Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Nonlinear Yang-Mills AdS black brane and DC conductivity

T0 review · 4 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 This paper claims that adding nonlinear corrections to an SU(2) Yang-Mills field in AdS gravity produces a DC conductivity below the conjectured lower bound, recovering σ=1 in the linear limit.

desk verdict The paper is a routine extension that arrives at an underdetermined conductivity: the unfixed integration constant c1 lets Eq. (39) take any value in (0,1), so the claimed bound violation is not a definite result. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00866 v2 pith:IZOAAYLA submitted 2024-12-01 hep-th

Mehdi Sadeghi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th PACS 11.10.Jj11.10.Wx11.15.Pg11.25.Tq
keywords Non-abeliancolorDCconductivityBlackbraneAdS/CFTdualityNonlinearelectrodynamicsYang-MillstheoryboundHolographictransportSU(2)gaugefield
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

Einstein gravity with a negative cosmological constant plus a non-abelian SU(2) gauge field whose Lagrangian is nonlinear, $F/[4\pi(1+2q_1 F)^2]$, admits an asymptotically AdS black-brane solution. The paper computes the color DC conductivity of the dual strongly coupled theory by perturbing the gauge field and extracting the retarded Green's function from the boundary action. The central result is $\sigma_{xx}^{(33)}=(1-4q_1 h'(r_h)^2)/(1+4q_1 h'(r_h)^2)^3$, a formula that equals the Yang-Mills value $1$ when the nonlinear coupling $q_1\to 0$ and drops below $1$ for nonzero $q_1h'(r_h)^2$, which the paper interprets as a violation of the conjectured universal lower bound $\sigma\ge 1$. If correct, this identifies another class of holographic models in which the DC conductivity bound is not universal and ties the violation to the structure of the nonlinear gauge theory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the nonlinear gauge-field action $S \supset -F/[4\pi(1+2q_1 F)^2]$ in four-dimensional AdS, together with the SU(2) ansatz $A = i\sqrt{2}\,h(r)\,dt\,\mathrm{diag}(1,-1)$. The radial profile $h(r)$ obeys a second-order equation whose solution is written as an implicit root (Eq. (11)) with an unfixed constant $c_1$; all transport quantities are governed by the horizon derivative $h'(r_h)$, the slope of the gauge-field profile at the black-brane horizon. The conductivity formula (39) follows from the quadratic on-shell action for a perturbed component $\tilde A_x^{(3)}$, using infalling boundary conditions near the horizon and the Green-Kubo prescription $\sigma = -\lim_{\omega\to0} \mathrm{Im}\,G/\omega$. This yields the compact ratio $ (1-4q_1 h'(r_h)^2)/(1+4q_1 h'(r_h)^2)^3 $, which is the identity that carries the paper's claim.

What would settle it

Choose a nonzero $q_1$ and solve the radial gauge-field equation with two boundary conditions; if for every choice the conductivity from the formula stays at or above 1, the claim of bound violation is refuted. More simply, determine the free integration constant by requiring a regular horizon expansion of the metric, evaluate Eq. (39), and check whether the result is below 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that for the SU(2) black brane of the nonlinear gauge theory (3), the longitudinal color DC conductivity is given by Eq. (39) and violates the lower bound $\sigma\ge 1$. Only the color component along the diagonal Cartan generator conducts; $\sigma_{xx}^{(11)}=\sigma_{xx}^{(22)}=0$. In the limit $q_1\to 0$ the nonlinear Lagrangian reduces to ordinary Yang-Mills and the formula gives $\sigma=1$, saturating the bound. The paper interprets the deviation as a genuine effect of the nonlinear self-interaction of the gauge field, with the conductivity determined by the derivative of the gauge-field profile at the event horizon.

Load-bearing premise

The central result depends on the slope of the gauge-field profile at the black-brane horizon, but the paper never fixes the integration constant that determines this slope, so the claimed violation is not pinned to a definite number.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Taking $q_1\to 0$ recovers $\sigma=1$ exactly, so the nonlinear model contains the Yang-Mills saturation as its linear limit.
  • For any nonzero coupling with $0<4q_1 h'(r_h)^2<1$, the formula gives a conductivity strictly below $1$, so the conjectured bound $\sigma\ge 1$ fails in this model.
  • The color conductivity matrix is diagonal: $\sigma^{(11)}_{xx}=\sigma^{(22)}_{xx}=0$ while $\sigma^{(33)}_{xx}$ carries the transport; currents along the Cartan direction obey a diagonal Ohm's law.
  • Because the gravity sector is Einstein-Hilbert, the shear viscosity to entropy ratio remains $1/4\pi$, so the KSS bound stays saturated even though the conductivity bound is violated.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The constant $c_1$ in Eq. (11) is never fixed, so Eq. (39) as written is a family of conductivities parametrized by $h'(r_h)$; a definite prediction requires an extra physical condition to pin down the horizon slope.
  • If $4q_1 h'(r_h)^2 > 1$, the formula turns negative, predicting an amplifying rather than dissipative response; the paper does not discuss this regime, and it could signal an instability of the perturbed solution.
  • Keeping $\omega$ finite in the same perturbation scheme would give the optical conductivity, allowing a check of whether the DC violation is accompanied by a spectral-weight shift; the paper only reports the DC limit.
  • The pattern that conductivity is fixed by horizon data of the nonlinear Lagrangian may extend to other nonlinear gauge theories, making the bound-violation question a statement about the Lagrangian's horizon value rather than about gravity.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a four-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert-AdS black brane solution with a non-abelian SU(2) nonlinear Yang-Mills field, where the gauge field is along a Cartan generator. Using standard holographic techniques, it derives a formula for the DC conductivity, Eq. (39), which depends on the nonlinear coupling q1 and the horizon value of the radial gauge-field derivative h'(rh). In the limit q1 → 0, the formula reduces to the linear Yang-Mills result σ=1. The paper claims that the conductivity violates the universal DC conductivity lower bound and interprets the result as evidence for Mott-insulator-like behavior.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide a new holographic example of a non-abelian nonlinear gauge theory whose DC conductivity can fall below the standard bound, which is relevant for the growing literature on bounds on transport in strongly coupled systems. The setup is physically sensible, the holographic framework is standard, and the q1 → 0 limit provides a useful sanity check that the calculation is on the right track. However, the result is not yet supported as a definite prediction because the integration constant c1 is never fixed, leaving h'(rh) and hence the conductivity undetermined. The manuscript also contains significant gaps in the derivation of the Green's function. The strengths are the explicit parametric solution and the clean reduction to the Yang-Mills case; the weaknesses are the underdetermination of the central formula and the sketchy extraction of the retarded Green's function.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, Eq. (11) and §3, Eq. (39)] The integration constant c1 is never fixed, so h'(r_h) and hence the central result Eq. (39) are not determined. The paper states (Eq. (12)) that the horizon condition A_t(r_h)=0 fixes μ, but c1 remains a free parameter of the solution. At the horizon, Eq. (11) reduces to (1+4q1 y^2)^3 + e^{c1} r_h^2 y (4q1 y^2 -1)=0 with y=h'(r_h), and for any a=4q1 y^2 in (0,1) one can choose a real c1 satisfying this relation, so Eq. (39) gives σ=(1-a)/(1+a)^3, an arbitrary number between 0 and 1. The paper must either eliminate c1 in favor of the physical boundary data (chemical potential μ, temperature T, horizon radius r_h) or otherwise specify the admissible root branch and the range of q1, before the claimed bound violation can be tested.
  2. [§2, Eq. (11)] The expression for D(u) as a Root of a sextic polynomial is presented without verification against the equation of motion (9). Since every subsequent quantity, including the metric f(r), the temperature, and the conductivity, is a functional of D(u)=h'(u), the paper should show that the root indeed satisfies Eq. (9), or provide a derivation of how Eq. (11) follows from integrating Eq. (9). Without this verification, the entire solution is a conjecture.
  3. [§3, Eqs. (24)-(38)] The on-shell calculation leading to the Green's function is not shown in enough detail to be checked. The second-order action (24) contains unbalanced parentheses and ambiguous terms, and the step from the variation of S(2) to Eq. (38) is simply stated. In particular, the limit in Eq. (21) divides by ω before establishing that the retarded Green's function is linear in ω with no ω^0 contribution; this is essential for the finite value in Eq. (39). Please provide the explicit steps of the integration by parts near the boundary and the horizon-regularity argument that fixes C4 in Eq. (37).
  4. [§1 and §4] The paper cites two different values for the conjectured conductivity bound: §1 states σ≥1/e^2=1, while §4 states σ≥1/2. This inconsistency matters because Eq. (39) yields values both above and below 1/2 for different choices of h'(r_h). The paper should state which bound it addresses and demonstrate with explicit parameter values that the corresponding inequality is violated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] There are numerous typographical errors and garbled phrases, including "featuri ng", "du ality", "AS q1 → 0", and the sentence in Eq. (2) where "i, j indices refer to SU(2) refer to translational symmetry" is not grammatical.
  2. [§3, Eq. (24)] The second-order action is typeset with unbalanced parentheses and ambiguous symbols (e.g., "A~x(3))^2 )" and "2(A~x(1))^2 + A~x(2)"). It should be rewritten carefully, and the notation should distinguish h(r) from the constant h(r_h).
  3. [§2, Eq. (11)] The paper does not state the admissible range of q1 and r_h for which the Root in Eq. (11) is real and the metric describes a single-event-horizon black brane; such a statement is necessary for the physical interpretation.
  4. [§3, Eq. (41)] The result σ11=σ22=0 is surprising because the background breaks SU(2) to U(1); one expects the transverse color conductivities to be finite but different from σ33. The exact vanishing should be justified, or at least commented on.
  5. [§4, Conclusion] The concluding remark that "the charge carried by the gauge field in this model is different from the charge carried by the Yang-Mills theory" is vague and is not derived from the explicit formulas; it should be clarified or removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the conductivity formula follows from a self-contained holographic computation; the unfixed c1 makes the result underdetermined, not circular.

full rationale

The central claim, Eq. (39), is obtained by expanding the action (3) to second order in the perturbed gauge field, solving the bulk equations (25)-(27) with infalling boundary conditions, fixing the integration constant C4 by horizon regularity (Eq. (37)), and then computing the retarded Green's function via the standard holographic dictionary (Eqs. (20)-(21), (38)). This is a self-contained derivation: the conductivity formula is not assumed as an input, and no quantity is defined in terms of the output. The paper cites the author's own previous work for the general technique or for the Yang-Mills limiting case ([33], [34], [48]), but those citations do not carry the claim that the bound is violated; the violation claim rests on the explicit formula derived here. The main weakness is that the integration constant c1 in Eq. (11) is never fixed, so h'(r_h), and hence sigma_xx^(33), remains a one-parameter family of values and the claim of bound violation is conditional rather than a definite numerical prediction. That is an incompleteness or underdetermination issue, not a circularity: there is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no self-definitional equation, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. Therefore no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central computation rests on the AdS/CFT dictionary, the chosen ansatze for the metric and gauge field, and the specific nonlinear Lagrangian. No new particles or entities are introduced. The free parameter c1 is particularly important because it leaves the final conductivity implicit.

free parameters (2)
  • q1
    Nonlinear coupling constant in the Lagrangian (Eq. 3). It is a model parameter, not fitted to data, and the q1 → 0 limit recovers Yang-Mills. It directly controls the conductivity formula.
  • c1
    Integration constant appearing in the root definition of D(u) in Eq. (11). It determines h'(rh) and hence the numerical value of the conductivity, but the paper never fixes it from boundary or horizon conditions.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT duality and the holographic dictionary for retarded Green's functions and transport coefficients.
    The computation of DC conductivity from the bulk gauge field action relies on the gauge-gravity correspondence, cited from refs. [20] and [39].
  • domain assumption The gauge field ansatz (Eq. 8), where the SU(2) field is reduced to a single diagonal Cartan generator with A^(a) ∝ diag(1, -1) dt.
    This ansatz restricts the non-abelian dynamics to a U(1) subgroup and is not derived from the full non-abelian equations.
  • domain assumption The planar AdS black brane metric ansatz (Eq. 7) with a single metric function f(r).
    The solution assumes homogeneity and isotropy on the boundary, standard for holographic transport calculations.
  • domain assumption The fractional gauge theory Lagrangian (Eq. 3) is the correct nonlinear electrodynamics model to study.
    The model is taken from refs. [35,36,37] without derivation from a more fundamental theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear Yang-Mills AdS black brane and DC conductivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IZOAAYLA

@misc{pith2026241200866,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear Yang-Mills AdS black brane and DC conductivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IZOAAYLA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00866}
}
abstract

In this paper, we examine Einstein-Hilbert gravity featuring a cosmological constant and a non-abelian nonlinear electromagnetic field that is minimally coupled to gravity. We first present the black brane solution for this model and subsequently calculate the color non-abelian DC conductivity for this solution using AdS/CFT duality. Our results retrieve the Yang-Mills model in the limit as $q_1$ approaches zero.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. H. Delphenich, [arXiv:hep-th/0309108 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [2]

    D. H. Delphenich, [arXiv:hep-th/0610088 [hep-th]]. 1Kovtun-Son-Starinet 2We set 1 e2 = 1. 8

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [3]

    Can the power Maxwell nonlinear electrodynamics theory remove the singularity of electric field of point-like charges at their locations?

    B. Eslam Panah, [arXiv:2103.08343 [physics.class-ph] ]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [4]

    Heisenberg and H

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, Z. Phys. 98, 714 (1936)

    1936

  5. [5]

    Electromagnetic wave propagation inside a material medium: an effective geometry interpretation

    D. Lorenci, V.A. and M. A. Souza, Phys. Lett. B 512, 417-422 (2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/0102022 [gr-qc]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    C. S. Camara, M. R. de Garcia Maia, J. C. Carvalho and J. A. S. Lima, Phys. Rev. D 69, 123504 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0402311 [astro-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    D. N. Vollick, Phys. Rev. D 78, 063524 (2008) [arXiv:0807.0448 [gr-qc]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    A. E. Shabad and V. V. Usov, Phys. Rev. D 83, 105006 (2011) [arXiv:1101.2343 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2011

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Garcia-Salcedo, T

    R. Garcia-Salcedo, T. Gonzalez and I. Quiros, Phys. Rev. D 89, no.8, 084047 (2014) [arXiv:1312.3163 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Gaete and J

    P. Gaete and J. Helay¨ el-Neto, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, no.3, 2816 (2014) [arXiv:1312.5157 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Dehghani, Eur

    M. Dehghani, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134, no.9, 426 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Dehghani, Int

    M. Dehghani, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 18, no.03, 2150046 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Dehghani, Phys

    M. Dehghani, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.8, 084019 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Dehghani, Phys

    M. Dehghani, Phys. Dark Univ. 31, 100749 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    S. I. Kruglov, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 527, 397 (2015) [arXiv:1410.7633]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Born, and L

    M. Born, and L. Infeld, Proc. Roy. Soc. (Lond.) A144 (193 4) 425

  9. [17]

    Born, Ann

    M. Born, Ann. Inst. Poincar /acute.ts1e 7 (1939) 155

    1939

  10. [18]

    Bialynicka-Birula, and I

    Z. Bialynicka-Birula, and I. Bialynicka-Birula, Phys . Rev. D 2 (1970) 2341

    1970

  11. [19]

    H. J. Mosquera, and J. M. Cuesta Salim, Astrophys. J. 608 (2004) 925

    2004

  12. [20]

    J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998), 231-252 [arXiv:hep-th/9711200 [hep-th]]. 9

    1998 arXiv

  13. [21]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics (Course of Theoretical Physics,Vol. 6). Butterworth-Heinemann, 196 5

  14. [22]

    Son, Nuclear Physics B (Proc

    D.T. Son, Nuclear Physics B (Proc. Suppl.) 192–193 (200 9) 113–118

  15. [23]

    Policastro, D

    G. Policastro, D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, Phys. Rev. L ett. 87, 081601 (2001) [hep-th/0104066]

    2001 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Kovtun, J

    P. Kovtun, J. Phys. A 45 (2012) 473001[arXiv:1205.5040 [hep- th]]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bhattacharyya, V

    S. Bhattacharyya, V. E. Hubeny, S. Minwalla and M. Ranga - mani, JHEP 0802, 045 (2008) [arXiv:0712.2456 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Rangamani, Class

    M. Rangamani, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 224003 (2009) [arXiv:0905.4352 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bhattacharya, S

    J. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharyya, S. Minwalla and A. Y arom, JHEP 1405, 147 (2014) [arXiv:1105.3733 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Grozdanov, A

    S. Grozdanov, A. Lucas, S. Sachdev and K. Schalm, Phys. R ev. Lett. 115, no.22, 221601 (2015) [arXiv:1507.00003 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Grozdanov, A

    S. Grozdanov, A. Lucas and K. Schalm, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.6, 061901 [arXiv:1511.05970 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Ziegler, Phys

    K. Ziegler, Phys. Rev. B, 75, (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    Baggioli and O

    M. Baggioli and O. Pujolas, JHEP 01 (2017), 040 [arXiv:1601.07897 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Baggioli and O

    M. Baggioli and O. Pujolas, JHEP 12 (2016), 107 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2016)107 [arXiv:1604.08915 [hep-th ]]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Sadeghi, Indian J

    M. Sadeghi, Indian J. Phys. 96, no.14, 4341-4345 (2022) doi:10.1007/s12648-022-02317-z [arXiv:2111.12916 [hep -th]]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Sadeghi and F

    M. Sadeghi and F. Rahmani, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139, no.7, 600 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05370-1 [arXiv:240 3.04463 [hep-th]]

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    7, 295 (2024) 10.3390/uni- verse10070295

    Kruglov, Sergey Il’ich, 10, no. 7, 295 (2024) 10.3390/uni- verse10070295

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    S. I. Kruglov, Annals of Physics, 353 (2015), doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2014.12.001. 10

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    Kar, [arXiv:2406.10577 [gr-qc]]

    A. Kar, [arXiv:2406.10577 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    B. L. Shepherd and E. Winstanley, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 6, 064064 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.064064 [arXiv:1512.03010 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A. Dey, S. Mahapatra and T. Sarkar, JHEP 01, 088 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2016)088 [arXiv:1510.00232 [hep-th ]]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    S. H. Hendi, Annals Phys. 333, 282-289 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2013.03.008 [arXiv:1405.5359 [gr-qc ]]

    2013 arXiv

  33. [42]

    D. F. Litim and C. Manuel, Nucl. Phys. B 562, 237-274 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00531-3 [arXiv:hep-ph/9906 210 [hep- ph]]

    1999 doi

  34. [43]

    S. I. Kruglov, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no.2, 88 (2015) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3314-z [arXiv:1411.7741 [ hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Gangopadhyay and D

    S. Gangopadhyay and D. Roychowdhury, JHEP 05, 002 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2012)002 [arXiv:1201.6520 [hep-th] ]

    2012 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Donos and J

    A. Donos and J. P. Gauntlett, JHEP 1411, 081 (2014) [arXiv:1406.4742 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [46]

    X. H. Ge, Y. Matsuo, F. W. Shu, S. J. Sin and T. Tsukioka, JHEP 10, 009 (2008) [arXiv:0808.2354 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Policastro, D

    G. Policastro, D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, JHEP 0209, 043 (2002) [hep-th/0205052]

    2002 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Parvizi; M

    S. Parvizi; M. Sadeghi. Iranian Journal of Physics Rese arch, 20, 1, 2020, 139-145. doi: 10.47176/ijpr.20.1.39001

    2020 doi

  40. [49]

    Kovtun, D

    P. Kovtun, D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005), 111601 [arXiv:hep-th/0405231 [hep-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Sadeghi and H

    M. Sadeghi and H. Ranjbari, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, no.20, 205012 (2019) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab436e [arXiv:1905 .12856 [hep-th]]. 11

    2019 doi

  42. [51]

    Sadeghi, Mod

    M. Sadeghi, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 36, no.28, 2150202 (2021) doi:10.1142/S0217732321502023 [arXiv:2007.09688 [hep- th]]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Sadeghi and S

    M. Sadeghi and S. Parvizi, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, no.3, 035005 (2016) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035005 [arXiv:1507.07183 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Sadeghi, Mod

    M. Sadeghi, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 39, no.01, 2350181 (2024) doi:10.1142/S021773232350181X [arXiv:2203.16849 [hep- th]]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Sadeghi, doi:10.1142/S0217751X24501288 [arXiv:2409.14315 [hep-th]]

    M. Sadeghi, doi:10.1142/S0217751X24501288 [arXiv:2409.14315 [hep-th]]. 12

    arXiv

Pith tools

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