Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 69 references

This paper computes, for the first time, the complete emission spectrum of massive vector (Proca) fields from spinning Kerr black holes, giving polarization-resolved greybody factors and the resulting mass and spin loss rates.

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 15:31 UTC pith:H5BKJFQM

load-bearing objection First credible Proca Hawking spectra for Kerr; the physics is likely right, but App. A's flux normalization and missing convergence tests need referee pressure before the numbers are taken as final. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18395 v1 pith:H5BKJFQM submitted 2026-07-20 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-ph

Hawking emission of massive vector fields by Kerr black holes

Marco Calz\`a , Miguel Faria , Yuber F. Perez-Gonzalez , Jo\~ao G. Rosa This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-ph MSC 83C5783C4781T20 PACS 04.70.Dy04.62.+v
keywords Hawking radiationmassive vector fieldsProca fieldsKerr black holesgreybody factorssuperradianceblack hole evaporationprimordial black holes
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 compute how a spinning Kerr black hole evaporates by emitting massive spin-1 particles, a gap that prevented accurate descriptions of W and Z boson emission and of QCD-massive gluons. It derives the greybody factors—the escape probability for each wave mode—for all three polarizations of a Proca field and integrates them into the emission spectrum and into the mass and angular-momentum loss functions. The central results are that the longitudinal (scalar) polarization reduces to a massless scalar in the massless limit while the two transverse polarizations reproduce the massless vector result, and that rapid spin lets a black hole efficiently emit particles far heavier than its temperature. It also finds mass-dependent superradiant amplification stronger than for massless vectors, peaking around 7% near extremality.

Core claim

The paper claims to determine, for the first time, the gravitational emission of massive vector fields by Kerr black holes without restricting spin or field mass. Using a separation of variables that reduces the Proca equation to coupled radial and angular equations, it computes the absorption probability for each (l, m) mode and each of the three polarizations (S = -1, 0, +1) across the full spin range and for masses up to Mμ around 3. The resulting greybody factors reproduce the known massless limits—massless vector for the two transverse polarizations and a scalar for the longitudinal one—and show that the longitudinal mode dominates emission for slowly spinning black holes, the transvers

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the separation of the Proca equation on the Kerr background through a polarization tensor built from the spacetime's principal tensor, which reduces the field to coupled radial and angular equations with an angular eigenvalue ν. The numerical pipeline solves the angular equation as a spectral problem for ν, integrates the radial equation outward from the horizon with purely ingoing boundary conditions, and matches to plane-wave form at large radius to extract transmission coefficients; the energy fluxes come from the full Proca stress tensor, yielding the absorption probability Γ_lmS and the emission spectrum.

Load-bearing premise

The flux decomposition assumes the asymptotic ingoing and outgoing energy fluxes are correctly separated by matching the numerical solution to plane waves with the stated normalizations, and a normalization error in the longitudinal mode's divergent prefactor would shift every finite-mass greybody factor and loss function.

What would settle it

Integrate the radial equation for the S = +1 mode at very small Mμ and verify numerically that |R_in|^2 scales to cancel the (μ^2/ν^2 + 1) divergence as μ → 0; if the cancellation fails, the claimed massless-scalar limit is wrong. Alternatively, recompute the loss functions with a higher spectral truncation (kmax > 17) or a different matching radius and check whether the ~7% superradiant peak moves by more than the stated tolerance.

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

If this is right

  • The evaporation rates of Kerr black holes into massive spin-1 particles (W/Z bosons, effectively massive gluons) can now be computed, refining predictions for primordial black hole lifetimes and spin evolution.
  • The standard criterion that a black hole only emits particles with mass below its temperature breaks down for rapid rotation: efficient emission persists to μ/T_H of order 100 near extremality.
  • Superradiant amplification for massive vectors exceeds the massless vector case, reaching ~7% for the S = -1 polarization near extremality, which alters the spin-down history.
  • The mass and spin loss functions differ from the massless vector case because the longitudinal polarization adds a mass-loss channel while spin extraction stays similar, so massive vectors change both the evaporation rate and the spin evolution of rotating holes.
  • The scalar and transverse polarization modes contribute differently as spin grows, so the total spectrum cannot be approximated by scaling a single massless result.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same separation-and-flux machinery could be extended to massive spin-2 fields or to charged rotating black holes, where longitudinal modes might show analogous mass-dependent amplification.
  • The finding that near-extremal black holes emit particles with μ much larger than the black-hole temperature suggests that heavy Standard Model or beyond-Standard-Model particles could appear in primordial black hole burst signals, changing the expected photon-to-neutrino ratios.
  • The massless limit for the S = +1 mode relies on a divergent prefactor that the paper does not cancel analytically; an independent analytic check of that limit would determine whether the claimed scalar-mode spectrum is exact or only numerically approximate.
  • One could test the computed greybody factors by comparing the superradiant amplification curve against independent semi-analytic approximations for massive vectors, or against the known massless vector result after lifting the mass cutoff.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a numerical computation of the greybody factors, Hawking emission spectra, and Page mass/spin-loss functions for a massive vector (Proca) field on a Kerr black hole background. The authors use the FKKS-Dolan separation of variables, solving the angular eigenvalue problem in a spherical-harmonic basis with a truncation and the radial equation by shooting from the horizon to a large matching radius, then extract transmission coefficients from the asymptotic wave amplitudes. They validate their framework by recovering massless Maxwell results for the two transverse polarizations and massless scalar results for the longitudinal polarization in the Mμ → 0 limit, and then present results for finite masses, including polarization-dependent superradiant amplification (with maximum ~7% for the S = −1 mode near extremality), a modified Boltzmann-suppression criterion at high spin, and a comparison of the scalar Proca component with a free massive scalar. The central claim is that this is the first complete computation of Proca Hawking emission from Kerr black holes.

Significance. If correct, this work fills a genuine gap in the literature: no previous computation of Proca Hawking emission from Kerr existed, despite the relevance for primordial black hole evaporation into massive Standard Model vectors (W, Z) and effectively massive gluons. The paper provides the first polarization-resolved greybody factors, spectra, and Page functions for massive spin-1 fields, and uncovers a qualitatively new feature—enhanced superradiant amplification for one vector polarization—that is physically interesting. The numerical framework is benchmarked against known massless results (Page/Teukolsky-Press for Maxwell, massless scalar limits) and against a massive scalar computation in App. C, which are strong consistency checks. However, the central mapping from the radial amplitudes to physical energy fluxes (App. A) is under-derived, and no convergence study is presented for the truncation and matching parameters. The quantitative claims therefore require additional verification before the results can be regarded as definitive.

major comments (3)
  1. [App. A, Eqs. (A17)–(A22)] The derivation of the flux formula is load-bearing and incomplete. The step from Eq. (A19) to Eq. (A22) asserts that |D0R|^2 - |D†0R|^2 evaluates on the asymptotic solution (34) to a common prefactor (pω/2)(μ²/ν²+1) multiplying both |R_in|^2 and |R_out|^2. This is not demonstrated: the definitions/actions of D0 and D†0 on e^{±ipr}, the constants C±, and the fate of the ν→0 limit for S=+1 (where μ²/ν² diverges) are not given. Although the prefactor cancels in Eq. (38), the equality of the ingoing/outgoing prefactors is exactly what converts |R_out|²/|R_in|² into a physical absorption probability. Please provide the explicit asymptotic evaluation and a direct numerical check of Eq. (A22) by integrating the full energy-momentum tensor for representative (ω, μ, a*) for each polarization.
  2. [Sec. III, angular and radial truncation] The numerical results depend on several controlled truncation parameters—kmax=17 in the angular matrix (16), integration start x=10^-3, matching at xmax with α≈100, and the S=0 branch continuation in μ—but no convergence tests or error estimates are reported. Since the central claims (the ~7% superradiant amplification, the Page functions, and the μ/TH ~ 100 emission window) are quantitative, the paper must show that eigenvalues, Γ_lmS, and the Page functions (41) are stable under varying kmax, α, x_start, and l_max. Please add a convergence study, including the tolerance in the determinant root-finding and the ODE integrator.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eq. (41)] The Page functions f and g are defined in Eq. (41) without the 1/(2π) factor that appears in the spectrum Eq. (39) and without the usual normalization factors (e.g., f = -M² dM/dt in Page's convention). If Eq. (41) is meant to represent the standard Page functions, the normalization is inconsistent with Eq. (39); if it is a different dimensionless rate, this should be stated explicitly. The comparisons in Figs. 7 and 8 and in App. C depend on this normalization, so the definition needs clarification.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (14)] The expansion S(θ) = Σ b_k Y^m_l(θ,ϕ) is notationally inconsistent: the ϕ-dependence has already been factored out in Eq. (9), so the expansion should be in Y^m_l(θ,0) (or in spherical harmonics without ϕ).
  2. [Eq. (39)] The value of l_min is not specified in the text immediately after Eq. (39). State explicitly that l_min = 0 for S=+1 and l_min = 1 for S=-1,0.
  3. [Sec. IV, ymax definition] The expression ymax = Mμ - 1.5 log(1-a*) is confusing because log(1-a*) is negative for a* < 1; presumably the intended quantity is Mμ + 1.5|log(1-a*)|. Please clarify.
  4. [Captions of Figs. 10 and 11] Typo: 'funciton' should be 'function' in both captions.
  5. [Eqs. (20)–(24)] The notation λ^s is used for spin-weighted spheroidal eigenvalues but s is not defined for the scalar case; define the spin parameter s explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; core computation is self-contained and externally benchmarked.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a numerical computation of Proca greybody factors and Hawking spectra: the angular eigenvalues are obtained by solving det M = 0 (Sec. III A), the radial equation (28) is integrated from the horizon with the purely ingoing boundary condition (32), and the asymptotic coefficients R_in/R_out are read off from (34). The greybody factor (38) is then the standard ratio 1 - |R_out|^2/|R_in|^2, and the spectra (39) and Page functions (41) are formed from this Gamma with no fitted parameters. The only potentially delicate step is the flux-to-asymptotic-amplitude mapping in App. A: Eq. (A22) equates dE/dt|infinity to (p omega/2)(1 + mu^2/nu^2)(|R_in|^2 - |R_out|^2), with normalization constants C_+/- not fully specified. This is a load-bearing assumption whose verification would strengthen the paper (and the S=+1 massless-limit prefactor needs explicit cancellation), but it is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circular reduction: the predicted spectra are not inserted into their own derivation, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations ([22-24,26,28,63]) appear as introductory motivation or as corroboration alongside external benchmarks (Page, Teukolsky-Press, Schwarzschild results); they do not carry the argument. The massless vector limit is checked against Page's Maxwell results and the scalar channel against the massless scalar equation, providing independent anchors. Accordingly, no step in the claimed derivation chain reduces by construction to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The computation uses established equations (Proca on Kerr, FKKS-Dolan separation) and standard semi-classical Hawking theory. The only hand-chosen inputs are numerical convergence settings; no physics parameters are fitted to data.

free parameters (3)
  • xmax matching coefficient α = α ≈ 100
    Numerical choice for the distance at which the numerical solution is matched to the asymptotic form; no convergence study is reported.
  • angular truncation order kmax = kmax = 17
    Truncation of the spectral decomposition when searching det|M(ν)| = 0; convergence in kmax is not demonstrated.
  • mass continuation step for S=0 branch
    The continuation in μ used to follow the divergent S=0 eigenvalue branch is described qualitatively; step sizes and tolerances are not given.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption FKKS-Dolan (LFKKS ansatz) separation of Proca on Kerr: Eqs. (6)-(11) reduce the Proca equation to coupled radial/angular ODEs.
    Established in Refs [52-54] and adopted here without re-derivation; the central computation rests on this separability.
  • domain assumption Semi-classical Hawking emission formula, Eq. (39): d²N/dωdt = (1/2π) Σ Γ/(e^{(ω−mΩ)/TH}−1), with greybody factors from the scattering problem.
    Standard QFT-in-curved-spacetime result; the paper assumes it to convert greybody factors into spectra.
  • domain assumption The three polarization branches S = −1, 0, +1 identified by parity and allowed l (Tab. I) exhaust the physical transverse and longitudinal modes.
    Assumed from Refs [54]/[62]; misidentification would misassign spectra and Page functions.
  • ad hoc to paper Numerical convergence: kmax = 17 truncation, integration from x = 10^-3, matching at xmax = α(2−τ)^(1/3)/(r+p)^(2/3) with α ≈ 100, give converged eigenvalues and greybody factors.
    No convergence tests are presented; the choice of these values is hand-tuned.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21970 in / 18383 out tokens · 151473 ms · 2026-08-01T15:31:39.614502+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We compute, for the first time, the Hawking emission spectrum of massive vector (Proca) fields by spinning Kerr black holes, determining the associated greybody factors and the resulting mass and spin loss functions. We show, in particular, that the scalar (longitudinal) polarization of the Proca field has a spectrum approaching that of a free scalar field in the massless limit (in which it becomes a pure gauge mode), although we find substantial differences for finite mass. The contribution of the two vector (transverse) polarization modes coincides, as expected, with the one obtained by Page for the Maxwell field in the massless limit. The black hole's evaporation rate is dominated by the scalar mode for slowly spinning black holes and by the two vector modes as the black hole approaches extremality. As for other fields, we find that Proca Hawking emission is Boltzmann-suppressed for Hawking temperatures $T_H\lesssim |\mu-\Omega_H|$, where $\mu$ is the field mass and $\Omega_H$ is the angular velocity of the black hole's horizon. This implies that highly spinning black holes can efficiently emit massive vector fields at temperatures parametrically below the field's mass. Finally, we also find that superradiant emission is more pronounced for massive vector fields, with a maximum amplification factor of $\simeq 7\%$ (compared to $\simeq 4\%$ for massless photons).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18395 by Jo\~ao G. Rosa, Marco Calz\`a, Miguel Faria, Yuber F. Perez-Gonzalez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Absorption probabilities for a massive vector of mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Maximal superradiant amplification for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Hawking spectrum for individual polarizations for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Total Hawking spectrum for massive vectors having masses of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Energy-loss [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Page functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Effective potentials for the three polarization modes, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Page functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Page functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Emission rate Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.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

69 extracted references · 40 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Massless and Schwarzschild limits In order to identify the different polarization branches and construct suitable initial guesses for the numerical solver, it is useful to consider both the massless and Schwarzschild limits of the angular eigenvalue problem. In the massless limit, the angular eigenvalues associated with the vector-type polarizations can b...

  2. [2]

    Energy flux and transmission coefficients The greybody factors can be obtained by considering a scattering problem. Specifically, one sends a wave from spatial infinity towards the black hole and determines the fractions that are reflected back to infinity and transmit- ted through the potential barrier into the event horizon. By time-reversal symmetry, t...

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975), [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

  4. [4]

    B. Carr, A. J. Iovino, G. Perna, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Riv. Nuovo Cim.49, 225 (2026), arXiv:2601.06024 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    Escriv` a, F

    A. Escriv` a, F. Kuhnel, and Y. Tada, (2022), 10.1016/B978-0-32-395636-9.00012-8, arXiv:2211.05767 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    S. W. Hawking, Nature248, 30 (1974)

    1974

  7. [7]

    Boluna, S

    X. Boluna, S. Profumo, J. Bl´ e, and D. Hennings, JCAP 04, 024 (2024), arXiv:2307.06467 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    T. N. Ukwatta, D. R. Stump, J. T. Linnemann, J. H. MacGibbon, S. S. Marinelli, T. Yapici, and K. Tollefson, Astropart. Phys.80, 90 (2016), arXiv:1510.04372 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    Albertet al.(HA WC), JCAP04, 026 (2020), arXiv:1911.04356 [astro-ph.HE]

    A. Albertet al.(HA WC), JCAP04, 026 (2020), arXiv:1911.04356 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Engel, A

    K. Engel, A. Peisker, P. Harding, J. Wood, I. Martinez- Castellanos, A. Albert, and K. Tollefson (HA WC), PoS ICRC2019, 516 (2021)

    2021

  11. [11]

    K. L. Engel,All-Sky Search for Very-High-Energy Emis- sion from Primordial Black Holes and Gamma-Ray Bursts with the HA WC Observatory, Ph.D. thesis, Maryland U., College Park (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    Aharonianet al.(H.E.S.S.), JCAP04, 040 (2023), arXiv:2303.12855 [astro-ph.HE]

    F. Aharonianet al.(H.E.S.S.), JCAP04, 040 (2023), arXiv:2303.12855 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), Astrophys

    M. Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), Astrophys. J.857, 49 (2018), arXiv:1802.00100 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    C. Yang, S. Wang, M.-L. Zhao, and X. Zhang, JCAP10, 083 (2024), arXiv:2408.10897 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Caoet al.(LHAASO), Phys

    Z. Caoet al.(LHAASO), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 181005 (2025), arXiv:2505.24586 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Dave and I

    P. Dave and I. Taboada (IceCube), PoSICRC2019, 863 (2021), arXiv:1908.05403 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    M. J. Baker, J. Iguaz Juan, A. Symons, and A. Thamm, JHEP06, 042 (2026), arXiv:2512.19603 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    M. J. Baker, J. Iguaz Juan, A. Symons, and A. Thamm, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 061002 (2026), arXiv:2505.22722 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    M. J. Baker, J. Iguaz Juan, A. Symons, and A. Thamm, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 111002 (2025), arXiv:2503.10755 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Ewasiuk and S

    C. Ewasiuk and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D111, 015008 (2025), arXiv:2409.11359 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Federico and S

    K. Federico and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D111, 063006 (2025), arXiv:2411.17038 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    De Romeri, Y

    V. De Romeri, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and A. Tolino, JCAP04, 018 (2025), arXiv:2405.00124 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, Phys. Rev. D108, 083014 (2023), arXiv:2307.14408 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Calz` a and J

    M. Calz` a and J. G. Rosa, JHEP11, 044 (2025), arXiv:2312.09261 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Calz` a and J

    M. Calz` a and J. G. Rosa, JHEP08, 012 (2024), arXiv:2311.12930 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Calz` a, J

    M. Calz` a, J. G. Rosa, and F. Serrano, JHEP05, 140 (2024), arXiv:2306.09430 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    M. J. Baker and A. Thamm, JHEP01, 063 (2023), arXiv:2210.02805 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Calz` a and J

    M. Calz` a and J. G. Rosa, JHEP12, 090 (2022), arXiv:2210.06500 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    M. J. Baker and A. Thamm, SciPost Phys.12, 150 (2022), arXiv:2105.10506 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Calz` a, J

    M. Calz` a, J. March-Russell, and J. G. Rosa, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 261003 (2024), arXiv:2110.13602 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    A. P. Klipfel and D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 121003 (2025), arXiv:2503.19227 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    A. P. Klipfel, P. Fisher, and D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D 112, 103007 (2025), arXiv:2506.14041 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    L. A. Anchordoqui, F. Halzen, and D. Lust, Phys. Rev. D112, 083034 (2025), arXiv:2505.23414 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    L. F. T. Airoldi, G. F. S. Alves, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, G. M. Salla, and R. Z. Funchal, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 041002 (2026), arXiv:2505.24666 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    L. F. T. Airoldi, G. F. S. Alves, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, G. M. Salla, and R. Z. Funchal, Phys. Rev. D113, 023052 (2026), arXiv:2505.24652 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, Phys. Rev. D111, 083015 (2025), arXiv:2502.04430 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    A. P. Klipfel and D. I. Kaiser, (2026), arXiv:2605.26204 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    J. M. Cornwall, Phys. Rev. D26, 1453 (1982)

    1982

  39. [39]

    J. H. MacGibbon and B. R. Webber, Phys. Rev. D41, 3052 (1990)

    1990

  40. [40]

    A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Front. Phys. (Beijing)11, 111203 (2016), arXiv:1511.08361 [hep- ph]. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    D. V. Gal’tsov, G. V. Pomerantseva, and G. A. Chizhov, Sov. Phys. J.27, 697 (1984)

    1984

  42. [42]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Rev. D73, 024009 (2006), arXiv:gr- qc/0509026

    arXiv 2006

  43. [43]

    R. A. Konoplya, A. Zhidenko, and C. Molina, Phys. Rev. D75, 084004 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0602047

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  44. [44]

    J. G. Rosa and S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D85, 044043 (2012), arXiv:1110.4494 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  45. [45]

    Herdeiro, M

    C. Herdeiro, M. O. P. Sampaio, and M. Wang, Phys. Rev. D85, 024005 (2012), arXiv:1110.2485 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  46. [46]

    M. Wang, M. O. P. Sampaio, and C. Herdeiro, Phys. Rev. D87, 044011 (2013), arXiv:1212.2197 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  47. [47]

    Herdeiro, M

    C. Herdeiro, M. O. P. Sampaio, and M. Wang, Springer Proc. Math. Stat.60, 283 (2014)

    2014

  48. [48]

    Herdeiro, M

    C. Herdeiro, M. O. P. Sampaio, and M. Wang, in13th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Astro- physics, and Relativistic Field Theories(2015) pp. 1974– 1976

    2015

  49. [49]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.29, 1114 (1972)

    1972

  50. [50]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185, 635 (1973)

    1973

  51. [51]

    S. A. Teukolsky and W. H. Press, Astrophys. J.193, 443 (1974)

    1974

  52. [52]

    P. Pani, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, E. Berti, and A. Ishibashi, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 131102 (2012), arXiv:1209.0465 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  53. [53]

    P. Pani, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, E. Berti, and A. Ishibashi, Phys. Rev. D86, 104017 (2012), arXiv:1209.0773 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  54. [54]

    V. P. Frolov, P. Krtouˇ s, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, and J. E. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 231103 (2018), arXiv:1804.00030 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  55. [55]

    S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D98, 104006 (2018), arXiv:1806.01604 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  56. [56]

    Percival and S

    J. Percival and S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D102, 104055 (2020), arXiv:2008.10621 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    K. M. Vispute and R. Karmakar, (2026), arXiv:2606.13217 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    R. H. Boyer and R. W. Lindquist, J. Math. Phys.8, 265 (1967)

    1967

  59. [59]

    V. P. Frolov, P. Krtous, and D. Kubiznak, Living Rev. Rel.20, 6 (2017), arXiv:1705.05482 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  60. [60]

    V. P. Frolov, P. Krtous, and D. Kubiznak, Phys. Rev. D 97, 104071 (2018), arXiv:1712.08070 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  61. [61]

    Lunin, JHEP12, 138 (2017), arXiv:1708.06766 [hep- th]

    O. Lunin, JHEP12, 138 (2017), arXiv:1708.06766 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [62]

    Krtouˇ s, V

    P. Krtouˇ s, V. P. Frolov, and D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, Nucl. Phys. B934, 7 (2018), arXiv:1803.02485 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  63. [63]

    D. R. Brill, P. L. Chrzanowski, C. Martin Pereira, E. D. Fackerell, and J. R. Ipser, Phys. Rev. D5, 1913 (1972)

    1913

  64. [64]

    Hancock and H

    F. Hancock and H. Witek, Phys. Rev. D112, 044033 (2025), arXiv:2506.06554 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    J. G. Rosa, Phys. Rev. D95, 064017 (2017), arXiv:1612.01826 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  66. [66]

    Cheek, L

    A. Cheek, L. Heurtier, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and J. Turner, Phys. Rev. D105, 015022 (2022), arXiv:2107.00013 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  67. [67]

    W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 1683 (1982)

    1982

  68. [68]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 1013 (1983)

    1983

  69. [69]

    D. N. Page, JCAP09, 028 (2013), arXiv:1301.4995 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013