pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.22834 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-28 · ✦ hep-th · gr-qc

Physical constraints on the Maldacena-Shenker-Stanford chaos-bound in black hole spacetimes

Terkaa Victor Targema , Kazuharu Bamba , Riasat Ali , Usman Zafar This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 19:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-th gr-qc
keywords MSS chaos boundblack hole geometrieshigher-order curvaturecircular orbitschaos bound violationsKiselev black holeangular momentum constraintmodified gravity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Fixing particle angular momentum by circular-orbit conditions shows that MSS chaos-bound violations in black holes arise from higher-order curvature corrections at large charge-to-mass ratios.

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

The paper establishes that contradictions in reported violations of the Maldacena-Shenker-Stanford chaos bound stem from treating a particle's angular momentum as a free parameter instead of a quantity fixed by the circular-orbit conditions of the spacetime geometry. By enforcing self-consistency between angular momentum and the effective potential in the charged Kiselev black hole, the authors demonstrate that many apparent violations disappear and are artifacts of inconsistent choices rather than intrinsic curvature effects. When the same constrained approach is applied to geometries that include higher-order curvature terms, genuine violations appear specifically at large charge-to-mass ratios and trace directly to those curvature corrections. A sympathetic reader would care because this distinction supplies a systematic test for whether chaos-bound breakdowns are physical or merely parametric, clarifying the literature on chaotic motion near black holes in Einstein gravity and its extensions.

Core claim

In the constrained framework where angular momentum is determined self-consistently from the circular-orbit conditions, the charged Kiselev black hole exhibits no intrinsic violations of the MSS chaos bound; extending the analysis to spacetimes containing higher-order curvature terms produces genuine violations at large charge-to-mass ratios that originate from the curvature corrections themselves rather than from orbital parameters.

What carries the argument

The constrained framework that fixes particle angular momentum self-consistently from the circular-orbit conditions of the given spacetime geometry, thereby separating parameter-induced from curvature-induced violations of the MSS bound.

If this is right

  • Previously reported MSS bound violations in many black hole geometries are artifacts of inconsistent angular momentum choices rather than physical curvature effects.
  • In extensions of Einstein gravity that include higher-order curvature terms, the chaos bound is violated at sufficiently large charge-to-mass ratios due to the curvature corrections.
  • The constrained framework supplies a uniform procedure for classifying any reported violation as either apparent or physical across different black hole solutions.
  • The distinction resolves contradictory claims in the literature on chaotic particle motion near black holes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same self-consistent method can be applied to other modified-gravity models to test whether curvature-induced violations appear at high charges.
  • If such violations are confirmed, they may indicate the regime where the MSS bound ceases to hold in the presence of quantum-gravity corrections.
  • Astrophysical probes of chaotic orbits around supermassive black holes could in principle constrain higher-curvature coefficients if the framework is extended to realistic accretion flows.
  • The approach might be generalized to non-stationary or time-dependent geometries to check whether the bound remains protected under dynamical evolution.

Load-bearing premise

Angular momentum must be computed from the circular-orbit conditions in the spacetime geometry rather than chosen independently.

What would settle it

Compute the Lyapunov exponent for circular orbits in a specific higher-curvature black hole metric at charge-to-mass ratio greater than one and check whether the ratio to the surface gravity exceeds one after the angular momentum is fixed by the effective-potential minimum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.22834 by Kazuharu Bamba, Riasat Ali, Terkaa Victor Targema, Usman Zafar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Apparent violations of the chaos-bound for fixed para [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Chaotic motion near black holes has recently been examined through the lens of the Maldacena-Shenker-Stanford (MSS) chaos-bound, but reported violations remain contradictory. A significant source of ambiguity stems from treating the particle angular momentum as an independently adjustable parameter instead of as a quantity fixed by the circular-orbit conditions. We develop a constrained framework in which the angular momentum is determined self-consistently from the geometry. Applied to the charged Kiselev black hole, this framework shows that certain previously reported violations of the chaos bound can be attributed to inconsistent parameter choices rather than to intrinsic curvature effects. By extending the analysis to geometries containing higher-order curvature terms, we find genuine chaos-bound violations at large charge-to-mass ratios, originating from curvature corrections rather than orbital parameters. Our approach, therefore, provides a systematic means to distinguish between parameter-induced (apparent) and curvature-induced (physical) violations in Einstein gravity and its extensions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a constrained framework for testing the Maldacena-Shenker-Stanford (MSS) chaos bound in which the angular momentum of a test particle is fixed self-consistently by the circular-orbit conditions of the background geometry rather than treated as a free parameter. Applied to the charged Kiselev black hole, the framework attributes certain previously reported bound violations to inconsistent parameter choices. Extending the analysis to black-hole solutions containing higher-order curvature corrections, the authors report genuine violations at large charge-to-mass ratios that they attribute to the curvature terms themselves.

Significance. The self-consistent fixing of angular momentum eliminates an adjustable parameter and thereby strengthens the ability to isolate curvature-induced effects from parameter-induced artifacts. If the reported violations are shown to occur inside geometries that retain event horizons and a well-defined Hawking temperature, the work supplies a systematic diagnostic for the status of the MSS bound in Einstein gravity and its higher-curvature extensions. The approach is technically straightforward and could be applied to other modified-gravity solutions.

major comments (1)
  1. [Higher-curvature extensions] Higher-curvature extensions section: the central claim of genuine chaos-bound violations at large charge-to-mass ratios is load-bearing only if the background geometries remain black holes (i.e., possess event horizons and a well-defined Hawking temperature). The manuscript must explicitly verify that the extremality bound is relaxed sufficiently by the higher-order terms while horizons are preserved; otherwise the MSS bound is inapplicable and the reported violations cannot be interpreted as curvature-induced.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that violations 'originate from curvature corrections rather than orbital parameters,' but the text should clarify whether this conclusion follows from an explicit comparison of the Lyapunov exponent against the MSS bound (2πT) or from a different diagnostic.
  2. [Framework section] Notation for the effective potential and the circular-orbit conditions should be introduced with an equation number in the main text rather than only in an appendix, to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work and for highlighting the importance of verifying that the higher-curvature geometries remain valid black holes. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Higher-curvature extensions section: the central claim of genuine chaos-bound violations at large charge-to-mass ratios is load-bearing only if the background geometries remain black holes (i.e., possess event horizons and a well-defined Hawking temperature). The manuscript must explicitly verify that the extremality bound is relaxed sufficiently by the higher-order terms while horizons are preserved; otherwise the MSS bound is inapplicable and the reported violations cannot be interpreted as curvature-induced.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification of horizon existence and Hawking temperature is required for the reported violations to be interpreted as physically meaningful. In the original analysis we restricted attention to parameter values for which the metric functions admit at least one real positive root corresponding to an outer horizon (determined by solving g_{tt}(r)=0 or the equivalent radial equation). To make this verification fully explicit, the revised manuscript will include a new subsection that (i) solves for the horizon radii as functions of the charge-to-mass ratio and the higher-curvature coupling, (ii) confirms that the surface gravity remains positive (hence a well-defined Hawking temperature) throughout the regime where violations occur, and (iii) demonstrates that the higher-order terms relax the extremality bound while preserving the outer horizon. All chaos-bound violations we report lie strictly inside this verified black-hole parameter domain. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; self-consistent orbital conditions ground the analysis

full rationale

The paper determines angular momentum self-consistently from the circular-orbit conditions of the given spacetime metric rather than treating it as a free parameter. This constraint is applied uniformly when comparing the charged Kiselev solution against higher-curvature extensions, allowing the distinction between parameter-induced and curvature-induced violations to follow directly from the orbit equations and the metric without reduction to fitted inputs, self-citations, or imported ansatzes. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks (the spacetime geometry and standard circular-orbit conditions) and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central approach rests on the domain assumption that angular momentum must be fixed by circular orbit conditions; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Particle angular momentum is determined self-consistently by circular-orbit conditions in the black hole spacetime geometry.
    This is the core premise of the constrained framework to avoid inconsistent parameter choices.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5475 in / 1312 out tokens · 75006 ms · 2026-05-16T19:48:54.255112+00:00 · methodology

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. Motions of spinning particles and chaos bound in Reissner-Nordstr\"om spacetime

    gr-qc 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Spinning particles in Reissner-Nordström spacetime violate the chaos bound when spin magnitude surpasses a threshold, with the Lyapunov exponent exceeding surface gravity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Within this framework, the radii of circular orbits are obtained from the equilibrium condition (23)

    Notes on the Jacobi method The Jacobi method provides a systematic framework for analysing timelike orbital mo- tion. Within this framework, the radii of circular orbits are obtained from the equilibrium condition (23). For spacetimes whose structure is more involved th an Schwarzschild or Reiss- ner–Nordstr¨ om, Eq. (23) may admit multiple and generally ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    This radius is fixed uniquely by the geometric parameters {ξi}, such as the black hole mass, charge, cosmological constant, and any additional mat ter fields, as follows r0 = r0(ξ1,

    Physical constraints on circular-orbits Let r0 denote the radius of a circular orbit determined by the orbital cond itions of the spacetime. This radius is fixed uniquely by the geometric parameters {ξi}, such as the black hole mass, charge, cosmological constant, and any additional mat ter fields, as follows r0 = r0(ξ1, . . . , ξ n) . (26) The associated a...

    work page

  3. [3]

    II A, we explained why equilibrium circular orbits cannot have a radial momentum component, as required by the circular orbit condition (23)

    Exact formula for angular momentum of charged particles a t equilibrium orbits In Sec. II A, we explained why equilibrium circular orbits cannot have a radial momentum component, as required by the circular orbit condition (23). Under this condition, one can construct a quadratic equation for the angular momentum at equilib rium orbits by defining p2 φ = L...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (25) as shown in Appendix A

    Jacobi method for the Reissner-Nordstr¨ om black hole sur rounded by quintessence The Lyapunov exponent is computed from the Jacobi-matrix metho d from Eq. (25) as shown in Appendix A. The angular momentum expressions obtained via Eq. (33) determine the location of circular orbits. As will be discussed later, the denomin ator appearing here is consistent ...

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    In both approaches, the an alysis is governed by the same function D1(r0)

    Massive particles in Kiselev spacetime surrounded by str ings, quintessence, and a cosmo- logical constant The locations of circular orbits can be determined in two equivalent wa ys: by imposing the instability conditions encoded in the Lyapunov exponent, or by enfo rcing the requirement of physically admissible angular momentum. In both approaches, the a...

    work page

  6. [6]

    The location of the null-like circular orbit s (photon sphere) is obtained exactly from the condition given in Eq

    Massless particles for null geodesics Since there is no proper time for null geodesics, the attention here has been shifted to the coordinate-time domain. The location of the null-like circular orbit s (photon sphere) is obtained exactly from the condition given in Eq. (44) as r0 = 22/ 3 α · − 3αm + 2 3(a − 1)2 + [ − 2a + (A + B)1/ 3 + 2 ] · 1 2 (A + B)1/...

    work page

  7. [7]

    I n particular, a consistent setup must respect causality, be free of ghost instabilities, and, in the AdS case, admit a well-defined holographic dual

    Quadratic solution in Reissner-Nordstr¨ om AdS spacetim e In order to analyze MSS chaos-bound in extended gravity framewo rks, it is essential that the underlying black hole solution is free of unphysical pathologies. I n particular, a consistent setup must respect causality, be free of ghost instabilities, and, in the AdS case, admit a well-defined hologr...

    work page

  8. [8]

    01 and Q = 1

    1, ǫ = 0 . 01 and Q = 1. For different values of Λ = − 0. 1 and below, the angular momentum becomes imaginary and is not shown. Λ r0 r+ L0 |κ| λ c λ 2 c − κ2 λ null c (λ null c )2 − κ2 − 0. 01 2 . 03056 1 . 08143 21 . 3439 0 . 0840444 0 . 187328 0 . 0280284 0 . 188802 0 . 0285826 − 0. 02 2 . 05858 1 . 10537 22 . 5857 0 . 115714 0 . 1198792 0 . 0261287 0 . ...

    work page

  9. [9]

    Giri and H

    S. Giri and H. Nandan, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 53, 76 (2021)

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Deich, N

    A. Deich, N. Yunes, and C. Gammie, Phys. Rev. D 110, 044033 (2024)

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    S. Giri, H. Nandan, L. K. Joshi, and S. D. Maharaj, Eur. Phy s. J. Plus 137, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Shukla, P

    B. Shukla, P. P. Das, D. Dudal, and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev . D 110, 024068 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    X. Guo, Y. Lu, B. Mu, and P. Wang, J. High Energy Phys. 2022, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Maldacena, S

    J. Maldacena, S. H. Shenker, and D. Stanford, J. High Ener gy Phys. 2016, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    E. T. Copson, Proc. R. Soc. A 118, 184 (1928)

    work page 1928

  16. [16]

    R. S. Hanni and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. D 8, 3259 (1973)

    work page 1973

  17. [17]

    Hashimoto and N

    K. Hashimoto and N. Tanahashi, Phys. Rev. D 95, 024007 (2017)

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Chen and C

    D. Chen and C. Gao, New J. Phys. 24, 123014 (2022)

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Wang and D

    Z. Wang and D. Chen, Nucl. Phys. B 991, 116212 (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    C. Gao, D. Chen, C. Yu, and P. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 833, 137343 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Dutta, K

    P. Dutta, K. L. Panigrahi, and B. Singh, J. High Energy Ph ys. 2025, 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Addazi, S

    A. Addazi, S. Capozziello, and S. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 816, 136257 (2021)

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    J. Xie, J. Wang, and B. Tang, Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101271 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Chen and C

    D. Chen and C. Gao, Chin. Phys. C 47, 015108 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Zhao, Y.-Z

    Q.-Q. Zhao, Y.-Z. Li, and H. L¨ u, Phys. Rev. D 98, 124001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    Addazi and S

    A. Addazi and S. Capozziello, Phys. Lett. B 839, 137828 (2023)

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Lee and B

    H. Lee and B. Gwak, Phys. Rev. D 112, 046018 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Jeong, B.-H

    S. Jeong, B.-H. Lee, H. Lee, and W. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 107, 104037 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    C. Yu, D. Chen, B. Mu, and Y. He, Nucl. Phys. B 987, 116093 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Z. Wang, Y. He, C. Lei, and D. Chen, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 62, 187 (2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    T. V. Targema, R. Babar, M. Atif, M. El-Meligy, T. Xia, an d R. Ali, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 22, 2550064 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Kan and B

    N. Kan and B. Gwak, Phys. Rev. D 105, 026006 (2022)

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    B. Gwak, N. Kan, B.-H. Lee, and H. Lee, J. High Energy Phys . 2022, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Lei, X.-H

    Y.-Q. Lei, X.-H. Ge, and S. Dalui, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138929 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Fayyaz, G

    A. Fayyaz, G. Abbas, M. Bin-Asfour, and D. Chen, Phys. Le tt. B p. 139965 (2025)

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    R. Ali, T. V. Targema, X. Tiecheng, and R. Babar, High Ene rgy Density Phys. 55, 101189 (2025). 26

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Gallo and T

    E. Gallo and T. M¨ adler, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Singh, N

    B. Singh, N. Padhi, and R. R. Nayak, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 570 (2025)

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1983), ISBN 9780198512940

    S. Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1983), ISBN 9780198512940

    work page 1983

  40. [40]

    Pugliese, H

    D. Pugliese, H. Quevedo, and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. D 83, 024021 (2011)

    work page 2011

  41. [41]

    Pradhan and P

    P. Pradhan and P. Majumdar, Phys. Lett. A 375, 474 (2011)

    work page 2011

  42. [42]

    Mokdad, Classical Quantum Gravity 34, 175014 (2017)

    M. Mokdad, Classical Quantum Gravity 34, 175014 (2017)

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    Lambiase, R

    G. Lambiase, R. C. Pantig, and A. ¨Ovg¨ un, EPL148, 49001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Lei, X.-H

    Y.-Q. Lei, X.-H. Ge, and C. Ran, Phys. Rev. D 104, 046020 (2021)

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    N. A. Kumara, S. Punacha, and M. S. Ali, J. Cosmol. Astrop art. Phys. 2024, 061 (2024)

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Hashimoto and K

    K. Hashimoto and K. Sugiura, Phys. Rev. D 107, 066005 (2023)

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Touati and S

    A. Touati and S. Zaim, Nucl. Phys. B p. 117018 (2025)

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    Lei and X.-H

    Y.-Q. Lei and X.-H. Ge, Phys. Rev. D 105, 084011 (2022)

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    Javed, M

    F. Javed, M. Z. Gul, O. Donmez, T. Naseer, and M. H. Alsheh ri, Nucl. Phys. B p. 117001 (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Ma and H

    L. Ma and H. L¨ u, Phys. Lett. B 807, 135535 (2020)

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    Shaikh, P

    R. Shaikh, P. Banerjee, S. Paul, and T. Sarkar, J. Cosmol . Astropart. Phys. 2019, 028 (2019)

    work page 2019

  52. [52]

    Li, D.-Z

    K. Li, D.-Z. Ma, and Z.-M. Xu, Phys. Lett. B 860, 139164 (2025)

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    Zafar, K

    U. Zafar, K. Bamba, T. Rasheed, and K. Bhattacharya, Phy s. Lett. B 864, 139446 (2025)

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    Toledo and V

    J. Toledo and V. Bezerra, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 110 (2019)

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    Liang, X

    J. Liang, X. Guo, D. Chen, and B. Mu, Nucl. Phys. B 965, 115335 (2021)

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    Kiselev, Classical Quantum Gravity 20, 1187 (2003)

    V. Kiselev, Classical Quantum Gravity 20, 1187 (2003)

    work page 2003

  57. [57]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91, 99 (1980)

    work page 1980

  58. [58]

    Bamba, A

    K. Bamba, A. N. Makarenko, A. N. Myagky, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, J. Cosmol. As- tropart. Phys. 2014, 008 (2014)

    work page 2014

  59. [59]

    Hu and I

    W. Hu and I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. D 76, 064004 (2007)

    work page 2007

  60. [60]

    Strominger, J

    A. Strominger, J. High Energy Phys. 2001, 034 (2001)

    work page 2001

  61. [61]

    Anninos, Int

    D. Anninos, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 27, 1230013 (2012)

    work page 2012

  62. [62]

    Maldacena, Int

    J. Maldacena, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38, 1113 (1999)

    work page 1999

  63. [63]

    Aharony, S

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz, Phys. Rep. 323, 183 (2000)

    work page 2000

  64. [64]

    G. G. Nashed and S. Capozziello, Phys. Rev. D 99, 104018 (2019)

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 735, 376 (2014)

    work page 2014

  66. [66]

    M. Xu, Y. Zhang, L. Yang, S. Yang, and J. Lu, Entropy 26, 868 (2024)

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    Nashed and S

    G. Nashed and S. Nojiri, Fortschr. Phys. 71, 2200091 (2023)

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    R. Ali, X. Tiecheng, and R. Babar, Fortschr. Phys. 73, e70017 (2025)

    work page 2025

  69. [69]

    Padmanabhan, Gen

    T. Padmanabhan, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 40, 529 (2008)

    work page 2008

  70. [70]

    Durrer and R

    R. Durrer and R. Maartens, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 40, 301 (2008)

    work page 2008

  71. [71]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 451 (2010)

    work page 2010

  72. [72]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Relativ. 13, 1 (2010)

    work page 2010

  73. [73]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rep. 505, 59 (2011)

    work page 2011

  74. [74]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rep. 509, 167 (2011)

    work page 2011

  75. [75]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, P hys. Rep. 513, 1 (2012)

    work page 2012

  76. [76]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. Odintsov, and V. Oikonomou, Phys. Rep. 692, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  77. [77]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. Odintsov, and V. Oikonomou, Phys. Lett. B 775, 44 (2017)

    work page 2017

  78. [78]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Dar k Univ. 28, 100541 (2020)

    work page 2020

  79. [79]

    DeWolfe, D

    O. DeWolfe, D. Z. Freedman, S. S. Gubser, G. T. Horowitz, and I. Mitra, Phys. Rev. D 65, 27 064033 (2002)

    work page 2002

  80. [80]

    Gutti, S

    S. Gutti, S. Kulkarni, and V. Prasad, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1136 (2022). 28

    work page 2022