Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

A scalar-Maxwell coupling that diverges at the center produces horizonless, electrically charged compact objects with a shell-like density profile, and the paper derives their photon rings, lensing, and ISCO signatures with parameter constr

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

2026-08-02 20:13 UTC pith:ND6OS22X

load-bearing objection New explicit-coupling ECO construction with real promise, but the no-echoes argument uses the wrong perturbation equations and the numerics need convergence checks. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.23657 v2 pith:ND6OS22X submitted 2026-02-27 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Light rings, gravitational lensing, and ISCOs of exotic compact objects in Einstein-scalar-Maxwell theories

Antonio De Felice , Shinji Tsujikawa This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th
keywords exotic compact objectsEinstein-scalar-Maxwellscalar-vector couplingphoton ringsgravitational lensingISCOshell-like densitydark sector
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.

Within Einstein-scalar-Maxwell theory, a coupling μ(φ)F between a real scalar and an electromagnetic field can, when μ diverges at r=0, support static, spherically symmetric, horizonless exotic compact objects that are everywhere regular. The paper proposes an explicit coupling μ=μ0+μ1 M_Pl^p (φ−φ0)^{−p} with 2

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: electrically charged, regular, horizonless compact objects exist in Einstein-scalar-Maxwell theories when the scalar-vector coupling diverges at the center in the power-law form (2.23), with 2<p≤3; all physical quantities—metric functions, scalar and vector field strengths, density, and pressures—remain finite. The objects are shell-like, with density peaked at an intermediate radius, and their ADM mass and compactness follow a mass-radius relation with C ~ 0.01–0.1 near the upper bound of the parameter α. The same solutions produce a definite set of strong-field observables: for α>α_p two photon rings appear (one linearly stable); for α<α_p there are none and hence

What carries the argument

The central object is the ratio N=f/h between the metric functions, together with the explicit coupling μ(φ)=μ0+μ1 M_Pl^p (φ−φ0)^{−p}, where p=2(m+1)/m with integer m≥2, so 2<p≤3. Because μ diverges as r→0, the density and pressures vanish at the center while the fields remain finite; the master equation (2.14) for N then yields horizon-free solutions via the integral representation (2.17). The observational analysis is carried by three geodesic diagnostics: the null condition 2f−rf′=0 for photon rings, the stability discriminant 2f−r^2 f″ (negative implies a linearly stable ring), and the massive-particle stability function Δ(r)=r^2 f f″−2r^2(f′)²+3r f f′ whose zeroes mark the ISCO radii.

Load-bearing premise

The existence claim rests on numerical integrations started at r=10^{-4} r0 whose convergence to exact, globally regular, asymptotically flat solutions is assumed rather than demonstrated, and on the assumption that these solutions are dynamically stable, which the paper explicitly defers.

What would settle it

Run the integrations with successively smaller starting radii (e.g., 10^{-5}, 10^{-6} r0) and check that h, N, φ, A0, and the ADM mass converge to the same asymptotic values; or compute the linear perturbation spectrum of the ECO and find a growing mode, which would invalidate the claim that the configurations are viable; or search for a local minimum of the photon effective potential V(r)=l(l+1) f(r)/r² for α<α_p, which would refute the equivalence between absence of photon rings and absence of echoes.

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

If this is right

  • If the solutions are globally regular and asymptotically flat, then the constraint α<α_p guarantees the absence of linearly stable photon rings and, because dV/dr is nowhere zero, the absence of photon echoes.
  • The deflection angle Ψ(b) has a maximum near b≈r0, distinguishing these ECOs from Schwarzschild black holes and neutron stars by lensing; near α_p the deflection can exceed 2π, giving multiple image loops.
  • ISCOs of massive particles exist only for α>α_ISCO, and in that regime circular orbits are stable close to the center and far away but unstable in an intermediate band—opposite to the Schwarzschild case.
  • The compactness C can reach values up to O(0.1) near α_p, making these objects as compact as or more compact than neutron stars, potentially relevant for gravitational-wave tidal deformability.
  • The presence of both scalar and electric charges modifies the asymptotic metric (3.20), so orbital dynamics far from the object already encode the dark charges.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same shell-building mechanism may extend to other couplings with a pole at the center; the paper singles out p=2(m+1)/m by regularity, suggesting a one-parameter family of ECOs indexed by m that a systematic existence proof could confirm.
  • Because linear stability of the ECO itself is deferred, a perturbation analysis could either validate the α<α_p window or rule out parts of it; this is a direct, testable next step.
  • The identification 'no photon ring ⇔ no photon echo' is argued for static, spherically symmetric, horizonless metrics and may transfer to other ECO families beyond this model.
  • The lensing peak at b~r0 could serve as a practical discriminant in microlensing surveys, since an object whose deflection decreases toward small impact parameters (rather than diverging) is a signature of a central density hole.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies static, spherically symmetric, horizonless solutions in Einstein-scalar-Maxwell theories with a coupling μ(φ)F. For an explicit coupling μ(φ)=μ0+μ1 M_Pl^p/(φ-φ0)^p with p=2(m+1)/m (2<p≤3), it constructs numerically ECOs whose energy density peaks at an intermediate radius, i.e., a shell-like structure. It computes mass-radius relations and compactness, then studies photon rings and their radial stability, gravitational lensing deflection, and ISCOs of massive particles. The main phenomenological conclusions are: absence of a linearly stable photon ring imposes α<αp; under this condition photon echoes are claimed to be absent; the lensing deflection angle peaks at impact parameters of order the ECO radius; and ISCOs exist for αISCO<α<αp.

Significance. If the solutions are numerically robust and the perturbation analysis is corrected, the paper provides a new family of explicit, asymptotically flat, charged ECOs with an unusual shell-like profile, extending previous reconstruction-based constructions (Refs. [27,43]) to an explicit coupling. The strength of the paper is that the background equations (2.3)-(2.14) are derived explicitly, the integral solution (2.17) is given, the near-origin expansions match the numerical profiles, and the photon-ring/ISCO stability conditions are standard. The parameter scan is not circular: α, m, λ are varied and observables are computed from the resulting geometries. However, the physical-existence claim is weakened by the absence of numerical convergence tests and of a stability analysis of the ECO itself, and the photon-echo argument uses the wrong perturbation system for this theory. These gaps affect central claims in the abstract and in Secs. III-IV.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.C, Eqs. (4.22)-(4.25)] The echo-absence argument is derived from the minimally coupled Maxwell equation ∇ν F̃^{μν}=0, Eq. (4.22), and the effective potential V(r)=l(l+1)f(r)/r², Eq. (4.24). However, the theory (2.1) has vector kinetic term μ(φ)F. Linearizing the full system around a background with nonconstant φ and nonzero A0 produces coupled scalar-vector perturbation equations containing μ'(φ)/μ(φ), φ', and background A0' terms, none of which appear in (4.24). Even in a constant-μ limit with nonzero A0, the test-field potential must be derived from the actual perturbation equations of the theory. Therefore the deduction 'no photon rings ⇒ no potential minimum ⇒ no photon echoes' is not established for the theory under study. This is load-bearing for the abstract claim 'Under this condition, photon echoes from ECOs are absent.' The authors should derive the correct master equation for photon perturbations in
  2. [Sec. III, boundary conditions (3.4)-(3.6), Figs. 1-2] The numerical existence claim rests on integrations from r=10^{-4}r0 outward using the leading-order expansions (3.4)-(3.6). The paper provides no convergence tests, no error bounds, no residual check after the rescaling N0→N0/N(∞), and no independent verification that the asymptotic h→1, N→1 is actually reached in the numerical limit. Values such as M=27.4M0 are quoted to several significant figures without numerical uncertainty. I request convergence checks (refinement in resolution/tolerance, residual norms, asymptotic matching) or an alternative exact/analytic argument before accepting the claim that the explicit coupling (2.23) 'demonstrates the existence' of these ECOs. Without such support, the possibility of integration drift producing artifactual configurations is not excluded.
  3. [Secs. II, IV.B, VII] The physical status of the constructed objects is conditional on stability that is never analyzed. The introduction and conclusions explicitly defer linear stability of the ECO, yet Sec. IV.B uses the absence of a linearly stable photon ring to motivate the parameter constraint α<αp, and states that 'the absence of linearly stable photon rings indicates that the ECOs are not prone to nonlinear instability.' That statement is not supported: the nonlinear instability of a stable photon ring is one mechanism and does not amount to a proof of background stability. Since the compactness and all phenomenological curves are computed from these solutions, the observational predictions require at least a clear caveat that the background itself may be linearly or nonlinearly unstable. Either add a stability analysis or substantially weaken the physical-existence language in the abstract and conclu
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4 and preceding paragraph] The text says the left panel shows 'the relation between M/M0 and r0 by varying α', but the horizontal axis is Δr/r0. Please correct the wording.
  2. [Sec. VI, Eq. (6.2)] The quantity τ is introduced as 'conformal time', but Eq. (6.2) is the normalization condition for four-velocity with respect to proper time. Use consistent terminology.
  3. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (4.19)] The stability criterion is correct, but the presentation of Eq. (4.18) is somewhat compressed; showing the substitution E²=L²f/r² explicitly would help the reader verify the sign of Eq. (4.19).
  4. [Sec. III, Eq. (3.3)] The definition of λ via the second equality with N2m is clear, but the physical role of λ as a dimensionless inverse length squared is not discussed until later. A brief sentence would help.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. VII] The compactness is quoted as 'O(0.1)' while Fig. 4 gives C≈0.37 for α=0.6835; this is technically O(0.1) but could be stated more precisely to avoid understating the value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: ECOs are constructed from an explicit coupling and all photon-ring/lensing/ISCO observables are computed from the resulting geometry without fitting to data.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain: action (2.1) -> background equations (2.3)-(2.12) -> integral relation (2.17) for h in terms of N -> near-origin asymptotics (2.19)-(2.22) -> explicit coupling (2.23) -> numerical integration (3.9)-(3.11) with boundary conditions (3.4)-(3.8). The parameters alpha, m, and lambda are scanned, not fitted, and the photon-ring condition (4.16), lensing integral (5.5), and ISCO condition (6.16) are all evaluated from the computed f(r), h(r). No observable is used to fix a model parameter, and no predicted quantity is a renamed fit. The self-citations to Refs. [27,43] provide the analytic comparison model, the ghost-positivity condition, and the radial-definition convention; these are not load-bearing for the new construction, since the regularity conditions and mu(phi) divergence are re-derived in the present paper (Eqs. 2.15-2.22, 3.23). The echo-absence argument in Sec. IV.C does use an effective potential whose critical-point condition (4.25) is the same as the photon-ring condition (4.16), so the equivalence is algebraic rather than an independent dynamical prediction; it also drops the mu(phi) coupling when treating the photon as a minimally coupled test field. That is a modeling/assumption gap, not a circular fit or a self-citation chain. Overall the central derivation is self-contained and shows no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model is defined by the action (2.1) with an ad hoc coupling function μ(φ)=μ0+μ1 M_Pl^p (φ-φ0)^{-p}; the parameters m, λ, α, r0 are free and scanned, not fitted to data. The central existence claim rests on numerical integration plus regularity assumptions; stability of the ECO is not established.

free parameters (6)
  • α = μ1/μ0 = 0.6835 (m=2), 0.15 (m=4), 0.0261 (m=10) for λ=1
    Ratio of the two constants in the coupling (2.23). It is a free parameter of the model; the paper scans it and imposes α<α_p to avoid stable photon rings.
  • m (power index) = 2, 4, 10 used in figures
    Integer m≥2 sets p=2(m+1)/m and controls the near-origin behavior of N, h, φ, ρ. Chosen by hand; different m gives different density profiles.
  • λ = 1 in most runs; 10^-2 to 10^3 in Fig. 4
    Dimensionless combination of r0, N_{2m}, N0 (Eq. 3.3). It rescales the pivot length and the coefficient of r^{2m} in N. Scanned as a model parameter.
  • r0 (pivot radius) = arbitrary scale; sets M0=M_Pl² r0
    Defines the unit of length and mass; the paper notes r0 can be continuously taken to zero, so solutions are dynamical rather than topological. Not fitted to data.
  • N0 (central value of N) = set to 1 by rescaling
    The system is invariant under N→N/C0; fixed without loss of generality. Not physical.
  • φ0 (scalar VEV at center) = set to 0 without loss of generality
    Shift symmetry of the scalar field fixes the zero; not physical.
axioms (8)
  • standard math Geodesic equation and linear perturbation stability analysis (Secs. IV, VI) rely on standard differential geometry; Euler-Lagrange and perturbation theory are standard.
    Used to derive photon-ring conditions (4.16), (4.20) and ISCO condition (6.15).
  • standard math The reduction of photon perturbations to a Schrödinger-like master equation (4.23) with potential V=l(l+1)f/r² is taken from Refs. [63,64] for minimally coupled Maxwell fields.
    The echo analysis in Sec. IV C assumes the test photon obeys the vacuum Maxwell equation, which is not the equation of motion of the coupled scalar-vector theory; this is a domain assumption imported from GR.
  • domain assumption Static, spherically symmetric, horizonless ansatz (2.2) with N=f/h>0; regularity at r=0 requires h=1+O(r²), N=N0+O(r^{2m}), ϕ'(0)=0 (Sec. II).
    Used to construct the solutions and to guarantee h>0 for all r; if a horizon formed or regularity failed, the ECO construction would break down.
  • domain assumption The coupling divergence at r=0 is interpreted as the weak-coupling limit and is assumed not to introduce pathology; all physical quantities are finite (Sec. II).
    The paper asserts μ(ϕ) diverging at r=0 is physically acceptable; this is a modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption Absence of ghosts requires μ(φ)>0, hence μ0>0 and μ1>0 (Sec. III).
    Restricts the parameter space to α>0 and is used to justify the absence of ghost instabilities.
  • domain assumption A linearly stable photon ring is assumed to trigger nonlinear instability via photon energy accumulation (Ref. [53]); hence the bound α<α_p (Sec. IV).
    Imported from the literature; used to exclude the parameter region α>α_p.
  • domain assumption The fields are real, massless, minimally coupled to GR; the dark sector does not interact with Standard Model particles (Sec. II).
    The whole model is built on this assumption; it is stated at the start.
  • ad hoc to paper The explicit coupling form (2.23) with p=2(m+1)/m is introduced ad hoc to realize the near-origin divergence (2.22); its large-distance form and monotonicity are model choices, not derived from first principles.
    Central to the construction; the paper does not derive μ(φ) from a more fundamental principle, only requires it to match regularity.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21760 in / 20518 out tokens · 179710 ms · 2026-08-02T20:13:53.306356+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In Einstein-scalar-Maxwell theories with a coupling between the scalar field $\phi$ and the electromagnetic field strength $F$ of the form $\mu(\phi) F$, we investigate the existence of exotic compact objects (ECOs) and their observational signatures in photon and massive-particle dynamics. For $\mu(\phi)$ diverging at the origin while all physical quantities remain finite, we demonstrate the existence of electrically charged ECOs with a shell-like structure whose density peaks at an intermediate radius. We compute their mass and radius, together with the scalar and vector field profiles, on a static and spherically symmetric background. We then examine the existence of light rings and place bounds on a model parameter by requiring the absence of a linearly stable light ring. Under this condition, photon echoes from ECOs are absent. We also compute the gravitational-lensing deflection angle and show that it attains a maximum for an impact parameter of the same order as the ECO radius. Finally, we study the parameter space in which innermost stable circular orbits of massive particles exist.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.23657 by Antonio De Felice, Shinji Tsujikawa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The left panel shows the scalar-field derivative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Numerical solutions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Plot of ¯ρ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The mass-radius relation for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Left panel: Example with two photon rings, whose locations correspond to the zeros of 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Deflection angle Ψ as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The quantity ∆ as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Deflection angle Ψ as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Binary Black Hole Coalescence and the Dynamics of Scalar Hair in Einstein-Maxwell-Scalar Theory

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Numerical simulations of binary black hole coalescence in EMS theory show dynamic triggering of scalar hair depending on coupling strength and remnant charge.

  2. Inspiral gravitational waveforms from charged compact binaries with scalar hair

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    In Einstein-scalar-Maxwell theories, charged compact binaries produce gravitational waveforms containing a leading -1 post-Newtonian dipole correction controlled by one deviation parameter b.

  3. Binary Black Hole Coalescence and the Dynamics of Scalar Hair in Einstein-Maxwell-Scalar Theory

    gr-qc 2026-06 conditional novelty 6.0

    Head-on charged black hole mergers in Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory can leave a scalarized remnant or dynamically lose scalar hair, depending on coupling strength and remnant charge.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 50 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    (2.13) with respect torand substitute the resulting expression forµ ,ϕ into Eq

    We also take the deriva- tive of Eq. (2.13) with respect torand substitute the resulting expression forµ ,ϕ into Eq. (2.12). We thus ob- tain the following differential equation: 2 r2h′′ + 4rh′ + 2h−2 N 2 −r 2hN ′2 +3r(rh′ + 2h)N N′ + 2r2hN N′′ = 0.(2.14) To ensure the existence of compact objects that are regu- lar at the center, the metric functions mus...

  2. [2]

    C. M. Will,Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 1993)

    1993

  3. [3]

    C. M. Will,Living Rev. Rel.17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo),Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    G. R. Blumenthal, S. M. Faber, J. R. Primack, and M. J. Rees,Nature311, 517 (1984)

    1984

  7. [7]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest,Phys. Rept.267, 195 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9506380

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  8. [8]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk,Phys. Rept.405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  9. [9]

    Zwicky,Astrophys

    F. Zwicky,Astrophys. J.86, 217 (1937)

    1937

  10. [10]

    V. C. Rubin and W. K. Ford, Jr.,Astrophys. J.159, 379 (1970)

    1970

  11. [11]

    Sofue and V

    Y. Sofue and V. Rubin,Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.39, 137 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0010594

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  12. [12]

    Bartelmann and P

    M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider,Phys. Rept.340, 291 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/9912508

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  13. [13]

    Clowe, M

    D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones, and D. Zaritsky,Astrophys. J. Lett.648, L109 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0608407

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  14. [14]

    L. e. a. Anderson,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- 16 nomical Society441, 24 (2014)

    2014

  15. [15]

    S. e. a. Alam,Physical Review D103, 083533 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES),Astrophys. J. Lett.973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI),Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI),Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Hinshawet al.(WMAP),Astrophys

    G. Hinshawet al.(WMAP),Astrophys. J. Suppl.208, 19 (2013), arXiv:1212.5226 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  19. [19]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck),Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck),Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Yoneya,Prog

    T. Yoneya,Prog. Theor. Phys.51, 1907 (1974)

    1907

  21. [21]

    Scherk and J

    J. Scherk and J. H. Schwarz,Nucl. Phys. B81, 118 (1974)

    1974

  22. [22]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., C. Lovelace, C. R. Nappi, and S. A. Yost,Nucl. Phys. B288, 525 (1987)

    1987

  23. [23]

    M. K. Gaillard and B. Zumino,Nucl. Phys. B193, 221 (1981)

    1981

  24. [24]

    M. J. Duff, J. T. Liu, and J. Rahmfeld,Nucl. Phys. B 459, 125 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9508094

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  25. [25]

    Andrianopoli, M

    L. Andrianopoli, M. Bertolini, A. Ceresole, R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara, P. Fre, and T. Magri,J. Geom. Phys.23, 111 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9605032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  26. [26]

    G. W. Gibbons and K.-i. Maeda,Nucl. Phys. B298, 741 (1988)

    1988

  27. [27]

    Garfinkle, G

    D. Garfinkle, G. T. Horowitz, and A. Strominger,Phys. Rev. D43, 3140 (1991), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 45, 3888 (1992)]

    1991

  28. [28]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa,Phys. Rev. D111, 064051 (2025), arXiv:2412.04754 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa,Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 081401 (2025), arXiv:2410.00314 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    F. E. Schunck and E. W. Mielke,Class. Quant. Grav.20, R301 (2003), arXiv:0801.0307 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  31. [31]

    S. L. Liebling and C. Palenzuela,Living Rev. Rel.26, 1 (2023), arXiv:1202.5809 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Baracket al.,Class

    L. Baracket al.,Class. Quant. Grav.36, 143001 (2019), arXiv:1806.05195 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Cardoso and P

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani,Living Rev. Rel.22, 4 (2019), arXiv:1904.05363 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    G. H. Derrick,J. Math. Phys.5, 1252 (1964)

    1964

  35. [35]

    Diez-Tejedor and A

    A. Diez-Tejedor and A. X. Gonzalez-Morales,Phys. Rev. D88, 067302 (2013), arXiv:1306.4400 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    J. A. Wheeler,Phys. Rev.97, 511 (1955)

    1955

  37. [37]

    E. A. Power and J. A. Wheeler,Rev. Mod. Phys.29, 480 (1957)

    1957

  38. [38]

    D. J. Kaup,Phys. Rev.172, 1331 (1968)

    1968

  39. [39]

    Ruffini and S

    R. Ruffini and S. Bonazzola,Phys. Rev.187, 1767 (1969)

    1969

  40. [40]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, C. A. R. Herdeiro, and E. Radu, Phys. Lett. B752, 291 (2016), arXiv:1508.05395 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    Herdeiro, E

    C. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and H. R´ unarsson,Class. Quant. Grav.33, 154001 (2016), arXiv:1603.02687 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [42]

    C. A. R. Herdeiro and J. M. S. Oliveira,Class. Quant. Grav.36, 105015 (2019), arXiv:1902.07721 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    C. A. R. Herdeiro, J. M. S. Oliveira, and E. Radu,Eur. Phys. J. C80, 23 (2020), arXiv:1910.11021 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa,Phys. Rev. D113, 024014 (2026), arXiv:2511.14207 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    S. E. Gralla, D. E. Holz, and R. M. Wald,Phys. Rev. D 100, 024018 (2019), arXiv:1906.00873 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    S. E. Gralla, A. Lupsasca, and D. P. Marrone,Phys. Rev. D102, 124004 (2020), arXiv:2008.03879 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    Q. Gan, P. Wang, H. Wu, and H. Yang,Phys. Rev. D 104, 044049 (2021), arXiv:2105.11770 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Paugnat, A

    H. Paugnat, A. Lupsasca, F. Vincent, and M. Wielgus, Astron. Astrophys.668, A11 (2022), arXiv:2206.02781 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    Staelens, D

    S. Staelens, D. R. Mayerson, F. Bacchini, B. Ripperda, and L. K¨ uchler,Phys. Rev. D107, 124026 (2023), arXiv:2303.02111 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    G. J. Olmo, J. L. Rosa, D. Rubiera-Garcia, and D. Saez- Chillon Gomez,Class. Quant. Grav.40, 174002 (2023), arXiv:2302.12064 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope),Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope),Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  52. [52]

    A. E. Brodericket al.,Astrophys. J.935, 61 (2022), arXiv:2208.09004 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    A. E. Broderick, P. Tiede, D. W. Pesce, and R. Gold, Astrophys. J.927, 6 (2022), arXiv:2105.09962 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    P. V. P. Cunha, E. Berti, and C. A. R. Herdeiro,Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 251102 (2017), arXiv:1708.04211 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  55. [55]

    P. V. P. Cunha, C. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and N. Sanchis-Gual,Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 061401 (2023), arXiv:2207.13713 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Bozza,Phys

    V. Bozza,Phys. Rev. D66, 103001 (2002), arXiv:gr- qc/0208075

    arXiv 2002

  57. [57]

    C. R. Keeton and A. O. Petters,Phys. Rev. D72, 104006 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0511019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  58. [58]

    Bozza,Gen

    V. Bozza,Gen. Rel. Grav.42, 2269 (2010), arXiv:0911.2187 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  59. [59]

    P. V. P. Cunha and C. A. R. Herdeiro,Gen. Rel. Grav. 50, 42 (2018), arXiv:1801.00860 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [60]

    Shaikh, P

    R. Shaikh, P. Banerjee, S. Paul, and T. Sarkar,Phys. Rev. D99, 104040 (2019), arXiv:1903.08211 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  61. [61]

    Chowdhuri, S

    A. Chowdhuri, S. Ghosh, and A. Bhattacharyya,Front. Phys.11, 1113909 (2023), arXiv:2303.02069 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    Carter,Phys

    B. Carter,Phys. Rev.174, 1559 (1968)

    1968

  63. [63]

    Chandrasekhar,Fundam

    S. Chandrasekhar,Fundam. Theor. Phys.9, 5 (1984)

    1984

  64. [64]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. O. Starinets,Class. Quant. Grav.26, 163001 (2009), arXiv:0905.2975 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  65. [65]

    Nakarachinda, P

    R. Nakarachinda, P. Boonserm, A. De Felice, S. Tsu- jikawa, and P. Wongjun,Phys. Rev. D112, 064055 (2025), arXiv:2506.18241 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    C. M. Will,Phys. Rev. D50, 6058 (1994), arXiv:gr- qc/9406022

    arXiv 1994

  67. [67]

    Alsing, E

    J. Alsing, E. Berti, C. M. Will, and H. Zaglauer,Phys. Rev. D85, 064041 (2012), arXiv:1112.4903 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  68. [68]

    T. Liu, W. Zhao, and Y. Wang,Phys. Rev. D102, 124035 (2020), arXiv:2007.10068 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  69. [69]

    Wang, P.-C

    H.-T. Wang, P.-C. Li, J.-L. Jiang, G.-W. Yuan, Y.-M. Hu, and Y.-Z. Fan,Eur. Phys. J. C81, 769 (2021), arXiv:2004.12421 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    R. Niu, X. Zhang, B. Wang, and W. Zhao,Astrophys. J. 921, 149 (2021), arXiv:2105.13644 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  71. [71]

    Higashino and S

    Y. Higashino and S. Tsujikawa,Phys. Rev. D107, 044003 (2023), arXiv:2209.13749 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Takeda, S

    H. Takeda, S. Tsujikawa, and A. Nishizawa,Phys. Rev. D109, 104072 (2024), arXiv:2311.09281 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    Hinderer,Astrophys

    T. Hinderer,Astrophys. J.677, 1216 (2008), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 697, 964 (2009)], arXiv:0711.2420 [astro- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  74. [74]

    S. De, D. Finstad, J. M. Lattimer, D. A. Brown, E. Berger, and C. M. Biwer,Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 091102 (2018), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 259902 (2018)], arXiv:1804.08583 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  75. [75]

    R. F. Diedrichs, S. Tsujikawa, and K. Yagi,Phys. Rev. D112, 044023 (2025), arXiv:2501.07998 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025