pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.28917 · v1 · pith:DVYB444Bnew · submitted 2026-05-27 · 🌀 gr-qc

Greybody Factors, Absorption Cross Sections and Hawking Radiation of Holonomy-Corrected Schwarzschild Black Holes

Bekir Can L\"utf\"uo\u{g}lu , Javlon Rayimbaev , Bekzod Rahmatov , Saidmuhammad Ahmedov , Nuriddin Kurbonov This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 10:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords greybody factorsabsorption cross sectionsHawking radiationholonomy correctionSchwarzschild black holescalar fieldDirac fieldelectromagnetic field
0
0 comments X

The pith

Holonomy corrections to Schwarzschild black holes suppress overall Hawking radiation despite making scalar modes more transparent.

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

The paper investigates greybody factors and emission rates for scalar, electromagnetic, and Dirac fields propagating on a Schwarzschild black hole modified by a loop-quantum-gravity-inspired holonomy parameter. Numerical solution of the radial wave equations shows that the correction increases low-frequency scalar transmission, shifts the electromagnetic threshold slightly higher, and leaves the dominant Dirac mode only mildly changed. Because the Hawking temperature decreases monotonically with the holonomy parameter, the net radiative output falls, with the electromagnetic channel quenched most strongly and the fermionic channel becoming dominant at larger parameter values.

Core claim

On the holonomy-corrected Schwarzschild geometry the scalar absorption cross section keeps its universal low-frequency limit while the electromagnetic cross section varies mainly in the infrared and the Dirac cross section acquires a strongly suppressed low-frequency tail; thermal suppression from the lowered temperature nevertheless dominates, so that the holonomy correction enhances low-lying scalar transmission but reduces total Hawking radiation, most strongly in the electromagnetic sector.

What carries the argument

The dimensionless holonomy parameter that deforms the Schwarzschild metric, together with direct numerical integration of the radial wave equations checked by first- and sixth-order WKB approximations.

If this is right

  • The dominant scalar mode transmits more readily at low frequencies.
  • The electromagnetic absorption cross section is altered chiefly in the infrared regime.
  • The Dirac absorption cross section develops a strongly suppressed low-frequency tail.
  • The electromagnetic sector experiences the strongest quenching while the fermionic sector becomes dominant once the holonomy parameter is appreciable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Black-hole evaporation could proceed more slowly under such corrections, lengthening lifetimes compared with the classical case.
  • The relative abundance of emitted particle species would shift, potentially altering the expected spectrum of Hawking radiation.
  • The same numerical approach could be applied to rotating or charged holonomy-corrected metrics to test whether the differential quenching pattern persists.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen numerical scheme and WKB orders accurately capture the physical transmission coefficients without significant truncation or discretization error across the frequencies and holonomy values examined.

What would settle it

An explicit computation of the total Hawking emission rate for a fixed nonzero holonomy parameter that yields a higher rather than lower output than the classical Schwarzschild case would falsify the claim that thermal suppression dominates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.28917 by Bekir Can L\"utf\"uo\u{g}lu, Bekzod Rahmatov, Javlon Rayimbaev, Nuriddin Kurbonov, Saidmuhammad Ahmedov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Representative effective potential barriers at fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Scalar greybody factors. Left: dependence of the dominant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Electromagnetic greybody factors. Left: dependence of the dominant electromagnetic mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dirac greybody factors. Left: dependence of the dominant Dirac mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Complementary WKB check for the representative modes used in Table I: scalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Total absorption cross sections for scalar, electromagnetic and Dirac test fields. The dotted horizontal line marks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Hawking energy-emission rates. The four panels show the scalar, electromagnetic, Dirac and Page-style diagnostic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study greybody factors, absorption cross sections and Hawking energy-emission rates for minimally coupled massless scalar, electromagnetic and massless Dirac test fields on the loop-quantum-gravity-inspired holonomy-corrected Schwarzschild black hole. The geometry is controlled by a dimensionless holonomy parameter, and the radial wave equations are solved by direct numerical integration with first- and sixth-order WKB estimates as complementary checks. The scalar, electromagnetic and Dirac channels respond differently: the dominant scalar mode becomes more transparent, the electromagnetic threshold shifts slightly upward, and the dominant Dirac mode is only mildly modified. The scalar absorption cross section retains the universal low-frequency limit, the electromagnetic cross section changes mainly in the infrared, and the Dirac cross section develops a strongly suppressed low-frequency tail. Since the Hawking temperature falls monotonically, thermal suppression dominates the radiative output. Thus the holonomy correction enhances low-lying scalar transmission but suppresses Hawking radiation overall, with the electromagnetic sector most strongly quenched and the fermionic sector dominant once $\alpha$ is appreciable.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines greybody factors, absorption cross sections, and Hawking radiation for massless scalar, electromagnetic, and Dirac fields on a holonomy-corrected Schwarzschild black hole controlled by a dimensionless parameter α. Radial wave equations are solved by direct numerical integration supplemented by first- and sixth-order WKB approximations. The holonomy correction is reported to enhance low-frequency scalar transmission, shift the electromagnetic threshold slightly upward, and mildly modify the dominant Dirac mode; overall Hawking radiation is suppressed due to the monotonic drop in temperature, with the electromagnetic sector most strongly quenched and the fermionic sector becoming dominant at appreciable α.

Significance. If the numerical results hold, the work supplies a concrete illustration of spin-dependent effects arising from loop-quantum-gravity-inspired metric corrections on black-hole emission spectra. The complementary use of direct integration and WKB estimates is a methodological strength that allows cross-validation of transmission coefficients. The finding that thermal suppression dominates transmission changes, together with the retention of the universal low-frequency scalar absorption limit, provides falsifiable predictions for how quantum-geometry parameters alter observable radiation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (computational method paragraph): the central claims of scalar-mode enhancement, electromagnetic quenching, and fermionic dominance rest on numerical integration and WKB results, yet no convergence tests, error bars, frequency ranges, or quantitative validation of the integration scheme and WKB orders are supplied. This absence directly undermines in the reported suppression and channel-dominance statements.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and methods description: the weakest assumption—that the chosen numerical scheme and WKB orders capture the physical transmission coefficients without significant truncation or discretization error—is load-bearing for all quantitative conclusions on α-dependent behavior, but remains untested in the supplied information.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for highlighting the need for explicit validation of our numerical methods. The comments are well taken and point to a genuine gap in the presentation. We will revise the manuscript to include the requested details on convergence, error estimates, and frequency ranges.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (computational method paragraph): the central claims of scalar-mode enhancement, electromagnetic quenching, and fermionic dominance rest on numerical integration and WKB results, yet no convergence tests, error bars, frequency ranges, or quantitative validation of the integration scheme and WKB orders are supplied. This absence directly undermines in the reported suppression and channel-dominance statements.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of explicit convergence tests and error quantification weakens the presentation. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection (Methods, Numerical validation) that reports: (i) convergence of the direct integrator with respect to radial grid spacing and outer boundary location, (ii) comparison of transmission coefficients obtained with first- and sixth-order WKB against the numerical results, including relative differences as a function of frequency, and (iii) the precise frequency intervals over which each channel was integrated. These additions will be referenced from the abstract and results sections. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and methods description: the weakest assumption—that the chosen numerical scheme and WKB orders capture the physical transmission coefficients without significant truncation or discretization error—is load-bearing for all quantitative conclusions on α-dependent behavior, but remains untested in the supplied information.

    Authors: We accept that the current text does not demonstrate the magnitude of truncation or discretization errors. The revision will supply quantitative error measures (maximum relative discrepancy between numerical and WKB results, and between successive grid refinements) for representative values of α and for each spin. Where the two methods agree to within a stated tolerance, this will be stated explicitly; where they differ, the more conservative result will be adopted. This directly addresses the load-bearing assumption for the α-dependent claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper takes the holonomy-corrected Schwarzschild metric with dimensionless parameter α as an external input motivated by loop quantum gravity. It then directly integrates the radial wave equations for minimally coupled massless scalar, electromagnetic, and Dirac fields on this fixed background, supplementing with first- and sixth-order WKB checks, to obtain greybody factors, absorption cross sections, and Hawking emission rates. All reported quantities (transmission coefficients, cross sections, and thermal spectra) are computed outputs from these standard methods applied to the given metric; no parameters are fitted to the results themselves, no self-definitional relations appear, and no load-bearing steps rely on self-citations or uniqueness theorems from the authors' prior work. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the holonomy-corrected metric as a background and on the numerical accuracy of the wave-equation solver; the only explicit free parameter is the dimensionless holonomy parameter that defines the geometry.

free parameters (1)
  • holonomy parameter α
    Dimensionless parameter that controls the strength of the loop-quantum-gravity correction to the Schwarzschild geometry; its value is varied but not derived from first principles within the paper.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The loop-quantum-gravity-inspired holonomy-corrected Schwarzschild metric provides a valid background geometry for test-field propagation.
    The metric is adopted from prior LQG literature and used without further derivation or justification in the present work.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5736 in / 1461 out tokens · 39116 ms · 2026-06-29T10:30:12.633632+00:00 · methodology

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

82 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · 18 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    S. W. Hawking, Communications in Mathematical Physics43, 199 (1975)

    1975

  2. [2]

    D. N. Page, Physical Review D13, 198 (1976). 11

    1976

  3. [3]

    W. G. Unruh, Physical Review D14, 3251 (1976)

    1976

  4. [4]

    S. R. Das, G. W. Gibbons, and S. D. Mathur, Physical Review Letters78, 417 (1997)

    1997

  5. [5]

    Kanti, International Journal of Modern Physics A19, 4899 (2004)

    P. Kanti, International Journal of Modern Physics A19, 4899 (2004)

    2004

  6. [6]

    Kanti and E

    P. Kanti and E. Winstanley, inQuantum Aspects of Black Holes, Fundamental Theories of Physics, Vol. 178, edited by X. Calmet (Springer, Cham, 2015) pp. 229–265

    2015

  7. [7]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, JCAP09, 068 (2024), arXiv:2406.11694 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Lett. B861, 139288 (2025), arXiv:2408.11162 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Alonso-Bardaji and D

    A. Alonso-Bardaji and D. Brizuela, European Physical Journal C81, 283 (2021), 2010.14437

    work page arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Alonso-Bardaji and D

    A. Alonso-Bardaji and D. Brizuela, Physical Review D 104, 084064 (2021)

    2021

  11. [11]

    Alonso-Bardaji, D

    A. Alonso-Bardaji, D. Brizuela, and R. Vera, Physics Letters B829, 137075 (2022)

    2022

  12. [12]

    Alonso-Bardaji, D

    A. Alonso-Bardaji, D. Brizuela, and R. Vera, Physical Review D106, 024035 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    Z. S. Moreira, H. C. D. Lima Junior, L. C. B. Crispino, and C. A. R. Herdeiro, Physical Review D107, 104016 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    S. V. Bolokhov, Phys. Rev. D110, 024010 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Rinc´ on, A.¨Ovg¨ un, and R

    ´A. Rinc´ on, A.¨Ovg¨ un, and R. C. Pantig, Physics of the Dark Universe46, 101623 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. F. Zinhailo, Phys. Rev. D99, 104060 (2019), arXiv:1904.05341 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. F. Zinhailo, Phys. Lett. B810, 135793 (2020), arXiv:2004.02248 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D82, 084003 (2010), arXiv:1004.3772 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  19. [19]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Lett. B823, 136734 (2021), arXiv:2109.01640 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    R. A. Konoplya, JCAP07, 001 (2023), arXiv:2305.09187 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Karmakar and U

    R. Karmakar and U. D. Goswami, Phys. Scripta99, 055003 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    Skvortsova, Eur

    M. Skvortsova, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 854 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, J. Rayimbaev, S. Murodov, J. Kur- banov, and M. Matyoqubov, Annals Phys.491, 170514 (2026)

    2026

  24. [24]

    R. A. Konoplya and O. S. Stashko, Phys. Rev. D111, 084031 (2025), arXiv:2502.05689 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Malik, Int

    Z. Malik, Int. J. Grav. Theor. Phys.1, 6 (2025), arXiv:2509.15995 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 39 (2026)

    2026

  27. [27]

    Carter, Commun

    B. Carter, Commun. Math. Phys.10, 280 (1968)

    1968

  28. [28]

    R. A. Konoplya, Z. Stuchl´ ık, and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D97, 084044 (2018), arXiv:1801.07195 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    D. R. Brill and J. A. Wheeler, Rev. Mod. Phys.29, 465 (1957)

    1957

  30. [30]

    H. T. Cho, Phys. Rev. D68, 024003 (2003)

    2003

  31. [31]

    Kanti, R

    P. Kanti, R. A. Konoplya, and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D74, 064008 (2006)

    2006

  32. [32]

    Jing, Phys

    J.-l. Jing, Phys. Rev. D69, 084009 (2004)

    2004

  33. [33]

    Hawking Radiation and Greybody Factors of Test Scalar and Electromagnetic Fields on Asymptotically Flat Pure Lovelock Black Holes

    J. Tan, (2026), arXiv:2605.09756 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    B. F. Schutz and C. M. Will, The Astrophysical Journal Letters291, L33 (1985)

    1985

  35. [35]

    Iyer and C

    S. Iyer and C. M. Will, Physical Review D35, 3621 (1987)

    1987

  36. [36]

    R. A. Konoplya, A. Zhidenko, and A. F. Zinhailo, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 155002 (2019), arXiv:1904.10333

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, E. U. Saka, A. Shermatov, J. Rayim- baev, I. Ibragimov, and S. Muminov, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1190 (2025), arXiv:2509.15923 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    S. V. Bolokhov, Phys. Lett. B856, 138879 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    S. V. Bolokhov, (2026), arXiv:2605.21533 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    R. A. Konoplya, Gen. Rel. Grav.34, 329 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0109096

    work page arXiv 2002

  41. [41]

    B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, Int. J. Grav. Theor. Phys.1, 4 (2025), arXiv:2507.09246 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 630 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    S. V. Bolokhov, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 634 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    Bolokhov, Eur

    S. Bolokhov, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1166 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    R. A. Konoplya and E. Abdalla, Phys. Rev. D71, 084015 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0503029

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  46. [46]

    J. P. Arbelaez, JCAP05, 043 (2026)

    2026

  47. [47]

    Scalar field evolution in Gauss-Bonnet black holes

    E. Abdalla, R. A. Konoplya, and C. Molina, Phys. Rev. D72, 084006 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0507100

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  48. [48]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Lett. B648, 236 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0611226

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  49. [49]

    Fernando, Gen

    S. Fernando, Gen. Rel. Grav.48, 24 (2016)

    2016

  50. [50]

    Wongjun, C.-H

    P. Wongjun, C.-H. Chen, and R. Nakarachinda, Phys. Rev. D101, 124033 (2020)

    2020

  51. [51]

    Malik, Int

    Z. Malik, Int. J. Theor. Phys.63, 128 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    Malik, Grav

    Z. Malik, Grav. Cosmol.32, 122 (2026)

    2026

  53. [53]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D109, 104005 (2024), arXiv:2403.07848 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, J. Rayimbaev, S. Murodov, J. Kur- banov, and M. Matyoqubov, (2026), arXiv:2605.11364 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, A. Shermatov, J. Rayimbaev, M. Maty- oqubov, and O. Sirajiddin, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1484 (2025), arXiv:2511.22366 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, Phys. Lett. B872, 140082 (2026), arXiv:2510.25969 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, Fortsch. Phys.74, e70074 (2026), arXiv:2510.10579 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    S. V. Bolokhov, (2026), arXiv:2605.11013 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    R. A. Konoplya, D. Ovchinnikov, and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. D108, 104054 (2023), arXiv:2307.10801 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Quasinormal Spectra of Fields of Various Spin in Asymptotically de Sitter Black Holes within Generalized Proca Theory

    M. Skvortsova, (2026), arXiv:2605.12113 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    Massive scalar quasinormal modes of an asymptotically flat regular black hole supported by a phantom Dirac--Born--Infeld field

    M. Skvortsova, (2026), arXiv:2604.25471 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Skvortsova, Fortsch

    M. Skvortsova, Fortsch. Phys.72, 2400036 (2024), arXiv:2311.11650 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    D. S. Eniceicu and M. Reece, Phys. Rev. D102, 044015 (2020)

    2020

  64. [64]

    Stuchlík and A

    Z. Stuchl´ ık and A. Zhidenko, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2506.09829 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    K. D. Kokkotas, R. A. Konoplya, and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D83, 024031 (2011), arXiv:1011.1843 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  66. [66]

    Evolution of perturbations of squashed Kaluza-Klein black holes: escape from instability

    H. Ishihara, M. Kimura, R. A. Konoplya, K. Murata, J. Soda, and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D77, 084019 (2008), arXiv:0802.0655 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  67. [67]

    S. V. Bolokhov, K. A. Bronnikov, and M. V. Skvortsova, Int. J. Grav. Theor. Phys.2, 2 (2026), arXiv:2507.14603

    work page arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Lett. B686, 199 (2010), arXiv:0909.2138 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  69. [69]

    Matyjasek and M

    J. Matyjasek and M. Opala, Phys. Rev. D96, 024011 (2017)

    2017

  70. [70]

    Matyjasek and M

    J. Matyjasek and M. Telecka, Phys. Rev. D100, 124006 (2019)

    2019

  71. [71]

    Matyjasek, R

    J. Matyjasek, R. A. Konoplya, and A. Zhidenko, Int. J. Grav. Theor. Phys.2, 5 (2026), arXiv:2603.12466 [gr-qc]. 12

    work page arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 245005 (2023), arXiv:2309.02560 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D95, 104005 (2017), arXiv:1701.01652 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  74. [74]

    M. A. Cuyubamba, R. A. Konoplya, and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D93, 104053 (2016), arXiv:1604.03604

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  75. [75]

    Takahashi and J

    T. Takahashi and J. Soda, Prog. Theor. Phys.124, 711 (2010)

    2010

  76. [76]

    Dotti and R

    G. Dotti and R. J. Gleiser, Class. Quant. Grav.22, L1 (2005)

    2005

  77. [77]

    L. C. B. Crispino, E. S. Oliveira, A. Higuchi, and G. E. A. Matsas, Physical Review D75, 104012 (2007)

    2007

  78. [78]

    S. V. Bolokhov, Phys. Rev. D109, 064017 (2024)

    2024

  79. [79]

    Skvortsova, EPL149, 59001 (2025)

    M. Skvortsova, EPL149, 59001 (2025)

    2025

  80. [80]

    Skvortsova, Fortsch

    M. Skvortsova, Fortsch. Phys.72, 2400132 (2024)

    2024

Showing first 80 references.