Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 111 references

Gravitational decoupling and regular hairy black holes: Geodesic stability, quasinormal modes, and thermodynamic properties

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single hair parameter governs orbits, ringdown, and thermodynamic stability of a regular hairy black hole built by gravitational decoupling.

desk verdict Solid but mechanically applied black-hole observables for one GD metric; the Kerr-mimic claim and the Lyapunov formula need fixing before the results can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.14920 v2 pith:U673M32L submitted 2025-12-16 gr-qc

R. C. de Paiva , K. S. Alves , R. T. Cavalcanti , R. da Rocha This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C1083C47 PACS 04.70.-s04.30.Nk
keywords regularblackholesgravitationaldecouplinghairyLyapunovexponentsgeodesicstabilityquasinormalmodesholethermodynamicsRényientropy
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 studies a regular hairy black hole whose metric depends on one hair parameter $\beta$, interpolating between Schwarzschild and flat spacetime. It claims that increasing $\beta$ pulls the innermost stable circular orbit and the photon sphere closer to the event horizon, widens the band of unstable null geodesics, and slows the decay of quasinormal modes. Thermodynamically, intermediate $\beta$ values create a small-horizon phase that is stable in the canonical ensemble, unlike Schwarzschild. The paper also shows that $\beta$ between roughly 0.0043 and 0.39 reproduces the ISCO and photon-sphere radii of a Kerr black hole with spin a, so the hair could masquerade as rotation in observations. If correct, these results identify $\beta$ as a single control parameter for strong-field observables.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the metric function $f(r,\beta)$ in Eq. (29), obtained from gravitational decoupling with a tensor vacuum and the weak energy condition. The hair parameter $\beta$ enters through a decaying exponential with a polynomial prefactor, producing a regular, non-singular geometry with a critical value $\beta_{\text{crit}}\approx 0.39$ that separates two-horizon, extremal, and horizonless configurations. All subsequent results—Lyapunov exponents of circular orbits, third-order WKB quasinormal frequencies, Hawking temperature and heat capacity, Rényi versus Bekenstein–Hawking entropy, and the energy emission rate—are computed from this single metric function.

What would settle it

Measure the quasinormal ringdown of a candidate black hole with high signal-to-noise and compare the inferred ($\omega_{\text{real}}, |\text{Im} \omega|$) against the $\beta=0.39$ rows of Tables IV–VI; the paper predicts shifts in $|\text{Im} \omega|$ of roughly 15–20% relative to Schwarzschild for low multipoles, so a match to Schwarzschild would refute the strong-hair predictions. A complementary check is to recompute the Lyapunov exponents from the geodesic equations using the standard second derivative of $(\dot{r}^2)$; if the printed $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_p$ values do not follow from those equations, the quantitative tables would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central object is the spherically symmetric metric $f(r,\beta)=1-\frac{2}{r}+\frac{2}{r}e^{-r/\beta}\left(1+\frac{r}{\beta}+\frac{r^2}{2\beta^2}\right)$, which reduces to Schwarzschild as $\beta \to 0$ and to flat space as $\beta \to \infty$. The paper's discovery is that $\beta$ acts as a gravitational dial: increasing it shifts the photon sphere and ISCO inward toward the horizon, extends the radial interval containing unstable null circular orbits, and lowers the imaginary part of quasinormal frequencies, meaning perturbations decay more slowly. In the canonical ensemble, the heat capacity becomes positive for horizon radii below a $\beta$-dependent threshold, so small regular hairy black holes are locally thermodynamically stable, a behavior absent in the Schwarzschild solution

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on the assumption that the metric in Eq. (29), imported from a gravitational-decoupling construction with a tensor vacuum and the weak energy condition, describes a physically realizable regular black hole exterior; if that construction is unphysical, the Lyapunov, quasinormal-mode, and thermodynamic predictions do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Black hole shadows: the wider instability interval for null orbits implies that photon rings and shadow features of these hairy black holes will differ measurably from Schwarzschild for β near the critical value.
  • Gravitational-wave ringdown: quasinormal modes with smaller |Im ω| mean longer-lived oscillations, so ringdown templates based on Schwarzschild could misclassify a hairy black hole source.
  • Thermodynamic stability: the stable small-horizon phase in the canonical ensemble suggests that regular hairy black holes could evade the usual Schwarzschild instability and potentially survive as remnants.
  • Kerr mimickers: a source whose ISCO and photon sphere fit a high-spin Kerr parameter might instead be a non-rotating hairy black hole with β in [0.0043,0.39], complicating spin estimates.
  • Evaporation: higher β lowers the Hawking temperature and energy emission rate, which would lengthen evaporation timescales and alter predicted primordial black hole abundances.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's eikonal quasinormal-mode formula assumes a geometric-optics correspondence; a direct re-derivation of the Lyapunov exponents from the geodesic equations using the exact second derivative of (\dot{r}²) would test whether the quantitative decay rates reported are precise or affected by the printed derivative order.
  • The mimicry range β∈[0.0043,0.39] is established from ISCO and photon-sphere radii; an extension would compare full shadow images and ringdown spectra against Event Horizon Telescope and gravitational-wave observations to see whether the degeneracy between hair and spin survives.
  • Because the Rényi and Bekenstein–Hawking entropies give qualitatively different stability verdicts for Schwarzschild but similar ones for this hairy solution, a future independent probe of black hole entropy could distinguish the hairy geometry from the vacuum one.
  • The metric's regularity relies on the tensor-vacuum condition P_r = −E; repeating the analysis under other gravitational-decoupling sources would reveal which of the reported features are generic to regular hairy black holes and which are specific to this construction.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a regular hairy black hole metric obtained via gravitational decoupling, f(r,β)=1−2/r+2e^{−r/β}/r(1+r/β+r²/2β²), and computes geodesic Lyapunov exponents for timelike and null circular orbits, the ISCO and photon-sphere radii, quasinormal modes (WKB and eikonal), thermodynamic quantities in both Bekenstein-Hawking and Rényi entropy prescriptions, and the energy emission rate. The main claims are that increasing the hair parameter β moves the ISCO and photon sphere closer to the horizon, enlarges the null instability interval, decreases the damping rate of quasinormal modes, produces a stable small-horizon phase in the canonical ensemble, and allows β to mimic aspects of Kerr black-hole spin.

Significance. If the results hold, they provide a systematic phenomenology of a specific regular hairy black hole, with analytic expressions and numerical tables that can be used for comparison with strong-field observations. The monotonic β-trends in the ISCO, photon sphere, QNM damping, and emission rate are clearly presented and constitute a useful contribution. However, two headline claims currently undermine the paper: the printed Lyapunov definitions are inconsistent with the circular-orbit condition, and the Kerr-mimicking claim is not supported by the paper's own numerics. The core derivation may be salvageable after correcting these points.

major comments (3)
  1. [III, Eqs. (34)–(35)] The printed definitions of the Lyapunov exponents use a single derivative of ṙ². For circular orbits the condition ṙ²=(ṙ²)'=0 holds, so Eqs. (34)–(35) vanish identically and cannot distinguish stable from unstable orbits. The text preceding Eq. (34) correctly identifies the second derivative of the effective potential as the stability criterion. The definitions should involve the second derivative at r_c, which is what the long expressions (46)–(53) presumably implement. Please correct Eqs. (34)–(35) and explain their relation to the computed formulas; as printed, Section III cannot be reproduced.
  2. [III.C, Eq. (55), Tables I–II, Fig. 7] The Kerr-mimic claim is not supported by the paper's own numbers. Eq. (55) has a typo: the coefficient 4 in (4+Z1+2Z2) should be 3, since the standard Kerr ISCO formula gives r_ISCO(a=1)=1, not 0.757. More importantly, at β_crit≈0.39 the hairy ISCO is 5.97673 and the photon sphere is 2.76774. Matching the ISCO to Kerr gives a≈0.01, for which the Kerr photon sphere is ≈3.0, not 2.77; matching the photon sphere gives a≈0.19, for which the Kerr ISCO is ≈5.3, not 5.98. Thus no single Kerr spin reproduces both observables for β>0; exact coincidence occurs only at β=0. The two-branch behavior described in Fig. 7 and Sec. III.C should be retracted or heavily qualified.
  3. [II, Eqs. (25)–(29)] All subsequent results depend on the metric (29), whose physical viability is imported from Ref. [64] without display of the associated stress-energy tensor. The paper states the tensor-vacuum condition P_r=−E and cites the WEC, but it does not show explicitly that the WEC (or other relevant energy conditions) hold for β∈(0,β_crit). Since a violation would make the geodesic, QNM, and thermodynamic results physically moot, please include a short self-contained verification, or state explicitly which conditions are being assumed from Ref. [64].
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption describes the effective potential for 'timelike' geodesics, but Eq. (50) and the surrounding text concern null geodesics (ε=0). Please correct.
  2. [Eqs. (46)–(48)] Several displayed formulas have unbalanced parentheses and ambiguous terms (e.g., the denominator in Eq. (46) is not clearly delimited). Please re-check the typesetting; this hampers numerical reproduction.
  3. [Table III heading] The heading should read 'Range of instability for circular null orbits', not 'unstability'.
  4. [IV.A] The WKB table entries are reported to five or six significant figures, but no error estimate or comparison with a higher-order WKB/time-domain method is given. A brief accuracy statement would help the reader judge the β-dependence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a parameter study of an imported metric using standard external formulas; the hair parameter is scanned, not fitted to any target observable.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The central object, the regular hairy black hole metric f(r, beta) in Eq. (29), is imported from Ref. [64] (Ovalle-Casadio-Giusti, which does not overlap with the present authors), and the paper does not define the hair parameter beta in terms of the ISCO, photon sphere, quasinormal frequencies, or thermodynamic quantities it later computes. The Lyapunov exponents, ISCO and photon-sphere radii, QNMs via the third-order WKB method, Hawking temperature, entropies, heat capacities, and emission rates are all computed from this metric using standard external formulas (Cardoso et al., Iyer-Will, Bekenstein-Hawking, etc.). Beta is a free model parameter scanned over (0, beta_crit); it is never fitted to observational data and then relabeled as a prediction. The Kerr-mimic discussion in Sec. III C is a comparison of the derived ISCO/photon-sphere radii with the Kerr expressions, not a fit of beta to a chosen spin; even if the printed Kerr formula in Eq. (55) contains a coefficient error, that is a numerical/correctness issue, not a circular reduction. The paper cites its own prior work in several places (e.g., Refs. [47,48,51,52,95-97]), but those citations are contextual or for technique and are not load-bearing for the central results. Eqs. (34)-(35) also appear to omit a derivative order relative to the standard Lyapunov formula, but this affects internal consistency, not circularity. The derivation is self-contained once the imported metric is accepted as an input, so no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no new fundamental entities or fitted constants; it analyzes a known metric within standard frameworks. The main implied input is the physical validity of the GD-derived regular hairy solution from Ref. [64], which is not independently verified here.

free parameters (2)
  • β (hair parameter) = 0.05, 0.10, 0.20, 0.30, 0.35, 0.39 (scanned values; β_crit≈0.39)
    Controls the metric and all derived results. Not fitted to observations, but scanned over the physically interesting range; every conclusion is a function of β.
  • λ (Rényi parameter) = 0.5 (illustrative choice in Figs. 13–14)
    Rényi entropy parameter chosen by hand; thermodynamic results in Sec. V depend on this arbitrary choice, not fitted to data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Einstein equations with split source T+Θ and conservation ∇_μ(T+Θ)=0 (Sec. II, Eqs. 1–3)
    Gravitational decoupling framework assumed valid for the additional sector.
  • domain assumption Metric (29) from Ref. [64] is a regular hairy black hole solution, obtained by imposing tensor vacuum P_r=−E and WEC (Sec. II, Eq. 25)
    The paper imports the solution without re-derivation; all subsequent calculations inherit this solution and its physical viability.
  • standard math Lyapunov exponent definitions Eqs. (33)–(35) from Refs. [66–68] for circular geodesics
    Standard formula for divergence of nearby geodesics; as printed, Eq. (34) is ambiguous/incorrect and should be double-primed.
  • standard math Third-order WKB formulas Eqs. (61)–(63) from Iyer-Will/Berti et al.
    Approximation for QNM frequencies; no error bound provided.
  • domain assumption Eikonal correspondence ω=ℓΩ_c − i(n+1/2)|λ_0| (Eq. 66)
    Assumes geodesic/QNM correspondence valid for this spacetime in the large-ℓ limit.
  • domain assumption Rényi entropy S_R = (1/λ)ln(1+λS_BH) (Eq. 74)
    Alternative entropy prescription; λ chosen as 0.5 for plots.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational decoupling and regular hairy black holes: Geodesic stability, quasinormal modes, and thermodynamic properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U673M32L

@misc{pith2026251214920,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational decoupling and regular hairy black holes: Geodesic stability, quasinormal modes, and thermodynamic properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U673M32L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.14920}
}
read the original abstract

The stability of geodesic orbits around a regular hairy black hole, in the gravitational decoupling setup, is investigated by employing Lyapunov exponents, which quantify the divergence rate of nearby trajectories in dynamical systems. Both timelike and null geodesics are addressed, probing the effect of the hair parameter on orbital stability. Deviations from the Schwarzschild solution have a significant influence on orbit stability, potentially providing observational signatures. We compute the quasinormal modes of regular hairy black holes and discuss their thermodynamic properties, contrasting the R\'enyi and Bekenstein-Hawking entropy prescriptions. The results can provide insight into gravitational dynamics in the strong-field regime and potentially contribute to ongoing developments in modified gravity theories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.14920 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: presents the Hawking temperature versus the horizon radius for different values of the parameter β. The temperature equals zero when β → ∞, whereas the Schwarzschild black hole is recovered when β → 0. For intermediate values of β, the temperature rises rapidly, reach…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: shows the thermal instability of the regular hairy black hole for these values of the parameter β. In this case, the black hole is unstable in both R´enyi and Bekenstein-Hawking statistics, as it can be seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 80 linked inside Pith

  1. [64]

    Ovalle J, Casadio R and Giusti A 2023Phys. Lett. B844138085 (Preprint2304.03263)

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Abbott B Pet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016Phys. Rev. Lett.116221101 [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)] (Preprint1602.03841)

    arXiv 2018

  3. [2]

    Abbott B Pet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2019Phys. Rev. D100104036 (Preprint1903.04467)

    arXiv

  4. [3]

    Ovalle J 2017Phys. Rev. D95104019 (Preprint1704.05899)

    arXiv

  5. [4]

    Ovalle J 2019Phys. Lett. B788213–218 (Preprint1812.03000)

    arXiv

  6. [5]

    Dark Univ.46101665

    Maurya S K, Jasim M K, Errehymy A, Boshkayev K, Mustafa G and Dayanandan B 2024Phys. Dark Univ.46101665

  7. [6]

    Dark Univ.28100543 (Preprint1907.04892)

    Linares Cede˜ no F X and Contreras E 2020Phys. Dark Univ.28100543 (Preprint1907.04892)

    arXiv

  8. [7]

    Tello-Ortiz F 2020Eur. Phys. J. C80413

Show all 111 references
  1. [8]

    Maurya S K, Kiroriwal S, Kumar J and Aziz A 2025Eur. Phys. J. C85456

  2. [9]

    Pradhan S, Bhar P, Mandal S, Sahoo P K and Bamba K 2025Eur. Phys. J. C85127 (Preprint 2408.03967)

    arXiv

  3. [10]

    Dark Univ.46101629 (Preprint2408.12132) 36

    Yousaf Z, Bamba K, Almutairi B, Hashimoto Y and Khan S 2024Phys. Dark Univ.46101629 (Preprint2408.12132) 36

    arXiv

  4. [11]

    J.972 175

    Maurya S K, Errehymy A, Newton Singh K, Aziz A, Hansraj S and Ray S 2024Astrophys. J.972 175

  5. [12]

    da Rocha R and Tomaz A A 2020Eur. Phys. J. C80857 (Preprint2005.02980)

    arXiv

  6. [13]

    da Rocha R and Tomaz A A 2019Eur. Phys. J. C791035 (Preprint1905.01548)

    arXiv

  7. [14]

    Casadio R and da Rocha R 2023Eur. Phys. J. C83537 (Preprint2305.15752)

    arXiv

  8. [15]

    Estrada M 2019Eur. Phys. J.C79918 (Preprint1905.12129)

    arXiv

  9. [16]

    Gabbanelli L, Ovalle J, Sotomayor A, Stuchlik Z and Casadio R 2019Eur. Phys. J.C79486 (Preprint 1905.10162)

    1905 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Leon P and Las Heras C 2023Eur. Phys. J. C83260

  11. [18]

    Ramos A, Arias C, Fuenmayor E and Contreras E 2021Eur. Phys. J. C81203 (Preprint2103.05039)

    arXiv

  12. [19]

    Rinc´ on A, Gabbanelli L, Contreras E and Tello-Ortiz F 2019Eur. Phys. J. C79873 (Preprint 1909.00500)

    1909 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Panotopoulos G and Rinc´ on A 2018Eur. Phys. J.C78851 (Preprint1810.08830)

    arXiv

  14. [21]

    Singh K N, Maurya S K, Jasim M K and Rahaman F 2019Eur. Phys. J. C79851

  15. [22]

    Ovalle J, Casadio R, da Rocha R, Sotomayor A and Stuchlik Z 2018EPL12420004 (Preprint 1811.08559)

    arXiv

  16. [23]

    P´ erez Graterol R 2018Eur. Phys. J. Plus133244

  17. [24]

    Phys.661800036 (Preprint1804.06874)

    Heras C L and Leon P 2018Fortsch. Phys.661800036 (Preprint1804.06874)

    arXiv

  18. [25]

    Torres-S´ anchez V A and Contreras E 2019Eur. Phys. J.C79829 (Preprint1908.08194)

    arXiv

  19. [26]

    Tello-Ortiz F, Maurya S K and Bargue˜ no P 2021Eur. Phys. J. C81426

  20. [27]

    Zubair M, Azmat H and Jameel H 2023Eur. Phys. J. C83905

  21. [28]

    Bamba K, Bhatti M Z, Yousaf Z and Shoukat Z 2023Eur. Phys. J. C831033 (Preprint2307.10399)

    arXiv

  22. [29]

    Dark Univ.42 101284

    Maurya S K, Mustafa G, Ray S, Dayanandan B, Aziz A and Errehymy A 2023Phys. Dark Univ.42 101284

  23. [30]

    Iqbal N, Amir M, Alshammari M, Mohammed W W and Ilyas M 2025Eur. Phys. J. C85428

  24. [31]

    Contreras E and Fuenmayor E 2021Phys. Rev. D103124065 (Preprint2107.01140)

    arXiv

  25. [32]

    Sharif M and Majid A 2020Chin. J. Phys.68406–418

  26. [33]

    Meert P and da Rocha R 2021Nucl. Phys. B967115420 (Preprint2006.02564)

    arXiv

  27. [34]

    da Rocha R and Hoff da Silva J M 2014EPL10750001 (Preprint1408.2402)

    arXiv

  28. [35]

    Babichev E and Charmousis C 2014JHEP08106 (Preprint1312.3204)

    arXiv

  29. [36]

    Sotiriou T P and Zhou S Y 2014Phys. Rev. Lett.112251102 (Preprint1312.3622)

    arXiv

  30. [37]

    Antoniou G, Bakopoulos A and Kanti P 2018Phys. Rev. Lett.120131102 (Preprint1711.03390)

    arXiv

  31. [38]

    Hayward S A 2006Phys. Rev. Lett.96031103 (Preprintgr-qc/0506126)

  32. [39]

    Dark Univ.31100744 (Preprint 2006.06735)

    Ovalle J, Casadio R, Contreras E and Sotomayor A 2021Phys. Dark Univ.31100744 (Preprint 2006.06735)

    2006 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Liang Y, Lyu X and Tao J 2024Commun. Theor. Phys.76085402

  34. [41]

    Phys.20232200171 (Preprint2303.04119) 37

    Avalos R, Bargue˜ no P and Contreras E 2023Fortsch. Phys.20232200171 (Preprint2303.04119) 37

    arXiv

  35. [42]

    Zhang C M, Zhang M and Zou D C 2023Chin. Phys. C47015106 (Preprint2208.06830)

    arXiv

  36. [43]

    Dark Univ.42101345

    Ditta A, Javed F, Maurya S K, Mustafa G and Atamurotov F 2023Phys. Dark Univ.42101345

  37. [44]

    Dark Univ.39101172 (Preprint2208.05796)

    Mahapatra S and Banerjee I 2023Phys. Dark Univ.39101172 (Preprint2208.05796)

    arXiv

  38. [45]

    Albalahi A M, Yousaf Z, Ali A and Khan S 2024Eur. Phys. J. C849

  39. [46]

    Dark Univ.46101717 (Preprint2405.05370)

    Misyura M, Rincon A and Vertogradov V 2024Phys. Dark Univ.46101717 (Preprint2405.05370)

    arXiv

  40. [47]

    Cavalcanti R T, da Silva A G and da Rocha R 2016Class. Quant. Grav.33215007 (Preprint 1605.01271)

    arXiv

  41. [48]

    Cavalcanti R T, de Paiva R C and da Rocha R 2022Eur. Phys. J. Plus1371185 (Preprint2203.08740)

    arXiv

  42. [49]

    Yang Y, Liu D, ¨Ovg¨ un A, Long Z W and Xu Z 2023Phys. Rev. D107064042 (Preprint2203.11551)

    arXiv

  43. [50]

    Li Z 2023Phys. Lett. B841137902 (Preprint2212.08112)

    arXiv

  44. [51]

    Cavalcanti R T, Alves K d S and Hoff da Silva J M 2022Universe8363 (Preprint2207.03995)

    arXiv

  45. [52]

    Guimar˜ aes V F, Cavalcanti R T and da Rocha R 2025Class. Quant. Grav.42175011 (Preprint 2506.20044)

    arXiv

  46. [53]

    Avalos R and Contreras E 2023Eur. Phys. J. C83155 (Preprint2302.09148)

    arXiv

  47. [54]

    Dark Univ.46101547

    Tello-Ortiz F, Avalos R, G´ omez-Leyton Y and Contreras E 2024Phys. Dark Univ.46101547

  48. [55]

    da Rocha R 2017Phys. Rev. D95124017 (Preprint1701.00761)

    arXiv

  49. [56]

    Casadio R, Nicolini P and da Rocha R 2018Class. Quant. Grav.35185001 (Preprint1709.09704)

    arXiv

  50. [57]

    Poisson E and Israel W 1990Phys. Rev. D411796–1809

  51. [58]

    Bonanno A, Khosravi A P and Saueressig F 2023Phys. Rev. D107024005 (Preprint2209.10612)

    arXiv

  52. [59]

    Carballo-Rubio R, Di Filippo F, Liberati S, Pacilio C and Visser M 2022JHEP09118 (Preprint 2205.13556)

    arXiv

  53. [60]

    Tang C, Ling Y, Jiang Q Q and Li G P 2024Eur. Phys. J. C841296 (Preprint2411.01764)

    arXiv

  54. [61]

    Stashko O 2024Phys. Rev. D110084016 (Preprint2407.07892)

    arXiv

  55. [62]

    Konoplya R A and Zhidenko A 2024Phys. Rev. D109104005 (Preprint2403.07848)

    arXiv

  56. [63]

    Phys.712300075 (Preprint2309.01910)

    Balart L, Panotopoulos G and Rinc´ on A 2023Fortsch. Phys.712300075 (Preprint2309.01910)

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    Akiyama Ket al.(Event Horizon Telescope) 2022Astrophys. J. Lett.930L12 (Preprint2311.08680)

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Cardoso V, Miranda A S, Berti E, Witek H and Zanchin V T 2009Phys. Rev. D79064016 (Preprint 0812.1806)

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    Giri S, Nandan H, Joshi L K and Maharaj S D 2022Eur. Phys. J. Plus137181 (Preprint2204.09006)

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Mondal M, Pradhan P, Rahaman F and Karar I 2020Mod. Phys. Lett. A352050249 (Preprint 2008.11022)

    2008 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Olmo G J, Rosa J L, Rubiera-Garcia D and Saez-Chillon Gomez D 2023Class. Quant. Grav.40 174002 (Preprint2302.12064)

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Shukla B, Das P P, Dudal D and Mahapatra S 2024Phys. Rev. D110024068 (Preprint2404.02095)

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Das A, Roy Chowdhury A and Gangopadhyay S 2024Class. Quant. Grav.41015018 (Preprint 2306.00646) 38

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Du Y Z, Li H F, Ma Y B and Gu Q 2025Eur. Phys. J. C8578 (Preprint2403.20083)

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Gogoi N J, Acharjee S and Phukon P 2024Eur. Phys. J. C841144 (Preprint2404.03947)

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    Barreto W and da Rocha R 2022Phys. Rev. D105064049 (Preprint2201.08324)

    arXiv

  67. [75]

    Lett.551082

    Sano M and Sawada Y 1985Physical Rev. Lett.551082

  68. [76]

    Cornish N J and Levin J J 2003Class. Quant. Grav.201649–1660 (Preprintgr-qc/0304056)

  69. [77]

    Bambi Cet al.2025 Black hole mimickers: from theory to observation (Preprint2505.09014)

    2025 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Casadio R, Kamenshchik A and Ovalle J 2024Phys. Rev. D109024042 (Preprint2401.03980)

    arXiv

  71. [79]

    Yang Y, Liu D, ¨Ovg¨ un A, Lambiase G and Long Z W 2024Phys. Rev. D109024002 (Preprint 2307.09344)

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Mazza J, Franzin E and Liberati S 2021JCAP04082 (Preprint2102.01105)

    arXiv

  73. [81]

    Ramos A, Arias C, Avalos R and Contreras E 2021Annals Phys.431168557 (Preprint2107.01146)

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    Daghigh R G, Green M D and Morey J C 2023Phys. Rev. D107024023 (Preprint2209.09324)

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    Berti E, Cardoso V and Starinets A O 2009Class. Quant. Grav.26163001 (Preprint0905.2975)

    arXiv

  76. [84]

    Cardoso V and Lemos J P S 2001Phys. Rev. D64084017 (Preprintgr-qc/0105103)

  77. [85]

    Konoplya R A and Zhidenko A 2011Rev. Mod. Phys.83793–836 (Preprint1102.4014)

    arXiv

  78. [86]

    Santos E C, Fabris J C and de Freitas Pacheco J A 2019 (Preprint1903.04874)

    2019 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Iyer S and Will C M 1987Phys. Rev. D353621

  80. [88]

    Konoplya R A, Zhidenko A and Zinhailo A F 2019Class. Quant. Grav.36155002 (Preprint 1904.10333)

    1904 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Churilova M S 2019Eur. Phys. J. C79629 (Preprint1905.04536)

    arXiv

  82. [90]

    Konoplya R A and Zhidenko A 2023Class. Quant. Grav.40245005 (Preprint2309.02560)

    arXiv

  83. [91]

    Carlip S 2014Int. J. Mod. Phys. D231430023 (Preprint1410.1486)

    arXiv

  84. [92]

    Rel.46 (Preprintgr-qc/9912119)

    Wald R M 2001Living Rev. Rel.46 (Preprintgr-qc/9912119)

  85. [93]

    Today3324–31

    Bekenstein J D 1980Phys. Today3324–31

  86. [94]

    Hawking S W 1976Phys. Rev. D13191–197

  87. [95]

    Feng W, da Rocha R and Casadio R 2024Eur. Phys. J. C84586 (Preprint2401.14540)

    arXiv

  88. [96]

    Casadio R, da Rocha R, Giusti A and Meert P 2024Phys. Lett. B849138466 (Preprint2310.07505)

    arXiv

  89. [97]

    Casadio R, da Rocha R, Meert P, Tabarroni L and Barreto W 2023Class. Quant. Grav.40075014 (Preprint2206.10398)

    arXiv

  90. [98]

    Promsiri C, Hirunsirisawat E and Liewrian W 2020Phys. Rev. D102064014 (Preprint2003.12986)

    arXiv

  91. [99]

    Dey A, Roy P and Sarkar T 2018JHEP04098 (Preprint1609.02290)

    arXiv

  92. [100]

    Czinner V G and Iguchi H 2016Phys. Lett. B752306–310 (Preprint1511.06963)

    arXiv

  93. [101]

    Czinner V G and Iguchi H 2017Eur. Phys. J. C77892 (Preprint1702.05341)

    arXiv

  94. [102]

    Abreu E M C and Neto J A 2021EPL13510001 (Preprint2009.05012)

    arXiv

  95. [103]

    Nakarachinda R, Hirunsirisawat E, Tannukij L and Wongjun P 2021Phys. Rev. D104064003 (Preprint2106.02838)

    arXiv

  96. [104]

    Dark Univ.42101345 39

    Ditta A, Javed F, Maurya S K, Mustafa G and Atamurotov F 2023Phys. Dark Univ.42101345 39

  97. [105]

    Hawking S W 1975Commun. Math. Phys.43199–220 [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    1976

  98. [106]

    Wei S W and Liu Y X 2013JCAP11063 (Preprint1311.4251)

    arXiv

  99. [107]

    Mashhoon B 1973Phys. Rev. D72807–2814

  100. [108]

    Ditta A, Tiecheng X, Ali R, Atamurotov F, Mahmood A and Mumtaz S 2023Annals Phys.453 169326

  101. [109]

    Ditta A, Tiecheng X, Mustafa G, Yasir M and Atamurotov F 2022Eur. Phys. J. C82756

  102. [110]

    Eslam Panah B, Jafarzade K and Hendi S H 2020Nucl. Phys. B961115269 (Preprint2004.04058)

    arXiv

  103. [111]

    Chen H, Dong S H, Hassanabadi S, Heidari N and Hassanabadi H 2024Chin. Phys. C48085105

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.