Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A Schwarzschild black hole embedded in an exponential-spheroid dark matter halo admits an exact analytic metric, with the halo monotonically enlarging the photon sphere and shadow radius.

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

2026-08-01 23:15 UTC pith:EFWRBIWF

load-bearing objection Routine but sound BH-in-halo construction for the exponential profile, undone in its energy-condition section by a sign error that contradicts the paper's own field equations. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15490 v1 pith:EFWRBIWF submitted 2026-07-16 gr-qc

Schwarzschild-like Black Holes Submerged in an Exponential Density Dark Matter Profile

Kuantay Boshkayev , Yassine Sekhmani , Soroush Zare , Hassan Hassanabadi , Shahin Mamedov , Yergali Kurmanov This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords black holesdark matter halosexponential density profilegeneral relativityanalytic solutionsblack hole shadowquasinormal modesgreybody factors
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 sets out to prove that a Schwarzschild black hole can be exactly surrounded by an exponential dark matter halo in general relativity: the full spacetime, with the halo treated as an anisotropic fluid with density ρ=ρ₀ e^(−r/r₀), takes the closed-form metric A(r)=1−2M_BH/r − (2M₀/r)[1 − e^(−r/r₀)(1+r/r₀+r²/(2r₀²))]. This metric reduces to Schwarzschild when the halo mass vanishes and to a regular halo-only spacetime when the black hole mass vanishes, so the construction cleanly interpolates between the two. The paper then converts the solution into observable consequences: the halo monotonically shifts the photon sphere and shadow radius, which allows approximate upper bounds on halo strength from EHT images of M87* and Sgr A*; scalar quasinormal modes computed with a Padé-resummed WKB method remain stable where standard WKB fails; and greybody bounds show the halo suppresses low-frequency transmission. If this picture is right, the exponential-sphere halo serves as a controllable analytic stand-in for environmental dark matter around supermassive black holes, with strong-gravity observables as the probe.

Core claim

Equation (10) is an exact static, spherically symmetric solution of the Einstein equations sourced by an anisotropic fluid with density ρ=ρ₀ e^(−r/r₀), radial pressure p_r = −ρ, and tangential pressure p_t = −m″/(8πr). The metric is asymptotically flat with ADM mass M_BH+M₀, reduces to Schwarzschild when the halo mass vanishes, and to a regular halo-only spacetime when the central mass vanishes. The halo does not remove the black hole's tidal singularity (Kretschmann still diverges as r→0 when M_BH ≠ 0) but does regularize the Ricci invariants. The photon-sphere and shadow radius increase monotonically with halo mass M₀ and decrease with scale radius r₀, so EHT shadow measurements bound the

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the metric ansatz A(r) = B(r) = 1 − 2m(r)/r, which forces the halo fluid to have radial pressure p_r = −ρ and reduces the Einstein equations to algebraic relations between the mass function m(r), the density ρ(r), and the tangential pressure p_t(r). With the exponential density profile ρ = ρ₀ e^(−r/r₀) inserted into the mass integral, everything integrates in closed form, yielding the dressed metric. This ansatz is what turns the phenomenological halo profile into an exact spacetime; the price is the exotic equation of state p_r = −ρ.

Load-bearing premise

The whole solution rests on the ansatz A=B=1−2m/r, which forces the dark matter to have radial pressure p_r = −ρ; if real dark matter is effectively pressureless and collisionless, as usually assumed, this exact spacetime does not describe a realistic galactic halo.

What would settle it

Measure the shadow of Sgr A* (or M87*) with future millimeter VLBI to sub-percent precision while independently determining the enclosed mass near the photon sphere from stellar orbits: if the shadow radius is found to shrink as the surrounding mass grows, or to deviate from the Schwarzschild value in a direction opposite to the predicted monotonic increase, the dressed metric and its parameter bounds are ruled out. A direct astrophysical demonstration that dark matter near a supermassive black hole has negligible pressure would also falsify the p_r = −ρ equation of state that carries the exac

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

If this is right

  • The halo raises the extremal black-hole mass threshold: for a given halo, there is a minimum central mass below which the horizon disappears, so dark matter can make a horizon exist where a bare Schwarzschild horizon would not.
  • EHT shadow observations of M87* and Sgr A* give one-sided upper bounds on the halo parameters (roughly M₀ ≲ 0.9 and r₀ ≲ 20 at 1σ for M87*, tighter for Sgr A*), meaning any such halo around these two black holes must be diffuse and compact.
  • Scalar quasinormal modes shift: stronger or more extended halos lower the oscillation frequency and the damping rate, so ringdown modes become longer-lived; the standard WKB approximation becomes unreliable for strong-halo, high-overtone cases, while Padé-resummed WKB stays regular.
  • Greybody bounds show that the halo suppresses transmission through the effective potential barrier, particularly at low frequencies, so scalar emission is less efficient in the presence of the halo.
  • Because the spacetime is exact and asymptotically flat, all strong-field observables (lensing, ISCO, orbital precession) can in principle be read off from the same metric function, making the solution a reusable template for halo-environment studies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the exponential profile is chosen ad hoc from a rotation-curve fit rather than derived from dark-matter physics, the exactness of the metric does not by itself make it a realistic galactic halo model; its main value is as a controlled template for how any extended low-density matter distribution reshapes strong-gravity observables.
  • The same A(r)=B(r) ansatz can generate exact halo-dressed black hole metrics for any density profile whose mass integral is closed-form, so the construction generalizes immediately to other one-parameter halo shapes (Gaussian or cored isothermal), provided one accepts the p_r = −ρ equation of state.
  • The predicted monotonic shadow growth with halo mass suggests a falsifiable hierarchy: if future high-resolution shadow measurements of Sgr A* are consistent with bare Schwarzschild while orbital data independently require a dense cusp, the exponential-sphere dressing is excluded—the shadow test and the stellar-orbit test must agree.
  • Since the halo slows down quasinormal damping and suppresses greybody transmission, similar exact mixtures for rotating black holes would be expected to split ringdown frequencies and alter the shadow shape asymmetrically; extending the construction beyond spherical symmetry is the natural next step.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs an exact static, spherically symmetric solution of the Einstein equations whose mass function is the sum of a central black hole mass and an exponential-profile dark matter halo, Eq. (10). It then studies curvature invariants, pointwise energy conditions, photon-sphere/shadow properties with EHT constraints, scalar quasinormal modes using Padé-resummed and standard WKB, and greybody bounds. The metric construction is analytic and the MBH→0 and M0→0 limits are correctly identified. The paper's advertised energy-condition results are, however, internally inconsistent: Eq. (16) has the opposite sign of p_t from Eq. (7), Eq. (11) has the wrong sign for the Ricci scalar, and the scalar-perturbation potential is written in two mutually inconsistent forms, Eqs. (34) and (35). These issues affect the abstract and the QNM section, not merely the presentation.

Significance. If corrected, the solution is a useful phenomenological toy model for black holes embedded in a dark-matter-like fluid: it is exact, asymptotically flat, and reduces cleanly to Schwarzschild and to a regular halo spacetime in the appropriate limits. The shadow and QNM trends are qualitatively interesting, and the Padé-resummed WKB comparison is a worthwhile methodological check. The strengths are the analytic closed form of the metric and the explicit limiting checks. The current version cannot be accepted because the energy-condition statements in the abstract and Section II.A are false as written, and the QNM calculation uses an effective potential that is not uniquely specified.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II.A, Eqs. (7) and (16)] There is a sign error in the transverse pressure. From the mass function (9), m'' = (M0/(2r0^2)) e^{-r/r0} (r/r0)(2 - r/r0), and Eq. (7) then gives p_t = -m''/(8πr) = ρ0 e^{-r/r0}(r/(2r0) - 1), which is the opposite of Eq. (16). This is not cosmetic: with the correct p_t, ρ - |p_t| = ρ0 e^{-r/r0}(2 - r/(2r0)), which becomes negative for r > 4r0, so the dominant energy condition is violated. Likewise, ρ + Σ p_i = 2p_t = ρ0 e^{-r/r0}(r/r0 - 2), so the strong energy condition is violated for r < 2r0, i.e. near the origin, not on the exterior finite interval described in the text. The justification using A'(r)<0 and A''(r)>0 is also invalid because A'' changes sign asymptotically. The abstract, Eqs. (15)-(16), the bullets in §II.A, Fig. 1, and the conclusion must be corrected.
  2. [§II.A, Eq. (11)] The Ricci scalar has the wrong sign. Using the stress tensor from Eq. (7), R = -8πT = 8πρ0(4 - r/r0)e^{-r/r0}, equivalently R = - (M0/r0^4) e^{-r/r0}(r - 4r0). Equation (11) has the opposite sign. In particular, R(0) = +4M0/r0^3, not -4M0/r0^3 as stated. The regularity conclusion is unaffected, but the displayed invariant and its quoted central value are incorrect.
  3. [§IV.A and §V, Eqs. (34) and (35)] The scalar effective potential is written in two incompatible forms. For the metric (1)-(2), where A=B=f, Eq. (34) reduces to V = f[ℓ(ℓ+1)/r^2 + f f'/r], whereas Eq. (35) gives V = f[ℓ(ℓ+1)/r^2 + f'/r], which is the standard potential for a massless scalar in a Schwarzschild-like metric. These differ by a factor of f in the second term. If Tables I and II and Fig. 6 were computed with Eq. (34), the QNM frequencies are not those of the stated Schrödinger-like problem; if they were computed with Eq. (35), Eq. (34) should be corrected. In either case the inconsistency must be resolved, and the Schwarzschild limit should be verified explicitly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§III, Eqs. (18)-(20)] The metric function is denoted A(r) in the construction but f(r) in the shadow section. Please use one notation throughout. Also, Eq. (20) writes V_eff = f(r)/r^2, which should read A(r)/r^2 if A is the lapse function.
  2. [§V, Eqs. (36)-(38)] The spacetime is asymptotically flat, so there is no cosmological horizon; Eq. (37) should integrate from the event horizon to infinity, not to a 'cosmological horizon' R_H. The greybody bound for a single-horizon spacetime is obtained with the upper limit at infinity.
  3. [General] Minor editorial issues: Section III's title contains '(REVISED BY SOROUSH)', there is a stray '1' in the paragraph after Eq. (2), and reference [85] appears to duplicate reference [77]. The text should be cleaned before submission.
  4. [§III, Fig. 5 and EHT constraints] The contour description appears to have an inconsistency: the 2σ confidence region is wider than the 1σ region, yet the reported approximate bound on r0 is smaller at 2σ (r0 ≲ 13) than at 1σ (r0 ≲ 20). Please check the contour map or explain the effect of the correlated M0 dependence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the metric is a direct exact solution of Einstein's equations for an assumed density profile; all subsequent observables are genuine consequences, not the inputs repackaged.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained: the paper assumes a static, spherically symmetric metric with A(r)=B(r)=1-2m(r)/r and an exponential density profile rho(r)=rho0 e^{-r/r0}, integrates the mass function, and obtains the lapse function A(r) in Eq. (10). This is a standard exact-solution construction: the density profile is an input, and the metric is derived from it by integrating the Einstein equations. The radial pressure relation p_r=-rho follows algebraically from the metric ansatz and is an assumption of the model, not a hidden use of the target result. The subsequent analysis — curvature invariants, energy conditions, photon sphere, shadow radius, quasinormal modes, and greybody bounds — is computed from the derived metric and the stress tensor, so none of these outputs is equivalent to the inputs by construction. The EHT constraints are used as external data to place bounds on the free halo parameters, not as fitted inputs that are later relabeled as predictions. Self-citations appear (e.g., Refs. [51], [60], [74]-[77]), but they are not load-bearing for the metric derivation or for the main physical claims; they support contextual statements about halo modeling and numerical methods, and the core solution is independently derived within this paper. The paper's energy-condition statements may contain an algebraic sign issue (a scientific correctness concern), but that is not circularity. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central metric is a direct integration of the Einstein equations given an assumed density profile. The only free inputs are the halo parameters (ρ0, r0 or equivalently M0, r0) and the exotic p_r = -ρ equation of state. No new entities or forces are introduced; the exponential halo is a known empirical profile.

free parameters (3)
  • ρ0 (characteristic halo density)
    Free input of the phenomenological exponential density profile (Eq. 8). Constrained indirectly through EHT shadow limits via M0 = 8πρ0r0³.
  • r0 (halo scale radius) = r0 ≲ 20 M (M87*, 1σ); r0 ≲ 20 M (Sgr A*, 1σ)
    Free input of the exponential profile (Eq. 8). Approximate upper bound from EHT shadow contours in Section III.
  • M0 (total halo mass) = M0 ≲ 0.9 M (M87*, 1σ); M0 ≲ 0.04 M (Sgr A*, 1σ)
    Equivalent to ρ0 via M0 = 8πρ0r0³; appears in the metric (10). Constrained from shadow fits.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Einstein field equations with G=c=1 hold
    Underlying theory; cited in Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption Static, spherically symmetric metric with A(r)=B(r)=1-2m(r)/r
    Eqs. (1)-(2). This ansatz forces p_r=-ρ.
  • ad hoc to paper Dark matter density is the exponential profile ρ=ρ0 e^{-r/r0}
    Eq. (8), taken from Sofue (2013). No derivation from particle physics.
  • domain assumption Dark matter can be modeled as a relativistic anisotropic fluid
    Introduction, following Levkov et al. [49] and Boshkayev-Malafarina [51].
  • domain assumption Scalar perturbations with no backreaction
    Section IV, Eqs. (29)-(33).
  • ad hoc to paper WKB/Pade-resummed expansion converges to the correct QNM spectrum
    Section IV.A; not validated against fully numerical QNM solver.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19152 in / 49560 out tokens · 391932 ms · 2026-08-01T23:15:37.274586+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study a class of Schwarzschild black holes embedded in an exponential-spheroidal dark matter halo, modelled by a phenomenological density profile $\rho(r)=\rho_0 e^{-r/r_0}$. By solving the Einstein equations for a static, spherically symmetric spacetime, we obtain an analytic solution for the lapse function that reduces to the Schwarzschild spacetime in the absence of the halo and to a regular halo configuration when the central black hole mass vanishes. Indeed, the two halo parameters, $\rho_0$ and $r_0$, describe the strength and radial extent of the dark matter distribution. We analyse the curvature structure, energy conditions, shadow observables, scalar quasi-normal modes and grey-body bounds of the resulting spacetime. The Ricci scalar and the Ricci square remain finite at the origin, whilst the Kretschmann scalar retains the usual central tidal singularity in the presence of a black hole mass. The weak, null, and dominant energy conditions are satisfied, whilst the strong energy condition is violated on a finite radial interval. We also show that the halo monotonically shifts the photon sphere and the shadow radius, which allows us to derive approximate constraints from the EHT observations of M87* and Sgr A*. For scalar perturbations, the Pad\'{e}-resummed WKB approximation yields stable quasinormal frequencies, while the standard WKB approximation becomes unreliable for higher overtones and strong-halo configurations. Finally, the greybody bounds indicate that the halo weakens transmission through the effective barrier, particularly at low frequencies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15490 by Hassan Hassanabadi, Kuantay Boshkayev, Shahin Mamedov, Soroush Zare, Yassine Sekhmani, Yergali Kurmanov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The metric function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Plots of the effective potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The upper panels display the photon-sphere radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Density of the shadow radius as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The scalar potential variation for various value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The scalar QNMs real frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Rigorous lower bounds on greybody factors of scalar massless field for various values of the parameters pair [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Gravitational Wave Signatures of Periodic Orbits around a Schwarzschild-like Black Holes Submerged in an Exponential Density Dark Matter Profile

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    EMRI waveforms around an ESM-dressed Schwarzschild black hole respond strongly and monotonically to halo scale radius r0, but only weakly to halo mass M0 unless M0 is a large fraction of the black-hole mass.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 66 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (Macmillan, 1973)

    1973

  2. [2]

    Bartelmann, Class

    M. Bartelmann, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 233001 (2010), arXiv:1010.3829 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    R. S. Park, W. M. Folkner, A. S. Konopliv, J. G. Williams, D. E. Smith, and M. T. Zuber, Astron. J. 153, 121 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    M. A. Hohensee, S. Chu, A. Peters, and H. Mueller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 151102 (2011), arXiv:1102.4362 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    I. I. Shapiro, Physical Review Letters 13, 789 (1964)

    1964

  6. [6]

    Christian, D

    P. Christian, D. Psaltis, and A. Loeb, The Astrophysical Journal 820, 139 (2016), arXiv:1511.01901 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Shirokov, General Relativity and Gravitation 4, 131 (1973)

    M. Shirokov, General Relativity and Gravitation 4, 131 (1973)

    1973

  8. [8]

    Momynov, K

    S. Momynov, K. Boshkayev, H. Quevedo, F. Belissarova, A. Dalelkhankyzy, A. Taukenova, A. Urazalina, and D. Utepova, General Relativity and Gravitation 57, 91 (2025), arXiv:2412.06598 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Idrissov, K

    A. Idrissov, K. Boshkayev, S. Momynov, H. Quevedo, D. Utepova, A. Urazalina, and B. Baitimbetova, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2605.01639 (2026), arXiv:2605.01639 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    Idrissov, K

    A. Idrissov, K. Boshkayev, A. Tlemissov, and H. Quevedo, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2606.23912 (2026), arXiv:2606.23912 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [13]

    A. M. Ghez et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 586, L127 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302299

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  13. [14]

    Nagao, K

    T. Nagao, K. Maeda, and M. Tanaka, Astrophys. J. 847, 111 (2017), arXiv:1709.02077 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [15]

    M. H. P. M. van Putten, Astrophys. J. 837, 22 (2017)

    2017

  15. [16]

    A. Laor, J. N. Bahcall, B. T. Jannuzi, D. P. Schneider, R. F. Green, and G. F. Hartig, Astrophys. J. 420, 110 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9305026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  16. [17]

    Eisenhauer, R

    F. Eisenhauer, R. Schoedel, R. Genzel, T. Ott, M. Tecza, R. Abuter, A. Eckart, and T. Alexander, Astrophys. J. Lett. 597, L121 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0306220

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  17. [18]

    Boehle et al

    A. Boehle et al. , Astrophys. J. 830, 17 (2016), arXiv:1607.05726 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [19]

    Lacroix, Astron

    T. Lacroix, Astron. Astrophys. 619, A46 (2018), arXiv:1801.01308 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [20]

    Della Monica, I

    R. Della Monica, I. de Martino, and M. de Laurentis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 510, 4757 (2022), arXiv:2105.12687 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [22]

    Foschi et al

    A. Foschi et al. (GRA VITY), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524, 1075 (2023), arXiv:2306.17215 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [23]

    Xamidov, S

    T. Xamidov, S. Shaymatov, B. Ahmedov, and T. Zhu, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2026, 044 (2026), arXiv:2503.06750 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  22. [24]

    C. O. Wright and T. G. Brainerd, (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9908213

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  23. [25]

    H. S. D´ umet-Montoya, G. B. Caminha, and M. Makler, Astron. Astrophys. 560, A86 (2013), arXiv:1304.0425 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  24. [26]

    Haghi, A

    H. Haghi, A. Khodadadi, A. Ghari, A. H. Zonoozi, and P. Kroupa, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 477, 4187 (2018)

    2018

  25. [27]

    Vogelsberger, F

    M. Vogelsberger, F. Marinacci, P. Torrey, and E. Puchwein, Nature Reviews Physics 2, 42 (2020)

    2020

  26. [28]

    R. E. Angulo and O. Hahn, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics 8, 1 (2022)

    2022

  27. [29]

    Moore, F

    B. Moore, F. Governato, T. R. Quinn, J. Stadel, and G. Lake, Astrophys. J. Lett. 499, L5 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9709051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  28. [30]

    Diemand, B

    J. Diemand, B. Moore, and J. Stadel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 353, 624 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0402267

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  29. [31]

    Y. P. Jing, Astrophys. J. 535, 30 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9809397

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  30. [32]

    H. C. Plummer, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 71, 460 (1911)

    1911

  31. [33]

    Buyle, C

    P. Buyle, C. Hunter, and H. Dejonghe, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 375, 773 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0611746

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  32. [35]

    P. J. E. Peebles, Astronomical Journal 75, 13 (1970)

    1970

  33. [36]

    Jaffe, Mon

    W. Jaffe, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 202, 995 (1983)

    1983

  34. [37]

    Hernquist, Astrophys

    L. Hernquist, Astrophys. J. 356, 359 (1990)

    1990

  35. [38]

    Zhao, Mon

    H. Zhao, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 278, 488 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9509122

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  36. [39]

    Aghanim et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [40]

    W. J. G. de Blok, Adv. Astron. 2010, 789293 (2010), arXiv:0910.3538 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  38. [41]

    Donato, G

    F. Donato, G. Gentile, P. Salucci, C. F. Martins, M. I. Wilkinson, G. Gilmore, E. K. Grebel, A. Koch, and R. Wyse, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 397, 1169 (2009), arXiv:0904.4054 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  39. [42]

    Maeda, V

    K.-i. Maeda, V. Cardoso, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 111, 044060 (2025), arXiv:2410.04175 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [43]

    P. G. S. Fernandes and V. Cardoso, (2025), arXiv:2505.00563 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [44]

    Figueiredo, A

    E. Figueiredo, A. Maselli, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 107, 104033 (2023), arXiv:2303.08183 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [45]

    ¨Ovg¨ un and R

    A. ¨Ovg¨ un and R. C. Pantig, Phys. Lett. B 864, 139398 (2025), arXiv:2501.12559 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [46]

    ¨Ovg¨ un, L

    A. ¨Ovg¨ un, L. J. F. Sese, and R. C. Pantig, Annalen Phys. 536, 2300390 (2024), arXiv:2309.07442 [gr-qc]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [47]

    Y. Yang, G. Lambiase, A. Ovgun, D. Liu, and Z.-W. Long, (2025), arXiv:2511.07858 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [48]

    Al-Badawi, S

    A. Al-Badawi, S. Shaymatov, and Y. Sekhmani, JCAP 02, 014 (2025), arXiv:2411.01145 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [49]

    D. G. Levkov, A. G. Panin, and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 151301 (2018), arXiv:1804.05857 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [50]

    Sofue, Publ

    Y. Sofue, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap. 65, 118 (2013), arXiv:1307.8241 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  48. [51]

    Boshkayev and D

    K. Boshkayev and D. Malafarina, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 484, 3325 (2019), arXiv:1811.04061 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [52]

    Matos, F

    T. Matos, F. S. Guzman, and D. Nunez, Phys. Rev. D 62, 061301 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003398

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  50. [53]

    Z. Xu, X. Hou, X. Gong, and J. Wang, JCAP 09, 038 (2018), arXiv:1803.00767 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [54]

    P. V. P. Cunha and C. A. R. Herdeiro, General Relativity and Gravitation 50, 42 (2018), arXiv:1801.00860 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [55]

    Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes (Oxford University Press, 1998)

    S. Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes (Oxford University Press, 1998)

    1998

  53. [56]

    Stuchl ´ ık and J

    Z. Stuchl ´ ık and J. Schee, European Physical Journal C 79, 44 (2019)

    2019

  54. [57]

    Stuchl ´ ık, J

    Z. Stuchl ´ ık, J. Schee, and D. Ovchinnikov, Astrophys. J. 887, 145 (2019)

    2019

  55. [58]

    Capozziello, S

    S. Capozziello, S. Zare, D. F. Mota, and H. Hassanabadi, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023, 027 (2023), arXiv:2303.13554 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [59]

    Capozziello, S

    S. Capozziello, S. Zare, L. M. Nieto, and H. Hassanabadi, Physics of the Dark Universe 50, 102065 (2025), arXiv:2311.12896 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [60]

    L. M. Nieto, F. Hosseinifar, K. Boshkayev, S. Zare, and H. Hassanabadi, Physics of the Dark Universe 50, 102151 (2025), arXiv:2507.14305 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [61]

    Meng, X.-M

    Y. Meng, X.-M. Kuang, X.-J. Wang, B. Wang, and J.-P. Wu, European Physical Journal C 84, 305 (2024), arXiv:2401.05634 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [62]

    Meng, X.-M

    Y. Meng, X.-M. Kuang, X.-J. Wang, B. Wang, and J.-P. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 108, 064013 (2023), arXiv:2306.10459 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [63]

    R. A. Konoplya, Physics Letters B 795, 1 (2019), arXiv:1905.00064 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  61. [64]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  62. [65]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 875, L5 (2019), arXiv:1906.11242 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  63. [66]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 875, L6 (2019), arXiv:1906.11243 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  64. [67]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 930, L12 (2022)

    2022

  65. [68]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 930, L17 (2022)

    2022

  66. [69]

    T. Do, A. Hees, A. Ghez, G. D. Martinez, D. S. Chu, S. Jia, S. Sakai, J. R. Lu, A. K. Gautam, K. K. O’Neil, E. E. Becklin, M. R. Morris, K. Matthews, S. Nishiyama, R. Campbell, S. Chappell, Z. Chen, A. Ciurlo, A. Dehghanfar, E. Gallego-Cano, W. E. Kerzendorf, J. E. Lyke, S. Naoz, H. Saida, R. Sch¨ odel, M. Takahashi, Y. Takamori, G. Witzel, and P. Wizinow...

    arXiv 2019

  67. [70]

    GRA VITY Collaboration, Astronomy & Astrophysics 657, L12 (2022), arXiv:2112.07478 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  68. [71]

    GRA VITY Collaboration, Astronomy & Astrophysics 636, L5 (2020), arXiv:2004.07187 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  69. [72]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboratio, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104047 (2021), arXiv:2105.09343 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  70. [73]

    Vagnozzi, R

    S. Vagnozzi, R. Roy, Y.-D. Tsai, L. Visinelli, M. Afrin, A. Allahyari, P. Bambhaniya, D. Dey, S. G. Ghosh, P. S. Joshi, K. Jusufi, M. Khodadi, R. K. Walia, A. ¨Ovg¨ un, and C. Bambi, Classical and Quantum Gravity 40, 165007 (2023), arXiv:2205.07787 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  71. [74]

    S. Zare, L. M. Nieto, X.-H. Feng, S.-H. Dong, and H. Hassanabadi, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024, 041 (2024), arXiv:2406.07300 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [75]

    S. Zare, T. Zhu, L. M. Nieto, S. Lu, and H. Hassanabadi, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2026, 059 (2026), arXiv:2510.05166 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  73. [76]

    S. Zare, L. M. Nieto, F. Hosseinifar, X.-H. Feng, and H. Hassanabadi, Physics Letters B 859, 139125 (2024), arXiv:2407.12142 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [78]

    L. Meng, Z. Xu, and M. Tang, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.05015 (2025), arXiv:2506.05015 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [79]

    Mashhoon, Proceedings of the Third Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity , 599 (1983)

    B. Mashhoon, Proceedings of the Third Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity , 599 (1983)

    1983

  76. [80]

    B. F. Schutz and C. M. Will, Astrophys. J. 291, L33 (1985)

    1985

  77. [81]

    Iyer and C

    S. Iyer and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 35, 3621 (1987)

    1987

  78. [82]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Rev. D 68, 024018 (2003)

    2003

  79. [83]

    R. A. Konoplya, A. Zhidenko, and A. F. Zinhailo, Class. Quantum Gravity 36, 155002 (2019)

    2019

  80. [84]

    A. N. Malybayev, K. A. Boshkayev, and V. D. Ivashchuk, European Physical Journal C 81, 475 (2021), arXiv:2103.10920 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.