Formation of trapped surfaces for the spherically symmetric Einstein-Yang-Mills system with non-trivial incoming data

Nikolaos Athanasiou; Puskar Mondal; Shing-Tung Yau

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Formation of trapped surfaces for the spherically symmetric Einstein-Yang-Mills system with non-trivial incoming data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Focused mass forms trapped surfaces in Einstein-Yang-Mills collapse.

desk verdict Serious and novel extension of the An-Lim method to EYM, but the final bootstrap hinges on an algebraic identity that does not check out, so the stated threshold is not yet proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09746 v1 pith:6QEKIFAD submitted 2026-08-10 gr-qc math.AP

Nikolaos Athanasiou , Puskar Mondal , Shing-Tung Yau This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcmath.AP MSC 83C0583C5735Q75

keywords trappedsurfaceformationEinstein-Yang-Millssphericalsymmetrydoublenullfoliationcharacteristicinitialdatagravitationalcollapsemagneticsubextremalityweakcosmiccensorship

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

The paper proves that in spherical symmetry, a sufficiently concentrated amount of Hawking mass in the initial data forces the formation of a trapped surface in the purely magnetic SU(2) Einstein–Yang–Mills system. The main theorem allows the incoming null hypersurface to carry nontrivial geometric and gauge-field data, so the result is not limited to a Minkowskian incoming region. The proof isolates the two opposing effects of the magnetic field: its kinetic part enhances gravitational focusing, while the magnetic potential $Q^2/r^2$ opposes it. The stated mass-concentration threshold is exactly the condition under which the focusing contribution wins a bootstrap argument. This is the collapse step of a program aimed at weak cosmic censorship for the Einstein–Yang–Mills equations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the normalized mass-concentration ratio $\eta(x)=2(m_2-m_1)/r_2$ viewed as a function of $x=r_2(u)/r_2(u_0)$, together with the relative radial width $\delta(u)=(r_2-r_1)/r_1$. The engine of the proof is the evolution inequality $\frac{d\eta}{dx}+\eta\frac{g(x)}{x}-\frac{f(x)}{x}\le 0$, obtained from the Hawking-mass transport equations; integrating this inequality is what converts a large initial mass concentration into the certainty that $\eta$ stays above $13\varepsilon/\omega$, which eventually makes $2m_2/r_2>1$ and therefore the sphere $S(u_*,v_2)$ trapped. To control the magnetic terms, the argument uses the monotonicity formula $\partial_u\partial_v r\le 0$ (Proposition 2.2), derived from magnetic subextremality and the no-trapped-surface bootstrap, together with estimates bounding $Q^2/r^2$ and $(\partial_u w_2-\partial_u w_1)^2$ in terms of $\eta$. The short-segment choices (1.28)–(1.29) are exactly what make those bounds small enough to absorb into the main inequality.

What would settle it

Evolve the spherically symmetric $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ Einstein–Yang–Mills equations numerically from characteristic data that satisfy $\varepsilon<1$, $m(u,v_1)=|Q|(u,v_1)$ on the incoming cone, and $\eta_0$ just above the threshold in (1.31). If no trapped surface appears in $[u_0,u_*]\times[v_1,v_2]$, or if $\partial_u\partial_v r$ changes sign before trapping, then the theorem's conclusion or its key bootstrap is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a trapped-surface formation criterion for the spherically symmetric, purely magnetic $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ Einstein–Yang–Mills system in double-null coordinates. For characteristic data on two intersecting null hypersurfaces, if the magnetic subextremality condition $m(u,v_1)\ge |Q|(u,v_1)$ holds on the incoming cone, if $\varepsilon=\sup_{C\cup\underline{C}}Q^2/r^2<1$, if the short-segment conditions (1.28)–(1.29) hold, and if the normalized mass concentration $\eta_0=(m(u_0,v_2)-m(u_0,v_1))/r(u_0,v_2)$ exceeds an explicit bound involving $\varepsilon$, a parameter $\omega\in(0,2/3)$, and the initial relative width $\delta_0$, then the characteristic development contains a trapped sphere in $[u_0,u_*]\times[v_1,v_2]$. In the limit $\varepsilon\to 0$ the criterion reduces to the uncharged concentration mechanism of the scalar-field problem. The proof works by contradiction: under the no-trapped-surface bootstrap it derives the differential inequality $d\eta/dx+\eta g(x)/x-f(x)/x\le 0$, whose integrated form forces $\eta(x)\ge 13\varepsilon/\omega$, and then shows this is incompatible with the second threshold in (1.31).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the geometry keeps focusing inward throughout the region, i.e. $\partial_u\partial_v r\le 0$; if that monotonicity gives way, every later estimate loses control of the radial width and the mass-concentration bootstrap collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The criterion supplies a quantitative guarantee: once $\eta_0$ exceeds the stated bound, a trapped surface forms within a definite rectangle before the area radius contracts by a controlled factor.
In the limit $\varepsilon\to 0$ the theorem reduces to the uncharged scalar-field concentration mechanism, showing the non-abelian magnetic structure does not destroy classical focusing.
Because the incoming cone need not be Minkowskian, the result covers data with nontrivial incoming Yang–Mills radiation and shows trapped-surface formation is stable under such incoming energy.
The theorem provides the collapse component of the weak-cosmic-censorship program for the spherically symmetric Einstein–Yang–Mills system, linking the existence of static colored black holes to a dynamical route from regular data to a horizon.

Reading between the lines

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

A numerical test of sharpness is a natural extension: data with $\eta_0$ just below the threshold should either still form a trapped surface or reveal that the monotonicity $\partial_u\partial_v r\le 0$ fails before trapping.
The bootstrap structure suggests the same concentration argument may transfer to other non-abelian groups or Yang–Mills–Higgs models if an analogue of $m\ge |Q|$ can be propagated.
The monotonicity proposition is likely the most delicate step; near-marginal data with $m\approx |Q|$ could be used to test whether that condition is close to necessary for the conclusion, rather than only sufficient.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read. The paper is a serious attempt to extend the An-Lim characteristic method to the spherically symmetric Einstein-Yang-Mills system with nontrivial incoming data. The main new ingredients are real: the magnetic potential Q is dynamical, and the proof has to separate the focusing part of the Hawking mass from the defocusing Q^2/r^2 term, using the subextremality condition to control Q along the way. That part of the strategy is sound, and the bootstrap structure is coherent. The authors also engage honestly with the literature; the self-citation to [8] is legitimate because that result is genuinely complementary.

The soft spot is not in the strategy but in the algebra that carries the quantitative conclusion. The whole threshold in Theorem 1.2 rests on the identity F(x*) = g_omega(delta0) in Section 2.3. I integrated the displayed definitions and it does not hold. With g(t) as defined, G(x)=∫_x^1 g(t)/t dt comes out to ω ln x - (1+ω/2) ln(x(1+δ0)-δ0), not the expression in (2.35). The printed antiderivative is different again. For δ0=0.1, ω=0.5, the two sides of F(x*) = g_omega(δ0) differ by roughly a factor of two. This is load-bearing: Lemma 2.6 and the final contradiction use that equality directly. As typeset, the theorem's threshold is not established. There are also apparent dimensional inconsistencies in the reduced equations, e.g. (1.13) and (1.15), which may be typos but make verification harder.

Who this is for: specialists in trapped-surface formation and EYM collapse. The method is promising and likely repairable, but the current text does not allow a referee to check the main estimate. I would not cite the theorem as a proven result, and I would not send a student to extract constants from it. But this is exactly the kind of paper a serious referee should see: the idea is novel, the difficulty is real, and the error, if it is just an error, can be corrected. So my recommendation is to send it out, with the request that the referee specifically verify the ODE calculation in Section 2.3 before the paper can be accepted.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a trapped-surface formation theorem for the spherically symmetric, purely magnetic SU(2) Einstein–Yang–Mills system in double-null gauge, with characteristic data posed on two intersecting null hypersurfaces and with nontrivial incoming data. The main theorem (Theorem 1.2) states explicit short-segment conditions and a lower bound on the initial Hawking-mass concentration η0, expressed in terms of ε = sup Q²/r², a free parameter ω ∈ (0,2/3), and the initial relative radial width δ0, under the magnetic subextremality condition m ≥ |Q| on the incoming cone. The proof follows the An–Lim singular-characteristic method: it estimates the magnetic charge aspect in terms of η, proves a monotonicity formula ∂_u∂_v r ≤ 0, bounds ∂_u w and the ratio h2/h1, derives a differential inequality for η, and closes a bootstrap argument using explicit functions g and f. The paper is presented as the first step in a program toward weak cosmic censorship for the Einstein–Yang–Mills system.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, it is a valuable extension of the An–Lim trapped-surface formation framework to a non-abelian model in which the magnetic potential has a competing defocusing effect. The authors identify a genuinely new structural difficulty—the same magnetic term that increases the Hawking mass also opposes focusing—and they give an explicit, quantitative criterion rather than a generic existence statement. The method of propagating subextremality and using a bootstrap with explicit constants is natural and potentially reusable. However, the quantitative threshold in Theorem 1.2 is not established by the manuscript: the central algebraic identity F(x*) = g_ω(δ0) used twice in the proof is false, and the reduced equations contain apparent dimensional inconsistencies that propagate into key estimates. The paper therefore needs substantial technical correction before the stated theorem can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.3, Eqs. (2.34)–(2.37)] The identity F(x*) = g_ω(δ0) at x* = 3δ0/(1+δ0) is false. Direct integration of the printed definitions gives F(x) = δ0/[(1−ω/2)(1+δ0)] · ((x(1+δ0)−δ0)^{-(1+ω/2)} − 1), using e^{−G(t)} = t²/(t(1+δ0)−δ0)^{1+ω/2} and f(t)/t = C δ0/[t²(t(1+δ0)−δ0)]. At x* the argument A = x(1+δ0)−δ0 equals 2δ0, so F(x*) = δ0/[(1−ω/2)(1+δ0)] · ((2δ0)^{-(1+ω/2)} − 1). For δ0 = 0.1 and ω = 0.5 this evaluates to approximately 0.786, whereas the printed g_ω(0.1) is approximately 0.344. Since (2.37) is used to conclude η ≥ 12ε/ω in Lemma 2.6 and again in the final contradiction (2.39)–(2.40), the quantitative threshold in Theorem 1.2 is not justified. The authors must recompute the correct maximum of F and restate the theorem accordingly.
[Section 1.1, Eqs. (1.13), (1.16), (1.18)] As printed, the reduced equations have inconsistent dimensions under the stated definitions h := Ω^{-2}∂_v r, h := ∂_u r, and Q = w²−1 with w dimensionless. In (1.13), ∂_v h has dimension L^{-1} while the right-hand side −2Ω^{-2}(∂_v w)²/r has dimension L^{-3}. In (1.16), the two terms Ω²μ/r² and Ω²Q²/r⁴ have dimensions L^{-2} and L^{-4}, respectively. Equation (1.18) similarly combines terms of different dimensions. These equations are not merely decorative: (1.18) is used in (2.9), (2.26), and Lemma 2.5 to relate ∂_v m, (∂_v w)², and Q². The authors should either correct the field equations or explicitly state the nonstandard normalization under which the displayed formulas are dimensionally consistent.
[Lemma 2.4 and Eq. (2.32)] The statement of Lemma 2.4 bounds Θ² by (1+ω/2)(−∂_u r2/∂_v r2)(m2−m1)(1/r1−1/r2), but the proof, in the line following (2.21), obtains a bound with denominator Ω^{-2}_2 ∂_v r2 rather than ∂_v r2. The factor Ω^{-2}_2 is needed when this estimate is combined with the coefficient −2h2/(x h2) in (2.32); if the factor is genuinely absent from the lemma, the subsequent algebraic cancellation of Ω^{-2}_2 is unjustified. The statement and proof need to be reconciled.

minor comments (4)

[Section 2.3, Eq. (2.39)] The displayed inequality η0 ≤ e^{−η(x)G(x)} + F(x) does not follow from (2.34). Correctly, (2.34) gives η0 ≤ e^{−G(x)}η(x) + F(x), and the subsequent bound requires an additional use of η ≤ 1 from the absence of trapped surfaces. This line should be rewritten.
[Section 2.3, Eq. (2.38)] The assertion that sup_{x∈[x*,1]} x²/(x(1+δ0)−δ0)^{1+ω/2} = 1 is called a straightforward calculation; since this sup is used in the bootstrap, the short verification (the critical point lies at x_c = 2δ0/[(1−ω/2)(1+δ0)] < x*) would remove doubt.
[Throughout] The terminology alternates between "magnetically subextremal," "not super-charged," and "not magnetic-supercharged" for the same hypothesis; this should be standardized.
[Theorems 1.1 and 1.2] The function in Theorem 1.1 is called G_ω while the same object in Theorem 1.2 is called g_ω; the notation should be made uniform to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the trapped-surface theorem is proven by a bootstrap from the reduced field equations; the authors' self-citations are contextual, and the flagged F(x*) identity is a verification concern, not a circular step.

full rationale

The main theorem is derived, not assumed: Theorem 1.2 is proved by contradiction from the reduced SSEYM system (1.13)-(1.19). The proof introduces no fitted parameters, does not rename data as predictions, and does not invoke a uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work to force its ansatz. The bootstrap in Lemma 2.6 assumes the negation of the conclusion (no trapped surfaces) and derives a differential inequality for eta(x); the subsequent estimates (Lemmas 2.1-2.5) are all proven from the field equations, the magnetic subextremality condition, and the short-segment hypotheses. The monotonicity d_u d_v r <= 0 in Proposition 2.2 is likewise obtained from the bootstrap and subextremality, not assumed as a separate input. The self-citations, notably [8] and [20], occur in the introduction and references as background and are not load-bearing premises in the proof; local existence is cited to [19], which is not by the present authors. The one substantive concern is internal rather than circular: in Section 2.3, Eq. (2.37), the paper asserts 'F(x)<=F(3delta0/(1+delta0))=g_omega(delta0)' as a 'straightforward calculation,' but the displayed antiderivative does not transparently yield this value, and direct symbolic integration suggests a different expression. This is an algebraic-verification issue affecting the quantitative threshold, not a case of the conclusion being equivalent to its inputs by construction. Hence the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumed reduction and local existence theory, plus subextremality and no-trapping hypotheses. No new physical entities are introduced; Q = w^2 - 1 is a defined function of the gauge potential.

free parameters (1)

omega = arbitrary in (0, 2/3)
Introduced in the proof to tune the bootstrap estimates (Lemmas 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6); the theorem holds for any omega, but the lower bound on eta0 depends on it, so the sharpness of the criterion requires choosing omega to optimize the threshold.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The reduced equations (1.13)-(1.19) are the correct spherically symmetric, purely magnetic reduction of the Einstein-Yang-Mills system (from [19]).
Every estimate in Sections 2.1-2.3 is derived from these equations; the signs and coefficients are used explicitly, so an error here would invalidate the theorem.
domain assumption Local and continuation existence for the characteristic initial value problem is available up to the relevant u* (from [19]).
The theorem refers to the regular development and the point u*; the proof assumes the solution exists there, citing [19] for the local theory.
domain assumption Magnetic subextremality m >= |Q| along C and epsilon < 1.
Used in Lemma 2.1 and Proposition 2.2 to get the sign of d_u d_v r <= 0 and to control Q^2/r^2; the bootstrap in Lemma 2.6 requires eta0 above the threshold, which depends on epsilon.
domain assumption Absence of trapped surfaces and MOTS in the region R (bootstrap contradiction).
The proof argues by contradiction, assuming no trapped surface until the mass concentration forces eta > 1; this is standard for such theorems.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Formation of trapped surfaces for the spherically symmetric Einstein-Yang-Mills system with non-trivial incoming data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6QEKIFAD

@misc{pith2026260809746,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Formation of trapped surfaces for the spherically symmetric Einstein-Yang-Mills system with non-trivial incoming data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6QEKIFAD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09746}
}

read the original abstract

We establish a trapped surface formation theorem for the spherically symmetric Einstein Yang Mills equations in a double-null gauge. The theorem concerns characteristic initial data posed on a pair of transversely intersecting null hypersurfaces and allows nontrivial incoming data. The proof extends the singular characteristic method of An and Lim for the Einstein Maxwell Charged Scalar Field System to the non-abelian Yang Mills setting, where the curvature coupling and gauge field nonlinearities introduce new structural difficulties. This paper constitutes the first part of a program toward weak cosmic censorship for the Einstein Yang Mills system.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[8]

Athanasiou, P

N. Athanasiou, P. Mondal, S-T. Yau,Formation of trapped surfaces in the Einstein-Yang-Mills system, Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees vol. 194 (2025)

work page 2025
[1]

An,A scale-critical trapped surface formation criterion: A new proof via signature for decay rates, Annals of PDE Vol

X. An,A scale-critical trapped surface formation criterion: A new proof via signature for decay rates, Annals of PDE Vol. 8 (1), 2022

work page 2022
[2]

An.Emergence of apparent horizon in gravitational collapse, Annals of PDE Vol

X. An.Emergence of apparent horizon in gravitational collapse, Annals of PDE Vol. 6 (10), 2020

work page 2020
[3]

Formation of Trapped Surfaces from Past Null Infinity

X. An,Formation of trapped surfaces from past null infinity, arXiv:1207.5271

work page Pith review arXiv
[4]

X. An, N. Athanasiou,A scale critical trapped surface formation criterion for the Einstein-Maxwell, Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees Vol. 167 (2022), 294-409

work page 2022
[5]

X. An, T. He, D. Shen,Stability of Big Bang singularity for the Einstein- Maxwell-scalar field-Vlasov system in the full strong sub-critical regime, arXiv:2507.18585, 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[6]

X. An, Z.F. Lim,Trapped surface formation for spherically symmetric Einstein-Maxwell-charged scalar field system with double null foliation, An- nales Henri Poincar´ e 23 (2022), 3159-3190

work page 2022
[7]

Athanasiou, M

N. Athanasiou, M. Lesourd,Construction of Cauchy data for the dynami- cal formation of apparent horizons and the Penrose Inequality, Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics vol. 26 (2022)

work page 2022

Show all 24 references

[9]

Athanasiou, P

N. Athanasiou, P. Mondal, S-T. Yau,Semi-Global Existence and Trapped Surface Formation for the Einstein-Vlasov System, arXiv:2510.12429, 2025

2025 arXiv
[10]

Bartnik, J

R. Bartnik, J. McKinnon,Particlelike Solutions of the Einstein-Yang-Mills Equations, Physical Review Letters Vol. 61 (1988). 22

1988
[11]

X. Chen, S. Klainerman,Formation of trapped surfaces in geodesic foliation, Communications in Mathematical Physics Vol. 407 (98), 2026

2026
[12]

Christodoulou,Bounded variation solutions of the spherically symmetric Einstein-scalar field equations, Communications in Pure and Applied Math- ematics 46 (1993), 1131-1220

D. Christodoulou,Bounded variation solutions of the spherically symmetric Einstein-scalar field equations, Communications in Pure and Applied Math- ematics 46 (1993), 1131-1220

1993
[13]

Christodoulou,Examples of naked singularity formation in the gravi- tational collapse of a scalar field, Annals of Mathematics 140, no

D. Christodoulou,Examples of naked singularity formation in the gravi- tational collapse of a scalar field, Annals of Mathematics 140, no. 3 (1994), 607-653

1994
[14]

Christodoulou,The formation of black holes and singularities in spheri- cally symmetric gravitational collapse

D. Christodoulou,The formation of black holes and singularities in spheri- cally symmetric gravitational collapse. Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics 44, 339-373 (1991)

1991
[15]

Christodoulou,The formation of black holes in general relativity

D. Christodoulou,The formation of black holes in general relativity. Mono- graphs in Mathematics, European Mathematical Society (2009)

2009
[16]

Christodoulou,The instability of naked singularities in the gravitational collapse of a scalar field

D. Christodoulou,The instability of naked singularities in the gravitational collapse of a scalar field. Annals of Mathematics 149, 183-217 (1999)

1999
[17]

Klainerman, I

S. Klainerman, I. Rodnianski.On the formation of trapped surfaces.Acta Mathematica Vol. 208 (2012), 211-333

2012
[18]

Klainerman, J

S. Klainerman, J. Luk, I. Rodnianski,A fully anisotropic mechanism for formation of trapped surfaces in vacuum, Inventiones mathematicae, vol. 198, 1-26, 2014

2014
[19]

J. Li, D. Wang,Extension Principles for the Einstein-Yang-Mills system, https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19403

arXiv
[20]

Mondal, S.T

P. Mondal, S.T. Yau,Einstein-Yang-Mills equations in the double null framework, Communications in Analysis and Geometry (2025)

2025
[21]

Mondal, S-T Yau, Dynamical Formation of Black Holes due to Boundary Effect in Vacuum Gravity, arXiv:2511.09508, 2025

P. Mondal, S-T Yau, Dynamical Formation of Black Holes due to Boundary Effect in Vacuum Gravity, arXiv:2511.09508, 2025

2025 arXiv
[22]

J. A. Smoller, A.G. Wasserman, S-T. Yau,Existence of black hole solu- tions for the Einstein-Yang-Mills equations, Communications in Mathemati- cal Physics vol. 154 (1993), 377-401

1993
[23]

J. A. Smoller, A.G. Wasserman, S-T. Yau, J.B. McLeod,Smooth static solutions of the Einstein-Yang-Mills equations, Communications in Mathe- matical Physics vol. 143 (1991), 115-147

1991
[24]

Straumann, Z-H

N. Straumann, Z-H. Zhou,Instability of the Bartnik-McKinnon solution of the Einstein-Yang-Mills equations, Physics Letters B (1990), 353-356. 23

1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [8]

Athanasiou, P

N. Athanasiou, P. Mondal, S-T. Yau,Formation of trapped surfaces in the Einstein-Yang-Mills system, Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees vol. 194 (2025)

work page 2025

[2] [1]

An,A scale-critical trapped surface formation criterion: A new proof via signature for decay rates, Annals of PDE Vol

X. An,A scale-critical trapped surface formation criterion: A new proof via signature for decay rates, Annals of PDE Vol. 8 (1), 2022

work page 2022

[3] [2]

An.Emergence of apparent horizon in gravitational collapse, Annals of PDE Vol

X. An.Emergence of apparent horizon in gravitational collapse, Annals of PDE Vol. 6 (10), 2020

work page 2020

[4] [3]

Formation of Trapped Surfaces from Past Null Infinity

X. An,Formation of trapped surfaces from past null infinity, arXiv:1207.5271

work page Pith review arXiv

[5] [4]

X. An, N. Athanasiou,A scale critical trapped surface formation criterion for the Einstein-Maxwell, Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees Vol. 167 (2022), 294-409

work page 2022

[6] [5]

X. An, T. He, D. Shen,Stability of Big Bang singularity for the Einstein- Maxwell-scalar field-Vlasov system in the full strong sub-critical regime, arXiv:2507.18585, 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[7] [6]

X. An, Z.F. Lim,Trapped surface formation for spherically symmetric Einstein-Maxwell-charged scalar field system with double null foliation, An- nales Henri Poincar´ e 23 (2022), 3159-3190

work page 2022

[8] [7]

Athanasiou, M

N. Athanasiou, M. Lesourd,Construction of Cauchy data for the dynami- cal formation of apparent horizons and the Penrose Inequality, Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics vol. 26 (2022)

work page 2022