Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 59 references

Holographic Einstein Ring of Quantum Corrected AdS-Reissner-Nordstrom Black Holes in Kiselev Spacetime

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a quantum-corrected charged AdS black hole, the holographic Einstein ring radius matches the photon-orbit angle and shifts monotonically with each spacetime parameter.

desk verdict A competent but careless entry in the holographic-ring pipeline: the a, c, and Ω trends look clean, but the T and μ scans are confounded because they vary Q. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15139 v1 pith:DVRVY64C submitted 2025-01-25 gr-qc

Jin-Yu Gui , Ke-Jian He , Xiao-Xiong Zeng This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords AdS/CFTcorrespondenceEinsteinringblackholeshadowwaveopticsquantum-correctedKiselevspacetimeholographicimagingphoton
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Using wave optics in a holographic setup, this paper claims that a quantum-corrected AdS-Reissner-Nordström black hole in Kiselev spacetime produces an Einstein ring on an antipodal boundary screen. The ring radius decreases as the quantum-correction parameter $a$, the equation-of-state parameter $\Omega$, the temperature $T$, and the chemical potential $\mu$ increase, and it increases as the cosmological-fluid parameter $c$ increases. The same angle is recovered from geometric-optics photon orbits through the relation $r_R/f = L/\omega^*$, so the two descriptions agree. A sympathetic reading is that the standard holographic imaging pipeline works for this spacetime and that the image size encodes the quantum-corrected geometry of the black hole.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the radial scalar wave function $Y_l(y)$ from Eq. (14), solved with a pseudo-spectral method, whose boundary expansion $Y_l = 1 + \langle K\rangle_l y + \cdots$ supplies the holographic response. The response is treated as an incident wave in a virtual optical system: a convex lens with focal length $f$ applies the phase factor in Eq. (19), and the screen image is the Fourier transform of the response through the window function. The relation $r_R/f = L/\omega^*$ connects the screen radius to the photon angular momentum and energy in the geometric-optics limit.

What would settle it

Recompute the radial equation (14) with an independent numerical solver at the same parameter values and compare the extracted brightness peaks $x_s/f$; if a finer grid or different collocation shifts the quoted peak positions by more than the plotted precision, the claimed monotonic trends and the Eq. (28) agreement would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the boundary response to a Gaussian wave source located at the South pole is a diffraction pattern whose Fourier transform through a virtual convex lens yields a luminous ring, and that the ring's radius follows the parameter trends just stated. The paper applies this holographic imaging method to the quantum-corrected AdS-Reissner-Nordström solution in Kiselev spacetime. The central quantitative result is Eq. (28), $r_R/f = L/\omega^*$, which equates the wave-optics ring angle with the incident angle of photons on the photon sphere, and the authors verify this equality numerically for varying $a$, $c$, and $\Omega$.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical solution of the radial scalar wave equation obtained with the pseudo-spectral method is accurate at the chosen parameter values, because the paper reports no resolution, convergence, or error checks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An observer positioned at the AdS boundary's North pole sees a full axisymmetric ring; moving the observer toward $\theta_{\rm obs} = \pi/2$ turns the image into an arc and finally a point.
  • Increasing the quantum-correction parameter $a$, $\Omega$, $T$, or $\mu$ shrinks the ring, while increasing the cosmological-fluid parameter $c$ enlarges it, giving distinct signatures for each parameter.
  • Higher wave-source frequency $\omega$ makes the primary ring sharper and suppresses the additional diffraction fringes, so higher-frequency probes yield cleaner radius measurements.
  • Across the tested values of $a$, $c$, and $\Omega$, the photon-ring incident angle from geometric optics agrees with the wave-optics ring angle, supporting the correspondence between the two descriptions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not prove Eq. (28) as a general identity; it is checked numerically for selected parameters. A natural test is to push the comparison to larger charges, different $\Omega$, and non-Gaussian sources to see whether the match persists.
  • If the monotonic trends are robust, the ring radius could serve as a holographic observable to constrain the quantum-correction scale and the Kiselev fluid parameters from synthetic black hole images.
  • Because the analysis fixes the source at the South pole and scans only the observer angle, a non-axisymmetric source or off-polar observation could reveal whether the extracted radius is a property of the spacetime or of the imaging geometry.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the standard AdS/CFT holographic-imaging construction to a quantum-corrected AdS-Reissner-Nordström black hole in Kiselev spacetime. It solves the radial Klein-Gordon equation numerically, extracts the boundary response to a Gaussian source, images the response through a convex lens, and compares the resulting Einstein-ring radius with the geometric-optics photon incident angle. The central quantitative claims are that the ring radius decreases with increasing a, Ω, T, and μ, increases with c, and sharpens with increasing ω, and that the wave-optics ring angle agrees with the photon-ring angle via r_R/f = L/ω*.

Significance. If established, the paper would extend holographic Einstein-ring studies to a new parameterized family of charged, quantum-corrected AdS spacetimes and would provide a non-trivial test of the geometric-optics correspondence for that family. The use of the established dictionary from Hashimoto et al. and Liu et al. is appropriate, and the comparison in Eq. (28) is a falsifiable consistency check. However, the paper's quantitative conclusions are currently undermined by internal inconsistencies in the metric function and by confounded parameter scans.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (4)] The transformation from Eq. (2) to Eq. (4) is inconsistent: with r=1/y and F(y)=y^2 f(1/y), the Reissner-Nordström term Q^2/r^2 becomes Q^2 y^4, not Q^2 y^2 as printed. This affects the horizon condition, the temperature, and every subsequent numerical result. In fact, the temperature values reported in Fig. 17 (e.g., T=0.3918 for Q=0.1, yh=5) are reproduced only if F contains Q^2 y^4 and T is computed as -F'(yh)/(4π), whereas the text states T = F'(yh)/(4π). The manuscript is therefore internally inconsistent and not reproducible as written.
  2. [Section 3.2, Figs. 17-20] The temperature and chemical-potential scans do not isolate the stated variable. In the temperature scan (Figs. 17-18), yh=5 is fixed and Q takes values 0.1, 0.12, 0.14, 0.16; since μ=yhQ, μ varies from 0.5 to 0.8, contradicting the stated fixed μ=0.5. In the chemical-potential scan (Figs. 19-20), yh=5 is fixed and Q takes values 0.0196, 0.0556, 0.0835, 0.1022; these give μ roughly 0.098, 0.278, 0.418, 0.511 rather than the claimed 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and the temperature varies from about 0.487 to 0.387 rather than being fixed at 0.5 (using the corrected F). Hence the claimed separate dependences of the ring radius on T and on μ are confounded with changes in Q and with each other, and the abstract's central claim about these dependences is unsupported.
  3. [Section 2, numerical method] The pseudo-spectral solution of Eq. (14) is presented without any resolution, convergence, or error estimates. The extracted ring radii in Section 3 are reported to two decimal places, but there is no evidence that the truncation error is below this precision. Because every quantitative claim depends on these numerical solutions, the accuracy premise must be established, for example by showing convergence with grid size and consistency checks against known limits.
  4. [Section 4, Figs. 22-24] The geometric-optics comparison in Figs. 22-24 labels the left and right columns as fixing μ=0.5 or T=0.5, but the manuscript does not state the corresponding values of Q and yh for these runs. In light of the inconsistencies in Section 3.2, it is unclear whether the parameter choices actually satisfy the stated constraints, so the comparison is not reproducible as presented.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 20 caption] In the Fig. 20 caption, 'ω = −2/3' should read 'Ω = −2/3', and the value of the frequency ω (stated in the text as 90) is missing; the caption also misspells 'brightness' as 'brigheness'.
  2. [Eqs. (10), (16), (17)] The notation for the response function is inconsistent: Eq. (10) defines ⟨K⟩_{JK}, while Eqs. (16) and (17) use ⟨K⟩^{JK}_l and ⟨K⟩^{JK}; please unify the notation.
  3. [After Eq. (16)] The sentence 'Therefore, in Eq.(14), ⟨K⟩^{JK}_l can be replaced by ⟨K⟩_l' appears to refer to Eq. (16), not Eq. (14).
  4. [Eqs. (24) and (25)] In Eqs. (24) and (25), the expressions 'cosθ2_in' and 'sinθ2_in' should be cos^2 θ_in and sin^2 θ_in.
  5. [Section 3 heading] The Section 3 heading has a stray comma: 'The formation of Einstein ring,'.
  6. [Throughout] The paper contains numerous typographical errors, including 'di fferent' for 'different' and 'vaules' for 'values' in the Fig. 19 caption; a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Einstein-ring radius from wave optics and the photon incident angle from geometric optics are computed independently and compared as a consistency check, not as a fitted identity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is: (i) the quantum-corrected AdS-Reissner-Nordstrom metric in Kiselev spacetime is taken from the literature (Eq. 2, from ref. [50]); (ii) the massless scalar field response function is obtained by solving the Klein-Gordon equation (Eqs. 5-16) using the standard holographic dictionary of refs. [30,31,33]; (iii) the Einstein ring is formed by applying the virtual lens setup of ref. [33] (Eqs. 18-21); (iv) the geometric photon incident angle is computed independently from null geodesics in the same metric (Eqs. 22-26); and (v) the two are compared via Eq. (28), r_R/f = L/omega*. Nothing in this chain fits a parameter from one side to force agreement with the other: the wave-optics ring radius r_R is read from the screen brightness peaks, while L/omega* is obtained from the photon-sphere conditions dot r = 0 and dz/dr = 0. The numerical agreement could in principle fail, so it is a genuine consistency test. The many self-citations in the reference list are background and not load-bearing for the main comparison, which relies on the well-known frameworks of Hashimoto et al. and Liu et al.; the metric itself is an input from prior independent work. One non-circularity issue should be noted separately: the temperature and chemical-potential scans in Section 3.2 do not hold the conjugate variable fixed. In Fig. 17 the text states a fixed chemical potential mu = 0.5, but yh = 5 with Q = 0.1, 0.12, 0.14, 0.16 gives mu = yh Q = 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8; similarly the mu scan in Fig. 19 changes Q at fixed yh and does not keep T = 0.5 fixed. This makes those particular trends confounded, but it is a correctness/parameter-isolation flaw, not circularity, and does not affect the independent geometric-optics comparison. Under the stated circularity criteria, the paper earns a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the borrowed metric (Eq 2) from prior work, the standard AdS/CFT scalar field dictionary, the Fourier-optics lens setup from Liu et al., and a numerical pseudo-spectral solver that is not independently checked. No new entities are introduced; the parameter values are chosen by hand.

free parameters (5)
  • AdS radius ℓ = 1
    Set to 1 to fix units; appears in the metric Eq (2) and affects the mapping of y to r.
  • Scalar field mass M^2 = -2
    Chosen in Section 2 after Eq (8); fixes the conformal dimension of the boundary operator and is part of the holographic setup.
  • Gaussian source width η = 0.02
    Chosen for the wave source in Eq (11); controls the angular width of the source and ultimately the sharpness of the ring.
  • Convex lens radius d = 0.6
    Chosen for the virtual optical system in Eq (21); sets the window of the Fourier transform and can affect the measured ring radius.
  • Baseline spacetime parameters (a, c, Ω, Q, e, ω, y_h) = a=0.1, c=0.1, Ω=-2/3, Q=0.1, e=0.5, ω=90, y_h=5
    Default values used for most figures; each parameter is then varied one at a time. The particular choices are arbitrary and no sensitivity analysis is given.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT correspondence (gauge/gravity duality) is valid for this spacetime.
    The entire holographic imaging method is grounded in the duality; stated in the introduction and relied on throughout.
  • domain assumption The metric (Eq 2) correctly describes a quantum-corrected AdS-Reissner-Nordstrom black hole in Kiselev spacetime.
    Borrowed from refs [45,50]; the paper does not derive or independently verify the metric.
  • standard math The bulk scalar field obeys the Klein-Gordon equation (Eq 5) with mass M^2=-2 and charge e, and the holographic dictionary gives the response function via Eq (10).
    Standard holographic scalar field setup from Hashimoto et al. and Liu et al.; the paper adopts it verbatim.
  • domain assumption The convex lens transformation (Eq 20), a Fourier transform, correctly converts the boundary response into the screen image.
    Adopted from the virtual optical system proposed in ref [33]; no independent derivation in this paper.
  • standard math The photon ring is determined by the conditions r_dot=0 and dz/dr=0, and the incident angle is given by sin^2 θ_in = L^2/(ω*)^2.
    Standard null geodesic analysis in spherically symmetric spacetimes; the paper applies it directly.
  • ad hoc to paper The contribution of the explicit wave source term in Eq (10) is negligible at the observation position.
    The paper states this neglect without a quantitative check (Section 2, paragraph after Eq (16)); it is specific to this paper's setup.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Holographic Einstein Ring of Quantum Corrected AdS-Reissner-Nordstrom Black Holes in Kiselev Spacetime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DVRVY64C

@misc{pith2026250115139,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Holographic Einstein Ring of Quantum Corrected AdS-Reissner-Nordstrom Black Holes in Kiselev Spacetime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DVRVY64C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15139}
}
abstract

This study, grounded in AdS/CFT correspondence, utilizes wave optics theory to explore the Einstein ring of a quantum-corrected AdS-Reissner-Nordstr\"om black hole (BH) in Kiselev spacetime. By fixing the wave source on the AdS boundary, the corresponding response function generated on the antipodal side of the boundary is successfully obtained. Using a virtual optical system with a convex lens, the holographic image of the Einstein ring of the BH is captured on a screen. The study also investigates the impact of various physical parameters and the observer's position on the characteristics of the Einstein ring. The results indicate that changes in the observer's position cause the image to transition from an axisymmetric ring to an arc, ultimately converging to a single luminous point. Additionally, the Einstein ring radius decreases with increasing values of the quantum correction parameter $a$, the equation of state parameter $\Omega$, temperature $T$, and chemical potential $\mu$ , respectively. In contrast, the ring radius increases as the cosmological fluid parameter $c$ increases. Furthermore, the ring radius becomes more distinct as the wave source frequency $\omega$ increases. From the perspective of geometric optics, the photon ring of the quantum-corrected AdS-Reissner-Nordstr\"om BH in Kiselev spacetime is further studied. Numerical results suggest that the incident angle of the photon ring aligns with that of the Einstein ring.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15139 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Response function for different a with c = 0.1, Q = 0.1, Ω = − 2 3 , yh = 5, e = 0.5, ω = 90 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Response function for different c with a = 0.1, Q = 0.1, Ω = − 2 3 , yh = 5, e = 0.5, ω = 90. AdS boundary y = 0. In this case, the wave source JK rep￾resents the asymptotic form of the scalar field at infinity, and Yl(0) = 1, as seen from Eq.(14). We obtain the corresponding numerical solution for Yl and extract ⟨K⟩l using the pseudo￾spectral method[30, 31]. Subsequently, using the Eq.(16), we calculate the value o… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Response function for different µ with a = 0.1, c = 0.1, Ω = − 2 3 , yh = 5, e = 0.5, ω = 90, from top to bottom, the values of µ correspond to Q = 0.08, 0.12, 0.16, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Response function for different T with a = 0.1, c = 0.1, Ω = − 2 3 , e = 0.5, ω = 90, from top to bottom, the values of T correspond to yh = 4, 5, 6, respectively. mation related to BH shadows, we should specifically introduce an optical observation setup with a convex…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Response function for different e with a = 0.1, c = 0.1, Ω = − 2 3 , Q = 0.1, yh = 5, ω = 90 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: explores the impact of the observer’s position θobs on the Einstein rings. At θobs = 0, the observer is located at the North Pole of the AdS boundary. As θobs increases from 0 to π 3 and then to π 2 , the ring gradually disappears, with only bright spots remaining when…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The x-coordinate values corresponding to the peaks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Effect of a on the Einstein ring, where θobs = 0, c = 0.1, Ω = − 2 3 , Q = 0.1, e = 0.5, yh = 5, ω = 90. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Effect of a on the brightness, where θobs = 0, c = 0.1, Ω = − 2 3 , Q = 0.1, e = 0.5, yh = 5, ω = 90. in Figure14, reveals that as the Ω increases, the radius of the Einstein ring decreases. Specifically, when Ω = −1 and the lu￾minosity reaches its maximum, xs/ f = 0.…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Effect of c on the brightness, where θobs = 0, a = 0.1, Ω = − 2 3 , Q = 0.1, e = 0.5, yh = 5, ω = 90. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_12.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Effect of ω on the Einstein ring, where θobs = 0, a = 0.1, c = 0.1, Ω = − 2 3 , Q = 0.1, e = 0.5, yh = 5. (a) ω = 30 (b) ω = 60 (c) ω = 90 (d) ω = 120 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Effect of ω on the brightness, where θobs = 0, a = 0.1, c = 0.1, Ω = − 2 3 , Q = 0.1, e = 0.5, yh = 5. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Effect of T on the Einstein ring, where θobs = 0, a = 0.1, c = 0.1, Ω = − 2 3 , e = 0.5, yh = 5, ω = 90, The temperature is from high to low, corresponding to Q = 0.1, 0.12, 0.14, 0.16, respectively. (a) T = 0.3918 (b) T = 0.3232 (c) T = 0.2842 (d) T = 0.2601 [PITH_F…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Effect of µ on the Einstein ring, where θobs = 0, a = 0.1, c = 0.1, Ω = − 2 3 , e = 0.5, yh = 5, ω = 90, The chemical potential vaules change from low to high, corresponding to Q = 0.0196, 0.0556, 0.0835, 0.1022, respectively. 4. Images from the viewpoint of geometric…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Effect of T on the brightness, where θobs = 0, a = 0.1, c = 0.1, Ω = − 2 3 , e = 0.5, yh = 5, ω = 90. We also consider the impact of the chemical potential µ on Einstein rings, while keeping the temperature fixed at 0.5. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Relation between ring radius rR and ring angle θR. through 24 respectively demonstrate the impact of varying pa￾rameters a, c and Ω on the radius of the Einstein ring, with fixed chemical potential µ = 0.5 and temperature T = 0.5. The results indicate that the angle o…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: (Left Column) Comparison of Einstein ring radii between geometric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_22.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: (Left Column) Comparison of Einstein ring radii between geometric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_24.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998), 231-252

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, JHEP 12 (2008), 015

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008), 031601

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    S. S. Gubser, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008), 065034

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Cubrovic, J

    M. Cubrovic, J. Zaanen and K. Schalm, Science 325 (2009), 439-444

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    H. Liu, J. McGreevy and D. Vegh, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011), 065029

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Faulkner, H

    T. Faulkner, H. Liu, J. McGreevy and D. Vegh, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011), 125002

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Me fford and G

    E. Me fford and G. T. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) no.8, 084042

    work page 2014

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Kiritsis and J

    E. Kiritsis and J. Ren, JHEP 09 (2015), 168

    2015

  2. [10]

    Donos and J

    A. Donos and J. P. Gauntlett, JHEP 06 (2014), 007

    2014

  3. [11]

    Shipley and S

    J. Shipley and S. R. Dolan, Class. Quant. Grav. 33 (2016) no.17, 175001

    2016

  4. [12]

    Bambi and K

    C. Bambi and K. Freese, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009), 043002

    2009

  5. [13]

    Atamurotov, A

    F. Atamurotov, A. Abdujabbarov and B. Ahmedov, Astrophys. Space Sci. 348 (2013), 179-188

    2013

  6. [14]

    A. K. Mishra, S. Chakraborty and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.10, 104080

    2019

  7. [15]

    P. G. Nedkova, V . K. Tinchev and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) no.12, 124019

    2013

  8. [16]

    Y . X. Chen, H. B. Zheng, K. J. He, G. P. Li and Q. Q. Jiang, Chin. Phys. C 48 (2024), no.12, 125104

    2024

  9. [17]

    K. J. He, Z. Luo, S. Guo and G. P. Li, Chin. Phys. C 48, no.6, 065105 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Shaikh, P

    R. Shaikh, P. Kocherlakota, R. Narayan and P. S. Joshi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 482 (2019) no.1, 52-64

    2019

  11. [19]

    X. Wang, Z. Zhao, X. X. Zeng and X. Y . Wang, [arXiv:2501.08287 [gr- qc]]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    C. Y . Yang, M. I. Aslam, X. X. Zeng and R. Saleem, [arXiv:2411.11807 [astro-ph.HE]]

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    K. J. He, G. P. Li, C. Y . Yang and X. X. Zeng, [arXiv:2411.11680 [astro- ph.HE]]

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    K. J. He, J. T. Yao, X. Zhang and X. Li, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.6, 064049 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    K. J. He, S. C. Tan and G. P. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.1, 81 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    K. J. He, X. Zhang and X. Li, Chin. Phys. C 46, no.7, 075103 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    K. J. He, S. Guo, S. C. Tan and G. P. Li, Chin. Phys. C 46, no.8, 085106 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    X. X. Zeng, G. P. Li and K. J. He, Nucl. Phys. B 974, 115639 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    K. J. He, C. Y . Yang and X. X. Zeng, [arXiv:2501.06778 [astro-ph.HE]]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Akiyama et al

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

    2019

  21. [29]

    Akiyama et al

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

    2022

  22. [30]

    Hashimoto, S

    K. Hashimoto, S. Kinoshita and K. Murata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) no.3, 031602

    2019

  23. [31]

    Hashimoto, S

    K. Hashimoto, S. Kinoshita and K. Murata, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.6, 066018

    2020

  24. [32]

    Y . Kaku, K. Murata and J. Tsujimura, JHEP 09 (2021), 138 11

    2021

  25. [33]

    Y . Liu, Q. Chen, X. X. Zeng, H. Zhang, W. L. Zhang and W. Zhang, JHEP 10 (2022), 189

    2022

  26. [34]

    X. X. Zeng, K. J. He, J. Pu, G. p. Li and Q. Q. Jiang, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.10, 897

    2023

  27. [35]

    X. X. Zeng, L. F. Li and P. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no.7, 714

    2024

  28. [36]

    X. X. Zeng, M. I. Aslam, R. Saleem and X. Y . Hu, [arXiv:2311.04680 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    X. Y . Hu, X. X. Zeng, L. F. Li and P. Xu, Results Phys.61 (2024), 107707

    2024

  30. [38]

    G. P. Li, K. J. He, X. Y . Hu and Q. Q. Jiang, Front. Phys. (Beijing) 19 (2024), no.5, 54202

    2024

  31. [39]

    K. J. He, Y . W. Han and G. P. Li, Phys. Dark Univ.44 (2024), 101468

    2024

  32. [40]

    Z. Luo, K. J. He and J. Li, [arXiv:2409.11885 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    X. X. Zeng, L. F. Li, P. Li, B. Liang and P. Xu, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68 (2025) no.2, 220412

    2025

  34. [42]

    X. X. Zeng, X. Y . Hu and K. J. He, [arXiv:2406.03083 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. Y . Gui, X. X. Zeng, K. J. He and H. Ye, [arXiv:2407.09069 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    K. J. He, Y . W. Han and G. P. Li, Nucl. Phys. B1010, 116768 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    D. I. Kazakov and S. N. Solodukhin, Nucl. Phys. B 429 (1994), 153-176

    1994

  38. [46]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Lett. B 804 (2020), 135363

    2020

  39. [47]

    C. Liu, T. Zhu, Q. Wu, K. Jusufi, M. Jamil, M. Azreg-A¨ınou and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) no.8, 084001 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) no.8, 089902]

    2020

  40. [48]

    V . B. Bezerra, I. P. Lobo, J. P. Morais Grac ¸a and L. C. N. Santos, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) no.11, 949

    2019

  41. [49]

    Shahjalal, Nucl

    M. Shahjalal, Nucl. Phys. B 940 (2019), 63-77

    2019

  42. [50]

    J. P. Morais Grac ¸a, E. Folco Capossoli, H. Boschi-Filho and I. P. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.2, 024045

    2023

  43. [51]

    Sadeghi, S

    J. Sadeghi, S. Noori Gashti, M. R. Alipour and M. A. S. Afshar, Chin. Phys. C 48 (2024) no.11, 115115

    2024

  44. [52]

    V . V . Kiselev, Class. Quant. Grav.20 (2003), 1187-1198

    2003

  45. [53]

    A. S. Khan and F. Ali, Phys. Dark Univ. 26 (2019), 100389

    2019

  46. [54]

    L. G. C. Gentile, P. A. Grassi and A. Mezzalira, JHEP 10 (2013), 065

    2013

  47. [55]

    Dunn and C

    J. Dunn and C. Warnick, Class. Quant. Grav. 33 (2016) no.12, 125010

    2016

  48. [56]

    T. K. Dey, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33 (2018) no.33, 1850193

    2018

  49. [57]

    Banerjee, A

    N. Banerjee, A. Bhattacharjee and A. Mitra, JHEP 01 (2021), 038

    2021

  50. [58]

    M. R. Khosravipoor and M. Farhoudi, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.11, 1045

    2023

  51. [59]

    I. R. Klebanov and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 556 (1999), 89-114 12

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.