Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Interplay of magnetic field and chemical potential induced anisotropy and frame dependent chaos of a $Q\bar{Q}$ pair in holographic QCD

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Chaos of a holographic quark pair is frame-dependent and horizon-driven

desk verdict A useful extension of the authors' earlier magnetic-field-only study, with a genuinely new frame-reversal result; the biggest caveat is the unvalidated two-mode truncation in the trajectory Lyapunov analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17279 v2 pith:4SQPTQZY submitted 2024-11-26 hep-th gr-qchep-phnlin.CDquant-ph

Bhaskar Shukla , Jasper Nongmaithem , David Dudal , Subhash Mahapatra This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qchep-phnlin.CDquant-ph MSC 81T3537D4583C57 PACS 11.25.Tq05.45.-a
keywords holographicQCDstringchaosLyapunovexponentmagneticfieldchemicalpotentialEinstein-Maxwell-dilatonNambu-GotoMSSbound
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

Studying the open string that holographically represents a quark–antiquark pair in a magnetized, baryon-dense QCD plasma, the paper claims that whether the string moves chaotically depends sharply on which metric frame is used. In the string frame, increasing the chemical potential or the magnetic field suppresses chaos for both orientations of the string; in the Einstein frame, the chemical potential enhances chaos and the magnetic field enhances or suppresses it depending on the orientation. Chaos is found only for the energetically disfavored string configuration whose tip sits near the black hole horizon, while the stable configuration away from the horizon is regular. The largest Lyapunov exponent at the unstable saddle point equals the square root of the lowest perturbation eigenvalue and stays below the classical analogue of the MSS bound in both frames. If these results hold, holographic statements about QCD chaos must carry a frame label, and the horizon proximity is the operative source of chaos.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Nambu–Goto string embedded in the EMD black hole with two U(1) gauge fields that separately dial the chemical potential and the magnetic field. The calculation expands the string action around the static unstable profile to cubic order in a normal perturbation, projects the perturbation onto the two lowest eigenmodes $\xi(t,\ell)=c_0(t)e_0(\ell)+c_1(t)e_1(\ell)$ of the Sturm–Liouville equation, and reduces the dynamics to a two-degree-of-freedom effective action with a trapping potential. Chaos is quantified with Poincaré sections and the maximal Lyapunov exponent, which at the saddle point is $\sqrt{-\omega_0^2}$; the same expression follows from the Jacobian eigenvalues of the two-mode flow.

What would settle it

Keep a third or fourth eigenmode in the expansion and recompute the maximal Lyapunov exponent in both frames; if the ordering with $B$ and $\mu$ changes, or if chaos shows up in the stable configuration, the two-mode truncation is the source of the result. Alternatively, compute the pole-skipping coefficient or out-of-time-order correlator for the same background and compare its exponent with $\lambda_{\max}=\sqrt{-\omega_0^2}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the bottom-up magnetized Einstein–Maxwell–dilaton black hole that mimics QCD, the dynamics of a suspended string is chaotic only in the unstable near-horizon configuration. In the string frame, both the magnetic field and the chemical potential stabilize the motion, lowering the maximal Lyapunov exponent in the parallel and perpendicular orientations. In the Einstein frame, the chemical potential destabilizes the motion, and the magnetic field acts in opposite directions for the two orientations, producing anisotropic chaos. At the unstable fixed point the maximal Lyapunov exponent is $\sqrt{-\omega_0^2}$, where $\omega_0^2$ is the lowest eigenvalue of the Sturm–Liouville problem for normal perturbations, and this exponent remains below the classical MSS bound $2\pi T_H$ for all parameters tested.

Load-bearing premise

The entire chaos analysis treats the string perturbation as a combination of only the two lowest Sturm–Liouville modes, so the reported Lyapunov exponents and their dependence on $B$ and $\mu$ are computed from that truncated system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the string frame, higher chemical potential or magnetic field lowers the maximal Lyapunov exponent for both orientations, so the quark–antiquark bound state becomes less sensitive to initial conditions in a denser or more magnetized plasma.
  • In the Einstein frame, the chemical potential raises the Lyapunov exponent for both orientations, while the magnetic field raises it for the parallel string and lowers it for the perpendicular one, an anisotropy absent in the string frame.
  • Chaos is confined to the energetically disfavored, near-horizon string configuration; the stable string away from the horizon shows no scattered points in Poincaré sections, placing the source of chaos at the horizon.
  • At the unstable saddle point, $\lambda_{\max} = \sqrt{-\omega_0^2}$ is always below the classical MSS bound $2\pi T_H$ for every value of $B$, $\mu$, and orientation considered, in both frames.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the frame dependence is a genuine feature rather than a truncation artifact, "string chaos" is not a duality-invariant observable: the string and Einstein frames are related by a dilaton field redefinition, so the frame label matters for how the probe is defined in the dual theory.
  • A direct testable extension is to compute a quantum chaos diagnostic, such as an out-of-time-order correlator of Wilson loops or pole-skipping, in the same background; the classical string Lyapunov exponent would then either be reproduced or shown to be a classical over-estimate of the scrambling rate.
  • The correlation between the string tip's distance from the horizon and the size of the Lyapunov exponent suggests scanning $\mu$ and $B$ across the confinement–deconfinement transition in this model: chaos should peak near the transition, where the unstable string mediates string breaking.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the chaotic dynamics of a holographic quark-antiquark (Q\bar Q) string in a bottom-up Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton (EMD) model with a background magnetic field B and chemical potential μ. The authors first construct static string solutions, classify them by free energy, and identify an unstable near-horizon branch and a stable branch away from the horizon. They then perturb the string, reduce the perturbation to the two lowest Sturm-Liouville modes, and compute Poincaré sections and Lyapunov exponents from the resulting two-mode ODEs, in both the string and Einstein frames. The central reported results are that chaos appears only on the energetically disfavored near-horizon branch, that in the string frame B and μ suppress chaos for both parallel and perpendicular orientations, and that in the Einstein frame μ enhances chaos while B enhances/suppresses it depending on orientation. The saddle-point Lyapunov exponent is obtained analytically as the square root of the unstable eigenvalue and is compared with a classical analogue of the MSS bound.

Significance. If the reported trends are robust, the paper provides a useful extension of previous holographic chaos studies by simultaneously including B and μ in a bottom-up QCD-like model and by explicitly contrasting string-frame and Einstein-frame dynamics. The manuscript is thorough in its static-string analysis: the free-energy comparison, the Sturm-Liouville eigenvalue computations in Tables II and VI, and the explicit equations of motion (39)-(40) are substantial technical contributions. The model parameters a and c are fixed by independent QCD inputs, and the chaotic indicators are computed rather than fitted, so the main claim is not circular. However, the central qualitative statements about trajectory-level chaos rest on an unvalidated two-mode truncation and on a nonlinear change of variables with ad-hoc coefficients; without a convergence test and an invariance check, the frame-dependent suppression/enhancement conclusions remain conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III B, Eq. (34)] The two-mode Galerkin truncation ξ(t,ℓ) = c0(t)e0(ℓ) + c1(t)e1(ℓ) is never validated. All trajectory-level diagnostics — the Poincaré sections in Figs. 6 and 13 and the Lyapunov exponents in Figs. 8 and 15 — are computed from the two-mode ODEs (39)-(40), and the claimed monotonic trends of λmax with B and μ could change if the higher Sturm-Liouville modes e2, e3, ... are included. The statement near the end of Section III D that the K coefficients are accurate to 10^-3 and that no substantial effect was found with greater accuracy refers to numerical precision within the fixed two-mode subspace, not to the spectral truncation error. I request a convergence test with three or four modes for representative (B, μ) points in both frames, and a statement of whether the signs of ∂λmax/∂μ and ∂λmax/∂B are stable under this extension.
  2. [Section III D, Eqs. (37)-(38)] The nonlinear transformation c0 = c̃0 + α1 c̃0^2 + α2 c̃1^2, c1 = c̃1 + α3 c̃0 c̃1, with hand-picked α values (e.g., α1 = -1.35, α2 = -0.5, α3 = -1 in the string frame and α1 = -3, α2 = -1, α3 = -1.5 in the Einstein frame), is asserted not to affect the dynamics, but no proof or numerical check is provided that the Lyapunov exponents and their B- and μ-dependence are invariant under this change of variables. Since the modified action (38) and the equations of motion (39)-(40) explicitly depend on the α's, the reported λmax values and the central frame-dependent trends could be artifacts of this particular choice. Please either demonstrate the invariance or show that the qualitative conclusions persist for a range of α values.
  3. [Section III D, Fig. 8 and Appendix A 3, Fig. 15] The Lyapunov exponents are reported without statistical or systematic uncertainties. The extraction procedure for λmax — 'fitting the maximum in each oscillation' — is not described in enough detail to assess its accuracy, and no measure of spread over initial conditions or integration times is given. Since the main conclusions compare trends in λmax across frames, orientations, and parameter values, quantitative error estimates (or at least a clear convergence criterion for λmax as a function of integration time, together with an ensemble of initial conditions) are needed to support the claimed suppression/enhancement patterns.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III C] The statement that no chaos is observed in the energetically favored large-r0 configuration is based only on Poincaré sections; no Lyapunov exponent is shown for that branch. A quantitative check for one representative stable configuration would strengthen the abstract's claim that chaos appears only in the energetically disfavored configurations.
  2. [Section III E] The sentence 'The MSS bound, from Eq. (5), is given by λMSS = rh^2 g'(rh)/2' is confusing because Eq. (5) is the metric function g(z), not the surface gravity formula; please clarify the reference.
  3. [Fig. 7 caption] The initial conditions are listed as c̃0 = -0.0003, c̃1 = 0.0008, and c̃̇1 = 0.00001, but the initial value of c̃̇0 is not stated; please specify it explicitly or state that it is zero.
  4. [Section II and Section III A] The text says the string length L = 1.1 is 'arbitrary' and that results remain qualitatively the same for other L in the unstable region, but no L-sensitivity analysis is shown in the string frame; adding a brief figure or statement for a second L value would support this claim.
  5. [Abstract and Introduction] The word 'orientated' is used repeatedly; the standard physics term is 'oriented'. This is a presentation issue throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported mu- and B-trends and the string/Einstein frame reversal are computed from the model equations, not fitted or defined into existence.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained given the input model. The EMD background (Eqs. 1-8) comes from the bottom-up model of Ref. [63], with a = 0.15 GeV^2 and c = 1.16 GeV^2 fixed by QCD inputs (confinement/deconfinement temperature and meson spectrum), not by any chaos output. The string perturbation analysis derives the quadratic action (29), solves the Sturm-Liouville problem (32), and uses the two-mode reduction (34) only to obtain explicit ODEs (39)-(40); the K coefficients are computed from the action, and the Lyapunov exponents are obtained by numerical integration of those ODEs. Thus the central trends -- string-frame suppression of chaos with mu and B, and the Einstein-frame enhancement/reversal -- are outputs of the equations, not fitted parameters. The alpha-transformation after Eq. (37) is a coordinate choice made to cure negative kinetic terms; being a smooth reparametrization, it does not by construction fix lambda_max or its dependence on B and mu. Self-citations to Refs. [30] and [63] supply the frame-comparison motivation and the gravity model, but no load-bearing conclusion is forced by those citations: the mu dependence and the frame difference emerge from direct numerical solution. The two-mode truncation in Eq. (34) is an uncontrolled Galerkin projection and a legitimate correctness risk, but it is an approximation error rather than circularity: no equation is defined in terms of the claimed result, and no target quantity is used as an input. The MSS-bound comparison is an independent inequality check. Hence no circular step can be exhibited; the score of 1 reflects only the presence of normal, non-load-bearing self-citation for the model and method.

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

The central claim is computed within an existing holographic model; no new particles or forces are introduced. The main free parameters are inherited from the model or chosen for numerical convenience. The least justified input is the two-mode truncation of the string perturbation.

free parameters (5)
  • a = 0.15 GeV^2
    Free parameter of the EMD model, fixed in [63,116] by matching the deconfinement temperature at zero chemical potential and magnetic field. Not fitted to the chaos data, but the chaotic dynamics depend on the background geometry it defines.
  • c = 1.16 GeV^2
    Second free parameter, fixed in [63,116] by matching the heavy meson spectrum. Enters the metric function g(z) and hence the string dynamics.
  • alpha_1, alpha_2, alpha_3 = -1.35, -0.5, -1 (string frame); -3, -1, -1.5 (Einstein frame)
    Chosen by hand to make the kinetic term positive definite in the reduced action (Eq. 38). The paper claims the transformation does not affect the dynamics, but the choice is non-unique and no sensitivity test is provided.
  • L = 1.1 (string frame), 0.75 (Einstein frame)
    Arbitrary string length chosen in the unstable region. The paper argues results are qualitatively the same for other L in the unstable region but does not show this for all reported quantities.
  • E = 10^-5
    Fixed energy for Poincare sections and Lyapunov exponent calculations, chosen for illustrative purposes. Robustness to E is not tested.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The bottom-up EMD model of [58,63] with the potential reconstruction technique provides a valid holographic dual for QCD with chemical potential and magnetic field.
    The entire analysis is performed in this classical gravity background; its validity as a QCD dual is taken from prior work, not established here.
  • standard math The quark-antiquark pair is described by an infinitely thin Nambu-Goto string in the five-dimensional background.
    Standard holographic dictionary for Wilson loops; invoked in Section III A.
  • ad hoc to paper The chaotic dynamics of the full string are captured by the two lowest normal modes of the perturbation.
    Introduced in Eq. (34) with no convergence test; this is the main unvalidated assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The Lyapunov exponents of the reduced system are invariant under the nonlinear transformation c to c_tilde with the chosen alpha values.
    The paper asserts 'without affecting their dynamics' but does not prove the transformation is a smooth conjugacy on the relevant phase-space region.
  • domain assumption The classical analogue of the MSS bound for this black hole is lambda_MSS = r_h^2 g'(r_h)/2.
    Taken from the literature on classical chaos near horizons (e.g., [93]); the formula is used for comparison in Section III E.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interplay of magnetic field and chemical potential induced anisotropy and frame dependent chaos of a $Q\bar{Q}$ pair in holographic QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4SQPTQZY

@misc{pith2026241117279,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interplay of magnetic field and chemical potential induced anisotropy and frame dependent chaos of a $Q\barQ$ pair in holographic QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4SQPTQZY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17279}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the role of both magnetic field and chemical potential on the emergence of chaotic dynamics in the QCD confining string from the holographic principle. An earlier developed bottom-up model of Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton gravity, which mimics QCD features quite well, is used. The qualitative information about the chaos is obtained using the Poincar\'{e} sections and Lyapunov exponents. We find signatures of chaos in energetically disfavored string configurations, that are closer to the horizon, whereas no chaos is observed in energetically favored string configurations that are away from the horizon. Our results depend quite strongly on the frame we consider in the analysis. In the string frame, the chemical potential and the magnetic field suppress the chaotic dynamics in both parallel and perpendicular orientations of the string with respect to the magnetic field. Meanwhile, in the Einstein frame, the magnetic field suppresses/enhances the chaotic dynamics when the string is orientated perpendicular/parallel to the magnetic field, while the chemical potential enhances the chaotic dynamics for both orientations. The reported Lyapunov exponents are consistent with a classical analogue of the MSS bound in the parameter space of the model and we find it to be always satisfied in both frames.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17279 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The behaviour of the string length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The figure illustrates three distinct configurations of static suspended strings. The solid (2) and dashed (1) lines represent connected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The free energy difference is presented for the string in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. An illustration of the static string profile and its normal perturbation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The eigenfunctions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The Poincar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Convergence plots of the four Lyapunov exponents are displayed for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The maximum Lyapunov exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. A three-dimensional plot of the potential is shown, with the red dot indicating the local minima and the blue dot representing the saddle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The comparison of the maximum Lyapunov exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Behavior of the string length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The eigenfunctions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The Poincar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Convergence plots of the four Lyapunov exponents for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Comparison of the maximum Lyapunov exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Poincar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Three-dimensional plot of the potential. The red dot corresponds to the local minima and the blue dot corresponds to the saddle point. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Comparison of the maximum Lyapunov exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Quarkonium spectra with magnetically induced anisotropic confinement

    hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Radially excited charmonium masses fall sharply with magnetic field strength under lattice-inspired anisotropic confinement, while the ground state barely moves.

  2. Landau-Zener-St\"uckelberg-Majorana dynamics of magnetized quarkonia

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Landau-Zener Hamiltonian fitted to the static charmonium spectrum predicts that fast magnetic-field sweeps drive nonadiabatic transitions between charmonium states, with Stückelberg interference controlling final po...

  3. Comparative study of the butterfly velocity in holographic QCD models at finite temperature and chemical potential

    hep-th 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Using three independent holographic methods, the authors obtain matching butterfly velocities for four QCD-like models and find a universal increase with temperature and decrease with chemical potential.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [30]

    Stepanchuk and A

    A. Stepanchuk and A. A. Tseytlin, J. Phys. A 46, 125401 (2013), arXiv:1211.3727 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2013

  2. [1]

    The corresponding eigenfunctions ξ(ℓ) =e0(ℓ) and ξ(ℓ) =e1(ℓ) are even and odd functions of ℓ, respectively, and are illustrated in Fig

    for different values of B and µ, for both parallel and perpendicular cases, in Table II. The corresponding eigenfunctions ξ(ℓ) =e0(ℓ) and ξ(ℓ) =e1(ℓ) are even and odd functions of ℓ, respectively, and are illustrated in Fig. 5. The occurrence of negative eigenvalues is a common feature of unstable systems. That is indeed the case for the unstable string, ...

    1918

  3. [2]

    The K values are depicted for variousµ and B values for both parallel and perpendicular string orientations within the string frame

    , (39) 12 µ K 1 (||) K2 (||) K3 (||) K4 (||) K5 (||) K1 (⊥) K2 (⊥) K3 (⊥) K4 (⊥) K5 (⊥) B = 0.0 0.0 9 .873 12 .432 5 .896 2 .197 4 .394 9.873 12 .432 5 .896 2 .197 4 .394 0.3 9 .577 12 .174 5 .866 2 .197 4 .395 9.577 12 .174 5 .866 2 .197 4 .395 0.6 8 .725 11 .417 5 .777 2 .197 4 .395 8.725 11 .417 5 .777 2 .197 4 .395 0.9 7 .423 10 .223 5 .631 2 .197 4 ....

  4. [3]

    position

    +2 ˜c0( ˜c1 2α3ω2 0 − 8α1ω2 1 − 4α3ω2 1 + K5ω2 0 − 2K3ω2 1 + 2K2 − 2 ˙˜c0 ˙˜c1 (4α1 + K3) (2α3 + K4)) − 4 ˙˜c0 ˙˜c1 (2α3 + K4)) . (40) We have written down these equations of motion explicitly as they will be useful later on in the analysis of the Lyapunov exponent at the unstable fixed point. C. Poincar ´e sections Poincar´e sections are used to better o...

  5. [4]

    Interestingly, we can also obtain the Lyapunov exponents analytically at the saddle point

    Accordingly, the largest Lyapunov exponent decreases with B and µ for both parallel and perpendicular string orientation. Interestingly, we can also obtain the Lyapunov exponents analytically at the saddle point. In particular, at the saddle point, the Lyapunov exponents are given by the real part of the eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix of− →F [126]. At...

  6. [5]

    This further advocates for the correctness of the numerical routine, and hence the corresponding numerical results, considered in this work

    This is the same expression that we obtained earlier at the saddle point. This further advocates for the correctness of the numerical routine, and hence the corresponding numerical results, considered in this work. FIG. 10. The comparison of the maximum Lyapunov exponent λmax and the MSS bound is presented for the x1 (∥) and x3 (⊥) orientations at the uns...

  7. [6]

    Again, we are only interested in the unstable string (given by the dashed line in Fig

    Perturbing the string We now move on to analyse the perturbed string dynamics in the Einstein frame following the same procedure as in the string frame. Again, we are only interested in the unstable string (given by the dashed line in Fig. 11), wherer0 is closer to the horizon, as the stable string profiles do not show any chaos. The relevant equations ta...

  8. [7]

    We utilize our equation of motion and trace trajectories in the phase space using time as the parameter

    Poincar ´e sections Next, we study the Poincar´e section in the Einstein frame for bound orbits with the section identified by ˜c1(t) =0 and ˙˜c1(t) ≥ 0 in the phase space. We utilize our equation of motion and trace trajectories in the phase space using time as the parameter. Our numerical results for the Poincar´e sections near the origin for different ...

    1951

Show all 139 references
  1. [8]

    Here, we focus on the system with fixed length L = 0.75 and energy E = 10−5 for the string’s x1 and x3 orientations

    Lyapunov exponents To conclude, we also analyse the Lyapunov exponents in the four-dimension phase space( ˜c0, ˜c1). Here, we focus on the system with fixed length L = 0.75 and energy E = 10−5 for the string’s x1 and x3 orientations. As for the string frame calculations, we ha...

  2. [9]

    Saddle point analysis and the MSS bound (a) Parallel configuration (b) Perpendicular configuration FIG. 17. Three-dimensional plot of the potential. The red dot corresponds to the local minima and the blue dot corresponds to the saddle point. Here B = 0.2, µ = 0.6, and L = 0.7...

  3. [10]

    This is explicitly shown in Fig

    Although λmax at the unstable fixed point is three orders of magnitude higher than the stable point, it still remains below the MSS bound. This is explicitly shown in Fig. 18. Moreover,λmax at the unstable fixed point is found to be decreasing withµ and B for both orientations...

  4. [11]

    Pullirsch, K

    R. Pullirsch, K. Rabitsch, T. Wettig, and H. Markum, Phys. Lett. B 427, 119 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9803285

    1998 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Asano, D

    Y . Asano, D. Kawai, H. Kyono, and K. Yoshida, JHEP08, 060, arXiv:1505.07583 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  6. [13]

    Pullirsch, H

    R. Pullirsch, H. Markum, K. Rabitsch, and T. Wettig, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 73, 486 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9809057

    1999 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Bittner, H

    E. Bittner, H. Markum, and R. Pullirsch, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 96, 189 (2001), arXiv:hep-lat/0009002

    2001 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Hashimoto, K

    K. Hashimoto, K. Murata, and K. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 231602 (2016), arXiv:1605.08124 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [16]

    D. S. Ageev, Phys. Rev. D 104, 126013 (2021), arXiv:2105.04589 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Yadav, S

    G. Yadav, S. S. Kushwah, and A. Misra, JHEP 05, 015, arXiv:2311.09306 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  11. [18]

    M ¨uller and A

    B. M ¨uller and A. Trayanov, Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 3387 (1992)

    1992

  12. [19]

    T. S. Bir ´o, C. Gong, and B. M¨uller, Phys. Rev. D52, 1260 (1995)

    1995

  13. [20]

    Tsukiji, H

    H. Tsukiji, H. Iida, T. Kunihiro, A. Ohnishi, and T. T. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D94, 091502 (2016), arXiv:1603.04622 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Kunihiro, B

    T. Kunihiro, B. Muller, A. Ohnishi, A. Schafer, T. T. Takahashi, and A. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. D 82, 114015 (2010), arXiv:1008.1156 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [22]

    J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    1998 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Witten, Adv

    E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802150

    1998 arXiv

  17. [24]

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 428, 105 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802109

    1998 arXiv

  18. [25]

    L. A. Pando Zayas and C. A. Terrero-Escalante, JHEP 09, 094, arXiv:1007.0277 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  19. [26]

    Blake and R

    M. Blake and R. A. Davison, JHEP 01, 013, arXiv:2111.11093 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  20. [27]

    Giombi, S

    S. Giombi, S. Komatsu, and B. Offertaler, JHEP 09, 023, arXiv:2212.14842 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  21. [28]

    P. Basu, D. Das, and A. Ghosh, Phys. Lett. B 699, 388 (2011), arXiv:1103.4101 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Basu and L

    P. Basu and L. A. Pando Zayas, Phys. Lett. B 700, 243 (2011), arXiv:1103.4107 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Giataganas, L

    D. Giataganas, L. A. Pando Zayas, and K. Zoubos, JHEP 01, 129, arXiv:1311.3241 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bai, B.-H

    X. Bai, B.-H. Lee, T. Moon, and J. Chen, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 68, 639 (2016), arXiv:1406.5816 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    K. L. Panigrahi and M. Samal, Phys. Lett. B 761, 475 (2016), arXiv:1605.05638 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    P. Basu, P. Chaturvedi, and P. Samantray, Phys. Rev. D95, 066014 (2017), arXiv:1607.04466 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Asano, H

    Y . Asano, H. Kyono, and K. Yoshida, JHEP09, 103, arXiv:1607.07302 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Ishii, K

    T. Ishii, K. Murata, and K. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D 95, 066019 (2017), arXiv:1610.05833 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    K. S. Rigatos, Phys. Rev. D 102, 106022 (2020), arXiv:2009.11878 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Pal, Mod

    J. Pal, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 38, 2350142 (2023), arXiv:2304.10474 [hep-th]. 29

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. M. Pen ´ın and K. C. Rigatos, Phys. Rev. D 109, 126007 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Shukla, D

    B. Shukla, D. Dudal, and S. Mahapatra, JHEP 06, 178, arXiv:2303.15716 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Hashimoto, K

    K. Hashimoto, K. Murata, and N. Tanahashi, Phys. Rev. D 98, 086007 (2018), arXiv:1803.06756 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, and N. Losacco, Phys. Rev. D 102, 074016 (2020), arXiv:2007.06980 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. Giannuzzi, and N. Losacco, Phys. Lett. B 827, 136949 (2022), arXiv:2111.09441 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Akutagawa, K

    T. Akutagawa, K. Hashimoto, K. Murata, and T. Ota, Phys. Rev. D 100, 046009 (2019), arXiv:1903.04718 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Giataganas and K

    D. Giataganas and K. Zoubos, JHEP 10, 042, arXiv:1707.04033 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, JHEP 05, 132, arXiv:1412.6087 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Maldacena, S

    J. Maldacena, S. H. Shenker, and D. Stanford, JHEP 08, 106, arXiv:1503.01409 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Blake, H

    M. Blake, H. Lee, and H. Liu, JHEP 10, 127, arXiv:1801.00010 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Blake, R

    M. Blake, R. A. Davison, S. Grozdanov, and H. Liu, JHEP 10, 035, arXiv:1809.01169 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Baishya, S

    B. Baishya, S. Chakrabarti, D. Maity, and K. Nayek, Phys. Rev. D 110, 086003 (2024), arXiv:2312.01829 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    L. A. Pando Zayas and D. Reichmann, JHEP 04, 083, arXiv:1209.5902 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Basu and A

    P. Basu and A. Ghosh, Phys. Lett. B 729, 50 (2014), arXiv:1304.6348 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Shukla, O

    B. Shukla, O. Riyaz, and S. Mahapatra, arXiv (2024), arXiv:2411.12536 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Jahnke, Adv

    V . Jahnke, Adv. High Energy Phys.2019, 9632708 (2019), arXiv:1811.06949 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Skokov, A

    V . Skokov, A. Y . Illarionov, and V . Toneev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A24, 5925 (2009), arXiv:0907.1396 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Bzdak and V

    A. Bzdak and V . Skokov, Phys. Lett. B710, 171 (2012), arXiv:1111.1949 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  49. [57]

    D’Elia, S

    M. D’Elia, S. Mukherjee, and F. Sanfilippo, Phys. Rev. D 82, 051501 (2010), arXiv:1005.5365 [hep-lat]

    2010 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Deng and X.-G

    W.-T. Deng and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 85, 044907 (2012), arXiv:1201.5108 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Tuchin, Adv

    K. Tuchin, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2013, 490495 (2013), arXiv:1301.0099 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  52. [60]

    V oronyuk, V

    V . V oronyuk, V . D. Toneev, W. Cassing, E. L. Bratkovskaya, V . P. Konchakovski, and S. A. V oloshin, Phys. Rev. C83, 054911 (2011), arXiv:1103.4239 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  53. [61]

    S. S. Gubser and A. Nellore, Phys. Rev. D 78, 086007 (2008), arXiv:0804.0434 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Gursoy and E

    U. Gursoy and E. Kiritsis, JHEP 02, 032, arXiv:0707.1324 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    Gursoy, E

    U. Gursoy, E. Kiritsis, L. Mazzanti, G. Michalogiorgakis, and F. Nitti, Lect. Notes Phys. 828, 79 (2011), arXiv:1006.5461 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  56. [64]

    DeWolfe, S

    O. DeWolfe, S. S. Gubser, and C. Rosen, Phys. Rev. D 83, 086005 (2011), arXiv:1012.1864 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Dudal and S

    D. Dudal and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev. D 96, 126010 (2017), arXiv:1708.06995 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  58. [66]

    R.-G. Cai, S. He, and D. Li, JHEP 03, 033, arXiv:1201.0820 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  59. [68]

    Bohra, D

    H. Bohra, D. Dudal, A. Hajilou, and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev. D 103, 086021 (2021), arXiv:2010.04578 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Dudal, A

    D. Dudal, A. Hajilou, and S. Mahapatra, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 142 (2021), arXiv:2103.01185 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Rougemont, R

    R. Rougemont, R. Critelli, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D 93, 045013 (2016), arXiv:1505.07894 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  62. [71]

    S. I. Finazzo, R. Critelli, R. Rougemont, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D 94, 054020 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 96, 019903 (2017)], arXiv:1605.06061 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  63. [72]

    I. Y . Aref’eva, A. Hajilou, A. Nikolaev, and P. Slepov, Phys. Rev. D110, 086021 (2024), arXiv:2407.11924 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Bohra, D

    H. Bohra, D. Dudal, A. Hajilou, and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Lett. B 801, 135184 (2020), arXiv:1907.01852 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Gursoy, M

    U. Gursoy, M. Jarvinen, and G. Nijs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 242002 (2018), arXiv:1707.00872 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  66. [75]

    I. Y . Aref’eva, K. Rannu, and P. Slepov, JHEP07, 161, arXiv:2011.07023 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  67. [76]

    I. Y . Aref’eva, K. Rannu, and P. Slepov, arXiv (2024), arXiv:2409.12131 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Dudal and S

    D. Dudal and S. Mahapatra, JHEP 07, 120, arXiv:1805.02938 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  69. [78]

    Mahapatra, JHEP 04, 137, arXiv:1903.05927 [hep-th]

    S. Mahapatra, JHEP 04, 137, arXiv:1903.05927 [hep-th]

    1903 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Dudal and S

    D. Dudal and S. Mahapatra, JHEP 04, 031, arXiv:1612.06248 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  71. [80]

    Rougemont, R

    R. Rougemont, R. Critelli, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D 91, 066001 (2015), arXiv:1409.0556 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  72. [81]

    J. F. Fuini and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP 07, 116, arXiv:1503.07148 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  73. [82]

    Cartwright and M

    C. Cartwright and M. Kaminski, JHEP 09, 072, arXiv:1904.11507 [hep-th]

    1904 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Fukushima and A

    K. Fukushima and A. Okutsu, Phys. Rev. D 105, 054016 (2022), arXiv:2106.07968 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Ballon-Bayona, J

    A. Ballon-Bayona, J. P. Shock, and D. Zoakos, JHEP 06, 154, arXiv:2203.00050 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  76. [85]

    D. M. Rodrigues, E. Folco Capossoli, and H. Boschi-Filho, Phys. Lett. B 780, 37 (2018), arXiv:1709.09258 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  77. [86]

    I. Y . Aref’eva, A. Hajilou, K. Rannu, and P. Slepov, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1143 (2023), arXiv:2305.06345 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  78. [87]

    I. Y . Aref’eva, A. Ermakov, and P. Slepov, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 85 (2022), arXiv:2104.14582 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  79. [88]

    S. S. Jena, B. Shukla, D. Dudal, and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev. D 105, 086011 (2022), arXiv:2202.01486 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  80. [89]

    P. Jain, S. S. Jena, and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev. D 107, 086016 (2023), arXiv:2209.15355 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  81. [90]

    I. Y . Aref’eva, A. Ermakov, K. Rannu, and P. Slepov, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 79 (2023), arXiv:2203.12539 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  82. [91]

    X. Chen, L. Zhang, and D. Hou, Chin. Phys. C 46, 073101 (2022), arXiv:2108.03840 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  83. [92]

    N. R. F. Braga and R. da Mata, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135918 (2020), arXiv:2008.10457 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  84. [93]

    J. Zhou, X. Chen, Y .-Q. Zhao, and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D102, 086020 (2020), arXiv:2006.09062 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  85. [94]

    Ballon-Bayona, J

    A. Ballon-Bayona, J. P. Shock, and D. Zoakos, JHEP 10, 193, arXiv:2005.00500 [hep-th]

    2005 arXiv

  86. [95]

    Zhao and D

    Y .-Q. Zhao and D. Hou, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 1102 (2022), arXiv:2108.08479 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  87. [96]

    Dudal and T

    D. Dudal and T. G. Mertens, Phys. Rev. D 97, 054035 (2018), arXiv:1802.02805 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  88. [97]

    S. S. Jena, J. Barman, B. Toniato, D. Dudal, and S. Mahapatra, JHEP 12, 096, arXiv:2408.14813 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  89. [98]

    Ballon-Bayona, S

    A. Ballon-Bayona, S. Bartz, L. A. H. Mamani, and D. M. Rodrigues, arXiv (2024), arXiv:2410.23471 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  90. [99]

    N. R. F. Braga, Y . F. Ferreira, and L. F. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D105, 114044 (2022), arXiv:2110.04560 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  91. [100]

    Rougemont, J

    R. Rougemont, J. Grefa, M. Hippert, J. Noronha, J. Noronha-Hostler, I. Portillo, and C. Ratti, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 135, 104093 30 (2024), arXiv:2307.03885 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  92. [101]

    Hoyos, N

    C. Hoyos, N. Jokela, and A. Vuorinen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 126, 103972 (2022), arXiv:2112.08422 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  93. [102]

    J ¨arvinen, Eur

    M. J ¨arvinen, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 282 (2022), arXiv:2110.08281 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  94. [103]

    Hashimoto and N

    K. Hashimoto and N. Tanahashi, Phys. Rev. D 95, 024007 (2017), arXiv:1610.06070 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  95. [104]

    Giataganas, Fortsch

    D. Giataganas, Fortsch. Phys. 70, 2200001 (2022), arXiv:2112.02081 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  96. [105]

    Djuki´c and M

    V . Djuki´c and M. ˇCubrovi´c, JHEP 04, 025, arXiv:2310.15697 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  97. [106]

    Ishii and K

    T. Ishii and K. Murata, JHEP 06, 086, arXiv:1504.02190 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  98. [107]

    Faraoni and E

    V . Faraoni and E. Gunzig, Int. J. Theor. Phys.38, 217 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9910176

    1999 arXiv

  99. [108]

    Y . M. Cho, Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 3133 (1992)

    1992

  100. [109]

    Sk and A

    N. Sk and A. K. Sanyal, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26, 1750162 (2017), arXiv:1609.01824 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  101. [110]

    Capozziello, P

    S. Capozziello, P. Martin-Moruno, and C. Rubano, Phys. Lett. B 689, 117 (2010), arXiv:1003.5394 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  102. [111]

    Corda, Astropart

    C. Corda, Astropart. Phys. 34, 412 (2011), arXiv:1010.2086 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  103. [112]

    Quiros, R

    I. Quiros, R. Garcia-Salcedo, J. E. Madriz Aguilar, and T. Matos, Gen. Rel. Grav. 45, 489 (2013), arXiv:1108.5857 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  104. [113]

    Maci ´ıas and A

    A. Maci ´ıas and A. Garc´ıa, Gen. Relativ. Gravitation 33, 889 (2001)

    2001

  105. [114]

    Galaverni and G

    M. Galaverni and G. G. S. J., Phys. Rev. D 105, 084008 (2022), arXiv:2110.12222 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  106. [115]

    Nojiri, O

    S. Nojiri, O. Obregon, S. D. Odintsov, and V . I. Tkach, Phys. Rev. D64, 043505 (2001)

    2001

  107. [116]

    L. Jarv, P. Kuusk, and M. Saal, Phys. Rev. D 76, 103506 (2007), arXiv:0705.4644 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  108. [117]

    Girardello, M

    L. Girardello, M. Petrini, M. Porrati, and A. Zaffaroni, JHEP 05, 026, arXiv:hep-th/9903026

    arXiv

  109. [118]

    Mahapatra and P

    S. Mahapatra and P. Roy, JHEP 11, 138, arXiv:1808.09917 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  110. [119]

    Aref’eva and K

    I. Aref’eva and K. Rannu, JHEP 05, 206, arXiv:1802.05652 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  111. [120]

    I. Y . Aref’eva, K. Rannu, and P. Slepov, JHEP06, 090, arXiv:2009.05562 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  112. [121]

    Alanen, K

    J. Alanen, K. Kajantie, and V . Suur-Uski, Phys. Rev. D80, 126008 (2009), arXiv:0911.2114 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  113. [122]

    Mahapatra, S

    S. Mahapatra, S. Priyadarshinee, G. N. Reddy, and B. Shukla, Phys. Rev. D 102, 024042 (2020), arXiv:2004.00921 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  114. [123]

    Priyadarshinee, S

    S. Priyadarshinee, S. Mahapatra, and I. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. D 104, 084023 (2021), arXiv:2108.02514 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  115. [124]

    Priyadarshinee and S

    S. Priyadarshinee and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev. D 108, 044017 (2023), arXiv:2305.09172 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  116. [125]

    Daripa and S

    A. Daripa and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev. D 109, 124039 (2024), arXiv:2401.04561 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  117. [126]

    He, S.-Y

    S. He, S.-Y . Wu, Y . Yang, and P.-H. Yuan, JHEP04, 093, arXiv:1301.0385 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  118. [127]

    S. S. Gubser, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 4, 679 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0002160

    2000 arXiv

  119. [128]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Lett. B 115, 197 (1982)

    1982

  120. [129]

    Shukla, P

    B. Shukla, P. P. Das, D. Dudal, and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024068 (2024), arXiv:2404.02095 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  121. [130]

    X. Guo, Y . Lu, B. Mu, and P. Wang, JHEP08, 153, arXiv:2205.02122 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  122. [131]

    S. Yang, J. Tao, B. Mu, and A. He, JCAP 07, 045, arXiv:2304.01877 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  123. [132]

    X. Lyu, J. Tao, and P. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 974 (2024), arXiv:2312.11912 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  124. [133]

    A. N. Kumara, S. Punacha, and M. S. Ali, JCAP 07, 061, arXiv:2401.05181 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  125. [134]

    Du, H.-F

    Y .-Z. Du, H.-F. Li, Y .-B. Ma, and Q. Gu, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 78 (2025), arXiv:2403.20083 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  126. [135]

    N. J. Gogoi, S. Acharjee, and P. Phukon, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1144 (2024), arXiv:2404.03947 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  127. [136]

    Sandri, Mathematica Journal 6, 78 (1996)

    M. Sandri, Mathematica Journal 6, 78 (1996)

    1996

  128. [137]

    A. Wolf, J. B. Swift, H. L. Swinney, and J. A. Vastano, Physica D: nonlinear phenomena 16, 285 (1985)

    1985

  129. [138]

    G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, A. Schafer, and K. K. Szabo, JHEP 02, 044, arXiv:1111.4956 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  130. [139]

    D’Elia, L

    M. D’Elia, L. Maio, F. Sanfilippo, and A. Stanzione, Phys. Rev. D 104, 114512 (2021), arXiv:2109.07456 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  131. [140]

    M. C. Gutzwiller, Soft chaos and the kam theorem, in Chaos in Classical and Quantum Mechanics (Springer New York, New York, NY ,

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.