Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 75 references

Semi-Analytic Trajectory Analysis of Light in Generic Static Spacetimes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single semi-analytic framework now covers weak-field light bending in generic static, spherically symmetric spacetimes.

desk verdict Competent repackaging of HPM/VIM/impulse for generic static metrics, but the impulse branch's model-independence claim fails at leading order for metrics with gamma deviations. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16512 v2 pith:V6YIK43N submitted 2025-07-22 gr-qc

Ali Övgün , Reggie C. Pantig This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 95.30.Sf04.70.-s97.60.Lf04.50.+h
keywords blackholedeflectionangleweakgravitationallensinghomotopyperturbationmethodvariationaliterationimpulseapproximationscalarhairstaticsphericallysymmetricspacetimes
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 tries to establish that weak-field light deflection in any static, spherically symmetric spacetime of the form $ds^2 = -\alpha(r,\delta)\,dt^2 + \gamma(r,\delta)\,dr^2 + \beta(r,\delta)\,d\Omega_2^2$ can be computed by a single semi-analytic framework, without re-deriving the approximation methods for each metric. Starting from the exact first-order orbit equation, it writes a master equation for $u(\varphi) = 1/r(\varphi)$ and a generic bending-angle expression in terms of the metric functions and their derivatives. It shows that the homotopy perturbation method, the variational iteration method, and the calibrated impulse approximation can all be formulated at this generic level, so the model enters only through $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$. For a scalar-hairy Reissner-Nordström-like black hole the framework gives the deflection $4m/b - 3\pi(Q^2 + Q_s^2)/(4b^2)$, meaning scalar hair acts as an additional repulsive charge. If the paper is right, any metric of this class can be processed to yield closed-form lensing coefficients without starting over.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the nonlinear source $N(u,\delta) \equiv (1/2b^2)\,\partial S/\partial u + u$, built from $S(u,\delta) = u^4\gamma^{-1}(\beta^2/\alpha - b^2\beta)$, which converts any metric of the form (3) into the deformed oscillator equation $u''+u=N(u,\delta)$. HPM solves this by embedding the problem in a homotopy parameter $p$; VIM iterates a correction functional whose Lagrange multiplier $\sin(\phi-\varphi)$ is independent of the model; the impulse branch replaces the geometry by the effective potential $\Phi = -(\alpha-1)/2$ and integrates the transverse kick along a straight ray. All three methods extract the bending angle from the same root condition $u(\pi+\beta)=0$.

What would settle it

Take a static, spherically symmetric metric of form (3) whose $\gamma$ or $\beta$ contains a charge-like deviation at the same order as the $q^2/r^2$ term in $\alpha$, compute the exact bending angle from the integral (2), and compare it with the generic impulse prediction (87); any order-matching deviation in $\gamma$ or $\beta$ that the impulse formula fails to reproduce would refute its claimed model independence at that order.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the three approximation schemes — homotopy perturbation, variational iteration, and impulse — can be formulated once for a generic static, spherically symmetric line element with arbitrary functions $\alpha(r,\delta)$, $\gamma(r,\delta)$, $\beta(r,\delta)$, with model dependence entering only through those functions. Applied to the scalar-hairy black hole of Einstein-Maxwell-conformally coupled scalar theory, the machinery produces the weak-field bending angle $\beta \simeq 4m/b - 3\pi(Q^2+Q_s^2)/(4b^2)$, identical in HPM and VIM, while the calibrated impulse estimate gives $4m/b - \pi(Q^2+Q_s^2)/(2b^2)$ and underestimates the charge coefficient by a factor of $2/3$. Numerical comparison against the exact null-geodesic integral near the photon sphere shows that all first-order weak-field expressions underestimate the bending and reach few-percent accuracy only for $b \gtrsim 5\,b_{\mathrm{ph}}$.

Load-bearing premise

The impulse branch of the framework assumes that in the weak field the entire bending is captured by the time-lapse function $\alpha$ (through the effective potential $\Phi=-(\alpha-1)/2$), with $\gamma$ and $\beta$ contributing only at higher post-Newtonian order; if a modified-gravity metric has deviations in $\gamma$ or $\beta$ entering at the same order as the charge term, the generic impulse deflection formula misses them at the claimed order.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any static, spherically symmetric metric of the form (3) can be fed into the framework to produce a closed-form weak-field bending series, with no per-model re-derivation of HPM, VIM, or impulse formulas.
  • In the scalar-hairy EMCS model the deflection angle depends on the charges only through $Q^2+Q_s^2$, so scalar hair always reduces the bending relative to Schwarzschild and is degenerate with electric charge at leading order.
  • HPM and VIM agree exactly at the orders shown, while the calibrated impulse method reproduces the Schwarzschild monopole but undercounts the charge correction coefficient by a factor of $2/3$.
  • All first-order weak-field approximations fail near the photon sphere; relative errors drop to a few percent only for $b \gtrsim 5\,b_{\mathrm{ph}}$, and including the second-order Schwarzschild term $15\pi m^2/(4b^2)$ reduces the residual error to a few percent.
  • The same $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ input is intended to extend to time delay, magnification, strong-deflection and photon-sphere regimes, and slowly rotating deformations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the generic formulas are written in terms of $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$, they could in principle be applied when those functions are known only as numerical tables or asymptotic series, making the toolbox usable for numerical-relativity output without new derivations.
  • Leading-order lensing cannot distinguish electric charge $Q$ from scalar hair $Q_s$ in this model; separating them would require a second observable that responds differently, such as the shadow radius, time delay, or a higher-order bending coefficient.
  • The factor-$2/3$ discrepancy in the impulse charge term is a warning: if a modified-gravity metric has $\gamma$ or $\beta$ deviations entering at the same post-Newtonian order as the charge term, the one-potential impulse formula should not be trusted at that order, and a test can be built by comparing it with the exact integral.
  • One testable extension is to turn the framework into a generator of weak-lensing coefficients: given series expansions of $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ in $1/r$, the master equation and root condition directly yield the bending series coefficients algorithmically.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a semi-analytic framework for null geodesics and weak-field light deflection in generic static, spherically symmetric metrics of the form ds^2 = -α(r,δ)dt^2 + γ(r,δ)dr^2 + β(r,δ)dΩ^2. Starting from an exact integral for the bending angle, the authors derive a master equation for u(φ)=1/r(φ), then apply the homotopy perturbation method (HPM), the variational iteration method (VIM), and a calibrated impulse approximation to compute weak-field deflection series. The methods are specialized to a scalar-hairy Reissner-Nordström-like black hole, yielding the deflection β = 4m/b - 3π(Q^2+Q_s^2)/(4b^2) from HPM and VIM, with a numerical comparison against the exact null-geodesic integral near the photon sphere. The central advertised claim is that the framework is model-independent, with metric dependence entering only through the functions α, β, γ.

Significance. The HPM and VIM branches are carefully derived and internally consistent, and the final hairy-RN bending angle in Eq. (126) matches the known Reissner-Nordström coefficient. The numerical section usefully delineates the range of validity of the leading-order weak-field expressions. However, the exact integral in Eq. (2) is algebraically incorrect for generic metrics, and the impulse branch is not model-independent at leading order. These issues undermine the strongest claims in the abstract and conclusion but are fixable in revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is not the correct exact bending angle for a generic metric of the form (3). From the first-order equation (12), dφ/dr = b sqrt(α γ) / sqrt(β(β - α b^2)), so the integrand in Eq. (2) should have b sqrt(α γ) in the numerator, not b in the numerator with sqrt(α γ) in the denominator. The printed expression is correct only when α γ = 1, which holds for the Schwarzschild and hairy-RN examples but not for a generic (α, β, γ). Because Eq. (2) is presented as the exact model-independent starting point, this algebraic error is load-bearing and should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (75)-(92)] The impulse method is not model-independent at the advertised order. The assertion that corrections from γ(r,δ) and β(r,δ) enter only at higher post-Newtonian order is false for a generic metric: in the exact integral, γ appears in the square-root factor sqrt(α γ) and contributes at the same order as the mass monopole. For the PPN-type metric ds^2 = -(1-2M/r)dt^2 + (1+2gM/r)dr^2 + r^2 dΩ^2, the leading deflection is 2(1+g)M/b, whereas Eq. (87) yields 2M/b and the calibrated Eq. (92) yields 4M/b for every g. Thus the monopole doubling is valid only for the GR value g=1. The paper concedes the q^2/b^2 coefficient is not exact, but it does not concede this leading-order γ dependence. The impulse branch should be presented as a lapse-only, GR-calibrated estimate, not as a generic member of the toolbox.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. VI] The abstract and conclusion claim a 'model-independent expression for the bending angle α(b) in terms of generic metric functions and their derivatives.' No such explicit closed-form expression is actually derived: the paper provides the exact integral (2), which is not in terms of derivatives and is currently incorrect, and a procedural master equation (18)-(19) that still requires solving the HPM/VIM hierarchy. The claim should be softened to describe a systematic semi-analytic procedure rather than a closed-form universal expression.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'a compact numerical results' is ungrammatical; it should read 'compact numerical results' or 'a compact numerical analysis.'
  2. [Sec. VI] In the paragraph on numerical results, 'aas' should be 'as'.
  3. [Sec. II] The symbol α is used both for the lapse function and for the deflection angle (e.g., Eq. (2) and Eq. (35)); this dual use is confusing and should be disambiguated.
  4. [Sec. IV] The phrase 'standard 1PN gauge choice' is misleading: for a generic (α, β, γ), the conformally flat form (75) is not obtainable by a gauge choice alone, since the isotropic radial coordinate is fixed by γ and β. Suggest rephrasing to 'working assumption'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Calibrated impulse monopole is preset to the known GR deflection, so the leading-order agreement of the impulse curve is enforced by construction; HPM and VIM remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV, Eqs. (91)-(92); Sec. V.C, Eqs. (141)-(142); Table I.]
    "Equation (91) is the raw impulse estimate. For the Schwarzschild monopole a1 = −2m, it gives 2m/b, i.e. one half of the full relativistic coefficient. When the impulse method is used as a GR-calibrated estimate, only the monopole coefficient is doubled: αimp,cal(b,δ) = −2a1(δ)/b − π a2(δ)/(2b^2) + O(b^−3). This calibrated expression is useful for comparison, but the coefficient of the a2/b2 term should not be regarded as the exact relativistic coefficient."

    The factor of 2 that upgrades the raw impulse estimate (91) to the calibrated estimate (92) is not derived from the geodesic equation or from the metric functions; it is inserted by hand to match the known Schwarzschild deflection 4m/b. The paper then presents α_imp = 4m/b − πq^2/(2b^2) as the 'calibrated impulse estimate' in Table I and Fig. 1 and measures its error against the exact integral. Because the leading term was set equal to the known answer, the leading-order agreement of the impulse curve is enforced by construction rather than predicted.

full rationale

The core derivation chain (Secs. II and III) is self-contained: the master orbit equations follow algebraically from the null first integral of the generic metric, and the HPM and VIM solutions are checked against the exact bending integral near the photon sphere. There is no load-bearing self-citation: references such as [55] only motivate the generic line element, and the hairy-RN solution is imported from independent work. The only partial circularity is the impulse branch. Equations (91)-(92) show that the raw impulse result is 2m/b for a Schwarzschild monopole and that the factor of 2 in the calibrated version is an externally supplied GR normalization, not a derived prediction. The subsequent use of that calibrated formula as the impulse estimate in Table I and Fig. 1 means the leading-order agreement with the exact result is built in. Additionally, the lapse-only conformally flat ansatz in Eqs. (75)-(76) restricts the impulse formula to α-dependence at leading order and neglects γ and β corrections, which is a real scope limitation of the advertised model independence but is a correctness/overbreadth caveat rather than a circularity of the central framework. Because HPM and VIM carry the paper's central claim, the calibrated-impulse issue is partial, warranting a 4 rather than a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard weak-field lensing results, standard perturbation-theory assumptions, and the 1PN conformal-flatness assumption for the impulse method. No new physical entities are introduced. The only hand-set parameter is the calibration factor of 2 on the impulse monopole. The most fragile ingredient is the neglect of gamma and beta corrections in the impulse method, which is stated but not quantified for arbitrary metrics.

free parameters (1)
  • Impulse calibration factor (monopole doubling) = 2
    In Eq. (92) the raw impulse coefficient A1 = -a1 is doubled to 2a1 to match the known GR bending angle 4m/b. This is a hand-chosen calibration, not derived from the impulse method, and it changes the leading-order prediction from 2m/b to 4m/b.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Asymptotic flatness: alpha -> 1, gamma -> 1, beta -> r^2 as r -> infinity (Eq. 73).
    Required for the bending angle to be defined by subtracting pi and for the 1/r expansion of alpha in the impulse method.
  • domain assumption The spatial metric at 1PN order is conformally flat and the bending is captured solely by the lapse potential Phi (Eq. 75).
    Used in Sec. IV to derive the generic impulse formula; neglects gamma and beta corrections that may be same-order in some modified gravity metrics.
  • domain assumption The areal radius R=sqrt(beta) is a monotonic invertible function of r for fixed delta (Sec. III).
    Needed to transform the metric to canonical form (A,H,R) in the VIM derivation.
  • standard math The metric functions admit expansions in the small weak-field ratios m/b and charge/b^2, and the HPM/VIM series converge to the true solution for the truncations used.
    Standard assumption for perturbation methods; the paper checks convergence only against one exact case.
  • standard math The null geodesic integral (2) is the exact bending angle for asymptotically flat spacetimes with a single outer turning point.
    Standard result in gravitational lensing, used as the benchmark for numerical comparisons.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semi-Analytic Trajectory Analysis of Light in Generic Static Spacetimes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V6YIK43N

@misc{pith2026250716512,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semi-Analytic Trajectory Analysis of Light in Generic Static Spacetimes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V6YIK43N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16512}
}
abstract

We study a unified semi-analytical framework to study null geodesics and weak-field light deflection in generic static, spherically symmetric spacetimes of the form \(ds^2 = -\alpha(r,\delta)\,dt^2 + \gamma(r,\delta)\,dr^2 + \beta(r,\delta)\,d\Omega_2^2,\) where $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ encode model-dependent deviations from Schwarzschild gravity inspired from [Phys.Rev.D 112 (2025) 12, 124072]. Starting from the exact first-order orbit equation, we derive a compact master equation for the impact-parameter-dependent trajectory $u(\varphi)\equiv 1/r(\varphi)$ and obtain a model-independent expression for the bending angle $\alpha(b)$ in terms of generic metric functions and their derivatives. This master equation is then solved semi-analytically by three complementary techniques: (i) the homotopy perturbation method (HPM), (ii) the variational iteration method (VIM), and (iii) a calibrated impulse (single-kick) approximation expressed directly in terms of the effective gravitational potential. As nontrivial test beds we consider a scalar-hairy Reissner-Nordstr\"om-like black hole where the scalar hair enters as $Q_s$ in an effective charge parameter. Then we derive closed-form expressions for the deflection angle, identify the leading scalar-hair, and compare the accuracy and convergence properties of HPM, VIM, and the impulse method against the standard Schwarzschild limits. Our results show that the generic formulation in $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ can efficiently accommodate a broad class of modified gravity black hole solutions. We further supplement the analytic treatment with a compact numerical results against the exact null-geodesic integral near the photon sphere in order to delineate the practical range of validity of the three approximation schemes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16512 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Steven Weinberg,Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity(John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1972)

    work page 1972

  2. [2]

    The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,

    Clifford M. Will, “The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,” Living Rev. Rel.17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    Falco,Gravitational Lenses, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library (Springer, 1992)

    Peter Schneider, Jürgen Ehlers, and Emilio E. Falco,Gravitational Lenses, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library (Springer, 1992)

    work page 1992

  4. [4]

    Lectures on gravitational lensing,

    Ramesh Narayan and Matthias Bartelmann, “Lectures on gravitational lensing,” in13th Jerusalem Winter School in Theoretical Physics: Formation of Structure in the Universe(1996) arXiv:astro-ph/9606001

    arXiv 1996

  5. [5]

    Schwarzschild black hole lensing,

    K. S. Virbhadra and George F. R. Ellis, “Schwarzschild black hole lensing,” Phys. Rev. D62, 084003 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9904193

    arXiv 2000

  6. [6]

    Gravitational Lensing by Black Holes,

    Valerio Bozza, “Gravitational Lensing by Black Holes,” Gen. Rel. Grav.42, 2269–2300 (2010), arXiv:0911.2187 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    Relativistic images of Schwarzschild black hole lensing,

    K. S. Virbhadra, “Relativistic images of Schwarzschild black hole lensing,” Phys. Rev. D79, 083004 (2009), arXiv:0810.2109 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    Strong field limit of black hole gravitational lensing,

    V. Bozza, S. Capozziello, G. Iovane, and G. Scarpetta, “Strong field limit of black hole gravitational lensing,” Gen. Rel. Grav.33, 1535–1548 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0102068

    arXiv 2001

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Gravitational lensing by naked singularities,

    K. S. Virbhadra and G. F. R. Ellis, “Gravitational lensing by naked singularities,” Phys. Rev. D65, 103004 (2002)

    2002

  2. [10]

    The Geometry of photon surfaces,

    Clarissa-Marie Claudel, K. S. Virbhadra, and G. F. R. Ellis, “The Geometry of photon surfaces,” J. Math. Phys.42, 818–838 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0005050

    2001 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Role of the scalar field in gravitational lensing,

    K. S. Virbhadra, D. Narasimha, and S. M. Chitre, “Role of the scalar field in gravitational lensing,” Astron. Astrophys.337, 1–8 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9801174

    1998 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Time delay and magnification centroid due to gravitational lensing by black holes and naked singularities,

    K. S. Virbhadra and C. R. Keeton, “Time delay and magnification centroid due to gravitational lensing by black holes and naked singularities,” Phys. Rev. D77, 124014 (2008), arXiv:0710.2333 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Distortions of images of Schwarzschild lensing,

    K. S. Virbhadra, “Distortions of images of Schwarzschild lensing,” Phys. Rev. D106, 064038 (2022), arXiv:2204.01879 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Conservation of distortion of gravitationally lensed images,

    K. S. Virbhadra, “Conservation of distortion of gravitationally lensed images,” Phys. Rev. D109, 124004 (2024), arXiv:2402.17190 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Studying Gravitational Deflection of Light by Kiselev Black Hole via Homotopy Perturbation Method,

    V. K. Shchigolev and D. N. Bezbatko, “Studying Gravitational Deflection of Light by Kiselev Black Hole via Homotopy Perturbation Method,” Gen. Rel. Grav.51, 34 (2019), arXiv:1612.07279 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Formalism for testing theories of gravity using lensing by compact objects. I. Static, spherically symmetric case,

    Charles R. Keeton and A. O. Petters, “Formalism for testing theories of gravity using lensing by compact objects. I. Static, spherically symmetric case,” Phys. Rev. D72, 104006 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0511019

    2005 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Equivalence of Gibbons-Werner method to geodesics method in the study of gravitational lensing,

    Zonghai Li and Tao Zhou, “Equivalence of Gibbons-Werner method to geodesics method in the study of gravitational lensing,” Phys. Rev. D101, 044043 (2020), arXiv:1908.05592 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Generalized Gibbons-Werner method for stationary spacetimes,

    Yang Huang, Zhoujian Cao, and Zhenyan Lu, “Generalized Gibbons-Werner method for stationary spacetimes,” JCAP01, 013 (2024), arXiv:2306.04145 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    The influence of cosmological constant on light deflection in rotating spacetimes via the generalized Gibbons-Werner method,

    Yang Huang, Xiangyun Fu, Zhenyan Lu, and Xin Qin, “The influence of cosmological constant on light deflection in rotating spacetimes via the generalized Gibbons-Werner method,” (2025), arXiv:2505.06999 [gr-qc]

    2025

  12. [20]

    Applications of the Gauss-Bonnet theorem to gravitational lensing,

    G. W. Gibbons and M. C. Werner, “Applications of the Gauss-Bonnet theorem to gravitational lensing,” Class. Quant. Grav.25, 235009 (2008), arXiv:0807.0854 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Universal properties of the near-horizon optical geometry,

    G. W. Gibbons and C. M. Warnick, “Universal properties of the near-horizon optical geometry,” Phys. Rev. D79, 064031 (2009), arXiv:0809.1571 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Gravitational bending angle of light for finite distance and the Gauss-Bonnet theorem,

    Asahi Ishihara, Yusuke Suzuki, Toshiaki Ono, Takao Kitamura, and Hideki Asada, “Gravitational bending angle of light for finite distance and the Gauss-Bonnet theorem,” Phys. Rev. D94, 084015 (2016), arXiv:1604.08308 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Gravitational lensing in the Kerr-Randers optical geometry,

    M. C. Werner, “Gravitational lensing in the Kerr-Randers optical geometry,” Gen. Rel. Grav.44, 3047–3057 (2012), arXiv:1205.3876 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Finite-distance gravitational deflection of massive particles by a Kerr-like black hole in the bumblebee gravity model,

    Zonghai Li and Ali Övgün, “Finite-distance gravitational deflection of massive particles by a Kerr-like black hole in the bumblebee gravity model,” Phys. Rev. D101, 024040 (2020), arXiv:2001.02074 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Light’s Bending Angle in the Equatorial Plane of a Kerr Black Hole,

    S. V. Iyer and E. C. Hansen, “Light’s Bending Angle in the Equatorial Plane of a Kerr Black Hole,” Phys. Rev. D80, 124023 (2009), arXiv:0907.5352 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Optical properties of black hole in the presence of plasma: shadow,

    Farruh Atamurotov and Bobomurat Ahmedov, “Optical properties of black hole in the presence of plasma: shadow,” Phys. Rev. D92, 084005 (2015), arXiv:1507.08131 [gr-qc]. 22

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Shadow of rotating non-Kerr black hole,

    Farruh Atamurotov, Ahmadjon Abdujabbarov, and Bobomurat Ahmedov, “Shadow of rotating non-Kerr black hole,” Phys. Rev. D88, 064004 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Shadows and gravitational weak lensing by the Schwarzschild black hole in the string cloud background with quintessential field*,

    Ghulam Mustafa, Farruh Atamurotov, Ibrar Hussain, Sanjar Shaymatov, and Ali Övgün, “Shadows and gravitational weak lensing by the Schwarzschild black hole in the string cloud background with quintessential field*,” Chin. Phys. C46, 125107 (2022), arXiv:2207.07608 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Optical properties of a braneworld black hole: Gravitational lensing and retrolensing,

    Ahmadjon Abdujabbarov, Bobomurat Ahmedov, Naresh Dadhich, and Farruh Atamurotov, “Optical properties of a braneworld black hole: Gravitational lensing and retrolensing,” Phys. Rev. D96, 084017 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Charged black hole in 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity: particle motion, plasma effect on weak gravitational lensing and centre-of-mass energy,

    Farruh Atamurotov, Sanjar Shaymatov, Pankaj Sheoran, and Sanjay Siwach, “Charged black hole in 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity: particle motion, plasma effect on weak gravitational lensing and centre-of-mass energy,” JCAP08, 045 (2021), arXiv:2105.02214 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Weak deflection angle and shadow cast by the charged-Kiselev black hole with cloud of strings in plasma*,

    Farruh Atamurotov, Ibrar Hussain, Ghulam Mustafa, and Ali Övgün, “Weak deflection angle and shadow cast by the charged-Kiselev black hole with cloud of strings in plasma*,” Chin. Phys. C47, 025102 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Weak gravitational lensing Schwarzschild-MOG black hole in plasma,

    Farruh Atamurotov, Ahmadjon Abdujabbarov, and Javlon Rayimbaev, “Weak gravitational lensing Schwarzschild-MOG black hole in plasma,” Eur. Phys. J. C81, 118 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Gravitational weak lensing by black hole in Horndeski gravity in presence of plasma,

    Farruh Atamurotov, Furkat Sarikulov, Ahmadjon Abdujabbarov, and Bobomurat Ahmedov, “Gravitational weak lensing by black hole in Horndeski gravity in presence of plasma,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus137, 336 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Gravitational lensing by black holes surrounded by PFDM in Kalb-Ramond gravity in plasma medium,

    Bekzod Rahmatov, Islom Egamberdiev, Sardor Murodov, Javlon Rayimbaev, Inomjon Ibragimov, Erkaboy Davletov, and Sherzod Djumanov, “Gravitational lensing by black holes surrounded by PFDM in Kalb-Ramond gravity in plasma medium,” Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102152 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Quasiperiodic oscillations around hairy black holes in Horndeski gravity,

    Javlon Rayimbaev, Konstantinos F. Dialektopoulos, Furkat Sarikulov, and Ahmadjon Abdujabbarov, “Quasiperiodic oscillations around hairy black holes in Horndeski gravity,” Eur. Phys. J. C83, 572 (2023), arXiv:2307.03019 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Regular nonminimal magnetic black hole as a source of quasiperiodic oscillations,

    Javlon Rayimbaev, Ahmadjon Abdujabbarov, and Han Wen-Biao, “Regular nonminimal magnetic black hole as a source of quasiperiodic oscillations,” Phys. Rev. D103, 104070 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Dynamics of Magnetized and Magnetically Charged Particles around Regular Nonminimal Magnetic Black Holes,

    Javlon Rayimbaev, Bakhtiyor Narzilloev, Ahmadjon Abdujabbarov, and Bobomurat Ahmedov, “Dynamics of Magnetized and Magnetically Charged Particles around Regular Nonminimal Magnetic Black Holes,” Galaxies9, 71 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Testing metric-affine gravity using particle dynamics and photon motion,

    Allah Ditta, Xia Tiecheng, Saadia Mumtaz, Farruh Atamurotov, G. Mustafa, and Ahmadjon Abdujabbarov, “Testing metric-affine gravity using particle dynamics and photon motion,” Phys. Dark Univ.41, 101248 (2023), arXiv:2303.05438 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Particle dynamics and weak gravitational lensing around nonlinear electrodynamics black hole,

    Allah Ditta, Xia Tiecheng, Farruh Atamurotov, G. Mustafa, and M. M. Aripov, “Particle dynamics and weak gravitational lensing around nonlinear electrodynamics black hole,” Chin. J. Phys.83, 664–679 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Particle dynamics, black hole shadow and weak gravitational lensing in the f (Q) theory of gravity,

    Allah Ditta, Xia Tiecheng, Farruh Atamurotov, Ibrar Hussain, and G. Mustafa, “Particle dynamics, black hole shadow and weak gravitational lensing in the f (Q) theory of gravity,” Commun. Theor. Phys.75, 125404 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Probing a black hole in Starobinsky-Bel-Robinson gravity with thermodynamical analysis, effective force and gravitational weak lensing,

    G. Mustafa, Allah Ditta, Faisal Javed, Farruh Atamurotov, Ibrar Hussain, and Bobomurat Ahmedov, “Probing a black hole in Starobinsky-Bel-Robinson gravity with thermodynamical analysis, effective force and gravitational weak lensing,” Chin. J. Phys. 90, 494–508 (2024), arXiv:24...

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Quasi-periodic oscillations and particle motion around charged black hole surrounded by a cloud of strings and quintessence field in Rastall gravity,

    Asifa Ashraf, Allah Ditta, Değer Sofuoğlu, Wen-Xiu Ma, Faisal Javed, Farruh Atamurotov, and Asif Mahmood, “Quasi-periodic oscillations and particle motion around charged black hole surrounded by a cloud of strings and quintessence field in Rastall gravity,” Phys. Scripta99, 06...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Non-commutative Schwarzschild black hole surrounded by Perfect fluid dark matter: Plasma lensing and thermodynamics analysis,

    Yihu Feng, Allah Ditta, G. Mustafa, S. K. Maurya, Asif Mahmood, and Farruh Atamurotov, “Non-commutative Schwarzschild black hole surrounded by Perfect fluid dark matter: Plasma lensing and thermodynamics analysis,” Nucl. Phys. B1008, 116713 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Plasma lensing, epicyclic oscillations, particle collision, and thermal fluctuations around a short-hairy black hole,

    Asifa Ashraf, Allah Ditta, Abdelmalek Bouzenada, S. K. Maurya, Assmaa Abd-Elmonem, Nagat A. A. Suoliman, and Phongpichit Channuie, “Plasma lensing, epicyclic oscillations, particle collision, and thermal fluctuations around a short-hairy black hole,” Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101836 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Analyzing the gravitational lensing and epicyclic oscillations around a regular charged black hole,

    Farzan Mushtaq, Xia Tiecheng, Allah Ditta, Shalini Singh, and Asif Mahmood, “Analyzing the gravitational lensing and epicyclic oscillations around a regular charged black hole,” Nucl. Phys. B1015, 116901 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Plasma lensing and particle dynamics in the vicinity of a Dyonic black hole solution in the context a perfect fluid,

    Allah Ditta, Sikander Mehmood, Wajiha Tanveer, Waleed Ahmad, Awad A. Ibraheem, Rana Muhammad Zulqarnain, and Farruh Atamurotov, “Plasma lensing and particle dynamics in the vicinity of a Dyonic black hole solution in the context a perfect fluid,” Nucl. Phys. B1017, 116949 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Homotopy perturbation technique,

    Ji-Huan He, “Homotopy perturbation technique,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering178, 257–262 (1999)

    1999

  40. [48]

    A coupling method of a homotopy technique and a perturbation technique for non-linear problems,

    Ji-Huan He, “A coupling method of a homotopy technique and a perturbation technique for non-linear problems,” International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics35, 37–43 (2000)

    2000

  41. [49]

    Analytical Computation of the Perihelion Precession in General Relativity via the Homotopy Perturbation Method,

    V. K. Shchigolev, “Analytical Computation of the Perihelion Precession in General Relativity via the Homotopy Perturbation Method,” J. Comput. Math.3, 45–49 (2015), arXiv:1706.01809 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Variational iteration method for studying perihelion precession and deflection of light in General Relativity,

    V. K. Shchigolev, “Variational iteration method for studying perihelion precession and deflection of light in General Relativity,” Int. J. Phys. Res.4, 52 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Variational iteration method-some recent results and new interpretations,

    Ji-Huan He, “Variational iteration method-some recent results and new interpretations,” Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics207, 3–17 (2007), special Issue: Variational Iteration Method-Reality, Potential, and Challenges

    2007

  44. [52]

    Misner, K

    Charles W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler,Gravitation(W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973)

    1973

  45. [53]

    Schutz,A FIRST COURSE IN GENERAL RELATIVITY(Cambridge Univ

    Bernard F. Schutz,A FIRST COURSE IN GENERAL RELATIVITY(Cambridge Univ. Pr., Cambridge, UK, 1985)

    1985

  46. [54]

    C-metric with a conformally coupled scalar field in a magnetic universe,

    Marco Astorino, “C-metric with a conformally coupled scalar field in a magnetic universe,” Phys. Rev. D88, 104027 (2013), arXiv:1307.4021 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Gravitational black hole shadow spectroscopy,

    Reggie C. Pantig and Ali Övgün, “Gravitational black hole shadow spectroscopy,” Phys. Rev. D112, 124072 (2025), arXiv:2509.05594 [hep-th]. 23

    2025

  48. [56]

    The variational iteration method for solving linear and nonlinear systems of pdes,

    Abdul-Majid Wazwaz, “The variational iteration method for solving linear and nonlinear systems of pdes,” Computers and Mathematics with Applications54, 895–902 (2007), variational Iteration Method for Nonlinear Problems

    2007

  49. [57]

    Weak gravitational lensing,

    Matthias Bartelmann and Peter Schneider, “Weak gravitational lensing,” Phys. Rept.340, 291–472 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/9912508

    2001 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Born approximation in wave optics of gravitational lensing revisited,

    Hirotaka Yarimoto and Masamune Oguri, “Born approximation in wave optics of gravitational lensing revisited,” Phys. Rev. D 111, 083541 (2025), arXiv:2412.07272 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Light deflection in Weyl gravity: Critical distances for photon paths,

    Sophie Pireaux, “Light deflection in Weyl gravity: Critical distances for photon paths,” Class. Quant. Grav.21, 1897–1913 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0403071

    2004 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Gravitational Deflection of Light: A Heuristic Derivation at the Undergraduate Level,

    Hongbin Kim, Dong-han Yeom, and Jong Hyun Kim, “Gravitational Deflection of Light: A Heuristic Derivation at the Undergraduate Level,” New Physics: Sae Mulli74, 394–400 (2024), edition: 2024/04/30 Publisher: New Physics: Sae Mulli, arXiv:2405.04529

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Introducing the black hole,

    Remo Ruffini and John A. Wheeler, “Introducing the black hole,” Phys. Today24, 30 (1971)

    1971

  54. [62]

    Asymptotically flat black holes with scalar hair: a review,

    Carlos A. R. Herdeiro and Eugen Radu, “Asymptotically flat black holes with scalar hair: a review,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24, 1542014 (2015), arXiv:1504.08209 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  55. [63]

    On one exact solution of the einstein system of equations and a massless scalar field (russian),

    N. M. Bocharova, K. A. Bronnikov, and V. N. Melnikov, “On one exact solution of the einstein system of equations and a massless scalar field (russian),” (1970)

    1970

  56. [64]

    Exact solutions of Einstein conformal scalar equations,

    J. D. Bekenstein, “Exact solutions of Einstein conformal scalar equations,” Annals Phys.82, 535–547 (1974)

    1974

  57. [65]

    The Gravity of three forms,

    B. C. Xanthopoulos and T. Zannias, “The Gravity of three forms,” J. Math. Phys.32, 2459–2467 (1991)

    1991

  58. [66]

    Black holes in new massive conformal gravity,

    Yun Soo Myung and De-Cheng Zou, “Black holes in new massive conformal gravity,” Phys. Rev. D100, 064057 (2019), arXiv:1907.09676 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    New Gauss-Bonnet Black Holes with Curvature-Induced Scalarization in Extended Scalar-Tensor Theories,

    Daniela D. Doneva and Stoytcho S. Yazadjiev, “New Gauss-Bonnet Black Holes with Curvature-Induced Scalarization in Extended Scalar-Tensor Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 131103 (2018), arXiv:1711.01187 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Spontaneous scalarization of black holes and compact stars from a Gauss-Bonnet coupling,

    Hector O. Silva, Jeremy Sakstein, Leonardo Gualtieri, Thomas P. Sotiriou, and Emanuele Berti, “Spontaneous scalarization of black holes and compact stars from a Gauss-Bonnet coupling,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 131104 (2018), arXiv:1711.02080 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Evasion of No-Hair Theorems and Novel Black-Hole Solutions in Gauss-Bonnet Theories,

    G. Antoniou, A. Bakopoulos, and P. Kanti, “Evasion of No-Hair Theorems and Novel Black-Hole Solutions in Gauss-Bonnet Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 131102 (2018), arXiv:1711.03390 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Spontaneous Scalarization of Charged Black Holes,

    Carlos A. R. Herdeiro, Eugen Radu, Nicolas Sanchis-Gual, and José A. Font, “Spontaneous Scalarization of Charged Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 101102 (2018), arXiv:1806.05190 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Instability of Reissner–Nordström black hole in Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory,

    Yun Soo Myung and De-Cheng Zou, “Instability of Reissner–Nordström black hole in Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory,” Eur. Phys. J. C79, 273 (2019), arXiv:1808.02609 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Embedding hairy black holes in a magnetic universe,

    Marco Astorino, “Embedding hairy black holes in a magnetic universe,” Phys. Rev. D87, 084029 (2013), arXiv:1301.6794 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Instability of Black Holes with Scalar Charge,

    K. A. Bronnikov and Yu. N. Kireev, “Instability of Black Holes with Scalar Charge,” Phys. Lett. A67, 95–96 (1978)

    1978

  66. [74]

    Scalar hairy black holes in Einstein-Maxwell-conformally coupled scalar theory,

    De-Cheng Zou and Yun Soo Myung, “Scalar hairy black holes in Einstein-Maxwell-conformally coupled scalar theory,” Phys. Lett. B803, 135332 (2020), arXiv:1911.08062 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Gravitational lensing effects of black hole with conformally coupled scalar hair,

    Qi Qi, Yuan Meng, Xi-Jing Wang, and Xiao-Mei Kuang, “Gravitational lensing effects of black hole with conformally coupled scalar hair,” Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1043 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.