Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 95 references

Magnetic Reconnection and Energy Extraction from a Rotating Black Hole in a Four-dimensional Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that magnetic reconnection can extract energy from Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet black holes at spins as low as about 0.4 (circular) and 0.22 (plunging), with reconnection power exceeding the standard electromagnetic power by up…

desk verdict A competent application of the Comisso-Asenjo mechanism to the Kumar-Ghosh rotating 4D EGB metric, with new low-spin thresholds but an unverified spacetime, a suspect radial equation, and an internal inconsistency in the power comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04449 v1 pith:65J3RQLH submitted 2026-08-05 gr-qc

Abdul Malik Sultan , Muhammad Israr Aslam , Muhammad Nawaz , Rubab Manzoor , Ke Wang , Hamood Ur Rehman , Yakup Yildirim This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783D05 PACS 04.70.-s04.50.Kd95.30.Qd
keywords magneticreconnectionblackholeenergyextractionEinstein-Gauss-BonnetgravityergosphereplungingregionBlandford-Znajekprocessspinthresholdrotatingholes
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 argues that magnetic reconnection in the ergosphere of a rotating black hole in four-dimensional Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet (4D EGB) gravity can extract rotational energy even when the black hole spins much more slowly than previously thought possible. For plasma on circular orbits the mechanism works down to a spin parameter $a \approx 0.4$, and for plasma in the plunging region inside the innermost stable circular orbit it works down to $a \approx 0.22$. The Gauss-Bonnet coupling $\alpha$ is said to lower the required spin threshold, because it shrinks the ergosphere and limits the maximum allowed spin while widening the reconnection parameter space. The paper also reports that the extracted power can exceed the standard Blandford-Znajek power, by factors up to about 11.55 in the circular case and 28.87 in the plunging case, and that plunging plasma extracts more power than circular plasma.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the rotating 4D EGB metric of Eqs. (7)-(8), obtained by applying the Newman-Janis algorithm to the static 4D EGB solution, and the reconnection energy-at-infinity formulas for plasma outflows. In the zero-angular-momentum observer frame the paper evaluates the energy at infinity of decelerated and accelerated outflows, $e^\infty_-$ and $e^\infty_+$, requiring $e^\infty_- < 0$ and $e^\infty_+ > 0$ for successful extraction. Power is computed as $P = -e^\infty_- \omega A_{\rm in} U_{\rm in}$, with the inflow speed $U_{\rm in} \approx 0.1$, and efficiency as $\eta = e^\infty_+/(e^\infty_+ + e^\infty_-)$. The same machinery is adapted to the plunging region by replacing Keplerian velocities with four-velocities carrying the radial infall from the innermost stable circular orbit.

What would settle it

Compute the negative-energy condition $e^\infty_- < 0$ for the same spin and coupling values using a rotating 4D EGB metric derived by an independent method, for example an exact or high-order perturbative solution replacing the Newman-Janis construction. If no reconnection point with $e^\infty_- < 0$ exists below $a = 0.4$ (circular) or $a = 0.22$ (plunging), the low-spin claim collapses. Alternatively, a numerical simulation of reconnection in the ergosphere of a 4D EGB black hole that shows no negative-energy outflow at these spins would falsify the paper's central result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the magnetic-reconnection energy-extraction mechanism, applied to a rotating 4D EGB black hole described by the Newman-Janis-generated metric in Eqs. (7)-(8), works at spin parameters as low as $a \approx 0.4$ for circular plasma and $a \approx 0.22$ for plunging plasma, for a fixed coupling $\alpha = 0.61$. The Gauss-Bonnet coupling $\alpha$ lowers the minimum spin required for extraction and also reduces the maximum allowed spin. Comparing powers, the paper reports reconnection power exceeding the Blandford-Znajek power by factors of 11.5537 (high-spin circular), 5.06476 (moderate-spin circular), and 28.8724 (the corresponding plunging case), and finds that the plunging regime is always more powerful than the circular regime. These results are offered as evidence that higher-curvature corrections broaden the window for reconnection-powered energy extraction around rotating black holes.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation stands on a rotating spacetime metric that the paper itself says is not an exact known solution of four-dimensional EGB gravity but a physically motivated construction; if that metric is wrong, every threshold, power, and efficiency number changes. It also assumes the standard reconnection energy-extraction equations transfer unchanged to this spacetime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, magnetic reconnection can draw rotational energy from 4D EGB black holes with spin as low as about 0.4 in circular flows and 0.22 in plunging flows, far below the Kerr threshold cited in earlier work.
  • The Gauss-Bonnet coupling $\alpha$ opens a wider energy-extraction region, so higher-curvature corrections change not just horizon and ergosphere geometry but also the astrophysical viability of reconnection-powered outflows.
  • Reconnection power can exceed the Blandford-Znajek power in both circular and plunging regimes, suggesting the mechanism deserves inclusion in models of black-hole jet formation for this theory.
  • Plunging plasma yields higher extraction power than circular plasma, so accretion flows that cross the innermost stable circular orbit are the more promising sites for reconnection energy extraction.
  • Power and efficiency rise with plasma magnetization $\sigma_0$ and with the location of the reconnection point, making the X-point position a key observable parameter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • These claims are only as solid as the rotating metric; if an exact rotating 4D EGB solution differs from the Newman-Janis-generated one, the numerical thresholds and power ratios would shift, though the qualitative trend of $\alpha$ lowering the threshold could survive.
  • A direct observational test could come from low-spin objects: if reconnection-powered jets or flares are seen around a black hole whose spin is below the Kerr threshold, standard general relativity would have trouble explaining them, while 4D EGB gravity would not.
  • The plunging-region result suggests that future relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of accretion onto 4D EGB black holes should include reconnection in the near-horizon plunging flow, since that is where the paper predicts the largest extracted power.
  • The paper's comparison normalizes power per enthalpy density; translating these ratios into absolute luminosities for a given accretion rate would sharpen whether the predicted jets are observable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the Comisso-Asenjo magnetic-reconnection energy-extraction mechanism to the rotating spacetime obtained by Newman-Janis transforming the static four-dimensional Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet black hole (the Kumar-Ghosh metric). It computes horizon, ergosphere, photon-sphere, and ISCO quantities, maps regions where the decelerated outflow energy at infinity is negative, evaluates the reconnection power and efficiency in circular and plunging orbits, and compares the power with the Blandford-Znajek process. The headline results are that energy extraction remains possible down to spin a≈0.40 for circular plasma and a≈0.22 for plunging plasma, that the Gauss-Bonnet coupling α lowers the spin threshold, and that the reconnection power exceeds the BZ power by factors of about 11.55 and 28.87 for selected parameter sets.

Significance. If the results were robust predictions of four-dimensional EGB gravity, they would extend the magnetic-reconnection energy-extraction mechanism to a well-motivated modified-gravity setting and would indicate that higher-curvature corrections enhance extraction at low spin. The paper uses the standard formulas of Refs. [62, 86, 93] with explicit parameter choices, so the arithmetic is reproducible and the comparison with the BZ power is clearly set up. However, two load-bearing premises are not established: the Newman-Janis metric of Eqs. (7)-(8) is not shown to solve the 4D EGB field equations (5)-(6), and the Comisso-Asenjo formulas are transferred to this spacetime without re-derivation or qualification. The first premise is explicitly acknowledged in Section II as an open problem. The significance of the quantitative claims is therefore conditional on the metric being a valid rotating 4D EGB solution, which is not demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II, Eqs. (7)-(8) and (5)-(6)] The rotating metric used for all subsequent calculations is not an exact solution of the 4D EGB field equations. The text states at the start of Section II that no exact analytical solution for rotating configurations is known and that existing results are physically motivated constructions. The Newman-Janis algorithm is not a solution-generating technique in general, so it does not automatically produce a metric satisfying G_{μν}+αH_{μν}=0. Since every quantitative result in the paper — the ergosphere boundary, photon sphere, ISCO, e^∞_±, P/P_BZ — is computed from Eqs. (7)-(8), the headline statements about rotating 4D EGB black holes are not established. Please either demonstrate that the metric satisfies the field equations, or explicitly reframe the paper as a study of the Newman-Janis-generated EGB-inspired metric and remove the theory-level claims from the title, abstract, and conclusions.
  2. [§II, Eq. (15)] The radial equation is written with a quantity O defined by O=Q−(L−aE)^2, so that the bracket becomes (L−aE)^2+O=Q. If Q is the standard Carter constant, then for equatorial orbits Q=0 and the Δ_r(L−aE)^2 term cancels, leaving R(r)=[(r^2+a^2)E−aL]^2; this cannot produce the photon-sphere and ISCO radii used in Figs. 4-13. The reported ISCO value r_I=1.24665 for a=0.98, α=0.01 in Section IV.B is substantially below the Kerr (α→0) value and suggests that the term is missing or the notation is inconsistent. Please write the standard equatorial radial equation explicitly, clarify the definition of Q and O, and verify that the α=0 limit reproduces the Kerr photon sphere and ISCO.
  3. [§III.C, Eq. (44) and §IV.B] The circular-orbit power ratio of 11.5537 is computed at a=0.98, r=1.1, σ0=5, α=0.01. The same parameter set is later used for the plunging-region comparison, and Section IV.B states that r_I=1.24665>r. Thus r=1.1 lies inside the plunging region, not on a circular orbit, so the claimed circular-orbit value of P/P_BZ is not valid for the circular-orbit case. The circular-orbit power ratio should be evaluated at r>r_I (or at least at r>r_p for the unstable circular orbits), and the plunging-region comparison should be recomputed accordingly.
  4. [§III.C, Eq. (36) and Figs. 9-10] The efficiency η defined in Eq. (36) exceeds unity whenever e^∞_-<0, because the denominator e^∞_+ + e^∞_- is smaller than e^∞_+. Most curves in Figs. 9 and 10 show η values between 0.980 and 0.995, which would imply e^∞_->0 and hence no energy extraction. This contradicts the parameter-space analysis in Section III.B, where the condition e^∞_-<0 defines the extraction region. Please clarify how the plotted efficiencies relate to the extraction regions, or correct the definition or numerical evaluation of η.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II, Eq. (4)] The expression for L_GB contains a repeated index pattern in which R^{βγτχ} appears twice with opposite signs, so the displayed formula is internally inconsistent; please correct the Lagrangian term.
  2. [§III.C, Figs. 7-10] The text says that energy-extraction power decreases as α increases when comparing Figs. 7 and 8, but later states that the energy-extraction power increases with α when comparing Figs. 10(a) and 10(b); Fig. 10 shows efficiency, not power, so the wording should be made consistent.
  3. [§IV.B, after Eq. (53)] For the low-spin plunging example with α=0.001, a=0.3, r=4.3, σ0=100, the reported power ratio is only 0.0859538, yet the abstract states without qualification that reconnection power exceeds the BZ power; please qualify the abstract and conclusions to reflect that the super-BZ ratios are obtained for the specific high-spin parameter sets.
  4. [§II, Eqs. (34)-(35) and §IV.B, Eq. (53)] The cross-sectional area A_in is defined as r_E^2−r_p^2 for circular orbits and later replaced by r_E^2−r_+^2 in the plunging region; the choice of area prescription is not justified and affects the reported power ratios, so a brief justification or sensitivity discussion would be helpful.
  5. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical and grammatical errors (for example, 'equarorial', 'incomprehensible ball approach', and several awkward sentences in the introduction and conclusions); a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analysis evaluates external reconnection formulas on a cited rotating 4D EGB metric; thresholds and power ratios are computed, not fitted.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: take rotating metric (7)-(8) from Kumar-Ghosh [86] (also cited as [87,88]); compute horizon/ergosphere/photon sphere; insert geodesic quantities into the Comisso-Asenjo energy expressions (32), (51), (34) and (36); and compare with the Blandford-Znajek expression (37). Each load-bearing formula is an external input rather than a quantity produced by the paper, so no equation in the paper reduces to its inputs by construction. The low-spin thresholds (0.4 circular, 0.22 plunging) are read off from the e^∞_- < 0 region plotted for selected alpha, xi, sigma0 and r; this is parameter exploration and selection, not fitting a parameter to a target result. The power ratios 11.55 and 28.87 are evaluations at chosen parameter sets, again not fitted predictions. I flag the manuscript's own limitation in Section II: 'At present, no exact analytical solution for rotating configurations is known within this framework. Existing results are largely based on physically motivated constructions.' This is a genuine external-validity concern, because equations (7)-(8) are a Newman-Janis construction and the paper does not verify that they satisfy equation (5). That undermines the physical interpretation of the thresholds, but it is not circular: the metric is not defined in terms of the quantities being predicted. There are self-citations (e.g., [25], [30], [76]-[78], [88]), but none carries a load-bearing uniqueness argument or supplies the central derivation; the metric comes from [86], the reconnection formulas from [62], and the BZ power formula from [60,94,95]. Thus no step satisfies the quoted-reduction criterion for circularity, and the calculation is self-contained as an evaluation of external formulas on a stated spacetime model.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on an approximate rotating metric from the Newman-Janis algorithm, the Comisso-Asenjo formula package, chosen values of alpha, sigma0, xi, and U_in, and favorable point comparisons. No data or code are supplied. The most consequential input is the reliability of the rotating 4D EGB metric, which the paper itself flags as not an exact solution.

free parameters (7)
  • Gauss-Bonnet coupling alpha = values 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.61 in plots
    Scanned by hand; it changes the metric and is the claimed cause of the lowered spin threshold. Not fixed by data.
  • Plasma magnetization sigma0 = 3, 10, 30, 100, with 5 and 10 used in power comparisons
    Chosen by hand; the allowed energy-extraction region and the power values depend strongly on it.
  • Magnetic field orientation xi = pi/12 in the main results
    Fixed by hand; the power ratio diverges as xi approaches zero, so the comparison is sensitive to this choice.
  • Reconnection inflow rate U_in = 0.1
    Taken from collisionless reconnection literature; the power ratio scales linearly with U_in, so the collisional value 0.01 would reduce the reported ratios by a factor of ten.
  • High-spin power comparison point = a=0.98, r=1.1, sigma0=5, alpha=0.01
    Ad hoc point selected to show P/PBZ=11.55; the paper later states that r=1.1 lies inside the ISCO, so it is not a valid circular-orbit point.
  • Plunging-region power comparison point = a=0.98, r=1.1, sigma0=5, alpha=0.01
    The same point is reused to obtain P/PBZ=28.87, with no sensitivity analysis around the chosen values.
  • Low-spin power comparison point = a=0.5, r=2.3, sigma0=10, alpha=0.25
    Selected to show P/PBZ=5.06 at moderate spin; no justification is given that this point is representative.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Newman-Janis metric in Eqs. (7) and (8) is a valid rotating black hole spacetime for 4D EGB gravity.
    The paper states that no exact rotating solution is known and that existing results are physically motivated constructions; all thresholds and powers depend on this metric.
  • domain assumption The Comisso-Asenjo energy-at-infinity formulas in Eqs. (32) and (51) apply unchanged to this spacetime.
    The mechanism was derived for Kerr-like spacetimes, and the paper imports it without demonstrating the ZAMO and reconnection algebra for the EGB metric.
  • domain assumption The photon sphere and ISCO radii are obtained correctly from the stated radial equation and conditions.
    Eq. (15) uses a Carter-constant definition that appears to drop the Delta(L-aE)^2 term for equatorial Q=0; any error here propagates into Fig. 1, Fig. 4, and the plunging-region threshold.
  • domain assumption The plasma is incompressible, adiabatic, one-fluid, and the electromagnetic energy at infinity is negligible.
    These idealizations come from ref. 62 and are used to derive Eq. (28); real reconnection layers have finite thickness and compression.
  • domain assumption The Blandford-Znajek power formula in Eq. (37) with numerical constants kappa=0.05, alpha1=1.38, and alpha2=-9.2 is the correct reference power.
    The comparison ratios inherit the validity of this empirical fitting formula and the monopole-field flux model.
  • domain assumption The collisionless reconnection inflow speed U_in is approximately 0.1.
    The value is taken from the literature, and the reported power ratios scale linearly with it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic Reconnection and Energy Extraction from a Rotating Black Hole in a Four-dimensional Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/65J3RQLH

@misc{pith2026260804449,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic Reconnection and Energy Extraction from a Rotating Black Hole in a Four-dimensional Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/65J3RQLH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04449}
}
abstract

Recently, Comisso and Asenjo proposed a new mechanism for energy extraction based on magnetic reconnection of plasma within the ergosphere. In this paper, we analyze the power and efficiency of energy extraction through magnetic reconnection in a rotating four-dimensional Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity black hole. Firstly, we analyze the background properties of this spacetime and its physical quantities, including the event horizon, the boundary of the ergosphere, and the size of the ergosphere. We analyze the magnetic reconnection in circular orbits and investigate the energy extraction region, as well as the power and efficiency of energy extraction. Our results indicate that energy extraction remains feasible even for a low spin parameter of $0.4$, which is well below the previously reported threshold. We also find that the energy extraction power exceeds that of the Blandford-Znajek mechanism. The Gauss-Bonnet coupling parameters $\alpha$ lower the spin threshold for energy extraction. Similarly, we analyze the energy extraction region in the plunging regime, together with the corresponding power and efficiency. We find that energy extraction is possible even for a low spin parameter as $0.22$. We also observe that the Gauss-Bonnet coupling parameter $\alpha$ further lowers the spin threshold. This behavior is consistent with that observed in the circular orbit case. Finally, we compare the energy extraction power in the plunging and circular orbit regimes and find that the plunging regime yields a higher energy extraction power than the circular orbit case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04449 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Plots showing the photon sphere radius, ergosphere boundary and event horizon with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Plots showing the variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Plots showing the variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Plots showing the allowed energy extraction regions for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Plots showing the allowed energy extraction regions for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Plot showing the allowed energy extraction region with a fixed value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Plots showing the energy extraction power for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Plots showing the energy extraction power for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Plots showing the energy extraction efficiency for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Plots showing the energy extraction efficiency for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Plots showing the allowed energy extraction regions for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Plots showing the allowed energy extraction regions for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Plot showing the allowed energy extraction regions for a fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Red solid and blue solid lines represent the circular orbit power and plunging region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott et al.: Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger.Phy. rev. lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott et al.: GW151226: observation of gravitational waves from a 22-solar-mass binary black hole coalescence.Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 241103 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    B. P. Abbott et al.: GW170104: observation of a 50-solar-mass binary black hole coalescence at redshift 0.2.Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 221101 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    B. P. Abbott et al.: GW170814: a three-detector observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole coalescence.Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 141101 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    Akiyama et al.: First M87 event horizon telescope results

    K. Akiyama et al.: First M87 event horizon telescope results. IV. Imaging the central supermassive black hole.Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L4 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Akiyama et al.: (The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration), Event Horizon Telescope Collabo- ration et al

    K. Akiyama et al.: (The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration), Event Horizon Telescope Collabo- ration et al. First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope results. I. The shadow of the supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way.Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L12 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Penrose.: Gravitational collapse and spacetime singularities.Phys

    R. Penrose.: Gravitational collapse and spacetime singularities.Phys. Rev. Lett.14, 57 (1965)

    1965

  8. [8]

    Carter.: Axisymmetric black hole has only two degrees of freedom.Phys

    B. Carter.: Axisymmetric black hole has only two degrees of freedom.Phys. Rev. Lett.26, 331 (1971)

    1971

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    E. T. Newman et al.: Metric of a rotating, charged mass.J. Math. Phys.6, 918 (1965)

    1965

  2. [10]

    Lovelock.: The Einstein tensor and its generalizations.J

    D. Lovelock.: The Einstein tensor and its generalizations.J. Math. Phys.12, 498 (1971)

    1971

  3. [11]

    R. G. Cai, Gauss-Bonnet black holes in AdS spaces, Phys. Rev. D65, 084014 (2002)

    2002

  4. [12]

    Glavan and C

    D. Glavan and C. Lin: Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity in four-dimensional spacetime.Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 081301 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    S. G. Ghosh and R. Kumar.: Generating black holes in 4 D Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet gravity.Class. Quant. Grav.37, 245008 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko.: (In)stability of black holes in the 4D Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet and Einstein–Lovelock gravities.Phys. Dark Univ.30, 100697 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    D. V. Singh and S. Siwach.: Thermodynamics and PV criticality of Bardeen-AdS black hole in 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity.Phys. Lett. B808, 135658 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Wei and Y

    S.W. Wei and Y. X. Liu.: Extended thermodynamics and microstructures of four-dimensional charged Gauss-Bonnet black hole in AdS space.Phys. Rev. D101, 104018 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    P. G. S. Fernandes.: Charged black holes in AdS spaces in 4D Einstein Gauss-Bonnet gravity.Phys. Lett. B805, 135468 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    C. Y. Zhang and et al.: Superradiance and stability of the regularized 4D charged Einstein-Gauss- Bonnet black hole.JHEP8, 105 (2020). 26

    2020

  11. [19]

    Jusufi.: Nonlinear magnetically charged black holes in 4D Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet gravity.Ann

    K. Jusufi.: Nonlinear magnetically charged black holes in 4D Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet gravity.Ann. Phys.421, 168285 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Abdujabbarov.: Dynamics of magnetized particles around 4-D Einstein Gauss–Bonnet black hole

    A. Abdujabbarov.: Dynamics of magnetized particles around 4-D Einstein Gauss–Bonnet black hole. Phys. Dark Univ.30, 100715 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    S. U. Islam, R. Kumar and S. G. Ghosh.: Gravitational lensing by black holes in the 4 D Einstein- Gauss-Bonnet gravity.JCAP09, 030 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    X. H. Jin, Y. X. Gao and D. J. Liu.: Strong gravitational lensing of a 4-dimensional Einstein-Gauss- Bonnet black hole in homogeneous plasma.Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29, 2050065 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    M. S. Churilova.: Quasinormal modes of the Dirac field in the consistent 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity.Phys. Dark Univ.31, 100748 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    A. K. Mishra.: Quasinormal modes and strong cosmic censorship in the regularised 4D Einstein-Gauss- Bonnet gravity.Gen. Rel.. Grav.52, 106 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    X. X. Zeng, M. I. Aslam and R. Saleem.: The optical appearance of charged four-dimensional Gauss- Bonnet black hole with strings cloud and non-commutative geometry surrounded by various accretions profiles.Eur. Phys. J. C83, 129 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Zubair, M

    M. Zubair, M. A. Raza, F. Sarikulov and J. Rayimbaev.: 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet black hole in Power-Yang-Mills field: a shadow study.JCAP10, 058 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. F. Zinhailo.: Quasinormal modes, stability and shadows of a black hole in the 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity.Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1049 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    X. X. Zeng, H. Q. Zhang and H. Zhang.: Shadows and photon spheres with spherical accretions in the four-dimensional Gauss-Bonnet black hole.Eur. Phys. J. C80, 872 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Rayimbaev et al.: Shadow and massless particles around regular Bardeen black holes in 4D Einstein Gauss-Bonnet gravity.Int

    J. Rayimbaev et al.: Shadow and massless particles around regular Bardeen black holes in 4D Einstein Gauss-Bonnet gravity.Int. J. Mod. Phys. D31, 2250055 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Zeng et al.: Shadows and Polarization Images of a Four-dimensional Gauss-Bonnet Black Hole Irradiated by a Thick Accretion Disk

    X.-X. Zeng et al.: Shadows and Polarization Images of a Four-dimensional Gauss-Bonnet Black Hole Irradiated by a Thick Accretion Disk. arXiv:2603.07185, 2026

    2026

  23. [31]

    Jusufi, A

    K. Jusufi, A. Banerjee and S. G. Ghosh.: Wormholes in 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity.Eur. Phys. J. C80, 698 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Chakraborty and S

    M. Chakraborty and S. Chakraborty.: Traversable Wormholes and their shadows in 4D Einstein-Gauss- Bonnet Gravity: An analytic description.Phys. Dark Univ.47, 101793 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    G¨ urses, T

    M. G¨ urses, T. S ¸i¸ sman and B. Tekin.: Is there a novel Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory in four dimensions? Eur. Phys. J. C80, 647 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    F. W. Shu.: Vacua in novel 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity: pathology and instability?Phys. Lett. B811, 135907 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    W. Y. Ai.: A note on the novel 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity.Commun. Theor. Phys.72, 095402 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    R. A. Hennigar, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, R. B. Mann and C. Pollack.: On taking theD→4 limit of Gauss-Bonnet gravity: theory and solutions.JHEP7, 027 (2020). 27

    2020

  29. [37]

    P. G. S. Fernandes, P. Carrilho, T. Clifton and D. J. Mulryne.: Derivation of regularized field equations for the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory in four dimensions.Phys. Rev. D102, 024025 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    R. B. Mann and S. F. Ross.: TheD→2 limit of general relativity.Class. Quant. Grav.10, 1405 (1993)

    1993

  31. [39]

    L¨ u and Y

    H. L¨ u and Y. Pang.: Horndeski gravity asD→4 limit of Gauss-Bonnet.Phys. Lett. B809, 135717 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Charmousis et al.: Astrophysical constraints on compact objects in 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity.JCAP.2, 033 (2022)

    C. Charmousis et al.: Astrophysical constraints on compact objects in 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity.JCAP.2, 033 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    C. M. A. Zanoletti et al.: Cosmological constraints on 4-dimensional Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity. JCAP1, 043 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    P. G. S. Fernandes et al.: The 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory of gravity: a review.Class. Quant. Grav.39, 063001 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    D. D. Doneva and S. S. Yazadjiev.: Relativistic stars in 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity.JCAP5, 024 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Saavedra et al.: Neutron stars in 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity.Phys

    A. Saavedra et al.: Neutron stars in 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity.Phys. Rev. D111, 064071 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    K. N. Singh et al.: Anisotropic solution for polytropic stars in 4D Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet gravity.Eur. Phys. J. C82, 822 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Gammon, S

    M. Gammon, S. Rourke and R. B. Mann.: Quark stars with a unified interacting equation of state in regularized 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity.Phys. Rev. D109, 024026 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Banerjee, T

    A. Banerjee, T. Tangphati and P. Channuie.: Strange quark stars in 4D Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet gravity. Astrophys. J.909, 14 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    J. M. Z. Pretel, A. Banerjee and A. Pradhan.: Electrically charged quark stars in 4D Einstein–Gauss– Bonnet gravity.Eur. Phys. J. C82, 180 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Banerjee and K

    A. Banerjee and K. N. Singh.: Color-flavor locked strange stars in 4D Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet gravity. Phys. Dark Univ.31, 100792 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    J. M. Z. Pretel et al.: White dwarfs in regularized 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity.Phys. Lett. B 866, 139581 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Hansraj, S

    S. Hansraj, S. R. Mngadi and A. Errehymy.: Barotropic equations of state in 4D Einstein-Maxwell- Gauss-Bonnet stellar distributions.Nucl. Phys. B1010, 116753 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    S. C. Jaryal and A. Chatterjee.: Spherical gravitational collapse in 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory. Phys. Dark Univ.39, 101171 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Christodoulou.: Reversible and irreversible transformations in black-hole physics.Phys

    D. Christodoulou.: Reversible and irreversible transformations in black-hole physics.Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 1596 (1970)

    1970

  46. [54]

    Penrose.: Gravitational collapse: The role of general relativity.Nuovo Cimento Riv

    R. Penrose.: Gravitational collapse: The role of general relativity.Nuovo Cimento Riv. Ser.1, 252 (1969)

    1969

  47. [55]

    Penrose and R

    R. Penrose and R. M. Floyd.: Extraction of rotational energy from a black hole.Nature Phys. Sci.229, 28 177 (1971)

    1971

  48. [56]

    R. M. Wald.: Energy limits on the Penrose process.Astrophys. J.191, 231 (1974)

    1974

  49. [57]

    Piran, J

    T. Piran, J. Shaham and J. Katz.: High efficiency of the Penrose mechanism for particle collisions. Astrophys. J. Lett.196, L107 (1975)

    1975

  50. [58]

    Takahashi et al.: Magnetohydrodynamic flows in Kerr geometry-Energy extraction from black holes

    M. Takahashi et al.: Magnetohydrodynamic flows in Kerr geometry-Energy extraction from black holes. Astrophys. J.363, 206 (1990)

    1990

  51. [59]

    S. A. Teukolsky and W. H. Press.: Perturbations of a rotating black hole. III-Interaction of the hole with gravitational and electromagnetic radiation.Astrophys. J.193, 443 (1974)

    1974

  52. [60]

    R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek.: Electromagnetic extraction of energy from Kerr black holes.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.179, 433 (1977)

    1977

  53. [61]

    Koide and K

    S. Koide and K. Arai.: Energy extraction from a rotating black hole by magnetic reconnection in the ergosphere.Astrophys. J.682, 1124 (2008)

    2008

  54. [62]

    Comisso and F

    L. Comisso and F. A. Asenjo.: Magnetic reconnection as a mechanism for energy extraction from rotating black holes.Phys. Rev. D103, 023014 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    S. W. Wei et al.: Effects of tidal charge on magnetic reconnection and energy extraction from spinning braneworld black hole.JCAP04, 050 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    Liu.: Energy extraction via magnetic reconnection in the ergosphere of a rotating non-Kerr black hole.Astrophys

    W. Liu.: Energy extraction via magnetic reconnection in the ergosphere of a rotating non-Kerr black hole.Astrophys. J.925, 149 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    Khodadi.: Magnetic reconnection and energy extraction from a spinning black hole with broken Lorentz symmetry.Phys

    M. Khodadi.: Magnetic reconnection and energy extraction from a spinning black hole with broken Lorentz symmetry.Phys. Rev. D105, 023025 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Carleo, G

    A. Carleo, G. Lambiase and L. Mastrototaro.: Energy extraction via magnetic reconnection in Lorentz breaking Kerr-Sen and Kiselev black holes.Eur. Phys. J. C82, 776 (2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    C. H. Wang, C. Q. Pang and S. W. Wei.: Extracting energy via magnetic reconnection from Kerr-de Sitter black holes.Phys. Rev. D106, 124050 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    Z. Li, X. K. Guo and F. Yuan.: Energy extraction from rotating regular black hole via Comisso-Asenjo mechanism.Phys. Rev. D108, 044067 (2023)

    2023

  61. [69]

    Z. Li, F. Yuan.: Energy extraction via Comisso-Asenjo mechanism from rotating hairy black hole.Phys. Rev. D108, 024039 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    S. J. Zhang.: Energy extraction via magnetic reconnection in Konoplya-Rezzolla-Zhidenko parametrized black holes.Phys. Rev. D109, 084066 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    S. J. Zhang.: Energy extraction via magnetic reconnection in magnetized black holes.JCAP2024, 042 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    Khodadi, D

    M. Khodadi, D. F. Mota and A. Sheykhi.: Harvesting energy driven by Comisso-Asenjo process from Kerr-MOG black holes.JCAP2023, 034 (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    Shaymatov, et al.: Kerr-Newman-modified-gravity black hole’s impact on the magnetic reconnection

    S. Shaymatov, et al.: Kerr-Newman-modified-gravity black hole’s impact on the magnetic reconnection. Phys. Rev. D110, 044005 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    Rodriguez et al.: Energy extraction through magnetic reconnection from a Kerr-Newman black hole 29 in perfect fluid dark matter.Phys

    S. Rodriguez et al.: Energy extraction through magnetic reconnection from a Kerr-Newman black hole 29 in perfect fluid dark matter.Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101961 (2025)

    2025

  67. [75]

    Long et al.: Magnetic reconnection and energy extraction from a Konoplya-Zhidenko rotating non- Kerr black hole.Eur

    F. Long et al.: Magnetic reconnection and energy extraction from a Konoplya-Zhidenko rotating non- Kerr black hole.Eur. Phys. J. C85, 26 (2025)

    2025

  68. [76]

    X. X. Zeng and K. Wang.: Energy extraction via magnetic reconnection in Kerr-Sen-AdS4 black hole: Circular plasma and plunging plasma.Phys. Rev. D112, 064080 (2025)

    2025

  69. [77]

    X. X. Zeng and K. Wang.: Energy extraction from the accelerating Kerr black hole via magnetic reconnection in the plunging region and circular orbit region.JCAP2025, 026 (2025)

    2025

  70. [78]

    X. X. Zeng and K. Wang.: Energy extraction from the Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black hole via magnetic reconnection in a circular and a plunging plasma: Phys. Rev. D112, 064032 (2025)

    2025

  71. [79]

    Eshtursunov and S

    I. Eshtursunov and S. Shaymatov.: Energy extraction from a rotating Buchdahl star via magnetic reconnection. arXiv:2603.17928 (2026)

    2026

  72. [80]

    Eshtursunov and S

    I. Eshtursunov and S. Shaymatov.: Magnetic reconnection in five-dimensional Kerr black hole. arXiv:2604.27797 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  73. [81]

    J. T. Yao et al.: Energy Extraction from Rotating Charged Black Holes in Kalb-Ramond Gravity. Phys. Lett. B, 140562 (2026)

    2026

  74. [82]

    B. Zhao, C. H. Wang and S. W. Wei.: Enhanced energy extraction via magnetic reconnection in Kerr-AdS spacetime.Chin. Phys. C50, 055102 (2026)

    2026

  75. [83]

    H. Y. YuChih and Y. Shen.: Energy extraction from a rotating black hole via magnetic reconnection: Bumblebee gravity.Phys. Rev. D112, 104016 (2025)

    2025

  76. [84]

    Cheng, S

    Z. Cheng, S. Chen and J. Jing.: Extracting energy from plunging region of a Kerr-Taub-NUT black hole by magnetic reconnection.Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1130 (2025)

    2025

  77. [85]

    M. R. Alipour, M. A. S. Afshar and S. N. Gashti.: Repetitive Penrose Process in Rotating 4D Einstein- Gauss-Bonnet Black Holes. arXiv:2607.08989 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Kumar and S

    R. Kumar and S. G. Ghosh: Rotating black holes in 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity and its shadow. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2020, 053 (2020)

    2020

  79. [87]

    Heydari-Fard, M

    M. Heydari-Fard, M. Heydari-Fard and H. R. Sepangi.: Thin accretion disks around rotating black holes in 4D Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet gravity.Eur. Phys. J. C81, 473 (2021)

    2021

  80. [88]

    M. Israr Aslam et al.: Visual Characteristics of a Rotating Black Hole in 4D Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity with Thin Accretion Disk Under EHT Constraints.arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604 (2026)

    2026

  81. [89]

    Carter.: Global structure of the Kerr family of gravitational fields.Phys

    B. Carter.: Global structure of the Kerr family of gravitational fields.Phys. Rev.174, 1559 (1968)

    1968

  82. [90]

    Mino.: Perturbative approach to an orbital evolution around a supermassive black hole.Phys

    Y. Mino.: Perturbative approach to an orbital evolution around a supermassive black hole.Phys. Rev. D67, 084027 (2003)

    2003

  83. [91]

    Comisso and A

    L. Comisso and A. Bhattacharjee.: On the value of the reconnection rate.J. Plasma Phys.82, 595820601 (2016)

    2016

  84. [92]

    Huang and A

    Y.M. Huang and A. Bhattacharjee.: Scaling laws of resistive magnetohydrodynamic reconnection in the high-Lundquist-number, plasmoid-unstable regime.Phys. Plasmas17, 062104 (2010)

    2010

  85. [93]

    Chen et al.: Energy extraction from a Kerr black hole via magnetic reconnection within the plunging 30 region.Phys

    B. Chen et al.: Energy extraction from a Kerr black hole via magnetic reconnection within the plunging 30 region.Phys. Rev. D110, 063003 (2024)

    2024

  86. [94]

    Tchekhovskoy, R

    A. Tchekhovskoy, R. Narayan and J. C. McKinney.: Black hole spin and the radio loud/quiet dichotomy of active galactic nuclei.Astrophys. J.711, 50 (2010)

    2010

  87. [95]

    Camilloni et al.: Blandford-Znajek monopole expansion revisited: novel non-analytic contributions to the power emission.JCAP2022, 032 (2022)

    F. Camilloni et al.: Blandford-Znajek monopole expansion revisited: novel non-analytic contributions to the power emission.JCAP2022, 032 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.