Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 143 references

In D≥4, mass/electric and equal-NUT/magnetic charges of Kerr-NUT solutions are exact duals, with the duality realized in scattering amplitudes as a reflection of the Bessel order in a scalar seed, for every bosonic spin.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 04:06 UTC pith:OWSRKOUN

load-bearing objection The new equal-NUT amplitudes and Bessel-order duality are real results, but the spin-raising operator S_mu is internally inconsistent with the all-spin formula (97): the formula is an independent ansatz, not a consequence of the operator. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22938 v1 pith:OWSRKOUN submitted 2026-07-24 hep-th gr-qc

Mass/electric versus NUT/magnetic charges: duality from scattering amplitudes in Dgeq4 and for all bosonic spins

Ricardo Monteiro , Lecheng Ren , Daniel Siretanu This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qc
keywords Kerr-NUT spacetimeselectric-magnetic dualityNUT chargescattering amplitudesspin-raising operatorBessel functionsclassical double copyhigher-spin fields
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper aims to show that, in any spacetime dimension D≥4, the rotating black-hole family known as Kerr-NUT — along with its electromagnetic and higher-spin analogues — admits an exact electric-magnetic duality: a solution carrying mass/electric charge is mapped to one carrying equal NUT/magnetic charges by replacing the Bessel function J_{(D-5)/2} in a scalar seed amplitude with J_{-(D-5)/2}. The argument is carried by 3-point scattering amplitudes rather than by the metrics directly: for every bosonic spin s, the amplitude is a product of a spin-raising operator acting on that scalar seed. That would place mass and NUT charge on a single footing in higher dimensions, generalize the four-dimensional electric-magnetic duality in a way that does not involve the Hodge dual or different tensor types, and sharpen the specialness of D=4: the paper finds no evidence of an integrable self-dual sector beyond four dimensions. A sympathetic reader would care because the paper offers an exact, amplitude-based description of a large class of stationary higher-dimensional solutions and a concrete new duality transformation.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the 3-point amplitudes generating the Kerr-NUT family — and its gauge-theory and higher-spin analogues — are exactly described for all bosonic spins by a spin-raising operator acting on a scalar seed: A_s = ε^{μ1...μs} S_{μ1}...S_{μs} A_0. The mass/electric seed and the equal-NUT/magnetic seed are related by Bessel order reflection, J_σ ↔ J_{−σ} with σ=(D−5)/2: nontrivial in even dimensions, an overall sign in odd ones. The paper further establishes that mass and NUT charges correspond to distinct solutions of the same rotation-deformed radial equation in multi-Kerr-Schild coordinates, and verifies the amplitude formulas by reconstructi

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the momentum-space spin-raising operator S_μ = −u_μ − i(S·k)_μ \hat{D}_ξ, with S_μν the (rescaled) angular momentum and \hat{D}_ξ acting on functions of ξ = |S·k| as (1/ξ)d/dξ. The paper defines \hat{D}_ξ by the commutation relations [(S·k)_{(μ}\hat{D}_ξ, (S·k)_{ν)}] = u_μ u_ν and [\hat{D}_ξ,u_μ]=0, which ensure S_μ raises spin by one and reproduce the spin-1 and spin-2 amplitudes. The scalar seed is a Fourier integral whose rotation dependence resums to J_{±(D−5)/2}(ξ)/ξ^{(D−5)/2}; s copies of S_μ on that seed give the spin-s amplitude. In position space, the same structure appears as dual towers of potentials Θ^{(s)}_M and Θ^{(s)}_N built by powers of the order-s

Load-bearing premise

The all-spin claim stands or falls on an operator defined by a commutation rule the paper cannot yet interpret, and whose guessed closed-form amplitude has been checked only to spin 4 (D≤8) and spin 6 (D=4).

What would settle it

Evaluate the proposed all-spin amplitude at s=5 in D=8 (or s=6 in D=10): map it back to position space and compare the resulting curvature with the curvature computed directly from the multi-Kerr-Schild spin-5 field; any mismatch falsifies the guessed formula and the commutation rule it relies on. A sharper edge case is the N-sector curvature at z=0 in D=6, where the paper's own convergence argument is not valid.

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

If this is right

  • The double-copy structure now has an explicit amplitude-level description at all bosonic spins: gravity, gauge theory, and spin-s fields are all generated by the same scalar seed and spin-raising operation.
  • In even D≥6 the pure-mass Myers-Perry solution has a dual pure-NUT solution with equal NUT charges; the duality is invisible at the metric level but manifest in the 3-point amplitude.
  • In D=4 the construction reproduces known dyonic amplitudes, and self-dual charges (M=±N) decouple from leading-order 2→2 scattering; in D>4 no charge choice makes that amplitude vanish, ruling out an integrable self-dual sector of the D=4 type.
  • Although individual N-sector potentials have divergent Fourier integrals for even D, the gauge-invariant N-sector curvatures converge for generic rotations and z≠0, so the amplitudes genuinely correspond to Kerr-NUT solutions.
  • In odd D, the 'duality' between mass and equal-NUT sectors is trivial — one charge parameter is redundant — reducing the higher-dimensional story to the even-dimensional case.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the all-spin formula is right, the same spin-raising operator is a natural starting template for scattering amplitudes of other stationary higher-dimensional black holes (black rings, blackfolds, ultraspinning branches), whose 3-point amplitudes are not yet known; a direct target would be the first Myers-Perry Compton amplitudes.
  • The absence of a geometric interpretation for \hat{D}_ξ invites a reading of the duality as a fractional-derivative relation: for even D the N-sector involves negative powers of ξ (i.e. χ^{-1} in position space), so the duality is naturally distributional; an operator realization of χ^{-k} could upgrade the conjectured all-spin formula to a proof.
  • Because the equal-NUT case in even D requires summing over multiple spheroidal roots whose individual contributions are unlocalised, the paper's duality suggests that NUT charge in D≥6 is best defined through the gauge-invariant curvature rather than through any one Kerr-Schild potential; this may matter for attempts to define conserved charges or horizon thermodynamics for NUT solutions in higher
  • A testable extension is to let the rotation parameters be unequal and push the numerical curvature checks beyond spin 4 in D>4; if the guessed formula holds there, the commutation rule likely follows from a known algebraic structure such as the principal tensor acting on spinor/twistor representations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper revisits Kerr-NUT metrics and their linearised spin-s counterparts in D≥4, expressing them in multi-Kerr-Schild form and then in terms of 3-point scattering amplitudes. Its central claims are (i) a new mass/electric versus equal-NUT/magnetic duality realised in even D as Bessel order reflection J_σ ↔ J_{−σ} on a scalar seed, and (ii) an all-spin amplitude formula obtained by acting on that seed with a spin-raising operator S_μ. The paper checks the amplitudes against exact multi-Kerr-Schild solutions via linearised curvatures, numerically up to spin 4 in D≤8 and spin 6 in D=4, and analytically in the equal-rotations case in D=6 up to spin 3. It also studies 2→2 scattering and finds no higher-dimensional analogue of D=4 self-dual integrability.

Significance. If correct, the construction would give an exact amplitude description of the entire Kerr-NUT family for arbitrary bosonic spin and a genuinely new, non-Hodge electric-magnetic duality in higher even dimensions. The paper is unusually candid: it labels formulas as guesses, marks several identities as numerical checks or conjectures, and provides a detailed convergence analysis in Appendix C. The multi-Kerr-Schild checks are substantial, and the D=4 helicity matching up to spin 6 is a strong consistency test. However, the central operator construction — the spin-raising operator S_μ — is internally inconsistent as stated, so the all-spin claim is not currently supported by the derivation, and the abstract overstates what is established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III.E, Eqs. (92)–(95)] The operator representation is internally inconsistent. In the rest frame u^μ=δ^μ_t, the on-shell condition k·u=0 gives k^t=0, and S_{μν}u^ν=0 gives (S·k)_t=S_{tν}k^ν=0. Hence S_t=-u_t=1, so S_t^2 A0 = A0 for any seed. But the s=2 amplitude (70), contracted with ε^{tt}=1, gives (1−Dξ)A0, and (97) with ε^{tt}=1 also gives (1−Dξ)A0. Moreover, the second commutation rule in (95) for μ=ν=t would require [(S·k)_t bDξ, (S·k)_t] = u_t^2, i.e. 0=1. No operator bDξ satisfying both (93) and (95) can exist on the on-shell seed space.
  2. [§III.E, Eq. (94) vs Eq. (97)] Because of the inconsistency above, Eq. (94) is not equivalent to the closed-form formula (97). Equation (97) is an independent combinatorial ansatz, not a consequence of the spin-raising representation. The numerical checks in §IV test the ansatz, not the operator S_μ. The sentence 'The spin-raising operator (92) that defines the higher-spin amplitudes is one of the main results of this paper' is therefore not justified by the present derivation.
  3. [Abstract and §III.E, Eq. (97)] The abstract's claim that for all spins the amplitudes are 'constructed from a spin-raising operator S_μ' and take the form ε^{μ1...μs} S_{μ1}...S_{μs} acting on a scalar seed is false for the S_μ defined in (92). The paper itself says it 'guesses' (97) on the basis of the inconsistent definition. The all-spin claim should be restated as a conjecture supported by low-spin checks, or the operator construction must be reformulated so that (94) and (97) are compatible.
  4. [§II.E, Eq. (31); §II.F, Eq. (43)] The central duality is verified numerically only up to D=8 for (31) and D=10 for (43), and is conjectured for all even D. Since the paper's title and abstract claim D≥4, the unrestricted 'all dimensions' statement is not proven. This is clearly flagged in the text, but it is a load-bearing conjecture for the announced generality.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The string '27→2' appears repeatedly (abstract, §V title, main text) where '2→2' is clearly intended; this is a rendering/typo issue that should be corrected.
  2. [§III.E, Eq. (95)] The notation for the first commutator, 'h bDξ , uμ i', is nonstandard; use [bDξ, u_μ]. More importantly, the action of bDξ is only specified on functions of ξ in (93), not on products with (S·k)_μ, which is part of why the commutator rules are ill-defined.
  3. [§IV.A, Eq. (115)] The numerical checks of the curvature formulas are stated to hold 'up to spin 4 in D≤8'; this is a finite set of cases. The claim 'all bosonic spins' in the title is accordingly stronger than the evidence presented.
  4. [Acknowledgements] The acknowledgement that numerical cross-checks were assisted by ChatGPT and Claude is unusual; authors should verify compliance with the journal's AI-use policy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: N-sector seed is read from explicit solutions, and the all-spin amplitude ansatz is checked against direct Kerr-Schild curvatures and D=4 helicity amplitudes.

full rationale

The derivation chain begins with the explicit multi-Kerr-Schild Kerr-NUT data: the Phi_(alpha) in (4)-(5), the equal-NUT scalar defined in (12), and the position-space Bessel identities (31)/(43), which are checked numerically and analytically rather than posited as definitions. The momentum-space seed (73) is the Fourier transform of these explicit scalars, and the spin-1/2 formulas (74)-(75) are then verified by matching curvatures computed directly from the multi-Kerr-Schild fields in Section IV (up to spin 4 in D<=8). The higher-spin formula (97) is explicitly labelled a guess based on the formal commutation rule (95), and it is checked against independent D=4 helicity amplitudes (101)-(103) and position-space curvature tests; this is an ansatz with numerical support, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper also openly flags its own limitations: it states that the operator bDxi 'currently do[es] not have a natural geometric interpretation' and that various relations have 'only... numerical checks'. These are signs of incomplete proof, not evidence that the claimed results are equivalent to their inputs by construction. Self-citations such as [21] and [61] are contextual and are not load-bearing for the D>=4 duality or the all-spin amplitude claim. A separate mathematical-consistency question about whether an operator bDxi satisfying (95) exists on the on-shell seed space is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction. I therefore find no step in which a claimed prediction is equivalent to its input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central construction is anchored to known exact solutions and standard amplitudes technology, but it adds two unproven mathematical premises: the consistency of the spin-raising operator's defining commutation rule, and the all-D Bessel duality identities, which are only numerically checked. No new physical entities or fitted free parameters are introduced.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The Kerr-NUT-(A)dS family admits the multi-Kerr-Schild form ds² = ds²_flat + Σ_α N_α Φ_(α) ℓ²_(α), with Φ_(α), ℓ_(α) as in (4)-(5), where the r_(α) are the solutions of the spheroidal radial equation (6).
    Imported from Chen-Lü-Pope [29] and Chen-Lü [34]; the paper maps to those coordinates (Appendix A.5) but does not independently prove the solution.
  • domain assumption The 3-point amplitude of a stationary solution encodes its linearized curvature via the Fourier representations (56) and (85), which require an on-shell analytic continuation to split signature.
    Standard KMOC/amplitudes technology (e.g. [18]); used throughout to connect metrics to amplitudes.
  • domain assumption Linearized spin-s fields obey the Fronsdal equation (19) and the de Wit-Freedman curvature (83); the multi-Kerr-Schild fields (18) satisfy these for all s.
    Adopted from [27,53,70]; the paper notes the covariantized Fronsdal equation is not gauge-invariant on curved backgrounds, but relies on the flat-space linearized version.
  • ad hoc to paper An operator bDξ exists satisfying (93) and the commutation rules (95), making the spin-raising operator S_μ well defined.
    Stated in §III.E without a geometric interpretation; the all-spin amplitude formula (97) is then guessed from it. This is a load-bearing unproven premise.
  • ad hoc to paper The duality identities (31) (and the equal-rotations version (43)) hold for all even D; they are verified numerically up to D=8 (and D=10 for (43)) and conjectured beyond.
    These identities underpin the duality claim; no proof for generic even D is given.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 34990 in / 20983 out tokens · 189049 ms · 2026-08-01T04:06:42.167536+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We revisit Kerr-NUT metrics and related spin-$s$ fields in $D\geq4$, and study their associated scattering amplitudes. Starting in position space, we highlight the interpretation of mass and (multiple) NUT charges as being associated to distinct solutions of the rotation-deformed radial equation, which is made explicit in Cartesian multi-Kerr-Schild coordinates. This interpretation extends to electromagnetism with magnetic-type charges, and also extends to higher-spin counterparts, in accordance with the classical double or multi copy. We then establish a notion of ``electric-magnetic" duality in higher dimensions, relating mass/electric to NUT/magnetic charges, which generalises the $D=4$ case in a novel manner. For $D\geq6$, this involves the choice where the multiple magnetic charges are equal. The duality is revealed in momentum space, by the 3-point scattering amplitudes that generate the solutions. For all spins, these amplitudes are constructed from a spin-raising operator $\mathcal S_\mu$ and take the form $\varepsilon^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_s}{\mathcal S}_{\mu_1}\cdots {\mathcal S}_{\mu_s}$ acting on a scalar seed. The scalar seed of the electric sector is dual to that of the magnetic sector: where the former's rotation dependence resums to a Bessel function $J_{\frac{D-5}{2}}$, the latter resums to a Bessel function $J_{-\frac{D-5}{2}}$. Finally, we explore the notion of self-duality that arises from this picture. Studying the classical $2\!\mapsto\!2$ amplitudes that determine leading-order scattering, we find no evidence of a higher-dimensional analogue of the integrability of $D=4$ self-dual gravity.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 113 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The dS case is trivially obtained byL 2 7→ −L2

    Equations withΛ The Einstein equations are now Rµν =− D−1 L2 gµν ,(A1) whereLis the AdS radius, such that Λ =−(D−1)(D−2)/(2L 2). The dS case is trivially obtained byL 2 7→ −L2. The Kerr-NUT-AdS solution admits the multi-Kerr-Schild form seen in section II but now with base metric ds2 AdS =− 1 + R2 L2 dt2 + mX i=1 (dx2 i +dy 2 i ) + (1−ϵ)dz 2 − R2dR2 L2 +R...

  2. [2]

    On the solutionsr 2 (α) of the spheroidal radial equation Let us write the spheroidal radial equation in terms ofu=r 2: F(u) = 0,whereF(u)≡ mX i=1 Ξi(x2 i +y 2 i ) u+a 2 i + (1−ϵ) z2 u −1.(A7) 35 F(u) has poles atu=−a 2 i and, in even dimensions, also atu= 0. In the usual Kerr-AdS range Ξi >0,F(u) is strictly decreasing on each interval between its poles:...

  3. [3]

    As we take a2 i+1 →a 2 i , the solution in the interval (−a 2 i+1,−a 2 i ) behaves asr 2 → −a2 i

    Solutionsr 2 (α) for equal spins Starting from our discussion on solutions for generic spins, in particular the intervals (A9) and (A10) where the solutions must lie, it is clear what happens when spins coincide. As we take a2 i+1 →a 2 i , the solution in the interval (−a 2 i+1,−a 2 i ) behaves asr 2 → −a2 i . This is generically a singular limit in our e...

  4. [4]

    The principal tensor For completeness, we mention also the principal tensor. The Kerr-NUT-(A)dS family carries a non-degenerate closed conformal Killing-Yano tensor called the principal tensor, which we will denote asH µν, whose existence implies algebraic type D, geodesic integrability, and separability of standard field equations on the background [37, ...

  5. [5]

    In fact, this provides the dictionary to the multi-Kerr-Schild coordinates 39 introduced in [34], which we will denote with the superscript CL (Chen-L¨ u)

    Relation to the Chen-L¨ u coordinates The expression (A30) for the principal tensor suggests that ther (α) form an interesting set of variables, geometrically. In fact, this provides the dictionary to the multi-Kerr-Schild coordinates 39 introduced in [34], which we will denote with the superscript CL (Chen-L¨ u). They usensuch thatD= 2nin even dimension ...

  6. [6]

    R. P. Kerr, Phys. Rev. Lett.11, 237 (1963)

    1963

  7. [7]

    A. H. Taub, Annals Math.53, 472 (1951)

    1951

  8. [8]

    Newman, L

    E. Newman, L. Tamburino, and T. Unti, J. Math. Phys.4, 915 (1963)

    1963

  9. [9]

    Demianski and E

    M. Demianski and E. T. Newman, Bulletin de l’Academie Polonaise des Sciences Series des Sciences Mathematiques Astronomiques et Physiques14, 653 (1966)

    1966

  10. [10]

    Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson, and R. Roiban, J. Phys. A55, 443003 (2022), arXiv:2203.13013 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    D. A. Kosower, R. Monteiro, and D. O’Connell, J. Phys. A55, 443015 (2022), arXiv:2203.13025 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, P. H. Damgaard, L. Plante, and P. Vanhove, J. Phys. A55, 443014 (2022), arXiv:2203.13024 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Buonanno, M

    A. Buonanno, M. Khalil, D. O’Connell, R. Roiban, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, inSnowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2204.05194 [hep-th]. 43

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Di Vecchia, C

    P. Di Vecchia, C. Heissenberg, R. Russo, and G. Veneziano, Phys. Rept.1083, 1 (2024), arXiv:2306.16488 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Guevara, A

    A. Guevara, A. Ochirov, and J. Vines, JHEP09, 056 (2019), arXiv:1812.06895 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    Chung, Y.-T

    M.-Z. Chung, Y.-T. Huang, J.-W. Kim, and S. Lee, JHEP04, 156 (2019), arXiv:1812.08752 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t. Huang, and D. O’Connell, JHEP01, 046 (2020), arXiv:1906.10100 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    Huang, U

    Y.-T. Huang, U. Kol, and D. O’Connell, Phys. Rev. D102, 046005 (2020), arXiv:1911.06318 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Moynihan and J

    N. Moynihan and J. Murugan, Phys. Rev. D105, 066025 (2022), arXiv:2002.11085 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Csaki, S

    C. Csaki, S. Hong, Y. Shirman, O. Telem, J. Terning, and M. Waterbury, JHEP08, 029 (2021), arXiv:2009.14213 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    W. T. Emond, Y.-T. Huang, U. Kol, N. Moynihan, and D. O’Connell, JHEP05, 055 (2022), arXiv:2010.07861 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Kim and M

    J.-W. Kim and M. Shim, JHEP02, 217 (2021), arXiv:2010.14347 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Monteiro, D

    R. Monteiro, D. O’Connell, D. Peinador Veiga, and M. Sergola, JHEP05, 268 (2021), arXiv:2012.11190 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Crawley, A

    E. Crawley, A. Guevara, N. Miller, and A. Strominger, JHEP10, 135 (2022), arXiv:2112.03954 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Monteiro, S

    R. Monteiro, S. Nagy, D. O’Connell, D. Peinador Veiga, and M. Sergola, JHEP06, 021 (2022), arXiv:2112.08336 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Doran, R

    G. Doran, R. Monteiro, and N. Moynihan, (2026), arXiv:2603.24365 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Caron-Huot and Z

    S. Caron-Huot and Z. Zahraee, JHEP07, 179 (2019), arXiv:1810.04694 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Bianchi, C

    M. Bianchi, C. Gambino, P. Pani, and F. Riccioni, Phys. Rev. D111, 084013 (2025), arXiv:2412.01771 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Bianchi, C

    M. Bianchi, C. Gambino, F. Riccioni, and V. Zevola, JHEP08, 151 (2025), arXiv:2505.04800 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Monteiro, D

    R. Monteiro, D. O’Connell, and C. D. White, JHEP12, 056 (2014), arXiv:1410.0239 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    A. Luna, R. Monteiro, D. O’Connell, and C. D. White, Phys. Lett. B750, 272 (2015), arXiv:1507.01869 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    V. E. Didenko and N. K. Dosmanbetov, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 071603 (2023), arXiv:2210.04704 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    R. C. Myers and M. J. Perry, Annals Phys.172, 304 (1986)

    1986

  34. [34]

    W. Chen, H. Lu, and C. N. Pope, Class. Quant. Grav.23, 5323 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0604125

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  35. [35]

    Hamamoto, T

    N. Hamamoto, T. Houri, T. Oota, and Y. Yasui, J. Phys. A40, F177 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0611285

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  36. [36]

    L. J. Mason and A. Taghavi-Chabert, J. Geom. Phys.60, 907 (2010), arXiv:0805.3756 [math.DG]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  37. [37]

    Coley, R

    A. Coley, R. Milson, V. Pravda, and A. Pravdova, Class. Quant. Grav.21, L35 (2004), arXiv:gr- qc/0401008

    arXiv 2004

  38. [38]

    Ortaggio, V

    M. Ortaggio, V. Pravda, and A. Pravdova, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 013001 (2013), arXiv:1211.7289 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [39]

    Chen and H

    W. Chen and H. Lu, Phys. Lett. B658, 158 (2008), arXiv:0705.4471 [hep-th]. 44

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  40. [40]

    D. N. Page, D. Kubiznak, M. Vasudevan, and P. Krtous, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 061102 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0611083

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  41. [41]

    V. P. Frolov, P. Krtous, and D. Kubiznak, JHEP02, 005 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0611245

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  42. [42]

    V. P. Frolov, P. Krtous, and D. Kubiznak, Living Rev. Rel.20, 6 (2017), arXiv:1705.05482 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  43. [43]

    R. B. Mann and C. Stelea, Class. Quant. Grav.21, 2937 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0312285

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  44. [44]

    R. B. Mann and C. Stelea, Phys. Lett. B634, 448 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0508203

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  45. [45]

    Clarkson and R

    R. Clarkson and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 051104 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0508109

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  46. [46]

    W. Chen, H. Lu, and C. N. Pope, Nucl. Phys. B762, 38 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0601002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  47. [47]

    Krtous, D

    P. Krtous, D. Kubiznak, V. P. Frolov, and I. Kolar, Class. Quant. Grav.33, 115016 (2016), arXiv:1511.02536 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  48. [48]

    G. W. Gibbons, H. Lu, D. N. Page, and C. N. Pope, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 171102 (2004), arXiv:hep- th/0409155

    arXiv 2004

  49. [49]

    S. W. Hawking, C. J. Hunter, and M. Taylor, Phys. Rev. D59, 064005 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9811056

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  50. [50]

    Chawla and C

    S. Chawla and C. Keeler, JHEP04, 005 (2023), arXiv:2209.09275 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    L. J. Mason and N. M. J. Woodhouse,Integrability, Self-Duality, and Twistor Theory(Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1996)

    1996

  52. [52]

    J. F. Plebanski and M. Demianski, Annals Phys.98, 98 (1976)

    1976

  53. [53]

    Carter, Commun

    B. Carter, Commun. Math. Phys.10, 280 (1968)

    1968

  54. [54]

    Farnsworth, M

    K. Farnsworth, M. L. Graesser, and G. Herczeg, JHEP10, 010 (2023), arXiv:2306.16445 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Kokoˇ ska and M

    D. Kokoˇ ska and M. Ortaggio, Phys. Rev. D112, 044050 (2025), arXiv:2505.10532 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Krtous, Phys

    P. Krtous, Phys. Rev. D76, 084035 (2007), arXiv:0707.0002 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  57. [57]

    V. E. Didenko, A. S. Matveev, and M. A. Vasiliev, Phys. Lett. B665, 284 (2008), arXiv:0801.2213 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  58. [58]

    Fronsdal, Phys

    C. Fronsdal, Phys. Rev. D18, 3624 (1978)

    1978

  59. [59]

    Bekaert, N

    X. Bekaert, N. Boulanger, and P. Sundell, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 987 (2012), arXiv:1007.0435 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  60. [60]

    G. R. Brown and B. Spence, Phys. Rev. D113, 065017 (2026), arXiv:2508.00711 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    Misuna, D

    N. Misuna, D. Ponomarev, and A. Solomin, Phys. Lett. B878, 140525 (2026), arXiv:2604.13646 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    V. E. Didenko and N. K. Dosmanbetov, (2026), arXiv:2605.12359 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    Deser, A

    S. Deser, A. Gomberoff, M. Henneaux, and C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett. B400, 80 (1997), arXiv:hep- th/9702184

    arXiv 1997

  64. [64]

    C. M. Hull, JHEP09, 027 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0107149

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  65. [65]

    Bunster, M

    C. Bunster, M. Henneaux, and S. H¨ ortner, Phys. Rev. D88, 064032 (2013), arXiv:1306.1092 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  66. [66]

    Monteiro, JHEP04, 093 (2024), arXiv:2312.02351 [hep-th]

    R. Monteiro, JHEP04, 093 (2024), arXiv:2312.02351 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    E. T. Newman and A. I. Janis, J. Math. Phys.6, 915 (1965)

    1965

  68. [68]

    D. A. Kosower, B. Maybee, and D. O’Connell, JHEP02, 137 (2019), arXiv:1811.10950 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  69. [69]

    Cristofoli, R

    A. Cristofoli, R. Gonzo, D. A. Kosower, and D. O’Connell, Phys. Rev. D106, 056007 (2022), 45 arXiv:2107.10193 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  70. [70]

    Gambino, P

    C. Gambino, P. Pani, and F. Riccioni, Phys. Rev. D109, 124018 (2024), arXiv:2403.16574 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Gambino, F

    C. Gambino, F. Riccioni, and V. S. Sanchis, JHEP03, 106 (2026), arXiv:2509.08456 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    Akpinar, V

    D. Akpinar, V. del Duca, and R. Gonzo, Phys. Rev. D112, 084014 (2025), arXiv:2504.02025 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Campanella and F

    F. Campanella and F. Riccioni, (2026), arXiv:2605.05067 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  74. [74]

    Cangemi and I

    L. Cangemi and I. Surubaru, (2026), arXiv:2605.29831 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  75. [75]

    de Wit and D

    B. de Wit and D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D21, 358 (1980)

    1980

  76. [76]

    Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang, and Y.-t. Huang, JHEP11, 070 (2021), arXiv:1709.04891 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  77. [77]

    A. Luna, R. Monteiro, I. Nicholson, and D. O’Connell, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 065003 (2019), arXiv:1810.08183 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    Godazgar, M

    H. Godazgar, M. Godazgar, R. Monteiro, D. Peinador Veiga, and C. N. Pope, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 101103 (2021), arXiv:2010.02925 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  79. [79]

    C. D. White, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 061602 (2021), arXiv:2012.02479 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  80. [80]

    Chac´ on, S

    E. Chac´ on, S. Nagy, and C. D. White, JHEP05, 2239 (2021), arXiv:2103.16441 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.