Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 300 references

Black holes that grow with the expanding universe evaporate later than ordinary ones, and with strong coupling the cosmic growth can overtake Hawking radiation, weakening gamma-ray limits on primordial black holes.

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

2026-08-02 03:29 UTC pith:7TTVOYSX

load-bearing objection Careful and honest phenomenological first step: the analytic solution is a real addition, but the additivity ansatz in Eq. (13) carries the load, so the weakened gamma-ray limits are illustrative rather than definitive. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13857 v1 pith:7TTVOYSX submitted 2026-07-15 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

Evaporating cosmologically coupled black holes

Marco Calz\`a , Davide Pedrotti , Massimiliano Rinaldi , Sunny Vagnozzi This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords cosmologically coupled black holesHawking radiationprimordial black holesblack hole evaporationmass evolutionquasi-adiabatic approximationgamma-ray background limitscosmological coupling
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.

This paper tries to establish what happens when Hawking evaporation competes with cosmological coupling, the idea that black hole masses grow with the scale factor. Treating the two effects through a quasi-adiabatic mass equation, it finds no stable balance: depending on coupling strength k and activation redshift, the hole either evaporates after a delayed lifetime or grows without bound under coupling dominance. For primordial holes near the present-day evaporation threshold, even late activation of the coupling extends the lifetime substantially; gamma-ray background limits on their abundance are correspondingly weaker than for uncoupled holes. The result matters because it changes the interpretation of primordial black holes: formation mass and present-day mass can differ enormously, so evaporation limits and microlensing limits can apply to the same population.

Core claim

The central claim is that the mass of a cosmologically coupled black hole evolves according to dM/dt = -C_HR/M^2 + k H(t) M(t) once coupling activates, with the first term the instantaneous Hawking rate and the second the phenomenological coupling rate from M ∝ a^k. Because H(t) decreases, the instantaneous balance mass M*(t)=(C_HR/kH)^(1/3) is a moving nullcline, and the balance is unstable: the system must end in one of two regimes, Hawking-dominated evaporation or coupling-dominated growth. Even in evaporation cases, the coupling can extend the lifetime (a 4.5×10^14 g hole with k=1.7, z_CC=0.2 evaporates at about 18 Gyr instead of today). The paper therefore derives gamma-ray limits on pr

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the joint mass-evolution equation dM/dt = -C_HR/M^2 + k H(t) M(t) for times after coupling activation. The first term is the standard instantaneous Hawking evaporation rate; the second is the cosmological coupling rate implied by the mass scaling M ∝ a^k. The paper solves this equation under a quasi-adiabatic approximation, replacing M(t) in the Hawking rate by the instantaneous coupled mass, and identifies the moving nullcline M*(t)=(C_HR/kH)^(1/3) as the separator between evaporation-dominated and coupling-dominated trajectories. That nullcline is unstable, so no stable equilibrium exists and one of the two regimes must win asymptotically.

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that the true mass loss is the simple sum of the standard Hawking rate and the phenomenological coupling rate, evaluated at the instantaneous mass, even though no dynamical metric for an evaporating coupled black hole is known; if the two channels do not add, the delayed evaporation and weakened limits do not follow.

What would settle it

A first-principles semiclassical calculation on an explicit evaporating black hole in an expanding background: if the resulting mass-loss rate deviates from -C/M^2 + k H M, for example through coupled greybody factors or non-additive backreaction, the delayed-evaporation scenario fails. Observationally, if gamma-ray surveys resolve a primordial black hole population whose present-day mass is large while its formation mass is small, the predicted evaporation spectrum should match the full history integral; a mismatch would falsify the quasi-adiabatic treatment.

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

If this is right

  • A black hole that would evaporate today can survive significantly longer if the cosmological coupling is even modestly strong or activates late.
  • For strong enough coupling, the black hole mass grows without bound and never evaporates.
  • Gamma-ray upper limits on primordial black hole abundance are weakened relative to the uncoupled case, because coupling keeps holes farther from the runaway evaporation endpoint.
  • Formation mass and present-day mass can differ by orders of magnitude, so the same monochromatic population can be subject to evaporation limits from its past emission and microlensing limits from its present mass simultaneously.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if a future dynamical-metric calculation finds that Hawking emission and cosmological coupling do not add linearly, the delaying effect found here should be read as an upper bound rather than a precise prediction.
  • Beyond the paper: the same interplay would make the conventional single-mass mapping for primordial black hole constraints break, so combined evaporation-plus-microlensing analyses are the natural next test.
  • Beyond the paper: because the paper restricts to k≥0, the symmetric prediction is that negative coupling strengths hasten evaporation; this could be checked with the same machinery and would produce stronger gamma-ray limits.

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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the joint evolution of black hole mass under Hawking radiation (HR) and the phenomenological cosmological coupling (CC) scaling M ∝ a^k. The authors adopt a quasi-adiabatic approximation in which the total rate is the sum of the standard Schwarzschild HR rate evaluated at the instantaneous mass and the CC rate k H(t) M(t), switching on at a late-time redshift z_CC. They show that no stable balance mass exists; the instantaneous nullcline is unstable, so the outcome is either HR-dominated evaporation or CC-dominated growth. For a benchmark primordial black hole near the present-day evaporation threshold, late-time CC activation can increase the lifetime by ~30%. They compute EGRB upper limits on the present-day CCBH density parameter and find that they are weaker than for uncoupled PBHs. An analytical closed-form solution for the mass evolution in ΛCDM is derived in Appendix A and checked against numerical integration.

Significance. If the quasi-adiabatic additivity assumption is accepted, the paper provides a useful first exploration of a previously neglected effect: the competition between Hawking evaporation and cosmological coupling. The analytical solution in Appendix A is a solid technical contribution, the limits to pure HR and pure CC are correctly recovered, and the use of GrayHawk for gray-body factors grounds the photon spectra. The paper also clearly identifies the key qualitative features—unstable balance, lifetime extension, and the decoupling of formation and present-day masses—which would be relevant to a broad class of CCBH models. However, the central quantitative results are conditional on the assumed additivity of the two channels, which is not derived from a dynamical spacetime. This limits the strength of the EGRB constraints as presented, though not the conceptual value of the analysis.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (13)] The central evolution equation is an additivity ansatz. The quasi-adiabatic condition (19) ensures that the geometry is quasi-static on the dynamical timescale, but it does not establish that the Hawking and CC channels are linearly independent. If CC is realized through a modified interior (e.g., a de Sitter core), the Hawking temperature and gray-body factors differ from the Schwarzschild forms at the same instantaneous mass, so the HR term is not necessarily −C_HR/M^2. All quantitative results—the lifetime increase in Fig. 1 and the weakened EGRB limits in Fig. 3—follow directly from Eq. (13). The paper acknowledges the absence of a dynamical metric, but the abstract and conclusions state these results without an explicit 'within the quasi-adiabatic additivity ansatz' qualifier. Please add such a qualifier and discuss the robustness (or lack thereof) of the conclusions to non-additive
  2. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (21) and Fig. 3] The EGRB intensity integral runs to z = z⋆ (recombination), but the expansion rate used in Eq. (16) neglects radiation and is only valid for z ≪ 1000. The statement that this approximation is appropriate because z_CC ≤ 3 does not address the integral's upper range; emission from z > 3 is included and is weighted by 1/H(z). If the contribution from z > 3 is negligible, please demonstrate this explicitly (e.g., by comparing with a full radiation+matter+Λ H(z)); otherwise use the full H(z) in the integral. This point matters because the strength of the reported upper limits is a central result of the paper.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states: 'points above it the present-day evolution is CC-dominated (Mdot(t0)<0)'—this should read Mdot(t0)>0. The same sign appears correctly in the main text but is wrong in the caption.
  2. [Eq. (9) and Sec. II.B] The Heaviside switch at z_CC introduces a discontinuity in the CC rate. The paper already explains that z_CC is a phenomenological activation epoch, but it would be helpful to add a brief remark on whether the results are sensitive to a smooth (e.g., tanh) transition of finite width, since a real mechanism would presumably turn on continuously.
  3. [Abstract and Conclusions] The phrase 'we set limits' could be read as model-independent. Even after the major revision, consider phrasing such as 'within the quasi-adiabatic additivity model, we set limits...' in the abstract and conclusions, so that the conditional nature of the constraints is not lost.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper's results are consequences of an explicitly phenomenological CC ansatz plus standard Hawking radiation and external EGRB data, not fitted parameters relabeled as predictions.

full rationale

The paper is a self-contained phenomenological study. The CC mass growth M ∝ a^k is introduced as an explicit assumption ('modeling the CC mechanism through the phenomenological scaling of the mass with the scale factor, M ∝ a^k'; 'we adopt a phenomenological parametrization'), not derived from the paper's own evaporation results. Equation (12), Γ_CC = k H M, is the exact derivative of that ansatz, and Eq. (13) is presented as a quasi-adiabatic approximation because no dynamical evaporating-CCBH metric exists; the paper states this limitation directly. The Hawking rate Γ_HR = -C_HR/M^2 is an external standard result (Page coefficients), and the EGRB constraints use external data (HEAO-1, COMPTEL, EGRET). The parameters k and z_CC are scanned, not fitted to the gamma-ray data, and the abundance Ω_ccbh is the only fitted/predicted quantity. The analytical solution in Appendix A is derived consistently from the stated ODE; the fact that setting C_HR=0 recovers Eq. (9) is explicitly labeled a 'sanity check', not an independent prediction. The self-citations (Refs. [72], [276]–[278], [279]–[280]) are methodological (choice of z_CC range, limit-setting procedure, public GrayHawk code) and are not load-bearing for the physical claim. The central limitation—the additivity of HR and CC channels in Eq. (13)—is acknowledged rather than hidden, and a failure of additivity would weaken the quantitative limits without making the derivation circular. No step reduces by construction to its own input in a way that disguises a fit as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. Its central claims rest on two imported phenomenological ingredients—M∝a^k and its late Heaviside activation—plus a quasi-adiabatic combination rule. k, z_CC, and M_form are scanned model parameters, not fitted to the gamma-ray data, but the benchmark choices drive the quantitative limits shown in Fig. 3.

free parameters (3)
  • k (coupling strength) = scanned 0≤k≤3; benchmarks 1, 1.7, 3
    Controls the CC mass-growth rate via M∝a^k. Not derived from first principles; chosen by hand and scanned.
  • z_CC (CC activation redshift) = benchmarks 0.2, 1, 3; range 0≤z_CC≤3
    Heaviside turn-on time for the CC mechanism. Introduced ad hoc to avoid early-universe overproduction and to focus on late-time phenomenology.
  • M_form benchmark = 4.5×10^14 g
    Chosen because an uncoupled BH of this mass evaporates at the present time, illustrating the threshold effect. Not fitted to data.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Hawking evaporation rate for Schwarzschild BHs: dM/dt = -C_HR/M^2 with Page coefficients (Eq. 6)
    Standard semiclassical result used at every instantaneous mass.
  • domain assumption CC mass scaling M∝a^k after activation (Eq. 9), imported from Refs. [62,80]
    The central growth mechanism is phenomenological and not derived from a first-principles CCBH metric.
  • ad hoc to paper Quasi-adiabatic additivity of HR and CC rates (Eq. 13)
    The paper assumes the total mass-loss/growth is the sum of the two rates even though no dynamical evaporating-CCBH metric exists.
  • ad hoc to paper Late-time Heaviside activation of CC at z_CC≲3
    Chosen to avoid early-universe constraints and to align with late-time phenomenology; not derived from microphysics.
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM background H(z) with radiation neglected (Eq. 16)
    Valid only for z≪1000; appropriate for z_CC≲3.
  • domain assumption Monochromatic PBH population, primary photon spectrum only, t_form→0
    Standard simplifying assumptions in PBH evaporation constraints, acknowledged in Sec. III B.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30571 in / 13891 out tokens · 127163 ms · 2026-08-02T03:29:43.946841+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Cosmologically coupled black holes (CCBHs), whose masses evolve in response to the cosmological expansion, have recently attracted significant theoretical and observational interest. Existing studies have treated CCBHs as purely classical objects, neglecting the effect of Hawking radiation (HR), which competes with the cosmological coupling (CC) mechanism. We take a first step towards studying evaporating CCBHs, adopting a quasi-adiabatic approximation in which the HR rate is evaluated at the instantaneous CCBH mass, and modeling the CC mechanism through the phenomenological scaling of the mass with the scale factor, $M \propto a^k$. We show that, depending on the coupling strength $k$, even late-time CC activation can significantly delay Hawking evaporation, or lead to asymptotic CC-dominated mass growth, with important implications. We set limits on the abundance of primordial CCBHs from $\gamma$-ray observations, finding limits which are weaker than their uncoupled counterparts, as CCBHs are kept farther from the endpoint of evaporation for a longer time. Unlike standard primordial black holes, the CCBH formation and present-day masses no longer approximately coincide, even for formation masses $M_{\text{form}} \gtrsim 10^{15}\,{\text{g}}$. Therefore, the same population of primordial CCBHs may be subject to evaporation limits through its past emission history, as well as to other limits (such as microlensing) through its present-day mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13857 by Davide Pedrotti, Marco Calz\`a, Massimiliano Rinaldi, Sunny Vagnozzi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Illustrative mass evolution of evaporating and/or cosmologically coupled BHs for three benchmark scenarios of interest, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Contour plot showing the present-day residual mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Upper limits on Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

300 extracted references · 245 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    V. P. Frolov and I. D. Novikov, eds.,Black hole physics: Basic concepts and new developments(Springer, 1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    Fabbri and J

    A. Fabbri and J. Navarro-Salas,Modeling black hole evaporation(World Scientific, Singapore, 2005)

    2005

  3. [3]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 221101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)], arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    A. Held, R. Gold, and A. Eichhorn, JCAP06, 029 (2019), arXiv:1904.07133 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Bambi, K

    C. Bambi, K. Freese, S. Vagnozzi, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rev. D100, 044057 (2019), arXiv:1904.12983 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Vagnozzi and L

    S. Vagnozzi and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rev. D100, 024020 (2019), arXiv:1905.12421 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    T. Zhu, Q. Wu, M. Jamil, and K. Jusufi, Phys. Rev. D 100, 044055 (2019), arXiv:1906.05673 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    P. V. P. Cunha, C. A. R. Herdeiro, and E. Radu, Uni- verse5, 220 (2019), arXiv:1909.08039 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Banerjee, S

    I. Banerjee, S. Chakraborty, and S. SenGupta, Phys. Rev. D101, 041301 (2020), arXiv:1909.09385 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Banerjee, S

    I. Banerjee, S. Sau, and S. SenGupta, Phys. Rev. D 101, 104057 (2020), arXiv:1911.05385 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Allahyari, M

    A. Allahyari, M. Khodadi, S. Vagnozzi, and D. F. Mota, JCAP02, 003 (2020), arXiv:1912.08231 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Khodadi, A

    M. Khodadi, A. Allahyari, S. Vagnozzi, and D. F. Mota, JCAP09, 026 (2020), arXiv:2005.05992 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Kumar, A

    R. Kumar, A. Kumar, and S. G. Ghosh, Astrophys. J. 896, 89 (2020), arXiv:2006.09869 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    S. E. Gralla, A. Lupsasca, and D. P. Marrone, Phys. Rev. D102, 124004 (2020), arXiv:2008.03879 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    S. H. V¨ olkel, E. Barausse, N. Franchini, and A. E. Broderick, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 21LT01 (2021), arXiv:2011.06812 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Khodadi and E

    M. Khodadi and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Dark Univ.32, 100835 (2021), arXiv:2012.05186 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    R. C. Pantig, P. K. Yu, E. T. Rodulfo, and A. ¨Ovg¨ un, Annals Phys.436, 168722 (2022), arXiv:2104.04304 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Kocherlakotaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Phys

    P. Kocherlakotaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Phys. Rev. D103, 104047 (2021), arXiv:2105.09343 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Khodadi, G

    M. Khodadi, G. Lambiase, and D. F. Mota, JCAP09, 028 (2021), arXiv:2107.00834 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. D112, 084080 (2025), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Vagnozziet al., Class

    S. Vagnozziet al., Class. Quant. Grav.40, 165007 (2023), arXiv:2205.07787 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Uniyal, R

    A. Uniyal, R. C. Pantig, and A. ¨Ovg¨ un, Phys. Dark Univ.40, 101178 (2023), arXiv:2205.11072 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    R. C. Pantig and A. ¨Ovg¨ un, Annals Phys.448, 169197 (2023), arXiv:2206.02161 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    S. G. Ghosh and M. Afrin, Astrophys. J.944, 174 (2023), arXiv:2206.02488 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Khodadi and G

    M. Khodadi and G. Lambiase, Phys. Rev. D106, 104050 (2022), arXiv:2206.08601 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Kumar Walia, S

    R. Kumar Walia, S. G. Ghosh, and S. D. Maharaj, Astrophys. J.939, 77 (2022), arXiv:2207.00078 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Shaikh, Mon

    R. Shaikh, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.523, 375 (2023), arXiv:2208.01995 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, EPL139, 59003 (2022), arXiv:2208.07972 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    V. K. Oikonomou, P. Tsyba, and O. Razina, Universe 8, 484 (2022), arXiv:2209.04669 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Afrin, S

    M. Afrin, S. Vagnozzi, and S. G. Ghosh, Astrophys. J. 944, 149 (2023), arXiv:2209.12584 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    R. C. Pantig, Chin. J. Phys.87, 49 (2024), arXiv:2303.01698 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Gonz´ alez, K

    E. Gonz´ alez, K. Jusufi, G. Leon, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101304 (2023), arXiv:2305.14305 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Nozari and S

    K. Nozari and S. Saghafi, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 588 (2023), arXiv:2305.17237 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    L. F. D. da Silva, F. S. N. Lobo, G. J. Olmo, and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Phys. Rev. D108, 084055 (2023), arXiv:2307.06778 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Uniyal, S

    A. Uniyal, S. Chakrabarti, M. Fathi, and A. ¨Ovg¨ un, Annals Phys.462, 169614 (2024), arXiv:2309.13680 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astro- phys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astro- phys. J. Lett.930, L17 (2022), arXiv:2311.09484 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    M. A. Raza, J. Rayimbaev, F. Sarikulov, M. Zubair, B. Ahmedov, and Z. Stuchlik, Phys. Dark Univ.44, 101488 (2024), arXiv:2311.15784 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Hoshimov, O

    H. Hoshimov, O. Yunusov, F. Atamurotov, M. Jamil, and A. Abdujabbarov, Phys. Dark Univ.43, 101392 (2024), arXiv:2312.10678 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Chakhchi, H

    L. Chakhchi, H. El Moumni, and K. Masmar, Phys. Dark Univ.44, 101501 (2024), arXiv:2403.09756 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    W. Liu, D. Wu, X. Fang, J. Jing, and J. Wang, JCAP 08, 035 (2024), arXiv:2406.00579 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Ditta, A

    A. Ditta, A. Bouzenada, G. Mustafa, Y. M. Alanazi, and F. Mushtaq, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101573 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    W. Liu, D. Wu, and J. Wang, JCAP05, 017 (2025), arXiv:2407.07416 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Khodadi, S

    M. Khodadi, S. Vagnozzi, and J. T. Firouzjaee, Sci. Rep.14, 26932 (2024), arXiv:2408.03241 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101669 (2024), arXiv:2408.05668 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Aktar, N

    S. Aktar, N. U. Molla, F. Rahaman, and G. Mustafa, JHEAp47, 100385 (2025), arXiv:2410.18227 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    N. U. Molla, H. Chaudhary, F. Atamurotov, G. Mustafa, T. Harko, and U. Debnath, Phys. Dark Univ.47, 101735 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    Mustafa, A

    G. Mustafa, A. Alimova, F. Atamurotov, A. A. Ibra- heem, P. Channuie, and G. Bahaddinova, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 741 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 041403 (2026), arXiv:2509.08099 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    Khodadi, B

    M. Khodadi, B. Pourhassan, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D113, 064020 (2026), arXiv:2512.03529 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Nozari, M

    K. Nozari, M. Hajebrahimi, S. Saghafi, G. Mustafa, and E. N. Saridakis, (2026), arXiv:2602.16237 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    Braxet al., (2026), arXiv:2603.03446 [astro-ph.CO]

    P. Braxet al., (2026), arXiv:2603.03446 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    Liang, Y.-Z

    X.-M. Liang, Y.-Z. Wang, T. Zhu, W. Zhao, and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2606.12931 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    G. C. McVittie, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.93, 325 (1933)

    1933

  54. [54]

    B. C. Nolan, Phys. Rev. D58, 064006 (1998), arXiv:gr- qc/9805041

    arXiv 1998

  55. [55]

    Kaloper, M

    N. Kaloper, M. Kleban, and D. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 15 81, 104044 (2010), arXiv:1003.4777 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  56. [56]

    Lake and M

    K. Lake and M. Abdelqader, Phys. Rev. D84, 044045 (2011), arXiv:1106.3666 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  57. [57]

    A. M. da Silva, M. Fontanini, and D. C. Guariento, Phys. Rev. D87, 064030 (2013), arXiv:1212.0155 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  58. [58]

    Faraoni,Cosmological and Black Hole Apparent Horizons, Vol

    V. Faraoni,Cosmological and Black Hole Apparent Horizons, Vol. 907 (Springer, 2015)

    2015

  59. [59]

    K. S. Croker and J. L. Weiner, Astrophys. J.882, 19 (2019), arXiv:2107.06643 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  60. [60]

    Faraoni and M

    V. Faraoni and M. Rinaldi, Phys. Rev. D110, 063553 (2024), arXiv:2407.14549 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Farrahet al., Astrophys

    D. Farrahet al., Astrophys. J.2023, 133 (2023), arXiv:2212.06854 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    Farrahet al., Astrophys

    D. Farrahet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.944, L31 (2023), arXiv:2302.07878 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    M. Lacy, A. Engholm, D. Farrah, and K. Ejercito, Astrophys. J. Lett.961, L33 (2024), arXiv:2312.12344 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Farrahet al., Astrophys

    D. Farrahet al., Astrophys. J.981, 71 (2025), arXiv:2501.17227 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    C. L. Rodriguez, Astrophys. J. Lett.947, L12 (2023), arXiv:2302.12386 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    Andrae and K

    R. Andrae and K. El-Badry, Astron. Astrophys.673, L10 (2023), arXiv:2305.01307 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    Gao and X.-D

    S.-J. Gao and X.-D. Li, Astrophys. J.956, 128 (2023), arXiv:2307.10708 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Mlinar and T

    E. Mlinar and T. Zwitter, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 528, 3000 (2024), arXiv:2311.09007 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    S. K. Hayashi, Class. Quant. Grav.43, 115012 (2026), arXiv:2507.03408 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

    Croker, K

    K. Croker, K. Nishimura, and D. Farrah, Astrophys. J. 889, 115 (2020), arXiv:1904.03781 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  71. [71]

    Amendola, D

    L. Amendola, D. C. Rodrigues, S. Kumar, and M. Quartin, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.528, 2377 (2024), arXiv:2307.02474 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    Calz` a, F

    M. Calz` a, F. Gianesello, M. Rinaldi, and S. Vagnozzi, Sci. Rep.14, 31296 (2024), arXiv:2409.01801 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    K. S. Croker, G. Tarl´ e, S. P. Ahlen, B. G. Cartwright, D. Farrah, N. Fernandez, and R. A. Windhorst, JCAP 10, 094 (2024), arXiv:2405.12282 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Leiet al., Sci

    L. Leiet al., Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.67, 229811 (2024), arXiv:2305.03408 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Faraoni and A

    V. Faraoni and A. Jacques, Phys. Rev. D76, 063510 (2007), arXiv:0707.1350 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  76. [76]

    Faraoni, Phys

    V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D76, 104042 (2007), arXiv:0710.2122 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  77. [77]

    Faraoni, C

    V. Faraoni, C. Gao, X. Chen, and Y.-G. Shen, Phys. Lett. B671, 7 (2009), arXiv:0811.4667 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  78. [78]

    Davidson, S

    A. Davidson, S. Rubin, and Y. Verbin, Phys. Rev. D 86, 104061 (2012), arXiv:1210.0753 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  79. [79]

    K. S. Croker, J. Runburg, and D. Farrah, Astrophys. J.900, 57 (2020)

    2020

  80. [80]

    K. S. Croker, M. J. Zevin, D. Farrah, K. A. Nishimura, and G. Tarle, Astrophys. J. Lett.921, L22 (2021), arXiv:2109.08146 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.