## BTZ Black Hole In The Non-Extensive Generalizations of Gibbs Entropy

Amijit Bhattacharjee 1 ∗ and Prabwal Phukon 1 2 , † 1 . Department of Physics, Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh, Assam,786004. 2 . Theoretical Physics Division, Centre for Atmospheric Studies, Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh, Assam,786004.

## ABSTRACT

We study the thermodynamics and thermodynamic geometry of the (2+1) dimensional Banados-Teitelboim-Zanelli(BTZ) black hole within the framework of the non-extensive generalizations of Gibbs entropy. We investigate both the rotating (R-BTZ) and the charged (C-BTZ) BTZ black holes in these non-extensive entropy formalisms. We write down the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy of the black hole in terms of the non-extensive entropies namely: Kaniadakis entropy, Renyi entropy and Barrow entropy. We investigate their impact on the thermodynamic phase structure and geometry of the BTZ black holes in both the ensembles i.e. the fixed ( J ) and fixed (Ω) ensemble for the R-BTZ black hole and the fixed ( Q ) and the fixed (Φ) ensemble for the C-BTZ black hole where J , Ω, Q and Φ represent the angular momentum, angular velocity, charge and the electric potential of the respective black holes. We investigate the Ruppeiner and geometrothermodynamic(GTD) geometries of the black hole for all the non-extensive entropy cases. We find that there are Davies type along with Hawking-Page phase transitions in both the charged and rotating BTZ black hole for the Kaniadakis entropy case in all the above mentioned thermodynamic ensembles. These phase transitions were not seen in the BH entropy case. We also find that the Ruppeiner and the GTD scalar for the Kaniadakis entropy show curvature singularities corresponding to the Davies type phase transitions in both the rotating and charged BTZ black holes.

## I. INTRODUCTION:

It is by now well known that black holes are thermodynamic objects characterized by a temperature (Hawking temperature) proportional to surface gravity at its horizon and entropy (Bekenstein-Hawking entropy) proportional to the horizon area [1, 2].

$$T = \frac { \kappa } { 2 \pi }, \quad \ S _ { B H } = \frac { A } { 4 } \, \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

These two quantities ( T and S BH ) constitute the basis of what is now known as black hole thermodynamics [3]. Over the years, black hole thermodynamics has evolved into an active area of research with a number of generalizations of its originial version [4-9] shedding light on the phase structures of black holes.

An important issue in the context of black hole thermodynamics that has recently come to focus is the modification of black hole entropy owing to different corrections. These corrections result in a number of non-extensive generalizations of Gibbs entropy. Some of these notable entropies are: Kaniadakis entropy, [10, 11], Renyi entropy [12] and Barrow entropy [13]. A brief introduction to these entropies will be provided in the next section. The impact of these entropies on the thermodynamic behaviour of a few black holes have been studied in a number of works [14-18]. Previously these entropy systems have been tested in cosmology [19-23] and quantum physics [24-28] with notable success.

Although we employ Kaniadakis, Renyi, and Barrow entropies individually for our convenience here, it is worth noting that generalized entropy constructs with different parameters have been introduced in [22, 23] that generalizes all the above mentioned entropies. These generalized entropy constructs are formulated such that they reduce to all the required entropy paradigms under appropriate limits. For example, the six-parameter entropy formulation proposed in [23] is given as:

$$S _ { G } ( \alpha _ { \pm }, \beta _ { \pm }, \gamma _ { \pm } ) = \frac { 1 } { \alpha _ { + } + \alpha _ { - } } \left [ \left ( 1 + \frac { \alpha _ { + } } { \beta _ { + } } S ^ { \gamma _ { + } } \right ) ^ { \beta _ { + } } - \left ( 1 + \frac { \alpha _ { - } } { \beta _ { - } } S ^ { \gamma _ { - } } \right ) ^ { - \beta _ { - } } \right ],$$

∗ rs amijitbhattacharjee @ dibru.ac.in

† prabwal@dibru.ac.in

where all parameters ( α ± , β ± , γ ± ) are positive. This expression reduces to the above mentioned entropy formulations under specific parameter limits, as has been outlined below:

- · Kaniadakis Entropy: By taking β ± → 0, γ ± = 1, and α ± = K , the generalized entropy simplifies to

$$S _ { G } \rightarrow \frac { 1 } { K } \sinh ( K S ),$$

which corresponds to the Kaniadakis entropy.

- · Renyi Entropy: From the Sharma-Mittal limit, if α + → 0, β + → 0, and α + /β + → α , with γ + = 1, we recover the Renyi entropy:

$$S _ { G } \to \frac { 1 } { \alpha } \ln ( 1 + \alpha S ).$$

- · Sharma-Mittal Entropy: Setting α -= 0 and γ + = 1, we obtain

$$S _ { G } = \frac { 1 } { \alpha _ { + } } \left [ \left ( 1 + \frac { \alpha _ { + } } { \beta _ { + } } S ^ { \gamma _ { + } } \right ) ^ { \beta _ { + } } - 1 \right ].$$

Choosing α + = R β , + = R/δ , and γ + = , the Sharma-Mittal entropy is reproduced. δ

- · Tsallis and Barrow Entropy: In the limit α + = α -→ 0 and γ + = γ -= γ , the generalized entropy reduces to S G → S γ . By further choosing γ = δ or γ = 1 + ∆ 2, we recover the Tsallis entropy and Barrow entropy, / respectively.
- · Loop Quantum Gravity Entropy: Setting α -= 0 and γ + = 1, the entropy becomes

$$S _ { G } = \frac { 1 } { \alpha _ { + } } \left [ e ^ { \beta _ { + } S } - 1 \right ].$$

In the limit β + →∞ and α + = 1 -q , this reduces to the Loop Quantum Gravity entropy

$$S _ { G } \approx \frac { 1 } { 1 - q } \left [ e ^ { ( 1 - q ) S } - 1 \right ],$$

which approaches the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy as q → 1.

The entropy S G defined above do satisfy the generalized third law of thermodynamics and is seen to vanish when S → 0. S G is found to be a monotonically increasing function of S , thus reducing to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy under suitable limits.

Although black hole thermodynamics in its different forms have largely been successful in providing deep insights about the thermodynamic properties of black holes, there are a number of important issues which are far from being completely understood. One such issue is the microscopic origin of Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy. In absence of a complete theory of quantum gravity, thermodynamic geometry studies of black holes have been used to extract qualitative ideas about microscopic interaction in black holes [29-31]. Thermodynamic geometry is a key concept in the study of black holes as they provide an understanding of the phase transitions in terms of the curvature singularities obtained through a particular thermodynamic metric. Three such metrics which have been used in black hole thermodynamics are Weinhold, Ruppeiner and geometrothermodynamic metric (GTD).

Weinhold [32] introduced a Riemannian metric in the equilibrium space which is defined as the second derivative of the internal energy with respect to other extensive variables. The Weinhold metric is defined as:

$$g _ { i j } ^ { W } = \partial _ { i } \partial _ { j } U ( S, X )$$

where the internal energy ' U S,X ( )' is a function of entropy S and other extensive variables X.

Ruppeiner [33] later introduced a Riemannian metric which is defined as the negative hessian of the entropy with respect to the other extensive variables. The Ruppeiner metric is a concept based on the thermodynamic fluctuation theory of equilibrium thermodynamics, where the thermodynamic length is related to the probability of fluctuation between two states of the thermodynamic system [34]. The two are inversely related as an increase in the probability

of fluctuation would mean a significant decrease in the thermodynamic length and vice-versa. The Ruppeiner metric is defined as:

$$g _ { i j } ^ { R } = - \partial _ { i } \partial _ { j } S ( U, X )$$

where the entropy ' S U,X ( )' is a function of internal energy U and other extensive variables X. The Riemannian scalar which is defined here as ' R rupp ' is a scalar invariant function in thermodynamic geometry. The sign of the scalar curvature has been linked to the nature of microscopic interactions in the thermodynamic system. For positive or negative scalar curvatures, the underlying interaction is either repulsive or attractive accordingly. Whereas the null curvature would mean an absence of interaction with a flat thermodynamic geometry. The Ruppeiner and the Weinhold metrics are conformally related to each other by the following relation [35, 36]:

$$g _ { i j } ^ { R } d U ^ { i } d U ^ { j } = \frac { 1 } { T } g _ { i j } ^ { W } d S ^ { i } d S ^ { j }$$

where T = ∂U ∂S is the Hawking temperature of the system with U i = ( U, X ) and S i = ( S, X ).

The Ruppeiner and Weinhold geometries have successfully predicted the occurrence of phase transitions in the case of ordinary thermodynamic systems. However there has been contradictory results for the case of black holes where for instance in Kerr-black hole [37] the Weinhold metric showed no phase transition whereas the Ruppeiner metric could show phase transitions only for a specific thermodynamic potential. However such problems were successfully addressed in the new geometric formalism of geometrothermodynamics(GTD)[38] where the properties of the phase space and the space of equilibrium states could be unified [39]. The GTD metric is a Legendre invariant metric and therefore would not depend on any specific choice of thermodynamic potential. The phase transitions obtained from the specific heat capacity of the black hole are properly contained in the scalar curvature of the GTD metric, such that a curvature singularity in the GTD scalar ' R GTD ' would imply the occurrence of a phase transition. The general form of the GTD metric is given by [40]:

$$g = \left ( E ^ { c } \frac { \partial \varphi } { \partial E ^ { c } } \right ) \left ( \eta _ { a b } \delta ^ { b c } \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } \varphi } { \partial E ^ { c } \partial E ^ { d } } d E ^ { a } d E ^ { d } \right )$$

where ' φ ' is the thermodynamic potential and ' E a ' is an extensive thermodynamic variable with a = 1 2 3 , , .... .

In this paper, we study the thermodynamics and thermodynamic geometry of the (2+1) dimensional BanadosTeitelboim-Zanelli(BTZ) black hole within the framework of the non-extensive generalizations of Gibbs entropy. We investigate both the rotating (R-BTZ) and the charged (C-BTZ) BTZ black holes in these non-extensive entropy formalisms. We write down the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy of the black hole in terms of the non-extensive entropies namely: Kaniadakis entropy, Renyi entropy and Barrow entropy. We investigate their impact on the thermodynamic phase structure and geometry of the BTZ black hole in both the ensembles i.e. the fixed ( J ) and fixed (Ω) ensemble for the R-BTZ black hole and the fixed ( Q ) and the fixed (Φ) ensemble for the C-BTZ black hole where J , Ω, Q and Φ represent the angular momentum, angular velocity, charge and the electric potential of the respective black holes. We investigate the Ruppeiner and geometrothermodynamic(GTD) geometries of the black hole for all the non-extensive entropy cases.

In this study, we adopt the energy definition of General Relativity, the first law of thermodynamics and the conventional definition of thermodynamic temperature as fundamental. However we accept the alternative viewpoint that has been adopted in [24, 25] based on the assumption that the Hawking temperature must be kept unaffected. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that non-extensive entropy paradigms can lead to wrong expressions for the Hawking temperature or black hole energy that differ from the standard ones. While we acknowledge these critiques, we argue that any modification to these quantities such as the Hawking temperature under these non-extensive entropy formalisms, should be interpreted as a shift in the effective thermodynamic description rather than a fundamental change to the Hawking temperature itself. These effective temperatures reflect the corrections introduced by non-extensive statistical mechanics and are not meant to replace the fundamental Hawking temperature. The effective temperatures characterize the modified thermodynamic equilibrium within each of the non-extensive paradigms and provide insights into how such generalizations affect black hole systems. These differences highlight the speculative yet potentially valuable role of non-extensive frameworks in exploring new physical scenarios and enriching our understanding of black hole thermodynamics. We stress upon the fact that the exploration of different non-extensive entropies is motivated by their success in describing physical systems beyond black holes [41-46]. The study of their implications for black hole thermodynamics provides us with an opportunity to test the limits of our current understanding and to further explore potential extensions of the standard approach.

The paper is structured as follows: In section II we review some known facts about the non-extensive generalisations of Gibbs entropy. The section III is about the rotating BTZ black hole and its thermodynamic investigation within the framework of non-extensive entropies in two different ensembles. In section IV we examine the thermodynamic geometry of the black hole system both in Ruppeiner and in the GTD formalisms. The section V is about the thermodynamic investigation of charged BTZ black hole within the framework of non-extensive entropies in two different ensembles. In section VI we examine the thermodynamic geometry of the black hole in both the Ruppeiner and the GTD formalisms. The final section contains our conclusions.

## II. NON-EXTENSIVE GENERALIZATIONS OF GIBBS ENTROPY

The entropy of a black hole scales with its area rather than its volume and is therefore regarded as a non-extensive quantity. Due to its non-extensive nature, the black hole entropy is also non-additive and follows a non-additive composition rule. But in the case of Gibbs thermodynamics the entropy is defined to be both extensive and additive as it scales with the size of the system. However, the assumption of extensivity of Gibbs entropy is due to ignoring the long range forces that are prevalent between the thermodynamic sub-systems. Gibbs thermodynamics ignores these forces because the size of the system exceeds the interaction range between the thermodynamic sub-systems. The total entropy thus becomes equal to the sum of the entropies of its components. It therefore grows with the size of the thermodynamic system.

But these long range forces are important in various thermodynamic systems such as black holes. We can therefore infer that Gibbs thermodynamics may not be a suitable choice for studying black hole thermodynamics. Therefore in order to understand the non-extensive nature of black hole entropy, several non-extensive generalizations of Gibbs entropy have been prescribed. We give a brief outline of a few of those entropies below which we will use later in order to study the thermodynamics and thermodynamic geometry of both the rotating and charged BTZ black holes respectively:

## A. Kaniadakis entropy

Kaniadakis entropy[10, 11, 14, 47-50] is a relativistic non-extensive generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy. It was proposed by Kaniadakis so as to accomodate special relativity with non-extensive statistical mechanics. Kaniadakis entropy is premised upon the fact that physical observables such as momentum and energy when generalised under special relativity are viewed as a one-parameter deformation of the corresponding non-relativistic formula i.e P ′ = P √ 1 -x 2 where, P ′ is the relativistic momentum and x = v c is the deformation parameter. It is therefore quite obvious that the entropy of a relativistic system could also be seen as a one parameter deformation of the classical non-relativistic entropy. In order to achieve a relativistic formula for Boltzmann Gibbs entropy, Kaniadakis proposed a deformed logarithmic function in the entropy formula which in turn deforms the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution function. These deformed functions are given as:

$$\ln _ { K } ( x ) = \frac { x ^ { K } - x ^ { - K } } { 2 K }$$

$$e x p _ { K } ( x ) = \left ( \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } x ^ { 2 } } + K x \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { K } }$$

where x is a variable and K is the deformation parameter called the Kaniadakis parameter and both the above mentioned deformed functions reduce to their original form as the deformed parameter, K approaches appropriate limit i.e. K → 0. The Kaniadakis entropy is then defined as:

$$S _ { K } = - \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { n } P _ { i } \ln _ { K } ( P _ { i } )$$

where,

$$\ln _ { K } ( P _ { i } ) = \frac { P _ { i } ^ { K } - P _ { i } ^ { - K } } { 2 K }$$

In the limit K → 0, the Kaniadakis entropy reduces to the Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy. Considering the equiprobability of microstates inside the black hole we can reduce the Kaniadakis entropy to:

$$S _ { K } = - \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { n } \frac { 1 } { n } \ln _ { K } \left ( \frac { 1 } { n } \right )$$

$$\zeta = - \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { n } \frac { 1 } { n } \ln _ { K } \left ( \frac { 1 } { n } \right ) \\ S _ { K } = \ln _ { K } ( n ) \\ \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad.$$

where ' n ' is the number of microstates of the thermodynamic system and 'K' is the kaniadakis parameter. On further simplification we obtain:

$$S _ { K } = \frac { n ^ { K } - n ^ { - K } } { 2 K }$$

$$S _ { K } = \frac { S i n h [ K \ln ( n ) ] } { K }$$

Considering that the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy is obtained by counting the number of microstates inside the black hole as was showed by Strominger and Vafa in their seminal work [51], we write the Bekenstein -Hawking entropy, S BH = ln( n ) such that the above equation reduces to:

$$S _ { K } = \frac { S i n h [ K S _ { B H } ] } { K }$$

where, for the limit K → 0, S K → S BH

## B. Renyi entropy

The Renyi entropy[52-58] is a non-extensive generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy where unlike the case where all the probabilities are treated uniformly, Renyi entropy allows for a parameter adjustment to the sensitivities of different probabilities in the system. This becomes very useful in situation where either rare or high probable events demand separate emphasis. The Renyi entropy is a measure of the quantum entanglement of a system. A phenomena where the quantum states of two or more particles could become correlated. It is defined as:

$$S _ { R } = \frac { 1 } { 1 - q } \left ( \ln \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { n } P ^ { q } ( i ) \right )$$

where 'P(i)' is the probability distribution and 'q' is the non-extensive Tsallis parameter. We here assume that the black hole entropy is just the Tsallis entropy [59-61] which is a one parameter generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy so as to include both extensive and non-extensive statistical systems. The Tsallis entropy is given by :

$$S _ { T } = S _ { B H } = \frac { 1 } { 1 - q } \left ( \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { n } P ^ { q } ( i ) - 1 \right )$$

where for q → 1, S T reduces to the usual Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy. The parameter q is responsible for the degree of non-extensivity of the entropy:

- · For q = 1: Tsallis entropy reduces to the extensive Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy which is appropriate for the system that comprises of weak correlations and short-range interactions.
- · For q &lt; 1: The entropy is sub-extensive and is useful in describing systems where the probability for the occurrence of rare states is higher than the occurence of frequent states.
- · For q &gt; 1: The entropy shows super-extensive behaviour where frequent states do contribute more to the entropy.

By performing necessary subsitutions, the Renyi entropy could be defined as follows:

$$S _ { R } = \frac { \ln \left [ ( 1 - q ) S _ { B H } + 1 \right ] } { 1 - q }$$

and after putting 1 -q = λ we get the Renyi entropy in terms of Bekenstein-Hawking entropy as:

$$S _ { R } = \frac { \ln [ 1 + \lambda S _ { B H } ] } { \lambda }$$

where ' λ ' is the Renyi parameter and for the limit λ → 0, S R → S BH

$$( 1 1 )$$

## C. Barrow entropy

The Barrow entropy[13, 62, 63], as introduced by John Barrow is proposed to measure the entropy of a black hole system whose smooth horizon has been replaced by the rough fractal structures. Unlike the above two entropy formalisms, Barrow entropy does not have a statistical root. It is a modification introduced in the context of quantum gravity and the fractal structure of space-time. It is formulated by considering quantum-gravitational effects that modify the surface of the black hole's event horizon by considering the structure of the horizon to be fractal-like. John Barrow's approach to entropy suggests that the horizon area might have a fractal dimension which alters the traditional Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula. This modification puts forth a parameter that can quantify the degree of deviation from the standard horizon geometry due to quantum corrections while capturing the complexity of space-time at smaller scales. The Barrow entropy is formulated as:

$$S _ { \Delta } = ( S _ { B H } ) ^ { 1 + \Delta / 2 }$$

where, '∆' is the Barrow parameter that is linked to the fractal structure of the system with range 0 &lt; ∆ ≤ 2. where ∆ → 2 would yield maximal fractal structure. And for the limit ∆ → 0, S ∆ → S BH

## III. THERMODYNAMICS OF THE ROTATING BTZ BLACK HOLE

The action which facilitates the field equations[64-69] from which the (2 + 1) dimensional rotating BTZ black hole solutions are obtained is given as:

$$I = \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d ^ { 3 } x \sqrt { - g } \left ( R - 2 \Lambda \right )$$

where, the AdS length l is related to the cosmological constant Λ by the relation: Λ = -1 l 2 and the Einstein's field equations are given by:

$$G _ { \mu \nu } - \Lambda g _ { \mu \nu } = 0$$

The line element that corresponds to the given solution is:

$$d s ^ { 2 } = - f ( r ) d t ^ { 2 } + \frac { d r ^ { 2 } } { f ( r ) } + r ^ { 2 } \left ( d \phi - \frac { J } { 2 r ^ { 2 } } d t \right ) ^ { 2 }$$

where f ( r ) = -M + r 2 l 2 + J 2 4 r 2 and 'M' and 'J' are the mass and angular momentum carried by the black hole. Solving the function for f ( r ) = 0 would give us the roots which determine the horizon radius. For an exterior horizon radius, ' r + ' the black hole mass is given by:

$$M = \frac { r _ { + } ^ { 2 } } { l ^ { 2 } } + \frac { J ^ { 2 } } { 4 r _ { + } ^ { 2 } }$$

and the black hole entropy is given by:

$$S _ { B H } = 4 \pi r _ { + }$$

## III.1. The Kaniadakis entropy case

The Kaniadakis entropy, S K in terms of the black hole entropy, S BH is given by (10) as:

$$S _ { K } = \frac { S i n h ( K S _ { B H } ) } { K }$$

where 'K' is the Kaniadakis parameter and for K → 0, S K → S BH . Starting with the above equation we get the modified horizon radius for the CR-BTZ black hole as:

$$S _ { K } = \frac { S i n h ( 4 \pi K r _ { + } ) } { K }$$

$$r _ { + } = \frac { A r c S i n h ( K S _ { K } ) } { 4 \pi K }$$

## Fixed ( J ) ensemble :

We replace the horizon radius in (13) by the one obtained in (14) to get the modified mass M K for the R-BTZ black hole which is given by :

$$M _ { K } = \frac { 4 \pi ^ { 2 } K ^ { 2 } J ^ { 2 } } { A r c S i n h ^ { 2 } [ K S _ { K } ] } + \frac { A r c S i n h ^ { 2 } [ K S _ { K } ] } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } l ^ { 2 } K ^ { 2 } }$$

The function, ArcSinh KS [ K ] can be replaced by its logarithmic form, ln [ KS K + √ 1 + K S 2 2 K ] and therefore the expression for mass becomes:

$$M _ { K } = \frac { 4 \pi ^ { 2 } K ^ { 2 } J ^ { 2 } } { \ln [ K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ] ^ { 2 } } + \frac { \ln [ K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ] ^ { 2 } } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } l ^ { 2 } K ^ { 2 } }$$

The heat capacity for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( J ) ensemble can be obtained as:

$$C _ { K } = \frac { \frac { \partial M _ { K } } { \partial S _ { K } } } { \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { K } } { \partial S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } } = - \frac { A } { B }$$

where,

$$A = \left ( \ln \left ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) \left ( 6 4 J ^ { 2 } K ^ { 4 } \pi ^ { 4 } - \ln \left ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) ^ { 4 } \left ( 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } \right ) \right ) \right ) \quad \ \ ( 1 7 )$$

and

$$B = K & \Big ( 6 4 S _ { K } J ^ { 2 } K ^ { 5 } \pi ^ { 4 } \ln \Big ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \Big ) - K S _ { K } \ln \Big ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \Big ) ^ { 5 } + 1 9 2 J ^ { 2 } K ^ { 4 } \pi ^ { 4 } \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \\ & \quad + \ln \Big ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \Big ) ^ { 4 } \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \Big )$$

In Fig.1 the heat capacity, C K is plotted against the Kaniadakis entropy, S K for l = 1 and J = 1 in the fixed ( J ) ensemble. Here the solid blue curve represents the heat capacity for the Kaniadakis parameter, K = 0 012 whereas the . black dashed line represents the heat capacity for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case ( K = 0). We find that for K = 0 012, the heat capacity has a divergence at . S K = 125 77 which indicates the presence of a Davies type phase . transition present in the Kaniadakis modified black hole whereas the heat capacity for the BH entropy case shows no such behaviour.

The Gibbs free energy for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( J ) ensemble can be obtained as:

$$G _ { K } = M _ { K } - T _ { K } S _ { K }$$

$$G _ { K } = \frac { \mathcal { A } } { 1 6 K ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 2 } \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \ln \left ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) ^ { 3 } }$$

FIG. 1: The heat capacity versus Kaniadakis entropy plot in the fixed ( J ) ensemble for l = 1 and J = 1

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-4c208453-a5cb-4c8f-939d-b0cda0ecf36f.jpg)

where,

$$\mathcal { A } & = 1 2 8 J ^ { 2 } K ^ { 5 } \pi ^ { 4 } S _ { K } + 6 4 J ^ { 2 } K ^ { 4 } \pi ^ { 4 } \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \ln \left ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) - 2 K S _ { K } \ln \left ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) ^ { 5 } \\ & \quad + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \ln \left ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) ^ { 5 }.$$

In Fig.2a and Fig.2b the Gibbs free energy, G K is plotted against the Kaniadakis entropy, S K for l = 1 and J = 1 in the fixed ( J ) ensemble. We draw two different plots so as to make the presence of the phase transitions more transparent. Here the solid blue curve represents the Gibbs free energy for the Kaniadakis parameter, K = 0 012 whereas the black . dashed line represents the free energy for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case ( K = 0). The free energy for the K = 0 case has been scaled down by multiplying it with 1 10 whereas the free energy for the K = 0 012 case is . kept the same, this difference in scaling is just so that the distinct behaviour of both the curves could be seen more clearly. We keep in mind that the scaling does not affect the position or occurrence of the phase transitions. We find that in Fig.2a the Gibbs free energy goes to zero for both the entropy cases, where for K = 0, the zero point is at S K = 11 69 and for . K = 0 012, the zero point is found to be at . S K = 11 75, these zero points refer to the presence of . a Hawking-Page phase transition present in the rotating BTZ black hole for both the Bekenstein-Hawking as well as the Kaniadakis entropy cases. We again find that for K = 0 012, the Gibbs free energy in Fig.2b has a zero point at . S K = 276 64 only for the Kaniadakis entropy case which indicates the presence of a Hawking-Page phase transition . present in the Kaniadakis modified black hole whereas the Gibbs free energy for the BH entropy case shows no such behaviour. In Fig.2c we plot the inverse of specific heat capacity (purple) and the Gibbs free energy (orange) against the Kaniadakis entropy. The inverse of specific heat capacity has been scaled up by multiplying it with 3000 whereas the free energy is kept the same, this difference in scaling is just so that the distinct behaviour of both the curves could be seen more clearly. We keep in mind that the scaling does not affect the position or occurrence of the phase transitions. The points where these curves intersect the horizontal axis would represent the Davies-type (Purple) and Hawking-Page (Orange) phase transition respectively which are seen to be quite distant from each other.

## Fixed (Ω) ensemble :

The modified mass for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed (Ω) ensemble is given by:

$$M _ { K } ^ { \prime } = M _ { K } - J \frac { \partial M _ { K } } { \partial J }$$

where ∂M K ∂J = Ω is the angular velocity of the black hole with respect to the angular momentum J. By writing the term M ′ K as M K for convenience we get:

$$M _ { K } = \frac { ( 1 - \Omega ^ { 2 } ) \ln \left ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) ^ { 2 } } { 1 6 K ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 2 } }$$

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-0f7c45cb-db93-4a3c-a01c-6cfe67a1b804.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-40de452a-c0e2-4cee-a791-63dbd29d5e42.jpg)

G K

(a) Gibbs free energy versus Kaniadakis entropy (11 &lt; S K &lt; 14).

(b) Gibbs free energy versus Kaniadakis entropy ( S K &gt; 14).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-e67e7252-fe07-4350-988c-9db86cf19721.jpg)

(c) Inverse specific heat and Gibbs free energy versus Kaniadakis entropy.

FIG. 2: The Gibbs free energy curves for Kaniadakis entropy in the fixed ( J ) ensemble for l = 1 and J = 1.

The heat capacity for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed (Ω) ensemble can be obtained as:

$$C _ { K } = \frac { \frac { \partial M _ { K } } { \partial S _ { K } } } { \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { K } } { \partial S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } } = \frac { \left ( 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } \right ) \ln \left ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) } { K \left ( \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } - K S _ { K } \ln \left ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) \right ) }$$

The heat capacity of the rotating BTZ black hole is independent of Ω as can be seen from the above expression and therefore the presence or absence of Davies type phase transitions in fixed (Ω) ensemble is independent of Ω. In Fig.3 the heat capacity, C K is plotted against the Kaniadakis entropy, S K for l = 1 in the fixed (Ω) ensemble. Here the solid blue curve represents the heat capacity for the Kaniadakis parameter, K = 0 012 whereas the black dashed line . represents the heat capacity for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case ( K = 0). We find that for K = 0 012, the . heat capacity has a divergence at S K = 125 74 which indicates the presence of a Davies type phase transition present . in the Kaniadakis modified black hole whereas the heat capacity for the BH entropy case shows no such behaviour.

The Gibbs free energy for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed (Ω) ensemble can be obtained as:

$$G _ { K } = M _ { K } - T _ { K } S _ { K }$$

$$G _ { K } = \frac { ( 1 - \Omega ^ { 2 } ) \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) \left ( - 2 K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) \right ) } { 1 6 K ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 2 } \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } } \quad \ \ ( 2 2 )$$

In Fig.4a the Gibbs free energy, G K is plotted against the Kaniadakis entropy, S K for l = 1 and Ω = 0 2 in the fixed (Ω) . ensemble. Here the solid blue curve represents the Gibbs free energy for the Kaniadakis parameter, K = 0 012 whereas .

FIG. 3: The heat capacity versus Kaniadakis entropy plot in the fixed (Ω) ensemble for l = 1 and Ω = 0 2 .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-1cfbd2dd-c043-409c-8819-8d60ce978e86.jpg)

the black dashed line represents the free energy for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case ( K = 0). The free energy for the K = 0 case has been scaled down by multiplying it with 1 10 whereas the free energy for the K = 0 012 . case is kept the same, this difference in scaling is just so that the distinct behaviour of both the curves could be seen more clearly. We keep in mind that the scaling does not affect the position or occurrence of the phase transition. We find that for K = 0 012, the Gibbs free energy has a zero point at . S K = 276 65 which indicates the presence of a . Hawking-Page phase transition present in the Kaniadakis modified black hole whereas the Gibbs free energy for the BH entropy case shows no such behaviour. In Fig.4b we plot the inverse of specific heat capacity (purple) and the Gibbs free energy (orange) against the Kaniadakis entropy. The inverse of specific heat capacity has been scaled up by multiplying it with 3000 whereas the free energy is kept the same, this difference in scaling is just so that the distinct behaviour of both the curves could be seen more clearly. We keep in mind that the scaling does not affect the position or occurrence of the phase transitions. The points where these curves intersect the horizontal axis would represent the Davies-type (Purple) and Hawking-Page (Orange) phase transition respectively which are seen to be quite distant from each other.

FIG. 4: The Gibbs free energy curves for Kaniadakis entropy in the fixed (Ω) ensemble for l = 1 and Ω = 0 2. .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-36133d60-b723-4f87-aa17-d0375a82a869.jpg)

## III.2. The Renyi entropy case

The Renyi entropy, S R in terms of the black hole entropy, S BH is given by (11) as:

$$S _ { R } = \frac { \ln [ 1 + \lambda S _ { B H } ] } { \lambda }$$

where ' λ ' is the Renyi parameter and for the limit λ → 0, S R → S BH . Starting with the above equation we get the modified horizon radius for the R-BTZ black hole as:

$$S _ { R } = \frac { \ln ( 1 + 4 \pi \lambda r _ { + } ) } { \lambda }$$

$$r _ { + } = \frac { ( e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } - 1 ) } { 4 \pi \lambda }$$

## Fixed ( J ) ensemble :

We replace the horizon radius in (13) by the one obtained in (23) to get the modified mass M R for the R-BTZ black hole which is given by :

$$M _ { R } = \frac { 4 \pi ^ { 2 } \lambda ^ { 2 } J ^ { 2 } } { \left ( e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } - 1 \right ) ^ { 2 } } + \frac { \left ( e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } - 1 \right ) ^ { 2 } } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } \lambda ^ { 2 } l ^ { 2 } }$$

The heat capacity for the Renyi entropy case in the fixed ( J ) ensemble can be calculated as:

$$C _ { R } = \frac { \frac { \partial M _ { R } } { \partial S _ { R } } } { \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { R } } { \partial S _ { R } ^ { 2 } } } = \frac { A } { B }$$

where, and

$$B = \lambda \left ( \, - 1 + 6 e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } - 1 4 e ^ { 2 \lambda S _ { R } } + 1 6 e ^ { 3 \lambda S _ { R } } - 9 e ^ { 4 \lambda S _ { R } } + 2 e ^ { 5 \lambda S _ { R } } + 6 4 J ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 4 } \lambda ^ { 4 } + 1 2 8 J ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 4 } \lambda ^ { 4 } e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } \right ) \, \quad ( 2 6 )$$

We see from Fig.5a that the heat capacity, C R for the rotating BTZ black hole is plotted against the Renyi entropy, S R in the fixed ( J ) ensemble. Here the solid green curve represents the heat capacity for the Renyi parameter, λ = 0 012 . whereas the black dashed line represents the heat capacity for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case ( λ = 0). For the parameter l = 1 and J = 1 we find that there are no divergences in the heat capacity curve for both the Renyi and Bekenstein-Hawking (BH) entropy cases.

The Gibbs free energy for the Renyi entropy case in the fixed ( J ) ensemble can be obtained as:

$$G _ { R } = M _ { R } - T _ { R } S _ { R }$$

$$G _ { R } = \frac { \left ( - 1 + e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } \right ) \left ( 6 4 J ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 4 } \lambda ^ { 4 } + \left ( - 1 + e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } \right ) ^ { 4 } \right ) - 2 \lambda S _ { R } e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } \left ( 1 - 4 e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } + 6 e ^ { 2 \lambda S _ { R } } - 4 e ^ { 3 \lambda S _ { R } } + e ^ { 4 \lambda S _ { R } } - 6 4 J ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 4 } \lambda ^ { 4 } \right ) } { 1 6 \left ( - 1 + e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } \right ) ^ { 3 } \pi ^ { 2 } \lambda ^ { 2 } } }$$

In Fig.6a the Gibbs free energy, G R is plotted against the Renyi entropy, S R for l = 1 and J = 1 in the fixed ( J ) ensemble. Here the solid green curve represents the Gibbs free energy for the Renyi parameter, λ = 0 012 whereas the . black dashed line represents the free energy for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case ( λ = 0). The free energy for the λ = 0 case has been scaled down by multiplying it with 1 10 whereas the free energy for the λ = 0 012 case is kept . the same, this difference in scaling is just so that the distinct behaviour of both the curves could be seen more clearly. We find that in Fig.6a the Gibbs free energy goes to zero for both the entropy cases, where for λ = 0, the zero point is at S R = 11 69 and for . λ = 0 012, the zero point is found to be at . S R = 10 74, these zero points refer to the presence of . a Hawking-Page phase transition present in the rotating BTZ black hole for both the Bekenstein-Hawking as well as

$$A = ( - 1 + e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } ) \left ( 1 - 4 e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } + 6 e ^ { 2 \lambda S _ { R } } - 4 e ^ { 3 \lambda S _ { R } } + e ^ { 4 \lambda S _ { R } } - 6 4 J ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 4 } \lambda ^ { 4 } \right )$$

the Renyi entropy cases.

## Fixed (Ω) ensemble :

The modified mass for the Renyi entropy case in the fixed (Ω) ensemble is given by:

$$M _ { R } ^ { \prime } = M _ { R } - J \frac { \partial M _ { R } } { \partial J }$$

$$M _ { R } ^ { \prime } = M _ { R } - J \Omega$$

where ∂M R ∂J = Ω is the angular velocity of the black hole with respect to the angular momentum J. By making the necessary replacements and putting l = 1, we get the final equation as follows:

$$M _ { R } = \frac { \left ( 1 - \Omega ^ { 2 } \right ) \left ( e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } - 1 \right ) ^ { 2 } } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } \lambda ^ { 2 } }$$

$$\frac { \Omega ^ { 2 } ) \left ( e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } - 1 \right ) ^ { 2 } } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } \lambda ^ { 2 } }$$

We have here used the term M R instead of M ′ R for convenience. Here M R is the modified mass for the fixed (Ω) ensemble. The heat capacity for the Renyi entropy case in the fixed (Ω) ensemble can be calculated as:

$$C _ { R } = \frac { \frac { \partial M _ { R } } { \partial S _ { R } } } { \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { R } } { \partial S _ { R } ^ { 2 } } } = \frac { e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } - 1 } { \lambda \left ( 2 e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } - 1 \right ) }$$

The heat capacity of the rotating BTZ black hole is independent of Ω as can be seen from the above expression and therefore the presence or absence of Davies type phase transitions is independent of Ω. We see from Fig.5b that the heat capacity, C R for the rotating BTZ black hole is plotted against the Renyi entropy, S R in the fixed (Ω) ensemble. Here the solid green curve represents the heat capacity for the Renyi parameter, λ = 0 012 whereas the . black dashed line represents the heat capacity for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case ( λ = 0). We see that for l = 1 there are no divergences in the heat capacity curve for both the Renyi and Bekenstein-Hawking (BH) entropy cases.

The Gibbs free energy for the Renyi entropy case in the fixed (Ω) ensemble can be obtained as:

$$G _ { R } = M _ { R } - T _ { R } S _ { R }$$

$$G _ { R } = \frac { \left ( - 1 + e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } \right ) \left ( 1 + e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } \left ( - 1 + 2 \lambda S _ { R } \right ) \right ) \left ( - 1 + \Omega ^ { 2 } \right ) } { 1 6 \lambda ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 2 } }$$

In Fig.6b the Gibbs free energy, G R is plotted against the Renyi entropy, S R for l = 1 and Ω = 0 2 in the fixed (Ω) . ensemble. Here the solid green curve represents the Gibbs free energy for the Renyi parameter, λ = 0 012 whereas the . black dashed line represents the free energy for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case ( λ = 0). The free energy for the λ = 0 case has been scaled down by multiplying it with 1 10 whereas the free energy for the λ = 0 012 case is kept . the same, this difference in scaling is just so that the distinct behaviour of both the curves could be seen more clearly. We find that unlike the Kaniadakis entropy there is no Hawking-Page phase transition present in the Renyi entropy case for the fixed (Ω) ensemble.

## III.3. The Barrow entropy case

The Barrow entropy, S ∆ in terms of the black hole entropy, S BH is given by (12) as:

$$S _ { \Delta } = ( S _ { B H } ) ^ { 1 + \Delta / 2 }$$

where, '∆' is the parameter that is linked to the fractal structure of the system and for the limit ∆ → 0, S ∆ → S BH . Starting with the above equation we get the modified horizon radius for the R-BTZ black hole as:

$$S _ { \Delta } = ( 4 \pi r _ { + } ) ^ { 1 + \Delta / 2 }$$

(a) Heat capacity in the fixed ( J ) ensemble for (b) Heat capacity in the fixed (Ω) ensemble for l = 1 and J = 1 l = 1 and Ω = 0 2 .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-858fe20d-27f6-4acf-9a09-88ebec33f83f.jpg)

FIG. 5: The heat capacity versus Renyi entropy plots in the fixed ( J ) and fixed (Ω) ensembles.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-fa75dc71-3b4d-4deb-adc5-c34d976ff808.jpg)

(a) Free energy in the fixed (

J

) ensemble for

(b) Free energy in the fixed (Ω) ensemble for

l

= 1

l

= 1 and

J

= 1

and Ω = 0 2.

.

FIG. 6: The Gibbs free energy versus Renyi entropy plots in the fixed ( J ) and fixed (Ω) ensembles.

$$r _ { + } = \frac { S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 2 } { 2 + \Delta } } } { 4 \pi }$$

## Fixed ( J ) ensemble :

We replace the horizon radius in (13) by the one obtained in (30) to get the modified mass M ∆ for the R-BTZ black hole which is given by :

$$M _ { \Delta } = 4 J ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 2 } S _ { \Delta } ^ { - \left ( \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } \right ) } + \left ( \frac { S _ { \Delta } ^ { \left ( \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } \right ) } } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } } \right )$$

The heat capacity for the Barrow entropy case in the fixed ( J ) ensemble can be calculated as:

$$C _ { \Delta } = \frac { \frac { \partial M _ { \Delta } } { \partial S _ { \Delta } } } { \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { \Delta } } { \partial S _ { \Delta } ^ { 2 } } } = - \frac { S _ { \Delta } \left ( - 6 4 J ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 4 } + S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 8 } { 2 + \Delta } } \right ) ( 2 + \Delta ) } { - 3 8 4 J ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 4 } - 2 S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 8 } { 2 + \Delta } } - 6 4 J ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 4 } \Delta + S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 8 } { 2 + \Delta } } \Delta }$$

We see from Fig.7a that the heat capacity, C ∆ for the rotating BTZ black hole is plotted against the Barrow entropy, S ∆ in the fixed ( J ) ensemble. Here the solid red curve represents the heat capacity for the Barrow parameter, ∆ = 0 012 whereas the black dashed line represents the heat capacity for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case . (∆ = 0). For the parameter l = 1 and J = 1 we find that there are no divergences in the heat capacity curve for both the Barrow and Bekenstein-Hawking (BH) entropy cases.

The Gibbs free energy for the Renyi entropy case in the fixed ( J ) ensemble can be obtained as:

$$G _ { \Delta } = M _ { \Delta } - T _ { \Delta } S _ { \Delta }$$

$$G _ { \Delta } = \frac { S _ { \Delta } ^ { - \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } } \left ( S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 8 } { 2 + \Delta } } ( - 2 + \Delta ) + 6 4 J ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 4 } ( 6 + \Delta ) \right ) } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } ( 2 + \Delta ) }$$

In Fig.8a the Gibbs free energy, G ∆ is plotted against the Barrow entropy, S ∆ for l = 1 and J = 1 in the fixed ( J ) ensemble. Here the solid red curve represents the Gibbs free energy for the Barrow parameter, ∆ = 0 012 whereas the . black dashed line represents the free energy for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case (∆ = 0). The free energy for the ∆ = 0 case has been scaled down by multiplying it with 1 10 whereas the free energy for the ∆ = 0 012 case is . kept the same, this difference in scaling is just so that the distinct behaviour of both the curves could be seen more clearly.We find that in Fig.8a the Gibbs free energy goes to zero for both the entropy cases, where for ∆ = 0, the zero point is at S R = 11 69 and for ∆ = 0 012, the zero point is found to be at . . S R = 11 89, these zero points refer to the . presence of a Hawking-Page phase transition present in the rotating BTZ black hole for both the Bekenstein-Hawking as well as the Barrow entropy cases.

## Fixed (Ω) ensemble :

The modified mass for the Barrow entropy case in the fixed (Ω) ensemble is given by:

$$M _ { \Delta } ^ { \prime } = M _ { \Delta } - J \frac { \partial M _ { \Delta } } { \partial J }$$

$$M _ { \Delta } ^ { \prime } = M _ { \Delta } - J \frac { \mu } { \partial J } \\ M _ { \Delta } ^ { \prime } = M _ { \Delta } - J \Omega$$

where ∂M ∆ ∂j = Ω is the angular velocity of the black hole with respect to the angular momentum, J. By making the necessary replacements and putting l = 1, we get the final equation as follows:

$$M _ { \Delta } = \frac { S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } } ( 1 - \Omega ^ { 2 } ) } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } }$$

We have here used the term M ∆ instead of M ′ ∆ for convenience. Here M ∆ is the modified mass for the fixed (Ω) ensemble. The heat capacity for the Barrow entropy case in the fixed (Ω) ensemble can be calculated as:

$$C _ { \Delta } = \frac { \frac { \partial M _ { \Delta } } { \partial S _ { \Delta } } } { \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { \Delta } } { \partial S _ { \Delta } ^ { 2 } } } = \frac { ( 2 + \Delta ) S _ { \Delta } } { ( 2 - \Delta ) }$$

The heat capacity of the rotating BTZ black hole is independent of Ω as can be seen from the above expression and therefore the presence or absence of Davies type phase transitions is independent of Ω. We see from Fig.7b that the heat capacity, C ∆ for the rotating BTZ black hole is plotted against the Barrow entropy, S ∆ in the fixed (Ω) ensemble. Here the solid red curve represents the heat capacity for the Barrow parameter, ∆ = 0 012 whereas the black dashed . line represents the free energy for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case (∆ = 0). We see that for l = 1 there are no divergences in the heat capacity curve for both the Barrow and Bekenstein-Hawking (BH) entropy cases.

The Gibbs free energy for the Barrow entropy case in the fixed (Ω) ensemble can be obtained as:

$$G _ { \Delta } = M _ { \Delta } - T _ { \Delta } S _ { \Delta }$$

$$G _ { \Delta } = \frac { S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } } ( 2 - \Delta ) ( - 1 + \Omega ^ { 2 } ) } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } ( 2 + \Delta ) }$$

In Fig.8b the Gibbs free energy, G ∆ is plotted against the Barrow entropy, S ∆ for l = 1 and Ω = 0 2 in the fixed (Ω) . ensemble. Here the solid red curve represents the Gibbs free energy for the Renyi parameter, ∆ = 0 012 whereas the . black dashed line represents the free energy for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case (∆ = 0). Here the solid red curve represents the Gibbs free energy for the Barrow parameter, ∆ = 0 012 whereas the black dashed line represents . the free energy for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case (∆ = 0). The free energy for the ∆ = 0 case has been scaled down by multiplying it with 1 10 whereas the free energy for the ∆ = 0 012 case is kept the same, this difference in . scaling is just so that the distinct behaviour of both the curves could be seen more clearly. We find that unlike the Kaniadakis entropy there is no Hawking-Page phase transition present in the Barrow entropy case for the fixed (Ω) ensemble.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-95718e43-7953-4c6c-9008-a1699a530fb8.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-05e4ca82-7c21-48cd-b6b0-f433cec2e761.jpg)

(a) Heat capacity in the fixed (

J

) ensemble for

l

= 1 and

J

= 1

(b) Heat capacity in the fixed (Ω) ensemble for l = 1 and Ω = 0 2 .

FIG. 7: The heat capacity versus Barrow entropy plots in the fixed ( J ) and fixed (Ω) ensembles.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-9a96f626-bbdc-4388-9f4d-a56dc8533ba1.jpg)

(a) Free energy in the fixed (

J

) ensemble for

(b) Free energy in the fixed (Ω) ensemble for

l

= 1

l

= 1 and

J

= 1

and Ω = 0 2.

.

FIG. 8: The Gibbs free energy versus Barrow entropy plots in the fixed ( J ) and fixed (Ω) ensembles.

## IV. THERMODYNAMIC GEOMETRY OF THE R-BTZ BLACK HOLE

We discuss the thermodynamic geometry of the rotating BTZ black hole for both the Ruppeiner and geometrothermodynamic (GTD) formalisms. The Ruppeiner metric is defined as the negative hessian of entropy with respect to other extensive variables. Therefore it is only the fixed ( J ) ensemble which holds good in the Ruppeiner formalism as J is an extensive thermodynamic quantity whereas Ω is not.

Therefore the fixed (Ω) ensemble do not hold good as per the definition of the Ruppeiner metric. We therefore discuss the thermodynamic geometry of the fixed (Ω) ensemble in the GTD formalism which is defined on a multidimensional phase space that comprises of both the extensive and intensive variables of the thermodynamic system.

The GTD formalism is therefore the appropriate geometric formalism for discussing both the thermodynamic ensembles.

We first discuss the Ruppeiner geometry of the rotating BTZ black hole in the fixed ( J ) ensemble where we observe a curvature singularity in the Ruppeiner scalar curve only for the Kaniadakis entropy case. We then discuss the GTD geometry of the black hole for both the thermodynamic ensembles, where we observe curvature singularities in the GTD scalar curves in Kaniadakis entropy case only. These curvature singularities are seen to occur exactly at the points where we saw divergences in the corresponding heat capacity curves in the previous section.

## IV.1. Ruppeiner formalism

The Ruppeiner metric for the R-BTZ black hole in the fixed ( J ) ensemble can be obtained from the relation (8) and is given as :-

$$d S _ { R } ^ { 2 } = \frac { 1 } { T } \left ( \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M } { \partial S ^ { 2 } } d S ^ { 2 } + \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M } { \partial J ^ { 2 } } d J ^ { 2 } + 2 \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M } { \partial S \partial J } d S d J \right )$$

where M S T , , and J are the mass, entropy, Hawking Temperature and angular momentum for the rotating BTZ black hole respectively.

From the above metric we calculate the Ruppeiner scalar for all the non-extensive entropy cases in the fixed ( J ) ensemble. We find that there is a curvature singularity in the Ruppeiner scalar curve only for the Kaniadakis entropy case . For all the other entropy cases namely: the Renyi and Barrow entropy cases the Ruppeiner scalar curves remain regular with no singularities therein. We have not presented here either the derivation or the final expressions for the Ruppeiner scalar due to their considerable length. However obtaining these expressions is fairly straight forward and involves only routine mathematical computations. We present a detailed analysis of the Ruppeiner thermodynamic geometry for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( J ) ensemble as follows:

We see from Fig.9 that the Ruppeiner scalar R rupp is plotted against the Kaniadakis entropy S K in the fixed ( J ) ensemble. We see that for l = 1 and J = 1, for the Kaniadakis parameter K = 0 012 the Ruppeiner scalar curve has a . curvature singularity specifically at S K = 125 74, which is depicted by the solid blue curve in the figure. . The point of singularity here is dissimilar to the point of divergence S K = 125 77 obtained in the corresponding heat capacity curve . for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( J ) ensemble. For the K = 0 case however the Ruppeiner scalar curve is found to be regular everywhere with no curvature singularities as is depicted in the figure by the black dashed curve.

FIG. 9: The Ruppeiner scalar versus Kaniadakis entropy plot in the fixed ( J ) ensemble for l = 1 and J = 1.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-187c3dbc-1b5a-4352-b2e5-dee28bf105b5.jpg)

## IV.2. Geometrothermodynamic(GTD) formalism

To describe the rotating BTZ black hole in GTD formalism, we first assume a five-dimensional phase space T with co-ordinates M,S,J,T and Ω which are the mass, entropy, angular momentum, temperature and angular velocity for

the black hole. The contact 1-form for these set of co-ordinates can be written as:-

$$\Theta = d M - T d S - \Omega d J$$

̸

The 1-form satisfies the condition Θ ∧ ( d Θ) 3 = 0 and a legendre invariant metric that goes by :-

$$G = ( d M - T d S - \Omega d J ) ^ { 2 } + T S ( - d T d S + d \Omega d J )$$

We then assume a two-dimensional sub-space of T with co-ordinates E a where a = 1 2. We denote this subspace with , ϵ which is defined as a smooth mapping, ϕ : ϵ →T . The subspace ϵ becomes the space of equilibrium states if the pullback of ϕ is 0 i.e. ϕ ∗ (Θ) = 0. A metric structure g is then naturally induced on ϵ by applying the same pullback on the metric G of T . This induced metric determines all the geometric properties of the equilibrium space for the R-BTZ black hole.

## IV.2.1. The Kaniadakis entropy case

## Fixed ( J ) ensemble :

We write the GTD metric for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( J ) ensemble from the general metric given in (9). We consider the thermodynamic potential φ to be the mass M K for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( J ) ensemble as obtained in equation (15). The GTD metric is given by :-

$$g = S _ { K } \left ( \frac { \partial M _ { K } } { \partial S _ { K } } \right ) \left ( - \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { K } } { \partial S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } d S _ { K } ^ { 2 } + \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { K } } { \partial J ^ { 2 } } d J ^ { 2 } \right )$$

From the above metric we calculate the GTD scalar for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( J ) ensemble. We have not presented here either the derivation or the final expressions for the GTD scalar due to their considerable length. However obtaining these expressions is fairly straight forward and involves only routine mathematical computations. We present a detailed analysis of the GTD thermodynamic geometry for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( J ) ensemble as follows:

We see from Fig.10 that the GTD scalar R GTD is plotted against the Kaniadakis entropy S K for the Kaniadakis parameter K = 0 012 in the fixed ( . J ) ensemble. We find that for l = 1 and J = 1, the GTD scalar has a curvature singularity at S K = 125 77 for . K = 0 012 as depicted by the blue solid curve whereas for the BH entropy case ( . K = 0) the curve remains regular everywhere with no curvature singularities, as is depicted in the figure by the black dashed curve. Unlike Ruppeiner scalar, the singularity obtained from the GTD scalar curve matches exactly with the point of divergence obtained from the corresponding heat capacity curve for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( J ) ensemble.

FIG. 10: The GTD scalar versus Kaniadakis entropy plot in the fixed ( J ) ensemble for l = 1 and J = 1.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-878f19ec-1aa6-48c2-9240-d23624780834.jpg)

## Fixed (Ω) ensemble :

We write the GTD metric for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed (Ω) ensemble from the general metric given in (9). We consider the thermodynamic potential φ to be the mass M K for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed (Ω) ensemble as obtained in equation (21). The GTD metric is given by :-

$$g = S _ { K } \left ( \frac { \partial M _ { K } } { \partial S _ { K } } \right ) \left ( - \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { K } } { \partial S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } d S _ { K } ^ { 2 } + \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { K } } { \partial \Omega ^ { 2 } } d \Omega ^ { 2 } \right )$$

From the above metric we calculate the GTD scalar for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed (Ω) ensemble. We have not shown here either the derivation or the final expressions for the GTD scalar due to their considerable length. However obtaining them is fairly straight forward and involves only routine mathematical computations. We present a detailed analysis of the GTD thermodynamic geometry for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed (Ω) ensemble as follows:

We see from Fig.11 that the GTD scalar R GTD is plotted against the Kaniadakis entropy S K in the fixed (Ω) ensemble. We find that for l = 1 and Ω = 0 2, the GTD scalar has a curvature singularity at . S K = 125 74 for . K = 0 012 as . depicted by the blue solid curve whereas for the BH entropy case ( K = 0) the curve remains regular everywhere with no curvature singularities, as is depicted in the figure by the black dashed curve. Unlike Ruppeiner scalar, the singularity obtained from the GTD scalar curve matches exactly with the point of divergence obtained from the corresponding heat capacity curve for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed (Ω) ensemble.

FIG. 11: The GTD scalar versus Kaniadakis entropy plot in the fixed (Ω) ensemble for l = 1 and Ω = 0 2 .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-c5b870bb-b7d6-4bfb-887b-a091401a6f3c.jpg)

## V. THERMODYNAMICS OF THE CHARGED BTZ BLACK HOLE

The action which facilitates the field equations[64-66, 69, 70] from which the (2 + 1) dimensional charged BTZ black hole solutions are obtained is given as:

$$I = \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d ^ { 3 } x \sqrt { - g } \left ( R - 2 \Lambda - \frac { \pi } { 2 } F _ { \mu \nu } F ^ { \mu \nu } \right )$$

where, the AdS length l is related to the cosmological constant Λ by the relation: Λ = -1 l 2 and the Einstein's field equations are given by:

$$G _ { \mu \nu } - \Lambda g _ { \mu \nu } = \pi T _ { \mu \nu }$$

and the energy momentum tensor for the same is given as:

$$T _ { \mu \nu } = F _ { \mu \rho } F _ { \nu \sigma } g ^ { \rho \sigma } - \frac { 1 } { 4 } g _ { \mu \nu } F ^ { 2 }$$

The line element that corresponds to the given solution is:

$$d s ^ { 2 } = - f ( r ) d t ^ { 2 } + \frac { d r ^ { 2 } } { f ( r ) } + r ^ { 2 } d \phi ^ { 2 }$$

where f r ( ) = -M + r 2 l 2 -πQ 2 2 ln [ r ] and 'M' and 'Q' are the mass and electric charge carried by the black hole. Solving the function for f ( r ) = 0 would give us the roots which determine the horizon radius. For an exterior horizon radius, ' r + ' the black hole mass is given by:

$$M = \frac { r _ { + } ^ { 2 } } { l ^ { 2 } } + \frac { \pi Q ^ { 2 } } { 2 } \ln \left [ r _ { + } \right ]$$

and the black hole entropy is given by:

$$S _ { B H } = 4 \pi r _ { + }$$

## V.1. The Kaniadakis entropy case

## Fixed ( Q ) ensemble :

We replace the horizon radius in (34) by the one obtained in (14) to get the modified mass M K for the charged BTZ black hole which is given by :

$$M _ { K } = \frac { A r c S i n h ^ { 2 } [ K S _ { K } ] } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } l ^ { 2 } K ^ { 2 } } - \frac { \pi Q ^ { 2 } } { 2 } \ln \left [ \frac { A r c S i n h [ K S _ { K } ] } { 4 \pi K } \right ]$$

The function, ArcSinh KS [ K ] can be replaced by its logarithmic form, ln [ KS K + √ 1 + K S 2 2 K ] and therefore the expression for mass becomes:

$$M _ { K } = \frac { \ln [ K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ] ^ { 2 } } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } l ^ { 2 } K ^ { 2 } } - \frac { \pi Q ^ { 2 } } { 2 } \ln \left [ \frac { \ln [ K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ] } { 4 \pi K } \right ]$$

The heat capacity for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble can be obtained as:

$$C _ { K } = \frac { \frac { \partial M _ { K } } { \partial S _ { K } } } { \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { K } } { \partial S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } } = \frac { A } { B }$$

where, and

$$B = K & \Big ( 4 K ^ { 3 } \pi ^ { 3 } Q ^ { 2 } \ln \Big ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \Big ) - K \ln \Big ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \Big ) ^ { 3 } S _ { K } + \Big ( 4 K ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 3 } Q ^ { 2 } \\ & \quad + \ln \Big ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \Big ) ^ { 2 } \Big ) \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \Big ).$$

In Fig.25 the heat capacity, C K is plotted against the Kaniadakis entropy, S K for l = 1 and J = 1 in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble. Here the solid blue curve represents the heat capacity for the Kaniadakis parameter, K = 0 012 whereas the . black dashed line represents the heat capacity for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case ( K = 0). We find that for K = 0 012, the heat capacity has a divergence at . S K = 128 82 which indicates the presence of a Davies type phase . transition present in the Kaniadakis modified black hole whereas the heat capacity for the BH entropy case shows no such behaviour.

$$A = \left ( 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } \right ) \ln \left ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) \left ( - 4 K ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 3 } Q ^ { 2 } + \ln \left ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) ^ { 2 } \right )$$

FIG. 12: The heat capacity versus Kaniadakis entropy plot in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble for l = 1 and Q = 1

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-8be99408-276b-4f75-85be-274f3f9e4da3.jpg)

The Gibbs free energy for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble can be obtained as:

$$G _ { K } = M _ { K } - T _ { K } S _ { K }$$

$$G _ { K } & = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \pi Q ^ { 2 } \ln { ( 4 \pi ) } - \frac { 1 } { 2 } \pi Q ^ { 2 } \ln { \left ( \frac { \ln { ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } ) } } } { K } \right ) } + \frac { \ln { ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } ) } } } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } K ^ { 2 } } \\ & \quad + \frac { \pi K Q ^ { 2 } S _ { K } } { 2 \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \ln { ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } ) } } } - \frac { S _ { K } \ln { ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } ) } } } { 8 \pi ^ { 2 } K \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } }.$$

In Fig.13a and Fig.13b the Gibbs free energy, G K is plotted against the Kaniadakis entropy, S K for l = 1 and Q = 1 in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble. We draw two different plots so as to make the presence of the phase transitions more transparent. Here the solid blue curve represents the Gibbs free energy for the Kaniadakis parameter, K = 0 012 . whereas the black dashed line represents the free energy for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case ( K = 0). The free energy for the K = 0 case has been scaled down by multiplying it with 1 10 whereas the free energy for the K = 0 012 case is kept the same, this difference in scaling is just so that the distinct behaviour of both the . curves could be seen more clearly. We keep in mind that the scaling does not affect the position or occurrence of the phase transitions. We find that in Fig.13a the Gibbs free energy goes to zero for both the entropy cases, where for K = 0, the zero point is at S K = 14 55 and for . K = 0 012, the zero point is found to be at . S K = 14 67, these zero . points refer to the presence of a Hawking-Page phase transition present in the rotating BTZ black hole for both the Bekenstein-Hawking as well as the Kaniadakis entropy cases. We again find that for K = 0 012, the Gibbs free energy . in Fig.13b has a zero point at S K = 289 97 only for the Kaniadakis entropy case which indicates the presence of a . Hawking-Page phase transition present in the Kaniadakis modified black hole whereas the Gibbs free energy for the BH entropy case shows no such behaviour. In Fig.13c we plot the inverse of specific heat capacity (purple) and the Gibbs free energy (orange) against the Kaniadakis entropy. The inverse of specific heat capacity has been scaled up by multiplying it with 3000 whereas the free energy is kept the same, this difference in scaling is just so that the distinct behaviour of both the curves could be seen more clearly. We keep in mind that the scaling does not affect the position or occurrence of the phase transitions. The points where these curves intersect the horizontal axis would represent the Davies-type (Purple) and Hawking-Page (Orange) phase transition respectively which are seen to be quite distant from each other.

## Fixed (Φ) ensemble :

The modified mass for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble is given by:

$$M _ { K } ^ { \prime } = M _ { K } - Q \frac { \partial M _ { K } } { \partial Q }$$

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-15f8d6b2-f079-472a-afa7-a370007df360.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-8d1ae793-7107-4a39-8509-89c157d21407.jpg)

G K

(a) Gibbs free energy versus Kaniadakis entropy (11 &lt; S K &lt; 24).

(b) Gibbs free energy versus Kaniadakis entropy (

S

K

&gt;

24).

(c) Inverse specific heat and Gibbs free energy versus Kaniadakis entropy.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-997d41f3-a9ff-43ab-aba1-9fcd103c6229.jpg)

FIG. 13: The Gibbs free energy curves for Kaniadakis entropy in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble for l = 1 and Q = 1.

where ∂M K ∂Q = Φ is the electric potential of the black hole with respect to the electric charge Q . By writing the term M ′ K as M K for convenience we get:

$$M _ { K } = \frac { \Phi ^ { 2 } } { 2 \pi \left ( \ln \left ( \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) - \ln ( 4 \pi K ) \right ) \right ) } + \frac { \ln \left ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) ^ { 2 } } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } K ^ { 2 } } \, \quad \, \quad ( 4 0 )$$

The heat capacity for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble can be obtained as:

$$C _ { K } = \frac { \frac { \partial M _ { K } } { \partial S _ { K } } } { \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { K } } { \partial S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } } = \frac { A } { B }$$

where,

$$A & = \left ( \ln ( 4 \pi ) - \ln \left ( \frac { \ln \left ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) } { K } \right ) \right ) \ln \left ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) \left ( - 4 \pi K ^ { 2 } \Phi ^ { 2 } \\ & \quad + \ln \left ( \frac { \ln \left ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) } { 4 K \pi } \right ) ^ { 2 } \ln \left ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) ^ { 2 } \right ) \left ( 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } \right )$$

and

$$& \text{and} \\ & B = K \left ( \left ( \left ( \ln ( 4 \pi ) - \ln \left ( \frac { \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) } { K } \right ) \right ) \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) \right ) \left ( 4 K ^ { 2 } \pi \Phi ^ { 2 } \\ & \quad - \ln \left ( \frac { \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) } { 4 K \pi } \right ) ^ { 2 } \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) ^ { 2 } \right ) S _ { K } + \left ( 4 K ^ { 2 } \pi \Phi ^ { 2 } ( - 2 + \ln ( 4 \pi ) \right ) \\ & \quad + \ln ( 4 \pi ) ^ { 3 } \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) ^ { 2 } \quad + 3 \ln ( 4 \pi ) \ln \left ( \frac { \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) } { K } \right ) ^ { 2 } \\ & \quad \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) ^ { 2 } \quad - \ln \left ( \frac { \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) } { K } \right ) ^ { 3 } \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) ^ { 2 } \\ & \quad - \ln \left ( \frac { \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) } { K } \right ) \left ( 4 K ^ { 2 } \pi \Phi ^ { 2 } + 3 \ln ( 4 \pi ) ^ { 2 } \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) ^ { 2 } \right ) \right ) \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) \ \text{(42)} \\ & \quad \text{In Fig.14 the heat capacity, C$_{K} for the charged BTZ black hole is plotted against the Kaniadakis entropy, S$_{K}$ in the} \\ & \text{fixed} \, \text{$\mathbb{i}$ ensemble, We draw the same niot in two different entropy ranges so as to make all theanearing differences}$$

In Fig.14 the heat capacity, C K for the charged BTZ black hole is plotted against the Kaniadakis entropy, S K in the fixed (Φ) ensemble. We draw the same plot in two different entropy ranges so as to make all the appearing divergences in the heat capacity curve visible. We see from Fig.14a that for l = 1 and Φ = 0 2 there is a divergence at . S K = 10 26 . for K = 0 012 as shown by the solid blue curve. . The heat capacity in the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case ( K = 0) here also produces a divergence at S K = 10 24 as shown by the black dashed curve. In Fig.14b we see that . there is a divergence in the heat capacity curve at S K = 125 74 for . K = 0 012 whereas here the heat capacity in the . BH entropy case ( K = 0) remains a monotonically increasing function of entropy with no divergences.

100

50

0

50

-

-

100

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-6d3b7f6b-650c-4e41-b64c-d6012902542a.jpg)

9.6

K 0

=

K 0.012

=

9.8

10.0

10.2

10.4

10.6

10.8

S K

(a) Heat capacity versus Kaniadakis entropy ( S &lt; 11).

(b) Heat capacity versus Kaniadakis entropy (11 &lt; S &lt; 300).

FIG. 14: The heat capacity versus Kaniadakis entropy plot in the fixed (Φ) ensemble for l = 1 and Φ = 0 2 .

The Gibbs free energy for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble can be obtained as:

$$G _ { K } = M _ { K } - T _ { K } S _ { K } = \frac { \mathcal { C } } { \mathcal { D } }$$

where,

$$\mathcal { C } & = \frac { - \Phi ^ { 2 } } { 4 \pi ( \ln ( 4 \pi ) - \ln ( \frac { \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) } { K } ) ) } + \frac { \ln \left ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } \right ) ^ { 2 } } { 1 6 K ^ { 2 } \pi ^ { 2 } } \\ & \quad - S _ { K } \left ( - 4 \pi K ^ { 2 } \Phi ^ { 2 } \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) ^ { 2 } + \ln ( 4 \pi ) ^ { 2 } \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) ^ { 4 } \\ & \quad \left ( \ln ( \frac { \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) } { K } ) - 2 \ln ( 4 \pi ) \right ) \ln ( \frac { \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) } { K } ) \ln ( K S _ { K } + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } ) ^ { 4 } \right ) \quad ( 4 3 ) \\ \text{and}$$

and

$$\mathcal { D } = 8 K \pi ^ { 2 } \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S ^ { 2 } } \ln \left ( K S + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S ^ { 2 } } \right ) ^ { 3 } \left ( \ln \left ( 4 \pi \right ) - \ln \left ( \frac { \ln \left ( K S + \sqrt { 1 + K ^ { 2 } S ^ { 2 } } \right ) } { K } \right ) \right ) ^ { 2 } \text{ \quad \ \ } \text{(44)}$$

C K

C K

In Fig.15a the Gibbs free energy, G K is plotted against the Kaniadakis entropy, S K for l = 1 and Φ = 0 2 in the fixed . (Φ) ensemble. Here the solid blue curve represents the Gibbs free energy for the Kaniadakis parameter, K = 0 012 . whereas the black dashed line represents the free energy for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case ( K = 0). The free energy for the K = 0 case has been scaled down by multiplying it with 1 10 whereas the free energy for the K = 0 012 case is kept the same, this difference in scaling is just so that the distinct behaviour of both the curves . could be seen more clearly. We keep in mind that the scaling does not affect the position or occurrence of the phase transition. We find that for K = 0 012, the Gibbs free energy has a zero point at . S K = 276 64 which indicates the . presence of a Hawking-Page phase transition present in the Kaniadakis modified black hole whereas the Gibbs free energy for the BH entropy case shows no such behaviour. In Fig.15b we plot the inverse of specific heat capacity (purple) and the Gibbs free energy (orange) against the Kaniadakis entropy. The inverse of specific heat capacity has been scaled up by multiplying it with 3000 whereas the free energy is kept the same, this difference in scaling is just so that the distinct behaviour of both the curves could be seen more clearly. We keep in mind that the scaling does not affect the position or occurrence of the phase transitions. The points where these curves intersect the horizontal axis would represent the Davies-type (Purple) and Hawking-Page (Orange) phase transition respectively which are seen to be quite distant from each other.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-61dea867-10f9-4a7a-a432-542737054986.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-467eb34d-89d7-48de-a900-eb16301cebd0.jpg)

1

(a) Gibbs free energy versus Kaniadakis entropy.

(b) Inverse specific heat and Gibbs free energy versus Kaniadakis entropy.

FIG. 15: The Gibbs free energy curves for Kaniadakis entropy in the fixed (Φ) ensemble for l = 1 and Φ = 0 2. .

## V.2. The Renyi entropy case

## Fixed ( Q ) ensemble :

We replace the horizon radius in (34) by the one obtained in (23) to get the modified mass M R for the charged BTZ black hole which is given by :

$$M _ { R } = \frac { 1 - 2 e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } + e ^ { 2 \lambda S _ { R } } + 8 \pi ^ { 3 } Q ^ { 2 } \lambda ^ { 2 } \ln ( 4 \pi ) - 8 \pi ^ { 3 } Q ^ { 2 } \lambda ^ { 2 } ( \ln ( - 1 + e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } ) - \ln ( \lambda ) ) } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } \lambda ^ { 2 } }$$

The heat capacity for the Renyi entropy case in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble can be calculated as:

$$C _ { R } = \frac { \frac { \partial M _ { R } } { \partial S _ { R } } } { \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { R } } { \partial S _ { R } ^ { 2 } } } = \frac { \left ( - 1 + e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } \right ) \left ( 1 - 2 e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } + e ^ { 2 \lambda S _ { R } } - 4 \pi ^ { 3 } Q ^ { 2 } \lambda ^ { 2 } \right ) } { \lambda \left ( - 1 + 4 e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } - 5 e ^ { 2 \lambda S _ { R } } + 2 e ^ { 3 \lambda S _ { R } } + 4 \pi ^ { 3 } Q ^ { 2 } \lambda ^ { 2 } \right ) }$$

We see from Fig.16a that the heat capacity, C R for the charged BTZ black hole is plotted against the Renyi entropy, S R in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble. Here the solid green curve represents the heat capacity for the Renyi parameter, λ = 0 012 . whereas the black dashed line represents the heat capacity for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case ( λ = 0). For the parameter l = 1 and Q = 1 we find that there are no divergences in the heat capacity curve for both the Renyi and Bekenstein-Hawking (BH) entropy cases.

The Gibbs free energy for the Renyi entropy case in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble can be obtained as:

$$G _ { R } = M _ { R } - T _ { R } S _ { R }$$

$$G _ { R } & = \frac { 1 } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } \lambda ^ { 2 } ( - 1 + e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } ) } \left ( - 1 + e ^ { 3 \lambda S _ { R } } ( 1 - 2 \lambda S _ { R } ) + e ^ { 2 \lambda S _ { R } } ( - 3 + 4 \lambda S _ { R } ) - 8 \pi ^ { 3 } Q ^ { 2 } \lambda ^ { 2 } \ln ( 4 \pi ) + e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } ( 3 \\ & \quad - 2 \lambda S _ { R } + 8 \pi ^ { 2 } Q ^ { 2 } S _ { R } \lambda ^ { 3 } + 8 \pi ^ { 2 } Q ^ { 2 } \lambda ^ { 2 } \ln ( 4 \pi ) ) - 8 ( - 1 + e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } ) \pi ^ { 3 } Q ^ { 2 } \lambda ^ { 2 } ( \ln ( - 1 + e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } ) - \ln ( \lambda ) ) \right ).$$

In Fig.17a the Gibbs free energy, G R is plotted against the Renyi entropy, S R for l = 1 and Q = 1 in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble. Here the solid green curve represents the Gibbs free energy for the Renyi parameter, λ = 0 012 whereas the . black dashed line represents the free energy for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case ( λ = 0). The free energy for the λ = 0 case has been scaled down by multiplying it with 1 10 whereas the free energy for the λ = 0 012 case is kept . the same, this difference in scaling is just so that the distinct behaviour of both the curves could be seen more clearly. We find that in Fig.19a the Gibbs free energy goes to zero for both the entropy cases, where for λ = 0, the zero point is at S R = 14 55 and for . λ = 0 012, the zero point is found to be at . S R = 13 17, these zero points refer to the presence . of a Hawking-Page phase transition present in the charged BTZ black hole for both the Bekenstein-Hawking as well as the Renyi entropy cases.

## Fixed (Φ) ensemble :

The modified mass for the Renyi entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble is given by:

$$M _ { R } ^ { \prime } = M _ { R } - Q \frac { \partial M _ { R } } { \partial Q }$$

$$M _ { R } ^ { \prime } = M _ { R } - Q \Phi$$

where ∂M R ∂Q = Φ is the electric potential of the black hole with respect to the electric charge Q . By making the necessary replacements and putting l = 1, we get the final equation as follows:

$$M _ { R } = \frac { - 8 \pi \lambda ^ { 2 } \Phi ^ { 2 } + ( - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda ) ^ { 2 } } \ln ( 4 \pi ) - ( - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } ) ^ { 2 } \left ( \ln ( - 1 + e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } ) - \ln ( \lambda ) \right ) } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } \lambda ^ { 2 } \left ( \ln ( 4 \pi \lambda ) - \left ( \ln ( - 1 + e ^ { \lambda S _ { R } } ) \right ) }$$

We have here used the term M R instead of M ′ R for convenience. Here M R is the modified mass for the fixed (Φ) ensemble. The heat capacity for the Renyi entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble can be calculated as:

$$C _ { R } = \frac { \frac { \partial M _ { R } } { \partial S _ { R } } } { \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { R } } { \partial S _ { R } ^ { 2 } } } = \frac { A } { B }$$

where,

$$A = & \left ( - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } \right ) \left ( \ln ( 4 \pi ) - \ln \left ( \frac { - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } } { \lambda } \right ) \right ) \left ( - 4 \pi \lambda ^ { 2 } \Phi ^ { 2 } + \left ( - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } \right ) ^ { 2 } \ln ( 4 \pi ) ^ { 2 } \\ & - 2 ( - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } ) ^ { 2 } \ln ( 4 \pi ) \ln \left ( \frac { - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } } { \lambda } \right ) \quad + \left ( - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } \right ) ^ { 2 } \ln \left ( \frac { - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } } { \lambda } \right ) ^ { 2 } \right )$$

$$B & = \lambda \Big ( 4 \pi ^ { 2 } \Phi ^ { 2 } \ln ( 4 \pi ) - \ln ( 4 \pi ) ^ { 3 } - 5 e ^ { 2 S _ { R } \lambda } \ln ( 4 \pi ) ^ { 3 } \quad + 2 e ^ { 3 S _ { R } \lambda } \ln ( 4 \pi ) ^ { 3 } + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } \Big ( - 8 \pi \lambda ^ { 2 } \Phi ^ { 2 } + 4 \ln ( 4 \pi ) ^ { 3 } ) \\ & \quad + \Big ( - 4 \pi \lambda ^ { 2 } \Phi ^ { 2 } - 3 ( - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } ) ^ { 2 } ( - 1 + 2 e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } ) \ln ( 4 \pi ) ^ { 2 } \Big ) \ln \Big ( \frac { - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } } { \lambda } \Big ) + 3 ( - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } ) ^ { 2 } \\ & \quad ( - 1 + 2 e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } ) \ln ( 4 \pi ) \ln \Big ( \frac { - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } } { \lambda } \Big ) ^ { 2 } - ( - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } ) ^ { 2 } ( - 1 + 2 e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } ) \ln \Big ( \frac { - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } } { \lambda } \Big ) ^ { 3 } \Big )$$

We see from Fig.16b that the heat capacity, C R for the charged BTZ black hole is plotted against the Renyi entropy, S R in the fixed (Φ) ensemble. Here the solid green curve represents the heat capacity for the Renyi parameter, λ = 0 012 whereas the black dashed line represents the heat capacity for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case . ( λ = 0). We see that for l = 1 and Φ = 0 2 there is a divergence in the heat capacity curve for both the Renyi and BH . entropy cases. The divergence for the Renyi entropy case ( K = 0 012) is seen to be at . S K = 9 71 whereas for the . Bekenstein-Hawking entropy case ( K = 0) the divergence is found to be at S K = 10 24. .

The Gibbs free energy for the Renyi entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble can be obtained as:

$$G _ { R } = M _ { R } - T _ { R } S _ { R }$$

$$G _ { R } = \frac { C } { D }$$

where,

$$\cdots \cdots, \\ C & = ( 8 \pi \lambda ^ { 2 } \Phi ^ { 2 } - \ln ( 4 \pi ) ) \ln ( 4 \pi ) - e ^ { 3 S _ { R } \lambda } ( - 1 + 2 S _ { R } \lambda ) \ln ( 4 \pi ) ^ { 2 } + e ^ { 2 S _ { R } \lambda } ( - 3 + 4 S _ { R } \lambda ) \ln ( 4 \pi ) ^ { 2 } + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } \left ( 8 \pi \lambda ^ { 2 } \Phi ^ { 2 } \\ & \quad ( S _ { R } \lambda - \ln ( 4 \pi ) ) + ( 3 - 2 S _ { R } \lambda ) \ln ( 4 \pi ) ^ { 2 } \right ) + 2 ( - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } ) \left ( 4 \pi \lambda ^ { 2 } \Phi ^ { 2 } + ( - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } ) ( 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } \\ & \quad ( - 1 + 2 S _ { R } \lambda ) ) \ln ( 4 \pi ) \right ) \ln \left ( \frac { - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } } { \lambda } \right ) - \left ( - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } \right ) ^ { 2 } ( 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } ( - 1 + 2 S _ { R } \lambda ) ) \ln \left ( \frac { - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } } { \lambda } \right ) ^ { 2 } \quad ( 5 0 )$$

$$D = 1 6 ( - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } ) \pi ^ { 2 } \lambda ^ { 2 } \left ( \ln ( 4 \pi ) - \ln \left ( \frac { - 1 + e ^ { S _ { R } \lambda } } { \lambda } \right ) \right ) ^ { 2 }$$

In Fig.17b the Gibbs free energy, G R is plotted against the Renyi entropy, S R for l = 1 and Φ = 0 2 in the fixed (Φ) . ensemble. Here the solid green curve represents the Gibbs free energy for the Renyi parameter, λ = 0 012 whereas the . black dashed line represents the free energy for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case ( λ = 0). The free energy for the λ = 0 case has been scaled down by multiplying it with 1 10 whereas the free energy for the λ = 0 012 case is kept . the same, this difference in scaling is just so that the distinct behaviour of both the curves could be seen more clearly. We find that unlike the Kaniadakis entropy there is no Hawking-Page phase transition present in the Renyi entropy case for the fixed (Φ) ensemble.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-53df23e0-691e-4b4e-83d1-9ddcf0b777c3.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-b3b590d8-1fb6-4e75-b500-6c146286a1fb.jpg)

C R

(a) Heat capacity in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble for (b) Heat capacity in the fixed (Φ) ensemble for l = 1 and Q = 1 l = 1 and Φ = 0 2 .

FIG. 16: The heat capacity versus Renyi entropy plots in the fixed ( J ) and fixed (Φ) ensembles.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-a4a688a8-5aae-419b-bc00-c202746142c7.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-0aaa1552-e336-4fdc-b7aa-8bc842c9981e.jpg)

G R

- (a) Free energy in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble for l = 1 and Q = 1

(b) Free energy in the fixed (Φ) ensemble for l = 1 and Φ = 0 2. .

FIG. 17: The Gibbs free energy versus Renyi entropy plots in the fixed ( Q ) and fixed (Φ) ensembles.

## V.3. The Barrow entropy case

## Fixed ( Q ) ensemble :

We replace the horizon radius in (34) by the one obtained in (30) to get the modified mass M ∆ for the charged BTZ black hole which is given by :

$$M _ { \Delta } = \frac { S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } } + 8 \pi ^ { 3 } Q ^ { 2 } \ln ( 4 \pi ) - 8 \pi ^ { 3 } Q ^ { 2 } \ln \left ( S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 2 } { 2 + \Delta } } \right ) } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } }$$

The heat capacity for the Barrow entropy case in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble can be calculated as:

$$C _ { \Delta } = \frac { \frac { \partial M _ { \Delta } } { \partial S _ { \Delta } } } { \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { \Delta } } { \partial S _ { \Delta } ^ { 2 } } } = \frac { \left ( S _ { \Delta } \left ( 4 \pi ^ { 3 } Q ^ { 2 } - S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } } \right ) ( 2 + \Delta ) \right ) } { S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } } ( - 2 + \Delta ) - 4 \pi ^ { 3 } Q ^ { 2 } ( 2 + \Delta ) }$$

We see from Fig.18a that the heat capacity, C ∆ for the charged BTZ black hole is plotted against the Barrow entropy, S ∆ in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble. Here the solid red curve represents the heat capacity for the Barrow parameter, ∆ = 0 012 whereas the black dashed line represents the heat capacity for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case . (∆ = 0). For the parameter l = 1 and Q = 1 we find that there are no divergences in the heat capacity curve for both the Barrow and Bekenstein-Hawking (BH) entropy cases.

The Gibbs free energy for the Renyi entropy case in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble can be obtained as:

$$G _ { \Delta } = M _ { \Delta } - T _ { \Delta } S _ { \Delta }$$

$$G _ { \Delta } = \frac { S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 } + \Delta } ( - 2 + \Delta ) + 8 \pi ^ { 3 } Q ^ { 2 } ( 2 + 2 \ln ( 4 \pi ) + \Delta \ln ( 4 \pi ) ) - 8 \pi ^ { 3 } Q ^ { 2 } ( 2 + \Delta ) \ln \left ( S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 2 } { 2 } + \Delta } \right ) } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } ( 2 + \Delta ) }$$

In Fig.19a the Gibbs free energy, G ∆ is plotted against the Barrow entropy, S ∆ for l = 1 and Q = 1 in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble. Here the solid red curve represents the Gibbs free energy for the Barrow parameter, ∆ = 0 012 whereas the . black dashed line represents the free energy for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case (∆ = 0). The free energy for the ∆ = 0 case has been scaled down by multiplying it with 1 10 whereas the free energy for the ∆ = 0 012 case is kept . the same, this difference in scaling is just so that the distinct behaviour of both the curves could be seen more clearly.

We find that in Fig.19a the Gibbs free energy goes to zero for both the entropy cases, where for ∆ = 0, the zero point is at S ∆ = 14 55 and for ∆ = 0 012, the zero point is found to be at . . S ∆ = 14 81, these zero points refer to the presence . of a Hawking-Page phase transition present in the charged BTZ black hole for both the Bekenstein-Hawking as well as the Barrow entropy cases.

## Fixed (Φ) ensemble :

The modified mass for the Barrow entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble is given by:

$$M _ { \Delta } ^ { \prime } = M _ { \Delta } - Q \frac { \partial M _ { \Delta } } { \partial Q }$$

$$M _ { \Delta } ^ { \prime } = M _ { \Delta } - Q \Phi$$

where ∂M ∆ ∂Q = Φ is the electric potential of the black hole with respect to the electric charge Q . By making the necessary replacements and putting l = 1, we get the final equation as follows:

$$\begin{array} { c c c } \mu & \mu & \mu & \mu & \mu \\ \mu & \mu & \mu & \mu & \mu \\ M _ { \Delta } = - \frac { 8 \pi \Phi ^ { 2 } - S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } } \ln ( 4 \pi ) + S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } } \ln \left ( S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 2 } { 2 + \Delta } } \right ) } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } \left ( \ln ( 4 \pi ) - \ln \left ( S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 2 } { 2 + \Delta } } \right ) \right ) } \end{array}$$

We have here used the term M ∆ instead of M ′ ∆ for convenience. Here M ∆ is the modified mass for the fixed (Φ) ensemble. The heat capacity for the Barrow entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble can be calculated as:

$$C _ { \Delta } = \frac { \frac { \partial M _ { \Delta } } { \partial S _ { \Delta } } } { \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { \Delta } } { \partial S _ { \Delta } ^ { 2 } } } = \frac { A } { B }$$

where,

$$A = ( 2 S _ { \Delta } + \Delta S _ { \Delta } ) \ln \left ( \frac { \left ( S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 2 } { 2 + \Delta } } \right ) } { 4 \pi } \right ) \left ( - 4 \pi \Phi ^ { 2 } + S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } } \ln ( 4 \pi ) ^ { 2 } - 2 S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } } \ln ( 4 \pi ) \ln \left ( S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 2 } { 2 + \Delta } } \right ) + S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } } \ln \left ( S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 2 } { 2 + \Delta } } \right ) ^ { 2 } \right ) \ ( 5 4 )$$

and

$$& \dots \\ & B = S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } } ( - 2 + \Delta ) \ln ( 4 \pi ) ^ { 3 } - 4 \pi \Phi ^ { 2 } ( - 4 + 2 \ln ( 4 \pi ) + \Delta \ln ( 4 \pi ) ) + \left ( 4 \pi ( 2 + \Delta ) \Phi ^ { 2 } - 3 S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } } ( - 2 + \Delta ) \ln ( 4 \pi ) ^ { 2 } \right ) \\ & \quad \ln ( S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 2 } { 2 + \Delta } } ) + 3 S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } } ( - 2 + \Delta ) \ln ( 4 \pi ) \ln ( S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 2 } { 2 + \Delta } } ) ^ { 2 } - S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } } ( - 2 + \Delta ) \ln ( S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 2 } { 2 + \Delta } } ) ^ { 3 } \\ & \dots \quad \cdot \quad \dots \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \end{$$

We see from Fig.18b that the heat capacity, C ∆ for the charged BTZ black hole is plotted against the Barrow entropy, S ∆ in the fixed (Φ) ensemble. Here the solid red curve represents the heat capacity for the Barrow parameter, ∆ = 0 012 whereas the black dashed line represents the free energy for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) . entropy case (∆ = 0). We see that for l = 1 and Φ = 0 2 there is a divergence in the heat capacity curve . for both the Barrow and BH entropy cases. The divergence for the Barrow entropy case (∆ = 0 012) is seen to . be at S ∆ = 10 37 whereas for the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy case (∆ = 0) the divergence is found to be at . S ∆ = 10 24. .

The Gibbs free energy for the Barrow entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble can be obtained as:

$$G _ { \Delta } = M _ { \Delta } - T _ { \Delta } S _ { \Delta }$$

$$G _ { \Delta } & = \frac { 1 } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } ( 2 + \Delta ) ( \ln ( \frac { S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 } + \Delta } } { 4 \pi } ) ) ^ { 2 } } \left ( S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { \pi ^ { 4 } + \Delta } { 2 + \Delta } } ( - 2 + \Delta ) \ln ( 4 \pi ) ^ { 2 } - 8 \pi \Phi ^ { 2 } ( - 2 + 2 \ln ( 4 \pi ) + \Delta \ln ( 4 \pi ) ) \\ & \quad + 2 \left ( 4 \pi ( 2 + \Delta ) \Phi ^ { 2 } - S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } } ( - 2 + \Delta ) \ln ( 4 \pi ) \right ) \ln ( S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 2 } { 2 + \Delta } } ) + S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 4 } { 2 + \Delta } } ( - 2 + \Delta ) \ln ( S _ { \Delta } ^ { \frac { 2 } { 2 + \Delta } } ) ^ { 2 } \right ).$$

In Fig.19b the Gibbs free energy, G ∆ is plotted against the Barrow entropy, S ∆ for l = 1 and Φ = 0 2 in the fixed (Φ) . ensemble. Here the solid red curve represents the Gibbs free energy for the Renyi parameter, ∆ = 0 012 whereas the . black dashed line represents the free energy for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case (∆ = 0). Here the solid red curve represents the Gibbs free energy for the Barrow parameter, ∆ = 0 012 whereas the black dashed line represents . the free energy for the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case (∆ = 0). The free energy for the ∆ = 0 case has been scaled down by multiplying it with 1 10 whereas the free energy for the ∆ = 0 012 case is kept the same, this difference in . scaling is just so that the distinct behaviour of both the curves could be seen more clearly. We find that unlike the Kaniadakis entropy there is no Hawking-Page phase transition present in the Barrow entropy case for the fixed (Φ) ensemble.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-1a9004a8-f79e-438e-955c-95c352518ab4.jpg)

FIG. 18: The heat capacity versus Barrow entropy plots in the fixed ( J ) and fixed (Φ) ensembles.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-5ee6abfa-1bd1-4f07-821d-590086f0d68c.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-e034112e-7c35-42e3-acc4-e93955199640.jpg)

Δ

G

(a) Free energy in the fixed (

Q

) ensemble for

(b) Free energy in the fixed (Φ) ensemble for

l

= 1

l

= 1 and

Q

= 1

and Φ = 0 2.

.

FIG. 19: The Gibbs free energy versus Barrow entropy plots in the fixed ( Q ) and fixed (Φ) ensembles.

## VI. THERMODYNAMIC GEOMETRY OF THE CHARGED BTZ BLACK HOLE

We discuss the thermodynamic geometry of the charged BTZ black hole for both the Ruppeiner and geometrothermodynamic (GTD) formalisms. The Ruppeiner metric is defined as the negative hessian of entropy with respect to other extensive variables. Therefore it is only the fixed ( Q ) ensemble which holds good in the Ruppeiner formalism as Q is an extensive thermodynamic quantity whereas Φ is not.

Therefore the fixed (Φ) ensemble do not hold good as per the definition of the Ruppeiner metric. We therefore discuss the thermodynamic geometry of the fixed (Φ) ensemble in the GTD formalism which is defined on a multidimensional phase space that comprises of both the extensive and intensive variables of the thermodynamic system. The GTD formalism is therefore the appropriate geometric formalism for discussing both the thermodynamic ensembles.

We first discuss the Ruppeiner geometry of the charged BTZ black hole in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble where we observe a curvature singularity in the Ruppeiner scalar curve only for the Kaniadakis entropy case. We then discuss the GTD geometry of the black hole for both the thermodynamic ensembles, where we observe curvature singularities in the GTD scalar curves in Kaniadakis entropy case only. These curvature singularities are seen to occur exactly at the points where we saw divergences in the corresponding heat capacity curves in the previous section.

## VI.1. Ruppeiner formalism

The Ruppeiner metric for the C-BTZ black hole in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble can be obtained from the relation (8) and is given as :-

$$d S _ { R } ^ { 2 } = \frac { 1 } { T } \left ( \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M } { \partial S ^ { 2 } } d S ^ { 2 } + \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M } { \partial Q ^ { 2 } } d Q ^ { 2 } + 2 \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M } { \partial S \partial Q } d S d Q \right )$$

where M S T , , and Q are the mass, entropy, Hawking Temperature and electric charge for the charged BTZ black hole respectively.

From the above metric we calculate the Ruppeiner scalar for all the non-extensive entropy cases in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble. We find that there is a curvature singularity in the Ruppeiner scalar curve only for the Kaniadakis entropy case . For all the other entropy cases namely: the Renyi and Barrow entropy cases the Ruppeiner scalar curves remain regular with no singularities therein. We have not presented here either the derivation or the final expressions for the Ruppeiner scalar due to their considerable length. However obtaining these expressions is fairly straight forward and involves only routine mathematical computations. We present a detailed analysis of the Ruppeiner thermodynamic geometry for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble as follows:

We see from Fig.20 that the Ruppeiner scalar R rupp is plotted against the Kaniadakis entropy S K in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble. We see that for l = 1 and Q = 1, for the Kaniadakis parameter K = 0 012 the Ruppeiner scalar curve has a . curvature singularity specifically at S K = 128 82, which is depicted by the solid blue curve in the figure. . The point of singularity here unlike the rotating BTZ black hole is similar to the point of divergence obtained in the corresponding heat capacity curve for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble. For the K = 0 case however the Ruppeiner scalar curve is found to be regular everywhere with no curvature singularities as is depicted in the figure by the black dashed curve.

FIG. 20: The Ruppeiner scalar versus Kaniadakis entropy plot in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble for l = 1 and Q = 1.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-4e9019f9-eef0-4bd7-adea-889331bef89c.jpg)

## VI.2. Geometrothermodynamic(GTD) formalism

To describe the charged BTZ black hole in GTD formalism, we first assume a five-dimensional phase space T with co-ordinates M,S,Q,T and Φ which are the mass, entropy, electric charge, temperature and electric potential for the

black hole. The contact 1-form for these set of co-ordinates can be written as:-

$$\Theta = d M - T d S - \Phi d Q$$

̸

The 1-form satisfies the condition Θ ∧ ( d Θ) 3 = 0 and a legendre invariant metric that goes by :-

$$G = ( d M - T d S - \Phi d Q ) ^ { 2 } + T S ( - d T d S + d \Phi d Q )$$

We then assume a two-dimensional sub-space of T with co-ordinates E a where a = 1 2. We denote this subspace with , ϵ which is defined as a smooth mapping, ϕ : ϵ →T . The subspace ϵ becomes the space of equilibrium states if the pullback of ϕ is 0 i.e. ϕ ∗ (Θ) = 0. A metric structure g is then naturally induced on ϵ by applying the same pullback on the metric G of T . This induced metric determines all the geometric properties of the equilibrium space for the charged BTZ black hole.

## VI.2.1. The Kaniadakis entropy case

## Fixed ( Q ) ensemble :

We write the GTD metric for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble from the general metric given in (9). We consider the thermodynamic potential φ to be the mass M K for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble as obtained in equation (15). The GTD metric is given by :-

$$g = S _ { K } \left ( \frac { \partial M _ { K } } { \partial S _ { K } } \right ) \left ( - \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { K } } { \partial S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } d S _ { K } ^ { 2 } + \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { K } } { \partial Q ^ { 2 } } d Q ^ { 2 } \right )$$

From the above metric we calculate the GTD scalar for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble. We have not presented here either the derivation or the final expressions for the GTD scalar due to their considerable length. However obtaining these expressions is fairly straight forward and involves only routine mathematical computations. We present a detailed analysis of the GTD thermodynamic geometry for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble as follows:

We see from Fig.21 that the GTD scalar R GTD is plotted against the Kaniadakis entropy S K for the Kaniadakis parameter K = 0 012 in the fixed ( . Q ) ensemble. We find that for l = 1 and Q = 1, the GTD scalar has a curvature singularity at S K = 128 82 for . K = 0 012 as depicted by the blue solid curve whereas for the BH entropy case . ( K = 0) the curve remains regular everywhere with no curvature singularities, as is depicted in the figure by the black dashed curve. The singularity obtained from the GTD scalar curve matches exactly with the point of divergence obtained from the corresponding heat capacity curve for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble.

FIG. 21: The GTD scalar versus Kaniadakis entropy plot in the fixed ( Q ) ensemble for l = 1 and Q = 1.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-01c59d5e-ad86-4c0b-b1d5-0a2363552a8e.jpg)

## Fixed (Φ) ensemble :

We write the GTD metric for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble from the general metric given in (9). We consider the thermodynamic potential φ to be the mass M K for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble as obtained in equation (21). The GTD metric is given by :-

$$g = S _ { K } \left ( \frac { \partial M _ { K } } { \partial S _ { K } } \right ) \left ( - \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { K } } { \partial S _ { K } ^ { 2 } } d S _ { K } ^ { 2 } + \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { K } } { \partial \Phi ^ { 2 } } d \Phi ^ { 2 } \right )$$

From the above metric we calculate the GTD scalar for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble. We have not shown here either the derivation or the final expressions for the GTD scalar due to their considerable length. However obtaining them is fairly straight forward and involves only routine mathematical computations. We present a detailed analysis of the GTD thermodynamic geometry for the Kaniadakis entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble as follows:

In Fig.22 the GTD scalar, R GTD for the charged BTZ black hole is plotted against the Kaniadakis entropy, S K in the fixed (Φ) ensemble. We draw the same plot in two different entropy ranges so as to make all the appearing singularities in the GTD scalar curve visible. We see from Fig.22a that for l = 1 and Φ = 0 2 there is a singularity at . S K = 10 26 . for K = 0 012 as shown by the solid blue curve. . The heat capacity in the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy case ( K = 0) here also produces a singularity at S K = 10 24 as shown by the black dashed curve. Although we can see the . presence of two additional curvature singularities observed in the figure for both the Kaniadakis and BH entropy cases, however it was found that these additional curvature singularities correspond to the points where the heat capacity goes to zero for both the Kaniadakis and BH entropy cases in the fixed (Φ) ensemble. In Fig.22b we see that there is a singularity in the heat capacity curve at S K = 125 74 for . K = 0 012 whereas here for ( . K = 0) case no such behaviour is observed in the GTD scalar curve.

GTD

(a) GTD scalar versus Kaniadakis entropy ( S ≤ 15).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-c2293382-4bbe-4c15-8af8-b4b021afafef.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-a7a386ab-3ca4-4d34-ba21-3ac983c92754.jpg)

(b) GTD scalar versus Kaniadakis entropy (15 &lt; S ≤ 300).

FIG. 22: The GTD scalar versus Kaniadakis entropy plot in the fixed (Ω) ensemble for l = 1 and Φ = 0 2 .

## VI.2.2. The Renyi entropy case

## Fixed (Φ) ensemble :

We write the GTD metric for the Renyi entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble from the general metric given in (9). We consider the thermodynamic potential φ to be the mass M K for the Renyi entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble. The GTD metric is given by :-

$$g = S _ { R } \left ( \frac { \partial M _ { R } } { \partial S _ { R } } \right ) \left ( - \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { R } } { \partial S _ { R } ^ { 2 } } d S _ { R } ^ { 2 } + \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { R } } { \partial \Phi ^ { 2 } } d \Phi ^ { 2 } \right )$$

From the above metric we calculate the GTD scalar for the Renyi entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble. We have not shown here either the derivation or the final expressions for the GTD scalar due to their considerable length.

However obtaining them is fairly straight forward and involves only routine mathematical computations. We present a detailed analysis of the GTD thermodynamic geometry for the Renyi entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble as follows:

We see from Fig.23 that the GTD scalar, R GTD for the charged BTZ black hole is plotted against the Renyi entropy, S R in the fixed (Φ) ensemble. We see that for l = 1 and Φ = 0 2 there are curvature singularities in the GTD scalar . curve for both the Renyi ( λ = 0 012) and Bekenstein-Hawking (BH) entropy ( . λ = 0) cases. We find that for λ = 0 012 . there is a curvature singularity observed in the GTD scalar curve at S R = 9 71 as depicted by the solid green curve in . the figure. For the BH entropy case ( λ = 0) we find that the GTD scalar has a curvature singularity at S R = 10 24 as . shown in the figure by the black dashed curve. These singularities match exactly with the points of Davies type phase transitions observed in the corresponding heat capacity curve in the fixed (Φ) ensemble. There are two additional curvature singularities observed in the figure for both the Renyi and BH entropy cases, however it was found that these additional curvature singularities correspond to the points where the heat capacity goes to zero for both the Renyi and BH entropy cases in the fixed (Φ) ensemble.

FIG. 23: The GTD scalar versus Renyi entropy plot in the fixed (Φ) ensemble for l = 1 and Φ = 0 2 .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-a4754ed2-0156-44a0-b4a6-d7a4c675a6cc.jpg)

## VI.2.3. The Barrow entropy case

## Fixed (Φ) ensemble :

We write the GTD metric for the Barrow entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble from the general metric given in (9). We consider the thermodynamic potential φ to be the mass M ∆ for the Barrow entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble. The GTD metric is given by :-

$$g = S _ { \Delta } \left ( \frac { \partial M _ { \Delta } } { \partial S _ { \Delta } } \right ) \left ( - \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { \Delta } } { \partial S _ { \Delta } ^ { 2 } } d S _ { \Delta } ^ { 2 } + \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } M _ { \Delta } } { \partial \Phi ^ { 2 } } d \Phi ^ { 2 } \right )$$

From the above metric we calculate the GTD scalar for the Barrow entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble. We have not shown here either the derivation or the final expressions for the GTD scalar due to their considerable length. However obtaining them is fairly straight forward and involves only routine mathematical computations. We present a detailed analysis of the GTD thermodynamic geometry for the Barrow entropy case in the fixed (Φ) ensemble as follows:

We see from Fig.24 that the GTD scalar, R GTD for the charged BTZ black hole is plotted against the Barrow entropy, S ∆ in the fixed (Φ) ensemble. We see that for l = 1 and Φ = 0 2 there are curvature singularities in the GTD scalar . curve for both the Barrow (∆ = 0 012) and Bekenstein-Hawking (BH) entropy (∆ = 0) cases. . We find that for ∆=0012 there is a curvature singularity observed in the GTD scalar curve at . S ∆ = 10 37 as depicted by the solid . red curve in the figure. For the BH entropy case (∆ = 0) we find that the GTD scalar has a curvature singularity at S ∆ = 10 24 as shown in the figure by the black dashed curve. . These singularities match exactly with the points of Davies type phase transitions observed in the corresponding heat capacity curve in the fixed (Φ) ensemble. There are two additional curvature singularities observed in the figure for both the Barrow and BH entropy cases, however it was

found that these additional curvature singularities correspond to the points where the heat capacity goes to zero for both the Barrow and BH entropy cases in the fixed (Φ) ensemble.

FIG. 24: The GTD scalar versus Barrow entropy plot in the fixed (Φ) ensemble for l = 1 and Φ = 0 2 .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-2323163b-bd92-4788-b87b-e08ccf987e95.jpg)

## VII. CONCLUSIONS:

We investigated the thermodynamics and thermodynamic geometry of the rotating(R-BTZ) and charged (C-BTZ) Banados-Teitelboim-Zanelli black hole in three different non extensive entropy formalisms namely: the Kaniadakis entropy, Renyi entropy and Barrow entropy respectively. We investigated all the thermodynamic ensembles of these black holes namely: the fixed ( J ) and fixed (Ω) ensemble for the rotating BTZ black hole and the fixed ( Q ) and fixed (Φ) ensemble for the charged BTZ black hole. We find that there are Davies type along with the Hawking-Page phase transitions in both the black holes observed in the Kaniadakis entropy case for all the thermodynamic ensembles. We found that both the Ruppeiner and the GTD scalar were observed to have curvature singularities corresponding to Davies type of phase transitions in the corresponding cases. The location of the curvature singularities in the GTD scalar exactly matched the Davies type phase transition points in both the ensembles. The Ruppeiner scalar, although showed curvature singularities, the location of those singularities were found to be not exactly the same as the corresponding Davies type transition points for the R-BTZ black hole. For all the other non-extensive entropy cases, the thermodynamic structure were found to resemble their counterparts in the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. A table each for the two black holes are shown below summarising our results where we write the number of phase transition points (both Davies type and Hawking-Page) observed against each of the non extensive entropy cases along with the BH entropy for all the thermodynamic ensembles. The table representing the R-BTZ black hole is as follows:

| Entropy            | Fixed (J) ensemble           | Fixed (J) ensemble            | Fixed ( Ω ) ensemble         | Fixed ( Ω ) ensemble          |
|--------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                    | Davies-type phase transition | Hawking-Page phase transition | Davies-type phase transition | Hawking-Page phase transition |
| Bekenstein-Hawking | 0                            | 1                             | 0                            | 0                             |
| Kaniadakis         | 1                            | 2                             | 1                            | 1                             |
| Renyi              | 0                            | 1                             | 0                            | 0                             |
| Barrow             | 0                            | 1                             | 0                            | 0                             |

The table representing the C-BTZ black hole is as follows:

The key distinction of Kaniadakis entropy lies in its impact on the behaviour of black hole temperature. In contrast to the other considered entropic formalisms, where temperature is a monotonically increasing function of entropy, Kaniadakis entropy introduces a different thermal evolution. We have observed that in the Kaniadakis entropy framework, black hole temperature rises to a maximum value before gradually declining and asymptotically tending to zero for larger values of entropy. This non-monotonic behaviour in the temperature is what gives rise to the advent of the phase transitions (both Davies type and Hawking-Page) in the specific heat capacity and the Gibbs free energy

| Entropy            | Fixed (Q) ensemble           | Fixed (Q) ensemble            | Fixed ( Φ ) ensemble         | Fixed ( Φ ) ensemble          |
|--------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                    | Davies-type phase transition | Hawking-Page phase transition | Davies-type phase transition | Hawking-Page phase transition |
| Bekenstein-Hawking | 0                            | 1                             | 1                            | 0                             |
| Kaniadakis         | 1                            | 2                             | 2                            | 1                             |
| Renyi              | 0                            | 1                             | 1                            | 0                             |
| Barrow             | 0                            | 1                             | 1                            | 0                             |

respectively for the rotating and charged BTZ black holes. The behaviour of temperature in the R-BTZ black hole for both the Kaniadakis and Bekenstein Hawking entropy case is depicted in Fig.25.

We know that the specific heat capacity of a black hole is given by, C = T ( ∂T ∂S ) . Thus, when the temperature attains its maximum value, the slope of the graph i.e. ∂T ∂S equals zero and the specific heat capacity undergoes a divergence. When the temperature starts decreasing, the slope of the T-S graph becomes negative and so does the heat capacity. We also know that the black hole temperature is a first order derivative of mass with respect to entropy i.e. T = ( ∂M ∂S ) where the mass M for the rotating BTZ black hole is given by:

$$M = \frac { 4 \pi ^ { 2 } J ^ { 2 } } { S _ { B H } ^ { 2 } } + \frac { S _ { B H } ^ { 2 } } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } l ^ { 2 } }$$

where after writing the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, S BH in terms of the Kaniadakis entropy i.e. S BH = ArcSinh KS ( ) K gives the Kaniadakis corrected mass which is given by:

$$M = \frac { 4 \pi ^ { 2 } K ^ { 2 } J ^ { 2 } } { A r c S i n h ^ { 2 } [ K S ] } + \frac { A r c S i n h ^ { 2 } [ K S ] } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } l ^ { 2 } K ^ { 2 } }$$

It is actually the second term in the above equation which is responsible for the unusual behaviour in the the temperature of the black hole. Here, the term ArcSinh 2 [ KS ] 16 π l 2 2 K 2 when differentiated with respect to the entropy in order to obtain the temperature becomes ArcSinh KS [ ] 8 πlK √ 1+ K S 2 2 . This term is directly responsible for the dipping behaviour in the temperature because here as ArcSinh KS [ ] K is an increasing function of entropy, the term 1 √ 1+ K S 2 2 decreases with an increase in entropy and thus they together produce this unusual behaviour in the temperature where it starts to fall after reaching a maximum value. The value of the maximum attainable temperature for a given set of ( J, l ) values is fixed by the kaniadakis parameter,K as is evident from the above analysis. The non trivial temperature profile in the Kaniadakis entropy formalism is also responsible for the Hawking-Page phase transition obtained from the Gibbs free energy of the black hole. The Gibbs free energy is given by G = M -TS where the Gibbs free energy is negative for small entropy values but as temperature starts falling after having attained its maximum value, G starts to increase and finally reaches a zero point. On further increase in entropy the free energy becomes positive and thus the black hole becomes thermodynamically unstable as can be seen from Fig.2 and Fig.4. The case is similar for the charged BTZ black hole where the Kaniadakis corrected mass for the C-BTZ black hole is given by:

$$M _ { K } = \frac { A r c S i n h ^ { 2 } [ K S _ { K } ] } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } l ^ { 2 } K ^ { 2 } } - \frac { \pi Q ^ { 2 } } { 2 } \ln \left [ \frac { A r c S i n h [ K S _ { K } ] } { 4 \pi K } \right ]$$

It can be seen here as well that the term ArcSinh 2 [ KS ] 16 π l 2 2 K 2 when differentiated with respect to the entropy in order to obtain the temperature becomes ArcSinh KS [ ] 8 πlK √ 1+ K S 2 2 . We therefore observe the dip in the temperature here as well which in turn results in the occurrence of a Davies type phase transition accompanied by a Hawking-Page phase transition in the charged BTZ black hole.

This unusual behaviour of the temperature in the Kaniadakis entropy case seems to be inherent in the formulation of this entropy where it has been shown in [49] that its mathematical structure is compatible with Einstein's special theory of relativity along with the second law of thermodynamics. It was also seen in [71] where the author showed that the corrections in the black hole entropy obtained by Kaniadakis statistics in high temperature limit are indeed logarithmic in nature which prove that these corrections are indeed legitimate. We could not find any specific reasons as to why a relativistic statistical approach to black holes should cause the temperature to behave so non-trivially. It would perhaps need a more sophisticated analysis of black holes in Kaniadakis formalism and also Kaniadakis entropy

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-3eb52404-028b-4a60-b6e4-efa86e1873fb.jpg)

(a) Temperature versus Kaniadakis entropy in the fixed ( J ) ensemble .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-e28ebbc3-b7b7-4f20-b398-c0dea714ddf9.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-b920e483-c2da-421d-a032-bccb6fd8a679.jpg)

T

(b) Temperature versus Bekenstein-Hawking entropy in the fixed ( J ) ensemble.

T

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01149v4-figure-aca7a377-cd4a-4792-bab6-ec2d34e9587d.jpg)

- (c) Temperature versus Kaniadakis entropy in the fixed (Ω) ensemble.

(d) Temperature versus Bekenstein-Hawking entropy in the fixed (Ω) ensemble.

FIG. 25: The temperature curves for Kaniadakis entropy in the fixed ( J ) and (Ω) ensemble for l = 1 , J = 1 and Ω = 0 2. .

in general to find out why such non-triviality should occur.

To conclude, our analysis shows that the thermodynamic phase structure on (2 + 1) dimensional BTZ black hole with Kaniadakis entropy differs from the one with the conventional Bekenstein-Hawking entropy in all the ensembles. This result is in contrast to that found in [14], in the context of charged AdS black holes where both Kaniadakis entropy and Bekenstein-Hawking entropy yielded similar phase structures. It will be interesting to extend the study of black hole thermodynamics in the framework of non-extensive entropy to other black holes to get a clearer picture. We plan to address this issue in our future works.

## VIII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Himanshu Bora for numerous enlightening discussions and certain exquisite suggestions he offered during the course of this work.

[1] S. W. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes, Communications in mathematical physics 43 , 199 (1975).

[2] J. D. Bekenstein, Black holes and entropy, Physical Review D 7 , 2333 (1973).

[3] S. W. Hawking, Black holes and thermodynamics, Physical Review D 13 , 191 (1976).

- [4] R.-G. Cai, L.-M. Cao, L. Li, and R.-Q. Yang, Pv criticality in the extended phase space of gauss-bonnet black holes in ads space, Journal of High Energy Physics 2013 , 1 (2013).

[5] D. Kubizˇ´ ak, R. B. Mann, and M. Teo, Black hole chemistry: n thermodynamics with lambda, Classical and Quantum Gravity 34 , 063001 (2017).

[6] M. R. Visser, Holographic thermodynamics requires a chemical potential for color, Physical Review D 105 , 106014 (2022).

[7] W. Cong, D. Kubizˇ´ ak, and R. B. Mann, Thermodynamics of ads black holes: n critical behavior of the central charge, Physical Review Letters 127 , 091301 (2021).

- [8] Z. Gao and L. Zhao, Restricted phase space thermodynamics for ads black holes via holography, Classical and Quantum Gravity 39 , 075019 (2022).
- [9] Z. Gao, X. Kong, and L. Zhao, Thermodynamics of kerr-ads black holes in the restricted phase space, The European Physical Journal C 82 , 112 (2022).
- [10] G. Kaniadakis, Statistical mechanics in the context of special relativity, Physical review E 66 , 056125 (2002).
- [11] N. Drepanou, A. Lymperis, E. N. Saridakis, and K. Yesmakhanova, Kaniadakis holographic dark energy and cosmology, The European Physical Journal C 82 , 449 (2022).
- [12] A. R´ enyi, On the dimension and entropy of probability distributions, Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungarica 10 , 193 (1959).
- [13] J. D. Barrow, The area of a rough black hole, Physics Letters B 808 , 135643 (2020).
- [14] G. G. Luciano and E. Saridakis, P- v criticalities, phase transitions and geometrothermodynamics of charged ads black holes from kaniadakis statistics, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023 , 1 (2023).
- [15] C. Promsiri, E. Hirunsirisawat, and R. Nakarachinda, Emergent phase, thermodynamic geometry, and criticality of charged black holes from r´nyi statistics, Physical Review D e 105 , 124049 (2022).
- [16] S. Ghaffari, A. Ziaie, H. Moradpour, F. Asghariyan, F. Feleppa, and M. Tavayef, Black hole thermodynamics in sharma-mittal generalized entropy formalism, General Relativity and Gravitation 51 , 1 (2019).
- [17] G. G. Luciano and A. Sheykhi, Black hole geometrothermodynamics and critical phenomena: A look from tsallis entropybased perspective, Physics of the Dark Universe 42 , 101319 (2023).
- [18] A. Jawad and S. R. Fatima, Thermodynamic geometries analysis of charged black holes with barrow entropy, Nuclear Physics B 976 , 115697 (2022).
- [19] E. N. Saridakis, Barrow holographic dark energy, Physical Review D 102 , 123525 (2020).
- [20] E. N. Saridakis, K. Bamba, R. Myrzakulov, and F. K. Anagnostopoulos, Holographic dark energy through tsallis entropy, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2018 (12), 012.
- [21] M. Tavayef, A. Sheykhi, K. Bamba, and H. Moradpour, Tsallis holographic dark energy, Physics Letters B 781 , 195 (2018).
- [22] S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. Faraoni, From nonextensive statistics and black hole entropy to the holographic dark universe, Physical Review D 105 , 044042 (2022).
- [23] S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and T. Paul, Early and late universe holographic cosmology from a new generalized entropy, Physics Letters B 831 , 137189 (2022).
- [24] S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. Faraoni, Area-law versus r´nyi and tsallis black hole entropies, Physical Review D e 104 , 084030 (2021).
- [25] S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. Faraoni, Alternative entropies and consistent black hole thermodynamics, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 19 , 2250210 (2022).
- [26] H. Shababi and K. Ourabah, Non-gaussian statistics from the generalized uncertainty principle, The European Physical Journal Plus 135 , 697 (2020).
- [27] G. G. Luciano, Tsallis statistics and generalized uncertainty principle, The European Physical Journal C 81 , 672 (2021).
- [28] M. Moussa, Schwarzschild black hole thermodynamics and generalized uncertainty principle, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 60 , 994 (2021).
- [29] P. Wang, H. Wu, and H. Yang, Thermodynamic geometry of ads black holes and black holes in a cavity, The European Physical Journal C 80 , 1 (2020).
- [30] M. U. Shahzad, M. I. Asjad, and S. Nafees, Study of thermodynamical geometries of conformal gravity black hole, The European Physical Journal C 82 , 1044 (2022).
- [31] B. Wu, C. Wang, Z.-M. Xu, and W.-L. Yang, Ruppeiner geometry and thermodynamic phase transition of the black hole in massive gravity, The European Physical Journal C 81 , 1 (2021).
- [32] F. Weinhold, Metric geometry of equilibrium thermodynamics, The Journal of Chemical Physics 63 , 2479 (1975).
- [33] G. Ruppeiner, Thermodynamics: A riemannian geometric model, Physical Review A 20 , 1608 (1979).
- [34] P. Salamon, J. Nulton, and E. Ihrig, On the relation between entropy and energy versions of thermodynamic length, The Journal of chemical physics 80 , 436 (1984).
- [35] G. Ruppeiner, Riemannian geometry in thermodynamic fluctuation theory, Reviews of Modern Physics 67 , 605 (1995).
- [36] R. Mrugaglyph[suppress]a, l On equivalence of two metrics in classical thermodynamics, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 125 , 631 (1984).
- [37] J. E. ˚ man, I. Bengtsson, and N. Pidokrajt, Geometry of black hole thermodynamics, General Relativity and Gravitation A 35 , 1733 (2003).
- [38] H. Quevedo, Geometrothermodynamics, Journal of Mathematical Physics 48 (2007).
- [39] H. Quevedo, Geometrothermodynamics of black holes, General Relativity and Gravitation 40 , 971 (2008).
- [40] S. Soroushfar, R. Saffari, and N. Kamvar, Thermodynamic geometry of black holes in f (r) gravity, The European Physical Journal C 76 , 1 (2016).
- [41] R. Silva, The relativistic statistical theory and kaniadakis entropy: an approach through a molecular chaos hypothesis, The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems 54 , 499 (2006).
- [42] M. Yarahmadi and A. Salehi, Using the kaniadakis horizon entropy in the presence of neutrinos to alleviate the hubble and s 8 tensions, The European Physical Journal C 84 , 1 (2024).
- [43] J. McMinis and N. M. Tubman, Renyi entropy of the interacting fermi liquid, Physical Review B-Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 87 , 081108 (2013).
- [44] Y.-T. Tu, Y.-C. Tzeng, and P.-Y. Chang, Renyi entropies and negative central charges in non-hermitian quantum systems, SciPost Physics 12 , 194 (2022).

- [45] G. Leon, J. Magana, A. Hernandez-Almada, M. A. Garcia-Aspeitia, T. Verdugo, and V. Motta, Barrow entropy cosmology: an observational approach with a hint of stability analysis, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (12), 032.
- [46] Q.-M. Feng, Z.-W. Feng, X. Zhou, and Q.-Q. Jiang, Barrow entropy and stochastic gravitational wave background generated from cosmological qcd phase transition, Physics Letters B 838 , 137739 (2023).
- [47] G. Kaniadakis, A. Lavagno, and P. Quarati, Generalized fractional statistics, Modern Physics Letters B 10 , 497 (1996).
- [48] G. Kaniadakis, M. Lissia, and A. Scarfone, Deformed logarithms and entropies, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 340 , 41 (2004).
- [49] G. Kaniadakis, Statistical mechanics in the context of special relativity. ii., Physical Review E-Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 72 , 036108 (2005).
- [50] J. Housset, J. F. Saavedra, and F. Tello-Ortiz, Cosmological flrw phase transitions and micro-structure under kaniadakis statistics, Physics Letters B 853 , 138686 (2024).
- [51] A. Strominger and C. Vafa, Microscopic origin of the bekenstein-hawking entropy, Physics Letters B 379 , 99 (1996).
- [52] R. Nakarachinda, C. Promsiri, L. Tannukij, and P. Wongjun, Thermodynamics of black holes with r \ 'enyi entropy from classical gravity, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05989 (2022).
- [53] E. Lenzi, R. Mendes, and L. Da Silva, Statistical mechanics based on renyi entropy, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 280 (2000).
- [54] P. Jizba and T. Arimitsu, The world according to r´nyi: thermodynamics of multifractal systems, Annals of Physics e 312 , 17 (2004).
- [55] P. Jizba and T. Arimitsu, Observability of r´nyi's entropy, Physical review E e 69 , 026128 (2004).
- [56] J. Dowker, Sphere r´nyi entropies, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical e 46 , 225401 (2013).
- [57] H. Liu and M. Mezei, A refinement of entanglement entropy and the number of degrees of freedom, Journal of High Energy Physics 2013 , 1 (2013).
- [58] D. V. Fursaev, Entanglement r´nyi entropies in conformal field theories and holography, Journal of High Energy Physics e 2012 , 1 (2012).
- [59] C. Tsallis and L. J. Cirto, Black hole thermodynamical entropy, The European Physical Journal C 73 , 1 (2013).
- [60] S. Furuichi, Information theoretical properties of tsallis entropies, Journal of Mathematical Physics 47 (2006).
- [61] R. J. dos Santos, Generalization of shannon's theorem for tsallis entropy, Journal of Mathematical Physics 38 , 4104 (1997).
- [62] S. Rani, A. Jawad, and M. Hussain, Impact of barrow entropy on geometrothermodynamics of specific black holes, The European Physical Journal C 83 , 710 (2023).
- [63] J. D. Barrow, Chaotic behaviour in general relativity, Physics Reports 85 , 1 (1982).
- [64] M. Banados, C. Teitelboim, and J. Zanelli, Black hole in three-dimensional spacetime, Physical review letters 69 , 1849 (1992).
- [65] G. Clement, Classical solutions in three-dimensional einstein-maxwell cosmological gravity, Classical and Quantum Gravity 10 , L49 (1993).
- [66] G. Clement, Spinning charged btz black holes and self-dual particle-like solutions, Physics Letters B 367 , 70 (1996).
- [67] H. Kim, Spinning btz black hole versus kerr black hole: a closer look, Physical Review D 59 , 064002 (1999).
- [68] R. A. Hennigar, D. Kubizˇ´k, and R. B. Mann, Rotating and charged gauss-bonnet btz black holes, Classical and Quantum na Gravity 38 , 03LT01 (2020).
- [69] H. Maeda and J. Podolsk`, Charged rotating btz solution revisited: y New coordinates and algebraic classifications, Classical and Quantum Gravity 41 , 115012 (2024).
- [70] S. Konewko and E. Winstanley, Charge superradiance on charged btz black holes, The European Physical Journal C 84 , 594 (2024).
- [71] N. Kumar, Relativistic correction to black hole entropy, General Relativity and Gravitation 56 , 1 (2024).
Amijit Bhattacharjee Prabwal Phukon
BTZ Black Hole In The Non-Extensive Generalizations of Gibbs Entropy
We study the thermodynamics and thermodynamic geometry of the (2+1)
dimensional Banados-Teitelboim-Zanelli(BTZ) black hole within the framework of
the non-extensive generalizations of Gibbs entropy. We investigate both the
rotating (R-BTZ) and the charged (C-BTZ) BTZ black holes in these non-extensive
entropy formalisms. We write down the Bekenstein-Hawking(BH) entropy of the
black hole in terms of the non-extensive entropies namely: Kaniadakis entropy,
Renyi entropy and Barrow entropy. We investigate their impact on the
thermodynamic phase structure and geometry of the BTZ black holes in both the
ensembles i.e. the fixed $(J)$ and fixed $(\Omega)$ ensemble for the R-BTZ
black hole and the fixed $(Q)$ and the fixed $(\Phi)$ ensemble for the C-BTZ
black hole where $ J$, $\Omega$, $Q$ and $\Phi$ represent the angular momentum,
angular velocity, charge and the electric potential of the respective black
holes . We investigate the Ruppeiner and geometrothermodynamic(GTD) geometries
of the black hole for all the non-extensive entropy cases. We find that there
are Davies type along with Hawking-Page phase transitions in both the charged
and rotating BTZ black hole for the Kaniadakis entropy case in all the above
mentioned thermodynamic ensembles. These phase transitions were not seen in the
BH entropy case. We also find that the Ruppeiner and the GTD scalar for the
Kaniadakis entropy show curvature singularities corresponding to the Davies
type phase transitions in both the rotating and charged BTZ black holes.