivity from dyonic black holes,” Phys. Rev. D76, 066001 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.066001 [arXiv:0704.1160 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  13. [13]

    S. A. Hartnoll, P. K. Kovtun, M. Muller and S. Sachdev,Theory of the Nernst effect near quantum phase transitions in condensed matter, and in dyonic black holes, Phys. Rev. B76, 144502 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.76.144502 [arXiv:0706.3215 [cond-mat.str-el]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  14. [14]

    S. A. Hartnoll and C. P. Herzog,Ohm’s Law at strong coupling: S duality and the cyclotron resonance, Phys. Rev. D76, 106012 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.106012 [arXiv:0706.3228 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  15. [15]

    S. A. Hartnoll and C. P. Herzog,Impure AdS/CFT correspondence, Phys. Rev. D 77, 106009 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.106009 [arXiv:0801.1693 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  16. [16]

    Baggioli,Gravity, holography and applications to condensed matter, [arXiv:1610.02681 [hep-th]]

    M. Baggioli,Gravity, holography and applications to condensed matter, [arXiv:1610.02681 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets,Minkowski space correlators in AdS / CFT correspondence: Recipe and applications, JHEP09, 042 (2002) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/09/042 [arXiv:hep-th/0205051 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  18. [18]

    S. A. Hartnoll,Lectures on holographic methods for condensed matter physics, Class. Quant. Grav.26, 224002 (2009) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/26/22/224002 [arXiv:0903.3246 [hep-th]]. – 19 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  19. [19]

    B. Behnam Pourhassan,Proceedings, 1st International Conference on Holography and its Applications (ICHA1, 2022): Damghan, March 9-10, 2022, JHAP2, no.2, 1-77 (2022) doi:10.22128/jhap.2022.001.0045

    work page doi:10.22128/jhap.2022.001.0045 2022

  20. [20]

    Farahani, J

    H. Farahani, J. Maldacena, S. Sheikh-Jabbari, L. M. Krauss, S. Upadhyay, S. Mamedov, L. G. Wang, J. Zhang, S. E. San and S. Masood,et al. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Holography and its Applications (ICHA3 2024), doi:10.22128/jhap.2024.003.0012

    doi:10.22128/jhap.2024.003.0012 2024

  21. [21]

    W. J. Jiang, H. S. Liu, H. Lu and C. N. Pope,DC Conductivities with Momentum Dissipation in Horndeski Theories, JHEP07, 084 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2017)084 [arXiv:1703.00922 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    Zhang, G

    D. Zhang, G. Fu, X. J. Wang, Q. Pan and J. P. Wu,Transport properties in the Horndeski holographic two-currents model, Eur. Phys. J. C83, no.4, 316 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11444-8 [arXiv:2211.07074 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    J. W. Lu, Y. B. Wu, L. G. Mi, H. Liao and B. P. Dong,Holographic s-wave superconductors with Horndeski correction, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.7, 605 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8173-6

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8173-6 2020

  24. [24]

    B. D. Josephson,Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling, Phys. Lett.1, 251-253 (1962) doi:10.1016/0031-9163(62)91369-0

    doi:10.1016/0031-9163(62)91369-0 1962

  25. [25]

    R. A. Hovhannisyan, T. Golod and V. M. Krasnov,Holographic reconstruction of magnetic field distribution in a Josephson junction from diffraction-like Ic(H) patterns,” Phys. Rev. B105, no.21, 214513 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.105.214513 [arXiv:2205.12837 [cond-mat.supr-con]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Takayanagi,Holographic Dual of BCFT, Phys

    T. Takayanagi,Holographic Dual of BCFT, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 101602 (2011), [arXiv:1105.5165 [hep-th]]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.101602

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  27. [27]

    F. F. Santos, B. Pourhassan, E. N. Saridakis, O. Sokoliuk, A. Baransky and E. O. Kahya,Holographic boundary conformal field theory within Horndeski gravity, JHEP12, 217 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2024)217 [arXiv:2410.18781 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    F. F. Santos,Probing the Black Hole Interior with Holographic Entanglement Entropy and the Role of AdS/BCFT Correspondence, doi:10.1002/prop.70031 [arXiv:2508.21224 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    F. F. Santos, B. Pourhassan and E. N. Saridakis,Black Hole Entropy and Complexity Growth in Horndeski Gravity within the AdS/BCFT Framework, [arXiv:2509.23430 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  30. [30]

    H. Geng, A. Karch, C. Perez-Pardavila, L. Randall, M. Riojas, S. Shashi and M. Youssef,Constraining braneworlds with entanglement entropy, SciPost Phys.15, no.5, 199 (2023) doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.15.5.199 [arXiv:2306.15672 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Geng and A

    H. Geng and A. Karch,Massive islands, JHEP09, 121 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2020)121 [arXiv:2006.02438 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    H. Geng, Y. Nomura and H. Y. Sun,Information paradox and its resolution in de – 20 – Sitter holography, Phys. Rev. D103, no.12, 126004 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.126004 [arXiv:2103.07477 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    H. Geng, S. L¨ ust, R. K. Mishra and D. Wakeham,Holographic BCFTs and Communicating Black Holes, JHEP08, 003 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2021)003 [arXiv:2104.07039 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    H. Geng, A. Karch, C. Perez-Pardavila, S. Raju, L. Randall, M. Riojas and S. Shashi,Entanglement phase structure of a holographic BCFT in a black hole background, JHEP05, 153 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2022)153 [arXiv:2112.09132 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    H. Geng, L. Randall and E. Swanson,BCFT in a black hole background: an analytical holographic model, JHEP12, 056 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2022)056 [arXiv:2209.02074 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Geng,Revisiting Recent Progress in the Karch-Randall Braneworld, [arXiv:2306.15671 [hep-th]]

    H. Geng,Revisiting Recent Progress in the Karch-Randall Braneworld, [arXiv:2306.15671 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    H. Geng, A. Karch, C. Perez-Pardavila, S. Raju, L. Randall, M. Riojas and S. Shashi,Jackiw-Teitelboim Gravity from the Karch-Randall Braneworld, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, no.23, 231601 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.231601 [arXiv:2206.04695 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Geng,Aspects of AdS 2 quantum gravity and the Karch-Randall braneworld, JHEP 09, 024 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)024 [arXiv:2206.11277 [hep-th]]

    H. Geng,Aspects of AdS 2 quantum gravity and the Karch-Randall braneworld, JHEP 09, 024 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)024 [arXiv:2206.11277 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Geng,Replica wormholes and entanglement islands in the Karch-Randall braneworld, JHEP01, 063 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2025)063 [arXiv:2405.14872 [hep-th]]

    H. Geng,Replica wormholes and entanglement islands in the Karch-Randall braneworld, JHEP01, 063 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2025)063 [arXiv:2405.14872 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    H. Geng, L. Y. Hung and Y. Jiang,from ETH: Multi-interval Entanglement and Replica Wormholes from Large-cBCFT Ensemble, [arXiv:2505.20385 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    N. Bao, H. Geng and Y. Jiang,Ryu-Takayanagi Formula for Multi-Boundary Black Holes from 2D Large-cCFT Ensemble, [arXiv:2504.12388 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  42. [42]

    Geng and L

    H. Geng and L. Randall,Holography and Causality in the Karch-Randall Braneworld, [arXiv:2504.21856 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Fujita, T

    M. Fujita, T. Takayanagi and E. Tonni,Aspects of AdS/BCFT, JHEP1111, 043 (2011), [arXiv:1108.5152 [hep-th]]. doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2011)043

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  44. [44]

    Melnikov, E

    D. Melnikov, E. Orazi and P. Sodano,On the AdS/BCFT Approach to Quantum Hall Systems, JHEP1305, 116 (2013), [arXiv:1211.1416 [hep-th]]. doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2013)116

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  45. [45]

    A. G. Cavalcanti, D. Melnikov and M. R. O. Silva,Studies of Boundary Entropy in AdS/BCFT, arXiv:1808.07966 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    J. M. Mag´ an, D. Melnikov and M. R. O. Silva,Black Holes in AdS/BCFT and Fluid/Gravity Correspondence, JHEP1411, 069 (2014), [arXiv:1408.2580 [hep-th]]. – 21 – doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2014)069

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  47. [47]

    F. F. Santos, E. F. Capossoli and H. Boschi-Filho,AdS/BCFT correspondence and BTZ black hole thermodynamics within Horndeski gravity, Phys. Rev. D104, no.6, 066014 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.066014 [arXiv:2105.03802 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Geometric Josephson junction,

    F. F. Santos and H. Boschi-Filho, “Geometric Josephson junction,” JHEP01, 135 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2025)135 [arXiv:2407.10008 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Siano, F., and R. Egger. ”Josephson current through a nanoscale magnetic quantum dot.” Physical review letters 93.4 (2004): 047002, doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.047002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.93.047002 2004

  50. [50]

    Chandrasekhar,Current dependence of the low bias resistance of small capacitance Josephson junctions, Phys

    V. Chandrasekhar,Current dependence of the low bias resistance of small capacitance Josephson junctions, Phys. Lett. A507, 129493 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2024.129493 [arXiv:2404.05890 [cond-mat.supr-con]]

    arXiv 2024

  51. [52]

    J. J. A. Baselmans, A. F. Morpurgo, B. J. van Wees, and T. M. Klapwijk, Nature 397, 43-45 (1999), Reversing the direction of the supercurrent in a controllable Josephson junction, doi.org/10.1038/16204

    work page doi:10.1038/16204 1999

  52. [53]

    G. T. Horowitz, J. E. Santos and B. Way,A Holographic Josephson Junction, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 221601 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.221601 [arXiv:1101.3326 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  53. [54]

    Erdmenger, M

    J. Erdmenger, M. Flory and M. N. Newrzella,Bending branes for DCFT in two dimensions, JHEP01, 058 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2015)058 [arXiv:1410.7811 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [55]

    Minamitsuji,Braneworlds with field derivative coupling to the Einstein tensor, Phys

    M. Minamitsuji,Braneworlds with field derivative coupling to the Einstein tensor, Phys. Rev. D89, no.6, 064025 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.064025 [arXiv:1312.3760 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  55. [56]

    Kawamoto, S

    T. Kawamoto, S. M. Ruan and T. Takayanagi,Gluing AdS/CFT, JHEP07, 080 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)080 [arXiv:2303.01247 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [57]

    Kanda, M

    H. Kanda, M. Sato, Y. k. Suzuki, T. Takayanagi and Z. Wei,AdS/BCFT with brane-localized scalar field, JHEP03, 105 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2023)105 [arXiv:2302.03895 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [58]

    Erdmenger, M

    J. Erdmenger, M. Flory, C. Hoyos, M. N. Newrzella and J. M. S. Wu,Entanglement Entropy in a Holographic Kondo Model, Fortsch. Phys.64, 109-130 (2016) doi:10.1002/prop.201500099 [arXiv:1511.03666 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  58. [59]

    Bachas, S

    C. Bachas, S. Chapman, D. Ge and G. Policastro,Energy Reflection and Transmission at 2D Holographic Interfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, no.23, 231602 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.231602 [arXiv:2006.11333 [hep-th]]. – 22 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  59. [60]

    Bachas and V

    C. Bachas and V. Papadopoulos,Phases of Holographic Interfaces, JHEP04, 262 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2021)262 [arXiv:2101.12529 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  60. [61]

    Aharony, O

    O. Aharony, O. DeWolfe, D. Z. Freedman and A. Karch,Defect conformal field theory and locally localized gravity, JHEP07, 030 (2003) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/07/030 [arXiv:hep-th/0303249 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  61. [62]

    D. Bak, M. Gutperle and S. Hirano,A Dilatonic deformation of AdS(5) and its field theory dual, JHEP05, 072 (2003) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/05/072 [arXiv:hep-th/0304129 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  62. [63]

    D’Hoker, J

    E. D’Hoker, J. Estes and M. Gutperle,Exact half-BPS Type IIB interface solutions. I. Local solution and supersymmetric Janus, JHEP06, 021 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/06/021 [arXiv:0705.0022 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  63. [64]

    D. Bak, M. Gutperle and S. Hirano,Three dimensional Janus and time-dependent black holes, JHEP02, 068 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/02/068 [arXiv:hep-th/0701108 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  64. [65]

    Azeyanagi, A

    T. Azeyanagi, A. Karch, T. Takayanagi and E. G. Thompson,Holographic calculation of boundary entropy, JHEP03, 054 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/054 [arXiv:0712.1850 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  65. [66]

    H. Z. Chen, R. C. Myers, D. Neuenfeld, I. A. Reyes and J. Sandor,Quantum Extremal Islands Made Easy, Part I: Entanglement on the Brane, JHEP10, 166 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2020)166 [arXiv:2006.04851 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  66. [67]

    H. Z. Chen, R. C. Myers, D. Neuenfeld, I. A. Reyes and J. Sandor,Quantum Extremal Islands Made Easy, Part II: Black Holes on the Brane, JHEP12, 025 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2020)025 [arXiv:2010.00018 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  67. [68]

    H. Geng, A. Karch, C. Perez-Pardavila, S. Raju, L. Randall, M. Riojas and S. Shashi,Information Transfer with a Gravitating Bath, SciPost Phys.10, no.5, 103 (2021) doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.10.5.103 [arXiv:2012.04671 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  68. [69]

    Y. P. Hu, H. F. Li, H. B. Zeng and H. Q. Zhang,Holographic Josephson Junction from Massive Gravity, Phys. Rev. D93, no.10, 104009 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.104009 [arXiv:1512.07035 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  69. [70]

    Holographic superfluid with gauge–axion coupling,

    Y. Liu, X. J. Wang, J. P. Wu and X. Zhang, “Holographic superfluid with gauge–axion coupling,” Eur. Phys. J. C83, no.8, 748 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11918-9 [arXiv:2212.01986 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [71]

    Nozaki, T

    M. Nozaki, T. Takayanagi and T. Ugajin,Central Charges for BCFTs and Holography, JHEP06, 066 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2012)066 [arXiv:1205.1573 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  71. [72]

    F. F. Dos Santos,Entanglement entropy in Horndeski gravity, JHAP3, no.1, 1-14 (2022) doi:10.22128/jhap.2022.488.1015 [arXiv:2201.02500 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  72. [73]

    Ryu and T

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi,Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 181602 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.181602 – 23 – [arXiv:hep-th/0603001 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  73. [74]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum,An Alternative to compactification, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 4690-4693 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4690 [arXiv:hep-th/9906064 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  74. [75]

    Rinaldi,Black holes with non-minimal derivative coupling, Phys

    M. Rinaldi,Black holes with non-minimal derivative coupling, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012), 084048 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.084048 [arXiv:1208.0103 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  75. [76]

    Babichev and C

    E. Babichev and C. Charmousis,Dressing a black hole with a time-dependent Galileon, JHEP08(2014), 106 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2014)106 [arXiv:1312.3204 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  76. [77]

    Anabalon, A

    A. Anabalon, A. Cisterna and J. Oliva,Asymptotically locally AdS and flat black holes in Horndeski theory, Phys. Rev. D89(2014), 084050 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.084050 [arXiv:1312.3597 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  77. [78]

    Hui and A

    L. Hui and A. Nicolis,No-Hair Theorem for the Galileon, Phys. Rev. Lett.110 (2013), 241104 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.241104 [arXiv:1202.1296 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  78. [79]

    Jeon, K.-R. et al. Chiral antiferromagnetic josephson junctions as spin-triplet supercurrent spin valves and dc squids. Nature Nanotechnology 1–7 (2023), doi.org/10.1038/s41565-023-01336-z

    doi:10.1038/s41565-023-01336-z 2023

  79. [80]

    Bhatia, E. et al. Nanoscale domain wall engineered spin-triplet josephson junctions and squid. Nano Letters 21, 3092–3097 (2021), pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.nanolett.1c00273

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.1c00273 2021

  80. [81]

    and Blamire, M

    Robinson, J., Piano, S., Burnell, G., Bell, C. and Blamire, M. Zero toπtransition in superconductor-ferromagnet-superconductor junctions. Phys. Rev. B 76, 094522 (2007), doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.76.094522

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.76.094522 2007

Showing first 80 references.