Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

This paper argues that accretion onto a magnetized, rapidly spinning Kerr–Bertotti–Robinson black hole cyclically switches between a violently oscillating shock cone and a near-stationary torus, and that this alternation naturally produces

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 03:07 UTC pith:DGZ4WJUI

load-bearing objection The accretion simulations are new and worth a look, but the QPO peaks are not yet robust enough to support the unified framework. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2602.08911 v2 pith:DGZ4WJUI submitted 2026-02-09 gr-qc hep-th

Dynamics, Ringdown, and Accretion-Driven Multiple Quasi-Periodic Oscillations of Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson Black Holes

G. Mustafa , Orhan Donmez , Dhruba Jyoti Gogoi , Sushant G. Ghosh , Ibrar Hussain , Chengxun Yuan This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-th MSC 83C5783C10
keywords Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black holeaccretion dynamicsquasi-periodic oscillationsBondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretionflip-flop instabilityquasinormal modesepicyclic frequenciesX-ray binaries
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 argues that a rotating black hole embedded in a uniform magnetic field, described by the Kerr–Bertotti–Robinson (KBR) spacetime, can switch cyclically between two accretion morphologies: a violently oscillating flip-flop shock cone and a nearly stationary torus. General-relativistic hydrodynamical simulations of Bondi–Hoyle–Lyttleton wind accretion show that the black hole's spin and the magnetic curvature parameter control which structure forms and when. Power spectral analysis of the accretion rate in these two states yields distinct low- and high-frequency quasi-periodic oscillations, whose frequencies match the ranges observed in X-ray binaries. The paper therefore proposes a unified physical mechanism for the simultaneous and recurring low- and high-frequency QPOs seen in sources without invoking separate disk and corona geometries.

Core claim

The central claim is that the KBR spacetime—a rotating black hole threaded by a uniform external magnetic field—naturally produces two dynamically distinct accretion states under Bondi–Hoyle–Lyttleton wind accretion. For rapid spin (a=0.9M) and moderate magnetic parameter (B=0.005 or 0.01), the classical Kerr shock cone is destroyed; the flow either develops a wide-angle, strongly oscillating flip-flop shock cone or reorganizes into a dense, quasi-stationary torus near the ISCO. These two morphologies alternate in time, and the transition is controlled by the magnetic parameter and by angular-momentum redistribution. The power spectra of the mass accretion rate in the two states show charact

What carries the argument

The central object is the Kerr–Bertotti–Robinson (KBR) metric, an exact Einstein–Maxwell solution describing a rotating black hole immersed in a uniform magnetic field, with parameters mass M, spin a, and magnetic curvature parameter B. The metric reduces to Kerr when B=0. The argument is carried by three complementary analyses: (1) geodesic and epicyclic-frequency calculations for test particles, which show how B shifts the energy, angular momentum, and oscillation frequencies; (2) a WKB computation of scalar quasinormal modes showing that B increases damping while spin and angular momentum set the oscillation frequency; and (3) fully general-relativistic hydrodynamic simulations of Bondi–H

Load-bearing premise

The unifying QPO interpretation rests on the premise that the power-spectral peaks extracted from the simulations are robust, spacetime-determined modes rather than artifacts of the numerical setup, since the paper provides no resolution convergence test, no variation of the wind parameters, and no Kerr (B=0) control run.

What would settle it

A single high-resolution run of the same BHL accretion setup at, say, double the grid resolution, or with a different wind speed/density profile, should reproduce the same QPO peak frequencies in the torus phase. If the peaks shift, broaden, or disappear under resolution change or window choice, the claim that these are spacetime-driven modes fails. Similarly, a direct comparison with a Kerr (B=0) simulation under identical conditions should show no such alternating two-state morphology; if Kerr also produces the two states, the magnetic field is not the cause.

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

If this is right

  • If the KBR accretion framework is correct, the co-occurrence of low- and high-frequency QPOs in a single X-ray binary does not require separate emission regions; a single magnetized, rapidly spinning black hole can alternate between shock-dominated and torus-dominated states.
  • The recurring QPO frequencies at different epochs and radii follow from the spacetime parameters (M, a, B) rather than from transient flow conditions, matching observations in which QPO peaks persist across spectral states.
  • The magnetic field parameter B acts as a control parameter: increasing B makes the transition to the torus occur earlier (t≈7000M vs t≈18000M) and changes the frequency content, so magnetized black holes should show a correlation between accretion-state switching times and QPO frequencies.
  • Quasinormal-mode ringdowns of KBR black holes carry a magnetic imprint: B lowers the real frequency and increases damping, offering a possible gravitational-wave signature of external magnetic fields.
  • Test-particle epicyclic frequencies in KBR differ from Kerr, so fitting observed high-frequency QPO pairs to these frequencies could provide a way to estimate both a and B for a given source.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: the model predicts that the transition time from flip-flop shock to torus should scale with the magnetic parameter B; comparing this timescale with observed state-transition timescales in sources like GRS 1915+105 would provide an independent check.
  • The paper treats the magnetic field as a fixed spacetime parameter; in a real accretion flow the field is dynamical. A natural follow-up would be to include magnetic field evolution (MHD) to see whether the alternating shock/torus states survive when the field is allowed to react to the flow.
  • The QPO frequencies are computed for a 10 solar-mass black hole; scaling the same dimensionless frequencies to other masses predicts that the same sources should show QPO frequencies inversely proportional to mass, which can be compared with the observed mass–QPO scaling in stellar-mass and intermediate-mass black holes.
  • The numerical identification of QPOs relies on PSD peaks selected after the fact; the paper's own interpretation would be strengthened if future work computes PSDs over a fixed, pre-registered time window and varies numerical resolution.

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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a three-part study of the Kerr–Bertotti–Robinson (KBR) black hole: (i) bound test-particle dynamics (energy, angular momentum, effective potential, epicyclic frequencies); (ii) scalar quasinormal modes via a WKB/eikonal treatment; and (iii) general-relativistic hydrodynamic Bondi–Hoyle–Lyttleton (BHL) accretion simulations, whose power spectra are interpreted as low- and high-frequency quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) and compared with X-ray binary observations. The headline claim is that KBR accretion alternates between a flip-flop shock cone and a toroidal structure, and that these states produce recurrent multi-frequency QPOs, providing a unified explanation for observed LFQPO/HFQPO phenomenology.

Significance. If the hydrodynamical result were quantitatively robust, it would be a valuable contribution: it would connect a specific non-Kerr spacetime parameter to accretion-state transitions and to the simultaneous presence of LF and HF QPOs in one source, and it would motivate further study of KBR spacetimes. The paper also usefully collects a broad scan of particle-orbit and QNM parameter dependencies, and the B→0 and a→0 limits appear consistent with known Kerr/Schwarzschild behaviors. However, the central QPO claim is presently supported only by a post-hoc, window-selected PSD analysis without numerical convergence tests or a Kerr control; the observational comparison depends on a free choice M=10 M⊙. The significance is therefore conditional on the additional robustness tests requested below.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section VII, Fig. 16] The central QPO claim rests on PSD peaks that appear only after selecting the time window t=30000M–55000M, while the full-window PSD is described as broad. The paper reports no significance threshold, no comparison against red-noise/continuum models, and no test of peak stability under different window choices. Since ν∝1/M, the choice M=10 M⊙ is a free scaling that places the numerical frequencies into the observed ranges. Please provide full-window PSDs, a systematic window scan, and significance estimates; otherwise the claim that the peaks are persistent spacetime modes is unsupported.
  2. [Section V and Section VII] No numerical convergence or resolution study is reported, and the GRHD setup (grid size, boundary conditions, wind speed/density, equation of state) is not specified in this paper. There is also no Kerr (B=0) PSD control: Fig. 11 shows Kerr morphologies but no Kerr power spectra. Since flip-flop and shock-cone variability are known features of BHL accretion in Kerr-like flows, the low-frequency peaks could be generic. The authors should show that the QPO peaks survive resolution changes and that they are absent or substantially different for B=0 before attributing them to KBR geometry.
  3. [Section VIII vs. Section IX] The mechanism-to-frequency assignment is internally contradictory. Section VIII states that "in the toroidal configuration we numerically obtain LFQPOs together with moderate amplitude HFQPOs ... whereas in the purely strong flip-flop phase only HFQPOs are present." Section IX concludes that "LFQPOs are caused by large-scale shock oscillations and repetitive spiral shock generation. While the toroidal flow mainly stimulates HFQPOs..." This is a direct conflict in the mapping that supports the unified QPO interpretation and must be resolved.
  4. [Section II.A and Abstract] The abstract and Introduction promise "analytical expressions for the energy and angular momentum of stable equatorial circular orbits" and for the oscillation frequencies, but no closed-form expressions are written out. The results are presented only as numerical plots (Figs. 1–2) and as derivatives of the effective potential (Eqs. (9)–(11)). The paper should either provide the promised expressions or revise the claim.
  5. [Section IV, Eqs. (16)–(23) and Figs. 6–8] The WKB treatment assumes B^2≪1, but Figs. 6 and 8 vary B up to 0.5 (B^2=0.25) and 0.3, where the reduction to the standard spheroidal equation and the leading-order potential (21) is not justified. In addition, the eikonal formula (23) is used for l=2, m=1 in Figs. 5–10. The validity of the large-l approximation at low multipoles should be demonstrated (e.g., by comparison with direct numerical integration or higher-order WKB), otherwise the reported B- and a-dependences of ωI may be artifacts.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section VI] The paragraph beginning "To study the effects of black-hole spin a and magnetic curvature B on accretion, Fig. 14 shows..." appears verbatim twice; remove the duplicate.
  2. [Throughout] Typos and OCR artifacts: "TThrough", "sufficient", "aamong", "e accretion", and "KKB BH" in the Fig. 13 caption.
  3. [Section V] "The middle row of Figure 12 shows the mildly rotating BH" appears to be a cross-reference error; the row with a=0.5M is in Fig. 11, while Fig. 12 is a time sequence for a=0.9M.
  4. [Section IV] The text says the angular equation "reduces to the standard scalar spheroidal harmonic equation" but then calls Eq. (16) "which generalizes the spheroidal harmonic equation"; the wording should be clarified.
  5. [Eq. (14) and Fig. 4] The label "10 M/M" in the frequency axes is unclear; specify the mass scaling (e.g., ν for M=10 M⊙ with ν∝1/M) in the caption or axis label.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: simulated QPOs are outputs, not fitted inputs; self-citations are methodological, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The particle-dynamics and epicyclic-frequency results (Secs. II–III) are direct analytic consequences of the KBR metric and standard effective-potential/Hamiltonian methods; the KBR metric is quoted as an external solution (Ref. [37]), not fitted to the paper's QPO claims. The WKB scalar QNM computation (Sec. IV) uses standard WKB/effective-potential formulas and reduces to Kerr QNMs at B=0; no QPO target enters that calculation. The GRHD BHL simulations (Secs. V–VII) evolve the same metric with standard numerical methods and produce mass-accretion-rate time series; the PSD peaks (30, 45, 57, 68 Hz for M=10 M_sun) are outputs of the simulations, not parameters fitted to observed QPOs. The comparison to GRS 1915+105, XTE J1550-564, etc. (Sec. VIII) is an observational postdiction with a physically motivated mass scaling, not a fit to the target frequencies. The paper's weaknesses—sharp peaks from a hand-selected torus window (t=30000–55000M), no stated convergence test, no Kerr (B=0) PSD control, and an internal inconsistency about whether LFQPOs come from shock or torus phases—are robustness/correctness concerns, not cases where a prediction is equivalent to its input by construction. Self-citations (Refs. [53, 63–70]) are methodological precedents rather than load-bearing theorems. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the KBR background from the literature, a weak-field reduction that the paper itself admits is approximate, the eikonal approximation at low multipole, and an unvalidated interpretation of simulation PSD peaks. The free parameters are the sampled B and a values, the mass scaling used for the observational comparison, and the unspecified numerical setup.

free parameters (4)
  • Stellar mass M for QPO comparison = 10 M_sun
    Set in Section VII to convert simulation frequencies from geometrized units to Hz; this scaling places the predicted QPO peaks inside observed LFQPO/HFQPO bands and is not derived from the model.
  • Magnetic parameter B samples = 0.005/M^2 and 0.01/M^2
    Chosen by hand in Sections V-VII; the flip-flop/torus behavior and QPO frequencies are demonstrated for these two values only.
  • Spin parameter a samples = 0, 0.3M, 0.5M, 0.9M
    Spin values selected to illustrate slowly/mildly/rapidly rotating regimes; the main QPO unification claim is made for a=0.9M.
  • GRHD simulation setup (grid, wind speed/density, EOS, boundary conditions) = not stated in paper
    The extracted QPO frequencies could depend on these numerical choices; without a convergence study they are effectively hidden free parameters.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Eq. (1) is an exact Einstein-Maxwell solution (the rotating KBR metric taken from refs [37,62]).
    All subsequent geodesic, QNM, and accretion results inherit the correctness of this background metric; the paper does not re-derive it.
  • ad hoc to paper In the weak-field regime (B^2 << 1), the angular equation reduces to the standard spheroidal harmonic equation and Eq. (21) gives the leading-order radial potential.
    Section IV states exact separation is not possible; the WKB computation relies on this subleading-order reduction, which is asserted rather than demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The eikonal/QNM relation ω_QNM ≈ m_l Ω_c - i(n+1/2)|λ_c| is applied at l=2, m=1 even though it is derived in the large-l limit.
    Figures 5-10 use low multipoles; the WKB eikonal mapping is formally valid for l >> 1.
  • domain assumption The BHL accretion flow is a perfect fluid on the fixed KBR background with standard wind boundary conditions; the external electromagnetic field is not evolved and backreaction is neglected.
    Section V solves GRHD only; the magnetic 'curvature' enters through the fixed metric, not through Lorentz forces on the fluid.
  • ad hoc to paper The QPO peaks extracted from PSDs are stationary global modes of the spacetime, not numerical artifacts or windowing effects.
    This is the load-bearing assumption of the QPO interpretation; no convergence/resolution study or Kerr PSD control is provided.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25407 in / 18553 out tokens · 187498 ms · 2026-08-03T03:07:35.026461+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the motion of test particles around the Kerr--Bertotti--Robinson (KBR) black hole (BH) and explore how the three defining parameters, the mass $M$, rotation parameter $a$, and magnetic parameter $B$ influence their dynamics. We derive analytical expressions for the energy and angular momentum of stable equatorial circular orbits, along with the corresponding radial and latitudinal oscillation frequencies, as functions of $M$, $a$, and $B$. We also examine the key features of the quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) of test particles near stable circular orbits, including the precession effects such as periastron precession and the Lense-Thirring effect. We compare our results with those corresponding to the Kerr BH. We find that the particle motion is strongly shaped by the BH parameters. Using a WKB approach, we also study scalar quasinormal modes of rotating KBR BH in an external magnetic field and show that the magnetic field increases damping, while rotation and angular momentum mainly set the oscillation frequencies. Alternatively, general relativistic modeling of Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton (BHL) accretion onto rapidly rotating KBR BH shows that two distinct physical structures emerge and cyclically transform into one another over time. These processes produce either a strongly oscillating flip-flop shock cone or a nearly stationary toroidal structure, with their formation governed by the BH spin and magnetic curvature. Power spectral analysis shows that these configurations give rise to low- and high-frequency QPO, providing a unified theoretical framework to understand how multiple QPO-like features can arise in rapidly spinning accreting systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.08911 by Chengxun Yuan, Dhruba Jyoti Gogoi, G. Mustafa, Ibrar Hussain, Orhan Donmez, Sushant G. Ghosh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_18.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Massless scalar scattering by Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black holes:transparent-end channels and superradiance

    gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0

    In the transparent-end model, scalar superradiance on Kerr–BR black holes operates only when both the horizon frequency gate and the outer propagation gate are open, and the propagation gate closes the window at BM≈0....

  2. Astrophysical signatures of Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black holes in a cloud of strings: ISCO, microquasar QPOs, and Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The string-cloud parameter α in Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson spacetimes pushes the ISCO outward, raises accretion efficiency above 0.25, fits microquasar QPO data for α < 0.13, and sustains shock instabilities in GR hydrody...

  3. Thermodynamics of Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black hole

    gr-qc 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0

    A consistent thermodynamics of the Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black hole is constructed by adopting the Christodoulou-Ruffini mass relation, yielding a first law and Smarr formula without an explicit magnetic-field work term.

  4. Thin Accretion Disks around Rotating Charged Black Holes in an Effective Higher-Curvature Spacetime

    gr-qc 2026-05 conditional novelty 4.0

    An effective Gauss-Bonnet-like deformation of the Kerr-Newman metric moves the ISCO inward, raises radiative efficiency, flux, and temperature, while charge suppresses these quantities.

  5. Optical Appearance of the Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson Black Hole with a Magnetically Driven Synchrotron Emissivity Model

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Kerr-BR black hole images with magnetically coupled synchrotron emissivity show spin- and B-dependent shifts in the inner disk edge, altered lensing rings, and Doppler asymmetries, with retrograde cases displaying wid...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 22 linked inside Pith · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr., Physical Review Let- ters 4, 337 (1960)

    1960

  2. [2]

    Krawczynski, Astrophysical Journal 754, 133 (2012)

    H. Krawczynski, Astrophysical Journal 754, 133 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    B. P. Abbott et al., Physical Review Letters 116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    Akiyama et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters 930, L12 (2022)

    K. Akiyama et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters 930, L12 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    Akiyama et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters 875, L1 (2019)

    K. Akiyama et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters 875, L1 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Padmanabhan, Physical Review D 66, 021301 (2002)

    T. Padmanabhan, Physical Review D 66, 021301 (2002)

    2002

  7. [7]

    Schwinger, Physical Review 130, 1253 (1963)

    J. Schwinger, Physical Review 130, 1253 (1963)

    1963

  8. [8]

    W. E. Thirring, Annals of Physics 16, 96 (1961)

    1961

  9. [9]

    Casanellas et al., Astrophysical Journal 745, 15 (2012)

    J. Casanellas et al., Astrophysical Journal 745, 15 (2012)

    2012

  10. [10]

    Shankaranarayanan and J

    S. Shankaranarayanan and J. P. Johnson, General Rela- tivity and Gravitation 54, 44 (2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    S. W. Hawking, Communications in Mathematical Physics 25, 152 (1972)

    1972

  12. [12]

    Yagi and L

    K. Yagi and L. C. Stein, Classical and Quantum Gravity 33, 054001 (2016)

    2016

  13. [13]

    Müller and J

    T. Müller and J. Frauendiener, European Journal of Physics 32, 747 (2011)

    2011

  14. [14]

    Batool and I

    M. Batool and I. Hussain, International Journal of Mod- ern Physics D 26, 1741005 (2017)

    2017

  15. [15]

    Bacchini, B

    F. Bacchini, B. Ripperda, A. Y. Chen, and L. Sironi, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 237 (2018)

    2018

  16. [16]

    Mustafa and I

    G. Mustafa and I. Hussain, European Physical Journal C 81, 419 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    Takahashi, Astrophysical Journal 611, 996 (2004)

    R. Takahashi, Astrophysical Journal 611, 996 (2004)

    2004

  18. [18]

    A. A. Abdujabbarov, L. Rezzolla, and B. J. Ahmedov, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 454 (2015)

    2015

  19. [20]

    Atamurotov et al., Chinese Physics C 47, 025102 (2023)

    F. Atamurotov et al., Chinese Physics C 47, 025102 (2023)

    2023

  20. [21]

    Ovchinnikov et al., Physical Review D 104, 063027 (2021)

    D. Ovchinnikov et al., Physical Review D 104, 063027 (2021)

    2021

  21. [22]

    K. K. Nandi, T. B. Nayak, A. Bhadra, and P. M. Alsing, International Journal of Modern Physics D 10 (2001)

    2001

  22. [23]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. Francaviglia, General Relativity and Gravitation 40, 357 (2008)

    2008

  23. [24]

    E. V. Linder, Physical Review D 95, 023518 (2017)

    2017

  24. [25]

    Afrin and S

    M. Afrin and S. G. Ghosh, Astrophysical Journal 932, 51 (2022)

    2022

  25. [26]

    Fienga and O

    A. Fienga and O. Minazzoli, Living Reviews in Relativity 27, 1 (2024)

    2024

  26. [27]

    Ul Islam et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 12, 047 (2024)

    S. Ul Islam et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 12, 047 (2024)

    2024

  27. [28]

    V. I. Dokuchaev, Astronomy 2, 141 (2023)

    2023

  28. [29]

    Ricarte et al., Astrophysical Journal 980, 136 (2025)

    A. Ricarte et al., Astrophysical Journal 980, 136 (2025)

    2025

  29. [30]

    R. P. Kerr, Physical Review Letters 11, 237 (1963)

    1963

  30. [31]

    Lukes-Gerakopoulos et al., Physical Review D 81, 124005 (2010)

    G. Lukes-Gerakopoulos et al., Physical Review D 81, 124005 (2010)

    2010

  31. [32]

    Brink et al., Physical Review D 91, 083001 (2015)

    J. Brink et al., Physical Review D 91, 083001 (2015)

    2015

  32. [33]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 124006 (2015)

    2015

  33. [34]

    Grenzebach, Physical Review D 89, 124004 (2014)

    A. Grenzebach, Physical Review D 89, 124004 (2014)

    2014

  34. [35]

    Atamurotov, I

    F. Atamurotov, I. Hussain, G. Mustafa, et al., European Physical Journal C 82, 831 (2022)

    2022

  35. [36]

    Narzilloev et al., Physical Review D 108, 103013 (2023)

    B. Narzilloev et al., Physical Review D 108, 103013 (2023)

    2023

  36. [37]

    Podolský and H

    J. Podolský and H. Ovcharenko, Physical Review Letters 135, 181401 (2025). 27

    2025

  37. [38]

    M. F. A. R. Sakti et al., Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1127, 012002 (2019)

    2019

  38. [39]

    Guica et al., Physical Review D 80, 124008 (2009)

    M. Guica et al., Physical Review D 80, 124008 (2009)

    2009

  39. [40]

    C. V. Vishveshwara, Physical Review D 1, 2870 (1970)

    1970

  40. [41]

    Chandrasekhar and S

    S. Chandrasekhar and S. Detweiler, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 344, 441 (1975)

    1975

  41. [42]

    Regge and J

    T. Regge and J. A. Wheeler, Physical Review 108, 1063 (1957)

    1957

  42. [43]

    F. J. Zerilli, Physical Review Letters 24, 737 (1970)

    1970

  43. [44]

    F. J. Zerilli, Physical Review D 2, 2141 (1970)

    1970

  44. [45]

    F. J. Zerilli, Physical Review D 9, 860 (1974)

    1974

  45. [46]

    Moncrief, Physical Review D 12, 1526 (1975)

    V. Moncrief, Physical Review D 12, 1526 (1975)

    1975

  46. [47]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Physical Review Letters 29, 1114 (1972)

    1972

  47. [48]

    Bondi, Mon

    H. Bondi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 112, 195 (1952)

    1952

  48. [49]

    J. A. Font, J. M. Ibanez, and P. Papadopoulos, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 305, 920 (1999), astro-ph/9810344

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  49. [50]

    P. J. Armitage, Astron. Geophys. 61, 2.40 (2020), 2004.00203

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [51]

    Foglizzo, P

    T. Foglizzo, P. Galletti, and M. Ruffert, Astron. Astro- phys. 435, 397 (2005), astro-ph/0502168

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  51. [52]

    J. M. Blondin and T. C. Pope, Astrophys. J. 700, 95 (2009), 0905.2769

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  52. [53]

    Donmez, O

    O. Donmez, O. Zanotti, and L. Rezzolla, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 412, 1659 (2011), 1010.1739

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  53. [54]

    Zanotti, L

    O. Zanotti, L. Rezzolla, and J. A. Font, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 341, 832 (2003), gr-qc/0210018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  54. [55]

    J. D. Schnittman and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. Lett. 637, L113 (2006), astro-ph/0506702

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  55. [56]

    R. A. Remillard and J. E. McClintock, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 44, 49 (2006), astro-ph/0606352

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  56. [57]

    T. M. Belloni, A. Sanna, and M. Mendez, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 426, 1701 (2012), 1207.2311

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  57. [58]

    Ingram and S

    A. Ingram and S. Motta, New Astron. Rev. 85, 101524 (2019), 2001.08758

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  58. [59]

    Zeng and K

    X. Zeng and K. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 112, 064032 (2025)

    2025

  59. [60]

    A. K. Amnish Vachher and S. G. Ghosh, JCAP 2025, 021 (2025)

    2025

  60. [61]

    Ali and S

    H. Ali and S. G. Ghosh, JCAP 2026, 018 (2026)

    2026

  61. [62]

    Ovcharenko and J

    H. Ovcharenko and J. Podolský, Phys. Rev. D 112, 064076 (2025)

    2025

  62. [63]

    Donmez, Mon

    O. Donmez, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 438, 846 (2014), 1304.0584

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  63. [64]

    Koyuncu and O

    F. Koyuncu and O. Dönmez, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 29, 1450115 (2014)

    2014

  64. [65]

    Donmez and F

    O. Donmez and F. Dogan, Universe 10, 152 (2024)

    2024

  65. [66]

    Donmez, JCAP 09, 006 (2024), 2402.16707

    O. Donmez, JCAP 09, 006 (2024), 2402.16707

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [67]

    Donmez, Mod

    O. Donmez, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 39, 2450076 (2024), 2405.15467

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [68]

    Donmez, JHEAp 45, 1 (2025), 2408.10102

    O. Donmez, JHEAp 45, 1 (2025), 2408.10102

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [69]

    Donmez, Eur

    O. Donmez, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1019 (2025)

    2025

  69. [70]

    Mustafa, S

    G. Mustafa, S. G. Ghosh, O. Donmez, S. K. Maurya, S. Orzuev, and F. Atamurotov, JCAP 10, 068 (2025), 2506.16405

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [71]

    Donmez, Astrophys

    O. Donmez, Astrophys. Space Sci. 293, 323 (2004), gr- qc/0406073

    arXiv 2004

  71. [72]

    Donmez and R

    O. Donmez and R. Kayali, Appl. Math. Comput. 182, 1286 (2006), gr-qc/0602053

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  72. [73]

    Donmez, Mod

    O. Donmez, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 32, 1750108 (2017), 1703.08175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  73. [74]

    Donmez, Phys

    O. Donmez, Phys. Dark Univ. 47, 101763 (2025), 2307.11725

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  74. [75]

    C. Done, M. Gierlinski, and A. Kubota, Astron. Astro- phys. Rev. 15, 1 (2007), 0708.0148

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  75. [76]

    Donmez, S

    O. Donmez, S. Murodov, and J. Rayimbaev, Annals of Physics 486, 170350 (2026), ISSN 0003-4916

    2026

  76. [77]

    D. D. Pawar, S. Motta, K. Shanthi, D. Bhattacharya, and T. Belloni, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 448, 1298 (2015), 1501.01823

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  77. [78]

    T. E. Strohmayer, Adv. Space Res. 28, 511 (2001), astro- ph/0012516

    arXiv 2001

  78. [79]

    S. E. Motta and T. M. Belloni, Astron. Astrophys. 684, A209 (2024), 2307.00867

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [80]

    R. A. Remillard, J. E. McClintock, J. A. Orosz, and A. M. Levine, Astrophys. J. 637, 1002 (2006), astro- ph/0407025

    arXiv 2006

  80. [81]

    R. A. Remillard, M. P. Muno, J. E. McClintock, and J. A. Orosz (2002), astro-ph/0208402

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002