Primary scalar hair in Gauss-Bonnet black holes with Thurston horizons

Julio Oliva; Luis Guajardo

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Primary scalar hair in Gauss-Bonnet black holes with Thurston horizons

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs exact AdS5 Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet black holes with a primary scalar hair that persists as a free integration constant.

desk verdict New exact hairy black holes with Thurston horizons, but the central claim that the ansatz solves the full field equations is never verified; this needs a direct check before the paper is accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20134 v2 pith:CQ2R7XWY submitted 2024-12-28 hep-th gr-qc

Luis Guajardo , Julio Oliva This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thgr-qc

keywords primaryscalarhairEinstein-Gauss-BonnetChern-SimonspointasymptoticallylocallyAdSThurstonhorizonsconformallycoupledblackholethermodynamicsexactsolutions

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to show that Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity at the Chern-Simons point in five dimensions admits a new family of asymptotically locally AdS black holes whose horizon is one of three Thurston geometries (Nil, Solv, or SL(2,R)), dressed by a fully backreacting scalar field. Unlike secondary hair, the scalar's strength A is an independent integration constant: setting A=0 leaves a black hole with the same horizon, so the hair is genuinely primary. The solutions are exact, with f(r)=r²/(4α)-μ-3κA²/(64αr) and φ(r)=A/$r^{{3/2}}$, and they reduce to previously known planar hairy black holes when μ→0 and to dimensionally continued black holes when A→0. The paper also reports that the Regge-Teitelboim mass and entropy vanish for the whole family, even though the geometry is non-trivial.

What carries the argument

The engine of the construction is the combination of the conformal scalar coupling (3/32)Rφ² with a quartic potential νφ⁴ and the Gauss-Bonnet term at the Chern-Simons point. A particular combination of the field equations collapses to the ordinary differential equation αf'' - 1/2 + (3/32)κφ² = 0, which is solved by φ(r)=A/$r^{{3/2}}$ and f(r)=r²/(4α)-μ-3κA²/(64αr) precisely when ν=-27κ/(2048α) in five dimensions. The Thurston horizon geometries provide the homogeneous but not maximally symmetric base spaces that let μ appear as an integration constant in the metric without making the ansatz inconsistent.

What would settle it

Substitute the proposed metric and φ=A/$r^{{3/2}}$ into the scalar field equation (2b) at a generic point with ν different from -27κ/(2048α): the residual will be nonzero. Equivalently, for the claimed value of ν, verify the field equations (2) hold identically for the three metrics (9), (12), and (15); a single numerical check at arbitrary r and A≠0 either confirms or kills the exactness claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an exact, fully backreacting solution with primary scalar hair in five-dimensional Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory at the Chern-Simons point Λα=-3/4. For horizon geometries modelled by Nil, Solv, and SL(2,R) Thurston metrics, the metric takes the form ds²=-f(r)dt²+dr²/f(r)+r² dΩ₃² with f(r)=r²/(4α)-μ-3κA²/(64αr), and the scalar field is φ(r)=A/$r^{{3/2}}$, where A is an independent integration constant. When A=0 the solution reduces to the dimensionally continued topological black hole; when μ→0 it reduces to the planar hairy solutions of [1]. The authors prove that only A counts as scalar hair, because μ changes the conformal boundary geometry, and they show via the Regge-Teitelboim method (with the same result from the Wald formalism) that the mass and entropy of these black holes vanish identically.

Load-bearing premise

The existence of the whole family relies on the quartic self-coupling ν being fixed to exactly -27κ/(2048α) in five dimensions (and -125κ/(4608α) in six); change that coupling and φ=A/$r^{{3/2}}$ ceases to solve the scalar equation, so the hairy black holes disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The family interpolates between two known branches: set A=0 to recover dimensionally continued topological black holes, and set μ=0 to recover the planar hairy black holes of [1].
Because mass and entropy vanish but A is a genuine hair parameter, these black holes are candidate counterexamples to no-hair theorems in higher-curvature gravity with fine-tuned matter couplings.
The horizon isometry structure is temperature-dependent: on the line 3r₊=16παT the horizon becomes maximally symmetric with ISO(3), while away from it the isometries are spontaneously broken to the Thurston subgroup.
The construction extends to six dimensions for Solv-4 horizons, with φ(r)=A/r^{5/2} and couplings Λ=-5/(12α), ν=-125κ/(4608α), giving a corresponding family there.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same mechanism might work for other homogeneous base spaces or other dimensions, but only inside the matter sector defined by the tuned quartic coupling; outside it the simple power-law profile will not solve the scalar equation.
A natural test is to perturb these solutions linearly: if the scalar mode A is not fixed by boundary conditions, the primary hair is dynamical, whereas if a perturbation forces A to zero, the hair would be unstable.
The vanishing mass and entropy suggest these solutions sit at a point where standard thermodynamic ensembles may need a generalized first law, a direction the paper does not explore.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper gives a new family of exact, asymptotically locally AdS5 black holes in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet at the Chern-Simons point, supported by a conformally coupled scalar with a tuned phi^4 potential. The horizon bases are Nil, Solv, and SL(2,R) Thurston geometries, and the scalar profile phi=A/r^{3/2} carries an independent constant A. When A goes to zero you recover the dimensionally continued black holes; when mu goes to zero you recover the Correa-Hassaine planar hairy solution. So the specific metrics are new, and the construction is clean and transparent. The authors also write a six-dimensional Solv-4 extension, though they only sketch it.

What I like: the paper is honest about the fine-tuning of the quartic coupling, and it carefully lays out the Killing vectors and geometry of the bases. The thermodynamic section is detailed, even if the outcome is odd.

The problems are three. First, and most importantly, the paper never actually verifies the claim that the ansatz solves the full covariant field equations. Equation (6) is asserted to follow from a combination of the field equations, but the transverse (ij) components on a non-Einstein base are the dangerous place. Nil, Solv, and SL(2,R) have constant scalar curvature but nonvanishing trace-free Ricci tensor. Generically, those components would force the base to be Einstein unless a special cancellation happens at this particular point in parameter space. No such cancellation is shown, and no computer-algebra check is included. The solution may well be correct, but the paper's central claim is exactly the thing that needs proof, and it is missing.

Second, the thermodynamics section has a concrete inconsistency: Eq. (30) states R(r)=r*sqrt(mu), while the on-shell variation in Eq. (32) corresponds to R(r)=r/sqrt(mu). As printed, the delta-B_E identically zero computation cannot be independently checked. Also, the mass and entropy vanish only relative to the mu=A=0 background; that is a convention, not a robust prediction, and the paper's language about being obligated overstates it.

Third, the quartic coupling is negative, so the scalar potential is unbounded below. Stability is not discussed. That is a physical gap, not a mathematical error, but a referee will want a comment.

This is closer to acceptance than rejection. I would send it to peer review, with the requirement that the authors provide a step-by-step derivation of (6) or a symbolic-verification file, fix the R(r) mismatch, and add a sentence about the stability question. If they do that, it is a solid exact-solution paper for the Chern-Simons and hairy-black-hole subfield.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs static, asymptotically locally AdS5 black hole solutions of Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity at the Chern-Simons point, sourced by a scalar field with a conformal kinetic term and a quartic self-interaction. The horizon manifolds are taken to be the three-dimensional Thurston geometries Nil, Solv, and SL(2,R). The claimed solutions are given in Eqs. (9), (12), and (15), with f(r)=r^2/(4α)-μ-3κA^2/(64αr) and φ(r)=A/r^{3/2}; A is presented as a primary hair parameter, and the planar limit μ=0 recovers solutions of Correa and Hassaine. The paper also computes a Regge-Teitelboim action for the Solv case and claims that the mass and entropy vanish, and it sketches a six-dimensional Solv-4 analogue.

Significance. If correct, the construction is a useful new example of primary scalar hair in a second-order higher-curvature theory: the scalar field is fully backreacting, its integration constant A is independent of the metric parameter μ, and setting A=0 leaves a non-trivial black hole. This goes beyond the secondary-hair solutions previously known at the Chern-Simons point. The paper also gives an explicit thermodynamic calculation and a six-dimensional extension, so the family may be of interest for studies of scalar hair, holographic applications, and higher-curvature gravity. The significance is tempered by the fact that the scalar potential is fine-tuned and unbounded below for the required couplings, and by the incomplete verification of the solutions discussed below.

major comments (3)

[Section II, Eq. (6)] The derivation of the central solutions is incomplete. For the warped ansatz (5), the base components of Eq. (2a) contain terms proportional to the trace-free Ricci tensor S_ij of the three-dimensional base metric h_ij. The Nil, Solv, and SL(2,R) Thurston geometries have constant Ricci scalar -2μ but are not Einstein, so S_ij is nonzero. Unless these terms cancel identically for f(r)=r^2/(4α)-μ-3κA^2/(64αr) and φ(r)=A/r^{3/2}, the field equations would force S_ij=0 and the advertised solutions would not exist. The paper states only that Eq. (6) follows 'from a combination of the field equations' and does not display the substitution into the full covariant system (2a)-(2b). This is load-bearing: exactness is the central claim. Please provide an explicit verification, or a supplementary computer-algebra check, covering all three base geometries. The same gap applies to the six-dimensional Solv-4 solution (35)-(38), which is merely stated and deferred.
[Section III, Eqs. (30) and (32)] There is an internal inconsistency in the minisuperspace thermodynamics. In the Euclidean metric (25), the identification x3=√μ z used to recover the Solv solution (12) gives R(r)=r/√μ, not R(r)=r√μ as printed in Eq. (30). The on-shell variations in Eq. (32), with δR=-rδμ/(2μ^{3/2}) and δR'=-δμ/(2μ^{3/2}), are the ones that correspond to R(r)=r/√μ. As printed, Eq. (30) and Eq. (32) are mutually inconsistent, so the claimed identity δB_E≡0 cannot be independently checked. This typo must be corrected for the thermodynamic calculation to be reproducible.
[Section III, Eqs. (33)-(34)] The interpretation of the thermodynamic result M≡0, S≡0 needs more nuance. Because δB_E vanishes identically, the charges are determined only up to an arbitrary additive constant, and the values M=0 and S=0 follow by choosing the μ=A=0 configuration as the reference background. The text acknowledges this, but it then says that 'only one of the integration constants can be interpreted as hair' on the basis of the boundary geometry. The paper should explain more explicitly why μ is not a hair despite modifying the conformal boundary, and why the μ=A=0 background is an admissible reference for the Regge-Teitelboim procedure, particularly for the partially compactified coordinates used for the Solv and Nil cases. As it stands, the headline thermodynamic claim is less informative than the wording suggests.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] There are several typographical issues, for example 'Thurst on' in the title header and 'Harvara-Lifshitz' in Section IV; these should be corrected.
[Section II, Eq. (20)] The coordinate transformation (19)-(22) is lengthy, and the statement that the µ→0 limit straightforwardly yields a planar black hole is asserted without demonstration; a short verification would help the reader.
[Section III, Eq. (29)] The claim that the reduced Hamiltonian minisuperspace reproduces the covariant field equations is said to be a straightforward computation, but no details are given. Since the reduced action involves a restricted set of functions, it would be useful to show at least the resulting equations of motion or to state the explicit reduction used.
[Section II, Eq. (8)] The quartic coupling ν is negative for the required values, so the scalar potential is unbounded below. The paper does not discuss this or the associated stability and energy-condition issues; this limitation should be stated explicitly.
[Section IV, Eqs. (35)-(38)] The six-dimensional solution is presented as a result but with details deferred to future work. If it is part of this paper, the field equations should be checked at least in outline; otherwise it should be more clearly labeled as an announced extension.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the hairy-solution construction is self-contained, and the thermodynamic result is a normalization convention rather than a hidden fit.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an explicit ansatz construction, not a fitted prediction. Starting from the action (1) and metric ansatz (5), the reduction (6) and scalar profile (7) with coupling (8) determine the family (9), (12), and (15); the constants μ and A are free integration constants, and their independence is the content of the primary-hair claim. The quartic coupling ν is chosen so that the backreacted metric and φ=A/r^{3/2} solve the scalar equation; this is a theory-construction step, not a circular import. The thermodynamic section defines charges relative to the μ=A=0 background, and the paper explicitly notes the constant-shift freedom; assigning M=S=0 to that background is the usual normalization, not a prediction forced by the data. I found no load-bearing self-citation chain: references to the authors' earlier work, such as [28] and [48], are contextual and are not used to rule out alternatives or to justify the ansatz. Two non-circular completeness concerns should be recorded: the paper says (6) 'stems from a combination of the field equations' without displaying the transverse (ij) field equations, so exactness on non-Einstein Thurston bases is asserted rather than verified in the text; and Eq. (30) states R(r)=r√μ while the on-shell variation (32) corresponds to R(r)=r/√μ, so the δB_E≡0 computation cannot be independently checked as printed. These are correctness and completeness risks, not circular reductions. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction is an existence proof in a deliberately tuned model. The action couplings are chosen by hand, and the ansatz relies on specific homogeneous horizon geometries and boundary conventions. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

quartic scalar self-coupling ν = ν = -27κ/(2048α) in 5D; ν = -125κ/(4608α) in 6D
Chosen by hand so that the ansatz φ=A/r^{3/2} solves the scalar field equation; varying ν destroys the exact solution.

assumptions (4)

ad hoc to paper The matter action includes a non-conformal quartic self-interaction with coupling ν fixed in terms of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling α and Newton constant κ.
Without this tuning, Eq. (2b) is not solved by φ=A/r^{3/2}; the existence of the hairy family is contingent on this choice (Section II, Eq. (8)).
domain assumption The horizon metric is a three-dimensional Thurston geometry from the set Nil, Solv, SL(2,R), all with Ricci scalar -2μ, and the same μ appears in the radial blackening function.
The field equations for the warp product reduce to the radial system only for such homogeneous bases; the paper verifies the bases satisfy the required identities.
domain assumption The radial modes are restricted to the two integration constants μ and A; a possible linear-in-r mode in f(r) is discarded as incompatible with asymptotic local AdS boundary conditions.
Equation (6) integrates to include a term c1 r, which is absent in the presented metrics without an explicit derivation that c1=0 follows from the remaining equations (Section II, around Eq. (6)).
ad hoc to paper For thermodynamics, the μ=A=0 configuration is used as the reference background with zero mass and entropy.
Because δB_E ≡ 0, the charges are fixed by this normalization convention, not by a unique variational argument (Section III, Eqs. (31)-(34)).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Primary scalar hair in Gauss-Bonnet black holes with Thurston horizons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQ2R7XWY

@misc{pith2026241220134,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Primary scalar hair in Gauss-Bonnet black holes with Thurston horizons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQ2R7XWY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20134}
}

abstract

In this work, we construct novel asymptotically locally AdS$_5$ black hole solutions of Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory at the Chern-Simons point, supported by a scalar field that generates primary hair. The strength of the scalar field is governed by an independent integration constant; when this constant vanishes, the spacetime reduces to a black hole geometry devoid of hair. The existence of these solutions is intrinsically tied to the horizon metric, which is modeled by three non-trivial Thurston geometries: Nil, Solv, and $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$. The quadratic part of the scalar field action corresponds to a conformally coupled scalar in five dimensions -an invariance of the matter sector that is explicitly broken by the introduction of a quartic self-interaction. These black holes are characterized by two distinct parameters: the horizon radius and the temperature. Notably, there exists a straight line in this parameter space along which the horizon geometry exhibits enhanced isometries, corresponding to solutions previously reported in JHEP 02, 014 (2014). Away from this line, for a fixed horizon radius and temperatures above or below a critical value, the metric's isometries undergo spontaneous breaking. Employing the Regge-Teitelboim approach, we compute the mass and entropy of these solutions, both of which vanish. Despite this, only one of the integration constants can be interpreted as hair, as the other modifies the local geometry at the conformal boundary. Finally, for Solv horizon geometries, we extend these hairy solutions to six dimensions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[1]

Correa and M

F. Correa and M. Hassaine, JHEP 02, 014 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2014)014 [arXiv:1312.4516 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2014
[2]

G. T. Horowitz, Cambridge Univ. Pr., 2012, ISBN 978-1-10 7-01345-2

work page 2012
[3]

C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, no.09, 1542014 (2015) doi:10.1142/S0218271815420146 [arXiv:1504.08209 [gr-q c]]

arXiv 2015
[4]

Mahapatra, S

S. Mahapatra, S. Priyadarshinee, G. N. Reddy and B. Shukl a, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.2, 024042 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.024042 [arXiv:2004.00 921 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.024042 2020
[5]

Priyadarshinee, S

S. Priyadarshinee, S. Mahapatra and I. Banerjee, Phys. R ev. D 104, no.8, 084023 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.084023 [arXiv:2108.02514 [he p-th]]. 11

arXiv 2021
[6]

Priyadarshinee and S

S. Priyadarshinee and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.4, 044017 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.044017 [arXiv:2305.09172 [gr -qc]]

arXiv 2023
[7]

Daripa and S

A. Daripa and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.12, 124039 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.124039 [arXiv:2401.04561 [gr -qc]]

arXiv 2024
[8]

N. M. Bocharova, K. A. Bronnikov and V. N. Melnikov, Vestn .Mosk.Univ.Ser.III Fiz.Astron. (1970) 6, 706-709

work page 1970

Show all 71 references

[9]

J. D. Bekenstein, Annals Phys. 82, 535-547 (1974) doi:10.1016/0003-4916(74)90124-9

1974 doi
[10]

Martinez and J

C. Martinez and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. D 54, 3830-3833 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.3830 [arXiv:gr-qc/9604021 [gr-qc]]

1996 arXiv
[11]

Martinez, R

C. Martinez, R. Troncoso and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. D 67, 024008 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.67.024008 [arXiv:hep-th/0205319 [hep-th]]

2003 arXiv
[12]

Radu and E

E. Radu and E. Winstanley, Phys. Rev. D 72, 024017 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.024017 [arXiv:gr-qc/0503095 [gr-qc]]

2005 arXiv
[13]

Anabalon and A

A. Anabalon and A. Cisterna, Phys. Rev. D 85, 084035 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.084035 [arXiv:1201.2008 [hep- th]]

2012 arXiv
[14]

Giribet, M

G. Giribet, M. Leoni, J. Oliva and S. Ray, Phys. Rev. D 89, no.8, 085040 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.085040 [arXiv:1401.4987 [hep- th]]

2014 arXiv
[15]

Bravo-Gaete, C

M. Bravo-Gaete, C. G. Gaete, L. Guajardo and S. G. Rodr ´ ı guez, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.4, 044027 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.044027 [arXiv:2 103.15634 [gr-qc]]

2021 doi
[16]

Cisterna, A

A. Cisterna, A. Neira-Gallegos, J. Oliva and S. C. Rebol ledo-Caceres, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.6, 064050 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.064050 [arXiv:2 101.03628 [gr-qc]]

2021 doi
[17]

Bravo-Gaete, L

M. Bravo-Gaete, L. Guajardo and J. Oliva, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.2, 024017 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.024017 [arXiv:2205.09282 [he p-th]]

2022 arXiv
[18]

Barrientos, A

J. Barrientos, A. Cisterna, N. Mora and A. Vigan` o, Phys . Rev. D 106, no.2, 024038 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.024038 [arXiv:2202.06706 [he p-th]]

2022 arXiv
[19]

Barrientos and A

J. Barrientos and A. Cisterna, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.2, 024059 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.024059 [arXiv:2305.03765 [gr -qc]]

2023 arXiv
[20]

Barrientos, A

J. Barrientos, A. Cisterna, M. Hassaine and J. Oliva, Eu r. Phys. J. C 84, no.10, 1011 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13383-4 [arXiv:2404.1219 4 [gr-qc]]

2024
[21]

Ortaggio, Phys

M. Ortaggio, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.4, 4 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.044019 [arXiv:2403.18048 [gr-qc]]. 12

2024 arXiv
[22]

(see also [23] for a comprehensive list of references). It is kno wn that in vacuum, in such special point, the space of solutions is also enlarged and the theory admits exact, rotating spacetimes [24–26], wormholes [27, 28], dimensionally continued black h oles1 [35] and even...
[23]

A. H. Chamseddine, Phys. Lett. B 233, 291-294 (1989) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(89)91312-9

1989 doi
[24]

Hassaine and J

M. Hassaine and J. Zanelli, World Scientiﬁc, 2016, ISBN 978-981-4730-93-8 doi:10.1142/9863

2016 doi
[25]

Anabalon, N

A. Anabalon, N. Deruelle, Y. Morisawa, J. Oliva, M. Sasa ki, D. Tempo and R. Troncoso, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 065002 (2009) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/26/6/065002 [arXi v:0812.3194 [hep-th]]

2009 arXiv
[26]

Cvetic, X

M. Cvetic, X. H. Feng, H. Lu and C. N. Pope, Phys. Lett. B 765, 181-187 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.12.018 [arXiv:1609.09136 [hep-th]]

2017 arXiv
[27]

Tapia, M

L. Tapia, M. Aguayo, A. Anabal´ on, D. Astefanesei, N. Gr andi, F. Izaurieta, J. Oliva and C. Quinzacara, [arXiv:2411.08001 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[28]

Dotti, J

G. Dotti, J. Oliva and R. Troncoso, Phys. Rev. D 75, 024002 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.024002 [arXiv:hep-th/0607062 [hep-th]]

2007 arXiv
[29]

Dotti, J

G. Dotti, J. Oliva and R. Troncoso, Phys. Rev. D 76, 064038 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.064038 [arXiv:0706.1830 [hep- th]]

2007 arXiv
[30]

J. P. S. Lemos, Phys. Lett. B 353, 46-51 (1995) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00533-Q [arXiv:gr-qc/9404041 [gr-qc]]

1995 arXiv
[31]

R. B. Mann, Class. Quant. Grav. 14, L109-L114 (1997) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/14/5/007 [arXiv:gr-qc/9607071 [gr-qc]]

1997 arXiv
[32]

Vanzo, Phys

L. Vanzo, Phys. Rev. D 56, 6475-6483 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.6475 [arXiv:gr-qc/9705004 [gr-qc]]

1997 arXiv
[33]

D. R. Brill, J. Louko and P. Peldan, Phys. Rev. D 56, 3600-3610 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.3600 [arXiv:gr-qc/9705012 [gr -qc]]

1997 arXiv
[34]

Cadeau and E

C. Cadeau and E. Woolgar, Class. Quant. Grav. 18, 527-542 (2001) doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/18/3/312 [arXiv:gr-qc/0011029 [gr-qc]]

2001 arXiv
[35]

Hassa ¨ ıne, Phys

M. Hassa ¨ ıne, Phys. Rev. D 91, no.8, 084054 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.084054 [arXiv:1503.01716 [hep-th]]

2015 arXiv
[36]

Banados, C

M. Banados, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. D 49, 975-986 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.975 [arXiv:gr-qc/9307033 [gr- qc]]

1994 arXiv
[37]

M. H. Dehghani and R. B. Mann, JHEP 07, 019 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2010)019 [arXiv:1004.4397 [hep-th]]

2010 arXiv
[38]

Giribet, N

G. Giribet, N. Merino, O. Miskovic and J. Zanelli, JHEP 08, 083 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2014)083 [arXiv:1406.3096 [hep-th] ]. 13

2014 arXiv
[39]

Andrianopoli, G

L. Andrianopoli, G. Giribet, D. L. D ´ ıaz and O. Miskovic , JHEP 11, 123 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2021)123 [arXiv:2106.01876 [hep-th ]]

2021 arXiv
[40]

Bravo Gaete and M

M. Bravo Gaete and M. Hassaine, Phys. Rev. D 88, 104011 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.104011 [arXiv:1308.3076 [hep- th]]

2013 arXiv
[41]

Lovelock, J

D. Lovelock, J. Math. Phys. 12, 498-501 (1971) doi:10.1063/1.1665613

1971 doi
[42]

P. G. S. Fernandes, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.10, 104065 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.104065 [arXiv:2105.04687 [gr-qc]]

2021 arXiv
[43]

Gegenberg and G

J. Gegenberg and G. Kunstatter, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 1197-1208 (2004) doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/21/4/031 [arXiv:hep-th/0306279 [hep-th]]

2004 arXiv
[44]

G. T. Horowitz and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D 59, 026005 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.026005 [arXiv:hep-th/9808079 [hep-th]]

1998 arXiv
[45]

G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2752-2756 (1977) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2752

1977 doi
[46]

Regge and C

T. Regge and C. Teitelboim, Annals Phys. 88, 286 (1974) doi:10.1016/0003-4916(74)90404-7

1974 doi
[47]

Anabalon, F

A. Anabalon, F. Canfora, A. Giacomini and J. Oliva, Phys . Rev. D 84, 084015 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.084015 [arXiv:1108.1476 [hep- th]]

2011 arXiv
[48]

R. G. Cai, Y. Liu and Y. W. Sun, JHEP 10, 080 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/10/080 [arXiv:0909.2807 [hep-th]]

2009 arXiv
[49]

Erices, L

C. Erices, L. Guajardo and K. Lara, [arXiv:2410.13719 [ gr-qc]]

arXiv
[50]

Bakopoulos, C

A. Bakopoulos, C. Charmousis, P. Kanti, N. Lecoeur and T . Nakas, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.2, 024032 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.024032 [arXiv:2 310.11919 [gr-qc]]

2024 doi
[51]

Bakopoulos, N

A. Bakopoulos, N. Chatzifotis and T. Nakas, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.2, 024044 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.024044 [arXiv:2312.17198 [gr -qc]]

2024 arXiv
[52]

Bakopoulos, N

A. Bakopoulos, N. Chatzifotis and T. Karakasis, Phys. R ev. D 110, no.10, 10 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.L101502 [arXiv:2404.07522 [h ep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[53]

Baake, A

O. Baake, A. Cisterna, M. Hassaine and U. Hernandez-Ver a, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.6, 064024 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.064024 [arXiv:2312.05 207 [hep-th]]

2024 doi
[54]

Chernicoﬀ, G

M. Chernicoﬀ, G. Giribet, N. Grandi and J. Oliva, JHEP 08, 087 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2018)087 [arXiv:1806.06254 [hep-th ]]

2018 arXiv
[55]

Flores-Alfonso, C

D. Flores-Alfonso, C. S. Lopez-Monsalvo and M. Maceda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, no.6, 061102 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.061102 [arXiv:2104 .00754 [gr-qc]]. 14

2021 doi
[56]

Flores-Alfonso, C

D. Flores-Alfonso, C. S. Lopez-Monsalvo and M. Maceda, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.2, 024063 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.024063 [arXiv:2311.12 985 [gr-qc]]

2024 doi
[57]

R. E. Arias and I. Salazar Landea, JHEP 12, 087 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2017)087 [arXiv:1708.04335 [hep-th]]

2017 arXiv
[58]

Bravo-Gaete and M

M. Bravo-Gaete and M. Hassaine, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.2, 024020 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.024020 [arXiv:1710.02720 [hep -th]]

2018 arXiv
[59]

Faedo, D

F. Faedo, D. A. Farotti and S. Klemm, JHEP 12, 151 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2019)151 [arXiv:1908.07421 [hep-th]]

2019 arXiv
[60]

Naderi, A

F. Naderi, A. Rezaei-Aghdam and Z. Mahvelati-Shamsaba di, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.10, 865 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09622-7 [arXiv:210 6.03217 [hep-th]]

2021 doi
[61]

Naderi and A

F. Naderi and A. Rezaei-Aghdam, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no.12, 995 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7516-7 [arXiv:1905.11302 [hep-th]]

2019 arXiv
[62]

Figueroa and M

J. Figueroa and M. Oyarzo, [arXiv:2102.02328 [gr-qc]]

arXiv
[63]

Figueroa, G

J. Figueroa, G. Giribet, A. Neira-Gallegos, J. Oliva an d M. Oyarzo, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.11, 1215 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13578-9 [arXiv :2404.18378 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[64]

Faedo, S

F. Faedo, S. Klemm and P. Mariotti, JHEP 05, 138 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2023)138 [arXiv:2212.04890 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[65]

Oliva, J

J. Oliva, J. Math. Phys. 54, 042501 (2013) doi:10.1063/1.4795258 [arXiv:1210.4123 [ hep-th]]

2013 arXiv
[66]

Peng, Phys

Y. Peng, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.8, 084004 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.084004 [arXiv:2105.08482 [gr-qc]]

2021 arXiv
[67]

Peng, Eur

Y. Peng, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.1, 81 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12450-0 [arXiv:2205.03830 [gr-qc]]

2024 arXiv
[68]

R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 48, no.8, R3427-R3431 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.R342 7 [arXiv:gr-qc/9307038 [gr-qc]]

1993 arXiv
[69]

Iyer and R

V. Iyer and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 50, 846-864 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.846 [arXiv:gr-qc/9403028 [gr-qc]]

1994 arXiv
[70]

Hervik, J

S. Hervik, J. Geom. Phys. 52, 298-312 (2004) doi:10.1016/j.geomphys.2004.03.005 [arXiv:hep-th/0311108 [hep-th]]

2004 arXiv
[71]

Hervik, J

S. Hervik, J. Geom. Phys. 58, 1253-1264 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.geomphys.2008.05.001 [arXiv:0707.2755 [hep-th]]. 15

2008 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Correa and M

F. Correa and M. Hassaine, JHEP 02, 014 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2014)014 [arXiv:1312.4516 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2014

[2] [2]

G. T. Horowitz, Cambridge Univ. Pr., 2012, ISBN 978-1-10 7-01345-2

work page 2012

[3] [3]

C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, no.09, 1542014 (2015) doi:10.1142/S0218271815420146 [arXiv:1504.08209 [gr-q c]]

arXiv 2015

[4] [4]

Mahapatra, S

S. Mahapatra, S. Priyadarshinee, G. N. Reddy and B. Shukl a, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.2, 024042 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.024042 [arXiv:2004.00 921 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.024042 2020

[5] [5]

Priyadarshinee, S

S. Priyadarshinee, S. Mahapatra and I. Banerjee, Phys. R ev. D 104, no.8, 084023 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.084023 [arXiv:2108.02514 [he p-th]]. 11

arXiv 2021

[6] [6]

Priyadarshinee and S

S. Priyadarshinee and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.4, 044017 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.044017 [arXiv:2305.09172 [gr -qc]]

arXiv 2023

[7] [7]

Daripa and S

A. Daripa and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.12, 124039 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.124039 [arXiv:2401.04561 [gr -qc]]

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

N. M. Bocharova, K. A. Bronnikov and V. N. Melnikov, Vestn .Mosk.Univ.Ser.III Fiz.Astron. (1970) 6, 706-709

work page 1970