Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 122 references

MCMC analysis of twin-peak QPOs constrains the Lorentz-violating coupling and string density in dyonic Kalb-Ramond black holes.

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 · grok-4.3

2026-06-28 13:53 UTC pith:J2Z775DY

load-bearing objection They extend a dyonic Kalb-Ramond metric with a string cloud, apply standard QPO frequency formulas, and run MCMC on three X-ray binaries to bound ℓ and ξ, plus thermo and shadow calculations. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2606.02654 v1 pith:J2Z775DY submitted 2026-06-01 gr-qc hep-th

MCMC Constraints on Dyonic Kalb-Ramond Black Holes with a Cloud of Strings from Twin-Peak QPOs and EHT Shadows

Faizuddin Ahmed , Ahmad Al-Badawi , \.Izzet Sakall{\i} This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-th
keywords black holesquasi-periodic oscillationsLorentz violationKalb-Ramond fieldcloud of stringsMCMC constraintsshadow radiusHawking radiation
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 works out the timelike circular geodesics in a dyonic black hole metric that includes a Kalb-Ramond field, Lorentz violation, and a cloud of strings, then computes the associated quasi-periodic oscillation frequencies. These frequencies are fitted via Markov chain Monte Carlo to the observed twin-peak signals from three specific X-ray binaries to place bounds on the Lorentz-violating parameter ℓ and the string density ξ. The same metric is used to derive the full thermodynamic relations and to calculate the photon-sphere radius, shadow size, and Hawking radiation sparsity, revealing that ξ produces the largest shifts in the inner stable circular orbit, shadow, and emission properties.

Core claim

The metric of the dyonic Kalb-Ramond black hole with string cloud reduces to known limits when ξ or other parameters vanish; the orbital and radial frequencies derived from its geodesics, when inserted into the relativistic-precession and epicyclic-resonance models, yield MCMC posteriors that bound ℓ and ξ from the data of XTE J1550-564, GRO J1655-40 and GRS 1915+105, while the thermodynamic first law, Smarr relation, heat capacity and shadow radius all carry explicit dependence on M, Q, p, ℓ and ξ.

What carries the argument

The dyonic Kalb-Ramond metric with string cloud, from which geodesic frequencies, thermodynamic potentials and shadow radius are computed directly.

Load-bearing premise

The observed twin-peak QPO signals in the three named sources are produced by timelike circular geodesics whose frequencies are correctly captured by the relativistic-precession and epicyclic-resonance models in this metric.

What would settle it

New high-precision timing data from one of the three sources that produces QPO frequencies lying outside the MCMC credible intervals obtained for (ℓ, ξ) would falsify the reported constraints.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The string density ξ produces the largest shifts in the ISCO location, shadow radius and Hawking emission sparsity.
  • MCMC fitting of the two QPO models supplies joint bounds on the Lorentz-violating coupling ℓ and the string density ξ.
  • All thermodynamic quantities, including heat capacity and free energy, depend on the four parameters M, Q, p, ℓ, ξ.
  • The photon-sphere and shadow radii receive distinct modifications from the cosmic-string density.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future Event Horizon Telescope images with smaller error bars could tighten the same (ℓ, ξ) bounds independently of QPO data.
  • If ξ is nonzero it would alter the stability margins of thin accretion disks around the black hole in a way detectable by timing missions.
  • The thermodynamic sparsity parameter could be compared with other modified-gravity black-hole solutions to isolate the string-cloud signature.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines dyonic Kalb-Ramond black holes with a cloud of strings in Lorentz-violating gravity. It derives timelike circular geodesics and associated QPO frequencies (ν_φ, ν_r, ν_θ) in the relativistic-precession and epicyclic-resonance models, performs MCMC fits to twin-peak QPO observations from XTE J1550-564, GRO J1655-40 and GRS 1915+105 to constrain the Lorentz-violating coupling ℓ and string density ξ, extracts the thermodynamic relations (first law, Smarr), and computes heat capacity, free energy, Hawking sparsity, photon-sphere radius and shadow size, concluding that ℓ, p and ξ produce distinct effects on dynamical, thermodynamic and radiative observables with ξ dominant on ISCO, shadow and emission sparsity.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work supplies observational bounds on Lorentz violation and string-cloud parameters by combining QPO data from three sources with thermodynamic and shadow diagnostics. The use of MCMC on real X-ray binary data and the multi-observable analysis (dynamics, thermodynamics, shadows) constitute a strength; the paper would benefit from explicit verification that the frequency expressions remain non-trivial after inclusion of the new terms.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3 (geodesics and QPO frequencies) and §4 (MCMC constraints)] The mapping of observed twin-peak QPOs to the geodesic frequencies ν_φ, ν_r, ν_θ (via relativistic-precession and epicyclic-resonance models) presupposes that the effective potential and its second derivatives in the modified metric yield the standard epicyclic expressions; any unaccounted modification would invalidate the MCMC posteriors on (ℓ, ξ) and therefore the claimed distinct fingerprints. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim and requires explicit derivation and justification of the frequency formulae in the presence of the Kalb-Ramond and string-cloud terms.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'four parameters (M, Q, p, ℓ, ξ)' while five quantities are listed; correct the numerical count for consistency.
  2. [§5 (thermodynamics)] Notation for the string density ξ and Lorentz-violating parameter ℓ should be introduced with a brief reminder of their physical dimensions when first appearing in the thermodynamic section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for identifying the need to make the QPO frequency derivation fully explicit. We respond to the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3 (geodesics and QPO frequencies) and §4 (MCMC constraints)] The mapping of observed twin-peak QPOs to the geodesic frequencies ν_φ, ν_r, ν_θ (via relativistic-precession and epicyclic-resonance models) presupposes that the effective potential and its second derivatives in the modified metric yield the standard epicyclic expressions; any unaccounted modification would invalidate the MCMC posteriors on (ℓ, ξ) and therefore the claimed distinct fingerprints. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim and requires explicit derivation and justification of the frequency formulae in the presence of the Kalb-Ramond and string-cloud terms.

    Authors: We agree that explicit derivation of the epicyclic frequencies from the modified effective potential is essential to support the MCMC constraints. Section 3 of the manuscript constructs the effective potential for timelike geodesics using the full metric functions that include both the Kalb-Ramond field (via ℓ) and the string cloud (via ξ). The circular-orbit condition is obtained by setting the first derivative to zero, after which ν_r and ν_θ follow from the second derivatives with respect to r and θ, respectively; these expressions are algebraically distinct from the vacuum case and were inserted directly into the relativistic-precession and epicyclic-resonance models for the MCMC analysis. To satisfy the referee’s request, the revised manuscript will expand §3 with the intermediate steps showing the second-derivative formulae in terms of the metric coefficients g_tt, g_rr, g_θθ, g_φφ and the parameters ℓ, ξ, together with a short verification that the expressions reduce to the standard forms when ℓ = ξ = 0. This addition will not change the numerical results but will render the mapping fully transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivations from modified metric and external data are independent

full rationale

The paper explicitly states it works out timelike circular geodesics and reads off QPO frequencies ν_φ, ν_r, ν_θ from the effective potential in the given metric (including Kalb-Ramond and string-cloud terms), then maps those to external observed twin-peak QPO data from three X-ray binaries via MCMC. Thermodynamic quantities, first law, Smarr relation, heat capacity, free energy, Hawking sparsity, photon sphere and shadow are all computed directly from the metric parameters. No equation reduces by construction to a fitted input, no uniqueness theorem is imported from self-citation, and the central claim of distinct fingerprints rests on these independent computations anchored to external observations rather than self-referential definitions or ansatze.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

Review based on abstract only, limiting visibility into exact parameter counts and background assumptions.

free parameters (2)
  • ℓ
    Lorentz-violating coupling constrained via MCMC on QPO data
  • ξ
    String density constrained via MCMC on QPO data
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Specific metric ansatz for dyonic Kalb-Ramond black hole pierced by string cloud in Lorentz-violating gravity
    Assumed form that reduces to Lin-Liu-Liu and Duan-Yang solutions in limits
invented entities (1)
  • cloud of strings no independent evidence
    purpose: Modify black-hole geometry and observables
    Background feature introduced to pierce the horizon

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5840 in / 1363 out tokens · 41987 ms · 2026-06-28T13:53:24.706727+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MCMC Constraints on Dyonic Kalb-Ramond Black Holes with a Cloud of Strings from Twin-Peak QPOs and EHT Shadows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J2Z775DY

@misc{pith2026260602654,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MCMC Constraints on Dyonic Kalb-Ramond Black Holes with a Cloud of Strings from Twin-Peak QPOs and EHT Shadows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J2Z775DY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.02654}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We study a dyonic black hole in a Lorentz-violating gravity that carries a background Kalb--Ramond field and is pierced by a cloud of strings. The resulting metric reduces to the recent Lin--Liu--Liu solution when the string density~$\xi$ is switched off, and to the Duan and Yang solutions in further degenerate limits. We work out the timelike circular geodesics and read off the quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) frequencies $\nu_{\phi}$, $\nu_r$ and $\nu_\theta$ within both the relativistic-precession and epicyclic-resonance models. We then map these frequencies onto the observed twin-peak signals of XTE~J1550$-$564, GRO~J1655$-$40 and GRS~1915$+$105, and place constraints on $(\ell, \xi)$ from a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) fit. We extract the full thermodynamic dictionary, first law and Smarr relation included, and follow the heat capacity, free energy and sparsity of Hawking radiation through their dependence on the four parameters $(M, Q, p, \ell, \xi)$. Finally, we compute the spectral energy emission rate and look at the photon-sphere and shadow radii in the presence of the cosmic string. The Lorentz-violating coupling $\ell$, the magnetic charge $p$, and the string density $\xi$ all leave distinct fingerprints on the dynamical, thermodynamic and radiative observables, with $\xi$ exerting the strongest pull on the ISCO, the shadow size and the sparsity of Hawking emission

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02654 by Ahmad Al-Badawi, Faizuddin Ahmed, \.Izzet Sakall{\i}.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Effective potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: ISCO radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Keplerian frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Radial epicyclic frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Upper twin-peak QPO frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Heat capacity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows F(rh) for the same parameter sweep. The free energy is positive everywhere in the BH-branch domain we plot, with a shallow minimum at rh = p 3B(1 − ℓ)/(1 − ξ) that coincides with the divergence of Cp in Eq. (4.10) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Sparsity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: repeats the photon-sphere → shadow calculation for a range of (Q, p) choices and a ξ sweep. The shadow radius rises monotonically with ξ: at fixed (M, Q, p, ℓ), turning on the cosmic string from ξ = 0 to ξ = 0.4 enlarges Rsh by a factor of ∼ 1.6. A. Comparison with the EHT bounds on M87* and Sgr A* The shadow diameter of M87*, expressed as a ratio to the black-hole mass measurement, was reported by the EHT… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Spectral energy emission rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Marginalised one- and two-dimensional posteriors on ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.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

122 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    DYONIC KALB–RAMOND BLACK HOLE WITH A CLOUD OF STRINGS We work with the metric ds2 =−f(r)dt 2 + dr2 f(r) +r 2 dθ2 + sin2 θ dϕ2 ,(2.1) withf(r) as in Eq. (1.2). The Letelier piece enters as a constant deficit−ξ/(1−ℓ) added to ther-independent part of the lapse; it preserves the spherical symmetry but reduces the asymptotic value off(r) from 1/(1−ℓ) in the L...

  2. [2]

    PARTICLE DYNAMICS, ISCO AND QPOS A. Effective potential, energy and angular momentum on circular orbits A timelike geodesic with affine parameterλhas Lagrangian density [72] L= 1 2 gµν ˙xµ ˙xν = 1 2 −f(r) ˙t2 + ˙r2 f(r) +r 2 ˙θ2 + sin2 θ ˙ϕ2 ,(3.1) with two conserved quantities E=f(r) ˙t,L=r 2 sin2 θ ˙ϕ.(3.2) HereEandL, respectively are the energy and the...

    1915

  3. [3]

    5: Upper twin-peak QPO frequencyν U versus the lowerν L under the relativistic-precession identification νU =ν ϕ,ν L =ν ϕ −ν r

    THERMODYNAMICS In this section, we investigate the thermodynamic behavior of the black hole by analyzing important thermodynamic quantities, including the Hawking temperature, specific heat capacity, Gibbs free energy, thermodynamic criticality, and the 9 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 ºL [Hz] 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500ºU [Hz] GRO J1655¡40 XTE J1550¡564...

    1915

  4. [4]

    SPARSITY OF HAWKING RADIATION The Hawking emission of a typical astrophysical BH is extremely sparse: the average time between consecutive emitted quanta is far longer than the inverse Hawking frequency. The thermal character of the spectrum, first established by Hawking [77], has been worked out in detail for uncharged, rotating, and charged backgrounds ...

  5. [5]

    (2.5) already absorbs the cosmic-string contribution through the asymptotic factorA= (1−ξ)/(1−ℓ) and the photon-sphere shift in Eq

    BLACK HOLE SHADOW REVISITED The shadow radius in Eq. (2.5) already absorbs the cosmic-string contribution through the asymptotic factorA= (1−ξ)/(1−ℓ) and the photon-sphere shift in Eq. (2.4). In this section we present the numerical dependence ofR sh onξand compare it to the EHT mass-and-distance posterior for M87* and Sgr A* respectively. Figure 9 repeat...

  6. [6]

    The peak frequency of the emission shifts towards smallerωasξgrows, becauseT H in Eq

    ENERGY EMISSION RATE The high-frequency limit of the absorption cross-section of a spherically symmetric BH for massless test fields is [92–94] σlim =π R 2 sh.(7.1) The spectral energy emission rate, in the geometric-optics regime, is then d2E(ω) dω dt = 2π3 R2 sh ω3 exp(ω/TH)−1 .(7.2) Figure 10 displaysd 2E/dωdton a linear vertical scale extending slight...

    1915

  7. [7]

    The fit uses the affine-invariant Markov chain Monte Carlo sampler of Foreman-Mackeyet al.[95]; technical details follow

    MCMC CONSTRAINTS FROM THE GRO J1655–40 AND XTE J1550–564 TWIN-PEAK QPOS We now turn to the inverse problem: given the three twin-peak QPO measurements summarized in Table VII, what con- straints does the data place on the KR couplingℓand the string densityξ? We adopt the relativistic-precession model identificationν U =ν ϕ,ν L =ν ϕ −ν r and the prior choi...

    1915

  8. [8]

    The GBF measures the probability that a Hawking quantum, after thermal emission near the horizon, escapes the curvature potential and reaches a distant observer

    GREYBODY FACTORS AND THE BEKENSTEIN–SANCHEZ BOUND We close the physics discussion with the greybody factor (GBF) of a massless test scalar in the dyonic KR-CS background. The GBF measures the probability that a Hawking quantum, after thermal emission near the horizon, escapes the curvature potential and reaches a distant observer. It modifies the thermal-...

  9. [9]

    The combined metric, Eq

    CONCLUSIONS We took the Lin, Liu and Liu solution for a dyonic black hole in Kalb–Ramond gravity [70] and added a Letelier cloud of strings to the background. The combined metric, Eq. (1.2), controls four deformations relative to Schwarzschild: the LSB couplingℓ, the electric and magnetic charges (Q, p), and the new cosmic-string densityξ. Four limits rec...

    1915

  10. [10]

    Closed-form derivatives of the lapse function For the lapse Eq. (1.2), the first three radial derivatives are f ′(r) = 2M r2 − 2Q 2 (1−ℓ) 2 r3 − 2p 2 (1−2ℓ)r 3 ,(1.1) f ′′(r) =− 4M r3 + 6Q 2 (1−ℓ) 2 r4 + 6p 2 (1−2ℓ)r 4 ,(1.2) f ′′′(r) = 12M r4 − 24Q 2 (1−ℓ) 2 r5 − 24p 2 (1−2ℓ)r 5 .(1.3) Note that none of the derivatives depend onξexplicitly; the cosmic-st...

  11. [11]

    Expansion in smallξ Forξ≪1, the lapse function admits the linear expansion f(r) =f LLL(r)− ξ 1−ℓ +O(ξ 2),(1.4) wheref LLL(r) is the LLL lapse in Eq. (1.1). The corresponding linear shift of the outer horizon is r+ =r (0) + 1 + ξ 2(1−ℓ) p 1−A 0B/M 2 +O(ξ 2),(1.5) withr (0) + = (1−ℓ)(M+ p M 2 −B/(1−ℓ)) the LLL horizon,A 0 = 1/(1−ℓ). Equation (1.5) provides ...

  12. [12]

    The comparison in Table XII pulls the new physics of the paper into focus

    Comparison with other modified-gravity black holes Table XII compares the dyonic KR-CS BH with five other modified-gravity backgrounds in the literature, on five observables: photon-sphere radius, ISCO radius, shadow radius, Hawking temperature and sparsity (all relative to the Schwarzschild values). The comparison in Table XII pulls the new physics of th...

  13. [13]

    For the spherically symmetric, isotropic cloud relevant here the only non-vanishing combination isρ str |Σtr|=ξ/(8πr 2), with the cosmic-string densityξdimensionless [68, 69]

    Action The total action for the dyonic Kalb–Ramond gravity coupled to a Letelier cloud of cosmic strings and to aU(1) gauge field reads S= Z d4x p −g h 1 2κ R−2Λ − 1 12 Hµνρ H µνρ −V Bµν Bµν ±b 2 + ξ2 2κ BµαBν αRµν + ξ3 2κ Bµν BρσRµνρσ − 1 4 Fµν F µν +L str i .(2.1) Hereκ= 8πG,H µνρ =∂ [µBνρ] is the field-strength three-form of the Kalb–Ramond two-formB µ...

  14. [14]

    Field equations Varying (2.1) with respect to the metric in the LSB vacuum yields the modified Einstein equations Gµν =κ T KR µν +T EM µν +T str µν ,(2.4) withG µν =R µν − 1 2 gµν R. The three stress-energy contributions take the closed form T KRµ ν = 1 8π ℓ (1−ℓ)r 2 diag(1,1,0,0),(2.5) T EMµ ν = 1 8πr4 " Q2 (1−ℓ) 2 + p2 1−2ℓ # diag(−1,−1,1,1),(2.6) T str...

  15. [15]

    Energy-condition algebra The four standard pointwise energy conditions on the effective stress-energy tensor (2.8) now follow from (2.9)–(2.11). WritingA≡(1−ξ)/(1−ℓ) andB≡Q 2/(1−ℓ) 2 +p 2/(1−2ℓ), the density reads ρ(r) = 1 8πr2 (1−A) + B r2 = 1 8πr2 ξ−ℓ 1−ℓ + B r2 .(2.12) The combinations relevant for the four conditions are then NEC:ρ+p r ≡0, ρ+p θ =− r ...

  16. [16]

    Fundamental challenges in theoretical physics

    Algebraic verification protocol The action of Eq. (2.1), the variational reduction to the field equations (2.4), the closed-form expressions (2.5)–(2.7) for the three stress- energy contributions, and the energy-condition identities (2.13)–(2.16) have been verified in four independent computational scripts. The first, dyonic KR CS action field eqs check, ...

  17. [17]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019)

    2019

  18. [18]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L2 (2019)

    2019

  19. [19]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L6 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L12 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.910, L13 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L16 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L17 (2022)

    2022

  24. [24]

    J. L. Synge, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.131, 463 (1966)

    1966

  25. [25]

    J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press, and S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.178, 347 (1972)

    1972

  26. [26]

    Perlick and O

    V. Perlick and O. Y. Tsupko, Phys. Rep.947, 1 (2022)

    2022

  27. [27]

    V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D39, 683 (1989)

    1989

  28. [28]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D55, 6760 (1997)

    1997

  29. [29]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D58, 116002 (1998)

    1998

  30. [30]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Lett. B511, 209 (2001)

    2001

  31. [31]

    V. A. Kostelecky and R. Lehnert, Phys. Rev. D63, 065008 (2001)

    2001

  32. [32]

    V. A. Kostelecky and M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 251304 (2001)

    2001

  33. [33]

    Casana, A

    R. Casana, A. Cavalcante, F. P. Poulis, and E. B. Santos, Phys. Rev. D97, 104001 (2018)

    2018

  34. [34]

    J. F. Assuncao, T. Mariz, J. R. Nascimento, and A. Y. Petrov, Phys. Rev. D100, 085009 (2019)

    2019

  35. [35]

    R. V. Maluf and J. C. S. Neves, Phys. Rev. D103, 044002 (2021)

    2021

  36. [36]

    R. V. Maluf and C. R. Muniz, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 445 (2022)

    2022

  37. [37]

    R. V. Maluf and J. C. S. Neves, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 135 (2022)

    2022

  38. [38]

    Gullu and A

    I. Gullu and A. Ovgun, Ann. Phys.436, 168721 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    Fathi and A

    M. Fathi and A. Ovgun, Eur. Phys. J. Plus140, 280 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    Baruah, Y

    A. Baruah, Y. Sekhmani, S. K. Maurya, A. Deshamukhya, and M. K. Jasim, JCAP2025(08), 023

  41. [41]

    Yang, Y.-Z

    K. Yang, Y.-Z. Chen, Z.-Q. Duan, and J.-Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D108, 124004 (2023)

    2023

  42. [42]

    Duan, J.-Y

    Z.-Q. Duan, J.-Y. Zhao, and K. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 798 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    W. Liu, D. Wu, and J. Wang, JCAP2024(09), 017

  44. [44]

    W. Liu, D. Wu, and J. Wang, JCAP2025(05), 017

  45. [45]

    F. M. Belchior, R. V. Maluf, A. Y. Petrov, and P. J. Porfirio, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 658 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and I. Sakalli, Phys. Dark Universe52, 102315 (2026)

    2026

  47. [47]

    L. A. Lessa, J. E. G. Silva, R. V. Maluf, and C. A. S. Almeida, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 335 (2020)

    2020

  48. [48]

    Kumar, S

    R. Kumar, S. G. Ghosh, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D101, 104001 (2020)

    2020

  49. [49]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and ˙I. Sakallı, Mod. Phys. Lett. A41, 2650061 (2026)

    2026

  50. [50]

    T. Q. Do and W. F. Kao, Phys. Rev. D101, 044014 (2020)

    2020

  51. [51]

    Zahid, F

    M. Zahid, F. Sarikulov, C. Shen, J. Rayimbaev, K. Badalov, and S. Muminov, Chin. J. Phys.91, 45 (2024). 26

    2024

  52. [52]

    Ortiqboev, F

    D. Ortiqboev, F. Javed, F. Atamurotov, A. Abdujabbarov, and G. Mustafa, Phys. Dark Universe46, 101615 (2024)

    2024

  53. [53]

    Du, H.-F

    Y.-Z. Du, H.-F. Li, Y.-B. Ma, and Q. Gu, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 78 (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    W. Zhu, Z. Zhang, C. Wang, and J. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A41, 2650050 (2026)

    2026

  55. [55]

    Ashraf, T

    A. Ashraf, T. Naseer, H. Chaudhary, A. Bouzenada, F. Atamurotov, B. Cil, and E. Guedekli, Nucl. Phys. B1014, 116873 (2025)

    2025

  56. [56]

    Guo, M.-H

    M.-Y. Guo, M.-H. Wu, X.-M. Kuang, and H. Guo, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 95 (2025)

    2025

  57. [57]

    C. Liu, H. Siew, T. Zhu, Q. Wu, Y. Sun, Y. Zhao, and H. Xu, JCAP (11), 096

  58. [58]

    Mustafa, F

    G. Mustafa, F. Javed, S. G. Ghosh, S. K. Maurya, and F. Atamurotov, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 6 (2026)

    2026

  59. [59]

    M.-H. Wu, H. Guo, and X.-M. Kuang, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 79 (2026)

    2026

  60. [60]

    Davlataliev, F

    A. Davlataliev, F. Atamurotov, A. Abdujabbarov, N. Juraeva, and V. Khamidov, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101603 (2024)

    2024

  61. [61]

    Tan and B

    J. Tan and B. Wang, Phys. Rev. D109, 084036 (2024)

    2024

  62. [62]

    Hazarika, A

    B. Hazarika, A. Baruah, and P. Phukon, Phys. Lett. B875, 140319 (2026)

    2026

  63. [63]

    Hazarika, M

    B. Hazarika, M. M. Gohain, and P. Phukon, JCAP (7), 035

  64. [64]

    Rahmatov, S

    B. Rahmatov, S. Murodov, J. Rayimbaev, S. Muminov, I. Ibragimov, and R. Eshburiev, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102102 (2025)

    2025

  65. [65]

    Shabbir, A

    O. Shabbir, A. Shermatov, B. Majeed, T. Zahra, M. Jamil, and J. Rayimbaev, Nucl. Phys. B1026, 117432 (2026)

    2026

  66. [66]

    R. J. Borah and U. D. Goswami, Phys. Lett. B872, 140124 (2026)

    2026

  67. [67]

    R. A. Konoplya, A. E. Zinhailo, and Z. Stuchlik, Phys. Rev. D102, 044023 (2020)

    2020

  68. [68]

    R. A. Konoplya, D. Ovchinnikov, and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. D108, 104054 (2023)

    2023

  69. [69]

    Cai, L.-M

    R.-G. Cai, L.-M. Cao, L. Li, and R.-Q. Yang, JHEP2013(09), 005

  70. [70]

    Zhao, L.-C

    H.-H. Zhao, L.-C. Zhang, M.-S. Ma, and R. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D90, 064018 (2014)

    2014

  71. [71]

    Zhang, Q

    L. Zhang, Q. Pan, B. Liu, M. Zhang, and D.-C. Zou, Phys. Rev. D110, 064007 (2024)

    2024

  72. [72]

    Peng and S.-Q

    J.-J. Peng and S.-Q. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C66, 325 (2010)

    2010

  73. [73]

    Peng and S.-Q

    J.-J. Peng and S.-Q. Wu, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.40, 2619 (2008)

    2008

  74. [74]

    Saghafi and K

    S. Saghafi and K. Nozari, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.55, 20 (2023)

    2023

  75. [75]

    R. Ali, R. Babar, M. Asgher, and S. A. A. Shah, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.19, 2250017 (2022)

    2022

  76. [76]

    A. F. Ali, M. Faizal, and M. M. Khalil, Nucl. Phys. B894, 341 (2015)

    2015

  77. [77]

    Hamil and B

    B. Hamil and B. C. Lutfuoglu, Nucl. Phys. B990, 116191 (2023)

    2023

  78. [78]

    Jusufi, M

    K. Jusufi, M. Jamil, H. Chakrabarty, Q. Wu, C. Bambi, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D101, 044035 (2020)

    2020

  79. [79]

    Kumar, S

    J. Kumar, S. Ul Islam, and S. G. Ghosh, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1014 (2023)

    2023

  80. [80]

    Ul Islam and S

    S. Ul Islam and S. G. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. D103, 124052 (2021)

    2021

Showing first 80 references.