REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 97 references
Massive neutral Dirac quasibound states in a Newman-Janis-generated rotating charged Kalb-Ramond black-hole geometry
T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper shows massive neutral Dirac quasibound states in a rotating charged Kalb-Ramond geometry separate via the Carter principal tensor, and the KR parameter reverses the real-frequency ordering of the maximal-m, j=3/2, l=1 pair under…
desk verdict A well-audited first calculation of massive Dirac quasibound states for the NJ-generated rotating charged KR background; the separation argument is solid, and the one real caveat — the background is assumed, not derived — is flagged honestly by the authors themselves. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the principal closed conformal Killing–Yano two-form $h=r\,e^0\wedge e^1+a\cos\theta\,e^2\wedge e^3$, the exterior derivative of a one-form, which exists for any metric in the off-shell Carter canonical class independent of the specific radial function $\Delta(r)$. In four dimensions this two-form generates the hidden-symmetry tower: its Hodge dual is a Killing–Yano tensor and it yields a first-order symmetry operator that commutes with the Dirac operator, which is what makes the massive Dirac equation separable in the deformed background. The numerical machinery is the coupled angular and matrix radial continued-fraction scheme adapted from the Kerr massive-Dirac construction, with the radial recurrence coefficients built from the KR $\Delta(r)$ and the asymptotic falloff fixed by the non-Minkowskian normalization.
What would settle it
Derive the rotating counterpart of the KR field equations whose static charged solution is the seed, then check whether the line element (1) with $\Delta(r)$ from Eq. (2) satisfies them; if it fails, the reported quasibound frequencies and the level crossing are not predictions of KR gravity. More narrowly, recompute the $j=3/2$, $m=\pm3/2$ pair with an independent direct-integration solver at the two reported crossing values and verify that the real parts cross while the imaginary parts remain separated.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that massive neutral Dirac quasibound states in the rotating charged KR geometry form a well-defined spectral problem whose solution exhibits a KR-induced level reordering that is more robust than any single monotonic trend. Separability is not assumed from Kerr: recasting the line element in four-dimensional off-shell Carter canonical form, the paper identifies the principal closed conformal Killing–Yano two-form $h=r\,e^0\wedge e^1+a\cos\theta\,e^2\wedge e^3$ whose existence guarantees a first-order symmetry operator commuting with the Dirac operator, so the deformed radial function $\Delta(r)$ enters only the radial equations while the angular problem is the massive spin-1/2 spheroidal system. Boundary conditions are derived at the horizon and at large radius, where the non-Minkowskian asymptotics requires the normalized time $T=t/\sqrt{1-\ell}$, giving $\omega_{\rm phys}=\sqrt{1-\ell}\,\omega$ and an asymptotic scale $M_\infty=M(1-\ell)^{3/2}$. The coupled continued-fraction solution reproduces the Kerr spectrum to high accuracy, and the reported phenomenon is a sign change in the real-frequency splitting of the maximal-$m$, $j=3/2$, $\ell=1$ pair at $\ell_\star\simeq0.07747$ in the fixed-$M$ scan and at $\ell_\star\simeq0.11129$ in the $M_\infty$-normalized scan, with imaginary parts remaining distinct at both crossings.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is that the Newman–Janis-generated rotating charged metric with $\Delta(r)$ as in Eq. (2) is a genuine Kalb-Ramond black-hole background; the paper explicitly leaves this as an adopted spacetime rather than a derived solution, and if the metric is not a KR solution the computed spectrum describes a synthetic spacetime.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Because the level ordering reversal survives two different normalizations, any observable built from the real-frequency ordering of these quasibound levels will carry that crossing.
- Absolute binding energies and lifetimes are meaningful only together with the chosen normalization, so cross-model comparisons must fix the asymptotic scale and the extremality fraction before trend claims are made.
- For a neutral probe the charge affects the spectrum only through $Q^2$, so the leading small-charge correction is quadratic and the spectrum is invariant under $Q\to-Q$.
- The same numerical pipeline, anchored to the Kerr limit, supplies a template for fermionic resonance calculations in other off-shell Carter-class geometries with arbitrary $\Delta(r)$.
Reading between the lines
- Extending the paper: the off-shell Carter separability argument applies to any rotating geometry in this canonical class, so the reduction is a template for Dirac spectra in other deformed backgrounds.
- Extending the paper: since the crossing location depends on the normalization convention, fixing $\ell$ through an independent observable such as a shadow or quasinormal mode would turn the predicted reversal into a falsifiable quantitative prediction.
- Extending the paper: including a direct spinor–torsion coupling, explicitly excluded, uses a different Dirac operator and could shift or destroy the reordering; that is a natural next calculation.
- Extending the paper: for a charged fermion the charge dependence would enter at linear order through the electromagnetic coupling, in contrast with the quadratic metric-only $Q^2$ dependence found here.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper computes complex quasibound frequencies of a massive neutral Dirac field in the rotating charged metric (1)–(2), obtained by a Newman–Janis construction from a KR-modified seed. It first rewrites the metric in four-dimensional off-shell Carter form, proves that the principal closed conformal Killing–Yano tensor h=db is independent of Δ(r), and uses this hidden symmetry to separate the torsion-free, minimally coupled Dirac equation into angular and radial systems. It then imposes ingoing horizon and decaying large-radius conditions, including the rescaled asymptotic time T=t/√(1−l) and coordinate ρ=√(1−l)r, and solves the coupled angular and matrix radial continued-fraction equations for the complex pair (ω,λ). The code reproduces the Kerr spectrum of Dolan and Dempsey, and the survey is audited by common-truncation residuals, truncation drift, and independent two-sided Riccati shooting at the level crossings. In fixed-metric-parameter scans, most real frequencies move toward the mass threshold and most decay rates decrease with l; a normalization-controlled scan reverses the ground-state trend. The robust feature emphasized by the authors is the real-frequency ordering reversal of the maximal-m, j=3/2, ℓ=1 pair, with a zero of the splitting at l⋆≈0.07747 (fixed M) and l⋆≈0.11129 (fixed M∞,χ).
Significance. If the adopted background is accepted as a legitimate rotating charged Kalb–Ramond black hole, the paper provides the first massive neutral Dirac quasibound-state calculation for this family and demonstrates that the canonical Carter separation machinery survives a nontrivial deformation of the radial function. The numerical work is a clear strength: the Kerr-limit agreement is at the 10^{-9} level, the full 136-root survey is recomputed at a joint truncation with residuals below 2.6×10^{-11}, truncation drift is below 7×10^{-9}, and the level crossings are checked by an independent two-sided integration. The authors are also transparent about the conditional status of their background and about the normalization dependence of monotonic trends. There is no circularity: all metric parameters and the field mass are inputs, and the Kerr limit is checked against an external published result. The main caveat is physical rather than technical: because the line element is not shown to solve the KR field equations, the 'KR-induced' reordering is a statement about a specified off-shell deformation of Kerr unless that gap is closed.
major comments (2)
- [Sec. II, after Eq. (2)] The authors explicitly state that the Newman–Janis construction does not, by itself, establish that the rotating metric satisfies the same field equations as the seed, and that the line element is taken only as the background of the spectral problem. Yet the title, abstract, and conclusions attribute the level reordering to Kalb–Ramond gravity. Since no KR field equations are written down and no derivation (or citable proof) that Eqs. (1)–(2) solve them is provided, the computation is currently a well-defined spectral problem for a one-parameter off-shell deformation of Kerr rather than a prediction of KR gravity. Please either supply the missing field-equation derivation or explicitly re-scope the paper to a phenomenological deformed-Kerr background and temper the 'KR-induced' attribution in the title and abstract.
- [Sec. VI, Eqs. (62)–(66)] The robustness claim for the level reordering is supported by only two normalization conventions. The crossing location shifts from l⋆≈0.07747 to l⋆≈0.11129, and the two scans vary different physical combinations: one holds M, a/M, and M μ fixed, while the other holds M∞μ and χΔ fixed and lets M, d, and a vary. Since the central result is the persistence of the reordering, the paper should state more precisely what a reader should conclude from the existence of a reversal under two chosen families, and ideally test at least one additional physically motivated normalization (for example, fixed horizon radius, or fixed M∞ with M held fixed) before describing the reordering as robust. This would also clarify whether the crossing is tied to the definition of the one-parameter family rather than to the KR deformation itself.
minor comments (4)
- [Fig. 3 caption] The legend entries 'm: j=1/2, ℓ=0' and 'j: ℓ=1, m=+1/2' are ambiguous; they should be written, for example, as 'm=±1/2, j=1/2, ℓ=0' and 'j=3/2, ℓ=1, m=+1/2' so that the labels are immediately readable.
- [Table I and surrounding text] The text says that eight modes were compared with Ref. [1], but Table I lists only four entries; either list all eight compared modes or describe the table as representative of the eight-mode comparison.
- [Data Availability] The statement that numerical tables and audit software are 'available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request' is weaker than the usual reproducibility standard; a permanent repository link for the solver and audit scripts would make the strong numerical claims independently verifiable.
- [Fig. 1 caption] Describing the larger-l portion of the scan as 'exploratory' is unclear; please specify the criterion used to mark that region, such as truncation convergence or an estimated error threshold.
Circularity Check
No circularity: the spectral calculation is self-contained, benchmarked against external Kerr results, and contains no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.
full rationale
No circular step is present. The rotating charged KR line element, Eqs. (1)-(2), is explicitly adopted as the background for the spectral problem rather than derived from the KR field equations in this paper; that is an acknowledged physical-caveat (Sec. II), not circularity, because the spectral derivation does not assume the conclusion about level reordering. Separability is established from the off-shell Carter principal tensor h=db, which is independent of Delta(r) (Eqs. (7)-(10)), and the separated Dirac system (Eqs. (20), (23)) follows from the canonical Kerr-type structure with l and Q entering only through Delta(r). The matrix continued-fraction coefficients (Eq. (56)) are obtained by direct substitution into the transformed first-order radial system, and the Kerr limit l=Q=0 is benchmarked against the external published results of Dolan and Dempsey to better than 5e-9 in Re(omega/mu). All metric parameters M, a, Q, l and the field mass mu are inputs; nothing is fitted to data. The asymptotic normalization T=t/sqrt(d), rho=sqrt(d) r, omega_phys=sqrt(d) omega, M_infty=M d^{3/2}, and chi_Delta=a/(M sqrt(d)) are definitions, and the normalization-controlled scan changes which quantities are held fixed rather than introducing a fitted parameter. The crossing location l* is a numerical output obtained by continuation and independently checked by two-sided shooting (Appendix A6). The self-references in the bibliography (e.g., Refs. [81]-[90]) are contextual and not load-bearing; the load-bearing references for the geometric separation and for the metric background are external or non-overlapping with the present authors. The explicit caveat that the Newman-Janis construction does not by itself establish that the rotating metric solves the KR field equations is an honest limitation of physical interpretation, not a circularity in the derivation chain.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption The rotating charged KR line element (1)-(2) is treated as the background for the spectral problem without a proof that it solves the KR field equations; the Newman-Janis construction is accepted as defining the spacetime.
- standard math The principal tensor h = r e0^e1 + a cos(theta) e2^e3 remains a nondegenerate closed conformal Killing-Yano tensor for the off-shell Carter metric with arbitrary Delta(r), so the torsion-free Dirac equation separates.
- domain assumption The massive neutral spinor is a test field with zero electromagnetic charge and no direct coupling to the KR two-form or to torsion; only the Levi-Civita connection enters.
- domain assumption The asymptotic state is defined with the normalized time T = t/sqrt(d) and radial coordinate rho = sqrt(d) r, and the decaying branch is selected by Re(q)<0; this is taken as the correct quasibound condition in a non-Minkowskian asymptotic.
- domain assumption The continued-fraction minimal solution converges and the complex roots (omega, lambda) are continuous along parameter scans, so the surveyed modes are the physical quasibound modes rather than spurious roots.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Massive neutral Dirac quasibound states in a Newman-Janis-generated rotating charged Kalb-Ramond black-hole geometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2JSL736T
@misc{pith2026260809313,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Massive neutral Dirac quasibound states in a Newman-Janis-generated rotating charged Kalb-Ramond black-hole geometry},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2JSL736T}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09313}
}
abstract
We study quasibound states of a massive neutral Dirac field in the Newman-Janis-generated rotating charged geometry used in Lorentz-violating Kalb-Ramond (KR) gravity. Rather than assuming that the Kerr separation survives the deformation, we first recast the metric in four-dimensional off-shell Carter form. The corresponding principal closed conformal Killing-Yano tensor then provides the hidden symmetry needed to separate the torsion-free, minimally coupled Dirac equation. We derive the horizon and large-radius boundary conditions, including the non-Minkowskian asymptotic normalization, and determine the complex spectrum from coupled angular and matrix radial continued fractions. The code reproduces the Kerr spectrum and is checked by truncation studies and independent two-sided radial integrations. In scans at fixed metric parameters, increasing the KR parameter moves most real frequencies toward the mass threshold and reduces most decay rates. These trends are not invariant, however, because the same variation changes both the asymptotic potential scale and the distance from extremality. A scan in which these two quantities are held fixed changes the absolute ground-state trend but preserves a reversal in the real-frequency ordering of the maximal-$m$, $j=3/2$, $\ell=1$ pair. The location of the crossing shifts with the normalization convention. Thus the level reordering is more robust than the individual monotonic trends in binding energy or lifetime within this background family.
Figures
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
(7), db=−r dr∧dt+arsin 2 θ dr∧dϕ −a 2 sinθcosθ dθ∧dt +a(r 2 +a 2) sinθcosθ dθ∧dϕ.(A1) Using Eq
Principal two-form From Eq. (7), db=−r dr∧dt+arsin 2 θ dr∧dϕ −a 2 sinθcosθ dθ∧dt +a(r 2 +a 2) sinθcosθ dθ∧dϕ.(A1) Using Eq. (6), this is r e0 ∧e 1 +acosθ e 2 ∧e 3.(A2) Thus the two-form itself contains no explicit dependence on ∆( r) and dh = d2b = 0 identically. The conformal Killing–Yano equation follows from the general off-shell Carter canonical const...
-
[2]
(A4) The rescaling in Eq
Spin-connection reduction The Carter-frame connection combinations entering the separated Dirac operator can be written as sr =e 1 r 1 ϱ √ ∆ ∂ ∂r ϱ √ ∆ = r ∆ Σ 1 ϱ + ∆′ 2∆ ,(A3) sθ =e 2 θ 1 ϱsinθ ∂ ∂θ (ϱsinθ) = 1√ Σ cotθ− iasinθ ϱ . (A4) The rescaling in Eq. (17) removes these connection factors from the first-order derivative terms, leaving the canonical...
-
[3]
With x = (r− r+)/(r−r −) and the prefactor in Eq
Radial-recurrence reconstruction The radial recurrence was also reconstructed directly from the first-order differential system. With x = (r− r+)/(r−r −) and the prefactor in Eq. (50), collecting equal powers of x gives Eqs. (52) and (53), including the coefficients in Eq. (56). This is the same matrix three-term organization used for the Kerr Dirac probl...
-
[4]
(56) by the common factor r+ −r − recovers the Kerr recurrence coefficients used by Dolan and Dempsey [ 1]
Kerr limit Forl= 0 andQ= 0, d= 1,∆ =r 2 −2M r+a 2, r +r− =a 2.(A5) Equations (36) and (37) reduce to q=− p µ2 −ω 2, ν= M(µ 2 −2ω 2) q .(A6) Moreover, K± = 2M ωr± −am,C= 2a 2ω−am.(A7) Multiplying the matrices in Eq. (56) by the common factor r+ −r − recovers the Kerr recurrence coefficients used by Dolan and Dempsey [ 1]. The numerical implementation is an...
-
[5]
Continued-fraction truncation convergence for a representative deformed mode
Continued-fraction convergence and crossing refinement Table III gives the truncation sequence for the repre- sentative deformed mode M = 1, M µ= 0.3, a = 0.9M , TABLE III. Continued-fraction truncation convergence for a representative deformed mode. Nang Nrad Re(ω/µ)−Im(ω/µ) 100 160 0.984436859370 0.013016546104 140 220 0.984436862567 0.013016558992 180 ...
-
[6]
We integrate outward from r = r+ + 10−6 using 11 TABLE IV
Independent shooting at the level crossings As an independent test of the level crossings, define w(r) = r−r +√ d R+(r) R−(r) .(A14) The first-order radial equations give a Riccati equation for w. We integrate outward from r = r+ + 10−6 using 11 TABLE IV. Independent two-sided radial shooting check for both maximal- m modes at the two reported real-freque...
-
[7]
The roots were then assessed from their residuals and trunca- tion stability
Common-truncation survey audit All 136 stored parameter–mode combinations were re- solved with the common truncation (Nang, Nrad) = (260,440) (A16) and nonlinear-solver parameter tolerance 10 −11. The roots were then assessed from their residuals and trunca- tion stability. The largest residuals are max|F ang|= 5.2×10 −14,max|F rad|= 2.51×10 −11, (A17) wi...
-
[8]
S. R. Dolan and D. Dempsey, Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 184001 (2015)
2015
Show all 97 references
-
[9]
Huang, D.-J
Y. Huang, D.-J. Liu, and X.-H. Zhai, Physical Review D 96, 065002 (2017)
2017
-
[10]
R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Physical Review D97, 084034 (2018)
2018
-
[11]
Chandrasekhar, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 349, 571 (1976)
S. Chandrasekhar, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 349, 571 (1976)
1976
-
[12]
D. N. Page, Physical Review D14, 1509 (1976)
1976
-
[13]
Carter and R
B. Carter and R. G. McLenaghan, Physical Review D19, 1093 (1979)
1979
-
[14]
Batic and H
D. Batic and H. Schmid, Progress of Theoretical Physics 116, 517 (2006)
2006
-
[15]
He and J
X. He and J. Jing, Nuclear Physics B755, 313 (2006)
2006
-
[16]
Finster, N
F. Finster, N. Kamran, J. Smoller, and S.-T. Yau, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics230, 201 (2002)
2002
-
[17]
Belgiorno and S
F. Belgiorno and S. L. Cacciatori, Physical Review D79, 124024 (2009)
2009
-
[18]
Belgiorno and S
F. Belgiorno and S. L. Cacciatori, Journal of Mathematical Physics51, 032106 (2010)
2010
-
[19]
G. V. Kraniotis, Journal of Physics Communications3, 035026 (2019)
2019
-
[20]
Dariescu, M.-A
C. Dariescu, M.-A. Dariescu, and C. Stelea, Advances in High Energy Physics2021, 5512735 (2021)
2021
-
[21]
V. P. Neznamov, I. I. Safronov, and V. Y. Shemarulin, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics128, 64 (2019)
2019
-
[22]
Richartz and D
M. Richartz and D. Giugno, Physical Review D90, 124011 (2014)
2014
-
[23]
Wu, Physical Review D80, 084009 (2009)
S.-Q. Wu, Physical Review D80, 084009 (2009)
2009
-
[24]
Wu, Classical and Quantum Gravity26, 055001 (2009)
S.-Q. Wu, Classical and Quantum Gravity26, 055001 (2009)
2009
-
[25]
C. A. Sporea, Modern Physics Letters A34, 1950323 (2019)
2019
-
[26]
S. R. Dolan, Physical Review D76, 084001 (2007)
2007
-
[27]
Furuhashi and Y
H. Furuhashi and Y. Nambu, Progress of Theoretical Physics112, 983 (2004)
2004
-
[28]
Cariglia, P
M. Cariglia, P. Krtous, and D. Kubiznak, Physical Review D84, 024004 (2011)
2011
-
[29]
V. P. Frolov, P. Krtous, and D. Kubiznak, Physical Review D97, 104071 (2018)
2018
-
[30]
V. P. Frolov, P. Krtous, and D. Kubiznak, Living Reviews in Relativity20, 10.1007/s41114-017-0009-9 (2017)
2017 doi
-
[31]
V. P. Frolov and D. Kubiznak, Physical Review Letters 98, 011101 (2007)
2007
-
[32]
Houri, T
T. Houri, T. Oota, and Y. Yasui, Classical and Quantum Gravity26, 045015 (2009)
2009
-
[33]
Batista, Physical Review D91, 024013 (2015)
C. Batista, Physical Review D91, 024013 (2015)
2015
-
[34]
Kubiznak, H
D. Kubiznak, H. K. Kunduri, and Y. Yasui, Physics Let- ters B678, 240 (2009)
2009
-
[35]
Cayuso, F
R. Cayuso, F. Gray, and D. Kubiznak, Physics Letters B 795, 650 (2019)
2019
-
[36]
I. M. Benn, P. Charlton, and J. M. Kress, Journal of Mathematical Physics38, 4504 (1997)
1997
-
[37]
Mason and A
L. Mason and A. Taghavi-Chabert, Journal of Geometry and Physics60, 907 (2010)
2010
-
[38]
Yasui and T
Y. Yasui and T. Houri, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement189, 126 (2011)
2011
-
[39]
Cariglia, P
M. Cariglia, P. Krtous, and D. Kubiznak, Fortschritte der Physik60, 947 (2012)
2012
-
[40]
G. W. Gibbons, R. H. Rietdijk, and J. W. van Holten, Nuclear Physics B404, 42 (1993)
1993
-
[41]
E. G. Kalnins, W. Miller, and G. Williams, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A340, 337 (1992)
1992
-
[42]
R. G. McLenaghan and N. V. den Bergh, Classical and Quantum Gravity10, 2179 (1993)
1993
-
[43]
Ahmedov and A
H. Ahmedov and A. N. Aliev, Physical Review D79, 084019 (2009)
2009
-
[44]
Lindstrom and O
U. Lindstrom and O. Sarioglu, Journal of High Energy Physics2022, 029 (2022)
2022
-
[45]
Walker and R
M. Walker and R. Penrose, Communications in Mathe- matical Physics18, 265 (1970)
1970
-
[46]
R. P. Kerr, Physical Review Letters11, 237 (1963)
1963
-
[47]
E. T. Newman and A. I. Janis, Journal of Mathematical Physics6, 915 (1965)
1965
-
[48]
E. T. Newman, E. Couch, K. Chinnapared, A. Exton, A. Prakash, and R. Torrence, Journal of Mathematical Physics6, 918 (1965)
1965
-
[49]
S. A. Teukolsky, The Astrophysical Journal185, 635 (1973)
1973
-
[50]
E. W. Leaver, Proceedings of the Royal Society A402, 285 (1985)
1985
-
[51]
E. W. Leaver, Physical Review D41, 2986 (1990), erra- tum: Phys. Rev. D 43, 1434 (1991), DOI 10.1103/Phys- RevD.43.1434
1990 doi
-
[52]
Cardoso, General Relativity and Gravitation45, 2079 (2013)
V. Cardoso, General Relativity and Gravitation45, 2079 (2013)
2013
-
[53]
J. G. Rosa, Journal of High Energy Physics2010, 015 (2010)
2010
-
[54]
Hod, Physics Letters B758, 181 (2016)
S. Hod, Physics Letters B758, 181 (2016)
2016
-
[55]
Huang and D.-J
Y. Huang and D.-J. Liu, Physical Review D94, 064030 (2016)
2016
-
[56]
M. J. Stott and D. J. E. Marsh, Physical Review D98, 083006 (2018)
2018
-
[57]
K. D. Kokkotas, R. A. Konoplya, and A. Zhidenko, Phys- ical Review D92, 064022 (2015)
2015
-
[58]
J. G. Rosa and S. R. Dolan, Physical Review D85, 044043 (2012)
2012
-
[59]
Berti, V
E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and K. D. Kokkotas, Physical Re- view D68, 124018 (2003)
2003
-
[60]
Z. Mark, H. Yang, A. Zimmerman, and Y. Chen, Physical Review D91, 044025 (2015)
2015
-
[61]
Zimmerman and Z
A. Zimmerman and Z. Mark, Physical Review D93, 044033 (2016)
2016
-
[62]
G. B. Cook and M. Zalutskiy, Physical Review D90, 124021 (2014)
2014
-
[63]
Richartz, Physical Review D93, 064062 (2016)
M. Richartz, Physical Review D93, 064062 (2016)
2016
-
[64]
Gajic and C
D. Gajic and C. Warnick, Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics385, 1395 (2021)
2021
-
[65]
Hansen and N
D. Hansen and N. Yunes, Physical Review D88, 104020 (2013)
2013
-
[66]
Erbin, Universe3, 19 (2017)
H. Erbin, Universe3, 19 (2017)
2017
-
[67]
Shaikh, Physical Review D100, 024028 (2019)
R. Shaikh, Physical Review D100, 024028 (2019)
2019
-
[68]
Kalb and P
M. Kalb and P. Ramond, Physical Review D9, 2273 (1974)
1974
-
[69]
L. A. Lessa, J. E. G. Silva, R. V. Maluf, and C. A. S. Almeida, European Physical Journal C80, 335 (2020)
2020
-
[70]
Duan, J.-Y
Z.-Q. Duan, J.-Y. Zhao, and K. Yang, European Physical Journal C84, 798 (2024)
2024
-
[71]
W. Liu, D. Wu, and J. Wang, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024(09), 017. 13
-
[72]
W.-D. Guo, Q. Tan, and Y.-X. Liu, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024(07), 008
-
[73]
Liu, S.-P
J.-Z. Liu, S.-P. Wu, and S.-W. Wei, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(11), 056
-
[74]
Tan and X
K. Tan and X. G. Lan, Chinese Physics C49, 075104 (2025)
2025
-
[75]
Mangut and I
M. Mangut and I. Sakalli, Chinese Physics C49, 065106 (2025)
2025
-
[76]
A. A. A. Filho, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(04), 076
-
[77]
W. Liu, D. Wu, and J. Wang, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(05), 017
-
[78]
Zahid, F
M. Zahid, F. Sarikulov, C. Shen, J. Rayimbaev, K. Badalov, and S. Muminov, Chinese Journal of Physics 91, 45 (2024)
2024
-
[79]
Jumaniyozov, J
S. Jumaniyozov, J. Rayimbaev, Y. Turaev, I. Ibragimov, B. Abdulazizov, M. Akhmedov, and S. Djumanov, Euro- pean Physical Journal C85, 1201 (2025)
2025
-
[80]
Yang, K.-J
C.-Y. Yang, K.-J. He, X.-X. Zeng, and L.-F. Li, European Physical Journal C86, 520 (2026)
2026
-
[81]
Yao, K.-J
J.-T. Yao, K.-J. He, Z.-C. Lin, and H. Yu, Physics Letters B878, 140562 (2026)
2026
-
[82]
T. A. Nengroo, S. U. Islam, and S. G. Ghosh, Physics of the Dark Universe52, 102339 (2026)
2026
-
[83]
He, C.-Y
K.-J. He, C.-Y. Yang, X.-X. Zeng,et al., Chinese Physics C50, 035102 (2026)
2026
-
[84]
Al-Badawi and A
A. Al-Badawi and A. F. Kraishan, Annals of Physics458, 169467 (2023)
2023
-
[85]
R. C. Pantig, A. Ovgun, and A. Rincon, Physics of the Dark Universe49, 102029 (2025)
2025
-
[86]
de Cesare, N
M. de Cesare, N. E. Mavromatos, and S. Sarkar, European Physical Journal C75, 514 (2015)
2015
-
[87]
SenGupta and A
S. SenGupta and A. Sinha, Physics Letters B514, 109 (2001)
2001
-
[88]
Jumaniyozov, S
S. Jumaniyozov, S. U. Khan, J. Rayimbaev, A. Abdujab- barov, S. Urinbaev, and S. Murodov, European Physical Journal C84, 964 (2024)
2024
-
[89]
Jumaniyozov, M
S. Jumaniyozov, M. Zahid, M. Alloqulov, I. Ibragimov, J. Rayimbaev, and S. Murodov, European Physical Jour- nal C85, 126 (2025)
2025
-
[90]
Jumaniyozov, S
S. Jumaniyozov, S. Murodov, J. Rayimbaev,et al., Euro- pean Physical Journal C85, 797 (2025)
2025
-
[91]
Rahmatov, I
B. Rahmatov, I. Egamberdiev, S. Murodov,et al., Physics of the Dark Universe50, 102152 (2025)
2025
-
[92]
Murodov, A
S. Murodov, A. H. Bokhari, J. Rayimbaev,et al., Euro- pean Physical Journal C85, 551 (2025)
2025
-
[93]
Rahmatov, S
B. Rahmatov, S. Murodov, and J. Rayimbaev, Physics of the Dark Universe50, 102102 (2025)
2025
-
[94]
Murodov, J
S. Murodov, J. Rayimbaev, and B. Ahmedov, Universe9, 391 (2023)
2023
-
[95]
Ahmed, S
F. Ahmed, S. Murodov, B. Rahmatov,et al., Nuclear Physics B1029, 117556 (2026)
2026
-
[96]
Rahmatov, S
B. Rahmatov, S. Murodov, and B. Ahmedov, Annals of Physics493, 170592 (2026)
2026
-
[97]
Donmez, S
O. Donmez, S. Murodov, and J. Rayimbaev, Annals of Physics486, 170350 (2026)
2026
Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.