Pith. sign in

REVIEW 12 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Optical images of the Kerr-Sen black hole and thin accretion disk

T0 review · 12 major / 7 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 The Kerr-Sen black hole's inner shadow distorts more with spin than with charge, and its predicted thin-disk intensity is higher at 86 GHz than at 230 GHz.

desk verdict A routine Kerr-Sen ray-tracing paper whose disk model is built on a mis-specified effective potential, and whose headline intensity comparison just restates the assumed emissivity coefficients. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17217 v1 pith:TJRD3TS4 submitted 2025-07-23 gr-qc

Pei Wang , Sen Guo , Li-Fang Li , Zhan-Feng Mai , Bo-Feng Wu , Wen-Hao Deng , Qing-Quan Jiang This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 04.70.-s95.30.Sf98.62.Mw
keywords Kerr-SenblackholeshadowinnerthinaccretiondiskraytracinggravitationalredshiftphotonringEventHorizonTelescope
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 predict what a Kerr-Sen black hole, a rotating and charged solution rooted in low-energy string theory, would look like when encircled by a thin accretion disk, and to identify which features could be seen by the Event Horizon Telescope. Using ray-tracing, the authors compute the shadow, inner shadow, redshift maps, and image intensities at 230 GHz and 86 GHz. Their central claims are that the black hole's spin distorts the inner shadow more strongly than its charge, that the observer's inclination angle controls the redshift pattern near the innermost stable circular orbit, and that the disk appears brighter at 86 GHz than at 230 GHz. If correct, these predictions give observers a way to look for stringy charge in black hole images and to separate the effects of spin, charge, and viewing geometry.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Kerr-Sen metric, a stationary, axisymmetric black hole solution parametrized by mass $M$, spin $a$, and charge $r_0 = Q^2/M$, which reduces to Kerr when $r_0 \to 0$. The argument is carried by the separability of null geodesics through the Carter constant, which reduces photon motion to radial and angular potentials; the quartic critical-curve equation (49) whose physically relevant roots bound the photon ring and inner shadow; elliptic-integral ray tracing in Mino time, including the inverse formulation that maps screen coordinates back to disk crossing radii; and the thin-disk intensity formula (64) with redshift factor $g$, fudge factor $f_m$, and the log-quadratic emissivity (65). The redshift factor is computed separately for circular orbits outside the ISCO and plunging orbits inside it.

What would settle it

Recompute the same images with the Kerr-Sen metric but a synchrotron-like emissivity $J_{\rm model}(r) \propto r^{-p}$ for the usual range of disk spectral indices, and check whether the 86 GHz image is still brighter than 230 GHz; if the ordering reverses, the paper's frequency claim is an artifact of the specific log-quadratic calibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Inside the Kerr-Sen metric, null geodesics stay separable thanks to a Carter constant, so the critical photon orbit that bounds the inner shadow follows from a quartic radial equation whose roots depend on both the spin $a$ and the charge parameter $r_0 = Q^2/M$. Ray-tracing this geometry with a geometrically and optically thin equatorial disk, the paper finds that increasing either $a$ or $Q$ shrinks and deforms the inner shadow, with the spin effect stronger at every observer inclination considered. The redshift maps show that the observer's inclination angle, more than the black hole parameters, sets the pattern of redshift and blueshift near the ISCO, and that prograde versus retrograde disk rotation reverses the asymmetry. For the adopted log-quadratic emissivity model, the disk's intensity at 86 GHz exceeds that at 230 GHz for both prograde and retrograde motion, while the critical curve and the inner shadow remain unchanged across frequencies. The inner shadow therefore records the spacetime geometry, while the frequency-dependent brightness records the disk emission.

Load-bearing premise

The frequency-brightness conclusion holds only if the assumed disk-emission formula with its two imported coefficient pairs describes the real disk, since the Kerr-Sen geometry itself does not fix those coefficients and a different emission profile could alter or reverse the 86 GHz versus 230 GHz ordering.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At an M87-like inclination of 17 degrees, the inner shadow's shape is a cleaner probe of spin than of charge, so measuring its deformation can help break degeneracies between spin and stringy charge.
  • Because the critical curve and inner shadow are independent of frequency in this model, multi-frequency observations at 230 GHz and 86 GHz can separate spacetime geometry from disk emission.
  • The redshift pattern near the ISCO is dominated by viewing angle, and prograde disks blueshift the left side while retrograde disks blueshift the right, giving a directly resolvable asymmetry.
  • The predicted 86 GHz brightness excess over 230 GHz is a concrete, testable signature for a Kerr-Sen thin disk within the adopted emissivity model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 86 GHz versus 230 GHz ordering follows algebraically from the two coefficient pairs inserted into the emissivity formula, so a disk model calibrated to a magnetized Kerr-Sen simulation could plausibly reverse it; the frequency comparison tests the disk physics at least as much as the metric.
  • The spin-versus-charge distortion ranking is presented by visual comparison of images; introducing a quantitative inner-shadow distortion measure, such as the deviation of its boundary from the Kerr prediction, would turn the ranking into a measurable observable.
  • A natural extension is a degeneracy check: because charge acts like a weakened spin in this spacetime, a Kerr black hole with a slightly higher spin may mimic the inner shadow of a Kerr-Sen hole at fixed spin and charge.
  • The same elliptic-integral ray tracer could be reused for other Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton-axion solutions to survey which stringy deformations leave shadow signatures large enough for the EHT to see.
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

12 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies optical images of the Kerr–Sen black hole surrounded by a geometrically thin accretion disk. Using a semi-analytic elliptic-integral ray-tracing scheme in the spirit of Gralla–Lupsasca, it computes the critical curve and inner shadow, then adds a thin-disk emission model with a log-parabolic emissivity profile. It presents redshift maps and intensity images for prograde and retrograde disks, varying black hole spin, charge, and observer inclination at 230 GHz and 86 GHz. The headline claims are that spin distorts the inner shadow more strongly than charge, that observer inclination dominates the redshift distribution, and that the observed intensity is higher at 86 GHz than at 230 GHz.

Significance. If fully supported, the paper would provide a useful extension of black-hole-imaging phenomenology from Kerr to Kerr–Sen spacetimes and a possible route for constraining string-inspired charges with EHT-like observations. The geodesic framework is standard and the non-circularity of the shadow analysis is genuine: the critical curve is obtained by ray-tracing the specified metric rather than assumed. However, the significance is substantially undercut by three issues: the effective potential in Eq. (54) is not the correct Hamiltonian constraint for timelike geodesics; the 86 GHz versus 230 GHz intensity comparison is an algebraic consequence of the adopted emissivity coefficients rather than a prediction of the Kerr–Sen geometry; and the spin-versus-charge distortion claim is supported only by visual inspection of figures, with no quantitative distortion measure.

major comments (12)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (65)] The effective potential in Eq. (54) is inconsistent with the geodesic Hamiltonian. For a stationary axisymmetric metric, the radial constraint is g^{rr} p_r^2 = -1 - g^{tt} E^2 + 2 g^{t\varphi} E L - g^{\varphi\varphi} L^2, which involves inverse metric components; in terms of covariant components it acquires a determinant factor D = g_{tt} g_{\varphi\varphi} - g_{t\varphi}^2. The paper's Eq. (54) instead uses V = E^2 g_{tt} + 2 E L g_{t\varphi} + L^2 g_{\varphi\varphi} + 1. In the Schwarzschild limit this gives V = -E^2(1-2M/r) + L^2/r^2 + 1, whose derivative V' = -2E^2 M/r^2 - 2L^2/r^3 cannot vanish for positive E^2 and L^2, so no circular orbits exist at all. If the code implements Eq. (54) literally, then the ISCO radii, plunging-region redshift factors, and all disk images in Figs. 11–30 are invalid; if the code silently uses the correct inverse-metric formula, the manuscript misstates its own model and the numerics cannot be checked because no code is provided. This is a load-bearing internal inconsistency that must be fixed and the affected results recomputed.
  2. [Abstract and Section 3.1, Figs. 6–9] The claim that the intensity is higher at 86 GHz than at 230 GHz is not a geometric result. With the adopted coefficients A=0, B=-3/4 at 86 GHz and A=-2, B=-1/2 at 230 GHz, the log-parabolic profile of Eq. (65) gives log(J_86/J_230) = 2 log(r/r_h) - (1/4)[log(r/r_h)]^2, which is positive for all relevant r > r_h. The conclusion is therefore a direct algebraic consequence of the assumed emissivity coefficients, which are imported from EHT Kerr GRMHD calibrations and are not derived from the Kerr–Sen metric or disk physics. The abstract and conclusion should not present the 86/230 GHz brightness ordering as a finding of this model unless it is explicitly framed as a consequence of the assumed emissivity profile.
  3. [Section 2.1, Eq. (48)] The assertion that 'spin has a more significant effect on the distortion of the inner shadow than charge' is based on qualitative visual comparison of the inner-shadow contours in Figs. 6–9. No quantitative distortion metric is defined or computed, such as the fractional area deviation, the Hioki–Maeda deformation parameter, or the shift of the shadow centroid relative to the Kerr case. Without such a measure, the stated ranking is not testable or falsifiable, and it cannot be used to support the paper's main conclusion. A quantitative estimator and a table of its values across the parameter grid are needed.
  4. [Section 2.1, Eq. (49)] Eq. (48) is not the correct Kerr limit of the photon-orbit radius. With Q=0 the standard Kerr result is r_{\pm} = 2M[1 + cos((2/3) arccos(\pm a/M))], which reduces to r=3M for a=0. The paper's Eq. (48) has M instead of 2M and gives r=1.5M in the Schwarzschild limit, which is inconsistent with Eq. (49), whose Schwarzschild root is indeed r=3M. The presence of two mutually inconsistent formulas for the same quantity in the Kerr limit indicates that the analytic expressions were not cross-checked against the known Kerr solution and calls into question the reliability of the numerical implementation.
  5. [Section 2.1, Eq. (44)] The central quartic polynomial (49) determines the critical curve and hence the inner shadow, but its derivation is not contained in this manuscript. The text states that 'The detailed derivation is presented in Appendix B of the paper [51]', where [51] is a reference to another article. Since all of the shadow and inner-shadow figures depend on this equation, the derivation is a load-bearing piece of support that is currently missing from the paper. The authors should either include the derivation in an appendix or clearly cite the specific result in the literature and verify its correctness.
  6. [Code Availability Statement] Eq. (44) is garbled. The expression for \tilde{\xi} appears to be a corrupted version of the radial integral expression from Eq. (40), divided by a, and is not the standard critical impact parameter for the Kerr–Sen spacetime. This makes the derivation of the critical curve difficult to follow and suggests that the analytic formulas in this section have not been carefully proofread against the cited literature.
  7. [Section 3.2] The Code Availability Statement says that no code or software was generated or analyzed during the current study, but the paper's figures are produced by a numerical ray-tracing code. This is an internal contradiction. Since the results are entirely numerical and the authors do not provide the code, the reproducibility of the figures cannot be assessed, which is particularly problematic given the effective-potential inconsistency noted above.
  8. [Section 3.3, title] The statement that the Kerr–Sen black hole spacetime is 'non-asymptotically flat' is incorrect; the Kerr–Sen metric reduces to Minkowski spacetime at spatial infinity. Accordingly, the statement that \epsilon < 1 in this spacetime requires clarification: \epsilon approaches 1 at infinity for an asymptotically flat observer, and the relation in Eq. (66) is the standard ZAMO frame expression.
  9. [Section 3.2, Eq. (59)] There is a typo in the section title: 'Image of the Keer–Sen black hole' should read 'Image of the Kerr–Sen black hole'.
  10. [Section 3.2, Figs. 19–30] The index structure in Eq. (59), p^{\mu} = \eta^{\mu\nu} e_{\xi}^{\nu} k^{\xi}, is not meaningful as written; the photon four-momentum in the observer's tetrad frame should be expressed as p^{\mu} = e_a^{\mu} k^a with a tetrad index a. This should be corrected for clarity.
  11. [Throughout] The intensity maps are presented as color images without color bars or an intensity scale. For a quantitative comparison of peak positions and brightness between 86 GHz and 230 GHz, the figures need either color bars with absolute units or normalized values and a clear statement of the normalization.
  12. [Throughout] The paper would benefit from a validation section comparing its ray-tracing output against the known Kerr limits (shadow boundary, photon ring radius, ISCO radius for a=0) and, where possible, against the analytic Kerr–Sen photon-orbit formulas. This would address the inconsistencies in Eqs. (48) and (54) and give the reader confidence in the numerical images.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3.2] Eq. (44) appears to contain an OCR or typesetting corruption: the expression for \tilde{\xi} is identical in form to the right-hand side of Eq. (40) and divided by a, which is not the standard critical impact parameter. Please rewrite this equation with the correct formulas.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (59)] The sentence 'In asymptotically flat spacetime, \epsilon = 1, but in the non-asymptotically flat Kerr–Sen black hole spacetime, \epsilon is less than 1' should be revised because the Kerr–Sen metric is asymptotically flat.
  3. [Code Availability Statement] The index structure in Eq. (59), p^{\mu} = \eta^{\mu\nu} e_{\xi}^{\nu} k^{\xi}, is not meaningful as written; the photon four-momentum in the observer's tetrad frame should be expressed as p^{\mu} = e_a^{\mu} k^a with a tetrad index a.
  4. [Section 3.3] The Code Availability Statement says no code or software was generated, yet the simulations producing the figures necessarily require ray-tracing code. Please clarify whether code can be shared or provide a detailed description of the numerical algorithm.
  5. [Section 3.2, Figs. 19–30] The title of Section 3.3 contains a typo: 'Keer–Sen' should be 'Kerr–Sen'.
  6. [Throughout] The intensity figures lack color bars or an intensity scale, making it difficult to compare amplitudes quantitatively between the 230 GHz and 86 GHz cases.
  7. [Throughout] The authors use awkward notations such as '/Sigma1', '/Delta1', and 'a2' in the text, which are likely artifacts of the production process. The equations should be checked for consistency.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 86/230 GHz brightness ranking is the adopted emissivity coefficients restated; the shadow and critical-curve analysis remains independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Eq. (65) with the A/B assignments for 230 GHz and 86 GHz; conclusions in Section 3.2 and the Abstract.]
    "At an observational frequency of 230 GHz, the corresponding wavelength for M87* and Sgr A* is approximately 1.3 mm. We adopt the parameters A =− 2 and B =− 1 2 for this frequency. When the observation frequency shifts to 86 GHz, these parameters are updated to A = 0 and B =− 3 4 [53]. ... Compared to the 230 GHz case, the overall intensity at 86 GHz is substantially higher, irrespective of whether the accretion disk is in prograde or retrograde motion."

    Eq. (64) evaluates the observed intensity as a sum over disk crossings of the same redshift factor g, same fudge factor f_m, and same ray-tracing geometry, multiplied by J_model(r_m). For the two frequencies the only input that changes is the adopted pair (A,B) in Eq. (65). Substituting A=0, B=-3/4 for 86 GHz and A=-2, B=-1/2 for 230 GHz gives log J_86 = -(3/4)x^2 and log J_230 = -2x - (1/2)x^2, with x=log(r/r_h). Over the inner-disk region that dominates the images, x<8, this makes J_86 > J_230, so the paper's reported result that the 86 GHz intensity is 'substantially higher' is the assumed emissivity ordering propagated through the transfer integral. Nothing in the Kerr-Sen metric or the ray-tracing calculation determines that ordering; it is imported with the coefficients.

full rationale

The shadow, critical-curve, and lensing-band computations (Section 2 and Figures 2-9) are self-contained ray tracing of the specified Kerr-Sen metric: the image-plane coordinates, photon-ring curves, and inner-shadow distortions follow from the geodesic equations and the metric parameters, and the qualitative spin-versus-charge distortion ranking is a figure reading rather than a quantity defined by an input. That part of the derivation is not circular. The genuinely circular step is the frequency comparison: the paper adopts different emissivity coefficients A and B in Eq. (65) for 230 GHz and 86 GHz, then reports the resulting intensity ranking as a finding. Since all other factors in Eq. (64) are common to the two frequency runs, the 86 GHz brighter than 230 GHz conclusion equals the chosen model-coefficient ordering. The paper's self-citation to its own prior Kerr-Newman imaging work [28] is present but is not load-bearing for the central derivation. The code-availability statement says no code is provided, which hinders checking but is not itself circularity; likewise, the potential physics error in the covariant-component effective potential of Eq. (54) is a correctness concern, not a circularity. Overall, because the spacetime imaging core is independent but the headline frequency result reduces by construction to the assumed emissivity parameters, a partial circularity score of 6 is appropriate.

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

The paper's central results rest on the Kerr-Sen metric (an input from prior literature), the standard separability of null geodesics, and an ad hoc thin-disk emissivity function whose frequency-dependent coefficients are imported from EHT papers. The free parameters that actually control the headline results are the emissivity coefficients A, B at 86/230 GHz and the photon-ring fudge factor f_m=1.5; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • 230 GHz emissivity coefficient A = -2
    Sets the slope of log J(r) in Eq. (70); taken from Ref [53] for M87* modeling, not derived for Kerr-Sen; directly controls the 230 GHz intensity profile.
  • 230 GHz emissivity coefficient B = -1/2
    Sets the curvature of log J(r) in Eq. (70); taken from Ref [53]; contributes to the 230 GHz intensity profile.
  • 86 GHz emissivity coefficient A = 0
    Sets the slope of log J(r) in Eq. (71); taken from Ref [53]; makes the 86 GHz emissivity larger at all radii.
  • 86 GHz emissivity coefficient B = -3/4
    Sets the curvature of log J(r) in Eq. (71); taken from Ref [53]; with A=0 it yields the higher 86 GHz brightness.
  • Higher-order photon ring fudge factor f_m = 1.5
    Introduced in Eq. (64) to adjust the brightness of higher-order photon rings; value adopted from Ref [47], not derived for the Kerr-Sen case.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kerr-Sen metric (Eq. 1) describes a viable low-energy string theory black hole.
    Physical premise motivating the study; the metric is introduced in Eq. (1) and credited to Sen, but no astrophysical evidence is offered for the dilaton-axion charge.
  • standard math Null geodesics in Kerr-Sen spacetime are separable with a Carter constant.
    Used throughout Section 2.1; established in Refs [42-45] and not re-derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The thin accretion disk emits with the log-parabolic profile of Eq. (65), with coefficients from EHT papers.
    Imported into Section 3.2; the disk microphysics is not modeled and the coefficients are not derived for Kerr-Sen; the intensity-frequency results depend on it.
  • domain assumption The accretion disk extends inside the ISCO with plunging orbits conserving E_ISCO, L_ISCO (Eq. 55).
    Defines the paper's 'improved model' and affects near-ISCO redshift and inner brightness; not validated against GRMHD simulations.
  • domain assumption Only equatorial-crossing photon geodesics with \tilde{\eta} > 0 are physical.
    Used to reduce Eq. (46) to the quartic (49); standard for photon-ring analysis but stated briefly in Section 2.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optical images of the Kerr-Sen black hole and thin accretion disk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TJRD3TS4

@misc{pith2026250717217,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optical images of the Kerr-Sen black hole and thin accretion disk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TJRD3TS4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17217}
}
read the original abstract

This paper investigates the observable properties of a Kerr-Sen black hole surrounded by a thin accretion disk, focusing on the impact of the black hole's spin and charge on the image. Using ray-tracing techniques, we conduct a detailed analysis of the black hole's image, redshift distribution, and intensity distributions at different observation frequencies. The results demonstrate that spin has a more significant effect on the distortion of the inner shadow than charge, and the observer's inclination angle plays a critical role in shaping the redshift distribution, especially near the innermost stable circular orbit. Additionally, the intensity is found to be higher at 86 GHz than at 230 GHz. This study highlights the crucial role of the accretion disk's geometry in determining the black hole's image and redshift effects, thereby providing a refined theoretical framework to guide future observational efforts targeting the Kerr-Sen black hole and its electromagnetic signals.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Optical Images of the Braneworld Black Hole Surrounded by an Optically Thin Accretion Disk

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A rotating braneworld black hole with tidal charge casts an asymmetric, spin- and q-dependent shadow; with the adopted disk emissivity, its 86 GHz image is brighter than its 230 GHz image.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [41]

    Feng, R.-J

    H. Feng, R.-J. Yang, W.-Q. Chen, Thin accretion disk and shadow of Kerr–Sen black hole in Einstein–Maxwell-dilaton-axion grav- ity. Astropart. Phys. 166, 103075 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.astropartphys.2024.103075. arXiv:2403.18541 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [51]

    B.-R. Chen, T. Hsieh, D.-S. Lee, Null geodesics in extremal Kerr– Newman black holes. Phys. Rev. D111, 024058 (2025).https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.024058. arXiv:2411.00458 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    Bambi, Testing black hole candidates with electromagnetic radi- ation

    C. Bambi, Testing black hole candidates with electromagnetic radi- ation. Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 025001 (2017).https://doi.org/10.1103/ RevModPhys.89.025001

    work page 2017

  4. [2]

    Abbott et al

    B.P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Observation of gravita- tional waves from a binary black hole merger. Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102. arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [3]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), First M87 event horizon telescope results. I. The shadow of the supermassive black hole. Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3847/ 2041-8213/ab0ec7. arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [5]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), First M87 event horizon telescope results. VIII. Magnetic field structure near the event horizon. Astrophys. J. Lett. 910, L13 (2021). https://doi. org/10.3847/2041-8213/abe4de . arXiv:2105.01173 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), First Sagittarius A* event horizon telescope results. I. The shadow of the super- massive black hole in the center of the milky way. Astrophys. J. Lett. 930, L12 (2022).https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674 . arXiv:2311.08680 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [7]

    S. Chen, J. Jing, W.-L. Qian, B. Wang, Black hole images: a review. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.66, 260401 (2023).https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11433-022-2059-5 . arXiv:2301.00113 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    S. Chen, J. Jing, Kerr black hole shadows from axion-photon cou- pling. JCAP 05, 023 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/ 2024/05/023. arXiv:2310.06490 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Y . Hou, P. Liu, M. Guo, H. Yan, B. Chen, Multi-level images around Kerr–Newman black holes. Class. Quantum Gravity 39, 194001 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ac8860 . arXiv:2203.02755 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Q. Sun, Y . Zhang, C.-H. Xie, Q.-Q. Li, Shadow of Kerr black hole surrounded by a cloud of strings in Rastall gravity and constraints from M87*. Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101599 (2024). https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.dark.2024.101599. arXiv:2401.08693 [gr-qc]

    2024

  4. [11]

    Bozza, Gravitational lensing by black holes

    V . Bozza, Gravitational lensing by black holes. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 42, 2269 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10714-010-0988-2 . arXiv:0911.2187 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Falcke, F

    H. Falcke, F. Melia, E. Agol, Viewing the shadow of the black hole at the galactic center. Astrophys. J. Lett. 528, L13 (2000). https:// doi.org/10.1086/312423. arXiv:astro-ph/9912263

    2000 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Meng, X.-M

    Y . Meng, X.-M. Kuang, X.-J. Wang, B. Wang, J.-P. Wu, Images of hairy Reissner–Nordström black hole illuminated by static accre- 123 Eur. Phys. J. C (2025) 85:747 Page 33 of 34 747 tions. Eur. Phys. J. C84, 305 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/ s10052-024-12686-w . arXiv:2...

    2025 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Y . Hou, Z. Zhang, H. Yan, M. Guo, B. Chen, Image of a Kerr–Melvin black hole with a thin accretion disk. Phys. Rev. D 106, 064058 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106. 064058. arXiv:2206.13744 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Johannsen, A.E

    T. Johannsen, A.E. Broderick, P.M. Plewa, S. Chatzopoulos, S.S. Doeleman, F. Eisenhauer, V .L. Fish, R. Genzel, O. Gerhard, M.D. Johnson, Testing general relativity with the shadow size of Sgr A*. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 031101 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.116.03...

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gralla, D.E

    S.E. Gralla, D.E. Holz, R.M. Wald, Black hole shadows, photon rings, and lensing rings. Phys. Rev. D100, 024018 (2019). https:// doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024018

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Grenzebach, V

    A. Grenzebach, V . Perlick, C. Lämmerzahl, Photon regions and shadows of Kerr–Newman-NUT black holes with a cosmological constant. Phys. Rev. D89, 124004 (2014).https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.89.124004. arXiv:1403.5234 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Narayan, M.D

    R. Narayan, M.D. Johnson, C.F. Gammie, The shadow of a spherically accreting black hole. Astrophys. J. Lett. 885, L33 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab518c . arXiv:1910.02957 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Abramowicz, P.C

    M.A. Abramowicz, P.C. Fragile, Foundations of black hole accre- tion disk theory. Living Rev. Relativ.16, 1 (2013). https://doi.org/ 10.12942/lrr-2013-1 . arXiv:1104.5499 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Balbus, J.F

    S.A. Balbus, J.F. Hawley, Instability, turbulence, and enhanced transport in accretion disks. Rev. Mod. Phys.70, 1 (1998). https:// doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.70.1

    1998 doi

  14. [22]

    Ricarte, D

    A. Ricarte, D. Palumbo, R. Narayan, F. Roelofs, R. Emami, Obser- vational signatures of frame dragging in strong gravity. Astro- phys. J. Lett.941, L12 (2022).https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ aca087. arXiv:2211.01810 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), The polarized image of a synchrotron-emitting ring of gas orbiting a black hole. Astrophys. J. 912, 35 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ abf117. arXiv:2105.01804 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Paugnat, A

    H. Paugnat, A. Lupsasca, F. Vincent, M. Wielgus, Photon ring test of the Kerr hypothesis: variation in the ring shape. Astron. Astrophys. 668, A11 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/ 202244216. arXiv:2206.02781 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Wang, C.-J

    K. Wang, C.-J. Feng, T. Wang, Image of Kerr-de Sitter black holes illuminated by equatorial thin accretion disks. Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 457 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12825-3 . arXiv:2309.16944 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hintz, A

    P. Hintz, A. Vasy, The global non-linear stability of the Kerr–de Sitter family of black holes. Commun. Math. Phys. 350, 913 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-017-3015-6 . arXiv:1606.04014 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Perlick, O.Y

    V . Perlick, O.Y . Tsupko, Light propagation in a plasma on Kerr spacetime: separation of the Hamilton–Jacobi equation and calcu- lation of shadows. Phys. Rev. D92, 104031 (2015).https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.104031. arXiv:1507.04217 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Guo, Y .-X

    S. Guo, Y .-X. Huang, E.-W. Liang, Y . Liang, Q.-Q. Jiang, K. Lin, Image of the Kerr–Newman black hole surrounded by a thin accre- tion disk. Astrophys. J. 975, 237 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/ad7d85. arXiv:2411.07914 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Zhang, S

    H. Zhang, S. Chen, J. Jing, Photon ring and observational appear- ance of a charged spinning black hole. Phys. Rev. D 107, 104042 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.104042. arXiv:2303.11865 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Tsupko, G.S

    O.Y . Tsupko, G.S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan, Charged black hole shad- ows: analytic formulas for bending angle and image contours. Phys. Rev. D 106, 064033 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 106.064033. arXiv:2205.00695

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    García, D

    D. García, D. Galtsov, O. Kechkin, Stringy black hole shad- ows: lensing by Kerr–Sen and dyonic dilaton black holes. Phys. Rev. D 102, 124058 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 102.124058. arXiv:2008.05144 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kumar, S.G

    R. Kumar, S.G. Ghosh, Photon ring structure and observa- tional signatures of Kerr–Sen black holes. Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 512 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10413-x . arXiv:2201.03224 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Sen, Rotating charged black hole solution in heterotic string theory

    A. Sen, Rotating charged black hole solution in heterotic string theory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 1006 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.69.1006

    1992

  26. [34]

    Younsi, O

    Z. Younsi, O. Porth, Y . Mizuno, GRMHD simulations of magne- tized accretion onto Kerr–Sen black holes. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 516, 1143 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac1962 . arXiv:2205.10174 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Y . Li, H. Yang, Y . Yuan, Probing stringy charges via black hole shadow deformations: a Kerr–Sen case study. JHEP10, 115 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10115. arXiv:2206.01774 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Hioki, K

    A. Hioki, K. Suzuki, S. Tomizawa, Photon trajectories and shadows in Kerr–Sen spacetime. Phys. Rev. D 106, 044022 (2022). https:// doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.044022. arXiv:2203.13898 [gr- qc]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Vincent, M

    F.H. Vincent, M. Wielgus, E. Gourgoulhon, Geodesic motion and shadow of a Kerr-like black hole. Astron. Astrophys. 646, A55 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202140980 . arXiv:2102.09256 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Collaboration, First M87 event horizon telescope results VII polarization of the ring

    E. Collaboration, First M87 event horizon telescope results VII polarization of the ring. Astrophys. J. Lett. 910, L12 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/abf1c5 . arXiv:2105.01169 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Broderick, R

    A.E. Broderick, R. Gold, M. Karami, Frequency-dependent black hole shadow and photon ring in the EHT band. Astrophys. J. 940, 57 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac91cc . arXiv:2208.09004 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Horowitz, D.L

    G.T. Horowitz, D.L. Welch, Exact three-dimensional black holes in string theory. Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 328 (1993).https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.71.328

    1993

  33. [42]

    Carter, Global structure of the Kerr family of gravitational fields

    B. Carter, Global structure of the Kerr family of gravitational fields. Phys. Rev. 174, 1559 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev. 174.1559

    1968 doi

  34. [43]

    Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1983)

    S. Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1983)

    1983

  35. [44]

    Hackmann, V

    E. Hackmann, V . Kagramanova, J. Kunz, C. L ämmerzahl, Analytic solutions of the geodesic equation in Kerr-(anti-)de Sitter space- times. Phys. Rev. D 81, 044020 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.81.044020. arXiv:1009.6117 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  36. [45]

    M. Wang, S. Chen, J. Jing, Chaotic motion of particles in the Kerr– Sen black hole spacetime. Phys. Rev. D102, 104021 (2020).https:// doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.104021. arXiv:2010.00155 [gr- qc]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Sahoo, N

    S.K. Sahoo, N. Yadav, I. Banerjee, Imprints of Einstein–Maxwell- dilaton-axion gravity in the observed shadows of Sgr A* and M87*. Phys. Rev. D 109, 044008 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.109.044008. arXiv:2305.14870 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Gralla, A

    S.E. Gralla, A. Lupsasca, Null geodesics of the Kerr exterior. Phys. Rev. D 101, 044032 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 101.044032. arXiv:1910.12881 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [48]

    H. Yang, H. Zhang, Photon trajectories in Kerr–Sen spacetime: a mino time approach. Phys. Rev. D104, 104053 (2021).https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.104053. arXiv:2106.04218 [gr-qc] 123 747 Page 34 of 34 Eur. Phys. J. C (2025) 85:747

    2021 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Kapec, A

    D. Kapec, A. Lupsasca, Universal Teukolsky equations and black hole photon rings. JHEP 09, 134 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/ JHEP09134. arXiv:2106.05276 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Gralla, A

    S.E. Gralla, A. Lupsasca, Lensing by Kerr black holes. Phys. Rev. D 101, 044031 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 101.044031. arXiv:1910.12873 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [52]

    Chael, M.D

    A. Chael, M.D. Johnson, A. Lupsasca, Observing the inner shadow of a black hole: a direct view of the event horizon. Astrophys. J. 918, 6 (2021)

    2021

  43. [53]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), First M87 event hori- zon telescope results. III. Data processing and calibration. Astro- phys. J. Lett. 875, L3 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ ab0c57. arXiv:1906.11240 [astro-ph.GA] 123

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

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