Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 68 references

The paper argues that generalized entropy fixes only the horizon temperature response, and the sign of that response alone controls the direction of every computed accretion observable—photon sphere, ISCO, shadow, efficiency, and neutrino m

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 01:03 UTC pith:ZOMC3NSM

load-bearing objection Well-executed parametric study of a one-parameter Schwarzschild deformation, but the central claim overreaches: the entropy fixes only the horizon temperature, so the 'direct link' to observables is really a property of the chosen exterior profile. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16337 v1 pith:ZOMC3NSM submitted 2026-07-16 gr-qc hep-th

On Accretion and Neutrino Investigations of Thermodynamically Reconstructed Black Holes from Three-Parameter Generalized Entropy

F. Barzi , W. El Hadri , H. El Moumni , K. Masmar , S. Mazzou This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-th MSC 83C5783C10
keywords generalized entropyhorizon responseblack hole thermodynamicsthermodynamic reconstructionphoton sphereISCONovikov-Thorne diskneutrino temperature moments
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 direct route from generalized black-hole entropy to observable accretion signatures. Its strategy is to let the entropy fix only the horizon response factor, which sets the horizon temperature, and then reconstruct the exterior geometry by requiring its surface gravity to match that temperature. Within the one-parameter family of metrics they propose, the sign of the resulting temperature shift controls the direction of every strong-field observable: positive shift pulls the photon sphere and ISCO inward, shrinks the shadow, raises radiative efficiency, and concentrates the disk emission; negative shift does the opposite. The paper also shows that neutrino-sensitive temperature moments amplify the effect as the temperature exponent increases. If right, it means a single scalar—the sign of the entropy-induced horizon temperature change—predicts the direction of a whole suite of disk and shadow observations.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the three-parameter generalized entropy (Eq. 5) determines, through the first law, the horizon response factor Ξ_h = dS_G/dS|_{S_h}, which fixes the generalized temperature T_G = T_H/Ξ_h. Requiring a static effective metric to have surface gravity reproducing T_G yields f_G(r) = (1 - r_h/r)(1 + λ_G (r_h/r)^p) with λ_G = 1/Ξ_h - 1 and p ≥ 2 a radial-localization integer. For λ_G > 0 (generalized temperature above Hawking's), the photon sphere and ISCO shift inward, the critical shadow scale shrinks by a factor 1 - (λ_G/2)(2/3)^p at leading order, the Novikov–Thorne radiative efficiency rises, and the energy release concentrates near the inner disk; λ_G < 0 re

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the horizon response factor Ξ_h = dS_G/dS|S_h, evaluated from the three-parameter entropy S_G. It converts the entropy deformation into a temperature ratio T_G/T_H = 1/Ξ_h, and through the surface-gravity matching condition it becomes the dimensionless metric deformation λ_G = 1/Ξ_h - 1 in the ansatz f_G(r) = (1 - r_h/r)(1 + λ_G (r_h/r)^p). The identity T_geo = f'_G(r_h)/(4π) = (1+λ_G)/(4π r_h) = T_G is what ties the geometry to the thermodynamics; everything else—photon sphere, ISCO, flux, moments—follows from this single matching.

Load-bearing premise

The exterior metric is assumed to take the specific form f_G(r) = (1 - r_h/r)(1 + λ_G (r_h/r)^p) with p ≥ 2; the generalized entropy fixes only the horizon derivative, so if the true radial profile differs, the computed signs and magnitudes of the accretion observables could change.

What would settle it

Compare the direction of the shadow-size shift with the direction of the ISCO/efficiency shift on one source: the paper predicts they always move oppositely to each other (a smaller shadow comes with a higher efficiency). A single object that shows a smaller shadow but a lower disk efficiency—or the reverse—would falsify the claim that one sign controls the whole chain.

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

If this is right

  • For positive λ_G, the ISCO moves inside 3 r_h (x_ISCO ≈ 2.84 at λ_G = 0.2, p=2), letting the disk extend deeper into the well and raising the Novikov–Thorne efficiency by about 6% over Schwarzschild.
  • The angular shadow diameter decreases by roughly 4% at λ_G = 0.2 (p=2); since mass and distance are unchanged by construction, this is a clean, testable deviation from the Schwarzschild prediction for the same source.
  • The hierarchy |R_ν^(9)-1| > |R_ν^(6)-1| > |R_ν^(4)-1| means that diagnostics with steeper thermal dependence (pair or annihilation-like, n=9) magnify the entropy deformation; a 20% positive λ_G yields a ~25% enhancement of the n=9 moment at p=2.
  • The energy-at-infinity distribution concentrates inward: x_50 drops from 15.64 to 14.80 and C_20 rises from 0.582 to 0.599 (p=2), so the deformation is a genuine radial redistribution, not just a rescaling of luminosity.
  • In the no-bending redshift proxy, the spectral peak frequency shifts only slightly while the amplitude changes by ~6%, so a normalized amplitude change at fixed source parameters would point to this class of modifications.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not claim uniqueness: the entropy fixes only the horizon derivative, and the radial profile f_G(r) in Eq. (28) is an assumed ansatz. An inference is that replacing this ansatz with any other profile having the same f'(r_h) could alter the computed signs or magnitudes, so the advertised 'direct link' is really a statement about this one-parameter family.
  • The same horizon-matching logic could be applied to rotating spacetimes by imposing the generalized temperature on the surface gravity of a Kerr-like solution; the ISCO and shadow shifts would then couple to spin, offering a route to break degeneracies between entropy deformation and spin.
  • Because the annihilation-weighted moment R_ν̄ν^(9) is more sensitive to p than the geodesic quantities, a full neutrino-dominated accretion flow calculation—which would add density and composition dependence—should show an even sharper inner-disk response, making hyperaccretion systems a stronger test bed than the dimensionless moments used here.
  • A sharper observational discriminator would be measuring shadow size and an ISCO-derived efficiency proxy simultaneously on the same source; the paper predicts a correlated sign pattern (smaller shadow goes with higher efficiency), and that correlation, not any single number, is the distinctive testable 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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a static, spherically symmetric 'effective' black-hole metric intended to encode a deformation of the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy through the horizon response factor Ξ_h = dS_G/dS|_{S_h} (Eq. 14). The generalized first law gives T_G = T_H/Ξ_h (Eq. 17), and the paper requires the surface gravity of the effective metric to match T_G, i.e. f'_G(r_h) = (1+λ_G)/r_h with λ_G = 1/Ξ_h − 1. It then adopts the one-parameter-plus-index family Eq. (28), with integer p ≥ 2, and computes photon sphere, shadow scale, ISCO, epicyclic frequencies, Novikov–Thorne flux and temperature, energy-at-infinity luminosity, a no-bending redshift proxy, and temperature moments with exponents n = 4, 6, 9. The central claim is that the sign of λ_G controls the direction of all strong-field observables, thereby providing a direct route from generalized entropy to accretion-related signatures.

Significance. If the claimed link were robust, the paper would provide a clean observational route from entropy deformations to disk/shadow observables. The execution has genuine strengths: the Newtonian limit of the flux (Eqs. 85–87), the eL∞ = η_NT check (Eq. 95), the Schwarzschild epicyclic ratio (Eq. 79), and the explicit first-order expansions are internally consistent, and the authors are transparent that the neutrino sector is a set of thermal moments rather than a transport calculation. However, the central link is not robust: the entropy fixes only the horizon slope, and the paper's advertised conclusions are driven by the ansatz Eq. (28). The conditional value of the paper is therefore as a study of that metric family, not as a derivation of accretion signatures from generalized entropy.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (28) and Eqs. (31)–(32)] The metric is not reconstructed from the entropy; only f'_G(r_h) is fixed. Equations (31)–(32) are identities for any f_G with f_G(r_h) = 0 and f'_G(r_h) = (1+λ_G)/r_h. The choice Eq. (28) is an unproven ansatz. This is load-bearing because the advertised 'direct link' in the abstract and Sec. VIII depends on the sign of the ISCO/shadow shifts, and that sign is not universal. For example, the one-parameter family f_G(r) = (1 − r_h/r)[1 + λ_G e^{−k(r/r_h − 1)}] satisfies f_G(r_h) = 0, f'_G(r_h) = (1+λ_G)/r_h, and Schwarzschild asymptotics for every k > 0, hence satisfies the paper's thermodynamic matching. A first-order expansion of the marginal-stability condition Eq. (67) around x = 3 gives δx_ISCO/λ_G = 36 k(2/3 − k)e^{−2k}, which is positive for 0 < k < 2/3 and negative for k > 2/3. Thus with k = 1/2 a positive λ_G moves the ISCO outward, directly contradicting the central trend summa
  2. [Sec. VIII and abstract] Because the radial profile is arbitrary, the parameter p is not an entropy parameter, and the three-parameter entropy reduces, for observable purposes, to the single number λ_G. The statement in Sec. VIII that 'the reconstruction provides a direct route from generalized horizon entropy to accretion-related strong-field signatures' is therefore not supported. Moreover, Table I shows that p is a significant modeling freedom: at fixed λ_G = 0.2, the efficiency varies from 0.0593 (p = 4) to 0.0610 (p = 3), and the shadow ratio from 0.9572 (p = 2) to 0.9798 (p = 4). A selection principle for p, or an observational constraint on it, would be needed for quantitative predictions. At minimum, the conclusions should be reframed as statements about the one-parameter family Eq. (28), not about the generalized entropy itself.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title and Sec. VI] The title and abstract use 'Neutrino Investigations', but Sec. VI explicitly disclaims a neutrino-dominated accretion flow or annihilation-deposition model and defines only dimensionless temperature moments. Consider retitling or softening, e.g., 'temperature-moment diagnostics motivated by neutrino processes', to match the actual content.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (23)] All observables depend only on λ_G; the parameters α, β enter only through the reconstruction of γ. Please state explicitly that the three-parameter entropy is effectively collapsed to one effective parameter plus the profile index p, and consider whether the title should reflect this reduced dependence.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] 'dipected' should be 'depicted'.
  4. [Sec. VI, Eq. (113)] The kernel W_{νν̄} is called 'heuristic', which is appropriate. Please add one sentence making clear that Q^{(n)}_{νν̄} is not a physical annihilation rate: no neutrino redshift, collision-angle integration, or cross-section factors are included. This is stated for Eq. (115), but the wording around Eq. (113) could be clearer.
  5. [Sec. V.B, Eqs. (98)–(100)] The no-bending proxy would benefit from a brief explanation of the sign convention for b_φ; currently the reader must infer that the approaching and receding sides are distinguished by the sign of sin φ.
  6. [Sec. IV, Eq. (70)] 'Since p > 1' should be 'Since p ≥ 2', consistent with the ansatz defined in Eq. (28).

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Central 'direct link' from entropy to accretion observables reduces to a chosen metric ansatz whose temperature matching is an identity; the predicted trends are properties of the profile, not of the generalized entropy.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III.A, Eqs. (28)-(32); abstract and conclusion]
    "fG(r) = (1 − rh/r)(1 + λG (rh/r)^p), p ≥ 2 ... The surface-gravity temperature is Tgeo = f'_G(rh)/4π = (1+λG)/(4πrh). Using the definition λG = 1/Ξh − 1, this becomes Tgeo = 1/(4πrh Ξh) = TG. Thus the metric reconstruction is thermodynamically tied to the generalized entropy through the horizon response factor Ξh."

    The quoted matching is an identity by construction: the ansatz was defined with f'_G(rh) = (1+λG)/rh, so requiring Tgeo = TG is exactly equivalent to the definition λG = 1/Ξh − 1. Thus the metric does not predict the generalized temperature; it is engineered to equal it. All subsequent observables (photon sphere, ISCO, shadow, efficiency, flux, neutrino moments) are computed from this chosen f_G. The abstract's claim that observable signatures 'can be directly linked to generalized entropy via the horizon response' treats this identity as the output of the thermodynamic construction, while the radial profile itself is an unconstrained modeling choice. The authors acknowledge non-uniqueness in the text, but the central advertised result is the sign/structure of these observables, which is a

  2. other [Section IV, Eqs. (57), (70); abstract and conclusion]
    "For small λG, the photon-sphere position admits the perturbative expansion xph = 3/2 − λG p 2^{p−2}/(3p) + O(λ_G^2) ... the ISCO position is xISCO = 3 + λG [4p(1−p)]/(3p) + O(λ_G^2). Since p > 1 ... λG > 0 ⇒ xISCO < 3 ... This analytic result explains the numerical trend."

    The sign of the ISCO and photon-sphere shifts is computed from the specific f_G in Eq. (28). Any other metric with the same horizon derivative f'_G(rh) (i.e., same T_G) and the same Schwarzschild asymptotics would generally give different coefficients and could even give opposite signs. The paper itself states that the entropy fixes only the horizon response and that 'the full radial profile is not claimed to be unique' (Sec. I). Therefore the advertised 'sign of λG controls' the accretion signatures is a consequence of the chosen ansatz, not of the generalized entropy. Calling these trends a prediction from the entropy is a restatement of the ansatz in physical language.

full rationale

The paper is transparent that the generalized entropy fixes only Ξ_h (hence the horizon derivative f'_G(r_h)) and that the exterior metric is a modeling assumption: Eq. (28) is introduced with p an arbitrary integer, and the authors state 'the entropy fixes the horizon response ... but it does not uniquely determine the full radial profile outside the horizon.' That admission prevents a full circularity verdict (score 8–10): the accretion and disk calculations are carried out correctly for the chosen metric and are not secretly importing the final observables as inputs. However, the paper's framing goes beyond that honest caveat. The abstract and conclusion claim a 'direct link' from generalized entropy to ISCO/shadow/efficiency/neutrino-moment responses, with the sign of λ_G controlling the direction of all effects. That link runs through Eqs. (28)-(32), where the temperature matching Tgeo = T_G is a construction identity (λ_G is defined so that f'_G(r_h) yields exactly T_G), and through Eqs. (57)/(70), where the signs are analytic consequences of the specific one-parameter product profile. No uniqueness or robustness proof is given across alternative metrics with the same horizon data. Thus the central directional predictions are, in the sense of pattern 2 (fitted input called prediction), consequences of the ansatz rather than independent output of the thermodynamic input. The neutrino moments and redshift proxies are derivative of the same metric and do not add independent circularity. Because the authors state the non-uniqueness explicitly, the circularity is partial and methodological rather than hidden; score 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central derivation depends on the adopted entropy functional, the first-law identification with fixed ADM mass, the ad hoc metric ansatz (Eq. 28), the standard NT disk assumptions, and the heuristic temperature-moment prescription. The three entropy parameters α,β,γ collapse into the single horizon quantity λ_G, and the remaining shape parameter p is not fixed by thermodynamics.

free parameters (3)
  • λ_G = 1/Ξ_h − 1 = -0.2, 0, 0.2 (scanned)
    Dimensionless horizon-response deformation; related to entropy parameters via Eq. (23), not fitted to data; sign controls qualitative results.
  • p = 2, 3, 4 (scanned)
    Integer controlling radial localization of correction in the metric ansatz Eq. (28); not fixed by thermodynamics; key underdetermination.
  • χ_ν = 1
    Mismatch parameter between photon and neutrino temperature (Eq. 105); set to unity, not varied.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Three-parameter generalized entropy S_G(α,β,γ) of Ref. [18] (Eq. 5) is the entropy functional of the black hole.
    The paper adopts Nojiri-Odintsov-Faraoni entropy without independent motivation over Rényi/Tsallis/Barrow alternatives; all later results depend only on its horizon derivative through λ_G.
  • domain assumption The first law T_G dS_G = dM holds with M = r_h/(2G) as the thermodynamic energy.
    Eqs. (15)-(18); used to derive T_G = T_H/Ξ_h, the key input to the metric reconstruction.
  • ad hoc to paper The exterior metric is static, spherically symmetric, and takes the specific form Eq. (28) with integer p≥2.
    The load-bearing modeling choice; no principle selects this profile, and entropy fixes only f'(rh).
  • domain assumption Novikov-Thorne thin-disk assumptions (geometrically thin, optically thick, circular geodesics, zero torque at ISCO, no interaction between test matter and effective source).
    Sec. V; standard disk model but a significant set of modeling assumptions.
  • ad hoc to paper Neutrino-sensitive physics is represented by dimensionless temperature moments with radial weight x^2 (H∝r) and exponents n=4,6,9.
    Eqs. (106)-(115); explicitly a heuristic temperature diagnostic, not a neutrino transport or annihilation model.
invented entities (1)
  • Effective stress-energy tensor T^μν_eff no independent evidence
    purpose: Serves as source for the non-vacuum metric; parametrizes entropy-induced deviation from Einstein vacuum.
    Introduced in Sec. III.B; explicitly not ordinary matter and may violate energy conditions; no independent observable handle in this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18875 in / 20043 out tokens · 164015 ms · 2026-08-02T01:03:15.019609+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study accretion and neutrino-sensitive thermal signatures of a static black hole reconstructed from a three-parameter generalized entropy. The construction is thermodynamic by design: the entropy deformation is not mapped to a radial-coordinate redefinition or to a prescribed Reissner--Nordstr\"om-like correction. Instead, the generalized entropy fixes the horizon response factor $\Xi_h=dS_G/dS|_{S_h}$. The effective exterior geometry is then reconstructed by requiring its surface-gravity temperature to reproduce the generalized thermodynamic temperature. As a result, the metric preserves the horizon area and the Schwarzschild asymptotics, and reduces smoothly to Schwarzschild when $\Xi_h\to1$. The deformation is controlled by $\lambda_G=1/\Xi_h-1$, while the integer $p\geq2$ determines the radial localization of the near-horizon correction. We compute the photon sphere, critical shadow scale, circular geodesics, ISCO, Novikov--Thorne flux, disk temperature, radiative efficiency, energy-at-infinity luminosity, a redshifted spectral proxy, and neutrino-sensitive temperature moments. In particular, positive $\lambda_G$ moves the photon sphere and ISCO inward, decreases the shadow scale, raises the radiative efficiency, and concentrates the energy release toward the inner disk. By contrast, negative $\lambda_G$ produces the opposite trend. Finally, the neutrino sector is modeled conservatively using dimensionless temperature moments instead of a full neutrino-dominated accretion flow or annihilation-deposition calculation. The hierarchy among the $ n=4$, $n=6$, and $n=9$ moments reveals that entropy-induced disk deformation becomes increasingly apparent with higher temperature exponents. Thus, observable changes in compact orbits and thin-disk emission can be directly linked to generalized entropy via the horizon response.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16337 by F. Barzi, H. El Moumni, K. Masmar, S. Mazzou, W. El Hadri.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Illustrative constraint region in the three-parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Dimensionless Novikov–Thorne flux and effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Compact strong-field quantities as functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Radial distribution of the conserved energy radiated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Thermal measures motivated by neutrino-emitting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.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

68 extracted references · 40 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Jacobson, Phys

    T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 1260 (1995), arXiv:gr- qc/9504004

    arXiv 1995

  2. [2]

    J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter, and S. W. Hawking, Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics31, 161 (1973)

    1973

  3. [3]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Physical Review D7, 2333 (1973)

    1973

  4. [4]

    S. W. Hawking, Communications in Mathematical 17 Physics43, 199 (1975)

    1975

  5. [5]

    Rényi, inProceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Sympo- sium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Vol

    A. Rényi, inProceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Sympo- sium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Vol. 1 (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1961) pp. 547–561

    1961

  6. [6]

    Tsallis, J

    C. Tsallis, J. Statist. Phys.52, 479 (1988)

    1988

  7. [7]

    B.D.SharmaandD.P.Mittal,JournalofCombinatorics, Information and System Sciences2, 122 (1975)

    1975

  8. [8]

    Kaniadakis, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications296, 405 (2001), arXiv:cond-mat/0103467

    G. Kaniadakis, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications296, 405 (2001), arXiv:cond-mat/0103467

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  9. [9]

    In the black-hole context, Rényi statistics has proved espe- cially useful because it can generate nontrivial thermody- namic behavior even in asymptotically flat spacetimes

    are among the most frequently used examples. In the black-hole context, Rényi statistics has proved espe- cially useful because it can generate nontrivial thermody- namic behavior even in asymptotically flat spacetimes. It has been used, in particular, to analyze critical phenom- ena, Hawking–Page-type universality, phase-equilibrium structure, thermodyna...

    1910

  10. [10]

    J. D. Barrow, Phys. Lett. B808, 135643 (2020), arXiv:2004.09444 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Promsiri, E

    C. Promsiri, E. Hirunsirisawat, and W. Liewrian, Phys. Rev. D102, 064014 (2020), arXiv:2003.12986 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    El Moumni, K

    H. El Moumni, K. Masmar, and S. Mazzou, International Journal of Modern Physics D31, 2250040 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    Barzi and H

    F. Barzi and H. El Moumni, Physics Letters B833, 137378 (2022), arXiv:2209.08195 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Promsiri, E

    C. Promsiri, E. Hirunsirisawat, and W. Liewrian, Phys. Rev. D104, 064004 (2021), arXiv:2106.02406 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Barzi, H

    F. Barzi, H. El Moumni, and K. Masmar, General Rela- tivity and Gravitation55, 109 (2023), arXiv:2304.04945 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Barzi, H

    F. Barzi, H. El Moumni, and K. Masmar, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics42, 63 (2024), arXiv:2309.14069 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Nakarachinda, E

    R. Nakarachinda, E. Hirunsirisawat, L. Tannukij, and P. Wongjun, Phys. Rev. D104, 064003 (2021), arXiv:2106.02838 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    F.Barzi, H.ElMoumni,andK.Masmar,NuclearPhysics B1005, 116606 (2024), arXiv:2404.14609 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D 105, 044042 (2022), arXiv:2201.02424 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. Faraoni, Astrophysics 65, 534 (2022), arXiv:2208.10235 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Elizalde, S

    E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, Universe11, 60 (2025), arXiv:2502.05801 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    H. Lu, S. Di Gennaro, and Y. C. Ong, Annals Phys.474, 169914 (2025), arXiv:2407.00484 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    N. I. Shakura and R. A. Sunyaev, Astron. Astrophys.24, 337 (1973)

    1973

  24. [24]

    I. D. Novikov and K. S. Thorne, inBlack Holes, edited by C. DeWitt and B. S. DeWitt (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1973) pp. 343–450

    1973

  25. [25]

    D. N. Page and K. S. Thorne, Astrophys. J.191, 499 (1974)

    1974

  26. [26]

    K. S. Thorne, Astrophys. J.191, 507 (1974)

    1974

  27. [27]

    C. T. Cunningham, Astrophys. J.202, 788 (1975)

    1975

  28. [28]

    Luminet, Astron

    J.-P. Luminet, Astron. Astrophys.75, 228 (1979)

    1979

  29. [29]

    Belhaj, H

    A. Belhaj, H. Belmahi, M. Benali, and H. Moumni El, Chin. J. Phys.80, 229 (2022), arXiv:2204.10150 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Chakhchi, H

    L. Chakhchi, H. El Moumni, and K. Masmar, Phys. Dark Univ.44, 101501 (2024), arXiv:2403.09756 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Shi and H

    Y. Shi and H. Cheng, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2504.15892 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Popham, S

    R. Popham, S. E. Woosley, and C. Fryer, Astrophysical Journal518, 356 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9807028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  33. [33]

    Di Matteo, R

    T. Di Matteo, R. Perna, and R. Narayan, Astrophysical Journal579, 706 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0207319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  34. [34]

    Chen and A

    W.-X. Chen and A. M. Beloborodov, Astrophysical Jour- nal657, 383 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0607145

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  35. [35]

    Zalamea and A

    I. Zalamea and A. M. Beloborodov, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society410, 2302 (2011), arXiv:1003.0710 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  36. [36]

    Liu, W.-M

    T. Liu, W.-M. Gu, and B. Zhang, New Astronomy Re- views79, 1 (2017)

    2017

  37. [37]

    V. G. Czinner and H. Iguchi, Phys. Lett. B752, 306 (2016), arXiv:1511.06963 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  38. [38]

    Sayahian Jahromi, S

    A. Sayahian Jahromi, S. A. Moosavi, H. Moradpour, J. P. Morais Graça, I. P. Lobo, I. G. Salako, and A. Jawad, Phys. Lett. B780, 21 (2018), arXiv:1802.07722 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    Kaniadakis, Phys

    G. Kaniadakis, Phys. Rev. E72, 036108 (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0507311

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  40. [40]

    Tsallis and L

    C. Tsallis and L. J. L. Cirto, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2487 (2013), arXiv:1202.2154 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [41]

    A.Majhi,Phys.Lett.B775,32(2017),arXiv:1703.09355 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [42]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. Faraoni, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.19, 2250210 (2022), arXiv:2207.07905 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Hirunsirisawat, R

    E. Hirunsirisawat, R. Nakarachinda, and C. Promsiri, Phys. Rev. D105, 124049 (2022), arXiv:2204.13023 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

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

    1972

  45. [45]

    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

  46. [46]

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

    1966

  47. [47]

    Perlick and O

    V. Perlick and O. Y. Tsupko, Phys. Rept.947, 1 (2022), arXiv:2105.07101 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L12 (2022), arXiv:2311.08680 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Jusufi, M

    K. Jusufi, M. Azreg-Aïnou, M. Jamil, and E. N. Sari- dakis, Universe8, 102 (2022), arXiv:2110.07258 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Stella and M

    L. Stella and M. Vietri, Astrophys. J. Lett.492, L59 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9709085

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  52. [52]

    Stella, M

    L. Stella, M. Vietri, and S. M. Morsink, Astrophys. J. Lett.524, L63 (1999)

    1999

  53. [53]

    S. Kato, J. Fukue, and S. Mineshige,Black-Hole Accre- tion Disks: Towards a New Paradigm(Kyoto University Press, Kyoto, 2008)

    2008

  54. [54]

    Stuchlík and M

    Z. Stuchlík and M. Kološ, Phys. Rev. D89, 065007 (2014), arXiv:1403.2748 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  55. [55]

    Z. Ahal, H. El Moumni, and K. Masmar, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1090 (2025), arXiv:2507.11139 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Z. Ahal, H. El Moumni, and K. Masmar, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102311 (2026), arXiv:2601.17953 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    C. S. J. Pun, Z. Kovacs, and T. Harko, Phys. Rev. D78, 024043 (2008), arXiv:0806.0679 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  58. [58]

    Ouyang, X

    Y. Ouyang, X. Zhou, S. Chen, and J. Jing, JCAP08 (2025), 094, arXiv:2504.20582 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    S. Hu, Y. Zuo, D. Li, and C. Deng, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2507.14599 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    D. S. J. Cordeiro, E. L. B. Junior, J. T. S. S. Ju- nior, F. S. N. Lobo, J. A. A. Ramos, M. E. Rodrigues, D. Rubiera-Garcia, L. F. D. da Silva, and H. A. Vieira, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1141 (2025), arXiv:2507.22031 [gr- qc]

    arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    A. K. Ahmed and M. Z. A. Moughal, Phys. Scripta101, 245011 (2026), arXiv:2509.05783 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Y. Wu, H. Feng, and W.-Q. Chen, European Physical Journal C84, 1075 (2024), arXiv:2410.14113 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    R. W. Lindquist, Annals Phys.37, 487 (1966)

    1966

  64. [64]

    Mitsuda, H

    K. Mitsuda, H. Inoue, K. Koyama, K. Makishima, M. Matsuoka, Y. Ogawara, N. Shibazaki, K. Suzuki, Y. Tanaka, and T. Hirano, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap.36, 18 741 (1984)

    1984

  65. [65]

    Makishima, Y

    K. Makishima, Y. Maejima, K. Mitsuda, H. V. Bradt, R. A. Remillard, I. R. Tuohy, R. Hoshi, and M. Naka- gawa, Astrophys. J.308, 635 (1986)

    1986

  66. [66]

    Lambiase and L

    G. Lambiase and L. Mastrototaro, Astrophys. J.934, 12 (2022), arXiv:2205.09785 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  67. [67]

    N. Itoh, H. Hayashi, A. Nishikawa, and Y. Kohyama, Astrophys. J. Suppl.102, 411 (1996)

    1996

  68. [68]

    Becar, P

    R. Becar, P. A. Gonzalez, A. Ovgun, J. Saavedra, and Y. Vasquez, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2606.20931 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026