Condensate phases of nuclear matter from AdS Hardwall models

Akash Singh; K. P. Yogendran

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Condensate phases of nuclear matter from AdS Hardwall models

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

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

Pith's one-line read Dense nuclear matter is unstable to pairing in an AdS hardwall model: baryon-pair condensates at intermediate density and quark-pair condensates at higher density always beat the uncondensed phases at low temperature.

desk verdict A credible extension of the authors' hardwall program: condensate phases are shown to win within each input EOS, but the phase boundaries between EOSs are inherited, not predicted. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05666 v1 pith:45RVJGXL submitted 2025-02-08 hep-th

Akash Singh , K. P. Yogendran This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th MSC 81T3081V05 PACS 11.25.Tq21.65.Qr

keywords AdS/QCDhardwallmodelholographicsuperconductorbaryoncondensatequark-pairfinite-densityQCDphasediagramNJL

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

This paper extends an earlier AdS/QCD hardwall study of confined matter at finite baryon density by adding a complex scalar field in the bulk, whose dual is a condensate operator of chosen baryon charge and scaling dimension. The claim is that, at low temperatures, nuclear matter in every description — van der Waals baryon gas or liquid, NJL quark gas, and deconfined quark plasma — is unstable to condensation: baryon pairs form at intermediate chemical potential, quark pairs at higher density, and the charged black hole phase condenses as well. In every case the condensed solution has higher pressure than its uncondensed counterpart, so the thermodynamically preferred phase diagram involves condensates everywhere except possibly at the very lowest densities. Because these are the densities and temperatures of neutron star interiors, the paper bears directly on the equation of state that sets compact star structure. A careful scan over the coupling, the condensate charge, and the scaling dimension shows the qualitative ordering of phases survives parameter variation, with a preferred window of dimensions for the baryon-pair operator.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the Einstein-Maxwell-Scalar bulk action with a complex scalar psi charged under the U(1)_B gauge field, whose charge selects the condensate (q=2 for a quark pair, q=2N_c=6 for a baryon pair) and whose bulk mass fixes the boundary operator's scaling dimension via the AdS/CFT relation, with the non-normalizable mode set to zero to model spontaneous breaking. The argument is driven by two IR boundary conditions at the hardwall cutoff z0: one equates the bulk pressure at the cutoff to the phenomenological nuclear-matter pressure p_B(T,mu) from the van der Waals or NJL equation of state, and the other, a Gauss-law condition, equates the electric flux at the cutoff to the quark number density from the same model. The one free datum, the IR value psi(z0), is fixed by extremizing the on-shell action, that is, maximizing the pressure; that prescription is what makes condensation onsets continuous and excludes node-bearing scalar profiles. Holographic renormalization supplies the finite pressure used in the phase comparisons.

What would settle it

A concrete way to test the claim is to replace the fitted van der Waals and NJL equations of state in the IR boundary conditions with a first-principles baryon distribution in the bulk, for instance the instanton-gas description of baryons in the Witten-Sakai-Sugimoto model, and recompute the phase diagram; if the vdW and NJL condensate windows disappear, or the NJL-to-black-hole transition turns sharply first order, the central claim fails. A second check is observational: a neutron star mass-radius or tidal-deformability measurement that rules out the stiff condensed equation of state at two to four times nuclear saturation density would contradict the predicted condensate dominance. The authors themselves note that the NJL-based results lose reliability near the model cutoff, around mu_B = 1900 MeV for Lambda = 631 MeV, where the low-temperature transition to the black hole sits, so the smooth NJL-to-CBH evolution is the part most exposed to correction from a better IR description.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central contention is that spontaneous breaking of baryon number symmetry is not exclusive to the deconfined phase: the same charged-scalar mechanism known from holographic superconductors also operates in the horizonless charged-AdS geometries that model the confined phase, provided the IR boundary conditions are fixed by phenomenological equations of state. With van der Waals boundary conditions, a scalar of charge q=6 (a pair of baryons, since N_c=3) and scaling dimension between about 5 and 7 condenses once the chemical potential crosses roughly the baryon mass scale; with NJL boundary conditions, a q=2 quark-pair operator with delta=3 condenses at higher densities, and the charged black hole solution acquires the same kind of hair. All condensed geometries have larger pressure than their uncondensed counterparts, and fixing the IR value of the scalar by demanding maximal pressure makes each condensation onset a continuous, second-order transition while removing solutions whose condensate is offset, signaled by a node in the scalar profile. A further structural observation is that the NJL condensate phase passes smoothly into the charged-black-hole condensate, suggesting the quarkyonic and deconfined phases are continuously connected.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a hardwall geometry truncated at z0 with the van der Waals and NJL equations of state imposed via the IR boundary conditions is a valid low-energy description of dense nuclear matter. If that identification fails, the entire condensate phase diagram, including the transition to the charged black hole, is an artifact of the boundary conditions rather than a holographic prediction, and the authors themselves flag the treatment of the IR baryon distribution and the missing chiral condensate field as open questions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With van der Waals boundary conditions, the baryonic liquid phase is predicted to host a baryon-pair condensate (q=6, dimension between roughly 5 and 7) at intermediate chemical potential, so dense baryonic matter is superfluid or superconducting rather than a normal Fermi liquid.
The NJL phase at higher density carries a quark-pair condensate (q=2, delta=3), and it evolves smoothly into the charged-black-hole (deconfined) condensate, so the confined-deconfined boundary at high density becomes a continuous crossover in this model.
Condensation always raises the pressure and sharply increases baryon density at onset, which stiffens the equation of state in the condensed windows, the quantity that sets neutron star mass-radius relations.
The maximum-pressure rule for the IR scalar value means each condensate turns on as a second-order transition, leaving no metastable uncondensed branch below the onset.
Scanning the coupling from 0.3 to 1, the charge q from 2 to 6, and the scaling dimension from 3 to 9 leaves the ordering of phases unchanged, which the authors read as evidence that condensate dominance is a structural feature of hardwall models rather than a fine-tuned accident.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: if nuclear matter is generically condensed in this density range, neutron star cooling and transport would be governed by superfluid dynamics, with baryon-pair condensate in the outer core and quark-pair condensate deeper in, changing observable signatures such as cooling curves and viscosity-driven instabilities.
Editorial inference: the smooth NJL-to-black-hole connection gives a holographic realization of quark-hadron continuity; a sharp quantitative test would be to compute the condensate fraction and baryon density across the nominal transition to see whether any non-analyticity survives at higher numerical accuracy.
Editorial inference: the scan over scaling dimension doubles as a prediction about the QCD operator spectrum, namely that the baryon-pair operator which condenses must have dimension between roughly 5 and 7, a value that lattice or functional methods could in principle verify.
Editorial inference: adding isospin chemical potential, which the authors list as future work, would split the q=6 condensate into proton-pair and neutron-pair components and introduce pion condensation, yielding a multi-axis phase diagram directly comparable with neutron star beta-equilibrium constraints.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a serious continuation of the authors' hardwall finite-density program. The genuinely new ingredient is a charged scalar in the confined CAdS background, with phenomenological vdW/NJL boundary conditions, leading to baryon-pair (q=6, Delta~5-7) and quark-pair (q=2, Delta=3) condensate phases. The qualitative result—condensed phases have higher pressure and dominate at low T within this model—is credible and consistent with the holographic superconductor literature.

What the paper does well: the EOMs and holographic renormalization are standard and clearly presented; they scan parameters (zeta, q, Delta, g0) and show which operator condenses first; they check thermodynamic consistency (rho = rho_bar + rho_psi); and they are transparent about limitations (no running coupling, no chiral condensate, no isospin). The maximum-pressure selection of psi0 is a reasonable prescription, and the second-order onset is a genuine emergent effect of the bulk dynamics.

Soft spots, in order of importance:

First, the 'condensates dominate' claim is partly inherited. The vdW-to-NJL transition is set by which phenomenological EOS has higher pressure at given (mu,T); the holographic calculation only adds a condensate correction within each phase. The paper knows this, but the abstract and discussion lean on the strong wording. That's a presentation problem more than a fatal flaw, as long as readers understand the model predicts condensate preference within an EOS, not the phase boundary between EOSs.

Second, the numerics have no convergence study or error estimates. Some figures show the preferred solution approaching gtt->0 at the IR cutoff near the CBH transition, and the paper hand-waves that continuity should rescue it. That needs to be addressed.

Third, the stress-test note is right that the Delta window depends on the charge assignment and the mu_Q=mu_B/Nc normalization. The paper sets lambda_s=1 after absorbing Nf, but does not show how the vdW condensate onset shifts if Nc is not consistently 3 in the non-linear scalar action and in eq. (3.5). This is a minor-to-moderate issue; a check would settle it.

Who this is for: people building bottom-up holographic models of dense QCD and neutron-star matter. It is not a first-principles derivation, and the authors do not claim it is. It deserves a serious referee; with revisions on the above points it would be a useful reference.

Recommendation: send to peer review, but push for a major revision that separates predicted from input, adds numerical error control, and fixes the Nc normalization check.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper extends a previous AdS hardwall study of confined phases at finite baryon density by adding a charged scalar field dual to baryon-pair and quark-pair condensates. Using van der Waals and NJL equations of state as IR boundary conditions, the authors construct solutions with nonzero scalar profiles, select solutions by maximizing pressure over the IR scalar value ψ(z0), and compare pressures to obtain phase diagrams in the μB–T plane. The central claim is that at low temperatures the preferred description always involves condensates except at very low densities, with a baryon-pair condensate in the vdW regime giving way to a quark-pair condensate in the NJL regime and eventually to a charged black hole with scalar hair. The equations of motion, boundary conditions, and holographic renormalization are standard and clearly presented, and the qualitative result that condensed solutions have higher pressure is consistent with generic holographic superconductor behavior.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a concrete bottom-up holographic model in which both baryonic and quark-pair condensates emerge as low-temperature phases of nuclear matter, and it offers a systematic parameter scan of the hardwall model. The strength of the paper is its transparent setup: the action, scaling-dimension assignments, and renormalization are stated explicitly, and the qualitative features (condensation increases pressure, larger scalar charge condenses earlier) are physically reasonable. However, the quantitative phase boundaries are heavily influenced by the phenomenological equations of state inserted through the IR boundary conditions, and at least one internal inconsistency in the scalar charge assignment for the NJL phase must be resolved before the central phase diagram can be trusted. The paper would be a useful contribution to the AdS/QCD phenomenology literature after these issues are addressed.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 6.1, Eq. (3.4)] The comparison that produces the vdW-to-NJL phase boundary is dominated by the input equations of state. Equation (3.4) imposes p_B(T,μ) as an IR boundary condition, and Fig. 1 already shows the uncondensed vdW and NJL pressures crossing near μB≈1500–1800 MeV. In Fig. 28 the crossing between VdW+Δ and NJL+Δ occurs at nearly the same μB (approximately 1800 MeV at T=1 MeV for Δ=6.3), so the 'transition' from baryon-pair to quark-pair condensate is largely inherited from the phenomenological input rather than being an emergent holographic prediction. The paper should quantify the holographically generated pressure difference (for example, plot Δp between condensed and uncondensed solutions for each EOS) and state explicitly which features of the phase diagram would survive if the input EOSs were changed.
[Sec. 5.2 and Sec. 5.3, Figs. 23, 24, 26] The NJL-phase calculations are internally inconsistent in the value of the scalar charge. Section 5.2 states that in the NJL phase 'the baryon charge of the scalar field will be set to q=2,' but the captions of Figs. 23, 24, and 26 assign q=6 to the NJL solutions. Since q enters the condensation condition (2.9) quadratically and also determines whether the condensate is interpreted as a baryon pair or a quark pair, this discrepancy is not merely typographical: if the numerics used q=6, the NJL+Δ curves in Figs. 28–31 do not represent the claimed q=2 quark-pair condensate, and the phase boundaries, condensate fractions, and relative pressures would change. The authors should clarify which value was actually used and regenerate or correct the affected figures.
[Sec. 4.2 and Sec. 6.2, Figs. 9–10 and 30] The maximum-pressure selection of ψ(z0) is used to define the physical solution, but the paper provides no uniqueness proof, no convergence study of the shooting method, and no error estimates. At the CBH transition in Fig. 30 the maximum-pressure solution approaches gtt→0 at the IR cutoff, i.e., a singular geometry, and the text concedes that the low-temperature ζ=0.77 CBH transition 'is not very reliable.' Because the CBH+Δ boundary is part of the central phase diagram, the quantitative location of this boundary should be accompanied by a sensitivity analysis showing how the crossing moves under changes in grid resolution, UV cutoff, and the proximity of the singular solution.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 20] The caption says the red and green solid curves correspond to 'Δ = 6.5 and Δ = 6.5'; one of these should presumably be Δ = 6.3.
[Sec. 6.2, text above Fig. 32] The phrase 'scaling dimension 5 ≳ Δ ≳ 7' should read '5 ≲ Δ ≲ 7'.
[Sec. 6.2, Fig. 31] The abstract and Sec. 7 claim that condensates dominate 'except possibly at very low densities,' but Fig. 31 shows a substantial uncondensed 'Baryon Liquid' region at intermediate densities and low temperature; the wording in the abstract is accordingly stronger than the phase diagram itself.
[Sec. 3.1, Figs. 1–4] The grey dashed lines denoting the 'limit of validity' for the NJL cutoff are used repeatedly, but the validity criterion (such as μQ < Λ or μB < 3Λ) is never stated in the text.
[Sec. 5.1, Fig. 19] The window 5≲Δ≲7 is described as robust, but the figure shows only ζ=0.77; the text should state how the window depends on ζ and on the NJL cutoff Λ, since those parameters are varied elsewhere in the paper.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the vdW-vs-NJL phase competition is largely inherited from the phenomenological input EOSs via the IR boundary conditions (3.4)-(3.5), while the condensate pressure gain itself is a genuine bulk computation; the boundary-condition formalism is also taken from the authors' own prior work [41].

fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3, Eqs. (3.4)-(3.5); Sec. 5.3]
"The total pressure can then be equated to the pressure of nuclear matter pB(T, µ) (modeled phenomenologically) together with other contributions... This equation determines the IR boundary condition g(z0). Additionally, the boundary condition for the scalar potential is also specified by phenomenology: ϕ′(z0) = ... ρQ where ρQ is the quark number density determined by the phenomenological models that determine the pressure pB."

The IR boundary conditions fix g(z0) and ϕ'(z0) using exactly the pressure p_B and density ρ_Q of the vdW or NJL input EOS. The total pressure of each resulting 'phase' is therefore p_B plus a holographic bulk correction. When the paper compares vdW+Δ against NJL+Δ (Fig. 28) and reports that NJL+Δ wins at higher μ_B, the dominant contribution to that ordering is the input crossing of the vdW and NJL EOSs already displayed in Fig. 1. The transition chemical potential between the two condensed sectors is thus inherited from the phenomenological input rather than independently predicted; only the condensate-induced shift is a genuine bulk effect. The later thermodynamic check ρ = ρ_B + ρ_ψ likewise re-uses the same input ρ_B, so it verifies consistency, not a new prediction.
self citation load bearing [Sec. 3, introduction (before Eq. 3.4)]
"In our present work, we will use the thermodynamic quantities computed from these EFT approaches to determine the IR boundary conditions as detailed in our earlier study [41]."

The key construction of the paper — that the phenomenological pressure and density of nuclear matter can be imposed as IR boundary conditions of the hardwall model, leading to Eq. (3.4) and the g0=6 normalization — is not derived in this paper but taken from the authors' own earlier arXiv preprint [41]. This is a load-bearing self-citation: the phase diagram and all condensate comparisons inherit the validity of that unverified mapping. It is not fully circular because the condensate solutions themselves are new bulk computations, but the framework into which they are inserted rests on the authors' prior work rather than on an independent, machine-checked or externally reproduced result.

full rationale

The paper's genuinely new content — that a complex scalar condenses in the confined CAdS and CBH geometries and that the condensed solution has higher pressure than its uncondensed counterpart — is obtained by solving the bulk Einstein-Maxwell-scalar equations with ψ_− = 0 and extremizing over ψ(z0); no condensate data are fitted to produce this. That part is not circular. However, the phase competition between the vdW and NJL sectors is partially circular: Eq. (3.4)-(3.5) set the bulk boundary data equal to the very phenomenological pressures and densities whose crossing then dominates the vdW→NJL transition. In addition, the boundary-condition method itself is imported from the authors' prior work [41], a load-bearing self-citation. These two issues make the central phase diagram partially inherited from inputs, hence score 4 rather than 0, but they do not reduce the condensate prediction itself to a fit.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model's central claim rests on a series of imported inputs: the hardwall cutoff as a confinement mechanism, the AdS/CFT mass-dimension dictionary, the heuristic identification of scalar charge with baryonic vs quark-pair condensates, and the phenomenological vdW/NJL equations of state that fix the IR boundary conditions. The freely varied parameters (zeta, g0, q, Delta) are not fitted to the condensate data, but the window for Delta is restricted by what counts as a 'reasonable' phase diagram. No new particles beyond the model's scalar are invented, but the scalar and the IR source distribution have no independent external evidence.

free parameters (5)

zeta (gauge-gravity coupling) = 0.3, 0.77, 1.0
Appears in the action normalization (2.2); scanned as a model parameter. Controls the backreaction of the gauge field on the metric and shifts all transition chemical potentials.
g0 (glueball/meson pressure constant) = 6 (and 27 in one scan)
Fixes the IR pressure boundary condition in eq. (3.4); stated to be fixed by phenomenology at T=mu=0 via the authors' earlier work [41].
q (scalar charge) = 2, 4, 6
Interpreted as quark-pair condensate (q=2) or baryon-pair condensate (q=6 with N_c=3). Scanned to study the effect of baryonic charge.
Delta_vdW (scaling dimension of the vdW condensate operator) = 6.3, 6.5, 7.0 (window 5 to 7)
Controls the scalar mass via m^2 L^2 = Delta(Delta-4). The window is restricted to values that produce a 'reasonable' vdW condensate region in the phase diagram.
Delta_NJL/CBH (scaling dimension of the quark-pair condensate operator) = 3
Set by m^2 L^2 = -3; used for the NJL and charged black hole condensates.

assumptions (7)

standard math AdS/CFT mass-dimension relation m^2 L^2 = Delta(Delta-d) maps the bulk scalar mass to the boundary operator scaling dimension
Used in section 2 (eq. 2.3) to set Delta from m^2 L^2.
domain assumption The hardwall IR cutoff z0 provides a valid dual of confinement in QCD-like theories
The whole model relies on this; introduced in section 2.
ad hoc to paper A scalar with charge q=2N_c (baryon pair) or q=2 (quark pair) under the bulk U(1) represents the corresponding boundary condensate
Section 2, paragraph after eq. (2.5); this identification is heuristic and not derived from a microscopic string construction.
ad hoc to paper The van der Waals and NJL equations of state correctly describe matter behind the IR cutoff and can be imposed as IR boundary conditions (eqs. 3.4-3.5)
Section 3 and 5; if false, the CAdS/CBH phase structure is not a holographic prediction.
domain assumption The ground state is the solution maximizing pressure with respect to the IR value psi(z0)
Section 4.2 and 5.1; standard grand-canonical extremization, but it also assumes a unique global maximum.
domain assumption The scalar profile must have no node when extended beyond the cutoff; such solutions are the ground state
Section 4.2, around figure 8; Sturm-Liouville expectation, used to exclude many numerical solutions.
domain assumption The NJL model with cutoff Lambda=631 or 925 MeV approximates the high-density quark phase
Section 3.1; the transition point depends strongly on these parameters.

invented entities (2)

Bulk charged scalar field psi
purpose: Dual to boundary condensate operators (baryon pairs with charge q=2N_c, quark pairs with q=2); its condensation lowers the free energy.
No independent observable is calculated from this field beyond the model's own phase diagram; its mass and charge are adjusted to match QCD expectations.
IR source distribution behind the hardwall cutoff
purpose: Provides the phenomenological pressure p_B and density rho_Q used in the IR boundary conditions (3.4)-(3.5).
Posited to model wrapped branes or fundamental strings, but not derived from a top-down construction; its properties are effectively the input equation of state.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Condensate phases of nuclear matter from AdS Hardwall models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/45RVJGXL

@misc{pith2026250205666,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Condensate phases of nuclear matter from AdS Hardwall models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/45RVJGXL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05666}
}

read the original abstract

This work develops our previous study of confined phases at finite densities in AdS/QCD by systematically exploring the possibility of baryonic condensates. Using phenomenologically motivated boundary conditions in an AdS hardwall model, we show that both baryonic and quark type condensates dominate the phase diagram at low temperatures. We also undertake a careful scan of the parameter space to extract robust conclusions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

Haensel, A

P. Haensel, A. Y. Potekhin, and D. G. Yakovlev,Neutron stars 1: Equation of state and structure, vol. 326. Springer, New York, USA, 2007

2007
[2]

C. J. Pethick, T. Schaefer, and A. Schwenk,Bose-Einstein condensates in neutron stars, arXiv:1507.05839

arXiv
[3]

M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, and T. Schäfer,Color superconductivity in dense quark matter, Rev. Mod. Phys.80 (2008) 1455–1515, [arXiv:0709.4635]

arXiv 2008
[4]

Brambilla et al.,QCD and Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories: Challenges and Perspectives, Eur

N. Brambilla et al.,QCD and Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories: Challenges and Perspectives, Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014), no. 10 2981, [arXiv:1404.3723]

arXiv 2014
[5]

Schmitt,Dense matter in compact stars: A pedagogical introduction, vol

A. Schmitt,Dense matter in compact stars: A pedagogical introduction, vol. 811. Springer, 2010

work page 2010
[6]

J. M. Maldacena,The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2 (1998) 231–252, [hep-th/9711200]

arXiv 1998
[7]

Erlich, E

J. Erlich, E. Katz, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov,QCD and a holographic model of hadrons, Phys. Rev. Lett.95 (2005) 261602, [hep-ph/0501128]

arXiv 2005
[8]

Karch, E

A. Karch, E. Katz, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov,Linear confinement and AdS/QCD, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 015005, [hep-ph/0602229]

arXiv 2006

Show all 59 references

[9]

Jarvinen and E

M. Jarvinen and E. Kiritsis,Holographic Models for QCD in the Veneziano Limit, JHEP 03 (2012) 002, [arXiv:1112.1261]

2012 arXiv
[10]

Sakai and S

T. Sakai and S. Sugimoto,Low energy hadron physics in holographic QCD, Prog. Theor. Phys. 113 (2005) 843–882, [hep-th/0412141]

2005 arXiv
[11]

Sakai and S

T. Sakai and S. Sugimoto,More on a holographic dual of QCD, Prog. Theor. Phys. 114 (2005) 1083–1118, [hep-th/0507073]. – 32 –

2005 arXiv
[12]

Karch and E

A. Karch and E. Katz,Adding flavor to AdS / CFT, JHEP 06 (2002) 043, [hep-th/0205236]

2002 arXiv
[13]

Karch and A

A. Karch and A. O’Bannon,Holographic thermodynamics at finite baryon density: Some exact results, JHEP 11 (2007) 074, [arXiv:0709.0570]

2007 arXiv
[14]

Kruczenski, D

M. Kruczenski, D. Mateos, R. C. Myers, and D. J. Winters,Meson spectroscopy in AdS / CFT with flavor, JHEP 07 (2003) 049, [hep-th/0304032]

2003 arXiv
[15]

N. R. Constable and R. C. Myers,Exotic scalar states in the AdS / CFT correspondence, JHEP 11 (1999) 020, [hep-th/9905081]

1999 arXiv
[16]

Singh and K

A. Singh and K. P. Yogendran,Phases of a 10-D holographic hard wall model, JHEP 02 (2023) 168, [arXiv:2208.09387]

2023 arXiv
[17]

Kovtun, D

P. Kovtun, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets,Viscosity in strongly interacting quantum field theories from black hole physics, Phys. Rev. Lett.94 (2005) 111601, [hep-th/0405231]

2005 arXiv
[18]

S. S. Afonin and T. D. Solomko,Towards a theory of bottom-up holographic models for linear Regge trajectories of light mesons, Eur. Phys. J. C82 (2022), no. 3 195, [arXiv:2106.01846]

2022 arXiv
[19]

S. S. Gubser,Breaking an Abelian gauge symmetry near a black hole horizon, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 065034, [arXiv:0801.2977]

2008 arXiv
[20]

S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog, and G. T. Horowitz,Holographic Superconductors, JHEP 12 (2008) 015, [arXiv:0810.1563]

2008 arXiv
[21]

S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog, and G. T. Horowitz,Building a Holographic Superconductor, Phys. Rev. Lett.101 (2008) 031601, [arXiv:0803.3295]

2008 arXiv
[22]

Sonner and B

J. Sonner and B. Withers,A gravity derivation of the Tisza-Landau Model in AdS/CFT, Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 026001, [arXiv:1004.2707]

2010 arXiv
[23]

C. A. Ballon Bayona, H. Boschi-Filho, N. R. F. Braga, and L. A. Pando Zayas,On a Holographic Model for Confinement/Deconfinement, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 046002, [arXiv:0705.1529]

2008 arXiv
[24]

Megias, H

E. Megias, H. J. Pirner, and K. Veschgini,QCD thermodynamics using five-dimensional gravity, Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 056003, [arXiv:1009.2953]

2011 arXiv
[25]

DeWolfe, S

O. DeWolfe, S. S. Gubser, and C. Rosen,A holographic critical point, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 086005, [arXiv:1012.1864]

2011 arXiv
[26]

Y. Kim, I. J. Shin, C.-H. Lee, and M.-B. Wan,Explicit flavor symmetry breaking and holographic compact stars, J. Korean Phys. Soc.66 (2015), no. 4 578–584, [arXiv:1404.3474]

2015 arXiv
[27]

Hoyos, D

C. Hoyos, D. Rodríguez Fernández, N. Jokela, and A. Vuorinen,Holographic quark matter and neutron stars, Phys. Rev. Lett.117 (2016), no. 3 032501, [arXiv:1603.02943]. – 33 –

2016 arXiv
[28]

Jokela, M

N. Jokela, M. Järvinen, and J. Remes,Holographic QCD in the Veneziano limit and neutron stars, JHEP 03 (2019) 041, [arXiv:1809.07770]

2019 arXiv
[29]

Annala, T

E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. Nättilä, and A. Vuorinen,Evidence for quark-matter cores in massive neutron stars, Nature Phys. 16 (2020), no. 9 907–910, [arXiv:1903.09121]

2020 arXiv
[30]

Bitaghsir Fadafan, J

K. Bitaghsir Fadafan, J. Cruz Rojas, and N. Evans,Deconfined, Massive Quark Phase at High Density and Compact Stars: A Holographic Study, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020), no. 12 126005, [arXiv:1911.12705]

2020 arXiv
[31]

L. A. H. Mamani, C. V. Flores, and V. T. Zanchin,Phase diagram and compact stars in a holographic QCD model, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020), no. 6 066006, [arXiv:2006.09401]

2020 arXiv
[32]

Bitaghsir Fadafan, J

K. Bitaghsir Fadafan, J. Cruz Rojas, and N. Evans,Holographic quark matter with colour superconductivity and a stiff equation of state for compact stars, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021), no. 2 026012, [arXiv:2009.14079]

2021 arXiv
[33]

Kovensky, A

N. Kovensky, A. Poole, and A. Schmitt,Building a realistic neutron star from holography, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022), no. 3 034022, [arXiv:2111.03374]

2022 arXiv
[34]

Hoyos, N

C. Hoyos, N. Jokela, and A. Vuorinen,Holographic approach to compact stars and their binary mergers, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.126 (2022) 103972, [arXiv:2112.08422]

2022 arXiv
[35]

Ghoroku, K

K. Ghoroku, K. Kashiwa, Y. Nakano, M. Tachibana, and F. Toyoda,Stiff equation of state for a holographic nuclear matter as instanton gas, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021), no. 12 126002, [arXiv:2107.14450]

2021 arXiv
[36]

Demircik, C

T. Demircik, C. Ecker, and M. Järvinen,Dense and Hot QCD at Strong Coupling, Phys. Rev. X12 (2022), no. 4 041012, [arXiv:2112.12157]

2022 arXiv
[37]

Hippert, J

M. Hippert, J. Grefa, T. A. Manning, J. Noronha, J. Noronha-Hostler, I. Portillo Vazquez, C. Ratti, R. Rougemont, and M. Trujillo,Bayesian location of the QCD critical point from a holographic perspective, arXiv:2309.00579

arXiv
[38]

Bartolini and S

L. Bartolini and S. B. Gudnason,Neutron stars in the Witten-Sakai-Sugimoto model, JHEP 11 (2023) 209, [arXiv:2307.11886]

2023 arXiv
[39]

N. R. F. Braga and O. C. Junqueira,Hawking-Page transition in holographic QCD at finite density, Phys. Lett. B855 (2024) 138813, [arXiv:2404.04683]

2024 arXiv
[40]

Alford and A

M. Alford and A. Sedrakian,Compact Stars with Sequential QCD Phase Transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett.119 (Oct., 2017) 161104, [arXiv:1706.01592]

2017 arXiv
[41]

Singh and K

A. Singh and K. P. Yogendran,Confined phases at finite density in the Hardwall model, arXiv:2408.10986

arXiv
[42]

C. P. Herzog,A Holographic Prediction of the Deconfinement Temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett.98 (2007) 091601, [hep-th/0608151]. – 34 –

2007 arXiv
[43]

I. R. Klebanov and E. Witten,AdS / CFT correspondence and symmetry breaking, Nucl. Phys. B556 (1999) 89–114, [hep-th/9905104]

1999 arXiv
[44]

McGreevy,Holographic duality with a view toward many-body physics, Adv

J. McGreevy,Holographic duality with a view toward many-body physics, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2010 (2010) 723105, [arXiv:0909.0518]

2010 arXiv
[45]

Kobayashi, D

S. Kobayashi, D. Mateos, S. Matsuura, R. C. Myers, and R. M. Thomson, Holographic phase transitions at finite baryon density, JHEP 02 (2007) 016, [hep-th/0611099]

2007 arXiv
[46]

Imamura,Baryon mass and phase transitions in large N gauge theory, Prog

Y. Imamura,Baryon mass and phase transitions in large N gauge theory, Prog. Theor. Phys. 100 (1998) 1263–1272, [hep-th/9806162]

1998 arXiv
[47]

Brandhuber, N

A. Brandhuber, N. Itzhaki, J. Sonnenschein, and S. Yankielowicz,Baryons from supergravity, JHEP 07 (1998) 020, [hep-th/9806158]

1998 arXiv
[48]

Gorsky, S

A. Gorsky, S. B. Gudnason, and A. Krikun,Baryon and chiral symmetry breaking in holographic QCD, Phys. Rev. D91 (2015), no. 12 126008, [arXiv:1503.04820]

2015 arXiv
[49]

Fiorilla, N

S. Fiorilla, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise,Chiral thermodynamics of nuclear matter, Nucl. Phys. A 880 (Apr., 2012) 65–87, [arXiv:1111.2791]

2012 arXiv
[50]

L. D. McLerran,Lecture on Quarkyonic Effective Field Theory, Acta Phys. Polon. B 52 (2021), no. 3 229–241

2021
[51]

Asakawa and K

M. Asakawa and K. Yazaki,Chiral Restoration at Finite Density and Temperature, Nucl. Phys. A504 (1989) 668–684

1989
[52]

Sedrakian and J

A. Sedrakian and J. W. Clark,Superfluidity in nuclear systems and neutron stars, Eur. Phys. J. A55 (2019), no. 9 167, [arXiv:1802.00017]

2019 arXiv
[53]

Abuki, G

H. Abuki, G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, and N. Yamamoto,The NJL model of dense three-flavor matter with axial anomaly: the low temperature critical point and BEC-BCS diquark crossover, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 125010, [arXiv:1003.0408]

2010 arXiv
[54]

M. G. Alford, K. Rajagopal, and F. Wilczek,Color flavor locking and chiral symmetry breaking in high density QCD, Nucl. Phys. B537 (1999) 443–458, [hep-ph/9804403]

1999 arXiv
[55]

Rajagopal and F

K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek,The Condensed matter physics of QCD, pp. 2061–2151. 11, 2000.hep-ph/0011333

2000 arXiv
[56]

P. Basu, C. Krishnan, and P. N. Bala Subramanian,Phases of Global AdS Black Holes, JHEP 06 (2016) 139, [arXiv:1602.07211]

2016 arXiv
[57]

D’Almeida and K

R. D’Almeida and K. P. Yogendran,Thermodynamic Properties of Holographic superfluids, arXiv:1802.05116

arXiv
[58]

Kovensky and A

N. Kovensky and A. Schmitt,Isospin asymmetry in holographic baryonic matter, SciPost Phys. 11 (2021), no. 2 029, [arXiv:2105.03218]

2021 arXiv
[59]

de Haro, S

S. de Haro, S. N. Solodukhin, and K. Skenderis,Holographic reconstruction of space-time and renormalization in the AdS / CFT correspondence, Commun. Math. Phys. 217 (2001) 595–622, [hep-th/0002230]. – 35 –

2001 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Haensel, A

P. Haensel, A. Y. Potekhin, and D. G. Yakovlev,Neutron stars 1: Equation of state and structure, vol. 326. Springer, New York, USA, 2007

2007

[2] [2]

C. J. Pethick, T. Schaefer, and A. Schwenk,Bose-Einstein condensates in neutron stars, arXiv:1507.05839

arXiv

[3] [3]

M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, and T. Schäfer,Color superconductivity in dense quark matter, Rev. Mod. Phys.80 (2008) 1455–1515, [arXiv:0709.4635]

arXiv 2008

[4] [4]

Brambilla et al.,QCD and Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories: Challenges and Perspectives, Eur

N. Brambilla et al.,QCD and Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories: Challenges and Perspectives, Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014), no. 10 2981, [arXiv:1404.3723]

arXiv 2014

[5] [5]

Schmitt,Dense matter in compact stars: A pedagogical introduction, vol

A. Schmitt,Dense matter in compact stars: A pedagogical introduction, vol. 811. Springer, 2010

work page 2010

[6] [6]

J. M. Maldacena,The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2 (1998) 231–252, [hep-th/9711200]

arXiv 1998

[7] [7]

Erlich, E

J. Erlich, E. Katz, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov,QCD and a holographic model of hadrons, Phys. Rev. Lett.95 (2005) 261602, [hep-ph/0501128]

arXiv 2005

[8] [8]

Karch, E

A. Karch, E. Katz, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov,Linear confinement and AdS/QCD, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 015005, [hep-ph/0602229]

arXiv 2006