Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 51 references

This paper claims that adding a delta-function spike to a black-hole potential sends every quasinormal-mode and Regge-pole resonance along a smooth trajectory, and that the entire deformed spectrum follows from an exact condition built only

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 11:54 UTC pith:ITCNYIYQ

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful exact result on delta-perturbed black-hole spectra, but the dynamical-systems attractor classification is wrong in a way that needs fixing. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.04892 v2 pith:ITCNYIYQ submitted 2026-01-08 gr-qc

Dynamical system approach to the spectral (in)stability of black holes under localised potential perturbations

T. Torres , S. R. Dolan This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 04.70.-s04.30.-w
keywords quasinormal modesRegge polesspectral instabilitydelta-function perturbationblack hole perturbation theorydynamical systemsattractor-repeller flowelephant and flea phenomenon
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper aims to show that a delta-function perturbation added to the radial potential of a black hole does not destroy the resonance spectrum but re-routes it: every quasinormal mode and Regge pole moves continuously along a curve in the complex frequency or angular-momentum plane as the perturbation strength grows. The key claim is that this curve is governed by an exact, non-perturbative resonance condition involving only unperturbed wavefunctions, and that the global migration is organized by a small set of attracting and repelling points. If true, the notorious 'elephant and flea' instability—where a tiny distant perturbation reshuffles the overtones—is not a failure of the spectrum's existence but a local failure of Taylor-series perturbation theory, driven by repellers sitting near the unperturbed resonances. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns a seemingly erratic spectral instability into a predictable flow, and explains why quasinormal-mode and Regge-pole overtones are sensitive in different ways.

Core claim

The central discovery is Eq. (10): for a perturbation ε δ(x−x₀), the resonance condition is exactly F(λ,ω)+ε=0, where F is the ratio of the unperturbed Wronskian to the product of the two unperturbed radial solutions evaluated at x₀. No O(ε²) terms appear, so the deformed spectrum at any strength is computable from unperturbed quantities. From this, resonances migrate along integral curves of dz/dε = −1/F′(z), with fixed points of the flow attracting modes toward 'hard-wall' frequencies where one radial function vanishes at x₀, and repelling points near the unperturbed resonances explaining the breakdown of linear and quadratic approximations.

What carries the argument

The object doing the work is the meromorphic function F(λ,ω)=W(u⁻,u⁺)/(u⁻(x₀)u⁺(x₀)) built from the unperturbed left- and right-valid radial solutions. The resonance condition F+ε=0 converts spectral deformation into a first-order autonomous flow dz/dε=−1/F′(z); zeros of u⁻ or u⁺ at x₀ are attracting fixed points (hard-wall limits), while simple poles of F′ act as repelling points or junction points that bend trajectories by 90°, and the positions of these features move with x₀.

Load-bearing premise

The flow picture stands on the assumption that F(z)=W/(u⁻u⁺) is meromorphic with only isolated poles and exactly one repelling point per unperturbed overtone, with no branch cuts crossing the trajectories; this assumption is nontrivial, because at a simple zero of u⁻ or u⁺ the fixed point is not simple and the stated exponential approach becomes algebraic.

What would settle it

Compute the exact perturbed quasinormal-mode frequencies of the Pöschl-Teller model by root-finding Eq. (10) at large ε and measuring the rate at which each mode approaches its attractor. If the deviation from the attractor decays as 1/ε rather than exponentially—as the double zero of g at a simple zero of u⁻ or u⁺ implies—then the exponential limit law in Sec. II D needs revision. A simpler check: verify symbolically that Eq. (9) contains no O(ε²) correction.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For a delta spike, the full deformed spectrum—not just a first-order shift—is determined by unperturbed wavefunctions; no higher-order matching is needed.
  • Resonances never appear or disappear abruptly; as ε grows they slide continuously toward hard-wall frequencies, so the spectrum is globally smooth even when overtone labels swap.
  • The elephant-and-flea effect is explained as repellers sitting close to unperturbed overtones for distant perturbations, making the Taylor series valid only for extremely small ε.
  • Quasinormal-mode overtones destabilize exponentially with distance and overtone order, while Regge-pole overtones destabilize as a power law, as quantified by the threshold parameters ε_lin and ε_nonlin.
  • The same attractor–repeller skeleton organizes both the exactly solvable comparison model and the Schwarzschild case, suggesting the mechanism is generic rather than potential-specific.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct consequence left implicit in the paper: the same exact reduction should hold for any compactly supported perturbation by decomposing it into delta spikes, suggesting a rational-function-in-ε form for the deformed resonance condition in more general settings.
  • The paper's numerical Schwarzschild analysis is restricted to the fundamental quasinormal mode; extending the flow integration to higher overtones would test whether the repeller picture survives quantitatively beyond the Nariai model.
  • At an attractor that is a simple zero of u⁻ or u⁺, the stated exponential approach cannot hold because g′ vanishes there; the approach should be algebraic (δz ∝ 1/ε). Measuring this rate numerically would sharpen the dynamical-system classification.
  • The flow picture suggests a practical numerical recipe: instead of root-finding the perturbed problem at each ε, integrate dz/dε = −1/F′(z) once, using unperturbed data, to map the entire spectral deformation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies how the quasinormal-mode and Regge-pole spectra of black-hole-like potentials deform under a delta-function perturbation of the potential. The central exact result is Eq. (10): for a perturbation ϵδ(x−x₀), the resonance condition reduces to F(λ,ω)+ϵ=0, with F constructed from the unperturbed radial functions and Wronskian. On this basis the authors introduce a flow ODE dz/dϵ=−1/F′(z), interpret resonance migration as a dynamical system with attracting and repelling points, and use it to explain the 'elephant and flea' spectral instability. The framework is applied first to the Nariai/Pöschl–Teller case, where closed forms allow a detailed analysis of attractors, repellers, and linear/nonlinear instability thresholds, and then to Schwarzschild, where numerical integration is used for the fundamental QNM and for Regge poles.

Significance. The exact resonance condition (10) is a valuable and nontrivial result, and the Nariai analysis provides a controlled laboratory for spectral instability. The paper is careful to separate linear, nonlinear, and anomalous instability and connects the linear coefficient to QNM excitation factors. The Schwarzschild Regge-pole results are cross-checked against an independent continued-fraction calculation. If the dynamical-systems picture is corrected as described below, the attractor–repeller mechanism would provide a clear, parameter-free explanation of why weak localized perturbations strongly destabilize high overtones. These strengths make the paper potentially suitable for publication after revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II D, Eq. (18)] The classification of fixed points is internally inconsistent. The text states that simple zeros of g(z) define fixed points, that these correspond to simple poles of F′(z), and that they are typically associated with simple zeros of u⁺(x₀) or u⁻(x₀), with an exponential approach |δz|∝exp(Re[g′(z̄)]ε). But if u⁺(x₀) has a simple zero at z̄, then F=W₀/(u⁻u⁺) has a simple pole, F′ has a double pole, and g=−1/F′ has a double zero with g′(z̄)=0. The stated criterion Re[g′(z̄)]≠0 never applies to these hard-wall attractors. The correct local behavior is algebraic: solving dz/dε=C(z−z̄)² gives z−z̄∼−1/(Cε). The topological conclusion that resonances tend to the hard-wall frequencies survives, but the phase-portrait classification and all statements relying on exponential approach need revision. Please correct Sec. II D and adjust the associated discussion in Secs. III and V.
  2. [Sec. III.C, Eqs. (33)-(34)] The Regge-pole asymptotic is claimed to explain the power-law decay of ϵ_lin with n+1/2 observed in Fig. 7. However, substituting λ_n=ω+i(n+1/2) into Eq. (34) gives |λ_n^{2iω}|=e^{-2ω atan((n+1/2)/ω)}=e^{-πω}+O(1/n), which is n-independent at leading order. Thus the leading term in Eq. (34) does not produce a power-law decay. Either Eq. (33) is missing a factor from u⁻u⁺ (or from the gamma-function ratio), or the power-law claim requires a different derivation. Please supply the missing asymptotic steps or revise the claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Typos: 'refered' should be 'referred' (Introduction); 'Scwharzchild' in Fig. 9 caption; 'signification' should be 'significant' in Sec. IV.
  2. [Sec. III] Notation is inconsistent between hatted quantities in Eq. (24) and unhatted ω,x in the surrounding text. Please state once the association x↔νx̂, ω↔ω̂/ν and use it consistently.
  3. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (29)] The sentence 'which admits ω=0 as a solution' is unclear in context. Is this a special case of the w-mode condition, or a spurious root? Please clarify.
  4. [Sec. II.D, Eq. (19)] The 90° branch-switching argument assumes F″(z_r)≠0. If F′ has a higher-order zero, the local normal form changes. A brief comment on this genericity assumption would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction: Eq. (10) is an exact matching identity; flow and thresholds are derived, not fitted; self-citations are cross-checks.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain starts from the radial equation with a delta perturbation, performs exact matching at x0 (Eq. 8), and obtains the Wronskian W = W0 + ε u−(x0)u+(x0) (Eq. 9). Setting W=0 yields F+ε=0 with F = W0/(u−u+) (Eq. 10). This is an exact algebraic reexpression of the resonance condition, not a fitted ansatz or a quantity defined in terms of the target spectrum. The Taylor coefficients (Eqs. 11–12), the thresholds ε_lin and ε_nonlin (Eqs. 15, 17), and the flow equation dz/dε = −1/F′(z) (Eq. 18) all follow by implicit differentiation or direct definition from Eq. (10); they are consequences, not inputs. The attractor/repeller structure is obtained from the analytic properties of F, and the Nariai closed forms and Schwarzschild numerics are used to evaluate F, not to impose conclusions. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. 29 and 42) supply prior reports of the phenomena and an independent continued-fraction cross-check; they are not the source of the exact condition or the attractor/repeller structure. Thus no load-bearing step reduces to its own input. A separate, non-circular concern is that Sec. II D's 'simple zero' attractor criterion appears inconsistent with identifying attractors as zeros of u±(x0), since a simple zero of u± makes g a double zero and the approach algebraic rather than exponential; this is a mathematical consistency issue, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No constants are fitted to data: ϵ and x₀ are scanned inputs (displayed values such as x₀=10/√27, ϵ∈10⁻⁸..500 are choices, not calibrations). The central claim is governed by unperturbed radial solutions, standard external inputs. No new physical entities are invented: 'attractors' and 'repellers' are mathematical features of F(z) (zeros of u⁻u⁺ and of F′, respectively), i.e. names for identifiable configurations (hard-wall modes, critical points), not new forces/particles/dimensions with falsifiable handles outside the flow description.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Resonances are the zeros of the Wronskian W(u_in, u_up)=0 with physically motivated boundary conditions; for the delta-perturbed problem this is exactly equivalent to F(λ,ω)+ϵ=0 with F=W₀/(u⁻(x₀)u⁺(x₀)).
    Sec. II A, Eqs. (2)-(10). Standard resonance definition; exactness for delta is derived in the paper and checks out (the step-function solution (8) satisfies the delta-jump condition exactly).
  • domain assumption F(z) is meromorphic in the z-plane with only isolated poles (zeros of u⁻(x₀) or u⁺(x₀)) and isolated critical points (zeros of F′), one repeller per overtone, with no branch cuts or accumulated singularities interfering with the trajectories.
    Sec. II D. Needed for the flow ODE (18) and the attractor/repeller phase portrait; not proven. The paper's own classification is inconsistent with it: simple zeros of u⁻ produce double zeros of g, so the stated simple-zero/exponential-approach analysis fails.
  • domain assumption The unperturbed Wronskian W₀ has only simple zeros at the resonances, so F′≠0 at z(0) and the flow starts at a regular point.
    Sec. II B-D. Generic non-degeneracy assumption; unstated.
  • standard math The Pöschl-Teller radial solutions (25)-(26) and their large-x₀ asymptotics (28)-(31) are correct; all Gamma-function manipulations are valid.
    Sec. III. Standard hypergeometric representations; attractor locations (30)-(31) follow from them.
  • domain assumption The Schwarzschild radial functions computed by direct integration with Taylor initial conditions are numerically accurate at complex ω (fundamental mode), and the continued-fraction extension provides an independent check.
    Sec. IV. Authors state direct integration 'is known to fail when looking for higher overtones', which is why the QNM study is restricted to the fundamental mode; the RP computation (real ω) is more robust.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13426 in / 42400 out tokens · 421554 ms · 2026-08-03T11:54:52.758375+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The aim of this work is to improve understanding of the resonant spectra of black holes under perturbations arising from e.g. compact objects or accretion disks in their vicinity. It is known that adding a weak perturbation to the radial potential can strongly disrupt the spectrum of quasinormal modes and Regge poles of a black hole spacetime. Here we examine the effect of (weak or strong) localised delta-function perturbations on the resonant spectra of spherically-symmetric systems, to address fundamental questions around linear and non-linear spectral stability. We examine two cases: the Nariai spacetime with a Poschl-Teller potential and the Schwarzschild spacetime. We show that, in either case, the spectrum deforms in a smooth and continuous manner as the position and strength of the perturbation is varied. As the strength of the perturbation is increased, resonances migrate along trajectories in the complex plane which ultimately tend towards attracting points determined by a hard-wall scenario. However, for weak perturbations the trajectory near the unperturbed resonance is typically strongly influenced by a set of repelling points which, for perturbations far from the system, lie very close to the unperturbed resonances; hence there arises a non-linear instability (i.e. the failure of a linearised approximation). Taking a dynamical systems perspective, the sets of attracting and repelling spectral points follow their own trajectories as the position of the perturbation is varied, and these are tracked and understood.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.04892 by S. R. Dolan, T. Torres.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The quasinormal mode spectrum for a P¨oschl-Teller potential ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Example of the migration of the fundamental ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Examples of the switching of trajectories as the position of the perturbation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The attracting and repelling points of the QNM spectrum. The attracting (repelling) points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The plot shows the Regge-pole spectrum for a Poschl-Teller potential ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The attracting and repelling points of the Regge pole spectrum. The attracting (repelling) points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Thresholds for linear and non-linear instability ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Migration of the fundamental QNF for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The plot shows the Regge-pole spectrum for the Scwharzchild BH ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 31 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Attractors In the case where the perturbation is reasonably far from the peak of the potential barrier (i.e.e −2ˆx0 ≪1), we can obtain approximations for the positions of the attracting points, which are determined from the zeros ofu − λω(x0) andu + λω(x0) defined in Eq. (25). Expanding the hypergeometric 11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6Re(!) -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0Im(...

  2. [2]

    The dotted lines show the linear and quadratic approximations

    The QNF migrates from the unperturbed frequency λ0 −i/2 (filled black circle) towards the frequency at whichu − λω(x0) is zero (open black circle) along the trajectory [blue solid]. The dotted lines show the linear and quadratic approximations. The points show the fundamental QNM frequency for perturbation strengthsϵ∈ {0.1,1,10,50}. 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 ...

  3. [3]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2021), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    smaller real part), but certain poles (n= 4, 9 and 16) migrate to the right, creating two branches

    Asϵincreases, most RPs move to the left (i.e. smaller real part), but certain poles (n= 4, 9 and 16) migrate to the right, creating two branches. The attracting (open black circles) and repelling (black crosses) points defined in Sec. II D are marked. The leftward-moving (rightward-moving) poles migrate towards the attractors with large (small) imaginary ...

  5. [5]

    As x→0 +, the repelling points approach the odd-nRPs

    The open blue circles show the positions of the unperturbed Regge poles. As x→0 +, the repelling points approach the odd-nRPs. Asx→ ∞, the repelling points approach RPs, with one trajectory returning to the same RP, and one moving to the RP below. For smallx, the attracting points are on an approximately vertical line to the left of the RP line. For suffi...

  6. [6]

    Elephant and Flea

    N.B. the left plot uses a semi-log scale, whereas the right plot uses a log-log scale. C. Stability and sensitivity To quantify the stability of the spectrum, we defined two ‘threshold’ parameters,ϵ lin andϵ nonlin in Eqs. (15) and (17). For perturbation strengths|ϵ|≳ϵ lin the linear approximation predicts a ‘large’ perturbation in the resonance frequency...

  7. [7]

    Vishveshwara, Nature227, 936 (1970)

    C. Vishveshwara, Nature227, 936 (1970)

    1970

  8. [8]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    Decanini, G

    Y. Decanini, G. Esposito-Farese, and A. Folacci, Phys. Rev. D83, 044032 (2011), arXiv:1101.0781 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  10. [10]

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

    1985

  11. [11]

    E. W. Leaver, Phys. Rev. D34, 384 (1986)

    1986

  12. [12]

    Decanini, A

    Y. Decanini, A. Folacci, and B. Jensen, Phys. Rev. D67, 124017 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0212093

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  13. [13]

    Folacci and M

    A. Folacci and M. Ould El Hadj, Phys. Rev. D99, 104079 (2019), arXiv:1901.03965 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Folacci and M

    A. Folacci and M. Ould El Hadj, Phys. Rev. D100, 064009 (2019), arXiv:1906.01441 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Fransen, Classical and Quantum Gravity40, 205004 (2023)

    K. Fransen, Classical and Quantum Gravity40, 205004 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    Decanini, A

    Y. Decanini, A. Folacci, and B. Raffaelli, Class. Quant. Grav.28, 175021 (2011), arXiv:1104.3285 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  17. [17]

    Goebel, Astrophysical Journal, vol

    C. Goebel, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 172, p. L95172, L95 (1972)

    1972

  18. [18]

    Cardoso, A

    V. Cardoso, A. S. Miranda, E. Berti, H. Witek, and V. T. Zanchin, Phys. Rev. D79, 064016 (2009), arXiv:0812.1806 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  19. [19]

    S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D82, 104003 (2010), arXiv:1007.5097 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  20. [20]

    H. Yang, D. A. Nichols, F. Zhang, A. Zimmerman, Z. Zhang, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D86, 104006 (2012), arXiv:1207.4253 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  21. [21]

    P. T. Leung, Y. T. Liu, W. M. Suen, C. Y. Tam, and K. Young, Phys. Rev. D59, 044034 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9903032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  22. [22]

    S. R. Dolan and A. C. Ottewill, Class. Quant. Grav.26, 225003 (2009), arXiv:0908.0329 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  23. [23]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Advances in Physics69, 249 (2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    Nollert, Phys

    H.-P. Nollert, Phys. Rev. D53, 4397 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9602032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  25. [25]

    Nollert and R

    H.-P. Nollert and R. H. Price, J. Math. Phys.40, 980 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9810074

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  26. [26]

    P. T. Leung, Y. T. Liu, W. M. Suen, C. Y. Tam, and K. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2894 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9903031

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  27. [27]

    The high overtones are very sensitive to small perturbations: note, for example, the shift in the n= 7 mode under a perturbation ofϵ= 10 −8

    Under perturbation, the spectrum exhibits two branches, with modes moving to the left and right in an alternating fashion. The high overtones are very sensitive to small perturbations: note, for example, the shift in the n= 7 mode under a perturbation ofϵ= 10 −8. By comparison, the fundamental moden= 0 is less sensitive and is least affected by the pertur...

  28. [28]

    Barausse, V

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D89, 104059 (2014), arXiv:1404.7149 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  29. [29]

    J. L. Jaramillo, R. Panosso Macedo, and L. Al Sheikh, Phys. Rev. X11, 031003 (2021), arXiv:2004.06434 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    J. L. Jaramillo, R. Panosso Macedo, and L. A. Sheikh, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 211102 (2022), arXiv:2105.03451 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Berti, APS Physics14, 91 (2021)

    E. Berti, APS Physics14, 91 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, M. H.-Y. Cheung, F. Di Filippo, F. Duque, P. Martens, and S. Mukohyama, Phys. Rev. D106, 084011 (2022), arXiv:2205.08547 [gr-qc]. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    M. H.-Y. Cheung, K. Destounis, R. P. Macedo, E. Berti, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 111103 (2022), arXiv:2111.05415 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Rev. D107, 064039 (2023), arXiv:2210.14506 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Torres, Phys

    T. Torres, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 111401 (2023), arXiv:2304.10252 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    R. F. Rosato, K. Destounis, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D110, L121501 (2024), arXiv:2406.01692 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Yang, Z.-F

    Y. Yang, Z.-F. Mai, R.-Q. Yang, L. Shao, and E. Berti, Physical Review D110, 084018 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    Sun and R

    Y. Sun and R. H. Price, Phys. Rev. D38, 1040 (1988)

    1988

  39. [39]

    Sun and R

    Y. Sun and R. H. Price, Phys. Rev. D41, 2492 (1990)

    1990

  40. [40]

    Andersson, Phys

    N. Andersson, Phys. Rev. D55, 468 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9607064

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  41. [41]

    Berti and V

    E. Berti and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D74, 104020 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0605118

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  42. [42]

    S. R. Dolan and A. C. Ottewill, Phys. Rev. D84, 104002 (2011), arXiv:1106.4318 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  43. [43]

    Nariai, Sci

    H. Nariai, Sci. Rep. Res. Inst. Tohoku Univ.35, 62 (1951)

    1951

  44. [44]

    Casals, S

    M. Casals, S. R. Dolan, A. C. Ottewill, and B. Wardell, Phys. Rev. D79, 124043 (2009), arXiv:0903.0395 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  45. [45]

    S. Mano, H. Suzuki, and E. Takasugi, Progress of Theoretical Physics95, 1079 (1996)

    1996

  46. [46]

    Benhar, E

    O. Benhar, E. Berti, and V. Ferrari, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.310, 797 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9901037

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  47. [47]

    Ould El Hadj, T

    M. Ould El Hadj, T. Stratton, and S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D101, 104035 (2020), arXiv:1912.11348 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Torres, M

    T. Torres, M. Ould El Hadj, S.-Q. Hu, and R. Gregory, Phys. Rev. D107, 064028 (2023), arXiv:2211.17147 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Gasperin and J

    E. Gasperin and J. L. Jaramillo, Class. Quant. Grav.39, 115010 (2022), arXiv:2107.12865 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Solidoro, S

    L. Solidoro, S. Patrick, S. Weinfurtner, and R. Gregory, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 051401 (2025), arXiv:2406.11013 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Wu and P

    T. Wu and P. Lalanne, Frontiers in Physics12, 1461106 (2024). 21

    2024