Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 6 cited by

Non-Minimal Einstein-Yang-Mills Black Holes: Fundamental Quasinormal Mode and Grey-Body factors versus Outburst of Overtones

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For these non-minimal Yang-Mills black holes, the fundamental quasinormal mode barely moves while overtones deviate sharply; the lowest-multipole second overtone's real frequency collapses to zero as the coupling grows.

desk verdict A credible but not-yet-reproducible Leaver computation of quasinormal modes for non-minimal EYM black holes; the overtone-outburst claim is plausible but needs independent numerical confirmation. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18482 v2 pith:F6SFBYC5 submitted 2025-04-25 gr-qc

B. C. Lütfüoğlu This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords quasinormalmodesblackholesnon-minimalEinstein-Yang-MillstheoryLeavermethodJWKBapproximationovertoneoutburstgrey-bodyfactorsholespectroscopy
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

This paper studies scalar-field quasinormal modes of black holes in non-minimal Einstein–Yang–Mills theory, a family of spherically symmetric spacetimes that differ from Schwarzschild near the horizon but return to Schwarzschild-like form at large radius. Using a precise continued-fraction method rather than the earlier JWKB approximation, the paper establishes that the fundamental mode shifts only mildly as the non-minimal coupling $ξ$ grows, while the first few overtones deviate strongly; for the lowest multipole $ℓ=0$, the real part of the second overtone's frequency rapidly approaches zero. This “outburst of overtones” indicates that the Yang–Mills coupling deforms mainly the near-horizon geometry, and it shows that the earlier JWKB analysis [1] is not accurate enough for $ℓ ≤ n$ modes. The paper also computes grey-body factors, finding them stable and enhanced by the coupling. A sympathetic reader would take away a concrete spectral fingerprint of near-horizon modifications and a warning about applying JWKB to low multipoles.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective potential in the Schrödinger-like wave equation $V(r) = f(r)\left[\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{r^2} + \frac{f'(r)}{r}\right]$, with $f(r)$ given by the non-minimal Yang–Mills metric. The argument is carried by a precise continued-fraction implementation of the Leaver method: a Frobenius-type series around the horizon is analytically continued to a midpoint so the irregular singularity at infinity is nearest, and an improved asymptotic tail accelerates convergence for overtones. A sixth-order JWKB method with Padé approximants serves as a cross-check, and the grey-body factors are computed both directly from JWKB transmission coefficients and from an eikonal correspondence formula using the fundamental mode.

What would settle it

Compute the same spectrum by an independent time-domain integration of Eq. (5) with potential (6) for $ℓ=0$, $Q=0.1$, and $ξ$ in the range shown in Fig. 3, and check whether the real part of the second overtone actually tends to zero; if the continued-fraction and time-domain results disagree, the overtone outburst is numerical rather than physical.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For scalar-field perturbations of the non-minimal Einstein–Yang–Mills black hole with metric $f(r) = 1 + \frac{r^4}{r^4+2ξ Q^2}\left(\frac{Q^2}{r^2}-\frac{2M}{r}\right)$, the central discovery is a decisive split in the spectrum: the fundamental quasinormal frequency stays within roughly ten to thirty percent of the Schwarzschild value as $ξ$ increases, but the overtones move away sharply, and the $ℓ=0$ second overtone's real part tends to zero rapidly with $ξ$. This is interpreted as the Yang–Mills contribution modifying the geometry mostly near the horizon, with the effective potential's peak lowering so that higher overtones are strongly affected. The paper further claims that the JWKB results of [1] carry errors comparable to or larger than the physical coupling effect for $ℓ ≤ n$, and that grey-body factors remain a more stable characteristic, rising when $ξ$ increases.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the implemented continued-fraction routine, whose recurrence coefficients and convergence checks are not shown in the paper, returns the true quasinormal frequencies of the effective potential (6); without an independent comparison, the high-overtone behavior could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The earlier JWKB quasinormal-mode results for this spacetime [1] should not be trusted for $ℓ \le n$; the numerical error there can exceed the physical frequency shift.
  • For all multipoles, higher overtones deviate more strongly from Schwarzschild as $ξ$ grows, with the effect largest at $ℓ=0$.
  • The grey-body factors increase with the non-minimal coupling, so Hawking radiation in this model escapes more easily than from Schwarzschild.
  • In the eikonal limit, quasinormal frequencies respect the null-geodesic/shadow correspondence, and an explicit analytic expansion in inverse multipole number and charge is available.
  • The overtone “outburst” offers a near-horizon probe: future ringdown measurements sensitive to overtones could distinguish this spacetime from Schwarzschild even when the fundamental mode looks nearly unchanged.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the same spectral instability should appear for gravitational or vector perturbations of this spacetime, provided their effective potentials also develop a lower, wider barrier as $ξ$ grows; the paper only analyses scalar perturbations.
  • A concrete extension would be to test the continued-fraction results against time-domain integration; if the $ℓ=0$ second overtone's real part does not vanish there, the reported outburst would be numerical rather than physical.
  • The grey-body stability suggests that Hawking-radiation spectra could constrain $ξ$ independently of ringdown, since the transmission probability changes modestly but systematically with the coupling.
  • If near-horizon deformation is truly the driver, analogous overtone outbursts should appear in any theory whose metric differs from Schwarzschild mainly inside the photon sphere.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper computes quasinormal mode (QNM) frequencies for scalar perturbations of non-minimal Einstein–Yang–Mills (EYM) black holes using the Leaver continued-fraction method, and compares them with a sixth-order JWKB analysis from the literature. The main claims are: (i) the fundamental mode stays close to the Schwarzschild value when the non-minimal coupling ξ is increased, while the first few overtones deviate strongly; (ii) for ℓ = 0 the real part of the second overtone rapidly tends to zero as ξ grows; (iii) the JWKB method is insufficient for modes with ℓ ≤ n; and (iv) grey-body factors, computed both by the JWKB transmission approach and by a QNM-based eikonal correspondence, are more stable under variations of ξ and Q. The paper also derives an eikonal expansion for the QNM frequencies and discusses the null-geodesic correspondence.

Significance. If the spectral claims are correct, the paper provides a sharp example of the 'outburst of overtones' in a modified-gravity black hole, with a clear physical interpretation in terms of near-horizon metric deformation. The explicit eikonal formula (16) is a useful, checkable analytic result, and the internal comparison showing JWKB errors of several percent for ℓ ≤ n strengthens the case that earlier work [1] missed the overtone behavior. The paper's main limitation is reproducibility: the Leaver implementation is described only schematically, with no recurrence coefficients, convergence tests, or independent validation for ξ > 0, yet the central phenomenon occurs precisely in that regime.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (9)] The central overtone result rests entirely on the Leaver calculation, but the recurrence coefficients for the specific potential (6) with the metric (3) are never given. Since f(r) contains the denominator r^4 + 2ξQ^2, the wave equation has additional finite singularities; the text acknowledges this and invokes the midpoint analytic continuation of Ref. [34], but it does not specify the location of these singularities relative to the chosen midpoint or demonstrate that the continued-fraction condition is applied in a domain where the series converges. Without this information, the striking behavior shown in Fig. 3—Re ω approaching zero for the ℓ=0 second overtone—could in principle be an artifact of the root-finding or branch-continuation procedure. Please provide the explicit recurrence, state the midpoint choices and their validity, and show convergence of the continued fraction for representative ξ > 0.
  2. [Sec. V, Tables I–III and Fig. 3] The tables show that JWKB and Leaver agree well at ℓ = 1, 2 for the fundamental mode, but differ by up to about 12% for the ℓ = 0 third overtone (Table III, n=3). This supports the qualitative critique of JWKB, but the 'Error' columns only quantify the JWKB–Leaver discrepancy; they do not validate the Leaver result itself. The match of Schwarzschild-limit rows with known values checks the code only at ξ=0, whereas the overtone outburst is claimed for ξ>0. Please add an independent cross-check (e.g., time-domain integration or a different spectral method) for at least one ξ>0 case, and give the numerical precision of the frequencies reported in Fig. 3.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (4)] The text says 'where µ is the mass of the scalar field,' but the equation shown is for a massless scalar (no mass term appears). Either remove the sentence or add the mass term consistently.
  2. [Sec. V, Figs. 6–7] The grey-body-factor comparison uses the eikonal correspondence formula (3.5) from Ref. [21] at ℓ=1 and ℓ=2. The agreement with the JWKB result is encouraging, but the claimed 'stability' is established by comparing two approximate methods; a brief statement of the expected O(ℓ^-1) error of the correspondence would help calibrate the significance of the differences shown.
  3. [General] Figure 1 reports the region of parameter space where f(r)>0 for r≥1, but the axes and the boundary curve are not described in the caption; a short explanation of how the boundary was computed would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the QNM computation is a direct numerical solve; self-citations are ancillary.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained: the metric (3) and effective potential (6) are the inputs, and the Leaver continued-fraction method is applied directly to the wave equation (5) with no fitted parameters. The eikonal expression (16) is obtained analytically from the potential-maximum expansion (15), not from the overtone data it is used to interpret. Grey-body factors are computed by two independent routes—higher-order JWKB scattering and the QNM-based correspondence formula—and their mutual agreement is a cross-check, not a circular reduction. The Schwarzschild-limit rows in Tables I–III agree with known standard values, providing an external benchmark. Self-citations appear only in lists of JWKB applications and future-work remarks (e.g., refs. [56], [65], [66], [94]) and are not used to justify the overtone claim; the principal comparison target, ref. [1], is by different authors. Reproducibility concerns—such as the absence of explicit Leaver recurrence coefficients and the lack of a time-domain cross-check for xi > 0—are correctness or verifiability risks, not instances of circularity, and therefore do not increase the circularity score.

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

No parameters are fitted to data; the model parameters Q and ξ are scanned inputs. The computation rests on standard QNM machinery and on the prior exact solution, with no new entities introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The non-minimal EYM action (1) and the metric function f(r) in Eq. (3) are an exact, physically admissible black hole solution.
    Taken from refs. [30,31]; the paper does not re-derive or test this solution, and all subsequent results depend on it.
  • standard math The massless scalar perturbation obeys the Schrödinger-like equation (5) with effective potential (6).
    Standard reduction of the Klein-Gordon equation on a spherically symmetric background; stated in Sec. II.
  • standard math The Leaver continued fraction with the midpoint analytic continuation [34] and Nollert improvement [35] converges to the quasinormal frequencies.
    Algorithmic assumption; no explicit recurrence coefficients or convergence criteria are given in Sec. III.
  • domain assumption The eikonal expansion (Eqs. 15-16) in inverse powers of κ = ℓ+1/2 and the charge Q is valid at high ℓ.
    Standard JWKB expansion about the potential maximum; higher-order terms are omitted without error bound.
  • domain assumption The grey-body factor formula from the QNM correspondence (after ref. [21]) applies at ℓ = 1, 2 beyond the strict eikonal limit.
    The paper uses this formula for the transmission coefficient in Figs. 6-7 with O(ℓ^-1) corrections neglected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Minimal Einstein-Yang-Mills Black Holes: Fundamental Quasinormal Mode and Grey-Body factors versus Outburst of Overtones." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F6SFBYC5

@misc{pith2026250418482,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Minimal Einstein-Yang-Mills Black Holes: Fundamental Quasinormal Mode and Grey-Body factors versus Outburst of Overtones},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F6SFBYC5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18482}
}
abstract

Recently, an exact black hole solution in non-minimal Einstein-Yang-Mills theory was obtained, and its quasinormal modes were subsequently analyzed using the JWKB approximation \cite{Gogoi:2024vcx}. However, we demonstrate that this analysis lacks sufficient accuracy when studying modes with $\ell \leq n$, where $\ell$ is the multipole number and $n$ is the overtone number. To address this, we compute the quasinormal frequencies using the precise Leaver method. Our results show that while the fundamental mode deviates only slightly from the Schwarzschild value, the first few overtones exhibit significantly larger deviations, with the discrepancy growing rapidly with the overtone number. Moreover, beginning with the second overtone, we observe a striking phenomenon: the real part of the frequency tends to zero quickly as the non-minimal coupling constant increases. This combination of spectral stability in the fundamental mode and high sensitivity of the overtones suggests that the Yang-Mills contribution primarily deforms the metric in the near-horizon region, while the geometry quickly transitions back to a Schwarzschild-like form at larger radii. In addition, we compute the grey-body factors and confirm that they represent a more stable characteristic of the geometry, exhibiting a correspondence with quasinormal modes already at the first multipole. The Yang-Mills coupling enhances the grey-body factors, further increasing the transmission probability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18482 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The parametric range where the black hole exist, once [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Effective potential for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Fundamental quasinormal mode and the first three over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Fundamental quasinormal mode for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Fundamental quasinormal mode and the first four overt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Grey-body factors as a function of real frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Grey-body factors as a function of real frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Quasinormal modes of a quantum inspired black hole in four dimensions with cosmological constant

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Quasinormal frequencies for scalar and Dirac perturbations of a Kazakov-Solodukhin-type quantum black hole with Lambda are computed by WKB and characteristic integration; all modes are stable and the quantum parameter...

  2. Long-Lived Quasinormal Modes and Quasi-Resonances around Non-Minimal Einstein-Yang-Mills Black Holes

    gr-qc 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Massive scalar fields around non-minimal Einstein-Yang-Mills black holes can form arbitrarily long-lived quasi-resonances in flat space, but not in de Sitter space; an analytic large-mass frequency formula is given.

  3. Time Evolution of Black Hole Perturbations in Quadratic Gravity

    gr-qc 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Gravitational perturbations of Einstein-Weyl black holes show late-time oscillatory tails decaying as t^{-5/6} and break the null-geodesic correspondence in the eikonal regime.

  4. Hawking Emission from Black Holes Evaporating toward Wormholes and the Accuracy of the WKB Approximation

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.5 of 10

    Numerical greybody factors for photons and massless Dirac fields in Simpson-Visser and Casadio-Fabbri-Mazzacurati geometries reveal that WKB overestimates luminosities by orders of magnitude near wormhole endpoints, i...

  5. Gravitational quasinormal modes of the Hayward spacetime

    gr-qc 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Gravitational quasinormal modes of the Hayward black hole are computed with WKB and time-domain methods, showing that the quantum parameter gamma raises frequencies, weakens damping, and acts slightly more on the firs...

  6. Long-lived quasinormal modes and grey-body factors of supermassive black holes with a dark matter halo

    gr-qc 2025-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Massive scalar fields around a Schwarzschild black hole with a dark matter halo ring longer as field mass grows, while realistic halo parameters leave quasinormal frequencies and grey-body factors almost unchanged.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [34]

    E. W. Leaver, Phys. Rev. D 34, 384 (1986)

    1986

  2. [1]

    D. J. Gogoi and S. Ponglert- sakul, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 652 (2024) , arXiv:2402.06186 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [2]

    As a result, a greater portion of the radiation is able to penetrate the barrier surrounding the black hole. We also find that the grey-body factors change only moderately with increasing charge or cou- pling ξ, confirming that they are indeed a more stable characteristic of black hole radiation. VI. CONCLUSIONS In this work, we have revisited the quasinorm...

    2025

  4. [3]

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

    arXiv 2016

  5. [4]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241103 (2016) , arXiv:1606.04855 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [5]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 221101 (2017) , [Erra- tum: Phys. Rev. Lett.121,no.12,129901(2018)], arXiv:1706.01812 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [6]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 141101 (2017) , arXiv:1709.09660 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [7]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. 851, L35 (2017) , arXiv:1711.05578 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 106 references
  1. [8]

    K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Rev. Rel. 2, 2 (1999) , arXiv:gr-qc/9909058 [gr-qc]

    1999 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. O. Starinets, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 163001 (2009) , arXiv:0905.2975 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  3. [10]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhi- denko, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 793 (2011) , arXiv:1102.4014 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  4. [11]

    S. V. Bolokhov and M. Skvortsova, (2025), arXiv:2504.05014 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Tele- scope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L1 (2019) , arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Tele- scope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L6 (2019) , arXiv:1906.11243 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Goddi et al., Int

    C. Goddi et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26, 1730001 (2016) , arXiv:1606.08879 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Bambi, Rev

    C. Bambi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 025001 (2017) , arXiv:1509.03884 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [16]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, JHEAp 44, 419 (2024) , arXiv:2209.00679 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Giesler, M

    M. Giesler, M. Isi, M. A. Scheel, and S. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041060 (2019) , arXiv:1903.08284 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Giesler et al

    M. Giesler et al. , Phys. Rev. D 111, 084041 (2025) , arXiv:2411.11269 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Cardoso, E

    V. Cardoso, E. Franzin, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 171101 (2016) , [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 117, 089902 (2016)], arXiv:1602.07309 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [20]

    K. G. Arun et al. (LISA), Living Rev. Rel. 25, 4 (2022) , arXiv:2205.01597 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [21]

    R. A. Konoplya and O. S. Stashko, Phys. Rev. D 111, 084031 (2025) , arXiv:2502.05689 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [22]

    R. A. Konoplya and O. S. Stashko, (2024), arXiv:2408.02578 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    R. A. Konoplya, D. Ovchinnikov, and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. D 108, 104054 (2023) , arXiv:2307.10801 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    R. A. Konoplya, JCAP 07, 001 (2023) , arXiv:2305.09187 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [25]

    A. F. Zinhailo, (2024), 10.13140/RG.2.2.26785.01124

    2024

  19. [26]

    A. F. Zinhailo, Phys. Lett. B 853, 138682 (2024) , arXiv:2403.06867 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [27]

    S. V. Bolokhov, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024010 (2024) , arXiv:2311.05503 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Stuchlík and A

    Z. Stuchlík and A. Zhidenko, (2025), arXiv:2503.06775 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Zhang, H

    D. Zhang, H. Gong, G. Fu, J.-P. Wu, and Q. Pan, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 564 (2024) , arXiv:2402.15085 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Stashko, Phys

    O. Stashko, Phys. Rev. D 110, 084016 (2024) , arXiv:2407.07892 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [31]

    A. B. Balakin and A. E. Zayats, Phys. Lett. B 644, 294 (2007) , arXiv:gr-qc/0612019

    2007 arXiv

  25. [32]

    A. B. Balakin, J. P. S. Lemos, and A. E. Zayats, Phys. Rev. D 93, 024008 (2016) , arXiv:1512.02653 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [33]

    E. W. Leaver, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 402, 285 (1985)

    1985

  27. [35]

    Rostworowski, Acta Phys

    A. Rostworowski, Acta Phys. Polon. B 38, 81 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0606110. 10

    2007 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Nollert, Phys

    H.-P. Nollert, Phys. Rev. D 47, 5253 (1993)

    1993

  29. [37]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, JHEP 06, 037 (2004) , arXiv:hep-th/0402080

    2004 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J. G. Rosa and S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D 85, 044043 (2012) , arXiv:1110.4494 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Ohashi and M.-a

    A. Ohashi and M.-a. Sakagami, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 3973 (2004) , arXiv:gr-qc/0407009

    2004 arXiv

  32. [40]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhi- denko, Phys. Rev. D 97, 084034 (2018) , arXiv:1712.06667 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bolokhov, (2024), 10.13140/RG.2.2.10433.57445

    S. Bolokhov, (2024), 10.13140/RG.2.2.10433.57445

    2024

  34. [42]

    S. V. Bolokhov, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064017 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Kanti, R

    P. Kanti, R. A. Konoplya, and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D 74, 064008 (2006) , arXiv:gr-qc/0607048

    2006 arXiv

  36. [44]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D 76, 084018 (2007) , [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.D 90, 029901 (2014)], arXiv:0707.1890 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bhagwat, X

    S. Bhagwat, X. J. Forteza, P. Pani, and V. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. D 101, 044033 (2020) , arXiv:1910.08708 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Berti and K

    E. Berti and K. D. Kokko- tas, Phys. Rev. D 68, 044027 (2003) , arXiv:hep-th/0303029

    2003 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Zhidenko, Phys

    A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D 74, 064017 (2006) , arXiv:gr-qc/0607133

    2006 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Iyer and C

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

    1987

  41. [49]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Rev. D 68, 024018 (2003) , arXiv:gr-qc/0303052

    2003 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Matyjasek and M

    J. Matyjasek and M. Opala, Phys. Rev. D 96, 024011 (2017) , arXiv:1704.00361 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    R. A. Konoplya, Gen. Rel. Grav. 34, 329 (2002) , arXiv:gr-qc/0109096

    2002 arXiv

  44. [52]

    A. F. Zinhailo, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 912 (2019) , arXiv:1909.12664 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Xiong, P

    W. Xiong, P. Liu, C.-Y. Zhang, and C. Niu, Phys. Rev. D 106, 064057 (2022) , arXiv:2112.12523 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Skvortsova, Fortsch

    M. Skvortsova, Fortsch. Phys. 72, 2400132 (2024) , arXiv:2405.06390 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Skvortsova, Grav

    M. Skvortsova, Grav. Cosmol. 30, 68 (2024) , arXiv:2311.02729 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Skvortsova, Grav

    M. Skvortsova, Grav. Cosmol. 30, 279 (2024) , arXiv:2405.15807 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Hamil and B

    B. Hamil and B. C. Lütfüoğlu, Chin. Phys. C 49, 025107 (2025) , arXiv:2410.09551 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Liu and H

    H. Liu and H. Guo, Phys. Rev. D 110, 104058 (2024) , arXiv:2409.00320 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    R. A. Konoplya and E. Ab- dalla, Phys. Rev. D 71, 084015 (2005) , arXiv:hep-th/0503029

    2005 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Kodama, R

    H. Kodama, R. A. Konoplya, and A. Zhi- denko, Phys. Rev. D 81, 044007 (2010) , arXiv:0904.2154 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Malik, (2025), arXiv:2504.12570 [gr-qc]

    Z. Malik, (2025), arXiv:2504.12570 [gr-qc]

    2025

  54. [62]

    Malik, EPL 147, 69001 (2024) , arXiv:2410.04306 [gr-qc]

    Z. Malik, EPL 147, 69001 (2024) , arXiv:2410.04306 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Malik, Int

    Z. Malik, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 64, 30 (2025)

    2025

  56. [64]

    M. S. Churilova, R. A. Konoplya, Z. Stuch- lik, and A. Zhidenko, JCAP 10, 010 (2021) , arXiv:2107.05977 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Dubinsky and A

    A. Dubinsky and A. Zin- hailo, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 847 (2024) , arXiv:2404.01834 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    B. C. Lütfüoğlu, (2025), arXiv:2504.09323 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    B. C. Lütfüoğlu, (2025), arXiv:2503.16087 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    D. J. Gogoi, A. Övgün, and M. Kous- sour, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 700 (2023) , arXiv:2303.07424 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

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

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    R. A. Konoplya, A. Zhidenko, and A. F. Zin- hailo, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 155002 (2019) , arXiv:1904.10333 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Mashhoon, in 3rd Marcel Grossmann Meeting on the Recent Developments of General Relativity (1982)

    B. Mashhoon, in 3rd Marcel Grossmann Meeting on the Recent Developments of General Relativity (1982)

    1982

  64. [72]

    Cardoso, A

    V. Cardoso, A. S. Miranda, E. Berti, H. Witek, and V. T. Zanchin, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064016 (2009) , arXiv:0812.1806 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  65. [73]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Lett. B 838, 137674 (2023) , arXiv:2210.08373 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    S. V. Bolokhov, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138879 (2024) , arXiv:2310.12326 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    R. A. Konoplya and Z. Stuch- lík, Phys. Lett. B 771, 597 (2017) , arXiv:1705.05928 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Takahashi and J

    T. Takahashi and J. Soda, Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 035008 (2012) , arXiv:1108.5041 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Dotti and R

    G. Dotti and R. J. Gleiser, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, L1 (2005) , arXiv:gr-qc/0409005

    2005 arXiv

  70. [78]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, JCAP 05, 050 (2017) , arXiv:1705.01656 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  71. [79]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. F. Zin- hailo, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1049 (2020) , arXiv:2003.01188 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Takahashi, Prog

    T. Takahashi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 125, 1289 (2011) , arXiv:1102.1785 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  73. [81]

    M. A. Cuyubamba, R. A. Konoplya, and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D 93, 104053 (2016) , arXiv:1604.03604 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Chowdhury, A

    A. Chowdhury, A. K. Mishra, and S. Chakraborty, Phys. Lett. B 861, 139219 (2025) , arXiv:2410.08883 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  75. [83]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 245005 (2023) , arXiv:2309.02560 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Dubinsky, Phys

    A. Dubinsky, Phys. Lett. B 861, 139251 (2025) , arXiv:2409.16569 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Malik, Int

    Z. Malik, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 40, 2450132 (2025)

    2025

  78. [86]

    Malik, Int

    Z. Malik, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 39, 2450024 (2024)

    2024

  79. [87]

    Oshita, Phys

    N. Oshita, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104028 (2024) , arXiv:2309.05725 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Oshita, K

    N. Oshita, K. Takahashi, and S. Muko- hyama, Phys. Rev. D 110, 084070 (2024) , arXiv:2406.04525 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Wu, R.-G

    L.-B. Wu, R.-G. Cai, and L. Xie, Phys. Rev. D 111, 044066 (2025) , arXiv:2411.07734 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Dubinsky and A

    A. Dubinsky and A. F. Zinhailo, EPL 149, 69004 (2025) , arXiv:2410.15232 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Malik, JCAP 04, 042 (2025) , 11 arXiv:2412.19443 [gr-qc]

    Z. Malik, JCAP 04, 042 (2025) , 11 arXiv:2412.19443 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  84. [92]

    S. V. Bolokhov and M. Skvortsova, JCAP 04, 025 (2025) , arXiv:2412.11166 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  85. [93]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhi- denko, Phys. Lett. B 861, 139288 (2025) , arXiv:2408.11162 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Pedrotti and M

    D. Pedrotti and M. Calzà, (2025), arXiv:2504.01909 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Hamil and B

    B. Hamil and B. C. Lütfüoğlu, (2025), arXiv:2503.17474 [gr-qc]

    2025

  88. [96]

    Dubinsky, (2024), arXiv:2412.00625 [gr-qc]

    A. Dubinsky, (2024), arXiv:2412.00625 [gr-qc]

    2024

  89. [97]

    Skvortsova, (2024), arXiv:2411.06007 [gr-qc]

    M. Skvortsova, (2024), arXiv:2411.06007 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  90. [98]

    R. A. Konoplya, A. Zhidenko, and C. Molina, Phys. Rev. D 75, 084004 (2007) , arXiv:gr-qc/0602047

    2007 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Koyama and A

    H. Koyama and A. Tomimatsu, Phys. Rev. D 65, 084031 (2002) , arXiv:gr-qc/0112075

    2002 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Koyama and A

    H. Koyama and A. Tomimatsu, Phys. Rev. D 64, 044014 (2001) , arXiv:gr-qc/0103086

    2001 arXiv

  93. [101]

    M. S. Churilova, R. A. Konoplya, and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Lett. B 802, 135207 (2020) , arXiv:1911.05246 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Zhang, J

    M. Zhang, J. Jiang, and Z. Zhong, Phys. Lett. B 789, 13 (2019) , arXiv:1811.04183 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  95. [103]

    G. W. Gibbons, M. Rogatko, and A. Szy- plowska, Phys. Rev. D 77, 064024 (2008) , arXiv:0802.3259 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  96. [104]

    P. A. González, E. Papantonopoulos, J. Saave- dra, and Y. Vásquez, JHEP 06, 150 (2022) , arXiv:2204.01570 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  97. [105]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhi- denko, Phys. Lett. B 853, 138685 (2024) , arXiv:2307.01110 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L8 (2023) , arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.