Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 140 references

A spacetime deformation should not be inferred from horizon-scale images until the data, the source model, and the numerical response have each passed their own validation gate.

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 03:05 UTC pith:ICVJRA7S

load-bearing objection A careful negative result: the M87* tidal-charge inference stays closed under predeclared safeguards, and the response-convergence failure is strong enough to stand even if the data/covariance premise is questioned.

arxiv 2607.13992 v3 pith:ICVJRA7S submitted 2026-07-15 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Dark matter environments and safeguards for spacetime inference from horizon scale interferometry

Mohsen Fathi This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.HE
keywords black hole spacetime inferencetidal chargeM87*closure phasesclosure amplitudesdark matter spikemodel validationnumerical convergence
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 a minimum standard for any claim that horizon-scale images reveal a departure from the Kerr spacetime: the data and covariance must be validated, the undeformed source must pass an absolute fit to real observations, and the tiny differential response to a metric deformation must converge independently of image resolution. Applying this standard to the 2017 M87* closure data with a frozen semi-analytic source and a rotating tidal-charge deformation, the paper finds that the source fails the adequacy test (global χ²/N between 1.687 and 1.758 versus a predeclared limit of 1.5, with the worst band at 2.022) and that the deformation response fails the convergence test, with the apparent signal direction flipping sign between resolutions. It therefore reports no posterior, no bound, and no detection, concluding that metric inference must remain closed. A reader should care because the result shows that a visually stable black-hole image and a statistically well-behaved likelihood are not enough: the much smaller signal produced by a metric deformation must pass its own validation.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is the three-safeguard rule and its failure in the M87* case. With the source family frozen at Kerr (a/M = −0.94, i = 22°), the public 2017 closure data give reduced chi-square values of 1.7583, 1.7206, and 1.6873 for the three covariance scenarios, all above the predeclared global limit of 1.5; removing the most influential scan still leaves 1.6472. If the deformation is opened anyway, the residual projects strongly onto negative tidal charge at low resolution, but the sign reverses between N = 192 and N = 224. Direct image libraries at N = 192, 224, and 256 pass all ray-completion and Fourier checks yet fail the differential-response convergence gate

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a three-gate validation protocol. Gate 1 validates the data representation: an independent closure basis with covariance propagated linearly, plus three predeclared scenarios for the common-mode calibration floor (independent band, 50% common floor, fully common floor). Gate 2 is an absolute adequacy test of the frozen source: a χ²/N limit of 1.5 globally and 2.0 per night and band, fixed before the deformation is opened. Gate 3 is differential response convergence: comparing [I_N(q) − I_N(0)] across successive production resolutions (N = 192, 224, 256) with fixed screen-plane smoothing, rather than comparing the absolute images. The deformation itself is a rotating

Load-bearing premise

The entire negative conclusion rests on the assumption that the eight public 2017 M87* Stokes-I CSV products, together with the closure covariance built from the official calibration floors, faithfully represent the measurement uncertainty; the paper verifies the byte-identity of those files but does not independently regenerate them from the raw UVFITS data, so a bias or under-estimate in that released covariance could mimic source inadequacy.

What would settle it

Take the public 2017 M87* UVFITS data products, regenerate the Stokes-I closure quantities with an independent calibration and closure-covariance pipeline, and recompute the frozen Kerr fit; if the resulting global χ²/N drops below 1.5, the source-adequacy failure is an artifact of the released CSV representation. Alternatively, render the tidal-charge response at N = 512 with a smooth volumetric emissivity model; if the differential response converges under refinement and the real-data fit passes the predeclared gates, the paper's 'closed' verdict would be overturned on source or response gro

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

If this is right

  • No tidal-charge posterior, upper bound, Bayes factor, or detection threshold is supported by the 2017 public closure data with the frozen semi-analytic source; any such quantity would combine an inadequate mean model with an unstable numerical response.
  • Dark matter gravity at realistic M87* halo densities is a null control: even the intentionally optimistic enclosed mass fraction of 7.33×10⁻⁵ changes the normalized image and visibility by only about 2.65×10⁻⁶ and 4.9×10⁻⁷, far below the deformation signal.
  • A covariance-aware closure likelihood can pass extensive synthetic tests while the source model still fails on real data, so passing synthetic validation alone does not justify opening a metric parameter.
  • Absolute image convergence is not metric-response convergence; the Kerr image can look stable to 0.45% while the q-response changes by 49%, so visual stability cannot certify a small-deformation inference.
  • Removing the single most influential scan cannot repair the adequacy failure (χ²/N remains 1.647 above 1.5), meaning the mismatch is spread across multiple scans rather than a single outlier.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The three-safeguard protocol is a template that likely applies to any small spacetime-deformation parameter and any sparse interferometric dataset, not just tidal charge and the 2017 M87* observations; adopting it would make future black-hole imaging claims more falsifiable.
  • The resolution-dependent sign flip of the deformation score implies that some apparent deformation 'signals' in horizon-scale imaging could be purely numerical artifacts; re-testing published constraints with explicit response-convergence gates would reveal whether any survive.
  • Because even the most optimistic dark-matter spike is a null control, the structured closure mismatch is probably a feature of the source or calibration model rather than the spacetime; investing in volumetric radiative-transfer source models is the more direct route to meaningful metric tests.
  • The paper's refusal to quote a numeric bound is itself a concrete claim: if an independent analysis using a volumetric source and converged response produced a stable q posterior, it would indicate the frozen semi-analytic source was the blocking element, not the safeguard framework.

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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a three-safeguard protocol for horizon-scale metric inference — data/covariance validation, absolute source adequacy, and independent numerical convergence of the differential metric response — and applies it to the 2017 M87* public closure data with a frozen semi-analytic Kerr source and a rotating tidal-charge deformation. It first shows that several explicit dark matter profiles, including an optimistic adiabatic spike, produce negligible image and visibility changes at the 10M scale. It then builds an independent closure-phase/log-closure-amplitude likelihood with high/low covariance and three fixed common-floor scenarios, validates the statistical kernel on 5000 synthetic Kerr draws, and finds that the real data fail a predeclared global adequacy gate (chi2/N = 1.7583, 1.7206, 1.6873 for C0/C50/C100 versus the 1.5 limit). When the deformation is opened despite the failure, the residual projects strongly onto tidal charge but the preferred sign flips between N=192 and N=224. Direct ray-traced libraries at N=192, 224, and 256 fail fixed response-convergence gates, with the finite-q response changing by ~20–62% in Delta-chi2 and ~75% in the projected response vector between resolutions. The paper reports no posterior, bound, or detection threshold and concludes that metric inference must remain closed for this source/data combination.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful methodological contribution: it demonstrates, with explicit predeclared gates and careful controls, that absolute image convergence does not imply convergence of the much smaller differential metric response. The analysis is unusually disciplined: the source is frozen at q=0, the adequacy limits are fixed before the deformation is opened, synthetic draws validate the likelihood kernel, the eight CSV inputs are byte-verified against the official release, completed-ray and FFT/direct-sum checks are reported, and a clear permitted/prohibited inference table is provided. The central negative conclusion is robust to the main data-representation caveat because the differential response safeguard fails independently of the data: even under a perfect data/covariance model, the finite-q response changes by far more than the predeclared gates at every tested smoothing width. The paper is appropriately scoped to the adopted frozen semi-analytic source and does not overclaim about GRMHD-based models or about tidal charge itself. This is a valuable negative control for EHT-era spacetime tests.

minor comments (4)
  1. [III.A / III.B] The source-family parameters p1, p2, R, r_J, and the eight nuisance-parameter bounds are described only schematically and are not tabulated. These values are needed to reproduce the frozen-source claim from the text. The code-on-request policy is a process weakness; please include a table of the frozen parameters and, preferably, a public repository with the analysis codes and derived numerical tables.
  2. [VI.B / Fig. 5] The single-scan deletion test is performed without refitting the nuisance parameters. Consequently, the quoted residual chi2/N = 1.6472 is an upper bound on the minimum achievable after the data change; it does not strictly exclude the possibility that a one-scan deletion plus refit could pass the gate. The full-data verdict is unaffected, but the sentence 'No single-scan deletion repairs the model' should be qualified to state explicitly that no deletion repairs the model under the frozen, non-refit protocol, or be accompanied by a refitted-deletion check.
  3. [IV.A / IX.A] The distinction between byte-identity verification and independent regeneration of the CSV products from UVFITS is disclosed, but it deserves more prominence because it bounds the source-adequacy conclusion. If the official CSV products or the assumed covariance scenarios contain unmodeled calibration systematics, the chi2/N excess could partly reside in the data representation rather than in the source model. The metric-response failure remains independent of this caveat, so the final closure conclusion is not affected.
  4. [II.C / Table I] The label 'matched Einasto' and the choice r_-2 = r0 need a sentence of clarification so the reader understands this is an extrapolated comparison, not an independent inner-halo fit. Also, the 'old extreme proxy' M_DM(<10M)/M_BH = 0.025 is used as a stress test; citing the specific earlier benchmark and explaining why it is superseded would improve context.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper's negative conclusion rests on predeclared safeguards and an independent convergence failure, not on fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing derivation chain is: freeze the source model at q=0, construct an independent closure likelihood with predeclared adequacy limits, test that frozen Kerr source against real data, find it fails the predeclared chi2/N global limit of 1.5, and then independently test the differential tidal-charge response for numerical convergence and find it fails at N=192/224/256. None of these steps defines the target quantity in terms of its own inputs. The source is explicitly frozen before the deformation is opened (Sec. III A: 'The source family was selected and refined only at q=0'), the adequacy limits are fixed before the result is seen (Sec. IV C: 'The limits were fixed before the deformation was opened'), and the convergence gates are fixed before the final audit (Sec. VIII A: 'the production convergence limits were fixed before the final audit'). The synthetic Kerr tests are self-consistency checks of the statistical kernel and are explicitly distinguished from source adequacy (Sec. V: 'a correct statistical kernel does not imply that the source model is adequate'). The dark matter profiles are prior-predictive controls normalized to an external benchmark (Lacroix, Boehm, Silk), and the rendered upper-envelope control is directly compared to Kerr rather than fitted to the M87 data. No load-bearing self-citation appears in the reference list, and the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or prior author result to forbid alternatives. The admitted limitations—CSV products not independently regenerated from UVFITS, and the compact source model not being a volumetric GRRT calculation—are explicitly disclosed and weaken external validity, but they do not make the derivation circular. The main conclusion is a negative empirical result based on predeclared gates and an independent numerical failure, so no construction-level circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central negative claim does not introduce new physical entities or a new metric; tidal charge is taken from braneworld literature and dark matter profiles from published benchmarks. The analysis does rely on hand-set thresholds, frozen source parameters, and adopted benchmark halo constants, which are listed above. No fitted quantity is recycled as a prediction, so circularity burden is low.

free parameters (7)
  • Eight nuisance parameters of compact+extended visibility model = not reported numerically (frozen bounds)
    Angular scale, compact PA, compact flux fraction, extended FWHM, axis ratio, extended PA, offset radius, offset PA. Refit within bounded ranges for each covariance scenario (Sec. III B); their fitted values determine the reported chi2.
  • Dual-cone/equatorial source shape parameters p1, p2, R, mixing r_J = not reported
    The radial profile J(r; R, p1, p2) and cone/equatorial mixing are part of the frozen source family (Sec. III A). Exact numerical values are not given, so an independent reproduction of the source requires contacting the author.
  • Spin and inclination = a/M = -0.94, i = 22 deg
    Frozen by hand at q=0 before the deformation was opened (Sec. III A). No independent calibration is provided; the source-family refinement used these values.
  • M87* halo benchmark parameters = rho0 = 2.5 GeV/cm^3, r0 = 20 kpc, gamma=1, alpha_gamma=0.1, alpha_E=0.18, spike radius ~220.45 pc, capture cutoff 4 R_s
    Adopted from the Lacroix-Boehm-Silk benchmark (Sec. II C). They set the enclosed mass for the dark-matter control. The conclusion is robust because an upper-envelope control was rendered, but these are literature inputs, not fitted here.
  • Covariance common-floor fraction = C0=0, C50=0.5, C100=1
    Three predeclared high/low-band correlation sensitivity cases (Sec. IV B). Not optimized against data, but the central adequacy verdict depends on all three failing the gate.
  • Adequacy thresholds = global chi2/N <= 1.5; night/band <= 2.0
    Fixed before opening the deformation (Sec. IV C). The conclusion 'source inadequate' is defined relative to these hand-set thresholds; a different threshold would change the verdict (Table IV).
  • Fixed screen-plane smoothing width = 0.125, 0.25, 0.50 (plus 1.0 and 3.0 in Fig. 8)
    Numerical regularization applied uniformly in the convergence audit (Sec. VIII C). It is not tuned to the data, but the response-convergence failure is evaluated at these values.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The independent closure bases and linearly propagated covariances correctly represent the statistical content of the public closure data.
    Sec. IV A and App. B. The chi2 and all adequacy statements depend on this; synthetic tests are self-consistency checks, not independent proof.
  • domain assumption The eight public CSV products are faithful to the EHT 2017 UVFITS data.
    Sec. IV A: byte-identity with fresh downloads is verified, but the paper explicitly does not regenerate CSV from UVFITS (Sec. IX A, IX E).
  • domain assumption A radial mass function in the rotating Kerr-like metric is an adequate phenomenological optical control for dark matter near M87*.
    Sec. II B: the effective source has p_parallel = -rho and nonzero transverse stresses; the paper labels it a control, not an exact rotating halo solution. The DM-negligible conclusion rests on this control geometry.
  • domain assumption The frozen dual-cone/equatorial surface source is a representative undeformed M87* emission model for this test.
    Sec. III A: the model is compact and semi-analytic; the paper itself says it is not a volumetric GRRT calculation. The adequacy failure is conditional on this model family.
  • domain assumption The synthetic validation of the likelihood kernel transfers to real data only if the true noise model lies inside the C0/C50/C100 family.
    Sec. V and VI: the paper argues synthetic success does not imply real-data adequacy; the real-data verdict assumes the covariance scenarios bracket the true high/low-band correlation.
  • ad hoc to paper The fixed convergence gates (15% for Delta chi2, 10% for sigma(q), 25% at 90th percentile, median cosine >= 0.995) are appropriate criteria for response convergence.
    Sec. VIII A: thresholds were fixed before the final audit, but they are practical choices from CFD/verification practice, not derived from the data or from first principles.
  • standard math Null geodesic separability and the photon-region condition R=R'=0 hold for the adopted tidal-charge line element.
    Sec. II A: the Kerr-like separable form with Delta_q is standard; used only to define controlled optical comparisons.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20274 in / 18970 out tokens · 178482 ms · 2026-08-02T03:05:30.139433+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Horizon scale interferometry can test a black hole spacetime only when the data, source model, and numerical response are reliable. We study this requirement with the public 2017 M87* closure data, a frozen semi analytic emission model, explicit dark matter controls, and a rotating tidal charge deformation. We normalize NFW and Einasto halos, an adiabatic spike, a capture suppressed spike, and a heated crest for M87*. Even the intentionally optimistic rendered case, $M_{\rm DM}(<10M)/M_{\rm BH}=7.33\times10^{-5}$, changes the normalized image and visibility by only about $2.65\times10^{-6}$ and $4.9\times10^{-7}$. We then build an independent closure phase and log closure amplitude likelihood with covariance and three fixed high/low band correlation cases. Synthetic Kerr tests recover the expected statistic, coverage, and false positive rate. The real data give $\chi^2/N=1.7583$, $1.7206$, and $1.6873$, above the global adequacy limit of $1.5$; the worst band gives $2.0216$. Removing the most influential scan still leaves $\chi^2/N=1.6472$. If tidal charge is allowed anyway, the residual projects strongly onto it, but the preferred direction changes sign between image resolutions. Direct libraries at $N=192$, 224, and 256 also fail the differential response convergence tests. At a smoothing width of $0.5M$, the Kerr image changes by about $0.45\%$ between $N=192$ and 224, while the tidal charge response changes by about $49\%$. We therefore report no posterior or bound. Spacetime inference should remain closed until the adopted data and covariance are validated, the undeformed source passes an absolute adequacy test, and the differential metric response converges independently of the image.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13992 by Mohsen Fathi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The three safeguards used in this work. The official origin and byte identity of the eight adopted CSV inputs are verified, and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Explicit M87* dark matter controls. (a) Density profiles for the NFW and matched Einasto extrapolations, the deliberately optimistic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Illustrative frozen-source images at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Statistical validation and absolute adequacy. (a) The synthetic Kerr draws give the expected mean normalized statistic. (b) The frozen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Deformation-blind residual localization for C100. (a) Largest exact scan excesses. Labels give day, early/late segment, and scan number. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. False deformation diagnostics. (a) At [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Failure of the numerical response safeguard. (a) Direct C100 nuisance-projected separation at the production resolutions. The finite- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Absolute image convergence is not metric response convergence. The Kerr images become very stable after modest fixed smoothing, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 98 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    the data representation and covariance must be validated

  2. [2]

    the undeformed source and calibration model must pass an absolute adequacy test

  3. [3]

    A metric posterior is scientifically justified only when all three safeguards pass

    the differential response to the deformation must pass an independent convergence test. A metric posterior is scientifically justified only when all three safeguards pass. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II defines the tidal charge branch and the M87* dark matter controls. Section III describes the frozen source model and direct ray...

  4. [4]

    Pass all

    Data and covariance 2. Astrophysical adequacy 3. Metric response Metric inferenceOfficial CSV byte identity Independent closure basis Joint high/low covariance Freeze the source at q = 0 Test global, night, band, and nuisance-boundary limits Direct q rendering Validate Fourier sampling Require differential convergence VALIDATED FOR ADOPTED CSV DATA FAIL F...

    2017

  5. [5]

    a covariance-aware closure likelihood can pass synthetic tests while the source model fails on real data

  6. [6]

    the mismatch can be distributed over several scans and cannot be repaired by deleting one point

  7. [7]

    opening a deformation can create a large formal score from source inadequacy

  8. [8]

    These points are relevant beyond tidal charge

    the direction of that score can reverse when the differential response is numerically refined. These points are relevant beyond tidal charge. They apply to any small deformation whose observable effect can be confused with source structure. C. Relation to current EHT inference The closure covariance and independent-degree problem is well known [29]. The E...

    2017

  9. [9]

    V. L. Fishet al., 1.3 mm Wavelength VLBI of Sagittarius A*: Detection of Time-variable Emission on Event Horizon Scales, Astrophys. J. Lett.727, L36 (2011), arXiv:1011.2472

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  10. [10]

    S. S. Doelemanet al., Jet-Launching Structure Resolved Near the Supermassive Black Hole in M87, Science338, 355 (2012), arXiv:1210.6132

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    J.807, 150 (2015), arXiv:1505.03545

    K.Akiyamaetal.,230GHzVLBIObservationsofM87: Event-horizon-scaleStructureduringanEnhancedVery-high-energyGamma-Ray State in 2012, Astrophys. J.807, 150 (2015), arXiv:1505.03545

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  12. [12]

    EventHorizonTelescopeCollaboration,K.Akiyama,etal.,FirstM87EventHorizonTelescopeResults.I.TheShadowoftheSupermassive Black Hole, Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    Akiyama,et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama,et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. II. Array and Instrumentation, Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L2 (2019), arXiv:1906.11239

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Akiyama,et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama,et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. III. Data Processing and Calibration, Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L3 (2019), arXiv:1906.11240

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Akiyama,et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama,et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. IV. Imaging the Central Supermassive Black Hole, Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L4 (2019), arXiv:1906.11241. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    Akiyama,et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama,et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. V. Physical Origin of the Asymmetric Ring, Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L5 (2019), arXiv:1906.11242

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Akiyama,et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama,et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. VI. The Shadow and Mass of the Central Black Hole, Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L6 (2019), arXiv:1906.11243

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Akiyama,et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama,et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. VII. Polarization of the Ring, Astrophys. J. Lett.910, L12 (2021), arXiv:2105.01169

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Akiyama,et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama,et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. VIII. Magnetic Field Structure near the Event Horizon, Astrophys. J. Lett.910, L13 (2021), arXiv:2105.01173

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Akiyama,et al., First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama,et al., First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole in the Center of the Milky Way, Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L12 (2022), arXiv:2311.08680

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Akiyama,et al., First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama,et al., First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. II. EHT and Multiwavelength Observations, Data Processing, and Calibration, Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L13 (2022), arXiv:2311.08679

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Akiyama,et al., First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama,et al., First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. III. Imaging of the Galactic Center Supermassive Black Hole, Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L14 (2022), arXiv:2311.09479

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Akiyama,et al., First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama,et al., First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. IV. Variability, Morphology, and Black Hole Mass, Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L15 (2022), arXiv:2311.08697

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    EventHorizonTelescopeCollaboration,K.Akiyama,etal.,FirstSagittariusA*EventHorizonTelescopeResults.V.TestingAstrophysical Models of the Galactic Center Black Hole, Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L16 (2022), arXiv:2311.09478

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Akiyama,et al., First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama,et al., First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. VI. Testing the Black Hole Metric, Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L17 (2022), arXiv:2311.09484

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Astrophys.681, A79 (2024)

    EventHorizonTelescopeCollaboration,K.Akiyama,etal.,ThepersistentshadowofthesupermassiveblackholeofM87.I.Observations, calibration, imaging, and analysis, Astron. Astrophys.681, A79 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    Akiyama,et al., The persistent shadow of the supermassive black hole of M87

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama,et al., The persistent shadow of the supermassive black hole of M87. II. Model comparisons and theoretical interpretations, Astron. Astrophys.693, A265 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    S. S. Doelemanet al., Studying Black Holes on Horizon Scales with VLBI Ground Arrays, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 256 (2019), arXiv:1909.01411

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Haworth, M

    K. Haworth, M. D. Johnson,et al., Studying Black Holes on Horizon Scales with Space-VLBI, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 235 (2019), arXiv:1909.01405

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    S. S. Doelemanet al., Reference Array and Design Consideration for the Next-Generation Event Horizon Telescope, Galaxies11, 107 (2023), arXiv:2306.08787

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    M. D. Johnsonet al., Key Science Goals for the Next-Generation Event Horizon Telescope, Galaxies11, 61 (2023), arXiv:2304.11188

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    R. C. Jennison, A Phase Sensitive Interferometer Technique for the Measurement of the Fourier Transforms of Spatial Brightness Distributions of Small Angular Extent, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.118, 276 (1958)

    1958

  33. [33]

    T. J. Cornwell and P. N. Wilkinson, A New Method for Making Maps with Unstable Radio Interferometers, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.196, 1067 (1981)

    1981

  34. [34]

    T. J. Pearson and A. C. S. Readhead, Image Formation by Self-Calibration in Radio Astronomy, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.22, 97 (1984)

    1984

  35. [35]

    Narayan and R

    R. Narayan and R. Nityananda, Maximum Entropy Image Restoration in Astronomy, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.24, 127 (1986)

    1986

  36. [36]

    A. R. Thompson, J. M. Moran, and G. W. J. Swenson,Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy, 3rd ed. (Springer, Cham, 2017)

    2017

  37. [37]

    J.894, 31 (2020), arXiv:1910.02062 [astro-ph.IM]

    L.Blackburn,D.W.Pesce,M.D.Johnson,M.Wielgus,A.A.Chael,P.Christian,andS.S.Doeleman,ClosureStatisticsinInterferometric Data, Astrophys. J.894, 31 (2020), arXiv:1910.02062 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    A. A. Chael, M. D. Johnson, R. Narayan, S. S. Doeleman, J. F. C. Wardle, and K. L. Bouman, High-resolution Linear Polarimetric Imaging for the Event Horizon Telescope, Astrophys. J.829, 11 (2016), arXiv:1605.06156

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  39. [39]

    A. A. Chael, K. L. Bouman, M. D. Johnson, and R. Narayan, Interferometric Imaging Directly with Closure Phases and Closure Amplitudes, Astrophys. J.857, 23 (2018), arXiv:1803.07088

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  40. [40]

    Lockhart and S

    W. Lockhart and S. E. Gralla, How narrow is the M87* ring? I. The choice of closure likelihood function, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.509, 3643 (2022), arXiv:2107.06948

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Georgiev, P

    B. Georgiev, P. Tiede, S. D. von Fellenberg,et al., Locating the missing large-scale emission in the jet of M87* with short EHT baselines, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2601.13356 (2026), arXiv:2601.13356 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    A. E. Brodericket al., The Event Horizon of M87, Astrophys. J.820, 137 (2016), arXiv:1602.07701

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    Satapathyet al., The Variability of the Black Hole Image in M87 at the Dynamical Timescale, Astrophys

    K. Satapathyet al., The Variability of the Black Hole Image in M87 at the Dynamical Timescale, Astrophys. J.925, 13 (2022), arXiv:2111.01317

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    D.O.Chang,M.D.Johnson,andP.Tiede,AssessingtheRoleofIntrinsicVariabilityinBlackHoleParameterInferenceUsingMulti-epoch EHT Data, Astrophys. J. Lett.989, L1 (2025), arXiv:2504.05472

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    L. G. Fishbone and V. Moncrief, Relativistic Fluid Disks in Orbit around Kerr Black Holes, Astrophys. J.207, 962 (1976)

    1976

  46. [46]

    De Villiers and J

    J.-P. De Villiers and J. F. Hawley, A Numerical Method for General Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamics, Astrophys. J.589, 458 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0210518

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  47. [47]

    C. F. Gammie, J. C. McKinney, and G. Toth, HARM: A numerical scheme for general relativistic magnetohydrodynamics, Astrophys. J. 589, 444 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0301509

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  48. [48]

    J. C. McKinney and C. F. Gammie, A Measurement of the Electromagnetic Luminosity of a Kerr Black Hole, Astrophys. J.611, 977 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0404512

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  49. [49]

    S. C. Noble, C. F. Gammie, J. C. McKinney, and L. Del Zanna, Primitive Variable Solvers for Conservative General Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamics, Astrophys. J.641, 626 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0512420. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  50. [50]

    Tchekhovskoy, R

    A. Tchekhovskoy, R. Narayan, and J. C. McKinney, Efficient Generation of Jets from Magnetically Arrested Accretion on a Rapidly Spinning Black Hole, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.418, L79 (2011), arXiv:1108.0412

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  51. [51]

    Dexter and E

    J. Dexter and E. Agol, A fast new public code for computing photon orbits in a Kerr spacetime, Astrophys. J.696, 1616 (2009), arXiv:0903.0620

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  52. [52]

    J. C. Dolence, C. F. Gammie, M. Moscibrodzka, and P. K. Leung, grmonty: A Monte Carlo Code for Relativistic Radiative Transport, Astrophys. J. Suppl.184, 387 (2009), arXiv:0909.0708

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  53. [53]

    Younsi, K

    Z. Younsi, K. Wu, and S. V. Fuerst, General Relativistic Radiative Transfer: Formulation and Emission from Structured Tori around Black Holes, Astron. Astrophys.545, A13 (2012), arXiv:1207.4234

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  54. [54]

    F. H. Vincent, T. Paumard, E. Gourgoulhon, and G. Perrin, GYOTO: A New General Relativistic Ray-Tracing Code, Class. Quantum Grav. 28, 225011 (2011), arXiv:1109.4769

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  55. [55]

    C.-k. Chan, D. Psaltis, and F. Ozel, GRay: A Massively Parallel GPU-Based Code for Ray Tracing in Relativistic Spacetimes, Astrophys. J.777, 13 (2013), arXiv:1303.5057

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  56. [56]

    Moscibrodzka, H

    M. Moscibrodzka, H. Falcke, H. Shiokawa, and C. F. Gammie, Polarized radiative transfer in relativistic jets and accretion flows, Astron. Astrophys.586, A38 (2016), arXiv:1510.07243

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  57. [57]

    Bronzwaer, J

    T. Bronzwaer, J. Davelaar, Z. Younsi, M. Moscibrodzka, H. Falcke, M. Kramer, and L. Rezzolla, RAPTOR. I. Time-dependent radiative transfer in arbitrary spacetimes, Astron. Astrophys.613, A2 (2018), arXiv:1801.10452

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  58. [58]

    Chael, M

    A. Chael, M. Rowan, R. Narayan, M. Johnson, and L. Sironi, The role of electron heating physics in images and variability of the Galactic Center black hole Sagittarius A*, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.478, 5209 (2018), arXiv:1804.06416

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  59. [59]

    Porthet al., The Event Horizon General Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamic Code Comparison Project, Astrophys

    O. Porthet al., The Event Horizon General Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamic Code Comparison Project, Astrophys. J. Suppl.243, 26 (2019), arXiv:1904.04923

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  60. [60]

    Goldet al., Verification of Radiative Transfer Schemes for the EHT, Astrophys

    R. Goldet al., Verification of Radiative Transfer Schemes for the EHT, Astrophys. J.897, 148 (2020), arXiv:2002.04273

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    Bronzwaer, Z

    T. Bronzwaer, Z. Younsi, J. Davelaar, and H. Falcke, RAPTOR. II. Polarized Radiative Transfer in Curved Spacetimes, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A126 (2020), arXiv:2007.03045

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    G. N. Wonget al., PATOKA: Simulating Electromagnetic Observables of Black Hole Accretion, Astrophys. J. Suppl.259, 64 (2022), arXiv:2202.11721

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    M. D. Johnsonet al., Universal interferometric signatures of a black hole’s photon ring, Sci. Adv.6, eaaz1310 (2020), arXiv:1907.04329

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    Himwich, M

    E. Himwich, M. D. Johnson, A. Lupsasca, and A. Strominger, Universal polarimetric signatures of the black hole photon ring, Phys. Rev. D101, 084020 (2020), arXiv:2001.08750

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  65. [65]

    Desire, A

    T. Desire, A. Cárdenas-Avendaño, and A. Chael, Multifrequency Models of Black Hole Photon Rings from Low-luminosity Accretion Disks, The Astrophysical Journal980, 262 (2025)

    2025

  66. [66]

    Carter, Global Structure of the Kerr Family of Gravitational Fields, Phys

    B. Carter, Global Structure of the Kerr Family of Gravitational Fields, Phys. Rev.174, 1559 (1968)

    1968

  67. [67]

    J. M. Bardeen, Timelike and null geodesics in the Kerr metric, inBlack Holes, edited by C. DeWitt and B. S. DeWitt (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1973) pp. 215–239

    1973

  68. [68]

    Chandrasekhar,The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1983)

    S. Chandrasekhar,The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1983)

    1983

  69. [69]

    Falcke, F

    H. Falcke, F. Melia, and E. Agol, Viewing the Shadow of the Black Hole at the Galactic Center, Astrophys. J. Lett.528, L13 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9912263

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  70. [70]

    Bozza, Gravitational lensing in the strong field limit, Physical Review D66, 103001 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0208075

    V. Bozza, Gravitational lensing in the strong field limit, Physical Review D66, 103001 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0208075

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  71. [71]

    K.HiokiandK.-i.Maeda,MeasurementoftheKerrspinparameterbyobservationofacompactobject’sshadow,Phys.Rev.D80,024042 (2009), arXiv:0904.3575

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  72. [72]

    Schneider, J

    P. Schneider, J. Ehlers, and E. E. Falco,Gravitational Lenses(Springer, Berlin, 1992)

    1992

  73. [73]

    A. O. Petters, H. Levine, and J. Wambsganss,Singularity Theory and Gravitational Lensing(Birkhäuser, Boston, 2001)

    2001

  74. [74]

    Grenzebach, V

    A. Grenzebach, V. Perlick, and C. Laemmerzahl, Photon regions and shadows of Kerr-Newman-NUT black holes with a cosmological constant, Phys. Rev. D89, 124004 (2014), arXiv:1403.5234

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  75. [75]

    Grenzebach, V

    A. Grenzebach, V. Perlick, and C. Laemmerzahl, Photon regions and shadows of accelerated black holes, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24, 1542024 (2015), arXiv:1503.03036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  76. [76]

    Johannsen and D

    T. Johannsen and D. Psaltis, Testing the No-Hair Theorem with Observations in the Electromagnetic Spectrum. II. Black Hole Images, Astrophys. J.718, 446 (2010), arXiv:1005.1931

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  77. [77]

    Psaltis, Testing General Relativity with the Event Horizon Telescope, Gen

    D. Psaltis, Testing General Relativity with the Event Horizon Telescope, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.51, 137 (2019), arXiv:1806.09740

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    P. V. P. Cunha and C. A. R. Herdeiro, Shadows and Strong Gravitational Lensing: A Brief Review, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.50, 42 (2018), arXiv:1801.00860

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  79. [79]

    S. E. Gralla and A. Lupsasca, Lensing by Kerr Black Holes, Phys. Rev. D101, 044031 (2020), arXiv:1910.12873

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  80. [80]

    S.E.Gralla,A.Lupsasca,andD.P.Marrone,TheShapeoftheBlackHolePhotonRing: APreciseTestofStrong-FieldGeneralRelativity, Phys. Rev. D102, 124004 (2020), arXiv:2008.03879

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.