Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

In dynamical Chern-Simons gravity, environmental perturbations amplify weak parity violation into three spectral signatures absent in general relativity: mode reconnections, delayed overtaking, and scalar-mode dominance.

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

2026-08-03 19:59 UTC pith:VYHDBHR3

load-bearing objection A genuinely new combination of spectral-instability physics with dCS parity violation; the core phenomena look plausible, but the ε-scaling bridge to observability is not yet established. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.21786 v2 pith:VYHDBHR3 submitted 2025-11-26 gr-qc

Parity violating spectral dynamics of black holes in dynamical Chern-Simons gravity

Han-Wen Hu , Chen Lan , Zong-Kuan Guo This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords dynamical Chern-Simons gravityparity violationquasinormal modesspectral instabilityexceptional pointsblack hole ringdownnon-Hermitian physicsenvironmental perturbations
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.

This paper claims that a tiny parity-violating coupling in dynamical Chern-Simons gravity, nearly invisible in static black hole spectra, is amplified by environmental spectral instabilities into large, observable dynamical signatures. Perturbing the Schwarzschild background with a localized potential bump, the authors find three effects that general relativity cannot produce: topological reconnections of quasinormal-mode trajectories, a counterintuitive stabilization that delays the overtaking instability as parity violation strengthens, and an intermediate-coupling regime where the dCS scalar mode becomes the longest-lived mode. The headline quantitative result is that the critical bump position a_crit for mode overtaking rises from roughly 5 in GR to about 21 for strong breaking (β=0.1). If correct, this gives a frequency-domain route to testing parity symmetry with gravitational-wave ringdown data.

Core claim

In dynamical Chern-Simons gravity, the parity-violating coupling between the axial gravitational perturbation and a pseudoscalar field breaks the axial-polar isospectrality of Schwarzschild, but the static splitting is weak. The paper shows that when a localized Pöschl–Teller bump is added to the gravitational potential, this small coupling controls the non-Hermitian spectral dynamics of quasinormal modes: mode trajectories undergo topological reconnections at critical values of β, the overtaking instability that marks the onset of spectral instability is postponed as β decreases (a_crit ≈ 21 for β=0.1 compared with the GR baseline), and at intermediate coupling (β≈1) the pseudoscalar mode b

What carries the argument

The coupled axial-gravitational and scalar master equations of dCS gravity (Eq. 2), together with the environmental bump V_bump=ε sech²(r*−a) (Eq. 3), are reduced to a two-mode non-Hermitian effective Hamiltonian (Eq. 10). Its discriminant D=(Ω_g²−Ω_s²)²+4κ_gs κ_sg=0 gives the exceptional-point resonance condition that predicts topological reconnections; second-order perturbation theory on this Hamiltonian yields the scalar-mode decay-rate shift (Eq. 5). The overlap integrals κ between the gravitational and scalar modes, controlled by the 1/(β r^6) potential, are the quantities that set whether the stabilization or the scalar overtake occurs.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume the environment acts as a single Pöschl–Teller bump of amplitude ε=10^-2 added to the gravitational potential, and that the critical position follows a fitted logarithmic scaling to arbitrarily small ε; if either the model or the scaling is not representative, the claim that the signatures survive for weak perturbations is unsupported.

What would settle it

Run a time-domain evolution of the coupled dCS equations with a bump of amplitude ε between 10^-3 and 10^-5, or with a different environmental profile (e.g., a Gaussian or a matter shell) rather than the Pöschl–Teller bump, and check whether a_crit still scales logarithmically and whether the three phenomena (reconnection, delayed overtaking, scalar dominance) persist. If the β-dependence of a_crit vanishes or the scalar branch fails to become least-damped at intermediate coupling, the central claim is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • The three phenomena provide frequency-domain discriminators between dCS gravity and GR: a 'stabilized' fundamental frequency where GR predicts a discrete jump would signal parity violation.
  • The critical instability point follows a_crit ∝ −log ε, so the same spectral signatures persist for astrophysically weak environmental perturbations, merely shifting to larger distances.
  • The β-dependent a_crit turns a weak static splitting into an amplified dynamical feature that could be probed by LIGO/Virgo or future detectors such as LISA and the Einstein Telescope.
  • Because the framework relies on generic non-Hermitian two-field couplings, similar amplification could occur for other symmetry breakings, e.g., Lorentz-violating terms in the gravitational sector.
  • For spinning black holes, rotation itself acts as a non-Hermitian parameter and should produce richer topological phenomena when combined with the dCS coupling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The observability claim rests on extrapolating the single-bump model and the fitted logarithmic scaling (a_crit=−8.46 log ε + 2.09, R²≈0.91, with non-monotonic data points); if realistic environments deviate from a Pöschl–Teller bump, this scaling should be re-tested before trusting the small-ε extrapolation.
  • A natural next calculation is the time-domain ringdown with excitation factors: the paper notes early waveforms may be degenerate, so whether the scalar-dominated branch is actually the loudest channel in the first cycles remains open.
  • The same two-mode effective-Hamiltonian reduction could be applied to any modified-gravity theory that breaks axial-polar isospectrality via a scalar field, mapping static splittings to spectral-topology classes.
  • For Kerr black holes, one could search for dCS-induced reconnections in the (spin, β, bump position) parameter space; numerical relativity simulations of ringdown in dCS with a surrounding matter shell would provide a direct test.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies how environmentally driven spectral instabilities of Schwarzschild black hole quasinormal modes respond to parity-violating dynamical Chern-Simons (dCS) coupling. A Pöschl–Teller bump is added to the gravitational potential, and the complex QNM spectrum is tracked as a function of bump position for β = 0.1, 1, and 1000. The central claims are: (i) topological reconnections of mode trajectories as β varies, interpreted as non-Hermitian phase transitions; (ii) a counterintuitive stabilization where the critical overtaking position a_crit increases with stronger parity violation (from ~15 in GR to ~21 for β = 0.1 at ε = 10^-2); and (iii) scalar mode dominance at intermediate coupling. A 2×2 effective Hamiltonian is constructed to explain these effects qualitatively, and a log-linear scaling of a_crit with ε is fitted from SM data to argue persistence at astrophysically small ε.

Significance. If correct, the paper would introduce a novel diagnostic—using environmental spectral instabilities as amplifiers of parity violation—with potential relevance to LIGO/Virgo and LISA ringdown analyses. The numerical approach (shooting method, residuals 10^-6) is standard and the authors are transparent that the two-mode effective model is qualitative. However, the load-bearing quantitative link to weak perturbations, namely the log-scaling law, is currently not robustly established; this is central to the observational relevance claimed in the conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Spectral Topology, text after Eq. (4)] The GR baseline a_crit is quoted as ≃15 for the polar sector and for the β=1000 axial sector, but later in the same section the text states 'a_crit increasing from ∼5 (GR) to ∼21 for β=0.1'. These values are incompatible. Since the abstract and conclusion highlight the delay from ~15 to ~21 (or ~5 to ~21), the correct baseline must be fixed and all derived statements adjusted.
  2. [SM Table I and Fig. 4] The scaling law underpinning the weak-perturbation extrapolation has unresolved issues. (a) Table I's caption says 'baseline GR polar mode' while Fig. 4 says 'dCS axial mode with β=1'; the text says 'β=1 situation'—the sector is ambiguous. (b) The data are non-monotonic at adjacent points (27→25, 34.5→33.5) with no error bars; the R²=0.91 fit uses only seven points. (c) No scaling data are given for β=0.1, the headline strong-coupling case. Because the conclusion explicitly invokes this scaling for 'astrophysically weak environmental perturbations', this is load-bearing. Please provide sector-consistent data with uncertainty estimates and ideally a verified scaling for β=0.1.
  3. [Fig. 2 and surrounding text] The topological reconnection is inferred solely from comparing β=4 and β=5. The critical β is not located, and no exceptional-point/coalescence point is exhibited. Since 'topological reconnections... indicating non-Hermitian phase transitions' is one of the three central claims, a scan or bisection in β—and ideally a quantitative comparison with the resonance condition Eq. (4)—is needed to substantiate the phase-transition interpretation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, footnote 1] The statement that a localized bump 'effectively mimic[s] astrophysical environmental effects' is stronger than the cited literature warrants; please qualify it with the limitations of the single-bump model.
  2. [Spectral Topology, paragraph on a_crit] The phrase 'inversely related' for the ε dependence of a_crit is imprecise; the SM shows a logarithmic dependence. Please state this consistently.
  3. [Conclusion, 'stabilization window'] The 'stabilization window (15≲a≲21)' should be defined more precisely: clarify that it refers to the difference between the GR/polar a_crit (~15) and the β=0.1 axial a_crit (~21) at ε=10^-2.
  4. [SM, Eq. (10)-(14)] The effective Hamiltonian is explicitly qualitative, but the paper does not compare the predicted reconnection locus from Eq. (14) with the numerical evidence. A brief statement of the degree of agreement (or lack thereof) would strengthen the connection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central phenomena come from direct numerical solution of the dCS equations; the effective Hamiltonian and scaling fit are post-hoc explanatory, not fitted inputs masquerading as predictions.

full rationale

The central results do not reduce by construction to the paper's inputs. The gravitational and scalar QNMs are obtained by solving the coupled dCS master equations (Eq. 2) together with the bump potential (Eq. 3) using a shooting method; these equations are taken from the external dCS literature (Ref. [24]), not derived from the target spectra. The effective 2x2 Hamiltonian (Eq. 10) is constructed from overlap integrals of unperturbed GR modes (Eqs. 11-13), and the SM explicitly states it 'serve[s] to predict the existence of EPs and spectral shifts qualitatively rather than determining their exact locations'; so it is not fitted to the observed a_crit values. The resonance condition (Eq. 14) is the algebraic discriminant of that model, not an input that imposes the reconnection. The scaling law a_crit = -8.46 log(epsilon) + 2.09 is a linear fit to the numerical data in SM Table I and is labeled 'A linear fit'; the conclusion that overtaking persists for small epsilon is an extrapolation from that fit, not a prediction statistically forced by a subset of data. Even if the fit is fragile (non-monotonic adjacent points, R^2=0.91, caption ambiguity), that is a robustness/correctness concern, not circularity. There are no self-citations to the present authors and no imported uniqueness theorem; the cited prior work (e.g., Refs. [21,24]) is independent external support. The three headline phenomena are read directly from the numerical spectra, so no central equation is equivalent to its input by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of modeling choices: the dCS equations, the single-bump environmental model with hand-picked amplitude, and a qualitative two-mode effective Hamiltonian. No new physical entities are invented; the main unquantified costs are the lack of error bars and the extrapolation from ε=10^-2 via a noisy fit.

free parameters (4)
  • bump amplitude ε = 0.01
    Chosen by hand for numerical tractability; the paper argues via scaling that smaller ε only shifts a_crit, but ε itself is a free environmental parameter.
  • Pöschl–Teller bump width = unit width (implicit in sech^2(r*-a))
    The width/steepness of the bump is not varied or justified; it is a free modeling choice.
  • scaling-law slope = -8.46
    Fitted to a_crit vs log10 ε data (SM Fig. 4); used to extrapolate persistence to smaller ε.
  • scaling-law intercept = 2.09
    Fitted intercept of a_crit = -8.46 log ε + 2.09.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption dCS action (Eq. 1) is the theory; Schwarzschild is the background solution; coupled perturbation equations (Eq. 2) are imported from Ref [24].
    The entire calculation lives inside dCS gravity; the background and perturbation equations are taken as given from prior literature.
  • domain assumption QNM boundary conditions: purely ingoing at horizon, purely outgoing at infinity, enforced at a numerical cutoff.
    Standard for QNM computations, but the cutoff error is not quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper Two-mode effective Hamiltonian (Eq. 10) captures the reconnection and scalar-overtake physics.
    The SM admits this theory is qualitative ('predict... qualitatively rather than determining their exact locations'); it underpins the interpretation more than the raw numerics.
  • domain assumption The localized bump models generic astrophysical environments.
    Footnote 1 asserts the bump 'has been shown to effectively mimic astrophysical environmental effects', a modeling assumption inherited from Ref [21].

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11100 in / 20300 out tokens · 169097 ms · 2026-08-03T19:59:15.246909+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study how environmentally driven spectral instabilities of quasinormal modes respond to parity violating gravito-scalar coupling in black holes. Focusing on dynamical Chern-Simons gravity as a paradigm for parity violation, we perturb the Schwarzschild background with a localized potential bump. Our analysis reveals three distinctive phenomena absent in general relativity: 1) branch reconnections in the complex frequency plane, 2) a counterintuitive mode stabilization that delays overtaking transitions, and 3) scalar mode dominance emerging at intermediate coupling strengths. These frequency domain features show how comparatively weak static sector differences manifest as distinct dynamical signatures, thereby linking parity violating black hole perturbations with non-Hermitian spectral physics. Our results provide a frequency domain characterization of parity violating coupling and motivate future targeted ringdown studies of modified gravity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.21786 by Chen Lan, Han-Wen Hu, Zong-Kuan Guo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: QNM migration trajectories in the complex frequency plane for different symmetry-breaking strengths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The frequency deviation of the fundamental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Scaling relation of the critical position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Cascading amplification of gravitational waves triggered by environment in dynamical Chern-Simons gravity

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    An external dynamical environment forms a resonant cavity with a black hole in dCS gravity that triggers Mathieu instability in the scalar sector, producing cascading amplification of gravitational waves via a delayed...

  2. Waveform stability of black hole ringdown with stochastic horizon structure

    gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    Ringdown waveforms are robust against small-scale stochastic horizon fluctuations; only coherent, macroscopic horizon structure with ε≳10^-4 and L_c∼M could produce observable deviations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 39 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    On overtaking, strong breaking stabilizes the sys- tem, postponinga crit

  2. [2]

    stabilized

    On asymptotic behavior, strong breaking makes the resulting stable mode more sensitive to perturba- tions in the potential’s tail. On the other hand, stronger coupling acts like a stiffer spring, making the spectrum more rigid against distant perturbations, while simultaneously opening a new chan- nel for energy dissipation that sensitizes the damping rat...

  3. [3]

    Regge and J

    T. Regge and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev.108, 1063 (1957)

    1957

  4. [4]

    Chandrasekhar, Proc

    S. Chandrasekhar, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A343, 289 (1975)

    1975

  5. [5]

    Chandrasekhar,The mathematical theory of black holes(Oxford university press, 1985)

    S. Chandrasekhar,The mathematical theory of black holes(Oxford university press, 1985)

    1985

  6. [6]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  7. [7]

    Berti, V

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    C.-Y. Chen, M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, and P. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. Plus136, 253 (2021), arXiv:2103.01249 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    D. Li, A. Hussain, P. Wagle, Y. Chen, N. Yunes, and A. Zimmerman, Phys. Rev. D109, 104026 (2024), arXiv:2310.06033 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    del Corral and J

    D. del Corral and J. Olmedo, Phys. Rev. D105, 064053 (2022), arXiv:2201.09584 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Herceg, T

    N. Herceg, T. Juri´ c, A. N. Kumara, A. Samsarov, and I. Smoli´ c, JHEP05, 083 (2025), arXiv:2409.01402 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Herceg, T

    N. Herceg, T. Juri´ c, A. N. Kumara, A. Samsarov, and I. Smoli´ c (2025) arXiv:2503.15181 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    A. K.-W. Chung, K. K.-H. Lam, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D111, 124052 (2025), arXiv:2503.11759 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Yagi and H

    K. Yagi and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D97, 104018 (2018), arXiv:1712.00682 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    S. E. Perkins, R. Nair, H. O. Silva, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D104, 024060 (2021), arXiv:2104.11189 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Califano, R

    M. Califano, R. D’Agostino, and D. Vernieri, Phys. Rev. D109, 104062 (2024), arXiv:2311.02161 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    T. Zhu, W. Zhao, J.-M. Yan, Y.-Z. Wang, C. Gong, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D110, 064044 (2024), arXiv:2304.09025 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Zhang, T

    B.-Y. Zhang, T. Zhu, J.-M. Yan, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D111, 104012 (2025), arXiv:2502.04776 [gr-qc]. 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    S. P. Kim, J. Korean Phys. Soc.49, 764 (2006), arXiv:gr- qc/0512005

    arXiv 2006

  20. [20]

    Are´ an, D

    D. Are´ an, D. G. Fari˜ na, and K. Landsteiner, JHEP12, 187 (2023), arXiv:2307.08751 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Besson, J

    J. Besson, J. Carballo, C. Pantelidou, and B. Withers, Front. in Phys.13, 1638583 (2025), arXiv:2507.16493 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    P. T. Leung, Y. T. Liu, W. M. Suen, C. Y. Tam, and K. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2894 (1997), arXiv:gr- qc/9903031

    arXiv 1997

  23. [23]

    M. H.-Y. Cheung, K. Destounis, R. P. Macedo, E. Berti, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 111103 (2022), arXiv:2111.05415 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Solidoro, S

    L. Solidoro, S. Patrick, S. Weinfurtner, and R. Gregory, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 051401 (2025), arXiv:2406.11013 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Shen, G.-R

    S.-F. Shen, G.-R. Li, R. G. Daghigh, J. C. Morey, M. D. Green, W.-L. Qian, and R.-H. Yue, (2025), arXiv:2509.23372 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Molina, P

    C. Molina, P. Pani, V. Cardoso, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D81, 124021 (2010), arXiv:1004.4007 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  27. [27]

    Wagle, N

    P. Wagle, N. Yunes, and H. O. Silva, Phys. Rev. D105, 124003 (2022), arXiv:2103.09913 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Srivastava, Y

    M. Srivastava, Y. Chen, and S. Shankaranarayanan, Phys. Rev. D104, 064034 (2021), arXiv:2106.06209 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Wagle, D

    P. Wagle, D. Li, Y. Chen, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104029 (2024), arXiv:2311.07706 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Alapati and S

    T. Alapati and S. Shankaranarayanan, Phys. Rev. D112, 024053 (2025), arXiv:2506.03600 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Yunes and F

    N. Yunes and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D79, 084043 (2009), arXiv:0902.4669 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  32. [32]

    Bertiet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.23895 [gr-qc]

    E. Bertiet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.23895 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    J. P. Cavalcante, M. Richartz, and B. C. da Cunha, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 261401 (2024), arXiv:2407.20850 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Kubota and H

    K.-i. Kubota and H. Motohashi, (2025), arXiv:2509.06411 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Klaiman, N

    S. Klaiman, N. Moiseyev, and U. Gunther, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 080402 (2008), arXiv:0802.2457 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  36. [36]

    Schnabel, H

    J. Schnabel, H. Cartarius, J. Main, G. Wunner, and W. D. Heiss, Phys. Rev. A95, 053868 (2017), arXiv:1703.05091 [physics.optics]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

    A. I. Nesterov and F. Aceves de la Cruz, J. Phys. A41, 485304 (2008), arXiv:0806.3720 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  38. [38]

    Kumar, K

    A. Kumar, K. W. Murch, and Y. N. Joglekar, Phys. Rev. A105, 012422 (2022), arXiv:2109.07503 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    W. D. Heiss, J. Phys. A45, 444016 (2012), arXiv:1210.7536 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  40. [40]

    Oliveira, D

    R. Oliveira, D. M. Dantas, and C. A. S. Almeida, EPL 135, 10003 (2021), arXiv:2105.07956 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Zhang, A

    C. Zhang, A. Wang, and T. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 841 (2023), arXiv:2209.04735 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    W.-D. Guo, Q. Tan, and Y.-X. Liu, JCAP07, 008 (2024), arXiv:2312.16605 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Boudet, F

    S. Boudet, F. Bombacigno, G. J. Olmo, and P. J. Por- firio, JCAP05, 032 (2022), arXiv:2203.04000 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Cardoso, K

    V. Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. P. Macedo, and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. D105, L061501 (2022), arXiv:2109.00005 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Cardoso, K

    V. Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. Panosso Macedo, and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 241103 (2022), arXiv:2210.01133 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    Bojowald, E

    M. Bojowald, E. I. Duque, and S. Shankaranarayanan, Phys. Rev. D111, 024051 (2025), arXiv:2410.17501 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Garcia-Saenz, G

    S. Garcia-Saenz, G. Guo, P. Wang, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. D110, 124045 (2024), arXiv:2409.13184 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Antoniou, A

    G. Antoniou, A. Bakopoulos, and P. Kanti, Phys. Rev. D97, 084037 (2018), arXiv:1711.07431 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    H. O. Silva, A. M. Holgado, A. C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 181101 (2021), arXiv:2004.01253 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Y. Yang, E. Berti, and N. Franchini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 201401 (2025), arXiv:2504.06072 [gr-qc]. 7 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL Non-Hermitian perturbation theory for spectral dynamics.In this section, we establish a formal framework aimed at elucidating the physical mechanisms driving both the topological reconnection and the scalar mode overtake phenomena....

    arXiv 2025