Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Schwarzschild-like Black Holes Submerged in an Exponential Density Dark Matter Profile

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Schwarzschild black hole embedded in an exponential-spheroid dark matter halo admits an exact analytic metric, with the halo monotonically enlarging the photon sphere and shadow radius.

desk verdict Routine but sound BH-in-halo construction for the exponential profile, undone in its energy-condition section by a sign error that contradicts the paper's own field equations. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15490 v1 pith:EFWRBIWF submitted 2026-07-16 gr-qc

Kuantay Boshkayev , Yassine Sekhmani , Soroush Zare , Hassan Hassanabadi , Shahin Mamedov , Yergali Kurmanov This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords blackholesdarkmatterhalosexponentialdensityprofilegeneralrelativityanalyticsolutionsholeshadowquasinormalmodesgreybodyfactors
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to prove that a Schwarzschild black hole can be exactly surrounded by an exponential dark matter halo in general relativity: the full spacetime, with the halo treated as an anisotropic fluid with density ρ=ρ₀ e^(−r/r₀), takes the closed-form metric A(r)=1−2M_BH/r − (2M₀/r)[1 − e^(−r/r₀)(1+r/r₀+r²/(2r₀²))]. This metric reduces to Schwarzschild when the halo mass vanishes and to a regular halo-only spacetime when the black hole mass vanishes, so the construction cleanly interpolates between the two. The paper then converts the solution into observable consequences: the halo monotonically shifts the photon sphere and shadow radius, which allows approximate upper bounds on halo strength from EHT images of M87* and Sgr A*; scalar quasinormal modes computed with a Padé-resummed WKB method remain stable where standard WKB fails; and greybody bounds show the halo suppresses low-frequency transmission. If this picture is right, the exponential-sphere halo serves as a controllable analytic stand-in for environmental dark matter around supermassive black holes, with strong-gravity observables as the probe.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the metric ansatz A(r) = B(r) = 1 − 2m(r)/r, which forces the halo fluid to have radial pressure p_r = −ρ and reduces the Einstein equations to algebraic relations between the mass function m(r), the density ρ(r), and the tangential pressure p_t(r). With the exponential density profile ρ = ρ₀ e^(−r/r₀) inserted into the mass integral, everything integrates in closed form, yielding the dressed metric. This ansatz is what turns the phenomenological halo profile into an exact spacetime; the price is the exotic equation of state p_r = −ρ.

What would settle it

Measure the shadow of Sgr A* (or M87*) with future millimeter VLBI to sub-percent precision while independently determining the enclosed mass near the photon sphere from stellar orbits: if the shadow radius is found to shrink as the surrounding mass grows, or to deviate from the Schwarzschild value in a direction opposite to the predicted monotonic increase, the dressed metric and its parameter bounds are ruled out. A direct astrophysical demonstration that dark matter near a supermassive black hole has negligible pressure would also falsify the p_r = −ρ equation of state that carries the exac

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Equation (10) is an exact static, spherically symmetric solution of the Einstein equations sourced by an anisotropic fluid with density ρ=ρ₀ e^(−r/r₀), radial pressure p_r = −ρ, and tangential pressure p_t = −m″/(8πr). The metric is asymptotically flat with ADM mass M_BH+M₀, reduces to Schwarzschild when the halo mass vanishes, and to a regular halo-only spacetime when the central mass vanishes. The halo does not remove the black hole's tidal singularity (Kretschmann still diverges as r→0 when M_BH ≠ 0) but does regularize the Ricci invariants. The photon-sphere and shadow radius increase monotonically with halo mass M₀ and decrease with scale radius r₀, so EHT shadow measurements bound the

Load-bearing premise

The whole solution rests on the ansatz A=B=1−2m/r, which forces the dark matter to have radial pressure p_r = −ρ; if real dark matter is effectively pressureless and collisionless, as usually assumed, this exact spacetime does not describe a realistic galactic halo.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The halo raises the extremal black-hole mass threshold: for a given halo, there is a minimum central mass below which the horizon disappears, so dark matter can make a horizon exist where a bare Schwarzschild horizon would not.
  • EHT shadow observations of M87* and Sgr A* give one-sided upper bounds on the halo parameters (roughly M₀ ≲ 0.9 and r₀ ≲ 20 at 1σ for M87*, tighter for Sgr A*), meaning any such halo around these two black holes must be diffuse and compact.
  • Scalar quasinormal modes shift: stronger or more extended halos lower the oscillation frequency and the damping rate, so ringdown modes become longer-lived; the standard WKB approximation becomes unreliable for strong-halo, high-overtone cases, while Padé-resummed WKB stays regular.
  • Greybody bounds show that the halo suppresses transmission through the effective potential barrier, particularly at low frequencies, so scalar emission is less efficient in the presence of the halo.
  • Because the spacetime is exact and asymptotically flat, all strong-field observables (lensing, ISCO, orbital precession) can in principle be read off from the same metric function, making the solution a reusable template for halo-environment studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the exponential profile is chosen ad hoc from a rotation-curve fit rather than derived from dark-matter physics, the exactness of the metric does not by itself make it a realistic galactic halo model; its main value is as a controlled template for how any extended low-density matter distribution reshapes strong-gravity observables.
  • The same A(r)=B(r) ansatz can generate exact halo-dressed black hole metrics for any density profile whose mass integral is closed-form, so the construction generalizes immediately to other one-parameter halo shapes (Gaussian or cored isothermal), provided one accepts the p_r = −ρ equation of state.
  • The predicted monotonic shadow growth with halo mass suggests a falsifiable hierarchy: if future high-resolution shadow measurements of Sgr A* are consistent with bare Schwarzschild while orbital data independently require a dense cusp, the exponential-sphere dressing is excluded—the shadow test and the stellar-orbit test must agree.
  • Since the halo slows down quasinormal damping and suppresses greybody transmission, similar exact mixtures for rotating black holes would be expected to split ringdown frequencies and alter the shadow shape asymmetrically; extending the construction beyond spherical symmetry is the natural next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs an exact static, spherically symmetric solution of the Einstein equations whose mass function is the sum of a central black hole mass and an exponential-profile dark matter halo, Eq. (10). It then studies curvature invariants, pointwise energy conditions, photon-sphere/shadow properties with EHT constraints, scalar quasinormal modes using Padé-resummed and standard WKB, and greybody bounds. The metric construction is analytic and the MBH→0 and M0→0 limits are correctly identified. The paper's advertised energy-condition results are, however, internally inconsistent: Eq. (16) has the opposite sign of p_t from Eq. (7), Eq. (11) has the wrong sign for the Ricci scalar, and the scalar-perturbation potential is written in two mutually inconsistent forms, Eqs. (34) and (35). These issues affect the abstract and the QNM section, not merely the presentation.

Significance. If corrected, the solution is a useful phenomenological toy model for black holes embedded in a dark-matter-like fluid: it is exact, asymptotically flat, and reduces cleanly to Schwarzschild and to a regular halo spacetime in the appropriate limits. The shadow and QNM trends are qualitatively interesting, and the Padé-resummed WKB comparison is a worthwhile methodological check. The strengths are the analytic closed form of the metric and the explicit limiting checks. The current version cannot be accepted because the energy-condition statements in the abstract and Section II.A are false as written, and the QNM calculation uses an effective potential that is not uniquely specified.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II.A, Eqs. (7) and (16)] There is a sign error in the transverse pressure. From the mass function (9), m'' = (M0/(2r0^2)) e^{-r/r0} (r/r0)(2 - r/r0), and Eq. (7) then gives p_t = -m''/(8πr) = ρ0 e^{-r/r0}(r/(2r0) - 1), which is the opposite of Eq. (16). This is not cosmetic: with the correct p_t, ρ - |p_t| = ρ0 e^{-r/r0}(2 - r/(2r0)), which becomes negative for r > 4r0, so the dominant energy condition is violated. Likewise, ρ + Σ p_i = 2p_t = ρ0 e^{-r/r0}(r/r0 - 2), so the strong energy condition is violated for r < 2r0, i.e. near the origin, not on the exterior finite interval described in the text. The justification using A'(r)<0 and A''(r)>0 is also invalid because A'' changes sign asymptotically. The abstract, Eqs. (15)-(16), the bullets in §II.A, Fig. 1, and the conclusion must be corrected.
  2. [§II.A, Eq. (11)] The Ricci scalar has the wrong sign. Using the stress tensor from Eq. (7), R = -8πT = 8πρ0(4 - r/r0)e^{-r/r0}, equivalently R = - (M0/r0^4) e^{-r/r0}(r - 4r0). Equation (11) has the opposite sign. In particular, R(0) = +4M0/r0^3, not -4M0/r0^3 as stated. The regularity conclusion is unaffected, but the displayed invariant and its quoted central value are incorrect.
  3. [§IV.A and §V, Eqs. (34) and (35)] The scalar effective potential is written in two incompatible forms. For the metric (1)-(2), where A=B=f, Eq. (34) reduces to V = f[ℓ(ℓ+1)/r^2 + f f'/r], whereas Eq. (35) gives V = f[ℓ(ℓ+1)/r^2 + f'/r], which is the standard potential for a massless scalar in a Schwarzschild-like metric. These differ by a factor of f in the second term. If Tables I and II and Fig. 6 were computed with Eq. (34), the QNM frequencies are not those of the stated Schrödinger-like problem; if they were computed with Eq. (35), Eq. (34) should be corrected. In either case the inconsistency must be resolved, and the Schwarzschild limit should be verified explicitly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§III, Eqs. (18)-(20)] The metric function is denoted A(r) in the construction but f(r) in the shadow section. Please use one notation throughout. Also, Eq. (20) writes V_eff = f(r)/r^2, which should read A(r)/r^2 if A is the lapse function.
  2. [§V, Eqs. (36)-(38)] The spacetime is asymptotically flat, so there is no cosmological horizon; Eq. (37) should integrate from the event horizon to infinity, not to a 'cosmological horizon' R_H. The greybody bound for a single-horizon spacetime is obtained with the upper limit at infinity.
  3. [General] Minor editorial issues: Section III's title contains '(REVISED BY SOROUSH)', there is a stray '1' in the paragraph after Eq. (2), and reference [85] appears to duplicate reference [77]. The text should be cleaned before submission.
  4. [§III, Fig. 5 and EHT constraints] The contour description appears to have an inconsistency: the 2σ confidence region is wider than the 1σ region, yet the reported approximate bound on r0 is smaller at 2σ (r0 ≲ 13) than at 1σ (r0 ≲ 20). Please check the contour map or explain the effect of the correlated M0 dependence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the metric is a direct exact solution of Einstein's equations for an assumed density profile; all subsequent observables are genuine consequences, not the inputs repackaged.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained: the paper assumes a static, spherically symmetric metric with A(r)=B(r)=1-2m(r)/r and an exponential density profile rho(r)=rho0 e^{-r/r0}, integrates the mass function, and obtains the lapse function A(r) in Eq. (10). This is a standard exact-solution construction: the density profile is an input, and the metric is derived from it by integrating the Einstein equations. The radial pressure relation p_r=-rho follows algebraically from the metric ansatz and is an assumption of the model, not a hidden use of the target result. The subsequent analysis — curvature invariants, energy conditions, photon sphere, shadow radius, quasinormal modes, and greybody bounds — is computed from the derived metric and the stress tensor, so none of these outputs is equivalent to the inputs by construction. The EHT constraints are used as external data to place bounds on the free halo parameters, not as fitted inputs that are later relabeled as predictions. Self-citations appear (e.g., Refs. [51], [60], [74]-[77]), but they are not load-bearing for the metric derivation or for the main physical claims; they support contextual statements about halo modeling and numerical methods, and the core solution is independently derived within this paper. The paper's energy-condition statements may contain an algebraic sign issue (a scientific correctness concern), but that is not circularity. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central metric is a direct integration of the Einstein equations given an assumed density profile. The only free inputs are the halo parameters (ρ0, r0 or equivalently M0, r0) and the exotic p_r = -ρ equation of state. No new entities or forces are introduced; the exponential halo is a known empirical profile.

free parameters (3)
  • ρ0 (characteristic halo density)
    Free input of the phenomenological exponential density profile (Eq. 8). Constrained indirectly through EHT shadow limits via M0 = 8πρ0r0³.
  • r0 (halo scale radius) = r0 ≲ 20 M (M87*, 1σ); r0 ≲ 20 M (Sgr A*, 1σ)
    Free input of the exponential profile (Eq. 8). Approximate upper bound from EHT shadow contours in Section III.
  • M0 (total halo mass) = M0 ≲ 0.9 M (M87*, 1σ); M0 ≲ 0.04 M (Sgr A*, 1σ)
    Equivalent to ρ0 via M0 = 8πρ0r0³; appears in the metric (10). Constrained from shadow fits.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Einstein field equations with G=c=1 hold
    Underlying theory; cited in Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption Static, spherically symmetric metric with A(r)=B(r)=1-2m(r)/r
    Eqs. (1)-(2). This ansatz forces p_r=-ρ.
  • ad hoc to paper Dark matter density is the exponential profile ρ=ρ0 e^{-r/r0}
    Eq. (8), taken from Sofue (2013). No derivation from particle physics.
  • domain assumption Dark matter can be modeled as a relativistic anisotropic fluid
    Introduction, following Levkov et al. [49] and Boshkayev-Malafarina [51].
  • domain assumption Scalar perturbations with no backreaction
    Section IV, Eqs. (29)-(33).
  • ad hoc to paper WKB/Pade-resummed expansion converges to the correct QNM spectrum
    Section IV.A; not validated against fully numerical QNM solver.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Schwarzschild-like Black Holes Submerged in an Exponential Density Dark Matter Profile." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EFWRBIWF

@misc{pith2026260715490,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Schwarzschild-like Black Holes Submerged in an Exponential Density Dark Matter Profile},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EFWRBIWF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15490}
}
abstract

We study a class of Schwarzschild black holes embedded in an exponential-spheroidal dark matter halo, modelled by a phenomenological density profile $\rho(r)=\rho_0 e^{-r/r_0}$. By solving the Einstein equations for a static, spherically symmetric spacetime, we obtain an analytic solution for the lapse function that reduces to the Schwarzschild spacetime in the absence of the halo and to a regular halo configuration when the central black hole mass vanishes. Indeed, the two halo parameters, $\rho_0$ and $r_0$, describe the strength and radial extent of the dark matter distribution. We analyse the curvature structure, energy conditions, shadow observables, scalar quasi-normal modes and grey-body bounds of the resulting spacetime. The Ricci scalar and the Ricci square remain finite at the origin, whilst the Kretschmann scalar retains the usual central tidal singularity in the presence of a black hole mass. The weak, null, and dominant energy conditions are satisfied, whilst the strong energy condition is violated on a finite radial interval. We also show that the halo monotonically shifts the photon sphere and the shadow radius, which allows us to derive approximate constraints from the EHT observations of M87* and Sgr A*. For scalar perturbations, the Pad\'{e}-resummed WKB approximation yields stable quasinormal frequencies, while the standard WKB approximation becomes unreliable for higher overtones and strong-halo configurations. Finally, the greybody bounds indicate that the halo weakens transmission through the effective barrier, particularly at low frequencies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15490 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The metric function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Plots of the effective potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The upper panels display the photon-sphere radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Density of the shadow radius as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The scalar potential variation for various value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The scalar QNMs real frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Rigorous lower bounds on greybody factors of scalar massless field for various values of the parameters pair [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Gravitational Wave Signatures of Periodic Orbits around a Schwarzschild-like Black Holes Submerged in an Exponential Density Dark Matter Profile

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    EMRI waveforms around an ESM-dressed Schwarzschild black hole respond strongly and monotonically to halo scale radius r0, but only weakly to halo mass M0 unless M0 is a large fraction of the black-hole mass.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 66 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (Macmillan, 1973)

    1973

  2. [2]

    Bartelmann, Class

    M. Bartelmann, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 233001 (2010), arXiv:1010.3829 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    R. S. Park, W. M. Folkner, A. S. Konopliv, J. G. Williams, D. E. Smith, and M. T. Zuber, Astron. J. 153, 121 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    M. A. Hohensee, S. Chu, A. Peters, and H. Mueller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 151102 (2011), arXiv:1102.4362 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    I. I. Shapiro, Physical Review Letters 13, 789 (1964)

    1964

  6. [6]

    Christian, D

    P. Christian, D. Psaltis, and A. Loeb, The Astrophysical Journal 820, 139 (2016), arXiv:1511.01901 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Shirokov, General Relativity and Gravitation 4, 131 (1973)

    M. Shirokov, General Relativity and Gravitation 4, 131 (1973)

    1973

  8. [8]

    Momynov, K

    S. Momynov, K. Boshkayev, H. Quevedo, F. Belissarova, A. Dalelkhankyzy, A. Taukenova, A. Urazalina, and D. Utepova, General Relativity and Gravitation 57, 91 (2025), arXiv:2412.06598 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    Idrissov, K

    A. Idrissov, K. Boshkayev, S. Momynov, H. Quevedo, D. Utepova, A. Urazalina, and B. Baitimbetova, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2605.01639 (2026), arXiv:2605.01639 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Idrissov, K

    A. Idrissov, K. Boshkayev, A. Tlemissov, and H. Quevedo, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2606.23912 (2026), arXiv:2606.23912 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  3. [11]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [13]

    A. M. Ghez et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 586, L127 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302299

    2003 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Nagao, K

    T. Nagao, K. Maeda, and M. Tanaka, Astrophys. J. 847, 111 (2017), arXiv:1709.02077 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [15]

    M. H. P. M. van Putten, Astrophys. J. 837, 22 (2017)

    2017

  7. [16]

    A. Laor, J. N. Bahcall, B. T. Jannuzi, D. P. Schneider, R. F. Green, and G. F. Hartig, Astrophys. J. 420, 110 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9305026

    1994 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Eisenhauer, R

    F. Eisenhauer, R. Schoedel, R. Genzel, T. Ott, M. Tecza, R. Abuter, A. Eckart, and T. Alexander, Astrophys. J. Lett. 597, L121 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0306220

    2003 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Boehle et al

    A. Boehle et al. , Astrophys. J. 830, 17 (2016), arXiv:1607.05726 [astro-ph.GA]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Lacroix, Astron

    T. Lacroix, Astron. Astrophys. 619, A46 (2018), arXiv:1801.01308 [astro-ph.GA]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Della Monica, I

    R. Della Monica, I. de Martino, and M. de Laurentis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 510, 4757 (2022), arXiv:2105.12687 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [22]

    Foschi et al

    A. Foschi et al. (GRA VITY), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524, 1075 (2023), arXiv:2306.17215 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [23]

    Xamidov, S

    T. Xamidov, S. Shaymatov, B. Ahmedov, and T. Zhu, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2026, 044 (2026), arXiv:2503.06750 [gr-qc]

    2026

  14. [24]

    C. O. Wright and T. G. Brainerd, (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9908213

    1999 arXiv

  15. [25]

    H. S. D´ umet-Montoya, G. B. Caminha, and M. Makler, Astron. Astrophys. 560, A86 (2013), arXiv:1304.0425 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [26]

    Haghi, A

    H. Haghi, A. Khodadadi, A. Ghari, A. H. Zonoozi, and P. Kroupa, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 477, 4187 (2018)

    2018

  17. [27]

    Vogelsberger, F

    M. Vogelsberger, F. Marinacci, P. Torrey, and E. Puchwein, Nature Reviews Physics 2, 42 (2020)

    2020

  18. [28]

    R. E. Angulo and O. Hahn, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics 8, 1 (2022)

    2022

  19. [29]

    Moore, F

    B. Moore, F. Governato, T. R. Quinn, J. Stadel, and G. Lake, Astrophys. J. Lett. 499, L5 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9709051

    1998 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Diemand, B

    J. Diemand, B. Moore, and J. Stadel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 353, 624 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0402267

    2004 arXiv

  21. [31]

    Y. P. Jing, Astrophys. J. 535, 30 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9809397

    2000 arXiv

  22. [32]

    H. C. Plummer, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 71, 460 (1911)

    1911

  23. [33]

    Buyle, C

    P. Buyle, C. Hunter, and H. Dejonghe, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 375, 773 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0611746

    2007 arXiv

  24. [35]

    P. J. E. Peebles, Astronomical Journal 75, 13 (1970)

    1970

  25. [36]

    Jaffe, Mon

    W. Jaffe, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 202, 995 (1983)

    1983

  26. [37]

    Hernquist, Astrophys

    L. Hernquist, Astrophys. J. 356, 359 (1990)

    1990

  27. [38]

    Zhao, Mon

    H. Zhao, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 278, 488 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9509122

    1996 arXiv

  28. [39]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [40]

    W. J. G. de Blok, Adv. Astron. 2010, 789293 (2010), arXiv:0910.3538 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  30. [41]

    Donato, G

    F. Donato, G. Gentile, P. Salucci, C. F. Martins, M. I. Wilkinson, G. Gilmore, E. K. Grebel, A. Koch, and R. Wyse, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 397, 1169 (2009), arXiv:0904.4054 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  31. [42]

    Maeda, V

    K.-i. Maeda, V. Cardoso, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 111, 044060 (2025), arXiv:2410.04175 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [43]

    P. G. S. Fernandes and V. Cardoso, (2025), arXiv:2505.00563 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [44]

    Figueiredo, A

    E. Figueiredo, A. Maselli, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 107, 104033 (2023), arXiv:2303.08183 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [45]

    ¨Ovg¨ un and R

    A. ¨Ovg¨ un and R. C. Pantig, Phys. Lett. B 864, 139398 (2025), arXiv:2501.12559 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [46]

    ¨Ovg¨ un, L

    A. ¨Ovg¨ un, L. J. F. Sese, and R. C. Pantig, Annalen Phys. 536, 2300390 (2024), arXiv:2309.07442 [gr-qc]. 16

    2024 arXiv

  36. [47]

    Y. Yang, G. Lambiase, A. Ovgun, D. Liu, and Z.-W. Long, (2025), arXiv:2511.07858 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [48]

    Al-Badawi, S

    A. Al-Badawi, S. Shaymatov, and Y. Sekhmani, JCAP 02, 014 (2025), arXiv:2411.01145 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [49]

    D. G. Levkov, A. G. Panin, and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 151301 (2018), arXiv:1804.05857 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [50]

    Sofue, Publ

    Y. Sofue, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap. 65, 118 (2013), arXiv:1307.8241 [astro-ph.GA]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [51]

    Boshkayev and D

    K. Boshkayev and D. Malafarina, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 484, 3325 (2019), arXiv:1811.04061 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [52]

    Matos, F

    T. Matos, F. S. Guzman, and D. Nunez, Phys. Rev. D 62, 061301 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003398

    2000 arXiv

  42. [53]

    Z. Xu, X. Hou, X. Gong, and J. Wang, JCAP 09, 038 (2018), arXiv:1803.00767 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [54]

    P. V. P. Cunha and C. A. R. Herdeiro, General Relativity and Gravitation 50, 42 (2018), arXiv:1801.00860 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [55]

    Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes (Oxford University Press, 1998)

    S. Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes (Oxford University Press, 1998)

    1998

  45. [56]

    Stuchl ´ ık and J

    Z. Stuchl ´ ık and J. Schee, European Physical Journal C 79, 44 (2019)

    2019

  46. [57]

    Stuchl ´ ık, J

    Z. Stuchl ´ ık, J. Schee, and D. Ovchinnikov, Astrophys. J. 887, 145 (2019)

    2019

  47. [58]

    Capozziello, S

    S. Capozziello, S. Zare, D. F. Mota, and H. Hassanabadi, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023, 027 (2023), arXiv:2303.13554 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [59]

    Capozziello, S

    S. Capozziello, S. Zare, L. M. Nieto, and H. Hassanabadi, Physics of the Dark Universe 50, 102065 (2025), arXiv:2311.12896 [gr-qc]

    2025

  49. [60]

    L. M. Nieto, F. Hosseinifar, K. Boshkayev, S. Zare, and H. Hassanabadi, Physics of the Dark Universe 50, 102151 (2025), arXiv:2507.14305 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [61]

    Meng, X.-M

    Y. Meng, X.-M. Kuang, X.-J. Wang, B. Wang, and J.-P. Wu, European Physical Journal C 84, 305 (2024), arXiv:2401.05634 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [62]

    Meng, X.-M

    Y. Meng, X.-M. Kuang, X.-J. Wang, B. Wang, and J.-P. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 108, 064013 (2023), arXiv:2306.10459 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [63]

    R. A. Konoplya, Physics Letters B 795, 1 (2019), arXiv:1905.00064 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [64]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [65]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 875, L5 (2019), arXiv:1906.11242 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [66]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 875, L6 (2019), arXiv:1906.11243 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [67]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 930, L12 (2022)

    2022

  57. [68]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 930, L17 (2022)

    2022

  58. [69]

    T. Do, A. Hees, A. Ghez, G. D. Martinez, D. S. Chu, S. Jia, S. Sakai, J. R. Lu, A. K. Gautam, K. K. O’Neil, E. E. Becklin, M. R. Morris, K. Matthews, S. Nishiyama, R. Campbell, S. Chappell, Z. Chen, A. Ciurlo, A. Dehghanfar, E. Gallego-Cano, W. E. Kerzendorf, J. E. Lyke, S. Na...

    2019

  59. [70]

    GRA VITY Collaboration, Astronomy & Astrophysics 657, L12 (2022), arXiv:2112.07478 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [71]

    GRA VITY Collaboration, Astronomy & Astrophysics 636, L5 (2020), arXiv:2004.07187 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  61. [72]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboratio, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104047 (2021), arXiv:2105.09343 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [73]

    Vagnozzi, R

    S. Vagnozzi, R. Roy, Y.-D. Tsai, L. Visinelli, M. Afrin, A. Allahyari, P. Bambhaniya, D. Dey, S. G. Ghosh, P. S. Joshi, K. Jusufi, M. Khodadi, R. K. Walia, A. ¨Ovg¨ un, and C. Bambi, Classical and Quantum Gravity 40, 165007 (2023), arXiv:2205.07787 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [74]

    S. Zare, L. M. Nieto, X.-H. Feng, S.-H. Dong, and H. Hassanabadi, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024, 041 (2024), arXiv:2406.07300 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [75]

    S. Zare, T. Zhu, L. M. Nieto, S. Lu, and H. Hassanabadi, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2026, 059 (2026), arXiv:2510.05166 [gr-qc]

    2026

  65. [76]

    S. Zare, L. M. Nieto, F. Hosseinifar, X.-H. Feng, and H. Hassanabadi, Physics Letters B 859, 139125 (2024), arXiv:2407.12142 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [78]

    L. Meng, Z. Xu, and M. Tang, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.05015 (2025), arXiv:2506.05015 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  67. [79]

    Mashhoon, Proceedings of the Third Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity , 599 (1983)

    B. Mashhoon, Proceedings of the Third Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity , 599 (1983)

    1983

  68. [80]

    B. F. Schutz and C. M. Will, Astrophys. J. 291, L33 (1985)

    1985

  69. [81]

    Iyer and C

    S. Iyer and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 35, 3621 (1987)

    1987

  70. [82]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Rev. D 68, 024018 (2003)

    2003

  71. [83]

    R. A. Konoplya, A. Zhidenko, and A. F. Zinhailo, Class. Quantum Gravity 36, 155002 (2019)

    2019

  72. [84]

    A. N. Malybayev, K. A. Boshkayev, and V. D. Ivashchuk, European Physical Journal C 81, 475 (2021), arXiv:2103.10920 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  73. [85]

    Sekhmani, S

    Y. Sekhmani, S. Zare, L. M. Nieto, H. Hassanabadi, and K. Boshkayev, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics 47, 100389 (2025), arXiv:2501.10874 [gr-qc]

    2025

  74. [86]

    Al-Badawi, Y

    A. Al-Badawi, Y. Sekhmani, and K. Boshkayev, Physics of the Dark Universe 48, 101865 (2025)

    2025

  75. [87]

    Sekhmani, D

    Y. Sekhmani, D. J. Gogoi, S. K. Maurya, K. Boshkayev, and M. K. Jasim, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics 45, 200 (2025)

    2025

  76. [88]

    Sekhmani, W

    Y. Sekhmani, W. Liu, W. Deng, and K. Boshkayev, Physics of the Dark Universe 52, 102358 (2026), arXiv:2510.16639 [gr-qc]

    2026

  77. [89]

    Matyjasek and M

    J. Matyjasek and M. Opala, Phys. Rev. D 96, 024011 (2017)

    2017

  78. [90]

    Visser, Phys

    M. Visser, Phys. Rev. A 59, 427 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9901030

    1999 arXiv

  79. [91]

    Boonserm and M

    P. Boonserm and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 78, 101502 (2008), arXiv:0806.2209 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  80. [92]

    Boonserm, T

    P. Boonserm, T. Ngampitipan, and P. Wongjun, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 492 (2018), arXiv:1705.03278 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  81. [93]

    Y. Yang, D. Liu, A. ¨Ovg¨ un, Z.-W. Long, and Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 107, 064042 (2023), arXiv:2203.11551 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  82. [94]

    Gray and M

    F. Gray and M. Visser, Universe 4, 93 (2018), arXiv:1512.05018 [gr-qc]. 17

    2018 arXiv

  83. [95]

    Ngampitipan and P

    T. Ngampitipan and P. Boonserm, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 22, 1350058 (2013), arXiv:1211.4070 [math-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  84. [96]

    Chowdhury and N

    A. Chowdhury and N. Banerjee, Phys. Lett. B 805, 135417 (2020), arXiv:2002.03630 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  85. [97]

    Miao and Z.-M

    Y.-G. Miao and Z.-M. Xu, Phys. Lett. B 772, 542 (2017), arXiv:1704.07086 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  86. [98]

    Liu, Eur

    Y. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1054 (2022), arXiv:2201.01279 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  87. [99]

    Barman, Eur

    S. Barman, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 50 (2020), arXiv:1907.09228 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  88. [100]

    Xu and M.-H

    H. Xu and M.-H. Yung, Phys. Lett. B 794, 77 (2019), arXiv:1904.06503 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  89. [101]

    Boonserm, T

    P. Boonserm, T. Ngampitipan, and P. Wongjun, European Physical Journal C 79, 330 (2019), arXiv:1902.05215 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.