pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11844 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-12 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE· hep-th

Recognition: unknown

Astrophysical Signatures of Einstein-Skyrme Anti-de Sitter Black Holes: Epicyclic Frequencies and QPO Constraints

Faizuddin Ahmed , Ahmad Al-Badawi , \.Izzet Sakall{\i}
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th
keywords Einstein-Skyrme theoryAnti-de Sitter black holesepicyclic frequenciesquasi-periodic oscillationsgeodesic motionMarkov chain Monte Carloperiastron precessionblack hole parameters
0
0 comments X

The pith

Einstein-Skyrme AdS black holes fit observed QPO pairs with Skyrme parameter Q near 0.6.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines geodesic motion of test particles around a static spherically symmetric black hole in Einstein-Skyrme theory with negative cosmological constant. The lapse function depends on a Skyrme coupling constant, a charge-like parameter Q, and the AdS scale, which together control the horizon structure and the effective potential for circular orbits. From this potential the authors derive the radial and vertical epicyclic frequencies and show that the radial frequency grows with radius in AdS, eventually exceeding the orbital frequency and reversing the sign of periastron precession. Applying the relativistic precession model to twin-peak QPO data from four sources, they run MCMC fits that converge to Q approximately 0.6, orbital radii near 4.2 times the black-hole mass, and masses consistent with independent measurements.

Core claim

In the Einstein-Skyrme anti-de Sitter black hole spacetime, the epicyclic frequencies exhibit a distinctive behavior where the radial epicyclic frequency grows at large radii and surpasses the orbital frequency, causing the periastron precession frequency to change sign. Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis of quasi-periodic oscillation data from XTE J1550-564, GRO J1655-40, Sgr A*, and M82 X-1 shows that the model accommodates the observations with Q approximately 0.6, orbital radii near 4.2 M, and masses consistent with independent estimates.

What carries the argument

The lapse function f(r) of the static spherically symmetric ES-AdS black hole, depending on the Skyrme coupling η, the charge-like parameter Q from the Skyrme term, and the negative cosmological constant Λ, which determines the horizon structure and enables calculation of the effective potential, ISCO, and epicyclic frequencies.

If this is right

  • The periastron precession frequency changes sign at large orbital radii due to the AdS term.
  • The radiative efficiency at the ISCO exceeds unity, rendering the standard Novikov-Thorne formula negative.
  • Posterior distributions from MCMC fits to QPO data converge to Q approximately 0.6 across multiple sources.
  • Orbital radii cluster near 4.2 times the black hole mass with masses matching independent estimates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Confirmation would allow astrophysical QPO data to constrain Skyrme model parameters independently of particle-physics experiments.
  • The sign reversal in precession frequency could distinguish AdS black holes from their asymptotically flat counterparts in future observations.
  • High-precision QPO measurements from additional sources could test whether the fitted value Q near 0.6 is universal for this family of solutions.

Load-bearing premise

The relativistic precession model correctly maps the derived epicyclic frequencies to the observed QPO pairs without significant contributions from disk physics, magnetic fields, or non-geodesic effects.

What would settle it

Detection of twin-peak QPOs from a source where the required Skyrme parameter Q differs substantially from 0.6, or direct observation of epicyclic frequencies showing no increase in radial frequency at large radii.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11844 by Ahmad Al-Badawi, Faizuddin Ahmed, \.Izzet Sakall{\i}.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Metric function f(r) for several values of the Skyrme coupling parameter η, with Q = 0.3, Λ = −0.03, and M = 1. All curves remain in the NEBH regime: the outer EH moves outward and the inter-horizon gap widens with increasing η, while two horizons persist due to the combined Q2/r2 and AdS barriers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Metric function f(r) for varying Skyrme charge parameter Q, with η = 0.1, Λ = −0.03, and M = 1. NEBH curves (Q < Qext) exhibit two zero crossings (Cauchy and event horizons); the EBH curve (Q = Qext) is tangent to f = 0; the NBH curve (Q = 1.5) shows no zero crossing, indicating the absence of any horizon. signatures-orbital frequencies, accretion disk properties, and the location of the ISCO, all of which… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Metric function f(r) for different values of the cosmological constant Λ, with η = 0.1, Q = 0.3, and M = 1. All configurations shown are NEBH. More negative Λ strengthens the AdS potential well, pushing the outer EH to larger radii [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Characteristic configurations of the ES-AdS BH with Λ = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: EP Ueff(r) for varying L, with η = 0.1, Q = 0.3, Λ = −0.03, and M = 1. Higher angular momentum widens the potential well and supports stable circular orbits. The rise at large r is the AdS confining wall [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: EP Ueff(r) for varying η, with L = 4, Q = 0.3, Λ = −0.03, and M = 1. Larger η lowers the potential barrier and pushes the minimum outward. The first group of terms represents the radial force on a particle with zero angular momentum: the rs/r2 piece is the usual Newtonian attraction, the Q2/r3 repulsion originates in the Skyrme charge, and the Λr term reflects the AdS 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: EP Ueff(r) for varying Q, with L = 4, η = 0.1, Λ = −0.03, and M = 1. The Q2/r2 repulsion deepens the inner well and shifts the minimum to smaller r. confining potential. The second group, proportional to L 2 , encodes the centrifugal corrections; in particular, the factor (1 − η 2 ) shows that the Skyrme coupling weakens the centrifugal barrier [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effective radial force F(r) for the ES-AdS BH. Panel (i): varying Q at fixed η = 0.1. Panel (ii): varying η at fixed Q = 0.3; the inset magnifies the region r ∈ [1.25, 1.5] where the curves separate. In both panels M = 1, L = 1, and Λ = −0.003. This nonlinear ODE governs the full orbital shape in the ES-AdS BH gravitational field. The left-hand side resembles a harmonic oscillator with a shifted natural fr… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Particle trajectories in the X-Y plane obtained by integrating Eq. (17) with initial conditions u(0) = 0.25, u ′ (0) = 0.25. Here M = 1 = L and Λ = −0.003. Top row: fixed η ≈ 0.35 (i.e. K = F 2 π /4), varying Q (i.e. e = 5, 5.5, 6). Bottom row: fixed Q ≈ 0.39 (i.e. e = 6.5), varying η (i.e. K = 0.001, 0.002, 0.003). The black dot marks the BH location. energy on the orbit [73] L 2 sp = r 2 f ′ (r) 2 f(r) −… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Specific energy Esp(r) on circular orbits for varying η, with Q = 0.3, Λ = −0.03, and M = 1. Unlike the asymptotically flat case, Esp grows with r due to the AdS confining potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Specific angular momentum Lsp(r) on circular orbits for varying η, with Q = 0.3, Λ = −0.03, and M = 1. Each curve passes through a minimum whose location marks the ISCO for that η value. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Squared specific angular momentum L 2 sp(r) for varying η, with Q = 0.3, Λ = −0.03, and M = 1. The minimum of each curve locates the ISCO, which migrates outward as η grows. We solve (20) numerically for various parameter combinations; the results are collected in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: shows νϕ and νr as functions of r/M for a 10 M⊙ BH with η = 0.1, Q = 0.3, Λ = −0.03. The orbital frequency peaks close to the photon sphere and decreases monotonically outward. The radial frequency νr vanishes at the ISCO, grows through an intermediate maximum, and-due to the AdS confining potential-continues to rise at large r, eventually exceeding νϕ. The dependence of νϕ and νr on the Skyrme charge Q i… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Orbital frequency νϕ for varying Q, with M = 10 M⊙, η = 0.1, Λ = −0.03. Larger Q suppresses νϕ at small r through the −2Q2/r3 term in f ′ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Radial epicyclic frequency νr for varying Q, with M = 10 M⊙, η = 0.1, Λ = −0.03. Each curve vanishes at the ISCO and grows at larger r owing to the AdS potential. spacetimes, where νp remains positive for all r > rISCO. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Periastron precession frequency νp = νϕ − νr for varying Q, with M = 10 M⊙, η = 0.1, Λ = −0.03. The zero crossing marks where νr overtakes νϕ-a hallmark of the AdS confining potential. 4.3 Observational constraints from QPO data Twin-peak QPOs observed in low-mass X-ray binaries and active galactic nuclei provide pairs of frequencies (νU , νL) that can be matched to orbital dynamics models. We adopt the r… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Corner plot for XTE J1550–564. Contours indicate 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Corner plot for GRO J1655–40. zone just outside the ISCO. These findings indicate that the ES-AdS BH can accommodate the observed QPO frequency pairs within physically reasonable parameter ranges, and that the Skyrme charge leaves a detectable imprint on the frequency ratio νU /νL. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Corner plot for Sgr A∗ . M = 9.55 +0.84 0.30 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Q Q = 0.59 +0.35 0.41 8.8 9.6 10.4 11.2 M 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4 r/ M 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Q 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4 r/M r/M = 4.20 +0.27 0.63 M82 X-1 ( =0.1, =-0.03) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Corner plot for M82 X-1. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_20.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the geodesic motion and epicyclic oscillations of massive test particles around a static, spherically symmetric black hole (BH) solution of the Einstein--Skyrme (ES) theory in Anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime. The lapse function of this BH depends on the Skyrme coupling $\eta$, a charge-like parameter $Q$ inherited from the Skyrme term, and the cosmological constant $\Lambda<0$. We first map out the horizon structure and identify three regimes-non-extremal BH (NEBH), extremal BH (EBH), and naked BH (NBH)-showing that the NEBH $\to$ EBH $\to$ NBH transition is governed by $Q$ rather than $\eta$, which enters $f(r)$ only as a constant shift. We then derive the effective potential (EP), locate the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO), and compute the radiative efficiency, finding that $\mathcal{E}_{\rm ISCO}>1$ in AdS renders the standard Novikov-Thorne formula negative. The corrected radial epicyclic frequency $\Omega_r$ reveals a distinctive AdS signature: $\nu_r$ grows at large $r$ and overtakes the orbital frequency $\nu_\phi$, causing the periastron precession frequency $\nu_p = \nu_\varphi - \nu_r$ to change sign-a feature absent in asymptotically flat geometries. Adopting the relativistic precession (RP) model for quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs), we perform a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis using twin-peak QPO data from XTE~J1550-564, GRO~J1655-40, Sgr~A$^*$, and M82~X-1. The posteriors converge to $Q\approx 0.6$ across all sources, with orbital radii near $r\approx 4.2\,M$ and masses consistent with independent estimates, demonstrating that the ES-AdS BH accommodates the observed frequency pairs within physically motivated parameter ranges.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies geodesic motion and epicyclic oscillations of test particles around static spherically symmetric Einstein-Skyrme black holes in AdS spacetime. It maps the horizon structure (NEBH, EBH, NBH regimes), derives the effective potential and ISCO location, computes radiative efficiency (noting the AdS correction when E_ISCO > 1), obtains the radial and orbital epicyclic frequencies (highlighting the AdS-specific sign change in the periastron precession frequency ν_p), and applies the relativistic precession model to perform MCMC fits of twin-peak QPO data from XTE J1550-564, GRO J1655-40, Sgr A*, and M82 X-1, reporting convergence to Q ≈ 0.6 at r ≈ 4.2 M with masses consistent with independent estimates.

Significance. If the frequency derivations are accurate and the RP-model mapping is justified, the work supplies astrophysical constraints on the Skyrme charge-like parameter Q and isolates a distinctive AdS signature in the epicyclic frequencies that is absent in asymptotically flat spacetimes. The multi-source MCMC analysis yielding consistent posteriors constitutes a concrete technical contribution, as does the explicit handling of the effective potential and the E_ISCO > 1 correction.

major comments (2)
  1. [QPO constraints and MCMC analysis] QPO constraints section: The headline result that the ES-AdS solution accommodates the observed frequency pairs rests on an MCMC fit of Q (and implicitly r) to the same twin-peak QPO data used to demonstrate accommodation. While the posteriors converge to Q ≈ 0.6 across sources, this match is achieved by construction; the manuscript should either provide an out-of-sample test or compare the inferred Q against independent bounds on the Skyrme parameter to establish that the accommodation is non-trivial.
  2. [Relativistic precession model application] Application of the relativistic precession model: The identification of observed upper/lower QPO frequencies with ν_φ and ν_φ − ν_r assumes that non-geodesic contributions (disk hydrodynamics, magnetic torques, pressure support) are negligible at the fitted radii r ≈ 4.2 M. No quantitative estimate of the possible frequency shifts from these effects relative to the reported posterior width is supplied; if such shifts exceed the posterior uncertainty, the inferred Q no longer reflects the spacetime parameters alone.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Effective potential and frequency derivations] Clarify the precise functional form of the lapse function f(r) (including the constant shift from η) when it is substituted into the effective potential and the epicyclic-frequency expressions; cross-check that all AdS corrections are retained consistently.
  2. [MCMC results] The statement that masses remain consistent with independent estimates should be supported by explicit numerical comparison (with uncertainties) rather than a qualitative remark.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and valuable comments, which have prompted us to clarify key aspects of our analysis. We address each major comment point by point below, providing our responses and indicating the revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: QPO constraints section: The headline result that the ES-AdS solution accommodates the observed frequency pairs rests on an MCMC fit of Q (and implicitly r) to the same twin-peak QPO data used to demonstrate accommodation. While the posteriors converge to Q ≈ 0.6 across sources, this match is achieved by construction; the manuscript should either provide an out-of-sample test or compare the inferred Q against independent bounds on the Skyrme parameter to establish that the accommodation is non-trivial.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's observation on the nature of the MCMC fitting procedure. The analysis does fit the model to the observed frequency pairs for each source, but the non-trivial element lies in the fact that a single value of the Skyrme parameter Q ≈ 0.6 emerges consistently from four independent sources with differing masses, accretion rates, and observed QPO properties. This cross-source convergence tests the model's ability to describe the data uniformly without source-specific tuning of Q. In addition, the inferred masses remain consistent with independent observational estimates for each object. As the Einstein-Skyrme AdS solution represents a specific theoretical framework without existing astrophysical constraints on Q from other phenomena, no direct comparison to external bounds is feasible at present. We have revised the manuscript to include an expanded discussion of this multi-source consistency as evidence of robustness and to explicitly note the current absence of independent bounds on Q as a topic for future study. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Application of the relativistic precession model: The identification of observed upper/lower QPO frequencies with ν_φ and ν_φ − ν_r assumes that non-geodesic contributions (disk hydrodynamics, magnetic torques, pressure support) are negligible at the fitted radii r ≈ 4.2 M. No quantitative estimate of the possible frequency shifts from these effects relative to the reported posterior width is supplied; if such shifts exceed the posterior uncertainty, the inferred Q no longer reflects the spacetime parameters alone.

    Authors: We agree that the relativistic precession model relies on the assumption that geodesic epicyclic frequencies dominate over non-geodesic effects at the relevant radii. Our work follows the standard application of this model as employed in the broader QPO literature. At the fitted radii r ≈ 4.2 M (exterior to the ISCO), the geodesic contribution is expected to provide the leading-order description. In the revised manuscript we have added a qualitative discussion of possible frequency shifts arising from disk hydrodynamics, magnetic torques, and pressure support, referencing typical magnitudes reported in related studies of similar systems. A precise, source-specific quantitative estimate of these shifts would require dedicated magnetohydrodynamic simulations in the Einstein-Skyrme AdS background, which exceeds the scope of the present geodesic-focused analysis. We have therefore highlighted this as a systematic uncertainty and a direction for subsequent work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; frequency derivations and parameter fitting are independent steps

full rationale

The paper first derives the effective potential, ISCO, and epicyclic frequencies (Ω_r, Ω_φ, ν_p) directly from the ES-AdS lapse function f(r) containing parameters η, Q, and Λ. These expressions are obtained from geodesic equations and do not reference QPO observations. The subsequent MCMC step fits Q (and r, M) to twin-peak QPO data under the separate RP model assumption; this is standard parameter estimation that constrains the model rather than re-deriving the frequencies from the data. No equation reduces to its input by construction, no self-citation chain bears the central claim, and the accommodation statement is simply the outcome of a successful fit with masses cross-checked against independent estimates. The RP model assumption itself is an external modeling choice, not an internal definitional loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard geodesic motion in a fixed background metric, the Skyrme model as previously formulated, and the applicability of the relativistic precession model; Q is introduced as a free parameter and fitted to data.

free parameters (3)
  • Q = 0.6
    Charge-like parameter inherited from the Skyrme term; fitted via MCMC to QPO data
  • η
    Skyrme coupling constant; enters the lapse function as a constant shift but is not varied in the fit
  • Λ
    Negative cosmological constant; fixed but its specific value is not reported in the fit
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Test particles follow geodesics in the given spacetime metric
    Used to derive effective potential, ISCO, and epicyclic frequencies
  • domain assumption Relativistic precession model maps epicyclic frequencies directly to observed QPO pairs
    Adopted without modification to perform the MCMC analysis

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5703 in / 1489 out tokens · 69181 ms · 2026-05-10T15:23:08.519821+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L6 (2019)

    2019

  3. [3]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L12 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L17 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA), Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    van der Klis, Ann

    M. van der Klis, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.38, 717 (2000)

    2000

  8. [8]

    R. A. Remillard and J. E. McClintock, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.44, 49 (2006)

    2006

  9. [9]

    T. H. R. Skyrme, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A260, 127 (1961)

    1961

  10. [10]

    T. H. R. Skyrme, Nucl. Phys.31, 556 (1962)

    1962

  11. [11]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B223, 422 (1983)

    1983

  12. [12]

    G. S. Adkins, C. R. Nappi, and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B228, 552 (1983)

    1983

  13. [13]

    Luckock and I

    H. Luckock and I. Moss, Phys. Lett. B176, 341 (1986)

    1986

  14. [14]

    S. Droz, M. Heusler, and N. Straumann, Phys. Lett. B268, 371 (1991)

    1991

  15. [15]

    Kleihaus, J

    B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, and A. Sood, Phys. Lett. B352, 247 (1995)

    1995

  16. [16]

    Nelmes and B

    S. Nelmes and B. M. A. G. Piette, Phys. Rev. D84, 085017 (2011). 4This statement is provided in accordance with the general transparency principles adopted by major publishers concern- ing the use of generative AI in scientific writing. See Elsevier:https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/ generative-ai-policies-for-journals; Springer Nature...

    2011

  17. [17]

    C. Adam, N. Grandi, P. Klimas, J. Sanchez-Guillen, and A. Wereszczynski, Gen. Relativ. Grav.42, 2663 (2010)

    2010

  18. [18]

    S. B. Gudnason and M. Nitta, JHEP2017(09), 028

  19. [19]

    Canfora, S

    F. Canfora, S. H. Oh, and P. Salgado-Rebolledo, Phys. Rev. D96, 084038 (2017)

    2017

  20. [20]

    Brihaye and T

    Y. Brihaye and T. Delsate, Mod. Phys. Lett. A21, 2043 (2006)

    2043

  21. [21]

    Canfora and H

    F. Canfora and H. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D87, 084049 (2013)

    2013

  22. [22]

    Canfora, F

    F. Canfora, F. Correa, and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. D90, 085002 (2014)

    2014

  23. [23]

    Canfora, E

    F. Canfora, E. F. Eiroa, and C. M. Sendra, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 9 (2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 231 (1998)

    1998

  25. [25]

    Witten, Adv

    E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 253 (1998)

    1998

  26. [26]

    Kubizˇ n´ ak and R

    D. Kubizˇ n´ ak and R. B. Mann, JHEP2012(07), 033

  27. [27]

    Gunasekaran, D

    S. Gunasekaran, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, and R. B. Mann, JHEP2012(11), 110

  28. [28]

    S. W. Hawking and D. N. Page, Commun. Math. Phys.87, 577 (1983)

    1983

  29. [29]

    Stuchl´ ık and S

    Z. Stuchl´ ık and S. Hled´ ık, Phys. Rev. D60, 044006 (1999)

    1999

  30. [30]

    N. Cruz, M. Olivares, and J. R. Villanueva, Class. Quant. Grav.22, 1167 (2005)

    2005

  31. [31]

    M. A. Abramowicz and W. Kluzn´ ıak, Astron. Astrophys.374, L19 (2001)

    2001

  32. [32]

    T¨ or¨ ok, M

    G. T¨ or¨ ok, M. A. Abramowicz, W. Kluzn´ ıak, and Z. Stuchl´ ık, Astron. Astrophys.436, 1 (2005)

    2005

  33. [33]

    Stella and M

    L. Stella and M. Vietri, Astrophys. J. Lett.492, L59 (1998)

    1998

  34. [34]

    Stella and M

    L. Stella and M. Vietri, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 17 (1999)

    1999

  35. [35]

    Rezzolla, S

    L. Rezzolla, S. Yoshida, T. J. Maccarone, and O. Zanotti, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.344, L37 (2003)

    2003

  36. [36]

    Bambi, Astrophys

    C. Bambi, Astrophys. J.761, 174 (2012)

    2012

  37. [37]

    Rayimbaev, A

    J. Rayimbaev, A. Abdujabbarov, M. Jamil, B. Ahmedov, and W.-B. Han, Phys. Rev. D102, 084016 (2020)

    2020

  38. [38]

    Boshkayev, A

    K. Boshkayev, A. Idrissov, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, Phys. Rev. D108, 044063 (2023)

    2023

  39. [39]

    Boos and F

    J. Boos and F. Wunsch, JCAP2026(03), 020

  40. [40]

    Koloˇ s, M

    M. Koloˇ s, M. Shahzadi, and Z. Stuchl´ ık, Eur. Phys. J C80, 133 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    Shahzadi, M

    M. Shahzadi, M. Koloˇ s, Z. Stuchl´ ık, A. Tursunov, and B. Ahmedov, Eur. Phys. J C81, 1067 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    Mustafa, A

    G. Mustafa, A. Ditta, T. Naseer, S. K. Maurya, P. Channuie, A. A. Ibraheem, and F. Atamurotov, Eur. Phys. J C85, 575 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    Ashraf, A

    A. Ashraf, A. Ditta, T. Naseer, S. K. Maurya, P. Channuie, A. A. Ibraheem, and F. Atamurotov, Eur. Phys. J C85, 633 (2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    Ashraf, A

    A. Ashraf, A. Ditta, A. Bouzenada, S. K. Maurya, P. Channuie, A. A. Ibraheem, and F. Atamurotov, Eur. Phys. J C85, 383 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    Stuchl´ ık, S

    Z. Stuchl´ ık, S. Konar, J. C. Miller, and S. Hled´ ık, Astron. Astrophys.489, 963 (2008)

    2008

  46. [46]

    Stuchl´ ık, A

    Z. Stuchl´ ık, A. Kotrlov´ a, and G. T¨ or¨ ok, Proc. IAU8, 315 (2012)

    2012

  47. [47]

    Stuchl´ ık, A

    Z. Stuchl´ ık, A. Kotrlov´ a, and G. T¨ or¨ ok, Astron. Astrophys.552, A10 (2013)

    2013

  48. [48]

    Kotrlov´ a, G

    A. Kotrlov´ a, G. T¨ or¨ ok, E.ˇSr´ amkov´ a, K. Goluchov´ a, and Z. Stuchl´ ık, Astronomy & Astrophysics572, A79 (2014)

    2014

  49. [49]

    Stuchl´ ık and M

    Z. Stuchl´ ık and M. Koloˇ s, Eur. Phys. J C76, 32 (2016)

    2016

  50. [50]

    Stuchl´ ık and J

    Z. Stuchl´ ık and J. Vrba, Universe7, 279 (2021)

    2021

  51. [51]

    Shaymatov, J

    S. Shaymatov, J. Vrba, D. Malafarina, B. Ahmedov, and Z. Stuchl´ ık, Phys. Dark Univ.30, 100648 (2020)

    2020

  52. [52]

    Stuchl´ ık and J

    Z. Stuchl´ ık and J. Vrba, (2021), arXiv:2110.07411 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    Davlataliev, J

    A. Davlataliev, J. Rayimbaev, A. Abdujabbarov, and R. Karimov, (2025), 2603.11500

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and I. Sakallı, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101925 (2025)

    2025

  55. [55]

    Toshmatov, Z

    B. Toshmatov, Z. Stuchl´ ık, and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. D95, 084037 (2017). 25

    2017

  56. [56]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and I. Sakallı, (2026), arXiv:2602.02621 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    Alloqulov, J

    M. Alloqulov, J. Rayimbaev, A. Abdujabbarov, and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. D107, 024016 (2023)

    2023

  58. [58]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and E. O. Silva, (2026), arXiv:2602.02116 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Ahmed, M

    F. Ahmed, M. Fathi, and A. Al-Badawi, (2026), arXiv:2603.19458 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    Aydiner, E

    E. Aydiner, E. Sucu, and ˙I. Sakallı, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102164 (2025)

    2025

  61. [61]

    Franchini, P

    N. Franchini, P. Pani, A. Maselli, L. Gualtieri, C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and V. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. D95, 124025 (2017)

    2017

  62. [62]

    Al-Badawi, F

    A. Al-Badawi, F. Ahmed, O. D¨ onmez, F. Do˘ gan, B. Pourhassan, ızzet Sakallı, and Y. Sekhmani, Phys. Dark Univ.51, 102206 (2026)

    2026

  63. [63]

    Ghorani, S

    E. Ghorani, S. Mitra, J. Rayimbaev, B. Puli¸ ce, F. Atamurotov, A. Abdujabbarov, and D. Demir, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1122 (2024)

    2024

  64. [64]

    R. A. Remillard, M. P. Muno, J. E. McClintock, and J. A. Orosz, Astrophys. J.580, 1030 (2002)

    2002

  65. [65]

    T. E. Strohmayer, Astrophys. J. Lett.552, L49 (2001)

    2001

  66. [66]

    D. R. Pasham, T. E. Strohmayer, and R. F. Mushotzky, Nature513, 74 (2014)

    2014

  67. [67]

    Genzel, R

    R. Genzel, R. Sch¨ odel, T. Ott,et al., Nature425, 934 (2003)

    2003

  68. [68]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and I. Sakallı, (2025), arXiv:2509.12264 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and I. Sakallı, (2026), arXiv:2602.02586 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and I. Sakallı, Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101988 (2025)

    2025

  71. [71]

    Koloˇ s, A

    M. Koloˇ s, A. Tursunov, and Z. Stuchl´ ık, Eur. Phys. J C77, 860 (2017)

    2017

  72. [72]

    Barriola and A

    M. Barriola and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 341 (1989)

    1989

  73. [73]

    Chandrasekhar,The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984)

    S. Chandrasekhar,The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984)

    1984

  74. [74]

    R. M. Wald,General Relativity(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984)

    1984

  75. [75]

    I. D. Novikov and K. S. Thorne, Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus) , 343 (1973), edited by C. DeWitt and B. S. DeWitt, Gordon and Breach

    1973

  76. [76]

    D. N. Page and K. S. Thorne, Astrophys. J.191, 499 (1974)

    1974

  77. [77]

    Stuchl´ ık and S

    Z. Stuchl´ ık and S. Hled´ ık, Class. Quantum Grav.17, 4541 (2000)

    2000

  78. [78]

    T¨ or¨ ok and Z

    G. T¨ or¨ ok and Z. Stuchl´ ık, Astron. Astrophys.437, 775 (2005)

    2005

  79. [79]

    Koloˇ s, Z

    M. Koloˇ s, Z. Stuchl´ ık, and A. Tursunov, Class. Quantum Grav.32, 165009 (2015)

    2015

  80. [80]

    Tursunov, Z

    A. Tursunov, Z. Stuchl´ ık, and M. Koloˇ s, Phys. Rev. D93, 084012 (2016)

    2016

Showing first 80 references.