Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Spinning, charged black holes in motion beam neutrinos forward

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 ↗

Kerr-Newman black holes moving relativistically emit neutrinos in a narrow forward cone, a combination of known spin and Doppler effects.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection The paper's central boost transformation is wrong by a factor of roughly γ^2(1+β cosθ')^3, so the advertised beamed-neutrino predictions and detection rates are unsupported. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2508.14510 v1 pith:YZYXAZAC submitted 2025-08-20 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Anisotropic Neutrino Emission from Spinning, Moving, and Charged Primordial Black Holes

Arnab Chaudhuri This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO hep-ph
keywords primordial black holesHawking radiationneutrino emissionKerr–Newman black holesDoppler beaminggreybody factorsanisotropic neutrino fluxdark matter probes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

Primordial black holes are usually modeled as static, neutral, non-rotating objects radiating isotropically. This paper asks what happens to the neutrinos they emit when the black hole also spins, carries a small electric charge, and moves at relativistic speed. It argues that these three effects together concentrate the emitted neutrino flux into a narrow forward cone, harden the spectrum along the direction of motion, and make both the total flux and the burst duration sensitive to black-hole parameters. The payoff is that a single evaporating black hole could appear as a short, aimed neutrino burst whose angular and spectral shape encodes the mass, spin, charge, and velocity of the source. The paper closes by estimating event rates in current and planned neutrino detectors and by arguing that such bursts would stand out against the diffuse supernova neutrino background.

Core claim

The central claim is that the lab-frame neutrino emission from an evaporating Kerr–Newman primordial black hole is not a boosted isotropic thermal spectrum. Rotation makes the rest-frame emission anisotropic through the angular structure of spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics and the mode-dependence of greybody factors; relativistic bulk motion Lorentz-transforms that pattern into a cone of width roughly gamma^{-1}, amplifying the forward intensity by roughly (1 - beta cos theta)^{-3}; and electric charge lowers the Hawking temperature, softens the spectrum, suppresses the overall flux, and extends the evaporation time. Combining all three, the paper predicts short, highly directional neutrin

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Kerr–Newman Hawking emission rate written as a mode sum over (l,m): each mode's rest-frame rate is the greybody factor Gamma_{s l m}(omega) times a Fermi-Dirac occupation with the rotation-shifted energy omega - m Omega_H, multiplied by the angular pattern |sS_{l m}(theta; a omega)|^2 from the spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics. Relativistic motion enters through the Lorentz-transformation Jacobian, whose (1 + beta cos theta')^{-2} factor does the Doppler beaming, and charge enters through the Hawking temperature T_H and the greybody factors; neutrino neutrality removes the q Phi_H term. The named object doing the work is the Doppler-beaming Jacobian combined with the sp

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the rest-frame angular pattern of emitted neutrinos can be approximated by scalar spherical harmonics |Y_lm(theta,0)|^2, with the spin-weight of spin-1/2 neutrinos neglected; the paper states this explicitly, and the predicted lab-frame burst morphology follows from that pattern.

What would settle it

Compute the exact spin-weighted spheroidal-harmonic angular distributions and greybody factors for s = ±1/2 in the Kerr–Newman background and rebuild the boosted lab-frame flux; if the true fermionic pattern shifts the dominant emission angle or changes the forward-cone width by more than the detector event-rate estimates can tolerate, this paper's specific burst profiles would have to be revised. A purely observational check would be a targeted search for short neutrino bursts from nearby evaporating PBHs: an absence of events within the predicted fluence range would constrain the abundance,

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

If this is right

  • When the spin axis is aligned with the velocity, the spin anisotropy and Doppler beaming reinforce, giving the most strongly collimated burst; anti-aligned and perpendicular configurations broaden the cone or split it into an asymmetric two-lobed pattern.
  • Relativistic motion hardens the lab-frame neutrino spectrum: a black hole with beta ~ 0.9 produces a significant high-energy tail above its rest-frame Hawking temperature, raising the fraction of neutrinos above typical detector thresholds.
  • Electric charge at the level Q/M >~ 0.1 lowers the temperature, suppresses the neutrino flux and fluence, and lengthens the black hole lifetime, delaying the final burst and softening the spectrum.
  • A single nearby (~kpc) evaporating PBH in the mass range 10^11-10^14 g could generate a detectable burst in water-Cherenkov and liquid-argon neutrino detectors, and a clustered population moving in the same direction would appear as a localized directional excess.
  • Directional neutrino observations could constrain the PBH mass function, abundance, velocity distribution, and spin orientation, complementing gamma-ray, microlensing, and gravitational-wave probes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper adopts scalar |Y_lm|^2 for the rest-frame angular pattern and semi-analytic greybody factors, the precise beam shape and lobe structure it plots are approximations; redoing the decomposition with true s = ±1/2 spheroidal harmonics is the natural next calculation and would sharpen or correct the quantitative maps.
  • The same boosted Kerr–Newman emission framework applies to photons and gravitons, so a coincident gamma-ray burst with matching angular and temporal structure would be a direct multi-messenger test that separates PBH evaporation from astrophysical transients.
  • If PBHs inherit correlated velocities from the same formation patch, for example inside a dark-matter subhalo, their individual bursts would stack into a persistent directional excess rather than a single flash; targeted stacking searches would then be more sensitive than single-burst triggers.
  • The charge-induced delay of the final explosion means that the burst arrival time relative to formation is itself a probe of Q: a detected burst lasting longer than the neutral-evaporation expectation would indicate that charged-particle emission was inefficient enough to keep the black hole charged.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for computing anisotropic neutrino emission from Kerr-Newman primordial black holes with spin, electric charge, and relativistic bulk motion. It combines Hawking spectra with greybody factors, rest-frame angular harmonics, and Lorentz boosts, then uses the result to produce lab-frame angular maps, energy spectra, and detector event-rate estimates. The central claim is that moving, spinning PBHs can produce highly directional neutrino bursts whose angular and spectral structure encodes the PBH mass, spin, charge, and velocity.

Significance. If correct, the work would extend recent studies of beamed Hawking radiation to spinning and charged PBHs and would provide a useful starting point for directional neutrino searches. The paper correctly states the Kerr-Newman thermodynamic identities and sets up the mode-sum formalism. However, the central quantitative result relies on an incorrect Lorentz-transformation Jacobian, and the advertised spin-weighted angular treatment is not actually implemented. These issues undermine the claimed predictions, including the direction of the beaming effect and all derived spectra and event rates.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (4.5)] The Lorentz-transformation Jacobian is incorrect. From Eq. (4.2), d cosθ/d cosθ' = γ^{-2}(1+β cosθ')^{-2}; since φ is unchanged, dΩ'/dΩ = γ^2(1+β cosθ')^2. Combining with dt' = dt/γ and dE'/dE = [γ(1+β cosθ')]^{-1}, the product (dt'/dt)(dE'/dE)(dΩ'/dΩ) equals (1+β cosθ'), not [γ^2(1+β cosθ')^2]^{-1}. The correct boosted rate is d³N/(dt dE dΩ) = (1+β cosθ') d³N'/(dt' dE' dΩ'). The paper's factor is smaller by γ²(1+β cosθ')³, which at θ'=0, β=0.9 is a factor ≈36, and it decreases with cosθ', so Eq. (4.5) actually predicts backward, not forward, enhancement. All lab-frame distributions, spectra, and event rates in Secs. 6–7 and Figs. 2–5 inherit this error.
  2. [§3.1, Eqs. (3.3)–(3.5), (4.3), (4.6)] The rest-frame angular profile is taken to be |Y_{ℓm}(θ,0)|², the scalar spherical harmonic, although the paper's stated framework and Sec. 3.1 identify neutrino modes as spin-1/2 and the correct angular eigenfunctions as spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics sS_{ℓm}(θ;aω). The text explicitly acknowledges that this 'neglects the spin-weight of emitted particles.' Because the spin-induced angular anisotropy is a central claimed result, the spin-dependent part of the prediction is not actually computed. A revision would need to use sS_{ℓm}(θ;aω), or a quantitatively justified approximation, and redo the boosted profiles.
  3. [§6–§7, Figs. 3–6] The absolute normalization of the lab-frame flux is never specified. Eq. (7.1) requires a physical φ(E,θ), but the spectra are shown as 'Normalized dN/dE' (Fig. 3) and 'Normalized Flux (a.u.)' (Fig. 6), and Fig. 4's y-axis reads 'Differential Event Rate' without any derivation of the absolute rate from the emission model. The detection-rate claims and the comparison with the DSNB therefore cannot be checked or reproduced.
  4. [§5, App. A] The claimed charge dependence of neutrino emission is not computed. The greybody factors for Kerr-Newman with both a and Q are only 'semi-analytic approximations,' and the Appendix states that a fully accurate computation is left for future study. The charge effects on neutrino spectra are described only qualitatively (lower Hawking temperature and 'modified metric'), with no quantitative result. Since charge is one of the three parameters in the title, the paper's quantitative statements about Q are unsupported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6.1, Fig. 2 text] The text mentions a beaming half-angle with β=0.7, while the figure uses β=0.9; please reconcile.
  2. [Fig. 4] The x-axis is labeled 'Neutrino Energy E [GeV]' but the text says the event rate is shown as a function of PBH mass; clarify the abscissa.
  3. [§4.1, opening paragraph vs Eq. (4.3)] The opening paragraph says the rest-frame distribution is governed by spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics, but Eq. (4.3) immediately uses Y_{ℓm}; this inconsistency should be fixed.
  4. [Eq. (4.6)] The rotated angles (θ'_rot, φ'_rot) are not defined precisely; please specify the rotation that maps the spin axis to the velocity direction.
  5. [Ref. [30]] Ref. [30] is an unpublished preprint by the author and collaborators; the manuscript should clarify which results are taken from that work and which are new here.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central beaming prediction follows from a Lorentz transform of an assumed rest-frame spectrum; the only self-citation is background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that a moving Kerr-Newman PBH emits a beamed, anisotropic neutrino flux — is obtained by taking the rest-frame angular spectrum (Eq. 4.3) and applying a Lorentz transformation (Eqs. 4.1–4.2) to obtain the lab-frame differential rate (Eq. 4.5). This is a mathematical consequence of the assumed rest-frame physics, not a restatement of it: the beaming factor and angular compression are derived from aberration and Doppler shifting, and no parameter is fitted to any target observable. The spin-induced anisotropy is likewise an input model (Eq. 3.3) propagated through the transform; the prediction of 'directional bursts' is not definitionally identical to the input angular distribution, since it depends on the nontrivial boost. The only self-citation [30] is cited as background for the fact that moving PBHs produce anisotropic lab-frame emission; the paper's own derivation in Sec. 4 does not rest on that citation, so it is not load-bearing. There are substantial correctness concerns — the Jacobian in Eq. (4.5) appears to omit a factor (1 + β cos θ′), and the text uses scalar |Y_lm|^2 rather than spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics, with the latter acknowledged in Sec. 3.1 and App. A — but these are errors of computation/approximation, not circularity. No equation reduces by construction to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two approximations the paper itself flags: scalar-harmonic angular profiles in place of fermionic spheroidal harmonics, and semi-analytic greybody factors. Additionally, the boost transformation in Eq. (4.5) appears inconsistent with the text's beaming claim in Sec. 6.1.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Kerr-Newman geometry describes spinning charged PBHs
    Used throughout Sec. 2.1; assumes PBHs can be treated as Kerr-Newman black holes.
  • standard math Hawking radiation formula Eq. (2.12) applies with greybody factors
    Standard result from black hole quantum field theory, cited to refs. [14,15,36-38].
  • ad hoc to paper Angular emission pattern of spin-1/2 neutrinos is approximated by scalar spherical harmonics |Y_lm(theta,0)|^2
    Sec. 3.1 and Eq. (4.3) replace spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics by scalar harmonics; the paper admits this is an approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper The Lorentz boost Jacobian in Eq. (4.5) is correct
    The text relies on this to derive the boosted spectrum; standard aberration gives a different factor. If the Jacobian is wrong, the beaming amplitude and spectral shape are incorrect.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anisotropic Neutrino Emission from Spinning, Moving, and Charged Primordial Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YZYXAZAC

@misc{pith2026250814510,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anisotropic Neutrino Emission from Spinning, Moving, and Charged Primordial Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YZYXAZAC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14510}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The angular and spectral features of neutrinos emitted from primordial black holes (PBHs) carry key imprints of the black hole's fundamental properties. This work investigates the directional emission of neutrinos from Kerr-Newman PBHs undergoing Hawking evaporation, accounting for the combined effects of spin, motion, and electric charge. Rotation induces anisotropic fluxes through axisymmetric geometry and spin-dependent greybody factors, while relativistic motion leads to pronounced Doppler beaming along the direction of travel. Electric charge modifies the thermodynamic evolution and suppresses the emission of like-charged particles, altering the overall spectrum and burst duration. The resulting neutrino flux exhibits rich angular structure, energy dependence, and time profiles that vary with PBH parameters. These directional signatures enhance the prospects for detection at current and future neutrino observatories, and offer new multi-messenger probes of PBH populations in the early universe.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich and I. D. Novikov, Sov. Astron.10 (1967), 602

    work page 1967

  2. [2]

    Hawking, Mon

    S. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.152 (1971), 75 doi:10.1093/mnras/152.1.75

    doi:10.1093/mnras/152.1.75 1971

  3. [3]

    B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.168 (1974), 399-415 doi:10.1093/mnras/168.2.399 – 20 –

    doi:10.1093/mnras/168.2.399 1974

  4. [4]

    B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010), 104019 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.104019 [arXiv:0912.5297 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70 (2020), 355-394 doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-050520-125911 [arXiv:2006.02838 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, J. Phys. G48 (2021) no.4, 043001 doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abc534 [arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Garcia-Bellido, A

    J. Garcia-Bellido, A. D. Linde and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996), 6040-6058 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.6040 [arXiv:astro-ph/9605094 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  8. [8]

    Kawasaki, A

    M. Kawasaki, A. Kusenko, Y. Tada and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) no.8, 083523 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.083523 [arXiv:1606.07631 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka and S. Yokoyama, Class. Quant. Grav.35 (2018) no.6, 063001 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aaa7b4 [arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Clesse and J

    S. Clesse and J. García-Bellido, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) no.2, 023524 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023524 [arXiv:1501.07565 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    B. J. Carr, Astrophys. J.201 (1975), 1-19 doi:10.1086/153853

    doi:10.1086/153853 1975

  12. [12]

    C. T. Byrnes, E. J. Copeland and A. M. Green, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012), 043512 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.043512 [arXiv:1206.4188 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  13. [13]

    A. M. Green, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) no.6, 063530 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.063530 [arXiv:1609.01143 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    S. W. Hawking, Nature248 (1974), 30-31 doi:10.1038/248030a0

    doi:10.1038/248030a0 1974

  15. [15]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.43 (1975), 199-220 [erratum: Commun. Math. Phys. 46 (1976), 206] doi:10.1007/BF02345020

    doi:10.1007/bf02345020 1975

  16. [16]

    J. H. MacGibbon and B. J. Carr, Astrophys. J.371 (1991), 447-469 doi:10.1086/169909

    doi:10.1086/169909 1991

  17. [17]

    Barrau, D

    A. Barrau, D. Blais, G. Boudoul and D. Polarski, Annalen Phys.13 (2004), 115-123 doi:10.1002/andp.200310067 [arXiv:astro-ph/0303330 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  18. [18]

    B. J. Carr, [arXiv:astro-ph/0511743 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Arbey and J

    A. Arbey and J. Auffinger, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) no.8, 693 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7161-1 [arXiv:1905.04268 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    R. Dong, W. H. Kinney and D. Stojkovic, JCAP10 (2016), 034 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/10/034 [arXiv:1511.05642 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [21]

    Laha, Phys

    R. Laha, Phys. Rev. Lett.123 (2019) no.25, 251101 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.251101 [arXiv:1906.09994 [astro-ph.HE]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Bugaev and P

    E. Bugaev and P. Klimai, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009), 103511 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.103511 [arXiv:0812.4247 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  23. [23]

    Lunardini and Y

    C. Lunardini and Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, JCAP08 (2020), 014 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/08/014 [arXiv:1910.07864 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Dasgupta, R

    B. Dasgupta, R. Laha and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett.126 (2021) no.14, 141105 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141105 [arXiv:2009.01825 [astro-ph.HE]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Abe �� ���[Super-Kamiokande], Phys

    K. Abe �� ���[Super-Kamiokande], Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) no.7, 072002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.072002 [arXiv:2005.05109 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Abe �� ���[Hyper-Kamiokande], [arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]]

    K. Abe �� ���[Hyper-Kamiokande], [arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Abi �� ���[DUNE], [arXiv:2002.03005 [hep-ex]]

    B. Abi �� ���[DUNE], [arXiv:2002.03005 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2002

  28. [28]

    S. Y. Guo, M. Khlopov, X. Liu, L. Wu, Y. Wu and B. Zhu, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.67 (2024) no.11, 111011 doi:10.1007/s11433-024-2445-1 [arXiv:2306.17022 [hep-ph]]. – 21 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Coogan, L

    A. Coogan, L. Morrison and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. Lett.126 (2021) no.17, 171101 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.171101 [arXiv:2010.04797 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Directional Neutrino Bursts from Spinning and Moving Primordial Black Holes

    A. Chaudhuri, P. Mishra and R. Mohanta, [arXiv:2507.20207 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    Chiba and S

    T. Chiba and S. Yokoyama, PTEP2017 (2017) no.8, 083E01 doi:10.1093/ptep/ptx087 [arXiv:1704.06573 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    De Luca, V

    V. De Luca, V. Desjacques, G. Franciolini, A. Malhotra and A. Riotto, JCAP05 (2019), 018 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/05/018 [arXiv:1903.01179 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Harada, C

    T. Harada, C. M. Yoo, K. Kohri and K. I. Nakao, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) no.8, 083517 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) no.6, 069904] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.083517 [arXiv:1707.03595 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    G. W. Gibbons, Commun. Math. Phys.44 (1975), 245-264 doi:10.1007/BF01609829

    doi:10.1007/bf01609829 1975

  35. [35]

    B. V. Lehmann, S. Profumo and J. Yant, JCAP04 (2018), 007 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/007 [arXiv:1801.00808 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [36]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D13 (1976), 198-206 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.13.198

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.13.198 1976

  37. [37]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D14 (1976), 3260-3273 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3260

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.14.3260 1976

  38. [38]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D16 (1977), 2402-2411 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.16.2402

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.16.2402 1977

  39. [39]

    Duffy, C

    G. Duffy, C. Harris, P. Kanti and E. Winstanley, JHEP09 (2005), 049 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/09/049 [arXiv:hep-th/0507274 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  40. [40]

    Exact Results for Evaporating Black Holes in Curvature-Squared Lovelock Gravity: Gauss-Bonnet Greybody Factors

    J. Grain, A. Barrau and P. Kanti, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005), 104016 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.104016 [arXiv:hep-th/0509128 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  41. [41]

    R. A. Konoplya, A. F. Zinhailo and Z. Stuchlík, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) no.12, 124042 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.124042 [arXiv:1903.03483 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  42. [42]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Physics,” Lect. Notes Phys.906 (2015), pp.1-237 2020, ISBN 978-3-319-18999-4, 978-3-319-19000-6, 978-3-030-46621-3, 978-3-030-46622-0 doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19000-6 [arXiv:1501.06570 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [43]

    E. T. Newman, E. Couch, K. Chinnapared, A. Exton, A. Prakash and R. Torrence, J. Math. Phys. 6 (1965), 918-919 doi:10.1063/1.1704351

    doi:10.1063/1.1704351 1965

  44. [44]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185 (1973), 635-647 doi:10.1086/152444

    doi:10.1086/152444 1973

  45. [45]

    The diffuse neutrino flux from supernovae: upper limit on the electron neutrino component from the non-observation of antineutrinos at SuperKamiokande

    C. Lunardini, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006), 083009 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.083009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0601054 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  46. [46]

    S. K. Acharya and R. Khatri, JCAP06 (2020), 018 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/06/018 [arXiv:2002.00898 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    Mittal, A

    S. Mittal, A. Ray, G. Kulkarni and B. Dasgupta, JCAP03 (2022), 030 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/03/030 [arXiv:2107.02190 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    C. W. Misner, Phys. Rev. D8 (1973), 3271-3285 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.8.3271

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.8.3271 1973

  49. [49]

    Seidel, Class

    E. Seidel, Class. Quant. Grav.6 (1989), 1057 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/6/7/012

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/6/7/012 1989

  50. [50]

    S. A. Teukolsky and W. H. Press, Astrophys. J.193 (1974), 443-461 doi:10.1086/153180

    doi:10.1086/153180 1974

  51. [51]

    Cardoso, Gen

    V. Cardoso, Gen. Rel. Grav.45 (2013), 2079-2097 doi:10.1007/s10714-013-1584-z [arXiv:1307.0038 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  52. [52]

    W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D10 (1974), 3194-3205 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.3194

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.10.3194 1974

  53. [53]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010), 124036 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.124036 [arXiv:1004.1284 [hep-th]]. – 22 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  54. [54]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama, Rept. Prog. Phys.84 (2021) no.11, 116902 doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31 [arXiv:2002.12778 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Aalsma and W

    L. Aalsma and W. Sybesma, JHEP05 (2021), 291 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2021)291 [arXiv:2104.00006 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [56]

    Kohri and J

    K. Kohri and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000), 023501 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.61.023501 [arXiv:astro-ph/9908160 [astro-ph]]. – 23 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.