Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Black hole ringdown waveforms stay nearly identical to the classical prediction even when the horizon is violently rough at microscopic scales, because the wave integral averages out the disorder.

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

2026-08-03 03:25 UTC pith:3QDUO6OT

load-bearing objection Plausible and useful stochastic model for ringdown robustness, but the static-disorder assumption and single-realization numerics leave the quantitative selection rule softer than the text claims. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.08034 v2 pith:3QDUO6OT submitted 2026-02-08 gr-qc

Waveform stability of black hole ringdown with stochastic horizon structure

Han-Wen Hu , Cheng-Jun Fang , Zong-Kuan Guo This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 04.30.-w04.70.-s
keywords black hole ringdownstochastic horizon structurephase averagingquasinormal mode instabilityRegge-Wheeler potentialgravitational-wave echoesquantum foamobservability bound
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that a black hole's ringdown gravitational-wave signal is robust to stochastic, horizon-scale geometric disorder, even though the quasinormal-mode spectrum is known to be highly sensitive to such perturbations. Modeling the microstructure as a random potential perturbation with amplitude epsilon and correlation length L_c, it finds that the observable waveform matches the classical Schwarzschild result almost perfectly whenever L_c is small compared with the gravitational wavelength ~M. The physical origin is phase averaging: the spatial integral that determines the scattering phase shift suppresses the contribution of rapidly oscillating potential fluctuations. This yields a geometric selection rule—detectable ringdown deviations require both macroscopic coherence (L_c ~ M) and classical-level intensity (epsilon >~ 10^-4)—which quantitatively rules out observing incoherent, high-entropy quantum foam, and implies that a genuine non-GR ringdown would be evidence for macroscopically coherent horizon structure.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that stochastic short-scale structure near the horizon does not destroy the macroscopic ringdown waveform. In a static Schwarzschild background, the authors model horizon microstructure as a quenched random metric fluctuation with root-mean-square amplitude epsilon and Gaussian correlation length L_c, and solve the perturbed Regge-Wheeler equation in both time and frequency domains. They find that even a violently shattered potential barrier with L_c = 0.01 M yields waveforms that overlap the classical ringdown almost perfectly, and that the frequency-domain phase shift collapses onto the general-relativistic profile at low frequencies. The waveform mismatch obey

What carries the argument

The central object is the stochastic perturbation of the Regge-Wheeler potential, delta V_eff(r), generated from a random mass function delta f(r) = epsilon (2M/r)^3 zeta(r_*), where zeta is a Gaussian-correlated random field with correlation length L_c. The load-bearing relation is the first-order Born formula for the scattering phase shift, Delta delta(omega) ~ (1/(4 omega R_0)) ∫ dr_* delta V_eff(r_*) Ψ_0^2(ω, r_*), which reduces waveform robustness to the suppression of a single oscillatory integral. When L_c is much smaller than the probe wavelength ~M, the integrand oscillates rapidly and the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma drives the phase shift to zero—this is the phase-averaging mechanism. T

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the quenched-disorder approximation that the stochastic horizon roughness is static over the ringdown timescale; if the disorder pattern changes significantly during the ~M observation window, the phase-averaging cancellation could fail.

What would settle it

Simulate ringdown with a stochastic potential that evolves in time (correlation time tau_c comparable to M) at fixed L_c ~ M and epsilon = 10^-3; if the waveform mismatch significantly exceeds the M ~ 200 epsilon^2 scaling, the static-field assumption is load-bearing and the observability bound would need revision.

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

If this is right

  • Because phase averaging suppresses sub-wavelength structure, the mathematical instability of quasinormal-mode spectra does not imply observational instability; standard ringdown templates remain valid even with near-horizon disorder.
  • The selection rule (L_c ~ M and epsilon >~ 10^-4) means a detected non-GR ringdown would be evidence for macroscopically coherent horizon structure, not generic quantum foam—sharpening the interpretation of future detector data.
  • Rough stochastic horizons act as diffuse scattering centers that decohere gravitational-wave echoes over multiple cavity round trips, which could explain the absence of echo signals in current searches.
  • The M ~ 200 epsilon^2 scaling gives a concrete benchmark: at resonance, the mismatch should grow quadratically in the fluctuation amplitude over at least two orders of magnitude, as verified numerically in the paper.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The phase-averaging argument suggests a broader principle: any real-frequency observable built from scattering data is insensitive to potential structure below the probe wavelength; this could be tested in Kerr or charged backgrounds where the potential shape differs.
  • The quenched-disorder assumption is the main limitation; if the horizon disorder itself evolves on the ~M ringdown timescale, phase averaging could be disrupted. A finite correlation-time extension would show whether echoes or broadband deviations reappear.
  • The observability bound implies future searches for horizon structure should target long-wavelength, coherent deformations (e.g., surface anisotropy) rather than Planckian roughness, since the latter is exponentially suppressed by phase cancellation.
  • The deep-UV regime (L_c ~ 10^-3 M) was only probed with the step approximation, which the paper argues breaks down; a direct continuous-potential simulation in that regime would determine whether phase averaging holds all the way to the Planck scale.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper examines whether stochastic horizon-scale structure can observably affect the ringdown waveform of a Schwarzschild black hole. It models the horizon fluctuations as a static, colored random perturbation δf(r) with intensity ε and correlation length L_c, adds the induced correction δV_eff to the Regge-Wheeler potential, and then combines time-domain finite-difference simulations with a first-order Born phase-shift computation. The central claim is a 'phase averaging' mechanism: the wave equation's spatial integral suppresses ultraviolet potential fluctuations, so the macroscopic waveform is robust even when the potential barrier is violently shattered. The paper further proposes a selection rule for observability, requiring both L_c∼M and ε≳10^-4, based on the numerical scaling M≃200ε².

Significance. If the result holds, it offers a concrete mechanism for reconciling the spectral instability of quasinormal modes with the observed stability of ringdown waveforms, and it gives a quantitative criterion for when horizon-scale structure could be detectable. The paper has notable strengths: it combines time-domain and frequency-domain evidence, includes a Born-approximation phase-shift calculation, checks the M∝ε² scaling numerically, and tests robustness with a conservative step-potential approximation. These features make the physical picture appealing. However, the central quantitative claims are currently conditional on several unquantified modeling choices and on single-realization numerics, which need to be addressed before the selection rule can be regarded as established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (5)] The quenched-disorder reduction is not quantitatively justified. The text states that over Δv∼M the Wiener-process variance drift ⟨δf²⟩∝Δv is 'relatively negligible,' but no noise amplitude or diffusion timescale is supplied; the ratio σ²M/ε² can be anything. If δf evolves appreciably during ringdown, Eq. (14) and the phase-averaging suppression are not applicable. The authors should derive an explicit timescale from the Einstein-Langevin equation (or state the static assumption as a model assumption and test its sensitivity, e.g., by introducing slow time dependence).
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (14)] The Riemann-Lebesgue argument for phase averaging is incomplete as written. The leading term in δV_eff, Eq. (8), is proportional to dη/dr, whose amplitude grows as εM/L_c as L_c→0. An oscillatory integrand with diverging amplitude is not automatically suppressed. The suppression must be demonstrated by integrating by parts (transferring the derivative to Ψ0²) or by giving an explicit stochastic variance estimate, e.g., Var(∫η f) ∼ L_c. Without this step, the central mechanism is asserted rather than derived; the numerical results may be correct, but the analytic explanation should be repaired.
  3. [Sec. III, Figs. 2–5] All quantitative statements rest on a single noise realization per L_c, with no error bars or ensemble averaging. The mismatch profile in Fig. 4 and the coefficient M≃200ε² in Fig. 5 are therefore one realization's outcome, and the value could fluctuate significantly across realizations. This directly affects the derived lower bound ε_det≳2×10^-4. The authors should report ensemble statistics (mean ± standard deviation over several independent realizations) or provide an analytic variance estimate for the mismatch.
  4. [Sec. II, Eq. (9)] The horizon-smoothing operator contains two free parameters, r_cut and Δ, but their numerical values are never stated. Since this smoothing forces δV_eff→0 near the horizon, the low-frequency scattering phase and the mismatch may depend on these choices. Please give the values used and show that the results are robust to reasonable variations of r_cut and Δ.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (15b)] The frequency cutoff is written inconsistently: the text says ω_cut = 0.6/M in one place and 0.6/M² in another. Please clarify the value and the units.
  2. [Sec. II, Eqs. (6)–(7)] The normalization factor N in Eq. (6) is not specified. To give ε a unique meaning as the rms amplitude of δf, the normalization of ζ should be defined explicitly (e.g., unit variance).
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 5] Reporting R²=1 for a fit without error bars and without stating the number of independent realizations is not informative. Please provide the fit residuals and the statistical uncertainty of the slope and intercept.
  4. [References] Reference [4] is incomplete (no author or title), and several entries are self-citations/preprints ([34], [44], [47]). Please ensure complete bibliographic information.
  5. [General notation] The index structure and dimensions of ξ^r_v in Eqs. (4)–(5) are not defined before use. A brief definition would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the waveform-stability result is derived from a self-contained stochastic model; self-citations are not load-bearing and the only self-referential element is a calibrated scaling coefficient used for an observability threshold.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: stochastic metric perturbation δf (Eqs. 3–5) → effective Regge-Wheeler potential shift (Eqs. 8–9) → first-Born phase shift (Eq. 14) → time/frequency mismatches (Eqs. 15) → scaling law M ∝ ε² and Lc resonance profile → observability threshold ε_det. Each link is computed from the previous one via explicit equations or numerical integration; none of the links is an input to itself by construction. The phase-integral formula is a standard Born-approximation identity, and the numerical solver is externally benchmarked by the GR limit (Lc/M → ∞). The only potentially self-referential element is the coefficient 200 in M ≃ 200ε²: it is obtained from the paper's own time-domain mismatch data at Lc∼M (Fig. 5) and then inverted to give ε_det ≳ 2×10^-4. This is a model-calibrated threshold rather than an independent prediction, and it is not load-bearing for the central claim that ringdown waveforms remain robust; it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The quenched-disorder and tanh-smoothing choices are explicit modeling ansätze, and the justification of the static approximation ('the variance drift of the Wiener process... is relatively negligible', Sec. II) is quantitatively under-supported—but this is a correctness/robustness caveat, not circularity, because the approximation is not derived by assuming the conclusion. Self-citations [34,44,47] appear in contextual review statements alongside independent references and do not carry the derivational weight. No step meets the self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, load-bearing self-citation, uniqueness-import, ansatz-via-citation, or renaming criteria.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on a set of modeling choices that are plausible but not derived from a fundamental theory: the Einstein-Langevin stochastic source, the quenched-disorder static approximation, the tidal-force envelope, the unspecified horizon-smoothing parameters, and the Born linearization. The most consequential free parameters are ε and L_c, but the unstated r_cut/Δ and noise normalization N are equally important for reproducibility. No new fundamental entity is introduced; the stochastic field is a phenomenological device.

free parameters (7)
  • ε (fluctuation intensity) = benchmark 10^-3; detection threshold ~2×10^-4
    Controls the amplitude of δf in Eq. (7). Chosen for numerical fidelity, not derived; the observability threshold follows from the fitted M≃200ε² relation.
  • L_c (correlation length) = scanned 10^-3M to 10^2M (time-domain minimum 10^-2M)
    Correlation length of Gaussian noise in Eq. (6). Central to the resonance profile; a free model parameter, not derived from a microstate construction.
  • r_cut and Δ (horizon-smoothing parameters) = unspecified
    Eq. (9) forces δV→0 near the horizon via tanh((r*-r_cut)/Δ). Values are never given or varied, though this boundary treatment is load-bearing for the phase-averaging result.
  • N (noise normalization) = unspecified
    Normalization factor in Eq. (6) for the Gaussian-smoothed white noise; not defined, though it sets the variance of ζ and hence the effective size of δV.
  • ω_cut (frequency-domain mismatch cutoff) = 0.6/M
    Low-frequency upper limit in Eq. (15b). Chosen to exclude ultraviolet scattering; the paper asserts insensitivity without showing supporting data.
  • Coefficient C in M≃200ε² = ≈200
    Calibrated from the numerical mismatch at ε=10^-3 and L_c∼M (Fig. 5/Fig. 4). Used to derive ε_det; it is a simulation fit output, not an analytic coefficient.
  • M_det (detector mismatch threshold) = 10^-5
    Assumed 'typical detection threshold' for next-generation detectors; stated without citation, and directly sets the claimed ε_det≳2×10^-4.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Linearized Einstein-Langevin equation (Eqs. 1-2) is a valid effective description of horizon microstate backreaction
    The paper generalizes a quantum-vacuum-noise formalism to a phenomenological stochastic source; no derivation from a specific quantum-gravity theory is given.
  • domain assumption Quenched disorder: δf(v,r) is quasi-static over the ringdown timescale
    After Eq. (5), the time integral of the stochastic source is treated as a static random field because the Wiener drift over Δv∼M is 'relatively negligible'. This is load-bearing for all time-domain results.
  • ad hoc to paper Metric perturbation envelope follows tidal-force scaling (2M/r)^3 (Eq. 7)
    The amplitude of δf is set proportional to the square root of the Kretschmann scalar. This is a modeling choice, not derived from any microstate construction.
  • domain assumption First-order Born approximation and neglect of amplitude change (Eqs. 11-14)
    The phase-shift formula assumes small δV and that only the phase of the reflection coefficient changes; no explicit validity bound is derived for ε=10^-3.
  • standard math Riemann-Lebesgue suppression applies to the stochastic potential despite δV amplitude ∝1/L_c
    Section IV invokes the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma for oscillatory integrands. Strictly, the potential contains a derivative term whose amplitude grows as 1/L_c, so the suppression is not a direct textbook application; the paper verifies it numerically.
  • standard math Schwarzschild Regge-Wheeler potential is the external benchmark
    The unperturbed GR background and the L_c=100M limit serve as the reference for all mismatches; this is a standard background assumption in BH perturbation theory.
invented entities (1)
  • Stochastic mass fluctuation field η(v,r) no independent evidence
    purpose: Phenomenological parametrization of horizon-microstate backreaction in the mass function m(v,r)=M+η (Eq. 3)
    It is a random-field model ingredient whose statistics (ε, L_c) are chosen by hand. No independent observable is predicted beyond the ringdown response itself, so it lacks a falsifiable handle outside the paper's own model.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12232 in / 17422 out tokens · 191398 ms · 2026-08-03T03:25:10.906766+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We examine the robustness of black hole ringdown to stochastic horizon-scale structure within an effective field framework in a proof-of-principle Schwarzschild setup.Consistent with the understanding that the spectral instability of quasinormal modes does not necessarily imply observational breakdown, our results demonstrate that the macroscopic gravitational waveform remains robust. We identify the phase averaging mechanism as the physical origin of this stability, demonstrating that the spatial integration of the wave equation efficiently attenuates ultraviolet geometric details below the resolution limit of the probing wavelength. Building on the scaling law $\mathcal{M} \propto \epsilon^2$ and the characteristic mismatch profile with respect to $L_c$, we propose a geometric selection rule for observability: a detectable signal imposes a strict dual constraint requiring both macroscopic spatial coherence ($L_c \sim M$) and classical-level intensity ($\epsilon \gtrsim 10^{-4}$). This criterion quantitatively rules out the observability of incoherent, high-entropy quantum foam in the present static Schwarzschild model, suggesting that any significant ringdown deviation would instead serve as evidence for macroscopically coherent horizon structures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.08034 by Cheng-Jun Fang, Han-Wen Hu, Zong-Kuan Guo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Stochastic potential shattering on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Time-domain evolution and residual analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Frequency-domain scattering response for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Validation of the perturbative scaling law. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: represents a universal geometric profile; varying ϵ simply shifts the entire curve vertically without altering its resonant shape. We can now quantitatively map these results to real￾istic observational scenarios. Considering a typical de￾tection threshold of Mdet ∼ 10−5 for next-generation detectors, our scaling relation M ≃ 200ϵ 2—derived from 2 The results are insensitive to the specific choice of ωcut … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Frequency-domain response under the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Gravitational Waves from Primordial Black Holes formed by Null Energy Condition Violation during Inflation

    gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 4.0

    A transient null-energy-condition violation during inflation is shown to produce a four-component gravitational-wave background — primordial, scalar-induced, PBH ringdown, and binary-merger — with only the solar-mass ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 50 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D93, 122003 (2016), arXiv:1602.03839 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    M. Isi, M. Giesler, W. M. Farr, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 111102 (2019), arXiv:1905.00869 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    (2025), arXiv:2509.08099 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Bertiet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.23895 [gr-qc]

    E. Bertiet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.23895 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Dreyer, B

    O. Dreyer, B. J. Kelly, B. Krishnan, L. S. Finn, D. Garri- son, and R. Lopez-Aleman, Class. Quant. Grav.21, 787 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0309007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    Calder´ on Bustillo, P

    J. Calder´ on Bustillo, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, Phys. Rev. D103, 024041 (2021), arXiv:2010.01857 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Meidam, M

    J. Meidam, M. Agathos, C. Van Den Broeck, J. Veitch, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D90, 064009 (2014), arXiv:1406.3201 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  9. [9]

    Bhagwat, X

    S. Bhagwat, X. J. Forteza, P. Pani, and V. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. D101, 044033 (2020), arXiv:1910.08708 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    S. H. V¨ olkel and A. Dhani, Phys. Rev. D112, 084076 (2025), arXiv:2507.22122 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    S. D. Mathur, (2008), arXiv:0810.4525 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  12. [12]

    Saravani, N

    M. Saravani, N. Afshordi, and R. B. Mann, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D23, 1443007 (2015), arXiv:1212.4176 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    Susskind, (2012), arXiv:1208.3445 [hep-th]

    L. Susskind, (2012), arXiv:1208.3445 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    Harlow and P

    D. Harlow and P. Hayden, JHEP06, 085 (2013), arXiv:1301.4504 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  15. [15]

    Devin, Galaxies2, 189 (2014), arXiv:1401.0588 [gr- qc]

    M. Devin, Galaxies2, 189 (2014), arXiv:1401.0588 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  16. [16]

    S. D. Mathur, Fortsch. Phys.53, 793 (2005), arXiv:hep- th/0502050

    arXiv 2005

  17. [17]

    I. Bena, E. J. Martinec, S. D. Mathur, and N. P. Warner, (2022), arXiv:2204.13113 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    D. R. Mayerson, (2022), arXiv:2202.11394 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Ikeda, M

    T. Ikeda, M. Bianchi, D. Consoli, A. Grillo, J. F. Morales, P. Pani, and G. Raposo, Phys. Rev. D104, 066021 (2021), arXiv:2103.10960 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    S. D. Mathur, (2014), arXiv:1401.4097 [hep-th]. 9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    Oshita, Class

    N. Oshita, Class. Quant. Grav.34, 195002 (2017), arXiv:1607.06546 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    Bianchi, D

    M. Bianchi, D. Consoli, A. Grillo, J. F. Morales, P. Pani, and G. Raposo, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 221601 (2020), arXiv:2007.01743 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    Cardoso, S

    V. Cardoso, S. Hopper, C. F. B. Macedo, C. Palen- zuela, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D94, 084031 (2016), arXiv:1608.08637 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    Cardoso and P

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Nature Astron.1, 586 (2017), arXiv:1709.01525 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    Oshita and N

    N. Oshita and N. Afshordi, Phys. Rev. D99, 044002 (2019), arXiv:1807.10287 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    Abedi, H

    J. Abedi, H. Dykaar, and N. Afshordi, Phys. Rev. D96, 082004 (2017), arXiv:1612.00266 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    Abedi and N

    J. Abedi and N. Afshordi, (2020), arXiv:2001.00821 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Y.-S. Cao, Y. Liu, and D.-F. Zeng, (2025), arXiv:2510.11518 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    R. K. L. Lo, T. G. F. Li, and A. J. Weinstein, Phys. Rev. D99, 084052 (2019), arXiv:1811.07431 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    K. W. Tsang, A. Ghosh, A. Samajdar, K. Chatziioannou, S. Mastrogiovanni, M. Agathos, and C. Van Den Broeck, Phys. Rev. D101, 064012 (2020), arXiv:1906.11168 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Abedi, Class

    J. Abedi, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 205004 (2025), arXiv:2301.00025 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    R. S. Conklin, B. Holdom, and J. Ren, Phys. Rev. D98, 044021 (2018), arXiv:1712.06517 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Ren and D

    J. Ren and D. Wu, Phys. Rev. D104, 124023 (2021), arXiv:2108.01820 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Hu, C.-J

    H.-W. Hu, C.-J. Fang, and Z.-K. Guo, (2025), arXiv:2512.11917 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    J. L. Jaramillo, R. Panosso Macedo, and L. Al Sheikh, Phys. Rev. X11, 031003 (2021), arXiv:2004.06434 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Boyanov, V

    V. Boyanov, V. Cardoso, K. Destounis, J. L. Jaramillo, and R. Panosso Macedo, Phys. Rev. D109, 064068 (2024), arXiv:2312.11998 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Shen, G.-R

    S.-F. Shen, G.-R. Li, R. G. Daghigh, J. C. Morey, M. D. Green, W.-L. Qian, and R.-H. Yue, (2025), arXiv:2507.11663 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Oshita, E

    N. Oshita, E. Berti, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 031401 (2025), arXiv:2503.21276 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Cai, L.-M

    R.-G. Cai, L.-M. Cao, J.-N. Chen, Z.-K. Guo, L.-B. Wu, and Y.-S. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D111, 084011 (2025), arXiv:2501.02522 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Destounis, V

    K. Destounis, V. Boyanov, and R. Panosso Macedo, Phys. Rev. D109, 044023 (2024), arXiv:2312.11630 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Cao, M.-F

    L.-M. Cao, M.-F. Ji, L.-B. Wu, and Y.-S. Zhou, (2025), arXiv:2511.17067 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Nollert, Phys

    H.-P. Nollert, Phys. Rev. D53, 4397 (1996), arXiv:gr- qc/9602032

    arXiv 1996

  43. [43]

    M. H.-Y. Cheung, K. Destounis, R. P. Macedo, E. Berti, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 111103 (2022), arXiv:2111.05415 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    H.-W. Hu, C. Lan, and Z.-K. Guo, (2025), arXiv:2511.21786 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    J. L. Jaramillo, R. Panosso Macedo, and L. A. Sheikh, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 211102 (2022), arXiv:2105.03451 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    Xie, L.-B

    L. Xie, L.-B. Wu, and Z.-K. Guo, Phys. Rev. D112, 024054 (2025), arXiv:2505.21303 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    L.-B. Wu, L. Xie, Y.-S. Zhou, Z.-K. Guo, and R.-G. Cai, (2025), arXiv:2509.20947 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Verdaguer, inWorkshop on Differential Geome- try, Global Analysis, Lie Algebras(2000) arXiv:gr- qc/0102034

    E. Verdaguer, inWorkshop on Differential Geome- try, Global Analysis, Lie Algebras(2000) arXiv:gr- qc/0102034

    arXiv 2000

  49. [49]

    B. L. Hu and E. Verdaguer, Living Rev. Rel.11, 3 (2008), arXiv:0802.0658 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  50. [50]

    J. S. J. Rodr ´ ıguez, E. S. Escobar-Aguilar, and T. Matos, (2025), arXiv:2512.05985 [physics.gen-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    J. S. Cotler, G. Gur-Ari, M. Hanada, J. Polchinski, P. Saad, S. H. Shenker, D. Stanford, A. Streicher, and M. Tezuka, JHEP05, 118 (2017), [Erratum: JHEP 09, 002 (2018)], arXiv:1611.04650 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  52. [52]

    S. Das, S. K. Garg, C. Krishnan, and A. Kundu, JHEP 10, 031 (2023), arXiv:2301.11780 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    Dvali and C

    G. Dvali and C. Gomez, Fortsch. Phys.61, 742 (2013), arXiv:1112.3359 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  54. [54]

    Gundlach, R

    C. Gundlach, R. H. Price, and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. D 49, 883 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9307009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  55. [55]

    Oshita and V

    N. Oshita and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D111, 104043 (2025), arXiv:2407.02563 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Kyutoku, H

    K. Kyutoku, H. Motohashi, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D107, 044012 (2023), arXiv:2206.00671 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Ianniccari, A

    A. Ianniccari, A. J. Iovino, A. Kehagias, P. Pani, G. Perna, D. Perrone, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 211401 (2024), arXiv:2407.20144 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Oshita, Phys

    N. Oshita, Phys. Rev. D109, 104028 (2024), arXiv:2309.05725 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024