Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Testing the effective action approach to bubble nucleation in holography

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper tests whether a two-derivative effective action, derived from holography, can reproduce critical bubble solutions found by solving the full gravitational PDE, and reports agreement at the level of a few percent.

desk verdict A useful numerical test of the two-derivative effective action for bubble profiles in a probe-limit holographic model, but the claimed 1–3% agreement in the decay exponent is not actually a test of the truncation and should be reframed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11622 v2 pith:DWT7Y3K7 submitted 2025-07-15 hep-th gr-qchep-ph

Oscar Henriksson , Niko Jokela , Xin Li This is my paper
classification hep-thgr-qchep-ph
keywords bubblenucleationholographicdualityeffectiveactionfirst-orderphasetransitionmulti-tracedeformationprobelimitderivativeexpansioncritical
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

Bubble nucleation in first-order phase transitions is usually studied by solving the full equations of motion for a spatially varying field. In holographic models, one can instead derive a quantum effective action for the order parameter and truncate it at two derivatives, reducing the problem to ordinary differential equations. This paper tests that shortcut in a simple bottom-up holographic model: a probe scalar in an AdS-Schwarzschild background with multi-trace boundary conditions. Comparing bubble profiles and actions computed from the truncated effective action with direct numerical solutions of the bulk scalar PDE, the authors find radius ratios around 1.003 to 1.004, profile deviations of at most a few percent, and decay exponents $e^{-S_B}$ agreeing to 1 to 3 percent. If this holds, the cheaper effective-action route is a reliable way to compute nonperturbative bubble physics in strongly coupled theories.

What carries the argument

The central object is the derivative-expanded quantum effective action $\Gamma[\psi] = \int d^3x \left(-V(\psi) - \tfrac{1}{2} Z(\psi) \nabla\psi\cdot\nabla\psi + \ldots\right)$, with the effective potential $V(\psi)$ and kinetic coefficient $Z(\psi)$ extracted holographically: $V$ comes from integrating the source function $J(\psi) = \phi_+ + g_2 \phi_- - g_3 (\phi_-)^2$ obtained from static homogeneous bulk solutions, and $Z$ comes from the small-momentum expansion of linearized bulk fluctuations through the response coefficients $\delta\phi^\pm_0$ and $\delta\phi^\pm_2$. Solving $\delta\Gamma/\delta\psi = 0$ with the multi-trace boundary conditions yields an ordinary differential equation for the bubble profile. The comparison partner is the full scalar-field PDE in the fixed black-brane background, solved with a pseudo-spectral Newton-Raphson method. The near-coincidence of these two sets of solutions carries the paper's argument.

What would settle it

A calculation that lets the scalar field curve the spacetime, repeating the same bubble comparison, would settle the claim: if including backreaction changes $R_{EA}/R_G$ substantially or pushes the $e^{-S_B}$ disagreement above a few percent, the probe-limit agreement would not indicate a robust property of the effective action. A cheaper check is numerical convergence of the existing PDE solution, increasing the spectral resolution until the bubble profile stops changing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the two-derivative effective action captures critical bubble solutions in this class of holographic models. The paper constructs the effective potential and kinetic coefficient from static homogeneous bulk solutions and their linearized momentum-space fluctuations, then solves the resulting ODE for spherically symmetric bubbles. It separately solves the full nonlinear PDE for the scalar field in the fixed black-brane background. Across a parameter range spanning thin-wall to thick-wall limits, the two families of solutions nearly coincide: $R_{EA}/R_G$ stays in 1.003 to 1.004, the normalized profile difference peaks at a few percent at the bubble wall and vanishes at the center and far away, and $e^{-S_B}$ differs by 1 to 3 percent. The paper reads this as evidence that derivative truncation, at least for static spherically symmetric configurations, is quantitatively reliable.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the scalar field's backreaction on the black-brane metric can be neglected, and the authors state they cannot exclude that backreaction would increase the discrepancy between the two approaches.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The effective-action route reduces bubble finding from a nonlinear PDE to ODE shooting while keeping radius errors near 0.3 to 0.4 percent and decay-exponent errors at 1 to 3 percent.
  • The agreement holds across thin-wall and thick-wall regimes, so quantities such as the bubble action and radius can be trusted in both limits for this class of models.
  • The same derivative expansion can be applied to other inhomogeneous configurations, including vortices, domain walls, spatially modulated phases, and holographic lattices.
  • Extending the effective action with time derivatives should make real-time phenomena such as bubble-wall velocity and spinodal decomposition accessible without evolving full inhomogeneous PDEs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The probe-limit caveat cuts both ways: if backreaction is mild, the method likely extends to models with dynamical gravity, but if backreaction is strong, the few-percent agreement may be specific to this probe setup.
  • A concrete next test is to compute four-derivative terms and add them to the ODE; if the residual wall-region deviation shrinks, the truncation explanation is confirmed.
  • The 1 to 3 percent uncertainty in $e^{-S_B}$ may matter for precision predictions such as gravitational-wave spectra, where rates enter exponentially; this paper does not address that sensitivity.
  • Time-dependent processes could be more sensitive to higher derivatives, so the derivative expansion should be benchmarked against real-time holographic evolution before being used for bubble-wall velocities.
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 manuscript tests whether a two-derivative effective action derived holographically reproduces critical bubble solutions obtained from the full bulk scalar PDE. Working in the probe limit of a four-dimensional AdS-Schwarzschild background with a scalar of m^2 = -2 and multi-trace boundary conditions, the authors extract V(psi) and Z(psi) from static homogeneous and linearized small-momentum bulk solutions, solve the resulting effective-action ODE for bubble profiles, and compare these with Newton-Raphson spectral solutions of the nonlinear bulk PDE. For a scan of couplings spanning thin-wall to thick-wall limits, they report radius ratios within 0.4% and profile deviations of at most a few percent. The paper claims agreement also in the on-shell action, but the only action comparison is the two-derivative effective action evaluated on both profiles, not the exact renormalized bulk action of the PDE bubble.

Significance. If the profile agreement is robust, this is a useful validation of a much cheaper method for computing inhomogeneous holographic configurations, with potential applications to nucleation rates, domain walls, and lattice setups. The approach has no fitted parameters: V and Z are determined from homogeneous and linearized solutions, and the bubble profiles are genuine solutions of the respective equations. The parameter scan, covering both thin- and thick-wall regimes, is a strength. However, the paper's central quantitative claim about derived quantities is currently weaker than stated: the rate comparison tests stationarity of the approximate functional rather than the truncation error, and no convergence or error analysis is provided for the numerical PDE solutions. The backreaction caveat is acknowledged but limits the generality of the conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5 (action comparison)] The only quantitative statement about decay rates is the sentence after Fig. 8: 'Evaluating the two-derivative effective action on the two different solutions and computing e^{-S_B}, we find deviations of 1-3%.' This does not test the derivative expansion. Both numbers are obtained from the same approximate functional Gamma_2[psi], and since psi_EA is a stationary point of Gamma_2, the difference Gamma_2[psi_G] - Gamma_2[psi_EA] is quadratic in the profile difference; it is a consistency check on the shooting solutions, not a validation of the truncation. The actual gravitational prediction for the decay exponent is the renormalized bulk on-shell action of the PDE bubble relative to the false vacuum. Appendix A provides the holographic renormalization needed to compute this quantity, but S_bulk[Phi_G] is never evaluated. Until that comparison is made, the abstract and Sec. 1 claims of agreement 'in derived quantities such as the on-shell action' are unsupported.
  2. [Table 1 and Sec. 4] No convergence or accuracy information is reported for the Newton-Raphson spectral solver. Table 1 quotes radius ratios at the level of 1.003-1.004 (i.e., a claimed 0.3-0.4% discrepancy) and Fig. 8 reports profile deviations of a few percent, but the manuscript does not state the number of collocation points in u and rho, the choice of R0, the residual tolerance, or a resolution study. Without these, the claimed level of agreement cannot be assessed, and the reader cannot tell whether the residual differences are physical truncation error or numerical artifacts.
  3. [Sec. 6 (Discussion)] The generalization of the conclusion beyond the probe limit rests on an untested assumption, as the authors state: 'We cannot exclude the possibility that backreaction will increase the discrepancy between the two approaches.' Because the introduction frames the result as supporting the effective action approach in 'this class of holographic models' and Sec. 6 proposes extensions to backreacting systems, the paper should either restrict the claim to the probe limit or provide evidence from a backreacted example, for instance using the model of Ref. [12] where backreaction was included. As written, the broader generality claim is not supported by the evidence presented.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 1, Sec. 5, Sec. 6] The wording of the agreement changes between 'good' (Abstract), 'excellent' (Sec. 1 and Sec. 6), and 'very small discrepancy' (Sec. 5); choose one descriptor and support it with the numbers in Table 1 and Fig. 8.
  2. [Fig. 4] Figure 4 would benefit from axis labels and a caption defining g2 and g3; currently the reader must infer them from the text.
  3. [Eq. (5.1) and Fig. 8] The definition of delta(rho) in Eq. (5.1) normalizes by psi_EA(0), which is appropriate, but the normalization should also be stated in the caption of Fig. 8.
  4. [App. B] The continuation procedure is described qualitatively; giving the final grid sizes and residual tolerance would help reproducibility.
  5. [Acknowledgments] There is a typo: 'support form' should be 'support from'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Profile and radius comparisons are genuine tests, but the claimed 1–3% agreement in e^{-S_B} is an internal consistency check of the same two-derivative functional, not a two-method test of the on-shell action.

  1. other [Sec. 5, paragraph after Fig. 8; echoed in Sec. 1 (Introduction)]
    "Evaluating the two-derivative effective action on the two different solutions and computing e^{-S_B}, we find deviations of 1–3 %. ... Our results show excellent agreement between the two methods across a range of parameter values, both in the bubble profiles and in derived quantities such as the on-shell action."

    Both evaluations in the quoted sentence use the same truncated two-derivative functional Γ_2 from Eq. (1.1)/(3.3). The effective-action bubble ψ_EA is a stationary point of Γ_2, and the gravitational bubble ψ_G is close to ψ_EA by the paper's own profile comparison; therefore Γ_2[ψ_G] − Γ_2[ψ_EA] is at most quadratic in δψ = ψ_G − ψ_EA. A 1–3% deviation in e^{-S_B} is thus a consequence of the already-established profile agreement, not an independent validation of the derivative expansion. It would remain small even if Γ_2 were a poor approximation to the exact bulk effective action, because the same approximate functional is evaluated on both solutions.

full rationale

The central profile test is genuine: V(ψ) and Z(ψ) are obtained from static homogeneous and linearized bulk solutions, with no parameter fitted to the inhomogeneous bubble profiles. The close agreement of REA/RG and of the profiles in Figs. 7–8 and Table 1 is therefore a real prediction of the two-derivative effective action against the full PDE solution, and the test is self-contained rather than circular. The circular element is confined to the secondary on-shell-action claim: evaluating the same truncated functional on both nearby profiles makes the 1–3% e^{-S_B} deviation a consistency check, not a test of the truncation. The paper would need to compute the renormalized bulk on-shell action of the PDE bubble (Appendix A provides the formalism) to substantiate the 'derived quantities such as the on-shell action' statement. Self-citations to [12,14] are used for context and qualitative comparison, not as load-bearing justification; the backreaction caveat in Sec. 6 is an honest limitation rather than circular reasoning. Absence of reported Newton–Raphson convergence checks is a numerical-rigor concern, not a circularity. Overall, partial circularity in one derived-quantity claim, while the main profile comparison remains independent, gives a score of 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison uses no fitted parameters. The model inputs (mass, quartic coupling, probe factor) are fixed choices from prior literature. The only hand-chosen numbers are g2 and g3, which are scanned, not fitted to the target result.

free parameters (2)
  • double-trace coupling g2 = scanned, e.g., -0.234 to -0.7 in units of T
    Input coupling scanned to control the degree of supercooling. It is not fitted to the bubble comparison.
  • triple-trace coupling g3 = scanned, e.g., 0.44 to 0.49
    Input coupling scanned near the marginal bound 0.5. It is not fitted to the comparison.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT correspondence holds for the bottom-up gravity-scalar model in Eq. (2.1).
    The paper calls it a 'purported field theory dual' (Sec. 2), so the duality is taken as a working assumption rather than derived.
  • domain assumption The scalar field does not backreact on the black brane metric (probe limit, large N).
    The 1/N factor in Eq. (2.1) suppresses the scalar stress tensor. The authors explicitly flag that backreaction is untested (Sec. 6).
  • domain assumption Multi-trace deformations are correctly implemented by the nonlinear boundary condition Eq. (2.8).
    This follows from the holographic dictionary and the counterterm construction in Appendix A, which is accepted as standard.
  • domain assumption The field theory effective action admits a two-derivative derivative expansion around homogeneous states.
    Sec. 3 assumes the truncation in Eq. (3.3) and extracts V and Z from homogeneous and linearized solutions. The paper's goal is precisely to test this assumption.
  • domain assumption The critical bubble saddle point is static and axially symmetric.
    Secs. 3.4 and 4 assume polar symmetry and time independence, following standard Coleman-Linde semiclassical nucleation theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing the effective action approach to bubble nucleation in holography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DWT7Y3K7

@misc{pith2026250711622,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing the effective action approach to bubble nucleation in holography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DWT7Y3K7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11622}
}
read the original abstract

The nucleation of bubbles during a first-order phase transition has recently been explored using holographic duality, which can provide an important complement to standard perturbative methods. These computations typically require finding static and spatially inhomogeneous saddle points, known as critical bubbles, which correspond in the gravitational dual to solutions of nonlinear partial differential equations. A computationally simpler alternative is to use the gravitational dual to derive the effective action of the boundary theory in a derivative expansion, and then solve the resulting lower-dimensional equations of motion. Once the effective action, typically truncated at two derivatives, is obtained, the holographic theory can be set aside, and bubble solutions can be found from ordinary differential equations. In this paper, we test this approach in a simple holographic setup: a scalar field in the probe limit in a black brane background, with nonlinear multi-trace boundary conditions. We compute critical bubble solutions both from the effective action and by solving the scalar field equation of motion directly in the gravity theory, and find good agreement between the two methods.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    F. R. Ares, O. Henriksson, M. Hindmarsh, C. Hoyos, and N. Jokela,Effective actions and bubble nucleation from holography,Phys. Rev. D105(2022), no. 6 066020, [arXiv:2109.13784]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Langer,Theory of the condensation point,Annals of Physics41(1967), no

    J. Langer,Theory of the condensation point,Annals of Physics41(1967), no. 1 108–157

    work page 1967

  3. [2]

    Langer,Statistical theory of the decay of metastable states,Annals of Physics54 (1969), no

    J. Langer,Statistical theory of the decay of metastable states,Annals of Physics54 (1969), no. 2 258–275

    work page 1969

  4. [3]

    S. R. Coleman,The Fate of the False Vacuum. 1. Semiclassical Theory,Phys. Rev. D 15(1977) 2929–2936. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 16, 1248 (1977)]

    work page 1977

  5. [4]

    A. D. Linde,Fate of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature: Theory and Applications,Phys. Lett. B100(1981) 37–40

    work page 1981

  6. [5]

    A. D. Linde,Decay of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature,Nucl. Phys. B216 (1983) 421. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 223, 544 (1983)]

    work page 1983

  7. [6]

    Bigazzi, A

    F. Bigazzi, A. Caddeo, A. L. Cotrone, and A. Paredes,Fate of false vacua in holographic first-order phase transitions,JHEP12(2020) 200, [arXiv:2008.02579]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [7]

    F. R. Ares, M. Hindmarsh, C. Hoyos, and N. Jokela,Gravitational waves from a holographic phase transition,JHEP21(2020) 100, [arXiv:2011.12878]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    Li, Z.-Y

    X. Li, Z.-Y. Nie, and Y. Tian,Holographic boiling and generalized thermodynamic description beyond local equilibrium,JHEP09(2020) 063, [arXiv:2003.12987]. – 20 –

    2020 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Bigazzi, A

    F. Bigazzi, A. Caddeo, T. Canneti, and A. L. Cotrone,Bubble wall velocity at strong coupling,JHEP08(2021) 090, [arXiv:2104.12817]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Y. Bea, J. Casalderrey-Solana, T. Giannakopoulos, D. Mateos, M. Sanchez-Garitaonandia, and M. Zilhão,Bubble wall velocity from holography, Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 12 L121903, [arXiv:2104.05708]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Henriksson,Black brane evaporation through D-brane bubble nucleation,Phys

    O. Henriksson,Black brane evaporation through D-brane bubble nucleation,Phys. Rev. D105(2022), no. 4 L041901, [arXiv:2106.13254]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Z.-R. Zhu, J. Chen, and D. Hou,Gravitational waves from holographic QCD phase transition with gluon condensate,Eur. Phys. J. A58(2022), no. 6 104, [arXiv:2109.09933]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    F. R. Ares, O. Henriksson, M. Hindmarsh, C. Hoyos, and N. Jokela,Gravitational Waves at Strong Coupling from an Effective Action,Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022), no. 13 131101, [arXiv:2110.14442]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Wang, Z.-Y

    J.-C. Wang, Z.-Y. Yuwen, Y.-S. Hao, and S.-J. Wang,General bubble expansion at strong coupling,Phys. Rev. D109(2024), no. 9 096012, [arXiv:2311.07347]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Henriksson, N

    O. Henriksson, N. Jokela, and J. Junttila,Dynamics of a Higgs phase transition in the Klebanov-Witten theory,JHEP04(2025) 051, [arXiv:2411.19667]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    R. A. Janik, M. Järvinen, and J. Sonnenschein,Phase transitions in an expanding medium – hot remnants,arXiv:2502.07879

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hertog and G

    T. Hertog and G. T. Horowitz,Designer gravity and field theory effective potentials, Phys. Rev. Lett.94(2005) 221301, [hep-th/0412169]

    2005 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Hertog and G

    T. Hertog and G. T. Horowitz,Holographic description of AdS cosmologies,JHEP04 (2005) 005, [hep-th/0503071]

    2005 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Papadimitriou,Multi-Trace Deformations in AdS/CFT: Exploring the Vacuum Structure of the Deformed CFT,JHEP05(2007) 075, [hep-th/0703152]

    I. Papadimitriou,Multi-Trace Deformations in AdS/CFT: Exploring the Vacuum Structure of the Deformed CFT,JHEP05(2007) 075, [hep-th/0703152]

    2007 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kiritsis and V

    E. Kiritsis and V. Niarchos,The holographic quantum effective potential at finite temperature and density,JHEP08(2012) 164, [arXiv:1205.6205]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kiritsis, W

    E. Kiritsis, W. Li, and F. Nitti,Holographic RG flow and the Quantum Effective Action,Fortsch. Phys.62(2014) 389–454, [arXiv:1401.0888]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Bea and D

    Y. Bea and D. Mateos,Heating up Exotic RG Flows with Holography,JHEP08 (2018) 034, [arXiv:1805.01806]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Witten,Multitrace operators, boundary conditions, and AdS / CFT correspondence,hep-th/0112258

    E. Witten,Multitrace operators, boundary conditions, and AdS / CFT correspondence,hep-th/0112258

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman,Positive Energy in anti-De Sitter Backgrounds and Gauged Extended Supergravity,Phys. Lett. B115(1982) 197–201. – 21 –

    1982

  18. [26]

    M. D. Schwartz,Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model. Cambridge University Press, 3, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Ó. J. C. Dias, J. E. Santos, and B. Way,Numerical Methods for Finding Stationary Gravitational Solutions,Class. Quant. Grav.33(2016), no. 13 133001, [arXiv:1510.02804]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    R. A. Janik, M. Järvinen, and J. Sonnenschein,A simple description of holographic domain walls in confining theories — extended hydrodynamics,JHEP09(2021) 129, [arXiv:2106.02642]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Strumia and N

    A. Strumia and N. Tetradis,A Consistent calculation of bubble nucleation rates, Nucl. Phys. B542(1999) 719–741, [hep-ph/9806453]

    1999 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gould and J

    O. Gould and J. Hirvonen,Effective field theory approach to thermal bubble nucleation,Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 9 096015, [arXiv:2108.04377]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kierkla, P

    M. Kierkla, P. Schicho, B. Swiezewska, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and J. van de Vis, Finite-temperature bubble nucleation with shifting scale hierarchies,JHEP07(2025) 153, [arXiv:2503.13597]

    2025

  24. [32]

    Navarrete, R

    P. Navarrete, R. Paatelainen, K. Seppänen, and T. V. I. Tenkanen,Cosmological phase transitions without high-temperature expansions,arXiv:2507.07014

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    G. T. Horowitz, J. E. Santos, and D. Tong,Optical Conductivity with Holographic Lattices,JHEP07(2012) 168, [arXiv:1204.0519]

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    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]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    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

  28. [36]

    Järvinen,Holographic modeling of nuclear matter and neutron stars,Eur

    M. Järvinen,Holographic modeling of nuclear matter and neutron stars,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022), no. 4 282, [arXiv:2110.08281]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Ecker, N

    C. Ecker, N. Jokela, and M. Järvinen,Locating the QCD critical point with neutron-star observations,arXiv:2506.10065

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Attems, Y

    M. Attems, Y. Bea, J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. Mateos, M. Triana, and M. Zilhao, Phase Transitions, Inhomogeneous Horizons and Second-Order Hydrodynamics, JHEP06(2017) 129, [arXiv:1703.02948]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    R. A. Janik, J. Jankowski, and H. Soltanpanahi,Real-Time dynamics and phase separation in a holographic first order phase transition,Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017), no. 26 261601, [arXiv:1704.05387]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Attems, Y

    M. Attems, Y. Bea, J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. Mateos, and M. Zilhão,Dynamics of Phase Separation from Holography,JHEP01(2020) 106, [arXiv:1905.12544]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Caddeo, O

    A. Caddeo, O. Henriksson, C. Hoyos, and M. Sanchez-Garitaonandia,Spinodal – 22 – slowing down and scaling in a holographic model,JHEP08(2024) 091, [arXiv:2406.15297]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Q. Chen, Y. Liu, Y. Tian, X. Wu, and H. Zhang,Dynamics of holographic steady flows near a first-order phase transition,Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68(2025), no. 6 260414, [arXiv:2408.09679]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    R. A. Janik, M. Järvinen, H. Soltanpanahi, and J. Sonnenschein,Perfect Fluid Hydrodynamic Picture of Domain Wall Velocities at Strong Coupling,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022), no. 8 081601, [arXiv:2205.06274]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Compere and D

    G. Compere and D. Marolf,Setting the boundary free in AdS/CFT,Class. Quant. Grav.25(2008) 195014, [arXiv:0805.1902]

    2008 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Ishibashi, K

    A. Ishibashi, K. Maeda, and T. Okamura,Semiclassical Einstein equations from holography and boundary dynamics,JHEP05(2023) 212, [arXiv:2301.12170]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Ecker, W

    C. Ecker, W. van der Schee, D. Mateos, and J. Casalderrey-Solana,Holographic evolution with dynamical boundary gravity,JHEP03(2022) 137, [arXiv:2109.10355]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ecker, E

    C. Ecker, E. Kiritsis, and W. van der Schee,Dynamical Inflaton Coupled to Strongly Interacting Matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023), no. 25 251001, [arXiv:2302.06618]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Krikun,Numerical Solution of the Boundary Value Problems for Partial Differential Equations

    A. Krikun,Numerical Solution of the Boundary Value Problems for Partial Differential Equations. Crash course for holographer, 1, 2018.arXiv:1801.01483. – 23 –

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.