Mass/electric versus NUT/magnetic charges: duality from scattering amplitudes in $D\geq4$ and for all bosonic spins

Daniel Siretanu; Lecheng Ren; Ricardo Monteiro

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 143 references

Mass/electric versus NUT/magnetic charges: duality from scattering amplitudes in $D\geq4$ and for all bosonic spins

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

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

Pith's one-line read 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.

desk verdict 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. read the letter →

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

Ricardo Monteiro , Lecheng Ren , Daniel Siretanu This is my paper

classification hep-thgr-qc

keywords Kerr-NUTspacetimeselectric-magneticdualityNUTchargescatteringamplitudesspin-raisingoperatorBesselfunctionsclassicaldoublecopyhigher-spinfields

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 aims to show that, in any spacetime dimension $D\geq 4$, 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.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the momentum-space spin-raising operator $S_\mu = -u_\mu - i (S\cdot k)_\mu \hat{D}_\xi$, with $S_{\mu\nu}$ the (rescaled) angular momentum and $\hat{D}_\xi$ acting on functions of $\xi = |S\cdot k|$ as $\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{d}{d\xi}$. The paper defines $\hat{D}_\xi$ by the commutation relations $[(S\cdot k)_{(\mu}\hat{D}_\xi, (S\cdot k)_{\nu)}] = u_\mu u_\nu$ and $[\hat{D}_\xi,u_\mu]=0$, which ensure $S_\mu$ 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 $J_{\pm (D-5)/2}(\xi)/\xi^{(D-5)/2}$; $s$ copies of $S_\mu$ on that seed give the spin-$s$ amplitude. In position space, the same structure appears as dual towers of potentials $\Theta^{(s)}_M$ and $\Theta^{(s)}_N$ built by powers of the order-$s$

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

Extended reading notes

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: $A_s = \epsilon^{\mu_1...\mu_s} S_{\mu_1}\cdots S_{\mu_s} A_0$. The mass/electric seed and the equal-NUT/magnetic seed are related by Bessel order reflection, $J_\sigma \leftrightarrow J_{-\sigma}$ with $\sigma=(D-5)/2$: 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

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 ($D\leq8$) and spin 6 ($D=4$).

Editorial extensions

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.

Reading between the lines

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.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague — you should know two things before reading this paper. The results are genuinely new: higher-dimensional equal-NUT/magnetic 3-point amplitudes, a Bessel-order-reflection duality (J_σ ↔ J_{-σ}), and a clean position-space reading of NUT charges as roots of the spheroidal radial equation. The paper also does the right kind of checking: it compares its proposed amplitudes to exact multi-Kerr-Schild solutions via linearized curvatures, numerically up to spin 4 in D≤8 and analytically in the equal-rotations case. That is real work, and the 2→2 self-duality negative result looks solid.

But the stress-test note is correct, and it is more than a cosmetic issue. Equations (92)–(95) are internally inconsistent in the rest frame. With u^t=1, k^t=0, and S_{μν}u^ν=0, we get (S·k)_t=0. So S_t = -u_t = -1, and hence S_t^2 A0 = A0. But the closed-form formula (97), contracted with ε^{tt}=1, gives (1-Dξ)A0. The commutation rule (95) fails too, at (t,t): 0=1. So no operator bDξ satisfying both (93) and (95) exists on the on-shell seed space. The paper's statement that it 'guesses' the formula on the basis of that operator is therefore not quite right: (97) is an independent combinatorial ansatz, and the numerical checks test the ansatz, not the operator representation. The abstract's claim that all spin-s amplitudes are 'constructed from a spin-raising operator S_μ' fails as stated.

This is a load-bearing problem for the paper's narrative, but it is not necessarily fatal to the physics results. The explicit amplitude (97) may well be correct — the numerical checks up to spin 4 are nontrivial evidence — and the Bessel-order duality is an interesting statement even if the operator interpretation is wrong. The authors are candid about the guesswork and about wanting proofs of the numerical relations; that candor is a point in their favor, but it does not fix the inconsistency.

Who should read this? Anyone working on amplitudes for black holes, classical double copy, or higher-dimensional integrability. The paper is worth a serious referee — an editor should send it out rather than desk-reject. A referee should flag the S_μ contradiction and ask the authors to either supply a consistent operator or, more likely, rewrite section III.E as a conjectural amplitude formula with the duality as the main organizing principle. That revision could produce a valuable paper.

My bottom line: engage with the explicit formulas and the duality; treat the spin-raising story as broken until fixed.

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)

[§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.
[§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.
[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.
[§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)

[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.
[§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.
[§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.
[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 · score 2.0 of 10

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.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 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.

assumptions (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.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mass/electric versus NUT/magnetic charges: duality from scattering amplitudes in $D\geq4$ and for all bosonic spins." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OWSRKOUN

@misc{pith2026260722938,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mass/electric versus NUT/magnetic charges: duality from scattering amplitudes in $D\geq4$ and for all bosonic spins},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OWSRKOUN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22938}
}

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 to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 113 linked inside Pith

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

1963
[7]

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

1951
[8]

Newman, L

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

1963

Show all 143 references

[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]

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

2022 arXiv
[11]

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

2022 arXiv
[12]

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

2022 arXiv
[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

2021 arXiv
[14]

Di Vecchia, C

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

2024 arXiv
[15]

Guevara, A

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

2019 arXiv
[16]

Chung, Y.-T

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

2019 arXiv
[17]

Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t

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

2020 arXiv
[18]

Huang, U

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

2020 arXiv
[19]

Moynihan and J

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

2022 arXiv
[20]

Csaki, S

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

2021 arXiv
[21]

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

2022 arXiv
[22]

Kim and M

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

2021 arXiv
[23]

Monteiro, D

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

2021 arXiv
[24]

Crawley, A

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

2022 arXiv
[25]

Monteiro, S

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

2022 arXiv
[26]

Doran, R

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

2026 arXiv
[27]

Caron-Huot and Z

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

2019 arXiv
[28]

Bianchi, C

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

2025 arXiv
[29]

Bianchi, C

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

2025 arXiv
[30]

Monteiro, D

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

2014 arXiv
[31]

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

2015 arXiv
[32]

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

2023 arXiv
[33]

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

1986
[34]

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

2006 arXiv
[35]

Hamamoto, T

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

2007 arXiv
[36]

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

2010 arXiv
[37]

Coley, R

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

2004
[38]

Ortaggio, V

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

2013 arXiv
[39]

Chen and H

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

2008 arXiv
[40]

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

2007 arXiv
[41]

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

2007 arXiv
[42]

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

2017 arXiv
[43]

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

2004 arXiv
[44]

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

2006 arXiv
[45]

Clarkson and R

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

2006 arXiv
[46]

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

2007 arXiv
[47]

Krtous, D

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

2016 arXiv
[48]

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

2004
[49]

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

1999 arXiv
[50]

Chawla and C

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

2023 arXiv
[51]

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

1996
[52]

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

1976
[53]

Carter, Commun

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

1968
[54]

Farnsworth, M

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

2023 arXiv
[55]

Kokoˇ ska and M

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

2025 arXiv
[56]

Krtous, Phys

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

2007 arXiv
[57]

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

2008 arXiv
[58]

Fronsdal, Phys

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

1978
[59]

Bekaert, N

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

2012 arXiv
[60]

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

2026
[61]

Misuna, D

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

2026 arXiv
[62]

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

2026 arXiv
[63]

Deser, A

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

1997
[64]

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

2001 arXiv
[65]

Bunster, M

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

2013 arXiv
[66]

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

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

2024 arXiv
[67]

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

1965
[68]

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

2019 arXiv
[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]

2022 arXiv
[70]

Gambino, P

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

2024 arXiv
[71]

Gambino, F

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

2026
[72]

Akpinar, V

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

2025
[73]

Campanella and F

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

2026 arXiv
[74]

Cangemi and I

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

2026 arXiv
[75]

de Wit and D

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

1980
[76]

Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

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

2021 arXiv
[77]

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

2019 arXiv
[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]

2021
[79]

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

2021 arXiv
[80]

Chac´ on, S

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

2021 arXiv
[81]

Ortaggio, V

M. Ortaggio, V. Pravda, and A. Pravdova, JHEP2024, 069 (2024), arXiv:2312.00706 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[82]

Zhao, P.-J

W. Zhao, P.-J. Mao, and J.-B. Wu, Phys. Rev. D111, L081902 (2025), arXiv:2409.06786 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[83]

Zhao, P.-J

W. Zhao, P.-J. Mao, and J.-B. Wu, Phys. Rev. D111, 066005 (2025), arXiv:2411.04774 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[84]

D. A. Easson, G. Herczeg, T. Manton, and M. Pezzelle, JHEP09, 162 (2023), arXiv:2306.13687 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[85]

D. A. Easson and M. J. Falato, JHEP05, 249 (2026), arXiv:2604.05103 [hep-th]

2026 arXiv
[86]

R. P. Geroch, J. Math. Phys.12, 918 (1971)

1971
[87]

R. P. Geroch, J. Math. Phys.13, 394 (1972)

1972
[88]

F. J. Ernst, Phys. Rev.167, 1175 (1968)

1968
[89]

Astorino and G

M. Astorino and G. Boldi, JHEP08, 085 (2023), arXiv:2305.03744 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[90]

Barrientos and A

J. Barrientos and A. Cisterna, Phys. Rev. D108, 024059 (2023), arXiv:2305.03765 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[91]

Alawadhi, D

R. Alawadhi, D. S. Berman, B. Spence, and D. Peinador Veiga, JHEP03, 059 (2020), arXiv:1911.06797 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[92]

Banerjee, E

A. Banerjee, E. ´O. Colg´ ain, J. A. Rosabal, and H. Yavartanoo, Phys. Rev. D102, 126017 (2020), arXiv:1912.02597 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[93]

Erbin and L

H. Erbin and L. Heurtier, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 165004 (2015), arXiv:1411.2030 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[94]

Erbin, Universe3, 19 (2017), arXiv:1701.00037 [gr-qc]

H. Erbin, Universe3, 19 (2017), arXiv:1701.00037 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[95]

Mirzaiyan, B

Z. Mirzaiyan, B. Mirza, and E. Sharifian, Annals Phys.389, 11 (2018), arXiv:1708.08969 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[96]

Mirzaiyan and G

Z. Mirzaiyan and G. Esposito, Annals Phys.450, 169223 (2023), arXiv:2212.09882 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[97]

Ortaggio and A

M. Ortaggio and A. Srinivasan, Phys. Rev. D110, 044035 (2024), arXiv:2309.02900 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[98]

Pokraka, S

A. Pokraka, S. Rajan, L. Ren, A. Volovich, and W. W. Zhao, JHEP07, 056 (2025), arXiv:2405.09533 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[99]

Monteiro, I

R. Monteiro, I. Nicholson, and D. O’Connell, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 065006 (2019), arXiv:1809.03906 46 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[100]

Emparan, T

R. Emparan, T. Harmark, V. Niarchos, N. A. Obers, and M. J. Rodriguez, JHEP10, 110 (2007), arXiv:0708.2181 [hep-th]

2007 arXiv
[101]

Emparan and H

R. Emparan and H. S. Reall, Living Rev. Rel.11, 6 (2008), arXiv:0801.3471 [hep-th]

2008 arXiv
[102]

Emparan, T

R. Emparan, T. Harmark, V. Niarchos, and N. A. Obers, JHEP03, 063 (2010), arXiv:0910.1601 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[103]

Emparan, R

R. Emparan, R. Suzuki, and K. Tanabe, JHEP06, 009 (2013), arXiv:1302.6382 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[104]

Emparan and H

R. Emparan and H. S. Reall, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 101101 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0110260

2002 arXiv
[105]

Elvang and P

H. Elvang and P. Figueras, JHEP05, 050 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0701035

2007 arXiv
[106]

Chen and E

Y. Chen and E. Teo, Phys. Rev. D78, 064062 (2008), arXiv:0808.0587 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[107]

Emparan and R

R. Emparan and R. C. Myers, JHEP09, 025 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0308056

2003 arXiv
[108]

O. J. C. Dias, P. Figueras, R. Monteiro, J. E. Santos, and R. Emparan, Phys. Rev. D80, 111701 (2009), arXiv:0907.2248 [hep-th]

2009 arXiv
[109]

´O. J. C. Dias, J. E. Santos, and B. Way, JHEP07, 045 (2014), arXiv:1402.6345 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[110]

Aoude, K

R. Aoude, K. Haddad, and A. Helset, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 141102 (2022), arXiv:2205.02809 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[111]

Y. F. Bautista, A. Guevara, C. Kavanagh, and J. Vines, JHEP05, 211 (2023), arXiv:2212.07965 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[112]

Y. F. Bautista, G. Bonelli, C. Iossa, A. Tanzini, and Z. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D109, 084071 (2024), arXiv:2312.05965 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[113]

Alessio, JHEP04, 058 (2024), arXiv:2303.12784 [hep-th]

F. Alessio, JHEP04, 058 (2024), arXiv:2303.12784 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[114]

Cangemi, M

L. Cangemi, M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson, A. Ochirov, P. Pichini, and E. Skvortsov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 071601 (2024), arXiv:2312.14913 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[115]

N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, G. Chen, and M. Skowronek, JHEP06, 170 (2023), arXiv:2302.00498 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[116]

Ben-Shahar, JHEP03, 108 (2024), arXiv:2311.01430 [hep-th]

M. Ben-Shahar, JHEP03, 108 (2024), arXiv:2311.01430 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[117]

Brandhuber, G

A. Brandhuber, G. R. Brown, G. Chen, J. Gowdy, and G. Travaglini, JHEP02, 026 (2024), arXiv:2310.04405 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[118]

Kim, J.-W

J.-H. Kim, J.-W. Kim, and S. Lee, JHEP08, 080 (2024), arXiv:2405.17056 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[119]

R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. D73, 104031 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0511061

2006 arXiv
[120]

Levi and J

M. Levi and J. Steinhoff, JHEP09, 219 (2015), arXiv:1501.04956 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[121]

Z. Bern, A. Luna, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, and M. Zeng, Phys. Rev. D104, 065014 (2021), arXiv:2005.03071 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[122]

G. U. Jakobsen, G. Mogull, J. Plefka, and J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 011101 (2022), arXiv:2106.10256 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[123]

Gonzo and C

R. Gonzo and C. Shi, Phys. Rev. D104, 105012 (2021), arXiv:2109.01072 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[124]

A. Ball, A. Bencke, Y. Chen, and A. Volovich, JHEP10, 085 (2023), arXiv:2307.01338 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[125]

Gonzo and C

R. Gonzo and C. Shi, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 221401 (2024), arXiv:2405.09687 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[126]

Alessio, R

F. Alessio, R. Gonzo, and C. Shi, Phys. Rev. D112, 104060 (2025), arXiv:2506.03249 [hep-th]. 47

2025
[127]

Akpinar, G

D. Akpinar, G. R. Brown, R. Gonzo, and M. Zeng, Phys. Rev. D113, L101501 (2026), arXiv:2508.10761 [hep-th]

2026 arXiv
[128]

Crawley, A

E. Crawley, A. Guevara, E. Himwich, and A. Strominger, JHEP09, 109 (2023), arXiv:2302.06661 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[129]

Adamo, G

T. Adamo, G. Bogna, L. Mason, and A. Sharma, Class. Quant. Grav.41, 015030 (2024), arXiv:2309.03834 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[130]

Adamo, G

T. Adamo, G. Bogna, L. Mason, and A. Sharma, (2025), arXiv:2507.18605 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[131]

Guevara and U

A. Guevara and U. Kol, (2023), arXiv:2311.07933 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[132]

Guevara, U

A. Guevara, U. Kol, and H. Tran, (2024), arXiv:2412.19627 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[133]

Kim, Phys

J.-H. Kim, Phys. Rev. D111, L021703 (2025), arXiv:2405.09518 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[134]

Kim, (2024), arXiv:2412.19611 [gr-qc]

J.-H. Kim, (2024), arXiv:2412.19611 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[135]

Skvortsov and Y

E. Skvortsov and Y. Yin, JHEP12, 099 (2025), arXiv:2508.18804 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[136]

Kim, (2025), arXiv:2512.23697 [gr-qc]

J.-H. Kim, (2025), arXiv:2512.23697 [gr-qc]

2025
[137]

Adamo, B

T. Adamo, B. Araneda, and S. Seet, (2026), arXiv:2601.05037 [hep-th]

2026
[138]

Bahjat-Abbas, A

N. Bahjat-Abbas, A. Luna, and C. D. White, JHEP12, 004 (2017), arXiv:1710.01953 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[139]

Carrillo-Gonz´ alez, R

M. Carrillo-Gonz´ alez, R. Penco, and M. Trodden, JHEP04, 028 (2018), arXiv:1711.01296 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[140]

Kubiznak and V

D. Kubiznak and V. P. Frolov, Class. Quant. Grav.24, F1 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0610144

2007 arXiv
[141]

Krtous, D

P. Krtous, D. Kubiznak, D. N. Page, and V. P. Frolov, JHEP02, 004 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0612029

2007 arXiv
[142]

R. E. Behrends and C. Fronsdal, Phys. Rev.106, 345 (1957)

1957
[143]

M. S. Costa, J. Penedones, D. Poland, and S. Rychkov, JHEP11, 071 (2011), arXiv:1107.3554 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[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