text:
# Tensile Strength of Carbon Nanotubes under Realistic Temperature and Strain Rate

## Abstract

Strain rate and temperature dependence of the tensile strength of single-wall carbon nanotubes has been investigated with molecular dynamics simulations. The tensile failure or yield strain is found to be strongly dependent on the temperature and strain rate. A transition state theory based predictive model is developed for the tensile failure of nanotubes. Based on the parameters fitted from high-strain rate and temperature dependent molecular dynamics simulations, the model predicts that a defect free $`\mu m`$ long single-wall nanotube at 300K, stretched with a strain rate of $`1\%/hour`$, fails at about $`9\pm 1\%`$ tensile strain. This is in good agreement with recent experimental findings.

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have very high strength and stiffness under axial stresses, but are very flexible under non-axial stresses. The theoretical and experimental values of the Young’s modulus are found to be around 1 TPa. For large tensile stresses, the atomistic molecular dynamics (MD) simulations performed at very high strain rates (limited by time-scale of the phenomenon that can be simulated in MD) show tensile failure strains to be as high as 30$`\%`$. Whereas, recent experiments report much smaller tensile failure strains in a variety of scenarios. Walters et al  have reported a failure strain of $`5.8\%`$ on single walled CNT (SWCNT) ropes. Yu et al  have reported a similar value of maximum $`5.3\%`$ strain for failure at room temperature, and have measured strain for failure of multi-walled CNTs (MWCNT) to be as high as $`12\%`$.

Earlier theoretical and numerical simulation studies have shown that, under large tensile strains, Stone-Wales(SW) bond rotations result in the formation of pentagon-heptagon pair (5775) defects on the nanotubes (Figure 1). The formation energy of such defects decreases with the increasing tensile strains and these defects are energetically favorable at tensile strains larger than $`5\%`$, However, the large energy barriers (of about 8-9 eV) to the formation of SW bond rotations in static calculations do not readily explain the experimentally measured low tensile strength of SWCNT ropes or MWCNTs. The high strain rates used in the MD simulations, on the other hand, are generally of the order of $`pico`$ $`second^1`$ or faster, which are unrealistic, as compared to the experimental strain rates of $`minute^1`$ or slower. A clear deficiency thus exists in a direct comparison of MD simulated tensile strength with what is measured in experiments. It is not clear if the differences are due to the real physical and chemical mechanistic reasons, or due to the limitations of the extremely fast strain rates used in the atomistic MD simulations.

A typical time step in MD simulations can not exceed a fraction of the vibrational periods of atoms or molecules under investigations, and is generally of the order of few femto-seconds or less. Hundreds of millions of time steps, therefore, are needed to simulate typical nanosecond dynamic processes in atomic systems. For thousands of atoms, interacting with complex many-body force field functions, the MD simulation is computationally intensive and is not always accessible for routine investigations. One way to accelerate the kinetic processes, that occur during MD simulations, is to increase the temperature. The transition time, for an activated process, to go from one state to another is given by the Arrhenious relation $`t=\frac{1}{\nu }e^{E_\nu /k_BT}`$, where $`E_\nu `$ is the activation energy and $`\nu `$ is the effective vibration or attempt frequency of the transition. At high temperatures the larger kinetic energy increases the rate of the process to overcome the barriers and the transition time is thus shortened. If the tensile yielding of a material can be described by a series of activated processes of defect formations. It may be possible to describe the tensile yielding or failure of CNTs with an Arrhenious type model incorporating both short time and high temperature defect formation behavior, as well as long time and low temperature behavior. We have used temperature and strain rate dependent (with in MD time-scale) MD simulations to propose and parameterize a predictive model for tensile yield strain of micron long SWCNTs at experimentally feasible strain rates and temperatures.

The MD simulations involve continuous straining of nanotubes by moving the end atoms under given strain conditions, such as under tensile and compression strain, and letting the nanotube relax during the dynamics at constant temperatures and strain rates. Tersoff-Brenner potential  is used to model Carbon-Carbon (C-C) interactions. A 60$`\mathrm{\AA }`$ long (10,0) nanotube with 600 atoms is used for the simulation studies, and the CNT is strained at rates varying from $`10^6ps^1`$ to $`10^2ps^1`$ and at temperatures ranging from 300K to 2400K.

In Figure 2, the strain energy per atom for different temperatures and strain rates, as a function of tensile strain, is plotted. The abrupt deviation from the elastic behavior, at high strain values (and we define such strains as yield strains or failure strains), is due to the formation of SW 5775 defects followed by necking, thinning and eventual breaking of the nanotubes. For strain values higher than the yield strain, the perfect hexagonal configurations of the carbon atoms in the CNTs are destroyed. This is in qualitative agreement with the previous MD simulations. Figure 2 also shows that the yield strain (and the corresponding tensile strength) decreases at higher temperatures and at slower strain rates. Initial MD studies by Yakobson et. al.  showed similar behaviors but with very high yield strains due to the very high strain rates used in their simulations. Our simulations with a larger variation of strain rates and temperatures show the changes in the yield strain (or tensile strength) in a wider range. For example, at slow strain rate ($`3\times 10^5/ps`$) and high temperature of 2400K, the nanotubes yield at about $`6\%`$ in our simulations. The yield strain as a function of strain rate, at different temperatures, is shown in Fig. 3. The linear dependence at each temperature indicates that the Arrhenious behavior is valid and the tensile yielding of nanotubes can be described by a theory of activated processes, i.e., the transition of the system from the initial pre-yielding state to the final post-yielding state occurs through a series of activated processes with an effective barrier defining the characteristics of the whole phenomenon.

According to the Eyring’s theory the Arrhenius formula for the strained system can be modified as

$$t=\frac{1}{n_{site}}\frac{1}{\nu }e^{\frac{E_\nu VKϵ}{k_BT}},$$
(1)
where $`ϵ`$ is local strain, $`n_{site}`$ is number of sites available for state transition, $`K`$ is force constant and $`V`$ is the activation volume. Thus the strain rate required for a transition at a certain strain is:

$$\frac{1}{\dot{ϵ}}=\frac{1}{n_{site}}\frac{1}{\dot{ϵ}_0}e^{\frac{E_\nu VKϵ}{k_BT}},$$
(2)
where $`\dot{ϵ}`$ is strain rate and $`\dot{ϵ}_0`$ is a constant related with vibration or attempt frequency. The yield strain as a function of temperature and strain rate, thus, can be expressed by inverting Eq. (2) as,

$$ϵ_Y=\frac{E_\nu }{VK}+\frac{k_BT}{VK}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\dot{ϵ}}{n_{site}\dot{ϵ}_0}.$$
(3)
For nanotubes under tensile strain, we have observed that the yielding process induces a sequence of S-W type bond rotations within the connected local regions. These multiple transitions lead to a collective kinetic activation mechanism of the failure of CNTs strained beyond elastic limit. The combined rate for $`N`$ multiple transitions thus can be of the form $`\frac{1}{Nt}`$, where $`\frac{1}{t}`$ is the rate for a single transition and for simplicity we have assumed that the rate for each successive transition can be expressed by an averaged value of $`1/t`$. An averaged effective activation energy $`\overline{E}_\nu `$ for the multiprocess thus replaces $`E_\nu `$ for the single process, and Eq. (3), can be modified as:

$$ϵ_Y=\frac{\overline{E}_\nu }{VK}+\frac{k_BT}{VK}\mathrm{ln}\frac{N\dot{ϵ}}{n_{site}\dot{ϵ}_0}.$$
(4)
To fit the data from the simulations, Eq. (4) can be rewritten as:

$`ϵ_Y`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{E}_\nu }{VK}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{VK}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{ϵ}_0n_{site}}{N\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{step}}}))+{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{VK}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{ϵ}}{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{step}}}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`A(T)+B(T)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{ϵ}}{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{step}}},`$ (6)
where $`A(T)`$ and $`B(T)`$ are defined as $`A(T)=\frac{\overline{E}_\nu }{VK}\frac{k_BT}{VK}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{n_{site}\dot{ϵ}_0}{N\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{step}})`$ and $`B(T)=\frac{k_BT}{VK}`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{step}`$ is the change of strain at each step used in simulations. In Fig. 4, the functional dependence of $`A(T)`$ and $`B(T)`$ is obtained over the entire temperature range by fitting the linear dependence to the simulation data. The linear dependence of $`B(T)`$ on the temperature indicates that the transition state theory (within Eyring’s model) is valid for the yielding of the strained CNTs. From the dependence of $`B(T)`$ on $`T`$, we get $`VK`$ = 18.04 eV. For one-dimensional CNTs, with Young’s modulus giving the force constant to be 1 TPa, the activation volume comes out to be 2.88$`\mathrm{\AA }^3`$. This corresponds to a typical atomic volume of a carbon atom within a nanotube. The fitting of the coefficients in $`A(T)`$ gives $`\frac{\overline{E}_\nu }{VK}=0.20`$ and $`\frac{k_B}{VK}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{n_{site}\dot{ϵ}_0}{N\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{step}})=3.66\times 10^5`$. These values correspond to the average kinetic activation energy $`\overline{E}_\nu `$ of 3.6 eV for the successive multiple S-W bond rotations. In our simulations, with $`n_{site}`$ $`600`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{step}=0.0025`$ or $`0.25\%`$, $`\frac{\dot{ϵ}_0}{N}`$ comes out to be about 8 $`\times 10^3`$ $`ps^1`$. $`ϵ_Y`$ is not dependent on $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{step}`$, as the effects cancel out in $`A(T)`$ and $`B(T)`$. There is always a possibility for the inverse transitions which have rates scaled as $`e^{\frac{2VKϵ}{k_BT}}\dot{ϵ}`$, and are omitted as $`\frac{VKϵ}{k_BT}>>1`$ in our study.

The yield strain of the CNTs, under tensile stress with experimentally feasible strain rates, can be estimated or predicted from the above model. For example, at T = 300K and at a strain rate of about $`1\%`$ $`per`$ $`hour`$ the yield or failure strain for a 6nm long (10,0) CNT comes out to be about $`11\pm 1\%`$ as according to $`ϵ_Y(\%)=20.21+(0.21\pm 0.02)\mathrm{ln}\dot{ϵ}`$ $`(ps^1)`$ from the data shown shown in Fig. 3. Furthermore, the effect of experimentally realistic length of CNTs on the predicted values of $`ϵ_Y`$ can be estimated from Eq. (4) as according to,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ=\frac{k_BT}{VK}\mathrm{ln}(n_{site}/n_{site}^0),$$
(7)
where $`n_{site}`$ is linearly dependent on the length of CNTs. For a $`\mu m`$ long (10,0) CNT, under the same conditions, the yield or failure strain lowers to about $`9\pm 1\%`$. Of course, much more total strain energy is needed to yield a longer CNT than the energy needed to yield a shorter CNT. A larger diameter nanotube of the same length may have more activation sites $`n_{site}`$ for nucleating the defects leading to the yielding of the tube. However, $`N`$, the number of single processes involved in the yielding, may also increase and offset the effect. This will not be the case if individual single-wall nanotube diameter increases by orders of magnitude, which is highly unlikely.

In Eq.(4), we note that the yield strain of CNTs is linearly dependent on the average kinetic activation energy. The static in-plane activation energy of the first S-W bond rotation, for several armchair and zigzag CNTs, were calculated at zero tension, by rotating the C-C bond in the CNT surface plane and relaxing the system with zero temperature MD simulations. The results are shown in Figure 5. $`E_\nu `$ is found to be around 9.5 eV for large diameter nanotubes. This is about 1 eV different than the activation energy of 8.5 eV computed by Zhang et. al., for a (6,6) nanotube using static tight-binding simulation.  This means that the error in the computed averaged activation energy of the multiple kinetic processes leading to the yielding of the nanotube, due to the use of Tersoff-Brenner interactions (as opposed to a different and perhaps more accurate tight-binding or ab-initio interactions) could be estimated to be as high as 1 eV, and can give an estimation of an additional error-bar on our predicted value of the yield strain. According to Eq. (4) 1.0 eV error in the averaged $`\overline{E}_\nu `$ corresponds to about $`5\%`$ error in the yield strain. The predicted yield strain from the MD simulations using Tersoff-Brenner interactions can further be improved with more accurate tight-binding molecular dynamics simulations in future. Moreover, we note that the static activation energy of the first SW bond rotation is more than twice higher than the averaged kinetic activation energy of successive kinetic S-W bond rotations. This is natural, because the activation energy of the S-W bond rotation, in a strained tube, and in the presence of already existing S-W bond rotations or other defects, is expected to be much lower than the activation energy of the first S-W bond rotation or other defects in an ideal perfect tube.

Additionally, the plot in Fig. 5 also shows that a small diameter zigzag nanotubes has a smaller activation energy than that of a large diameter zigzag nanotube. No such difference is obvious for the armchair nanotubes. It is expected that the yielding behavior will show a minor diameter dependence for the zigzag nanotubes and no such dependence in the armchair nanotubes. This is shown in the inset in Fig. 5. This also shows that the averaged kinetic activation energy for successive multiple kinetic S-W defect formation processes is a very important parameter in our model and could be improved upon in higher fidelity dynamic or static simulations in future.

Above analysis shows that the yield strain of a tensile strained CNT is strongly dependent on the temperature and the applied strain rate. Figures 3 and Eq.(4) show that slower strain rates at lower temperatures can be equivalent to faster strain rates but also at higher temperatures. Both the conditions increase the probability of overcoming the activation barriers during the dynamic processes. From Eq.(4), this equivalence can be defined as

$$(\frac{\dot{ϵ}_1N}{n_{site}\dot{ϵ}_0})^{T_1}=(\frac{\dot{ϵ}_2N}{n_{site}\dot{ϵ}_0})^{T_2},$$
(8)
and the processes can thus be accelerated by elevating the simulation temperatures. In a different context, Voter et. al. have used the high temperature accelerated dynamics to study the diffusion on solid surfaces,  which shows that more realistic experimental deposition rates can be reproduced through this scheme. Of course the dynamics on CNTs is much simpler compared with other materials, as CNTs are quasi-one dimensional and have simple structures.

For comparison, the strain rate and temperature dependence of the yielding of CNTs under the compressive stress is also studied using the MD simulations with Tersoff-Brenner potentials. Sideways buckling of the compressed nanotube at lower temperatures, similar to Yakobson et al’s MD study at zero temperature, and a collapsing behavior at higher temperature driven by diamond-like bond formations, as noted by Srivastava et. al. in quantum molecular dynamics simulations were observed. Additionally, S-W type bond rotation defects were also observed in simulations at higher temperatures. These defects are found to be irreversible with the removal of the compression induced strain in the system. Our MD simulations show that the diamond-like bond formations and S-W bond rotation defects are strongly correlated with the local buckling instability of the compressed nanotubes, which tend to additionally reduce the barrier heights in the compression case. The complex coupling of the buckling formation with the activated processes, as described in this work, is currently under investigations and will be discussed separately.

Finally, experiments show the tensile strength of 40-50 GPa for SWCNT ropes and MWCNTs, even though their yield strains are different: $`56\%`$ for SWCNTs and $`12\%`$ for MWCNTs. Eq. (4) shows that the yield strain $`ϵ_Y`$ is also a function of activation volume $`V`$ and Young’s modulus $`K`$. Since $`K`$ is shown to be about 1 TPa for diverse SWCNTs and MWCNTs, the difference would be related to the activation volume. It is reasonable to expect a smaller activation volume on the outer shell of a MWCNT due to the presence of inner shell CNTs, and the reduced $`V`$ will increase the value of $`ϵ_Y`$ for MWCNTs. These issues are currently under investigations and will be published in future.

Acknowledgment. We thank Dr. M. Baskes for helpful discussions. This work is supported by NASA contract NCC2-5400. DS is supported by NASA contract 704-40-32 to CSC at Ames Research Center.


format: text

text:
# Anti-de Sitter Black Holes, Thermal Phase Transition and Holography in Higher Curvature Gravity

## I Introduction

Anti-de Sitter black hole thermodynamics, which produces an aggregate of ideas from thermodynamics, quantum field theory and general relativity, is certainly one of the most remarkable tools to study quantum gravity in space-time containing a horizon Birrell82a . In recent years a great deal of attention has been focused on such black holes. There are various familiar reasons for that. One of them, of course, is its role in the AdS/CFT duality Maldacena97a , and in particular, Witten’s interpretation Witten98 ; Witten98a  of the Hawking-Page phase transition between thermal AdS and AdS black hole Hawking83a  as the confinement-deconfinement phases of the Yang-Mills (dual gauge) theory defined on the asymptotic boundaries of the AdS geometry. It is possible that our observable universe is a “brane” living on the boundary of a higher-dimensional black hole, and physics of such black hole is holographically related to that of early (brane) universe cosmology Verlinde00a . Most of the results in the literature are formulated in terms of the AdS/CFT conjecture and based on the Einstein’s theory with a negative cosmological constant, where one has the well known Bekenstein-Hawking area-entropy law

$$𝒮=\frac{k_Bc^3}{\mathrm{}}\frac{A}{4G},$$
(1)
where $`A`$ is volume of the horizon corresponding to the surface at $`r=r_H`$. In the following, we adopt the standard convention of setting $`c=\mathrm{}=k_B=1`$. One of the impressive features of (1) is its universality to all kinds of black holes Hawking77a ; Bekenstein73a  irrespectively of their charges, shapes and rotation. Nonetheless, it has been known that (1) no longer applies to the higher curvature (HC) theories in $`D>4`$ dimensions (see Ref. Visser93a  for review). Thus, the study of AdS black holes and boundary CFTs is well motivated both from the field theoretic and the cosmological points of view.

One notes that, on general grounds, any effective gravity action will involve, besides the usual Einstein term, the higher curvatures and also derivative terms corresponding to the low energy matter fields(see for example Weinberg95a ). In particular, when the effect of gravitational fluctuations are small compared to the large number of matter fluctuations, one can neglect graviton loops, and look for a stationary point of the combined gravitational action, and the effective action for the matter fields. This is implied by solving

$$R_{ab}\frac{1}{2}Rg_{ab}=8\pi GT_{ab},$$
(2)
where the source being the expectation value of the matter energy momentum tensor, which may include the contribution from HC terms. If one allows non-conformally invariant matter fields, one must take into account the non-conformally invariant local terms Hawking01a , which in four dimensions read Duff74a ; Liu98a

$$T=\alpha _1\alpha _2𝒢+\alpha _3^2R,$$
(3)
where the Gauss-Bonnet invariant $`𝒢`$ and the square of Weyl tensor are

$`𝒢`$ $`=`$ $`R^24R_{ij}R^{ij}+R_{ijkl}R^{ijkl},`$
$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}R^22R_{ij}R^{ij}+R_{ijkl}R^{ijkl}.`$ (4)
Here $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3`$ are defined by certain combinations of the number of real scalars, Dirac fermions and vectors in the theory being considered, $`^2R`$ is a variation of the local term $`d^4x\sqrt{|g|}R^2`$ in the effective action, which generally does not carry dynamical information. The authors in Blau99a ; Nojiri99a  have derived (3) in $`d+1=5`$ for conformal anomaly in the $`R^2`$ gravity using the AdS/CFT correspondence. This suggests that higher curvature terms in the bulk theory can arise as next-to-leading order corrections in the $`1/N`$ (large $`N`$) expansion of the boundary CFTs in the strong ’t Hooft coupling limit Maldacena97a ; Liu98a ; Blau99a .

Paraphasing, any effective stringy gravity action also contains higher curvature terms of different order as loop corrections to string amplitudes. The most suggestive combination of higher derivative terms is perhaps the GB invariant, which is attributed to the heterotic string effective action Deser85a ; Metsaev87a . The theory with a Gauss-Bonnet term is free of ghost when expanding about the flat space Deser85a . This is true IPN01b  also in the recently discovered warped brane-world model Randall2  (see IPN00  for discussion with GB term). It is noteworthy that the higher derivative correction terms with “small” coefficients will not just only produce some modifications of the solution of the unperturbed (Einstein) theory Simon90a , but importantly also contain whole classes of new solutions in an anti-de Sitter space IPN01d , see Ref. Germani02a  for brane-world solutions with the time varying gravitational constant and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Moreover, the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory in $`D5`$ clearly exhibits some new black hole solutions Cai01a , which are unavailable to the Einstein theory.

AdS/CFT correspondence asserts that physics in the bulk of AdS spacetime is fully described by a CFT on the boundary, an intuitive notion of holography tHooft93a . As a result, in the Einstein theory with a bulk cosmological term, the thermodynamic quantities of the holographic dual CFTs defined on $`S^3\times S^1`$ at high temperatures may be identified with those of the bulk AdS Schwarzschild black holes Witten98a . Within the context of the AdS/CFT conjecture, the higher curvature terms in the bulk (string) theory correspond to finite coupling large $`N`$ effects in the gauge theory, one may therefore allow HC terms, which are squares in Ricci scalar, Ricci tensor and Riemann tensor, into the effective bulk action. A ghost free combination of these terms is the Gauss-Bonnet invariant. The higher derivative supergravity action including a $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term may induce some extra degrees of freedom of ghost behavior around stable fixed points. It is not known what this leads to the finite temperature field theory. Any ghost field, if exists, is expected to decouple in the large N limit, so they do not project out on the conformal boundary. However, in the full string theory there is no such problem. We can therefore extract a bulk $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term directly from AdS/CFT, which is necessary if we wish to study the finite coupling effects.

If the AdS black hole horizon is a hypersurface with zero ($`k=0`$) or negative ($`k=1`$) curvature, the black hole is always stable and the corresponding boundary field theory at finite temperature is dominated by the black hole. While, for the horizon of a positive curvature ($`k=1`$), one sees a Hawking-Page phase transition Witten98a , see also Mueck01a . This is indeed an observation one can make in the Einstein’s theory, where the qualitative features of Hawking-Page phase transitions are independent of the dimensions. However, in the higher derivative theory with a Gauss-Bonnet term or a $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term, the situation could be different, where phase structures actually depend on the number of spatial dimensions $`d`$ and the horizon geometry $`k`$. As we have no good reasons that a dual description should exist for the Gauss-Bonnet theory, it would be of more interest to study the AdS black hole solutions with a $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term and to examine the possibility of the Hawking-Page phase transition. Wald has shown Wald93a  that one can relate the variations in properties of the black hole as measured at horizon to the variations of the geometric property of the horizon based on the first law and evaluation of the Noether charge (see Refs. Iyer94a ; Jacobson95a ; Myers98a  for a clear generalization). This has been realized for the Gauss-Bonnet black hole, in that case we also have the exact solutions. But with a $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term, this prediction is only a good approximation. In particular, the two entropies one finds with the $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term closely agree in the limit $`r_H>>L`$, while they completely agree for $`k=0`$.

The paper is organized as follows. In next section we shall begin with our effective action and present some curvature quantities for a general metric ansatz. Section III deals in detail with the Gauss-Bonnet black hole thermodynamics in AdS space, including thermal phase structures. In section IV we study AdS black holes with a trivial $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ interaction ($`\gamma =0`$). In section V we begin our discussion of the black hole thermodynamics with a non-zero $`\gamma `$, and present formulas for free energy, entropy and energy. We also briefly discuss about the finite coupling effects. In section VI, we present certain realizations of the FRW-type brane equations, and also make a comparison between the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy and the Hubble (or holographic) entropy. Section VII contains conclusions.

## II Action, metric ansatz and curvature quantities

Perhaps, a natural tool to explore the AdS/CFT is to implement the general higher derivative terms to the effective action, and to study thermodynamics of the anti-de Sitter black holes. To begin with, we consider the following $`(d+1)`$ dimensional gravitational action, containing terms up to quadratic in the curvatures,

$$I=d^{d+1}x\sqrt{g_{d+1}}\left[\frac{R}{\kappa _{d+1}}2\mathrm{\Lambda }+\alpha R^2+\beta R_{ab}R^{ab}+\gamma R_{abcd}R^{abcd}+\mathrm{}\right]+\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}_{}d^dx\sqrt{|g_{(d)}|}𝒦+\mathrm{},$$
(5)
where $`\kappa _{d+1}=16\pi G_{d+1}`$, $`𝒦=𝒦_a^a`$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature of the boundary, $`𝒦^{ab}=^an^b`$, where $`n^a`$ is the unit normal vector on the boundary. The last term above is attributed to the Gibbon-Hawking boundary action. When working in $`(d+1)`$-dimensional anti-de Sitter space $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }<0)`$, one may drop the surface terms including the Gibbon-Hawking action. However, the surface term, including the higher order, might be essential to evaluate the conserved quantities when the solutions are extended to de Sitter (dS) spaces Klemm01a ; Vijay01a .

We define the metric ansatz in the following form

$$ds^2=e^{2\varphi (r)}dt^2+e^{2\varphi (r)}dr^2+r^2\underset{i,j}{\overset{d1}{}}h_{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(6)
where $`h_{ij}`$ is the horizon metric for a manifold $`^{d1}`$ with the volume $`V_{d1}=d^{d1}x\sqrt{h}`$. For (6), the non-vanishing components of the Riemann tensor are

$`R_{trtr}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\varphi (r)}\left(\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+2\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right),R_{titj}=e^{4\varphi (r)}r\varphi ^{}h_{ij}=e^{4\varphi (r)}R_{rirj},`$
$`R_{ijkl}`$ $`=`$ $`r^2_{ijkl}(h)r^2e^{2\varphi (r)}\left(h_{ik}h_{jl}h_{il}h_{jk}\right).`$ (7)
We readily obtain the following non-trivial components of the Ricci tensor

$`R_{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{4\varphi (r)}R_{rr}=e^{4\varphi (r)}\left(\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+2\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{(d1)\varphi ^{}}{r}}\right)`$
$`R_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`_{ij}(h)e^{2\varphi (r)}\left((d2)+2r\varphi ^{}\right)h_{ij},`$ (8)
with $`k`$ being the curvature constant, whose value determines the geometry of the horizon. The boundary topology of the Einstein space ($`^{d1}`$) looks like

$`k=1S^{d1}`$ $`:`$ $`\mathrm{Euclidean}\mathrm{de}\mathrm{Sitter}\mathrm{space}(\mathrm{sphere})`$
$`k=0IR^{d1}`$ $`:`$ $`\mathrm{flat}\mathrm{space}`$
$`k=1H^{d1}`$ $`:`$ $`\mathrm{anti}\mathrm{de}\mathrm{Sitter}\mathrm{space}(\mathrm{hyperbolic}).`$ (9)
This means that event horizon of the black hole can be a hypersurface with positive, zero or negative curvature. For spherically symmetric black holes, the event horizon is generally a spherical surface with $`k=1`$. While, if the horizon is zero or negative constant hypersurface, the black holes are referred as topological black holes. The thermodynamics of topological or asymptotically anti-de Sitter black holes in the Einstein gravity was investigated, e.g., in Refs. Brown94a ; Mann96a ; Vanzo97a ; Birmingham98a ; Emparan99b .

Before going ahead, let us assume that the $`(d+1)`$-dimensional spacetime is an Einstein space

$$R_{abcd}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(g_{ac}g_{bd}g_{ad}g_{bc}\right),R_{ab}=\frac{d}{\mathrm{}^2}g_{ab}.$$
(10)
This is always possible provided that the horizon geometry is also an Einstein space Birmingham98a

$$_{ijkl}(h)=k\left(h_{ik}h_{jl}h_{il}h_{jk}\right),_{ij}(h)=(d2)kh_{ij}.$$
(11)
Then one easily computes the Ricci scalar in $`(d+1)`$ spacetime dimensions

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(d1)(d2)k}{r^2}}e^{2\varphi (r)}\left(2\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+4\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{4(d1)\varphi ^{}}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(d1)(d2)}{r^2}}\right)`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(d1)(d2)k}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{d1}}}\left(r^{d1}e^{2\varphi (r)}\right)^{\prime \prime }.`$
## III Gauss-Bonnet black hole in AdS space

Let us set at first $`\alpha =\beta /4=\gamma `$ in (5), and also drop the Hawking-Gibbon term. Then the equations of motion following from (5) simply read

$`\kappa _{d+1}^1\left(R_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ab}R\right)+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}g_{ab}_{GB}^2`$
$`+2\alpha \left(RR_{ab}2R_{acbd}R^{cd}+R_{acde}R_b^{cde}2R_a^cR_{bc}\right)=0`$ (13)
with the Gauss-Bonnet invariant $`_{GB}^2=R^24R_{ab}R^{ab}+R_{abcd}R^{abcd}`$. The explicit form of the metric solution following from (III) is (see also the Refs. Deser85a ; Myers88a ; Wiltshire88a ; Cai01a )

$$e^{2\varphi }=k+\frac{r^2}{2\widehat{\alpha }}+ϵ\frac{r^2}{2\widehat{\alpha }}\left[1\frac{4\widehat{\alpha }}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(1\frac{\widehat{\alpha }}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)+\frac{4\widehat{\alpha }m}{r^d}\right]^{1/2},$$
(14)
where $`ϵ=1`$, $`\widehat{\alpha }=(d2)(d3)\alpha \kappa _{d+1}`$ and $`m`$ is an integration constant with dimensions of $`(\text{length})^{d2}`$, which is related to the ADM mass $`M`$ of the black hole via

$$M=\frac{(d1)V_{d1}}{\kappa _{d+1}}m.$$
(15)
We should note that the AdS curvature squared $`\mathrm{}^2(\mathrm{}_{dS}^2)`$ is related to the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ via

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{d(d1)}{2\kappa _{d+1}l^2},\text{where}\frac{1}{l^2}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(1\frac{\widehat{\alpha }}{\mathrm{}^2}\right),$$
(16)
so that $`\mathrm{}^2>0`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ (anti-de Sitter), while $`\mathrm{}^2<0`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ (de Sitter). Notice that there are two branches in the solution (14), because $`e^{2\varphi (r)}`$ is determined by solving a quadratic equation, we denote by $`r_+`$ the $`ϵ=1`$ branch, and by $`r_{}`$ the $`ϵ=+1`$ branch. For large $`r`$

$`g_{00}(r_+)`$ $``$ $`k{\displaystyle \frac{m}{r^{d2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}+\widehat{\alpha }𝒪(r^{42d}),`$ (17)
$`g_{00}(r_{})`$ $``$ $`k+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{r^{d2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{\widehat{\alpha }}}+\widehat{\alpha }𝒪(r^{42d}).`$ (18)
The $`ϵ=1`$ branch gives a $`(d+1)`$-dimensional Schwarzschild anti-de Sitter (SAdS) solution. While, $`ϵ=+1`$ branch gives the SAdS solution, since $`l^2>\widehat{\alpha }`$, but with a negative gravitational mass Wiltshire88a . However, $`ϵ=+1`$ branch is unstable for certain parameter values of $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ and $`m`$ Deser85a . In this paper we only consider (14), rather than its perturbative cousins (17, 18).

### III.1 Thermodynamic quantities

From (14), the mass of the black hole $`M`$ can be expressed in terms of the horizon radius $`r_+=r_H`$

$$M=\frac{(d1)V_{d1}r_+^{d2}}{\kappa _{d+1}}\left[k+\frac{r_+^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(1\frac{\widehat{\alpha }}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)+\frac{\widehat{\alpha }k^2}{r_+^2}\right].$$
(19)
The positions of the horizons may be determined as the real roots of the polynomial $`q(r=r_H)=0`$, where

$$q(r)=kr^{d2}+\widehat{\alpha }k^2r^{d4}+\frac{r^d}{l^2}m.$$
(20)
Of course, in the limit $`l^2\mathrm{}`$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$) and $`k=1`$, one recovers the results in Myers88a . One derives $`q(r)=0`$ directly from Eq. (14) or from the field equations by setting $`e^{2\varphi (r)}=0`$ at the horizon $`r=r_+`$, but one satisfies $`e^{2\varphi (r)}>0`$ for $`r>r_+`$. When $`d+1=5`$, the black hole horizon is at

$$r_+^2=\frac{l^2}{2}\left[k+\sqrt{k^2+\frac{4(m\widehat{\alpha }k^2)}{l^2}}\right].$$
(21)
There is a mass gap at $`m=\widehat{\alpha }k^2`$, so all black holes have a mass $`M3V_3\widehat{\alpha }k^2/\kappa _5M_0`$ Cai01a , the requirement $`M>M_0`$ is needed to have a black hole interpretation. From Eq. (14) and Eq. (20), we easily see that the roots of $`q(r)`$ must also satisfy

$$1+\frac{4\widehat{\alpha }^2k^2}{r^4}+\frac{4\widehat{\alpha }k}{r^2}0.$$
(22)
When $`k0`$, this is trivially satisfied in any spaces ($`\mathrm{}^2>0`$ (AdS), $`\mathrm{}^2<0`$ (dS), and $`\mathrm{}^2=\mathrm{}`$ (flat)), since $`\widehat{\alpha }>0`$. If the horizon of the black hole is a hypersurface with a negative curvature ($`k=1`$), the constraint (22) implies $`r^22\widehat{\alpha }`$ at $`r=r_+`$, giving the minimum size of the black hole horizon. For $`k=+1`$, Eq. (22) gives $`r_+^22\widehat{\alpha }`$, as first noticed in Myers88a . For $`k=0`$, $`r_+`$ is not constrained in terms of $`\widehat{\alpha }`$.

To study the black-hole thermodynamics, it is customary to find first the Euclidean action by analytic continuation. After Wick-rotating the time variable $`ti\tau `$, one regularizes Euclidean section $``$ by identifying the Killing time coordinate with a period $`\tau =\beta `$. In the standard approach Hawking83a ; Horowitz95a ; Witten98a , one subtracts energy of the reference geometry which is simply anti-de Sitter space produced by a setting $`m=0`$ in (14), i.e. $`M=0`$. This process is equivalent to subtracting off the zero-temperature free energy in the field theory calculation. One may add the counter terms of holographic normalization instead of subtracting the energy of a reference geometry. In the latter approach the number of holographic terms grow with the spacetime dimensions, thus for simplicity we follow Witten98a . The Euclidean action $`\widehat{I}`$ therefore reads

$$\widehat{I}=\frac{V_{d1}r_H^{d4}}{\kappa _{d+1}(d3)}\left[(d1)\beta \left(kr_H^2\widehat{\alpha }k^2\right)8\pi r_H^3+3(d1)\beta \frac{r_H^4}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(1\frac{\widehat{\alpha }}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)\right],$$
(23)
where $`\beta =1/T`$ is the periodicity in Euclidean time. With $`\mathrm{}^2=\mathrm{}`$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) and $`k=1`$, we correctly reproduce the result in Myers88a . Since the temperature of the black hole horizon is identified by the periodicity in imaginary time of the metric, $`T`$ defines Hawking temperature ($`T_H`$) of the black hole given by $`\left(e^{2\varphi (r)}\right)^{}|_{r=r_+}=4\pi T_H`$. Hence

$$\frac{1}{\beta }=T_H=\frac{(d2)}{4\pi r_+}\frac{1}{\left(r_+^2+2\widehat{\alpha }k\right)}\left[kr_+^2+\frac{d4}{d2}\widehat{\alpha }k^2+\frac{d}{d2}\frac{r_+^4}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(1\frac{\widehat{\alpha }}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)\right].$$
(24)
We plot in Fig. (1) the inverse temperature ($`\beta `$) of the black hole versus the horizon radius $`r_+`$ for $`\widehat{\alpha }=0`$ and $`k=0,\pm 1`$. Then, in Fig. (2) we plot $`\beta `$ vs. $`r_+`$ for $`\widehat{\alpha }0`$ and $`k=1`$, when the number of spatial dimensions $`d`$ is $`3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5},`$ and $`9`$. In term of the black hole temperature, we clearly see that only in $`d+1=5`$ and for $`k=1`$ there occurs a new phase of locally stable small black hole. In the Einstein gravity, one simply discards the region $`\beta 0`$ as $`r0`$, because thermodynamically it is an unstable region Hawking83a ; Witten98a . For the EGB gravity in $`d=4`$, however, both the conditions: (i) $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ as $`r0`$ and (ii) $`\beta 0`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$ are physical.

We may identify the Euclidean action with the free energy times $`\beta `$. Therefore

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{d1}r_+^{d4}}{\kappa _{d+1}(d3)}}\left[(d1)\left(kr_+^2\widehat{\alpha }k^2\right)8\pi r_+^3T_H+3(d1){\displaystyle \frac{r_+^4}{l^2}}\right]`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{d1}r_+^{d4}}{\kappa _{d+1}(d3)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(r_+^2+2\widehat{\alpha }k)}}[(d3)r_+^4(k{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2}{l^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{6(d1)\widehat{\alpha }kr_+^4}{l^2}}`$
$`+(d7)\widehat{\alpha }k^2r_+^2+2(d1)\widehat{\alpha }^2k^3].`$
In the second line above we have substituted the value of $`T_H`$ from Eq. (24). Interestingly, the free energy (25) was obtained in Ref. Cai01a  by using the thermodynamic relation $`F=MT𝒮`$, where entropy $`𝒮`$ was evaluated there using $`𝒮=_0^{r_+}T^1𝑑M`$. So these two apparently different prescriptions for calculating free energy ($`F`$ read from the Euclidean action and $`F`$ derived from the first law) give the same results. One therefore computes the energy

$$E=\frac{\widehat{I}}{\beta _0}=M,$$
(26)
where $`M`$ is still given by (19), and the entropy

$$𝒮=\beta _0E\widehat{I}=\frac{4\pi V_{d1}r_+^{d1}}{\kappa _{d+1}}\left[1+\frac{(d1)}{(d3)}\frac{2\widehat{\alpha }k}{r_+^2}\right].$$
(27)
The minimum of the Hawking temperature is given by solving $`T_H/r_+=0`$, where

$$\frac{T_H}{r_+}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{1}{\left(r_+^2+2\widehat{\alpha }k\right)^2}\left[(d2)kr_+^2+\frac{dr_+^4}{l^2}+\frac{6d\widehat{\alpha }kr_+^2}{l^2}(d8)\widehat{\alpha }k^2\frac{2(d4)\widehat{\alpha }^2k^3}{r_+^2}\right].$$
(28)
If $`\widehat{\alpha }=0`$, for $`k=0`$ and $`k=1`$, one easily sees that there is no minimum of temperature, thus $`k=0`$ and $`k=1`$ black holes exist for all temperatures. But the situation could be different for $`\widehat{\alpha }0`$. In next subsections we implement these results to investigate the thermal phase transition between AdS black hole and thermal AdS space.

### III.2 Phase Transition in the Einstein Gravity

A black hole at high temperature is stable, while it is unstable at low temperature, and there can occur a phase transition between thermal AdS and AdS black hole at some critical temperature. In Hawking83a , existence of the first order phase transition was interpreted in terms of quantum gravity rather than boundary conformal field theory. Only recently, Witten Witten98a  has interpreted this behavior as the confinement-deconfinement transition in dual Yang-Mills (gauge) theory. In Witten’s interpretation the thermodynamics of the black hole corresponds to the thermodynamics of the strongly coupled super-Yang-Mills (SYM) theory in the unconfined phase, while the thermal anti-de Sitter space corresponds to the confined phase of the gauge theory. The results in Einstein’s theory are obtained by setting $`\alpha =0`$. Therefore

$`T_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(d2)}{4\pi r_+}}\left(k+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d2}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}\right),`$ (29)
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_3r_+^{d2}}{\kappa _5}}\left(k{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}\right).`$ (30)
The minimum of $`T_H`$ occurs at $`r_+=\mathrm{}\sqrt{k/2}`$, implying that $`T_{min}=\sqrt{2k}/(\pi \mathrm{})`$. A thermal AdS phase is preferred for $`T<T_{min}`$. By definition, free energy of the thermal AdS space is zero, but from (30) $`F=0`$ only at $`r_+=\mathrm{}\sqrt{k}`$. The critical Hawking temperature is therefore $`T_H=T_c=3\sqrt{k}/(2\pi \mathrm{})`$. Thus, $`k=0`$ and $`k=1`$ cases are of less interest to explain the phase transition. But, for $`k=1`$, $`T_c`$ defines a possible first order phase transition. When $`T_H>T_c`$ a stable AdS black hole exists, but a thermal AdS phase is preferred for $`T_c>T_H`$.

### III.3 Phase Transition in the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity

We may allow a non-trivial GB coupling $`\alpha `$ to investigate the Hawking-Page transitions in gravity side. It is suggestive to consider the $`d+16`$ case separately, since the properties of the solutions differ from the special case $`d+1=5`$, for example, see Fig. (2). We consider here only the $`d+1=5`$ case for two reasons: (i) from $`AdS_5/CFT_4`$ point of view, and (ii) other than in $`d+1=5`$ there is no new phase transition of locally stable small black hole. Then

$$F=\frac{V_3}{\kappa _5}\left[3k\left(r_H^2\widehat{\alpha }k\right)8\pi r_H^3T_H+\frac{9r_H^4}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(1\frac{\widehat{\alpha }}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)\right],$$
(31)
where $`\widehat{\alpha }=2\alpha \kappa _5`$. Thus, free energy can be zero at the critical Hawking temperature

$$T_H=T_c=\frac{1}{8\pi r_H}\left[3k\left(1\frac{\widehat{\alpha }k}{r_H^2}\right)+\frac{9r_H^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(1\frac{\widehat{\alpha }}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)\right].$$
(32)
The minimum of $`T_H`$ is given by solving

$$r_+^2\left(k\frac{2r_+^2}{l^2}\right)+2\widehat{\alpha }k\left(k\frac{6r_+^2}{l^2}\right)=0,$$
(33)
provided $`(r_+^2+2\widehat{\alpha }k)0`$. In the following, it would be suggestive to consider the $`k=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ and $`1`$ cases separately.

$`k=0`$ case: From Eq. (24) in $`d=4`$ and Eq. (32), $`F=0`$ only if $`\mathrm{}^2=\widehat{\alpha }`$. For $`\mathrm{}^2>\widehat{\alpha }`$, since one has $`F<0`$, the black hole is always stable. For $`\mathrm{}^2<\widehat{\alpha }`$, free energy (31) appears to be positive, but this limit is not allowed for AdS black hole, because $`\mathrm{}^2<\widehat{\alpha }`$ necessarily implies $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ and the black hole mass in Eq. (19) is negative. Thus $`\mathrm{}^2\widehat{\alpha }`$ puts a bound for flat ($`k=0`$) AdS black holes. We see no evidence of a phase transition for $`k=0`$ even if $`\widehat{\alpha }0`$. This behavior is not changed for $`(d+1)>5`$, unlike the case will be with $`k0`$.

$`k=+1`$ case: This is the most interesting case, since the boundary of the bulk manifold will have an intrinsic geometry same as the background of the boundary field theory at finite temperature (i.e. $`S^1\times S^3`$). From Eq. (24) in $`d=4`$ and Eq. (32), we have $`F0`$, only if

$$\left(1\frac{r_+^2}{l^2}\right)\frac{3\widehat{\alpha }}{r_+^2}\left(1\frac{2\widehat{\alpha }}{r_+^2}+\frac{6r_+^2}{l^2}\right)0.$$
(34)
One has $`F>0`$ for $`T<T_c`$, while $`F<0`$ for $`T>T_c`$. As seen in Fig. (6), small Gauss-Bonnet black hole with a spherical horizon, which has a small positive free energy at start, evolves to thermal AdS phase, attains a maximum positive free energy at some $`r=r_+`$, and eventually goes to a stable black hole phase for large $`r`$.

$`k=1`$ case: In this case, the $`F0`$ condition reads

$$\left(1+\frac{r_+^2}{l^2}\right)+\frac{3\widehat{\alpha }}{r_+^2}\left(1+\frac{2\widehat{\alpha }}{r_+^2}\frac{6r_+^2}{l^2}\right)0.$$
(35)
At the critical radius $`r_+^2=2\widehat{\alpha }`$, free energy (31) is zero when $`r_+^2=\mathrm{}^2`$, $`F`$ is always negative for $`r_+^2>2\widehat{\alpha }`$ and $`r_+^2>\mathrm{}^2`$, but $`F`$ can be positive for $`2\widehat{\alpha }r_+^2<\mathrm{}^2`$, which may trigger a Hawking-Page type transition even if the horizon is hyperbolic (see Figs. (8) and (9)). We note from Fig. (9) that under the limit $`0.48<\widehat{\alpha }/\mathrm{}^2<0.52`$, free energy is always positive. Thus $`k=1`$ may allow one to study the boundary field theory at finite temperature with different background geometries Birmingham98a ; Emparan99a . Due to a possible phase transition for black holes with a hyperbolic horizon, one may find it particularly amusing that when the hypersurface is $`AdS_3\times S^1`$ ($`AdS_3`$ may be obtained by analytic continuation of $`dS_3`$) quantum gravity in $`AdS_5`$ can be dual to a boundary conformal field theory on $`AdS_4`$ background. This possibly reflects that the geometry on the boundary is not dynamical, since there are no gravitational degrees of freedom in the dual CFT Emparan99a .

## IV Thermodynamic quantities with $`\gamma =0`$

For $`\gamma =0`$, the field equations following from (5), integrate to give the metric solution (6) with Nojiri01a

$$e^{2\varphi (r)}=k+\frac{r^2}{L^2}\frac{\mu }{r^{d2}},$$
(36)
where $`L^2`$ is related to the cosmological term $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ via

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{d(d1)}{2\kappa _{d+1}L^2}\left(1\frac{(d3)\epsilon }{2(d1)}\right),$$
(37)
where

$$\epsilon =\frac{2d\left(\beta +(d+1)\alpha \right)\kappa _{d+1}}{L^2}.$$
(38)
The integration constant $`\mu `$ is related to the black mass $`M=(d1)V_{d1}\mu /\kappa _{d+1}`$. When $`\mu =0`$, the solution (36) locally corresponds to $`AdS`$ metric, while $`\mu 0`$ gives AdS black hole solutions. For the background metric (36), the classical action takes the form

$$I=\frac{V_3}{2\pi G_5T}_{r_H}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^3\left(1\epsilon \right),$$
(39)
where $`V_3`$ is the volume of the manifold $`^3`$ and $`\epsilon =8\kappa _5\left(\beta +5\alpha \right)/L^2`$. After a proper regularization, the Euclidean action is identified with the free energy $`(F)`$ times $`1/T_H`$. Following Hawking77a ; Hawking83a , the free energy $`(F)`$ and the Hawking temperature $`T_H`$ evaluated for $`d=4`$ read

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_3r_H^2}{16\pi G_5}}\left(k{\displaystyle \frac{r_H^2}{L^2}}\right)\left(1\epsilon \right),`$ (40)
$`T_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\left[e^{2\varphi (r)}\right]^{}|_{r=r_H}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi L^2}}\left(r_H+{\displaystyle \frac{kL^2}{2r_H}}\right).`$ (41)
As in Nojiri01a , if one defines $`\stackrel{~}{G}_5(1\epsilon )=G_5`$, entropy and energy will have the usual form

$$𝒮=\frac{dF}{dT_H}=\frac{V_3r_H^3}{4\stackrel{~}{G}_5},E=F+T𝒮=\frac{3V_3\mu }{16\pi \stackrel{~}{G}_5}M.$$
(42)
Thus energy of the AdS black hole can be identified simply by mass of the black hole, in terms of a renormalized Newton constant $`\stackrel{~}{G}_5`$. Moreover, these quantities may be identified, up to a conformal factor, with the same quantities defined on the boundary of $`AdS_5`$.

### IV.1 The role of boundary terms

For a definiteness, we work in $`d+1=5`$, and define $`e^{\sigma (y)}=r`$. Then we can bring the metric (6) in the following Randall-Sundrum type five-dimensional warped metric <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1The related coordinate transformations are given in Ref. Nojiri01a , which read: $`e^{2\varphi }\dot{t}^2e^{2\sigma }e^{2\varphi }\dot{\sigma }^2=e^{2\sigma }`$; $`e^{2\varphi }\dot{t}t^{}e^{2\sigma }e^{2\varphi }\dot{\sigma }\sigma ^{}=0`$, and $`e^{2\varphi }t_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}e^{2\sigma }e^{2\varphi }\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=1`$, where $`\dot{\sigma }=_\tau \sigma ,\sigma ^{}=_y\sigma `$ .

$$ds^2=e^{2\sigma (y)}\left(d\tau ^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j\right)+dy^2,$$
(43)
where $`y`$ denotes an extra (fifth) space transverse to the brane, which picks out a family of hypersurfaces, $`y=\text{const}`$. To make the role of the “brane” dynamic, one also adds to (5) the following boundary term, corresponding to the vacuum energy on the hypersurface,

$$I_{}=_{}d^dx\sqrt{|g_{(d)}|}\left(𝒯\right)+\mathrm{},$$
(44)
where, the ellipsoids represent the higher order surface terms, and $``$ denotes the hypersurface with a constant extrinsic curvature. To the leading order, one may drop the higher order surface terms by imposing certain restriction on their scalar invariants (see, for example, Nojiri01b ), and this is the choice we adopt here. The extrinsic curvature $`𝒦_{ab}`$ can be easily calculated from (43). The variation $`\delta I+\delta I_{}`$ at the $`4d`$ boundary would rise to give

$$\delta I+\delta I_{}=d^4x\sqrt{|g_{(4)}|}\left[\left(\frac{8(1\epsilon )}{\kappa _5}\frac{8}{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}\right)\delta \sigma ^{}+4\left(\frac{8}{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}\sigma ^{}\frac{2(1\epsilon )}{\kappa _5}\sigma ^{}+\frac{𝒯}{2}\right)\delta \sigma \right].$$
(45)
Let us assume that the gravitational couplings $`\kappa `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ are related by Nojiri01a

$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}\frac{1\epsilon }{\kappa _5}=0\stackrel{~}{G}_5=\frac{G_5}{(1\epsilon )},$$
(46)
so that the first bracket in (45) vanishes. The dynamical equations on the brane then reduce to

$$𝒯=\frac{12(1\epsilon )}{\kappa _5}\sigma ^{}|_{y=0+}=\frac{12(1\epsilon )}{\kappa _5L},\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{6}{\kappa _5L^2}\left(1\frac{\epsilon }{6}\right),$$
(47)
where $`\epsilon `$ is given by (38), and in the second step $`\sigma ^{}|_{y=0+}=1/L`$ has been used. The condition $`\sigma ^{}=1/L`$ seems useful to recover the RS-type fine tunings.

## V Thermodynamic quantities with $`\gamma 0`$

In AdS/CFT, the higher curvature terms in the bulk have coefficients that are uniquely determined Liu98a ; Blau99a , thus it is suggestive to specify the coefficient $`\gamma `$. In particular, one computes the trace anomaly of a $`𝒩=2`$ SCFT in $`AdS_5`$ supergravity or conformal anomaly on $`S^4`$ in the $`𝒩=4`$ super YM theory. One finds there the order $`N`$ gravitational contribution to the anomaly from a $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term. The string theory dual to $`𝒩=2`$ SCFTs with the gauge group $`Sp(N)`$ has been conjectured to be type IIB string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_2`$ background Spalinski98a ; Blau99a , whose low energy effective (bulk) action in five dimensions reads

$$S=d^5x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{R}{\kappa _5}2\mathrm{\Lambda }+\gamma R_{abcd}R^{abcd}\right]+(\text{boundary  terms}),$$
(48)
if we define

$$\frac{L^3}{\kappa _5}=\frac{N^2}{4\pi ^2},\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{6}{\kappa _5L^2}=\frac{6N^2}{4\pi ^2}\frac{1}{L^5},\gamma =\frac{6N}{2416\pi ^2}\frac{1}{L},$$
(49)
hence $`\gamma >0`$. The third term in (48) is suppressed by $`1/N`$ with respect to the first two terms, thus taking $`N\mathrm{}`$ (i.e. $`\alpha ^{}=L^2/(4\pi g_{st}N)^{1/2}0`$, where $`g_{st}`$ is the string coupling) enables one to take classical limit of the string theory on $`AdS_5\times S_5`$ Maldacena97a . If we wish to study finite $`N`$ coupling effects, it is necessary to take into account the leading higher derivative corrections, including $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term.

A string background $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ is an exact solution of Type IIB theory Maldacena97a , where one knows that there is no $`R^2`$ term, and sub-leading corrections come only from $`(\text{Weyl})^4`$ term. Therefore, the motivation for including $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term in (48) must be clear. As worked out in Blau99a , this term arises due to the orbifold compactification to $`AdS_5\times X_5`$, where $`X_5=S^5/Z_2`$ for $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory. Interestingly, a bulk $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term would rise to give subleading $`𝒪(N)`$-term predicted for $`d=4`$, $`𝒩=2`$ superconformal field theory with $`Sp(N)`$ gauge group Blau99a . We will comment upon the finite coupling effects, but before that we evaluate the black hole parameters for the above theory.

### V.1 Black hole solutions

When $`\gamma 0`$, we can find only a perturbative metric solution, which reads, in $`(d+1)=5`$,

$$e^{2\varphi (r)}=k\frac{\mu }{r^2}\left(1+\frac{2\widehat{\gamma }}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)+\frac{r^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(1+\frac{2\widehat{\gamma }}{3\mathrm{}^2}\right)+\frac{\widehat{\gamma }\mu ^2}{r^6}+𝒪(\widehat{\gamma })^2,$$
(50)
where $`\widehat{\gamma }=2\gamma \kappa _5`$. Since $`\mu `$ is an integration constant with dimension of $`(\text{length})^{d2}`$, we may rescale

$$\mu \left(1+\frac{2\widehat{\gamma }}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)\stackrel{~}{M},\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(1+\frac{2\widehat{\gamma }}{3\mathrm{}^2}\right)\frac{1}{L^2},$$
(51)
in order to bring the solution (50) in the usual form

$$e^{2\varphi (r)}=k\frac{\stackrel{~}{M}}{r^2}+\frac{r^2}{L^2}+\frac{\widehat{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{M}^2}{r^6}+𝒪\left(\widehat{\gamma }^2\right).$$
(52)
The integration constant $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ at the singularity $`e^{2\varphi (r)}=0`$ reads, from Eq. (52), as

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_+=r_+^2\left[k+\frac{r_+^2}{L^2}+\frac{\widehat{\gamma }}{r_+^2}\left(k^2+\frac{2kr_+^2}{L^2}+\frac{r_+^4}{L^4}\right)\right]+𝒪\left(\widehat{\gamma }^2\right),$$
(53)
where $`r_+=r_H`$ is the black hole horizon. The corresponding Hawking temperature $`T_H`$ is given by

$$T=\frac{1}{\beta }=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left[e^{2\varphi (r)}\right]^{}|_{r=r_+}=\frac{1}{\pi L^2}\left[r_++\frac{kL^2}{2r_+}\frac{\widehat{\gamma }}{L^2}\left(r_++\frac{2kL^2}{r_+}+\frac{k^2L^4}{r_+^3}\right)\right]+𝒪\left(\widehat{\gamma }^2\right).$$
(54)
The black hole solutions with $`k=0`$ are qualitatively similar to those of Einstein’s theory, so only the $`k=\pm 1`$ cases are of interest. We plot inverse Hawking temperature versus the horizon radius in Fig. (10) with $`k=+1`$ at some fixed values of $`\widehat{\gamma }/L^2`$, and in Fig. (11) but with $`k=1`$. A Hawking-Page phase transition can occur only when the AdS-Schwarzschild solutions possess both phases: $`F>0`$ (thermal AdS) and $`F<0`$ (black hole). For $`k=+1`$, there can occur such a transition, driven by finite size effects, in particular, when $`\widehat{\gamma }/L^2<(0.15)/(2.511)^2`$. This implies the existence of $`F>0`$ region within a certain range of $`r_H`$, see Fig. (12).

From Fig. (11) we see that the thermodynamic properties of topological black holes $`(k=1)`$ are qualitatively similar to those of the five dimensional Gauss-Bonnet black holes with a spherical event horizon $`(k=1)`$. This behavior, however, disappears for a small $`\widehat{\gamma }/L^2`$, for example, when $`\widehat{\gamma }/L^2<(0.15)/(0.55)^2`$, which actually corresponds to the $`F<0`$ region in Fig. (13).

In the high temperature limit $`T>>1/L`$ (i.e. $`r_+>>L`$), the horizon radius may be expressed as

$$r_+=\frac{\pi L^2T}{2(1\delta )}\left[1+\sqrt{1\frac{2(1\delta )(14\delta )k}{\pi ^2L^2T^2}+k^2\delta 𝒪\left(\frac{1}{L^4T^4}\right)}\right],$$
(55)
where $`\delta =\widehat{\gamma }/L^21/(8N)`$. For $`\delta =0`$ (or $`N\mathrm{}`$), one has the known results of Einstein’s theory: $`T_{min}=\sqrt{2k}/(\pi L)`$ and $`T_c=3\sqrt{k}/(2\pi L)`$. The $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ correction, therefore, makes $`T_{min}`$ smaller and $`T_c`$ larger.

We follow the Euclidean prescription Hawking77a ; Hawking83a ; Witten98a  for regularizing the action and identify the Euclidean action with the free energy times $`1/T_H`$. For $`(d+1)=5`$, we find the following expression for free energy <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2This result differs in sign for the last term from that of Nojiri01b . Perturbative black hole solution with $`R^2`$ terms and its thermodynamic behavior was further discussed in Nojiri01c  but we deserve some differences in the results so far reported.

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_3}{\kappa _5}}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{\gamma }}{L^2}}\right)\left(\stackrel{~}{M}{\displaystyle \frac{2r^4}{L^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{6\widehat{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{M}^2}{r_H^4}}\right]+𝒪\left(\gamma ^2\right)`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_3r_+^2}{\kappa _5}}\left[k{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2}{L^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{12\widehat{\gamma }k}{L^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\widehat{\gamma }r_+^2}{L^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{5\widehat{\gamma }k^2}{r_+^2}}\right]+𝒪\left(\widehat{\gamma }^2\right)`$
where we have substituted Eq. (53) in the second step above. In Figs. (12) and (13), free energy of the black hole vs horizon radius is plotted respectively for $`k=+1`$ and $`k=1`$. For $`k=+1`$, existence of a thermal AdS phase ($`F>0`$) requires $`\widehat{\gamma }/L^2<(0.15)/(2.511)^2(=1/42)`$, which implies that $`N>5`$. There is no phase transition even for a closed geometry ($`k=+1`$) when $`\widehat{\gamma }/L^2>(0.15)/(2.511)^2`$, and hence $`N5`$, because in this limit free energy is always negative. The existence of a minimum $`N`$ for the possible Hawing-Page phase transition is not in any contradiction. There is no restriction for taking a large $`N`$, rather this limit more and more ensures existence of the both phases: $`F>0`$ and $`F<0`$. As $`N`$ is increased, $`\widehat{\gamma }/L^2=1/(8N)`$ gets decreased, and hence an AdS phase exists for small $`r_H`$, while a stable black hole phase always exists for large $`r_H`$. For $`k=1`$, $`F>0`$ requires that $`N`$ be bounded from up, i.e. $`\widehat{\gamma }/L^2>(0.15)/(0.5475)^2(=1/2)`$, which does not give a physical bound for $`N`$.

In order to exhibit the finite coupling effects, we may express the free energy density, read from Eq. (56), in terms of $`T`$ and $`N`$. We can define the regularized action as $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=V_3\beta \mathrm{\Delta }F`$, where $`V_3`$ is the coordinate volume of $`\tau (it)`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3(k)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ is the free energy density. Then, since $`\widehat{\gamma }/L^2=1/(8N)`$ from (49), using (55) and (56) we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F=\frac{\pi ^2T^4}{4}\left[\left(N^2+\frac{7N}{8}\right)\left(3N^2\frac{3N}{4}\right)\frac{k\beta ^2}{\pi ^2L^2}+\left(\frac{3N^2}{2}\frac{23N}{16}\right)\frac{k^2\beta ^4}{\pi ^4L^4}+𝒪\left(\frac{\beta }{L}\right)^6\right].$$
(57)
It is not a priori clear what is the finite temperature field theory to which this corresponds. In view of the conjectured duality between a string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_2`$ background and $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric $`Sp(N)`$ gauge theory, this result may be relevant to the $`N\mathrm{}`$ (large ’t Hooft coupling $`g^2N`$) limit of the $`𝒩=2`$ Sp(N) gauge theory at finite temperature, which is not known. One may therefore wish to compare (57) with those of $`𝒩=2`$ Sp(N) gauge theory (which has $`4(N(2N+1)+(2N^2+7N1))`$ boson-fermion pairs) at weak coupling (or free field limit $`g^2N0`$):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F=\frac{\pi ^2T^4}{3}\left(N^2+2N\frac{1}{4}\right).$$
(58)
To the leading order, a difference of factor $`3/4`$ is seen between the weak and strong coupling limits. A possible explanation for the origin of this difference on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background, including the $`(\text{Weyl})^4`$ terms, was first given in Gubser98a , and further comments on this difference were made in the review Gubser00a  (see also references therein). It is expected that a similar relation would apply to the string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_2`$ background. Note that even on the flat space $`k=0`$, two results do not seem to match each other, the role is here being played by $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term.

By considering a 5d AdS Schwarzschild background, but with a trivial $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ bulk term, and using AdS/CFT correspondence, we can calculate the free energy density, which is relevant to the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit of the $`𝒩=4`$ SYM gauge theory at finite temperature Witten98a . This reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F=\frac{\pi ^2N^2T^4}{8}\left[1\frac{3k\beta ^2}{\pi ^2L^2}+\frac{3}{2\pi ^4}\frac{k^2\beta ^4}{L^4}+𝒪\left(\frac{\beta }{L}\right)^6\right].$$
(59)
While, the high temperature limit of the free energy density for four dimensional $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric SU(N) theory at weak coupling is given by Burgess99a

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F=\frac{\pi ^2N^2T^4}{6}\left[1\frac{3k\beta ^2}{2\pi ^2L^2}+𝒪\left(\frac{\beta }{L}\right)^6\right].$$
(60)
There is already a mismatch in the sub-leading terms between (59) and (60). It would be not surprising if similar situation arises for $`𝒩=2`$ Sp(N) gauge theory. There is also a temperature independent term in (59), which is interesting to study further. A difference of factor $`1/2`$ in the leading term for free energy density between (57) and (59) simply arises from the dictionary of AdS/CFT: in SU(N) SYM theory one uses $`G_5L^5=8\pi ^3g_{YM}^2\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}=\pi L^8/(2N^2)`$ which differs by $`1/2`$ from (49) due to a volume factor Vol($`S^5/Z_2`$) versus Vol($`S^5`$).

To evaluate thermodynamic quantities of the black holes, including entropy, we go back to the results (54) and (56). The entropy of the black hole can be determined by using the relation

$$𝒮=\frac{dF}{dT_H}=\frac{dF}{dr_+}\frac{dr_+}{dT_H},$$
(61)
where the derivative terms $`dF/dr_+`$ and $`dT_H/dr_+`$ take the following forms

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dF}{dr_+}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4Vr_+^3}{\kappa _5L^2}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{kL^2}{2r_+^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\widehat{\gamma }}{L^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2kL^2}{r_+^2}}\right)\right]+𝒪\left(\widehat{\gamma }^2\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dT_H}{dr_+}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi L^2}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{kL^2}{2r_+^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\gamma }}{L^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2kL^2}{r_+^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3k^2L^4}{r_+^4}}\right)\right]+𝒪\left(\widehat{\gamma }^2\right).`$ (62)
Hence we obtain (since $`\widehat{\gamma }=2\gamma \kappa _5`$)

$$𝒮=\frac{4\pi V_3r_H^3}{\kappa _5}\left[1+\frac{8\gamma \kappa _5}{L^2}\left(1+\frac{kL^2}{r_+^2}\frac{3k^2L^4}{4r_+^4}\right)\left(1\frac{kL^2}{2r_+^2}\right)^1\right]+𝒪(\widehat{\gamma }^2).$$
(63)
For a large size black hole $`2r_+^2>>kL^2`$, one may approximate the entropy

$$𝒮\frac{V_3r_+^3}{4G_5}\left[1+\frac{8\gamma \kappa _5}{L^2}\left(1+\frac{3kL^2}{2r_+^2}\right)\right]+𝒪(\gamma ^2).$$
(64)
Thus entropy of the black hole with $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term does not satisfy the area formula $`𝒮=A/4G`$. Rather, just as the Einstein term in the action is corrected by $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term, the Einstein contribution to black hole entropy ($`𝒮=A/4G`$) receives $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ corrections. This has been expected in the literature (see Ref. Visser93a  for review), but here we further show that entropy (64) agrees with Wald’s formula for entropy Wald93a  for $`r_+^2>>L^2`$. Moreover, we may implement these results to reproduce boundary data on the horizon of the AdS geometry.

We can also find the black hole energy, defined as $`E(T𝒮+F)`$,

$$E=\frac{3V_3}{\kappa _5}\left[\stackrel{~}{M}_0+2\gamma \kappa _5\left(\frac{3r_+^4}{L^4}+\frac{5kr_+^2}{2L^2}k^2\frac{k^3L^2}{2r_+^2}\right)\left(1\frac{kL^2}{2r_+^2}\right)^1\right]+𝒪\left(\gamma ^2\right).$$
(65)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0=r_+^2\left(k+r_+^2/L^2\right)`$ is the value of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_+`$ when $`\gamma =0`$. For $`k=1`$, one apparently sees a singularity at $`2r_+^2=L^2`$, but there is no singularity in the formulas for energy Eq. (65) and entropy Eq. (63). One easily checks that at $`r_+^2=L^2/2`$, for $`k=1`$, the first round bracket in (65) also vanishes, thus the above formulas are applicable to all three possible values: $`k=0,\pm 1`$.

It has been known that entropy of the black hole can be expressed as a local geometric (curvature) density integrated over a space-like cross section of the horizon. Notably, an entropy formula valid to any effective gravitational action including higher curvature interactions was first proposed in Wald93a , and was nicely generalized in Refs. Jacobson95a ; Myers98a . One can infer from Myers98a  that the black hole entropy for the action (5) takes in five dimensions the following form

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒮}=\frac{4\pi }{\kappa _5}_{horizon}d^3x\sqrt{h}\left\{1+2\alpha \kappa _5R+\beta \kappa _5\left(Rh^{ij}R_{ij}\right)+2\gamma \kappa _5\left(R2h^{ij}R_{ij}+h^{ij}h^{kl}R_{ikjl}\right)\right\},$$
(66)
where $`h`$ is the induced metric on the horizon. For $`d+1=5`$, since the curvatures are defined in the following form

$$R=\frac{20}{L^2},h^{ij}R_{ij}=\frac{12}{L^2},h^{ij}h^{kl}R_{ikjl}=\frac{6k}{r_+^2}+𝒪(\widehat{\gamma }),$$
(67)
from the Eq. (66), when $`\alpha =\beta =0`$, we read

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒮}=\frac{V_3r_+^3}{4G_5}\left[1+\frac{8\gamma \kappa _5}{L^2}\left(1+\frac{3kL^2}{2r_+^2}\right)\right]+𝒪(\gamma ^2).$$
(68)
Hence the two expressions for entropies, i.e. Eq (68) and Eq. (64), are identical. Our results are suggestive, and clearly contradict with the observations made in Ref. Nojiri01b  in this regard.

From the $`(d+1)`$ dimensional analogue of the formula (66), we may calculate entropy of the Gauss-Bonnet black hole, using the relation $`\alpha =\beta /4=\gamma `$,

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒮}=\frac{4\pi }{\kappa _{d+1}}d^{d1}x\sqrt{h}\left[1+2\alpha \kappa _{d+1}(h)\right].$$
(69)
At the horizon, one sets $`e^{2\varphi (r_+)}=0`$, and reads the value of $`(h)`$ from (12). Hence

$$𝒮=\frac{V_{d1}r_+^{d1}}{4G_{d+1}}\left[1+\frac{(d1)}{(d3)}\frac{2\widehat{\alpha }k}{r_+^2}\right],$$
(70)
which coincides with Eq. (27). Myers and Simon Myers88a  have derived the result (70) for entropy of the black hole in asymptotically flat backgrounds ($`L^2\mathrm{}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) with $`k=1`$, but here we see that this holds for arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This mimics that the geometry on the boundary or the cosmological term in the bulk is not dynamical. This is plausible and possibly gives some insights of the holography.

### V.2 Quantities with non-trivial $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$

Furthermore, one could find a perturbative solution for arbitrary $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ at a time, but this calculation is complicated due to a perturbative expansion. Without loss of any generality, one can follow a different, but equivalent, prescription, in which one combines the results obtained for (i) $`\alpha ,\beta 0`$ and $`\gamma =0`$, to the results obtained for (ii) $`\alpha =\beta =0`$ and $`\gamma 0`$. Thus, by combining the results (40,42) and (56,63,65), we obtain the following expressions for free energy $`(F)`$, entropy $`(𝒮)`$ and energy $`(E)`$ of the $`5d`$ AdS black hole with quadratic curvature terms

$$F=\frac{V_3}{\kappa _5}\left[r_H^2\left(k\frac{r_H^2}{L^2}\right)\left(1\epsilon \right)10\gamma \kappa _5\left(k+\frac{r_H^2}{L^2}\right)^2\right]+𝒪\left(\gamma ^2\right),$$
(71)
$$𝒮=\frac{4\pi V_3r_H^3}{\kappa _5}\left[(1\epsilon )+\frac{12\gamma \kappa _5}{L^2}\left(1+\frac{kL^2}{2r_H^2}\frac{k^2L^4}{2r_H^4}\right)\left(1\frac{kL^2}{2r_H^2}\right)^1\right]+𝒪(\gamma ^2),$$
(72)
$$E=\frac{3V_3}{\kappa }\left[\stackrel{~}{M}_0\left(1\epsilon \right)+2\gamma \kappa _5\left(\frac{5r_H^4}{L^4}+\frac{7kr_H^2}{2L^2}2k^2\frac{k^3L^2}{2r_H^2}\right)\left(1\frac{kL^2}{2r_H^2}\right)^1\right]+𝒪\left(\gamma ^2\right),$$
(73)
where $`\epsilon =4\kappa _5\left(\gamma +2\beta +10\alpha \right)/L^2`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ is related to the mass parameter $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ when $`\alpha =\beta =\gamma =0`$. The consistency of the above results is reflected from the regularities of the expressions for entropy (72) and energy (73) at $`kL^2=2r_H^2`$.

In the large $`N`$ limit, one has $`L^3>>\kappa _5`$ (from the first expression of Eq. (49)), and in AdS/CFT, the coefficients of the higher curvature terms in the bulk, in general, satisfy the limit $`1>\epsilon >0`$. In Ref. Blau99a  the subleading contribution to the $`AdS_5/CFT_4`$ trace anomaly was considered. In terms of boundary metric $`g_{ij}^{(0)}`$, supergravity prediction of $`𝒪(N)`$ contribution to the trace anomaly was found to be Blau99a

$$\frac{6N}{24\times 16\pi ^2}\left[R_{ijkl}^{(0)}R_{}^{(0)}{}_{}{}^{ijkl}\frac{13}{4}R_{ij}^{(0)}R_{}^{(0)}{}_{}{}^{ij}+\frac{3}{4}R_{}^{(0)}{}_{}{}^{2}\right],$$
(74)
from where we see that $`1<\epsilon <0`$ holds in large $`N`$ limit. Since $`\gamma >0`$, the free energy (71) is always negative for $`k=0`$ and $`k=1`$, and such black holes are globally stable. This means that provided $`(1\epsilon )>0`$ and $`\gamma >0`$, there may not occur a Hawking-Page phase transition for AdS black hole with a Ricci flat or hyperbolic horizon for the above theory. For the $`k=1`$ case, $`F`$ can be negative for large black hole with $`r_H^2>>L^2`$ since $`\gamma >0`$. While, for a small size black hole $`r_H^2<L^2`$, the free energy $`F`$ can be positive.

As a consistency check of the above formulas, we can express the curvature squared terms in the Gauss-Bonnet form: $`\alpha =\beta /4=\gamma `$. In this case, since $`\epsilon =12\alpha \kappa /L^2`$, the free energy (71) reduces to

$$F=\frac{V_3}{\kappa _5}\left[r_+^2\left(k\frac{r_+^2}{L^2}\right)+\widehat{\alpha }\left(\frac{r_+^4}{L^4}\frac{16kr_+^2}{L^2}5k^2\right)\right]+𝒪\left(\alpha ^2\right),$$
(75)
where $`\widehat{\alpha }=2\alpha \kappa _5`$ and $`r_+=r_H`$. This agrees with the exact expression of free energy (25), where one sets $`d=4`$ and $`(1+2\widehat{\alpha }k/r_+^2)^1(12\widehat{\alpha }k/r_+^2)`$, and $`L\mathrm{}`$. We may read entropy for the Gauss-Bonnet black hole from the formula Eq. (72), in the limit $`r_+^2>>L^2`$,

$$𝒮_{GB}=\frac{4\pi V_3r_+^3}{\kappa _5}\left[1+\frac{12\alpha \kappa _5k}{r_+^2}\right].$$
(76)
This very nicely agrees in five dimension ($`d=4`$) with the expression (27) or (70) (obtained using two different prescriptions). For $`k=0`$, one has $`𝒮_{GB}=(4\pi V_3r_H^3)/\kappa _5A/4G`$. This special connection is the reminiscent of the topological behavior of the GB invariant, but as we have already seen $`𝒮=A/4G`$ does not hold in the generic higher derivative theories.

## VI Holography beyond AdS/CFT

Via holography tHooft93a , it has been known that thermodynamic quantities of a boundary CFT can be determined by those of the global AdS (supergravity) vacuum, the notion of the celebrated AdS/CFT correspondence Maldacena97a . Witten Witten98a  further argued that such a correspondence may exist even if we give a finite temperature to the bulk AdS (so that pure AdS bulk is replaced by AdS-Schwarzschild black hole), and define a CFT on the boundary at finite temperature. Of course, finite temperature breaks both the supersymmetry and the conformal invariance. Still one can associate the mass (energy), temperature and entropy of the black hole with the corresponding quantities in the boundary field theory at finite temperature Witten98a . Many checks that have been performed in the literature are either based on the Einstein’s theory or limited in the large $`N`$ limit, where one neglects any higher curvature corrections. However, when one includes a bulk $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term, and extracts boundary data (e.g. free energy, entropy, energy) from AdS-Schwarzschild solution, one finds that they do not agree to the sub-leading order. This we will exhibit below in a simple cosmological context.

### VI.1 Relating boundary and bulk parameters

To reproduce boundary data from bulk data and vice versa, one may consider the coordinate transformations given in the footnote (1), which are solved by Nojiri01a

$$\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}e^{2\varphi }(r)e^{2\sigma (y)},$$
(77)
where $`d\eta =e^{\sigma (y)}d\tau `$, with $`\eta `$ being a new time parameter, $`\sigma ^{}=_\eta \sigma `$ and $`\sigma ^{}=_y\sigma `$. One specifies the functions $`r=r(\eta )`$, $`t=t(\eta )`$, so that $`\sigma ^{}\dot{r}/r`$ defines the Hubble parameter $`H`$. Eq. (77) ensures that the induced metric on the brane takes the standard Robertson-Walker form

$$ds_d^2=d\eta ^2+r^2(\eta )d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}^2,$$
(78)
and the radial distance $`r`$ measures the size of $`d`$-dimensional universe from the center of the black hole Verlinde00a . When applying the holography in the above context, one could consider an $`d`$-dimensional brane with a constant tension in the background of an $`(d+1)`$-dimensional AdS black hole. One also regards the brane as the boundary of the AdS geometry, and further assumes that $`\sigma ^{}|_{y=0+}=L^1`$ at the horizon $`r=r_H`$, where $`e^{2\varphi (r)}=0`$. Then it is clear that Eq. (77) leads to $`H=\pm 1/L`$. Using Eq. (36), one finds the first Friedman equation in $`(d+1)`$-dimensions Nojiri01b

$$H^2+\frac{k}{r^2}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{M}}{r^d}\frac{\kappa _d}{(d1)(d2)}\rho ,$$
(79)
where $`\kappa _d=16\pi G_{(d)}`$, $`\rho =\stackrel{~}{E}/V`$ is the matter energy density on the boundary, $`V=V_{d1}r^{d1}`$, and

$$\stackrel{~}{E}=\frac{(d1)(d2)\stackrel{~}{M}V_{d1}}{\kappa _dr}.$$
(80)
The energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ coincides with the gravitational energy $`E`$ (Eq. (42)), up to a conformal factor. Differentiation of Eq. (79) gives the second Friedman equation

$$\dot{H}\frac{k}{r^2}=\frac{\kappa _d}{2(d2)}\left(\rho +p\right),\text{where}p=\frac{(d2)\stackrel{~}{M}}{\kappa _dr^d}$$
(81)
is the matter pressure on the brane. Since $`\rho +(d1)p=0`$, the induced CFT matter is radiation-like $`T_\mu ^\mu =0`$. For a non-zero $`\gamma `$ (but with $`\alpha =\beta =0`$), however, the FRW equation reads

$$H^2+\frac{k}{r^2}=\frac{\kappa _4}{6}\rho ,$$
(82)
where $`\rho =\stackrel{~}{E}/V`$, $`V=V_3r^3`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{E}=\frac{6V_3}{\kappa _4r}\left[\stackrel{~}{M}\frac{\widehat{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{M}^2}{r^4}\right].$$
(83)
Differentiation of Eq. (82) gives the second FRW equation

$$\dot{H}\frac{k}{r^2}=\frac{\kappa _4}{4}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{E}}{V}+p\right),$$
(84)
with

$$p=\frac{2}{\kappa _4r^4}\left[\stackrel{~}{M}\frac{5\widehat{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{M}^2}{r^4}\right].$$
(85)
From Eqs. (83) and (85), one has

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{E}}{V}+3p=\frac{24\widehat{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{M}^2}{\kappa _4r^8}+𝒪\left(\widehat{\gamma }^2\right).$$
(86)
This simply means that matter fields on the boundary (brane) does not satisfy a radiation condition ($`T_\mu ^\mu =0`$) for $`\gamma 0`$. This is not an unexpected behavior with a bulk $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term. To proceed further, it is desirable to define the relation between $`\kappa _4`$ and $`\kappa _5`$. They can be related by (see Gubser99a  for $`\epsilon =0`$ case)

$$\kappa _4=\frac{2}{L}\frac{\kappa _5}{1+\lambda \epsilon }.$$
(87)
If $`\alpha =\beta =0`$ and $`\gamma 0`$, one has $`\epsilon =4\kappa _5\gamma /L^2`$. The magnitude of $`\lambda `$ can be fixed from the propagator analysis. If one regards the brane as the boundary of the AdS geometry, one has $`\lambda =1`$. We simply note, however, that for a gravity localized Randall-Sundrum type $`\delta `$-function brane, one actually finds $`\lambda =1/3`$ (see Ref. IPN01b ; IPN01e  for the Gauss-Bonnet case). Assume that brane is the horizon of AdS geometry, then it is suggestive to consider a moment in the brane’s cosmological evolution at which the brane crosses the black hole horizon $`r=r_{brane}=r_H`$, so that $`\stackrel{~}{M}(r_{brane})=\stackrel{~}{M}(r_H)`$. After implementing the relation (87), i.e.

$$\kappa _4=\frac{2}{L}\frac{\kappa _5}{1+2\widehat{\gamma }/L^2}\frac{2\kappa _5}{L}\left(1\frac{2\widehat{\gamma }}{L^2}\right),$$
(88)
from Eq. (83) we find

$$\stackrel{~}{E}=\frac{3V_3}{\kappa _5}\frac{L}{r}\left[\stackrel{~}{M}_0+\frac{4\gamma \kappa _5r_+^2}{L^2}\left(k+\frac{r_+^2}{L^2}\right)\right]+𝒪\left(\gamma ^2\right).$$
(89)
One may assume that energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is rescaled by

$$\stackrel{~}{E}=\frac{L}{r}E_{AdS}.$$
(90)
The origin of the factor $`L/r`$ is entirely “holographic” in spirit. It has been argued in Ref. Padilla01a  that for non-critical branes (i.e. $`k0`$), the AdS length scale $`L`$ may be replaced by $`1/𝒯`$, where $`𝒯`$ is the brane tension. At any rate, we see that the two expressions for energy, Eq.(65) and $`E_{AdS}`$ (which one reads from Eqs. (89) and (90)) do not match to the subleading order, but for $`\gamma =0`$ they do coincide.

Finally, we comment upon the size and location of the brane for a flat and static brane. Instead of $`\sigma ^{}=1/L`$, let us assume that $`\sigma ^{}=1/\mathrm{}`$ holds. If the brane (hypersurface) is flat ($`k=0`$), the horizons defined by $`e^{2\varphi (r)}=0`$ (Eq. (50)) read

$$r_+^4=\mu l^2+\frac{\mu \widehat{\gamma }}{3}+𝒪\left(\widehat{\gamma }^2\right),r_{}^4=\mu \widehat{\gamma }\left(1\frac{\widehat{\gamma }}{l^2}\frac{16}{3}\frac{\widehat{\gamma }^2}{l^4}\right)+𝒪\left(\widehat{\gamma }^3\right).$$
(91)
If the brane is also static (i.e. $`H=0`$), the Friedmann equation (84) would rise to give two horizons. However, the one which reduces to that of the Einstein gravity for $`\gamma =0`$ and would be of more physical interest is

$$r_{brane}^4=\mu \widehat{\gamma }\left(1\frac{2\widehat{\gamma }}{l^2}+\frac{2}{3}\frac{\widehat{\gamma }^2}{l^4}\right)+𝒪\left(\widehat{\gamma }^3\right).$$
(92)
Since $`\gamma >0`$, there is a critical point at

$$1=\frac{6\widehat{\gamma }}{l^2}\frac{12\gamma \kappa _5}{l^2},$$
(93)
where the brane coincides with the black hole inner horizon $`r_{brane}^4=r_{}^4`$. The brane lies outside the (black hole) inner horizon if $`l^2>6\widehat{\gamma }`$, and it lies inside the black hole horizon if $`l^2<6\widehat{\gamma }`$.

### VI.2 Entropy bounds in holography

For completeness and comparison, we list some of the interesting proposals for entropy bounds in holography Rey99a ; Youm01a . Consider the Cardy formula Cardy86a  of two-dimensional conformal field theory

$$𝒮_H=2\pi \sqrt{\frac{c}{6}\left(L_0\frac{ck}{24}\right)},$$
(94)
where the CFT generator (eigenvalue) $`L_0`$ represents the product $`Er`$ of the energy and radius, $`k`$ is the intrinsic curvature of the CFT boundary, $`c/24`$ is the shift in eigenvalues caused by the Casimir effect. In Verlinde00a ; Savonije01a , it was shown that the formula (94) can be generalized to arbitrary $`d`$-dimensions, which then corresponds to the FRW type brane equations of $`d`$ dimensions. One identifies there Savonije01a ; Youm01a

$$L_0\frac{Er}{d1},\frac{c}{6}\frac{4(d2)V_3r^2}{\kappa _d},𝒮_H\frac{4\pi (d2)HV}{\kappa _d},$$
(95)
where $`𝒮_H`$ is the Hubble entropy Verlinde00a . The Cardy formula puts a bound $`𝒮_H<𝒮_B`$, where

$$𝒮_B=\frac{2\pi r}{d1}E$$
(96)
is the Bekenstein entropy. The “holographic bound” proposed by ’t Hooft and Susskind reads $`𝒮𝒮_{BH}`$, where

$$𝒮_{BH}=\frac{4\pi (d2)}{\kappa _dr}V.$$
(97)
This mimics that entropy is smaller than Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the largest black hole that fits in the given volume. Another entropy bound is the “Hubble bound” proposed in Rey99a , which reads $`𝒮S_H`$. This heralds that entropy is bounded by total entropy of Hubble size black hole.

For our purpose, we find entropy formula defined in (95) interesting. Though initially derived for two-dimensional CFT, this formula may be applied to $`CFT_4/AdS_5`$ Verlinde00a , then one regards $`𝒮_H`$ as the holographic entropy. One may worry about when applying this formula to a theory with $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term. We therefore follow here a heuristic approach to estimate a difference between $`𝒮_H`$ and $`𝒮_{BH}`$. Note that, for $`\gamma 0`$, a non-conformal behavior in entropy is seen also from the scaling relation between $`\kappa _4`$ and $`\kappa _5`$, the former one involves a non-trivial $`\gamma `$ via (88). Using the value $`H_0=1/L`$ and Eq. (88), the Hubble entropy $`𝒮_H`$ in (95) takes the form, for $`d=4`$,

$$𝒮_H=\frac{4\pi V_3r_H^3}{\kappa _5}\left(1+\frac{4\gamma \kappa _5}{L^2}\right)\frac{V}{\pi L^3}\left(N^2+\frac{N}{4}\right).$$
(98)
Of course, in the large $`N`$ limit the correction term is negligible. Nevertheless, we may calculate the difference in Bekenstein-Hawking entropy $`𝒮_{BH}`$ (Eq. (63)) and Hubble entropy (Eq. (98)), which reads

$`𝒮_H𝒮_{BH}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi V_3r_H^3}{\kappa _5}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\kappa _5\gamma }{L^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{kL^2}{r_H^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2L^4}{r_H^2}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{kL^2}{2r_H^2}}\right)^1\right]`$ (99)
$`=`$ $`48\pi V_3\gamma r_H\left(k+{\displaystyle \frac{r_H^2}{3L^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3NV_3r_H}{4\pi L}}\left(k+{\displaystyle \frac{r_H^2}{3L^2}}\right).`$
Note that the difference in entropies can arise only in the order of $`N`$, though each entropy is proportional to $`N^2`$. Moreover, a negative sign in the difference implies that $`𝒮_H𝒮_{BH}`$. An obvious fact that $`𝒮_H`$ does not coincide with $`𝒮_{BH}`$ is not surprising with $`\gamma 0`$, because in higher derivative gravity entropy is not directly related to the horizon. The entropy formulas for the boundary field theory and the FRW equations coincide only for a radiation dominated (brane) universe Verlinde00a . Of course, for $`\gamma =0`$, one has $`𝒮_H=𝒮_{BH}`$. For $`k=1`$, one has $`𝒮_H>𝒮_{BH}`$ if $`r_H^2>3L^2`$, but one has $`S_H<𝒮_{BH}`$ for $`L^2<r_H^2<3L^2`$. In the $`k=0`$ and $`k=1`$ cases, one finds $`𝒮_H𝒮_{BH}`$. Thus for a flat and spherical AdS black holes, we propose a new entropy bound $`𝒮_HS_{BH}`$. These results could be useful to understand possible entropy bounds for the non-trivial $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ interaction.

## VII Conclusions

A possibility is that holography beyond the AdS/CFT persists in true quantum gravity and unified field theory, which may require inclusion of the higher order curvature derivative terms. With this motivation, we studied in details the thermodynamic properties of anti-de Sitter black holes for the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory, and the Einstein term in the action corrected by the generic $`R^2`$ terms, and discussed their thermodynamic behavior including the thermal phase transitions in AdS space. We obtained in useful form the expression of black hole free energy for the theories with Guass-Bonnet and $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ interaction terms, and calculated entropy and energy. In the Einstein’s theory, only the $`k=1`$ case is physical to explain the Hawking-Page phase transition. This is suggestive, because the AdS solution with $`k=1`$ can be embedded in ten-dimensional IIB supergravity such that the supergravity background is of the form $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, and the boundaries of the bulk manifold will have the same intrinsic geometry as the background of the dual theory at finite temperature. We also noted that, unlike to the Einstein theory, in the EGB theory there may occur a Hawking-Page phase transition also for an event horizon of negative curvature ($`k=1`$) hypersurface. The free energy of such a topological black hole starts from a negative value, reaches a positive maximum at some $`r=r_+`$, and then again goes to negative infinity as $`r_+\mathrm{}`$. Thus, a hyperbolic AdS black hole, though can have a thermal AdS phase within a small range of $`r_H`$, globally prefers black hole phase for large $`r_H`$.

It is shown that the contribution from the squares of Ricci scalar and Ricci tensor can be absorbed into free energy, entropy, and energy via a redefinition of the five dimensional gravitational constant and the radius of curvature of AdS space. By introducing the Gibbon-Hawking surface term and a boundary action corresponding to the vacuum energy on the brane, we recovered the RS type fine tunings as natural consequences of the variational principle. An interesting observation is that the thermodynamic properties of $`k=1`$ AdS black holes, for $`d+1=5`$, under a critical value of $`\widehat{\gamma }/L^2`$ in $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ gravity are qualitatively similar to those of Gauss Bonnet black hole with a spherical event horizon ($`k=1`$). For a spherical horizon geometry, the $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$ term (i.e. a finite coupling but $`N>5`$) may induce a Hawking-Page phase transition, though a large $`N`$ is much preferred. We discussed the corrections to the free energy density originated from the higher order curvature corrections to the supergravity action, which change only the $`N`$ dependence coefficients by sub-leading terms. Nonetheless, such corrections are necessary to look the behavior of AdS/CFT next to leading order, which we otherwise compare only to the CFTs leading terms, e.g., in the free energy and entropy. Moreover, in $`(\text{Riemann})^2`$-gravity, the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy agrees with the value obtained using similar formula when the black hole horizon $`r_H`$ is much larger than the AdS length scale $`L`$. The Bekenstein-Hawking entropy in the Gauss-Bonnet theory coincides with the value directly evaluated using Wald’s formula. These are interesting and quite pleasing results. We also obtained formulas for free energy, entropy and energy of the AdS black holes with generic $`R^2`$ terms, which are applicable to all three geometries: $`k=0,\pm 1`$.

We have also established some relations between the boundary field theory parameters defined on the brane and the bulk parameters associated with the Schwarzschild AdS black hole in five dimensions. We found the FRW type equations on the brane, which exhibit that matter on the AdS boundary does not satisfy the radiation condition ($`T_\mu ^\mu =0`$) for a non-zero $`\gamma `$. Using a heuristic but viable approach, we calculated a difference between the holographic entropy and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, which generally implies $`𝒮_H𝒮_{BH}`$. The essential new ingredient in our analysis is the role of the higher curvature terms in explaining the essential features of the black hole thermodynamics, including thermal phase transitions, finite coupling effects, and holography.

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the BK21 program of Ministry of Education. One of us (IPN) also acknowledges partial support from the Seoam Foundation, Korea, and would like to thank ASICTP for hospitality where part of the work is done. Helpful discussions with M. Blau, Edi Gava and K. S. Narain are gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Scheme for the generation of an entangled four-photon W-state

## Abstract

We present a scheme to produce an entangled four-photon W-state by using linear optical elements. The symmetrical setup of linear optical elements consists of four beam splitters, four polarization beam splitters and four mirrors. A photon EPR-pair and two single photons are required as the input modes. The projection on the W-state can be made by a four-photon coincidence measurement. Further, we show that by means of a horizontally oriented polarizer in front of one detector the W-state of three photons can be generated.

PACS number:03.65.Ud, 03.67.-a, 42.50.Dv

Entanglement is one of the most striking features of quantum mechanics. Entangled state of two or more particles not only provides the possibilities to test quantum mechanics against local hidden theory, but also have practical applications in quantum information processing, such as quantum cryptography, quantum dense coding  and quantum teleportation. Since the GHZ state was introduced to test quantum nonlocality without inequality, there has been much interest in the investigation of multiparticle entangled state for more useful applications. In Ref, it was shown that there exist two inequivalent classes of three-qubits entangled states, namely the GHZ class and the W class. These two classes are inequivalent because states from one cannot be obtained from the states of the other by local operation and classical communication. Another key difference is that a single-particle trace of the GHZ state result in a maximally mixed state compared with a nonmaximally mixed result for the W state. In Ref, the W state has been used to realize the teleportation of an unknown state probability. Recently a different set of Bell inequality is considered with the purpose of illustrating some difference between the violation of local realism exhibited by the GHZ and W state. More recently, it is shown that the correlation between two qubits selected from a trio prepared in a W state violate the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality more than the correlation between two qubits in any quantum state. In recent experiment, complementary measurement also reveal difference between the GHZ and W state

Experiments with entangled photons open a broad field of research. Entangled photon states can be used to test Bell’s inequality  or to implement quantum information protocols for quantum teleportation , quantum dense coding  and quantum cryptography . An experimental realization of GHZ-states by means of three or four photons was experimentally observed and used to verify quantum nonlocality. Following the scheme of efficient quantum computation with linear optics, a feasible linear optical scheme  was proposed to produce entangled $`N`$-photon states via linear optical elements. The incentive to produce entangled states of spin-s objects $`(S>1/2)`$ increased significantly in the context of quantum communication and quantum information processing . A scheme was proposed  to generate an entangled four-photon state, which is equivalent to two maximally entangled spin-1 particles. Drummond  demonstrated the violation of the Bell inequality by this kind of multi-photon states. Experimental realization of spin-1 entangled state have been reported. In this paper, our aim is to propose a scheme to generate a W-state

$`|W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|HHHV+|HHVH+|HVHH+|VHHH)`$ (1)
of four photons by means of linear optical elements, which is realizable experimentally. We use an EPR-source $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{EPR}`$ in order to generate two entangled branches of the symmetric experimental setup. These two branches are denoted by the mode $`1`$ and the mode $`2`$. Two single-photon sources are injected in order to generate an entangled four-photon state. A four-photon coincidence detection projects this state on the W-state. The scheme is based on post-selection strategy, which has been used to demonstrate quantum information processing and generate multi-photon GHZ state-

In the following we present a detailed analysis of the proposed scheme. The experimental setup is shown in Figure 1. The EPR-source generates the input state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{EPR}=(|H_1|V_2+|V_1|H_2)/\sqrt{2}`$. In order to inject two further photons in this arrangement of linear optical devices we use two single-photon sources: $`\mathrm{\Psi }_e=|H_e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f=|H_f`$. These single-photon input modes $`e`$ and $`f`$ are horizontally polarized. The experimental setup required for the two-photon injection consists of four polarization beam splitters $`PBS_i`$, two beam splitter $`BS_j`$ and four mirrors. Since polarization beam splitter transmit the horizontal polarization and reflect vertical polarization, the two polarization beam splitters $`PBS_1`$ and $`PBS_2`$ transform the EPR-state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{EPR}`$ into

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|H_b|V_c+|V_a|H_d).`$ (2)
Notice, that the modes $`b`$ and $`d`$ pass through the beam splitters $`BS_1`$ and $`BS_2`$, and that each of these beam splitters is connected with one of the single-photon input modes. The result of the two-photon injection at the beam splitters $`BS_1`$ and $`BS_2`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\left(|2H_b|V_c|H_d+|V_a|H_b|2H_d\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$
$`+\left(|H_b|V_c|H_e|H_f+|V_a|H_d|H_e|H_f\right)\mathrm{cos}2\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta /\sqrt{2}`$
$`+\left(|H_b|V_c|H_d|H_e+|V_a|H_b|H_d|H_f\right)\mathrm{cos}2\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta /\sqrt{2}`$
$`+(|V_c|2H_e|H_f+|V_a|H_e|2H_f`$
$`|2H_b|V_c|H_f|V_a|2H_d|H_e)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta `$
$`\left(|V_c|H_d|2H_e+|V_a|H_b|2H_f\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta .`$ (3)
The reflectance $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ and the transmittance $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ of these beam splitters are the same, since the same angle $`\theta `$ is chosen. This coefficient will be determined later. This four-photon state interacts with the two polarization beam splitters $`PBS_3`$ and $`PBS_4`$. The horizontal polarization is transmitted and the vertical polarization is reflected. This method of a two-photon injection on the EPR-modes $`1`$ and $`2`$ results in the four-photon state

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_3=\left(|2H_1|V_2|H_2+|V_1|H_1|2H_2\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$
$`+\left(|H_1|V_2|H_e|H_f+|V_1|H_2|H_e|H_f\right)\mathrm{cos}2\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta /\sqrt{2}`$
$`+\left(|H_1|V_2|H_2|H_e+|V_1|H_1|H_2|H_f\right)\mathrm{cos}2\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta /\sqrt{2}`$
$`+\left(|V_2|2H_e|H_f+|V_1|H_e|2H_f\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta `$
$`\left(|2H_1|V_2|H_f+|V_1|2H_2|H_e\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta `$
$`(|V_2|H_2|2H_e+|V_1|H_1|2H_f)\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta ).`$ (4)
This expression shows the generated four-photon state explicitly in terms of the input modes $`(1,2,e,f)`$. In order to perform a projection on the W-state a four-photon coincidence detection is needed. This can be done by splitting the branches $`1`$ and $`2`$ separately by the beam splitters $`BS_3`$ and $`BS_4`$.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_4={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{2\sqrt{2}}}[|H_1|H_3|H_2|V_4+|H_1|H_3|V_2|H_4`$
$`+|V_1|H_3|H_2|H_4+|H_1|V_3|H_2|H_4]+\mathrm{\Psi }_{other}.`$ (5)
Since we consider only those terms, which correspond to a 4-photon coincidence detection (one photon in each of the four beams), The other terms $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{other}`$ of this quantum state don’t contribute to the event which we are considering. Thus the state of the system is projected with probability $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^4\theta /2`$ into the W-state

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_5=\left(|H_1|H_3|H_2|V_4+|H_1|H_3|V_2|H_4\right)/2`$
$`+\left(|V_1|H_3|H_2|H_4+|H_1|V_3|H_2|H_4\right)/2.`$ (6)
The probability attains it‘s maximal value $`2/27`$, if the transmittance of the beam splitter is $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =1/\sqrt{3}`$.
If a polarizer with horizontal orientation is used in front of detector 1 the four-photon coincidence detection projects into the three-photon state

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_6=(|H_3|H_2|V_4+|H_3|V_2|H_4+|V_3|H_2|H_4)/\sqrt{3}.`$ (7)
Now we consider the experimental realization of the present scheme. Firstly we demonstrate that the requirement for two single-photon sources and one two-photon EPR-state source can be realized using technology presently. In the experiment, two separate polarization entangled photon state are generated via type-II down conversion pumped by a laser field. We will show that a modification of the scheme illustrated in can be used to prepare two single-photon sources and one two-photon EPR-state source. The output light of a pulsed laser with angular frequency $`\omega _0`$ is divided into two by a beam splitter. Transmitted and reflected parts of the light are frequency doubled in a nonlinear crystal. Transmitted pulses of the frequency $`2\omega _0`$ is used to pump a type-II phase-matched parametric down conversion crystal arranged to emit polarization entangled photon state into the two modes with different polarization shown in Ref. Reflected pulses of the frequency $`2\omega _0`$ is used to pump a type-I phase-matched parametric down conversion crystal arranged to produce down converted photon pairs in to into the two modes with same polarization shown in Ref, in which a two photon interference effect has been observed. Another requirement of the present scheme is four-photon coincidence detection. such multi photon coincidence have been realized and used for the preparation of multi-photon entangled state. Therefore, based on technology presently, the present scheme might be realizable.

In conclusion, a scheme is presented to produce entangled W-states of four photons based on linear optical devices and a four-photons coincidence detection. Further on we proposed a modification of this symmetric scheme by adding one horizontal oriented polarizer in front of detector $`D_1`$. Such multi-photon states may play a crucial role in fundamental tests of quantum mechanics versus local realism and in many quantum information and quantum computation schemes.

Figure Captions

Figure 1. The schematic of the W state of four photons. EPR denote entangled two photon state $`\frac{1}{2}(|H_1|V_2+|V_1|H_2)`$. $`PBS_i`$ are polarization beam splitters and $`BS_i`$ are beam splitters. $`D_i`$ are photon number detectors.