Chaos bound violation by spinning particles in Gauss-Bonnet-AdS black holes

Guoping Li; Mengxuan Wu; Xiaowei Li

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Chaos bound violation by spinning particles in Gauss-Bonnet-AdS black holes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spinning charged particles can violate the classical chaos bound around Gauss-Bonnet-AdS black holes, with spacetime dimension and the Gauss-Bonnet parameter acting as active regulators.

desk verdict Fills a real gap in the spinning-particle chaos literature, but the central Lyapunov formula is imported rather than derived; if that reduction holds, it is a useful numerical catalog. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14863 v1 pith:V4DEL2XB submitted 2026-07-16 gr-qc

Xiaowei Li , Mengxuan Wu , Guoping Li This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc PACS 04.70.-s04.50.-h05.45.-a

keywords chaosboundLyapunovexponentspinningtestparticlesGauss-Bonnet-AdSblackholesMathisson-Papapetrou-Dixonequationssurfacegravityhigher-dimensionalholographicduality

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that a spinning charged test particle orbiting a Gauss-Bonnet-AdS black hole can have a Lyapunov exponent larger than the horizon surface gravity, violating the classical chaos bound. It claims the violation is tuned by particle spin, total angular momentum, charges, the cosmological constant, the Gauss-Bonnet parameter, and especially spacetime dimensionality. In five dimensions the exponent grows monotonically with spin, while in eight and nine dimensions it first decreases then increases. Higher dimensions make the bound easier to violate, and when the Gauss-Bonnet parameter and charge are small, dimensionality dominates angular momentum. The importance, if true, is that higher-curvature corrections and extra dimensions are not passive backgrounds but active controls on a conjectured universal bound.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Mathisson-Papapetrou-Dixon (MPD) equations for a spinning particle, with the Tulczyjew-Dixon spin condition S^mu nu p_nu = 0, reduced to one-dimensional effective-potential form (1/2) m drdot^2 + V_eff = 0. The orbital Lyapunov exponent is taken as lambda^2 = (1/2) d^2/dr^2 (pr/pt)^2 at the unstable orbit radius r0, and compared with the surface gravity kappa from Eq. (2.5).

What would settle it

Directly integrate the full MPD equations with the Tulczyjew-Dixon condition for the parameter sets in Figures 2-7, e.g. d = 8, alpha = 0.005, Q = 0.50, L = 10, S = 0.12, and measure the growth rate of separation between nearby phase-space trajectories; a mismatch with Eq. (2.33) would invalidate the claimed violations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For charged spinning test particles in d-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell-Gauss-Bonnet-AdS spacetime, the Lyapunov exponent lambda^2 = (1/2) d^2/dr^2 (pr/pt)^2 at an unstable orbit can exceed the surface gravity kappa. Using the Mathisson-Papapetrou-Dixon equations with the Tulczyjew-Dixon condition, the authors find that lambda - kappa depends non-monotonically on spin in eight and nine dimensions, increases with angular momentum and charges, and is strongly regulated by the Gauss-Bonnet parameter and dimensionality. They conclude that the classical chaos bound is not universal in modified gravity and that dimension and Gauss-Bonnet coupling are key regulators.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the full MPD spinning-particle dynamics reduces to one-dimensional effective-potential motion with lambda^2 equal to half the second derivative of (pr/pt)^2, and that the unspecified 'strict physical constraints' filter excludes all unphysical configurations from the parameter scans.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In five dimensions with l^2 = 1, Q = 0.70, alpha = 0.04 and L >= 8, the Lyapunov exponent exceeds surface gravity for all spins considered, while at L = 6 violation appears only above a spin threshold.
In eight and nine dimensions the exponent changes non-monotonically with spin, first decreasing then increasing, reflecting nonlinear tensor couplings.
For fixed small Gauss-Bonnet parameter and charge, increasing spacetime dimension makes the bound easier to violate, and dimensionality dominates over angular momentum.
Both black hole charge and particle charge lower the threshold for chaos-bound violation, and the cosmological constant acts as a potential well that generally strengthens chaos.
The Gauss-Bonnet parameter reshapes the near-horizon geometry so that in five dimensions lambda - kappa first rises then falls with alpha, while in higher dimensions it increases monotonically.

Reading between the lines

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

The one-dimensional effective-potential reduction may omit phase-space directions introduced by the spin tensor; a full finite-time Lyapunov calculation from the MPD equations would test whether the reported lambda is the true maximal orbital exponent.
The paper repeatedly invokes 'strict physical constraints' without specifying them; reproducing the figures requires knowing exactly which spin, charge, and angular-momentum configurations are discarded, so the violation windows may shift under different constraints.
If the dimensional and Gauss-Bonnet regulation is real, a quantitative threshold relation between d, alpha, and the parameters at which lambda = kappa may exist, which could be searched for in this setup and in other higher-curvature theories.
A holographic reading suggests higher-curvature corrections may modify the dual thermal bound on chaos, but the paper itself does not establish such a dictionary.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: it's a workmanlike numerical survey that fills a real gap — spinning-particle chaos in GB-AdS — but the central Lyapunov formula is imported from earlier spinning-particle papers, and this manuscript doesn't actually show the reduction works. If that formula is right, the results are a useful catalog; if it isn't, the λ–κ comparisons don't mean what the abstract says.

What's new is legitimate: prior GB chaos work was 4D and spinless; prior spinning-particle chaos was in RN and EEH backgrounds. Here you get parameter maps of λ against spin, GB coupling, cosmological constant, charges, angular momentum, and dimension, with the qualitative claim that d and α act as active regulators. The choice to fix l² when comparing dimensions is sensible, and the paper is honest about the test-particle approximation and the limited spin range.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The main one is in Section 2.3. The authors correctly note that a spinning particle has an enlarged phase space, then derive λ exactly as for a scalar particle from (1/2)m ṙ² + V = 0, without showing that the full MPD system separates or that the second derivative of (pr/pt)² is the orbital Lyapunov exponent. They cite Refs [38,50,51] for the spinning formula, so the result is not self-contained; a referee needs to check whether those derivations apply to this MPD system with the Tulczyjew-Dixon condition. Second, the 'strict physical constraints' invoked in the introduction and Section 3 are never enumerated, which makes the parameter selection irreproducible. Related, the cross-dimensional panels lower α and Q 'to ensure the existence of unstable equilibrium orbits' — disclosed, but it means the 'higher dimension = easier violation' statement is tied to the chosen parameters, not a general result. Finally, no numerical data or code is shipped, so the figures can't be independently checked. These are limitations, not death blows; the qualitative trends are plausible and consistent with the literature it builds on.

This paper is for people working on chaos bounds in modified gravity and black hole thermodynamics. It deserves a serious referee — the topic is active, the gap is real, and if the imported formula checks out, the results are a useful data point. I'd send it out, with a request that the authors either derive or explicitly import the spinning-particle LE and spell out their physical constraints filter.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the classical chaos bound λ ≤ κ for spinning charged test particles in d-dimensional charged Gauss-Bonnet anti-de Sitter black holes. Adopting the MPD equations with the Tulczyjew-Dixon spin supplementary condition, the authors derive effective-potential quantities for radial motion and then import from Refs. [38,50,51] the expression λ² = ½ d²/dr² (p_r/p_t)² evaluated at an unstable equilibrium radius r0. They numerically evaluate the surface gravity and this exponent for d = 5,...,9, varying the Gauss-Bonnet parameter α, black hole charge Q, cosmological constant Λ (or AdS radius), particle spin S, total angular momentum L, and particle charge q. The central qualitative findings are: in d = 5 the exponent grows monotonically with spin; in d = 8,9 it is non-monotonic; and for the chosen parameter sets, violation of λ ≤ κ becomes more prominent in higher dimensions and for larger GB coupling. The paper concludes that dimensionality and the Gauss-Bonnet parameter are active regulators of the chaos bound.

Significance. If the imported Lyapunov formula is valid for the MPD system, the paper provides a systematic extension of chaos-bound tests to higher-curvature gravity with spinning matter. The explicit decision to fix the AdS radius when comparing dimensions is well motivated, and the study covers a wide parameter space with an emphasis on physically admissible configurations. The numerical results are qualitatively rich and lend themselves to falsifiable predictions. However, the central formula is not derived in the manuscript, and the comparability across dimensions is compromised by simultaneous changes in α and Q; these limitations currently prevent the claims from being accepted at face value.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.3, Eq. (2.33)] The Lyapunov exponent definition is the centerpiece of the paper. Eq. (2.33) is introduced by reference to Refs. [38,50,51], with no derivation from the MPD equations (2.18)-(2.23). The text itself states that a spinning particle has an enlarged phase space and is not reducible to a scalar particle; the reduction to the one-dimensional effective potential V_eff = -(m/2)(p_r/p_t)^2 suppresses all spin-tensor degrees of freedom and the angular dynamics. It is not established that the full MPD phase-space instability is governed by the second derivative of this radial quantity at r0. If the reduction fails, every λ-κ comparison in Section 3, and hence the paper's central claim, is unsupported. A derivation or an explicit justification from the MPD system is needed.
[Section 3, physical constraints] The paper repeatedly states that 'strict physical constraints' are imposed to exclude unphysical configurations, but the constraints are never specified. In particular, the conditions for the existence of an unstable equilibrium orbit r0, the admissible ranges of S, L, q, and the criterion for selecting α and Q (e.g., 'to ensure the existence of unstable equilibrium orbits in all dimensionalities') are absent. Without a reproducible filter, the numerical results in Figs. 2-7 cannot be independently verified, and the choice of parameter windows may influence the conclusions.
[Section 3, Figs. 2b-7b] The cross-dimensional comparisons that underlie the claim 'the higher the spacetime dimension, the more easily the chaos bound is violated' use different Gauss-Bonnet parameters and black hole charges for different d, explicitly because the same parameter values do not yield unstable orbits in all dimensions. Consequently, the observed dimension dependence is not cleanly isolated; the variations in α and Q could drive the trend. Since the paper's stated methodology fixes the AdS radius to isolate dimensionality, the same logic requires fixed (α,Q) or a sensitivity analysis demonstrating that changing these parameters does not alter the qualitative conclusion.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.1, Eq. (2.5)] The surface gravity formula is quoted without derivation or reference; please provide a derivation or cite the original source.
[Figure 6(a)] The legend repeats 'S=-0.12'; the second entry should presumably be 'S=0.12'.
[Section 2.2, notation] The symbol S is used both for the spin magnitude parameter in Eq. (2.14) and for the specific spin S = ± Sbar/m in Section 2.2; rename one of them to avoid confusion.
[Section 3, text after Fig. 3] Typos: 'when the this parameter' should be 'when this parameter'; in Section 4, 'the LEs grows' should be 'the LEs grow'.
[Section 2.3, Fig. 1] The statement that 'the spin breaks the spherical symmetry of the spacetime response' is imprecise: the background is spherically symmetric, and it is the spin-curvature coupling that introduces orientation dependence in the particle's dynamics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the only self-citation is minor and non-load-bearing, and the Lyapunov formula is imported from independent references and evaluated deterministically.

full rationale

The circularity burden is low. The central quantity λ is not fitted to the reported λ−κ outcomes: for a fixed background (f,κ) and chosen parameters (α,Q,L,S,q,d), Eq. (2.33) is evaluated at the unstable equilibrium radius r0, and the same formula produces both bound-respecting (e.g., 5D and 6D with small α,Q) and bound-violating results. The formula λ² = (1/2)d²/dr²(p_r/p_t)²|r0 is imported from Refs. [38,50,51], which are independent external works, not from the authors' prior results. The self-citation [39] appears only in the introduction ('these studies often lack rigorous physical constraints [38, 39]') and is used to motivate the paper's constraint filter; it does not enter Eq. (2.33) or any numerical comparison. The main methodological assumption — that MPD spinning-particle dynamics reduce to the one-dimensional effective-potential problem with V_eff = −(m/2)(p_r/p_t)², so that λ² = −V_eff''/m — is adopted from those references rather than derived from Eqs. (2.18)–(2.23). The paper even concedes that spinning dynamics 'are not reducible' to scalar-particle dynamics. This is a serious validity/correctness caveat about applicability of the imported formula, but it is not circular: the paper does not define λ as the quantity it then claims to predict, and the input formula is external and not tuned to the numerical outputs. The unspecified 'strict physical constraints' in Sec. 3 are a transparency limitation, but because the paper reports both violations and non-violations across parameter space, there is no evidence that the filter was chosen to force the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No data fitting: all inputs are scanned by hand and lambda is computed deterministically, so the result is not forced. The paper introduces no invented entities. The burden sits on imported formalism: the effective-potential reduction and LE formula for spinning particles, plus the unstated admissibility filter, are the parts the reader must take on faith. The metric and thermodynamics are standard literature.

free parameters (7)

Gauss-Bonnet coupling alpha = scanned 0.002-0.10 (defaults 0.04, 0.015, 0.005)
Theory coupling chosen by hand; the central regulator claim is a statement about how lambda-kappa varies with alpha.
Particle spin per unit mass S = scanned in [-0.12, 0.12]
Spin magnitude and direction chosen; spin-dependence claims rest on this window, and the paper admits only a limited spin range is considered.
Total angular momentum per unit mass L = default 10, scanned 6-20
Input scanned; underpins claims that L enhances chaos but that dimension dominates in the small-alpha, small-Q regime.
Black hole charge Q = defaults 0.70 (5D) and 0.50 (multi-d)
Charge inputs are lowered for cross-dimensional panels 'to ensure the existence of unstable equilibrium orbits', which confounds the dimension-dependence claims.
Particle charge q = default 0.10, scanned [-1,1]
Per-unit-mass charge input for the Lorentz-force term.
AdS radius l^2 = fixed to 1.00 (Lambda scanned in Fig. 4)
Normalization choice; the paper argues fixing l^2 isolates dimensionality, but the cross-dimensional comparison is defined by this choice.
Spacetime dimension d = 5-9
Discrete input; the central independent variable of the paper.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Mathisson-Papapetrou-Dixon equations with Tulczyjew-Dixon spin supplementary condition (Eqs. 2.10-2.12)
Standard formalism for spinning test particles, adopted without derivation.
domain assumption GB-AdS metric function (Eqs. 2.2-2.3) and surface gravity (Eq. 2.5) from Refs. [40-45]
Background solution and thermodynamic quantities imported from the literature; no numerical cross-check given because r+ and M are never tabulated.
domain assumption Reduction of spinning-particle dynamics to the 1D effective potential (1/2)m drdot^2 + V_eff = 0 with V_eff = -(m/2)(pr/pt)^2 (Eqs. 2.30-2.31)
Load-bearing step imported from Refs. [38,50,51], not derived in this paper; the enlarged MPD phase space is assumed to decouple radially into a single potential.
domain assumption Lyapunov formula lambda^2 = (1/2) d^2/dr^2 (pr/pt)^2 at r0 (Eq. 2.33)
Extension of the Cardoso et al. [49] geodesic formula to spinning particles, assumed valid for the equilibrium-orbit perturbation analysis.
domain assumption Chaos-bound proxy lambda <= kappa with T = kappa/(2 pi) (Sec. 3)
Standard classical realization of the MSS bound after Hashimoto and Tanahashi [9].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chaos bound violation by spinning particles in Gauss-Bonnet-AdS black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V4DEL2XB

@misc{pith2026260714863,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chaos bound violation by spinning particles in Gauss-Bonnet-AdS black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V4DEL2XB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14863}
}

read the original abstract

In this work, we investigate the violation of the chaos bound for spinning test particles in Gauss-Bonnet anti-de Sitter spacetime, focusing on the regulatory roles of the Gauss-Bonnet parameter and spacetime dimensionality. In five-dimensional space time, the Lyapunov exponent grows monotonically with particle spin. In contrast, in eight- and nine-dimensional spacetimes, it exhibits non-monotonic behavior-first decreasing and then increasing-reflecting the nonlinear nature of higher-dimensional tensor couplings. The Gauss-Bonnet parameter significantly modulates the violation by reshaping the near-horizon geometry: in five dimensions, the deviation of the Lyapunov exponent from the surface gravity first increases and then decreases with the Gauss-Bonnet parameter, whereas in the higher dimensions the bound is more easily violated. Increasing the total angular momentum of the particle also enhances chaos; however, when the Gauss-Bonnet parameter and black hole charge are small, the spacetime dimensionality, rather than the angular momentum, dominates. These results establish the spacetime dimensionality and the Gauss-Bonnet parameter as important factors governing the validity of the chaos bound in modified gravity theories.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

[1]

Maldacena, S.H

J. Maldacena, S.H. Shenker and D. Stanford,The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 231

1998
[2]

Maldacena, S.H

J. Maldacena, S.H. Shenker and D. Stanford,A bound on chaos,JHEP1608(2016) 106

2016
[3]

Shenker and D

S.H. Shenker and D. Stanford,Multiple Shocks,JHEP1412(2014) 046

2014
[4]

Sachdev and J.W

S. Sachdev and J.W. Ye,Gapless spin fluid ground state in a random, quantum Heisenberg magnet,Phys. Rev. Lett.70(1993) 3339. – 14 –

1993
[5]

Polchinski and V

J. Polchinski and V. Rosenhaus,The spectrum in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev Model,JHEP1604 (2016) 001

2016
[6]

Maldacena and D

J. Maldacena and D. Stanford,Remarks on the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model,Phys. Rev.D 94 (2016) 106002

2016
[7]

Kitaev,Hidden Correlations in the Hawking Radiation and Thermal Noise, talk given at Fundamental Physics Prize Symposium, 2014

A. Kitaev,Hidden Correlations in the Hawking Radiation and Thermal Noise, talk given at Fundamental Physics Prize Symposium, 2014

2014
[8]

Kitaev,A simple model of quantum holography, talk at KITP, 2015

A. Kitaev,A simple model of quantum holography, talk at KITP, 2015

2015

Show all 51 references

[9]

Hashimoto and N

K. Hashimoto and N. Tanahashi,Universality in chaos of particle motion near black hole horizon,Phys. Rev.D 95(2017) 024007

2017
[10]

Zhao, Y.Z

Q.Q. Zhao, Y.Z. Li and H. L¨u,Static equilibria of charged particles around charged black holes: Chaos bound and its violations,Phys. Rev.D 98(2018) 124001

2018
[11]

Lei and X.H

Y.Q. Lei and X.H. Ge,Circular motion of charged particles near a charged black hole,Phys. Rev.D 105(2022) 084011

2022
[12]

Lei and X.H

Y.Q. Lei and X.H. Ge,Thermodynamic stability versus chaos bound violation in D-dimensional RN black holes: Angular momentum effects and phase transitions,Phys. Lett. B 856(2024) 138929

2024
[13]

Kan and B

N. Kan and B. Gwak,Bound on the Lyapunov exponent in Kerr-Newman black holes via a charged particle,Phys. Rev.D 105026006 (2022)

2022
[14]

Park and B

J. Park and B. Gwak,Bound on Lyapunov exponent in Kerr-Newman-de Sitter black holes by a charged particle,JHEP2404(2024) 023

2024
[15]

B. Gwak, N. Kan, B.H. Lee and H. Lee,Violation of bound on chaos for charged probe in Kerr-Newman-AdS black hole,JHEP2209(2022) 026

2022
[16]

Gao, D.Y

C.H. Gao, D.Y. Chen, C.Y. Yu and P. Wang,Chaos bound and its violation in charged Kiselev black hole,Phys. Lett.B 833(2022) 137343

2022
[17]

K. Li, D.Z. Ma and Z.M. Xu,Chaotic dynamics of string around the charged Kiselev black hole,Phys. Lett.B 860(2025) 139164

2025
[18]

C.Y. Yu, Z.Q. Wang and D.Y. Chen,Report on chaos bound outside Taub-NUT black holes, Physics of the Dark Universe42(2023) 101325

2023
[19]

Lei, X.H

Y.Q. Lei, X.H. Ge and C. Ran,Chaos of particle motion near a black hole with quasitopological electromagnetism,Phys. Rev.D 104(2021) 046020

2021
[20]

Singh, N

B. Singh, N. Padhi and R.R. Nayak,Circular orbits and chaos bound in slow-rotating curved acoustic black holes,Eur. Phys. J.C 85(2025) 570

2025
[21]

Hashimoto, K

K. Hashimoto, K. Murata, N. Tanahashi and R. Watanabe,Bound on energy dependence of chaos,Phys. Rev.D 106(2022) 126010

2022
[22]

Hashimoto and K

K. Hashimoto and K. Sugiura,Causality bounds chaos in geodesic motion,Phys. Rev.D 107 (2023) 066005

2023
[23]

Y. Song, R. Yin, Y.Q. He and B.R. Mu,Chaos bound of charged particles around phantom AdS black hole, arXiv: 2211.04990 [gr-qc]

arXiv
[24]

S. Das, S. Dalui and R. Samanta,Near-horizon chaos beyond Einstein gravity,Phys. Rev.D 110(2024) 124037. – 15 –

2024
[25]

Singh, N

B. Singh, N. Padhi and R.R. Nayak,Circular orbits and chaos bound in slow-rotating curved acoustic black holes,Eur. Phys. J.85(2025) 570

2025
[26]

Gallo and T

E. Gallo and T. Mädler,Bounds for Lyapunov exponent of circular light orbits in black holes, Eur. Phys. J.C 85(2025) 299

2025
[27]

Karthik R., Dillirajan D., K. M. Ajith, Kartheek Hegde, Shreyas Punacha, and A. Naveena Kumara,Euclidean thermodynamics and Lyapunov exponents of Einstein-Power-Yang-Mills AdS black holes,Eur. Phys. J.C 85(2025) 1364

2025
[28]

Targema, K

T.V. Targema, K. Bamba, R. Ali and U. Zafar,Physical constraints on the Maldacena-Shenker-Stanford chaos-bound in black hole spacetimes,Phys. Rev.D 113(2026) 104056

2026
[29]

Targema, K

T.V. Targema, K. Bamba and U. Zafar,A universal geometric mechanism for chaos-bound violations in black hole spacetimes, arXiv:2605.26829[hep-th]

arXiv
[30]

Lee and B

H. Lee and B. Gwak,Bound on Lyapunov exponent for a charged particle in Kerr-Sen-AdS black hole,Phys. Rev.D 112(2025) 046018

2025
[31]

Lee and B

H. Lee and B. Gwak,Frame dependence of bound on Lyapunov exponent in Dilatonic Reissner-Nordström-AdS and Kerr-Sen-AdS black holes, arXiv:2510.16479[gr-qc]
[32]

C.Y. Yu, D.Y. Chen and C.H. Gao,Bound on Lyapunov exponent in Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton-Axion black holes,Chin. Phys.C 46(2022) 125106

2022
[33]

Lei and X.H

Y.Q. Lei and X.H. Ge,Stationary equilibrium of test particles near charged black branes with the hyperscaling violating factor,Phys. Rev.D 107(2023) 10

2023
[34]

Dutta, K.L

P. Dutta, K.L. Panigrahi and B. Singh,Chaos bound and its violation in black p-brane, JHEP02(2025) 043

2025
[35]

Chen and C.H

D.Y. Chen and C.H. Gao,Angular momentum and chaos bound of charged particles around Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg AdS black holes,New J. Phys.24(2022) 123014

2022
[36]

Fayyaz, G

A. Fayyaz, G. Abbas, M.B. Asfour and D.Y. Chen,Chaotic dynamics and bound violation in 4D EGB-AdS black holes with massive gravitons,Phys. Lett.B 871(2025) 139965

2025
[37]

J.Y. Xie, J. Wang and B. Tang,Circular motion and chaos bound of a charged particle near charged 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet-AdS black holes,Phys. Dark. Univ42(2023) 101271

2023
[38]

Yang, D.Y

C. Yang, D.Y. Chen and Y. Liu,Motions of spinning particles and chaos bound in Reissner-Nordström spacetime,JHEP04(2026) 205

2026
[39]

X. Li, B.B. Chen and G.P. Li,Testing the chaos bound in the spinor field of Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-Anti-de Sitter spacetime, arXiv:2604.03914[gr-qc]

arXiv
[40]

Boulware and S

D.G. Boulware and S. Deser,String generated gravity models,Phys. Rev. Lett.55(1985) 2656

1985
[41]

Cai,Gauss-Bonnet black holes in AdS spaces,Phys

R.G. Cai,Gauss-Bonnet black holes in AdS spaces,Phys. Rev.D 65(2002) 084014

2002
[42]

Wiltshire,Spherically symmetric solutions of Einstein-maxwell theory with a Gauss-bonnet term,Phys

D.L. Wiltshire,Spherically symmetric solutions of Einstein-maxwell theory with a Gauss-bonnet term,Phys. Lett.B 169(1986) 36

1986
[43]

Cvetic, S

M. Cvetic, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov,Black hole thermodynamics and negative entropy in de Sitter and Anti-deSitter Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity,Nucl. Phys.B 628(2002) 295

2002
[44]

Cai, L.M

R.G. Cai, L.M. Cao, L. Li and R.Q. Yang,P-V criticality in the extended phase space of Gauss-Bonnet black holes in AdS space,JHEP1309(2013) 005. – 16 –

2013
[45]

Wei and Y.X

S.W. Wei and Y.X. Liu,Testing the microstructure of d-dimensional charged Gauss-Bonnet anti-de Sitter black holes,Phys. Rev.D 104(2021) 024062

2021
[46]

Hojman and S

R. Hojman and S. Hojman,Spinning charged test particles in a Kerr-Newman background, Phys. Rev.D 15(1977) 2724

1977
[47]

Tulczyjew,Motion of multipole particles in general relativity theory,Acta Physica Polonica18(1959) 393

W. Tulczyjew,Motion of multipole particles in general relativity theory,Acta Physica Polonica18(1959) 393

1959
[48]

Zalaquett, S.A

N. Zalaquett, S.A. Hojman and F.A. Asenjo,Spinning massive test particles in cosmological and general static spherically symmetric spacetimes,Class. Quantum Grav.31085011
[49]

Cardoso, A.S

V. Cardoso, A.S. Miranda, E. Berti, H. Witek and V.T. Zanchin,Geodesic stability, Lyapunov exponents and quasinormal modes,Phys. Rev.D 79(2009) 064016

2009
[50]

S.Y. Ciou, T. Hsieh and D.S. Lee,Dynamics of spinning particles in Reissner-Nordström black hole exterior,JCAP05(2025) 086

2025
[51]

Jeong, B.H

S. Jeong, B.H. Lee, H. Lee and W. Lee,Homoclinic orbit and the violation of the chaos bound around a black hole with anisotropic matter fields,Phys. Rev.D 107(2023) 104037. – 17 –

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Maldacena, S.H

J. Maldacena, S.H. Shenker and D. Stanford,The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 231

1998

[2] [2]

Maldacena, S.H

J. Maldacena, S.H. Shenker and D. Stanford,A bound on chaos,JHEP1608(2016) 106

2016

[3] [3]

Shenker and D

S.H. Shenker and D. Stanford,Multiple Shocks,JHEP1412(2014) 046

2014

[4] [4]

Sachdev and J.W

S. Sachdev and J.W. Ye,Gapless spin fluid ground state in a random, quantum Heisenberg magnet,Phys. Rev. Lett.70(1993) 3339. – 14 –

1993

[5] [5]

Polchinski and V

J. Polchinski and V. Rosenhaus,The spectrum in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev Model,JHEP1604 (2016) 001

2016

[6] [6]

Maldacena and D

J. Maldacena and D. Stanford,Remarks on the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model,Phys. Rev.D 94 (2016) 106002

2016

[7] [7]

Kitaev,Hidden Correlations in the Hawking Radiation and Thermal Noise, talk given at Fundamental Physics Prize Symposium, 2014

A. Kitaev,Hidden Correlations in the Hawking Radiation and Thermal Noise, talk given at Fundamental Physics Prize Symposium, 2014

2014

[8] [8]

Kitaev,A simple model of quantum holography, talk at KITP, 2015

A. Kitaev,A simple model of quantum holography, talk at KITP, 2015

2015