Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Dyonic Einstein-Maxwell-scalar black holes: the cold, the hot and the plunge

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dyonic scalarized black holes have three branches, ending in an extremal plunge where f(phi_H)=Q/P and temperature goes to zero.

desk verdict Solid analytic core, honest attribution, but the headline plunge is numerically asserted rather than established. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.16701 v1 pith:FRVKXUG2 submitted 2026-03-17 gr-qc

Shun Chen , Xiao Yan Chew , Jutta Kunz This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C22 PACS 04.70.-s04.40.Nr
keywords Einstein-Maxwell-scalartheorydyonicblackholesnonlinearscalarizationspontaneousextremalHawkingtemperaturecharge-inducedcouplingfunction
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 show that dyonic—both electrically and magnetically charged—black holes in Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory, when nonlinearly scalarized by f(phi)=exp(alpha phi^3), do not stop at the usual two branches. Instead their domain of existence has three branches: a cold branch and a hot branch that bifurcate at a minimal charge, and a third branch in which the hot branch ends at a regular extremal black hole. At that endpoint the scalar-field source term vanishes because f(phi_H)=Q/P, and the Hawking temperature plunges sharply, the plunge becoming more abrupt for smaller charge ratio beta. This is worth caring about because it ties an exact analytic condition on the coupling function to a concrete thermodynamic signature, and it predicts a finite-area, zero-temperature endpoint for dyonic scalarized black holes.

What carries the argument

The carrying element is the factor Delta(phi)=Q^2/f(phi)-f(phi) P^2 inside the scalar-field source term (Eq. 11). When Delta vanishes, the source term disappears even when df/dphi does not, producing an exact constant-scalar solution and, at the horizon of extremal black holes, the relation f(phi_H)=Q/P with r_H=sqrt(2 P Q). Because the horizon derivative phi'(r_H) in Eq. (25) is proportional to Delta, following this factor to zero is what converts the extremal condition into the observed temperature plunge. The chosen coupling f(phi)=exp(alpha phi^3), with df/dphi and d^2 f/dphi^2 both zero at the origin, places the solutions in the nonlinear scalarization class, disconnected from the Reiss

What would settle it

Recompute the hot branch using a different radial coordinate or a different continuation parameter, e.g., the horizon electric potential V_H throughout, with quadruple precision, and check whether t_H reaches zero exactly when f(phi_H)=Q/P. If the plunging segment disappears or t_H converges to a positive limit as (1-(beta f)^2) goes to zero, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the three-branch structure of nonlinearly scalarized dyonic black holes and its analytic resolution at extremality. For f(phi)=exp(alpha phi^3), as the horizon scalar phi_H is increased, the cold branch tracks the Reissner-Nordström family, meets the hot branch at a minimal q, and the hot branch then runs toward a regular extremal solution. The endpoint satisfies f(phi_H)=Q/P and r_H=sqrt(2 P Q); this is exactly the condition Delta(phi)=Q^2/f(phi)-f(phi) P^2=0 that makes the scalar source term vanish, so the extremal horizon value of the scalar field is fixed as the root phi_c of f(phi_c)=Q/P. The extremal relation itself was known from earlier work; what is new here

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the plunge is a genuine property of the solution family and not an artifact of the numerical continuation: the manuscript supplies no error estimates or convergence study, and the effect is resolved down to factors of order 10^-12, near double-precision limits, where the continuation parameter must be changed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dyonic scalarized black holes have a finite-area extremal endpoint when beta is nonzero, unlike the electric-only case whose hot branch ends in a singular zero-area solution.
  • At the endpoint the Hawking temperature is zero, and it is approached by a sudden plunge that becomes sharper as the magnetic-to-electric ratio beta decreases.
  • The extremal horizon scalar is fixed analytically by f(phi_H)=Q/P, independent of the numerical continuation; the same condition also generates an exact constant-scalar solution.
  • The domain of existence of the scalarized branches shrinks as beta increases; for the example computed, no scalarized solutions are found beyond beta=0.5.
  • The cold/hot bifurcation at minimal charge persists for all beta, so the electric-only two-branch structure is recovered in the beta=0 limit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper does not draw: if the plunge is physical, near-extremal dyonic scalarized black holes behave as nearly zero-temperature, finite-area remnants, so their Hawking evaporation would slow dramatically and essentially stop.
  • The same mechanism should operate for any coupling function f(phi) whose range includes Q/P; exp(alpha phi^3) is a demonstration. A testable follow-up is to compute how t_H scales with (1-(beta f(phi_H))^2) near extremality and ask whether the exponent is universal.
  • The near-extremal falloff of the scalar field is controlled by the power k=(sqrt(1+2(f'/f)^2)-1)/2, which the paper quotes; an independent shooting calculation from the horizon could verify this prediction without the continuation method used near the plunge.
  • Because astrophysical charge is small, the authors point toward possible dark-sector relevance; a concrete next step would look for spectral signatures of the sharp temperature drop in hidden-photon or dark-scalar emission.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies static, spherically symmetric dyonic black holes in Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory with coupling f(phi)=exp(alpha phi^3). It identifies a factor Delta(phi)=Q^2/f(phi)-f(phi)P^2 in the scalar source, whose vanishing gives an exact constant-scalar solution and the extremal condition f(phi_H)=Q/P, r_H=sqrt(2PQ). For alpha=20 and several ratios beta=P/Q, the authors map out cold and hot branches; as the hot branch approaches the extremal endpoint, the Hawking temperature plunges sharply to zero, with the effect sharper for smaller beta. The extremal relations are taken from [27], and the paper's new numerical contribution is the branch structure and the plunge.

Significance. If the numerical plunge is robust, the paper establishes a qualitatively new feature of dyonic scalarized black holes: a regular extremal endpoint with finite horizon area and zero temperature, approached with a vertical tangent in t_H(phi_H). The analytic identification of Delta(phi)=0 with the extremal condition is clean, and the exact constant-scalar solution of Sec. 3 is a useful byproduct. The authors are honest in footnote 1 about the difficulty of parametrizing the solutions near the endpoint, but the paper does not supply the convergence and scaling checks needed to make the headline claim fully convincing. The extremal relations (27)-(28) are imported from [27] and are not claimed as new; the new content is the explicit branch structure and the plunge.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Figs. 2(a), 3(a), Footnote 1] The plunge is the central new claim, but it is supported only by numerical data in a regime where the factor (1-(beta f(phi_H))^2) reaches ~1e-12, near double-precision limits, and where the continuation parameter is switched from phi_H to V_H. No convergence study, residual check, or error estimate is provided. Please add (i) a convergence test in the continuation step and grid spacing, (ii) a table or plot of the raw data near the endpoint, and (iii) an independent check that the endpoint satisfies Eqs. (27)-(28) within numerical tolerance. Without this, the plunge could be an artifact of the continuation scheme.
  2. [Eq. (33) and Figs. 2-3] The paper computes the near-horizon exponent k=11.47651 but never uses it to explain the plunge. If T_H scales linearly with the deviation from extremality while phi_H-phi_c scales with the k-th power, then t_H is proportional to (phi_c-phi_H)^{1/k}, which gives a vertical tangent for k>1. This would turn the plunge into an analytic prediction and provides a quantitative check of the numerics. Please add this scaling argument and test the predicted power 1/k against the numerical data.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, numerical results] All numerical solutions are for alpha=20, and the text/abstract states the plunge is demonstrated for the coupling function f(phi)=exp(alpha phi^3) without restricting the claim to this one value. Since the near-horizon exponent in Eq. (33) depends strongly on alpha and the beta-dependence is shown for only one alpha, the generality of the plunge is not established. Please either vary alpha or explicitly restrict the conclusion to alpha=20.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (6) vs. Eq. (24)] Eq. (6) defines N(r)=1-m(r)/r, but the horizon boundary condition m(r_H)=r_H/2 and the exact solution (22) are consistent with N=1-2m(r)/r. Please correct the definition and ensure the subsequent formulas match.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 4.2] The abstract says the domain of existence consists of three branches, but the text and figures describe a cold branch and a hot branch, with the hot branch ending at the extremal endpoint. No separate third branch is identified. Please clarify whether the 'third branch' refers to the near-extremal segment of the hot branch or to the extremal solution itself.
  3. [Conclusions, last sentence] Reference [47] is cited twice ('[47, 47, 48, ...]'); the duplicate should be removed.
  4. [Eq. (29)] The Hawking temperature formula uses delta_H but the metric Ansatz uses sigma(r). Please define delta_H (presumably sigma(r_H)) and make the notation consistent.
  5. [Fig. 3(b) caption] The caption uses values of V_H but V_H is not defined in the main text before the figure. Please define the electric potential at the horizon.
  6. [Sec. 3, exact solution (22)] The constant-scalar exact solution has phi=phi_c everywhere and hence nonvanishing scalar at infinity; it is not part of the scalarized family with phi(infinity)=0. State this explicitly to avoid confusion between the exact solution and the extremal endpoint of the numerical family.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the extremal relation comes from an external non-overlapping paper, and the new numerical claims do not reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central analytic relation for extremal dyonic scalarized black holes, f(phi_H)=Q/P and r_H=sqrt(2PQ) (Eqs. 27-28), is explicitly attributed to Astefanesei et al. [27], whose authors have no overlap with the present paper; this is independent external support, not a self-citation chain. The Section 3 'exact solution' observation is a direct substitution into the field equations: setting Delta(phi_c)=Q^2/f(phi_c)-f(phi_c)P^2=0 (Eq. 18) makes the scalar source term vanish, and f(phi_c)=Q/P (Eq. 19) yields the constant-scalar-field solution m(r)=M-PQ/r (Eq. 22). The abstract's statement phi_H=phi_c for extremal black holes follows from combining Eq. 19 with [27]'s Eq. 28, and the paper openly notes 'relations (28) correspond to relations (23) of that constant phi solution'; it is a deduction, not an identity imposed by definition. The new content - the three-branch domain of existence and the temperature plunge - is numerical: the branches appear in the paper's own Figs. 1-3, and the plunge is followed near the endpoint by reparametrizing from phi_H to V_H (footnote 1), so it is not fitted as an input and then reported as a prediction. Self-citations such as [39]-[41] (which include co-author J. Kunz) supply only the beta=0 electric-only background and horizon-expansion conventions; the dyonic claims rest on the present numerics and on [27]. The genuine weaknesses are numerical rather than circular: there is no convergence or error analysis in the critical regime where Fig. 3(a) tracks (1-(beta f(phi_H))^2) down to ~1e-12, and the analytic exponent k of Eq. (33) is never connected to the temperature approach, so the plunge itself is demonstrated only numerically. Those are correctness/rigor concerns, not reductions of a prediction to an input. No load-bearing self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no fitted-parameter-as-prediction step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on three chosen inputs: the EMS action, the exponential coupling with a single displayed value of alpha, and the fixed charge ratio beta. None of these are fitted to data; they are standard model/scanner parameters of the scalarization program. The analytic exact-solution results (Sec. 3) are parameter-free consequences of the field equations. The numerics additionally assume a family of regular solutions exists between the boundary conditions, which is established only by the shooting construction itself.

free parameters (3)
  • coupling constant alpha = 20 (Fig. 3; value for Figs. 1-2 not stated)
    Model parameter in f(phi)=exp(alpha*phi^3); controls the location of the extremal endpoint via f(phi_c)=Q/P. Scanned, not fitted to data, but results are alpha-dependent and only one value is shown.
  • charge ratio beta = P/Q = 0.02, 0.05, 0.10, 0.20, 0.30, 0.50
    Fixed per solution family; the plunge sharpens as beta decreases. A chosen boundary-condition input, not a predicted quantity.
  • horizon radius r_H = 1 (scaling)
    Fixed to set the scale (used in compactified coordinate x=1-r_H/r); dimensionless quantities q, a_H, t_H are scaling-invariant.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The EMS action (1) with coupling f(phi) - the theory itself
    The whole analysis lives inside this model; the paper does not derive it from a more fundamental theory.
  • domain assumption Static, spherically symmetric dyonic ansatz (Eqs. 5-7)
    Restricts to the symmetry sector studied; rotating or non-spherically symmetric scalarized solutions are excluded (explicitly deferred to future work).
  • domain assumption Coupling function f(phi)=exp(alpha*phi^3) satisfies f'(0)=f''(0)=0 (Eq. 32), giving nonlinear (disconnected) scalarization
    This choice determines the branch structure; other couplings (e.g., f=exp(alpha*phi^2), which has f''(0) != 0) would give connected scalarization with different phenomenology.
  • domain assumption Extremal relations (27)-(28) from [27]
    Q=r_H*sqrt(f)/sqrt(2), P=r_H/(sqrt(2)*sqrt(f)) are imported from Astefanesei et al.; the paper relies on them for the endpoint characterization.
  • domain assumption Boundary conditions (24)-(26) admit a discrete family of regular solutions
    Existence of the numerically found families is assumed/demonstrated only by the shooting construction; no existence proof is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dyonic Einstein-Maxwell-scalar black holes: the cold, the hot and the plunge." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FRVKXUG2

@misc{pith2026260316701,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dyonic Einstein-Maxwell-scalar black holes: the cold, the hot and the plunge},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FRVKXUG2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.16701}
}
abstract

We investigate dyonic nonlinearly scalarized black holes in Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory. The domain of existence of scalarized dyonic black holes consists of three branches. The cold branch and the hot branch bifurcate at a minimal value of the charge, analogous to the purely electrically charged scalarized black holes. However, the presence of both charges allows for regular extremal black holes, leading to a third branch featuring a sudden plunge in Hawking temperature. In fact, the presence of both electromagnetic charges introduces a factor $\Delta(\phi)$ in the source term of scalar field equations that vanishes when the coupling function $f(\phi)$ equals the ratio of the charges for some value of the scalar field $\phi_c$. The scalar field of extremal black holes assumes precisely this value at the horizon, $\phi_H=\phi_c$. We demonstrate the plunge for the coupling function $f(\phi)=\exp(\alpha \phi^3)$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.16701 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The dimensionless horizon area aH is shown versus the charge parameter q. (b) The dimensionless temperature tH is shown vs the charge parameter q. value of the scalar field ϕH. We then extract the physical quantities from the obtained sets of solutions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The dimensionless temperature tH is shown vs the scalar field at the horizon ϕH. (b) The dimensionless temperature tH is shown vs the horizon area aH. scalar field approaches ϕH = ϕc, i.e., its value of the extremal black hole. Here a spike develops that gets the sharper the smaller β. Beyond the spike, the temperature plunges basically vertically to zero.1 As the scalarized black hole solutions approach the ext… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The factor (1−(βf(ϕH))2 ) of ∆(ϕH) is shown on a logarithmic scale vs the dimensionless horizon area aH for α = 20, β = 0.05. (b) The scalar field ϕ(x) is shown vs the compactified dimensionless radial coordinate x = 1 − rH r for the last few values of the electric potential at the horizon VH close to the extremal black hole solution for α = 20, β = 0.05. 5 Conclusions We have studied nonlinearly scalarized blac… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [27]

    Astefanesei, C

    D. Astefanesei, C. Herdeiro, A. Pombo and E. Radu, JHEP10, 078 (2019)

    2019

  2. [1]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 2220 (1993)

    1993

  3. [2]

    D. D. Doneva, F. M. Ramazano˘ glu, H. O. Silva, T. P. Sotiriou and S. S. Yazadjiev, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 015004 (2024)

    2024

  4. [3]

    D. D. Doneva and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 131103 (2018)

    2018

  5. [4]

    H. O. Silva, J. Sakstein, L. Gualtieri, T. P. Sotiriou and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 131104 (2018)

    2018

  6. [5]

    Antoniou, A

    G. Antoniou, A. Bakopoulos and P. Kanti, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 131102 (2018)

    2018

  7. [6]

    Antoniou, A

    G. Antoniou, A. Bakopoulos and P. Kanti, Phys. Rev. D97, 084037 (2018)

    2018

  8. [7]

    J. L. Bl´ azquez-Salcedo, D. D. Doneva, J. Kunz and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D98, 084011 (2018)

    2018

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    Y. S. Myung and D. C. Zou, Phys. Rev. D98, 024030 (2018)

    2018

  2. [9]

    H. O. Silva, C. F. B. Macedo, T. P. Sotiriou, L. Gualtieri, J. Sakstein and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D99, 064011 (2019)

    2019

  3. [10]

    C. F. B. Macedo, J. Sakstein, E. Berti, L. Gualtieri, H. O. Silva and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. D99, 104041 (2019)

    2019

  4. [11]

    P. V. P. Cunha, C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 011101 (2019) 10

    2019

  5. [12]

    L. G. Collodel, B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz and E. Berti, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 075018 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    C. F. B. Macedo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29, 2041006 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    J. L. Bl´ azquez-Salcedo, D. D. Doneva, S. Kahlen, J. Kunz, P. Nedkova and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D101, 104006 (2020)

    2020

  8. [15]

    J. L. Bl´ azquez-Salcedo, D. D. Doneva, S. Kahlen, J. Kunz, P. Nedkova and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D102, 024086 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    A. Dima, E. Barausse, N. Franchini and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 231101 (2020)

    2020

  10. [17]

    Hod, Phys

    S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D102, 084060 (2020)

    2020

  11. [18]

    D. D. Doneva, L. G. Collodel, C. J. Kr¨ uger and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D102, 104027 (2020)

    2020

  12. [19]

    C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu, H. O. Silva, T. P. Sotiriou and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 011103 (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    Berti, L

    E. Berti, L. G. Collodel, B. Kleihaus and J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 011104 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu, N. Sanchis-Gual and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 101102 (2018)

    2018

  15. [22]

    Y. S. Myung and D. C. Zou, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 273 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    Y. S. Myung and D. C. Zou, Phys. Lett. B790, 400 (2019)

    2019

  17. [24]

    P. G. S. Fernandes, C. A. R. Herdeiro, A. M. Pombo, E. Radu and N. Sanchis-Gual, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 134002 (2019) [erratum: Class. Quant. Grav.37, 049501 (2020)]

    2019

  18. [25]

    Brihaye and B

    Y. Brihaye and B. Hartmann, Phys. Lett. B792, 244 (2019)

    2019

  19. [26]

    Y. S. Myung and D. C. Zou, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 641 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    D. C. Zou and Y. S. Myung, Phys. Rev. D100, 124055 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    D. C. Zou and Y. S. Myung, Phys. Rev. D102, 064011 (2020) 11

    2020

  22. [30]

    M. Y. Lai, Y. S. Myung, R. H. Yue and D. C. Zou, Phys. Rev. D106, 084043 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    G. Guo, P. Wang, H. Wu and H. Yang, JHEP10, 076 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Cheng, G

    L. Cheng, G. Guo, P. Wang and H. Yang, [arXiv:2506.01773 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    D. D. Doneva and S. S. Yazadjiev,Phys. Rev. D105, L041502 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    J. L. Bl´ azquez-Salcedo, D. D. Doneva, J. Kunz and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D105, 124005 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    D. D. Doneva, L. G. Collodel and S. S. Yazadjiev,Phys. Rev. D106, 104027 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    M. Y. Lai, D. C. Zou, R. H. Yue and Y. S. Myung, Phys. Rev. D108, 084007 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    S. J. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 950 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    A. M. Pombo and D. D. Doneva, Phys. Rev. D108, 124068 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    J. L. Bl´ azquez-Salcedo, C. A. R. Herdeiro, J. Kunz, A. M. Pombo and E. Radu, Phys. Lett. B806, 135493 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Luis Bl´ azquez-Salcedo, C

    J. Luis Bl´ azquez-Salcedo, C. A. R. Herdeiro, S. Kahlen, J. Kunz, A. M. Pombo and E. Radu, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 155 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    J. L. Bl´ azquez-Salcedo, S. Kahlen and J. Kunz, Symmetry12, 2057 (2020)

  34. [42]

    C. Y. Zhang, Q. Chen, Y. Liu, W. K. Luo, Y. Tian and B. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 161105,(2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Q. Chen, Z. Ning, Y. Tian, B. Wang and C. Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084016 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Belkhadria and A

    Z. Belkhadria and A. M. Pombo, Phys. Rev. D110, 044014 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Xiong, C

    W. Xiong, C. Y. Zhang and P. C. Li, JCAP09, 031 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Zhuang, K

    Z. Zhuang, K. Meng and H. Zhang, [arXiv:2505.22033 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Zajaˇ cek, A

    M. Zajaˇ cek, A. Tursunov, A. Eckart, S. Britzen, E. Hackmann, V. Karas, Z. Stuchl ´ ık, B. Czerny and J. A. Zensus, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1258, 012031 (2019) 12

    2019

  40. [48]

    Zajaˇ cek, A

    M. Zajaˇ cek, A. Tursunov, A. Eckart and S. Britzen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.480, 4408 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Allahyari, M

    A. Allahyari, M. Khodadi, S. Vagnozzi and D. F. Mota, JCAP02, 003 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Puli¸ ce, R

    B. Puli¸ ce, R. C. Pantig, A. ¨Ovg¨ un and D. Demir, Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 195003 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    H. P. Gu, H. T. Wang and L. Shao, Phys. Rev. D109, 024058 (2024) 13

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.