Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 51 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

Boson stars fragment polarization where black holes preserve it

2026-07-08 09:48 UTC pith:CDU4EGN7

load-bearing objection Polarization imaging of Bardeen boson stars: new domain, but the distinguishing claim against black holes lacks a controlled comparison. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.06321 v1 pith:CDU4EGN7 submitted 2026-07-07 gr-qc

Polarization images of non-topological soliton Bardeen boson stars

Xiao-Xiong Zeng , Chen-Yu Yang , Ke-Jian He , Li-Fang Li This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 04.40.-b04.50.Kd95.30.Sf95.30.Gv
keywords boson starspolarizationthin accretion diskStokes parametershorizonless compact objectsnonlinear electrodynamicsQ-U planeBardeen spacetime
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 computes the polarized radiation images of non-topological soliton Bardeen boson stars — horizonless compact objects built from self-interacting complex scalar fields coupled to nonlinear electrodynamics — by solving the full coupled Einstein–matter field equations and ray-tracing synchrotron emission from a surrounding thin accretion disk. The authors track how the Stokes Q–U polarization loops respond to changes in scalar field amplitude, magnetic charge, observer inclination, and magnetic field geometry. The central finding is that when the radial component of the magnetic field is strengthened, the Q–U polarization loops of boson stars fragment into broken arcs and lose coherent polarization intensity — a depolarization effect that becomes more severe at higher scalar field amplitudes. This behavior is absent in black hole spacetimes, including quantum-corrected ones, where the same magnetic field enhancement causes the loops to contract uniformly without breaking apart. The physical origin of the difference is the absence of an event horizon: in a boson star, magnetic field lines can penetrate the scalar core and interfere with photon polarization transport through the interior, whereas a black hole horizon removes all interior contributions. The authors argue that this loop-fragmentation signature could serve as a qualitative observational discriminator between horizonless compact objects and black holes.

Core claim

The paper's core result is that the Stokes Q–U polarization loops of non-topological soliton Bardeen boson stars undergo fragmentation and depolarization under enhancement of the radial magnetic field component, particularly at high scalar field amplitudes, while black holes under the same conditions produce only uniform loop contraction without fragmentation. The mechanism is topological: the absence of an event horizon allows magnetic fields to penetrate the boson star's scalar core and disrupt polarization coherence in ways a horizon would prevent. The authors also find that the nonlinear electrodynamics parameter s and the magnetic charge q modulate the sensitivity of polarization to几何ic

What carries the argument

The central objects are non-topological soliton Bardeen boson stars: static, spherically symmetric, horizonless solutions of Einstein gravity coupled to a Bardeen-type nonlinear electromagnetic field and a self-interacting complex scalar field with a quartic potential. The diagnostic tool is the Stokes Q–U plane representation of linear polarization, where loop morphology encodes the full polarization state of radiation from a thin equatorial accretion disk.

Load-bearing premise

The thin accretion disk model with dimensionless, frequency-independent emission and EHT-inspired magnetic field normalization captures the qualitative polarization transport faithfully enough that the fragmentation signature would survive in a more realistic magnetohydrodynamic simulation with frequency-dependent radiative transfer.

What would settle it

A realistic GRMHD simulation of a boson star accretion flow showing that the Q–U loop fragmentation disappears when Faraday rotation, frequency-dependent opacity, and non-equatorial field geometry are included.

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

If this is right

  • If the loop-fragmentation signature is robust, polarization observations of compact objects could distinguish horizonless objects from black holes without requiring spatially resolved photon ring measurements.
  • The sensitivity of Q–U loop morphology to scalar field amplitude and magnetic charge suggests that polarization data could constrain the internal matter composition of horizonless compact objects.
  • The result motivates extending the analysis to rotating boson star configurations, since realistic compact-object candidates are expected to spin and frame-dragging will introduce additional polarization effects.
  • The contrast between boson star fragmentation and black hole loop contraction could be tested against Event Horizon Telescope polarization data for Sgr A* and M87* if realistic magnetohydrodynamic accretion flows are incorporated.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The fragmentation likely depends on how deeply photons penetrate the scalar core before re-emerging, which is governed by the compactness and light-ring structure of the boson star — suggesting a quantitative relationship between loop fragmentation degree and the object's compactness parameter.
  • If the depolarization is driven by magnetic field penetration through the interior, then boson stars with different scalar field profiles (e.g., different self-interaction couplings) should produce systematically different fragmentation thresholds, making polarization a probe of the scalar field potential shape.
  • The result may extend to other horizonless compact objects (gravastars, wormholes, fuzzballs) if the same interior-penetration mechanism operates, potentially providing a universal polarization-based horizon test rather than one specific to boson stars.

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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript investigates the polarized images of non-topological soliton Bardeen boson stars within a thin accretion disk framework. The authors solve the coupled Einstein–nonlinear electrodynamics–complex scalar field equations to obtain the spacetime metric, then ray-trace photons through this geometry to construct polarization maps and Stokes Q–U plane diagnostics. The paper systematically varies the initial scalar field amplitude (φ₀), the nonlinear electrodynamics parameter (s), the magnetic charge (q), the observer inclination (θ), and the magnetic field geometry (B_r, B_θ), finding that strong radial magnetic fields produce Q–U loop fragmentation and depolarization, particularly at high scalar amplitudes. The authors claim this fragmentation is absent in black hole spacetimes and can therefore serve as a distinguishing observable for horizonless compact objects.

Significance. The study of polarization signatures of horizonless compact objects is timely and relevant given EHT observations. The systematic parameter scans (φ₀, s, q, θ, B-field components) and the Q–U plane analysis provide a useful qualitative catalog of how boson star parameters affect polarization morphology. The use of a well-defined thin-disk model with parallel-transported polarization vectors along null geodesics is standard and clearly presented. The identification of loop fragmentation as a candidate diagnostic is an interesting qualitative observation that merits further investigation.

major comments (3)
  1. §3, final paragraphs; §5: The central distinguishing claim — that Q–U loop fragmentation under enhanced radial magnetic fields is absent in black holes and thus distinguishes horizonless compact objects — is not supported by a controlled comparison. The only BH comparison in the Q–U plane is to 'quantum-corrected black holes' from Ref. [51], which is a different spacetime with potentially different disk parameters, emission profile, and magnetic field configuration. Figure 7 compares boson star and Schwarzschild BH optical images only, not polarization. Without computing the Q–U plane for a Schwarzschild (or Kerr) BH using the same thin-disk model (Eq. 17), the same B-field parameterization (B = (0.87, 0.5, 0) and the B_r scan), and the same ray-tracing code, one cannot determine whether the fragmentation is specific to the horizonless geometry or would also occur in a BH spacetime with,
  2. §3, paragraph following Figure 2: The stated physical mechanism for the boson star–BH distinction is not supported by the model as written. The text attributes fragmentation to 'magnetic fields penetrating the scalar core and interfering with polarization transport.' However, the magnetic field enters only as a prescribed vector at emission points (Eqs. 18–19) and does not appear in the parallel-transport equation (Eqs. 23–24). The B-field does not propagate dynamically through the spacetime. The actual driver of any difference between boson stars and BHs must be the null geodesic structure — photons traversing the interior of the boson star versus being absorbed at a horizon — not magnetic field penetration. The claimed mechanism should be corrected or removed, and the role of geodesic structure (including multiple disk crossings through the interior) should be identified as the actual
  3. §2, Eq. (22): The assumption that the linearly polarized emissivity F_P = C₀ F_I(r) is independent of magnetic field strength is a significant simplification for synchrotron radiation, where the polarized fraction depends on the local B-field and plasma properties. While the authors acknowledge this is a simplification, it is load-bearing for the fragmentation claim: since the B-field only enters through the polarization direction (Eq. 18) and not the intensity, the observed Q–U morphology is determined by the interplay of geodesic structure and the prescribed B-field geometry alone. The authors should explicitly state that the fragmentation result is conditional on this simplified emissivity model and may not persist with a more physically motivated synchrotron emissivity that couples intensity to B-field strength.
minor comments (7)
  1. §2, Eqs. (18)–(19): The notation switches between 3-vector notation (B⃗ = (B_r, B_φ, B_z)) and covariant notation (B^η) without clearly relating the two. The vertical component is labeled B_z in the text but B_θ in the figure captions and Q–U analysis. This inconsistency should be clarified.
  2. Figure 2 caption: The magnetic field is written as B = (0, 0.87, 0.5, 0) with four components, but the text defines B⃗ = (B_r, B_φ, B_z) with three components. The notation should be made consistent.
  3. §1: The sentence beginning 'And, this model has subsequently been generalized...' is grammatically awkward and should be revised.
  4. §2, Eq. (26): The ZAMO tetrad is presented for a general metric, but the boson star spacetime is spherically symmetric and static. The relevance of a ZAMO (which is typically associated with rotating spacetimes) should be clarified, or the observer frame should be described more precisely.
  5. §4, Figure 3: Some panels (c, d, g, h, k, l, o, p) appear to have truncated colorbar labels (showing '0.' instead of '0.2'). This should be corrected for readability.
  6. §3 and §4: The Q–U plane figures (Figs. 2, 4, 6) use the same axis ranges but the text describes quantitative features (e.g., '50% reduction in maximum polarized intensity') that are not directly verifiable from the plots. Including quantitative measures (e.g., loop area, centroid position) in a table would strengthen the analysis.
  7. §5: The conclusion states that fragmentation is 'a phenomenon absent in the black hole case considered here,' but the only BH case considered in this paper is the optical image comparison in Figure 7. The conclusion should accurately reflect what was and was not computed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. All three major comments identify genuine issues that we will address in the revised manuscript. We agree with the referee on all points and outline our planned revisions below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3, final paragraphs; §5: The central distinguishing claim — that Q–U loop fragmentation under enhanced radial magnetic fields is absent in black holes and thus distinguishes horizonless compact objects — is not supported by a controlled comparison. The only BH comparison in the Q–U plane is to 'quantum-corrected black holes' from Ref. [51], which is a different spacetime with potentially different disk parameters, emission profile, and magnetic field configuration. Figure 7 compares boson star and Schwarzschild BH optical images only, not polarization. Without computing the Q–U plane for a Schwarzschild (or Kerr) BH using the same thin-disk model, same B-field parameterization, and same ray-tracing code, one cannot determine whether the fragmentation is specific to the horizonless geometry.

    Authors: The referee is correct. Our current comparison is not controlled: the Q–U plane results for quantum-corrected black holes in Ref. [51] use a different spacetime and potentially different disk/B-field settings, and Figure 7 only compares optical (intensity) images, not polarization morphology. We agree that a proper test of the fragmentation claim requires computing the Q–U plane for a Schwarzschild black hole using the identical thin-disk model (Eq. 17), the same B-field configurations including the B_r scan (B_r = 0.2, 0.5, 0.8 with B_θ = 0.5), the same inclination angles, and the same ray-tracing code. We will add this comparison as a new figure in the revised manuscript. If the Schwarzschild Q–U loops also fragment under strong radial fields, we will accordingly weaken or retract the distinguishing claim. If they do not, the comparison will strengthen it. In either case, the revised manuscript will present the controlled comparison the referee requests. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §3, paragraph following Figure 2: The stated physical mechanism for the boson star–BH distinction is not supported by the model as written. The text attributes fragmentation to 'magnetic fields penetrating the scalar core and interfering with polarization transport.' However, the magnetic field enters only as a prescribed vector at emission points (Eqs. 18–19) and does not appear in the parallel-transport equation (Eqs. 23–24). The B-field does not propagate dynamically through the spacetime. The actual driver of any difference between boson stars and BHs must be the null geodesic structure — photons traversing the interior of the boson star versus being absorbed at a horizon — not magnetic field penetration.

    Authors: The referee is correct on this point. The magnetic field in our model is a prescribed vector at the emission point (Eqs. 18–19) and does not enter the parallel-transport equation (Eqs. 23–24). It does not propagate dynamically through the spacetime, and therefore the statement that 'magnetic fields penetrate the scalar core and interfere with polarization transport' is not supported by our framework. We will remove this incorrect mechanistic claim. The actual driver of any difference between boson stars and black holes in our model is the null geodesic structure: in the boson star spacetime, photons can traverse the interior and intersect the disk multiple times, whereas in a black hole spacetime they are absorbed at the horizon. This difference in geodesic connectivity — including multiple disk crossings through the interior region — modifies the set of emission points contributing to the observed Stokes parameters and is the correct explanation for the differing Q–U morphology. We will revise the text accordingly to identify geodesic structure as the actual mechanism. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §2, Eq. (22): The assumption that the linearly polarized emissivity F_P = C₀ F_I(r) is independent of magnetic field strength is a significant simplification for synchrotron radiation, where the polarized fraction depends on the local B-field and plasma properties. The authors should explicitly state that the fragmentation result is conditional on this simplified emissivity model and may not persist with a more physically motivated synchrotron emissivity that couples intensity to B-field strength.

    Authors: The referee is correct that our emissivity model (Eq. 22) is a significant simplification. In physical synchrotron radiation, the polarized fraction and total intensity both depend on the local magnetic field strength and plasma properties, whereas in our model F_P depends only on the radial coordinate through F_I(r) and the B-field enters only through the polarization direction (Eq. 18). We agree that this simplification is load-bearing for the fragmentation claim: since the B-field only sets the polarization angle and not the intensity weighting, the observed Q–U morphology is determined by the interplay of geodesic structure and the prescribed B-field geometry alone. We will add an explicit caveat in the revised manuscript stating that the fragmentation result is conditional on this simplified emissivity model and may not persist with a more physically motivated synchrotron emissivity that couples intensity to B-field strength. We will also note this as a direction for future work. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: central Q-U fragmentation results are genuine numerical outputs, not definitions or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against its own inputs. The spacetime metric is obtained by solving coupled field equations (Eqs. 8-10) with standard boundary conditions. The polarization formalism (Eqs. 18-24, 31-33) is standard synchrotron emission + parallel transport drawn from external references. The central claim — Q-U loop fragmentation under strong radial magnetic fields in boson stars — is a direct numerical output of ray-tracing through the computed spacetime with prescribed field configurations; it is not defined in terms of itself, nor is it a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The self-citations (Refs [29, 32-36, 49, 50]) are for the numerical implementation and prior methodology, which is normal in a research program and does not make the present results tautological. The BH comparison relies on external Ref [51] (Guo et al., different authors), not a self-citation chain. The absence of a same-framework BH Q-U computation is a methodological gap (correctness risk), not circularity. Score 1 reflects minor self-citations for code/methods that are not load-bearing for the central claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model relies on several fitted or assumed parameters (ϕ₀, q, s, B) that are varied to produce the images. The thin-disk and frequency-independent emission assumptions are significant simplifications that affect the physical realism of the results.

free parameters (6)
  • ϕ₀ = 0.65, 0.70, 0.75, 0.80
    Initial scalar field amplitude, varied to study its effect on polarization.
  • q = 0.5, 0.8, 0.83, 0.87, 0.9
    Magnetic charge, varied to study its effect on spacetime geometry and polarization.
  • s = 0.2, 0.21, 0.22, 0.25, 0.5, 0.6
    Nonlinear electrodynamics parameter, varied to study magneto-optical response.
  • B = (B_r, B_ϕ, B_θ) = e.g., (0.87, 0.5, 0)
    Magnetic field configuration, chosen ad hoc based on EHT parameterization.
  • C₀ = Not specified, 0≤C₀≤1
    Fraction of linear polarization, assumed constant.
  • γ, v, σ = Not specified
    Emission profile parameters for the thin accretion disk model.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Thin accretion disk model
    The emission is confined to the equatorial plane and is optically thin (Section 2).
  • ad hoc to paper Frequency-independent emission
    The radiation intensity is assumed to depend only on the emission location and is independent of photon frequency and magnetic field strength (Eq. 22).
  • domain assumption EHT-inspired magnetic field parameterization
    The magnetic field is specified as a dimensionless vector in the fluid frame based on EHT models for M87* (Section 2).
invented entities (1)
  • Non-topological soliton Bardeen boson star no independent evidence
    purpose: The central compact object studied
    A theoretical construct coupling Einstein gravity to nonlinear electrodynamics and a complex scalar field. No direct observational evidence for its existence is provided.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 21832 in / 2289 out tokens · 534584 ms · 2026-07-08T09:48:22.489117+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this study, we investigate the polarized images of non-topological soliton Bardeen boson stars by solving the coupled Einstein nonlinear electrodynamics complex scalar field equations, based on the thin accretion disk model surrounding these compact objects. We focus on the influence of key parameters, including the initial scalar field, magnetic charge, observer inclination angle, and magnetic field configuration, on the resulting polarization characteristics. The results show that the geometry of the magnetic field, particularly the relative strength between the radial \(B_r\) and angular \(B_\theta\) components, plays a crucial role in determining the polarization pattern. Additionally, variations in the scalar field amplitude and magnetic charge significantly affect both the intensity and spatial distribution of the polarization. These results show that the polarization morphology is sensitive to the spacetime geometry and magnetic field configuration, and provide a qualitative basis for comparing boson stars with black holes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06321 by Chen-Yu Yang, Ke-Jian He, Li-Fang Li, Xiao-Xiong Zeng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The polarization images of boson stars under a thin accretion disk model with a field of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The Q−U planes for boson stars Sϕ0BS1 to Sϕ0BS4 under varying conditions. The top row varies observation angles θ = 20◦ , 30◦ , 40◦ (left to right) with fixed magnetic field B = (0, 0.87, 0.5, 0). The middle row varies the Bθ component as Bθ = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 (left to right) at fixed θ = 30◦ . The bottom row varies the Br component as Br = 0.2, 0.5, 0.8 (left to right) at fixed θ = 30◦ . These trends contras… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The optical appearance (non-polarimetric) of boson stars under a thin accretion disk model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Q − U planes for boson stars SsBS1 to SsBS4. The top row varies θ = 20◦ , 30◦ , 40◦ (left to right) with fixed B = (0, 0.87, 0.5, 0). The middle row varies Bθ = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 (left to right) at fixed θ = 30◦ . The bottom row varies Br = 0.2, 0.5, 0.8 (left to right) at fixed θ = 30◦ . evolution of polarization loops as θ increases from 20◦ to 40◦ . The middle row demonstrates the effect of the poloidal… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The optical appearance (non-polarimetric) of boson stars under a thin accretion disk model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Q − U planes for boson stars SqBS1 to SqBS4. The top row varies θ = 20◦ , 30◦ , 40◦ (left to right) with fixed B = (0, 0.87, 0.5, 0). The middle row varies Bθ = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 (left to right) at fixed θ = 30◦ . The bottom row varies Br = 0.2, 0.5, 0.8 (left to right) at fixed θ = 30◦ . Finally, we compare the optical images of the boson star with the shadow of a Schwarzschild black 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the optical images of the boson star with the shadow of a Schwarzschild black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.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

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Akiyamaet al.[Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.[Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Akiyamaet al.[Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.[Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.910, no.1, L12 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Akiyamaet al.[Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.[Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.910, no.1, L13 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Akiyamaet al.[Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.[Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.930, no.2, L12 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Akiyamaet al.[Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.[Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.930, no.2, L14 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Goddiet al.[ALMA], Astrophys

    C. Goddiet al.[ALMA], Astrophys. J. Lett.910, no.1, L14 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Moscibrodzka, Mon

    M. Moscibrodzka, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.491, no.4, 4807-4815 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    L. X. Li, R. Narayan and J. E. McClintock, Astrophys. J.691, 847-865 (2009)

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    Moscibrodzka, J

    M. Moscibrodzka, J. Dexter, J. Davelaar and H. Falcke, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.468, no.2, 2214-2221 (2017)

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Gelles, E

    Z. Gelles, E. Himwich, D. C. M. Palumbo and M. D. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D104, no.4, 044060 (2021)

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    X. Qin, S. Chen, X. Fu, Y. Huang and J. Jing, Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.9, 784 (2022)

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Zhang, S

    Z. Zhang, S. Chen, X. Qin and J. Jing, Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.11, 991 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Akiyamaet al.[Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.[Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.964, no.2, L25 (2024) 17

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Psaltiset al.[Event Horizon Telescope], Phys

    D. Psaltiset al.[Event Horizon Telescope], Phys. Rev. Lett.125, no.14, 141104 (2020)

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    H. Y. Shi and T. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C84, no.8, 814 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    H. Yin, S. Chen and J. Jing, arXiv:2507.03857

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    Delijski, G

    V. Delijski, G. Gyulchev, P. Nedkova and S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D106, no.10, 104024 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Angelov, R

    T. Angelov, R. Bekir, G. Gyulchev, P. Nedkova and S. Yazadjiev, Eur. Phys. J. C85, no.9, 1075 (2025)

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    B. Chen, Y. Hou, Y. Song and Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D111, no.8, 083045 (2025)

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Deliyski, G

    V. Deliyski, G. Gyulchev, P. Nedkova and S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D108, no.10, 104049 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    D. J. Kaup, Phys. Rev.172, 1331-1342 (1968)

    work page 1968

  22. [22]

    Ruffini and S

    R. Ruffini and S. Bonazzola, Phys. Rev.187, 1767-1783 (1969)

    work page 1969

  23. [23]

    F. H. Vincent, Z. Meliani, P. Grandclement, E. Gourgoulhon and O. Straub, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, no.10, 105015 (2016)

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    J. L. Rosa and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Phys. Rev. D106, no.8, 084004 (2022)

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    T. D. Lee, Phys. Rev. D35, 3637 (1987)

    work page 1987

  26. [26]

    Friedberg, T

    R. Friedberg, T. D. Lee and Y. Pang, Phys. Rev. D35, 3658 (1987)

    work page 1987

  27. [27]

    Z. H. Zhao, Y. N. Gu, S. C. Liu, L. X. Huang and Y. Q. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 511 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    J. L. Rosa, N. Aimar and H. L. Tamm, Phys. Rev. D111, no.12, 124036 (2025)

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    K. J. He, G. P. Li, C. Y. Yang and X. X. Zeng, JCAP10, 003 (2025)

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    G. P. Li, M. Q. Wu, K. J. He and Q. Q. Jiang, [arXiv:2505.14734 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    Y. Hou, Z. Zhang, H. Yan, M. Guo and B. Chen, Phys. Rev. D106, no.6, 064058 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    K. J. He, G. P. Li, C. Y. Yang and X. X. Zeng, Eur. Phys. J. C85, no.6, 662 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    X. X. Zeng, C. Y. Yang and H. Yu, Eur. Phys. J. C85, no.11, 1242 (2025)

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    X. X. Zeng, C. Y. Yang, M. I. Aslam, R. Saleem and S. Aslam, JCAP08, 066 (2025)

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    K. J. He, H. Ye, X. X. Zeng, L. F. Li and P. Xu, Chin. Phys.49, no.12, 125103 (2025)

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    C. Y. Yang and X. X. Zeng, JCAP04, 032 (2026)

    work page 2026

  37. [37]

    Zhong, Z

    Z. Zhong, Z. Hu, H. Yan, M. Guo and B. Chen, Phys. Rev. D104, no.10, 104028 (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Zhang, Y

    Z. Zhang, Y. Hou, Z. Hu, M. Guo and B. Chen, JCAP03, 013 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Polarized image of synchrotron radiations of hotspots in Schwarzschilld-Melvin black hole spacetime

    H. Zhu and M. Guo, arXiv:2205.04777

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    G. P. Li, H. B. Zheng, K. J. He and Q. Q. Jiang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, no.3, 249 (2025)

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    C. Y. Yang, M. I. Aslam, X. X. Zeng and R. Saleem, JHEAp46, 100345 (2025)

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    Ayon-Beato and A

    E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, Phys. Lett. B493, 149-152 (2000)

    work page 2000

  43. [43]

    Bardeen, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Gravitation and the Theory of Relativity, 87 (1968)

    J. Bardeen, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Gravitation and the Theory of Relativity, 87 (1968)

    work page 1968

  44. [44]

    X. E. Wang, arXiv:2305.19057 18

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    S. E. Gralla, A. Lupsasca and D. P. Marrone, Phys. Rev. D102, no.12, 124004 (2020)

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    Narayan, D

    R. Narayan, D. C. M. Palumbo, M. D. Johnson, Z. Gelles, E. Himwich, D. O. Chang, A. Ricarte, J. Dexter, C. F. Gammie, A. A. Chael et al., Astrophys. J.912, no.1, 35 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Z. Hu, Z. Zhong, P. C. Li, M. Guo and B. Chen, Phys. Rev. D103, no.4, 044057 (2021)

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    Huang, L

    J. Huang, L. Zheng, M. Guo and B. Chen, JCAP11, 054 (2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    X. X. Zeng, C. Y. Yang, H. Yu and K. J. He, Eur. Phys. J. C86, no.2, 169 (2026)

    work page 2026

  50. [50]

    C. Y. Yang, H. Ye and X. X. Zeng, Eur. Phys. J. C86, no.4, 370 (2026)

    work page 2026

  51. [51]

    S. Guo, Y. X. Huang, K. Liu, E. W. Liang and K. Lin, Eur. Phys. J. C84, no.6, 601 (2024) 19

    work page 2024