Lovelock theories, holography and the fate of the viscosity bound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider Lovelock theories of gravity in the context of AdS/CFT. We show that, for these theories, causality violation on a black hole background can occur well in the interior of the geometry, thus posing more stringent constraints than were previously found in the literature. Also, we find that instabilities of the geometry can appear for certain parameter values at any point in the geometry, as well in the bulk as close to the horizon. These new sources of causality violation and instability should be related to CFT features that do not depend on the UV behavior. They solve a puzzle found previously concerning unphysical negative values for the shear viscosity that are not ruled out solely by causality restrictions. We find that, contrary to previous expectations, causality violation is not always related to positivity of energy. Furthermore, we compute the bound for the shear viscosity to entropy density ratio of supersymmetric conformal field theories from d = 4 till d = 10 — i.e., up to quartic Lovelock theory –, and find that it behaves smoothly as a function of d. We propose an approximate formula that nicely fits these values and has a nice asymptotic behavior when d → ∞ for any Lovelock gravity. We discuss in some detail the latter limit. We finally argue that it is possible to obtain increasingly lower values for η / s by the inclusion of more Lovelock terms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".