Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 83 references

Static topological dilatonic black hole with multiple horizons and its thermodynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs an exact static topological black hole in Einstein-dilaton gravity with a nonlinear electromagnetic field whose metric function can have up to five horizons, and shows that the resulting thermodynamics can contain a tr

desk verdict A useful but unpolished extension of Gao's multi-horizon construction to dilaton gravity; the exactness claim rests on a truncation condition that looks inconsistent as printed and needs a referee's algebra check. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26535 v1 pith:3OOEIGN5 submitted 2026-07-29 hep-th

M. M. Stetsko This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords dilatonicblackholenonlinearelectrodynamicsmultiplehorizonstopologicalthermodynamicstriplepointEuclideanactionSmarrrelation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

In standard Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theory a charged black hole has at most two horizons. This paper argues that once the Maxwell field is replaced by a nonlinear electrodynamics written as an infinite power series, with a dilaton coupling in each term, the metric function can be arranged to have four or five zeros, and the same mechanism can be extended to any number. The author derives an explicit closed-form static topological solution, checks the energy conditions, and constructs the full thermodynamics both from the quasilocal formalism and from the Euclidean action method. The payoff: a black hole that normally has two phases can instead exhibit three coexisting phases and a triple point, along with first- and zeroth-order phase transitions, while critical exponents remain the universal mean-field values.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the electric field written as a four-term power series whose exponents are controlled by the dilaton-dependent parameter gamma = alpha^2/(1+alpha^2). The coefficients are chosen so that the gauge-field equation reduces to a finite polynomial, and the resulting expressions plug into the Einstein and dilaton equations to give the closed metric function (25). The truncation conditions that set higher-order electric-field terms to zero are what turn an infinite construction into an exact solution; the same series structure then defines the temperature, the free energies, and the Smarr relation.

What would settle it

A direct numerical integration of the field equations without truncating the series at fourth order, using small generic values for the next coefficients, and checking whether a five-horizon solution still exists would settle whether the multiple-horizon phenomenon is a property of the full Lagrangian rather than a special truncation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an exact metric function U(r) that describes a static topological charged black hole when the electromagnetic Lagrangian is a finite truncation of a dilaton-modified power series over the Maxwell invariant. By adjusting the mass, charge, dilaton coupling, and nonlinear coefficients, U(r) can have up to five zeros, so the number of horizons is no longer limited to two. The same solution yields a nonmonotonic temperature and a free-energy structure with multiple stable phases, including a triple point in the canonical ensemble. The paper also derives a Smarr relation by treating the cosmological constant and the nonlinear coupling constants as thermodynamic variables.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on the assumption that the infinite nonlinear Lagrangian can be truncated by setting the coefficients alpha5, alpha6, and so on to specific values that force the higher electric-field terms to vanish; if those coefficients are generic, the closed-form metric function (25) and the five-horizon conclusion cease to follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The number of horizons becomes a controllable feature of the solution: retaining more terms in the nonlinear series should produce black holes with more than five horizons and correspondingly more thermodynamic phases.
  • In the canonical ensemble, the free energy predicts three coexisting phases (small, medium, and large) and a triple point for suitably tuned charge and cosmological constant, alongside ordinary first-order transitions.
  • In the grand canonical ensemble, above a critical electric potential the small-black-hole phase disappears through a zero-temperature first-order transition, and the Gibbs free energy becomes discontinuous, implying a zeroth-order transition.
  • The critical exponents take the classical mean-field values in all three thermodynamic descriptions considered, indicating a universality that goes beyond the particular ensemble.
  • Extending the phase space to treat the cosmological constant as pressure and the nonlinear couplings as thermodynamic variables yields a Smarr relation and an extended first law.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same truncation-then-solve logic could be applied to rotating or higher-curvature analogues, potentially giving a whole family of multi-horizon black holes whose phase structure mirrors the nonlinear series length.
  • The triple point appears to arise from the coexistence of multiple power-law terms in the metric function; a Landau-type free energy with two competing order parameters might reproduce the phase diagram without needing the full metric.
  • The requirement that higher-order coefficients be tuned to zero suggests a testable hierarchy: if a UV completion produces generic coefficients, the five-horizon solution is a special limit rather than a generic prediction, and measurements of black-hole ringdown or shadows could constrain that tuning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a static, topological, charged black-hole solution in Einstein-dilaton gravity with a nonlinear electromagnetic Lagrangian of Gao type, L_ne = Σ_j α_j e^{-8αΦj/(n-1)} (F²)^j (Eq. (2)). Using a static ansatz (6) with R(r)=e^{2αΦ/(n-1)} and a Liouville dilaton potential (10), the authors obtain a closed-form metric function U(r) (Eq. (25)) whose gauge field is a four-term truncation of an infinite series (Eq. (22)). The truncation is enforced by tuning the nonlinear coefficients (Eq. (21)); the authors argue the procedure can be extended to arbitrarily many horizons. They analyze energy conditions (all four satisfied for the NED outside the horizon for the plotted cases; only NEC for the dilaton), derive the first law T=(∂M/∂S)_q, Φ_q=(∂M/∂q)_S, and develop Euclidean thermodynamics in the grand canonical and canonical ensembles, obtaining phase diagrams with first-order transitions, a possible triple point, and local-stability criteria. In extended phase space they derive an equation of state, find mean-field critical exponents (β=1/2, γ=1, δ=3, α=0), and give a Smarr relation (109) with the nonlinear couplings treated as thermodynamic variables.

Significance. The paper is a constructive extension of Gao's multihorizon construction [53] to dilaton gravity, and if the solution is exact it provides a new family of dilatonic black holes with up to five horizons and a correspondingly richer thermodynamic phase structure (triple point, multiple stable phases). The presentation has real virtues: the metric, temperature, mass, charge and free energies are given in closed form; the Lorentzian first law and the Euclidean results are cross-checked (entropy (44) is reproduced from the on-shell action; the Gauss-law charge (67) matches (49)); and the Smarr relation (109) is a nontrivial extension that treats the nonlinear couplings as thermodynamic variables. Because the construction is algebraic, every displayed formula is checkable, and this is exactly why the missing verification of the truncation conditions is decisive: the thermodynamic claims are interesting but contingent on the exactness of (22)-(25). The paper does not overstate its novelty relative to [53,57], and the energy-condition and phase-transition discussion is appropriately cautionary in places, but the abstract's energy-condition claim outruns the demonstration.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eqs. (19)–(21)] Eq. (21) is internally inconsistent with the displayed coefficients (19)–(20). Substituting the printed α5 = −(176α2^4 − 132α2^2α3 + 9α3^2 + 16α2α4) into (19) does not produce b5 = 0; cancellation there would require α5 = 176α2^4 + 132α2^3α3 + 9α3^2 + 16α2α4. Likewise, inserting the printed α5 and α6 into the bracket of (20) leaves a non-zero residual at order b1^11, so the b6 coefficient does not vanish. Consequently the four-term field (22) and the metric (25) are not verified as written. Please correct the displayed conditions or show the consistent recursion.
  2. [§2, after Eq. (21)] The assertion following (21) that 'the following coefficients bi are set to zero as well and it always can be done' is not proved. With the four-term Er of (22), the left side of (13) is an infinite Laurent series in r, so matching the RHS requires infinitely many coefficient conditions; only the first two are exhibited. A sequential elimination may well exist — each new α_{i+1} appears linearly in bi (cf. (15)–(20)), so one can solve for it order by order — but the paper must state and prove this, or give the general recurrence. If any higher-order residual survives, (22) is not exact and the five-horizon solution and its thermodynamics collapse. This is load-bearing.
  3. [§2, Eqs. (3)–(5), (25)] The full field-equation verification is missing. The paper states that combining Ett and Err gives (11) and that 'the equations (3) and (4) give rise to' (23)–(24), but it never shows that (11), (22), (23)–(24), and (25) satisfy all components of (3) and the dilaton equation (4), including the angular components. Given the complexity of (25) and the unresolved truncation issue, this is not cosmetic. Please supply the explicit substitution (an appendix or supplementary notebook would suffice), so the exactness claim can be checked.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Notation; Eqs. (25), (48), (60), (76)] The symbol α2 is used both for the second nonlinear coefficient (e.g. (22), (34)) and for the square of the dilaton coupling α² (e.g. denominators n−2+α2 and 1−α2 in (25), (40), (48); also '1−α4' in (60) is presumably 1−α^4). This collision makes several formulas ambiguous; (76) even has 'n−2+a2'. Please use distinct notation, e.g. a_2 for the nonlinear coefficient.
  2. [§2.1 and Abstract] The abstract claims that for the nonlinear electromagnetic field 'all the energy conditions are fulfilled outside of the black hole', but §2.1 verifies this only numerically for one parameter set (Fig. 3) and then extrapolates. The explicit relations (34)–(35) are not analyzed in general. Either prove the relevant inequalities from (34)–(35) under stated conditions, or soften the abstract wording.
  3. [§5.1, Eq. (109)] The Smarr relation is derived 'via Euler homogeneous functions theorem', but the homogeneity weights and the explicit derivatives ∂M/∂α2, ∂M/∂α3, ∂M/∂α4 are not given, so (109)–(112) cannot be checked from the text. Please list the weights or provide the derivatives.
  4. [§2, Eq. (21); Eq. (83)] After (21), 'conditions on the higher order coefficients bi' should read 'coefficients αi'. Also, Eq. (83) contains a typo: the exponent '(4−3n)(1−g)' should be '(1−γ)'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the multi-horizon solution is an explicit construction from the chosen action, not a fitted prediction; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation starts from the action (1), the ansatze (6) and (9), the Liouville potential (10), and the field equations (3)-(5). The nonlinear coefficients α5 and α6 are chosen in Eq. (21) to truncate the electric-field series; this is a condition on the Lagrangian parameters, not a fit to an external target. The metric function U(r) in Eq. (25), the temperature (40), entropy (44), mass (46), charge (49), and potential (51) are all explicit consequences of that chosen solution, and the first law (52)-(53) is checked as internal consistency. The Euclidean actions in GCE and CE reproduce the same entropy, charge, and mass, again a consistency check rather than a circular prediction. References [13, 53, 57] supply the construction framework and known multi-horizon/thermodynamic phenomena from other authors; the author's own earlier papers are used for standard formulas or for quantities rederived here, and none of them alone carries the central existence claim. The main weakness is not circularity: after Eq. (21) the paper asserts that the higher coefficients 'always can be done' without proving consistency of the infinite set of truncation conditions, so the exactness of the truncated electric field (22) and of the five-horizon solution is an unverified algebraic claim — a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. No step of the derivation reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The 'new' content is a specific matter Lagrangian and ansatz, not a new physical entity. The main free parameters are the dilaton coupling, the integration scale b, and the nonlinear coefficients, all chosen by hand.

free parameters (3)
  • α (dilaton coupling) = chosen by hand; e.g. 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 in figures
    Dimensionless coupling between dilaton and electromagnetic field. Its value controls horizon structure and asymptotic behavior; it is a model input, not derived from independent data.
  • b (integration constant / scale) = set to 1 or 0.9 in figures
    Appears throughout the solution as a length scale and is fixed by hand in the numerical examples. The solution depends on it and it is not determined by the field equations.
  • Nonlinear coefficients α2, α3, α4 = different choices in different figures, e.g. α2=-0.0893, α3=0.0295, α4=-0.01453
    Coefficients of the nonlinear electromagnetic series. They are chosen by hand to produce the desired finite series, multiple horizons, and phase behavior. The central multi-horizon claim is conditional on these choices.
assumptions (7)
  • ad hoc to paper Static topological metric ansatz with R(r)=exp(2αΦ/(n-1)), Eq. (6)-(9)
    The exponential relation between R(r) and Φ is imposed to separate the field equations and obtain an analytic solution; it is not derived from the action.
  • ad hoc to paper Liouville-form dilaton potential V(Φ)=Σ Λ_k exp(λ_k Φ), Eq. (10), with λ0 and λ1 fixed by the solution
    The dilaton potential is selected specifically to make the ansatz work; no independent physical evidence is given for this form.
  • domain assumption Normalization α1=1 to recover Maxwell theory in the linear limit
    A conventional normalization of the nonlinear series, stated after Eq. (13).
  • ad hoc to paper Truncation constraints on α5, α6, ..., Eq. (21)
    The infinite series is truncated to four terms by fine-tuning higher-order coefficients. This is necessary for the closed-form solution and the five-horizon claim; no independent justification is provided.
  • domain assumption Entropy S = horizon area / 4 for this dilaton theory, Eq. (44)
    The area law is invoked for the dilatonic black hole via the Wald approach; standard but not independently proven in the paper.
  • domain assumption Euclidean background subtraction, including β√U=β0√U0 and chosen reference backgrounds
    The finite Euclidean action depends on background subtraction against thermal-AdS or critical black hole backgrounds. This is a standard but nontrivial choice that affects the free energies.
  • standard math Euler homogeneous-function theorem for deriving the Smarr relation, Eq. (110)
    The Smarr relation is obtained by treating M as a homogeneous function of S, P, q, α2, α3, α4; this relies on standard calculus plus the stated homogeneity assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Static topological dilatonic black hole with multiple horizons and its thermodynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3OOEIGN5

@misc{pith2026260726535,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Static topological dilatonic black hole with multiple horizons and its thermodynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3OOEIGN5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26535}
}
read the original abstract

We obtain a static topological charged black hole solution within Einstein-dilaton theory with nonlinear electromagnetic field represented by an infinite series over Maxwell field invariant. In contrast with standard Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton (EMD) theory where the black hole might have no more than two horizons, the nonlinear generalization might give rise to a solution with arbitrary number of horizons. We examine energy conditions and show that for the nonlinear electromagnetic field itself all the energy conditions are fulfilled outside of the black hole, whereas for the dilaton field the only condition which is not violated outside is the Null Energy Condition (NEC). We also study thermodynamics of the black hole and show that the thermal behaviour of the solution is considerably richer than for its standard EMD cousin. To have complete description of the thermodynamics we also use the Euclidean method, which allows us to consider the so-called Grand Canonical and Canonical Ensembles. The results obtained by different approaches show their consistency. The Euclidean description naturally allowed us to consider global stability, which is shown to have some common features with standard EMD solution, or even Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m black hole. But there some new peculiarities caused by the nonlinear field, namely we might have additional stable phases and a triple point. To examine near critical behaviour we consider the extended phase space approach, where the cosmological constant is supposed to be a thermodynamic variable. Making use of the extended formalism we also obtain the Smarr relation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26535 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Metric function U(r) with up to four horizons for different types of topology of the horizon (the left graph) and various parameters α (the right one). The parameters defining these particular curves are as follows. For the left graph: n = 4, Λ = −3, α = 0.1, b = 1, m = 2, q = 1.2, solid, dashed and dashdotted lines correspond to ε = 1, ε = 0 and ε = −1 respectively. For the right graph we have n = 4, Λ = −3, ε = 1,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Metric function U(r) with up to five horizons for various values of dilaton coupling α (the left graph) and various electric charges Q (the right one). For both graphs we take n = 3, ε = 1, Λ = −4, b = 0.9, m = 2.5, α2 = −9 · 10−4 , α3 = 3.14 · 10−6 and α4 = −1.64187 · 10−8 . For the left graph we take q = 0.6 and solid, dashed and dashdotted lines correspond to α = 0.3, α = 0.4 and α = 0.5 respectively. For the rig… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Energy conditions functions for the black hole wit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temperature T as a function of the horizon radius r+. The left and right graphs show compliance to variation of the parameters α and Q respectively. For both cases we take n = 3, ε = 1, b = 1, Λ = −0.25, α2 = −0.0893, α3 = 0.0295 and α4 = −0.01453. For the left graph t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temperature T as a function of horizon radius r+ and the Gibbs potential-temeperature de￾pendence W = W(T) for fixed values of the electric potential below its critical value Φq < Φ (c) q . Both graphs correspond to the same values of fixed parameters, namely n = 3, ε …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temperature T as a function of horizon radius r+ and the Gibbs potential-temperature dependence W = W(T) for fixed values of the electric potential when it is larger than its critical value Φq > Φ (c) q . The fixed parameters are chosen to be the same as for the Fig.[5…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Temperature T as a function of horizon radius r+ and the Gibbs potential-temperature dependence W = W(T) for fixed Φq if the electric potential further goes up. Again the fixed parameters are the same as for the figures above (Fig.[5] and Fig.[6]). The potential from b…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The Gibbs potential-temperature dependence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The black hole temperature T as function of the horizon radius r+ (the left graph) and corre￾sponding free energy-temperature dependences F = F(T) (the right one) for fixed black hole charge. For both graphs the fixed parameters are as follows: n = 3, ε = 1, α = 0.1, b…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The free energy F = F(T) when the triple point occurs. The fixed parameters are very close to what is taken above, namely n = 3, ε = 1, α = 0.1, b = 1, α2 = −0.0893, α3 = 0.0295, α4 = −0.01453, but the cosmological constant and the charge are as follows: Λ = −0.15 and…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The free energy-temperature dependence below (l [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Shift of the triple point while the coupling const [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Heat capacity Cq as a function of the horizon radius r+. It shows the shift and transformation of the the stable and unstable domains while the charge q is varied. The fixed parameters are taken similarly as above, namely: n = 3, ε = 1, α = 0.1, b = 1, α2 = −0.0893, α…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Heat capacity CΦ as a function of the horizon radius r+. The left and the right graphs show the function CΦ = CΦ(r+) for the cases Φq < Φ (c) q and Φq > Φ (c) q correspondingly. The fixed parameters are taken similarly as above, namely: n = 3, ε = 1, α = 0.1, b = 1, α…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Isothermal electric susceptibility ǫT as a function of the horizon radius r+. Similarly as for the heat capacity Cφ = CΦ(r+) we consider two cases Φq < Φ (c) q and Φq > Φ (c) q (left and right graphs respectively). The fixed parameters again are taken similarly as abo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [53]

    Gao, Phys

    C. Gao, Phys. Rev. D 104, 064038 (2021)

    2021

  2. [1]

    Will, Liv

    C. Will, Liv. Rev. Rel. 17, 4 (2014)

    2014

  3. [2]

    B. P. Abbott, et al , Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  4. [3]

    Brans, R

    C. Brans, R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124, 925 (1961)

    1961

  5. [4]

    Gibbons, K

    G. Gibbons, K. Maeda, Nucl. Phys. B 298, 741 (1988)

    1988

  6. [5]

    Garfinkle, G

    D. Garfinkle, G. T. Horowitz, A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3140 (1991)

    1991

  7. [6]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 44, 314 (1991)

    1991

  8. [7]

    Kallosh, T

    R. Kallosh, T. Ortin, Phys. Rev. D 48, 742 (1993)

    1993

Show all 83 references
  1. [8]

    Gregory, J

    R. Gregory, J. A. Harvey, Phys. Rev. D 47, 2411 (1993)

    1993

  2. [9]

    S. J. Poletti, D. L. Wiltshire, Phys. Rev. D 50, 7260 (1994); Erratum Phys. Rev. D 52, 3753 (1995)

    1994

  3. [10]

    R. G. Cai, J. Y. Ji, K. S. Soh, Phys. Rev. D 57, 6547 (1998)

    1998

  4. [11]

    C. J. Gao, S. N. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 70, 124019 (2004)

    2004

  5. [12]

    S. S. Yazadjiev, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 3875 (2005)

    2005

  6. [13]

    Sheykhi, Phys

    A. Sheykhi, Phys. Rev. D 76, 124025 (2007)

    2007

  7. [14]

    Sheykhi, Phys

    A. Sheykhi, Phys. Rev. D 77, 104022 (2008). 30

    2008

  8. [15]

    Sheykhi, M

    A. Sheykhi, M. Allahverdizadeh, Phys. Rev. D 78, 064073 (2008)

    2008

  9. [16]

    Sen, Nucl

    A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. B 440, 421 (1995)

    1995

  10. [17]

    Cvetiˇ c, D

    M. Cvetiˇ c, D. Youm, Phys. Rev. D 52, 2144 (1995)

    1995

  11. [18]

    Cvetiˇ c, D

    M. Cvetiˇ c, D. Youm, Nucl. Phys. B 472, 249 (1996)

    1996

  12. [19]

    Cvetiˇ c, D

    M. Cvetiˇ c, D. Youm, Nucl. Phys. B 476, 118 (1996)

    1996

  13. [20]

    Chong, M

    Z.-W. Chong, M. Cvetiˇ c, H. L¨ u, and C. N. Pope, Nucl. Phys. B 717, 246 (2005)

    2005

  14. [21]

    Lavrelashvili, D

    G. Lavrelashvili, D. Maison, Nucl. Phys. D 410, 407 (1993)

    1993

  15. [22]

    Kleihaus, J

    B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, A. Sood, Phys. Rev. D 54, 5070 (1996)

    1996

  16. [23]

    Kleihaus, J

    B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2527 (1997)

    1997

  17. [24]

    Brihaye, B

    Y. Brihaye, B. Hartmann, J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. D 65, 024019 (2001)

    2001

  18. [25]

    Kleihaus, J

    B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, F. Navarro-Lerida, Phys. Rev. D 69, 064028 (2004)

    2004

  19. [26]

    E. Radu, D. H. Tchrakian, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 879 (2005)

    2005

  20. [27]

    M. M. Stetsko, Phys. Rev. D 101, 124017 (2020)

    2020

  21. [28]

    M. M. Stetsko, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36, 2150034 (2021)

    2021

  22. [29]

    M. M. Stetsko, Gen. Rel. Grav. 53, 2 (2021)

    2021

  23. [30]

    Mazur, J

    D. Mazur, J. S. Heyl, MNRAS 412, 1381 (2011)

    2011

  24. [31]

    J. Y. Kim, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 485 (2022)

    2022

  25. [32]

    A. G. Suvorov, J. A. Pons, MNRAS 539, 3655 (2025)

    2025

  26. [33]

    G. A. Porto, J. P. Pereira, G. Bittencourt, E. Guzm´ an-Herr era, Astrophys. J. 1005, 220 (2026)

    2026

  27. [34]

    Heisenberg, H

    W. Heisenberg, H. Euler, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 98, 714 (1936)

    1936

  28. [35]

    G. V. Dunne, Int. J. Mod. Phys.: Conf. Series 14, 42 (2012)

    2012

  29. [36]

    M. Born, L. Infeld, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 144, 425 (1934)

    1934

  30. [37]

    Hassa ¨ ıne, C

    M. Hassa ¨ ıne, C. Martinez, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 195023 (2008)

    2008

  31. [38]

    Maeda, M

    H. Maeda, M. Hassa ¨ ıne, C. Martinez, Phys. Rev. D 79, 044012 (2009)

    2009

  32. [39]

    Bandos, K

    I. Bandos, K. Lechner, D. Sorokin, P. K. Townsend, Phys. Re v. D 102, 121703 (2020)

    2020

  33. [40]

    Ay´ on-Beato, A

    , E. Ay´ on-Beato, A. Garc ´ ıa, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 5056 (1998)

    1998

  34. [41]

    Cai, D.-W

    R.-G. Cai, D.-W. Pang, A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 70, 124034 (2004)

    2004

  35. [42]

    S. H. Hendi, E. Eslam Panah, S. Panahiyan, JHEP 11, 157 (2015)

    2015

  36. [43]

    Flores-Alfonso, B

    D. Flores-Alfonso, B. A. Gonz´ alez-Moralez, R. Linares, M. Ma ceda, Phys. Lett. B 812, 136011 (2021)

    2021

  37. [44]

    Bokuli´ c, C

    A. Bokuli´ c, C. A. R. Herdeiro, Phys. Rev. 111, 064046 (2025)

    2025

  38. [45]

    I. Zh. Stefanov, S. S. Yazadjiev, M. D. Todorov, Phys. Rev. D 75, 084036 (2007)

    2007

  39. [46]

    S. H. Mazharimousavi, M. Halilsoy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, 1550177 (2015)

    2015

  40. [47]

    M. M. Stetsko, Phys. Rev. D 99, 044028 (2019)

    2019

  41. [48]

    M. M. Stetsko, Phys. Rev. D 101, 104004 (2020)

    2020

  42. [49]

    Kord Zangeneh, A

    M. Kord Zangeneh, A. Sheykhi, M. H. Dehghani, Phys. Rev. D 91, 044035 (2015)

    2015

  43. [50]

    M. H. Dehghani, M. R. Setare, Phys. Rev. D 100, 044022 (2019)

    2019

  44. [51]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 96, 104008 (2017)

    2017

  45. [52]

    C. Gao, Y. Lu, S. Yu, Y. G. Shen, Phys. Rev. D 97, 104013 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Bravo-Gaete, M

    M. Bravo-Gaete, M. B. Ahmed, R. B. Mann, C. Quijada, arxiv:26 05.24783

  47. [55]

    Pleba´ nski, Lectures on Non-Linear Electrodynamics Nordita, (1968)

    J. Pleba´ nski, Lectures on Non-Linear Electrodynamics Nordita, (1968)

    1968

  48. [56]

    Humberto Salazar I., Alberto Garcia D., Jerzy Pleba´ nski, J. Mat h. Phys. 28, 2171 (1987)

    1987

  49. [57]

    Tavakoli, J

    M. Tavakoli, J. Wu, R. B. Mann, JHEP 12, 117 (2022). 31

    2022

  50. [58]

    C. Fang, J. Jiang, M. Zhang, JHEP 01, 102 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    J. Yang, R. B. Mann, JHEP 08, 028 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    R. M. Wald, General Relativity, U. Chicago Press (1984)

    1984

  53. [61]

    Kontou, K

    E.-A. Kontou, K. Sanders, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 193001 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Bokuli´ c, I

    A. Bokuli´ c, I. Smoli´ c, T. Juri´ c, Phys. Rev. D103, 124059 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    Brimingham, Class

    D. Brimingham, Class. Quant. Grav. 16, 1197 (1999)

    1999

  56. [64]

    V. Iyer, R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 50, 846 (1994)

    1994

  57. [65]

    M. M. Stetsko, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 244 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    J. D. Brown, J. M. York, Phys. Rev. D 47, 1407 (1993)

    1993

  59. [67]

    W Gibbons, S

    G. W Gibbons, S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2572 (1977)

    1977

  60. [68]

    Witten, arXiv:hep-th/9803131

    E. Witten, arXiv:hep-th/9803131

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    Chamblin, R

    A. Chamblin, R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson, R. C. Myers, Phys.Rev . D 60, 064018 (1999)

    1999

  62. [70]

    Chamblin, R

    A. Chamblin, R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson, R. C. Myers, Phys.Rev . D 60, 104026 (1999)

    1999

  63. [71]

    J. F. Pedraza, W. Sybesma, M. R. Wisser, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 054002 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    S. W. Hawking, S. F. Ross, Phys. Rev. D 52, 5865 (1995)

    1995

  65. [73]

    Altamirano, D

    N. Altamirano, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, R. B. Mann, Z. Sherkatghanad,Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 042001 (2014)

    2014

  66. [74]

    Dehghani, S

    A. Dehghani, S. H. Hendi, R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 101, 084026 (2020)

    2020

  67. [75]

    Kastor, S

    D. Kastor, S. Ray, J. Traschen, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 195011 (2009)

    2009

  68. [76]

    Dolan, Class

    B. Dolan, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 125020 (2011)

    2011

  69. [77]

    Gunasekaran, D

    S. Gunasekaran, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, R. B. Mann, JHEP 10, 110 (2012)

    2012

  70. [78]

    Wei, Y.-X

    S.-W. Wei, Y.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 90, 044057 (2014)

    2014

  71. [79]

    Kubizˇ n´ ak, R

    D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, R. B. Mann, M. Teo, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 063001 (2017)

    2017

  72. [80]

    M. H. Dehghani, S. H. Kamrani, A. Sheykhi, Phys. Rev. D 90, 104020 (2014)

    2014

  73. [81]

    Dayyani, A

    Z. Dayyani, A. Sheykhi, M. H. Dehghani, Phys. Rev. D 95, 084004 (2017)

    2017

  74. [82]

    Gulin, I

    L. Gulin, I. Smoli´ c, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 025015 (2018)

    2018

  75. [83]

    Zhang, S

    Y. Zhang, S. Gao, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 145007 (2018) 32

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.