arxiv: 2604.24798 · v3 · submitted 2026-04-26 · 🌀 gr-qc · hep-th

Recognition: unknown

Renormalization-group improved Schwarzschild black hole: shadow, ringdown, and strong cosmic censorship

Ahmad Al-Badawi , Faizuddin Ahmed , \.Izzet Sakall{\i}

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 05:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc hep-th

keywords regular black holesrenormalization group improvementquasinormal modesstrong cosmic censorshipblack hole shadowHawking temperatureRegge-Wheeler equation

0 comments

The pith

An RG-improved Schwarzschild black hole keeps its shadow radius within 1 percent of classical Schwarzschild while making the SCC ratio multipole-independent at the 6 percent level.

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

The paper examines a black hole whose metric is modified by renormalization-group flow, using a lapse function that matches the classical Schwarzschild exterior but smooths the interior via a cutoff scale and an interpolation parameter. It computes the photon sphere, shadow size, and quasinormal frequencies for scalar, electromagnetic, and Dirac fields, then checks the strong cosmic censorship condition at the inner horizon. The central finding is that the ratio of the damping rate to the surface gravity remains nearly constant across multipoles and follows the Lyapunov exponent scaling, while the model stays closest to pure Schwarzschild among common regular black holes even though its shadow coincides with Hayward and Bonanno-Reuter solutions at the percent level. These results matter because they show how quantum corrections can alter ringdown and thermodynamics without adding charge or spin, and they map the narrow parameter region where cosmic censorship is only marginally respected.

Core claim

The renormalization-group improved Schwarzschild-like geometry, defined by an interpolating lapse controlled by cutoff ξ and parameter γ, produces a shadow radius degenerate with Hayward and Bonanno-Reuter geometries at the 1 percent level. Its scalar, electromagnetic, and Dirac quasinormal modes satisfy β = |Im ω| / κ_- ≃ λ_L / κ_- with multipole independence at the 6 percent level. The model is the most Schwarzschild-like member of the regular black hole family at matched perturbation scales. Thermodynamics exhibits a Davies-type phase transition, a bell-shaped Hawking temperature peaking near 0.062, and a thin crescent in the (ξ, γ) plane where the Christodoulou version of strong cosmic-c

What carries the argument

The interpolating lapse function governed by cutoff scale ξ and interpolation parameter γ that joins the classical Schwarzschild exterior to a quantum-smoothed interior.

If this is right

The Hawking temperature follows a bell-shaped profile with a maximum value rather than the classical 1/r decay.
Strong cosmic censorship holds except inside a thin crescent of parameter space near the extremal boundary where it is only marginally violated.
The energy emission rate and Hawking flux sparsity are controlled by a single auxiliary function tied to the outer-horizon surface gravity.
At matched scales the present solution remains closer to classical Schwarzschild than Bardeen, Hayward, or Bonanno-Reuter black holes in its perturbation spectrum.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Gravitational-wave ringdown data could separate this geometry from other regular black holes even when their shadows look identical.
The bell-shaped temperature curve implies a finite peak in evaporation luminosity that might leave an observable imprint on the final stages of black-hole decay.
Extending the same RG-improvement procedure to rotating or charged metrics could test whether the multipole-independent SCC ratio survives in more general settings.
The narrow crescent of marginal SCC violation offers a concrete target for numerical simulations that include back-reaction from quantum fields.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen functional form of the lapse function is assumed to capture the effects of renormalization-group flow without additional input from a complete quantum gravity theory.

What would settle it

A high-precision measurement of the shadow radius or the damping rates of the first few quasinormal modes in a supermassive black hole that deviates from the predicted 1 percent shadow degeneracy or 6 percent multipole independence would rule out the specific lapse function used here.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24798 by Ahmad Al-Badawi, Faizuddin Ahmed, \.Izzet Sakall{\i}.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1 view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2 view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: shows Vscalar for ℓ = 2 across the two scans.The f ′/r term carries γ only through the γM combination inside the square-root structure of the lapse, and at the scalar peak r scalar peak ≃ rph − 0.05M – which sits at r scalar peak ≳ 3M – the ratio γM/r stays small. The ξ 2 corrections, by contrast, act at every radius and dominate the response, hence the wider spread on the right. The full two-dimensional (… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: plots Vem across the same scans. The EM peak sits a little below the scalar peak at matched (ℓ, ξ, γ): at ℓ = 2, M = 1 the Schwarzschild scalar peak is V max scalar ≃ 0.247 against the EM peak V max em ≃ 0.187. Ordering under ξ and γ variation reproduces the scalar pattern, and this coherence across spin sectors confirms that the RG parameters act mostly as multiplicative modulators of the centrifugal barr… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6 view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7 view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8 view at source ↗

read the original abstract

A renormalization-group (RG) improved Schwarzschild-like black hole is investigated, whose lapse function interpolates between the classical Schwarzschild exterior and a quantum-smoothed interior governed by the cutoff scale $\xi$ and interpolation parameter $\gamma$. The horizon structure, photon sphere, and shadow radius $R_{\mathrm{sh}}$ are derived, while scalar, electromagnetic, and Dirac Regge--Wheeler--Zerilli perturbations are treated in a unified framework. Fundamental and overtone quasinormal modes are obtained through sixth-order WKB calculations and checked against time-domain ringdown profiles. Strong Cosmic Censorship (SCC) is tested at the inner Cauchy horizon, generated here without charge or rotation, and the ratio $\beta=|\mathrm{Im}\,\omega|/\kappa_-$ is found to be multipole-independent at the $6\%$ level, following $\beta\simeq\lambda_L/\kappa_-$. Thermodynamic analysis reveals a Davies-type phase transition at the outer horizon and a nontrivial Weinhold--Ruppeiner geometry on the $(S,\gamma)$ slice. The Schwarzschild decay law $T_H\propto 1/r_+$ is replaced by a bell-shaped profile with a maximum $T_H^{\max}\simeq 0.062$. A scan over the $(\xi,\gamma)$ plane captures the joint behavior of the shadow, scalar barrier, SCC ratio, and Hawking temperature, revealing a thin crescent near the extremal boundary where Christodoulou-SCC is marginally violated. Comparison with Bardeen, Hayward, and Bonanno--Reuter black holes shows that the present solution is the most Schwarzschild-like member of the regular-black-hole family at matched perturbation scale, while remaining shadow-degenerate with Hayward and Bonanno--Reuter geometries at the $1\%$ level. Finally, the sparsity of the Hawking flux and the energy-emission rate are analyzed, both depending on $(\xi,\gamma)$ through a single auxiliary function tied to the outer-horizon surface gravity.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper runs standard calculations on a two-parameter phenomenological regular black hole metric and reports a multipole-independent SCC ratio plus some comparative rankings, but the lapse is an interpolation ansatz without derivation from RG flow.

read the letter

The paper studies a regular black hole whose lapse interpolates between Schwarzschild at large r and a smoothed core set by parameters ξ and γ. It computes the photon sphere and shadow, scalar/EM/Dirac quasinormal modes with sixth-order WKB plus time-domain checks, the SCC ratio β at the inner horizon, and thermodynamic quantities including a Davies transition and Ruppeiner geometry on the (S, γ) plane. A parameter scan ties these together and identifies a thin region of marginal SCC violation plus a bell-shaped Hawking temperature peaking near 0.062 in suitable units.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims to study a renormalization-group improved Schwarzschild black hole using a two-parameter lapse function that interpolates between the classical exterior and a quantum-smoothed interior. It derives the horizon structure, photon sphere and shadow radius, computes scalar/electromagnetic/Dirac quasinormal modes via sixth-order WKB and time-domain methods, tests strong cosmic censorship through the multipole-independent ratio β = |Im ω|/κ_- (reported at the 6% level and following β ≃ λ_L/κ_-), performs thermodynamic analysis including a Davies-type phase transition and Ruppeiner geometry, and compares the model to Bardeen, Hayward and Bonanno-Reuter geometries, concluding it is the most Schwarzschild-like regular black hole at matched perturbation scale while remaining shadow-degenerate at the 1% level. A parameter scan identifies a thin crescent near the extremal boundary where Christodoulou-SCC is marginally violated.

Significance. If the lapse ansatz is accepted as a faithful representation of RG effects, the work supplies a unified phenomenological framework for shadows, ringdown and SCC in regular black holes without charge or rotation. The reported near-universality of β, the explicit SCC boundary in parameter space, and the quantitative comparisons to other regular metrics provide concrete, falsifiable predictions that could guide observational tests and further quantum-gravity truncations. The standard WKB and time-domain methods employed lend technical reliability to the numerical results.

major comments (3)

[§2] §2 (metric construction): the lapse function f(r; ξ, γ) is introduced as an interpolation ansatz between the Schwarzschild exterior and a quantum-smoothed core, yet no derivation from the beta functions of the underlying quantum-gravity truncation, explicit cutoff identification k(r), or integrated running of G(k) is supplied; all subsequent claims (shadow radius, WKB frequencies, κ±, β ratio, temperature profile, and the (ξ, γ) scan) are direct consequences of this specific functional form.
[Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (QNMs and SCC): the statement that β is multipole-independent at the 6% level and follows β ≃ λ_L/κ_- is given without error bars, without the precise multipole range and field types over which the percentage is computed, and without a quantitative measure of the deviation from exact equality.
[§5] §5 (parameter scan): the identification of a 'thin crescent' near the extremal boundary where Christodoulou-SCC is marginally violated lacks details on the numerical resolution of the (ξ, γ) grid, the precise numerical criterion used for 'marginal violation', and the robustness of the crescent under small changes in the interpolation parameters.

minor comments (3)

The abstract reports 6% and 1% figures without accompanying uncertainties or the precise definition of 'matched perturbation scale' used in the comparisons.
The thermodynamic section states T_H^max ≃ 0.062 but omits units and the reference scale against which the maximum is measured.
Figure captions for the shadow and temperature plots could explicitly state the fixed values of the second parameter when one is varied.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments in detail below and have made revisions to improve the clarity and completeness of the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§2] §2 (metric construction): the lapse function f(r; ξ, γ) is introduced as an interpolation ansatz between the Schwarzschild exterior and a quantum-smoothed core, yet no derivation from the beta functions of the underlying quantum-gravity truncation, explicit cutoff identification k(r), or integrated running of G(k) is supplied; all subsequent claims (shadow radius, WKB frequencies, κ±, β ratio, temperature profile, and the (ξ, γ) scan) are direct consequences of this specific functional form.

Authors: The functional form of the lapse function is adopted as a physically motivated ansatz that captures the essential features of RG improvement, consistent with previous literature on asymptotically safe gravity applied to black holes. A direct derivation from the beta functions and explicit running of G(k) would necessitate a complete non-perturbative quantum gravity computation, which is outside the phenomenological scope of this work. We have revised §2 to explicitly state the ansatz nature and its motivation, including additional references to the original RG-improved Schwarzschild solutions. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (QNMs and SCC): the statement that β is multipole-independent at the 6% level and follows β ≃ λ_L/κ_- is given without error bars, without the precise multipole range and field types over which the percentage is computed, and without a quantitative measure of the deviation from exact equality.

Authors: We accept this criticism and will provide the requested details in the revision. The multipole independence at the 6% level refers to the variation in β across l=2 to l=30 for scalar, electromagnetic, and Dirac fields, with the maximum deviation from the mean being approximately 6%. We will add error bars, specify the exact range and field types, and include a quantitative measure such as the standard deviation of β values in both the abstract and §4. revision: yes
Referee: [§5] §5 (parameter scan): the identification of a 'thin crescent' near the extremal boundary where Christodoulou-SCC is marginally violated lacks details on the numerical resolution of the (ξ, γ) grid, the precise numerical criterion used for 'marginal violation', and the robustness of the crescent under small changes in the interpolation parameters.

Authors: We will include these numerical details in the revised §5. The scan was performed on a 150 by 150 grid in the (ξ, γ) parameter space. Marginal violation is defined as β lying within 5% of unity (i.e., 0.95 < β < 1.05). We have verified the robustness by repeating the scan with a finer 300 by 300 grid and by varying the interpolation parameter γ by ±10%, confirming that the crescent region persists. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; computations follow from explicit metric ansatz

full rationale

The paper introduces a two-parameter lapse function f(r; ξ, γ) that interpolates the Schwarzschild exterior to a smoothed core, then derives all subsequent quantities—horizon locations, photon-sphere radius, shadow size R_sh, sixth-order WKB quasinormal frequencies for scalar/EM/Dirac fields, surface gravities κ±, the ratio β = |Im ω|/κ_-, Hawking temperature profile, and (ξ, γ) scans—directly from this metric and the associated perturbation potentials. No quoted step equates a reported prediction to a fitted parameter by construction, invokes a self-citation chain for a uniqueness theorem, or renames an external result; the multipole-independence of β at the 6 % level and the 1 % shadow degeneracy are numerical outcomes of the chosen f(r), not tautological identities. The RG-improved label is a modeling premise rather than a derived claim that loops back to the inputs, leaving the derivation chain self-contained against the stated metric.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model rests on two free parameters ξ and γ that define the lapse function, plus standard general-relativity assumptions for linear perturbations and thermodynamics; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (2)

ξ
Cutoff scale that sets the transition from classical to quantum-smoothed regime
γ
Interpolation parameter controlling the strength of the quantum correction

axioms (2)

domain assumption The spacetime is static and spherically symmetric
Invoked to reduce the metric to a single lapse function
standard math Linear perturbations reduce to Regge-Wheeler-Zerilli equations
Used for scalar, electromagnetic, and Dirac fields

invented entities (1)

RG-improved lapse function no independent evidence
purpose: To interpolate between classical Schwarzschild exterior and regular quantum interior
Constructed ad hoc to incorporate renormalization-group effects

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5683 in / 1771 out tokens · 56051 ms · 2026-05-08T05:28:46.172931+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

outburst of overtones

≃ 0.19245to0 .17520at( ξ, γ) = (0.5, 5.0)(a9%drop) and reappears in the imaginary part of the QNM spectrum, providing the geometric input to the SCC analysis of Sec. V viaβ≃λL/κ−. FIG. 2.Three-dimensional surface of the orbital angular velocityΩϕM at the photon sphere over(ξ/M, γ)at M = 1. The Schwarzschild value is reached at the front-left corner(ξ, γ) ...

1962
[2]

Weinberg,General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey , 790 (1979)

S. Weinberg,General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey , 790 (1979)

1979
[3]

Reuter, Phys

M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D57, 971 (1998)

1998
[4]

Niedermaier and M

M. Niedermaier and M. Reuter, Living Rev. Rel.9, 5 (2006)

2006
[5]

Bonanno and M

A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D62, 043008 (2000)

2000
[6]

Falls and D

K. Falls and D. F. Litim, Phys. Rev. D89, 084002 (2014)

2014
[7]

Bonanno and M

A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D73, 083005 (2006)

2006
[8]

Koch and F

B. Koch and F. Saueressig, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29, 1430011 (2014)

2014
[9]

Platania, Eur

A. Platania, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 470 (2019)

2019
[10]

A. Held, R. Gold, and A. Eichhorn, JCAP2019, 029 (2019)

2019
[11]

Eichhorn and A

A. Eichhorn and A. Held, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 933 (2021)

2021
[12]

Akiyamam and others (Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration), Astrophys

K. Akiyamam and others (Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019)

2019
[13]

Akiyamam and others (Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration), Astrophys

K. Akiyamam and others (Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L12 (2022)

2022
[14]

Berti, V

E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. O. Starinets, Class. Quant. Grav.26, 163001 (2009)

2009
[15]

R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 793 (2011)

2011
[16]

Nollert, Class

H.-P. Nollert, Class. Quant. Grav.16, R159 (1999)

1999
[17]

Bonanno, A

A. Bonanno, A. Khosravi, and F. Saueressig, Phys. Rev. D107, 024005 (2023)

2023
[18]

S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975)

1975
[19]

J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D7, 2333 (1973)

1973
[20]

J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter, and S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.31, 161 (1973)

1973
[21]

Battista, Phys

E. Battista, Phys. Rev. D109, 026004 (2024). 22

2024
[22]

Wang and E

Z.-L. Wang and E. Battista, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 304 (2025)

2025
[23]

R. A. Konoplya, D. Ovchinnikov, and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. D108, 104054 (2023)

2023
[24]

A. M. Bonanno, R. A. Konoplya, G. Oglialoro, and A. Spina, JCAP2025, 042 (2025)

2025
[25]

E. Sucu, I. Sakalli, and Y. Sucu, Int. J Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. (2026), 10.1142/S0219887826501161, online

work page doi:10.1142/s0219887826501161 2026
[26]

Sucu and I

E. Sucu and I. Sakalli, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 989 (2025)

2025
[27]

Aydiner, E

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

2025
[28]

Ahmed, A

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

2025
[29]

Ahmed, A

F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and I. Sakalli, Int. J Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. (2025), 10.1142/S0219887825502573, online

work page doi:10.1142/s0219887825502573 2025
[30]

Sucu and İ

E. Sucu and İ. Sakallı, Proc. R. Soc. A481, 20250251 (2025)

2025
[31]

Sucu and İ

E. Sucu and İ. Sakallı, Chin. Phys. C49, 105101 (2025)

2025
[32]

Ahmed, A

F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and İ. Sakallı, Eur. Phys. J C85, 545 (2025)

2025
[33]

Mangut, H

M. Mangut, H. Gursel, and I. Sakalli, Chin. Phys. C49, 065106 (2025)

2025
[34]

Pourhassan, X

B. Pourhassan, X. Shi, S. S. Wani, S. Al-Kuwari, I. Sakalli, N. A. Shah, M. Faizal, and A. Shabir, Ann. Phys.477, 169983 (2025)

2025
[35]

S. N. Gashti, B. Pourhassan, and İ. Sakallı, Universe11, 247 (2025)

2025
[36]

Cardoso, J

V. Cardoso, J. L. Costa, K. Destounis, P. Hintz, and A. Jansen, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 031103 (2018)

2018
[37]

O. J. C. Dias, H. S. Reall, and J. E. Santos, JHEP2018, 001 (2018)

2018
[38]

Cao, L.-Y

L.-M. Cao, L.-Y. Li, X.-Y. Liu, and Y.-S. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D109, 084021 (2024)

2024
[39]

Hod, Nucl

S. Hod, Nucl. Phys. B941, 636 (2019)

2019
[41]

Casals and C

M. Casals and C. I. S. Marinho, Phys. Rev. D106, 044060 (2022)

2022
[42]

Alencar, T

G. Alencar, T. M. Crispim, C. R. Muniz, and M. Nilton, (2026), arXiv:2603.05130 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2026
[43]

Cardoso, A

V. Cardoso, A. S. Miranda, E. Berti, H. Witek, and V. T. Zanchin, Phys. Rev. D79, 064016 (2009)

2009
[44]

I. Z. Stefanov, S. S. Yazadjiev, and G. G. Gyulchev, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 251103 (2010)

2010
[45]

C.-Y. Chen, H. W. Chiang, and J.-S. Tsao, Phys. Rev. D106, 044068 (2022)

2022
[46]

Meng, X.-M

Y. Meng, X.-M. Kuang, and Z.-Y. Tang, Phys. Rev. D106, 064006 (2022)

2022
[47]

Miguel Ladino and E

J. Miguel Ladino and E. Larranaga, Int. J. Theor. Phys.62, 209 (2023)

2023
[48]

Yu and C

S. Yu and C. Gao, Mod. Phys. Lett. A35, 2050256 (2020)

2020
[49]

Ovgun, I

A. Ovgun, I. Sakalli, and J. Saavedra, Chin. Phys. C42, 105102 (2018)

2018
[50]

Murodov, J

S. Murodov, J. Rayimbaev, B. Ahmedov, and E. Karimbaev, Universe9, 391 (2023)

2023
[51]

J. L. Synge, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.131, 463 (1966)

1966
[52]

Luminet, Astronomy and Astrophysics75, 228 (1979)

J.-P. Luminet, Astronomy and Astrophysics75, 228 (1979)

1979
[53]

J. M. Bardeen, Les Houches Summer School of Theoretical Physics: Black Holes , 215 (1973)

1973
[54]

P. V. P. Cunha and C. A. R. Herdeiro, Gen. Rel. Grav.50, 42 (2018)

2018
[55]

Perlick and O

V. Perlick and O. Y. Tsupko, Phys. Rept.947, 1 (2022)

2022
[56]

Chandrasekhar,The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998)

S. Chandrasekhar,The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998)

1998
[57]

C. V. Vishveshwara, Nature227, 936 (1970)

1970
[58]

K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Rev. Rel.2, 2 (1999)

1999
[59]

C. Y. Zhang, Z. Y. Tang, and B. Wang, Phys. Rev. D94, 104013 (2016)

2016
[60]

Regge and J

T. Regge and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev.108, 1063 (1957)

1957
[61]

F. J. Zerilli, Phys. Rev. Lett.24, 737 (1970)

1970
[62]

L. C. B. Crispino, A. Higuchi, and G. E. A. Matsas, Class. Quant. Grav.17, 19 (2000)

2000
[63]

Ruffini and J

R. Ruffini and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Today24, 30 (1971)

1971
[64]

Unruh, Phys

W. Unruh, Phys. Rev. Lett.31, 1265 (1973)

1973
[65]

Chandrasekhar, Proc

S. Chandrasekhar, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A349, 571 (1976)

1976
[66]

LIGO Scientific, Virgo and KAGRA Collaborations, Phys. Rev. D103, 122002 (2021)

2021
[67]

Cardoso and L

V. Cardoso and L. Gualtieri, Class. Quant. Grav.33, 174001 (2016)

2016
[68]

LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016)

2016
[69]

B. F. Schutz and C. M. Will, Astrophys. J. Lett.291, L33 (1985)

1985
[70]

Iyer and C

S. Iyer and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D35, 3621 (1987)

1987
[71]

Iyer, Phys

S. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D35, 3632 (1987)

1987
[72]

K. D. Kokkotas and B. F. Schutz, Phys. Rev. D37, 3378 (1988)

1988
[73]

R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Rev. D68, 024018 (2003)

2003
[74]

R. A. Konoplya, A. Zhidenko, and A. F. Zinhailo, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 155002 (2019)

2019
[75]

Matyjasek and M

J. Matyjasek and M. Opala, Phys. Rev. D96, 024011 (2017)

2017
[76]

Hatsuda, Phys

Y. Hatsuda, Phys. Rev. D101, 024008 (2020)

2020
[77]

Ahmed, A

F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, I. Sakalli, and A. Bouzenada, Nucl. Phys. B1011, 116806 (2025)

2025
[78]

Jusufi, Phys

K. Jusufi, Phys. Rev. D101, 084055 (2020)

2020
[79]

R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, JCAP2019, 068 (2019)

2019
[80]

E. W. Leaver, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A402, 285 (1985)

1985
[81]

Gundlach, R

C. Gundlach, R. H. Price, and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. D49, 883 (1994)

1994

Showing first 80 references.