Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Gravity plus any potential-free non-linear sigma model yields static black holes with bumpy horizons.

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 18:51 UTC pith:KF5ZFN5A

load-bearing objection Local construction is sound, but the 'bumpy black holes' are not yet globally regular; the only explicit horizon is a singular noncompact end. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.04611 v2 pith:KF5ZFN5A submitted 2026-03-04 hep-th

A smooth road to bumpy horizons: shaping black holes with non-linear sigma models, from supergravity to higher dimensions

Fabrizio Canfora , Nicol\'as Grandi , Carla Henr\'iquez-B\'aez , Julio Oliva This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords bumpy horizonsnon-linear sigma modelsblack holessupergravityLiouville equationBPS conditionsKähler target spaceblack strings and branes
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.

This paper tries to establish that black hole horizons need not have constant curvature even in static, four-dimensional General Relativity, as long as gravity is coupled to a non-linear sigma model. It shows that when the sigma-model scalars obey Cauchy–Riemann conditions on the horizon, the full Einstein–scalar system reduces to a single inhomogeneous Liouville equation for the horizon's conformal factor, with the Kähler potential of the target space acting as the source. Because this reduction works for any Kähler target metric and any holomorphic scalar profile, the authors argue that bumpy horizons are a generic feature of GR plus sigma models and a generic prediction of many supergravities. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns a seemingly exotic, model-specific construction into a universal mechanism for generating inhomogeneous horizons across four and higher dimensions, including charged and magnetized black holes, black strings, and anisotropic cosmologies.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that static, asymptotically (A)dS or flat black holes in General Relativity coupled to a potential-free non-linear sigma model can have horizons with non-constant curvature. For the metric ansatz with a conformally flat two-dimensional horizon, the Einstein equations separate if the scalar fields satisfy the Cauchy–Riemann relations; these relations make the scalars harmonic and decouple them from the radial sector. The horizon conformal factor P then obeys the sourced Liouville equation 2∂ζ∂̄ζ P + γ e^P = −κ ∂ζ∂̄ζ K, where K is the Kähler potential of the target-space metric, while the radial function f(r) retains the standard Schwarzschild–Tangherlini–(A)dS for

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a set of first-order Bogomol'nyi–Prasad–Sommerfield relations on the coset scalars, which here take the form of Cauchy–Riemann equations ∂xϕ = ∂yχ, ∂yϕ = −∂xχ in conformally flat horizon coordinates. These relations make the scalar Laplacian vanish and force the cross-terms in the Einstein equations to cancel, decoupling the scalar sector from the radial functions. What remains is the inhomogeneous Liouville equation for the horizon conformal factor, whose source is the pullback of the Kähler metric on the target space; the Kähler potential itself becomes the source term in complex coordinates. The scalar equation is satisfied identically for any holomorphic Ψ, so th

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the inhomogeneous Liouville equation admits globally regular, compact horizon solutions; the only explicit solution given has horizon curvature diverging toward infinity of the coordinate patch, and for the spherical case the paper only reduces the problem to the PDE.

What would settle it

Solve the sourced Liouville equation (19) on a compact two-sphere with γ ≠ 0 and a holomorphic scalar profile: if every such solution has a curvature singularity somewhere, or no solution exists, then the bumpy-black-hole claim is only local and the physical conclusion fails.

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

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, static black holes in a wide class of theories—including many supergravities—are not forced to have constant-curvature horizons; the bumps extend all the way to the asymptotic region.
  • Charged and magnetized solutions exist with the same bumpy geometry, since a Maxwell field can be added without breaking the separation of variables.
  • Higher-dimensional bumpy black holes can be built as direct products of two-dimensional bumpy manifolds, and black strings and p-branes exist even with matter fields, bypassing known obstructions to simple dimensional extension.
  • Time-dependent anisotropic cosmologies coexist with the BPS scalar sector, leading to a standard Friedmann equation plus the same Liouville equation for the spatial conformal factor.
  • A Birkhoff-like theorem holds for this class: within the ansatz, the spacetime cannot become time-dependent even though the scalar fields propagate angular dependence.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the stringently proven result is local; whether actual compact astrophysical horizons exist depends on global solutions of the Liouville equation, so the slogan 'bumpy black holes' is only as strong as the regularity question.
  • Beyond the paper: for γ ≠ 0 the construction reduces an existence problem to a nonlinear PDE on a compact surface; a numerical search for smooth solutions on the sphere would be a direct test of the physical claim.
  • Beyond the paper: the same inhomogeneity mechanism is a natural holographic lattice generator, since the angular-dependent scalars break translational invariance in the dual field theory.
  • Beyond the paper: if global regular bumpy horizons exist, their non-uniform horizon curvature could serve as a morphological discriminant against constant-curvature horizons in future gravitational-wave or black-hole-shadow observations.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a solution-generating mechanism for static spacetimes in Einstein gravity coupled to two-dimensional non-linear sigma models. For the ansatz (8), with scalar fields depending only on the horizon coordinates, the (xy) Einstein equation is satisfied if the scalars obey the Cauchy-Riemann relations (11), which also make the scalar equations hold identically. The remaining equations reduce to the inhomogeneous Liouville equation (13) for the horizon conformal factor. In complex language, holomorphic scalar profiles solve the matter equations for any Kähler target metric, and the reduction (19) relates the conformal factor to the Kähler potential. The paper extends this construction to an arbitrary number of scalar doublets, dyonic Maxwell fields, perfect fluids, higher-dimensional horizons, black strings/branes, and time-dependent cosmologies, and it proves a Birkhoff-type statement. The central advertised result is a wide family of black holes and other objects with non-constant ('bumpy') horizon curvature.

Significance. If the construction produced globally regular compact horizons, it would establish a broad new class of static solutions in GR coupled to sigma models, with potential supergravity embeddings, and would meaningfully generalize the earlier pionic construction. The local, algebraic parts of the derivation are clean and appear correct: the Cauchy-Riemann reduction, the Liouville equation, and the consistency of the scalar equations for holomorphic profiles are all verified in the manuscript. The paper is also transparent in stating that the potential must vanish. The main significance hinges on whether the local conformal factor can be promoted to a smooth compact horizon; this is not demonstrated, so the headline claim is stronger than what is proven.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Eq. (20); §II, Eq. (13)] Global regularity of the horizon is not established. The only explicitly solved case is γ=0, where P=-(κ/2)K+Ξ1+Ξ̄2. For the simplest flat-target profile, Ψ=ζ, one gets the metric e^{-κ|ζ|^2/2}|dζ|^2, whose scalar curvature R=2κ e^{κ|ζ|^2/2} diverges as |ζ|→∞; this is a singular noncompact end, not a smooth black-hole horizon. For the physically relevant spherical case γ>0, no solution of (13) is exhibited, and global existence on S² is nontrivial. The closing statement of §III that bumpy horizons are a 'genuine feature' of GR coupled to any NLSM therefore overstates what has been shown: the paper establishes a local reduction, not a demonstrated family of globally regular black holes.
  2. [§II, after Eq. (12); §I] The asymptotic structure is not controlled. Even if a compact smooth solution of (13) were found, the spacetime (8) with f=γ-2m/r and Λ=0 is asymptotically flat only if e^P|dζ|^2 tends to the round S² metric at infinity. The paper itself notes that 'bumpiness will propagate up to infinity', so the solutions are generally asymptotic to a cone with a distorted cross-section rather than to Minkowski spacetime. The black-hole interpretation therefore requires a clear statement of boundary conditions or a restriction to profiles that yield asymptotically round horizons.
  3. [§II, footnote 1; §III, after Eq. (18)] The framing as 'a general class of non-linear sigma models' and 'any Kähler potential' is broader than the actual result. The construction requires V=0, as stated in footnote 1, but this restriction is absent from the abstract and the closing claims. Moreover, the statement that holomorphic Ψ satisfies the scalar equation for any Kähler potential is the standard fact that holomorphic maps between Kähler manifolds are harmonic; the nontrivial content is the coupled Liouville equation (19), whose solvability is not addressed. The claims in the abstract and Section III should be adjusted to match the proven local statement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, first paragraph] Typo: 'cooncentrate' should be 'concentrate'; later 'intepreted', 'si', 'Stablishing', 'respecivelly', 'straitfordwardly', 'prevoius' appear. The text needs a careful proofreading pass.
  2. [Introduction, paragraph after [10]] The sentence 'we extend the results of [10] for general NLSMs' appears to intend reference [15] (the pionic bumpy black-hole paper), not [10] (Hawking's topology theorem). Please correct.
  3. [Eq. (10), (xx) component] The left-hand side appears to be missing a factor 1/2: it is written as 'κ r e^P (...)' but the dyonic and Maxwell consistency check in §IV.B works only with (κ r e^P)/2. If this is a typosetting artifact, please fix; if not, the equation is inconsistent with Eq. (27).
  4. [§V.D, after Eq. (49)] The analytic continuation from Λ>0 to Λ<0 is described briefly; it would help to write the resulting warp factor explicitly for sinh and cosh cases to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction; self-citation to [15] is motivational, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The Einstein equations for the static ansatz (8) are written out explicitly in (10); the (xy) component forces the Cauchy-Riemann relations (11), and substituting the separated f from the (xx) equation into the (tt)/(rr) equations yields the inhomogeneous Liouville equation (13)/(19). This is a direct algebraic reduction of the field equations, not an import from [15] and not a fit: no parameter is adjusted to data and the separation constant γ is left free. The scalar equations (14) and (18) are shown to be satisfied by the same CR/holomorphicity condition; the 'any Kähler potential' statement is an identity (both terms of (18) vanish when ∂̄ζΨ = 0), which makes the genericity claim true by construction rather than by dynamical input. That is a solution-generating existence argument, not a circular prediction. The only self-citation with overlapping authors, [15], is cited as the origin of the SU(2)/U(1) bumpy construction; the present paper rederives the reduction for general NLSMs, so the citation is not load-bearing. The main weakness—global regularity and compactness of the horizon, especially for γ > 0—is a correctness risk, not a circularity. Score 2 reflects the minor non-load-bearing self-citation only.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No fitted numbers and no invented entities: the construction is parameter-free in the sense that all quantities are integration constants or free functions. The real ledger is assumptions: V=0, the conformal-patch ansatz, the CR/holomorphic restriction, and — silently — existence of globally regular solutions to the Liouville system. The free holomorphic profiles mean the paper parameterizes an infinite family of bumps rather than predicting a specific horizon shape.

free parameters (3)
  • γ (separation constant)
    Introduced when separating the (tt)/(rr) equations from (xx): it fixes the reference curvature of the horizon (flat/spherical/hyperbolic) and appears in the blackening factor (9) and the Liouville source (13). Standard integration constant, not fitted to data, but the solvability of the construction is sensitive to it: an explicit P is obtained only for γ=0.
  • m, q_e, q_m, Λ
    Mass, electric/magnetic charges, and cosmological constant — integration constants of the separated radial equations. Standard solution parameters, not fitted.
  • Free holomorphic profiles Ψ_i(ζ_i) and analytic gauge functions Ξ₁,Ξ₂ (free functions)
    The bumpiness is not predicted: any holomorphic Ψ generates a different bump, so the solution family is parameterized by infinite-dimensional free data. This limits the predictive content of the 'bumps supported by matter' claim.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption V(χ,ϕ) = 0 (vanishing scalar potential)
    Required for the (xx) equation to separate after the CR reduction; stated in §II after eq. (10) and footnote 1. Excludes most gauged/scalar-potential supergravity models, so the advertised 'general class of NLSMs' is narrower than claimed.
  • domain assumption Transverse metric is a single conformally flat patch e^P(dx²+dy²)
    Ansatz (8): global structure, identifications, and regularity across patches are never analyzed; the unexamined curvature divergence of the γ=0 solution enters here (§II, eq. (8)).
  • domain assumption The Cauchy-Riemann relations (11) exhaust the (xy)-equation constraint
    The (xy) Einstein equation is solved by imposing CR/holomorphicity; the paper does not prove these are the only admissible solutions (§II, eqs. (10)-(11)).
  • standard math Separation of variables in the reduced Einstein system
    The entire construction relies on separating t,r from (x,y); for the fluid and higher-dimensional cases this is asserted rather than demonstrated (§IV.C, §V).
  • standard math Einstein gravity plus minimally coupled NLSM as the starting theory; the vacuum blackening factor (9)
    The paper works within classical GR with a two-derivative NLSM action (2)-(3), and uses the vacuum separated solution f=γ-2m/r-Λr²/3 as the basis for the radial sector.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14739 in / 47442 out tokens · 409408 ms · 2026-08-02T18:51:49.442037+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We construct new families of solutions for General Relativity coupled to a general class of non-linear sigma models, some of which can be embedded in supergravity. The solutions include neutral, charged and magnetized black holes with bumpy horizons, bumpy stars, and anisotropic cosmologies in $d\geq 4$ dimensions, as well as black strings and black $p$-branes. We also present a family of time-dependent solutions in $2+1$-dimensions. The construction relies on a set of first-order Bogomol'nyi-Prasad-Sommerfield relations for the coset scalars, that were recently exploited for the construction of bumpy black holes on the non-linear sigma model with homogenous target $SU(2)/U(1)$ in 2601.22914 [hep-th].

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Hadronic lensing

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Hadrons modeled by the nonlinear sigma model give photons a coordinate-dependent effective mass, yielding analytic expressions for the refractive index and a hadronic correction to the weak-field deflection angle arou...

  2. Hadronic lensing

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Hadrons described by the nonlinear sigma model minimally coupled to Maxwell theory modify photon paths away from null geodesics, enabling analytic hadronic corrections to gravitational lensing deflection angles.

  3. Semiclassical decay of de Sitter space into black holes with vortex-deformed horizons

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    De Sitter space decays into vortex-dressed black holes via a regular Euclidean instanton that generalizes the Nariai solution, with rates organized by topological charge of the vortices.

  4. Hadronic lensing

    gr-qc 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0

    In a pion condensate, photons behave as massive particles and gravitational lensing gains a hadronic correction; the paper derives the modified ray equations and the deflection formula for a pionic-vortex black hole.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Notice that we setN= 1, as we are not planning to include additional matter sources in this section

    n. Notice that we setN= 1, as we are not planning to include additional matter sources in this section. The resulting Einstein equations can the be written, (tt)−f 2 (d−2) 2rf f ′ + (d−2)(d−3) 2r2 + Λ f + f 2r2 nX i=1 RΣi = κf r2 nX i=1 e−PiKi Ψi ¯Ψi ∂ζiΨi∂¯ζi ¯Ψi , (rr) (d−2) 2rf f ′ + (d−2)(d−3) 2r2 + Λ f − 1 2f r2 nX i=1 RΣi =− κ f r2 nX i=1 e−PiKi Ψi ...

    2023

  2. [2]

    D. B. Kaplan and A. E. Nelson, Strange Goings on in Dense Nucleonic Matter, Phys. Lett. B 175, 57 (1986)

    1986

  3. [3]

    Dominguez, M

    C. Dominguez, M. Loewe, and J. Rojas, Pion and nucleon thermal widths in the linear sigma model, Phys.Lett. B320, 377 (1994)

    1994

  4. [4]

    Adhikari, J

    P. Adhikari, J. O. Andersen, and P. Kneschke, Twoflavor chiral perturbation theory at nonzero isospin: Pion condensation at zero temperature, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 874 (2019), arXiv:1904.03887 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Carignano, L

    S. Carignano, L. Lepori, A. Mammarella, M. Mannarelli, and G. Pagliaroli, Scrutinizing the pion condensed phase, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 35 (2017), arXiv:1610.06097 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Onsager, Statistical hydrodynamics, Il Nuovo Cimento 6, 279 (1949)

    L. Onsager, Statistical hydrodynamics, Il Nuovo Cimento 6, 279 (1949)

    1949

  7. [7]

    R. P. Feynman, Application of quantum mechanics to liquid helium, in Progress in Low Temperature Physics, Vol. 1 (Elsevier, 1955) pp. 17–53

    1955

  8. [8]

    Belinski and E

    V. Belinski and E. Verdaguer, Cambridge University Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0-511-02876-2, 978-0-521-80586-5, 978-0-521-01806-7, 978-0-511-53525-3 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511535253 21

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511535253 2005

  9. [9]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz and E. Witten, Cambridge University Press, 2012, ISBN 978-1- 139-53477-2, 978-1-107-02911-8 doi:10.1017/CBO9781139248563

    doi:10.1017/cbo9781139248563 2012

  10. [10]

    Trigiante, Phys

    M. Trigiante, Phys. Rept.680(2017), 1-175 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.03.001 [arXiv:1609.09745 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.25(1972), 152-166 doi:10.1007/BF01877517

    doi:10.1007/bf01877517 1972

  12. [12]

    J. P. S. Lemos, Phys. Lett. B353(1995), 46-51 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00533-Q [arXiv:gr- qc/9404041 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 1995

  13. [13]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  14. [14]

    Vanzo, Phys

    L. Vanzo, Phys. Rev. D56(1997), 6475-6483 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.6475 [arXiv:gr- qc/9705004 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 1997

  15. [15]

    D. R. Brill, J. Louko and P. Peldan, Phys. Rev. D56(1997), 3600-3610 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.3600 [arXiv:gr-qc/9705012 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  16. [16]

    Canfora, A

    F. Canfora, A. Gomberoff, C. Henr ´ ıquez-Baez and A. Vera, [arXiv:2601.22914 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    L. E. Ibanez and A. M. Uranga, Cambridge University Press, 2012, ISBN 978-0-521-51752-2, 978-1-139-22742-1

    2012

  18. [18]

    D. Z. Freedman and A. Van Proeyen, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012, ISBN 978-1-139-36806-3, 978-0-521-19401-3 doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026833

    doi:10.1017/cbo9781139026833 2012

  19. [19]

    Schaffner-Bielich, Cambridge University Press, 2020, ISBN 978-1-316-84835-7, 978-1-107- 18089-5 doi:10.1017/9781316848357

    J. Schaffner-Bielich, Cambridge University Press, 2020, ISBN 978-1-316-84835-7, 978-1-107- 18089-5 doi:10.1017/9781316848357

    doi:10.1017/9781316848357 2020

  20. [20]

    Crespi, C

    V. Crespi, C. R. Arg¨ uelles and J. A. Rueda, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.2, 023041 doi:10.1103/9vzr-8yn8 [arXiv:2412.17919 [astro-ph.GA]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    A. Krut, C. R. Arg¨ uelles and P. H. Chavanis, Phys. Rev. D113(2026) no.2, 023010 doi:10.1103/346d-d17c [arXiv:2503.10870 [astro-ph.GA]]

    arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Crespi, C

    V. Crespi, C. R. Arg¨ uelles, E. A. Becerra-Vergara, M. F. Mestre, F. Peissker, J. A. Rueda and R. Ruffini, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.546(2026) no.1, staf1854 doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1854 [arXiv:2510.19087 [astro-ph.GA]]

    arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    S. A. Hartnoll and A. Tavanfar, Phys. Rev. D83(2011), 046003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.046003 [arXiv:1008.2828 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  24. [24]

    S. A. Hartnoll and P. Petrov, Phys. Rev. Lett.106(2011), 121601 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.121601 [arXiv:1011.6469 [hep-th]]. 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  25. [25]

    de Boer, K

    J. de Boer, K. Papadodimas and E. Verlinde, JHEP10(2010), 020 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2010)020 [arXiv:0907.2695 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  26. [26]

    Arsiwalla, J

    X. Arsiwalla, J. de Boer, K. Papadodimas and E. Verlinde, JHEP01(2011), 144 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2011)144 [arXiv:1010.5784 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  27. [27]

    C. R. Arg¨ uelles and N. E. Grandi, JHEP05(2018), 118 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2018)118 [arXiv:1712.05866 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Canavesi, O

    T. Canavesi, O. Fierro, N. Grandi and P. Pisani, Class. Quant. Grav.40(2023) no.2, 025001 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aca866 [arXiv:2111.10408 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Acito, T

    L. Acito, T. Canavesi, N. Grandi and A. Lugo, JHEP04(2025), 153 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2025)153 [arXiv:2407.16649 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Acito and N

    L. Acito and N. Grandi, [arXiv:2602.10460 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  31. [31]

    Emparan and H

    R. Emparan and H. S. Reall, Living Rev. Rel.11(2008), 6 doi:10.12942/lrr-2008-6 [arXiv:0801.3471 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  32. [32]

    G. T. Horowitz, Cambridge Univ. Pr., 2012, ISBN 978-1-107-01345-2

    2012

  33. [33]

    Lehner and F

    L. Lehner and F. Pretorius, [arXiv:1106.5184 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    Andrade, P

    T. Andrade, P. Figueras and U. Sperhake, JHEP03(2022), 111 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2022)111 [arXiv:2011.03049 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Figueras, T

    P. Figueras, T. Fran¸ ca, C. Gu and T. Andrade, Phys. Rev. D107(2023) no.4, 044028 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.044028 [arXiv:2210.13501 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Deser, R

    S. Deser, R. Jackiw and G. ’t Hooft, Annals Phys.152(1984), 220 doi:10.1016/0003- 4916(84)90085-X

    doi:10.1016/0003- 1984

  37. [37]

    Deser and R

    S. Deser and R. Jackiw, Annals Phys.153(1984), 405-416 doi:10.1016/0003-4916(84)90025-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0003-4916(84)90025-3 1984

  38. [38]

    Bueno, O

    P. Bueno, O. Lasso Andino, J. Moreno and G. van der Velde, JHEP25(2025), 132 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2025)132 [arXiv:2503.02930 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Anabalon, JHEP06(2012), 127 doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2012)127 [arXiv:1204.2720 [hep-th]]

    A. Anabalon, JHEP06(2012), 127 doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2012)127 [arXiv:1204.2720 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  40. [40]

    Bardoux, M

    Y. Bardoux, M. M. Caldarelli and C. Charmousis, JHEP05(2012), 054 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2012)054 [arXiv:1202.4458 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  41. [41]

    Andrade and B

    T. Andrade and B. Withers, JHEP05(2014), 101 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)101 [arXiv:1311.5157 [hep-th]]. 23

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014