Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 38 references

This paper derives a necessary local condition for spherical gravitational theories to evolve generic regular matter through a regular center: the two theory functions must have opposite parities under radial reversal, a rule that Hayward a

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

2026-08-04 06:28 UTC pith:LYB72FDF

load-bearing objection A genuinely new dynamical selection rule for regular black hole theories, with a solid core; the necessity proof leans on genericity assumptions that deserve a concrete stress test. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2608.02481 v1 pith:LYB72FDF submitted 2026-08-03 gr-qc

A parity selection rule for regular black holes

Farid Thaalba , Julio Arrechea , Stefano Liberati This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords regular black holesparity selection rulespherical symmetrygeneralized spherical gravityregular centerquasi-local massmass inversion symmetryde Sitter cores
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.

Within the most general class of action-based, identically conserved, second-order field equations for spherical gravity, a theory can carry generic regular matter through a regular center only if its defining functions α and β have opposite parities under reversal of the signed radial coordinate at fixed ψ=(1−χ)/r²—α even, β odd—together with center conditions α→0, ω=∂χ α−∂r β→0, and a nondegenerate central flux coefficient. For theories reconstructed from a static vacuum family, this condition becomes invariance of the metric function under simultaneous reversal of radius and mass, f(−r,−M)=f(r,M). The Hayward and Dymnikova theories pass the rule; the Bardeen theory fails it, so curvature regularity of a static metric is insufficient for dynamical consistency with generic matter. A reader should care because this is a necessary consistency filter for any theory intended to describe regular collapse: without it, posing regular initial data at the center requires fine-tuning.

Core claim

Within the most general action-based, identically conserved, second-order field equations for spherically symmetric gravity, the theory is fixed by two functions α(r,χ) and β(r,χ) of the areal radius and its gradient squared. The paper proves that if such a theory is to host generic, evolving, regular matter at a regular center, the equations near r=0 force α to be even and β to be odd in the signed radial coordinate at fixed ψ=(1−χ)/r², and require α→0, ω=∂χ α−∂r β→0, and a nondegenerate central flux coefficient b1. In the integrable sector this is equivalent to the quasi-local mass being odd across the center, vanishing as r³, and carrying no point mass. For theories reconstructed from a s

What carries the argument

The central object is the master field-equation pair for spherical gravity, parameterized by two free functions α(r,χ) and β(r,χ); the proof organizes all fields in even/odd radial parity at fixed ψ=(1−χ)/r² and expands around r=0. The machinery includes the potential-function formulation in the integrable sector, whose on-shell value defines the quasi-local mass, and the central flux law b1(ψ_c) ∂_t ψ_c = −16π [T_tr/r]_{r=0}, which requires b1≠0. The equivalent mass-inversion form f(−r,−M)=f(r,M) lets the rule be read directly from a metric function.

Load-bearing premise

The necessity proof assumes that generic regular matter at the center can vary its energy density and leading flux coefficient independently, and that a regular center means a strict ordinary point; if either fails, theories that violate the rule might pass.

What would settle it

A concrete refutation would be to exhibit a solution of the Bardeen-reconstructed theory with generic massless scalar initial data that passes smoothly through r=0 with finite curvature, no constraint violation, and nonzero flux at the center; alternatively, show that a parity-violating pair with b1≠0 admits a smooth perturbative solution with ∂_t f≠0 near r=0.

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

If this is right

  • The Bardeen theory cannot support generic evolving matter at a regular center, so its curvature-regular static core is not a dynamical consistency guarantee.
  • The Hayward and Dymnikova theories pass, meaning their center expansions close order by order and the central compactness is fixed by the central density just as in general relativity.
  • The parity rule is a necessary condition only: general relativity satisfies it yet collapses to singularities, so passing the rule does not predict a nonsingular endpoint.
  • The admissible theory space is infinite; one-family profiles h(ψ) with a pole generate Hayward-like black holes with mass-independent de Sitter limiting densities, and Hayward is the unique member with a rational metric function.
  • The companion center conditions (α→0 and ω→0) exclude theories that pass the parity test but carry deep poles at the center, so the full rule is stronger than parity alone.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • As a model-building filter, the mass-inversion test f(−r,−M)=f(r,M) is cheap to apply to any proposed regular black hole metric; mirror-symmetric metrics (even in r at fixed mass) are generically excluded, so the search for admissible theories should start from odd-in-r potentials.
  • The same local center conditions constrain ordinary relativistic stars, not only black holes: any theory that cannot transport generic matter through r=0 will also fail to describe regular stellar interiors.
  • The central flux law suggests a numerical diagnostic: in codes that include the origin, the coefficient b1 entering ∂_t ψ_c can be extracted, and its vanishing would signal a theory that cannot evolve generic matter rather than a coordinate artifact.
  • The paper leaves open whether charged regular black holes respect the rule; since charge can break regularity in RBH models, testing the parity rule on charged extensions could reveal whether the mass-inversion symmetry is preserved.

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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives a necessary local consistency condition for spherically symmetric effective gravitational theories (the 2D-Horndeski master system of Refs. [16–18]) to be able to evolve generic regular matter through a regular centre. The main result is a parity selection rule: at fixed ψ=(1−χ)/r², the theory functions must satisfy α(−r,ψ)=α(r,ψ) and β(−r,ψ)=−β(r,ψ), together with centre conditions α→0, ω=∂_χ α−∂_r β→0, and nondegenerate flux coefficient b₁≠0. For integrable theories reverse-constructed from static vacuum families, this is shown to be equivalent to the metric covariance f(−r,−M)=f(r,M). The paper analyzes GR, Hayward, Dymnikova, and Bardeen, concluding that Hayward and Dymnikova obey the rule while Bardeen violates it, so curvature regularity of a static solution is insufficient for dynamical centre consistency. It also constructs an infinite family of admissible Hayward-like theories and identifies Hayward as the unique Möbius/rational member.

Significance. If the main theorem holds, this is a valuable and novel diagnostic for regular black hole model building: it separates kinematical regularity of a metric from dynamical consistency of the underlying theory, and it provides a simple metric-level test (Eq. 33) for reverse-constructed theories. The paper is careful to state what the rule does not deliver (well-posedness, formation, endpoint). The explicit expansions in Appendix A, the equivalence proof for integrable theories, and the classification of the one-function family (38) are concrete, checkable results. The identification of Hayward as the unique rational member of the admissible family is an elegant structural observation. The honest discussion of limitations (no assessment of hyperbolicity or collapse endpoint) strengthens the paper's credibility.

major comments (1)
  1. [§III.B, footnote 5 and abstract] The parity rule is derived under the assumption that α and β are analytic in r at fixed ψ, explicitly excluding flat non-analytic terms such as e^{−1/r²}. The abstract and introduction, however, describe the result as applying to 'the most general class of action-based, identically conserved, second-order gravitational field equations in spherical symmetry.' This overstates the scope unless the analyticity hypothesis is explicitly incorporated into the theorem statement. The paper should either relax this restriction (the open-neighbourhood argument in footnote 5 is only sketched) or uniformly qualify the claim in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV.B, Bardeen paragraph] The conclusion that the Bardeen theory 'cannot support generic evolving matter at a regular centre' is inferred from the wrong parities and the divergence of α_b, β_b at the centre. This is plausible given the proof, but it is not a direct demonstration of an inconsistency in the coupled scalar+geometry system. Consider adding a brief explicit expansion or reference to a future check.
  2. [§V, Eq. (42)] The p=2 solution is presented without derivation. For reproducibility, show at least the profile h_p(ψ)=ψ(1−ℓ²ψ)^{−p} and the inversion leading to Eq. (42).
  3. [§VI.A] The 'orientation-reversal analogy' is somewhat speculative and could be shortened or clearly separated from the mathematical result. The paper itself notes it is secondary; consider compressing it.
  4. [Notation] The subscripts '_b' for Bardeen theory functions (α_b, β_b) are easily confused with the expansion coefficients a_k, b_k in Eq. (27). Consider using different labels, e.g., α_B, β_B.
  5. [Abstract/Introduction] The abstract mentions 'generic minimally coupled matter' but the derivation uses a massless scalar field. While the paper argues (Sec. III.B) that only parity and leading-order behavior matter, make this explicit in the abstract to avoid a naive reading.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the parity rule is derived from the stated generic-matter assumptions, not from fitting or self-referential definition.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a necessary condition on the theory functions (α, β) for consistency with regular matter at a regular center. The derivation chain is explicit and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Regular centers are defined by the ordinary-point parity assignments of Eq. (18); the parity of α and β is then inferred from the parity projections of the master field equations (8)–(10), not imposed. The centre conditions α→0 and ω→0 follow from the O(r²) and O(r³) scaling of the regular source (23)–(26). The pole-exclusion argument uses coefficient matching in Appendix A, with ψ₂ treated as free matter data. The metric-level criterion f(−r,−M)=f(r,M) is proved equivalent to Ω being odd via the uniqueness of mass inversion, not assumed. The examples (GR, Hayward, Dymnikova, Bardeen) are direct evaluations of known metrics, and the family (38) is explicitly a construction satisfying the rule, not a fitted prediction. No parameter is tuned to make the rule come out, and no 'prediction' is a renamed input. The genericity assumptions—regular solutions with ∂_t f≠0 near the center and independently specifiable flux coefficients—are stated assumptions about the solution space; they scope the necessity claim but do not make it circular. The only citations by current authors are peripheral: [27] is invoked for an analogous static result and a counterexample, not as the foundation of the derivation, and the master-field-equation framework is cited from independent external work. A robustness concern about whether wrong-parity theories might have degenerate solution spaces is a correctness question, not a circularity. The paper is self-contained against the benchmarks it evaluates, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The rule's necessity proof loads most heavily on four premises: (i) the master-equation framework [16] being the most general action-based, identically-conserved, second-order class (Sec. II); (ii) the strict ordinary-point definition of a regular center that fixes the parity assignment (Eq. 18) — stronger than curvature-regularity used elsewhere; (iii) analyticity of α, β in r at fixed ψ, excluding flat terms (footnote 5); (iv) genericity of matter data, i.e., free independent central coefficients that any admissible theory must accommodate without fine-tuning. No new entities are introduced; the free freedoms are the model scale ℓ in the example metrics and the profile function h(ψ) (with p>0) in the constructed admissible family (Eq. 38).

free parameters (2)
  • regularization scale ℓ = not fitted (free model scale)
    Length scale in Hayward/Bardeen/Dymnikova metrics and in the new family h_p(ψ)=ψ(1−ℓ²ψ)^{−p}; chosen by hand as a model parameter, not fitted. The central rule does not depend on its value, but the examples' pass/fail assignments and the new solution (42) do.
  • profile function h(ψ) and exponent p = h(0)=0, h'(0)=1, h'>0; p>0
    In the admissible family Ω=2r³h(ψ) (Eq. 38), h is a free function fixed only by GR asymptotics and positivity; the sub-family h_p(ψ)=ψ(1−ℓ²ψ)^{−p} adds a free parameter p>0. These are construction freedoms of admissible theories, not fitted values.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The master field equations of [16] are the most general action-based, identically conserved, second-order spherically symmetric gravitational field equations, parametrized by two functions α(r,χ), β(r,χ).
    Used throughout (§II, Eqs. 4–10); the paper's domain is this class. If [16]'s generality claim fails, the selection rule's scope shrinks.
  • domain assumption A regular center is an ordinary point: f, n, φ, ρ even in r, u^r odd, T_tt, T_rr even, T_tr odd (Eq. 18), stronger than finiteness of curvature invariants.
    §IIIA; the entire parity structure of the rule derives from this definition, which the paper itself notes is more restrictive than curvature-regularity used elsewhere in the RBH literature [30,31].
  • ad hoc to paper α, β are analytic in r at fixed ψ (apart from possible center poles of order at most α=O(1/r), β=O(1/r²)); flat non-analytic terms such as e^{−1/r²} are excluded.
    §IIIB and footnote 5. Defines the class in which necessity is proven; also fixes the maximum allowed pole order before the no-pole argument runs.
  • domain assumption Generic regular matter must be accommodatable without fine-tuning: the central density and leading flux coefficient of a massless scalar are independent free data (Eqs. 21–23), and a healthy theory admits solutions with B_t f ≠ 0 near the center.
    §IIIB; powers the β_even=0 step, the pole-elimination residues (ψ₂ free), and the nondegeneracy b₁≠0. If physical matter or initial data are less generic, the necessity claim contracts.
  • domain assumption The reverse construction is valid on branches with invertible mass dependence B_M f ≠ 0, and the Birkhoff theorem of [16] holds for the class.
    §IV; the metric-level form f(−r,−M)=f(r,M) and the examples (Hayward, Bardeen, Dymnikova via Lambert W) rely on uniqueness of mass inversion.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 15941 in / 30846 out tokens · 293480 ms · 2026-08-04T06:28:18.854757+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Regular black hole metrics are usually studied kinematically, but a finite-curvature static core does not guarantee that the underlying theory can consistently evolve generic matter through a regular center. We derive a necessary local consistency condition within the most general class of action-based, identically conserved, second-order gravitational field equations in spherical symmetry. Regularity requires that the two functions defining the theory have opposite parities under reversal of the signed radial coordinate, together with additional center-regularity and nondegeneracy conditions. In the integrable sector, this criterion is equivalent to requiring the generalized Misner--Sharp--Hernandez mass to be odd across the center, to vanish cubically there, and to contain no point-mass contribution. For theories reconstructed from static one-parameter vacuum families, the condition becomes covariance under simultaneous reversal of radius and mass. The theories associated with the Hayward and Dymnikova geometries satisfy this selection rule. In contrast, the Bardeen theory does not, demonstrating that curvature regularity of a static solution is insufficient for dynamical consistency with generic matter. We also characterize an infinite class of admissible theories containing Hayward-like black holes with de Sitter cores. The selection rule provides a necessary condition for theories intended to describe regular collapse, but does not by itself establish well-posedness or guarantee a nonsingular endpoint.

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

38 extracted references · 24 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Penrose, Gravitational collapse and space-time singu- larities, Phys

    R. Penrose, Gravitational collapse and space-time singu- larities, Phys. Rev. Lett.14, 57 (1965)

    1965

  2. [2]

    C. Lan, H. Yang, Y. Guo, and Y.-G. Miao, Regular Black Holes: A Short Topic Review, Int. J. Theor. Phys.62, 202 (2023), arXiv:2303.11696 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Carballo-Rubioet al., Towards a non-singular paradigm of black hole physics, JCAP05, 003, arXiv:2501.05505 [gr-qc]

    R. Carballo-Rubioet al., Towards a non-singular paradigm of black hole physics, JCAP05, 003, arXiv:2501.05505 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    Bardeen, Non-singular general-relativistic gravita- tional collapse, Abstracts of GR5 — the 5th international conference on gravitation and the theory of relativity, eds

    J. Bardeen, Non-singular general-relativistic gravita- tional collapse, Abstracts of GR5 — the 5th international conference on gravitation and the theory of relativity, eds. V. A. Fock et al. (Tbilisi University Press, Tbilisi, Georgia, former USSR) , 174 (1968)

    1968

  5. [5]

    S. A. Hayward, Formation and evaporation of regular black holes, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 031103 (2006), arXiv:gr- qc/0506126

    arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    Dymnikova, Vacuum nonsingular black hole, Gen

    I. Dymnikova, Vacuum nonsingular black hole, Gen. Rel. Grav.24, 235 (1992)

    1992

  7. [7]

    Simpson and M

    A. Simpson and M. Visser, The eye of the storm: a regu- lar Kerr black hole, JCAP03(03), 011, arXiv:2111.12329 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    Panassiti, Regular black hole cores via gravitational evanescence of collapsing matter, Phys

    A. Panassiti, Regular black hole cores via gravitational evanescence of collapsing matter, Phys. Rev. D113, 064057 (2026), arXiv:2509.17234 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Arrechea, S

    J. Arrechea, S. Liberati, H. Neshat, and V. Vellucci, From de Sitter to anti–de Sitter singularity regulariza- tion: Theory and phenomenology, Phys. Rev. D112, 124029 (2025), arXiv:2509.13421 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Flachi and J

    A. Flachi and J. P. S. Lemos, Quasinormal modes of regular black holes, Phys. Rev. D87, 024034 (2013), arXiv:1211.6212 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  11. [11]

    Carballo-Rubio, F

    R. Carballo-Rubio, F. Di Filippo, S. Liberati, and M. Visser, A connection between regular black holes and horizonless ultracompact stars, JHEP08, 046, arXiv:2211.05817 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    Franzin, S

    E. Franzin, S. Liberati, and V. Vellucci, From reg- ular black holes to horizonless objects: quasi-normal modes, instabilities and spectroscopy, JCAP01, 020, arXiv:2310.11990 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    Ayon-Beato and A

    E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, Regular black hole in general relativity coupled to nonlinear electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 5056 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9911046

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  14. [14]

    K. A. Bronnikov, Regular magnetic black holes and monopoles from nonlinear electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D63, 044005 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0006014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  15. [15]

    Kudryavcev, Y

    D. Kudryavcev, Y. Ling, and V. Vertogradov, Exact dy- namical regular black holes from generalized polytropic matter, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 780 (2026), arXiv:2602.10768 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Carballo-Rubio, Master field equations for spherically symmetric gravitational fields beyond general relativity, Nature Commun.17, 1399 (2026), arXiv:2507.15920 [gr- qc]

    R. Carballo-Rubio, Master field equations for spherically symmetric gravitational fields beyond general relativity, Nature Commun.17, 1399 (2026), arXiv:2507.15920 [gr- qc]

    arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Borissova, All2Dgeneralised dilaton theories fromdě 4gravities, (2026), arXiv:2603.06786 [hep-th]

    J. Borissova, All2Dgeneralised dilaton theories fromdě 4gravities, (2026), arXiv:2603.06786 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Borissova and R

    J. Borissova and R. Carballo-Rubio, Regular black holes from pure gravity in four dimensions, (2026), arXiv:2602.16773 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    G. W. Horndeski, Second-order scalar-tensor field equa- tions in a four-dimensional space, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 363 (1974)

    1974

  20. [20]

    Kobayashi, Horndeski theory and beyond: a review, Rept

    T. Kobayashi, Horndeski theory and beyond: a review, Rept. Prog. Phys.82, 086901 (2019), arXiv:1901.07183 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Kunstatter, H

    G. Kunstatter, H. Maeda, and T. Taves, New 2D dilaton gravity for nonsingular black holes, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 105005 (2016), arXiv:1509.06746 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    Boyanov and R

    V. Boyanov and R. Carballo-Rubio, Regular Vaidya So- lutions of Effective Gravitational Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 171403 (2026), arXiv:2506.14875 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Bueno, P

    P. Bueno, P. A. Cano, R. A. Hennigar, and Á. J. Murcia, Regular black hole formation in four-dimensional non- polynomial gravities, Phys. Rev. D113, 024019 (2026), arXiv:2509.19016 [gr-qc]. 11

    arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Bueno, P

    P. Bueno, P. A. Cano, and R. A. Hennigar, Regular black holes from pure gravity, Phys. Lett. B861, 139260 (2025), arXiv:2403.04827 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Bueno, P

    P. Bueno, P. A. Cano, R. A. Hennigar, and A. J. Murcia, Dynamical Formation of Regular Black Holes, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 181401 (2025), arXiv:2412.02742 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Bueno, P

    P. Bueno, P. A. Cano, R. A. Hennigar, and Á. J. Murcia, Regular Black Holes in Nonlocal Quasitopological Grav- ity, (2026), arXiv:2607.07790 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Arrechea, R

    J. Arrechea, R. Carballo-Rubio, and M. Visser, Effective geometrostatics of spherical stars beyond general relativ- ity, (2026), arXiv:2603.24269 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    C. W. Misner and D. H. Sharp, Relativistic equations for adiabatic, spherically symmetric gravitational collapse, Phys. Rev.136, B571 (1964)

    1964

  29. [29]

    W. C. Hernandez and C. W. Misner, Observer Time as a Coordinate in Relativistic Spherical Hydrodynamics, Astrophys. J.143, 452 (1966)

    1966

  30. [30]

    Zhou and L

    T. Zhou and L. Modesto, Geodesic incompleteness of some popular regular black holes, Phys. Rev. D107, 044016 (2023), arXiv:2208.02557 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Antonelli and M

    T. Antonelli and M. Sebastianutti, Singularity and dif- ferentiability at the origin of static and spherically sym- metric black holes, Phys. Rev. D113, 064007 (2026), arXiv:2509.15477 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Ziprick and G

    J. Ziprick and G. Kunstatter, Quantum Corrected Spher- ical Collapse: A Phenomenological Framework, Phys. Rev. D82, 044031 (2010), arXiv:1004.0525 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  33. [33]

    Barenboim, A

    J. Barenboim, A. V. Frolov, and G. Kunstatter, Evapo- ration of regular black holes in 2D dilaton gravity, Phys. Rev. D111, 104068 (2025), arXiv:2503.03191 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Papallo and H

    G. Papallo and H. S. Reall, On the local well-posedness of Lovelock and Horndeski theories, Phys. Rev. D96, 044019 (2017), arXiv:1705.04370 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  35. [35]

    J. L. Ripley, Numerical relativity for Horndeski grav- ity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D31, 2230017 (2022), arXiv:2207.13074 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Dymnikova black hole from an infinite tower of higher-curvature corrections, Phys. Lett. B856, 138945 (2024), arXiv:2404.09063 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Markov, Limiting density of matter as a universal law of nature, Letters to ZhETF36, 214 (1982)

    M. Markov, Limiting density of matter as a universal law of nature, Letters to ZhETF36, 214 (1982)

    1982

  38. [38]

    Carballo-Rubio, C

    R. Carballo-Rubio, C. Coviello, and V. Vellucci, Charg- ing up regular black holes, (2026), arXiv:2607.07831 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026