Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 71 references

Black hole spacetimes with dark matter spikes: Energy-momentum tensor and backreaction effects

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 ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Accounting for the orbital kinetic energy and radial pressure of a dark-matter spike makes the black-hole spacetime deviate from Schwarzschild about 2.5 times more than rest-mass-only treatments find.

desk verdict Solid EMT derivation; the factor-2.5 backreaction comparison is not apples-to-apples and should be treated as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.12570 v2 pith:YF7OLZLT submitted 2025-11-16 gr-qc

Wei Xiong , Peng-Cheng Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.20.-q04.40.-b95.35.+d
keywords darkmatterspikeblackholebackreactionEinsteinclusterenergy-momentumtensoranisotropicpressureadiabaticgrowthSchwarzschildmetriccuspyhaloprofile
topics Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to show that a dark-matter spike around a black hole gravitates through its full dynamical content—the kinetic energy of bound orbits and the anisotropic pressure they generate—not just through its rest-mass density. Within a cluster model of collisionless particles, the authors compute the spike's complete energy-momentum tensor after adiabatic black-hole growth, using a cuspy halo profile and Milky Way parameters, and find that near the spike the kinetic term adds roughly 50% to the energy density relative to the rest-mass term. Feeding this tensor into the Einstein equations as a fixed source, the metric functions g(r) and m(r) deviate from Schwarzschild by about 2.5 times more than in earlier mass-density-only treatments near the spike's peak. If this is right, earlier spike-backreaction models have understated how strongly the spike curves spacetime. The computation is a step toward a self-consistent relativistic description of black holes embedded in dark-matter halos.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Einstein-cluster energy-momentum tensor of the spike, T^μ_ν = ∫ u^μ u_ν [M f^(4)(x,p)] √(-g) d^4p, built from the phase-space distribution f(E,L²)=f^(halo)(ε(E,L²)), with the orbital energy mapped through the adiabatic-invariant relation between the halo orbit and a Schwarzschild geodesic. It yields explicit integrals for the energy density, radial pressure, and tangential pressure. The backreaction metric is obtained by solving the tt and rr Einstein equations for g(r) and m(r), with this tensor as a fixed source and Schwarzschild boundary conditions at the spike's inner edge.

What would settle it

Evaluate the conservation residual C^r and the tangential Einstein equation using the paper's numerical g(r), m(r), and T^μ_ν; a residual comparable to the claimed deviations would show the metric is an artifact of the truncated system. An iterative re-computation of the distribution function and T in the backreacted metric, repeated to convergence, would also test whether the factor-2.5 enhancement persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the Einstein-cluster framework, the paper derives the complete diagonal energy-momentum tensor of the spike—energy density, radial pressure, tangential pressure—from a distribution function conserved through adiabatic black-hole growth, evaluated in a fixed Schwarzschild background. Near the spike, the full energy density is about 1.5 times the rest-mass density; the radial pressure is two orders of magnitude smaller but nonzero, becoming comparable to the tangential pressure at large radius; all standard energy conditions hold. Solving the tt and rr Einstein equations with this tensor as a fixed source yields metric functions whose deviations from Schwarzschild exceed those of a mass

Load-bearing premise

The computation solves only the tt and rr Einstein equations, using a source evaluated in the fixed Schwarzschild background, and the paper acknowledges that the conservation equation is not satisfied in the perturbed metric; if the conservation residual is not negligible, the reported metric deviations are not the metric sourced by the claimed tensor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Near the peak of the energy density, the backreacted metric functions deviate from Schwarzschild by about 2.5 times more than a mass-density-only treatment, so earlier estimates understate the spike's spacetime effect.
  • The kinetic contribution makes up about half the peak energy density, so the spike's total gravitational source is not well approximated by its rest-mass density alone.
  • The radial pressure is nonzero in the spike and becomes comparable to the tangential pressure at large radius; setting it to zero is not a globally valid simplification.
  • The derived energy-momentum tensor satisfies the null, weak, strong, and dominant energy conditions, so it is physically admissible as a source.
  • The mass-function deviation m(r)-m_Schwarzschild is larger than the g(r) deviation, indicating the main backreaction is a redistribution of the effective mass profile seen by orbiting particles.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper attributes the enhancement mainly to kinetic energy but does not separately quantify how much comes from the kinetic term versus the non-zero radial pressure; a run that switches on each term independently would isolate the two effects.
  • Because the conservation equation is knowingly not satisfied in the perturbed metric and no residual is reported, the solved (g,m) may not be the exact metric sourced by the claimed tensor; computing the residual of the unenforced equations is a direct check the paper leaves open.
  • Applying the same construction to other halo profiles (a different cuspy model or a cored profile) would test whether the ~50% kinetic share and the ~2.5 factor are robust or specific to the chosen cuspy profile.
  • If a fully self-consistent calculation confirms the stronger deviation, dark-matter spikes would imprint larger-than-expected signatures in gravitational-wave phase evolution and in photon orbits around the Galactic center black hole.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 constructs the energy-momentum tensor of a dark-matter spike formed by adiabatic growth of a Schwarzschild black hole inside a Hernquist halo, using the Einstein-cluster distribution-function formalism. From the Hernquist DF and conserved actions in the Schwarzschild background, the authors derive integral expressions for the mass current and the diagonal EMT components (Eqs. (35)-(38)), including a kinetic contribution to the energy density and non-vanishing radial pressure. They report that near the spike the kinetic energy enhances the energy density by roughly 50% relative to the rest-mass density, that the EMT satisfies the standard energy conditions, and that the backreacted static spherically symmetric metric, obtained by solving only the tt and rr Einstein equations (43)-(44) with this EMT as a fixed source, deviates from Schwarzschild by up to about 2.5 times more than the mass-density-only treatment of Ref. [47]. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the conservation equation (47) is not satisfied in the perturbed metric and calls the construction semi-consistent.

Significance. If established, the result would be a useful quantitative step beyond mass-density-only treatments of DM-spike backreaction, showing that orbital kinetic energy and pressure can matter for the metric. The main strength is the explicit phase-space construction: the integrals (35)-(38) are concrete, depend only on macroscopic Hernquist parameters, and the paper checks the energy conditions numerically. There is no obvious circularity: the kinetic enhancement and the metric deviation are outputs of the orbital-invariant calculation, not fitted targets. However, the central comparison is currently not a controlled one, and the unquantified violation of the conservation equation leaves the reported metric-source correspondence vulnerable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Fig. 5; Sec. III.A, Eqs. (43)-(44) and (47)] The paper's central claim that the full dynamical EMT produces metric deviations roughly 2.5 times larger than mass-density-only treatments is not established by the comparison shown. The curves labelled EC from Ref. [47] are obtained by solving the full system (43),(44),(47) with zero radial pressure, whereas the present solution uses the full EMT but solves only (43) and (44), explicitly dropping (47). The factor 2.5 therefore conflates two independent changes: the content of the source and the subset of Einstein equations enforced. A same-method control, e.g., solving exactly (43)-(44) with the mass-density-only source built from Eq. (35), is not presented. Without that control, the attribution of the enhancement to kinetic energy is underdetermined.
  2. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (47)] The paper states that after backreaction is included, 'this statistical construction no longer guarantees exact conservation, hence (47) cannot be simultaneously fulfilled in the perturbed metric.' The size of the conservation residual is never estimated. Since the reported deviations are small (g deviations of order 10^-7-10^-6 and m deviations of order 10^-5 near the spike), the residual in ∇_μ T^{μν} could be comparable to or larger than the claimed effect. The authors should quantify the residual in the solved metric, or otherwise show that it is negligible. As it stands, the metric obtained from the truncated system cannot be unambiguously identified as the metric sourced by the claimed T^{μν}.
  3. [Sec. III.A] The choice to solve only (43) and (44) is motivated by the fact that (46)/(47) is automatically satisfied in the fixed Schwarzschild background. That motivation is insufficient: consistency in the background does not imply that the residual remains small once g and m are changed by O(10^-6)-O(10^-5). A linearized estimate of the conservation residual in the perturbed metric, or an iterative scheme that recomputes the EMT in the updated metric, is needed to support the statement that this truncation 'captures the dominant physical effects'.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (40) and surrounding text] Typo 'symmertry' should be 'symmetry'.
  2. [Fig. 5] The right panels plot ratios of deviations against the alternative method. The caption and axis labels should clarify that the comparison is between two different solution schemes, not two sources in the same scheme; otherwise the reader may misread the factor 2.5 as a pure EMT effect.
  3. [References] Reference [35] has a formatting error: 'arXiv:2508.20238 [gr-qc]]' has a misplaced bracket. Several other references would benefit from journal/volume updates where available.
  4. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (22)] The adiabatic-invariant relation is central but the numerical evaluation of ϵ(E,L^2) is not described. A brief statement of the root-finding procedure and accuracy would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central claims are outputs of orbital integrals and Einstein equations, not imposed inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: Hernquist DF -> adiabatic invariant mapping to a Schwarzschild spike -> Einstein-cluster EMT integrals (Eqs. 35-38) -> solving the tt/rr Einstein equations (43)-(44) with boundary conditions (50). The ~50% kinetic enhancement and the factor-2.5 metric-deviation ratio are computed outputs, not parameters fitted to those targets. The comparison with Ref. [47] is between two different calculational schemes; the fact that the present work enforces only (43)-(44) while the alternative solves (43),(44),(47) is a truncation/validity concern, not a circular one. The paper explicitly acknowledges this limitation: 'this statistical construction no longer guarantees exact conservation, hence (47) cannot be simultaneously fulfilled in the perturbed metric' (Sec. III.A). No load-bearing self-citation appears: the cited prior spike results, the Einstein-cluster framework, and the Milky Way parameters are external inputs, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the present authors' own work to force the conclusion. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no known result is merely relabeled. The central quantitative claims therefore do not reduce by construction to their inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's results rest on a chain of standard assumptions (adiabatic growth, Schwarzschild-background geodesics, Hernquist DF) and one non-standard truncation: solving only two of the three Einstein equations. The only data-fitted inputs are the Milky Way Hernquist parameters from [66]; all other quantities are computed from integrals over bound geodesics.

free parameters (4)
  • Hernquist halo total mass M = 1.55×10^12 M_sun (fitted to Milky Way in [66])
    Sets the absolute normalization of the DM density, the EMT, and hence the size of the metric deviations. Entered via Eq. (9)-(10) and Eq. (12).
  • Hernquist scale radius a = 16.9 kpc (fitted to Milky Way in [66])
    Sets the radial scale of the halo and the location/amplitude of the spike; enters Eq. (9)-(10) and DF (12).
  • SMBH mass M_BH = 4×10^6 M_sun
    Normalizes all lengths and the geometric unit system (M_BH=1); chosen as the Milky Way Sgr A* value. Only a scale, so it does not change ratios like rho_E/rho_M.
  • Numerical outer radius r_max = 10^5 M_BH
    Chosen where the BH potential dominates (Fig. 1); the metric is solved only to this radius and the halo contribution beyond is neglected.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Adiabatic invariants (radial action) are conserved during BH growth, Eq. (21)-(22).
    Standard Gondolo-Silk adiabatic spike assumption; central to mapping the initial halo DF to the final spike DF.
  • domain assumption DM particle orbits are geodesics of the Schwarzschild metric of the central BH; the halo's own gravity is neglected for r<=10^5 M_BH.
    Justified by Fig. 1 showing the BH potential dominates; neglects DM self-gravity in the spike.
  • domain assumption The post-growth DF satisfies f(E,L^2)=f^(H)(epsilon(E,L^2)) (Eq. 27), using the Hernquist DF (12).
    Taken from Sadeghian et al. [11,12]; the DF remains a function of conserved quantities under adiabatic growth.
  • domain assumption The Einstein cluster formula (25) gives the EMT as an integral over bound geodesics in the Schwarzschild background.
    Standard relativistic stellar-dynamics result [63,64,68]; converts the phase-space DF into a fluid-like EMT.
  • ad hoc to paper The EMT computed in Schwarzschild is a valid fixed source for solving Eqs. (43)-(44), and Eq. (47) need not be enforced.
    This semi-consistent truncation is an admitted modeling choice, not derived; it is the main route by which the metric deviations are obtained.
  • domain assumption The Hernquist profile is a suitable Milky Way DM halo model with parameters from [66] and Eddington inversion applies.
    Adopted illustrative halo; central to all numerics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Black hole spacetimes with dark matter spikes: Energy-momentum tensor and backreaction effects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YF7OLZLT

@misc{pith2026251112570,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Black hole spacetimes with dark matter spikes: Energy-momentum tensor and backreaction effects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YF7OLZLT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.12570}
}
read the original abstract

We study the energy-momentum tensor of a dark matter (DM) spike formed during the adiabatic growth of a black hole embedded in a DM halo, and investigate its backreaction on the spacetime geometry. Within the Einstein cluster framework, we derive the complete tensor, explicitly incorporating the kinetic contribution to the energy density and the anisotropic pressure arising from noncircular particle orbits. Adopting the Hernquist profile as an illustrative model of DM halo and employing parameters appropriate to the Milky Way, we find that near the spike, the kinetic term enhances the total energy density by approximately 50% relative to the rest-mass component, while the nonzero radial pressure induces a mild anisotropy in the stress tensor. The derived tensor satisfies all standard energy conditions. By treating it as a fixed source in Einstein's equations, we numerically obtain a static, spherically symmetric metric that deviates from the Schwarzschild solution by an amount more than twice that found when only the mass density is considered. These results demonstrate that including the full dynamical structure of the DM spike is essential for accurately modeling the backreaction of DM on black hole spacetimes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.12570 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The relative potential for a BH and an isolated point mass, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. This plot shows the integration region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The mass density (upper) and energy-momentum tensor (bot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The comparison between the mass density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The deviation of the numerical solutions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 56 linked inside Pith

  1. [47]

    Chakraborty, G

    S. Chakraborty, G. Compère and L. Machet, Phys. Rev. D112, no.2, 024015 (2025) [arXiv:2412.14831 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Bertone and D

    G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, no.4, 045002 (2018) [arXiv:1605.04909 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [2]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia and J. Zupan, [arXiv:2406.01705 [hep- ph]]

    arXiv

  4. [3]

    J. L. Feng, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.48, 495-545 (2010) [arXiv:1003.0904 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2010

  5. [4]

    Misiaszek and N

    M. Misiaszek and N. Rossi, Symmetry16, no.2, 201 (2024) [arXiv:2310.20472 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Gondolo and J

    P. Gondolo and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1719-1722 (1999) [arXiv:astro-ph/9906391 [astro-ph]]. 1 The latter, however, should be regarded as effective parametrizations rather than equilibrium solutions of collisionless systems, since core-like struc- tures generally require additional physics such as self-interactions or bary- onic feedback

    arXiv 1999

  7. [6]

    Gondolo and J

    P. Gondolo and J. Silk, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.87, 87-89 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0001070 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2000

  8. [7]

    Barausse, V

    E. Barausse, V . Cardoso and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D89, no.10, 104059 (2014) [arXiv:1404.7149 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2014

Show all 71 references
  1. [8]

    K. Eda, Y . Itoh, S. Kuroyanagi and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D91, no.4, 044045 (2015) [arXiv:1408.3534 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Lacroix, M

    T. Lacroix, M. Karami, A. E. Broderick, J. Silk and C. Boehm, Phys. Rev. D96, no.6, 063008 (2017) [arXiv:1611.01961 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [10]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. 490, 493-508 (1997) [arXiv:astro-ph/9611107 [astro-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Sadeghian, F

    L. Sadeghian, F. Ferrer and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D88, no.6, 063522 (2013) [arXiv:1305.2619 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Sadeghian, [arXiv:1308.5378 [gr-qc]]

    L. Sadeghian, [arXiv:1308.5378 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  6. [13]

    Ferrer, A

    F. Ferrer, A. M. da Rosa and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D96, no.8, 083014 (2017) [arXiv:1707.06302 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Coogan, G

    A. Coogan, G. Bertone, D. Gaggero, B. J. Kavanagh and 11 D. A. Nichols, Phys. Rev. D105, no.4, 043009 (2022) [arXiv:2108.04154 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Becker, L

    N. Becker, L. Sagunski, L. Prinz and S. Rastgoo, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.6, 063029 (2022) [arXiv:2112.09586 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [16]

    X. J. Yue and W. B. Han, Phys. Rev. D97, no.6, 064003 (2018) [arXiv:1711.09706 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [17]

    O. A. Hannuksela, K. C. Y . Ng and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.10, 103022 (2020) [arXiv:1906.11845 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [18]

    X. J. Yue and Z. Cao, Phys. Rev. D100, no.4, 043013 (2019) [arXiv:1908.10241 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Speeney, A

    N. Speeney, A. Antonelli, V . Baibhav and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D106, no.4, 044027 (2022) [arXiv:2204.12508 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Cardoso, K

    V . Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. Panosso Macedo and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, no.24, 241103 (2022) [arXiv:2210.01133 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [21]

    P. S. Cole, G. Bertone, A. Coogan, D. Gaggero, T. Karydas, B. J. Kavanagh, T. F. M. Spieksma and G. M. Tomaselli, Nature Astron.7, no.8, 943-950 (2023) [arXiv:2211.01362 [gr-qc]]

    2023

  15. [22]

    M. H. Chan and C. M. Lee, Astrophys. J. Lett.943, no.2, L11 (2023) [arXiv:2212.05664 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    N. Dai, Y . Gong, Y . Zhao and T. Jiang, Phys. Rev. D110, no.8, 084080 (2024) [arXiv:2301.05088 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Rahman, S

    M. Rahman, S. Kumar and A. Bhattacharyya, JCAP01, 035 (2024) [arXiv:2306.14971 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Zhang, G

    C. Zhang, G. Fu and N. Dai, JCAP04, 088 (2024) [arXiv:2401.04467 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Montalvo, A

    D. Montalvo, A. Smith-Orlik, S. Rastgoo, L. Sagunski, N. Becker and H. Khan, Universe10, no.11, 427 (2024) [arXiv:2401.06084 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Z. C. Zhang and Y . Tang, Phys. Rev. D110, no.10, 103008 (2024) [arXiv:2403.18529 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Q. Tan, W. Deng, S. Long and J. Jing, JCAP05, 044 (2025) [arXiv:2409.17760 [gr-qc]]

    2025

  22. [29]

    Y . Zhao, N. Dai and Y . Gong, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2326, 2337 (2025) [arXiv:2410.06882 [gr-qc]]

    2025

  23. [30]

    Shadykul, H

    D. Shadykul, H. Chakrabarty and D. Malafarina, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.10, 104003 (2025) [arXiv:2410.18657 [gr-qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Y . Z. Cheng, Y . Cao and Y . Tang, Phys. Rev. D111, no.8, 8 (2025) [arXiv:2411.03095 [gr-qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Dosopoulou and J

    F. Dosopoulou and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, no.8, 081401 (2025) [arXiv:2502.15468 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Gliorio, E

    S. Gliorio, E. Berti, A. Maselli and N. Speeney, [arXiv:2503.16649 [gr-qc]]

  27. [34]

    Alloqulov, T

    M. Alloqulov, T. Xamidov, S. Shaymatov and B. Ahmedov, Eur. Phys. J. C85, no.7, 798 (2025) [arXiv:2504.05236 [gr-qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Alnasheet, V

    Q. Alnasheet, V . Cardoso, F. Duque and R. Panosso Macedo, Phys. Rev. D112, no.4, 044066 (2025) arXiv:2508.20238 [gr- qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Ashoorioon, R

    A. Ashoorioon, R. Casadio, K. Jafarzade, M. B. Jahani Poshteh and O. Luongo, [arXiv:2509.08569 [gr-qc]]

  30. [37]

    Bhattacharya and C

    S. Bhattacharya and C. Singha, [arXiv:2509.25819 [gr-qc]]

  31. [38]

    Z. Xu, X. Hou, X. Gong and J. Wang, JCAP09, 038 (2018) [arXiv:1803.00767 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Cardoso, K

    V . Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. P. Macedo and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. D105, no.6, L061501 (2022) [arXiv:2109.00005 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [40]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Astrophys. J.933, no.2, 166 (2022) [arXiv:2202.02205 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [41]

    R. G. Daghigh and G. Kunstatter, Astrophys. J.940, no.1, 33 (2022) [erratum: Astrophys. J.963, no.2, 167 (2024)] [arXiv:2206.04195 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Z. Shen, A. Wang, Y . Gong and S. Yin, Phys. Lett. B855, 138797 (2024) [arXiv:2311.12259 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Acharyya, P

    R. Acharyya, P. Banerjee and S. Kar, JCAP04, 070 (2024) [arXiv:2311.18622 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Zhang, G

    C. Zhang, G. Fu and C. Zhang, [arXiv:2403.19933 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  38. [45]

    Z. Shen, A. Wang and S. Yin, Phys. Lett. B862, 139300 (2025) [arXiv:2408.05417 [gr-qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  39. [46]

    K. i. Maeda, V . Cardoso and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D111, no.4, 044060 (2025) [arXiv:2410.04175 [gr-qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    P. G. S. Fernandes and V . Cardoso, [arXiv:2507.04389 [gr-qc]]

  41. [49]

    Zhang, T

    C. Zhang, T. Zhu and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D104, no.12, 124082 (2021) [arXiv:2111.04966 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Zhang, T

    C. Zhang, T. Zhu, X. Fang and A. Wang, Phys. Dark Univ.37, 101078 (2022) [arXiv:2201.11352 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Figueiredo, A

    E. Figueiredo, A. Maselli and V . Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D107, no.10, 104033 (2023) [arXiv:2303.08183 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Y . Zhao, B. Sun, K. Lin and Z. Cao, Phys. Rev. D108, no.2, 024070 (2023) [arXiv:2303.09215 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Y . Zhao, B. Sun, Z. Cao, K. Lin and W. L. Qian, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.4, 044031 (2024) [arXiv:2308.15371 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    R. G. Daghigh and G. Kunstatter, Phys. Rev. D109, no.8, 083004 (2024) [arXiv:2308.15682 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Speeney, E

    N. Speeney, E. Berti, V . Cardoso and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.8, 084068 (2024) [arXiv:2401.00932 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    D. Liu, Y . Yang and Z. W. Long, Eur. Phys. J. C84, no.7, 731 (2024) [arXiv:2401.09182 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Pezzella, K

    L. Pezzella, K. Destounis, A. Maselli and V . Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D111, no.6, 064026 (2025) [arXiv:2412.18651 [gr-qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Toshmatov, B

    B. Toshmatov, B. Ahmedov, A. Boydedayev and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. D111, no.12, 124058 (2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    Liu, [arXiv:2501.12213 [gr-qc]]

    D. Liu, [arXiv:2501.12213 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Rahman and T

    M. Rahman and T. Takahashi, [arXiv:2507.06923 [gr-qc]]

  53. [61]

    G. H. Li, C. K. Qiao and J. Tao, [arXiv:2510.24989 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    S. Das, S. Dalui, B. H. Lee and Y . F. Cai, [arXiv:2511.03657 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    Einstein, Annals Math.40, 922-936 (1939)

    A. Einstein, Annals Math.40, 922-936 (1939)

    1939

  56. [64]

    G. L. Comer, D. Langlois and P. Peter, Class. Quant. Grav.10.9, L127 (1993)

    1993

  57. [65]

    Hernquist, Astrophys

    L. Hernquist, Astrophys. J.356, 359 (1990)

    1990

  58. [66]

    G. M. Eadie, W. E. Harris and L. M. Widrow, Astrophys. J.806, 54 (2015) [arXiv:1504.04376 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2015 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Binney and S

    J. Binney and S. Tremaine, Princeton Series in Astrophysics (Princeton University Press, 2011), ISBN 9781400828722, URL https://books.google.kz/books?id=6mF4CKxlbLsC

    2011

  60. [68]

    E. D. Fackerell, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 153, p. 643, 1968, 153: 643

    1968

  61. [69]

    G. L. Comer and J. Katz, Class. Quant. Grav.10, 1751-1765 (1993)

    1993

  62. [70]

    Retana-Montenegro, E

    E. Retana-Montenegro, E. Van Hese, G. Gentile, M. Baes and F. Frutos-Alfaro, Astron. Astrophys.540, A70 (2012) [arXiv:1202.5242 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2012 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Weber and W

    M. Weber and W. de Boer, Astron. Astrophys.509, A25 (2010) [arXiv:0910.4272 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

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