Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

During collapse into a regular black hole, baryonic matter converting into the singularity-avoiding sector can radiate at gamma-ray-burst luminosities, with small regularization required.

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 20:31 UTC pith:DTDUN3MM

load-bearing objection Speculative but honest order-of-magnitude claim that regular black hole formation could produce GRB-scale luminosity; the mechanism hinges on an unmodeled escape question, and the small-η constraint is partly a fit. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16590 v1 pith:DTDUN3MM submitted 2026-07-18 gr-qc

Regular Black Hole Formation and Gamma-Ray Burst from Matter Conversion

Vitalii Vertogradov , Zhanna Kuznetsova , Yu Shi This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 95.30.Sf04.70.-s97.60.Lf04.50.Kd
keywords regular black holesgamma-ray burstsgravitational collapsebaryonic matter conversionphase transitionDymnikova black holeHayward black holeBardeen black hole
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.

During the collapse of a massive star into a regular (singularity-free) black hole, ordinary baryonic matter must be converted into a new type of matter that prevents the central singularity. This paper models that phase transition, derives the radiation density it produces, and shows that the resulting bolometric luminosity can reach gamma-ray-burst scale (~10^55 erg/s). To match that luminosity, the regularization parameter that controls the size of the non-singular core must be small — about 1.6×10^-2 for Hayward and Bardeen black holes and about 5.7×10^-1 for the Dymnikova model — so the final object differs only weakly from Schwarzschild. The paper thus identifies the formation process itself as a new observational channel: gamma-ray bursts could reveal whether the black hole interior is singular or regular, and constrain the strength of the regularization. The main caveat is that the estimate assumes the radiation escapes before the horizon traps it.

Core claim

Central claim: during collapse into a Dymnikova, Hayward, or Bardeen regular black hole, the radiation from baryonic matter conversion is fixed by the final matter's equation of state: ρ_r = (αρ_new − P_new)/(α − 1). Smoothly matching a Kiselev exterior to each interior, the authors find the bolometric luminosity L = (c^5/G)(r^2ρ_r/2) at the outer horizon reaches GRB scale only if the regularization parameter is small: η ≈ 0.57 (Dymnikova), η ≈ 0.016 (Hayward, Bardeen). The outer horizon then sits within ~10^-4 M0 of 2M0, so the regular black hole is nearly Schwarzschild. The formation burst thus becomes an observable probe of the interior.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the conservation-law identity ρ_r = (αρ_new − P_new)/(α − 1), which ties the radiation density of the phase transition directly to the pressure and density of the matter that forms the regular core. The argument then runs through a smooth matching of the Kiselev barotropic exterior to the regular interior at the critical radius (requiring continuity of mass, density, and pressure), and converts the Planck-scale luminosity L0 = c^5/G into a numerical bound on the regularization parameter.

Load-bearing premise

The radiation must escape before the event horizon closes; the paper estimates luminosity from the static outer horizon and leaves the time-dependent escape question for future work, so the GRB mechanism hinges on the conversion finishing while the radiating region is still outside the horizon.

What would settle it

Perform a time-dependent simulation of baryonic collapse with transition into Dymnikova, Hayward, or Bardeen matter, tracking the apparent horizon radius versus the radius at which the transition radiates; if the apparent horizon forms before the radiation is emitted, the burst never reaches a distant observer and the mechanism is refuted.

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

If this is right

  • Gamma-ray bursts, including extreme events such as GRB 221009A and GRB 250702B, could be powered by the phase transition that creates the regular core, adding a new channel beyond collapsars and mergers.
  • The luminosity constraint forces the regularization parameter to be small, so the near-horizon geometry of any GRB-compatible regular black hole is essentially Schwarzschild; this is consistent with existing shadow limits.
  • The outer horizon shifts by only ~10^-4 M0 relative to Schwarzschild, a tiny but in principle measurable prediction for horizon-scale observations.
  • Regular black holes with large cores would either be too bright or would bury the transition below the horizon, so the model predicts a paucity of ultra-luminous bursts from ordinary collapses.
  • The formation burst provides a new way to distinguish regular from singular black holes, complementing shadow and quasinormal-mode observations that only see the outside.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The escape assumption is the gatekeeper: the paper estimates luminosity from the static final configuration, but only a fully time-dependent collapse simulation can determine whether the conversion region is outside the apparent horizon when radiation is emitted. If the horizon forms first, the mechanism silently fails.
  • The small values of η imply the non-singular core is only a few hundred meters for a ten-solar-mass black hole in the Hayward and Bardeen models — small but macroscopic, so the core itself remains observationally inaccessible except through the burst.
  • Because the radiation density profile peaks at a radius that depends on the chosen regular metric, a time-resolved GRB light curve, if modeled, could in principle distinguish among the three interior models.
  • The same conservation-law identity could be applied to other regular black hole models, including rotating ones, to predict the burst luminosity and constrain their parameters; the paper stops at static spherically symmetric metrics.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a mechanism for gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) from the formation of regular black holes. It models gravitational collapse of baryonic matter into Dymnikova, Hayward, and Bardeen regular black holes, assuming that baryonic matter converts into a new, singularity-avoiding matter sector with associated radiation. The authors derive a radiation density from a two-component conservation system, match the regular interior metrics to a Kiselev exterior, and estimate the bolometric luminosity of the emitted radiation. They find that luminosities of order 10^55 erg/s, comparable to observed GRBs, require small regularization parameters (η ≈ 1.6×10^-2 for Hayward/Bardeen and ≈ 5.7×10^-1 for Dymnikova), so the resulting regular black holes would differ weakly from Schwarzschild.

Significance. If the mechanism is established, it would provide a novel observational probe of regular black hole formation and a way to constrain regularization parameters using high-energy transients. The paper's strengths include a transparent analytic derivation of the radiation density, explicit matching conditions for three regular black hole models, and concrete numerical estimates tied to observations such as EHT shadow constraints. However, the central GRB claim is currently conditional on the ability of radiation to escape before horizon formation, which is not demonstrated. There are also internal inconsistencies in the parameter regimes used for the matching, the plots, and the luminosity bound. These issues must be resolved before the paper's conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V and Conclusion] The GRB claim requires the emitted radiation to escape to a distant observer, but the luminosity is estimated from the static final configuration at r_+ (Eqs. 75-83). A static configuration has no outgoing flux; what matters is the dynamical question of whether the emitting shell lies outside the apparent horizon at the moment of conversion. The paper explicitly defers this in the Conclusion. Moreover, for the small η values in Table I, the matching radius r_c lies far inside r_+; for Hayward with η=1.6×10^-2, r_c^3 = 2M0h L^2(α+1)/(2-α) ≈ 0.0015 M0^3 for α>1, so r_c ≈ 0.11 M0 while r_+ ≈ 2M0. The conversion region is therefore likely trapped, not escaping. Without a time-dependent model showing that radiation can emerge, the claimed GRB luminosity is an unverified upper bound.
  2. [Sec. III, Eqs. (14), (25), (38)-(39)] The Kiselev mass function is written inconsistently. Eq. (14) and Eq. (25) define M_K = M0k + (N/2) r^{3ω}, while Eq. (38) and subsequent matching formulas use M_K = M0k + N/(2 r^{2α-1}). Since 3ω = 2α-1, these two expressions differ by a factor r^{2(2α-1)} (a reciprocal). The density formula (27) corresponds to the reciprocal version. This inconsistency propagates into the expressions for M0k in Eqs. (39), (52), and (70) and must be corrected.
  3. [Secs. III, IV, and V (parameter regimes)] The paper uses mutually incompatible parameter ranges. The radiation-density plots in Sec. IV are computed for α=1/2, but the matching formulas for N (Eqs. 36, 50, 63) all diverge at α=1/2 because of the factor 1-2α in the denominator. The luminosity argument in Sec. V explicitly assumes α>1. In the Hayward matching, the text states that α<4/5 is required. Table I, which gives the central quantitative results, is therefore not derived within a single consistent parameter regime. The authors should specify the allowed range of α and verify that all derivations and numerical results lie within it.
  4. [Sec. V, Eq. (95) and Table I] The condition M'(r_+) = 10^-4 is not an independent constraint derived from observations; it is chosen precisely so that r^2 ρ_r/2 ≈ 10^-4, giving L ≈ 10^55 erg/s (Eqs. 82-95). Thus the conclusion that η must be small is partly a reparametrization of the adopted GRB luminosity scale, rather than a prediction. To claim that GRB observations constrain the regularization parameter, the luminosity should be computed from a dynamical collapse model with a specified conversion rate β, or the text should clearly state that this is an order-of-magnitude parameter match rather than a derivation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Intro and Conclusion] There are typographical errors: 'with with' and 'at at' in Sec. I, and 'futher' in Sec. VI.
  2. [Eq. (44)] The Hayward equation of state P_h = 2ρ_h - √(3L) ρ_h^{3/2} does not appear dimensionally consistent with the expression in Eq. (43). Please verify the relation and correct it or specify the units.
  3. [Eq. (31) and references] The reference for the Hagedorn equation of state is garbled as [46?–48]. Please fix the citation.
  4. [Table I] The notation 'M0 = 10M_d' is unclear; M_d is presumably the solar mass. Please define it explicitly.
  5. [Sec. V] The dominant energy condition is stated as ρ_new − P_new ≥ 0; the full DEC also requires ρ_new + P_new ≥ 0. Since only the combination ρ − P is used below, either state the weaker condition explicitly or justify why the other half is satisfied.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The quantitative small-η constraint is obtained by imposing M′(r+)=10^-4, i.e., inverting the adopted 10^55 erg/s luminosity target; the rest of the derivation chain is self-contained.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. V, Eqs. (82)-(95) and Table I]
    "The condition imposed in the table is the saturation of the estimate M′(r+)=10−4, where the derivative is evaluated at the outer event horizon."

    The 10^-4 used in Eq. (95) is the same dimensionless factor selected in Eq. (82) to make the luminosity land at the adopted GRB scale 10^55 erg/s. Rather than deriving η from the dynamics, the paper fixes M′(r+) = 10^-4 and inverts the metric's mass function to obtain the η values in Table I. The luminosity inequality (93) alone would leave a range of η; the specific values η≈1.6×10^-2 (Hayward/Bardeen) and 5.7×10^-1 (Dymnikova) are therefore imposed by the target luminosity, making the 'compatibility requires small η' conclusion partly a fit to the target rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The main derivation chain (Secs. II-IV) is not circular: Eq. (12), ρr=(αρ_new-P_new)/(α-1), is an algebraic consequence of the assumed decomposition ρ_b+ρ_r=ρ_new and the equations of state; the Kiselev matching fixes rc, N, and M0k from the regular metrics; and the luminosity formula is a standard dimensional conversion. The self-citations ([27]-[30], [51], [52]) are not load-bearing for the central calculation, and [51], [52] are not used to obtain the tabulated η. The quantitative small-regularization conclusion, however, is obtained by imposing M′(r+)=10^-4, which is the target-luminosity scale, and then solving for η; this is a constraint inversion rather than an independent prediction. The question of whether radiation can escape before horizon formation is explicitly deferred in the Conclusion and is a physical feasibility limitation, not a circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central derivation rests on a postulated new matter sector and a two-fluid conversion model carried over from the authors' earlier work. The numerical constraint on the regularization parameter is obtained by tuning it to the adopted GRB luminosity, so the quantitative output is partly a fit rather than a free prediction.

free parameters (3)
  • η = ξ/M0 (dimensionless regularization parameter) = Dymnikova: 0.5747; Hayward: 0.01633; Bardeen: 0.01633
    Solved from the condition M'(r_+)=10^-4, chosen so the luminosity matches the adopted GRB scale 10^55 erg/s (Table I).
  • α = (3ω+1)/2 (barotropic parameter) = 1/2 in Sec. IV figures; α>1 required in Sec. V; α<4/5 required by Hayward matching
    Chosen by hand for different sections; the mutually incompatible choices are not discussed.
  • β(v,r) (conversion rate function) = unspecified
    Introduced in Eq. (5) as the rate of baryonic-to-new-matter conversion; it drops out of the final radiation-density formula but is required for the model's physical interpretation.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption A new matter sector violating the strong energy condition is generated dynamically during collapse and supports the regular core.
    Central premise of the paper; no microphysical model or independent evidence is provided for this sector's existence.
  • ad hoc to paper The two-component conservation system (5) with β>0 describes baryonic matter converting into the new sector plus radiation.
    The conversion equations are taken from the authors' earlier work and are not derived from an underlying theory.
  • domain assumption The final regular black hole interiors are described by the Dymnikova, Hayward, and Bardeen mass functions and their corresponding equations of state.
    These are known phenomenological metrics, not consequences of the collapse model.
  • domain assumption During the transitional stage the exterior is described by the Kiselev metric with barotropic equation of state P=αρ.
    The Kiselev exterior models the collapsing baryonic matter; the validity of this representation is assumed.
  • domain assumption The emitted radiation is radial null flux with P_r=ρ_r and is electromagnetic, so the bolometric luminosity is L=4πr²cρ_phys.
    The radiation is assumed to be electromagnetic and radially streaming; the gravitational field equations alone do not fix the spectrum.
  • domain assumption The observed GRB luminosity scale is ~10^55 erg/s, used to set the dimensionless factor to 10^-4.
    An observational input used as the normalization target; different bursts span a wide range.
  • domain assumption For the luminosity bound, α>1 and the dominant energy condition ρ_new−P_new≥0 hold.
    Used in Sec. V to bound the radiation contribution below by M'_new; it conflicts with parameter regimes used elsewhere in the paper.
invented entities (1)
  • Singularity-avoiding matter sector (de Sitter-like core) no independent evidence
    purpose: Replaces the central singularity in regular black holes and is the source of radiation during its formation.
    No independent falsifiable handle is given; the hypothetical GRB flash is the phenomenon the paper hopes to explain, so evidence for the entity would be circular.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14384 in / 24213 out tokens · 249811 ms · 2026-08-01T20:31:34.351262+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

During the gravitational collapse of a massive star into a regular black hole, a new form of matter must be produced in order to prevent the formation of a central singularity. Since such matter is not present in the initial stellar configuration, it must emerge dynamically during the collapse. This formation process is expected to be accompanied by a strong release of energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation, which may be observable. Here we investigate the gravitational collapse of baryonic matter into Dymnikova-Hayward-Bardeen regular black holes. We estimate the radiation density and the corresponding bolometric luminosity generated by the formation of the matter sector responsible for singularity avoidance. We show that such processes provide a possible mechanism for gamma-ray bursts. Moreover, compatibility with gamma-ray burst requires small regularization effects. As a result, the corresponding regular black holes differ weakly from the Schwarzschild black hole.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16590 by Vitalii Vertogradov, Yu Shi, Zhanna Kuznetsova.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Radiation density ρrprq in the Dymnikova metric for different values of r0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Radiation density ρrprq in the Hayward metric for different values of L. Finally, in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Radiation density ρrprq in the Bardeen metric for different values of g. V. LUMINOSITY DURING THE PHASE TRANSITION The transition from baryonic matter to an exotic phase is accompanied by the release of energy. In what follows, we estimate the corresponding bolometric luminosity. The quantity obtained in this way should not be identified with an optical luminosity, since the spectral distribution of the em… 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

53 extracted references · 33 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Penrose, Phys

    R. Penrose, Phys. Rev. Lett.14, 57 (1965)

    1965

  2. [2]

    Bardeen, inProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Gravitation and the Theory of Relativity(1968) p

    J. Bardeen, inProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Gravitation and the Theory of Relativity(1968) p. 87

    1968

  3. [3]

    αñr c“ ˆ α`1 k ˙1{3 .(33) Next, we equate the energy densities (27) and (28) in order to determine the parameterNas a function ofrc and r0, i.e.,N

    final stage when baryonic matter completely transforms into a new type of matter. From the previous section, we know how to compute the radiation densityρr depending on the matter into which the barotropic material transitions. However, to estimate the radiation density and avoid its negative values, we must determine the intervals within which the radial...

  4. [4]

    O. B. Zaslavskii, Phys. Lett. B688, 278 (2010), arXiv:1004.2362 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    E. B. Gliner, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics22, 378 (1966)

    1966

  6. [6]

    A. D. Sakharov, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics22, 241 (1966)

    1966

  7. [7]

    S. A. Hayward, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 031103 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0506126

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Dymnikova, Gen

    I. Dymnikova, Gen. Rel. Grav.24, 235 (1992)

    1992

  9. [9]

    Dymnikova, Class

    I. Dymnikova, Class. Quant. Grav.19, 725 (2002), gr-qc/0112052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  10. [10]

    R. V. Konoplich, S. G. Rubin, A. S. Sakharov, and M. Y. Khlopov, Phys. Atom. Nucl.62, 1593 (1999)

    1999

  11. [11]

    M. Y. Khlopov, R. V. Konoplich, S. G. Rubin, and A. S. Sakharov, Grav. Cosmol.2, S1 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9912422

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  12. [12]

    M. Y. Khlopov, Res. Astron. Astrophys.10, 495 (2010), arXiv:0801.0116 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  13. [13]

    K. M. Belotsky, A. D. Dmitriev, E. A. Esipova, V. A. Gani, A. V. Grobov, M. Y. Khlopov, A. A. Kirillov, S. G. Rubin, and I. V. Svadkovsky, Mod. Phys. Lett. A29, 1440005 (2014), arXiv:1410.0203 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [14]

    Dymnikova and M

    I. Dymnikova and M. Khlopov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24, 1545002 (2015), arXiv:1510.01351 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Vertogradov and A

    V. Vertogradov and A. Övgün, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 025024 (2025), arXiv:2408.02699 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Misyura, A

    M. Misyura, A. Rincon, and V. Vertogradov, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101717 (2024), arXiv:2405.05370 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Capozziello, S

    S. Capozziello, S. De Bianchi, and E. Battista, Phys. Rev. D109, 104060 (2024), arXiv:2404.17267 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Kudryavcev, Y

    D. Kudryavcev, Y. Ling, and V. Vertogradov, (2026), arXiv:2602.10768 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Vertogradov, A

    V. Vertogradov, A. V. Shakun, and M. A. Zakharov, Phys. Complex Syst.5, 17 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Heidari, A

    N. Heidari, A. A. Araújo Filho, V. V. and, and A. Övgün, (2024), arXiv:2412.05072 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Vagnozziet al., Class

    S. Vagnozziet al., Class. Quant. Grav.40, 165007 (2023), arXiv:2205.07787 [gr-qc]. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Narzilloev, J

    B. Narzilloev, J. Rayimbaev, S. Shaymatov, A. Abdujabbarov, B. Ahmedov, and C. Bambi, Phys. Rev. D102, 104062 (2020), arXiv:2011.06148 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    Pradhan, (2014), arXiv:1402.2748 [gr-qc]

    P. Pradhan, (2014), arXiv:1402.2748 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [24]

    Molina and J

    M. Molina and J. R. Villanueva, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 105002 (2021), arXiv:2101.07917 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    S. G. Ghosh, M. Amir, and S. D. Maharaj, Nucl. Phys. B957, 115088 (2020), arXiv:2006.07570 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Vertogradov, Phys

    V. Vertogradov, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101881 (2025), arXiv:2501.13739 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Vertogradov and A

    V. Vertogradov and A. Övgün, JCAP06, 051 (2025), arXiv:2504.07561 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Vertogradov, Eur

    V. Vertogradov, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 839 (2025), arXiv:2504.19292 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Vertogradov, A

    V. Vertogradov, A. Övgün, and D. Shatov, Chin. Phys. C49, 115103 (2025), arXiv:2502.00521 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    R. W. Klebesadel, I. B. Strong, and R. A. Olson, Astrophys. J. Lett.182, L85 (1973)

    1973

  33. [33]

    Kouveliotou, C

    C. Kouveliotou, C. A. Meegan, G. J. Fishman, N. P. Bhat, M. S. Briggs, T. M. Koshut, W. S. Paciesas, and G. N. Pendleton, Astrophys. J. Lett.413, L101 (1993)

    1993

  34. [34]

    S. E. Woosley, Astrophys. J.405, 273 (1993)

    1993

  35. [35]

    A. I. MacFadyen and S. E. Woosley, Astrophys. J.524, 262 (1999)

    1999

  36. [36]

    T. J. Galama, P. M. Vreeswijk, J. van Paradijs, C. Kouveliotou, T. Augusteijn, H. Bohnhardt, J. P. Brewer, V. Doublier, J.-F. Gonzalez, B. Leibundgut, C. Lidman, O. R. Hainaut, F. Patat, J. Heise, J. in’t Zand, K. Hurley, P. J. Groot, R. G. Strom, P. A. Mazzali, K. Iwamoto, K. Nomoto, H. Umeda, T. Nakamura, T. R. Young, T. Suzuki, T. Shigeyama, T. Koshut,...

    1998

  37. [37]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  38. [38]

    Goldstein, P

    A. Goldstein, P. Veres, E. Burns, M. S. Briggs, R. Hamburg, D. Kocevski, C. A. Wilson-Hodge, R. D. Preece, S. Poolakkil, O. J. Roberts, C. M. Hui, V. Connaughton, J. Racusin, A. von Kienlin, T. Dal Canton, N. Christensen, T. Littenberg, K. Siellez, L. Blackburn, J. Broida, E. Bissaldi, W. H. Cleveland, M. H. Gibby, M. M. Giles, R. M. Kippen, S. McBreen, J...

    2017

  39. [39]

    Burns, D

    E. Burns, D. Svinkin, E. Fenimore, D. A. Kann, J. F. A. Fernández, D. Frederiks, R. Hamburg, S. Lesage, Y. Temiraev, A. Tsvetkova, E. Bissaldi, M. S. Briggs, C. Fletcher, A. Goldstein, C. M. Hui, B. A. Hristov, D. Kocevski, A. L. Lysenko, B. Mailyan, J. Racusin, A. Ridnaia, O. J. Roberts, M. Ulanov, P. Veres, C. A. Wilson-Hodge, and J. Wood, Astrophys. J....

    2023

  40. [40]

    Frederiks, D

    D. Frederiks, D. Svinkin, A. L. Lysenko, S. Molkov, A. Tsvetkova, M. Ulanov, A. Ridnaia, A. A. Lutovinov, I. Lapshov, A. Tkachenko, and V. Levin, Astrophys. J. Lett.949, L7 (2023), arXiv:2302.13383 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    A. J. Levan, A. Martin-Carrillo, T. Laskar, R. A. J. Eyles-Ferris, A. Sneppen, M. E. Ravasio, J. C. Rastinejad, J. S. Bright, F. Carotenuto, A. A. Chrimes, G. Corcoran, B. P. Gompertz, P. G. Jonker, G. P. Lamb, D. B. Malesani, A. Saccardi, J. Sanchez Sierras, B. Schneider, S. Schulze, N. R. Tanvir, S. D. Vergani, D. Watson, J. An, F. E. Bauer, S. Campana,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    B. P. Gompertz, A. J. Levan, T. Laskar, B. Schneider, A. A. Chrimes, A. Martin-Carrillo, A. Sneppen, D. O’Neill, D. B. Malesani, P. G. Jonker, E. Burns, G. Corcoran, L. Cotter, A. de Ugarte Postigo, M. De Pasquale, Dimple, R. A. J. Eyles-Ferris, A. Fruchter, L. Izzo, P. Jakobsson, G. P. Lamb, J. T. Palmerio, G. Pugliese, M. E. Ravasio, A. Saccardi, R. Sal...

    arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    V. V. Kiselev, Class. Quant. Grav.20, 1187 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0210040

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  44. [44]

    Husain, Phys

    V. Husain, Phys. Rev. D53, 1759 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9511011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  45. [45]

    W. B. Bonnor and P. C. Vaidya, Gen. Rel. Grav.1, 127 (1970)

    1970

  46. [46]

    Vertogradov and D

    V. Vertogradov and D. Kudryavtcev, (2025), arXiv:2504.20882 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Hagedorn, Nuovo Cim

    R. Hagedorn, Nuovo Cim. Suppl.3, 147 (1965)

    1965

  48. [48]

    Malafarina, Phys

    D. Malafarina, Phys. Rev. D93, 104042 (2016), arXiv:1605.03312 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  49. [49]

    Harko, Phys

    T. Harko, Phys. Rev. D68, 064005 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0307064

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  50. [50]

    Vertogradov and A

    V. Vertogradov and A. Rincon, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102066 (2025), arXiv:2508.14489 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Ayon-Beato and A

    E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, Phys. Lett. B493, 149 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0009077

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  52. [52]

    Vertogradov, Phys

    V. Vertogradov, Phys. Lett. B867, 139607 (2025), arXiv:2410.10582 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Vertogradov and A

    V. Vertogradov and A. Övgün, Phys. Lett. B854, 138758 (2024), arXiv:2404.18536 [gr-qc]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024